Imus Calls Rutgers Women's Basketball Team "Nappy Headed Hos"

[Irvine511]

there are pieces of shit in all walks of life... but the insinuation that keeps going on that everyone who has listened to imus' show is some racist piece of crap is getting very tiresome.

i'm not sure what to think about this any more.

people say mean things all the time. sometimes they get caught, sometimes they get a pass, sometimes some groups are a little more protected than others.

i recently came across this in the Advocate:

[q]"Blah blah blah faggot"

By Dave White

From The Advocate April 24, 2007

Hey, queers, guess what? People still hate you. I know—it’s shocking, isn’t it? You may have been tricked for a few minutes into thinking that everything was going to be all right with society, that eventually you’d be able to just live your life without having to get bogged down with questions like, “Just what does the cast of Grey’s Anatomy really feel about my moral fitness as an adoptive parent?” But for now, your very existence is still a topic of great interest among many very important scholars and thinkers—people like Marky Mark, or that guy who played the rappin’ pimp in Hustle & Flow, or a former basketball player, or a whiny former gay-for-pay porn star. But without a scorecard it can be hard to know which mouthy headline-lassoers on the culture landscape are easily ignored and which ones deserve to have bags of dog poop set on fire on their front porches. I’m here to help.

Gen. Peter Pace:
Aging cracker who thinks you and me and everyone we know are immoral. Wars based on lies that slaughter thousands of people, however, are awesome. OK, he didn’t exactly say “awesome.” I’m paraphrasing.

Mark Wahlberg:
The former pinup for gay underwear fetishists and sampler of Loleatta Holloway disco records said that he was glad to have been passed over for Brokeback Mountain. See, Marky read the script, and the fictional characters’ tent-sex made him “a little creeped out.” Because the John Holmes–like character he played in Boogie Nights, by virtue of banging only chicks, wasn’t creepy at all.

Trinidad and Tobago:
Seemingly the entire population believes that allowing Elton John to perform there will cause gayness to spontaneously combust in unsuspecting listeners. Curse you, Lion King soundtrack!

Cpl. Matt Sanchez:
The U.S. Marine Corps reservist who once performed as “Rod Majors” in gay porn would like you to know that he thinks the gay “lifestyle” is wrong. He would also like liberals to stop picking on him after he bashes them on his blog. Him make Bizarro Sense!

Ann Coulter:
An opportunist. She needs regular media attention, so she pops up every so often when things get too quiet and participates in a wacky controversy. This time around she saw the primo name recognition Isaiah Washington got just for saying “faggot,” which, as everyone knows, involves no heavy lifting whatsoever and just trips off the tongue.

Terrence Howard:
"Do I agree with homosexuality?” began the Oscar nominee in a recent interview. “No, I’m a Bible-based young man.” The actor has fewer public opinions about the Bible’s admonition for masters to treat their slaves well and is a touch ambivalent about the whole shellfish thing.

Tim Hardaway:
Former NBA-er who thinks homosexuality shouldn’t be in the United States or the world. Either country, you know? Currently keeping himself busy working on a very big rocket to put all of us on. Learning science first, of course. Then comes the rocket.[/q]


now i am not going to say that any one comment is better/worse than the other. i am not going to say that any form of discrimination is better than the other. what i am going to say is that i don't understand why this comment, by this person, has exploded into such a circus.

i've listened to Imus in the past. i've found his comments about Arabs far, far more offensive than anything he said about the Rutgers women. but i kept listening for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the man is a brilliant interviewer and has terrific guests on his show. i am not, for a second, going to apologize for that or be implicated in creating a more discriminatory climate because i've tuned into his show every once in a while, in the same way that i will not be called homophobic because i've bought Eminem albums.

this is a free speech issue, and an economic issue. Imus was fired not for his comments, but because he has now become an economic liability for MSNBC and CBS (due to his comments). and all that is fine. the consumers spoke with their dollars, and Imus is gone. what i do fear is a toning down of the marketplace of what is available for the consumer. say what you will about the Imus's of the world, the Limbaugh's of the world, the Tim Hardaway's of the world; at the very least, i'd rather hear what they have to say than to muzzle them lest someone's feelings get hurt. i'd rather live in a vibrant, maddening, dynamic culture that dares to offend -- and suffer the consequence -- than one that's bland and monochromatic.

the world is a more interesting place with "South Park" than without; the world is a more interesting place with "Dave Chappelle" than without. one of the things that i've always liked about the US -- in comparison to the time i've spent in Europe -- is that the culture airs it's dirty laundry. we see what goes on between the sheets. we fight, we argue, we offend, we fight back. and in the end, it's a healthier culture for it. Imus's punishment -- in some senses fair and deserved because he was punished, ultimately, by the culture itself -- does, i think, make people a bit more nervous about what they say, and what they do.

what was it Ari Fleischer said about Bill Maher after 9-11?

[q]But assuming the press reports are right, it's a terrible thing to say, and it unfortunate. And that's why -- there was an earlier question about has the President said anything to people in his own party -- they're reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do. This is not a time for remarks like that; there never is. [/q]

in any event, i am very curious to know what Bill Maher has to say about it tonight.

 

[ntalwar]

I agree that African Americans degrade each other and themselves with some of that rap music- but that sells and makes money, just like Imus. If people didn't buy it/download it well it wouldn't thrive, right?

True, and the FCC does not regulate content of CDs, books, magazines, etc. like they do the public airwaves. Howard Stern and Opie/Anthony are two other examples that were too risque for public airwaves and ended up on satellite radio, which is not regulated. Don Imus eventually could end up there as well. One thing I don't get is why Imus' racial/sexual slur is considered less "indecent" by the FCC than what Howard Stern used to say (and get fined for). Perhaps the FCC should considering adding racial and sexual slurs to their list of indecent words for public broadcast.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

True, and the FCC does not regulate content of CDs, books, magazines, etc. like they do the public airwaves. Howard Stern and Opie/Anthony are two other examples that were too risque for public airwaves and ended up on satellite radio, which is not regulated.

opie and anthony aren't just on satellite radio... they are national sydicated across the nation on FM radio.

 

[BVS]

Perhaps the FCC should considering adding racial and sexual slurs to their list of indecent words for public broadcast.

They'd get rich quick, especially if sexists or sexual slurs were included...

 

[Irvine511]

Perhaps the FCC should considering adding racial and sexual slurs to their list of indecent words for public broadcast.

so where do we start drawing up a list?

this is why i'm actually sort of opposed to hate crimes legislation. who gets to be protected? what constitutes a slur?

with foul language, we all know what the words are: shit, fuck, etc.

but what is a slur? what is demeaning language?

and i'd have to say i'm totally opposed to any sort of formal regulation. in some ways, the hate speech heard on Christian radio towards homosexuals is far more offensive than anything Imus has ever said, but you know what, i support their right to say it without facing any sort of formal crackdown. and where does someone's right not to be offended -- which is essentially what's being advocated -- trample on someone's right to religious expression?

the "God Hates Fags" crowd make me physically ill (when they're not cracking my shit up), but i think they should be able to say whatever they want on a radio show within certain, broadly defined decency standards (no shit, fuck, etc.)

with free speech, you take the good with the bad.

 

[ntalwar]

so where do we start drawing up a list?

this is why i'm actually sort of opposed to hate crimes legislation. who gets to be protected? what constitutes a slur?

with foul language, we all know what the words are: shit, fuck, etc.

but what is a slur? what is demeaning language?

It probably won't happen overnight, but there are a few foul racial terms that we all know about also (which I won't repeat here). Perhaps your definition of "foul language" above needs to expand to include these. That would be a good start. And has been stated many times, free speech is not applicable. Free speech exists ONLY if it is 100% free, and Howard Stern proves that there is no free speech on radio.

 

[martha]

i am not, for a second, going to apologize for that or be implicated in creating a more discriminatory climate because i've tuned into his show every once in a while, in the same way that i will not be called homophobic because i've bought Eminem albums.

But participation on any level is some sort of approval of the behavior, isn't it? When Don Imus, or Eminem, or any other person who thinks that kind of language is appropriate are called on the carpet for it, they can point to their listeners and say "Look how many other people agree with what I say. They wouldn't listen/buy if they disagreed." You are supporting them by listening; you're giving them an audience.

 

[joyfulgirl]

now i am not going to say that any one comment is better/worse than the other. i am not going to say that any form of discrimination is better than the other. what i am going to say is that i don't understand why this comment, by this person, has exploded into such a circus.


in any event, i am very curious to know what Bill Maher has to say about it tonight.

You're right--from what I've read he's said many things as or more offensive than this. Had Arab-Americans, or any other group he's insulted, gone up in arms about his comments before now he may have been booted then. But they didn't. He's been treading a thin line for a long time and this was the last straw. For now, anyway. As others have pointed out, he'll be back.

And I'm also curious about what Maher will say tonight because he's a pretty clear and independent thinker. I'm kind of all over the place with this issue today. I'm glad he got booted because I personally can't stand the sound of the man's voice and I'm sick of shock jocks and everything they stand for but but the bigger issues I'm not so clear on today.

 

[Irvine511]

But participation on any level is some sort of approval of the behavior, isn't it? When Don Imus, or Eminem, or any other person who thinks that kind of language is appropriate are called on the carpet for it, they can point to their listeners and say "Look how many other people agree with what I say. They wouldn't listen/buy if they disagreed." You are supporting them by listening; you're giving them an audience.

i see what you're saying, and on some level i agree, but i think we're all adults. i don't think people are as simple minded as we seem to be making them out to be. because i watch "South Park," does that mean i support everything that comes out of Cartman's mouth? of course not. he's a character, like in many ways Imus is a character, and as an adult i'm able to disagree with him, to dislike him, to find him offensive (as i've done in the past). i'm able to make distinctions between what i find offensive about Eminem -- the homophobia, the dramatization of killing his wife -- and what i find thrilling about listening to Eminem. and i'd rather have my Eminem homophobic and interesting, than toned down and bland. i really would.

you know what i did last night? i watched the "South Park" movie. it put a lot of this in perspective and remains, in many ways, a colossal artistic and comedic achievement.

 

[A_Wanderer]

so where do we start drawing up a list?

this is why i'm actually sort of opposed to hate crimes legislation. who gets to be protected? what constitutes a slur?

with foul language, we all know what the words are: shit, fuck, etc.

but what is a slur? what is demeaning language?

and i'd have to say i'm totally opposed to any sort of formal regulation. in some ways, the hate speech heard on Christian radio towards homosexuals is far more offensive than anything Imus has ever said, but you know what, i support their right to say it without facing any sort of formal crackdown. and where does someone's right not to be offended -- which is essentially what's being advocated -- trample on someone's right to religious expression?

the "God Hates Fags" crowd make me physically ill (when they're not cracking my shit up), but i think they should be able to say whatever they want on a radio show within certain, broadly defined decency standards (no shit, fuck, etc.)

with free speech, you take the good with the bad.

Exactly, America is one of the few countries in the world that actually protects free speech (Australia is out immediately on the basis of the Howard governments censorship and sedition laws as is any country with hate speech laws or government censorship - incidently the FCC does get argued against on that basis).

The problem with all these sorts of laws is the double standard that gets applied one way or another depending on the target; sensitivities give disproportionate treatment to those that say bad things about blacks or jews than about say the Irish; if it's all free and society deals with these comments without government interference (as has been demonstrated very effectively with Imus through the consumer, media and sponser reaction) then society is both more free and more open to the exchange of ideas; and many will be rejected because of their content.

This case is a much better demonstration of this than just having to defend the free speech rights of racists and terrorists. Anti-freedom state censorship partisans should take note.

Hate speech laws are vehicles for a political agenda; mostly a leftist agenda just as "family friendly" censorship laws are one for social conservatives - in both cases they rob citizens of their liberties and must be opposed. And just because I support liberties both for myself and for those who I disagree with does not mean that I support the agenda of those I disagree with; it's an interesting note that some "liberals" can't take a nuanced point of view in that instance.

 

[Justin24]

http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q='nappy-headed+ho%22+t-shirt&hl=en&safe=off&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-37,GGLD:en&um=1&sa=X&oi=froogle&ct=title

Wow I can't believe this. "Nappy Headed Ho" Merchandise for sale at the Google Store?

 

[Justin24]

Rutgers Team: We Accept Don Imus Apology
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8OFQH880&show_article=1
Apr 13 11:57 AM US/Eastern
By DAVID BAUDER
AP Television Writer

NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. (AP) - The Rutgers women's basketball team accepted radio host Don Imus' apology Friday for insulting them on the air, saying that he deserves a chance to move on but that they hope the furor his words caused will be a catalyst for change.
"We, the Rutgers University Scarlet Knight basketball team, accept—accept—Mr. Imus' apology, and we are in the process of forgiving," coach C. Vivian Stringer read from a team statement a day after the women met personally with Imus and his wife.

"We still find his statements to be unacceptable, and this is an experience that we will never forget," the statement read

The team had just play in the NCAA national championship game and lost when Imus, on his radio show, called the team members "nappy-headed hos." The statement outraged listeners and set off a national debate about taste and tolerance and led his firing by CBS on Thursday.

"These comments are indicative of greater ills in our culture," the team's statement said Friday. "It is not just Mr. Imus, and we hope that this will be and serve as a catalyst for change. Let us continue to work hard together to make this world a better place."

Imus was in the middle of a two-day radio fundraiser for children's charities when he was dropped by CBS. On Friday, his wife took over and also talked about the meeting with the players.

"They gave us the opportunity to listen to what they had to say and why they're hurting and how awful this is," author Deirdre Imus said.

"He feels awful," she said of her husband. "He asked them, 'I want to know the pain I caused, and I want to know how to fix this and change this.'"

Deirdre Imus also said that the Rutgers players have been receiving hate e-mail, and she demanded that it stop. She told listeners "if you must send e-mail, send it to my husband," not the team.

"I have to say that these women are unbelievably courageous and beautiful women," she said.

Asked Friday morning about the hate mail, Rutgers team spokeswoman Stacey Brann said the team had received "two or three e-mails" but had also received "over 600 wonderful e-mails." Stringer declined to discuss it in the news conference later Friday.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

Well two or three mails, if that's all it was, is hardly enough to condemn his fans and hardly representative of them as a group. Of course it should be no hate mails.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/13/martin.imus/index.html

So many people tried to make this a race issue. But for me, that wasn't the primary point. I never wavered from the attack as one of a sexist. It didn't matter that he was trying to be funny. He insulted a group of women who are already accomplished.

America, we have a problem with sexism. Don't try to make this whole matter about the ridiculous rants made by rappers. I deplore what's in a lot of their music and videos, but hip-hop is only 30 years old. So you mean to tell me that sexism in America only started in 1977?

"The culture has changed since Imus started in radio. White straight men don't control everything any more, and they don't get to set the rules for public discourse with the same finality they once did. What we've seen here is, I think, a genuine reflection of the new American mainstream. Most Americans simply find the spectacle of a rich white bigot beating up on young black female achievers after a crushing tournament loss to be gratuitously cruel and unfair. Punishing someone for calling college women "whores" - especially those who have beaten the odds and are role models for other black girls and women - is not a new step in political correctness. It's applying a very old American standard of fairness and decency, which now applies to all Americans, regardless of race or gender. This was the voice of mainstream America speaking. It's not what it once was. I wonder whether many of Imus's buddies realize that yet."~ Andrew Sullivan

 

[yolland]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/13/martin.imus/index.html

He's got it right there, I think. Although in this case the two really are inseparable, hence the oversexed/grotesque implication.

i've listened to Imus in the past. i've found his comments about Arabs far, far more offensive than anything he said about the Rutgers women. but i kept listening for a variety of reasons, one of which is that the man is a brilliant interviewer and has terrific guests on his show. i am not, for a second, going to apologize for that or be implicated in creating a more discriminatory climate because i've tuned into his show every once in a while, in the same way that i will not be called homophobic because i've bought Eminem albums.

this is a free speech issue, and an economic issue. Imus was fired not for his comments, but because he has now become an economic liability for MSNBC and CBS (due to his comments). and all that is fine. the consumers spoke with their dollars, and Imus is gone. what i do fear is a toning down of the marketplace of what is available for the consumer. say what you will about the Imus's of the world, the Limbaugh's of the world, the Tim Hardaway's of the world; at the very least, i'd rather hear what they have to say than to muzzle them lest someone's feelings get hurt. i'd rather live in a vibrant, maddening, dynamic culture that dares to offend -- and suffer the consequence -- than one that's bland and monochromatic.

the world is a more interesting place with "South Park" than without; the world is a more interesting place with "Dave Chappelle" than without.

This whole affair may have the effect of making it harder for "shock jock" broadcasters specifically, but I kind of doubt it's likely to have major repercussions for the likes of South Park or Chappelle. You may not be giving the average person enough credit for their ability to distinguish between sharp-edged performance art and plain old cruelty. This wasn't the first time Imus got in hot water; he just happened to pick a very specific target who many saw it as especially low blow to pick on, plus he did it just before a slow holiday news weekend, which gave the story time to build and fester. I can understand why you think his comments about Arabs were much worse; on the other hand he's taken aim at African-Americans and women before without provoking this level of outcry, so I think the particular subset of an otherwise-'fair'(?)-game category he singled out this time around really made a difference. Also, just as a matter of strategy, I think appearing on Sharpton's show was a bad move--that effectively gave someone else custody of his apology, which he probably should have relinquished only to the people it was directly owed to.

I do though share your apprehensions to a point, because I never thought he would get fired, and I don't gather most of the people seeking that outcome really knew enough about either his show or the medium it's part of to make a distinction between (to borrow your example) him saying it and some sports announcer saying it. I don't think that's relevant to simply protesting his comments, they were protest-worthy regardless; but if you're going to go beyond awareness-raising to demand the strongest punishment available, you really should be very clear on which resonances almost certainly were in there, versus which ones fall into idiot-should've-known-it-would-strike-that-chord-but-didn't territory...which the culture of soundbites and YouTube isn't the most conducive environment for. To a point, I guess, I do feel a bit sorry for him, in that I think he may've wound up being somewhat of a burnt offering to placate tensions which he himself was only a bit player in, in the big picture. Still, to repeatedly pick such cheap targets, and given that this was 'just' a sponsor-driven decision in the end...I just can't see cloaking him in that 'dared-to-push-the-boundaries' defense; the lack-of-perspective argument I can see, but I really loathe seeing people gratuitously anointed with the 'daring' label. Push the boundaries of what, and to what end? You know?

But for the record, I certainly don't think any less of anyone who tuned in to Imus' show and enjoyed much of it despite grimacing at this or some of his other potshots. There's hardly anyone out there who doesn't own some books or CDs or DVDs with some content on them which they find uncomfortably demeaning or cruel in some way; I certainly do.

in some ways, the hate speech heard on Christian radio towards homosexuals is far more offensive than anything Imus has ever said, but you know what, i support their right to say it without facing any sort of formal crackdown. and where does someone's right not to be offended -- which is essentially what's being advocated -- trample on someone's right to religious expression?

Can you give some examples? I really don't know anything about 'Christian radio'.

And...apologies if this is a baldly and painfully naive question, which it may well be, but...do you think if you'd spent years as a gay man in a social environment where those particular attitudes were openly displayed towards you at the direct-personal-contact level on a regular basis, that you might hear them as something more than merely offensive?

 

[Irvine511]

This whole affair may have the effect of making it harder for "shock jock" broadcasters specifically, but I kind of doubt it's likely to have major repercussions for the likes of South Park or Chappelle. You may not be giving the average person enough credit for their ability to distinguish between sharp-edged performance art and plain old cruelty.

i think that's a fair point, though i'm not sure a large media corporation is going to give the average person enough credit to make such distinctions. i do find what Imus did different than, say, Chappelle's brilliant skit where he played a black, blind KKK grand wizard and when he overheard some white kids listening to hip-hop he called them "niggers" and all the white kids were thirlled. that's some complex cultural navigation; what Imus did was cheap. but it was also an aside. it might have been a cruel remark, but i just don't see it as premeditated cruelty. whether that's an important distinction, i don't know.


[q]Still, to repeatedly pick such cheap targets, and given that this was 'just' a sponsor-driven decision in the end...I just can't see cloaking him in that 'dared-to-push-the-boundaries' defense; the lack-of-perspective argument I can see, but I really loathe seeing people gratuitously anointed with the 'daring' label. Push the boundaries of what, and to what end? You know?[/q]

that's a fair point as well. there's shock for the sake of shock -- which might have some value, but then there's just plain old unimaginative nastiness, which i don't think this was. nasty, yes; unimaginative, no. give Imus credit for an incediary turn of phrase.

i see no value to Opie and Anthony recording someone having sex in a vestibule in St. Patrick's Cathedral. that seems analogous to the proverbial cherry bomb in the jr. high toilets. so it is a fine line, i agree, and there's a tendency for the unimaginative to do the cheap shocking thing instead of the thoughtfully shocking thing, and sometimes i don't think the comic even knows where that line is. i generally think Sarah Silverman is brilliant, but she's missed a few times. but i'd rather have her try and fail than not to try at all.


[q]Can you give some examples? I really don't know anything about 'Christian radio'.[/q]

generally talk shows from a Christian perspective, usually fundamentalist and evengelical. the most popular one is hosted by James Dobson (natch).

http://www.christianradio.com/search_results.asp?comm_state=IN&Submit=Search

And...apologies if this is a baldly and painfully naive question, which it may well be, but...do you think if you'd spent years as a gay man in a social environment where those particular attitudes were openly displayed towards you at the direct-personal-contact level on a regular basis, that you might hear them as something more than merely offensive?

i'm not quite sure what's being asked here ... firstly, i grew up with homophobia my whole life, usually the casual locker room talk of athletes. and it does have a cumulative effect on one's sense of self-worth. which is why coming out was such a pleasant surprise -- no one actually thought i was the proverbial "fag" people talked about, and everyone has seemed verbally quite supportive of the political aspect of things. when i hear people in the media saying things about gays that are analgous -- or even worse -- than "nappy-headed hos," there's a tendency towards exasperation, irritation, etc. but it's just one more voice in the media, it's no one close to me. and my response is never self-induced anxiety -- "gosh, what if i really am a threat to children."

what i'm wondering if you're getting at would be some sort of equivalent -- say it were 1988, and Greg Lougainis just won his 4th gold medal in diving, and someone called him a "limp-wristed homo," how would i feel?

 

[joyfulgirl]

Perhaps everyone's ready for this to sink to the bottom of the page at this point but since Irvine brought up South Park thought I'd post this excellent piece from Andrew Sullivan (bolded emphasis mine):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/
I couldn't help thinking about both last night. This week's South Park was its usual sharp, subversive self. And the visual games they play with race and gender and sexual orientation, and the language they use, leaves Imus in the dust. And yet South Park is not in the slightest bit offensive to me at all. This week, they had a hilarious parody of 300, including a battle between a phalanx of determined lesbians defending a gay bar called "Les Bos" and a group of Eurotrash Persian club owners threatening to take over the club and fill it with velvet blue carpet, gold curtain rods and white statues. They also threw in some Latino immigrant stereotypes for good measure. How do they pull it off?

Three reasons, I think. The first is that they're a cartoon. No actual person has to take responsibility for saying any of the naughty words and stereotypes involved. When Eric Cartman tells Kyle that he should go back to San Francisco with the rest of the Jews, it's the character voicing the collective bigoted id - not an actual human being. It may be that in a multicultural society, cartoons will become the primary medium for speaking honestly and humorously about our differences. The same goes in a way for Sacha Baron Cohen who has created a character, Borat, to voice these things. It's not him. The distance matters, and enables comedy based on bigotry not actually to be bigotry. The creators can legitimately say they're not actual haters; they're just exploring and making fun of prejudice, and invoke the First Amendment to defend themselves. Without this distancing device, Ricky Gervais, Dave Chapelle and Sarah Silverman would be in deep trouble. But even they sometimes balk, as Chapelle recently did, because it's a morally precarious path to travel at times.

Second, South Park's creators actually get and love the subcultures they lampoon. The amazing thing about this week's South Park is how detailed the observation was. The lesbian bar was a classic - it was clearly created by people with actual and acute knowledge of what lesbian bars are like - and there were many hilarious shades of recognizable dykiness in the cartoon figures. In fact, this week's episode was a landmark in mainstream depiction of lesbianism. It didn't rely on any hoary stereotypes that spring from ignorance and fear; it created stereotypes based on knowledge and fondness.

Lastly, anyone watching the show can tell very very quickly that its creators are not actually bigots. You don't need to know these guys personally to see that. In general, I think the American public is pretty shrewd about this. Mel Gibson got roasted because he is, in fact, a self-aware, vicious anti-Semite. Michael Richards? Confused guy who didn't even realize his own repressed bigotry, until it came pouring out. Don Imus? I think most people think he actually is a bigot - and that's why he got fired. It wasn't just a shtick. Ann Coulter? A strange case. I can't tell if she's a bigot; she's just decided to deploy hate in order to make money. Her "persona," however, is not removed enough from her person to get her a pass. And her support for political forces that would demonize and marginalize gay couples deprives her of the South Park defense, however many closet-cases she befriends. Besides, she beat up on "faggots." As Harvey Fierstein points out, we're still fair game. Imus targeted all blacks and all women. That's a majority of the population. Coulter picked on three percent. She's smarter.

 

[yolland]

Time Magazine's cover story this week is on Imus...definitely leaning towards the he-deserved-what-he-got end of the spectrum (though note it went to press before his firing), but some thoughtful pieces, anyhow. A cover story, then commentaries from Ana Marie Cox of Wonkette, Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Debra Dickerson of Salon.

generally talk shows from a Christian perspective, usually fundamentalist and evengelical. the most popular one is hosted by James Dobson (natch).

http://www.christianradio.com/search_results.asp?comm_state=IN&Submit=Search

Well I wasn't looking to listen to it, I was fishing for actual examples of dialogue. But I think citing Dobson gives me a fairly clear idea of what kind of thing you meant. Initially I was more assuming you meant conventional slurs and/or lake of fire talk.

i'm not quite sure what's being asked here ... firstly, i grew up with homophobia my whole life, usually the casual locker room talk of athletes. and it does have a cumulative effect on one's sense of self-worth. which is why coming out was such a pleasant surprise -- no one actually thought i was the proverbial "fag" people talked about, and everyone has seemed verbally quite supportive of the political aspect of things. when i hear people in the media saying things about gays that are analgous -- or even worse -- than "nappy-headed hos," there's a tendency towards exasperation, irritation, etc. but it's just one more voice in the media, it's no one close to me. and my response is never self-induced anxiety -- "gosh, what if i really am a threat to children."

what i'm wondering if you're getting at would be some sort of equivalent -- say it were 1988, and Greg Lougainis just won his 4th gold medal in diving, and someone called him a "limp-wristed homo," how would i feel?

Possibly, yeah. Especially given the "casual locker room talk" backdrop, maybe that would be "some sort of equivalent." I guess I'm thinking in terms of the hypothetical-reasonable-person idea that's always hovering conveniently shadowy (and subjective?) in the background with these kinds of things. How can you really make analogies--because to a point you have to. There's speech that's angering because it's arrogant and ignorant and baselessly accusatory, speech that's (almost) funny because it's simply too wacko to be taken seriously, speech that's intimidating because it implies threats, speech that's profoundly alienating because it tells you you're diseased and corrupted and some kind of cancer on society, and speech that's humiliating because it rubs your nose in the old lesson that you're a second-rate human being who's only successful or impressive to the extent that the first-rate ones charitably allow you to win one out of four (or put on a good freak/fool show while losing). And probably another category or two that experience hasn't equipped me to recognize. And while you can ultimately choose to ignore much of it, or to step back and consider the context objectively and perhaps find much of it defused through that effort, there are limits to how much you can choose the initial emotional reaction, especially when you're young. Of course a lot of this is individual, maybe so much of it is that it's a lost cause to even contemplate the question.

But yes...what might an 'equivalent' be, and what sort of feelings might it elicit and why (and not elicit, and why).

It is so difficult to put this kind of thing into words...

 

[Dreadsox]

kind of all over the place with this issue today.

On this we agree.

 

[ntalwar]

Condoleezza Rice: I'm glad Imus was fired

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Friday that radio host Don Imus' comments about the Rutgers University women's basketball team were "disgusting" and she was pleased he was fired.

Imus called the women players "nappy-headed hos" -- racist, sexist remarks that resulted in a barrage of protests and ultimately in the outspoken host losing his CBS Radio show, which was also televised.

"I'm very glad that there was, in fact, a consequence. I think that this kind of coarse language doesn't belong anywhere in reasonable dialogue between reasonable people," Rice said in an interview with syndicated radio show host Michael Medved.

Rice, the first black female U.S. Secretary of State and a former college professor, said the young women Imus targeted were fine athletes trying their best.

"It gets ruined by this disgusting -- and I'll use the word 'disgusting' -- comment which doesn't belong in any polite company and certainly doesn't belong on any radio station that I would listen to," she added.

Asked how she handled racist, sexist comments directed her way, Rice laughed and replied: "I'm a big girl. I can take care of myself. And I really don't care because, you know, I'm a mature woman."

http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...OC_0_US-USA-RACE-IMUS-RICE.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

 

[Diemen]

"I'm very glad that there was, in fact, a consequence" does not necessarily equate to "I'm glad Imus was fired." Though that may be the case here, I won't presume to know what level of consequence Ms. Rice was looking for.

I think many agree that there should have been a consequence for what Imus said, though many disagree on exactly what the consequence should have been.

 

[U2Bama]

(As quoted from Dave White)

Gen. Peter Pace:
Aging cracker who thinks you and me and everyone we know are immoral. Wars based on lies that slaughter thousands of people, however, are awesome. OK, he didn’t exactly say “awesome.” I’m paraphrasing.

Pace is not a cracker; he's from Brooklyn, NY and his parents are immigrants.

Thre cracker culture encompasses some of the rural, white culture of the Carolinas, Florida, Georgia and Alabama. It is not meant to be an offensive term. It isn't offensive to me, as many of my ancestors who settled and farmed Georgia and Alabama over the past 200 years would be considered "crackers." A student who was not a cracker called me "cracker" with offensive intent in high school. He did not know what he was talking about.

~U2Alabama

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Perhaps everyone's ready for this to sink to the bottom of the page at this point but since Irvine brought up South Park thought I'd post this excellent piece from Andrew Sullivan (bolded emphasis mine):

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/
I couldn't help thinking about both last night. This week's South Park was its usual sharp, subversive self. And the visual games they play with race and gender and sexual orientation, and the language they use, leaves Imus in the dust. And yet South Park is not in the slightest bit offensive to me at all. This week, they had a hilarious parody of 300, including a battle between a phalanx of determined lesbians defending a gay bar called "Les Bos" and a group of Eurotrash Persian club owners threatening to take over the club and fill it with velvet blue carpet, gold curtain rods and white statues. They also threw in some Latino immigrant stereotypes for good measure. How do they pull it off?

Three reasons, I think. The first is that they're a cartoon. No actual person has to take responsibility for saying any of the naughty words and stereotypes involved. When Eric Cartman tells Kyle that he should go back to San Francisco with the rest of the Jews, it's the character voicing the collective bigoted id - not an actual human being. It may be that in a multicultural society, cartoons will become the primary medium for speaking honestly and humorously about our differences. The same goes in a way for Sacha Baron Cohen who has created a character, Borat, to voice these things. It's not him. The distance matters, and enables comedy based on bigotry not actually to be bigotry. The creators can legitimately say they're not actual haters; they're just exploring and making fun of prejudice, and invoke the First Amendment to defend themselves. Without this distancing device, Ricky Gervais, Dave Chapelle and Sarah Silverman would be in deep trouble. But even they sometimes balk, as Chapelle recently did, because it's a morally precarious path to travel at times.

Second, South Park's creators actually get and love the subcultures they lampoon. The amazing thing about this week's South Park is how detailed the observation was. The lesbian bar was a classic - it was clearly created by people with actual and acute knowledge of what lesbian bars are like - and there were many hilarious shades of recognizable dykiness in the cartoon figures. In fact, this week's episode was a landmark in mainstream depiction of lesbianism. It didn't rely on any hoary stereotypes that spring from ignorance and fear; it created stereotypes based on knowledge and fondness.

Lastly, anyone watching the show can tell very very quickly that its creators are not actually bigots. You don't need to know these guys personally to see that. In general, I think the American public is pretty shrewd about this. Mel Gibson got roasted because he is, in fact, a self-aware, vicious anti-Semite. Michael Richards? Confused guy who didn't even realize his own repressed bigotry, until it came pouring out. Don Imus? I think most people think he actually is a bigot - and that's why he got fired. It wasn't just a shtick. Ann Coulter? A strange case. I can't tell if she's a bigot; she's just decided to deploy hate in order to make money. Her "persona," however, is not removed enough from her person to get her a pass. And her support for political forces that would demonize and marginalize gay couples deprives her of the South Park defense, however many closet-cases she befriends. Besides, she beat up on "faggots." As Harvey Fierstein points out, we're still fair game. Imus targeted all blacks and all women. That's a majority of the population. Coulter picked on three percent. She's smarter.

the first two paragraphs make a lot of sense... the second two paragraphs are pretty thin, making broad assumptions rather than logical conclusions.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I just wonder how far some people have come from the days of Jackie Robinson. It's a sad irony. When you have a fan still yelling out racial comments at Serena Williams, you have to wonder. He does that on the tennis court, meanwhile Don Imus...

 

[maycocksean]

So today this guy comes up to me, his face red like a rose on a thorn brush, like all the colors of a royal flush and he says:

"You know this Imus thing, this Imus thing. I can't believe Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are now the defenders of all that is good and decent in America. . ."

I'm not clear as to why he felt he needed to tell me this!

I guess the controversy has now spread all the way out here.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

I don't think he should've been fired. He APOLOGIZED.

I think at this point if you don't agree with him "getting fired" you're going to be labeled a bigot.

I wonder, where is the whole "freedom of speech" so many people in the US preach? Wake up, smell the thorns, there is NO freedom of speech in the US anymore.

 

[Ormus]

"You know this Imus thing, this Imus thing. I can't believe Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are now the defenders of all that is good and decent in America. . ."

I'm not clear as to why he felt he needed to tell me this!

I'm actually a bit surprised to say that I've heard lines similar to this quite frequently.

I think that Al Sharpton, in particular, is so hated by white America that they'd happily defend his opponent, no matter what the cost!

 

[ntalwar]

I wonder, where is the whole "freedom of speech" so many people in the US preach? Wake up, smell the thorns, there is NO freedom of speech in the US anymore.

The freedom of speech you are referring to originated in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution. This is unrelated because the government was not involved in restriction of speech.

 

[Ormus]

I don't think he should've been fired. He APOLOGIZED.

Sure, he apologized...only after he got caught. Even the greatest of cowards will issue an apology in a situation like this.

His pattern of past behavior, however, as I posted in an earlier post here, indicates that his apology is probably not all that sincere. Imus, if on the radio, will continue to make racist, sexist, and/or homophobic comments.

I think at this point if you don't agree with him "getting fired" you're going to be labeled a bigot.

I'm not going to label you a bigot, but I do have to wonder the motivations of people who choose to defend a man like him.

I wonder, where is the whole "freedom of speech" so many people in the US preach? Wake up, smell the thorns, there is NO freedom of speech in the US anymore.

You and everyone else here have forgotten one major thing here:

You do not have complete and total freedom of speech in your place of employment.

That's because Imus speaks not only for himself, but also implicitly for his employers (MSNBC, CBS Radio) and for his sponsors.

If MSNBC, CBS Radio, and any of Imus' sponsors wish to dump him, that is and always has been wholly within their legal rights.

In this case, Imus was dumped because he shot his mouth off and made his employers and sponsors look bad. Similarly, if Imus' ratings had dropped from natural causes, MSNBC, CBS Radio, and any of his sponsors could have chosen to dump him then--also completely within their legal rights.

This is not a free speech issue. There is no constitutional requirement that you have to be paid for your speech; just that you have the right to say it without legal ramifications.

And this is the reality of it. Imus has not been arrested. He has not been charged with any crime. If he wishes to stand in Times Square and call every black person he sees a "nappy headed ho," he's within his legal rights (provided he doesn't incite a riot, of course).

As such, there's absolutely nothing stopping Imus from being employed by another radio or television group.

If FOX News likes Imus' style, they're fully free to employ him. If a right-wing AM radio group think he'll make them money, they're fully free to employ him. And chances are, Imus will be employed again, because he was making CBS Radio $20 million a year.

Welcome to the beauty of "freedom of speech."

 

[yolland]

I'm actually a bit surprised to say that I've heard lines similar to this quite frequently.

It makes for a seductively concise and incensing little trope--two cunning and masterful hypocrites stringing up the misunderstood hero whose rash tongue belies a big heart and a sharp mind.

(No, that's not my personal verdict on either.)

However, the reality that this has been THE dominant national news story of the week and generated a mind-boggling volume of articles, news segments, roundtables, blog entries, YouTube clips, message board threads, boardroom sessions, you name it, suggests a much more diffuse and complicated flurry of events.

Most of my foreign colleagues and students have been utterly confounded at how an issue like this could capture and hold center stage for so long.

 

[Irvine511]

Pace is not a cracker; he's from Brooklyn, NY and his parents are immigrants.

Thre cracker culture encompasses some of the rural, white culture of the Carolinas, Florida, Georgia and Alabama. It is not meant to be an offensive term. It isn't offensive to me, as many of my ancestors who settled and farmed Georgia and Alabama over the past 200 years would be considered "crackers." A student who was not a cracker called me "cracker" with offensive intent in high school. He did not know what he was talking about.

~U2Alabama

would it make any difference if you knew that the author of that piece grew up in the rural south in a variety of trailer parks and had what might be generally understood as a "cracker" upbringing?

i mean that as a genuine question.