Gordo... boy, how to respond. Are you saying we should not revisit historical accounts or sugarcoat embarrassing facts like the genocide of Native Americans before genocide became an international crime, the crucifixion of Christ, events leading up to the Civil Rights and yes, wars? I thought you were arguing against political correctness. Where do you think you can take your argument with this objection? How are unfortunate but true historical events comparable to a "shock jock" raking in the dough with insults?

Well, you are just going to looooove the replacement on MSNBC. Well, you might like his anti-Bush/Cheney derangement syndrome, but I don't think you're going to like his racial sensitivity. Not only did he once make up and publish a Boston Globe column about a ficticious white family giving a ficticious black family $10,000 out of empathy for their dead child, he was also suspected of plagiarism.

Oh, and he also once maliciously used the word "mandingo" on the air. From the Boston Herald



That an old, apparently racist white man would mis-use a racial word, get booted off the air, and be replaced by an oldd, apparently racist white man who had been previously disciplined for mis-using a racial epithet is just perfect ironic synchronicity. You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.


I agree. To hell with them both.

Just as an aside, when I used to DJ on an urban radio station, my lead-in show was a deep-voiced brother who's handle was "The Mandingo." (His fade was always perfectly brushed, as far as I remember)

And this is why the thread isn't about sexism. The above is an Executive Summary of what is the state of racial debating.

Despite the fact that the "joke" (weak as it is) is at its core a joke about ugly women which is sexist not racist - this turns into a thread about racism. The truth is NT, you'd have started this thread if Imus had said "They're some ugly hoes" instead of "nappy-headed hoes" and you'd have still called it racist. If you like to debate that point I will continually point you to your above quote.

Sorry NT, the joke is that the Rutgers girls are so mean looking that the girls from Tennessee girls must have been afraid to win. A more skilled comic would have pulled that joke off with nappy headed or hoes - without Spike Lee misquotes.

Don Imus is a no one with no one listening. Where was your rage when Hilliary Clinton joked that Ghandi ran a gas station? Oh right, Hillary isn't a white conservative and Ghandi's not black.

Imus is a moron and he may get fired. As I stated waaaay up thread he should. Not, however, because Obama thinks he should but because his employers think he should.

Actually passion plays of Christ lead to untold amounts of anti Semitism all over the world and still do in many instances, but yes I do support this for some bizarre reason

For the historical aspect of your argument saving private ryan hardly qualifies as history, nor does some movie like dancing with wolves. Now if you want to say that what Imus did was wrong because its racist, then that standard need to apply right, I mean I know morality is subjective for the most part, but really. Mencia constantly puts racism as the forefront of his show, now in your mind you may think such is ok, but I am sure for many what Imus said was probably thought of as a joke.

So is history one thing and entertainment another, I would hope so but I guess maybe even that is subjective anymore

Vlad,



I made no point to single out people of any race, I only named people who were prominently in the eye of the media ranting hysterically about this case.



No Vlad. Not in my opinion. I don't believe it's hysterical at all. And to note; I adovocated that people who were upset by listening, change the channel in all of my previous posts. I could care less who pulls their ad money, more people will be there to fill the vacuum if the show is any good (which his is not and I have said so many times). If you read the Sharpton and Times quotes I posted you'll note my fear was directed at the idea that some people are advocating legislation for what may be said on the radio not in relation to foul language, but in relation to content of conversation, which is clearly a first amendment violation. I'm scared about that and you should be too.



I never made that statement. I'm quite sure the statements were racist, especially the use of the word "jigaboo". I will however, stand by my statement that I thought the bit was funny. I always think it's funny to see people push the envelope. I have my lines that I don't think should be crossed, and granted they are pretty far out, but when I hear it happen I might change the channel.


Entspeak,




Again, I never said he should keep his job because of the first amendment. I don't even like Imus. He's got a boring program, he's pretty far left of the center, and he's pretty ugly too. I'm only disgusted with the idea that people are now suggesting legislating what the content of a program could be, or worse yet, could not be.

[quote name='Vladimir' date='Apr 12 2007, 11:58 AM' post='212749']
[quote name='Dale' post='212736' date='Apr 12 2007, 01:45 PM']
A few years ago Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect was taken off the air in the days after 9/11 as he said something to the effect that our men and women were cowards (I don't remeber the exact quote).

[/quote]

No, what Maher said was, the 9/11 attackers weren't cowards. Which is perfectly obvious, but for some reason this remark caused outrage. I've never understood how suidical attackers could be seen as cowards.


Thanks Vlad, I knew I did't have that quote quite right.

You will all be happy to know Don Imus has just been fired by CBS.

** http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/12/i...gers/index.html

Breaking News CBS Radio Fires Embattled Radio Host Don Imus

** something is broken. I can't get the url tag to work as expected.

If that was a backdoor attempt at sarcasm directed at me it wasn't a good one. I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Anyway, if I remember my Bible studies correctly the Romans drove the nails but the Jews asked Pilate to crucify Christ. Whether someone wants to dwell on these specific circumstances, not to mention encourage sadomasochists to see their movie, is a matter of artistic license that doesn't meet the standard for government regulation (censorship). However, just because I think Mel Gibson's a nutbag doesn't mean I can stop him from channeling his psychosis on film. Holocaust deniers and anti-Semitic marches may lead to more anti-Semitism in general, but I support their free speech rights. For the umpteenth time now: Imus's free speech rights were not violated any more than Snoop "What's the definition of irony?" Dog's free speech rights are violated if he's boycotted and kicked off the air with any luck.


Since I watch Mencia I know for a fact that he makes racist and sexist jokes a staple of his routine. I like him because he puts everyone down, including men and Mexicans. But here's the difference: it's a damn comedy show. Mencia's chances of hosting members of Washington’s A-list are slim to none. Political appearances on Imus's show convey a certain message and grant a degree of credibility Imus has no intention of living up to. My expectations are different and there is nothing wrong, "PC" or otherwise, for holding different shows to different standards. Be an obscene comedian or be a talk show host. Don't up your ratings with a mixed bag and lower the bar across all formats.

Boo frikkin hoo. I don't know too many who will bemoan the loss.

I know it's too much to hope for in this world of corporate radio, but maybe, just maybe, some quality programming might have a chance to replace Imus' spew.

Nah............

I didn't listen to Imus in the morning and I won't be getting up to listen to Mike Barnicle in the morning. I don't have any strong feelings for or against him. There's an audience for what he'll bring to the party. I'm of the opinion that he needs to worry more about holding on the audience Imus used to draw than not having his every word scrutinized.

I wish him luck.



Any thread that goes on as long as this one has with the intensity it has provoked tends to evolve and it can be argued with conviction that what Imus said was more sexist than racist.

You're making me repeat myself, BaphometsAdvocate, but you know your mind better than you know mine. Point to whatever quote pleases you, but I don't presume to know how you will react to a given subject because I don't give any thought to what subjects you choose or don't choose to post on.

Don't waste your limited time on earth trying to figure out what I'll do, BA. It'll just make you crazy.



From what I understand, Imus isn't that much of a conservative, either. But he is White, so you're half-right. As for where my rage was when Hillary made her crack about Gandhi it was probably in my back pocket, tucked away for when I might really need it. One never knows when the next time Rush Limbaugh will go after another person with Parkinson's disease or Ann Coulter might call another Democrat a "faggot."

I'm kind of selective about what ticks me off. I pick my shots. Just like everybody else.

And since Imus now is in the unemployment line (didn't take long for that other shoe to drop) we're just about the end of this particular sad, sorry little soap opera.

Right, and some people are racists for saying racist things and others are not, and yes it was sarcasm pointed in your direction really. Its a double standard on its face and nothing more. What I feel is racist is not what someone else will say is racist, so what’s the standard, if enough people make some noise. I am glad you study the bible but the reality of it is passion plays incite anti Semitism historically, but such is used in an entertainment pose as applied to history. Now if I see people saying I will to kill Germans after watching saving private ryan it somehow does not equate into a movie possibly spreading racial hatred now? I mean basically you are taking something that is subjective for the most part, example the racist mencia is ok with you, and then saying your opinion is somehow a more valid definition then mine happens to be. Now I agree you were never pushing for anything to be done to the right of imus to be a racist but the double standard is nothing is going to happen to the millions of racial statements that happen to exist in industy. Then next time I watch some comedy, be it a person of any type of sect says something racist what is going to happen? Exactly nothing. Some people can be racist and others can not, and imus of all people can be. Now so the next time mencia happens to go on a talk show, like for instance chris rock on larry king live, what standard shall exist. If racism is wrong its wrong then right? So if people in some thread a month from now start a thread detailing the level of racism as expressed by say Dave Chappell I am going to see all these people that hate racism so much rolling up to call Dave Chappell a racist right? I hardly think so, there will be some excuse as to why someone can put down an entire group of people and why some others cant, and that’s all I as a person have learned from all of this, nothing more because that’s the reality of it really. There is no standard and no body learned anything from this at all.

Racism is ok and not ok, it really just depends on my view of it, and thats racism in a nutshell, or at least thats what I gain from this debate, please feel free to point out where I am wrong.

Wah, wah, waaaah... CBS Caves. Imus' sub-par program goes off the air.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/12/...in2675273.shtml

As much as I didn't like his program, I would like to have seen him leave the air waves because no one listened to him, and not because people did.

The funny thing is he might be able to get a satlite program now which would once again pit him against Howard Stern.

Since you have a problem with Imus being called on for making racist remarks I gather you also have a problem with Jews calling Mel Gibson out for making an anti-Semitic movie?


I doubt this statement would pass the fighting words doctrine established by the Court. You can replace “kill Germans” with “kill Jews” or “kill niggers” and make the same conclusion since they don’t present an actual threat of immediate violence against a specific individual. To sum up, you can’t prohibit speech on the basis of its content. It is legally protected speech, if not popular speech. Every statement is an example of racial hatred, however.


The sexist The Man Show was not okay with me, but that also was a comedy show and I saw no point in taking issue with it.


There’s not much I can do to convince you that different shows hold different standards. When PBS pulled postcards in response to outrage over an animated rabbit visiting Vermont and running into a lesbian couple on a children’s show I thought the conspiracy theorists from the Right alleging gays were trying to brainwash children was idiotic, but they got their message across that time.

Mencia and Chappelle are not asking to be taken seriously, Gordo. I have standards, not double standards. I won’t apologize for expecting more from a radio talk show host using public airways. You can think me a hypocrite to your heart’s content, though. In fact I encourage you to nurse that perception and keep this exchange in mind for the next time I fail to acknowledge The Truth according to Gordo.

Really, so if they are doing it in humor then its ok? That’s a load of my shoulders really, I was so confused, now I know how I can act in public, thank you.

Its not the truth according to me, though if you say my name enough in such a fashion I am sure I will lose power eventually or something, besides that I don’t understand.

You standard is not double, which means I cannot ever take offense to something they say right? Thank you again for I felt offended at times by the things they said.

What about mel gibson, surely he has to be racist, because someone took offense to it right? No, on my standard I did not find it offensive, so its ok right?

Oh wait, it was not in the format of a joke with a laugh track or something, so yes it was racist.

Moif,

there is a third choice...

I have a little story that might help you understand how the "taking the power from the word" thing works. I admit that it isn't terribly intuitive and most folks don't get it, even the ones who've experienced something like it...

when I attended a military academy a few years back, the freshman (called 4 degrees) were constantly ridiculed and demeaned by upper classmen. It's just how the academy goes; everyone experiences it as a freshman. They would use a particular set of offensive vocabulary to refer to freshman to make them feel like they had to work up to being human. We're not exactly talking n-word level insults here, but they weren't exacly warm fuzzies, either. When I went through that it didn't take long for me and others to start mocking the upperclassmen- our "oppressors" if you will- just as soon as they were out of earshot by using their same offensive vocabulary to refer to ourselves. We instinctively developed that to take the sting out of the words when the upperclassmen were in our faces calling us more unwarm notfuzzies.

We mocked our oppressors with the same language they used to demean and dehumanize us. That didn't make it okay for them to demean and dehumanize us with that language, it was just our way of coping with it and it helped take the sting off of it when the did use it. Our satire was our insulation.

Oh and here's a bit of nuance for you. All the satire stuff went out door when two freshman were upset with each other and they wanted to use some fighting words. The difference between that type of inciteful usage of the offensive vocabulary and the mocking usage boiled down to context and delivery.

So you see, Moif (and anyone else who was wondering). That's how it works.

Droop,

You have to realize how flawed your "proof" is of the comment not being racist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I gathered that you're saying that (A)since he only referred to the Rutgers women as nappy-headed hoes and (B)not the Lady vols as hoes who are also black, then his statement was devoid of racism and amounted to calling the Rutgers team manly or ugly or whatever.

You argument is based on the premise that racism has to be consistent. It doesn't. If it did, then every pro-slavery confederate with a black friend was precluded from being racist because he wouldn't have been consistent.

Also, in regards to nappy-headedness... when used by my momma, it's not meant to demean me. She's complained about my nappy, kinky plenty of times. Shoot, I even keep it nappy now. But just because a word may be used as a non-pejorative descriptor at times doesn't mean that it can't be used as a pejorative descriptor at other times. In the context he used nappy-headed, it was clearly a racist pejorative used as a proxy for black. It would be the same thing if he called them "ashey, big-lipped" hoes or something like that.

p.s. you've really never heard the term "pickaninny" before?

And for other folks,

What does Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's personal character have to do with anything. If the dude was wrong, the dude was wrong. I feel like many people are defending Imus because they don't like the two reverends.

Also, what does rap music have to do with this? Black folks criticize and protest the damage of commercial, appropriated rap all the time (Spellman College anyone?) Just because it doesn't make it on Fox news or wherever yall are getting your news from doesn't mean black people are accepting it. And who says it's black culture anyway? Please stop equating all hip hop and rap with Snoop and 50 cent. Let me stop, that's a whole other thread...

What is so interesting to me is the near universal feelings by blacks across the country- I mean, Al Roker for Gods sake-

and how, really, only white poeple are really defending Imus at all. I am pretty sure, if a poll were taken tomorow- about 90% of blacks in this nation would think that is a racist statement (and, Mris P- it is also, very, very sexist, misogynistic, etc, women have every right to raise this issue as well) - but, once again, are you guys REALLY thinking this is PC gone too far? I mean, there are hundreds of comedy skits, maybe thousands, that could throw these words about, no problem-

it is NOT a double standard, it is a specific call out against blacks, as far as about every black person in the country, I am about 90% positive anyway - pretty much only white poeple will be defending this one. I am pretty sure, we will hear from Bill Cosby, Bryant Gumbel, and any other fire breathing, race baiting , racial opportunists that you can throw in next.

BA= ya, that Al Roker. I hear Farakhan has tagged him for the new leader of the Nation of Islam.

Here is a tip white folks on the board. When every black person you know is angry at an issue, even black poeple you know that you have a seemingly colorblind relationship with- professioal, friend, whatever- chances are, ya, someone has been socially tagged "racist".

I mean- for Pete's sake- Al Roker is boilin' mad!

Well, the market has spoken, and I'm happy about this. Never heard of the guy before and it's one less idiot I'll have to hear about again. Imus had a perfect Constitutional right to say stupid things, and the federal government is proscribed by the 1st Amendment from violating that right, but CBS also has the right to ask that people under their employ not use the resources of the corporation to embarrass it in front of the same public that lines the company’s coffers.

I do hope, however, that we no longer have screams of 'censorship' when public outrage exercises the same principle for things that don't validate one side's belief system. Example, we won't hear any further banging spoons against the highchair because Walmart, rough instance, bans certain albums in the interest of its clientel and sponsors? Sauce for the goose and all that...(not holding breath)




Yes, but strangely (before Imus) always to the sound of crickets chirping. As you said, 'I mean, there are hundreds of comedy skits, maybe thousands, that could throw these words about, no problem'....

Sounds like strangely selective outrage. Just sayin'

Edited to add: This rather reminds me of the joke I posted about sexual harassment at the workplace in a thread a while ago. It went like this: Yes! You can have sex with women in the workplace without getting a sexual harassment lawsuit! Just remember these three simple rules:
1)Be attractive
2)Be good looking
3)Don't be unattractive

In this case, Yes! You can spout bigotry and sexist crap! Just remember these three simple rules:
1) Be "cool"
2) Be "hip"
3) Don't be "uncool"

Pretty much... but there is also the other things he said. From the beginning he is talking about their looks and how busted down they look.


Not at all, my argument rest on taking the totality of the context.

So again I ask you should we consider context. Tonyman, no one answered this question so let me repost it.



Let see where I think we agree.

-Nappy-headed, definately was used because most of the Rutgers players were Black.
-Ho's were definately used because they were women.
-"Nappyheaded ho's" was a deragatory, demeaning, and insulting statement.

Can we agree there? Again I ask:

Can a comment touch upon race, be offensive in nature, and not be racist?

Which leads me to your next statement.



Ashey, definaly!! big-lipped.... not really. Ashey deals with upkeep, like nappy-headed. If your skin is ashey, you can put on lotion, if your hair is nappy you can comb/brush it. If your lips are big.... well they're just big.

First let us define pejorative.



Very well, you think he used "Nappy-headed" in a perjorative nature, while your mama tended to use the word as a non-perjorative correct?

If this is correct, guess what??.... we agree!!

So AGAIN I ask

Can a comment touch upon race, be offensive in nature, and not be racist?

In your case Tonyman, can it be a perjorative that touches upon race and not be racist.

Because if the answer is no, then we need to figure out why that is. I believe a comment can touch race and not be racist, it just can't be ABOUT race.

And this is why I bring up the other things he said. So now , i'll put you through MY thought process

- You say that your mom would call you nappy headed at time, you even said yourself, sometimes you walk around with hair nappy now.

- If you were to go to work with nappy hair( which i'm not saying you would) would you find it racist for some white guy were to say "man forget to comb your hair today, it's looking a little nappy."?? My answer would be no, because it dealt with your appearance, not your race. How do you feel about this??


I will leave it here, just so I can get your opinion on what I said so far.

Have to say I’m a bit disappointed, not at Imus being fired, but with the attitudes of “well, it’s all behind us now”.

At least until the next ropey white entertainer tries to be hip. It will happen again, you can bank on it.

The core issue has not been resolved. Snoop’s quote provided by carlitoswhey:


My guess is more young people in this country listen to Snoop than Imus, and Snoop just gave his omnipotent stamp of approval that it’s ok for him and his fellow rappers to “talk about ho’s”, and it was so nice of him to clarify that if you’ve “made it to the next level” then he’s not yapping about you. Need to add that the “nappy headed ho’ decoder ring.

And then today I read this:

Why didn’t this make the news? Where’s the outrage? Why didn’t the Reverend Sharpton demand an apology on his show? And to show what an idiot Snoop is, Lauren is a black female with a law degree, so what happened to the “not dissing those who make it to the next level”? Yeah, that’s just what we need, an ex gang banger that thinks he can decided the who/what/when and where.

It will take generations to erode racism to a point where it’s no longer a factor, complete elimination will probably never happen. But as long as there’s a different set of rules for one group that point in time will continue to be pushed out and opportunities will continue to be missed.

From the Hmm wouldn't expect that Department



That's Ann Coulter talking.

I guess there are just alot of confused white poeple in this country

Mrs P- it is NOT selective outrage= you have a racist with a history or racist behavior that ISN'T trying to really make a joke, when you get down to it, he just wants the leeway to be racist on air- and it cost him.

You have poeple in the entertainment industry that would quickly back up Imus if it were just a case of "PC gone too far"

Doesn't it puzzle you a bit that you have near universal condemnation from blacks from just about any sector of the US society?

Once again- Mrs P- Al Roker? I mean, do you really think he is being selectively outraged, or, do you think he was "damn, that is one loud mouthed racist"

If it were ONLY Al Sharpton, and the "usual players" in this kind of stuff, and you had a reasonable number of black columnists or actors or comedians defending Imus' "un-pc" behavior.

Really, if it were really PC run amok- there are lot's of folks that have very-un-PC acts out there that would be affected ECONOMICALLY as they very well "be next".

I for one, am glad that a great many black families are grappling with the Snoop Dog issues- you would be very, very suprised at how many black preachers, leaders and fathers are out there calling for an end to the misogynist lyrics in rap and comedy.

That is why I feel the pro-Imus "it's just a joke" crowd, well, really have no clue whatsoever here.

If you think Snoop Dog's lyrics are universally accepted by "the black community" (whoever that is ) you are as out of touch on that issue as the Imus issue. I am not saying "out of touch" as a bad thing- you just don't get the "visceral feel" that many blacks get when white, powerful poeple make obvious (to them) racist statements.

There are enough of these statements out there, some of them noteworthy, some not, that DON'T get anyone's dander up- sure, however- this one is SO flagrant, SO obviously racist, that really, NO black person can really "let this one go".

If you really believe this is PC run amok- well, it isn't, and it is hard to quantify. I can't point to a study and say" see, this is racist".

What you have here, the way a co-worker put it, was this "he was trying to see if he could get away with calling someone a "nigger" without calling them that, so he picked the closest, most defendable, way to say "nigger" without actually dropping the N-bomb. All black poeple feel it, and a bunch of white folks with a damn clue. "

Let me put it this way- you ever had a guy, or known someone, that has a lot of "nigger" jokes, and he is not black? Does it make you feel a bit uncomfortable, oh, the third or fourth joke in?

This is something I discuss AT LENGTH on stage when it comes to racial issues- when is the joke a joke, and when is it just another racist finding a new way to express his racism without it costing him big time?

So I tell this joke on stage-

"what do you call a black person in the cockpit of an airplane?"











The piliot you big racist!

I guess I can't really explain it to you Mrs P- though, to be fair, you should know there is a LARGE movement among black poeple throughout the nation in regards to racist/sexist language by black entertainers, including amongst the entertainers themselves, a REAL backlash going on- this is NOT going un-noticed in this nation.

You CAN be un-pc, you CAN use "racist and sexist language" in the right context- but you CAN'T be really racist and do this-

that is what really happened here- Imus tried to use that language- when he is pretty well known to have pretty racist behavior in the past.

Dave Chappelle (who's co-writer is white) CAN explore this medium- Trent Lott can not- do you get the difference here?

Ay,

I'm opposed to this whole charade: Al Sharpton as judge, jury and voice of moral clarity, walking Don Imus on a dread-drenched walked to the public stockade. I hate the whole ritual it happens all the time.

A scrunchy faced old white guy, who, yeah, probably was a tad of a racist, says something --suprise! -- racist and now the whole of america, offended, looks to him for an apology. Thus, in some weird turn of events, the task of re-affirming Black beauty falls to... Don Imus.

I mean, how invested in such a lame apology can America get? If your spouse continuously made such comments, and then a few days later, apologized, would you continue to act as if this ritualistic apology meant anything? Of course not. But every time a Mel Gibson, Ann Coulter, Isaiah Washington, or a Kramer comes out the gates with an idiotic rant, *bang*, suddenly america indignantly awaits the guy's apology.

Two points:

1.) The symbols in this ritual of boycotting Kramer/Mel Gibson/Ann Coulter, whoever, are obtuse. Don Imus is made out to represent the old, dying, racist that is said to lurk in all of us. The perfectly self-capable athletes of the rutgers scarlett knights are made to seem as if, to continue winning games, they now need Don Imus's validation.

2.) When, in our public discourse on race, did we begin to prefer symbols of villainy over those of decency: OJ Simpson, Mark Furhman, Kramer, whoever else. What happened to Jackie Robinson? Rober Kennedy? Now that racism has lost its institutional basis, the media acts like race dectectives, closely monitoring talk radio for the first slip-up, and bam, they nab another lurking, usually white, racist.

Maybe thats a good thing, but it makes for humilatingly stupid television. Fire Don Imus, fill his mouth with naps so he can never speak again, and let's move on with the news coverage. We've had this Michael Richardson, Mel Gibson debate plenty of times before. Its going nowhere. Some of you may have heard, there's a war going on.

Yes, I think a pejorative can involve race and not be racist. The distinction is subtle and has a lot to do with the intent and context behind the comments and if the comments are meant to be descriptive. For example, if David Duke called some black female student athletes some "nappy-headed hoes" I would say that his comments were racist. But, if I were watching the movie Friday and Felicia, the unkept, promiscuous crack-head, flashed on screen and a white person commented "there goes that nappy-headed ho" I couldn't really say that it was racist, because it was applicable. In the Imus situation, I believe that he used the phrase "nappy headed hoes" less in regard to the women's hair quality and level of promiscuity and more in regard to general racist caricatures. I think my point might be a little easier to see if you replaced the rutgers women with Condoleeza rice. The same principle applies.

If for example, you call a prostitute a hoe, then you could argue that it isn't sexist. But if you call a woman who isn't a prostitute a ho, then it is sexist because it isn't true and is drawing from established sexist caricatures and views about women. I think that was what Snoop was getting at with his comments (which were full of [feces] for other reasons).

The dude is almost 70. He should be aware of the traditional black stereotypical caricatures that were explicitly prevalent during his time: coon, sambo, jezebel, mammy, pickaninny, etc. Given his age and his track record of offensive language, I tend to think that his comments were drawn from those traditional, racist caricatures. Or he could have simply been drawing from the way that black women have traditional been viewed as less than beautiful for their failure to meet eurocentric beauty standards (what NT was talking about). To me, both of those options are rooted in racism.

I hate to drag on, but to summarize, I think we disagree in that you don't feel his comments were about race and I do feel his comments were about race and were therefore racist. The reason I say they were about race is because "nappy-headed ho" didn't apply to those women leaving their race as the only reason he used those particular words, thus being about race.



I wear my hair nappy (I call it a napfro) as an expression of my culture. So I probably would be annoyed, just like a Sikh might be annoyed if that same white guy asked, "hey forget to take the towel off your head today". Whether or not I took the comment to be racist depends on what I felt was his intent behind the comment. He could simply be ignorant, or we could just be cool like that and he had jokes (probably not but anything's possible). Now if the white guy in question was 70 and had a known history of making racist comments then I probably would think of the comments as racist.

Since you didn't bother to supply a link, I'll do it for you.

Here's a video of Coulter making the above remarks some might like to watch.

http://www.flicklife.com/fe054c86928f7016e...s_Don_Imus.html

Some of this is exactly what I would have expected from Coulter. It's more a slap at Al Sharpton than it is a defense of Don Imus. Guess you missed that. Edited to insert: Coulter defends Imus to a point, but draws the line at the remarks being made to non-public figures. While there is some truth to this, Coulter is being self-serving. Her bombastic remarks about public officials - John Edwards - become more acceptable because they are a public figure.

Edited to add:

Some have described this whole unfortunate incident as a "teachable moment." I tend to doubt that. The custody of Anna Nicole Smith's daughter seems to front and center again today. So much for any serious discussion of race relations. Imus fell in quicksand. It is not a matter of if someone else does, but when.

You read funny. Sure she's slapping Sharpton but she's making a pretty solid point.

As for a discussion on race relations - this fell short because it's not much of a case. When those who would defend Imus are so easily able to attack the messengers and parse the message the entire discussion becomes about the message. It becomes technical. This happens a lot. See also AWOL, Rathergate, etc.

Trent Lott's birthday wish is a similar tale. You only had to jump through 4 or five flaming hoops to get to that racist statement. Maccaca? Good luck.

When a truly racist sentiment is made by Hillary Clinton or at Condaleeza Rice though it seems as if the conversation can't really be had. The reasons behind that are numerous and not the point of this thread. However, if Imus wanted to diffuse the racism discussion being started on his dime then going to Sharpton was really the best thing he could have done. As soon as that lying huckster is involved with something it loses all credibility. The best thing for race relations and discussions on race that Sharpton and Jackson could ever do is promise never to speak on the topic.

I got the nuance of the video and part of her comments you left out and thanks to your laziness in not providing a link due to BA's not being to post links, I had to look for that.

One of the silver linings in all this is that people like Rush Limbaugh are going to have to clean up their acts. A prescedent has been set with firing of Imus. Hopefully Limbaugh will be next. Nothing can stop the Sharpton clean-up-the-air machine.

BTW: I know some of you ar going to say that Limbaugh is an intertainer. fine, but when Cheney goes on his show to get the "word" out to the faithful, that means there is something more there.

Actually Limbaugh is a bloated drug addict that's as marginalized as Sharpton. As for the link I can see it when I edit, but I can't see it when it's posted. Happened yesterday too. Sorry.

Tonyman

Good, so I think we are cclose to agreement on this.



Well, now you are making your judgement based on who is saying it, not the context. But chances are youhe would be making a racist comment, so let's let that dog sleep.



Agreed



I almost agree with you but for different reasons, I'll explain later.



I'm on the fence on this. "Ho" is a deragatory term for women, just like "Bitch" however "ho" isn't considered profanity. "Ho" has also become mainstream. Is it deragatory, in and of itself, yeah, is it sexist... I can see it being sexist. I can see it not. But I definately don't want to agree that it is the same as nappy-headed. Here is why.

You yourself admit that nappy can be used in a non-perjorative manner. Ho can't. Even if it is a prostitute, "ho" is a deragatory term for people who work in that profession, thus "ho" is deragatory always.



Again you are comparing the words Imus used with words that are racist in and of themselves:



Remember this for later.



Agreed that is the crux

Now let get into my views. I think he is talking about appearance, in a insulting way, and also in an exaggerating way when he calls them nappy headed ho's.

So let's examine it.

When he talks about their tattoos would you say he is talking about their race or appearance??
It is their appearance.

When he says they look rough, is he saying they are granular?? No he is insulting their appearance.

When he says that they are hardcore hoes... do you think he is saying they sell their body alot?? Or is he saying that they are females that look ugly? Agains seeing he just called them rough looking and commenting on tattoos I would say he is still talking about their appearance.

When he/they (whoever) says they look like the toronto raptors. Do you believe he thought they were men. No, he was exaggerating the fact he thought they were ugly females by comparing them to a male basketball team. Again, appearance.

When he said they looked "more like the grizzlies" which is also an NBA team, but I think was a insult on top of an insult... what is that called a double entrande or something like that.... whatever, again do you believe he actually thought they looked similar to bears?? No, again he is insulting their appearance in an exaggerated format.

Now we both agreed that nappy hair does deal with appearance, and when used in that context, it is not a racist term. We also agree that nappy hair, deals to a much larger extent with the nature of Black people hair. We also agree that if Imus introdeced nappy hair to make a comment or insult about their (rutgers female)race then that is a racist statement.

Now he made a litany of insults before and after the comment "nappy headed hos" EVERYONE of them dealt with appearance to recap

rough=appearance
tattoos=appearnce
hardcore ho's= appearance
Toronto raptors=appearnce
grizzlies=appearance.

Now the term "nappy headed ho's" taking what he said in context and given the two options of appearance or race, which we both agree are on the table. What was the comment about their race or appearance. you choose race, I choose appearance.

Everything else were insults towards their appearance all the way down the line. But the one comment that was on the fence... appearnce or race... you say it was acomment about their race. now here come the icing on the cake... not the meat, like you thought, it just the nail that seals the coffin to solidify my point.

Remember what you said.



They are playing another BLACK team!!! You are saying his comment is about their race, but he compares them to another team that is also predominately Black. If his mind was spinning about race... why would he (in the same line) say the other team is (who would fit the EXACT SAME carictures since they are predominately the EXACT SAME race) cute??


Why on earth do you dismiss all this context, and the comparison to another Black team, to say is nappyheaded insult was about "race" Nothing else was??

That was the logic I was trying to understand from other, that is the logic I am trying to understand from you now.

This is going to have repurcussions, IMO. They always say"choose your battle wisely" I think this was the wrong one to fight. Now they got teddy bears that say "nappy headed hoes". I just got this sinking feeling that this will be used as the example of "over sensitive Blacks gone wild"

I edited my previous post to reflet your problem with posting links.

Are you saying that Dick Cheney (uh, a proxy for the Bush Administration ) has chosen a "marganzlized ... bloated drug addict" to get out his message. Horrors!

I've been after WBAP in Fort Worth to fire Limbaugh for years. If at some point in the aftermath of the Imus affair, Al Sharpton can help us get rid of Rush, good for him.

Actually BOF- I would rather have Al Sharpton go than Imus. As far as I am concerned, Al Sharpton is 10 times worse than Imus could ever hope to be- the Tawana Bradley incident is far worse than anything Imus has EVER said or done.

In this, there is a real problem in credibility between black and white America, even those that are politically or philosophilically aligned with issues that seem to be important to black voters (as a trend).

I would probably be defending Al Sharpton myself if not for the fact of that Tawana Brawley fiasco, which was clearly fraudulent. IMHO- Sharpton should be doing time for extortion and racketeering on this one- just to understand I am consistant on this- and Brawley herself should be serving time too.

In fact, I think Al Sharpton's crime on that one is worse than Rush Limbaugh even.

If Sharpton can get rid of Limbaugh, I can overlook his "crimes."

Rush has murdered truth for nearly 20 years. If Sharpton can be the instrument to facilitate the departure, so be it. The Rev. Sharpton might even be doing "god's" work.

Just the fact that Cheney went on Limbaugh's show last week to tell the big Iraq lie once again is reason enough to rid ourselves of that venue.

I wouldn't give too much credit to Ann Coulter. She's about as innocent when it comes to giving offense as Snoop Dogg. The devil might be able to speak scripture, but that doesn't mean he believes it.

A resurgence in Anna Nicole news is no reason to think the serious discussion of race--and gender relations cannot continue. The infortainment machine is always ready to move on to the next dead starlet or celebrity in a compromising moment. They aren't faciliators of the debate. They only distract from it.

Sure someone will join Imus in the quicksand. Somebody should if those of us who have enough of the coarsening of the culture are serious about it. Saying there should be some standards doesn't mean there has to be censorship. Nobody is saying Snoop or The Game or "Fiddy" can't say horrible things about women they dislike. They just have to know there will be consequences if they DO.

It isn't necessairly likely, but it's not impossible that the self-immolation of Don Imus could serve as the catalyst for reclaiming the popular culture from the hucksters, hacks and hoods that have hijacked it.



Doesn't matter. Sometimes you have to start a fight to win it. Standing up in defense of the diginity of Black women seems to me a battle well worth waging. If people resent that Imus got hoisted on his own petard, I don't think they were the kind of people I want on my side anyway.

If Sanaa Lathan and Mo'nique are walking down the street together and you say, "Sanaa, you are so fine and cute and Mo'nique, you are so fat and ugly", have you merely praised one and insulted the other or insulted them both? I submit if you think you've paid the cute girl a compliment by dumping on the ugly one, you've got it exactly wrong.

There's a big difference between preferring the looks of one woman over another and holding a woman up for scorn and ridicule. What Don Imus did was wrong. He bullied the wrong people. He paid the cost in full. I'm not seeing the downside here, droop224.

Because if you're concerned about the future of Don Imus, don't be. He's been a good corporate whore for a long time and as long as he can make somebody some money, he'll never lack for pimps willing to exploit his dubious talents. If he wants to, he'll be back. Maybe in a smaller fishbowl than the one MSNBC and CBS Radio gave him, but I wouldn't worry about seeing Imus standing by a freeway exit ramp holding a cardboard sign that reads, "Will insult people you don't like for food."

As one of those "overly sensitive Blacks gone wild" you refer to, please explain why I should feel bad about the end of "Imus in the Morning?"

Do you feel bad when you flush the toliet?

I didn't mention those words to directly compare them to "nappy-headed hoes". I brought them up to show a source of caricatures where he may drawn his imagery from for his "nappy headed hoes" comment.



and I think he pulls out "nappy headed hoes" to do more than to simply continue his manly appearance insults, I think he uses "nappy headed hoes" to purposefully invoke racist imagery to insult the women. i have more on this below



As you listed, every other appearance related insult was applicable to his underlying insult that the rutgers team appeared manly. Nappy headed had nothing to do with manliness. By bringing up the Do the Right Thing (he meant School Daze) he was purposefully invoking the racist manner in which black women's beauty is evaluated according to eurocentric beauty standards (a major theme of the movie).

I don't think his compliment to the other black team matters because racism doesn't have to be used consistently. Think of his "compliment" to the lady vols as you would if he had followed his rutgers women insults with, "but Lisa Raye is fine". The same principle applies and it wouldn't diminish the racism of the nappy-headed hoes comment one bit.

Think of in Do the Right Thing when the Italian dude is talking about how he likes Micheal Jordan, Micheal Jackson, etc, but he still doesn't like [n-words]. Just because he compliments some black folks doesn't mean his other statements aren't racist. I'm not saying these are the same situations. I only brought up the Do the Right Thing example to illustrate how racist comments don't have to be consistent. I knew plenty of white guys who didn't have a problem making racist comments while exceptionalizing and complimenting black people they liked.

Why would he do that? It could be for any number of reasons. Maybe he was on a roll insulting the women for what he considered their lack of feminity and he simply wasn't witty enough to insult a black person without resorting to unoriginal racism. Looking over his history it seems that racist comments are a well tread territory for him so maybe he just slipped into older form (he had supposedly cleaned up his act before the recent comments). Maybe he called the lady vols team cute to make up for his comments about the rutgers women.



You might not expect it, but I actually totally agree with you on this point. While I think his comments were racist, I don't think they warranted all of this attention (oh no, a white person said something racist), and I definitely see it causing more harm than good. There's a lot of real, unquestionable, much more damaging racism that this media energy could have been put into addressing. How about they start with freeing Gary Tyler from prison.

and you're right again, they probably will use this to discredit when there really is something worth the attention.

Someting that was completely ignored in all postings, by Amlord:



Well, yes, there would be, because women cannot put up with this forever. Above all, its cruel. And it seems to be ok in society to do this to women of ANY race, but its just not.

What really is the heart of the problem, even 'this problem' is that Women can be disparaged by their appearance, no matter what race. Active, fit, successful, intelligent and competent women can be wrought and brought down, be considered insignificant by looks alone, despite great achievments, by a hurtful, harmful and useless remarks, because they have certain physical attributes such as hair, tattoos, muscle, are of particular culture, body type, or even intelligence level etc.
Serena Williams, for example has battled the media on this all of her career, and Hillary Clinton being accused of lesbianism for being strong and smart. Its a big problem that everyone thinks has gone away with feminism, but it hasnt.

Racism is prominent in the US, but sexism is prominent even within the communities that desire equality for themselves against other men. Equality is good for them, but not for ( their) women. As pointed out by ' bitches and ho's'. WE may call our women bitches and ho's , but YOU cant.

We women are not bitches and ho's. Don Imus cannot call us Ho's, and neither can some Rapper.
It doesnt matter that he said 'nappy headed' referring I suppose to the black women on the team. He called the team, black and white, who just had the victory of their life - Ho's. Whores.

Noone calls women whores without severe reprocussions. Thats what is being lost here. Because in most peoples minds sexist remarks are ok, but racist remarks are outrageous.

So heres the slant, your daughter is a whore, and so is your wife, so is your sister, and your mother. This is what we have been putting up with in public and common terminology, everywhere, in music, on the radio and television, cable, MTV, all day, everyday, if we are not being violently slaughtered for entertainment value.
So, hows that for racism?
Or will the real issue of sexism , a rude awakening, finally sink in?

Typically in the life cycle of a story there isn't a clearly defined beginning, middle and end, but the story of the fall of Don Imus is one of those rare exceptions. What is also remarkable for a thread of this length there was only a single admonishment from a Moderator. Somewhat remarkable when one considers how often topics in Race Debate come to a premature end.

The last time a thread in the Race Debate forum garnered over 230 replies and 7,600 views was Mrs. Pigpen's "When Will Affirmative Action End?" thread that began in April 07, 2003 (!) and remained open until January 24, 2004. I'm slightly impressed that a thread that got as hot and heavy as this one was able to remain (mostly) civil.

I can't say if history will clarify if Imus was the villain or victim of this affair, but I think out of the negativity of the initial "nappy-headed ho's" comment some positive debate was spawned by it.

My sentiments are mirrored in NEWSWEEK'S article about the sudden fall from grace of Don Imus:

Long protected by the senators and journalistic satraps who paid him court, Imus found himself consumed by perhaps the only forces in American life more powerful than those that elevated him to his place of privilege: the politics of race and gender. With his double-barreled Rutgers remark, he inadvertently unleashed years of pent-up anger about his racial, ethnic, misogynist and homophobic antics. Suddenly some of America's largest media companies and most important corporate advertisers were confronted with the fact that they had been complicit in the rise and reign of a purveyor of ugly stereotypes. Mainstream figures and institutions that had chosen to compartmentalize the Imus kingdom—enjoying the salon while overlooking the slurs—realized they could no longer have it both ways.

The remark and its aftermath brought renewed attention to a perennial fissure in American life: the