I don't necessarily think Don Imus is a racist, but he says racist things. And in today’s world there isn’t much difference.Imus in the Morning was a comedy show. Often, it was racist comedy -- not intented to offend because they are just being politically incorrect and ironic and ha-ha nappy-headed ho-ho. But wrinkled old white men in cowboy hats shouldn’t be instructing minorities on how to make distinctions.
I really don't like Imus, probably because as a long-time Howard Stern listener, I was conditioned to hate him. In his defense, I suppose there is at least a shade of difference between him and Mel Gibson, who is a certified anti-Semite. Or Michael Richards, who used racial slurs as last-resort daggers to defend his shitty stand-up act against a heckler.
Imus trades in the tradition of childish shock comedy -- he might even have invented it for radio. It can be funny to say something outrageous when everyone knows you're just making a joke. This litany of racial insults -- including the crack at Gwen Iffil -- are all taken out of context, even if the context doesn’t excuse him. He’s the one who told Mike Wallace he hired Bernard McGuirk to “tell ni**er jokes.” He obviously encourages or at least endorses the bigotry that infiltrates much of the insult humor the show is known for.
I suppose there’s a good chance Imus harbors racist notions, though at least he's not speaking with clear malice or intent to influence people. Limbaugh, Hannity and O’Reilly are far more barbaric and sly in their overt intentions to subvert dignified, rational discourse in this country.
And just about all morning drive-time radio is populated by waterhead shit-tards like JV and Elvis on 92.3 FM who not only make the world dumber with every word extruded from their empty skulls, but probably make other, yet-discovered worlds dumber as well.
Howard Stern behaves in insulting and demeaning ways all the time. But more often than not, he is the butt of his own jokes, playing up his insecurities and neuroses. He's given the ethnicity-card-carrier's dispensation to make fun of Jews because he is Jewish. And Robin Quivers provides him with some leeway to poke fun at blacks and women. Sure, the comedy is coarse and silly. But nobody mistakes Howard for some high-minded journalist.
Imus’ comedic persona clashes with his role as a serious interviewer of politicians and celebrity journalists. There’s something to be said about freedom of speech and the freedom to be insulting and the freedom to be an asshole. But there’s also something to be said of the value CBS Radio and NBC place on their air time. Nobody said you have a right to be an asshole in front of millions of people and supported by giant corporations.
As always, it’s money that decided his fate. Not the hurt of the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team. Not the ravings of slick hate-mongers like Al Sharpton and corporate extortionists like Jesse Jackson.
But maybe all this hysteria (itself a money-maker) worked in the end. The free market spoke.
In today's world, there shouldn't be a place for this shit on radio. It's not hardcore racism meant to rip someone apart and demean them. But that doesn't excuse it or reduce its impact. And in it's quasi-socially acceptable way, that kind of talk can be even more insidious.
16 comments:
This whole thing could possibly be the single biggest overreaction in the history of TV and radio.
The funny thing is that Al Sharpton actually believes that it's the moral outrage of the community (and his outrage, specifically) that led to the ultimate firing of Imus, and not the bottom lines of billion-dollar corporations.
The other funny thing is that Imus will be back on the air somewhere within a year - ratings beats morals every time. To quote "Private Parts":
"But if they hate him, why do they listen?"
"They wanna see what he's gonna say next."
I couldn't agree more with The Perl about Al Sharpton's belief that he made this happen. Hopefully he'll try to run for President and expose himself as the opportunist he is.
Whats also funny is that most of these "champions" of civil rights lack the true courage to address the real problem of this nation's addiction to the hip-hop culture. Our society, and in particular the black society, endorses every aspect of mass media that celebrates misogyny, racism, and violence.
If Sharpton, Jackson & crew really wanted to make a difference they would ignore Imus as the ass that he is and convince the media to pull the purse string closed on all projects that undermine an already challenged race.
Imus is a symptom of a society desensitized to racism becasue we are exposed to it every day in some form or another. I myself use my "ghetto" voice or say "nigga pleaz" to get a laugh.
Hopefully, a lesson will be learned from all of this but I doubt it...until then.
g-race
Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly subvert rational discourse in this country? Who are you, Pinch Sulzberger?! All that liberal guilt.
That's absurd. Next time you say something uninformed and stupid, at least complete the lie and make up some fictitious examples of how they do that....a typical liberal bomb thrower.
Good thing your NAACP membership card does not require a picture or they would know the truth about you...you ELITIST!
to T.O'Neill-Allure:
I'm sure Bones will properly address your concerns in a more satisfactory manner than I could ever hope to achieve, but did you not even bother to click the hyperlink to such examples (non-fictitious, I'm sorry to say) embedded IN THE VERY SENTENCE to which you criticize for lack of examples???
If you were to read more than just the latest post, you would also realize that this collective blog holds numerous examples supporting Bones' opinions, and when he makes a statement re-affirming those opinions in said blog, he is not obligated to re-link and re-post every relevant thing he ever stated or quoted to "prove" it to an obvious passer-by who stopped just long enough to hurl a few vague insults, without offering any true insight of their own.
Speaking of rational discourse, attacking someone's argument with nothing but "That's absurd - Where's your proof?" would hardly qualify as rational discourse in anyone's book.
Myself - I really don't even pretend to understand the whole "conversative vs liberal" battle, since I choose to look at each issue and action idendepently of any preconceived "party line stance" and then make my own assessment on a case-by-case basis. But feel free to label me what you will as well - I'm sure it will help you sleep better tonight.
"liberal bomb thrower", "elitist", "uniformed", and "stupid" - Is that all you got for Bones, huh?
Why not just call him a "big poopy-head" and call it a day? It seems to carry about the same intellectual weight, seeing as how your comments remind me of most first grade schoolyard shouting matches.
And you give a bad name to all the "T"s out there!
-T Perl
Thanks, Perl. I was going to point Tip O'Neill-Allure toward the same link. He could also check out this link:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895
...which chronicles a decent sampling of Rush Limbaugh's lies and distortions from a brief period in 1993-94. The best part is Fair's response to Limbaugh's non-response
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1906
...which can be found here:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1896
But it's not just the lies and distortions which make for the subversion of rational discourse I was talking about.
It's the generally mean tenor of folks like Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Neill-Allure, Coulter, Michael Moore and Al Franken. So much radio and cable talk today involves people harping on and inflaming the differences among us. It takes a brave, fair-minded radio host like NPR's Brian Lehrer to constantly seek a consensus among people with differing points of view.
I suppose that makes me elitist. Unlike regular folk like Connecticut-bred, Yale/Harvard-educated blue-bloods like our president.
The truth is not partisan. But if all you knew was learned from major media, you wouldn't know very much.
Some other thoughts:
Imus' ratings actually stunk. His recent clout came from the demographics of his small audience: affluent people who buy books. This is why politicians and journalists clamored to join in his little potty-humor salon.
And G-Race, plenty of people might find you speaking in ebonics to be funny in that highly evolved irony sort of way. But what would be your defense if a black person overheard you saying "nigga pleaz" and took offense?
You couldn't say, "Brotha, get a sense of humor." You have a right to say things that might offend people, but you can't control other people's reactions. If someone is offended, they are offended.
And when we are talking about the most racially charged word that exists in this country, I say all bets are off. White people just shouldn't use it unless they are making a clear academic point with people who know you are making an academic point.
Which is why I deleted Birdman's racist comment above.
Birdman, you weren't making any kind of joke. Only racists refer to black people as the n-word (or N.) You can be a racist if you want. But not here.
Al Sharpton is a criminally negligent race-bating hustler and anti-Semite. He has done more damage to race relations in this country than 10 Imuses. He doesn't believe in facts and never meant an honest white cop. The worst thing to emerge from this recent fiasco is that Sharpton has likely extended his influence for years and we all need to continue pretending he still has some kind of moral capital.
You can call him plenty of things, but when you toss around racial slurs, you exit rational conversation and enter a hate-filled vaccum that sucks out all logic and peace.
Only a personal affront to you could possibly justify even contemplating such kinds of attacks. What in your coddled, affluent middle-class upbringing (same as mine, I recall) gives you such pain that you feel the need to throw around a word that stinks of slavery and lynchings and the treatment of people as inhuman because of their skin color?
Other than living as a Jew in a town with more Jews than almost any other town in the country and a single Nazi family, what happened to you that would make you think it's ok judge people you don't know?
You don't have to like Sharpton. I don't. You don't have to like black people or their culture in general. There's lots about it that I find troublesome.
But if there's anything to learn out of this whole Imus thing, it's that words can hurt. And when you use them, there can be consequences.
Save yourself some trouble in the future, and choose your words better.
And finally, to address some of the substantive comments above (including some by Birdman), I think it helps to explore the difference between Imus and rappers and guys like Dave Chapelle (who actually left his show precisely because he didn't want to muddy the line between racist satire and racism).
I think Andrew Sullivan makes some good points here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/south_park_and__1.html
And Stephen Metcalf spells out exactly where Imus went wrong here:
http://www.slate.com/id/2164055/nav/tap1/
I don't think this was an overreaction. Al Campannis and Jimmy The Greek got fired for saying similar shit decades ago (and Jimmy wasn't even on the air when he made his fatal mistake).
This gets blown out of proportion only in the same way everything does today. It's the internet and the pervasiveness of cable tv and the simple speed and persistance of a juicy story. Ten years ago this might have disappeared into the ether, but these days it gets recorded and rehashed forever.
I think the fact it's sparked so many discussions like this one is evidence of a healthy reaction, not an overreaction.
I believe there is a total difference between an "N" person and a black person. Yes, they are both from the same race but there is a differenc.
But brother, it ain't your place to point it out. Not using that word. Not in public. It just isn't.
People of all colors can be assholes. Call them assholes.
Gene Robinson explains it better than I could:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/12/AR2007041201825.html
Please read it. REALLY read it. And try to learn something important. I'm not trying to sound all morally superior here. If you were just another racist among so many shitheal racists in this country, I wouldn't be giving you such a hard time. But I care about you, and this is important.
I guess we are just gonna have to disagree on this one. Okay...on to the next topic....
Well spoken Gerace and Perl. I'm not sure this is the appropriate forum to have a real discussion about such a complex issue - suffice to say that the hypocrisy surrounding this issue on so many levels is enormous. The real problem is that this type of bullshit only serves to polarize normally rational thinking people and sets race relations back 20 years. Where is Reverend Jackson's apology to the Duke Lacrosse players?
PS - I'm kinda curious to see the Birdman's original comments...
Got a better forum? This one will do, I figure.
Kevin's original comments were a long the lines of "if Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle and rappers can use the n-word, why can't white people?"
And he blatantly called Al Sharpton the n-word. Not to make a point, but just because he doesn't like him and knows it's the insult that packs the biggest punch. Which is exactly why it should be off limits.
I don't like Sharpton either (though I'm in the peculiar position of rooting for him when he goes on Sean Hannity's show). But this entire discussion surrounding Imus has to do with the power of words and when they shouldn't be used.
Gene Robinson:
"For young black hip-hop artists to use such language to demean black women is similarly deplorable -- and, I would argue, even more damaging. But come on, people, don't deceive yourselves that it's precisely the same thing. Don't pretend that 388 years of history -- since the first shackled African slaves arrived at Jamestown -- never happened. The First Amendment notwithstanding, it has always been the case that some speech has been off-limits to some people. I remember a time when black people couldn't say "I'd like to vote, please." Now, white people can't say "nappy-headed hos." You'll survive."
So, Vito, what is the "bullshit" you think has polarized the country more: Sharpton and Jackson's flogging of Imus or the ostrich-like tolerance for the kind of racism Imus and others have been guilty of for decades?
Yes, Sharpton and Jackson should be ignored for past and future transgressions against humanity. But even if they didn't exist, Imus would have been fired. It's not a recent trend. People who say things like this on the air get fired.
There's a difference between the absolute right to free speech and the right to have that speech subsidized by huge corporations.
So, I agree with Perl and Gerace that there's a double standard. But so what? Are you really going to fight for your right to be a well-paid public bigot?
Anyone can say horrible things in public if they want. And the better folks among us have the right to shout you down and make you pay.
I know you're not a bigot. So what greater good are you defending?
I'm not defending anything, nor am I taking any kind of stand on free speech. I certainly don't think 300 years of oppression polarizes people. It's pretty much accepted as a horrible injustice by all but the most small minded people, and most of the state of Texas.
So to answer your question: Sharpton and Jackson's drum beating hypocrisy poses as great a threat to race relations in this country as anything else, including the grammy-winning music that propagates and perpetuates the very perceptions that are most dangerous to the African-American community. I don't believe that just because rappers use the n-word, it should be ok for white folk to use it. If it is so bad - IT SHOULDN'T BE USED AT ALL. I'm not judging a black man who does, but he ain't doing his race any favors. This discussion should be about a whole lot more than "words and when they shouldn't be used." If that is all it is to you, then you are missing my point. Hate-speech is damaging WHENEVER it is used. So if black people have to refrain from using the n-word to help shift ignorant perceptions in this country - they'll survive.
I think your brother's reaction illustrates my point precisely. Here is an educated, open-minded and unbiased man pushed to the extremes of his emotions. If this is his reaction to Imus' firing, how do you think the great unwashed of this country is reacting? Now tell me how it will further race relations?
Honestly, dude, there is so much more to say about this and there are so many shades of gray that I don't think I can appropriately convey what I'm trying to say in writing. That's why this is a discussion I'd much prefer to have with someone in person, lest your words get misunderstood and some jackass calls you a 'bigot.'
Vito, I think you underestimate your writing ability. I got your point now. Though I wasn't sure before what you were agreeing with before that last response.
And I agree with much of what you've said.
But I wouldn't call my brother "open-minded" when it comes to this issue. Which is precisely the deeper problem. Not just words.
But words are what started this discussion. They reflect underlying attitudes. And if those attitudes are ever going to change, then we (not just the five of us, but the country) need to continue talking about it.
Post a Comment