That’s a quote from Don Imus. Because he felt the women of the Rutger’s University basketball team were not sufficiently feminine, he felt it was ok to call them nappy headed hos. This site has the actualy clip of Imus and his sidekick making racist and sexist remarks (For good measure the site also has edited in a clip of Billy Packer saying “fag.”). The national Association of Black Journalists called for an apology from Imus. Imus subsequently issued an apology, but is that enough?
Quaker Dave is calling for Imus to be ousted from MSNBC. He also has the contact information.
Media Matters on the comments by Imus and his partners Sid Rosenberg and Bernard McGuirk.
Pingback: muttering in a corner
Pingback: a-blog馬鹿
Pingback: Silver Wise Owl - MySpace Blog
Who is this weirdo? Why have I never heard of him before?
He’s a shock jock on the east coast. Still very popular, used to be more popular pre-Howard Stern.
I assume that you haven’t heard of him before because you have a life.
I never heard of him either. But I was just wondering, is he being attacked more because his ignorant comment because it was more racist or sexist?
Why does it even need to be qualified like that? It was a stupid, racist and sexist thing to say.
Will someone please tell these people that being shocking for the sake of shocking is just about as boring as it gets? It just means you’re incapable of cleverness or creativity.
I’m just curious, because for me it raises the issue of whether our society is more racist or sexist.
Pingback: Pacific Views: Making The Rounds
I have a clip of Imus commenting on video footage of Palestians mourning the death of Arafat. He said we should drop the bomb and kill all the Palestians. (I used the clip in a piece of music, posted here: http://www.berkeleynoise.com/celesteh/podcast/?p=27 )
He’s vile.
As to the question whether America is more sexist or racist . . .. If you had the answer to that question, how would it change your actions? I can see how trying to answer it can cause folks to become annoyed with each other instead of cooperating. But I can’t see how the answer would actually help anybody. Because one might be worse than the other, but they both are pretty sucky and need a lot of work. So did Imus use racist and sexist slurs against the basketball team because he’s racist or because he’s sexist? He did it because he’s both! He doesn’t have to pick and we don’t either. Fight both wherever they turn up.
I don’t think Imus has to be racist or sexist — he just has to know how to get his listeners to listen. There’s a lot of mileage to be had from insulting women’s sports teams. Many men still think women’s sports isn’t real. My guess is that Imus just picked an insult and threw it out to his audience. If you look at the poll CNN is running right now (here), the vote isn’t all that uneven — there’s far from an unambiguous outcry against him. And that, I suspect, reflects the many men who think women athletes deserve any insult a man can send their way.
Julie HOC,
It also matters that the women targeted were black.
Boring.
It’s not at all clear that it does, given that he then went on to say, “the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute,” and they’re black, too (as far as I can tell—the video clip isn’t very clear). His choice of whom to insult and whom to compliment was based on his perception of their attractiveness, not their race.
But his choice of insult had everything to do with our society’s perception of black women, women who don’t kow-tow to male dominance (these are the nation’s elite college atheletes), and women who succeed at their own predetermined goals.
It’s like calling a man a bitch. The slur isn’t that he *is* a bitch. It’s that we all know that when women fuck up, they’re bitches, so it’s a real slam to refer to an adult male as a woman.
I usually don’t pay any attention to whatever Howard Stern or the rest of his ilk say or do, but this seemed so outrageous that I actually read the story to see if it was true; I didn’t believe it at first, I figured someone had to be exaggerating.
It just goes to show at this point that for much of the mainstream media, it’s all about what they can sell, what people will watch or listen to. Truth, integrity and morality have little importance. They’ll sell anything and Devil take the hindmost. What kind of people decide to put this kind of stuff on the airwaves to make a living?
And what kind of people find this amusing? Why is there a market for this? I’m sure you’ll respond, “Because there’s racism in America, RonF”, and you’re right on the money.
Imus says “I’m still a good person.”
If you want to read the whole thing, here’s the wapo article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR2007040900098.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Brandon,
You know good and well he would not have called white women nappy headed hos.
References to black women as prostitutes and whores are very common in American culture. Do a google search or “black hos” and then do a google search or “white hos”. See what comes up; there is a huge difference. And if he thought they were unattractive he could have said it without referencing their sexuality or hair texture.
Those insults were very much race-based.
I don’t understand why some folks want to see this as mostly racist or mostly sexist when it’s obviously both. “Nappy haired” is old school racism. Those are very loaded words. Is the point to pretend that racism is solved or getting better? Because those words (plus a million other things) make it very clear that racism is not solved and, I would argue, it’s getting worse.
Sakura– the insult that Imus chose to use against these black young women is an odd one, in that you can’t really separate the insult into a race-based or a sex-based components. It’s really an insult that could only be said about a black woman or girl– and no one else. Very few people in other races share our natural hair texture. (Though interestingly enough– most of those women had straightened hair, so “nappy” would not apply in any manner. And men are rarely insulted over how they wear their hair, these days.) And it’s not very common that men are called whores, or that “ho” is used as a slang version of whore, when referring to women of other races. Jiggaboos? Another race-based insult. (However, that could be used against black men or women.) The things Don Imus said could pretty much only be said to insult black women– not other races of women, and not black men. I don’t know if that helps you understand if our society is more racist or more sexist. It’s clear to me that Don Imus is a racist. And I think that anyone who insults women– some young enough to still be catagorized as “girls,” is pretty low. What did these student-athletes do to deserve this??? I’d be interested in hearing what conclusion you could draw about the issue, though.
Faith
Imus’s Jigaboos vs wannabees comment is also obviously race-based, in which light skinned women are attractive (Tennesse’s team) and that dark skinned women are ugly (Rutgers). Colorism.
…Oh. And while “jiggaboo” is a racist insult against blacks, in general, in the context of Spike Lee’s movie it was used to describe a group of black women.
Just thinking about all the things Don Imus said about the Rutgers women sickens me. Why in the world he decided to forgo commenting about the game itself, and decided to attack these women’s appearance and sexuality in racist terms is just beyond me. I can’t imagine a team of white men or women athletes– in a championship game no less– being discussed in terms of their race, their appearance, and whether or not they where whores.
Fire Don Imus.
Faith
Faith said, “…you can’t really separate the insult into a race-based or a sex-based components.”
Amen to that.
Faith also has a good point because all of the women I saw had relaxed hair. So he used the term nappy headed in an unusual/incorrect way.
Also the “jigaboo wannabes” reference–they didn’t even know the right movie. THe movie is School Daze, not Do the Right Thing.
I find his remarks interesting. Notice how he makes a point to say he finds certain Black women attractive. He equates nappy hair with a lower class of black woman. Interestingly enough, I saw this same kind of prejudice from a black male who tried to claim he had not fathered a child. He pointed out that he had “short, nasty, nappy hair ” while the child had “long silky hair .”
I don’t follow women’s basketball but out of curiosity I googled women’s basketball and found that Rutgers lost to Tennessee. Sure enough the pictures showed a difference in hair styles between the two groups. So it seems that people formulate perceptions based on how Black women choose to style their hair.
Rachel:
He called them hoes because they had tattoos. The perception of an association between tattoos and promiscuity and/or general trashiness is not something that’s limited to black women. For example, lower-back tattoos on white women are called “tramp stamps.” It wouldn’t strike me at all as unusual if a man were to call a group of white women with visible tattoos “hoes.”
I’m not sure what you mean about Google. “White hoes” gets slightly more googits than “black hoes,” and likewise “hos”. Are you talking about quantity or quality?
The only other time I’ve ever heard the phrase “nappy-head” was back in high school, when a Mexican boy called a Mexican girl with straight hair a nappy-head. I realize that one meaning of nappy is the texture of a black person’s hair, but it also means icky or unappealing, and is used as a generic insult. You can argue that the second meaning has racist origins in that it was derived from the first, but words tend to get divorced from their origins, and people use them without understanding where they came from.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that it wasn’t a bad thing to say. I’m just saying that I’m not sure race factored into it much if at all. Racism is one of the few things that’s more or less universally regarded as unacceptable in American culture, so as a rule non-nuts don’t say things which are clearly racist. Which is why most of the examples of racist comments that you post are ambiguous.
To use the word “ho” is to signify racist animus. To use it in conjunction with “nappy” merely emphasizes that the animus was intended. Full stop. Even the casual use of the word “ho” without intending personal insult to any other party in the conversation will stop many Black women in their tracks because it is considered to be so insulting and demeaning, in the coarsest way imaginable. I dare Imus to use the word “cunt” in his radio broadcast to see what happens. I don’t consider it to be any different. I hold this view based on conversations with Black female professional and clerical employees in my organization who were angered and in some cases reduced to tears after learning that one of our senior managers participated in an on-line joke exchange in which the word “ho” figured prominently as a punchline. As for tattoos being a sign of promiscuity, you can tattoo my ass. What a silly thing to say.
Brandon, this is sort of a circular argument, isn’t it? You say that Imus probably didn’t intend it to be a comment about race at all, because “as a rule non-nuts don’t say things which are clearly racist.” But when a non-nut like Imus says something that IS clearly racist — and “nappy-headed hos,” in this context, is extremely clear — you use special pleading to explain why it isn’t racist.
With all due respect, since (if this current thread is anything to judge by) you bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging racism, your perspective on how often people say racist things is certain to be an underestimate.
Amp said, “With all due respect, since (if this current thread is anything to judge by) you bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging racism, your perspective on how often people say racist things is certain to be an underestimate. ”
Yep, and this is why Brandon is a colorblind racist of the highest degree. When it comes to racism, he follows the ignore, deny, minimize mantra.
He always has an excuse for racist behavior whether or not it is:
1) It’s not really race it’s class.
2) He’s a nice person he cannot be racist.
3) It’s really about attractiveness. (As if race has nothing whatsoever to do with how attractiveness is defined.)
Brandon you never met a case of racism you believed. In fact you say racism is “universally unacceptable,” yet you are one of the first people to accept it over and over again. In my view people like yourself are way more dangerous than the KKK or the Aryan Nation because you are able to cloak your racism in acceptable language and hide behind colorblindness; thus, many less informed people may fall for your arguments. Moreover, your beliefs allow you (and others suckered by your beliefs) to maintain faith in the “merit” of our current system. You can hold on to abstract liberalism and individualism because you don’t see any racism anywhere. Thus, black people are not doing worse in this country because of racism, no it always something else because racism doesn’t exist.
Denial isn’t only a river is Egypt is it?
Amp writes:
I’m not sure if Brandon’s remark is akin to mine in #8, but since the poll I referenced in that post is still running about 50/50 (with 80,000+ “votes” cast), I think it’s entirely plausible that Imus went to the Systematic Insulting Phrase Generator, plugged in some attributes of the people he wished to insult, and got the phrase he used. Short of “Rutgers really sucks!”, just about any phrase that’s going to be used to degrade a group is going to have some amount of racism, sexism, classism, etc. in it. Because … those things are fertile soil for insults.
(And please don’t remind me that authorial intent is dead …)
Apparently, this was part of a larger skit mocking the usual empty blather traditional sports analysis offers about sports (tune in to practically any sports talk show, pregame/postgame show, etc and you’ll know what I mean).
Imus was, instead of talking about the players’ “inspirational” backgrounds or overanalyzing the teams’ schedules to death, was rating them based on physical attractiveness, picking that as a ridiculous object of analysis as a way of mocking the traditional sports talk shows.
So it didn’t come out of the blue–it still is a disgusting thing to have said, and he has no excuse for not realizing how offensive it was, but it’s not like he decided to viciously deride the Rutgers team out of nowhere. It’s more like those stupid jokes about rape that pop up on occasion, where it’s obvious to everyone but the teller that they’re not at all funny and are completely inappropriate.
I guess that’s not impossible, but … you have to have race on the mind and believe certain things about race to be using the phrase “nappy-headed” to insult a woman’s attractiveness, don’t you?
(Clearly, I think you do.)
I did a quick Google search, and if by ‘Tennessee’ he meant Chattanooga, then they have an all-black squad from what I can tell. (Not all the players had pictures posted.) So at least we know this guy probably isn’t exceptionally prejudiced against black women; just a combination of the every day, regular prejudice against them common for anyone in his demographic and a lowlife of a big mouth.
I could conceivably believe that “ho” was not intended as a racial insult. Not bloody likely, but benefit of the doubt, OK, it’s possible. The addition of “nappy” makes it obvious.
I do not condone Imus’ remark, and he certainly should have known better. On the other hand, if a prominent African American like Spike Lee had made a similar remark about an all white girls basketball team or volleyball team, he would have gotten away with it. And Lee is known for his less than flattering view of whites The same can be said of other prominent blacks like Jessee Jackson (I believe the good Reverend once referred to a Jewish Community in NYC as Hymietown (sp),and Al Sharpton. Face it people, a double standard exists in this upside down politically correct society we live in
I do remember Jackson’s “Hymietown” remark — it was a huge story at the time (which was 1984). Jackson eventually met with Jewish leaders and gave an emotional apology speech, and it took him years to repair his relations with the Jewish community.
As for Sharpton, his involvement with the Brawley case a couple of decades ago, and also his anti-semitic “diamond merchant” remark in 1991, are still poisoning his reputation today — although he’s also done quite a lot of good since then. The media criticism of Sharpton over these two controversies was pretty relentless.
Not that I’m complaining; both Jackson and Sharpton deserved their roastings in the press. Just as Imus now deserves his problems. But I don’t know why you think there’s a double-standard going on; it took years of work on his part before Jackson was let off the hook, and I don’t think Sharpton has ever been fully let off the hook.
If Spike Lee had . . . but he didn’t. And when he does ridicule and insult, oh I don’t know, the BYU Dance, Drill and Pom Squad on sexist and racist grounds, I promise to be the first to call him on it.
Jackson and Sharpton I have problems with — they both have a long history of insulting others. Not just making politically pointed remarks that others might find a bit challenging, but outright insulting people, and that shows up in their respective histories, vis a vis, Jews.
Spike Lee, on the other hand, seems more politically oriented, probably because as a film maker, no one has to worry about G-d smiting them if Lee says something idiotic and they call Lee out. I think that if Jackson and Sharpton didn’t have “Rev.” in front of their names they’d have become irrelevant years ago.
Boy, that one took me aback for a second, Barbara. Ever notice how an “m” looks a lot like an “rn” in certain fonts? I read “the BYU Dance, Drill and Porn Squad” there for a second. Now there’s an idea for Spike Lee ….
Ronf writes:
Did you check out his character in “Malcolm X”? If film is reality (no, it isn’t, just saying …) it would seem Spike has a thing for white women ;)
RonF, in many cases you read what you think should be there not what actually is, that’s why it’s very difficult for an original author to proof his or her own work. Not sure what that says about your initial reading of my post . . .
I don’t think I have ever said the word “nappy-headed”, but I have heard the term repeatedly over the past thirty-plus years. And, I am completely sure that I have never used the word “Ho” or “Ho’s”. However, I do find it interesting that black comedians and lyricists have made both terms part of the norm in our cultutre.
I also find it very interesting to see the (what must certainly be) fiened outrage over these terms that are repeated end over end in modern inner-city speech, literature, and music …with both black and white producers smiling as they fill there sweaty pockets. I think they know more than anyone just how un-moved people really are over such derogatory terms, they count on it.
Personally, I could do without either term.
“a double standard exists in this upside down politically correct society we live in ”
A) Reverse racism is a canard.
B) To refer to the society as “upside down” because white people are called out for insulting black people but not vice versa, indicates that you think the other way is the correct order. It is a racist thing to say.
I just read a quick report where the coach spoke in defense of the players. Thanks to reading Rachel’s blog all the time, I immediately noticed that she defended the players as “articulate.” Any guesses as to why?
Imus must go. In a world today where we send our children off to be educated, after we have taught them fair play and honesty, we expect that they should be protected and applauded for their achievements. What right does Imus have to degrade their ethnicity that in a hurtful and embarrasing way. To allow him to stay tells the world that his behavior is condoned. What will happen when the next commentator takes the same deliberate liberties and makes racial and sexist slurs. The racist slurs, expressed by Imus, has told a sizable percentage of the population that you don’t need to be proud of your accomplishments. Because prejudice, racism and and sexism will still be exercised against you.
These Rutgers student athletes should have come home to a parade with banners and congratulations because they are good. What will this do to the personalities and psyche of these young women in the future. Remember your accomplishments in school. Think about your memories. Think about the memories of these young ladies.
Media Management should not allow this to continue. By the way, Imus is not funny. Imus must go. He has done more to hurt the image of women athletes, student athletes, African Americans and women than anyone I know (in recent years).
Because college athletes are stereotyped as dumb?
people can not be insulted unless they ALLOW someone to insult them…. let’s disect this ….. nappy headed hos…. are they hos? if they aren’t…then it’s NOT an insult because it’s an untruth….if they ARE hos….then it is NOT an insult because they are indeed hos… are they nappy headed? if they ARE nappy headed, then it is NOT an insult because in fact they are nappy headed, if they are not nappy headed…then it is NOT an insult because it’s an untruth..pull your big girl panties up folks… is it an insult to call a tall person tall? a short person short? blond haired person blonde? Is it an insult to call a fat person fat? NO…for indeed they ARE fat…if they weren’t…then no, it is not an insult because it is not true…Why do people ALLOW others the satisfaction of thinking they are insulting…there is no such thing as an insult, what the person is saying is either true or false, either way, it’s not an insult… quit GIVING so much power to others
Here’s the perfect litmus test for knwogin whether or not something is racist:
Because a person of color told you that it is.
People of color do not need to prove to you that a racist comment or action is racist. Learn for yourself. If you don’t – or refuse – to understand, you have no one else to blame but yourself.
Here’s the perfect litmus test for knwogin whether or not something is racist:
Because a person of color told you that it is.
That’s absurd.
It’s certainly a data point that a person of good will should be open to, should listen to, etc. But the opinions of random members of a class are hardly dispositive, to say nothing of the obvious problem of varying opinions. If Jesse Jackson tells me something isn’t racist, and Thomas Sowell says it is, or vice-versa, should my head explode? Should I poll all the people of color I know, and then the thing is racist in proportion to their votes?
We’re all grown ups. We have to make decisions, assess intent, consider context and history, and do all the tedious cognitive processing that goes along with being thinking creatures. Certainly, considering the views of other people are part of that analytic process, and certainly, the viewpoint of someone who is particularly affected by racism is of special interest in questions of racism.
But nobody has intellectual veto power over the individual mind.
O.K. I’m following this story (I work somewhere where a TV is on to the news all the time). Don Imus insulted a mostly black college basketball team with language that I have no problem with describing as racist. What I’m trying to figure out is, what does Al Sharpton have to do with this?
I think that Don Imus should issue an apology, both publicly and in person to the team collectively and it’s individual members. But I think he should have told Al to go scratch; Don Imus doesn’t owe him anything.
Well stop the foolishness,
If I call you an ignorant asshole, who should be banned from this site, are you going to be mad? According to your logic you shouldn’t be upset, unless you indeed think you are an ignorant asshole.
Barbara, I’d have probably read that comment correctly in another context, but in juxtaposition with Spike Lee’s name it came to mind that it was some kind of twist.
Angel H. says:
“Here’s the perfect litmus test for knwogin whether or not something is racist: Because a person of color told you that it is. People of color do not need to prove to you that a racist comment or action is racist.”
Bull. And, yes they do. I’ll no more take a black person’s word that something is racist than I’d take a white person’s word that something isn’t.
Julie, Herder of Cats; hm. Would you recommend I rent the film and take a look? I’m not much of a movie fan. I go to maybe 4 a year and never rent them. I’ll occasionally watch one on TV.
Rachel, who were you responding to?
Whoops! Amp, can you delete that? I thought “stop the foolishness” was a phrase, not someone’s screen name.
Rachel, there is a clear distinction between having an opinion, and requiring other people to adopt that opinion on the strength of your say-so. People of color are free to believe that something is racist (or not), and I am free to believe they are inarguably correct, or completely full of crap.
Or at least, it seems that way to me. I respect your right to believe differently, however foolish, absurd or illogical that belief may seem.
Heh, RonF and I made the same mental error at the same time. We’re Duh-Buddies!
I’ll no more take a black person’s word that something is racist than I’d take a white person’s word that something isn’t.
Do you assume that “I’m black, and I think that comment about blacks is racist” is just as likely to be true as “I’m white, and I think that comment about black isn’t racist”?
Of course someone who’s black can be wrong about racism–but as a white person, I’m going to give their opinion great weight. I, after all, am not the one who has to put up with it every fucking day of my life.
Robert and RonF: If I, as a Black woman, am telling you that someone called me a racist name, who are you to tell me that that person wasn’t being racist?
Robert, my Black experience with racism does have veto power over your white privilege of never having to know racism, oppression, and discrimination.
Which is exactly why, RonF, that you do take a Black person’s word that something is racist over a White person’s word that something isn’t.
Robert and RonF: If I, as a Black woman, am telling you that someone called me a racist name, who are you to tell me that that person wasn’t being racist?
I wouldn’t. If someone called you a name that, through cultural consensus, is considered racist, I would agree that (barring some freakish circumstance) that person is being racist towards you.
If someone calls you a name that there is no cultural consensus on, then I must use my judgment. The nature of your specific claim is highly relevant. If you state “I felt racially offended by [x]”, then I wouldn’t dream of doubting your report of your own state of being. You have 100% knowledge of that field of inquiry, and I have 0%; I have no choice but to defer to your superior knowledge.
If you state “[X] was intended as a racial insult” or “[X] is being intentionally racist”, that’s another question. You may well be right, and my inclination, as reported previously, is to give your view considerable weight, precisely because of your superior position as a knowledge agent on the question. But that’s not an absolute. For example, if your claim is absurd (“he said I had to take off my ski boots before I walked on the Persian carpet because he hates blacks!”) or if I have some reason to doubt your personal credibility or honesty, then I may discount your view.
In this specific case, the insult in question (“nappy ho”) seems manifestly racist in intent. In other cases, the insult may be in a much grayer area (the infamous “water buffalo” incident, wherein the insult certainly sounds racist but where the insulter’s cultural background provides a credible alternative hypothesis. In still other cases (“niggardly”), it’s clear there’s no racist intent and that the reporter of racist intent is factually wrong.
Robert, my Black experience with racism does have veto power over your white privilege of never having to know racism, oppression, and discrimination.
Nah. I’m going to continue drawing my own conclusions and relying on my own reason, experience and knowledge. Your own reporting of your own reason, experience and knowledge will have considerable credibility with me in the many areas where you have superior access to information. But (self-reporting of emotional states aside) your reporting is not absolute in its truth value, and I feel no obligation to automatically defer to it when it contradicts my own reason or beliefs.
I have to agree with Robert on this one. There are circumstances that are much more ambiguous than the use of terms like “nappy headed hos” where someone could be mistaken about the intent of the speaker/actor. But those would be in situations where, most likely, even if the person is racist they are trying very hard to seem anything but (seating a group in an unfavorable location in a restaurant or giving poor service come to mind — situations where racism could definitely be at work, but a variety of other explanations might also apply — they didn’t have reservations, we were busy, the waitress gives rotten service to everyone, etc.). I don’t think a statement of another person’s intent can be positively established with such absolute certainty.
I think that we have gone off the dead end worrying about insulting protected classes. The quote has been taken out of context, as usual, and even though Mr. Imus (an entertainer) has appologized profusely, the blather goes on.
In the land of free speech, why is it so bad to poke fun of an ethnic group but it is ok to poke fun at White men?
Black rappers constantly insult not only Blacks but every other ethnic group there is without fear of reprisal.
Al Sharpton is nothing more than a lawsuit or media item waiting to happen. The playing field is more than level, as a matter of fact it has moved the other direction totally in favor of protected classes yet the persecution of the White man goes on.
Would the stink have been made if Mr. Imus was Black or Hispanic; I think not. Let’s try and get our feet back on the ground, this was entertainment, poor entertainment but entertainment all the same. Hey, I don’t like commercials and sit-coms that make the White father figure be stupid but I don’t go on national TV and say the writers are racist pigs!
No Rachel,… I am not insulted, because , like I said, I know I’m not ignorant and I know I’m not an a-hole (although I have one, just like you), so therefore, it is not insulting for you to call me an ignorant a-hole because it is an untruth.That is merely your opinion WHICH, like a-holes…everyone has one. I give you NO power for you to think you can attempt to insult me. I am not a racist, even tho you apparently think I am tryin to be. I am just pointing out that I don’t understand why people give other people the power at what they perceive as an insult when in fact, there is no such thing as an insult unless you ALLOW it. It’s either true or false statements. What part of my comment offends you? Can’t you see the truths in it? For those of you just comin in….my comment is #43
Stop . . .
Perhaps if Don Imus had made his comments directly to the Rutgers players or their coach or their parents or whatever, they would all have walked away as you have suggested. However, he made his comments, constructively, to millions of people who have never met the Rutgers female basketball team. Maybe that had something to do with the level of distress?
And as for white men being made to look stupid — maybe we can’t ascribe that to racism because most tv writers are, duh, white men. That’s why reverse racism is usually a canard — those who would be racist against the majority won’t get very far without placating the majority.
Why you giving Imus so much power? You let someone else tell the world who you are????? Just like the basketball team…if we CARE, we will investigate the team ourselves and find out if they are hos or if they have nappy hair…. my point still stands… if it’s true….it’s not an insult….it’s like telling someone that is tall…that they are tall….if it’s true, it’s not an insult….if it’s not true, it’s not an insult either because it’s false…well….it would be like telling someone that is tall, that they are short…. can you not see how absurd this childish name calling is? Is it offensive to call someone with straight hair ‘ straight haired’???? Please explain, so that I can understand. I truly do wish to understand.
And Rachel, if I WAS offended by your name calling…how is your attempt at insulting any less an infraction than any other attempt at insult. So now you get to decide what ‘insults’ are allowed and which are not?
Stop the Foolishness– Maybe you should poll a few black folks whether they find the n-word as insult. Then you can explain to them your theory about why they shouldn’t get upset. Maybe you can report your findings back here.
David– you’re more or less a racism enabler. You’re trying to let Imus off the hook because somebody else did such and such. Ever hear of two wrongs don’t make a right? As far as the apology goes, isn’t it up to the Rutgers players to accept or reject it?
If you search the archives here under my name you’ll see that I criticize rappers and argue for taking hate crimes against whites seriously. Please don’t be on my side in this regard. Thank you.
As far as free speech goes 1. the government isn’t stopping Imus so there is no 1st amendment violation 2. in the workplace there’s much less protection of speech (which arguably is something that should change) and clearly MSNBC would be in there legal rights to fire him. 3. I’d like to see some of these right wing free speech hypocrites actually defend people who get fired for union organizing, which is actually legally protected speech in the workplace.
Barbara; I don’t understand your use of the word canard, this is usually in reference to Hebrews; however, my mother was a writer for Rod Serling and even over 60 years ago many of her coworkers were female. This was one area that a woman with a degree in journalism could find equitable employment so I do not accept that most tv writer are White men. I don’t understand the duh comment either; are you suggesting that I am stupid? I mearly wanted to point out that anybody can be insulted by anything if they desire it.
I also wonder how many of the people that are up in arms over this actually heard the commentary. Entertainers have been making fun of jock for decades, it goes with the territory. It would seem that the bottom line is still, “don’t cast anything towards womem or minorities that could in any way be construed by them as an insult.” I am all for that, lets not have any news, programs or reference made in public to any of these protected classes; I’m certain that this would also be taken as an insult. Like I said, let’s all place our feet back on the ground and our heads back on our own shoulders, this guy makes a living by being a jerk; outlaw freedom of speech if you care to take that road but don’t pick and choose.
I think we should all consider the source. Also I hope these young women don’t let
this ruin their championship win.
Drydock:
I’m so insulted that you called me a racism enabler; and in public. Should I go on public tv and call for your apology or do like Al Sharpton and go to your work and call for your dissmissal? Of course not because you are entitled to your opinion. You know nothing about me and I’m glad of that. Such closed minded bigotry is not welcomed in my house but I certainly agree that you have your right to express your opinion, it hurts me no more than this stupid remark hurt the folks that the joke included. I was pointing out that an insult is in the ear of the subject, not the mouth of the source. How many times have sports commentators made remarks about football players? If you haven’t heard any then you don’t watch sports. I believe that you are prejeduce against White men for whatever reason, be it fear, unfounded hate or inferiority. I was not letting Imus off the hook; the man has appologized many times over, he’s being suspended, what else do you want? I just love how liberals want freedom to do this and freedom to do that; unless it’s something they don’t agree with. No wonder our politics are so messed up.
Its sad that we live in a world that is truly prejudice on so many levels, but I as a Black woma, I have learned that I will encounter people that will not like me in this lifetime, and oftimes it may be for nothing that I have personally done to them. So, what does one do? Do I react to the ignorance, or choose to live my life fully and joyfully because at the end of the day… I do not have to go home with an idiots like Imus. People like him, I don’t hate them…I pity them because they truly are miserable people. Think about that…one of the most popular radio shows in this country—lots of people that like Imus–makes a living berating other people and its supported by MSNBC –a large major network…WOW!!! Comments like this are meant to hurt, debase, and denigrate others, but only if you recognize them as your personal truth. I love my hair, nappy and curly, and no–I’m not a whore, or a ho…so I do not receive that type of comment as something towards me worth responding. Never correct a fool! In regards to basketball, Imus could not play against any of them on the team because he has no skills, so he is therefore intimidated enough to put them down. I’m just sad that the team responds to such B.S. No need to make Imus apologize, its not sincere; he will be the same in two weeks; just rise above the B.S. and don’t bother to sniff it. Recognize it for what it is, and wipe your shoes if you should step in it. Ooops!!
Drydock, since you brought up this and addressed it to me, I will respond.I don’t need to poll anyone… but explain this…. if the ‘N’ word is so offensive, so hated, I would think that the very people that say it offends, would NOT use it so freely. I’ve been told that it is ok for black people to use the ‘ N’ word but NOT anyone else. I do not use this term, but I am having trouble understand the logistics of the reasoning. Whether you put an ‘ a’ or an ‘ er’ on the end, we all know it’s the same term. Should white people be greatly offended when called ‘honkys’ , ‘crackers’…I for one am not…. call me what you like..it doesn’t change who I am. Just tryin to understand the rules here. Black Power…. White Power….. Miss Black America…. Miss White America…
Quit letting others tell you who you are… the world can see for themselves.
lol David… .have you not been reading what I’ve been saying about no such thing as an insult?….lmao…. I get your point tho
Maybe he said “Happy Wedded Vogues.” Those who believe that the solution to the “Imus” problem is to simply turn him off are not considering one key point. Please visit “If you don’t like it, turn it off” at sarcasticynic.blogspot.com if interested.
http://sarcasticynic.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-you-dont-like-it-turn-it-off.html
FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT. ALMOST ALL OF YOU COMPLAINERS OUT THERE ARE GUILTY OF DOING THE SAME THING ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. IF THIS WAS EDDIE MURPHY OR SOME OTHER BLACK PERSON THAT SAID THIS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVEN SAID ANYTHING.
THE ISSUE SHOULD BE THAT HE USED THE WORD HO, WHICH IS SHORT FOR “WHORE” ON THE TELEVISION. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IMUS LIKES TO SHOCK PEOPLE. MSNBC’S RATINGS MUST BE THROUGH THE ROOF NOW.
DO YOU THINK THAT THIS MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONAL?
MOST THINGS DO NOT HAPPEN BY “ACCIDENT”!
See…D.C. get’s what I am saying.. I don’t agree with all that she is saying…. but she gets it…. it’s only an insult if you ALLOW it to be.
Ahh, the bigots and racism apologists. Hey Amp, how soon can you create that anti-racist comments plugin?
I will grant David one thing. He is illustrating the validity of Robert’s reply to Angel H. Should everyone who is not a white man just accept David’s claim to be the victim of prejudice against white men just because he is a white man and they are not? Are should they use their own judgement and conclude that David is seriously out of touch with reality?
Hmmmmmm. It appears I have just managed to use the absurity of a white man claiming to be victimized by bigotry to make a comparison between a white man claiming to be victimized by bigotry and a black women claiming to be victimized by bigotry. The point I was making still seems valid, but I can not help feeling that I missed a logic roll somewhere.
“I think I will now be scarred for life”. Buuulllll$%^t!!!! Call me fat and I’ll flip you the bird and keep walking, never giving another thought. If your insult is funny enough I will laugh with you. I bet a few of them girls even got a chuckle out of the comment. I know plenty of black girls that would have. If anyone should be called nappy headed it’s that condor nest-tottin’ Al Sharpton. He looks like a damned PIMP!
And that ain’t racist, that’s an ethnic thing. Al always attracting so much attention to these things (and warping them) that they never seem to go away, which they would if he would find another job.
I thought Imus comments were hilarious…..get over it.
Eddie Murphy?!? Dude, that guy makes children’s movies now. Jackson’s Himietown remark was back in the 80s, Sharpton said some stupid stuff in the 80s and early 90s…. can’t you trolls find anything stupid a prominate black person has said THIS century? I guess you’ll just have to stick with the rappers.
“The point I was making still seems valid, but I can not help feeling that I missed a logic roll somewhere.”
You forgot about power dynamics and systemic representation.
I can not help feeling that I missed a logic roll somewhere…
You’re not in combat and there are no penalties for a failed attempt, so just spend the next two minutes on it and take 20.
RonF writes:
If you’re into movies, it’s not a bad movie. Denzel Washington plays Malcolm X, and with facial hair the resemblance is fairly close. Spike Lee directs and plays Malcolm’s pre-conversion-to-Islam running buddy “Shorty”.
Spike Lee ROCKS — his political insight is razor sharp and he has the right balance between the medium and the message. Of all his works, “Malcolm X” and “Requiem” (“When the Levees Broke – A Requiem in Four Parts”) are the most politically charged, though he doesn’t shy away from politics, ever. “Malcolm X” gets four paws up :)
The book (“The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley”) should be mandatory reading for everyone.
Some dude name RonG (a different person from our RonF) posted a super-long comment regarding a controversy over a non-offensive use of the term “nappy hair” by a children’s book author. (Some parents objected to the book being read in school, but in my opinion they should not have objected).
Rather than let the article through, I did a five second google search to find the webpage that RonG plagiarized his comment from (RonG’s post didn’t include a link or any other sort of credit). So there’s the link, if folks want to read it.
Mythago:
“Do you assume that “I’m black, and I think that comment about blacks is racist” is just as likely to be true as “I’m white, and I think that comment about black isn’t racist”?”
The relative truth of those two statements is not the issue.
“Of course someone who’s black can be wrong about racism–but as a white person, I’m going to give their opinion great weight. I, after all, am not the one who has to put up with it every fucking day of my life.”
Sure. I’d agree with that. If I thought that something wasn’t racist but a black person then told me it was, I would reconsider. But there’s a difference between “I’ll give it great weight” and asserting that if a black person says something is racist, it cannot be debated or doubted. I won’t accept that every black person has final authority that cannot be questioned as to whether “X” is racist, and it seems to me that’s what Angel H. asserted.
RonF,
In theory I agree with what you wrote, if only because blacks aren’t monolithic and of uniform opinion on every conceivable racist slight. In practice, I disagree.
Racism isn’t just the words, it’s also the intent, and “I don’t have to consider the feelings of blacks” is quite often itself racist intent (I’m white, so if it feels like I might be saying your attitude is racist, well, I don’t know what my being white is going to mean to you).
Mythago’s point is spot-on — this doesn’t affect you and you have the ability to just blow it off if it’s too inconvenient for you.
Out in the messy real world there are going to be people who accuse you (generic you) of racism so they can score points for themselves with their rented black friends, or so they can feel like they are sticking it to whitey. But barring it being someone who’s got some kind of axe to grind, or points to score, if someone says a remark is racist (or sexist or classist or anti-semetic or …) odds are, it is. Give them the benefit of the doubt — it doesn’t cost you anything the first time to do so. Then, if they constantly brag about their black friends, black ex-lovers, black co-workers, or if they have to distort what’s been said beyond its plain meaning, then you can start dismissing them.
mandolin writes:
I don’t know. I’ve been accused of nasty sh1t because I know what insults mean what, but I suspect most of us know which slurs apply to which people. I’m not going to call someone who’s Chinese a “K1ke”, if I’m in need of an insult against Chinese people, because I know the correct insult. Knowing the correct insult isn’t a sign of animus, it’s a sign of being well-read, I suppose.
I think that people like Imus are just plain generic haters. He’s probably never met a minority he’s not willing to hate if there’s money to be made in doing so, and given the state of shock radio, there’s always money to be made by selling hatred.
Decnavda, thanks once again for somebody that can make a snap judgement in the blink of an eye. I’m not out of touch with reality. Funny how a person can take one point and run it into the ground, kind of like Imus and his stupid commentary.
Is it racist if it wasn’t intended to be racist? Most people take offense to things because it is expected of them. Those girls on the B-ball team would not have even been aware of the remark except for the big play that Sharpton made, but now (just) the Black girls are all teary-eyed and ready to sue! Did anybody catch Hannity and Combs tonight? They had some interesting guests on. Let’s take this rationaly; the word nappy is not offensive, haired certainly isn’t so that only leaves the word ho, so why aren’t the White girls offended? I have nieghbors that are black and their kids are always calling people ho’s and dog, are they being racist and offensive or just hip? I don’t know. Where do you draw the line. I’ve been reffered to by about every racist name in the book for a White guy but I have to consider the source because I was brought up to believe insults only hurt the insulter, not the insultee (is insultee a word?). Many people in the position to be supported in their offended state are very quick to be offended by just about anything. Again, this whole thing is completely blown out of proportion. Next time one of you rightous folks here one of your minority brothers or sisters make a racial remark, call them on it; I dare you.
“Is it racist if it wasn’t intended to be racist?”
Is it a crime if it wasn’t intended to be a crime?
“Let’s take this rationaly; the word nappy is not offensive, haired certainly isn’t so that only leaves the word ho”
The letters ‘y’,’o’,’u’,’r’,’e’,’a’,’b’,’o’,’y’,’a’,’s’,’s’,’l’,’o’,’v’,’i’,’n’,’g’,’p’,’e’,’d’,’o’,’p’,’h’,’i’,’l’,’e’ all aren’t offensive on their own, so I suppose what they spell out isn’t offensive either.
Tool.
Is it a crime if it wasn’t intended to be a crime?
Generally speaking, no.
“Generally speaking, no. ”
Awesome. Give me your TV.
Non sequitur, much?
Without the intention to commit a wrong act, we don’t usually call it a crime (there are some exceptions, like negligence). If you bust into my house and take my TV, you’re a thief. If we live in identical dorm rooms and you honestly think it’s your TV you’re walking out with, you’ve done nothing wrong.
Note that I’m still out a TV, at least until I find you and beat it out of you. Similarly, someone may well feel racially oppressed even without intent on the part of the offender. Intention doesn’t matter if you’re measuring objective harm; it matters a great deal if you’re assigning blame.
“Generally speaking, no.”
I’ll keep my.
Sentences short.
That way.
People will.
Think.
I’m snarky.
In all seriousness, my sentence was purposely intended to be overly simple to set off the preset cues and buzzwords in David’s busy little brain. (I’m guessing that David falls hook, line, sinker, and outboard engine for Tuff on Crime rhetoric, aren’t you?) Clearly, though, my statement wasn’t taken as simply as it was meant.
I was going for more of a premeditated murder versus drunk driving, myself. They are different in scale but are both undeniably crimes.
“Intention doesn’t matter if you’re measuring objective harm; it matters a great deal if you’re assigning blame.”
Interesting you bring this up, because, charitably, it explains why racist sympathizers make such a big deal over intent. It’s precisely because they believe racism doesn’t cause actually cause objective harm – rather, racism is more of an unfortunate moral failing of an individual (where the individual in question is someone who acts like them, looks like them, and says the same things as them, but are not them) – that they fall back on intent. If you believe racism actually causes harm, you wouldn’t focus on intent, would you say that’s an actual assessment?
Er, no. It is precisely because racism has such heinous objective harms that there is great prickliness and defensiveness about being called out for racism.
Nobody would care that they were considered racist if the damage from racism were unimportant or insignificant, other than the most exquisitely sensitive souls who couldn’t bear to be thought of as unsophisticated.
I grew up in the Deep South, and especially in Mississippi, where much of my extended family still lives. Saying so-and-so is a racist, in my view, is saying that they’re of a piece with the night riders who terrorized blacks, raping and killing to buttress an awful system of oppression and outright tyranny. That’s one hell of a serious charge to lay on somebody, so I’m reluctant to do it unless the evidence is unequivocal. Racism is evil, and racists are evil. I hate to put someone in the “evil” category if I don’t have to.
“Note that I’m still out a TV, at least until I find you and beat it out of you. Similarly, someone may well feel racially oppressed even without intent on the part of the offender. Intention doesn’t matter if you’re measuring objective harm; it matters a great deal if you’re assigning blame.”
I was mostly making a joke, Robert, rather than a real point.
A…joke? Can’t…process…must…have…argument…
LMAO!!!! @
‘y’,’o’,’u’,’r’,’e’,’a’,’b’,’o’,’y’,’a’,’s’,’s’,’l’,’o’,’v’,’i’,’n’,’g’,’p’,’e’,’d’,’o’,’p’,’h’,’i’,’l’,’e’
LOL!!!!!!!!
Robert’s comment in number 91 is a good explanation of why I’m uncomfortable with the Color Blind Racist label.
He wrote
I think that if the word racist were to be commonly accepted as including the same meaning that Rachel assigns to colorblind racist that would weaken the term. There would be a less concern generally with ending racism. I agree with the idea that racism has moved the starting points for minorities so far back they can’t really compete on a ‘level’ playing field. But I think removing the element of hate from the definition of racism is a mistake.
(amp, sorry if 90 comments is too soon for thread drift.)
For the record I think Imus’s comments were both sexist and racist. I think he knew they would be. I think he said them anyway try to be mean and funny.
His comments were just despicable. They made me ill to my stomach. That in 2007 a grown man could still think it’s ok to use slurs like that, that we’re still so behind in the fight against racism, that attacking someone’s race is still a seen as a viable option, is just.. beyond me. I don’t understand it. I don’t.
It makes no sense to me.
Robert said, “Saying so-and-so is a racist, in my view, is saying that they’re of a piece with the night riders who terrorized blacks, raping and killing to buttress an awful system of oppression and outright tyranny. That’s one hell of a serious charge to lay on somebody, so I’m reluctant to do it unless the evidence is unequivocal. Racism is evil, and racists are evil. I hate to put someone in the “evil” category if I don’t have to.”
To Robert and everyone else,
The problem here is the very simplistic thinking. White racism runs the gamit from very virulent violence that can result in bodily injury to more subtle things like not feeling comfortable in a room where there are people of color or not listening when people of color give their points of view.
When we reserve the term racism for only the most violent acts, we ignore the cumulative affects of those more subtle forms of racism, which add up over time.
(To Robert) Take your early reaction to Angel H. She was clearly ticked off, and even though I don’t agree with her in theory, she was trying very hard to be heard. She was saying as a black woman I find this offensive, and then what happened? Rather than making any attempt to confirm her feelings or acknowledge why she was hurt and frustrated, you came in with your theory. In doing so, you dismissed her frustration, your dismissed her view, you dismissed her anger, and you dismissed her as a black woman. Because you were so fixated on being right and creating a good theory, but you did really seem to connect with her everyday experience. (I saw the same thing with pheeno on a thread about a month ago.)
(To all)That’s contemporary racism my friends. Even though I agree with Robert in theory, (that just because someone black says something racist that doesn’t necessarily mean it is) Angel deserves to have her voice heard. In fact, let’s revisit the last 2 sentence of Angel’s comment,
Geeze, it sounds to me like she’s saying she doesn’t have to prove herself to Brandon Berg or any of the other “great white” men (almost said sharks, oops) around these parts. She is asking y’all to put yourself in her shoes. How would we feel if someone said we were ugly and someone called us a nappy headed ho?
But letting go of racism and privilege is so very hard for most white people. So rather than being able to serious engage Angel and acknowledge her feelings we have to go back to our precious worldviews. We just can’t let the focus be on the black women who were insulted by such language. No instead we have to insult black male leaders and go over what we think are their shortcomings, talk about really nice white guys, who help kids with cancer. Then we start to talk about the great freedom of speech principle, and on and on and on……
Once again the black women targets of Imus’s nasty comments are lost. Personally, I stand in solidarity with Angel H. and other black women. Let’s stop making their views and experiences invisible. Let’s stop privileging our own view over theirs. Let’s stop the color blind racism and the sexism that encourages us to ignore, deny, or minimize women of color and their various world views.
Ok, white folks and men. It’s not all about us and our views all the time. Just take a minute to put yourself in someone elses shoes.