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.
Rachel, I understand what you’re saying and mostly agree with you for this thread.
My point was broader. Because racists are held to be vicious hateful people racism is reviled. If racism equally includes insufficient consideration for the feelings of POC than I don’t think people (broadly speaking) will have the same level of objection.
I understand joe. I think racism is a very broad phenomenon, not something limited to racial slurs or violent acts, but I think many want to make so narrow as to apply to almost nothing.
Rachel, do you have any concern that by broadening the application of the term it will eventually weaken support for anti-racist actions?
For example; If Roberts response to Angela H was racist than maybe racism isn’t that bad?
This question is pretty removed from the real world. There are plenty of examples of the obvious easy to agree on types of racism.
My opinion is that the element of hatred and irrationality is part of what makes racism so evil. Without that it becomes a lot less evil.
With all due respect, I think that attitude is counterproductive, because it leads to denialism: rather than opposing racism, energy is spent making explanations for why such-and-such an event isn’t racist at all. Racism is treated like a criminal justice case, in which the defendant must be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before any mitigating action can be taken; as a result, in most cases, we’re told that it would be horrible to take any mitigating action at all.
Like Rachel, I think it’s more accurate to have a nuanced understanding of racism; sometimes it’s the night riders, but sometimes it’s a great deal less than that. As I said last year, being told you’ve said something racist isn’t the same as being told you’re a KKK member. “Think of it as if someone points out that you need to wipe your nose because you’ve got a big glob of snot hanging out. The thing to do is say ‘oh, excuse me,’ wipe your nose, and move on.”
Amp,
It is difficult to simultaneously maintain an extraordinarily high level of condemnation for racism, while simultaneously expanding the definition of racism to include behavior that is more minor. (note: Imus’ remark is not minor IMO, I’m speaking generally in response to your post.)
If all racism is, by definition, extraordinarily horrible, then the question of mitigation vs. ignoring vs. that old canard of ‘reverse racism’ doesn’t even come to the table at all. Horrible things need to be dealt with–no debate there. Solutions are obvious.
If racism includes a lot of things which are more open to interpretation, are less harmful, etc–then the solutions (or lack thereof) are also going to be more open to interpretation.
You end up with three classes of views.
One class evaluates racism using the “strict racism” test (like a court case) and applies solutions using the “up for debate” analysis. These folks are serious racists: hard to prove, and mild consequences.
the middle class is one where the test and solutions match. Some tend toward limiting what is considered “racist” but also tend towards fairly undebatable and clear cut solutions to curing things once they cross the line. Others use a broader definition of racism, but also are less willing to accept particular consequences as a result.
This middle class thinks the first class is racist.
The final class is the reverse of the first: Folks who use a very wide and flexible definition of racism, AND who also attempt to maintain a high level of condemnation of racism across the board.
This final class thinks BOTH the first and second classes are racist. Which is a pity, because the second class is, functionally speaking, a lot closer to the final class than to the first.
I agree with what I think Robert is up to, and I’ve made what I think is his same point on the subject of rape, and particularly, on the subject of rape prosecutions —
When we use a really heavy handed word — such as “rape” or “racist” — and people have this image of the action as truly horrendous, I believe there’s a greater tendency to dismiss the lesser horrendous acts rather than to adjust the word. And if the word gets adjusted, so that “rape” and “racist” also encompass the lesser harmful acts, it’s more difficult to get action because “rape” and “racist” can include anything from begging for sex and white people with dredlocks, to holding a knife to a woman’s throat or dragging a man through the streets of Jasper, TX.
What I hear Robert saying is that “racist” is the big gun of words that indicate something bad has been done on the basis of race. I also grew up in the deep south and I knew people who really did recruit for the KKK. I’ve met David Duke, I’ve had lunch with David Duke, I’ve listened to David Duke talk about how he just cares about white people. And David Duke is a genuine, dyed in the wool, let’s go burn crosses on people’s lawns, racist. He is the real meal deal.
And yet, “You’re a racist!” does connect people to the image of KKK members, on their horses, with their pointy hats, riding through towns, shooting blacks, stringing blacks up on trees, and lighting churches on fire. At least, if you were born south of the Mason-Dixon line, that’s what it evokes, because our history books do include those things. For better or worse, that’s the history, just like when I lived in Virginia I learned about Thomas Jefferson and Jamestown and Williamsburg. When I lived in Louisiana, I learned about the Klan. Not that I had to learn, I had high school classmates in the Klan. I was even asked to join the Klan.
I don’t think that Robert or I are saying that “things that are racially offensive” should either be called “racist” or “not racist”, like it’s a binary, but that there needs to be language for informing people where they stand in the grand scheme of the universe. Don Imus is a racist (and more). David Duke is a racist (and more). Joe Shmoe, who doesn’t want his daughter marrying her black boyfriend because she’ll experience social rejection, is not a big-R Racist. He might not be with the program, but he’s also not going to go burning crosses on lawns any time soon. Some word needs to exist for people who just aren’t with the program yet.
We had a pretty good word for that: prejudiced. I’m not sure why it’s fallen out of favor.
Rachel:
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.
Similarly, when we reserve the term “murder” for only the acts which kill people, we ignore the cumulative effects of more subtle forms of violence.
Oh wait, except we don’t. Instead, we have different words for those phenomena. There is a conceptual connection between smacking someone and killing them, but the gulf of severity is sufficiently wide that we use different language to describe what happens on each side of the gulf. There is a conceptual connection between being uncomfortable in a room full of people of a different race, and between wanting to slaughter people of that race because you hate them, but we use different language to describe those states of mind.
Or we should, anyway.
(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?
But that isn’t what she was saying, and it seems to me that she was heard exceptionally well (even if not by you, grin). Her argument and her statements were addressed comprehensively and respectfully, as between two adults who have peer standing within the venue of the discussion.
Rather than making any attempt to confirm her feelings or acknowledge why she was hurt and frustrated
You mean like in the part where I confirmed her feelings, agreed with and validated them in the immediate context, and acknowledged that her reports of her feelings were, in fact, trump cards within their ambit?
(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.
So hear her voice. And then, instead of treating her as a child who must be humored, treat her as an adult, argue against the things she has said which are wrong, agree with the things that she has said which are right, and move the discussion forward.
I think you are right that simplistic thinking is an obstacle to meaningful discussions of racism and racial issues, but I think the simplistic thinking in question is yours.
“So hear her voice. And then, instead of treating her as a child who must be humored, treat her as an adult, argue against the things she has said which are wrong, agree with the things that she has said which are right, and move the discussion forward.”
And in the process set yourself up as an objective arbiter of her experience.
I agree with you that I wouldn’t believe every allegation of racism made by every person of color. But I’d stop and think about it, hard, and be well aware that if I did decide to reject the allegation, it was likely my own privelege was part of that process.
“it was likely my own privelege was part of that process. ”
Well, obviously part of. Replaec with: a significant factor in.
And in the process set yourself up as an objective arbiter of her experience.
I make no claim to objectivity. I make a claim to intellectual autonomy, and to being the arbiter of MY experience – which includes my perception of her viewpoint. She (and all of us) are similarly empowered.
So hear her voice. And then, instead of treating her as a child who must be humored, treat her as an adult, argue against the things she has said which are wrong, agree with the things that she has said which are right, and move the discussion forward.
The way this is worded states that you’re judging whether she’s right or wrong. Obviously (or not) you would think the part you disagree with is wrong.
But the complaint that experience of a POC needs to be judged is central. You might have wanted to phrase it differently.
Well, I wouldn’t judge her experience as wrong or right; her experience is her experience, and I don’t have direct access to it. I think her factual assertions are wrong or right, and I have to make a decision in order to be able to cognitively function (a decision which may well be “I can’t tell whether she’s right or wrong.”)
But I’m not intending to assert the ability to characterize her experience in that way, and if I mis-spoke in that fashion, I withdraw it.
mandolin and joe,
I can’t help but feel like you’re trying to dance around the head of a pin here: you don’t want to say “we should believe someone simply because she’s a POC” but don’t like the other option either.
I mean, which is it? i happen to agree with Angel’s conclusion (I think Imus was racist) but that’s because I happen to agree with her.
And if I *am* exercising independent judgment then shoot: at some point, I’m going to disagree with a POC. That means I will think that I’m right, and they’re wrong. That’s what disagreement IS.
And… that disagreement, at some point, is going to discuss their experience. Nobody with a shred of logic is going to sit there and say that someone’s subjective experience is incorrect. As Robert posted, there’s 100% surety on that one. But when you link subjective experiences to the global, objective, claim of racism, you open the door to argument.
Yes, of course an objective claim of racism is going to involve someone’s subjective experience. It always does. but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it, no matter what our skin color. Attempting to rephrase this disagreement as some sort of “objectivity” issue is merely obfuscating the effect, which is to return to the original claim: “we should believe someone simply because she’s a POC”
Robert said, “But I’m not intending to assert the ability to characterize her experience in that way, and if I mis-spoke in that fashion, I withdraw it.”
Well by refusing to acknowledge her feelings and experiences that is exactly what you did. You went for the jugular on the on other issue. You took her words very literally, without trying to read any other meanings into her entire post. You came off like an arrogant ass because it was obvious she was pissed off at Brandon’s very offensive comment above, and she was venting about that.
Then you had to come in with a snide little remark. Would you be really pissed off if someone called your daughter or wife a whore or slut?
Well by refusing to acknowledge her feelings and experiences that is exactly what you did.
I haven’t done that. You are either grossly misreading what has been quitely plainly written, or you are being dishonest.
sylphhead, once you have become emotionally charged in a debate you have lost your footing and following that, your credibility. You’re insult harms not in the least because I know what and who I am; I also can tell that you have no valid rebuttel so you are resorting to emotion.
Let’s look at a definition of racist that I pulled from Wikipedia:
Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups. It may be based on an assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behavior.
Now let’s look at a definition of crime that I pulled off the same site:
A crime is an act that violates a political, religious, or moral command considered important in protecting the interests of the State or the welfare of its citizens or subjects. The word “crime” came from Latin crimen (genitive criminis), from the Latin root cernō and Greek κρινω = “I judge”. Originally it meant “charge (in law), guilt, accusation.” In everyday usage, a crime is understood as any act that violates a law.
As you can see, the words parallel each other very little. I believe that everybody has a little bit of racist in him or her; it is very difficult to control what you think. Thinking, “I am superior” without acting on it is no crime. It is an accepted notion that Black athletes are generally superior to White athletes; nobody thinks of this as racist but, using the definition above, it is racist. Does it injure a person if it is not acted upon? I think not. You may argue that the mere thought is harmful, but again, it is difficult to control our thoughts. Many people have said publicly that people of color make better athletes than their Caucasoid counterparts; a racist statement but as long as it does no actual harm, is it inherently wrong? Many people jumped on what I said about double standards but you can plainly see that any person, regardless of their ethnicity, can be racist and probably is.
I also spent some of my Jr. High and High School time in Mississippi and at a time when bussing was prevalent. I moved to Mississippi from a mid-western state and my association with people of color was almost non-existent. I learned very quickly that the majority of Black students wanted nothing to do with me, neither did the White southern students as I was considered a Yankee. If two Blacks got in a fight it was not that big a deal, if two Whites got in a fight it was not that big a deal but if a Black student and a White student got in a fight the administration immediately locked down the school, called in the National Guard and police. It was expected that a big fuss be made so it was. This is the same thing that happended with Imus. We have gotton completely off track. What was the intent? Was there any real harm? Imus can answer the first, the girls basketball team, all 12 of them, can answer the second. The rest is moot. I don’t believe that the intent to do harm was there, not even as much as your intent to hurt me with your vulgar accusation, but if the ladies took it serous (I can’t imagine that they originally would have just as I didn’t take you serious) then he owes them a public explanation and appology. He did this. By continuing on, harm is being done to the overall progress made for the last 50 years. I myself am having flashbacks of my days in that Mississippi high school when I first developed a lack of trust for people of color.
Oh David….Oh no, you didn’t go there. So you think blacks are superior to whites when it comes to athletics? And you think all people think like this? No wonder you’re having so many problems with race issues.
First of all– no all people don’t think like this. Some of us have been raised, educated, trained, or have otherwise learned to see each human being as an individual– of which race and ethnicity is only a small component. Blacks are no more inherently better athletics than whites– merely different, in some cases. And for that matter, since all black people are not ethnically, culturally, or genetically alike, we aren’t even all the same around this country, or around the world. When’s the last time you saw an African American win the New York City Marathon? Just as with Caucasian people– there are a wide variety of differences among us, because we are individuals with a wide range of differing abilities.
Until you start seeing that each of us is an individual in so many ways, I’m certain you’ll continue having flashbacks to days when you first developed your lack of trust for people of color. But let me give you a little tip: The only way I get through life without freaking out every time I encounter someone from the white majority in this country is this– I…respond…to….every…white…person…I…meet….as…if…they…are…individuals. I make a point to do this every day. I don’t load baggage from my past onto the shoulders of any one I meet. If you are nice to me, I am nice to you. I don’t assume you’re good at anything, bad at anything, or know anything about anything because of your race or ethnic origins. I don’t assume you have a college education. I don’t assume you are a high school dropout. I let you tell me who you are through what you say, do and how you choose to carry yourself in this world. And if I want to know if you are good at something, or interested in something– I will ask you. Now it’s 2007. If you meet me somewhere, someday, I’d appreciate it if you’d give me the same courtesy I will undoubtedly give you.
Have a nice day.
Faith
And while I”m on this topic– it’s funny that when white men dominated basketball in this country, it was because they were smarter, more skillful players who worked harder. When African Americans came to dominate the sport….uh– it was because we were genetically superior. Now how convenient is that argument???
OK, let me try reiterating my tactic here, because apparently it didn’t come through.
1) Listen.
2) Shut up.
3) Get angry.
4) Stay shutted up.
5) Listen more.
6) Interrogate my feelings, and try to be as honest about why I feel what I feel as possible.
7) Understand that I’m ignorant on issues of race.
8) Understand that my ignorance is socialized.
9) Understand, tehrefore, that when I try to speak in a position of expert against someone who lives the experience, I’m likely to end up looking like an asshole.
10) Maybe say something, but probably keep thinking.
NOTE: This only works if you actually have an open mind and *want* to understand what and why the other party is thinking. It would not work for me if I went to go read Baptist blogs.
*
So, no, you don’t have to believe the POC when they say something was racist.
You don’t have to believe the geologist when he discusses deep time.
You don’t have to believe the biologist when he discusses the evolution of the eye.
But it’s unlikely that you actually have the expertise you think you do.
White men, in particular, are trained to believe that their opinion matters, matters, matters, and that they have the ability to mediate other people’s experience in a more objective way than other people. (She can’t see her own situation clearly; she’s clouded by her involvement with the situation; however, I, The White Man, have no such terribly annoying flotsam and jetsam clotting my brain, so I am better qualified than she to pronounce upon what has happened.)(White women I think are less trained to do this sort of thing, but we’re certainly trained to do it, too — holy fuck, that thread on Pandagon the other day.)
Shockingly, they don’t, but the only time when this seems to be really clear is when you’re in a progressive forum discussing these issues, so I understand it’s a bit of a kick to the system.
Faith, you did not read my entry very well did you. Like many people who have an answer before the question is understood, you jumped to the conclusion of what my beliefs are. I used the athletic example because, if you do ask 10 people who they think are, in general, better athletes, Black or White, most will say that the Black person dominates most sports so they are inferred to be superior and I felt that this would not offend any of the more sensitive listeners. The basketball teams that you refer to were around before many colleges and pro teams allowed Black players on their teams. If they are superior, why are they superior? Is it a physical attribute that allows them to be superior and if so, by acknowledging this attribute are we being racist? Remember, racism occurs not only in the derogatory sense. After all, all people are not the same and that being said, it can also be said that some are racially, physically superior to others just as some are racially mentally superior. Did I just make a racist statement? The answer is yes I did. Was it meant to offend? No, it was not, I was stating a proven, documented fact, but I am certain somebody will be offended by it, mostly because they choose to be offended.
Let us change the example; say for arguments sake, not that this is my preference but is only and example!! A man prefers blonde women. Now blonde is a genetic trait and being such can also be applied to specific races. This man is a racist since he prefers the blonde trait. The same could be said of somebody that prefers caramel skin or Asian features. Racism exists in, I believe, everybody. The question that I asked originally was that if no slight or harm was meant, is it wrong? Deliberate, harmful racial prejudice is really what rational people get offended by. I believe that in order for this to occur the intent must be there. If there is no intent then it becomes a personal objection and, if necessary, the object of the slight should try and be placated by the offending party.
For me to say that “I prefer blondes” could be taken as an offensive statement by women who are not blonde but would I actually be insulting them? They may believe that I had ulterior motives or felt that blonde women were superior and could therefore feel offended but was there an actual offense given? This is a little of what I believe Robert was trying to get at. I am not a White cracker, supremacist, or believe that one race should be treated preferentially over another. There was this huge debate on if a POC thinks he or she is being slighted then it must be so. In my world there is no distinction in treatment between races. This is not to say that there are no differences. Of course there are differences, this is what integration is all about. However, if you truly believe that racism is wrong then it is wrong for everybody, not just POC or Hispanics or whoever you happen to identify with. I hope that this cleared up some of what I have been trying to get at.
mandolin, you sound very sexist. I am a White man therefore I can only imagine what a White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, whatever woman trully feels. The Same goes for another man of a different race but truly the same can be said of all people. I don’t know how, literally my brother feels as I am not him. You jump to an awfully lot of conclusions about “White Men”. Maybe you could back it up a bit. We may think we can identify with people of similar backgrounds and environment but we really don’t know how the feel or how they look at different actions.
In Oakland a number of years back I learned of a term that black folks used to describe a certain type of white liberal who will fall for any bullshit just because a black person says it. The word is doormatt. The response to racially ignorant comments made on this thread shouldn’t be this type of liberalism, which I think some otherwise intelligent people are getting close to advocating. I don’t think what Angel said was bullshit nor do I think Robert is best using his intelligence as an ally against racism. However in the noncyber world of social struggle it is helpful when progressive whites are able to discern who are the real agents of change (in working class communities of color) and who are the fakes, the careerists, and the race-baiters. IMO that is being a real ally.
White men were the ones who started calling black women hos (whores/wenches) during slavery and Jim Crow segregation. And looking at America’s long history of racist hatred of black women by white men, Imus was just saying out loud what many white men already think of black women. Imus is just another white man being a white man: a race of men who have for centuries committed the most brutish, the most perverse and the most depraved abombinations that one group of people (white men) have shown towards another group of people (black women).
I have no problem with “nappy”, for that is a term used amongst black people to describe our hair. But, when a white man uses the phrase the way Imus used it, it brings up many images of white men’s hatred and CONTINUED disrespect/contempt of black women.
It was white men who raped black women and girls daily during slavery. It was white men who raped black women and girls during Jim Crow segregation.
It was white men who called black women//girls “black bitches”, “black sluts”, “lascivious”, and “unrapeable”, all the while raping and impregnating us during both slavery and segregation.
The contempt that America has for black women started with the inhuman atrocities committed against black women by white men. That there are still walking around now, white men during segregation who raped, impregnated, and brutally beat to death, many black women, is a testament to America’s wanton attack upon black women; an attack that will never end.
And the lies told on black women to justify white men’s cruelties against black women/girls still live among us as a result of the legacy of slavery/segregation:
-White men were able to walk into a black family’s home and rape and attack the black females of the family and there was nothing that could be done about it;
-White men who fathered countless children with black women, then those white fathers turned around and abandoned their own flesh and blood;
-White men who said over, and over, and over again the continued lies/mythology of black female lasciviousness……that not only was there no such thing as a chaste black woman—but that a black woman could not be raped, that it was never against her will;
-During Reconstruction, white rapists perpetuated massive rapes against black women: in the Memphis Riot of 1868, whites angered by the presence of black militiamen attacked the city’s black community, murdering, beating and raping its inhabitants and burning homes and businesses;
-When Jim Crow pigmentocracy reigned supreme, black women continued to be the objects of sexualized gendered racism for over 90 years—-sexual aggressions stemming from the practice and ideology of white supremacy. Black domestic servants working in white homes were the most vulnerable to be raped.
Today in 2007, it is still okay for white men to degrade and insult black women.
Black women in America are still being “raped” and “lynched”by white men.
White men may not be able to walk into a black familty’s home the way white men of just a few decades ago were able to, but, this society still gives carte blanche to white men to desrespect, defile and defame black women.
Patricia Collins speaks of the ideology of “controlling image” And the Imus insult “nappy headed hos” is an extention of the Jezebel controlling image that white men created to justify brutally raping black women for over 400+ years.
There is no doubt about the connection. White men do control the media, so they have the most control of how images of groups of people are seen by people the world over. By controlling the image of black women as Jezebel/Slut/Whore, white men can bombard the mind with poliferated images of black women as less than human, as hyper-sexual, as lewd, as non-human.
White men justified their hatred of black women even after slavery, with the continued rape and assault upon black women. Immediately after slavery when black women were working to overcome the brutality of the conditions of slavery, many of them aspired to be ladies and finally be what they were: women, something they were not allowed to be under the abombinations of slavery. Many white men seeing this sought to tear down black women and accosted them on the streets, putting their hands on them in the most sadistic and crude ways.
Black women have long been the victims of racially motivated sexual violence by white men: that these perpetrators have characteristically committed their crimes with impunity; that their evil cruelties have long been obscured by racist notions that render many whites more ready to believe, at any given moment, that a black woman is a whore than that a white man is a rapist.
But, real racial violence has been visited upon black women for CENTURIES without adequate redress or even acknowledgement. (When was the last time a white man was sentenced to death for raping a black woman? When was the last time a white man was sentenced to life without parole for raping a black woman?)
For black Americans, especially for black women, the wounds of this history remain painful and unhealed.
At the same time, for many other non-black Americans, especially for whites, the image of the white man as racially motivated rapist resides safely (or so they hope and believe) in the past and supposedly no longer walks among us.
But the white man as “rapist” has never left this society.
Don Imus’s comments attest to that.
In Professor Patricia Hill Collins’s “Black Feminist Thought”, she states:
“Freedom for black women, has meant freedom *from* white men, not the freedom to chose white men as lovers and friends”. Moreover, she observed, “given the history of sexual abuse of black women by white men, individual black women who choose white partners become reminders of a difficult history. . .Such individual liaisons aggravate a collective sore spot because they recall historical master/slave relationships.”
And white men’s continued denigration of black women is alive and well in America.
When Imus made his comment he knew what he was speaking of. He made no slip of the tongue. And he was speaking for many people in America who have racist hatred of black women, no matter what black women do, no matter how hard they strive to better themselves, no matter how hard they work.
In many people’s eyes, all that black women accomplish will never be enough to overcome four hundred years of racist lies and filth that white men have created to destroy black women.
On racism, or what I prefer to call, white supremacy.
Racism comprises both omission, and comission. And there is no such thing as “Big Racist vs. Little Racist.
Racism is racism. Whether it is the face of a white father who loves his white children, sending them to the best schools in the city, but on the otherhand that same white father who may be on an all-white city council board that okays the gutting of programs by not allocating funding for libraries, community centers, and after-school programs in a black neighborhood. If this white father goes home and says within earshot of his young child, “Well, today we voted unanimously not to let those niggers have approved tax funding for a park/pool/social program in their neighborhood”, the young child will see racism in its most evil: the denying of basic needs and humanity to people because of their race/skin color. People teach by example. And contrary to what many people think, racists are not some fire-breathing dragon, foaming at the mouth monsters.
Racists can be very calm, kind and benevolent in the face they turn towards those whom they love and validate as human beings, yet cold, cruel, calculating and evil in the face they turn towards those they seek to destroy.
And as long as white and black America continue to be segregated from each other in segregated enclaves/neighborhoods, the racism will continue unabated. The ingrained imagined fears, preconceptions, misconceptions, prejudices and stereotypes will continue to remain unabated, unchallenged, unchanged.
And ingrained stereotypes are hard to destroy when people are too apathetic and lazy to challenge them.
A white mother sitting in her car with her child, upon seeing a black person approach the car, when all of a sudden she starts locking the doors sends a more sinister message to her child than all the “Nigger this”, or “Nigger that” comments. A white parent in an elevator who pulls their child closer to them when a black person enters the elevator sends a message to the child that a black human is less than human, a monster to be avoided at all costs.
Actions speak louder than words.
And there are many ways to “teach” racism.
And words are not the only way.
Just because a white person does not burn a cross on a black person’s lawn (sin of commission), does not mean that on a daily basis they can not send racist signals to their children of the continued devaluation of black Americans (sins of omission).
Yes, this is harder to overcome. But as long as black and white America live lives of “separate, but unequal” of inner city (black ) and white (suburbs) isolation, expect the animosity, the hatreds and the stereotypes to continue.
It past high time for white America to stop treating her black citizens like strangers in their own country. White people are not the only people who live in this country, and the continued disregard of black people as if they are some anamoly that should be pushed off to the margins, needs to stop.
And I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and the black parents did not teach their children to be dregs of society, nor to think of themselves as such, just because white society decreed it so.
But, black people are still human beings just like anyone else.
And even we get tired of the racial slurs, the blackface, the ghetto parties, the nigger-this, nigger-that, the they are all just savages, so who cares what they think.
Say whatever you can about them, what the hell, ther’re just black people
Contrary to what SOME people out there in America think, black people get tired, worn and put upon like any other human in this world.
And we are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
One hundred years ago during the time of W.E.B. Dubois, it was called the “Negro Problem”.
Negro problem. As if it was all the fault of black people that racism existed, came about and is still in existence. As if it’s all the fault of those aggravating, bothersome black people that stereotypes were created against them centuries ago. As if it’s all the fault of black people that white people centuries ago started the stereotypes of
coon/jiggaboo/rastus/whore/Jezebel/slut/mammy/sambo/unrapeble wench/nigger/beast rapist/pickaninny/darky/Sapphire/welfare queens (thank you Ronald Reagan)—-need I go on?
Black people are sick of racial profiling/followed around stores when we have money to purchase goods/pulled over on the flimsiest of traffic stops/driving while black/living while black/dying while black/vilified while black/looked at as freaks of nature: “Oh,you’re so articulate. Oh,you’re so nice, quiet and studious for a black person.”/having to be twice, no three times more qualified than everyone else just to get into the door.
Black people did not create this racist condition in America. If you want to be realistic about the “race problem” in America it was never black people.
White people were and still are the race problem, and it certainly worked in their best interests to put all the burder of race on black people.
There is NOTHING in this world stopping white people from acknowledging and treating with respect and equality black people.
And running to all the lily-white suburbs, running to all the all-white rural towns, running unto the ends of the Earth will not eradicate a problem that was started by white people.
The onus should not always be on black people. White people can work to make this a better country just like black people.
Hell, we aren’t the only ones who can give a damn whether this country swims, or sinks.
And we should not be the only ones to shoulder the burden of always trying to get this country to live up to its supposed ideals.
We black people tire, bleed, cry, suffer, and rejoice just like anyone else in this country.
But, people like Imus prove every day that black citizens have no rights that white America is bound to respect.
And you can definately be assured that he would NEVER have called a white woman a “ho”.
Only black women have had open season declared on us.
And we are still running the gauntlet of the racist/sexist hatred against us started by white men centuries ago.
This piece of human (Imus) said two things in his slander against black women and girls:
-Black women are whores no matter what they do, no matter who they are, no matter where they live. And of course it’s just got to be true because Massa said it is so. Massa’s been saying it for over 400+ years. Massa’s been raping black women for generations, so to justify his hatred and perversions against black women, he created the worst kind of blame the victim insult that has ever been done to one group of women: he called black women “black bitches/whores”, “nappy headed wenches” after he raped black people 10-20 different shades of beige;
-He also said that black women and their features are not to be considered as beautiful. In other words, black women’s tightly coiled, gravity-defying hair is considered bad in white America’s eyes, therefore, a black woman cannot, and should not, be considered as beautiful because the raping Massa said so.
Black women are beautiful, and we know it. We know that all the while non-black people are denigrating us, they are going to plastic surgeons to get ample asses, full lips, dark tans, and to the beauty shop to get braided hair——beauty attributes which we black women come by naturally—-beauty attributes we black women have that everyone who doesn’t have them, continue to disparage us about, but in the meantime they run off to cosmetically get what God did not give them.
Imus is just saying out loud what many white people, especially some white men, are thinking:
“We can’t rape those wenches/bitches/whores anymore with impunity. The only thing we have left is to call them names. And venom is all we have to act on.”
White America has had a long history of hatred of black women.
This week, the young ladies of Rutgers are to meet with Imus and to consider whether or not to accept his apology. Even though the decision is theirs, I would NOT ACCEPT his apology if I were them. All the apologies in the world can never make up for 400+ years of racist/sexist hatred of black women. Because of America’s hatred of black women from slaves on the auction block to living segregated lives in the South (all the while black people as a race kept on becoming lighter, and lighter, and lighter; so much for “segregation” of the races), has lent this country a psychotic vicious contempt shown towards black women that no other race of women in this country as suffered.
White men Imus’s age grew up during a time where it was socially and legally sanctioned to rape and abuse a black woman with impunity. He grew up as a child, when in the South white men could walk into a black family’s home and brutally force sex AND pregnancy onto black women and young black girls. Girls as young as 13-, 14-, and 15+ years-old.
This hatred of black women is entrenched into the minds of people that black women are not to be considered as humans, and most especially, not to be considered as women.
The degrading names hurled at black women started with white men, as they screamed racist/sexist epithets in the faces of black women as they lay on top of the black women raping them. And there are still, walking around alive, white men who raped and beat to death, black women who still would be alive were it not for the sadistic cruelty of white men during Jim Crow segregation.
White men who are still walking around eating, drinking, shitting, pissing, breathing air, and taking up precious space while the many women they destroyed, both in body, spirit and mind, lay cold somewhere in some unmarked grave. Mute testimony to the perverse depravities that have been visited upon the minds and bodies of black women generation after generation.
This country hates black women. It hates what we have survived. It hates what we have overcome. It hates what we have been able to do time and time again in the face of insurmountable odds, odds that would have destroyed lesser people.
And what this country hates, it continues to seek the destruction of———–namely black women.
Black women never have left the auction block. We never have been able to cease having to run the gauntlet of America’s racist mockery of its hypocritical love of womanhood. As long as it is a black woman, our womanhood will always be denigrated and defiled. Open season was declared on black women in this country as soon as the first black woman set foot into this Sodom and Gomorrah, in 1619, brought here against our will.
This country started the tearing apart all that was woman of black women, and it still does it. Which is why humans like Imus know they can get away with comments like his. Which is why black women, no matter how decent they are, no matter how modest they dress, are looked upon as fitting only to be treated as less than.
That is the legacy of America’s hatred of black women.
And as long as America looks upon black women as having no rights to be respected as women, expect black women to continue to have to run the gauntlet of racist/sexist hatred. It’s here to stay unfortunately. It ain’t going anywhere, anytime soon.
Ann, that was a great post.
Ya know…after I posted I re-read your post, and I thought you’d say I hadn’t read your post very thoroughly. And you were right. My second reading allowed me to see that you gave yourself several outs– citing what OTHER people believed, not you yourself. But now you tell me that “…it can also be said that some are racially, physically superior to others just as some are racially mentally superior,” and that these ideas are “……a proven and documented fact.” So we’re back at square one. You don’t believe you have to take people for who they are as individuals, because you already think you know who they are based on their race, AND the so-called “facts” you’re familiar with. Perhaps you need to do a bit more research into those “facts” of yours, and check out some of the updated data on race and ethnicity.
Whatever the case, it’s 2007, and I pray my two year old daughter never has to meet up with the likes of you. In a day and age where we’ve seen everything from black people who are rocket scientists and black neurosurgeons and the fastest persons on earth, to black multimillionaires billionaires with internationally influential talk shows, and black presidential candidates– her future ought to be better than one that is clouded by people who think they already know what her interests and capacities are, based on her race.
Faith you are still so far off it is not funny.
To say that there is no difference in racial characteristics flies in the face of everything that anthropology has shown. Short, stocky bodies developed from living in colder climates and tall, thin bodies from living in warm climates. The amount of melanin in the skin cells dictates the darkness of the skin and this is a genetic trait from climates with intense sunlight. Because the high amount of melanin can cause a deficiency of vitamin D, people that lived in areas of low sunlight produced less melanin. These, as well as hundreds of other differences are racial characteristics. Who is to say which is BETTER but we can all agree that different races have different characteristics. Being different, some characteristics are going to be superior or inferior depending upon the environment or circumstance. Acknowledging this is racist! Not acknowledging it is foolish. You seem to be dead set on making me out to be some kind of a bigot because I can acknowledge these differences. So be it.
Please note your several paragraphs about how you are not racist by taking a look at your ending paragraph:
1. And while I”m on this topic– it’s funny that when white men dominated basketball in this country, it was because they were smarter, more skillful players who worked harder. When African Americans came to dominate the sport….uh– it was because we were genetically superior. Now how convenient is that argument???
Does this sound like somebody who is free from racial stereotyping or prejudice? I think not. We all have it and it is OK. You were making a statement and expressing your opinion. I did not feel offended even though I do not agree with you. I don’t even feel offended when you say you hope your two-year old daughter nevers meets up with the likes of me! I’m not sure where you get the idea that I think I know what her interests and capacities are; certainly not from anything that I have written. Maybe from what you think you are reading. Maybe you could enlighten me on what I have written that in any way would lead a rational person to think what you are accusing me of? Go back and read the definition of racist, ok. It is perfectly all right to be racist as I maintain that it is an inherent trait in man. It stops being OK when racism becomes overtly destructive. What has happened in the PC America today is that through the mere imagination of a slight brings media seekers to a heated frenzy. You know the old adage; “if you look for an insult you’ll find one. We all need to try and be a little more tolerant of others; of all races, religion and gender.
Anyway, it sounds like Imus got fired so everybody that was offended should be gratified; but I bet it just won’t be enough for some people!
“mandolin, you sound very sexist. I am a White man therefore I can only imagine what a White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, whatever woman trully feels. The Same goes for another man of a different race but truly the same can be said of all people. I don’t know how, literally my brother feels as I am not him. You jump to an awfully lot of conclusions about “White Men”. Maybe you could back it up a bit. We may think we can identify with people of similar backgrounds and environment but we really don’t know how the feel or how they look at different actions.”
Commenting on how cultural training places men above women, and whites above non-whites, is neither sexist nor racist.
David wrote:
But David, if your white skin makes you mentally superior, how is it you’re an idiot?
Banned.
Also banned: Stop The Foolishness, GET OVERIT, and Pickedaname. Bye-bye, racists and racist apologists; rest assured you will not be missed.
(Bannings done with Rachel’s permission.)
mandolin,
I’m a bit scared of responding to you here–I think the (valid and not necessarily nasty) discussion we’re having runs the risk of being shadowed by the (invalid and nasty) arguments regarding, um, racial superiority in life, athletics, and… oh hell, all that shit. (wasn’t atht put to rest a long time ago? thanks, Amp, for banning them….)
But I’ll try anyway.
First: I think we’re in more agreement than disagreement. Can we make sure we’re not disagreeing over nothing?
I agree that a POC who comments on racism is likely to be correct; more likely than a white person.
My disagreement focuses on three very specific aspects:
1) the complete extension of that policy to replace “likely” and “more likely” with “always.”
2) the applicability of that expertise to judge the motives of a third party.
3) semantics.
1 The first should be obvious. Absolute claims are generally false, and IMO this one is no exception. You’ve probably seen similar arguments everywhere else. But I’m not sure you disagree with it, so I won’t bother supporting that argument in detail unless you do.
2 To the degree that someone claims superior ability to say that something was meant to be racist, that goes towards a claim of being able to understand the intent of the actor. And I’m not sure that POC possess a special ability to accurately know others’ “true heart.” Certainly, assessing the hidden motives of a third party seems like something that is a long way away from the claimed “always right” standard. I’m still chewing on this, and I think i might agree that POC are better at these assessments. But “better at it” doesn’t mean they’re so much better that they are the only source worth consulting.
3. Semantics. This is a perfectly valid point on which to disagree. Racism is a societal issue. It requires a societal definition. And if someone is using a different definition of racism then I do, and claiming it’s an objective standard, I don’t see why that shouldn’t be a subject for debate.
O.K. If this is a claim that black people have absolute authority to determine what is racist and what isn’t and that white people have to accept that, I reject it. However, if this is to be read as “White folks shouldn’t just blithely walk though life without taking into consideration that racism exists. They need to educate themselves on that and it’s effects – black people are not obligated to have to explain it to them before they’ll acknowledge it and deal with it,” then I can agree. However, I’ll need the author to explain herself further on what she meant.
Another aspect of this scenario has to be taken into consideration.
The white men who run the radio, broadcast and recording studio conglomerates are today’s aristocracy/planter class masters. They control and dominate the images of black women in America. Imus and McGuirk, are the slave overseers working to keep alive the racist/sexist ideology of these corporate masters.
And one more question needs to be asked.
Why was Imus the only one singled out during this broadcast? Was it not Bernard McGuirk, the producer, who started this racist/sexist diatribe? Why does he have more protection than Imus in all of this? Why does he remain unscathed from all of this? What kind of blackmail does he have over MSNBC?
If Imus must go down, then so should McGuirk go down as well.
Wow. I’m utterly amazed that MSNBC, and many other companies, have decided to terminate their relationships with Don Imus. I just can’t believe it! I’ve witnessed battles over sexism, racism, black-on-black sexism and racism, interracial sexism and racism, etc., or my entire life. For so long the struggle seemed almost hopeless to me, because too many people had too much invested– both personally and financially– in exercising their right to demean others for the sake of personal aggrandizement. And then Don Imus, and a group of unknown college women, bring us to what will undoubtedly be a watershed moment in our country’s history!?!?! Frankly, it’s exciting! I could never have imagined it! And watch….I think this will not only have repercussions throughout the radio and television industry. I think this will have repercussions in the hip hop community, as well. After all, CBS has to be thinking how can we censure Don Imus for this type of speech, and then continue to make money off of Ludacris, et al, calling women ho’s– without being hypocrites. Undoubtedly, the “Where will it all end?” factor has to be playing a role in CBS’s delay. This is going to be a very interesting struggle to watch.
I think the reason this snowballed has to do with who Imus’s targets were. How can you tell people that they have to pull themselves up, go to college, and on and on if they want to “be somebody” and then torment and taunt them with racist names notwithstanding their efforts? I think this is approximately the same reaction that followed George Allen’s “macaca” comment. The target of that comment was such a sympathetic, overachieving young man and that’s what, in the end, made the comment indefensible, whatever the motivation. Here, with Imus, even if the intent was not racist (hard to believe) it was clearly intended to be derogatory and insulting, and well, just plain mean. It’ s one thing to call Al Sharpton names, or any other politician, but a bunch of young girls playing their hearts out on a basketball team . . . not cool. Not cool at all.
In todays times why would someone make a comment like that without thinking of the conciquences? Stupid. If I had a job that paid the kind of salary he makes I would be more careul to protect that job.
Does Don Imus’ show take calls? Because if so, rather than see the victim lineup that we saw at the Rutgers’ press conference, I’d love to hear the team captain call up his show and tell him what an asshole he is. Play offense, ladies.
Very interesting comments and some good points raised. I was reading the letters’ forum in my city’s newspaper and letter after letter supporting Imus, who I’m ashamed to say(but not surprised) was born in my city.
The disappointing part of this thread is that once again, it’s featuring that common dynamic, what about us White people? And who are you to tell us White people what is racist, leave that up to us. File this one under thread #1,00o,0000 or so with this dynamic. Not just here but all over the blogsphere.
Bye bye to the trolls. I read some of them and I thought I was back on my site, LOL, after dealing with a whiner last night who accused me of violating his First Amendment rights because I had the comments moderation function activated. There should be a primer that just because you ban someone or moderate comments on your site that doesn’t mean you’re violating the First Amendment which is part of the Bill of Rights set up to state what the government can’t do.
Ann made this and other equally untrue comments:
This country hates black women. It hates what we have survived. It hates what we have overcome. It hates what we have been able to do time and time again in the face of insurmountable odds, odds that would have destroyed lesser people
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
Rather than point out the many inconsistencies and untrue statements I chose this one for it’s obvious racism. WHO ARE THE LESSER PEOPLE WHICH ANN IS TALKING ABOUT? Shameful. I suspect Ann will be held less accountable for her speech than other equally deplorable commenters .
Barbara:
After all, CBS has to be thinking how can we censure Don Imus for this type of speech, and then continue to make money off of Ludacris, et al, calling women ho’s– without being hypocrites.
Oh, I’m afraid I’d bet that they haven’t thought two seconds about it. When sponsors withdraw because they’re playing Ludacris, then they’ll think about it, but not until then.
Rachel S.:
a whiner last night who accused me of violating his First Amendment rights because I had the comments moderation function activated.
Ha! Too right. Ignorance about what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean and what they’re for abounds, unfortunately. What part of “Congress shall make no law …” did they not understand? Tell them to read it again, and if they don’t like it they should start their own blog. As H. L. Mencken said, “Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.” You could fill a lot of web pages with examples of people who think that “freedom of the press” means that people who own a TV/radio/print/blog outlet have to let them say anything they want on it.
Ann said :
And one more question needs to be asked.
Why was Imus the only one singled out during this broadcast? Was it not Bernard McGuirk, the producer, who started this racist/sexist diatribe? Why does he have more protection than Imus in all of this? Why does he remain unscathed from all of this? What kind of blackmail does he have over MSNBC?
The answer should be obvious. As Imus goes so goes McGuirk and several other individuals on the Imus team.
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
um, michael, do you understand generalities?
Here:
Men are generally taller than women. This general statement is valid even though some women are taller than some men.
Got it?
Now:
The country treats black women, generally speaking, very badly. This general statement is also valid, even though some black women happen to be on television, famous, or rich.
Unless you’re seriously claiming that black women are, um, treated BETTER than everyone else, as a general rule?
RonF,
RE: “After all, CBS has to be thinking how can we censure Don Imus for this type of speech, and then continue to make money off of Ludacris, et al, calling women ho’s– without being hypocrites.”
That was me, not Barbara. And regarding your response to my 15 minutes of optimistic delusions– There you go, snatching my moment of hope away, LOL. Oh well. Perhaps things really will just return to the state of “business as usual.” There was a DJ in Allentown, PA who was fired yesterday for asking listerners to call in and say the day’s “Phrase that Pays”– “I’m a nappy headed ho.” He awarded three listeners with Nascar tickets. Seeing this kind of behavior simply confirms suspicians that women like the Scarlett Knights (and women like me,) will never be able to achieve anything that might put them beyond the ridicule and discrimination of certain people in our society. Well, between that, and Imus calling White House Coorespondent, Gwen Ifill, a cleaning lady. It’s as if a black woman could find the cure for cancer, and these guys would say she found it under her dust mop!
Still, at the end of the day I’d still like to believe something good will come out of this Imus controversy. It would be too hard to get up and face each day if I couldn’t believe the world my daughter will inherit, will in some way be better for her, than is the world the Baby Boomers handed over to the Scarlett Knights last week.
Peace out.
Ann said :
This country hates black women. It hates what we have survived. It hates what we have overcome.
Michael responded :
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
Then Sailorman Writes:
April 12th, 2007 at 11:37 am Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
um, michael, do you understand generalities?
Here:
Men are generally taller than women. This general statement is valid even though some women are taller than some men.
Got it?
Now:
The country treats black women, generally speaking, very badly. This general statement is also valid, even though some black women happen to be on television, famous, or rich.
Unless you’re seriously claiming that black women are, um, treated BETTER than everyone else, as a general rule?
Spare me the condescension. I disagree with the GENERAL STATEMENT MADE BY ANN which was that “this country HATES black women .” Do you follow me so far? Today Oprah will have on several of the team members of Rutgers as well as their coach to discuss the issues surrounding the comment made by Imus . Claiming that this country praises black women to a great degree is far from claiming that black women are treated BETTER than everyone else. In fact, it says nothing of the sort. Still with me? It merely refutes the general claim by Ann. I simply don’t believe that America HATES black women. As a general statement I feel that is wrong. In addition, your general statement is different from both Ann’s comment and mine.
Ann said :
This country hates black women
Michael responded :
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree
Sailorman said :
The country treats black women, generally speaking, very badly
There you go. As you should be able to understand, all three are very general stamens indeed which say very different things. But my statement has nothing to do with your ludicrous conclusion stated here :
Unless you’re seriously claiming that black women are, um, treated BETTER than everyone else, as a general rule?
How black women are treated in America is open for debate. I think the answer is far more nuanced than what has been presented here. But in the Imus situation it appears that the response to a despicable statement by an aging shock jock and his employees was countered by an even greater number of pundits as well as the general public.
Michael, lemme ask me ask you something:
What the fuck do you want from us?
I, other women of color, and those who sympathize with us have expressed our anger, our hurt, and our frustration at the indignities that we have suffered not only by this incident, but because it brings up memories of incidents past, memories of what our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. have suffered. I and others who stand beside me have appealed to you, RonF, and other racism apologists (I call it like it is!) appealing to you to please understand the pain that runs deep in our souls that goes far back to the time of our ancestors.
Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
I ask you again: WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US?
Should more of our brothers and sisters be lynched for petty crimes or crimes they didn’t even commit in order for you to see injustice?
Shall we hold peaceful protests and sit-ins only to be beaten back by police for you to sit up and think that maybe something is not right?
Shall we revisit the teachings of Malcolm X and claim our God-given rights by any means necessary?
Or are you just content to sit back in your little simple-minded world refusing to see things as they really are? Do our talks of racism and injustice truly disturb you that much? If so, then why are you still here?
I’ll ask you one more time: What do you want from us?
Faith:
“I’ll ask you one more time: What do you want from us? ”
He does not want us to tell the truth.
Imus’s comments are just the icing on the cake of America’s hatred of black women. And Imus and McGuirk are just the scabs peeling off to reveal 400 years of racist, sexist hatred of black women.
Black women of all women in this country have been treated worse than an animal, both past, and present.
Black women’s feaures are denigrated by this society.
Black women’s accomplishments are unknown to many people living in this country, some of whom are reading this message board right now.
Black women are least likely to be believed when they file charges of rape.
Black women in America are treated WORSE THAN white women, Latina women, Asian women, and Native American women in this country.
Even though it was white men who have raped US for centuries, many people are more ready to believe the lies white men have spun about themselves as being guiltless in their atrocities against black women and girls in this country.
Oprah Winfrey is just ONE black woman in America who has been able to make it to the top of her profession.
She does not represent ALL black women in this country.
Black women are still paid less than white men, Asian men, white women, and black men.
Black women are disparaged and called racist/sexist epithets MORE than any other race of women, so devalued we are by this society. Black women’s contributions to this country are still not acknowleged, especially the impact black women have had on the feminist movement (which was all but destroyed by racist white feminists during all three waves), black women are the unknown and unsung heroines of the Civil Rights Movement (and it is a sick shame that Sister Rosa Parks [God rest her soul] is the ONLY black woman who comes to mind when people mention the words civil rights movement). Black women have had many major impacts on this country, but, because of the way we have been vilified, degraded, debased, debauched and torn apart by this BLACK-WOMAN HATING country, there is so much of OUR HISTORY that has remained not only unheralded, but also lost, due to the tremendous dieregard we have suffered over the centuries and decades.
I would like for Michael to show me where black women are so loved, adored and respected by this country AS A WHOLE. I would like for Michael to show me where black women have been, and are now, being treated humanely and respectfully, by this country.
Imus’s comment as I said in my previous post was just the tip of the iceberg.
And white men, still have hatred against black women. Michael’s dismissal of all that we have undergone, and are still undergoing in this country, reeks of callous insensitive behaviour.
“How black women are treated in America is open for debate. I think the answer is far more nuanced than what has been presented here. ”
No the answers are beyond nuanced. Black women have to face the daily assaults and slaps in our faces in all the attacks upon our integrity, our diginity, our honor, our validity.
No other race of women suffer what we do on a daily,weekly, yearly basis.
And Michael, there is no debate as to how black women are treated in this country.
America’s racist/sexist history, America’s love of vicious stereotypes, America’s disregard for a race of women who have given so much to this country only to be stomped on and spit on time after time, shows that America has never had any love or respect for black women.
And America still does not.
And Michal, make no mistake about this. Just because some people are rushing to these young black women’s defense does not mean that America has all of a sudden developed a love affair with black women.
If it was not for the outcry of many black people, and those non-black people who said, “Enough is enough”, with the shameful way this country is treating black women, I can assure you, it would have been business as usual for Imus, McGuirk, and many other black women haters out there like them.
Just because this incident has struck a nerve in some people does not mean that all of a sudden this country has awakened to face up to the cruelties of what black women have had to endure in this country.
How white men/men of other races reading my words on this blog; how white men/men of other races in your neighborhood; how white men/men of other races treat black women in the here and now, will say a whole lot about whether or not black women are treated with respect and diginity in this country.
And I can assure you, that there would be VERY FEW white men/men of other races who can come forward in large numbers and say that they treat black women with the respect we deserve and have a right to as any other races of women in this country.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
And many men of all races in this country have not shown in any way, overwhelming numbers that prove that black women are given respect, validation, or a recognition of their humanity.
….aaaaand, CBS has now fired Don Imus.
I am new to this country and not familiar with racial slurs. Being a person of color it would be good to start understanding them. Can someone explain to me what the phrase means ?
Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
I ask you again: WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US?
In no way shape or form did I say any such thing. How you arrived at your conclusion has something to do other than what I stated based on the English language. You will not find me stating anywhere that everything is all right because of how people feel about Oprah Winfrey. That is simply a dishonest statement.
I want nothing from you. I am simply disagreeing with a position I read on this Blog.The comments by Imus are not indicative of White America or some sort of hatred by a majority of white people. In fact, how this has played out proves my point clearly. Imus has now been from both organizations for which he worked. He is now unemployed and has no radio voice. I would say that this is in sharp contest to others who have said equally hurtful things or worse. This conflicts with the general perception of those who think White racism
is promoted, accepted, and tolerated by the heads of major institutions such as CBS . I see no double standard to prove that point when I consider White racists and Black racist across the spectrum.
The only thing I expect from a discussion or debate is an honest assessment of the facts. Your feelings do not deserve more credence than do my opinions. Your emotions should not be elevated above actual facts. ANY debate stands on the merits of the facts. Well, at least it should.
Ann wrote a very stirring post about the many ways in which black women have been oppressed by white men physically, emotionally, and spiritually. At one point, she stated:
And you replied:
Now you tell me what was your point in bringing up Oprah? What else could you possibly mean by referring to the most non-threatening black woman in this country who is adored by so many white, middle-aged housewives?
And forget about Imus for a moment. Forget about Sharpton. Forget about the others, because right now I’m calling you out.
And that also goes for Robert, RonF, and all of the other racism apologists out there.
Because I’m sick out this bullshit. Having to hold your damn hand and explain to you why something is racist every single time the Mel Gibsons, the Don Imus’, the Michael Richards of this world open their mouths. It’s your turn to explain something to me: Why is it you refuse to oopen your eyes and see what’s right there in front of you?
I have no idea about the term “nappy headed hos” Being from the UK, I have never heard of it before, therefore can’t judge it.
To the person who made the comment that there should be equal punishment for white and whatever other ethnicity racists. I agree, But I don’t see what this has to do with this issue. But I also disagree with the comment that it means the poster believes that whites should be able to insult people.
To people saying it’s just a comment about attractiveness. that’s a sexist way of commentating, in mens sport I don’t hear anyone being judged on attractiveness, why should women be. (There’s exceptions for very ugly sportspeople, as I do hear people make jabs about that in mens sports too)
Ann asked :
I would like for Michael to show me where black women are so loved, adored and respected by this country AS A WHOLE. I would like for Michael to show me where black women have been, and are now, being treated humanely and respectfully, by this country
For starters I made love to my wife last night and as a matter of fact I asked my mother-in-law to come live with us. But perhaps she may not be Black enough for you. I could give you a list of thousands more examples but none of it would move you from the position you hold so dear.
But I will tell you this May my wife receives her law degree along with the many other Black females across the country. Need I remind you of the fact that Black women with college degrees earn more than do white women? So yea, there are a whole lot of Black women getting the praise, promotions, and financial rewards they so deserve .
A long detailed list of all the achievements is beyond the scope of this thread .Suffice it to say they are many and varied. There is no where else in the world where it is better to be a black woman than in this united states.
Fact . More Black men and women continue to come to this country for the freedom it offers than choose to leave . And by a very wide margine .
Angel said :
Now you tell me what was your point in bringing up Oprah? What else could you possibly mean by referring to the most non-threatening black woman in this country who is adored by so many white, middle-aged housewives?
Angel . you are losing control of yourself more in each post . You are not reading what is writtten , You are makin things up and seeing things which are not there . Now you are talking about Mel Gibson ( who by the way is a neighbor . I will be sure to tell him you said hello .) I have never engaged you about Gibson or Richards . EVER ! I don’t remember a thread here involving either with me taking part .
As I said :
You will not find me stating anywhere that everything is all right because of how people feel about Oprah Winfrey. That is simply a dishonest statement
Did you find me making such a silly comment ? The answer is no. But you made a huge leap that mentioning Oprah constituted me saying as such. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I actually wasn’t referring to Oprah Surprise! I was actually referring to the subject of this post. The Rutgers team and their achievements as women and athletes would be celebrated in front of a live audience. Combine that with the fact that Imus was FIRED and I say it buttresses my point. DO I really need to connect the dots for you? Imus fired = Imus rebuked. Rutgers players honored and respected before a national audience tells me that Rutgers players dignity prevails over Imus and his idiocy. But I do think the fact it happens on a show owned by the wealthiest woman in the world only adds to my point.
AGAIN! The reaction to Imus shows me that race relations are far better than you claim. All I ask is that you read what I say. Not what you wish to turn it into. Notice how I give you that respect which you do not afford me. Also, making ad hominem attacks does nothing for yours or Ann’s case.I could resort to the same cheap tactic . But I am above that . Please try to be also
Great discussion.
In the past, hasn’t Howard Stern said things that would be considered even more racist than Imus’s comments? I wish I could remember things he’s said, because I used to listen to his show. It’s just interesting that some things cause more public outrage than others. For intance, does anyone remember one radio station’s Tsunami Song” which mocked the victims of the 2004 tsunami affecting south Asia that left many “chinks” and “chinamen” dead? The writers of the song were fired from the station, but as far as I know, the DJs still have their jobs.
“Michael.
Ann made this and other equally untrue comments.”
Oh, I’m sorry. Please forgive me, a black woman for having the audacity to say such horrible things about white men. Please accept my humble apologies.
I mean, who am I, a black woman, to have the nerve to state that white men raped, sodomized, broke the skulls and jaws of black women? Who am I, a black woman, to say that white men did the most savage and cruelest sexual exploitation of black women? Who am I, a black woman, to have the nerve to state that white men have used and abused black women just because of their race, just because of the color of their skin?
Please forgive this lowly black woman. I had no right to question the “Almighty-Know-Everything-That-a-Black-Woman-Has-Experienced-in-this-Country” White man, such as yourself, Michael. Afterall, what do I, a black woman know about what it is to live in my skin as a black woman? Who am I, a black woman, to question the experience, the expertise, the have-the-last-word-on-all-things-black-women in this country have gone through, such as a white man like you, Michael?
My goodness, I forgot that white men know EVERYTHING that black women have gone through in this country. White men have lived the lives of black women in this country, NOT black women. Black women, hell, they don’t know what it is like to live in this country. They should be ashamed of themselves for talking about what this country has done to them, and is still doing to them. Black women need to just STFU and stop trying to act like they are such experts on their OWN lived experiences in this country. No one will believe them. No one will believe a word they say. But, it is the white man who should be believed, because he knows more than any black woman, period, what being a black woman is.
Isn’t that right, Michael?
Only a white man can truly know that.
No black woman definately can ever know, because, we are just black women, incapable of telling the truth, much less having lived it.
I mean, everyone knows that it was BLACK WOMEN who went out and raped ourselves into many different colors during slavery and segregation.
NOT WHITE MEN.
Everyone knows it was black women who ran down and degraded and mistreated white men. Everyone knows it was us Jezebel BLACK WOMEN, who started calling ourselves “Nigger bitch”, “nigger wench”, “Jezebel” , “whore”, “breeders” (and speaking of Jezebel in the Bible, do you know what they did to Jezebel, Michael? Hmm? Read the books of Kings. Believe me, it will be a real eye-opener.) Black women created all the negative stereotypes about ourselves.
NOT WHITE MEN.
On, and I am so sorry for having the nerve to tell YOU, Michael, a white man what life is like here in AMERICA FOR BLACK WOMEN, as anyone with any sense knows, WHITE MEN are the real experts on what lives black women have lived, and are still living in America.
Who am I, a black woman, to know more than the almighty-superior-never-has-told-a-lie-done-anything-wrong-hateful- vicious-cruel-sick-sadistic-depraved-perverse-abominable-psychotic to ANY black woman in America white man, what I know about what it is to be a black woman in America?
Who am I?
You know us nigger bitch black women.
We all lie about rape.
Heck, that’s what we black women did during slavery. Chased down and attacked each and every white man in the vicinity, and raped THEM, not to mention, got those pure, innocent never did anything wrong to a black woman white men, pregnant.
We black women, such liars. Raping and destroying defenseless white men.
Oh, and we black women also denied white men the most basic of human rights in this country. We did that for over 400 years. We black women had all this power over the lives of white men (and just to let you know, Michael, we still do. We black women STILL run the show in this country: we still own ALL the laws, the political machines/electorate, the economy, the banking industry, the real estate industry, the justice system—–EVERYTHING that affects this country, we black women have all the control of that. Yes, that’s us black women. Controlling the lives of everyone in this country, especially white men. )
We black women just do not know how life is in present day America.
And we certainly do not know our own history.
That why we black women always tell lies about how white men mistreated us during slavery/segregation.
We black women raped our ownselves right before we were lynched by mobs of white men.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women walked into the homes of WHITE MEN and got ourselves raped and impregnated against our will.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women gave ourselves domestic jobs which we were lucky enough to be paid $2-$3 a day for, IF we even got that at the end of the day.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women starved ourselves during segregation.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women gave ourselves sub-standard separate unequal educations.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women enacted laws that degraded and pillaged the honor of black women.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women today still keep residential areas of America segregated bEtween black and and white.
We black women have sold jobs overseas o foreign companies.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women have moved much needed jobs/companies/factories out of the inner cities, way out into rural/suburb areas.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women control the recording/newspaper publishing/automotive/banking industries in this country.
NOT WHITE MEN.
And most of all, we black women cannot begin to tell anyone what we live and experience and see with our own eyes what it is like to be a black woman in this country.
ONLY WHITE MEN CAN DO THAT.
So, please, Michael, forgive us black women for having the temerity to talk about what life is like for us.
I mean,what do we know?
Eveyeone with any knowledge of history knows that it was always white men who lived black women’s lives in this counry.
We black women were just spectators in the lives we have lived.
So, anytime we black women start speaking up, everyone should remember that it is WHITE MEN who are the true experts on what black women face every day in this country.
Because there’s just no way that black women can speak the truth of the black experience in America.
White man have always had that capability.
They’ve managed to be white men AND black women all at the same time.
Albert Einstein would be proud to have lived to see such a law of physics be carried out.
Even he could not have come up with such an inconceivable scenario.
We now return your television set over to you.
(And whatever everyone does, please don’t believe anything those black women say. Always remember that white men have the last say so over what black women live, breath, think, say, desire, need, see, experience in this country.)
And don’t ya’ll ever forget that.
“Need I remind you of the fact that Black women with college degrees earn more than do white women? ”
Yeah, you do, because I don’t believe it’s true.
There was a stat quoted on here a while ago that black women earn more IN COMPARISON TO black men than white women do IN COMPARISON TO white men, but I don’t think it held for absolute values.
Regarding the Don Imus situation, the end result, the firing of Mr. Imus by MSNBC and CBS shows what a backward society we still are. What did that decision resolve? It resolved nothing! That was white corporate America’s way of trying to make something distasteful go away. A more proactive decision by these two corporations would have been to implement sensitivity training programs throughout there organizations and have Mr. Imus take a leadership role within those programs both internally and externally.
The second thing these corporations should have done was to examine their diversity initiatives throughout their companies, at all levels especially Executive Management. I’ll bet at the executive level the ratio of white to black and Hispanics is less than 10 to 1.
That’s what two corporations would have done if they cared. If they really cared they would have been ahead of the curve
Re: In the past, hasn’t Howard Stern said things that would be considered even more racist than Imus’s comments?
Allen, I’m not a regular listener to Howard Stern’s show by any means. But I have heard him say some things that can be considered racist. However, the statements I’ve heard were somewhat mitigated by the fact that he was speaking more from a position of personal experience or personal distress, rather than from a position of gratuitously attacking people who had done nothing to him. For example, I’ve heard him describe the racial composition of his neighborhood changing, and his youthful dismay about his parents not leaving the community, despite his getting beat up by black kids in school. (Or something like that.) Stern doesn’t say this in the way I just said it, of course. If I remember correctly, he said his neighborhood turned into “Africa.” And the descriptions just go downhill from there. But in that context, while his characterizations of his neighbors and classmates certainly haven’t helped race relations– you can hardly say the man is wrong for saying, frankly, what was/is on his heart and mind about the situation. Howard has managed to insult, belittle and demean people without actually attacking them. On top of that, he shares (shared?) the mike with Robin Quivers– his black, female, on-air side-kick. All I can say about Robin Quivers is this– money makes for strange bedfellows. And every sister ain’t a “sister.”
Howard manages to disparage women without actually insulting women, in the exact same fashion that he demeans black people without actually attacking black people. I’ve never heard Howard call a woman a whore, without actually saying that she accepted money for something. No– he does something a bit more insidious. He continuously parades women sex workers, or those who have otherwise been involved in porn, or those who are willing to bear their breasts in public, on his show day after day. He treats them like sex toys and teases them into doing things they don’t always seem to feel comfortable with doing on-air. He asks them to do things in exchange for his doing other things for them. The women laugh about it. And then Howard leaves it up to you to decide if these women are whores or not. And as for those women who are not in sex related industries and not bearing their breasts for Howard? Frankly, I find it demeaning to see hard working and accomplished women reduced to being described sexually, or by the latest term I hate: MILF’s (mother’s I’d like to f….) Seeing accomplished, professional women, teenagers in the public eye, and moms described in this way upsets me. But you can hardly say it’s an insult if some man you don’t know says he finds you sexually attractive and wants to get in your pants– without any regard to your professional or personal role in society.
Now, as I’ve already indicated– I’m not familiar with everything Howard Stern has ever said. But if you ask me, the above examples might explain how Howard Stern escapes being called a racist, while discussing race in unflattering terms. As for him being a sexist? I think there’s no doubt that he’s a sexist. However, he finds women he can encourage to be complicit in their own exploitation. So what can you do, other than tune him out?
Wow…..Deirdre Imus (Don Imus’s wife) told listeners this morning, that the Rutgers Athletes had been receiving hate mail! (I know. I shouldn’t be shocked. But to think these young women are receiveing hatemail after this physically pains me in the gut.) Ms. Imus asked that people stop sending these women hate mail; and that if anyone deserved the hatemail– it was her husband.
Otherwise, I’m really sorry if the previous post on Howard Stern was too long. I really couldn’t figure out how else to discribe my opinion on the subject.
Sorry if this offends some but I truly believe that MOST whites are racist. It is within themselves. It is just that for some it comes out uncontrollably and when this happens to a public figure like Imus it creates what it has created. It is ironic; while it is the blacks who suffered and been exploited for so long the whites don’t even have a sense of sympathy and yet they preach of human rights, freedom, christianity, fairness, bla bla bla. This country is far from reconcilliation. It is a time bomb! So much is going on within every American’s mind. Hatred is within every one of us.
“Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience. ”
And just where are ALL these people who are praising all the accomplishments of black women? Hmm? Where are they, Michael? What, two or three out of hundreds of thousands out there?
I’m listening.
Oh, the silence is deafening.
Keep in mind that it eally boiled down to TWO thigs that got Imus fired (in addition to Imus himself), and those two things were:
1. The various racial groups of people who worked at MSNBC;
2. And the young ladies of Rutgers, who showed so much grace and poise under assaults upon their character and integrity.
Yes, there were people around the country some of whom stood up for these young ladies and their honor, but, there is no way you can tell me that the MAJORITY of Americans (meaning those who are not black women) in this country care overwhelmingly whether or not black women live lives of safety and happiness in this country.
How people of various races, especialy men of other races, treat black women in their daily lives (at work, passing them by on a sidewalk, at the grocery store, at a night club, in any endeavor whatsoever, HOW people treat black women in 2007 America tells me alot about how true it is that black women are “praised” in this country.
Facts are that black women ARE denigrated daily in every way in this country.
You just refuse to believe that, Michael but, then again, I’m just a black woman. What do I know.
Oh, almost forgot.
Say, “Hello”, to Mel Gibson for me. :)
mandolin Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 4:32 am “Need I remind you of the fact that Black women with college degrees earn more than do white women? ”
Yeah, you do, because I don’t believe it’s true.
Well Mandolin you are wrong as well an uninformed
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bythenumbers/2005-03-28-income-education_x.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) — Black and Asian women with bachelor’s degrees earn slightly more than similarly educated white women, and white men with four-year degrees make more than anyone else.
A white woman with a bachelor’s degree typically earned nearly $37,800 in 2003, compared with nearly $43,700 for a college-educated Asian woman and $41,100 for a college-educated black woman, according to data being released Monday by the Census Bureau. Hispanic women took home slightly less at $37,600 a year
Ann Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 4:20 am
“Michael.
Ann made this and other equally untrue comments.”
Oh, I’m sorry. Please forgive me, a black woman for having the audacity to say such horrible things about white men. Please accept my humble apologies.
I mean, who am I, a black woman, to have the nerve to state that white men raped, sodomized, broke the skulls and jaws of black women? Who am I, a black woman, to say that white men did the most savage and cruelest sexual exploitation of black women? Who am I, a black woman, to have the nerve to state that white men have used and abused black women just because of their race, just because of the color of their skin?
While that rant may garner you pitty points it has nothing to do with the issue at hand . The thread is about Imus . Did you forget that ? Stop pulling out the same page you have used so many times . No . The history of slavery and the brutality which occurred as a result is not germain to the discussion involving Imus .Remeber this from rachel’s post :
The national Association of Black Journalists called for an apology from Imus. Imus subsequently issued an apology, but is that enough?
Take that and the additional questions posed from the thread and try to remain of topic . In the past you have gone on the same rant where is only tangentially related to the discussion on hand. In addition I don’t need a history lesson on slavery . Certainly not the same one you repeat over and over again . I already received my undergraduate degrees in history and Political Science.If I were to match your sarcasm I would simply ask you to learn the meaning of Non sequitur
Oh yes, getting back to the thread and the discussion at hand.Imus now has been fired. Is that enough? Did the Imus situation play out as an example of institutional racism? Did Imus get off too easy? Did Imus get a pass not offered to Black men who make the same kinds of disparaging remarks? Show exactly where racism raises its ugly head in how Imus was treated as opposed to Black men.
What you do is attempt to obfuscate the discussion at hand and the point I am making. This is not a case of racism in which Imus is afforded special treatment not reserved for people of color. Saying that seems to offend your senses. Responding with a history of past abuses says nothing about what happened here. Imagine! Showing that one particular form of racism is not involved in one particular case brings forth this volume of hate. Did you learn NOTHING from the Duke case? Apparently the answer is NO.
And just where are ALL these people who are praising all the accomplishments of black women? Hmm? Where are they, Michael? What, two or three out of hundreds of thousands out there?
I’m listening.
Oh, the silence is deafening
Actually the roar with be deafening when my niece graduate this spring from perhaps the most prestigious high school in the world. Her achievements in the classroom and on the athletic field have been very well documented. My wife pointed out another recent mention in the paper. The same will be true for my wife who graduates from law school this spring. Already a very well employed woman she continues to win praise for the quality of her work. She is constantly receiving offers from prospective employers to leave her job for a higher paying one. This same scene is being played all over the country for high achieving women of color. You are just too vested in the past to see the reality of today as well as the future
Michael,
As far as I’m concerned, calling me uninformed when I ask for proof to back up one of your claims, is a personal attack.
Also, from your linked article:
“The bureau did not say why the differences exist. Economists and sociologists suggest possible factors: the tendency of minority women, especially blacks, to more often hold more than one job or work more than 40 hours a week, and the tendency of black professional women who take time off to have a child to return to the work force sooner than others.”
“Take that and the additional questions posed from the thread and try to remain of topic. ”
This strikes me as a silencing move, to try to get Ann to stop talking. If other questions that have been “posed from the thread” are fair game, then surely what Ann brings up is also fair game.
Ann, I for one, have appreciated your posts.
You know, the other day I was going to chime in on this thread but unfortunately happened to read Ann’s post and decided to sit back and see if there was a reaction. I expected at least mild denouncement from several posters and was surprised when that didn’t occur. I mean if I were to post a 15 paragraph rant about how “the black man” (or the Jews, etc.) did this first and “the black man” does that, I would probably be banned, passionately criticized, and rightfully so.
On these types of racist themed threads on this board I have usually been reluctant to call someone a racist because its hard to know what is in someone’s heart from the scant information we usually get in these cases (like the urban themed parties, etc.) I am also one of those from the camp that racism is a very bad thing with a scarlet letter, and should be differentiated from lesser forms. Some posters articulated my position pretty well earlier in the thread. So I would not call Ann’s post racist, but I did get the impression that she would not have any problem personally judging me based on nothing more than the fact that I am a white male. I could have misinterpreted, but that was just my impression.
I’m sure you have enjoyed Ann’s posts regardless of how off topic. She responded with a bunch of things which have more to do with her feelings and emotions as opposed to what I wrote.
Also, calling you uninformed is not a personal attack. I stated a fact and you clearly said you did not believe me. It is more than reasonable to conclude you are uninformed as to this matter. I gave you one article to read. But I am very familiar with all the research surrounding this issue. Educate yourself as to the number of women as compared to men who are graduating from college. Also, look at the numbers starting in the late 70’s. The trend is toward women being more educated than men. The old notions of race and gender are changing as older white males retire from the highest paying jobs.
But more to point I was correct in my factual stamen. A simple apology from you would have sufficed
Faith.
“Wow…..Deirdre Imus (Don Imus’s wife) told listeners this morning, that the Rutgers Athletes had been receiving hate mail! (I know. I shouldn’t be shocked. But to think these young women are receiveing hatemail after this physically pains me in the gut.) Ms. Imus asked that people stop sending these women hate mail; and that if anyone deserved the hatemail– it was her husband.”
Now, Faith, why does that not surprise me? But, according to Michael, we black women are always being “praised” so much.
If what Michael said was true, then why are these young women receiving hate mail?
Can you answer me that question, Michael?
Since according to you black women live lives of such joy, peace and respect in the good ‘ol USA. We are constantly on a daily basis, praised to the high heavens.
Hate mail.
Boy, if that is what praise is supposed to be, I’d hate to see what denigration is supposed to be.
But, of course, I’m just a black woman.
What do I know.
Pingback: FIRED!!! » The Primary Contradiction
mandolin.
“Ann, I for one, have appreciated your posts. ”
Don’t pay Michael too much mind, okay.
He and I go way back.
He just “loves” it when I tell the truth.
Then again, I’m just a black woman.
But…what…do…I…know.
“But more to point I was correct in my factual stamen. A simple apology from you would have sufficed ”
If warranted. However, your goal was clearly to attack. You did not say “uninformed in this matter,” you said uninformed. I did not similarly attack you.
“You know, the other day I was going to chime in on this thread but unfortunately happened to read Ann’s post and decided to sit back and see if there was a reaction. I expected at least mild denouncement from several posters and was surprised when that didn’t occur. I mean if I were to post a 15 paragraph rant about how “the black man” (or the Jews, etc.) did this first and “the black man” does that, I would probably be banned, passionately criticized, and rightfully so. ”
Larry,
Michael was informing Ann that modern racism, an extremely harmful practice, did not occur.
Ann responded with a justifiably enraged, bordering-on-poetry, description of racism, historical and modern, as it has affected her life and the lives of other black women.
It was clear that she was using a class-based analysis. Further, it was clear that she was writing in a mode of poetic anger, not argument.
Was it not white men who raped black slave women? In this thread, has it not primarily been white men who claim the right to reinterpret black women’s experiences for them? Has it not primarily been white men who are telling black women they’re complaining about nothing?
Michael has been, in my opinion, ridiculous and unnecessarily vicious. Ann’s frustration and anger at having her historically minimized perspective minimized here seems perfectly justifiable to me.
Remember, however, that I am not a site manager or moderator here. They would have to comment for you to know any kind of Official Position.
I just call them as I see them, and I thought Ann could use some words of support, given that she’s being piled on with a whole lot of ignorance.
For the record Michael has been attacking Ann for at least a year over at my site. He routinely dismisses women’s opinons, especially black women. This is his MO.
When many white people respond to Ann’s posts, they get really angry. Part of the problem is that they don’t realize that Ann is not and doesn’t not believe that all white men are evil (or all white people are evil). Unfortunately, American history has shown us the that vast majority of white men have not respected black women. Rape and abuse of black women by white men was routine during slavery. The vestiages of that are still with us.
Ann speaks about the hidden (or semi-hidden) truth of American history, and she doesn’t flower it up. It’s a hard pill for white America to swallow, but it is the truth. One example of how white men abuse black women’s bodies and sexuality is the Hottentot Venus. In this case black women were displayed, in the same way that we exhibit zoo animals. They even saved her genitalia until the 1970s and didn’t return her remains to Africa until 2002.
That’s just one case that exhibits how many European and European American men (and women) viewed black women.
It may be a hard pill to swallow, but Don Imus’s comments are an extention of the view that black women are “freaks of nature.”
mandolin said, “Was it not white men who raped black slave women?”
Yep, it sure was.
Mandolin said, “In this thread, has it not primarily been white men who claim the right to reinterpret black women’s experiences for them? Has it not primarily been white men who are telling black women they’re complaining about nothing?”
Oh, hell yes.
Mandolin said, “Michael has been, in my opinion, ridiculous and unnecessarily vicious. Ann’s frustration and anger at having her historically minimized perspective minimized here seems perfectly justifiable to me.”
Yeah this is Michael’s typical behavior. Perhaps I should ban him for being so disrespectful of black women.
To Michael.
You repeatedly have utilized typically white male supremacist tactics of engagement here, specifically directed against Ann, a Black woman who knows better than to be silent in the face of white male supremacy.
You cannot see these as tactics, it appears. You continue on and on, utilizing the same means to position yourself as smarter and clearer and more “on top” of things than Ann. You, the white male rational actor. She, the emotional off-topic hysteric. Your treatment of her here is not only obnoxious as hell, it’s racist and misogynist.
White male privileges tend to make us white guys pretty damned ignorant and arrogant. Your white male supremacist fly is open, and that white dick of yours is waving freely here. Put it back in your pants, please.
And get the f*ck off of Ann’s case, white man. You’ve said what you need to say, have you not? Why are you continually going on and on and on? You ARE trying to silence and disrespect Ann’s views and feelings. Stop it.
Regarding this stupendously white male supremacist comment of yours:
“The history of slavery and the brutality which occurred as a result is not germain to the discussion involving Imus”
This is typical white racist/male misogynist argumentation: things have nothing to do with other things. Every incident exists within its own discreet universe.
Quantum physics and the experiences of oppressed people might make you think otherwise, if you were capable of really listening. You’re operating out of some old whitemale-created mechanistic social worldview, that, well, isn’t reality. White male privilege allows you to experience the world that way, Michael, because things don’t happen to white guys like us SYSTEMATICALLY AND HISTORICALLY that make us into things–subordinated, stigmatized, objectified, abused things.
Your way of arguing with Ann only proves everything she has been saying about you.
And please don’t bore the rest here with more of the same.
Instead, please read Deals With The Devil, and Other Reasons To Riot, by Pearl Cleage, and many other books written by Black feminist women, and get a real education.
Please also read the following, instead of going on about how “rationally right” you are and how “irrationally wrong” Ann is. She’s lived it. You haven’t. Your oh-so-typical white male supremacist strategies have been used against women and people of color for centuries. Especially by white men against Black women.
Knock it off.
And instead read this.
You don’t get to name “what is relevant” here, white man. Ann and other Black women here do. The topic IS how Black women are treated in the U.S. Imus’s remarks are but one example of what Black women endure daily.
She’s the teacher and you’re the student. Start listening and learning. Or just keep on remaining ignorant and arrogant–your privileges and our white male dominated and controlled institutions will allow you to be this way until your last day. But you can choose to be more open and respectful, and to stop harassing Ann. Will you make that choice?
To Everyone:
Rachel S.
Sailorman
Angel H.
Mandolin
I thank you all for your show of support.
And I agree with mandolin. If I had shown any signs of improper posting, I am sure that Alas would have let me know immediately. I do believe that this post put up by Alas was concerning the hateful racist/sexist remarks that have been spit into the faces of black women for centuries, and the legacy of America’s cruel treatment of her black female citizens.
But, most of all I want to send a big kiss to my White Knight in Shining Armour, Julian.
Your brotherly solidarity is proof that there are white men in America who want to see the end of the mistreatment of black women. Because what is done to the least of us, is done to us all.
Thanks.
It is most appreciated.
Ann asked :
If what Michael said was true, then why are these young women receiving hate mail?
Can you answer me that question, Michael?
Since according to you black women live lives of such joy, peace and respect in the good ‘ol USA. We are constantly on a daily basis, praised to the high heavens.
Hate mail.
Boy, if that is what praise is supposed to be, I’d hate to see what denigration is supposed to be.
But, of course, I’m just a black woman.
What do I know.
Brilliant Ann ! Let’s take a look at what you said .
If what Michael said was true, then why are these young women receiving hate mail?
Do I really need to answer that for you or are you truly confused as to how some of those women could be receiving hate mail and my statement still be true?
The answer lies in something I learned long ago as a result of being assaulted at the age of 5 by a large teenage kid who happened to be Black. When my uncle turned the corner and saw what was happening he jumped at the kid (my uncle was the same age as my attacker) The group of elderly black men and women found my assault to be hilarious but were quite angry and perturbed when all the fun was interrupted by uncle Ron. Should I have made general opinions of all Black people based on that incident? When we moved out of the city and into a wealthy suburb the prejudice was only beginning. I wont provide the similar kind of list you gave earlier as I have no need to invoke sympathy. But even my young mind grasped the obvious once I pondered it.
Because I was different I was the target of that small segment of people who simply hate for a particular reason. I asked you earlier to learn the meaning of Non sequitur. Had you done so you would understand that your reasoning was fallacious. In fact, it should have been obvious to you that the number of people praising the Rutgers players far outnumber the silly fools who are sending hate mail. Was that easy enough to understand?
mandolin Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Larry,
Michael was informing Ann that modern racism, an extremely harmful practice, did not occur
That simply is untrue . Never did I say anything of the kind .
“That simply is untrue . Never did I say anything of the kind . ”
In the event that you’re complaining that I said “did” instead of “does,” I apologize for the slip of the fingers.
If it is your position that you are not denying modern racism when you say that black women are celebrated by society, rather than still suffering from historical oppression, then either you’re using a definition of racism so vastly off the average as to be meaningless, or you’re full of previously digested brown stuff.
to Rachel and Julian .
This is BULL .. You either missed one of the comments or chose to gloss over it . I responded to each attack with a cogent and rational comment . Each time my words were taken out of context . Here is an OBVIOUS example .
Angel said
April 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pm Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
That remark by Angel is indicative of exactly what Ann and others have done . Obviously there is a general objection to anyone who disagrees in such a manner as to make you feel uncomfortable .
Read Ann’s response to any of my comments .None relate directly to what I said .In addition none of my conclusions or statements contain any racist remarks . They simply relate directly to the discussion at hand .For instance :
Michael said :
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
And :
The comments by Imus are not indicative of White America or some sort of hatred by a majority of white people. In fact, how this has played out proves my point clearly. Imus has now been from both organizations for which he worked. He is now unemployed and has no radio voice. I would say that this is in sharp contest to others who have said equally hurtful things or worse. This conflicts with the general perception of those who think White racism
is promoted, accepted, and tolerated by the heads of major institutions such as CBS . I see no double standard to prove that point when I consider White racists and Black racist across the spectrum.
I think that is a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts. One can certainly disagree.
But no honest observer would say that I have shown less respect than has been afforded me /
A for this :
Rachel S. Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm mandolin said, “Was it not white men who raped black slave women?”
Yep, it sure was.
My comment was in regard to how Black women are viewed TODAY! I was in no way referring to anything which has happened in the past.
As for this .
Julian said :
You don’t get to name “what is relevant” here, white man. Ann and other Black women here do. The topic IS how Black women are treated in the U.S.
Correct. It is NOT how Black women have been treated in the past. My comments were directed at exactly that. I also find your comments to be demeaning and degrading to Black women. Since this is an open thread I participated in the spirit of open discussion. How condensing to claim that a Black woman could not handle a different opinion.
I have always offered Ann as much if not more respect than she has afforded me. Ann can handle herself without having to have a male come to her rescue. Your response is chauvinistic to say the least.
Michael, your method seems to be to question whether racism exists in a particular instance by bringing up one or two instances in which a person of color was successful. So far, you’ve mentioned Oprah, your daughter, your wife, and a slight descrepancy in salaries of college educated women. I find that very unconvincing and extremely distracting from the topic at hand.
Imus used the phrase “nappy headed hos” to describe some of the best educated, most well-rounded black women in this country. As a white woman, I am compelled to say that Imus’ actions represent a part of our white culture that all of us should condemn and eradicate. Do you disagree?
You have been very adamant about what you haven’t said or believe. Wouldn’t it be wise on a thread about Imus’ treatment of young black women, for you to comment directly on topic?
Ann writes:
I do believe that this post put up by Alas was concerning the hateful racist/sexist remarks that have been spit into the faces of black women for centuries, and the legacy of America’s cruel treatment of her black female citizens.
Thank you for proving my point Ann . The post was made by Rachel .Please read it again . Perhaps you will understand why I made my particular comments .
Madolin said :
Larry,
Michael was informing Ann that modern racism, an extremely harmful practice, did not occur
Then she said :
In the event that you’re complaining that I said “did” instead of “does,” I apologize for the slip of the fingers
No Mandolin . I’m telling that I said nothing even closely resembling that . Here is what I said :
“Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience. ”
Read exactly what is written . This country ( not all the people within it ) praises Black women to a high degree .
That in no way refutes the historical racism and suffering of Black women . It relates to today and how this country views our Black women . Imus was FIRED ! The Black women are being celebrated . Do you need a list of all the comments made on their behalf ? That is my point as it relates to this case . IMUS . I also detailed other examples of Black women in todays society. I could give you many more. But my comment was a subjective one. Ultimately it would involve how you define celebrating success.
Ravenmn Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Imus used the phrase “nappy headed hos” to describe some of the best educated, most well-rounded black women in this country. As a white woman, I am compelled to say that Imus’ actions represent a part of our white culture that all of us should condemn and eradicate. Do you disagree?
Raven , excellent point . not only would I not disagree but it is the essence of what I have been trying to say . Perhaps you missed it earlier .Here was my take on the Imus issue .
Michael said :
The comments by Imus are not indicative of White America or some sort of hatred by a majority of white people. In fact, how this has played out proves my point clearly. Imus has now been from both organizations for which he worked. He is now unemployed and has no radio voice. I would say that this is in sharp contest to others who have said equally hurtful things or worse. This conflicts with the general perception of those who think White racism
is promoted, accepted, and tolerated by the heads of major institutions such as CBS . I see no double standard to prove that point when I consider White racists and Black racist across the spectrum.
After Mandolin made this untrue comment concerning what I said I clarified further .
Angel H
Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
Michael said :
Did you find me making such a silly comment ? The answer is no. But you made a huge leap that mentioning Oprah constituted me saying as such. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I actually wasn’t referring to Oprah Surprise! I was actually referring to the subject of this post. The Rutgers team and their achievements as women and athletes would be celebrated in front of a live audience. Combine that with the fact that Imus was FIRED and I say it buttresses my point. DO I really need to connect the dots for you? Imus fired = Imus rebuked. Rutgers players honored and respected before a national audience tells me that Rutgers players dignity prevails over Imus and his idiocy. But I do think the fact it happens on a show owned by the wealthiest woman in the world only adds to my point.
AGAIN! The reaction to Imus shows me that race relations are far better than you claim. All I ask is that you read what I say. Not what you wish to turn it into. Notice how I give you that respect which you do not afford me. Also, making ad hominem attacks does nothing for yours or Ann’s case.I could resort to the same cheap tactic . But I am above that . Please try to be also
So as you can see I was commenting directly on what this post was about . Namely what Imus said and what Rachel asked in her post
Here is what Rachel said and asked :
The national Association of Black Journalists called for an apology from Imus. Imus subsequently issued an apology, but is that enough?
Thus my comment relates directly to the post made by Rachel . In sharp contrast Ann did not even understand what the topic was . She didn’t even know who made the post .
Her post above #172 states :
And I agree with mandolin. If I had shown any signs of improper posting, I am sure that Alas would have let me know immediately. I do believe that this post put up by Alas was concerning the hateful racist/sexist remarks that have been spit into the faces of black women for centuries, and the legacy of America’s cruel treatment of her black female citizens.
So as you can see Ravenmn , I was on topic . Ann was not . It seems she didn’t bother to read the actual post .
Michael, any chance you could use some method of indicating where the comments you are quoting end and your reply begins? There are
, italics, bolding, lots of different ways, but please use something. Thank you.
I do that in word but for some reason it reverts back to what you see . Any ideas ?
It’d be my preference.
I wonder how you feel, Ann?
You have to use HTML tags. Just copying and pasting out of Word doesn’t work.
Go visit this site.
For italics, replace the word blockquote with an “i”. For bold, replace with a lower case “b”.
I hope that helps.
I don’t really know what it means, but look at the guy’s hair. So what should we call a white guy with hair like that?… Dumb-no Trump?
Raven , excellent point . not only would I not disagree but it is the essence of what I have been trying to say . Perhaps you missed it earlier .Here was my take on the Imus issue .
Michael said :
The comments by Imus are not indicative of White America or some sort of hatred by a majority of white people. In fact, how this has played out proves my point clearly. Imus has now been from both organizations for which he worked. He is now unemployed and has no radio voice. I would say that this is in sharp contest to others who have said equally hurtful things or worse. This conflicts with the general perception of those who think White racism
is promoted, accepted, and tolerated by the heads of major institutions such as CBS . I see no double standard to prove that point when I consider White racists and Black racist across the spectrum.
Michael, I’m not sure you realize this, but you did not condemn Imus words in this quote.
Michael: “So as you can see Ravenmn , I was on topic . Ann was not . It seems she didn’t bother to read the actual post .”
To the contrary, I find Ann’s opinions to be clear, forthright and on topic. I had no difficulty understanding her opinion about Imus and his comments.
Your opinions are more difficult to understand partly because you spend more time explaining what you aren’t saying than what you are saying. It’s confusing. Could you try to avoid condemning other’s opinions and spend more time explaining your own?
Ravenmn said
Michael, I’m not sure you realize this, but you did not condemn Imus words in this quote.
So what? The question posed by Rachel asked if the response was ENOUGH. I responded to her question in clear and concise language. The fact that I didn’t CONDEMN Imus has nothing to do with the veracity of my remarks. I was not asked if I thought his comments were worthy of condemnation or not.
I reject the silly notion that the quality of ones opinion is dependent on ones color. My opinion happens to be the same as Angela McGowan,Sonny Hostin , and Offari Hutchinson . They all happen to be Black.
I disagree with several Black entertainers who have claimed that Imus had said nothing insulting at all.
My wife saw nothing at all racist in what Imus had to say. However, she was quite angry as a woman and found his comments to be deplorable. The diverse opinions do not fall neatly into race and gender. My own opinion is that Imus said something which was wrong. It was demeaning and untrue on every level. I have yet to hear ANYONE say that what he said was nice or decent. How his employee chooses to handle the issue should be up to them. He has no sacred right to free speech on those particular airwaves. But I also agree that a double standard exists. That double standard is wrong.
I write detailed analysis on complicated building issues concerning commercial real-estate which I develop. I also write analysis and argue issues concerning land conservation and wetlands mitigation as I often build in more difficult areas. In addition to this I write highly detailed market analysis for business plans. I have yet to have a review board, banker, planning commission or anyone else fail to understand what I am to to convey.
Several times I have made presentations to the MIT Enterprise Institute. They understood me perfectly well . Also, earlier this week I received confirmation that my plans for a subdivision had been approved. Every highly detail including wetlands mitigation. soil erosion, retention ponds, variances, future expansion, etc. were completely understood.
I say exactly what I mean and I mean what i say . The trouble some people have is that they try to read into what people are saying based on preconceived notions. I did NOT say most of what has been atributed to me here .
Example :
Angel H claimed I said this :
Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
It is simply untrue. Her claim is just one of several examples where people have simply made up comments and attributed them to me.
Michael: “The fact that I didn’t CONDEMN Imus has nothing to do with the veracity of my remarks.”
I didn’t call you a liar, so I’m not sure why you’re addressing this comment to me. But thanks, anyway, for joining me in condemning Imus’ comments.
“The diverse opinions do not fall neatly into race and gender.”
Definitely. His comments were both racist and sexist. Dealing with these questions is seldom “neat”. What pisses you off may not piss me off and vice versa. But at least we can each understand that outrage we feel when someone dismisses us so callously.
Pingback: The Moral of the Story | The Moderate Voice
Rachal S. wrote:
You got that right. And from a mental health standpoint– how some of us go on each day is beyond me. A black woman can’t look in a mirror each morning, or pass her reflection in a shop window, without being reminded of where she stands in this society. And when I think of the fact that most of the Rutgers athletes were taller than most of us, weighed more than most of us, and have everything else that goes along with making athletes more athletic than most of us??? That some of us succeed in a world that denigrates us is a testament to the endurance of the human spirit.
Now can you BELIEVE THIS?!?!? CONDOLESZA RICE has spoken out about the Don Imus controversy! Basically, she said his comments were disgusting, and she’s pleased that he was fired. I guess she felt inadequately represented by her Commander and Chief’s comments on this subject? LOL. Whatever the case, it just goes to show you– even a broken clock is right two times a day. I say kudo’s to Ms. Rice for speaking out so strongly on this matter. Her political party and supporters needed to hear from her, because they are shamelessly trying to use the Don Imus controversy to attack everyone from Hillary Clinton to Rosie O’Donnell.
And poor John Corzine. Govenor, Get well soon.
Please pardon my extreme ignorance for asking this, but I really have no clue.
I understand why “ho” is considered racist and sexist as a black slang term for “whore.”
But I don’t understand what “nappy-headed” means or what makes that insulting. I really have no clue. It’s a term that conveys no obvious meaning to me, and I can’t find a definition of it anywhere.
Just what exactly is “nappy-headed” and why is that usage considered racist or sexist? Is the insult derived from the fact that it was used in conjunction with “ho?”
I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone with this question, but I really would like to know.
At the risk of poking my head back into this white male hate and blame thread (Thanks Julian for that disgusting borderline racist post. But I guess the strong racial insults and remarks are OK on this site when its directed at white males.)
Before all this I thought that the word “nappy-headed” was like “bed head” where you wake up from a nap and one side of you hair is all flat, a cowlick on the back, etc. It took several minutes of googling to get the connection. Despite some of the unfortunate posts in this thread I think this incident might be having a more positive impact in the national conversation.
John,
“Nappy” is a term that is often used to describe the texture of African American hair. The term nappy is often used pejoratively, and in many cases it is used to imply that a person is unkempt. So people have tried to challenge the negative usage of the term nappy, arguing that African Americans should not be forced to conform to white standards of beauty.
Some synonyms for nappy could be “woolly” “kinky” “tightly curled.” Unfortunately, black women’s hair is often describe in negative terms, and black women are expected to try to make their hair as white looking as possible (Tyra Banks would be a good example. She always wears synthetic hair that simulates a European hair texture.). Maintaining a more European hair texture is extremely expensive and time consuming; however, there are many cases where black women are punished for not wearing their hair with a relaxer (straightened). Some examples include being told they are ugly or overly political, and in more extreme cases black women have been fired from jobs for not wearing their hair in a European like style.
Thus, the use of the term nappy, to imply that the Rutgers women were unattractive and unfeminine, is viewed by many as insulting given the long history of black women being told their hair is unattractive.
Michael, you seem to love that little Oprah comment I made the other day. Let’s take another look at again for those who missed out on it, shall we?
In response to Comment # 120 by Ann, you replied (emphasis mine):
I replied in Comment 140:
And you say, over and over again:
They have also been praised time and time again by other members of the media, both black and white. Yet, as I stated before, you chose to mention the most non-threatening black woman in the U.S. to further your point.
Also, I find it very, very telling that Ravenmn asked you a simple yes or no question but you spend so much time hiding behind the opinion of your black wife and you through out the names of some well-known black people. That you never say definatively whether or not you found Imus’ statement to be offensive.
But of course, you did say:
That was a blatant cop-out. But let’s take a look at your very first post:
Damn. You really are clueless, aren’t you? Especially when you said at #180 (emphasis mine):
Oh, rly?
Ann@120:
You@139:
Ann@141:
You@148:
Ann@15:
You@158 (emphasis mine):
Shall we look again at what you said at #180? I do so love it when you contradict yourself!
Michael.
I read the post by Rachel, put over HERE at Alas, A Blog. That is why I stated that if Alas had a problem with my comments, then he should reprimand me. The last time I looked, Ampersand was the moderator /owner of this blog. And yes, I am capable of being able to read:
-Rachel’s Tavern (Rachel)
-Alas, A Blog (Ampersand)
But, please Michael, feel free to correct me if I still am not understanding what the post was about:
The firing of Imus for his racist/sexist comments.
Now, on to some of the comments you made my way.
The past is always with us, especially when it is run from and denied, time and time again. And you are wrong when you state that it is not about how black women have been treated in the past.
It IS about how black women have been treated in the past that has led this country to the view that it has against black women. That black women are less than human, less than woman.
It is STILL about how black women have been treated in the past. And that past bears its mark upon America’s treatment of black women of today. The racist/sexist hatred shown by white men of slavery/segregation towards black women is still with us. The denigration and destruction of black women by white men of slavery/segregation is still with us. Where do you think this unending hatred came from? From Imus? From McGuirk?
It comes from the legacy of white men’s need, no desire, to annihilate in body, mind, spirit and soul, black women who never did white men ANY harm.
The rapes during slavery, the impregnations during slavery, the insulting disparagment of black women’s features (their hair, noses, lips) as sub-human, as not beautiful, as something always worthy of contempt and assault was started by white men.
That black women have been able to survive all the sick hatred done to us by white men is a miracle unto itself, and for you to say that the past (which I’m sure in your mind is over and done with) is no longer with us in this country is your attempt at believing the biggest lie ever told about a group of women in this country who have suffered at the hands of the worst kinds of brutalities ever committed by man against woman.
People like Imus do not exist in some cave somewhere thinking up vile and hateful things to say about black women and girls. They learn at an early age to hate, disparage, tear down, attack, villify, degrade and shatter to pieces everything and all things that are BLACK WOMEN. This vicious contempt for black womanhood is something that is learned at home from white parents, white uncles, white cousins. It is learned in predominantly white society’s contempt for all things black woman. It is not learned from vivid imaginations—-it is learned from the early indoctrination of white society to hate and attempt to bring low the integrity, the honor, the beauty of black womanhood.
And that perversity started in slavery, and continued all the way through Jim Crow segregation, which by the way, ended a mere 45 YEARS AGO.
Yep. Just 45 years ago. On a time span-continuum, that would equate with just a few minutes ago. So, for you to say that slavery/segregation has no bearing on what Imus said, is a bald-faced lie.
Slavery/segregation have a lot to do with what Imus said.
This hatred of black women did not start with Imus. It did not start last week. It did not start last month. Nor did it start in the last decade.
It started when white men decided to treat black women as sexual toilets, sexual outhouses, sexual latrines for white men’s sadistic brutish perversions. Perversions they would not have to visit upon white women because they were so busy raping, impregnating and destroying black women.
Books, pamphlets, periodicals, newspaper articles, anything that was used to disparage and denigrate black women to the advantage and benefit of white men was used to the fullest. White politicians wrote laws that forbade the giving of honor and protection to black women, and the way black women are treated today is a result of centuries of defilement that was first started by white men.
As I stated in my previous comment WHITE MEN first started calling black women hos, sluts, bitches. White men went on continuing to attack and destroy black women way after slavery ended, and today, white men use the media to destroy black women, especially in the case of Imus.
But, Imus is just a fly, a small speck in the cosmos of white men who perpetuate the greatest form of hatred against black women. No, there are other fish to fry in that good ‘ol boy network of black woman haters.
And those white men would be the men who run the corporations, the media conglomerates, the recording studios—all the institutions that control the media images we all see.
CEOS. Executives. Presidents of major media companies.
People like Les Moonves. Rupert Murdoch. Larry Flynt.
People who have at their power the ability to disseminate horrid, hated racist/sexist lies about black women around the world. Lies sent out over the airwaves, via video images, only for those lies and filth to come back and slap black women in the face so hard that the slaps send black women falling down to the ground.
That this country has for so long committed atrocity after atrocity upon black women has given many white men (and men of other races) the belief that black women have lives that are to be held cheaply, with no regard for our humanity, our dignity, our feelings.
And that no one that I have read or heard from is not calling to task the head honchos who allow this filth to come from their empires of black woman hating ivory towers is beyond me. Hatred of black women in present day America starts at the top, just like it did during slavery, and during segregation.
And that filthy hatred of black women trickles its way down to pollute and pervert all that stand in its pathway.
It is no secret, Michael, that this country hates black women. To say otherwise, is a lie.
Where I ask you, once again, is all this love and praise of black women? Where? Show it to me. Those people writing death threats and hate mail to those young ladies of Rutgers are just the few who are saying/writing out loud what many people feel towards black women in this country.
And as I said in one of my previous comments HOW WHITE MEN/MEN OF OTHER RACES OF 2007 treat black women and girls says how far black women’s images and position have come in this society.
How white men in their daily lives treat black women says alot about white men. How white men treat black women in their daily interactions: on the job; at the grocery store; at the bank; at the park; any where black women and white men cross paths….HOW WHITE MEN TREAT BLACK WOMEN TODAY still says a whole lot on how far black women’s images/perceptions have come in 2007 America.
And judging from Imus and his ilk, America still has a huge problem with treating black women with respect and dignity. America still considers black women as the mules of the world. America still considers black women as less than worthy of love, adoration, admiration, respect, kindness. America still condemns and berates black women for wearing their hair the way God made it. America still considers black women’s beauty as less than white women/women of other races, as ugly, as something always to be atacked and belittled with dersion and contempt.
America is always praising black women?
Really?
When the only way a black woman can get a movie part is in the role of Sapphire/Mammy and that ever ubiquitous Jezebel/Slut/Whore role? (Not much chance of that image going the way of the dinosaur, eh, Michael?)
America is always praising black women when it believes the Ronald Reagan lie of the myth of the “welfare queen”? Nevermind that black women work hard to make ends meet on wages that are less than what men earn comparably for the same type of work. That black women have to work many times longer (40+hours a week) or at two jobs just to get by.
America is always praising black women when black women who are raped, report the crime, and go to court, and the rapist is given much LESS time in prison for raping the black woman, than what the rapist would have been given if she was a non-black rape victim. Not to mention, we black women have the hardest of times being believed when we are raped. Is it not true what white men have said for centuries about us lewd, wanton, lascivious sluts know as black women? That we are “unrapeable”?
America is always praising black women when everywhere a black woman looks—magazines, TV, advertisements of products—her beauty is ignored and treated as completely outside the norm. We are INVISIBLE in ths society, pushed to the margins as irrelevant. We are told not to come to work wearing our hair in braids and naturals (“kiny/wooly” to those of you who consider our hair as worthy of mockery and insult). America so loves and praises black women that we are told that our hair is something for us to be ashamed of, and if we do not accept that shame of our hair [those like me who wear our hair in its natural state],we are looked upon as if we have something wrong WITH US for accepting our innate beauty. We are constantly under attack and demeaned to change, fry, perm, destroy our hair to fit some white racist standard of what beauty is. And if we black women do not conform to racist white America’s demand, no, white America’s ORDER to confrom, or else, then we are threatened with being fired from our jobs if we do not conform and straighten our hair.
YES.
America sure does love “our black women” as you so aptly put it, Michael.
Yes, Imus is fired. Some people will cluck their tongues and tsk, tsk about how awful, how terrible it was that he said those vile and racist/sexist things. But, what happens next week?
Next month?
Next YEAR?
Nothing but back to the same ‘ol, same ‘ol further beat down of black women. Black women. The proverbial Everlast punching bag.
America no more loves black women than it can slowly but carefully and wantonly destroy us.
It shows its “love and praise” of us in how it treats us as if we are to be forever pushed to the margins—–OUTSIDERS—–in the world of white America. Forever to be constantly told, both vocally, and silently:
‘Go away, black woman, you have no place here in the realm of things. You have no validity in or eyes. White men have said so for over 400 years, and white men and America still say so. It is the royal decree of white men, therefore, it must be so. It must be worshipped as the truth.”
That some people stood up in defense of these young girls of Rutgers says something. Shocking, that some people are more than sick and tired of seeing the constant drive-by -shooting -character assassinations of black women and the cruel results of such hate.
But, it is not enough for some people to care.
Until ALL of America cares about what happens to black women, as much as it does non-black women, we black women can still count on more men like Don Imus to hatefully disparage and attack us.
Until America finally starts to look at black women as worthy of respect and honor that has been so long denied us, well, black women had better figure on more of our value in this society as never rising.
America has long ago learned to take black women for granted, as always being everyone’s girl tied to the whipping post.
But, make no mistake, black women have been long tired of being tied to that bloody post. We are pulling our hands free from it.
And whether or not many people want to help us or not, will not stop us.
We black women have been through enough in this country. And that many politicians (Kerry, McCain, Obama and the rest, where were you hiding when Imus said his filth?) stayed hidden and rose not up in our defense; that the President said nothing in our defense; that NOW issued a flimsy cowardly letter about Imus’s remarks——-that those who want our political and electoral support said NOTHING (save what Condi said) should speak volumes to America’s black women.
America loves and praises black women.
Yeah, right. She sure does.
I don’t know what country you live in, Michael, but the America I live in continues to constantly give short shrift to black women.
And as for this comment, Michael:
“As for this .
Julian said :
You don’t get to name “what is relevant” here, white man. Ann and other Black women here do. The topic IS how Black women are treated in the U.S.
Correct. It is NOT how Black women have been treated in the past. My comments were directed at exactly that. I also find your comments to be demeaning and degrading to Black women. Since this is an open thread I participated in the spirit of open discussion. How condensing to claim that a Black woman could not handle a different opinion.
I have always offered Ann as much if not more respect than she has afforded me. Ann can handle herself without having to have a male come to her rescue. Your response is chauvinistic to say the least. ”
Lay off Julian. That he spoke up in my defense angered you very much. Why Michael? A white man is not supposed to speak up for a black woman? A white man is only supposed to disparage and attack a black woman, say, like, Imus, for instance? How does Julian (and anyone else for that matter: Faith, Rachel S., Mandolin, Ravenm, Angel. H, etc.) speaking in defense of what I stated be considered as condescending? Where do his words constitute as being demeaning and chauvanistic?
Maybe I’M missing something, but, did you not say that America “praises” its black women so much? If what you say is true then one white man agreeing with me should not be begrudged me. But, then again, I guess, he should be villifying and tearing me apart. That would be more to your liking.
And yes, I can handle speaking up for myself. I always have.
Especially against people like you who refuse to see things from other people’s perspectives—especially when those people are black women who speak of our pain and sorrows in this country.
Maybe we black women should just STFU.
I mean, what have we ever had to say that was of any value?
Oh, wait, I forgot.
America loves us black women to death.
Can’t you tell?
Just listen to all those lovely words we have had to put up with from 1619 to 2007:
Whore (Ho)
Slut
Bitch
Wench
Jezebl
Mammy
Sapphire
Yes, America sure loves and praises us black women.
Rachel.
“Yeah this is Michael’s typical behavior. Perhaps I should ban him for being so disrespectful of black women. ”
Mandolin.
“It’d be my preference.
I wonder how you feel, Ann?”
I’ve never asked for the banning of anyone in all the year that I have been blogging.
But, in this case, I will definately make an exception.
Rachel:
BAN HIM.
That was fucking awesome.
The only thing I can add is that non black women dont get treated that much better. When push comes to shove, they’re “just women” and not worth much if they cant be used. They’re only half a rung up on the ladder of who gets shat upon in this country. Though half a rung up is still half a rung up , I just dont want to see black women stop climbing when they reach it. They deserve better. We all do.