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.
“That was fucking awesome.”
It was.
Michael, I think you’ve had ample opportunity to state your views on “Alas.” However, I don’t feel your posts here help move the conversations in a direction I’d like to see them move in. For that reason, please don’t post on “Alas” any more.
Pingback: ON HOW AMERICA BOTH PRAISES AND LOVES BLACK WOMEN « BEAUTIFUL, ALSO, ARE THE SOULS OF MY BLACK SISTERS
So you ban Michael and not a word about Julian’s (or Ann’s) posts full of racial insults? With that in mind I guess this will be my last post on here as well.
But as a parting experiment lets take some of the racial insults and racial charged language in Julian’s and switch the race and gender terms and see if they seem OK to you:
Nope, nothing wrong with that is there?
So long. (I know, good riddance and don’t let the door hit me….)
“But as a parting experiment lets take some of the racial insults and racial charged language in Julian’s and switch the race and gender terms and see if they seem OK to you:”
Behold: the sheer vastness of you not getting it.
The POINT of racial and gender insults is that they are NOT interchangeable. There is no history of slavery and violence to use to intimidate white men by calling them “Crackers,” no way to inspire the kind of social and systemic and historical terror that accmopanies a similar slur made against black people. To call a man a “player” does not imply his worthlessness, does not carry a threat of sexualized violence, does not shatter, the way the insult “whore” does.
I don’t understand why all this emphasis on decontextualization, at looking at one thing as if it were not surrounded by all the others. Well, of course, I do, but only so long as I assume selfishness has replaced compassion.
I also don’t know why you’d think I wouldn’t want the door to hit you on the way out. Enjoy your flame and unsub.
Well, it took a little bit longer for a White man or woman to call a Black woman a racist than usual on this thread than on others and Amp or Rachel, I’m not trying to pick on you, this goes on all over the blogsphere.
And no you can’t interchange White and Black, male and female and so forth like changing outfits. Perhaps you could in a truly eglitarian society, but we don’t have one. Just like there’s no such thing as reverse racism, except an excuse we pull out to avoid addressing our own racial privilege and complaining when we can’t always use it to get what we want when we get it, just because.
Imus is from my city. He was born there and raised nearby. Frankly, knowing my city, this doesn’t surprise me. He could live there and probably be very much at home. There’s good people too, but there’s a strong current of behavior and ideology that’s not much removed from his expression of it if indeed it is at all.
Most of the letters in my city have been supportive of him but there were more than I thought that opposed him. My boss and the local NAACP called for his firinig in the press, before he was fired but a lot of other people locally were saying, what’s the big deal? And for those out there who just have to get their Imus fix, well a radio station in my city will be rebroadcasting reruns of his show and if you wait five minutes, his vitrol will find a new home. So I agree with Ann in what she said about there not really being as widespread condemnation in White America towards Imus as there appears to be in the mainstream media. But then I agree with a lot of what she said, about the status of Black women in this country.
Not from experiencing it, because I can’t but from seeing it, hearing about it and I do a lot, including the demonization of Black women, the dehumanization of Black women, the invisibility of Black women and the masculinization of Black women. There’s so much in the history that she provided here that’s still so relevent today, it’s scary and it’s disheartening.
As for the study on Black women with college degrees outearning White women, I did have a question. Does that study factor in the reality that most Black women with college degrees not only work longer hours per week than White women do, but after having babies, they often return to work sooner than White women do. Does it also factor in the emotional and often financial costs of racial and/or gender discrimination many of these women face in the workplaces in different professions? Glass ceilings, glass walls and glass doors?
Pingback: University Update - Hillary Clinton - Comment on “Nappy Headed Hos” by Faith
Following up on my comment above (#22) and some of the responses to it:
The essence of racism is the inability or refusal to see people of certain races as individuals and judge them on the basis of personal characteristics rather than membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. And the major reason I’m reluctant to call Imus’s comment racist is that by pointing to specific characteristics of the women on the Rutger’s team and drawing distinctions between them and the women on the Tennessee team (also black), he did exhibit an ability and willingness to do that, albeit in a highly crude and disrespectful manner.
Ampersand:
It’s possible that I’m biased in a way that causes me to underestimate the incidence of racism, but I think I’m pretty consistent in applying the definition above. Certainly I try to be.
On the flip side of the coin, I see a lot of people here and elsewhere really reaching to find racism anywhere and everywhere, and I don’t think it’s unfair to say that this causes them to overestimate the incidence of racism. Note, for example, how Rachel was so sure what the results of googling “white ho” and “black ho” would be that she apparently didn’t even bother to check herself before telling me to try it—which I did, finding slightly more results for the former. Granted, “black hos” are certainly overrepresented, but “ho” is by no means a slur applied exclusively to black women. Or the Delta Zeta thing, where the racial aspect was manufactured out of thin air by the NYT and most people here just took it at face value.
Rachel:
In the thread on the Delta Zeta kerfuffle, you asked me if I’d ever met a case of racism I believed, and I gave you a specific example. I can give you more if you’d like. (By the way, do you still maintain that the evictions were motivated by racism given that racial minorities were not significantly overrepresented?)
Also, I don’t think I’ve ever said that someone can’t be a racist because he’s a nice person. Certainly that’s not consistent with my current beliefs on the topic, and I don’t think they’ve changed recently in that respect.
Brandon said:
Brandon, I don’t think I’ve met a black racist yet who couldn’t see that white people come as blonds, redheads and brunettes. There’s a reason why your definition starts with the words “The essence of racism….” The essence of a thing is NOT the whole thing, right? Yes, racists refuse to acknowledge many differences. But they aren’t exactly color blind. That blacks often find they are treated differently in society based on their skin color, hair texture and facial features, is a testament to the fact that racists are often VERY MUCH aware of the physical differences among us. The fact that “the powers that be” have judged us, categorized us and treated us differently based on our physical differences is particularly insidious, as it has often served effectively to divide us against ourselves until many of us have become a self-hating mass– with the favor going to those of us who are lighter skinned. (In other words, those who often have the most white, rapists blood in evidence.) Both black people and other people have internalized these white, slave-master values, and we use it against one another to this day. Virtually every racist or sexist insult blacks use against one another today was first used by whites to catagorize, and then insult black people…… But I’ve digressed.
Perhaps if you’re not familiar with how slave masters categorized their human property as mulattos, half-breeds, octoroons, and quadroons, that might account for your difficulty in reconciling Imus’s ability to say the Tennessee girls were attractive, but the Jersey Girls were jiggaboos and nappy headed hos? Or perhaps you simply don’t know about this niggling and little spoken of aspect of racism because you haven’t encountered it, never thought about it, or don’t have to live with it? (As for me, there’s no escaping understanding that my social and economic value in this society is partially based on how much the white blood shows up in my features. Even my 2 year old is judged based on her color. ) But you don’t have to reach all the way into the black experience to understand this phenomenon. All you have to do is think how a man can have a mother, sister, wife and daughters…acknowledge their physical differences….and yet still be a sexist who devalues them on a daily basis because he feels women aren’t worthy of receiving the same respect he gives to men. (And while we’re on that subject….the !#$*%)* hair care commercial where white blondes and brunettes are portrayed as name-calling women who are at war with each other shocks the heck out of me, as well. Will it be any wonder if the next generation of young women think there’s a natural social pecking order among them based on hair color? Or that intelligence is linked to hair color? As a black woman, this scares me. Logically, if social rank and intelligence can be assessed based on hair color, then how much more should we accept the idea that the human races can be divided thusly, too? Who comes up with this garbage? And what in the world can we do to put an end to it? But I’ve digressed, again.)
Brandon, I have no idea what the Tennessee girls look like. I’ve refused to look them up for comparison, on principle. However, the bottom line is this– Imus assessed all of these black women’s attractiveness and worth based on how “black” and “feminine” they looked. In my book, calling one group of black women insulting names that imply they looked MORE like black people than another group of black women is just as racist, and more insidious, then not acknowledging ANY of these women as worthwhile individuals because of their race. The types of distinctions Imus made are supposed to be made with property and perhaps farm animals– not individual human beings, thinking and free, with equal rights in a fair society.
Bean,
I’m not sure, but with regard to the person posting about Howard Stern, you might be referring to me. Someone asked how Howard Stern could say things that seemed more racist than Don Imus, and still get away with it. I think I explained it as best I could. And my intention was not to apologize for or minimize Howard Stern’s racism and sexism, but rather to explain why Howard gets away with it when Don Imus did not– from my point of view.
The bottom line is that I think Howard Stern has been more clever about spewing his racist, sexist and sophomoric thoughts than has Don Imus. Howard adopts a passive-aggressive position that allows him to insult people while claiming to be the victim. He also maintains a diverse workplace. When a highly-paid black woman sits by his side– laughing at his jokes day in and day out, and watching women bare their breasts at Howard’s request– I think it makes it easier for Howard to defend his racism and sexism to himself, his bosses and to his audience. And to borrow a thought from Dr. Robin Smith, I think having a black woman by Howard’s side makes it easier for Howard’s bosses and Howard’s audience to swallow Howard’s puke. Now, on one hand, Don Imus has acknowledged he has not encouraged diversity on his show, and on 60 Minutes he admitted that he said his side-kick was there to do “nigger jokes.” On the other hand, Howard sits next to a black and a woman every day. The score in the public mud-wrestling arena is this: Howard 2, Imus 0– for whatever THAT’S worth.
Otherwise, I’ve never listened to Howard Stern on a regular basis and I said as much. If one is offended by racism, sexism, or doesn’t go for sophomoric jokes– you don’t have to listen to Howard more than once or twice to know that his show is not the show for you. I don’t know who Tom Lykis is, and the other comments you site are completely unfamiliar to me. I believe your version of the story. But without hearing the comments or reading them in context, I’m not sure if they fall within or without my explanation of why Howard Stern has not been called to task for them. Howard’s ability to beat censure isn’t hinged on WHAT he says as much as HOW he’s said it.
Overall, I stated what I believe about Howard based on what I’ve actually heard him say from his own mouth. And based on what I’ve heard him say, I think this: Though it might be very hard to imagine, I think Howard is completely capable of coaching a discussion on raping young girls at Columbine in such a way that it escapes FCC regulation and his own audience’s outrage. I think he could verbally attack a mentally disabled teenager in such a perverse way that it could be argued Howard viewed himself to be the victim/Howard IS the victim. Howard is sneaky. He works the passive/aggressive act to his personal benefit. That doesn’t make Howard less of a racist or sexist than Don Imus. But some might argue it makes him a “smarter” one.
I may have missed this but I’m still waiting for the same people telling us what does or does not constitute the real “essence” of racism, exactly how we should address “the issues” and get people on “our side”. Please, please tell us what we should do oh all seeing all wise white men…
I’ve noted a lot of oppressive language on these male-run blogsites that is bypassed and even encouraged under the guise of encouraging the “free exchange” of “ideas.”
IMO, the “exchange” part stops where the circular, defensive, solipsistic brow-beating of Black Women and Women of Color by white men begins. This process is usually initiated by a fucked-up whiteguy statement, then followed by a clear and sharp bullshit-call by someone of a different social caste- e.g. a non-white person of any sex or a woman of any racial caste (though the reactionism is usually more high-pitched when a Woman of Color calls bullshit)- which is then followed by an even more highly whitened and academicized and lengthy response by said whiteguy, under the guise of some sort of presumptuous “logic”, which then is followed by very justified anger on the part of the Woman of Color, etc. and then the whole conversation spirals forward ad infinitum.
The wolf is the silly whiteboy clinging to his privilege with what’s left of his claws; the sheep’s clothes are the linguistic tropes he employs to make himself look more “logical.” Of course whiteboys, and white PEOPLE, whether they’re dressed up as radicals or progressives or social-justice minded people will fight tooth and nail to cling to their privilege, one way or another. As is evidenced in Imus’s petty drivelling and finger-pointing AS WELL as by the insipid whiteboy-centric talk that we see from Michael and others of his ilk on this forum and others like it. This is why I’ve stopped posting on Feral Scholar.
TO THE WHITE PEOPLE HERE: white men have done enough damage in their attempt to wholly dominate the very definitions of terms such as “logic.” When will we admit that maybe we, white folks, didn’t do a very good job at that, that we alienated everyone else in attempting to set those standards, and that now we don’t really have a right to define those things anymore? When will we learn to actually take criticism and not merely react to it defensively? Don’t we want to actually change things?
Well. If we don’t, then we should just shut the hell up and quit taking up space in forums dedicated to change. IMO.
The course of change for the better will mean that we lose privilege. We have to deal with that. “Suck it up,” as many a white-male authority figure has said to me in my life. White people can’t run the revolution. It ain’t a revolution if we do, unless we only think of revolution as running in tired circles.
And also, I have to say that the moderators and owners of forums such as this one should be held accountable as well; they should be able to identify when such oppressive tropes pop up and eliminate them before they derail conversations, or attempt to do so. The derailment is not just words and words and words, it means that the person doing the derailing is attempting to DEFLECT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OPPRESSIVE BEHAVIOR FROM HIMSELF AND ONTO THE PEOPLE HE IS OPPRESSING. Just like Don Imus did with the whole “but Black people started said ho before I did” dribble.
White people have to be accountable. WHITE MEN have got to learn to take criticism and to self-criticize, and stop fucking self-aggrandizing. If that means we get banned from message boards when we pull stupid bullshit, then so be it. If that means that we can’t run the activist group, then that’s what it means. Individually, if it means that we can’t step back and examine the things that we say, can’t accept the criticism of our WHITE SUPREMACIST THOUGHT (it’s just more accurate a term than racist) then we have to bow out or get kicked out of the ring.
That’s all.
Elaina said: “white men have done enough damage in their attempt to wholly dominate the very definitions of terms such as ‘logic.’ When will we admit that maybe we, white folks, didn’t do a very good job at that, that we alienated everyone else in attempting to set those standards, and that now we don’t really have a right to define those things anymore? When will we learn to actually take criticism and not merely react to it defensively? Don’t we want to actually change things?”
Can I just second that? And say that the same goes for the definitions of terms such as “civil,” “polite,” “educated,” and “knowlegeable”?
“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.”
You could have condensed your affectatious blather to a nice, healthy ‘argumentum ad baculum’ – no pseudo-intellectual is complete without a list of Latin terms, and doncha just itch to throw something like ‘baculum’ in there?
FYI before you start throwing out pop psych/existential canards out there, you might want to learn how to spell rebuttal, or failing that, what the term actually means. Your earlier ‘word-for-word’ breakdown was a laughable grab at long-winded analysis, probably to pad your word count. Certainly, the novice move of copying and pasting from Wikipedia points along the same line.
No, it’s not that I’m so much ’emotionally charged’, David – or at least, not more so than I always am – but because people who parrot the WSJ, obnoxiously change the channel to some cable news program when they’re around normal human beings, and honestly try to postulate that black females are privileged while white males are victims, are good mainly for verbal target practice.
“Er, no. It is precisely because racism has such heinous objective harms that there is great prickliness and defensiveness about being called out for racism.
Nobody would care that they were considered racist if the damage from racism were unimportant or insignificant, other than the most exquisitely sensitive souls who couldn’t bear to be thought of as unsophisticated.
I grew up in the Deep South, and especially in Mississippi, where much of my extended family still lives. Saying so-and-so is a racist, in my view, is saying that they’re of a piece with the night riders who terrorized blacks, raping and killing to buttress an awful system of oppression and outright tyranny. That’s one hell of a serious charge to lay on somebody, so I’m reluctant to do it unless the evidence is unequivocal. Racism is evil, and racists are evil. I hate to put someone in the “evil” category if I don’t have to.”
Wow, and an inspiring tale to be sure. But the application of that would end up with fewer racists being shit canned – replace ‘racism’ in that last paragraph with any other crime conservatives would say we need to be Tuff On, and you’ll understand my earlier one-liner – so excuse me if I think that it’s a load of hooey.
How about present day racism then? Would it be fair to say that conservatives believe that present day racism does little objective harm? You’ll object I’m sure, but the way you guys (and a good chunk of liberals) talk about it, it’s a cheap, tawdry tabloid show. Joe Jones gets charged for DUI! Joe Jones’ ex tells all! Joe Jones is a racist! What’s lost, of course, are the actual victims. Hint: it ain’t Joe Jones.
Racism can exist without racists. That’s what I’m trying to get across. The language that you are using (‘one hell of a serious charge’, ‘evidence is unequivocal’), first of all, mistakenly assumes that criticism against a public figure, even the harsh and damaging sort, needs to undergo some paintaking process of judicial review. (Maybe it should, but then that means we’d all be robbed of the screwball show the RNC puts up every election year, and we don’t want that.) But that’s a minor quibble. I’ll draw up an analogy to illustrate the main point.
Say there’s a kid’s playground. The little nails and screws are coming loose, the monkey bars are slippery, the varnish on the wood causes second degree chemical burn. When the shit hits the fan, it doesn’t get to be written off as a little misunderstanding because one person cannot be nailed down and found absolutely positively culpable. And to remedy and recompense for the situation, the community will have to be inconvenienced with some small sacrifices, even it’s by and large innocent – insofar as any community that allowed such a toxic death trap to be made and did nothing can be called innocent. And most pertinently to our case, assessing the damage to the victims, and even compensating for it, is not contingent to some guilty verdict. That’s perhaps the difference between the conservative and I. He sees racism as a ‘charge’, with a whole trial-of-the-century titillation scene going on and where he subjectively weighs the ‘evidence’. I see it as a ‘dangerous playground’ that comes every so often in society, usually less potent in any single case but far more widespread. It affects how we each approach the situation. Even if the racism is inadvertent, just acknowledge it, own up to it, and move on. If you broke your mama’s vase, it doesn’t matter that you only *intended* to catch the football. Really, it’s not all that difficult.
sylphhead Writes:
Wow. I don’t even know what to say….except you hit that nail on the head, LOL! Good analysis, good response!
Hillary asks Audience to Take “Rutgers Pledge.”
Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, asked people across the nation to take what she called “the Rutgers pledge.”
“Will you be willing to speak up and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ when women who are minorities or the powerless are marginalized or degraded?” Clinton said in her speech to about 700 people.
Way to go, Hillary! But I gotta tell ya, I’m also loving Obama’s pledge to end the Iraq War in March ’08. Hmmmm. This is going to be a tough choice. Perhaps there’ll be a Clinton/Obama ticket???
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Whites Need to Take Responsibility for Their Racism (Alternate Title: Stop Giving White People 2nd, 3rd and 4th Chances When Blacks Get Zero Chances)