Don Imus versus The Rev Al

College Confidential Community
21

<p>
[quote]
I have no idea whether Don Imus is racist. But "nappy-headed 'hos" is both misogynistic and racist...as it feeds and empowers those who are so predisposed to think that way. If anyone thinks that "nappy-headed" is not a racist term -- or "ho" for that matter -- and that, in combination, it's "more sexist" and not racist, they're somewhat out of touch with the world around them.

[/quote]
Hmmm, if he had called the Rutgers basketball team "cornrowed headed hos" would that be racist to? What if he had just called him "black hos"? What if he was talking about a group of asian people and called them asian hos? Or white hos? Simply using a descriptor to define a race is not racist. This is purely sexism (but then again, sexism is much more politically correct than racism).</p>

22

<p>Remember when Imus told Kerry in a phone interview to basically keep his mouth shut after his statement about the Iraq Troops at a CC in Pasadena Calif. Haha what comes around; goes around. Does anyone here watch RedEye on FOX, its awesome although I'm generally a CNN buff.</p>

23

<p>More advertising pulled. GM, a couple of BigPharma......it is adding up.</p>

24

<p>I wonder when these companies are gonna start pulling advertisements for MTV. I mean, with groups like "Nappy Roots" and the like, they have some pretty racist stuff. Lets not forget the complete and total objectifying of women as sex objects. Hmmm. Do I smell hypocrisy?</p>

25

<p>Russell Simmons......the man for making money on this. I still hear NO mention of him. Not as a defense for Imus.</p>

26

<p>The problem with these media/political witch-hunts for people like Don Imus is that it places the blame of racism on a few loudmouthed scapegoats. As hard as it is to believe, people like Don Imus (and Michael Richards) are the least important contributors to racism in society. The real culprits are us: everyday people who either help perpetuate prejudices, or do nothing to combat them. We know of the terrible state of inner city neighbourhoods and schools, but we force those thoughts out of our minds as we live a comfy life in homogeneous suburbs and private schools. We read about MLK like all dutiful Americans, but we secretly shudder at the thought of our family being linked to Blacks, or other races, through marriage. </p>

<p>Then some idiot like Richards or Imus comes along, and allows our collective guilt to be released at a highly visible and indefensible target. We conclude that if only those who screech the N-word at the top of their lungs could be eliminated, then the lingering remnants of racism (which ended after MLK gave some dreamy speech, of course) will be vanished, and we can live in our McMansions while the Blacks live in the projects, in a truly equal world.</p>

27

<p>Racism exists both ways. Like when I walk into SE D.C. to volunteer every week and get harassed for being a white female. </p>

<p>NBAchris, plenty of black families are not happy or supportive of their family members marrying other races. White people aren't completely responsible for racism.</p>

28

<p>Yes, racism exists both ways. But trying to pin equal, or majority, blame on Blacks when it was they who were brought over as slaves is, how shall we say, incredibly wrong. And if Black people are racist, what's the implications for Whites? That they won't get hired at BET? Yet what are the implications of White racism? A whole lot, from the American presidency to the job at the GM plant.</p>

29

<p>I don't believe that ALL Blacks were slaves.</p>

30

<p>**Devil's Advocate:</p>

<p>Nappy? Yes. Well, I'm not sure if they are, but if everyone knew what he was talking about then it works as a description.</p>

<p>Headed? Yes.</p>

<p>Hos? Ehh. Hard for him to know.</p>

<p>So, where's the racism? If anything, it's more sexist.</p>

<p>I wonder when these companies are gonna start pulling advertisements for MTV. I mean, with groups like "Nappy Roots" and the like, they have some pretty racist stuff. Lets not forget the complete and total objectifying of women as sex objects. Hmmm. Do I smell hypocrisy?
**</p>

<p>Nappy Roots is quite a positive southern rap group, proud of their "nappy" heritage (roots) and hair (roots). It's trying to inject something positive into a sometimes negatively perceived racial characteristic. Don Imus, on the other hand, clearly used the term as a racial pejorative. To be a devil's advocate you need to have some sort of functioning moral/ethical barometer. If you can't understand the distinction here, you don't deserve to advocate anything.</p>

31

<p>
[quote]

Nappy Roots is quite a positive southern rap group, proud of their "nappy" heritage (roots) and hair (roots). It's trying to inject something positive into a sometimes negatively perceived racial characteristic. Don Imus, on the other hand, clearly used the term as a racial pejorative. To be a devil's advocate you need to have some sort of functioning moral/ethical barometer. If you can't understand the distinction here, you don't deserve to advocate anything.

[/quote]
So, if he called them "black hos" would that be more or less racist, according to your ethical barometer?</p>

32

<p>
[quote]
The real culprits are us: everyday people who either help perpetuate prejudices, or do nothing to combat them. We know of the terrible state of inner city neighbourhoods and schools, but we force those thoughts out of our minds as we live a comfy life in homogeneous suburbs and private schools. We read about MLK like all dutiful Americans, but we secretly shudder at the thought of our family being linked to Blacks, or other races, through marriage.

[/quote]
I'm not sure what you disapprove of. If a black person wanted to move out of the ghetto and not be surrounded by crime and drugs I doubt you'd have a problem with it (or would you?). But it's racist for Whites to try to be in a "homogeneous" neighborhood and put their kids in private schools?</p>

<p>Secondly, wanting a homogeneous society certainly isn't a characteristic unique to whites. I think most (ie: the majority) cultural/racial groups prefer relatively homogeneous peer groups rather than heterogeneous peer groups.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
Yes, racism exists both ways. But trying to pin equal, or majority, blame on Blacks when it was they who were brought over as slaves is, how shall we say, incredibly wrong. And if Black people are racist, what's the implications for Whites? That they won't get hired at BET? Yet what are the implications of White racism? A whole lot, from the American presidency to the job at the GM plant.

[/quote]
I wonder which race is "more racist" on a per capita basis. That would be an interesting query.</p>

34

<p>
[quote]
So, if he called them "black hos" would that be more or less racist, according to your ethical barometer?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't really quantify racism. It'd probably be more overt for some people. </p>

<p>Interestingly enough, I've seen it be as overt as what you've mentioned and yet still have to address these same weak, tired arguments.</p>

<p>Wonder what that means...</p>

35

<p>I'm confused. You can't quantify the racism in the phrase 'black hos', but you can quantify it in the 'nappy headed hos' phrase. What's the difference?</p>

36

<p>The idea that the words are what make a comment racist is a red herring.</p>

<p>If I run around referring to African-Americans as "lazy, smelly and inarticulate" -- without actually using ethnic terms -- do I get a free pass on the racist claim?</p>

<p>Imus' statement was not racist because the words were ethnic references. It's racist because Imus was speaking in derogatory terms that play into and affirm racist perceptions.</p>

<p>You can suck all context and historical anchors from a statement, type it into a computer and say, "See? Look, the source code is nothing but 1s and 0s and there's nothing racist about 1s and 0s."</p>

<p>What's insidious about racism in the 21st century is that it DOESN'T reveal itself in the form of white sheets, burnt crosses, and men strung up and bludgeoned in the town square. It comes camouflaged and takes cover amid valid and acceptable activities.</p>

<p>The knowing snicker that resounded among Imus' listeners (and viewers) after he made his comment didn't come in the form of words, but it was borne of racist biases and ignorance. </p>

<p>For Imus to get away with his statement sends the wrong message to those lemmings and trolls. I believe Imus understood this dynamic and truly regretted it. That's why I don't believe he is himself a racist (though, when you get right down to it, everyone is except, possibly, for blind and deaf people). For him to walk away from this scot-free would embolden the shallow-minded and malevolent people who love to hear their views affirmed.</p>

<p>There are plenty of things that people can say that radically change meaning when the context is altered. If you go to North City HS and make fun of the principal, it's probably just "all in good fun" to your classmates. If you go to South City HS and say the exact same thing about the North City HS principal it probably won't be the least bit funny to the kids at North City HS. That's not a double standard. It's the recognition of context and a variety of other factors that any child can appreciate. But any child can also downplay patently malicious comments by complicating the statement and breaking down those factors into individual, subjective elements: tone of voice, the history between the schools, where and when it's said, etc.</p>

<p>Anyone who heard Imus' statement and the giggles he was trying to elicit from his listeners understands what was going on. Trying to suggest that it's not racist is absurd. If you saw a memorable sunset and I asked you to articulate it and why it was memorable, I could really suck all the meaning out of that sunset pretty quickly. But you'd still know that it's something to remember even if you can't make me see it, too. </p>

<p>So if someone doesn't "get" how Imus' comments were racist, too bad. They were. If it's not obvious to you, it's still obvious to me.</p>

37

<p>What is the definition of racism?</p>

38

<p>
[quote]
I'm confused. You can't quantify the racism in the phrase 'black hos', but you can quantify it in the 'nappy headed hos' phrase. What's the difference?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're confused? Really?! The point is something is either racist or not. And both phrases are racist. </p>

<p>But what point are you trying to make? Out of mere curiousity...</p>

39

<p>Wait. You think the phrase "black hos" is racist? Are you kidding me? Is the phrase "white hos" racist?</p>

<p>Those aren't racist phrases. Having a racial descriptor doesn't make something racist.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
Wait. You think the phrase "black hos" is racist? Are you kidding me? Is the phrase "white hos" racist?</p>

<p>Those aren't racist phrases. Having a racial descriptor doesn't make something racist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Both sound racist to me. It's coupling race with an already derogatory (sexist) term. </p>

<p>See ya.</p>