<p>This is laughable.</p>
<p>The First Amendment: Protecting the right of Straight White Men Inc. to allow proliferation of discourse to ridicule, belittle, and intimidate all those who seek to curtail their power and influence. </p>
<p>A White morning radio host (that enlightened bunch) says "nappy-headed ho's" and you, Mr Payne, cannot, no, refuse to see the racial implications in that (not to mention the sexist notion that it's of any importance that female athletes be attractive)? Oh wait, I'm sure he was complimenting them on their fine follicles (the "nappy-headed" part) and their um, ability to generate profit from selling their bodies (the "ho's" part)? Is this your idea of making a neutral observation about minorities and women?</p>
<p>everyone is bein ridicilous about this whole Imus thing. to drag sharpton, jackson, or anyone else into this is to completely miss the point. it's not about justifying Imus's remarks by saying that black people say racist things about white people. Are we all five years old and have to point the finger at the other group to say that two wrongs make a right? Here's the bottom line- a racist remark by a black person is a) fueled by the thought that blacks are put into an inferior position due to the actions of white people and b) serves no threat to endangering the well-being of the white population BECAUSE whites are the majority. However, I highly doubt that a white person feels that blacks will place whites into an inferior position, becuase it is impossible for the minority to inferiorize the majority. It has nothing to do with race, it is simply that their are more white people than black. I'm white btw.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The First Amendment: Protecting the right of Straight White Men Inc. to allow proliferation of discourse to ridicule, belittle, and intimidate all those who seek to curtail their power and influence.</p>
<p>A White morning radio host (that enlightened bunch) says "nappy-headed ho's" and you, Mr Payne, cannot, no, refuse to see the racial implications in that (not to mention the sexist notion that it's of any importance that female athletes be attractive)? Oh wait, I'm sure he was complimenting them on their fine follicles (the "nappy-headed" part) and their um, ability to generate profit from selling their bodies (the "ho's" part)? Is this your idea of making a neutral observation about minorities and women?
[/quote]
Oh. I understand the racial implications. I just don't think it's racist. Racism is what? I think it's the belief that one race inherently superior to another. </p>
<p>What Imus said isn't even remotely close to that threshold. Is he a jerk, sure. Is he a racist, maybe. Does this specific comment identify him to be a racist? Not even close.</p>
<p>
[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?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you think would happen if droves of well-meaning Blacks moved into these neighbourhoods? Considering that some Whites in California are running away from those scary Asians, I'd say the prognosis is not good. I'm not saying all Whites move away from cities to get away from Blacks and not because of general danger and lack of opportunities, but there's an undeniable racial element to it for some of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You act like this is a behavior to be admired or emulated. You want America to be like Japan? I thought America always prided itself on being better than everybody else on being "free", "democratic", "inclusive", etc. Or does that only apply to compliant White people?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh. I understand the racial implications. I just don't think it's racist. Racism is what? I think it's the belief that one race inherently superior to another.</p>
<p>What Imus said isn't even remotely close to that threshold. Is he a jerk, sure. Is he a racist, maybe. Does this specific comment identify him to be a racist? Not even close.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Debating the difference between "racism" and "racist" is not the point here. As I said before, I think Imus is just a convenient scapegoat for society to relieve their guilty conscience about racism. I feel sorry for him. People like him are only giving people what they want. It's the consumer, not the producer, who need to change. </p>
<p>Economics teach us that the free market is incapable to allowing prejudice and discrimination to thrive unless government or consumers support it. And who makes the loudest noise when people like Michael Richards or Don Imus do something stupid? Politicians and regular people. Coincidence? I think not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What do you think would happen if droves of well-meaning Blacks moved into these neighbourhoods? Considering that some Whites in California are running away from those scary Asians, I'd say the prognosis is not good. I'm not saying all Whites move away from cities to get away from Blacks and not because of general danger and lack of opportunities, but there's an undeniable racial element to it for some of them.
[/quote]
I'd reckon that Whites are running away from the scary housing prices than anything.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You act like this is a behavior to be admired or emulated. You want America to be like Japan? I thought America always prided itself on being better than everybody else on being "free", "democratic", "inclusive", etc. Or does that only apply to compliant White people?
[/quote]
I don't think it's to be admired or not admired. It's something that just is. And it will continue exist as long as humans continue to be humans.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Debating the difference between "racism" and "racist" is not the point here. As I said before, I think Imus is just a convenient scapegoat for society to relieve their guilty conscience about racism. I feel sorry for him. People like him are only giving people what they want. It's the consumer, not the producer, who need to change.
[/quote]
You misunderstood. A racist is simply one who practices racism. This is the thought that a race is inherently superior to another. His statement didn't meet any sort of threshold for being racist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is laughable.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thanks for sharing. You lost all credibility w/the Nappy Roots comparison anyway.</p>
<p>Yes, because on an anonymous online forum...if we don't credibility, what do we have? LOL.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't think it's to be admired or not admired. It's something that just is. And it will continue exist as long as humans continue to be humans.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, in many social instances, you are right.</p>
<p>But I contend that much of it is socially influenced. People don't "naturally" stick to races/ethnicities as much as they like to find groups they associate themselves with and make cliques out of those. For example, there was once a time when Catholics and Protestants and Jews in America couldn't get along at all. However, in the face of an external threat like radical Islam, they band together under the banner of Judeo-Christianism and suddenly, all the historical and religious differences are vented outwards. So it's not as if Whites, Blacks, and Asians cannot inherently blend together seamless. It's just that recent history has pitted these races against each other, and until something forces them to rally under a common banner (like "humanity"), there will be friction and disagreement. I think all humanitarian and political philosophies should have a common goal to making people identify themselves mainly as humans, not Christians or Blacks or poor or anything.</p>
<p>If don imus had made a comment about a lesser-known minority group, nobody would have given a crap.</p>
<p>^</p>
<p>True. Rosie O'Donnell blatantly mocks Chinese people on a popular national TV show (not some crass radio show) and the only thing that was ever done was her expressing her regret that people are so uptight. And I don't even want to know how much anti-Arab/Muslim statements go unnoticed.</p>
<p>Bye Bye Don Imus. CBS says seeya.</p>
<p>Wouldn't be surprised if he got picked up by satellite radio.</p>
<p>Mel Karmazin and Gary Parsons~~~~~is joining of these two network satellite networks complete?</p>
<p>
[quote]
You act like this is a behavior to be admired or emulated. You want America to be like Japan? I thought America always prided itself on being better than everybody else on being "free", "democratic", "inclusive", etc. Or does that only apply to compliant White people?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a quite interesting statement. Do I want the US to be similar to Japan? </p>
<p>Yes. In certain ways.</p>
<p>Lower crime rates (much lower). Higher life expectancy. Healthier lifestyle. High average net worth. High incomes. Lower poverty levels. People living with their means. Are you kidding me? This seems like a no-brainer.</p>
<p>I'm gonna assume you were talking about the high level of racism and sexism in Japan as the undesirable characteristic. Certainly this is a cost benefit analysis question. A certain amount of racism is tolerable (even for the victims) if the other areas of their life are qualitatively better. So simply saying whether Japan is or isn't admirable simply depends on the perspective you are looking from. </p>
<p>I'm sure many denizens in Africa would jump at the chance to live in Japan - despite the possibly overt racism they might receive (just like the denizens in Africa want to live in the US).</p>