posted April 16, 2007 11:44 AM         

Today Don Imus was fired for calling the Rutgers University basketball team "nappy headed hoes". Sure, that was inappropriate, but did the punishment fit the crime? Maybe we should look at the two guys who pushed this issue until Imus was fired.

Jesse Jackson says it's a question of morality, and what's right and what's wrong.

Just so we're clear:

Imus Calling Black Women "nappy headed hoes": Wrong.

Jesse Jackson calling Jews "Hymies" and referring to New York as "Hymietown" : Right. (Washington Post, 1984)

Imus Calling Black Women "nappy headed hoes": Wrong.

Jesse Jackson having an affair and Impregnating Karin Stanford, then using rainbow coalition funds to pay her $40,000 and purchasing a $365,000 house to keep her quiet: Right

Jesse Jackson not paying child support for this child, and not visiting her: Right

Jesse Jackson Saying Duke La Crosse Rape Suspects who have been aquitted "deserved the negative attention" because they weren't acting morally by hiring a stripper: Right

I'm glad we have someone with strong moral values like Jesse Jackson to make sure nobody makes racist jokes on radio stations!

Thanks for showing us what's right and what's wrong Jesse.

And who can forget Al Sharpton, another strong moral figure who knows the power of words:

After District Attorney Steven Pagones failed to prosecute white suspects for raping a black girl (because evidence showed the story was fabricated) Al Sharpton accused Pagones Himself of raping the girl. Pagones successfully sued him for Defamation. Right

But it gets better:

Imus Calling Black Women "nappy headed hos": Wrong.

In 1995, Sharpton led a protest in Harlem against the plans of Freddy's Fashion Mart, a Jewish-owned clothing store, to expand into a black neighborhood. Sharpton told the protesters, "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." Three months later, an armed protester forcibly entered the store and burned it down, killing himself and seven others. Right

Thanks Jesse and Al for showing us what's right and wrong. I'm glad we can finally see the light now. I'm glad you guys stopped this guy, and all his charities for sick and homeless children, that will now dry up. Thanks guy!

I would also like to add that this type of language is accepted in popular culture and music. I choose not to expose myself to that form of media. Yes what Imus did was WRONG but these wrongful acts are quite prevalent in todays society and I don't care who says them they are always wrong. SOOOOO I believe that major music labels should be fined and such oh wait!!!Freedom of speech right? Hmmmm just something to think about.

---

posted April 16, 2007 07:04 PM         

Doesn't the concept of 'political correctness' have its roots in the old Soviet Union?

Anyway.

posted April 17, 2007 04:57 PM         

I dislike this new national mentality of smearing the character and discrediting anyone who disagrees ( in this case ) with some loud mouthed racist.

Would you guys feel the same way if it were some black radio host calling a group of young white college basketball players, " a bunch of white hos?"

And then would others who disagreed with this person having to accept the consequences and the responsibility of his actions have the right to drag up all the skeltons from the closet in an attempt to discredit him and smear his character?

I totally dislike the new national mentality of attacking the messengers because you don't like the message, which is that we are responsible for our words and actions and we also should have to pay the consequences that might befall us do to them.

Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson may not be saints themselves but there is nothing wrong with their message.

Calling young college aged girls "Hos" is offensive in and of itself but referring to them in a derogatory racial manner as being "nappy headed" is totally uncalled for.

Just becuase Don Imus does some kind of civic charity duty doesn't qualify him for sainthood either. It doesn't make him any less of a racist either. And it certainly doesn't make it okay for him to slander and belittle young black women in comparison to the Tennessee women's basketball players. This is not the first time he has been chastised for his racial remarks so the punishment and having to take responsibility for his words is long overdo.

posted April 17, 2007 08:07 PM         

Sad as it was (and I listened to Imus's show on and off since the Kerry/Bush elections) ...Imus got exactly what he deserved. And the day white men and women think that black little girls and boys are just as worthy (precious and promising) as white boys and girls we will be on our way to less discord. If it was your straght A math wiz basketball talent college student daughter being called a "blond pasty, thin haired s**lut /tramp/ or w** hore (take your pick), you might also be offended.

And please stop parading sharpton and jackson out as though they represent every black person. They are the white liberal media's go to guys and it is the media which has mostly "knighted" them.

A week's worth of wall to wall media and cable coverage in this country provided plenty of brilliant confident well spoken blacks and women who oppose these guys ambulance chasing. So move off of the messengers and get with the message.

posted April 17, 2007 08:13 PM         

quote:

---

I dislike this new national mentality of smearing the character and discrediting anyone who disagrees ( in this case ) with some loud mouthed racist.

---

Mirandee, I posted this thread because it represents a point of view which I am not hearing in the media. It certainly does not represent the new national mentality. Quite the contrary.

And, if I may be so bold as to point it out, your post is an instance of the very thing you are attacking. The person who is bringing the misdeeds of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to our attention is also a messenger, no?

We are just asking questions here. What is right, what is wrong? What is free speech? What is punishable speech? Should a person be made a spokesman for civil rights when they do the things Sharpton and Jackson have done? Should a person be fired for making racial jokes? Who decides what is racial humor, and what is racist humor? Honestly, there is an abundance of racial humor out there, and I do not even see how you can be the judge of what is racist and what is not, when the people making the jokes are not expressing any ill-will, and are insisting that they are only joking.

There are always people out there who are going to take the joke seriously. I have a friend who is Jewish and makes Jewish jokes, and ignorant people laugh, and say, "Dude, why do you think that's funny? Aren't you Jewish?" And my friend answers, "Yeah, dude. But its a joke. Why are you laughing?" Many people hear racial humor and take it seriously; whether they agree with what is being said, or get offended by it, they think it is serious. Should we outlaw all racial humor, because it may or may not express the comic's true feelings? Then we have to blacklist not only Don Imus (who I really do not like, btw), but, also, Chris Rock, Carlos Mencia, and just about every other comedian in the business.

No matter what you laugh at, you can find somebody who is deeply offended by it. Should everything that upsets someone be illegal, or only available on pay-per-view? What will be left on regular t.v. and radio? Anything?

posted April 17, 2007 08:28 PM         

I dont think Imus is funny in the least, and there is a certain ambiguity to his racial humor that makes it highly suspect for me. I am not offended by the words or the jokes, but, by the scent of ambiguity in the air.

When I hear comedians call white people honkys, etc. (and it happens every day), I rarely, if ever, get offended, because, not only do I not take those sentiments seriously myself, but, I can sense that the comic is not mean-spirited in the least.

A legitimate question is being presented here:

How do we distinguish between fair and foul play?

How do we know if a comic is sincere, or is kidding?

Do we demonize and silence them if the joke is not funny?
Do we demonize and silence them if they are white?
Do we demonize and silence them because it offends us?
Do we demonize and silence them because we think they are serious?

These are very real questions.

But you made a good point about how these two black men are not representative of anything but their own interests. I agree with that, and I did hear some very insightful remarks on this issue from people of a variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds.

hsc

posted April 17, 2007 09:06 PM         

This event--not to sound cynical-- was also a very slow news week. If it happened the same day that the V Tech massacre happened he might have gotten by....

I know people worry about censorship and I am not a big advocate but I will say this, it would not bother me one iota if the Ann Coulters (complete pig), the Rush Limbaughs, the Chris Rockses and the Imuse were relegated to cable TV. America is very good at checking its cultural and political pendulum and I simply think in all realms and forums most citizens are beginning to say--hey maybe this is enough! It is possible to have an open society without reveling in its darkest most fetid cesspools.

On the honky thing--- I disapprove of all this sort of name calling but I would like to point out that the targets here were about as close as you get to "unassumimg innocents" as you can get.

It was particularly despicable because this is what we are always pushing the poor, the working class, the blacks, the inner city kids to get to. Most of these students are not only atheletes but scholar athletes with one playing 4 instruments proficinetly! And when they did succeed in that American Apple Pie way they were called "nappy head hoes" (and don't forget he contrasted
the Rutgers players to the Tennessee Volunteer girls who were in his mind "cute".)

My advice is if one wants to do denigrating racial humor, feel free, go for it... just don't utilize a major political morning news program as the platform for it. Then all our most pretigious Republican and Democrat leaders won't be running and hiding with their tails between their legs crying mea culpa, mea culpa...

posted April 17, 2007 09:58 PM         

I did think that on the subject of degrading [black] women, he is comparable to the rappers who do the same thing....and I still think so.

However, on the subject of the racist slur, I did once think that there is a comparision but I now I recant that: there is no comparision between any white person who uses such slurs in a derogatory manner and the blacks who use the same words. Why? Because you 1) Have to think about the context 2) you have to think about the social situation. I've already said this before but I will say it again in a hypothetical way; There are things that I can joke about with people of my race that stay between the people of my race; there are things that I can joke about with other Mozambiquans that stay between Mozambiquans. I wouldn't dare share any of these jokes with outsiders who couldn't relate....so yes, if any of the things between me and my race or me and my countrymen came from their mouths it would be pretty offensive. I know that what I've just said may be very controversal and you may see alot of double standards; but I see none and that's just the way things are.

*edited to add*

quote:

---

And please stop parading sharpton and jackson out as though they represent every black person. They are the white liberal media's go to guys and it is the media which has mostly "knighted" them

---

posted April 17, 2007 10:03 PM         

quote:

---

Would you guys feel the same way if it were some black radio host calling a group of young white college basketball players, " a bunch of white hos?"

---

Um, yes. I'd feel the exact same way.

posted April 17, 2007 10:25 PM         

quote:

---

Simply because the messengers (Sharpton and Jackson) are impure loud mouths doesn't make the message less on point.

---

It just makes them hypocrites who are not qualified to be casting judgments, yes?

quote:

---

And the day white men and women think that black little girls and boys are just as worthy (precious and promising) as white boys and girls we will be on our way to less discord.

---

Riiiiight. It's all the fault of that damn whitey. Give me a break.

quote:

---

And please stop parading sharpton and jackson out as though they represent every black person. They are the white liberal media's go to guys and it is the media which has mostly "knighted" them.

---

Heh. The 'white liberal media?' Weren't you just preaching color-blindness a moment ago?

posted April 17, 2007 10:34 PM         

quote:

---

However, on the subject of the racist slur, I did once think that there is a comparision but I now I recant that: there is no comparision between any white person who uses such slurs in a derogatory manner and the blacks who use the same words.

---

Dulce, Snoop Dogg would agree with you. As he very profoundly put it:

quote:

---

"First of all, we ain't no old-a$$ white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls," Snoop Dogg told MTV. "We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them mutha----as say we in the same league as him."

...

Snoop Dogg, 35, also told MTV that Imus should be kicked "off the air forever."

The rap star's response to the Imus controversy came a day before he pleaded no contest to felony weapons and drug charges in a Los Angeles court.

---

posted April 17, 2007 11:29 PM         

quote:

---

Not sure where you found that phrase in my words but it is not what I said.

---

I interpreted that to be your "salient point."

quote:

---

At any rate my most salient point remains the same. Treat other's children as you would treat your own.

---

If you are literally talking about 'treating others children as your own,' then I suppose I was mistaken. Though I sort of thought we were discussing racism in this thread.

posted April 18, 2007 12:08 AM         

well thought, well spoken and well done.

you make excellent points. thanks for expressing them.

posted April 18, 2007 01:55 AM         

In the first place Don Imus was not canned because of anything that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton said or did or any of the other people who did not like his comments. He was canned by CNN and MSNBC because many of the corporations who ran ads on his shows pulled those ads. No ads + no money for the stations = bye bye Don Imus. It was a corporate monetary decision because corporations own and run the media. That's the only reason he was canned. True, it was the public outcry against his racist attack on those young ladies that caused the corporations to get nervous about running ads on his show. Consumers = money for them. So ultimately all around it was a monetary decision by corporations who got Imus ousted. The media is interested in making money. The media is not interested in morality.

Regarding Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton -since when has complete purity been a criteria for pointing out the wrongs in society? Since when do people have to be without sin in order to speak out against any wrong based on their principals and values? That being the case perhaps you should run a background check on all of those philosophers and people who you quote here on the threads because most, if not all of them are not free of sin. In fact, no one is. Yet some very great men and women who contributed much to society throughout the history of the world were not free of sins or free of any skeltons in their closets.

Why did Thomas Jefferson and most of our founding fathers have the right to draw up the Constitution that provides for equality for all when at the same time most of them had slaves? They were hardly pure of heart and Jefferson even fathered illegitimate children by his slaves. Would we say he was not a good man with good intentions who contributed a lot to society and forming this country? Would we say that Einstein did not have a lot to say and contribute to the world and yet he had many mistresses?

Why shouldn't Jesse Jackson be a spokesperson for his race? Just because he is not free of sin? He was with Martin Luther King Jr. in the fight for civil rights for his race in this country. He was with King when he was assassinated. He marched in the streets and spent time in jail in his battle for civil rights. He risked his life for his belief in racial equality along with King and many other black leaders who aren't without sin either. Yet you are questioning whether or not he should represent his race because he had an illegitimate child and is not a perfect human being? Augustine had an illegitmate child before his conversion and subsequent priesthood. He became one of the greatest theologians of the RC Church and was canonized a saint. Good thing the Church didn't hold him to all his past indiscretions because he was a real womanizer at one time in his life.

If being perfect and having absolutely no skeletons in our closets is a criteria for our ability to speak out against what we see as wrong in society or the actions of others there would be absolutely no need for a debate about freedom of speech. In fact, there would be no speech at all because all of humanity would be silenced.

Purity being the case neither you nor I or anyone else has any right to judge Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson or Don Imus's actions or words or anyone elses.

When I spoke about new national mentality I was speaking about bringing up all of a persons mistakes, all of their indiscreations of the past in order to smear their character and discredit them. In that respect that is precisely what the article you posted here does in the case of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Many other people have spoken out about the racial remarks of Don Imus, both black and white yet where is the background check on all those people? In that respect, no, I am not doing the same thing to the messengers of this article because I have not attempted to in any way smear their character or point out their indiscretions but I can guarantee you that whoever composed this article is not without sin or some kind of wrongdoing in their life.

Isn't the article that you posted in fact judging Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton while at the same time questioning their right to judge the words of Don Imus? Aren't you judging them as well by questioning their right to represent their race because they aren't totally pure? I hardly see anyway that Al Sharpton is to be held accountable for someone else's actions in shooting up the place mentioned in the article. He is to blame simply because he gave his opinion about it?

As long as we are going to be yelling hypocrisy we should admit we can all be guilty of that from time to time.

posted April 18, 2007 03:19 AM         

But if someone called me a half-breed I would be offended. In fact, I have been called that once or twice in my life.

Comparing comedians to Don Imus and what he said is like comparing apples to oranges.

posted April 18, 2007 04:43 AM         

don imus got too comfy. nappy headed is offensive forget about the "ho" reference. he should be fired, what the hell do we need the likes of him poluting our air?\\\

are there any love spokespersons out there? if so, direct me. everyone i hear on the radio sucks you in and spits out garbage.

posted April 18, 2007 07:14 AM         

quote:

---

Dulce, Snoop Dogg would agree with you. As he very profoundly put it

---

And do you find what I said amusing?????Because I was commenting on people comparing Don Imus to black commedians or commedians of color in general and why they shouldn't do that.

quote:

---

Get off your high horse, eh? Racism is a two way street, and maybe you don't have as much room to talk as you think you do.

---

Yeah that is true but lets be realistic: whites weren't the ones brought over on ships and oppressed for 400 years. I don't recall that it has been whites who have been struggling against racism in American society in the last century (and even this one).

posted April 18, 2007 07:24 AM         

quote:

---

Yes what Imus did was WRONG

---

So nobody is trying to argue that two wrongs make a right at all.

It's wrong when anybody does it. That's the point that does not seem to want to get across. Anybody making a racial slur is doing something wrong. What is making some people angry is that when Imus says it, he gets fired and trashed ... even after apologizing repeatedly. When other "celebrities" say it and don't give a d@mn then it's tolerated as "art" or "free speech".

If we have to tolerate, as a supposedly free speech society, rappers, lyricists, poets, movie makers, writers, etc. who use racial slurs then we have to tolerate it from everyone.

Racism is a two way street and so is tolerance. So many people say racist things against whites, probably without even thinking it's racist and that's even worse, but that's okay because, you know, the "white man" is responsible for so much [whatever]. And then, people spend so much time preaching tolerance but refuse to tolerate opinions/words/jokes that they find personally offensive.

It's ridiculous. Fire Imus? Then "fire" Sharpton, Jackson, Snoop, Mencia, Foxworthy, Cho and every person out there using racial slurs in any context. A slur, by any other name, is still a slur.

Or just accept that some people are racist and that's not illegal in this country. Or that someone else's sense of humor isn't funny to you. I laugh at Mencia whole heartedly most of the time and do not get offended because some "white" person thinks he's funny or when some "white" person makes the same exact remarks. How racist would that be?

So, yes, what he said was WRONG. Hopefully, this time no one will think I'm condoning his words. But I'll take this outrage seriously when it's aimed at racism across the board at everyone who does it from every race ... instead of only whites.

And here's my contribution to racial humor.

posted April 18, 2007 08:43 AM         

quote:

---

I even laugh at Native American jokes so long as they are not derogatory in nature.

But if someone called me a half-breed I would be offended. In fact, I have been called that once or twice in my life.

---

posted April 18, 2007 11:00 AM         

The public outcry (and I doubt that even now it is a significant reality), which you cite as the motive for the corporations pulling the plug on Imus, would never have existed had Imus' comments not been highlighted and paraded before the public by certain self-proclaimed crusaders. Imus made a stupid remark, which would have gone under the radar, or been shrugged off as the opinion of one ignorant dumb-ass with a microphone. His listeners are accustomed to his "humor", and many of them tune in to hear it. The people most likely to be offended by his remarks are the ones least likely to hear them - that is, unless someone like Sharpton or Jackson blows the whistle and cries out, "hear ye!, hear ye!," and proceeds to repeat those remarks on every major network, for the world to hear. The vast majority of people who were offended, were not offended by Imus directly, but, because of the insistance of those two men to put Imus' words in lights, surrounded by flames, where the audience least sympathetic to him could hear them and be outraged. You ask: Should Jackson, Sharpton, or others, be blamed for his termination, simply for expressing their opinions? Yes, no, maybe. Let's say someone offers you a sip of something rancid, which they actually think tastes good, and you drink it, and get offended. Now, let's say you take that rancid substance, which you know is rancid, and inject it into the most public water supply you can find, and say, "hey, everyone, isn't this stuff rancid, - here, take a sip!" Just something to consider. Who offended more people? Imus, when he made a nasty joke (which he apparently thought was benign), on his own show, to his own listeners? Or, someone who casts that remark in the most sincere light, and, knowing it is offensive, proceeds to repeat it, innumererable times, on the most public and supposedly impartial platforms in the world? I'm not forming a judgment, I'm just asking a question. This is something to think about. It's something I am still thinking about, and I am sharing my thoughts-in-progress with you.

I never said that a person had to be without sin to speak out against it. In fact, I have frequently expressed several original views on "hippocrisy", which defend the right of every person to speak on behalf of the ideal, regardless of their own capacity to emulate it. So, your long-winded, one-trick defense of this point is erroneously directed at me. I think Johnny might have been saying that, but I was not.

The original post I shared was not written by me, and does not express my views 100%; I just thought it was worthy of consideration. What interested me, and what I believe was the primary intent of the author of the article I posted, was not the suggestion that a person should not point out wrong-doing if they have done wrong themselves, or, that we ought to look into the past of anyone who points a finger, but, that we ought to consider how we prioritize our values. What is acceptable, what is not? Imus apologized, and his apology was accepted by the very people most directly implicated in his comments. I don't know about the others. You cited the work for civil rights done by Jackson and Sharpton, and I have no desire to dispute the worthiness of those actions, regardless of their motives. Imus' charity work is equally noteworthy, regardless of his motives. The man makes one nasty remark (in the apparent context of trying to be funny, not sincere) every five or ten years, which a small portion of the public finds punishable, and for which he apologizes, and he is removed from his platform for life, unable to continue the many charitable works he was accustomed to perform; at least, certainly unable to continue them in the same capacity.

I did not suggest that you were doing the very thing you denounced by smearing the character of the person who spoke out against Jackson and Sharpton. What struck me was that you were saying a person ought not to point out the wrongs of a person who is pointing out another person's wrongs. This seemed contradictory to me. Either we can point out wrongs, or we can't.

Again, I am not in full agreement with everything in the article, and I feel no obligation or desire to defend the views of the author. Being very Uranian, I like to think outside my own soapbox, and offer up controversial thoughts for the sake of debate. When I am stating my own opinion, I state it in my own words, or I cite a quote to illustrate a point I am in the process of making myself.

hsc