When the media get involved, and when don’t they, things get stupid. Hence, forty or fifty college kids get shot, and Brian Williams breathlessly asks a bystander if he has been able to "absorb" the event not yet a day old. If he feels it necessary to channel Barbara Walters, someone should explain she is not dead yet. We also saw our Empathizer-in-Chief travel to Virginia to hear a poetess compare the massacre to, among other things, killing elephants for ivory. This apparently struck no one as odd. Indeed, considering the location, it was not. The only good thing about this new media circus is that the old media circus around Don Imus died out about a month early.
I don’t know anything about Imus other than what I’ve read since his thug-like comments about a women’s basketball team. I read a conservative describing him as a liberal and a liberal describing him as a conservative, but everybody seems to agree that he is a shock-jock. When he was originally criticized for calling a predominantly black women’s basketball team "nappy-headed hos," and we were as usual provided no context for the statement, I reserved judgment. I finally got around to some old Media Matters newsletters and found a link to the video where I discovered that the context was not particularly complex. Imus was saying that these women with multiple tattoos were not as "cute" as the Tennessee players who beat them. His method for doing so was to call them whores. I gather this is the shock jock part.
There has been some suggestion that "nappy-headed" is a racial slur. I suppose one could think that, but it’s a little hard to justify. My understanding, and I am not big on racial slurs, is that "nappy-headed" is a colloqialism for kinky hair, perhaps not complimentary. Goldilocks is an unfavorable colloquialism for caucasian hair. Even if a known racist like Al Sharpton used that expression, it would be hard to call it racism.
If Imus had called the team "curly-locked whores," would that have been any better? As the saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In the ongoing culture wars, that saying could be updated with a dog scooper as the tool.
On the other hand, ever since an obvious non-racist like Howard Cosell was labelled a racist for referring to an agile black football player as a "monkey" ("Look at that monkey run" is how I remember it) it has been clear that racism is to be defined only by the alleged victims. In any other context that would be a conflict of interest, but it is a right we now give to all victims, and we are used to it. So let’s assume the reference to nappiness is racism; can we all agree that there are worse things? Like calling a young woman you don’t know a whore on a nationally syndicated program? How about ten young women?
John
thanks, that clears everything up
I admire Obama for equating the Imus slur to the Virginia attack. Obama for President.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_on_Virginia_Tech_and_Violence.html
"I admire Obama for equating the Imus slur to the Virginia attack. Obama for President."
But he's the only person who can fix the pettiness of our politics!
Dear Mr. Bramfeld:
Is one still allowed to sue for the injury to one's reputation when one is labelled a whore? Just curious...
I think that IP readers should end the partisan squabbling and unite behind Wally Fenwick for president.
For those who might have an interest in the nuts and bolts of the coverage of these types of issues, I've been documenting the comments from the knuckleheads who think the main issue with an event like this is how the front page looks.
We have people -- less than a day after a mass murder -- commenting on things like the "nice display of emotion."
Sorry, no political stance here. Just the standard amazement at how sorry the media environment has allowed itself to become.
"Is one still allowed to sue for the injury to one's reputation when one is labelled a whore?"
Not if the labeller (sic) is a rapper.
Mollie once sued a guy for throwing up in the back of her Studebaker. I think his name was John.
This might be the dumbest post ever. Of course racism is defined by the victim. Do you think the slaveowners in South Carolina circa 1850 thought they were racists? Do you think Hitler considered himself a racist? What part of "offensive" do you not understand? If you are offensive to the person next to you it doesn't really matter if you consider yourself offensive or not. Maybe you haven't showered is so long that you no longer smell the BO, or maybe your breath is so bad you can't even smell the stench anymore? In these cases it is actually helpful to have someone remind you that you smell.
Are you married Mr. Bramfield? If your wife asks you if her dress makes her look fat and you say "yeah it does" do you then turn around and tell her she is being "too sensitive" because you didn't mean to be offensive? Or do you man up and realize that you just said something pretty stupid and maybe an apology is in order?
The history of America is a history of trying to reconcile our wonderful basis in Natural Rights with our traditional systematic racism. Black people have had to listen to rich white men insult them, sell them, spray them with waterhoses, etc. for almost 400 years in this country. It is NOT the same for a white man to call a black person "nappy headed" as it is for a black person to call a white guy "goldilocks". If you can't understand the difference then you are either being obtuse (my guess) or have a fundamental misunderstanding about what has taken place in America since the year 1619. Either way this post is way out of line and, frankly, makes the entire site look pretty bad.
Mr. Bramfeld, if the singer of the moment in time of fame (Sinead O'Connor) tears up a picture of the Pope, are you offended?
If a world renowned artist, Robert Mapplethorpe, puts a Crucifix in a bottle of urine, are you offended?
It seems that to you, if the audience is offended, it matters not, only the intent of the "offender", and if there ws no "intent" to offend, then the audience is out of line for being offended.
Is "hypocrisy" in your vocabulary?
This thread, while articulate and thought provoking on the surface, is in actuality the lowest of thought, the lowest of controversy.
We expect better from you. You should be ashamed.
"Either way this post is way out of line and, frankly, makes the entire site look pretty bad."
It seems that just about every one of John's threads elicits a comment like this. Yet yesterday was another day of record readers, and this will be, by far, our busiest week ever.
I'd like to think that the vast majority of our readers can handle a discussion about offensiveness without labeling the very discussion itself as offensive.
Please do lay off the personal insults, though, the next time you'd like to disagree with some (or all) or John's ideas. The insults really don't further the discussion at all.
"Mr. Bramfeld, if the singer of the moment in time of fame (Sinead O'Connor) tears up a picture of the Pope, are you offended?
If a world renowned artist, Robert Mapplethorpe, puts a Crucifix in a bottle of urine, are you offended?
It seems that to you, if the audience is offended, it matters not, only the intent of the "offender", and if there ws no "intent" to offend, then the audience is out of line for being offended.
Is "hypocrisy" in your vocabulary?
This thread, while articulate and thought provoking on the surface, is in actuality the lowest of thought, the lowest of controversy.
We expect better from you. You should be ashamed."
Now this is how to disagree with a post.
Media: They're doing their job. If no one watched they woulnd't be there (on the VT campus). Their questions aren't perfect, but despite what you think the majority of us are rubberneckers and WANT the anchors there interviewing witnesses, experts, students, etc. We have a need to know. Don't like it? Turn off the friggin' TV.
Imus: The tragedy in this is NBC and CBS bent over and took it from Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the advertisers. They are hypocrites who use opportunites like the Imus incident to refill their bank accounts -- so they remain employed. Neither, but especially Sharpton, has done anything significant for the African-American community. What Imus said was disgusting, but if you read more than just what's on the blogs you'll realize he has a history of "racist" remarks -- and up until the advertisers started yelling, NBC and CBS were OK with it. Why? Because he filled a need to reach other middle-aged white guys. He wasn't my piece of cake but apparently millions of others liked him. "A guy like that shouldn't be on the radio" I heard one commentator say. Really? Because a commentator like you bothers me and I don't think you should be on TV. Which is why there's a channel changer. By the way, mark my word... Imus will be back on the radio by the end of the year.
Dear anonymous,
Your post is a further indication of the confusion race causes in conversation. You suggest that a white person calling a black person nappy-headed is offensive. I have to agree. My argument, dumb as I am, is simply that it is not racism. My further argument is that in the offensiveness department, unless you are a real smart liberal, calling someone a whore is much more offensive than referring to the geometrical properties of their hair. Your argument embodies modern liberalism perfectly: a set of rules that need no explanation, indeed which can't be explained, which are then used against whoever is not toeing the current liberal line.
I wish I could be smart enough to understand why, when ten young women are called "nappy-headed whores" to an audience in the millions, the discussion is about race instead of about degradation of people and culture.
Keep in mind that unless the black slaves in early America could persuade influential white people of the merits of their claims, indeed, unless those merits were obvious without explanation, there would have been no emancipation. As the Pope recently said to the Muslims,"God is rational." We could at least give it a try ourselves.
John
How do you know?
There seem to be two main defenses against charges of racism:
1) I don't think it's racism.
2) There was no intent.
The first one is difficult as it is simply a difference in perspective. To someone who faces racial stereotypes daily rather than minute-to-minute, they might not seem to be a big deal.
The second one is humorous to me because it assumes that we should take someone who said something nasty to someone else at their word--no questions asked. I mean, am I really supposed to believe that Don Imus had no intent surrounding the players' race when he made that comment? Many ask for some kind of definitve proof, as if that's even possible. Maybe the Klanman were cold and just wanted to light a fire on a neighboring lawn for warmth (note: I am in no way saying that burning crosses is identical to using racial slurs, so please don't respond with some weird strawman).
I think things will improve when we as a society acknowledge that sometimes people of all ethnicities say racially charged things out of ignorance or carelessness and sometimes they do so out of malice and lie about their intentions and sometimes they say things out of their societal training.
Why can't a third defense be: it isn't racism at all? I'm not sure I understand your point. Are y ou saying that if a person calls something racism, by definition, it becomes racism, or am I missing the point?
Xian,
How do I know what? That calling a young woman a whore is worse than referring to her kinky hair as nappy? I know that because I hold myself and others to a basic standard of human decency. If I accuse someone of having nappy hair, I have accused them of being black. If I have accused them of being a whore, I have accused them bad character and loose morals of a particularly sensitive nature. I hate to spring logic on you, but what you rather actually be, nappy headed or a whore?
I am rather glad that I don't subscribe to the belief that our black citizens need some special kind of emotional affirmative action because they are less able than the rest of us to distinguish what is important and what isn't. The racist component of Imus's statement is negligible compared to the common decency component. Racism is immoral and irrational. We do not combat evil with more irrationality, no matter how good or superior it makes us feel.
John
Are y ou saying that if a person calls something racism, by definition, it becomes racism, or am I missing the point?
Bingo! In 2007, the only criterion for "racism," as well as for "homophobia," is that the accuser deem the accusee guilty of being a bad person. Which is too bad because real racism gets lost in the shuffle.
JB, I agree totally with your post and comments, and don't understand why the "racism" angle is being pushed more than the "ho" angle. If Rutgers had won the game, and Imus had said, "I am glad Rutgers won, that Tennessee team just looked like a bunch of redneck sluts", what would the complaint be? That they were called "sluts", not "rednecks".
Mr. Bramfeld, I think you don't really get the point of how serious it is to call someone "nappy headed". it is NOT a mere descriptor, it is an insult. Why? If you were to say "nappy HAIRED", that would be accurate; to say "nappy HEADED" is much different to African Americans. it implies something much different than "nappy haired".
Being nappy haired is immutable. being a whore is a self imposed condition. Similarly, being Irish is immutable, but being Catholic is self imposed. So, by your logic I suppose, calling someone a Mick is ok, but calling someone a snapper is bad.Frankly, in my perspective, calling someone a Mick OR a snapper is insulting.
As I asked before, and as it is yet unanswered, please tell us your position, and your emotional response, concerning the Mapplethorpe exhibit. Were you insulted? Why? Does it matter if Mapplethorpe didn't mean to insult Christianity, but only wished to describe the condition of Jesus as a person who urinated, or perhaps as a historcial condition where all too many people have alliterively "drowned Jesus in urine" thus showing societies have mistreated the concept of the Christian Savior? Were you insulted, or intrigued, intrigued to thought about how poorly Jesus has been viewed by the majority of the world (Christianity is a minority religion worldwide)?
Equating racism for anti-religionism for the purpose of this argument, tell us, isn't it true that the audience has the right to determine what is insulting just as much, or perhaps more so, than the the deliverer of the message?
In response to the "If you don't like it, turn it off" philosophy: That's what's happening, but nothing is changing. CIrculation at most newspapers is plummeting, yet they keep doing the same things.
Until this "make a Picasso For A Day" strategy is shunned, the problems will continue. Right now, we've got good evidence at least one major newspaper -- the Orlando Sentinel -- came up with a sensational angle, then just put the articles around it, whether they fit or not.
They did this, thinking no one would question it. Once the questions started, they had few answers, but they know they don't have to offer any. Why? Because no one will press them.
that's absolutely right, you don't understand.
many white people are proud to be rednecks. i doubt very many black people like white people using racial epithets going back to the slave era.
if you still don't understand, the black people were slaves of the white people. ok?
so being a "ho" is ok?
Anonymous, upon what do you base your statement "many white people are proud to be rednecks"? If you don't understand the irony of that statement, I don't know how to respond to your issues.
B Reasonable,
Ok, it is an insult. I have already agreed that I am willing to consider it racism and offensive for the sake of convention. My point remains: This alleged racism pales in comparison to calling young women whores to a national audience.
Doesn't it get tiresome being so relentlessly correct? Try the freeing tonic of logic and good will, it will change your life. You don't believe everything George Bush says, I don't believe everything Al Sharpton says. I am not compelled to believe anything just because someone tells me so, particularly guilt-ridden liberals whose only dog in the fight is their relentless search for absolution from the high priests of correctness. You are absolved, you are absolved.
John
i just did a google search on proud redneck.
Try it
there are sweatshirts saying proud to be a redneck, there are websites saying that ..
I did my own google search:
http://www.cafepress.com/buy/al+sharpton/-/pg_3
non sequiturs always welcome
did you actually do the link? there is a great "Nappy Pride" t-shirt logo available.
so is being a "ho" ok, or not?
if you're asking me, being called a ho is not ok. i did the link, and it doesn't tell me anything, sicne it's a site making fun of al sharpton. for all i know, don imus is an investor.
Ok, it is an insult. I have already agreed that I am willing to consider it racism and offensive for the sake of convention. My point remains: This alleged racism pales in comparison to calling young women whores to a national audience.
Doesn't it get tiresome being so relentlessly correct? Try the freeing tonic of logic and good will, it will change your life. You don't believe everything George Bush says, I don't believe everything Al Sharpton says. I am not compelled to believe anything just because someone tells me so, particularly guilt-ridden liberals whose only dog in the fight is their relentless search for absolution from the high priests of correctness. You are absolved, you are absolved.
I agree that calling young women "hos" is more offensive. I do apply logic and good will. Logic is, unfortunately, binding, and not freeing, in it's proper application, yet logic is the right thing to apply. Good will is freeing, it is easier, better, and is, in a phrase, "politically correct".
I don't believe everything GWB says, Sharpton says, you say, or what anyone says. Some things I believe and some things I don't. Sometimes I have to research. Sometimes I change my mind, but I take very little at face value.
As to my perceived "political correctness" this blog truly is anonymous. If you were to know who I am, you would know, I am far, far from politcally correct in the social science/political venue. How you cast me as a liberal Sharpton believer is way beyond me, though, and made me laugh. Thanks.
However, I am "politcally correct" in that I believe that all people should be treated with dignity and respect, until they lose that dignity and respect. I try, and fail too often, but continue to try, to treat all people with dignity and rrespect (except that blankety blank #%9*554&XS##@%!! who cut me off in traffic!)
And, lastly, I suppose your lack of response to my question about your emotional response the Mapplethorpe exhibit is going to remain unanswered. That's fine with me, I was merely trying to point out that the audience does matter sometimes, and you seem to now accept that premise.
Dear B reasonable,
I don't like Maplethorpe. I find him offensive. Therefore, it must be racism. Offensiveness is everywhere. The question, as always, is degree. Was it really that hard to admit that calling women whores is worse than calling them nappy haired? The world doesn't need to revolve around race. It may need to revolve around decency.
John
I don't like Maplethorpe. I find him offensive. Therefore, it must be racism.
huh? your reasoning is nonsensical. is it supposed to be funny?
Why is it so hard for you to admit that a white man calling black women nappy-headed hos is racist?
is there anything that qualifies as racist in your worldview?
Are y ou saying that if a person calls something racism, by definition, it becomes racism, or am I missing the point?
Bingo! In 2007, the only criterion for "racism," as well as for "homophobia," is that the accuser deem the accusee guilty of being a bad person. Which is too bad because real racism gets lost in the shuffle.
This has nothing to do with what I said. I don't think being racist makes you a bad person persay, it's just a negative behavior. It's a shame really--I put some thought into being as balanced as possible in the final paragraph, and my racial stalker just ignores it and makes another unrelated attack.
Oh well, I feel for you dude, I have no idea who you are, but you seem to have a long-standing grudge.
Well, I'm confused. Anonymous thinks that if someone prints up a t-shirt that says "Proud to be a redneck" that must mean many white people are proud to be rednecks. I fail to see the logic, but maybe I'm just missing it. I think what I draw from this discussion is that we still have not been able to define in our society what racism is, and I'm beginning to think that we never will.
Anonymous,
There are lots of things that qualify as racist: The belief that one race or another is naturally superior; the imposition of penalties or advantages on one race or another; irrational animus toward members of another race; the irrational belief that members of a specific race are out to get you; the belief that bad or destructive behavior is acceptable for one race and not another; lower expectations for one race than another. The list goes on and on. It never does get to where you want to go, however.
You do other races no good in your quest to define racism down to something as universal as hurtful comments and ignorant humor.
My point is so very simple. Calling women whores is much worse than calling them nappy-headed. Who knew it was so controversial.
John
I never have heard "snapper" before. I assume it is anti-Irish.
This is one of the times I wish I was a grammarian. Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't "nappy headed ho" a noun phrase? And as a noun phrase isn't "nappy headed" an attributive adjective? And if that is correct (and again, I am not sure) then isn't it a little disingenuous to splice up the phrase and declare one section more or less offensive than the others? In other words what Imus said was "black whores". He didn't call them just whores, or just black. He called them black whores.
By inserting the nappy-headed into the phrase he made it a racist phrase, imo. Although again, I am not a grammarian.
He didn't call them just whores, or just black. He called them black whores.
Yeah, but they are black. He couldn't have called them white or asian or hispanic.
"Snapper" has been used as a perjorative term for Roman Catholics. I apologize if I offended anyone, it was used as an example of a word that may not hurt the speaker but may hurt the listener, just as "nappy headed" may not hurt the speaker yet may hurt the listener, therefore, by extension, validating the hurt felt by African Americans for the phrase "nappy headed".
BTW, I am a Christian but not Roman Catholic, and I am American but not African American.
Caveat: I am not African American in the commonly used sense. I am however, as is every single person who exists or has ever existed, "African", because every one of us descended from original humans in Africa. There is indisputable scientific proof thereof. So we are all "African American", it just depends on how far back you are willing to go in your ancestry.
Yeah, but they are black. He couldn't have called them white or asian or hispanic.
I understand this point, but it seems to me that he also could have left their race out altogether? Isn't the adding of the racial element the part that makes it racist? (I guess that's the question, eh?) And if this is a noun phrase and the adjectives are attributive, then they were added, either conciously or sub-conciously, to give the sexual part of the insult more punch. In other words, the insult is more insulting because of the racial element, and the racial element was probably added to make it more offensive and thereby more humorous to whomever it is that happens to find this kind of comment funny.
Again, I'm not a grammarian and I could have this wrong. I'm just thinking that the splitting of hairs in this thread is a bit suspect.
Cheers!
Exasperated. That's the only word I've been able to come up with in regards to my feelings about the Imus issue. As much as I enjoy reading the discourse on IP (both John B. and B. Reasonable, in particular, have argued their sides very articulately), I'm at a loss to understand why relatively intelligent people are giving this argument any weight at all. RECOGNIZE THE SOURCE!! This is Don Imus we're talking about, not Nancy Pelosi or Condoleeza Rice or any one else of significance to the average American. Having ignored Imus for the better part of twenty years (out of my allegiance to Howard Stern- you couldn't like both), I started paying attention to the MSNBC show several years ago. As a political junkie, it's hard to ignore the number of "in-the-know" beltway guests that appear on his program. I recognized the "locker room" humor that was often injected into the show and dismissed it as such. I was watching the morning he made his comments, and, once again, found it to be no different than the type of juvenile humor one would hear on ManCow, Opie and Anthony, etc. The ensuing uproar has been mind-boggling. Was it a grossly insensitive comment? Yes. Is it an issue that needs to be at the forefront of the American conscious? Absolutely. Was the situation initiated by a bigoted racist venting his hatred of blacks and women? Not at all. This is a "shock-jock". The man is payed to be controversial. He said something in midst of doing an off-the-cuff bit about the Woman's basketball championship that was not unlike thousands and thousands of similar comments he has made in past broadcasts. Revs. Sharpton and Jackson are apparently not as concerned with the slighting of Jews, Catholics, Fat/Ugly people, Ice Skaters, Heavy Metal listeners, and on and on and on etc. Hate Imus all you want. That's fine. Turn the channel and move on (perhaps refresh yourself on the first amendment while your at it). With all due respect to the talented women on the Rutgers basketball team, to say that something Imus said has "scarred" you "for life" (as one player said during their first news conference) is a truly sad statement. I pray that Carrot-Top never does a routine that offends your sensibilities.
I've noted that many writers have put a partisan slant on this. I offer the following as food for thought. In an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times on April 16, 2007, Bob Herbert wrote: "Michael Savage, one of the most prominent (conservative) figures in talk radio, with an audience substantially larger than Don Imus's has called Diane Sawyer a 'lying whore' and Barbara Walters a 'double-talking slut' , according to Media Matters for America, a group that monitors some of the excesses of talk radio."
I might also suggest doing a search for C-SPAN footage from last year. A Dr. Kamon Kambon (I Think that's spelled correctly),formerly of North Carolina State University, during a period of open comments before a House committee looking into Katrina related issues, declared that the vast majority of problems being discussed could be taken care of by simply "eliminating the white race." This, ans similar statements, were met with a disturbing amount of applause.
I have no problem admonishing and punishing those who discriminate. I question taking away the livelihood of someone who makes jokes for a living because one of the many groups he offends regularly doesn't like the joke, that day. I also hope the Honorable Reverands will reach in to their wallets and help make up some of the lost millions of dollars that Imus raises annually for kids with cancer (he also built a ranch that he and his wife operate afflicted children have somewhere to go and camp and have fun like normal kids). Maybe after Al settles up with all the folks he still owes from the Tawana Brawley case...check's in the mail!
I'll say it again, Imus only lost his job because sponsors bolted from his host. Had they stayed, he would still be employed. He enjoyed no First Amendment right, only the whim of his employer. Ultimately, his employer is the one who enjoyed the First Amendment right, should they choose to defend him. Since he was losing them money, it is very understandable that they chose not to do so.
One of the great things about this country is (within the proper venue) you have the right to say whatever you want. Other people have the right not to listen. Nobody has a right to not be offended and such a thing would be ridiculous. Learn to recognize asshattery for what it is and move along.
To follow up on Teacher Man's point, I think breaking up the phrase in order to assess the racial insensitivity (or lack thereof) of its individual parts is not a useful exercise. In my mind it is clear that the combined impact of "nappy-headed" and "hos" is much greater than the sum of the parts. Granted, this is a subjective reaction.
So how would this phrase stack up on the racial insensity scale to Rush Limbaugh's labeling of Barack Obama as the "magic Negro"?
So how would this phrase stack up on the racial insensity scale to Rush Limbaugh's labeling of Barack Obama as the "magic Negro"?
Rush didn't invent that term - he pulled it from some writer I believe.
The "magic negro" phrase refers to a certain type of character in movies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_negro
And I'm pretty sure Rush wasn't the one to apply the term to Obama, he likes to repeat outrageous things that liberals say, because he knows the media, and other unsuspecting people will get outraged when he says it but not when it was originally said. Seems like he's right.
From the page linked above:
that this thread can continue is the acme of absurdity. obviously it is racist to call somebody a nappy-headed ho -- the testr fro this is the millions of americans who are offended.
FYI, the "n" word isn't ok, either.
i'm not gonig to waste any more of my time on this discussion because it's full of typical strawmna and obfuscatory attempts. most recently, i am misquoted as saying "nonymous thinks that if someone prints up a t-shirt that says "Proud to be a redneck" that must mean many white people are proud to be rednecks."
show me where i said that.
i did say redneck is not the equal of the n-word. many people are proud of being rednecks, as i know from friedns of mine who fit the bill. somebody called me on that, so i suggested googling "proud redneck: for its 700,000 citations about proud rednecks.
because one of the sites had "proud to be a redneck," champaign dweller reduced that to being my entire argument.
great debating skills here. tip: it's always easier to win if you ignore your opponent's point, and it's always best to win
"and other unsuspecting people will get outraged when he says it but not when it was originally said. Seems like he's right."
Careful with the assumptions, Adam. First, I didn't say I was outraged. Second, I don't know, nor did I claim to know, when the term was originally used.
But thank you for both the Wikipedia and LAT links.
And now...
Sorry.. I didn't mean to suggest you were outraged. Obviously you heard that Rush said it, and you think that it could be viewed as racist. But you weren't aware of who originally said it. I would attribute that to the media which probably noted what Rush said while failing to discuss at any length who originally said it and why.
The fact is that Rush wasn't the one who labelled Obama the "Magic Negro", yet somehow you believe he did.
Also, language is completely and utterly consistent. That's why if you say "I want to **** you good" to your wife and no one cares, but when you say the same to your neighbor's little kid and you get arrested, it's completely and utterly unfair. If you can use language in one situation, it must be acceptable in all situations.
If some person, somewhere uses a racial slur to their closest friends, it therefore gives anyone the right the use that term however they want.
I always love the irony that many think that ambiguous racism is protected speech, but attacking perceived racist speech is unacceptable. That's awesome. Keep in mind, that I have very wide standards for protected speech--probably as wide as anyone on this site.
An interesting take on the Imus Incident...courtesy of Neil Boortz.
HG
Xian,
Speech is only protected with regard to what the government can do about it. Society has every right to chastize someone for unacceptable remarks. You can't be arrested and thrown in jail by the gov't for such remarks, but you can(should?) be ostracized and marginalized by society.
Also, you appear to indicate that context does not matter with regard to speech. Even the government has placed limits on speech in some contexts. For example, threats of violence, while only speech, can be grounds for prosecution depending on the severity of the comments and the speaker's capacity to follow through. Context of speech is critical to its proper interpretation. Authors(if their good) spend an extraordinary amount of time making sure their words provide the proper context for their ideas. To ignore such context, disregards the bulk of the meaning of a statement. And your example proves this, the words individually are not universally frowned upon, but given the context in which they are spoken, they can provoke intense passion or intense disgust.
So, please, tell me I'm misunderstanding you, or perhaps I'll need to regard your statements with much less respect than I have in the past.
"For example, threats of violence, while only speech, can be grounds for prosecution depending on the severity of the comments and the speaker's capacity to follow through."
This is not true. The issue, and ONLY issue, for the offense of assault, is: was the listener placed in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery.
It doesn't matter :how "mean" or how "severe" the comments were, and it doesn't matter that the speaker is unable to carry out the threat. The only thing that matters is whether or not the listener believes the speaker can carry out the threat.
The LISTENER's perspective matters, not the speaker's.
Thanks for the clarification, I think we agree that context matters. Are you quoting statute? Just want to be sure we're all on the same page.
ID: The entire post was sarcasm. Sorry--I should have marked it more clearly. I was saying the opposite: I'm sick of people playing the infantile, "If other people are doing it, I must be allowed to do so and anyone who criticizes me is bad" argument on these issues.
Race doesn't exist and blah blah blah, but in our society, whether we like it or not, some of these societal constructs have a strong impact on the context and thus the significance of speech. Saying "some black folks say it some time, some place, and therefore I have free reign" is patently ridiculous.
If people feel the societal standard we have on this issue is not positive, surely there are better ways to address this than promoting hateful speech from boorish members of the ethnic majority.
I look and see plenty of folks, myself included who push to support socially-conscious, positive music, including in hip-hop, and then I see people who use negative hip-hop as a way to support hate speech (not a right to it, but actually support it).
It's not too hard to figure out who genuinely has human respect for the African American community.
ah, ok, read with a touch of sarcasm your post has a completely different meaning, context strikes again!
I don't know of anyone who claims that using various words such as the "N" word are ok because rappers or some black people or former KKK leader Democrat senators use it. I think the point is that nobody should use it.
I'm not claiming that context doesn't matter - of course it does. Saying "teddy bear" at the wrong time may be horribly offensive. I think the argument is that there are some words that shouldn't be used no matter what the context.
After seeing Trump and Rosie jump start Barbaras ratings. I think this whole Nappy Headed thing was just a fund raiser. Dons wife took over The Imus Show and had close to 3 million in donations one day. Im sure Jesse and Al are begging the poor people who already give them a free ride for more money!
Adam:
"Obviously you heard that Rush said it, and you think that it could be viewed as racist. But you weren't aware of who originally said it. I would attribute that to the media which probably noted what Rush said while failing to discuss at any length who originally said it and why."
Then you would be incorrect. I didn't "hear that Rush said it," I was listening to his program when he said it. He made no claim about coining the term, nor did he credit anyone else. Since I had not seen or heard the term before, I incorrectly attributed it to him. Simple as that.
It wasn't a case of the "drive-by media" picking on Rush -- sorry.
"Then you would be incorrect. I didn't "hear that Rush said it," I was listening to his program when he said it. He made no claim about coining the term, nor did he credit anyone else. Since I had not seen or heard the term before, I incorrectly attributed it to him. Simple as that."
Rush didn't coin the term "magic negro." A LA Times columnist did. It says it right in the parody song, if you listen to it.
It's still not very funny.
IP,
It may not be funny, but it is instructive. We have problems with race in this country, but we now have bigger problems with how we deal with race. It's as if we decided to counter the possibility of school shootings by punishing students and teachers who shoot pretend guns.
John
Nappy-headed hoe.
And it's white.
John
IP, thanks for the full excerpt. I must have been listening long after the initial bit, because when I was listening he just used the term in passing. I didn't have the benefit of the context you provide here.
As you might have surmised by now, I listen to the show occasionally in 5-10 minute chunks, so I suppose I deserve what I get when it comes to taking things out of context.
Even the Mediamatters excerpt is wrong - Rush does not sing that song, he plays it. It is another Paul Shankin special, like Al Gore singing "Burning ball of fire".