Quick Thoughts on Don Imus
Originally, I wasn't going to post anything about Don Imus and his "nappy headed hos" comment. To be honest, I haven't paid attention to shock jocks since the Greaseman (remember him?) made his comment about James Byrd when I was still in high school.
Besides, why do I need to comment? The bloggosphere has exploded, providing excellent posts from Kim Pearson on blogher, Al Roker , Liza from the Feminist Bloggers Network, and Jill Nelson from WIMN online.
My favorite posts are from Mrs. J over at Our Kind of Parenting and the fabulous Debra Dickerson over at The Last Plantation.
However, in discussing the facts surrounding the controversy with some friends, I decided that I would hit on five quick points:
1. If Don Imus is making a sincere apology, the answer is NOT Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
This morning, MSNBC reported that IMUS was going to meet with the Rutger's team.
Tuesday morning, Imus said his focus was on meeting with the Rutgers women who were the target of his barb.
"Next time I apologize is going to be these women, their family and the coach," said Imus, adding, "I need to stand in front of them and say I'm sorry."
Umm, yeah. Why did you bother talking to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson first? I know that they are getting a reputation for absolving racial sins, but come on. If you really thought that you were wrong, you would have apologized FIRST to the people who were hurt by your comments.
To those who say, "It was just a joke!" - yeah, that is what it was meant to be. A joke. But sometimes, jokes hurt people. If you crack a joke, and offend one of your friends, you don't go apologize to a third party. You apologize to the person who you offended.
2. Feminists, as always, are notably absent from this one.
Blogger Roland S. Martin posted about the lack of response from the organized feminist body - which is terrible. It seems that most major feminist organizations are still dropping the ball when it comes to women of color.
While I must give props to the feminist bloggosphere - some of whom jumped on this with a quickness - feminist organizations are still dropping the ball. Don Imus attacked more than just the black women on the team. He made a distinct division between the types of women playing college basketball, and indirectly implied that "rough" girls don't win. What message does that send to girls who might be interested in the benefits of Title IX, but are now worried about being publicly judged for not being feminine? Having their hair texture commented on instead of athletic performance?
Yet again, feminists saw something controversial that happened to relate to women of color, and decided to pass. Thanks for the solidarity in sisterhood.
3. Shock Jocks intend to shock - being an asshole is in their job description.
As Ms. J wrote in her blog:
And to whittle it down even one degree further, there are a lot of ignorant racists throwing their hands in the air like they just don't care, 'cause they really don't think they're racists. I'm fairly certain Don Imus is one of those clueless types. The type that thinks that having a couple of black drinking buddies gives them free reign to say whatever and end up getting left at the bar (or in the studio) wondering "Hey...where did everybody go??"
I bet none of Imus's listeners would categorize themselves as racists either. Being a racist is so passe, it's embarrassing. It's much easier to brush it off as political incorrectness, and savor little racist moments when you can get them.
But whatever - that's his job. Imus supposed to be offensive, so that his listeners - people who would probably face severe consequences/a punch in the face if THEY advocated those ideas - can cackle in their cars, feel like they're getting over on "the PC nazis" and hide their true feelings when they go out in public.
Shock Jocks are popular because they have an audience. If Imus lost listeners because of this, maybe he would be worried. But I'll bet that about half his listeners were pulling into their carports, still chuckling about those "nappy headed hos" later in the evening.
4. Would Code-Talking work?
Mrs. J also talked about going back to code talking, which amused me greatly. I love that concept - to be able to switch at will into some pre-determined black vernacular when "the others" are around.
Unfortunately, we as Americans can't even agree on a set basic terms. (How many words can you think of as slang for money?)The hip-hop generation makes it harder with regional designations (Are we trying to stack cake, scrilla, cheddar, or bread?)
Plus, codes are meant to be broken. A couple enterprising people with time on their hands will eventually crack the code and have it online faster than we can say www.blackcodetalkdictionary.com.
5. Call me black and cynical, but I'm not surprised.
Over on the Field Negro Blog.
As the blogger states:
I can't get all bent out of shape over the Imus comments. Why? Because I have come to expect it from his ilk. I refuse to act like the police inspector from Casablanca and be "shocked, shocked", that such racism exists in America.
...
Here is a news flash; this is exactly the type of shit many of these folks sit around and say when your black ass isn't around. So don't get it twisted; all the marching in the world and all the preaching by Jessie and Al won't change that.
Like I said, maybe I'm just black and cynical, but this is just something I have come to expect from white people over a certain age. It's just one of those things. People think they are superior because you are different. They think they can say whatever they want to about your hair, your skin, your sexual orientation, your ethnicity, and feign ignorance when they say something offensive.
"Oh, I didn't mean it THAT way."
Riiight.
Maybe I should stop assuming that all older white people are just a martini (or a level of comfort) away from sharing their bigotry with me. However, it would be easier for me to challenge that assumption if it didn't keep happening.
*sigh*
I really wish, as a society, we were past this, instead of pretending we are.
So what can we do as black people? I'm going to go with Mos Def on this one:
But I'ma live though, yo I'ma live though
I'm puttin up the big swing for my kids yo
Got my mom the phat water-front crib yo
I'ma get her them pretty bay windows
I'ma cop a nice home to provide in
A safe environment for seeds to reside in
A fresh whip for my whole family to ride in
And if I'm still Mr Nigga, I won't find it suprisin'.
Labels: black, Don Imus, feminism, race, Rutgers NCAA Team
posted by Latoya Peterson at 9:47 AM
2 Comments:
I love this post and you made several great points. Especially about not being surprised. Granted that doesn't diminish the fact that he needed to get shaken (not beaten up just shaken).
11:07 AM
I am an African American male who, before this morning, was an ardent fan of the “Imus in the Morning” television program on MSNBC. Funny enough in fact, my usual routine was to flip back and forth between Imus and “The Today Show” while readying myself for work. I have just a few points to offer about the brewing controversy over Don Imus’ use of the phrase “nappy-headed hos” to describe the Rutgers women’s basketball team, and some of the comments I have read here in response to Mr. Roker’s courageous stance.
First, I am put off by the media instinctively going to Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton for the pulse of black America. While I respect much of what both have done over the years to turn the spotlight on issues of race and civil rights issues in general, the Black community is not a monolith. These men don’t speak for all of “us.” No one does. It is absurd (and offensive) that whenever someone utters a racially insensitive statement about black people, the knee jerk reaction of TV program directors and producers alike is to immediately cut to Jackson or Sharpton for comment. (Why? Did I miss a meeting or something?) Were, say, offensive comments about Asian people or Jewish people (recall the Mel Gibson comment) to get similar mainstream traction to the Imus comment, imagine how silly it would be for the mass media to keep cutting to shots of the SAME TWO Asian or Jewish guys to “speak” for their respective races/groups. And beyond absurdity, there is the “kill the messenger” syndrome that naturally follows when we leave it up to Jackson and Sharpton to speak for black America. We must never make the messenger larger than the message. It obscures the real issue by leaving open Reverend Jackson and Reverend Sharpton to ridicule and criticism for their own past statements and actions. (With Jackson, people talk about his 1984 reference to Jews as “Hymies” and to New York City as “Hymietown”; with Sharpton, people talk about the racially charged incident in 1987 where he defended Tawana Brawley, a 15 year old black teenage girl who accused a number of white police officers of raping her. That incident was later revealed to have probably been a hoax.) Here’s a thought. Why not talk to more black people to get varying perspectives? (Al Roker, for one, has shown himself willing and capable of expressing a point of view. And he’s as American as apple pie!)
Second, as a number of posters have stated, there certainly is freedom of speech/expression in America. Don Imus is free to speak his mind, just as the market place is free to express itself. If he survives this, because of the core demographic makeup of the “Imus in the Morning” television program, I am assuming (and I could be wrong) that his audience will largely stick by him – resoundingly “speaking” or “expressing” their support for Imus and his message through sustained ratings. But this is not an issue of freedom of speech. Having a nationally syndicated television and radio program, broadcast over federally funded airwaves, is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege. And it is for this very reason that the snide comments directing Mr. Roker to simply “turn the channel” or “not listen” to Imus instead of calling for him to step aside are misplaced. (I note that when Howard Stern was finally fed up with the FCC censoring what he could broadcast over public airwaves, he went to satellite radio; were Imus to have done the same and made this comment, I’d condemn his statement BUT defend his right to remain on the air.)
Third, regarding the comment made by Don Imus himself (and others in response to Mr. Roker) to the effect that African American popular culture tacitly condones racist images and terms in rap music et al., the comment doesn’t appear to be motivated to change the negative aspects of African American popular culture. Instead, it seems designed to provide cover for bigotry in mainstream media. Sure, blacks are as guilty or more guilty than others in creating, propagating and consuming wholesale racism aimed at blacks. But that is not an excuse under which Imus or anyone else can hide. Lets be crystal clear on this point. Wrong is wrong. It is as wrong if an African American media personality refers to a black woman as a “nappy-headed ho” as it is for Imus to have used this term to describe the Rutgers women. Similarly, other racist images and terms should be railed against and purged from the public airwaves. But I offer an analogy that I think will make my point here: pointing out racist images and terms in African American popular culture as a cover for Imus’ offense is no different than pointing to everyone else who is whizzing by and defying the speed limit when a cop pulls you over for speeding. It doesn’t undercut the substantive point, which is that YOU committed an offense for which YOU should be punished.
This brings me to my fourth and final point, which explains why I think that the I-man should either voluntarily leave his post, or be forcibly removed. I started watching the “Imus in the Morning” program regularly last year, mostly for the political personalities that go on daily to sell books. From my admittedly limited perspective, it has been a mixed bag on issues of race. For example, while Don Imus (and Chris Matthews, also of MSNBC) was one of the few mainstream faces to attribute a racial component to the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, Imus and his crew think nothing of routinely referring to, say, black athletes as animals. While Imus campaigned for Harold Ford to be the first black Senator from the south since reconstruction, I flinch every time he has one of his regular “comics” parody Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who is Harvard educated and speaks the “Kings’ English” without a hint of an accent, as a heavily-accented buffoon. However, one incident in particular happened a while back which really turned me off to the Imus show (although I’m ashamed to say that I didn’t turn him off completely until this recent incident). During this particular sketch, Imus had his producer, Bernie Kerik, go to Harlem, New York to get a “Man on the Street” perspective on the war in Iraq. Bernie approached an African American man, late twenties, who had just gotten off of the subway and asked him what his take was on the war and the impending Iraqi elections. The man responded with insight and eloquence, even when pressed with follow-up questions from Bernie. From the studio, Imus let Bernie know that he was not pleased and that this was not the point of the sketch, to which Bernie then approached a tragically intoxicated black man who looked to be homeless and in his late sixties, and asked him the same questions. When the man gave his answers – the ones which were coherent, Imus and his cohorts erupted in laughter and applause. They had succeeded in making a black man in Harlem appear foolish.
I suppose that my detractors will say that “Imus in the Morning” is a comedy program and that it is intended to make everyone look like fools, including Don Imus. And I guess that’s true to a certain extent. But here’s my beef with Imus and race. Whenever he makes a joke at the expense of a person of color, it always has to deal with the target’s race – like saying that Serena Williams should pose for National Geographic Magazine and calling both Williams sisters “apes”; like constantly referring to Arabs as “rag heads”; like referring to Senator Barack Obama as “that colored fellow”; like calling PBS journalist Gwen Ifill, who famously moderated a vice presidential debate in 2004, a “cleaning lady.” And because it deals with the target’s race, and race is shared by millions of innocent bystanders, by extension these comments are almost universally hurtful. In other words, calling a black athlete an animal because he or she is black is tantamount to calling ALL black athletes animals; calling the Attorney General a gardener because he is Hispanic is tantamount to calling ALL Hispanics gardeners or other sorts of menial workers. It reeks of racial superiority and it has no place on the public airwaves.
I’ll end with this. In 2000, on the air, Don Imus promised Clearance Page, a black journalist who works at the Chicago Tribune and often serves as a media pundit, that he would stop with the racially offensive statements. (Ironically, that was the last time that Imus had Mr. Page on his show!) Imus clearly broke his promise time and time again. For the foregoing reasons, I think its obvious that a two week paid “suspension”, to be served after he has finished fund-raising for his ranch and promoting his wife’s new book, is less than insufficient. It is insulting.
Thank you, Mr. Roker, for having the courage to stand up against this garbage. Now, in the mornings, I’ll be exclusively watching you and the gang over at “The Today Show.”
7:32 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home