Imus... - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 04-11-2007, 02:15 PM

Why is it funny to be racist toward white people but an abomination to be racist toward black people? It seems to me that their are a lot of black people in this country that are hyper sensitive to racial issues against them but when it comes to them being sensitive to racial issues to non-blacks they don't care, it's funny, or they deserve it.

Now that is wrong. Racism will never stop until we stop differentiating between the races!

The_Jazz · 04-11-2007, 03:40 PM

Funny is funny. Some would argue that Carlos Mencia is funny; I won't, but that's more a question of personal taste coupled with the fact that I'm partial to Joe Rogan. Mencia's made a mint off the fact that he's Mexican (actually, he's half Swedish too, but that's not funny). Lot's of Mexicans, Mexican Americans and plain old white bread Southerners like some of my friends laugh at his jokes.

If the joke is funny, it's funny. It may not be funny tomorrow or next year, but it's funny today. Imus told a joke best made 30 years ago, at least as far as race is concern.

mixedmedia · 04-11-2007, 03:51 PM

I think it's important to remember just exactly WHY it is that racism against and racially-insensitive remarks about black people are inherently more charged and controversial. There's a lot of denial about the reality that is behind this phenomena. And I think it's kind of shameful.

Here's what I have to say about that:
Fucking live with it!

White people in America have never had to live in a world where they were treated as second-class. Black people have. My parents remember it. Al Sharpton remembers it. It was not so long ago. That's a key difference. Is it really that hard to understand? The sensitivity is there because of our very real and painful recent past. It's just not funny for a white person to denigrate a black person because our common consciousness remembers what it was like when racism was common and acceptable. Just get over yourselves with your "reverse racism" bullshit. It IS NOT reverse racism. It's jokes and bullshit talk. Just thank your lucky stars that you were never really on the shit end of that deal and live with it, okay? Okay. Thank you.

/end rant and threadjack.

shakran · 04-11-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

White people in America have never had to live in a world where they were treated as second-class. Black people have. My parents remember it. Al Sharpton remembers it. It was not so long ago. That's a key difference. Is it really that hard to understand?

So you're saying revenge is better than just coming to a peaceful conclusion to the racial anger in the country? You can play that game if you want to, but that just means that our society will NEVER stop looking at race as a factor in judging people.

The preeminent hero of the anti-racism movement, King Jr., said he envisioned a world in which people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. I don't remember him ever having a dream about calling a white guy a honky. I think it's time we try to bring society more in line with Dr. King's dream, but in order to do that ALL of the races are going to have to stop being assholes to each other.

Quote:

The sensitivity is there because of our very real and painful recent past. It's just not funny for a white person to denigrate a black person because our common consciousness remembers what it was like when racism was common and acceptable. Just get over yourselves with your "reverse racism" bullshit. It IS NOT reverse racism.

You're right. Reverse racism is a bullshit term. It's racism, no matter what color the racist is.

mixedmedia · 04-11-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

So you're saying revenge is better than just coming to a peaceful conclusion to the racial anger in the country? You can play that game if you want to, but that just means that our society will NEVER stop looking at race as a factor in judging people.

The preeminent hero of the anti-racism movement, King Jr., said he envisioned a world in which people are judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. I don't remember him ever having a dream about calling a white guy a honky. I think it's time we try to bring society more in line with Dr. King's dream, but in order to do that ALL of the races are going to have to stop being assholes to each other.

You're right. Reverse racism is a bullshit term. It's racism, no matter what color the racist is.

You missed my point entirely. How is it moving people forward to suggest that jokes about white people is the same thing as a fully-grown black man having to step off of the sidewalk to let a white teenager pass?

My point is not to say that I encourage hatred against white people. My point is that we need to have a little more understanding as to why remarks against black people are more sensitive and controversial. And take it to heart. Understand it. And move on.

The attitude these days overwhelmingly seems to be "well there is no more racism so they should get over it." I think this is a dismissive and ignorant attitude. I know people who won't flinch at bringing the Vietnam war into a discussion about Iraq or how it is still affecting us today. But our black communities are just supposed to "get over" 100 years of institutionalized racism that ended at about the same time? And is still going on in in a "lite" fashion in some parts of the country?

My point is that we are forgetting how appalling racism can truly be. And it's not about jokes or off-hand comments made by fringe radicals. It's about being born into a world with limits and no innate rights to dignity and freedom. I'll wager that you, like me, don't have a lot of personal experience with anything like that.

ngdawg · 04-11-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

ace the point is there is hostility toward white people from the black community. I'm still trying to see what part Imus's comment brought in race. The word Hos isn't racial it is sexist. Nappy haired could be racist but i'm not so sure i'd consider that to be a racist comment. Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have jumped on this because it is another case where they can claim racism even though they will ignore the reverse case any time. Look at hip hop lyrics and tell me there isn't plenty of anti-white lyrics.

In addition to the way they speak about women.
So, how many of those women decided to throw out their rap music? I'm betting.....none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mixedmedia

White people in America have never had to live in a world where they were treated as second-class. Black people have. My parents remember it. Al Sharpton remembers it. It was not so long ago. That's a key difference. Is it really that hard to understand? The sensitivity is there because of our very real and painful recent past. It's just not funny for a white person to denigrate a black person because our common consciousness remembers what it was like when racism was common and acceptable.

But it's ok for every black comedian from Richard Pryor to Dave Chapelle to do racist comedy? Hey, I laugh at their routines, because they're funny. If Imus had done some bit that was funny that included his three words or if Dave Chapelle did, this wouldn't even be news.
It was and is also acceptable to do jokes about Jews and if a black comedian does them, all the better. So what?
I would tell the women on the team that Imus was talking about to also get over themselves. He's not a freakin politico, not someone with any worldly power...he's a radio personality, he's been doing this stuff for 40 years.
This country is really getting way too thinskinned about everything.....

shakran · 04-11-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

You missed my point entirely. How is it moving people forward to suggest that jokes about white people is the same thing as a fully-grown black man having to step off of the sidewalk to let a white teenager pass?

I don't think I ever said that. My position is that there isn't any difference between Imus calling a group of black women "nappy headed ho's" and Jackson calling Jews "hymies" or Chris Rock calling white people "motherfuckin' crackers."

Quote:

The attitude these days overwhelmingly seems to be "well there is no more racism so they should get over it."

That's certainly not my attitude. There's a lot of racism coming from all sides of the ethnic playground. Racism doesn't become better or more understandable or more acceptable based on the color of the racist. That very concept is racist.

Quote:

But our black communities are just supposed to "get over" 100 years of institutionalized racism that ended at about the same time?

Yes. If they want a colorblind society that judges people based on their merits rather than how light or dark they are, then yes. They're going to have to get over it. I got beaten up when I was in 5th grade. Should I be hunting that guy down now, *cough* years later? I mean, damn, can't you understand why I shouldn't get over it? Yeah, it sucks that I got beaten up, but I had to let it go. It sucks that black people were treated poorly because of their race, but at some point, you have to let it go. It sucks, because it's very natural and human to want to hold a grudge, and to want revenge. But seeking revenge isn't going to help society grow, and it isn't going to end racism.

My goal is to end this asinine concept that people should be treated or viewed differently because of their skin color. That's a goal that will never be realized until we put the past where it belongs, behind us. I'm not saying forget about the past - we should remember the past and continue to learn lessons from it. But if we dwell on the past, and continue holding resentments based on the past, we will just poison ourselves.

Your comparison of Iraq/Vietnam was irrelevant. I advocate learning from the past. If Bush had looked at Vietnam, and had been smart enough to care about learning something instead of witching up his own unfounded beliefs and then refusing to look at anything else, he could have learned from the past. Likewise, we can learn from our appalling past of racism. We can learn that racism is evil, and we can learn that we must never allow it to stain our country again. But until we eliminate racism entirely, we can't achieve that goal.

Quote:

My point is that we are forgetting how appalling racism can truly be. And it's not about jokes or off-hand comments made by fringe radicals. It's about being born into a world with limits and no innate rights to dignity and freedom. I'll wager that you, like me, don't have a lot of personal experience with anything like that.

What matters is the experience of today. We have all experienced a world in which people actually think skin pigmentation means something. That's bad enough. It's time to eliminate that thought from our society. We can't do that if Imus calls people nappy headed ho's, or if Rock calls people crackers.

We must make a choice. Do we want to wallow in the misery of the past, and therefore never see the colorblind society that we should unquestionably have, or do we want to actually look at TODAY, and figure out how to make a better society for everyone, TODAY?

ngdawg · 04-11-2007, 05:23 PM

Wow, Shakran...usually we're tossing spitballs, but this time,

mixedmedia · 04-11-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I don't think I ever said that. My position is that there isn't any difference between Imus calling a group of black women "nappy headed ho's" and Jackson calling Jews "hymies" or Chris Rock calling white people "motherfuckin' crackers."

The statement that I was addressing implied that. The whole "reverse racism" concept implies that. I was responding, in an open way, to several people here who would like to use this incident as a platform to highlight what they deem to be "reverse racism" in our culture. It's really quite simple.

When Chris Rock makes a joke about white people its funny because we know it's just a joke.

When a white person makes a joke about black people we have a natural aversion to it because we know our history of racism in America. Not enough time has passed to heal that gaping wound. Therefore I think it is natural and appropriate to have this negative reaction against insensitive remarks made by white people about black people. People react to it, both black and white, there's no denying it, and I think it's a good thing. It's a natural thing considering where we've come from. What's so wrong about showing one group a little more sensitivity? And why is that the people crying out the most against this natural reaction seem to start with the "reverse racism" thing and then end up with the "I have a dream thing"? To mask their resentment for having to carry the baggage of the past? I have that dream AND I give credence and space to the very real sensitivity that exists between white and black people that we have inherited.

Quote:

That's certainly not my attitude. There's a lot of racism coming from all sides of the ethnic playground. Racism doesn't become better or more understandable or more acceptable based on the color of the racist. That very concept is racist.

Again, this ignores the point I have been trying to make. I guess I'm not expressing myself very clearly.

Quote:

Yes. If they want a colorblind society that judges people based on their merits rather than how light or dark they are, then yes. They're going to have to get over it. I got beaten up when I was in 5th grade. Should I be hunting that guy down now, *cough* years later? I mean, damn, can't you understand why I shouldn't get over it? Yeah, it sucks that I got beaten up, but I had to let it go. It sucks that black people were treated poorly because of their race, but at some point, you have to let it go. It sucks, because it's very natural and human to want to hold a grudge, and to want revenge. But seeking revenge isn't going to help society grow, and it isn't going to end racism.

What revenge exactly? Being called a cracker? Whitey? What revenge are you talking about? Who is tracking you down?
It will be let go of when the time comes. Institutionalized racism wasn't helping society grow either but it took us 100 years after the civil war to figure that one out...and it took the National Guard and a lot of needless death and violence to actually force it onto the South.

Quote:

My goal is to end this asinine concept that people should be treated or viewed differently because of their skin color. That's a goal that will never be realized until we put the past where it belongs, behind us. I'm not saying forget about the past - we should remember the past and continue to learn lessons from it. But if we dwell on the past, and continue holding resentments based on the past, we will just poison ourselves.

I don't think we are holding onto the past. The past still has a grip on us all. This is what we need to live with. We can't wish it or deny it away and it's not going to disappear overnight.

Quote:

Your comparison of Iraq/Vietnam was irrelevant. I advocate learning from the past. If Bush had looked at Vietnam, and had been smart enough to care about learning something instead of witching up his own unfounded beliefs and then refusing to look at anything else, he could have learned from the past. Likewise, we can learn from our appalling past of racism. We can learn that racism is evil, and we can learn that we must never allow it to stain our country again. But until we eliminate racism entirely, we can't achieve that goal.

It is not irrelevant in the light of our insistence of Vietnam having a bearing on our present, and at the same time denying that our past of racism and segregation has a bearing on it as well. Our past with racism and segregation is the reason we are even having this conversation. Duh!? That's my point.

Quote:

What matters is the experience of today. We have all experienced a world in which people actually think skin pigmentation means something. That's bad enough. It's time to eliminate that thought from our society. We can't do that if Imus calls people nappy headed ho's, or if Rock calls people crackers.

We must make a choice. Do we want to wallow in the misery of the past, and therefore never see the colorblind society that we should unquestionably have, or do we want to actually look at TODAY, and figure out how to make a better society for everyone, TODAY?

This is what I want, too. But it is my opinion that it will take time. And as a white person, I'm fully prepared to be the brunt of jokes and the wild imaginings of people like Louis Farrakhan. And at the same time fully understand and realize that the same kind of talk or jokes made about a black person from the mouth of a white person strikes a different and more painful, more awkward, more uncomfortable chord. There's nothing unfair or abnormal about that.

shakran · 04-11-2007, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

When Chris Rock makes a joke about white people its funny because we know it's just a joke.

No. It is not just a joke, and frankly it's not funny. All Rock is doing is once again reemphasizing that skin color is a material difference. He, like every other racist, is poisoning our society.

Quote:

When a white person makes a joke about black people we have a natural aversion to it because we know our history of racism in America.

We should have a natural aversion to ANY form of racial taunting. It's not funny to call me a cracker. It's not funny to call a Muslim a camel jockey. It's not funny to call a Mexican a beaner. It's not funny to call a black man a nigger. It's just, plain, not funny.

Quote:

What's so wrong about showing one group a little more sensitivity?

Because it's inherently racist. Hey, you're black, so I'm gonna treat you differently. What's wrong with showing EVERYONE that sympathy?

Quote:

And why is that the people crying out the most against this natural reaction seem to start with the "reverse racism" thing and then end up with the "I have a dream thing"?

Once again, I have never nor will I ever use the term "reverse racism." There is no such thing. It's ALL racism. We end with the "I have a dream thing" because Dr. King had this figured out 40 years ago, and society still hasn't gotten smart enough to catch up to him. Judge people on their behavior. Not on their skin. It's a really simple concept, but for various reasons people are afraid of it.

Quote:

To mask their resentment for having to carry the baggage of the past?

I will not pretend that I do not resent being blamed for slavery. I do. Absolutely. Slavery is not my fault. I didn't institute it. I didn't participate in it. None of my ancestors participated in it (we didn't get to this country until after it was abolished anyway) but if they had, I still would not be responsible for their behavior. I cannot control or change events that occurred long before I was born. I find them reprehensible, but I refuse to take the blame for them.

Quote:

I have that dream AND I give credence and space to the very real sensitivity that exists between white and black people that we have inherited.

If you truly have Dr. King's dream, then you are pursuing it the wrong way. Dr. King hated racism. He didn't hate only a specific kind of racism. He hated racism. All of it. Every last bit. If you really want to realize his dream then you will fight racism, no matter who is guilty of it.

Quote:

What revenge exactly? Being called a cracker? Whitey? What revenge are you talking about? Who is tracking you down?

Yes, being racist to those who's ancestors were racist to your ancestors is a form of revenge. And it's stupid. And it won't make things any better no matter how long people do it.

Quote:

It will be let go of when the time comes.

And I say that time is now.

Quote:

Institutionalized racism wasn't helping society grow either but it took us 100 years after the civil war to figure that one out

And this justifies us taking another century to figure out how we should live? Just because people in the past were idiotic jackasses doesn't mean we have an excuse to be such ourselves.

Quote:

I don't think we are holding onto the past. The past still has a grip on us all. This is what we need to live with. We can't wish it or deny it away and it's not going to disappear overnight.

No, it's not. But as I mentioned we can remember the past without letting it poison us. Excuses such as "when the time comes" and "it won't happen over night" are just that. Excuses. WHY won't it happen overnight? Because racists don't want it to happen. We must purge that influence from our society.

Quote:

It is not irrelevant in the light of our insistence of Vietnam having a bearing on our present, and at the same time denying that our past of racism and segregation has a bearing on it as well.

No one is denying anything. I don't deny that our past has a bearing on our present. I am saying that we must recognize that and take steps to prevent the past from poisoning our present. We must be willing to let go of the hate.

Quote:

This is what I want, too. But it is my opinion that it will take time. And as a white person, I'm fully prepared to be the brunt of jokes and the wild imaginings of people like Louis Farrakhan. And at the same time fully understand and realize that the same kind of talk or jokes made about a black person from the mouth of a white person strikes a different and more painful, more awkward, more uncomfortable chord. There's nothing unfair or abnormal about that.

I am not so willing. Not because I feel offended when some idiot calls me a name. I have thicker skin than that. But I'm not willing to let anyone get away with being a racist because I am sick to death of dealing with racism. Racism is asinine. There is absolutely no basis in fact or logic to think differently about someone because they are a different color. We humans like to run around saying we're the smartest creatures on the planet, oh how wonderful we are, yet we're too damn stupid to figure out something as basic as the concept that people should be judged on their merits. I'm frankly tired of being a member of a group (humans) that revels in its own glorious stupidity. We humans as a species have an awesome potential to grow, and it's about damn time we started doing it.

And thanks, NG

ngdawg · 04-11-2007, 08:12 PM

You're welcome(and you're two for two now!!! And elsewhere-our planets must be aligned this week

)
I would also like to point out that there are white comedians that do racially based humor-Robin Williams and George Carlin, for example-but they are beyond reproach because of their legendary status in the entertainment world.
'Institutionalized racism' is still here-it's called 'affirmative action'. And, until that is completely and irrevocably done away with, there will always be an edge that won't be gained by merits alone. Everyone has the same opportunities to ascend further than those who came before without having to resort to quota filling and 'playing the race card', yet, as Shakran pointed out, as humans, we're too stupid (or maybe too lazy) to figure it out, so we hand out the merits instead of saying "earn'em".
In the local paper tonight(I live in Rutgers-land), one of the players stated she was 'scarred for life'....give me a break....she's going to blame some old white guy on the radio now for any failure she might encounter????
What happened to standing tall and forging ahead despite another's comment or opinion?

mixedmedia · 04-12-2007, 01:53 AM

Well, I seem to have struck a nerve.

You go on, Shakran, in your world believing that you are somehow being altruistic while at the same time being insensitive and dismissive of the past. Where Chris Rock is a "racist" and black people are taking revenge on you for slavery by calling you "whitey."

And I will go on in mine, trying to be respectful of everyone regardless of their skin color, knowing that no one is out to "get me" and being thankful that my parents, and grandparents and their parents, etc., etc. never had to bow their heads and step out of the way of ANYONE.

And for the record, I don't think Don Imus is a "racist," either. You dilute the term with your blanket use of it. It's as if you don't really know what it means.

And I don't need a dictionary definition, thank you. I hate it when people do that. I mean in the context of American history.

Hanxter · 04-12-2007, 03:06 AM

this is not a freedom of speech issue...

makes no difference what he said, his job is to be offensive to everyone...

if you have followed him at all you would have seen the skits slamming ted kennedy, hillary clinton, bill clinton, roberto gonzales to name a few and there were no screams of condemnation then... only now over a lame attempt at making a joke...

this is not a racist issue nor a black and white issue... it's GREEN!!!

it's the money... it's always been about the money...

under pressure from advertisers the msnbc hypocrites dumped him and it's too bad... like him or not, these spineless talking suits have crucified one of the biggest names in radio and prolly one of the most influential people on the air just for the almighty buck... screw them, not imus...

mixedmedia · 04-12-2007, 03:46 AM

Well, there is also the angle that this whole thing is not exactly what it seems...but an attempt to capitalize on a slip of the tongue to make more money.

maleficent · 04-12-2007, 05:16 AM

this is the same guy who referred to the new york knicks as chest thumping pimps, bill nighthorse campbell as the indian from f-troop and a few other gems - he's an equal opportunity offender...

Quote:

So, how many of those women decided to throw out their rap music?

Snoop Dawg had a quote i the paper this morning - something to the effect that when rappers call women ho's in their music - it's because well -they are ho's - but these rutgers women are trying to better themselves thru education and sports - and araen't hos... Oh Dawg - thanks for clearing that up

this is just not something I choose to be offended about - Don Imus has been an insensitive jerk since i was a kid and he wasn't nationally syndicated.. he still is... I can change the channel..

shakran · 04-12-2007, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Well, I seem to have struck a nerve.

You go on, Shakran, in your world believing that you are somehow being altruistic while at the same time being insensitive and dismissive of the past. Where Chris Rock is a "racist" and black people are taking revenge on you for slavery by calling you "whitey."

It seems I'm the one that struck the nerve. I do think your definition of racist differs from its actual definition. No, I won't quote the dictionary here, but I will say that if you invent your own definition of words they can mean anything you want them to mean.

The undeniable truth is that if you judge someone because of their race, or you hurl insults at someone based on their race, you are being racist.

The other undeniable truth is that, whether you think it's right or not, when black people insult white people, it doesn't move us toward the goal of racial harmony. This should be obvious.

Quote:

And I will go on in mine, trying to be respectful of everyone regardless of their skin color, knowing that no one is out to "get me" and being thankful that my parents, and grandparents and their parents, etc., etc. never had to bow their heads and step out of the way of ANYONE.

I am respectful of people who deserve it. Skin color is not a factor in whether or not they deserve it. I don't respect Imus because he's a racist, bigoted jackass - and not just because of the nappy headed bit either - this isn't exactly his first foray into this realm. I don't respect him because by making jackass comments like that he's chipping away at the colorblind ideal that I and those like me want to build. For the same reasons, I don't respect Chris Rock. He too routinely makes jackass racist comments. He too therefore is chipping away at my goal.

I don't really care what Rock's motive is for being racist. Maybe it's revenge, but I doubt it. I think Hanxter hit on an important point - Rock is getting rich with his particular brand of "comedy." He's not out for societal betterment, he's out looking for dollars. I have no problem with someone getting rich, but when it's to the detriment of society as a whole, I start to lose respect for that person. So no, I don't care WHY Rock is a racist - I care THAT he is a racist.

Quote:

And for the record, I don't think Don Imus is a "racist," either. You dilute the term with your blanket use of it. It's as if you don't really know what it means.

Yeah, I do know what it means. It's you who are trying to redefine it. Imus may or may not be an actual racist. He might not actually believe the crap he spews - he, like Rock, is getting rich off of his off-color remarks - he might be saying them just to get rich, and privately hold a very different view. I don't know. But its his actions that matter - his actions, whether or not they express his true feelings, are to insult people because of uncontrollable characteristics.

I guess I'm confused over why your goal does not seem to be the elimination of all racist thoughts and attitudes from our society.

mixedmedia · 04-12-2007, 06:22 AM

Because I don't think jokes make people hate.

Because I don't think a "colorblind" society is possible or perhaps even preferable.

Because my mind is grounded enough to laugh at a Chris Rock joke about black people and not walk out the door and define every black person I see with that joke. Same with a George Carlin joke about golfers or a Roseanne Barr joke about men or a Robin Williams joke about republicans. They are jokes. And anyone who uses them to define groups of people is a moron.

And because, at the same time, my mind is malleable enough to understand why, when a white person makes a joke about black people, especially of a derogatory nature, they are risking the very real knee-jerk response from most people in America that is rooted our relationship to a very real and very recent era in American history. And I don't have to cover my ears and scream "yah, yah, yah" whenever any mentions it in order to make my feelings known about racism...and comedy. You have yet to address the reality of that gut response even once.

And one more thing, if a white person is going to make a derogatory joke about black people...it best be funny. Perhaps that was Imus' biggest mistake. His joke didn't fly because it had no context nor any basis in common perceptions. He was just being mean. And mean is not funny.

Hanxter · 04-12-2007, 06:23 AM

Quote:

My position is that there isn't any difference between Imus calling a group of black women "nappy headed ho's"...

i see two white women on that team... you don't see billy graham calling for his head do ya???

Quote:

...and Jackson calling Jews "hymies" or Chris Rock calling white people "motherfuckin' crackers."

and jesse jackson screaming "these walls of bigotry are coming down"

you couldn't make this crap up

take al sharpton... anyone remember the "crown heights riots"???
back in 1991 a jewish driver of a car hit and killed a local black kid... sharpton starts a anti-semetic protest calling the new york jewish population "diamond merchants with the blood of black babies on their hands"... during which a jewish kid was killed...

on a side note...
msnbc paid cbs $4 million to air imus... msnbc made $8.5 million in advertising during his time slot... there's 10 reasons to dump imus from msnbc, general motors, proctor and gamble, sprint, staples, amer. express to name a few

mixedmedia · 04-12-2007, 06:31 AM

When having discussions like this, I always like to imagine what it would be like if the situation were reversed. How white people would be acting and reacting today if we were the ones who had suffered in America through slavery and a century of systematic racism.

Seeing as how quick we are to martyr ourselves even after having basked for centuries in the warm glow of history's favor, I always find it a rather amusing pasttime.

shakran · 04-12-2007, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

Because I don't think a "colorblind" society is possible or perhaps even preferable.

Certainly not while we still encourage people to run around worrying about what color you are.

Quote:

And because, at the same time, my mind is malleable enough to understand why, when a white person makes a joke about black people, especially of a derogatory nature, they are risking the very real knee-jerk response from most people in America that is rooted our relationship to a very real and very recent era in American history. And I don't have to cover my ears and scream "yah, yah, yah" whenever any mentions it in order to make my feelings known about racism...and comedy. You have yet to address the reality of that gut response even once.

Of course i understand it. But I think it doesn't go far enough. We should have that knee jerk reaction to racism. You are being too specific about the evil that we had in the past. It's not enough to say that white on black racism is evil. We must say that racism is evil, no matter which color is the underdog. It just happened to work out that the whites were the perpetrators - but if, as you suggest, the situation were reversed, it would be no less evil. We're learning the wrong lesson from history - - we're learning that only racism in which a white person is picking on a person of another color is bad. This is somewhat like looking at Nazi Germany and determining that it's only wrong to kill if the victim is a jew. Racism is wrong. Period. We should be fighting against it, no matter what form it takes.

Quote:

And one more thing, if a white person is going to make a derogatory joke about black people...it best be funny. Perhaps that was Imus' biggest mistake. His joke didn't fly because it had no context nor any basis in common perceptions. He was just being mean. And mean is not funny.

What's funny to you may not be funny to someone else. I'm sure some KKK member listened to that comment and found it hilarious.

No one's arguing that Imus' sense of humor is on an extended vacation. But what if what he said WAS funny? Would that make it OK? I think not.

mixedmedia · 04-12-2007, 06:46 AM

I don't think jokes about people as a group in and of itself constitutes racism.

My grandfather owned a bbq restaurant in Atlanta in the 1950's and any black person whether they were a janitor or a doctor or Louis Armstrong could not sit in his restaurant. They would have to go to the back door to place their order and take it home. This was normal and an acceptable way to live back then. THAT is racism. Is there any push or popular call to do this to you?

You are not experiencing racism and Chris Rock is a man who tells jokes.

shakran · 04-12-2007, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I don't think jokes about people as a group in and of itself constitutes racism.

My grandfather owned a bbq restaurant in Atlanta in the 1950's and any black person whether they were a janitor or a doctor or Louis Armstrong could not sit in his restaurant. They would have to go to the back door to place their order and take it home. This was normal and an acceptable way to live back then. THAT is racism. Is there any push or popular call to do this to you?

You are not experiencing racism and Chris Rock is a man who tells jokes.

By that logic Imus did nothing wrong. He didn't try to get a black guy to step off the sidewalk for him. He didn't tell the black guy not to come into a restaurant. He didn't force a black guy to give up his seat on the bus. He's a man who tells jokes.

mixedmedia · 04-12-2007, 07:06 AM

Personally, I think the only thing he did "wrong" was tell a bad joke. Either he spoke off the cuff without thinking about it first, which we all do, or he made a bad wager on how it would go over. I can understand the former, like I said, we all stick our foot in our mouths sometimes. The latter, well, I don't have much appreciation for Don Imus as a performer anyway.

But either way, the man will not suffer greatly from it. He makes $10 million dollars a year to sit and talk and tell bad jokes and he will go on talking and telling bad jokes. Meanwhile, apparently, we have to go through all this. Life just isn't fair.

Xazy · 04-12-2007, 07:24 AM

His job is to say offensive content to provoke people. But if you are offended and do not like his content do not listen. If it bothers you so much go to his sponsors, this is the American way and we have that right.

But what I find amazing is, his comment has the possibility of being construed as an accidental joke gone totally wrong, his history speaks for himself. While other celebs who say stuff, in heat of anger, while drunk go to rehab and can get away with it (because the joke does not offend Sharpton). A perfect example is Mel Gibson (who I will now never buy or in any way support any of his projects or anything he is in).

Either way his comment can be offensive, your choice if you care about what that person says or not, and what you do or do not want to do. And I am not against the protests I just find it funny how we pick and choose about which racial issues are bigger then others.

AVoiceOfReason · 04-12-2007, 07:58 AM

I've thought about this situation a bit last night, and came to a conclusion that I've not thought all the way to the end yet, so I'll toss it up like a "jump ball" here.

Suppose Imus had not used "nappy haired" but instead had said "That's a rough looking bunch of hos." I think he would have been able to fade the heat a bit more, because "hos" and "bitches" is more generic and not racially specific. He could have claimed he was riffing off a rap lyric, or thought such was now acceptable, at least to young women, due to cultural changes. But by interjecting the hair, he crossed a racial line.

Ann Coulter observed in her column:

"If Imus had called me a "towheaded ho" or Al Sharpton a "nappy-headed ho," it would be what's known as "funny." (And if he called Anna Nicole Smith a "flaxen-headed ho," it would be "absolutely accurate.") But he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate."

But it wasn't all the team that he attacked--it was the black members and as such, he injected race into a situation where it was irrelevent.

Kind of like Imus.

ngdawg · 04-12-2007, 08:25 AM

This morning's Star Ledger ran an article about the history of using the term 'nappy-headed' and it's derogatory connotations.
Carolivia Herron's book, 'Nappy Hair' (Herron is black) is banned from New York libraries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Star Ledger

When Carolivia Herron was growing up in Washington, D.C., in the early'50s, all her fellow African-American playmates had their hair straightened at a local beauty parlor for one dollar.

Herron's hair was so tightly curled -- so nappy -- she had to travel across town to have it straightened by a special beautician who charged two dollars. She didn't really mind; her father never allowed anyone to tease her about it.
In the'60s, she gladly switched to a natural-style Afro. Decades later she wrote a loving ode to that bygone aspect of her childhood, calling the book "Nappy Hair."

Yet when parents objected to having the book read at an elementary school, she discovered what radio host Don Imus is now learning: A seemingly outdated term used to describe hair texture remains as loaded as ever.

In characterizing the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy-headed hos," he gave a sexual insult extra punch, Herron said.

"It almost made it sound like, 'If you've got to be a whore, at least don't have nappy hair,'" she said. "Instead of 'whore' degrading 'nappy-headed,' it's as if 'nappy-headed' is degrading 'whore.' It's like a whore who doesn't even try to look good."
His comment resulted in a two-week suspension from his radio show.

"Nappy" technically means downy, furry or kinky, but even the dictionary warns that when referring to blacks, it is "used derogatorily or contemptuously."

Journalist A'Lelia Bundles spent a lot of time thinking about hair when writing a biography of her great-great-grandmother, Madam C.J. Walker, a turn-of-the-century African-American entrepreneur who made a fortune selling hair products. That life story conveys timeless messages about black empowerment -- yet that's not what kids ask about whenever she speaks at college campuses.

"Hair is still a big issue for young black women. The conversation always comes back to hair: what their boyfriends want, what their parents say, what the workplace will accept," she said.

Full Story

I guess this means we won't be hearing Stevie Wonder's 'I Wish' any more. It begins with "Looking back on when I was a nappyheaded little boy"...

roachboy · 04-12-2007, 09:06 AM

i see the arguments that ng and shakran are making, but i dont accept the premises. it seems to me that the entire logic of "reverse dscrimination" presupposes that racism is effectively over, an element of an irrelevant past--which it isnt--and that the history of racism around which the united states was built has somehow been addressed--it hasnt and i am not really sure what that would even mean short of revolution (which i would not oppose in principle)---so that problems of discrimination based on something as stupid as skin color is not only a matter of rhetoric and unintended consequences of rhetoric.

to accept these arguments, you have to agree with one or another version of that backstory. i dont.

without that backstory, the reduction of racism to a trope makes no sense.

the trick is that what they are arguing about the effects of racist tropes and their appropriation/usage is not in itself wrong.
so in my view, the problem is not with the arguments themselves, then, but in what these arguments presuppose. there IS NO SYMMETRY that links the situation of white folk to that of african-americans, particularly not if you take the history of the united states into account when you think about this--a history which is still relevant in that is shapes everything about the present state of affairs, like it or not. you cannot simply wish away the fact of domination and its history. you cannot wish the past away.

history's a bitch that way, aint it?
you dont like it, but you cant make it go away.

so long as there is no rapprochement at the level or premises, the thread will simply turn round and round across a pattern of term substitution.

mixedmedia · 04-12-2007, 09:48 AM

I think this is what I am trying to get at...in my own rudimentary way.

There is no basis for a comparision to and there is no escape from the floodlight of history. Not yet at least. And I suppose it's a bitch, but not much of one for me when I consider the alternatives.

Thank you, roachboy.

flstf · 04-12-2007, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ngdawg

I guess this means we won't be hearing Stevie Wonder's 'I Wish' any more. It begins with "Looking back on when I was a nappyheaded little boy"...

Yeah, the first time I heard this term was Stevie Wonder's song "I Wish" in 1976. It never occured to me that he was saying anything derogatory, I thought he was just saying he was a cute little kid.

ubertuber · 04-12-2007, 10:15 AM

I think you can assume he meant "nappy-headed" as a derogatory adjective based on the fact that it was modifying the noun "ho".

MM and RB, I don't think shakran believes in reverse racism. He only recognizes racism. I think.

ngdawg · 04-12-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

i see the arguments that ng and shakran are making, but i dont accept the premises. it seems to me that the entire logic of "reverse dscrimination" presupposes that racism is effectively over, an element of an irrelevant past--which it isnt--and that the history of racism around which the united states was built has somehow been addressed--it hasnt and i am not really sure what that would even mean short of revolution (which i would not oppose in principle)---so that problems of discrimination based on something as stupid as skin color is not only a matter of rhetoric and unintended consequences of rhetoric.

to accept these arguments, you have to agree with one or another version of that backstory. i dont.

without that backstory, the reduction of racism to a trope makes no sense.

the trick is that what they are arguing about the effects of racist tropes and their appropriation/usage is not in itself wrong.
so in my view, the problem is not with the arguments themselves, then, but in what these arguments presuppose. there IS NO SYMMETRY that links the situation of white folk to that of african-americans, particularly not if you take the history of the united states into account when you think about this--a history which is still relevant in that is shapes everything about the present state of affairs, like it or not. you cannot simply wish away the fact of domination and its history. you cannot wish the past away.

history's a bitch that way, aint it?
you dont like it, but you cant make it go away.

so long as there is no rapprochement at the level or premises, the thread will simply turn round and round across a pattern of term substitution.

The basis for history being a bitch, though, is that we here in the early part of the 21 century are being held accountable for the sins of people 300 years ago!!!! And being held responsible for the viewpoints prevailent up to 30 years ago, simply based on the color of our skin.
There comes a point when you have to say 'enough already!!' and let it go.
We as humans will always have preconceived notions based on appearance, like I'm a firey person based on my hair or someone must be lazy because they're overweight.
We've come a long way, but in doing so, it seems that some things have actually gotten worse instead of better, and being oversensitive and attempting to be constantly PC are among them. I joke around with a young black man at work, such as his telling me that a manager can't leave because they're the only two black men at work; so I responded that we'll tell a Puerto Rican coworker to lay out in the sun more....or that if I get a tan, we'll compare notes. He calls himself the 'token black guy' when he goes out with his friends from work. But we don't joke on the radio, so I guess we're safe, eh? Appearance, differences, et al-they're all there staring right at us and all this PC bullshit tries to pretend it isn't. But I did not own slaves, I didn't practice Jim Crow laws, and I should not be pointed at as if I did and neither should anyone else, any more than any black person should be pointed to(or acting as) as the victim of those times. As long as that continues, the wall of division will continue to stand. And people like Sharpton and Imus seem to take pleasure in adding bricks to it. And why not? It gets them 'known', gives them more air time, more words in the newspaper. But it does nothing to mend fences.

mixedmedia · 04-12-2007, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

I think you can assume he meant "nappy-headed" as a derogatory adjective based on the fact that it was modifying the noun "ho".

MM and RB, I don't think shakran believes in reverse racism. He only recognizes racism. I think.

I think he interprets remarks - that may only demarcate by race - as necessarily racist in response to the well-deserved sensitivity that black people have about derogatory remarks made about them by white people and tries to account for them as being of the same phenomena when it is simply not true.

As if to say, "look at how well I deal with being called a 'whitey.' Why can't you deal with it as well as I do?"

I think that's an attitude that is deliberately ignorant of why it is even an issue in the first place.

And I think I have voiced this same position multiple times now in multiple ways and I'm confident that I cannot say it in any other. In other words, I'm done.

roachboy · 04-12-2007, 11:43 AM

ng:

if you want to make that kind of separation between what you think history is and the present, i can't stop you, but i also think that it is naive.

you act as though all that is at issue with that history is firmly located in some past that is separable from the socio-economic order that exists. i dont buy it: what exists in the present is as it is as a function of that history, as an expression of it: it is dependent upon it, and would not and could not be as it is without it. who you are, who i am, are dependent on that history: we as subjects-in-the-world are embodied history, both of ourselves and of the wider networks of institutions etc. that inform what our experience--what shapes it, what makes it possible--and even the smallest perceptual action, we perform the aspects of the collective history that we are part of (i am going to pretend for the sake of jamming this into a post of something like moderate size that i can stop here without explaining this more. we'll see)

you cant get away from it. you--and i--and everyone else--ARE it.

another dimension of the history of the states that persists is in its class structure, in the uneven access to cultural capital--to opportunities in the broadest sense. you--and i--and everyone else in the states operates with reference to this uneven distribution benefitting from it, being disadvantaged by it--generally through no fault of our own---i mean, if education is the main way in which cultural capital is distributed and most of your educational opportunities are shaped by where your parents chose to live (because of the lunatic system of educational funding the states has chosen to adopt) that is by the class position occupied by your family which was expressed in where they chose to live--this choice--which neither you or i made for ourselves---shapes fundamentally you educational options, which shape fundamentally who and what you can be.

---of course there is some latitude for mobility--if there wasn't, i sure as hell wouldn't have had access to the education that i have had and i expect the same is true for many others--but we prefer to look at the fact of mobility than at the background against which mobility stands out, and it is that background that tells the overall story, not the patterns by means of which you or i or anyone else was able (to whatever degree) to get around the limits that are of a piece with that pattern (i think that makes sense...)

so you cant just set up history as a sequence of actions done by plastic figures in some diorama--your (and my) relation to it is not like a spectator who taking a break from the tedium of "real time" in some fictional autonomous "present" goes to look at and maybe feel vaguely bad about and that you get to leave behind once your period of feeling vaguely bad about it grows tiresome. you and i are embodied expressions history. and that's why its a bitch.

this is what i meant: it is not like i disagree with what you say about about whether in everyday life we can develop relationships that are not fucked up because we operate against this background. and it is not like there is nothing we can do to fight explicit and institutionalized racism when we find it operating. we can and should work to make the present better. but that really says nothing about the intertwining of who we are and the past and the ways in which the social structures that shape us are of that past, reproduce that past over and over, and even less how a collective might go about anything like redress for systematic discrimination and what amounts to institutionalized violence across its history.

ngdawg · 04-12-2007, 11:56 AM

That's where I disagree-I am nothing more than a spectator to the words from history.
Family members died in the Holocaust. Should I hold that fact against my German neighbors? No. They had nothing more to do with those deaths than I do with slavery and racial inequality.
Simply put, we really need, as a collective society,to read, learn and get over it. Playing victim for the victimization of ancestors is fruitless and groundless.

shakran · 04-12-2007, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

Suppose Imus had not used "nappy haired" but instead had said "That's a rough looking bunch of hos." I think he would have been able to fade the heat a bit more, because "hos" and "bitches" is more generic and not racially specific.

Agreed.

Quote:

Ann Coulter observed in her column:

I just want to point out the irony here. Seems to me Ann "Mitt Romney's a faggot" Coulter is probably the last person on earth who should be commenting on this incident.

And mixedmedia/roachboy, let's go over this one more time, because I'm typing things and they just aren't getting through. Let's try to understand this point before I get carpal-tunnel eh?

There is absolutely no such thing as reverse racism. Period. No such thing. There is no reverse racism. Reverse racism does not exist. I do not believe in reverse racism. Reverse racism is a fiction. Please stop telling people that I am making a reverse racism argument. I am not. Reverse racism is fake. Reverse racism is nonexistent.

I am making a racism argument. Racism exists. Racism can be practiced by anyone, no matter what race they happen to be. I am fighting against racism. I am not fighting reverse racism because reverse racism does not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mixedmedia

I think he interprets remarks - that may only demarcate by race - as necessarily racist in response to the well-deserved sensitivity that black people have about derogatory remarks made about them by white people and tries to account for them as being of the same phenomena when it is simply not true.

You can wish it not to be true, but that does not change the truth. There is no interpretation here. Nappy headed is an insult directed at black people. By the same token if you call a Mexican a wetback, no one's going to think you meant he was outside in the rain.

I interpret racist remarks as being racist remarks. You don't seem to understand this, but the fact is that as long as people continue to think and act and speak as though skin color means anything at all, this country will continue to have problems with racism. I'm not willing to accept that. It doesn't matter if you're black. It doesn't matter if I'm white. It doesn't matter if we're both red or yellow or whatever other bullshit color people have come up with in an attempt to make a category out of something that isn't a category. Everyone, no matter what color they are, needs to stop comparing their color to the color of everyone around them. It doesn't mean anything.

Quote:

As if to say, "look at how well I deal with being called a 'whitey.' Why can't you deal with it as well as I do?"

Well that's a nice try of getting inside my head, but I suggest you sign up for a few relevant courses before you start trying to psychoanalyze too many people. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying racism is stupid, and people need to knock it off. No more or less than that needs to be read in to what I say.

Quote:

I think that's an attitude that is deliberately ignorant of why it is even an issue in the first place.

I know why it's an issue. I also know that it's an issue that will continue to fester and poison our society until people on all sides finally decide to just let it go.

Hell if I trace it far enough back I bet I'd find some of my relatives who were tortured during the crusades. Should I swear an oath of revenge against the Christians? No - it won't help anything.

I'm getting tired of you people acting as though I don't understand that black people were treated terribly in this country. Yes, I do understand that. No, I do not think that can be used as an excuse for black people to behave badly. It is not an excuse to spew racially venomous tirades from a public stage. It is not an excuse to call a jew a hymie. That crap simply doesn't fly with me. I'm terribly sorry that this country was full of assholes for 150+ years, but how long must we go until we finally let go of the wounds of the past? Are you suggesting that society will be better off if, now that things are at least on the right track, we have to wait another 150 years for people to finally get the racist bullshit out of their systems?

Are you seriously going to sit there and tell me it's far better to have people making racist remarks than it would be for people to stop looking at race as something that matters when judging people?

roachboy · 04-12-2007, 12:56 PM

i think then that we just agree to disagree on this.
from what i put up above, it's probably obvious that i do not see any way that you can make such a separation between yourself and the collective history that shapes you. i should say on the way out that it does not follow from this that we are simple repetitions of that history--we have agency--but that agency itself leans on the past. another way: a society is not an accumulation of objects that only happens to cohere because these objects exist simultaneously. to my mind, claiming to be a spectator with reference to history requires that you also understand society as a collection of objects..and that who you are and what you are are functions of your experience, which you can think about as separate from social determinations. i mean, you can, i guess: you can, but to my mind, you'd be wrong.

but we could go round and round about this: i am not sure that i am communicating terribly well what i am trying to say here. i find that i am shifting in and out of work-mode as i write this, using alot of compressed arguments that make sense because of what i do with them for a living, but which i suspect are not being translated well as i write this.

2. the victimization trope seems silly to me. i dont know what you mean by it, what it refers to--if i understand your position correctly, it seems to me that you arent really in a position to reject the idea that victimization has some descriptive power because much of what you have put up in this thread turns on a version of it.

we dont agree on this one.

shakran: i suspect that had this same conversation unfolded in 3-d over a beer or 6 there'd be no misunderstanding of your position.
like i said above, it seems that such differends as exist here are mostly functions of reading what you wrote with a particular tone in mind.
i misread them a bit first time through.
the arguments about the relation of the history of racism in the states to the present still stand, to my mind, but i guess i was talking more directly to ng than to you, though i initially took myself to be talking to both because your positions seemed initially quite close to each other. they arent, not really.

ubertuber · 04-12-2007, 02:08 PM

Well, the other shoe has dropped. The article seems to give Sharpton and Jackson a good bit of credit...

CBS News Article

Quote:

Originally Posted by CBS NEWS

CBS Fires Don Imus Over Racial Slur

NEW YORK, April 12, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CBS/AP) CBS announced Thursday that it has fired Don Imus from his radio program, following a week of uproar over the radio host's derogatory comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

"There has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society," CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said in announcing the decision. "That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision."

It's a stunning fall for one of the nation's most prominent broadcasters. Time Magazine once named the cantankerous broadcaster as one of the 25 Most Influential People in America, and he is a member of the National Broadcaster Hall of Fame.

But Imus found himself at the center of a storm after he called members of the Rutgers team "nappy-headed hos" last week. Protests ensued, and one by one, numerous sponsors pulled their ads from Imus' show. On Wednesday, MSNBC dropped its simulcast of the program.

Losing Imus will be a financial hit to CBS Radio, which also suffered when shock jock Howard Stern departed for satellite radio early last year. The program is worth about $15 million in annual revenue to CBS, which owns Imus' home radio station, WFAN-AM in New York, and manages Westwood One, the company that syndicates the show across the country. CBS Corp. is also the parent company of CBSNews.com.

The Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson met with Moonves to advocate Imus' removal, promising a rally outside CBS headquarters Saturday and an effort to persuade more advertisers to abandon Imus.

Sumner Redstone, chairman of the CBS Corp. board and its chief stockholder, told Newsweek that he had expected Moonves to "do the right thing," although it wasn't clear what he thought that was.

The news came down in the middle of Imus' Radiothon, which has raised more than $40 million since 1990 for good causes. The Radiothon had raised more than $1.3 million Thursday before Imus learned that he lost his job.

"This may be our last Radiothon, so we need to raise about $100 million," Imus cracked at the start of the event.

Volunteers were getting about 200 more pledges per hour than they did last year, with most callers expressing support for Imus, said Tony Gonzalez, supervisor of the Radiothon phone bank. The event benefited Tomorrows Children's Fund, the CJ Foundation for SIDS and the Imus Ranch.

Imus, who was suspended by CBS Radio for two weeks without pay beginning next week, was in the awkward situation of broadcasting Thursday's radio program from the MSNBC studios in New Jersey, even though NBC News said the night before that MSNBC would no longer simulcast his program on television.

He didn't attack MSNBC for its decision — "I understand the pressure they were under," he said — but complained the network was doing some unethical things during the broadcast. He didn't elaborate.

He acknowledged again that calling the Rutgers women's basketball players "nappy-headed hos" a day after they had competed in the NCAA championship game had been "really stupid." He said he had apologized enough and wasn't going to whine about his fate.

"I said it," he said. "I wouldn't be here if I didn't say it."

Sharpton and Jackson emerged from a meeting with Moonves saying the corporate chief had promised to consider their requests.

"It's not about taking Imus down," Sharpton said. "It's about lifting decency up."

Sheila Johnson, owner of the WNBA's Washington Mystics and, with her ex-husband Robert, co-founder of BET, called Imus' comments reprehensible in an interview with The Associated Press. She said she had called Moonves to urge that CBS cut all ties with the veteran radio star, and was worried that what he said could hurt women's sports.

"I think what Imus has done has put a cloud over what we've tried to do in promoting women's athletics," she said.

Several sponsors, including American Express Co., Sprint Nextel Corp., Staples Inc., Procter & Gamble Co., and General Motors Corp., said they were pulling ads from Imus' show indefinitely. Imus made a point Thursday to thank one sponsor, Bigelow Tea, for sticking by him.

The list of his potential guests began to shrink, too.

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham said the magazine's staffers would no longer appear on Imus' show. Meacham, Jonathan Alter, Evan Thomas, Howard Fineman and Michael Isikoff from Newsweek have been frequent guests.

Imus has complained bitterly about a lack of support from one black politician, Harold Ford Jr., even though he strongly backed Ford's campaign for Senate in Tennessee last year. Ford, now head of the Democratic Leadership Council, said Thursday he'll leave it to others to decide Imus' future.

"I don't want to be viewed as piling on right now, because Don Imus is a good friend and a decent man," Ford said. "However, he did a reprehensible thing."

Imus' troubles have also affected his wife, author Deirdre Imus, whose household cleaning guide, "Green This!" came out this week. Her promotional tour has been called off "because of the enormous pressure that Deirdre and her family are under," said Simon & Schuster publicist Victoria Meyer.

People are buying the book, though: An original printing of 45,000 was increased to 55,000.

Imus still has a lot of support among radio managers across the country, many of whom grew up listening to him, said Tom Taylor, editor of the trade publication Inside Radio.

Yet he's clearly became a political liability for a major corporation — CBS. (General Electric Co. owns NBC Universal, of which MSNBC is a part.) NBC News said anger about Imus among some of its employees had as much to do with ending the MSNBC simulcast as the advertiser defection.

Bryan Monroe, president of the National Association of Black Journalists and vice president and editor director of Ebony and Jet magazines, met with Moonves on Wednesday. It seemed clear Moonves and his aides were struggling with a difficult decision, he said. He urged them to take advantage of an opportunity to take a stand against the coarsening of culture.

"Something happened in the last week around America," Monroe said. "It's not just what the radio host did. America said enough is enough. America said we don't want this kind of conversation, we don't want this kind of vitriol, especially with teenagers."
Rutgers' team, meanwhile, appeared Thursday on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" with their coach, C. Vivian Stringer.

At the end of their appearance, Winfrey said: "I want to borrow a line from Maya Angelou, who is a personal mentor of mine and I know you all also feel the same way about her. And she has said this many times, and I say this to you, on behalf of myself and every woman that I know, you make me proud to spell my name W-O-M-A-N. You've really handled this beautifully."

Imus said Thursday he still wants to meet with the team.

"At some point, I'm not sure when, I'm going to talk to the team," he said. "That's all I'm interested in doing."

Team spokeswoman Stacey Brann said they will meet Imus before the end of the week. Stringer is scheduled to be out of town on a recruiting trip Saturday, she said.

I'm really interested to see what happens to Imus next. Let's face it - the reality is that this guy was earning CBS $15 million a year. He's not going to be unemployed. Someone's going to try to pick him up at a reduced rate - I want to see who that is, and what their plan for managing the amplified few (Sharpton) is.

I'll also agree with some of the comments on Digg.com and say that I think ti is extremely hypocritical for Sharpton to organize protests and media pressure over 3 words and remain relatively silent in the face of the much more egregious values explicitly communicated by hip-hop culture.

dc_dux · 04-12-2007, 03:08 PM

I agree with the comments equating Imu's comment with those by Jessie Jackson, Chris Rock, etc. and I have very little respect for Sharpton. This entire incident and national discussion just brought to the surface yet again the fact that we, as a nation, have a long way to go in race relations.

What troubles me are the comments that blacks shoudl "get over it, "let go of the hate" and the "wounds of the past", equating affirmative action with racism"......

Despite the progress made in our lifetime, if you are black in America today, you are far more likely that those of us who are white, to still be a victim of racisim and in a much more meaningful and damaging way that through ugly and ignorant jokes or public comments...b e it in the form of job discrimination, "driving while black", redlining by financial instititutions, treatment in the criminal justice system, and numerous other ways.

I absolutely agree that we must move on...but we also must recognize that institutional racism is not the simply the slavery of 150 years ago, or the "whites only" signs of 50 years ago. It is the practices that continues today, and until we, as the white majority, accept and understand that the feeling of victimization is real...We cant simply say..."get over it and move on".

ubertuber · 04-12-2007, 03:21 PM

This may touch off another powder keg, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone could possibly argue that affirmative action isn't racism.

I guess we don't like to say this so bluntly because supporting AA would imply that one believes that not all racism is bad. It would be saying that racism is a tool that can be used to uplift and (ostensilbly) remedy as well as oppress and subjugate. That's not so PC.

A non-racist version of AA would tie benefits to socio-economic status, not race. Of course, such a thing would likely look a lot like the current version of AA. But then again, this thing doesn't exist.

dc_dux · 04-12-2007, 03:53 PM

Uber....Title 9 of the Education Act, providing equal funding for women's athletic programs is an affirmative action program. The Rehabilitation Act requiring handicap access and non-discrimination in hiring qualified handicapped persons is an affirmative action program. Programs and laws requiring equal pay for women are affirmative action.

Affirmative action means providing equal opportunity...but I do agree that race-based programs to "level the playing field" in emplyoment and education have been abused.

04-11-2007, 03:40 PM	#82 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Funny is funny. Some would argue that Carlos Mencia is funny; I won't, but that's more a question of personal taste coupled with the fact that I'm partial to Joe Rogan. Mencia's made a mint off the fact that he's Mexican (actually, he's half Swedish too, but that's not funny). Lot's of Mexicans, Mexican Americans and plain old white bread Southerners like some of my friends laugh at his jokes. If the joke is funny, it's funny. It may not be funny tomorrow or next year, but it's funny today. Imus told a joke best made 30 years ago, at least as far as race is concern. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-11-2007, 03:51 PM	#83 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I think it's important to remember just exactly WHY it is that racism against and racially-insensitive remarks about black people are inherently more charged and controversial. There's a lot of denial about the reality that is behind this phenomena. And I think it's kind of shameful. Here's what I have to say about that: Fucking live with it! White people in America have never had to live in a world where they were treated as second-class. Black people have. My parents remember it. Al Sharpton remembers it. It was not so long ago. That's a key difference. Is it really that hard to understand? The sensitivity is there because of our very real and painful recent past. It's just not funny for a white person to denigrate a black person because our common consciousness remembers what it was like when racism was common and acceptable. Just get over yourselves with your "reverse racism" bullshit. It IS NOT reverse racism. It's jokes and bullshit talk. Just thank your lucky stars that you were never really on the shit end of that deal and live with it, okay? Okay. Thank you. /end rant and threadjack. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-11-2007, 05:23 PM	#88 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	Wow, Shakran...usually we're tossing spitballs, but this time, __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

04-11-2007, 08:12 PM	#91 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	You're welcome(and you're two for two now!!! And elsewhere-our planets must be aligned this week ) I would also like to point out that there are white comedians that do racially based humor-Robin Williams and George Carlin, for example-but they are beyond reproach because of their legendary status in the entertainment world. 'Institutionalized racism' is still here-it's called 'affirmative action'. And, until that is completely and irrevocably done away with, there will always be an edge that won't be gained by merits alone. Everyone has the same opportunities to ascend further than those who came before without having to resort to quota filling and 'playing the race card', yet, as Shakran pointed out, as humans, we're too stupid (or maybe too lazy) to figure it out, so we hand out the merits instead of saying "earn'em". In the local paper tonight(I live in Rutgers-land), one of the players stated she was 'scarred for life'....give me a break....she's going to blame some old white guy on the radio now for any failure she might encounter???? What happened to standing tall and forging ahead despite another's comment or opinion? __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

04-12-2007, 01:53 AM	#92 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Well, I seem to have struck a nerve. You go on, Shakran, in your world believing that you are somehow being altruistic while at the same time being insensitive and dismissive of the past. Where Chris Rock is a "racist" and black people are taking revenge on you for slavery by calling you "whitey." And I will go on in mine, trying to be respectful of everyone regardless of their skin color, knowing that no one is out to "get me" and being thankful that my parents, and grandparents and their parents, etc., etc. never had to bow their heads and step out of the way of ANYONE. And for the record, I don't think Don Imus is a "racist," either. You dilute the term with your blanket use of it. It's as if you don't really know what it means. And I don't need a dictionary definition, thank you. I hate it when people do that. I mean in the context of American history. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-11-2007, 02:15 PM	#81 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Why is it funny to be racist toward white people but an abomination to be racist toward black people? It seems to me that their are a lot of black people in this country that are hyper sensitive to racial issues against them but when it comes to them being sensitive to racial issues to non-blacks they don't care, it's funny, or they deserve it. Now that is wrong. Racism will never stop until we stop differentiating between the races!

04-12-2007, 03:06 AM	#93 (permalink)
Hanxter The Griffin	this is not a freedom of speech issue... makes no difference what he said, his job is to be offensive to everyone... if you have followed him at all you would have seen the skits slamming ted kennedy, hillary clinton, bill clinton, roberto gonzales to name a few and there were no screams of condemnation then... only now over a lame attempt at making a joke... this is not a racist issue nor a black and white issue... it's GREEN!!! it's the money... it's always been about the money... under pressure from advertisers the msnbc hypocrites dumped him and it's too bad... like him or not, these spineless talking suits have crucified one of the biggest names in radio and prolly one of the most influential people on the air just for the almighty buck... screw them, not imus...

04-12-2007, 03:46 AM	#94 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Well, there is also the angle that this whole thing is not exactly what it seems...but an attempt to capitalize on a slip of the tongue to make more money. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-12-2007, 06:22 AM	#97 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Because I don't think jokes make people hate. Because I don't think a "colorblind" society is possible or perhaps even preferable. Because my mind is grounded enough to laugh at a Chris Rock joke about black people and not walk out the door and define every black person I see with that joke. Same with a George Carlin joke about golfers or a Roseanne Barr joke about men or a Robin Williams joke about republicans. They are jokes. And anyone who uses them to define groups of people is a moron. And because, at the same time, my mind is malleable enough to understand why, when a white person makes a joke about black people, especially of a derogatory nature, they are risking the very real knee-jerk response from most people in America that is rooted our relationship to a very real and very recent era in American history. And I don't have to cover my ears and scream "yah, yah, yah" whenever any mentions it in order to make my feelings known about racism...and comedy. You have yet to address the reality of that gut response even once. And one more thing, if a white person is going to make a derogatory joke about black people...it best be funny. Perhaps that was Imus' biggest mistake. His joke didn't fly because it had no context nor any basis in common perceptions. He was just being mean. And mean is not funny. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-12-2007, 06:31 AM	#99 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	When having discussions like this, I always like to imagine what it would be like if the situation were reversed. How white people would be acting and reacting today if we were the ones who had suffered in America through slavery and a century of systematic racism. Seeing as how quick we are to martyr ourselves even after having basked for centuries in the warm glow of history's favor, I always find it a rather amusing pasttime. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-12-2007, 06:46 AM	#101 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I don't think jokes about people as a group in and of itself constitutes racism. My grandfather owned a bbq restaurant in Atlanta in the 1950's and any black person whether they were a janitor or a doctor or Louis Armstrong could not sit in his restaurant. They would have to go to the back door to place their order and take it home. This was normal and an acceptable way to live back then. THAT is racism. Is there any push or popular call to do this to you? You are not experiencing racism and Chris Rock is a man who tells jokes. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-12-2007, 07:06 AM	#103 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Personally, I think the only thing he did "wrong" was tell a bad joke. Either he spoke off the cuff without thinking about it first, which we all do, or he made a bad wager on how it would go over. I can understand the former, like I said, we all stick our foot in our mouths sometimes. The latter, well, I don't have much appreciation for Don Imus as a performer anyway. But either way, the man will not suffer greatly from it. He makes $10 million dollars a year to sit and talk and tell bad jokes and he will go on talking and telling bad jokes. Meanwhile, apparently, we have to go through all this. Life just isn't fair. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-12-2007, 07:24 AM	#104 (permalink)
Xazy People in masks cannot be trusted Location: NYC	His job is to say offensive content to provoke people. But if you are offended and do not like his content do not listen. If it bothers you so much go to his sponsors, this is the American way and we have that right. But what I find amazing is, his comment has the possibility of being construed as an accidental joke gone totally wrong, his history speaks for himself. While other celebs who say stuff, in heat of anger, while drunk go to rehab and can get away with it (because the joke does not offend Sharpton). A perfect example is Mel Gibson (who I will now never buy or in any way support any of his projects or anything he is in). Either way his comment can be offensive, your choice if you care about what that person says or not, and what you do or do not want to do. And I am not against the protests I just find it funny how we pick and choose about which racial issues are bigger then others.

04-12-2007, 07:58 AM	#105 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	I've thought about this situation a bit last night, and came to a conclusion that I've not thought all the way to the end yet, so I'll toss it up like a "jump ball" here. Suppose Imus had not used "nappy haired" but instead had said "That's a rough looking bunch of hos." I think he would have been able to fade the heat a bit more, because "hos" and "bitches" is more generic and not racially specific. He could have claimed he was riffing off a rap lyric, or thought such was now acceptable, at least to young women, due to cultural changes. But by interjecting the hair, he crossed a racial line. Ann Coulter observed in her column: "If Imus had called me a "towheaded ho" or Al Sharpton a "nappy-headed ho," it would be what's known as "funny." (And if he called Anna Nicole Smith a "flaxen-headed ho," it would be "absolutely accurate.") But he attacked the looks and morals of utterly innocent women, who had done nothing to inject themselves into public debate." But it wasn't all the team that he attacked--it was the black members and as such, he injected race into a situation where it was irrelevent. Kind of like Imus. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one. Last edited by AVoiceOfReason; 04-12-2007 at 11:06 AM..

04-12-2007, 09:06 AM	#107 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i see the arguments that ng and shakran are making, but i dont accept the premises. it seems to me that the entire logic of "reverse dscrimination" presupposes that racism is effectively over, an element of an irrelevant past--which it isnt--and that the history of racism around which the united states was built has somehow been addressed--it hasnt and i am not really sure what that would even mean short of revolution (which i would not oppose in principle)---so that problems of discrimination based on something as stupid as skin color is not only a matter of rhetoric and unintended consequences of rhetoric. to accept these arguments, you have to agree with one or another version of that backstory. i dont. without that backstory, the reduction of racism to a trope makes no sense. the trick is that what they are arguing about the effects of racist tropes and their appropriation/usage is not in itself wrong. so in my view, the problem is not with the arguments themselves, then, but in what these arguments presuppose. there IS NO SYMMETRY that links the situation of white folk to that of african-americans, particularly not if you take the history of the united states into account when you think about this--a history which is still relevant in that is shapes everything about the present state of affairs, like it or not. you cannot simply wish away the fact of domination and its history. you cannot wish the past away. history's a bitch that way, aint it? you dont like it, but you cant make it go away. so long as there is no rapprochement at the level or premises, the thread will simply turn round and round across a pattern of term substitution. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-12-2007, 09:48 AM	#108 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	I think this is what I am trying to get at...in my own rudimentary way. There is no basis for a comparision to and there is no escape from the floodlight of history. Not yet at least. And I suppose it's a bitch, but not much of one for me when I consider the alternatives. Thank you, roachboy. __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

04-12-2007, 10:15 AM	#110 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	I think you can assume he meant "nappy-headed" as a derogatory adjective based on the fact that it was modifying the noun "ho". MM and RB, I don't think shakran believes in reverse racism. He only recognizes racism. I think. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-12-2007, 11:43 AM	#113 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ng: if you want to make that kind of separation between what you think history is and the present, i can't stop you, but i also think that it is naive. you act as though all that is at issue with that history is firmly located in some past that is separable from the socio-economic order that exists. i dont buy it: what exists in the present is as it is as a function of that history, as an expression of it: it is dependent upon it, and would not and could not be as it is without it. who you are, who i am, are dependent on that history: we as subjects-in-the-world are embodied history, both of ourselves and of the wider networks of institutions etc. that inform what our experience--what shapes it, what makes it possible--and even the smallest perceptual action, we perform the aspects of the collective history that we are part of (i am going to pretend for the sake of jamming this into a post of something like moderate size that i can stop here without explaining this more. we'll see) you cant get away from it. you--and i--and everyone else--ARE it. another dimension of the history of the states that persists is in its class structure, in the uneven access to cultural capital--to opportunities in the broadest sense. you--and i--and everyone else in the states operates with reference to this uneven distribution benefitting from it, being disadvantaged by it--generally through no fault of our own---i mean, if education is the main way in which cultural capital is distributed and most of your educational opportunities are shaped by where your parents chose to live (because of the lunatic system of educational funding the states has chosen to adopt) that is by the class position occupied by your family which was expressed in where they chose to live--this choice--which neither you or i made for ourselves---shapes fundamentally you educational options, which shape fundamentally who and what you can be. ---of course there is some latitude for mobility--if there wasn't, i sure as hell wouldn't have had access to the education that i have had and i expect the same is true for many others--but we prefer to look at the fact of mobility than at the background against which mobility stands out, and it is that background that tells the overall story, not the patterns by means of which you or i or anyone else was able (to whatever degree) to get around the limits that are of a piece with that pattern (i think that makes sense...) so you cant just set up history as a sequence of actions done by plastic figures in some diorama--your (and my) relation to it is not like a spectator who taking a break from the tedium of "real time" in some fictional autonomous "present" goes to look at and maybe feel vaguely bad about and that you get to leave behind once your period of feeling vaguely bad about it grows tiresome. you and i are embodied expressions history. and that's why its a bitch. this is what i meant: it is not like i disagree with what you say about about whether in everyday life we can develop relationships that are not fucked up because we operate against this background. and it is not like there is nothing we can do to fight explicit and institutionalized racism when we find it operating. we can and should work to make the present better. but that really says nothing about the intertwining of who we are and the past and the ways in which the social structures that shape us are of that past, reproduce that past over and over, and even less how a collective might go about anything like redress for systematic discrimination and what amounts to institutionalized violence across its history. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

04-12-2007, 11:56 AM	#114 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	That's where I disagree-I am nothing more than a spectator to the words from history. Family members died in the Holocaust. Should I hold that fact against my German neighbors? No. They had nothing more to do with those deaths than I do with slavery and racial inequality. Simply put, we really need, as a collective society,to read, learn and get over it. Playing victim for the victimization of ancestors is fruitless and groundless. __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

04-12-2007, 12:56 PM	#116 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i think then that we just agree to disagree on this. from what i put up above, it's probably obvious that i do not see any way that you can make such a separation between yourself and the collective history that shapes you. i should say on the way out that it does not follow from this that we are simple repetitions of that history--we have agency--but that agency itself leans on the past. another way: a society is not an accumulation of objects that only happens to cohere because these objects exist simultaneously. to my mind, claiming to be a spectator with reference to history requires that you also understand society as a collection of objects..and that who you are and what you are are functions of your experience, which you can think about as separate from social determinations. i mean, you can, i guess: you can, but to my mind, you'd be wrong. but we could go round and round about this: i am not sure that i am communicating terribly well what i am trying to say here. i find that i am shifting in and out of work-mode as i write this, using alot of compressed arguments that make sense because of what i do with them for a living, but which i suspect are not being translated well as i write this. 2. the victimization trope seems silly to me. i dont know what you mean by it, what it refers to--if i understand your position correctly, it seems to me that you arent really in a position to reject the idea that victimization has some descriptive power because much of what you have put up in this thread turns on a version of it. we dont agree on this one. shakran: i suspect that had this same conversation unfolded in 3-d over a beer or 6 there'd be no misunderstanding of your position. like i said above, it seems that such differends as exist here are mostly functions of reading what you wrote with a particular tone in mind. i misread them a bit first time through. the arguments about the relation of the history of racism in the states to the present still stand, to my mind, but i guess i was talking more directly to ng than to you, though i initially took myself to be talking to both because your positions seemed initially quite close to each other. they arent, not really. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 04-12-2007 at 01:00 PM..

04-12-2007, 03:08 PM	#118 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	I agree with the comments equating Imu's comment with those by Jessie Jackson, Chris Rock, etc. and I have very little respect for Sharpton. This entire incident and national discussion just brought to the surface yet again the fact that we, as a nation, have a long way to go in race relations. What troubles me are the comments that blacks shoudl "get over it, "let go of the hate" and the "wounds of the past", equating affirmative action with racism"...... Despite the progress made in our lifetime, if you are black in America today, you are far more likely that those of us who are white, to still be a victim of racisim and in a much more meaningful and damaging way that through ugly and ignorant jokes or public comments...b e it in the form of job discrimination, "driving while black", redlining by financial instititutions, treatment in the criminal justice system, and numerous other ways. I absolutely agree that we must move on...but we also must recognize that institutional racism is not the simply the slavery of 150 years ago, or the "whites only" signs of 50 years ago. It is the practices that continues today, and until we, as the white majority, accept and understand that the feeling of victimization is real...We cant simply say..."get over it and move on". __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

04-12-2007, 03:21 PM	#119 (permalink)
ubertuber spudly Location: Ellay	This may touch off another powder keg, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone could possibly argue that affirmative action isn't racism. I guess we don't like to say this so bluntly because supporting AA would imply that one believes that not all racism is bad. It would be saying that racism is a tool that can be used to uplift and (ostensilbly) remedy as well as oppress and subjugate. That's not so PC. A non-racist version of AA would tie benefits to socio-economic status, not race. Of course, such a thing would likely look a lot like the current version of AA. But then again, this thing doesn't exist. __________________ Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

04-12-2007, 03:53 PM	#120 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Uber....Title 9 of the Education Act, providing equal funding for women's athletic programs is an affirmative action program. The Rehabilitation Act requiring handicap access and non-discrimination in hiring qualified handicapped persons is an affirmative action program. Programs and laws requiring equal pay for women are affirmative action. Affirmative action means providing equal opportunity...but I do agree that race-based programs to "level the playing field" in emplyoment and education have been abused. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire