“Nappy Headed Hos”
| April 7th, 2007That’s a quote from Don Imus. Because he felt the women of the Rutger’s University basketball team were not sufficiently feminine, he felt it was ok to call them nappy headed hos. This site has the actualy clip of Imus and his sidekick making racist and sexist remarks (For good measure the site also has edited in a clip of Billy Packer saying “fag.”). The national Association of Black Journalists called for an apology from Imus. Imus subsequently issued an apology, but is that enough?
Quaker Dave is calling for Imus to be ousted from MSNBC. He also has the contact information.
Media Matters on the comments by Imus and his partners Sid Rosenberg and Bernard McGuirk.
April 7th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Who is this weirdo? Why have I never heard of him before?
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 7th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
He’s a shock jock on the east coast. Still very popular, used to be more popular pre-Howard Stern.
I assume that you haven’t heard of him before because you have a life.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 10:57 am
I never heard of him either. But I was just wondering, is he being attacked more because his ignorant comment because it was more racist or sexist?
This comment was written by SakuraPassion.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Why does it even need to be qualified like that? It was a stupid, racist and sexist thing to say.
Will someone please tell these people that being shocking for the sake of shocking is just about as boring as it gets? It just means you’re incapable of cleverness or creativity.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I’m just curious, because for me it raises the issue of whether our society is more racist or sexist.
This comment was written by SakuraPassion.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
[...] Misogyny watch: American conservatives love Ahmadinejad’s ‘chivalry,’ also, they would like to be rescued and wrapped in flowery hijabs. In many web forums and online communities, violent and sexually abusive language continues to be part of ‘acceptable’ public discourse about uppity women. Popular radio host Don Imus seemed to thing there was nothing wrong (until the later public outcry) with referring to members of a women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos,” a phrase that I’m disgusted to ever have had to see. Don’t be fooled; outlawing abortion condemns women to death. Who among us does not like 10-year-old sex partners? [...]
This comment was written by Pacific Views: Making The Rounds.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Why do so many media “professionals” act like assholes? What the f*ck was Imus thinking when he called Rutger’s University basketball team “nappy headed hos”? Via Rachel at Alas a Blog . Basketball is not about Imus’ dick. Hell it’s not even about him at all. Yet Imus had to get his insults about the black women on the team. It’s quite obvious Imus has a repulsive mindset about both blacks and women, but especially black
This comment was written by Silver Wise Owl - MySpace Blog.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I have a clip of Imus commenting on video footage of Palestians mourning the death of Arafat. He said we should drop the bomb and kill all the Palestians. (I used the clip in a piece of music, posted here: http://www.berkeleynoise.com/celesteh/podcast/?p=27 )
He’s vile.
As to the question whether America is more sexist or racist . . .. If you had the answer to that question, how would it change your actions? I can see how trying to answer it can cause folks to become annoyed with each other instead of cooperating. But I can’t see how the answer would actually help anybody. Because one might be worse than the other, but they both are pretty sucky and need a lot of work. So did Imus use racist and sexist slurs against the basketball team because he’s racist or because he’s sexist? He did it because he’s both! He doesn’t have to pick and we don’t either. Fight both wherever they turn up.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
I don’t think Imus has to be racist or sexist — he just has to know how to get his listeners to listen. There’s a lot of mileage to be had from insulting women’s sports teams. Many men still think women’s sports isn’t real. My guess is that Imus just picked an insult and threw it out to his audience. If you look at the poll CNN is running right now (here), the vote isn’t all that uneven — there’s far from an unambiguous outcry against him. And that, I suspect, reflects the many men who think women athletes deserve any insult a man can send their way.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Julie HOC,
This comment was written by Rachel S..It also matters that the women targeted were black.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Boring.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 8th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
It’s not at all clear that it does, given that he then went on to say, “the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute,” and they’re black, too (as far as I can tell—the video clip isn’t very clear). His choice of whom to insult and whom to compliment was based on his perception of their attractiveness, not their race.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 6:18 am
But his choice of insult had everything to do with our society’s perception of black women, women who don’t kow-tow to male dominance (these are the nation’s elite college atheletes), and women who succeed at their own predetermined goals.
It’s like calling a man a bitch. The slur isn’t that he *is* a bitch. It’s that we all know that when women fuck up, they’re bitches, so it’s a real slam to refer to an adult male as a woman.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 7:05 am
I usually don’t pay any attention to whatever Howard Stern or the rest of his ilk say or do, but this seemed so outrageous that I actually read the story to see if it was true; I didn’t believe it at first, I figured someone had to be exaggerating.
It just goes to show at this point that for much of the mainstream media, it’s all about what they can sell, what people will watch or listen to. Truth, integrity and morality have little importance. They’ll sell anything and Devil take the hindmost. What kind of people decide to put this kind of stuff on the airwaves to make a living?
And what kind of people find this amusing? Why is there a market for this? I’m sure you’ll respond, “Because there’s racism in America, RonF”, and you’re right on the money.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Imus says “I’m still a good person.”
If you want to read the whole thing, here’s the wapo article:
This comment was written by Sailorman.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/09/AR2007040900098.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 7:21 am
Brandon,
You know good and well he would not have called white women nappy headed hos.
References to black women as prostitutes and whores are very common in American culture. Do a google search or “black hos” and then do a google search or “white hos”. See what comes up; there is a huge difference. And if he thought they were unattractive he could have said it without referencing their sexuality or hair texture.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Those insults were very much race-based.
I don’t understand why some folks want to see this as mostly racist or mostly sexist when it’s obviously both. “Nappy haired” is old school racism. Those are very loaded words. Is the point to pretend that racism is solved or getting better? Because those words (plus a million other things) make it very clear that racism is not solved and, I would argue, it’s getting worse.
This comment was written by Les.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Sakura– the insult that Imus chose to use against these black young women is an odd one, in that you can’t really separate the insult into a race-based or a sex-based components. It’s really an insult that could only be said about a black woman or girl– and no one else. Very few people in other races share our natural hair texture. (Though interestingly enough– most of those women had straightened hair, so “nappy” would not apply in any manner. And men are rarely insulted over how they wear their hair, these days.) And it’s not very common that men are called whores, or that “ho” is used as a slang version of whore, when referring to women of other races. Jiggaboos? Another race-based insult. (However, that could be used against black men or women.) The things Don Imus said could pretty much only be said to insult black women– not other races of women, and not black men. I don’t know if that helps you understand if our society is more racist or more sexist. It’s clear to me that Don Imus is a racist. And I think that anyone who insults women– some young enough to still be catagorized as “girls,” is pretty low. What did these student-athletes do to deserve this??? I’d be interested in hearing what conclusion you could draw about the issue, though.
Faith
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 8:22 am
Imus’s Jigaboos vs wannabees comment is also obviously race-based, in which light skinned women are attractive (Tennesse’s team) and that dark skinned women are ugly (Rutgers). Colorism.
This comment was written by drydock.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 8:25 am
…Oh. And while “jiggaboo” is a racist insult against blacks, in general, in the context of Spike Lee’s movie it was used to describe a group of black women.
Just thinking about all the things Don Imus said about the Rutgers women sickens me. Why in the world he decided to forgo commenting about the game itself, and decided to attack these women’s appearance and sexuality in racist terms is just beyond me. I can’t imagine a team of white men or women athletes– in a championship game no less– being discussed in terms of their race, their appearance, and whether or not they where whores.
Fire Don Imus.
Faith
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Faith said, “…you can’t really separate the insult into a race-based or a sex-based components.”
Amen to that.
Faith also has a good point because all of the women I saw had relaxed hair. So he used the term nappy headed in an unusual/incorrect way.
Also the “jigaboo wannabes” reference–they didn’t even know the right movie. THe movie is School Daze, not Do the Right Thing.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 9:47 am
I find his remarks interesting. Notice how he makes a point to say he finds certain Black women attractive. He equates nappy hair with a lower class of black woman. Interestingly enough, I saw this same kind of prejudice from a black male who tried to claim he had not fathered a child. He pointed out that he had “short, nasty, nappy hair ” while the child had “long silky hair .”
I don’t follow women’s basketball but out of curiosity I googled women’s basketball and found that Rutgers lost to Tennessee. Sure enough the pictures showed a difference in hair styles between the two groups. So it seems that people formulate perceptions based on how Black women choose to style their hair.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Rachel:
He called them hoes because they had tattoos. The perception of an association between tattoos and promiscuity and/or general trashiness is not something that’s limited to black women. For example, lower-back tattoos on white women are called “tramp stamps.” It wouldn’t strike me at all as unusual if a man were to call a group of white women with visible tattoos “hoes.”
I’m not sure what you mean about Google. “White hoes” gets slightly more googits than “black hoes,” and likewise “hos”. Are you talking about quantity or quality?
The only other time I’ve ever heard the phrase “nappy-head” was back in high school, when a Mexican boy called a Mexican girl with straight hair a nappy-head. I realize that one meaning of nappy is the texture of a black person’s hair, but it also means icky or unappealing, and is used as a generic insult. You can argue that the second meaning has racist origins in that it was derived from the first, but words tend to get divorced from their origins, and people use them without understanding where they came from.
Just to be clear, I’m not saying that it wasn’t a bad thing to say. I’m just saying that I’m not sure race factored into it much if at all. Racism is one of the few things that’s more or less universally regarded as unacceptable in American culture, so as a rule non-nuts don’t say things which are clearly racist. Which is why most of the examples of racist comments that you post are ambiguous.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 10:44 am
To use the word “ho” is to signify racist animus. To use it in conjunction with “nappy” merely emphasizes that the animus was intended. Full stop. Even the casual use of the word “ho” without intending personal insult to any other party in the conversation will stop many Black women in their tracks because it is considered to be so insulting and demeaning, in the coarsest way imaginable. I dare Imus to use the word “cunt” in his radio broadcast to see what happens. I don’t consider it to be any different. I hold this view based on conversations with Black female professional and clerical employees in my organization who were angered and in some cases reduced to tears after learning that one of our senior managers participated in an on-line joke exchange in which the word “ho” figured prominently as a punchline. As for tattoos being a sign of promiscuity, you can tattoo my ass. What a silly thing to say.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Brandon, this is sort of a circular argument, isn’t it? You say that Imus probably didn’t intend it to be a comment about race at all, because “as a rule non-nuts don’t say things which are clearly racist.” But when a non-nut like Imus says something that IS clearly racist — and “nappy-headed hos,” in this context, is extremely clear — you use special pleading to explain why it isn’t racist.
With all due respect, since (if this current thread is anything to judge by) you bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging racism, your perspective on how often people say racist things is certain to be an underestimate.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:41 am
Amp said, “With all due respect, since (if this current thread is anything to judge by) you bend over backwards to avoid acknowledging racism, your perspective on how often people say racist things is certain to be an underestimate. ”
Yep, and this is why Brandon is a colorblind racist of the highest degree. When it comes to racism, he follows the ignore, deny, minimize mantra.
He always has an excuse for racist behavior whether or not it is:
1) It’s not really race it’s class.
2) He’s a nice person he cannot be racist.
3) It’s really about attractiveness. (As if race has nothing whatsoever to do with how attractiveness is defined.)
Brandon you never met a case of racism you believed. In fact you say racism is “universally unacceptable,” yet you are one of the first people to accept it over and over again. In my view people like yourself are way more dangerous than the KKK or the Aryan Nation because you are able to cloak your racism in acceptable language and hide behind colorblindness; thus, many less informed people may fall for your arguments. Moreover, your beliefs allow you (and others suckered by your beliefs) to maintain faith in the “merit” of our current system. You can hold on to abstract liberalism and individualism because you don’t see any racism anywhere. Thus, black people are not doing worse in this country because of racism, no it always something else because racism doesn’t exist.
Denial isn’t only a river is Egypt is it?
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Amp writes:
I’m not sure if Brandon’s remark is akin to mine in #8, but since the poll I referenced in that post is still running about 50/50 (with 80,000+ “votes” cast), I think it’s entirely plausible that Imus went to the Systematic Insulting Phrase Generator, plugged in some attributes of the people he wished to insult, and got the phrase he used. Short of “Rutgers really sucks!”, just about any phrase that’s going to be used to degrade a group is going to have some amount of racism, sexism, classism, etc. in it. Because … those things are fertile soil for insults.
(And please don’t remind me that authorial intent is dead …)
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Apparently, this was part of a larger skit mocking the usual empty blather traditional sports analysis offers about sports (tune in to practically any sports talk show, pregame/postgame show, etc and you’ll know what I mean).
Imus was, instead of talking about the players’ “inspirational” backgrounds or overanalyzing the teams’ schedules to death, was rating them based on physical attractiveness, picking that as a ridiculous object of analysis as a way of mocking the traditional sports talk shows.
So it didn’t come out of the blue–it still is a disgusting thing to have said, and he has no excuse for not realizing how offensive it was, but it’s not like he decided to viciously deride the Rutgers team out of nowhere. It’s more like those stupid jokes about rape that pop up on occasion, where it’s obvious to everyone but the teller that they’re not at all funny and are completely inappropriate.
This comment was written by jae.Report this comment to the moderators
April 9th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
I guess that’s not impossible, but … you have to have race on the mind and believe certain things about race to be using the phrase “nappy-headed” to insult a woman’s attractiveness, don’t you?
(Clearly, I think you do.)
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 12:03 am
I did a quick Google search, and if by ‘Tennessee’ he meant Chattanooga, then they have an all-black squad from what I can tell. (Not all the players had pictures posted.) So at least we know this guy probably isn’t exceptionally prejudiced against black women; just a combination of the every day, regular prejudice against them common for anyone in his demographic and a lowlife of a big mouth.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 2:23 am
I could conceivably believe that “ho” was not intended as a racial insult. Not bloody likely, but benefit of the doubt, OK, it’s possible. The addition of “nappy” makes it obvious.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 3:18 am
I do not condone Imus’ remark, and he certainly should have known better. On the other hand, if a prominent African American like Spike Lee had made a similar remark about an all white girls basketball team or volleyball team, he would have gotten away with it. And Lee is known for his less than flattering view of whites The same can be said of other prominent blacks like Jessee Jackson (I believe the good Reverend once referred to a Jewish Community in NYC as Hymietown (sp),and Al Sharpton. Face it people, a double standard exists in this upside down politically correct society we live in
This comment was written by RM.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:31 am
I do remember Jackson’s “Hymietown” remark — it was a huge story at the time (which was 1984). Jackson eventually met with Jewish leaders and gave an emotional apology speech, and it took him years to repair his relations with the Jewish community.
As for Sharpton, his involvement with the Brawley case a couple of decades ago, and also his anti-semitic “diamond merchant” remark in 1991, are still poisoning his reputation today — although he’s also done quite a lot of good since then. The media criticism of Sharpton over these two controversies was pretty relentless.
Not that I’m complaining; both Jackson and Sharpton deserved their roastings in the press. Just as Imus now deserves his problems. But I don’t know why you think there’s a double-standard going on; it took years of work on his part before Jackson was let off the hook, and I don’t think Sharpton has ever been fully let off the hook.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 6:01 am
If Spike Lee had . . . but he didn’t. And when he does ridicule and insult, oh I don’t know, the BYU Dance, Drill and Pom Squad on sexist and racist grounds, I promise to be the first to call him on it.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Jackson and Sharpton I have problems with — they both have a long history of insulting others. Not just making politically pointed remarks that others might find a bit challenging, but outright insulting people, and that shows up in their respective histories, vis a vis, Jews.
Spike Lee, on the other hand, seems more politically oriented, probably because as a film maker, no one has to worry about G-d smiting them if Lee says something idiotic and they call Lee out. I think that if Jackson and Sharpton didn’t have “Rev.” in front of their names they’d have become irrelevant years ago.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Boy, that one took me aback for a second, Barbara. Ever notice how an “m” looks a lot like an “rn” in certain fonts? I read “the BYU Dance, Drill and Porn Squad” there for a second. Now there’s an idea for Spike Lee ….
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Ronf writes:
Did you check out his character in “Malcolm X”? If film is reality (no, it isn’t, just saying …) it would seem Spike has a thing for white women ;)
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 7:43 am
RonF, in many cases you read what you think should be there not what actually is, that’s why it’s very difficult for an original author to proof his or her own work. Not sure what that says about your initial reading of my post . . .
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 9:40 am
I don’t think I have ever said the word “nappy-headed”, but I have heard the term repeatedly over the past thirty-plus years. And, I am completely sure that I have never used the word “Ho” or “Ho’s”. However, I do find it interesting that black comedians and lyricists have made both terms part of the norm in our cultutre.
I also find it very interesting to see the (what must certainly be) fiened outrage over these terms that are repeated end over end in modern inner-city speech, literature, and music …with both black and white producers smiling as they fill there sweaty pockets. I think they know more than anyone just how un-moved people really are over such derogatory terms, they count on it.
Personally, I could do without either term.
This comment was written by Passing through.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 10:23 am
“a double standard exists in this upside down politically correct society we live in ”
A) Reverse racism is a canard.
B) To refer to the society as “upside down” because white people are called out for insulting black people but not vice versa, indicates that you think the other way is the correct order. It is a racist thing to say.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:10 am
I just read a quick report where the coach spoke in defense of the players. Thanks to reading Rachel’s blog all the time, I immediately noticed that she defended the players as “articulate.” Any guesses as to why?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Imus must go. In a world today where we send our children off to be educated, after we have taught them fair play and honesty, we expect that they should be protected and applauded for their achievements. What right does Imus have to degrade their ethnicity that in a hurtful and embarrasing way. To allow him to stay tells the world that his behavior is condoned. What will happen when the next commentator takes the same deliberate liberties and makes racial and sexist slurs. The racist slurs, expressed by Imus, has told a sizable percentage of the population that you don’t need to be proud of your accomplishments. Because prejudice, racism and and sexism will still be exercised against you.
These Rutgers student athletes should have come home to a parade with banners and congratulations because they are good. What will this do to the personalities and psyche of these young women in the future. Remember your accomplishments in school. Think about your memories. Think about the memories of these young ladies.
Media Management should not allow this to continue. By the way, Imus is not funny. Imus must go. He has done more to hurt the image of women athletes, student athletes, African Americans and women than anyone I know (in recent years).
This comment was written by Theresa Miller.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:29 am
Because college athletes are stereotyped as dumb?
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:49 am
people can not be insulted unless they ALLOW someone to insult them…. let’s disect this ….. nappy headed hos…. are they hos? if they aren’t…then it’s NOT an insult because it’s an untruth….if they ARE hos….then it is NOT an insult because they are indeed hos… are they nappy headed? if they ARE nappy headed, then it is NOT an insult because in fact they are nappy headed, if they are not nappy headed…then it is NOT an insult because it’s an untruth..pull your big girl panties up folks… is it an insult to call a tall person tall? a short person short? blond haired person blonde? Is it an insult to call a fat person fat? NO…for indeed they ARE fat…if they weren’t…then no, it is not an insult because it is not true…Why do people ALLOW others the satisfaction of thinking they are insulting…there is no such thing as an insult, what the person is saying is either true or false, either way, it’s not an insult… quit GIVING so much power to others
This comment was written by Stop the foolishness.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Here’s the perfect litmus test for knwogin whether or not something is racist:
Because a person of color told you that it is.
People of color do not need to prove to you that a racist comment or action is racist. Learn for yourself. If you don’t - or refuse - to understand, you have no one else to blame but yourself.
This comment was written by Angel H..Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Here’s the perfect litmus test for knwogin whether or not something is racist:
Because a person of color told you that it is.
That’s absurd.
It’s certainly a data point that a person of good will should be open to, should listen to, etc. But the opinions of random members of a class are hardly dispositive, to say nothing of the obvious problem of varying opinions. If Jesse Jackson tells me something isn’t racist, and Thomas Sowell says it is, or vice-versa, should my head explode? Should I poll all the people of color I know, and then the thing is racist in proportion to their votes?
We’re all grown ups. We have to make decisions, assess intent, consider context and history, and do all the tedious cognitive processing that goes along with being thinking creatures. Certainly, considering the views of other people are part of that analytic process, and certainly, the viewpoint of someone who is particularly affected by racism is of special interest in questions of racism.
But nobody has intellectual veto power over the individual mind.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:06 pm
O.K. I’m following this story (I work somewhere where a TV is on to the news all the time). Don Imus insulted a mostly black college basketball team with language that I have no problem with describing as racist. What I’m trying to figure out is, what does Al Sharpton have to do with this?
I think that Don Imus should issue an apology, both publicly and in person to the team collectively and it’s individual members. But I think he should have told Al to go scratch; Don Imus doesn’t owe him anything.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Well stop the foolishness,
This comment was written by Rachel S..If I call you an ignorant asshole, who should be banned from this site, are you going to be mad? According to your logic you shouldn’t be upset, unless you indeed think you are an ignorant asshole.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Barbara, I’d have probably read that comment correctly in another context, but in juxtaposition with Spike Lee’s name it came to mind that it was some kind of twist.
Angel H. says:
“Here’s the perfect litmus test for knwogin whether or not something is racist: Because a person of color told you that it is. People of color do not need to prove to you that a racist comment or action is racist.”
Bull. And, yes they do. I’ll no more take a black person’s word that something is racist than I’d take a white person’s word that something isn’t.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Julie, Herder of Cats; hm. Would you recommend I rent the film and take a look? I’m not much of a movie fan. I go to maybe 4 a year and never rent them. I’ll occasionally watch one on TV.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Rachel, who were you responding to?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Whoops! Amp, can you delete that? I thought “stop the foolishness” was a phrase, not someone’s screen name.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Rachel, there is a clear distinction between having an opinion, and requiring other people to adopt that opinion on the strength of your say-so. People of color are free to believe that something is racist (or not), and I am free to believe they are inarguably correct, or completely full of crap.
Or at least, it seems that way to me. I respect your right to believe differently, however foolish, absurd or illogical that belief may seem.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Heh, RonF and I made the same mental error at the same time. We’re Duh-Buddies!
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I’ll no more take a black person’s word that something is racist than I’d take a white person’s word that something isn’t.
Do you assume that “I’m black, and I think that comment about blacks is racist” is just as likely to be true as “I’m white, and I think that comment about black isn’t racist”?
Of course someone who’s black can be wrong about racism–but as a white person, I’m going to give their opinion great weight. I, after all, am not the one who has to put up with it every fucking day of my life.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Robert and RonF: If I, as a Black woman, am telling you that someone called me a racist name, who are you to tell me that that person wasn’t being racist?
Robert, my Black experience with racism does have veto power over your white privilege of never having to know racism, oppression, and discrimination.
Which is exactly why, RonF, that you do take a Black person’s word that something is racist over a White person’s word that something isn’t.
This comment was written by Angel H..Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Robert and RonF: If I, as a Black woman, am telling you that someone called me a racist name, who are you to tell me that that person wasn’t being racist?
I wouldn’t. If someone called you a name that, through cultural consensus, is considered racist, I would agree that (barring some freakish circumstance) that person is being racist towards you.
If someone calls you a name that there is no cultural consensus on, then I must use my judgment. The nature of your specific claim is highly relevant. If you state “I felt racially offended by [x]“, then I wouldn’t dream of doubting your report of your own state of being. You have 100% knowledge of that field of inquiry, and I have 0%; I have no choice but to defer to your superior knowledge.
If you state “[X] was intended as a racial insult” or “[X] is being intentionally racist”, that’s another question. You may well be right, and my inclination, as reported previously, is to give your view considerable weight, precisely because of your superior position as a knowledge agent on the question. But that’s not an absolute. For example, if your claim is absurd (”he said I had to take off my ski boots before I walked on the Persian carpet because he hates blacks!”) or if I have some reason to doubt your personal credibility or honesty, then I may discount your view.
In this specific case, the insult in question (”nappy ho”) seems manifestly racist in intent. In other cases, the insult may be in a much grayer area (the infamous “water buffalo” incident, wherein the insult certainly sounds racist but where the insulter’s cultural background provides a credible alternative hypothesis. In still other cases (”niggardly”), it’s clear there’s no racist intent and that the reporter of racist intent is factually wrong.
Robert, my Black experience with racism does have veto power over your white privilege of never having to know racism, oppression, and discrimination.
Nah. I’m going to continue drawing my own conclusions and relying on my own reason, experience and knowledge. Your own reporting of your own reason, experience and knowledge will have considerable credibility with me in the many areas where you have superior access to information. But (self-reporting of emotional states aside) your reporting is not absolute in its truth value, and I feel no obligation to automatically defer to it when it contradicts my own reason or beliefs.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
I have to agree with Robert on this one. There are circumstances that are much more ambiguous than the use of terms like “nappy headed hos” where someone could be mistaken about the intent of the speaker/actor. But those would be in situations where, most likely, even if the person is racist they are trying very hard to seem anything but (seating a group in an unfavorable location in a restaurant or giving poor service come to mind — situations where racism could definitely be at work, but a variety of other explanations might also apply — they didn’t have reservations, we were busy, the waitress gives rotten service to everyone, etc.). I don’t think a statement of another person’s intent can be positively established with such absolute certainty.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
I think that we have gone off the dead end worrying about insulting protected classes. The quote has been taken out of context, as usual, and even though Mr. Imus (an entertainer) has appologized profusely, the blather goes on.
In the land of free speech, why is it so bad to poke fun of an ethnic group but it is ok to poke fun at White men?
Black rappers constantly insult not only Blacks but every other ethnic group there is without fear of reprisal.
Al Sharpton is nothing more than a lawsuit or media item waiting to happen. The playing field is more than level, as a matter of fact it has moved the other direction totally in favor of protected classes yet the persecution of the White man goes on.
Would the stink have been made if Mr. Imus was Black or Hispanic; I think not. Let’s try and get our feet back on the ground, this was entertainment, poor entertainment but entertainment all the same. Hey, I don’t like commercials and sit-coms that make the White father figure be stupid but I don’t go on national TV and say the writers are racist pigs!
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
No Rachel,… I am not insulted, because , like I said, I know I’m not ignorant and I know I’m not an a-hole (although I have one, just like you), so therefore, it is not insulting for you to call me an ignorant a-hole because it is an untruth.That is merely your opinion WHICH, like a-holes…everyone has one. I give you NO power for you to think you can attempt to insult me. I am not a racist, even tho you apparently think I am tryin to be. I am just pointing out that I don’t understand why people give other people the power at what they perceive as an insult when in fact, there is no such thing as an insult unless you ALLOW it. It’s either true or false statements. What part of my comment offends you? Can’t you see the truths in it? For those of you just comin in….my comment is #43
This comment was written by Stop the foolishness.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Stop . . .
Perhaps if Don Imus had made his comments directly to the Rutgers players or their coach or their parents or whatever, they would all have walked away as you have suggested. However, he made his comments, constructively, to millions of people who have never met the Rutgers female basketball team. Maybe that had something to do with the level of distress?
And as for white men being made to look stupid — maybe we can’t ascribe that to racism because most tv writers are, duh, white men. That’s why reverse racism is usually a canard — those who would be racist against the majority won’t get very far without placating the majority.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Why you giving Imus so much power? You let someone else tell the world who you are????? Just like the basketball team…if we CARE, we will investigate the team ourselves and find out if they are hos or if they have nappy hair…. my point still stands… if it’s true….it’s not an insult….it’s like telling someone that is tall…that they are tall….if it’s true, it’s not an insult….if it’s not true, it’s not an insult either because it’s false…well….it would be like telling someone that is tall, that they are short…. can you not see how absurd this childish name calling is? Is it offensive to call someone with straight hair ‘ straight haired’???? Please explain, so that I can understand. I truly do wish to understand.
This comment was written by Stop the foolishness.And Rachel, if I WAS offended by your name calling…how is your attempt at insulting any less an infraction than any other attempt at insult. So now you get to decide what ‘insults’ are allowed and which are not?
Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Stop the Foolishness– Maybe you should poll a few black folks whether they find the n-word as insult. Then you can explain to them your theory about why they shouldn’t get upset. Maybe you can report your findings back here.
David– you’re more or less a racism enabler. You’re trying to let Imus off the hook because somebody else did such and such. Ever hear of two wrongs don’t make a right? As far as the apology goes, isn’t it up to the Rutgers players to accept or reject it?
If you search the archives here under my name you’ll see that I criticize rappers and argue for taking hate crimes against whites seriously. Please don’t be on my side in this regard. Thank you.
As far as free speech goes 1. the government isn’t stopping Imus so there is no 1st amendment violation 2. in the workplace there’s much less protection of speech (which arguably is something that should change) and clearly MSNBC would be in there legal rights to fire him. 3. I’d like to see some of these right wing free speech hypocrites actually defend people who get fired for union organizing, which is actually legally protected speech in the workplace.
This comment was written by drydock.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Barbara; I don’t understand your use of the word canard, this is usually in reference to Hebrews; however, my mother was a writer for Rod Serling and even over 60 years ago many of her coworkers were female. This was one area that a woman with a degree in journalism could find equitable employment so I do not accept that most tv writer are White men. I don’t understand the duh comment either; are you suggesting that I am stupid? I mearly wanted to point out that anybody can be insulted by anything if they desire it.
I also wonder how many of the people that are up in arms over this actually heard the commentary. Entertainers have been making fun of jock for decades, it goes with the territory. It would seem that the bottom line is still, “don’t cast anything towards womem or minorities that could in any way be construed by them as an insult.” I am all for that, lets not have any news, programs or reference made in public to any of these protected classes; I’m certain that this would also be taken as an insult. Like I said, let’s all place our feet back on the ground and our heads back on our own shoulders, this guy makes a living by being a jerk; outlaw freedom of speech if you care to take that road but don’t pick and choose.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I think we should all consider the source. Also I hope these young women don’t let
This comment was written by Drew.this ruin their championship win.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Drydock:
I’m so insulted that you called me a racism enabler; and in public. Should I go on public tv and call for your apology or do like Al Sharpton and go to your work and call for your dissmissal? Of course not because you are entitled to your opinion. You know nothing about me and I’m glad of that. Such closed minded bigotry is not welcomed in my house but I certainly agree that you have your right to express your opinion, it hurts me no more than this stupid remark hurt the folks that the joke included. I was pointing out that an insult is in the ear of the subject, not the mouth of the source. How many times have sports commentators made remarks about football players? If you haven’t heard any then you don’t watch sports. I believe that you are prejeduce against White men for whatever reason, be it fear, unfounded hate or inferiority. I was not letting Imus off the hook; the man has appologized many times over, he’s being suspended, what else do you want? I just love how liberals want freedom to do this and freedom to do that; unless it’s something they don’t agree with. No wonder our politics are so messed up.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Its sad that we live in a world that is truly prejudice on so many levels, but I as a Black woma, I have learned that I will encounter people that will not like me in this lifetime, and oftimes it may be for nothing that I have personally done to them. So, what does one do? Do I react to the ignorance, or choose to live my life fully and joyfully because at the end of the day… I do not have to go home with an idiots like Imus. People like him, I don’t hate them…I pity them because they truly are miserable people. Think about that…one of the most popular radio shows in this country—lots of people that like Imus–makes a living berating other people and its supported by MSNBC –a large major network…WOW!!! Comments like this are meant to hurt, debase, and denigrate others, but only if you recognize them as your personal truth. I love my hair, nappy and curly, and no–I’m not a whore, or a ho…so I do not receive that type of comment as something towards me worth responding. Never correct a fool! In regards to basketball, Imus could not play against any of them on the team because he has no skills, so he is therefore intimidated enough to put them down. I’m just sad that the team responds to such B.S. No need to make Imus apologize, its not sincere; he will be the same in two weeks; just rise above the B.S. and don’t bother to sniff it. Recognize it for what it is, and wipe your shoes if you should step in it. Ooops!!
This comment was written by D.C.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Drydock, since you brought up this and addressed it to me, I will respond.I don’t need to poll anyone… but explain this…. if the ‘N’ word is so offensive, so hated, I would think that the very people that say it offends, would NOT use it so freely. I’ve been told that it is ok for black people to use the ‘ N’ word but NOT anyone else. I do not use this term, but I am having trouble understand the logistics of the reasoning. Whether you put an ‘ a’ or an ‘ er’ on the end, we all know it’s the same term. Should white people be greatly offended when called ‘honkys’ , ‘crackers’…I for one am not…. call me what you like..it doesn’t change who I am. Just tryin to understand the rules here. Black Power…. White Power….. Miss Black America…. Miss White America…
This comment was written by Stop the foolishness.Quit letting others tell you who you are… the world can see for themselves.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
lol David… .have you not been reading what I’ve been saying about no such thing as an insult?….lmao…. I get your point tho
This comment was written by Stop the foolishness.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Maybe he said “Happy Wedded Vogues.” Those who believe that the solution to the “Imus” problem is to simply turn him off are not considering one key point. Please visit “If you don’t like it, turn it off” at sarcasticynic.blogspot.com if interested.
http://sarcasticynic.blogspot.com/2006/01/if-you-dont-like-it-turn-it-off.html
This comment was written by The Sarcasticynic.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
FIND SOMETHING BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT. ALMOST ALL OF YOU COMPLAINERS OUT THERE ARE GUILTY OF DOING THE SAME THING ONE TIME OR ANOTHER. IF THIS WAS EDDIE MURPHY OR SOME OTHER BLACK PERSON THAT SAID THIS, NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVEN SAID ANYTHING.
This comment was written by GET OVERIT.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
THE ISSUE SHOULD BE THAT HE USED THE WORD HO, WHICH IS SHORT FOR “WHORE” ON THE TELEVISION. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IMUS LIKES TO SHOCK PEOPLE. MSNBC’S RATINGS MUST BE THROUGH THE ROOF NOW.
DO YOU THINK THAT THIS MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONAL?
MOST THINGS DO NOT HAPPEN BY “ACCIDENT”!
This comment was written by GET OVERIT.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
See…D.C. get’s what I am saying.. I don’t agree with all that she is saying…. but she gets it…. it’s only an insult if you ALLOW it to be.
This comment was written by Stop the foolishness.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Ahh, the bigots and racism apologists. Hey Amp, how soon can you create that anti-racist comments plugin?
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
I will grant David one thing. He is illustrating the validity of Robert’s reply to Angel H. Should everyone who is not a white man just accept David’s claim to be the victim of prejudice against white men just because he is a white man and they are not? Are should they use their own judgement and conclude that David is seriously out of touch with reality?
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Hmmmmmm. It appears I have just managed to use the absurity of a white man claiming to be victimized by bigotry to make a comparison between a white man claiming to be victimized by bigotry and a black women claiming to be victimized by bigotry. The point I was making still seems valid, but I can not help feeling that I missed a logic roll somewhere.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“I think I will now be scarred for life”. Buuulllll$%^t!!!! Call me fat and I’ll flip you the bird and keep walking, never giving another thought. If your insult is funny enough I will laugh with you. I bet a few of them girls even got a chuckle out of the comment. I know plenty of black girls that would have. If anyone should be called nappy headed it’s that condor nest-tottin’ Al Sharpton. He looks like a damned PIMP!
This comment was written by Pickedaname.And that ain’t racist, that’s an ethnic thing. Al always attracting so much attention to these things (and warping them) that they never seem to go away, which they would if he would find another job.
I thought Imus comments were hilarious…..get over it.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Eddie Murphy?!? Dude, that guy makes children’s movies now. Jackson’s Himietown remark was back in the 80s, Sharpton said some stupid stuff in the 80s and early 90s…. can’t you trolls find anything stupid a prominate black person has said THIS century? I guess you’ll just have to stick with the rappers.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
“The point I was making still seems valid, but I can not help feeling that I missed a logic roll somewhere.”
You forgot about power dynamics and systemic representation.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
I can not help feeling that I missed a logic roll somewhere…
You’re not in combat and there are no penalties for a failed attempt, so just spend the next two minutes on it and take 20.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
RonF writes:
If you’re into movies, it’s not a bad movie. Denzel Washington plays Malcolm X, and with facial hair the resemblance is fairly close. Spike Lee directs and plays Malcolm’s pre-conversion-to-Islam running buddy “Shorty”.
Spike Lee ROCKS — his political insight is razor sharp and he has the right balance between the medium and the message. Of all his works, “Malcolm X” and “Requiem” (”When the Levees Broke - A Requiem in Four Parts”) are the most politically charged, though he doesn’t shy away from politics, ever. “Malcolm X” gets four paws up :)
The book (”The Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley”) should be mandatory reading for everyone.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Some dude name RonG (a different person from our RonF) posted a super-long comment regarding a controversy over a non-offensive use of the term “nappy hair” by a children’s book author. (Some parents objected to the book being read in school, but in my opinion they should not have objected).
Rather than let the article through, I did a five second google search to find the webpage that RonG plagiarized his comment from (RonG’s post didn’t include a link or any other sort of credit). So there’s the link, if folks want to read it.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Mythago:
“Do you assume that “I’m black, and I think that comment about blacks is racist” is just as likely to be true as “I’m white, and I think that comment about black isn’t racist”?”
The relative truth of those two statements is not the issue.
“Of course someone who’s black can be wrong about racism–but as a white person, I’m going to give their opinion great weight. I, after all, am not the one who has to put up with it every fucking day of my life.”
Sure. I’d agree with that. If I thought that something wasn’t racist but a black person then told me it was, I would reconsider. But there’s a difference between “I’ll give it great weight” and asserting that if a black person says something is racist, it cannot be debated or doubted. I won’t accept that every black person has final authority that cannot be questioned as to whether “X” is racist, and it seems to me that’s what Angel H. asserted.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
RonF,
In theory I agree with what you wrote, if only because blacks aren’t monolithic and of uniform opinion on every conceivable racist slight. In practice, I disagree.
Racism isn’t just the words, it’s also the intent, and “I don’t have to consider the feelings of blacks” is quite often itself racist intent (I’m white, so if it feels like I might be saying your attitude is racist, well, I don’t know what my being white is going to mean to you).
Mythago’s point is spot-on — this doesn’t affect you and you have the ability to just blow it off if it’s too inconvenient for you.
Out in the messy real world there are going to be people who accuse you (generic you) of racism so they can score points for themselves with their rented black friends, or so they can feel like they are sticking it to whitey. But barring it being someone who’s got some kind of axe to grind, or points to score, if someone says a remark is racist (or sexist or classist or anti-semetic or …) odds are, it is. Give them the benefit of the doubt — it doesn’t cost you anything the first time to do so. Then, if they constantly brag about their black friends, black ex-lovers, black co-workers, or if they have to distort what’s been said beyond its plain meaning, then you can start dismissing them.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
mandolin writes:
I don’t know. I’ve been accused of nasty sh1t because I know what insults mean what, but I suspect most of us know which slurs apply to which people. I’m not going to call someone who’s Chinese a “K1ke”, if I’m in need of an insult against Chinese people, because I know the correct insult. Knowing the correct insult isn’t a sign of animus, it’s a sign of being well-read, I suppose.
I think that people like Imus are just plain generic haters. He’s probably never met a minority he’s not willing to hate if there’s money to be made in doing so, and given the state of shock radio, there’s always money to be made by selling hatred.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Decnavda, thanks once again for somebody that can make a snap judgement in the blink of an eye. I’m not out of touch with reality. Funny how a person can take one point and run it into the ground, kind of like Imus and his stupid commentary.
Is it racist if it wasn’t intended to be racist? Most people take offense to things because it is expected of them. Those girls on the B-ball team would not have even been aware of the remark except for the big play that Sharpton made, but now (just) the Black girls are all teary-eyed and ready to sue! Did anybody catch Hannity and Combs tonight? They had some interesting guests on. Let’s take this rationaly; the word nappy is not offensive, haired certainly isn’t so that only leaves the word ho, so why aren’t the White girls offended? I have nieghbors that are black and their kids are always calling people ho’s and dog, are they being racist and offensive or just hip? I don’t know. Where do you draw the line. I’ve been reffered to by about every racist name in the book for a White guy but I have to consider the source because I was brought up to believe insults only hurt the insulter, not the insultee (is insultee a word?). Many people in the position to be supported in their offended state are very quick to be offended by just about anything. Again, this whole thing is completely blown out of proportion. Next time one of you rightous folks here one of your minority brothers or sisters make a racial remark, call them on it; I dare you.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“Is it racist if it wasn’t intended to be racist?”
Is it a crime if it wasn’t intended to be a crime?
“Let’s take this rationaly; the word nappy is not offensive, haired certainly isn’t so that only leaves the word ho”
The letters ‘y’,'o’,'u’,'r’,'e’,'a’,'b’,'o’,'y’,'a’,’s’,’s’,'l’,'o’,'v’,'i’,'n’,'g’,'p’,'e’,'d’,'o’,'p’,'h’,'i’,'l’,'e’ all aren’t offensive on their own, so I suppose what they spell out isn’t offensive either.
Tool.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
Is it a crime if it wasn’t intended to be a crime?
Generally speaking, no.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
“Generally speaking, no. ”
Awesome. Give me your TV.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 10th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Non sequitur, much?
Without the intention to commit a wrong act, we don’t usually call it a crime (there are some exceptions, like negligence). If you bust into my house and take my TV, you’re a thief. If we live in identical dorm rooms and you honestly think it’s your TV you’re walking out with, you’ve done nothing wrong.
Note that I’m still out a TV, at least until I find you and beat it out of you. Similarly, someone may well feel racially oppressed even without intent on the part of the offender. Intention doesn’t matter if you’re measuring objective harm; it matters a great deal if you’re assigning blame.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:37 am
“Generally speaking, no.”
I’ll keep my.
Sentences short.
That way.
People will.
Think.
I’m snarky.
In all seriousness, my sentence was purposely intended to be overly simple to set off the preset cues and buzzwords in David’s busy little brain. (I’m guessing that David falls hook, line, sinker, and outboard engine for Tuff on Crime rhetoric, aren’t you?) Clearly, though, my statement wasn’t taken as simply as it was meant.
I was going for more of a premeditated murder versus drunk driving, myself. They are different in scale but are both undeniably crimes.
“Intention doesn’t matter if you’re measuring objective harm; it matters a great deal if you’re assigning blame.”
Interesting you bring this up, because, charitably, it explains why racist sympathizers make such a big deal over intent. It’s precisely because they believe racism doesn’t cause actually cause objective harm - rather, racism is more of an unfortunate moral failing of an individual (where the individual in question is someone who acts like them, looks like them, and says the same things as them, but are not them) - that they fall back on intent. If you believe racism actually causes harm, you wouldn’t focus on intent, would you say that’s an actual assessment?
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:48 am
Er, no. It is precisely because racism has such heinous objective harms that there is great prickliness and defensiveness about being called out for racism.
Nobody would care that they were considered racist if the damage from racism were unimportant or insignificant, other than the most exquisitely sensitive souls who couldn’t bear to be thought of as unsophisticated.
I grew up in the Deep South, and especially in Mississippi, where much of my extended family still lives. Saying so-and-so is a racist, in my view, is saying that they’re of a piece with the night riders who terrorized blacks, raping and killing to buttress an awful system of oppression and outright tyranny. That’s one hell of a serious charge to lay on somebody, so I’m reluctant to do it unless the evidence is unequivocal. Racism is evil, and racists are evil. I hate to put someone in the “evil” category if I don’t have to.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:14 am
“Note that I’m still out a TV, at least until I find you and beat it out of you. Similarly, someone may well feel racially oppressed even without intent on the part of the offender. Intention doesn’t matter if you’re measuring objective harm; it matters a great deal if you’re assigning blame.”
I was mostly making a joke, Robert, rather than a real point.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 2:55 am
A…joke? Can’t…process…must…have…argument…
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 3:40 am
LMAO!!!! @
This comment was written by Pickedaname.‘y’,’o’,’u’,’r’,’e’,’a’,’b’,’o’,’y’,’a’,’s’,’s’,’l’,’o’,’v’,’i’,’n’,’g’,’p’,’e’,’d’,’o’,’p’,’h’,’i’,’l’,’e’
LOL!!!!!!!!
Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Robert’s comment in number 91 is a good explanation of why I’m uncomfortable with the Color Blind Racist label.
He wrote
I think that if the word racist were to be commonly accepted as including the same meaning that Rachel assigns to colorblind racist that would weaken the term. There would be a less concern generally with ending racism. I agree with the idea that racism has moved the starting points for minorities so far back they can’t really compete on a ‘level’ playing field. But I think removing the element of hate from the definition of racism is a mistake.
(amp, sorry if 90 comments is too soon for thread drift.)
For the record I think Imus’s comments were both sexist and racist. I think he knew they would be. I think he said them anyway try to be mean and funny.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:30 am
His comments were just despicable. They made me ill to my stomach. That in 2007 a grown man could still think it’s ok to use slurs like that, that we’re still so behind in the fight against racism, that attacking someone’s race is still a seen as a viable option, is just.. beyond me. I don’t understand it. I don’t.
This comment was written by Ana Casian Lakos.It makes no sense to me.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:37 am
Robert said, “Saying so-and-so is a racist, in my view, is saying that they’re of a piece with the night riders who terrorized blacks, raping and killing to buttress an awful system of oppression and outright tyranny. That’s one hell of a serious charge to lay on somebody, so I’m reluctant to do it unless the evidence is unequivocal. Racism is evil, and racists are evil. I hate to put someone in the “evil” category if I don’t have to.”
To Robert and everyone else,
The problem here is the very simplistic thinking. White racism runs the gamit from very virulent violence that can result in bodily injury to more subtle things like not feeling comfortable in a room where there are people of color or not listening when people of color give their points of view.
When we reserve the term racism for only the most violent acts, we ignore the cumulative affects of those more subtle forms of racism, which add up over time.
(To Robert) Take your early reaction to Angel H. She was clearly ticked off, and even though I don’t agree with her in theory, she was trying very hard to be heard. She was saying as a black woman I find this offensive, and then what happened? Rather than making any attempt to confirm her feelings or acknowledge why she was hurt and frustrated, you came in with your theory. In doing so, you dismissed her frustration, your dismissed her view, you dismissed her anger, and you dismissed her as a black woman. Because you were so fixated on being right and creating a good theory, but you did really seem to connect with her everyday experience. (I saw the same thing with pheeno on a thread about a month ago.)
(To all)That’s contemporary racism my friends. Even though I agree with Robert in theory, (that just because someone black says something racist that doesn’t necessarily mean it is) Angel deserves to have her voice heard. In fact, let’s revisit the last 2 sentence of Angel’s comment,
Geeze, it sounds to me like she’s saying she doesn’t have to prove herself to Brandon Berg or any of the other “great white” men (almost said sharks, oops) around these parts. She is asking y’all to put yourself in her shoes. How would we feel if someone said we were ugly and someone called us a nappy headed ho?
But letting go of racism and privilege is so very hard for most white people. So rather than being able to serious engage Angel and acknowledge her feelings we have to go back to our precious worldviews. We just can’t let the focus be on the black women who were insulted by such language. No instead we have to insult black male leaders and go over what we think are their shortcomings, talk about really nice white guys, who help kids with cancer. Then we start to talk about the great freedom of speech principle, and on and on and on……
Once again the black women targets of Imus’s nasty comments are lost. Personally, I stand in solidarity with Angel H. and other black women. Let’s stop making their views and experiences invisible. Let’s stop privileging our own view over theirs. Let’s stop the color blind racism and the sexism that encourages us to ignore, deny, or minimize women of color and their various world views.
Ok, white folks and men. It’s not all about us and our views all the time. Just take a minute to put yourself in someone elses shoes.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Rachel, I understand what you’re saying and mostly agree with you for this thread.
My point was broader. Because racists are held to be vicious hateful people racism is reviled. If racism equally includes insufficient consideration for the feelings of POC than I don’t think people (broadly speaking) will have the same level of objection.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 8:04 am
I understand joe. I think racism is a very broad phenomenon, not something limited to racial slurs or violent acts, but I think many want to make so narrow as to apply to almost nothing.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Rachel, do you have any concern that by broadening the application of the term it will eventually weaken support for anti-racist actions?
For example; If Roberts response to Angela H was racist than maybe racism isn’t that bad?
This question is pretty removed from the real world. There are plenty of examples of the obvious easy to agree on types of racism.
My opinion is that the element of hatred and irrationality is part of what makes racism so evil. Without that it becomes a lot less evil.
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 8:22 am
With all due respect, I think that attitude is counterproductive, because it leads to denialism: rather than opposing racism, energy is spent making explanations for why such-and-such an event isn’t racist at all. Racism is treated like a criminal justice case, in which the defendant must be proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before any mitigating action can be taken; as a result, in most cases, we’re told that it would be horrible to take any mitigating action at all.
Like Rachel, I think it’s more accurate to have a nuanced understanding of racism; sometimes it’s the night riders, but sometimes it’s a great deal less than that. As I said last year, being told you’ve said something racist isn’t the same as being told you’re a KKK member. “Think of it as if someone points out that you need to wipe your nose because you’ve got a big glob of snot hanging out. The thing to do is say ‘oh, excuse me,’ wipe your nose, and move on.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Amp,
It is difficult to simultaneously maintain an extraordinarily high level of condemnation for racism, while simultaneously expanding the definition of racism to include behavior that is more minor. (note: Imus’ remark is not minor IMO, I’m speaking generally in response to your post.)
If all racism is, by definition, extraordinarily horrible, then the question of mitigation vs. ignoring vs. that old canard of ‘reverse racism’ doesn’t even come to the table at all. Horrible things need to be dealt with–no debate there. Solutions are obvious.
If racism includes a lot of things which are more open to interpretation, are less harmful, etc–then the solutions (or lack thereof) are also going to be more open to interpretation.
You end up with three classes of views.
One class evaluates racism using the “strict racism” test (like a court case) and applies solutions using the “up for debate” analysis. These folks are serious racists: hard to prove, and mild consequences.
the middle class is one where the test and solutions match. Some tend toward limiting what is considered “racist” but also tend towards fairly undebatable and clear cut solutions to curing things once they cross the line. Others use a broader definition of racism, but also are less willing to accept particular consequences as a result.
This middle class thinks the first class is racist.
The final class is the reverse of the first: Folks who use a very wide and flexible definition of racism, AND who also attempt to maintain a high level of condemnation of racism across the board.
This final class thinks BOTH the first and second classes are racist. Which is a pity, because the second class is, functionally speaking, a lot closer to the final class than to the first.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 9:32 am
I agree with what I think Robert is up to, and I’ve made what I think is his same point on the subject of rape, and particularly, on the subject of rape prosecutions –
When we use a really heavy handed word — such as “rape” or “racist” — and people have this image of the action as truly horrendous, I believe there’s a greater tendency to dismiss the lesser horrendous acts rather than to adjust the word. And if the word gets adjusted, so that “rape” and “racist” also encompass the lesser harmful acts, it’s more difficult to get action because “rape” and “racist” can include anything from begging for sex and white people with dredlocks, to holding a knife to a woman’s throat or dragging a man through the streets of Jasper, TX.
What I hear Robert saying is that “racist” is the big gun of words that indicate something bad has been done on the basis of race. I also grew up in the deep south and I knew people who really did recruit for the KKK. I’ve met David Duke, I’ve had lunch with David Duke, I’ve listened to David Duke talk about how he just cares about white people. And David Duke is a genuine, dyed in the wool, let’s go burn crosses on people’s lawns, racist. He is the real meal deal.
And yet, “You’re a racist!” does connect people to the image of KKK members, on their horses, with their pointy hats, riding through towns, shooting blacks, stringing blacks up on trees, and lighting churches on fire. At least, if you were born south of the Mason-Dixon line, that’s what it evokes, because our history books do include those things. For better or worse, that’s the history, just like when I lived in Virginia I learned about Thomas Jefferson and Jamestown and Williamsburg. When I lived in Louisiana, I learned about the Klan. Not that I had to learn, I had high school classmates in the Klan. I was even asked to join the Klan.
I don’t think that Robert or I are saying that “things that are racially offensive” should either be called “racist” or “not racist”, like it’s a binary, but that there needs to be language for informing people where they stand in the grand scheme of the universe. Don Imus is a racist (and more). David Duke is a racist (and more). Joe Shmoe, who doesn’t want his daughter marrying her black boyfriend because she’ll experience social rejection, is not a big-R Racist. He might not be with the program, but he’s also not going to go burning crosses on lawns any time soon. Some word needs to exist for people who just aren’t with the program yet.
This comment was written by Julie, Herder of Cats.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 9:53 am
We had a pretty good word for that: prejudiced. I’m not sure why it’s fallen out of favor.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Rachel:
When we reserve the term racism for only the most violent acts, we ignore the cumulative affects of those more subtle forms of racism, which add up over time.
Similarly, when we reserve the term “murder” for only the acts which kill people, we ignore the cumulative effects of more subtle forms of violence.
Oh wait, except we don’t. Instead, we have different words for those phenomena. There is a conceptual connection between smacking someone and killing them, but the gulf of severity is sufficiently wide that we use different language to describe what happens on each side of the gulf. There is a conceptual connection between being uncomfortable in a room full of people of a different race, and between wanting to slaughter people of that race because you hate them, but we use different language to describe those states of mind.
Or we should, anyway.
(To Robert) Take your early reaction to Angel H. She was clearly ticked off, and even though I don’t agree with her in theory, she was trying very hard to be heard. She was saying as a black woman I find this offensive, and then what happened?
But that isn’t what she was saying, and it seems to me that she was heard exceptionally well (even if not by you, grin). Her argument and her statements were addressed comprehensively and respectfully, as between two adults who have peer standing within the venue of the discussion.
Rather than making any attempt to confirm her feelings or acknowledge why she was hurt and frustrated
You mean like in the part where I confirmed her feelings, agreed with and validated them in the immediate context, and acknowledged that her reports of her feelings were, in fact, trump cards within their ambit?
(To all)That’s contemporary racism my friends. Even though I agree with Robert in theory, (that just because someone black says something racist that doesn’t necessarily mean it is) Angel deserves to have her voice heard.
So hear her voice. And then, instead of treating her as a child who must be humored, treat her as an adult, argue against the things she has said which are wrong, agree with the things that she has said which are right, and move the discussion forward.
I think you are right that simplistic thinking is an obstacle to meaningful discussions of racism and racial issues, but I think the simplistic thinking in question is yours.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
“So hear her voice. And then, instead of treating her as a child who must be humored, treat her as an adult, argue against the things she has said which are wrong, agree with the things that she has said which are right, and move the discussion forward.”
And in the process set yourself up as an objective arbiter of her experience.
I agree with you that I wouldn’t believe every allegation of racism made by every person of color. But I’d stop and think about it, hard, and be well aware that if I did decide to reject the allegation, it was likely my own privelege was part of that process.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
“it was likely my own privelege was part of that process. ”
Well, obviously part of. Replaec with: a significant factor in.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
And in the process set yourself up as an objective arbiter of her experience.
I make no claim to objectivity. I make a claim to intellectual autonomy, and to being the arbiter of MY experience - which includes my perception of her viewpoint. She (and all of us) are similarly empowered.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
So hear her voice. And then, instead of treating her as a child who must be humored, treat her as an adult, argue against the things she has said which are wrong, agree with the things that she has said which are right, and move the discussion forward.
This comment was written by joe.The way this is worded states that you’re judging whether she’s right or wrong. Obviously (or not) you would think the part you disagree with is wrong.
But the complaint that experience of a POC needs to be judged is central. You might have wanted to phrase it differently.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Well, I wouldn’t judge her experience as wrong or right; her experience is her experience, and I don’t have direct access to it. I think her factual assertions are wrong or right, and I have to make a decision in order to be able to cognitively function (a decision which may well be “I can’t tell whether she’s right or wrong.”)
But I’m not intending to assert the ability to characterize her experience in that way, and if I mis-spoke in that fashion, I withdraw it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
mandolin and joe,
I can’t help but feel like you’re trying to dance around the head of a pin here: you don’t want to say “we should believe someone simply because she’s a POC” but don’t like the other option either.
I mean, which is it? i happen to agree with Angel’s conclusion (I think Imus was racist) but that’s because I happen to agree with her.
And if I *am* exercising independent judgment then shoot: at some point, I’m going to disagree with a POC. That means I will think that I’m right, and they’re wrong. That’s what disagreement IS.
And… that disagreement, at some point, is going to discuss their experience. Nobody with a shred of logic is going to sit there and say that someone’s subjective experience is incorrect. As Robert posted, there’s 100% surety on that one. But when you link subjective experiences to the global, objective, claim of racism, you open the door to argument.
Yes, of course an objective claim of racism is going to involve someone’s subjective experience. It always does. but that doesn’t mean we can’t discuss it, no matter what our skin color. Attempting to rephrase this disagreement as some sort of “objectivity” issue is merely obfuscating the effect, which is to return to the original claim: “we should believe someone simply because she’s a POC”
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Robert said, “But I’m not intending to assert the ability to characterize her experience in that way, and if I mis-spoke in that fashion, I withdraw it.”
Well by refusing to acknowledge her feelings and experiences that is exactly what you did. You went for the jugular on the on other issue. You took her words very literally, without trying to read any other meanings into her entire post. You came off like an arrogant ass because it was obvious she was pissed off at Brandon’s very offensive comment above, and she was venting about that.
Then you had to come in with a snide little remark. Would you be really pissed off if someone called your daughter or wife a whore or slut?
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Well by refusing to acknowledge her feelings and experiences that is exactly what you did.
I haven’t done that. You are either grossly misreading what has been quitely plainly written, or you are being dishonest.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
sylphhead, once you have become emotionally charged in a debate you have lost your footing and following that, your credibility. You’re insult harms not in the least because I know what and who I am; I also can tell that you have no valid rebuttel so you are resorting to emotion.
Let’s look at a definition of racist that I pulled from Wikipedia:
Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups. It may be based on an assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behavior.
Now let’s look at a definition of crime that I pulled off the same site:
A crime is an act that violates a political, religious, or moral command considered important in protecting the interests of the State or the welfare of its citizens or subjects. The word “crime” came from Latin crimen (genitive criminis), from the Latin root cernō and Greek κρινω = “I judge”. Originally it meant “charge (in law), guilt, accusation.” In everyday usage, a crime is understood as any act that violates a law.
As you can see, the words parallel each other very little. I believe that everybody has a little bit of racist in him or her; it is very difficult to control what you think. Thinking, “I am superior” without acting on it is no crime. It is an accepted notion that Black athletes are generally superior to White athletes; nobody thinks of this as racist but, using the definition above, it is racist. Does it injure a person if it is not acted upon? I think not. You may argue that the mere thought is harmful, but again, it is difficult to control our thoughts. Many people have said publicly that people of color make better athletes than their Caucasoid counterparts; a racist statement but as long as it does no actual harm, is it inherently wrong? Many people jumped on what I said about double standards but you can plainly see that any person, regardless of their ethnicity, can be racist and probably is.
I also spent some of my Jr. High and High School time in Mississippi and at a time when bussing was prevalent. I moved to Mississippi from a mid-western state and my association with people of color was almost non-existent. I learned very quickly that the majority of Black students wanted nothing to do with me, neither did the White southern students as I was considered a Yankee. If two Blacks got in a fight it was not that big a deal, if two Whites got in a fight it was not that big a deal but if a Black student and a White student got in a fight the administration immediately locked down the school, called in the National Guard and police. It was expected that a big fuss be made so it was. This is the same thing that happended with Imus. We have gotton completely off track. What was the intent? Was there any real harm? Imus can answer the first, the girls basketball team, all 12 of them, can answer the second. The rest is moot. I don’t believe that the intent to do harm was there, not even as much as your intent to hurt me with your vulgar accusation, but if the ladies took it serous (I can’t imagine that they originally would have just as I didn’t take you serious) then he owes them a public explanation and appology. He did this. By continuing on, harm is being done to the overall progress made for the last 50 years. I myself am having flashbacks of my days in that Mississippi high school when I first developed a lack of trust for people of color.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Oh David….Oh no, you didn’t go there. So you think blacks are superior to whites when it comes to athletics? And you think all people think like this? No wonder you’re having so many problems with race issues.
First of all– no all people don’t think like this. Some of us have been raised, educated, trained, or have otherwise learned to see each human being as an individual– of which race and ethnicity is only a small component. Blacks are no more inherently better athletics than whites– merely different, in some cases. And for that matter, since all black people are not ethnically, culturally, or genetically alike, we aren’t even all the same around this country, or around the world. When’s the last time you saw an African American win the New York City Marathon? Just as with Caucasian people– there are a wide variety of differences among us, because we are individuals with a wide range of differing abilities.
Until you start seeing that each of us is an individual in so many ways, I’m certain you’ll continue having flashbacks to days when you first developed your lack of trust for people of color. But let me give you a little tip: The only way I get through life without freaking out every time I encounter someone from the white majority in this country is this– I…respond…to….every…white…person…I…meet….as…if…they…are…individuals. I make a point to do this every day. I don’t load baggage from my past onto the shoulders of any one I meet. If you are nice to me, I am nice to you. I don’t assume you’re good at anything, bad at anything, or know anything about anything because of your race or ethnic origins. I don’t assume you have a college education. I don’t assume you are a high school dropout. I let you tell me who you are through what you say, do and how you choose to carry yourself in this world. And if I want to know if you are good at something, or interested in something– I will ask you. Now it’s 2007. If you meet me somewhere, someday, I’d appreciate it if you’d give me the same courtesy I will undoubtedly give you.
Have a nice day.
Faith
And while I”m on this topic– it’s funny that when white men dominated basketball in this country, it was because they were smarter, more skillful players who worked harder. When African Americans came to dominate the sport….uh– it was because we were genetically superior. Now how convenient is that argument???
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
OK, let me try reiterating my tactic here, because apparently it didn’t come through.
1) Listen.
2) Shut up.
3) Get angry.
4) Stay shutted up.
5) Listen more.
6) Interrogate my feelings, and try to be as honest about why I feel what I feel as possible.
7) Understand that I’m ignorant on issues of race.
8) Understand that my ignorance is socialized.
9) Understand, tehrefore, that when I try to speak in a position of expert against someone who lives the experience, I’m likely to end up looking like an asshole.
10) Maybe say something, but probably keep thinking.
NOTE: This only works if you actually have an open mind and *want* to understand what and why the other party is thinking. It would not work for me if I went to go read Baptist blogs.
*
So, no, you don’t have to believe the POC when they say something was racist.
You don’t have to believe the geologist when he discusses deep time.
You don’t have to believe the biologist when he discusses the evolution of the eye.
But it’s unlikely that you actually have the expertise you think you do.
White men, in particular, are trained to believe that their opinion matters, matters, matters, and that they have the ability to mediate other people’s experience in a more objective way than other people. (She can’t see her own situation clearly; she’s clouded by her involvement with the situation; however, I, The White Man, have no such terribly annoying flotsam and jetsam clotting my brain, so I am better qualified than she to pronounce upon what has happened.)(White women I think are less trained to do this sort of thing, but we’re certainly trained to do it, too — holy fuck, that thread on Pandagon the other day.)
Shockingly, they don’t, but the only time when this seems to be really clear is when you’re in a progressive forum discussing these issues, so I understand it’s a bit of a kick to the system.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Faith, you did not read my entry very well did you. Like many people who have an answer before the question is understood, you jumped to the conclusion of what my beliefs are. I used the athletic example because, if you do ask 10 people who they think are, in general, better athletes, Black or White, most will say that the Black person dominates most sports so they are inferred to be superior and I felt that this would not offend any of the more sensitive listeners. The basketball teams that you refer to were around before many colleges and pro teams allowed Black players on their teams. If they are superior, why are they superior? Is it a physical attribute that allows them to be superior and if so, by acknowledging this attribute are we being racist? Remember, racism occurs not only in the derogatory sense. After all, all people are not the same and that being said, it can also be said that some are racially, physically superior to others just as some are racially mentally superior. Did I just make a racist statement? The answer is yes I did. Was it meant to offend? No, it was not, I was stating a proven, documented fact, but I am certain somebody will be offended by it, mostly because they choose to be offended.
Let us change the example; say for arguments sake, not that this is my preference but is only and example!! A man prefers blonde women. Now blonde is a genetic trait and being such can also be applied to specific races. This man is a racist since he prefers the blonde trait. The same could be said of somebody that prefers caramel skin or Asian features. Racism exists in, I believe, everybody. The question that I asked originally was that if no slight or harm was meant, is it wrong? Deliberate, harmful racial prejudice is really what rational people get offended by. I believe that in order for this to occur the intent must be there. If there is no intent then it becomes a personal objection and, if necessary, the object of the slight should try and be placated by the offending party.
For me to say that “I prefer blondes” could be taken as an offensive statement by women who are not blonde but would I actually be insulting them? They may believe that I had ulterior motives or felt that blonde women were superior and could therefore feel offended but was there an actual offense given? This is a little of what I believe Robert was trying to get at. I am not a White cracker, supremacist, or believe that one race should be treated preferentially over another. There was this huge debate on if a POC thinks he or she is being slighted then it must be so. In my world there is no distinction in treatment between races. This is not to say that there are no differences. Of course there are differences, this is what integration is all about. However, if you truly believe that racism is wrong then it is wrong for everybody, not just POC or Hispanics or whoever you happen to identify with. I hope that this cleared up some of what I have been trying to get at.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
mandolin, you sound very sexist. I am a White man therefore I can only imagine what a White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, whatever woman trully feels. The Same goes for another man of a different race but truly the same can be said of all people. I don’t know how, literally my brother feels as I am not him. You jump to an awfully lot of conclusions about “White Men”. Maybe you could back it up a bit. We may think we can identify with people of similar backgrounds and environment but we really don’t know how the feel or how they look at different actions.
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
In Oakland a number of years back I learned of a term that black folks used to describe a certain type of white liberal who will fall for any bullshit just because a black person says it. The word is doormatt. The response to racially ignorant comments made on this thread shouldn’t be this type of liberalism, which I think some otherwise intelligent people are getting close to advocating. I don’t think what Angel said was bullshit nor do I think Robert is best using his intelligence as an ally against racism. However in the noncyber world of social struggle it is helpful when progressive whites are able to discern who are the real agents of change (in working class communities of color) and who are the fakes, the careerists, and the race-baiters. IMO that is being a real ally.
This comment was written by drydock.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
White men were the ones who started calling black women hos (whores/wenches) during slavery and Jim Crow segregation. And looking at America’s long history of racist hatred of black women by white men, Imus was just saying out loud what many white men already think of black women. Imus is just another white man being a white man: a race of men who have for centuries committed the most brutish, the most perverse and the most depraved abombinations that one group of people (white men) have shown towards another group of people (black women).
I have no problem with “nappy”, for that is a term used amongst black people to describe our hair. But, when a white man uses the phrase the way Imus used it, it brings up many images of white men’s hatred and CONTINUED disrespect/contempt of black women.
It was white men who raped black women and girls daily during slavery. It was white men who raped black women and girls during Jim Crow segregation.
It was white men who called black women//girls “black bitches”, “black sluts”, “lascivious”, and “unrapeable”, all the while raping and impregnating us during both slavery and segregation.
The contempt that America has for black women started with the inhuman atrocities committed against black women by white men. That there are still walking around now, white men during segregation who raped, impregnated, and brutally beat to death, many black women, is a testament to America’s wanton attack upon black women; an attack that will never end.
And the lies told on black women to justify white men’s cruelties against black women/girls still live among us as a result of the legacy of slavery/segregation:
-White men were able to walk into a black family’s home and rape and attack the black females of the family and there was nothing that could be done about it;
-White men who fathered countless children with black women, then those white fathers turned around and abandoned their own flesh and blood;
-White men who said over, and over, and over again the continued lies/mythology of black female lasciviousness……that not only was there no such thing as a chaste black woman—but that a black woman could not be raped, that it was never against her will;
-During Reconstruction, white rapists perpetuated massive rapes against black women: in the Memphis Riot of 1868, whites angered by the presence of black militiamen attacked the city’s black community, murdering, beating and raping its inhabitants and burning homes and businesses;
-When Jim Crow pigmentocracy reigned supreme, black women continued to be the objects of sexualized gendered racism for over 90 years—-sexual aggressions stemming from the practice and ideology of white supremacy. Black domestic servants working in white homes were the most vulnerable to be raped.
Today in 2007, it is still okay for white men to degrade and insult black women.
Black women in America are still being “raped” and “lynched”by white men.
White men may not be able to walk into a black familty’s home the way white men of just a few decades ago were able to, but, this society still gives carte blanche to white men to desrespect, defile and defame black women.
Patricia Collins speaks of the ideology of “controlling image” And the Imus insult “nappy headed hos” is an extention of the Jezebel controlling image that white men created to justify brutally raping black women for over 400+ years.
There is no doubt about the connection. White men do control the media, so they have the most control of how images of groups of people are seen by people the world over. By controlling the image of black women as Jezebel/Slut/Whore, white men can bombard the mind with poliferated images of black women as less than human, as hyper-sexual, as lewd, as non-human.
White men justified their hatred of black women even after slavery, with the continued rape and assault upon black women. Immediately after slavery when black women were working to overcome the brutality of the conditions of slavery, many of them aspired to be ladies and finally be what they were: women, something they were not allowed to be under the abombinations of slavery. Many white men seeing this sought to tear down black women and accosted them on the streets, putting their hands on them in the most sadistic and crude ways.
Black women have long been the victims of racially motivated sexual violence by white men: that these perpetrators have characteristically committed their crimes with impunity; that their evil cruelties have long been obscured by racist notions that render many whites more ready to believe, at any given moment, that a black woman is a whore than that a white man is a rapist.
But, real racial violence has been visited upon black women for CENTURIES without adequate redress or even acknowledgement. (When was the last time a white man was sentenced to death for raping a black woman? When was the last time a white man was sentenced to life without parole for raping a black woman?)
For black Americans, especially for black women, the wounds of this history remain painful and unhealed.
At the same time, for many other non-black Americans, especially for whites, the image of the white man as racially motivated rapist resides safely (or so they hope and believe) in the past and supposedly no longer walks among us.
But the white man as “rapist” has never left this society.
Don Imus’s comments attest to that.
In Professor Patricia Hill Collins’s “Black Feminist Thought”, she states:
“Freedom for black women, has meant freedom *from* white men, not the freedom to chose white men as lovers and friends”. Moreover, she observed, “given the history of sexual abuse of black women by white men, individual black women who choose white partners become reminders of a difficult history. . .Such individual liaisons aggravate a collective sore spot because they recall historical master/slave relationships.”
And white men’s continued denigration of black women is alive and well in America.
When Imus made his comment he knew what he was speaking of. He made no slip of the tongue. And he was speaking for many people in America who have racist hatred of black women, no matter what black women do, no matter how hard they strive to better themselves, no matter how hard they work.
In many people’s eyes, all that black women accomplish will never be enough to overcome four hundred years of racist lies and filth that white men have created to destroy black women.
On racism, or what I prefer to call, white supremacy.
Racism comprises both omission, and comission. And there is no such thing as “Big Racist vs. Little Racist.
Racism is racism. Whether it is the face of a white father who loves his white children, sending them to the best schools in the city, but on the otherhand that same white father who may be on an all-white city council board that okays the gutting of programs by not allocating funding for libraries, community centers, and after-school programs in a black neighborhood. If this white father goes home and says within earshot of his young child, “Well, today we voted unanimously not to let those niggers have approved tax funding for a park/pool/social program in their neighborhood”, the young child will see racism in its most evil: the denying of basic needs and humanity to people because of their race/skin color. People teach by example. And contrary to what many people think, racists are not some fire-breathing dragon, foaming at the mouth monsters.
Racists can be very calm, kind and benevolent in the face they turn towards those whom they love and validate as human beings, yet cold, cruel, calculating and evil in the face they turn towards those they seek to destroy.
And as long as white and black America continue to be segregated from each other in segregated enclaves/neighborhoods, the racism will continue unabated. The ingrained imagined fears, preconceptions, misconceptions, prejudices and stereotypes will continue to remain unabated, unchallenged, unchanged.
And ingrained stereotypes are hard to destroy when people are too apathetic and lazy to challenge them.
A white mother sitting in her car with her child, upon seeing a black person approach the car, when all of a sudden she starts locking the doors sends a more sinister message to her child than all the “Nigger this”, or “Nigger that” comments. A white parent in an elevator who pulls their child closer to them when a black person enters the elevator sends a message to the child that a black human is less than human, a monster to be avoided at all costs.
Actions speak louder than words.
And there are many ways to “teach” racism.
And words are not the only way.
Just because a white person does not burn a cross on a black person’s lawn (sin of commission), does not mean that on a daily basis they can not send racist signals to their children of the continued devaluation of black Americans (sins of omission).
Yes, this is harder to overcome. But as long as black and white America live lives of “separate, but unequal” of inner city (black ) and white (suburbs) isolation, expect the animosity, the hatreds and the stereotypes to continue.
It past high time for white America to stop treating her black citizens like strangers in their own country. White people are not the only people who live in this country, and the continued disregard of black people as if they are some anamoly that should be pushed off to the margins, needs to stop.
And I grew up in a predominantly black neighborhood and the black parents did not teach their children to be dregs of society, nor to think of themselves as such, just because white society decreed it so.
But, black people are still human beings just like anyone else.
And even we get tired of the racial slurs, the blackface, the ghetto parties, the nigger-this, nigger-that, the they are all just savages, so who cares what they think.
Say whatever you can about them, what the hell, ther’re just black people
Contrary to what SOME people out there in America think, black people get tired, worn and put upon like any other human in this world.
And we are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
One hundred years ago during the time of W.E.B. Dubois, it was called the “Negro Problem”.
Negro problem. As if it was all the fault of black people that racism existed, came about and is still in existence. As if it’s all the fault of those aggravating, bothersome black people that stereotypes were created against them centuries ago. As if it’s all the fault of black people that white people centuries ago started the stereotypes of
coon/jiggaboo/rastus/whore/Jezebel/slut/mammy/sambo/unrapeble wench/nigger/beast rapist/pickaninny/darky/Sapphire/welfare queens (thank you Ronald Reagan)—-need I go on?
Black people are sick of racial profiling/followed around stores when we have money to purchase goods/pulled over on the flimsiest of traffic stops/driving while black/living while black/dying while black/vilified while black/looked at as freaks of nature: “Oh,you’re so articulate. Oh,you’re so nice, quiet and studious for a black person.”/having to be twice, no three times more qualified than everyone else just to get into the door.
Black people did not create this racist condition in America. If you want to be realistic about the “race problem” in America it was never black people.
White people were and still are the race problem, and it certainly worked in their best interests to put all the burder of race on black people.
There is NOTHING in this world stopping white people from acknowledging and treating with respect and equality black people.
And running to all the lily-white suburbs, running to all the all-white rural towns, running unto the ends of the Earth will not eradicate a problem that was started by white people.
The onus should not always be on black people. White people can work to make this a better country just like black people.
Hell, we aren’t the only ones who can give a damn whether this country swims, or sinks.
And we should not be the only ones to shoulder the burden of always trying to get this country to live up to its supposed ideals.
We black people tire, bleed, cry, suffer, and rejoice just like anyone else in this country.
But, people like Imus prove every day that black citizens have no rights that white America is bound to respect.
And you can definately be assured that he would NEVER have called a white woman a “ho”.
Only black women have had open season declared on us.
And we are still running the gauntlet of the racist/sexist hatred against us started by white men centuries ago.
This piece of human (Imus) said two things in his slander against black women and girls:
-Black women are whores no matter what they do, no matter who they are, no matter where they live. And of course it’s just got to be true because Massa said it is so. Massa’s been saying it for over 400+ years. Massa’s been raping black women for generations, so to justify his hatred and perversions against black women, he created the worst kind of blame the victim insult that has ever been done to one group of women: he called black women “black bitches/whores”, “nappy headed wenches” after he raped black people 10-20 different shades of beige;
-He also said that black women and their features are not to be considered as beautiful. In other words, black women’s tightly coiled, gravity-defying hair is considered bad in white America’s eyes, therefore, a black woman cannot, and should not, be considered as beautiful because the raping Massa said so.
Black women are beautiful, and we know it. We know that all the while non-black people are denigrating us, they are going to plastic surgeons to get ample asses, full lips, dark tans, and to the beauty shop to get braided hair——beauty attributes which we black women come by naturally—-beauty attributes we black women have that everyone who doesn’t have them, continue to disparage us about, but in the meantime they run off to cosmetically get what God did not give them.
Imus is just saying out loud what many white people, especially some white men, are thinking:
“We can’t rape those wenches/bitches/whores anymore with impunity. The only thing we have left is to call them names. And venom is all we have to act on.”
White America has had a long history of hatred of black women.
This week, the young ladies of Rutgers are to meet with Imus and to consider whether or not to accept his apology. Even though the decision is theirs, I would NOT ACCEPT his apology if I were them. All the apologies in the world can never make up for 400+ years of racist/sexist hatred of black women. Because of America’s hatred of black women from slaves on the auction block to living segregated lives in the South (all the while black people as a race kept on becoming lighter, and lighter, and lighter; so much for “segregation” of the races), has lent this country a psychotic vicious contempt shown towards black women that no other race of women in this country as suffered.
White men Imus’s age grew up during a time where it was socially and legally sanctioned to rape and abuse a black woman with impunity. He grew up as a child, when in the South white men could walk into a black family’s home and brutally force sex AND pregnancy onto black women and young black girls. Girls as young as 13-, 14-, and 15+ years-old.
This hatred of black women is entrenched into the minds of people that black women are not to be considered as humans, and most especially, not to be considered as women.
The degrading names hurled at black women started with white men, as they screamed racist/sexist epithets in the faces of black women as they lay on top of the black women raping them. And there are still, walking around alive, white men who raped and beat to death, black women who still would be alive were it not for the sadistic cruelty of white men during Jim Crow segregation.
White men who are still walking around eating, drinking, shitting, pissing, breathing air, and taking up precious space while the many women they destroyed, both in body, spirit and mind, lay cold somewhere in some unmarked grave. Mute testimony to the perverse depravities that have been visited upon the minds and bodies of black women generation after generation.
This country hates black women. It hates what we have survived. It hates what we have overcome. It hates what we have been able to do time and time again in the face of insurmountable odds, odds that would have destroyed lesser people.
And what this country hates, it continues to seek the destruction of———–namely black women.
Black women never have left the auction block. We never have been able to cease having to run the gauntlet of America’s racist mockery of its hypocritical love of womanhood. As long as it is a black woman, our womanhood will always be denigrated and defiled. Open season was declared on black women in this country as soon as the first black woman set foot into this Sodom and Gomorrah, in 1619, brought here against our will.
This country started the tearing apart all that was woman of black women, and it still does it. Which is why humans like Imus know they can get away with comments like his. Which is why black women, no matter how decent they are, no matter how modest they dress, are looked upon as fitting only to be treated as less than.
That is the legacy of America’s hatred of black women.
And as long as America looks upon black women as having no rights to be respected as women, expect black women to continue to have to run the gauntlet of racist/sexist hatred. It’s here to stay unfortunately. It ain’t going anywhere, anytime soon.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Ann, that was a great post.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Ya know…after I posted I re-read your post, and I thought you’d say I hadn’t read your post very thoroughly. And you were right. My second reading allowed me to see that you gave yourself several outs– citing what OTHER people believed, not you yourself. But now you tell me that “…it can also be said that some are racially, physically superior to others just as some are racially mentally superior,” and that these ideas are “……a proven and documented fact.” So we’re back at square one. You don’t believe you have to take people for who they are as individuals, because you already think you know who they are based on their race, AND the so-called “facts” you’re familiar with. Perhaps you need to do a bit more research into those “facts” of yours, and check out some of the updated data on race and ethnicity.
Whatever the case, it’s 2007, and I pray my two year old daughter never has to meet up with the likes of you. In a day and age where we’ve seen everything from black people who are rocket scientists and black neurosurgeons and the fastest persons on earth, to black multimillionaires billionaires with internationally influential talk shows, and black presidential candidates– her future ought to be better than one that is clouded by people who think they already know what her interests and capacities are, based on her race.
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Faith you are still so far off it is not funny.
To say that there is no difference in racial characteristics flies in the face of everything that anthropology has shown. Short, stocky bodies developed from living in colder climates and tall, thin bodies from living in warm climates. The amount of melanin in the skin cells dictates the darkness of the skin and this is a genetic trait from climates with intense sunlight. Because the high amount of melanin can cause a deficiency of vitamin D, people that lived in areas of low sunlight produced less melanin. These, as well as hundreds of other differences are racial characteristics. Who is to say which is BETTER but we can all agree that different races have different characteristics. Being different, some characteristics are going to be superior or inferior depending upon the environment or circumstance. Acknowledging this is racist! Not acknowledging it is foolish. You seem to be dead set on making me out to be some kind of a bigot because I can acknowledge these differences. So be it.
Please note your several paragraphs about how you are not racist by taking a look at your ending paragraph:
1. And while I”m on this topic– it’s funny that when white men dominated basketball in this country, it was because they were smarter, more skillful players who worked harder. When African Americans came to dominate the sport….uh– it was because we were genetically superior. Now how convenient is that argument???
Does this sound like somebody who is free from racial stereotyping or prejudice? I think not. We all have it and it is OK. You were making a statement and expressing your opinion. I did not feel offended even though I do not agree with you. I don’t even feel offended when you say you hope your two-year old daughter nevers meets up with the likes of me! I’m not sure where you get the idea that I think I know what her interests and capacities are; certainly not from anything that I have written. Maybe from what you think you are reading. Maybe you could enlighten me on what I have written that in any way would lead a rational person to think what you are accusing me of? Go back and read the definition of racist, ok. It is perfectly all right to be racist as I maintain that it is an inherent trait in man. It stops being OK when racism becomes overtly destructive. What has happened in the PC America today is that through the mere imagination of a slight brings media seekers to a heated frenzy. You know the old adage; “if you look for an insult you’ll find one. We all need to try and be a little more tolerant of others; of all races, religion and gender.
Anyway, it sounds like Imus got fired so everybody that was offended should be gratified; but I bet it just won’t be enough for some people!
This comment was written by David.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
“mandolin, you sound very sexist. I am a White man therefore I can only imagine what a White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, whatever woman trully feels. The Same goes for another man of a different race but truly the same can be said of all people. I don’t know how, literally my brother feels as I am not him. You jump to an awfully lot of conclusions about “White Men”. Maybe you could back it up a bit. We may think we can identify with people of similar backgrounds and environment but we really don’t know how the feel or how they look at different actions.”
Commenting on how cultural training places men above women, and whites above non-whites, is neither sexist nor racist.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 11th, 2007 at 10:26 pm
David wrote:
But David, if your white skin makes you mentally superior, how is it you’re an idiot?
Banned.
Also banned: Stop The Foolishness, GET OVERIT, and Pickedaname. Bye-bye, racists and racist apologists; rest assured you will not be missed.
(Bannings done with Rachel’s permission.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 6:39 am
mandolin,
I’m a bit scared of responding to you here–I think the (valid and not necessarily nasty) discussion we’re having runs the risk of being shadowed by the (invalid and nasty) arguments regarding, um, racial superiority in life, athletics, and… oh hell, all that shit. (wasn’t atht put to rest a long time ago? thanks, Amp, for banning them….)
But I’ll try anyway.
First: I think we’re in more agreement than disagreement. Can we make sure we’re not disagreeing over nothing?
I agree that a POC who comments on racism is likely to be correct; more likely than a white person.
My disagreement focuses on three very specific aspects:
1) the complete extension of that policy to replace “likely” and “more likely” with “always.”
2) the applicability of that expertise to judge the motives of a third party.
3) semantics.
1 The first should be obvious. Absolute claims are generally false, and IMO this one is no exception. You’ve probably seen similar arguments everywhere else. But I’m not sure you disagree with it, so I won’t bother supporting that argument in detail unless you do.
2 To the degree that someone claims superior ability to say that something was meant to be racist, that goes towards a claim of being able to understand the intent of the actor. And I’m not sure that POC possess a special ability to accurately know others’ “true heart.” Certainly, assessing the hidden motives of a third party seems like something that is a long way away from the claimed “always right” standard. I’m still chewing on this, and I think i might agree that POC are better at these assessments. But “better at it” doesn’t mean they’re so much better that they are the only source worth consulting.
3. Semantics. This is a perfectly valid point on which to disagree. Racism is a societal issue. It requires a societal definition. And if someone is using a different definition of racism then I do, and claiming it’s an objective standard, I don’t see why that shouldn’t be a subject for debate.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 7:21 am
O.K. If this is a claim that black people have absolute authority to determine what is racist and what isn’t and that white people have to accept that, I reject it. However, if this is to be read as “White folks shouldn’t just blithely walk though life without taking into consideration that racism exists. They need to educate themselves on that and it’s effects - black people are not obligated to have to explain it to them before they’ll acknowledge it and deal with it,” then I can agree. However, I’ll need the author to explain herself further on what she meant.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Another aspect of this scenario has to be taken into consideration.
The white men who run the radio, broadcast and recording studio conglomerates are today’s aristocracy/planter class masters. They control and dominate the images of black women in America. Imus and McGuirk, are the slave overseers working to keep alive the racist/sexist ideology of these corporate masters.
And one more question needs to be asked.
Why was Imus the only one singled out during this broadcast? Was it not Bernard McGuirk, the producer, who started this racist/sexist diatribe? Why does he have more protection than Imus in all of this? Why does he remain unscathed from all of this? What kind of blackmail does he have over MSNBC?
If Imus must go down, then so should McGuirk go down as well.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Wow. I’m utterly amazed that MSNBC, and many other companies, have decided to terminate their relationships with Don Imus. I just can’t believe it! I’ve witnessed battles over sexism, racism, black-on-black sexism and racism, interracial sexism and racism, etc., or my entire life. For so long the struggle seemed almost hopeless to me, because too many people had too much invested– both personally and financially– in exercising their right to demean others for the sake of personal aggrandizement. And then Don Imus, and a group of unknown college women, bring us to what will undoubtedly be a watershed moment in our country’s history!?!?! Frankly, it’s exciting! I could never have imagined it! And watch….I think this will not only have repercussions throughout the radio and television industry. I think this will have repercussions in the hip hop community, as well. After all, CBS has to be thinking how can we censure Don Imus for this type of speech, and then continue to make money off of Ludacris, et al, calling women ho’s– without being hypocrites. Undoubtedly, the “Where will it all end?” factor has to be playing a role in CBS’s delay. This is going to be a very interesting struggle to watch.
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 8:58 am
I think the reason this snowballed has to do with who Imus’s targets were. How can you tell people that they have to pull themselves up, go to college, and on and on if they want to “be somebody” and then torment and taunt them with racist names notwithstanding their efforts? I think this is approximately the same reaction that followed George Allen’s “macaca” comment. The target of that comment was such a sympathetic, overachieving young man and that’s what, in the end, made the comment indefensible, whatever the motivation. Here, with Imus, even if the intent was not racist (hard to believe) it was clearly intended to be derogatory and insulting, and well, just plain mean. It’ s one thing to call Al Sharpton names, or any other politician, but a bunch of young girls playing their hearts out on a basketball team . . . not cool. Not cool at all.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 9:38 am
In todays times why would someone make a comment like that without thinking of the conciquences? Stupid. If I had a job that paid the kind of salary he makes I would be more careul to protect that job.
This comment was written by rick.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Does Don Imus’ show take calls? Because if so, rather than see the victim lineup that we saw at the Rutgers’ press conference, I’d love to hear the team captain call up his show and tell him what an asshole he is. Play offense, ladies.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Very interesting comments and some good points raised. I was reading the letters’ forum in my city’s newspaper and letter after letter supporting Imus, who I’m ashamed to say(but not surprised) was born in my city.
The disappointing part of this thread is that once again, it’s featuring that common dynamic, what about us White people? And who are you to tell us White people what is racist, leave that up to us. File this one under thread #1,00o,0000 or so with this dynamic. Not just here but all over the blogsphere.
Bye bye to the trolls. I read some of them and I thought I was back on my site, LOL, after dealing with a whiner last night who accused me of violating his First Amendment rights because I had the comments moderation function activated. There should be a primer that just because you ban someone or moderate comments on your site that doesn’t mean you’re violating the First Amendment which is part of the Bill of Rights set up to state what the government can’t do.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Ann made this and other equally untrue comments:
This country hates black women. It hates what we have survived. It hates what we have overcome. It hates what we have been able to do time and time again in the face of insurmountable odds, odds that would have destroyed lesser people
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
Rather than point out the many inconsistencies and untrue statements I chose this one for it’s obvious racism. WHO ARE THE LESSER PEOPLE WHICH ANN IS TALKING ABOUT? Shameful. I suspect Ann will be held less accountable for her speech than other equally deplorable commenters .
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Barbara:
After all, CBS has to be thinking how can we censure Don Imus for this type of speech, and then continue to make money off of Ludacris, et al, calling women ho’s– without being hypocrites.
Oh, I’m afraid I’d bet that they haven’t thought two seconds about it. When sponsors withdraw because they’re playing Ludacris, then they’ll think about it, but not until then.
Rachel S.:
a whiner last night who accused me of violating his First Amendment rights because I had the comments moderation function activated.
Ha! Too right. Ignorance about what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean and what they’re for abounds, unfortunately. What part of “Congress shall make no law …” did they not understand? Tell them to read it again, and if they don’t like it they should start their own blog. As H. L. Mencken said, “Freedom of the press belongs to the man who owns one.” You could fill a lot of web pages with examples of people who think that “freedom of the press” means that people who own a TV/radio/print/blog outlet have to let them say anything they want on it.
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 10:45 am
Ann said :
And one more question needs to be asked.
Why was Imus the only one singled out during this broadcast? Was it not Bernard McGuirk, the producer, who started this racist/sexist diatribe? Why does he have more protection than Imus in all of this? Why does he remain unscathed from all of this? What kind of blackmail does he have over MSNBC?
The answer should be obvious. As Imus goes so goes McGuirk and several other individuals on the Imus team.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
um, michael, do you understand generalities?
Here:
Men are generally taller than women. This general statement is valid even though some women are taller than some men.
Got it?
Now:
The country treats black women, generally speaking, very badly. This general statement is also valid, even though some black women happen to be on television, famous, or rich.
Unless you’re seriously claiming that black women are, um, treated BETTER than everyone else, as a general rule?
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 11:42 am
RonF,
RE: “After all, CBS has to be thinking how can we censure Don Imus for this type of speech, and then continue to make money off of Ludacris, et al, calling women ho’s– without being hypocrites.”
That was me, not Barbara. And regarding your response to my 15 minutes of optimistic delusions– There you go, snatching my moment of hope away, LOL. Oh well. Perhaps things really will just return to the state of “business as usual.” There was a DJ in Allentown, PA who was fired yesterday for asking listerners to call in and say the day’s “Phrase that Pays”– “I’m a nappy headed ho.” He awarded three listeners with Nascar tickets. Seeing this kind of behavior simply confirms suspicians that women like the Scarlett Knights (and women like me,) will never be able to achieve anything that might put them beyond the ridicule and discrimination of certain people in our society. Well, between that, and Imus calling White House Coorespondent, Gwen Ifill, a cleaning lady. It’s as if a black woman could find the cure for cancer, and these guys would say she found it under her dust mop!
Still, at the end of the day I’d still like to believe something good will come out of this Imus controversy. It would be too hard to get up and face each day if I couldn’t believe the world my daughter will inherit, will in some way be better for her, than is the world the Baby Boomers handed over to the Scarlett Knights last week.
Peace out.
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Ann said :
This country hates black women. It hates what we have survived. It hates what we have overcome.
Michael responded :
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
Then Sailorman Writes:
April 12th, 2007 at 11:37 am Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
um, michael, do you understand generalities?
Here:
Men are generally taller than women. This general statement is valid even though some women are taller than some men.
Got it?
Now:
The country treats black women, generally speaking, very badly. This general statement is also valid, even though some black women happen to be on television, famous, or rich.
Unless you’re seriously claiming that black women are, um, treated BETTER than everyone else, as a general rule?
Spare me the condescension. I disagree with the GENERAL STATEMENT MADE BY ANN which was that “this country HATES black women .” Do you follow me so far? Today Oprah will have on several of the team members of Rutgers as well as their coach to discuss the issues surrounding the comment made by Imus . Claiming that this country praises black women to a great degree is far from claiming that black women are treated BETTER than everyone else. In fact, it says nothing of the sort. Still with me? It merely refutes the general claim by Ann. I simply don’t believe that America HATES black women. As a general statement I feel that is wrong. In addition, your general statement is different from both Ann’s comment and mine.
Ann said :
This country hates black women
Michael responded :
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree
Sailorman said :
The country treats black women, generally speaking, very badly
There you go. As you should be able to understand, all three are very general stamens indeed which say very different things. But my statement has nothing to do with your ludicrous conclusion stated here :
Unless you’re seriously claiming that black women are, um, treated BETTER than everyone else, as a general rule?
How black women are treated in America is open for debate. I think the answer is far more nuanced than what has been presented here. But in the Imus situation it appears that the response to a despicable statement by an aging shock jock and his employees was countered by an even greater number of pundits as well as the general public.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Michael, lemme ask me ask you something:
What the fuck do you want from us?
I, other women of color, and those who sympathize with us have expressed our anger, our hurt, and our frustration at the indignities that we have suffered not only by this incident, but because it brings up memories of incidents past, memories of what our parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. have suffered. I and others who stand beside me have appealed to you, RonF, and other racism apologists (I call it like it is!) appealing to you to please understand the pain that runs deep in our souls that goes far back to the time of our ancestors.
Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
I ask you again: WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US?
Should more of our brothers and sisters be lynched for petty crimes or crimes they didn’t even commit in order for you to see injustice?
Shall we hold peaceful protests and sit-ins only to be beaten back by police for you to sit up and think that maybe something is not right?
Shall we revisit the teachings of Malcolm X and claim our God-given rights by any means necessary?
Or are you just content to sit back in your little simple-minded world refusing to see things as they really are? Do our talks of racism and injustice truly disturb you that much? If so, then why are you still here?
I’ll ask you one more time: What do you want from us?
This comment was written by Angel H..Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Faith:
“I’ll ask you one more time: What do you want from us? ”
He does not want us to tell the truth.
Imus’s comments are just the icing on the cake of America’s hatred of black women. And Imus and McGuirk are just the scabs peeling off to reveal 400 years of racist, sexist hatred of black women.
Black women of all women in this country have been treated worse than an animal, both past, and present.
Black women’s feaures are denigrated by this society.
Black women’s accomplishments are unknown to many people living in this country, some of whom are reading this message board right now.
Black women are least likely to be believed when they file charges of rape.
Black women in America are treated WORSE THAN white women, Latina women, Asian women, and Native American women in this country.
Even though it was white men who have raped US for centuries, many people are more ready to believe the lies white men have spun about themselves as being guiltless in their atrocities against black women and girls in this country.
Oprah Winfrey is just ONE black woman in America who has been able to make it to the top of her profession.
She does not represent ALL black women in this country.
Black women are still paid less than white men, Asian men, white women, and black men.
Black women are disparaged and called racist/sexist epithets MORE than any other race of women, so devalued we are by this society. Black women’s contributions to this country are still not acknowleged, especially the impact black women have had on the feminist movement (which was all but destroyed by racist white feminists during all three waves), black women are the unknown and unsung heroines of the Civil Rights Movement (and it is a sick shame that Sister Rosa Parks [God rest her soul] is the ONLY black woman who comes to mind when people mention the words civil rights movement). Black women have had many major impacts on this country, but, because of the way we have been vilified, degraded, debased, debauched and torn apart by this BLACK-WOMAN HATING country, there is so much of OUR HISTORY that has remained not only unheralded, but also lost, due to the tremendous dieregard we have suffered over the centuries and decades.
I would like for Michael to show me where black women are so loved, adored and respected by this country AS A WHOLE. I would like for Michael to show me where black women have been, and are now, being treated humanely and respectfully, by this country.
Imus’s comment as I said in my previous post was just the tip of the iceberg.
And white men, still have hatred against black women. Michael’s dismissal of all that we have undergone, and are still undergoing in this country, reeks of callous insensitive behaviour.
“How black women are treated in America is open for debate. I think the answer is far more nuanced than what has been presented here. ”
No the answers are beyond nuanced. Black women have to face the daily assaults and slaps in our faces in all the attacks upon our integrity, our diginity, our honor, our validity.
No other race of women suffer what we do on a daily,weekly, yearly basis.
And Michael, there is no debate as to how black women are treated in this country.
America’s racist/sexist history, America’s love of vicious stereotypes, America’s disregard for a race of women who have given so much to this country only to be stomped on and spit on time after time, shows that America has never had any love or respect for black women.
And America still does not.
And Michal, make no mistake about this. Just because some people are rushing to these young black women’s defense does not mean that America has all of a sudden developed a love affair with black women.
If it was not for the outcry of many black people, and those non-black people who said, “Enough is enough”, with the shameful way this country is treating black women, I can assure you, it would have been business as usual for Imus, McGuirk, and many other black women haters out there like them.
Just because this incident has struck a nerve in some people does not mean that all of a sudden this country has awakened to face up to the cruelties of what black women have had to endure in this country.
How white men/men of other races reading my words on this blog; how white men/men of other races in your neighborhood; how white men/men of other races treat black women in the here and now, will say a whole lot about whether or not black women are treated with respect and diginity in this country.
And I can assure you, that there would be VERY FEW white men/men of other races who can come forward in large numbers and say that they treat black women with the respect we deserve and have a right to as any other races of women in this country.
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.
And many men of all races in this country have not shown in any way, overwhelming numbers that prove that black women are given respect, validation, or a recognition of their humanity.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
….aaaaand, CBS has now fired Don Imus.
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
I am new to this country and not familiar with racial slurs. Being a person of color it would be good to start understanding them. Can someone explain to me what the phrase means ?
This comment was written by Sunny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
I ask you again: WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US?
In no way shape or form did I say any such thing. How you arrived at your conclusion has something to do other than what I stated based on the English language. You will not find me stating anywhere that everything is all right because of how people feel about Oprah Winfrey. That is simply a dishonest statement.
I want nothing from you. I am simply disagreeing with a position I read on this Blog.The comments by Imus are not indicative of White America or some sort of hatred by a majority of white people. In fact, how this has played out proves my point clearly. Imus has now been from both organizations for which he worked. He is now unemployed and has no radio voice. I would say that this is in sharp contest to others who have said equally hurtful things or worse. This conflicts with the general perception of those who think White racism
is promoted, accepted, and tolerated by the heads of major institutions such as CBS . I see no double standard to prove that point when I consider White racists and Black racist across the spectrum.
The only thing I expect from a discussion or debate is an honest assessment of the facts. Your feelings do not deserve more credence than do my opinions. Your emotions should not be elevated above actual facts. ANY debate stands on the merits of the facts. Well, at least it should.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Ann wrote a very stirring post about the many ways in which black women have been oppressed by white men physically, emotionally, and spiritually. At one point, she stated:
And you replied:
Now you tell me what was your point in bringing up Oprah? What else could you possibly mean by referring to the most non-threatening black woman in this country who is adored by so many white, middle-aged housewives?
And forget about Imus for a moment. Forget about Sharpton. Forget about the others, because right now I’m calling you out.
And that also goes for Robert, RonF, and all of the other racism apologists out there.
Because I’m sick out this bullshit. Having to hold your damn hand and explain to you why something is racist every single time the Mel Gibsons, the Don Imus’, the Michael Richards of this world open their mouths. It’s your turn to explain something to me: Why is it you refuse to oopen your eyes and see what’s right there in front of you?
This comment was written by Angel H..Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
I have no idea about the term “nappy headed hos” Being from the UK, I have never heard of it before, therefore can’t judge it.
To the person who made the comment that there should be equal punishment for white and whatever other ethnicity racists. I agree, But I don’t see what this has to do with this issue. But I also disagree with the comment that it means the poster believes that whites should be able to insult people.
To people saying it’s just a comment about attractiveness. that’s a sexist way of commentating, in mens sport I don’t hear anyone being judged on attractiveness, why should women be. (There’s exceptions for very ugly sportspeople, as I do hear people make jabs about that in mens sports too)
This comment was written by stef.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Ann asked :
I would like for Michael to show me where black women are so loved, adored and respected by this country AS A WHOLE. I would like for Michael to show me where black women have been, and are now, being treated humanely and respectfully, by this country
For starters I made love to my wife last night and as a matter of fact I asked my mother-in-law to come live with us. But perhaps she may not be Black enough for you. I could give you a list of thousands more examples but none of it would move you from the position you hold so dear.
But I will tell you this May my wife receives her law degree along with the many other Black females across the country. Need I remind you of the fact that Black women with college degrees earn more than do white women? So yea, there are a whole lot of Black women getting the praise, promotions, and financial rewards they so deserve .
A long detailed list of all the achievements is beyond the scope of this thread .Suffice it to say they are many and varied. There is no where else in the world where it is better to be a black woman than in this united states.
Fact . More Black men and women continue to come to this country for the freedom it offers than choose to leave . And by a very wide margine .
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Angel said :
Now you tell me what was your point in bringing up Oprah? What else could you possibly mean by referring to the most non-threatening black woman in this country who is adored by so many white, middle-aged housewives?
Angel . you are losing control of yourself more in each post . You are not reading what is writtten , You are makin things up and seeing things which are not there . Now you are talking about Mel Gibson ( who by the way is a neighbor . I will be sure to tell him you said hello .) I have never engaged you about Gibson or Richards . EVER ! I don’t remember a thread here involving either with me taking part .
As I said :
You will not find me stating anywhere that everything is all right because of how people feel about Oprah Winfrey. That is simply a dishonest statement
Did you find me making such a silly comment ? The answer is no. But you made a huge leap that mentioning Oprah constituted me saying as such. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I actually wasn’t referring to Oprah Surprise! I was actually referring to the subject of this post. The Rutgers team and their achievements as women and athletes would be celebrated in front of a live audience. Combine that with the fact that Imus was FIRED and I say it buttresses my point. DO I really need to connect the dots for you? Imus fired = Imus rebuked. Rutgers players honored and respected before a national audience tells me that Rutgers players dignity prevails over Imus and his idiocy. But I do think the fact it happens on a show owned by the wealthiest woman in the world only adds to my point.
This comment was written by Michael.AGAIN! The reaction to Imus shows me that race relations are far better than you claim. All I ask is that you read what I say. Not what you wish to turn it into. Notice how I give you that respect which you do not afford me. Also, making ad hominem attacks does nothing for yours or Ann’s case.I could resort to the same cheap tactic . But I am above that . Please try to be also
Report this comment to the moderators
April 12th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Great discussion.
In the past, hasn’t Howard Stern said things that would be considered even more racist than Imus’s comments? I wish I could remember things he’s said, because I used to listen to his show. It’s just interesting that some things cause more public outrage than others. For intance, does anyone remember one radio station’s Tsunami Song” which mocked the victims of the 2004 tsunami affecting south Asia that left many “chinks” and “chinamen” dead? The writers of the song were fired from the station, but as far as I know, the DJs still have their jobs.
This comment was written by Alan.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 12:34 am
as a dog. (Why do we say that anyway? Are dogs usually sick? Do hotcakes sell especially well? Ah, never mind… ) Flu, most likely. Fever, headache, lots and lots of … ■Comment on “Nappy Headed Hos” by David（Google Blog Search: a-blog） http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/04/07/nappy-headed-hos/#comment-279100 Faith, you did not read my entry very well did you. Like many people who have an answer before the question is understood, you jumped to the conclusion of what my beliefs are. I used the athletic example because, if you do ask 10 people …
This comment was written by a-blog馬鹿.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 4:20 am
“Michael.
Ann made this and other equally untrue comments.”
Oh, I’m sorry. Please forgive me, a black woman for having the audacity to say such horrible things about white men. Please accept my humble apologies.
I mean, who am I, a black woman, to have the nerve to state that white men raped, sodomized, broke the skulls and jaws of black women? Who am I, a black woman, to say that white men did the most savage and cruelest sexual exploitation of black women? Who am I, a black woman, to have the nerve to state that white men have used and abused black women just because of their race, just because of the color of their skin?
Please forgive this lowly black woman. I had no right to question the “Almighty-Know-Everything-That-a-Black-Woman-Has-Experienced-in-this-Country” White man, such as yourself, Michael. Afterall, what do I, a black woman know about what it is to live in my skin as a black woman? Who am I, a black woman, to question the experience, the expertise, the have-the-last-word-on-all-things-black-women in this country have gone through, such as a white man like you, Michael?
My goodness, I forgot that white men know EVERYTHING that black women have gone through in this country. White men have lived the lives of black women in this country, NOT black women. Black women, hell, they don’t know what it is like to live in this country. They should be ashamed of themselves for talking about what this country has done to them, and is still doing to them. Black women need to just STFU and stop trying to act like they are such experts on their OWN lived experiences in this country. No one will believe them. No one will believe a word they say. But, it is the white man who should be believed, because he knows more than any black woman, period, what being a black woman is.
Isn’t that right, Michael?
Only a white man can truly know that.
No black woman definately can ever know, because, we are just black women, incapable of telling the truth, much less having lived it.
I mean, everyone knows that it was BLACK WOMEN who went out and raped ourselves into many different colors during slavery and segregation.
NOT WHITE MEN.
Everyone knows it was black women who ran down and degraded and mistreated white men. Everyone knows it was us Jezebel BLACK WOMEN, who started calling ourselves “Nigger bitch”, “nigger wench”, “Jezebel” , “whore”, “breeders” (and speaking of Jezebel in the Bible, do you know what they did to Jezebel, Michael? Hmm? Read the books of Kings. Believe me, it will be a real eye-opener.) Black women created all the negative stereotypes about ourselves.
NOT WHITE MEN.
On, and I am so sorry for having the nerve to tell YOU, Michael, a white man what life is like here in AMERICA FOR BLACK WOMEN, as anyone with any sense knows, WHITE MEN are the real experts on what lives black women have lived, and are still living in America.
Who am I, a black woman, to know more than the almighty-superior-never-has-told-a-lie-done-anything-wrong-hateful- vicious-cruel-sick-sadistic-depraved-perverse-abominable-psychotic to ANY black woman in America white man, what I know about what it is to be a black woman in America?
Who am I?
You know us nigger bitch black women.
We all lie about rape.
Heck, that’s what we black women did during slavery. Chased down and attacked each and every white man in the vicinity, and raped THEM, not to mention, got those pure, innocent never did anything wrong to a black woman white men, pregnant.
We black women, such liars. Raping and destroying defenseless white men.
Oh, and we black women also denied white men the most basic of human rights in this country. We did that for over 400 years. We black women had all this power over the lives of white men (and just to let you know, Michael, we still do. We black women STILL run the show in this country: we still own ALL the laws, the political machines/electorate, the economy, the banking industry, the real estate industry, the justice system—–EVERYTHING that affects this country, we black women have all the control of that. Yes, that’s us black women. Controlling the lives of everyone in this country, especially white men. )
We black women just do not know how life is in present day America.
And we certainly do not know our own history.
That why we black women always tell lies about how white men mistreated us during slavery/segregation.
We black women raped our ownselves right before we were lynched by mobs of white men.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women walked into the homes of WHITE MEN and got ourselves raped and impregnated against our will.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women gave ourselves domestic jobs which we were lucky enough to be paid $2-$3 a day for, IF we even got that at the end of the day.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women starved ourselves during segregation.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women gave ourselves sub-standard separate unequal educations.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women enacted laws that degraded and pillaged the honor of black women.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women today still keep residential areas of America segregated bEtween black and and white.
We black women have sold jobs overseas o foreign companies.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women have moved much needed jobs/companies/factories out of the inner cities, way out into rural/suburb areas.
NOT WHITE MEN.
We black women control the recording/newspaper publishing/automotive/banking industries in this country.
NOT WHITE MEN.
And most of all, we black women cannot begin to tell anyone what we live and experience and see with our own eyes what it is like to be a black woman in this country.
ONLY WHITE MEN CAN DO THAT.
So, please, Michael, forgive us black women for having the temerity to talk about what life is like for us.
I mean,what do we know?
Eveyeone with any knowledge of history knows that it was always white men who lived black women’s lives in this counry.
We black women were just spectators in the lives we have lived.
So, anytime we black women start speaking up, everyone should remember that it is WHITE MEN who are the true experts on what black women face every day in this country.
Because there’s just no way that black women can speak the truth of the black experience in America.
White man have always had that capability.
They’ve managed to be white men AND black women all at the same time.
Albert Einstein would be proud to have lived to see such a law of physics be carried out.
Even he could not have come up with such an inconceivable scenario.
We now return your television set over to you.
(And whatever everyone does, please don’t believe anything those black women say. Always remember that white men have the last say so over what black women live, breath, think, say, desire, need, see, experience in this country.)
And don’t ya’ll ever forget that.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 4:32 am
“Need I remind you of the fact that Black women with college degrees earn more than do white women? ”
Yeah, you do, because I don’t believe it’s true.
There was a stat quoted on here a while ago that black women earn more IN COMPARISON TO black men than white women do IN COMPARISON TO white men, but I don’t think it held for absolute values.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Regarding the Don Imus situation, the end result, the firing of Mr. Imus by MSNBC and CBS shows what a backward society we still are. What did that decision resolve? It resolved nothing! That was white corporate America’s way of trying to make something distasteful go away. A more proactive decision by these two corporations would have been to implement sensitivity training programs throughout there organizations and have Mr. Imus take a leadership role within those programs both internally and externally.
The second thing these corporations should have done was to examine their diversity initiatives throughout their companies, at all levels especially Executive Management. I’ll bet at the executive level the ratio of white to black and Hispanics is less than 10 to 1.
That’s what two corporations would have done if they cared. If they really cared they would have been ahead of the curve
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Re: In the past, hasn’t Howard Stern said things that would be considered even more racist than Imus’s comments?
Allen, I’m not a regular listener to Howard Stern’s show by any means. But I have heard him say some things that can be considered racist. However, the statements I’ve heard were somewhat mitigated by the fact that he was speaking more from a position of personal experience or personal distress, rather than from a position of gratuitously attacking people who had done nothing to him. For example, I’ve heard him describe the racial composition of his neighborhood changing, and his youthful dismay about his parents not leaving the community, despite his getting beat up by black kids in school. (Or something like that.) Stern doesn’t say this in the way I just said it, of course. If I remember correctly, he said his neighborhood turned into “Africa.” And the descriptions just go downhill from there. But in that context, while his characterizations of his neighbors and classmates certainly haven’t helped race relations– you can hardly say the man is wrong for saying, frankly, what was/is on his heart and mind about the situation. Howard has managed to insult, belittle and demean people without actually attacking them. On top of that, he shares (shared?) the mike with Robin Quivers– his black, female, on-air side-kick. All I can say about Robin Quivers is this– money makes for strange bedfellows. And every sister ain’t a “sister.”
Howard manages to disparage women without actually insulting women, in the exact same fashion that he demeans black people without actually attacking black people. I’ve never heard Howard call a woman a whore, without actually saying that she accepted money for something. No– he does something a bit more insidious. He continuously parades women sex workers, or those who have otherwise been involved in porn, or those who are willing to bear their breasts in public, on his show day after day. He treats them like sex toys and teases them into doing things they don’t always seem to feel comfortable with doing on-air. He asks them to do things in exchange for his doing other things for them. The women laugh about it. And then Howard leaves it up to you to decide if these women are whores or not. And as for those women who are not in sex related industries and not bearing their breasts for Howard? Frankly, I find it demeaning to see hard working and accomplished women reduced to being described sexually, or by the latest term I hate: MILF’s (mother’s I’d like to f….) Seeing accomplished, professional women, teenagers in the public eye, and moms described in this way upsets me. But you can hardly say it’s an insult if some man you don’t know says he finds you sexually attractive and wants to get in your pants– without any regard to your professional or personal role in society.
Now, as I’ve already indicated– I’m not familiar with everything Howard Stern has ever said. But if you ask me, the above examples might explain how Howard Stern escapes being called a racist, while discussing race in unflattering terms. As for him being a sexist? I think there’s no doubt that he’s a sexist. However, he finds women he can encourage to be complicit in their own exploitation. So what can you do, other than tune him out?
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 5:26 am
Wow…..Deirdre Imus (Don Imus’s wife) told listeners this morning, that the Rutgers Athletes had been receiving hate mail! (I know. I shouldn’t be shocked. But to think these young women are receiveing hatemail after this physically pains me in the gut.) Ms. Imus asked that people stop sending these women hate mail; and that if anyone deserved the hatemail– it was her husband.
Otherwise, I’m really sorry if the previous post on Howard Stern was too long. I really couldn’t figure out how else to discribe my opinion on the subject.
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Sorry if this offends some but I truly believe that MOST whites are racist. It is within themselves. It is just that for some it comes out uncontrollably and when this happens to a public figure like Imus it creates what it has created. It is ironic; while it is the blacks who suffered and been exploited for so long the whites don’t even have a sense of sympathy and yet they preach of human rights, freedom, christianity, fairness, bla bla bla. This country is far from reconcilliation. It is a time bomb! So much is going on within every American’s mind. Hatred is within every one of us.
This comment was written by Anonymus.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 8:07 am
“Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience. ”
And just where are ALL these people who are praising all the accomplishments of black women? Hmm? Where are they, Michael? What, two or three out of hundreds of thousands out there?
I’m listening.
Oh, the silence is deafening.
Keep in mind that it eally boiled down to TWO thigs that got Imus fired (in addition to Imus himself), and those two things were:
1. The various racial groups of people who worked at MSNBC;
2. And the young ladies of Rutgers, who showed so much grace and poise under assaults upon their character and integrity.
Yes, there were people around the country some of whom stood up for these young ladies and their honor, but, there is no way you can tell me that the MAJORITY of Americans (meaning those who are not black women) in this country care overwhelmingly whether or not black women live lives of safety and happiness in this country.
How people of various races, especialy men of other races, treat black women in their daily lives (at work, passing them by on a sidewalk, at the grocery store, at a night club, in any endeavor whatsoever, HOW people treat black women in 2007 America tells me alot about how true it is that black women are “praised” in this country.
Facts are that black women ARE denigrated daily in every way in this country.
You just refuse to believe that, Michael but, then again, I’m just a black woman. What do I know.
Oh, almost forgot.
Say, “Hello”, to Mel Gibson for me. :)
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am
mandolin Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 4:32 am “Need I remind you of the fact that Black women with college degrees earn more than do white women? ”
Yeah, you do, because I don’t believe it’s true.
Well Mandolin you are wrong as well an uninformed
http://www.usatoday.com/news/bythenumbers/2005-03-28-income-education_x.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) — Black and Asian women with bachelor’s degrees earn slightly more than similarly educated white women, and white men with four-year degrees make more than anyone else.
This comment was written by Michael.A white woman with a bachelor’s degree typically earned nearly $37,800 in 2003, compared with nearly $43,700 for a college-educated Asian woman and $41,100 for a college-educated black woman, according to data being released Monday by the Census Bureau. Hispanic women took home slightly less at $37,600 a year
Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Ann Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 4:20 am
“Michael.
Ann made this and other equally untrue comments.”
Oh, I’m sorry. Please forgive me, a black woman for having the audacity to say such horrible things about white men. Please accept my humble apologies.
I mean, who am I, a black woman, to have the nerve to state that white men raped, sodomized, broke the skulls and jaws of black women? Who am I, a black woman, to say that white men did the most savage and cruelest sexual exploitation of black women? Who am I, a black woman, to have the nerve to state that white men have used and abused black women just because of their race, just because of the color of their skin?
While that rant may garner you pitty points it has nothing to do with the issue at hand . The thread is about Imus . Did you forget that ? Stop pulling out the same page you have used so many times . No . The history of slavery and the brutality which occurred as a result is not germain to the discussion involving Imus .Remeber this from rachel’s post :
The national Association of Black Journalists called for an apology from Imus. Imus subsequently issued an apology, but is that enough?
Take that and the additional questions posed from the thread and try to remain of topic . In the past you have gone on the same rant where is only tangentially related to the discussion on hand. In addition I don’t need a history lesson on slavery . Certainly not the same one you repeat over and over again . I already received my undergraduate degrees in history and Political Science.If I were to match your sarcasm I would simply ask you to learn the meaning of Non sequitur
Oh yes, getting back to the thread and the discussion at hand.Imus now has been fired. Is that enough? Did the Imus situation play out as an example of institutional racism? Did Imus get off too easy? Did Imus get a pass not offered to Black men who make the same kinds of disparaging remarks? Show exactly where racism raises its ugly head in how Imus was treated as opposed to Black men.
What you do is attempt to obfuscate the discussion at hand and the point I am making. This is not a case of racism in which Imus is afforded special treatment not reserved for people of color. Saying that seems to offend your senses. Responding with a history of past abuses says nothing about what happened here. Imagine! Showing that one particular form of racism is not involved in one particular case brings forth this volume of hate. Did you learn NOTHING from the Duke case? Apparently the answer is NO.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 9:26 am
And just where are ALL these people who are praising all the accomplishments of black women? Hmm? Where are they, Michael? What, two or three out of hundreds of thousands out there?
I’m listening.
Oh, the silence is deafening
Actually the roar with be deafening when my niece graduate this spring from perhaps the most prestigious high school in the world. Her achievements in the classroom and on the athletic field have been very well documented. My wife pointed out another recent mention in the paper. The same will be true for my wife who graduates from law school this spring. Already a very well employed woman she continues to win praise for the quality of her work. She is constantly receiving offers from prospective employers to leave her job for a higher paying one. This same scene is being played all over the country for high achieving women of color. You are just too vested in the past to see the reality of today as well as the future
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Michael,
As far as I’m concerned, calling me uninformed when I ask for proof to back up one of your claims, is a personal attack.
Also, from your linked article:
“The bureau did not say why the differences exist. Economists and sociologists suggest possible factors: the tendency of minority women, especially blacks, to more often hold more than one job or work more than 40 hours a week, and the tendency of black professional women who take time off to have a child to return to the work force sooner than others.”
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 10:57 am
“Take that and the additional questions posed from the thread and try to remain of topic. ”
This strikes me as a silencing move, to try to get Ann to stop talking. If other questions that have been “posed from the thread” are fair game, then surely what Ann brings up is also fair game.
Ann, I for one, have appreciated your posts.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 11:59 am
You know, the other day I was going to chime in on this thread but unfortunately happened to read Ann’s post and decided to sit back and see if there was a reaction. I expected at least mild denouncement from several posters and was surprised when that didn’t occur. I mean if I were to post a 15 paragraph rant about how “the black man” (or the Jews, etc.) did this first and “the black man” does that, I would probably be banned, passionately criticized, and rightfully so.
On these types of racist themed threads on this board I have usually been reluctant to call someone a racist because its hard to know what is in someone’s heart from the scant information we usually get in these cases (like the urban themed parties, etc.) I am also one of those from the camp that racism is a very bad thing with a scarlet letter, and should be differentiated from lesser forms. Some posters articulated my position pretty well earlier in the thread. So I would not call Ann’s post racist, but I did get the impression that she would not have any problem personally judging me based on nothing more than the fact that I am a white male. I could have misinterpreted, but that was just my impression.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I’m sure you have enjoyed Ann’s posts regardless of how off topic. She responded with a bunch of things which have more to do with her feelings and emotions as opposed to what I wrote.
Also, calling you uninformed is not a personal attack. I stated a fact and you clearly said you did not believe me. It is more than reasonable to conclude you are uninformed as to this matter. I gave you one article to read. But I am very familiar with all the research surrounding this issue. Educate yourself as to the number of women as compared to men who are graduating from college. Also, look at the numbers starting in the late 70’s. The trend is toward women being more educated than men. The old notions of race and gender are changing as older white males retire from the highest paying jobs.
But more to point I was correct in my factual stamen. A simple apology from you would have sufficed
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Faith.
“Wow…..Deirdre Imus (Don Imus’s wife) told listeners this morning, that the Rutgers Athletes had been receiving hate mail! (I know. I shouldn’t be shocked. But to think these young women are receiveing hatemail after this physically pains me in the gut.) Ms. Imus asked that people stop sending these women hate mail; and that if anyone deserved the hatemail– it was her husband.”
Now, Faith, why does that not surprise me? But, according to Michael, we black women are always being “praised” so much.
If what Michael said was true, then why are these young women receiving hate mail?
Can you answer me that question, Michael?
Since according to you black women live lives of such joy, peace and respect in the good ‘ol USA. We are constantly on a daily basis, praised to the high heavens.
Hate mail.
Boy, if that is what praise is supposed to be, I’d hate to see what denigration is supposed to be.
But, of course, I’m just a black woman.
What do I know.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
[...] http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/04/07/nappy-heade... [...]
This comment was written by FIRED!!! » The Primary Contradiction.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
mandolin.
“Ann, I for one, have appreciated your posts. ”
Don’t pay Michael too much mind, okay.
He and I go way back.
He just “loves” it when I tell the truth.
Then again, I’m just a black woman.
But…what…do…I…know.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
“But more to point I was correct in my factual stamen. A simple apology from you would have sufficed ”
If warranted. However, your goal was clearly to attack. You did not say “uninformed in this matter,” you said uninformed. I did not similarly attack you.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
“You know, the other day I was going to chime in on this thread but unfortunately happened to read Ann’s post and decided to sit back and see if there was a reaction. I expected at least mild denouncement from several posters and was surprised when that didn’t occur. I mean if I were to post a 15 paragraph rant about how “the black man” (or the Jews, etc.) did this first and “the black man” does that, I would probably be banned, passionately criticized, and rightfully so. ”
Larry,
Michael was informing Ann that modern racism, an extremely harmful practice, did not occur.
Ann responded with a justifiably enraged, bordering-on-poetry, description of racism, historical and modern, as it has affected her life and the lives of other black women.
It was clear that she was using a class-based analysis. Further, it was clear that she was writing in a mode of poetic anger, not argument.
Was it not white men who raped black slave women? In this thread, has it not primarily been white men who claim the right to reinterpret black women’s experiences for them? Has it not primarily been white men who are telling black women they’re complaining about nothing?
Michael has been, in my opinion, ridiculous and unnecessarily vicious. Ann’s frustration and anger at having her historically minimized perspective minimized here seems perfectly justifiable to me.
Remember, however, that I am not a site manager or moderator here. They would have to comment for you to know any kind of Official Position.
I just call them as I see them, and I thought Ann could use some words of support, given that she’s being piled on with a whole lot of ignorance.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
For the record Michael has been attacking Ann for at least a year over at my site. He routinely dismisses women’s opinons, especially black women. This is his MO.
When many white people respond to Ann’s posts, they get really angry. Part of the problem is that they don’t realize that Ann is not and doesn’t not believe that all white men are evil (or all white people are evil). Unfortunately, American history has shown us the that vast majority of white men have not respected black women. Rape and abuse of black women by white men was routine during slavery. The vestiages of that are still with us.
Ann speaks about the hidden (or semi-hidden) truth of American history, and she doesn’t flower it up. It’s a hard pill for white America to swallow, but it is the truth. One example of how white men abuse black women’s bodies and sexuality is the Hottentot Venus. In this case black women were displayed, in the same way that we exhibit zoo animals. They even saved her genitalia until the 1970s and didn’t return her remains to Africa until 2002.
That’s just one case that exhibits how many European and European American men (and women) viewed black women.
It may be a hard pill to swallow, but Don Imus’s comments are an extention of the view that black women are “freaks of nature.”
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
mandolin said, “Was it not white men who raped black slave women?”
Yep, it sure was.
Mandolin said, “In this thread, has it not primarily been white men who claim the right to reinterpret black women’s experiences for them? Has it not primarily been white men who are telling black women they’re complaining about nothing?”
Oh, hell yes.
Mandolin said, “Michael has been, in my opinion, ridiculous and unnecessarily vicious. Ann’s frustration and anger at having her historically minimized perspective minimized here seems perfectly justifiable to me.”
Yeah this is Michael’s typical behavior. Perhaps I should ban him for being so disrespectful of black women.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
To Michael.
You repeatedly have utilized typically white male supremacist tactics of engagement here, specifically directed against Ann, a Black woman who knows better than to be silent in the face of white male supremacy.
You cannot see these as tactics, it appears. You continue on and on, utilizing the same means to position yourself as smarter and clearer and more “on top” of things than Ann. You, the white male rational actor. She, the emotional off-topic hysteric. Your treatment of her here is not only obnoxious as hell, it’s racist and misogynist.
White male privileges tend to make us white guys pretty damned ignorant and arrogant. Your white male supremacist fly is open, and that white dick of yours is waving freely here. Put it back in your pants, please.
And get the f*ck off of Ann’s case, white man. You’ve said what you need to say, have you not? Why are you continually going on and on and on? You ARE trying to silence and disrespect Ann’s views and feelings. Stop it.
Regarding this stupendously white male supremacist comment of yours:
“The history of slavery and the brutality which occurred as a result is not germain to the discussion involving Imus”
This is typical white racist/male misogynist argumentation: things have nothing to do with other things. Every incident exists within its own discreet universe.
Quantum physics and the experiences of oppressed people might make you think otherwise, if you were capable of really listening. You’re operating out of some old whitemale-created mechanistic social worldview, that, well, isn’t reality. White male privilege allows you to experience the world that way, Michael, because things don’t happen to white guys like us SYSTEMATICALLY AND HISTORICALLY that make us into things–subordinated, stigmatized, objectified, abused things.
Your way of arguing with Ann only proves everything she has been saying about you.
And please don’t bore the rest here with more of the same.
Instead, please read Deals With The Devil, and Other Reasons To Riot, by Pearl Cleage, and many other books written by Black feminist women, and get a real education.
Please also read the following, instead of going on about how “rationally right” you are and how “irrationally wrong” Ann is. She’s lived it. You haven’t. Your oh-so-typical white male supremacist strategies have been used against women and people of color for centuries. Especially by white men against Black women.
Knock it off.
And instead read this.
You don’t get to name “what is relevant” here, white man. Ann and other Black women here do. The topic IS how Black women are treated in the U.S. Imus’s remarks are but one example of what Black women endure daily.
She’s the teacher and you’re the student. Start listening and learning. Or just keep on remaining ignorant and arrogant–your privileges and our white male dominated and controlled institutions will allow you to be this way until your last day. But you can choose to be more open and respectful, and to stop harassing Ann. Will you make that choice?
This comment was written by Julian.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
To Everyone:
Rachel S.
Sailorman
Angel H.
Mandolin
I thank you all for your show of support.
And I agree with mandolin. If I had shown any signs of improper posting, I am sure that Alas would have let me know immediately. I do believe that this post put up by Alas was concerning the hateful racist/sexist remarks that have been spit into the faces of black women for centuries, and the legacy of America’s cruel treatment of her black female citizens.
But, most of all I want to send a big kiss to my White Knight in Shining Armour, Julian.
Your brotherly solidarity is proof that there are white men in America who want to see the end of the mistreatment of black women. Because what is done to the least of us, is done to us all.
Thanks.
It is most appreciated.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Ann asked :
If what Michael said was true, then why are these young women receiving hate mail?
Can you answer me that question, Michael?
Since according to you black women live lives of such joy, peace and respect in the good ‘ol USA. We are constantly on a daily basis, praised to the high heavens.
Hate mail.
Boy, if that is what praise is supposed to be, I’d hate to see what denigration is supposed to be.
But, of course, I’m just a black woman.
What do I know.
Brilliant Ann ! Let’s take a look at what you said .
If what Michael said was true, then why are these young women receiving hate mail?
Do I really need to answer that for you or are you truly confused as to how some of those women could be receiving hate mail and my statement still be true?
The answer lies in something I learned long ago as a result of being assaulted at the age of 5 by a large teenage kid who happened to be Black. When my uncle turned the corner and saw what was happening he jumped at the kid (my uncle was the same age as my attacker) The group of elderly black men and women found my assault to be hilarious but were quite angry and perturbed when all the fun was interrupted by uncle Ron. Should I have made general opinions of all Black people based on that incident? When we moved out of the city and into a wealthy suburb the prejudice was only beginning. I wont provide the similar kind of list you gave earlier as I have no need to invoke sympathy. But even my young mind grasped the obvious once I pondered it.
Because I was different I was the target of that small segment of people who simply hate for a particular reason. I asked you earlier to learn the meaning of Non sequitur. Had you done so you would understand that your reasoning was fallacious. In fact, it should have been obvious to you that the number of people praising the Rutgers players far outnumber the silly fools who are sending hate mail. Was that easy enough to understand?
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
mandolin Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Larry,
Michael was informing Ann that modern racism, an extremely harmful practice, did not occur
That simply is untrue . Never did I say anything of the kind .
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
“That simply is untrue . Never did I say anything of the kind . ”
In the event that you’re complaining that I said “did” instead of “does,” I apologize for the slip of the fingers.
If it is your position that you are not denying modern racism when you say that black women are celebrated by society, rather than still suffering from historical oppression, then either you’re using a definition of racism so vastly off the average as to be meaningless, or you’re full of previously digested brown stuff.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
to Rachel and Julian .
This is BULL .. You either missed one of the comments or chose to gloss over it . I responded to each attack with a cogent and rational comment . Each time my words were taken out of context . Here is an OBVIOUS example .
Angel said
April 12th, 2007 at 3:17 pm Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
That remark by Angel is indicative of exactly what Ann and others have done . Obviously there is a general objection to anyone who disagrees in such a manner as to make you feel uncomfortable .
Read Ann’s response to any of my comments .None relate directly to what I said .In addition none of my conclusions or statements contain any racist remarks . They simply relate directly to the discussion at hand .For instance :
Michael said :
Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience.
And :
The comments by Imus are not indicative of White America or some sort of hatred by a majority of white people. In fact, how this has played out proves my point clearly. Imus has now been from both organizations for which he worked. He is now unemployed and has no radio voice. I would say that this is in sharp contest to others who have said equally hurtful things or worse. This conflicts with the general perception of those who think White racism
is promoted, accepted, and tolerated by the heads of major institutions such as CBS . I see no double standard to prove that point when I consider White racists and Black racist across the spectrum.
I think that is a fair and reasonable assessment of the facts. One can certainly disagree.
But no honest observer would say that I have shown less respect than has been afforded me /
A for this :
Rachel S. Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 2:42 pm mandolin said, “Was it not white men who raped black slave women?”
Yep, it sure was.
My comment was in regard to how Black women are viewed TODAY! I was in no way referring to anything which has happened in the past.
As for this .
Julian said :
You don’t get to name “what is relevant” here, white man. Ann and other Black women here do. The topic IS how Black women are treated in the U.S.
Correct. It is NOT how Black women have been treated in the past. My comments were directed at exactly that. I also find your comments to be demeaning and degrading to Black women. Since this is an open thread I participated in the spirit of open discussion. How condensing to claim that a Black woman could not handle a different opinion.
I have always offered Ann as much if not more respect than she has afforded me. Ann can handle herself without having to have a male come to her rescue. Your response is chauvinistic to say the least.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Michael, your method seems to be to question whether racism exists in a particular instance by bringing up one or two instances in which a person of color was successful. So far, you’ve mentioned Oprah, your daughter, your wife, and a slight descrepancy in salaries of college educated women. I find that very unconvincing and extremely distracting from the topic at hand.
Imus used the phrase “nappy headed hos” to describe some of the best educated, most well-rounded black women in this country. As a white woman, I am compelled to say that Imus’ actions represent a part of our white culture that all of us should condemn and eradicate. Do you disagree?
You have been very adamant about what you haven’t said or believe. Wouldn’t it be wise on a thread about Imus’ treatment of young black women, for you to comment directly on topic?
This comment was written by Ravenmn.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Ann writes:
I do believe that this post put up by Alas was concerning the hateful racist/sexist remarks that have been spit into the faces of black women for centuries, and the legacy of America’s cruel treatment of her black female citizens.
Thank you for proving my point Ann . The post was made by Rachel .Please read it again . Perhaps you will understand why I made my particular comments .
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
Madolin said :
Larry,
Michael was informing Ann that modern racism, an extremely harmful practice, did not occur
Then she said :
In the event that you’re complaining that I said “did” instead of “does,” I apologize for the slip of the fingers
No Mandolin . I’m telling that I said nothing even closely resembling that . Here is what I said :
“Actually this country praises Black women to a high degree. This will be in sharp display this afternoon when the Rutgers team appears on the Oprah show to tell their story to a live audience. ”
Read exactly what is written . This country ( not all the people within it ) praises Black women to a high degree .
That in no way refutes the historical racism and suffering of Black women . It relates to today and how this country views our Black women . Imus was FIRED ! The Black women are being celebrated . Do you need a list of all the comments made on their behalf ? That is my point as it relates to this case . IMUS . I also detailed other examples of Black women in todays society. I could give you many more. But my comment was a subjective one. Ultimately it would involve how you define celebrating success.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Ravenmn Writes:
April 13th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Imus used the phrase “nappy headed hos” to describe some of the best educated, most well-rounded black women in this country. As a white woman, I am compelled to say that Imus’ actions represent a part of our white culture that all of us should condemn and eradicate. Do you disagree?
Raven , excellent point . not only would I not disagree but it is the essence of what I have been trying to say . Perhaps you missed it earlier .Here was my take on the Imus issue .
Michael said :
The comments by Imus are not indicative of White America or some sort of hatred by a majority of white people. In fact, how this has played out proves my point clearly. Imus has now been from both organizations for which he worked. He is now unemployed and has no radio voice. I would say that this is in sharp contest to others who have said equally hurtful things or worse. This conflicts with the general perception of those who think White racism
is promoted, accepted, and tolerated by the heads of major institutions such as CBS . I see no double standard to prove that point when I consider White racists and Black racist across the spectrum.
After Mandolin made this untrue comment concerning what I said I clarified further .
Angel H
Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
Michael said :
Did you find me making such a silly comment ? The answer is no. But you made a huge leap that mentioning Oprah constituted me saying as such. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I actually wasn’t referring to Oprah Surprise! I was actually referring to the subject of this post. The Rutgers team and their achievements as women and athletes would be celebrated in front of a live audience. Combine that with the fact that Imus was FIRED and I say it buttresses my point. DO I really need to connect the dots for you? Imus fired = Imus rebuked. Rutgers players honored and respected before a national audience tells me that Rutgers players dignity prevails over Imus and his idiocy. But I do think the fact it happens on a show owned by the wealthiest woman in the world only adds to my point.
AGAIN! The reaction to Imus shows me that race relations are far better than you claim. All I ask is that you read what I say. Not what you wish to turn it into. Notice how I give you that respect which you do not afford me. Also, making ad hominem attacks does nothing for yours or Ann’s case.I could resort to the same cheap tactic . But I am above that . Please try to be also
So as you can see I was commenting directly on what this post was about . Namely what Imus said and what Rachel asked in her post
Here is what Rachel said and asked :
The national Association of Black Journalists called for an apology from Imus. Imus subsequently issued an apology, but is that enough?
Thus my comment relates directly to the post made by Rachel . In sharp contrast Ann did not even understand what the topic was . She didn’t even know who made the post .
Her post above #172 states :
And I agree with mandolin. If I had shown any signs of improper posting, I am sure that Alas would have let me know immediately. I do believe that this post put up by Alas was concerning the hateful racist/sexist remarks that have been spit into the faces of black women for centuries, and the legacy of America’s cruel treatment of her black female citizens.
So as you can see Ravenmn , I was on topic . Ann was not . It seems she didn’t bother to read the actual post .
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Michael, any chance you could use some method of indicating where the comments you are quoting end and your reply begins? There are
, italics, bolding, lots of different ways, but please use something. Thank you.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I do that in word but for some reason it reverts back to what you see . Any ideas ?
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
It’d be my preference.
I wonder how you feel, Ann?
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
You have to use HTML tags. Just copying and pasting out of Word doesn’t work.
Go visit this site.
For italics, replace the word blockquote with an “i”. For bold, replace with a lower case “b”.
I hope that helps.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I don’t really know what it means, but look at the guy’s hair. So what should we call a white guy with hair like that?… Dumb-no Trump?
This comment was written by HT.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Raven , excellent point . not only would I not disagree but it is the essence of what I have been trying to say . Perhaps you missed it earlier .Here was my take on the Imus issue .
Michael said :
The comments by Imus are not indicative of White America or some sort of hatred by a majority of white people. In fact, how this has played out proves my point clearly. Imus has now been from both organizations for which he worked. He is now unemployed and has no radio voice. I would say that this is in sharp contest to others who have said equally hurtful things or worse. This conflicts with the general perception of those who think White racism
is promoted, accepted, and tolerated by the heads of major institutions such as CBS . I see no double standard to prove that point when I consider White racists and Black racist across the spectrum.
Michael, I’m not sure you realize this, but you did not condemn Imus words in this quote.
Michael: “So as you can see Ravenmn , I was on topic . Ann was not . It seems she didn’t bother to read the actual post .”
To the contrary, I find Ann’s opinions to be clear, forthright and on topic. I had no difficulty understanding her opinion about Imus and his comments.
Your opinions are more difficult to understand partly because you spend more time explaining what you aren’t saying than what you are saying. It’s confusing. Could you try to avoid condemning other’s opinions and spend more time explaining your own?
This comment was written by Ravenmn.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Ravenmn said
Michael, I’m not sure you realize this, but you did not condemn Imus words in this quote.
So what? The question posed by Rachel asked if the response was ENOUGH. I responded to her question in clear and concise language. The fact that I didn’t CONDEMN Imus has nothing to do with the veracity of my remarks. I was not asked if I thought his comments were worthy of condemnation or not.
I reject the silly notion that the quality of ones opinion is dependent on ones color. My opinion happens to be the same as Angela McGowan,Sonny Hostin , and Offari Hutchinson . They all happen to be Black.
I disagree with several Black entertainers who have claimed that Imus had said nothing insulting at all.
My wife saw nothing at all racist in what Imus had to say. However, she was quite angry as a woman and found his comments to be deplorable. The diverse opinions do not fall neatly into race and gender. My own opinion is that Imus said something which was wrong. It was demeaning and untrue on every level. I have yet to hear ANYONE say that what he said was nice or decent. How his employee chooses to handle the issue should be up to them. He has no sacred right to free speech on those particular airwaves. But I also agree that a double standard exists. That double standard is wrong.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
I write detailed analysis on complicated building issues concerning commercial real-estate which I develop. I also write analysis and argue issues concerning land conservation and wetlands mitigation as I often build in more difficult areas. In addition to this I write highly detailed market analysis for business plans. I have yet to have a review board, banker, planning commission or anyone else fail to understand what I am to to convey.
Several times I have made presentations to the MIT Enterprise Institute. They understood me perfectly well . Also, earlier this week I received confirmation that my plans for a subdivision had been approved. Every highly detail including wetlands mitigation. soil erosion, retention ponds, variances, future expansion, etc. were completely understood.
I say exactly what I mean and I mean what i say . The trouble some people have is that they try to read into what people are saying based on preconceived notions. I did NOT say most of what has been atributed to me here .
Example :
Angel H claimed I said this :
Yet you have the fucking nerve to say that everything is all right between the races because white people love Oprah Winfrey!!
It is simply untrue. Her claim is just one of several examples where people have simply made up comments and attributed them to me.
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
April 13th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Michael: “The fact that I didn’t CONDEMN Imus has nothing to do with the veracity of my remarks.”
I didn’t call you a liar, so I’m not sure why you’re addressing this comment to me. But thanks, anyway, for joining me in condemning Imus’ comments.
“The diverse opinions do not fall neatly into race and gender.”
Definitely. His comments were both racist and sexist. Dealing with these questions is seldom “neat”. What pisses you off may not piss me off and vice versa. But at least we can each understand that outrage we feel when someone dismisses us so callously.
This comment was written by Ravenmn.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 3:58 am
[...] http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/04/07/nappy-headed-hos/#comments [...]
This comment was written by The Moral of the Story | The Moderate Voice.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 4:52 am
Rachal S. wrote:
You got that right. And from a mental health standpoint– how some of us go on each day is beyond me. A black woman can’t look in a mirror each morning, or pass her reflection in a shop window, without being reminded of where she stands in this society. And when I think of the fact that most of the Rutgers athletes were taller than most of us, weighed more than most of us, and have everything else that goes along with making athletes more athletic than most of us??? That some of us succeed in a world that denigrates us is a testament to the endurance of the human spirit.
Now can you BELIEVE THIS?!?!? CONDOLESZA RICE has spoken out about the Don Imus controversy! Basically, she said his comments were disgusting, and she’s pleased that he was fired. I guess she felt inadequately represented by her Commander and Chief’s comments on this subject? LOL. Whatever the case, it just goes to show you– even a broken clock is right two times a day. I say kudo’s to Ms. Rice for speaking out so strongly on this matter. Her political party and supporters needed to hear from her, because they are shamelessly trying to use the Don Imus controversy to attack everyone from Hillary Clinton to Rosie O’Donnell.
And poor John Corzine. Govenor, Get well soon.
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 9:06 am
Please pardon my extreme ignorance for asking this, but I really have no clue.
I understand why “ho” is considered racist and sexist as a black slang term for “whore.”
But I don’t understand what “nappy-headed” means or what makes that insulting. I really have no clue. It’s a term that conveys no obvious meaning to me, and I can’t find a definition of it anywhere.
Just what exactly is “nappy-headed” and why is that usage considered racist or sexist? Is the insult derived from the fact that it was used in conjunction with “ho?”
I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone with this question, but I really would like to know.
This comment was written by John.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 10:12 am
At the risk of poking my head back into this white male hate and blame thread (Thanks Julian for that disgusting borderline racist post. But I guess the strong racial insults and remarks are OK on this site when its directed at white males.)
Before all this I thought that the word “nappy-headed” was like “bed head” where you wake up from a nap and one side of you hair is all flat, a cowlick on the back, etc. It took several minutes of googling to get the connection. Despite some of the unfortunate posts in this thread I think this incident might be having a more positive impact in the national conversation.
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 10:17 am
John,
“Nappy” is a term that is often used to describe the texture of African American hair. The term nappy is often used pejoratively, and in many cases it is used to imply that a person is unkempt. So people have tried to challenge the negative usage of the term nappy, arguing that African Americans should not be forced to conform to white standards of beauty.
Some synonyms for nappy could be “woolly” “kinky” “tightly curled.” Unfortunately, black women’s hair is often describe in negative terms, and black women are expected to try to make their hair as white looking as possible (Tyra Banks would be a good example. She always wears synthetic hair that simulates a European hair texture.). Maintaining a more European hair texture is extremely expensive and time consuming; however, there are many cases where black women are punished for not wearing their hair with a relaxer (straightened). Some examples include being told they are ugly or overly political, and in more extreme cases black women have been fired from jobs for not wearing their hair in a European like style.
Thus, the use of the term nappy, to imply that the Rutgers women were unattractive and unfeminine, is viewed by many as insulting given the long history of black women being told their hair is unattractive.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Michael, you seem to love that little Oprah comment I made the other day. Let’s take another look at again for those who missed out on it, shall we?
In response to Comment # 120 by Ann, you replied (emphasis mine):
I replied in Comment 140:
And you say, over and over again:
They have also been praised time and time again by other members of the media, both black and white. Yet, as I stated before, you chose to mention the most non-threatening black woman in the U.S. to further your point.
Also, I find it very, very telling that Ravenmn asked you a simple yes or no question but you spend so much time hiding behind the opinion of your black wife and you through out the names of some well-known black people. That you never say definatively whether or not you found Imus’ statement to be offensive.
But of course, you did say:
That was a blatant cop-out. But let’s take a look at your very first post:
Damn. You really are clueless, aren’t you? Especially when you said at #180 (emphasis mine):
Oh, rly?
Ann@120:
You@139:
Ann@141:
You@148:
Ann@15:
You@158 (emphasis mine):
Shall we look again at what you said at #180? I do so love it when you contradict yourself!
This comment was written by Angel H..Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Michael.
I read the post by Rachel, put over HERE at Alas, A Blog. That is why I stated that if Alas had a problem with my comments, then he should reprimand me. The last time I looked, Ampersand was the moderator /owner of this blog. And yes, I am capable of being able to read:
-Rachel’s Tavern (Rachel)
-Alas, A Blog (Ampersand)
But, please Michael, feel free to correct me if I still am not understanding what the post was about:
The firing of Imus for his racist/sexist comments.
Now, on to some of the comments you made my way.
The past is always with us, especially when it is run from and denied, time and time again. And you are wrong when you state that it is not about how black women have been treated in the past.
It IS about how black women have been treated in the past that has led this country to the view that it has against black women. That black women are less than human, less than woman.
It is STILL about how black women have been treated in the past. And that past bears its mark upon America’s treatment of black women of today. The racist/sexist hatred shown by white men of slavery/segregation towards black women is still with us. The denigration and destruction of black women by white men of slavery/segregation is still with us. Where do you think this unending hatred came from? From Imus? From McGuirk?
It comes from the legacy of white men’s need, no desire, to annihilate in body, mind, spirit and soul, black women who never did white men ANY harm.
The rapes during slavery, the impregnations during slavery, the insulting disparagment of black women’s features (their hair, noses, lips) as sub-human, as not beautiful, as something always worthy of contempt and assault was started by white men.
That black women have been able to survive all the sick hatred done to us by white men is a miracle unto itself, and for you to say that the past (which I’m sure in your mind is over and done with) is no longer with us in this country is your attempt at believing the biggest lie ever told about a group of women in this country who have suffered at the hands of the worst kinds of brutalities ever committed by man against woman.
People like Imus do not exist in some cave somewhere thinking up vile and hateful things to say about black women and girls. They learn at an early age to hate, disparage, tear down, attack, villify, degrade and shatter to pieces everything and all things that are BLACK WOMEN. This vicious contempt for black womanhood is something that is learned at home from white parents, white uncles, white cousins. It is learned in predominantly white society’s contempt for all things black woman. It is not learned from vivid imaginations—-it is learned from the early indoctrination of white society to hate and attempt to bring low the integrity, the honor, the beauty of black womanhood.
And that perversity started in slavery, and continued all the way through Jim Crow segregation, which by the way, ended a mere 45 YEARS AGO.
Yep. Just 45 years ago. On a time span-continuum, that would equate with just a few minutes ago. So, for you to say that slavery/segregation has no bearing on what Imus said, is a bald-faced lie.
Slavery/segregation have a lot to do with what Imus said.
This hatred of black women did not start with Imus. It did not start last week. It did not start last month. Nor did it start in the last decade.
It started when white men decided to treat black women as sexual toilets, sexual outhouses, sexual latrines for white men’s sadistic brutish perversions. Perversions they would not have to visit upon white women because they were so busy raping, impregnating and destroying black women.
Books, pamphlets, periodicals, newspaper articles, anything that was used to disparage and denigrate black women to the advantage and benefit of white men was used to the fullest. White politicians wrote laws that forbade the giving of honor and protection to black women, and the way black women are treated today is a result of centuries of defilement that was first started by white men.
As I stated in my previous comment WHITE MEN first started calling black women hos, sluts, bitches. White men went on continuing to attack and destroy black women way after slavery ended, and today, white men use the media to destroy black women, especially in the case of Imus.
But, Imus is just a fly, a small speck in the cosmos of white men who perpetuate the greatest form of hatred against black women. No, there are other fish to fry in that good ‘ol boy network of black woman haters.
And those white men would be the men who run the corporations, the media conglomerates, the recording studios—all the institutions that control the media images we all see.
CEOS. Executives. Presidents of major media companies.
People like Les Moonves. Rupert Murdoch. Larry Flynt.
People who have at their power the ability to disseminate horrid, hated racist/sexist lies about black women around the world. Lies sent out over the airwaves, via video images, only for those lies and filth to come back and slap black women in the face so hard that the slaps send black women falling down to the ground.
That this country has for so long committed atrocity after atrocity upon black women has given many white men (and men of other races) the belief that black women have lives that are to be held cheaply, with no regard for our humanity, our dignity, our feelings.
And that no one that I have read or heard from is not calling to task the head honchos who allow this filth to come from their empires of black woman hating ivory towers is beyond me. Hatred of black women in present day America starts at the top, just like it did during slavery, and during segregation.
And that filthy hatred of black women trickles its way down to pollute and pervert all that stand in its pathway.
It is no secret, Michael, that this country hates black women. To say otherwise, is a lie.
Where I ask you, once again, is all this love and praise of black women? Where? Show it to me. Those people writing death threats and hate mail to those young ladies of Rutgers are just the few who are saying/writing out loud what many people feel towards black women in this country.
And as I said in one of my previous comments HOW WHITE MEN/MEN OF OTHER RACES OF 2007 treat black women and girls says how far black women’s images and position have come in this society.
How white men in their daily lives treat black women says alot about white men. How white men treat black women in their daily interactions: on the job; at the grocery store; at the bank; at the park; any where black women and white men cross paths….HOW WHITE MEN TREAT BLACK WOMEN TODAY still says a whole lot on how far black women’s images/perceptions have come in 2007 America.
And judging from Imus and his ilk, America still has a huge problem with treating black women with respect and dignity. America still considers black women as the mules of the world. America still considers black women as less than worthy of love, adoration, admiration, respect, kindness. America still condemns and berates black women for wearing their hair the way God made it. America still considers black women’s beauty as less than white women/women of other races, as ugly, as something always to be atacked and belittled with dersion and contempt.
America is always praising black women?
Really?
When the only way a black woman can get a movie part is in the role of Sapphire/Mammy and that ever ubiquitous Jezebel/Slut/Whore role? (Not much chance of that image going the way of the dinosaur, eh, Michael?)
America is always praising black women when it believes the Ronald Reagan lie of the myth of the “welfare queen”? Nevermind that black women work hard to make ends meet on wages that are less than what men earn comparably for the same type of work. That black women have to work many times longer (40+hours a week) or at two jobs just to get by.
America is always praising black women when black women who are raped, report the crime, and go to court, and the rapist is given much LESS time in prison for raping the black woman, than what the rapist would have been given if she was a non-black rape victim. Not to mention, we black women have the hardest of times being believed when we are raped. Is it not true what white men have said for centuries about us lewd, wanton, lascivious sluts know as black women? That we are “unrapeable”?
America is always praising black women when everywhere a black woman looks—magazines, TV, advertisements of products—her beauty is ignored and treated as completely outside the norm. We are INVISIBLE in ths society, pushed to the margins as irrelevant. We are told not to come to work wearing our hair in braids and naturals (”kiny/wooly” to those of you who consider our hair as worthy of mockery and insult). America so loves and praises black women that we are told that our hair is something for us to be ashamed of, and if we do not accept that shame of our hair [those like me who wear our hair in its natural state],we are looked upon as if we have something wrong WITH US for accepting our innate beauty. We are constantly under attack and demeaned to change, fry, perm, destroy our hair to fit some white racist standard of what beauty is. And if we black women do not conform to racist white America’s demand, no, white America’s ORDER to confrom, or else, then we are threatened with being fired from our jobs if we do not conform and straighten our hair.
YES.
America sure does love “our black women” as you so aptly put it, Michael.
Yes, Imus is fired. Some people will cluck their tongues and tsk, tsk about how awful, how terrible it was that he said those vile and racist/sexist things. But, what happens next week?
Next month?
Next YEAR?
Nothing but back to the same ‘ol, same ‘ol further beat down of black women. Black women. The proverbial Everlast punching bag.
America no more loves black women than it can slowly but carefully and wantonly destroy us.
It shows its “love and praise” of us in how it treats us as if we are to be forever pushed to the margins—–OUTSIDERS—–in the world of white America. Forever to be constantly told, both vocally, and silently:
‘Go away, black woman, you have no place here in the realm of things. You have no validity in or eyes. White men have said so for over 400 years, and white men and America still say so. It is the royal decree of white men, therefore, it must be so. It must be worshipped as the truth.”
That some people stood up in defense of these young girls of Rutgers says something. Shocking, that some people are more than sick and tired of seeing the constant drive-by -shooting -character assassinations of black women and the cruel results of such hate.
But, it is not enough for some people to care.
Until ALL of America cares about what happens to black women, as much as it does non-black women, we black women can still count on more men like Don Imus to hatefully disparage and attack us.
Until America finally starts to look at black women as worthy of respect and honor that has been so long denied us, well, black women had better figure on more of our value in this society as never rising.
America has long ago learned to take black women for granted, as always being everyone’s girl tied to the whipping post.
But, make no mistake, black women have been long tired of being tied to that bloody post. We are pulling our hands free from it.
And whether or not many people want to help us or not, will not stop us.
We black women have been through enough in this country. And that many politicians (Kerry, McCain, Obama and the rest, where were you hiding when Imus said his filth?) stayed hidden and rose not up in our defense; that the President said nothing in our defense; that NOW issued a flimsy cowardly letter about Imus’s remarks——-that those who want our political and electoral support said NOTHING (save what Condi said) should speak volumes to America’s black women.
America loves and praises black women.
Yeah, right. She sure does.
I don’t know what country you live in, Michael, but the America I live in continues to constantly give short shrift to black women.
And as for this comment, Michael:
“As for this .
Julian said :
You don’t get to name “what is relevant” here, white man. Ann and other Black women here do. The topic IS how Black women are treated in the U.S.
Correct. It is NOT how Black women have been treated in the past. My comments were directed at exactly that. I also find your comments to be demeaning and degrading to Black women. Since this is an open thread I participated in the spirit of open discussion. How condensing to claim that a Black woman could not handle a different opinion.
I have always offered Ann as much if not more respect than she has afforded me. Ann can handle herself without having to have a male come to her rescue. Your response is chauvinistic to say the least. ”
Lay off Julian. That he spoke up in my defense angered you very much. Why Michael? A white man is not supposed to speak up for a black woman? A white man is only supposed to disparage and attack a black woman, say, like, Imus, for instance? How does Julian (and anyone else for that matter: Faith, Rachel S., Mandolin, Ravenm, Angel. H, etc.) speaking in defense of what I stated be considered as condescending? Where do his words constitute as being demeaning and chauvanistic?
Maybe I’M missing something, but, did you not say that America “praises” its black women so much? If what you say is true then one white man agreeing with me should not be begrudged me. But, then again, I guess, he should be villifying and tearing me apart. That would be more to your liking.
And yes, I can handle speaking up for myself. I always have.
Especially against people like you who refuse to see things from other people’s perspectives—especially when those people are black women who speak of our pain and sorrows in this country.
Maybe we black women should just STFU.
I mean, what have we ever had to say that was of any value?
Oh, wait, I forgot.
America loves us black women to death.
Can’t you tell?
Just listen to all those lovely words we have had to put up with from 1619 to 2007:
Whore (Ho)
Slut
Bitch
Wench
Jezebl
Mammy
Sapphire
Yes, America sure loves and praises us black women.
Rachel.
“Yeah this is Michael’s typical behavior. Perhaps I should ban him for being so disrespectful of black women. ”
Mandolin.
“It’d be my preference.
I wonder how you feel, Ann?”
I’ve never asked for the banning of anyone in all the year that I have been blogging.
But, in this case, I will definately make an exception.
Rachel:
BAN HIM.
This comment was written by Ann.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
That was fucking awesome.
The only thing I can add is that non black women dont get treated that much better. When push comes to shove, they’re “just women” and not worth much if they cant be used. They’re only half a rung up on the ladder of who gets shat upon in this country. Though half a rung up is still half a rung up , I just dont want to see black women stop climbing when they reach it. They deserve better. We all do.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
April 14th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
“That was fucking awesome.”
It was.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2007 at 12:19 am
Michael, I think you’ve had ample opportunity to state your views on “Alas.” However, I don’t feel your posts here help move the conversations in a direction I’d like to see them move in. For that reason, please don’t post on “Alas” any more.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2007 at 2:33 am
[...] HOW AMERICA BOTH PRAISES AND LOVES BLACK WOMEN Jump to Comments Ann Writes: April 14th, 2007 at 4:16 pm in response to a commentor on Alas, A Blog’spost, “Nappy-Headed Hos”, http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/04/07/nappy-headed-hos/ [...]
This comment was written by ON HOW AMERICA BOTH PRAISES AND LOVES BLACK WOMEN « BEAUTIFUL, ALSO, ARE THE SOULS OF MY BLACK SISTERS.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2007 at 9:26 am
So you ban Michael and not a word about Julian’s (or Ann’s) posts full of racial insults? With that in mind I guess this will be my last post on here as well.
But as a parting experiment lets take some of the racial insults and racial charged language in Julian’s and switch the race and gender terms and see if they seem OK to you:
Nope, nothing wrong with that is there?
So long. (I know, good riddance and don’t let the door hit me….)
This comment was written by FormerlyLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2007 at 9:59 am
“But as a parting experiment lets take some of the racial insults and racial charged language in Julian’s and switch the race and gender terms and see if they seem OK to you:”
Behold: the sheer vastness of you not getting it.
The POINT of racial and gender insults is that they are NOT interchangeable. There is no history of slavery and violence to use to intimidate white men by calling them “Crackers,” no way to inspire the kind of social and systemic and historical terror that accmopanies a similar slur made against black people. To call a man a “player” does not imply his worthlessness, does not carry a threat of sexualized violence, does not shatter, the way the insult “whore” does.
I don’t understand why all this emphasis on decontextualization, at looking at one thing as if it were not surrounded by all the others. Well, of course, I do, but only so long as I assume selfishness has replaced compassion.
I also don’t know why you’d think I wouldn’t want the door to hit you on the way out. Enjoy your flame and unsub.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
April 15th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Well, it took a little bit longer for a White man or woman to call a Black woman a racist than usual on this thread than on others and Amp or Rachel, I’m not trying to pick on you, this goes on all over the blogsphere.
And no you can’t interchange White and Black, male and female and so forth like changing outfits. Perhaps you could in a truly eglitarian society, but we don’t have one. Just like there’s no such thing as reverse racism, except an excuse we pull out to avoid addressing our own racial privilege and complaining when we can’t always use it to get what we want when we get it, just because.
Imus is from my city. He was born there and raised nearby. Frankly, knowing my city, this doesn’t surprise me. He could live there and probably be very much at home. There’s good people too, but there’s a strong current of behavior and ideology that’s not much removed from his expression of it if indeed it is at all.
Most of the letters in my city have been supportive of him but there were more than I thought that opposed him. My boss and the local NAACP called for his firinig in the press, before he was fired but a lot of other people locally were saying, what’s the big deal? And for those out there who just have to get their Imus fix, well a radio station in my city will be rebroadcasting reruns of his show and if you wait five minutes, his vitrol will find a new home. So I agree with Ann in what she said about there not really being as widespread condemnation in White America towards Imus as there appears to be in the mainstream media. But then I agree with a lot of what she said, about the status of Black women in this country.
Not from experiencing it, because I can’t but from seeing it, hearing about it and I do a lot, including the demonization of Black women, the dehumanization of Black women, the invisibility of Black women and the masculinization of Black women. There’s so much in the history that she provided here that’s still so relevent today, it’s scary and it’s disheartening.
As for the study on Black women with college degrees outearning White women, I did have a question. Does that study factor in the reality that most Black women with college degrees not only work longer hours per week than White women do, but after having babies, they often return to work sooner than White women do. Does it also factor in the emotional and often financial costs of racial and/or gender discrimination many of these women face in the workplaces in different professions? Glass ceilings, glass walls and glass doors?
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 16th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
[...] Rudolph Giuliani Comment on “Nappy Headed Hos” by Faith» Posted at http://www.amptoons.com on Saturday, April 14, 2007 Her political party and supporters needed to hear from her, because they are shamelessly trying to use the Don Imus controversy to attack everyone from Hillary Clinton to Rosie O’Donnell. And poor John Corzine. Govenor, Get well soon. View Entire Article » [...]
This comment was written by University Update - Hillary Clinton - Comment on “Nappy Headed Hos” by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 12:28 am
Following up on my comment above (#22) and some of the responses to it:
The essence of racism is the inability or refusal to see people of certain races as individuals and judge them on the basis of personal characteristics rather than membership in a particular racial or ethnic group. And the major reason I’m reluctant to call Imus’s comment racist is that by pointing to specific characteristics of the women on the Rutger’s team and drawing distinctions between them and the women on the Tennessee team (also black), he did exhibit an ability and willingness to do that, albeit in a highly crude and disrespectful manner.
Ampersand:
It’s possible that I’m biased in a way that causes me to underestimate the incidence of racism, but I think I’m pretty consistent in applying the definition above. Certainly I try to be.
On the flip side of the coin, I see a lot of people here and elsewhere really reaching to find racism anywhere and everywhere, and I don’t think it’s unfair to say that this causes them to overestimate the incidence of racism. Note, for example, how Rachel was so sure what the results of googling “white ho” and “black ho” would be that she apparently didn’t even bother to check herself before telling me to try it—which I did, finding slightly more results for the former. Granted, “black hos” are certainly overrepresented, but “ho” is by no means a slur applied exclusively to black women. Or the Delta Zeta thing, where the racial aspect was manufactured out of thin air by the NYT and most people here just took it at face value.
Rachel:
In the thread on the Delta Zeta kerfuffle, you asked me if I’d ever met a case of racism I believed, and I gave you a specific example. I can give you more if you’d like. (By the way, do you still maintain that the evictions were motivated by racism given that racial minorities were not significantly overrepresented?)
Also, I don’t think I’ve ever said that someone can’t be a racist because he’s a nice person. Certainly that’s not consistent with my current beliefs on the topic, and I don’t think they’ve changed recently in that respect.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 4:31 am
Brandon said:
Brandon, I don’t think I’ve met a black racist yet who couldn’t see that white people come as blonds, redheads and brunettes. There’s a reason why your definition starts with the words “The essence of racism….” The essence of a thing is NOT the whole thing, right? Yes, racists refuse to acknowledge many differences. But they aren’t exactly color blind. That blacks often find they are treated differently in society based on their skin color, hair texture and facial features, is a testament to the fact that racists are often VERY MUCH aware of the physical differences among us. The fact that “the powers that be” have judged us, categorized us and treated us differently based on our physical differences is particularly insidious, as it has often served effectively to divide us against ourselves until many of us have become a self-hating mass– with the favor going to those of us who are lighter skinned. (In other words, those who often have the most white, rapists blood in evidence.) Both black people and other people have internalized these white, slave-master values, and we use it against one another to this day. Virtually every racist or sexist insult blacks use against one another today was first used by whites to catagorize, and then insult black people…… But I’ve digressed.
Perhaps if you’re not familiar with how slave masters categorized their human property as mulattos, half-breeds, octoroons, and quadroons, that might account for your difficulty in reconciling Imus’s ability to say the Tennessee girls were attractive, but the Jersey Girls were jiggaboos and nappy headed hos? Or perhaps you simply don’t know about this niggling and little spoken of aspect of racism because you haven’t encountered it, never thought about it, or don’t have to live with it? (As for me, there’s no escaping understanding that my social and economic value in this society is partially based on how much the white blood shows up in my features. Even my 2 year old is judged based on her color. ) But you don’t have to reach all the way into the black experience to understand this phenomenon. All you have to do is think how a man can have a mother, sister, wife and daughters…acknowledge their physical differences….and yet still be a sexist who devalues them on a daily basis because he feels women aren’t worthy of receiving the same respect he gives to men. (And while we’re on that subject….the !#$*%)* hair care commercial where white blondes and brunettes are portrayed as name-calling women who are at war with each other shocks the heck out of me, as well. Will it be any wonder if the next generation of young women think there’s a natural social pecking order among them based on hair color? Or that intelligence is linked to hair color? As a black woman, this scares me. Logically, if social rank and intelligence can be assessed based on hair color, then how much more should we accept the idea that the human races can be divided thusly, too? Who comes up with this garbage? And what in the world can we do to put an end to it? But I’ve digressed, again.)
Brandon, I have no idea what the Tennessee girls look like. I’ve refused to look them up for comparison, on principle. However, the bottom line is this– Imus assessed all of these black women’s attractiveness and worth based on how “black” and “feminine” they looked. In my book, calling one group of black women insulting names that imply they looked MORE like black people than another group of black women is just as racist, and more insidious, then not acknowledging ANY of these women as worthwhile individuals because of their race. The types of distinctions Imus made are supposed to be made with property and perhaps farm animals– not individual human beings, thinking and free, with equal rights in a fair society.
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Bean,
I’m not sure, but with regard to the person posting about Howard Stern, you might be referring to me. Someone asked how Howard Stern could say things that seemed more racist than Don Imus, and still get away with it. I think I explained it as best I could. And my intention was not to apologize for or minimize Howard Stern’s racism and sexism, but rather to explain why Howard gets away with it when Don Imus did not– from my point of view.
The bottom line is that I think Howard Stern has been more clever about spewing his racist, sexist and sophomoric thoughts than has Don Imus. Howard adopts a passive-aggressive position that allows him to insult people while claiming to be the victim. He also maintains a diverse workplace. When a highly-paid black woman sits by his side– laughing at his jokes day in and day out, and watching women bare their breasts at Howard’s request– I think it makes it easier for Howard to defend his racism and sexism to himself, his bosses and to his audience. And to borrow a thought from Dr. Robin Smith, I think having a black woman by Howard’s side makes it easier for Howard’s bosses and Howard’s audience to swallow Howard’s puke. Now, on one hand, Don Imus has acknowledged he has not encouraged diversity on his show, and on 60 Minutes he admitted that he said his side-kick was there to do “nigger jokes.” On the other hand, Howard sits next to a black and a woman every day. The score in the public mud-wrestling arena is this: Howard 2, Imus 0– for whatever THAT’S worth.
Otherwise, I’ve never listened to Howard Stern on a regular basis and I said as much. If one is offended by racism, sexism, or doesn’t go for sophomoric jokes– you don’t have to listen to Howard more than once or twice to know that his show is not the show for you. I don’t know who Tom Lykis is, and the other comments you site are completely unfamiliar to me. I believe your version of the story. But without hearing the comments or reading them in context, I’m not sure if they fall within or without my explanation of why Howard Stern has not been called to task for them. Howard’s ability to beat censure isn’t hinged on WHAT he says as much as HOW he’s said it.
Overall, I stated what I believe about Howard based on what I’ve actually heard him say from his own mouth. And based on what I’ve heard him say, I think this: Though it might be very hard to imagine, I think Howard is completely capable of coaching a discussion on raping young girls at Columbine in such a way that it escapes FCC regulation and his own audience’s outrage. I think he could verbally attack a mentally disabled teenager in such a perverse way that it could be argued Howard viewed himself to be the victim/Howard IS the victim. Howard is sneaky. He works the passive/aggressive act to his personal benefit. That doesn’t make Howard less of a racist or sexist than Don Imus. But some might argue it makes him a “smarter” one.
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
I may have missed this but I’m still waiting for the same people telling us what does or does not constitute the real “essence” of racism, exactly how we should address “the issues” and get people on “our side”. Please, please tell us what we should do oh all seeing all wise white men…
This comment was written by Sewere.Report this comment to the moderators
April 17th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
I’ve noted a lot of oppressive language on these male-run blogsites that is bypassed and even encouraged under the guise of encouraging the “free exchange” of “ideas.”
IMO, the “exchange” part stops where the circular, defensive, solipsistic brow-beating of Black Women and Women of Color by white men begins. This process is usually initiated by a fucked-up whiteguy statement, then followed by a clear and sharp bullshit-call by someone of a different social caste- e.g. a non-white person of any sex or a woman of any racial caste (though the reactionism is usually more high-pitched when a Woman of Color calls bullshit)- which is then followed by an even more highly whitened and academicized and lengthy response by said whiteguy, under the guise of some sort of presumptuous “logic”, which then is followed by very justified anger on the part of the Woman of Color, etc. and then the whole conversation spirals forward ad infinitum.
The wolf is the silly whiteboy clinging to his privilege with what’s left of his claws; the sheep’s clothes are the linguistic tropes he employs to make himself look more “logical.” Of course whiteboys, and white PEOPLE, whether they’re dressed up as radicals or progressives or social-justice minded people will fight tooth and nail to cling to their privilege, one way or another. As is evidenced in Imus’s petty drivelling and finger-pointing AS WELL as by the insipid whiteboy-centric talk that we see from Michael and others of his ilk on this forum and others like it. This is why I’ve stopped posting on Feral Scholar.
TO THE WHITE PEOPLE HERE: white men have done enough damage in their attempt to wholly dominate the very definitions of terms such as “logic.” When will we admit that maybe we, white folks, didn’t do a very good job at that, that we alienated everyone else in attempting to set those standards, and that now we don’t really have a right to define those things anymore? When will we learn to actually take criticism and not merely react to it defensively? Don’t we want to actually change things?
Well. If we don’t, then we should just shut the hell up and quit taking up space in forums dedicated to change. IMO.
The course of change for the better will mean that we lose privilege. We have to deal with that. “Suck it up,” as many a white-male authority figure has said to me in my life. White people can’t run the revolution. It ain’t a revolution if we do, unless we only think of revolution as running in tired circles.
And also, I have to say that the moderators and owners of forums such as this one should be held accountable as well; they should be able to identify when such oppressive tropes pop up and eliminate them before they derail conversations, or attempt to do so. The derailment is not just words and words and words, it means that the person doing the derailing is attempting to DEFLECT ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OPPRESSIVE BEHAVIOR FROM HIMSELF AND ONTO THE PEOPLE HE IS OPPRESSING. Just like Don Imus did with the whole “but Black people started said ho before I did” dribble.
White people have to be accountable. WHITE MEN have got to learn to take criticism and to self-criticize, and stop fucking self-aggrandizing. If that means we get banned from message boards when we pull stupid bullshit, then so be it. If that means that we can’t run the activist group, then that’s what it means. Individually, if it means that we can’t step back and examine the things that we say, can’t accept the criticism of our WHITE SUPREMACIST THOUGHT (it’s just more accurate a term than racist) then we have to bow out or get kicked out of the ring.
That’s all.
This comment was written by Elaina.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Elaina said: “white men have done enough damage in their attempt to wholly dominate the very definitions of terms such as ‘logic.’ When will we admit that maybe we, white folks, didn’t do a very good job at that, that we alienated everyone else in attempting to set those standards, and that now we don’t really have a right to define those things anymore? When will we learn to actually take criticism and not merely react to it defensively? Don’t we want to actually change things?”
Can I just second that? And say that the same goes for the definitions of terms such as “civil,” “polite,” “educated,” and “knowlegeable”?
This comment was written by crys t.Report this comment to the moderators
April 18th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
“sylphhead, once you have become emotionally charged in a debate you have lost your footing and following that, your credibility. You’re insult harms not in the least because I know what and who I am; I also can tell that you have no valid rebuttel so you are resorting to emotion.”
You could have condensed your affectatious blather to a nice, healthy ‘argumentum ad baculum’ - no pseudo-intellectual is complete without a list of Latin terms, and doncha just itch to throw something like ‘baculum’ in there?
FYI before you start throwing out pop psych/existential canards out there, you might want to learn how to spell rebuttal, or failing that, what the term actually means. Your earlier ‘word-for-word’ breakdown was a laughable grab at long-winded analysis, probably to pad your word count. Certainly, the novice move of copying and pasting from Wikipedia points along the same line.
No, it’s not that I’m so much ‘emotionally charged’, David - or at least, not more so than I always am - but because people who parrot the WSJ, obnoxiously change the channel to some cable news program when they’re around normal human beings, and honestly try to postulate that black females are privileged while white males are victims, are good mainly for verbal target practice.
“Er, no. It is precisely because racism has such heinous objective harms that there is great prickliness and defensiveness about being called out for racism.
Nobody would care that they were considered racist if the damage from racism were unimportant or insignificant, other than the most exquisitely sensitive souls who couldn’t bear to be thought of as unsophisticated.
I grew up in the Deep South, and especially in Mississippi, where much of my extended family still lives. Saying so-and-so is a racist, in my view, is saying that they’re of a piece with the night riders who terrorized blacks, raping and killing to buttress an awful system of oppression and outright tyranny. That’s one hell of a serious charge to lay on somebody, so I’m reluctant to do it unless the evidence is unequivocal. Racism is evil, and racists are evil. I hate to put someone in the “evil” category if I don’t have to.”
Wow, and an inspiring tale to be sure. But the application of that would end up with fewer racists being shit canned - replace ‘racism’ in that last paragraph with any other crime conservatives would say we need to be Tuff On, and you’ll understand my earlier one-liner - so excuse me if I think that it’s a load of hooey.
How about present day racism then? Would it be fair to say that conservatives believe that present day racism does little objective harm? You’ll object I’m sure, but the way you guys (and a good chunk of liberals) talk about it, it’s a cheap, tawdry tabloid show. Joe Jones gets charged for DUI! Joe Jones’ ex tells all! Joe Jones is a racist! What’s lost, of course, are the actual victims. Hint: it ain’t Joe Jones.
Racism can exist without racists. That’s what I’m trying to get across. The language that you are using (’one hell of a serious charge’, ‘evidence is unequivocal’), first of all, mistakenly assumes that criticism against a public figure, even the harsh and damaging sort, needs to undergo some paintaking process of judicial review. (Maybe it should, but then that means we’d all be robbed of the screwball show the RNC puts up every election year, and we don’t want that.) But that’s a minor quibble. I’ll draw up an analogy to illustrate the main point.
Say there’s a kid’s playground. The little nails and screws are coming loose, the monkey bars are slippery, the varnish on the wood causes second degree chemical burn. When the shit hits the fan, it doesn’t get to be written off as a little misunderstanding because one person cannot be nailed down and found absolutely positively culpable. And to remedy and recompense for the situation, the community will have to be inconvenienced with some small sacrifices, even it’s by and large innocent - insofar as any community that allowed such a toxic death trap to be made and did nothing can be called innocent. And most pertinently to our case, assessing the damage to the victims, and even compensating for it, is not contingent to some guilty verdict. That’s perhaps the difference between the conservative and I. He sees racism as a ‘charge’, with a whole trial-of-the-century titillation scene going on and where he subjectively weighs the ‘evidence’. I see it as a ‘dangerous playground’ that comes every so often in society, usually less potent in any single case but far more widespread. It affects how we each approach the situation. Even if the racism is inadvertent, just acknowledge it, own up to it, and move on. If you broke your mama’s vase, it doesn’t matter that you only *intended* to catch the football. Really, it’s not all that difficult.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
sylphhead Writes:
Wow. I don’t even know what to say….except you hit that nail on the head, LOL! Good analysis, good response!
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 20th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Hillary asks Audience to Take “Rutgers Pledge.”
Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, asked people across the nation to take what she called “the Rutgers pledge.”
“Will you be willing to speak up and say, ‘Enough is enough,’ when women who are minorities or the powerless are marginalized or degraded?” Clinton said in her speech to about 700 people.
Way to go, Hillary! But I gotta tell ya, I’m also loving Obama’s pledge to end the Iraq War in March ‘08. Hmmmm. This is going to be a tough choice. Perhaps there’ll be a Clinton/Obama ticket???
This comment was written by Faith.Report this comment to the moderators
April 21st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
When Don Imus’ bullshit became so stinky that America absolutely fucking had to take it outside, everyone was semi-ok with talking about how the words were the same ones that rappers used, or at most endlessly debating “was Imus’s quip more racist or more sexist?” No one thought to mention, hey, plenty of black men get to play college basketball without radio commentators rating their athletic bodies or making any sort of “jungle fever” jokes. Yeah, Don Imus is a stupid racist sexist asshole who illustrated
This comment was written by muttering in a corner.Report this comment to the moderators
October 21st, 2007 at 7:38 pm
[...] The thread at Alas was even worse. Since there is no way I can actually recreate the 216 comments, I’ll just summarize what happened. When one commenter focused only on the sexist aspect of the comments, I reminded her that “It also matters that the women were black.” To which Brandon Berg responded, It’s not at all clear that it does, given that he then went on to say, “the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute,” and they’re black, too (as far as I can tell—the video clip isn’t very clear). His choice of whom to insult and whom to compliment was based on his perception of their attractiveness, not their race. [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Whites Need to Take Responsibility for Their Racism (Alternate Title: Stop Giving White People 2nd, 3rd and 4th Chances When Blacks Get Zero Chances).Report this comment to the moderators