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???

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.

Wow. I don’t even know what to say….except you hit that nail on the head, LOL! Good analysis, good response!

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.

Can I just second that? And say that the same goes for the definitions of terms such as “civil,” “polite,” “educated,” and “knowlegeable”?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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:

Brandon you never met a case of racism you believed.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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:

You repeatedly have utilized typically “black female victim status” tactics of engagement here, specifically directed against Michael, a “White man” who knows better than to be silent in the face of “black female PC bullying”.

“Black female victim status” tend to make you “black females” pretty damned ignorant and arrogant.

Your “black female” fly is open, and that “black pussy” of yours is showing here. Put it back in your pants, please.

And get the f*ck off of Micheal’s case, “black woman.”

Nope, nothing wrong with that is there?

So long. (I know, good riddance and don’t let the door hit me….)

It was.

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.

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.

In response to Comment # 120 by Ann, you replied (emphasis mine):

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.

I replied in Comment 140:

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!!

And you say, over and over again:

It is simply untrue. [Angel's] claim is just one of several examples where people have simply made up comments and attributed them to me.

Each time my words were taken out of context …That remark by Angel is indicative of exactly what Ann and others have done .

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.

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:

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.

That was a blatant cop-out. But let’s take a look at your very first post:

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…So it seems that people formulate perceptions based on how Black women choose to style their hair.

Damn. You really are clueless, aren’t you? Especially when you said at #180 (emphasis mine):

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 .

Oh, rly?

Ann@120:

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).

You@139:

How black women are treated in America is open for debate.

Ann@141:

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.

You@148:

The reaction to Imus shows me that race relations are far better than you claim.

Ann@15:

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.

You@158 (emphasis mine):

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…Responding with a history of past abuses says nothing about what happened here.

Shall we look again at what you said at #180? I do so love it when you contradict yourself!