Anyone ever listen to or watch Don Imus?

[jmarie]

I have listened to his show on occasion....in fact, I used to like him....but in the last year, I think he is over the top. Granted, his banter with his commrades, is a lot like locker room talk....but what he said the other day...(Hannity played the exerpt on his radio show) was way over the top. What do you think?

Apology Doesn't Stem Calls to Oust Imus
By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press Writer
Sat Apr 7, 3:42 PM


Nationally syndicated radio personality Don Imus speaks at the ...
NEW YORK - Unimpressed by his on-air apology or corporate promises of a tighter leash, angry critics of nationally syndicated radio host Don Imus called Saturday for his dismissal over his racially charged comments about the mostly black Rutgers women's basketball team.

"I accept his apology, just as I want his bosses to accept his resignation," said the Rev. Al Sharpton. He promised to picket Imus' New York radio home, WFAN-AM, unless the veteran of nearly 40 years of anything-goes broadcasting is gone within a week.

Sharpton was not alone in his anger over Imus' description of the Rutgers' women as "nappy headed hos" during a Wednesday morning segment of his show, which airs for millions of listeners on more than 70 stations and the MSNBC television network.

On Friday, after Imus delivered an on-air apology, both WFAN and MSNBC condemned his remarks. WFAN issued a statement promising to "monitor the program's content" but Imus, a member of the National Broadcasters Hall of Fame, was not publicly disciplined.

The National Association of Black Journalists, the editor-in-chief of Essence magazine and a New York sports columnist joined the chorus against Imus.

"What he has said has deeply hurt too many people _ black and white, male and female," said NABJ President Bryan Monroe. "His so-called apology comes two days after the fact, and it is too little, too late."

Angela Burt Murray, of Essence magazine, called on Imus' bosses to take a harder stance over his "unacceptable" remarks. "It needs to be made clear that this type of behavior is offensive and will not be tolerated without severe consequences," Murray said.

Columnist Filip Bondy of the Daily News, in a column headlined "Imus spews hate, should be fired," said the radio star "should be axed for one of the most despicable comments ever uttered on the air."

The Rutgers team, which includes eight black women, lost the NCAA women's championship game Tuesday, and Imus was discussing the game with producer Bernard McGuirk.

"That's some rough girls from Rutgers," Imus said. "Man, they got tattoos ..."

"Some hardcore hos," said McGuirk.

"That's some nappy headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that," Imus said.
Karen Mateo, a spokeswoman for WFAN's parent company CBS Radio, said Saturday there was no additional comment on the Imus situation.

Imus' success has often been a a result of his on-air barbs.

"That Imus is in trouble for being politically incorrect is certainly not new," said Tom Taylor, editor of the trade publication Inside Radio. "He's lived his life in and out of trouble ... This is something CBS will be watching very carefully."

Recent controversies involving Imus focused on a member of his morning team, Sid Rosenberg, who was fired two years ago after a particularly vile crack about cancer-stricken singer Kylie Minogue. Before that, a racially tinged comment by Rosenberg about Venus and Serena Williams stirred another controversy.

The NABJ cited two other incidents in which Imus himself insulted two black journalists. Imus has called PBS' Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady" and described William Rhoden of The New York Times as "a quota hire," the group said.

Sharpton said he was writing to the Federal Communications Commission about Imus' remarks.

"This is not some unemployed comic like Michael Richards," Sharpton said, referring to the "Seinfeld" actor who used the N-word and referred to lynching in a rant last year. "This is an established figure, allowed to use the airwaves for sexist and racist remarks."

[DeeK]

It was beyond tacky, racist and rude, but that's what Imus is all about.

I don't listen to talk radio much. I sometimes listen to NPR. But, shock jocks? No thanks, not my cup of venom.

[misskitty100]

I think what he said was horrible especially considering he was refering to athletes!!!

I just read about this today and have never heard his show. I don't know if it is a political type show or what .....I did see him and his wife on Larry King several years ago. She did most of the talking and they were promoting a cookbook that she (he?) just published and it was cowboy cooking or something like that. Apparently thay have some sort of cowboy camp for kids (not sure if they are ill or disadvantage kids etc). I checked out the cookbook from the library and it was pretty interesing - everything was ultra healthy.

[funnybone]

I've never been a fan, but I really wish he would go away. What he said was beyond rude and racist. Based on two major sponsors pulling out, he really needs to rethink coming back from his suspension. I feel sorry for the Rutgers basketball players. They did not deserve to be called any names! He's just a big jerk - period!

BTW - Who is HE to comment on anyone's looks? He sure doesn't have the face for television!

[sneezles]

Had never heard of him before his rude, racist, and sexist comments which got him on the evening news. Not interested in that kind of show or person.

[ChristyMarie]

I have never listened to him either.

I will say this though, while what he said was awful, it was not illegal. He has a right to express his opinion, however vile it may be. And we, as consumers, have a right to not listen to him.

I'm not sure how you fire a talk show host whose job is expressing his opinions for an opinion you do not like (which is not illegal to state on air) without creating a very slippery slope of censorship. Instead of calling for his resignation, people should speak their opinion by not listening. If his ratings drop, his show goes away, and the message that we are not interested to listening to that type of language comes across quite clear.

[boisewinesnob]

Had never heard of him before his rude, racist, and sexist comments which got him on the evening news. Not interested in that kind of show or person.


I'd never heard of him either. And wish it had stayed that way.

[Beth H]

Had never heard of him before his rude, racist, and sexist comments which got him on the evening news.

The sad thing is he and his show have a record of making similar comments over the last few years (there are several articles today in the press with details) - this is by no means an isolated incident. I feel badly for the athletes who are caught in the middle of this when they should be celebrating their accomplishments.

[Robyncz]

I have never listened to him either.

I will say this though, while what he said was awful, it was not illegal. He has a right to express his opinion, however vile it may be. And we, as consumers, have a right to not listen to him.

I'm not sure how you fire a talk show host whose job is expressing his opinions for an opinion you do not like (which is not illegal to state on air) without creating a very slippery slope of censorship. Instead of calling for his resignation, people should speak their opinion by not listening. If his ratings drop, his show goes away, and the message that we are not interested to listening to that type of language comes across quite clear.

I agree that he has a right to express his opinion (although I can't imagine that his actual opinion was that those women *are* nappy-headed hos. I think the comment was one of many meant soley to shock and offend). I also agree that listeners have the right to turn the dial. But I also believe that the broadcast company has the right to suspend or fire him, regardless of whether the comments were legal or illegal. People in all lines of work get fired for things that are legal but inappropriate.

[Laura]

Let me preface this by saying what he said was unbelievably offensive, and his apology seemed less than sincere. That said, I don't listen to him or Howard Stern (is that the shock jock from NYC), but is what Imus said any more offensive than things that Stern has said in the past? I am not condoning it I just thought that Stern has said offensive things in the past and he gets rewarded with some big satellite radio deal. I don't listen to either so I guess it doesn't affect me, but I think in the end the market place will deal with Imus. Either people will return to listening to him, or they won't and the sponsors will drop him.

[blazedog]

I have never listened to him either.

I will say this though, while what he said was awful, it was not illegal. He has a right to express his opinion, however vile it may be. And we, as consumers, have a right to not listen to him.

I'm not sure how you fire a talk show host whose job is expressing his opinions for an opinion you do not like (which is not illegal to state on air) without creating a very slippery slope of censorship. Instead of calling for his resignation, people should speak their opinion by not listening. If his ratings drop, his show goes away, and the message that we are not interested to listening to that type of language comes across quite clear.

First this was hardly an opinion -- and even Imus isn't claiming it to be an opinion -- In fact his defense is quite the contrary.

There is no issue of "censorship" since he is employed by a private company who can make a decision for whatever reason that his program is no longer one they wish to carry. How refreshing that taste rather than ratings might be used in this instance.

Radio and television are part of the public airwaves -- broadcasters have very valuable licenses -- in exchange for these licenses they agree to certain requirements -- moreover, long forgotten but these private entities were granted these enormously lucrative "public airways" and were supposed to do something "good" with it -- this has all been forgotten in an environment in which Anna Nicole Smith stories have replaced the hard hitting documentaries of CBS in the 1960's and cartoons are considered to be educational children's programming.

IMUS has repeatedly made anti-black as well as anti-Semitic comments. We are free to not listen to him -- advertisers are free not to advertise -- and NBC et al are certainly free to send a message that racist remarks are not rewarded with $10 million per year employment contracts.

[jmarie]

advertisers are free not to advertise

Yes, and I heard (either yesterday or today) that he had lost a few sponsors. Companies ranging from Proctor and Gamble, Staples, Sprint and General Motors....

I guess, it remains to be seen whether Don will be able to pull this one out.

Joyce

[colleency]

Yes, and I heard (either yesterday or today) that he had lost a few sponsors. Companies ranging from Proctor and Gamble, Staples, Sprint and General Motors....

I heard that Proctor and Gamble and Staples pulled out for two weeks, which is the exact same time that he has been suspended for.

I suppose they're using the publicity to their benefit, and as soon as he's back, they're back, too. I think that's kind of underhanded.

I don't care for this "gentleman" or for Howard Stearn or Andrew Dice Clay. I don't care to listen to entertainers whose schtick is to slice up groups of people. I don't enjoy listening to men cut down women or women cut down men. I don't understand people who do enjoy it.

But then I think the lyrics to a lot of modern songs are repulsive.

...Hey, you kids get off my porch!!! ;)

[Kristilyn1]

I used to listen faithfully about 5-6 years ago. His humor for the most part did not appeal to me, but he would often have very interesting political guests who would let their hair down. I'm sure there are more than a few out there cringing, waiting for someone to point out their association with him.

However, even back when I was listening--he would often make the exact same type of comments about just about everyone, I admit I'm not sure why people are just noticing now.

That said, imo, Howard Stern, back in his regular radio days said some of the filthiest, most despicable comments I've ever heard a person make and while people were disgusted, no one ran him out of town on a rail. I realize his move to satellite radio was because of his filthy mouth--not because of racist, sexist remarks, per se.

I think that what is happening now to Don Imus are the natural consequences of his actions. I hate to see politicians jump in the fray and demand that based on this, that or the other thing he should be fired. Let it go it's natural course of a free society. The listeners are outraged. The sponsors pull out, the company loses money and respect, therefore they fire him, or not. I'm guessing that unless the Rutgers team goes on tv, linking arms and singing "We are the World" with Don Imus next week, that he will be fired.

That said, not that it should affect what is happening, but I did want to point out that he does not exist solely for the purpose to shock--he does run a ranch for kids with cancer and does a lot of work for SIDS research and spends an inordinate amount of his radio time drumming up donations for both. His wife is also involved in many green causes. He also will make awful remarks about himself. He is a recovering alcoholic and cocaine addict. He doesn't leave himself out of his rude commentary.

Kristi

[blazedog]

Evidently he is history in terms of the televised version of the show on MSNBC -- as of late this afternoon.

[Gumbeaux]

I don't listen to him nor to I listen to Shawn Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage.

[ChristieinMB]

Why is this news, hasn't he always talked this way? I don't get it.
Calling someone a ho? I thought that was a common term for your girlfriend. Not my kind of talk, but I don't listen to Imus, apparently many do (or did).

[Robyncz]

Calling someone a ho? I thought that was a common term for your girlfriend.


I don't know whether that's true or not, but unless he was dating the entire Rutgers women's basketball team, I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

[blazedog]

Why is this news, hasn't he always talked this way? I don't get it.
Calling someone a ho? I thought that was a common term for your girlfriend. Not my kind of talk, but I don't listen to Imus, apparently many do (or did).

Are you being serious or is there some joke we are missing?

[Gumbeaux]

Calling someone a ho? I thought that was a common term for your girlfriend.

Speaking of "ho" and what context the word is used in, this (http://gprime.net/video.php/whatsaho) is the most hilarious thing I've ever seen on Jeopardy! :D

[Autumnsun]

Are you being serious or is there some joke we are missing?

I am wondering the same also. I have never had a boyfriend call me a "ho" in my entire life. If they did, they wouldn't have been my boyfriend for long.

[ChristieinMB]

I am wondering the same also. I have never had a boyfriend call me a "ho" in my entire life. If they did, they wouldn't have been my boyfriend for long.As I said, it is not my kind of talk, but I understand it is a common term used in songs to refer to a girlfriend. My question was why it was news, as I understand many people use that term. Imus is another shock jock, so what does one expect from him? I didn't say I found it acceptable in my life, but I don't listen to him.

[Robyncz]

My question was why it was news, as I understand many people use that term.


Because he randomly denigrated an entire group of honorable young women who had done nothing to earn any sort of public disrespect. And he denigrated them on the basis of race. And people (rightfully) stood up to him. Should it have happened before now? I've never listened to him, but based on the stories I've heard this week he should have been called to the carpet long ago. For whatever reason, many people in the public are saying enough is enough and his employers are being forced to react. This is exactly how a free and open society is supposed to work, I think.

[Angelina]

As I said, it is not my kind of talk, but I understand it is a common term used in songs to refer to a girlfriend.

Considering what it means, I doubt any self respecting woman would be ok with being called one by her boyfriend. And in songs, maybe, but I would imagine only the worst of the rappers talk like that.

Personally, if my husband introduced me as his 'ho', even as a joke, I would kick his behind. ;)

Angela

[funnybone]

Personally, if my husband introduced me as his 'ho', even as a joke, I would kick his behind. ;)


Or another body part!:mad:

[lawyergirl]

This hole situation about basketball girls and Imus....was terrible and rude....I as I women of color see this as being a I coment to all women period. I agree what Imus saying was over the top for even him. And he shouldn't of said it .....and we must understand when people are on T.V that have them Idea to make jokes, opinion, and etc. Don't get me wrong. Those bad nasty cut to the bone and does hurt deep. Because the talk show man and women have there own opinion, I have been a longtime watcher of Imus in the morning. And that morning I don't watch. And that the point all american have a right to watch, speak etc. It a shame that most men feel they are protecting us like some call mess Jesse Jackson and shaplone .....My opinion those men are out for themself and it a terrible war. and Black, white, green, blue women isn't issue as they say sexist or racist.....Every women shouldn't be call anything point.:)

[SusanMac]

The media reaction to this has been waaaaaay over the top, IMO. I do think that Imus says stuff like this all the time (and has for more than 20 years), as does Howard Stern and most rappers on the planet. That doesn't make it right or appropriate, but he seems to be really singled out on this. Someone on the news said that rap was different b/c it's "art."

I think it's cool that the team is going to meet him in person. But, clips from their press conference were very odd. One girl said that this scarred her for life. Come on... really?

You'd think there was absolutely no other important news going on in the rest of the world. At least it takes some of the focus off of Anna's baby, which is another crazy circus whereI don't fully understand the attraction.

[ChristieinMB]

The media reaction to this has been waaaaaay over the top, IMO. I do think that Imus says stuff like this all the time (and has for more than 20 years), as does Howard Stern and most rappers on the planet. That doesn't make it right or appropriate, but he seems to be really singled out on this. Someone on the news said that rap was different b/c it's "art."

I think it's cool that the team is going to meet him in person. But, clips from their press conference were very odd. One girl said that this scarred her for life. Come on... really?

You'd think there was absolutely no other important news going on in the rest of the world. At least it takes some of the focus off of Anna's baby, which is another crazy circus whereI don't fully understand the attraction.
You get my point, people like Jackson and Sharpton are using this for their own personal goals. The term is used all the time in songs, but I do not see the outcry. I wish the "Black Leaders" would show their outrage at the rap lyrics and bad message it gives. Yes, the term is not nice, but why not condemn the term universally.
I never said it was wrong to criticize Imus for using the term, just odd that is is such a news story when the term (and others)is used all the time in rap music. Why is that acceptable? If not why no outcry?

[blazedog]

You get my point, people like Jackson and Sharpton are using this for their own personal goals. The term is used all the time in songs, but I do not see the outcry. I wish the "Black Leaders" would show their outrage at the rap lyrics and bad message it gives. Yes, the term is not nice, but why not condemn the term universally.
I never said it was wrong to criticize Imus for using the term, just odd that is is such a news story when the term (and others)is used all the time in rap music. Why is that acceptable? If not why no outcry?

For the record, many black leaders are on record as being against the vulgarization of the culture -- and Sharpton in an interview I saw yesterday specifically addressed this issue. This is the tired argument that Imus and his (thankfully dwindling) band of supporters trotted out.

If you really can't see the offensiveness of a 67 year old white male describing 9 young women as nappy headed hos, frankly you are part of the problem. :rolleyes:

[donnamp14]

Imus is a mean-spirited old coot. There are lots like him out there. The radiowaves are full of mysogynists and racists.

I hope he loses his job and that it's a lesson to all the other mean spirited you-know-whats out there. He'd never had said it to their faces. None of them ever do. Hiding behind a microphone spewing foolishness.

Just a mean-spirited old windbag, IMHO.

-Donna

[ChristieinMB]

If you really can't see the offensiveness of a 67 year old white male describing 9 young women as nappy headed hos, frankly you are part of the problem. :rolleyes:
Well, I guess you are not reading my posts, I never defended Imus,not said it was not offensive.
Frankly, I think you are being swept away in the media frenzy.

[SusanMac]

I dont' think anyone here has indicated it wasn't offensive at all. Just amazed that it's on the news 24 hours/day, and reporters acting as if no one has ever said anything offensive before.

"Old coot" is a very appropriate adjective for Imus! LOL

And...btw....the Stephen Colbert response to this has been a scream! He's been making offensive statements to Hungarians during his fake radio program where he wears an obnoxious American flag hat.

[scudgal]

Here's the Colbert video - it is a hoot:

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Stephen_Colbert_spoofs_Don_Imus_racial_0410.html

[bunnyrabbit]

Instead of holding a pointless indignation-meeting with Mr. Imus, maybe the offended athletes should simply go back to their Rutgers textbooks and find retorts for him. The Bard of Avon has several nice ones:

"Thou yeasty fool-born bladder!"
"Thou poisonous bunch-backed toad!"
"Thou gorbellied dismail-dreaming death-token!"
"Thou dissembling beetle-headed mumble-news!"
"Thou goatish dog-hearted miscreant!"

But y'know, maybe these insults would slide right off his back, just as his silly off-the-cuff comment should have rolled right off the collective hides of the "offended" parties. When, oh when, will people learn that the best response to such stuff is a laugh and a big "go-by"---by making such a huge big flutter and squawk about it, they have probably gotten Imus more attention than he'd ever have had before, when he was just a grumpy ugly old cuss that appealed only to his private few.

[RunnerKim]

I don't think those making such a "big flutter and sqauwk" care so much about how much personal attention Imus is getting. They're much more interested in saying "it's not okay to make offensive and racist comments, particularly about young women who've worked hard to accomplish something.

If I hadn't made a fuss about a couple of family members using inappropriate and offensive comments around me, it would still happen. If they want to do it when I'm not around that's their choice, but not around me (and now not around my children). Yes, it may draw more attention to a person and their comments/beliefs but I don't see how change would happen by ignoring a situation which implies acceptance and approval.

Kim

[blazedog]

But y'know, maybe these insults would slide right off his back, just as his silly off-the-cuff comment should have rolled right off the collective hides of the "offended" parties. When, oh when, will people learn that the best response to such stuff is a laugh and a big "go-by"---by making such a huge big flutter and squawk about it, they have probably gotten Imus more attention than he'd ever have had before, when he was just a grumpy ugly old cuss that appealed only to his private few.

The point of this is not that someone in personal life made an insulting remark -- The point is that the public airwaves were used by a public figure.

I personally am quite delighted that a strong message was sent out to others with public forums so that perhaps they will think twice before uttering racist comments.

[bunnyrabbit]

Yes, no doubt. I have no "dog in this hunt," as they say, so I think I'll file the whole thing in the same cylindrical bin as the Anna Nicole ho-hum story, and Kirtstie Alley's public parading, and...well, the list of Things Not Worth Giving a **** About is endless! Slow news week, for certain. But wait! Didn't I hear Marie Osmond is divorcing? Now, THERE'S news!:):)

[bobmark226]

... they have probably gotten Imus more attention than he'd ever have had before, when he was just a grumpy ugly old cuss that appealed only to his private few.

He probably has tremendous personal appeal to the families who've had their children with cancer spend time at his Imus Ranch...or maybe that six year old black child he stopped over in flight to pick up and fly to a hospital for special treatment this past week....or the disabled veterans at the Center for the Intrepid, where he played a huge part in the raising of six million dollars to finance it.

This is not to say his words are in any way defensible, but there's a lot positive to be said about the man who called Rush Limbaugh a "fat pill-popping loser."

The irony of all this is having a bunch of nobodies who apparently know nothing about him but his reputation, or have never listened to him, come clamoring with their pretentious quoting of Shakespeare, passing judgement on a man who, by many accounts, is a seriously good guy.

Ah, yes, that's right..."the good is oft interred with their bones."

Bob

[bunnyrabbit]

Are we not allowed to type d-a-m-n? That's pretty mild, compared to **** and gay and *** and other frowned-upon SL words...

[bunnyrabbit]

Answer came there quickly! So c-o-c-k and a-s-s are verboten, too. Goodness gracious. The two websites are morphing into one...

[bunnyrabbit]

BOB!!! I actually LIKE Don Imus, think he's funny as Hell, and think this recent little Donnybrook of his is a tempest in a teapot. I would have said so right off, but for the fear (big eye-roll here) of getting pistol-whipped by all the righteous members! The Shakespeare stuff was supposed to be...ironic? I only meant that perhaps the hissy-fitters should slam him back with more verbiage, then get over it, and back to their business of being nap---er, NAPalm on the basketball court.

You are right on about Imus' excellent charitable works. But who wants to talk about that? Oh, no, we have to slap him around for one little silly remark.

Sorry you misread my post...and sorry for not being clearer!

[leebee]

I do not doubt his good works. I don't really doubt that he's a sincerely nice guy. I don't really think he should be fired for this one particular comment, but at the same time I think this style of commentary is beyond defense. And I know we have the "right" to say just about anything we want. At the same time, we have an obligation to accept the consequences of our words. Has he made similar comments in the past? Do others say worse? Sure. But it looks like he said the wrong thing about the wrong bunch of people this time. They took notice. They were offended. And rightly so, I think. It was a racially-charged comment. I would be personally offended if someone pointed to me and made a comment like that. Look, he wasn't making general statements. "All women are this." No, it was more personal. "These women are this." There's a difference in my opinion. Words carry power. Words can have a lasting effect. Who am I to say that an individual shouldn't feel that effect in a big way? He said it. He deals with the consequences. And, frankly, this would likely have blown over a bit faster if he didn't feel the need to defend himself to such a degree and almost demand that people "understand" what a great guy he is. His unending public "outreach" is giving this more press than it needs, and he should just apologize, say he's learned his lesson and will be more careful in the future, and then shut up.

That's my opinion, not the gospel. Feel free to disagree. I'm going to go home and wipe down my counters with my Imus Greening the Cleaning solution, which I love!

[funnybone]

Just saw this on TV - CBS has officially fired him now too.

[scudgal]

CBS Radio has fired Don Imus. I am in shock.

[Kristilyn1]

While I said I wouldn't be surprised, further reflection has revealed that I actually AM surprised. I mean, he's been making these comments for years, and now they fire him? It seems a little disingenuous. If it was something new, I guess that would be one thing. I mean, what are they going to say? Ooops, we just realized what kind of humor Mr. Imus uses and we are shocked? I just hope they couch it in the terms of, upon further reflection we've decided we NO LONGER want to represent this kind of talk, not that they had no idea.

Kristi

[Grace]

It all comes down to money. The people at the top aren't necessarily upset by what he says in particular, but when it starts to impact the pocket book, caused by enough public outcry, that's when they start to care. Apparently enough sponsors have pulled out to make them decide he wasn't worth his paycheck anymore.

As for why now? I like to agree with Leebee that he finally offended people who have the means to fight back, and who by everyone's estimation are fine, upstanding women. It wasn't as if he denegrated people who are busy denegrating themselves by their actions anyway, people whom others might not have much sympathy for (not saying they shouldn't, all people matter and no matter what they do don't deserve to be denegrated), but it's hard to get the public to rise up together when you're calling someone who is acting like a ho a ho (say like Paris Hilton et.al). These women are the furthest thing from that and I think it offends everyone, not just those women.

Additionally, lots of bad things used to be acceptable. It used to be acceptable to keep blacks from drinking from the same drinking fountain as whites. To use the "why now" argument doesn't make sense. At some point, some people just decided they weren't going to take it anymore, and decided to do something about it. Just because something has been ok for a long time and has been overlooked for a long time doesn't mean it should be allowed to continue indefinitely.

And I'll say I'm surprised, but not because I didn't think he deserved to go, but because I didn't think they'd have the guts to do it. So I'm surprised in a good way. I'm tired of all the fake remorse. He was only sorry he got in trouble, IMO. Not sorry he offended anyone really. He's lived far too long to be that ignorant as to believe that it was ok to talk like that. Those are mistakes that dumb, inexperienced people make. If he was young and ignorant, I'd be more inclined to believe he didn't realize the full impact of what he was saying. But he's an old guy that knows better, and chose to say what he said anyway. I'm glad they're finally putting some real penalties in place for stuff like that. I'm tired of highly paid/famous people being allowed to slide all the time.

[bobmark226]

That's my opinion, not the gospel. Feel free to disagree. !

Even if I did disagree, which I don't, I always look forward to your well thought-out and extremely well expressed opinions.

Bob

[bunnyrabbit]

First of all, you have no idea how heartening it is to read a post by someone who can not only use the word "disingenuous" correctly, but spell it right! I fall on my knees before you! If I read ONE MORE POST with the phrase "'loose' weight" (the verb is "LOSE," folks!) or "eat healthy" (it shoud be "eat healthILY;" a verb is modified by an adverb)...I wil simply faint right on top of my laptop.

You are so right that Don Imus isn't doing anything much different than he ever has. Somebody just decided to get all huffy about a particular comment, and whooooosh---off goes the national media, pop goes the top of the hypersensitive---and down the toilet goes the career of an interesting media personality.

Okay okay okay, he dared to speak off-the-cuff, and made a gaffe. Big whoop.

[funnybone]

I think he ended up nailing his own coffin by appearing on interviews. He should have just apologized and left it at that (or went into rehab like the Hollywood stars do for various reasons;) ). or had a PR person speak on his behalf. He didn't handle the aftermath very well, and took the fall because of it. Just my opinion, of course.

[blazedog]

Okay okay okay, he dared to speak off-the-cuff, and made a gaffe. Big whoop.

What you call a gaffe :D others rightfully denominate (big word there -- hope you are impressed) to be racist and sexist and disgusting.

A gaffe is a slight mistatement -- I have never "gaffed" (deliberate misuse of word to make an ironic point :D) and spewed hatred.

And I don't care what kind of good deeds someone does -- As was written today in the paper, most people won't accept themselves as racist because they don't have white sheets on.

To look at a group of predominantly black young women and to even THINK -- nappy headed hos -- I am not sure how a non-racist mind goes there -- let alone thinks it is okay to speak it in a public forum (or anywhere in the hearing of civilized people).

[bunnyrabbit]

You are spot-on, Funnybone. I think that, had I been in Mr. Imus' uncomfortable position, I'd have said "goodbye and no comment," and just retired to the ranch, and thought to myself, "whooopsie, I sure spoke without thinking," and let it go at that. No donning of hair shirt, no "rehab" (REHAB? for spontaneous commentary? Is there such a program?)

He's probably made enough money that he doesn't really have to cry about his network sponsors dumping him. If he's smart, he'll just negotiate with a publishing house and do a book deal.

And if Al Sharpton is smart (big if) he will train his missiles on worthier targets, such as...well, never mind. This is not a socio-political site.

[little_bopeep]

I had all sorts of relevant things to say, but they were generally in opposition to most of the posts here. So rather than risk the wrath of the righteous, I shall simply say that I think this whole thing was blown waaaaaay out of proportion. He said a stupid thing, he apologized, it should be over. He could make a sizable donation to the Rutgers athletic department or something, since money seems to talk. I knew within seconds of hearing about this that Sharpton and Jackson would get plenty of airtime. What's the correct term for the political equivalent of an ambulance chaser?

[misskitty100]

Can someone explain how his firing differs from his show being cancelled? I also wonder what type of severance pkg he will get from this....

[Grace]

He had two shows. His radio show on CBS radio, and the tv simulcast (of the radio show) on MSNBC. The TV show was cancelled yesterday, and now he lost his radio show as well. Is that what you were asking?

[bunnyrabbit]

But...the bottom line is, nobody is being forced by law to listen to Don Imus! Don't like him? Don't listen; end of story! Isn't that why we have about nine billion cable channels/radio stations to choose from? Pick the one that resonates with your inner musings, shun the rest. Simple as that.

But, radio/TV is big business, and if enough advertisers get their knickers in a wad about something and pull their ads, well, out goes the offending party. Imus should have reckoned on that before he spoke, certainly.

Anybody out there ever hear the "Black Beatles" who performed on Imus' show a few years ago? Oooooohhhhh, where was The REV Sharpton then? Lyrics like,

"When ah fine mahseff in time of trouble
Mothah Mary come to me
Speak dem wuds of wisdom,
Whut it BE?"

Google Black Beatles and listen to the whole broadcast.

If I were a Rutgers basketball player, that would have offended me a whole lot more. But outcry came there none about this widely-circulated broadcast. I suppose it's all a matter of timing.

[misskitty100]

He had two shows. His radio show on CBS radio, and the tv simulcast (of the radio show) on MSNBC. The TV show was cancelled yesterday, and now he lost his radio show as well. Is that what you were asking?

Yes, that is what I was asking. Thank you!

[Grace]

But...the bottom line is, nobody is being forced by law to listen to Don Imus! Don't like him? Don't listen; end of story! Isn't that why we have about nine billion cable channels/radio stations to choose from? Pick the one that resonates with your inner musings, shun the rest. Simple as that.

But, radio/TV is big business, and if enough advertisers get their knickers in a wad about something and pull their ads, well, out goes the offending party. Imus should have reckoned on that before he spoke, certainly.



But that's exactly what happened, just a little in advance?? I mean, the advertisers a) didn't want their names associated with a show that allows that kind of talk, and b) the advertisers advertise (pay a lot of money) in order to reach a lot of people. If they feared no one would be listening to the show anymore (or at least a lot fewer people, or maybe a different demographic), then why would you spend your advertising dollars on that show? So they made a business decision. Probably part taking a stand, and part financial decision.

The networks are in business not to entertain us, but to make money. If the advertisers won't spend, they don't make money. Period. End of story. They're not going to keep anyone on the air that doesn't make them money, even if they're the most wonderful, talented person in the world.

So ultimately it WAS the people that spoke. By turning the channel and not watching, that's exactly how you lose advertisers and lose your job. So I don't see what your point is.

[Kristilyn1]

I would like to clarify a couple of my thoughts:

1. I fully support CBS's right to fire him. They are a company that chose to fire an employee, not really my business. Personally, I wouldn't have fired him, but that's me.

2. My only interest in the firing is I hate to see them (CBS) get on some sudden soapbox about it, as they knew what his deal was all along. I hope they have the guts to admit why they did what they did and not hide behind a bunch of fake outrage.

3. I've heard a lot of crap in the media over the last week about this type of stuff shouldn't happen, what he said was blah, blah, blah---but yet as a nation we continue to laugh at Howard Stern, Chris Rock and so many comedians you can't even keep count, plus we have a ton of music that says the same type of offensive language. I understand that there are people that speak up about it, but why aren't they firing people over it, if it so universally understood to be wrong? I hate a double standard, which brings me to my next point:

4. I know I can comment on this until I'm blue in the face, but I so do NOT buy into the "if you are a part of the group in question, you are allowed to use the offensive language". i.e., who can use the N word, etc.

You can't have all these moral absolutes tied to language and usage. Not only is it unwieldy, it's not universal. I'm tired of people explaining over and over again why he MUST be fired because of the universally understood way he has crossed some line. Compared to who? Says who? So unless the whole country stands up tomorrow and boycotts every single use of racist, sexist, ageist and potty mouth terms, we will never have a list we can agree on of WHAT is not allowed and by WHOM. If you are offended, stand up and be counted--exercise your right to protest it and if appropriate, have the offender face the natural consequences of his/her actions--but don't try to tell us all about why certain things must happen as a result and then imply that you are somehow a part of some looming, nefarious "problem" if you don't jump on the bandwagon.

Kristi

[Grace]

Personally, I wouldn't have fired him, but that's me.

But you're saying this based solely on what he said, and whether or not you think it was "that bad" or not (or whether you could forgive him, or whatever your reasoning for keeping him would be). That might not have been why they fired him.

DH and I own our own business. If we had an employee that pissed off our best client by saying something careless, to the point where that client was not sending us business anymore, and possibly talked to other clients of ours and told them what was said/done, and those clients were calling me expressing concern about the kind of business I run, even if I myself could forgive what the employee said, I would have to get rid of someone who is costing me business. I wouldn't be able to take the chance that this person wouldn't potentially do that again, and even if I was certain my employee wouldn't do it again, I might have to appease my clients and their perception of my business. I might feel badly about getting rid of the employee, but ultimately, my DH and I have our mortgage to pay, and our loyalties fall more to our business and our clients than to any individual employee.

That said, I agree with you totally about everything else you said. I do think the double standard is ridiculous, and as harmful as what Imus said is, the stuff the rappers put out there is worse, IMO. Few impressionable kids I know listen to Imus. Almost all the at-risk children listen to that c-rap.

[Kristilyn1]

[QUOTE=Grace;1202129]But you're saying this based solely on what he said, and whether or not you think it was "that bad" or not (or whether you could forgive him, or whatever your reasoning for keeping him would be). That might not have been why they fired him.

QUOTE]

Absolutely! What I'm saying is, I hope that CBS is able to resist the temptation to say the reason they fired him is because of how awful what he said was........instead of what is more likely the reasons as you outlined, business decision, lost sponsors, etc. It seems today that few media outlets can resist the chance to try to elevate their perceived moral high ground. Moral ground, that in my opinion is not really the case HERE, as CBS has put up with his brand of talk for many years now.

Kristi

[bobmark226]

DH and I own our own business. If we had an employee that pissed off our best client by saying something careless, to the point where that client was not sending us business anymore, and possibly talked to other clients of ours and told them what was said/done, and those clients were calling me expressing concern about the kind of business I run, even if I myself could forgive what the employee said, I would have to get rid of someone who is costing me business. I wouldn't be able to take the chance that this person wouldn't potentially do that again, and even if I was certain my employee wouldn't do it again, I might have to appease my clients and their perception of my business. I might feel badly about getting rid of the employee, but ultimately, my DH and I have our mortgage to pay, and our loyalties fall more to our business and our clients than to any individual employee.


Grace, it's more than a little naive to believe that NBC, CBS and all those sponsors who are finally acting and rolling out the rhetoric didn't know what they were buying into and profiting from for 20 or 30 years now.

Would you have kept an ill-mannered, obnoxious employee that long?

In fact, his apparent huge audience appeal, however negative, was foremost to them. As a local writer said "You knew, I knew, where were they?" For all the hooey being put forth about integrity and doing the right thing now, there is little doubt in my mind that the bottom line here was profit, not morality or human decency. NBC, CBS and the Imus sponsors were enablers that chose to ignore and indulge him for many, many years...until now, when they could no longer get away with it.

Bob

[blazedog]

So far as I can tell, the thrust of people's arguments is that IMUS has ALWAYS been offensive and that there are other, perhaps more, parts of popular culture that are more offensive.

Also thrown in are some beliefs (which may or may not be accurate) that he is not being fired for high minded principles as the press releases from MSNBC and CBS are claiming.

I am not clear as to why any of this matters -- He finally paid the piper.
Not everyone who commits a wrong is caught and punished -- punishment is often an effective DETERRENT to others.

And yes, there are very complicated reasons why Imus had the misfortune of being in the "perfect storm" this time -- the rise of the internet with youtube providing the ability for everyone to watch it over and over, that his comments were televised and not just spoken (the image of this wizen coot chortling to himself after what he perceived as a bon mot is da*mning); that his target was a group of college athletes beyond reproach (much as Coulter created a fire storm when she attacked the 9/11 widows); that his "apologies" dug himself even further as he justified himself and so on.

As far as I am concerned, good riddance to a blight on the airwave -- and perhaps (although I am not hopeful) it might cause some further action as others might think twice or thrice before exposing the vile innards of their minds on the public airwaves.

Whether his ranch was a worthy endeavor -- irrelevant -- Historically many racists and bigots are not 100% bad in everything they do or say -- nor does one have to wear a hood and burn crosses to be a bigot. Many whites in the Jim Crow South felt themselves to be "benevolent".

I don't think someone who is not racist would think "nappy headed hos" when viewing cilps of a woman's basketball team -- do some of you actually believe that this is something that most people think when they see black women?

[leebee]

I agree with you on those points, Blazedog. Personally, if there is even a small change in what is considered "acceptable" because of this, I am pleased. I am baffled by the reaction of, "Why should he pay, when everyone says stuff like this?" Why? Because. Look, if my son is at school and gets caught running in the hall, should he not be reprimanded? Would the defense that "everyone does it" protect him if he got caught a third, fourth, fifth time? No. HE got caught. Same with speeding. If I choose to break the speed limit and get caught, will my defense of, "But officer, everyone does it!" mean I don't get a ticket? No! So, what EVERYONE else does is entirely moot. Don Imus made a jackassed statement, whether he's a nice guy or not, and now has to face up to it.

On a related, more personal note, I have a friend at work that is German, and a coworker thinks it's funny to make Nazi references. I told the coworker that this was offensive to her, and her response was, "Oh, I know, Nazis don't have a sense of humor! Hahahahahaha!" It's NOT FUNNY, people! It's offensive, and my friend has every right to ask it to stop. Just because there are others that say worse, or my friend herself may have said an offensive thing a time or two in her life, or just because the co-worker saying it is a good worker, does not mean that this should go on.

[ChristieinMB]

I agree with you on those points, Blazedog. Personally, if there is even a small change in what is considered "acceptable" because of this, I am pleased. I am baffled by the reaction of, "Why should he pay, when everyone says stuff like this?" Why? Because. Look, if my son is at school and gets caught running in the hall, should he not be reprimanded? Would the defense that "everyone does it" protect him if he got caught a third, fourth, fifth time? No. HE got caught. Same with speeding. If I choose to break the speed limit and get caught, will my defense of, "But officer, everyone does it!" mean I don't get a ticket? No! So, what EVERYONE else does is entirely moot. Don Imus made a jackassed statement, whether he's a nice guy or not, and now has to face up to it.
I'm baffled also, the point isn't, "Why should he pay, when everyone says stuff like this?, but some people just don't seem to understand a different point of view, oh well.

[blazedog]

I'm baffled also, the point isn't, "Why should he pay, when everyone says stuff like this?, but some people just don't seem to understand a different point of view, oh well.

I am baffled by this statement -- Do you mean that Imus was expressing a "different point of view" which some of us (as well as those who called for his firing) don't understand?:confused: :eek:

Imus was definitely not stating that he actually viewed the women as nappy head hos -- in fact his defense was essentially the opposite.

[___Rhianna___]

. . . just as his silly off-the-cuff comment should have rolled right off the collective hides of the "offended" parties. When, oh when, will people learn that the best response to such stuff is a laugh and a big "go-by"---by making such a huge big flutter and squawk about it . . .

Too often these days members of our society are too easily offended and should just let things "roll off our hides." But some things are offensive, and calling women "hos" is one of those things, whether it's by a shock-jock, rapper, or so-called boyfriend. Here's an excerpt from an article by Sally Jenkins in the Washington Post that I think sums up why no one, especially a group of young ladies, should be expected to let this roll off their hides:

"Just because words don't constitute acts, however, doesn't mean they're without effect, and that's where the Rutgers players have a chance to turn an evil incident into something beneficial. If nothing else, we've all learned that words aren't ephemeral, they hang around, in bits, texts and instant messages. Some things stay said. You can argue about whether Imus "scarred me for life," as Ajavon maintains, but he left a mark. The Rutgers kids assumed that the winner's circle was colorless and genderless, and Imus disabused them, abruptly, of that notion with one harsh sentence. He cost them that ideal. To a certain extent, he hardened their hearts, and he has to live with that."

Here's a link to the article for anyone interested: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/11/AR2007041102518.html?hpid=topnews

[leebee]

I'm baffled also, the point isn't, "Why should he pay, when everyone says stuff like this?, but some people just don't seem to understand a different point of view, oh well.

Using a racist comment is NOT a different point of view. At the best, it's a total misunderstanding of the terms used, at the worst it's a minimization of people based on their attributes, physical, cultural or imagined. What he said was racist, ugly, demeaning, uneducated, biased, ignorant and stupid. You defend it all you want. Your defense says volumes. I will go out on a limb, expose myself to criticism and say, naive or not, I am a better person for understanding that such a statement is wrong. I am glad that my character is such that I can honestly say, I have NEVER said such a thing, would NEVER consider saying such a thing.

If I have misunderstood your post, I heartily apologize. I admit this is one of my hot buttons. I hope I have misunderstood. I fear I have not.

[funnybone]

You are spot-on, Funnybone. I think that, had I been in Mr. Imus' uncomfortable position, I'd have said "goodbye and no comment," and just retired to the ranch, and thought to myself, "whooopsie, I sure spoke without thinking," and let it go at that. No donning of hair shirt, no "rehab" (REHAB? for spontaneous commentary? Is there such a program?)


LOL - I was of course joking, but thinking of the Isiah Washington (Grey's Anatomy) rehab stint after he made an anti-gay comment.

[newtricks]

Using a racist comment is NOT a different point of view. At the best, it's a total misunderstanding of the terms used, at the worst it's a minimization of people based on their attributes, physical, cultural or imagined. What he said was racist, ugly, demeaning, uneducated, biased, ignorant and stupid. You defend it all you want. Your defense says volumes. I will go out on a limb, expose myself to criticism and say, naive or not, I am a better person for understanding that such a statement is wrong. I am glad that my character is such that I can honestly say, I have NEVER said such a thing, would NEVER consider saying such a thing.

If I have misunderstood your post, I heartily apologize. I admit this is one of my hot buttons. I hope I have misunderstood. I fear I have not.

I'm not Christie and I'm not speaking for her but reading through this thread and listening to the news, etc I just wonder if it's possible to wholeheartedly agree with your statement about Don Imus's comments *AND* question why he is the fall guy for the statements out there. Seriously, watch BET or MTV or listen to a hip-hop station. Women are continuously objectified and yes, ho is an acceptable term for a girlfriend (or at least a date), as is *****. I found it highly ironic watching the Imus stuff on msnbc when the crawl was about a hybrid car being featured on... wait for it... Pimp my ride. "It's hard out here for a Pimp" was an academy award nominated song for criminy's sake.

These statements are in no way a defense from me. No way. But pointing out that those terms are commonly used. My understanding as well is that the whole exchange started because the difference between the two teams appearances reminded them of Spike Lee's School Daze (which is where the jigaboo vs. wannabee comment came from and which contains a whole number about nappy - headed somethings) Again, not a defense, and I think he should have been fired.

But I do wish there could be a discussion about this without people being called racists. It's too important:(

[mom2garret]

IMHO...my 2 cents...............

I do not agree with what Imus has said but I strongly disagree with his firing. I assume the networks are doing the firing because of $$ not coming in from sponsors. I also think they are trying to cut him loose and use him as a scapegoat. When Washington made his derogatory comment, who really was up in arms? Did he get fired from is tv show (which I assume is also his passion and livelyhood). What about Mel Gibson? Was he told that he may never act in or produce another film (again I assume his passion and livelyhood). Imus has done nothing but try to face his nasty comment head on! They cut off his ability to continue to raise money for the children that he has always supported. Maybe my facts are scetchy so far after Gibson and Washington, but who really flamed the fire as Sharpton has done in this case? I understand why Shrpton feels so vocal about this but I have watched a very interviews with him and find his way of dealing with this issue extremely rude. He sort of reminds me of an ambulance chaser lying in wait fo the next accident (verbal of course).

Again, Imus made a HUGE mistake saying what he did, but I believe he has/had tried to make amends to the situation. Now let's see how the media takes issues with music moguls etc... who drop nastier comments that are played on the radio.
Jodi

adding: This is only my opinion. I sort of know where others on this thread stand but I will be honest and say I did not read every word of every reply.

[newtricks]

I realize my Spike Lee reference might seem totally random. So this is the clip I saw on the news from the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlxI3-8BVKQ

[leebee]

But I do wish there could be a discussion about this without people being called racists. It's too important:(

I am sorry if you think I go too far. I do get hot under the collar about stuff like this. But I think Imus made a racist comment. Is he a racist? I don't know. He said it. He laughed about it. And I think that qualifies! IF what the PP meant was I (or someone else) isn't listening to other point of views on what they think about this situation, I am all for listening. But, I don't think there is any defense for what he said. I stand by my assertion that such an observation as "nappy-headed hos" is racist, pure & simple. I think that saying there's nothing wrong with making a racist comment is questionable - "It's all in fun" is not an adequate defense of denegrating a group of people in such a way. Again, I am very sorry if I took the PP's comments out of context. I do, sincerely, hope I misread. I have been known to do so!

[ChristieinMB]

I am baffled by this statement -- Do you mean that Imus was expressing a "different point of view" which some of us (as well as those who called for his firing) don't understand?:confused: :eek:

Imus was definitely not stating that he actually viewed the women as nappy head hos -- in fact his defense was essentially the opposite.
Again, you've misunderstood my post (and leebee). The discussion keeps going back to me or anyone else defending his statements, it is getting tiresome.
I was referring to the post of leebee (not Imus) that said she was baffled then made a misleading statement about this discussion. I was commenting on that statement.
The likes of Jackson and Sharpton have made this so emotional. (Newtricks post said it better than I have) why don't they act to bring up the Black lifestyle reprimanding the black "boys" (they are not men), that use such terms regularily. The uproar about racism is hypocrisy at its highest. Jackson's position relies on the victimhood of Blacks, his time could better better spent on bigger problems.
And leebee... I accept your apology.

[leebee]

The likes of Jackson and Sharpton have made this so emotional. (Newtricks post said it better than I have) why don't they act to bring up the Black lifestyle reprimanding the black "boys" (they are not men), that use such terms regularily. The uproar about racism is hypocrisy at its highest. Jackson's position relies on the victimhood of Blacks, his time could better better spent on bigger problems.


Thank you for graciously accepting my apology. But I do have to comment on what you've said above. The thing is, it doesn't matter to me what everyone else is saying. I heard what Imus said before anyone else high-profile got involved. It made me sick to hear it. It doesn't matter that there is a segment of the culture that regularly uses terminology like this. It's wrong. So Imus got called on it when nobody else has. I think part of that is this: Usually, when a rap song uses a term like "ho" to refer to women, it's women in general (even if the song is about a particular woman, it's taken as general, because it's a performance piece). Now, don't take that as an endorsement--I think it's wrong. And I know there are exceptions out there - I understand that. But, when Imus spoke, he was speaking about a specific, easily identified group of women. This doesn't have to get bigger-picture than that. He called a group of female basketball players, a small number of individuals, "nappy-headed hos." Do you think that it won't be yelled at them out of an open window at some point? Do you think it won't appear anywhere in their lives ever again? This is something that a NATIONAL entertainment figure used to identify some real, living, breathing women. I can't accept a defense of that. It's sad to me that others can. I don't bear you any ill will. I just wish that others would be more intolerant of this sort of thing. Then, maybe, the bigger picture CAN change. And I know that sounds hopelessly naive. I understand that. But I can't think of a better way to approach the world than to wish it would be better.

[SDMomChef]

I am guessing that within the next month, after the uproar has settled, Don Imus will announce a deal with a satellite radio station for a show.

[MikeC]

Usually, when a rap song uses a term like "ho" to refer to women, it's women in general (even if the song is about a particular woman, it's taken as general, because it's a performance piece). Now, don't take that as an endorsement--I think it's wrong. And I know there are exceptions out there - I understand that. But, when Imus spoke, he was speaking about a specific, easily identified group of women. This doesn't have to get bigger-picture than that. He called a group of female basketball players, a small number of individuals, "nappy-headed hos."

I agree with leebee here. This, I think, is where Imus crossed the line and caused his sponsors to worry.

A wealthy elderly white male with a nationally-broadcast radio and TV show made a very nasty, derogatory comment about a specific group of predominantly black young women who had worked very hard to achieve what they did. That's different, to me, than a young black rapper singing a song about women in general.

Both wrong? Yes. But different, at least to me. Double standard? Maybe...but maybe that's just the way it is.

[blazedog]

The likes of Jackson and Sharpton have made this so emotional. (Newtricks post said it better than I have) why don't they act to bring up the Black lifestyle reprimanding the black "boys" (they are not men), that use such terms regularily. The uproar about racism is hypocrisy at its highest. Jackson's position relies on the victimhood of Blacks, his time could better better spent on bigger problems.
And leebee... I accept your apology.

Jackson's position relies on the "victimhood of Blacks"

The likes of Jackson and Sharpton didn't "make this so emotional".

I am misunderstanding nothing regarding your true colors and why you think this is much ado about nothing.

You evidently think that it is standard practice for black men to call their girlfriends hos -- as you stated in previous posts.

I am misunderstanding nothing about your position.

For you it evidently is nothing.

For myself -- and thankfully for many others, the statement -- as spouted by a chortling old white man about a specific group of women -- was racist.

That others have said worse is hardly a defense -- perhaps others will think twice or thrice before polluting the airwaves.

If decent people continue to do nothing, then what is unacceptable continues to become increasingly acceptable.

[newtricks]

I am sorry if you think I go too far. I do get hot under the collar about stuff like this. But I think Imus made a racist comment. Is he a racist? I don't know. He said it. He laughed about it. And I think that qualifies! IF what the PP meant was I (or someone else) isn't listening to other point of views on what they think about this situation, I am all for listening. But, I don't think there is any defense for what he said. I stand by my assertion that such an observation as "nappy-headed hos" is racist, pure & simple. I think that saying there's nothing wrong with making a racist comment is questionable - "It's all in fun" is not an adequate defense of denegrating a group of people in such a way. Again, I am very sorry if I took the PP's comments out of context. I do, sincerely, hope I misread. I have been known to do so!


No, I don't care if you call Imus a racist. Based on his comment you have every reason to. It's the shutting down of anyone on this board who thinks there's anything contributing to this uproar other than pure and simple racism on Don Imus's part.

And as an aside, I agree with your point about his comments being directed at those girls as very hurtful to *those girls*. But are you really excusing multi-millionaire rappers for their comments because they're general?? I mean you wouldn't excuse someone using the n word just because they were using it "generally" would you? It's either offensive or it's not. Not worse for Imus and ok for rappers. They are BOTH bad but for some reason noone is allowed to say that.

[leebee]

If decent people continue to do nothing, then what is unacceptable continues to become increasingly acceptable.

For me, this is what it's all about. I'm not willing to listen to it, and when I can, I'll get noisy about it. It's not the kind of language that's welcome in my home, and I won't politely laugh at jokes along this sort of vein. My children will be raised to treat people respectfully, and I will demand respect for myself, even when it's hard. I feel for these young women. There WILL be someone who yells at them out of an open window, from a moving car or in a crowd exactly what Imus has said--it's not going to just go away. One or more of these women will be burdened with that description at some point in the near future. Wouldn't that hurt anyone? He shouldn't have said it. But he did. Now, pay the price and get on with life. I hope he can put himself together & come back from it a better person. I hope others can finally look at it realize it's not right. I suspect, based on the slack-jawed guffawing of the woman in the next cubicle at what he said, that many will not. It's a pity.

[leebee]

And as an aside, I agree with your point about his comments being directed at those girls as very hurtful to *those girls*. But are you really excusing multi-millionaire rappers for their comments because they're general?? I mean you wouldn't excuse someone using the n word just because they were using it "generally" would you? It's either offensive or it's not. Not worse for Imus and ok for rappers. They are BOTH bad but for some reason noone is allowed to say that.

NO, that's my point, I'm NOT excusing it. It's wrong on every level. I do think it's WORSE because it was specific, yes, but that's semantics. But let's be honest--who is easier to go after? IMUS. He's a scapegoat, yes! I agree! But, and this is a point I made previously, just because one person (or a whole lot of them) is getting away with doing something wrong, doesn't mean that everyone is excused. Double standard, yes. But, there you have it. Apparently my mother was right. Life is unfair.

I wanted to come back and say something else to the PP's point above...it's not just hurtful to "those girls." It's hurtful to everyone, black, white, male, female, because it denegrates others. It reduces human beings to nothing more than racial stereotypes, and that is hurtful to all of us.

[alicerh]

I'm afaraid we haven't heard the last of Imus. Just as Marv Albert, Pat (can't remember his last name-on one of those Hollywood shows) and others, when it comes to money the big shots forgive the rude, crude and disgusting white men if they make them money. My guess is Imus will follow Howard Stern to satelite radio and make even more money.

[blazedog]

No, I don't care if you call Imus a racist. Based on his comment you have every reason to. It's the shutting down of anyone on this board who thinks there's anything contributing to this uproar other than pure and simple racism on Don Imus's part.

And as an aside, I agree with your point about his comments being directed at those girls as very hurtful to *those girls*. But are you really excusing multi-millionaire rappers for their comments because they're general?? I mean you wouldn't excuse someone using the n word just because they were using it "generally" would you? It's either offensive or it's not. Not worse for Imus and ok for rappers. They are BOTH bad but for some reason noone is allowed to say that.

First I was not aware that anyone on the Board was "shutting down" anyone else or not letting them offer an opinion -- however wrong that opinion might be.:D

The issue of rappers is in my opinion a red herring. I am NOT defending the vulgarity of that portion of the culture.

It is well known that certain words are used within the black community that are not to be used by whites. FWIW this is NOT a unique phenomena as I have personally observed it among gays, Jews and Italians.

Imus called a particular group of women nappy headed hos which is much closer to Michael Richard's angry tirade than the generalized use of such language in the hip hop culture.

I am still confused as to why anyone thinks the departure of Imus is a bad thing.:confused:

[newtricks]

First I was not aware that anyone on the Board was "shutting down" anyone else or not letting them offer an opinion -- however wrong that opinion might be.:D


I'm quite sure you're not aware of that.

[bobmark226]

I'm afaraid we haven't heard the last of Imus. Just as Marv Albert, Pat (can't remember his last name-on one of those Hollywood shows) and others, when it comes to money the big shots forgive the rude, crude and disgusting white men if they make them money. My guess is Imus will follow Howard Stern to satelite radio and make even more money.

While it happens that the president (I believe) of XM is a friend of Imus', XM has a proposed merger with Sirius in the works. Stern (Sirius) hates Imus, considers him an imitator. The addition of Imus to either network could also create problems for government approval (about which there is already considerable doubt), given this sorry incident.

The till at the satellite networks is already far from healthy. It's still questionable whether the Stern deal will, in fact, justify what he was paid. Sirius says yes, financial analysts question their numbers.

There is, however, a California station which has already announced that it plans to play Imus reruns, despite stating their disdain for his remarks. Quite simply, without Imus, they say, there is no station as he's their bread and butter.

Bob

[boisewinesnob]

He called a group of female basketball players, a small number of individuals, "nappy-headed hos." Do you think that it won't be yelled at them out of an open window at some point? Do you think it won't appear anywhere in their lives ever again? This is something that a NATIONAL entertainment figure used to identify some real, living, breathing women. I can't accept a defense of that.

Thank you for this post! I hadn't even thought about the fact that these young women will probably be hearing this over and over again.

[ChristieinMB]

It is well known that certain words are used within the black community that are not to be used by whites. FWIW this is NOT a unique phenomena as I have personally observed it among gays, Jews and Italians.
But this type of racism (or sexism) is not acceptable to me. I do wonder why it is acceptable to others, especially black woman? I do not deem a "general" racist or sexist comment as more acceptable.

[ChristieinMB]

The issue of rappers is in my opinion a red herring. I am NOT defending the vulgarity of that portion of the culture.
Then why called it tired subject and a red herring? I ask why Sharpton and Jackson are not calling a news conference and marching on the record companies. What message are these songs giving to our children? Do you believe young black girls are being degraded as sex objects. I see a double standard, or may I say racism.

[blazedog]

But this type of racism (or sexism) is not acceptable to me. I do wonder why it is acceptable to others, especially black woman? I do not deem a "general" racist or sexist comment as more acceptable.

First this is NOT acceptable to most black women -- the women of Spellman College for example have organized against it as have many others INCLUDING Sharpton. Just google around for news stories regarding this issue in the black community including a well received book by a female black professor.

Not even all RAP music uses this kind of extreme derogatory language just as not all rap music is "gangsta".

This was the offensive argument that Imus attempted -- including the offensive use of "you people"

And the issue is an old white man using racist language towards a specific group of young women -- everything else is obscuring the issue.

Why anyone would choose to defend him is beyond me nor do I know what point you are attempting to make by stating that you do not "deem general racist statements to be more acceptable."

For whatever reason, it is WELL KNOWN that certain terms may be used by people in their own cultural group which ARE NOT TO BE USED by non-members because when used by non-members it is widely accepted that the person speaking those terms is RACIST.

[ChristieinMB]

Jackson's position relies on the "victimhood of Blacks"
The likes of Jackson and Sharpton didn't "make this so emotional".
I am misunderstanding nothing regarding your true colors and why you think this is much ado about nothing.
You evidently think that it is standard practice for black men to call their girlfriends hos -- as you stated in previous posts.
I am misunderstanding nothing about your position.
For you it evidently is nothing.
For myself -- and thankfully for many others, the statement -- as spouted by a chortling old white man about a specific group of women -- was racist.
That others have said worse is hardly a defense -- perhaps others will think twice or thrice before polluting the airwaves.
If decent people continue to do nothing, then what is unacceptable continues to become increasingly acceptable.
Yes, decent people have done nothing about the music lyrics, what was unacceptable is becoming acceptable. Black girls are buying that music!
Again, you keep referring to Imus as old, are you now making age distinctions. Is it acceptable for young men (black or white) to use such terms.
FTR, I have never defended Imus, only shown surprise that a term common in "Black Music" is suddenly so offensive, never defended the comment.
Do you not believe Jackson makes a living stirring up racial conflict? Do you not beleive he is racist, after comments he himself has made?
I will be the first to applaud him if he works to change the offensive music lyrics.

[blazedog]

Then why called it tired subject and a red herring? I ask why Sharpton and Jackson are not calling a news conference and marching on the record companies. What message are these songs giving to our children? Do you believe young black girls are being degraded as sex objects. I see a double standard, or may I say racism.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1557094/20070413/index.jhtml

[newtricks]

Al Sharpton has been talking about this for a long time to his credit.

The hip-hop/rap community hasn't been very open to this discussion until they started getting compared to Don Imus though! So I guess that's a positive coming out of this.

[blazedog]

Do you not believe Jackson makes a living stirring up racial conflict? Do you not beleive he is racist, after comments he himself has made?


Astounding -- Actually I don't believe he makes a living by stirring up racial conflict -- unless that is how you denominate civil rights leaders.

I am old enough and enough of a historian to know that this is how white folks denominated Martin Luther King, Jr. when he was rabble rousing.

Coupled with your other statements on this thread, I do have my thoughts regarding you though.


Jackson's position relies on the "victimhood of Blacks"

The likes of Jackson and Sharpton didn't "make this so emotional"


I think decent people in this country of ALL colors and backgrounds responded by saying NO this is NOT ACCEPTABLE.

[newtricks]

Why anyone would choose to defend him is beyond me

For whatever reason, it is WELL KNOWN that certain terms may be used by people in their own cultural group which ARE NOT TO BE USED by non-members because when used by non-members it is widely accepted that the person speaking those terms is RACIST.

First, in the following statement I'm NOT defending Don Imus, I fully understand the problem with him saying what he did about who he did. Not defending him.

But to explore your comment. Yes, many groups take slurs and use them in their own community. They also stereotype themselves in a way that would never be allowed by someone outside of their demographic. Working in the restaurant world in NYC I learned a lot of jewish and gay slurs/stereotypes. (It was eye-opening for a little so-cal girl.;)

Now, (again not defending the Imus statements just reflecting some inner confusion) there are words that are clearly verboten. I wouldn't kid around with a gay friend and call him a f##, even if he had just said the word himself. But would I call him a ... well, there are other things I could call him that would be offensive if a dude on the street said it but not coming from me. Even though I'm not a gay man.

Which leads me to 'ho which is not a word that's historically a perjorative (sp), originated, I think, in hip-hop slang, and is said all the time about and by all kinds of people. I get that a 67 yr old white man has NO business saying it about 19 year old basketball players. But does everyone stop saying it? Is it clear who can and can't say it? When is it funny, when is it racist?

I'm being serious, not trying to be argumentative.

[blazedog]

First, in the following statement I'm NOT defending Don Imus, I fully understand the problem with him saying what he did about who he did. Not defending him.

But to explore your comment. Yes, many groups take slurs and use them in their own community. They also stereotype themselves in a way that would never be allowed by someone outside of their demographic. Working in the restaurant world in NYC I learned a lot of jewish and gay slurs/stereotypes. (It was eye-opening for a little so-cal girl.;)

Now, (again not defending the Imus statements just reflecting some inner confusion) there are words that are clearly verboten. I wouldn't kid around with a gay friend and call him a f##, even if he had just said the word himself. But would I call him a ... well, there are other things I could call him that would be offensive if a dude on the street said it but not coming from me. Even though I'm not a gay man.

Which leads me to 'ho which is not a word that's historically a perjorative (sp), originated, I think, in hip-hop slang, and is said all the time about and by all kinds of people. I get that a 67 yr old white man has NO business saying it about 19 year old basketball players. But does everyone stop saying it? Is it clear who can and can't say it? When is it funny, when is it racist?

I'm being serious, not trying to be argumentative.

Barbara -- I do understand your post and FWIW I don't consider your questions to be racist.

Of course to some extent it's a whole other thread which encompasses all manner of other issues --- i.e. the difference between porn and sexuality as explored by an artist for example which is a different issue but really more to the point you are addressing in THIS post.

[ChristieinMB]

Astounding -- Actually I don't believe he makes a living by stirring up racial conflict -- unless that is how you denominate civil rights leaders.
Coupled with your other statements on this thread, I do have my thoughts regarding you though.

Jackson's position relies on the "victimhood of Blacks"
The likes of Jackson and Sharpton didn't "make this so emotional"

I think decent people in this country of ALL colors and backgrounds responded by saying NO this is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Are you saying you respect Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton as "Civil Rights Leaders" Do you believe either are racist? How do you explain their racist remarks? Do you realize they do not speak for all blacks?

[blazedog]

Are you saying you respect Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton as "Civil Rights Leaders" Do you believe either are racist? How do you explain their racist remarks? Do you realize they do not speak for all blacks?

You keep digging yourself in deeper --

How could any one individual speak for "all" of any large and diverse group of people and what in the world does that have to do with anything. Does Bush speak for all white people? Does Hillary Clinton speak for all women?


Why are you so intent on making this about Jackson and Sharpton -- you are crediting them with entirely too much power -- If they had that much power, poverty, racism and other ills would have been eliminated at this point.

Imus is gone because he offended an enormous number of people of all colors, ethnicities, sexes, ages and so forth.

[ChristieinMB]

Al Sharpton has been talking about this for a long time to his credit.

The hip-hop/rap community hasn't been very open to this discussion until they started getting compared to Don Imus though! So I guess that's a positive coming out of this.
Yes, talks about it, but does little to force a change. I do think all this may force a bigger change in the music industry, I will welcome that.
It is the double stand that I find hypocrtical. The music reaches and influences young children, they are a greater concern to me than Imus' audience, I'm guessing not many young people listen to him, but I could be wrong. Neither is good, but I wonder why the "Black Leaders" do not attack the music industry, by that I mean more than lip service, when challenged. Time will tell, I really hope it changes.

[ChristieinMB]

I think decent people in this country of ALL colors and backgrounds responded by saying NO this is NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Yes, I agree, but it should be unacceptable talk for all colors and backgrounds.
That is where we disagree, that is why I call Jackson and Sharpton hypocrites.
I was glad to see some TV today with speakers all calling for new "black leadership" and for ending the double standard that exists today. A black male should have the same high standard as a white male. Think of the role models that could be created. That would be a huge step forward for the black community. I also care about the children (and others) that are affected by the victim status heaped on them by some such as Jackson. I'd like to see some leaders encourage empowerment and personal responsibility.
Yep, this flap may work for the good of all.

[ChristieinMB]

You keep digging yourself in deeper --
How could any one individual speak for "all" of any large and diverse group of people and what in the world does that have to do with anything. Does Bush speak for all white people? Does Hillary Clinton speak for all women?
Why are you so intent on making this about Jackson and Sharpton -- you are crediting them with entirely too much power -- If they had that much power, poverty, racism and other ills would have been eliminated at this point.

How is it I'm digging myself deeper, I know you disagree with my view, but...?
You didn't answer, do you believe Jackson and Sharpton are racist? If Jackson couldn't find racism under every bush, he would lose his forum. He gets power by finding victims. Can I dislike Jackson without being a racist? That problem was already mentioned. My problem is they don't use the power they do have for good.
Bush and Clinton do not hold themselves up as white or women leaders or have you heard that they do?

[Kay Henderson]

I don't listen to him nor do I listen to Shawn Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or Michael Savage.

I couldn't agree with you more. It is my observation that the name-calling, vindictive radio and TV hosts bear more than a little responsibility for the reduction in the ability of our citizens to debate issues of importance in a civil manner.

Kay

[___Rhianna___]

I couldn't agree with you more. It is my observation that the name-calling, vindictive radio and TV hosts bear more than a little responsibility for the reduction in the ability of our citizens to debate issues of importance in a civil manner.

Kay

Absolutely! Thank you . . .

[blazedog]

How is it I'm digging myself deeper, I know you disagree with my view, but...?
You didn't answer, do you believe Jackson and Sharpton are racist? If Jackson couldn't find racism under every bush, he would lose his forum. He gets power by finding victims. Can I dislike Jackson without being a racist? That problem was already mentioned. My problem is they don't use the power they do have for good.
Bush and Clinton do not hold themselves up as white or women leaders or have you heard that they do?

Why are YOU making this about Jackson or Sharpton when that isn't the issue. My experience is that people seek to "kill" the message by attempting to point out the "unworthiness" of the messenger. I am NOT going to discuss any of YOUR attacks on either men because they are irrelevant for so many reasons. Even if I were to take your racist bait -- what does it prove except that YOU don't deem either man to meet YOUR standards.

You asked whether Jackson or Sharpton speak for ALL black people -- why should they or anyone speak for a diverse group of people -- my examples of Clinton and Bush were meant to show how racist your question is.

My opinion is that whites who complain about black Civil Rights leaders who find racism under every bush are generally racists -- at least in my experience.

My experience is that whites who talk about the "victimhood" of blacks and that issues wouldn't arise if black civil rights leaders didn't exploit them or make them so "emotional" (your words) are racists.

I believe racism is a pervasive issue in this country. You clearly don't and think blacks are making mountains out of molehills and looking for problems and issues where none exist.

My opinion is that those people who are making all of the excuses for Imus that you have made in your many posts on this subject are racists -- bottom line.

[mom2garret]

My opinion is that whites who complain about black Civil Rights leaders who find racism under every bush are generally racists -- at least in my experience.

My experience is that whites who talk about the "victimhood" of blacks and that issues wouldn't arise if black civil rights leaders didn't exploit them or make them so "emotional" (your words) are racists.

My opinion is that those people who are making all of the excuses for Imus that you have made in your many posts on this subject are racists -- bottom line.

While the above may be your opinion, it is MY opinion that you have made moronic out of line statements, that make NO sense. But then again, it is MY opinion. :eek: :mad:
Jodi

[blazedog]

While the above may be your opinion, it is MY opinion that you have made moronic out of line statements, that make NO sense. But then again, it is MY opinion. :eek: :mad:
Jodi

Again, everyone is entitled to an opinion.

I believe there is endemic racism in the United States -- not of the white hood, burning cross variety -- but of the kind which is subtle and manifested by the statements which I responded to.

Most whites for whatever reason believe there is no racial divide -- which (again IMO which I am NOT pulling out of the air) is part of the problem.

If any of you have black friends with whom you actually discuss issues, why don't you ask them their experiences and opinions and open up a dialogue.

Truly though calling someone's opinion moronic rather than addressing the statements I made in terms of my very SPECIFIC responses to very SPECIFIC statements by a person -- that's sad and comical -- and not worthy of my even giving it the time I spend in this response.:rolleyes:

[mom2garret]

Blazedog, give me a break! You have taken your opinion, and others words, and threw out the racist flag. I can't call your opinions moronic but you can call me a racist? Believe me blacks are not the only ones in this country being discriminated against.

Get over yourself. Maybe you can share your soap box with Sharpton and Jackson. Again, just my opinion and I am entitled to it am I not?
Jodi

[blazedog]

Blazedog, give me a break! You have taken your opinion, and others words, and threw out the racist flag. I can't call your opinions moronic but you can call me a racist? Believe me blacks are not the only ones in this country being discriminated against.

Get over yourself. Maybe you can share your soap box with Sharpton and Jackson. Again, just my opinion and I am entitled to it am I not?
Jodi

Actually what I reacted to was your calling my opinions moronic without explaining WHY you thought they were so. To me that is tantamout to schoolyard level insults.

Whoever said that blacks were the only ones in this country being discriminated against and what does that have to do with anything? You are not going to like this but in my experience :D those who pull out that line are racists.:rolleyes:

Tsk tsk -- again stating that I should "get over myself" :D I have no idea where that is or where that would send me. I am quite content with where I am at this point/:D

[Robyncz]

I couldn't agree with you more. It is my observation that the name-calling, vindictive radio and TV hosts bear more than a little responsibility for the reduction in the ability of our citizens to debate issues of importance in a civil manner.

Kay

I think this is a good point. I don't know if it's always been this way, but there doesn't seem to be any room in this country for rational discussion of important issues. In fact, public discourse has become more like a sport, in which each side is completely invested in winning. In heated issues like this one, each side is interested only in making its own point and blocking the argument of the opponent, but nobody seems to be listening to the other side is saying. In the end, one side (and sometimes even both) feels like it has "won" the argument, but in truth, nobody has gained any ground.

Frankly, I don't see the value in that. And sadly, I don't see how it can possibly change.

In the discussion at hand, both on these boards and in the general public right now, I think both "sides" have made valid points, but once the sides start calling each other names, continuing the argument is pretty much pointless.

[mom2garret]

Oh, I see now. YOU can call ME a racist without knowing me and that is okay? Whatever...............
I guess if all you have to fall back on is your "experience", there is no need for me to continue this discussion. I didn't know you had experience living as a black person too. My bad :rolleyes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am quite content with where I am at this point

News flash, so am I and I am not racist. Go figure.

[blazedog]

Oh, I see now. YOU can call ME a racist without knowing me and that is okay? Whatever...............
I guess if all you have to fall back on is your "experience", there is no need for me to continue this discussion. I didn't know you had experience living as a black person too. My bad :rolleyes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am quite content with where I am at this point

News flash, so am I and I am not racist. Go figure.

Well not to bring it back to reality, but I stated that in my experience and in my opinion, certain statements are spoken by racists and that they are often "code language"

If you want to explain why you disagree with my opinion regarding SPECIFIC statements, I am up for that.

Denominating another person's opinion as moronic adds nothing to a dialogue.

Again, it is probably asking too much for people to actually read what others write -- where did I state I had experience living as a black person -- I suggested people open up dialogues with their black friends and find out how those people felt about racism in America and all of the other issues being raised on this thread.

It might be illuminating -- if nothing else, it's what the human experience is all about -- opening one's minds up to other's experiences and thoughts and perhaps learning from it.

[Kristilyn1]

For whatever reason, it is WELL KNOWN that certain terms may be used by people in their own cultural group which ARE NOT TO BE USED by non-members because when used by non-members it is widely accepted that the person speaking those terms is RACIST.


It's only accepted by people who are completely ridiculous.

Kristi

[Kristilyn1]

I thought I'd go back and clarify. To hold people to different moral standards of behavior solely because of their race is in one word, racist.

To people who keep rising to Blazedog's bait, don't. If you disagree with her, you are racist. If the discussion is what constitutes beef ,well done vs. rare--she will simply bring up a discussion of her one time career as a chef and point out that not only are you wrong---she has personally talked to a bunch of cows and can PROVE it. To further cloud the issue, she will accuse you of being Bovine Phobic. She's really uncomfortable with oppostion unless she can make sure that not only is your side wrong---it's evil. :eek: :D

Kristi

[semmens]

Denominating another

Okay, I ignored it for the first few times but no more....the word you are looking for is DENIGRATING.


From dictionary.com:

denigrate:den·i·grate /ˈdɛnɪˌgreɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[den-i-greyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -grat·ed, -grat·ing.
1. to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate someone's character.
2. to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage: to denigrate someone's contributions to a project.


de·nom·i·nate /dɪˈnɒməˌneɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-nom-uh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
to give a name to; denote; designate.


Carry on!

[blazedog]

Okay, I ignored it for the first few times but no more....the word you are looking for is DENIGRATING.


From dictionary.com:

denigrate:den·i·grate /?d?n??gre?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[den-i-greyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -grat·ed, -grat·ing.
1. to speak damagingly of; criticize in a derogatory manner; sully; defame: to denigrate someone's character.
2. to treat or represent as lacking in value or importance; belittle; disparage: to denigrate someone's contributions to a project.


de·nom·i·nate /d??n?m??ne?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-nom-uh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
to give a name to; denote; designate.


Carry on!

Nope I was using denominate -- to give a name to; denote; designate -- If I meant denigrate, I would have used that specific word.

[blazedog]

I thought I'd go back and clarify. To hold people to different moral standards of behavior solely because of their race is in one word, racist.

To people who keep rising to Blazedog's bait, don't. If you disagree with her, you are racist. If the discussion is what constitutes beef ,well done vs. rare--she will simply bring up a discussion of her one time career as a chef and point out that not only are you wrong---she has personally talked to a bunch of cows and can PROVE it. To further cloud the issue, she will accuse you of being Bovine Phobic. She's really uncomfortable with oppostion unless she can make sure that not only is your side wrong---it's evil. :eek: :D

Kristi

A little (or a lot) of someone's projections.

I called STATEMENTS racist -- I stand by that as being my opinion. If someone wants to discuss a statement or whether there is a racial chasm -- which does seem to be evidenced by this thread -- that's one thing.

As to the rest of your tiresome diatribe - that's quite an amazing little insight into YOU -- I suggested people open up a dialogue with their black friends -- seems reasonable -- your response is analogize it to my having talked to a bunch of cows and thus claiming expertise -- :eek: You are a piece of work.:rolleyes:

[Kristilyn1]

A little (or a lot) of someone's projections.

I called STATEMENTS racist -- I stand by that as being my opinion. If someone wants to discuss a statement or whether there is a racial chasm -- which does seem to be evidenced by this thread -- that's one thing.

As to the rest of your tiresome diatribe - that's quite an amazing little insight into YOU -- I suggested people open up a dialogue with their black friends -- seems reasonable -- your response is analogize it to my having talked to a bunch of cows and thus claiming expertise -- :eek: You are a piece of work.:rolleyes:

1. In the first part of my post I am directly responding to your claim that it is apparently acceptable for people to use terms if they belong to the group in which the term is used. What you are talking about in relation to me above---I have no idea what you are talking about, it has nothing to do with me or what I said.

2. The second part was a little piece of indulgence. Indulging myself in a little humor, poking fun of you. That's what it was meant as. What that has to do with opening up a dialogue with black friends, again--nothing I brought up or seemingly anything to do with what I said.

I did want to ask for clarification on what terms are acceptable and by whom.

Since I had a black ancestor---I believe 4 generations back---can I use, for instance the N word?

If you are married to a minority are you in the club of people who can use the term?

If four generations back is too far back---what kind of percentage do you need to have in order to use the term comfortably? Also, say you are very white looking, are you still allowed? Do you have to state your racial pedigree first?

Before you get all outraged and accuse me of making light of a serious problem in this country and accuse me of being racist (fyi, that gun is out of ammunition, at least on this thread) I am merely using this moment to further illustrate the ridiculousness of stating that certain terms are acceptable in some circles. Plus, who decides who gets to say what?

Kristi

[Kristilyn1]

As to the rest of your tiresome diatribe - that's quite an amazing little insight into YOU --:

I did have to get further clarification on this little gem. Is this a "I'm rubber, you're glue" type of thing?;)

Kristi

[ChristieinMB]

Why are YOU making this about Jackson or Sharpton when that isn't the issue. My experience is that people seek to "kill" the message by attempting to point out the "unworthiness" of the messenger. I am NOT going to discuss any of YOUR attacks on either men because they are irrelevant for so many reasons. Even if I were to take your racist bait -- what does it prove except that YOU don't deem either man to meet YOUR standards.

You asked whether Jackson or Sharpton speak for ALL black people -- why should they or anyone speak for a diverse group of people -- my examples of Clinton and Bush were meant to show how racist your question is.

My opinion is that whites who complain about black Civil Rights leaders who find racism under every bush are generally racists -- at least in my experience.

My experience is that whites who talk about the "victimhood" of blacks and that issues wouldn't arise if black civil rights leaders didn't exploit them or make them so "emotional" (your words) are racists.

I believe racism is a pervasive issue in this country. You clearly don't and think blacks are making mountains out of molehills and looking for problems and issues where none exist.

My opinion is that those people who are making all of the excuses for Imus that you have made in your many posts on this subject are racists -- bottom line.

It is sad to see so many bigoted statements in one post.
Now you are making blanket opinions about my “white” views, some of which I never made, but you keep repeating them, for example I have not defended Imus.
Please show me where I made it clear to you that I believe there is no issue of racism in this country. It truly is a problem if a white person cannot discuss this important issue without being called a racist.
Am I not free to discuss my opinion of any person, of any race? Can a non black person make the same statement a black person makes without being labeled a racist?
I’m sure you know many blacks share my opinion of Sharpton and Jackson, what label do you give a black person with that view?
With all due respect, your views (or opinions) are racist.
Your assertion (or opinion) that certain statements are spoken by racists and that they are often "code language" is simply sophomoric.
I sincerely suggest your open your mind on this issue, rather than dismiss a different view as simply racist, maybe you can learn something, and it might help you to examine your own intolerance of other views.

[WhitneyB]

This was the offensive argument that Imus attempted -- including the offensive use of "you people"

And the issue is an old white man using racist language towards a specific group of young women -- everything else is obscuring the issue.

Why anyone would choose to defend him is beyond me nor do I know what point you are attempting to make by stating that you do not "deem general racist statements to be more acceptable."

For whatever reason, it is WELL KNOWN that certain terms may be used by people in their own cultural group which ARE NOT TO BE USED by non-members because when used by non-members it is widely accepted that the person speaking those terms is RACIST.

WOW!! I just came upon this thread and have been reading the posts and the use of racist/racism is outstanding!
I have never seen Don Imus nor have I ever listened to rap......don't care to do either. My choice. Yes, I have heard what Imus said and I have heard what words rappers use, but I don't have to listen to either.
In the quote above it seems to be wrong and offensive if the expression "you people" is used by Imus (I assume to identify a group of people since that is what I would say to a group of people) and yet the writer can call Imus an "old white man using racist language" and think it is all right. Both statements, "you people" and "old white man using racist language" are used by the speakers to identify (or make a point) and yet one is racist and the other is not???

[leebee]

Wow. Just...wow.

There's this "baby with the bathwater" theme that I just don't get. I think that denigrating language is bad. Period. I know that there is a lot of it going on in a lot of music, chiefly in a particular type of rap. I think that is wrong. Period. Yes, I would really like it if that would stop. BUT, that has very little to do with the fact that what Don Imus said is wrong, wrong, wrong. Something that occurred to me over the weekend, too. I'm not as up-in-arms about the word "ho" as I am about the whole thing--nappy-headed-ho. There's a racist element to the term "nappy-headed" that makes the whole thing really beyond-the-pale. I guess if people are unaware of the negativity often surrounding that term, then there would be a misunderstanding. In the context it was used, it was a demeaning judgement. THAT's a big part of my problem there.

Also, as far as using "inside jokes"--it's a hard thing to understand. My mother & uncle used to share some really awful jokes about their ethnicity. They found them funny when they would tell them to one another, but were absolutely offended if they heard a non-insider tell them. There are a lot of people who do this--use jokes or observational humor to poke fun at their own culture/race/place of origin/hobbies/professions, etc. I am from a part of Michigan generally deemed to be full of toothless, knuckle-dragging morons. If I say it, it's fine. If someone says it about me, it bothers me. Is it right? Probably not. But I KNOW that the stereotype isn't true. I'm not so sure about others. Maybe that's part of the difference. There are also jokes about accountants, blonds, people who jog, senior citizens--all of them are offensive on some level. Maybe not to the degree of (particular) ethnic stereotypes & slurs. But the truth is, we often deal with those things that are most troublesome to us with humor. When we do that, we are taking the power out of those terms or ideas, if only for a moment. It may not change the power those words can have from the outside, but it is a way of dealing with it. On the humor side of it, it also allows us to poke fun at ourselves. But that is a personal thing--I don't think someone from the "outside" has a "right" to those terms or ideas. They exist, but they are not for free use without consequence. It's the way of the world. You may not like it, but it's the reality. And, FWIW, not EVERYONE "inside" likes it. My grandmother would cluck her tongue and get upset when my uncle & mom would start with the jokes. So they stopped telling them in front of her.

And, no, I don't think that most of the particular songs in question that use the word "ho" are doing so out of any sort of attempt at humor. The issue of race is HUGE. I've been talking about one isolated incident. We can't fix all that's wrong with the world's race relations today, with one neat solution. Incidents can be addressed one at a time, with the hope that a more comprehensive change will take place. If this happens, it's a good thing, regardless of who is involved on either side.

I do think that taking isolated comments from this thread and making them the issue (out of context) is a silly game. It's too bad, because a lot of people who complain that we "can't" talk about race relations are doing anything but. Just silly.