Yes, Imus should have had more tact. But I don't think he should be crucified for something that is cheered, applauded, and generally tolerated in many other facets of culture. He didn't even use a racial slur, and it's on par with award winning lyrics by Snoop Dogg.
What on earth could be wrong about openly challenging and "crucifying" people who feel it's okay to be racist and misogynistic?
"nappy-headed" is a racially motivated slur/dig, and Snoop Dogg happens to be black, which means that anything he says, although possibly bigoted (and I wouldn't know since I don't know anything about his lyrics) is not contributing to existing institutionalised racism, and is therefore not comparable to racism spoken by a white man, and certainly not a privileged, white, middle-class man to boot.
I wish this sort of thing happened more often. I wish companies and communities would become outraged at all the racist and sexist comments that can be heard on the radio and on TV.
I can't see any harm whatsoever on calling someone publicly on their bigotry.
This is a double standard, however. If words are to be banned for their emotional content, they should be banned for any and all use of those words. To crucify Imus (a rich media personality) for the use of those words while not crucifying Snoop Dogg (a rich media personality) for the same use of those words itself sends a message that race dictates what is allowable for one group and not for another. I wish companies and communities would become outraged at all the racist and sexist comments that can be heard on the radio and on TV. That is my complaint. They don't. If something is racist, bigoted, sexist, or hateful speech, then it must be considered hateful, racist, bigoted, or sexist no matter what person or group uses it. To selectively punish does nothing to remove such speech or decrease the hate associated with it.
This is a double standard, however. If words are to be banned for their emotional content, they should be banned for any and all use of those words. To crucify Imus (a rich media personality) for the use of those words while not crucifying Snoop Dogg (a rich media personality) for the same use of those words itself sends a message that race dictates what is allowable for one group and not for another.
It only sends that message to people who are too ignorant or blinded by their own bigotry to realise the vast difference between racist language that contributes to an already firmly established, institutionalised racism, and language that is merely racially motivated with no lasting effect on the person it is being directed at.
A black individual calling me a cracker is still rude and bigoted, and it's not as if we encourage this in everyday life, but it has no profound effect on me or white people in general. Whereas a white celebrity calling someone a nigger, or a nappy-headed ho, is enabling and fuelling a racism that is so prevalent it effects the day to day lives of minority groups.
There is a world of difference between the two types of racism and their motivations.
That is my complaint. They don't. If something is racist, bigoted, sexist, or hateful speech, then it must be considered hateful, racist, bigoted, or sexist no matter what person or group uses it. To selectively punish does nothing to remove such speech or decrease the hate associated with it.
Everything has to start somewhere. It is vastly beneficial to the Western world to target the kind of racism and sexism that effects millions of people everyday, than to target the kind that is more about public politeness and general respect for people. You can't disregard hundreds of years of racism against very specific groups just so that you can make an argument about how ANY kind of racism is bad, since clearly one kind has far more of an effect than another, and it is therefore a good idea to target the kind that causes the most damage first.
That's nice, in an ideal world. We don't live in one, though, and far too often this argument is used by white people as a means of avoiding addressing institutionalised racism, or as a means of directing the focus back onto themselves. It's often used to discredit efforts to address the racism that actively effects thousands of African-Americans, and other minority groups, in the US today, and trivialises the years of prejudice they've suffered through by trying to compare their own minor interaction with bigotry with those who live with it every day of their lives.
As a perfect example, instead of seeing this whole Imus issue as a step in the right direction in regards to combating racism as a whole (since you can't deny that minority groups are effected by racism far more frequently than white people and other power groups), you immediately point out that it's unfair, or biased, and is doing nothing to solve the problem. You refuse to see it as a positive step because you're too busy worrying about your own group of people, who you imagine to be hard done by in some way because they're not 'allowed' to be openly racist to groups that are minorities.
You refuse to see the positive, basically, because you're looking for a reason to be offended and turn away from the primary issue of dealing with racism in its primary, institutionalised role. Probably because it demands change in behaviour from you and other privileged people, as opposed to what you are demanding; change from others first.
I disagree with you about censoring one group over another group for any reason. Censor all groups, or none.
That's all.
Although it is good to know that you can tell so much about me based solely on one sentence. I didn't realize that I myself was a bigoted racist until you so calmly pointed it out. Thank you.
What on earth could be wrong about openly challenging and "crucifying" people who feel it's okay to be racist and misogynistic?
"nappy-headed" is a racially motivated slur/dig, and Snoop Dogg happens to be black, which means that anything he says, although possibly bigoted (and I wouldn't know since I don't know anything about his lyrics) is not contributing to existing institutionalised racism, and is therefore not comparable to racism spoken by a white man, and certainly not a privileged, white, middle-class man to boot.
I wish this sort of thing happened more often. I wish companies and communities would become outraged at all the racist and sexist comments that can be heard on the radio and on TV.
I can't see any harm whatsoever on calling someone publicly on their bigotry.
Reply
I wish companies and communities would become outraged at all the racist and sexist comments that can be heard on the radio and on TV.
That is my complaint. They don't. If something is racist, bigoted, sexist, or hateful speech, then it must be considered hateful, racist, bigoted, or sexist no matter what person or group uses it. To selectively punish does nothing to remove such speech or decrease the hate associated with it.
Reply
It only sends that message to people who are too ignorant or blinded by their own bigotry to realise the vast difference between racist language that contributes to an already firmly established, institutionalised racism, and language that is merely racially motivated with no lasting effect on the person it is being directed at.
A black individual calling me a cracker is still rude and bigoted, and it's not as if we encourage this in everyday life, but it has no profound effect on me or white people in general. Whereas a white celebrity calling someone a nigger, or a nappy-headed ho, is enabling and fuelling a racism that is so prevalent it effects the day to day lives of minority groups.
There is a world of difference between the two types of racism and their motivations.
That is my complaint. They don't. If something is racist, bigoted, sexist, or hateful speech, then it must be considered hateful, racist, bigoted, or sexist no matter what person or group uses it. To selectively punish does nothing to remove such speech or decrease the hate associated with it.
Everything has to start somewhere. It is vastly beneficial to the Western world to target the kind of racism and sexism that effects millions of people everyday, than to target the kind that is more about public politeness and general respect for people. You can't disregard hundreds of years of racism against very specific groups just so that you can make an argument about how ANY kind of racism is bad, since clearly one kind has far more of an effect than another, and it is therefore a good idea to target the kind that causes the most damage first.
Reply
I disagree that there should be any targeting priorities. If racist speech is to be disallowed, it should be disallowed completely.
Reply
Racism is racism is racism, you cant say it's alright for one person to do it and then crucify someone else for it. It's all or nothing.
Reply
As a perfect example, instead of seeing this whole Imus issue as a step in the right direction in regards to combating racism as a whole (since you can't deny that minority groups are effected by racism far more frequently than white people and other power groups), you immediately point out that it's unfair, or biased, and is doing nothing to solve the problem. You refuse to see it as a positive step because you're too busy worrying about your own group of people, who you imagine to be hard done by in some way because they're not 'allowed' to be openly racist to groups that are minorities.
You refuse to see the positive, basically, because you're looking for a reason to be offended and turn away from the primary issue of dealing with racism in its primary, institutionalised role. Probably because it demands change in behaviour from you and other privileged people, as opposed to what you are demanding; change from others first.
Reply
I disagree with you about censoring one group over another group for any reason. Censor all groups, or none.
That's all.
Although it is good to know that you can tell so much about me based solely on one sentence. I didn't realize that I myself was a bigoted racist until you so calmly pointed it out. Thank you.
Reply
Leave a comment