So what would you have Imus do?

[asbcheeks]

This is not 'Nam. There are rules. Imus was over the line, and he has entered a world of pain.

At least he never served 6 months in Chino for exposing himself to an 8 year old. Creep can roll, though.

[g_olaf]

The Rutgers women appeared to be tougher and less groomed than did the Tennessee (and Duke) players. "Nappy headed ho" places these women in the underclass, disparages them as athletes who are succeeding in college, sexualizes them in a way that connotes crack whores, and undermines them as they are doing their best.

This really gets to the heart of the offence. Its one thing to use this sort of language an anonymous sense. Its quite something else to say this about a group of high achieving young women. We have gotten rather used to people making degrading remarks about famous people, and most acknowledge that it goes with the territory. However, these young, amatuer atheletes don't deserve this. As I said before, Imus and others have made small fortunes by pushing the limits of taste... I've got no problem with that. However, they should be penalized when they overstep.

[devildownunder]

There is no monolithic African-American community. If someone who is actually more expert wants to correct this, please do so, but in the meantime...

There are the Grant Hills and Lindsay Hardings and Candace Parkers who are light skinned and speak and look more like Caucasians, and who, within the African-American subculture, are the kings and queens and are unusual. This group goes to Duke. Of course, as Chris Rock pointed out about himself, he's rich and young and good looking, and the elderly white janitor back stage wouldn't want to trade places (i.e., to many people, the lowest white on the American totem pole>the highest black).

With the Civil Rights movement, this privileged group left the old neighborhood and moved to the mostly-white suburbs or to middle class black enclaves in order to practice medicine or law or to run their store or to raise their children, leaving behind a progressively more entrenched underclass that is having trouble keeping up, largely because the middle class and successful people leave as soon as they can. This is an overgeneralization, of course, and some historically black neighborhoods are being gentrified, but there remains a widening gulf between the poor and affluent in African-American society.

1. your characterisation of grant hill, etc. suggests that there is a high strata of black society in which everyone is rich and "light skinned and speak and look more like Caucasians". That's a monolithic stereotype every bit as troubling to me as the notion that all black people are the same, or all white people for that matter.

2. What does it mean to act white? Does that mean to speak good English, hold down a good job and be a productive member of society, not a criminal or ward of the state? And if it does, what does "acting black" mean?

[devildownunder]

It seems that you think I think it should be a panel of all-white people, judging from your analogy. It also seems that you think it should be a panel of all black people.

I'm not clear why it can't be a mixed panel, AKA, the human race, that sits down together and talks about this stuff. We're all in it together.There are respected white leaders that are more than entitled to voice their opinions on these sort of subjects that I'm sure the black community would listen to.

If you are talking about standards of common decency then everyone, from all walks of like must be present to make significant progress. But if you are talking about how any one subculture should present itself, I think we'd all be kidding ourselves to suggest that someone from the outside is going to be taken in any way seriously by that subculture, especially when there is a centuries-old history of antagonism between the subculture and the culture at large.

I will return to my men/women analogy. How could any man possibly speak to a group of female peers about how to combat sexual harassment without it coming off sounding like "hey, all this crap you've taken over the years is all your fault"? The same dynamic is at work, here.

[johnb]

"more like caucasians" is one reason that I'm glad I'm not a public figure. Sheesh. It's obviously not what I meant to say, and I'll go mull it over.

I also didn't intend to imply that there are two monolithic cultures within A-A society.

I did intend to say that there is a middle class within A-A culture that identifies more with the Anglo middle class subculture, that they go to better schools (like Duke), that they get professional jobs, and that their identification as A-A's tends to be complicated by the fact that they are relatively dissimilar to some of the stereotypes that are promulgated within our racist society or to members of whatever-the-current-term-is-for-underclass. This group doesn't consist only of Grant Hills, by the way, but lots and lots of middle class people.

Of course, within the A-A and all subcultures are many subsubcultures and identifications, and it is always specious to overgeneralize and now I sort of wish I hadn't waded into the discussion.

[devildownunder]

"more like caucasians" is one reason that I'm glad I'm not a public figure. Sheesh. It's obviously not what I meant to say, and I'll go mull it over.

I also didn't intend to imply that there are two monolithic cultures within A-A society.

I did intend to say that there is a middle class within A-A culture that identifies more with the Anglo middle class subculture, that they go to better schools (like Duke), that they get professional jobs, and that their identification as A-A's tends to be complicated by the fact that they are relatively dissimilar to some of the stereotypes that are promulgated within our racist society or to members of whatever-the-current-term-is-for-underclass. This group doesn't consist only of Grant Hills, by the way, but lots and lots of middle class people.

Of course, within the A-A and all subcultures are many subsubcultures and identifications, and it is always specious to overgeneralize and now I sort of wish I hadn't waded into the discussion.

right. it's just way too convenient and easy to slip into generalisations and categorising. It makes everything so neat and tidy to do that but in the real world it's never that simple. I think the labels become a substitute for thought, unfortunately. that was my point.

[Bob Green]

I am disappointed, but not suprised, that CBS caved in to the pressure of Al Sharpton who is one of the biggest hypocrites in our society.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[calltheobvious]

I am disappointed, but not suprised, that CBS caved in to the pressure of Al Sharpton who is one of the biggest hypocrites in our society.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Bob, this is a crock. CBS doesn't give a damn about Al Sharpton. They give a damn about the likes of GM and Staples pulling their advertising.

Furthermore, Sharpton's moral consistency (or lack thereof) isn't the issue here; Imus's is.

[Bob Green]

Why did GM et al pull their sponsorship? Because of political pressure spearheaded by hypocrites like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. It's amazing how the Liberal Left constantly hides behind the 1st Amendment, but throws it to the garbage pile as soon as someone says something that offends them. You can't have it both ways. What Imus said was wrong. He apologized. Get over it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[gus]

Why did GM et al pull their sponsorship? Because of political pressure spearheaded by hypocrites like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. It's amazing how the Liberal Left constantly hides behind the 1st Amendment, but throws it to the garbage pile as soon as someone says something that offends them. You can't have it both ways. What Imus said was wrong. He apologized. Get over it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

GM pulled its sponsorship because a significant amount of people beyond Sharpton and Jackson were offended.

Not sure what the first amendment has to do with this- I'm not aware of any government intervention here at all.

[Bob Green]

Not sure what the first amendment has to do with this- I'm not aware of any government intervention here at all.

My point is that society is intervening...government of the people, by the people, for the people...government and society are one and the same.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

[gus]

My point is that society is intervening...government of the people, by the people, for the people...government and society are one and the same.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Society has intervened in the sense that advertisers are afraid that sponsoring bigotry will hurt their bottom line. I'm not sure why that's objectionable? It's certainly not a violation of the first amendment.

[devildownunder]

Why did GM et al pull their sponsorship? Because of political pressure spearheaded by hypocrites like Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson. It's amazing how the Liberal Left constantly hides behind the 1st Amendment, but throws it to the garbage pile as soon as someone says something that offends them. You can't have it both ways. What Imus said was wrong. He apologized. Get over it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

First of all, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are hardly the only people complaining about Imus's actions. Why do you and others on this board seem to want to act like these two men conjured this all by themselves -- as if no one else anywhere has spoken out against Imus? I guess it doesn't really matter though, anyone I could name who was attacking Imus wouldn't be perfect, so I suppose that means no one should have the right to denounce him, then, right? I mean that seems to be the logical progression of thought you are taking.

And as for the 1st amendment issue, I have not heard a single soul saying that Imus broke the law or should not have the right to say what he said -- if they had, then you could argue they are attacking his 1st amendment rights. But nowhere in the 1st amendment does it say that you get to exercise your freedom of expression and then others aren't free to exercise that same right against you -- and that is exactly what has happened here.

[devildownunder]

My point is that society is intervening...government of the people, by the people, for the people...government and society are one and the same.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

Society, the people, have the right to do things the government cannot. Note the first five words of the 1st Amendment, which you posted: "Congress shall make no law"

Not a word in there about what the people can do.

[TNTDevil]

I'm not sure I'm "supporting" Imus per say. Go back and read my posts and you will notice I was, while a fan, critical of many of his antics/bits. What I am supporting is the ability for someone to make a mistake, admit and apologize for said mistake and not be vilified and defined by the mistake.

Many of you have argued that Imus wasn't worth the support but, to me, this whole thing brought back the awful memories of what happened during the early days of the LAX issue. In the early days a great many people wanted the entire LAX team's collective heads on pikes. Now, after all the facts have emerged it would seem that something untoward happened but not enough to justify the outcry or the charges, much less the ruination of these young men's lives.

Many of you, who have probably never actually listened to Imus’ show for any length of time and, I'm certain, will continue to argue that because of his comments that he is a racist (..."quacks like a duck") and deserved what happened to him. I think a true racist would have made many, many more objectionable comments over 30+ years of public broadcasting. While Mr. Imus' comments were objectionable, I don't think there was any real, malicious intent on his part to harm or insult those young ladies. However, as even he has admitted publicly and frequently, that is what happened.

So I'll ask this: Would a true racist, who after being fired, still attend and spend nearly three hours meeting with these women in order to apologize?

As for Sharpton, Jackson, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, whom all wanted Imus fired, and continue to proclaim "let this be a beginning of the dialogue to address racism" (much as they did during the LAX fiasco) yet never actually work towards that end- my congratulations. Of course we all know that they will not “work to address racism” because without racism what cause would they champion?

Hooray. Imus has been fired. Racism is dead.

One last interesting article on this topic from the N&O

[WeepingThomasHill]

Bob Green has made some good points here. I guess the constitution will have to be changed to allow free speech for some, but not for all. If the speech is offensive, then the person must be silenced. I did not realize we were in North Korea now.

On a more important note, I am waiting for an apology from Sharpton for (i) his role in the Tawana Brawley case, (ii) his role in the Duke lax case, (iii) his lifetime of anti-semtism and long record of Jew-hating remarks and (iv) the pogrom he started in Crown Heights, including the burning of a Jewish store and deaths of innocent people. Sharpton has blood on his hands and he is now splashed across the headlines and TV shows. He is a despicable monster.

Its unfortunate that Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson said most of his ugly anti-semtic remarks before the current era of blogs, 24/7 coverage and media scrutiny. Otherwise, as soon as he started jihad against Jews and whites(again, part of a long record of disgusting anti-semtism, including his support for Farrakkah), he would have been "Imus-ed" and completely marginalized. I loathe Jackson and everything he stands for. He is just a few steps away from Hamas.

[g_olaf]

"In private talks we sometimes let our guard down and become thoughtless, It was not in a spirit of meanness, but an off-color remark having no bearing on religion or politics. However innocent and unintended, it was insensitive and wrong."

-Jesse Jackson, March 1984

OK, its been 23 years. Can we let it rest?

[Jumbo]

My point is that society is intervening...government of the people, by the people, for the people...government and society are one and the same.

Bob Green
Yokosuka, Japan

No, Bob, government and society are not one and the same. There are public and private sectors (thank goodness). Government did not intervene in this case. Individuals used their own powers of freedom of speech (and assembly) to force a change.

Please note that my response has absolutely nothing to do with my opinion of the resolution of this case. I tend to think Imus is not a hate-filled man, but merely and equal-opportunity flamethrower, who insults people in an attempt at humor. I believe the difference in intent between that and, say, David Duke, is important. My personal opinion is that in this case, justice would have been better served by individual objection -- change the channel. That said, I can't argue that CBS and MSNBC didn't have the right to pull the plug on Imus, just as someone will have the right to hire him at some point in the future.

When you make ridiculous, general statements about the "Liberal Left," it does nothing to bolster your argument and only comes off as simplistic. Contrary to your belief, the this isn't a left/right issue, the "Liberal Left" is not a monolithic entity, and this member of the supposed "Liberal Left" neither supported Al Sharpton nor believed listeners should have been denied the opportunity to make their own decision on the matter. So, next time, try not to choose such a broad brush when you decide to paint.

[WeepingThomasHill]

G Olaf wrote:

OK, its been 23 years. Can we let it rest?

Nope. Never. Not as long as Jackson leads a crusade against all statements that are deemed offensive. He deserves to be called out for his hypocrisy and hatred. I will never forget or forgive Hymietown or his attempts to degrade the victims of the Holocaust. He is an ugly, loathsome man and he deserves more public condemnation, not less.

[Bostondevil]

Despite the brouhaha caused by the media reporting on this incident and the intervention of Al Sharpton, I still think this was more about gender than it was about race.