Mediaquake!

This is not to excuse Imus.

Yesterday (4-12) Oprah laughing as was Imus ridiculed white men--as incapable of dancing. So we have an opposite gender, different race person viciously attacking. True her language was not as inflaming but her intent was no different than that of Imus.

Why do we let her get by with such an insult?

'Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander."

I wrote an email to Sen. Barrack Obama.

In this email I told him that...
"...although not a resident of the State of Illinois I feel that I have the right, to question his views and convictions towards what Don Imus said and also, to ask what his intentions are to remedy the broad area of ALL issues involving racially insulting comments. This includes blacks commenting about whites. I told him that his run for the office of President of The United States gives me the right to question his motives and deserves the right, and obligation, for him to provide an answer.

I'll bet anybody, anything, that he does not reply.

Clifton S. Rogers

Dear Clifton,

I'll look into it and get back to you soon.

Sincerely,

Barrack

James, the reason this "mediaquake" (great word, by the way) happened is ONLY because Imus's guests are almost EXCLUSIVELY the media - Time and Newsweek writers, CNN reporters, New York Times writers, etc. Take away the media's love affair with hearing themselves talk on Imus' show, and there is NO way this story becomes more than a "Idiot of the Day" blurb.

Nice write-up on Drive, by the way....way to see this get back to something actually, oh, about television and shows people actually watch....

Chaddogg,

I had this same conversation with somebody else earlier this morning, and I totally agree, with one addition. This became a big story because the media loves to cover its own... _but_ it also stuck around, I think, because it was about things (like race) that non-media people care and argue about. Whereas I think the media has overcovered a lot of stories, like the Jayson Blair story, because journalists are too interested in themselves.

But yes, very soon I have to start shunning the Imus story, Dwight-style.

>Anna Marie Cox is such a phony and a hypocrite!! Seriously, I have a subscription to Time and Newsweek and I love the articles but from now on when I read Time and I see a story by AMC I'm just goona skip it. I say this because I saw her on Scarborough Country w/ Joe Scarborough when she stated she would never go on Imus'show again(well duh!!). AMC stated she felt 'compromised' and 'uncomfortable' going on the show. I really find that hard to believe because I've watched the show for the last 5 years and I heard AMC 's discussions with Imus.
>The tone of the conversations were friendly in general and AMC almost seemed like a giddy school girl happy to show her dad the good grades she got or some other accomplishment! To all of a sudden throw Imus under the bus with the rest of the phonies and then claim a level of uncomfortability by appearing on the show is not only hypocritical but it's disingenuous. I'm sure being on his show helped AMC more than her appearances helped Imus. I didn't know who she was or who she wrote for until I heard her on Imus(now I think I'll forget again).
>Imus did a horrible thing making that statement, no doubt about it, but it was not his first and AMC knew that along with others. I have more respect for Howard Fineman, Mike Barnacle, and the like who stood by a friend who did a bad thing than someone who piles on a person when they're down.
Anna Marie who??!

I couldn't be more pleased that Don Imus' foul mouth and mean-spirited temperament have been removed from the public airwaves. He has been spewing insults at good people for way too long.

How anyone could think he is funny is beyond me. How he could call himself a "good man who said a bad thing" is beyond me. His remarks are a reflection of a deep-seated hatred and disrespect which he has been allowed reveal by calling it "humor". It only serves to incite others who have similar bigoted attitudes.

Those of you who support him and the things he has said over all these years should take a look in the mirror and ask yourself how you would feel if you were the object of his insults.

My biggest regret about this entire thing is that it took so long for it to happen.

I think this is all bull. way over head. you have to be so carefull what you say not to offend any one race being black. But if anyone says look at that stringy blond hair ho its ok, its about time to drop the race act and get on with life.

I consider myself an educated "baby boomer" who enjoyed listening to Imus. Imus has been making the same type of comments since I can remember. I have been a listener for over 20 years. Funny though, I never thought he was a racist. He made fun of everyone and everyone who appeared on his show, advertised, listened, set a precedent for what he was allowed to get away with.

I continued to listen because I enjoyed his political guests and satire. I laughed every day on my way to work. He made comments that I cringed over, but what comedian these days does not. What surprised me about this, but shouldn't have, is the amount of hypocrisy in all this. Everyone was happy as long as he was making money for them which included book sales.

Imus did plenty of good things especially bringing to our attention the treatment of our soldiers at medical facilities. To have him fired without a warning is unfair. He would have cleaned up his act and still had an enjoyable show to listen to. Hopefully he will find another venue and I will continue to listen

James -

I see Imus as a shark lurking slightly under water, ripping off someone's leg here and an arm there, while people watch from shore to get a glimpse of the carnage. Finally someone's kid gets bitten badly, and all of a sudden there is a public outcry to kill the shark.

It's not that the first leg being torn off was a minor event, it's that 30 years of carnage is just too much.

I feel that Imus was wrong for his remarks because of the simple fact that these were innocent girls who were not representing themselves like ho's but as outstanding athlete's. I do believe Imus is a racist being that this was not his first time making racist comments. I do not think that his should be compared to Rappers lyrics or videos because Rappers don't make racist remarks and this issue is not about Rappers but about Imus so why are they even in this controversy? At first I felt that he shouldn't be fired but be put on probation but then I heard it wasn't his first time saying racist remarks so then I said he should be fired. We are trying to be an equal country who wants to believe racism doesn't exist but knows that it just stays hidden until it is exposes like Imus was. We should all come together to try and better our world and not be against each other and divided according to race!

OH My Goodness Grace , wake the hell up.
Saying that rappers don't make racist remarks is like saying there is no race issues.You should take the time to read Jason wilcox blog.
Talk about shock jocks,like Howard stern and Don Imus,Listen to rap and And Hip Hop then tell us there isn't racist remarks in that culture.
People LIke A. Sharpton and J.Jackson are two individuals who in my opinion should never be trusted to set moral tone for any one. They defend the black culture reguardless of wrong doing that spews demeaning ,vulgar,sexist remarks , saying its part of the black culture and that makes it right. When society's misfits transfer the lyrics to their everyday life,style actions then that becomes extreenly dangerous. White or black it's wrong. Keep on wearing blinders ,and you just might be the next victim to such actions.What Don Imus said about the wemons basketball team was uncalled for and crude. Doesn't make him a sponser of violence.
The company's that promote ,produce ,and sell such products should in my opinion be held accountable to the fullest extent. The slogan "JUST SAY NO" goes a long way in stoping any of this . It certainly not cool and not acceptable .DON'T BUY IT. Leave it on the rack. See how long it takes to make a turn around
when there is no profit to be made.Educating the young to ignore such trash, and to realize that the saying "IF IT SMELLS ,IT SELLS" is true .
Stop letting racist like the dirty duo (SHARPTON & JACKSON) tell you whats acceptable in your life. Take off the blinders ,remove the ear plugs, decide on your own what is truly right for you. DOn Imus is not the threat,ignorance is.

Amen to that brother. You know I was watching the news the other day, and guess what was on?
The Imus thing. With all of the civic leaders with their noses in things...(as usual). It kind of made me want to turn the tv off. I really don't watch to much tv, but when I do I really don't like hearing about what somebody said about some racial slur. In my opinion, everybody just needs to be adults for once and from now on. My question has always been...Why are people always trying to bring out the bad in everybody else? Sure, our american history has had very bad regrets with this issue. I am so tired of hearing about racism. What everybody should do is grow up and face their challenges. That means black people and white people... Listen to me sounding as if there are only black and white issues. Don't forget about all the other people that live in our country too. Everybody has a right to freedom and justice in this country. That is what makes this country grand. Here is just one example that I hope people will really forget about racism and just take a moment to think about. What about the war that is going on? Do you think that the soldiers who are fighting over there are worried about racism? Or appauled by somebody saying something about their hair? I highly doubt it. Those men and women are fighting for their lives. I guess things over their are different, fighting side by side, black and white and...what ever color you are. The main thing is that the people fighting the war in Iraq or any war in the past have always worked together to do good for everybody. This brings me to another question. If all Americans regardless of race can work well together IN A DIFFERENT COUNTRY? Then why can't we work well together IN OUR COUNTRY?

As you can tell I am not a racist person to any human being. But I have finally had enough of this nonsense and would hope to think that somehow, hopefully, somebody in this country or world would appreciate my honest opinion.

I hope this blog gets out to everyone, so people can second guess themselves, especially since I am just an average joe with no credentials and no big name or any air time. Thanks for reading and remember how great we could all be if we just work together without any of our past problems. God Bless!!

Imus's comment could have gone un-noticed if it wasn't for the media circus. I do not think that he meant to insult blacks.,he is just a fool.
The hurtful prejudice is the unspoken ones . When a cab won't stop and a landlord will not rent for a black . When the police profile you and businesses won't hire you. Interracial marriage is still seen by some as a crime against the white race. Let start in homes and schools to educate our children to be tolerant.

I am struck by both Imus'supporters and critics. I watched Imus at the half hour for the politics and after a while gave up because all these people were pushing books. Imus did very good work on autism, the veterans and of course, his ranch and support for charities.

One day I turned on Imus and there was a very professional young lady who came over to read e mails sent to Imus. I was appalled when it turned out that Imus had no plans to respond to any. His contempt for his critics showed. So why bother to read those emails? and why bother to have a member of his staff read them only to be dismissed.

In the end the old guy was done by his own insensitivity and an accumulation of remarks that are really unworthy of the man. There is something sick about the hatred that permeates the talk show circuit - and Limbaugh is at the forefront of this. If this is the kind of discourse that is now acceptable in our country then it is time to ask whether we want it. Freedom of speech is wonderful. Freedom to insult is not.

Don Imus in his “apology” went on to say that the term “ho” didn’t originate in the white community, but rather in the Black community. As the term “ho” is a variation of the word “whore” (a word not foreign to the American lexicon and indeed has been used with great frequency in the white community), that assertion does not hold water. So once again, what is endemic in American society is viewed as a specific “Black” identifier or just a “Black thing.” That would be the equivalent of saying that the first person to call the television a TV undeniably invented it or the individual who first referred to the automobile as a car, now holds the patent to the creation.

In this composition I will not be addressing the whole of hip-hop and rap, but rather hardcore and gangsta rap. It is my assertion that the mainstream media and political pundits---right and left--- have painted rap and hip-hop with a very broad brush. Let me be perfectly clear, hardcore and gangsta rap is not listened to, watched, consumed or supported in my home and never has. I will not be an apologist for anything that chooses to frame the dialogue about Black women (and women in general) and Black life in morally bankrupt language and reprehensible symbols.

Now in the wake of MSNBC’s and CBS’s firing of Don Imus, the debate over misogyny, sexism and racism has now taken flight ---or submerged, depending on your point of view. There are many, mostly white, people who believe that Imus was a fall guy and he is receiving blame and criticism for what many rap artists do continually in the lyrics and videos: debase and degrade Black women. A Black guest on an MSNBC news program even went as far as to say, “Where would a 66 year-old white guy even had heard the phrase nappy-headed ho” ---alluding to hip-hop music’s perceived powerful influence upon American culture and life (and apparently over the radio legend as well) ---and by so doing gave a veneer of truth to the theory that rap music is the main culprit to be blamed for this contemporary brand of chauvinism. However, I concur with bell hooks, the noted sociologist and black-feminist activist who said that “to see gangsta rap as a reflection of dominant values in our culture rather than as an aberrant ‘pathological’ standpoint, does not mean that a rigorous feminist critique of the sexist and misogyny expressed in this music is not needed. Without a doubt black males, young and old, must be held politically accountable for their sexism. Yet this critique must always be contextualized or we risk making it appear that the behavior this thinking supports and condones,--rape, male violence against women, etc. -- is a black male thing. And this is what is happening. Young black males are forced to take the ‘heat’ for encouraging, via their music, the hatred of and violence against women that is a central core of patriarchy.”

There are those in the media, mostly white males (but also some black pundits as well), who now want the Black community to take a look at hip-hop music and correct the diabolical “double-standard” that dwells therein. Before a real conversation can be had, we have to blow-up the myths, expose the lies and cast a powerful and discerning light on the “real” double-standards and duplicity. Kim Deterline & Art Jones in their essay, Fear of a Rap Planet, points out that "the issue with media coverage of rap is not whether African Americans engaged in a campaign against what they see as violent, sexist or racist imagery in rap should be heard—they should. …why are community voices fighting racism and sexism in mainstream news media, films and advertisements not treated similarly? The answer may be found in white-owned corporate media’s historical role as facilitator of racial scapegoating. Perhaps before advocating censorship of a music form with origins in a voiceless community, mainstream media pundits should look at the violence perpetuated by their own racism and sexism."

Just as the mainstream media and the dominant culture-at-large treats all things “Black” in America as the “other” or as some sort of science experiment in a test tube in an isolated and controlled environment, so hardcore rap is treated as if it occurred in some kind of cultural vacuum; untouched, unbowed and uninformed by the by the larger, broader, dominant American culture. The conversation is always framed in the form of this question: “What is rap’s influence on American society and culture?” Never do we ask: "What has been society’s role in shaping and influencing hip-hop?” Gangsta and hardcore rap is the product of a society that has historically objectified and demeaned women, and commercialized sex. These dynamics are present in hip hop to the extent that they are present in society. The rapper who grew up in the inner-city watched the same sexist television programs, commercials and movies; had access to the same pornographic and misogynistic magazines and materials; and read the same textbooks that limited the presence and excluded the achievements of women (and people of color as well), as the All-American, Ivy-league bound, white kid in suburban America. It is not sexism and misogyny that the dominant culture is opposed to (history and commercialism has proven that). The dominant culture’s opposition lies with hip-hop’s cultural variation of the made-in-the-USA misogynistic themes and with the Black voices communicating the message. The debate and the dialogue must be understood in this context.

President Bush, during a recent speech to a predominantly white audience, voiced his concerns about the state of affairs in American white communities. "The epidemic of whites involved in drunk-driving fatality accidents is deplorable," President Bush said. He cited the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 2000 statistics that showed that white male drivers between the ages of 21-34 constituted the largest percentage of drunk (or impaired) drivers in fatal crashes and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, Prevention Research Center's 1999 findings that of the 91,248 alcohol-related driving fatalities, 65,309 were committed by whites.

President Bush also took aim at the violence perpetrated by whites in school: "White school children killing other school children must stop. The senseless and barbaric school shootings in Pearl, Miss.; Paducah, Ky.; Jonesboro, Ark.; Edinboro, Pa.; Springfield, Ore.; and Littleton, Colo.; serve as chilling reminders of what happens when there is a failure of leadership in the white family." The president referred to his speech as a wake-up call: "We can't hide behind the stereotypical image of the Black and Hispanic violent criminal anymore. Before there was 'gangsta' rap you had Martin Scorsese, Brian DePalma and Francis Ford Coppola winning award after award and Oscar after Oscar for their films filled with whites committing brutal acts of violence. What type of message does that send if we reward movies that depict such brutality? The Godfather, Casino, Goodfellas, Scarface, Kill Bill, Pulp Fiction. These movies have all contributed to a culture of white violence."

"White politicians don't want to discuss these issues, but somebody has to speak up," President Bush said, as he continued his assault on what he called the "white crime epidemic."

"The average serial killer is usually male, between the ages of 25-35, and he is usually white. The majority of the time, he will kill victims of his own race. The ages of his victims will vary greatly, depending on his particular 'interests.' His intellect ranges from below average to above average. He doesn't usually know his victims or have any particular hatred for them personally (though they might be symbolic to him in some way) most of the time... His victims never did anything to hurt him in any way...they are normally strangers to him. He doesn't come from one social class or another; he can come from skid row or Park Avenue. The typical child abductor-murderer is, likewise, usually a white male. They are single and about 27 years old. They are either unemployed or work in unskilled jobs, live alone or with parents; while their victims are typically 11-year-old white females from middle class neighborhoods [Bush was quoting from the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention report from 1997]."
Bush continued his attack on those he referred to as "social and moral vampires." "Child pornography or kiddie porn is a crime whose perpetrators are overwhelmingly white and whose victims are disproportionately white. This too must stop. Even in our sacred institutions such as our churches, specifically in far too many Roman Catholic churches, our innocent white children are being preyed upon." Bush also referenced the NBC program To Catch A Predator, “It is has become clear to me that face of the child predator is overwhelmingly white.”
"Do you realize that nearly 70 percent of those serving time for violent crimes against children are white," Bush said as he cited the U.S. Department of Justice's 1996 report, What are we doing to ourselves? "Susan Smith, Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney represent a frightening pattern of murder and neglect of white children by white mothers…. And do they take responsibility? No. They either blame it on some phantom black man or say God made them do it."

The president later turned his focus on white youth and drugs, "It's the same story for young adults. Whites are 66 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds and 70 percent of drug users that age. Blacks are 13.5 percent of persons in that age group and only 13 percent of young adult users, while Hispanics are nearly 15 percent of that age group, but yet comprise only 12 percent of drug users 18-25. According to the Justice Department, drug users tend to buy from same-race dealers. So the nearly three-quarters of users who are white, mainly rely on white drug dealers, not the Blacks or Hispanics of accepted imagery. When it comes to drugs like Ecstasy - a hot product in suburban America - the dealers and users have long been known to be mostly white, middle-class males between 14 and 32. American society doesn't want to face the fact that white kids deal and use drugs. They simply can't look in their faces and see that a nice-looking white kid is selling drugs to their kids, because that would mean that their kids could do this too.
"When will it end?" lamented the president.

Author’s confession:
Dear reader, this article is only an invention. President Bush never delivered a speech such as this. However, the statistics stated in the article are very real and very true.
There may be some who will assert that I am anti-white and all I am doing is spewing a black brand of racism. There are many layers to my answer. First I would like to say that yes, I am so anti-white that I love and am married to a woman who is considered white (in our home we say Swedish-American). Then I multiplied my "prejudices" by subjecting my ethnically mixed children to white grandparents, aunts and uncles. In other words, anti-white wouldn't be an appropriate charge to level against me, but you can say that I am anti-injustice.

No leading white politician or religious leader has ever, to my knowledge, come close to expressing the thoughts and views outlined in this composition. If they did, what do you think the response would be? If you don't have an answer it's OK. I realize that it is difficult to come up with an answer to a question that has rarely or never been asked. However, other groups (especially Blacks) have had to deal with similar rhetoric for centuries right here in America and have had to answer the question I just posed to you, time and time again.

Let's think about it, when the tragedy at Columbine occurred (I was at Columbine a week after it happened, counseling some of the young people in the area) there were literally hundreds of news stories asking the question: "Why are our kids becoming so violent." Not why are white kids becoming so violent, but "our" kids. Now let's contrast that with what happens when a black child is killed in a predominantly black community. The headline more often than not has read something like this: "The problem of black-on-black crime" or "Violence amongst black youth." There are two scenarios taking place here: 1. De-emphasizing or minimizing ethnicity. When the crime is perpetrated by white youths color is not the issue; the issue is "our" children and violence. 2. Emphatic emphasizing and alienation when black youth are deemed the culprits. It is no longer "our" kids; it is "black" kids or youth. Can you, will you, see the difference?

Our need to examine these inequities is exacerbated by CNN’s announcement that they are adding Bill Bennett to their on-air roster. This prolific slap in the face cannot be appeased by Bennett’s continued pronouncement, that his words were taken out of context and that he preceded his ominous statement about the abortion of Black babies to lower the crime rate with: "it would be reprehensible." The fact that he went straight for the Black population speaks volumes of his deep-seated prejudices. Why mention Black babies at all? In light of all the statistical evidence presented here, Mr. Bennett’s assertion about aborting "every Black baby" would not make a dent in certain crimes. It certainly would not make much of a difference in corporate or white-collar crime, which is still very much white-male dominated and rarely discussed in the on-going dialogue on "crime." Wouldn’t the drop in crime be significant if we aborted "white male babies" (if we were to stay with Bill Bennett’s rationale for his hypothesis)? Furthermore, a distinction has to be made between criminal activities and those convicted of a crimes - not everyone who commits a crime is convicted.

I know there are some who may be offended by the assertions that I have made in this piece; this is regrettable and yet I understand. But before you give full sway to your feelings of anger and disgust, answer this: were you this offended when Blacks or Latinos (and other ethnic groups) were being characterized in the same way? Did you challenge the people who made (and those who published) derogatory and inaccurate remarks about other ethnic groups, to tell the whole truth?

It's not easy being made to look like deviants, criminals or malcontents, is it? It is frustrating and dehumanizing when the few are made to represent the many. When the face of evil and all that is thought to be wrong with society bears a resemblance, in ethnicity, to you. This, I understand all too well. If that is how you feel, please remember it; meditate on it. For it is the same feeling that many of your fellow citizens have had to live with on daily basis. In conclusion, let us ponder this: A fictitious speech had to be written to talk about the actual crimes and indiscretions of white folk; the words, speeches and images that are used to degrade and debase Black folk is all too real.
Note: This piece was written a few years ago (I have revised it a bit here and there), but judging by what I have read here today, its need to be emphasized still remains. Although the statistics are a bit dated, from current research I believe that they have pretty steady with exception of the total number of drunk driving fatalities (they have gone down).

I figure that once a year a magazine can hack me off sufficiently to make want to cancel my subscription, and I let it go. Time's April 23 cover uses up your allotment for the rest of this millenium. In the absence of such mainstream coverage, a jerks like Imus would be relegated to the irrelevant backwater that they deserve. Instead, you helped make him an icon. I thought you were better than that. Apparently not.

Edward Rhymes should be writing cover stories about Imus, rather than our host.

The progressive blogosphere is all atwitter about Gwen Ifill's supposed "takedown" of Russert and Brooks on MTP today. Except it wasn't a takedown -- it was a sharp jab that did no real damage followed by a lot of dancing -- if Ifill had shut up after taking it to Russert and Brooks, and followed up, that would have been significant. Instead, she rambled on long enough to allow Russert and Brooks to ignore her jab.

Our host got a really nice shout-out on MTP... the Imus discussion started out by citing his front-pager, with Russert asking

"Gene Robinson, you wrote this on Friday: “Now that the networks have pulled the plug on Don Imus, let’s have no hyperventilation to the effect that the aging shock jock’s fall from undeserved grace raises some important questions about just who in our society is permitted to say just what.” But Time magazine, as you’ll see, picture of Don Imus on the cover with tape on his mouth, saying “Who Can Say What?” Why not have that discussion?"

Robinson's answer was weak -- the RIGHT answer is "Because it distracts from the REAL issues" -- the kind of issues Rhymes discusses in his two extended comments. But despite Ifill and Robinson's occasional efforts to get things back on track, it became a discussion about "Who Can Say What?"

Robinson did not distinguish himself in the following exchange after pointing out that it was the mainstream media that "appointed Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to...be spokespeople "

"MR. RUSSERT: And it was fair to ask Jackson about Hymietown, and it was fair to ask Sharpton about Tawana Brawley.

MR. ROBINSON: Of course, it—of course it’s fair, but, but the idea that, that, in this case, they were self-appointed is not really quite right because that was certainly abetted by, by a news media establishment that, that went to them, you know, 50 times a day."

Robinson is dead wrong in asserting that its okay to ask those questions of Sharpton and Jackson -- the people THE MEDIA CHOOSES to represent the black community have a right to respect -- because when the media bring out their spokesman for the black community and says "Well, aren't you just as bad?", the media is asking "well, isn't the black community just as bad?"

Its a set up, pure and simple. The media has drawn its (obviously false) conclusions about the black community as a whole then brings in the people that represent those conclusions.

Given Sharpton's record, I personally don't think he should be a "spokesman" for anyone but himself. Jackson is entirely different. "Hymietown" was TWENTY THREE FREAKING YEARS AGO. Jackson apologized -- and acknowledged the underlying bias that he felt and that he had work to do on himself, and he hasn't repeated the error since then. And the same people that think its "fair to ask Jackson about Hymietown" TWENTY THREE YEARS AFTER THE FACT are the ones advocating instant redemption for Imus --- despite the fact that Imus won't admit to the racist feelings that drove that remark.

I'm a white guy -- and the fact is that if I'm walking down the street at night and a black teenager is approaching me, I'm going to react differently than if an "indentical but white" teenager was walking toward me. That's obviously based on deep seated assumptions that I can do nothing to stop from coming from the surface -- all I can do is be AWARE that those assumptions are part of my makeup, and do what I can in my outward behavior to ensure that I'm not acting based on those feelings. If i realize that I don't like a black co-worker, I ask myself WHY?

That is what the "discussion" should be about --- recognizing that no one is free of prejudice in some form because prejudice is the downside of how human beings learn, that the goal of each individual is to insure that their own decisions and actions are not based on unfair prejudice, and that the goal of society is to facilitate that process.

Rant Mode OFF

To you paul I would not act differently if a black guy was approcahing me because I've learned that not just black people kill, rape and rob but all races do.

To you lou I think you need to wake up. Imus words were racist words, what if a black host said "them some wet dog smelling trailer park ho's to some white players?" the reaction would be the same-very very angry. You may hear ho in rap artists(white or black) music but you don't hear it used as a racist remark. They is still alot of racism in this world that we thought was gone but it's really just hidden until it is exposed like Imus was. We all need to come together, love each other and make this world a better place!!

Ana Marie Cox response to the Imus mess is absolutely unbelievable. She says Imus' greatest gift to public discourse is "allowing pundits to get potty-mouthed." Did she ever listen to the show when SHE wasn't on it? Imus did three things: 1) informative discussion and interviews through which he forcefed the truth about current events to a huge number of people who otherwise get their news through right wing talk radio and Fox News and who would otherwise never have heard of Ana Marie Cox, Frank Rich, and maybe not even Tim Russert; 2) charitable fundraising for kids with cancer, autism and soldiers coming back from Iraq; 3) lockerroom humor. Thanks to people like Ana Marie Cox, we've lost the first two. She says there's an open mike at C-Span. Is she kidding? A big chunk of the 30% of the population that won't give up on George Bush doesn't know what C-Span is, doesn't watch Gwen Ifill, and doesn't read Time! With those folks, Imus was our best hope. Thanks Ana Marie!

as a jew i am SO over hymietown remark. jackson has said nothing remotely like it since. i'm no huge fan but the guy works hard and has many successes. this comment getting dredged up into the imus hullaballoo is a sign of powerful media types roiling up murk to duck behind. its a joke. sharpton's another matter. he's yet to bury the brawley demons with proper apologies and self-exams. no forgiveness for that -- he hurt actual people.

With regard to Mr. Rhymes' excellent insights, hip hop and rap music are big big moneymakers, not only in the black community but in other youth communities as well, including the white community. BIG money. Like any popular music form, kids and young people, mostly young men, are recruited and groomed and signed to big contracts and promoted by the largest music labels. Money flows all around. To break into the music genre and hit the big time, like any other music genre, each newbie must present something newer, fresher, or more outrageous in order to catch and hold the attention of, first the music label, and then the consumer of music. It isn't just BLACK promoters who are making money off rap; major labels are making lots of money off rap and hip hop, with all the attendant culture gear that goes with it.

It is a specious argument to blame the black community for all of that. Most black leaders have denounced the misogyny that is imbedded in the genre. But outrageous lyrics sell, and more outrageous lyrics sell more. When people stop buying music with mysogynist lyrics, the record companies will stop producing them and stop promoting them.

All of that said, hip hop is one of the most ridiculous red herrings of this controversy. Were these young women spouting hip hop on the basketball court which caused Don Imus to break into some kind of rap lyric in solidarity? It's amusing to watch the white-boy mainstream media types desperately grasp on to this red herring in order to deflect the issue of their own participation and responsibility. Yeah, they giggle and guffaw along with the likes of Imus, Beck, and Bennett, and when called to account, it's like "B-b-b-but, RAP! HIP HOP!"

Anything to preserve their privileged status without doing any work for it.

Thanks for the kind words Paul and I don't think an outfit like TIME would actually give me the opportunity to expound on this issue---I am not an optimist, but I am a prisoner of hope

I am blessed by this exchange of ideas and at the same time ashamed of the reality that it takes the destructive attitudes & behaviors of well-known or famous people to get us to this place of contemplation regarding race, ethncity and gender.

I would like to elaborate on Paul's point regarding the failures of Ifill & Robinson to properly contexualize the real issues in this debate. The problem is that the questions are being asked by pundits, journalists and activists. Don't get me wrong, Ifill and Robinson are excellent journalists, but they aren't sociologists; they aren't critical race theorists; they aren't anthropologists, as a matter of fact, they aren't even journalists who (through their venues) have consistently engaged in the issues of race and racism.

At times like this I expect everyone to have an opinion, but the vast majority of them are not opinions formed after years of rigorous study or decades of contemplative and introspective thought. Just because someone is Black, it does not mean they know how to critically deconstruct racism. They understand what it FEELS like; they have EXPERIENCED it, but that does not mean that they understand the phenomenon itself. For example, I have had a brain all my life (yeah, I know I'm leaving myself wide-open), but that does not mean I understand the workings of the brain as well as say a brain surgeon or a neurologist.

I have conducted anti-racism and equity workshops, trainings, seminars and lectures for over 17 years, my PhD is in Sociology with an emphasis in critical race theory and have taught students as an educator and professor at the high school, undergraduate and graduate levels (teaching, primarily, classes and courses dealing with race, ethnicity and gender); I have written countless essays, articles and even books and I am STILL learning about how to do this better.

I am respectful of people's opinions and feelings---at least I try to be---but the level of uninformed, uncritical and dysconcious (dysfunctional consciousness) thought is a reason why we have not properly moved this conversation forward.

Another reason we have not moved the conversation forward is (to quote a piece I recently wrote) because "the vast majority of people in our society believe that if there is an absence of swastikas, burning crosses, sheets and hoods, then there is an absence of racism and prejudice as well. That is because we have increasingly become a nation and society of extremes, so that we in turn believe that in order for racism to be deemed racism, it has to be in an extreme form as well."

I am on record for having had said time and time again, that the overwhelming majority of racist and prejudicial acts in our society are unconscious and unintentional, but that bears explanation. Unintentional does not equal less dangerous. A drunk driver's intent is never to kill themselves and others in a car accident and yet it tragically happens. As our vice-president has demonstrated, if you shoot someone on purpose or if you shoot them by accident, the result is the same. It is precisely the unintentional and the unconscious prejudices that we must address and uproot because they are the most pervasive and the most overall damaging to society.

Grace, Your still in a sleep mode. Wish I or someone could wake you. Racist remarks whether directed to people in general or to spacific individuals is dead wrong. To say that rap doesn't project it's remarks to individuals then why give it air time and rechord sales. IT AFFECTS EVERYONE.Every individual that listens is affected. Rap is big business and nothing more. Question. Is it right to degrade wemon,
call wemon HO's Sluts, and violate wemons dignity? Now why am I wasting words to one who has a closed mind? What next? Sexual explicit acts being performed on wemon verbally transmitted in words on the air ,for our children to hear and act on? I fear you would call it artistic expression.
Now at the same time you see fit to condone ganster rap ,yet take issue with Don Imus's calling a ball team Nappy haired Ho's .
There is certainly a double standard afloat here. Has the alarm clock gone off yet?
I hope some one wakes you up soon, as I certainly failed in my efforts.