There was no bit here- you can usually tell a comedic bit becasue it has a set up, scene setting, theme music, introdcution, something- none of that here, he just started talking. Second, shouldn’t a character in a bit somehow be different from the actual person, like a different voice, costume, etc., just so us idiots will know this is now a character bit and not to get mad at anything said? I guess Imus’ true fans are able to distinguish the difference in the Imus person and character, unlike us idiot nonfans. But hell, even if he started the thing by saying “now here’s Racist Ronnie and his commentary on last nights game”, that doesn’t justify it. Yes he is free to say that, but also MSNBC and WFAN are free to fire him for purposefully offending many listeners for no reason. Without the platform they provide, he’d just be any other 80 year old racist longing for the good old days, only on his front porch instead of across the country. You’ll also notice other apologists like Mel and Kramer made it a point in their apologies to stress that they are not racists- give Imus credit for not lying.
I guess thats the great thing about being a satirist- any crap you say you can call “SATIRE here” and its all ok. :rolleyes:
Imus himself admits to having staffers call in with nigger jokes- what form of satire is that? Oh I get it, his audience laughs at the ridiculousness of the joke, not the joke itself.
I’ve watched Imus for a long time, but not every day. I didn’t hear him make the comments about the women on the Rutgers team. I have wondered how he has gotten away with some of the other things he has said – though nothing that I can think of that is racist. Usually the cutting remarks have been sexist.
I liked his show because it was relaxed, generally funny, a good source of news and sports, and political. He usually had three interviews each show. Some of the regulars for interviews were David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell, Tim Russert, and Chris Matthews.
A couple of things that I liked about Imus: He promotes and sells green products. The sale of these products helps to fund a working ranch that he runs for kids who are cancer patients. He has been actively involved in Fisher House and in trying to find the cause of autism and to get Congress involved.
There is no excuse for what he said about the Rutgers women. He has to know that for thousands of his listeners it gives the green light to bigotry and mean-mindedness. I don’t care whether he was in character or not. It pulls people down. We don’t need to do that to one another.
These young women have worked hard and deserve praise and commendation. But look what he gives them. My face burns for them. I wish there were something that I could do beyond boycotting Imus.
But at least that’s a first step. And I will let MSNBC know they have lost one of their faithful for that particular show.
A Tennessee Vols fan salutes the beauty and strength of Rutgers women’s basketball team!
I’m sorry-- that’s not what I meant to convey. Forgive my poor phrasing that led to the confusion.
What I meant was that I’ve heard people called “liberals” when they raise objections to offensive actions even if the lable doesn’t actually apply, just as they sometimes call anyone who criticizes an action of the preident a liberal.
Sorry for the hijack, but monstro, you’re cuter than hell! I’d never have thought it from your username. You also have what seems like an interesting job.
So is there any chance I could get your num—OW! [girlfriend slaps me.]
I’m not impressed either, but could someone tell me why Imus gets singled out for attention. Never once have I read pit thread deploring the horribly sexist language of “hos” and “bitches” that I commonly hear on the car radio when my daughter dials in her favourite station.
And in one word, how else would you describe the stereotypical natural hair of a black person? I don’t think “kinky” would cut it.
What if Imus referred to a whate male team as skinheads?
Do they really say “hos and bitches” on the radio? I thought the censors bleeped those words out.
When they are used in a song, at least the songwriter/performer can argue that they are actually talking about promiscuous, ornery women. The words, they would argue, are only applied to people who fit the description. I don’t like that these words get thrown around so easily, but I’m not going to say that there are no such things as hos and bitches. If there such things as pricks and jerks, their are such things as hos and bitches.
But Imus’s use of the word “ho” was extreme and gratituous. He would not have used that word if he were talking about the membership at an elite garden club. “Ho” insults these women’s sexuality. Coupled with “nappy-headed”, it harkens back to ugly images defaming black women as slutty Jezebels.
Because black people are hypersensitive and won’t let the poor little white people have their adjectives. :rolleyes:
I’m scratching my head, trying to figure out why you would need a special word to describe black people’s hair in the first place. Why not use curly or tightly curly? Or wooly or wiry or frizzy? The same words you would use for white people’s hair. Really, our hair is not that different than your hair. Do you need special words to describe hair textures of other races? But go with kinky if you want. Knock yourself out. Unless you use it as an insult, no one will care.
What if he referred to a Jewish team as “dirty kikes” or an Asian team as “slanty-eyed gooks” or a gay team as “fruit loops”? Or a black woman team as “nappy-headed jigaboo hos”. Oops–forget that last one. That one actually happened.
Never heard Imus and suspect that I never will. I have no idea of what his track record is. I am generally reluctant to comment without knowing the full track record and context. But this one is clear. Count me down for agreeing with this:
That anyone can defend it as otherwise or excusable as “satire” boggles my mind. It is racist. It is sexist. It is offensive. It is not funny.
I guess that “shock jocks” say all kinds of things. They always benefit by being as offensive and sophmoric as possible short of crossing the line into hate speech. There has ever been a shortage of people who enjoy hearing the outrageous, who want to hear something that makes them say “I can’t believe he said that!”
Debatable is whether or not this is so racist and sexist as to qualify as prohibited hate speech. Debatable is whether or not he should lose his job over this (which is not an action endorsed by monstro but is endorsed by Sharpton according to that linked “apology”). But to debate whether or not this is despicable racist sexist bile is plain silliness.
Well I live in Canada, but it is possible that what I was hearing was CDs.
In that case, what you seem to be saying is that it is okay to express sexist and racist language if your subject fits the bill. Okaaaaaaay. Imus belongs to an older generation and it it entirely possible that the tattoos ( I don’t he he would take notice of little butterflys) suggested that these were ornery women
Of course not. He might call them old biddies or crones
One of the qualities of the English language is the extensive vocabulary where words can be extremely concise in meaning.
We all have different hair. Be thankful you don’t have mousey hair. There is straight , curly, thin, thick, black ,brown, red, blonde, to add to your list. Frankly. I used to get a perm to get tight curls which was easier to look good and if it was possible, I would have loved to have your hair. I like wearing it short but my hair sticks straight out at the side and forward at the top.
Look, it was the jigaboo word that set me off with Imus. Nappy is a word that I just learned is a bad word and though I didn’t think it should be offensive I’ll never use it again . In fact I probably have never used it in the past until you brought the subject up.
Never mind and please pardon the snark. It’s just one of my own hot-buttons. To hear some people talk, the liberals are all granola munching astrologers while the conservatives are out evicting widows and orphans to squeeze the last dollar out of them.
The Flying Dutchman
I don’t know how to answer that question. He got singled out because he pissed-off Monstro. My personal feeling is that the guy worked hard to piss people off and deserves to reap the rewards of doing so.
As far as criticizing the use of bitches and hos to describe almost any random female, take a look at post #59, this thread, by me. It isn’t a whole thread, but if you want to start one I’d certainly contribute.
I take your point on the “what if” scenario and yeah, it would indeed bother me. If I heard it I might start my own pit thread but I probably wouldn’t be irritated enough.
It appalls me that people like this will be on the air forever, implying a large audience that enjoys this kind of attitude and speech. As far as whether the man was “in character” or out of it, allowing that defense reminds of two boys in Kindergarten, whacking each other harder and harder and claiming they were “just kidding.”
I have nappy hair too! Well, until I comb it in the morning, then it is very thick and kinky, less nappy. I don’t think he used the word to mean anything negative by it. Just descriptive. I am NOT defending him, or making light of the fact that he called the young women “hoes”.
I am just stating that his use of the word nappy doesn’t strike me as racist.
Why wouldn’t ‘kinky’ cut it? It is the exact definition of natural black hair. I think some blacks have an issue with “nappy”, because in our dialect, the definition of the word is “unkempt, uncombed, uncared for” hair.
If I don’t groom my hair, it becomes nappy. Therefore, it is an insult when one calls me nappy-headed.
I just thought I would try to clear up the difference between ‘nappy’ and ‘kinky’…at least where I come from, that is the difference.
Everything else he said about the women was undeniably negative. He likened them to animals, called them hos, implied that they were ugly. But “nappy-headed” was supposedly uttered as a value-free description? You really believe this?
What did the texture of their hair have to do with anything? It’s so patently obvious to me that “nappy-headed” was meant to be disparaging, otherwise it would have not fit in with the rest of what he was saying. Let it also be noted that the women’s hair was not even “nappy”. Most if not all the women have straightened hair, for crying out loud! Imus has not seen nappy if he thinks they have nappy hair.
I understand not knowing that “nappy” is often used as insult, because that’s culture-specific knowledge. But the context alone should tell you that he was using it as a insult, and it doesn’t take being a black American to know this. Moreover, his usage coupled with the rest of his mutterings supports the perception that it was a racially charged insult.
You with the face, you are correct. I am sure it was negative. I didn’t communicate that well. I meant to say, I don’t find it racist. Nappy? My hair sure does get nappy, and it is not a worse thing than a white person’s hair getting tangled. You would not want to be told your hair is tangled when you think it is groomed, but it sure aint racist.
Pardon, but I noticed two black women talking, so as a white man I believe I am legally obligated to interrupt.
In my experience (as a white person dealing with racists who assume other whites are automatically in their club), it’s absolutely fucking racist in intent. It’s something spewed by racists with as much nasty intent as insulting talk about facial features often seen on black faces. It’s deeply associated with the animal-like image racist white folks have of black people. Believe me, every part of the statement “nappy headed ho” in this context is utterly racist. Even “ho” is not just sexist, because he’d never call a white woman that.
If I described Connie Chung as a slant-eyed ho, would you say the same thing? Just wondering.
I’m also pretty sure Imus was not using “nappy” as a synonym for unkempt. It’s a word most commonly used to describe texture, not neatness. Kinky hair that is combed is still nappy hair. That’s why so women black women straighten their hair…so that it won’t be nappy anymore.
Really?* Because if that is true, then yes, indeedy. It is racist.
I only chime in on this, because sometimes, I think what people perceive as racist may say more about their own views than anyone else’s.
“nappy” is not a thing to be ashamed of in any way. So I don’t see how calling someone that should be so terrible. It would be akin to saying your hair is matted. You would not like it, because you have combed your hair. But you would not be offended.
I think that ‘giving power’ to certain words is really an issue that black people should consider. Many of us don’t care that some white people think our hair is nappy.
I think that is a good start to de-powering racist language.
I have to disagree with this. I don’t relax my hair. When I was young, I did…I did it because I didn’t want kinky hair, I wanted straight hair.
In my community, kinky hair was not valued…but it was very different from nappy hair. We might say, “comb that nappy head, boy!” Once it was combed, it was still kinky, but neat, and acceptable.
When I became an adult, I cut the relaxing chemicals out of my hair, and grew a big, fluffy, beautiful natural afro. It is kinky, but it is not nappy…except when I don’t comb it.
I just want to be clear that I know lots of black women that have embraced their natural hair. Some even prefer nappy, (dreadlocks). But I don’t know anyone that straightens their hair so that it won’t be nappy…they do it so that it will be straight, and not kinky.
The point isn’t whether racists are right to be racist, but that their intent is evil. To them, it’s not just a descriptor, it’s a way of saying “this person is less human than I am”. To that I think everyone should take offense, regardless of the delivery method the bigot chooses to impart the message.
