Lonsberry is off the air indefinitely and says he will undergo diversity training. I don’t see why. He obviously dislikes Mayor Johnson, and it appears to me that he was simply using the news of an escaped orangutan in an attempt to humorously present his views on the mayor. Hey, it’s talk radio.
Of course, there could be more to the story. And maybe calling blacks monkeys is some sort of racist insult I’ve never heard. But based on what I know, I see absolutely no reason to label this man as racist. Thoughts?
It is. There exists a fairly long standing tradition of calling white supremisits calling blacks monkeys in order to claim that they are more “evolved” and the Africans are closer to the apes. So yes, I would consider it a racist remark.
If he didn’t intend it to be racist, then he shouldn’t have “gone there” at all. Non-racists are wise to steer clear of stunts that can be easily interpreted to be racist. This fella did not do this. Sheer stupidity would be reason enough to fire him IMO.
Where do we draw the line? Should depreciating personal attacks be tempered when directed towards minorities if the remarks could be interpreted as racist?
I could easily see myself making this remark (Lonsberry’s, that is). It seems to me to be a fairly obvious joke. But I certainly don’t consider myself racist! Should be draw the conclusion that this is indeed a racist remark when it is entirely possible that it was not intended that way? Is society so sensitive that any remark that could be interpreted as racist, is?
On his website, Lonsberry makes the claim that multiple blacks have told him that they think his firing is unfair and they have no problem with what he said. Does the fact that some members of the group targeted with the term (monkeys) see no problem with what this man said?
How would I answer my own questions? I see no reason to temper remarks simply because they may be interpreted as racist. Of course, I’m not going to go around calling black people “niggers” out of friendliness, but I would still make the monkey joke, no matter what the race of the person I’m referring to. I don’t think we should jump to conclusions on a remark such as Lonsberry’s, as I believe it is certainly possible that he was making a harmless off-the-cuff remark with no intention of it being racist.
If you are in the media, it would be wise for you to know how your remarks can be intended. Ignorance isn’t an excuse for someone who has the mic…especially if you’re a controversial talkshow radio host. That’s why people in mass communications go to college and take courses in history, English, and sociology.
If you’re ignorant about something as commonly known as “black=monkey”, then it’s probably best to stay away from a microphone and a radio transmitter.
So in order for something to be deemed offensive, there has to be an absolute consensus? I mean, if I said something blatantly bad about white people, I’m sure there would be some white people who wouldn’t see anything wrong with it.
You asked where do we draw the line? Well, one could ask where do we draw the line in the other direction. Does someone have to be explicit with a racial slur in order for them to be “wrong”? Or can something be more subtle and open to multiple interpretations and still be offensive?
(I’m sure if someone called Bush a peckerwood, there would be lots of people who wouldn’t know that’s a racial slur. But you better believe there are a lot of people who would know it and would either find it funny (the racists) or be offended by it (the people who “peckerwood” slams). If you knowingly want to make racists laugh, then you’re just as bad as a racist in my book).
Just because you can put a racist slant on a comment doesn’t mean it is racist.
Claiming that a monkey could do someones job better than they do is a fairly general slur that could just as easily be aimed at a white person.
If we have to pick apart every sentence we say in a vain attempt not to say something that COULD be interpretted another way then we’d probably stop communicating completley.
Quickly re-reads for double entendres and possible racist references
Find an old black person (esp. from the South) and ask them if they know what a peckerwood is. Betcha they do.
spanna:
And just because a guy claims he didn’t mean it in a racist way doesn’t mean 1) his boss has to believe him and 2) he still didn’t make an embarrassing gaff.
People lie. I could call Bush a peckerwood and then claim I just made that word up. There’s no way anyone could prove that I’m not telling the truth, but at the end of the day it doesn’t matter. Racist or not, I just gave the radio station bad PR. I still offended a portion of the listenership.
These two things alone would justify the firing Lonsberry.
And if someone called for his lynching (in the figurative sense of the word), no one in particular would get riled up.
However, if Bush were black and the same comment were made, a LOT of people would be offended.
This reality does not point to the oversensitivity of blacks and the easy-goingness of whites. It simply points to the fact that white people have the luxury of not having to worry about being on the bad end of racist inuendo. Rarely do they have to wonder about double meanings when it comes to personal insults against them.
Someone does not have to be overly sensitive to pick out the the nefarious inuendo of Lonsberry’s stunt.
The days when racist comments could be explicit and out in the open are in the past. But people still remember those days, and they aren’t looking to take a stroll down memory lane any time soon.
I think it was a racist comment and I don’t think he should be fired.
We can see by this thread that whether or not it was racist is debatable (I said that I think it is, but I’m happy to hear the arguments on the other side). Debating something like this can only be positive for all concerned. By immediately yelling “SILENCE, YOU!!” whenever something potentially racist is uttered, we accomplish nothing at all.
By discussing it - and calling the comment racist instead of the person - then we all stand to learn something, especially the speaker. If we just silence him, he and his defenders (understandably) get defensive (“No, I’m not racist !!”) instead of being open to maybe learning a bit more about race and difference and sensitivity.
But this conjured up shades of the “Suttee Dilemma” – even though the term “monkey” can have two derogatory meanings, there is a cultural tradition that it always means the worse. But some, perhaps many, people mean it the other way. How do you know that he just means the guy’s a monkey and he really means it?. If you go by this standard, there would be no way for a person to call a black person a monkey without it being a racial slur, just as in the hypothetical Suttee Dilemma it was impossible for the widow to claim she did not want to be thrown on the pyre, because protestations that she did not were deemed to be a tradition, and she really did want to be thrown on it anyway.
If there’s a cultural tradition which is so rigidly enforced, there is no way to tell. Which is a good reason to never blindly enforce an interpretation to the point where it is impossible to say certain things.
How do you know anything? If we have to argue over what this guy meant, perhaps firing him was a wise decision.
No. If I call a black person a monkey, it really couldn’t be interpreted as a racial slur. But if I were white and intelligent, I would not even go there. I would find another way to lampoon a black person. Plain and simple.
Yes there is. Like I said, if you’re smart enough to have your own radio show, you’re smart enough to pick up on the “cultural tradition”. Or you should* be smart enough.
IMO, there’s no way this radio host wouldn’t know the conotations of calling a black man a monkey. If somehow he didn’t know it, that’s reason enough for dismissal.