I have a feeling today that if MLK was alive and politically active today, people would use these flaws to justify ignoring him, just as they do Sharpton and Jackson.
The best thing that ever happened to MLK in terms of public relations is his murder. Such a sad thing to say, but it’s the truth. People don’t seem to realize that the man only became this beloved national hero after he was taken out so dramatically. Before that he was regarded much like Sharpton and Jackson are.
What few people acknowledge (at least on this board) is that Sharpton did a heck of a job last election talking about how fucked up the current Adminstration is. With an eloquent bluntness that few of our elected officials can bring, he continues to say everything that needs to be said about Bush, the war, and all the other mess we’re dealing with. While the rest of the Democrats try to play all nicey nice and sound tactful, Sharpton gives the world a piece of his mind. And he does it with style and humor that I find refreshing.
He’s a regular guest on shows like Hardball for a reason; he’s well-informed, passionate, and he doesn’t sugar coat shit like politicians typically do. If there’s one thing I think he deserves praise for, it’s the role he has been playing in American politics. He knows he has no chance in hell of winning as president, but he throws his name in the ring just the same. His presence in the presidential debates has helped to bring out important issues and advance constructive dialogue. He knows how to garner attention for causes other than race.
But does anyone here, on this left-leaning, Bush-hating board ever acknowledge this? No. Say Al Sharpton’s name and it’s mandatory for Tawana Brawley to also be mentioned with much shrieking and teeth gnashing. He’s a “race-baiter” and therefore not worthy of any further consideration. It’s like watching a bunch of children sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting “lalalala”. This is just amazing to me.
Doubt it. Different time, different place. But the families who Reverend Al has assisted will fondly remember him, I’m sure.
My point was the opposite: if King lived, he wouldn’t be the guru of civil rights he is today. He would have been discredited by the establishment for pushing for reparations, for being a socialist, and no doubt for getting involved in issues affecting poor people and Black people. Sure, he’d have fans because of his eloquence and his past record, but let’s not kid ourselves and pretend that the deification of King has as much to do with his martyrdom and the American tendency to “Disney-fy” our history.
My theory is this: most White Americans are repulsed by blatant racism. Lynchings, the Klan, that sort of stuff. But a lot of White Americans aren’t comfortable identifying the “new” racism. If it isn’t violent or blatant, it doesn’t exist.
As always, I’m going to trot out the racism=virus analogy. So we reduced the fever and got the patient out of critical condition in the 1960s and 1970s. But the patient hasn’t been taking the medicine, and a lot of little opportunistic infections are popping up. If you despise racism and prejudice, you know it needs to be addressed and stopped in its tracks, aggressively. And even some of the old medicines - the trite apology, for one - are less effective because the disease has become resistant to it.
There is little point in debating what kind of man Sharpton, Jackson, and King were because it really isn’t relavant to the discussion. Sharpton and Jackson may have said some racist things in their past too so maybe they shouldn’t be the ones to call Imus out but Imus went on Sharpton’s show so obviously he wanted to at least pretend to care what Sharpon thought and it doesn’t really make his observations about Imus any less true. Look Imus said something fairly nasty to some girls that didn’t deserve it but that is his right under the first amendment. To the people complaining about the calls to fire Imus, well they have just as much right under the first amendment to give voice to their desires to call for his resignation or termination. Whether the people he works for decide to fire him is their call.
So if Imus one day says, “Death to the fat, stupid Americans! We beseech the Lord of Darkness to anihilate them off the face of the Earth!”, he should be given a pass because, hey, first amendment?
He should get to say whatever he wants on the air, damn the interests of his employer, because, hey, first amendment?
Can you talk to your clients any old way? If you told your employer to kiss your ass, would you be able to use your first amendment rights as an excuse for why you should keep your job?
Why isn’t Imus held to the same standard that all employees are held under? Why are people making this a first amendment issue when it is NOT a first amendment issue?
I actually see where you’re coming from, pool, but Imus wasn’t talking in the town square, or on his own blog. He was speaking on federally regulated airwaves. Did he violate some FCC standard? I don’t know, and I suspect he didn’t. Otherwise most morning DJs in the U.S. would be out of business. :rolleyes:
He works for an employer - actually several, WFAN, CBS Radio, and MSNBC. I would reason that most of our employers have restrictions on what we say at work. Furthermore, his employers probably aren’t particularly pleased to have this controversy and major advertisers withdrawing ads from his show.
As you say, the protesters, including Sharpton, have a right to ask for his removal. They don’t appear to be doing so under the auspices of any employer - just civic organizations like the NAACP, for example.
I’m basically echoing what monstro said, but I would also state that an astute employer probably would not want an employee spewing racist invective that distracts from the job and turns off customers. He also represents the employer, and having a prominent employee with the type of attitude Imus displayed could also turn the public and potential employees away from the organization. (I hope WFAN has attended to representation and diversity in their organization, because this kind of thing could indicate a hostile racial climate if we find out that there are few people of color and/or women in the power structure.)
But we’re talking about corporations driven by the bottom line. If Imus can still pull an audience and the advertisers return, I don’t think he’s going anywhere. And it’s not as if Imus will be starving and homeless if he’s shitcanned by WFAN. No doubt another station will pick him up, but that’s not my concern - nobody gives a shit about what happens to the hourly wage worker who gets the boot for calling his co-worker “sugartits,” so why should any of us be concerned about what Imus’ job prospects are following this maelstrom?
I was going to let this go, but since the thread is still at the top of the page, I just have to respond to this. There’s so much irony in this comment.
The only thing freedom of speech guarantees is the right for Imus to say what he wants in a public space without persecution by the government.
It DOES NOT mean:
That no one can object or protest his speech
That citizens can’t petition to get him fired
That he has the right to say whatever he wants without seeing negative reprecussions.
The irony of your post is that you are expressing frustration with anti-Imus people for exercising their first amendment rights. Just because Imus is free to say offensive comments doesn’t mean people can’t denounce those comments and put pressure on his employers and sponsors to turn off his mic. This is one of the beautiful things about our country. Imus is not entitled to the airways that his show uses, so the call to have him fired is not a violation of his rights. Which really means the 1st amendment has nothing to do with this discussion at all.
“They’re all for free speech as long as they are only hearing things they like to hear.” Indeed!
*Quote:
Originally Posted by Elendil’s Heir
FWIW, Sharpton never apologized to the asst. DA he defamed in the Brawley case, according to Wikipedia: Tawana Brawley rape allegations - Wikipedia *
Well, I did write “FWIW.” I’m not defending what Imus said; he’s a jerk and a blowhard. But Sharpton is hardly the guy to go running to for absolution.
Even if he were to do like Howard Stern and say F 'em if they can’t take a joke, this could have ramifications for support for the ranch. For that reason I can see him apologizing.
I’m with Stern on this. If Imus’s insult was funny, he’d have gotten much more of a pass. But it was intellectually lazy and the polar opposite of witty, and that can make the difference between “ha ha, yeah, that’s us all right” and “what the hell did you just say?” Comedians do racist acts all the time, and if they’re even moderately funny, they don’t (or rarely) get called on it.
How is it that some harmless blow hard like Imus can make racist, yet otherwise harmless comments and the whole world is up in arms, yet this guy is actually moving to exterminate the entire white race, and there is only the slightest bit of publicity in comparison?
For me, I’m just sick of the double standard anymore. Everyone needs to just grow up. Those words only have the power that those like Sharpton, the media and the black community in general give them.
Does a phrase like ‘Nappy-headed hos’ really and truly cut to the bone of any sane person anymore. I ask as a person who grew up in a small black community where the word ‘nigger’ was dealt out among black people like a coked-up baccarat dealer.
For me at least, and considering where we are in this society, anyone that would get all bent out of shape over a racist remark is nearly as childish as those that choose to use those words. It’s time to come down off your cross, use the wood to build a bridge and get over it. It is only when the words have no impact that they stop being used to hurt.
And what gets me most about the irony present in this is mswas’ post stating:
Wanting to hear what they want to hear indeed. The clichés “don’t give their words that power,” (who said that?) and “change the channel” or “turn off the TV” come quickly to mind.
Bottom line is that it was Imus’ producer that made the initial comment. Imus should have just let it hang there, but he made the mistake of responding in kind. Imus should serve out his suspension and be grateful he wasn’t fired. His producer, on the other hand, should apologize not only to the women in question but to Imus himself for putting him in that situation. Then he should resign.
BTW, poor taste comments aside, I’d still rather listen to Imus interview writers and politicians than Howard Stern spanking lesbian amputees.
Imus and company can stand on the street and call people jigaboos all they want.
But every radio station and television station is regulated by the FCC and they are bound to the rules of capitalism. One the one hand the government does not allow absolutely free speech on the airwaves. On the other hand, Imus’ show must attract advertising dollars to stay on the air and some people don’t want to advertise on such a program or want to buy products advertised on those programs.
So get off the ‘free speech’ argument, it’s never been about that.
Looks like he’s losing advertisers left and right: General Motors, Proctor & Gamble, Ditech.com, American Express, Staples, and Sprint Nextel, to name the most prominent.
Looks like MSNBC will find that the right thing to do and the economically practical thing to do will converge.
I don’t have a dog in this hunt, I haven’t watched or listened to the I-Man in years. But I do think when his producer made the first remark, that Imus should have said, “Whoa. Let’s stop right there, that remark is going to offend somebody and let’s not let it escalate. Let’s just stop and apologize for it right now.” Since he didn’t, he does deserve whatever his employers throw at him. From suspension to firing. CBS is his boss, Westwood is his distributer, they have the right to cut him loose. Let him get a satellite deal like Stern, then.
Also, I do detect a bit of a double standard. Stevie Wonder released a song called I Wish back in the 70’s. The first line of that song is
*
Looking back on when I was a little nappy-headed boy,
When my only worry was "What for Christmas is to be my toy?*
I don’t recall any outrage to that song. Granted, Wonder was referring to himself in a non-disparaging manner. I would submit that Imus’s offense was stringing “nappy-headed” with “ho’s”. I think calling the Rutgers women “ho’s” is the real outrage and is offensive in itself, whether another adjective was applied to it or not. Perhaps people should be more outraged at the sexist comment instead of focusing on the racial part of it. I would agree that if Imus and his producer were talking about a team that had white women in the majority that the expression “nappy-headed” would never have come up and that an elderly white man probably should not say it in any situation as that surely has bitten him in the ass.