Don Imus And Bernard McGuirk re “Nappy-Headed Hos”

clarissa_icon.JPG

I PUT THE CULTURE ON THE COUCH


Don Imus And Bernard McGuirk re “Nappy-Headed Hos”

‘Drive your dead over the edge,’ that’s what my elders used to say when people were being the least of what they could be. ‘Take that dead person passing for the living, and just leave them off. It’s your better self that’s most truly alive. In life, don’t be ashes, be the flame…’

One could have chosen to say about the Rutgers women basketball team members who played in the finals, something like this: ‘Those are some fine tough girls. Man, look at the grace, look at those leaps. Those tattoos, you have to be brave and stand pain to get tattoos. Those women are some strong and tough angels alright…’

But instead we heard 1950s backwoods invective by two Anglo guys who seemed to think they were talking like real baad gangstas, followed by a third fellow who wrongly named a segment from a Spike Lee film just referenced, and ending with a fourth fellow who tried to start another round of participatory screed by offering yet another insult.

If these fellows had been playing ball… the real jump-ball is initiated by Bernard McGuirk who dribbles it out of bounds, but he passes to Imus who takes a turn and adds a foul of his own… McGuirk back in the game as ball hog, fumbles, and runs in the paint again as Imus feints away from center court…. But McCord comes up fast with a wrong turn, and Rosenberg tries to bring the ball into play again, but fails.

The Transcript [via Media Matters]:
DON IMUS: So, I watched the basketball game last night between — a little bit of Rutgers and Tennessee, the women’s final.
SID ROSENBERG: Yeah, Tennessee won last night — seventh championship for [Tennessee coach] Pat Summitt, I-Man. They beat Rutgers by 13 points.
IMUS: That’s some rough girls from Rutgers. Man, they got tattoos and –
BERNARD McGUIRK: Some hard-core hos.
IMUS: That’s some nappy-headed hos there. I’m gonna tell you that now, man, that’s some — woo. And the girls from Tennessee, they all look cute, you know, so, like — kinda like — I don’t know.
McGUIRK: A Spike Lee thing.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: The Jigaboos vs. the Wannabes — that movie that he had.
IMUS: Yeah, it was a tough –
CHARLES McCORD: Do The Right Thing.
McGUIRK: Yeah, yeah, yeah.
IMUS: I don’t know if I’d have wanted to beat Rutgers or not, but they did, right?
ROSENBERG: It was a tough watch. The more I look at Rutgers, they look exactly like the Toronto Raptors.

… “Nappy-Headed” Amongst Blacks, some have hair that has a dozen crimped waves to every inch, what Gwendolyn Brookes the poet, called ‘sand-waves.’ Thus, ‘nappy hair’ is often so like a beautifully woven soft-crested silk. A fine-toothed comb catches in it, but combs that are wide-toothed are perfect for sculpting this majestic kind of hair.

Where I grew up in the backwoods a million years ago, when a Black woman used the word ‘nappy,’ she meant her hair was being defiant, not yet combed to satisfaction. It could also mean she didn’t like the texture of her hair that day, or moment, or ever… for back then, many Black women were pressured to believe that the Anglo and Euro models in magazines and the actresses in films, displayed the only acceptable hair texture… smooth like glass and swinging.

Therefore, if your hair was ‘different’ than the models in magazines, there was a degree of shame and fret– and hope about doing whatever you could to make your hair match the images on paper. Iron, heat, chemicals, fire, burn, scar. This wish to look ‘magazine beautiful’ was not a vanity. Back then, it was an imperative: Many Blacks had to try to ‘look right’ to the dominant culture, because that culture held the power of absolute exclusion and punishment for those it had decided were inferior… ‘those others who are not like us.’

For myself, as a child of an immigrant and refugee family, by the time I was in grade school I was deemed “not college material,” ‘a waste of money to educate this girl.’ So right after high school, I got the idea I could earn my way in the world by traveling from porch to porch on the farm roads, trimming old farm guys’ beards and taking care of farm wives’ hair and that of the workers in the fields and inside the big houses. The people of that time and place were Anglo, Euro and Native Americans, Asian, Latino, and Black. I can still call back all the different textures and temperatures of people’s hair that ran over and through my hands.

For my Black women customers, I’d oil their poor scalps between all the old scars they’d gotten years before from accidentally being burnt with the tip of a hot iron while straightening their hair. I’d cut and curl, push and finger-wave, braid and halo…then step back for the final ta-dah. Smiling eyes would meet mine in the hand mirror. It ever gave me happiness to make others their most beautiful, to see firsthand that our God was a fierce Creator God indeed, for no two person’s, even sisters and brothers, had hair that looked, or flowed or fell in quite the same ways.

“nappy-headed”… This phrase is used another way, one that has nothing to do with having a semi-benign ‘bad hair day.’ ‘Nappy headed’ was also a slur, a term of intense derision against Blacks. The epithet ‘nappy-headed’ often was ejaculated with a curse attached to it, as in, ‘That nappy-headed s.o.b.c.s.’ Back then, to attack a person’s God-given appearance, meant the target of such was being deemed a far lesser person than the speaker. Far less.. Often enough, dangerously so.

Back then, it was considered ‘alright’ amongst those in such agreement, to treat the ‘lesser person’ unctuously, heartlessly; to use them as fodder for sarcastic and gleeful elbowing of each other; for the group to affirm their bonds with each other by pushing off from the first insult and then trying to top each other in how harsh, low and ‘funny’ they could be whilst humiliating ‘those others who are not like us.’ Back then, too often, such unprovoked aggressions escalated to unending harassments, and sometimes to doing direct harm, or covertly arranging that harm be done to the person deemed inferior.

…’Jigaboo…’ is an ugly old slur used by Whites long ago to refer to dark-skinned people. This word and other pejoratives were used to taunt and demean in some seeming mad attempt to erase the humanity of the person being spoken to or about. That some people slur others is not an issue about ‘feelings’ being hurt; although that is part of the aim of those who sling derogations. I know it puzzles some and angers others that calling people in less than humane ways ought even be an issue. ‘It’s all sport,’ some might say in various ways. ‘It’s just fun. I don’t see why anyone is upset. It’s funny, lighten up. If you don’t like it, turn away. I like it, so you should too.’ I think I grasp the timbre of these points.

…’nappy-headed’, ‘Jigaboo…’ Yet, I would offer that in any family… meaning the world family or the personal family … when an adult hears ‘the kids’ in the next room using words associated with demeaning others… an alert adult hears this as a signal… a signal that they ought go investigate, listen, assess, and see what’s really going on, to then lay down terms for peace-making, keeping close watch for a time afterwards… because the adult knows that unjustified ill-treatment of one by another often magnetically encourages others who are not thinking clearly, to join right in.

Moreover, adults know that if and when ‘the designated target’ doesn’t bow to accept such abuse compliantly, the actor(s) may deem it ‘normal’ to ratchet up the abuse further… feeling justified in punishing the ‘other’ for not having capitulated properly, humbly, tearfully or quickly enough to begin with.

Throughout history, humiliating a person or a group has been one way that some commence in their unconscious intent to dehumanize so it can be made to seem alright to also deal undeserved emotional, social, economic and/or physical blows on ‘others who are not us.’ Humiliation as sport has too often led to the least of what is human rather than what is best, or even moderately good. The answer is not, ‘What’s the matter with you, can’t you take a f-ing joke?’ because mob psychology is not a fiction, nor a joke. It’s a hard fact.

In psychology of groups, being brutal with others is catching, like an infection. Thuggery and torment by one, are contagions to those who are not immune to ‘joining in;’ to those who are being thoughtless in the moment, who are impulsive, easily distracted, afraid to be thought soft, fearful of being punished or losing some advantage for not joining in, wanting favor for their families, wanting to keep a friend more than wanting to hold to an ethic, wanting to be part of a coterie that calls itself ‘elite,’ feeling pressured to keep up a false persona, or simply not weighing inevitable negative consequences yet to come for those who proliferate the dehumanizing of others.

Children try out taunting one another, and sometimes gang up on one another. However, with adult leadership, they soon drop those behaviors and instead learn civility toward those they have little in common with, and favor an authenticity of friendships with others. Children are thus helped ‘to grow up’ by both peers and adults who notice and invite them to a higher bar. They may waver in learning these skills because they are young and still practicing. But they do learn discernment as they continue to practice.

But, some, for any number of reasons, instead learn to seek excitement in insulting and being cruel… most often for an outer and an inner payoff of some kind. They often try to inveigle vulnerable others to join them in spewing… in part because they take a kind of –not happiness, although they are often guffawing and giggling while tormenting others– but rather a kind of very evanescent security…a security that comes from seeing others add to the roil by copying their own poor treatment of others.

Most often, tormenters and menacers carry a painful secret as well: they cannot bear to be lonely or without the approval of others. Thus they seek like-kind. Somewhere in life, each decided that admiration is not available to or for them. They turn to ‘negative forms of admiration’ that do not satisfy either, but amongst humans, to not be recognized for anything at all is far worse than being a consistent carrier of negativity and a seeker of negative attention.

And as difficult, sometimes in defense, those whom they torment learn to be just like them in certain ways … flattened of feeling, not properly reactive, and chronically depressed. Those who predate on others sometimes almost solely seek the excitement they feel when taunting as a remedy to their depression. But like a sugar high, using cruelty as an anti-depressant doesn’t work for very long before the person must dose themselves again.

Children and young adults who are challenged in these ways are most often not hopeless however. There are many professionals and spiritual people, leaders and helpers in the field of turning young lives around, lives which first began on this loveless path. And some of those leaders, now grown and healed through hard work of self-questioning and new life with new friends, were once themselves one of the children who said they felt nothing anymore, and therefore neither ought anyone else.

By my sights, most everyone is reachable in time, even though it is a difficult and often heroic endeavor on everyone’s part, and the child/ young adult is often at first resistant. But when a person is born with a soul, despite all the outer armor one has piled upon oneself, the soul is still ever listening for goodness and for love.

… “nappy-headed ho’s” and all the other names called that reference stupidity, ugliness, lack of value… The thing is, all of us regardless of heritage, come from a long ago and not so long ago people… who were hounded, barred, harassed, harangued, harmed and their blood spilled as though it were mere water. There is no familial history that stretches far back that is without a plague and a conquering, sometimes many times over.

Not only that, but much discrimination is intra-cultural, meaning enmity is set up between this kind of Irish and that other kind of Irish; between this kind of Jew and that kind of Jew; between this kind of Republican and that kind of Republican; between this economic class of Whites and that other economic class of Whites. Spike Lee commented about the tensions between light-skinned and dark-skinned Blacks in his film School Daze.

Setting enmity between people is an old old story, one we have to strive to not be knee-jerked into joining up. Most of us are barely but a generations or two or ten distant from having such opprobrium and injustice unleashed on those we descended from… All the more reason to resist heaping unnecessary harshness on others now… for surely we’re here to build something better with one another.

Thus, the answer to these issues regarding deleterious words used to put down others, is not some school-marmish, ‘You shouldn’t call people names; bad bad.’ Neither is it a laconic, ‘Well, some people make their money by being inhumane.’ It isn’t an issue of, ‘By gosh, anyone has a right to call anyone whatever they want according to the First Amendment.’

Nor is it a matter of political correctness which is far too often really just a version of ‘free speech for me, but not for thee’ regardless of who is crying uncle. And the answer to these issues is also not an after-the-fact, ‘Aw come on, it was just a joke.’ By my lights as a long-standing visiting diversity scholar, neither is it an issue of ‘diversity.’

In fact there is no answer at all. Because it’s not an answer that’s needed. It’s a set of questions that’s needed. And the first question is one of humanity: How shall we live with one another? How shall we live with one another with best grace and most hope?… What shall be our code of conduct with one another? How to knit being a humane person deep into the roots of all our cultures?

These questions and more, are not modern issues. How to be ser humano, a full human being, is an ancient issue, and one that requires in our time, new level-headed and unruined-heart responses to be imagined and lived out.

Mr. Imus has read a written apology on air since. He seems a complicated man for I also know of his work of giving much to those who have little or nothing via he and his wife’s healing ranch for children: the oppositions of these two sides is bewildering to many.

However I can say this: I believe that all our young on this planet are born gifted in different ways. Through honing and practice, often striving alone, through believing by force of spirit alone that what they dream is within their reach…. many many of the young grow up to be great in their gifts. Even those who become derelict geniuses for a time, they too find their way. And the late bloomers in the extreme: Ah yes, often after many seasons of looking wilted and unpromising, they suddenly bloom… and more than once, and for life.

We can never know which young gifted person has run longer without help or without nourishment enough. We can never know which gifted young person is losing their dream but for lack of a kind word or a jot of encouragement that pours into their soul just right.

Therefore, it is especially incumbent on those of us who are the elders in this huge rendezvous of world tribes we now live in, to never try to demolish or demoralize the gifted young, but rather to lift them, to let them know we are the old believers who can see what the young are trying so heartfully to see, and that rather than taunt them we are here to dream with them.

Thus, if the women of the Rutgers team have broken from old corrosive pressures to conform to anyone else’s idea of beauty, then good for them. Excellent, in fact. And let the women players from the Tennessee team have their own special beauty too. Do not one more time allow any person to set enmity between women who are different from one another, by lifting one up high, while throwing the others down low. Though it may startle some of the old guard who are used to thinking narrowly about women’s appearances in ways they most easily identify with, still, good for women who decide to appear as they are and however they wish.

Defining oneself with sovereignty over one’s own life, is what all persons ever aim toward. And for women who also have the gifts of leaping and turning and running and sharp vision, well then it’s time and far past time, to add another category to the lexicon of women’s splendor. Let’s add ‘Women strong of heart and sure of step who show up in all their feminine warrior beauty.’

‘Drive your dead over the edge…. Take that dead person passing for the living, and just leave them off. In life, don’t be ashes, be the flame…’

‘ ‘Nappy-Headed Hos’ ‘ ©2007 Dr Clarissa Pinkola Estes, All Rights Reserved.

You can get more information about Dr. Clarissa Pinkola Estes’ books (and readers’ reviews of them) by CLICKING HERE. Read her BIOGRAPHY HERE.

  

Author: DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, Managing Editor of TMV, and Columnist

Share This Post On

64 Comments

  1. Where are you when Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton reveal their hidden racist/anti-semitic sides every few years? Mr. Jackson and Sharpton leading a witch hunt on a man who has done a lot of good for children (raising hundreds of millions of dollars for, among other things, sickle cell anemia) said something horrible and insensitive and has a track record of saying crude things much worse than even this is ironic given their own history. Like Imus, Jackson and Sharpton have done a lot of good things in their lives too, but do you remember Tawana Brawney, “Hymietown”, and “Rev.” Jackson openly admitting to spitting in white people’s food? Imus apologized and lost his job for his disgusting words but they have never once apologized for any of theirs. This does not excuse Imus at all and he got himself what he dished out to others for 35 years on the air. However, all public figures need to be held to the same standards. Especially religious and social rights leaders who should know better than a “shock jock” trying (in vain) to be funny.

  2. Thought-provoking commentary, I’d say. Gist however, is for the taunting to not be tolerated early. Otherwise, there’ll be more of these incidents (and it doesn’t have to be). The entertainment industry should learn from this and act accordingly.

  3. I am a fifty year old white woman and I find the whole circus trailing after this repartee between “shock jocks” a bit much. Shocking with raunchy humor and insult is what these guy do for a living so I guess they did it too well. Kind of like a parasite that overwhelms its host and dies along with it. But I was never a listener or a fan.

    Is everyone insulted by these remarks happy now that these guys are out of a job? Now what about the “culture” that taught those bozos that language and I’m not talking about “white” culture here. “Nappy-headed hos” is black slang for black people and plenty of black recording artists and comics have used it in my recollection.

    I hear far worse from what I can make out of the revolting lyrics from rap and hip-hop songs that are all over the radio. Should we be surprised that radio shock jocks listen to the radio and feel free to parrot what they hear? I overhear far worse from the mouths of black teenagers addressing each other in my Harlem neighborhood.

    When black people disrespect their own so much and so publically then how can they turn around and cry foul when people whose careers are predicated on provoking commments feel comfortable enough with the language to thoughtlessly do the same? Black “artists” are the true source of these words, not the racism of an old white blowhard who is paid for edgy talk.

    Characterizing top athletes and college girls as “hos” is bad enough but, as the shock jocks pointed out – those girls are tough, and I’m sure they’ve heard worse and equally sure that most of them are headed for success anyway. They deserve recognition for their achievements, not for being insulted on the airwaves. What I really can’t bear in this whole thing in Al “Tawanna” Sharpton feeling free to monitor anyone’s speech. Sharpton’s entire career is built on libel. I’ll never forgive Imus and Company for inflicting that particular parasite on us again.

    So maybe there should be a handbook for whites on what words are verboten for us to use but part of common discourse among blacks. But didn’t we do away with that “whites only” thing about forty years ago and how far is this speak restriction supposed to go and am I still in America?

  4. Of course he shouldn’t have made these comments. But firing someone for a mistake is a little harsh. Apologies if they are heartfelt should go along way. I would say this man grew up in different times when these adjectives were common place in some households. I remember listening to my great grandfather who was born in the 1880′s never say black it was always colored person or the “N” word. Would he had ben fired 20 or 30 years ago for the same comments? If it hadn’t been directed at Rutger girls but at maybe a biker bar waitress would he have been fired? Does his comments define his true point of few?

    I own a piano bar that is primarily patronized by blacks. I hear nigger this and nigger that all night. I do not believe that this gives me the license to use the word but it has been known to slip outa my mouth during some debates but of course I used the more acceptable pronunciation of nigga. Its all ages 21 to 60+ using it and from all walks of life. I did however get sharply corrected one evening by a local council person when I yelled to waitress to bring this boy a drink. I didn’t mean anything by it as I refer to many younger men of all races as boy. When I discusse it later with the younger patrons they told me it wasn’t offensive to them.

    I guess what I am getting at is there was a day and time when alot of things were acceptable and now they are not. Some things meant to be deragatory years ago have been forgotten. The younger black people had forgotten or never knew that “boy” was an offensive word use by white people to black men. But maybe it was because they are still young. maybe if Everyone would quit using the word then maybe it would be forgotten. Back to Imus. We can’t take away his life experiences. As a society we rely on live entertainers to use life experience to entertain us in radio/comedy timing is everything. An occasional slip is bound to happen. If we all were judged on every word that came from our mouth we would all be in trouble.

  5. Dillikin “…racial relations would have benefited by keeping him on the air. Once he had “seen … how his careless words had impacted these young women, I believe he would have been a force for change — a powerful force.” Very thoughtful. You’re right, at one level, it could be seen as a potential transformation interrupted. We don’t’ know which way it would have gone. Your thoughts though, to God’s ear.

    Sharon Stephens… “second hand smoke” … very thoughtful metaphor for the effect of indirect effects

    Kim Moon…Thank you Kim Moon, what a great name. I put the transcript in the article so readers here could weigh each of the four men’s remarks, see the cadence

    Mathew…”Where are you when Jackson/ Sharpton reveal their hidden racist/anti-semitic sides every few years?” Puzzled, like a lot of people. I have many questions. I hope to read more thoughtful opinions on how different parts of the black community view all their second generation leaders (since Martin). Your questions are ones many wonder about.

    Willie Smith “taunting to not be tolerated early” Your point is well taken… I think many people do not realize the culture is shifting dramatically toward not inhibiting free speech, but drawing boundaries about where certain kinds of speech will be contained. I find it interesting that Howard Stern by going onto satellite appears to have been one of the first to do just that. I have to think more about it, but there may be quite a few examples of other persons who are moving in that direction too.

    Dana Chapin… Your idea of a book telling us all, Latinos, Blacks, Anglos, Asians, Indians, Everyone what/how to call each other is a great and potentially humorous/ serious idea, lol. In Diplomacy and International Studies, there really are books to teach how to get along and not insult people in other countries where one is doing business.

    But, there is one rule I find true and stable across all cultures: so much of how people take what one has to say depends on the relationship between the caller of names and the called. Most people say to me that others from any group can call them anything they want, as long as they know for absolutely certain that that other person has their back. In terms of hard-wired human nature, this makes sense to me. The relationship, or lack of it, greatly influences the secondary reaction.

    And Chris, you are right; “it was a time” that is no more. I sense that the world moves so fast today, that perhaps even last week become ‘a time that is no more,’ unless you are wired in at every level and change and grow with velocity.

    The zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, changes, even though many people sort of live in apparently ‘sticky parallel worlds’ “back there.” That’s one of the things I admire about bloggers and those who comment here: I see an evolution of thought, not just what I call ‘a splat’ of opinions. (ok, well, sometimes a splat or two,… ‘a splat’ being what we called in the backwoods where I grew up, a mark dropped by a large bird taking a bathroom break while flying. lol

    But in seriousness now, I’m reminded by the thoughts of everyone here, that the zeitgeist is not the only thing that moves. Some of its best people move with it, in fact are often out ahead of it conjuring it. May it be good.

  6. Imus hurt those girls’s feelings and made them cry (girls–or women? Can you imagine the boys’ team reacting like that?), so he owed them an apology, and that should have been the end of it. His firing was truly wrong: it was utterly disproportionate to the harm done.

    As Americans, we really have to stand against censorship, not just by the government, but by corporations as well. Today they banned Imus, tomorrow rap, and the next thing you know, someone will censor “I shot a man in Reno / Just watch him die.” We have to stand up for free speech, regardless of its content.

  7. to Al Funcoot, man, they touch Mr. J Cash and it’ll bring everyone to the streets including me.lol.

    But you bring up an interesting point: censorship by corporations. I hope someone will write deeply about this subject, investigativly rather than as an opinion piece. That would be really valuable. Myself, I tend to think more about how corporations might censor a priori, by not seeking nor allowing divergent and diverse voices any access to speak on radio/tv/etc., to begin with.
    dr.e

  8. One last thought.

    The commentary about this matter has so far focussed on Don Imus.

    Can we talk a little bit about CBS Radio? CBS has paid Imus generously for thirty years, and this is a very long way from the first time he’s stepped in something brown and sticky playing the “shock jock” game. (The very nature of that game involves walking along the edge of a very high cliff. Nobody in that game should be surprised at what happens if they have a lapse of judgment and step a little too far.) I suspect that CBS Radio would like us all to conveniently forget this.

    The broadcasting license holder is responsible — legally and morally — for what goes out over the airwaves from its transmitter. And those who make the executive decisions — including hiring, retention, termination, standards and practices, marketing, and content — are responsible for those decisions. I suspect that CBS Radio would like us all to conveniently forget this as well.

    Should CBS Radio not be pressed for answers on what is going to change to ensure that we don’t wind up with another, younger “shock jock”, pushing buttons until something goes boom? I don’t expect CBS Radio to turn itself into NPR overnight — one NPR is enough — but without specific and publicly-announced policy changes on content, it’s only a matter of time before we’re back here again, because pushing buttons is what shock jocks do.

  9. Not that I think Imus or for that matter Bernard were right to say what they did,several items have not been mentioned that I think should: The Rutgers team had black AND white players as did the Tennessee team. Hello?! And if you want to bring the race card in,Tom “I hate the white man” Joyner still has a job as does Jesse Jackson and Rev. AL Sharpton…oh yes,what are those “jobs” exactly gentlemen? (Not you Mr. Joyner…at least you can say whatever you want). The Imus crew deserved to be off the air for the duration that they were originally suspended. After that let the free market decide. And if you didn’t approve:DON’T LISTEN! Because of these actions,now anytime anybody gets their feelings hurt,no radio show,TV show,recording artist and comedy artist will not be safe. Welcome to 1984 some twenty years later…Big brother is officialy here.

  10. Or more like “will be safe”. Man I’ve been up too long!!!

  11. Kim Moon… ah, CBS, the Central Broadcasting System is not so “central” anymore is it…you see the Emperor’s condition. lol. I think this one is going to be up to investigative bloggers. I have been reading print ‘big media’ on this and other matters in the news this week, and don’t see one iota of investigative anything, just rehashes of AP and Reuters with a few opinions thrown in. I could be very wrong, but I keep thinking investigative reporting is going to be one of the shining lights of blogovision.

    J. Bozeman… as long as those late night typos arent “l6wdksjyng,” it’s ok. lol… good point in bringing up free market. I wish someone would write about: Can we really have free market and free expression re any radio/ tv hosts/jocks/talkies/newsreaders, if corporations are the ones who decide who will and who wont be on the air, and what bent of talk they will put their money behind…. I dont know if its the real spirit of free market if people only get to choose amongst what the primary choosers give them to choose from.The gatekeepers to radio and TV seem to keep pretty narrow gates, perhaps in part, because outfits like Clear Channel, or Rupert M and just a very few others, own most everything.

    Just culturally, I find it interesting that two groups are especially concerned about free expression presently, groups that in some way seem at opposite ends of a spectrum: people who want all expression in, say, tv, radio, music, etc… and those from the religious right who also want all expression of their philosophies in the same media.

  12. I am actually thinking Imus is not going to be broke since he lost his job. so be it. I was watching Oprah and she had several columnist and Hip-hop industry people on the show discussing this topic. I was glad to see some females from a college standing up against the hip hop culture which degrades females. I must say I am shocked by some of the lyrics. “Bitches” and “HO’S”. one of the VP’s of one recording company was offended when one of the columnist referred to the recording artist as clowns thinking he had called him a clown but in essence they all are because they allow it to be mass marketed.

    They had said these artist are singing from life experiences. I had also heard some people call this the crack baby generation. But my personal belief that television, movies, removal of corporal punishment from schools has lead way to this.

    If this has opened a dialogue between races and sexes then Imus might become an icon of the year 2007. But like so many other hot topics it is sure to pass from the headlines until another white person stumbles. Because we are the only race held to these higher standards.

  13. I THINK DON IMUS SHOULD HAVE BEEN A-SENT ON LEAVE TO B-MAKE LOTS OF PUBLIC APPEARANCES WITH: C-LOTS OF PRIOR NOTICE OF WHERE HE WOULD APPEAR WITHOUT D-ANY SECURITY FOR HIS PUBLIC APPEARANCES PROVIDED BY CBS SO THAT HE COULD E-FACE THE PUBLIC WHO COULD THEN GREET HIM WITH A “PITCHFORKS AND TORCHES” MENTALITY IN AN UNGUARDED VENUE IN ORDER THAT HE F-EXPERIENCE WHAT’S IT’S LIKE TO BE IN DANGER OF BEING LYNCHED AND ALSO SO THAT G-PEOPLE COULD SHOUT ANY KIND OF NAME OR INSULT AT HIM THAT THEY FELT LIKE IN FRONT OF MANY MANY OTHER PEOPLE (MILLIONS HEAR HIM AT A TIME) THEN HE COULD BE A “STRINGY-HEADEDOLD WIZENED POTTY-MOUTHED RADIO HO’”AND SEE HOW HE LIKED IT.

  14. p.S>: MY PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF DON IMUS IS **ONLY** TO POINT OUT THAT HE DOES NOT SEE HIMSELF (PHYSICALLY) AS OTHERS SEE HIM (IF I WERE A RUTGERS BASKETBALL PLAYER PARENT,CONSIDERING HOW DEPLETED AND CONSUMPTIVE HE LOOKS-AND THIS IS NOT TO BE INSULTING- I AM NOT SURE I WOULD WANT HIM CLOSE ENOUGH TO MY DAUGHTER TO SPEAK AN APOLOGY-I WOULD BE TOO AFRAID HE WOULD BREATHE ON HER-SERIOUSLY).I FEEL SAD FOR DON IMUS-HE’S FORGOTTEN A BASIC RULE ABOUT COMMENTS-DON’T DISH OUT WHAT YOU CAN’T TAKE/PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN’T THROW STONES-HE IS NOT NOW NOR HAS EVER BEEN AN ADONIS-HE SHOULD AVOID THE TOPIC OF PHYSICAL BEAUTY ALTOGETHER.I DON’T REALLY CARE ABOUT LOOKS-MY MOTHER TAUGHT ME EARLY THAT CHARACTER WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN LOOKS-AFTER ALL,TED BUNDY WAS CONSIDERED “ATTRACTIVE” BY SOME WOMEN-NONE OF WHOM ARE ALIVE NOW. (AND EVERYONE,PLEASE EXCUSE THE CAPS-SMALL/LOWERCASE FONTS+LETTERS ARE VERY HARD ON MY EYES-THAT’S THE ONLY REASON I USE CAPITALS).

Submit a Comment