Don Imus: The Character of the Content

David, It’s interesting you mention Condi Rice often referred to as Bush’s House Nigger by black folk.
Why is the double standard acceptable?

Comment by Rick Huss — April 13, 2007 @ 3:52 am

I may be a white man, but I know that young black women all through that society are demeaned and disparaged and disrespected by their own black men and that they are called that name.
—Don Imus, host of CBS Radio/MSNBC’s Imus in the Morning, 10 April 2007
- A true statement.

What I’m tired of hearing is people making bigoted remarks, and then saying “I’m not a bigot.”
—Michael Wilbon, host of ESPN’s Pardon The Interruption, 10 April 2007

- So, whether one’s intention was satire is irrelevant then?  What about all of the reports who repeated the ‘bigoted’ phrase? Since they were ‘bigoted remarks’ and repeated by journalists, etc.. they are then bigots, too right.. since context and intention means nothing?

The steadily percolating controversy over recent remarks made by nationally-syndicated radio talk show host Don Imus about the Rutgers University Women’s Basketball team brings to mind three questions: Would Imus have ever had the balls to refer to a more prominent black woman—Condoleezza Rice, Oprah Winfrey, Beyonce Knowles—as a ‘nappy-headed ho?’ Maybe.
Not maybe.  Definitely. 

Would he be offended if someone went on a national broadcast and referred to his wife, mother, or daughter as a (presumably) ‘limp-haired ho?’ Probably.
Not probably. Probably not.  It would depend on context and intent, of course.  And IF he were offended, he wouldn’t react the way that many people have.

Would I be offended if anyone referred to the three most important women in my life: my wife, my mother, and my sister—all black women—as ‘nappy-headed hos?’ Definitely.
His comments being offensive, doesn’t mean it was bigoted, or mean-spirited.  He made a mistake.  He apologized. 

Although Imus has apologized profusely and repeatedly on his own show, Rev. Al Sharpton’s radio show, and on the Today show for his remarks, disavowed any malicious intent, and embarked on a quixotic campaign to affirmatively demonstrate that he is not a racist,
—He shouldn’t have bothered to demonstrate he is not a racist, because he doesn’t need to.  He is obviously not a racist.  But this is not relevant to most people.  They want him to symbolize a racist, so they have decided that he is. 

the discourse and the controversy surrounding his comments continues to veer toward a referendum about political correctness, ‘racism’ versus mere ‘insensitivity,’ and freedom of speech.
—No, he apologized for his remarks and merely was putting them into context.  There is a difference between 1st degree murder and third degree battery. 

Unfortunately, it is not surprising that there are many who believe that Imus’ remarks are simply (pardon the pun) off-color, edgy, and unkind, but do not rise to the level of being termed racist, sexist, or harmful.
—Racist and sexist is an exaggeration.  Harmful yes, but it is a matter of degree.

ESPN.com Page2’s Tim Keown observed, “Somehow, we’ve reached the point in our society where Imus’ comments about the Rutgers women require debate. Should he be punished?
—Not very many people are actually debating this.  Don Imus never did.  Of course, he should be punished.  Of course, the punishment is so disproportionate to the crime. 

Was he wrong? It’s scary to think that people actually believe those question marks apply. It is the unspoken dynamic. Few would try to outright defend Imus’ comments purely based on their content. Most would agree that calling women “nappy-headed hos” is at least some form of insult, comic or otherwise. But some, Senator John McCain, Bill Maher, James Carville, have suggested that because Imus is an equal opportunity offender—anyone or anything is fair game for his caustic remarks—that no one should be offended.
—No, they did not say no one should be offended.  They said that it should be clear that he is not a racist, with evil intentions.  It is a matter of degree. 

After all, “that’s just how he is”. The logical corollary is that the team, black women, and society at large should all just “get over it”.
—That is an exaggeration.  Very few people are saying the team should just ‘get over it’.  Lease of all, Don Imus, who made this clear in his apologies to him.

Those who choose to defend his remarks have even speculated that there was nothing per se racist or sexist about calling a group of black women “nappy-headed hos”.
— Not in the context and the way he did it.

Mostly, those who defend Imus object to the backlash, in which national figures such as Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton have called for Imus to be fired from his job and banned from the airwaves.
—Yes, that is a very extreme (and incidentally, hypocritical) response.

To a degree, I agree with the last point. As they say, “It’s a free country”. Free enough to call anyone you want a “nappy-headed ho” even if it isn’t free enough to avoid being called a “nappy-headed ho”. Imus has millions of listeners who have the right to listen to him perform racial insults, and he has the right to insult at will.
—I believe the insult came at the expense of people who would use that phrase, and MEAN it. 
—Imus and his audience even have the right to laugh. Cenk Uygur of The Huffington Post called Imus’ comments racist in no uncertain terms, but also makes a compelling case that he shouldn’t be driven from the airwaves, noting, “It’s hard to see what society gains from allowing Imus to call people racist names. But if we push for people to fire him, will we prevent others from having an open dialogue about race that can eventually lead to positive change?” Good point. But while it’s true that Imus has a right to say whatever he wants, he doesn’t have the right to everyone’s buy-in or acquiesce to the premise that everything he says is just a harmless joke, or even funny at all.
—You are mistating his premise.  He never said it was a harmless joke.  Not at all. 

It’s double-dipping to invoke your, or anyone else’s right to say anything, and then go on to insist that the object of the statement, no matter how demeaning, should shrug it off, accept it, and move on.
— Again, exaggeration.  Noone is really saying that.  This is a ‘straw man’.

One of the ironies of the current situation is that in a strange sense, a few black women in our society have reached the absolute peak of the pyramid. Oprah and Rice are two of the three most influential and powerful women in the United States. Beyonce is the reigning paragon of feminine sexuality—a position that she inherited from Halle Berry. But just below the surface of this seeming acceptance and potential celebration of black women, this is still a society where black women continue to be devalued and the objects of scorn. It was almost too easy for a popular radio personality to set up a joke at the expense of an 80 percent black women’s basketball team with a black woman coach about what he perceived to be their ‘rough’ appearance.
—Again, the joke MOSTLY came at the expense of the type of people who would say such a thing.  But did come at their expense as well, and he should, and did, apologize for it. 

It is also all too easy that Imus would be able to go on national television after the fact and try to defend himself on the basis that he only was referring to black women in the same fashion to which he thinks they are referred to by black men.
—Some black men, and he wasn’t defending himself.  He admitted he did wrong.  Again, a matter of degree.

Never mind the fact that it’s not the job of 19- and 20-year-old college athletes to fit within the twisted parameters of a declining sexagenarian’s conception of whatever the inverse of a “nappy-headed ho” might be. Never mind the fact that what I saw in the Rutgers press conference was a group of well groomed, well spoken, thoughtful, and confident women. Never mind the fact that they shouldn’t have to hold a press conference to ‘prove’ to the world that they’re well groomed and well spoken.
—They didn’t really need to, imo.  Most educated people, realized that calling them ‘nappy headed ho’s’ was ridiculous and unfair.  THAT was what made it funny… how ridiculously unfair it is. 

Never mind the fact that any defense of one�s self that begins and ends with the notion that if you’ve met the minimum standards of the misogynist wing of rap music, then you’re covered (I must have missed the memo that explained how certain degrading and self-nullifying rap lyrics are the current standard by which talk show hosts measure their content) is at best shabby as hell, and at worst, plain ignorant.

If there is any doubt that this position of being susceptible to this sort of mean spirited attack is in fact racist and sexist, and to a degree the exclusive burden of women of color, ask yourself this�can you imagine a major media commentator going on the air during the Olympics and referring to the bronze-medal winning USA women’s hockey team as a bunch of “unruly, unkempt sluts”
—No, but I could imagine a skit on SNL doing so.  Or.. Imus doing so. 

and that they deserved to lose to Finland because the Finnish women were cuter? Not really. Not even as a “joke”.
Nah, I can see it as a joke.  In fact, it is funny.  But I have nothing against those nationalities. 

On some level, conscious or unconscious, Imus and his comic foil, producer Bernard McGuirck, probably didn’t think that their remarks and jokes would raise such ire because they don’t think that much of black women.
—That is really sort of leaping there.

To them, the women that they were insulting were just fodder for their brand of ‘humor’. And make no mistake about it, they directly insulted those women. It would have been similarly obnoxious and disgusting to call black women as a whole “nappy-headed hos” and “jigaboos”. But they pinpointed the eight black women and by association, the two white women on that particular team, at that particular school, none of whom is a public figure, and most of whom are still teenage college students. In their minds, these women were just a bunch of “nappy-headed hos”.
—Again, you are really taking some leaps and bounds.  But you are right, they were not public figures and it was insensitive for them to do so. 

Don Imus
Who could Imus have expected would come to the defense of these women?—especially when his core audience not only revels in this kind of frat-boy banter, but would also be the first to blame the victims, and say that any accusation of racism is itself an act of “playing the race card”.
—You’re getting really far out there now. 

The answer, of course, is anyone with a sense of common human decency. On 11 April 2007, one day after Imus’ appearance on Today and MSNBC’s announcement of a two-week ‘suspension’, MSNBC announced that it would no longer simulcast Imus in the Morning. It really doesn’t matter whether CBS Radio follows and cancels the program. I’m neither for it nor against it. Imus exercised his freedom of speech, and if he loses his job over it, he’s sure to pop up somewhere else. But the test of the impact of this incident will be whether listeners, advertisers, and perhaps most importantly, Imus’ guests continue to patronize his show. No less of figures than Senator John Kerry, Meet The Press’ Tim Russert, Time magazine’s Ana Marie Cox (formerly known in the blogosphere as “Wonkette”), and even African American Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. all appear regularly on Imus in the Morning. If they disassociate themselves from Imus, perhaps it means that they want their public to know that they don’t accept Imus’ comments. If they continue to appear on his show, maybe it means that they think the rest of us should just get over it.
—Considering that IMUS.. said he doesn’t accept Imus’ comments, this would not be hard for them to demonstrate.

Of course, “getting over it” is the exclusive luxury of the dominant group in society; white men. It certainly seems that it would be easy enough to get over a disparaging remark about one’s race or gender (or religion or sexual orientation, for that matter) if one could rest confidently that one’s race or gender, or a combination of the two would never be the cause of one’s being denied fair treatment or extended common courtesy in the society at large. The women who play basketball for Rutgers wouldn’t know, because they’ve never had that luxury.
—Very few people are saying ‘get over it’.  They are mostly saying.. ok.. he did wrong.  Put it in context.. realize he is a good person.. accept his apology.. and THEN.. move on.

The rub, in the end, is this: on 10 April 2007, the Rutgers players, coaches, and university officials announced that they would grant Imus’ many (pitiful) requests to have a private meeting with them
—So, if he had not bothered to try to contact them and communicate his intent with them, that would be less pitiful?

, in order to allow him to explain himself, attempt to make amends, and to convince them, the public, and himself, that he is not a racist.
—He doesn’t need to convince himself, or the people that watch him.. he clearly is NOT a racist.  That is just silly.  But it is important to explain to people who do not know him.

Already, they have been a praised for their generosity of spirit. But really, what choice did they have? If they had followed the advice of those who would advocate that they get over it and had just moved on, gone silent, and politely declined Imus’ request, where would they be now? Surely, they would have been portrayed as surly, militant, and thin-skinned. They would have been accused of stooping to the lowest common denominator and of contributing to the problem by refusing to engage in a dialogue.  I am certain that after the meeting takes place, there will be statements from both sides about forgiveness, learning, and understanding. Being gracious and forgiving is really the only option that the Rutgers women have, because if the meeting does not result in a public embrace, then in a perverted way, Imus will become the victim.
—Or.. they were openminded enough to actually want to understand the context and intentions of the person that said it. 

Despite the fact that less than two weeks ago, they lost the national championship game, that hardly anyone outside of New Brunswick, New Jersey knew any of their names, and that they ended their season to quietly resume the remainder of their school year, now these women who didn’t ask to be singled out for cruel insults by America’s leading curmudgeon will now be asked not only to demonstrate enough charity to rehabilitate him as a person, but also to assuage all of our collective sentiments about the state of race relations in our society.
— Imus certainly didn’t ask them to do that.  And not very many other people have either.  Most of your arguments are giant leaps and tearing down ‘straw men’.

And I actually think they can pull it off. Right now, no one else can. But while I do hope that they will eventually move on, I also hope that they won’t get over it.
—I hope they do get over it.  I hope you get over it.  I hope that people learn to get some perspective, and stop the knee-jerk reactions and uninformed commentary.

Comment by Mindstorm from US — April 13, 2007 @ 5:17 am

What about Chief Wahoo on the Cleveland “Indians” baseball caps?  What about the fact that 50 Cent has more recognition and respect in modern black culture than Cornell West?  We are speaking about deep-seated and destructive elements of racism in our society, and in our world.  It isn’t too fun, in this context, to be a Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent right now in a lot of places.

So we are supposed to care about the comments of Don Imus?  A man whose significance has been on a steady decline since the 80’s? (For us older people, that’s over twenty years ago now, folks.)  Nobody gave a flying shit about Imus until he made some off-handed comment that whoever is vaguely familiar with him will know is only a measure of his long-apparent ignorance.

People like the author of the column in question are being sucked into this debate when it is obvious that it has only become an issue in the media because it is an excellent opportunity for the media and other people in general to make pretend that race relations have come a long way, and that this sort of thing will NOT be tolerated.  Yes, we will string Don Imus on a flagpole and run him up, and let everyone know what we do to has-been, washed-up radio comedians when they step out of line and utter a lukewarm racial slur.  How does that change the real problems?

The biggest problem is that this discourse will take the place of speaking about real issues, and many of those people who applaud this sad, shriveled, old man being fired from CBS can ignore their own racist tendencies and ignore the heavy consequences that the world continues to pay due to bigotry, and we can pretend once again that all is peachy keen with this issue.  To the author of the column, as an addendum; you decry that the wrongness of Imus is even being questioned, in a “what is the world coming to” kind of sense.  Perhaps you would like to explain when it was ever any better?  When was this magical time where America’s racial wounds were healed?  They only contiue to fester, bubba, because we ignore them, and because we waste our time with issues like this, the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a severed Achilles tendon.

Comment by FellRider from New Paltz — April 13, 2007 @ 8:01 am

“[...] can you imagine a major media commentator going on the air during the Olympics and referring to the bronze medal-winning USA women’s hockey team as a bunch of “unruly, unkempt sluts” and that they deserved to lose to Finland because the Finnish women were cuter? Not really. Not even as a “joke.”

When did Imus say Rutgers “deserved” to lose to Tennessee?  He didn’t.

Comment by T. Brawley from New York, NY — April 13, 2007 @ 7:17 pm

Periods go inside quotation marks!

Comment by Rev. Al X. Tortion from Crown Heights, NY — April 14, 2007 @ 6:20 am

“Periods go inside quotation marks!”

—Not in British English or international English. That’s a US convention.

Comment by Steve from London — April 14, 2007 @ 6:31 am

Look beyond Imus

Some people might say that the only thing Imus did wrong when he insulted the black members of the Rutgers women’s basketball team was neglect to rhyme “hos” with “videos.” That, and place a giant gold chain around his neck and a platinum grill on his teefus.
Had the self-proclaimed I-man done so, not only would he not have been fired Thursday, he’d probably have a video on Black Entertainment Television and a nomination for an NAACP Image Award.

Don’t look at me like that.

Remember when the civil rights organization shamed itself by nominating Tupac Shakur, the late rapper, for just such an award?

Believe me, some of Tupac’s lyrics about black women make Imus’ insult seem like a bouquet of roses in comparison.

Listen, if you can, to Tupac’s song in which he refers to activist C. Delores Tucker with the mother—hint, hint—of all profanities. Then listen to his “All Eyez On Me” CD that sold nine million. I dare you.

Decrying the misogyny of black rappers isn’t the same as condoning Imus’ misogyny. Both are deplorable and condemnable.

But are they?

Nah. Just as Tupac, 50 Cent, Ludacris and others make millions using black women as a frustration-relieving pinata, the present contretemps may be a boon for Imus. Think about it: Most people probably thought the cadaverous crank was already dead, so if he returns to the airways, he’ll be bigger than ever.

The Imus insult has also been good for the Rev. Al Sharpton. Tell the truth: Before Imus kicked off his “Save My Butt” tour and went on Sharpton’s radio show to apologize, did you even know the Rev. Al had a radio show?

Neither did I.

The question no one has asked, though, is “What makes white racists—yes, there are black ones, too—run to Al as soon as they step in it?”

Like alleged comedian Michael Richards, Imus couldn’t wait to prostrate himself before the reverends Al and Jesse Jackson.

What’s up with that, yo? They apparently didn’t get the memo that Jesse and Al don’t speak for all black people. If they did, I assure you we’d have them doing something far more important than bestowing condemnation or absolution on ultimately irrelevant crackpots.

That’s not to question Sharpton’s sincerity: For the past couple of years he has aggressively castigated black rappers who denigrate black women for fun and profit. He’s also gone after the pimping record companies that reap the lion’s share of those profits.

So, he has earned the right to speak out on this. Others who are using Imus as a punching bag—a deserved fate, mind you—ought to go sit down somewhere if they don’t express similar outrage when bile-spewing hip-hoppers sing about the joys of killing other blacks and call black women everything but a Reuben sandwich.

As for Imus calling the women “nappy-headed,” let’s get one thing straight—and I don’t mean hair: Nappy makes me happy.

You have to wonder, though, how anyone who looks like Imus—somebody (OK, it was me) once said he looks like death eating a tuna fish sandwich—can poke fun at anyone else’s appearance.

Comment by Barry Saunders — April 14, 2007 @ 9:57 am

How many times do women have to take the unwanted and unwarranted sexists and racists remarks from men, with the after comment - What’s the matter with you, can’t you take a joke! I didn’t mean it, I’m really a good person.

This is yet another example of how clueless and delusional many men are with regards to their ingrained hatred towards women. This is big for a good reason, you either get this or you don’t - where you stand defines you and your view towards women.

Comment by Robert Rahn from Kansas City, Missouri — April 14, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

Ther is a double standard going on in America today, what applies to one person SHOULD apply to the other no matter what color their skin is. Denegrating women in a song by a rapper, or on the radio by a Shock Jock are exactly the same thing PERIOD!!!.
I don’t listen to Don Imus on the radio and I dont buy any Rap music but, I do go shopping, and let me tell you, there is NO escaping the offensive songs played in every store at a Mall in Philadelphia because the magority of shoppers are black. So, you are going to be exposed to these songs whether you like it or not. The sad part is that there were 5 and 6 year old children in the store singing every word (cusses and all) which leads me to the question, who is the BIGGER offender in this story, Don Imus, who probably has a dosen or so listeners, or the Rapper whos voice reaches MIllions?

Comment by Patricia from Philadelphia — April 14, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

“Usually when people are sad, they don’t do anything. They just cry over their condition. But when they get angry, they bring about a change.” - Malcolm X

A few disingenuous remarks you made:

1. “This is still a society where black women continue to be devalued and the objects of scorn.”  Yet a sentence earlier you “devalue” BK and HB by reducing them to the “paragon of feminine sexuality.” You reinforced what you claim to be society’s view.

2. You took the “Jigaboo” quote completely out of context (perhaps to inflame?)  In comparing the “cute” (ironically African-American) Tennessee players to the Rutgers players, Bernard McKirk said it was a like a “Spike Lee thing” referring to “School Daze.”  Was Spike Lee equally as “obnoxious and disgusting” in his depiction of light-skinned, affluent blacks and dark-skinned, less affluent blacks?

3. You describe the Rutger’s players as “teenage college students” - with an italicized emphasis.  They are also adults (most of which are going to school for free) who signed on to a major college program and are routinely in the national spotlight.  At this point, one would assume the risk and open themselves up to social commentators, comedians, shock jocks, and Pop Matters opinion writers.  Perhaps those so concerned with Kia Vaughn should have advised her on the impact, perception, and message she may send to young girls for desecrating her body.

4. People are disassociating themselves with Imus for their self-interest, and political expediency for others.

5. Regarding the “frat-boy,” “white men” diatribe, consider the following: “It’s weak to speak and blame somebody else. When you destroy yourself.”  Public Enemy - Welcome To The Terrordome.  You whiffed and missed a perfect opportunity to comment on a more detrimental ill facing the African-American community.  Not an old, white guy, recovering drug addict, and shock jock making unwanted comments rather African-Americans own perpetuation of negative stereotypes.

Comment by DE — April 15, 2007 @ 11:05 am

i think many are turned off by this whole imus thing because of not what he said, (yes it was stupid, racist and sexist)but the reaction. I kind of like Sharpton generally but these kind of comments made by Imus happen alot in American media…But where is the outrage, where is the call for the firing of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Glenn Beck, et al? And, of course, the outrage against rappers who use these kind of statements quite routinely? AND WHY IS THIS SO? Just yelling about an almost dead white male with a penchant for talking racist and sexist trash not only scores some cheap political points but buries deeper the need for Americans to talk honestly about race, gender, etc.

Comment by g. di grazia from italia — April 15, 2007 @ 6:28 pm

this isn’t one of the better columns i’ve read on imus, i’m sure mr. swerdlick is a great writer, but on this subject the ones that stick out are:

http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html

and

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20070409-104841-1137r_page2.htm

Comment by anthony vega from miami — April 15, 2007 @ 11:43 pm