Duke and Imus
Thursday, April 12, 2007 at 09:34PM I’m breaking down and lending my commentary to arguably the two most pathetic stories of the last week. I will try to restrain myself but this is a warning: I will be blunt……
What strange circumstances they are when the white Duke University Lacrosse players are exonerated after a black stripper falsely accuses them of rape while outrage over Don Imus’ comments that black females on the Rutgers University basketball team were “nappy headed ‘ho’s” spirals out of control. The stripper, who actually IS a nappy headed ho, is taken off the market and labeled “bipolar” while MSNBC shock jock Don Imus is fired. Twice.
The lacrosse players obviously were victimized not only by the stripper, but by the legal system. Even so, they were hiring strippers for entertainment…. At least they called it in retrospect “poor judgment”, although one would have to wonder if they meant the lewdness of the activity itself or the fact that it ended up costing them so much. At any rate, the accuser, bipolar or not, should be prosecuted and put in jail. Despite the lacrosse players’ indiscretion in hiring strippers in the first place, it’s good they were exonerated and they conducted themselves with decorum and dignity… after the initial booze and stripper party, of course.
Imus, Imus, Imus. Not being able to tolerate much of his program over the years because of his offensive and vulgar nature, long ago I began to refer to him as “Anus in the morning.” It just sort of works. What’s curious is with all the other people he’s maligned over the years, to include minorities Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice, why all of a sudden THIS was the last straw. True, the latter are very public figures, but no one can accuse the Rutgers basketball team of being private. They were on an incredible winning streak getting a lot of publicity.
And why do the words “nappy headed ho” totally destroy their self-esteem? Lord knows I’ve been called far worse and on a far more regular basis with ½ of reason to be called those names. I’m not saying it’s enjoyable or fair, but why are these grown women acting like victimized little girls? And I wonder how many of them own Snoop Doggy Dog CDs.
And who gives Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson the right to be a moral authority on ANYTHING? Both are far from being paragons of virtue and yet the words which they seem to allow for in the popular black culture, or allow for blacks to call each other as terms of endearment, are only heinous when used by white people. Why does Chris Rock still have a job, or has no one heard how he maligns white people? And black people?
The issue of Imus’ freedom of speech is for another time… if only he had licked Chocolate Jesus and not said nappy headed ho. In any event, good riddance.
The common denominator here is, of course, liberalism. Liberals use foul language but demand that every syllable uttered about them be pristine. They refuse to be called ugly names… unless they themselves are the ones using them. They can cheat on their taxes and their wives, but somehow when a politically incorrect offense infuriates them they morph into the ultimate moral authority…. is Jesse Jackson is still paying that stripper’s tuition, as he vowed to, “even if her story proves false” ? And I wonder how his young mistress and love child feel about the money being spent that way. Not my problem!
Liberalism is the tangled web they weave….how about the same moral principles for everyone across the board… No “n” words, no insults, no slander, no hypocrisy. Lefties make everything so confusing.
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1007138
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (119)
I have wondered as you do about the people decrying Imus offense most vehemently - do they have rap/hip hop CDs in their collections? Do they immerse themselves in that immoral filth in private and then in public denounce Imus' comments (which were very bad BTW)?
I agree with Amy - there should be a universal standard, not a standard for some that others get a freebie on. If people invest in the hip hop culture by purchasing this crap they should EXPECT the culture to coursen and degenerate. Imus is a convenient scapegoat, but the hypocrisy here is glaring.
'Nappy headed hos' comes from none other than MTV generation, and that organization that promotes hip-hop/pop-culture full of trash-language - you know the organization Bill Clinton went to connect with the young voting populace? So the theory goes, how did we know this was offensive if we never heard of this beofre? Well MTV is where this comes from. But are they censured? Take a guess? They are radical lefties, so they get a pass. Imus takes political jabs, especially at Hillary, that is why she jumped on the band wagon. but Imus in the past had skewed everyone, so it may be this PC crowd that wants to make hate speech a crime, and forgo Free Speech. Imus paid the price, we should leave it at that. There are bills by wackos that want to make words into criminal offenses, of course, for their political motives, not benevolent motives.
I hadn't thought about what the girls had no their Ipods for music. Good point.
A lot of the so-called racial experts are far from being in a position to cause this much sensure over Imus' words, and when words are more important than actions, there's a big moral problem.
For example, I just saw Patricia Schroeder on TV... you remember here, the former Senator from California. She was describing how Imus' words really hurt these basketball players... well, why does this pro-choice liberal not care about how abortion actually hurts the unborn and women? No consistency in the moral sphere makes this overly sensitive line of reasoning without credibility.
Maybe Imus should have claimed to be bipolar.
I'm not defending Imus, don't get me wrong, I'm simply pointing out the blaring hypocrisy of the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharpton's of the world.
Amy:
You can be so funny in that inadvertent, almost childlike way of yours:
"Both are far from being paragons of virtue and yet the words which they seem to allow for in the popular black culture, or allow for blacks to call each other as terms of endearment, are only heinous when used by white people. "
It would be better if everyone stopped using the N-word altogether, of course, but if you can't see the difference between black people using that term among each other and white people using that as an epithet for black people then I really can't help you. Slavery, anyone? Jim Crow?
"The common denominator here is, of course, liberalism. Liberals use foul language but demand that every syllable uttered about them be pristine. They refuse to be called ugly names… unless they themselves are the ones using them. They can cheat on their taxes and their wives, but somehow when a politically incorrect offense infuriates them they morph into the ultimate moral authority [...]"
Complete and utter tosh: the use of foul language (especially but far from exclusively on the Internet) is not the prerogative of one social group or another. I know of conservative bloggers who go around the liberal side of the blogosphere, hunting in packs and spouting only the vilest abuse possible, with no argumentation whatsoever. It happens on both sides. If you can't see that it means that you're either blind or have an elevated view of yourself and your ilk (I suspect it's the latter).
"Liberalism is the tangled web they weave….how about the same moral principles for everyone across the board… No “n” words, no insults, no slander, no hypocrisy. Lefties make everything so confusing. "
No dear, you're very easily confused and very, very partisan.
The world is such a terrible place: aaarghgh, there are liberals in it!
Oh, so the use of the word "nigger" isn't bad in and of itself. Indeed, it's a term of affection in the black community. So I guess when Chris Rock refers to a white woman saying something like "her boney white ass" or "honky" or fill--in--the--blank that is also a term of endearment. I don't know, that hurts my psyche'... can I go on Oprah now?
Nappy headed and ho were all coined by the black community. I would think it would be even more offensive if another black person called another black person those words, knowing full well the ugliness of the word.
Oh, I see.... races can be vile to each other AND white people but no one can be vile to other races, not especially in the black community. Liberalism at its best.
You cannot DEMAND respect, Gert; you COMMAND respect. If blacks want to be taken seriously on this issue they have to act respectfully to each other and ohter races. And if you really believed your lame little "if you can't see the difference between black people using that term among each other and white people using that as an epithet for black people" blather, you wouldn't find any offense in my calling you a white b****-ho. Right? I mean that, of course, as a term of endearment within my own community.
I love being partisan and never claimed I'm not. Imagine that.... having a belief system I care enough about to actually stand by!
Again, it is the grey quicksand of liberalism, which by its definition permits almost anything, including FREE SPEECH even if that speech is offensive, that confuses normal reason.
Again for the record, I think Imus is an anus and believe derrogatory dialouge is wrong and counterproductive. And yes, liberals are more foul that conservatives and Christians; we have a moral guard rail with which we stay behind while liberals pride themselves on being their own god.
My daughter told me the other day that two black girls on her bus greeted each other with the salutation, "Hey, nigger!" It confused her as to why a word so offensive to their race seemed more offensive to HER than to them, and why they would even use it in the first place.
This is of course the problem with liberalism; it recognizes very few moral absolutes while making rules to protect political correctness which they define.
Gutsy stepping into this pile! About the only thing I can add is something I heard on the radio last night on my drive home. It was a clip of
Gerry RiversGeraldo Rivera; it was along the lines of'it is in the eyes and ears of the victim as to whether it is right or wrong.....' There is your Liberalism, there is your can of worms, there is your free speech......great thought there Ger
you got a vote
Teacher speaking to the class:
Did everyone notice how the Gert began her attack by taking a morally superior position?
She began with: You can be so funny in that inadvertent, almost childlike way of yours:
That statement implies that Gert finds Amy amusing (i.e. - not worthy of being taken seriously), and innocent or immature in her thoughts. She also uses the word "inadvertant" to denote that Amy is not deliberately thinking about her statements and/or position.
You should also note how Gert closes the comment with another personal attack:
No dear, you're very easily confused and very, very partisan.
The world is such a terrible place: aaarghgh, there are liberals in it!
In her closing, she uses:
- a mocking tone (the final sentence in its entirety),
- a direct insult ("you're easily confused") and
- a supposed position of moral superiority ("very, very partisan") which implies Gert is impartial and therefore superior,
- and she completely side-stepped Amy's last point (Amy: how about the same moral principles for everyone across the board… No “n” words, no insults, no slander, no hypocrisy.) about the double standard.
Yes, class, Gert is using typical Liberal debating tactics. She belittles others instead of debating to the salient points.
Class dismissed!
What's more puzzling (to me) is that Gert appears to be a Brit, so I'm not sure why she is even interested in Don Imus... I know most Americans aren't interested in him! Perhaps Gert and her "ilk" are just "hunting in packs and spouting only the vilest abuse possible, with no argumentation whatsoever.".
Amy:
It's actually the moral absolutes that you seek that confuse you: all words and phrases only have meaning within the context in which they are used. One can be completely obnoxious and offensive even with the most polite of phraseologies. People also lie through their teeth in the most cultured and well-mannered way, but that doesn't make their lies any more truthful.
And so words like "nigger" or "Jew" (and many others) derive their meaning from the context in which they are used. "Bitch-ho" would be offensive to me only if I felt you meant to be offensive (perhaps you do, in which case I refuse to oblige - lol)
"My daughter told me the other day that two black girls on her bus greeted each other with the salutation, "Hey, nigger!" It confused her as to why a word so offensive to their race seemed more offensive to HER than to them, and why they would even use it in the first place."
Perhaps you could explain to her what I'm explaining to you, as confusion seems to run in your family. The term "nigger" is indeed offensive in most situations when used white-on-black (but most of my black friends wouldn't object to my using it in a jocular way because they know and trust me - that's context for ya), because it derives from "negroe" and we all know what White Man (cough!) has done to black Africans (and later to American and British Africans). White-on-black is therefore a different context than black-on-black. You can't see that? I'm beginning to believe that you live in a moral vacuum...
Your claptrap about "races" shows a very stale mindset: the notion of "human races" has been dismissed convincingly by modern genetics. Four or five genes that control skin pigmentation, eye and hair colour do not correlate with anything else. Racism was essentially developed as a justification for the horrendous exploitation of people of colour by white people: treating people like animals can only be justified by positing that these people are sub-human, possibly even closer to animals than human beings. This idea was practically turned into "science" (well, pseudo-science, see also eugenics). And Christianity found its own justification: Adam and Eve were white, weren't they?
But "racism", like so many terms caught hold and although strictly speaking obsolete continues to be bandied around. And used as a justification for black-white inequality in most parts of Western civilisation. Old habits die hard.
"Again for the record, I think Imus is an anus and believe derrogatory dialouge is wrong and counterproductive [...]"
Call Imus what you want, it's no skin off my nose, but calling someone an "anus" isn't derogatory? Why, because "anus" is politer than "arsehole"? Call a spade a spade, I tell thee...
As regards "derogatory dialogue", it's rather in the eye of the beholder: there is no moral absolute yardstick by which to measure what and what is not derogatory.
ProphetJoe:
You're only making my points for me: I could easily take offence to what Amy says about Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and to some extent I do.
I'm male by the way and yes, British.
You're easily puzzled aren't you? A Brit shouldn't take interest in Don Imus? Actually, if you read my first comment you'll see that I didn't come here to debate Imus. Learn to read.
Do you live in a small, sealed-off hamlet somewhere?
You say the black-on-black context need not be derogatory, yet the white-on-black context is demeaning. I'm curious, Gert, since I'm white and you're white (at least I'm guessing you are from your comments above), should anyone be offended if I screamed "You F**** N****!" at you in a public place? Would you be offended? Would blacks be offended? COULD whites be offended? Or should no one be offended since there's no implication of slavery involved -- what's the context of the N-word in this scenario?
The fact of the matter is that words DO have a meaning. They do not have contextual definitions as you imply. What they GET is a contextual reaction and that reaction is based solely on the recipient of the word, not the user. I'm asking that users of words be held to the same standard of accountability -- be they white, talk-radio guys, or black hip-hop artists. Personally, I find the N-word to be offensive no matter WHO uses it.
I'm male by the way and yes, British.
You're easily puzzled aren't you? A Brit shouldn't take interest in Don Imus? Actually, if you read my first comment you'll see that I didn't come here to debate Imus. Learn to read.
Do you live in a small, sealed-off hamlet somewhere?
Sorry, here in the States, it is highly unusual to meet a Gert who is male -- no offense intended.
Learn to read yourself! I never said "A Brit shouldn't take interest in Don Imus." I said I'm puzzled why you would care what he says... stop misrepresenting what I wrote.
Yes, I am puzzled by liberalism. I understand the "feel good" emotional nature of it -- I know, I used to be one back in my youth -- but I grew up and saw how illogical liberalism is at it's root. I'm puzzled why other, seemingly intelligent people, don't do the same.
Small hamlet, sure, if you consider Yorkshire a small hamlet, then you might also consider the Chicagoland area a small hamlet too. Sealed off? No, geographically-speaking, that would be England.
>>Personally, I find the N-word to be offensive no matter WHO uses it.>>
Why is that? I know I was raised not to use it, but when I grew up, I was taught that I should use "negro", not "nigger". "Nigger" was a "low class" term, and unacceptable in polite company. Then "negro" became unacceptable, and we were supposed to use "black". Then "black" fell out of favor, and "african-american" became the preferred term. So...what really is the issue here? What is it about the term "nigger" that people find so offensive? I'm not saying that people _don't_, but I don't understand why. It's just a word, and it simply describes color/race, nothing the person has any control over.
>>Your claptrap about "races" shows a very stale mindset: the notion of "human races" has been dismissed convincingly by modern genetics. Four or five genes that control skin pigmentation, eye and hair colour do not correlate with anything else.>>
Baloney. When anthropologists are no longer able to determine an individual's race when they dig up bones that are eons old, then maybe I'll agree with you. As it is, I think I can probably bracket your age - my son came home from college with this nonsense, as did my daughter at about the same time. Race is a form of genetic homogeneity which is the result of a limited breeding pool, usually due to geographical or societal limitations. There are undoubtedly other characteristics we haven't explored - various health issues, for example - that would underline differences. Chihuahuas and Great Danes have different genetic make ups, are clearly distinguishable, and have different health problems, for example, but they are both dogs. The number of genes that determine those differences is also probably very few. All races are humans - but it doesn't mean they are all the same. How many genes define the difference between male and female? One chromosome(unknown number of genes), by my count - but I wouldn't try to claim that just because there's only one chromosome difference that they really aren't different.
>>Racism was essentially developed as a justification for the horrendous exploitation of people of colour by white people: >>
Racism developed because people observed obvious differences between groups of people. They exploited people of color because they could. Whites - generally - were and are more developed in technologies than were the black races they encountered, and a technologically more advanced society will always dominate a less technologically advanced society.
>>treating people like animals can only be justified by positing that these people are sub-human, possibly even closer to animals than human beings.>>
No...treating people like animals can also be justified by a "might makes right" philosophy. War - in those days - yielded prisoners. Prisons as such didn't exist to any extent. One could kill the captives, release them only to engage in battle again, or use them to one's benefit as slaves. Slavery was common as long as war existed. It beats the type of killing that exists in Africa today - slavery could be considered a blessing. Where there's life, there's hope. Life in any form is always better than death.
The idea that the people were sub-human probably developed from observation of the primitiveness of their cultures. The Black of our modern societies cannot be compared to the enslaved Blacks of hundreds of years ago - the difference is the cultures in which they are raised, not the races themselves.
Regarding the Imus thing...
Personally, I think it's much ado about nothing - a tempest in a teapot. I don't understand his popularity, but there have always been people who were titillated by the socially unacceptable. I object to the power play by Sharpton and Jackson - I'd have told them to clean up their own house before they started examining mine - or Imus' in this case.
The US constitution guarantees "equal justice under the law". Obviously, the law doesn't come into play here, but that's the issue we're really discussing - whether one set of rules applies to one group of people, and another set of rules applies to a different group of people. For blacks to claim that there are different sets of rules is demanding special treatment - to which they're not entitled. They've pushed the victim thing pretty far - I think they're reaching the limits.
As for the girls - they should be told that comments made by Imus have nothing to do with them - and everything to do with him. Their own behavior and accomplishments define them - and his defines him. They should rise above such low-brow comments. Unfortunately, when people choose to sling mud, you either avoid the situation or expect to get muddy.
ProphetJoe:
"should anyone be offended if I screamed "You F**** N****!" at you in a public place? Would you be offended? Would blacks be offended? COULD whites be offended? "
That's a ridiculous scenario because there is no context in which this could occur: it's absurd to call a white person a "F**** N****". Try it: people would simply look at you non-plussed because you wouldn't make any sense at all. Very dumb example.
"that words DO have a meaning. They do not have contextual definitions as you imply."
I'm not talking about "contextual definitions", you twit. Words do have meaning, yes, and that meaning and what these words can impart depends very much on the context in which they are used. Most words even have multiple dictionary meanings. Ever hear of the expression "quote pulled out of context? Are you a reality denier?
Perhaps you believe G-d wrote all words down for once and for all, 6,000 years ago...
On liberalism: "I understand the "feel good" emotional nature of it [...]".
You're funny too, d'you know that? Do you realise the influence the social movements have had on society over the last three centuries? The Civil Rights movement? If it wasn't for liberally minded people Jim Crow style laws would still be enforced in most of the South of your country.
"What's more puzzling (to me) is that Gert appears to be a Brit, so I'm not sure why she is even interested in Don Imus..."
In what way, pray tell, did I misrepresent what you wrote, huh?. You're a literalist...
Suek:
You're a racist, plain and simple. It's a racist argument: "we we're more technologically and culturally advanced, these are the observed differences, so we could do what we did. Now we've educated them, they're much better". Might DOES NOT make right. Or do you feel the Nazis were right too?
Racist twaddle, nothing more. Very thinly disguised too with a "this is reality" kind of veneer. I give people like you generally a very wide berth; you'll be pleased to know. Suek, you suck...
Gert, I don't believe you OR suek to be racist, but let me say this: those who are always drawn to racial issues as their default on such matters probably are. I would also suggest that most people are racists in some form or other. It isn't really race per se', it's culture. Hitler? Racist. No argument. But people who are hypersensitive only to THEIR feelings being hurt rather than other people's may be racist.
I also think suek had an interesting point: I use the word "black" here and have often been called a racist because of it. We call caucasians "white", so why not "black"? Negro used to be the word to describe African Americans... but it is tied too closely to the word "nigger" and implications of the 1920-60's to make anyone really feel comfortable using it. The term "African American" is so obviously a word game.....aside from the fact that very few blacks are actually soley African-Americans, the rest of us don't insist on being called German-Americans or French-Americans. I never insist on being called a Polish American or Irish American. I'm an American. If you want to identify me further, I'm white or caucasian.... anything beyond that, buy me dinner and we'll talk.
Halle Berry refers to herself as African American, although she's 1/2 black and 1/2 white. The whole thing becomes a game of preference, not actual identity, one becomes more elevated than the other because of the hypersensitivity involved in the use of these terminologies. So in the end, those terms, made to make blacks feel a sense of pride about their heritage, actually promote racism and division.
Another notation about liberalism: don't they always tell us to turn the channel when we're offended by assaults on our religious and moral sensibilities? Yet they DEMAND that the channel be taken off the air. Hypocrites.
Bill Cosby to Blacks: Stop Blaming 'The White Man'
By Marc Morano, Senior Staff Writer
CNSNews.com
July 02, 2004
Chicago (CNSNews.com) - Bill Cosby pleaded with blacks to stop blaming the "white man" for their problems on Thursday, and he reiterated his harsh critique of the current state of African-American culture.
"It is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us, and it keeps a person frozen in their seat. It keeps you frozen in your hole that you are sitting in to point up and say, 'That's the reason why I am here.' We need to stop this," Cosby said in an address before Jesse Jackson's 33rd Annual Rainbow/PUSH Coalition conference in Chicago.
[ . . . ]
His message to black people who say he's exposing the "dirty laundry" of the black community was blunt.
"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day. It's cursing and calling each other 'Nigger' as they're walking up and down the street. They think they hip -- can't read, can't write -- 50 percent of them," he said.
'An accepted word'
Cosby stressed the importance of education and proper parenting.
"The more you invest in that child, the more you are not going to let some CD tell your child how to curse and how to say the word 'Nigger.' This is an accepted word. You are so hip with 'Nigger,' but you can't even spell it," an impassioned Cosby lamented
Whatever happened to 'Black is beautiful?' Well, it was replaced with 'Nigger, please,'" he said to laughter.
[ . . . ]
Cosby also took on the pop culture of music, movies and television.
"When you put on a record, and that record is yelling 'Nigger this' and 'Nigger that' and cursing all over the thing and you got your little six-year-old and seven-year-old sitting in the back seat of the car -- those children hear that. And I am telling you when you put it the CD on and then you get up and dance to it -- What are you saying to your children?" he asked.
[ . . . ]
"I am talking about profanity. I am talking about cursing at each other like it's something hip, like it's something that's right. I am talking about people calling each other a name that there are still -- if DNA goes to the Mississippi River-- you are going to find African blood in there, dead from being called Nigger and then hacking them," he added.
(Source)
Gert wrote:
Gert, here is the definition of "Nigger" according to FreeDictionary.com:
The fact that you believe my scenario to be a "very dumb example" only illustrates that you did not understand the definition of the word. The only commonality between the definitions is that it is used as a disparaging term. Specifically, you'll note that the final definition DOES NOT denote any ethnic or racial overtone. In fact, the example cited in the text (I omitted the examples for brevity) was: ""Gun owners are the new niggers . . . of society" -- John Aquilino.
Does this make me a reality denier? Perhaps, or perhaps I'm only denying your limited reality in that isolated hamlet you call home.
Furthermore, you said:
Umm, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, Gert, but both of the cases you cited (slavery in the South prior to the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement) were championed by the Republican Party. I don't know your level of understanding about American politics (and that's fine, I don't know the idiosyncrasies of your monarchy), but the Conservatives (typically Republicans) are for individual rights, smaller government and a level, equitable playing field for EVERYONE. By contrast, the Liberals believe in a big central government, redistribution of wealth (through taxation, primarily) and collective advancement of privileged groups, such as minorities, through artificial barriers. In other words, "everyone should be entitled to the same things, and if they are not, we'll redesign society to make it equal in our eyes". It is highly subjective, to say the least!
Case in point: look at Reverands Sharpton and Jackson. They are less about personal freedom and justice for all than they are about the publicity and corporate "donations" they receive. They are not outraged by the false accusations against the Duke Lacrosse players made by a black woman. You can bet if the roles were reversed (with a white woman accuser and 3 black men accused) they would be demanding the woman to be tried and convicted for making false statements. That's not the case with a black woman as the accuser. There is a double standard and they WANT it that way.
If there is equal access and equal opportunity (a conservative ideal) then people will succeed and fail based on the merits of their actions. If there are artificial "programs" enacted and administered by a central authority, then we have a modern day equivalent of a kingdom, where the ruling elite decide what is best for the common peasants. We escaped that model, let's not return to it.
Hi amy, sorry to have been away. On the topic of Imus --
What an over-reaction to a man who makes his living with shocking statements -- why? The politically correct lobby has power - but, they use that power unfairly -- there is not real equality.
In reality can people blame others for being offended by name calling, and where does the line in sand as to what is offensive begin and end? What if religious words offend someone -- We saw attempts to ban Merry Christmas and change it to season's greetings. When does a person's right to not be offended crash into my right to not be offended by denying me the use of the term "Merry Chritmas." Of such is the slippery slope of the PC lobby.
Imus made a mistake. He apologized. He was fired. Let us examine the price this man has paid for the use of one wrong phrase and compare it to price drug dealers pay for their crime of selling drugs that kill and destory people. . . Let is examine the price Imus has paid for one wrong phrase and compare that price to the price paid by vile mouth rappers who have not only spewed filth disguised as music, but have also broken the law and get only a hand-slap.
There is something wrong in America and the over-reaction to the Imus incident shows the reality the comon sense is being over taken by nonsense.
Amy -- Yes! We have all been called worse! The idea that one statement made by one person can cripple a person permenently is pschobabble gone hog wild!
Back when this story broke in April of last year, I wrote THIS ENTRY about Jesse Jackson's immediate defense of the stripper "even if her story proves false." Odd he would say it that way even back that.
Here are a few comments our friend Cobra made at that time:
AND
I have to wonder how credible Cobra's sources, the court documents, are in light of this miscarriage of justice.
In all the discussions, there is one issue that has never been addressed, Here we had a dynamite athletic team who should have had enough self worth that something a crass boor should have had no effect whatsoever on them. You see, I don't understand how they even became aware of the words except through Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, Jr, who then demoted them to a very public victim status that shouldn't have been. Either I missed something (which is likely or that's how it happened). Those girls allowed that to happen to them and have lost something precious in the bargain. While they got their 15 minutes of fame they lost some part of their self-worth... that concerns me more than all the racist words uttered by all the racists in the world.
These two Black Leaders cared more about creating more victims of discrimination than letting the team handle it their own way... if they were even aware of it before Sharpton and Jackson began their rants and considering there weren't only black girls on the team. No matter what else you are in life, if you wear the victim patch your self worth will always be determined by others and you will never see the real you except through their eyes. It's no way to live.
Gert, being British, there is something you may not realize because you won't have had experience of it. Black people who are sucessful conservatives are treated the same as white people. They refuse the victim patch and are vilified for it. I'm sorta on break today so I'll give examples next time I post.
After Imus, DeLay Calls for Rosie to Be Fired...Rosie made many slures against Asians. So when will the firing begin?
>>"we(meaning white society) we're(sic. were) more technologically and culturally advanced,>>
So...you're saying that whites who sailed to South Africa were _not_ more technologically or culturally advanced than the black tribes of South Africa that they took/bought/traded for slaves? (speaking about the period of 1750-1850 here). Would you offer some evidence for that statement?
>>these are the observed differences,>>
Are there not? You yourself mentioned "skin pigmentation, eye and hair colour". Are you now saying that these don't exist? or that people _didn't_ observe them?
>> Now we've educated them, they're much better".>>
The judgement of "better" is yours. I didn't say that. I said that blacks raised in white cultures today are more technologically advanced. They are also more educated. "Better" is a judgement I wouldn't choose to make. They're better suited to succeed in our culture today. You and I probably wouldn't have cut it in theirs.
>> Might DOES NOT make right. Or do you feel the Nazis were right too?>>
Well, together we (the Brits and the Americans) beat the Nazis. I guess that makes _us_ right!
I understand your resistance to the expression - morally, of course, you're correct. In reality though, might makes the right, whether it's right or not. That's a fact. Had the Nazis won, certainly we'd have a different perspective on their philosophy. Fortunately they didn't.
Sorry you think I "suck". Such is life.
By the way, Gert...how do you define "racism"?
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/1272174/
Obama: Rappers Using Same Language As Embattled Radio Host Imus
By JIM DAVENPORT
Associated Press Writer
The bascklash begins...
Guys, even for the sake of making a point, let's stop it with the f-bombs. No profanity.
Amy,
You’ve made my day. Even when I'm NOWHERE near a computer, you care enough about my comments to post them a year later. I guess ol' Cobra still has IMPACT!
Thanks! :-)
Let's talk about this topic.
Don Imus, just like all of us, is entitled to free speech. He is entitled to say anything he likes.
Don Imus is NOT entitled to say anything he likes on corporate owned and sponsored, FCC regulated airwaves.
Freedom OF speech is not freedom from the consequences of that speech. Imus and his crew found that out in no uncertain terms this week.
Now, before some of my right winged friends in here start screaming, "double-standard", let's look at the situation and compare it to the post from last year. On its face, Imus and his crews statements were reprehensible, and they were not only broadcast on his CBS Radio affiliates, but on MSNBC, a national cable NEWS outlet. They were reprehensible statements NOT about an elected official, celebrity, journalist or even (as if it makes it better) an anonymous exotic dancer accusing lacrosse players of rape.
These were abominable, derogatory statements about a group of stellar female student athletes who achieved more than anybody could have imagined before the season started. These are young ladies with high grades and aspirations who are EVERYTHING that most parents would want their daughters to be. They did NOTHING to deserve those racist sexist comments, and you know what?
Imus got caught. Imus got caught because technology allows EVERYBODY now to see and hear for THEMSELVES what somebody actually said or did, and unlike the "good ol' days", there are actually women and minorities in management positions in corporations that can actually respond and hold upper level management to account for these transgressions.
As much as conservatives and the angry old men on Fox News want to blame Imus' firing on Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, the truth is...
Imus fired Imus. Once the sponsors didn't want to associate Imus with their brand, they bailed. Once the sponsors bailed, MSNBC suspended him for two weeks. When MSNBC news staffers like Al Roker and other minorities and women voiced protest over Imus, and more sponsored jumped ship, Imus became a liability to the news channel, and was canned. Once MSNBC canned Imus, CBS was left alone on an island in an untennable position, and followed suit.
The MARKET decided this issue.
Oh, and there is precedent. Michael Savage, one of the folks I quoted from last year once had a show on MSNBC, too…
>>>”Michael Savage, the outrageous talk show host who was fired from MSNBC on Monday for telling a caller to "get AIDS and die," fought back Tuesday, saying he was reacting to a crank caller.
Savage, the most successful radio host ever to emerge from the Bay Area, said his controversial comments were aimed only at the caller, and that he thought he was off the air when he said them. He also blasted MSNBC for criticizing him.
"I'm sitting in front of the camera. I have no control over that,"
Savage said. "In radio, I have total control. . . . He got really vile with me . . . I meant to insult him personally, not all people with AIDS."
On his Web site, www.michaelsavage.com, Savage apologized to gays, and for causing anyone pain with his comments.
The apology is not enough to save his show. MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines refused to comment on Savage's response and would only reiterate an earlier statement that Savage "made an extremely inappropriate remark. The decision to cancel the program was not a difficult one."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/07/09/MN158024.DTL
I'm SOOOOO glad that you reposted my statements from last year, Amy.
>>>"Number 3, I, nor I highly doubt anyone posting here was at that party or an eyewitness. Let the system go forward, and let the truth be revealed, wherever that truth may lead. Fair enough?
--Cobra
April 18, 2006 | Cobra
How on earth, given the result of this story, can you have a problem with what I wrote back then? Heck, I was the voice of REASON.
I still am, IMHO. :-) That's why you let me post here.
Now, some of these strange new posters here...I don't know.
Prophet Joe and Suet, language and who gets to use it, is about power.
And it's not just derogatory language regarding black people. Remember this little episode?
>>>" Palm Beach, FL, February 9, 1996...The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed outrage that Michael Jackson has reinstated anti-Semitic lyrics into his song "They Don't Care About Us" for its video release. Mr. Jackson had assured ADL last June that he would re-record the song to eliminate the offensive lyrics.
"We were outraged to see Michael Jackson perform the song with the anti-Semitic lyrics on a nationally syndicated television show," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "We had taken Mr. Jackson at his word that the anti-Semitic lyrics were deleted from the song."
After ADL protested the lyrics, "Jew me, Sue me" and "Kick me, Kike me," in the song which was released as part of the album HIStory, Mr. Jackson wrote to Mr. Foxman on June 22 saying, "...I have chosen to re-record it ["They Don't Care About Me"], deleting the words found offensive." In the letter to ADL, Mr. Jackson said, "I acknowledge that I seriously offended some people which was never my intention and for that I am deeply sorry... I have come to understand over the past days that these words are considered anti-Semitic...I sincerely hope that anyone offended by my words will forgive me for not recognizing this sooner."
"We accepted your apology, and we assumed that the video would conform with our understanding. Apparently we were wrong...," Mr. Foxman wrote to Mr. Jackson “
http://www.adl.org/presrele/ASUS_12/2662_12.asp
In this case, the album had been TAKEN OFF THE SHELVES of stores. And Michael Jackson is CERTAINLY not anybody you’d consider a “gansta rapper.” Are you telling me there was a "double standard?"
Suet,
I’ll get to some of your arguments about white male domination and technology soon. This post is long enough already.
--Cobra
Gert, you’re a British male? I thought it was short for Gertrude. Sorry.
Gert, there is no way to credibly assert that the word “nigger” is positive or affectionate no matter who uses it. If it’s soooooo offensive to blacks when white people use it, they shouldn’t use it.
1) if these friends of yours wish to be respected, they cannot use the word nigger without accepting that white people will, too. As Dr. Phil would say, “You teach people how to treat you.” And “You cannot demand respect, but you can command respect.” Your “do as I say, not as I do” think just doesn’t work.
2) My family is not confused; you’re the one who has to create these great mazes to justify your point. Its’ either wrong or it’s not. You want to be the preacher telling people it’s wrong to commit adultery while your mistress is sitting in the back pew. It’s total hypocrisy and everyone but you seems to know it, but then people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton need some white males to carry their water. I’m sure they appreciate it.
3) My daughter’s observation is a very intelligent one. She’s a straight A student. It isn’t until people become adults that they make loop holes and exceptions to allow for the justification of wrong behavior just as you’re doing.
4) Hypocrisy causes confusion; the truth doesn’t.
5) “Negro” comes from the Latin “niger” which means black.
6) Remember that while white men bought slaves, blacks in Africa sold them. Both are culpable.
Cobra, I'm glad I could help, but I do hope your self-esteem isn't as fragile as those girls on the Rutgers basketball team.
Nah Amy- their self-esteme is only fragile when they smell a big fat lawsuit against a rich company and someone who can be their scapegoat and shoulder all the wieght of the never ending racial divide that some in the black comunity just can't let drop- ever. When they're called those names by white folk in online chatrooms, at school, or where-ever, they simply brush it off and concider the source- but when a rich white person makes the comment, then they're 'scarred for life' lol. The Jews have endured horrendous things both said about them and done to them, yet all of a sudden a coupel of ill spoken words by an ill man is simply too much to bear for these girls? Gimme a break
Amy:
"1) if these friends of yours wish to be respected, they cannot use the word nigger without accepting that white people will, too. As Dr. Phil would say, “You teach people how to treat you.” And “You cannot demand respect, but you can command respect.” Your “do as I say, not as I do” think just doesn’t work."
Yes, they can because it depends on the context. Words and terms do not have an absolute meaning as you and ProphetJoe seem to believe. Also what black people call themselves is really none of my business.
"2) My family is not confused; you’re the one who has to create these great mazes to justify your point. Its’ either wrong or it’s not. You want to be the preacher telling people it’s wrong to commit adultery while your mistress is sitting in the back pew. It’s total hypocrisy and everyone but you seems to know it, but then people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton need some white males to carry their water. I’m sure they appreciate it."
Everyone knows it? You mean three arch-conservative bloggers on this post?
"3) My daughter’s observation is a very intelligent one. She’s a straight A student. It isn’t until people become adults that they make loop holes and exceptions to allow for the justification of wrong behaviour just as you’re doing."
See response to 1). I'm sure your daughter is very intelligent, but that doesn't make her right at every turn.
"4) Hypocrisy causes confusion; the truth doesn’t."
Another "moral absolute". I could very easily point out hypocrisy in many of your posts. The truth is hard to establish but the "moral majority" is convinced they have it in the palm of their hand (not).
"5) “Negro” comes from the Latin “niger” which means black."
Your point being? "Nigger" is slang derived from Negro and quickly became a derogatory, racist epithet for people of colour. The etymology of the word isn't that important but it shows in which contexts it is unacceptable to use.
"6) Remember that while white men bought slaves, blacks in Africa sold them. Both are culpable."
Typical deflection and feeble attempt at diminishing. We have exactly the same claptrap going on in Britain regarding the commemoration of the abolition of slavery and the point raised by many that we should formally apologise and perhaps even pay reparations to black communities, as a token of good will.
The counter arguments (against apology) are as follows:
- Black people and Arabs were involved too!
Sure, but that doesn't take anything away from our culpability at all. Are two armed robbers less guilty because there are two of them?
- We abolished it! We deserve credit for that!
Tosh. We started it. Is the thief who gives his loot back innocent?
Also, without the slave revolts, most notably the Haitian one, slavery would still have been in place today: the oppressed shake off the yoke of oppression by means of force. That Wilbeforce was a decent man, is something no one denies but to use this as an example of white nobility towards people of colour is simply poppycock and quite offensive IMHO. Here's what one British black person thinks of our commemoration and the accompanying blockbuster movie "Amazing Grace".
The history of the post-slavery era is similar: without a struggle, Black Africans would still be toiling under Jim Crow style laws, see also South Africa and Britain. They, quite literally, had to fight for their rights. We would do well to remember that, rather than trivialise it.
Higher up you wrote:
"Gert, I don't believe you OR suek to be racist, but let me say this: those who are always drawn to racial issues as their default on such matters probably are."
That's quite offensive to me. In debating terms this is the equivalent of saying "he who smelled it first must be the one who let rip [flatulence]".
Let me tell you why I find this offensive. I'm sensitive to "race" issues because in the framework of the commemorations I've been taking part a several debates only to find, somewhat to my astonishment, how much racism is really still out and about and how little white people are willing to atone for our collective sins. It's similar to digging a little deeper on homophobia or anti-Semitism: suddenly you hit on all these closet cases...
As regards my name, don't worry about it: it's not a common name in the Anglo-Saxon world. No offence was taken whatsoever.
Gert,
You're right on point, my friend. You see, what I'm taking from my conservative friends posting here is white entitlement.
For SOME reason, many here apparently feel that their white skin gives them the privilege to make derogatory slurs and verbal assaults on non-whites without anyone dare speaking out against it.
Maybe back in the Dixie South '50's you could get away with that.
Those days are over, right wingers. If you don't believe me, I invite you come up to MY neighborhood, stand up in the middle of downtown, and scream those racial epithets and slurs you are apparently so EAGER to type here anonymously in the safety of your living rooms.
Come on down. I've got a nice soap box for you to stand on.
My bet is, you don't have the guts. You don't really want freedom of speech. You want freedom FROM THE CONSEQUENCES of speech.
Amy, case in point--You were on Montel Williams Show, syndicated nationally. You're not a big fan of Montel, as your posts indicated. You had plenty to say about race on that show, according to the clip.
You had plenty of opportunity to use that particular racial slur, and you chose not to.
Why didn't you use it?
--Cobra
Not too impressed with Gert and Cobra so far, same convoluted cantankerism...
This ignorance:
"For SOME reason, many here apparently feel that their white skin gives them the privilege to make derogatory slurs and verbal assaults on non-whites without anyone dare speaking out against it."
Such bravado. Such withering, impotent bravado.
Why is it anything more complex than a donut robs liberals of their ability to think past the frosting? The left in this country has been prostituting black suffering for political gain for fifty years, hasn't that community suffered enough? The black culture in the inner city harbors values that destroy lives and make poverty a generational legacy, just ask them - they’ll tell you. When whites practice these values we have little compassion, rather we tell them to dissect the choices they made and take responsibility for their lives. But blacks? No, we must patronize them and declare that it is the white man who is responsible. Liberals do no favors when they constantly point the finger at the white man for every ill that afflicts the black man - it's shows that folks like Gert and Cobra care less about blacks and more about power over blacks by appealing to the 'harry hidden hand of white machination."
And that's why simpletons like Cobra cling to caricatures about conservatives - that they are all bigots and cowards - it is a reflection of what he see in himself (liberals are famous to assigning their own malice onto others). So we endure his rhetorical prancing knowing that such a small mind finds the hero a farce and the coward a vision of compassion. It guts any credibility he’s stolen from others and only serves to prove that there are still many on the left willing to profit from the misery of a captive community. You can pin all the shiny medals you want on your chest Cob, but it takes more than staring menacingly at your computer screen.
Black Americans deserve better - they deserve a higher standard of living, but until their community leaders, the media and politicians start demanding more from them many of them will continue to blame things they cannot control for the destruction in their lives. If Gert and Cobra really cared about the dignity of Blacks, derogatory slurs said by anyone would be shamed out of existence - there's nothing empowering in calling your women bitches and whores, your people niggers and gangstas. But you won't hear that from libs because they are paralyzed by guilt and eager to exploit it at the same time. It's a sickening display, and with friends like that...who needs enemies?
>>many here apparently feel that their white skin gives them the privilege to make derogatory slurs and verbal assaults on non-whites without anyone dare speaking out against it.>>
Cite please. I think this is a false statement.
>>You had plenty of opportunity to use that particular racial slur, and you chose not to.
Why didn't you use it?>>
Because she was brought up to recognize that such terms are not used in polite company, and she's one of the "polite company".
Here's a little more on the very Reverend Al Sharpton, civil rights activist:
1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steven Pagones, a young prosecutor, as one of the perpetrators of the alleged abduction and rape. Pagones is wholly innocent — the crime never occurred — but Sharpton taunts him: "If we're lying, sue us, so we can [ . . . ] prove you did it."
Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his slander or apologize for his role in the affair.
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section runs over Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and anti-semitic riots erupt. Becoming the de-facto representative for the Cato family, Sharpton pours gasoline on the fire. Sharpton's contribution to civic peace was statements like, "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house." At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" — code for Jews — with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands.
He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace," instigating what would be later known as the Crown Heights Riot. A visiting rabbinical student from Australia, Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, found himself surrounded by the angry mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and is stabbed to death.
Sharpton never took responsibility for instigating the riot or the death of Yankel Rosenbaum.
1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy's Fashion Mart, Freddy's Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store.
A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. "We will not stand by," he warns malignantly, "and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business."
Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy's are spat on and cursed as "traitors" and "Uncle Toms." Some protesters shout, "Burn down the Jew store!" and simulate striking a match. "We're going to see that this cracker suffers," says Sharpton's colleague, Morris Powell.
On December 8, an armed protesters bursts into Freddy's, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno. Till today, Sharpton denies responsibility for inflaming or provoking the incident.
Cobra- NOONE here takes their white skin as justification for derpgatory remarks- We DO however feel that black racism such as was displayed by the black comunity is unnaceptable. Their double standards aRE what is at isue here! Slavery ended years ago- this has NOTHING to do with slavery- none of the folks spoken about have endured it or ever will, yet they are playing the victim non the less.
Imus is a moron, and his statements are reprehensible, but what Jesse and Al have done is equally as dispicable, and they have proven themselves to be the clowns of their community who are keeping the community slaves of self-imposed victimization, andthey will extract a pound of flesh from everyone for ills committed long ago. This is reverse racism plain and simple- a deep seated loathing of the white comunity that they will not let die! It's tiem to move on- you're either an American or you're a self made victim who loathes Americans- We have vile people in this country- get over it, that regretable segment of people will never vanish because idiocy is unfortunately too hard to overcome for some folks like Imus- Either concider the source from whence in comes, brush it off, show yourself to be the bigger persons, or remain a victim for the rest of your lives while you keep past ills of racism alive and flourishing so that people like Jesse and Al can kjeep suing the crap out of people, and furthing the divide they pretend to be trying to stop.. We feel bad for folks who have to endure Imus' crap- but for crying out loud, the constant whining and reverse hypocritical racism is quickly dimming our sympathies, and won't in the end garner support but rather apathy to your cause. I guess you can't see that cobra. Thel ure of victimhood I guess is too powerful?
Evrviglnt:
"No, we must patronize them and declare that it is the white man who is responsible. Liberals do no favors when they constantly point the finger at the white man for every ill that afflicts the black man - it's shows that folks like Gert and Cobra care less about blacks and more about power over blacks by appealing to the 'harry hidden hand of white machination."
Well, well, I thought I'd heard it all when it comes to conservative-on-liberal slurs in the US but apparently the quote above also passes as intelligent debate on the conservative side.
Nobody is constantly pointing "the finger at the white man for every ill that afflicts the black man" but the tremendous disadvantage of being black in the past (and up to the very recent past) cannot simply be shrugged away or forgotten about.
"folks like Gert and Cobra care less about blacks and more about power over blacks [...]"
You're a conspiracy nut. So I care about racism and that makes me a control freak? Can you hear yourself think? I'm not appealing to anyone. I care about racial discrimination, that's all.
Gert, “it depends on the context.” You are advocating the right context for the word “nigger”. I thought there was no right context? I thought the word was so egregious that many suggest it should be criminalized along with other sorts of profanity and obscenity? I wouldn’t lose any sleep over the word being publicly discouraged (by ALL) at best and outlawed at worst.
Actually, Gert, I get between 1000-3000 readers a day, depending on what’s driving the news. A lot more people are reading your comments than you realize.
My point about my daughter is, really, that “out of the mouths of babes….” . For one who likes to refer to G-d, I’d think that’d mean something to you. Even children and young people know it’s totally hypocritical for a black person to say scream bloody murder if some people use the word “nigger” and not when others do.
What ever happened to judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin? I understand you aren’t American but the principles of Martin Luther King Jr. are spot on. What you’re advocating, or trying to drag into the sphere of socially explainable behavior, is bad conduct based on skin color. Why not tell your friends that, hey, “nigger” confuses a lot of white people as to why it’s bad for them to use while you say it’s a term of endearment.
Being in the military means being in a constant multicultural environment. Not only are we surrounded by every possible nationality imaginable, here at Fort Leavenworth we are always in contact with foreign nationals who are trained here. Although this has been true of every base we’ve been at, there’s a bigger concentration here of foreign nationals. A simple run to the commissary is met with French, German, Pakistani, Turkish, Iraqi, Sudanese soldiers….. not to mention the many mixed families… German, Ethiopian, Panamanian, etc., wives..
That said, I cannot think of a single person under this wide umbrella whom I have met who would think, understanding the context of American history, that “nigger” would be appropriate for blacks to use on each other while crying “offense!” when someone uses it.
You’re just barking up the wrong tree with this one, Gert.
Imus is white… I can call him anything I want by your standard.
My point about #5, origin of “negro”, was a response to a comment of yours further up in which you described the origin as something else. I don’t have time to scroll up and find it now.
I doubt you could point to hypocrisy in my posts, but you’re welcomed to try. I walk the talk.
I’m not absolving white people from the slavery issue. To the contrary; but to ignore that blacks also are complicit in their fate is ignorant. They sold out their own people. Perhaps they should pay retribution as well. You cannot convince anyone my point is to absolve whites of wrong doing. That’s totally false, although I know it makes you feel better about an argument you are clearly losing on this weak founded “term of endearment” argument.
By the way, haven’t seen “Amazing Grace” but I hope to take my kids to it soon. I understand it’s powerful and a great movie.
Okay then, I’ll retract it inasmuch as it refers to you, but I do believe Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racist and I had them in mind when I used that as an indicator. I met Jesse Jackson last year and there’s a tainted feel about him.
The premise you’re promoting is totally counterproductive to race relations. To say blacks can use a derogatory, offensive and inflammatory racial slur on each other but they have the prerogative to be morally outraged when anyone else uses it is simply hypocritical by its very nature. Even a child can see that. You’re doing nothing to help either side here. At least I’m trying to advocate a higher standard of respect.
ben, I know Sharpton has quite a history and I appreciate you listing those examples. I think they pretty much back up my point.
I know Cosby has taken a lot of heat from the black community as well, which is a shame.
Cobra, I believe Imus should have been gone long ago. He has no class or tact and adds nothing to the hearing. The same is true of Howard Stern, but apparently there is a market for both.
That is the most ignorant thing I think I’ve ever seen you write, Cobra, and that’s saying a lot. The OPPOSITE is true. I’m advocating the cessation of racial slurs and black entitlement. The only thing I, as a white person, feel entitled to is a little common sense from the left, but apparently that’s unreasonable to expect. You guys are the kings of double standards and double talk.
I can’t believe you’re serious. I thought you were more intellegent and genuine than that, Cobra. I’m really disappointed.
I’m not even going to respond to those ridiculous statements. Everything I’ve said so far has been in one ear and out the other.
and Cobra, what do you think of the disgusting lyrics in a lot of rap? Or Chris Rock?
>>I care about racial discrimination, that's all.>>
Please define your terms. What do you consider to be "racial discrimination"? What do you consider to be "racism"?
Personally, I find it to be racial discrimination to say that one race can say certain words with impunity and another race cannot. So again ... what do _YOU_ consider to be racial discrimination?
"6) Remember that while white men bought slaves, blacks in Africa sold them. Both are culpable."
Typical deflection and feeble attempt at diminishing. We have exactly the same claptrap going on in Britain regarding the commemoration of the abolition of slavery and the point raised by many that we should formally apologise and perhaps even pay reparations to black communities, as a token of good will."
Will you include all the Scotch and Irish who were shipped to the colonies as slaves as well? I wish people would remember that slavery is not a "black" thing. It became a "black" thing when the Dutch figured out they were cheaper and more profitable. Another thing you need to remember is that slavery isn't abolished worldwide. http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061202a.htm
All this kind of stuff is going to do is create anger... lots of anger...anger begets more anger and then leads to hate. I would hazard there is more racism today than there ever was in the U.S. and other countries before and directly after the Civil War here. I would hazard there's more now, than there was 20 years ago. Something else people need to remember, racism is not one way. As long as you think of it as one way, nothing will ever change.
When my son was still in high school, there was a joint talent contest among a group of high schools. There was this young black girl singing a country song. She was booed and hissed and called "cracker" and other names all through her perfomance. She had an absolutely wonderful voice. It was black kids in the audience hissing, booing, and name calling. She should have won but didn't. She didn't even place third because she was booed and hissed throughout her performance. Nothing was done to the kids' rude behavior because they were black.That wonderfully talented girl on the stage became a victim of racism but not of the type which she could take to court and win a case.
Conservatives blacks are called traitors to their race. Why?
If all whites are judged by what some do when it comes to race, why aren't all blacks, or orientals? Or the bushmen in Africa who don't fit the well-known categories? Or the aborigines in Australia.I get judged all the time for things I've never done and wouldn't dream of doing, just by fact of being white. Just to show how much I know about racist words, I always thought ho's was an abbreviation of homeboys or homegirls... that was a definition given to me some years ago by a black girl who was one of my clients.
So when you think about race and racism you can't think in one direction or even two directions. It fans out in all directions and if we walk around with a racist sensor we'll find it fairly easily because the sensors are flawed.
"Nobody is constantly pointing "the finger at the white man for every ill that afflicts the black man" but the tremendous disadvantage of being black in the past (and up to the very recent past) cannot simply be shrugged away or forgotten about."
It's still a disadvantage to being black today, and it will for a long time to come as long as we continue to appropriate black misery to white racism and its legacy - which by your comments is exactly what you do. That's why it's hard to take you seriously, you're all platitudes and little substance, and that's OK if don't really care about the plight of blacks. Those of us who do are tired of seeing lives wasted because they've been built upon the foundation of liberal paternalism and patronization. What price must blacks pay so you can keep using them to highlight white oppression?
Last week on a construction site in Marina Del Rey I was talking to a black guy named Steve. We both work hard for our money, and we started talking about our family and our roles in them. He said that his girlfriend sleeps all day, her 24 year old son from an earlier relationship just got out of jail for drug dealing, her daughter has a child at 16 (her son also has a child with his 17 year old girlfriend) and is on welfare. Neither of them graduated from high school and both of them see the white power structure as the reason the future is hopeless. They see life as a battle, as victims, as a struggle between the faceless evil of racism singling them out for misery. So when he offered to get her son a job at the site, working for him - the response was "I ain't digging ditches for no one." Steve's thought is that her children haven't been 'trained' for life - no discipline, skewed priorities and a perspective that guts initiative. In the game of life, they're fat and slow. This isn't peculiar to blacks, it's peculiar to all who fail at taking advantage of the opportunities around them.
Take a drive through the inner city - I see it every day. The bars on their windows aren't there to keep the white man out. Black men aren't abandoning their children because the white man told them to. Drugs, gangs, crime and ignorance are ingredients for disaster and hopelessness - but your only answer is the legacy of slavery and Don Imus. Steve would tell you 'thanks but no thanks.' He's tired of your backhanded equivications and snarky elitism - there are too many success stories of blacks in America to resign them to poverty and illegitimacy born of historical oppression.
True equality is holding the same standards for blacks and whites. You hold a lower standard for blacks, and expect better from whites - that makes you typically racist, and an obstacle to progress.
Evrviglnt:
"You hold a lower standard for blacks, and expect better from whites - that makes you typically racist, and an obstacle to progress."
Me, hold a lower standard for blacks??? You don't know me from a bar of soap. Read my blog. Nowhere do I do anything like that. You're simply prejudiced because I'm liberal and have now formed an opinion of me that's complete fantasy.
I'm not even in favour of affirmative action, I'm completely in favour of equality but that, contrary to what you believe, is something we haven't achieved yet. 250 years of racist attitudes towards black people can't be eradicated in one or two generations. There are quite a lot of survivors of extreme racial prejudice, even considerable violence, alive today, both in the US and Britain (and elsewhere, of course).
Get that head out of your arse (sorry, anus) and have a look around you...
>>I'm completely in favour of equality but that, contrary to what you believe, is something we haven't achieved yet.>>
How do you propose that equality be achieved? When do you know it _has_ been achieved?
Found this interesting, by the way.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117641076468168180-7y8vXi_eMhvWtEoPiK397ZUoIBc_20070513.html
Cobra said:
"Gert,
You're right on point, my friend. You see, what I'm taking from my conservative friends posting here is white entitlement.
For SOME reason, many here apparently feel that their white skin gives them the privilege to make derogatory slurs and verbal assaults on non-whites without anyone dare speaking out against it."
Just for clarification, Cobra, it was Gert -- the white guy from Yorkshire -- who says he is able to use the N-word with his black friends and no one gets offended. His point is that words have meaning, but that they are dependent upon the context the user intends. Amy and I have been arguing the point that the word is a derogatory slur. Period.
Amy: sorry for dropping the F-bomb! I got carried away trying to make my point. I don't use that word (nor the N-word) in my "real" life, so there's certainly no need for me to use it on your blog! Again, my apologies (and to anyone else who may have been offended).
Gert, I think Evrviglnt is referring to the low standard you allow for blacks, finding it acceptable that they call each other "niggers". It has nothing to do with YOUR opinion of how YOU view blacks, but the evaluation by how you find it permissve to justify their using such offensive language to call each other this.
Everyone take a good look at what a creep Kevron is. I'll delete his comments later... for now, you can see that his Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is getting out of hand, that he's foul and is a cyber rapist who doesn't take "no" or "leave me alone" for an answer.