“nappy-headed ho’sâ€
Comments
-
Boygabriel wrote: [quote=erikka]I'm not sure that firing a conservative radio personality will fix racism or poor treatment of women.
I mean, obviously not. But you can't allow openly racist people to be on national radio and receive advertising money from companies that you and I (or someone you know) use.
Imus is free to be as racist as he wants to be, just not on national radio.
And people fearing a wave of overzealous political correctness need to tone down their panic. Our society is fully capable of firing a racist radio host while not being over-whelmed with PC-ness run wild.
Lemme get this straight. Sharpton calls a Jewish Landlord in Harlem a "white interloper", and then denies saying it. When he is confronted with a video tape proving it, he asks what's wrong with calling him that. He never apologizes. He falsely accuses Steven Pagones of raping Tawana Brawley, is found liable of defamation and takes two years to pay. He never apologizes.
Jesse Jackson calls NYC "hymietown". He apologizes and is forgiven.
Both men have TV and/or radio shows, so clearly not everyone who makes a bigoted statement is banned from the airwaves. Both are supposedly "men of god" who believe in the bible which teaches forgiveness. Imus has repeatedly apologized yet they refuse to forgive him and called for him to lose his job.
Imus is crude. He calls his environmentalist wife "the green ho". He slams Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. He admitted that he crossed the line this time and has repeatedly apologized without hiding behind the excuse of booze, or running to rehab. You may not like him, but after 30 years on the air, losing his job at the urging of two of the country's great hypocrites seems disproportionate to the crime. -
joncane wrote: [quote=Boygabriel][quote=erikka]I'm not sure that firing a conservative radio personality will fix racism or poor treatment of women.
I mean, obviously not. But you can't allow openly racist people to be on national radio and receive advertising money from companies that you and I (or someone you know) use.
Imus is free to be as racist as he wants to be, just not on national radio.
And people fearing a wave of overzealous political correctness need to tone down their panic. Our society is fully capable of firing a racist radio host while not being over-whelmed with PC-ness run wild.
Lemme get this straight. Sharpton calls a Jewish Landlord in Harlem a "white interloper", and then denies saying it. When he is confronted with a video tape proving it, he asks what's wrong with calling him that. He never apologizes. He falsely accuses Steven Pagones of raping Tawana Brawley, is found liable of defamation and takes two years to pay. He never apologizes.
Jesse Jackson calls NYC "hymietown". He apologizes and is forgiven.
Both men have TV and/or radio shows, so clearly not everyone who makes a bigoted statement is banned from the airwaves. Both are supposedly "men of god" who believe in the bible which teaches forgiveness. Imus has repeatedly apologized yet they refuse to forgive him and called for him to lose his job.
Imus is crude. He calls his environmentalist wife "the green ho". He slams Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. He admitted that he crossed the line this time and has repeatedly apologized without hiding behind the excuse of booze, or running to rehab. You may not like him, but after 30 years on the air, losing his job at the urging of two of the country's great hypocrites seems disproportionate to the crime.
well put. -
Don't misplace the cause of this "perfect storm." And don't give credit to those who want to take but may not in fact be responsible for it.
All credit (or blame) goes to the Internet world where this story spread like wild fire in the days before straight up media types and the Revs decided to jump on board.
All hail to Media Matters DOT org and NOW among others who pushed this story endlessly on the 'net. And to Bruce Gordon formerly of the NAACP who sits on the CBS Board. And finally, it was still the power of money that was the determinant factor - if the sponsors didn't pull out it would still be business as usual.
http://mediamatters.org/
http://www.now.org/ -
I am conflicted about the comparisons to Sharpton & Jackson.
One the one hand, I'm happy to compare Imus to Sharpton & Jackson. On the other hand I feel it is a bit of a red herring in discussing Don Imus, a man who has been openly racist and bigoted for decades. A man who uses the word 'nigger' in regular conversation.
Using epithets the way Sharpton & Jackson did is deplorable. Furthermore, misogyny exists across pop culture, (from rap to rock), and activists such as Sharpton & Jackson have been addressing these issues for years. But are we talking about the state of black leadership today? Or are we talking about Don Imus?
What Imus said may have been a 'joke', but that's taking a very narrow view of an offense which has much deeper significance both in American culture and in light of Imus' known history. If we want to take Sharpton & Jackson to task that is fine with me, provided we do a real analysis of their long careers (instead of relaying one anecdote each). Same with music lyrics or any other potentially derogatory speech in the public sphere. However none of that precludes us from condemning Imus for what he's said. And it certainly doesn't mean that it was wrong for Imus to lose his show.
A deep, detailed debate of black leadership today or misogyny in pop culture would be a very worthwhile enterprise. But during this latest controversy, many, many people in the media have been side-stepping the complexities of the comparisons and merely alluding the perceived hypocrisy of Jackson or Sharpton as some kind of defacto defense which exonerates Imus' of his offensive transgressions. -
joncane wrote: Imus is crude. He calls his environmentalist wife "the green ho". He slams Jews, Catholics, Muslims, etc. He admitted that he crossed the line this time and has repeatedly apologized without hiding behind the excuse of booze, or running to rehab.
That's because there's nothing for him to hide behind. He is blatant racist even if he tells public lies to the contrary.joncane wrote: You may not like him...
I "don't like" Bill O'Reilly. What I feel towards an open bigot like Imus is almost beyond description on a message board. To put him in the same boat as Jackson or Sharpton is a joke.joncane wrote: ...after 30 years on the air, losing his job at the urging of two of the country's great hypocrites seems disproportionate to the crime.
You are showing a severe lack of appreciation for two flawed men who have been at the forefront of the civil rights movements for decades (one moreso than the other). If you want to criticize these two men, fine. But it will take something a little more thought out than a shallow insult for this to be a serious discussion.
By implying that Jackson & Sharpton are largely responsible for the outrage you belittle the opinions of a large swath of the American public. This is poor form in a debate that could otherwise be very engaging.
We could discuss the long histories of these two men but something tells me you're not that interested in this debate. -
"It's a completely different scenario. (Rappers) are not talking about no collegiate basketball girls who have made it to the next level in education and sports. We're talking about hoes that's in the 'hood that ain't doing shit, that's trying to get a nigga for his money. These are two separate things. First of all, we ain't no old-ass white men that sit up on MSNBC going hard on black girls. We are rappers that have these songs coming from our minds and our souls that are relevant to what we feel. I will not let them muthafuckas say we are in the same league as him. Kick him off the air forever."
- Snoop (Doggy Dogg) dismissing comparisons between sexist hip hop lyrics and the recent sexist/racially charged remarks made by Don Imus
The money people still make Snoop go round though. -
pssst. Snoop- you're not helping the situation. Thanks.
lol -
pitu wrote: [quote=Idlewild]I feel a purge of political correctness a comin'.
gawd, I don't
Black women are not in this world to be degraded. The pc/not pc thing is a diversion from real issues of how people are treated.
Anyone who heard the "nappy headed ho...jigaboo" comment should at least acknowledge that the tone was malicious by all parties involved. Imus and his crew were called on the carpet and indeed payed the price because other folks said that if this is what a media outlet thinks is acceptable then we have no desire to do business with companies who do business with you. Everyone involved on both sides used their right of freedom of speech. With that comes my fear of the left wing succeeding what the right wing has done these past few years and that's suppression of speech. We will wind up with thought police. Law makers will use this as an opportunity to jail people who use words such as "mic, wop, nigger, spic, etc," jokingly or not because it is offensive to some one. I call bullshit on this. This will be 1984 at its worse.
With all due respect to Pitu, being called an epithet, especially when you're included in a group and not as an individual is not degrading or being scarred for life (as one of the players put it). It may be hurt somewhat it may even be insulting. Being scarred for life and degraded, for any woman or man for that matter is being raped or tortured in places like Darfur because you are the wrong religion or color, it's having a cross burned in front of your home or being profiled here in the States. Everyone gets called names and everyone has called someone names. I have been called names since I can remember, racial and otherwise. I do not consider myself degraded or scarred. Imus' rant is tame compared to what else goes on in this world.
People have the right to use epithets. Jokingly or not. At the same time if you get punched out by someone who is righteously offended then that is your fault. When I was 8 and in summer camp I called my bunkmate a nigger. He kicked my ass. When I was in junior high school I would constantly get in to fights and use my opponents skin color or heritage as a verbal weapon. Sometimes I'd win the fight other times I'd lose.
When I was in college I made fun of my best friend's skin color. He also kicked my ass. The point is I wasn't suspended, I wasn't arrested, I was replied to in a person to person way. Sharpton and Jackson did the person to person thing by saying that they would react by protesting and boycotting. Like I say though to make epithets illegal is plain stupid. You cannot legislate how a person feels. And people have the right to epithets and one also has the right to react to epithets. -
sure, and people have the right to react to epithets by asking what kind of company would want to be associated with those using them. that's what happened here. i don't see it as a free speech issue; imus was working for a company that decided that his language was not appropriate and therefore fired him. the government was not involved.
also, the whole "well, this isn't bad because worse things have happened" line is silly. -
If you're replying to me then you haven't read what I said. I said Jackson and Sharpton had Imus fired, they rightfully reacted, not the government. I also said that I FEAR that the laws will be passed that will get government involved in suppressing freedom of speech even more . And I didn't say Imus' epithets were not bad. I said it wasn't life scarring or degrading. Insults, especially when referred to in a group sense ,and I stand by this, shouldn't make for single or mass depression or scarring. Anger yes.
-
Boygabriel wrote:
BG:
You are showing a severe lack of appreciation for two flawed men who have been at the forefront of the civil rights movements for decades (one moreso than the other). If you want to criticize these two men, fine. But it will take something a little more thought out than a shallow insult for this to be a serious discussion.
By implying that Jackson & Sharpton are largely responsible for the outrage you belittle the opinions of a large swath of the American public. This is poor form in a debate that could otherwise be very engaging.
We could discuss the long histories of these two men but something tells me you're not that interested in this debate.
First of all, you know *nothing* about me, so please don't suggest that you know what i'm interested in. You don't know my race, my family, my history, or anything else, so apparently only the fact that we disagree about this situation leads you to believe that you know me. If you want to disagree, that's fine, but please slow your roll before you decide that you are more righteous or interested in race relations than I.
I can quite easily point more issues with Sharpton and Jackson,and i am more than happy to discuss their histories with you. Be careful what you wish for. I saw no need to catalog their histories in greater depth, but simply wanted to show the hypocrisy of their history of racist comments and their selective forgiveness. Furthermore, for you to suggest that Sharpton and Jackson were not responsible in large part for the firing is ridiculous and/or naive. Clearly they pressured CBS and NBC, who are even bigger hypocrites for making all that money off of him for all these years and now acting outraged. I am not belittling anyone by pointing out that Sharpton and Jackson wield a lot of power. I am *not* suggesting that they speak for all of black america. In fact it is you who is painting with the broad brush if you're suggesting that all of black america dislikes imus or favored his firing. -
Did anyone see Harvey Fierstein's Op-Ed piece in the NYT?
Definitely worth a read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/opinion/13fierstein.html -
Harvey has a point.
-
Subject: Don Imus, did the punishment fit the crime?
I have been a listener of Don Imus for several years. His humor is often sophmoric and crosses the line. But it's universal--he has insulted EVERYONE over the years.
He has also played the Martin Luther King speech, in its entirety, on his birthday for the last several years over the objection of the radio station. He has a cattle ranch for kids with cancer (and cancer does not discriminate), he has advocated funding to discover the cause of autism in children (again, no discrimination here), raised money for SIDS and helped build a state-of-the-art rehabilitation facility for veterans. Oh, he was also instrumental in getting Congress to increase the death benefit to the families of soldiers killed in war.
Now, what he said was rude. I was listening the morning he said it and thought, damn do he really go there? He and his wife have a line of non-toxic cleaning products called, "Greening the Cleaning." He has called his WIFE "the Green Ho." So on this morning, it wasn't the "ho" comment that caught my attention, it was the "nappy-headed" comment.
Called on the carpet, yes he should have been. He apologized, to no less than Al Sharpton who has had his issues in the past, lest we all forget. Nevertheless, this could have been a wonderful opportunity for discussing who can't say what and why. If any one would have been open for listening to this it was Imus. That door was closed when Al Sharpton continued to call for his firing, fanning the flames of his own racism.
If the Rutger's basketball team can forgive, who are we to continue to condemn.
Also keep in mind that both Revs Jackson and Sharpton are men of the bible which teaches forgiveness and tolerance. Where is theirs?
Let the punishment fit the crime. A fine and suspension would have been appropriate in conjunction with his apologies. If he did it again, knowing the hurt he caused, then fire him.
Beyond that, where is the constutionally supported right to free speech? Is it free as long as we agree with it? Where is the ACLU on this? They support the right of the KKK to march in Skokie (I don't think I spelled that correctly please forgive me). Why are they not supporting one's right to free speech? The Dixie Chicks slam Bush and they're blacklisted and folks stop buying the records? Is this McCarthyism anew?
Again, I agree he was out of line. He apologied. I don't believe he's a racist (and unlike many others I actually listened to him over the last ten years). Let's discuss why it was rude, let's have a conversation. This over reaction just facilitates a climate of political correctness because people don't want to deal with the reaction. Political correctness is much more deadly and insidious than overt racism--at least you know where you stand with true racists. -
Boygabriel wrote: You are showing a severe lack of appreciation for two flawed men who have been at the forefront of the civil rights movements for decades (one moreso than the other). If you want to criticize these two men, fine. But it will take something a little more thought out than a shallow insult for this to be a serious discussion.
Uh oh Gabriel, looks like Sunkissed is an African-American who hates Sharpton and Jackson and likes Imus. Is she too "showing a severe lack of appreciation" for Sharpton and Jackson, and "belittling a large swath of the American public" by speaking her mind and stepping it out of line? (Yes I know her, no i didn't put her up to posting, not it's not me - check the IP.) I love it when "open minded" liberals who preach tolerance dismiss anyone who has a view that differs from theirs. When I voice my opinion that Imus should have been suspended and forgiven, you suggest that *I'm* the one who's not interested in a serious discussion on race relations. Charming.
By implying that Jackson & Sharpton are largely responsible for the outrage you belittle the opinions of a large swath of the American public. This is poor form in a debate that could otherwise be very engaging. -
Subject: Re: Don Imus, did the punishment fit the crime?
Sunkissed wrote: Beyond that, where is the constutionally supported right to free speech? Is it free as long as we agree with it? Where is the ACLU on this? They support the right of the KKK to march in Skokie (I don't think I spelled that correctly please forgive me). Why are they not supporting one's right to free speech? The Dixie Chicks slam Bush and they're blacklisted and folks stop buying the records? Is this McCarthyism anew?
You are misunderstanding the right to free speech. All it guarantees is that the *government* will not interfere with it. Imus hasn't been arrested, and he wasn't fired due to government pressure. He was fired because his sponsers pulled their money.
This is freedom of speech in action. His sponsers are free to decided what their products will endorse. The case with the Dixie Chicks is the same - they're free to say whatever they want at their concerts, and Americans are free to stop buying their albums. To call that censorship is to say freedom of speech means freedom from the consequences of public opinion, and that's just ludicrous. The whole point of free speech is to allow people to hear controversial opinions and decide for themselves what they think. If they don't like something, they protest by making it socially and/or financially difficult to support that opinion. I think there should be social consequences for neo-Nazis. I just don't think there should be legal ones.
I don't mean to pick on you, but it really bugs me when people cite the Dixie Chicks as an example of a loss of free speech. Just imagine what a Chinese or Saudi musician would face if they criticized their government at a concert. There's no comparison. -
Boygabriel wrote: ...during this latest controversy, many, many people in the media have been side-stepping the complexities of the comparisons and merely alluding the perceived hypocrisy of Jackson or Sharpton as some kind of defacto defense which exonerates Imus' of his offensive transgressions.
OK, let's clarify: Imus' infamous comment stands or falls on its own and has NOTHING to do with Jackson or Sharpton. I don't think anyone here has made the argument that Imus should be given a free pass because the Revs--especially Sharpton--have acted in a hypocritical manner. What we're talking about is how Sharpton, for instance, has been guilty of similar behavior while failing to apologize or even acknowledge it and not paid the price. Meanwhile, he comes at Imus like a rabid dog and not like a man of God who is supposed to preach forgiveness. That hypocrisy is not perceived it's real. (For the record, I wouldn't have forgiven Imus either but I ain't no preacher.)
What most people miss about all of this is how the intended recipients of Imus' comments were WAY MORE dignified in their handling of the situation than ANYONE who rose to their defense. And how they were sucker punched twice: first by Imus and then by those who made this about their own agenda, practically pushing aside these young ladies so they could bring an AK-47 to a fist fight. -
joncane wrote: First of all, you know *nothing* about me, so please don't suggest that you know what i'm interested in.
From your original post, it didn't seem like you were interested in a detailed comparison in this thread of the major players in this controversy. If I was wrong, I apologize.joncane wrote: You don't know my race, my family, my history, or anything else, so apparently only the fact that we disagree about this situation leads you to believe that you know me. If you want to disagree, that's fine, but please slow your roll before you decide that you are more righteous or interested in race relations than I.
whoa. slow down. where did this all come from? b/c I used the word "interested"? B/c I said your post (note: not YOU) showed a lack of appreciation for the long career histories of Jackson & Sharpton? I did not mean to attack you, I meant to critique your post. If I didn't make this clear I apologize.
I never claimed to know you. I disagree with your posts but I never made it personal. I'm not sure what I said to make you respond so defensively.joncane wrote: I can quite easily point more issues with Sharpton and Jackson,and i am more than happy to discuss their histories with you. Be careful what you wish for. I saw no need to catalog their histories in greater depth, but simply wanted to show the hypocrisy of their history of racist comments and their selective forgiveness.
Summarizing their histories, or at least offering more than one anecdote each would have been a much stronger point to make, IMO. I didn't mean to say you don't know their histories. What I meant to say was, if we're going to critique Jackson & Sharpton, then this discussion would be better served with a little more background info.
Earlier you said, "Both men have TV and/or radio shows, so clearly not everyone who makes a bigoted statement is banned from the airwaves." Imus wasn't fired b/c he made one bigoted statement. He was fired (in theory) because this happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. He's been a bigot for decades and he finally couldn't outrun his history. Jackson & Sharpton have totally different track records so a comparison of the bigoted statements of these three men needs to extend beyond whether or not they should all still have radio shows based on one bigoted comment.joncane wrote: Furthermore, for you to suggest that Sharpton and Jackson were not responsible in large part for the firing is ridiculous and/or naive. Clearly they pressured CBS and NBC, who are even bigger hypocrites for making all that money off of him for all these years and now acting outraged...
I never suggested that. You said he lost "his job at the urging of two of the country's great hypocrites..." All I was saying is that there is more to the outrage at Imus than what was directly inspired by Jackson & Sharpton.joncane wrote: ...I am not belittling anyone by pointing out that Sharpton and Jackson wield a lot of power. I am *not* suggesting that they speak for all of black america. In fact it is you who is painting with the broad brush if you're suggesting that all of black america dislikes imus or favored his firing.
I am not suggesting this at all. I have no idea where you got this from.
Earlier you said:joncane wrote: Both are supposedly "men of god" who believe in the bible which teaches forgiveness. Imus has repeatedly apologized yet they refuse to forgive him and called for him to lose his job.
Imus has been a bigot, started a controversy, and "apologized" for it repeatedly over the decades. If this was his first transgression one could entertain the thought of some kind of 'second chance' forgiveness. But this is who he his. There's no 'forgiving' who he is. He made his (image) bed and now he must lie in it. He said what he wanted to say and his advertisers responded how they wanted to respond. The people (corporate CEOs) have spoken. -
joncane wrote: [quote=Boygabriel] You are showing a severe lack of appreciation for two flawed men who have been at the forefront of the civil rights movements for decades (one moreso than the other). If you want to criticize these two men, fine. But it will take something a little more thought out than a shallow insult for this to be a serious discussion.
Uh oh Gabriel, looks like Sunkissed is an African-American who hates Sharpton and Jackson and likes Imus. Is she too "showing a severe lack of appreciation" for Sharpton and Jackson, and "belittling a large swath of the American public" by speaking her mind and stepping it out of line? (Yes I know her, no i didn't put her up to posting, not it's not me - check the IP.) I love it when "open minded" liberals who preach tolerance dismiss anyone who has a view that differs from theirs. When I voice my opinion that Imus should have been suspended and forgiven, you suggest that *I'm* the one who's not interested in a serious discussion on race relations. Charming.
By implying that Jackson & Sharpton are largely responsible for the outrage you belittle the opinions of a large swath of the American public. This is poor form in a debate that could otherwise be very engaging.
Classy post. -
Speaking of lying in the beds we make, let's not forget this regrettable incident when the wingnuts try the same tactic to successfully curtail PBS or NPR--or some other fave liberal vehicle. Let's not be shocked or appalled, please.
-
Subject: Re: Don Imus, did the punishment fit the crime?
Sunkissed wrote: ...I don't believe he's a racist (and unlike many others I actually listened to him over the last ten years)...
Because you are a regular listener maybe you can help me understand but I don't see how he can have said the things Michael Wilbon relayed in his WP column and not be racist. Who hires someone "to tell nigger jokes" and isn't racist? Who calls a black White House correspondent a "cleaning lady" and isn't racist?Sunkissed wrote: ...This over reaction just facilitates a climate of political correctness because people don't want to deal with the reaction. Political correctness is much more deadly and insidious than overt racism--at least you know where you stand with true racists.
I too am weary of over-zealous political correctness, but I do not think the outrage at Imus and the advertisers pulling out of his show is a case of that. Imus thrived on air for decades. That speaks to the balance our society generally strikes between free speech and political correctness.
For all the fears of first amendment restrictions, I think we still live in a tolerant society and I think in this case Imus just went too far. He picked the wrong people to make fun of (100% innocent college athletes) and he paid the price. Society rejected him, and because of his history I think people were willing to put the nail in the coffin of his radio show on CBS. -
MichaelKeys wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]...during this latest controversy, many, many people in the media have been side-stepping the complexities of the comparisons and merely alluding the perceived hypocrisy of Jackson or Sharpton as some kind of defacto defense which exonerates Imus' of his offensive transgressions.
OK, let's clarify: Imus' infamous comment stands or falls on its own and has NOTHING to do with Jackson or Sharpton. I don't think anyone here has made the argument that Imus should be given a free pass because the Revs--especially Sharpton--have acted in a hypocritical manner. What we're talking about is how Sharpton, for instance, has been guilty of similar behavior while failing to apologize or even acknowledge it and not paid the price. Meanwhile, he comes at Imus like a rabid dog and not like a man of God who is supposed to preach forgiveness. That hypocrisy is not perceived it's real. (For the record, I wouldn't have forgiven Imus either but I ain't no preacher.)
But why do so many discussions of Imus' comments end up calling out Jackson & Sharpton as hypocrites? Are they hypocrites? Sure. But really, how relevant is that to discussing what happened to Imus?
To me it definitely seems worth mentioning. But it does not seem relevant enough that it should be coming up as frequently as it has been all over the place.MichaelKeys wrote: What most people miss about all of this is how the intended recipients of Imus' comments were WAY MORE dignified in their handling of the situation than ANYONE who rose to their defense. And how they were sucker punched twice: first by Imus and then by those who made this about their own agenda, practically pushing aside these young ladies so they could bring an AK-47 to a fist fight.
I mean, I guess. But they sure seem more hurt by the first sucker punch, not the second. -
Boygabriel wrote:
I chose not to catalog those issues, because ultimately, they don't change what Imus said. But since you asked, and since you're giving credit for positive things that these men have done (and i'm not suggesting that Sharpton & Jackson have never done good things, nor am i suggesting that they don't fill an important role), allow me to point out a couple of things.
Summarizing their histories, or at least offering more than one anecdote each would have been a much stronger point to make, IMO. I didn't mean to say you don't know their histories. What I meant to say was, if we're going to critique Jackson & Sharpton, then this discussion would be better served with a little more background info.
Earlier you said, "Both men have TV and/or radio shows, so clearly not everyone who makes a bigoted statement is banned from the airwaves." Imus wasn't fired b/c he made one bigoted statement. He was fired (in theory) because this happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. He's been a bigot for decades and he finally couldn't outrun his history. Jackson & Sharpton have totally different track records so a comparison of the bigoted statements of these three men needs to extend beyond whether or not they should all still have radio shows based on one bigoted comment.
First of all, Imus has contributed millions of his own dollars toward the charities he supports and/or runs. Contrast this with Sharpton who has aligned himself with predatory lending practices and a company that markets itself to low income African Americans and used his supporters' money to pay his legal bills. Or with Jackson who used tax-exempt funds to take care of his mistress whom he impregnated.
As for Sharpton, here's a partial list of reasons why i don't feel that he is the appropriate spokesman to condemn Imus, or to refuse him forgiveness.
The Tawana Brawley hoax, - he singled out Steve Pagones, for committing a crime that apparently never happened. Pagones sued, and won a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to
apologize, and his followers paid the $345k
At the Gavin Cato funeral, he railed against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands.
Then there was the Freddy's incident where he called the jewish owner a "white interloper". (I'm not going to hold him responsible for the protesters who set the place on fire and who shot the staff and more than i am going to blame Imus for the morons who are writing hate mail to the lovely young ladies from Rutgers, who have handled themselves admirably.)
And there was the aforementioned episode when he was the spokesman for LoanMax, an automobile title loan company. Loanmax has been accused of predatory lending, and for marketing them to primarily poor, urban and African American audiences. The ads featuring Sharpton were run in predominantly African American markets. Borrowers put up the title to their car as collateral for loans of up to value of the car. If the loans were not paid on time, LoanMax repossessed the car regardless of how large or small the loan was. -
Boygabriel wrote: But why do so many discussions of Imus' comments end up calling out Jackson & Sharpton as hypocrites? Are they hypocrites? Sure. But really, how relevant is that to discussing what happened to Imus?
You're kidding, right? Please. By reading your posts in the past--and present--I can tell you are too smart to actually and truly believe their hipocrisy is irrelevant, so pardon me for calling you/your statement disingenuous.
And to answer your question, I will defer to joncane's most recent itimized post above. Sums it up pretty nicely, I believe. -
I just love how conversations about race, class, ethnicity, etc become dominated by limp-haired, pigment-impaired ho's on these boards.
Jeez - give it a rest. -
Livetotravel wrote: I just love how conversations about race, class, ethnicity, etc become dominated by limp-haired, pigment-impaired ho's on these boards.
Of the few people who've posted in this thread that I've actually met, I know of at least 2 that don't fit your description. Quit making assumptions about people- it only makes you look stupid. If you don't like this thread, then don't read it.
Jeez - give it a rest. -
Oh, I'm duly chastized - btw, the phrase "dominated by" assumes majority control, it does not assume "all."
-
MichaelKeys wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]But why do so many discussions of Imus' comments end up calling out Jackson & Sharpton as hypocrites? Are they hypocrites? Sure. But really, how relevant is that to discussing what happened to Imus?
You're kidding, right? Please. By reading your posts in the past--and present--I can tell you are too smart to actually and truly believe their hipocrisy is irrelevant, so pardon me for calling you/your statement disingenuous.
And to answer your question, I will defer to joncane's most recent itimized post above. Sums it up pretty nicely, I believe.
c'mon man. I addressed that in the paragraph immediately following the one you quoted. I didn't say they were irrelevant. I specifically said, "To me it definitely seems worth mentioning."
But I do feel a disproportionate amount of attention in these debates (here, on my other message board, in op-ed pieces, in a large email discussion I'm currently in the middle of) are devoted to noting Sharpton's hypocrisy.
Many people (perhaps not you) seem to be moving on to Sharpton before they've truly hashed out their opinions of what Imus did and how his sponsors reacted.
Again, is Sharpton's hypocrisy relevant? Yes. Is it worthwhile to look at Sharpton's history, especially compared to Imus'? Absolutely. But why have so many of these conversations ended up as a debate about Sharpton? I think you agree with me when I say that Sharpton's guilt does not exonerate or excuse Imus' behavior, so why do I find myself talking about Sharpton as much as I talk about Imus? -
joncane wrote: [quote=Boygabriel]
I chose not to catalog those issues, because ultimately, they don't change what Imus said. But since you asked, and since you're giving credit for positive things that these men have done (and i'm not suggesting that Sharpton & Jackson have never done good things, nor am i suggesting that they don't fill an important role), allow me to point out a couple of things.
Summarizing their histories, or at least offering more than one anecdote each would have been a much stronger point to make, IMO. I didn't mean to say you don't know their histories. What I meant to say was, if we're going to critique Jackson & Sharpton, then this discussion would be better served with a little more background info.
Earlier you said, "Both men have TV and/or radio shows, so clearly not everyone who makes a bigoted statement is banned from the airwaves." Imus wasn't fired b/c he made one bigoted statement. He was fired (in theory) because this happened to be the straw that broke the camel's back. He's been a bigot for decades and he finally couldn't outrun his history. Jackson & Sharpton have totally different track records so a comparison of the bigoted statements of these three men needs to extend beyond whether or not they should all still have radio shows based on one bigoted comment.
First of all, Imus has contributed millions of his own dollars toward the charities he supports and/or runs. Contrast this with Sharpton who has aligned himself with predatory lending practices and a company that markets itself to low income African Americans and used his supporters' money to pay his legal bills. Or with Jackson who used tax-exempt funds to take care of his mistress whom he impregnated.
As for Sharpton, here's a partial list of reasons why i don't feel that he is the appropriate spokesman to condemn Imus, or to refuse him forgiveness.
The Tawana Brawley hoax, - he singled out Steve Pagones, for committing a crime that apparently never happened. Pagones sued, and won a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to
apologize, and his followers paid the $345k
At the Gavin Cato funeral, he railed against the "diamond merchants" -- code for Jews -- with "the blood of innocent babies" on their hands.
Then there was the Freddy's incident where he called the jewish owner a "white interloper". (I'm not going to hold him responsible for the protesters who set the place on fire and who shot the staff and more than i am going to blame Imus for the morons who are writing hate mail to the lovely young ladies from Rutgers, who have handled themselves admirably.)
And there was the aforementioned episode when he was the spokesman for LoanMax, an automobile title loan company. Loanmax has been accused of predatory lending, and for marketing them to primarily poor, urban and African American audiences. The ads featuring Sharpton were run in predominantly African American markets. Borrowers put up the title to their car as collateral for loans of up to value of the car. If the loans were not paid on time, LoanMax repossessed the car regardless of how large or small the loan was.
Thank you for this, it helped educate me on Sharpton and to understand you better. -
Boygabriel wrote:
You're very welcome. As i mentioned before, (and as you referenced in your previous post), i didn't want to distract the focus from the incident itself, which is why i initially didn't post in such detail. As a fan of Imus and one who does not think he is a bad person or a racist, I was angry with him for crossing the line, and do not mean for discussions on Sharpton & Jackson, as well as the use of such language by rappers, comedians, etc. to remove the blame from him.
Thank you for this, it helped educate me on Sharpton and to understand you better.
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds