So far on this blog I've limited myself to national governmental politics. I always have an opinion on social commentary, but seldom do I participate in it. Frankly I just don't care as much about it. Nine times out of ten the complaints are sparked by the media, who then fan the flames by reporting non stop 24 hour coverage of the event that they probably started to begin with. It almost makes you wonder if they aren't all working together just to spike ratings, and if they pull names out of a jar to see who will say something shocking next week just so they have something to write about.
I heard about what Don Imus said on CNN, and I had assumed it would die soon after. If we can let Ann Coulter get away with the things she says, and if Chris Rock and Ludacris can sell millions of records and sell out concert halls, surely Imus' gaffe would be talked about, and then we'd move on to the next thing. But this was not to be. The media, playing judge, jury, and executioner decided Imus was ripe for sacrifice on the national media altar. He called the women's Rutgers basketball team "nappy headed hoes." Now, that's certainly a very rude, offensive remark, but it is it something we should fire him over? No, I don't think it is, and here's why:
We have no uniformity in America on what is right and what is wrong for a person to say. Now I have to wonder, because comedians say vile, offensive things all the time, and not only do we give them a pass for it, we pay them to say it. Hip Hop stars are the obvious icons of this sort of language and behavior. They've created an entire culture around them that degrades women into sex objects, oh, and they are stupid, and hard to please, and gold diggers. Hip Hop music isn't just social commentary on a culture already in place, it is the foundational seeds and subsequent water that planted and helped make flourish the very culture they are commenting on. When you turn yourself into a pop culture icon, and then glorify certain behaviors, you'll find millions of willing applicants to emulate your behavior. So many of us throw money at these people, rewarding them for their behavior, but the rest of us just shake our heads as if to say "what are you going to do?" Debra Dickerson can get on The Colbert Report and say that Barack Obama is less of a black person than her because he wasn't descended from Western sub-Saharan black slaves. Now to me, calling someone a nappy headed ho is rude, and ignorant. But calling someone racially inferior just because of where he was born and who his parents were is above and beyond the pale. Instead of punishment, Dickerson is a national bestseller, appears on tv talkshows, and just last week wrote a small opinion piece in TIME magazine. And you don't have to look much further than Chris Rock to find out that making fun of white men is the easiest and most acceptable form of racial and gender inequality in the country. I'm not saying that others forms don't happen, they do all the time, and they are always lambasted. Making fun of a white man? Well, that's just so damned funny!
Well let's assume that those people don't really believe the things they say. They say them for shock value, to sell records, to push books, to drive those ratings up. By not punishing people who say bad things just because they said them, we're saying that words like that have no power in and of themselves. Because it doesn't matter what you are saying really, what really matters is who you are and what you believe. Chris Rock has a free pass, he's black. Margaret Cho has a free pass, she's a woman, and Asian, and overweight to boot! Ann Coulter is, well, I don't know why she gets away with what she says, we'll just label her as the Anti-Christ, no one wants to mess with that. Enter Don Imus. He's an old white man, poster child for a racially insensitive and biased past, something America wants desperately to sweep under the rug. So why are we punishing him and not them? Is it because Imus really is a racist? If so, then what we've done is established that people should be punished for what they believe, not for what they actually say. On the offensive scale, Imus rates maybe a three or four compared to things other major national figures in the media and entertainment world say. But we don't take them at face value. We're punishing Imus for appearing to think that way. I wonder when it was we decided that the best way to fight racism was remove racists from public sight. If Imus truly is a racist, firing him isn't going to make racism go away, it's just sweeping it under the rug, and it's censoring speech and it's censoring thought, and it's just plain stupid.
Pioneers of the civil rights era laid some serious groundwork for their children, and I see a lot of people today seemingly intent on screwing it up. On paper, the races are now equal. The rest of the work should be done by the passage of time. With every passing generation, people become less and less focused on race, and more focused on people for who they are, not what they look like. My own grandfather makes racially insensitive comments from time to time, and gender comments as well. My parents rarely if ever make such comments. My brother does jokingly from time to time, but I know he's one of the most accepting, open individuals I've ever known. The passage of time naturally changes social norms, and we become more accepting as time goes on.
But hey, let's not let that stop us from firing Don Imus for his stupid gaffe, let's put him up for execution in the court of public opinion. Do you think we just made any progress in the fight to end racism by firing him? Well we didn't. The man has millions of regular listeners, and thus one could reasonably state that obviously someone agrees with him. Taking away the voice of Imus, and by proxy, the voice of his listeners harms the process of moving forward, it doesn't help it. In the national dialogue on acceptance and race relations, the media, CBS and hecklers around the country just silenced a voice. Any time in America we actively try to silence someone's voice, I don't think we've taken a step backwards, I think we've fallen down and failed entirely.
I should say that in the end, firing him would make sense if all his sponsors pulled their names from the show, and employing him was no longer profitable. Sponsors have a duty to their companies, they aren't there to support the media, they are there to use the media to sell their wares. So I can see how, in the face of the numerous cancellations from sponsors, firing Imus would make perfect business sense. I however am speaking of a different sense.
It's certainly convenient for us to wrap up all our mixed feelings on race relations, shove them onto Imus and then flush him down the toilet. I'll bet a lot of people felt really satisfied when Imus was fired, like they accomplished something. Sorry to say guys, you accomplished nothing. Firing Imus, in the face of what goes on in this country, is like giving a haircut to a gunshot victim. It might pretty the situation up a little bit, but there's still a festering wound sucking air.
5 comments:
Very interesting read and entertaining too.
With Debra Dickerson though; did she really say that Obama was a 'lesser' black person? I can definitely see how that could be inferred, but if I remember that episode of Colbert correctly, she was merely making a distinction between African Americans and other black people. It's a terribly inopportune time to do it, but she's only pointing out that Obama's heritage is not one of slavery, which is true.
So when Obama goes to Alabama and tells the black population there that he identifies with them; he's not being dishonest, but he isn't starting quite on the same page either, and from Dickerson's perspective, might actually be profiting off of black people's history of persecution. Not to say that he or his family haven't encountered discrimination of course.
Also, +1 brownie point for labelling Ann Coulter as the Anti-Christ.
Dickerson said he's not a real "brother" but rather an "adopted brother."
The kinds of distinctions she's trying to make are pointless. There is no difference between African Americans and "other black people" when they are all from Africa to begin with. Dickerson was talking about "African African Americans." What the hell is that? Frankly it doesn't matter if Obama's great great grandparents were slaves or if Dickerson's were, because neither of them were there.
And for that matter, no one here who would treat a black person differently cares if he is from East Africa, South Africa, or Madagascar. Black is black in America. The distinction she is TRYING to make is insulting to blacks AND whites. It suggests that he is lesser black man, who hasn't shared their experiences and isn't really one of the team. And it insults white people by saying we'd only ever support a lesser black man, and we're all too racist to vote for a "real" black man.
It's insulting in every sense of the word.
Nice entry. I agreed with most of it, as well as with most of your conclusions. One thing though.
I'm still of the opinion that firing Imus is not a bad thing. It's not really a free speech/sweeping under the table issue for me, but if Imus worked for me, and I gave him a possible audience of millions of people, and he made those remarks, I would have fired him. It would reflect badly on me if I didn't. In the end, it wasn't the press, or the people, who fired Imus. It was the company he worked for. I agree that the firing doesn't accomplish much, if anything, in the long run, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
Fair enough.
It's their decision, but had the Media said nothing about it, CBS never would have made their decision just out of social conscience.
Given the public opinion, I think making the choice to fire him was probably very good business sense, they don't need the negative press that would come with it, but let's not forget who drums up that press to begin with. He was sacrificed, for the good of the company, to satisfy a blood thirsty crowd.
But, I'm totally willing to understand the other point of view on this one, it's a tricky subject. CBS should never be forced to give voice to someone they don't agree with, and firing him because they don't want to be associated with him is perfectly fair. The problem comes with what we think we accomplish when we fire him, and the difference between that and reality. CBS' decision is fine, but the elements of the media and regular citizens who are patting themselves on the back for fighting racism didn't do much of anything.
Post a Comment