"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me."
That was a limerick my parents taught me as a 5 - year -old youth of color (then referred to as Negro), about to enter the first grade in 1946. My father instructed me to ignore anyone who, in passing, referred to me by the racial epithet - Nigger. If however, he said, should they continue to follow you exhibiting the same behavior, I was to turn on them with all the fury at my command. Why this approach? Well he said, if they say something nasty to you in passing, why invest a minute of you life allowing them the satisfaction of a angry verbal response; that's a minute you won't ever get back. But if they choose to follow you while exhibiting the same behavior, that constitutes an invasion of your life - and you have the right and obligation to retaliate in response. When you're finished with them or they're finished with you, whatever the case, go on with your life.
The Editor
The Chain of Critical Events
"That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that...."
Comment about Rutgers' University women's basketball players, made by MSNBC / CBS talk Show Host, Don Imus, on air on April 5, 2007
MSNBC drops the Imus Simulcast on April 11, 2007
Duke University Lacrosse Team cleared of rape charges and the case is dropped on April 11, 2007
CBS fires Don Imus from his radio show on April 12, 2007
Don Imus' Should Not Have Been Fired
I can't think of anyone, with the sole exception of a member of the Ku Klux Klan, who would even attempt to deny that the racial remarks Talk-Radio personality Don Imus made in reference to the Rutgers Women's basket ball team, though humorous in intent, was anything but reprehensible. That's a given even Don Imus sadly admits to. However, in the light of the issue of 'free speech' as defined by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, that was his right to do so - even if he had sincerely meant it - which he didn't. On this point there can be no dispute.
If however there is any good to come from this incident, it is that the preverbal 'can of worms' that long ago should have been opened and dealt with - has now exploded into a burning question that must be answered. Just who is allowed to make a racial comment or to employ race in a humorous context?
There are many in the Black Community who firmly believes 'only' Black people have the right to make such comments. On such individual is the highly respected television personality, Oprah Winfrey. Early in the career of comedian, Chris Rock, he performed a comedy skit on her show in which he used the racial term - Nigger. After it was over and Winfrey had interviewed him, a young White woman asked the following question during a question and answer session: "Why is it alright for him to use that term while performing, but not for a White performer to do the same?
I've viewed many of Winfrey's shows and, to my recollection, have never seen such an angry, nasty expression on her face as that she had when responding to that woman's question. As best I can remember, it went something like the following: "Black people have suffered slavery and prejudice in American society for over a century, and can feel a pain that White people didn't and can't. Therefore, it is justified for them, and them alone, to use that expression should they so choose."
Of course, I don't agree with her for in this instance she was clearly wrong .A racially degrading term is wrong no matter who employs it - regardless of the venue (comedic entertainment) or the racial or cultural credentials of the user.
Also, for the record, I have two other well founded gripes about the Don Imus controversy which are: (1) The rules for resolution of the issues raised and, most important, (2) who makes up those rules - with special attention paid to who should "not" have a hand in establishing the protocol..
The New Black Plague: Al Sharpton - Jesse Jackson
Without surprise and to the utter dismay of all that is sane and logical, rapidly appearing on the scene, as usual, the Reverend Jesse Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton inject their 'racial politics' into the frey - with acute emphasis on the Sharpton front. No pun intended, but the appearance of these two individuals at the scene of a racial problem is like the Black Plague showing up in your neighborhood. If a Black man, gun or knife in hand, is shot in the commission of a robbery or the rape of a woman, these two show up to question the validity of the shooting - before the perpetrator's body has time to hit the pavement. The last thing the Imus/Rutgers controversy needs are two such Black Community firebrands to stoke the flames of a racial altercation requiring clear, cool heads.
Rev. Jesse Jackson once had a good deal of community, societal and media credibility at his disposal. in the early 1960's. His active and sometimes dangerous association with the Freedom Movement of Dr. Martin Luther King earned him well-deserved praise from both the progressive Black and White communities. And in the 1970's he admirably led the push in the Black Community toward education for the young. "Don't burn, baby burn"" he urged Black youth as the fires of racial discontent burned down their neighborhoods. Instead he extolled, "What you have to do is learn, baby learn!"
However, it all seemed to end for him as a credible force, for and in the Black Community, at the end of his second furtive presidential run in 1988; during which he referred to New York City as "Hymie Town" in reference to its high Jewish population. From there it all seems to have been downhill and, for a while, he seemed to have virtually dropped off the end of the earth. But it would appear that the emergence of the Rev. Al Sharpton as an increasingly powerful force has revitalized his standing within the Black Community. So in response he appears to have changed his tact in compliance to the new opportunity. Now tagging along on Sharpton's coat-tails, he seems content to let Sharpton lead the way to every racially charged altercation or situation with a can of gasoline while he, Jackson, simply carries the matches.
Like it or not within the Black Community, Rev. Al Sharpton, has become a destructive entity to contend with, for 'racial harmony' is not this man's first, last or middle name. And to make matters worse, some fools who should have known better, have actually seen fit to allow him access to a radio talk show of his own, allowing him to spread his theme of racial hatred. So before you judge my opinion of him, please carefully read and adsorb this man's resume on community relations:
1987: Sharpton and black lawyer Vernon H. Maddox Jr. without waiting for corroboration or confirmation of the validity of the claim, begin too spread the Tawana Brawley 'gang rape' story. As part of his accusation plan he singles out former prosecutor, Steve Pagones, as one of the three participants (all reportedly White) in the rape, sodomy, beating and smearing with human feces of the 15-year old girl. Pagones pleads his innocence (the incident never happened), but Sharpton pushes on, even to the point of taunting Pagones: "If we're lying, sue us...so we can prove you did it - sue us right now!" Pagones did sue and eventually wins a $345,000 judgment (which was reduced to $87,000) for defamation of character - all paid for by his supporters passing the hat; Sharpton never paid a cent. To this very day, he refuses to recant his false and disgusting slander or to apologize for his role in the hoax.
1989: The Central Park Jogger Case: A young White woman while jogging in New York City's Central Park was viciously chased down, raped and nearly beaten to death. Sharpton insisted that the young black men accused, and who had confessed, were innocent modern-day "Scottsboro Boys" trapped in a 'fit of racial hysteria.' Sharpton charged that the victim's boyfriend did it, and organized protests outside the courthouse chanting, "The boyfriend did it!" and denouncing the victim as a "Whore." He even brought Tawana Brawley to the trial to supposedly show her "white justice", and arranged for her to meet with the accused attackers. The convictions of the accused were eventually vacated, despite their taped confession, when another man who had been with them and - whose DNA matched that found in the victim - confessed to the rape in 2002. Sharpton, however, never apologized to the victim for calling her a "Whore."
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn's Crown Heights section accidentally hits and kills a 7-year old black child, Gavin Cato. Because of the incident anti-semitic riots erupt.and, as expected, into the tense situation dives Rev. Al Sharpton to pour gasoline on the fires of racial disruption. At Gavin's funeral he rails against the "diamond merchants" - a thinly disguised reference to Jews - with the blood of innocent black babies on their hands. He then organizes a massive mob of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, "No justice, no peace!" During these protests a rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by the mob shouting "Kill the Jews!" and stabbed to death.
1995: When the United House of Prayer, which happens to be one of Harlem's largest landlords, raises the rent an establishment named Freddy's Fashion Mart, the Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black owned music store. A landlord -tenant dispute arises, which Sharpton employs to incite outright racial hatred. Sharpton's National Action Network sets up picket lines, from which customers attempting to enter Freddy's are spat on, intimidated, and cursed as being traitors and "Uncle Toms." "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some 'white'interloper' can expand his business," he preached violently to the mob that is shouting "Kill the Jews!". On December 8, 1991, one of the protestors bursts into Freddy's with a gun, shoots four employees point-blank,and sets fire to the store. Seven employees are burned alive in the ensuing inferno.
Both Sharpton and his partner in 'racially motivated political crimes of opportunity', Jesse Jackson, have made their voices heard in the Duke University Lacrosse team rape case. Will they be heard again, apologizing, now that the three accused boys have been cleared of all charges? I seriously doubt it.
In my opinion, based upon his actions in the past and those in the present, the man is nothing more than a demagogic hatemonger who hustles racial discord as a means to garnering power and financial gain within and from the Black Community. Yet despite his appalling record, this man, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, both ex-U.S. presidential candidates, have elected themselves a jury of 'two' in judgment of talk show host Don Imus. Who in his or her right mind would choose these two individuals as arbiters of racial discontent, injustice or insult? The Black Community must, sooner rather than later, come to grips with a chilling reality. If they continue to chose such men as their representative voice, in the end - in the light of public opinion - they will shift from being seen as a respected community with legitimate social concerns, to being regarded as a disrespected ghetto mob!
Other Black Voices: From Reason To Troubled
It should be noted that there are print and broadcast media voices speaking on behalf of the Black Community, other than those of Jackson and Sharpton; and many are sincerely critical of both men. Respected commentator Juan Williams of National Public Radio has voiced deep suspicions as to the origins and possible hidden political timing and motives at the center of this flaring controversy. While KABC radio talk show host, Larry Elder, describes the firing of Don Imus as a clear case of 'selective prosecution.'. But most pointed in his dissection of Jackson and Sharpton motives is Jason Whitlock, Kansas City Star and AOL columnist. Whitlock goes so far as to accuse the two men of being 'racial terrorists who go around the country lighting racial fires of hatred.' Whitlock doesn't defend what Imus said, but he feels that in many respects, Imus' critics are far worse than he is.
The most disturbing reaction I observed was that of PBS' Washington Week host, Gwen Ifill, (formerly of the New York Times) whose reactions are normally straightforward and balanced. On the evening of April 13th on Washington Week, however, she was not herself and visibly off her game: the Imus issue troubled her deeply. And when she appeared on Tim Russert's "Meet the Press" on Sunday the 15th, she was clearly upset by the very mention of Don Imus, possibly going back to when he'd mocked her with a racial stereotype a decade earlier when she worked for the New York Times (the remark in question being: "Isn't the Times wonderful," he's reported to have said. "It lets the cleaning lady cover the White House."). But what I found most upsetting about Ifill's contribution to the show was that, after sternly criticizing her fellow reporters for their past appearances on the Imus show, and never protesting his verbal abuses, she then offered credit and praise in the handling of the Imus affair to Rev. Sharpton. That gesture troubles me deeply.
The Double Standard Must Go
One has to be deaf and blind not to be aware that a double standard has been, unofficially, set in place in America, over the use of racial stereotypical language with reference to Black Americans. In short, in this matter there has not been a level playing field available to all. Why is it considered alright for "Hip-Hop" Rap artists to freely employ such language to describe and denigrate Black women, and to use the term 'Nigger" (referred to in polite society as the N-word), but not for White performers or comedians to do the same? If a term is bad or indecent, its usage should not be allowed for one segment of the population while strictly prohibited to the rest of society.
There was no evil racists intent involved when Don Imus, carelessly, casually and, let's face it, thoughtlessly, uttered his career ending three word comment. But because of the on air transgression he was, unfairly, forced to undergo the humiliation of a public "White Lynching." In this case, surely, the punishment did not fit the crime if, indeed, there was any crime to begin with.
America's Pride: The Rutgers Women and Their Coach
This incident, though far from resolution, did in its way offer a satisfying ending that had nothing to do with Don Imus.For I have never experienced such pride as that I felt when I viewed the the grace, dignity and decorum of those ten Rutger's women basketball players (8 Black and 2 White), as they stood up for their honor, facing off with well deserved pride any and all detractors from any quarter. They knew who they were and they were not victims as some have tried to cast them. . And I was equally proud of their coach, Vivian Stringer, for leading them to public redemption as she had to athletic victory.
It should also be pointed out that, in this racially explosive public process, I too have learned something. When I first heard of the uproar over Don Imus' comments, I totally bought his description of the women involved as nappy-headed ghetto youth with tattoos and attitude. Clearly, nothing could have been farther from the truth. So why did I, a Black person who should have known better, buy the image at all?
I did so because that is the daily media image I see projected of Black youth - ranging from newspapers, television sitcoms, music videos, magazines, billboard advertisements and what I see, with my own eyes, every day on the streets of America. This element of Black America has been given effective control of its image by the very media that gave Don Imus his voice. And the sad truth is that, more than likely, that was the same image Imus had in his head at the time he made that callous and unthinking remark.
Fortunately, the prognosis for redemption and recovery for Don Imus, America and myself is not a bleak one. We can all get better for we have the capacity to learn from experience. What we were all infected with, in varying degrees of expression, was the soft bigotry of low expectations. But this social/psychological malady is not terminal unless we allow it to be by choice and double standards. Both Imus and I, and American society can recover and go forward from here, but only if we do so - with the proper national dialog.
Don Imus may have, inadvertently, performed a vital social function for America.
|