Monday, April 16, 2007

Sticks and stones may break by bones, but Don Imus will never hurt me


A few nights ago, we were out with some friends, and in the course of discussion I said something trying to be funny that didn’t come out right. The way I said it could have really offended one of the people we were eating with. I just hope that he interpreted my comments with grace and realized that my intention was not to attack him.

This made me think about the Don Imus situation, so I figured I’d throw in my two cents. I am not a Don Imus fan. I’ve never seen his show on MSNBC, and I’ve never heard his radio show. Before last week, I did not know Imus existed. From what I have heard, he is a rather vile individual. I’m not going to try to defend what he said. I know that if I had used the expression “nappy-headed hos” in a sermon, I too would have been fired. Whether he should have been fired or not is up to the corporations that employed him. I just want to chime in by saying that many of Imus’ harshest critics are utterly hypocritical. Here’s why:

1. Words should be interpreted within their greater context. The question is this: Were Imus’ words intended to be malicious or were they just offensive? I have heard that much of what Imus says on his program is controversial. That is why people listen to him. I suspect that Imus was intending to be provocative, not hateful. If he was truly trying to be hateful, I would assume that he would have tried to defend his words. But he didn’t. He apologized repeatedly, and said that his comments were idiotic. Of course, some may say that he only apologized in an attempt to save his career, but we will never fully know Imus' intentions. I would think that if he were truly racist/sexist then his critics would have referred to other racist/sexist remarks that he has made. Since I have heard them make no other references, I assume that this situation is an isolated incident. If this is the only racist/sexist remark that Imus has made, it seems unfair to label him as a racist/sexist.

His intentions can be juxtaposed with the intentions of his critics who refused to accept his apology and protested until he was fired. Were they really worried about redeeming the situation and seeking racial and gender reconciliation, or were they bent on vengefully destroying Imus’ career? While Imus’ comments were offensive, it seems to me that the intentions of his critics were more contemptible than his intentions.

2. Some consideration should be given to the effect brought about by one’s words. Imus’ words were offensive, but what evil did they bring about? Sure, he hurt the feelings some innocent women basketball players, but should we consider this as some kind of cosmic tragedy? None of their lives will be ruined because of his comment. If Imus had made some insensitive comment about me, I would have said he was an idiot and moved on with my life. But Imus’ critics have treated his words as if they warranted the death penalty.

This raises the question, why don’t Imus’ critics condemn all such words? A number of people have compared Imus’ use of the term “hos” to the tons of times “hos” is used in Rap and R&B music. Rap and R&B constantly denigrate women, and this music has a much more detrimental effect on society than Imus’ words. Culture is shaped by art. Kids who immerse themselves in the Rap and R&B culture often adopt the values of that culture. I'm sure that countless more people end up degrading women because of the words of this music than the comments made by Imus. If Imus’ critics were serious about defending women against such degrading language, they would be more consistent in attacking all such language.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Right on. Consistency, people!

Sean Scribner said...

Tristan, you're a nappy-headed jerk.

Just kidding.

Good comments. I've been feeling the same way as you. All comments are fair game as long as they're directed to some else like, say, our President, but heaven forbid someone say something offensive about some women college basketball players. One might argue that the comparison is apples to oranges here since Imus' comment was racially-oriented whereas no one to date has called Bush a "whacky cracker" or something like that, but still. Let's see..... nappy-headed hos vs. the Devil himself??? I think I would rather be a nappy headed ho.

But what do I know? I'm just a whacky cracker.

Anonymous said...

Good article there...nappy. I agree with your analysis and pardigm. I would also add, by way of question, How did Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton become the voices of reason? Every time I turned the TV on or heard a radio show over the past weeks, those two "justice brother" were the medias go-to commentaries on the subject. I view both of them as racists and offensive.

To Sean, I would concure...you are a nappy-headed ho.

I use to be nappy-headed, but never a ho.

Sean Scribner said...

Ron, your bald head will never be nappy again.