I suppose it's time to weigh in on the Don Imus issue, since the media seems so interested in keeping the focus off the real problem. (We all know by now what was said, and about whom, and we already know the fallout to date, so I'm not going to re-hash all of that.)
Some pundits have already been quick to point out that comment was a sexist one, not a racist one, and that we're failing to address the real problem. Others--including the coach of the basketball team in question--have emphasized that they weren't trying to get anyone fired over the matter. Important points all, but I think we're still missing the mark.
This is a culture issue. This has more to do with what language and references are acceptable NOT based on what they mean or who they're about, but based on who is making the comment. I don't really believe that we'd be enduring this much media attention of the issue if the comment were made by a hip-hop artist or even an African-American DJ. Many of them actually make such comments--and worse--and still manage to stay employed. If we were really interested in keeping such comments and phrases out of the mainstream, or if we wanted to keep them from being casual comments and really retain their status as "no-nos" then we wouldn't tolerate it from explicit hip-hop artists or ethnic comedians any more than we would from a white radio talk-show host. Carlos Mencia, who uses just about every ethnic stereotype he can for a laugh, is still working. People couldn't get enough of Dave Chapelle. Howard Stern, who has been treating women like sh*t for years, isn't as employed as he used to be--but he's still on the air.
Don Imus is a (the first?) sacrificial lamb in the quest for common culture. If ethnic artists can get away with using such language, why not Imus? Because it's not his culture? Whose culture is it? And why is it intolerant of the old white guy who is trying to play to a wide base? A few years back there was a failed campaign of "if you don't like it, turn it off." This tactic failed because it was socially separatist; "we shouldn't have to avoid anything," people would say, "it should be safe to view or listen to anything." It's dynamite on paper, but I'm the one making sure my kid isn't listening to the stickered albums (2 Live Crew, by the way, has to be laughing their heads off about now) while Imus's attempt to appeal to that demographic on their own terms got him canned. (I was never a big fan of Imus. I listened to his show a couple of times, decided it wasn't my particular brand of vodka, and switched. Seemed to work for me just fine.) In the end, here's what it sounds like: This is our culture; it's okay for us to say it, but you're not one of us so you can't. I don't know about anyone else, but there's way too much "us" and "you" rhetoric in there for me. And there's probably more than one history lesson in there as well.
We should be careful of the "selective tolerance" that is emerging from all of this. If we take Imus off the air, then it stands to reason that everyone who crosses the same line has to go as well (and we say goodbye to the "A" power rotation of at least ten radio stations in Southern California alone). Otherwise, we leave everyone up, and we only listen to what we want to (but we end up excluding people, ignoring groups of people, and generally drift away from each other as cultures).
Intolerance should be aimed toward concepts and not people. When one group gets to use certain terms, then complains when an "outsider" does the same, isn't that a lot like the pot calling the kettle . . . um . . . alloy-based?
Observations, rants, and plausible
deniability from a person who refuses
to be a prisoner of his own world.
deniability from a person who refuses
to be a prisoner of his own world.
The Village
I AM WRITING!
My Screenplay -- Draft Three
I'm currently reading:
On my Kindle 2
I'm listening to:
iTunes Radio
I'm driving:
The Honda FCX Clarity
