From Todd Boyd, ESPN’s Page 2:
Now that disgraced radio talk-show host Don Imus has been booted, can we finally get down to some “real talk” about the multiple issues embedded in this racial theater? There is a lot to sort through here, but after a week of debate centered around “nappy-headed hos,” half-assed apologies, cries of censorship, and a curmudgeonly shock jock’s lame attempt at being funny, many pundits have moved beyond the core issue and now are talking about the perceived double standard they feel exists between what Imus said and what often comes from the mouths of rappers.
Yet Imus and hip-hop really don’t have much in common. Imus was host of a radio show that focused on the real news of the day, while hip-hop is a fictionalized form of cultural expression. Imus is real, featuring real guests and humor based on real topics. However loudly hip-hop might claim to be real, it is not real; it is a form of representation. This is why so few rappers use the names on their birth certificates when performing. Rappers are in essence characters performing a fictional life. Though the culture is rooted in the notion and style of authenticity, it is decidedly fictional. If not, the cops could arrest every rapper who talks about selling drugs or killing someone in his or her lyrics. So we should be judging hip-hop the same way we judge a novel, a movie, or a television show, and to do so means we have to afford hip-hop the same latitude we afford any other form of artistic expression.
—Which, presumably, should include comedy, lest Chris Rock or a host of black comedians be forced to apologize for their jokes about whites and Asians, for example.
Imus’ schtick was lame and unwisely aimed. But he was nevertheless referencing the lexicon of rap culture, which has become part of the general cultural lexicon (a point Boyd himself makes unwittingly later in the piece) in his revolting attempt at “humor.” Which, using Mr Boyd’s criteria, would mean we shouldn’t be judging Imus based on the content of his art simply because it is “art” that is aired in a different context and using a different medium.
I mean, are we really now prepared to argue that what is in Imus’ heart is determined by what name he chooses? That is, would what he said be more acceptable—a form of indexical “representation” of “cultural expression”—had he uttered it as, say, “Donny I-Money?” Because as I recall, many feminists weren’t too keen on accepting such an argument when the purveyor of “cultural expression” in question was Andrew Dice Clay—who very clearly was a persona, developed by Brooklyn Jew named Andrew Silverstein.
Boyd is, to a large extent, correct in his conclusion: we should be judging hip-hop the same way we judge other forms of art, and I believe its content—provided it doesn’t provide proximate cause for inciting violence (which is so difficult to prove as to make it virtually useless as an argument)—should be protected.
But where he goes astray is in trying to draw a distinction to suit his political purposes. Because like it or not, the “art” of comedians and humorists, among whose number Imus has always been counted, deserves the same kind of speech protections, given that it, too, can be described as a form “representation,” a meta-commentary on society filtered through the subject position comedians and humorists assume in order to make their pointed remarks.
Imus, in short, was doing a comedy bit. The bit may or may not have exposed his deep-seated racism; but if we are to argue that hip-hop artists deserve a pass because they are engaging in a form of art that mirrors our culture back to us, we must provide the same defense for people like Imus.
Which is not to say that MSNBC shouldn’t have fired him—they have every right to do so in order to stave off a PR disaster; but for Barack Obama or Condi Rice to come out for his firing is dangerous and, given that they are tied to government, worrisome to the First Amendment.
That we seem to be mainstreaming this idea that free speech, properly understood, is somehow protected by a corresponding cleansing from civilized discourse of “offensive” speech, runs directly against the intent of the First Amendment.
Not only that, but it turns tolerance into a speech code—when what tolerance should be doing is preventing speech codes by insisting that, for speech to be truly free, we must be able to tolerate even that speech that most offends us.
Sadly, we are living in Orwell’s world—where even our politicians are willing to read the Constitution through the cynical eyes of political correctness.
(h/t John)
I read the Boyd piece, it turned out to be pretty good, at least in the sense that Boyd is looking at a lot of angles intelligently, even though what he wrote was sort of first draftish.
Public speech—COMMERCIAL public speech—that, and a slow news week—is what killed Imus.
I agree with Jeff that when we start shutting down, and shutting out, people who “offend” (us? somebody? anybody?) we are not really advancing free speech. We’re simply setting standards under which we can righteously exclude s.o. from the human race and/or cut their balls off.
These days, the tipping point appears to be “bigot.” Once you are defined as a bigot, you are no longer human. You may be a bigot and “not even know it”, in the Andrew Sullivan analysis of reality. It’s very saddening.
Mr. Boyd should check with Mr. Doggy Dogg who tells us:
It ain’t jus’ art, yo. They keeping it real.
For an art form that’s not “real”, quite a few rappers end up tango uniform. It’s like Lewis Grizzard once said: Rock is music to get pregnant by; rap is music to get dead by.
Actually PC is simply tribalism. Whether one gets cover for what they say, or do, is entrely dependent upon what group they belong to and whether that group happens to be in favor at the moment. Attempts to justify it as anything else are simply dishonest. I suspect that was Mr. Boyd’s actual, if not stated, goal at the start of his piece.
Not that he deserves brickbats for his effort, millions of owrds are spent on the exact same purpose every year. Unfortunately we won’t have actually advance public discourse (or the well being of those less fortunate)very much until we stop.
Speaking of PC, Michelle Malkin has a link to an
[url=”http://www.aaja.org/news/aajanews/2007_04_16_01/” target=”_blank”]
advisory[/url] insisting that the ethnicity or racial origin of the shooter not be discussed.
Unreal.
Some of the libertarian commentary that I have been reading on the Imus story (Q and O, for example) is focused on the concern that this incident will change the boundaries of permissible speech, not in the direction of allowing whites to use the language of the black hip hop culture, but rather in the direction of expanding political correctness taboos to include the black hip hop culture as well as whites.
I understand and respect this point of view, and if I see that happening I will be up on the ramparts helping to push back against it. In the meantime, though, I think the focus on the free speech vs. political correctness angle is leading some libertarians and conservatives to pay too little attention to the aesthetic/cultural dimension of this issue.
In an essay in today’s Los Angeles Times Jonah Goldberg summarized a point that I had tried to make in some blog comments elsewhere:
In our rush to push back against the thought police let’s pause for a moment to note that the comments Imus made really were offensive. If the I-man wanted to call someone a nappy headed ho he should have directed that at Al Sharpton, rather than some college athletes. Sharpton is, after all, a race whore, and there would be some comedy in insulting him in racist terms. It seems like the way of the cowardly bully to pick the small target.
The bullying is the crux of the aesthetic/cultural issue. it is legitimate to make comedy out of the idiosyncracies of different ethnic cultures, but Imus represents a different cultural trend: allowing an audience to get vicarious thrills from hearing someone bully and tear down other people.
Does this mean that singing and dancing to the words ‘bitch nigger ho’ is culturally hip?
If it is, I guess that’s why I never dug the rap.
Does it make me a RACIST just for writing words that can only be sung by the culture poet?
I never heard the word “ho” until Eddie Murphy used it. He and those that followed him told us that it was OK to use those words. Imus is not a smart man, he simply used the words that seemed OK to him and it bit him on the butt.
Maybe in your opinion, and taken out of context at that. What pisses me off is that everybody ignores that in the context of what they were discussing, the toughness and grit of the team in the lexicon of Spike Lee’s School Daze, the comment was dead nuts on.
Personally, I am just going to stop watching Spike Lee movies, or music or movies by any other Black people, because I might accidently quote a line that can be taken out of context from them and offend someone who is completely ignorant of what I am discussing. I would advise the same of all white people, some things are safer to just not know.
Not me. Music, I’ll listen to. Misanthropic chanting, no.
As a Ho-mosexual, I feel uneasy on black campuses.
I plead guilty. I did not hear the broadcast, and I was relying on second-hand descriptions that portrayed the comment as a one-liner.
I think Boyd has a point: People who accept racist language and imagery from rappers do so on the basis of what used to be called poetic license. Many of those same people probably would have granted Imus the same license if it seemed that the comments were integral to some kind of larger comedy bit. The way that they have been portrayed, though, made it seem like Imus was just trying to get laughs by insulting the Rutgers players in anachronistically racist terms.
My larger point is that everyone is scrambling to get on the anti-pc bandwagon, which is already plenty full, but there aren’t many people who are willing to grant people like Imus the right to be politically incorrect and also point out that his type of entertainment is garbage.
I’m would bet someone else has mentioned it, but the whole thing reminds me of Bobby Hill telling white supremacist jokes at a comedy club. Except in that fictional world, the black comedian stood up for his freedom of speech.
Anyone who makes the argument that Don Imus reaches and influences more people than rap music is an idiot on a scale that few in their lives aspire to, let alone achieve.
Having heard the broadcast, I’m outraged that Imus was fired. Not only has he said worse, what he said was simply not that bad. He was simply pointing out that the Rutgers team looked more badass than the other team, more tough and personally intimidating – which they did. He used a rap term to describe this quality. His assistant used terms and an analogy from one of Spike Lee’s films to describe the difference between the two teams.
This was absurd and just wrong. I don’t particularly like Don Imus, he’s a jerk and a huge leftist, but I have to defend what he said because I’m honest and believe in freedom of speech.
Race is stale. Extending “Hip-hop” beyond the denotation of a kind of music, staler.
I think he deserved what he got.
I don’t think what he did was any different than Ted Danson dressing up as a blackface minstral. It was offensive and he got called on it. Racist? I doubt it, offensive, yes.
Al Sharpton calling the kettle black?
Priceless.
I didn’t find them offensive. I found Michael Richard’s tirade unbearable. I found Obama’s and Condi’s defense of Imus’ firing offensive.
What does it mean?
It means that different people find different things offensive, but only certain people who don’t like what someone is saying call them names, or get them fired.
There’s a lesson in there about tolerance, and working together, and getting along. Maybe.
BTW, it’s a mistake to get hugely pissed off about this and take it out on Black people collectively. I understand the anger, but, you gotta let it go.
I just wish there was more I could do to help.
Really? Condi Rice called for Imus to be fired?
If true, my esteem for the woman dropped markedly.
That’s genius Aldo!
I make a motion that for evermore, Sharpton is refered to as “the nappy headed ho”
May I have a second?
I second.
What’s the weapon?
here is a parody song for Don Imus
http://cruxy.com/info/9010
and here is the uncensored version
http://cruxy.com/info/8961
To recap:
1. Don Imus is real.
2. Hip hop is not.
3. Al Sharpton is a voice of tolerance.
4. Comedy spouts of “ho” are real.
5. Singing “ho” is representation.
Yep, we’ve reached a new singularity of the absurd.
Can’t wait for the South Park episode.
This just in: The state of New Jersey has renamed one of its cities. It shall henceforth be known as Boken.
…until somebody fixes it.
Indeed, the only redeeming feature of this circus is that Stone and Parker are going to have a field day on a SouthPark episode.
There will only be 49 contestants in the Miss Black America Contest this year because no one wants to wear the sash that says IDAHO
So what is the verdict going to be for Santa Claus? Are we going to censor him, or force him to admit he isn’t real? I am only concerned…
FOR THE CHILDREN!
Words and expressions that will be the cause of incalculable grief and stunted self actualization in the next year:
Hi De Ho (Cab Calloway or South Park, take your pick)
Hoe Down
Long Row to Hoe
High Ho, High Ho, etc.
Back hoe (well, I guess I now know what THAT means!)
Ivanhoe
etc. etc.
Take it to the bank.
Yeah, I forgot about “Ho Ho Ho”, but they’ll nail the Green Giant, first.
There goes my favorite pirate shanty: Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum!
“Shiver me timbers and wouldya look at Shannon Elizabeth’s jibs!!!”
The melody sucks, but I’m throwing back some Captain Morgan’s.
Oh there are a few more…like “rapist” and “pedophile”
See Duke 3 and Mark Foley.
Wouldn’t it be great to have this discussion about, say, a white guy who was genuinely funny as opposed to a white guy New Yorkers listened to cause he might say something naughty–those sophisticated New Yorkers? Imus doesn’t rise to a level of constitutional relevance.
Good God.
Not one fucker has said one intelligent thing about this story since day one, and conservatives’ reactions have been, on average, way the hell dumber than liberals’–which have been incredibly stupid, as usual. That hasn’t happened in over twenty years.
Well done, guys.
(I don’t mean you, JG.)
(But Jonah Goldberg is definitely a faggot.)
Naw. The Giant’s a man of color.
Nice timmy impersonation, BoZ. That must be more difficult than it looks.
Now now. You don’t use the “n” when the noun starts with a voiced “h.”
And anyway, nobody would say it that way even without the “n.” They’d say “I gots a hoe.”
As others have noted, Imus’ remarks taken in context were a humorous comment on the relative toughness of the teams, not a focused racial slur made in anger.
However, there should have been a firing made in this whole episode.
Vivian Stringer, the Rutgers women’s basketball coach should have been summarily dismissed after her sad commentary at the news conference. A coach’s job is to prepare the players physically and mentally to compete and win, on the court and in life. What she did was affirm that no matter how intelligent, talented or attractive the players were, they are destined to be losers for the rest of their lives.
When one of her players mentioned she would be “scarred for life†by Imus’ words, she could have taken the position that what one wrinkled old fool says doesn’t affect a true champion in the least. Once a person believes in their own mind that they are equal, no amount of off-color humor will lessen their opinion of themselves.
Rutgers would do well by removing Ms. Stringer as a coach so that she could pursue a career in victim counseling. Let someone who can mold a team of winners take over.
My drill instructor called me a loser and they didn’t fire him.
Ms. Stringer is a basketball coach. If she called herself a life coach…
Even I can’t take this beyond the obvious. Half the people you meet are below average. Show a little discrimination in what and whom you listen to.
“There will only be 49 contestants in the Miss Black America Contest this year because no one wants to wear the sash that says IDAHO”
No, it’s OK for black people to say ho. It’s the white girl from Idaho who will be crucified.