|
Post by Nashville Predators on Apr 10, 2007 15:25:17 GMT -5
So, Imus calls a women's basketball team a bunch of nappy headed hos. And he has to apologize on Sharpton's show. But if you've ever heard Eddie Murphy, Martin Lawerence, Chris Rock speak about white people and their own black people. www.break.com/index/don_imus_visits_al_sharpton.htmlI think it's all blown out of proportion. Nappy headed hos. Don't apologize for making a joke on a comedy show.
|
|
|
Post by Eric - Washington GM on Apr 10, 2007 15:32:39 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with it, except for the documented fact that Imus is a racist (and he has been for years). And this time it bit him in the ass. He finally got caught and now he's proving it. If anyone had a chance to listen to his appology, it is the funniest / contradicting appology I've heard.
Never listened to the guy, mainly because I'd rather not fall back to sleep in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Apr 10, 2007 16:07:23 GMT -5
Racist or not, he's no more racist about black people calling them nappy haired hos than any black comedian refering to white people as "honky" or whathave you. Everyone is prejudice to some degree. I find it humourous to see how often white comedians have to retract any sort of racial joke when black comedians say the N word 100x more often and make fun of white people all the same.
|
|
|
Post by Eric - Washington GM on Apr 10, 2007 16:32:31 GMT -5
wow, ok. I don't think I have the ability to explain everything.
So I'll just leave it at, Imus has said "off air" racist remarks. Not in the context of his show, not trying to be a comedian. He is a flat out racist.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Apr 10, 2007 23:11:00 GMT -5
Ok, I just read up on Imus. Admittedly I did not know much about him. I guess from his history what he said is not likely a joke but more see the truth as he sees it. Chalk him up to another racist.
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Apr 13, 2007 0:00:47 GMT -5
Racist or not, he's no more racist about black people calling them nappy haired hos than any black comedian refering to white people as "honky" or whathave you. Everyone is prejudice to some degree. I find it humourous to see how often white comedians have to retract any sort of racial joke when black comedians say the N word 100x more often and make fun of white people all the same. the difference is 500 years of oppression. Blacks having a little more liberalism when it comes to making jokes at the expense of the dominant group is a small consolation.
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Apr 13, 2007 10:46:20 GMT -5
Horseshit, the only people who can't say anything derrogatory without being labeled a racist are straight white men, and that's garbage.
Ever hear of a racist "controversy" that isn't based around a straight white male? I doubt it. Thats the problem with today's society, the minorities (aka the squeeky wheel) are always the victims, yet they are just as guilty as anyone else. BUT because it's widely accepted that whites are the only people who are racist you never hear about it.
My favourite sports quote ever "If he were black, he'd be just another good player." ~~ Isaih Thomas on Larry Bird
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Apr 13, 2007 11:53:54 GMT -5
Whats funny is how people who have never experienced real racism and discrimination thinkt hat this is the biggest deal. Its funny how so many people dont realise that effects that oppression still has on many minority groups today (Blacks in the US, and Natives in the US and Canada). Further, the racism that still exists. Im Metis (meanign half white and half native)so I can blend easily in with Whites or Natives depending on who I am with. I have first hand experienced how I am treated differently, I have been harassed by cops, followed in stores, and heard tonnes of racist jokes about Natives from whites.
A word honky does not carry the same history and connotation as nigger does. Trying to equate them ignores the history of the word nigger. Whats really Horseshit Bryce is trying to hide your prejudices by actings as if the victim is white men. In Canada women are more educated than men and make less money. Immigrants are better educated than the average Canadian and make less money. Current socioeconomic factors support that the white male is still by far the least oppresed group, but poor you, you cant make a racist or derogitory joke. Sorry that I dont run to go wipe away my tears for you.
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Apr 13, 2007 12:23:33 GMT -5
Not that anybody directly related nigger and honky, just combining comments above which perhaps I shouldnt have done. The point being that the weight difference of words that might seem equitable on the surface is massive when you consider the roots.
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Apr 13, 2007 13:13:24 GMT -5
My point is that racism is everywhere, yet the only time the media makes a fuss about it, is when a white male is the one making the racist remark, which in itself is racist.
To bring the work environment in is pointless, hey if someone is qualified and can do the job, then all the power to them. But in todays business environment where "diversity" is all the rage, do you not think that minorities get jobs over some whites simply becaue they are a minority? Be it native, female, 3 headed, whatever.
In Canada add in the ridiculous benefits that Natives get for "us taking their land" something that happened hundreds of years ago, and the fact that they OFTEN (not always) abuse those priviledges, that is what causes a large deal of prejudism in Canada, and the people that are "treated" like an outsider is your average Canadian citizen.
Prejudism is rarely blind, it's an attitude or opinion that is developed based on some circumstances. Racism is what should be blind, yet only a select group is ever accused of it.
|
|
|
Post by Bruins GM on Apr 13, 2007 13:35:37 GMT -5
I don't like what Imus said and I think he made a grave error. Do I think he deserves to be punished? Yes. Do I think he deserves to be fired? Not when pop culture embraces the term "ho" as much as it does. Kids of all colours and race buy rap music and hear derogatory descriptions of women. These kids then speak to their friends using these terms in their everyday language. Even white, middleclass soccer moms slip the word "ho" in every once and a while thinking they are "hip."
I think the most bogus thing about all this is that Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson do not demand that record companies fire their Presidents or recording artists any time the word "Ho" is used in a rap song. One off-colour comment said in poor taste or poor judgement by a white radio personality and those two are all over CBS like flies to shit.
CBS for their part takes no issue with Imus for 8 days. As soon as the advertisers start backing away from Imus' program (which earned CBS $15 million annually), CBS hops on their moral high horse and they fire him. They waited to see how it played. As soon as things start to look bad for CBS, they bail saying they were "deeply upset and repulsed" by his comments. WTF? His comments were only bad enough to get him suspended, not fired. If they were that upset, he would have been fired right away. Two-faced suits can't even get their shit straight.
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Apr 13, 2007 14:19:21 GMT -5
My point is that racism is everywhere, yet the only time the media makes a fuss about it, is when a white male is the one making the racist remark, which in itself is racist. To bring the work environment in is pointless, hey if someone is qualified and can do the job, then all the power to them. But in todays business environment where "diversity" is all the rage, do you not think that minorities get jobs over some whites simply becaue they are a minority? Be it native, female, 3 headed, whatever. In Canada add in the ridiculous benefits that Natives get for "us taking their land" something that happened hundreds of years ago, and the fact that they OFTEN (not always) abuse those priviledges, that is what causes a large deal of prejudism in Canada, and the people that are "treated" like an outsider is your average Canadian citizen. Prejudism is rarely blind, it's an attitude or opinion that is developed based on some circumstances. Racism is what should be blind, yet only a select group is ever accused of it. I'll reply to this better later, partly becasue I am at work, but partly because if I responded to you right now my response to you would most likely create an unrepairable rift.
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Apr 13, 2007 14:50:04 GMT -5
nah, I don't take anything personally. Opinions are like ass-holes everyone has one, doesn't make mine or yours right.
I know you, we've met, talked a ton in the past, and I know you're a smart guy, but that doesn' mean our opinions are the same. I respect your opinion, and I would hope you're not taking my comments personally, because that's NOT how they are intended.
|
|
|
Post by coloradogm on Apr 13, 2007 15:32:44 GMT -5
While I fully support Cal's comments and generally disagree with much of what Bryce has stated, I would raise the point that in Canada we are just now beginning to go a little bit too far with "accomodating" religious practices, individuals with mental disabilities, freedom of expression, etc...
Since the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted in 1982, we have seen significant changes to the rights and protections that individuals and groups are afforded... Over the last 25 years individuals have acquired greater rights and protections than they have ever had before. Don't get me wrong, I am a full supporter of the Charter and the rights and freedoms it is intended to protect, I am just of the view that we may be reaching a tipping point.
Take for example the 2006 Supreme Court of Canada decision of Multani v. Commission scolaire Marguerite‑Bourgeoys in which the Court struck down an order of a Quebec school authority that prohibited a Sikh child from wearing a kirpan to school as a violation of freedom of religion under section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The violation of this kids religious freedom was found not to be a reasonable in a free and democratic society... In essence, there was no sufficient objective for the violation of his rights (i.e. protection of other kids in the classroom).
I raise this case because the last few years around Christmastime we have begun to hear more about "holiday trees" or "winter concerts"... The expectation that people be "politically correct" has grown and grown with increased emphasis on multiculturalism. While I agree that we need to be respective of all culture and all peoples living in Canadian society, I do not think that needs to be at the expense of celebrating our own culture and values.
Back to the kirpan case I noted above... How can one expect 3rd+ generation Canadians to be open to a kid carrying a ceremonial dagger to class on one hand, when on there other hand they are being told that there will be no Christmas concert, but rather a winter concert and that they are not to sent their kid's teacher a Christmas present, but a holiday present... If we are going to protect rights and freedoms of minority groups, equal protection must be afford of longstanding Canadian traditions and values. They can co-exist and the must if multi-culturalism is going to work! I shouldn't feel bad if I wish a Jewish colleague Merry Christmas, just like I wouldn't be offended if I was wished Happy Chanukah or Eid ul-Fitr...
Enough of my rant... I leave you with results from two other recent cases with what I view as the wrong result: - a rastafarian was reinstated to his job despite his refusal to cut his hair; and - a facial jewelry ban at a workplace was found to interfere with workers' instrisic right to personal expression.
|
|
|
Post by Bryce - Minny on Apr 13, 2007 15:53:50 GMT -5
While I fully support Cal's comments and generally disagree with much of what Bryce has stated, I would raise the point that in Canada we are just now beginning to go a little bit too far with "accomodating" religious practices, individuals with mental disabilities, freedom of expression, etc... To that I couldn't agree more
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Apr 13, 2007 16:33:23 GMT -5
I don't like what Imus said and I think he made a grave error. Do I think he deserves to be punished? Yes. Do I think he deserves to be fired? Not when pop culture embraces the term "ho" as much as it does. Kids of all colours and race buy rap music and hear derogatory descriptions of women. These kids then speak to their friends using these terms in their everyday language. Even white, middleclass soccer moms slip the word "ho" in every once and a while thinking they are "hip." I think the most bogus thing about all this is that Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson do not demand that record companies fire their Presidents or recording artists any time the word "Ho" is used in a rap song. One off-colour comment said in poor taste or poor judgement by a white radio personality and those two are all over CBS like flies to shit. CBS for their part takes no issue with Imus for 8 days. As soon as the advertisers start backing away from Imus' program (which earned CBS $15 million annually), CBS hops on their moral high horse and they fire him. They waited to see how it played. As soon as things start to look bad for CBS, they bail saying they were "deeply upset and repulsed" by his comments. WTF? His comments were only bad enough to get him suspended, not fired. If they were that upset, he would have been fired right away. Two-faced suits can't even get their shit straight. Imagine it in a different context. What would it be like if Jim Hughson referred to Anson Carter as that po' coloured nigger? Or if a commentator following the NCAA referred to the UCLA team as a bunch of Compton Niggas? And referred to their girlfriends or wives in attendance as hos? I think it was because Imus directed his comments at a very identifiable and personable group of people. In reference to music, when 50 cent or Snoop Dogg mention a "ho" they are using it as a colloquialism for a woman, Imus was directly referring to identifiable people (the basketball team).
|
|
|
Post by FincanSJGM on Apr 14, 2007 14:58:56 GMT -5
My point is that racism is everywhere, yet the only time the media makes a fuss about it, is when a white male is the one making the racist remark, which in itself is racist. To bring the work environment in is pointless, hey if someone is qualified and can do the job, then all the power to them. But in todays business environment where "diversity" is all the rage, do you not think that minorities get jobs over some whites simply becaue they are a minority? Be it native, female, 3 headed, whatever. In Canada add in the ridiculous benefits that Natives get for "us taking their land" something that happened hundreds of years ago, and the fact that they OFTEN (not always) abuse those priviledges, that is what causes a large deal of prejudism in Canada, and the people that are "treated" like an outsider is your average Canadian citizen. Prejudism is rarely blind, it's an attitude or opinion that is developed based on some circumstances. Racism is what should be blind, yet only a select group is ever accused of it. Well, opinions may be like assholes but many of those opinions havent seen a piece of toilet paper and are consequently full of shit. Thie thing that is bigger than racism though is discrimination. Having racist thoughts does not hurt as much as acting upon it. White males are the DOMINANT class and thus most often the ones capable of discrimination. When people like him make these comments they do it while having influence and as the dominant class these types of comments serve to keep other groups down. While I would agree that reverse racism exists (for instance within the music industry) You speak about affirmative action like it is a bad thing. Be honest had their not been legal changes and minority and womens movements white males would have continued to hire white males and would have continued to be the dominant class (which they still are). If you dont believe that you are just fooling yourself because before these movements that trend showed no signs of shifting, and still exists today. We are in Alberta, one of the jobs that any able bodied male can do is go work on the rigs, that is one of the most racist environments out there. Minorities, when they can even get hired which itself is rare, often quit because they cant handle the discrimination and overt racism that exists in that environment. This is a job that pays extremely well, requires little to no education, and should be available to anyone willing to do it yet it is mainly reserved for white males. My friend works on the rigs and is half black, he says he has to just go about his thing and go home when he is done. He is half black and hears the word nigger all the time. Again re: affirmative action. Immigrants are sold on the idea of moving to Canada for a better life where with their qualifications they can really be something. We take the educated and intellegent from 3rd world countries promising them the hope of prosperity, our immigration strategies are to bring in people whose education is in high demand in fields where we are in short supply, yet once they get here they have a hell of a time getting a job and end up as our cab drivers. Then people say that they should be happy just to be able to be here and not there. now thats whats horseshit. If we are in need of qualified people in these fields (ie engineers) and have affirmiative action laws yet these people are not getting the jobs that they were brought here for, well who do you think is getting these jobs? Just think about it. You say ridiculous benefits that Native people get as if you know something yet you are obviously clueless. Let me in on some of these benefits. Oil rights? well most reserves have no Oil and are quite poor yet only the rich ones make the news and are in everyday discussions. Plus it is there land, the only land they were allowed to keep, it was land that was originally thought by the Europeans to be poor land for development, farming etc. They didnt know until much later that this type of land was often Oil rich. I fail to see how this is a ridiculous benefit when the attempt to burn Indians turned out to be a benefit to the Indians instead (only in these Oil-rich cases). No taxes or sales tax? Well both of these only apply on the reserve, tell me how many jobs you think are available on reserves? Most Indians are tax payers. Plus for the sales tax, this only applies on reserves or if you have something delivered to the reserve, so for most things they still do have to pay GST. So mainly it is only junk food at the convenience store, cigarettes, and gas they dont pay on, along with big ticket items delivered to the reserve. In addition, so what the treaties signed indicated that treaties would not have to pay taxes. Plus not paying taxes only applies to full-status Indians while about 1/3 of Indians are Metis and another 1/3 non-status. Non-status never signed treaties. More info, with changes made by the government to status laws in 1986, and the rate of inter-marriage, the government is ensuring that treaty status is bread out of Indians anyway. Score one for the goverment I guess. Free housing? well again this only applies on the reserves. What else do you expect. They would have to save money to buy a house, not just for a down payment, for a whole house, or build it piece by piece as they can afford it. Reserve land is crown land meaning that banks cannot re-possess it. Banks therefore WILL NOT give mortgages to houses being built on reserves. Reserves then build houses for thier people. Again this is something that was in the treaties too so live with it. Healthcare and dental? Yeah this is free and available on reserves but it is more than sub-par. Staff are basically those willing to go work on reserves and are often less than interested and further often unskilled. Yes there is good benefits on glasses and prescriptions but again this was in the treaties so live with it. You speak about the abuse of priveledges. This is kind of a bold statement with no spefics, care to ellaborate as to how Natives abuse their rights? The way you say "Quote take their land unquote" in istelf goes towards your animosity on the issue, and appears as if you are trying to dismiss what happened. Really it is not even worth of an intellegent response and all that it shows is that you are completely Dense on the issue Bryce if you are really trying to minimise what happened. But here I am, I have to respond anyway since people dont think that what happened is ignorable and does not continue to plague Native people today. For example, the effects of Residential schools are still very apparent today. People like to think that this was all in the past but the last residential school didnt close until 1990 and the majority were still in operation until the 70s. There was sexual, physical, emotional, and psychological abuse. In the early periods kids were kidnapped really, taken from there homes. They were told that their families didnt love them and beaten for speaking their language. We are losing our language in a large part due to these schools and that it is getting to the point were it is irreversable. The sexual and physical abuse were rampant and these things are cyclical so those who had it done to them are far more likely to repeat these behaviours in the future. Residential schools introduced the cycle of these things in to our communities and they continue to be a serious issue in Native communities today. People who have experience this type of abuse are also far more likely to have issues with alcoholism, depression,and suicide and then in turn kids who grow up around these things (sans depression) are more likely again to repeate these behaviours in the future. Just to clarify, my emotion may be coming from my Native side, but my knowledge of it is coming from both knowing both the native and non-native worlds very well and a sociology background. The cyclical nature of abuse is undeniable. BTW nearly all the treaties in Canada were signed in the last few years of the 19th century and the first few years of the 20th so it is not for land that was taken away hundreds of years ago. Disease destroyed the numbers of Indians, and in some cases (Mic Macs) lead to the complete extinction of a people. Yeah maybe this happened a long time ago but it is not something that shold be forgotten. Treaties were signed so things like this wouldnt happen again, and you resent this why? Is it that you would rather have seen all Indians dead? The decrease in the number of Native people is not something that will soon be forgotten. Racism is still alive and well, particularly in this racist red-neck place of Alberta. I truly believe that one of the reasons I am able successful is due to being Metis and easily able to blend. An equally intellengent more Native looking person has a harder time succeeding in a non-Native world. If I was me, but with long braids, I am 90% certain I wouldnt be in the job I am in today.
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Apr 14, 2007 15:20:43 GMT -5
Good post Cal.
Points well taken.
I also appreciate the non hostile tone (for the most part). If this thread remains a hearty debate with respect on both sides I don't see a need to lock or delete it.
There is no denying racism still exists. I have my own prejudice's about stereotypical Asian drivers and such. I know there are other bad drivers out there... like women... so it's not just... ok kidding kidding.
Is there a difference though in me making a joke about poor Asian drivers and what Cal is saying?
Is there even a degree of room for racial joking like Sasha Baron Cohen (being a jew) making fun of Jews in Borat or Mel Brooks (also Jewish) making fun of Jews in his movies? I think it's all in the context. You know Cohen and Brooks are making jokes, but you know Mel Gibson was down right vicious in his views coming from a blabbering drunk (see uninhibited). Do the jokes made by Cohen and Brooks entice the vitreol that the likes of Gibson can succomb to?
If Don Imus was Black and made the same remark would he have been fired? If Imus was Jewish and made light of the Jews much the same way Cohen, Brooks, and Sarah Silverman do would the reprecussions be the same? I now know that Imus has a history of prejudism and we can make out conclussions on his intent but what if that history didn't exist?
|
|
|
Post by Nashville Predators on Apr 23, 2007 18:22:58 GMT -5
|
|