“Nappy-headed” is perfectly acceptable speech. Here’s a link to a movie called “Hair Piece: A Film for Nappy-Headed People.”
“Hos” is a slang term for women (its specific meaning is prostitute but it has a general meaning for women and all people that is not necessarily derogatory) that I think originated among inner-city blacks and then was spread to the general culture through rap (primarily black) music.
So why is Imus having his head handed to him for this?
If a black had called the Rutgers girls basketball team “nappy-headed hos” would there be such an outcry? Nope.
I suppose the reason for the backlash against Imus is that he has a history of making derogatory remarks about blacks (and almost every other group). Given this history, I guess I can understand MSNBC dropping his show.
I don’t believe his remarks in this instance justify such an assault (though I think Imus is loathsome and it is no loss to America that he no longer has a nationally syndicated radio show).
I’m trying to remember when this country had less free speech than it does today. I’m thinking World War II.
One can’t even joke in polite company about wife-beating or child-abuse without people getting all bent out shape. It’s enough to make a man want to hit a woman.
Free speech is about more than just government regulations. It is about a commitment that all of should make to allowing people a fair go to speak their mind (unless such speech calls for criminal violence, then it deserves censure). If someone such as Don Imus is going to have his life ruined for using such shock humor, then people have their priorities wrong.
Al Sharpton has led the charge against Imus. He warns: “‘It is our feeling that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves…”
Great, this from the guy who led 15 yo Tawana Brawley’s campaign to claim that she was raped by six white men. It turned out she had suffered no such sexual assault.
It is precisely that speech by Sharpton making false rape charges that deserves 100 times the censure of Imus’s remarks about “nappy-headed hos.”
Until this Time magazine piece, all the commentators I read took it for granted that Imus did something horrible.
That’s nonsense. He did something tasteless, no more offensive than numerous other things said on network radio and TV every day. Has anybody listened to rap music lately?
Treating blacks as fragile creatures who are deeply wounded by such stupid remarks is doing nobody any favors.
Read what CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves said when he announced the cancellation of Imus’s radio show. ‚ÄúThere has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society. That consideration has weighed most heavily on our minds as we made our decision.‚Äù
In other words, he’s saying that poor fragile blacks need the white man’s benevolent protection so they never hear anything that might damage their self-esteem.
I have a Jewish friend on the right who, in private, refers to some Jews on the left “kikes.” Big deal.
Will Hyde emails:
I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to agree with you Luke. At least in the sentiment, if not the particulars of your reasoning. This isn’t really a free speech issue as no one, including MSNBC, has questioned Imus’ right to call the Rutgers Team “Nappy-headed Ho’s” (at least when he’s not on the air!). The real issue is the response it has drawn, and how vividly it highlights the chilling effect that political correctness has had on public discourse. When so-called “leaders of the black community” make hay over ridiculous incidents like this, it destroys their credibility, and the credibility of those who are addressing the real and serious consequences of discrimination in America. These buffoons think that by prescriptively controlling the language we use in this country, they can somehow control our thoughts and feelings and thus, magically erase centuries of painful history and bad blood. It’s not only antithetical to the principles of democracy, it’s patently absurd! No one is going to erase racism from the human heart. And, for that matter, none of us should want to. Racist views, whether we find them offensive or not, still constitute a valid philosophy. The only problem with this philosophy is that it contradicts the most fundamental principle underpinning our body of laws – namely, that “all men [and women] are created equal”. But the solution to that problem is not to try to censor any expression of racism, but rather to more vigorously uphold the rights ordained in our constitution… by combating real instances of discrimination -in employment, wages, housing, education, etc- and ensuring an equal opportunity for each to rise according to their own merits and the strength of their character.
Fred emails:
1. Regarding why porn girls don’t go out of their way to please you…
First, as you said, you have made it known that you will not accept their offerings.
If one reads your web site, you don’t really promote the girls, e.g. by saying stuff like “this one is hot…you’ve got to go out and rent or buy all her films, etc.” Your page really isn’t a promotional forum for them.
Apparently, you have a reputation for spilling the
beans on things that people would rather keep
confidential.If you changed the style of your web page, I’m sure you could use it to get laid.
2. Lia Lopez
Is this for real? Some chick with HIV still doing
outcall? And making it known that she has HIV? What kind of idiot would make use of her services?3. Don Imus
If I recall correctly, the Hollywood elites strongly
oppose “blacklisting”. They view the era when
communists were banned from Hollywood as the bad old days. If that is so, why aren’t they all supporting Imus? Do I smell hypocrisy?4. Just finished reading an interesting
book–Misquoting Jesus.I recommend this one. The author says that over the centuries (particularly the first three centuries after Christ) the folks who made copies of the New Testament were prone to making errors, additions and deletions. If you look at the oldest existing versions of the new testament and copies of writings of the church fathers who quoted the New Testament (e.g. Origen, Tertullian, etc.) this becomes clear. For example, the only place in the New Testament that mentions the Trinity is in one of the gospels. However, that passage was not in the original New Testament. It was added many years later. For another example, the passage in the gospels that talk about the adulteress who was going to be stoned, and Jesus saying that he who is without sin should cast the first stone–another addition many years after it was written. In short, the New Testament has been very corrupted.
Interestingly, there is little evidence of the Old
Testament being corrupted during the corresponding time period. Two possible reasons: a) There aren’t very many surviving documents to research the issue; or b) maybe it wasn’t corrupted.