In Pursuit of Perfection

Tolerance of Ignorance begets more ignorance

    "I know that that phrase didn't originate in the white community - that phrase originated in the black community," Imus said. "I'm not stupid. I may be a white man, but I know that these young women - and young black women all through that society - are demeaned and disparaged and disrespected by their own black men and they are called that name. I know that doesn't give me, obviously, any right to say it, but it doesn't give them any right to say it either."

Who said the preceding?  If you guessed Don Imus, you're right!  Now take a look at the following.

clipped from www.cnn.com

  University benefactor and board chairman uses N-word 

• Story Highlights
• N-word "kind of slipped out," university board chairman says
  
• Ralph Papitto apologizes but adds, "What can I do? Kill myself?"
  
• Witness: Papitto irate over discussions to diversify board
• Next Article in U.S. »

"The first time I heard it was on television or rap music or something..."

clipped from www.cnn.com

PROVIDENCE, Rhode Island (AP) -- The longtime chairman of the Roger Williams University board admitted Monday to using the N-word during a board meeting, saying it "kind of slipped out."

Ralph Papitto, at graduation ceremonies in May 2006, said he had never used the slur before.

"I apologized for that," Ralph Papitto said in an interview on WPRO-AM. "What else can I do? Kill myself?"

Papitto, 80, who stepped down earlier this month after nearly 40 years on the board, admitted he had used the racial slur at a May meeting of the school's board of trustees.

He had been discussing the difficulty of finding blacks and other minorities to serve on the 16-member board, which at the time included 14 white men and two women.

Barbara Roberts, then a board member, said Papitto became irate when he discussed pressures to make the board more diverse, at one point using the slur to refer to black candidates to the board.

She said he then told the board he knew he couldn't say that because of Don Imus, the radio host who was fired after referring to Rutgers University women's basketball team members as "nappy-headed hos."

"There was, like, this complete and utter silence, and I was shocked beyond belief and very angry," Roberts said.

Papitto, who has given the school at least $7 million and whose name is on the only law school in Rhode Island, said he had never used the term before.

"The first time I heard it was on television or rap music or something," he told WPRO.

Papitto said Monday that his decision to step down from the board was based on his age and his desire to spend more time with his family. He denied a newspaper report that he was forced out over the racial epithet.

Several board members said they were forced out after calling for Papitto's resignation after the incident. At least one has called for his name to be removed from the Ralph R. Papitto School of Law.

A man who answered the phone at a home listing for Papitto hung up on an Associated Press reporter Monday morning. Law School Dean David Logan and a university spokeswoman did not immediately return phone messages.

Roger Williams University in Bristol has roughly 3,880 undergraduate students. The law school was founded in 1993 and later named for Papitto, the founder of the Fortune 500 company Nortek Inc.

In the aftermath of the Don Imus incident, what has bothered me much more than Imus' comments is the effectiveness of his diversionary tactics.  He mixed his apology with his counter-attack.  A move which I must say has turned out to be very effective.

Now witness Round 2.  An otherwise uninteresting story for me becomes pivotal.  Is this to be the ploy of every public figure who is revealed to be racist in their way of thinking?  And is the public buying this??  I suppose Ralph Papitto wants us to believe that Africans came to America and thought of the word nigger all of their volition.  Those damn rappers!

Blink.

Thanks Don.

Don Imus and the Path Forward

So Imus has been temporarily displaced.  Anyone noticed the backlash yet?

There's no need for me to explain that I'm being facetious, is there?  Shock jocks around the country are ratcheting up the levels of degenerate content that they call entertainment.  Some radio stations are vowing to keep Imus on despite the CBS decision to fire him.  Citing Imus as their rally  point, they envelop themselves in the first amendment and declare the Imus detractors as  pc wimps.

 

clipped from lashawnbarber.com Here’s my obligatory statement: I’m embarrassed by the way some blacks have reacted to Imus’s remarks and thoroughly disgusted by their white enablers. As a multiracial society, America is rife with double standards. There’s one standard of acceptable behavior for whites, and another, much lower standard of acceptable behavior for blacks (of all socioeconomic classes). It’s shameful. Everybody knows it, but few will publicly admit it. If black Americans in 2007 are this delicate and overreact to the slightest insults with this much unrighteous indignation, it’s pretty safe to say black people are not made the way they used to be, of stronger stuff, able to withstand truly demeaning and criminal treatment at the hands of true oppressors. It’s sad to know that the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of people who faced actual oppression are so much weaker, much less discerning, and much more undignified.

Is the message here that if Black people complain about something that does not rise to the level of slavery then they are delicate?  I've observed Leshawn's blog.  The writing is excellent and her convictions are strong.  I think she's missing a piece to the puzzle here.

Take a look at Rush Limbaugh's latest satire on Barack Obama.  Hat tip:  Afro-Netizen.

I referenced in my last post on Imus the evidence of this backlash first coming from Don Imus himself:

clipped from inpursuitofperfection.typepad.com So, do African-Americans really have the right to influence, and even control, their public image?  Before 2 weeks ago I would have answered this question easily:  a resounding YES!  However, for me, the most interesting part of this controversy occurred after Imus was fired.  There was a backlash!   Imus issued what was probably the most offensive assertion of the week when he stated, "I may just be a White guy, but I know where this term comes from.  I know that Black men are the ones who denigrate Black women everyday." Well, let me be the first Black man that Don Imus has ever heard of to tell you:  Black men do not go around insulting our Black (or any other!) women.  My mother, my sisters, and my wife would never tolerate me doing so.  Don Imus is a damn fool who should get around to educating himself about the folks he makes a living insulting. While this argument was untrue on every possible level, the media bought in to it.

So how is this related to Imus and what's is the message we should receive as media consumers?  I'll state this simply.

Black people in America today have the right and the responsibility to be wise media consumers.  We have the right to make demands of those that would portray us in the media, whether for the good or bad.  We do not expect everyone to see things our way.  But you will feel the reverberations when we disagree.  Dr. King taught us that.

We do not have to wait until all African-Americans are walking in lock step.  We do not have to wait until all rappers have cleaned up their act.  We do not have to wait for Al and Jesse to decide to leave.  Our citizenship gives us that right.  I agree with Leshawn, there have been two standards of conduct in America for far too long.  We need to recognize that we do not need permission when it comes to knowing when to take action.

The action against Imus made many Americans uncomfortable.  I've been uncomfortable with many things I hear coming from my television every night.  It's been too long in America where Black people are supposed to cover their ears or change the channel and pretend they didn't just hear something insulting.  Don Imus.  We heard you.  I hope you heard us as well.

A Few Thoughts on Don Imus--Part One

So now that the dust has cleared on this whole Imus issue, I'd like to take a second look.

Over the past 2 weeks I have heard this controversy discussed on 24 hour cable news stations and on the 'big 3' television networks.  I listened to talk radio from the right and from the left and to various African-American talk radio shows.  And almost 97% of what I heard was complete and utter rubbish!  This issue has been mishandled and for the most part mis-represented.  I have observed that the framing of an issue (or how it is presented), often times sets the parameters for the discussion.  Such was the case here.  The 3% worthwhile discourse I'll reserve for a couple of "news maker notables" (my term) that I'll acknowledge at the end.  For now, let's address some of the many fallacies I heard thrown around this week.

To begin with, Don Imus did not make a mistake in his comments.  I've widely heard that Don Imus has been unfairly persecuted due to a simple mistake.  Let's be clear:  a mistake is when I say, "Yes" to my wife asking me if these pants make her butt look big.  (Which I'd like to add that I've never done...and also that no pair of pants could...nor would I say so if they did, WHICH THEY WOULDN'T... oh never mind!)  A mistake is when you leave out a word or transpose two words; and though you were trying to communicate one thing, you end up saying quite another. 

No, Don Imus is not at the center of this controversy for a slip of the tongue.  Don said something that he thought was funny.  And in doing so, opened up for us, a small window into his mind.

Some say that jokes are (or should be) protected speech.  And it is true that we all know of comedians who have had success turning sensitive, potentially inflammatory issues into a moment of laughter and healing (i.e. - Muslim comics after 9/11).  Those who succeed at walking the razors edge enjoy our adoration and fame (read: Chris Rock, George Carlin).  Those who fail...can you say "Kramer?"

Another version of this fallacy follows that "Shock Jocks" should have greater leniency when it comes to "politically correct" issues.  In fact, when it comes right down to it:  By firing Imus, haven't we have somehow set back all of our 1st Amendment rights?  First, as you know, jokes are no more a protected form of speech than political satire could be mistaken for treason...well, anyway.  Each of us as Americans enjoy the right to (almost) completely unfettered free speech.  There are some exceptions by the way.  Each of us as Americans also enjoys the right to political protest.

I know of no exceptions to the right of each American to dissent.  Whether during "war-time" or not!  And to my mind, this is at the heart of the Imus controversy.  Our democratic ideas are meant for these cases.  When our 1st Amendment rights clash with others' right to dissent, then what?   How we resolve our differences is what sets our American democracy apart.

So, do African-Americans really have the right to influence, and even control, their public image?  Before 2 weeks ago I would have answered this question easily:  a resounding YES!  However, for me, the most interesting part of this controversy occurred after Imus was fired.  There was a backlash!   Imus issued what was probably the most offensive assertion of the week when he stated, "I may just be a White guy, but I know where this term comes from.  I know that Black men are the ones who denigrate Black women everyday."

Well, let me be the first Black man that Don Imus has ever heard of to tell you:  Black men do not go around insulting our Black (or any other!) women.  My mother, my sisters, and my wife would never tolerate me doing so.  Don Imus is a damn fool who should get around to educating himself about the folks he makes a living insulting.

While this argument was untrue on every possible level, the media bought in to it.  In fact, all coverage of this issue included some discussion of Hip-Hop culture and so-called Black duplicity.  Nor could any African-American analyst who came on any of the media outlets be allowed to discuss their reprehension at Imus's comments without first being made to answer for Jesse, Al, Chris Rock, 50 Cent, JZ, all of hip-hop, and any other obstacles hard-nosed commentators could throw at them.  Within 48 hours of Imus first comments, the conversation had been framed in an entirely different light.  The question was no longer, "How did we get to a place in American discourse where "shock jocks" could make a living?  And how is that impacting our youth?"  Instead, the question seemed to be, "Where do these people get off trying to tell anyone how they can speak, when there are "rappers" around and no one (that we know of) is addressing them.  They're hypocrites!"

Again let me elucidate.  Rap is like Rock and Roll.  There are many types and sub-types.  Elvis Presley is not to be compared with KISS!  Furthermore, as a life-long fan of hip-hop (I'll explain the difference between hip-hop and rap in another post, hang in there for now!), I have always heard Black leaders speaking out against the more negative forms of rap.

So what are the pro-Imus pundits telling me as an American?  The standard for Black people is no protest until perfection?  Apparently, they don't want me to have the right to say to Imus, "Sir, your characterization of a truly exemplary group of women is unacceptable."  What's more, though all of America knows that Al and Jesse are unelected, self-proclaimed leaders, we must all be defined by their actions?!  I don't think so.

I have dealt here with just a few fallacies to come out of this past two week's conversation.  My fingers are tired, as are your eyes, so I will take a break!  Part Two will deal with what African-American, and in fact all American's, response should be to this and other similar challenges.