Posted by
Tzimisce on Friday, April 13, 2007 1:12:03 PM
What Imus said was really mean. His "nappy headed hos" comment was a swipe at the race, sex and way the ladies Rutgers basketball team conducts itself. Imus stated it thoughtlessly while talking to a guest. He should have apologized and he did. But that wasn't enough. Imus has now been fired from all of his broadcasts.
The scariest thing about the Imus case is that it is setting a precedent. Now any *white man* (and only white men) who say something a Politically Correct demographic takes racial/gender offense at will now find themselves in a bigger firefight. You can now lose your job if you say something these people don't like. Heady with the power he now thinks he has, Al Sharpton is already promising to go after everyone he disagrees with.
The problem is that whereas in the Imus case there is clear racial/gender overtones talk show hosts and shock jocks often discuss things minority groups have a problem with - things that are less of a slurring nature.
For example: Illegal Aliens. You can't talk about making tougher laws on illegal aliens without Hispanic groups getting all in a tizzy. Said groups have dubbed it racist to disagree with them on this particular issue. The thing is that illegal aliens come from everywhere, not just Latin America. Illegal aliens represent every ethnicity, not just Mexicans. Illegal aliens represent every religion not just Catholism. Illegal aliens represent every sexual orientation not just straight. And Illegal aliens represent every political affiliation not just Liberal Democrat. With all of this in mind, who's really being racist on this issue? Most of the people that I've heard who want stricter laws on this issue have never once pointed to a specific race/ethnicity that they want to be harder on than others. But there is a good chance that after seeing what happened to Imus, broadcasters are going to be more nervous every time the issue of immigration comes up.
Naturally this is going to make a lot of Hispanic groups (who favor open borders) very happy. They now have evidence that they can shut down people on the side of the issue that they disagree with.
Another example: Muslims. Muslims have been saying for years that any critique of Islam is "racist" - even though Islam is a religion practiced by a wide array of racial and ethnic groups. Again we have to ask who is really being racist here? Unfortunately leftist politicians viewing these people more as a voting block than a possible damage on our culture by their irresponsible use of definitions, have decided to agree with these people that criticism of Islam is racism. This means that if you ever talk about almost anything from the flying Imams to the War on Terror you could find yourself getting hammered.
These are big issues of the day - and now it seems that they can shut down and silence those who disagree.
My final example: Homosexuals. The Gay community (seeing the success of the civil rights crowd) has been trying to get "homophobia" to be on par with racism. While I agree that you shouldn't make hateful statements about people based on their sexual orientation, "homophobia" has slowly become a word used to describe *anyone* who disagrees with what radical (left wing) homosexuals want. After Imus, we have to ask what will happen to someone who talks about an issue that is near and dear to the Gay Rights crowd but disagrees with them. They will rightly ask "If racial groups have this much power, why don't we?"
There is a definite problem here. Our government hinges on the free flow of ideas. It has now been demonstrated that one side can silence the other. It also demonstrates how far we've come racially. No longer will racial insults about *minorities* be tolerated. Unfortunately the lesson will be grossly overlooked by leftists: they will talk about how disgusting Imus' carelessly used words and phrases shows that we're a racist nation. The fact that he was fired in disgrace will be glossed over.
Note that I've been pointing out which race can say what because inspite of all of this, white men will still be fair game. Even as this Imus thing unfolds, leftist groups continue to hammer the Duke Lacrosse players accused of rape. These are the same players who just a few days ago were declared innocent by investigators. The argument has now evolved from "she was raped" to "well something happened at that party". Although Nifong (who was running for re election in an area with a large black population during a good chunk of the investigation) has apologized, the 88 Duke professors who issued a statement shortly after the charges were filed have (as of the penning of this column) not. Nor has Jesse Jackson who wrote
"The history of white men and black women – the special fantasies and realities of exploitation – goes back to the nation’s beginning and the arrival of slaves from Africa."
-http://www.chicagodefender.com/page/commentary.cfm?ArticleID=4990
There is a definite racial undertone to the Reverend's words. In a twist of irony, while making his disparaging racial remarks Imus noted how unattractive he thought the Rutgers team is.
So there you have it. We are a racist society, but not in the way most people believe. We've come a very long way from the racial stereotyping fifty years ago. There is no doubt that it's now swinging back the other way. I've heard a scary number of people justify modern racism by alleging that the white guys deserve it. But I've always believed that two wrongs never make a right.