Posted by Killa4luv:

Posted by BlueSeats:
But let's imagine that they didn't, and it became commonplace for prominent Jews to call each other racial slurs in the lucrative media (which they often own, like the movie biz) such that it became hip or popular (again, for lack of better terms,) who could not expect other races to hop in to join the fun and be part of the hip crowd?

Good point, but its incomplete. What you fail to acknowledge is that black people do NOT own the media. prominent Jews often do, as you said, and are therefore indirectly responsible (along with the other mainly white owners) for many of the negative images being promoted in the media. The owners of media are ALWAYS able to promote whatever viewpoint they want, and what we are experiencing throughout the media is the promotion and control of black culture by non-black people. This is why movies, like "Soul Plane" get written and greenlighted by white people, in spite of its overall stupidity. This is why hip hop when from a art form that promoted cultural unity and love, into the buffoonery that it has become. Most of you are probably not familiar with Hip Hops history but thats what happened. Revolutionary/Radical/Pro-Black hip hop did not make the white owners of these record labels comfortable. And so they opted to promote ganster, or happy-go-lucky music and over time this is what we have.

If I owned a media company I could easily find anyone of any race, religion, nationality, and have them play bafoons that demean their heritage. This is a capitalist society, you can always get someone to play the bafoon for money. The owners of media are the ones who control the images that are put out, and are therefore responsible. As the women's movement said: you can always find a woman who is willing to demean herself for a couple of bucks, racial ethnic, religouis groups are no different.

Posted by Killa4luv:

What is also saddening to me is that because of the promotion of negative images in the media which are promoted by non-black people, average white Americans who have limited contact with real black people, think they know or understand how black people think and behave. When they see black people act in those ways in real life, they think aha, the media is portraying them accurately, but never consider that the media is actually a shaper of our community much more than it is a reflection of it. My life as a black man, has given me the oppurtunity to watch the dramatic changes that have occured in over time mainly as a result of drugs and hip hop music that is owned and controlled by white people.

Posted by EnySpree:

[Bottom line is, I've been discussing the use of language without tying it to racism, and I think the problem is that you and some others have trouble to accept the disconnect between the two. Sometimes they overlap, but these days, for reasons already discussed, sometimes they don't.
As for Imus, unlike yourself, I wouldn't venture to guess if he's a racist or not. However, I can certainly see why some would be bothered by the language he chose, borrowed or parodied. ]

This is the non-sense I was talking about.

"language he chose, borrowed,
or parodied"

Wow. I'm speechless.

Posted by codeunknown:

Posted by BlueSeats:


Can I ask you why in this post you cut out the rest of my answer that I believe already answered your question of where we disagree?

You may recall, you started the paragraph I bolded from by stating that you disagree with me. You found my discussion of how this language arose "really problematic". You posited that by suggesting that blacks are making desultory language against them commonplace implies that racism is the fault of black people. What an enormous leap of logic!

That's like if a person said they think Janet Jackson demeaned herself by baring her breast during the superbowl and another suggested one could read that as she deserved to be raped. Enormous leaps of logic don't make sense.

And you seem to be perpetuating the confusion by removing the clarification I gave on the issue. So here it is again in short hand: because of the now commonality of the language I don't automatically associate it with racism. Since I mostly encounter it in the context of humor, that is how I typically associate it; and for that shift in culture I blame those blacks who've perhaps over used it. They've made the meaning of lines like "nappy haired hos" ambiguous by turning them from mean to playful, IMO.

Well, I cut that segment out because the majority of those points were not what I was contesting. They weren't removed to confuse you or anyone else. Believe me, confusion is what I'm working against.

I don't think you're quite understanding what my argument was regarding that paragraph. Please re-read it. Above, you write that I "posited that by suggesting that blacks are making desultory language against them commonplace implies that racism is the fault of black people." I didn't argue that and I think you know that. What I said was:

"... while that language may have arisen in a segment of a black community, racism didn't. So, while halting the use of such language in black communities may curb the use of words like "ho," its not a given that the underlying racism will diminish. I know you're not writing a textbook, but, by not even mentioning the widespread racism that occurs without the use of explicit language (and that isn't initiated by black communities), the tone of the above paragragh (and that one only) seems to suggest that racism itself is somehow the fault of black people."

The concern here is the emphasis of your argument. Although you admit Imus is well travelled and likely not one of the "impressionable followers" you focus almost exclusively on the gullible audience that believes such language is "playful" and "insider." Instead of discussing how to stop the potential underlying racism, which I initially thought you were doing, you focus on halting the popularization of "hood talk." You say:

"The sort of language that Imus engaged in is on the verge of becoming mainstream in this society. That's the problem, and I contend that is because of the numbers of blacks who engage in it on a daily basis mores so than the occasional whites."

My assessment of your paragraph should not be an "enormous leap of logic to you" if you understand that, in a thread about potential racism against blacks, you show only a passing interest in Imus's offensive comments and instead state that the major problem is bigoted language BY black entertainers. Since you so quickly turn the victims (who happen to be the historical targets of racism) into offenders due to a minority of entertainers, your priorities will seem illogical to many people. I believe this is the same concern Bitty voiced. Again, your concern is that black entertainers are the main guardians of offensive language while others are concerned that white entertainers like Imus are among the guardians of racism itself. Whether or not he is actually a racist is debateable - its your focus, which creates a dismissive tone, that is causing the uproar. This is what I said at the outset.

The disconnect between racism and racist language that you propose is valid in context. Racism manifests in many forms apart from racist language. And racist language originates for reasons other than racism: including, among others, establishment in the mainstream lexicon, comedy and pure shock value. The negative value of racist language is in its racism and, surely, racist language can perpetuate racist behavior. But, very clearly, the far more dominant causal relationship is that racism fuels racist language, as well as other hateful behavior, and thus it makes sense to disrupt that sequence at the origin. So why would you start with the black entertainers? To eliminate the language, a mostly secondary consequence? That unfortunately makes zero sense.

Again, the negative value in racist language is in its racism and the disconnect between the two doesn't allow one to selectively ignore one. Certainly, after considering the specific and repetitive nature of Imus's comments, you can't begin by assuming that disconnect in his case.

Posted by BlueSeats:

As for Imus, unlike yourself, I wouldn't venture to guess if he's a racist or not. However, I can certainly see why some would be bothered by the language he chose, borrowed or parodied.

That depends entirely on how you define racist. We agree that Imus is not a gullible follower. But , even moving further, if you believe that Imus went for unadulterated shock, the phrase "nappy headed hoes" is not a colloqial term. "Hoes" is, "nappy headed hoes" isn't. Its a conceived juxtaposition just like the "rough girls" comment, both of which are devoid of humor, arousing nothing but a nervous chuckle after the sheer disbelief. There are many alternative methods to achieve shock value which he frequently employs - this particular choice was unnecessary to sustain his program. One could argue that it was merely a comedic gaffe, but, again, the repetition of comments suggests against it. The psychology behind his statements are debateable but I would lean towards a negative conclusion.

Posted by arkrud:

I think that we all should be glad that the race issues in this country are limited to public talks and comedian outbursts.
Nobody is getting killed, bitten, deprived from job/position, harassed at school, or in the street.
As a Jew national I went through all of this in former Soviet Union where anti-Semitism (same thing as racism) was both carried by government and by the street.
Surely it all starts with talk but come-on… It’s not really as bad and just indicated law cultural level of some people in the media.
This is sad but surely not criminal.

Posted by simrud:

So it only took Killa 2 posts to blame it all on the Jews I see. Nice, real nice. And this on a thread about racism.