i have read all the posts on this topic and am fascinated that not one person mentioned the most basic FACT: racisim, by definition, is perpetuated by genaralization of all people in a particular race due to the acts of some. not in one single post did i see any specifics, all i saw was "white people are to blame for this" or "black people that" or "jewish people this", etc. who are these people? give me names

?

Isn't this ENTIRE THREAD ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR INCIDENT? Geez this isn't just some random sounding board about race this whole discussion kicked off because Don Imus made a very insensitive and (in my opinion) racist comment.

Its interesting that you think that we should deal with racism on a unified front yet even in this small internet thread we are oceans apart. If wonder why that is all you have to do is like at Don Imus and his ability to stay on the air and make millions of dollars. Clearly the things he says resonates with a number of people and that should tell you something about this country.

bitty - you are free to change the channel anytime you like

perhaps there are some things more essential to the survival of this country more than a round the clock discussion of basketball. If you think a frank discussion of race is too much then you might be better off keeping your head in the sand.

but hey, I could be wrong

how about that Eddy Curry huh?

[Edited by - misterearl on 04-09-2007 3:17 PM]

Posted by djsunyc:

i hate the indy 500.
i hate the belmont stakes.
i hate the kentucky derby.
i hate the penn relays.
i hate the ny marathon.

does that make me a racist?

No. Webster defines racism as a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups. It may be based on an assumption of inherent biological differences between different ethnic groups that purport to determine cultural or individual behaviour. Racism may be described as a strong form of ethnocentrism, including traits such as xenophobia (fear and hate of foreigners), views against interracial relationships (anti-miscegenation), ethnic nationalism, and ethnic stereotypes.

Since none of the items you listed are races (with the exception of the Derby) or an ethnic group than you would not be classified as a racist (a person who practice racism).

Young women were playing basketball and Don Imus based his entire judgement of the contest on whether or not the women were attractive in his eyes. That is sexist. (As if one could only enjoy the Men's Championship if you wanted to have sex with the players.) He then called the Rutgers players nappy-headed hoes and jigaboos in order to express just how much more disgusting they were to him than the wanna-be-whites were or his beloved white women. That is racist. Therefore Don Imus is a sexist and a racist. He also showed no respect whatsoever for basketball. There's not a word for that, but since I'm a man and am almost completely caucasion, I considered that to be perhaps his greatest sin of all!

I found this incredibly funny skit Don Imus did on Friday with a Bill Clinton impersonator I was just rolling all over the floor laughing.

"Well, Senator Obama is obviously generating some serious cash flow in a non-traditional way ... he's selling crack. Or he's pimping. Which, I guess is pretty much the same thing euphemistically speaking. I mean, I don't want to start rumors but the money had to come from somewhere..."

Posted by djsunyc:

i usually don't partake in these type of discussions but i like to hear myself talk so here it goes:

the "equal" rights movement, in the grand scheme of this country and it's history, really just happened yesterday.

some people have evolved in their outlook in race relations. some have not. but overall, as time passes, one would hope and expect evolution for a society as a whole.

considering how this country was founded, it's going to take a long time for sentiments like this to somewhat dissappear from society's subconscious. the hope is that the next generation, or probably by the generation after that, "nappy headed hoes" would evolve into everybody's favorite hostess dessert "syruppy breaded ho-ho's"

imus is an older man. probably raised during the civil rights era. and we have no idea how his upbringing was in his household. so to him, this was comedy. it could've been something that was accepted in his household or something he was exposed to growing up. and he may be of those guys that hasn't "evolved" as quickly as others. but as time progresses, there will be fewer and fewer imus' on the radio.

Hopefully it will be also less and less people who take the stupid unprofessional joke as a race problem.
Barking dog is not assaulting our intelligence but barking jerk on the radio does. Is it something wrong with him or with us?

Posted by bitty41:

i have read all the posts on this topic and am fascinated that not one person mentioned the most basic FACT: racisim, by definition, is perpetuated by genaralization of all people in a particular race due to the acts of some. not in one single post did i see any specifics, all i saw was "white people are to blame for this" or "black people that" or "jewish people this", etc. who are these people? give me names

?

Isn't this ENTIRE THREAD ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR INCIDENT? Geez this isn't just some random sounding board about race this whole discussion kicked off because Don Imus made a very insensitive and (in my opinion) racist comment.

Its interesting that you think that we should deal with racism on a unified front yet even in this small internet thread we are oceans apart. If wonder why that is all you have to do is like at Don Imus and his ability to stay on the air and make millions of dollars. Clearly the things he says resonates with a number of people and that should tell you something about this country.

Completely on point, Bitty. In part, that was what I was alluding to, in that I find this discussion rather problematic when people are coming from completely different views of what racism is. My feeling is that semantics matters because people are speaking two different languages. One which defines racism as overt predjudice from a person of one skin color directed towards a person of another skin color, and another which takes into account several factors, and sees racism as something more than just consciously hating someone because of their "race."

I think this lack of understanding of racism beyond hatred and prejudice relates to Imus' comments because (based on my own observations) more than a few see his behavior (and other related incidents, i.e. Michael Richards) as an isolated incident of someone just being "stupid", because it seems to represent the overt racial hatred version or racism and ignore the more subtle reasons Imus can get away with such comments, and why some are so quick to suggest that it's somewhat ok for him to say this because some feel that blacks somehow "did it to themselves" or it's just "shock jock" language.

When the movie, 'The Hurricane' came out there were critics of the film who argued that the film maker (Jewison?) and/or the writers/producers turned it into a classic oversimplification of institutional racism, by making Ruben Carter's imprisionment be about a few "evil" white people, rather than seeing it as a systematic and institutional problem that should indicate something about who has the power and who doesn't along socio-racial lines (which also should be a direct challenge to akrud's assertion that racism is not encouraged by the government) and glorifying the Canadian "white heros" (something that seems to be a requirement for all Hollywood movies about racism) who helped him.

Meanwhile we have more than a few young, white people dressing up at college parties in blackface every year and spewing the 'N' word without second thought...

I'm just pointing out that this divide is encouraged, in my view, by the fact that for some reason there is not a clear, accepted definition of racism, which allows people to throw the word around as they please, adding to the confusion and misunderstanding that needs to be eradicated in order for progress in this area to be made.

[Edited by - PresIke on 04-09-2007 4:18 PM]

PresIke I agree with you that there is a definite divide but there will always be a divide because we have different experiences in life. If Steph gets 20 pts and 10 assists tomorrow and we lose some will say he is the reason we lost, some will say everyone else was teh reason. It all depends on our perspective. Whites and blacks will always have differing opinions on these topics. To me that in itself is not the problem. The problem becomes when both groups generalize on what is going on in the world and in our society without taking this into account. A white guy comes on and says he feels Imus was joking some of us instantly label that white guy as a racist instead of maybe viewing it as that person coming from a different situation as us and viewing the Imus comments differently.

Now I say that person is naive and wrong but to assume we have some race problems on this site(like has been alluded to by some) because we can't all agree to fire Imus on the spot is not very thought provoking in my view. The problem with these discussions is they aren't really discussions that get anywhere. They often dissolve into who can say what, who should be saying what, who is a racist and who is complaining. Instead of discussing that fact that as you said, Imus is a racist, has been for decades yet somehow some way stays on the radio. That around the country we have radio hosts hiring people just to be racists on the show. And that somehow nothing is done by any of us. We just wait for someone to make a comment and then force them to apologize and then yell at each other on a Knicks website.

How can I be a racist when THE PEOPLE WHO CAN HIRE ME throw my resume out because of my 1st name is not common and the rest of the staff is caucasian.

[Edited by - playa2 on 09-04-2007 16:33]

Posted by PresIke:

Posted by bitty41:

i have read all the posts on this topic and am fascinated that not one person mentioned the most basic FACT: racisim, by definition, is perpetuated by genaralization of all people in a particular race due to the acts of some. not in one single post did i see any specifics, all i saw was "white people are to blame for this" or "black people that" or "jewish people this", etc. who are these people? give me names

?

Isn't this ENTIRE THREAD ABOUT ONE PARTICULAR INCIDENT? Geez this isn't just some random sounding board about race this whole discussion kicked off because Don Imus made a very insensitive and (in my opinion) racist comment.

Its interesting that you think that we should deal with racism on a unified front yet even in this small internet thread we are oceans apart. If wonder why that is all you have to do is like at Don Imus and his ability to stay on the air and make millions of dollars. Clearly the things he says resonates with a number of people and that should tell you something about this country.

Completely on point, Bitty. In part, that was what I was alluding to, in that I find this discussion rather problematic when people are coming from completely different views of what racism is. My feeling is that semantics matters because people are speaking two different languages. One which defines racism as overt predjudice from a person of one skin color directed towards a person of another skin color, and another which takes into account several factors, and sees racism as something more than just consciously hating someone because of their "race."

I think this lack of understanding of racism beyond hatred and prejudice relates to Imus' comments because (based on my own observations) more than a few see his behavior (and other related incidents, i.e. Michael Richards) as an isolated incident of someone just being "stupid", because it seems to represent the overt racial hatred version or racism and ignore the more subtle reasons Imus can get away with such comments, and why some are so quick to suggest that it's somewhat ok for him to say this because some feel that blacks somehow "did it to themselves" or it's just "shock jock" language.

When the movie, 'The Hurricane' came out there were critics of the film who argued that the film maker (Jewison?) and/or the writers/producers turned it into a classic oversimplification of institutional racism, by making Ruben Carter's imprisionment be about a few "evil" white people, rather than seeing it as a systematic and institutional problem that should indicate something about who has the power and who doesn't along socio-racial lines (which also should be a direct challenge to akrud's assertion that racism is not encouraged by the government) and glorifying the Canadian "white heros" (something that seems to be a requirement for all Hollywood movies about racism) who helped him.

Meanwhile we have more than a few young, white people dressing up at college parties in blackface every year and spewing the 'N' word without second thought...

I'm just pointing out that this divide is encouraged, in my view, by the fact that for some reason there is not a clear, accepted definition of racism, which allows people to throw the word around as they please, adding to the confusion and misunderstanding that needs to be eradicated in order for progress in this area to be made.

[Edited by - PresIke on 04-09-2007 4:18 PM]

I also believe that that semantics is very important to find out if people are talking about same things
Clearing this out usually magically bring us to the point that we are all saying the right things but about different subjects.
Racism can be: Government doctrine and policy to treat the people based on the race
I cannot see this much different from nationalism (based on national descent), religion, or political view.
This was the case in Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, US, Turkey, etc. and it is still the case in some part of the world (see Iran, Darfur, etc.)
Racism also can be the culture of the people who believe that people of other race are of second sort, can be used and punished just because they are what they are. I cannot see big difference if it goes about nation, religion, or politics.
The first thing I believe (but you can prove me wrong) is not the case in US any more.
The second is obviously still strong as it is easy to change the law but very difficult to change the culture.
The black people want to be more black that white people think and white people want to be more white that black people think
May be we'll better want to be better people? I know it's difficult but worth the effort.

These apologies are a waste of precious oxygen and add to global warming. Enough, who cares about these apologies? They are pointless.