IMUS IMUS IMUS.........................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chefmike

From another black columnist, Jason Whitlock:

Imus isn’t the real bad guy

Instead of wasting time on irrelevant shock jock, black leaders need to be fighting a growing gangster culture.
By JASON WHITLOCK - Columnist

Thank you, Don Imus. You’ve given us (black people) an excuse to avoid our real problem.

You’ve given Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson another opportunity to pretend that the old fight, which is now the safe and lucrative fight, is still the most important fight in our push for true economic and social equality.

You’ve given Vivian Stringer and Rutgers the chance to hold a nationally televised recruiting celebration expertly disguised as a news conference to respond to your poor attempt at humor.

Thank you, Don Imus. You extended Black History Month to April, and we can once again wallow in victimhood, protest like it’s 1965 and delude ourselves into believing that fixing your hatred is more necessary than eradicating our self-hatred.

The bigots win again.

While we’re fixated on a bad joke cracked by an irrelevant, bad shock jock, I’m sure at least one of the marvelous young women on the Rutgers basketball team is somewhere snapping her fingers to the beat of 50 Cent’s or Snoop Dogg’s or Young Jeezy’s latest ode glorifying nappy-headed pimps and hos.

I ain’t saying Jesse, Al and Vivian are gold-diggas, but they don’t have the heart to mount a legitimate campaign against the real black-folk killas.

It is us. At this time, we are our own worst enemies. We have allowed our youths to buy into a culture (hip hop) that has been perverted, corrupted and overtaken by prison culture. The music, attitude and behavior expressed in this culture is anti-black, anti-education, demeaning, self-destructive, pro-drug dealing and violent.

Rather than confront this heinous enemy from within, we sit back and wait for someone like Imus to have a slip of the tongue and make the mistake of repeating the things we say about ourselves.

It’s embarrassing. Dave Chappelle was offered $50 million to make racially insensitive jokes about black and white people on TV. He was hailed as a genius. Black comedians routinely crack jokes about white and black people, and we all laugh out loud.

I’m no Don Imus apologist. He and his tiny companion Mike Lupica blasted me after I fell out with ESPN. Imus is a hack.

But, in my view, he didn’t do anything outside the norm for shock jocks and comedians. He also offered an apology. That should’ve been the end of this whole affair. Instead, it’s only the beginning. It’s an opportunity for Stringer, Jackson and Sharpton to step on victim platforms and elevate themselves and their agenda$.

I watched the Rutgers news conference and was ashamed.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke for eight minutes in 1963 at the March on Washington. At the time, black people could be lynched and denied fundamental rights with little thought. With the comments of a talk-show host most of her players had never heard of before last week serving as her excuse, Vivian Stringer rambled on for 30 minutes about the amazing season her team had.

Somehow, we’re supposed to believe that the comments of a man with virtually no connection to the sports world ruined Rutgers’ wonderful season. Had a broadcaster with credibility and a platform in the sports world uttered the words Imus did, I could understand a level of outrage.

But an hourlong press conference over a man who has already apologized, already been suspended and is already insignificant is just plain intellectually dishonest. This is opportunism. This is a distraction.

In the grand scheme, Don Imus is no threat to us in general and no threat to black women in particular. If his words are so powerful and so destructive and must be rebuked so forcefully, then what should we do about the idiot rappers on BET, MTV and every black-owned radio station in the country who use words much more powerful and much more destructive?

I don’t listen or watch Imus’ show regularly. Has he at any point glorified selling crack cocaine to black women? Has he celebrated black men shooting each other randomly? Has he suggested in any way that it’s cool to be a baby-daddy rather than a husband and a parent? Does he tell his listeners that they’re suckers for pursuing education and that they’re selling out their race if they do?

When Imus does any of that, call me and I’ll get upset. Until then, he is what he is — a washed-up shock jock who is very easy to ignore when you’re not looking to be made a victim.

No. We all know where the real battleground is. We know that the gangsta rappers and their followers in the athletic world have far bigger platforms to negatively define us than some old white man with a bad radio show. There’s no money and lots of danger in that battle, so Jesse and Al are going to sit it out.

---

Yes!
I saw this on CNN tonight.
I totally agree with this guy.
I have spoken out against "rap" and the "gangsta lifestyle" on THIS board MULTIPLE times.
I have been rebuffed or laughed at by other members......now some of the chickens are coming home to roost.
Let me ask you this.....
Why did Imus go and talk with Al Sharpton in the first place?
WHY?
I dont get it........I think if Imus had gone to the basketball team IMMEDIATELY he would still have a job.
Al Sharpton is just an observer.......he had no real role in the incident.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabuki

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ_Asia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabuki

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DJ_Asia

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabuki

"if a white leader where to speak out specifically on WHITE folks...its racist."

What kind of speaking out are you talking about? Maybe I'm reading into this wrong. It just makes you sound like you support one of these ignorant white males talking about white power.

.

---

Kabuki,

Thank you for inadvertantly confirming my point...
If a white man speaks out its labled as "white power"...how come when a black leader speaks out it isnt labled "black power"??!?!

---

How did I confirm your point?...Speak out as much as you like, but when a white male gets in front of a crowd spitting out racist remarks...of course that's wrong...explain your logic here. Maybe I missed something again. I never said that you were a racist. I just don't think you're clear with whatever point you wanted to make.

---

:banghead Clearly this topic isnt going anywhere...obviously you fail to understand my logic and vice/versa.Or perhaps you choose not to see my point, many others in this thread have understood my point,and commented as much.

.Im no racist,but I do see issues,and im not afraid to ask questions,not in a confrontational manner,but in a way that im hoping my eyes can be opened to something Im currently not catching.


My point IS.... *sigh*..... anytime a race oriented issue arises,Sharpton,Jackson,Farrakhan come out and speak their mind on behalf of black america...sorry mate...but thats racist.They are clearly speaking on behalf of a black issue or person Once that occurs and the race element is introduced by these people,then its a racist issue.Yet these people are valued members of the black community.
If white america had the same 2 or 3 guys who came on TV everytime a white person was humiliated or degraded or robbed or murdered or prejudiced against or called "Cracker" then im sure they would be labled a racist group with racist intent....and black leaders would be outraged. How is this not a double standard?How is this ok...and most importantly how does black america not recognize that it does way more harm then good to black/white relations?!

Black america has its leaders,its organizations (NAACP,UNCF)its own mainstream publications(Ebony,Black Men) and so forth.
Yet I venture to guess if a succesful magazine called "White Man" were to launch,where every single ad had only nordic models,advertising skin care for "that glow as white as the morning snow",where every article was entirely dedicated to the white man and devoid of even a single person of color... or perhaps United Cauacasian College Fund,where the only prerequisite to be eligible was the fact that you were white... or National Association for the Advancement of White People...If any of these ANY OF THEM were to become a reality then the racial implications would fly,the shit would hit the fan,America would go fuckin nuts ...use whatever terminology you choose,but it wouldnt be pretty...Yet amazingly all the black groups and publications I mentioned arent a hypothetical what-if,they are reality.

....so again my point is:

How is that NOT a double standard??!? And why is it ok to be like that?As long as black america continues to prove through actions,words,deeds,organizations,publications and lingo that they are different and entitled to these things because of the color of their skin then one cannot but expect the Imus' and Michael Richards of the world to lash out in retaliation and the struggles of race relations to continue on the current road its on.

---

You misunderstood me it seems. When did we start talking about so-called white leaders...outside of the white power leaders. :banghead And how is Jackson speaking out on any case racist? I may not like Jackson, but he's racist? Your reasoning is flaw. Black america doesn't even follow Farrakhan. He hasn't even been in the media spotlight in years. So, if Obama spoke out against Imus, he's racist too? Do you want anyone to speak out? From your points, you seem to be upset that there are any kind of black magazines or organizations. I've heard this argument before, and I doubt I can make you understand the flaws in your argument. Black america is underrepresented in television, newspapers, and magazines. How many shows relate to black america on national television? I really want to hear your solutions to these issues.

Black america is treated differently. You can't grasp that, since you aren't black. I doubt you would get pulled over by cops for no reason on a regular basis. Drive through South Carolina and see if you get pulled over. I've been pulled over just because I had a white woman in my car. I was driving the speed limit, yet the cop pulled me over, and proceeded to the passenger side. Asking my white passenger if she was ok. You can't tell me about double standards. He had no excuse for his stop, except he was checking on my lady friend. I guess if I would have called Jackson down there, we're a bunch of racists.

---

My grandfather on my mothers side was one of the darkest skinned black man I ever met.

Al Sharpton demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban violent rappers from radio and television, and he launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed special concern about white perceptions of African Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has learned through rap images to identify black male culture with a culture of violence."

Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who issued a statement claiming that music companies and rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and black souls as less moral, oversexed and less intelligent."

quotes from this article:

"Is Rap tomorrow's Jazz?"
By Thaddeus Russell

THADDEUS RUSSELL is a professor of history and American studies at Barnard College.

August 16, 2005

A LEADING African American newspaper published a series of articles assailing black musicians for holding back the race. The music "is killing some people," the paper claimed. "Some are going insane; others are losing their religion." The artists under attack were not rappers such as 50 Cent or Ludacris but Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington. "The young girls and boys who constantly take jazz every day and night are absolutely becoming bad, and some criminals," the (New York) Amsterdam News wrote in 1925.

There is a long but little-known history of African American leaders denouncing black popular music as self-destructive and an impediment to integration, a history that continues in the current campaign against rap. This is unfortunate because rap, like older forms of black popular music now considered to be "America's classical music," is distinctive and important because it differs from the norms of "respectable" culture.

Last month, when Lil' Kim was sentenced to prison for lying to a grand jury about a shooting, her raps were also indicted as an obstacle to black progress. "Her music is laced with lyrics that glorify promiscuous sex and gratuitous violence," wrote DeWayne Wickham, a nationally syndicated columnist and former president of the National Assn. of Black Journalists. "She is a Pied Piper of the worst kind — a diva of smut."

The criticisms of Lil' Kim were launched amid an anti-rap movement that began in March, soon after shots were fired by the rival entourages of 50 Cent and the Game outside a New York radio station. Al Sharpton demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban violent rappers from radio and television, and he launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed special concern about white perceptions of African Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has learned through rap images to identify black male culture with a culture of violence."

Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who issued a statement claiming that music companies and rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and black souls as less moral, oversexed and less intelligent."

These critics argue that the "damaging" images of African Americans in rap discourage whites from opening the door to full citizenship. Yet a consideration of the troubled relationship between civil rights leaders and black popular music in the past might give pause to the opponents of contemporary rap, and, for that matter, to the proponents of integration. In fact, blues, jazz, rock 'n' roll and rhythm and blues were all denounced by advocates for racial integration, and for the same reasons rap is now under attack.

In the 1920s, several civil rights leaders were so concerned about the sexual and violent content of popular blues and jazz songs that they established a record company to "undertake the job of elevating the musical taste of the race." Promoted by W.E.B. DuBois and A. Philip Randolph, two of the most important civil rights leaders of the 20th century, Black Swan Records pledged to distribute "the Better Class of Records by Colored Artists," which meant recordings of "respectable" European classical music.

Civil rights leaders similarly opposed the next creations of African American musicians: rock 'n' roll and rhythm and blues. In the 1950s, Martin Luther King Jr. told African Americans to shun the new music, which, he said, "plunges men's minds into degrading and immoral depths." Likewise, Randolph's Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, which produced a great portion of the civil rights leadership, condemned rock and R&B for their overt sexuality and their "degrading portrayal of Negro womanhood."

This history suggests that the cause of integration has always been at odds with what is now widely hailed as America's most important contribution to world culture. Many scholars argue that the creators of jazz, blues, rock and R&B were great because of their willingness and ability to work outside European cultural forms and to speak about elements of the human condition that white artists would not, such as sex and violence.

Those who attack the latest form of black popular music for the sake of racial unity and "respectability" might stop to consider which side, in the history that will be written of this time, they wish to be on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabuki

Al Sharpton demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban violent rappers from radio and television, and he launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed special concern about white perceptions of African Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has learned through rap images to identify black male culture with a culture of violence."

Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who issued a statement claiming that music companies and rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and black souls as less moral, oversexed and less intelligent."

quotes from this article:

"Is Rap tomorrow's Jazz?"
By Thaddeus Russell

THADDEUS RUSSELL is a professor of history and American studies at Barnard College.

August 16, 2005

A LEADING African American newspaper published a series of articles assailing black musicians for holding back the race. The music "is killing some people," the paper claimed. "Some are going insane; others are losing their religion." The artists under attack were not rappers such as 50 Cent or Ludacris but Fats Waller, Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington. "The young girls and boys who constantly take jazz every day and night are absolutely becoming bad, and some criminals," the (New York) Amsterdam News wrote in 1925.

There is a long but little-known history of African American leaders denouncing black popular music as self-destructive and an impediment to integration, a history that continues in the current campaign against rap. This is unfortunate because rap, like older forms of black popular music now considered to be "America's classical music," is distinctive and important because it differs from the norms of "respectable" culture.

Last month, when Lil' Kim was sentenced to prison for lying to a grand jury about a shooting, her raps were also indicted as an obstacle to black progress. "Her music is laced with lyrics that glorify promiscuous sex and gratuitous violence," wrote DeWayne Wickham, a nationally syndicated columnist and former president of the National Assn. of Black Journalists. "She is a Pied Piper of the worst kind — a diva of smut."

The criticisms of Lil' Kim were launched amid an anti-rap movement that began in March, soon after shots were fired by the rival entourages of 50 Cent and the Game outside a New York radio station. Al Sharpton demanded that the Federal Communications Commission ban violent rappers from radio and television, and he launched a boycott against Universal Music Group, which he accused of "peddling racist and misogynistic black stereotypes" through rap music. Sharpton expressed special concern about white perceptions of African Americans. Rappers and their corporate supporters "make it easy for black culture to be dismissed by the majority," he said, and the large white fan base "has learned through rap images to identify black male culture with a culture of violence."

Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition signed on to the boycott, as did Princeton professor Cornel West, who issued a statement claiming that music companies and rappers made it easy for whites to "view black bodies and black souls as less moral, oversexed and less intelligent."

These critics argue that the "damaging" images of African Americans in rap discourage whites from opening the door to full citizenship. Yet a consideration of the troubled relationship between civil rights leaders and black popular music in the past might give pause to the opponents of contemporary rap, and, for that matter, to the proponents of integration. In fact, blues, jazz, rock 'n' roll and rhythm and blues were all denounced by advocates for racial integration, and for the same reasons rap is now under attack.

In the 1920s, several civil rights leaders were so concerned about the sexual and violent content of popular blues and jazz songs that they established a record company to "undertake the job of elevating the musical taste of the race." Promoted by W.E.B. DuBois and A. Philip Randolph, two of the most important civil rights leaders of the 20th century, Black Swan Records pledged to distribute "the Better Class of Records by Colored Artists," which meant recordings of "respectable" European classical music.

Civil rights leaders similarly opposed the next creations of African American musicians: rock 'n' roll and rhythm and blues. In the 1950s, Martin Luther King Jr. told African Americans to shun the new music, which, he said, "plunges men's minds into degrading and immoral depths." Likewise, Randolph's Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, which produced a great portion of the civil rights leadership, condemned rock and R&B for their overt sexuality and their "degrading portrayal of Negro womanhood."

This history suggests that the cause of integration has always been at odds with what is now widely hailed as America's most important contribution to world culture. Many scholars argue that the creators of jazz, blues, rock and R&B were great because of their willingness and ability to work outside European cultural forms and to speak about elements of the human condition that white artists would not, such as sex and violence.

Those who attack the latest form of black popular music for the sake of racial unity and "respectability" might stop to consider which side, in the history that will be written of this time, they wish to be on.

---

TOLD U SO!

SB,

It most likely would have been ignored if Sharpton or Jackson had not got involved. Do you really believe that if just the Rutgers coach had held a press conference that it would have had the media attention and thus taken off if Sharpton or Jackson had remained on the sidelines? I don't.

I too don't care for the "gangsta" lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Realgirls4me

Mike,Quinn:

I've read the articles you linked earlier. One article actually sought and quoted Rush Limbaugh -- RUSH LIMBAUGH -- so that one was automatically dismissed, and the other one from Ridley was basically a shameless one-sided hit piece on Jackson by one of his detractors. Though they, and other articles I've read, confirm that Jackson did initially get involved with the Duke case, the key word is initially. Unlike The New Black Panther Party, which still thinks the three Duke players are guilty and accuse Nifong of not doing his job, Jackson nor Sharpton were there in the background throughout this Duke case. I think that they discovered early that this woman's story was not on the up-and-up and pulled away with their moral and public support. I don't know if support for her financially initially, which goes with the PUSH/Rainbow Coalition mantra of pulling black youth "up and out", is necessarily supporting her story or claims. Apples and oranges, in other words. Many out there who don't know Jackson -- AND MANY HERE DON'T FROM WHAT I'VE READ -- don't know that his coalitions and organizations have railed against black kids dropping out of school, having babies out of wedlock, and most recently, his and Sharpton's attack on rap lyrics. They see Jackson at the Teri Schiabo case and automatically go off and criticize him, but what they don't know in that case for example is that the Schiabo family requested him for his spiritual guidance. The "Hymietown" comment was one off the record referring to an area of town as it was known. It was suppose to be off the record, but the reporter reported it anyway, and Jackson has not been able to live it down ever since. He paid a huge price for that gaffe. He didn't single out one person or a group of people as Imus did and yet his detractors won't allow that issue to die. Jackson forgave Jimmy the Greek for his drunk induced racial comment after Jimmy called him, why can't some of you perfect posters allow the Hymietown comment to go?

The thing that disturbs me about all this is that some of you are quick to slam Jackson and Sharpton by utilizing their past to discredit or disparage them don't or can't see this issue or position THROUGH A MINORITY PERSPECTIVE. You're most likely white and completely miss the forest for the trees. You can't relate in other words. You see Jackson or Sharpton on TV and your first thought has to be, Oh, what's that black idiot clown stirring up now..? When Jackson last night on Keith Olberman said that there are "no blacks or Latinos at MSNBC in the 3:00 to midnight slot", it resonated with me as a Latino, whereas I doubt any of you who are white would even have noticed such a comment because of the different world of treatment you are from. Jackson has championed causes such as workers in Chicago losing their well paid jobs to the Patriot Act, or the white poor of the Appalacia, but you ignorantly or conveniently miss issues like that. Taking a page from Jackson and Sharpton, in today's local paper there is an article of local Latino activists succeeding in getting Ken Burns to amend his six part series on World War II to include the contributions of some of the 500,000 Latinos who served. Imagine leaving half-a-million service personel out as if they never existed? Imagine that you as a white were marginalized and ignored like that? You're not, so you can't possibly relate. ...As a Latino, I wish a Jackson or Sharpton had been around in 1960 to protest the casting of the movie, Hell To Eternity; the true life story of a Los Angeles Hispanic (Guy Galbadon) who conviced 800 Japanese to surrender. Want to guess who played the lead role? Yep, the late blonde hair, blue eyed, Jeffery Hunter. Was that a fair depiction, and would I as a Latino care too much about a man's error ridden past like that of Jackson if he could shed light and bring justice to a wrong ? No. This is the point I'm trying to make about those such as Jackson and Sharpton -- they serve a valuable role, but you are not likely to see or understand it if you're from the good side of the tracks. I can't help you there.

Despite whatever baggage one might attribute to them, and THEY DO have baggage, only public figures such as Jackson and Sharpton can bring light to such issues because of who they are, and it is stupid to cite and focus on things such as Hymietown or Tawana Brawley and not focus on the good they have done. Both of the aforementioned gaffes are what, some 20 years old? Is championing for economic fairness as Jackson has wrong? Healthcare? And the reason the "double standard" line falls flat with a huge thud in most cases, is that it is premised on an equal standing among two parties, and right now in this country we just aren't there yet.

By the way, I think what Sharpton put people through in the Tawana Brawley case warrants an apology from him. I think Jackson would have done it. Sharpton claimed yesterday that because he felt the woman was convincing and telling the truth, that his actions were in accordance to that, and therefore no apology is needed. I disagree, but that's just my opinion.


All that being said, once again, I'd like to know what every Jackson and Sharpton detractor and cynic in this thread would do in cases such as the Rutger's case? Who should minorities turn to, or do you really believe we live in a perfect world not in need of equality, justice, and/or fairness?

---

Jackson and Sharpton are about Jackson and Sharpton, they just use the black community for there own personal gain. Jackson forgave Jimmy the Greek but the networks never did, Howard Cosell too was banished for good for saying look at the monkey go. If a white leader said it is in NIGGER TOWN or BEANER VILLE, they would never be heard from again unlike Jesse Jackson. If a white mayor smoked crack he would never work in politics again let alone become mayor again. There is a a double standard when it comes to what people say, if Jesse Jackson said CRACKER TOWN it would have never been anything but he picked on the Jews so he had to pay.

Oh I remember another Rev. Sharpton riot, when the Jewish guy hit the 2 black kids and the ambulance took the Jewish guy first, he lied and said the paramedics refused to treat the children, when they did and there was nothing they could do and another ambulance was there already. He got 4 Jewish people killed in the riots, 4 innocent people killed because they were jewish and he stood up for the rioters. That is why they do more harm then good.

The 60's are over, it is now 2007 no need to keep opening up those wounds.

One more thing, Imus is an old guy who doesn't need to work anymore, if I were him I would defend what I said, it was a joke! That is it. I would say something like this to the girls. Listen you bunch of nappy headed gangsters, I really meant to call you bull dykes!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freak

The 60's are over, it is now 2007 no need to keep opening up those wounds.

---

The wounds never healed though :cry:

CBS Fires Don Imus
By Michael David Smith

Quote:

---

Broadcasting legend Don Imus no longer has a platform. A day after MSNBC dumped him from television, CBS has fired him from the radio. Last week Imus called the Rutgers women's basketball team "nappy-headed hos," and this week one of the most influential broadcasters in history is out of work.

CBS President and Chief Executive Officer Leslie Moonves released a statement saying,

"From the outset, I believe all of us have been deeply upset and revulsed by the statements that were made on our air about the young women who represented Rutgers University in the NCAA Women's Basketball Championship with such class, energy and talent.... Those who have spoken with us the last few days represent people of goodwill from all segments of our society – all races, economic groups, men and women alike. In our meetings with concerned groups, there 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."

This morning, on what would turn out to be his last show, Imus raised nearly $1 million for charity in the first five hours of his annual radio fundraiser.

Although Imus no longer has a radio show, that certainly does not mean his career is over. His show was enormously popular, and he can attract enough listeners that some station will give him a second chance. The most likely venue for Imus is satellite radio, which is less reliant on advertisers and therefore less susceptible to boycotts.

---

I heard sirius radio is hiring,oh wait they are already occupied by a jackass howard stern!

only if you don't let them