[an error occurred while processing this directive]

LATEST SUBMISSIONS

Whistling Past the Graveyard

Thursday, April 19 at 12:01 AM

This Speakout has not been edited

By Rudy V. Garcia, Golden

The metaphors are plenty - “The elephant in the room", “The camel’s nose in the tent", “Whistling past the graveyard” - and on, and on. These and many others, I’m sure, are part of the discussions of the day: Imus got fired!

While there may be ‘universal’ agreement about the abhorrence in the pejorative characterization uttered by Imus - it must have its place in public discourse. The onslaught of issues surrounding that utterance seem without end - ‘can the FCC regulate such speech’, ‘can the FCC regulate good-taste’, ‘are there “bright lines” that distinguish speech as it relates to race, gender or ethnicity’, ‘are there rules about who can speak to such issues’, ‘what are the medias’ roles in matters of race, gender or ethnicity issues’, ‘do lawmakers and/or the courts have roles to play or add to the public discourse on matters of race, gender or ethnic relations’?

I don’t know. One thing I do know for sure, however, is that until future social scientists and geneticists determine that “we” should all look and behave alike, there are going to be ‘social, racial, gender and ethnic chasms’ that divide us. I’m not implying that ‘social civilities’ should not be part of our existence - I am simply pointing out what is obvious to most folks - there will never be the utopian social structure envisioned, pandered by, espoused by or wished for, by those who make pronouncements about the need to live in a society free of discrimination - discrimination in any form.

Our (American) society has determined that practical measures must be in effect to ensure that employment, housing, health, education and other social needs are available and provided indiscriminately. The argument / discussion continues as to whether those measures (laws) are as effective as they were meant to be. The famous contemporary rhetorical question remains: How many and what kind of laws should we have to ensure that “words” uttered do not hurt another? Politicians, pundits, prognosticators, and others who profess to own (or at least claim to know more about) the ‘higher ground’ on social relations, would have us believe ‘innate’ human tendencies, propensities and learned traits can be changed. I respectfully disagree. It is a human condition to discriminate (not entirely in the sense of creating adverse conditions).

So, we’re left with ‘loud voices’ and those voices lost in the wilderness. When it comes to ‘loud voices’, as they relate to race and ethnicity, Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton come to mind. And, why shouldn’t they? When issues of “race” have dominated the media, in recent years, it has been Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton who ensure the topic remains at the forefront of ‘public discussion’, whether monologue or dialogue. These two gentlemen are viewed as ‘consciousness-raisers’ - A term used by many to describe a process that ensures ‘an issue’ remains in the public discourse for as long as possible.

For sure, both Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson have served their causes well over the years.

This brings me to the cathartic purpose of this note.

The conversation that has dominated the news media and ‘water cooler’ conversations for the last few days, has been the Don Imus / Rutgers Women’s Basketball Team story - the despicable characterization used by Mr. Imus and the resulting termination of his employment at NBC and CBS. Is there a balance - was the offense committed by Mr. Imus (despicable as it was) so severe as to cause his termination of employment? I don’t know the answer to that question. But, according to the networks (CBS and NBS) it was ‘severe’ enough and fired him. I don’t believe them (the networks) for one second. I will never be convinced that it was their concerns about ‘social sensibilities’ that resulted in Imus’ termination. It was, plain and simple, the sponsors withdrawing their commercial contracts.

I’ll ask the question. Why didn’t the sponsors who support Jesse Jackson show the same outrage and indignation over comments Mr. Jackson has made about other races or religions - his “Hymietown” comments, for example. A jury found Sharpton liable for making seven defamatory statements about others during the Tawana Brawley case - subsequently determined that Ms. Brawley had lied. Why isn’t the media asking Jesse Jackson about his support for the young lady who claimed to be raped by some North Carolina students? I know, I know - the issue at hand is the outrageous and despicable comments made by Mr. Imus. But, my rhetorical, cathartic question remains: Why aren’t we just as outraged about comments (and deeds) made by other ‘public figures’, including Mr. Jackson and Mr. Sharpton? Why aren’t commercial sponsors of media programs that support Mr. Sharpton and Mr. Jackson, rife with indignation? Why? Because it is not ‘politically correct’ to ‘question’ outrageous comments or statements made by members of a minority group - mine included.

I am saddened by the fact that we’ve allowed an ‘open public discourse’ on race, religion, gender or ethnicity to be ‘hijacked’ by a very few in this country, without being ‘branded’ as a sexist, racist or other adjectives.

Should Mr. Imus have been fired for those outrageous comments? I don’t know. Should we have been just as outraged about Mr. Jackson’s and Mr. Sharpton’s comments and deeds?

Absolutely! But, we’ll just continue ‘whistling past the graveyard’.

READER COMMENTS

The feelings I have about the Imus situation are strangely similar to what I feel when I see some misguided white person change his or her speech and personal affect in a pathetic attempt to gain acceptance among a particular group of people. Pity. Embarassment. A little bit of shame.
White people are not allowed to make fun of black people. White people may admire and emulate black people if they wish, but they will never, ever be truly accepted by them. It is acceptable for black musicians and comedians to publicly stereo-type white people and to degrade women in their music and videoes. Blacks and other "minorities" may form groups and even offer assistance to those of their own race, but if someone formed an organization to help poor white kids get through college, all hell would break loose. We must accept and comply with the double standard which exists. White people may not complain about being racially targeted or discriminated against, even though it occasionally does happen. I understand that minorities have struggled to adapt and evolve in a nation which cruelly oppressed them at one point, and I despise the fact that such hatred and ignorance ever existed--but for how long must I apologize and play whipping-boy for something I had no part of? What if it had been a black man calling those women "nappy-headed hoes"? I'm sure there would have been some sort of punishment, sure...but there would also have been an outpouring of support criticising the white mans lack of cultural understanding. Imus' comments were just plain dumb, and he made a fool out of himself...but let's start making EVERYBODY accountable who is guilty of hate and racism...

Posted by Jenny Daniels on April 20, 2007 10:56 PM

Good post....
You demonstrate what we all know. Minorities can be racists and make false claims and do name calling....Let a anglo say something and he is a racists.
This is America,....to hell with political correctness...we are all free to openly say what we want to say. I always have and always will speak my mind. I am not a "racists" but I am "opinionated" and "judgemental" of everyone. No matter what color, creed, or race they be.
America...land of the free and freedom of speech.

Posted by gary on April 19, 2007 05:26 PM