|
Don Imus Did Not Shock Me Exclusive to STR May 16, 2007 “Many
of my white friends do not understand the background to many words that
are offensive to me. How hard is it to just not say these words? How hard
is it not to use the N-Word or any word that would offend a race? You do
not need a high level of education to avoid saying a handful of words.
Everyone knows the background to African American culture in this nation
and the pain that stems from years of hatred, disrespect and oppression.
If you do not know then you need to educate yourself and learn the
background of these words and of our history.” ~ an Internet poster I
purposely waited to submit this essay until after most of the Imus-induced
furor had died down. I did so
because I think there are deeper issues at work, issues that might be lost
if I jumped into the fray too soon. For
those who refused to take even a brief break from the all-out search for
the father of Anna Nicole’s baby to enjoy the Imus barbeque, here’s a
short re-cap. Radio
“shock jock” Don Imus
got into some very hot water for ostensibly attacking the honor of the
women who play basketball for All
that said, frankly it was vintage
Imus! Expectedly, the
response from black “leadership” was swift and visceral.
(Word has it that Jesse Jackson actually had a pitchfork in his
hands at some point, but I bet that’s an embellishment.)
Anyway though, that’s the basic story. There
were several questions that occurred to me as I struggled to analyze this
event from a libertarian perspective.
For instance, was it a market response?
(Many folks have already addressed this question, but that won’t
stop me from doing so as well.) Did
Imus “deserve” to be fired? That
is, did the punishment fit the supposed crime?
Again, many have chimed in on this, but I feel compelled – for
either the right or the wrong reasons – to share my thoughts in this
regard. Was there some
measure of political correctness at play in this situation, and if so, how
does that affect the analysis? Finally,
was this an issue of free speech? Let’s
take the easiest question first. The
(Non) Issue of Free Speech Did
those who silenced Imus infringe upon his First Amendment rights, in
direct conflict with this well-worn passage from the Constitution? Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances. In
a word: “No.” The First
Amendment restricts the acts of the State, not the people.
If I want to infringe on your right to free speech, the
Constitution doesn’t apply, as long as I don’t get the State to help
me. I might break some moral
and ethical laws, but we wouldn’t need to consult the Constitution to
figure that out. Basic
property rights would be sufficient. CBS
or any other employer has the right to "control" what their
employees say, particularly on the premises or given the use of its
property. If you come to my
home and I don't like anyone using the term "shoes," I can ask
you to leave if you say it too much. It's
really as simple as that. Now,
one might wonder how CBS decided that "nappy-headed hos" was bad
for Imus' case, particularly in the context of society at large, where
such terms are not, shall we say, used rarely. For
example, my brother reminded me that Ludacris
recorded a song entitled “Area
Codes” a few years back. In
that classic ode to black pride, part of the chorus said, “I got hos in
different area codes.” In
the video, there were women wearing sashes with area codes on them,
dancing to the music, while The
Market Has Spoken? So
was the Imus firing a market response?
Given that advertisers, in response to their customers, did
pull their ads from Imus' show, the answer is pretty clearly, “Yes.”
Given that Imus generated something on the order of $15
million in yearly ad revenue for CBS, such a response can only be
called legitimate, because frankly, that's a lot of “cheddar” to give
up. Basically, CBS decided
that before too many cases of money left the building, they'd better throw
Imus under the bus. The
truth of the matter is this: CBS’s
action was almost a no-brainer since Imus’ schtick was likely nearing
the end of this run, anyway. He
can always come back, in some other venue, or in some other show format
– complete with pensive consideration for all he's learned, etcetera,
etcetera – and jack-in again. CBS
could actually re-hire him, once the heat from this incident cools off!
(The extra exposure Imus got during this timeframe will very likely
make the previous cash he generated for his employers seem like “chump
change” in some future incarnation of his show.) Those
who were offended by Imus had a simple choice:
Stop buying what he sold. Additionally,
they decided to inform the purveyor(s) of why
they were taking their business elsewhere.
It seems pretty clear that the people he worked for listened to
that, which is indication of the market talking.
Here’s the thing, though. Will
it stop there? Should it?
If Imus can’t sell for American Express, I would suppose that
anyone else saying something similar can expect the same treatment.
I would expect for example, that a similar boycott of any comedian,
who uses any similar term, will begin very soon.
Almost
right on cue, it appears that the NAACP
is preparing to launch a campaign against derogatory words.
From the article we have: "As
African-American people with a proud heritage and promising destiny, we
have to respect ourselves and stop disrespecting each other," said
NAACP National Youth & College Division Director Stefanie L. Brown.
"The time has come for us to stop using and responding to derogatory
words." It
strikes me that that "not responding to derogatory words" is exactly
the opposite of launching a campaign against them. One can't logically
have both at the same time nor accomplish both via the same methodology.
This strategy has an even more insidious and rather negative flip
side, however. I am not
interested in having the mores of some
forced upon us all.
The simple fact of economics (and by extension choice) is this:
If people want to buy “garbage” that I find offensive, and
other people want to create that garbage, it’s really none of my
business. In
the interest of full disclosure, I admit to not feeling the least bit
embarrassed when I hear Jay-Z
sing, “I’ve got 99 problems, but a bitch ain’t one.” In fact, I
like that song quite a bit. I’m
willing to bet that more than a few other black folks like it too.
(That’s a relatively safe bet given that it won a Grammy.)
Bottom line: I simply
don’t need the NAACP, or anyone
else, to help me select more appropriate songs to enjoy or less offensive
comedians to laugh at. That is
my business. That’s
what supply and demand are all about, and those who attack only the
supplier would do well to understand it.
I can assure you that if no one were buying what people like Imus
(or Ludacris or Rush Limbaugh or [place name of person who somehow
supposedly offends someone
here]) were selling, we would not be having this discussion. In
short, there is room in society for people with views and opinions, even
expressed publicly, with which I disagree.
That’s how it’s supposed to work. Coffee,
Tea, or PC? Did
Imus deserve to be fired, or was this an issue of political correctness?
As I mention above, we are all free – or should be – to enjoy
whomever we wish, as long as we adhere to the principles of property
rights. The poster I quote in
my opening seems to be saying that everyone should find it easy to avoid
saying these types of “hateful” words.
Apparently, this message hasn’t reached very far into my own
race. Jason Whitlock echoes
this view in a recent
column: “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.” Indeed.
In my view, we’ve accepted this we-can-say-it-but-you-cannot
logic way past the expiration date. However,
that too is an issue outside the scope of what this “Imus thing”
should be about. What about
Don Imus? What is the problem
that we are trying to fix, and is getting rid of Imus even a small portion
of the solution? In a word:
“No.” In two words:
“Hell no.” Clearly,
this was a political correctness
issue. Imus was a convenient
jumping-off point for those who wish to decide what should
be offensive – for all of us. This
is troubling from the standpoint of freedom.
That doesn't mean I don't get upset with words on occasion.
I do! Sometimes, due to
history or whatever, people overreact.
I've reacted strongly to words myself, but I've never called a
radio station to complain. For
example, I think a certain CNN anchor is rather ignorant.
I am inclined, therefore, to not watch her specifically and not to
watch CNN generally, based upon that opinion.
However, I don't think I'm entitled to suggest that CNN fire her or
that CNN’s advertisers make her tone down or change her rhetoric.
I can make an easy decision; I don't watch. The
Issues of Racism, Sexism, Anti-Semitism, Bathtub Ring, and Hemorrhoids Was
any higher goal accomplished by getting Imus ousted from his job?
I rather doubt it. It
strikes me that one could construct a list of items that plague society,
collectively, and individually. I
list several such nagging issues in the heading to this paragraph.
(That no successful all-out attack has been launched against
bathtub ring and hemorrhoids – eradicating them from our lives forever
– is truly a tragedy. Where
is the justice in this world?) It
would make sense, I’d suggest, to rank these issues from most important
to least important. In that
context, I might construct a list of the Top 10 Harbingers of Racism in As
an aside, in discussions with some of my friends and at various places I
frequent all over the Web, I hear stuff like, “The word ‘ho’ has a
meaning that is rooted in slavery, and this particular attack on black
pride has been passed down from that time.”
As such, the term is particularly
hurtful. This may, in fact, be
true. So?
What does the actual, historical, etymology of “ho” have to do
with this issue? I’d assert
little, if anything, and here’s why.
Does anyone think Imus
did the necessary research to determine exactly
which word would most hurt the feelings of his targets?
Even if he did, is there anyone, including
Imus, who actually believes that word was true in this case?
No again. As such, the
history of the word is irrelevant to this situation. I’ve
also heard – from those who believe justice was served – that one’s
position or the directness of the attack makes a person “fair game”
for comments of the type Imus made. Some
say that State officials and those in politics must be expected to
tolerate some amount of this kind of attack, since they are “in the
public eye,” while private citizens should be spared.
Additionally, some believe that offensive implications, such as
those in the song “Area Codes” are somehow different than direct
attacks. Ergo, since Imus
spoke about specific people, his action was somehow worse.
I’m not so sure. Either
way though, I already said I’m comfortable ignoring ignorant people.
The position of those they attack or the indirectness of that
attack makes them no more tolerable and no less ignorant.
It doesn’t make them less tolerable and more ignorant, either. Conclusion I’m
not qualified to speak for all black people, and I’m well aware of that
fact. In this case, I’m only
comfortable speaking for myself. At
some point, I decided that I had to stop celebrating events that weren’t
victories as if they were. If
O.J. Simpson killed his wife and got away with it, it’s not like the
black folk who got lynched all over the South of my grandfather’s
childhood will be coming back to life. Similarly,
if a loser like Don Imus gets canned for cracking a very bad joke about
“nappy-headed hos,” it won’t justify the number of times I’ve
laughed at a black comedian making a similar reference in his routine.
The best way to deal with a blowhard is to ignore him – sticks
and stones and all that. Freedom
allows for, and requires this of us all.
This is the approach I attempt to use, and it is the approach I
would like to teach my children. People
like Don Imus are simply not worth my time, and anyway, I am free to not
listen. What
is the most important lesson from all this though?
Pride comes from within, and cannot be assailed from without,
unless we believe our assailant – even in a small way.
I stopped doing that long ago.
|
