Imus, White People, and Frustration

I've been waiting for you comment on this. I knew this would get you started and I'm glad.

I think Imus obviously made a huge mistake. I don't know that he really meant what he said. Even if he didn't mean it doesn't get him off the hook. The only thing different about this time for Imus is that he hit a nerve of the socio political relationship between blacks and whites thats remained tense even since the civil rights movement. He's way off about the ladies of Rutgers. However, were we are going wrong as a country in the wake of this controversy is who we are giving the platform to judge him.

Sidenote:
It's amazing that Sharpton who claims to be a Christian can parade for Imus' head and afford no forgiveness whatsoever when he himself has said equally deplorable racist statements and others have forgiven him- he still has a career. Sad.

This is not a civil rights issue. It's a moral one. It's just wrong. Most people can agree on that. Even still, as wrong as it may be Imus has the first amendment right to say whatever the heck he wants to say- even if it is racist. And his employer has the right to fire him if he says something they don't like.

We like to have a witch hunt every once in a while and bring out the racists people's head on a platter as it makes for guaranteed media coverage and makes people look better just for dissing this guy.
The Duke lacrosse case exactly a year ago. The fact is those guys were wrong. They didn't do what the woman accused them of, but they were guilty. Guilty of partaking in the (willing) degradation of this woman by just being a part of the party. The woman is also every bit as guilty as they.

My point here is that we MISS the point. We make a media circus out of the situation and whoever defends the offended can somehow take credit for fighting for civil rights- even though in the Rutgers case these women are entirely capable of fighting for themselves.

I put forth that most who rally to these peoples causes are entirely in it for themselves and miss the point over and over again. These women should be respected not just because they're black or just because they're women, but because they have character and they aren't what Imus called them.

What needs to be done here is to use this as an opportunity to state the truth. The truth about these women and the truth about race relations and our society. Those girls deserve credit for what they accomplished and they and God are the ones who hold Imus accountable.

I thought that the standing ovation for Condoleezza Rice in Greensboro at the SBC Annual meeting was really sweeping things under the carpet without doing the hard work of repentance. There hasn't been an acknowledgment that this very denomination was founded on the issue of missionaries (!!!) owning slaves. Furthermore, during the civil rights movement in the sixties and seventies, where was the SBC when it was time to uphold the imago dei and denounce the complete injustice of segregation and other Jim Crow measures? Often, it was Southern Baptists who were under the white sheets, and in the police uniforms, and in the voting registration offices who were perpetuating the problem.

Anybody over the age of 60 in our denominational leadership might want to give an answer for where they were in the 1960s, how they viewed the civil rights movement, and whether they have changed their mind. I'm not holding my breath.

I cringed when Jerry Vines came on campus, and during the luncheon delivered a backhanded compliment to the large group of black pastors present when he said, "God gave black people a vivid imagination". He genuinely seemed to think he was paying a compliment. He probably wouldn't have seen how that could be considered offensive. To their credit, the group of pastors did not seem to get angry, and were later shouting "amen" to his main points. This is a far, far cry from Imus' comments, but still indicative of a general cluelessness on Vines' part.

Apologizing for slavery may or may not be a helpful exercise, as the guilty generation of white men is long dead, but there is a generation of men who are still alive who can productively repent and ask the forgiveness of those they sinned against all those years ago. We shouldn't let this opportunity pass us by.

Josh, sir, I think you're trying to downplay the situation. Yes, it is most certainly a moral issue, but it is also a racial issue. Fact is, like Michael Richards and Mel Gibson before him, Imus was searching for the most demeaning thing he could say about his victims, and the words he chose were racially charged. Folks who try to downplay the racial problems in this country don't realize how bad it is, and when there is a reaction, they see it as an overreaction. Had Imus ended his comment at "they have tattoos" it wouldn't have been racist, and there would not have been the furore that there has been, and he still would have been guilty of demeaning those women.

Two things struck me here:

1. Enough people actually listen to Imus that someone noticed this comment, which I found surprising; and

2. How fundamentally ignorant a thing to say it was.

The reaction was typically overwrought and histrionic, but that's because the media are *always* overwrought and histrionic. That's what sells. Color me cynical.

John, agreed - the internet is full of this stuff. I think your are right that because Imus' show is heard in some number, that this particular thing came out. Your second point is well taken and I think the crux of the matter. Now had a right-wing type talk show host said this it would have been much more a media bloodbath. But because Imus is not that - I think many media folks are shocked that this crap came out of one of their own. Notice in Imus' own apologies he makes sure to say he is not a "right wing" nut job. Problem is this is a heart issue, not a political one. The cultural air is breathed by white Americans is different than others...and their remains a very sick cultural supremacist view that spans political orientations.

Now, I would never color you cynical ;) I hope you are doing well.

PS - There is a wrestler we used to coach against at VT who is doing well in the UFC (Josh Koshcheck) - funny seeing him in the Octagon.

G F,

I'm not downplaying it. It's a big deal. It's not a big deal in the way that its being made out to be though. I do not think that Imus consciously made the decision to search for a racist remark. I believe him when he said he was trying to be funny. That does not take away from the fact that the statement itself was racist, and inexcusable, especially given his national audience.

I just don't think it's our job to judge his intent. Many assumed that he really really meant to cause those girls harm. I do not believe so. That doesn't mean his words should be taken lightly. They should be taken in context though. Look at his show, what he talks about- the way he talks about everything. Why is it that we are attributing all the importance to him now?

I do believe it's easy to read much farther into this than we should. The guy jacked up. He was wrong. He said some stupid stuff. He's not worthy of becoming the whipping boy of the residual Jim Crow generation white America because of one mistake. Racism is still a problem but my point is we like to point fingers in other directions as if the bigger problems aren't right down the road. It makes us feel better to point at this guy or Mel or Kramer. As if we've pinned it down.

peace

I think Imus (whoever he is) was referring to the NCCU girl who falsely accused the Duke Lax players of rape. Ha Ha. Joke, maybe a bad one.

Yeah, I saw Koscheck(?) on Pay-per-view. Pretty impressive. Funny after the fight. Put Sanchez in his place.

Hat trick. Sorry about 3 in a row.
I know it's not nice for Christians to call people names. Namecalling, however, is all too subjective and should not be limited too much in the free press/speech. Just imagine the gov't regulating coarse speech. We'd definitely have to have a draft because half of the soldiers would be in the brig for "potty mouth." Check out www.anncoulter.com if you are into insensitive, coarse speech. GER

Imus is a nincompoop, and he always has been. He was a nincompoop way back when he called a black female New York Times reporter a "cleaning lady." He reflects everything that is profoundly wrong with white America.

The amazing thing isn't that he said what he said about the Rutgers women. That's perfectly in character for him. What is amazing is that people listen to his show. For years, he has had one of the most successful radio programs around, and he has done it as a voice of bigotry, rudeness, and slander.

That's the real story here. The real story is about how someone like Imus could become so famous. And that, I think, is where we all have some soul-searching to do. We live in a country that suffers fools gladly. Imus's ignorance and hate only serves to reveal our own prejudices.

Amen, Tim Dees, Amen

Wait just a second. Imus reflects "everything that is wrong with white America"? Not so fast there, skippy.

Imus reflects what is wrong with Imus. Imus might even reflect what is wrong with a lot of people, but there is no "white America". Maybe you meant to say White Americans, but that is equally logically unsound (Amen? AMEN? That's just sloppy thinking to give that an Amen, Reid, and you know better).

Does a racist, hypocritical jerk like Al Sharpton reflect everything that is wrong with "black America"? I don't think so. His being a jerk reflects badly on him and those who support him, not anyone else.

The same goes for Imus. Imus has never been interesting or funny. He's a boor. There are lots of boors in the world. But the existence of boors does not reflect badly on everyone else.

I am not a Christian, but for those of you who are, how is it remotely consistent with Christian values to blame untold millions of people who don't give a rip who Imus is or know anything about him for his comments? Don't say that's not what you're doing, either, because by arguing that his comments reflect on "white America" you are precisely arguing that "white America," all 240 million or so of us, are to blame, and that is pure garbage.

Does any given racist who claims to be a Christian reflect badly on all Chrisitans? I don't think so, but by arguing otherwise in this context, you're actually lending weight that argument for other people who want to marginalize Christians by showing lunatics as exemplars.

John, thank you for your corrections and gracious reminders. My friend Tim has a very sharp mind - you would love interacting with him. He was a classics major at Vanderbilt, fluent in Greek and Latin. Yet he gets passionate about some stuff as we all do. I do, I know you do as well (see your use of the term "skippy" above) :)

So forgive us for venting, these were not meant to be arguements. I think your critique is very on point and I appreciate your lucid post. Sweeping generalizations on all sides are not helpful, and my frustrations with race in America, in my life, are brought out by these issues. You are good friend to call us to the carpet. Even as I once called you out on your sweeping generalizations about belief in God on our philosophy listserv :)

We should deal with the substance of people's views and actions, not in groupings and categorizations of people.

Thanks Dude - I miss our interactions.

yous guys have a philosophy list serve? NERDS!!! no just kidding. i'm a little envious actually.

Ben, John and I took philosophy together at VT and had some enjoyable salvos around some issues of theism etc. It was fun because we became allies against relativism and skepticism albeit for different reasons. He read Ayn Rand, I read Aquinas - and we both liked mixed martial arts. Anyway, our philosophy banter was back in the day.

As I recall, Dr. Gifford had to impose a post limitation on us on the listserv.

I'd regard Friedman, Hayek & Nozick as more influential on me than Rand, BTW :-) The idea that those with whom you disagree are therefore evil never really sat well with me. Maybe I have indeed mellowed ;-)

so what is the non-religious/irreligious/atheistic/agnostic argument against relativism? I don't think I've ever come across such an argument. I list the possible categories because I don't know which, if any, apply to John. I ask because I'm truly curious.

Irreligious is probably good, agnostic probably better.

I start with the a priori assumption that we are rational beings.

The short version is that relativism of all stripes is self-refuting and so a rational person cannot accept the contradictions in the system.

The longer version is that, I think that our existence as rational agents requires us to observe two principles: the principle of non-interference and the harm principle. Those flow from reciprocity (to steal from Rawls), if we were to set up a system of interactions behind a veil of ignorance, those are the two principles we would come up with, because no one would want to be coerced and no one would want to be hurt.

Relativism of necessity (a) violates those principles (by denying them) and (b) is self-refuting because it denies the validity of moral claims while at the same time making a moral claim (e.g. there are no moral claims).

I could be wrong about what the principles are, but I don't think I can be wrong that there are moral principles.

John, it is refreshing to hear your views again. As I often said, we are in the same universe and not hiding behind irrational nonsense for the sake of accommodating all manner of ideas. The two principles are sound, though sometimes we do need to be interfered with (ie when we are evil doing).

The interesting question for me as a follower of Jesus is the origin and ontology of the moral principles. If they are real, objective, etc. then they have being, existence etc. No only so, but from this ontology flows and obligation or duty to heed them. In my understanding I owe no duty "to the stars" but I do owe duty to persons. Namely God and neighbor - which is where the philosophy and theology of Jesus intersect.

The golden rule - do to others as you would have them do to you. (Me thinks Rawls was living in western culture that is very Jesus influenced)

The great commmandment - Love God with all your heart soul mind and strength...and love your neighbor as yourself.

If you love me...you will keep my commandments (the moral law) - now for a treatment of the relationship between commandments, natural law, etc. I still find Aquinas' distinctions to be helpful - I wrote a small bit on that here.

Ben, I was thankful for John as a staunch ally against the relativistic drool in our phil class...one thing he did not give above was his one sure absolute principle.

I wish I could quote it right but I believe it was something like - We should not force or fraud others to cause them to do anything against their will

John, is that right?

I would phrase it as, "one must not initiate the use of force or fraud against any other person." Using force (say, in response to force) is perfectly permissible. As you know, I am no pacifist.

One who abrogates that rule has made a conscious choice to be treated as outside the social compact.

The rule follows from reciprocity, non-interference, harm no one.

Of course, the rule (and principles) is purely inductive. There is no pure idea from which I can derive them (e.g. commandments), but the pragmatist in me says if everyone follows the rule, it seems that things would work out all right, which the pragmatist in me says is the best we can hope for :-)

The problem with this whole Imus race issue is the fact we have selfish double-standard people on both sides of the issue. The White Americans responded by stating the Imus remarks are simply a matter of Free Speece. Yet, these are the same people who criticize the remarks of the liberals and want to remove obscene material from the mainstream media outlets. The Black Americans responded to Imus remarks by referring to his remarks as racist and were thrill that Imus' show was cancelled. However, these same Black Americans tune in to the Tom Joyner show everyday. Tom Joyner is a black man who regularly makes racial jokes towards white people. However, for some reason, Blacks don't see a reason to cancel the Tom Joyner Show. There is a double-standard among White Americans and Black Americans and sadly most Christian are part of the double-standard revolution. Christians are speaking the same exact words as the world with their Conservative/ Liberal, Politcal Correct/Politcal Incorrect worldly theology. Sadly, many Christian Talk and Black Gospel radio station have alleviated Biblical sound teaching program for worldly talk programs similar to the Talk programs on secular stations. The world has influence Christians instead of Christian influencing the world the the true Gospel message of Jesus Christ. Jesus was not trying to support a liberal/conservative, Republican/Democratic, Politcal Correct/Political Incorrect agenda. Jesus was telling people to repent for the Kingdom of God is near. Jesus was about His Father's business and reaching lost souls to salvation through Him. Christians need to repent before it will be too late. Al Sharpton, George Bush or any other man or man-made theology will not save you or change the world. Only the true Gospel Message of Jesus Christ will result in change in you, me and our neighbors. We need be concerned about our soul and the souls of others, despite one's skin pigmentation.