What's the Joke?

I finally got a chance to read Gwen Ifill's justly praised op-ed on the Don Imus matter:

For all their grit, hard work and courage, the Rutgers girls got branded “nappy-headed ho’s” — a shockingly concise sexual and racial insult, tossed out in a volley of male camaraderie by a group of amused, middle-aged white men. The “joke” — as delivered and later recanted — by the radio and television personality Don Imus failed one big test: it was not funny.

This is a good point. The scare-quotes are essential. What was the joke here? One can imagine such a thing as a racist joke. There's an anti-semitic joke I like that goes "what's the difference between a Jew and a canoe?" Answer: "A canoe tips." That's a joke, albeit an anti-Jewish one. "Nappy-headed hos" isn't, as far as I can tell, an actual joke any more than "George Soros is a rich, greedy kike" is a joke (get it?). It's just a racist insult.

Comments

Bob Somerby doesn't praise it, but he's a notoriously tough grader.

Posted by Steve | April 10, 2007 6:42 PM

I actually like offensive humor, if it's actually funny. I can imagine a situation in which calling the Rutgers women's basketball team nappy-headed ho's would be funny, despite being racist and offensive. But what was the joke here? I've never heard anything about the Rutgers women's basketball team that would lead even a racist comedian to make such a "joke." If they were a bunch of thugs and sluts, maybe, but nothing we know about them suggests that. Pacman Jones and Tank Johnson are fair game for offensive jokes based upon their conformity to degrading racial stereotypes. Imus used to take on Mike Tyson pretty regularly that way. But all we know about the Rutgers women's basketball team is that they're black women. Calling these inoffensive young black women nappy-headed ho's is essentially yelling "Nigger."
If Imus wants to continue with offensive humor -- and he does, and he probably should -- he should remember its first rule: Pick on someone your own size.

Posted by CJColucci | April 10, 2007 6:45 PM

Imus obviously needs to hire a black woman to laugh at his "jokes" on the air, thus letting everyone know that they're not racist or sexist.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 6:58 PM

I love how the press still treats Al Sharpton as a moral arbiter of proper racial behavior, even after his 1995 anti-Korean-American crusade inspired one of his followers to murder seven people.

For a slightly different perspective on this most overwhelmingly important issue of the century, see Udolpho:

http://www.udolpho.com/Default.asp#01173

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 10, 2007 6:59 PM

Bob Somerby is the Mikey of the blogosphere ("he hates everything!"). That said, he sort of has a point when he says Ifill is making it all about her.

In any case, Ifill is absolutely right: Imus' joke, like a lot of racist/misogynist/homophobic wingnut 'humor', doesn't come close to being funny.

Posted by Tom Hilton | April 10, 2007 7:00 PM

From Steve Sailer's link: "Aren't you tired of perpetually injured and whining blacks who think that their crocodile tears are like exotic jewels of emotion?"

Click.

Look, Al Sharpton is a fucking tool. No question about that. If he didn't exist, the wingnuts would have to invent him. This isn't about Al Sharpton; he's just convenient as a way to try to change the subject.

Posted by Tom Hilton | April 10, 2007 7:03 PM

Way to try to change the subject, Steve.

Posted by Matt | April 10, 2007 7:03 PM

"I love how the press still treats Al Sharpton as a moral arbiter of proper racial behavior"

Well, that's certainly an immense surprise to see Sailer respond to Imus by criticizing Sharpton. I would have thought he would have blamed the Rutgers basketball team for being stupid due to all their junk DNA, and thus inciting Imus. Too soon, I guess.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 7:04 PM

"Look, it's Al Sharpton!"

It's interesting, isn't it, to see how Steve Sailer responds to as clear an instance of racism in the public sphere as you could ask for.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 10, 2007 7:04 PM

Wow, in the two minutes it took me to type my comment three people beat me to it. that's some wrold-class trolling my Sailer. Also fomr the link: "The old stereotype that blacks have minds like children is hardly given the lie to by these ridiculous tantrums."

What a truly loathesome creature Sailer is.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 10, 2007 7:06 PM

Q: What's the difference between Steve Sailer and a canoe?
A: A canoe isn't a miserable racist fuckhead.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 7:06 PM

Face it: as this ridiculous Scandal of the Century shows once again, the civil rights industry in the 21st Century is basically a racket for a small elite of blacks like Al Sharpton to make money and get on TV, _and_ for a lot of whites to engage in moral preening about wonderfully sophisticately sensitive they are compared to other whites, who are so deplorable. It's a form of white vs. white status competition.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 10, 2007 7:09 PM

Tom,

True but given how Imus has treated Ifill she is kind of entitled...

Posted by Eric | April 10, 2007 7:11 PM

Imus addressed the Ifill story on Sharpton's show yesterday. His explanation (that what no one remembers is that it was in the context of a Daily-Show-like satire piece where he was playing a "David Duke"-style character) seems reasonable, although I haven't seen anything directly supporting or refuting his story.

Anyway, I'm with Somersby on Ifill's "Whatever, it's not about me" half-column interlude.

Posted by right | April 10, 2007 7:12 PM

Is it possible to both 1). Not be a racist, and 2). Not find the "joke" terribly offensive, and think the whole reaction to it incredibly overblown and opportunistic, or would everyone here consider those two things mutually exclusive?

Posted by Alex | April 10, 2007 7:13 PM

"It's a form of white vs. white status competition."

If one were to stipulate your premise, I'd say that you rank about the level of David Duke in terms of that competition, and well below a canoe.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 7:15 PM

Yeah yeah, all this "Imus is a racist" talk is so boring, such a tempest in a teapot, so much preening, so much complaining. It saddens me to live in the same country as you people.

Oh I know, let's talk about Al Sharpton! Ta da. No more whiny complaining, no more preening, no more blowing things out of proportion. Sanity has saved the day!

(I'm still laughing about the time honest-thinking Steve Sailer tried to tar environmentalists with Hitler.)

Posted by Barbar | April 10, 2007 7:18 PM

Q: What's the difference between Steve Sailer and a canoe? A: A canoe isn't a miserable racist fuckhead.

Now that is a funny joke.

Posted by Tom Hilton | April 10, 2007 7:20 PM

Wow, Sailer's schtick as a reasonable observer of cultural differences is really starting to blow up altogether. I guess code words can only get you by for so long. All credit must be laid at Al Sharpton's doorstep.

Posted by Steve | April 10, 2007 7:21 PM

Eric,

Truth be told, I go back and forth on this one. She does appear to have a legitimate complaint about Imus. At the same time, making her complaint such a substantial part of the column...it does make it look like it's all about her. I don't know.

Posted by Tom Hilton | April 10, 2007 7:23 PM

The comment is actually more sexist than racist. "Nappy-headed ho" has always been a put down for an allegedly less than attractive female, and basically says, if a woman is not good looking, she is worthless. Ms. Ifil herself puts sexist ahead of racist, and in order to understand the true nature of the insult, the rest of us should as well.

Posted by Alan | April 10, 2007 7:25 PM

Right, Sharpton isn't involved in the Imus Brouhaha at all. Who could possibly imagine such a thing?

Search Google News (not overall Google, just Google News) for "Imus Sharpton" and you get:

"all 2,981 news articles"

http://news.google.com/news?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tab=wn&ncl=1115121031&hl=en

Oops ...

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 10, 2007 7:26 PM

I think Matt is missing the point by using too narrow a definition of the word "joke". Making fun of people's appearance is a kind of humor that some people enjoy, even if it isn't ha-ha funny. White guys using hip-hop slang is a kind of humor that some people enjoy, even if it isn't ha-ha funny. I'm not defending Imus (really), but I don't think you could really deny that there was an attempt at a certain type of levity there.

Posted by cs | April 10, 2007 7:27 PM

"Right, Sharpton isn't involved in the Imus Brouhaha at all."

Dude, do you have some type of brain injury?

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 7:28 PM

If you listen to the full exchange Imus and his producer had about the basketball game or read it, it becomes pretty clear that they are insulting the appearance of the women on the Rutgers team, I think. It's rather impolite to mock women's appearance, but that's intended to be the joke, as far as I can tell.

I don't think Imus really understood the sexual connotation of "hos" but rather was using rapper-talk to express his opinion that these were ugly, butch black women--he or the producer mentioned their tattoos--and to contrast them with the "cute" players on the Tennessee team. Another party to the conversation said they looked "exactly like the Toronto Raptors."

And yes, apparently a lot of people don't find this so funny, as we've learned in recent days.

Posted by Dimmy Karras | April 10, 2007 7:29 PM

"I don't think Imus really understood the sexual connotation of "hos"

I find that utterly impossible to believe.

"The comment is actually more sexist than racist. "Nappy-headed ho" has always been a put down for an allegedly less than attractive female"

Do you not understand the meaning of the the phrase? Do you not understand that it could only be used against black women?

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 7:33 PM

Pretty desperate stuff, Sailer. The facade seems to be crumbling. Let's open a random link:

The Rev. Al Sharpton also appeared on "Today" and called the suspension "not nearly enough. I think it is too little, too late." He said presidential candidates and other politicians should refrain from going n Imus' show in the future.

That's the only reference to Sharpton in the article.

I guess I was wrong, you and this Udolpho character really have this issue pinned down. While commentators like Matthew Yglesias make ridiculous observations like "it's just a racist insult," you guys really see the important issues clearly, which are that Al Sharpton is bad and people complain too much about racism.

Also, you're deeply troubled by environmentalism because Hitler was an environmentalist and the moral awfulness of it all keeps you up at night.

Posted by Barbar | April 10, 2007 7:35 PM

"At the same time, making her complaint such a substantial part of the column...it does make it look like it's all about her."

I had no problem with that aspect of Ifill's op-ed, given that the only reason she was writing it and the only reason the NYT was publishing it had specifically to do with her own experience with Imus.

If S.R. Sidarth was writing an op-ed about George Allen, I'd likewise expect a large amount of first person pronouns.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 7:37 PM

Dude, do you have some type of brain injury?

No, it's just his inferior genetic makeup that makes him behave that way.

Posted by Tom Hilton | April 10, 2007 7:37 PM

From Gwen Ifill's op-ed: "Why do my journalistic colleagues appear on Mr. Imus’s program? That’s for them to defend, and others to argue about. I certainly don’t know any black journalists who will. To his credit, Mr. Imus told the Rev. Al Sharpton yesterday he realizes that, this time, he went way too far."

And why do they appear on the Rev. Al Sharpton's program? For all his sins, Don Imus didn't inspire a murderous racial pogrom or sponsor the Tawana Brawley hoax.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 10, 2007 7:44 PM

Another party to the conversation said they looked "exactly like the Toronto Raptors."

See, I thought that was a diss on the Raptors. Turn it around that way, and it's kind of funny (but unfair! the Raptors are good now!).

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 10, 2007 7:47 PM

Is it possible to both 1). Not be a racist, and 2). Not find the "joke" terribly offensive, and think the whole reaction to it incredibly overblown and opportunistic, or would everyone here consider those two things mutually exclusive?

Overblown, maybe. Over-covered, certainly. But not offensive? These are collegiate women's basketball players. They don't generally get all that much media coverage, and I think it's a real stretch to call them public figures. Imagine you're going along at college, doing something you excel at, and someone with a national platform calls you a "nappy-headed ho" because of your appearance. How the hell is the not offensive? I'm not even talking racially offensive here (although I certainly think it was), that they were insulted in this manner alone goes against common decency.

Posted by Royko | April 10, 2007 7:48 PM

Sailer: I don't understand what you find problematic. Fine, Sharpton's a jackass. So's Imus. Extreme case scenario: one jackass ruins another's career. Why would you care one way or another? More abstractly, the black community seeks to enforce certain norms, just as (a subset) of Catholics did with with Marcotte, various Christian groups do with all sort of art, etc. Again, why does it matter to you one way or another if you're neutral on the norm involved?

Also, the only person who is elevating this to Scandal of the Century seems to be you.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 10, 2007 7:50 PM

"No, it's just his inferior genetic makeup that makes him behave that way."

Sailer has black blood in his ancestry corrupting his racial purity? I had no idea he was an octoroon. I guess this disqualification from being part of the master race would explain why he's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 7:52 PM

"Sailer: I don't understand what you find problematic. Fine, Sharpton's a jackass. So's Imus. Extreme case scenario: one jackass ruins another's career. Why would you care one way or another?"

You don't understand, SCMT. Sharpton is ... black. Do I need to say anymore?

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 7:53 PM

Somerby's just ranting about the Times and Al Gore. Ifill didn't "make it all about her," any more than some dude going crazy in 1995 is a "pogrom" "inspired" by "Sharpton's followers," and "this most important issue of the century." Seriously, Imus made his comments last week, which makes them news. Sharpton's stuff went down in the 90s. He's something of a joke, and the rest of us have moved on.

Posted by David | April 10, 2007 8:00 PM

The bottom line is that white liberals hold blacks to lower standards.

Everybody here knows that Al and Jesse are shakedown artists. Jesse perfected the shtick decades ago: you find some white man (or in Al's case, Korean) committing some faux pas somewhere, threaten him with boycotts and bad publicity unless he comes to you for forgiveness on behalf of the black race. As his penance, you assign his company to hand out some juicy contracts to certain black millionaire businessmen, who just happen to be big donors to your charity (and charity, of course, begins at home). It's all perfectly legal.

But, nobody here cares because they feel that, well ... That's just the way blacks are. You can't expect better from them than Al or Jesse. And Al and Jesse provide a useful service to us in what really counts, which is allowing us to claw our way higher up the white status pyramid by publicizing examples of bad behavior by other whites for us to tut-tut over. So, everybody wins!

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 10, 2007 8:01 PM

Sailer's back on his game. Now it's the Michael Ledeen trick of claiming it's the other guy who's racist!

Posted by Steve | April 10, 2007 8:05 PM

"Everybody here knows that Al and Jesse are shakedown artists."

Everybody here knows that you feel the "true" subject here is the history of Sharpton and Jackson due to your racial demons, just as everybody knew that Republicans felt the "true" subject of Plamegate was the character of Joe Wilson due to their partisan objectives.

You're a miserable racist fuckhead, Sailer. Everybody knows that.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 8:09 PM

I guess your Mom never got around to the "two wrongs doesn't make a right" part, Steve.

Our topic is, I think, Mr. Imus and Ms. Ifill's carefully-written discussion of him. Not surprisingly you can't address that, so you go around looking for prominent black guys you don't like to attack. And you apparently don't realize just how transparent your racism is.

Posted by CD | April 10, 2007 8:09 PM

But, nobody here cares because they feel that, well ... That's just the way blacks are.

Looking just at that statement, there are obviously other explanations that don't require much reference to the particular plight of African-Americans and white liberal commitments on that score. Why can't we just say that white liberals are more likely to excuse, whether in good faith or not, behavior by people in their broader political group than behavior by others outside that group? Cf. NOW (IIRC) and Bill Clinton's behavior (I believe some officers of NOW were pretty explicit about this at the time), or any of a score of parallel acts of acceptance involving any number of parties. That seems pretty straightforward, and pretty common. It might be naked self-interest, it might be that cultural kinship relationships make it easier for white liberals to find and believe reasonable justifications against (I dunno what you want here...) ostracization.

If Jackson and Sharpton are shakedown artists (which I don't accept, certainly not straightforwardly, but whatever), so what? So are all the various lobbyists that broker other political arrangements. Welcome to America.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 10, 2007 8:12 PM

OK, Sailer. Just don't write that crap here and then claim whites have genetically higher IQ's elsewhere. How does disagreeing with Imus's comments elevate my position on the white status pyramid? Do I get free boat shoes? Why can't I legitimately disagree with them? For what it's worth, I also think I'm more ethical than Al Sharpton, who has nothing to do with the issue except that DON IMUS thought he could be absolved by going on Sharpton's show. Doesn't say much for Imus to be so racially tone-deaf as to think that such a transparent gesture grants him absolution, nor does it say much for Sharpton for trading on Imus's own racism. But what does it say for one to be so eager to defend Imus by comparison?

Posted by David | April 10, 2007 8:14 PM

Petey, you have it all wrong! YOU'RE THE RACIST. Sailer is the champion of black people. That's why he cares so much about this issue. Tut-tutting a blatantly racist remark is so condescending towards blacks. Obsessively emphasizing stuff that Sharpton did over a decade ago is a reflection of COLORBLINDNESS. It's holding blacks to the same standard that we hold whites -- only it's an even HIGHER standard, because all this bitching about Imus is ridiculous and quite frankly, as offensively racist as you can get.

Don't confuse HIGH STANDARDS with barely veiled racist bigotry, Petey.

Posted by Barbar | April 10, 2007 8:20 PM

I think Somerby's displeasure, as I remember it, had less to do with Ifill's navel-gazing and more to do with her playing casually with the facts for the sake of narrative--she really wasn't sure if Imus had indeed called her a "cleaning lady". And if there is one thing that Somerby detests, it's novelizing (as he well should).

I would also like to stick up partly for Sailer. Without question, Imus's remarks were dreadful. As such I have difficulty believing that most of the "preeners" expressing
their disgust are insincere. Nevertheless, it is a sign of decadence that so much energy and attention are brought to bear on one obviously stupid remark while nary a peep is sounded at incidents that are truly harmful--like our government's funding of violent Iranian seperatists, or the Somolia fiasco, or [any number of things]. In this country we only react to trivia--and in the most frenzied way. Can anyone deny that this latest epidsode is of a piece with the Pelosi trip, or the Pelosi plane, or the [insert fake controvery here]? Does no one else find out priorities consistently, wildly misplaced?

And also, while I don't cry for Imus (a multi-millionare), I do dislike this tendency in our society to hound celebrity offenders until their careers are utterly demolished. There's something to be said for forgiveness--it would humanize us a little.

Posted by Mark | April 10, 2007 8:20 PM

What Sailer doesn't want to deal with is that Sharpton isn't a "self-appointed" anything, and that black people quite readily acknowledge him as a mainstream spokesman for the black community. Not every black person, obviously, any more than any human being enjoys universal support, but he's a mainstream spokesman nonetheless.

If Sailer wants to believe that Sharpton is a miserable human being, that's his right. If he believes it says something bad about black people that they perceive him as a mainstream spokesman, that's his right at all, although he won't be man enough to come out and say it. But either way, white America certainly doesn't get to say "sorry guys, Sharpton is an ass and we demand you come up with a better spokesman." That's not how it works.

Even Imus, pig that he is, was smart enough to understand that Sharpton actually speaks for someone, and the "someone" is not white liberals. You don't like it, that's fine. Turn on C-SPAN and note that white America is also not that skilled at choosing the greatest human beings to represent them.

Posted by Steve | April 10, 2007 8:20 PM

Babar,

I would direct you to (a different) Steve's 8:14pm comment on this thread.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 8:23 PM

"And also, while I don't cry for Imus (a multi-millionare), I do dislike this tendency in our society to hound celebrity offenders until their careers are utterly demolished. There's something to be said for forgiveness--it would humanize us a little."

The problem is that Imus has quite a history of this kind of stuff, as the Ifill piece partially demonstrates, followed by apology, followed by more of this kind of stuff.

Apologies work best when they foreshadow behavior changes.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 8:25 PM

Sometimes parody seem basically impossible.

Posted by Barbar | April 10, 2007 8:26 PM

Mark, I understood the Ifill column to say she knew EXACTLY what Imus said about her, which nobody denies, just not firsthand. So, in order to show that she (and other African-American journalists) ignore Imus, she made it abundantly clear that it was hearsay. Somerby's every bit as guilty as the Times of having a "narrative" and contorting evidence in support of it.

Posted by David | April 10, 2007 8:28 PM

Petey,

It seems odd that you think speculating about genetic causes to (undoubted) ethnic differences is racist, but launching aggressive wars against dark-skinned people to get your favourite politicians elected is fine. The former is an unproven-but-possible scientific hypothesis. The latter is a crime against the law of nations.

Posted by Pithlord | April 10, 2007 8:30 PM

Matt's joke was pretty funny, I must admit. I do think that it's important to distinguish between ethnic jokes and ethnic slurs. As we all know from our school days, humor is an important part of camaraderie. As long as it's done in a friendly, even-handed way, there's no reason to be disturbed by ethnic humor. Slavoj Zizek has noted that when the former Yugoslavia broke apart, one of the most ominous developments was when people STOPPED making ethnic jokes, because it was a sign that people had started to take their divisions too seriously to laugh at them.

But Imus' comment was not the least bit friendly or funny. It was just simply crass and insulting.

I just got back from a happy hour with a multiracial group of friends who run the political gamut from Nader-lovers to Bush-fans. We achieved a political consensus on the Imus/Sharpton debate. Much like the Iran/Iraq War, we all agreed it would be best if both sides lost.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | April 10, 2007 8:30 PM

"It seems odd that you think speculating about genetic causes to (undoubted) ethnic differences is racist"

I don't think Steven Pinker is racist, but I do think Sailer is racist. The important thing isn't the speculation, but the motives of the speculator.

"but launching aggressive wars against dark-skinned people to get your favourite politicians elected is fine."

Well, to look at our last three wars, I was opposed to the war in Iraq (olive skinned folks), in favor of the war in Afghanistan (light olive skinned folks), and in favor of the war in Kosovo/Serbia (lily white skinned folks). So I'm not sure the pigmentation of the country we're thinking about going to war with is my determining factor, unless you want to think I'm more in favor of launching wars against light-skinned people.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 8:38 PM

"Steve," unlike all those who sputter in rage, offers a substantive comment. In contrast to all the commenters who say that Sharpton is a bad person but is totally irrelevant, "Steve" points out that Sharpton is indeed quite relevant:

"What Sailer doesn't want to deal with is that Sharpton isn't a "self-appointed" anything, and that black people quite readily acknowledge him as a mainstream spokesman for the black community."

I don't have a problem dealing with that. It's perfectly true and I've never said otherwise. Sharpton has a big fan base, whom he has rewarded with decades of entertainment, Stick-It-to-the-Man style. He's a "Race Man" in the traditional African-American style. He's a brilliant debater and all-around talker. He's more fun than the Rev. Jackson (and let's not even talk about how Sen. Obama bores the Rev. Al's base to tears).

Now, Sharpton hasn't done much of anything substantively good for blacks, outside of benefiting himself and some cronies, but he _has_ entertained the masses. When you think about it, it's really quite funny that an obvious fraud like the Rev. Al has gotten himself accepted by the mainstream media as a leading representative of morality, who can publicly forgive sins (or withhold forgiveness) on the part of the entire black race. Mark Twain would have loved the Rev. Al.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 10, 2007 8:41 PM

I'm with Ifill on everything but this:

That’s the kind of story we love, right? A bunch of teenagers from Newark, Cincinnati, Brooklyn and, yes, Ogden, Utah, defying expectations. It’s what explodes so many March Madness office pools.

Imus is a total prick who stepped in it, yet again.

But I've yet to hear anyone complain about their busted brackets in the NCAA Women's hoops tourney. And "so many", even?

Maybe one day. But let's keep some perspective, Gwen.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 10, 2007 8:46 PM

Search Google News (not overall Google, just Google News) for "Imus Sharpton" and you get:

"all 2,981 news articles"

OMG - the stupidity. Do you really think that means that 2981 different people wrote different news articles pointing out some sort of important linkage between Imus and Sharpton which is important because there are over 2980 articles about it? Dude...about 2970 of those articles are just different copies of AP articles that appeared in every podunk newspaper, radio station or TV station in the country that has a website. Nothing more. If you went through the list, doubtful you would find more than 25 separately written articles in the whole mess. Do you really know how to do research or make an intelligent point? Jeeze... I'm embarassed for you that you stoop to that sort of very stupid argument

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | April 10, 2007 8:46 PM

Sailer, kudos for your honest remarks. The pathetic "status-seekers" in the comments here will surely spout some emotional nonsense like "why is that you agonize about the political talents of jesse jackson and al sharpton? couldn't you say exactly the same things about bush, that he hasn't done anything for his followers but he's been good financial news for his rich buddies? is it because bush is white and therefore respectable and sharpton and jackson are black and you're a racist scumbag?" But I know the truth -- you hold Sharpton and Jackson to a higher standard because you respect black people.

Continue to speak the truth, and please ignore the people who poke obvious holes in your ridiculously transparent arguments. They're just seeking status.

Posted by Barbar | April 10, 2007 8:51 PM

Sailer: It remains unclear why Sharpton or Jackson is different from Ralph Reed or any number of other people.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 10, 2007 8:52 PM

I live for the day when Sailer becomes the focus of a mass-media outcry over offensive remarks, and ends up going on Sharpton's show in an desperate attempt to fix his image.

Anyway, henceforth ignoring him for the time being -
Alex - two things. One is that racism has taken on broader and more complex meanings than the somewhat simple and kinda confused mass-mainstream version. It can refer to a violent burning, white-hooded hatred of a different race, or deep-seated attitudes in generally good and well-meaning people, etc. Two - is the "joke" not terribly offensive, and the reaction rather overblown and opportunistic? Well, that's another complex matter. However, if you tell us your race, ethnicity, and gender, religion and social class, I think I might be able to really clarify the issue for you, give you some, special insight, help you see it from a whole other angle . . .

Posted by Dan S. | April 10, 2007 8:52 PM

"unlike all those who sputter in rage"

Don't project, Steve. Rage is your thing.

I can only speak for myself, but you don't inspire rage in me. You only inspire a desire to rhetorically separate myself as from from your sickness as possible.

It's the same basic effect that Ann Coulter has on decent folks, only that she doesn't seem quite as scummy as you.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 8:53 PM

I would not argue that Sharpton is socially irrelevant; he has a not insignificant fan-base among many African-Americans, not all of whom endorse everything he has done and one of his deranged followers has done. I would however argue that he is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Imus stepped over the line with the remark in question.

Posted by Trolly McTroll | April 10, 2007 8:55 PM

"What Sailer doesn't want to deal with is that Sharpton isn't a "self-appointed" anything, and that black people quite readily acknowledge him as a mainstream spokesman for the black community."

Really? Who? Which black people? All of them? What percentage? You're utilizing exactly the mechanism that makes racism possible, attributing a particular characteristic to a race as a whole. I promise there are millions of black people who don't believe Al Sharpton speaks for them (not to mention the million who have never heard of Al Sharpton.) I mean would anyone suggest that there is a spokesman for white people? Saying that black people in general, a group of billions, or black people in America, a group of millions, could appoint through some strange consensus a racial spokesperson is idiotic, and frankly, nonsensical.

Posted by Freddie | April 10, 2007 8:56 PM

I didn't even know Imus, or anyone else, really, considered his show funny. I've only got bits of it on the MSNBC feed, and it just looked like a bunch of cranky old guys reading newpaper clips to each other. I can get that (with pancakes, no less) at three or four diners within a mile of my house.

Seriously, until this controversey I never would have guessed they were even trying to be funny.

Posted by AJ | April 10, 2007 8:56 PM

And complaining about how this is a non-issue sort of goes against the point of the non-stop nonsense of the blogosphere which everybosy should ignore and to which nobody should contribute. (Not that it isn't a non-issue.)

Posted by Trolly McTroll | April 10, 2007 8:58 PM

- And while there isn't a joke in the "joke" (unlike the anti-semitic one, which involves ambiguity, surprise, and resolution), there is a certain kind of humor in it, of the the 'oh, we're such bad boys, so brave, to say dirty words and do what we're not supposed to do!' variety. It exists because it is (in this case) offensive - racist, sexist, etc. . . .that's the entire point. Imus and his ilk often remind me of back when I was teaching middle school.

Posted by Dan S. | April 10, 2007 9:06 PM

Really? Who? Which black people? All of them? What percentage? You're utilizing exactly the mechanism that makes racism possible, attributing a particular characteristic to a race as a whole.

Yeah, alright, I grant your pedantic point. I was talking about black Americans.

Posted by Steve | April 10, 2007 9:06 PM

The problem is that Imus has quite a history of this kind of stuff, as the Ifill piece partially demonstrates, followed by apology, followed by more of this kind of stuff.

Apologies work best when they foreshadow behavior changes.

While I agree that Imus's comments were offensive and not funny, they clearly were intended to be jokes. Some jokes don't work. Working live in real time is going to result in a certain percentage of jokes that fail. For a comic that engages in the type of comedy that Imus engages in, a certain percentage of those failed jokes will be highly offensive. You might argue that the inevitability of hurtful and offensive "jokes" is reason enough NOT to engage in that type of live comedy. You might have a point. I happen to like Imus's interviews and think some of his comedy bits are funny in my 15 minute drive from home to the train station in the morning, so I think it would be a shame to get rid of Imus altogether because of his occasional lapses in on air judgment. One's view of Imus's upside will inevitably color one's view of whether his downside is worth the trouble.

Posted by Led | April 10, 2007 9:19 PM

Imus and his crew have been spewing this racist shit for years and they've never been funny. I don't know why this particular comment got so much attention, but I'm glad he'll likely be forced into retirement shortly. Now, does anyone care that Michael Savage is a fascist, or will he just get in trouble some day for saying spic or wetback?

Posted by Tim | April 10, 2007 9:31 PM

"One's view of Imus's upside will inevitably color one's view of whether his downside is worth the trouble."

Sure. And FWIW, I really don't have a position on whether or not Imus should be taken off the air and/or deported.

But I do think it's a very good thing that we have a national consensus that racist folks should be banned from polite company.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 9:41 PM

he sort of has a point when he says Ifill is making it all about her.

I don't know Ifill, so maybe she puts herself into the middle of the story all the time, and if she did that would be pretty inappropriate.

But this isn't a typical case. A number of high priests of punditry have been making public statements on Imus. The media are part of the story, and I think Ifill--by virtue of her professional achievements & her professional experience with Imus--is as entitled to put herself in this as any of them are.

Ifill appears to be saying "hey, as a voting member of the political pundit club, I'm NOT giving you crackers cover on this one. This will be not go down as you protecting one of our own political class, it will be you protecting a racist."

And I think it was also interesting, because she was sort of executing political payback through her own experience. Imus slammed her not as an individual, but as a black woman, and although it didn't end her career, slams like that don't help a journalist's credibility. Frankly, that made it less of a personal issue and much more a political one to me. The cheap shot he took wasn't at her for something she did (like, say, dangling her modifiers), but for something she WAS.

She was calling out the other high priests. She's saying that tolerating that kind of cheap shot doesn't mean you're willing to see reporters take punches for their behavior as a journalist--it means you're willing to see the credibility of any journalist impugned simply because she happens to be a black woman. The same way he impugned the basketball players simply for being black women.

I don't think it's coincidence that all kinds of prominent black media members, even ones like Al Roker who are not at all associated with activism, are choosing to speak out on this and say that he shouldn't keep his job.

There's an element of this that's got Imus calling in all kinds of personal chits, asking members of the media to set "politics" aside and help him out personally. And, frankly, prominent African American members of the media seem to be coming out to call bullshit on Imus's "c'mon, put aside politics, help out a friend." They're saying that this a zero sum situation. It isn't personal for just Imus. It's a political issue that has a direct personal consequence for them, and if you choose to help out your friend and colleague Imus, you are by definition screwing your friend and colleague Gwen.

It's a ballsy column to write, and it's the right thing to do. This isn't just about Imus, it's EQUALLY about Gwen & Al Roker & every other woman and man of color in the media. Good for them to have enough awareness and guts to publicly point this out.

Posted by anonymous | April 10, 2007 9:47 PM

Come on folks. What a stupid, waist of displaced anger. Although very offensive, it’s a real stretch to assume that the intent was some how insidious.

Same as to the “cleaning lady” comment. Not a smart move for a sharp reporter. All of us have been treated unfairly, but we don’t wine and adopt a victim hood persona.

The missing story here? The role and power of forgiveness and redemption in our culture, and in our political and foreign policy endeavors as well.

Posted by erict | April 10, 2007 9:59 PM

To white folks, black people ARE a joke. Duh.

It's so fun watching white folks pretend to not understand - it's like a grown-up version of "you can't see me!" - LOL!

Posted by sherifffruitfly | April 10, 2007 10:21 PM

Whatever people may think of Sharpton, I (white dude) absolutely agree with him that the troubling thing about Imus's remarks is precisely how casual they were. Imus isn't understood to be a Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh. When that talk emerges in this kind of presumably neutral setting--cranky dudes shooting the shit, talking a little blue, but on the radio--it's a step backward. Sharpton--deeply flawed as he is--is part of the mechanism by which our society responds to it and says, no, white guys jus' kiddin' around about mammies, buck coons and nappy headed hos ain't on. And that if he wants to keep doing it, he's participating in something other than a mainstream prattle-fest. He's going sub-Stern, at last.

How's my white status looking?

Posted by rad | April 10, 2007 10:28 PM

Al Sharpton is an idiot.

Aside that, what exactly is the difference between what CNN calls 'racially challenging' remarks and purely racist comments? Is there an actual difference between 'nappy headed hos' and 'nigger skanks?'

Personally, I found Fineman's comments much more deplorable...and where's the outrage over McGuirk's "jigaboo" remark?

Posted by Monty | April 10, 2007 10:29 PM

I was talking about black Americans.

Wow. Just... wow.

Dude-- that's just as bad. There is no "spokesperson" for black Americans! What do you think, they take a vote? There's no black spokesman because there's no "black people" as a monolith. They aren't a political party, they don't have the same ideas or opinion. Would you appreciate it if someone was designated the spokesman for your race? Would you want to have to answer for his opinions? Would you want to be represented by him?

Posted by Freddie | April 10, 2007 10:31 PM

Plus, it ain't just a racial insult: Imus has a long history of hating the vaginas-with-opinions crowd.

And maybe this is just me, but when did he lose his cowboy hat?

Posted by Monty | April 10, 2007 10:40 PM

Petey's canoe joke is funny.

Can someone tell ignorant me the meaning of 'nappy-headed'? Does it just mean 'black', offensively, or something more precise?

Posted by otto | April 10, 2007 10:50 PM

Barbar said: couldn't you say exactly the same things about bush, that he hasn't done anything for his followers but he's been good financial news for his rich buddies?

Yeah, because Steve Sailor is such a passionate Bush defender and apologist.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 10, 2007 10:51 PM

otto ,

I believe it is a reference to the coarseness that is typical of African American's hair when the hair is not well-groomed.

Posted by Mark Adams | April 10, 2007 10:57 PM

Would you appreciate it if someone was designated the spokesman for your race? Would you want to have to answer for his opinions? Would you want to be represented by him?

An awful lot of black people like Al Sharpton a lot, and have no problem with him speaking on behalf of the black community, no matter how much the concept offends you.

Go check out the black blogs sometime and see how many of them take the "Al Sharpton doesn't speak for me!" line.

Of course there's not 100% unanimity behind Sharpton or 90% or anything like that. I said that very plainly in my first post, so you can quit clutching your pearls already. The fact is, he's positively mainstream, whether you think he ought to be or not.

Posted by Steve | April 10, 2007 11:10 PM

I believe it is a reference to the coarseness that is typical of African American's hair when the hair is not well-groomed.

That, and it's used by African-American folks as a putdown for a lack of sophistication.

Imus said the "nappy-headed" and "jigaboo" stuff was "in the context of the Spike Lee film", and then went on to say, "Why listen to the outrage, let me ask you, in the black community when rappers and other people...in the black community defame and demean black women?"

It's like the frat boy who gets all bent out of shape when a bar patron calls him out on throwing "nigga" around. If it's okay for them, why not me? Dudes totally, blissfully ignorant of the context of language, and of consequences.

Posted by rad | April 10, 2007 11:11 PM

Thanks, Mark A.

Posted by otto | April 10, 2007 11:11 PM

"Imus said the "nappy-headed" and "jigaboo" stuff was "in the context of the Spike Lee film"

Very tangentially, I'll note that the wannabe/jigaboo musical number in School Daze is fucking brilliant.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 11:21 PM

Re: School Daze....yes.

Posted by rad | April 10, 2007 11:24 PM

If it's okay for them, why not me? Dudes totally, blissfully ignorant of the context of language, and of consequences.

If we're talking context, though, Imus's use of language, too, should be considered in context. We're not talking about a David Duke or George Wallace using language to, say, keep black people from voting, or from attaining economic advancement. We're talking about a guy who: has openly and vociferously supported the candidacies of black politicians; has loudly and blisteringly criticized racist campaigns by white politicians; has been a strongly and credibly powerful voice against the mistreatment of black musicians by the music industry; has raised significant funds to help kids with, among other diseases, sickle cell anemia; has publicly, on his radio show, stated his support for equal rights for gay people; and who has consistently been one of the country's bitterest critics of the Bush administration's human rights policies, notably referring to the Vice President on countless occasions as a "war criminal."

His show may not survive, but I basically think Imus's characterization of himself as a "good person" who said a "bad thing," while self-serving, is essentially pretty accurate.

Posted by Adlai | April 10, 2007 11:30 PM

"His show may not survive, but I basically think Imus's characterization of himself as a "good person" who said a "bad thing," while self-serving, is essentially pretty accurate."

Sure. As I mentioned above, I don't really have a position on whether or not he should lose his show. But I will note two things:

- This isn't the first time for Imus. He's got a history of relying on very crude racial stereotypes as a core part of his schtick. That alone may not make him a bad person, but it does enter the conversation.

- I think that a hypersensitivity to racial slurs is healthy for our society. If that means making an occasional example out of a "good person", I don't have a problem with that.

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 11:40 PM

His show may not survive, but I basically think Imus's characterization of himself as a "good person" who said a "bad thing," while self-serving, is essentially pretty accurate.

I think that people have made pretty good cases that he hasn't said a bad thing. What's notable to me, beyond Sailer's truly bizarre and unexpected semi-hysteria, is how few people, including African-Americans, seem to be calling for his head. I believe Ifill doesn't; I listened to PTI today, and Wilbon said he didn't think he should be fired; the team seems to be taking this in stride. Only a few people, different opinions in the black community, yada yada--but still. I don't think that says anything good about Imus--if he gets so depressed that he falls off the various wagons he has at various times been on, fine with me--but it pleases me somehow. But I wonder if it says something, not about African-Americans, but rather about (and maybe I'm being overly hopeful) about African-American readings of their own status in society. Maybe things are, though far from perfect, improved enough that many African-Americans feel they can let one roll.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 10, 2007 11:46 PM

Adlai:

I agree with everything you write. And I think that's exactly what I mean by context, and why I (reluctantly) find myself agreeing with Sharpton that Imus's ignorance of context is pretty serious. He may be a "good person" who has simply said "a bad thing," but when your business is talk and opinion, that's an oversimplification. Do I think Imus needs to burn for this? Not necessarily. But the consequence of building a show around naughty talk and persistently throwing around slurs is that eventually public scolds like Sharpton, Jackson, and even Matt Yglesias will get on you, and the deeds you do off-mic won't matter. Imus is having to defend his public persona, and it's about time. Maybe he'll learn what most of us out here already know...calling a black woman a "ho" in person would probably get you a slap, and this is his Big Media Slap.

Posted by rad | April 10, 2007 11:48 PM

"What's notable to me ... is how few people, including African-Americans, seem to be calling for his head."

Well, two African-Americans who are on-air talent for NBC news called for his firing today...

Posted by Petey | April 10, 2007 11:51 PM

Petey, don't harsh my mellow, you bastard. In any case, it's remarkable to me that there isn't broad unanimity among African-Americans or the white status seekers who...what's the appropriate word, here, Sailer?...them. And I don't think they dislike him any less for all that.

If he gets fired, fine. If it's just the suspension and him on tenterhooks for the rest of his days, fine. I thought he was an irritating jackass before, and I think he's an irritating jackass now.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | April 10, 2007 11:59 PM

His show may not survive, but I basically think Imus's characterization of himself as a "good person" who said a "bad thing," while self-serving, is essentially pretty accurate.

I couldn't disagree more. Imus is an arrogant asshole who has been spouting hateful crap for years; in no real sense is he a 'good person.' It's not as if hosting a coupla dozen kids at his ranch provides some moral buffer or excuse.

Imus is a puke. I've seen him laff down similar gaffs before, a la "fuck em if they can't take a joke." Suspending his show won't solve anything...indeed, even firing his ass won't change his views; he'll just find another venue and then bitch about the evils of PC politics...(in my experience, those who complain most loudly about political correctness are bigots).

Imus is just a cough in a disease. A symptom.

Posted by Monty | April 11, 2007 12:01 AM

Way up there Steve Sailer said that this kerfuffle is made "for a lot of whites to engage in moral preening about wonderfully sophisticately sensitive they are compared to other whites, who are so deplorable. It's a form of white vs. white status competition."

I'll preen and tailor that and then go along with it: it's an incidence where Americans (black, white, etc.), point out deplorable, divisive behavior that evokes bad shit between us all that we're trying to leave behind. If it's a competition, I hope Steve's prettied-up "There IS such a thing as a nigger" narrative is losing.

Posted by rad | April 11, 2007 12:09 AM