Topic: Those are some nappy-headed hoes! (Read 10211 times)

Chris · « **on:** April 14, 2007, 02:57:01 AM »

I'm surprised that there has not been a thread created about this subject, yet.

I'm sure by now you've all heard about the Imus fiasco. I was curious as to what you guys think about the subject.

Personally, I think him being fired was a bit much on NBC's part. I think their initial decision of suspending him for two weeks would have been fair. To my knowledge, he was never punished for racial/hateful remarks before in the past. This is his first offence in which there was some form of punishment dished out, and they decided to give him the can.

I know, from NBC's standpoint, it was in their best interest to get rid of him in order to save themselves a lot of money in the long run. Because, when it comes down to it, they are a business, and they have to make money, too.

There are several things that I don't understand about this issue. The first being that he said, "Those are some nappy headed hoes". Notice in that statement he did not use the word "nigger", "blacks", or "African American". Last time I checked, "nappy" was not a reserve word for African Americans, but instead a word that really has no significant meaning in the English language, other than a diaper or a small bowl, and in slang can be used to describe someone who has very short, curly hair. This kind of reminds me of David Howard's use of the word "niggardly" back in 1999 in which he used the word, and as a result, the black community went nuts because it was a racial slur. (Do yourself a favour and look up the word in a dictionary). In order for them to be offended by this remark (nappy), they (the black community) must all come to a consensus that they all (both males and females) have "nappy hair". Until then, it is my opinion, that only people with "nappy hair", the Rutgers’s women’s basketball team, and legitimate prostitutes should be upset by his remarks. (I'd like to note that my father, who is white, has what you can describe as "nappy" hair. He is not up in arms about this incident. In fact, I think he could care less).

The second part of this issue that I don't understand is the absence of good old fashioned boycotts. Nowadays, if people are unhappy with a certain person or a certain entity, they want it changed, or they'll file a lawsuit. In the old days, it used to be more common place that people would simply group together and boycott the targeted service until the changes they wanted implemented were actually in effect.

With that said, what are your thoughts and opinions on the topic?

BizB · « **Reply #1 on:** April 14, 2007, 08:33:04 AM »

I'm going to address this from a different perspective than I have on other boards that I frequent.

From a business point of view, everything that has happened makes perfect sense.

Background:
Don Imus is a shock jock. Don Imus has always been a shock jock. This is not the first time that he has said something that was offensive or socially charged. In the 1970s, he was fired from a national (syndicated?) talk show for missing more than 100 days in one year due to drug/alcohol abuse. Don went back to Cleveland and worked his way back into a national show from basically ground-zero. So, from an employer standpoint, CBS knew they were dealing with a loose cannon. According to Wikipedia, there is a long history of charged comments, and law suits.

Why Don Imus is popular on the air is beyond me. I hate to believe that people listened to Don because he was saying the things that they thought/believed.

The initial suspension was perfectly in line with what I would have expected. They even delayed the suspension until after the stations annual fund raiser.
MSNBC pulled the syndication of his daily radio broadcast either because they saw that the pendulum was just beginning to swing, or they were looking for a reason to get out of his contract any way. I can't know which. I suspect the latter.
CBS's "firing" came only after a call from Steve Capus to Lesly Moonvez. We can't know for sure what was said in that discussion. However, I would assume that Steve discussed the feedback that Steve received from his higher ranking black employees as this was one of the reasons he cited for canceling the TV syndication of Imus in the Morning. The cancellation of his MSNBC syndication came on the same day that many of the show's advertisers pulled their sponsorship. It appears that CBS took Imus off the air after the show was no longer profitable. This, again, is purely speculation on my part. I have no idea how many advertisers remained or how many were lined up to take the place of those that had recently parted ways with the show.

I put firing in quotes above because, from my understanding, they didn't actually fire Don Imus. What they did was cancel his daily radio show. He is, to the best of my knowledge, still under contract with CBS and still receiving his full salary. This too makes perfect sense. If they had fired Don, he would have the opportunity to shop around and step into another national show on some other network - if they'd have him. CBS protecting their interests/talents is yet another solid business decision.

Now, as for why advertisers pulled their money, I believe that it was due to the drumbeat of the Justice Brothers (Sharpton and Jackson.) That saddens me. How these two became the arbiters of morality and leaders of black Americans is beyond me. But, that begs the question, if not them, then whom? If it weren't for The Justice Brothers, who would have kept this issue in the national spotlight for more than the 7.3 seconds that would typically be devoted to such issues by the national media outlets. I'd like to see a discussion on that topic. From where should social pressure come?

Vespertine · « **Reply #2 on:** April 14, 2007, 11:42:53 AM »

BizB, you are correct about the Justice Brothers being the most outspoken, but there were other groups, a couple of them fairly powerful, that were also involved: the National Organization for Women and the National Association of Black Journalists. I honestly don't think the advertisers bailed because of Sharpton and Jackson. Personally, I don't think those two have that much power. The head of American Express is black, and Amex was one of the first companies to pull their advertising. For the others, I think they knew that the boycotts would eventually come.

Chris, since you brought it up, I just happened across this article, which gives the history of the word nappy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18081301/

Anyanka_was_framed · « **Reply #3 on:** April 14, 2007, 08:28:56 PM »

We watched a video on YouTube with Don Imus' commentary in my Social and Cultural Foundations of Counseling Class. I can't remember what Imus' producer said before the "nappy-headed hoes" bit, but I do remember that whatever it was, it sounded worse. The two went on about how the Rutgers team looked like men and that the team they were playing looked like lighter more feminine versions of them. I saw some of the press conference held by the Rutgers team and their coach (who happens to be one of the most well-spoken athletic coaches I've ever heard...but my issue with jocks is a different story for a different thread). Their focus was not just regarding Imus' word choice in describing their hair, but rather that they were called hoes. It has brought to a point the annoyance and sometimes rage over men in any kind of media calling women these absolutely heinous names. How many moms and dads of the team's players have heard Imus' commentary? And heard their daughters called hoes? Aside from the purposeful slurs about African Americans, what about the ease in which Imus labeled an entire women's basketball team as hoes?

Also, and on an entirely lighter note, Imus has really, rediculously awful hair.

12AX7 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 15, 2007, 01:11:05 AM »

Quote from: Anyanka_was_framed on April 14, 2007, 08:28:56 PM

Also, and on an entirely lighter note, Imus has really, rediculously awful hair.

You got all the gorgeous hair.

What he got was all they had left!

Anyanka_was_framed · « **Reply #5 on:** April 15, 2007, 11:06:25 AM »

Quote from: 12AX7 on April 15, 2007, 01:11:05 AM

You got all the gorgeous hair.

What he got was all they had left!

Awww, thanks

ivan · « **Reply #6 on:** May 02, 2007, 12:25:01 PM »

Quote from: BizB on April 14, 2007, 08:33:04 AM

I'm going to address this from a different perspective than I have on other boards that I frequent.

From a business point of view, everything that has happened makes perfect sense.

Background:
Don Imus is a shock jock. Don Imus has always been a shock jock. This is not the first time that he has said something that was offensive or socially charged. In the 1970s, he was fired from a national (syndicated?) talk show for missing more than 100 days in one year due to drug/alcohol abuse. Don went back to Cleveland and worked his way back into a national show from basically ground-zero. So, from an employer standpoint, CBS knew they were dealing with a loose cannon. According to Wikipedia, there is a long history of charged comments, and law suits.

Why Don Imus is popular on the air is beyond me. I hate to believe that people listened to Don because he was saying the things that they thought/believed.

The initial suspension was perfectly in line with what I would have expected. They even delayed the suspension until after the stations annual fund raiser.
MSNBC pulled the syndication of his daily radio broadcast either because they saw that the pendulum was just beginning to swing, or they were looking for a reason to get out of his contract any way. I can't know which. I suspect the latter.
CBS's "firing" came only after a call from Steve Capus to Lesly Moonvez. We can't know for sure what was said in that discussion. However, I would assume that Steve discussed the feedback that Steve received from his higher ranking black employees as this was one of the reasons he cited for canceling the TV syndication of Imus in the Morning. The cancellation of his MSNBC syndication came on the same day that many of the show's advertisers pulled their sponsorship. It appears that CBS took Imus off the air after the show was no longer profitable. This, again, is purely speculation on my part. I have no idea how many advertisers remained or how many were lined up to take the place of those that had recently parted ways with the show.

I put firing in quotes above because, from my understanding, they didn't actually fire Don Imus. What they did was cancel his daily radio show. He is, to the best of my knowledge, still under contract with CBS and still receiving his full salary. This too makes perfect sense. If they had fired Don, he would have the opportunity to shop around and step into another national show on some other network - if they'd have him. CBS protecting their interests/talents is yet another solid business decision.

Now, as for why advertisers pulled their money, I believe that it was due to the drumbeat of the Justice Brothers (Sharpton and Jackson.) That saddens me. How these two became the arbiters of morality and leaders of black Americans is beyond me. But, that begs the question, if not them, then whom? If it weren't for The Justice Brothers, who would have kept this issue in the national spotlight for more than the 7.3 seconds that would typically be devoted to such issues by the national media outlets. I'd like to see a discussion on that topic. From where should social pressure come?

This was another thread that accidentally got marked as "read", so I missed it.

Quoted as sign of concurrence.

Generally, I'd think that the source of social pressure is irrelevant; what matters is the change that it causes. Nonetheless, it would gall me no end if Sharpton and Jackson end up being canonized. But there is nothing new in that situation. Even legitimately great historic figures had their human flaws.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #7 on:** May 02, 2007, 12:46:40 PM »

Sure the guy's a douche, but I think he should be able to say whatever he wants. Double standards can suck my cock, if a rapper can say 'ho' then so should this douche.

They're both crude and unnecessarily vulgar in my opinion (oh the irony), but the result will be either people are offended enough to change the channel or they won't care and will watch it. This leaves the choice in the hands of the people, and not in the hands of a corporation who wants to appear PC and human despite being a sociopath who cares for nothing but money.

BizB · « **Reply #8 on:** May 02, 2007, 12:49:33 PM »

Interesting thread revival. This was just linked from Matt's site.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/01/news/newsmakers/pluggedin_arango_imus.fortune/index.htm?

Quote

...Imus has hired one of the nation's premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted, according to one person who has read the contract.

The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of - making off-color jokes. The source described it as a "dog has one- bite clause." A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.

ivan · « **Reply #9 on:** May 02, 2007, 01:08:56 PM »

That makes sense. What didn't make sense was that Imus wasn't somehow protected by contract against this contingency. Looks like he was after all.

Agent, the issue isn't what Imus -- or anyone -- is allowed to say, but when and where he's allowed to say it. There are lines that can't be crossed on the air, and those lines are occasionally redrawn. The remarks that killed Imus' show were not the most offensive he's ever made, but people have been waiting for a final straw, and things finally came together in such a way that, with a little push, enough public outrage was generated to provide a good enough reason for CBS to get rid of an embarrassment. I'm not surprised this happened, or sad. There's a time and a place for everything. Stern saw the writing on the wall and made a pre-emptive move. Imus was too dumb to see the signs. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a big image-conscious corporation like CBS to indulge in bigotry and prurience.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #10 on:** May 02, 2007, 04:29:01 PM »

I understand the distinction between public airwaves and a private conversation, but aren't rappers allowed to say 'ho' on public radio? I think that the difference between Imus and a rapper is that one pisses off the public (for well established, yet equally bullshit reasons) and one does not.

Which is of course the end part of what you said.

ivan · « **Reply #11 on:** May 02, 2007, 04:53:50 PM »

Remember: when Imus says "ho", it's sexist bigotry. When a rapper says "ho", it's art.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #12 on:** May 02, 2007, 05:38:35 PM »

Quote from: ivan on May 02, 2007, 04:53:50 PM

Remember: when Imus says "ho", it's sexist bigotry. When a rapper says "ho", it's art.

Waaaaait. What you're describing sounds suspiciously like a double standard!

milifist · « **Reply #13 on:** May 02, 2007, 06:04:12 PM »

I doubt this is going to head into FCC territory.

I think the real difference is that no one really takes rappers too seriously. Many people may take offense at their language, but I suspect most people don't care enough about the opinions some recording artists passing themselves off as rhyming street hoods to get that worked up. No one really expects them to behave respectably. Imus was trying to straddle the fence between shock jock and respectable media personality.

ivan · « **Reply #14 on:** May 02, 2007, 07:36:40 PM »

Very true, Milifist.

The double standard exists, no question, but rap artists (and in many respects other artists as well) are held to a lower standard of decency than other celebrities and personalities. Imus couldn't have it both ways. He couldn't be both Eminem and Bill Moyers.

Actually, he couldn't be either.

12AX7 · « **Reply #15 on:** May 03, 2007, 10:31:21 AM »

I still pronounce "Eminem" like " E - mine - um " just for spite.

Anyanka_was_framed · « **Reply #16 on:** May 03, 2007, 12:40:52 PM »

I generally ignore Eminem altogether. And most rap for that matter. It's not art it's crap.

Vespertine · « **Reply #17 on:** May 03, 2007, 03:41:36 PM »

Quote from: Anyanka_was_framed on May 03, 2007, 12:40:52 PM

I generally ignore Eminem altogether. And most rap for that matter. It's not art it's crap.

In your opinion. Believe it or not, I have heard rap that painted an agonizing portrait of what it's like to be poor, black and from the ghetto, and have very little hope for a future. It allowed me to see something that I would never have been able to find out on my own, because I'm not black, poor or from the ghetto.

ivan · « **Reply #18 on:** May 03, 2007, 03:49:00 PM »

Concur. Some of it is powerful stuff.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #19 on:** May 03, 2007, 03:58:04 PM »

I like the Digital Underground. Very humorous stuff.

ivan · « **Reply #20 on:** May 03, 2007, 05:17:22 PM »

Do the Humpty!

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #21 on:** May 03, 2007, 05:18:34 PM »

I used to say I hated it prior to sitting down and listening to it, then I realized I was being an idiot and cut that out. Now I think it's pretty neat as an art form, with plenty of room for creativity and original stuff.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #22 on:** May 03, 2007, 05:19:33 PM »

And then there's Mad Bitchez Disgruntled Hos. A better art form is inconceivable.

Agent_Tachyon · « **Reply #23 on:** May 03, 2007, 05:26:05 PM »

I'm all for equality for hoes.

RelandR · « **Reply #24 on:** May 03, 2007, 07:12:24 PM »

I like M&M's greatest hits, hell I just like M&M's

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Those are some nappy-headed hoes! (Read 10211 times)

12AX7

12AX7