Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Imus Should Apologize



That's right... apologiiiiize!

In all seriousness, though, I think Imus is an idiot. A moron. So what? He said something stupid. He is, in fact, a stupid person. So what?

He called a bunch of black female collegiate basketball players, "dirty, nappy, ho's." What further proof do you need that the man is an idiot? He said something stupid and hurtful. If he were a professor at Rutgers, I would think that firing him would be appropriate, but he isn't affiliated with Rutgers, so why should he be fired?



Black "civil rights" leaders, like Al Sharpton, are demanding Imus be fired. For what? Saying something that is racially insensitive? Imus is a SHOCK JOCK. He is paid to say things that are shocking and offensive. It is his bread and butter. It is supposed to offend some people, some of the time. It is what he does for a living.

How will firing this man make things right? Is referring to a black basketball player as a "dirty, nappy ho" an offense for which someone should automatically lose their job?

What about calling a white, male, lacrosse player a "rapist"?

How about calling our soldier's "murderers"?

How about labeling all Christians as "right-wing nut jobs"?

How about labeling a person who disagrees with allowing homosexuals to adopt children a "bigoted homophobe"?

What about blaming white males for every bad thing that has happened in history, while praising all women and minorities (especially blacks, and not including jews)?

Why are saying things which are divisive, provocative, and hurtful, wrong when it involves a black person, but "ok" when it is a white person, or a Christian, or a conservative, or a soldier?

Civil rights are about equality. I think equality has been accomplished... and then some... and yet the "civil rights" movement continues. To what end? To the end that saying something bad about a black person - placing blacks on a level that is above all other races, a people who cannot be criticized ever, even if it IS due (which in this "nappy hos" thing the criticism was not due) - should result in the loss of one's livelihood.

BUT, calling all white people racist, calling all Christians "nut-jobs," calling conservatives "reich wingers" etc., ad naseum, does not result in a firing, and in fact can result in tenure in a collegiate setting.

Think about what is happening here:
BLACK, FEMALE, COLLEGE ATHLETES.

Blacks, who once upon a time were not even counted as people for census purposes, who once upon a time could not vote, who once upon a time could not be taught let alone go to college...

Females, who throughout history have been oppressed, who once upon a time could not own property, who once upon a time could not vote, who once upon a time could not attend college...

College Athletes.. only recently in the history of American academia have women's sports been guaranteed funding and opportunity to the extent that men's sports receive funding and opportunity. Think about it... women's sports are a topic of discussion on national radio stations!

On an equality scale, where are we today versus where we once were?
It wasn't that terribly long ago that funding wasn't guaranteed for women athletes. It wasn't that terribly long ago that blacks DID have a difficult time getting into colleges.
It wasn't that terribly long ago that blacks had no rights in this country.
Look how far we have come! Look how far we have progressed!

Women are guaranteed funding for NCAA purposes. Qualified blacks are virtually guaranteed admission into colleges, almost always placed ahead of equally qualified white students (in the interests of "fairness").
Blacks can vote. Blacks are found in every economic bracket. Blacks are found at every job level. No where in our country (that I am aware of) is the exclusion of blacks thought to be acceptable.

In what way is this unequal? MLK's dream was that blacks and whites could one day attend the same schools and that black children and white children could play together. MLK wanted blacks to have equality. Blacks have equality. In fact, they have "reverse-racism" working in their favor. Because universities WANT "diversity," in many cases blacks are placed well ahead of whites. That isn't equality. I'm not saying that these programs must end, but I am saying that that is NOT equality.

Equality refers to opportunity. In America, you open your own doors. Sure, some people are born with a silver spoon. I imagine Will Smith's kids aren't going to have to worry too much about how they are going to pay for college. If one of Will Smith's sons wants to get into music or acting one day, his father will be able to help open doors for him. This is true no matter what your color, religion, sex, etc.

Look at the sort of things that were said about the Duke Lacrosse players. Who should have been fired for calling them racists and rapists? Were saying those things any less hurtful? They were males. They were white. They were probably rich.

Now look at what that idiot Imus said. Ok. He is an idiot. We all agree. Should he lose his job? For what? Saying hurtful things about black, female, possibly poor people? Is that equality?

To express outrage over the public ridicule of one group and not the other... is that equality?

2 comments:

bruno said...

I don't agree with your use of the expression "reverse racism". I think it's more appropriate to talk about "anti-white racism". the "reverse racism" expression actually promotes racist stereotypes against white people.

You say blacks benefit from "reverse racism" but in fact, measures like "affirmative action" really are anti-white discrimination.

Please see my page :
reverse racism Vs anti-white racism

fabulinus said...

Bruno, I completely agree. I put buzz words, usually liberal doublespeak, in quotes. I know that there is no such thing as "reverse-racism" and that this is in fact racism against whites. I understand your point and am in absolute agreement.

Thanks for your comment/clarification!