Nappy Headed Hoes

[Spawn's dad]

Have Mike and the Dog weighed in? I haven't had a chance to listen to them this week and I seem to remember you listening to WFAN in the past...

 

They've been pretty firmly in the Imus camp, although I don't know what their spin is now that he's been dropped by CBS as well

[MattZ]

They've been pretty firmly in the Imus camp, although I don't know what their spin is now that he's been dropped by CBS as well

 

Hmmm, well, they are on in 8 mins and I will tune in to find out. They stream live now at wfan.com if anyone gives a shit about what two blowhard sports nuts think about this issue. For some reason, I do.

[MrRain422]

I don't consume a whole lot of mainstream media, so could you point out to me a few instances of this? I'm genuinely curious.

 

So far, the only people I've seen who've spoken out against Sharpton and Jackson have been on this message board and in a couple of columns written by guys I've never heard of.

 

There are tons of newspaper columnists and bloggers who taken every imaginable angle on this. I agree that the television media has been pretty one sided, but I'm not certain that it is because Sharpton and Jackson have made them afraid to take another stance -- I think it's out of laziness.

 

Dude, look at the clip of Imus on Sharpton's radio show...he said 'i can't get a word in edgewise w/ you people' (meaning the people on that show) and sharpton jumped on that w/ 'what do you mean by YOU PEOPLE?!' shit like that. that a really minute example, but like cryptique said...show me who's enagaing these guys in the media right now. bigger than that, if you think that meeting at CBS was an intelligent discussion/debate versus a flat-out demand...c'mon.

 

That's a great example of how people can't speak on the issues when they are on Al Sharpton's radio show. Doesn't tell me a thing about anything happening outside of that one show, which pretty much no one listens to. It's not indicative of society as a whole. The meeting at CBS was meaningless, no matter what actually went down at it, because it was the sponsors, not Al Sharpton, who got Imus taken off the air. And really, what difference does it make that Imus is off the air anyway? He's no victim. He's made a ton of money and a 35 year long career on saying offensive things. It's no one's fault but his own if he wasn't prepared for the consequences of what would happen if some of his intentionally offensive comments actually offended some people.

 

Stand up to them and you're against the black community, not just against to windbags out to make another dime off of the aforementioned white guilt. their skin color is their bullet proof vest and it shouldn't be.

 

I guess I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that debate as a whole was being stifled by Sharpton and Jackson. I guess you just meant that people can't have a reasonable debate with those two people. I guess I can agree with that.

[Col. Hapablap]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/business.../13carr.html?hp

 

Flying Solo Past the Point of No Return

 

 

 

By DAVID CARR

Published: April 13, 2007

 

For a few days, it seemed as if Don Imus would somehow pull out of the death spiral. After all, once he came under fire, Mr. Imus said he was sorry for the racial insult, said he was sorry again and then began a week of penance, raising money on his own show for sick children and turning up at various other microphones to renew his apology.

 

 

But even as he went through the ritual of public mortification, his backers began to see what he did not: the drumbeat was not going to stop. The controversy metastasized and by Monday, the media began to lock and load. Mr. Imus, who had shrugged off the initial criticism last week, was fighting for survival.

 

 

[Reni]

I can only speak for myself when I say that the reason i'm ranking on Sharpton and Jackson, is that their agendas are decidedly and extremely different than that of Dr. King. They really are 'agitators'...actually, agitators seeking to profit.

 

If you seriously think that King was not considered an "agitator" by the majority of whites, some blacks and the bulk of politicians in his day, you are sorely mistaken......I have a friend who's grandmother has said, even in recent years, "I still blame that Dr. King. If it weren't for him coming and stirring up trouble, everything would still be fine."

 

MLK and the many many many people who risked and lost their lives WERE agitators against the dominant culture - and even today some of his messages have been watered down and suppressed by dominant culture - so we can hold him up as a simplistic, "let's all hold hands", kind of leader......he spoke vehemently against imperialism, poverty, war, etc.....issues that still take precedence today, that we don't always want to take an honest look at when we think about ourselves or our country.

[Guest Jules]

Also - non-comedian white dudes can not get away with trying to mimic black people for the sake of whatever he was trying to do - I don't think that will ever change.

 

I suppose Howard Stern must have been bringing a lot of money into NBC for them to never get rid of him.

 

Well, you could consider Stern a comedian, or at least a comic. Also, having Robin as his sidekick probably helps. Stern is generally embraced by black people (and leans left too), so he gets away with a lot in this area.

[EL the Famous]

If you seriously think that King was not considered an "agitator" by the majority of whites, some blacks and the bulk of politicians in his day, you are sorely mistaken......I have a friend who's grandmother has said, even in recent years, "I still blame that Dr. King. If it weren't for him coming and stirring up trouble, everything would still be fine."

 

MLK and the many many many people who risked and lost their lives WERE agitators against the dominant culture - and even today some of his messages have been watered down and suppressed by dominant culture - so we can hold him up as a simplistic, "let's all hold hands", kind of leader......he spoke vehemently against imperialism, poverty, war, etc.....

 

kate, don't try to preach to me about Dr. King...my issue was against 'agitators for profit'...self profit. The two fundamental differences are the power the 'dominant culture' had at the time versus today, the rights Dr. King and all those around him were fighting to wrestle from their grasp. The more disturbing second difference, is that Dr. King really wanted equality...sharpton/jackson just want to get paid.

[Spawn's dad]

big fat mike: this is a sad teary place today

mad dog: this is a disgrace

 

according to them FAN lost advertising because of the Imus thing. Now they're losing the rest because of the way it was handled.

[MattZ]

big fat mike: this is a sad teary place today

mad dog: this is a disgrace

 

according to them FAN lost advertising because of the Imus thing. Now they're losing the rest because of the way it was handled.

 

Yep, I am listening now. As a new yorker, the fallout at WFAN is fascinating to me. Kudos to Mike/Dog for tackling this up front. I wonder if WFAN can survive this.

[Edie]

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying and I am partly guilty of making blanket statements about rap/hip-hop because i prefer rock, but there are some things I would point out

 

3. I have another example of lyrics from another genre that i know DO bug some people for similar (my mom in particular).

 

"Its down to me, yes it is;

The way she does just what shes told

Down to me, the change has come

Shes under my thumb"

 

She finds this degrading towards women and doesn't listen to any rolling stones because the song really bugs her. Whats my point? I'm not sure but I thought I'd bring it up.

 

Anyhow, my 2 cents.

 

What about "She's a Jar"? The lyric "she begs me not to hit her" has both elements -- misogyny and violence.

[LouieB]

Dude, look at the clip of Imus on Sharpton's radio show...he said 'i can't get a word in edgewise w/ you people' (meaning the people on that show) and sharpton jumped on that w/ 'what do you mean by YOU PEOPLE?!' shit like that.

Imus must be an idiot to keep using expressions like "you people" that are so loaded. Sharpton is clearly taking advantage of him at every turn. Imus' biggest mistake was figuring as a white guy he could use a expression like "nappy headed" without getting shit for it.

 

LouieB

[MattZ]

Imus' biggest mistake was figuring as a white he could use a expression like "nappy headed" without getting shit for it.

LouieB

 

Give me a break. He was live on the radio and made a mistake. And apologized. There was no "figuring." And he hasn't gotten shit for it. He has been fired.

 

Mike/Dog are railing against everyone. Good for them. Everyone from Russert to Gregory to Chris Dodd to MSNBC to CBS.

[MrRain422]

Imus has been saying similar and much worse things for years. The reason he thought he could get away with it is because he always has. I don't know what the difference was this time (because he was talking about teenage girls? I don't know), but the fact that he's done this for years and years and years makes me a little skeptical of any claims that it was just a slip-up.

[LouieB]

Give me a break. He was live on the radio and made a mistake. And apologized. There was no "figuring." And he hasn't gotten shit for it. He has been fired.

Take two.....I don't disagree that everyone has overreacted to this and that Imus should not have been fired (I am no fan, but I am a fan of free speech.) My point is, that there are some expressions that are so loaded (such as "you people" when refering to African Americans, etc.) that after a certain point Imus should have stopped trying to justify what he said. He fucked up using the expression "nappy headed" so he should have said, sorry...bad choice of words and not spoken to Sharpton at all.

 

LouieB

[darkstar]

I've said it before in this post but it's nothing but a hustle. Sharpton et al now know that anything, ANYTHING that is the slightest bit not to their liking will result in sanctions, firings, etc. This guy brought CBS and NBC to their knees. Think it will stop now? He (Sharpton) has completely manipulated this.

 

Were Imus' comments stupid and inane and ugly? Yes, but to me what is more ugly is that a sleaze like Sharpton can get over like this on society. Remember this is a guy that incited the Crown Heights riots back in the 90's that resulted in the death of a young man. This is the guy that pandered to the mobs at that Freddy's Fashion Mart incident also back in the 90's. He is a total hypocrite and piece of shit and this is simply another one of his scams.

 

He is doing his best to create a climate where anything even remotely (or so he thinks) about race will be censored. Every media outlet will bow down because he is creating a sense of fear. I won't presume to know anything about the struggle for civil rights or anything like that, but from what I have read people like MLK and others were geniunely concerned about bettering relations. People like Sharpton are not concerned with bettering anything they are only concerned with lining their pockets and creating problems. Where is his outrage over gangsta rap and all that? MLK must be spinning in his grave.

 

Sharpton is a hustler and a shakedown artist, nothing more. People that are seriously concerned with equal rights should shun this man. What happened to free speach? You may not like what someone says, you may find it offensive, but what right does Sharpton have deciding what's right? This guy is dangerous. Read his quote from yesterday about deciding what needs to be on the airwaves.

 

OK off the soapbox now.

[MrRain422]

Conason over states things a bit with the slavery analogy, but otherwise I think this article from Salon.com is pretty spot-on:

 

No more whining excuses

Whatever their motives in firing Don Imus, NBC and CBS did the right thing to uphold decency.

 

By Joe Conason

 

Print Email Digg it Del.icio.us My Yahoo RSS Font: S / S+ / S++

 

REUTERS/Chip East

 

Radio talk-show host Don Imus speaks with Rev. Al Sharpton (not pictured) during Sharpton's radio show, in New York, April 9, 2007.

 

April 13, 2007 | Whatever the true motivation behind the decisions by NBC and CBS to rid themselves of Don Imus, the executives who decided to jettison the bullying schlock jock managed to focus on what mattered most to them. Perhaps they were pandering to frightened advertisers or perhaps they were soothing outraged employees, but the network suits ultimately ignored all the special pleadings, racial diversions and other distracting irrelevancies.

 

So should the rest of us, when Imus and his defenders whine about the injustice inflicted on him this week.

 

It doesn't matter whether rappers or anybody else use the same disgusting language that Imus and his sidekick Bernard McGuirk used when describing the Rutgers basketball team as "nappy-headed hos." Imus himself tried out a version of this argument when he appeared on the Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show, pointing out that although he is indeed a white man, he is hip enough to know that "ho" is a term of disrespect heard in the black community. This is a stupid argument, roughly akin to claiming that white ownership of slaves was justifiable because black Africans sold them. The only issue for NBC and CBS was the standard of discourse on their programming, not what some idiots may be saying somewhere else.

 

It doesn't matter whether Sharpton -- or any of the other Imus critics -- has raised equally loud objections to vile rap lyrics. There are many reasons, of course, to discount Sharpton as a moral exemplar. Like Imus, he hasn't hesitated to exploit prejudice as part of his act. But changing the subject to the preacher's checkered background doesn't exonerate Imus. Regardless of the preacher's always amazing alacrity, he was not the victim here and his role is not the issue. What Imus did would demand redress even if Sharpton had never elbowed his way into the controversy.

 

It doesn't matter whether the journalists and politicians who appeared on the Imus show think he should be forgiven. Special pleading by anyone who has benefited from airtime with Imus is obviously not worth much. Every celebrated bigot has friends and sycophants who will vouch for his purity of spirit, so why should we believe the Imus posse any more than the cronies of David Duke or Louis Farrakhan? The proof is in the transcripts, where the vicious evidence is overwhelming. His friends' impulse to defend him may be understandable as a matter of loyalty, although former Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant surely turned many stomachs when he assured Imus, "Solidarity forever, pal." As for the preening suggestion by his guests that the Imus show provided serious political discussion available nowhere else on the airwaves, that scarcely requires contradiction. All of these fine minds -- and their great thoughts! -- can be found quite easily in other venues. Which may be where they will explain why they went along with his sickening act for so many years.

 

It doesn't matter how much money Imus donated to charity. The largess bestowed on a few children by him and his wife -- with as much self-aggrandizing fanfare as possible, incidentally -- did not license him to damage millions of others with his pathological ranting. It entitled him to a tax break, which no doubt he enjoyed to the maximum.

 

It doesn't matter whether Imus apologized, hopes to apologize to the Rutgers women in person, or promises never to utter racist remarks again. Anyone who has been paying attention knows that he has made such promises and apologies before. They were meaningless then and they would be meaningless today. On "Larry King Live," Imus friend Bo Dietl seemed to argue that MSNBC was wrong to let him go before he "had a chance" to speak with the Rutgers team he insulted, and that they should somehow decide his fate. But there is no reason to burden those women with that responsibility -- which rested solely with his employers.

 

From the beginning, the only relevant question was whether the networks would uphold decent values. Under pressure of conscience or commerce or both, NBC and CBS did the right thing -- and sent a refreshing message that all the excuses in the world cannot change.

[aricandover]

there's a rumor that CBS is looking to sell WFAN. getting rid of Imus makes it a much more attractive product to any potential buyers.

[OOO]

what does nappy headed exactly mean? Is it a particular hairstyle?

[Spawn's dad]

They have mike barnacle slotted in the morning for the next couple of weeks. A pretty weird choice given all the controversy he's been embroiled in himself. Who ends up there is going to greatly determine the value of that station. They didn't have much going on except for Imus and Mike and the Mad Dog. ESPN radio is going to gun hard to be the top sports radio station in NY.

[MattZ]

there's a rumor that CBS is looking to sell WFAN. getting rid of Imus makes it a much more attractive product to any potential buyers.

 

I dont think that's right. Imus and Mike/Dog brought in the vast majority of advertising dollars for the station. People may not like Imus, but he brought in big bucks for that station.

[aricandover]

I dont think that's right. Imus and Mike/Dog brought in the vast majority of advertising dollars for the station. People may not like Imus, but he brought in big bucks for that station.

 

 

in light of what went on this past week, I don't think anyone would want to touch a station with Imus as their flagship personality.

[MattZ]

in light of what went on this past week, I don't think anyone would want to touch a station with Imus as their flagship personality.

 

Ok, I agree. I misunderstood you. I thought you meant that CBS had been looking to sell the station all along, and now, this whole flap enabled them to get rid of Imus and that it would easier to sell.

[caliber66]

what does nappy headed exactly mean? Is it a particular hairstyle?

Nappy, in the context of hair, means "kinky." Wooly, tightly curled, tangly, etc.

[embiggen]

what does nappy headed exactly mean? Is it a particular hairstyle?

 

this is a loaded question.

[LouieB]

what does nappy headed exactly mean? Is it a particular hairstyle?

I suppose if you are asking serious question, you deserve a serious answer....

Nappy, in the context of hair, means "kinky." Wooly, tightly curled, tangly, etc.

That is the non-insulting answer. For a long time black people were ashamed of having hair like this and calling someone nappy headed was a major insult. There was(and still is) a large cosmetics industry dedicated to straightening black hair and thus giving someone "good" hair(straight hair like white people have) as opposed to not good hair . It is like alot of inside ethnic expressions, if you are from the outside, you don't want to be calling someone something that may (or may not) be okay to say to someone. It is an expression that is pretty old and carries lots of baggage. Just like any kind of ethnic "humor" you may be able to get away with it in a mixed crowd if everyone understands your intent, but even now I don't believe race relations in the US can stand an insult like this.

 

LouieB