« comfort torture | Main | The last mall »
maybe ten years ago . . .
There's a lazy tendency to slander the past when something happens in the present. In today's New York Times David Carr writes that the firing of Don Imus for his racist remarks is a "sign of the times."
Mr. Imus is an old-school radio guy caught in a very modern media paradigm. When he started 30 years ago, if he made the same kind of remark, it would have floated off into the ether — the Federal Communications Commission, if it received complaints, might have taken notice, but few others.
We need to remember here that "30 years ago" does not land us in 1938, or 1962 in the American South. No, that's 1977. But I've heard a lot of other numbers thrown around, with some people saying "10 years ago" or "15 years ago" at the start of a sentence that ends " . . . no one would've noticed or paid any attention to Imus's remark."
Now, I was alive in 1977. I remember it quite well. At the time, I remember not thinking that I, or someone with a much broader reach than I, such as a radio host, could get away with saying the kind of thing Imus said. But that's just me: is there any evidence we could point to that would support the conclusions of my memory? Yes: the fact that the Imus incident did not happen then.
It's just a little bit too easy, it seems to me, to accuse the past of being a place where all sorts of racist and sexist things were said because, you know, 10 years ago today is like, worth 250 medieval years in terms of all the advances and changes that have taken place! Oh yes! 10 years ago -- when, as it happens, Dom Imus did not say such-and-such, people said such-and-such all the time! Can't do that now! Not with this 24/7 news cycle, or with YouTube! And, sotto voce ("this way of thinking" continues, without needing to actually write it out), can we not agree that, in a way, in a sense, it's actually a bit unfair to Mr. Imus (not that "this way of thinking" condones his remarks which were abhorrent and which remind "this way of thinking" of how things were 15 years ago!), accustomed as he is to that old time radio, to expect he'd be able to adapt to all these changes? Why there weren't even any blogs back then in the before time, that's how pitifully dark it was! When the thunder came everyone just scurried under a bed because the poor things thought something awful was happening; it's not their fault, they were just too dumb to understand!
I don't buy it. Thirty years ago, in 1977, if a nationally syndicated media star, on a show that has also hosted prominent politicians, had said what Imus said -- would have been fired. Maybe quicker!
By Swifty | April 13, 2007 in Afflicting the Comfortable, Events, Matters of Appearance, News, Pundits, Race, Radio, Sick Comedians, Specious Rhetorical Strategies, Television | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/17703796
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference maybe ten years ago . . . :
Comments
Earl Butts resigned as Secretary of Agriculture in 1976 after making a joke about what blacks wanted.
Posted by: Rebecca Ore | Apr 13, 2007 11:30:34 AM
Thanks, Rebecca, for reminding me of that incident.
Posted by: Swifty | Apr 13, 2007 12:41:56 PM
Of course, there were the Jimmy the Greek and Andy Rooney incidents, neither 30 years ago but both at least ten, I think.
And reaching a little further back...the final straw, I think, for James Watt was when he joked about sitting on a comission or something composed of "two jews, a woman and a cripple"...also, remembering the '80s, I can't believe that Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson was one of the ones who called for Imus' head...
Posted by: CBR | Apr 13, 2007 3:22:47 PM
Ah the LS Heideggerians now siding with 60s civil rights activists???? Swifty, J. "On the Bi-Polarity of Dasein" . Herr Doktor Heidegger would have had American democrats lined up and shot (as would have Nietzsche), and not without reason.
Posted by: Pozo | Apr 13, 2007 3:26:09 PM
It's interesting to think about the kinds of changes these commentators are implying have taken place versus the kinds of changes that actually have taken place. First there's the implication you note that Imus is an old man caught in confusing modern times, and that, by extension, he's like the grandparent who uses the word "colored" or makes casually racist/sexist comments without realizing the consequences. Related to this is the implied argument that what has changed, in the past x years, is that people are hypersensitive and hypervigilent these days. What this elides is what has actually changed, which is that more African-Americans and women are now in positions of corporate power, and thus more capable of insisting that such comments not simply shrugged off. Powerful people at CBS and its sponsors looked at Imus’s record of behavior and said, “Enough of this.”
Of course the real historical change that allowed for Imus’s comment in the first place is the mass culture proliferation through hiphop of the racialized sexist language that Imus then felt entitled to use. Imus knew perfectly well what he was doing fundamentally, trying to appropriate racially and sexually charged language in order to get a response, even if the clumsiness of his execution suggests some real limits to that understanding. (Given the emphasis the his prologue, which I assume we’ve all committed to memory by now, on the tattoos and “rough” look of the players, a phrase like “gangsta bitchez” would seem more like what he was going for, where “nappy-headed hos” just seems arbitrary.) What he ran up against was what hasn’t changed – that as a white man his use of such language carries a different weight and registers as an attack rather than something offensive but dismissible.
Posted by: J Pool | Apr 13, 2007 3:43:44 PM
Pozo writes: "Herr Doktor Heidegger would have had American democrats lined up and shot (as would have Nietzsche), and not without reason." [end Pozo]
Heidegger? Nietzsche? You forgot Hobbes! See Chapter XXIX of The Leviathan. There he talks about the "diseases of commonwealths." "I observe the diseases of a Commonwealth that proceed from the poison of seditious doctrines, whereof one is that every private man is judge of good and evil actions. This is true in the condition of mere nature, where there are no civil laws; and also under civil government in such cases as are not determined by the law. But otherwise, it is manifest that the measure of good and evil actions is the civil law; and the judge the legislator, who is always representative of the Commonwealth. From this false doctrine, men are disposed to debate with themselves and dispute the commands of the Commonwealth."
And a little later: "A fourth opinion repugnant to the nature of a Commonwealth is this: that he that hath the sovereign power is subject to the civil laws."
To this he adds the need for censorship: "And as to rebellion in particular against monarchy, one of the most frequent causes of it is the reading of the books of policy and histories of the ancient Greeks and Romans; from which young men, and all others that are unprovided of the antidote of solid reason, receiving a strong and delightful impression of the great exploits of war achieved by the conductors of their armies....In sum, I cannot imagine how anything can be more prejudicial to a monarchy than the allowing of such books to be publicly read"
In Chapter XVIII Hobbes writs: "Sixthly, it is annexed to the sovereignty to be judge of what opinions and doctrines are averse, and what conducing to peace; and consequently, on what occasions, how far, and what men are to be trusted withal in speaking to multitudes of people; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they be published. For the actions of men proceed from their opinions, and in the well governing of opinions consisteth the well governing of men's actions in order to their peace and concord."
Posted by: Swifty | Apr 13, 2007 5:50:40 PM
J. Pool refers to the "mass culture proliferation through hiphop of the racialized sexist language that Imus then felt entitled to use."
But then he points out: "(Given the emphasis the his prologue, which I assume we’ve all committed to memory by now, on the tattoos and “rough” look of the players, a phrase like “gangsta bitchez” would seem more like what he was going for, where “nappy-headed hos” just seems arbitrary.)"
Yes, if he wanted to do the hip-hop thing, he would've leaned towards "gangsta bitchez." There is a kind of retro feel, not to "hos" but to nappy-headed. What the heck does that mean? Wearing a handkerchief on the head? Or is it a reference to the texture of the hair? (Second definition of 'nap' in my dictionary is "A soft or fuzzy surface on fabric or leather.")
Posted by: Swifty | Apr 13, 2007 5:58:01 PM
Swifty: Nappy hair is a derogatory word for the naturally densely curly hair of some black folk. I wouldn't be surprised if this use of the word originated in black dicty (or "middle-class") culture, with its relaxers and skin-lighteners.
What's lost in the Imus kerfuffle is the CLASS dynamics of all this. A phrase like "nappy-headed ho" is something a poor or lower-middle-class black person might say to a poor black woman. It implies that the object of attack cannot afford to have her hair braided or straightened or weaved.
Imus was trying to make fun of the black women of both teams: the one for being "Wannabees" and the other for being "Jigaboos" -- here, Imus and his partner were borrowing the terms of Spike Lee's *School Daze*. One team looked middle-class proper and the other looked rough -- at least, according to Imus, who probably just wanted an excuse to use stupid words like jigaboo and ho. To me, the women of both teams looked like fairly, uh, normal college girls. (I think one Rutgers player has a shoulder tattoo: what a thug!).
What's interesting to me is that while Hymietown Jackson got up in arms about the racism of the language, and the team got rightfully upset about the sexism of the language, no one got upset that Imus was basically saying that blacks who look middle-class are posing and blacks who are poor are ho's. And that's because it's basically OK to make fun of someone's economic class in American, cuz unlike race and gender, Americans think people "deserve" their class status.
Posted by: Luther Blissett | Apr 13, 2007 6:17:26 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/opinion/13fierstein.html?hp
Fierstein is right.
I never even heard 'nappy' till this. It was always 'kinky' before, and that's probably before 'kinky' started meaning 'WeirdSex'. What's really ridiculous about this is that the sidekick and producer McQuirk said 'hard-core hos', which it seems to me is worse.
'It's just a little bit too easy, it seems to me, to accuse the past of being a place where all sorts of racist and sexist things were said because, you know, 10 years ago today is like, worth 250 medieval years in terms of all the advances and changes that have taken place!'
Yes, I agree because that doesn't have a thing to do with it. It was simply a superb event which matured like a raisin in the sun (racist allusion? that's a black play after all, and quite a good one). It's also true, though, that the blogs didn't exist, and they spend an undue amount of time discussing who can say what how, because not that many of them are activist spots. It's true that those activist ones--like Lenin's Tomb and brownfemipower--probably spend plenty of time on language elegance (is that okay?), but it's a bit more acceptable when they are actually involved in all sorts of stuff, even if I can't stand most of it.
Imus was very involved in lots of charitable works, of course, but I doubt that more than 1% of people knew about it till this incident of deep crime was committed.
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 13, 2007 7:41:09 PM
"raisin in the sun" is originally a phrase of Langston Hughes, from the poem that begins "What happens to a dream deferred?" and ends with this possibility, "Or does it explode?": an entirely just allusion...
Posted by: nick | Apr 13, 2007 10:37:12 PM
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/15/opinion/15rich.html?hp
Even better. Rich is right to call it an execution too.
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 14, 2007 8:31:36 PM
The offspring of Typhon and Echidna were:
Nemean Lion
Cerberus
Orthrus
Ladon
Chimera
Sphinx
Lernaean Hydra
Ethon
Teumessian fox
Posted by: 01001010 | Apr 14, 2007 11:46:27 PM
That's an interesting, if counterintuitive argument about the class dynamic, Luther. The racism is obvious, and the sexism is obvious, but yeah, I can see how Imus' epithet has a sedimentary layer of classism, even though Tennessee is one of the poorest states in the country and New Jersey one of the wealthiest. And really, "nappy" must primarily be understood against straight, white European type hair, though sure, it might require a certain amount of purchasing power for black women to attain that ideal. It's so interesting how class dynamics can sometimes be obscured by race, no?
Posted by: va | Apr 15, 2007 6:32:20 AM
'And really, "nappy" must primarily be understood against straight, white European type hair,;
Except some white people have naturally nappy hair. Amy Irving, the actress, has always had it, and the pianist Alan Weiss has it, and, although it's shorter now, he had nappy hair to such a degree that he was able to do a full-fledged Afro when he was a student in the early 70s.
'though sure, it might require a certain amount of purchasing power for black women to attain that ideal.'
The straightener, or 'gentle relaxer', as it is sometimes called, is readily available on the Rite-Aid shelves next to the moisturizers, where I saw it yesterday. It's less than $20, so poor people can afford it. I'm trying to think of a black female singer or glamorous actress who has kept nappy hair (if indeed she was born with it.) Not Dionne Warwick, Natalie Cole, Ella Fitzgerald, Lena Horne, or Halle Berry--maybe Billie Holliday during certain periods, but probably only Miriam Makeba, who is African. Activists like Angela Davis used nappy hair, and all the blaxploitation pictures of the 70's had some in it. Black Americans do not usually think of themselves as Africans, and, even though none of the above has ever seemed to have any desire to 'become white', the kinky hair is the one aspect of African-American looks that do seem not to be embraced as having as much potential as straight hair: Weird mutations like 'topiary hair' from the late 90s don't last even a whole season, but kinky hair could be used better than straight for making multi-coloured shrubs out of the hair.
The old cliche about poor people of any race living in vile housing but with somehow a big Plymouth proves (since it's true, it must be since I saw white people do it before I knew it was a cliche) how vanity products can be obtained at all socio-economic levels.
Naturally, anyone can read a subtext into all this--and there is one. It's just according to how crude or subtle you want it to be. The reaction by the strict left is predictable, who wouldn't use 'lynch mob' for this one, but would use it for 'Ward Churchill'.
As for 10 years ago, in Swifty's original post, there was 12 years ago the taped racist remarks of Mark Fuhrman which had a similar unbalanced effect on a murder trial, and proved the incompetence of Marcia Clark, who was still in Kindergarten when it came to jury selection compared to Shapiro and the rest of the defense team.
It's what's happening, baby!
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 15, 2007 1:24:38 PM
I just posted a long response to some of this - a response that patrick, in particular, is sure to love - over on my own site. It got too long for a comment box...
Posted by: CR | Apr 15, 2007 11:51:12 PM
Thank you, CR. You know well my powers of reserve, and I will therefore retain the kindest possible opinion of your post by not reading if it's just too fat to fit on something other than private property...
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 16, 2007 1:34:59 AM
if it's just too fat to fit on something other than private property...
It's a real hangup with you, the obesity. Did you get stuck in the subway turnstile or something today?
It does explain the Gandolfini stalking though....
Posted by: CR | Apr 16, 2007 1:46:06 AM
I suppose it is, and you're probably right it shouldn't be--after all, that was one of Fierstein's points. On the other hand, I am simply not fat: Those who have seen recent pictures of me can vouch for that, as well as those who've met me, although these are sometimes singularly stingy in their praise if they are not directly involved in the incident. I am sorry, CR, I am middle-age, but quite handsome, so live with it, dear.. I'll mail you a photo through regular mail if you want to see what I look like, as I have no digital equipment.
However, my 'fattism' is probably as offensive as the sexism and racism that are my crosses to bear, as Arpege Chabert has pointed out day in and day out. I am, according to her, a 'wink wink' Yes of COURSE I'm a racist' type, thinking that if I go on and be overt about it I will be hiding in plain sight. Anyway, thrilling you wanted to have a nightcap with me.
But it's also true I don't know for certain you look like Tom Friedman's jowly cheeks and wear married-couple-man's sweaters just because you often write like him...
I've got some good nude photos too, but they're a little old. However, I was hoping to find someone to help me do a new narcissistic type film, sequel to the one I made good money on in the 80s, given that it was rather obscure. You'd neither care to do this, nor do I think you could pluck the proper Robbe-Grillet mood I'd need.
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 16, 2007 2:02:08 AM
'It does explain the Gandolfini stalking though....'
I'm trying to remember something about Gandolfini happening right up the street from where I stalked him...just the other day...what was it? damn...I think he did something on 14th street, way beyond those posters for the new season, hilarious one with Edie Falco captioned 'The Love'. He might have been at the opening of something, or some charity. I'm not watching the last season, though. I think the show is based on having somehow domesticated the Mafia enough that they live in mortal terror of becoming ensnared in Zizekian theories of the virtual, which makes their markets probably a lot harder to operate. I think the Mafia is as outmoded as Mom's and Pop's stores, or they wouldn't have done this weird thing of trying to make you find Tony Soprano lovable and momentarily forget that he and his sister Janice will kill you immediately if you diss them--and, in her case, she killed her husband, and wept over him 'I loved 'im so much.'
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 16, 2007 2:13:43 AM
hehehe. this is great.
I've got some good nude photos too, but they're a little old.
No thanks. Really.
You'd neither care to do this, nor do I think you could pluck the proper Robbe-Grillet mood I'd need.
I may be the last person in amerika interested in robbe-grillet, actually. I've made 19 people read him for next week, assuredly for the first time for each. Mood-wise? I don't know. Probably yes. But I'm not sure.
I do wear married-couple-man's sweaters, everyday, but I am not jowly. In fact, it is my cross to bear that I have a constant temptation to wear both the top and the bottom of my various adidas warmup suits at the same time, and have to fight very hard not to do so. Just wearing the bottom part right now, but one day I'll relent, take a picture of myself, and send my vivid jerseyness to you at:
PJM
Corner Outside the Place Where Gandolfini's Drinking
New York, NY
Posted by: CR | Apr 16, 2007 2:14:09 AM
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/opinion/16herbert.html?hp
A special Holy Trinity from the Paper of Record, so despised and spat upon by the earnest Long Sundayans. Herbert's always sincere, seems to have a real compassion, but I am nevertheless pleased to see that finally another person, Michael Savage (with whom I am not familiar, and never heard Imus either), has chosen to present clear-cut imagery of Barbara Walters, referring to her as a 'double-talking slut'. Frank Sinatra said in one of his Vegas shows that she was 'the ugliest woman in all of television.' This is only important because she somehow got so much power that only those with the Big Moxie like Streisand and Whoopi could get on the show and tell that fraudulent idiot where to go.
But Herbert tries to be fair, in that he includes rappers themselves in a way that dyed-in-the-wool leftists don't: Too many of them act as though when Imus does something really atrocious like this that they must not only condemn Imus but praise Sharpton and rappers too. Snoop Dogg was up for a new misdemeanour this week, but I can't remember what it was, so he's got to do Luxury Community Service with Anti-Gang Lectures for his Basketball Ghetto Team or something, but the threat of having to empty garbage pails is, I believe, supposed to possibly loom. I mean I know he got off his murder rap 10 years ago so he could continue with his career, but I'm not sure what Herbert was doing singling Snoop Dogg out for, what with the them bein' that there hate speech stuff and all.
Incredible that I hadn't thought that Gandolfini must have gotten some of that girth from boozing. Yes, and when I saw him, he was a good bit heavier than the 2004 episodes I'd just watched. I know he lives down here, but don't know where, and never saw him any other time. Saw Falco twice though, my favourite thing on the show, because I love to hear her talk--reminds me of my dentist's receptionist who is this pretty but snitty gal from Sunnyside, Queens, who won't flirt properly.
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 16, 2007 2:35:11 AM
"...I am sorry, CR, I am middle-age, but quite handsome, so live with it, dear..."
I think we all look great. 60 is the new 40, and 40 is the new 20, so we're 20, if we're 60.
I've never watched an episode of The Sopranos for lots of whiney, politically correct reasons, delivered in a condescending academic-wanna-be tone. I could start with "I hardly ever watch television . . . "
Posted by: Swifty | Apr 16, 2007 10:43:08 AM
'I may be the last person in amerika interested in robbe-grillet, actually. I've made 19 people read him for next week, assuredly for the first time for each.'
Will you report on this to us? I'll even read this on your own blog.
I just hope these aren't the NINETEEN SUPERSTUDENTS! They're STILL ALIVE maybe!
(That's the right number, isn't it, shameful I can't remember after months in 2006 of getting my head pounded by the agitprop person).
Anyway, I read 'La Maison de Rendezvous', 'La Belle Captive' (with all those gorgeous Magrittes in the book), 'Le Voyeur', 'Projet pour un Revolution a new-York', and the cine-roman for 'Les Glissements Progressifs au Plaisir', maybe one more I'm not remembering at the moment. Still haven't read things like 'Les Gommes', and a few others, but just listed these because I will be really interested if you write up something on R-G. He's very visual, which is probably why I have always gotten such pleasure from it (all those mysterious hallways directly off streets that have drug trafficking at the top and young girls in short dresses with slits in them)--and some of the weird tendrils of broken-narrative-pieces are very funny. Think 'Marienbad' is one of the most fantastic films I know, but none of this do I cite for Snob Credentials, as I have much Low Taste...Do you have Van Wert's 'Film Career of Robbe-Grillet'? Damn, those critics and scholars are killers, one finds from this book.
Swifty--after a few episodes of 'Sopranos', its main virtue is the uncanny casting of it: All the main characters are from or close to the area, so they have only the slightest stretch if at all to make it really hard some of the time to remember that they're actors. I somehow hypnotized myself that Larraine Bracco really WAS Dr. Melfi for about 15 episodes, which was really a retreat into old profitless id locations; and then WORSE, when I wanted to seem especially patient with someone I was having some serious conflict with, I started using the voice and accent myself--but without letting on I was doing it--and it kept me from throwing a glass of water in somebody's face at a sidewalk cafe!
The other day I saw Michael Imperiole up 8th Avenue, very dressed down. It wasn't at all thrilling!
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 16, 2007 12:57:19 PM
I see that Vince Curatola (Johnny "Sack" Sacramoni) of "The Sopranos" joins Keith Olbermann to talk about the Sopranos tonight (Monday, April 16). But if you see lots of these people in real life where you live anyway maybe you don't need no Keith Olbermann.
Posted by: Swifty | Apr 16, 2007 2:02:25 PM
'if you see lots of these people in real life where you live anyway maybe you don't need no Keith Olbermann.'
I had to look up who he is! And have no MSNBC either! Saw all Sopranos episodes on VHS. Am totally backward in this way, and since don't watch any shows regularly, there are probably a lot of actors staring at ME because I don't know I'm supposed to pay any attention to them. One Xmas about 15 years ago, there was Rod Stewart on the street in this fur coat, and even though I did recognize him, nobody paid him any attention. He got freaked! Could NOT believe it he was not getting mobbed. Movie actors take a lot longer to pick out because they aren't so identified with one role. I'd heard for many years that S. Sarandon lived in my nabe, but never could pick her out till the other day when I was on novocaine, and even then I wasn't thrilled and delighted. On the other hand, about 7 years ago, saw Stephanopoulous across the street, and you are so used to the TV presence that you have to hold yourself back from just starting a conversation with them.
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 16, 2007 4:41:28 PM
How could you tell he was freaked?
Posted by: CBR | Apr 16, 2007 6:54:36 PM
He kept looking around at 360 degree angles, had swivel-head trying to find fans. Was itchy and antsy. That sort of thing.
Posted by: patrick j. mullins | Apr 16, 2007 7:14:27 PM
Live from K-Dasein
Posted by: wound3d Ferret | Jun 16, 2007 3:44:13 PM
Post a comment
Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.
