i've got 99 problems but a nappy haired ho aint one

[geerussell]

Why would you care? And why would your opinion hold legit weight on who they represent?

In main crossover media they are prominent, but they dont represent black people. They represent their interests and typically most of us see that.

I for one welcome my negro overlords.

but do you not think that a huge amount of hiphop is worse than what don imus said? and wouldnt you also say that hiphop is also much more relevant than don imus?

Sure most of hip hop is worse... but pointing out truths about hip hop is not a defense for Imus.

Here you had an old white man denigrating some young, college educated women ... just for being black. It's not edgy social commentary or politically incorrect observation with a kernel of truth... his comments were just plain bigotry and I have no problem with him getting shunned for it.

[Zip Goshboots]

What does anyone have to say about the open, unbridled bigotry and racism that has been on display in Right Wing Nut Radio Land for nearly twenty years now?

[Glenn]

In case you guys missed Zip's Front Page article on this topic yesterday:

http://www.wtfdetroit.com/index.php?page=morning5107

WTFDetroit’s Morning Constitutional
With Zip Goshboots

May 1, 2007

Whither the Imus Controversy?

The subject has been largely ignored by the normally astute social commentary that graces this great site, but it was finally touched on last week. I would be remiss if I didn’t offer my two cents on this farce, so let me have at it.

There’s an old saying that “perception is reality”, and although many people protest that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do not speak for the Black Community, the perception is that they do, so that in fact is the reality. Do they not draw crowds when they speak? Do they not do whatever it is that they do, and seem to make a lot of money doing it, and carry the loudest voices among Black Leaders? Then how or why are the rest of us to think otherwise?
There is an almost Pavlovian synergistic relationship between these two and the media. Whenever a racial controversy pops up, the largely white media run to Sharpton and Jackson like trained puppets to hear what they have to say, and give them as much air time and print coverage as they desire. In return, Sharpton and Jackson, like trained puppets, give the exact response that the media wants, and it’s a two fold return. First, they will condemn whatever white male said or did something abominable without looking into the controversy at all. Second, Sharpton and Jackson are only too willing to assuage this mysterious “white guilt” by saying things the largely white media can all agree with in the never ending attempt to be politically correct or prove they are “down” with the brothers.

There is one gift that keeps on giving that no one seems to really talk about, though. Just about every white commentator or talking head will give themselves the proverbial showering away of the dirt of Jackson and Sharpton by uttering something along these lines: “I have, err, some black friends, and they do not like Sharpton or Jackson, and say those two don’t speak for black people”. They can, in essence, tread both sides of the issue by staying cool with their white audience by lampooning Sharpton and Jackson or rebuffing them while showing their black audience that they will listen to what Jackson and Sharpton have to say. And part of their debunking of Jackson and Sharpton will always be in the form of bringing on black guests who refute those two also. Validation is what they seek, and there is no shortage of black guests who will give it to them.

The irony of it is that Sharpton and Jackson keep playing into this bullshit, not realizing that they are being used as examples of the perceived lack of leadership in the Black Community. It’s almost as if the media, who refuse to seek out other opinions, are constantly saying, “Well, who else you gonna turn to? There isn’t anyone else!”.

Another irony is that the controversies seem to be bullshit in the first place, and only Sharpton and Jackson respond to this bullshit. I mean, does anybody recall what Barack Obama had to say about Imus? How about Condoleezza Rice? Oh wait, we know what that great civic leader Snoop Dogg had to say!

While we’re all waiting to count all the “gains” adding up in racial relations or the advancing social status of black women that the Imus firing is generating, I’m going to ask a question. How much better does anyone think it might have been if both Sharpton and Jackson had ignored it, and if Don Imus would have just said the probable truth: that he was an old white guy trying to get away with a joke and it backfired? He stepped over generational lines with a comment, and ended up sounding like an ass.

One funny thing also came out of this: that the most ridiculous comments didn’t come out of the mouths of Imus, Sharpton, or Jackson. They came out of the mouth of the preacher who mediated the meeting between Imus and the Rutgers basketball team. You remember, the fellow who said Imus must financially compensate these women. Well, first, I thought they were amateurs anyway, not supposed to be paid for anything, and secondly, with all the media coverage the players and their over emoting bad B-movie actress coach got from this, and no doubt will continue to get (anyone else smell a horrible Lifetime movie and several books?), it’s as if Imus has already written each of them a check for five million bucks.


“WTFDetroit’s Morning Constitutional with Zip Goshboots” is a new, somewhat daily feature at WTFDetroit.com. Grab your laptop, take a seat on the throne and check back Monday through Friday morning to see what’s on Zip’s mind. The opinions expressed in “The Morning Consitutional” are those of Zip Goshboots and do not represent any other entity or human being.

Discuss this Consitutional here.