I hope I’m not the only one who remembers this: Jesse Jackson’s ‘Hymietown’ Remark – 1984
It came to mind when I read the last paragraph of this story, Imus Suspended for 2 Weeks Over Racial Remark:
And in Chicago, about 50 people joined a protest organized by the Rev. Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition in front of the Chicago offices of NBC, …
Well, at least the protest was in Chicago and not in Hymie Town.
Yo, Rev: Luke 6:36-38.
I’m not saying what Don Imus said wasn’t wrong, but can we have a little consistency here?
But that’s the problem with words.
When I first read about Imus’ remarks I wasn’t even sure what “nappy headed” meant. I recalled some controversy over a children’s book several years ago, but I had forgotten exactly what the term meant so I had to look it up. I found it in Urban Dictionary and the Racial Slur Database. I also found this enlightening article, Just a Nappy-Headed Sister with the PC Blues.
So it seems that “nappy” is one of those words, like “nigger” and “faggot,” that are acceptable in some cases and unacceptable in others. Basically, if you’re a member of a particular minority group then you can use the epithets aimed at your group. I’m not sure where this Gentleman’s Agreement came from, but there it is. I had Japanese friends in high school who talked about going to “Jap class” (their Japanese language class). I once asked them about the term, and they laughed it off saying that everyone called it that.
Uh …. OK. I guess. If you say so ….
I’m conflicted. But I know enough to know that I can’t use certain words that other people use. And that there are words that one can use in private but not in public. (And by this I mean profanity, not ethnic slurs.) It’s something you just learn in life. At least it was something I learned as I grew up. Perhaps it’s a lesson that people don’t learn these days.
I have to remind myself “Context!” A lot of what a word means depends on the context in which it is used. I was a little surprised when I heard Charles Barkley say that “the N-word can be a term of endearment” between blacks. (It was during an interview on the DP Show shortly after the Michael Richards affair.) But I can accept that.
But I think there’s a problem right there when we give a word so much power over us that we can’t even say it in public and have to make up a little code for it. In the instance mentioned above I realize that Sir Charles couldn’t say “nigger” on-air, but if some words are so volatile that they cannot be uttered in “civilized” company should they not be banned from our language altogether?
Realistically, though, we can’t ban words. I mean, like who would we put in charge of the National Vocabulary? William Safire?
When I was a kid I’d heard about George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words. The naughty illicitness of it all was thrilling. Dirty words! Forbidden fruit! So it was a real bummer when I finally found out what the seven dirty words were, and that I already knew all of them.
Instead of being afraid of words we should embrace them. I’m not saying we should run around shouting “fuck,” “nigger,”and “faggot” at the tops of our lungs — although if you listen to some rap music that is what they are doing. But language is fluid. Words come and go. If anything, blacks and gays have at least partially claimed ownership of “nigger” and “faggot” so that these words are no longer purely epithets.
People who use derogatory language simply demonstrate how ignorant they are. In the case of an employee, a suspension is justified in some instances and perhaps even termination. But I don’t know if firing a person is always the most productive punishment. I guess I’m a Knee-Jerk Liberal, but my first choice would be to rehabilitate, not excommunicate, the offender.
In the case of Don Imus, after his suspension (which I think is too short; what would have happened if he had called the Rutgers women’s basketball team “niggers” or — in another Rutgers vein — called the football team’s placekicker a “Nip?”) is served perhaps his rehab could continue by including a segment on racism on his show. I guess this would be akin to making Howard Stern program women’s issues on his show. It doesn’t target their demographic, but perhaps their demographic needs a little less shock jock and a little more education. Or a whack upside the head. Guys like Imus and Stern have a tremendous platform and to force them use it in a constructive way might be more productive than firing them.
