I'm not making that argument. Try again.

....also, you are clearly advocating a double-standard if you think that that kind of argument is "idiotic". How presh.

Can someone give me an explanation of why "nappy-headed" carries overtones of racial prejudice?

I'm fully aware of the history of the term, and the relatively nascent movement to recapture the 'nappy' look within a segment of the black population, but is it really a term with strong negative connotation?

Does it carry this same connotation in the context used, which compares a group of (what Imus considers) attractive African American women to another?

I would probably be more pissed if I were a woman than if I were black, simply because it seems to be a bizarre generalization on how female athletes should look. However, as neither, I guess I probably need more background here.

The term "ho" certainly can't be the (racial) issue here, can it?

To some, it seems that molehill = mountain.

My question is - in what context did he say this? All I've heard was the phrase "nappy headed hoes" and nothing that surrounded it. I don't think it's excusable or anything, it just seems like such a random thing to say.

(Don't point me to a sound file, I've got no speakers thanks.)

The term "nappy" may not be but I'm pretty sure the term "jiggaboo" carries a strong negative connotation.

They (him and Sid Rosenberg) were talking about the Tennessee vs. Rutgers women's basketball Final.

Imus: That's some rough girls from Rutgers...man....they got tattoos and....
Rosenberg:....some hardcore hoes....
Imus...haha...some nappy headed hoes there, haha, i'm tellin' ya......and uhhh....the girls from Tennessee....they all looked cute ya know?

Then they talked about how it was a Spike Lee type thing, the Jigaboos vs. the Wannabees. I think he was referencing Do The Right Thing. Then Rosenberg said that the women looked more like the Toronto Raptors or something like that.

He was actually referencing School Days in which Spike Lee ripped the veil off colorism (and many other issues) in the black community. The referenced scene in particular shows the "fight" (I use the term loosely because its a dance number set to music) between the dark skinned ladies with naturally kinky, coily (read nappy) hair and the lighter ladies
(many of who were of mixed race) with chemically relaxed or naturally straight hair. The "Jigaboos" were arguably considered to be "ugly" and the lighter skinned women were "pretty," but called "Wannabees" as an insult, because they arguably "wanted to be white."

The Spike Lee/Wannabee/Jiggaboo commentary between Imus and the producer which followed the "hard core hoes [and] nappy headed hoes" comments essentially underscored that the duo's previous statements that the Tennessee team (which had more white women) were pretty and dainty, while the Rutgers team (predominately black) were unattractive, "hard core," Jiggaboos.

ETA insert "nappy" and make plain the hair difference and why, although many AfAms don't find the word "nappy" on its face to be negative (this one included), its not a far stretch to argue that it can be so made negative when used in a demeaning way because it has been before.

If it is used as a value judgment, yes.

Yes, especially when there may be a perceived hair texture and complexion difference between the two groups of women. That's where the "jiggaboo" reference comes from.


It can be if we look at the history of the "jezebel" and how black women were either over sexualized by the media or made asexual through the "mammy" image.

But there are more obvious sexist overtones for many people, which is why gender groups have gotten involved.

Where have people been that they haven't heard rappers criticized?

Rappers have been criticized for their lyrics for over a decade. People can't make an argument like that if they've been living under a rock.

More than that, artists can say whatever they want on an album as long as they have parental advisory labels. But our airwaves are even more closely monitored for content, which is why "hoes" and other negative words are often censored. Imus' show didn't receive that same censoring because it is a live show (most of the time) so there was no way to do the quality control thing. Imus would've been his own quality controller if he wasn't trying to be so controversial.

Well considering that I (meaning Jubilance) don't like it when rappers do it, I (meaning Jubilance) don't have a double standard.

The media and everyone else making such a huge issue about Imus do have a double standard.

The companies who advertise with stations which play the offending music also seem to have a double standard. Heck.. NBC itself owns some of those companies, but I don't see Sharpton and company bothering to do/say anything.

While you yourself may not be guilty of holding these folks to a double standard, there's little doubt that most folks do.

How many of y'all bitching about these artists actually own the albums of those artists knowing full well what the lyrics are?

True, but it is more than one sided!

Imus is an idiot that no one will dispute, but when this becomes the biggest thing in American History at the moment is getting over board. Front page news in both or all types of Media.:eek:

Now tell me that Sharpton and Jackson are not the same types of idiots who spout the same thing except for the Blacks?

These two people are two of the most Racist people that I have seen!:mad:

They profess that they are doing good, but how much money do they make?

Oh, Jessie with his love child and paying it from His Rainbow Coalition?

How soon some forget!:o

I'm not really directing this at you, just using your statement as an example.

The fact that a person doesn't like when rappers do it is a bit different from protesting when someone else does it. That could still be a double standard obviously. This isn't directed at you because a) I don't know if you're really protesting Imus and b) Maybe you do protest rap, but I think some people are quick to say "well its not ok for the hip hop community either", yet they're certainly not doing anything about it. I've seen several interviews with Jackson and Sharpton in recent days, and the rap question has been posed to them. Now, obviously I'm not that in touch with the happenings of the two, but I don't see them protesting and being outraged regarding rap music. Both have said that saying these controversial things aren't acceptable for black people either, but their actions don't reflect this (at least compared with their outrage over events like the Imus debacle).

I've really tried not to get into the double-standard debate because I don't think it wins arguments. Many times you're just conceding your position and saying "well, you do it too." However, I do think its a valid point to make (that there is a double-standard), its just not a way to win this argument.

This is not racial in terms of "black vs. white", it was more in reference of skin complexions/tones. As macallan25 said, Imus and his producers continued on with the commentary further and made the distinction between good-looking woman being "light-skinned" vs. "darker skinned". Specifically the center from Tennessee is a light-skinned af.-american, which also goes back to the "jigaboos vs. wannabees" (from School Daze, which was about prejudice based upon skin complexions) and his producer did reply "do the right thing" afterwards. So essentially, the lighter you are, the cuter. It is not simply because someone was called nappy-headed that there are racial undertones. Unfortunately, most of this has been portrayed as being restricted to the "nappy-headed hoes" comment.

I have a problem with the entire conversation and how it was conducted because this simply began as commenting that the women from Tennessee beat the women from Rutgers in the NCAA finals the previous evening. I do not understand how it was necessary in discussing the game to bring up appearances and to call them "hoes" and make any comments about race. None of those comments have anything to do with it being a good game between two teams and one beating the other.

Unfortunately, Don Imus does have an extremely large following, he has a morning show that is not only on tv and a huge network (MSNBC) that people do give credence as a fact-worthy news source, it is also on radio. Majority of presidential candidates feel that it is important to go to his talk show as one of the main stopping places when running for office. Therefore, this is not a man who no one knew of until he made this little comment that was blown out-of-control and now will receive more publicity than ever. He is viewed by many as a credible newscaster.

I do want him to be fired, because I believe that when you are in certain positions, you have a certain level of accountability. I have problems with Al Sharpton and what he does and says, does he have a national radio show being broadcasted simultaneously on radio and one of the 3 major cable news stations? No, and if he did and was allowed to say prejudicial/racist/sexist things, would I feel he should be fired? Absolutely!

Also, the other reason, I believe that Imus should be fired is that he never apologized, he simply excused the fact that this is a different time period where certain comments are not allowed and if this were a different day and time, it would be different.

That assertion is a load of complete crap. Absolutely ridiculous. Tennessee had 3 white girls on their 11 woman roster....one of which started. The others barely played. Rutgers has two white girls on their 10 woman roster.......one of which also started.

http://utladyvols.cstv.com/sports/w-...askbl-mtt.html
http://scarletknights.com/basketball...oster-alph.asp

Don't turn this into some "He said good things about Tennesse because they were mainly white" bullshit.