Thursday, April 12, 2007
The "C" Word
Imus goes all Dixie-Zumbo
or
The Laddie Is A Trampas
I know this makes two consecutive Coulter quotes but I think I've just made up my mind on this issue and her remarks are a good starting point. I disagree with much of Coulter's column on this, but this is what I think she got right:
"The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy. They play basketball — quite well, apparently — and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose. "
So all of the examples Coulter gives about Churchill and Reagan are really out of place. (I think there is a fancy debate term that would be an appropriate label for her tactic here, something like non sequitur or red herring or something else that I don't remember--I was never on the debate team). Anyway, back to my point. Those defending Imus (while deploring what he said) claim to honor his right to free speech. Well, Imus, like Zumbo and the chicks still has the right to free speech, it hasn't been infringed -- but speech still comes connected to another "C" word -- that word is of course, consequences.
Why should CBS continue to subsidize Imus' and his unprovoked and offensive remarks that insult private citizens who have neither influence in the public arena nor a forum comparable to a daily national radio show with which to respond? Cutting Imus constituted the correct choice. He still has his right to free speech -- but no longer subsidized speech. He has abused the privilege that he had (probably not the first time) and now suffers the consequences of that abuse.
I've also heard a great deal about the double standard, how it is unfair or that the consequences are unpredictable in public discourse where blacks can use that kind of language but others cannot. First, I don't believe that the words were really a racial slur. Yes, I am ignoring the whole Sharpton/Jackson uproar, but I always do; they are guys who have nothing but hammers in their tool box and they have neither the desire nor the skill to put their hand to the right tool for the job; they use a hammer in every situation--doing more harm than good. Imus' words were unwarranted and insulting to the individuals on the team, regardless of race. But, for those who continue to see the matter as a racial double standard,
Consider this passage from The Virginian:
' "I suppose you have me beat," said Steve, grinning at him affectionately. "You're a son-of-a----- when you get down to work. Well, so long! I got to fix my horse's hoofs."
' I had expected that the man would be struck down. He had used to the Virginian a term of heaviest insult, I thought. I had marvelled to hear it come so unheralded from Steve's friendly lips. And now I marvelled still more. Evidently he had meant no harm by it, and evidently no offence had been taken. Used thus, this language was plainly complimentary. I had stepped into a world new to me indeed...'
And contrast it with this passage from the same chapter:
'Therefore Trampas spoke. "Your bet, you son-of-a-----."
'The Virginian's pistol came out, and his hand lay on the table, holding it unaimed. And with a voice as gentle as ever, the voice that sounded almost like a caress, but drawling a very little more than usual, so that there was almost a space between each word, he issued his orders to the man Trampas:-
' "When you call me that, smile!" And he looked at Trampas across the table.
'Yes, the voice was gentle. But in my ears it seemed as if somewhere the bell of death was ringing...'
Imus didn't know the players -- he wasn't jesting or complimenting them. Unlike Steve, he had no relationship or common ground with the players from which to speak. Instead, like Trampas, his words were at least an insulting observation. If his words were a jest, they were not a jest with or to the players -- and when the remarks are being broadcast nationally, the players will hear them and be duly insulted.
So don't cry for Imus, Argentina. He'll probably get a more lucrative deal just around the corner.
or
The Laddie Is A Trampas
I know this makes two consecutive Coulter quotes but I think I've just made up my mind on this issue and her remarks are a good starting point. I disagree with much of Coulter's column on this, but this is what I think she got right:
"The reason people don't like what Imus said was because the women on the Rutgers basketball team aren't engaged in public discourse. They're not public figures, they don't have a forum, they aren't trying to influence public policy. They play basketball — quite well, apparently — and did nothing to bring on an attack on their looks or character. It's not the words Imus used: It would be just as bad if he had simply said the Rutgers women were ugly and loose. "
So all of the examples Coulter gives about Churchill and Reagan are really out of place. (I think there is a fancy debate term that would be an appropriate label for her tactic here, something like non sequitur or red herring or something else that I don't remember--I was never on the debate team). Anyway, back to my point. Those defending Imus (while deploring what he said) claim to honor his right to free speech. Well, Imus, like Zumbo and the chicks still has the right to free speech, it hasn't been infringed -- but speech still comes connected to another "C" word -- that word is of course, consequences.
Why should CBS continue to subsidize Imus' and his unprovoked and offensive remarks that insult private citizens who have neither influence in the public arena nor a forum comparable to a daily national radio show with which to respond? Cutting Imus constituted the correct choice. He still has his right to free speech -- but no longer subsidized speech. He has abused the privilege that he had (probably not the first time) and now suffers the consequences of that abuse.
I've also heard a great deal about the double standard, how it is unfair or that the consequences are unpredictable in public discourse where blacks can use that kind of language but others cannot. First, I don't believe that the words were really a racial slur. Yes, I am ignoring the whole Sharpton/Jackson uproar, but I always do; they are guys who have nothing but hammers in their tool box and they have neither the desire nor the skill to put their hand to the right tool for the job; they use a hammer in every situation--doing more harm than good. Imus' words were unwarranted and insulting to the individuals on the team, regardless of race. But, for those who continue to see the matter as a racial double standard,
Consider this passage from The Virginian:
' "I suppose you have me beat," said Steve, grinning at him affectionately. "You're a son-of-a----- when you get down to work. Well, so long! I got to fix my horse's hoofs."
' I had expected that the man would be struck down. He had used to the Virginian a term of heaviest insult, I thought. I had marvelled to hear it come so unheralded from Steve's friendly lips. And now I marvelled still more. Evidently he had meant no harm by it, and evidently no offence had been taken. Used thus, this language was plainly complimentary. I had stepped into a world new to me indeed...'
And contrast it with this passage from the same chapter:
'Therefore Trampas spoke. "Your bet, you son-of-a-----."
'The Virginian's pistol came out, and his hand lay on the table, holding it unaimed. And with a voice as gentle as ever, the voice that sounded almost like a caress, but drawling a very little more than usual, so that there was almost a space between each word, he issued his orders to the man Trampas:-
' "When you call me that, smile!" And he looked at Trampas across the table.
'Yes, the voice was gentle. But in my ears it seemed as if somewhere the bell of death was ringing...'
Imus didn't know the players -- he wasn't jesting or complimenting them. Unlike Steve, he had no relationship or common ground with the players from which to speak. Instead, like Trampas, his words were at least an insulting observation. If his words were a jest, they were not a jest with or to the players -- and when the remarks are being broadcast nationally, the players will hear them and be duly insulted.
So don't cry for Imus, Argentina. He'll probably get a more lucrative deal just around the corner.
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 10:19 PM 
