A No-Win Situation

There's something about the firestorm surrounding Don Imus's fall from grace (and one could hardly say he was at grace) that misses the point. Don Imus, on his show, called the Rutgers basketball team a bunch of "nappy-headed hos". The comments were mild enough that I can write it down, and indeed, many newspapers have taken this quote snippet.

Suddenly MSNBC won't simulcast Don Imus. Advertisers are pulling out by the droves.

But the real point, the folks that must be giggling with unbridled delight are folks like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. They realize, at this point in American history, that no one wants to be tainted with the racist brush. Indeed, nearly every person you hear on the issue calls it a racial issue, not a sexist issue. To be fair, coach Vivian Stringer, also points out that these are young women and that they are being objectified by Imus's comments.

But Tony Kornheiser is right. You make these comments about some predominantly white women's college basketball team, and no one will make a stir. It goes to show the ineffectiveness of women's groups to lodge protests. The last significant women's protest was Martha Burk, protesting the exclusion of women from the all-male Augusta Country Club. And what did most announcers say? Shut up. Get out of here. And with no repercussions. Sponsors pulled out for two years and let The Masters pay for its own airing. It shows the near irrelevancy of women's groups to resonate with a public. The advertisers came back, and the announcers were muzzled, told not to discuss Martha Burk if they wanted to host The Masters.

Again, think of the uproar that would occur had Augusta excluded men of color. The "race" card works, and then only if you're African American. What about the "Latino card"? The "woman card"? The "gay card"? Although views are changing, these don't wield the same bludgeon of the race card.

But you have to play it at opportune moments.

The last time it became an issue was a year ago, when the Duke Lacrosse team hosted an ill-fated party, with strippers. One of the strippers claimed she had been raped by two, no three, no all, no three Duke players. Mike Nifong, seeking political office, took the side of the woman, and the issue became rich Duke, versus poor North Carolina Central University, black vs. white, haves vs. have-nots.

The accuser, Crystal Magnum, who was a mother, a student, even a former member of the Navy, describes events that eventually caused the Duke lacrosse coach to be fired. She brought accusations to David Evans, Reade Seligmann, and Collin Finnerty claiming they had raped her.

Jesse Jackson defended Magnum, saying he'd help pay her way through school, even before he heard much of the evidence (or lack thereof). Jackson doesn't seem to have retracted his statements, and decry that this kind of false accusation hurts not only people of color, but most importantly, women everywhere. Rape is far, far, far more serious than a few racial epithets, and so Jackson had some justification in trying to defend a potential victim, but I'm sure he'll issue no comments about this case.

Ultimately, it's about trying to use the power you do have carefully.

Now, even after the charges have been dropped, some will no doubt point to the fact that privileged white boys hosted a stripper party, an event good kids should not do. And that I would completely agree with. They shouldn't have hosted such an event, but then should frats host keg parties? Should there be frats? And no one seems to point out that Magnum was trying to make money as a stripper. Maybe too many Demi Moore movies about stripper moms working to keep their kids fed have made her dilemma seem perfectly legitimate.

Had Magnum been Asian and poor, would that have made a difference? Had she been Latina? Would Jesse Jackson have said anything?

Back to Imus.

There's hypocrisy over Imus too. Just as people blamed Duke lacrosse players for hosting a stripper party, even as this is a far cry from rape, people have said that Imus has said far worse, and yet no one did anything. Why did MSNBC choose this time to let Imus go? Presumably, they thought he was good for ratings. Even as MSNBC and CNN may look towards making themselves more appealing to conservatives, the race card is a powerful one, and brings balance, albeit in abrupt ways.

Imus, in many ways, is a scapegoat. He is one of many people who do what he does, but the criticism stuck. People have suggested he may go the way of Howard Stern, and turn to private listeners. I assume he'll lay low for a while, and try to surface later. But he is 67, and he's been at this a long time. But I figure Imus isn't going to want to give this up.

Do I agree with Imus? No. Do I think he deserves all this firestorm? No. Indeed, the tempest is I believe secondary to the main goal, which is to get people to talk about race, and even as some people privately grumble about this, there are plenty of others talking back, defending the Imus move.

In any case, I believe that unlike most media, that this is not a commentary about Imus, but about racial politics. And to be fair, this is not unlike religious conservative politics which pushes a creationist agenda. And, honestly, although I find the tactics a bit foul, I'd rather have some kind of racial politics like this, although I find it nearly as narrow-minded in its focus as many other politics.

A fellow on the radio claimed that there has only ever been one genocide in history, and that is Hitler's genocide of Jews (let's not forget that he also wanted to get rid of gypsies and homosexuals--but, ah, that would detract from the point, eh?). The Armenian genocide? Not a genocide, according to him. The Darfur genocide? Not a genocide. And so forth.

For whatever reason, advocacy groups feel compelled to stay on message, within their target. Thus, you rarely see Al Sharpton defending white women, or Jewish groups helping out migrant workers. While the narrowness means focus and prevents alienation of the base, it also means that outside observers also see it as narrow. Thus, most people might complain (like me) "Why won't Al Sharpton fight for Asian Americans?" but no one seems to suggest that the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith should help out, say, African Americans.

On the radio, I heard a guy wonder why there aren't any free speech defenders, and I suppose that people generally haven't been discriminated on free speech the way they have through racial epithets, and so the number of passionate people advocating free speech is dwarfed by those seeking justice for racial intolerance.

Which is too bad, because it suggests that everyone is out for themselves, a terribly selfish move that doesn't seek to reach enlightenment beyond what's best for the groups we most identify with.