American Blog

Mr. Vass also writes for www.blackentertainmentblog.com and www.vassconsult.com :

I’ve noticed something lately. Since the well publicized departure of Mr. Don Imus the gansta rap genre has been the focus of a lot of attention. I can’t say that this intense review of the medium is unwarranted. Yet, part of the arguments being posed are completely unfair and disproportionate.

On the one hand we have the use of defamatory, derogatory words by multiple rap hip-hop artists for well over a decade now. There is no question, in my mind at least, that there is no excuse for this. I have yet to hear an argument that justifies the use of words like n-word, hoes, and their ilk. That is except one. The only thing that can justify the use of these words if the fact that the First Amendment allows any citizen to utter virtually any comment. Note that I said virtually any.

I do not believe in censorship. Artists should be able to express themselves. All music genres should have the opportunity to reach the portion of fans that exist for the genre. Even if part of it is objectionable. If a government can help fund an artist that hugs a dead pig as art, gansta rap can be made. But it’s exclusive existence, and the daily ramming of its objectionable material (to me) goes beyond mere protected speech. It’s widespread availability to minors is detrimental, and unnecessary. The argument can be made that it deserves to exist, but it can’t be said for proliferation like a virus without a thought to containment. In addition, just as a person does not have the right to yell fire in a crowded room for no reason, some words incite violence and should be limited if not worse.

Mr. Imus tried to state that his use of the now famous statement was inspired by rap music, and that it was no different than words found in music videos everyday. I’ve heard various pundits and regular people try to float that same thought. They are partially correct. Music videos today do convey words and images that portray ALL African Americans in the worst type of light. The emphasis on ignorance, drug addiction and criminal behavior is primary. The terminology used is no less insulting than that used by Mr. Imus. The difference is that Mr. Imus, without provocation and without comical context, attacked a group of unknown young women and compounded that act by making the attack racial while on national airwaves. I’ve spoken about this in depth in my posts Imus, Rutgers basketball, and Rev. Al Sharpton - 4.9.2007.1, Don Imus vs Rap music - 4.11.2007.1, Now that Imus is gone - 4.12.2007.1 among others.

But that does not excuse the language in rap today. Nor does it give Black Americans the opportunity to play both sides of the fence. The language and imagery is wrong. It does not become more or less appropriate depending on the color of the skin of the speaker.

Continued in Part 2…

Some people have wondered why I have such a crusade against the N-word. I’ve been asked why it’s a big deal, I’ve been told that the meaning has changed. Some claim the word is now empowering, when used by African Americans and those in the hip-hop/rap community. Yet, I feel that there has been no difference in the word in my lifetime, and never will be. Any other thought or excuse is just ignorance of the facts.

Since the events involving Mr. Don Imus and the Rutgers women’s basketball team renewed attention has been placed on the disparaging terms used in this nation casually. But I feel most people have no concept of what these disrespectful terms mean to, or how they affect, the rest of the world. As Americans we have a very isolated view of the rest of the world, but our actions have great impact. Having lived overseas for a time, I have gotten an understanding of this that exceeds that of the norm.

A case in point is the description found on a couch in Canada. There may not be a lot of news on this but it seems that a mother purchased a new couch whose description referred to its color as “N-word brown.” As the furniture store that sold the couch, the supplier, and a software company that designed the tag all point a finger of blame at anyone but themselves the damage is done. The international insult has been made and no one would have notice if not for a child asking her mother what the N-word meant.

Why was the color of the couch described in such a manner? Because a 10 year old translation dictionary equated the words dark brown with the N-word in Chinese. Not 100 or 50 years old, just 10. The definition was so accepted that when the dictionary was updated, no change was made to the software. But why should it?

Across the world music videos and songs proliferate the use of the N-word, and other inflammatory comments, to describe and talk among African Americans. Non-native English speakers seek out tools to define this word, and many have a description that is without any context of the harm of the word. Of course the context is then supplied by the media that the word came from.

You might say so what. Think about it. The N-word does not convey a meaning of just color, but a negative context as well. In the eyes of the world it means criminal, drug dealer/addict, prostitute, and violent savage animal as presented by gansta rap and hi-hop. Almost 15 years ago when I was in Moscow you cannot imagine the surprise when Russians learned I was an American. In their eyes it could not be possible. Black Americans were not smart enough to learn their own language let alone another, we could not understand business or hold jobs, where we went random violence follows as does rampant drug use. In essence we were the N-word. Since I could not fit any part of that description I had to be from Cuba, or Africa, or South America. I was even asked if I was originally from any other country and then became a U.S. citizen. Resolving the image they had in their head of the word and image in the media, and me in person was too extreme to be the same thing. Simply put, since I was not the N-word I could not be African American.

Continued in Part 2

Ok, I’m a bit behind on this event. What can I say, I don’t like basketball and I don’t listen to either the Imus radio show or the show of Rev. Al Sharpton. As such I only recently found out about the disparaging comments made last Wednesday by Mr. Don Imus. To say I am upset is an understatement.

For those that may be in a similar situation as myself, Mr. Imus called the Rutgers women’s basketball, “…some nappy-headed hos”. This was in response to Mr. Bernard McGuirk’s comment, “some hardcore hos.” By the way, no one has asked for the resignation of Mr. McGuirk, though his comments are no less insulting. Obviously there are a lot of problems here.

Let me start with Mr. McGuirk. The fact that he calls Black women hos is despicable. I understand the argument that calling women as such is common because rappers and hip-hop entertainers do so, but that does not make it proper. I have discussed rappers using such insulting terms to describe women, I disagree with that and I disagree with this. He provided the fuel by which the far better known Mr. Imus created this furor. While I am in favor of severe actions against Mr. Imus, I feel Mr. McGuirk cannot be left out either.

As for Imus, well I’m not surprised. There has been a long history of ill-toned comments against African Americans by him. This is just another example, and furthers the viability of his being removed from the air. I find his apologies half-hearted, motivated by fear of losing his position more than his own true feelings.

Mr. Imus has tried to excuse his commentary, when speaking to Rev. Sharpton, by referring to the fact that other African Americans entertainers and people use this term often. That did not fly with Rev. Sharpton, nor does it with me. That seems to remind me of the comment my mother used to say, “If everyone jumped of a bridge, would you do it to?” To claim that one person should be excused because of the infantile actions of another, when both are acting badly, assumes that everyone involved and everyone listening is stupid. I am not, nor do I believe you my readers are either.

I understand that at 66, Mr. Imus is part of a culture that believe calling Black Americans “colored” or the n-word was a commonplace act. He grew up and was taught that African Americans were second-class citizens at best, and that the need to be separated from them socially and economically was an imperative. I understand that that was the truth of the time of his formative years. Yet that does not excuse his actions. As a seemingly intelligent man, who has worked for decades in entertainment and has lived in the probably most diversified city in the nation, he should know better. He should be capable of understanding that individuals are not stereotypes, and that stereotypes invariably target the worst aspects of any group of people.

An intelligent man does not need to demean women. An intelligent man does not need to comment on a group of sports players based on their hair or its style. An intelligent man does not need to make back-handed “compliments” to be humorous. Most importantly an intelligent man accepts the responsibility and repercussions of their actions and comments, even when this is a detrimental result. That is part of my expectation of any intelligent man.

Pleas that Mr. Imus is a good man are irrelevant. Even less relevant by the fact that it is Mr. Imus making the plea. To speak about the acts of kindness he does for a few does not excuse the damage he does to millions. I don’t care if Mr. Imus despises African Americans. That’s his choice. I do care how he speaks about us in a public forum.

I don’t agree with anyone referring to someone’s hair/hairstyle in a discussion that pertains to anything but that. Hair does not define a person any more than skin color. Does the fact that Mr. Donald Trump may have a hairpiece change anything about him? Does that mean that all men that might have a toupee share his exact qualities? If such an argument sounds ludicrous then the words of Mr. Imus are no less so. What I would like to hear Mr. Imus, and Mr. McGuirk, explain is what makes the Black women of the Rutgers basketball team hos. Then I want to hear what makes their hair nappy. And then perhaps I can hear how either of these comments have anything to do with basketball or the abilities of these women. I would listen to Mr. Imus explain that, and I’d like him to do this in front of the women that he has nationally demeaned. And then he should still be fired. Not resign, fired. He has given up his right to save face in this matter.

I do not often agree with Rev. Al Sharpton, but I find his one comment to be correct, “I accept his apology, just as I want his bosses to accept his resignation.” 

This is what I think, what do you think?