Friends, I've just come across an article regarding the unsettling (but entirely typical) speech of "shock jock" Don Imus.  (Shock Jock being a term that broadly implies an exception to the standard set of moral expectations)  In his latest transgression, Imus couched slurs of the Rutgers women's basketball team in the stereotyped language of the African-American community.   Imus: "That's some rough girls from Rutgers. ... Man, they got tattoos and some hard-core hos.... That's some nappy-headed hos there, I'm going to tell you that now."

Full Story: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/09/imus.rutgers/index.html

However, far more disturbing (and personally heartbreaking) are the comments left by so many of our fellow Americans. 

A blog on hollow apologies w/ responses following: http://time-blog.com/tuned_in/2007/04/imus_from_nonapology_apologies.html

I was particularly struck by the manner in which many people sought to praise, exonerate, deflect, defuse and disregard Imus' offensive speech.  They employed anything they could label as both "Black" & "bad", as well as trotting out every hackneyed, cliched and ill-conceived stereotype available in the effort to justify the comments.  With that irrelevance, they dared imply that the young women targeted were rightfully the sacrificial lambs for a morally bankrupt race and that, in fact, two wrongs actually do make a right.  (See, Mom!!)  Completely lost in the "discussion", was the fact that the comments were also deeply misogynistic. But its clear that we have yet to view gender as sufficiently worthy of defense.  Somehow we've gotten to a place where people feel confident that their wrongdoing can be excused merely by pointing out a non-wrongdoing.  (e.g., the old "But I have two Black friends!" gag)  In the case of race, it seems that nowadays one must demonstrate that he/she truly hates an entire race to be considered racist. If one merely possesses racist views but not hateful intent, then they are just "social observers" reporting "facts".  (e.g., the old "I'm not racist, but, insert racist comment here" gag)         

So much effort exerted, merely for the sake of preserving something that resonates with their own demons.  It's as if those in positions of dominance are defending their assumed "right" to excercise their inhumanity at the expense of others.  What if that energy were channeled for the conquest of those very evils? 

This story and its reactions illuminated for me two prevalent imperatives that demand these incidents to occur and recur.  The Social Imperative: Don Imus and those of his ilk must be protected so that others can animate their ignorance in the inherent safety of doing so vicariously.  The Commercial Imperative: Those entities who are financially linked Imus and his kind must keep him on the air to capture the lucrative and closeted market of those propelling the social imperative. Without tremendous profit at stake, MSNBC and CBS would have rushed to distance themselves from Imus and his history of indefensible commentary.

In a striking parallel to the Leonardtown Party incident, the cowardly anonymous responses to this event reliably unearth the ugly and warped attitudes purposefully hidden with the functional, everyday guises of tact and shrewdness.   Even as it has become socially unwise or unacceptable to openly express such prejudices, they remain popular in the social arenas obscured from public view.  Though the existence of these corrupted mentalities surprises none of us, for me, each reacquaintance only affirms the tragic reality that we still have so far to go. 

stilled,

steven