Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Whites are Always Supposed to Keep Their Jobs in Race-Related Matters, huh?

This whole Don Imus issue is really interesting for me because I see a lot of parallels with the arguments being used to defend his comments and the tactics used in the workplace. But, the most interesting part for me is how feverishly some Whites are willing to defend a man, who’s admitted (for whatever reasons) that HE WAS WRONG! But, that doesn’t matter. Many Whites, and some Blacks, do not feel that Don Imus deserved the ultimate punishment—termination.

These people seem to be forgetting one major point. Don Imus was not a freelancer. Don Imus worked for someone. The “someone” was CBS and NBC. He had an employer. There are standards that govern the workplace—shock jock or not! Don Imus ultimately answered to his employers. I don't care why they finally decided to fire him. They fired him! Any anger should be directed at Don Imus, for starting the whole thing with his big mouth, and/or at his employers, for getting rid of him. You don't blame the victims. And, you don't begin to attack the culture, lifestyles, etc. of the racial group categorized with the victims--African Americans.

If you listen to some White people, who are defending Don Imus, he seems to be perceived as having some sort of God given right to employment at CBS and NBC. Some Whites are out-of-control with anger that another White man (Remember Al Campanis and Jimmy the Greek?) lost his job for criticizing Blacks. In fact, the anger is so palpable that some Imus Morning Show fans have sent hate mail and/or death threats to the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Rev. Al Sharpton has also received several serious death threats.

So, to the White people, who are sending this hate mail and these death threats, here are a few words to consider: The very fact that you can only defend Don Imus by threatening someone’s life or by sending mail as vicious and hateful as the comments that were originally made just goes to show that you are a complete and utter loser. Period! A death threat and hate mail just prove the point that Don Imus should have been fired. So, the “support” you’re showing for the man just continues to reflect badly on his already soured public image. Even Don Imus had the good sense to pretend to be contrite. But, on to another point…

I am shocked at how the White bandwagon defense of Don Imus and his crew has blossomed into a national debate on rap music! You can hardly turn on a TV program or radio program and not hear a White person, commentator, or guest continue to defend Don Imus’s comments by comparing his comments to the lyrics of rappers. In fact, a major NY publication had a 2 page spread, this weekend, containing the pictures and lyrics of some of the most offensive rappers—as far as sexually explicit lyrics, “ho” references, etc.

None of that has anything to do with 3 White men calling a group of Black students “whores,” “Jiggaboos,” and saying they looked like the men playing for the Toronto Raptors. There isn’t a single link whatsoever. Are we to believe that Don Imus and company were taking their cues from rap music because they were such devoted followers of the music? Please! For this defense to be credible, damn near every White person, that has heard any amount rap music, should be walking around calling random Black people “my ni**a!” But, they don’t because most White people realize they’ll be knocked out cold by the time the words spill from their lips!

But, it’s a rap thing, right? No, it’s not. There’s an issue of “hypocrisy,” right? Only from White people, who are always trying to hold someone to accountability—until one of their own gets caught in a race-related typhoon of controversy. Former Virginia Senator George Allen called an Indian-American “macaca” a Turkish reference to a “monkey” or a term used for those from the so-called ghetto. And, he had defenders that tried to antagonize the young man he made the vicious comment about. No White person is supposed to be liable for degrading, demeaning, marginalizing, etc. any Black person or person of color. When Whites are put in a position (read: forced into a position) where they must penalize one of their own, they will likely engage in a tit-for-tat with Blacks. That’s otherwise known as retaliation.

And, that takes us back to the workplace. The people using the rap defense and talking about Black hypocrisy are tying to hide two true issues. And, it’s the same two true issues that creep up in the workplace, whenever any racial issue crops up on the job…(drum roll)

ISSUE #1: White people don’t like to have a White person criticized by someone Black or by Blacks as a whole. I don’t care what that White person did or said, there will often be some more White people that will rally around that person. And, in the Don Imus case, he just said something about some ugly ni**ers, right? He said something vile, but rappers say the same thing, right? Rappers are the new standard for socially acceptable behavior, right?

Many White people in the workplace don’t want anyone Black saying sh*t about them or one of their own, but they feel they can say darn near anything they want about Black people, Black culture, etc.—in the workplace. No question is too offensive.

Whites will make offensive comments or ask crazy questions about Black people’s skin tone, hair texture, music, culture, food, political leaders, religious leaders, etc. And, then they will often act like the Black coworker is “sensitive” for calling them out on it!

ISSUE #2: White people don’t like to punish each other based on an incident involving a Black person. I guess it feels like being a race traitor or something. I can’t explain it. All I know is I’ve witnessed a number of incidents in the workplace that were race-related—some of which led to outside investigations and legal action.

And, in every case, not a single White person was punished by White management or ostracized by White employees for what they were known to have done to someone Black or to a group of Black employees. In fact, the Blacks became the pariahs at work and had to carry the burden of shame. And, in 3 incidents I can think of off the top of my head, the Black workers were the victims of constructive termination. They were forced to resign. Meanwhile, the Whites remained gainfully employed and some were even promoted.

So, the whole Don Imus incident is really putting a microscope to the dynamics about how people justify racially insensitive behavior and outright racist actions. A defense can be applied to any comment or action, no matter how disgusting and blatantly racist the comment or action is. Whites can criticize another White person in one breath, but—in the next breath—turn around and make the Black person or people seem to have brought the issue on themselves.

In my race-based incident at work, I was told that I was a great employee in one breath. But, when a White manager went after me, I was told her racist attack against me was wrong. But, I was also told a “business decision” was going to have to be made to decide what was best for the company. And, as an afterthought, “what is best for you.” I was told that the incident was horrible, but that “no one is going to be fired for this.” After that, I had White people coming out of the woodwork to make up lies about me to force me out of my job. It’s the piling on defense. If everyone says it, that makes it true.

I don’t care how many White people say that Don Imus should have been given leeway because he supposedly said something that is said by rappers. That does not make it true. Not today and not tomorrow. Why anyone would choose to defend Don Imus is beyond me. However, I can imagine a scenario where someone would question the penalty—his termination. But, the real argument isn’t being focused on whether or not Don Imus should have been fired. The real issue has morphed into the so-called rap music connection and into questions of why the incident was being “blown out of proportion” by Blacks.

Suddenly, Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson are the issues and not Don Imus, Brian McGuirk or Sid Rosenberg. Even reasonable White people are allowing themselves to focus on Who Can Say What? That’s the upcoming headline of national weekly news magazine. Who Can Say What? The question is asked as if there is a shred of plausibility in the argument that Don Imus could have and should have been allowed to get away with his remarks. So, let me clarify this point for anyone that still doesn’t get it…

DON IMUS HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS.

BRIAN MCGUIRK HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS.

SID ROSENBERG HAD NO RIGHT TO MAKE THOSE COMMENTS.

Don Imus has bragged that he will be back bigger and better AND WITH MORE MONEY! Don’t cry for him, America!

Labels: , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Liz Dwyer said...

So many people I've talked to, both black and white, think Imus shouldn't have been fired. I can only imagine what would have happened to me if I'd said some stuff like this at work. Can we say "FIRED" out loud? Actually, I wouldn't even have to say anything. I get in trouble at my job for just asking polite questions and get told that I don't have "trust" in my manager. Sigh.

6:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

counters
Toshiba Computers
Blogarama - The Blog Directory <