Sick of Imus and the Media

After days of intentional refrain, it is with great reluctance that I toss my hat into the fray of “Don Imus” ad nauseam, but the ignorance and narrow mindedness of the media has gone beyond the brink of intolerability.

First let’s be clear: This whole Don Imus fiasco isn’t nearly as much about the word “ho” as it is about indecency and irresponsibility. Imus could have selected from a plethora of brazen epithets (i.e. bitches, wenches, broads, etc.), and we would still find ourselves in this awkward moment of clarity in which we now stand; particularly when involving the festering sore of racism and misogyny that still pusses in the anatomy of America.

But, for whatever reason, Imus chose the word “ho”, and as a result, the media and Imus supporters have taken it as an opportunity to attack Hip Hop and the Black community, totally ignoring the fact that such appellations exist in other communities as well as forms of music that span the entire globe and Pop culture (i.e. Rock).

Their short-sightedness prevents them from seeing that they are attacking the symptom as opposed to the source.

Consequently, many Imus dissenters feel that his far-reaching media platform makes the difference between his level of impact, and the impact that Hip Hop, comedians, and movies have on the populace. While it is debatable regarding who reaches and impresses more people, this still remains to be a less substantial piece of the puzzle.

One must consider the importance of "context", which alone is the determining factor on how a word or phrase is interpreted and understood.

Simply put, “what” you say is just as important as “how” you say it. When it comes to the arts (i.e. music, acting, comedy, etc.) greater exception is given because it is assumed to be done in the creative context, oftentimes being abstract, allegorical, or poetical in nature.

Music – and the arts in general – often venture off into the lands of imagination and fantasy where what’s said is intended to be interpreted in direct contrast to how it’s meant. That’s what art is; therefore, the lines are less stringent, and should remain so. Art can not exist in censorship. Creativity can not exist without art. And nothing can exist without creativity.

In journalism, particularly media outlets that often cater to political pundits, community leaders and the like, the context and content is assumed to be factual, or at least, of popular opinion. Therefore, the need to be attentive and considerate of how something is communicated is greater.

However, this does not alleviate ANYONE – whether a journalist, Hip Hop artist, politician, or what have you - of personal responsibility and accountability, wrought with the foresight of understanding how the things you say or do can impact others.

In all fairness and honesty, many of the things that are said by music artists of all genres - particularly in Hip Hop - are just as irresponsible and impactful as Imus’ comment. But the thoughts that encourage these words run much deeper than the color of one's skin. We must look within!

This social ignominy is neither a color problem nor a culture problem, but rather, a consciousness problem. If Man would make the effort to raise his thinking, the need for censorship would be null, seeing that the indecency of his tongue will be quelled by the quality of his thoughts, resulting in a self-regulation motivated by mutual respect and integrity. However, this can not be achieved until we first start taking personal responsibility for our own actions.

Free speech struggles in its liberation from the pull of enslaved thinking.


Tungz

“He who reforms himself has done more towards reforming the public than a crowd of noisy, impotent patriots.” - Lavater

In the midst of the Don Imus' tourette-like outburst that has tic-ed off a sizeable portion of the African American community(pardon the pun), I offer this excerpt from my upcoming book, The Awakening of the Meek, in which this section, in my opinion, underscores the mindset that allows such ignornace to exist. - Tungz

"Relevance of Irrelevancy"

--Excerpt from "The Awakening of The Meek" - By Tungz--

“....destroyed your and my past. Destroyed our knowledge of our culture. And by having destroyed it, now we don’t know we have any achievements…any accomplishments. And as long as you can be convinced you never did anything, you can never do anything.” – Detroit Red

From movies about cowboys and Indians, to Tarzan, to war-related movies - including the 9/11 films, Flight 93 and World Trade Center - to even the Christian religion, the Caucasian man has always cast himself as the hero and savior of a world that would otherwise crumble in the hands of its darker, purportedly less civilized inhabitants.

The intent – although sometimes unconscious - is to stigmatize “the brown” in a negative light; incapable of contributing anything morally or intellectually substantial as it relates to the progression or well-being of mankind. In fact, in the latter film, World Trade Center, a supposed “true story”, two of the real-life heroes, both African American men, Jason Thomas and Bruce Reynolds, came forth to reveal the omission of their likenesses from the film, which were conveniently replaced by Caucasian actors.

Likewise, in the movie entitled A Mighty Heart, which chronicles the life of the Caucasian Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped and murdered in Pakistan (Daniel Pearl) in 2002, instead of casting a brown-skinned, curly-haired, woman of mixed ethnicity (Afro-Cuban and Dutch) to portray his heroic widow, Mariane Pearl, the producer instead chose to cast Angelina Jolie, a Caucasian woman. Arguably, there are a number of actresses who would have been more characteristically befitting for the role (i.e. Thandi Newton, Troy Beyer, Rae Dawn Chong, Jennifer Beals, Halle Berry, etc.). However, none were selected; or allegedly, even considered.

Of course, it will be convenient for supporters to site this observation as being petty, nit-picky and frivolous; likely, shifting the focus from the objective blemish to the subjective and moralistic strengths, retorting that the casting of Angelina Jolie was based primarily - or exclusively - on her acting abilities, and the fact that she is a big name in Hollywood.

However, if this is truly the reason, then it can’t be ignored, and in fact begs to question, as to why no big name Caucasian actors were cast to play the villains; the vile Middle Eastern terrorist who arranged and carried out Daniel Pearl’s execution, instead of using real Middle Easterners? Surely Brad Pitt, Tom Cruz, or Keifer Sutherland could have handled these roles with ease and intense believability.

In all likelihood, if this question was offered to the producer, his reasoning will include his desire to keep the movie as realistic and to-the-letter as possible; which all-in-all, would only serve to contradict the move for casting Angelina Jolie in the first place.

The reason for such a paradigm is simple: “Brown” heroes are prohibited unless they are only saving, representing, or liberating “brown” people. Otherwise, a “brown” hero liberating a white victim is viewed as blasphemous and belittling; a subliminal self-admittance of white inferiority and incompetence.

Consequently, brown people killing white people is viewed as terroristic, immoral, and irreverent; while white people killing brown people (i.e. cowboys and Indians, Christopher Columbus, War on Iraq, etc.) is viewed as heroic, valiant, pioneering, and patriotic.

This image, ideology, and illusion that the “good guys wear/are white”, is in all accounts, an intentional attempt to subliminally, and subtly, imbed the perception of incompetence, ineptitude, and limitation into the sub-conscience of “the Brown” as a means of weakening the will, and effectively achieving subjugation, which is then compounded by the concealment of historical, cultural, and personal significance and/or achievement, only to be replaced with those of “inadequacy”, “inferiority” and “imperfection”.

In other words, the objective is to destroy you from the inside out by altering that in which you identify. And in this current consciousness, mankind identifies with that which he/she sees; namely, the perception of himself/herself, as well as those things we believe to be reflections or definitions of who we are (i.e. material things, status, affiliations, jobs, culture, religion, etc.). As a result, these things become the very elements by which we’re managed and controlled (discussed more in the following section entitled, “Control through Culture”).