Oprah Makes A Sterotypical Racist Comment!

gue_barium

69charger wrote:

Imus made a stupid remark that was mild and par for the course as far as Imus show goes. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson jumped on it even though they have made comparable remarks at one time or another. Imus' remarks no different and are less severe than remarks found in popular music. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are hyping this up to make a quick buck and avoid addressing the real problems facing thier communities. They know how to stir the pot to benefit themselves, they've made careers out of it.

Why did Imus get fired?

69charger

gue_barium wrote:

Why did Imus get fired?

Because of political correctness run amok.

gue_barium

69charger wrote:

Because of political correctness run amok.

I guess you should feel free to go into work tomorrow and piss off your boss with some slanderous comments about his fat-assed wife then, right? Hell, you may even get a promotion.

69charger

gue_barium wrote:

I guess you should feel free to go into work tomorrow and piss off your boss with some slanderous comments about his fat-assed wife then, right? Hell, you may even get a promotion.

My Boss' wife is pretty hot. Why would I say that to him?

gue_barium

69charger wrote:

My Boss' wife is pretty hot. Why would I say that to him?

You forgot about the slanderous remarks. Of course.

69charger

gue_barium wrote:

You forgot about the slanderous remarks. Of course.

That's Imus' schtick! He makes fun of everyone. He has been doing this for 30 years. The only reason this is an issue is because of the Micheal Richards incident and the two Revs fanning the flames.

gue_barium

69charger wrote:

That's Imus' schtick! He makes fun of everyone. He has been doing this for 30 years. The only reason this is an issue is because of the Micheal Richards incident and the two Revs fanning the flames.

That's beyond making fun. I've seen him a few times on TV. He always looked half-dead, not saying much of anything at all. He didn't seem like the making fun type guy. He didn't even seem like a shock jock. In fact, he didn't seem like much anything at all, so why he was on the airwaves to began with goes beyond my understanding. Best I can tell, his "shtick" was that cowboy hat.

69charger

gue_barium wrote:

That's beyond making fun. I've seen him a few times on TV. He always looked half-dead, not saying much of anything at all. He didn't seem like the making fun type guy. He didn't even seem like a shock jock. In fact, he didn't seem like much anything at all, so why he was on the airwaves to began with goes beyond my understanding. Best I can tell, his "shtick" was that cowboy hat.

I guess you weren't watching the same show then. I've watched him for years.

RainDog

NMyTree wrote:

Incorrect.

Once again your inability to comprehend the subject matter at hand and over-simplify everything, has exposed you.

I never thought what Richards said was profound. I found the reaction to what he said by blacks and the overly-PC; to be quite revealing and yes....profound. Especially when everyone completely ignored that the emotionally wounded black guy who continued to escalate the matter, soon afterwards started seeking a financial kickback and had in fact, been the first one to spout a stereotypical racist/discriminatory attack towards Richards, when he was heckling him.

The overly-PC and alleged overly-sensitive did their best to ignore those facts and continue to defend the double-standard.

That was a very revealing moment.

Now return to your regularly scheduled misinterpretations and incomprehensible disposition.

There's just no discussion with you, is there. So, since it's not a debate, but a personal one sided discussion about my mental capacity, allow me to acquiesce to you and your premier grasp of our cultural divides. I now correctly believe that <<whispers> Black People <<whispers>> are out to destroy the careers of decent, wholesome white folk like Imus and Richards. And I now correctly believe that, were it not for these comedians exposing our divided society in such a profound way, we'd all be chained down under the hotly oppressive weight of P.C. madness. Oh, and that you're above it all - a beacon of light, white light, looking down in quite, loving condescension over plebeians like myself whose ankles are caught in the railroad switch crying to the sky begging for release before the oncoming engine of true cultural parity plows us under with its speeding inevitability. Talk about revealing.

er is i bein' everly simplistk agin?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

It's quite obvious the whole Imus issue has been used as a ploy to divert media attention from real issues going on in the world.

It seems many here have been swallowed up by it

Do try to keep up with the real matters at hand...

cornnifer

onelongsong wrote:

exactly. my grandfather used to say WORDS ARE LIKE FARTS; THEY DISIPATE IN THE WIND. .

i wanted to address this yesterday, but didn't have the time. i mean absolutely no disrespect to your grandfather ( 'tis a great saying ), but i disagree. Anyone who says words are harmless, has never had someone they love dearly say to them "i hate you". As a matter of fact, i would argue that the, lumps, cuts, bruises and "broken bones" that "sticks and stones" leave, eventually, heal. Words can leave much more permanent damage. Indelible scarring. Harsh words from the right person, can kill! Most of us here, save the occasional troll, congregate here because of a fondness of music, certain music imparticular. The literal music is no doubt great, but what it is it about the songs discussed in these forums that move us so? That touch our lives so profoundly and have, at times life changing effect? The words. Words are much more powerful than people give them credit for. i, for one, if made to choose from the options offered in the old cliche, will 9 times out of ten, choose the "sticks" and the "stones".

mookie9999

reborncareerist wrote:

I think a person's intent should matter more than their skin colour, when we are talking who should or should not use particular words.

I've posted this before a couple of months ago, but is seems fitting to do so again. Sorry to anyone who gets "offended" :rolleyes:

"There's a different group to get pissed off at you in this country for everything your not supposed to say. Can't say Nigger, Boogie, Jig, Jigaboo, Skinhead, Moolimoolinyon, Schvatzit, Junglebunny. Greaser, Greaseball, Dago, Guinea, Whop, Ginzo, Kike, Zebe, Heed, Yid, Mocky, Himie, Mick, Donkey, Turkey, Limey, Frog. Zip, Zipperhead, Squarehead, Crout, Hiney, Jerry, Hun, Slope, Slopehead, Chink, Gook. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those words in and of themselves. Their only words. It's the context that counts. It's the user. It's the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad. The words are completely neutral. The words are innocent. I get tired of people talking about bad words and bad language. Bullshit! It's the context that makes them good or bad. The context. That makes them good or bad. For instance, you take the word "Nigger." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "Nigger" in and of itself. It's the racist asshole who's using it that you ought to be concerned about. We don't mind when Richard Pryer or Eddie Murphy say it. Why? Because we know their not racist. Their Niggers! Context. Context. We don't mind their context because we know their black. Hey, I know I'm whitey, the blue-eyed devil, paddy-o, fay gray boy, honkey, mother-fucker myself. Don't bother my ass. Their only words. You can't be afraid of words that speak the truth, even if it's an unpleasant truth, like the fact that there's a bigot and a racist in every living room on every street corner in this country." George Carlin

Heatherj43

The word jigaboo was used that day with Imus. yet, no one is talking about that. I don't think it was him, but one of the guys on his set. They said, "the jigaboos against the wannabees".
I can't figure out why that is not being talked about. That was worse than the nappy headed hos thing.

harrymanback

Heatherj43 wrote:

The word jigaboo was used that day with Imus. yet, no one is talking about that. I don't think it was him, but one of the guys on his set. They said, "the jigaboos against the wannabees".
I can't figure out why that is not being talked about. That was worse than the nappy headed hos thing.

that is because they were referencing spike lee's school daze where there were two different groups of students ... gigaboos and wanabees.

they didn't get in trouble just like everyone else who has uttered nappy headed ho for the past two weeks hasn;t gotten in trouble.

Heatherj43

harrymanback wrote:

that is because they were referencing spike lee's school daze where there were two different groups of students ... gigaboos and wanabees.

they didn't get in trouble just like everyone else who has uttered nappy headed ho for the past two weeks hasn;t gotten in trouble.

Man, back in the day, jigaboo was worse than nigger. And yes, someone did get in trouble for nappy headed hos thing, um, Imus.
I am just surprised everyone is keeping quiet on the jigaboo thing. I though that was way more offensive.

musicismylife78

the fact remains. To be racist, one must have power. Black people arent in power. They dont have power. Racism is a system, a social system, even a civilization, a way of life. You cant have racism without power.

So to suggest blacks are in power in the u.s. is ridiculous

The whole thing about racism is that blacks were owned by whites. Blacks worked for little or nothing for whites. blacks were raped by overseers and masters. Blacks were whipped. It was all part of not one individual or person, but a whole social system, a system of power.

If you have no power, you cant be racist. You can be prejudiced, but not racist.

Thats what Crash was about. ALL races were predjudiced but only the whites were racist. None of the nonwhite characters had power

Oprah was prejudiced not racist, big difference.

A Latino calling a white person a cracker or a gringo is prejudiced. But given the history of latinos in the world and latinos and the u.s., its fair to say, that if a white person was to call a latino a wetback or lazy, thats racism. Whites have power. latinos dont.

Calling a women the b word is sexism. We live in a patriarchy. Males control the world. A woman calling a man some name isnt sexism. Its prejudice or maybe even the truth. Woman have no power, males do. Therefore women cant be sexist

Ahnimus

Cheguevara6 wrote:

the fact remains. To be racist, one must have power. Black people arent in power. They dont have power. Racism is a system, a social system, even a civilization, a way of life. You cant have racism without power.

So to suggest blacks are in power in the u.s. is ridiculous

The whole thing about racism is that blacks were owned by whites. Blacks worked for little or nothing for whites. blacks were raped by overseers and masters. Blacks were whipped. It was all part of not one individual or person, but a whole social system, a system of power.

If you have no power, you cant be racist. You can be prejudiced, but not racist.

Thats what Crash was about. ALL races were predjudiced but only the whites were racist. None of the nonwhite characters had power

Oprah was prejudiced not racist, big difference.

A Latino calling a white person a cracker or a gringo is prejudiced. But given the history of latinos in the world and latinos and the u.s., its fair to say, that if a white person was to call a latino a wetback or lazy, thats racism. Whites have power. latinos dont.

Calling a women the b word is sexism. We live in a patriarchy. Males control the world. A woman calling a man some name isnt sexism. Its prejudice or maybe even the truth. Woman have no power, males do. Therefore women cant be sexist

I don't have power either. Oprah has more political influence than I do, so that puts her in a position to be racist and me not? Bullshit.

Actually your post is littered with trash stereotypes that have long ago gone with the wind.

Ahnimus

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

gue_barium

Ahnimus wrote:

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
- rac·ist /-sist also -shist/ noun or adjective

Historically, racism has been a strong political determinant in this country. Not the only one. And I agree with Che's view that prejudice and racism are two different things that exist on different levels.

Of course, I don't think Oprah is racist. She has the power to be, though.

Ahnimus

gue_barium wrote:

Historically, racism has been a strong political determinant in this country. Not the only one. And I agree with Che's view that prejudice and racism are two different things that exist on different levels.

Of course, I don't think Oprah is racist. She has the power to be, though.

Nah, I don't agree with that combination. It's carrying implications that are vague.

For example, if I am sexually harassed by a white woman at work, a woman in a better financial position, being a white man, I'm not gonna sue her, know why? Cause I can't afford it, and she can. Race has nothing to do with it.

Racism is simply a racial prejudice. That is racism, you are describing economic power + racism, which is still racism apart from there also being economic or political power. Put the two together means absolutely nothing. You don't create a new thing by putting the two together, if you do your distorting and exagerating the reality of it.

What would be the difference if I got turned down from a job if the employer was pink? I mean, y'all are taking skin pigmentation too far, it comes down to DNA switching on and off a couple of genes.