Don Imus in 2047: Precedents and Presidents
June 24, 2008
Yesterday, Don Imus has shown his true colors once again, and his spin doctors are working overtime to cover for “misunderstood” Imus. There will be no dissection of the comments as anyone who believes the latest Imus explanation also believes that Bill Clinton didn’t know what “is” was. In any event, it is a good time to re-post Don Imus in 2047: Precedents and Presidents (from May 24, 2007). It definitely still applies.
Since Don Imus was terminated, and it seems that everyone, including this author has put in their two cents. Yesterday’s news? Not even close. Now that we’ve had a little time for reflection we must now ask ourselves how Americans might judge the Imus-Rutgers affair in 40 years? Will it be a footnote on our media history only known to historians and old guys with really good memories? Or is it one of those watershed moments where media and race intersect that will be difficult and embarrassing to explain to our grandchildren? What will I say to my grandchild in 2047 when he/she is working on a high school term paper and stumbles upon a poll from 2007that shows that half of all Americans thought that Imus should have kept his job? What if my grandchild shows me the long rap sheet of Imus bigotry during America’s “shock jock era”? If he/she ever asks me how Imus received support from that era’s presidents, what will I say?
Please excuse me while I pontificate away, but haven’t we been down this road? Are Americans caught up in that movie “Groundhog’s Day”? To answer these questions we will examine two other pop culture landmarks where race and media intersect. And while the overt bigotry and steeotypes displayed in “Birth of a Nation” and then “Amos and Andy” obviously surpass that of a Don Imus, the mass public reaction, rationalizations, and justifications at that time were almost identical… and would not change each time until another 40 years had passed.
“Imus and Andy”:
Don Imus has been known to “mimic” famous African-Americans[1] from Al Sharpton to Vernon Jordan
with an over-the-top stereotypical dialect reminiscent of “Amos and Andy” fame (review). Imus grew up in an era where A & A was still an enduring American phenomenon. Amos and Andy was rooted in a long legacy of minstrel show tradition that had whites in blackface; it was a pioneer in radio broadcasting in 1928; its 30+ year run is the longest in radio broadcast history; at its peak in 1930, it spawned a movie and had ONE-THIRD of the nation tuning in on a NIGHTLY basis; and in 1951, with whites-in-blackface no longer socially acceptable, CBS introduced A & A as the first ever all-black cast on network television. The NAACP immediately protested its airing and issued its 7-point bulletin[2]. After A & A won an Emmy award in 1952, the NAACP responded by initiating a boycott of Blatz beer. By April 1953 Blatz withdrew its sponsorship and CBS announced: “The network has bowed to the change in national thinking.”[3] At a time when network TV was about as racially diverse as national talk radio is today, such “change” came with a backlash. It would be 20 years before another show with an all-black cast was aired. Defenders pointed to A & A’s witty character-driven scriptwriting as the primary reasons for its popularity. Like the wit of Imus, that entertainment came as part of a “package deal”.
Some 40 years after its final TV (1966) and radio (1960)episodes were removed from syndication, the vast majority of Americans agree that the “Amos and Andy” shows are unfit for broadcasting today. But at the time, network executives and large masses of white Americans just couldn’t understand what all the hubbub was about. Even some African-American fans, saddled with the unenviable choice of an unflattering comedic depiction or no depiction at all, wanted the show to remain on the air. Despite the dialects, stereotypes, and minstrel roots, many who considered themselves fair-minded people, thought that it was just good clean fun. After all, didn’t Abbot and Costello make fun of themselves? What’s the difference? Why is the NAACP meddling with our entertainment anyway? 
Birth of a Collaboration between Big Media and Bigotry :
By 1960 most white Americans DID view the 1915 landmark movie “Birth of a Nation” (review) as racist and unacceptable. But it took more than 40 years and an emerging social consciousness for THAT to happen. BOAN was America’s highest grossing movie in American history[4]until it was repaced by …”Gone with the Wind” — another epic that glorified the old south. BOAN revolutionized the field of cinema before Amos and Andy did the same for radio. It also sparked the rebirth of the previously dormant Ku Klux Klan which used the movie as a recruiting tool.
With few exceptions, strong protests by the NAACP were not respected by the white masses whether they were southern segregationists or northern progressives. Citing artistic double-standards, the Mayor of Boston objected that claims of racist propaganda were “no more valid than protests against Shakespeare’s Henry VIII for maligning the Roman Catholic Church”[5]. Many scholars and northern white critics –including The New York Times– sidestepped the racial aspects, and put high-minded arguments together on purely artistic grounds that separated the film from its ugly pro-KKK elements.
Interestingly, Director D.W. Griffith vigorously rejected the notion that he or his work was “racist”. More accurately, he viewed himself more as a victim of unfair criticism. He argued that if BOAN attacked any group of persons it was “whites who led the blacks astray during reconstruction”[7]. In response to critics he produced a pamphlet entitled: The Rise and Fall of Free Speech in America where he frequently argued against the political correctness (he used the word “intolerance”) of the times. These rationales seemed perfectly reasonable to enough people to produce remarkable turnout all across America. While there are certainly notable distinctions between the “art” of Birth of a Nation, the satire of Amos and Andy, and the quips of Don Imus, the unfolding of mass public reaction remains remarkably similar.
Presidential Precedents: All of these pop culture media landmarks were directly or indirectly validated in varying d
egrees by our country’s highest leadership. After receiving a private screening of Birth of a Nation, President Woodrow Wilson allegedly remarked: “It’s like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all terribly true.” (Amidst protests Wilson later denounced the movie as an “unfortunate production.”) In the late 50’s, president Dwight Eisenhower could be found vacationing with friend Freeman Gosden, the creator and original radio voice of Amos. In this generation, presidents and candidates (Bill Clinton, both Bushes, John McCain, John Kerry, Rudy Guliani, etc.) continue to enable Don Imus and his history to protect their own reputations as past guests on his show. A little presidential backing can go a long way towards shaping a nation’s moral attitude. US presidents have never been too good at leading when it comes to racial matters. After all, most didn’t get elected by contradicting the popular thought of their times. [8]
“40/40 Vision”: So with opportunistic presidents and divided public opinions on Imus, where do we look for moral leadership? The answer is… history. Viewing “Amos & Andy” and “Birth of a Nation” in “40/40 vision” can not only shed light on our future mass reaction to Imus, but it can tell us so much more. In his essay on “The Absurdity and Consistency of White Denial”[9] author and educator Tim Wise explains that in ANY era, white masses have grossly misdiagnosed the true extent of systemic racism in our country. These pop-media examples are merely symbolic of a greater collective white denial that Wise describes as an “intergenerational phenomenon”:
“… what does it say about white rationality and white collective sanity, that in 1963–at a time when in retrospect all would agree racism was rampant in the United States, and before the passage of modern civil rights legislation–nearly two-thirds of whites, when polled, said they believed blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities–almost the same number as say this now, some 40+ years later? What does it suggest… that in 1962, 85% of whites said black children had just as good a chance as white children to get a good education in their communities? Or that in May, 1968, 70% of whites said that blacks were treated the same as whites in their communities… In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts (looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even 40 years ago, whites were more likely to think that blacks had BETTER opportunities, than to believe the opposite…
…Truthfully, this tendency for whites to deny the extent of racism and racial injustice likely extends back far before the 1960s. Although public opinion polls in previous decades rarely if ever asked questions about the extent of racial bias or discrimination, anecdotal surveys of white opinion suggest that at no time have whites in the U.S. ever thought blacks or other people of color were getting a bad shake. White Southerners were all but convinced that their black slaves, for example, had it good, and had no reason to complain about their living conditions or lack of freedoms. After emancipation, but during the introduction of Jim Crow laws and strict Black Codes that limited where African Americans could live and work, white newspapers would regularly editorialize about the “warm relations” between whites and blacks, even as thousands of blacks were being lynched by their white compatriots…”[6]
See No Evil: Wise’s commentary demonstrates a “blind spot” that the majority of white Americans have historically had when asked to fully recognize institutional racism WHILE IT IS OCCURRING and without the luxury of 40 years hindsight. Even some of our most educated presidential scholars from Thomas Jefferson to Woodrow Wilson had this blind spot. So where does this blind spot come from? Lack of education or intelligence? Nope… just PRIVILEGE + human nature. Most people who have privilege never want to give it up. Enter “privilege” and very smart people might suddenly become very stupid right before our very eyes. If we like our privileges enough, we might actually convince ourselves, in our own time, that: Columbus discovered America, slaves were happy, separate was equal, domestic violence is a “family matter”, “no” means “yes”, “trickle-down” helps the poor, homosexuality is just “a preference”, and torture is okay. History shows that most privileged people will rationalize just about ANYTHING before giving up a benefit. Many otherwise smart and level-headed people will even convince themselves that Don Imus really did learn the “n-word” from Snoop Dogg before they willingly give up their favorite morning show. Want to turn a Mensa member into Forest Gump? Just try and take back a cookie from the top of their stack. Psychologists like to call this phenomena “cognitive dissonance theory”. My mother likes to call it “being spoiled rotten”.
If our past is any indication of our future, Imus apologists and enablers will be on the wrong side of social history in 2047. But unfortunately, we don’t have another 40 years to burn before we “get real” about understanding how racism and bigotry operate in our country. Smacking that racial snooze button one more time is not an option. Consensus must be reached on the simple stuff like Imus, so that we can tackle the more complicated and less visible institutional discrimination that permeates our schools, employment, health-care, and criminal-juvenile justice systems. There is a national high school dropout crisis going on in our country that must be a part of every presidential debate. On the strength of draconian drug laws (see crack vs. cocaine), mandatory minimum sentencing, and the emergence of “prisons for profit” our criminal population has multiplied FIVE TIMES OVER in the last 30 years (after stability in the previous 50 years) on the disproportionate incarceration of African-American men while study after ignored study reveals major institutional biases[10]. Just exactly what has to happen for people “of their times” to know what time it is?
When my grandchild asks: “Why did so many Americans, media members and politicians support and enable Imus back in 2007?”, followed by “and why didn’t anyone do anything about the crisis in the school system and the prisons?”, I don’t want to get into intellectual discussions about the invisible workings of “institutional racism”, the phenomena of “white denial”, or the social history of “40/40 vision”. We must clean our house now. Our crystal ball could not be more crystal clear.
Related Posts - The Nine Lives of Don Imus: A Study in American Denial
REFERENCES/FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Imus A-List Media: Going Along and Getting On
[2] NAACP Bulletin, August 15, 1951: “Why the Amos ‘n’ Andy TV Show Should Be Taken Off the Air”
[3] Amos ‘N’ Andy: Past as prologue?
[4] “Art [and History] by Lightning Flash”: The Birth of a Nation and Black Protest
[5] From Sambo to Superspade: the Black Experience in Motion Pictures (p. 39).
[6] D. W. Griffith and “The Birth of A Monster”: How The Confederacy Revived The KKK and Created Hollywood
[7] From Sambo to Superspade: the Black Experience in Motion Pictures (p. 32).
[8] D. W. Griffith and “The Birth of A Monster”: How The Confederacy Revived The KKK and Created Hollywood
[9] What Kind of Card is Race?: The Absurdity (and Consistency) of White Denial
[10] Comparative Rates of International Incarceration: An Examination of Causes and Trends
Comments
12 Responses to “Don Imus in 2047: Precedents and Presidents”
Got something to say?
If we are talking about Don Imus in 2047, I am going to be deeply depressed.
great write
I gotta head to work
But I’ll comment back later
The BOAN nation and A&A points are very telling…..
MODI, my damn boy. I was waiting for you to post about this, because of the first article on Cosellout.com. Another excellent piece.
I seriously doubt that things are going to change dramatically by 2047. There’s always going to be that segment of the population that believes that traditional minorities that have been mistreated have it better. Of course, by 2050, they’re predicting that the U.S. will be majority non-white. The ones pulling the strings are the rich and powerful. Keep the ones at the bottom fighting each other about stupid things. That way, they won’t hold the ones at the top responsible for their conditions present. Politicians and business leaders know this.
A couple of years ago, in a county in NC well known for its backward ways, and once the home for one of the leaders of the KKK, a teacher at a community college ran a history course. In it, he talked about how black slaves loved slavery. They didn’t have to worry about taking care of themselves. That was his logic for blacks liking slavery. The college eventually fired him, but not right away. He said that he didn’t see what was wrong with him saying that and swore that it was true.
Birth of a Nation, Gone With the Wind, not much difference in the two. Movies celebrating the old Southern way of life, the “good old days”. It’s no mistake that both of these movies were popular when they were. Jim Crow was in full effect during both of their runs and blacks were still believed to be inferior animals. The movies and television have done a poor job in general on the “black experience” in America. Generally, even when there is a movie about blacks, a white person is made the hero. (Amistad, Glory) I’d like to see more true to life movies. Some moral ambiguity.
Don Imus says the things that a lot of older white males believe. Call him on it, it’s only entertainment. No. Entertainment is a skit on SNL, Mad TV, or Second City. The things that Imus and the ones that think like he do are what they believe. They are used to not being called on it, or if they are, being defended by their powerful friends. The tide has turned somewhat. However, I also see that the ones that want to keep the status quo are digging in. They fire back at those who challenge the power structure.
I was glad to see Adam Jones speak up on this. Though, I don’t expect ESPN to go to bat for him. I see the same old WWL rearing it’s head. They’ll say that Adam misunderstands. Or they’ll want to remind everyone more about his arrests than holding Imus accountable.
I”m going to have something up at my spot about it tomorrow MODI. Check it out and let me know what you think.
It would be interesting to see some video or audio of this. It would clear up whether or not Imus was “really” trying to say.
Still, I don’t think the man should be fired for saying what he thinks. You shouldn’t fire people just for having unpopular opinions. Besides, if that was the way everybody did things, you better believe more black folks than white would be getting pink slips.
Motown
That’s because white folks define what is popular. See Modi’s comments about priviledge for a better explanation.
You don’t have to get fired every time you say stupid shit. But don’t whine like a bitch when you catch hell about how people are violating your free speech. Like I said on my blog a while back, free speech means you can say what you want, it doens’t deal with the way other people take those comments.
Imus will never lose his job. The idiot faction among white people will NEVER see how dangerous he is. They’ll just say that Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton is a racist and throw Bill Cosby/Shelby Steele/Jason Whitlock on black people’s faces and be done with it.
But my advice to other white folks out there in cubicle land is that you people aren’t as important to the establishment as Imus is. You CAN be fired for saying racist stuff at work. Why don’t you people just deal with that be be done with it?
kos, that teacher story is very sad… I have always argued that the long-term effect of “Gone With the Wind” and how it glorifies the south has been far more harmful than Birth of a Nation. Today, BOAN is rejected but GWTW is still revered by many as one of America’s best movies….
motown, freedom of speech and employer rights to fire employees are completely different matters. Every day I blog, i exercise my freedom of speech — yet i get paid $0 and hour and have no radio show. Imus is free to start his own blog too.
Big man, looking forward to reading it…
Big Man, MODI-
I’m scratching my head trying to see where exactly we disagree….tell me again where the hell I brought up “freedom of speech” vs “employer rights?”
Stop the presses… the commercial media’s racist?!? That’s not exactly a revelation. The tragedy is to the media executives, it’s only business. They’re merely selling what people are willing to buy. Their attitude says as much about Americans (in general) than any Imus or D.W. Griffith.
The tyranny of media oligopolies notwithstanding, IMO, the persecution of Imus is hypocritical and more than a bit hypersensitive. I was watching Imus live on MSNBC the morning he and the other guy cracked jokes on Rutgers’ women’s basketball team. You know what? I laughed. It was a joke. Now, I understand there are jokes made everyday that some people are going to find offensive. But the context of the joke is as important as its content. I feel people are missing this point about Imus. Especially since there are far more crude ’shock jocks’ on the airwaves.
I’m far more concerned that an Imus can be so easily played for cheap political effect while the essential problem — a racist media — goes unaddressed. Or, I should say ‘papered over’. Have Americans become so PC that we’re afraid of mere jokes? Imus’ latest faux pas didn’t even have the forethought of a bad joke. But… he’s a racist now, so everything is to be viewed in this light.
In the interests of disclosure, I’m Black and I work in the media. I believe at worst Imus deserved to be fined for his remarks re: Temple women’s basketball, but that CBS Radio and MSNBC should have been challenged to recruit and hire more women and minorities as producers and hosts.
Still, I don’t think the man should be fired for saying what he thinks. You shouldn’t fire people just for having unpopular opinions. Besides, if that was the way everybody did things, you better believe more black folks than white would be getting pink slips.
Motown, we disagree right here. I said you don’t HAVE to be fired, but that doesn’t mean I’ll shed a tear if you get canned. In fact, there are some comments where I do want you ass fired so you suffer some punishment for ridiculous comments. See, it’s not just about having an opinion, it’s about sharing those opinions with others in an offensive and disrespectful way.
MIB
I think Imus got was he deserved and that media companies need to hire more women and minorities. I want to see individuals punished and see the larger problems addressed.