Don Imus and VA Tech - A Year Later (by Melvin Bray)
It was only a short year ago that "shock jock" Don Imus chose to refer to the accomplished women playing in the NCAA Basketball Finals as "nappy-headed hoes," later billing the match-up for his listeners as the "jiggaboos" versus the "wannabes." Imus' disrespect came as little surprise. He had a long history of slur and slander against Blacks, Africans, Asians, Latinos, Jews, Arabs, women, homosexuals, the poor, and just about anyone he considered unlike himself. And he had been paid handsomely to be so. The absurd brevity of his time spent off the air is perhaps only surpassed by the financial profitability of his return.
But the story that a middle-aged white man of means in the U.S. showed himself to be (or made his living as a) racist and sexist is not news to me. He is not the first, nor will he be the last. Not that what he did was not news-worthy, but his misogynistic or otherwise bigoted views seemed almost beside the point to me.
The thing that captured my attention regarding the Imus coverage the first half of April 2007 was the power dynamic. You see, power matters, and Imus had plenty of it, which he used unrepentantly to pummel with impunity the dispossessed, disenfranchised, or otherwise already marginalized. Don Imus, who is now with ABC, at the time had a nationally syndicated CBS radio show that was simulcast on MSNBC (how much money was he making?), which NPR reporter David Folkenflik further characterized as attracting "an educated, affluent audience." Most interesting to me, again, was not that this was the case; however, I was floored by the sheer number of "educated, affluent" folks who unreservedly championed Imus' "right" to do what he had been doing. It was as if the unapologetically privileged got together and declared, "How dare you have a problem with us continuing to exercise our privilege at your expense? This is the way it's supposed to be. Haven't you gotten the repeated memos?"
They said it was a First Amendment issue, to which my only response can be: Neither hate, discrimination, nor any other form of exclusionary practice or language is a First Amendment issue. Freedom of speech does not guarantee one the right to be heard. Hate does not deserve a publicly facilitated audience (e.g. radio and television air waves), and those who resource it privately deserve whatever nonviolent (particularly financial) backlash they get.
Then came the story of Seung Hui Cho. The Western world cried out in horror at the massacre Cho perpetrated on VA Tech's campus—"the single largest act of recorded handgun violence on U.S. soil in American history" (the qualifiers "recorded handgun violence" and "on U.S. soil" are important because they help to conceal our selective recollection and shocking history of violence, particularly that which has involved what we would call "state-sponsored terrorism" if it were directed at us from the outside).
And we wept. And so should we weep again in the upcoming weeks, but not just for Cho's victims. We should weep for Cho and others like him, who are victims as well ... of the Imuses of the world.
Seung Hui Cho's multimedia manifesto read like the diary of an oppressed who had finally been transformed to embody the rationale and methodologies of his oppressors. Having bought their propaganda, psychological abuse and mental illness demanded that, rather than joining them, he beat them with a ferocity commensurate to his own pain. What Cho and others like him fail to realize is that neither the methodology nor rationale of the oppressor is just, thus it is doomed to fail - immediately for the less powerful and inevitably for the more powerful. Though I confess to loving the whole V for Vendetta fantasy of striking a crippling blow to the imperial system on behalf of the oppressed while somehow avoiding harm to any innocents, that's all it is: fantasy.
Don't misunderstand: I am in no way defending, justifying, or excusing what Seung Hui Cho did April16, 2007. I just believe we need a good dose of "whole truth and nothing but the truth" as we try him again this year in the court of public opinion. In so doing, I hope we see the need to indict ourselves as well.
If you're struggling to connect the dots, consider this quote from one of Cho's high school and college classmates, Chris Davids, as reported on npr.org:
In an English class during high school, a teacher threatened Cho with a failing grade for participation unless he read aloud as the other students had. Cho [a Korean immigrant] started to read in a strange voice that sounded 'like he had something in his mouth,' Davids said.
'As soon as he started reading, the whole class started laughing and pointing and saying, "Go back to China!"
Imuses behave as if their privilege (power and prerogative) entitles them to further marginalize and/or humiliate anyone they so desire. Well, you might say, "Crowding someone out—pushing him to the margins—doesn't give him the right to lash out." Sure. Yet I ask along with Langston Hughes, "What happens to a dream deferred"—dreams of belonging and significance, security and prosperity, dreams of equity? How do we critique his or her means of survival (those with less power and prerogative) without also critiquing our own (those with more)?
I'm reminded of the closing scenes of Malcolm X, the movie, in which a series of persons from all over the globe (ending with Nelson Mandela) stand up and declare, "I'm Malcolm X!" It seemed to spawn a whole genre of "I wanna be like ______" commercials. We are so quick to associate ourselves with the best and the brightest. Perhaps it would be cathartic to own our demons as well, by declaring, "I too am Don Imus!"
What I'm afraid will happen instead is that we will disassociate ourselves from both Imus and Cho, choosing to see ourselves as the unwitting victims of both, much like one VA Tech affiliate quoted by NPR:
In a lot of ways it makes it better to know he's just a crazy person. That is just completely not our university's fault. This has nothing to do with anyone else. This is just his issue.
Such self-congratulations will only lead us blindly back into the thoughtless patterns of behavior that inspire this kind of violence. The only hope I see in overcoming this vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence is to abandon and subvert the rationale and methodology of anyone, any institution, or any system that seeks to justify or legitimize gain at the expense of others as a valid means to an end.
But wait a minute ... wasn't abandoning and subverting the dominant power structures the way of Jesus? Well, at least we don't have to reinvent the wheel.
Melvin Bray is a devoted husband, committed father, learner, teacher, writer, storyteller, lover of people, connoisseur of creativity, seeker of justice, and believer in possibilities. As founder of Kid Cultivators, he lives, loves, and dreams with friends in Atlanta, Georgia.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Unbelievable. I’ve never seen so much victimization preached in one article.
Posted by: DITE | April 15, 2008 12:40 PM
I'm not Don Imus. Neither am I a victim of him. I had not thought of the man in about a year.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 15, 2008 12:55 PM
Believable:
I too am DITE!
May the wheel continue to roll!!
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | April 15, 2008 12:55 PM
I too am kevin s, and we have Abraham as our father!
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | April 15, 2008 1:39 PM
"What I'm afraid will happen instead is that we will disassociate ourselves from both Imus and Cho, choosing to see ourselves as the unwitting victims of both"
Sounds like a reasonable position to me.
Posted by: Gordon | April 15, 2008 1:39 PM
["What I'm afraid will happen instead is that we will disassociate ourselves from both Imus and Cho, choosing to see ourselves as the unwitting victims of both"
Sounds like a reasonable position to me.]
G
Remember John 9? I don't think that the story of the man born blind; was recorded to just show us how foolish the twelve were, and how wrong the Pharisees were. Rather it is to show that we too are foolish and wrong.
Jesus said, ‘I came into this world for judgement so that those who do not see may see, and those who do see may become blind.’ 40Some of the Pharisees near him heard this and said to him, ‘Surely we are not blind, are we?’ 41Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would not have sin. But now that you say, “We see”, your sin remains.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | April 15, 2008 2:15 PM
wow, so if we saying that listening to the i-man will will cause this kind of hatered, what are we saying about listening to black liberation theology and the rev. wright for 20 years? sounds extremely damagaging to me. roger
Posted by: roger | April 15, 2008 2:58 PM
I refuse to "indict" myself for Cho's action. Anyone who thinks a rational response to being made fun of is to go on a shooting rampage is crazy in my book. The Rutgers womens' basketball team didn't go on a rampage. They handled Imus' idiotic comments like mature adults.
I completely agree with Melvin when he writes that
"The only hope I see in overcoming this vicious cycle of violence and counter-violence is to abandon and subvert the rationale and methodology of anyone, any institution, or any system that seeks to justify or legitimize gain at the expense of others as a valid means to an end." But attempting to turn Cho into a victim isn't going to help this cause.
Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 3:09 PM
Thousands of people died to bring civil rights to all Americans. To be sure, that work is incomplete, but painting Seung Hui Cho as a victim is an insult to those martyrs. It's also an insult to the millions of people of color who endure similar racism without resorting to random violence. Lastly, this article insults the Rutgers women's basketball team, whose graceful, dignified response to Don Imus's words did more to marginalize him than any activist could have done.
Peace.
Posted by: aquaman | April 15, 2008 3:12 PM
I'm not Don Imus. Neither am I a victim of him. I had not thought of the man in about a year.
Posted by: kevin s. | April 15, 2008 12:55 PM
That's a truly sad statement, Kevin.
Sadder still, is that you appear to be proud of your pompous religianity.
Posted by: canucklehead | April 15, 2008 3:19 PM
"Don't misunderstand: I am in no way defending, justifying, or excusing what Seung Hui Cho did April16, 2007. I just believe we need a good dose of "whole truth and nothing but the truth" as we try him again this year in the court of public opinion. In so doing, I hope we see the need to indict ourselves as well."
When someone goes to this card, I think of them in the same way that I do of someone who goes to the "I'm not a racist, I have black friends" card.
There were times growing up when I was picked on, but I never took guns and shot my school up. I'm not perfect, but at least I am not that idiotic.
As for the whole "America is to blame because we are evil" thing, the only thing that America should be doing after VT is to increase the availability of mental illness treatments. All the stuff about guns is nonsense. The gun didn't lock the doors and shoot all those people by itself, the idiot did. Hopefully the Supreme Court this summer will recognize what most Americans already know, namely that the 2nd Amendment means what it says.
Personally I think the writer of this article, just like Senator Obama, needs to actually get away from his elitest group of friends and go off into the real world to see how real Americans of all colors and faiths deal with life.
Posted by: MadHatter07 | April 15, 2008 3:36 PM
I've always found it disturbing that people like Don Imus even have an audience. The fact that people listen to his show at all means that there are masses of people who wish they could be as belligerent and arrogant as he is, who wish they were allowed to show the same disregard he has for, you know, like, other people. That bothers me.
Lookit, a lot of middle-class (white) people I know get all upset when someone implies that they're experiencing success at the expense of someone else. But if you're not even willing to listen to other voices and pay attention to others' experiences, if you listen to the Don Imuses of the world to any degree at all, it seems to me you're really not helping your case that you're completely blameless.
Posted by: JustTalkingHere | April 15, 2008 3:37 PM
Deryll -
Nice sermon, but I didn't get your point.
Posted by: Gordon | April 15, 2008 4:18 PM
Point 1: Don Imus was/is rude, disrespectful, and bigoted. He is a disgrace to talk radio.
Point 2: I am OK with him being fired. I would have fired him, and definitely would not have re-hired him.
Point 3: Equating this all with middle-aged rich white people is just a bigoted, rude and disrespectful.
Point 4: Where does this leave the rude comments of Rev. Wright who referred to Ms. Rice, the esteemed and brilliant Sec. of State, as "Condaskeeza" or USKKKA? Are you all O.K with that hatred, that bigotry?
Last thought. I am currently reading "Up from Slavery". Booker T. Washington is a hero and an inspiration. These quotes come from Booker T. Washington, and are much food for thought for both Imus, Rev. Wright and any other individual(s)who revel in racism or victimization and "righteous indignation" or irreverent humor. (Remember, he WAS a slave)
"I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my soul by making me hate him."
"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs-partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs."
"I have learned that success is to be measured not so much by the position that one has reached in life as by the obstacles which he has overcome while trying to succeed. Out of the hard and unusual struggle through which he is compelled to pass, he gets a strength, a confidence, that one misses whose pathway is comparatively smooth by reason of birth and race."
Posted by: Armed2Win | April 15, 2008 4:20 PM
I never post on these because most of the comments are just bickering among a few posters, but I feel compelled to post right now.
What is largely at issue here is the idea of collective responsibility. It's a complex and controversial theory that claims that members of a society are all in some way responsible for the actions of their government/society/leaders. Not GUILTY, which is a personal notion, but RESPONSIBLE, which is less personally condemning but still implies fault at the personal level (to a much lesser degree).
If you subscribe to this idea that responsibility is shared among an entire society for its actions and particular situation, then Mr. Bray has a point. We are not GUILTY personally for Cho's actions nor for Imus's actions. We are responsible collectively (to a much smaller degree than guilt implies) for the social situation that contributed to their individual actions.
That social situation has at least two major parts: power relations and socially held values. On power relations, our society allows (and in many cases condones through the institutions of the court and legislatures) the abuse of power. Our society also allows for power to be associated with certain groups more than others (e.g. men more than women, whites more than minorities, rich more than poor). It's pretty hard to argue with the fact that power is concentrated in some hands more than others in America, but I trust someone will try. Socially held values are interrelated with power relations. We see power, and we attach value. We see value, and we attach power. It works both ways.
Imus is allowed to spew hateful speech on the airwaves because he has an audience. His audience has power and he has power both because of them and over them. As a society we allow this abuse of power and the damage it causes, and we are responsible for the existence of the audience.
Cho, who was mentally ill, made his choices in part because he fell through the holes of the social safety net. This society is responsible both for the existence of the social safety net, and for its failings, even if someone else is guilty because they failed to provide Cho with medication or counseling, or because they contributed to his marginalization by ridiculing him.
The point is, we can't be outraged about the bad things that happen in our society and not understand that we, as a part of that society, bear some responsibility for the conditions that contributed to that event. The perpetrator may be GUILTY, but we all have RESPONSIBILITY.
The flip side is that one successful person cannot claim full credit for their success, either. They depended on a society's infrastructure, education system, opportunities provided, etc. in order to become successful. The society shares responsibility for the good things, too. Without the commitment of a society to provide opportunity, education, and infrastructure, they couldn't have happened, and the successful person would not be successful.
We talk a lot about personal responsibility, but we also need to talk about collective responsibility - for both the good things and the bad. We are not totally separate from each other, we are interrelated and we share some responsibility for the priorities and situation of our society by virtue of our existence in a community.
And if you're having a hard time thinking about this in terms of collective responsibility, think of it in terms of duty. Duty is a manifestation of the feeling of responsibility to one's society, because one understands that one is not an island. The other emotion to think about is shame. People feel shame when they have violated some code of social existence (whether real or perceived, justified or not). Shame is fundamentally social feeling, guilt is fundamentally individual feeling.
Please meditate on the difference between personal guilt and collective responsibility. I'm sure this will be controversial, but at least think on it when your knee-jerk reaction is to say "I'm not Imus nor am I Cho." I'm not either, and no one but they are guilty for their actions, but we are all responsible for the situations that contribute to their actions.
Posted by: newbie | April 15, 2008 4:36 PM
Interesting how some whites always quote Booker T, just the way they quote MLK's "color-blind society" stuff.
But never do they quote MLK's indictment of U.S. capitalism nor Booker T's far more militant and far more consequential contemporary, WEB DuBois.
Wonder if Jesus wept for Cho while he wept for Cho's victims?
Posted by: carl copas | April 15, 2008 4:39 PM
Newbie,
I appreciate your first contribution to the comment sections; I stay away from some topics too because of the bickering. I definitely see the difference between guilt and responsibility. It all depends on what your definition of "society" means though. Do you equate "society" with "country"?
I agree that as Christians we have a responsibility to help meet the needs of our fellow man. But there are limits to what we can do for each other as well. I look at it as sort of concentric circles radiating out for me. The farther something takes place from my sphere of influence, the less I'm responsible for it. For example, if I'm walking down the street and see someone abusing someone else and I ignore it, I'm not guilty of abuse, but I'm definitely partly responsible because I saw it and did nothing. But if someone is being abused in the next town over, I'm certainly not as responsible. If this abuse takes place 3000 miles away across the country I'd argue I'm not really responsible at all.
Cho and his "abusers" are outside my sphere of influence. I am not responsible for hateful remarks said to Cho or for Imus' hateful remarks simply because we live in the same country.
Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 4:54 PM
Carl,
I don't find it particularly interesting at all. There's nothing wrong with quoting someone when you agree with that person and not quoting them when you disagree. Do you only quote people that you agree with on every single point?
And there's certainly nothing wrong with quoting one person and neglecting to quote a contemporary of theirs.
I believe that Jesus weeps for all of us.
Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 5:01 PM
Carl, I didn't know about that quote until I read it as quoted by Larry Elder ("The Sage from South Central) in his commentary over race relations. He can be found at http://www.larryelder.com/. He has an interesting outlook on race, to say the least.
Carl, how do you know I am white? Do you know that for sure? I quoted Booker T Washington because I believe he embodies the principles that Jesus asks of all his followers and showed by example.
I guarantee Jesus wept for Cho. I wept for him too, for I once was marginalized and ridiculed and ostracized. I have been belittled and rejected. I have been tormented and taunted, yet I chose to rise above it all. Does that make me any better? NO! There are so many others in this world who have undergone much worse than me or Cho (like Booker T. Washington) and triumphed.
Thats why I quote Mr. Washington.
Posted by: Armed2Win | April 15, 2008 5:33 PM
As someone who lived in Littleton when Columbine happened, it was very controversial whether or not Kliebol and Harris were victims as well as perpetrators. I know I wept for both.
I did not weep for Imus when he got slammed for being aweful, but did weep when he was hired again. I would love to live in a world where such comments ruined a person for life. I do think those who listened to him and enjoy such shock jock stuff are guilty too.
I agree with Eric, Jesus weeps for more people than I do.
As for Booker T. Washington, I always heard such good things about him growing up -- and now you're not really allowed to mention his name. I never really understood that.
Posted by: frankie | April 15, 2008 5:42 PM
A POINT THAT HAS BEEN MISSED WAS NBC'S DECISION TO BROADCAST SOME OF Seung Hui Cho'S RANTS ON ITS EVENING NEWS. I FIND SUCH OUTLET FOR VIOLENCE AND HATRED FAR MORE DISTURBING AND PROFANE THAN ANYTHING DON IMUS EVER SAID. THE CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP. HAS A POLICY NOT SHOWING SUCH REPORTS OUT OF CONCERN FOR CHILDREN. WE CAN FORGIVE WITH Seung Hui Cho AND GRIEVE FOR HIS FAMILY, BUT WE SHOULD NOT GIVE HIM A NATIONAL OLATFORM AS NBC DID.
AS FOR IMUS, I WOULD SUGGEST READING TODAY'S VOICE OF THE DAY ON FORGIVENESS IN RELATING TO DON IMUS.
Posted by: Stephen Brown | April 15, 2008 5:46 PM
"I don't find it particularly interesting at all."
It's a free country. I happen to find it interesting.
"Do you only quote people that you agree with on every single point?"
No, that would be impossible.
"And there's certainly nothing wrong with quoting one person and neglecting to quote a contemporary of theirs."
I didn't say there was. I said that I find that particular pattern, quoting Washington and not DuBois, quoting MLK on color-blindness and not on capitalism, to be of interest.
I believe that Jesus weeps for all of us."
I agree.
"Carl, how do you know I am white? Do you know that for sure?"
No I don't know. That's why I didn't say you're white.
"I quoted Booker T Washington because I believe he embodies the principles that Jesus asks of all his followers and showed by example."
I'd like you to elaborate on this. Please offer Scriptural citations in support.
Posted by: carl copas | April 15, 2008 5:48 PM
Sorry, but I am not convinced by the author's analysis of the source of Mr. Cho's crime. Cho was mentally ill. The killings arose from this very unfortunate fact, not from racism or any other social cause. I think the author stretches his analysis here too far. Racism does not belong in the discussion of every tragedy that happens to involve a member of a racial minority.
And as much as I respect Sojourners, I am saddened that this author feels that he can get away with a blanket statement like this: "But the story that a middle-aged white man of means in the U.S. showed himself to be (or made his living as a) racist and sexist is not news to me."
Too trite, too general. It tars a lot of people with a very negative brush.
I agree that Don Imus is a jerk. I detest racism. Let's discuss racial issues in a fair and respectful way.
Posted by: Bill | April 15, 2008 6:10 PM
Carl,
First, your comment was of insinuation and assumption: "Interesting how some whites always quote Booker T, just the way they quote MLK's "color-blind society" stuff." Since I brought up Booker T, I think it is fair to make the conclusion.
Secondly, you asked for scriptural support, so here are some of the verses I am basing my statement off of, and can be extrapolated through what Booker T stated:
"You have heard the law that says, 'Love your neighbor' and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even pagans do that." ~Matthew 5:43-47
Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior. Instead, be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, just as God through Christ has forgiven you. ~Ephesians 4:31
"By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." ~John 13:35
"Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing."
James 1:2-4
These are just a sampling of many scriptures...
This racial blame game has got to stop! How can we expect the Grace of God to fill us if we cannot treat other's with that same Grace that has been poured out on us?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." ~Galatians 3:28
Posted by: Armed2Win | April 15, 2008 8:27 PM
newbie said it well, if society has treated you well and allowed your hard work to benefit you well, then you owe far more to society than those who could not do as well.
Posted by: Oak | April 16, 2008 12:59 AM
Thank you newbie for some perceptions which cut below the normal stereotypical responses often seen on this site.
We too saved money and closed the mental institutions and dumped many on the street. We too made false promises that care would be given. We now have more complaints of the mentally ill being injured by police, or suiciding or worse after not being given treatment when needed.
So it is OK to demonise the powerless, but do not be surprised if the mentally unstable explode.
The self satisfied comments made about free speech, are there no limits? - try shouting fire in a crowded theatre with poor fire exits? If you have, as we have, many mentally ill in your church, you soon learn that what seems quite reasonable and clear in meaning to you is anything but to some. We do not expect a person with a broken leg to run a marathon do we?
Common sense and good will seems anything but common.
Posted by: JohnH | April 16, 2008 9:16 AM
if cho is a victim, which i believe he is, then i'd have to suggest that imus himself was also a victim. both of them are in a large sense victims of empire and the inertia of its effects on their caricatured senses of self. i think if we are to understand the ways of Jesus properly, it is to understand the depth at which we are at once victims and victimizers. if that is the sense that bray is suggesting we not disassociate ourselves with both extremes, i would have to agree. without community and a healthy sense of other, we should be cautious of vilifying anyone, lest we so easily forget the grace that has been offered to us.
Posted by: david Park | April 16, 2008 9:54 AM
Since 1/4 of my heritage is German, does that make me partially responsible (as a victimizer) for the actions of Nazism? Am I partially responsible for the Holocaust (as a member of a society that 60+ years ago ignored it)? (I wasn't born yet, by the way.) Am I partially to blame for rampant antisemitism, even though I take no part in it?
I think something rather profound is missed in all of this, and it is right under Mr. Bray's post on the main page:
"Voice of the Day: Forgiveness
Forgiveness is giving up the right to retaliate. Forgiveness is the willingness to have something happen the way it happened. It's not true that you can't forgive something; it's a matter of the will, and you always have the choice. Forgiveness is never dependent on what the other person does or does not do; it is always under our control. Forgiveness is giving up the insistence on being understood.... Jesus forgave those who crucified him. This is a radically new way of thinking. For those who accept and practice this discipline, there is a release of energy and a sense of freedom.
- Pixie Koestline Hammond
For Everything There Is a Season"
If we cannot move beyond the need for retribution, there is no hope for a glorious future of unity!
Posted by: Armed2Win | April 16, 2008 10:34 AM
It was frustrating to me to hear some folks decry Imus' firing as "censorship" and to call it a First Amendment issue. Nobody is obligated under the First Amendment to give another person a platform. Thie issue was not his "right" to say those things but his personal responsibility to be part of the solution rather than the problem. No, that responsibility is not dictated nor enforced by the government, but we the people have the First Amendment right AND the responsibility to pressure commercial media not to give a platform to irresponsibility.
It's a shame that some educated folks didn't seem to get this, prefering to cast it as a freedom of speech issue while Imus makes his millions and walks away laughing.
Posted by: I and I | April 16, 2008 10:46 AM
This has become a heated debate, as issues of race and bigotry always become. Our views are deeply shaped by our contexts, and even the call from some of the commenters here for people to leave their elitists circles is an assertion for people to be acquainted with their better, more accurate context.
Context absolutely matters. And I think that's actually the point of this article. We cannot divorce ourselves from the subconscious contributions we make to the society that we live in.
The memory of Cho gets mainly chalked up to mental instability, a freak of nature that we can comfortably distance our social consciousness from. I think the article is challenging that comfort zone. Imus is just a litmus test for where we are as a nation. If we are still a nation that wants to listen and endorse a man like him such that the media outlets take notice, then doesn't it just say something about who we are? And is it so untenable to connect that to the hateful acts of a disturbed young person who would have been largely subject to such forces at work?
The point is not to find the demon of racism hiding behind every bush, to use it as the great scapegoat for anything that happens to any non-white American. But we cannot say, "Virginia Tech was not Rodney King or Vincent Chen, so let's not make this a RACE thing". Acting or observing only in response to the magnitude of blatant wrongdoing will always dismiss the subtle effects of racism, purely because of subtlety.
Cho WAS steeped in a subtly racist environment. Even if this doesn't not wash blood from his hands, it IS worth some reflection.
Posted by: Anakainosis | April 16, 2008 11:17 AM
Wow Melvin, you caused quite a stir here.
But I also struggle with Cho's actions. Clearly he had psychological problems, but learning he had been socially victimized as an asian immigrant especially at a young age... that'll mess you up. I can't relate, but that's got to mess you up. I'm not sure to what degree society's involved although I do know that it is.
I think my concern is that the readers will see a one-sided argument in your article. That it is purely society's fault. I'm not sure what to think.
If you go to youtube and see his video, look at the comments. They're sad, angry, and racist. "F**k you, you chink. Glad you died" sort of thing. But then, how would I react?
With Imus, I don't have an opinion.. =\
Posted by: Dan | April 16, 2008 11:30 AM
I am a 27-year-old Korean-American. After graduating from an Ivy League law school, I am in my second year as an attorney at the largest and most prestigious law firm in the city, counted among the top 40 firms nationwide. I am a committed Christian, serving in my church, and I have long been a supporter of Sojourners. My friends say that I have an excitable but largely sensible personality, and I tend to always try to mediate extreme views.
A few months ago, I was walking home from work around 2 am. I live in a trendy nightclub district, and as I walked, I passed three young white males standing on the street. They all looked at me, but they didn't seem unfriendly, and as I generally do when people look me in the eye, I smiled and said "Hi". One of them replied, "Hey." I kept walking, not really thinking anything at all.
I walked about five steps and I heard a voice behind me yell out, "GO BACK TO TOKYO, MOTHERF---ER", and then laughter from his companions.
I didn't turn around. I was steps away from my apartment, so I just kept walking. But I was absolutely burning inside. I had some incredibly hateful thoughts, even violent ones. After a while, my hate took the form of roughing one guy up, getting his information, and then launching into a tirade about how I work at the best law firm in town, and how he is going to be exceedingly sorry when I sue his ignorant mug into utter and extreme poverty. I wanted to somehow find a way to ruin his family's life as well, just as an exercise of power. I somehow wanted to let him know that I am a far, far better person than he would ever be.
This is not an easy confession for me to make. You hear the quiet pity that comes as a response from saintly Christians as they are ignorantly persecuted. And I am what most would consider a rational, compassionate, easygoing person, devout in faith and love. Maybe it is those faculties that prevented me from acting on my emotions.
But the emotions were there. And that's after one comment after a long and tired night at work.
I cannot imagine what it would be like to face that on a regular basis, in the emotionally formative stages of life, from people I KNOW and not strangers on the street. And if I were more emotionally and mentally unstable, who knows what it would trigger?
The instability may have inhibited normal social judgment, thus causing Cho's actions. But when you look at the bigger picture, can we separate an environment of ignorant hatred from instability in the first place? Isn't that at LEAST an exacerbating factor? And even if we try to distinguish instability from victimization, does it make sense to focus more on the instability?
It's certainly more comfortable to do so, but it doesn't seem like our society has taken up arms against mental and emotional instability either. If we did, we might see that instability is not far removed from being victimized by systemic prejudice.
Posted by: an educated asian | April 16, 2008 12:01 PM
Armed2Win, thank you for Scriptural citations.
Posted by: carl copas | April 16, 2008 12:49 PM
Thank you! 27-year-old Korean-American. We are all sinners. We all fall short.
Gordon, the point of Jesus response, to those who considered themselves guiltless, was that their arrogance was proof of their guilt.
Igor
Posted by: Deryll | April 16, 2008 1:49 PM
That's a truly sad statement, Kevin.
Sadder still, is that you appear to be proud of your pompous religianity.
Posted by: canucklehead ,
Yikes , no coffee or too much ? I only watched imus in the morning when I had stayed up real late , I work swing anyway , and could stand about 5 minutes of his arrogance and humor . To me he was about 2 minutes longer then I can stand
wrestling . So I understood what kevin was saying . Imus had little to do with many people .
Because you give importance to what a person is saying makes his comments appear worse .Hence I think many conservatives say what is the big deal , and more liberals who thought the show was a good enetrtainment , and a way to get out their message or whatever were shocked and disgusted by what Imus said . Be mad at Imus , not Kevin . Kevin never Imus any clout to begin with .
Different subject . What are you guys paying for gas up there ?
Posted by: Mick | April 16, 2008 2:15 PM
"Newbie" and the "educated asian" said it all far better than I could.
I feel sorry for those with the attitudes that they have no responsibility for what ails us as mankind, for they don't do anything wrong themselves.
On the contrary, if you know something others don't, that something is seriously wrong, and you recognise why, then you are obligated to do good to correct the situation.
Knowledge doesn't absolve you from responsibility, it lays it upon you.
As Alexandr Solzhenitsysn wrote, "Bless you prison, bless you for being in my life, for there, lying on the rotting prison straw, I came to learn that life does not consist in the abundance of things or materialism, as we are taught, but in the maturing of the human soul."
Moreover, the freedom of a society is not measured by how many TV channels of violence nad pornography you have to choose from, nor how deeply in debt you can go to indulge in materialism, but by how much good that society allows you to do for others.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 16, 2008 2:41 PM
I was personally encouraged by people standing up on this post and distancing themselves from Imus. To me, it's like saying, "Hey, I follow Christ." It is taking a stand against calling people names for laughs.
I also want to apologize to our Educated Asian for the actions of my white counter-parts. Don't take it personally -- those types called out to almost anyone about any thing. It angers me greatly that they would do that to you, and then you had to figure out how to deal with it.
When the Mental Health institutions closed, it wasn't an entirely bad thing. Many individuals were institutionalized who really just needed medication. The idea was that more people could get the help they need if we are not paying for more help than people need. (And sadly, many in institutions were not getting helped, just hidden.)
Unfortunately, we don't have any means of making sure people are getting the help they need. How freaky would a friend have to act before you thought about calling in someone for help? Most of us aren't educated to get people mental help in a crisis. Most communities have some sort of facilities to help with these situations, we just don't know where to find them. 911 is a good place to start.
Posted by: frankie | April 16, 2008 4:20 PM
I'm disappointed that Sojourners would even publish this article. It seems to me you wanted to stir the pot a little--just to see what kind of response you'd get. You're rationale is sadly misguided in my view.
Posted by: Phil | April 16, 2008 4:44 PM
It is possible both to condemn Cho's actions and ask what we as a society can do to prevent them. Access to mental health services is important, but to say this is solely a mental health issue is to pass the buck. Like "educated Asian" eloquently described, racism is alive and well, as is simple cultural insensitivity. At elite educational institutions (I too went to an Ivy league law school), professors often say, "Participation is part of your grade, but if for whatever reason you are uncomfortable participating in class, let me know privately and we'll work out an additional project you can do instead." It's not uncommon for non-native speakers to choose the project over the class participation. This is just one example of how cultural differences can be mitigated in a respectful manner. High school teachers need to be trained in cultural sensitivity -- obviously Cho's were not. To overlook this obvious failure of our educational system as one cause of the VT events would be unfortunate.
Posted by: Anon | April 16, 2008 4:52 PM
I believe my comment has been taken down, for one reason or another. It may be in part because I didn't communicate clearly.
I did NOT actually retaliate against my perpetrators. The retaliations I described were part of the emotionally charged thoughts and imagined reactions. I realize that wasn't clear in my comment, which wasn't as carefully crafted as my profession teaches me to be.
But for those who don't see it posted anymore, I described a story, as an Ivy League-educated 27-year-old Korean-American attorney, where I had one tough encounter with some guys in the street outside of my apartment that profanely told me to go back to tokyo.
I burned with anger and wanted to retaliate with incredible intensity. For me, an easygoing, rational, relaxed Christian person to be boiled over with such incredible emotion, to one single comment noted by a complete stranger...
Compare that with being immersed in an environment of racially-charged negativity (as opposed to a one-time encounter) by people you know (in Cho's case, his classmates), and combine it with more emotional and mental instability... it's just my opinion, but I don't see why it's difficult to see how the racial undercurrents are explosive when combined with other personal instabilities.
And it follows, then, that while we should address a host of issues (how we treat unstable people, how we look at gun control, security on college campuses), it absolutely bears consideration to look at that racially-charged environment and understand that it plays more than a nuanced role. It is fair to say that an alarmingly large number of Americans tune into Imus, and it's not a stretch to say that some portion of that population's reason for listening into Imus displays some glimpse in part into what's wrong with our country.
The problem is not so pervasive that all non-minorities are running around like Imus everywhere, propagating defamatory attitudes and prejudice. Of course not. But the purpose of an article like this is to keep us aware that as much as we may not like to admit it, and as much as we personally may not be sharing those destructive views, the problem might be a lot more pervasive than we'd like to think it is.
If my previous comment has been taken down for a different reason, please e-mail me and let me know. Thanks.
Posted by: an educated asian | April 16, 2008 5:45 PM
Carl, you are most welcome! Those are tough verses to live by. I struggle with them on a daily basis!!! Shalom...
Posted by: Armed2Win | April 16, 2008 10:20 PM
"That's a truly sad statement, Kevin."
That I had not thought of Don Imus? Why should a shock jock's dumb commentary cause me to contemplate the man?
"I've always found it disturbing that people like Don Imus even have an audience. "
Well, I don't think his comments on women's basketball are what draw his audience. In fairness, I think he draws an audience by saying things people don't expect him to say, which at least keeps things interesting on a car ride home.
That's not to defend Imus, but I think it is a bit much to pretend that everyone is tuning in, waiting for the latest diatribe. He is politically moderate, and known for chafing against everyone's values a bit.
Posted by: Kevin S. | April 17, 2008 1:36 AM
"Victimization" - - - another 21st century phenomenon which, if continued, will almost guarantee the downfall of our society. If we cannot, as a society, get past the idea that almost everything we do, think, say, or feel is "someone else's fault," we are done for.
Imus was, and is, an entertainer. That is all he is. He doesn't need to affect me, if I don't want him to, if I don't choose to allow him to. The killer at Virginia Tech was just that - - a killer, regardless of his mental condition, regardless of the degree of his previous humiliation, experiences of discrimination, or whatever. He did it. He is a killer. I didnt cause it. You didnt cause it. He made the call.
We need to get a national reality check.
Posted by: joekc | April 17, 2008 7:46 AM
I tried to listen to Imus a couple of times, and just found him boring. As far as I can see he was just a shock jock who went too far. They usually do, get fired, then reappear later on some other station or network. They occupy a niche suitable for the entertainment of adolescent minds.
Posted by: Gordon | April 17, 2008 9:59 AM
Sojourner Truth,
I completely agree with your comments on what freedom means. Well said!
I think there's a big difference between saying we're all responsible for what ails mankind and we're all responsible for the specific actions of another individual, such as Cho or Imus. We should all be working in our spheres of influence to correct as best we can the effects of the fall. This will mean different things to different people, but it's all of our responsibilities. But I am not responsible and will not be held responsible for every sinful action of every human being. It's not because I've done no wrong myself, it's because we've all been given free will. I'm not responsible for someone thousands of miles away choosing do to evil.
Posted by: Eric | April 17, 2008 10:16 AM
" It's not because I've done no wrong myself, it's because we've all been given free will. I'm not responsible for someone thousands of miles away choosing do to evil."
Of course, this flies in the face of some people's assertions that it was our responsibility to address the problems Hitler and his collaborators caused in Europe, or that Saddam Hussein caused in Iraq - all evil done thousands of miles away. (I do happen to think that doing good strategically years earlier on would have ameliorated those crises and saved untold lives.)
I do believe that in reality, we forget how interconnected we all are, and how seemingingly insignificant acts of kindness, acts to the contrary or abdication of the same can have magnified consequences that one would not have expected, for eventual good or evil. Even on the other side of town, state, country or world.
Sometimes individuals exercise their free will (something that is really a misnomer, since freedom is so constrained by original sin away from the maximum capacity to do good for others) in ways that cause terrible harm. Yet their actions are a long culmination of other things that happened to them and other choices they made before. At any particular time before, intervention by someone else doing good was possible. And small actions, for good or ill, fan out in influence to others.
Never, never, think that your smallest choices to do good for others are of small importance. They are crucial to the well-being of us all.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | April 17, 2008 10:53 AM
I think blaming all this on racism is passing the buck. Hatred is hatred and it's done for a lot more reasons that race -- but it's just as destructive.
Acts of kindness to counteract the acts of hatred that people have to endure every day. I remember being in a Christian sporting event as a teen -- when the parents broke out in a little league type brawl over an umpire's ruling. I was ready to throw every good thing about the program all away; when a coach for another team clarified a point, 'God hates this kind of behavior.'
Those simple words undid the damage of all that was said in the outburst for me.
We can counteract hatred with love and truth. Lots of times its even free to do so.
Posted by: Connie | April 17, 2008 1:07 PM
Different subject . What are you guys paying for gas up there ?
Posted by: Mick | April 16, 2008 2:15 PM
right now in Alberta it's around $1.15/litre and there are about 4 litres in an American gallon; it's usually anywhere from 5-10 cents/litre higher elsewhere in Canada
Posted by: canucklehead | April 17, 2008 2:59 PM
Imus was popular because he called things as he sees them without circumlocutions and euphemisms. When he offended the tenets of political correctness he was disciplined. Now he is baaaaaaaaccckkk!
Here's a modest suggestion: if you don't like Imus, don't listen to him. If you don't like Rush Limbaugh. Move that dial! But, lots of people do like them, and they sure bring in those advertising dollars, which, after all, is what entertainment is all about.
Finally, I can't believe anybody with brains takes Imus, Limbaugh, Ed Schultz, Bill Press, and other right wingnuts and left wingnuts seriously. All they do is say outrageous things to sell advertising.
Cheers.
Posted by: jsens | April 17, 2008 10:37 PM
I mother works at VT and was in the building where most of the shooting took place. She is fine thankfully. I agree with the fact that Cho was as much a victim as anyone. People who have a sense of belonging to a community don't typically commit the kind of horrible acts that he did. And as for him being "crazy", that may be true but our society is just as guilty when we don't stand up against the lack of services for people living with mental illness. That is just as criminal as far as I'm concerned. Yes Jesus wept for Cho as much for every other person who is marginalized and made to feel worthless.
Posted by: Leigh | April 21, 2008 10:03 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?