Jon Carroll, San Francisco Chronicle Columnist
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/04/13/DDGTLOSCTL1.DTLIt's been a bizarre week for fans of women's college basketball. I have spent years -- decades if you count my time with WomenSports magazine -- trying to convince people that the women's game is fun to watch. This year, I pleaded without notable success for my readers to tune in to the Women's Final Four, an event that featured one of the outstanding grudge matches of all time, North Carolina versus Tennessee. Well, y'all missed that, didn't you, and also the final against Rutgers versus Tennessee, which was, alas, not that good a game. As usually happens, heart and good coaching were overwhelmed by talent and good coaching. The Rutgers team had already done better than anyone expected, so it was pretty much win-win, and a satisfying end to the season. Then along came Don Imus and the "nappy-headed hos" comment. All of a sudden, women's basketball was in the spotlight. Imagine how proud we all were!
Imus is in for a few more days of discomfort -- the coach of Rutgers is C. Vivian Stringer, who is not someone you want to mess with. She coped with the early death of her husband and raised a special-needs child on her own, all the while guiding four teams to postseason basketball play. She comes from the old school, a school that propounds the quaint notion that insulting people randomly is rude and that insulting 19-year-old women by calling them prostitutes is despicable. I know, it was a joke. Imus does rude jokes all the time. He's an equal-opportunity jokester. All of which probably does not mean that much to a young black woman who's been called a "ho" on national television by an old white guy. Of course, he didn't meaning anything by it heh heh just a gag heh heh and, hey, lighten up, bitches. I mean, cherished college athletes.
We've been dealing in dangerous fun much too long. We have no idea where the boundaries are, or if there are any boundaries, or if we even approve of boundaries. After all, people seem to think that our designated jesters are just saying what other people are thinking. They're making explicit the hatred that lies within each of us, and therefore, in a way, they're actually helping the national dialogue. The Rutgers women should be grateful to have been the object of scorn so that we can better confront the devils of our worse nature. Does this actually make sense to you? Or is it some corner we've been backed into by a series of beliefs and assumptions? This isn't about free speech. I think Imus should have the right to say what he wants. He's been fired from both his jobs; that punishment seems sufficient, even excessive. A universe in which gangsta rap, "Borat" and Sarah Silverman are all tolerated or enjoyed is not a universe that should be getting all that righteous about one more shock jock saying one more shocking thing. The larger question is: Who let the id out? What is offensive? Is anything offensive? That issue seems to be mostly adjudicated by the courts or by government bureaucracies because we can't seem to make up our minds without help. Culpability is in inverse ratio to power. Some kid wears a "Buck Fush" T-shirt to school and gets slammed by his principal. Sacha Baron Cohen gets a free pass at least in part because his movie made $260 million worldwide, with DVD revenues still to come. Even people who were humiliated in the movie are now trying to be good sports because clearly the culture has said: You're wrong and he's right. Also, remember, Cohen is himself an observant Jew. Now tell me why that's important.
How do we distinguish faux anti-Semitism from real anti-Semitism? When is talk of "hos" and guns and "niggas" a legitimate part of street culture, and when is it racist epithet-hurling? Do you have to be one to insult one? Is that how we're going to figure this out? Intra-subgroup insults only! There's a mighty principle. Oh, if Thomas Jefferson could see us now. Or is the defense: as long as it's funny. "Borat" was funny, in part because it was so nervy. Is humor going to be a defense in slander suits? "Your honor, I plead not guilty by reason of risibility." Was that Michael Richards' problem -- his tirade wasn't funny? Should he get a do-over with better jokes? Instead, he had to issue a sincere apology. He had to go into rehab ("I admitted I was powerless over Negroes ...") He had to meet with people he offended. And the stain is lifted, unless it isn't, and his career is ruined, unless it isn't, and we're going to keep doing this on a case-by-case basis, waist deep in the big offal without a flashlight.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
