I'm sorry but I've lived in the New York area for too many years and heard too much rhetoric from Al Sharpton to take anything he spouts too seriously. He's a racial ambulance chaser and always has been ...it works for his ratings and he has a fan base too. Remember Twana Brawley and OJ Simpson? Look up Sharpton's opinions and spouts on those.
Imus is a pain but his show is something of a salon for politicians and journalists and aside from Imus is a good place to hear a variety of opinions. That's more than I can say of Sharpton's show.
Oh, I very much agree that the good Rev. Sharpton has on a ton of occasions weighed in on matters before all the facts were in. For recent events, his open condemnation of the college soccer players that were indicted for raping the stripper at a party - and who have since been cleared - is one example. I have not seen any retractions from Sharpton about his ill fated statements. Instead there was radio silence.
At the same time, I cannot overlook the fact that he has lent his name and his money to a number of groups across the country that are addressing the problems of prenancy, unemployment and other social ills among the black community by social responsibility.
That Sharpton is a publicity hound that flies off the handle, IMO, does not negate the fact of Imus saying something that did not have to be said. Further, I think the decision to fire Imus all boiled down to money. The sponsors walked and the knee jerk reaction was to let him go. If the sponsors had held firm, I doubt he would have had more than the suspension.
That's the thing I don't understand. Blacks will call themselves MUCH WORSE names than what I'm sure Imus used, but that doesn't seem to matter. If it's derogatory for one, it's derogatory for all. NO ONE should use those terms. At least, that's my take on it. Anyone is welcome to disagree.
Unfortunately, that is not the way it is, mamab. I worked in textiles for twelve years, with a predominanly African American work force. While it was considered just fine for any one in there to describe others of their race by such terms as being ligh-skinned to coffee to dark chocolate and even up to and including the "n" word, it was not understood to have the same meaning as if someone of a different race used the same terms. To give my former co-workers credit, I never heard any of them refer to a white person as anything but "white" - no honky, no paleface.
I would equate it to the way that other sectors of society may take pokes at others in their group, but close ranks when someone outside the group does the same thing. Catholics and Mormons come to mind, in that both groups may criticize or make fun of themselves internally, but the same verbiage employed by someone outside the religions will result immediately in the ranks being closed.
