When They Harness Their Power

This interesting article in Time ends with a quote from Kia Vaughn of the Rutgers basketball team with which we can (I hope) all agree:

I'm a woman, and I'm someone's child...I achieve a lot. And unless they've given this name, a 'ho,' a new definition, then that is not what I am.

I refuse to defend Imus, and I don't want to make the same "rappers say it all the time" argument we've been reading so much of on the conservative blogosphere. However, rappers do say that all the time, and this does raise certain questions in my mind.

According to some, our society has experienced the "death of outrage," but the Imus and Michael Richards fallouts clearly demonstrate this isn't so. Outrage is alive and well in this country. It's incredibly effective, but also selective.

The aforementioned Time article agonizes over where the "line" is in regards to controversial statements. Well, for one thing, we know where it's not:

All women should be respectfully addressed in public discourse unless their actions indicate they deserve otherwise.

I would wholeheartedly approve of such a line (through societal condemnation and voluntary broadcasting decisions, not governmental censorship), and I think most conservatives would agree. According to the Drudge Report, the Rev. Al Sharpton feels "that this is only the beginning. We must have a broad discussion on what is permitted and not permitted in terms of the airwaves..." Does he plan to launch a concerted effort to purge Snoop Dogg from radio? I doubt it.

I know that many in the civil rights establishment have criticized rap lyrics (as well as members of the Rutgers basketball team themselves). But what has been missing from their attacks is the outrage they reserve for the likes of Imus.

This is further evidence that the left cares much more about motivation than results. Were the concrete prevention of the denigration of black women the goal, would not gangsta rap receive as much indignation as Imus? After all, who affects the lives of these women more directly, someone whose music they and the males in their lives hear every day, or an old radio host they've never heard of?

I would love to see black women treated more respectfully, and I humbly argue as an member of another ethnic group (but fellow human being) that the most effective way to encourage respect for black women is to discourage anyone from labeling them "hoes." Old white guys do it occasionally and loose their jobs. Young black guys do it repeatedly and meet with senators.

But for obvious reasons, we can't accuse Ludacris of hating black people like we can Don Imus. Racism is a motivation, and an ugly one at that, and that's what's at stake in the eyes of the left. Concrete results are secondary.

I agree with them that racism is awful, abhorrent, disgusting, and primitive, but I also believe that warping the values of young blacks is worse than being a racist. Jimbob Redneck may hate blacks, but rich celebrities inspiring a generation of kids to slap bitches upside the head does America far more harm than Jimbob ever could.

So, lefties, you wanna fight racism? As long as you stick to the actual definition of the word "racism," I'm with you all the way.

But if you really want to improve young black lives, perhaps you should consider at least seeming like you're a little bit disappointed in certain aspects of urban culture, too.

I know you do, but you're "keeping it in the family." I'll deal with this and a couple more of the 48,262 reasons why we need to be gentle with black folks in my next post.