The Imus Debacle (Do Unto Others...)
Posted: Thursday, July 19, 2007
by James Taylor
THE ASSUMPTIONS
Some quotes, phrases, and sayings that hang around all religions in the world are really the simplest truths about our existence here. I have always liked the quotes from the Christian Bible such as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
As I grew older and had the luxury of hindsight, I could see how skewed this saying had manifested in my life and, worse, how it had manifested in various cultures around the globe! We all employed it perfectly, only we had different ideas about what was the right thing to “do unto."
Actually, this may surprise you, but, yes, he did! It works perfectly no matter how you apply it. Let’s peel the “do unto" onion back a bit, shall we?
If I live by this simple rule, then this belief attracts similar things into my life. I mean, if I am walking around the earth looking for various ways I might be “disrespected", I will never be disappointed. There are plenty of places to find it. So guess what? Yep, my friend in the hood has a great deal of “disrespectful-ness" going on in his life. He creates this drama for himself. Why? Because this is what he believes and is creating a life around this. Perfect execution of the Golden Rule in a negative way.
This is what most of the world actually does. The black culture is a great example. A soul has decided to create this “trigger" about being black. Likewise, they have identified (think and feel) all the various events that can pull this “trigger" about be- ing black and hold these up for all to target. They are looking for it and, without failure, they find it. There is a great quote from Neale Donald Walsch that applies here: “What you resist, persists!" It took me a while to comprehend the full impact of this statement. This gives the rule a new twist on how we employ it…or violate it. Let me explain.
Have you ever been offended by someone, such as a lover, spouse, or a friend, and left this issue unresolved? Whenever you might encounter this person, you reach into your bag and pull out this event, this emotion, and hold it up there to be seen once again. In doing so, it is you keeping it in play. You place it there yourself.
By contrast, have you ever allowed someone to do exactly the same thing and not resisted it? What happened? Nothing…right? It is impossible to fight when no one is fighting back. They might hold up their end up of the issue for a while, but it becomes tiring since there is no resistance coming back. I think this is what Dr. King’s message was all about.
Can you see the relationship of this with “Do unto"? If you walk the earth with the idea that you need to be looking for events to push your self-created “triggers," then you will always find them. Your very action gives them energy and life. It is you creating the drama with your reaction. So what you “do" is “do unto" them exactly what you DO NOT desire they do unto you! Referencing our example of being black, do you really believe these same people would desire all white people to react hostile when they reference them being white? Would this be the “do unto them back" reaction they desired? Of course not! You see? If you need more confirmation of this scenario playing out in life turn on your television and watch “Jerry Springer." This isn’t just a “black" thing.
Bringing it current
For a good current event to highlight just how this works, take a look at the now-famous Imus in the Morning debacle. Let’s peel back the ole Imus onion and take a look. He called a women’s basketball team “nappy-headed hos." Just for giggles, let’s say he called them “road kill". Now, ascribing them attributes of “road kill" is not very flattering either, but these girls are smart. They know they aren’t road kill so it doesn’t matter. They don’t resist the description and nothing becomes of it.
Ahhh, but here, this is not the case. You see they (or someone) have this “trigger" being held up by them…not Imus. Imus simply threw out a comment into the airwaves, and it hit all these people holding up these triggers waiting to be fired. Now, think about this for a minute. These girls, nappy-headed or not, which part of the “Do unto" formula do they control? They control them, their be-ings, and how they react. These are the only choices they are allowed to make on this earth. So what did they do? How did they define themselves? Remember that road kill wouldn’t get any traction because they aren’t road kill. So they make a drama from the “nappy-headed hos" so it can pull the black trigger they themselves placed there. Okay, many of you, particularly if you are black, are likely getting angry with me. Well, to be fair, let’s reverse the order of things under the “Do unto others" idea.
Let’s say these same girls refer to Imus as an “Old-fart, over-the-hill, talk show host". What do you think Imus would do? Nothing. Why not? It is because he doesn’t resist. (That which you resist…persists). He knows he is NOT over the hill and he IS an old fart, so this is true. So what? The result is a non event. But let’s say he takes offense (it hits his self-constructed trigger) and resisted. He then creates a drama. The AARP jumps in and says it is a slam against all older people. The hat manufacturers join in because Imus wears a cowboy hat. The resistance gets bigger. This could have also happened.
So how about the Golden Rule? Is this the reaction they would have Imus due unto them? Imagine if his trigger was about being referred to as “talk show host" or being white. He would never be disappointed in finding his dramas. All talks show host jump in the fray. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, etc., they all take offense, and a huge drama is created. They could create all the drama they desired and simply make themselves angry and miserable. This trigger that each alone owns and created would be fired all the time. What sort of life would this be? Why would anyone do this to themselves? Why would Imus or Rush substitute their peaceful state of existence for a state of being full of negative anger and retaliation? Realize they would be doing this to themselves. It is the old “sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me" idea, except in reverse. In this example, Imus decided that the words would hurt him and took these words to make himself angry. The problem with being referred to as a “talk show host" or “white" was a self-imposed issue that he would then use to make himself feel bad. Why anyone would voluntarily choose to substitute their peaceful knowledge of themselves for someone else’s opinion is beyond me. Don’t they know who they are? If I call Imus and Rush monkeys, do they really think they might actually be this? By contrast, if no trigger goes off, no drama results, nothing happens. If Imus doesn’t resist, then nothing persists. Peace for him is sustained, and he simply allows the girls to say whatever they wish. If they feel anger towards talk show host, then so be it. Their disposition defines them…not Imus. Hmm...
So if you don’t want people jumping all over you because they choose to be offended by who you are being, then shouldn’t you do the same for them? Isn’t this the Golden Rule? In this existence we can only make our choices…no one else’s. These girls chose a drama. Is this what they want back from all the rest of us? As for me, I am short and ugly. Perhaps I should construct triggers for these and create myself some drama soup. Yes! I think I will. Should anyone refer to my height or looks, I will resist and fire back with some drama. Yeah, that sounds like a wonderful thing for me to do. This should make me happy don’t you think? If not, then why would it be any good for you?
This Article has been viewed 374 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (10 total)Society has just gotten way to sensitive on so many issues that are just plain stupid. People are so uptight nowadays that nobody knows when someone is serioius anymore or not. A prime example happened here on this website just this week with a featured article that was wripped apart unjustly. As far as Imus he's always said outrageous things and anybody who listens to him should expect that. What about Howard Stern? Very good article.Kathy, Thank you very much for your comments. Ya know, human beings must start recognizing what their anger does to them...first! When they fully comprehend the impact on them, their creation and their reaility (not to mention health) then perhaps we, beings, will be more choosey about what we go "negative" upon! About the guy you mentioned on this site: I know about it but missed the dialog. However, in what ever he demonstrated, he made a statement about himself, who he was being, and not those he "blasted." Worse, he created a state of anger for himself and drenched his physcial being with a large dose of "negative" cocktails. I wonder why he would choose such a disturbed state for himself? Just guessing, but I suspect there is a wonderful side of him as well. I wonder if he would be happier showing us this instead? Hey, just a thought!
Excellent Article, Mr. Taylor. Gives us all some food for though.
Right on with a very good article! Thanks for opening up our eyes. Enjoy your writing!
James, iI agree and believe that some people just thrive on constant 'drama' in thier lives and until they can see things differently nothing will change so they will always be offended. I am of Italian, Irish and Spanish decent, you think that hasn't evoked many jokes especially concerning 'flaring tempers'? Yep, but I always thought they were funny and never took 'the jokes' to heart. In the media, there's a thing also known as 'pr drama' which apart from Imus, we also experienced with 'the Don' and Rosie -- basically they stir up all this negative stuff so they can get back with the ratings and guess what? it works! I think Al Sharpton understands this which is why he is always up front with the racial stuff; he forgot the message of Martin Luther King. Very good Article, James!
James, As a cognitive-behavioral therapist, I get the concept of learning to perceive and think differently about issues and learning to not react inappropriately. My problem with the thesis of your article is that with your way of thinking there are no boundaries within which we may need to assert ourselves. Your analogy about Don Imus and the Rutger's team cannot be supported. These were racist comments that were made by a man who intentionally chose to inflict harm. The team members responded only after others began defending them, rightfully so. Their responses were honorable and in no way attacked Mr. Imus. They asserted themselves, a quality that you omit from your transpersonal worldview. Let's take another example. Was John Kerry's silence over the "swift boat ads" appropriate? Did that silence the "drama" created by his critics? What about Ann Coulter? As a society, should we ignore the kind of venom that she spewed on the 9/11 widows? Should we have ignored the Nazi's and their leader Adolf Hitler? Of course not. Certainly at times we should walk away from those who impugn our integrity, but there are times when we need to protect ourselves by asserting ourselves as a way of demonstrating courage and intergrity. You miss that point entirely and do a disservice to those who stand up for themselves in order to be empowered.
Mr. Krehbiel, due respect to your credentials. You make an excellent point. For the record, I am not an advocate for bigoted demeanors. I like Mother Teresa’s attitude when refusing to participate in an “anti-war” rally stating: “Give me a peace rally and I’ll show up.” I am just guessing, but I suspect what ever Imus’ ideas about “nappy headed ho’s” were…they likely haven’t changed. By contrast, if any such “nappy headed ho’s” befriended Imus through their kindness…it might have changed his perception. Even so, and confusing, and really to my point, if these girls (or anyone) weren’t as described, why would anyone else’s opinion of them matter. As for me, I have been referred to in many unflattering ways but their views defined them, not me. I beg you consider that it takes even more courage and integrity to remember who you really are when particularly stupid remarks are hurled at you. (What you resist, persists) In this, is your requested boundaries for the thesis, that is, assert the best of who you are and then the hurled slur is dissolved by your own truth of who you are being. This would be unarguable.
Mr. Taylor, Do you REALLY believe that Don Imus' perception and behavior would have changed as a result of the Rutger's student's kindness?James, good point. You made me laugh at myself. However, just for giggles, recognize what they DID DO didn't work either. I suspect their action only made him hate nappy headed ho's even more. Thanks for the comments.
James, "sticks and stones may break my bones..." just isn't true. Words are powerful. I agree with you in that it's what we choose to give meaning. If we didn't give meaning to words then they have no meaning. And how we give power to words we speak or receive. If we didn't give them power, we'd render them powerless. Sounds like a game of sorts to me. Imus, known or unknown for his lively rhetoric was disrespectful. I respect your point of view and respectfully disagree with the Imus debacle used as an example to make your point. "Kindness is the language the deaf can hear and the blind can see." I'm with Mark Twain.
Avis, your point is well taken. As you said; words are powerful and can also be made powerless. This is our choice to make. Bin Laden has called all Americans “The great Satan.” Do you seriously consider yourself to be such? His words are powerless to me because I know the truth about me…I am not the great Satan. To substitute his opinion of me for my own knowledge of me would be to give his words power. You see? Should I resist then my very resistance gives his words the very power he intended. Should I choose to remain at peace with my knowledge of me then his words have no power at all. In this existence, it is each of us that make this determination. Imus (or anyone) can hurl as much disrespectful language at me as he wishes…it changes nothing as to who I am. Thanks very much for your insights.
Mr. Taylor, at the risk of contradicting myself and appearing to vacillate or straddle the fence on your point of view, I'll take that risk. I agree with you. I am black. If I had allowed the names I was called when I integrated a school before desegration became legal, I'd have a problem with my identity. You can call me white, no worries. I'm not white and will never be. So I get your point! I also know, not everyone is as enlightened as the next person. We're on many different levels of spiritual maturity. To whom much is given, much is required. The strong must bear the infirmities of the weak, not trample on them. This applies to the handicapped, mentally challenged etc, not just Imus' remark with a racist slur. I didn't say it before but you wrote a well-written piece. My agreeing or disagreeing with you is immaterial to your writing abilities. Thank you for sharing. Again, with all due respect.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.