BS: Kramer's Racist Rant

Subject: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 02:51 PM

Michael Richards, the comedian who portrayed Seinfeld's pal Kramer, is in the hot seat for an outburst during a stand up routine at an LA club. Responding to heckling from a group of african-americans, Richards launched into a tirade that can be seen here

Many are saying that this could very well be the end of Richard's career, and that what he said went beyond the drunken anti-semitic tirade of Mel Gibson. What I think is that Richards was not voicing his own feelings about black people, but attempting, in the mode of Lenny Bruce, to parody racial prejudice. His repeated shouting of the word "nigger", and his final comments " words..we still have these words" confirm that this, in my mind, was his intent.
The effect was entirely the opposite, and I think if you watch Richard's reaction to the audience's response, you perceive that he is shocked that they're taking him at face value, and has no idea how to proceed.
I'm curious about the thoughts of others regarding this very odd incident.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:00 PM

Odd, indeed. The thought that first popped into my mind is that the next thing we will hear is that he is checking into a rehab center.

The video is dark so I can't read facial expressions but it seems to me that his being nonplussed was due more to his own shock at the response than it was to being aware of his own transgression.

I don't like his having said: See, that's what you get when you interrupt.

Frankly, I'm glad that so many people walked out.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Amos
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:04 PM

Looks to me like he opened a floodgate that had more behind it than he reckoned on, and he was as shocked by his own desperate dramtics as he was by the response it got from the audience; he looks as he leaves as though he is wondering how the hell he got into this mess, indicating he was over his own edge at the peak... It is completely predictable he lost audience, not just because of the words but because of the energy he was throwing around in using them. Let's just say that is no way to get a laugh.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:26 PM

It's an interesting little psychological study. I think what got Richards in trouble was that he mixed the racist thing up with what may have been a warranted reprimand against a heckler. "Is he leaving?" Richards says after the initial comments cause the man to walk out in an understandable rage. Richard's rage and indignation at being interrupted are evident, and the attempt to cloak them as an over-the-top racist diatribe was the worst possible choice he could have made.
What's more, I think you can see a change in Richard's ironic slinging of racist terms, to what becomes some real verbal crossfire by the end of the performance. As Ebbie said, "that's what you get for interrupting a white man!" is a statement which, when put beside "well you interrupted me pal!" as a justification, implies that the sentiment is more than just ironic.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lox
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:39 PM

they seem to have withdrawn it - I can't watch it

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lox
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:44 PM

just comes up as "bad error"

Judgng by the above posts this may be quite an appropriate box to appear.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:46 PM

Just tried and it works. You get a cartoon promotion you have to watch first, something called (appropriately) Flushed Away.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 03:55 PM

Wasn't there a show on TV once called "Kramer vs Kramer"?

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 04:09 PM

To the interviewed audience member I flip a GREAT BIG "FUCK YOU, YOU ARROGANT ASSHOLE!"

If you don't want to be slammed, keep your stupid, ass-smelling mouth shut when someone else is performing... If you chose to heckle, be aware that any rules there might have been go STRAIGHT out the window, and any and all artillery that can be used against you, will be.

My personal favourite line is "Hey.... I don't come to where you work and knock the cock out of your mouth, do I? So, leave me the fuck alone!"

Apologize to every "Africa American" in the world??? Fuck you.... Try a bran muffin, and move outa the suburbs... You sound like more of a cracker-ass honkey than my grandfather!

To Jerry Seinfield (sp?).... Still jealous that Richard's is WAY funnier on his off day than you'll ever be, aren't you....

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:34 PM

Here's the YouTube version

"WAY funnier on his off day" - I can't think of that many things less funny than that. Even aside from the racist abuse and that.

Still, he's got Clinton on his side...

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Roughyed
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:58 PM

Let's face it Clinton, he blew it. There are lots of ways of staying one up on a heckler, most of which consist of being more experienced/heard it before/ don't give a damn etc. There may even be ways of racially abusing members of your audience in an amusing way although I can't imagine any however much I try. The bottom line is that if you are that upset by being interrupted in the middle of your precious routine, you shouldn't be on stage in the first place. Stick to TV if that's all you can do.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 06:59 PM

Comparison has been made to Lenny Bruce.

Although there was a famous routine in which Lenny Bruce used the word "nigger" (as well as "wop," "spic," "polack," and a few others), there were a few extenuating circumstances:

(1) He was Jewish, and he used the word "kike" in exactly the same way, at the same time, thereby showing that he wasn't claiming any special status for himself, but rather shared in whatever misery those words create.

(2) He didn't use those words in the context of anger, conflict, or blame. He wasn't even criticizing anyone in particular—not even a hypothetical straw man.

(3) He didn't raise his voice. He stayed calm.

(4) He didn't make a habit of using those words casually. He carefully crafted his routine to make a point.

(5) The point he made was a humane one.

(6) He had a lot of experience talking to an audience, and he knew how far he could go and still get his message across. Yes, he knew he would offend some people, but he also knew that most people in his audience would understand his message and appreciate it. In other words, he didn't recklessly disregard the reaction of his audience.

Michael Richards' rant compares very unfavorably with Lenny Bruce's.

It's one thing to express admiration for Lenny Bruce. It's quite another thing to imitate him. You'd better not try to imitate him unless you have the talent, the experience, and above all, the compassion to match his.

I tried to find a transcript of Lenny Bruce's routine, but the best I could find was this. The transcript doesn't do justice to the performance because it doesn't show how his voice changes to depict different people:

Are there any niggers here tonight? Could you turn on the house lights, please, and could the waiters and waitresses just stop serving, just for a second? And turn off this spot. Now what did he say? "Are there any niggers here tonight?" I know there's one nigger, because I see him back there working. Let's see, there's two niggers. And between those two niggers sits a kike. And there's another kike— that's two kikes and three niggers. And there's a spic. Right? Hmm? There's another spic. Ooh, there's a wop; there's a polack; and, oh, a couple of greaseballs. And there's three lace-curtain Irish micks. And there's one, hip, thick, hunky, funky, boogie. Boogie boogie. Mm-hmm. I got three kikes here, do I hear five kikes? I got five kikes, do I hear six spics, I got six spics, do I hear seven niggers? I got seven niggers. Sold American. I pass with seven niggers, six spics, five micks, four kikes, three guineas, and one wop. Well, I was just trying to make a point, and that is that it's the suppression of the word that gives it the power, the violence, the viciousness. Dig: if President Kennedy would just go on television, and say, "I would like to introduce you to all the niggers in my cabinet," and if he'd just say "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" to every nigger he saw, "boogie boogie boogie boogie boogie," "nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger" 'til nigger didn't mean anything anymore, then you could never make some six-year-old black kid cry because somebody called him a nigger at school.
From Julian Barry's screenplay for "Lenny"

p.s. I think if I had been there, I would have walked out of Richards' performance, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lox
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:06 PM

There it is McGrath.

Thanks for the new link.

I think he underestimated the meaning and the continuing hurt associated with "those words" ... "you see there's still those words".

And he misjudged his own ability to get through to everyone.

I don't think he's racist, but I think he's made a mistake, and I think he knows it, that he will always regret.

He may have thought he was doing something clever on the spur of the moment, but when it is all stripped away, what we see is a white man on a stage with an audience saying "shut up Nigger" to a black man for interrupting him.

The emperors new clothes weren't invisible, they simply weren't there. The whole postmodern irony shock value thing meant nothing in the face of someone being victimized on the basis of their race.

Again, a subtler caricature might have evidenced real wit.

Was it funny? Noone was laughing!

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:09 PM

Thanks for the script excerpt, Jim. Yes, I saw Dustin Hoffman perform that scene in the movie, and I'll bet Michael Richards did, too. I know it's based on a real bit that Lenny Bruce did, though I've never heard the original.
In the movie scene, it started out much as Richards' rant did. The audience was shocked, there was some embarrassed laughter, giving way to more laughter and tension release as it became clear that Lenny was going after everybody, himself included, and what he was really talking about was that words kept us apart, angry, suspicious of each other, when really, we were all the same. A brilliant scene, and capturing what edgy intelligent humor can be.
Richards, I really think, was attempting the same thing. But as you have said, Bruce approached it with careful development, conversationally. Its affect and impact was the exact opposite.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lox
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:12 PM

Jim,

I've not heard Lenny Bruce speak, but that transcript made me laugh out loud. There is no comparison.

The key phrase in your post is: "carefully cratfed".

Lenny bruce didn't just say Nigger and expect everyone to laugh, he put it in a context that made it funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,Penguin Egg
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:34 PM

Looks like Mel Gibson has finally found a golfing partner.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:40 PM

Mel Gibson was drunk. I wonder what Kramer was on?

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:50 PM

In a press conference put on by the owners of the club, the Laugh Factory, Paul Rodriguez, who had double-billed with Richards, addressed a hostile crowd. He blamed in part the prevalence of the term "nigger" in rap music and black standup routines as a factor in the rant.
Is their any credibility to that? Does the fact that we hear that word often, at least as often as I heard it in my childhood in Kentucky, mean we are becoming desensitized to it, or confused as to the circumstances in which it is acceptable or forbidden?

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 07:59 PM

Every tape I have seen of this starts with "Shut up!" My experience has been that if you bait a stand-up comedian or talk loudly enough to disrupt his routine, you will be brutally insulted from the stage. I have to wonder what the heckles were that sparked the tirade.
Whatever happened, Richards was back on stage the following night to a sell-out audience. The club didn't feel the need to apologize beyond the feeble "Sorry about that" on Friday night after Richards walked off stage.
I don't know. I would have to know what triggered the response before I passed judgment. If the audience was making racist remarks, maybe the reponse was appropriate FOR A COMEDY CLUB BUT NOT FOR THE GENERAL TV AUDIENCE.
Foul mouthed racist misogynist filth is pretty standard in these venues.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:05 PM

Well this is just a good example of why we need hate speech laws, isn't it? How DARE anyone use the nigge- word in this day and age. We need STRONG anti-free speech laws to protect ourselves against this.

They had something bad hanging over his head to make him do this. Drugs. Porn. Who knows. We'll probably see a rash of this leading up to the next session of congress. "Hate-speech" legislation is at the top of the Pelosicrat's agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Jeri
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:05 PM

I think he wanted to hurt the guy, and trying to pretend it was comedy was just some ass-covering for having a hissy fit on stage.

If you're going to do Lenny Bruce style stuff, you have to have control of yourself. Richards sounded out of control - having a tantrum - and he aimed it at a guy who probably deserved a bit of ridicule (which the audience might have supported, but not what Richards hurled at him. You don't call people racist names in anger and then try to back-pedal and pretend you didn't just have a little strage-rage event. Losing control on stage is one of the worst things a performer can do.

LEJ, the prevalence of the word is a really, really lame excuse. Little children would get away with the "but everybody else says it" excuse. It sounds even worse when used to explain the actions of a person whose career relies on being able to read people and gauge reactions. He should probably just issue an apology and take some time off.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:07 PM

I would have to know what triggered the response before I passed judgment.

You really think anything could justify that, Sinsull? Well, you must, I suppose.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:11 PM

Yes, I would. Some of these comedy club audiences can be vicious and deserve whatever they get. If their attack was foul mouthed and racial, they were getting tit for tat.
If Richards went racial first, then he owes an apology.
No one has yet said what exactly triggered his tirade.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:12 PM

If anyone thinks it's OK, try walking into a place where folks are playing scopa or briscola and say in a loud clear voice, "Hey! Look at this bunch of dumb wops." Let us know how that works for ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: kendall
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:24 PM

He was one of the reasons I couldn't watch Seinfeld. He's about as funny as Mother's Day in an orphanage.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 08:57 PM

So all the other people in the audience who hadn't heckled him, and who Kramer insulted, they don't matter, Sinsull?

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Peace
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:01 PM

"He was one of the reasons I couldn't watch Seinfeld. He's about as funny as Mother's Day in an orphanage."

I ever saw one episode--if that's what they were called--of that show and found neither of them to be all that funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: SINSULL
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:20 PM

The other members of the audience paid money to see Michael Richards. Whatever went on before he yelled "Shut up" must have annoyed them because on the video they laugh at his upside down with a fork remark.

McGrath, we can exchage views for a thousand posts but neither one of us is going to change our mind. I have been in comedy clubs and seen some ugly scenes in response to hecklers.

No one is saying what exactly triggered Richards response.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 09:37 PM

And it looked as if most of that audience walked out on him. "Ugly" is indeed the right word for that scene. "Comedy" isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:07 PM

I may get in trouble for this but the root cause of these outbursts by Mel and Michael is DRUGS

You see deep in the covert drug labs of the DIA are some very powerful weapons that have gotten lose due to their military applications.

The drug in question is Bigotol, synthesized from the hormones of the Falwell and Bush families, was first given to Jesse "hiemytown" Jackson in an effort to destabilize the Rainbow coalition. The number of drug victims due to Bigotol is without number, but needless to say the drug runs in the streets of Iraq as thick as blood.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Donuel
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:13 PM

One side effect of Bigotol is the irresistable urge to use the word "WHITE" in any given sentence.

Insert 'white' in any of the remarks below:

BS: The Mother of all BS threads
BS: What do YOU Have Against Hillary?
BS: Should a lady make the first move?
BS: New name for our planet?
BS: Where have all the swear-words gone?
BS: Cooking for single people--help!
BS: Boycott advertisers, FOX TV & O.J.
BS: Media ignores Draft Bill in Congress
BS: Ashes Finally Got the Dog to Eat-- Eggs OK?
BS: Global Flu Shots
BS: Overstayed my visa in a foreign country.
BS: Immediate vs phased withdrawal from Iraq
BS: Will this thread reach 85 billion posts?
BS: Sitting At The Kitchen Table


PS W does not take Bigotol. When he speaks of "brown skinned people" he is just speaking from his heart.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,sad
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:28 PM

He got mad and lost it, and made a lame attempt to recover by pretending a Bruceian move there at the end.

Claiming a conceptual high hand that he never had.

His ego jumped in front of his act, because he became self-important and lost control.

Barely contained resentment has been the foundation of his act, but he burned it to the ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:31 PM

Arriving late and not knowing where to begin, I probably shouldn't.   But what the hell............

I loved Lenny. He was far more stand-up philosopher than comedian. He never did what is generally referred to as a routine as they continually changed with every performance and their was nothing "routine" about them. Some can be thought of as "bits" or "routines" simply because they operated on the same vague outline in his mind and they pointed off in the same general direction, sometimes but not always, ending in similar places.

The general direction of the "bit" Jim quoted above was, like most, multifold. We are sensitised to words to the point that they can completely stop any thought process relating to discourse. Words carry power. Certain words carry excessive power. The question is, should they? The next question is, can we take away the power of a word by using it in all sorts of forms and show just how stupid it is and by that usage can we remove the sensitivity.

Lenny had a lot of material along similar lines and also along religious lines, sexual/sexist lines..........Lenny Bruce may have been the ultimate free thinker and believer in complete integration of ALL things. Sadly, we tend to remember Lenny, if at all, for bringing "dirty words" to the stage instead of remembering the depth of thought and ideas he brought there instead.

As to Michael Richards, I too would need to see more and hear better to judge but if he thought of Lenny, the thoughts were pretty fleeting and he was allowed to be sidetracked it seems. Lenny had plenty of walkouts but he had an audience wrapped up overall and took whatever time he needed to develop his thoughts. Like Sins, I've been to some of the clubs where the heckling is brutal for even the most seasoned vets. A longer tape with better quality would be great.

We don't seem to have one though do we? So I can't judge. As Lenny said, "There is only what is; what should be never existed."

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:34 PM

People in LA are really paranoid these days! I have heard one resident complain about the City as Mexifornia, and then the rising house market is not rising anymore.

Sounds to me like LA will soon be like N.O. La, unemployment city, with very few jobs.

The other thing, which to outsiders is hidden, the movie industry is on its last legs with nearly every wannbe movie maker around the globe making money with local culture and language in their work. I sense that this revolution is being driven by cheap technology that used be only available to Hollywood, or should I now say Bollywood, or Wallyhood etc.

Also the few actors/actresses making it today are a bunch of wusses. They exude no-hope like a secondhand pizza. The Brits have a nice word for what I mean, rhymes with tanked, as in ..... out.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 10:45 PM

Latest news is that Richards' apology will appear tonight on David Letterman's show. It was taped this afternoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:04 PM

>>The other members of the audience paid money to see Michael Richards. Whatever went on before he yelled "Shut up" must have annoyed them because on the video they laugh at his upside down with a fork remark.<<

Oh, come on! People are idiots and will laugh at anything. The guy had obviously lost his cool. Why go after the heckler for his race? Why not just use a comeback that shuts the guy up and makes everybody laugh instead of leave? It didn't look like wit to me and it didn't even look like an attempt at wit. It looked like someone losing his temper at somebody using that person's race as the most obvious thing for him to pick on. Does anybody really believe he'd have launched into a tirade against white people if the heckler had been white? I don't.

Heckling is as old as performing comedy. So if you're a comedian, get used to it. The truth is, if you're good you don't get heckled, you get laughs. He went off and then tried to make it sound like he was trying to make a point. But he had no real point to make and that's why he left the stage in a huff with no punch line. The guy's an effin jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Joe Richman
Date: 20 Nov 06 - 11:37 PM

Sorefingers:

LA's housing is soooo overinflated that values could drop by 50% and everyone who's had their house for more than 5 years w/o refi-ing up the debt level would still be sitting pretty.

MR isn't an LA guy as far as I know.   I assume he's from NY.

There are a few million California Mexicans whose families have been here a lot longer than MR. Same with a lot of Blacks. Not to mention Asians and Okies, too. And not a few yankee boys like me.(Born in Pasadena, grew up in Highland Park near Ave 60.)

I work in LA county and my trouble is that they have way too much work for me and can't find skilled help to bring in to lighten the load.


I have never been a Seinfeld fan. I like "Earl" better. I can relate to it more.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 12:42 AM

There will be a lot of outrage at Michael Richards' outburst, but there are a lot of people who will see this incident in terms of a group of blacks coming into a white club and harassing a white performer.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:09 AM

I didn't know Laugh Factory was a white club.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:13 AM

It's been years since I've been in a comedy club so I can't say more about it than what I see on television- but on television many, many of the comics are not 'white'. Surely then, the audience is also not vanilla? That, to say that a 'group of blacks coming into a white club and harassing a white performer' doesn't compute.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: SINSULL
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:31 AM

He apologized last night and made no excuses even when Seinfeld and Letterman tried to get him to talk about what precipitated the outburst. Richards said he lost it, let anger overtake him and seemed pretty horrified at his inner racism. He looked embarrassed when he stated that he was not a racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:44 AM

I don't know about Michael Richards, but one can tell a lot about some of the posters to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Joe Richman
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:57 AM

Hmm... so what's up with me Big guy?

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:17 AM

Here's the apology

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:20 AM

Actually, Joe, I enjoyed your comments. You beat me to the punch with regard to the Mexican descended population of SoCal. I lived in Southern California and Baja California some years ago. I thought your comments were responding to the same people whose comments I found a bit racist, and certainly not from a Californian's perspective.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 12:24 PM

"one can tell a lot about some of the posters to this thread."

Ya... like what a passle of passive-aggressive sucks they are...

All the same cry-babies who didn't 'get' Borat either....

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:07 PM

My point has nothing to do with whether the comedy club is or isn't a white club, it has to do with the perception that blacks are moving into a white space and making trouble--reality is not the issue here--reality is never at the core of racism--it is the perception--

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 01:16 PM

I think the use of the n word pales in comparison to the comment about the pitchfork. And hecklers should be dealt with, by security if necessary, without using race as an issue. And yes, I do see similarities in the Borat thing and think it is all very ugly. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 02:52 PM

Wow. I saw the apology but not the rant, and I see no purpose in viewing the rant. I haven't heard a genuine apology in so many years – I can't think of one except for his on Letterman last night.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:04 PM

heric, I too saw Richards' apology. I, for one, empathised with him. As rationally as we know that we are not racist, there is still that ugly bit in most of us that tells us we are not as pure as we'd thought- and hoped. Some of us may never run into that ugly bit but it probably is there.

Seinfeld used a telling word, I thought- he said that Michael R. is 'shattered'. His apology came across as sincere as I have ever seen.

Another time, early on, when the Letterman crowd was still not sure what was going on, there were some titters and Seinfeld said directly to them: Don't laugh. It isn't funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Big Mick
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:24 PM

I feel as though I am a pretty good judge of character, and I saw a man for whom "shattered" is the perfect description. Those of us raised in the 50's and 60's are bound to have, trapped in the dark corners of our inner places, the vestiges of racist thought. It is not that we are racists, in fact many of us worked very hard to get by this, but it is there. It is an unwelcome gift of the times we grew up in. One can only imagine that a comic such as Richards, who is always on the edge anyway, just slipped over and into the abyss. He owes the community an apology, to be sure, and it should not be minimalized how bad this was. But in this case, one hopes for forgiveness from the community. I think that it will come long before he forgives himself.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:25 PM

I agree Ebbie that the healthy viewpoint is to look at ourselves, and not waste time judging. It also seems to me (from the descriptions) that he lashed out at someone, not because they were black, but because he was full of anger, released in their direction (they were the catalysts.) The racist words were used as a weapon of choice, for maximum impact. Possible, anyway. Far worse racists in the world, I'm sure, who never use the N word or other unpleasant epithets.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 03:59 PM

Hey Jamon

I only saw one cry baby on the borat thread

"... sniff ... sulk ... Grow up maaan ... sniff ..."

Boo Hoo

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 04:00 PM

Perhaps there's too much focus on a particular word - what really matters is the intention behind the word; and in this case the intention was the problem. If he'd stuck to words like black or Afro-American and said the same otherwise, it would have been just as bad. (The precise opposite to the situation with the Lenny Bruce quote, where the intention was the polar opposite.)

Clearly Kramer opened up something inside him which was pretty unpleasant, and, from that apology, he appears to have recognised it was pretty unpleasant and that it needs to be dealt with by him.

It's inside an awful lot of people who sincerely think they aren't racist, and various things can bring it out - drink, mental disturbance, pressure. In this case the kind of tension involved in this type of performance.

The moral is, people shouldn't feel too smug about themselves - and that shouldn't mean a willingness to shrug this kind of thing off, but a determination never to tolerate it in ourselves or in others. Whoever the target group may be.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Wesley S
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 04:04 PM

I guess I still haven't figured out why black comic think it's acceptable to use the "N" word. It's offensive no matter who uses it. A lot of good people suffered and died so that no one would have to hear that word used again. I would imagine that in a few weeks some black comic will stand on that same stage and get a laugh using the same word that Michael Richards went on national TV to apologise for using. It's a strange world.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Desdemona
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 04:43 PM

I think the whole business of which words can be used by whom is fascinating...my own gut feeling is that the "n" word is just inherently offensive, it has so much unpleasant baggage attached to it that it's hard to see it ever being effectively "(re)claimed".
Most African Americans of my acquaintance find it distasteful and wouldn't ever choose to use it; on the other hand, if some black people want to take it back and reinterpret it for their own use I'd have to say they have every right to do so.

It's sort of like some feminists, who feel that the "c" word can be rehabilitated and reinvented as long as it's only used by *women*, ie, the language of the oppressor can only be used by the oppressed. Again, it's not a word I personally choose to employ (there are so many others!), and it seems to me that by continuing to include words that have been used to debase and devalue people--ANY people--we participate in continuing that debasement and devaluation.

Words *do* have power, and it seems that Michael Richards has learned this particular lesson in a very hard (and public) way; it's pretty doubtful he'll be including *that* word in any future appearances, should he be so fortunate as to land any.

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 04:49 PM

It's not using the word that's the problem. It's how and why it is being used. A black comedian uses it in a way to get a laugh but Richards' (will you all quit calling the guy Kramer?) outburst was just that--a racial outburst. He wasn't trying to get a laugh, he sounded like he wanted to kill somebody.

Should it end his career? I don't know? Will it? I don't know. Is he genuinely sorry? Probably. I guess it's up to him at this point although it's going to be hard for him to live it down. Celebrity comes with a price all its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:07 PM

The 'apology', such as it was, tells us that the rant was not intended to be comedy, and that he DID lose his cool and make a fool of himself. This is quite apart from considerations about whether, and when, to use racial terms in a routine at all!
I tend to think 'political correctness' has been WAY overdone in recent years, but maybe it's dumb mistakes like this one that have helped make this issue so delicate.
People who feel they have been offended always have one recourse....they can vote with their wallets. I remember Andrew Dice Clay and his ridiculous routines a few years ago....it's not whether they were 'over the line' or not...but *I* didn't like them, so I didn't watch them after I saw the tone.....so it made sense for those in the audience to walk out on this guy. The club may not allow him in again, and we'll have to see how his 'career' goes.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:37 PM

Interesting comment on CNN from a black comic who also appears at the Laugh Factory. He first cited Richards' basic racism, that the anger revealed the truth about his racist views, then commented "and people are talking how this was especially bad coming from a Jew. I want to point out he's not a Jew. He might be a Christian or an Atheist or something, but he's not a Jew. Just because he looks like a Jew don't mean he is one."
Now, the interviewer let this slip past, but I wouldn't have. Racism and prejudice is not just a white man's disease.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:49 PM

How does that remark Lonesome quoted show racism or prejudice?

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: SINSULL
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 05:59 PM

The club had him back as scheduled the night following the outburst. And it looked like a full house.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 06:55 PM

...like rubberneckers at the scene of an accident.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 07:06 PM

"Just because he looks like a Jew don't mean he is one" would indicate what....Jews can be identified by their features? My perception is that Jews come in about as many shades and packages as Irishmen. Or is there a set of features that definitely stamp a person as a Jew, like the semitic caricatures concocted and publicized by the Nazis? Maybe there's no element of racial stereotyping evident in the quoted comments, but it sure strikes me that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 07:22 PM

PLease---oh Please---do not compare this idiot to Lenny Bruce.   He lost it and is now trying to recover by acting as if he were making a point. An interrupeted comic ( or that comic interuptus) has a good riposte if he is clever---which this idiot is not.   Henny Youngman, Berle, Pryor, etc;---they are fast.

I heard the Lenny Bruce routine referred to above---it was great and made a point. DIck Gregory walked into the room at that point and was taken aback (according to the bio I read) and then realized what was going on---and loved it.   I had the pleasure of playing one of his routines on my radio program ( Sunday Simcha---he is a Jewish comic)---about a bigoted used car salesman in the south---he gets it all correct and makes the point. Richards does not and then tries to cover his ass by saying he was making a point. Bull.

Recently I interviewed another satirist--Mort Sahl. He made the point that the people today seem to use these words for either "shock" or just plain old anger---like Richards. I concur, the Bruces and the Pryors made valid points.   

I am guessing that this will torpedo his career and rightfully so because, unlike Mel Gibson, he has no other resources and is not producing a big film at his own expense. Though-for me---Mel Gibson should go that same route---oblivion.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Michael Richard's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 08:09 PM

Surely the man was saying almost the opposite of that, Lonesome - he was ponting out a case of a man who was assumed to be Jewish, on account of the way he looked, but evidently isn't. (I suspect in fact the assumption might be as much because of the character with which Michael Richards was associated - without that, and if he used his mother's maiden name, Nardozzi, I suspect people would say he looked typically Italian.)

I know however from daily experience that there are plenty of people whom I meet in my life who I identify as probably Irish or Polish or Filupeno or Jewish, or whatever, on the basis of their looks, and most times when we get talking I find I'm right. It doesn't mean that all Irish etc people look the same, just that there are certain (very different) looks that tend to go with being Irish etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:16 PM

Bill Hahn, evidently you did not see the interview. Richards said nothing of the sort.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Jeri
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:23 PM

Well, the apology/interview has been removed.

It's hard for me to understand how someone could get mad enough at another person to use a racial slur. I can't see myself ever doing that, but I know many people don't have a very effective filter between their brain and their mouths. I suppose if you just want to hurt someone as badly as possible, without regard to how YOU wind up looking, you might. There'd be consequences though. I think Richards is finding that out, and I doubt that a simple apology is going to erase this from people's minds soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 09:37 PM

Kids instinctively know what can cut to the bone, and have no qualms about using it at their whim. When they couldn't win an argument against my daughter any other way, their last resort was, "well at least I'm all white."

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: mg
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:01 PM

I think this is way worse than a racial slur and gets into sadistic images, reminiscant of KKK etc. The pitchfork comment is 1000 times worse I think. There are few of us who don't have some sort of bigotry submerged in the dark recesses of our minds, but that is an exceptionally cruel image he depicted and I think that is where the apology should be focused and the damage should be lessened. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Nov 06 - 10:06 PM

I found the seething racism of whites against blacks in Boston Mass. to be both surprising and disgusting.
In a bizarre twist of fate it is just about opposite in DC.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Seamus Kennedy
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 02:16 AM

My take for what it's worth -
When we get really, really angry with someone, and we can't physically hurt them with blows, we try to hurt them with the meanest, nastiest, vilest words we can dredge up - the verbal equivalent of kicking the shit out of them.

Who among us has not said things we truly regret in the heat of anger?
Who among us has not lost it completely for a brief period and said extremely hateful things?

You certainly wouldn't expect it from a public figure, especially one who makes his living with words, and should know how to handle a heckler, but as we know, it can happen.

Atonement is in order.

Seamus

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 02:28 AM

mea culpa I have done that- and there is NOTHING that can take that back.

Someone once said that the only rule in a domestic fight is to NEVER say the WORST thing you can think of. Because that may be the one thing you never stop regretting.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 03:02 AM

I agree that pitchfork was a very violent form of verbal abuse.

In fact, it may not have been about the words at all but the way the speaker delivered those words.

Having said that, its hardly worth having a 'race riot' because some down and outer, coked-up, ex-actor lost it on stage.

Get a grip, its just a blip on the big screen.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 12:34 PM

"...some down and outer, coked-up, ex-actor lost it on stage."


Man. You can be singularly unpleasant.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: SINSULL
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 12:45 PM

Jeri,
About 25 years ago I lost it when a maintenance man flooded my apartment for the upteenth time despite pleas to him and management. He was careless and not very bright and I used the "S" word. It still bothers me. His carelessness had nothing to do with his race but in my anger I stooped to the lowest form of criticism. Dare I say it? "Some of my closest friends are Hispanic." So why did I say it? Anger and somewhere inside me an ugly business. It has never happened since and won't ever happen again. I didn't like what I saw in myself.
I am giving Richards the benefit of the doubt because, on a much more private scale, I have been in his shoes.
I still cringe at my behavior.
Mary

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 01:23 PM

Sinsull, thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 02:38 PM

There is something called disinhibition. Most of us can keep a lid on our more horrid thoughts...but most of us have them and a brain damage or certain drugs or high stress can cause us to no longer maintain inhibition of them, which is how society works. So what comes out in these tirades is what is underneath a lot of our more sophisticated facades...

And society, and that means us, gives permission for certain groups to be ridiculed etc. Look at the support for Borat's treatment of the Romanians. Right here on this list. It's humor they say. So we have to hopefully reach the point where we realize no one is to be humiliated, much less reminded of savage torture such as what Richards came out with....not just certain groups are OK to treat badly and others are verboten. Everyone, all the time should be treated decently. (Which I think that concept is the main contribution of the Irish...the concept of being a decent man or woman..not that they are perfect but it is a stated goal or at least used to be.) I digress but I usually do.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 07:33 PM

Ebbie: I don't know to what you refer re: my not seeing the interview. I did. A clever comic (which Richards is not) knows how to handle hecklers. Henny Youngman did, Richard Pryor did, and a myriad of others. This was a racist rant that should never be compared to Lenny Bruce's cool delivery of the words to show how inane they are. This was said in anger and probably came from his deepest feeling.   

An example:   The heckler yells that he is not funny (probaby true, by the way---heckler still wrong though)---the clever comic retorts with things like "....probably so---not like you---your wife laughs everytime you get into bed with her".   Retort and insulting---not racist.

I could give you more---it takes a person quick on his feet and a pro to do this---Richards is neither. He is---frankly---like Mel Gibson--a latent racist.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 07:47 PM

Well, since Ebbie is cooking dinner I can be an interloper and answer for her. She was referring to this comment: "[Richards} lost it and is now trying to recover by acting as if he were making a point." She was trying to say that in the Letterman interview, he did not claim or imply that he was trying to make a point. That conjecture has been proffered by others, not Richards.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 08:00 PM

Only proves his racism and his ---is this a word "unfnnyness" .   The Seinfeld show truly catapulted a no talent to fame. Is Seinfeld--and his program funny---that is fodder for a whole new thread.   I am sure the majority think so.

Deep down it is really Kramer---mean spirited people doing what they think are funny things---unlike, say, Frasier who played the inept and pompous person who always got his come uppance.   As to that cast---all talented people who could do many things (well, except for Frasier himself)

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Jeri
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 08:33 PM

We've all lost control at some point, unless we've got our emotions locked up or don't feel things like others do. I would never use a racial slur, but it's because I didn't grow up around racism. Never learned the words, so I never had to learn not to use them. Growing up, the concept of hating a person because of their race or religion or most anything besides them being horrible did not exist for me.

There were racists in my neighborhood, but it was lily-white and, other than the couple that owned our local store/meat market, Christian. No targets around for people to demonstrate their racism at. I never even heard a racial slur until I was 10 or 11, and then I had to go ask my parents what the word meant. No judgement - nobody can control what they're exposed to as kids and what gets stored in their 'words to use when you really wanna wound somebody' file.

Performers aren't perfect, but I still really do believe that Richards' outburst was worse for coming from a man supposedly in control and influencing a club full of people. He wasn't putting on a show so much as becoming one.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 09:12 PM

Sure is mysterious. Maybe it was just comedic incompetence, with a possible underlay of racism that was not-so-deeply buried. I can't imagine myself cursing out someone with racial epithets, but . . . In that interview he looked as a person might look if they'd just popped a Martian baby out of their ass, or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 09:34 PM

My opinion about the n-word is known here.

I have decided not to comment on the specifics of the Richards situation. Nor do I choose to comment about any larger meaning it may have.

However, I would like to share a possible explanation for why some members of the Letterman show audience may have laughed when Richards used the group referent "Afro American" during his taped interview on that show.

"Afro-American" is a formal group referent for Black Americans which was retired by us about 30 years ago. "Afro American" was replaced with the referent "African American".

It's possible that some Black and/or non-Black members of the Letterman audience thought that Richards was trying too hard to be polite and careful in what he called us since he had gotten in trouble because of his use of the n word.

Be that as any of this may or may not be, I don't think that anything about the Richard rant or the taped apology is a laughing matter.

I think that this occurance and other recent public occurances-such as the taped incident with the then Virginia Senator Allen- shows how deep seated and pervasive racism is in the United States.   

And I think it shows us how much work we have to do to reach a time when a person's race is merely a descriptor that never has any negative or any positive valuation.


Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Azizi
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 09:41 PM

Well, though I said I wouldn't comment on the "Richards rant" I ended up commenting about it after all.

But that's all I'm gonna say about it.

Best wishes,

Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,Masonic BS Detector
Date: 22 Nov 06 - 11:46 PM

"Guest" is mostly correct. Richards is a 33 degree freemason and shriner (ref. http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/Commentary/Michael_Richards_Freemason.htm), who was secretly carrying out an action which will cause "we the sheeple" to cry out for passage of the hate speech legislation that has been pushed by the ADL (sister organization to freemasonic B'nai Brith has been pushing for to limit discussion by we citizens regarding the sellout of our political representation to AIPAC--which is also related to ADL.)

His delivery in both the stand up video and the apology video was about as believable as the official 911 story! And who is commandeering the whole event, but Jerry Seinfeld and David Letterman who I will make book are both members of the lodge. That interview was just one big meeting of the lodge, and as far as I'm concerned is some real second rate acting by all.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Joe Richman
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 12:04 AM

Jeez...the Antimasonic party hasn't held a major office since the Civil War, and here they come again.

I think Masons are silly, but we live in a country whose first President posed for a picture in his Masonic apron. (My doctor has a room full of 18th and 19th century Washington prints, including that one.)   

Actually, maybe MBSD is onto something. MR may have a big career ahead of him doing comedy at Shriner's meetings. Or maybe at the Oddfellows Hall.

Joe

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: dianavan
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 03:25 AM

I guess you must be a big fan of Kramer's, Ebbie.

Frankly, I think he was boring. A bad actor with no future beyond a blip on your t.v.

Who cares.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 11:28 AM

A comedian lost his temper on stage, big deal.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 12:07 PM

dianavan, what I objected to in your remark is the dismissive, sneering mindset of "some down and outer, coked-up, ex-actor". Do you have any knowledge that any part of that statement is true?

I am not a big fan of "Kramer's" (for pete's sake. The man is Michael Richards.) I have seen reruns of Seinfeld but I never saw any during their original run.

I have, however, read comments and references to Richards' kind of physical comedy; it was compared favorably with Lucille Ball and Carol Burnett. I have no idea of what kind of standup routine Michael Richards does.

As for being funny on the Seinfeld show, they learned lines, primarily given them by the writers of the show, writers who thought they were coming up with lines that would make people laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 03:17 PM

Michael Richards may or may not be a racist. His rant was at the very least, unfortunate. I know him as an actor, not a comedian. He appeared on a brief competitor to the Saturday Night Show, often in non-speaking roles, and he was very funny, as he was on Seinfeld. If you remember from Seinfeld, most of his humor was in his physical comedy and gibberish expressions, far more than anything he said, and those words were written for him.

Standup comedy has been described, in standup words, as performing in front of an audience "naked from the waist down." Authentic standups such as Jay Leno, Jerry Seinfeld, Drew Carey are established vets in the business. Possibly Michael Richards is out of his league. Or, possibly he had a bad night. A very bad night.

I haven't heard much Lenny Bruce, and didn't find his work engaging. Possibly he deserves some of the plaudits, but he was a sad character and apparently into addictive substances. While sharing some of his weaknesses, Richard Pryor was downright brilliant, using a lot of vulgarity but the charm of his basic personality won over audiences of all shades.

Far more a master of the power of words to hurt, inflame and make us make fools of ourselves is George Carlin. He took a lot of heat over his career for his beatnik/hippie vibe but he has worn well.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 03:29 PM

May or may not be a racist? hmm, let's see. Fork up the ass, n-word, self-righteous "interrupt a white guy" posturing...

I know what I call it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 03:55 PM

"May or may not be a racist?" That's a bit like saying that, if it had been a Jewish heckler and he'd come back with stuff about "Sixty years ago you'd, have been in a gas chamber", perhaps it'd suggest that the man might possibly have an anti-semite inside him.

The question isn't whether Richards has got a racist inside him, it's whether he's more of a racist than a whole bunch of other people who go round preening themselves on not being racist, and maybe drop hints every now and again about how black people should really get over worrying about race, because it's all done and dusted.

I suppose there are three types of racists - the out and out ones who take prode in it, the ones who conceal it from other people, and the ones who conceal it from themselves, and don't like it when they becomes aware of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 04:33 PM

None of us aren't, somewhere in our lizard-brain, racist.

We civilise our facades, and hope for the best; but anyone who says they've evolved past racialism is deluded. Richards thought he wasn't, but here we all are.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 04:52 PM

I'm offended by the lawsuit which is no doubt coming. I saw two of those young black men on the Today show, each dressed in identical kahki pants with white teeshirts and blue oxford cloth shirts buttoned to the last button. No LA black man I know of dresses like that. Their lawyer dressed them and their going for the big bucks. That's worse than poor, pathetic Michael Richard's losing his temper, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 04:59 PM

Would it be fair to shed this light on things,

He didn't have a racist mob there to back him up.

Often a genuine racist whose intent is to humiliate, and also to provoke fear in the person who is the butt of their joke, will use the blind loyalty of thrir cronies to hide behind.

Real racists in this respect are cowards. They tend not to have the bollocks to repeat their views when their bully boy mates aren't around to back them up.

The politics of racism is the politics of fear.

Those who are racist are afraid, whilst those they fear, they actively intimidate.

In this case, the protagonist had no guarantee of any support from anyone. There were many black people in the audience by the look of it and they had the freedom to react as they chose. In fact, the only person who may have been in any danger, (and I suspect he began to feel a little fear once it dawned on him what he had done) was Michael Richards.

Though even that last statement makes certain assumptions that might not bear the weight of careful scrutiny.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 05:08 PM

Maybe we're confusing real racism for a little wounded pride.

Not necessarily my point of view, but certainly an intelligent line of enquiry.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Peace
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 06:18 PM

Maybe it's much ado about a second-rate comedian, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: REHAB
Date: 23 Nov 06 - 07:24 PM

Displaced anger,

you think PEACE IT IS ME D   OR DEE DEE OR DIAME HOW ARE YOU

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 09:08 AM

"Maybe it's much ado about a second-rate comedian, too."

Yes.

A cleverer funnier man might not have got himself in such a stew.

He overestimated his own talent.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 09:09 AM

100

hee hee ... (sorry)

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 02:07 AM

Define racist.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Peace
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 06:03 AM

Hope this helps, GUEST.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 07:54 PM

The question---Jox---what talent?    Sliding and doing one "shtick" over and over on Seinfeld is not clever comedy that a stand up comic can do. I was not a big fan of the show, but have to say that the others turned in "performances"--to me he was a nothing on that program.    By the way---an aside--I am a real fan of Curb Your Enthusiasm. It is what Seinfeld could have been had it not been on "air" Tv as opposed to cable.   Larry David did, after all, crate Seinfeld.

Back to Richards.   HIs part probably could have been played by the fellow he was based on and who runs tours now in NYC.   As a stand-up he has no conception of what a stand-up does.   I always admire the bravado and confidence of stand up comics---their confidence in their material and their ability to put down a heckler in a clever way. Would that Richards had even 1/10 of that talent.

s said earlier--I recentlyh interviewed Mort Sahl prior to a gig in the area with Robert Klein and DIck Gregory. Now we are talking of people who not only command a stage but who can deliver material with confidence and has an audience splitting their sides while they are making great social and political points.   Gregory is 75, Sahl about 80, Klein around 60---Richards--I don't know but my 5 yr old grandson is quicker on the retort than he.

Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: mg
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 09:53 PM

Leonard Pitts had a good editorial today in Oregonian...he said if we even question whether this was racist, and with the fork remark I don't know how we would question it, when things were this blatant and went on and on..not just the slippage of one unacceptable word but a horrifying graphic, how could we ever hope to understand and see the subtle forms of racism (which I readily admit I don't see and in fact say why is this or that taboo etc.) mg

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,no comment
Date: 26 Nov 06 - 11:40 AM

FWIW



"On Radio, Comic Apologizes for Tirade


Nov 26, 9:38 AM (ET)


NEW YORK (AP) - Comedian Michael Richards said Sunday he did not consider himself a racist, and said he was "shattered" by the comments he made to two young black men during a tirade at a Los Angeles comedy club.

Richards appeared on the Rev. Jesse Jackson's nationally syndicated radio program, "Keep Hope Alive," as a part of a series of apologies for the incident. He said he knew his comments hurt the black community, and hoped to meet with the two men.

He told Jackson that he had not used the language before.

"That's why I'm shattered by it. The way this came through me was like a freight train. After it was over, when I went to look for them, they had gone. And I've tried to meet them, to talk to them, to get some healing," he said.

Richards, who played Jerry Seinfeld's wacky neighbor Kramer on the TV sitcom "Seinfeld," was performing at West Hollywood's Laugh Factory last week when he lashed out at hecklers with a string of racial obscenities and profane language. A cell phone videocamera captured the outburst, and the incident later appeared on TMZ.com.

Richards told Jackson the tirade was fueled by anger, not bigotry.

"I was in a place of humiliation," he said.

Richards' publicist, Howard Rubenstein, said Saturday that Richards has begun psychiatric counseling in Los Angeles to learn how to manage his anger and understand why he made the racist remarks.

"He acknowledged that his statements were harmful and opened a terrible racial wound in our nation," Rubenstein said. "He pledges never ever to say anything like that again. He's quite remorseful."

Jackson, who has called Richards' words "hateful,""sick," and "deep-seated," said the comedian's inclusion on the show was a chance for a broader discussion about "cultural isolation" in the entertainment industry.

"We might turn this minus into a plus," Jackson said. "

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 06:46 PM

Nice post "GUEST no comment".

Very enlightening.



Bill Hahn - am I "Jox"?

Just curious, as I would have thought it was pretty clear that I don't rate him much either. But then I don't rate the seinfeld show or seinfeld much either. I find the whole thing about as stimulating as cold porridge.


Peace - nice link

The interesting thing about all those dictionary definitions was that none of them dealt with the issue of Racist Humour, or what constitutes good or bad references to race in humour.

A racist discriminates on grounds of race.

So lenny bruce technically was being racist.

Yet I would be the first to jump up and defend out the clever point he made in his monologue.

So the question then changes.

It is no longer whether racist humour is acceptable or not, but what type of racist humour is acceptable and what type isn't.

Jokes about Black people at a Ku Klux Klan gathering will of course be deeply offensive, and probably about as clever and funny as a utility bill.

Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" is full of racist jokes, but they are made in a context that clearly makes them acceptable as they parody racist attitudes.

Somewhere in between these two extremes of acceptable and unacceptable racist jokes (jokes which discriminate on grounds of race) there is a line that seperates one group from the other.

The world is not Binary though, or (dare I say it) black and white.

In between the extremes, grey is the predominant shade.

And like a line drawn in the desert, where the grey is at it's most neutral, the grey immediately to one side of it is practically indistinguishable from the grey on the other side.

In the distance on one side the grey gets darker. On the other, in the distance it gets lighter.

But where the line is, it's not so easy to tell.

Yet when someone is deemed to have committed the crime of telling a racist joke that has just crossed the line, they are pilloried in much the same way as a Skinhead might be for telling one of his jokes.

I think examining external factors such as the purpose of the gathering, the composition of the crowd and the history of the performer is essential.

The guy is dull and witless and thought he would try and cash in on the whole postmodern thing. Unfortunately, he has all the depth of ... well ... seinfeld!

He got out of his depth and he's an idiot. He'll probably lose his career, and that will be a good thing, but not because racists like him need to be locked up, but because he's crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 08:16 PM

As I said, I never saw the Seinfeld show during its original run. So perhaps I'm not a good one to point out to those who think the show was not/is not funny and assume that eveyone should agree with them that the show ran 9 seasons and is in reruns all across the country.

Someone thought the show was funny.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 09:27 PM

I thought Seinfeld was very funny. Still do.

It was actually quite Shakespearean in both concept and characterization. In Shakespeare's comedies, from Twelfth Night to The Tempest, you generally find similar characters: You have a hero and heroine like Miranda and Ferdinand in The Tempest, who bumble their way through romantic misadventure. You have a clever clown or jester, like Gonzalo, who is on a level with the protagonists but is constantly foiled by his own schemes. And you have a natural clown, like Caliban, whose foolishness elevates him in a way above the other players. I would submit that Elaine, Jerry, George and Kramer in sequence serve these purposes in Seinfeld episodes.

Secondly, Shakespeare was fond of the plot device of misperception. Events, people, things are constantly mistaken among the players, while the audience is privy to the true nature of the situation. The humor lies in the failure of the characters to perceive it, and to continue to function in this mode of self-delusion.

Add to these elements the concurrent development of two or three plot arcs, and you have either A Midsummer Night's Dream or The Fear-of-Clowns Episode.

I disagree that Richards deserves this disaster because he is a lame actor. He is a terrific physical comedian with a unique and effective sense of timing. He may indeed be out of his element in standup. But the crucial thing of interest here is the public display of a man letting his demons get the best of him while on a stage, his real or feigned attempt to exorcise these demons, and the paricipation of the audience at the Laugh Factory, and all of us really, in his rise, fall, and potential redemption.

Which wouldn't make a bad Shakespeare play in itself, by the by.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 11:02 PM

Thank yuu for the insight, LonesomeEJ. I hadn't thought of it that way- many of their shows that I have seen reveal the characters as such dysfunctional people that at times I have trouble staying with them. I hadn't thought of Shakespeare at all but now I'm so sure that you are right that I'm convinced that the writers of the original premise patterned the characters. All the cast lacks is the Elizabethan costumes. I'll be watching them with new eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST, lox
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:56 AM

Seinfeld - Shakespeare


Michael Richards rant was less offensive than that comparison lonesome EJ.

Ebbie, people love Britney, Madonna and even - Paris Hilton.

Come on folks, you're lowering the tone.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,ditto
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 11:06 AM

Great comment from Lonesome; lox, up yer meds and pipe down.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 27 Nov 06 - 09:27 PM

I thought Seinfeld was very funny. Still do.

It was actually quite Shakespearean in both concept and characterization. In Shakespeare's comedies, from Twelfth Night to The Tempest, you generally find similar characters: You have a hero and heroine like Miranda and Ferdinand in The Tempest, who bumble their way through romantic misadventure. You have a clever clown or jester, like Gonzalo, who is on a level with the protagonists but is constantly foiled by his own schemes. And you have a natural clown, like Caliban, whose foolishness elevates him in a way above the other players. I would submit that Elaine, Jerry, George and Kramer in sequence serve these purposes in Seinfeld episodes.

Secondly, Shakespeare was fond of the plot device of misperception. Events, people, things are constantly mistaken among the players, while the audience is privy to the true nature of the situation. The humor lies in the failure of the characters to perceive it, and to continue to function in this mode of self-delusion.

Add to these elements the concurrent development of two or three plot arcs, and you have either A Midsummer Night's Dream or The Fear-of-Clowns Episode.

I disagree that Richards deserves this disaster because he is a lame actor. He is a terrific physical comedian with a unique and effective sense of timing. He may indeed be out of his element in standup. But the crucial thing of interest here is the public display of a man letting his demons get the best of him while on a stage, his real or feigned attempt to exorcise these demons, and the paricipation of the audience at the Laugh Factory, and all of us really, in his rise, fall, and potential redemption.

Which wouldn't make a bad Shakespeare play in itself, by the by.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 12:36 PM

My racist brother in law likes to interrupt me anytime I speak or tell a joke. I did not verbally assault him or give him PO 210 coffee.

But it did cross my mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 02:54 PM

Guest Ditto

It's just as well you copied and pasted te entire post or none of us would have had the faintest idea what you were referring to.


Kinda Shakespearian huh?


Whew - we're all at it now - the literary bug sure is spreading.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:11 PM

Whew - and we're not funny, or clever or anything, are we lox? Just posting our mugs onto Mudcat, and scolding others about lowering the tone.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,None of the above
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 09:44 PM

Two things:

Richards lost it. Even if he hadn't used the word, he still lost it. It was unprofessional, the stuff of career-killing on stage blowups.

Second, despite the tone of many of the posts here, which I find repugnantly reminiscent of a "the nigger had it coming" sort of attitude, I am NOT in favor of the over-reactions, including calls by the African American community to censor artists who use the word, or the comedy club to fine comedians who use it in their acts on stage.

At some point, we all have to figure out why Dave Chapelle can get away with dersive uses of the word in his comedy act with impunity, but Richards career must be destroyed by it.

The African American community is having a hard time dealing with this issue. The word is ubiquitous in African American popular mainstream media/culture, used both derisively and fondly. It's ambiguous use is part of the problem. Is it realistic to expect the African American community be the only people on the planet allowed to use the words in these public contexts, while everyone else is told it is too profane for public use?

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:30 PM

Here's the answer:

MANCHESTER – Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message....

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Gingrich+raises+alarm+at+event+honoring+those+who+stand+up+for+freedom+of+speec

(Richards terrorized, therefore he should be put to death. And all who practice free speech should experience the same fate.)

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,uh
Date: 28 Nov 06 - 10:37 PM

Guest, above:

It's ambiguous use is part of the problem.

First: no apostrophe on "its" in this context. Christ, that irritates me.

Its ambiguity is part of its power as a word. And you're pretending that you don't see the difference between the way Chapelle uses the word, and the way that Richards used it.

Whining about the complications of language and culture is pretty lame, Guest.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,uh-huh
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 12:34 AM

And GUEST noneoftheabove, he was going very easy on you. Never mind that Richards required an apostrophe after it - if you want to alliterate four dollar words, you need to be able to construct a sentence. Look at the structure of this sentence:

"Second, despite the tone of many of the posts here, which I find repugnantly reminiscent of a "the nigger had it coming" sort of attitude, I am NOT in favor of the over-reactions, including calls by the African American community to censor artists who use the word, or the comedy club to fine comedians who use it in their acts on stage."

Good sweet Jesus. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,NOTA
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 09:08 AM

You know what they say about people who correct grammar and spelling mistakes on the web. Just as soon as you give a rational explanation as to why I should give a flying fuck what annoys you about grammar and spelling mistakes, I think it's time to let that baby die it's deserved slow and painful death.

I wasn't complaining about the complexity and ambiguous use of the word. I was pointing it out, to make a point.

Many people, including African Americans, see the use of the word in (pardon this usage) black and white terms, while the current usage is very much in the grey area. I love Chapelle's uses of the word--every bit as brilliant as another African American comic who knew how to use it brilliantly: Richard Pryor.

So, my point stands. I don't care if Jesse Jackson wants African American artists to stop using the word. I don't want my Chapelle sanitized and sensitized by African American conservative religious leaders, especially those with a few well-documented bigoted statements of their own out there.

As to white people still being racist and using racist language when the barriers come down? Well, duh. What planet are white folks living on these days...

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 10:13 AM

Words are used as a way of signalling an attitude. It's the attitude that is mean to insult, and the attitude that may deserve to be resisted and attacked. Focusing on the words themselves is like shooting the messenger.

It's quite possible to convey the same insult and avoid using particular words, and be every bit as insulting and offensive. That's why the words identified as offensive change - new words that are intended to avoid offence get taken up by people who use them in order to offend.

And at the same time it can be possible to use words that have been identified as insulting in a context where the attitude being reflected is not insulting.

There are times when it is quite right to focus on the use of language, as a way of focusing attention on attitudes, and making people more aware of the presence of hate and prejudice in themselves and in others. Objecting to the use of some words, because of the way they have been used, is quite justifiable.

But we shouldn't treat the words as magic, and pretend that changing them in itself makes all the difference, or that on a particular occasion the important thing is whether or not a particular word was used or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 04:13 PM

My my - who's scolding who ...

Ok - Seinfeld can in all seriousness be compared to shakespeare ...

... grrrmmmph ...

GUEST 28 Nov 06 - 09:11 PM

No you're not very clever.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Nov 06 - 06:58 PM

Sorry lonesome EJ,

This is getting out of hand - I confess to a bit of GUEST baiting.

I don't intend to go to town on this point any further, though my evil twin is prodding me to.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 04:30 AM

Good, lox; put the cork in the bottle and give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 02:08 PM

Red Foxx was another comic who used the word a lot. So while for some this isn't a simple issue, it actually is. The standard is one way for African American comics (they can use it, even derisively with really nasty intent), but no other groups can--not Jewish comics, Latino comics, Asian comics, etc.

However, it isn't uncommon to see/hear (for instance) Jewish comics slag and insult Latino comics with slurs, and vice versa. However, you don't see that happen in public between an African American comic and Jewish comic, or Latino comic, etc. using the n-word to slag/insult the African American comic. That is one taboo in an entertainment field where there isn't supposed to be any taboos, that still stands. Though I'm not sure why, when it is done all the time between African American comics.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 03:14 PM

I don't generally think that when black people use the word they are taken as intending to convey an attitude of contempt or hatred towards all black people. That is the relevant difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,NOTA
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 06:34 PM

That's hard to say, I think McGrath. At least here in the US, there is the term "self-hating" that gets attached to certain types of attitude that goes along with use of the word as an epithet. There is a way that some middle class African Americans use the word to denigrate/insult working class or poor African Americans, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 07:36 PM

Perhaps I can re-cap the discussion to some extent and put it into some perspective.

Various ethnic groups do and can make self-deprecating humor (humour for our forebears across the pond). Jackie Mason and Robert Klein come to mind vis a vis Jewish humor.   Though Mason has crossed the line lately and is offensive. Dick Gregory and Richard Pryor surely can do self deprecating and pointed Black humor.   The Italians are also well represented by Pat Cooper among others.

My point is that there are a few avenues open for ethnic humor that makes a point:

The above---self deprecation
The point makers like Lenny Bruce, Dick Gregory, and the late (sadly) Godfrey Cambridge who use humor to skewer the bigots and show the meaningless of words when used as slurs.

THEN--there are the poor sad alleged comics who think they can do "?stand-up" and when heckled cannot respond properly and their true feelings come out---Richards.   

Now, if he and Mel Gibson can start their own lodge I do think they can find an appropriate outfit to wear---and so reasonable---there is a sale on sheets at Bed Bath and Beyond.   Oh---bet they go somewhere --they best check ownership of the company first.


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:12 PM

TYPO--Before they go there in the last sentence---


Bill Hahn

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 30 Nov 06 - 08:39 PM

"I don't generally think that when black people use the word they are taken as intending to convey an attitude of contempt or hatred towards all black people. That is the relevant difference."

Perhaps a key point here is that generalising about what any white or black people mean or think at any time on any subject based on whether they are white or black is a fundamental mistake.

When I've been in the right setting I have said "Nigger", the right setting being where I know that people understand and trust my motivation and the meaning and context of my words, where I know that people will not take my words and abuse them to satisfy a derogatory agenda, where I am sure that noone will be made to feel uncomfortable, victimized, bullied etc ...

I am very conscious that I do not wish to humiliate or upset anyone by being derogatory about them in any way. If a context arises where "nigger" has that effect then I apply that rule just as I would with any other words. I am considerate of peoples feelings.

I don't subscribe to the whole sacred word thing though, where certain words are shrouded in cultural taboo - "thou shalt not" - the 11th commandment. I have witnessed situations where extreme violence has been committed in the name of not violating the holy shrine of "nigger", even when it has clearly not been used to cause offence.

Somehow though it was perceived as justified "oh well - I didn't realise he'd said Nigger ... well in that case I completely understand ... he had to do it cos that guy said the N word ... ssshhhh ... sssshhhh ... you know the one ... don't say it though ... oh no not me"

Language is a voyage of discovery, and words meanings evolve as much as they become deeper over time. The true meaning of words becomes clearer to us as we get older and every word in my vocabulary is fair game to be used and experimented with as I see fit.

The issue of racism isn't about which words are allowed or not, but concerns the considerate and respectful treatment of all human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 06 - 08:02 PM

even when it has clearly not been used to cause offence

Surely you mean it was not intended to cause offence - because it sounds very much as if it did actually offend someone.

What matters isn't just what we mean to communicate by our words, it's also, and more important, what other people understand us to mean when they hear what our words.

There are no taboo words. There are words which have a history which means that they are likely to be understood as indicating an intention to cause hurt and insult. Clearly it is important to avoid sending out that message, which means being careful about the context in which we use those words.

But using other words to send that same message is no great improvement - if Michael Richards had avoided actually using the word "nigger" that wouldn't have meant that his outburst was any less racist and repulsive.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 10:21 AM

I'm not sure that your distinction makes that much difference. I use words every day for a purpose.

Of course I use them to satisfy my intent.

I use one word to make you laugh and another to make you think, as those are my intentions.

I don't see an argument there.

As for Taboo vs History, I agree with you about the ramifications attached to words as a result of their usage in history, and the violence and degradation that has gone along with the use of those words.

However, it is also true that there are people who do enshrine the word, almost exalting it, a bit like the holy hand grenade of Antioch.

As I write this I have an idea that there are conflicting views on what to do with this word.

On the one hand, it could be put in a glass case in a museum and exhibited as an example of something never to be used. This keeps it powerful though as anyone who wishes to cause offence will simply see that as an invitation to take it and wreak havoc with it.

Alternatively it's power to humiliate, belittle, intimidate, subdue and instill fear might be watered down to the point that they are no longer significant attributes any more if it is redefined by popular usage such that that is the result.

Comedy and music have done a lot to achieve that. The word has evolved.

To say that once it is redefined, it is then reserved for the exclusive use of Black people, undermines the whole purpose of redefining it. By doing that, we discriminate on racial grounds again and we give the word back it's power, since the temptation (as above)always exists for those who do wish to offend, to say it, knowing that they are not allowed to lest they cause offence.

I don't think it has the power it once had, I think that it is given that power by people who are "offended" and "shocked" by it's use, and I think Richards was unlucky. Another crowd another day might not have been so hard. I think that once one person walked out, the rest joined them in cultural solidarity.

I'm not blaming people. It's still not a clear cut issue for most.

If you're Irish, then the famine and English occupation are as much a sore point as Slavery is to a black guy.

I have english friends who rib me with humour which includes the words "potato famine" etc. They know their history, and they try to get a rise out of me in good humour. I smile patronizingly at them and they collapse in fits of laughter. I then make monkeys out of them as I have a sharp wit and a word used to humiliate me only has as much power as I give it.

"Emancipate yourself from mental slavery" says bob marley - I quite agree!

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Azizi
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 10:57 AM

It's interesting to speculate about how different this thread might be if there were more people of African descent posting here.

However, if anyone is interested in reading [or posting to] a discussion about this term on a forum that appears to have majority [if not all] Black participants, you can visit

http://www.blackprof.com/archives/2005/11/the_role_of_nigger_or_nigga_in_1.html

As for me, slightly modifying what one of the posters on that BlackProf forum said, I don't have the emotional energy & the emotional/intellectual distance I need to involve myself in this type of discussion on this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,Homer
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 11:39 AM

Thanks for the link, Azizi. What an interesting site. After lox's self-serving rationale, I decided to quit returning to this particular thread.

per lox:
"When I've been in the right setting I have said "Nigger", the right setting being where I know that people understand and trust my motivation and the meaning and context of my words, where I know that people will not take my words and abuse them to satisfy a derogatory agenda, where I am sure that noone will be made to feel uncomfortable, victimized, bullied etc".

Well, lox, good luck defending yourself where you might guess wrong. The only context I could come up with where all those conditions could be assumed was a Klan meeting.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 01:52 PM

Good discussion there. Better than here, Azizi. I particularly liked the opening post which categorized the different meanings the word could have.

There was one passage in a subsequent post I felt was pretty spot on: "Language is malleable and can be bent according to our wishes. We have a long and rich history of manipulating language. So instead of allowing ourselves to be victimized by a word, why don't we harness the power to manipulate the meaning of the word and see where that takes us?"

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:10 PM

Returning to my first post, I believe that I read more into the rant than was intended. It seems clear from Richrads' comments after the tirade that he did, in fact, lose his temper and vent a torrent of hate directed at the audience.

I have found the conversation that ensued on this thread a very healthy one, in total. I do think there are contexts in which the word "nigger" can be used; specifically in a discussion such as this one.

I was raised by working class white parents from Kentucky, and nigger was a term used in my home when I was a child. At the age of six, I had the great experience to see Jackie Robinson playing at a Dodgers game. When my Dad pointed him out, I said "do you mean the nigger on second base?" A black man and woman sat in front of me, and they both turned in shock at what I said, the man standing up. I remember his wife saying "he's just a little boy" as an excuse for me. But I will never forget the pain and anger that I inflicted on these people, and it has stayed with me the rest of my life.

For me, the words that came from Michael Richards would be impossible. Someday, I hope the same becomes true for all of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 04:11 PM

I said:

"As I write this I have an idea that there are conflicting views on what to do with this word."

Interesting that the link you gave us is discussing that point. Perhaps therefore we are not so far removed from it as we might fear.

Thanks azizi - thereis muc to be learned from that site.


Homer

"The only context I could come up with where all those conditions could be assumed was a Klan meeting."

It must be hard having such a limited imagination. Never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 05:49 PM

After work I used to drink wine out of a brown paper bag, Bukoski-style, on the corner with a black friend of mine. He used to use the word 'nigger' casually with me - a white guy - in conversation, especially when I was trying to shine him on about something.

"Nigger please," he'd say good naturedly, "don't shit me like that."

I'm guessing he meant it in a friendly way, but I was never sure. At least he smiled when he said it. Though I never returned the ummm... term of endearment.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 06:03 PM

I played bass in a Hip Hop crew for a few years. White, black, mixed race and asian used the word freely. The white drummer being the worst culprit.

Maybe it's experience like that that makes it hard for me to imagine a Ku Klux Klan gathering at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 07:23 PM

Geez - the guy was a damn fool

Subject: RE: BS: Kramer's Racist Rant
From: Jeri
Date: 02 Dec 06 - 07:29 PM

LEJ, that's my take on it. Richards lost control of his temper. It was anger, not hatred or racism, and his outburst appears to have shocked him severely. He used a racist word, but to call him a racist, we'd need more than one moment in time that occurred because he snapped when a couple of alleged jerks, allegedly behaving badly, sent him over the edge.

There are some who like things easy and thought-free. Every time you hear a word, it must mean exactly the same thing. Things don't work that way. I've heard 'nigger' used in every imaginable way. There are other clues that you need to tell what a person really means by it. Reasonably intelligent people try to be somewhat right before they make a judgement and not knee-jerk their way into one.

I remember an episode of the Chappelle Show where he played a blind white supremicist. Some young white guys were in a car next to the truck he was in, and they were playing loud rap music. He yells "NIGGER!" at them. All the white guys know is that a black guy just called them 'nigger'. As the truck with Chappelle in it drives away, the two white guys are reacting - something along the lines of, "Did he just call us 'nigger'!? -- SWEEEET!!!"