BS: Kramer's Racist Rant

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!!!"

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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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,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,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: 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,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: 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,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
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,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 - 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 25 Nov 06 - 06:03 AM

Hope this helps, GUEST.

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: GUEST,lox
Date: 24 Nov 06 - 09:09 AM

100

hee hee ... (sorry)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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
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: 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 - 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.