You want to know one reason right-wingers aren’t trusted by black people? Because of comment threads like this one.

Calling a black person the n-word repeatedly isn’t “real racism”. Jesus.

Why do you assume everybody here is a “right-winger?”

Besides, a word can be used for many purposes. It can be used as a tool to anger somebody. Is that “racism?” No.

Check your PC illogic a little more closely, please.

I’ll assume from your mangling of the English language that you meant, “The n-word used as AN invective does not EQUAL racism”. If calling someone a N* in anger, is not racist, what in your opinion would be? If the invective preceded a physical attack I could easily see someone with your flawed thinking saying, “Well just because he called him a N* and hit him, that doesn’t “equate” racism”! You sound like a moron. Do you listen to yourself? I suspect that your mangling of the lingo is not due to a mistake but rather, stupidi

Some people play dirty pool when angry. Some people will automatically find the most offensive thing imaginable when in a battle of words. That does not equate racism, sorry.

i can accept that if richards REALLY wanted them thrown out because they were black is racially tinged, but he didn’t want all black people thrown out, he merely wanted THOSE two people thrown out because they were heckling him. They happened to be black and he happened to choose the most offensive thing you can say to a black person, right?

So, what we have here is Richards using the most offensive word available to hurt somebody. That’s not racism, that’s him using a word associated with racism to spew invective.

perhaps you should examine your own correct thinking since my flawed thinking appears to make more sense.

richards did nothing racist. he spewed a racial epithet in anger. that does not equate my definition of “racism”

btw, i used invective correctly. the article is unecessary.

good day.

The n-word used as invective does not equate racism.

Metro on November 23, 2006 at 1:19 AM

I’ll assume from your mangling of the English language that you meant, “The n-word used as AN invective does not EQUAL racism”. If calling someone a N* in anger, is not racist, what in your opinion would be? If the invective preceded a physical attack I could easily see someone with your flawed thinking saying, “Well just because he called him a N* and hit him, that doesn’t “equate” racism”! You sound like a moron. Do you listen to yourself? I suspect that your mangling of the lingo is not due to a mistake but rather, stupidity.

NOW THAT SOME OF THE OTHER INSTANCES OF RICHARDS RACISM, this time against JEWS, has come to light I will be accepting apologies from all the racist nutbags who were DEFENDING RICHARDS’ RACIST TIRADE AND SAYING THAT HE “DIDN’ MEAN IT”.

Additionally Richards admitted to the fake Reverend Jesse Jackson that he DID hate blacks, so kiss my ass B. MOE. In response to Jackson asking him where his hatred of Blacks came from, Richards said, “I don’t know” . He didn’t say, “oh, I don’t really hate blacks, Rev, i just lost it”, or whatever else racist apologist, B. Moe was hoping to put in Richards mouth. If you take it seriously now that you learn that he once offended Jews in a similar manner, you’re STILL A RACIST because you couldn’t see it when the issue was an offense committed against Blacks, which a lot of you couldn’t have cared less about, given the morally destitute things you’ve posted. I hope this causes those of you who were DEFENDING, MITIGATING or even worse, pointing to some wrongs by others (blacks) in order to JUSTIFY Richards’ behavior, to seriously check your closets…..for sheets.

As one wise minister and college professor once told me, those who express racism towards one race usually have it towards all not like themselves.

Kramer’s career in freefall after fresh claims of racism

…
But he has now been ac…

You want to know one reason right-wingers aren’t trusted by black people? Because of comment threads like this one.

Calling a black person the n-word repeatedly isn’t “real racism”. Jesus.

dorkafork on November 23, 2006 at 11:30 PM

Quote of the day. Thank you.

Calling a black person the n-word repeatedly isn’t “real racism”. Jesus.

As for the Anti-Semitic remarks, I guess AP assumes the rumor is true (one mans word, without proof, does not equate evidence) and MR is a ’self-hating Jew’… which is a racist term, in and of itself (if you want to split hairs).

I’m not saying his conduct is excusable. This type of “condition” is controllable either by avoiding the situations that bring it out (like trying in vain to do standup) or by learning rage control/management. But it’s not the same as simply being a racist. The guy has mental problems.

OH NOES A WURD HURTED ME

Get over it FAST and deal with the serious Sticks & Stones.

Your point, Metro, is so shallow as to be beneath contempt.

Christoph: the title of the Hot Air article that I was responding to is Video: Michael Richards in blackface. You are referring to the previous article which is something I had not referred to.

Ah, entirely right, keylime. Thanks for correcting me.

Incidentally, my ancestors are German (”Christoph” as opposed to Christopher), Irish, and native Indian (in addition to Welsh).

I get your point now. I don’t agree with being overly sensitive with regards to race and I can both make and take a joke. I was just pointing out the egregiousness of the Richards’ behavior revealed in the previous post; I did indeed forget what I was commenting on.

- The Dog

However, my German ancestors were locked up in America like the Japanese were during WWII, my Irish ancestors were purposefully starved to death, my Indian ancestors were largely exterminated, and my Celtic ancestors were slaves. I’m sure there are some other things in my past I could feel bad about if I wanted to.

The real question for any of us is whether we let the past and others define who we are or do we stand on our own two feet as real men and make our own destiny according to the best of our abilities.

Oh yes, just to help you fill in the blanks on me, my alma mater is SCSU which you may recall from your civil rights history.

If Richards had any sense at all, he would stay away from the edge. He’s not suited for living there. Oh, and any future improvisation should be well scripted in advance.

. Rubenstein says Richards told him, “I’m not anti-Semitic. I was playing a role and poking fun at the rednecks.”

Rednecks? Oh! I am so Oppressed.

Oppreeeeeeeessed!!

Geez. Tempest in a teapot,..in a maelstrom…???

Jerry: So you won’t believe what happened with Whatley today. It got back to him that I made this little dentist joke and he got all offended. Those people can be so touchy.

Kramer: Those people, listen to yourself.

Jerry: What?

Kramer: You think that dentists are so different from me and you? They came to this country just like everybody else, in search of a dream.

Jerry: Kramer, he’s just a dentist.

Kramer: Yeah, and you’re an anti-dentite.

Jerry: I am not an anti-dentite!

Kramer: You’re a rabid anti-dentite! Oh, it starts with a few jokes and some slurs. “Hey, denty!” Next thing you know you’re saying they should have their own schools.

Jerry: They do have their own schools!

Kramer: Yeah!

I don’t care that some comedian said rude words in a nightclub. I’m old enough to remember real racism and the people who suffered under it — which are not some comedy club audience who were insulted.

EF on November 22, 2006 at 5:52 PM

EF said it all right there. Nuff said. Back to important stuff please.

Is it not enough for us (read: blacks) to say that we are extremely uncomfortable with this and have non-blacks accept that?

No problem. Everybody else is “extremely uncomfortable with this,” too.

I think what EF and some others are trying to get to is a “Big Picture” idea of What Does It Mean?

I think it is possible to argue that race relations have, in some sense, gone backward (or at least downhill) over the past 30 years.

In the 1976 movie “Silver Streak,” there is a hilarious scene in which, as a disguise, Richard Pryor puts shoe police on Gene Wilder’s face and tells him to “act black.” Wilder then does a (ridiculously laughable) ghetto-hip routine, and asks Pryor whether he thinks this will be good enough to fool the police, who are looking for them.

Pryor replies, “We’ll make it past the cops. I just hope we don’t see no Muslims.”

The “Muslims” reference, of course, was to the Nation of Islam, who at that time were well-known in the black community for denouncing the type of underclass culture which Wilder was imitating.

I don’t recall anyone in 1976 claiming that “Silver Streak” was racist.

So, 30 years ago, a movie that featured a blackface scene was not an occasion for ritual denunciation and, indeed, the scene itself was used to make a multi-layered cultural commentary. Now, in 2006, we’re analyzing a scene from a forgettable 20-year-old movie role as if it could reveal some deep mystery about the state of Michael Richards’ soul.

I certainly don’t doubt that we’re now more sensitive to racial issues, but I am by no means sure that this increased sensitivity is unalloyed progress.

Richard Pryor and the movie audience of 1976 understood that Gene Wilder’s ludicrous ghettofied blackface performance was a conscious portrayal of a certain stereotype, not an insult to black people generally. But it seems an annual occurrence now that some fraternity will have a party during which some white kids decide to do a blackface thing and, without any examination of the intended meaning or context, this results in ritual denunciation.

As an analogy, suppose that someone were lampooning hillbilly stereotypes — toothless moonshine-guzzlers, etc. As an Appalachian-American, I might get offended by that, if it was offered as a general depiction of all Appalachian-Americans. But I cannot deny that it is a fair depiction of some Appalachian-Americans, who are indeed noted for poor dental hygiene and an affection for homemade whiskey.

When Richards started shouting the “n-word” at hecklers, that was completely wrong, and Richards himself has acknowledged as much. But this rooting around in the vaults for other “evidence” of some generalized trait of racism on Richards’ part is redolent of the Washington Post’s assertion that Sen. George Allen was using a little-known French slur when he said “macaca.”

Okay, he said it. Now what? He apologized. You want him to wear a hair shirt? Adopt a couple of black kids? Lose a multimillion dollar law suit to the idiots in the audience who are now claiming emotional distress? What do you want? What will be enough? Or, is this some sort of transgression that can never be atoned for? Talk about a lack of perspective!

EF on November 22, 2006 at 8:01 PM

Now imagine, for real perspective, if the same comments had been made by a black comedian. There wouldn’t have even been any comment, let alone notice about it.

Ironic, isn’t it?

Again, not excusing, just trying to shed a little perspective and stimulate thought.

I was reading over at Wikipedia about the show in general and about his character in particular. It mentioned that in the episode “The Wife,” Kramer is dating a black woman, and in order to impress her family he goes into a tanning booth. He falls asleep, and at the end of the show he shows up to her family’s get-together, and they get upset because they think he’s doing blackface.

Again, what he did this weekend was inexcusable. But I need context.

ScoopPC11 on November 22, 2006 at 5:58 PM

lol, that was the best, the black chick’s father:

“I thought you said you were bringing a white boy! I don’t see a white boy! All I see is a damn fool!”