blonde poker forum

 Michael Richards , better known as Kramer in the American sit-com Seinfeld  has been caught on camera racially

 abusing a black member of the audience at a Los Angeles' comedy club.

 even though he claims not to be a racist the video clearly shows the guy flip out and the language he uses towards

 his victim is simply despicable

 the video is on youTube if anyone wants to see it , just do a search for Michael Richards.

 ps . the video is quite distressing , so if you are offended by racist behaviour  ( as most of us are ) you may not want to

 see it

That was unbelievable and can only assume he is on something.

Blimey,

shocking

Here's his apology on Letterman (Jerry Seinfeld happened to be Letterman's guest the day after this all blew up).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5727601579800432446&q=kramer+letterman (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5727601579800432446&q=kramer+letterman)

In the original show footage I thought it was quite funny when one of the black guys who walked out started giving Kramer grief, saying that Seinfeld was the only good thing he's ever done. Which is mostly true.

I do believe that Kramer isn't racist - he's just not a very good stand-up who doesn't know how to respond to heckles properly. Oddly enough, the part I find most objectionable in his outburst isn't the constant use of the N-word, but his initial comment referring to lynchings. It's one thing to call a guy a rude word based on the colour of his skin, but to advocate his hanging is quite another.

Disgusting  >:( >:( >:( bloke needs a good slap

like the way he says sorry, everything all right then......what of a tit of a man

 yep

 '' the insane thing is im not a racist ''

 um ......   i think you are !

wow

I'd like to believe he intended to do a piece about the evocative nature of the words. He did seem to turn to a white person and say "you see what's inside you, does it scare you" If so, boy did he ever get that wrong

The other option is that he got angry and let out what he really thought.

could be a mixture of both

either way, well out of order.

welcome back Adam


good to see you here again, or maybe I have just missed the posts!

Very good to see you Adam , i hope all is well  :)

I'm still about, just busy so only get a few minutes to read important looking threads. never seem to get time to post.

actually, there's a quick thread I want to start.

Is it regarding moving the short stack ? ;)

if its that moving the shortstack thing again, i'd advise against it

you see, two objectionable gits go for the obvious every time!

LOL i just cant resist knocking the ball into an empty net ... ;)

watch it you  ;starwars; I've been back 2 minutes.

I was initially wondering if he was doing a piece about the nature of the word that was being misinterpreted.

Nope, he's just a bare faced racist.



The apology is half-assed. I hope Letterman follows it up with some tough, to the bone, questions. Would like to see the full interview.

Guess whether or not this guy owns a handgun...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBTgkshiXkE&NR

WARNING - POTTY MOUTHED AT POINTS

Is somebody automatically a racist if they say something of a racist nature? Sometimes people say things that they know will hurt. I have had arguements with people and said things that I don't mean, but i have said them to make them hurt. the comments I'm talking about arent racist but if it was a gender comment would that automatically make me sexist?

He was bang out of order and he knows it, I don't think other people who aren't involved have the right to jump on the band waggon and start writing people off like that...

While there's no doubt that this is a good point, if the white hood fits............

Is that reference to me?

No no no, this Kramer chap.

His feelings came through for me, it wasn't an accidental racial slur, it was a two minute tirade.

Followed by a half assed apology that looks like he was in pain for being forced to pander.



Half the fun of being alive is judging people in the public eye based on incomplete information. Don't take that away from us Rooky :)

Particulary us poker players, we have to make best guesses based on the little evidence we got all the time. Projecting that into the world is a natural thing to do.

Racism is still highly prevalent in the modern world, it's just that people have learnt to suppress their views due to the expectations of society. If this guy is serious about changing his ways and seeking help for his subterranean racist attitude, then hopefully others will follow suit and alter their own racist views.

IMO, society has just encouraged racists to hide their racist thoughts rather than change them, and this is why they sometimes slip out. Remember Ron Atkinson, anyone? It's about teaching people why racism is wrong, not simply that it is wrong.

The important question here is one that I doubt we'll ever know the answer to for sure. Is he apologising because he got caught, or is it because he knows he was wrong and wants to change? I hope it's the latter.

I understand what you are saying, but isn't that a form of racism, using someone's race as a weapon in attacking them, whether it be verbally, physically, or whatever?

Thats what I'm asking. Is being a racist saying something, or believing something? There is a world of difference.


Some very good points.

both

and racism is perpetuated by anyone using racial stereotypes. groups being assigned traits (better Dances/accountants/fighters/lover/drinkers/etc) is adding to the problem. personally I get more frustrated by racial stereotyping than by any other for of racism. some people just like a fight and pick a fight with a different colour/religion/football strip or town. they're just idiots. they'll always find someone to hate. racism that's more subtle and attitude based is worse.

I kind of get what Rooky is saying - in an instance where someone has aggrieved you, then you may want to vex your anger at them. The objective of this would be to try and upset the other guy, therefore it's only sensible to pick topics of abuse which you think the other guy is most likely to take to heart. The colour of their skin would be such a thing. If his was fat, it could be his weight, if he was a spotty teenager it could be his acne etc.

Consider if Kramer had said absolutely nothing, and instead, run straight up to the black guy and decked him. Surely we'd all agree that physical violence is 'worse' than anything someone could say, but Kramer wouldn't be in as much trouble, would he?

I think we've disagreed about this before Andrew.

I dont agree that your alternative scenario of him running over and decking him is worse. that's one guy attacking another. That's not OK but it's less serious than verbally abusing someone based on their religion, colour or sex. aiming your hatred for an ethnic group at a single individual is worse than aiming your anger about one specific person at the person themselves. If he'd called him an ignorant bastard for interupting him and punched him it would have been better than the stuff about "you people talk now...interupting a white man...etc"

You'd hope we could evolve past both physically attacking some one for winding us up AND from disliking/hating people we don't know based on the colour of their skin, but for me the latter is worse.

to answer the other point, I can't see that it's ever acceptable to abuse someone racially whether you mean it or not. saying something specifically to hurt them emotionally is as bad as attacking them physically. people should realise that words have consequences.

Funnily enough most racist I know would never dream of verballising their opinions to the ethnic groups in question. they make unpleasant comments when in all white company but 'politely' keep their opinions to themselves in mixed race situations. you can stop people behaving in a racist way but it's very hard to stop people thinking racist thoughts.
Wish I knew the answer

Subject is getting too difficult to discuss in the written form where it is more difficult to explain views. i think for now people would settle with preventing racist actions. The thinking part is impossible to control and as long as it remains without action will never be a problem.

I would personally prefer to be verbally abused that physically attacked.

I really can't see how a physical attack can be less serious than calling someone names. Admittedly, as a skinny, white, male atheist I have very little personal experience of suffering abuse due to my colour/religion/gender/weight etc so I'm arguing from a theoretical viewpoint, but the logic seems flawed to me.


Yes, but my point was that I don't think that Kramer was aiming his hatred for an ethnic group at a single individual - he was using the guy's ethnic background as the 'stick to beat him with'. If the heckler had happened to be a white man, I still think Kramer would have flown off the handle at him. He wouldn't have thought 'I'll leave him alone because he's white.'


Refer above - I don't think Kramer did pick on the guy because he was black - he picked on him because he heckled, then used the colour of his skin to have a go at him. Completely unacceptable of course, but it doesn't mean Kramer attends KKK meetings.


I'm not saying that they don't have consequences, just that the consequences are less severe than physical attack.


Of course not, because they're cowards. This is why lots of physical racist attacks are performed by groups of people against a single individual - the perpetrators are cowards.

Kramer's apology is going to get him in even more trouble...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fjnm8fzRExc (http://youtube.com/watch?v=fjnm8fzRExc)

Mr. Richards wants to say that he isn't a racist and that he has no idea where the 'rage' came from; I agree that the most likely explantion (based on the information available) is that his anger for one particular heckler caused him to reach for the first available weapon he 'saw in his mind', and that was the N-word. He was hurt by the heckler, and in that moment, wanted to hurt the guy right back.

Slight deviation, but there's a point: anyone who's a fan of 'Cracker' can't help but remember Robert Carlyle's character, Albie, abusing a Pakistani shop-owner and talking about the P-word being a 'weapon'; but perhaps this is the point. Richards doesn't believe he's a racist, but surely only a racist would reach for such a weapon. The definition of the word "racist" should be wide enough to include the kind of people who are not necessarily political in the KKK sense (i.e. have not necessarily defined their position on race-relations with such abominable clarity), but merely think it's okay to use the N-word against a particular individual if you're angry enough.

What does the use of the N-word in that situation actually mean? It surely can only be a lowering of the subject's humanity, a declaration that he/she is somehow inferior. If you're trying to hurt someone by using a word like that, you have to acknowledge that the pain of it is going to come from making the person feel somehow less than human. It doesn't require a mission statement or a hooded costume.

In that case he will need to cast his gaze inwards and ask himself some tough questions as to why he reached for that weapon. Simply acting under the "I do a lot of free-association in my comedy" (translation: half the time I don't even understand the rubbish I come out with) credo will not wash.

The similarity with Big Ron's case is also quite striking; when Ron was caught using the N-word about Marcel Desailly - he didn't realise he was still miked up - he then underwent a disappointingly short wilderness period before returning with a documentary in which he tried to shake off the racist tag by getting to the bottom of the N-word and why it is unacceptable for a person of his skin colour to use it. Part of his 'defence' was that the N-word is commonly used these days in non-derogatory fashion, mainly by black people, and if it's okay for them, then it should be okay for him too.

The fact is that Ron used the word as a coda to a series of derogatory remarks about Desailly - he called him "lazy" and "thick", before rounding it off with his six-letter racial epithet. In what possible sense could he be using the N-word here in an arbitrary, non-derogatory fashion, given the context of the words he'd employed immediately before it?

That was just a couple of years ago and now of course, he has his own show again on Sky TV - so of course there is still hope for good 'ole Kramer.

As for whether it is worse to hit someone or call them a bad name - I think that is slightly missing the thrust of the issue. And AdamM makes a good point when he says that it's difficult to stop people thinking racist thoughts - but surely that should be our aim? Merely stopping the racist actions isn't good enough, even if it leads to a peaceful life (for most of us).

People with racist thoughts will pass those ideas on to their kids, even perhaps in subtle or unspoken ways, and somewhere down the line the beast will rear its head again, probably with greater ferocity and when we least expect it.

Everyone has a breaking point Andrew, and I believe that point is arbitary.

It's entirely possible that if the heckler was caucasian, the comedian would never have become as agitated as he was. A little bit of "how dare he, a black man" might have factored into pushing him over the edge.

Judging by the language he was using, and for how long as he was using it, this is not entirely outwith the realm of possibility.

nail hit squarely on the head. His racist views that he keeps hidden away because he knows it's socially unacceptable to say them out loud found an outlet. I think the attack is far more sickening than if he's called him a non-racially abusive name and thumped him.


Kids are born colour blind. my daughter thinks nothing less of the polish, portugese and black skinned kids in her class. It's up to me to explain to her that some people are mean to these people because of these differences and that it's wrong. I can't stop racist people venting infront of her throughout her life but I can arm her with what reasonable people all understand as proper opinions on the subject.

I remember my Psychology lectures saying positive roll models from the different groups would help but footballers, musicians and actors come from all different groups but that seems to make no difference. football fans cheering their own black players but abusing the oppositions  >:?

as I say, I wish I had the answer but it's definitely racist thoughts and opinions that need changing as a priority.

Well the point Andrew is that you contradict yourself.  If he has picked on the guy because of heckling which is a truth, his racist abuse was unnecessary. He could pick on the guy's other attributes and not focus on his skin colour.

Funny, if pple get pissed off with white guys, the abuse is never directed to their skin colour, it only happens to 'the others.'

There is no excuse for Kramer's behaviour.  There are other ways you can express you anger towards someone behaviour without referring to the person's skin colour.

How often we hear things like oh, i invite my black friend over, or she has married this guy, he is black... you won't hear, oh my boss is white you know with ginger hair, or white male writer wrote a book on...


Language is culture- how you talk and think determines a set of beliefs. 


If you think racist - you are racist.  Simple and pathetic as a concept is a colonial invention as scientifically every human being belongs to one group - homo sapiens.



I am sorry Andrew but if you think there is nothing wrong with it, there is no point discussing the subject with you, but instead send you for some racial and cultural awareness classes. 

WTF? Your comment is completely unrelated to the quote from me which you used.

Why don't you try reading the earlier comment from me which you quoted in your post in which I said:


We may have discussions on what we think might have been going through Kramer's mind during this incident, but please don't misquote me and imply I'm a racist, as that's really low.

What's wrong with describing someone as black in a matter of fact manner?

You won't hear, "oh my boss is white" because most of us mix in circles where most people happen to be white. If we lived in Malawi, you would hear white being used as an adjective more often. Would it be racist, of course not.

You can acknowledge the colour of a persons skin without being branded a goose stepping Nazi.

Some people take offense at this and absolutely will call you racist.

I've got names for them then  ;)

Only those with a soap box and a copy of the Overly PC guide. I compeltely agree 100% that f you lived in a predominatly black area you would be the 'white boy'. Absolutely no doubt. And I dont see anything wrong with that.

I remember when I was little it was unacceptable to say black, people were described as being coloured. Now it is completely the opposite.
The N word has always been frowned upon but has been made popular by rappers and gang culutre.

It can all just get overhyped by people who have no involvement or cause to be involved! On that note....

Ok clarify,

I don't imply that you are racist Andrew, but   this statement suggest that you don't really see  that Kramer's rant was not racist per se.  Well it was, additionally Kramer at some point says sth like; if you disturb white man this what is going to happen to you.  If you use racial abuse towards another person, it means that you are racist, we are what we eat and what we think. 


As to referring to people that you know and describing them by their colour of their skin, instead of their names and occupations, well this probably indicates that the different colour of skin is 1 st defining element that one choses to describe another.  Language is a powerful element that defines our culture.  In fact one is brought to the culture via language.

I am not saying that we should ignore differences among us, but one should become aware of certain attitudes towards the other.
I can't be bothered to write the whole essay here why it is problematic in a multicultural society to choose a colour/gender/sexual orientation of the other person as a pre-dominant factor in describing the other person.  If you have never experienced any form of discrimination because of the above characteristics, then you have no reason to believe that racism/homophobia and sexism is a big problem. 



If i have a friend who happens to come from different part of the world/or is of different skin colour, i won't tell you oh tank can i invite my black/yellow mate to your party, simply because the fact that he is different colour then me is not important for you to know.  I might say john/mary will come along, they are nice people and you might like them.  As I define them by their qualities as humans and not by their race. 

Acknowledging and defining are two different things.

Would you have a moral dilemma if he asked you what they looked like?

well i could say he is tall/short/with long short hair /sexy not sexy whatever large /small with long legs short arms. muscular/not muscular.  If you describe your white friends to other white friends do u say, white male with curly hair? nope, unless at the police station. 

If you fail to see the issue that the only way you see fit to describe a person of differnt colour to yours is mainly by their skin colour, then you have a problem....

The Black Police Officers Association for example have no qualms in describing themselves as such.
Paul Ince has unashamedly refered to himself as the 1st black captain of England.
What's their problem?

OK, I get you now. We both agree it was a racist rant, and you say that, therefore, Kramer is a racist. I would argue that this one incident doesn't necessarily mean that Kramer has a deep-seated hatred of black people.

As for the language thing, if you were describing a friend to someone else, you're trying to paint a picture in the other person's mind of what the your friend looks like, so it's only sensible to start with the defining characteristics that would differentiate them from someone else. In a predominantly white community, a white person's 'default mystery person' would almost certainly be a white individual, so describing the person's skin colour helps to form the correct picture.

If I happened to live out in Jamaica, and was describing a black guy to another black guy, then starting off by saying "He's black" would be unnecessary, as the other guy would assume I was talking about a black guy because most guys in Jamaica are black. Whereas if the person I was describing was white, I would be inclined to use that as the first descriptive term, to help form the most correct picture in the other person's mind.

This, obviously, does not make me 'anti-white', any more than I would be 'anti-black' if you transposed all the blacks/whites in the paragraph.


There you go again with the implications.

Well tbh I don't like all those black/gay/women/old/young categorisations, i acknowledge that some feel a need to set up 'minority' clubs in order to protect themselves from the 'majority'.

 I am neither avoiding or pretending that someone looks different from me, but I am brought up in a way that the skin colour is the least important aspect of the other person's attributes.  I can see the differences between me and the other, but it is my choice what qualities and attributes are important in classifying another person, and their skin colour is not on top of my list.

Your very first question
is suggesting that for you, in order to describe a person of different ethinic origin you feel you have to emphasise this part of their being, what i am saying is that for me and in my world this is not as important unless the discourse demands to mention those diferences.



1st, i am sorry but if i was angry with my black friend it would never come across my mind to racially abuse him or her. It is like if i was pissed with my friend who is Jewish and tell him some anti-semitic abuse. 

Because i don't live in a predominant white community, and my friends come from all over the world, i got used to their different ethnic origins therefore i don''t have a need to describe them by their skin colour. I am trying to say that for some the skin colour is the first and foremost different characteristic of another human being and for me is not. 


Why do you think that the skin colour is the most defining difference? I might focus first on their height? I might say s/he is shorter then you Andrew, s/he has longer hair then you, s/he is better/worse looking then you/ smarter/thicker whatever.  The colour of skin might come at the end of the difference list, as in my world this difference is indeed the least important. 

 

Why it is so important to state another person colour in order to describe them?  I would like to know why? No one answered me this question in a satisfying way.

Because often colour is one of the most visually arresting features of someone and using it in a visual description is simply pragmatic.

If I were to describe a room of people I didn't know, i wouldn't have any compunction referring to the tall black guy or the short ginger guy. Why should I?

Describing someone's colour is just that.... a description. It is when colour is blithely associated with generic traits, often negatively, that is starts to become offensive.

Sorry, but If I'm meeting Lenny Henry and Mason Malmouth down the pub in Inverness. If I'm running a half hour late, and I want to call one of them so they're not sitting on their own, but I only have enough credit for one 20 second call. If I know that the two don't know each other, or even what they look like.

For them to find each other while they wait for me, the following choices are among my options for the brief phone conversation.....

a) Phone Lenny, apologise quickly, say that he is to look out for a funny looking chap, of medium build, with dark hair, mid 40s

b) Phone Mason, apologise quickly and tell him to look out for a very tall, well built chap with short dark hair and blue eyes, 40ish.

c) Phone Mason, apologize quickly, and tell him to look out for a great big f***-off black man. Then we talk about the weather till I get cut off.


If I opt for option a or b, I think the two will rip the almighty piss out of me when I do eventually arrive.

If I pick option c, am I racist, yes/no?

I believe, to a ceratian extent, it's the other way round.

Kids will say what they see. If they come home from school and say "Mommy, Daddy, there's a new kid in school today, his skin is black." a liberal parent's stock response may be to correct that child.

"You can't call them black, you need to think of other ways to describe them"

Now the kid may describe his other little friends thus, Jane is very tall, Billy has ginger hair, Paula has very long hair. These are the most striking characteristics of the children, the ones the child immediately recognizes. He chooses to add to his list of friends, and say William has black skin.

If the parent stops the child doing this, straight away, they are teaching their child to treat William differently.
He is allowed to say Jane is tall, coz she's the biggest kid in class, but not that William has black skin.

The kid has to look past the colour of William's skin, but he was probably going to do that anyway, just as he has seen past the colour of Billy's hair. He has just been taught by his wannabe liberal parents to treat black kids differently, so now he probably will.

Nobody has said that here though.  :dontask:

About 10 years ago I had aspirations of being some kind of journalist (before i had to accept that I'm a crap writer) and there was a bit of trouble in town after a Euro 96 match. So I wrote it up in the best tabloid newspaper style as I could including made up quotes from my mates and sent it in to the local rag. They copied it almost word for word including made up quotes and stuck it on their front page and as a reward i got to do a weeks work experience.

It turns out that being a reporter on the local guardian is not the glam job that i thought it was gonna be, there were actually only two guys there who had to write the whole of my local paper the Sutton Guardian AND the Croydon Guardian as well. Anyway one of them was black, one white and I got the super exciting job of getting a pile of press releases and pretty much typing them word for word into the computer so that they would appear in the next weeks paper.

After a few days of doing this I'm getting into the groove and my copying these things almost word for word but just changing a little bit skills are coming on strong. I get something in through from the police about some old granny who's been mugged by a black guy. No other info about what he looked like or how old or what he was wearing, just that he was black. Now the stupid thing was that I actually thought about it for like a micro second, "should I put in that it was a black man? is that racist? no cos it might help someone identify him" Durrrrrrrrr. Yes I'm a complete dick head, I have just pinned the mugging down to one of Xmillion black men in the country. Well done me.

So I put it into the computer and it's literally just a couple of lines long. At some point it hits Black guy's computer and BOOM he explodes like a volcano. He stands up and starts shouting about how I'm a racist this and a racist that and the whole of the room (which is pretty big cos there are dozens of different local Guardians done in the same place) is staring at me and I'm not white any more I'm like Mr Tomato Head and I can't think of anything to say so I just STFU and hope he stops shouting soon. Things are a bit frosty for the rest of the week, he didn't say anything to me unless it was necessary from a work point of view. Meh whatever.

Ever since then of course hundreds if not thousands of news articles that I've read which say black man does XYZ have stood out to me in a wow they still do that i wonder if that guy is still shouting at people kinda way. I don't think I've ever referred to anyone as black or asian or whatever since then (until this post in fact) so I guess it was a good thing for me to learn at the time. There was like err a dramatic moment man on here a few months ago about referring to people as gay. I think the general opinion was that if it was offensive to some people then it shouldn't be posted on Blonde. This is exactly the same imo. It is offensive to some people as I found out, so it's probably best not to do it right?

What a great post.

Byronkincaid- nice post





As with associations, unfortunately anyone who has came across Semiotics (study of signs and symbols) will know that words are not innocent and they always carry set of meanings.

I will quote wikipedia,
Semioticians classify signs and sign systems in relation to the way they are transmitted (see modality). This process of carrying meaning depends on the use of codes that may be the individual sounds or letters that humans use to form words, the body movements they make to show attitude or emotion, or even something as general as the clothes they wear. To coin a word to refer to a thing (see lexical words), the community must agree on a simple meaning (a denotative meaning) within their language. But that word can transmit that meaning only within the language's grammatical structures and codes (see syntax and semantics). Codes also represent the values of the culture, and are able to add new shades of connotation to every aspect of life.

The important concept here is CONNOTATION.  
This word has distinct meanings in logic, philosophy, and common usage.

In semiotics, connotation arises when the denotative relationship between a signifier and its signified is inadequate to serve the needs of the community. A second level of meanings is termed connotative. These meanings are not objective representations of the thing, but new usages produced by the language group.

So on a very simple level will take a word ROSE.
This word can be divided into two elements:

signifier - what we see/feel/touch - a flower with a red blossom, has horns, distinctive smell
signified- it will represent mental idea, or a mental construct of the thing rather then a thing itself,

In Language, the latter will be determined by culture and the signified will vary from culture to culture.
In our culture red roses are connoted usually with love. romance and so on.

This is very simplistic for further study I recommed reading Roland Barthes among others.

Another word - beauty- when we call something beautiful we do not commenting on the object/person's appearance what we have seen but we are judging its worth according to to a set of culturally determined values.  


The western language historically- within the discourse heavily relies on dichotomies and polarisations.  We divide our world into bad-good, female-male and so on.

Think for a second and answer a question what is the difference between female - male.  On a face value female differs from male physically by having different reproductive organs, but we know that those differences don't end there.
the signified of those two terms bear huge cultural connotations, and those differ from patriarchal to matriarchal societies.

When there is a discussion of racism in the context of white on black, there will be always someone who will try to justify that 'the others' do the same.  But is it right.

The issue is highly complex and one cannot be simplified it by some one of example i.e 'i go the party and what i can't call my friend black type of thing.'

Language is a complex idea, and as long as we are aware that whatever we say it is never without cultural connotations, one should be fine.  But then again one can never escape the cultural centre (the language you were borne in) totally, the only thing one can do is to become aware of the way we perceive the world.

We are what we think and do.  If the skin colour is important for you as defining factor in pointing out a difference between people, I want again the answer why and the excuse because this how i was brought up won't satisfy me.



I want to know why the colour is the first and foremost characteristic that you feel you need to describe 'the other'?
Why this and not the other difference is so important?
Is it because you live in a white community, therefore this is the first thing you see in the person?  Would be different if you were brought up in a multicultural community, where the colour is less important to define differences between people?







Not if he was brought up by racist parents., then the skin colour will be the most important factor in describing William. I am grateful for my wannabe liberal parents, i would hate to be born in a racist and prejudiced family.


Why have you used a word 'wannabe' Tank? do I sense derogatory connotation?


as to Lenny Henry- sry but he is a bit famous, so saying Lenny Henry will be there would not pose a problem. You give a name of the famous comedian but the only thing to describe him is by his skin colour. I rest my case here.

I was brought up in a multiethnic community, where there were many different colours of people. One of the easiest ways to describe someone was skin colour, that and hair type. It still is. My Aunt Laverne would piss herself laughing if I was to try and describe someone without mention of skin colour.

I wonder what deliberately not using skin colour says about someone's prejuduces?

Tantrum, imagine you live in a country where every adult male was exactly six feet tall. One day your friend flies in from abroad. He's 4'9" tall. I've agreed to go and pick him up from the airport for you as you're stuck at work.

How do you describe him to me so I know who to take home in my car?

EDIT: Saying 'he's the stumpy little midget' would be out of order. Saying 'he's short' would not, even though, in a society of six feet tall people, someone who is short may face prejudice, and the term may have negative connotations among certain people.

Racism is alot more prevelant than people think, particularly if youv've lived in a city most of your life I think your probably less likely to encounter it, particularly if your white. I live in a city now and have since going to Uni 15 years ago and have since then lived in a multicultural setting. So living with other cultures and races have always been pretty normal to me.

However, my roots are from a small village/rural area and I can tell you now that racism is alive and kicking in many of these areas. I still listen aghast to some of the nonsense that comes out of the mouths of the people who live in these areas many of whom are my own family. Any outsiders are treated with suspicion but if you are black/asian the tongues really start wagging, with the usual hates names and they should go back where they came from type talk.

On another note an English (white) friend of mine recently left Scotland (small village up towards Aberdeen)because the locals basically hated them for being English. It even extended to their children at primary school being given a hard time by the teacher and constantly abusing them verbally and encourging the other kids at the school to do the same, and yes it was primary school!

In these sorts of places if you are different it is difficult, but if you are of another race it makes it even harder.

You are taking things out of context and i can't be bothered to reply anymore, as I am beginning to feel like a Don Quixote de la Mancha.

AndrewT and few others, this is the whole point of taking things out of context, twisitng it and then spewing out by giving some simple examples that will try do justify certain behaviours.

 
 Rod, so your Aunt says to you, this whitey boy rob came for tea yesterday?  or the colour description only applies to the non-white people?



I am not saying that the skin colour is not a factor of difference, but I am asking why the first thing that comes to your mind in describing person of different ethic origin you have to point their skin colour before anything else, except when the person is white.



Britain is not 100% white anymore AndrewT (and probably never was) your analogy is pretty shallow.  Try better to justify yourself. 

Ridiculously worded, and no she wouldn't call me 'whitey', except if taking the piss out of me & to my face. She would however say I was white, fat, with a shaved head and a goatee if asked to describe me to someone who hadn't met me. I'd describe her as light-brown skinned, short round woman, or her husband as a Mr Miyagi look-alike.

Why is it the most strident complainers about racism seem to prejudge everyone else's thinking?

What do you guy's think of the comedian Patrice o' Neal's comments on the incident featured here in an interview he gave on Fox News.......


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7Bj4fywCBo

I think he makes some very intersting and honest observations.

I wont go into what i think about the whole episode because it would just take to long to write a fitting post that was in keeping with the progression of this thread but i found this interview very insighful.

When I was in junior school (the 60's) it was less common to see as many different coloured skins around. My best friend Sarah was black - adopted into a white family so she should have been ever more obvious (if you see what I mean).

As a child I didn't see her colour at all and when I was asked to point her out once I said she was the girl in the green jumper. Bizarrely the only time we realised she was black was when we had to bring photos into school of us as babies in so we could guess who was who, and it's not until we saw a photo of a black baby we realised she was different.

I think a lot of the race stuff that goes on is fuelled by political correctness, making people more aware. Don't get me wrong - I am against any ism - racism and everything else - but the more we make an issue of things the worse it seems to get. Obviously outbursts such as that seinfeld guy and atrocious and should not be allowed and as much fuss should be made imho but the more politically correct we seem to be the worse the grass roots problems seem to come. Its as if race is the first thing on everyones mind.

I'm not trying to justify anything. You seem to have got it into your head that myself (and others) have deeply entrenched positions which we are seeking to defend by picking holes in your arguments. I can't speak for the others, but that's not the case with me.

I just think that the opinions you have expressed on this thread don't always stand up to logical scrutiny, so I question them by constructing arguments against them.

Just to try and ensure we're all on the same page, I'm going to try and summarise your argument. Please correct anything I get wrong.

A person's skin colour has no effect on what type of person they are. With minority groups, a section of the population hold the view that people of different skin colour are inferior to themselves. Anytime one of these people refers to someone through their skin colour, the sentiment behind it is pejorative. Even though the word itself may be purely descriptive, the pejorative thought behind it means that the minority person could/would view the purely descriptive term as pejorative.

Here's where I think we differ. Your argument seems to be that, because situations like this exist, it works the other way. Because some people use descriptive words with pejorative thought behind them, that anyone who uses the same descriptive terms must have the same pejorative thoughts, simply because they used the same words.

I hope you do return to the thread Tantrum, because you a) seem to have a viewpoint which is different from mine and b) attempt to argue it in a grown-up manner, which is exactly what we need around here.

Why would I leave the thread?



The main point we differ on AndrewT is that you believe in a concept of universal truth and I don't. This is the main fundamental difference between me and you.  I don't presume anything, I just ask one question that have yet to receive satisfying answer.

But now must go and do some work, have a good day.

The use of Semiotics seems a tad hypocritical in this discussion.

I thought that's what this comment meant.



If the question is:


then I would answer that different people use different characteristics to describe people. You ignore skin colour and use other things. Good for you. Other people use skin colour, which is an immediate and obvious defining characteristic of a person's physical appearence. Does that make them 'wrong' or 'bad people'? I would say not. I suspect you disagree.

blimey, 5 pages about people's prejudices and still not one bad word against monkeys - thats got to be a new record!!

 ;whistle;

Context ,context,context.

When i was 17 and living in Luton, My best mate was a guy call Abraham, he was black. I used to go to the local Afro/Carribean Club with him and his Dad... (pints of light& bitter and curried patties..mmmmmmm memories) .. anyway they had a pool table in there and you had to put your name down and wait for your turn. Every time it was my turn, i would hear someone say who is Kevin, and would alwas hear the reply "the white lad over there" ..I NEVER thought of it as being racist and likewise when Abe was being described to anyone it was always "You know Abe, the coloured guy who wears the pork pie hat"

Using distinguishing features when describing someone is not (IMO) racist.

Not watched the clip and I will admit I only read the first page of this thread as it seemed like people may be getting to involved. For me anything goes with a stand up comedian. Any of you who have ever watched Chubby Brown and his like will know that if you heckle you may get burned, even if its racist and totally un pc you got to accept it.

Not in this case, he lost the plot in a disgusting way, I'd have been looking to chin him if I'd been there.

racism unacceptable but gratuitous violence is fine? seems like a strange moral compass to me

Rough translation "I have no idea what this is about but here's my opinion anyway"  ;D

Not gratuitous at all. His outburst was violent as well. I'm happy enough with my moral compass, what would yours have had you do?

LOL

why?

well said red lol. I really do believe anything goes with comedians though

why don't you watch Krammer and tell us if his behaviour is acceptable and if it is funny?

As Kev said it is all about context.



 why?

AndrewT


I don't disagree with this particular statement.

But one must be aware of the context and connotations.  I only object to the fact that some find the only characteristic valid in describing the other by using person's skin colour.  I don't ignore the skin colour per se.

ive now read the whole thread and if i watch the clip and say yes i think its funny then it makes me a racist in many people eyes on this. I would rather keep my oppinions to myself on this ty. The same people thought borat was offensive and I commented on that thread.

I believe Ariston does have a point here.

If you want to heckle the comedian your gonna get slaughtered.

I think if he were a Racist person he'd have been found out years ago.

Regards

M

careful mpower- you are in danger of becoming racist by proxy

watch the clip and then make a decision.  It has nothing to do with Borat, nor anything like that.

Don't voice opinions if you have not seen this clip. His rant goes beyond funny, it is a racist slant and no excuses are aplicable for those offences.  

Yes, if you will find krammer funny in this particular instance then perhaps you should re-think your values.

This thread passed the question if the Krammer was racist.  Every one who saw it will agree with that, regardless of other points that were made here.  Our debate is not if Krammer is racist, it is more about the linguistic discourse and the usage of language while describing others.   So watch the clip and then decide what you think about it.  

stand up comedians can be offensive. some comedians make a living by being offensive. anyone who is stupid enough to heckle on eof these cannot moan when they get fried. I have seen the clip now and will not put my oppinions on here as most people will make incorrect assumptions. I find southpark funny and borat and the more un pc they are the better- doesnt make me a racist though.

watch the clip, and then discuss

put your guardian down for a minute and read my above post properly. Ive seent the clip and wont discuss as you will immediately assume im a racist by proxy. I have seen far worse in my time and don't understand how everybody can get so worked up over these things. Watch Eddie Murphy live or Richard Prior to see the same racism aimed at white people. Listen to Lauren Hills records and interviews to find that racism works both ways.

That's not comedy, or even a heckler put-down though. The guy loses the plot totally and unleashes a shocking tirade of racist abuse.

I've seen Eddie Murphy and Richard Prior and they are non-PC, but it's humour and they aren't just abusing a member of the audience.

2 Totally different things IMHO.

i could find you 30 or 40 cases of other comedians ranting at members of the audience. Eddie murphy has done far worse when a white guy turned up to one of his gigs- he almost had the geezer thrown out as if to say how dare he come to my show (it was very early eddie I had on bootleg and I will admit i found it funny). 20 years later I realise there are more important things in life than getting worked up over things like this. I am shocked this thread has gone on so far without religion being brought in- thats usually the way these types of arguments progress. A black guy heckeled and got the comedian to react, its hardly the first time its happened.

Ariston I am sorry you don't differentiate between racial abuse and banter.  I rest my case here.

Regards

M

Regards


T    ???

I find it funny in that it was funny to see him lose it completely, coupled with the fact he has effectively destroyed what was left of his career it does amuse me.
As for calling people black, then why not? if they are then it's correct isn't it?

I was in the pub the other day and a few of the local boxers were meeting up before they went on a little pub tour to sign autographs, have piccies taken etc. to promote an upcoming show.
3 or 4 had arrived and a pal of mine (white guy) says to me "is that big black f***** in the poster coming in too?", i looked up and said "you mean him?" indicating behind him where the fella he meant had just come in.
We ALL peed ourselves at my pals reaction (he nearly fainted :D) and i mean everyone, black and white, nobody was offended at all.

I have loads of Murphy, Prior, Rock, Cosby etc etc, maybe even all of it - never seen abuse like that towards a white person.

The 'Kramer' guy came out on Letterman and apologised about what he'd said. Not for causing offense (which may happen unintentionally) but for the dumb tirade and an 'unleashing of anger'. Sounds like he's admitting to having let his racist views slip out, so by definition I wouldn't defend him. Like I said, he hasn't tried to defend himself as it wasn't a 'joke gone wrong'.

I do however think that comedians should be able to joke about anything. Had they taken offense at his routine, I'd have said they have the option to heckle or leave and wait for the next act - SIMPLE.

The guys in the audience had apparently walked in late among a large group and this pissed 'Kramer' off so he started into them. They then said he wasn't funny and it all degenerated from his overuse of the N word.

Some people in the crowd obviously thought it was funny though it sounded like 'nervous' laughter while many just upped and left. I think the point is that 'kramer' never seemed to be making any attempt at comedy - he just lost the plot and let rip.

For me it's all about intent, or more accurately, what I perceive their intent to be where 'loaded' words and phrases are concerned.

Language isn't 'racist', people are so you can have the same word being used by racist and non-racist alike. The meanings attached to words are not fixed but change over time and place so this is another complicating factor.

My dad and his friends, for example, would react to Chris Rock's use of the 'N' word in a totally different way than people of my age, whatever their ethnicity.

For the record, I think the two guys who got into the 'verbals' with 'Kramer' didn't do themselves any favours. They were pissed that he'd used the N word and then went on to racially abuse him which shows them to be pretty lame IMO. You can't claim the moral high ground and take someone to court if you're coming from the same place.

Wannabe meaning well meaning, no not meant to be derrogatory. I just wonder sometimes that sometimes the act of treating a minority as special, in itself serves to do more harm than good. I'll leave that one though.

Mason has just hopped over from the states, he isn't familiar with Lenny's body of work, and no, the only way to describe him was not his skin colour.

 :goodpost:

A wannabe (sometimes spelled wannabee) is a person who likes to imitate, or even wishes to be, another, but cannot achieve it due to physical, psychological, financial, cultural, political, religious, or mental limitations. The term, a contraction of "want to be," entered the popular consciousness in the mid-1980s.


The term was first used in a July 6, 1981 Newsweek article on surfing that described novice surfers crowding the beaches as wannabees (as in, ‘I wanna be a surfer’).[1] The term was popularized by writer John Skow in a spring 1985 Time magazine on the pop star Madonna.[2] Skow used the construction "Wanna Be's" to describe the avid fans who sought to dress, talk and act like their idol. Other early uses of the term referred to "wannabe" gang members and "wannabe" bikers.[3]


In subsequent years, the contracted form of Skow's phrase — "wannabe" — came into wide use and took on something of a pejorative connotation. The term is associated often with ambitious and excessive zeal.


The term 'wannabe' is sometimes used derogatively to describe young fans of rap and alternative music, mainly by current or experienced fans of similar music.


People suffering from apotemnophilia, the desire to amputate a limb are also called wannabes.



language language language........ ;)  Now you see how a use of one word can be mis-interpreted.....  For me the connotations of the word wannabe are pejorative.

Ain't google just dandy......

I wannabe a good poker player one day

can't bothered to write tbh definitions of the words.

I don't think picking apart someone's language like that is anything less than pedantic. I'm tempted, but won't do the same to you (plenty to work with, especially with some of the earlier posts made about AndrewT.)

Anyway, I thought you'd rested your case ;)

I'm sure i saw an interview once with Parky (i think) and he was asked who the worst interviewee he ever had was, he said Richard Prior because when he pointed to him he said something along the lines of "don't you point at me white boy" and was generally nasty the whole interview.

This may not have been parky, i'm off to google.............

I have put away it in the case...
i was not picking on you, just illustrating the point about connotations ;)

It definatly is now!

time to let it die? If not I'm off for the popcorn!

Is there a "just bring it" smiley?

 ;bat;

 ;bat;

ok ready

Or I could just read wikipedia while listning to a record over and over again.  ;D

You can listen to my music instead

 especially for you:


 ;reallyamsorry;

 wow , my first post in months and ive sparked a debate lasting 7 pages , this is a record for me and im chuffed.

 but i think enough has been said now and we should put this thread to bed.

 thank you

incidentally wikipedia's definition of "wannabe" is inaccurate and doesn't correlate with any major dictionary.

I hate being a pedant but it does pay to realise that admirable though wikipedia is, it is not the oracle of knowledge.

Just as an example as i don't have the OED to hand.

Wikipedia

A wannabe (sometimes spelled wannabee) is a person who likes to imitate, or even wishes to be, another, but cannot achieve it due to physical, psychological, financial, cultural, political, religious, or mental limitations. The term, a contraction of "want to be," entered the popular consciousness in the mid-1980s.

compared to

Dictionary.com

wan‧na‧be  /ˈwɒnəˌbi, ˈwɔnə‑/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[won-uh-bee, waw-nuh‑] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -bes. Informal.

one who aspires, often vainly, to emulate another's success or attain eminence in some area.

[Origin: 1980–85; der. of (I) wanna be…]


Cambridge dictionary

noun [C] INFORMAL
a person who is trying to achieve success or fame, usually unsuccessfully:

So if you follow wikipedia, a wannabe liberal can't be a liberal.

Follow every other dictionary definition and a wannabe liberal usually won't end up being a liberal but can be.

No point spending 3 years at uni doing an english degree if i can't be an annoying a***hole from time to time. :)

Define from time to time? ;)

45.   from time to time, on occasion; occasionally; at intervals: eg FK me junglecat can be an annoying a***hole  from time to time.

Dunno what the odds were of finding a dictionary using that exact example but i did it!

I think it will be useful to edit the wikipedia definition then

It would only be re-editted by those that know more............

I hoped you would take upon yourself this task...

Richards basically has a meltdown on stage, this isn't some Lenny Bruce style act, he loses the plot completely.

I KNOW my limitations  ;)

You could at least try it ;)

Must....resist....urge...to....take...the....piss :D

Hush fool i'm having a subtlety battle here.

On a way back could you fetch me some ......

LOL, are you serious?

Someone mentioned religion.

Let him without sin...

 well at some point , most threads cross a line from topical discussion to babbling nonsense

 and , unfortunately , i think this thread cant even see that line any more for all the nonsensities.