Seinfeld actor racist outburst

[AndrewT]

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

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

[I, Zimbra]

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.

[thetank]

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.

[AdamM]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[tantrum]

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.

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.

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.'

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. 

[AndrewT]

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.'

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:

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.

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.

[thetank]

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...

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.

[byronkincaid]

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...

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.

[thetank]

I've got names for them then 

[Rooky9]

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...

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.

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....

[tantrum]

Ok clarify,

I don't imply that you are racist Andrew, but

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'.

  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. 

Posted by: thetank


Insert Quote

Quote from: tantrum on Today at 12:18:25 pm

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...


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.

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.

[wader leg]

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?

[tantrum]

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....

[wader leg]

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?

[AndrewT]

Ok clarify,

I don't imply that you are racist Andrew, but

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'.

 
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.

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.

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....

There you go again with the implications.