Author Topic: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant  (Read 14108 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

domer

  • Guest
Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« on: November 22, 2006, 09:39:40 PM »
Believing in redemption, I hope that Michael Richards and Mel Gibson, through the requisite amount of hard work and genuine emotion, can atone for their bigoted outbursts, perhaps drawing others with them in a crowning epiphany. Yet as to the "n-word" itself, I have mixed emotions. The first reservation is the integrity of discourse, its freedom, which a blanket ban on this type of expression would signal. Now, we have to distinguish between raw insult, especially raw, gratuitous insult, and constructive dialogue. I could see the "n-word" used not as a slur but as a "diagnosis," summarizing a type of behavior, still extant, which draws on the roots of oppression and the mangled psyches that resulted to come to a modern-day attitude of intransigent defiance married to a hostile aggressiveness. It would be like calling Tony Soprano a "guinea."

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #1 on: November 22, 2006, 09:58:42 PM »
I feel bad for the guy.  He's got a lot inside.  I hope he gets better.
I wonder if it's like feeling bad for a bonsai tree....it got stunted and twisted and grew that way.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2006, 10:32:00 PM »
I think Michael will be just fine.

Comics often skewer sacred cows.

And perhaps with all the attendant talk of redemption and re-education and diagnosis of twisted roots based on what- who knows, perhaps he was doing just that.

He went off on a group of hecklers and in the heat of the moment used words he shouldn't have. To put him in the same league as a klanner is rediculous. 

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #3 on: November 23, 2006, 01:01:34 AM »
<<Believing in redemption, I hope that Michael Richards and Mel Gibson, through the requisite amount of hard work and genuine emotion, can atone for their bigoted outbursts, perhaps drawing others with them in a crowning epiphany.>>

It's a nice thing to hope for.  I hope Hitler in his last moments, crunching down on that cyanide tablet and pulling the trigger on his handgun, had some kind thoughts and bitter self-reproach for all the Jews and other "untermenschen" that he had dispatched to the next world.  But how realistic is either one of our hopes?  These are, after all, mature individuals, who have lived fairly full lives and know pretty much how they feel about most issues in life.  They are what they are.  Why would they change now?

<<Yet as to the "n-word" itself, I have mixed emotions. The first reservation is the integrity of discourse, its freedom, which a blanket ban on this type of expression would signal. >>

But there IS no "blanket ban" on the word.  People are free to use it as much as they like.  Just like they can say "ain't" and "youse guys."  If they want to brand themselves as ignorant low-lifes, they are free to do so.  And the rest of us are free to form our own opinons of them, based on what they say.  This is NOT a freedom of speech issue.

<<Now, we have to distinguish between raw insult, especially raw, gratuitous insult, and constructive dialogue. I could see the "n-word" used not as a slur but as a "diagnosis," summarizing a type of behavior, still extant, which draws on the roots of oppression and the mangled psyches that resulted to come to a modern-day attitude of intransigent defiance married to a hostile aggressiveness. It would be like calling Tony Soprano a "guinea.">>

The problem with that theory is that the offensive word applies across the board to every member of the impugned group.  If Tony Soprano is a "guinea," then so are Louis Prima and Leo Buscaglia.  It's not a type of behaviour that's being targeted by the word, it's a whole race or nation of people.  These kind of insults hurt a lot of people and make them feel looked down on, looked down on for something they can't help being, looked down on for being what they are.  There's just no excuse for using them.  If Richards wanted to discuss their conduct, I'm sure he's articulate enought to describe what it was about their particular conduct that pissed him off, even the racial aspects of it (maybe it was generated by resentment of past racial insults) without using a word that insults them and every other member of their race regardless of their individual conduct.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #4 on: November 23, 2006, 01:08:04 AM »
But there IS no "blanket ban" on the word.  People are free to use it as much as they like.  Just like they can say "ain't" and "youse guys."  If they want to brand themselves as ignorant low-lifes, they are free to do so.  And the rest of us are free to form our own opinons of them, based on what they say.  This is NOT a freedom of speech issue.


[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]


Does it become a freedom of speach issue if he looses the lawsuit?


I mostly agree with you , having the freedom to say something really stupid is a precious American right , do we really want the stupid to be hidden from observation because their thoughts are censored?

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #5 on: November 23, 2006, 01:30:59 AM »
<<Does it become a freedom of speach issue if he looses the lawsuit?>>

The last I saw was afternoon TV when the guys' lawyer, Gloria Allred, was offering some kind of meeting with Richards, her clients, her and a retired judge.  She said she wanted to avoid a lawsuit.  She also said a lawsuit would be based on intimidation and incitement to attack.

So if there IS a lawsuit and they win on intimidation and/or incitement, there would have to be something more than the N-word involved.  If he lost a lawsuit based purely on the use of the N-word without proof of intimidation or incitement (and from what I've seen of the original insult, it's hard to connect any of it to either intimidation or incitement) then, yeah, it WOULD be a freedom of speech issue.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #6 on: November 23, 2006, 02:17:45 AM »
Quote
"then, yeah, it WOULD be a freedom of speech issue."


I agree, in the meantime it is an issue of socal acceptability , enforced by criticism .

yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2006, 05:52:17 AM »
My take on Richards was that he took on the heckler.  

When hecklers and their heckled engage, the tone is one of escalation.  At the point of heckling, the heckler is in charge because he has stolen the show from the hecklee.  He then has no choice but to take it back.

The heckle game is one of ping pong poison, and exaggeration is a huge component of humor.

He was to this point, as far as I can tell, doing his job with direction and deliberateness.

To tell a comedian, though, that he is flatly unfunny, is devastational to his core, a refutation of his very being.  It is a grief made more grievous by the fact that comedians wear doubt like skin.  

What is missing (to me, at least) was his performance up til the heckling started.  If his delivery was sloppy and he was noninvested in his performance, and acted like he could care less, then the bro's have a point.  This is what thrown tomatoes and heckling are for--giving a spirited response re the feeling one has when one spends big bucks and sees no return.

He used the word in a mocking way (though the initial utterance was key) trying, I think, to engage the audience to his side in besting the hecklers, offering in tone like a professor a-pacing, trying to turn on some heads in his class with stabbing stimulation,  but this, his audience, already nervous that the brothers were acting out, and loudly, were quick to their absolute silence, spotted by a couple of gasps.

To be fair, white audiences have little choice in response to the use of the word nigger but with exaggerated gasps, especially when uttered by one of their own.

Tough for Richards on that point (racism is full of ricochets) as often happens when Whitey sidesteps from Whitey sidesteps from Whitey when THE word is raging in the air.  It is always an 'you're-on-your-own' moment, when the chips are down, and the tone of the word itself now rings with a new timbre, rather than that heard amongst sniggling, giggling Whiteys, comfortably clatched in their common nonpigmentation.

The word nigger is an insult from white lips--white men are never addressed.  This is why Blacks own the word.  

And, just like when they invented vaudeville by aping spoiled belles after work, they choose to use the insult with complete straightface mockery--by using it with utmost affection to each other.  This inside joke usually escapes Whitey, who plays it--playing it safe--innocently perplexed.

You either believe that he used the word because it slipped past his lips in a collapse of Sirs-like self betrayal, or he used it deliberately, repeating it often and loudly, to make a refuting point (strangely, for example,  he punctuated the repeated nigger with "huh?  huh?" as one does when is one if nudgingly demanding--"huh?  how does that feel?  huh? how does that feel?"

Could this be the truth of it?   That he,  brutalized to the marrow, was displaying the measure of his hurt by offering them same measure--the worst possible?

Everybody knows that when you really want to hurt a nigger, you call him a nigger.


Comedians often have a capacity for sudden degenerate exposures, and are prime movers in the world of self-destruction.   For this alone I give him a pass.  One remembers the recorded self-maulings, the piercing wailings by Shelley Berman.  (Red Skelton?  Red Skelton?  I knew Red Skelton.  And Shelley, you're no Red Skelton.)



And, to address all sides, the brothers were heckling and then, soon as the word came out, they changed tact, they seized and tolled the victim bell.



  

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2006, 02:40:28 PM »
Wow.  Very insightful post, crane.   Kinda changed MY perspective.  Now I see it like Richards was just way in over his head, badly misjudged his actual environment and (if he even thought of it at the time) the wider environment as well.  It makes more sense of a comment I saw elsewhere in this group or maybe on the web, that he was just an actor trynig to do stand-up.  It was all just schtick to Richards, but it wasn't the right schtick.

This is reinforced by something I read in this morning's Toronto Star, that Richards said pretty much the same thing about the Jews in a previous club gig.  This is something I've done myself and it IS funny.  It's a bit like sitting in the principal's chair when the principal leaves the office - - a kind of liberating feeling that you've switched identities with the enemy and are now looking down on the miserable and powerless people that YOU used to be - - the exhilirating fantasy that you've traded UP, from the minority victim of the racial slur to the white-Christian-majority user of the slur.  The humour is a little different for the minority recipient of the slur - - here it's the presumption of the guy who appropriates the WASP voice: who the f**k does this Jew think he is?  Listen to him trying to act like he belongs at the TOP of the hierarchy.  It's what makes a movie like "Trading Places" - - or any reversal-of-fortunes comedy - - funny.

But it's only funny when the person who delivers the insult and the person who receives it are members of the same minority group.  I think maybe where Richards went wrong was that he misjudged where he fit into the perceptions of the blacks in his audience.  He may have felt more kinship with them - - presumably as minorities, hipsters, non-racists, liberals, semi-Bohemians, non-conformists, etc. - - than they felt with him.  To Richards, perhaps, both he and the black members of his audience were in the same "minority" boat and they could all laugh together at "Whitey's" bigotry.  To the black members of his audience, Richards was still "Whitey."

So it's quite possible Richards is not a bigot at all, just a very, very inept stand-up comedian, who has an awful lot to learn about dealing with hecklers.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2006, 05:41:50 PM »
Now this is what I like about haveing Yellow Crane and MT around , a really diffrent take on a thought provokeing subject.


Do Ya'll see any hope for Mike Richards to reattan what he has lost in this?

Does he have to understand the dynamic in order to be forgiven?

domer

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2006, 10:13:51 PM »
The matter has complicated. Richards's apologies (on Letterman, to Sharpton) have been criticized, variously, as insincere and misdirected. He should have apologized to the actual targets of his venom, the wisdom goes. Yet, how do you track audience members, and how could you do it so soon with so much new "stuff" on your plate, like contemplating the end of your career. But, alas, the audience members, via appearances on TV, have found Richards. According to Gloria Allred, their lawyer who appeared with them, they have arranged (get this) for all concerned parties (and Allred) to assemble with a retired (California?) judge to discuss the incident and decide if and what a punishment should be. Allred bellows about "intentional infliction of emotional distress" (in a comedy club, one of life's rawer venues?!) and insults the rest of the audience by maintaining that Richards's remarks could have incited violence, with the hecklers and their group as the target.

If I were advising Richards, I'd say to forego that potential lynching, issue an open, written apology in a suitable newspaper to the folks he actually flailed at, and then get busy turning this piece of shit into a work of art. Among the themes he should strike, the ground he should cover, is not an Al Sharpton-style re-education camp, but rather a serious discussion of his personal dynamics and the issue of race, shining a light on human complexity (I, for one, think he's a good guy, but with obvious problems). He should also develop ideas about "evil" cohabitating with good in the same human being. Ideally, the examination would also branch out into a frank analysis of the heavy psychological burden (which, for normal folks, is just that: a burden, but not a sickness) blacks carry in this society. It is significant. Yet, attention would also have to be paid to how much, even to "sensitive folks like Richards was not, accommodation should be made for historical pain while we at the same time run a functioning society of discrete individuals, who, in the end analysis, must be treated as such (while, of course, respecting their affiliations).

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2006, 10:27:33 PM »
Oh please, spare me Gloria Allred. 
I think you've mapped out a good road for him to take.  I too think he's a good guy, full of some poisonous s**t and in need of healing.   But he has to apologize to the people he hurt, because when he spewed, it burned those people.  Like lava.   A written apology is a good idea.
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2006, 12:10:47 AM »
If I were Michael Richards right now, I'd take three weeks off, hire the best PR firm I could find (get Jerry Seinfeld and anyone else who's got a stake in the ongoing Seinfeld residuals to pick up a fair share of the PR guy's ticket) and figure out what he wants to be doing for the next five, 6, 7 or 8 years.  Plan A and Plan B.  The PR guy can hold the fort while Kramer figures out his short-term future.

The Gloria Allred thing would be like volunteering to take a year-long vacation in hell.  A circus and incidentally a HUGE gratuitous bonanza for Gloria Allred.  Why????

I don't know whether the apology should be bare-bones minimal necessary or whther some explanation needs to accompany it, but I'd let the PR guru figure that one out, maybe with focus groups.  At this point, I'm leaning towards leaving out the explanation.

Richards' approach should be based on a deal-direct basis - - primarily from him to the guys he insulted, no middlemen involved - - no matter howthe message is delivered, large print media ads and/or talk shows or whatever Mr. PR figures is the best media delivery combo.

  The apology should be public, to the guys directly insulted, to the audience at the club that night, to the club owners and management and "to anyone else who blah blah blah . . . "  The emphasis should be primarily on the actual victims, the black guys in particular, that night's audience in general, and the owners, management and staff of the club.  The subliminal message should be that it's NOT to Gloria Allred, Sharpton or anyone else, so that if a lawsuit DOES develop later, it looks like Richards apologized veryu decently and forthrightly at the very outset to the guys directly involved, but then they developed an entourage of hangers-on who just hope to get rich off it.

To some extent, Richards' "five-year plan" will dictate the form of the apology, but the PR guy's work starts on Day One when the client holes up.  At that point, the message is that Richards is "just sick about it" and is taking some time off to . . . [the PR genius can figure out to what.]  That Richards is not a racist should be an integral part of any message from the beginning.

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2006, 12:24:27 AM »
That Richards is not a racist should be an integral part of any message from the beginning.

Which, of course, means that he is a racist. Isn't that the way it works? If you deny that you're a racist, that is a sure sign that are one?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2006, 01:10:12 AM »
<<Which, [denying that he's a racist] of course, means that he is a racist. Isn't that the way it works? If you deny that you're a racist, that is a sure sign that are one?>>

That denial = admission?  That's how it could work with certain audiences.  Part of the PR guy's function would be:
1.  Analyze Richards' 5 to 8 year plan;
2.  Figure out what audiences are important to the plan and in what order;
3.  Check out for each audience whether denial = admission or not;
4.  Strategize the media approach best suited to get each audience on board.

Of course the first job the PR guy would have to be is define the dimensions of the problem - - how big a problem does Richards have anyway?  (Notice how we all assume this IS a problem for Richards - - do we know for a fact that none of this negative buzz actually could make his act a bigger draw than it was before?  Maybe THAT'S where the focus groups oughtta start - - with club owners and talent booking agencies!)