Author Topic: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant  (Read 14109 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #30 on: November 24, 2006, 08:45:42 PM »
<<Totally ignoring evidence to the contrary, such as the voting patterns for Anschluss in areas where German troops were stationed in comparison to areas where there were no German troops.>>

Proving what?  That they were 90% pro-Hitler where no Nazi troops were stationed and 99% pro where there were Nazi troops?

Diane

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #31 on: November 24, 2006, 08:49:49 PM »
I think you are being very naive about 'the word.'  We don't "own" words nor do they give us a pass so that someone else might not use that word on us.  In fact, I will reiterate my original post and that is it is used to make whites feel uncomfortable and furthermore, even when being used among blacks, it is equivalent to slashing a razor across our thighs and saying it doesn't hurt.  To wit, this very action will keep racial disparity alive and well in America.

Diane

 I disagree.  I contend that we do in fact own the words that others have used against us, and when we re-take those words and use them to each other, we rob the former "owners" of the power they had over us to hurt us with a word.

I am not sure whether its use among blacks has the effect you describe. From what I've heard from black people, it does not. 
I have heard black people say it is used as a form of endearment, from one black person to another.   So it does not make me uncomfortable. 
I may very well be naive.  Ah well.


again, you don't own the word and as much as you may chant that you do, I guarantee that the 'word' can and will be used to 'hurt' you by the very means of the emotional attachment to said 'word.'

and regarding 'form of endearment' (excuse me while I pick myself up from a true belly laugh).  So here we go... I like you, Lanya... always have.  That said, if I call you a stupid nit witted honky that can't think herself out of a paper bag... would you take it as a 'term of endearment?'  I think not.

That said, I do not think you are a stupid nit witted honky.

Diane

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 #32 on: November 24, 2006, 08:52:41 PM »
Proving what?  That they were 90% pro-Hitler where no Nazi troops were stationed and 99% pro where there were Nazi troops?

Actually, they were >90% against Hitler in areas where there were no troops stationed, and the claimed vote was >80% pro Hitler in areas where troops were stationed. Hitler didn't send in troops until he figured out that Austria was going to vote against him, then he wanted to make sure the vote went his way by using the Wehrmacht.

Of course, now you'll say something like German troops only went where they were welcome, right?

And totally ignore the reports of the Wehrmacht interfereing with the votes in the areas they held. Because, of course, it's obvious the Austrians were all racists. I'm sorry, mostly racists.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #33 on: November 24, 2006, 10:53:18 PM »
I agree with Lanya. White people don't own the n word, and it is foolish for them to use it in any way. It won't bring a laugh, it won't make them appear to be sophisticated or cool or smaqrt or hip in any way, manner, shape or form.

I don't know whether Black people own the word or not, but I am not going to come down on them for using it in any way. If some Black person dislikes the way another Black person uses the word, let him/her say so and explain why. I will listen and duly note the discussion, but nothing is to be gained by my opinion, so I won't volunteer. There are questions that no one should be obliged to answer. One is when a woman asks "Do these pants make me look fat?" and another would involve the appropriate use of the n word by a Black person. The question of how a White person should use it is beyond simple. Don't use it. No good will come of using it, ever.

I am not offended by anyone using the n word. I am not offended by the words honky, cracker, or whitey.

About insults I only say the following:

I be rubber, you be glue: bounce off me, stick to you.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Michael Tee

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12605
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #34 on: November 24, 2006, 11:39:09 PM »
<<I find Michael's "PR prescription" to embody a phoniness, a manipulativeness, a tawdriness and the moral bankruptcy that is antithetical to what this situation actually needs.>>

Sorry, domer, but in this case the stakes happen to be a lot more closely related to the sales of boxed DVD sets than they are to healing the racial divide.    After all, really, who is Michael Richards?  What we are really talking about is Cosmo Kramer.  Most people instinctively understand that.

Diane

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #35 on: November 25, 2006, 12:06:51 AM »
I agree with Lanya. White people don't own the n word, and it is foolish for them to use it in any way. It won't bring a laugh, it won't make them appear to be sophisticated or cool or smaqrt or hip in any way, manner, shape or form.

I don't know whether Black people own the word or not, but I am not going to come down on them for using it in any way. If some Black person dislikes the way another Black person uses the word, let him/her say so and explain why. I will listen and duly note the discussion, but nothing is to be gained by my opinion, so I won't volunteer. There are questions that no one should be obliged to answer. One is when a woman asks "Do these pants make me look fat?" and another would involve the appropriate use of the n word by a Black person. The question of how a White person should use it is beyond simple. Don't use it. No good will come of using it, ever.

I am not offended by anyone using the n word. I am not offended by the words honky, cracker, or whitey.

About insults I only say the following:

I be rubber, you be glue: bounce off me, stick to you.


I am confused.... I didn't say white people owned the word, 'nigger.'   I said it was ridiculous that anyone thinks they 'own' words. 

And clearly I am not offended by 'words' just stupidity.  One thing I have noticed with humankind... they are oft too quick to just go along.   The same folk that are now morally offended would probably sit still like meek little lambs should they be in the presence of someone using those powerful ugly words.

Lanya

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3300
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #36 on: November 25, 2006, 12:35:08 AM »
Diane,
I am repeating what I've heard from black people, what I've seen written by black people.  I don't think it's a good idea myself, and I won't use the word.   
Planned Parenthood is America’s most trusted provider of reproductive health care.

Diane

  • Guest
an aside to Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #37 on: November 25, 2006, 10:22:21 AM »
an interesting aside (in my opinion).   I am an avid 'Survivor' fan and this years premise was based on 4 groups of 5 divided by ethnicity.  All but one white remain... two whites mutinied ( one of which verbalized about getting to the other team and forming an alliance with the other two remaining whites).  The only white voted off was a ditz with a strange hair-do consisting of dread locks and rubber bands.

Last episode the 4 none-white people that were abandoned by the two whites in the mutiny chose to garner the support of the white male mutineer (clearly someone that is not trustworthy and has done little to win team challenges) rather than a healthy young black man.

So is it the mindset of none whites to garner the acceptance of whites by making decisions that show support of the whites no matter their behavior... or was it a move that said 'we can use this man now and know that he will not be a challenge later?'    As it stands we now have four Caucasian, one Afro-American, and two Asians and a Latino.  My guess is that if one of the none whites win the next immunity challenge that they will absolutely stick together and vote off a white.   I am hoping that it is Candace the female mutineer (because she is clearly the strongest).

yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #38 on: November 25, 2006, 11:12:00 AM »


   . . .  it is used to make whites feel uncomfortable and furthermore, even when being used among blacks, it is equivalent to slashing a razor across our thighs and saying it doesn't hurt. 

Diane

-----------------------------

So, actually, when Blacks use the word 'nigger' amoung themselves, it is us, the Whites,  who are the real victims?

Guess the Blacks are too dumb to pick up on that.

Boy, are the niggers stupid, not to consider "our" feelings.




Diane

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #39 on: November 25, 2006, 11:36:01 AM »
actually, I don't judge people on their color.  It is more a one on one.

I still disagree that using a negative word on a friend is NOT a positive thing.... but then many think I am a stupid evil cunt.

but  then who really gives a shit in the grand scheme of things

yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #40 on: November 25, 2006, 12:00:09 PM »

[/quote]

I am confused.... I didn't say white people owned the word, 'nigger.'   I said it was ridiculous that anyone thinks they 'own' words. 

-------------


If you feel that Blacks do not own the word, go out amoungst them and use it freely.

If you want to start an auntomatic collective response, a riot, or whatever reference you may want to employ, in any of the larger cities in the nation, conscript several volunteers to use it in a collective campaign, freely, directly, and often, and see the consequences.  Its very utterance will stop the room, whatever the room.

First, the White man coined it and used it, and since it was always directed at Blacks from White lips and not reciprocally from Blacks about Whites, it means that the White man owned it.  In a total market control, the word can be construed as being 'owned,' or having''ownership.'

Blacks own the word now because they confiscated it, and employ it now in ironic reversal, and are universally trigger-quick to enforce penalties against any Whites who use it.  

It has become, to the Blacks, a mutually if tacitly agreed upon toe in the sand against racism.  Itr is the very demarkation of the boundaries that they have set up and cannot be crossed (without penalty.)  In the miasmic muddle of American racism, it is a clear and precise entity.

Its use is carefully monitored, and most Whites use it--outside of the pure hate aspect of trash Whites, its place of origin--with trepidation and wise consideration, and at risk of retalitory peril to themselves.

This 'ownership' is understood mutually and commonly amoung Blacks, and in large measure, they have successfully enlightened Whites as to its permissability of use and its consequences, should it be used in the same condescending text in which it was created.  

We have been inculcated in this nation to accept the word to signify the worst of what the Blacks represent;  it has become standard metaphor in our minds to use the word when denigrating them.  If a nigger is lynched, it is the last word from the Whites that he hears.  

In Richards' case, he chose the one word he knew would hurt the most.

He did so at his own risk.  

And, as you can see, he is paying for it.

Mere utterance of the word, by a White, can be a career-ender, but Blacks, up and down the line, may utter it freely, without consequence, from Blacks or Whites.  

Its power is almost without equal in terms of sheer power potential, and that power in the hands of the Blacks, not the Whites.

And, again, I love the irony of its origin and its final, to date, evolution.



BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #41 on: November 25, 2006, 12:07:13 PM »
Quote
First, the White man coined it and used it, and since it was always directed at Blacks from White lips and not reciprocally from Blacks about Whites, it means that the White man owned it.  In a total market control, the word can be construed as being 'owned,' or having''ownership.'

Blacks own the word now because they confiscated it, and employ it now in ironic reversal, and are universally trigger-quick to enforce penalties against any Whites who use it. 

So do we have a copyright infringement case or what?

yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #42 on: November 25, 2006, 12:35:57 PM »

If you think it--the word's use--should be legislated, as you suggest, how would you calculate the fall out?

Legislation usually starts at a collective troublesomeness, so who would be protected by such legislation?

Make the Whites happy over night, not that they have lost the right to use it with impunity, but because any repercussions will be elimanted because only the deputy could enforce the consequences of its use.  And we all know about niggers, deputies, and enforcement.

But the Blacks might experience that same helpless feeling that they have often felt when the White man steps forward in patron manner and announces another "I am the (final) deceider!" 

BTW, I am not surprised at this;  it follows that those who think racism can be "handled" in the think tank genre consequencially think that, by eliminating the word in legal terms, they have eliminated racism along with it.   This is, I believe, the salient principle presumed by those who work feverously, if unsuccessfully, to have it 'eliminated' or, and has been demonstrated in many denial-based opinions here, at least  'neutralized.' 



yellow_crane

  • Guest
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #43 on: November 25, 2006, 12:50:46 PM »


but  then who really gives a shit in the grand scheme of things
[/quote]


Well, the energy and volume of your posts on this issue seems to suggest otherwise, but hey, who am I am argue.

I don't think I have gotten personal, newbie, so don't take it personally.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Another Take on Michael Richards's Racist Rant
« Reply #44 on: November 25, 2006, 01:14:16 PM »
Quote
But the Blacks might experience that same helpless feeling that they have often felt when the White man steps forward in patron manner and announces another "I am the (final) deceider!" 

Is Affirmative Action the white man patronizing and announcing they are the final decider?