Trackbacks & Pings

1. Michael Richards on Letterman: “I’m not a racist” at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 21 Nov 2006 at 11:39 am

   […] Update: TheThink has the video of Michael Richards on Letterman. Check it out. So Michael Richards, who played Kramer on Seinfeld, was on Letterman last night to apologize for his racist-ass rant on Friday at Los Angeles’s Laugh Factory. (See our previous post on this.) […]

2. Assignment 8 - Understanding the history of lynching at Race Changers - working towards an anti-racist future, one week at a time on 11 Dec 2006 at 11:25 am

   […] Most of you probably heard about Michael Richards’ outburst last week onstage at the Los Angeles comedy club Laugh Factory and his subsequent apology on the Letterman Show. […]

3. Videoblogger Loren Feldman's high-tech minstrel show at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 07 Aug 2007 at 9:15 am

   […] it’s so topical when videobloggers comment on events that took place nine months ago. I wonder what he’ll tackle next? Perhaps that cool new game show in which a stern British […]

Comments

1. dcase wrote:

   I am not really troubled by his use of nigger because, unfortunately, that is par for the course. However, it sort of makes watching Seinfeld somewhat distracting. Still, I do find the longing for “better times” past a bit disconcerting because it reflects a common theme that one often hears from right wing racists– it was so much better when blacks ( and other minorities) had no power amd we could do what we wanted.

   One thing I’ve learned over the years is to never discount the latent hatreds that living in this society places within a person; even among those you think you know well, their is always the real race trump card to be pulled.

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 3:29 pm ¶

2. dcase wrote:

   Please excuse the “their” in pace of there. I’ve been grading undergraduate essays on immigration since five this morning; a trying experience to say the least.

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 3:32 pm ¶

3. Nina wrote:

   Unfortunately “Seinfeld” was never a center for racial sensitivity. Does anyone remember the Puerto Rican Day parade episode? Or the Soup Nazi? Or the fact that there were rarely any persons of color on the show -they must have lived in the same bleached out NYC as the cast of ‘Friends.” And then there is the Danny Hoch story about working on the show. The actor/playwright was cast to play a towel boy and flown out to L.A. During rehearsals he was told to “make it sound more Hispanic” or something to that effect because “that would be funnier.” He refused and was fired off the show and put on the next plane back to the East Coast. Doesn’t surprise me that Michael Richards would finally show his true colors, especially with no real success post-Seinfeld. He probably thought no one was watching him. Silly rabbit.

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 3:44 pm ¶

4. S wrote:

   You’ll have to excuse Mr. Richards, he was just upset, and we all know that racist words are the first thing we say when we get upset. I busted both my lips in a soccer game so the first thing I yelled was CRACKER! PLEASE! I hope he doesn’t use that lame excuse.

   Oh, and I bet he’s not racist because he has black friends…

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 3:45 pm ¶

5. S wrote:

   He has a show now. Something about being married. I watched about 2 episodes. Now I won’t even watch it even when it’s hard for me to get to sleep. Never!

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 3:47 pm ¶

6. Rob wrote:

   It was disgusting what he said but only because it was out of malice. To be honest, I’ve seen far worse said directed at other people of color without a peep. In fact, laughter soon followed.

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 3:55 pm ¶

7. S wrote:

   Laughter did follow. Along with a cheer and a few claps. As he kept going, THEN people reacted differently.
   But you’re right. Some things (racist) are said about some people without a peep from anyone. Mainly, racist jokes about white people go unchallenged.

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 4:12 pm ¶

8. KXB wrote:

   Too bad his name wasn’t Borat.

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 4:15 pm ¶

9. HighJive wrote:

   The interesting part about this: multicultural advertising agencies often demonstrate the differences between cultures by showing tv viewing patterns. In the case of Seinfeld, it was always noted that while the show was among the top-watched programs with the mass market (i.e., White audiences), it performed miserably among Blacks. Now Richards is performing miserably among Blacks too.

   Then again, maybe it’s not so interesting. Anyway, just wanted to pass the notion along.

   Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 4:28 pm ¶

10. Marshall wrote:

    It’s been interesting to see some right-wingers across the web try to defend Richards by suggesting that the heckler started it. People should understand that heckling comes with comedy. Some people fail to understand that if you respond to the heckler in a way that is based on their ethnicity, you are being racist. Even IF the heckler was being racist, Richards was the one on stage, it was his show, and he has to be professional. Attacking all black people because of the (possible) actions of one or two blacks is nothing but racism.

    I’ve also noticed some comments from conservatives will respond to this event by trying to employ the worn-out caricature of blacks as complaining, etc. These people fail to realize that you can be both a productive member of society and someone who is vociferously opposed to racism and not hesitant to attack it.

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 5:23 pm ¶

11. HighJive wrote:

    maybe richards thought he was performing at def comedy jam…

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 6:04 pm ¶

12. Julia Stepchild wrote:

    Erm, what’s up with the “fork” comment? I don’t get it. He’s a complete ass, nonetheless…

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 6:11 pm ¶

13. Marsha wrote:

    I was going to view this at work, but since I noticed that it was way, way, too loud, I’ll have to view this at home. Needless to say, what I did see was pretty bad.

    I’m not surprised that people are defending him. I mean, remember how much people were in denial about Pete Townshend even though he used his credit card on that web site a few years back? Some idiot people think that celebs can do no wrong.

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 6:24 pm ¶

14. S wrote:

    The fork thing? What I have heard it referenced to is the “BBQ’s” that racist white people used to hold before slavery was abolished and many years after. They’d burn black people alive (as if roasting a pig) like they did Mary Turner and her unborn child in 1918.
    I had a photo of a “BBQ” postcard, I’ll post the link to it if you want to see what I’m talking about. If I can find it. If not, you can google it. You’ll see that his comment is worse than it sounds. Those words he said were not an accident, he really sounds like an active Klan member. Makes you wonder who else has those dangerous beliefs, and if they desire to act on them.

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 6:36 pm ¶

15. makethelogobigger wrote:

    I truly don’t get him.

    Not trying to defend it here, just wondering what was he even thinking? If you’ve seen it, his stand-up stuff/non-Seinfled roles are always bizarre to say the least, almost like Andy Kaufman trying to see how far he can go. Thing is, Andy Kaufman knew how to make it work.

    NO WAY he tries this while Seinfeld is still on the air, which then begs the question/theory: he did this on purtpose. Which is even more disgusting. What, he’s conducting some experiment to see if people hate the word?

    Watching the clip, he kept repeating that odd phrase, something like, “underground, it’s still there, etc” like he was talking to nobody in particular about how the word bugs people. No shit Dick Tracy.

    Mike: we get it. The N word bugs people. We don’t need the reminder. There’s even a doc with the same title out and about 400 years of history to look back on. Did you have to commit career suicide to prove it?

    He’s on Letterman tonight. Outta be interesting. Maybe someone will heckle him.

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 8:58 pm ¶

16. t-hype wrote:

    I could stand behind the heckler argument if Richards had kept it at that level. If he was straight up like, “Oh, you can call me a cracker but I can’t call you a nigger?” quite honestly, I wouldn’t have had much to say about it.

    The thing that lets you know that he has supremacy issues is the way that he brings in the Jim Crow era with reference to bodily harm in his attack. Richards uses the phrase “we would…” when he talks about it.

    I don’t know too many sane white folks who want to align themselves with the atrocities of that time period.

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 9:49 pm ¶

17. merq wrote:

    t-hype:
    1. while I object (very audibly, I might add) to the use of either word, I must categorically state that
    “cracker” != “nigger” and
    nigger > cracker (by a whole fuckin’ lot)

    2. the heckler only called him a cracker after he was called a nigger quite a few times (not that I’m excusing it).

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 10:01 pm ¶

18. HighJive wrote:

    Agree with merq.

    “Cracker” has a ton of different meanings, but I always thought (in a Black context) it derived from “crack” of a whip (or something along those lines).

    The N-word, when used in the Richards context, displays a cruelty and belief that a person is less than a person. It carries a lot more cultural and human baggage than cracker.

    Don’t ever recall hearing about any White child who went home crying because a schoolmate called them a cracker.

    But what the hell do I know?

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 10:15 pm ¶

19. brad wrote:

    Please, Richards stated that he used the n-word because he was angry! Get it? He Wwasn’t doing it as part of any act. Richards is, racist pure and simple. When I get mad at my friends, I don’t attack them by calling them fag, spic, chink, nigger, etc.

    Richards just revealed himself. Now all of his friends will rush to his side and defend him.

    If right-wingers are defending Richards, that just further proves their own racism, showing that they do feel justified to use racist terminology.

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 11:29 pm ¶

20. HighJive wrote:

    brad:

    the first friend to run to richards’ side in defense will probably be the soup nazi.

    (rimshot sfx)

    Posted 20 Nov 2006 at 11:56 pm ¶

21. Meg wrote:

    couldn’t see the video in the link given but there’s ok quality on youtube if anyone hasn’t seen it.

    If you make it through the rant what is mildly heartening is that people were walking out on him. Truthfully though i don’t see how calling him a name because he is white is gonna help anything. Call him out on being racist rather than firing back with a racial epithet of your own (this assumes cracker means something besides a biscuit thing i used to eat in primary school). Richards did interviews here in oz to promote something and he was a 1st class a**hole (that’s being polite). Even the djs i listened to who had pre-recorded an interview bagged him out the whole time. Obviously $$ from seinfeld has given him the idea he can say whatever he likes whenever and he’ll still get the cash rolling in from syndication/dvds.

    but isn’t the stock-standard course to announce an addiction of some kind, go to rehab, say sorry and start again?

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 12:07 am ¶

22. vandia wrote:

    Yeah……..go blame alcohol Richards! The old analysts used to say, ” The superego is soluble in alcohol”. Pathetic……

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 1:30 am ¶

23. KXB wrote:

    “Obviously $$ from seinfeld has given him the idea he can say whatever he likes whenever and he’ll still get the cash rolling in from syndication/dvds.”

    This may be the best explanation - once people, whether it is show business stars, sports figures, or politicians reach a certain level, and never have to worry about the financial consequences of their actions. But unlike Mel Gibson (anti-Semitic remarks), Eddie Murphy (homophobe), or Martin Lawrence (sexually harassed his co-stars), who have had their dirty laundry hung out - Heck, Seinfeld dating a teenager for a number of years when he was in his 30’s, and no one in Hollywood said a word - cause he was bringing in the dough. Richards is not a money maker.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 1:37 am ¶

24. Kai wrote:

    Here’s how we know he still doesn’t get it: from tonight’s “apology” on Letterman, “You know, I’m really busted up over this and I’m very, very sorry to those people in the audience, the blacks, the Hispanics, whites - everyone that was there that took the brunt of that anger and hate and rage and how it came through…”

    I see, white folks were hurt too when he spoke approvingly and threateningly of white supremacist lynchings. I guess it was mean of him to remind white folks that not long ago they were lynching black folks for fun at picnics; and that the n-word was a central weapon in the cultural arsenal that paved the way for this behavior. Yeah, that’s gotta be hard on them.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 2:08 am ¶

25. HighJive wrote:

    how come chris rock can perform an entire monologue on the n-word and be revered, but richards essentially makes the same “i hate n-words” rant and gets ripped?

    oh wait a minute. it’s because richards is a raving racist. my bad.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 2:19 am ¶

26. merq wrote:

    You’ll have to excuse Mr. Richards, he was just upset, and we all know that racist words are the first thing we say when we get upset… I hope he doesn’t use that lame excuse.

    Oh, and I bet he’s not racist because he has black friends…

    Dammit, S! That’s it, I’m taking you along when I go gambling in Vegas!

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15816126/

    Nina:
    Totally agree. I was gonna post about that same Danny Hoch anecdote. For anyone who saw that piece, a racist Seinfeld probably comes as little surprise.

    Watching the clip, he kept repeating that odd phrase, something like, “underground, it’s still there, etc” like he was talking to nobody in particular about how the word bugs people. No shit Dick Tracy.

    makethelogobigger:
    See, I interpreted it a little differently. Kinda like, “See (white folks)? No matter how big they‘ve gotten, there are ’still those words’ that put them in their place.”
    But maybe that’s just me

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 2:44 am ¶

27. Eric Daniels wrote:

    Richards wasn’t funny and he was opening up for Paul Mooney (you better be funny) his fans will let you know if you ain’t cutting it. The jeers were not racial all those brothas said, You ain’t funny it happens at the Apollo Theatre to black, white, whatever and they do not go on tirades I hope Richards never performs in the big leagues again.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 10:11 am ¶

28. S wrote:

    CORRECTION:

    I mentioned that M Richards has a show out. He does not. What I watched was new to me, but was actually something old that had aired on Fox.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 2:26 pm ¶

29. Stefanie wrote:

    Kai, Racism and white supremacy *is* hurtful to whites, because it is harmful to everyone. To use the term “we” when talking about people who perpetrated those acts in the past is harmful, as it makes the audience ask, “Who is ‘we’? All white people?”

    No.

    As t-hype said, “I don’t know too many sane white folks who want to align themselves with the atrocities of that time period.”

    So people like Richards do white people no favors, not because of what he says about white people in the past, but because of what he says about white people living in the present.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 3:32 pm ¶

30. Nina wrote:

    High Jive, I heard the same Chris Rock comment on the radio this morning. All I can think about when whites argue this point is that it is like arguing for the right to have sex with your sister. Sure, physically, you can do it, but it is just not right so you just don’t do it. End of story. So why do some whites want the right to say the n-word so badly? Why can’t they just leave it alone? It really is the one thing that black people can do that whites can’t and I guess for some white people, that gets to them. I have never heard a white person argue for the right to say kike, or chink, or any other racist term, the way they argue for the right to say nigger.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 5:00 pm ¶

31. Kai wrote:

    Stefanie,

    I understand your point. But my point was that, as hurtful as it is to be grouped with white supremacist murderers, it’s far more hurtful to be grouped with those being murdered.

    Peace.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 5:10 pm ¶

32. Megan wrote:

    “I have never heard a white person argue for the right to say kike, or chink, or any other racist term, the way they argue for the right to say nigger.”

    I agree with you completely Nina.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 5:28 pm ¶

33. HighJive wrote:

    nina,

    actually, i wrote the comment because it’s used every time there’s a discussion on this topic.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 6:18 pm ¶

34. kim wrote:

    We are not really going to debate this one, are we guys? This…is…clearly…what…it…is.

    Stefanie, if I’m going to make comment at all, it would be that the sense of conscience evident in your comment makes it incumbent upon all “good White people” to dissociate and shun the likes of Richards.

    We are ALL worth more than this.

    Posted 21 Nov 2006 at 9:49 pm ¶

35. Kai wrote:

    I haven’t heard white people argue for the right to say “chink”, but I’ve heard lots and lots of white people simply call me “chink”. No argument, no controversy, just par for the course.

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 12:50 am ¶

36. Stefanie wrote:

    Kim, I whole-heartedly agree. It’s dissapointing (to say the very least) that Jerry Seinfield et al are burying their heads in the sand. I don’t think I can ever look at that show in the same way again.

    Nina, good analogy!

    Did anybody hear John McWorter’s take on the incident on NPR, called, “Do We Really Care What Kramer Thinks?”

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6520719

    Posted 22 Nov 2006 at 11:32 am ¶

Post a Comment