No, they don’t.
They’re representiative of (what I hope is) the minority. They represent themselves, but they also represent a small group of people that think the same way. That group does not necessarily include all rich, white, Hollywood-types.
Whoosh!
I’m still not sure just what Gibson’s and Richards’s respective outbursts really say about Mel and Michael, let alone what they say about some group or class of people that Mel and Michael supposedly represent. Mel in particular had an atypical-enough upbringing (as Menocchio pointed out) that I hesitate to extrapolate from him to anyone else.
So, while there might be something to the OP’s theory, I don’t think these two data points are worth very much as evidence.
Just to elaborate, Mel and Michael are two celebrities with some serious issues who happened to have meltdowns within a short period of time. There’s no greater signifigance here.
I don’t think Richards and Gibson are representative of anyone except the species of jerks who put their bigoted thoughts to sound when things don’t go their way.
*Edmond *is better, because it’s more honest.
Sssshhhhhh!!! They’ll hear you!!!
I for one am glad to hear that racism and anti-Semitism are so closely allied to being rich. That means we should be able to tax bigotry right on out of existence. 
Michael Richards and Mel Gibson are representative of. . . people who didn’t get the crap beaten out of them for using ethnic slurs when they were young, and learned not to use them as a result.
Acting is not an occupation that draws exclusively from the ranks of the emotionally well balanced; there are probably percentagewise more certifiable nutcases on the SAG rosters than almost any other professional organization. Even on the community theater actors tend to have much larger than average egos, needs for approval and conviction they’re smarter than the average bear. Richards and Gibson are two of the very few (percentagewise) people who entered that business and became super successful financially, but it didn’t “fix” their problems- it just made them able to reshape the world around them in their own image.
Richards was used to a crowd going wild when he’d do his Kramer entrance. These people disrespected him, insulted him and he reacted by having a career wrecking meltdown because he probably has emotional issues as old as he is.
If they’re representative of anything he and Gibson are representative of rich unbalanced megalomaniacs with frail egos used to getting their way and not enjoying it when they’re reminded the best days of their career are behind them. Or “assholes” as somebody already said.
No, actors don’t represent people. Politicians represent people. Why do we care what Mel Gibson & Michael Richards think but if it weren’t for Jon Stewart no one would be aware of a Virginia Republican calling minorities Maccaca?
theres a difference between Gibson’s slurs and Michael Richards slurs: the logical reasoning behind them. Gibson is logical, which makes him both disgusting and dangerous. Richards is illogical, which makes him more pitiful than disgusting.
Gibson’s rant had a little bit of logic behind it. Stupid logic, of course, but at least it has a little consistency.(If you believe that Jews control the whole world, then it’s ‘logical’ to hate Jews)
But Richard’s outburst was totally illogical. If somebody in the audience shouts out that you are a failure on stage, why do you accuse him of being a nigger who deserves a fork up his ass? IThat is the scream of a deranged man, who should never appear in public.
I have a real hard time seeing how 9/11 “proved that being a world power didn’t really mean much.”
Rich white men are also just as powerful if not more so than they have ever been. How many rich white men are currently political leaders, not just in the United States, but around the world?
I think Mel Gibson and Richards are somewhat different cases. Mel Gibson gives off a weird vibe because of his non-traditional religious beliefs and other general acts of weirdness when it comes to racial/religious issues. I don’t know a huge amount about Gibson, but he’s always given the sort of vibe that he could have some really crazy views in regards to Jews or other races.
Richards on the other hand, I think reflects something different. I think Richards reflects a relatively large segment of the population that, while they may never use racial epithets in their day-to-day life, and may genuinely not be white supremacists or etc. under certain circumstances they still have this inner feeling that racial slurs can be thrown around in certain situations.
Look at the recent incident where a police officer in France had to shoot antisemitic rioters, this isn’t an isolated incident, racial slurs and racist behavior has increased in frequency with this particular club and other clubs around Europe. I have Hungarian friends who say they aren’t even comfortable going to some matches because it feels like most of the fans are going just simply to be part of an angry, often racist mob (in addition to feeling the level of talent seen on the field isn’t very good there any more.)
I think there is a certain subset of the population who, under the right circumstances, will behave this way, and Richards is one of those people.
Gibson and his father aren’t Catholics.