Michael Richards goes on beserk racist rant during nightclub act.

The BBQ Pit
381

[QUOTE=you with the face]
When people do fucked up things, they need to be called on it.
[/quote]
Everyone here agrees with that. Please cite any posts here that claim otherwise. The question is whether anyone here knows in the epistemological sense that Richards holds the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another! NO ONE here is claiming that what he did was morally defensible or that he shouldn’t be called on issuing profoundly ugly, offensive racial remarks. (Note I said “racial” rather than “racist”, since we can’t know his beliefs on this point!)

[QUOTE=you with the face]
Imagine if we were talking about a physical attack instead of a verbal one. What if Richards–instead of hurling invectives at an audience member–had beaten the guy up and had broken his nose into two pieces. I’d expect everyone to say stuff like this…

“Wow, what an asshole jerk.”

“He’s got major issues and needs help.”

“WTF? I never knew Richards was like this. That was fucking ridiculous what he did. What a violent thug.”

…and so and so forth.

What I wouldn’t expect is people to say stuff like this:

“Wow, what an asshole jerk. I think he was just trying to scare the guy, though. I don’t think he meant to break his nose.”

“He’s got major issues and needs help. That said, I don’t think he’s a violent person.”

“Richards was wrong, but it was just one incident that we know of. We don’t have enough evidence to say that he is violent. Harm could come out of calling him violent if he’s really not. So I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt.”
[/quote]
You’re doing it again! Your inapt and intellectually dishonest analogies reveal you to be totally lacking in intellectual integrity. Violence, like screaming racial epithets, is a BEHAVIOR, not a belief! I can’t stress this point enough! You can judge someone for their behavior because the evidence for it is overt and presents no epistemological difficulties. But you CANNOT, by observation of the behavior alone, know or conclude what the offender is thinking or what he/she believes! It is an epistemic impossibility!

That’s why our justice system does not even think of prosecuting someone for their beliefs, but ONLY for their actual behavior. No one here is defending Richards’ behavior! Some of us are only saying that it is epistemologically impossible for us to know his beliefs, at least without evidence of whether he believes that blacks are inferior. We can and should heap plenty of scorn on him, but until more data is available, we can’t know that he holds the belief that blacks are inferior – in other words, we can’t know that he is a racist.

Words have meaning, and by throwing around the word “racist” so ignorantly and flippantly without recognizing what the word actually means is just plain indefensible!

382

[QUOTE=Lissa]
I agree with you totally. Defining the topic of discussion is very important. Therefore, based upon that, I agree that a racist, independent of their own background (ethnicity/race) must accept an ideology of racial inferiority to embrace that notion.

When I referred to social identity, I was referring more to racial discord. Many people mistake someone insulting, or not liking a person of another race, or even the group as a whole, as racism.

Just because it is not racism, for the record, does not mean it avoids having deleterious consequences. Thus, it does not have to be racist before we seek to bridge that growing racial divide, because it could quickly spawn into full-blown racism.

Many times, it is a result of social identity. Simply put, in the process of contructing our self, we as human actors living in a social construct, seek to assemble and validate various attitudes and beliefs. We consolidate those attitudes, behaviors, roles etc…, into our “generalized other” and then use that generalized other to reflect back upon our self and understand our position in the greater social structure. In other words, the self cannot exist without the collective and we base how the collective perceives us, typically, on the attitudes and beliefs of our primary agents of socialization.

Inherent in this process is the desire to have self-esteem, or feel good about who we are and the position we hold in the social structure. Therefore, social identity theory stipulates that human beings have a tendency to highlight the strengths of their social groups, and denigrate other groups. In other words, lift yourself up by putting others down. You see it in early childhood when kids start forming various social groups that have differential status and then proceed to denigrate anyone who is not in that same group.

This process is more poignant when the charcteristics that separate the groups are very distinct. For example, race. You really can’t hide race, if you are referring to skin pigmentation. Thus, whites, black, hispanics have a tendency, since their primary agents of socialization also tend to be of the same race, to highlight the strengths of their group and denigrate others. Now, this does not always approach the level of creating an “ideology of racial inferiority”.

For example, a black man, when upset, as in this case, calls another a "cracker ass ". He is obviously referring to a racial difference. The question comes up, is he saying “Because you are a cracker (white), you are inherently inferior to me”, or is he saying, “You are a member of a group that is different than my own and in my fit of anger, I am trying to raise my self-esteem (after being called a nigger) by insulting your group”. The first would be an example of an ideology of racial inferiority, the other is an example of social identity.

Now, in the United States, we have a LONG history of an established ideology of racial inferiority that asserts blacks are inferior to whites, genetically. There are a thousand examples, but some that may come to mind include: Jim Crowism, Black-face entertainers, the Mammie Stereotype, the Black Buck and/or the repetitive depictions of blacks as criminal, stupid or childlike.

Thus, what I was saying earlier is that a lot of the racial discontent today, in regards to blacks against whites, likely stems from social identity issues. It is not on the same level of the ideology of racial inferiority that has been used to oppress blacks throughout U.S. history. Now, this does not mean that an ideology may exist amongst the black population in the U.S. and will continue to fester and grow. Rather, it simply points out the difference between the two types of hate, or discord.
[/QUOTE]
Those are wonderfully insightful thoughts and words! Thank you so very much for bringing them to us. I’m going to be on the lookout for your posts more attentively in the future as well as Lil’ Pluck’s.

383

[QUOTE=Li’l Pluck]
And, oh, I’m a “she” only on the occasional Saturday night–I prefer “lady” over “woman”;* Sunday-Friday, I’m totally a dude.) :slight_smile:

. . .

*It’s a gay thing, so I’m not sure if you’d understand. :smiley:
[/QUOTE]
I thought there was something I liked about you! We’re “sisters” under the skin! (not that I’m ever, for better or worse, a lady).

384

ambushed, I have never said that I know Richards is a racist; I’ve said that how he’s presented himself, so there’s no reason to bend over backwards trying to call him everything under the sun except that.

I have no idea what your problem is, but you’ve shown by your posts that you aren’t interested in rational debate with me. I only skimmed over your responses to me because frankly there’s only so much hysterical bullshit I can take in a day, and you’re not worth my time.

385

Jesus, ambushed, tell us how you REALLY feel.

Calm down, son.

Quite frankly, at this point, whether or not Richards is a racist is besides the point. Even if he’s not, is that much better? It basically means he came up with the most hateful thing he could think of to say, to be as hurtful as possible. I don’t see that as an improvement.

386

Wow, ambushed, such interesting posts.

I just wanted to say that I haven’t forgotten about you. It so happens, however, that I really need to go to campus and work on a major paper that’s due on Friday (I am *not * amused), so I can’t get back to you now.

Thanks, BTW, for your compliments! And yes, I believe I recall you mentioning in one of your other posts that you, too, were of the dare-not-speak-its-name persuasion. And don’t worry–we can’t *all * be ladies. :smiley:

As for the acrimony between you and you with the face? Well, my, my, my, I *do * declare! And yes, this is the Pit, so acrimony is expected (and sometimes warranted), but it just doesn’t seem to me (at least until I mull it over further) that you two are as far apart as you might appear to be.

387

[QUOTE=ambushed]
Those are wonderfully insightful thoughts and words! Thank you so very much for bringing them to us. I’m going to be on the lookout for your posts more attentively in the future as well as Lil’ Pluck’s.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the compliments. Every now and again, I hit one out of the park. The rest of the time, I get my ass kicked all over the place. :smiley:

388

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
You’re right I don’t understand. Most gay guys I know don’t become women on the weekends, unless they’re drag queens. They may occasionally call each other “girl!” That’s a gay thing. You’re either a drag queen or transgendered but most transgendered don’t turn into women just on the weekends.
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m neither transgendered nor a drag queen (though I did once try on a dress that one of my drag queen friends had acquired–interesting). It’s just that **John Corrado’s ** uncertainty about my sex brought to mind campy queens who sometimes use “girls” and the pronoun “she” to refer to each other.

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
I asked for clarification by what you mean when you say the genesis of white on black racism is more important than the genesis of black on white racism. I wanted to know more about your POV.

My point was racism is bad. I don’t think I put any particular emphasis on black racism as you have on white racism. My point is emphasizing white racism as the genesis of racism isn’t going to do much good other than raising a few generations of whites with a chronic case of teh white guilt.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t believe that I was saying that you put more emphasis on black-on-white (BOW) racism than the emphasis that I put on white-on-black racism (WOB) (YMMV). My point was that (a) BOW racism doesn’t exist in a vacuum, (b) though just as vile as WOB racism, BOW racism is, in fundamental respects, a different creature and, in American society, at least, could never, ever have the power and influence that WOB racism has, and (c) WOB racism exists–and will continue to exist–whether or not BOW racism exists (which takes us back to the whole genesis thing).

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
What do you want me to do? Import black friends? My five best friends: 2 Latinos, 1 Samoan male and 2 white females. Check my location. It’s very white where I live and there’s nothing I can do about that. I can’t import black friends. I don’t hang out anymore. When I used to it was the local gay bar and my friends were a pretty darn good mix of Latinos, blacks, whites, mixes, tallies, shorties, fatties, skinnies, lesbians & transgendered. I used to get my assed kicked at pool by my transgendered pool partner every week. I don’t know how I can get much more PC than that.

I figure I’m about as unsegregated as I can be considering where I live and my social habits.

I could list all the black friends (and a couple sex partners) I’ve had over the years but doesn’t it seem patronizing when people list their PC credentials?
[/QUOTE]

Okay, then, I stand corrected. Not, mind you, that I was *claiming * that you lived a segregated life–I was merely *wondering * if you did. And of course, I didn’t know that it was very white where you live (which could potentially raise other questions, but at any rate, your location, after all, doesn’t indicate that you live in, for instance, Vermont, which, IIRC, is still the whitest state in the country).

And yes, it can indeed seem patronizing when people list their PC credentials, and I usually cringe when people do it.

I do have one question, though. Have you had conversations about race/racism/homophobia/transgenderphobia with your friends? Or, have they ever tried to have those conversations with you? I ask because, for me, race and how it affects people in this society is extremely important for me (not that I attribute *every little thing * that affects my life to race), and my thing is this: if we’re going to develop a friendship, this is one of the subjects that’s going to come up from time to time, and if you can’t hang, then we won’t develop a meaningful relationship. It’s not that I seek to use an unwillingness to talk about race as a litmus test for my friendship (not that being my friend is the Holy Grail or anything), but the fact is that race *does * affect my life (and the lives of everyone in this country, I think), and it’s not something that I’m willing to compartmentalize and avoid just because acknowledging and confronting it makes someone else uncomfortable.

389

[QUOTE=Li’l Pluck]
I do have one question, though. Have you had conversations about race/racism/homophobia/transgenderphobia with your friends? Or, have they ever tried to have those conversations with you? I ask because, for me, race and how it affects people in this society is extremely important for me (not that I attribute *every little thing * that affects my life to race), and my thing is this: if we’re going to develop a friendship, this is one of the subjects that’s going to come up from time to time, and if you can’t hang, then we won’t develop a meaningful relationship. It’s not that I seek to use an unwillingness to talk about race as a litmus test for my friendship (not that being my friend is the Holy Grail or anything), but the fact is that race *does * affect my life (and the lives of everyone in this country, I think), and it’s not something that I’m willing to compartmentalize and avoid just because acknowledging and confronting it makes someone else uncomfortable.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know for sure why I end up with a kaleidascope of friends. You say you don’t apply a litmus test to your friendships but I have to question that. You might be more than you think.

With my transgendered friend the litmus test was mostly me putting my name on the board and I was next up at pool.

She didn’t need to know how I felt about transgendered and I apparently didn’t give off a vibe of caring one way or the other. We were there to play pool and drink. The thing is with me there’s no compartmentalizing or confronting or acknowledging required.

Friendships shouldn’t be like passing a job interview and surviving the vetting process. Sometimes it’s just the little things you do have in common which are important, and not worry about all the shit you have to worry about with the rest of the world everyday.

390

[QUOTE=levdrakon]
I don’t know for sure why I end up with a kaleidascope of friends. You say you don’t apply a litmus test to your friendships but I have to question that. You might be more than you think.

…<snip>…

Friendships shouldn’t be like passing a job interview and surviving the vetting process. Sometimes it’s just the little things you do have in common which are important, and not worry about all the shit you have to worry about with the rest of the world everyday.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t need you to explain to me how friendships are formed, levdrakon. I’m a big boy–I already know how it works. And though I understand that you don’t know me and, therefore, aren’t able to form an accurate or reliable opinion of me, I can’t help but be just a little put-off. But, hey, it’s the Pit, so fuck it.

Maybe I’m the odd-ball here, but I’ve never become **friends ** with someone who possessed some trait that might be *fundamental to their existence * (y’know, the way that race, sex, religion, politics, if they have children, whether or not they’re in a relationship, what-the-hell-ever very often can be) without imagining that said trait and how it impacts their life and view of the world might, at some point (but not always) be the focus of conversation between us.

Perhaps your mileage varies.

391

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
My question is this: No hypotheticals: I am great friends with a white person who has adopted a two year old black girl who he would literally die for, and has two or three black friends who he would do the same for. Yet, due to crime in his area that is mainly perpatrated by blacks, and due to personal problems he has had with some blacks, he really doesn’t like blacks in general. Is he a racist?
[/QUOTE]
He sounds like he may be prejudiced towards blacks in general, though i only have your assertion for this. He definitely sounds bigoted towards blacks be perceives as being “the type” that perpetuates crime in his area and wronged him in the past. I’d say he has a racial bias, but is not, given the evidence so far, particularly racist.

392

[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
If you don’t dislike a person of another race because of their race, but because of their actions toward you, is that racist? If I develop a tendency to not like Chinese because I have been beaten up for no reason by Chinese people on many different occasions, is that racism? If my pal lived in a well to do black neighborhood without the crime and other problems in his area, I am positive his current attitude would have never been formed. So in other words, what if *the actions of a race * cause you to be racist whereas without those actions, you wouldn’t be racist? Then it is understandable, or is it never justified to think negatively of (lamost) all for the actions of some?
[/QUOTE]
Truly racist behavior is almost never justified. Even in your example, a whole race does not attack your friend; just individuals who are members of a race, in a specific neighborhood. So to blame EVERYONE in that neighborhood of those actions or all black people of condoning it is simply not fair.

But… I’ll disagree somewhat with Hippy Hollow and others and say I believe some prejudical behavior is somewhat justified in some cases, and yeah, I think that it can be based solely on the outward appearance of those one interacts with and personal knowledge of negative prior interactions. This is called “stereotyping.” Nearly all stereotypes have some basis is truth. As long as you don’t operate from stereotypes to deprive people of their rights, or work to hurt or abuse them, being a little bit prejudiced is probably okay.

Keep in mind that I also believe that one’s own prejudical behavior and beliefs should be frequently monitored and re-examined. This prevents a mere prejudice from becoming an ingrained bigoted or racist belief.

393

[QUOTE=you with the face]
ambushed, I have never said that I know Richards is a racist…
[/quote]
You stupid, lying fuck! In every single post you’ve claimed to know that Richards is a racist and/or insisted that anyone who says they don’t know if he’s a racist or not you’ve despicably, slanderously called a defender of racism! You stupid, truth-hating, lying fuck!

[QUOTE=you with the face]
I have no idea what your problem is… I only skimmed over your responses to me…
[/quote]
That is EXACTLY what my problem is with you, You stupid, truth-hating, lying fuck! You either REFUSE to read or you are INCAPABLE of comprehending what you read!

You have no business being part of the SDMB with an approach like that!

394

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Jesus, ambushed, tell us how you REALLY feel.
[/quote]
I do not suffer fools like ywtf gladly, as you’ve already observed. But I especially abhor mindless, truth-hating, sanctimonious moralizing from fools like her! She’s just here to make herself feel superior and holier-than-thou. That’s her entire schtick! Who doesn’t want to condemn that?

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Calm down, son.
[/quote]
Oh, Mom! You take the fun out of everything!

[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
Quite frankly, at this point, whether or not Richards is a racist is besides the point. Even if he’s not, is that much better? It basically means he came up with the most hateful thing he could think of to say, to be as hurtful as possible. I don’t see that as an improvement.
[/QUOTE]
May I ask you to contemplate what you just said? The clear implication is that you think I’ve been trying to defend Richards! Or even that I’ve been talking about Richards specifically! Which is the same unjustified, wrong-headed belief that the contemptible you with the face keeps throwing at me!

::: sigh :::

Why won’t Johnny read?

395

I’m sensing anger…

396

Psssst. ambushed. It’s me, Askia. Here. !!! ckuf fuu ccfckk ff u <------

I’m tossing you some extra exclamation points and random bolded letters. I feel you haven’t used enough of them in your last post. You don’t seem nearly desperate, hostile, belligerent or strident enough to take on you with the face. Try again.

397

[QUOTE=Askia]
Truly racist behavior is almost never justified. Even in your example, a whole race does not attack your friend; just individuals who are members of a race, in a specific neighborhood. So to blame EVERYONE in that neighborhood of those actions or all black people of condoning it is simply not fair.

But… I’ll disagree somewhat with Hippy Hollow and others and say I believe some prejudical behavior is somewhat justified in some cases, and yeah, I think that it can be based solely on the outward appearance of those one interacts with and personal knowledge of negative prior interactions. This is called “stereotyping.” Nearly all stereotypes have some basis is truth. As long as you don’t operate from stereotypes to deprive people of their rights, or work to hurt or abuse them, being a little bit prejudiced is probably okay.

Keep in mind that I also believe that one’s own prejudical behavior and beliefs should be frequently monitored and re-examined. This prevents a mere prejudice from becoming an ingrained bigoted or racist belief.
[/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to pick a fight or anything like that, askia, so please don’t interpret my post that way.

Before I get to the meat of the matter, though, I just want to say that I absolutely disagree with you in one regard: truly racist behavior, in my opinion, is never, ever okay. Maybe that’s not quite what you meant to say, but if it is, would it be possible for you to provide examples of situations where you believe this to be true?

While I think I understand what you’re getting at, I can’t help but wonder exactly how you think that “being a little bit prejdiced is probably okay.”

I understand your point that constructing a stereotype based on prior negative associations is probably okay–if you’re talking about, for instance, dogs. Say I have little to no interaction with dogs, then when I do, one bites me unprovoked. Now, if I were to stereotype any dogs I might encounter in the future as bite-prone, that might, on some level, be understandable (or “okay”). Nonetheless, the stereotype would still be unfair–and false. But here, we’re talking about human beings, who are, despite even my misanthropic tendencies, higher up on the food chain than dogs, and even if I were to stereotype all dogs based on my negative experiences with a few, I’d never be able to justify doing that WRT human beings outside of some *very specific * circumstances. I might, for instance, correctly assume that most drug dealers are dangerous, but that’s not something that I’d be wiling to do–or allow others to do without challenge–WRT the average person.

Now, it might be okay to stereotype if, say, you assume that the well-dressed, briefcase-carrying men and women in a courtroom are attorneys or are in some other way connected to the practice of law. Or it might be okay if you see someone in streets wearing scrubs and assume that they’re some kind of medical professional or connected in some direct way to the medical profession. Or it might be okay, if you saw me wearing my kippah (yarmulke), to assume that Im Jewish and that I read Hebrew (which I do–though not nearly as quickly as I read English–even though this is not the case with all people who wear yarmulkes).

Granted, these are simple examples, and they’re harmless stereotypes, but what about negative stereotypes, or what about stereotypes that are not necessarily malicious, but are still unfounded?

I mean, the fact that I’m a black dude and 6’ tall doesn’t mean that I’m good at basketball since, in reality, I’m not, and, furthermore, I *despise * sports, and I always have. Now, this is not the most harmful stereotype that someone could construct about me based on my appearance (if, by “appearance,” in this case, we mean my blackness), but it’s not cool, either, especially if someone seeing me wouldn’t assume, say, that I grew up playing the viola (which I did).

I could run through some other examples, but I think you get the point that I’m trying to make.

Please don’t misunderstand me, because I did see in your response to Wee Bairn that you clearly indicated that condemning the group for the actions of some members of that group wasn’t cool, but, still, what do you mean when you say that being a little prejudiced is probably okay? It just seems to me that you contradicted yourself in your post. Or am I missing something?

Thanks.

P.S.–And for the record, I don’t particularly trust people to not let their prejudices influence how they act towards others. Sure, not all prejudiced people allow their prejudices to blatantly manifest themselves in everyday interactions, but what happens when they think about where they’re going to live, when they consider who they’d prefer to socialize with, who they might or might not hire or fire? Given all possible considerations, saying that being a little prejudiced is okay leads to a very slippery slope, and I wouldn’t want to be the one who gives Wee Bairn or his friend a shove down that slope.

398

[QUOTE=Askia]
You don’t seem nearly desperate, hostile, belligerent or strident enough to take on you with the face. Try again.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t think he knows that I grew up on Ashby St. in SWATs.

399

Oh, shit! I mistakenly didn’t capitalize your name! :smack: I’m so sorry.

400

Seems like there’s an important distinction to make here. Let me see if I can explain it.

I lived for six years in Solomon Islands, where most of the people are black. Being of the melanin-deficient persuasion myself, I was definitely in the minority.

After I lived there for a while, though, I realized that everyone is in the minority. There’s 80 separate languages spoken there, and at least that many cultures, and many of them are radically different.

People from Guadalcanal, in general, are farmers. People from Isabel Island tend to be nice, while people from Malaita are historically warriors and tend towards aggro. There’s a culture where you gain status by how well you can tell believable lies. Chinese mostly run stores. And so on.

Now I realize that these are all generalizations … but they are valuable generalizations. When I meet someone from Malaita, I tend to be on my best behavior, as they tend to take offense at things other folks wouldn’t even notice. When I meet someone who gains status by lying, I consider their words very carefully.

Is this racism … or just realism?

To me, the crucial distinction is between “many or most of group X are”, and “therefore, this person from group X is”. The first is true, the second may or may not be true. The generalizations are valuable when I don’t know the person. Once I meet them and get to know them, I may find that they are the nicest person in Malaita.

To me, racism is the idea that someone is worth less than someone else because of their race, and it is one of the ugliest things I know. I was brought up to despise racism in all its forms, and have held to that belief all my life. However, there are general differences between races, countries, and cultures, and it is foolish to claim that those differences don’t exist.

But it is just as foolish to pretend that racism does not exist. Racism is alive and well, and even flourishing in many parts of the planet including, sadly, the US. People who have been the target of racism, or whose family or people or race have been the target of racism, are understandably very sensitive to the issue. The proper response to this is the same as my response to Malaitans when I meet them — go out of our way not to give offense.

w.