I suspect nobody would’ve known about it if he had used “beaner” or “chink” because the Mexican and Chinese people probably wouldn’t have gotten as vocal. Also, those words aren’t hot buttons for the media to pick up on.
If so, doesn’t that mean the big to-do wasn’t so much about Michael Richards being racist as it was about the n-word?
I think the story was big because of the spectacular, unrestrained and very public nature of his rant, not just because he called someone a nigger. I’d like to think the same thing would have happened had he called someone a kike or a spic, but in all honestly I’m not that certain.
Well, the reality is that black/white racial tensions in the US are different than other racial tensions. “Beaner”, “honky”, “nip”, or “chink” just don’t have the same freight as “nigger”. And this isn’t surprising, given the reality of US history. Insulting the Krauts and the Limeys just isn’t the same. Arguing that all racial slurs should be treated equally is just silly, because they simply aren’t equal. You could argue that “honky” SHOULD be treated as equally offensive as “nigger”, but the reality is that the words just aren’t equally offensive.
Keep in mind that it was more than just the use of “nigger”-- Richards said that the guy would’ve been lynched with a spoon up his ass (or something like that).
But I think there would’ve been a stink if he had insulted any minority group, especially if he had done it in a similar manner. It wasn’t just one instance of using “nigger”, but the way he used it that made it such a big deal. The reaction wasn’t all that different from what happened to Mel Gibson just a few months ago.
Comedians make racist jokes all the time- what is different here is that he didn’t use the word nigger in a joke or something and move on, it is that he went on and on about it, displaying some obvious hatred and agression.
I’m pretty sure a “tizzy” would have been made if Richards had made a comparable rant against another minority group.
Can you elaborate on why you think it wouldn’t have been, Controvert?
Oh, I’m fairly confident that if Richards had called an audience member a kike after alluding to gas chambers and lamp shades made out of human skin there’d be a lot more than a tizzy going on. I would bet my life on it.
Yes, I think the tizzy would have been the same.
I thought it was clear from the OP… other minority groups aren’t as vocal, and it’s not a hot button media topic. I’m not really sure how to further elaborate without repeating myself.
Sarah Silverman has joked about a chink peeing in her soda… nobody seems to get in a tizzy over that. And I’m sure the Chinese people have had horrible experiences with racists in the past… but they seem to have gotten over it.
Gibson’s remarks and actions were, I think, quite a lot less severe (although pretty obnoxious anyway), and also were not made in a public venue. Gibson also had at least some excuse in that he was drunk. I would agree the reactions were similar, which would invalidate the OP.
I think if Richards had gone on a lengthy tirade against “wetbacks” and said they should be shot down on the border there would have been quite a reaction as well.
I’m not clear on what you’re getting at here. Is it good, from your perspective, that other groups aren’t as vocal? Also, contextually, it’s quite different to utter a racial slur than it is to look at someone, point at them, and level a racial slur. (Neither of these are good things obviously, but I think one has more vitriol.)
Let’s also not ignore the fact that there is a controversy going on right now involving Rosie O’Donnell and her parodying of Chinese on The View. (Actually, the article also mentions Silverman’s idiocy and how NBC apologized to an Asian American media watchdog group.)
Last, if you’ve watched the clip, White people are walking out of the club during Richards’ tirade. Yes, he was ripping a group of Black customers, but many of the White patrons took offense as well. I saw many more Whites in the media (Bill O’Reilly included) call Richards out for his assish behavior than Blacks (I just recall Jackson and Sharpton). Which is awesome. I’m offended by Rosie O’Donnell’s schtick and I’m not Asian. Acting like a racist/bigoted jerk toward anyone is offensive to me, regardless if I’m part of that group or not. Nobody should just have to “get over” being insulted because of their race or ethnicity.
Other minority groups are as vocal, if not more so. Blacks do not have a corner on the outrage market.
But to compare the Rosie flap and the Kramer flap is not fair. Rosie might have said something mildly insensititive and/or stereotypical. But Kramer was enraged and screaming racial epithets at particular people. If he had just wondered why there are so many negroes in professional sports we wouldn’t be talking about it.
They are different, but I think they’re perfectly comparable. First, O’Donnell’s shenanigans are in some ways, IMO, worse. It’s that “subtle” kind of crap that people of Asian descent have to put up with day-to-day. You could easily see yourself, or a co-worker doing the same. A lot of my Asian friends talk about how it’s often perceived that Asians have only ideal stereotypes, but plenty (like this) are hurtful.
I might be going way too much into this, but part of it was the “chong chong chong” imitation. If you’ve watched a movie in Chinese you could probably come up with a more convincing imitation. It was like a modern day Jose Jimenez impression. (Interestingly enough, the comedian who did Jose Jimenez realized on his own volition that it was an offensive stereotype and stopped doing the character.)
Richards’ nonsense was so OTT and out there - we actually questioned his sanity - and the reality is, most of us don’t encounter that kind of stuff unless you’re interacting with mentally ill people.
Plenty of people have wondered about the prowess of African Americans in certain sports in careless, ignorant ways, and paid dearly for it (Campanella, Jimmy “The Greek” Snyder, etc.).
Michael Richards has publicly apologized about his rant. Rosie O’Donnell hasn’t apologized. I wonder if that makes any difference.
It’s hard to know why some racial incidents become huge stories and others don’t.
But, to use just one example, Jimmy Breslin remained a hero to liberal New Yorkers despite the fact that he regularly tosses off racial slurs (including calling an Asian-American journalist “a yellow cunt”).
I certainly don’t feel sorry for Michael Richards- he asked for all he’s gotten, and then some. But sometimes, people guilty of equally repulsive behavior get lucky and don’t become big news.
There can be many reasons- perhaps because so few people outside New York even know or care who Jimmy Breslin is. Or perhaps there were just bigger stories dominating the headlines and talk shows that week.
I think we must never underestimate the power of the videotape.
Michael Richards had his shenanigans caught on tape. I’m sure public reaction to his tirade would have been considerably different if no one in that room had had a camera phone that night.
An offensively insensitive comment is also viewed differently than one that is fueled by a hot temper.
Speaking of Rosie O’Donnell, I can’t believe she can be so blase about her insensitivity when she was the first to so recently level the homophobia charge against Kelly Ripa. At least be above reproach yourself!
And was there film of Mel Gibson? I thought the reports that came out were based on police records?? And there was still quite an uproar.
Well Gibson had that Unabomber looking photo of him and did come in the context of following The Passion and the ADL’s concern of its potential antisemitic tilt and Gibson’s protestations that there isn’t an antisemitic bone in his body. Actually in that context reaction to his “episode” was very restrained.
Question: If Richards does something worth seeing will you not go because of his rant? If Apocolypto is good will you avoid it because its by Gibson? Should someone’s views influence that choice?
He could have skurred Khazakstan and gotten away with it.