Michael Richard`s Apology

Submitted by: eskimoboy6 10 years ago in Misc

Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) appeared on Letterman to apologize.
There are 121 comments:
Male 506
Can`t watch it.
0
Reply
Male 2,605
"Ah, the behavior? What the man DID? Don`t think it could be referring to anything else, and as long as the behavior is accepted to provoke such an assault, so it is the basis, reguardless of any other racial provocations you`d wish to attach peripherally."

If you`d like to step outside the realm of n*gger as an insult, sure, you`ll find that racist people call black people n*ggers without a second thought, without any provocation, as if such a term were acceptable. But my argument doesn`t touch on this face of the word, so it wasn`t necessary to mention it before. Coincidentally, neither did you.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"That pretty much narrows it down for me; if you want to dance around semantics, then that`s your problem."

If you`re going to go on believing something I didn`t mean despite persistent rebuttals from me, then what is the point of asking for clarity? My statement is admittedly ambiguous, but me further explaining it doesn`t matter if all you`ll do is disregard said explanations anyway. Hmm, smart.

"Then you should make your mind clear; I`ve been reprimanded enough for having put `words` into your mouth, which you later endup vindicating as the intended."

Hey, what can I say that you aren`t eagerly willing to say for me?

"I`ll let you have the last word; as you would have it, at least..."

I already had it before you tried pulling this sh*t. Try posting somewhere where it`s relevant and expected, for instance a private message relating to the Secret Santa discussion. I`m still waiting for you to "utterly destroy" me.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"I say `instigate` with its antagonistic implications in mind."

Then you should make your mind clear; I`ve been reprimanded enough for having put `words` into your mouth, which you later endup vindicating as the intended.

"Wouldn`t it seem as though I had agreed all along?"

I would hope so..

I`ll let you have the last word; as you would have it, at least...

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"...that n*gger isn`t used with a person`s skin color as basis alone; obviously, there are other circumstances, for instance when it`s used as an insult."

Ah, but you said:

"The color of their skin is what the insult refers to, not some behavioral or personal factors. Who taught you otherwise, Suicism?"

That pretty much narrows it down for me; if you want to dance around semantics, then that`s your problem.

And further:

"The word itself has nothing to do with their behavior, as you would imply, aside from what the man did to be called such."

Ah, the behavior? What the man DID? Don`t think it could be referring to anything else, and as long as the behavior is accepted to provoke such an assault, so it is the basis, reguardless of any other racial provocations you`d wish to attach peripherally.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"I instigate you only to clarify..."

Uh, bullsh*t? I say `instigate` with its antagonistic implications in mind. If you really wished me to clarify my opinion, you wouldn`t count on me checking an age-old thread for your questions; you`d message them to me. As it is, I think your strategy is to wait several weeks (in this case, almost two weeks since your last post in this thread) and post something to ensure you have the last word on the matter. If you really wished to have continued this thread with your last post, as I said, you would have messaged it. There is no reason to post in a nearly forgotten thread than to appear as though one has achieved the last word.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"would you consider any alternative basis for use, devoid of any racial relation, politically incorrect per the first paragraph of your last post?"

N*gger is directly racially related, so there isn`t any alternative use. You seem to think I had said n*gger is used for other purposes than to insult\condemn someone, but I was only making the statement that n*gger isn`t used with a person`s skin color as basis alone; obviously, there are other circumstances, for instance when it`s used as an insult.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"That is what I`ve been saying all along; these insults are behaviourally provoked, but only racially related. Can you at least recognize the relevance of my statements which maintain as much..."

I haven`t made any direct statement on the prerequisite circumstances in which the insult is used, but if you`ll note this quote of myself:

"The word itself has nothing to do with their behavior, as you would imply, aside from what the man did to be called such."

I state that the word n*gger on its own has nothing to do with behavior, excluding the behavior of the man that induced n*gger`s use. Wouldn`t it seem as though I had agreed all along?

0
Reply
Male 3,631
And what would make that more politically incorrect than using it for all blacks in general (in the abject-racist sense); I just seem to percieve that condition as being a little out of left-field, and not at all indicative of a clear basis.

"I only do so now to clarify my opinion; you do so to instigate."

I instigate you only to clarify, and I am pleased with the effort you have put toward it.

"...to simply ensure I have the last word."

I wouldn`t expect such a motive from you.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"But like any insult, the aim is to berate someone for something they said or did, and to that extent behavioral factors."

That is what I`ve been saying all along; these insults are behaviourally provoked, but only racially related. Can you at least recognize the relevance of my statements which maintain as much, and insomuch as we agree on this relationship consider the case closed?

"In fact if you look at the first quote, I said the word `used`, referring to the circumstances of n*gger`s usage, and in the second quote I was referring to the insult itself."

Ah, I see. So, when you say:

"... no where did I say the word n*gger is used *only* to refer to someone`s skin color."

would you consider any alternative basis for use, devoid of any racial relation, politically incorrect per the first paragraph of your last post?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
Then I`ll clarify. The nature of the insult refers to the person`s skin color; calling anyone other than a black man a n*gger is irrational and politically incorrect, such as it is. But like any insult, the aim is to berate someone for something they said or did, and to that extent behavioral factors.

The context for both uses of `refer` in the quotes you provided are different and are independent of each other, which makes sense to me. In fact if you look at the first quote, I said the word `used`, referring to the circumstances of n*gger`s usage, and in the second quote I was referring to the insult itself.

If you haven`t anything else, I consider this discussion done with. I`ll return as needed but let it be known that I`m not obsessed enough with my discussions so as to continually visit them weeks after all other activity has expired to simply ensure I have the last word. I only do so now to clarify my opinion; you do so to instigate.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
So you`re exluding any other factors, such as behavioural ones, from this insult in the latter quote, yet in the former you are opening it up to other motivations; care to elaborate?
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Miscommunication?

"Second, no where did I say the word n*gger is used *only* to refer to someone`s skin color."

Right here:

"The color of their skin is what the insult refers to, not some behavioral or personal factors. Who taught you otherwise, Suicism?"

Ha, I guess you did!

0
Reply
Male 10
The analogy to calling someone fat is a solid one. I would extend that comparison by saying that if a fat person walked by and you mumbled about his or her weight afterwards, or about the weight of every fat person, you`d be demonstrating a prejudice against fat people.
0
Reply
Male 2,605
I`m not saying Richards felt the need to call his heckler a n*gger exclusively because the heckler happened to be black... I`m saying and have said that Richards was attempting to insult the man using the man`s skin color as a basis because it was his most apparent attribute, much like calling an overweight person fat in the spirit of insulting them. However, this alone does not automatically qualify Richards as racist; uncreative, sure, but not racist.

Somewhere along the line, you had a grave miscommunication.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"...seems like an empty criticism unless Richards is such an `abject-racist,` as I described, which you feel he`s not by using the word alone; this means the only alternative basis by which this man was made eligible for such a condemnation would be the nature of his behavior, unless you wish to forefeit your prior evaluation and instate Richards AS an abject racist who considers all blacks n*ggers, due to the only factor by which you are purporting this man to have been deserving of such an insult in the first place; the color of his skin."

First off, no one deserves to be called a n*gger. Second, no where did I say the word n*gger is used *only* to refer to someone`s skin color.

Here`s an example. Say you want to insult an overweight person, so you called them fat. This insult refers to their physical condition, but the reason for calling them fat is because you wanted to insult them: just as the insult `fat` came easiest to mind, so did n*gger.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"...thats what separates the terms `racial` and `racist` for you..."

Excuse me, did I say that? I outlined what racial and racist mean in the post above. You know, just in case you couldn`t find the time to *ask me* what my definitions are.

"...and from what I gather, it could only be deemed `racist` if he somehow applied this put-down to the rest of those who share this feature?"

Are you suggesting I suggested n*gger is only racist when the word is applied to *every* member of that race? When did I say that? How are you infering this? I said n*gger in and of itself is not racist. Saying the word n*gger doesn`t automatically qualify one as racist. You got that much?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
I`ll respond to your posts but my patience is short. Your writing style is unnecessarily vexing to pick through and unless you break it down into simple English as we both know you can, don`t be surprised if no one bothers altogether.

"But then again, if he`s somehow criticizing this distinguishing feature exclusively, and this feature is shared by many others (in this case a classifying slur), then how could they not feel offended? I`m just not sure how you draw the line between `racial` and `racist` in this case..."

I`m not saying they have no right to be offended, I`m saying they have no right to claim Richards` use of n*gger is racist.

What`s the line between racial and racist? Well, racial is a quality relating to one`s race and racist is considering someone or a group of people superior\inferior according solely to their race.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
In that case, it would mean he is a n*gger because he belongs to a group that is collectivley deserving of that title (skin-color as the adhesive) and that is what I was describing by my mention of abject-racism vs. race-related and behaviourally-based condemnation. It seems that if this feature is all that Richards is condemning, then that condemnation is by default being applied to all who share this feature; seems like an empty criticism unless Richards is such an `abject-racist,` as I described, which you feel he`s not by using the word alone; this means the only alternative basis by which this man was made eligible for such a condemnation would be the nature of his behavior, unless you wish to forefeit your prior evaluation and instate Richards AS an abject racist who considers all blacks n*ggers, due to the only factor by which you are purporting this man to have been deserving of such an insult in the first place; the color of his skin.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Right, I see that you`re sticking to that distinction you made between racism being a system of beliefs, not words; thats what separates the terms `racial` and `racist` for you, for even as skin-color is a symptom of race just like any other feature by which we are distinguishably varied, it is merely a racial remark intended to somehow put-down that person for this difference; and from what I gather, it could only be deemed `racist` if he somehow applied this put-down to the rest of those who share this feature? But then again, if he`s somehow criticizing this distinguishing feature exclusively, and this feature is shared by many others (in this case a classifying slur), then how could they not feel offended? I`m just not sure how you draw the line between `racial` and `racist` in this case; unless you`re submitting that it need entail an entire tirade on the merit of himself as an individual or his behavior, based solely on the group with which he is affiliated?
0
Reply
Male 2,605
You said racist connotation, not racial, so that is what I responded to. Here`s a quote of you saying as much:

"So you believe n*gger can be employed as an insult devoid of any racist connotation..."

It is entirely possible to call a black man a n*gger without having any "racist connotation" or racist agenda: like I said, Richards used it as an insult because it wasn`t accompanied by any racist dialogue.

"I`m sure there are very few in the `African-American` community who would agree, especially if you walked up and shared this revelation with them straight-up while drinking your juice in the `hood."

Be that as it may, the majority of the African-American community is wrong in this respect because although they have a right to be offended by the insult, they don`t necessarily have the right to call me racist were I to use it as an insult.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
So you`re telling me that the above is devoid of any racial connotation, whatsoever? I`m sure there are very few in the `African-American` community who would agree, especially if you walked up and shared this revelation with them straight-up while drinking your juice in the `hood. And anyway, how is it insulting in that case unless based on an alternative evalutation, such as behavior?

I don`t understand how I could have been `painting myself as a bigot` a page earlier by using this word, and suddenly now it is devoid of any racist connotation, whatsoever...

*sigh*

Seems a bit of the ol` convenience ala Overmann, if you ask me...

0
Reply
Male 2,605
Absolutely. "He`s a n*gger!"

*sigh*

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"I did, man. In the context of an insult, n*gger is not necessarily racist."

See, I agree; it`s related to race, but that`s not necessarily its basis; though if that`s the case, something else must be acting as its basis and for me, there is no way to insult somebody`s skin color alone. So you believe n*gger can be employed as an insult devoid of any racist connotation, whatsoever though without an alternative basis, such as behavior? Care to give an example?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
I did, man. In the context of an insult, n*gger is not necessarily racist.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
"... but the use of the insult in its racist context..."

Can you describe the word n*gger in a non-racist context?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
No, Suicism, you implied that n*gger is used to "reflect a poor COMPONENT of the black race" but the use of the insult in its racist context is used to refer to *all* members of the black race as "poor components" and is independent of any immediate behavior. As an insult, n*gger just reflects a person`s skin color and is merely intended to inflict psychological harm, as much as any intent to insult does.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
"I`m referring to the word itself, not the behavior that induced it to be used as an insult against an individual."

Yeah, but after doing so, you said:

"aside from what the man did to be called such."

Which is exactly what I was talking about! The behavior!

We have differing views on what the word *itself* means when applied by ourselves, or others. For me, it was one which basically represented a poorly-behaving or unacceptably rude, low-class black; for you, it has to do with an insult toward the skin-color first. That`s what makes discussions like this so interesting, and important today: no one wants to explore the roots of their outrage, anymore than *true* racists wish to plumb the depths of their hate; and perhaps with enough dialogue on the issue, we can finally achieve a more widespread awareness of the Golden Rule you laid-out below:

"Racism is a system of beliefs, not words."

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"Isn`t that as much of an oxymoron..."

Not at all. I`m referring to the word itself, not the behavior that induced it to be used as an insult against an individual. Get a grip, huh?

"Yeah, that`s exactly what n*ggers need to `fecking` get over in this country, eh Kelly?"

Your words, not mine. Care to paint yourself as a bigot some more?

Racism is in fact a system of beliefs and not merely a system of insults. You telling me you believe that last part?

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"Feck off, one-star."

Ok, "Kelly..."

"The word itself has nothing to do with their behavior, as you would imply, aside from what the man did to be called such."

Isn`t that as much of an oxymoron as I was worried my juxtoposition of "astronomical" and "microscopic" would be?

"Racism is a system of beliefs, not words."

Yeah, that`s exactly what n*ggers need to `fecking` get over in this country, eh Kelly?

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"Happy 1000th, Overmann!"

Feck off, one-star.

"...it`s more of an obscenity against them as an individual in LIGHT of their group..."

Exactly. It refers to their skin color but is used as an insult to them personally. The word itself has nothing to do with their behavior, as you would imply, aside from what the man did to be called such.

Because of this, the word does not automatically imply someone is racist for using it. Racism is a system of beliefs, not words.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
I guess that`s where I got the derivative meaning for the word n*gger, though like I said everybody I`ve ever known seems to agree with me who wasn`t a member of the KKK; including many black friends I`ve had over the years.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Happy 1000th, Overmann!

"I made this post earlier but it didn`t show up for some reason. Browser error or something."

I was wondering where you were!

"The color of their skin is what the insult refers to, not some behavioral or personal factors. Who taught you otherwise, Suicism?"

That has simply been the default conception of it for me and everybody I know, except members of the KKK. Like calling a Mexican a cholo because the act like some kinda Wab gangster piece of sh*t, or a wetback for those who don`t have the basic respect to come here legally and can`t learn our language but expect free Medicare. It`s all based on the behavior of the individual, and this one word basically combines their group identity with their individual behavior; it`s more of an obscenity against them as an individual in LIGHT of their group, rather than as a statement against the group itself. The Italian slur Mulingani, which I grew up with, actually means "low-class black.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
I made this post earlier but it didn`t show up for some reason. Browser error or something.

"To say that this word is never used to reflect a poor COMPONENT of the black race, rather than the race itself, is categorically irresponsible."

Categorically irresponsible? Can`t you just say politically incorrect?

When someone calls a black person a n*gger, they are surely addressing (speaking to) that one person. Duh. But the word n*gger refers to a black person by the color of his skin, implying that anyone with that skin color can be a n*gger. N*gger is just an obscene, derogatory name for negro, and as any black person can be considered a negro, so too can the insult n*gger be applied to any black person. The color of their skin is what the insult refers to, not some behavioral or personal factors. Who taught you otherwise, Suicism?

0
Reply
Male 195
-astronomically microscopic (is that an oxymoron?) -

it isn`t as astronomic is an adverb to microscopic, meaning it`s astronomically whatever. In this case, small

-From the Jesse Jacksons of the world who wish to keep racism alive, so they can continue making a living off of it.-

I`d imagine it`s every person who believes fervently in black brotherhood that is at issue. Where every one with dark pigment is a freind for life, every whitie is a stranger.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
In the sense that Hollywood and the news media benefit so severely by sensationalizing the issue at every turn,
"It`s just a fad; it`ll go away."
0
Reply
Male 3,631
So the differences are important; and do you know why they still have been dividing us for so long? Because the pressure is always toward more and more GENERAL classifications of organisms when it comes to members of our own Specie, rather than toward a progressively SPECIFIC taxonomic approach! Had we been pushing toward the more specific this whole time, perhaps we could have gotten over those more GENERAL classifications which divide us, and understood the more SPECIFIC qualities which we must share in so many myriad and unexpected ways. That is why we are so divided, it is our FEAR of reproach from the black community (and others) that keeps us from researching these particulars of genetic quality openly, and where does that pressure come from? The sense of entitlement which is pumped into their minds from day one. And where does that come from? From the Jesse Jacksons of the world who wish to keep racism alive, so they can continue making a living off of it.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Anyway, reguarding any breeding population, the trick is to get something that is stable enough to make a niche of it`s environment, however malleable enough to adapt to that habitat if environmental conditions shift. That is why it is important to assess every possible difference between groups, for the sake of risk or benefit; even if these differences amount for astronomically microscopic (is that an oxymoron?) variations in the genome, they are still important and expressed dramatically; for even in the case of Chimpanzees and ourselves, we share 98.5% of our genes; now that would seem like the type of small and insignificant degree of difference that someone like Moenkie (monkey) would site as a part of one of their "studies," but as we can see it produces SIGNIFICANT results in the realm of expression, even to the degree that we can classify ourselves as different SPECIES, and Christians can argue for the impossibility of our sharing a common ancestor.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
"but blacks have something physically differentiating them, so they can be more effective in there racist views."

As I mentioned: " it seems this very reaction IS actually instinctive to blacks, and minorities in general..."

`Socially` instinctive (and perhaps racially, we haven`t studied that yet or isolated the "defensive" or "entitlement" genes) is the qualifier I was presuming, for the exact reasons you mentioned above.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"I mean, do people with downs syndrome get to be there own race?"

Well, they could except (as you know) downsyndrome is technically a genetic mutation (the absence of 1 essential chromosome. People can find any basis by which to seperate eachother, such as height or nose-shape as you mentioned, and more general classifications of race may be one of them. However, I think it`s an interesting study, and as tribal animals it`s no surprise to me. If you were to look back at the ancient migrations of earlier hominids, you`d see this type of pattern among breeding populations, and even in current primates: smell differentiations, mating signals (such as the bonobo chimp female`s flaming ass), and even aggression patterns pave the way for these breeding populations. (not finished...)

0
Reply
Male 195
Whether all these races are social constructs or not, it affirms the egalitarian conviction that we all share the same instinct for opportunism; therefore, whenever these constructs are put to use for the benefit of one group over another, it is a form of oppression and will be exploited; just like anything else in nature.

Yes, but blacks have something physically differentiating them, so they can be more effective in there racist views. If you`ve ever seen National Security, you can`t help but feel sick as no one says anything and it was a major hollywood movie, yet is the most horrifically racist movie I`ve seen in a while.

0
Reply
Male 195
-No, and since you`re misconstruing everything I say I`d rather not explain myself to you anymore. I`ve made my points, they`re valid. Enjoy.-

So basically you`ve given up?

Well, if I might continue Sucism-
Though years of selective breeding required to create the skin pigment gene may have also created certian associated genetic similarities, I see no need to cement these merely genetic and cosmetic difference as a valid foundation for another "race".
I mean, do people with downs syndrome get to be there own race?

I understand in the past the skin color was grounds for division, but like in Rwanada it is an entirely social creation (the tutsi where slightly taller, smaller-nosed hutu). I see no reason to continue it, and think "black" ness should stop being a qualifer in who you are (I.E.- black culture, black hip-hop)

0
Reply
Male 3,631

You see, the social value here really isn`t tolerance, it`s about punishing whites for being intolerant in the past; and since doing so will benefit minorities (since they are the proposed victims), so they will take advantage of it whenever possible. It`s simple Human nature. Whether all these races are social constructs or not, it affirms the egalitarian conviction that we all share the same instinct for opportunism; therefore, whenever these constructs are put to use for the benefit of one group over another, it is a form of oppression and will be exploited; just like anything else in nature. What`s really racist is when these "social constructs" are manipulated by the very people who decry them, into a basis for the regulatation of free-speech; the same basis which ignites their fury over use of a word such as n*gger: race!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
^ Yes, but it seems this very reaction IS actually instinctive to blacks, and minorities in general (except Asians), based on my own experience and observing that of others, simply because of the Overkill principle Overmann speaks of: since the minority has more social support for his/her status of the victim rather than the agressor, their accusations are given more weight and conversely their racist transgressions less; if they are more likely to get away with it, they are more likely to try. Minorities are some of the most intolerant people I know.
0
Reply
Female 590
I`m a white person. A few weeks ago someone rear-ended my car and she happened to be black. I was pretty pissed off and was really short with her (as I would have been with anyone in that situation), but it never once occurred to me to call her a "nygger." Why? Because it has nothing to do with the situation. She didn`t hit my car BECAUSE she was black, she just happened to be. So why would I single out her race using that term?
To other white men on this discussion board: If you were to become annoyed with a black man, would it be instinctive of you to call him a "nygger", as opposed to, say, a "jacka$s"?
I don`t think calling someone a "nygger" is an instinctual reaction of most people, because most understand that it is a very derogatory and stereotyping word, and, despite their anger, they are not trying to insult someone based on their racial situation, merely the fault that they made at that moment.
Does this make any sense?
0
Reply
Female 441
I luved how the audience was laughing.and Jerry was all its not funny.LOL!!!!!!!!!!!The show will never be the same.and the wierd thing is as soon as iwas dun atching this clip.sienfeld came on.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Rad, you just totally forefit because I attempt to pin-down a specific meaning behind your pop-culture hippie buzzword, and ask you to reference your typical egalitarian "study" results! Awesome, you are truly a beacon of light in the field of ethnic studies!
0
Reply
Male 312
"So you`re saying, if I go wrap a leash around someone else`s neck, and use them for exploitative purposes without their consent, they suddenly become another race? There is no biological basis whatsoever, for how the dominant/submissive groups are determined within the sphere of this "social construct?""

No, and since you`re misconstruing everything I say I`d rather not explain myself to you anymore. I`ve made my points, they`re valid. Enjoy.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
"The concept of race stems from the dominant groups`s need for control of the subordinant group for a stable society (fucntionalist theory)."

So you`re saying, if I go wrap a leash around someone else`s neck, and use them for exploitative purposes without their consent, they suddenly become another race? There is no biological basis whatsoever, for how the dominant/submissive groups are determined within the sphere of this "social construct?"

"If you think that race is real then you agree there must be a better one and that certain races should remain subordinate groups while others shouldn`t."

That is an unfair assumption, and you`ve provided no proof for why this is necessitated by recognizing race as something outside of a mere "social" phenomena; also, define the characteristics of "better" that accompany this assumption, and their basis; then, why segregation or limited integration are not as viable of options.

0
Reply
Male 195
^Or they say "Blacks are inferior"
0
Reply
Male 2,958
An all the n-bombs aside, he did say "50 years ago WE would have YOU upside down with a fork in your ass" referring to lynchings and other hate crimes. Sounds like racial superiority to me.

But, alas, all we have is what he said and has now apologized for. Does he really think the guy should shut up before he strings him up? Does he really think he doesn`t deserve to see the show because "He`s a N*gger!"? We`ll never know because when it comes right down to it, we can`t assume someone is racist until they tell us they`re racist.

0
Reply
Male 2,958
So I got high the other day and something funny popped up in my mind.

What do you think he would have said if it was a white guy?

Do you think he would have called him `honkey` or `cracker` since those are on such equal terms with `n*gger`?

0
Reply
Male 916
I wonder if someone saying, "50 years ago we`d have you upside down with a f*cking fork up your ass!", regrets that those times are over. And when somebody says, "Throw his ass out! He`s a n*gger!", does this person mean "Throw his ass out, because he`s a n*gger!"?
0
Reply
Male 312
If I could find evidence easily online I would link you, but this is all stuff I`ve learned through my ethnic studies minor in college.

In various videos I saw studies where people would analyze sections of their DNA and compare them to the same sections of other students DNA and they were nearly identical. They also did DNA tests for chimps and fruit flies and their DNA was more varied, even though their physical attributes were nearly identical.

The concept of race stems from the dominant groups`s need for control of the subordinant group for a stable society (fucntionalist theory). So basically they have to look for reasons as to why the subordinate group should remain a subordinate group. If you think that race is real then you agree there must be a better one and that certain races should remain subordinate groups while others shouldn`t.

0
Reply
Male 555
No longer available.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Now, I wouldn`t be opposed to coming-up with a derogatory term for someone of the Human SPECIE that happens to operate below minimum-required standards of behavior, but that too would be referencing the closest (now acceptable) biological classification to which they belong, and thus still vulnerable to your claim that it somehow negatively reflects on the specie as a whole, which you can obviously see now is not at all a valid interpretation.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
"However, the word n*gger in its racist context is a universal put-down and does not mean the person it is applied to is a bad example of his race."

To say that this word is never used to reflect a poor COMPONENT of the black race, rather than the race itself, is categorically irresponsible. I`ve used it in this context, as has everybody I`ve ever known who does not consider all blacks to be deserving of this description; just the ones who act like it! Hence the justification, "I don`t believe all blacks are n*ggers; it just so happens that all n*ggers are black." Tell me you`ve never heard that before?

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Also, the concept of race was drilled into me by people who insisted that I believe they were all equal; at the same time as they insisted that these same races didn`t exist - kinda like you!
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Meonkie, define "social construct." Also, provide the source for these findings reguarding your "fruit-fly" analysis.
0
Reply
Male 195
haha reason wins, whoever is right.

I looved you rational dialectic

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"I would like to hear more of what you have to say but I would like to read it in a way I can actually follow it."

Get used to it. Eventually you`ll be able to see through all the prententious bullsh*t; at least you can hope so.

0
Reply
Male 2,605
"...and result in describing them as a POOR example of their race or associated group..."

Using the term n*gger is an insult, I`m glad you agree with that part. And this insult was directed at only one INDIVIDUAL (as you put it), which I`m glad you also agree with. However, the word n*gger in its racist context is a universal put-down and does not mean the person it is applied to is a bad example of his race. It means all people of the race the man is representing are bad, not just him.

Now, Kramer`s use of the word does not necessarily mean he shares these views or that he used it in a racist context: he was just trying to offend the guy who offended him, and n*gger was the first word that came to his mind because the man`s race is apparent. That`s all there is to it.

"Etymology: alteration of earlier neger, from Middle French negre, from Spanish or Portuguese negro, from negro black, from Latin niger;"

From Merriam-Webster`s on-line dictionary.

0
Reply
Male 1,745
The letterman audience is laughing because everyone knows him as Kramer and now it`s difficult to take him seriously. I was kinda expecting him to fall out of the chair or yell "hoo haa" or do something off the wall because of it...

Anyhow, some people say the dumbest things at the worst times (you know that guy). Richards is not necessarily racist, he`s one of those guys.

0
Reply
Male 312
The only reason race exists is because it has been drilled into society by people who feel that their ethnicity is better than the others.

So, in a way, it is both a myth and a fact.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
Well if race does not exist, then this man`s statements could not have possibly been racist. End of story.
0
Reply
Male 312
A black and a white man are genetically more alike than 2 fruit flies.

The idea of race, as in a superior and inferior ones, is a social construct. Wanna know where Hitler got his ideas about creating a super race of white people from?

Hint: It`s closer to home than you would think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race


Also, Suicism, your ideas are interesting but your writing style is hard to follow. I would like to hear more of what you have to say but I would like to read it in a way I can actually follow it.

0
Reply
Male 3,631
They don`t understand it`s employment as a BEHAVIOURAL deptiction first, with a racial association second, but rather as a racial condemnation FIRST and then, on that basis, an evaluation of that individual`s behaviour. The reason for this? They see the appropriateness of it`s usage in PURELY racial terms: if you`re black it`s ok, if you`re white it`s not, reguardless of the motive behind it`s employment by members of either camp. It`s only bigotry when an individual`s behaviour is depicted as either acceptable or deplorable SOLELY on the basis of their chosen classification (e.g. race), which is exactly how they (members of the black/egalitarian community such as this) determine the appropriateness of employing this `epithet:` by your race.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Otherwise, he would have just been doing a bit on how stupid n*ggers are, and THEN faced outrage by people who fit the racial ASSOCIATION but did not fit its behavioural implication. I believe the term n*gger, just as the term "redneck" or "white-trash" or certainly "wetback" has a behavioural or cultural implication to it, and that is why it is not so much a statement on an entire race, but the behavior of one individual as a poor reflection of their chosen group identity. The fact that they became outraged had not to do with any racism inherent in Kramer`s speech, but rather the racism inherent in their association of that word with themselves.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
And Overmann, reguarding your mention of motive (which is a valid one), along with Immigrants, I think it is obvious to us all that the employment of racial epithets takes place in the same part of the brain as a curse-word, and is considered an epithet for the same reason as the latter is considered obscene. It is obvious to me that when someone is not just an abject racist, as in judging INDIVIDUALS on the basis of their ethnic allegience FIRST, that when these racial `curse-words` are employed in THIS way, they are always directed toward the behavior of one INDIVIDUAL, and result in describing them as a POOR example of their race or associated group; in this case, race just happened to be the most convenient and, as it so often is, the most obvious association to reference. No different than stupid `American,` dratin` `commie,` stupid goddamn `space-alien,` or any other classification which may accompany the original insult/outrage directed at that individual`s BEHAVIOR.
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Ah, Overmann, how fortuitous that we should post in virtual synchronization! Actually, referring to your etymology of the word `I am a racist!` (and everybody else`s), I understand it quite differently; the word `I am a racist!` is actually a derivitive of the old-Germanic term, `negger,` which means `tillsman.` And considering that English won out over German as the national language by only ONE VOTE, it is easy to see how that derivative might work it`s way into the common usage of an early American society...
0
Reply
Male 3,631
Is that not the definition of DISCRIMINATION in action?
0
Reply
Male 3,631
If race is a completely social construct, then why would medical research produce different results for the treatment of certain diseases in blacks, then of whites? Even when natural racism is inevitable in a course of research employed to BENEFIT them, they STILL protest! If it`s a social construct, they should share. What the most troubling thing about this is can be reflected by a quote I recently ran across by `comedian` Paul Rodriguez, in a recent interview with CNN: "Once the word comes out of your mouth and you don’t happen to be African-American, then you have a whole lot of explaining ... Freedom of speech has its limitations and I think Michael Richards found those limitations.” Wow, did he just SAY it? What the exact problem is, with no recognition of it being a problem, but rather an acceptable fact? So the limits of free-speech are not objective, but rather subject to the particular ethnic heritage of the participant?
0
Reply
Male 2,605
bionicRod, that etymology doesn`t go back nearly far enough, namely to the Latin "niger", meaning black. Both French and Spanish are Romantic languages; I`ve no idea why that dictionary didn`t extend it.

And sure n*gger refers to the black man`s skin color, but by calling him such, does Kramer think every black person is inferior, or just his heckler, who happened to be black?

If we are going to be so eager as to associate a man with as damaging a term as racist (both professionally and personally damaging), I feel we should be cautious and fair and investigate what actually constitutes being racist.

0
Reply
Male 195
-Alteration of dialectal neger, black person, from French nègre, from Spanish negro ; see Negro-

This is a requirement for the insult to be applicable, like fat drat is applied to fat people, c*nt apllies to women (which although offensive is not sexist)

-The fact is that, yes, the n-word is a derogatory term for black people and Richards was right to apologize. I can`t believe I`m explaining something this obvious.-

Your not understanding the difference between racism, and merely being descriptive of black-people. Merely being of a specific racial instance does not make a profanity racist. I seriously doubt when Richards said "n*gger" he also meant to say "blacks as a race are inferior to other races"

As for it being obvious, never trust that. The emperor got pretty far into town before someone yelled out that he was naked (if you catch my allusion)

0
Reply
Male 312
"So yes, I`d say the term is inherently racist, not to mention offensive no matter the person whom you`re labeling."

I don`t really think it`s offensive, but that could just be because I think racism is hilarious considering race is a completely social construct.

0
Reply
Male 1,014
Also, here`s the etymology (the origin) of the word copied from the Yahoo! dictionary:

ETYMOLOGY:
Alteration of dialectal neger, black person, from French nègre, from Spanish negro ; see Negro

So yes, I`d say the term is inherently racist, not to mention offensive no matter the person whom you`re labeling.

0
Reply
Male 312
Racism has degrees, I think we all agree to that. Him shouting "he`s a I am a racist!" over and over is not the same as him dragging the brotha-man outside and lynching him.
0
Reply
Female 1,397
Worst apology ever.
0
Reply
Male 1,014
Well, go ahead and try it then, see if he thinks it`s racist or not. Dictionary definitions don`t really mean sh*t. For those 40 million hypothetical people you mentioned, ignorant may mean rude. If they used it that way all their life, you think they`re going to stop because you have them look it up? Dictionaries serve as a guide, nothing more. If enough people use a word a certain way for long enough, the dictionary will eventually change to the narrower definition or add one to reflect the new meaning. The fact is that, yes, the n-word is a derogatory term for black people and Richards was right to apologize. I can`t believe I`m explaining something this obvious.
0
Reply
Male 195
I.E.- so and so is a n*gger reflects poorly on him assuming your correct and has no bearing on his race
0
Reply
Male 195
-If you don`t believe me, try calling a black dude that if you`re white, Immigrant.-

And I bet you could get 40 million people who think ignorant means rude, popularity supports nothing.
Does n*gger specifically carry a racist context, in that it judges blacks as a race as inferior by it`s very usage? Otherwise I don`t think you can be racist to individuals

0
Reply
Male 1,014
The n-word was actually derived from the adjective niggard or niggardly, meaning a stingy person like a miser or small in a mean way, like a niggardly tip. Somewhere along the lines it was applied to black people and changed to its current form, creating a new word. The original word wasn`t implicitly racist, but the derivation sure is. If you don`t believe me, try calling a black dude that if you`re white, Immigrant. There, who says my English degree isn`t coming in handy?
0
Reply
Female 797
This video is not available.
0
Reply
Male 312
"Excuse me boy, but the word racism is not under examination here so don`t try to get smart and pull the linguistics child. Any sane person, aside from you racist-appologists who probably defended David Irving, could see that what Richards said was racist. He went on and on about "n1ggers" and wouldn`t stop, I hope he saved some of that Seinfeld money."

Way to misunderstand what someone was saying. We`re not "racist-apologists" as you so kindly put it. We`re basically saying that a black guy calling a white guy a cracker is just as racist as the white guy calling the black guy I am a racist!. One is just more acceptable in our society based solely on white guilt.

0
Reply
Male 2,372
Y`know, if he wanted to make jokes about black people having big lips, or how they run fast because they practice running from the cops, etc, then, although it still might offend, it would still be fair game. Lord knows that there have been plenty of "white people" jokes along the same lines.

And yes, he was a big man to say sorry like that on national television, but I still find it hard to let him off the hook.

Between the lynching comment and "He`s a nygger," I can safely say that I`ve seen more than I ever care to see of Michael Richards ever again.

We can forgive, but we`ll never forget.

0
Reply
Male 1,420
"And yes, if Chris Rock said something like that, it would be funny. Why? Because it isn`t the white people who are vulnerable due to being a minority. It is always the majority who need to be careful about what they say and do regarding how it affects a minority - it`s called having some responsibility. Deal with it!"
thats pretty ignorant right there. if minorities want to be a "normal part of society", expect the bad AND the good. they have no right to pick on us unless they wanted to get picked on back.

you mess with the bull, you get the horns. im pretty sure you dont get special treatment just becuase the bull has more power than you.

0
Reply
Male 215
Sometimes a joke or an act just completely fails, and as long as race or camera phones aren`t involved then it all just goes under the carpet. He seemed genuinely sorry, and a little shocked over what happened. I hope this doesn`t ruin him.
0
Reply
Male 195
-The issue isn`t the words used, it`s how he used them. If what he said was funny fairplay, but it wasn`t funny and was just him screaming about "I am a racist!s" and how funny it is that black people got lynched.-

Bull, you don`t even understand the term racism, you`ve just heard it applied to saying n*gger. It isn`t, and racism has dick all to do with how you say it. I could say "No, please sit Ma`am, I`ll get your groceries, blacks have frail bones as we all know. Would you like anything else?" is STILL racist

0
Reply
Male 695
dem po negroes
0
Reply
Male 67
that was one weird interview and what was it with all the audience laughing at him???
0
Reply
Female 354
Perhaps black people can get away with saying insulting things towards white people that white people would be stoned for saying. Perhaps it was some sort of publicity stunt. Many things are possible.

I personally think it was very kind of Jerry Seinfield to give his friend a chance to apologize and very gracious of David Letterman to let them do it. I also feel sorry for Michael Richard and how cruddy the media has been towards him. I also feel sorry for the people he flipped out on. All in all, it has been a poorly handled happening, and I hope no more will be said of it and people can move on.

0
Reply
Female 1,395
talk about digging a hole.
What
a
prick.
0
Reply
Female 600
Are we sure this is sincere? According to Access Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight (I forget which, might`ve been both) he was allowed back on stage the next night to apologise and didn`t. Doesn`t seem as if he was going to until Jerry asked him to come on Letterman.

Anyway, I don`t think I`ll ever be able to watch Seinfeld and feel the same again. I don`t understand why people in the audience would laugh....Things like this make me lose hope in the world.

Anyone else fearing for his future?

0
Reply
Male 1,406
I still am very upset that my hero did this. It just isn`t cool, ya know?
0
Reply
Male 80
"You stupid Jews, 60 years ago you were being burnt in German ovens and starving to death in camps. KIKE KIKE KIKE."

That was just to illustrate the stupidity of the people here. If someone was to say that at a comedy club, you would all agree that it was harsh and uncalled for. However, because the stupid Seinfeld reject said something equally offensive about black people, people use the stupid Chris Rock defense and say that if Chris Rock said cracker nobody would care. The issue isn`t the words used, it`s how he used them. If what he said was funny fairplay, but it wasn`t funny and was just him screaming about "I am a racist!s" and how funny it is that black people got lynched.

0
Reply
Male 2,372
[quote]On 11/22/2006 3:16:15 AM flipz4 wrote: Does anyone know if they were already scheduled to have jerry seinfeld on, or was he brought on just for the sake of this interview. [/quote]
Sure he was already scheduled to be on there. This week marks the launch of the Season 7 DVD box set.

I`m sure Jerry is well aware that this outburst from Richards has the potential to make a major dent in the sales figures.

It makes you wonder just how much Jerry wanted him on the show for Richard`s sake or for the sake of the Seinfeld franchise.

0
Reply
Male 959
Yes anisirion, several times. I think he fully regrets it. It sounds like he regretted it almost as soon as it happens. There`s a racist comment about us irish further up the items today. But I don`t think the poster`s career should be destroyed because of it.
0
Reply
Male 82
I know no-one cares, but, did he actually say sorry?
0
Reply
Male 438
I don`t care what he says, its kramer he`s so cool
0
Reply
Male 312
Also, the argument that simply being a minority allows you to be racist is stupid and your thought process should be reevaluated.

Simply put, we have horrid double standards in this country.

0
Reply
Male 312
White Guilt

Look it up.

There was a court case back in the days of early slave liberation where 2 white men were convicted of hanging a black girl with little or no evidence showing that they did actually hang her. Fast foreward, OJ Simpson, despite a wealth of DNA evidence against him, gets off on a racism plea.

We`ve sure come a long way as a society.

0
Reply
Female 1,972
moenkie made an interesting point. Why weren`t the other racial slurs not censored?
0
Reply
Male 263
^^

and who f`n cares?

0
Reply
Male 8
think of it this way: someone fcks with you, if they are fat you call them fat, if they`re ugly you call them ugly, its like instinct, the rage just talks before you can censor it. thats why richards called him nggr, and thats why black called him cracker, are they racists? who knows
0
Reply
Male 8
did you notice how the black guy resorted to calling richards a cracker-ass? isnt that the same as calling him a nggr? the black guy should appologize as well.
0
Reply
Female 399
Cracker, chink, nip, camel, jockey, fag.. these are all normal words you`d find in the dictionary, why would they be censored? Jap can`t be censored cause it`s the beginning of some words which would look strange if half censored. The rest I have never even heard of.
I am glad he apologised. He wasn`t joking around when he said those things, he admits that. It`s bad when someone in the public eye acts like that, so of course the guy in the audience doesn`t get lampooned in the same way for saying the words he said - he doesn`t have a responsibility to the public in the same way as a celeb.

And yes, if Chris Rock said something like that, it would be funny. Why? Because it isn`t the white people who are vulnerable due to being a minority. It is always the majority who need to be careful about what they say and do regarding how it affects a minority - it`s called having some responsibility. Deal with it!

0
Reply
Male 312
Hilaroius,

All the ones except I am a racist! don`t get censored, and there you have the problem.

0
Reply
Male 312
Here we`ll do an experiment:

Cracker
Honkey
I am a racist!
Kike
Wop
Dego
Chink
Gook
Nip
Jap
Raghead
Camel Jockey
Fag

Which ones get censored...

0
Reply
Male 312
Personally:

I think the fact that people can`t get over race is the real problem in this situation.

Conversely:

Do you think that if it was a black comedian and a white heckler, that the heckler being called "honkey" or "cracker", would it be as big of a deal?

0
Reply
Male 266
that was a weird a$$ interview. Does anyone know if they were already scheduled to have jerry seinfeld on, or was he brought on just for the sake of this interview. Was he there just to make richards look better. Publicity stunt anyone? The whole thing just seems weird to me.
0
Reply
Male 195
why`d he have to apologize and condone the absolute soap-boxing the world does over this type of thing
0
Reply
Male 312
0
Reply
Male 266
Male 266
cbs was all over that sh*t
0
Reply
Male 713
If you cant find it, theres about 50,000,000,000 more that arent shut down by CBS yet, just hit the search button.
0
Reply
Male 908
^ amen to that one brotha
0
Reply
Male 18
You know what`s really sick about all this hoopla? Chris Rock could have done the EXACT SAME THING, and no one would have said a thing. They would have laughed their asses off. Twisted society.
0
Reply
Male 943
dude, it was just put up an the video is no longer available
0
Reply
Male 222
I wonder if he`ll do some kind of improving race relation work/charity whathave yous.
0
Reply
Male 1,265
This is so yesterday. Next celebrity scandal, please.
0
Reply
Male 72
Link: Michael Richard`s Apology [Rate Link] - Michael Richards (Kramer from Seinfeld) appeared on Letterman to apologize.
0
Reply