The recent scandal involving Michael Richards' rant at the Laugh Factory comedy club, and the resulting discussion about whether or not he is a racist again makes me wonder what makes some people want to deny the obvious. When a person is up on stage yelling "Look, there's a n*****! There's a n*****!" Or "Fifty years ago we'd have had a f****** fork up your a**!" Those aren't just angry words. Those are words stemming from racial hatred.
What was also very telling was that during his rambling apology on "The David Letterman Show", he used the term "Afro-Americans", a term for African-Americans that has not been used since the 1970's. There were giggles from the audience when he used the term, which he addressed and made a comment that perhaps the Letterman Show wasn't the proper forum for his apology. He is clearly clueless about just how uneducated and stupid he sounded when he used that term.
My favorite columnist, Leonard Pitts, Jr., of The Miami Herald, wrote an excellent column today about the Michael Richards debacle and some of his thoughts. It's an excellent commentary on just what racism is.
Richards' rant leaves no doubt he's a racist
By Leonard Pitts, Jr.
You'd think one of the first things a stand-up comic learns is how to deal with hecklers. One recalls Richard Pryor's jab at some fool who blew a whistle during his monologue. ''This ain't Kool and the Gang, motherfornicator!'' Except, he didn't say motherfornicator.
Apparently, Michael Richards was absent from Comedy 101 the day they studied Heckler Management. Hence, his epic, headline-making meltdown. It happened last week after Richards was razzed -- benignly, by most accounts -- by some black folks in the crowd.
As a result, a pointed question is now being debated: Is Michael Richards a racist? Let me save us all a lot of time: Yes. It seems obvious that Seinfeld's Kramer, his claims to the contrary notwithstanding, has no use for, as he put it in his rambling, disjointed, and painful-to-watch apology on Letterman, ``Afro Americans.''
I have a reader who would disagree on that. She sent an e-mail hoping to preempt my calling Richards racist. She asked that I consider the possibility he's no bigot but simply a man who, in anger, reached instinctively for the most hurtful language he could find. We've all been there, right?
HE MEANT IT
Well, no. Richards' rant, according to the video of it online, lasted a good 2 ½ minutes. You might angrily snap that somebody is a ''fat so-and-so'' without really meaning it. You don't spend 2 ½ minutes calling them fat unless fat is exactly what you mean.
What bothers me most about my reader's explanation is that she felt compelled to postulate an alternate reason for Richards' behavior. Evidently she found the likeliest reason too hard to accept.
Nor is she alone. TMZ.com, the website that obtained the video, polled its users with this question: Is Richards a racist? Forty percent of the respondents said no.
Granted, the survey is not scientific, but it is instructive. And no, it makes no difference to me that some black people freely use the same word Richards did. I consider them just as hateful as I do him, except with them, it's hatred of self.
But frankly, Richards is not the point here. He's just a TV used-to-be who has likely immolated what remains of his career. So be it.
BLATANT AND UNMISTAKABLE
But if so many of my white countrymen refuse to recognize racism when it is this blatant and unmistakable, what expectation can we have that they will do so when it is subtle and covert? In other words, when it is what it usually is.
Modern bigotry usually isn't some nitwit screaming the N-word. It is jobs you don't get and loans you don't get and apartments you don't get and healthcare you don't get and justice you don't get, for reasons you get all too clearly, even though no one ever quite speaks them. Or needs to. It is smiles in your face and knives in your back. And it is, yes, a sitcom -- like Seinfeld -- that presents New York City, of all places, as a black-free zone.
These are complaints African Americans have sought for years to drive home only to be met largely by indifference, the defensive apathy of those who are free to ignore or diminish any claim on conscience that makes them uncomfortable. At the risk of metaphor abuse, the response to this debacle makes clear that you can't explain Advanced Racism to those who haven't passed Racism 101.
And, with all due respect to my correspondent, that need to make excuses gets old. The man spent 2 ½ minutes screaming racial insults. You say that's not racism?
Then, pray tell, what is?
1 comment:
I will not attempt to analyze the specific case of Michael Richards' words.
Racism, like most things, can be dissected into components. Overt racism, is easy to identify. Covert racism, such as the stolen job opportunities described, is not always easy to identify, but is nonetheless hurtful. To answer the cited columnist, yes both of these are patently racist, though people will disagree as to their respective frequencies.
I will suggest, though, that in as much as it affects people's lives, the much larger problem facing our community today is the racism of apathy by which the larger community neglects its fellows, for example by failing to fund an adequate education system for all.
Additionally, it has yet to be recognized by all parties that racism is a poison which has infected all racial segments within our society. This has born the twin evils of "justified" racism ("They hate us, why shouldn't we hate them?") which is an endless cycle, as witnessed in places like Palestine and Northern Ireland; and a deeply defensive racism isolationism ("He couldn't have done what he's been accused of- his color is the same as mine.").
I will end on a note of optimism: Though I am no nationalist, it is a particular point of pride for this American that such a richly varied group of people share this land with him and his family. As one Angeleno has written,
"Skins all shades of night and smoke, of soil and wood, of fire, seashells and sand cluster and mix on the plain."
Post a Comment