Michael "Kramer" Richards and racial slurs...

[donald]

I think that Mr.Richards outburst was just that, an outburst. I don't know about anyone else here, but I have had moments of shame. When I said something that was just out there, and like we all know even 1 tenth of a second after you've said, it is just to late. I think that as long as he has been on the public stage,ie;comedy clubs etc.. If he truly was a biased man. Some how, some where, it would have been brought to light before this. Only GOD, and he truly knows, but I think it was probably a very loud mistake.

1stJohn1:9

 

[Jade Tigress]

Afterwards, he admitted that his one and only intent was to hurt the other guy by any means he could. And he seems to have thought that racist terms would do the job best.

I observed a similar event where a young teenage girl called a school administrator the "N" word. Was she racist? No, I don't think so - particularly as her best friends were black. Was she being a brat? Heck yeah and she deserved whatever she got when her extremely embarrassed and angry parents were called to the school.

I understand this and agree 100% that people do that for the sole reason of hurting their target. I believe that was the intent of the hecklers who responded to Richards by calling him "cracker" etc. And I would say it would be the case if Richards called them the "N" word. The thing that crossed the line for me was the comment that "50 years ago you'd be upside down with a fork up your ***" and the fact that he frequently looked up as if addressing the men from the ground and pointing up at them. (You understand the implication).

I don't know the state of Richards heart, but there is a saying, "a drunk man's words are a sober man's thoughts". I think it could apply to out of control anger/rage as well. I do believe he is truly repentant and shocked at himself.

 

[Fu_Bag]

Something that's odd to me is that entertainers are actually listened to and given more credit than they deserve. Honestly, if Richards wasn't the odd guy on Seinfeld, they would've, or could've, found someone else just as eccentric to fill the part. I have a feeling people in the entertainment business are told this all the time. It's no surprise that, when someone stoked those insecurities, he lashed out at, possibly, a proxy for someone, or an industry for that matter, that made him feel that insecure in the first place.

I have compassion for him as a person. Some people are born entertainers and wouldn't do very well in most job situations. He may not have wanted to be there in the first place but, if his job options have become very limited, he's got his back up against the wall. At least, now, he can get a normal job and get out of that industry for good.

There are some great points about martial color-blindness and one-way racism here. Something that martial arts seems to teach is getting people out of the victim mindset so that they can survive in the world. Maybe more people need to get involved in martial arts. It seems like people find civility real quick when they realize that there might actually be consequences for their actions instead of someone apologizing them away.

 

[Last Fearner]

Many of the thoughts that I have had about this media story have been touched on in scattered comments here and there throughout this thread.

I agree that Mr. Richards made a mistake, and that his comments crossed a line of inappropriate behavior. However, I believe most people agree to this in hindsight, as well as Mr. Richards. By most standards of decency, it was wrong, and he shouldn't have done done it.

Now, as to an analysis of the intent, reasons, provocation, and underlying racism in his character, none of us really knows. Some here have stated that they too have made mistakes, and said things they regret. I think we all have. Anyone who has been in a troubled relationship might have said things to a spouse, or boyfriend/girlfriend that we really did not mean. As others indicated, it is said in anger to hurt the other person, not from the heart, but without thought.

I also choose to view this incident as an exceptional circumstance whereby many are applying rules of behavior that we ordinarily would expect in public, in the workplace, or by politicians, police officers, and public officials. However, performers and entertainers are a different breed, who live in a different world, and their "work-place" often involves a fantasy world that does not conform to the normal rules of society. This doesn't excuse the behavior, but it often explains why they go out of control, or step over a line before they realize what they have done.

Take, for instance, comedians like Don Rickles. His entire act for decades has been about insulting people in the audience. He and others have used sexist jokes, racial comments, and picked on all sorts of cultures and religious beliefs. When these comedians get heckled, sometimes they begin to sweat. They feel the pressure. This is their lively-hood, and if they are successful and the audience likes them, they are paid good money to perform again and again.

On the other hand, when some wise-cracking audience member (often a loud mouth drunk) becomes a "part of the act," the comedian might feel threatened. If the heckler makes them look bad, or gets more laughs than the comedian, stress kicks in. Some of these performers might be a little drunk, or on something to help calm their nerves for the performance. This might reduce the inhibitors in the brain which tell us, when we are tempted to lash out with a cutting remark, "No, don't say that!" Instead, they let loose, with anger, rage, and a defense mechanism that has now gone out of control. Some, more seasoned comics, are better at choosing tactful responses.

The problem is that a comedian is on a stage - - a performer being someone they are not. You will often find that many bold, mouthy comedians and talented actors are really very shy, quiet, and reserved in their everyday life. When they go on stage, they become a "character." These characters often say things during the act that the comic would never say to anyone in their real life. It is a different environment. If the audience was watching a play about slavery, and Mr. Richards was portraying a racist slave owner, they would not be so shocked to hear him read lines of a script that said the same things which he spoke in anger.

Is there a difference? Yes, in our minds there is. Yet in the mind of a performer, he can very easily become caught up in the moment, and the "character" that is emerging on stage. If the audience member "contributes" to the act, and Mr. Richards used racial slurs in a rant that might have seemed comical to him at the time (I believe I heard some audience members on the tape laughing during his rant), or intentionally outrageous, he might have done so in the guise of an alternate personality. He may have been acting defensively and put on a "racist character" to blow the whole thing so far out of proportion that the heckler's comments would be diffused, and perhaps the heckler would cease.

My feelings is that none of this excuses the behavior, or lends support for this to occur, but I believe we should take all things into consideration, and view this for what it appears to be - - a comedy act that went bad! Some have said that a "good comedian" would have done this or that, but Mr. Richards is not as smooth on stage as Jerry Seinfeld. Yet, most every comic has probably said something inappropriate to an audience heckler at some point in time. It just didn't make the news because it wasn't on tape.

I used to be the manager of a nightclub that hosted comics once per week. Comedy clubs often get very raw, so I think it is a fine line to say one comedian can say this racial comment or that one, but not those remarks. In the heat of the moment, Mr. Richards crossed the line in performing a comedy act. I don't believe it was an "Andy Kaufman" type stunt, but I also don't believe it will end Mr. Richards' career. If anything, it might help in the long run. Some subscribe to the notion that there is no such thing as bad publicity in show business.

In any event, I think Mr. Richards knows he was wrong. He has apologized, and its over and done with. He's not going to change the past, so it is best to change for the future. Time for everyone to move on, and let him be a better person from now on. If you don't like the comedian, don't pay to watch his act. If you don't want to be verbally slapped by a comic, don't heckle them while they are trying to do their job and make a living.

Last Fearner

 

[Kacey]

At the very least, Michael Richards has made a huge blunder. Actors of all varieties are, as are politicians, on stage all the time. Their actions are under observation by the papparazzi and the public, whether they are on stage or not. The fact that this event was videotaped and the video so widely spread only serves to intensify the issue. Richards was out of control - whether his racist comments were from the heart, or triggered solely by the race of his heckler, only he truly knows. What is clear is that he crossed a line - and went very far over it - and is contrite about that. Whether his contrition is for his actions themselves, or only for the furor those actions caused, again, only he knows.

I think that those who have discussed the two-way nature of racism have hit the key point of the issue. For a non-black person to call a black person "******" is a near-ultimate, if not ultimate, insult; for a black person to call another black person who is a good friend "******" is an affectionate term with the emotional content of "pal". For a black person to call another black person who is not a good friend "******", the responses could vary anywhere in between the two given.

For many people, "******" is a word with a high emotional index, especially when by a non-black person... the thing is, too many people - many of them those who use it - have forgotten the origin of the word, as a degradation of the word "Negro", a word so politically incorrect that I cannot recall the last time I heard it used, or saw it outside of a novel. People focus too much on the words, and too little on the reasons they are used; in this case, clearly, the intent was to be negative - but a friend of mine recently told me that should wouldn't allow her 13 year-old daughter to read Tom Sawyer or Huckleberry Finn because the word "******" - which was in common use at the time - is used throughout the novels. This same friend came up to me and told me she'd heard a new word for Jew... the word was "kike", as pejorative toward Jews as "******" is toward blacks, but she'd never heard it before. The thing is, the uproar about the word "kike" died out years ago, and the word is no longer in common usage, in part, I think, because many Jews are not visibly Jewish. Rev. Al Sharpton appeared on the Today Show this morning, suggesting that the word "******" should be banned from usage in any context... a nice thought, but it would, in my opinion, serve to increase its use among people who want to flout authority. Ignoring the word and it's connotations won't make it go away, but attempting to ban it may well increase its usage. Only education and empathy - and true colorblindness - can resolve this issue.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

People should not in any way be using these types of negative terms during the course of their day in day out environement. However, when your in a comedy club then things do kind've change. Part of comedy is learning to laugh at yourself and others and just have fun with it. In other words people need to relax, enjoy and have thick skins in a comedy club. Was Richards over the line yes! However I have seen much worse at a comedy club. Recently a bride was at her bachelorette party at a comedy club that I frequent once in a while and when the comedian found out the next twenty or so minutes were all about picking on the the bride, her mother and soon to be husband. It would be enough to put blush to anyone here if they heard what was said. However, it was hillarious. Richards comments to the Hecklers were not funny. He really is not much of a stand up comedian or he would have handled it better and differently.
Malicious statments using the words that he used just are not funny.

 

[Cruentus]

Brian brings up an interesting point.

I would bet that this wouldn't be seen as so negative if his comments were actually funny rather then hateful.

Examples I can think of could be drawn from Carlos Mencia, Lisa Lapinelli, or some of the many bits I have seen on Def Comedy Jams. The difference between these folks and this situation is that their comments were funny, and at the very least we knew that they were joking even if we didn't find them funny.

 

[shesulsa]

Yes, this in response to heckling. The best response to heckling, I think, is silence. Ever notice? When the comedian stops talking, so does everybody else?

It's a shame he stooped to this and I think he knows it.

 

[Cruentus]

Yes, this in response to heckling. The best response to heckling, I think, is silence. Ever notice? When the comedian stops talking, so does everybody else?

It's a shame he stooped to this and I think he knows it.

I think it is better when they are able to play off the heckler and turn it into a spontanious bit. Not everyone can do that, however.

One of my favorites for being able to play off the audience is Paula Poundstone. She has kind of been out of it for awhile, but is recently making a comeback. She is able turn around whatever the audience says. I think that is a talent that takes practice.

Whatever the response is, silence or a snappy comeback, I think the most important thing is to not let it upset you. Losing your cool is how the hecklers win, and as we have seen can lead to drastric results.

 

[donald]

It appears that at least 2 of the people involved with the business end of Mr.Richards tirade. Are now looking to sue! I read that the abusees' are asking for Mr.Richards to apologize in front of a Judge. After which they want the Judge to set a "proper" monetary value on his offense. Ahhh, only in America.

1stJohn1:9

 

[mrhnau]

It appears that at least 2 of the people involved with the business end of Mr.Richards tirade. Are now looking to sue! I read that the abusees' are asking for Mr.Richards to apologize in front of a Judge. After which they want the Judge to set a "proper" monetary value on his offense. Ahhh, only in America.

1stJohn1:9

I wondered if that would happen... I hope they get eaten up in lawyers fees and don't get a dime. Gotta love that 1st Admendment.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

And thats the bottom line.$$$$.

 

[zDom]

Pfft. It's always about the money.

 

[Cruentus]

It appears that at least 2 of the people involved with the business end of Mr.Richards tirade. Are now looking to sue! I read that the abusees' are asking for Mr.Richards to apologize in front of a Judge. After which they want the Judge to set a "proper" monetary value on his offense. Ahhh, only in America.

1stJohn1:9

One would think that they wouldn't and shouldn't get a dime, but they are in communist California... so who knows which way the jury would swing.

 

[MA-Caver]

There's no fine line between being funny and being pissed off. Carlin, Pryor, Bruce, Cosby, Williams, Rock, Chappell, Rodriguez, Prinze, Kinneson, Murphy and dozens upon dozens of others have managed to "get angry" on stage and pulled it off successfully because their rants were brilliant insights and observations on human behavior and events.
Richards raged on and basically lost it. He's a funny guy but he's not a stand up artist. Seinfeld is a stand up artist and a funny guy. Jason Alexander is a funny guy but not a stand up artist, same with Dreyfus. They may have DONE stand up at one time or another but it's not their normal thing.

A word about Andy Kaufman... he was definitely way ahead of his time with his particular and peculiar brand of humor. But he knew what was funny (people at the time didn't figure him out until later... thus his being "ahead of his time").