Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Michael Richards apologizes for 'Nigger' comments [VIDEO]

Posted by Melissa McEwan at 7:19 AM on November 21, 2006.


"I'm not a racist."
kramer

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

You can watch a snippet of the TMZ.com video of Richards' racist tirade, and the video of him apologizing on David Letterman's show last night -- both to the right. (Go to TMZ.com to watch the whole tirade.)

The allusion to Hurricane Katrina and comedians in Vegas and NOLA, in case you don't know, is referencing Comic Relief, which took place last weekend to raise money for victims of the hurricane.

It appears, to me anyway, that he's genuinely sorry and ashamed of himself, as well he should be. He's not blaming his actions on substance abuse or the people at whom he unleashed his fury; aside from a half-hearted excuse rooted in the nature of his act, he's taking responsibility for what he did. So that's to be commended.

That said, I don't think he really gets it. Anyone who explodes in that particular manner and has the self-awareness to admit it's coming from rage he feels against other people, or another nation, or what-the-fuck-ever, is indeed a racist. There’s a difference between active racism and passive racism -- and Richards may not be (or may not have been) an active racist previous to that outburst, but that doesn't mean he didn't hold prejudices that were bubbling away underneath the surface. Clearly he did. He admits as much himself in his apology.

And much like many passive racists, he assumes that all people have those subterranean biases. Passive racists tend to conflate a recognition of stereotypes -- which we all have, by nature of being raised in a culture that promotes them -- with a belief in them. Not everyone who knows what the stereotypes are also subscribes to them on some level, and not getting that is a key feature of passive racism -- both holding the biases and assuming everyone else does, too.

That's what makes his statement about black people's solidarity so telling. He seems to believe that only people of color could have been offended by what he said. He apologizes to the white people who were witness to his rage, but it doesn’t appear to register that there are those of us who simply don't share his attitude. He believes it does lurk in "all of us," and I've been around enough white people who tried to nudge me into admitting that somewhere -- deep down -- I share their prejudices to recognize it when I see it. Nothing pisses off a passive racist like an honest admission that you don't share their views, because they've convinced themselves that simply not overtly discriminating against someone is sufficient to claim, "I'm not a racist."

Digg!

Tagged as: racism, michael richards

Melissa McEwan writes and edits the blog Shakespeare's Sister.


GOP Senator Lindsey Graham Breaks Ranks, Admits "The Green Economy Is Coming"
Finally, one member of the GOP has a slice of reality pie.
Post by Staff. November 5, 2009.
Iowa Wingnut Steve King Lauds Lobbyists as American Heros for Bussing in Health Reform Protesters
Astroturfing earns praise from the GOP rep.
Post by Lee Fang. November 4, 2009.
GOP Loon Goes Off the Rails: Health Reform Greater Threat than Terrorism
The government's trying to put you to death, don't you know.
Post by Faiz Shakir. November 2, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE RACE
Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature on Nov 21, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
never talk about raising taxes on the rich and using that money for universal healthcare. That would hurt the upper class. Instead, make race and gender and sex the center of american political debate.

There ya go...that's a good little fakeLeft....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jew or Catholic?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 21, 2006 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did anyone else notice that the first news and blogs over this 'incident' mentioned that he was jewish. Then others mentioned that he was catholic. Like it would matter either way- but it was another subtle media attempt to get some religious intolerance also into this story. If only he could've said something about mentally ill people and LBGTs or LGBTs (or whatever that group is). Then the media could cover all the bases with this story!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know.
Posted by: Jesse on Nov 21, 2006 8:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, I'm not sure about whether he's a racist or not, honestly. At least in the sense of subscribing to all the stereotypes he comes in contact with.

I mean, we live in a society that is, in many ways, a racist one, and for anyone who is socially constructed as white to say they escape it is lying to themselves. I find myself harboring all kinds of bad stuff in my head. That's called a subconscious, and only robots lack one.

That said, I make a conscious effort to not say things -- even when I am very, very angry. And I find myself going over in my head whether what I think is "racist" or not. Am I a racist? I am an American, and was raised here, so I don't know that I could escape it. My family was very stern about racist jokes--they weren't allowed int he house, and my mother isn't white, so I am not sure.

Consciously I don't subscribe to stereotyping, I think calling anyone a "nigger" the way this guy did is totally out of line, and I am made viscerally uncomfortable by racist and homophobic jokes. I don't know what would happen under hypnosis or the influence of a nice mixture of drugs. I can't see myself ever, ever making remarks like that.

I think it is true that the old "we are all racists" bit is disingenuous, though, because we all have all kinds of subconscious desires and influences but we can choose our actions. I may have a subconscious desire to cheat on my wife but that doesn't mean I have no control to not do it. Or put myself in situations where it is more likely to happen.

I think a little more disturbing was the audience, frankly--they didn't seem to get this guy was really apologizing. Seinfeld even had to tell them to pipe down.

I dnot know the answer-- I just don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I don't know. Posted by: baked w/teflon
» RE: I don't know. Posted by: solemnitude
» RE: I don't know. Posted by: Doubtom
shagnaski
Posted by: shagnaski on Nov 21, 2006 10:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Long ago a friend pointed out that ours is a society permeated with racism so that a person cannot escape being "racist" however disgusting that may be to the individual. In essence his point was that we are a nation with a tradition of slavery older than the country itself the organic document for which recognizes and tacitly condones ownership of human beings. Nothing in the legal changes following the Civil War or the spasm that was the Civil Rights Movement has done more than slightly alleviate the problem of racism. To deny this is to delude oneself and ignore completely the vast disparities throught our society.

Mr. Richards described his act as one of free association and envelope pushing. Under the best of circumstances this is a highly risky kind of humor. Many is the "shock jock" who has stumbled into something reprehensible when his brain failed to keep up with the need to avoid dead air. Factor into the context the rage that Mr. Richards said he was feeling (without regard to disproportion or anything else) and it beomes somewhat easier to understand how he could launch such a tirade.

Nothing here is intended to excuse what was said but simply to offer a possible understanding of how it might happen without the extreme hatred that otherwise would be apparent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: shagnaski Posted by: solemnitude
therapy
Posted by: baked w/teflon on Nov 21, 2006 11:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
jesse, this is not your therapist couch!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: therapy Posted by: Doubtom
OH MY.....
Posted by: baked w/teflon on Nov 21, 2006 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Many is the "shock jock" ...." WHO THE FUCK TALKS LIKE THIS!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: OH MY..... Posted by: Landbaron
Baked w/teflon?
Posted by: babs on Nov 21, 2006 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Baked indeed.

Do you have anything constructive to add or are you trying to earn your junior troll badge? And why aren't you in school? Do your parents know that your cutting classes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Racism and Prejudice
Posted by: solemnitude on Nov 21, 2006 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Debating the degree or nature of his prejudice is not of interest to me ... On this topic, I agree with a previous poster that the audience was somewhat disturbing, and would also like to say that the most disappointing response he gave was to the question of what more he could do. He seemed confused and just offered some trite nonsense.

I agree that prejudice is present in all of us, and I think the best thing he could have done would have been to state firmly and clearly that he meant to do the best he could to overcome it.

And I use the term prejudice, not racism, because it's more inclusive. People make assumptions based on clues. Often visual clues. I used to work nightshift in a hotel in an area where hotels were often held up at night. But the assumptions aren't always based on race. It's dress, manner of speaking, hell, even posture. Anything. But we make judgments based on these clues. And that kind of prejudice, I think, is in everyone ... but I don't think that's the kind of prejudice that could lead what I've seen in this case.

I live in a place where there are a lot of Roma - gypsies - hanging around the street corners begging. It's a common reaction to make sure you know where your wallet is when they approach, and it's a horrible thing to have that reaction to a small child. But these reactions occur. We see people and we judge automatically. But self-monitoring and awareness are important.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: acism and Prejudice Posted by: ddsharper
Just like
Posted by: ShrubtheWarcriminal on Nov 21, 2006 2:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the Shrub makes me embarrassed to be an Amerikkkan, people like Richards make me feel embarrassed for my race.

I feel it partly stems from the polarization created by our present government helps to make it OK to hate again. For example, the KKK has made a comeback and it has never been more acceptable to be in the KKK since the War Criminal in Chief has taken office.

When have you ever heard the Shrub say something uplifting or inspiring to the human spirit? Oh, yeah, "Bring em on!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bring 'em on... Posted by: zipper696
» RE: Bring 'em on... Posted by: mtnman
"Afro-American"?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Nov 21, 2006 6:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did anyone notice how he used the term "AFRO-American" and sort of sneered as he said it? Isn't the perferred term "African-American"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Afro-American"? Posted by: eightbitriot
» RE: "Afro-American"? Posted by: ddsharper
» RE: "Afro-American"? Posted by: tdwms777
African Americans and the N-word
Posted by: goldfingers on Nov 21, 2006 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
BOOK CRITICAL OF AFRICAN AMERICANS WHO USE THE N-WORD

Los Angeles, CA., Author H. Lewis Smith has written a thought provoking, culturally divided book that will not only spark heated conversation, but can also bring about real change. The N-word is often used in the African American community amongst each other and is generally not a problem when spoken by another African American. However, once the word is used by a Caucasian person, it brings on other effects. The question is "who can use the word and why?" Smith believes it is a word that should be BURIED!!!!

The book is written in a manner that all can understand. The points are well-taken and the wording is easy to follow. There are quotes from great people in our history including Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Tubman, James Baldwin and many, many others. Smith has mixed history with honesty, love with life, education with effects. This is a great book for educators, parents, managers, professionals, newsmen, and anyone else wanting an in-depth look at the N-word, the effects and the solutions. A MUST READ!!!!

To learn more about Bury that Sucka, please visit http://www.burythatsucka.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: African Americans and the N-word Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Right on, Melissa!
Posted by: asilsfable on Nov 21, 2006 9:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Race now occupies the space where child molestation used to be. Nobody likes talking about it.

Even among the 'prog' readers of Alternet, bloggers are quick to note that we have a bit of it in all of us.

But does that make it right?

I don't yell 'nigger' when I'm mad. I yell a whole lot of other things, but the 'n' word never comes to mind. It's not in my repertoire of epithets and it doesn't occur to me to say it.

Clearly, there is a difference between a racist comment and racial insensitivity. Mr. Kramer dude KNEW what he was saying and said it to inflict maximum harm. Giving him some kind of benefit of the doubt just because you like to watch 'Seinfeld', dear readers, doesn't cut it.

Or do you secretly wish you could call people 'nigger', like Quentin Taratino does in Pulp Fiction, and get away with it. Or just want to be forgiven for harboring racist thoughts now and then?

I'll go the extra mile and say that it's NOT okay. And dismissing it as a part of everyone's psyche is a lame-ass excuse for intellectual, emotional and CULTURAL ignorance.

But if you choose to be a cultural dunce, that's up to you I suppose.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ight on, Melissa! Posted by: zsb123
The song with the "n" word
Posted by: Landbaron on Nov 21, 2006 9:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"White girl and a nigger", did anybody make a complaint about this song??? I never heard of any...but then again the song's about triumph over the white man..It's a very funny song!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Those were the days
Posted by: YogiBear on Nov 22, 2006 6:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It sounded to me like the Kramster used a "street" approach to being heckled. Since the people making him angry were black, he used language that he thought would be the most hateful and demeaning to them. His intent seemed to be to make them feel low, and so he pulled out of his repertoire all the things he knew would effect that.

The part that bothered me the most was when he said "50 years ago I could have had you stomped," or something to that effect. It's one thing to call someone a name; it's entriely another to wish it was the good 'ol pre-civil rights era days where whites could enact punishment upon blacks without repercussion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He felt powerless and wanted the hecklers to feel the same
Posted by: ddsharper on Nov 22, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There can be no excuse for this man's venom. It wasn't that he said nigger it was how he used the word and what he said about lynching and sticking a fork up the guy's ass that was evil. Then he went on to say that speaking to a white man like that was understood, by blacks in the past, to be a no-no, or something implying such. The guy was wrong, plain and simple and he is lucky he didn't get a beat down. It's the arrogance of whites, so often manifested but rarely covered by the media. Such is life. As far as the word goes, it's been used for 400 years. Why a sudden campaign to tell blacks what they can and cannot say. Sounds a little controlling if you ask me. I say there needs to be an equally fervent campaign against the 1 million plus white racist sites using the word in a terrorist manner and then against the millions of whites using it amongst themselves. Do that first, pull the darn log out of your own eyes, then, and only then, can you begin to "tell" blacks what to say and not say. Sheesh. Hypocrites every where.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Letterman video taken down
Posted by: arclight on Nov 22, 2006 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Looks like YouTube did away with the Letterman video.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

goeswithness
Posted by: goeswithness on Nov 22, 2006 8:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad to see the coverage of this, and very grateful for what is said here. Too many people think racism is a "done" issue, that we have it all straightened out now, as though knowing we SHOULDN'T feel a certain way is the same as actually having purged those attitudes. The attitudes are still there, and they still hurt people. And as long as we see it as the problem only of people in targeted groups, WE DON'T GET IT. All bigotry is everyone's problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: goeswithness Posted by: zsb123
I liked him on "Seinfeld...."
Posted by: morticia on Nov 22, 2006 3:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....but he's crossed permanently off my list now. Fuck him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Of mountains and molehills
Posted by: irenicus on Nov 22, 2006 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think this has to be put in context. Richards is an actor and he assumed a role when he went into his tirade. It was ugly, and it didn't work, but I don't think it's necessarily a reflection of him personally. Hell, I've been known to make racist and sexist comments, but they're said in irony. I think Kramer was going for the same thing, but clearly fell off the tightrope. Let's not forget that when done right, humour can be one of the best ways to overcome barriers between people. The comedian's stage is the place for this. It's much more worrying when racism appears in the media passing itself off as news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Rascism more than a one-way street?
Posted by: zsb123 on Nov 22, 2006 9:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just wonder if others think it's time to move behind the simplified rascism assumptions in the United States.

The assumption is that only whites are rascist.

Blacks are never rascist?

Jews are never rascist?

Hispanics are never rascist?

Only white people said bad things about other people?

I live in the same city that Michael Richards lives in ... Los Angeles.

Anyone who lives here knows of the beauty and tension of having so many wonderful and crazy people here of all kinds.

What is called when a black man fires a gun on a white man in a fit a road rage? Is the white guy rascist for being shot at?

Is using the "N" word there okay? I mean, the black guy fired on the white guy.

If a white guy asks a Hispanic woman to leave a store for talking too loudly on her cell phone is the white guy rascist?

By the way, these are real world examples from Los Angeles, California. It's a state where there is no "white majority."

The state is so diverse that no one group is more than 50% of the population.

So what is rascsim?

Is it only bad words that white guys say?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So the "N" word is an insult ?
Posted by: zipper696 on Nov 23, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about when we get called "Motherf****er" or "Son of a Bitch" - are we supposed to accept that we have had sexual relations with our Mother or that the same Mother is a bitch?

The "N " word is used widely in the street vernacular of blacks, not only in the US but in Europe too, let's not start getting selective about what OK and what's not....

That said, he was an idiot, an actor trying to be a standup and showing lack of experience when heckled.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

len
Posted by: leonardfeingold on Nov 25, 2006 12:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One ought to define one's terms. What does "racist" mean. It has come to mean many things. The worst form is one that denies rights declared in the Declaration(equality before the law) based on some racial charasteric or ethnic. We all agree that it is a "no go" and should be condemneded.



Racist may mean one prefers the company of your group based on race, culture, etc. So what? That does not deny anyone equality before the law. Shall we call some homophobic in its most negative sense when one turns down goiong to bed with another male? No.

Saying nasty things. What is what the guy did. Well, who does not in a moment of anger say nasty things. This means one has to take in the context. So, if a moment of anger, one calls someone a motherf---ker, what does that imply? That one is liar? of Course not. And so calling someone a "nigg.., when one is pissed off at someone implies nothing of the "gulity" party's inclination to deny anyone of that race is basic rights to equality. Getting pissed off is part of our human nature. We all handle it differently. IT is one thing to believe you are saved because you believe in Christ and think someone else is not saved and it is another things to impose by force or deny equal rights to those who believe differently. And so with comments said in moments of anger, nothing can be deduced about their inclinations to deprive those they are angry at at the moment their basic rights.

So, let us reserve the word "racist" to those who would deny anyhone equality under the law or access to public places. Let us leave out the "inner feelings" of people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

David Duke is is no racist Richards
Posted by: virginia_gentlewoman on Nov 25, 2006 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I take issue with this author comparing Abbie Michael Richards (Kramer) to David Duke. David Duke would never say any of the atrocious things Richards said--believe it. The media is filled with lies and BS and I have learned long ago to double check what is said in the media. Among the millions of lies in the media are those about David Duke--and mind you, I am a LIBERAL writing these words. I strongly urge people to start reading and watching these lying writers with a more critical eye.

If you don't believe me about David Duke, then do what you should have been doing all along and check everything out for yourself--including what he has to say. Go to his website at davidduke dot com, look for November 24, and you will see a transcript of his commentary on "David Duke on Kramer, the “N Word”, Racism, Violence, Israel and Palestinians"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something else to consider
Posted by: Jesse on Nov 27, 2006 9:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought of this after looking at the comments, and thought of something -- racism is not just about one's personal attitudes. It's about power.

That is, a black man can hate white people all he wants, but he is unlikely to ever be in a position where he can do much about it. The CEO of Merrill Lynch is black, for example, and it is unlikely he could quietly fill his managing director posts with black guys without a huge hue and cry.

A white guy in that position, on the other hand, draws no attention when he hires non-whites, who all happen to be from India and China rather than from the talented pool of black people here.

The white guy has power and priviledge that a black man can't have, ever. Just look at traffic stops and the like and you get the idea.

In that sense, Kramer is a racist, becuase he has power that the black people in the audience will never have. He can get a job or whatever without the same angst and aggravation that a black guy has.

But his personal attitude is almost irrelevant. Because the institutionalized racism is the problem, not him per se.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]