DSTS, keep whining, I'll leave you to it.

A Fox News Channel Exclusive:

Comedian Paul Mooney's thougths about Michael Richards (Kramer) on Fox Show with Greta...

Just wanted to point this comment out. It makes complete sense...

And Shinerbock: Top-most white leaders are President George H.W. Bush and President George W. Bush. Vice-President Dick Cheney. Prime Minister Tony Blair. Moreover, you have the E.U. president and U.N. National Security Council conseuil-general...

Last I looked no one admitted to an another ethnic group and race...

Freakin hilarious!!! Paul Mooney is really insightful. He said what I was thinking the whole time.

AKA, George W Bush doesn't claim to be a leader of white people. He's an American leader, period. Meanwhile, "black leaders" represent only the interests of black people, for the most part.

Really? And why not? I fail to observe that there was such a distinction...

So what did MLK do, again?

George W. Bush an American Leader...please...now that is hilarious! He does good to lead himself!

THIS is the crux of the matter. :cool:

Despite the pathetic and rather uninformed political leanings of the liberals on this site, Bush is an American leader. You may not agree with him, but the fact remains. MLK represented mostly black interests. A great man, from what I know, but he was mostly a black leader. However, today's "black leaders" are even further concentrated on aiding black people.

Sure it is.

I have nothing to whine about. :)

It's you who's doing the "crucified white man" routine.

Jews by ethnicity and Jews by religious affiliation--you can be one without the other.

The relevance of Richards being Jewish is that 50 years ago some Jews were slain in the name of antisemitism. There were signs on some restaurants that said "No Jews or dogs." So if a Jewish person forgets where she or he comes from and spews hatred toward minority groups, that person has clearly forgotten a time when Jews hadn't assimilated and weren't considered "white." They were barely considered human.

Michael Richards isn't Jewish.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?=id=16838

The article didn't come up--there was an error.

There has been debate as to whether or not he's Jewish so if he isn't, I'm glad that's cleared up.

I think because he played a primary character on Seinfeld, everyone assumes he was Jewish... Just saying... I have no comment on dude's religious affiliation and really don't care that much.

Aside from that:

Interesting the black folks in the audience where Michael Richards had ranted and spewed his venomous epithets said they plan to sue him.

It'll probably turn into a civil suit and some folks will make a little money focusing on lunatic...

I like the Seinfeld show

Michael Richards is racist. Over 3/4 of the white population probably is. I would have been very pissed if I was in the audience and I probably would have started a riot. But other than that he is racist and that pretty much doesnt make or break my day.

Now I think people have gone over board with this lawsuit issue. But then again he's a rich man and it looks like they will probably get some compensation for this incident. So go for it and break him where it hurts the most.

Why did he apologize to Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharpton...were they there??:confused:

My reading of the news reports said the homie felt compelled to speak to Al Sharpton first, then connect up with Jesse.

Sounds like he's trying to buy protection from lawsuits from the "heckler thugs" at the comedy club...

The folks my buy it for a settlement out of court. If it makes it that far.

On our news, he was posing with Jesse and Paul Mooney. He had some LAME apology.

If there was a tactic we would employ, we can cirulate web-wide, to boycott all Seinfeld season DVDs. But there will always be those "tap dancing negroes"...

So, if 3/4 of white people are racists, what percentage of black people are racists?

SO, I gather if he apologized not many people would think it was sincere. I bet thee are the same people that profess to be God fearing Christians too. Forgiveness apparently had a finite point. Thats not what my Bible says.

These hoodlums in the audience were heckiling him. Now of course it wasnt right for him to say racist statements but ya know, we have much more important things going on in life than to wory about some guy we will neer meet in person

Are you from LA? Have you ever lived there? If you are not from Los Angeles, then you no clue what kinds of racial tensions exist there...

After 2 violent racially based outbursts that turned into riots in 1965 Watts and 1992 South Central LA, do you think that the "act of forgiving" someone who blurts any kind of racial epithets in that area would be safe given the incindiery nature of it? Literally?

Well personally I dont think black people are racist. We don't benefit from racism. Because racism is a system that we cannot control. Are there black people that hate white people??? Of course! But this does not qualify as racism to me. (another topic for another day)

BTW: People apologize because its the right thing to do not because they really want to change.

Anyway, I seek no reason to support him or justify his outrageous rants. I've enjoyed a Seinfield episode now and then but I am content if I never see the show or him again.

Good point AKAMonet!

On a side note, in response to the above post...I'm not sure what logic you're using in deciding that white people hating black people is racism but black people hating whites isnt...however, if your idea has merit, how would that affect something like hate crime legislation? They're usually racially/sexual orientation motivated, so would you support hate crime status for crimes by blacks against whites, if there was indication that the victim being white factored into the decision to commit the crime? Just curious.

Thanks from posting that. Aside from the fact that he's not Jewish he made some sort of bizarre remark about Jews killing Jesus. But what makes people even care if he's Jewish? It matters not one bit. What makes people think he's Jewish? The big nose and curly hair? Bias. Hate. Ignorance. Call it what you want, but those that live in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.

Still waiting on someone to address the fact that someone was racist and called him a Cracker and a White Boy.

-Rudey
--Crow must taste great.

I beg to differ. I've seen black people who were racist. Asians, hispanics, etc.

I'm afraid hate comes in all colours.

Please let me explain. I never said that Black people were not hateful and that they d0 not hate whites. Please re-read what i posted.

The definition of racism a system that believes that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. Racist people are those who use the system, forms of prejudice and discrimination to keep ones race as superior and another race as inferior. Black people do not benefit from racism. If a black owner decided not to serve white people, guess what? White people would still be superior. White people perpetuate stereotypes, names and other tactics to remain the superior race. As in Michael Richards performance he showed his true opinion about blacks and revealed his racism when he made the comment about 50 yrs ago, pitchfork in ass blah blah whatever. That comment alone showed his true racism not so much of his use of the N-word. Again yes black people can be hateful but technically blacks are not racist because we do not control the system. If a black person hates a white person it isn't because the black person thinks the white person is inferior because of their physical characteristics. Usually its because of something the white person has done. Whites hated blacks merely based on physical characteristics alone. They felt that they were somewhat better that them because they did not possess the physical qualities of African Americans. Racism can be covert and overt. I see all the time. And sometimes your NICEST white people can still be racist. White people with "black" friends can still be racist. It's a belief system and most white people feel that they are better than other races because they are white.

My feelings are the same with sexism I don't believe that women can be sexist.

That power exists on that personal level, not just a societal one.
Wouldn't you say that a black person who refuses to serve a white person is the one in power at that particular point in time?? If it's about power and power alone, then it isn't just about society, it's about the interpersonal relationships. If a black teacher harasses his white students, then he, in the position of power, is racist. Using a racial slur puts you in power over the other person (no matter the color) by knocking them down a level.

Maybe thats the reason YOU apologize. You need to deal with that within yourself. So, you have to benefit in some way to be a Racist? I thought the defintion f racist was to hate another person because of their race. I dont remember any definition talking about benefiting. Hate is Hate and it is wrong in any color.I dont support any hatered no matter what color the person is. I try to lve my life the way I want to be treated and I lok at every indivisual as an indivisual not as a race. I could write a whole thing about that but as you said thats another conversation all together. But I would think college educated people would think more logically and not emotionally.

You just missed the entire point. Anyway I never justified that hating someone was okay. I never said that hating was ok regardless of who is doing the hate. I simply defined racism and explained why I don't think Black people are racist. Doesnt mean that black people dont hate, doesnt mean that black people are perfect. you totally missed the point. Anyway I also dont think Michael Richards was sincrere with his apology that is just my opinion.

While that may be your definition of racism, it is not the one that society, or the dictionary, operates under.

If I say that the word hand does not mean this digited manipulator at the end of my arm, but instead means a ball made up of rubber bands, well that's all well and good for myself, but no one else is going to operate under that same definition (or very few people)

That definition was taken from a dictionary. And many Sociologist and Professors would agree with me. I have many discussions like this in college and we all have come to this conclusion.

Source for that dictionary?

And while your professors may agree, I have an equal amount of anecdotal evidence (discussions, etc) that would counteract that.

06pilot, to answer your question, he has apologized and no, I do not think that it is sincere. I think that he is trying to do *damage control.* Yes, I am G-D fearing and yes I am still willing to recognize what I consider to be the truth and the reality of a situation. If you want to forgive him then *you* forgive him. I don't see how forgiving him will take back the hurt of him conjuring up and using as a *weapon* the mutiliation of black men by lynch mobs. If you think that it will smooth everything over for you to forgive him, then *you* forgive him.

Yes there were people in the audience heckling him. Comedians heckle audience members sometimes and sometimes audience members heckle comedians. Anyone who has ever been to a comedy show knows that it goes both ways and is a frequent occurrence. If you think that that gives him the right to basically tell the hecklers that 50 years ago, he would have been part of a lynch mob, call them a degrading term several times, tell them "that's what happens when you interrupt the white man, n*" and jokingly state that "the police are going to arrest [me] for calling a black man a n*" then *you* look the other way.

However, I do think that it is offensive to post a message basically telling us to calm down and it's not that important. It trivializes the weapon that he obviously felt obliged to wield in that comedy club. If it's not important to you then stop commenting in this thread and start a thread about the "more important things going on in life" that you mention below. People will comment in that thread too. Alas, it is possible to discuss more than one issue at once.

ETA: 06pilot, how about the man who was getting married the next day and was attending his bachelor party with his two friends - all three were gunned down by the police over the weekend in NY? He was leaving the club with his friends. Several police men in plain clothes gunned them down in their car. 31 bullets in the guy who was scheduled to get married within hours, 17 in a passenger and several in another. The police had been drinking and all police started firing (and emptying round after round in their car) b/c the police *thought* that they might have had a gun. No gun was ever found. Kind of like the Amadou Diallo situation. Is *this* important enough to talk about or should we find another topic?

SC

Wow. I really have to disagree with a lot. Although the impact of racist ideologies and actions from white people has more significant results, anyone of any color can be a racist. I know some Black people who are extremely racist. I also know some women who are extremely sexist. Institutional patterns don't let anyone off the hook. The actions are more important. Racism gives mean actions a cold impersonal sting, and turns nice gestures into sugary, patronizing insults. If I make racist comments to people and hurt their feelings, I'm a racist, regardless of how much money they make, or what they do for a living. Even if I don't hurt their feelings, I would have a problem. The same goes with sexism. If a woman tells me that I am inferior because I am a man, then she would be a sexist, regardless of current trends. Even if I brush it off, that woman would probably raise her kids to treat others poorly for those reasons.

I really think that everyone is racist, if not xenophobic to some degree. It's the way we are all socialized. I mean, one only needs to look at the way space aliens are portrayed in movies, television, and books. If martians or something landed, the world would probably unite in destroying them or something, even if they didn't mean any harm. I'm not comparing the real implications of racism with [I]War of the Worlds[I] or anything, but we are all taught to make assumptions and fear people without getting to know them first.

DSTKellie,

You can explain with all your might about institutionalized racism but most folks on GC prefer to remain ignorant...

I know what racism is and what it is not.

It is about white supremacy... And I will leave it at that... Until folks have fully researchered under intense studies of Dr. Francis Cress Welsing and Dr. Na'im Akbar, then folks do not have any discussions with me...

Otherwise all folks can do is a search throughout the GC forums for the level of thinking of the collective groupthink...

I know what you talking about. And probably DSTChaos knows. And your arguments are undocumented and unsupported lacking logical conclusions. Now, you can decide if you want to pursue your opinions further, however, it is a useless gesture with likes of most GC folks...

Ah, institutionalized racisim.

I can agree that this is a horse of a different color. Were we discussion instituionalized racism, that might have made more sense. Racism at it's core however is bias based on race. NOT bias from the dominent race to the non-dominent. By your/DSTKellie's definition, a white person living in or visiting a predominantly Arab country could not be racist against Arabs. Same applies for an African country or an Asian one.



However, the idea that two sociologists (I assume) are the end all be all of ANY field as broad as racism is silly.

You are right however that her arguments are undocumented.

Exactly. Now, there are small pockets of this society where blacks are substantially in power and can institute smaller scale racism against another racial group, including whites.

These small pockets aren't enough to go on tirades about though because racism was never really about specific racial groups (i.e. white people versus nonwhites) but about power dynamics. It may or may not be a coincidence that people who can be classified as "white" are dominant in power in this society and across the globe.

I don't consider white people hating black people to automatically be racism. It is prejudice. The difference, that can make hatred turn into discrimination and/or racism, is that white people hating black people tends to translate into action whereas blacks who hate whites tends to not to translate into action. How many blacks can have stable, good jobs and accumulate wealth through separatism and without the input of a white person who is not a subordinate? However, many whites have always had stable, good jobs and accumulated wealth through separatism (opportunity hoarding) and without the input of blacks who were not subordinates. This is the opportunity and power differential.

Action does not include someone getting mad and whooping someone's ass one day. Action means systemic exclusion and differential treatment (and even systemic violence similar to the lynching era).



I would. But "racism" is not a requirement for hate crimes or the legislation. You have to prove the person was targeting a specific group, usually due to prejudice and fear, not that the person was "racist."

There are two main definitions of racism that have been debated over the last few decades. But there are thousands of social scientists and researchers who agree with the definition that includes power definitions, as well as distinguishes between prejudice, discrimination, and racism.

The dictionary provides things in a simplistic format for the layperson who won't understand these social constructs if presented in detail. This is why there are social science dictionaries, encyclopedias and other sources for people who want to really dig deep to understand and challenge conventional notions.

So you all are discussing individual racism and only see racism as systemic when someone places "institutional" in front of it. Some textbooks still include sections on individual racism but it ends up confusing students as to what prejudice vs discrimination vs racism is.

Power is not about population size. Whites still comprise the largest percentage of this country, but places like South Afrika had the minority control the majority for years through Apartheid. So if the white person went to Arab and was in a position of power and influence and used this against the Arab people, it could be racism. However, I argue that many Arabs look racially "white" (according to N. America standards) enough to be able to assimilate into "whiteness" if they chose to--as many do when they come to America even to the point of marking "white" on the Census. So it wouldn't be racism that they face as much as it would be culturalism or ethnocentrism.

No, they aren't undocumented and I assumed AKAMonet was being facetious.

See my example above about power struggles existing in the everyday interpersonal relationships. A black man who refuses to serve a white man is in a position of power over the white man, even if that white man is a CEO and the black man is running a food kiosk. EVEN if racism only exists where power is involved, power struggles are involved in every relationship.