Richards' outburst reveals 'pathetic moral state' of nation

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | 11/25/06 | Star Parker

[JohnHuang2]

Let's take a closer look at so-called comedian Michael Richards' racist outburst that is capturing so much press and airtime. The incident, and what has ensued, tells me more about the overall pathetic moral state of our country than it does about racism.

Richards claims he's not a racist, despite attacking a black heckler at a comedy club where he was performing with a string of the most inflammatory, demeaning, and vulgar racial slurs.

Is it possible that he's not? Maybe. It's possible that he's just a moron.

But check out the deep soul searching that this inane incident has provoked across the nation.

The general sentiment is pretty much captured in a column by The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson who sees in what happened here sad proof that "racism is not dead" in America.

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Robinson that racial animosity lives. But I certainly didn't need Michael Richards' imbecility as proof of this.

If we should be thinking about anything, it should be to try and understand why, after all these years, racial consciousness persists.

As satisfying as it might be for some to watch, Mr. Richards groveling around on television apologizing isn't going to help much. Nor are any sums that left wing legal entrepreneur Gloria Allred might extract from him. Nor are apologies to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (the knee-jerk assumption that these two black ministers speak for 40 million black Americans I think is equally racist).

Allow me to suggest that racism and racial consciousness persist and loom large because we choose it to be this way.

Eugene Robinson says that Michael Richards did not see a heckler. Instead, says Robinson, he saw a black heckler. But we live in a country that insists on placing all its citizens in racial categories and using measures of how these categories stack up as measures of national decency.

Every major institution _ business, government, educational _ one way or another keeps track of how many blacks it has on board. Every major corporation has a diversity officer to make sure the colors of the beans are in order. Every corporation gets surveys from the NAACP asking them how many blacks they've got.

When I get a loan from the bank, the loan officer sheepishly asks if it's OK to report that I'm black.

We have institutionalized race consciousness to the very core of our society, so it should be evident why it persists. It's the law.

These laws, by transforming human beings into racial categories, dehumanize blacks and whites. Blacks feel less personally responsible for their own lives and whites are forced to relate to blacks as beans to count rather than human beings. One result is animosity of blacks toward whites and whites toward blacks.

Which leads to the second, and related, point. Racism is no longer understood as a moral problem. It is a political problem.

The success of the civil rights movement of the 1960's was its moral power. The few prevailed over the many because they had moral conviction _ truth _ on their side.

Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was not a speech. It was a sermon. He talked about character and exhorted Americans to strive for liberty because we are "God's children."

King was not an impractical man. He knew that laws needed to be passed to deal with segregation and the absence of equality under the law. But he also knew that law "cannot change the heart" and that for us to become a greater nation, we needed to be a more moral nation.

This said, consider the circumstances of the Richards incident. It took place in a comedy club in Los Angeles. These places are cesspools of profanity and degrading sexual and scatological humor, delivered in a haze of alcohol.

The black heckler yelled out, "It's not funny. That's why you're a reject. Never had no shows, never had no movies. 'Seinfeld' _ that's it."

This tastelessness doesn't justify Richards' racist diatribe. But on the other side of the coin, blacks who want a better world ought to get out of the gutter.

For me it is commentary on our overall sorry moral state that as news shows obsessed over this mindless incident, they totally ignored an Associated Press story this same week reporting that out-of-wedlock births in the U.S. reached 37.5 percent in 2005, a record high. The figure for blacks is almost double this.

Perhaps this holiday season it is worth considering that racism will be with us as long as evil remains within us. The answer will not come from politicians and lawyers.

It will come only when we raise ourselves up. Only then, in the words of Dr. King, will we be able to say "thank God Almighty, we are free at last."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[JohnHuang2]

Star Parker MEGA PING!

[Echo Talon]

Why does "some low level" racism exist today?
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton irritating us... and always keeping the coals hot.

[taxesareforever]

Excellent article!!

[fr_freak]

I understand Ms. Parker's overall point, and I agree with most of it, but I disagree with a couple of key points:

1) The success of the civil rights movement of the 1960's was its moral power. The few prevailed over the many because they had moral conviction _ truth _ on their side.

The Civil Rights movement succeeded precisely because, and perhaps only because, the majority of Americans agreed with the idea of racial equality (under the law). It is simply because most people are afraid to speak out against a vocal minority that abusive or unjust laws can exist in this country.

2) Ms. Parker fails to acknowledge the fact that, in the video, some of those who objected to Richards's racial slurs did so by using racial slurs themselves. I believe the exact quote was "...cracker-ass motherf*****", which, because black people have not invented a more insulting term, is the most insulting epithet possible by a black man toward a white one. Castigating Richards for his slur, yet ignoring the other man for his slur, still perpetuates a double standard which guaranteees racial animosity. If racial slurs are to be condemned by society, then ALL racial slurs should be condemned.

[lysie]

Racism is no longer understood as a moral problem. It is a political problem.

In a nutshell!

[seppel]

racial name-calling is practised by blacks at least to the extent as whites, if not more so. the thought police only targets whites. this is because whites are generally assumed to be christian and thus can be held to higher standards.

all of this is nonsense. the very concept of a thought-police is rediculous and childish. if people are going to be racist, you cannot legislate it away. better to look for territorial solutions instead of trying to cram ever more diverse races together.

japanese are probably very racist, but it bothers no-one because they live in their own homogenous nation. jews are trying to preserve a majority jewish state in order to prevent internal racial power-jockying (see YNET: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3205861,00.html). these are sensible solutions and should be followed in the US instead of increasing "diversity".

[Brian Allen]

Thank you.

[snarks_when_bored]

Michael Richards was performing poorly—he's an actor, not a stand-up comedian. He knew it. His audience knew it. When a couple of black guys heckled him a bit, he began to lose his temper. The more he shouted, the madder he got. Once his anger was in full control, his aim became to hurl verbal bombs at the objects of his rage. Everybody knows what it's like to get angry and start to say things to people with the aim of hurting them. The very fact that Richards called black guys the N-word is evidence that he was trying to hurt them and that he knew that using that word would hurt them.

I suspect that Richards is less a racist than a strong candidate for serious anger management therapy. And maybe he should consider telling funnier jokes...

[Brian Allen]

<< Richards' outburst reveals 'pathetic moral state' of nation >>

Rubbish.

As a certainty, Richards' outburst reveals only Richards' 'pathetic moral state' -- and that of the un-and-Anti-American socialists, blacks and 'whites' alike, who -- by having projected their hatreds on to every last one of us and by then having institutionalized those hatreds -- long ago wiped out all of the sacrifices of those of us, black and white, who struggled together to advance the colorblind civil rights of all Americans.

And on this issue Ms Parker, it seems clear, doing a little projecting of her own, is way too close to the trees to see the woods.

Blessings, my Hermano - Brian

[snowman_returns]

Everybody knows what it's like to get angry and start to say things to people with the aim of hurting them. The very fact that Richards called black guys the N-word is evidence that he was trying to hurt them and that he knew that using that word would hurt them.

I couldn't agree more, far too often incidents like this are seized upon by people on the political margins of the left to score points and drum up support from what they consider to be oppressed people.

Everyday people lash out with verbal abuse at something or another, normally they regret it and apologise later which is what Richards has done. It should be left at that and then forgotten.

Why can't this incident just be seen for what it really is and buried??

[Main Street]

In no way am I defending Richards behavior or use of the ENWURD. It was racist, plain and simple. He was attempting to publicly humiliate, belittle, and ridicule Gloria's two "innocent gentleman victims".

What the media and talking heads always ignore, was before his racist outburst, these two "gentleman" were also attempting to publicly humiliate, belittle, and ridicule Richards who was trying to do his act.

Funny how the media always conveniently edits out what the PC media call their "playful" interruptions, "playful" heckling and "playful" insults, before Richards retaliated.

It's also interesting that all of our liberal Media armchair psychiatrists, and so called black leaders and racist hypocrites, such as "Reverend" Jesse 'Hymie town' Jackson, and "Reverend" Al 'Tawana Brawley' Sharpton (whom the media treat like they're pure as the driven snow) see Richards' racially inflammatory response, after being angered by his hecklers, as proof that deep down inside he is a racist, YET, totally ignore this also angry black male's racially inflammatory response of "Cr*cka ass white boy!", as evidence that deep down inside this black male is a racist too!

I wonder what would happen to a white male if he went to let's say a black night club and "playfully" interrupted, heckled and insulted the black act on stage.

[Main Street]

"It should be left at that and then forgotten."

"Why can't this incident just be seen for what it really is and buried??"

Because it is in the best interests of the liberal media (i.e. Democrat media) and race hustlers, such as Jesse and Al, need to keep blacks solidly in the victim class. That is why black racism, as in this incident, is always excused as "playful" or "innocent", or ignored entirely and forgotten. And the rare incident of open white racism, again as in this incident, is reported repeatedly for weeks, months, if not years after.

[Constantine XI Palaeologus]

"japanese are probably very racist, but it bothers no-one because they live in their own homogenous nation. jews are trying to preserve a majority jewish state in order to prevent internal racial power-jockying (see YNET: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3205861,00.html). these are sensible solutions and should be followed in the US instead of increasing "diversity"."

That has got to be one of the stupidest comments I've ever read on FR. Are you suggesting we divide the U.S. into different ethnic regions, or expel those who don't belong to a certain group?

Or are you suggesting we need more culture homogeneity in the U.S. (i.e. we are all Americans, not hypenated Americans)? If so, I agree with that. You should note however that your comment comes off as rather racist taken at face value.

[aligncare]

Thanks for posting this.

I'm a white baby-boomer who spent my youth in solidarity with Dr. King and the civil rights movement.

But after having achieved the goal of bringing about political change, the civil rights movement lost it's bearings and has lead Americans astray--down the path of political correctness.

The author rightly points out the moral dilemma facing black Americans today. After having achieved 'equality under the law', have blacks themselves succumbed to what president Bush called, "the soft bigotry of low expectation"?

[djf]

I get pretty PO'd when I read articles like this.

Certainly racism is to be condemned.
But it is a fact that in just about every culture and society in the world, people who are perceived as outsiders tend to be discriminated against and not trusted.

We are talking human nature here.

So any articles or opinions that suggest this is a problem that is "uniquely American" are totally out of whack, truth be told, we are some of the most tolerant in the world.

[Caipirabob]

The "enemy" seeks to divide and weaken us as Americans at every level. Many of us fall prey to it one way or another. Racial divisions are just a single aspect of it, the political divide another.

As long as Americans are bent upon fighting over our differences we can never unite to fight the enemy that seeks to destroy our nation.

If we could manage to unite on import points, nothing could stand against the will of the American people.

I'd point out who I thought the enemy was, but then I'd simply be reinforcing my own point. : )

In the end, Political Correctness, Racial Division, Class warefare and Socialism are simply tools that the enemy uses to perpetuate a vast divide and discontent among Americans. Those who perpetuate such disasterous social policy within this nation are the enemy. They should be treated as such and driven into the seas, take your pick: East Coast or West...

BTW - none of the above means that Richards was any less an @-hole. He's just one symptom of the greater problem.

[Caipirabob]

Heh, I like that.

From now on, I'm my own political party : The "Unificationists".

If you disagree with me on any point you're a "Divisionist".

Hmmmm...today I think the sky looks "pink"...

[dforest]

Great article. He really says it just right.

[miss marmelstein]

One thing that is lost in all this is the question of why so many comedians and comedy writers have so much anger in them. When I was younger, I spent a great deal of my life working with them at comedy clubs in NYC and L.A. and was always surprised at the level of bitterness and anger in them - perhaps fueled by drugs.

Some of the angriest and rudest have got to be Bill Maher, Richard Belzer, Joy Behar, Chevy Chase and that little beast who conducts Letterman's band.

America is not a racist, angry country but our funnymen sure are.