Observations from a 'nigger' ...
The above video, taped via cell-phone camera at Los Angeles' Laff Factory comedy club -- where actor/comedian Michael Richards, of 'Seinfeld' fame, goes on a racist, anti-Black rant after being heckled by two African-American audience members during his stand-up routine -- will be a litmus test for exactly how equal racist actions are dealt with in the media, Hollywood and society in general.
In this taped verbal outburst, Richards attempts to put the Black members of the audience in their place by telling them that "50 years ago, [we'd] have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass." He then continues to counter the unidentified patrons who tell him that his actions were uncalled for and unnecessary, by repeatedly calling the patron, and the African-American audience, "nigger" or (perhaps in an effort to seem subversively hip to his white supporters in the throng), "nigga".
As shocking as it may seem to some, it is very likely that the hypocritical Hollywood corporate and media powers will brush this off with what will amount to a slap on the wrist, a wagging of the finger. What's just as probable is as time allows the dust to settle, that these outlets and the community that supports them forget that this incident ever occurred -- and even make light of it by defending it as a reactionary short-circuit due to nerves, deeming it as inconsequential to "Seinfeld"'s huge cultural boon, or even by including Richards in satirical sketches where the public can simply laugh along with what will be spun as a harmless implosion by a has-been entertainer, while providing Richards the opportunity to 'laugh at himself'.
It's always curious to observe cultural and social attitudes about racism towards the Jewish community and the African community, wherever in the diaspora they reside. Both are party to some of most vicious acts of inhumanity of any single people (along with Aboriginal peoples) in history. Both have had their Holocausts, and both have been singled out by white extremists in history as people worthy of hate (even white Jews, the group most commonly awarded attention.)
But this is where comparisons end. While each can claim being objects of ongoing ignorance by various strains of society, the simple fact of the matter is, the balance of power between both groups is heavily lopsided. And racism needs power to flourish, or to be ignored. It is my point here to show that Michael Richards (Catholic by upbringing, 'Jewish by association') crossed the line that many white comedians, executives and indeed the industry -- Jewish and gentile -- have been able to subversively cross due to their undeniable power in Hollywood.
If Hollywood -- and white society as a whole -- really compares oranges to oranges as they claim, and truly abhors racist acts against any of its fellow human beings, the same shackles and ostracization that was recently applied to actor Mel Gibson for his drunken railings about Jewish people, should not only be increased ten-fold against Richards and others of his ilk, but an entire investigation into Hollywood's racist identity is in order.
WHITE PEOPLE AND USING THE WORD 'NIGGER', AND AN OPEN LETTER TO WHITE PEOPLE READING THIS
Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and comedian Paul Mooney recently declared a boycott of 'the N word' as a challenge to Black entertainers to cease using a deragatory term that white people branded on the people they decimated. This is commendable, but many people in white society will miss the point of why the Black community issued ourselves this challenge after Richards' widely-exposed self-outing. It's not because Black people are to blame for the propagation of a word that self-deluding white oppressors branded (literally) into our psyche. Self-healing in the Black community is completely separate from the elitist psychosis white society has and should come to terms with. And the psychology of the word's usage is too complex to delve into here. We're trying to deal with centuries of pain, and it doesn't just happen overnight. Let's just say that just because we choose to address each other in a particular way, that doesn't give white people carte blanche to also address us as they see fit, particularly with a word that white society used to dehumanize us. So for the record, it's not 'all good.'
This should be what I consider common sense, but I would like to address something to misguided white people who actually still believe it's OK to for a white person to use the term 'nigger', simply because some Black people address each other thusly, and because the entertainment industry chooses to allow and promote usage of the term (interestingly, "kike" is censored). Let's finally clear up something: when a Black person calls another Black person "nigga", it is out of a commonality of our shared experience, whether we use it as a term of endearment or simply to address another Black person to make a point. As much as you may want to be 'down' with your hip Black friends, think about what your usage of that word, however 'good-naturedly', reveals about how complacently ignorant white people are about exactly how the horrors of slavery have affected their subjects.
"Nigger" or "nigga" to a Black person means a wealth of things that white people could never understand. We didn't ask for the word to be stamped into our lexicon; you and your forefathers and foremothers just made sure it was there (while also denying us the right to read, our culture, our identities, our families, etc., while we built your 'land of the free, home of the brave'). The legacy of its usage reflects the efforts of a torn community trying to empower itself by living even with the ugliness that has been thrust into us. All you can do is try to empathize, and build a better environment with your racial priviledge and power. To me, it's amazing how many Caucasian people can't understand that. As an entertainer, Richards not only displayed heinous ignorance in what is acceptable to the Black community, he unwittingly made himself the poster boy for exactly how far we still have to go in society in truly recognizing how hateful words can be in racial relations between African and Caucasian people.
Furthermore, the truly sad thing about Richards' 'performance' goes further than simply calling Black people 'niggers.' He actually invoked the image of the murderous, painful and soulless act of lynching, and did it so callously, as if to throw it in for simple comedic effect (quoteth Richards: "this shocks you!" ... uh, no, Mike. This ain't the 60s, and you ain't Lenny Bruce. Why don't you ask James Byrd just how funny it is?). His 'faux pas' extended past the bounds of mere language. He represents the complacency, ignorance and hatred that justifies Black people's wariness towards Hollywood and white society in general.
Hollywood and white society create and study the media, listen to and emulate Black music, dress, slang, attitude, while exploiting the Black community's trend-setting and profitable talent and personalities. The film and music industry 'develops' and chooses to promote negative stereotypes (booty videos, 'hood flicks, buffoonish Black characters next to steely-eyed white heroes, etc.), while all but ignoring the more sublime, deeper expressions of our arts and sciences. It protect its own inner circle of power, while allowing what it considers 'slight errors in judgment' to pass without much fanfare when it has to do with Black people.
Only when we get to the point that society truly treats everyone equal, will words only be just words. We haven't got there yet. Black people, as much as we dominate the entertainment industry talent-wise, still do not command the respect white people do. This is evident by comparing the response to Richards' tirade with that given Mel Gibson's 'slight error in judgment' earlier this year.
MEL GIBSON AND HIS RANT, AND: HOW DID AN ETHNIC GROUP LIKE JEWISH PEOPLE BECOME A 'RACE'?
As we all recall, Gibson was pulled over by a police officer a couple of months back for driving under the influence. He then informed the officer that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," and asked the officer, "Are you a Jew?"
A few other things are noteworthy here. Firstly, Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, is reportedly a Holocaust denier, calling the event "mostly fiction". Gibson's vehemently Christian epic "The Passion of the Christ" came under fire for portraying the Jewish leaders as responsible for Jesus' murder. Add to these points Gibson's long-standing reputation as an alcoholic, wild, idealistic maverick.
There is no question that, in a world where 'ethnic cleansing' and lack of respect towards non-white racial and ethnic groups have not lessened with more integration, statements such as Gibson's can and should be parsed for sinister implications. However, the interesting this is, Gibson is white, and the powerful Jews to whom he alludes are also white (what, you thought he was talking about Black Hebrews in Africa?)
Let's once and for all put an end to this 'Jewish race' myth. Whenever someone does or says something disparaging or destructive to Jewish people, they, as if to claim a monopoly on every kind of indignation, have somehow been able to work in the assertion of 'racism' being at play. Firstly, it is inexcusable enough that anyone should disrespect, insult, oppress or murder anyone else based on their culture, faith or region of origin. And white people, including white Jews, have enough power to point out the wrong, drum up universal outrage, and systematically and ubiquitously punish the actor. But this is an example of how power can color any circumstance with any shade. The powerful white Jews 'playing the race card', really, is like a smack in the face against actual racially identifiable groups that face racism every day, who not only cannot disguise their identity nor escape the complex effects of their legacy of oppression, but also lack (or are denied) real power in the circles of influence to cause alarm within them (this is most applicable to African people in the diaspora).
Judaism is a religious faith, and Jews are an ethnic group, not a race. In fact, the term 'Semitic' has been misidentified by many people as one of the four racial groups, when it fact it is a language group only, which is ironically the group Arabic language falls under. It is out of respect that we allow the 'Semetic' term to exclusively pertain to one ethnic group. White people should equally observe real racism imposed upon the very victims of the European colonialism that violently brought whites to minority rule in the first place, and white Jews should not try to 'hog' causes that clearly do not represent them, in order to collect an inaccurate 'royal flush' of victimization (all of this includes the ridiculous charge of 'reverse racism' decried by some elements within white society -- how can there be a reverse to something that was not already in full motion?)
It seems that any comment towards the Jewish community, no matter how observational, is automatically deemed as 'anti-Semitic' if it isn't dripping with accolades or reverential cultural acknowledgment. Gibson's rant was 'reactionary' too and obviously out of place given the situation (which shows he walks with these thoughts in his head), but his take on facts can be argued. He never said he hated Jewish people as a Christian, or called them any slurs; he said what he believed to be true, and his bias towards his opinion obviously informs his work if it can just come out of the blue. If he was stating what he believes is a quantifiable fact (i.e. Israel's funding by the U.S. government and their expansionist collusions, the Gaza Strip situation, of which everyone has an opinion, etc.), his statement can at least conjure up dialogue or debate. If it was just the uneducated ramblings of a misguided man embarrassed to be back on the wagon, well, it was a moronic, inciteful, bitter thing.
White Christians obviously have a history towards persecuting and killing White Jews for being Jews, but that is culturalism and religious zealotry, not racism, since white Jews cannot claim to be 'less white' than their white Christian counterparts. See Irish/British relations for a similar paradigm. That many Jewish people can easily change their last names in society, including Hollywood (to less-ethnic-sounding "Wolf", "Stone", or "Richards", natch), shows how easily this powerful community can assimilate themselves into the gentile white power structure -- so much so that it is no longer necessary for them to have to change their Jewish last names in business or Hollywood, merely a career option. (However, Caryn Elaine Johnson changing her name to Whoopi Goldberg, alluding to a Jewish commonality with her bosses, does not award her a common shield of invicibility. 'A nigger by any other name ...' will still be grouped back with her people, a fact I'm sure is not lost on Mr. Richards.)
"Passion ..." was a huge financial success, becoming the most successful film in history, rallying one religious group with a film that implicates the execution of its spiritual head by another powerful religious and ethnic group, and then the filmmaker is caught with his proverbial pants down, stating his thoughts about current Jewish power relations. Gibson's punishment for this straw that broke the camel's back? Calls for his blacklisting from Hollywood by prominent Jewish figures on the scene, endless media backlash, the butt of stand-up comedians' jokes, his becoming the poster boy for intolerance.
Anti-Semitic sentiment does exist and is clearly, absolutely wrong (and stupid -- how can you hate someone because of their place of origin or their faith?). What is always apparent, though, is how low the threshold is as to when a comment or deed is considered 'anti-Semitic.' A synagogue doesn't have to be burned down, or graves desecrated, nor does an inane revisionist historian have to nullify the Jewish Holocaust. A massive tragedy involving the Jewish community will never, ever be ignored or not acted upon, neither small, 'symbolic' mishaps. A simple critical comment on the nature of their power, how they wield it, or their cultural attitudes are enough to brew up a conflagration among them and the other white members within their circle of power. That Jewish people command such respect is admirable, and should be the example that is followed for every people, towards every people, by every people.
But any keen eye can see that this is not the case.
THE 'NOTHING SHOW' PARADOX AND THE TRUTH OF BLACK DISEMPOWERMENT
Michael Richards' 'Kramer' was arguably the most popular character on a show self-described as "about nothing." Some people found the lack of substantial storylines and absence of any significant Black characters on the show -- other than a recurring, stereotypical, jive-talking lawyer -- an example of how white Hollywood can do anything it pleases in the name of comedy, and how its desired demographic is eager to stay rooted in this 'reality-based fantasyland.'
The fact is, a Black 'Seinfeld'-like show would not last on a network for very long, if it were started at all, by virtue of the fact that even Black comedy is informed by the pain of racism. We can't avoid being aware of it and expressing it in our art. So the show would be thwarted in two ways. White audiences would not turn out in droves to watch a Black-character-driven show seemingly about nothing, but actually with careful, subtle inflections of how we have to deal with racism by whites. At best, it would be considered didactic and preachy; at worst, squirm-inducing and not the kind of entertainment the 'Friends'-loving crowd wants to munch popcorn to, light-heartedly. That is, of course, unless there is a white hero in the midst, at which point the show's focus would focus on the hapless white, in order to appease the audience's comfort level. This is the same formula almost always applied to motion pictures, for it to be deemed a 'must-see', 'exhilarating' and 'important' by critics and audience members.
Black audiences would be far less passive about such a Black 'nothing' show. Where is the social responsibility? You have all this power and all these connections, and you got a show. And you make entire episodes about losing car keys or forgetting your date's name? Even a so-called 'nothing' show starring Black people would have to have a romantic element or plot line at some point, and avoiding the topic of interracial dating would come across as fearful. So, to encourage ratings, the outcomes of such a plot would have to be, as one option, complete bliss with nary a real conflict involving racial matters (besides a few eye-opening fights, the couple agrees that 'we're all the same inside and are all guilty', everyone begrudgingly gets along in the end, blah, blah, blah). The other alternative involves a blatant or over-the-top racist element, which would sooth white audiences (and execs) into sustaining their belief of how racist they are NOT, compared to 'THAT guy -- thank God she dumps him in the end!' While white audiences are uninterested in (or would be offended to know) how many different degrees and examples exist of their racism, Black audiences would know immediately how the more complex reality is being tampered with on television.
The most important reason a 'nothing' Black show probably would register with Hollywood executives and their coveted demographic is that the best Black comedy confronts even ugliness, including the spectre of racism. Adversity goes hand in hand with the art form. There is but one choice in Hollywood for a successful run with its elitist structure: let the whites in on the joke, the action and let us be a part of the salvation, or there will be no movie or television show. The biggest successes in 'edgy' cross-over Black humor is when this dynamic is exercised (see 'Chappelle's Show', Wayans brothers' movies, or any successful Black stand-up comedian after Richard Pryor.) A Black TV show or movie could never be totally about 'nothing,' no matter how carefully it treads on eggshells.
Black entertainers can nudge the boat, but we are not permitted to absolutely tip it over, when it comes to unflinchingly showing white people to themselves, unless we simultaneously include the grossest negative caricatures of ourselves, to put a balm in the iodine. It is under this umbrella of complacency that a million Michael Richards can comfortably exist in the entertainment industry.
When Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan' opened to rave critical reviews and massive box-office moolah, hip-and-savvy-feeling reviewers discussed it as a wicked satire, brilliant in how it can make you squirm even as you laugh at Borat's antics, usually revealing different racist attitudes among all groups. This feat is permitted, of course, by the fact that the anti-Semitic 'Borat' character is played by Cohen, himself a Jew, which is meant to give his alter-ego's broken-english, anti-Jew rants a stab of both absurdity and irony.
The power structure allows Borat this freedom because it is still ultimately self-serving; audiences can squirm, gasp and still nervously chuckle at Borat's anti-Jewishness, shaking their head that there are people who think like this, and ultimately questioning their own inner Hitler. It's brilliant as a social barometre and as a re-emphasis on observing Jews as the much-maligned Chosen People, having achieved this much success despite a tragic episode in their history and with doofuses everywhere like those depicted in the film.
Had a Black character played Borat, the response would have been the polar opposite. With Black people generally having no power to sway Hollywood and still regarded as pawns, the movie would be deemed irreverent (in a bad way), and controversial, not in the sense of piquing curiosity, but in the sense of unreleaseable, even criminal. This has partly to do with the fact that such a Black film would be 'speaking out of place' towards Jews, even as a 'satire' on people's attitudes ... even though Black people share this persecution, in fact even more so. The other reason is that, as Black leaders such as Jesse Jackson and the Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan have vocalized for decades, there is a decidely non-laughing sect of Black people who are quite disturbed at what they deem as 'monkey treatment' by Jewish and gentile white entertainment, business, political and social leaders. Releasing a 'Black Borat' picture, in an environment where ghetto life is railed against in hip hop, where reparations for slavery is still a hot agenda, and anger about Hurricane Katrina still simmers, not to mention the general belief of a racist agenda against Black people ... 'Black Borat' would be considered an indictment and not simply commentary.
Black empowerment thus is tied into the art, because the art in turn enables it. It's the same with any group of people, but with Black people, it's more noticeable, not only because Black people stand out physically, but because our laundry list of issues defines the country, indeed the world. How important a thing is is shown by people's attention to it, and there is a point where a joke becomes more of a manifesto. If Mel Gibson can be figuratively 'crucified' for what is deemed a slur against Jewish people in drunkenly stating his opinion, Black people surely could expect a massacre if 'Borat' was our creation.
With success comes a degree of freedom, and sometimes, the actor forgets that he still lives in a world with the media eye trained on him or her. Like the unwitting stars of 'Borat', it's at that moment when the mind wanders into its comfort zone, and reveals what hides beneath the veil of political correctness. 'Kramer's ethnicity was implied as Jewish, he had a midget friend, a Black friend, and a crew of dysfunctional buddies on the show, which helped falsely promote his veneer of inclusiveness, and even typecast him as the loveable misfit, who was down with everybody.
That, as we all know now, is bullshit. This man worked for years on a show, supposedly about 'nothing,' with a cast and crew that had to know him a tiny bit. There are lunch break conversations and little quips that people say in trusted company. There were talks about character development with creators of his other failed series. He has friends, and co-stars that have an idea about his inner workings. Seinfeld 'sick' over this 'mistake'? Like he had no idea? Unlikely. Which was the mistake: Richards' way of thinking, his saying what was on his mind, or him being outed for it?
Michael Richards' 2 minutes and 47 seconds of filmed infamy didn't just show a uncomfortable has-been with an insensitive and racist outlook. He pulled the curtain away to reveal a mentality that no-one can say does not exist among the very elite in Hollywood. The cynicism and snide manner in which it regards Black people could not have been stated better than by the litany of buffoonish and decadent Black films the movie and television industry chooses to release and heap praise on; by its insistence on rewarding negativity ('Training Day') and soft porn ('Monster's Ball'), while ignoring vast bodies of socially relevant work (Spike Lee); and now, this accidental exposure of the racist in its ranks.
CHALLENGE TO HOLLYWOOD
Don't just rationalize, Hollywood. If you're so aghast at Mel Gibson -- one of your most successful directors -- and his opinion of the role of Jewish people in world wars, you should be positively puking in your mouth at 'Kramer' flat-out calling a room of Black audience members 'niggers', and evoking images of the African Holocaust.
Blacklist Michael Richards, Hollywood, with the same gusto you applied to Mel Gibson. That is, if you truly practice your maxim of outrage towards racism, even when it isn't addressed to your clique.
Maybe this can be a TV show or film plot in itself.
In this taped verbal outburst, Richards attempts to put the Black members of the audience in their place by telling them that "50 years ago, [we'd] have you upside-down with a fucking fork up your ass." He then continues to counter the unidentified patrons who tell him that his actions were uncalled for and unnecessary, by repeatedly calling the patron, and the African-American audience, "nigger" or (perhaps in an effort to seem subversively hip to his white supporters in the throng), "nigga".
As shocking as it may seem to some, it is very likely that the hypocritical Hollywood corporate and media powers will brush this off with what will amount to a slap on the wrist, a wagging of the finger. What's just as probable is as time allows the dust to settle, that these outlets and the community that supports them forget that this incident ever occurred -- and even make light of it by defending it as a reactionary short-circuit due to nerves, deeming it as inconsequential to "Seinfeld"'s huge cultural boon, or even by including Richards in satirical sketches where the public can simply laugh along with what will be spun as a harmless implosion by a has-been entertainer, while providing Richards the opportunity to 'laugh at himself'.
It's always curious to observe cultural and social attitudes about racism towards the Jewish community and the African community, wherever in the diaspora they reside. Both are party to some of most vicious acts of inhumanity of any single people (along with Aboriginal peoples) in history. Both have had their Holocausts, and both have been singled out by white extremists in history as people worthy of hate (even white Jews, the group most commonly awarded attention.)
But this is where comparisons end. While each can claim being objects of ongoing ignorance by various strains of society, the simple fact of the matter is, the balance of power between both groups is heavily lopsided. And racism needs power to flourish, or to be ignored. It is my point here to show that Michael Richards (Catholic by upbringing, 'Jewish by association') crossed the line that many white comedians, executives and indeed the industry -- Jewish and gentile -- have been able to subversively cross due to their undeniable power in Hollywood.
If Hollywood -- and white society as a whole -- really compares oranges to oranges as they claim, and truly abhors racist acts against any of its fellow human beings, the same shackles and ostracization that was recently applied to actor Mel Gibson for his drunken railings about Jewish people, should not only be increased ten-fold against Richards and others of his ilk, but an entire investigation into Hollywood's racist identity is in order.
WHITE PEOPLE AND USING THE WORD 'NIGGER', AND AN OPEN LETTER TO WHITE PEOPLE READING THIS
Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and comedian Paul Mooney recently declared a boycott of 'the N word' as a challenge to Black entertainers to cease using a deragatory term that white people branded on the people they decimated. This is commendable, but many people in white society will miss the point of why the Black community issued ourselves this challenge after Richards' widely-exposed self-outing. It's not because Black people are to blame for the propagation of a word that self-deluding white oppressors branded (literally) into our psyche. Self-healing in the Black community is completely separate from the elitist psychosis white society has and should come to terms with. And the psychology of the word's usage is too complex to delve into here. We're trying to deal with centuries of pain, and it doesn't just happen overnight. Let's just say that just because we choose to address each other in a particular way, that doesn't give white people carte blanche to also address us as they see fit, particularly with a word that white society used to dehumanize us. So for the record, it's not 'all good.'
This should be what I consider common sense, but I would like to address something to misguided white people who actually still believe it's OK to for a white person to use the term 'nigger', simply because some Black people address each other thusly, and because the entertainment industry chooses to allow and promote usage of the term (interestingly, "kike" is censored). Let's finally clear up something: when a Black person calls another Black person "nigga", it is out of a commonality of our shared experience, whether we use it as a term of endearment or simply to address another Black person to make a point. As much as you may want to be 'down' with your hip Black friends, think about what your usage of that word, however 'good-naturedly', reveals about how complacently ignorant white people are about exactly how the horrors of slavery have affected their subjects.
"Nigger" or "nigga" to a Black person means a wealth of things that white people could never understand. We didn't ask for the word to be stamped into our lexicon; you and your forefathers and foremothers just made sure it was there (while also denying us the right to read, our culture, our identities, our families, etc., while we built your 'land of the free, home of the brave'). The legacy of its usage reflects the efforts of a torn community trying to empower itself by living even with the ugliness that has been thrust into us. All you can do is try to empathize, and build a better environment with your racial priviledge and power. To me, it's amazing how many Caucasian people can't understand that. As an entertainer, Richards not only displayed heinous ignorance in what is acceptable to the Black community, he unwittingly made himself the poster boy for exactly how far we still have to go in society in truly recognizing how hateful words can be in racial relations between African and Caucasian people.
Furthermore, the truly sad thing about Richards' 'performance' goes further than simply calling Black people 'niggers.' He actually invoked the image of the murderous, painful and soulless act of lynching, and did it so callously, as if to throw it in for simple comedic effect (quoteth Richards: "this shocks you!" ... uh, no, Mike. This ain't the 60s, and you ain't Lenny Bruce. Why don't you ask James Byrd just how funny it is?). His 'faux pas' extended past the bounds of mere language. He represents the complacency, ignorance and hatred that justifies Black people's wariness towards Hollywood and white society in general.
Hollywood and white society create and study the media, listen to and emulate Black music, dress, slang, attitude, while exploiting the Black community's trend-setting and profitable talent and personalities. The film and music industry 'develops' and chooses to promote negative stereotypes (booty videos, 'hood flicks, buffoonish Black characters next to steely-eyed white heroes, etc.), while all but ignoring the more sublime, deeper expressions of our arts and sciences. It protect its own inner circle of power, while allowing what it considers 'slight errors in judgment' to pass without much fanfare when it has to do with Black people.
Only when we get to the point that society truly treats everyone equal, will words only be just words. We haven't got there yet. Black people, as much as we dominate the entertainment industry talent-wise, still do not command the respect white people do. This is evident by comparing the response to Richards' tirade with that given Mel Gibson's 'slight error in judgment' earlier this year.
MEL GIBSON AND HIS RANT, AND: HOW DID AN ETHNIC GROUP LIKE JEWISH PEOPLE BECOME A 'RACE'?
As we all recall, Gibson was pulled over by a police officer a couple of months back for driving under the influence. He then informed the officer that "the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," and asked the officer, "Are you a Jew?"
A few other things are noteworthy here. Firstly, Gibson's father, Hutton Gibson, is reportedly a Holocaust denier, calling the event "mostly fiction". Gibson's vehemently Christian epic "The Passion of the Christ" came under fire for portraying the Jewish leaders as responsible for Jesus' murder. Add to these points Gibson's long-standing reputation as an alcoholic, wild, idealistic maverick.
There is no question that, in a world where 'ethnic cleansing' and lack of respect towards non-white racial and ethnic groups have not lessened with more integration, statements such as Gibson's can and should be parsed for sinister implications. However, the interesting this is, Gibson is white, and the powerful Jews to whom he alludes are also white (what, you thought he was talking about Black Hebrews in Africa?)
Let's once and for all put an end to this 'Jewish race' myth. Whenever someone does or says something disparaging or destructive to Jewish people, they, as if to claim a monopoly on every kind of indignation, have somehow been able to work in the assertion of 'racism' being at play. Firstly, it is inexcusable enough that anyone should disrespect, insult, oppress or murder anyone else based on their culture, faith or region of origin. And white people, including white Jews, have enough power to point out the wrong, drum up universal outrage, and systematically and ubiquitously punish the actor. But this is an example of how power can color any circumstance with any shade. The powerful white Jews 'playing the race card', really, is like a smack in the face against actual racially identifiable groups that face racism every day, who not only cannot disguise their identity nor escape the complex effects of their legacy of oppression, but also lack (or are denied) real power in the circles of influence to cause alarm within them (this is most applicable to African people in the diaspora).
Judaism is a religious faith, and Jews are an ethnic group, not a race. In fact, the term 'Semitic' has been misidentified by many people as one of the four racial groups, when it fact it is a language group only, which is ironically the group Arabic language falls under. It is out of respect that we allow the 'Semetic' term to exclusively pertain to one ethnic group. White people should equally observe real racism imposed upon the very victims of the European colonialism that violently brought whites to minority rule in the first place, and white Jews should not try to 'hog' causes that clearly do not represent them, in order to collect an inaccurate 'royal flush' of victimization (all of this includes the ridiculous charge of 'reverse racism' decried by some elements within white society -- how can there be a reverse to something that was not already in full motion?)
It seems that any comment towards the Jewish community, no matter how observational, is automatically deemed as 'anti-Semitic' if it isn't dripping with accolades or reverential cultural acknowledgment. Gibson's rant was 'reactionary' too and obviously out of place given the situation (which shows he walks with these thoughts in his head), but his take on facts can be argued. He never said he hated Jewish people as a Christian, or called them any slurs; he said what he believed to be true, and his bias towards his opinion obviously informs his work if it can just come out of the blue. If he was stating what he believes is a quantifiable fact (i.e. Israel's funding by the U.S. government and their expansionist collusions, the Gaza Strip situation, of which everyone has an opinion, etc.), his statement can at least conjure up dialogue or debate. If it was just the uneducated ramblings of a misguided man embarrassed to be back on the wagon, well, it was a moronic, inciteful, bitter thing.
White Christians obviously have a history towards persecuting and killing White Jews for being Jews, but that is culturalism and religious zealotry, not racism, since white Jews cannot claim to be 'less white' than their white Christian counterparts. See Irish/British relations for a similar paradigm. That many Jewish people can easily change their last names in society, including Hollywood (to less-ethnic-sounding "Wolf", "Stone", or "Richards", natch), shows how easily this powerful community can assimilate themselves into the gentile white power structure -- so much so that it is no longer necessary for them to have to change their Jewish last names in business or Hollywood, merely a career option. (However, Caryn Elaine Johnson changing her name to Whoopi Goldberg, alluding to a Jewish commonality with her bosses, does not award her a common shield of invicibility. 'A nigger by any other name ...' will still be grouped back with her people, a fact I'm sure is not lost on Mr. Richards.)
"Passion ..." was a huge financial success, becoming the most successful film in history, rallying one religious group with a film that implicates the execution of its spiritual head by another powerful religious and ethnic group, and then the filmmaker is caught with his proverbial pants down, stating his thoughts about current Jewish power relations. Gibson's punishment for this straw that broke the camel's back? Calls for his blacklisting from Hollywood by prominent Jewish figures on the scene, endless media backlash, the butt of stand-up comedians' jokes, his becoming the poster boy for intolerance.
Anti-Semitic sentiment does exist and is clearly, absolutely wrong (and stupid -- how can you hate someone because of their place of origin or their faith?). What is always apparent, though, is how low the threshold is as to when a comment or deed is considered 'anti-Semitic.' A synagogue doesn't have to be burned down, or graves desecrated, nor does an inane revisionist historian have to nullify the Jewish Holocaust. A massive tragedy involving the Jewish community will never, ever be ignored or not acted upon, neither small, 'symbolic' mishaps. A simple critical comment on the nature of their power, how they wield it, or their cultural attitudes are enough to brew up a conflagration among them and the other white members within their circle of power. That Jewish people command such respect is admirable, and should be the example that is followed for every people, towards every people, by every people.
But any keen eye can see that this is not the case.
THE 'NOTHING SHOW' PARADOX AND THE TRUTH OF BLACK DISEMPOWERMENT
Michael Richards' 'Kramer' was arguably the most popular character on a show self-described as "about nothing." Some people found the lack of substantial storylines and absence of any significant Black characters on the show -- other than a recurring, stereotypical, jive-talking lawyer -- an example of how white Hollywood can do anything it pleases in the name of comedy, and how its desired demographic is eager to stay rooted in this 'reality-based fantasyland.'
The fact is, a Black 'Seinfeld'-like show would not last on a network for very long, if it were started at all, by virtue of the fact that even Black comedy is informed by the pain of racism. We can't avoid being aware of it and expressing it in our art. So the show would be thwarted in two ways. White audiences would not turn out in droves to watch a Black-character-driven show seemingly about nothing, but actually with careful, subtle inflections of how we have to deal with racism by whites. At best, it would be considered didactic and preachy; at worst, squirm-inducing and not the kind of entertainment the 'Friends'-loving crowd wants to munch popcorn to, light-heartedly. That is, of course, unless there is a white hero in the midst, at which point the show's focus would focus on the hapless white, in order to appease the audience's comfort level. This is the same formula almost always applied to motion pictures, for it to be deemed a 'must-see', 'exhilarating' and 'important' by critics and audience members.
Black audiences would be far less passive about such a Black 'nothing' show. Where is the social responsibility? You have all this power and all these connections, and you got a show. And you make entire episodes about losing car keys or forgetting your date's name? Even a so-called 'nothing' show starring Black people would have to have a romantic element or plot line at some point, and avoiding the topic of interracial dating would come across as fearful. So, to encourage ratings, the outcomes of such a plot would have to be, as one option, complete bliss with nary a real conflict involving racial matters (besides a few eye-opening fights, the couple agrees that 'we're all the same inside and are all guilty', everyone begrudgingly gets along in the end, blah, blah, blah). The other alternative involves a blatant or over-the-top racist element, which would sooth white audiences (and execs) into sustaining their belief of how racist they are NOT, compared to 'THAT guy -- thank God she dumps him in the end!' While white audiences are uninterested in (or would be offended to know) how many different degrees and examples exist of their racism, Black audiences would know immediately how the more complex reality is being tampered with on television.
The most important reason a 'nothing' Black show probably would register with Hollywood executives and their coveted demographic is that the best Black comedy confronts even ugliness, including the spectre of racism. Adversity goes hand in hand with the art form. There is but one choice in Hollywood for a successful run with its elitist structure: let the whites in on the joke, the action and let us be a part of the salvation, or there will be no movie or television show. The biggest successes in 'edgy' cross-over Black humor is when this dynamic is exercised (see 'Chappelle's Show', Wayans brothers' movies, or any successful Black stand-up comedian after Richard Pryor.) A Black TV show or movie could never be totally about 'nothing,' no matter how carefully it treads on eggshells.
Black entertainers can nudge the boat, but we are not permitted to absolutely tip it over, when it comes to unflinchingly showing white people to themselves, unless we simultaneously include the grossest negative caricatures of ourselves, to put a balm in the iodine. It is under this umbrella of complacency that a million Michael Richards can comfortably exist in the entertainment industry.
When Sacha Baron Cohen's 'Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan' opened to rave critical reviews and massive box-office moolah, hip-and-savvy-feeling reviewers discussed it as a wicked satire, brilliant in how it can make you squirm even as you laugh at Borat's antics, usually revealing different racist attitudes among all groups. This feat is permitted, of course, by the fact that the anti-Semitic 'Borat' character is played by Cohen, himself a Jew, which is meant to give his alter-ego's broken-english, anti-Jew rants a stab of both absurdity and irony.
The power structure allows Borat this freedom because it is still ultimately self-serving; audiences can squirm, gasp and still nervously chuckle at Borat's anti-Jewishness, shaking their head that there are people who think like this, and ultimately questioning their own inner Hitler. It's brilliant as a social barometre and as a re-emphasis on observing Jews as the much-maligned Chosen People, having achieved this much success despite a tragic episode in their history and with doofuses everywhere like those depicted in the film.
Had a Black character played Borat, the response would have been the polar opposite. With Black people generally having no power to sway Hollywood and still regarded as pawns, the movie would be deemed irreverent (in a bad way), and controversial, not in the sense of piquing curiosity, but in the sense of unreleaseable, even criminal. This has partly to do with the fact that such a Black film would be 'speaking out of place' towards Jews, even as a 'satire' on people's attitudes ... even though Black people share this persecution, in fact even more so. The other reason is that, as Black leaders such as Jesse Jackson and the Nation of Islam's Minister Louis Farrakhan have vocalized for decades, there is a decidely non-laughing sect of Black people who are quite disturbed at what they deem as 'monkey treatment' by Jewish and gentile white entertainment, business, political and social leaders. Releasing a 'Black Borat' picture, in an environment where ghetto life is railed against in hip hop, where reparations for slavery is still a hot agenda, and anger about Hurricane Katrina still simmers, not to mention the general belief of a racist agenda against Black people ... 'Black Borat' would be considered an indictment and not simply commentary.
Black empowerment thus is tied into the art, because the art in turn enables it. It's the same with any group of people, but with Black people, it's more noticeable, not only because Black people stand out physically, but because our laundry list of issues defines the country, indeed the world. How important a thing is is shown by people's attention to it, and there is a point where a joke becomes more of a manifesto. If Mel Gibson can be figuratively 'crucified' for what is deemed a slur against Jewish people in drunkenly stating his opinion, Black people surely could expect a massacre if 'Borat' was our creation.
With success comes a degree of freedom, and sometimes, the actor forgets that he still lives in a world with the media eye trained on him or her. Like the unwitting stars of 'Borat', it's at that moment when the mind wanders into its comfort zone, and reveals what hides beneath the veil of political correctness. 'Kramer's ethnicity was implied as Jewish, he had a midget friend, a Black friend, and a crew of dysfunctional buddies on the show, which helped falsely promote his veneer of inclusiveness, and even typecast him as the loveable misfit, who was down with everybody.
That, as we all know now, is bullshit. This man worked for years on a show, supposedly about 'nothing,' with a cast and crew that had to know him a tiny bit. There are lunch break conversations and little quips that people say in trusted company. There were talks about character development with creators of his other failed series. He has friends, and co-stars that have an idea about his inner workings. Seinfeld 'sick' over this 'mistake'? Like he had no idea? Unlikely. Which was the mistake: Richards' way of thinking, his saying what was on his mind, or him being outed for it?
Michael Richards' 2 minutes and 47 seconds of filmed infamy didn't just show a uncomfortable has-been with an insensitive and racist outlook. He pulled the curtain away to reveal a mentality that no-one can say does not exist among the very elite in Hollywood. The cynicism and snide manner in which it regards Black people could not have been stated better than by the litany of buffoonish and decadent Black films the movie and television industry chooses to release and heap praise on; by its insistence on rewarding negativity ('Training Day') and soft porn ('Monster's Ball'), while ignoring vast bodies of socially relevant work (Spike Lee); and now, this accidental exposure of the racist in its ranks.
CHALLENGE TO HOLLYWOOD
Don't just rationalize, Hollywood. If you're so aghast at Mel Gibson -- one of your most successful directors -- and his opinion of the role of Jewish people in world wars, you should be positively puking in your mouth at 'Kramer' flat-out calling a room of Black audience members 'niggers', and evoking images of the African Holocaust.
Blacklist Michael Richards, Hollywood, with the same gusto you applied to Mel Gibson. That is, if you truly practice your maxim of outrage towards racism, even when it isn't addressed to your clique.
Maybe this can be a TV show or film plot in itself.
posted by Steelrod at 8:54 AM
1 comments
