OPINION & EDITORIAL
TV’s “Kramer” ignites unexpected racial dialogue
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Bassey Etim:
- Religion: Does it benefit society? (November 29, 2007)
- Do Democrats take minority votes for granted? (November 15, 2007)
- It's the media, stupid: Political coverage misleads (November 8, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Exploring the issues: Race - Your online responses (November 16, 2007)
- Kaplan's remarks not racist (February 26, 2007)
- Silence not golden on UW Housing race dialogue (November 14, 2007)
- Diverse racial experiences at UW (October 12, 2005)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
by Bassey Etim
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
When TV's "Kramer" yelled a series of racial epithets at hecklers during a performance at the Laugh Factory in Los Angeles, he inadvertently ruined his career and sparked a national dialogue about race in America. The video circulated on TMZ.com instantly became a cable news bonanza and forced Michael Richards into dozens of apologies. It was a moment when art intersected life, and it has inspired many prominent black entertainers to disavow use of the N-word.
In the black community the word is commonly used and meant to invoke the camaraderie of living through a shared struggle. Honestly, like many of the public figures now denouncing it, using the word didn't bother me much before the rant. After hundreds of years of dealing with the massive socio-economic damage of slavery, having one ethnically exclusive word does not seem unreasonable.
However, comedian Paul Mooney, known for his racially inspired humor, said it best when he promised to wean himself off the word after expressing his disgust with its use as a weapon. Civil rights activists Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are using the incident to publicize efforts to convince public figures to stop saying it.
Following this outcry, the visceral hatred the word invokes is undeniable. While walking home to Mifflin Street one night, someone called to me and said "Hey nigger." Assuming it was someone I know trying to get a rise out of me, I slowly approached, growing more and more shocked that I didn't recognize the guy. When I found myself a few inches from his face, I asked who he was and walked away.
I have no doubt that the pervasive theme of race in popular entertainment convinced both him and Richards that this would be okay or at least comedically excusable. It's thrown around all too often in pop-rap and TV. So while I agree with Sharpton, Jackson and Mooney about the horrific elements of our national history this invokes, that doesn't make it right to censor its use in all art.
The gripe shouldn't be with street poets or rappers who use the word when depicting the struggle and internal conflicts that plague modern life in the slums. But when popular media caught on to the marketability of this foreign culture, a perversion of it inevitably rose. Forces representing the "Bling-bling" wing of hip-hop, willing to do anything to become the profitable image proliferated in suburban America, use the word to describe everyone they would slap or who fled during an imaginary dance club confrontation. The context of art is no longer a good excuse because it is impossible to define which art is legitimate.
I don't know whether Richards is a racist, but he has forced black America to have this conversation on new terms. I'd like to think there is a context when its use is valid — like in this column — when creating an artistic picture not inspired exclusively by lust or fame. But if we can't even remember "I before E except after C," how can we triangulate motivation before speaking? Wouldn't it be best to rid ourselves of its hateful heritage?
The question is whether it is better to bury a word or disarm it. The fact is that it is never going to disappear. So the concern in its usage is whether it draws an invisible line between black and white that holds us apart, and I don't think this is the case. Racial hostility is based on class, culture and ignorance — not a word. While refusing to use it is an honorable choice, it won't go far in helping America overcome its legacy of blood.
So I'm not going to criticize young people living in the inner cities who have found their own historical context. After all, language is a constant evolution, for example, how many people know that "gyp" is a slur meant to invoke alleged thieving nature of gypsies? I'm not worried about offending the ghosts of the past with a word so long as we don't summon those ghosts.
As a music artist I also face the dilemma of whether to speak in the language of those I mean to depict or project a more idealized image on them. There seems little choice but to conclude art isn't always politically correct or even right, nor should it be. Often art must find the boundary and purposefully step over it to make us question why we drew the line there in the first place, and what that line says about us as a people.
Bassey Etim (betim@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in journalism and political science.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 2:19am):
Bassey, remember that one of the black patrons Mr. Richards verbally attacked also used the word "cracker." So why isn't HE being called to apologize?
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 4:29am):
THIS is what an Op/Ed should be. Powerful stuff here.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 7:27am):
1. Since when has Kramer been relevant? Since he imported Cuban refugees to produce high quality cigars, perhaps.
2. Meltdown. Hasn't anyone seen a person have a meltdown before?
3. Everyone's racist. Look at your friends; I bet they're the same color as you.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 9:56am):
Anonymous #1, the heckler can't be called on to apologize because he is too busy sueing for having his feelings hurt.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 10:35am):
"So why isn't HE being called to apologize?"
Being black means you never have to say you're sorry.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 12:03pm):
If I can be heard over the whiny little white kids, I have a question...
What does it actually take to be a racist? Kramer says he's not a racist, but he sure did a pretty convincing job of faking it. Does a person actually have to lynch a black dude or burn a cross before they're a card carrying racist? If it's not enough to scream out racial slurs and long for the days of his youth when blacks were treated like animals, what would qualify Kramer as a racist?
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 12:41pm):
"What does it actually take to be a racist?"
I'd say that it's an unreasoning attitude that all people of some race should be treated in a certain way just because of their race, and it's not limited to whites.
MORE RACIST REMARKS captured by YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN5StQAr7n0
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 1:33pm):
I agree with Anonymous #2...the Op/Ed section has been dismal almost all semester, but this is a helluva effort...
Now if only the Sports section could have a single diamond in the rough (a good story) once every month like Opinion does...
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 1:38pm):
jesus christo, Can the mendota beacon readers please stick to their own paper. Does it even exist anymore?
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 1:56pm):
"Everyone is racist. Look at your friends; I bet they're the same color of you."
Yes, everyone discriminates in some fashion, but what is your point? First of all, this article is tenuously related to Richard's racist diatribe. It's mostly about the use of the n-word in the Black community... But anyway, simply because we all hold prejudices doesn't mean we aren't responsible for our racist (sexist, heterosexist...) actions.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 2:04pm):
I think the focus is wrongly applied to skin color and not culture. The fear "races" have of one another are ignorance or intolerance of a different culture. We're all just xenophobes, not racists.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 4:10pm):
I don't see why blacks are even worth caring about anymore. They bitch and moan about racism and yet they're the most racist bunch in this hemisphere. Let them fend for themselves. They don't need sympathy, they need to grow up.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 4:49pm):
"If I can be heard over the whiny little white kids, I have a question..."
You mean "If anyone cares to listen to my stupid little PC rant..."
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 5:56pm):
Richards' comments were blatantly, amazingly racist. How can a number of you that have commented simply overlook this fact and act so ignorantly in your brazen effort to downplay racism? Is our campus truly this bigotted? What Richards said was reprehensible, and no amount of "Blacks need to stop complaining" rhetoric can ever change that.
Anonymous (December 5, 2006 @ 7:20pm):
"I don't see why blacks are even worth caring about anymore."
Self-reflexive racism? Check.
Anonymous (December 6, 2006 @ 2:42am):
"Richards' comments were blatantly, amazingly racist. How can a number of you that have commented simply overlook this fact and act so ignorantly in your brazen effort to downplay racism?"
We're not overlooking it. We simply prefer a more balanced approach to the topic.
Anonymous (December 6, 2006 @ 2:43am):
"Self-reflexive racism? Check."
PC-inspired race baiting? Check.
