Author |
Message |
Ladytex
Member
09-27-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:04 am
wow, I could post what I'm thinking right now, but it would be a repeat of my remarks from yesterday about being appalled by his remarks and the justifications and excuses. another case of let's blame the victim ... and you're darned skippy I'm gonna condemn someone who just opens his mouth and outcomes a rant about lynching some Blacks. That's more than simple unloading.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:17 am
I watched the interview with the two people who bore the brunt of Richards' verbal attack. I certainly feel sorry that they were put through that. Having said that, I can't help but feel dismayed at their suggestion that Richards should pay them some dollar compensation. To me it almost sounds like [they are saying] if you are a rich white guy you can pay Black people to let you insult them.
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:25 am
I have to admit that I've let some stupid little thing send me into a total rage because it was just one too many things to happen that day but when I'm saying evil things about the person (usually only in my own mind) who I think is causing my rage I never think of race. I don't look at people by race; they're just people. I'm wondering why these guys need Gloria Allred to represent them? What do they need an attorney for?
|
Native_texan
Member
08-24-2004
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:30 am
To me it almost sounds like if you are a rich white guy you can pay Black people to let you insult them. Jimmer, to me, that statement suggests the rich white guy offered to pay which, in this case, he did not. ETA: Chili, money has been known to make a very effective bandaid.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:38 am
I understand that he did not but you can bet that people would have been very upset if Richards had suggested it. It was their suggestion, not his. I find their suggestion that you can make racial insults and then ease the situation by paying them money, rather offensive and demeaning to themselves and other Black people.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:46 am
Thanks Prisoner since it's a video I'll have to watch it from home. Reperations is usually in the form of money. I don't find their suggestion offensive or demeaning to me as a black woman. ed'd I expected that response from you Adven.
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:51 am
It always ends up about the money, doesn't it? I guess being insulted is as good a way to get someone else's as any.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:53 am
Yeah like that's what the intent was for this whole situation. <el> Asking for reperations again has nothing to do with the problem. Wonder if Richards will now try to find some black and hispanic people to hang out with. Will he make a donation to the NAACP? Will you see him shaking hands with Obama?
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 9:57 am
"I'm wondering why these guys need Gloria Allred to represent them? What do they need an attorney for?" They were wronged Chili....and if you are wronged, then someone has gotta PAY DEMMIT!! Its the American way.... I believe in personal accountability. In this case, I think both parties contributed to the fiasco. While Richard's actions were totally outrageous and inexcusable, the guys don't get a total pass from me either. While I don't think they did anything to deserve Richards' tirade, they don't deserve the lable of "innocent bystander" either. Heckling may be part of standup, but its still rude and bad behavior in my book. JMHO DISCLAIMER: I am not in any way justifying or making excuses for Richards' actions. He was way out of line and should feel the full repercussions of his bad behavior. (which if Gloria has her way, he certainly will )
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:00 am
I don't think they have anything to sue over. Were they damaged by this altercation? I doubt it. It was a bad incident. It happened. It's over. Get over it. Why would they deserve reperations? They don't. <el>
|
Native_texan
Member
08-24-2004
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:03 am
Mocha, while it was certainly not the intent, the men wasted no time in going for it and that haste is what bothers me. The suggestion was that if they did not get a personal apology from Richards, they would go for the money. I have to wonder just how hard they are praying Richards does not give that personal apology. For many, nothing Richards does is going to be enough. If he does make a donation to the NAACP, then people will just say is trying to suck up.
|
Ladytex
Member
09-27-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:04 am
I, personally, think this country is too litigious and I would not have even thought to sue. However, because two black men have sued Michael Richards for shouting out those hateful, hurtful words at them in public, it is not 'demeaning to me as a black person'.
|
Ladytex
Member
09-27-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:06 am
how do you know they wasted no time in going for it? how do you know that they were not approached by Gloria Alred or one of her associates?
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:06 am
He demeaned all black people. If they get money out of this, shouldn't all of them?
|
Native_texan
Member
08-24-2004
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:07 am
Lady, it could be me but did you leave at words in that last sentence? I'm not understanding what you are trying to say.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:08 am
I'm willing to bet the lawyer contacted them first.
|
Mocha
Member
08-12-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:09 am
Nov. 21, 2006, 11:51AM Fraternity punished for Halloween party © 2006 The Associated Press BALTIMORE — Johns Hopkins University has put a fraternity on social probation because of a "Halloween in the Hood" party that angered members of the Black Student Union and sparked debate about race relations. The university's Student Conduct Board hearing panel found the Sigma Chi fraternity guilty of all charges filed by the administration, including failure to supervise the conduct of the member who wrote the party invitation, resulting in harassment and intimidation. University officials pledged Monday to continue efforts they started after the Halloween weekend party to promote racial healing. University administrators have held two campus-wide forums and meetings with the Black Student Union. The Sigma Chi chapter was placed on social probation until January 2008, meaning it is barred from holding parties and other social events. The university said it also must recruit four adult advisers and incorporate diversity training into its new members program. The university's Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action concluded that the invitation to the party played on racial stereotypes by encouraging attendees to wear "regional clothing from our locale" such as "bling bling ice ice, grills" and "hoochie hoops." However, it found that a skeleton hanging from a rope noose was meant to represent the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie and not to symbolize a lynching. link
|
Julieboo
Member
02-05-2002
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:10 am
I also think if the focus on this issue goes to money, that would make a bad situation worse. I am with Jimmer in that it makes it seem like an amount of money would make the nasty words okay.
|
Native_texan
Member
08-24-2004
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:10 am
Mocha, you're very probably right. And if you look at her past clients, I bet she ain't cheap.
|
Jimmer
Moderator
08-30-2000
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:12 am
Whether she contacted them or not is irrelevant. They didn't have to talk to her.
|
Chiliwilli
Member
09-04-2006
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:12 am
Even if the lawyer approached them and solicited their business, they coulda said NO. I too think a law suit will only make matters worse.
|
Eeyoreslament
Member
07-20-2003
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:15 am
I'm losing sight of what the issue is here; the CORE issue is what? Sometimes it bothers me that we practice double-standards, based on history. For example, at my university, there is a "Women's Center" there, that posts a fluorescent yellow sign on the door that says that MEN are specifically not allowed to cross this threshold. So a guy tried to create a MEN'S center, and it was immediately stopped by the university. Why is it OK for one group to do something, and not the other? Why are Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle allowed to call white people names? Why would it be acceptable for Chris Rock to say "Get the F--- out of here N-----!" if someone pissed him off in a club? Because he is black? Why is it OK for Sacha Baron Cohen to be racist against Jews, just because he is a Jew? I think it just bugs me that we tolerate some discrimination, and freak out on others. I ABSOLUTELY think Richards' reaction was wrong, but the suing for damages is a bit much. Those people would be on the floor laughing when Chris Rock did his whole "N-----" routine, or if he name-called a black heckler the same way. I think if I were the victim here, I would want to see Richards punished in a way that breaks down the walls of racism, or hits him in the emotions or brain, rather than the pocketbook. The moment they had video coverage, I could see Gloria Allred licking her chops. Gross. They've taken the issue AWAY from racism, IMHO.
|
Escapee
Member
06-15-2004
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:24 am
I am still not understanding why they need a lawyer. Are they suing? And if yes, what for? Slander and Libel have to result in some sort of loss, right...or are they just suing for punitive damages? Oh and BTW in no way was I defending Richard's remarks. I was agreeing with Adven's post about spouting off your mouth in rage. It happens, some go overboard, like he did, doesn't make it right, but I'd bet we've all done it to some extent. Oh and Mocha, I am glad I could amuse you this morning. ETA: Eeyore ITA agree with your post. I have those same questions myself. But as a result I usually get a snippy answer that poses as a blanket for it all. The double standard issue in this country is destroying equality and the main reason there will alwasy be sexual (gender) and racial tension in this country
|
Prisonerno6
Member
08-31-2002
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:31 am
Once again. They were NOT heckling Richards when this whole thing started. The men involved said that and an independent witness, Tom Dreesen, a comic who was there said that. A large group came in late, and apparently made too much nose for Richards as they got settled and the waitresses took their orders. This group had blacks, Latinos, Asians and whites in it, but Richards referred only to the group of "dumb blacks and Mexicans" who just came in. After that, one of them said, "You aren't funny." Richards responded by flipping them off and saying, "F--- y--, n-----!" As for the money, he apparently said he was rich, and they were n------s, and in the morning he'd still wake up rich and they'd still wake up a n-----. Maybe he needs to wake up a little less rich one morning. He made it about race from the very beginning. He didn't refer to the white people in the group. I don't care if he was in a rage or not. You don't use race as an insult unless you think someone's race is insulting.
|
Kep421
Member
08-11-2001
| Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 10:32 am
EEyore...it seems it has always been socially acceptable for black comedians to make fun of and call their white audience members names. It was part of their routines and was never labled as "racist". I remember it happening at shows for Redd Foxx, Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, etc. White people who would be offended by this type of racist comedy were expected to stay away, and they did. I guess you could call the white audiences willing victims of racists remarks. "Why are Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle allowed to call white people names?" Because people pay to see them do it and nobody objects.
|