I was listening to “Talk of the Nation” on NPR on the way home from work today, and they were talking about the whole Michael Richards racial rage display at the Laugh Factory. One of the guests on the program was Michael Shermer – the publisher of Skeptic magazine – who was talking about his op-ed piece in the LA Times. His main point in the piece is about how, privately, we’re all racists. He based his findings on test that I took months ago that some researchers at Harvard put together. The test, if done correctly, measures your racial preferences based on images and words on a screen. What you associate as good or bad depends on which button you choose. Guess what? Michael Shermer says he’s a racist based on the findings of the test. But his racism is not borne out of a life-long membership with the KKK. Rather, he says that it stems from the nature of human evolution and the kind of inter-tribal relationships we had with those in the “in†and “out†groups back in the day when our species were a bunch of hunter-gatherers. That’s one explanation, but if you’re more eager to take the test, you can do so here: https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit
I’m curious: what do you think of when you hear the term “racist?†I’m not sure that the image of Michael Richards or Mel Gibson would come to mind had it not been for Richards’ on-stage ugliness, or Gibson’s drunken paranoia of Jews after his arrest. To me, racism is about the power to deny one group access to all that society has to offer by creating laws, misusing science, using violence and stereotypes to prohibit a group from interacting or taking part in the larger society. I’m sure I’m missing a few things in that definition, but it’s basically about creating and reinforcing divisions in society based on the color of one’s skin, national origin, or ethnic background.
Or to make my point blunt: Malcolm X once posed a question at Harvard back in the 60s to illustrate the depth of racism in the United States: “What do you call a black man with a PhD? A nigger.”
It seems to me that what Richards did on stage was a moment when his private prejudices became public. Was he trying to reinforce divisions in society in the way described above? Not quite. But by using the term “nigger†over and over, he was clearly trying to inflict emotional harm on his hecklers; punishing them for having the audacity to call him unfunny. You see, Richards is used to being a star. He’s used to the privilege it grants him. His face is recognizable almost everywhere he goes, he gets treated with deference when he goes out in public, and, after years of this, he expects his special status will hold true in all situations. But there’s one thing that celebrities and politicians often presume: they should be immune to public scrutiny and criticism. Richards’ case isn’t clear-cut example of racism, but there are racist elements in what he did. The hecklers crossed some invisible line that Richards had in his head. And when Richards snapped, his color-specific tirade was horrible attempt to remind his hecklers that he was a celebrity among the unwashed masses.
–PK
Suzanne Vega “When Heroes Go Down†Download HERE
Ml
November 28, 2006 at 6:37 amI’m curious: what do you think of when you hear the term “racist?†I think of violence and hatred when I hear the term “racist.”
The thing is, I’m not racist against anybody because of their color, sex, etc. I guess I’m more intolerant of how people are. If they’re an a**hole, then I have problem with that. But if they’re purple with one eye, then I don’t have a problem.
Py Korry
November 28, 2006 at 6:48 amViolence and hatred are certainly part of the problem of racism.
Being intolerant of certain behavior is quite different from full blown racism. And I agree that the idiots out there deserve scorn for their, um, idiocy. But Richards certainly crossed a line in trying to fire back to his hecklers.
J
November 28, 2006 at 7:17 amI would say that a white person showing a preference for white people on that test doesn’t make them a racist, any more than a fat person having a preferance for other fat people would make them a sizist. I think the problem comes when you try to control and have power over others because of these things, as you so eloquantly stated.
And, um…I’m thinking anyone who snaps and calls people niggers? Racist. Maybe he doesn’t want to put them in the back of the bus, but he sure pulled a loaded weapon out there, huh?
Beenzzz (Bean)
November 28, 2006 at 9:12 amI think Michael Richards is a total moron and deserves to go down. I think that anyone black or white who uses the N. word, should be fined. I heard the Laugh Factory is now doing that and the black community is trying to stop the use of the N. word within their community as well. I think its a good idea. No more double standards. They need to kill the word once and for all.
We are all racist at one point or another. It can be a subtle thing that creeps up on us. I think its largely due to the stereotyping of certain races portrayed by the media. Oh, I took the test and I have no preferences between races. Weird.
Lalapunci
November 28, 2006 at 9:18 amI think there is a difference between a racist and being prejudice. Prejudice can apply to anything; Ford over Chevrolet, chocolate ice cream over vanilla, etc. Racism is, a hatred towards another race, color, or other physically distinguishing feature. I think Shermer needs to define his terms correctly and not use terms that shock people into taking note of this Harvard study. The best definition of statistics I have heard is: it is like a bikini, it reveals a lot but it also hides things you don’t want other people to see.
Dot
November 28, 2006 at 9:20 amI think big, slavery, genocide and how these things are still going on. When I think of Mel Gibson or Michael Richards, I think ignorance.
lalunas
November 28, 2006 at 12:19 pmApplause for Lalapunci’s comment.
What do I think when I hear the term racism. Hatred and fear and the Bush administration.
Gina
November 28, 2006 at 5:48 pmI used to conduct research at a very well-known think-tank. Don’t ever look at the results of a study without a grain of salt.
I worked on a major study involving the first Gulf War. When the results were released and published, my colleagues and I looked for information we knew had been taken down, because we ourselves had taken and transcribed it. Not there.
Why? Because it didn’t fit what the Principal Investigators and the people who paid for it (the DOD) wanted to hear.
Lalapunci is exactly right.
Py Korry
November 29, 2006 at 6:40 amBig love for Lalapunci! 🙂