CNN had an interview with an audience member who qualified for the role of Aggrieved Black Person and wanted a personal apology. What really caught my attention was this statement from the comedian Paul Rodriguez:
"Once the word comes out of your mouth and you don't happen to be African-American, then you have a whole lot of explaining," Rodriguez told CNN. "Freedom of speech has its limitations and I think Michael Richards found those limitations."Actually, if the n-word comes out of your mouth, no matter who you are, you should have some explaining to do. Why do African-Americans get a pass? If the word is as vile and repulsive as we're all supposed to believe, then shouldn't it be considered vile and repulsive for anybody to use, and not just those who don't meet the Minimum Melanin Requirement?
I've long thought that the n-word diminishes anyone that uses it, and yet if you listen to black rap songs or routines by many black comedians, you'd think they know that word and very few others. They throw it around quite freely.
While Richards' verbal explosion was certainly objectionable, I'm having a hard time condemning him while society and the media give a pass to others...based on nothing more than skin pigment.
UPDATE: Richards apologizes, though thanks to his status as a person of pallor, it probably won't help him much.
UPDATE 2: I saw a portion of the cellphone video of Richards' rampage, and it appears that the heckler was the first to throw out a racial epithet when he called Richards a "cracker-ass". Richards then responded with repeated uses of the n-word. This doesn't excuse the reaction, but I haven't heard any criticism whatsoever of the heckler's use of an equally offensive racial insult (yes, ABP's, "cracker" is racially offensive to whites). Why? You have to get back to the Minimum Melanin Requirement. If you have enough Melanin, you can say anything and cannot be accused of racism.
No comments:
Post a Comment