Lee Wochner: Writer. Director. Writing instructor. Thinker about things.


Blog

The context of “nigger”

michael-richards.jpg

Why could Richard Pryor say “nigger” and Michael Richards isn’t allowed to? Because it was in the context of Richard Pryor’s angry blackness, and Michael Richards is Jewish.

Why can Chris Rock say “nigger” and Michael Richards isn’t allowed to? Because, again, it’s part of Rock’s act — and evidently not part of Richards’.

Why can George Carlin say “nigger” and Michael Richards isn’t allowed to? After all, Carlin’s “act” is how genuine he is — when he says “nigger,” he means it. Michael Richards isn’t allowed to because of what he means by it — a hateful slander — and here, the fact of its genuineness is what will shadow his career.

Attacking people by type doesn’t get you far any more.

3 Responses to “The context of “nigger””

  1. Paul Crist Says:

    Michael Richards’ career was already going nowhere fast it seems. Now he has slammed the brakes on. I don’t know how he would ever recover from this. Sorta like Mel Gibson.

    Paul

  2. Lee Wochner Says:

    If you haven’t seen the video of his appearance on Letterman last night, it’s worth checking out. I don’t know if it will ultimately help him, but either his contrition is genuine or he’s the best actor I’ve ever seen. I have to applaud him for not immediately claiming he was molested and/or an alcoholic and then going into rehab (the stunt du jour). And I thought Jerry Seinfeld’s calming presence was the gesture of a good friend — and how often do you see that alongside a celebrity meltdown?

  3. Terence Anthony Says:

    What REALLY freaked me out was when he told Letterman he got into it with “some AFRO-AMERICANS”. What time-warp did this guy crawl out of???

Leave a Reply