The Michael Richards Debacle: Defending Eric Zorn’s Alternative View

You’ve probably already seen the video. If not, here’s a link to a page with the video, and video of Richards’ attempt at apology and explanation on Letterman. Seinfeld’s Michael Richards (Kramer) melted down onstage at the Laugh Factory and threw around the n-word numerous times in response to a heckler. Denunciations of Richards’ apparent racism are all over the web. Certainly, the video is shocking. But what’s really going on here? Maybe I just don’t want to believe Richards is a big old racist after all, but I think Eric Zorn’s explanation has plenty of merit, and makes more sense to me than just hearing the (admittedly abhorrent) word and reacting superficially to it. Here’s Zorn’s article. Below is my comment posted to the comment thread to that article.

——–

I don’t presume to criticize the reaction of those who have suffered the effects of racism and who object to Richards and what he said.

But the rest of you could do with some introspection, which is exactly what Mr. Zorn’s article is trying to prod you into. Attacks on Mr. Zorn as a supposed racist for offering an alternative explanation are not only silly and mindless, but also undermine whatever constructive dialogue can be started by this incident.

I am inclined to think that Richards crossed a line that should not be crossed, but I find Mr. Zorn’s theory nevertheless more plausible than the knee-jerk cries of “racist.”

1) Richards was clearly enraged.

2) Richards clearly wanted to lash out because of his rage.

3) Richards, as he said on Letterman, has an improvisational style onstage. Combined with rage, this could easily lead to ill-advised attempts to “push the envelope,” as Richards described it on Letterman.

4) Even after he had clearly offended the audience by his poorly considered words, he continued in the same vein. Think about this. Is Richards a complete idiot who has no idea that the n-word is offensive? Is he incapable of noticing that people are leaving? Why would he continue using the word, knowing that it made him look racist, unless he was trying to go for something, which he intended as “pushing the envelope?” Why would he continue to do damage to his public image like that unless he thought there was some point to it? What I mean is, if Richards were a closet racist, as many (who apparently have graduated with honors from the Bill Frist School of Video Diagnosis) have declared, wouldn’t you expect something more like a “slip,” followed by an attempt to deflect the unintended consequences? Why would a “closet racist” keep pushing the audience like that? Do you think he believed the audience was secretly “with” him, and the world had somehow flashed back to 1953? It makes a lot more sense to me that Richards went down a path he shouldn’t have, but had some point in mind. He seriously misjudged the value and effectiveness of that point, but that doesn’t mean he’s racist. Witness his lines about “you see what’s underneath you stupid motherf***ers,” and “there are those words, those words, those words.” This seems to me like a kind of second-hand Lenny Bruce thing. As we all know, plenty of racists love Lenny Bruce, right?

5) The guy’s Jewish. That doesn’t disqualify him from being racist, of course, but that’s a different dynamic from a WASP making the same remarks. How many Jews were in on lynchings, anyway?

So, anyway, think what you want. But actually think first.