http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-_K0Hlvyys...ted&search=

I find it interesting, in light of the Kramer debate- that this proffessor- on C-span, calling for the "extermination of white poeple" got almost 0 press, and little to know condemnation.

I am a bit amazed that know one on this board, or in the media- considering this is a hot button issue right now, with teh "N" word being used, and the blacks being called that asking for money- why does this guy still have a job, and why aren't we talking about him on the news?

1) Does a double standard of racism exist in the US, where "hate speech" is tolerated when it is said by a non-white?

2) Why doesn't this get the air time the "Kramer" incident does on the news- considering this dude is actively calling for the extermination of white poeple, to applause of locals?

Well, let's deal with the second question first, since it's easy. The guy who played Kramer is a famous entertainer; Dr. Kamau Kambon is a not-so-famous academic. It also should be noted that Kambon's remarks have not been totally ignored by the media. Here's one random example.

Link

(Apparently this incident happened about a year ago.)

Let me state in no uncertain terms that Kambon's remarks are evil and insane.



A quick Internet search for reaction to Kambon's vile tirade leads, as one might expect, to many strongly negative reactions, as is only proper.

Maybe somewhere out there somebody thinks that the poison that Kambron is sprouting is somehow OK because of his ethnicity. I don't, and I don't think a single member of does.

As a general rule, "hate speech" must be tolerated, no matter where it originates, but it must also be denounced as strongly as possible.

I don't know. I can't fire the guy and the news hardly ever asks about what I think. Plus I do check out YouTube now and then, but most of it is junk.

1) Does a double standard of racism exist in the US, where "hate speech" is tolerated when it is said by a non-white?

I don't think it's tolerance. It's ignoring the situation. So a black guy gets up and says we should all kill whites and thereby get rid of the race problem, and you think that's actually going to happen? Um, the numbers kinda indicate the improbability of this coming about until whites become a minority.

That is bound to happen, being as most of the world's population is brown (shades of that color), interbreeding happens a lot, and judging by the success of tanning booths. Everyone wants to be brown.

2) Why doesn't this get the air time the "Kramer" incident does on the news- considering this dude is actively calling for the extermination of white poeple, to applause of locals?

Because Richards has fame and this guy does not.

He's Mis-ter Cel-o-phane.

However, I bet the FBI has its eyes on this guy. He might get fame someday.

Well, a few things.

Firstly, this guy is not a 'professor', he is a former professor, who was not working in academis at the time of the speech, and has not worked in academia since. Even before that he had a 'visiting professorship', which was not renewed. So as to why he still has a job, he doesn't.

He is a self-employed publisher and writer, and thus can't really be fired.

Secondly. as to why he did not get any media attention, I typed his name into Google and got several thousand pages, all dealing with this specific speech. This includes major media outlets, and all were pretty condemnatory. The only major media outlet absent I could see from my search was MSNBC.

Thirdly, his actual remarks were not quite what that clip made them out to be. He stated that one of the main reasons Blacks have been opressed for so long by whites is to prevent them from coming up and being able to carry out one singular idea, and that idea is to exterminate all white people.

Still a highly controvercial comment of course, but we just needed to be clear on exactly what he was saying.

1. I was kind of waiting for someone to come up with a "tit-for-tat" example of a Black version of Michael Richards. I'm kind of surprised the best anyone can come up with is some crank nobody's ever heard of bumping his gums in front of a huge crowd of maybe 25 people. I'm also surprised that it happened over a year ago and we're being asked why we aren't talking about him on the news.

Going out on a limb here, but I'm going to hazard a wild guess...maybe because, it's not news? And here I thought the Internet was supposed to help us get information in a instant.

Black supremacists are not new. Professor Leonard Jeffries still teaches his "sun people" (Blacks) versus "ice people (Whites) " theories at a college in New York. Dr. Francis Cress Welsing is an advocate of "Melanin Theory" which advances a "scientific" theory of White inferiority.

On both St. Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day, the white male gives gifts of chocolate candy with nuts…. If his sweetheart ingests "chocolate with nuts," the white male can fantasize that he is genetically equal to the Black male…. Is it not also curious that when white males are young and vigorous, they attempt to master the large brown balls, but as they become older and wiser, they psychologically resign themselves to their inability to master the large brown balls? Their focus then shifts masochistically to hitting the tiny white golf balls in disgust and resignation—in full final realization of white genetic recessiveness.

Advocates of Melanin Theory are the spiritual soul brothers and sisters of eugenics advocates such as Arthur Jensen, William Shockley, Phillipe Rushton and Jared Taylor. These cranks are peddling supremacist hate in the guise of junk science.

2. Oh, it's racist and it's inflammatory and far out, off-the-wall and hateful. No doubt about that. But the question is "Is it news?" While I agree "Doctor" Kamau Kambon's racist tirade is just as offensive as Michael Richards's racist tirade, trying to equate the ravings of a crank book peddler with a former cast member of a prominent popular television show is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

There are Black racists who advocate killing Whites, Jews, homosexuals and anyone else on their hate list. The reason they don't get receive much media attention is they are such a small minority within the minority as to be almost invisible. However, Kambon's remarks are included on the Southern Poverty Law Center's list of public racist remarks, right along with equally outrageous statements from William Bennett and Bill O' Reilly.

BOTH Kambon and Richards made racist remarks. BOTH deserve to be scorned and condemned. However, they occupy entirely different places in the popularity and notoriety food chain.

no one takes "Doctor" Kamau Kambon's remarks or him seriously. So he just isn't news. He is nobody at all, and comes off as just another loser.
The "Kramer" incident is really only interesting because we watched someone throw their career away in 2.5 seconds. Fastest time from American favorite to the bargain bin of rejects.

1. Yes, of course. Black racism is widespread and accepted out of some sort of warped "payback" mentality. We see it on this board. We hear of "white privilege" as though all "whites" are the same, have the same aptitudes, backgrounds, parents, intelligence, etc. The stark white/black worldview is pretty common today among "blacks" and cynical "black leaders" and "white liberal" politicians pandering for votes know how to push those buttons very well.

2. Richards gets on the news because white vs. black racism is always "news" to the liberal press. Why? Because it affirms their inherent worldview. In contrast, black vs. white (and others) racism hardly gets reported on in spite of the fact that "blacks" commit "hate crimes" per the FBI's own definitions at a rate over double that of "whites". You'll never hear the liberal media do a story on why "black racial hate crimes" are so prevalent in the United States. It just wouldn't play into their pre-established criteria of reality.

The media decides what is news and what is not. Their bias is evident based on what they exclude, not just what they hype.

1) I don't see a double standard in society in terms of "hate speech". Mainstream society rejects it pretty uniformly no matter where it comes from.

However, I do see a double standard in terms of racial speech and racial epithets (why can black folks say the N word and others cannot), which is understandable. But that probably isn't what you were looking for.

2) Everyone else has pretty much said why, it's a bit obvious: nobody knows this professor. Richards only starred in one of the most successful sitcoms of all time. I bet you that if Cornel West said those things, it would be all over the news.



1) I don't agree that black racism is neccessarily widespread, at least not in how you probably meant it. I tend to think that black folks are more prejudiced against other black folks than they are against non-blacks.
I wouldn't call it "payback". I think reactionary is a better word for it. I think there's a sublte yet significant difference between the two. Payback suggests- at least it does to me- some sort of action taking place because of the racism. I use the term "reactionary" because it doesn't carry the same sense of willfullness and action to it.
For example, I wouldn't call the sense of discomfort that my 91 year old grandmother (whom has lived in Alabama all her life) feels around white folks "payback prejudice". I'd call it reactionary prejudice, in that it developed as a response to hurt. Another example, one wouldn't call the discomfort that a woman whom has been sexually assaulted feels around men payback, you would call it reactionary.

2)What sounds more reasonable to you, that Richards is on the news for his comments because of his celebrity status or because of a media conspiracy to maintain a narrow view of black racism? You speak as though there are media reports on why white "racial hate crimes" are so prevalent in the US. Plus, it would be good of you to provide some support for your hate crime stats.

this is a personal anecdote...

The biggest, self proclaimed racist, I know is black. He hates blacks. He lived on Long island and was one of a handful of fairly affluent black kids in a graduating class of about 1600. He went on to College and then Law Enforcement in another state. Made detective and now works in a Federal branch of law enforcement. If he could I think he'd join the KKK. That's not a snarky comment. I think he would. He hates blacks. He also hates Eskimos. We've never discussed that particular hatred. We have extensively discussed how law enforcement has changed his race views.

He maintains that for him it's not so much race as drive and morals both of which he insists blacks are lacking in - get this - genetically.

We have spoken about black racists (you think MY views on Sharpton/Jackson are extreme...) and he says (essentially) that you hear so little about them for two reasons:

1) Black racists, suffering from a lack of drive and moral clarity, can't get any traction because they're too lazy to organize and their basic premise is so stupid anyone can see through it.

2) The MSM is keeping it a secret because the MSM is run by "guilty whites" who ultimately agree with them but know that "regular whites" are so racist they'll string up the MSM for highlighting these people.

He makes compelling arguments sometimes as he's pretty eloquent and as a holder of a PhD in Criminal Psych is no idiot. Of course you're constantly forced to stand back and go... but XXXX you're a racist. No matter how you break this out, you're a racist.

Yeah, it's a weird relationship. And in that apologist way, he's a really nice guy... just don't talk about race with him.

1) Does a double standard of racism exist in the US, where "hate speech" is tolerated when it is said by a non-white?

2) Why doesn't this get the air time the "Kramer" incident does on the news- considering this dude is actively calling for the extermination of white people, to applause of locals?

The toleration of hate speech is determined by one's ability to act on that speech. The reason black hate speech does not receive the media attention and outrage from white people is because the black community lacks the resources to significantly affect the white community in the same way the white community could, and to some extent does, destroy the black community. The black population is outnumbered by whites by a little more than 6:1 in America. Source The banks, the courts, the police departments, government treasuries, school systems, hospitals, and media is controlled almost exclusively by white people. As a white person, I hear hate rhetoric from a black man like, "exterminate the white man" and I laugh. There is no threat and everyone knows it. On the other hand, with Richards' comments, tacit approval could lead toward public acceptance of bigotry. That frightens the minority communities. Who are then forced to fight harder and yell louder for their rights and justice because if they don't fight for them, pretty soon, nobody will and their race will fall into a caste that could limit them for generations.

This reminds me of the response that we gave Osama bin Laden prior to 9/11. His rhetoric was similar toward Western societies, and until he proved that he could back up his threats, only then was he taken more seriously by the public. Threats by minorities are idle until proven otherwise.

You must not live in a major city. Atlanta, Dallas, LA, ad nauseum, have (often) black mayors, predominantly black city councils and police forces, black school boards, etc. Sure, in total US numbers whites outnumber blacks, but not in lots of cities.

American blacks have created a "new separate but (un)equal" society in many respects, and it breeds hatred that would not occur if blacks had integrated into white society, as was discussed in the 1960s.

1) Does a double standard of racism exist in the US, where "hate speech" is tolerated when it is said by a non-white? I think it is clear that this is the case, as this incident shows. Imagine the ruckus that would be started were a white person to call for extermination of all blacks? I mean, whites get castigated merely for using slang words, much less calling for extermination. When viewed with the historical precedence in mind, this may be justified, but I don't think there's any doubt that it is a double standard nonetheless.

2) Why doesn't this get the air time the "Kramer" incident does on the news- considering this dude is actively calling for the extermination of white poeple, to applause of locals? Because of the double standard. Also, I think the media is concerned that they would be labeled racist for showing it. Personally, I wish they would indeed do so, as I think extreme speech such as this only hampers progress in racial issues. Such people should be pointed out as the extremists they are. What is worse: a comedian tossing out some slang words to a heckler, or a person inciting complete extermination of another group? To me, that question can be answered without having to know the skin color of either person. But, our media doesn't seem to think so. Further, as I have said in other threads, our media is simply a reflection of us.

I live in St. Louis, the major metropolitan of Missouri, with a majority of African-Americans. St. Louis is the perfect example of power structure in America. Our mayor is white, the board of Alderman is majority white, our police chief is white, our school board is majority black but is under the process of being taken over by the state, with a white governor. So the one institution that the black community has any control over is now under siege by the white community. The districts are gerrymandered. Most districts with a black alderman have around 95% African-Americans and most district with a white alderman are around 60/40 white. The power players in the city have sectioned off a small section of the districts for black candidates and divided up the rest for the white community so they can maintain the voting majority. This is the nature of the game.

You don't actually believe in democracy do you quick? People in power are not going to be so naive as to let something as trivial as democracy determine control of the treasury.

AD-

Stop referencing Atlanta unless you know what you're talking about. Yes, Atlanta proper has a Black mayor. But Metropolitan Atlanta is a city of sprawling suburbs and the city of atlanta itself is an island of less than 500,000 residents in a sea of millions. And while ATL's black business sector is a step ahead of the country in many ways, I am willing to bet a fortune that the vast majority of major business owners in the A -- home depot, coca-cola, delta, airtran, various internet start-ups -- are all run by white males.

Learn about your Atlanta politics before you cough it up, punks!!!



Either way, this topic seems to be settled along time ago:

Hack-eyed demagouge disguised as a prof does not equal Kramer.

Besides, I would propose that Kramer got more coverage simply because he was Kramer and no one had heard from him in a while than the content of his racist tirade. In other words, the racist tirade gave us an opportunity to catch up on an old friend, the goofy guy next door to Jerry. The racist commentary merely provided the substance for that excersize in celebrity culture. For example, when was the last time someone caugh actress nBrigitte Bardot saying something racist? She spouts that stuff all the time, worse than what Kramer said, but she's no longer in a position of celebrity worth covering.

Black-white. White-black. Does it really matter?
I mean they all walk and talk the same(at least where I am)
This racisim really gets me frustrated because no one really knows why some people act soo rude.
(in some cases, rude is an understatement)

Very interesting point. I think you might be on to something, but the real question in reference to 'reactionary' speech would be "do black people really experience hurt, or a perpetuated cycle of being told they're hurt?"....

I think hate speech doesn't necessarily carry a double standard, in that most notable people generally don't pull a 'Micheal Richards'. Usually, they simply make racially divisive comments of one sort or another that might only insinuate some prejudice. I'd have to say that as a general rule, truly 'hate related speech' is relegated to truly fringe groups (KKK, Black-Panther type org's, etc).

In my opinion, American society is far more willing to accept inflammatory speech from a black person, assuming that his/her background might dictate some legitimate rage. I think this is true in American comedy, in political speech, and even found in the NAACP (or other political speech).

In summation, there IS a double standard in reference to speech, but in my opinion not HATE speech. People with largely fringe opinions get relegated to ... umm... the fringe.