Richards > Gibson

The mainstream media has been overwhelmed by footage of Michael Richards berating the African American community during a comedy routine. His anger erupted so quickly and manifested so viciously that it's almost surreal. He referred to black Americans as niggers and expounded various derogatory notions of racial inferiority. Nevertheless, despite his appalling lack of self control and overt racism, Richards is twice the man Gibson is.

Following his comments, Richards issued several public apologies. He unconditionally accepted responsibility for his comments and expressed his mortification. The distinction with Gibson stems from the qualifier in the previous sentence; unconditionally. Richards didn't seek to mitigate the impact of his comments by claiming that they were taken out of context. Richards didn't insist that he was provoked. Richards didn't attribute his sentiments to his upbringing, nor the Americana of yesteryear.

I find the selective public outrage curious. Consider the subtleties of the lexicon- Gibson's diatribe was described as controversial whereas Richards' was described as malicious. I suspect that this is attributable to America's sensitivities. Naturally, the notion of lynching a nigger is further entrenched in the American collective memory than the abstract notion of villainous Jewish deicide. Further, I suggest that the general contrast in the socio-economic situation of the African American and Jewish American communities compounds these sensitivities. In any case, I hope that the same voices who rallied behind Gibson's explanations reconsider their position.

Rabbi Hillel suggested that there are two ways to observe a man's heart; by his comments when he's drunk and his comments when he's angry. Richards and Gibson have a lot of soul searching to do and it's unlikely that these men will ever be forgiven by the communities that they've scorned.