Here's a curveball question. I don't have an answer and I don't know where exactly it will lead. And I'm not going to think about it any more before I write and post...
The idea came to me in a flash about a discrimination trial. It happened while I was writing about no moral imperative against racial discrimination seems to me superior to the moral imperative for healing the sick.
Imagine a plaintiff in the EEOC and he alleges that he has been discriminated against because of his race. By what standard does the court accept the plaintiffs claim that he is black? Now consider the very specific case of Michael Richards talking about n*ggers in his monologue or diatribe or whatever it was. Let us imagine that Richards could be sued for having grossly offended a patron. Would a nominally white person be able to sue? Do we presume that the N-Word is psychologically more damaging to so-called blacks than so-called whites? Doesn't it depend upon the sensitivity of the person?
OK enough. It's meta, I know.
Now I know what I want to say. What I really want to say is that 'the sound of the drum' should inoculate the proper black man from being offended to the point at which he complains to a judge about the offense. This is Ralph Ellison all over again.
Recent Comments