The quintessential liberal act: son turns in father and ruins his career for saying “nigger”
The Duane Chapman “n” word story is much worse than indicated in the brief blurbs I posted the other day. It was Chapman’s own son who taped the phone conversation, and sold it for a lot of money. Wow—right out of Nineteen Eighty-Four, where a couple who are neighbors of Winston Smith live in terror that their young son will turn them in for thoughtcrime.
I still don’t have the whole picture on this, but it’s even more incredible than I thought. It seems that Chapman was starring in a very successful tv “reality” show, and the show was canceled because of this incident. A successful tv series was killed because its star said “nigger” during a surreptitiously taped private phone conversation and said he didn’t want to his son to marry a nonwhite woman.
So this is up there with the James Watson event. A single wrong statement about race, and boom! Watson is fired from the institute he’s headed for 40 years. A single wrong private conversation about race, and boom! Duane Chapman’s successful tv show is taken off the air.
I wonder if Charles Murray still thinks that The Bell Curve helped lower the boundaries of political correctness on race.
Jeff in England writes:
I had never heard of this story before I read this. But I will say this on first glance:LA replies:
Jeff makes good points. I have not seen quotes of what Chapman actually said to his son. I was looking at this from the angle of the issue of the forbidden “n” word, the way white people lose their employment and are otherwise punished for using a word that blacks use constantly. Of course if a person said really vile and hateful things, even in a private conservation, and this came out, then, yes, we would expect that person to suffer consequences.Larry G. writes:
Jeff in England is wrong. He is endorsing thought crime.LA replies:
Of course the invasion and elimination of the private realm are central to leftism in general and PC in particular. But there is no society in which the private and the public are entirely separated. I doubt that at any time in American history, not just the PC present, if a person in a public position said really vile, offensive, and shocking things in private, and this came out, that that would not be considered objectionable, and would affect the way people saw him publicly.Sebastian writes:
I think Jeff is missing the point of the Chapman incident. The persecution of a person for comments made in private to a member of his immediate family is by definition worse than any fallout from public statements, whether based on scientific research or not (let us not forget Watson’s coda, “as anyone who has black employees knows”). Chapman was expressing his desire that his son not marry a black woman, something he is as free to do as any religious Jew who wishes his son not marry a Catholic. He made some nasty comments about blacks in a phone conversation. A man may have private opinions that do not form the basis for his public behavior, like Lyndon Johnson, always using the “n-word” in private but launching the Great Society as public policy, or Hillary Clinton, who also ran afoul of the Thought Police for private comments taken as anti-Semitic only be to defended, admirably, by more reasonable Jews like Dennis Prager.Tim W. writes:
Just a little more info on Dog Chapman. He’s a reformed ex-con who became a successful bounty hunter using his “street smarts” knowledge of criminal habits and behavior. His reality show is based on this. He isn’t educated, and often uses strong language which has to be “bleeped” out. He’s been criticized some for professing his Christianity (he often prays on his show) and then cursing like a sailor It’s generally explained that it’s just a habit he can’t break because of his rough background.Laurium writes:
Jeff said: “As for the son turning the father in, well, he (the father) shouldn’t have behaved like that in the first place. However, if he is sincerely remorseful the son should consider forgiving him.”LA writes:
If, as appears to be the case, Chapman said in effect: (1) “I don’t want you marrying a black woman,” and (2) “I particularly don’t want you to marry this woman, as she is a nigger,” meaning a low-class type of black person, which is the same sense in which black people routinely use the word, then I don’t think he’s done anything publicly wrong that deserves any public punishment. Yes, he has offended his son, but that’s a private matter. First, people have the right not to want their children to marry people of a different race. Second, sorry, but the word “nigger” is part of our language. Generally it does not refer to all blacks, but to no-account blacks. That doesn’t mean it’s a word that should be used. But it is used, and for society to treat its private use as the reason to kill a television show or destroy a man’s career is wrong. This is especially the case as the show is a trashy show to being with. And it’s even more the case given that Chapman evidently has many black friends and associates, which strengthens the assumption that he was using the “n” word in the black sense of a no-account black person, not of a black person as such.James W. writes:
The essence of the issue is that Dog’s son knew exactly what he was doing, which was to set up his father for a tirade to be taped for sale. Dog, as do we all, let his love for something or someone color his judgement about the truth of the matter. He saw the black girl as a low-life user looking to capitalize on something she hadn’t earned, and she was. What he didn’t see was that this described his son as well. They are a matching set.A reader writes:
Incredibly, he mentions being turned in to the Enquirer in the conversation itself, and that’s exactly what his son does.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 07, 2007 04:04 PM | Send