Brad Garrett who is known for his sitcom work, most notably on Everybody Loves Raymondignited a new racial controversy yesterday when he dropped some racial slurs at a paparazzo during a heated argument in the middle of the street. His words proof that bizarre things happen in real life not just in sitcoms. In the video Garrett can be seen instructing a paparazzo to wear turbans. This is weird on so many level, for starter the paparazzo acts like an Arab, but what do turbans have to do with paparazzi, or Hollywood for that matter? It’s the celebrities that usually use such things to hide their identity. Try Michel Jackson in a woman dress
To watch the video Video
Nawar Shora, ADC’s director of Legal Affairs has already spoken on the matter in an interview, according to contactmusic.com
Nawar W. Shora tells RadarOnline.com, “We’d be happy to reach out to Mr Garrett and his crew to help educate him about the Arab/Muslim/Sikh communities. Sinking down to racial and ethnic slurs is very disappointing and highlights the need for a greater understanding.
“There’s so many stereotypes there and we’re at a time and place now where we should be past that.”
Everybody may love Raymond, but Brad Garrett gets none of the love, not with this video.
Related posts:
- Everyone Loves a Caption Contest…
- “A Bum-Rap For Being Stupid?”: How Smart Are Americans?
- Final Verdict: Guilty As Charged
- An Arab Star Made for the CIA
- Not Just Another Nancy Music Video
Is this where we go around and start accusing him of being anti-Arab/prejudice with hopes that this marks the end of his career? I have a feeling this will slide and not get much spotlight… it's not going to be seen as Mel Gibson's comment about jews. Celebrities are idiots. Society is worse.
Posted by Anon | April 16, 2009, 4:36 pmYes, Yes, for me it is less about him being prejudice and more about a bizarre comment in a bizarre situation. When I get pissed, I do not yell "Go eat burritos",…that's what I saw. Thanks
Posted by Hantizer | April 16, 2009, 5:56 pmfirstly the guy DOES look like an A-Rab. Brad tells him "in english" which is either a taunt based on the guy looking Arab or a response to the guy cursing at Garret in Arabic which is very typical Arab behavior. He most likely cursed his mother and sisters vagina, suggested a resemblance between his genitals and Garrets face and damned him and his house to hell.
Posted by D.B. Shobrawy | April 16, 2009, 6:24 pmDoes the D.B. in your name stand for "Douche Bag"? I think so… Maybe he didn't curse anyone's mother's vagina, you twat. Maybe he just had an accent.
Posted by master splinter | April 16, 2009, 7:00 pmAnyone notice the Obama sticker on the back of Garrett's SUV? ha ha
Posted by KABOBfestWill | April 16, 2009, 9:03 pmMaster Splinter, I guess the guy does look like an Arab, which goes to tell you that my racial profiling is way off.
Posted by Hantizer | April 16, 2009, 9:13 pmUnfortunately, the video doesn't really provide any context to his remarks. His "wear the turban" remark could be related to the paparazzi's shaved head. Who knows? The real issue here is how these scumbags get to invade other people's privacy and then when their vicitms react in anger, cry foul. People say wierd shit when they're nervous, angry or upset emotionally. If you have never said something in anger which wasn't a true reflection of your feelings, then you're a rare person indeed. If Garret had written a racist article about Arabs or something similar where he had time to think about what he was saying, then it would be appropriate to call him on it. But something said in an angry confrontation with an extremely aggressive paparazzi? Who knows what the reptillian side of your brain will come up with in a tense situation. I'd be inclined to let him apologize, give him a pass and leave it at that. I'm sorry to see the ADC is following in the ADL's footsteps playing outrage police over every little thing. Thinking people depise the ADL and it's tendency to cry "anti-Semitism!" at everything, and in consequence few rational people take accusations of anti-Semitism seriously any more barring a high standard of proof. The frothing at the mouth over Gibson's remarks at a time when Israeli was killing hundreds in Lebanon and reducing whole towns to rubble was particularly bizarre and surreal. I'd hate to see legitimate attempts by Arabs and Muslims to address the very real bigotry they suffer in the US and their hostile depiction in the media reduced to the kind of PC circus the ADL is running, particulary as that bigotry has had devastating real-world consequences.
Posted by Sean2009 | April 17, 2009, 5:12 amI doubt the full video could provide any context in which "wear the turban" was an OK remark to make. Of course the paparazzi is atrocious. However, just because one individual crosses a line (i.e. stalking someone everywhere they go under the cry of "freedom of the press") does not warrant the use of racial slurs. Also, I think that when someone is upset or angry, they tend to show their true feelings. While we've all fallen victim to our own emotions and said things we regret, most of us don't start shouting random racial slurs unless we happen to harbor negative views or prejudices against that certain group. Therein lies the difference: while we may say "weird shit" most people wouldn't say racist shit. Plain and simple. Is it the end of the world? No. Is it something that deserves attention and should be addressed? Certainly
Posted by burritoeater | April 17, 2009, 8:08 amI doubt the full video could provide any context in which "wear the turban" was an OK remark to make. Context is everything. If the "turban" remark had nothing to do with Arabs but was a reference to the guy's shaved head, it would hardly be racist. I can think of hundreds of scenarios that would deracialize his cryptic comments. That is the problem with media crucifixions like this: remarks can be taken out of context to mean something entirely different than what was intended. It is interesting to note that in the video the context appears to be deliberately drowned out by the sound of a siren which makes everything else unintelligible but conveniently ebbs just as they get to the "turban" part. Of course the paparazzi is atrocious. However, just because one individual crosses a line (i.e. stalking someone everywhere they go under the cry of "freedom of the press") does not warrant the use of racial slurs. Exactly what language does an unprovoked assault by an aggressive, possibly violent individual warrant? "To heck with you, you gosh-darn poopy-snot?" Most people tend to react without thinking in situations like that, and may shock themselves with what comes out. Also, I think that when someone is upset or angry, they tend to show their true feelings. While we've all fallen victim to our own emotions and said things we regret, most of us don't start shouting random racial slurs unless we happen to harbor negative views or prejudices against that certain group. Therein lies the difference: while we may say "weird shit" most people wouldn't say racist shit. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, you are not alone in this belief. Most people seem to think that the "real you" only comes out when you're angry or upset, and everything else is presumably just a facade. So the real you is not a reflection of your best behavior, but only your worst. The Dr Jecklyl you present to the world is a fraud, and only the Mr Hyde that comes out during moments of stress is real. There has always been a puritanical mindest in both the Left and the Right in America which sees man's nature as essentially evil and thus he must be tamed and controlled by more enlightened beings to keep him on the straight and narrow. The reality is every human being has a dark side, and we are all prone to dark, inappropriate or even outright evil thoughts from time to time. Even the saints struggled with their baser, animal nature. We are programmed by evolution for that darker, more animal side to come to the fore when we are under threat, and in extreme circumstances any one of us may say or do something that is simply not a reflection of our normal selves, but only those darker thoughts which we may occasionally entertain. I doubt there is anyone has never had a racist thought towards anybody, or sometimes resorted to streotypes of others. A racist is not someone who occasionally has a racist thought or reaction, particularly in an unprovoked moment of duress, but someone who has adopted and believes in an ideology of racism. There is something frankly perverse about the idea you can define a man's character by a single outburst made under stress, as many people running around calling this guy a "racist" are clearly doing. Feeding into this mindset is, after all, what "gotcha" journalism is all about. This kind of thinking is the very essence of intolerance, and intolerance is the essence of racism. Get back to me when this guy has said something racist after he has had time to think about it and choose his words, and which is clearly racist from the context. Is it the end of the world? No. Is it something that deserves attention and should be addressed? Certainly It should be addressed with the facts, which are not clear in this case, and not with self-righteous moral panic.
Posted by Sean2009 | April 18, 2009, 4:42 amYou must be daft if you believe the turban comment has anything to do with his shaved head. The two are not correlated in any way. Also, the only context the fully video would offer is why the fight started in the first place. Last time, we weren't debating the definition of a racist. Either way, your definition is lacking , but that's irrelevant. While shouting racial slurs while notably pissed off might not make you a racist, it certainly makes you a moron. Also, Garretts comments affect more than the individual he shouted them at. Therein lies the crux of the argument….By saying what he said, he has inadvertently (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) isolated entire groups of people and he should therefore rectify his mistake. The crazy paparazzi dude just isolated Garrett and owes him an apology…and a huge thank you card for not beating his ass. Wait…. did you really reference the "gotcha" media??? Really??? I feel like Garrett dug his own damn hole well enough on his own…every moron knows (read: Jesse Jackson on FoxNews) that you need to watch you say on camera. Don't go quoting Palin rhetoric (who knew she had rhetoric??) about the media without realizing that Garrett is a grown man and is ultimately responsible for his actions. Just like the paparazzi guy would have been responsible for his actions had someone not stepped in his path…although, my money would have been on Garrett for the knock-out.
Posted by burritoeater | April 18, 2009, 5:20 amYou must be daft if you believe the turban comment has anything to do with his shaved head. The two are not correlated in any way. Also, the only context the fully video would offer is why the fight started in the first place. I never said it did. You said you coudln't see how the context would make his "turban" statement okay and I gave you an example of how the context would make it non-racial. With a little imagination, anyone who doesn't already have their mind made up can envision scenarios where that remark is devoid of any racist connotation whatsoever. In either case, neither you, me or anybody else is in a position to judge what effect understanding the context would have without having the context, which is absent in this case. And the fact that siren sound arrives as a very convenient deus ex machina to drown out all context except the turban remark should give any fair-minded person pause as to what that context really was, as it appears to have been deliberately subdued. Last time, we weren't debating the definition of a racist. Either way, your definition is lacking , but that's irrelevant. While shouting racial slurs while notably pissed off might not make you a racist, it certainly makes you a moron. Once again, without the context, it isn't clear the remarks are indeed racist, but in either case we are not talking about a news conference here, but a potential street brawl against 2 or 3 other guys. You insist on ignoring that context, as well. Have you ever had so much as a fist fight? What is daft is the idea that in the middle of a potentially violent confrontation, you are supposed to consult your PC handbook before reacting. The reality is, in a situation like this, the rule book goes out the window and there is certainly a world of difference between an angry remark said in such a situation and a coolheaded remark said on a talk show or neutral environment. Expecting people to behave rationally and with proper decorum when they're being threatened is nonsense. The law in most countries makes a distinction between "crimes of passion" and premeditated crimes for this very reason. Also, Garretts comments affect more than the individual he shouted them at. Therein lies the crux of the argument….By saying what he said, he has inadvertently (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) isolated entire groups of people and he should therefore rectify his mistake. The crazy paparazzi dude just isolated Garrett and owes him an apology…and a huge thank you card for not beating his ass. In the context of an unprovoked, potentially violent confrontation, where his privacy is being invaded against his will, Garrett's first responsibility is to protect himself, not to enforce the PC Code. Showing a punk you are not intimidated by him is extremely important in a situation like this, and if a guy has to resort to a broken bottle or a racist slur to demonstrate he is not to be fucked with, either is fair game by street rules. As a celebrity, I would agree that he has an obligation to the public to explain his side of the story and if necessary, apologize. I don't agree he should be branded a "racist" or have his career destroyed over this. Wait…. did you really reference the "gotcha" media??? Really??? I feel like Garrett dug his own damn hole well enough on his own…every moron knows (read: Jesse Jackson on FoxNews) that you need to watch you say on camera. Don't go quoting Palin rhetoric (who knew she had rhetoric??) about the media without realizing that Garrett is a grown man and is ultimately responsible for his actions. Just like the paparazzi guy would have been responsible for his actions had someone not stepped in his path…although, my money would have been on Garrett for the knock-out. The term "gotcha journalism" is not "Palin rhetoric" as you call it, but predates Palin's 15 minutes by about 2 decades. It is a well understood technique by which sleazy journalists try to take people's remarks out of context or to trip them up in an interview so they appear to be saying things that may or may not be consistent with their actual views. While I am sure the right-wing has made ample use of false accusations of gotcha journalism in Palin's case just as invokes the chimera of the "liberal media," that doesn't alter the fact that it is still a valid concept and frequent media practice.
Posted by Sean2009 | April 18, 2009, 5:17 pmMichael Jackson in the hijab is hilarious
Posted by eagle007blogger | April 21, 2009, 12:26 am7roaz4 comment4 ,
Posted by Hlcuizrg | June 25, 2009, 6:07 pm