Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Dog Chapman apologies on Hannity and Colmes - 11.6.2007.2

So I was watching Hannity & Colmes tonight and listened as Duane ‘Dog' Chapman tried to apologize and explain his phone conversation with his son. I can sum up my thoughts of his interview in a few words. Dodging blame, lame, and insufficient.

To start with, Dog starts the conversation with the comments that he was sorry for using the N-word and that he knew it was wrong. But nearly in the same breath he admits that he uses the word. This at least is consistent with his phone comment. But he tries to excuse this use of the n-word by stating 5 times in the first segment that he has a different definition of the word than the general public.

Now take that in for a moment. He tries to lessen what he said by using an excuse that the n-word has a separate meaning than the one that is acknowledged as the potentially most insulting word in the English language. He emphasizes this 5 times in 10 minutes. But not once does he offer what his meaning might be. Not once does he attempt to explain that he has ever used the word in any way other than to degrade, belittle and insult African Americans.

Towards the end of the show he does mention that he has used it as a form of common greeting. Yet that does not mean, nor does it seem to be implied, that this is how he uses the term all the time. It does not seem to be the way that he feared being taped using the word. That does not seem to imply the way that the others working with him use the word. And it still does not give the type of definition he wants to claim his use of this word conveys.

Plus there is the admission that when he did use the word as a greeting, or at other time, he would not say it out loud. He would not do this because

“I’d get beat up for it.”


Again he confirms that his meaning is the meaning we think it to be. That he knew exactly how his words would be understood and that he wanted that.

To the detriment of Sean Hannity’s interview, he was never asked to explain that meaning he supposedly had. In fact it was accepted that he could have a meaning separate of the historical, or the one used by youth today. But I interject that his use of the term in that phone conversation held a single meaning, and it was the historical and only meaning that the n-word has. And it was that meaning that he admittedly knew he was using both in the phone conversation and with his colleagues, in my opinion.

But the next thing Dog Chapman says in the interview really ticked me off. He says that he thought he could use the n-word. That he could say it as some African Americans do. That he had no idea that using the word, as he did in the phone call, could inflict pain to Blacks.

Continued in part 2...

No comments: