WARNING. If vulgar and racist language or reminiscences on the OJ case is NSFW, perhaps you should click away from this post and read it when you get home.
I woke up this morning to read this: New York bans N word. I’m all for symbolic gestures and such, I suppose. I don’t feel strongly one way or the other about hip hoppers and gangstas calling each other nigga. To each their own.
(The only thing I DO feel strongly about with regard to hip hop is that it is obviously violent, sexist, and violently sexist. Not to mention obscene and vulgar. How any decent Americans can allow their 14 and 15 year-old kids to go to a school dance and listen to violently sexist music and perform dances which involve girls bending over and letting boys grind their pelvic area into theirs in some kind of wild monkey sex roll playing game is…well…strange to me. It makes the Baptists seem right about dancing. Of course, I may just be jealous….)
However, New York doesn’t want hip hoppers saying, “nigga”, so they did the obvious and passed a law. Because, after all, the word is
considered by most Americans to be the most offensive in the English language
Whoooaaaaaaa, Tonto! Did you hear that? Put that bottle of firewater down and listen to what I just read to your skinny red-skinned ass. Hey, you too, Geronimo. Take your thunderstick out of miss Wahoo’s injun cunt and get over here and listen to me.
For that matter, all you micks and kikes and dikes and chinks and spics and gooks should also listen up. And I want both the wops AND the degos to quit buttfucking each other like faggots and pay attention.
Are you listening? Here it goes again. The word Nigger is
considered by most Americans to be the most offensive in the English language.
This reminds me of Chris Darden during the OJ trial:
MR. DARDEN: You understand that that word is the most vile word in the English language?
MS. MCKINNY: I think it is one of the most vile words in the English language, yes.
MR. DARDEN: You think there are worse?
MS. MCKINNY: Yes, I certainly do. Why are we having this adversarial relationship? I don’t understand that. It is a vile word. Why do I have to define it more so than it is? *
Obviously I and Ms. Mckinny have a similar opinion.
This is perhaps the most bizarre exchange in the history of American jurisprudence. Remember that they are speaking of Mark Fuhrman, a prosecution witness. Why Chris Darden—a prosecutor—wanted to hammer home how vile a word is that one of his witnesses has used has somehow escaped me in the dozen years since then. Of course, everything in that case was overkill. Take the so-called “impeachment” of Fuhrman’s testimony. What EVERY SINGLE PERSON IN AMERICA knew is that Fuhrman had lied when he said he had never said the word nigger. EVERY SINGLE PERSON would include both the prosecutors, the defense, the judge and the jury. Why beat the dead horse?
I’ll tell you why: because it was NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE. I don’t know if they teach it in law school, but it certainly is a time-tested rhetorical device: repetition implies relevance. Thus the defense wanted to bring it up as often as possible. Chris Darden’s own foray into the waters of the N word could only help imply relevance—and it was NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE. Mr. Darden was effectively lending credence to a bizarre and incredible conspiracy theory. People somehow remember that Chris Darden got “baited” by the defense to get OJ to try on the glove. They don’t remember that Chris Darden got “baited” to spend an enormous amount of time—every single second of which was harmful to the prosecution—eliciting testimony about the N word.
People, I could have done a better job than Chris Darden, and I didn’t even go to law school. All the prosecution should have done is made one statement during final argument:
Dear Jury, the defense would like you to believe that since Mark Fuhrman lied when he said that he had never used the word nigger, he therefore framed OJ Simpson.
Then I would laugh hysterically until Judge Ito threatened me with contempt.
Okay, I’m not a lawyer and this probably would be shitty lawyering. But I didn’t say I would be good—I just said I would have done a better job on this subject than Chris Darden.
I also think I would do a better job than the New York City Council.
I’m positively SURE I would do a better job of reporting this story than Daniel Trotta.
*The Mckinny testimony is here: Mckinny