Dog show
The controversy over Duane “Dog” Chapman continues. It began when his son, bizarrely, sold a confidential cell phone recording of their racial epithet-laden conversation to a tabloid, which was subsequently made public on the internet.
Dog’s son, apparently, has a black girlfriend, and the father’s concern was that his bounty hunting team’s natural inclination to use racial epithet’s (the same way rap artists do) might prompt offense; moreover, she might then “out” the team as anti-black in a public forum.
Keep the dirty n-word talk between the team, Dog was saying. In the tape recording he can be heard to express fear that if his son’s girlfriend revealed their salty, trash-talking ways that their own media position might be compromised.
What is less virtuous? Speaking privately, to an intimate, and using racist terms, or exposing what is private in order to diminish (in this case his own Father) and inflame and offend?
In the Middle Ages, you were condemned for what you thought, or what others thought that you thought. In modern times, you are judged by your actions, your deeds. In novels, and in plays, and in movies, characters are defined by their actions and their choices, as so in life.
Dog Chapman did not intend to offend. Nor did he direct the racial slur at an individual. Dog was paranoid of offending Blacks for political purposes (which, understandably, for many, is not enough). His paranoia, however, was not enough for him to remove his reflexive use of a racial epithet on a regular basis while on the job or socializing with his rough-and-tumble posse.
The person who offended Black North America in this instance was Dog’s vengeful son — - not Dog directly. This is not even a revisiting of a Michael Richards-like tirade (remember the Seinfeld star’s n-word rant at a comedy club?). Dog never employed a racial slur directly at anyone. So, should he be condemned? Sure. Using racial slurs in any context is wrong. It is wrong when Blacks use it too; yet, look at Dog physically. Look at what you have.
What do you expect from a guy who looks like that — with circus-like hair and a leather-bound demeanor that is all biker bravado, biker sensibilities and swagger, and who is, himself, an admitted former criminal?
We want our cake and we want to eat it too. We want the rough-around-the-edges anti-hero, the reformed bad-guy, but we expect that person to manifest themselves as a Sunday school teacher on a Harley. It is not reality.
The real question is should someone be condemned for what they say in private?
People use taboos as intensifiers in private all the time. It doesn’t make it virtuous, but what is? Half of the taboo expressions used are used only for effect – because they are bad to say — and are not taken seriously, or are even physically possible. Think about it. And how many people do you know who really are romantic with their parents (as in Motherf*****)?
Is Dog Chapman a closet racist? That is a legitimate question of any celebrity as grand, gossipy, speculation. Does it matter if he keeps it to himself? What if the hockey player is a bad parent or husband? What if the singer is a bad son to his parents? Like the hockey player, it only counts if he doesn’t score.
No human being can survive such big questions of character for it is hard to really determine the measure of a man’s soul.
Can Dog catch the bad guy and get his bounty? Was Dog horrified at being considered a racist? Even if it is for economic and political reasons, doing and saying the right things in public are what matter most.
Who was it who said something about casting the first stone?
November 5th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Andrew, you bring up some very good points. I think the issue of privacy and its invasion here is a bigger issue. Also, I see it more & more that a large portion of society just foams at the mouth for a chance to take someone down. Especially a “big fish” like the Dog
November 6th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Shame on his son for setting him up.
I haven’t listened to the original tape online, but I might yet
I can’t help but wonder of the entire tape was sent to or published by the Enquirer
Maybe Tucker provoked Dog and riled him up.
Too many unknowns for me.
While I dont like the word he used, how can black people expect other people to not use it when we hear it used so freely in movies and music by “gulp” black artists & actors
The bottomline for me is that it was a private conversation- the son had no right to sell it and make it public and for the show to be cancelled over it???
I bet a whole lot more shows should be cancelled for the same reason- only they never got caught
Lynn, Dartmouth (formerly Toronto)
November 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Racism today is an exploding bag of nails. To make a comment on it is suicide! There is no statement that is racist-free, only statements that can be turned into racism by one side or the other? Remember assholes come in all colours and all beliefs! If we could all truly follow that rule, the only racism would be against assholes.
Racism is a learning experience and we are all in school. Most of us are getting to class. dog however and his son have both failed ethics 101 and will be expelled from a&e school.
When did words over take action as the more important virtue? Only the politically correct can answer that! Taking on the issue when presented still seems mainstream taboo. So unfortunately with a sweep of the broom out goes the dog, bitten by his own puppy.