Chris Brown x Rihanna Fenty x Perez Hilton

A couple days ago, Chris Brown pleaded guilty for
beating Rihanna Fenty last February. He looks like OJ in
that picture. By pleading guilty to felony assault if he so much as
sneezes the wrong way, he is going straight to jail.

This was a strategic move.

In the court of popular opinion, it silences those
who think that he didn't do it, or at least he shows
that he was willing to plead guilty to something.

But then again if you don't want to believe, you won't.
It also raises the stakes legally, if and when he
beats someone else.

It prevented a trail, that neither of their careers arguably
never would have recovered from, that is to say, if their
careers recover.

Many of us in the Black community think that it is okay
for Black men to beat on us. It isn't. Nor is it okay for the
police to beat on Black men. I use the police example to
show how we are socialized tolerate one kind of violence
yet be enraged by another.

With regard to Chris Browns corporate appeal, he became
another violent Black man, hence untouchable at least for the
moment, but fans and capitalism have tendency to only
have short term memories. The Perez Hilton assault case
proved to be an interesting hypothetical
for three reasons.

The first is that not only was he assaulted,
but he was assaulted after having called a famous Black man in
public, Wil.i.Am. a "faggot". The second is that Hilton is gossip blogger
who traffics in bringing discomfort, angst and judgement to the
people that he writes about for the purpose of earning
cash. Third, he gets money by making fun of people. This is material.

Remember when cats used to get threatened and beat up at The Source
for writing reviews that emcees and labels didn't like. I say this
not to rationalize it, but to give it some context.

I had to struggle a bit with my rule regarding zero tolerance for violence
because he traffics in pain. When you walk in the dark, the darkness is
your friend, and will be a material part of your life. I know this because
I have done it and seen it in the lives of others around me. Simple as that.

But, the counter arguement to that is that he is just spewing
words, he hasn't laid a hand on anyone.

I then had to ask myself, is the rule, no violence, or no violence
for people only for people he don't traffic in pain?

I don't know Hilton's work. I checked the site yesterday and there were
fairly innocuous photos of Britney Spears and other A list and
B list celebs being made fun of. Because it is true that he has in
fact ridiculed others, and gotten paid for it, there is the
inclination to say that he has earned what he has coming to him.

I figured out the answer to my rule question.
Ultimately, no one, no angry rapper, or angry rap manger, lol, has a
right to lay hands on a writer based on an epitet or a bad album review.

Just another day of reckoning with violence.

Did you compare Rihanna to Perez?

Why or why not?

Why is it so hard for us to consider the ways in which
our actions teach the young bucks?

Violence and the 2008 Presidential Race

There are two stories that I have arisen in the past two days
that have me thinking about violence in the
presidential election. The first is the story related to the
above image of Michelle Obama. It was allegedly created by an
Obama supporter who is apparently completely
ignorant of the legacy slavery, lynching for African Americans.

Professor Kim wrote an informative piece on it. This quote sums
up my perspective on the the image,

Two final layers. This image flips and merges two of the most emblematic images in our tragic racial history: the black (usually) male victim suffering unjustly at the hands of white racists, and the fragile woman (historically white) being violated by brutish (black, and often imaginary) men. In a provocative 2001 book, Playing the Race Card: Melodramas of Black and White From Uncle Tom to OJ Simpson, UC Berkely professor Linda Williams argued that racial melodrama sets the terms of our debates over equality. What we may be witnessing in part, is just how poorly those terms fit our current situation.

Last thing. As I pondered the image, I thought about Sen. Obama's recent call for an end to the attacks on his wife. Bowling Green Daily News columnist Kathleen Parker derided his comments, along with his recent gaffe when he called a woman reporter "sweetie." But look at that image again, and think of another historical echo. During and after slavery and Jim Crow, black women were routinely sexually violated by white men -- and their husbands, fathers and other family members were powerless to defend them.

On another note, there is something about the notion of "defending them"
that strikes me as being uber patriarchal. I think I would reframe it as
"no way of seeking justice" instead.


I was also reminded of violence when I heard Hillary Clinton's
statement that she is she is staying in the race because her
husband didn't win California until June, and that Bobby Kennedy was
assassinated in June. On its face, it seems to be a careless comment,
but then again, Bobby was a young senator who was assassinated.
Obama is a young senator as well.
Given this countries history of violence, what does the fact that she
said this intentionally or unintentionally say about her?
Was she tired? Is the statement in exusable even if she is tired?
I immediately thought, If she is insensitive enough to say this, if she is lacking
in judgment to the extent that these words could come out of her mouth,
we are left to infer, what else is she capable of saying and doing?

Don't get me wrong, last year,in March of 2007 I mentioned how
Obama may be great, but the prospect of him being murdered makes
his viability questionable. I now realize that this reactionary thinking
that has no place in what he is trying to accomplish for if fear was the
determining factor, MLK would have been just another Cadillac driving,
Negro preacher tauting prosperity gospel.

Hillary has apologized, but has the damage been done?
How does one view her apology?