Friday, May 04, 2007


CONTEXT for the NY Post, post

After reading a sister's comments. I realized my lack of responsibility here in not giving context for my intentions with that post. Here is my response:

Thank you so much for commenting on fucked up shit, the blog.

Your remarks make me realize that sometimes I do need to give context for what I do post, I thank you for that.

Having said that I would like to note that I don't know what text was written within the New York Post. My concern was the text of the cover of the post. I think your comments reflect exactly the sentiment The Post wanted to evoke: Yeah Don Imus got fired for racist/sexist comments but look at who we are dealing with, black women who lie about rape. Therefore prompting us not to " care" what is in the Post (which is shoddy journalism anyway) but able to walk away "mad that she lied."

Did she lie is the real question? Since when do the voices of white boys and a white judiciary system actually reflect the truth of what happens when Black women are the victims of sexualized or any other kind of violence? Society will tell us no. Black women don't get raped... they are all too willing to give it up. History will tell us otherwise, that the nation, and in many cases our own communities are complicit in violent acts against Black women.

The Post cover is an explicit example of how mental, institutional, and intimate violence is excused when it is perpetrated on the bodies of Black women. Of all the characters on the front of the Post: Imus, The Duke Rapists (if they can call her a lier I can call them rapists), and the Student from NCC, the student from NCC is the villain. This is entirely intentional.

Again thank you for bringing my attention to the fact that visual analysis is necessary for accompanying my posts. I was lazy and frustrated at the time of the post, and simply had no words. I will post my comments here, so that my intentions will be better understood.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?