Also, if we are going to have that conversation we also need to include a discussion about how our justice system usually treats sex crimes against women and girls of color (like R. Kelly’s victims) with far less urgency than sex crimes against white girls and women.
If he’d raped a bunch of white girls he’d have been locked away decades ago.
Lots of people have been having these conversations, too, of course. They manage NOT to defend R. Kelly.
That’s un-possible!
Unfortunately, the misogynoir runs so deep that even many Black men are afflicted with it; they genuinely don’t get what a fucking monster R Kelly is, because they don’t fucking value Black women.
They don’t grok that it doesn’t fucking matter that he was abused too; LOTS of people are sexually abused, and they still don’t go creating a whole ass sex trafficking syndicate, FFS.
To such defenders, it’s always about the ‘take down of a rich, successful Black man’ over the ugly fact that said rich, successful Black man abused and exploited his power and deserved to be ‘taken down.’
I guess they are pointing to a longer history of where successful Black men were often the target of false accusations and in some cases lynching victims but this sure the hell isn’t that! The mind boggles.
Not at all; they intentionally conflate the circumstances.
The Mann Act was used to bring down the first African American boxing champion, Jack Johnson in 1913.
Not relevant to Kelly, who actually committed the crimes he is accused of.
I was responding to someone who had never heard of the Mann Act. Jack Johnson was the case that was taught in my high-school history classes. I realize Kelly is guilty as hell and that Johnson was railroaded.
Glad to hear you realize the difference; now can you explain it to Chuck D?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
