Monday, 12 October 2009

Can "Racism" Have Caused Chris Brown to Beat His Black Girlfriend's Face to a Pulp?

I can't believe that Michael Vick went to jail for beating his dogs, but Chris Brown can beat his (Black) girlfriend senseless and live on as a free man. (I'm not advocating that Chris Brown go to jail or that he go freee, but I'm pointing out the irony.)

Field Negro is right that whites and the white (in)justice system value dogs, regardless of their color, much more than they value and protect Black women. They value and protect a Black man's dog more than they value and protect a Black man's Black girlfriend.

Chris Brown was wise not to beat a white and blond singer senseless, or he'd be serving 20 years to life in jail for attempted murder. He'd have been treated like a serial ax murderer / rapist if he had beaten a white and blond woman like that.

So, can a Black man be "racist" against a Black woman by preferentially beating up that Black woman based on his correct belief that the legal consequences of beating up a Black woman will be less than the legal consequences of beating up a white woman? No, a Black man cannot beat up a Black woman on the basis of her "race" because "race" does not exist:

According to the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome Program,
"DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans. While different genes for physical traits such as skin and hair color can be identified between individuals, no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another. There also is no genetic basis for divisions of human ethnicity. People who have lived in the same geographic region for many generations may have some alleles in common, but no allele will be found in all members of one population and in no members of any other."
In other words, the Human Genome Project has proven that, as a matter of scientific fact, that which we call "race" does not exist as a matter of biology, and so all references to "race" are references to a fallacy.

And if anyone wants to drag in all of that ideological sociological bullshit about "race" existing as a social construct, then we would have to conclude that . . . Chris Brown is not "racist" to choose beat up a Black woman instead of a white woman. Chris Brown, according to the pantheons and canons of "racism", because Chris Brown, as a Black man, doesn't have the social power necessary to beat his Black girlfriend senseless.

Except Chris Brown obviously DOES have the power to beat his Black girlfriend senseless, and the power comes in part from the knowledge that the white criminal justice system will not treat him as brutally and mercilessly as it would if his victim were white. So, Chris Brown chooses his victims based on their skin color, but he's not "racist", because "racism" doesn't exist. Racism cannot logically exist because "race" itself does not exist.

Let me harmonize all of ideological madness for everyone by speaking about skin color that DOES exist instead of "race" that doesn't: Chris Brown has the color-aroused ideation that he will not be harshly punished for beating up a Black woman. This ideation is based on four hundred years of history in the United States of America. Black men are not allowed to beat up famous white female singers and live to tell about it.

So, Chris Brown chose his victim based on skin-color-associated ideation and his knowledge of how skin-color-based (in)justice works in the United States of America.
He chose his victim based not on "race", which doesn't exist, but based on skin color, which DOES exist. Anyone want to argue whether skin color exists or not?

Instead of asking the "chicken and egg," "tree falls in the forest" question of whether Blacks can be "racist" against Blacks, which is like asking whether helium weighs more than oxygen underwater, why don't we simplify our terms and ask whether Chris Brown can choose to beat up his girl friend based on the knowledge that the criminal justice system won't treat him as harshly as it would if his girlfriend where white. The answer to that question is obvious, even to ten year olds. He wouldn't DARE leave a famous white woman singer's face looking like that!

I think it's pretty obvious why Black men don't go around beating famous white women's faces to a black and blue pulp: Black men don't want to spend the rest of their lives in jail for one night's angry outburst against a white victim who is more highly valued by white juries, prosecutors, judges and police. This is not "racism" but it is color-based decision-making, which is something that people of any skin color are capable of.

Would O.J. Simpson's case have become two-year-long national cause celêbre if he had been suspected of cutting a Black woman's throat? Of course not! With the "evidence" they had, they probably wouldn't even have bothered to arrest him!

Ideation based on skin color is why Black people kill Black people more than they kill white people. We know that killing Black people is socially acceptable while killing white people is stupid, because it much more often leads to the electric chair.

Color-based justice in the police departments, district attorney's offices, courts and juries leads to color-based decision-making on the part of Blacks and whites alike. Why steal a white refrigerator and get the death penalty, when you can steal a Black refrigerator of equal cost and quality and get two years' probation?

That analysis is not based on "race" and "racism" (the non-existence of the former having precluded the existence of the latter) and it's doesn't require knowing whether barium weighs more than oxygen. It's simply color-aroused decision-making based on predictable color-aroused consequences.

Forget "racism" theory and ideology and witch doctory, and let's discuss skin color-based decision making. Chris Brown is not in jail today because he made the logical but morally reprehensible color-based decision to beat up a famous Black woman singer instead of a famous white woman singer.

Kanje West took a medal out of a white woman's hand during a Grammy ceremony (or Emmy or Nobel?), without physically harming the white woman at all (except with respect to her legal right not to be unconsentually touched, even indirectly) and this became became national news. Chris Brown's brutality toward his girlfriend also became national news, but he was not seriously punished because he beat up a Black woman instead of a white woman. He showed an very keen understanding of the skin color-based (in)justice system for which the United States of America is notorious.

No comments: