Give ME a break

At the Video Music Awards, Kanye West grabbed the microphone from country singer Taylor Swift as she was giving her acceptance speech for winning 'Best Female Video'. He proceeded to tell the audience that Beyonce deserved to be recognized for having the "best music video of all time." His words caused a stir in the audience while the camera zoomed in on a very embarrassed Beyonce Knowles. Swift was not able to finish her speech at that time due to West's interruption. Kanye West's presentation at the Video Music Awards on Sunday represents a problem much larger than him disrespecting Taylor Swift.

Kanye West, as well as other black figures in the world of popular culture and music, is extremely influential in mainstream America. As black people, we tend to take it personally when somebody who looks like us makes a very public mistake. Look at Chris Brown, Michael Vick, T.I. and the DC snipers—we all thought dang, they just set us back. But it’s not so much Kanye’s behavior that troubles me, but the reasoning behind it.

According to CNN correspondent Alan Duke, Kanye West “blame[d] the pain of his mother’s death two years ago for his ‘rude’ behavior.” West also stated that his celebrity status has hindered him from taking time to cope with the death of his mother.


Celebrities make mistakes all of the time and if they offer apologies we should accept them. However, what kind of message is this sending to our youth? In our society, the reality is celebrities do whatever, say whatever, offend whoever, and after they offer an apology we turn the other cheek and buy their next CD. Why is it important to have morals, values, and a strong character if glory and riches will be there regardless? It’s time to make our celebrities more accountable for their public offenses for the sake of our children.

By: Isis Rose

September 16, 2009

Could You Walk a Mile in My Shoes?: Heels Vs.Flats

Commentary: Marishonta Wilkerson

In many College and University environments, politics and fashion are top priorities.  At Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU's) these two components of a "rememberable" college career seem to take precedence over others.  Not saying that fashion and politics are areas in which students should not focus their attention, but when the fashion becomes political then there may be a mix up in priorities.  Let's be honest after we have long graduated from Spelman College, we may forget about who was crowned "Miss Sophomore" or "Miss Pre-Alumni Council", but we may be less likely to forget about the girl from the "Bay Area" who refused to wear anything other than Vans and tank tops, or the girl who always walked into class late making extra noise with her heels.

Because most of the things at our school are political is it safe to say that fashion predetermines some of our most sought out chairs in office, or those across the street at Morehouse College?  Since when did the height of our shoes become the level of hierarchy?   I do not know when this began but I feel it is safe to say that it will not end soon.  Do "Spelmanites" have to wear heels to campus everyday? Absolutely not.  There is no model of the All American Spelmanite and even if there was one she may be pictured in some nice flats because she is bustling on her way to change yet, another part of the world. This goes for all Spelman students, including those on courts and not.

At the end of the first day of classes this August there was quite a discrepancy about a certain women who held a prestigious college position (in the AUC)  who wore flats.  She did not think it was a big deal and neither did I.  She went to her classes that first day and immediately began to implement the platform with which she had been voted into her new position.  At the end of the day she made progress and represented the college well,  guess some would prefer the physical representation more than anything else.  This is ridiculous to me that the work one of our Spelman Sisters does is measured by what she is wearing when she does it, instead of the actual work itself.  No Spelmanite, no woman should be required or pressured to wear high heeled shoes, if she chooses not to.  Give that most women who wear heels do it as confidence boosters or to get attention, we shouldn't try to force that upon each other, or allow men to do it either.  In the "American Demographics" by Diane Crispell 72 % of the women that wear heels today say that they are very uncomfortable when compared to other shoes.  43 % of women agree that they wear they to look slimmer and 40% say the wear them to get mens attention.  These two reasons may be good for some but not for all, so I say wear your heels if you want but do not be afraid to change into your flats.  If flats will help you make it to that 11:00 am class when you just arrived on campus at 10:55 then by all means wear them!  Women are not required to conform to the models and examples even we have set for each other, which means we are not required to wear shoes that make us look slimmer but feel pain.  The next time your Morehouse Brother or Spelman Sister ask you why you are wearing flats, you turn and ask them: Could you walk a mile in my shoes, literally and mentally?  Spelman Women are interested in changing the world, not the world of fashion.


Crispell, Diane. "Having High Heels -Will Limp." May 1997. Web. 8 Sept. 2009. .

Leave at 11:30? Really?:By Nia Newton

           My friends always seem bewildered when I tell them that I cannot have guys in my room before six and after eleven thirty. Most of my friends go to predominantly white schools, where the rules about visitation are limited and scarce. So why does Spelman have this rule? It beats me. Spelman College should have less restrictive visitation rules in order to teach students responsibility, give the students what they pay for, and to treat each student as an adult.
          Every male visitor must be out in the dorm lobbies by 11:25 to check out. There are no exceptions. Many who support these regulations would say that it is better for the students because it gives the women a limit on the time they have to fool around instead of study. I believe this regulation babies the students who attend Spelman College. As young adults, we have to be responsible. We should be able to have guests until a much later time as long as we are respectful of our roommates and our neighbors. We must use time management wisely.
         10,000 dollars is a lot of money to pay for living expenses, even more than it would cost to live off campus. As first and second year students, we are forced to live on campus, and forced to pay the housing fees. If a student is paying 10,000 dollars for a room, then that student should have the option to have guest in that room whenever she feels. I feel that 10,000 dollars is an efficient amount of money to pay for the freedom to do what you want with your space.
         As I have stated a large amount of times in this commentary, we are all adults. Almost all of us are 18 and older. We are away from home and should not be treated like little children who need curfews and limitations, we should be able to act freely and know what the consequences are going to be. Telling a student that they have to be on campus by 11, must have all visitors out by 11:25, or must be asleep at 12 is being a second parent. Yes, as a college community, we want the best for our students, but we cannot force grown adults to do what they do not want to do. As adults we should have the right to do as we please.
        I do not see anything wrong with striking the visitation rules. Other schools have free visitation and all of them run perfectly fine. Harvard, NYU, and Columbia are all elite schools with no restrictions on visitation. There is no reason why Spelman women cannot handle the freedom or obtain the freedom of timeless visitation. Spelman can keep a hold on things without suffocating its students.

Commentary..

What you have to understand Nia is that the majority of your friends who attend White schools are living in an environment suited and understood for White people. Instead of condemning Spelman for the visitation rule, thank them for looking out for you as an African American woman. The statistics of pregnancies before marriage is far greater in the African American community than it is the White community, partially because of the lack of sex education from parents and schools. If you are attending a White school, obviously you are going to have less restrictions on male visitation because young adult pregnancies are topics less discussed, less prevalent, and of less concern in the White community. However, you would probaly not have as many males you would want to visit you if you were at a White school anyway! : ) Im not attacking you, but rather making, in my opinion, the valid point that there are so many other positives to look and observe at that qualify Spelman as one of the best schools in the Nation. First off, your attending the top HBCU in the country, Spelman is a school all about sisterhood so you have at least 2000 girls that will always have your back, and being at a HBCU gives you the privelege of being embraced, not just tolerated as a statistic. So, yes, you could go to a White school and have male visitors till six am in the morning, but being honest with yourself is it really worth it to sacrifice all the other positives of Spelman College and the HBCU life? In my opinion, no. There is PLENTY of time for male visitation and all that may come with it. But for now, enjoy the time with your friends, your 36 thousand dollar education, and your overpriced books. At the end of the day, your future job interviwer will not ask you how long males visited your room but rather what organizations you were active in, what networking you did, how high your grades were, etc. The answers to all these questions will be better because you took a few more hours to be productive than spending it with a boy. As Black women, we will NOT be looked at the same in ANY interview as the WHITE girl sitting next to us. So, although she may have gotten unlimited visitation and have a lower GPA than you, there is the chance that shell STILL get picked over you. As a Black woman, there is just no time to play around, especially not in College. Do all you can do to make it as far as you can because the White girl who got her visitation does not have to worry about the job interviewer turning up his nose at her. In the world, we will be treated harder, thus, Spelman must be harder on us to ensure we are prepared to the best of our ability. I love you my Spelman sister!

Is it really the "White man's" fault?

Having attended a predominantly White school in the South for most of my middle and high school years, the idea of attending a HBCU excited every bone in my body. My school was also very Republican and very racist. Throughout high school and middle school, I had the conclusion decided in my mind that the oppression of the Black race was the "White man's fault"; I had come to the conclusion in my mind that we were oppressed because the White race had little respect and expectations of us outside the fields of sports and music. However, now in my second year of attending a predominantly Black school, I must admit that it is just as much "there" fault as it is "ours" . Why do we as a race entertain and make comedy out of things that we truly should not find funny? Wouldn't Kat Williams be just as hilarious if he did not use the "n" word in his comedy skits? Why do we put down our fellow sisters when they dare to wear their beautiful kinks or gorgeous afros rather than the mainstream relaxed look? Why do my Black friends from White schools condemn me for going to an HBCU? I just want to yell at them "HELLO..You are BLACK too..why are you putting down your own race like that?" Who cares who is lighter than who? In reality, does skin color make someone any more beautiful or smarter than another? No, it does not. Have we brought ourselves down because of failure to embrace our true selves and the tendency to entertain what we shoud not? Is it really the "White man's" fault?





Commentary by: Sascha Betts

While reading your post and understanding your viewpoint, it is evident that you believe everyone should hold accountability for their own actions, as do I, and as you’ve stated, there comes a time when the fault is strictly one sided, and it shouldn't be. In the case of “the white man” being to blame for all African American setbacks, I too believe that some African Americans tend to overlook the way that they behave in order to put the blame on someone else. I do not give credit to White Americans for enslaving Blacks, but due to the time progression, many of the problems that persist within the black community did not start and finish with whites. There have been times when I’ve heard whites use the term Nigga during conversation with blacks as if it were a proper noun. Do we accept this? Some do, so to cut the word out of an act, or to discontinue using the term altogether for that matter is almost too much to ask for, especially when it is being used by people whose ancestors once used the word in a derogatory manner. I understood the points you made and can honestly agree with you on many of them. I enjoyed your take on the issue, but some evidence/studies/statistics could have been incorporated to create a more fact based argument rather than opinion based. Are you appealing to logic (logos) here? I like the fact that you posed questions, most rhetorical, but for some the answer to them would have made your argument more sound.

Equal or Not Equal? That Is the Question… Commentary by Ashley R. Jones

Commentary by Ashley R. Jones

We live in a country that can undisputedly be classified as one of the most powerful nations in the world. We live in a Democratic society where we are able to actively participate in our nation’s governing process by electing local, state, and federal leaders. We live in a country that was founded upon the belief that “all men are created equal.” Or do we? Even though the United States leads the world in practically every aspect of life, we fall behind in the struggle between race, class, age, ability, sexuality, and surprisingly our laws.

Although the United States is governed under the Constitution and its amendments, states have their own constitutions and laws. Now, how is this fair and equal for all? This means that the penalties for the same crime can vary depending on the state where the crime is committed. Consequently, a person can commit a crime in Florida and be sentenced to prison for 10 years, and another person can commit the same crime in California and receive probation or maybe nothing at all. For a better example, Plaxico Burress, former New York Giant, was recently tried for criminal possession of a handgun in the second degree after accidentally shooting himself in the right thigh in a New York nightclub last November. Plaxico eventually accepted a plea deal that would only imprison him for two years instead of the maximum punishment of the crime, fifteen years. In New York, criminal possession of a weapon is a serious offense that is classified in three degrees with the Second and Third Degrees classified as felonies, and the Fourth Degree a misdemeanor. Whereas in Georgia, the law for criminal possession states, “A person commits the offense of unlawful possession of firearms or weapons when he or she knowingly has in his or her possession any sawed-off shotgun, sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer, and, upon conviction thereof, he or she shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of five years.” This means that a person may possess any other type of weapon or handgun that is not clearly stated in the law. Thus, meaning that if Plaxico would have committed this “crime” in Georgia, he would not be facing jail time nor would he have been released from the New York Giants. The harshest punishment he would have faced in Georgia would have been the ridicule of his teammates and associates.

Do not mistake the fact that the Constitution and its laws are the Supreme Law of the Land. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution holds that all federal laws preempt state laws unless the federal law is unconstitutional. Therefore, the only way that the federal law will be applied to a criminal offense in a state is if the case is appealed to the Supreme Court or if the case goes straight to the Supreme Court for other reasons. So what are we to conclude? Are we truly living equally in the United States when states have differing laws? Would we progress to becoming a truly equal nation if the laws for every state were the same? Or would we just create more tension between the struggles of class, race, gender, and so on?

Aristotle once said, “Equality consists in the same treatment of similar persons.” Although we descend from different cultures and nationalities, believe in various religions, and vote with a particular political party, we are all still Americans, and we should live and practice the beliefs that our Founding Fathers established this country on; that all men are created equal.



References

“Georgia Firearms & Weapon Related Laws.” LegallyArmed.com. 2008. 30 Aug. 2009 .

Grace, Melissa, et al. “Former Giants star Plaxico Burress accepts surprise plea bargain, will spend two years in jail.” NYDailyNews.com 20 Aug. 2009. 30 Aug. 2009 .

Murray, Don. “Criminal Possession of a Weapon in New York.” Shalley & Murray. 2008. 30 Aug. 2009 .

Response by Gaybrielle LeAnn Gant
Equality or Interpretation by Gaybrielle LeAnn Gant



It is safe to concur that America is a nation built on the principles of "Freedom and Justice FOR ALL" as well as the notion that "Every man was created equal". Those assumptions feel good because as a thriving and powerful nation who seeks to capitalistically control every function and movement domestically and abroad, how could this country in anyway shape or form not preach the morals and ideals of equality amongst its people. That question may be heavy laden with the representation of America's history to exclude many people from their poetic and boastful claims of inclusions. This nation which was created as a safe haven for those fleeing abuse and corruption of totalitarian dictatorship and the Kings rule, inadvertently created a nation that significantly preached more than it was truly able to give. As the alluring shores of freedom beckoned all creeds and races, the founding Fathers were not "all inclusive" when they founded this nation. Their declaration of "WE THE PEOPLE" did not include all people who inhabited their newly acquired land, nor did it include those who they willingly forced into bondage. Africans, Native Americans, Savages, Creoles, Zambos, Mestizos, Lobos, Chinos and every other race that fell outside of European White descendant privilege was not included in the founding ideals of this nation. So justifiably the idea of the “pursuit of happiness and justice for all” accordingly applies to those in which the laws and creeds intended for them to apply to. As the constitution has been amended to be inclusive, we must not forget its original classification and definition of the freedoms that it details. Just as the constitution stood to exclude many and serve the power of few, the laws of the state replicate the constitutions power and privilege. The states use their laws to either exclude or include. The manipulation of power is unprecedented in the fact that "equal" states have more lenient or stricter laws. The laws of the states have been constructed to serve the needs of those in power and rule. They specifically seek out people to continually oppress and deny. So as different states impose different charges for the same crimes we unveil the notion that "equality” and "we the people" as well as "justice for all" is specifically contingent upon the actual interpretation of "equal" from those who hold power. Regardless if that interpretation is truly equal or fare, equality is defined by those who hold a high enough office to control and dictate the actual definition and inclusion of specific freedoms. In short, those who set the rules define the rules, those who assign the notion that something is equal or not, merely hold the power to allow that equality to be actualized.

Beyonce or No Beyonce?...

Although I can object to such comments made about Beyonce such as, "she is the most talented", or "she is the most beutiful" I must admit that she is VERY well- rounded. It seems that the disgust for Beyonce is not focusing on what her lyrics might say, but for her overall image in the media.Of course some people might idolize Beyonce more than they should, but you can't blame her for that; She is just doing her job.

And so what Beyonce is 27 still singing; And not neccessrily about the same thing she was singing about developing as a singer. I know that for a fact and you would too if you just paid attention to her albums growing up. And yea she is married,.. so what? She is not dancing in the videos to try and catch a man she already has. Again, choreography is just another part of her job, and I feel that she is very talented in that department. Too much attention is being put on her shaking her butt in a choreographed dance and being married, and not enough attention is being put on artist such as SNOOP DOG, who is too married but still chooses to have loose women dancing around him. Might I add that these women are not neccessarily dancing in a routine like manner either... which is usually what's considered acceptable in today's society.

Additionally, I don't belive that liking Beyonce as a singer makes me less of a person. I can and I DO like her, without depriving myself of self- respect. I also strongly feel that it all falls down on the audience who is watching these artists... and whether or not they can "think for themselves". And it's funny that India Arie, Alicia Keys, and Musiq were mentioned; cause I love all of them as singers as well. But that's the amazing thng about being able to take liking to different artist; they all have different characteristics that draw me to them.
BEYONCE DOES NOT MAKE ME; IT'S WHAT YOU MAKE OF BEYONCE!

Beyonce-itis: Global Epidemic by Raisa Tuzo

Is it me, or are the standards in today’s music industry greatly flawed? The other day my roommate and I were watching a TV One: Beyonce Special on television and to say the least I was not impressed with some of the comments being made about this girl.

One Journalist said, "She's the most beautiful, the most talented and she has the best guy." Another Journalist said, "If you don't like Beyonce, you don't like yourself." Really?! He stated it as if it we’re a fact... and it's not. The most talented? Who are we putting her up against exactly? Have any of these reporters ever heard of Michael Jackson? Whitney Houston? Luther Vandross? Patti LaBelle? Stevie Wonder? Karen Clark Sheard? Donny Hathaway? HELL... JAZMINE SULLIVAN?!?!

As far as people who don’t like Beyonce supposedly hating themselves...well, what a horrible thing to say. The same journalist said at the end "Beyonce represents everything that is pure and wonderful in the entertainment industry." REALLY?!?!!! Some of these comments are unbelievable to me because they make it SO obvious how blinded Beyonce has everyone. She is a great talent and has an amazing voice, yes. But I personally do not think she is everything the media makes her out to be. Beauty is relative in my opinion...so to label someone as the most beautiful is point blank, biased. Mind you, despite my disgust for her I can give her her props because the girl can perform like none other. Her shows are amazing, but when you really look at her behind the scenes, it’s a mess.

One, she is 27 singing about the same things she was singing about when she was 16. First negative. Two, you are married still shaking your behind in videos, (even though everybody knows that dance to single ladies lol). Three, her albums have consistently gotten worse with every new release. Critics and fans alike trashed “B’day” until “Irreplaceable” saved it. And this new CD, well I will just let the critics speak for me again...lol. Itunes has that averaging 3.5 stars...and it's steadily beginning it's fall on the charts...hmm. And four the girl is everywhere, it’s too much. Commercials, tv shows, music videos, movies… I mean REALLY??!

All everybody keeps saying is when you’re the best that's what happens. Beyonce to me is like a lyrical drug, not necessarily good but addictive. And the radios, ads and music channels are our suppliers. If we ingest it enough we eventually get addicted to it, and confuse this as liking it, when in reality were addicts. Now, for all Beyonce fans out there, once again I will admit that she can sing her tail off...but when you aren't SINGING ABOUT ANYTHING than I have a problem with you. When all you are making is bubblegum music, I can't live off of it because I am not being nourished anymore, I am simply tricking my stomach into thinking it's being fed when in reality it isn't.

When I listen to Jazmine Sullivan's cd I get fed. When I listen to Alicia Key's cd I get fed. When I listen to Musiq Soulchild, India Aria, JILL SCOTT I GET FED! Beyonce who??? She needs to sing about something real and than, and ONLY than will she get my respect. I love myself so that comment about not liking yourself if you don't like Beyonce is absurd... And for a reporter to say she is the best thing in the music industry I just don’t know anymore. If she represents everything that is PURE and WONDERFUL in the entertainment industry with her history of stealing other people's song, copyright infringement and lack of penmanship concerning actually writing songs, yet claiming she did...than I just don't know what has become of today's music industry. The only album that will move people 20, 30, 40+ years from now is Dangerously in Love and that's SAD for someone who has been in the music industry more than a decade... All I have to say is SAY NO TO DRUGS!!!! Just because something sells well doesn't mean it's good...

Please note, I do not expect everyone to love all of the same things that I like musically. I just want people to ask themselves is Beyonce really the best of this time? Maybe she is...and I just can't see it...or maybe in reality she isn't...