Any reasoning person would know that after such an inflammatory article as the one mentioned in one of last week’s posts was published, there would be backlash. Whether by reports on Kanazawa in danger of losing his job and credibility, or Black male journalists coming to our defense, we all knew that this article would get its due attention.
We also knew that there would be damage control. Psychology Today published this article shortly after taking down the infamous one, and although what Nathan Heflick says is nice and all, this question still looms heavily in the air: why couldn’t an article similar to what Heflick wrote have been posted first on the PT website? Why did the first destructive article have to be posted, for PT to post a counter-attack?
Does there need to be a reason why an article on our beauty and grace should be posted? Does there really need to be? Of course not, but the way I see it, this situation is comparable to a four-way stop without a traffic sign. It isn’t until someone dies that the city/government sees the need to put up a traffic light or stop sign. This is, of course, reactive, and not proactive.
So why must there be something negative preceding a positive acknowledgement of black women? There really does seem to be a war against us, doesn’t it? Does it mean that we’re getting closer to where we want to be, and quite frankly, there are people who just don’t want us to get there? If we are already the lowliest of women on this planet, why attack us? Why be threatened? Because the opposite is true…we are threatening. And we are on the rise. What’s more, is that slimy, hateful scum of humanity like Kanazawa and Psychology Today’s editors can’t stop us.