Rihanna’s interview on 20/20 with Diane Sawyer has finely placed a neatly tied bow on the on-going Chrihanna debacle. The shut-up and drive songstress often spotted in leather bondage gittyups, seldom smiling, has been typecasted as an improbable victim of full innocence. And although TMZ and court-house testimonials have the bruises and bite marks to prove it, an onslaught of fanatical testimonies pleading pundits to free Chris Brown and inquiries questioning the role Rihanna played, begs otherwise. Is it that we love Chris Brown that much? Or just caught in the headlock of an age-old stereotype that black women are vicious and thrust sinful apples in the faces of Black men, forcing men like Chris, to bite down (on fingers and earlobes)?
Rihanna: Even IF I hit him first, that makes it okay for him to do what he did to me? They (fans and supporters) kind of give an excuse for what he did.
Sawyer: Did you hit him? Did you ever say to yourself this was my fault?
Rihanna: No, I did not hit him. It was an argument, verbal… There was no alcohol involved… I was battered, I was bleeding, I was swollen in my face.
Rihanna did not hit Chris. Chris never issued a statement saying she did. No alcoholic influence involved to even play scapegoat. There is no evidence contesting what this interview has chiseled in stone: Rihanna did not provoke Chris Brown into assaulting her. Despite its certainty, its a hard reality for some to swallow- that a young, black woman toting power, status, and a serpent tongue characteristic of all West- Indian women, is fully innocent. Why is an approach mirroring the taming of the shrew always advised when coping with black women of high caliber? If evidence, nationally broadcasted statements, and the bare honesty of reality are not loud enough to silence stereotypes, then reason and deaf ears make a better couple than these two kids ever did.
