Kevin
Hart is one of the most successful Black comedians in modern times.
He has had largely successful stand up comedy tours, sold out
stadiums in the multi-thousands, and has landed supporting and even
lead roles in major movies with superstars such as Jay-Z, Damon Dash,
Dewayne “the Rock” Johnson, Snoop Dog and more. But has the
married father, and Philadelphia native achieved his success solely
by his own talents, or is there more to the path of stardom that my
brother now enjoys?
Kevin
Hart has stated many times in his early years that to host the
Academy Awards, or “Oscars” as we commonly call them, was a long
held dream of his. Well, very recently, it seems that his dream has
come true.
Through
many promotions and wide publicity we learned that Kevin Hart was
slated to host the 2018 Academy Awards. I, very likely like everyone
else, was excited at the revelation, and looked forward to his
hilarious shenanigans
throughout the ceremony.
But
then, my brother was attacked. Kevin Hart is not a politician, and
has no control or influence over what and how other people choose to
live their lives, yet he was attacked as “Homophobic” and
therefore questioned as “worthy” enough to host the event.
This
was not because my brother went on some recent rant using terms that
specific groups of people now consider derogatory or “hateful,”
or resulting from some recent incident with someone or group who are
of a particular sexual orientation, in which a conflict took place or
was initiated by Kevin specifically because
of sexual orientation. No, this was because of jokes he told at least
ten years ago, at the start of his major career.
According
to Hart, back in about 2008 or 2009, during one of his stand up
routines, Kevin joked about how he does not want his son to be “gay”
and about how if he found his son playing with his daughter’s toys,
hew would tell him that doing such as a boy is wrong and Kevin in his
routine may have used the term “faggot.” However, in the years as
Kevin was climbing the ladder of success, he was confronted about
those jokes from back then, and at various points addressed the issue
and apologized for offending anyone who would be, by his words.
After
all of the promotions of Kevin Hart hosting the Oscars, the producers
of the academy resurrected what to Kevin was a “dead Issue” and
gave him an ultimatum. Either he will publicly apologize for jokes he
made ten years ago, about his own family and household, or they would
find someone else to host the ceremony.
Kevin
now says that he was “a different person” at that time, and that
he today does not ascribe to the ideas from which those jokes derived
back then; but says that since he has already addressed the issue on
multiple occasions, he will not give further life to what he sees as
a solved and settled matter; and thereafter declined to apologize
again and
passed on hosting the event.
Not
long after making that announcement on his social media feeds, Kevin
again took to social media and again made reference to the age of the
matter, highlighting that it was not recent, and indeed apologized
again. This time specifically to the LGBT community. So, why then not
just apologize from the start and take the hosting job, rather than
refuse to do so initially, lose the job and miss out on that money,
then still apologize anyway?
It
should not be difficult to understand the forces at play against
Kevin in this matter. Kevin Hart, and understandably so, is reacting
with the conscious realization that people in positions that directly
control his career, and therefore his wealth and thus the current
lifestyle he enjoys, are among those that ascribe to the lifestyle
for which they would find his decade old jokes offensive. Many of
them are in fact entertainment executives with the power to control
whether or not Kevin gets work.
So
to see my brother Kevin initially defy them and accept losing the
hosting job, then turn around and do that very thing which would have
allowed him to keep the work was a red flag to me. I saw that with
the mounting publicity about the matter, the pressure was put on
Kevin, to where it became about more than just the academy awards.
For those of us who understand the background workings of the
entertainment industry, to see our brother stand on his dignity
first, then bow and cave to their assertion and demands, even after
taking the “punishment” makes it very clear that an example is
being made of our brother.
For
him to do this, pointlessly losing a significant payday, and the
achievement of a long-held dream of his, makes clear that those
behind the scenes made it clear to Kevin that he will not bite the
hand that feeds him; and that he will in fact publicly apologize. If
Kevin Hart did not return to social media and apologize, this time
specifically to their organized body and lobby by name, then it is
without a doubt that we would have began to see less and less of
Kevin Hart in major projects.
BUT
WHAT HAPPENED TO FREEDOM OF COMEDIC EXPRESSION?
I
can specifically recall one comedy legend, the late Richard Prior,
making jokes about himself having a sexual encounter with a
homosexual. Now whether it really happened or not I don’t know, nor
do I find it relevant here. But, I do recall him specifically using
the very same terms “gay” and “faggot” that Kevin Hart used
in his routine. Even more recently, as part of the classic Original
Kings Of Comedy tour, the late and great Bernie Mac did a whole
segment of his routine in which his sister’s kids snuck downstairs
at night for “Milk and Cookies” in which the emphasis was on his
gay nephew and his ‘Faggoty’
demeanor.
Comedy
has historically been a platform upon which politically and socially
sensitive issues could be addressed in satirical or humorous form. I
don’t recall when this has not been acceptable since the topics are
delivered in a way that they are laced with humor, and fall upon a
cushion of laughter and applause. So when did we get to the point
where a comedian is not free to do a routine and make jokes about
himself and the goings on in his own household?
I don’t recall any,
albeit wide spread outrage or even simple backlash from the
mainstream when a comedian and former actor on the hit sitcom
Seinfeld was recorded in his stand up routine calling black people
“niggers” as they walked out of his show in protest of his
racially offensive and insensitive content. But Kevin Hart is not
allowed to not want his son to be gay, and has to apologize for
saying such?
ERADICATION
OF BLACK MALE MASCULINITY
From
Eddie Murphy, Wesley Snipes, and Jamie Fox, to Martin Lawrence, Ving
Rhames, the Wayans Brothers, and Tyler Perry. As spoke upon by many
great black entertainers like Dave Chapelle, Kat Williams, Eddie
Griffin, and an Icon of the Legendary rap group Public Enemy,
Professor Griff, there is a long standing agenda to destroy the
historical image and dignity of the black male.
One
major method of this attack is to assassinate the character of the
black male by directly attacking his manhood. These black greats have
spoke intensively about the entertainment industry’s obsession with
putting black men in dresses; and how in a lot of cases, refusing to
“play ball” or “pay your dues” will significantly if not
totally stifle a person’s hopes for a career in entertainment…
and so we see this phenomenon.
While
many may deny that there exists a dedicated conspiracy against black
manhood, I can specifically recall where in the early years of his
success, Kevin Hart did an interview at which the topic of black men
in dresses was raised. While this was not an inquiry of the sexual
orientation or challenge of any suspected homosexuality on the part
of our brother, Jamaal Finkley of Black Tree TV, interviewing our
brother about his role in the movie Five-Year Engagement,
specifically asked if Kevin would ever wear a dress. Kevin
Hart responded verbatim: “Definitely haven’t ran into putting on
a dress. I mean you know, you, you have to have boundaries. You have
to have limits that you refuse to cross. For me, I know what they are
(his boundaries). They’ve
yet to be challenged
so, I don’t have to speak on that.”
Kevin then followed that
statement with disclosure of how that very day he was asked to
dribble a basketball on a talk show and how he outright refused,
because he would “look stupid.” Our brother finalized that
question with saying that he is a brand and that he has to protect
his brand and that he cannot do things that would diminish his brand.
When
I heard him say this, I was confused as to what Kevin meant by
“protecting” his brand, as his statement was very unclear. One
would think that there is no “brand” more valuable or important
to a person than their own self worth and dignity; that is, the
principles and values upon which they stand and conduct their lives.
It is clear that the industry “powers that be” were watching (and
apparently listening to) Kevin in his early rising years because not
very long after Kevin’s “boundaries” statements, those
boundaries were in fact challenged; and Kevin did indeed capitulate.
It would appear to be some form of retaliation for what amounted to
Kevin’s defiance of the industry “powers” because Kevin Hart
would, after his comments on the Black Tree TV interview, appear on
Saturday Night Live (SNL) in a wig and wearing a dress. It seems then
that Kevin’s remarks were seen by the industry controllers as a
direct challenge to their power.
To then contradict himself so
quickly and on such huge platform as SNL, it was clear that this was
a chastisement to Kevin that communicated this point: “Don’t you
ever go on TV and say what you’re not going to do. You’ll do
whatever we tell
you to do!” and the same was to serve as a message to others of
that time and a warning to those to come later (doesn’t that have a
Qur’anic and Biblical familiarity?).
Not
long after, he would in response to backlash because of how widely
viewed the (2012) Jamaal Finkley interview was, post to twitter
(April 2013) that he wore the dress because he thought the skit was
funny, and that he is grown and his own boss. Kevin then returned to
Black Tree TV and this time in the 2013 interview with Jamal Finkley
completely reversed his previous position and justified it as putting
being funny over his own personal beliefs, emphasizing that no one
“made” him wear the dress and that people are not made to wear
dresses, but rather that it is a matter of choice for each person
individually.
But
given the latest controversy over Kevin’s position regarding the
gay issue, and how he was (this time) openly given an ultimatum, it
is clear that Kevin’s “brand” does not align with his personal
morals and dignity, and therefore that “protecting” his brand did
not mean preserving its moral integrity in harmony with his personal
principles as his 2012 answer to Jamaal Finkley implied.
I
would also argue that if refusing to wear a dress, especially in lieu
of having made statements as Kevin previously did, could ultimately
result in being blackballed from the closed private entertainment
industry, then how are people not forced to do so? I mean, if your
choices are to wear a dress, get that hundred-thousand dollar check,
and thereafter go on to prosper in the business, or defy them and
return to the ghetto from which you came, and a normal nine to five
job selling sneakers to survive like everyone else, is that a choice
at all?
Kevin
Hart would go on in his career to play several more roles that we
understand to be detrimental to the image of the black male and
indignant to us as a collective people; while very profitable for him
as a business man. And to see Kevin on screen kissing another man,
Dewayne “the Rock” Johnson, and being held and carried like an
infant child after speaking on how much he does not want his son to
be gay (and who’s more influential on a boy than his father?),
shows us that what our brother Kevin spoke about “protecting” his
brand actually meant preserving it; it’s marketability to be exact.
So how would the peoples of the world look upon what they know
historically to be the original and greatest people on the earth, in
captivity within another nation, and not only not making any
collective attempt to free themselves, but also always being paraded
before the world through the medium of entertainment media as
ignorant criminals and as we see in hip-hop today, feminized,
literally dressing up like little girls?
WHITE
SUPREMACY AS AN ECONOMIC PLATFORM
It
was Eddie Griffin who said, speaking in the context of the Dr. Bill
Cosby tragedy, that no black men leaves this (the entertainment)
industry unscathed; that no one (is allowed to) leaves this industry
with a clean slate. And it was Professor Griff that remarked that the
entertainment industry is built upon the pillars of white supremacy;
that you have to pay (tribute) to play, and that black people and
black men in particular, cannot and will not progress in the industry
without compromising themselves, and or doing things in a manner that
promotes and fortifies white supremacy as a social and economic
platform.
I
have no doubt that if Kevin Hart’s finances and career was not
dependent upon an industry based on and operating within the
predicate of white supremacy, he would have when this present issue
of the Oscars surfaced, remained on the initial position that he
instinctively took, one that he would not return to the issue again,
because he already addressed it. I would go even further and say that
Kevin Hart would have never apologized the first time for joking
about not wanting his son to be gay, if it was not tantamount to
career and thus, on the level that he has achieved, financial
suicide. So he, like so many other black men, compromise their
personal beliefs and values, in order to have fortune and fame. But
does this really have to be the case?
Black
people today, even the relatively small number of us in comparison to
our overall population in America, has acquired more than enough
education and wealth to accept and follow the plan and instruction
given to us by the Hon. Elijah Muhammad. We have the tools and means
needed to “Do for self” and the qualified professionals in all
spheres of civilization to do so.
Because
we are in a form of economic servitude and subjugation to mainstream
America, and fear separating from our historical oppressors, we see
even some of the most prominent of
our people jailed and humiliated as in the cases of Bill Cosby and
Kevin Hart, for financial “transgressions” like trying to own and
control a mainstream media network in direct challenge and defiance
of the “Old Guard” of white financial dominance; and for as small
as openly speaking against a lifestyle that may be common among the
executives in the entertainment industry, in the context of his own
household.
We fail to understand and grasp the importance of the concept of
laying a collective claim to that which we create, so because we as a
people have no ownership of or control over industries that we
uniquely invented, like hip-hop music, it's culture, and the
industries related thereto and derived therefrom, we are stifled and
relegated in our creative expression to only that which is acceptable
and seen as non-threatening to the construct of economic white
supremacy.
Try to imagine the jewels the world would have received from
creative geniuses such as the late Legendary Rapper Tupac Shukar, had
there been no consequences for his expressing how he really saw and
experienced the world. But more importantly, why does this condition
still exist, when we have several billionaires, and hundreds of
extremely talented millionaire entertainers and athletes who have
mastered these industries, as well as thousands of educated and
skilled professionals and laborers with which we could literally
build our own industries from the ground up? Has a fear of
independence and open competition with white America, the haunting
memories of Tulsa, Oklahoma's Black Wall Street, been scarred into
our collective racial memory?
It
matters not how glamorized and glorified your dependence may be, it
doesn’t matter how fancy and shiny your monetary “chains” may
look, economic dependence is servitude; and servitude is slavery! As
long as we as a people depend on others for our sustenance and wealth
rather than building industries for ourselves, we will never be free.
Our Brother Kevin Hart says he is “his own boss” yet this “Boss”
is not free to work and take certain jobs, if he does not appease the
“powers that be” of his industry. This is the consequence when
you are financed by your enemy.
