Cynthia Erivo crowned best actress at BET Awards
There were also awards for Doechii and Kendrick Lamar
British singer and actress Cynthia Erivo was crowned best actress at the Black Entertainment Television (BET) Awards
(Image: Invision )
British singer and actress Cynthia Erivo was crowned best actress at the Black Entertainment Television (BET) Awards in Los Angeles.
Hosted by Kevin Hart, Monday's BET Awards celebrated the work of black people in music, entertainment, film, sports and philanthropy.
The London-born star, who rose to worldwide prominence last year for her role in Wicked, was also nominated for the BET Her Award - which recognises empowering songs that focus on women - for her rendition of Defying Gravity.
Grammy Award-winning rapper Doechii used her acceptance speech to sharply criticise US President Donald Trump's handling of protests in Los Angeles.
Collecting the award for best female hip-hop artist, she accused the president of "creating fear and chaos" in his response to demonstrations against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids, which sparked days of protest across the city.
"I do want to address what's happening right now, outside the building," she said.
Article continues below
"These are ruthless attacks that are creating fear and chaos in our communities. In the name of law and order, Trump is using military forces to stop a protest, and I want you all to consider what kind of government it appears to be, when every time we exercise our democratic right to protest, the military is deployed against us."
Mr Trump announced plans to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to California to quell the protests, which began on Friday.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the move was "essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States".
The decision drew sharp criticism from Democratic politicians, including California Governor Gavin Newsom, who called the move "purposefully inflammatory".
London-based girl-group FLO missed out after picking up nominations for best group and the Bet Her award for their track In My Bag, featuring GloRilla.
Fellow UK artists Bashy and Ezra Collective earned nominations for best international artist, while multi-genre artist Odeal and R&B singer kwn were shortlisted for best new international act.
Kendrick Lamar, who led the pack with 10 nominations, took home awards for album of the year and best male hip-hop artist.
He also won video of the year and video director of the year for his hit Not Like Us, as well as best collaboration for Luther, his track with SZA
SZA won best female R&B/pop artist, while Chris Brown took home best male R&B/pop artist.
Article continues below
The evening featured a star-studded cast, including actor Jamie Foxx, with performances by Ashanti, Mariah Carey and GloRilla.
Foxx, Carey, gospel star Kirk Franklin and Snoop Dogg were honoured with the ultimate icon award for their contributions to community, entertainment, and advocacy.
Miles Canton, Luke James and Lucky Daye delivered an R&B tribute to Quincy Jones, who died in November.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Evening Standard
13 minutes ago
- Evening Standard
Sturgeon's ‘Stalinist' approach disastrous for SNP, claims Joanna Cherry
She added: 'The reason that I feel that her strategy failed and was so wrong was it was very narrow, and she repeatedly banged her head off the brick wall of the British Government's refusal to grant a section 30 order, rather than having a multi-faceted strategy to put pressure on them to do so, whilst also having a back-up plan if they said no.
Spectator
13 minutes ago
- Spectator
Has Zelensky become a liability?
Is Volodymyr Zelensky becoming a liability for the West and for his own country? We are entitled at least to pose this question as we (I mean America and Europe) are funding this war. I ask because it is clear, and for years has been clear, that the conflict with Russia must end in a compromise, and the shape of that compromise should not be in doubt. Russia must be given a ladder to climb down and this must involve land. Ukraine must gain what from the start has been the great prize that Moscow has tried to deny it: an unshakeable place in the community of European democracies, with the military and economic guarantees from the West that make that place secure. It was Boris Johnson who first framed the idiotic boast that now threatens to block progress towards such a settlement. 'Not an inch!' he cried, to Ukrainian cheers, when he was prime minister. Perhaps he thought this was just the kind of thing you say for an easy headline and the whoops of the groundlings; but even he must have doubted that Russia could realistically be driven from everything it had gained, and Vladimir Putin be forced to grovel. Too many British minds, I think, have been prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin. Most wars, however, end in messy compromises, and that is how this one must end too. Let me start with the issue of land. It would be stupid for a generalist columnist like me to feign the knowledge that will be needed once negotiations over new borders begin, but I will volunteer this: Crimea (it can at least be argued) is not historically part of Ukraine and only got tacked onto Ukraine when the Soviet Union had both of them among its many countries and regions. I spent time in Ukraine last year, choosing to talk not to soldiers, generals or politicians, but to the under-25s. If you seek the point on the dial when many younger Ukrainians' refusal to contemplate ceding territory begins to waver, that place is Crimea. Despite official assurances from Ukraine that most citizens are against a land-for-peace deal, other polls (and my own conversations) suggest that people don't have principled objections to any ceding of land so much as serious doubts about whether Putin could ever be trusted to keep his word once a land-for-peace deal had been signed. That then – the security side of the agreement which I suggested at the beginning of this column – is absolutely the nub of the entire settlement. I'm in no doubt that if the Ukrainian people could be convinced the settlement would be permanent, and backed to the hilt by the West, they would vote tomorrow for a treaty that gave Russia permanent possession of some of what it has already taken. Let me anticipate at this point some readers' objections. Firstly this: 'Nothing agreed with Putin can he be relied upon to honour.' The trouble with this objection is that it is too strong. It means that even if he could be driven back to the old frontiers, and surrendered, he would try again later. I reply that he well might: that is why the security guarantees for Ukraine remain key. Secondly this: 'We must never reward Putin's aggression.' I'm afraid that, ever since wars began, aggression has often been rewarded. This one, in which incalculable numbers of lives on both sides have already been lost, and if it continues many more will be, must not be accorded the status of a moral lesson for the ages. The fact is that neither side seems capable of winning, so let's park the sermonising and look for the compromise in which so many wars – just wars as well as unjust ones – have always ended. And finally this: 'We owe it to the Ukrainian military dead, brave men and women whose lives were sacrificed for their country, not to settle for less than victory.' Well, if so, does Russia not owe it to the greater numbers of Russian military dead whose lives were sacrificed for their country too? What do we owe the British dead whose sacrifice in Afghanistan was also for a noble cause? This logic, applying as it must to both sides of any conflict, leads only to madness. None of us should be at all confident that Putin is ready to deal. I suspect otherwise. The greater likelihood is that in any negotiations he will fall back on Moscow's insistence that 'the root causes' of this conflict must be tackled. By this he means Ukraine's departure from the orbit of the Russian Federation. That is why security, not land, is what may prove the sticking point this time, because Ukraine's departure from Moscow's orbit must indeed be made secure. But if not this summer or this year, then next summer and next year, when the West's military support for Ukraine does not waver, and Moscow grows weary, this – security – must be at the heart of any negotiations. And those guarantees are up to us. Which brings me back to Zelensky. Who can blame him? Perhaps years of war, years of acute personal tension, years of sticking doggedly to your guns, years in the eye of the storm when your whole country's future rests on your shoulders, jam the flexibility of mind needed, not to fight but to deal. But there's a real danger now that Zelensky's apparent stubbornness over this 'not an inch' business may so infuriate a temperamental US President that American (and with it European) resolve begins to fray. Zelensky should not be digging in his heels on the question of land, and European nations, including our own, should not be encouraging him to. We probably can't save Ukraine without the Americans, and the Americans won't save Ukraine unless there's movement on conceding land. The Ukrainian President must get off his high horse, and Europe should stop indulging his intransigence. It's as simple as that.
New Statesman
23 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Can Europe stop Trump selling out Ukraine?
Photo by. This summer, in between hosting JD Vance at Chevening and visiting Switzerland, David Lammy has been reading Edward Luce's Zbig: The Life of Zbigniew Brzezinski. The book charts the intellectual and political rivalry between the Polish-born US diplomat and Henry Kissinger. While Kissinger championed a foreign policy centred on the great powers – an approach Lammy regards as 'cynical' – Brzezinski consistently advocated for smaller countries, noting how they can act as 'geopolitical pivots' (a world-view that has influenced the Foreign Secretary's 'progressive realism'). Contemporary examples are not hard to find. As Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin prepare to meet in Alaska on Friday, the question is whether Ukraine will merely be a spectator to its fate or, as Brzezinski would have wanted, a participant. For Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump's election appeared to promise the worst. The US president had praised Vladimir Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine as 'genius' and repeatedly hailed his leadership of Russia. It was no surprise, then, when Trump treated Zelensky as a helpless vassal during their Oval Office encounter back in February. Ever since, through patient diplomacy, the UK has sought to bridge the gap between Ukraine and the US. Rather than rushing to denounce Trump for his treatment of Zelensky, Keir Starmer 'hit the phones'. Ahead of today's virtual meeting between European leaders and Trump, No 10 has similarly avoided making public demands of the US president. The UK government's position, insiders emphasise, remains unchanged: any peace deal must be agreed with Ukraine rather than 'imposed' upon it and must be backed by security guarantees that will deter Russia from attacking again. But unlike Emmanuel Macron and Friedrich Merz, Starmer has avoided publicly demanding that Zelensky be present at the Alaska summit. After the nadir of the Oval Office meeting, government officials insist that there are encouraging signs. They point to Trump's increasingly public anger over the war – 'It's disgusting what they're doing,' he declared of Putin's actions earlier this month – and the announcement of sanctions on India over its purchase of Russian oil. But the danger is clear: that Trump resolves to impose a land-swap deal on Ukraine – weighted in Russia's favour – and declines to offer any security guarantees to Zelensky. (With this risk in mind, Starmer will co-chair a meeting of the 'coalition of the willing' this afternoon, after their call with Trump.) For Starmer, there is domestic as well as international peril in any capitulation by Trump to Putin. The British public is among the most pro-Ukraine in Europe: 79 per cent believe that protecting Ukrainian sovereignty matters to the UK, a sentiment shared across all voter groups, including nearly two thirds of Reform supporters. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Britain has consistently sought to flatter Trump into a just peace (as opposed to insulting him). 'What I do know about Donald Trump is that he doesn't like losers and he doesn't want to lose; he wants to get the right deal for the American people,' Lammy told me last year. 'And he knows that the right deal for the American people is peace in Europe and that means a sustainable peace – not Russia achieving its aims and coming back for more in the years ahead.' The latter scenario is precisely what Zelensky is now invoking. 'We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this… Donbas for the Russians is a springboard for a future new offensive,' he has warned. The question, then, is whether Ukraine's fate will be one in which the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must or whether, as Brzezinski intended, a more enlightened outcome is possible. This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here [See also: Visions of an English civil war] Related
