I do love being quoted in the New York Times as saying that “I see a scary animalistic black man, a primal scream, and a beautiful white woman.” Ah, context!
Ohhh Mama.
Previous post: Random Media Goodness
Next post: Why calling out misogyny matters, part 2: When misogyny is used against men
Previous post: Random Media Goodness
Next post: Why calling out misogyny matters, part 2: When misogyny is used against men
{ 15 comments }
aside from taking you totally out of context, they also make note that during the shoot everyone was laughing and jumping around, and that James’ nick name is “King James”, as if this is supposed to somehow make the racism OK?
i don’t get it.
oy w/ the poodles already!
congrats on getting mentioned in the NYT.
just remember there’s no such thing as bad press, jill. :)
Moreover, they refer to you as “a commenter” rather than your official internet title.
Do I feel the semi-annual Troll Awards coming on?
In fairness, it was something Jill said in a comment, not in her post.
It doesn’t take very long to check out who the commenter is. That’s just being lazy.
they also make note that during the shoot everyone was laughing and jumping around, and that James’ nick name is “King James”, as if this is supposed to somehow make the racism OK?
Sort of like the old movies with the happy slaves singing spirituals and the genteel white folk who aren’t really racist.
(I realized just as I typed that it could be taken wrong. I’m not comparing the people in the photo shoot to that, I’m comparing how the NYT piece was framed with the movies).
Oh boy! Cue the next round of “you called it racism, that means you’re the racist!!”
Oh, Christ, talk about stupidity in reporting… Wow… Well, I hope you weighed in to clarify what you meant. Although, if I recall the stupidity that was that thread, I think there were even people there who didn’t get it even though they knew the context of the discusson..
More on the topic from ESPN’s Jemele Hill. In case anyone is still fuzzy on why the cover is offensive.
I somehow completely missed the fact that this was an Annie Leibovitz cover. That makes it extra disappointing. She has certainly shot controversial covers before, but I really do expect better from the woman who shot the last photographs of John Lennon, and therefore the most recognized and perhaps finest magazine cover of all time.
Holly, that’s exactly what’s happening. I think it took three comments for someone to say “So what if it’s supposed to look like King Kong? Those feministes are RACISTS!”
sorry, I’m just reeling over the fact that the lame-ass cover photo was done by Annie Leibovitz. I really thought it had to be the work of someone’s relative using photoshop.
like it or not, Sports heros are acclaimed for their physical prowess, not their minds. And guys like LeBron are emulated BECAUSE they are rough, rowdy, vicious, and thuggish. It’s all about Gangsta. And clueless black people eat this bullshit up just as fast as clueless white people. A man in sports is CELEBRATED for his animal-like qualities, certainly not his brainpower. This is what America wants from its sports “heroes”. Nothing more, nothing less.
Was Annie making a clever tongue-in-cheek visualization of this? Or is she just a vicious racist making fun of a clueless LeBron?
I think the answer is pretty obvious.
I disagree with you, Fade. LeBron isn’t exactly “rough, rowdy, vicious, and thuggish.” He’s rather known for being a snappy dresser and a love of things upscale, like his mentor Jay-Z. “Gangsta”? Maybe in the 90’s, during Allen Iverson’s great seasons in Philly, but the league has a done a lot to change its image since then. No more warm-ups and throwbacks on the bench, for example, if you’re out-of-the-lineup. Instead suits and ties are expected. Although there were a few naysayers (Iverson among them), the Player’s Association was largely down with that change, too, since they also wanted to combat the stereotype of the thuggish male athlete.
And athletes are indeed celebrated for their brain power. Among LeBron’s most celebrated attributes is his “court vision,” which basically translates to understanding the game and making good, quick decisions with the ball. Hell, Steve Nash won two MVPs and is one of the most celebrated players in the game. But he’s known for his smarts, not his brawn. Chris Paul (who should be the MVP this year but likely won’t be) is also an undersized guard like Nash who’s dropping assists like they’re bad penny stocks. None of these guys are “gansta” unless you think all black men with tatoos are “gangsta,” which is about as racist as you can be.
Comments on this entry are closed.