Comments on: Ohhh Mama.

By: Sickle

Sickle — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:09:34 +0000

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.

By: Fade

Fade — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:26:40 +0000

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.

By: ol cranky

ol cranky — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 00:48:37 +0000

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.

By: Jasi

Jasi — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 21:20:19 +0000

Point is, it’s questionable. And we should question it. To say that a cover is just a cover is ridiculous in that it’s media, it’s exposure and it’s effecting the way people think whether for good or ill.

I don’t believe this cover meant to cause any harm, but that these images are so strikingly similar and that most of us have no problem with it means that we’ve all been sleeping. And it’s time to wake up.

By: Emily

Emily — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:24:58 +0000

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!”

By: Cara

Cara — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:25:56 +0000

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.

By: FashionablyEvil

FashionablyEvil — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 13:13:18 +0000

More on the topic from ESPN's Jemele Hill. In case anyone is still fuzzy on why the cover is offensive.

By: Kristin

Kristin — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:50:03 +0000

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..

By: Holly

Holly — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:45:08 +0000

Oh boy! Cue the next round of “you called it racism, that means you’re the racist!!”

By: Astraea

Astraea — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 12:01:19 +0000

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).