The problem some people are having with this cover shot is that it has racist overtones. There have been various references to "King Kong." One could see the questionable tone of this picture. You do not have to look hard to get the feel that it is an angry, scary black man victimizing a beautiful, pure white woman. He is screaming and holding her in his arm. He is big and strong. She is beautiful and somewhat fragile in fancy clothes. But I'll be honest, that is not what I thought when I saw the picture.
What I saw was LeBron dribbling a basketball in one hand because that is what he is known for doing. The look is a common one he gives after dunks or big plays. Gisele seems to be along for the ride and enjoying it. She didn't seemed scared or worried. I figured it was what models do. I assumed she was running which made sense if she was with an athlete in a photo shoot.
With that said, I do understand the point of view of those people seeing it in a different light. I wonder if this is a case of hypersensitivity or over-the-top political correctness or really something to worry about. I highly doubt the photographers were going for a King Kongesque cover but one would think somebody in the hallways of Vogue would have picked up on the possibility of the "racist pic" point of view.
I mean I am not any sort of expert. I watch all these reality contest shows with my wife regarding fashion and models and have no clue what is "good" and "bad" and why. They say certain outfits or runway walks or poses are too "this" or too "that" and show a certain feeling or attitude that I don't get at all. When I think something looks well done, I hear how bad it is. I am the same way with art period. So my opinion can't be close to right in this case either since I am "art challenged."
I read an article on MSN.com regarding this cover shot that had a quote saying through the years we always see black men depicted as mean, angry criminals. They picked out several examples. I see where they are going with this and I do notice this throughout the media but we could back and find examples of angry, white rockers on the cover of various magazines looking scary as well. And I bet there are plenty of positive cover shots of black men as well. In fact, LeBron himself has been depicted in pleasant shots numerous times.
Let's be careful of how we show the world different images, but let's not go overboard. I'm eager for opinions on this.
6 comments:
Sorry, it's been a busy week...
The cover was culturally insensitive, but what else should we expect? We live in a society dominated by institutionalized racism. Neither the cover nor Vogue's ignorance surprise me at all.
Who's to blame for this cover? My suspicion is that the editor of the magazine made the final call. Most likely, she is so unaware of race and its history in our country that she just missed the connotations. Or, as I suspect, she figured that the image would stir up some controversy and with that, sell a few more magazines.
Either way, it's sad. You'd think that at a time when we are possibly ready for our first president of color that a magazine like Vogue would not make such an insensitive blunder.
Yeah, I definitely see what you are saying. I find myself awfully ignorant as well because I didn't think anything of it until after I heard others bring it up. I find myself cringing more over the Wiggles showing a cartoon of one of their songs sung in Japanese (I think). It's not the language but the cartoon figures are drawn as stereotypical Asian charactures. It almost feels uncomfortable to watch because it seems to over the top. My wife even asked me, "Is that ok?"
So I wonder sometimes if I am going too far in my oversensitivity. But there is something to be said of so many people are responding the way they are to the Vogue shot. Jason Whitlock mentioned in an article he wrote for foxsports.com that he needs a handbook for when to be offended or not as a black man. He seemed to have more of a problem with NBA players covered in "ink" or Chad Johnson acting like a clown.
All very interesting. I am eager to hear what you have to say about Obama's speech on racism in America after his minister was called to the carpet. I haven't heard it all but already people are saying it was all political and ingenuine. Email me. Unless the two people who read this are interested.
I thought Obama's speech was an incredibly insightful and nuanced take on race in modern America. My problem is wondering why didn't Hillary give the same speech (or, more likely, her own version) when everyone in her camp makes a racist remark once a week. Why is that only Obama should talk about race? Don't white people have a racial identity as well?
As far as what all those people are saying about the speech being ingenuous and political, who isn't? Who is this mythical presidential candidate that doesn't give political speeches that lack sincerity? That's ridiculous.
Do you really believe that John McCain feels lucky to have Bush's support? Do you believe that Hillary Clinton means anything she says? Do you think that Ralph Nader really believes he is contributing to political discourse by entering the presidential race every four years? Come on.
Never before have I been more moved by a presidential candidate's candor, integrity, and ability to transcend Washington politics than I have when listening to Barack Obama speak. I defy someone to name a more genuinely sincere politician than Obama.
I've got a blog post coming on this race stuff. I can feel it.
Excellent! I don't want to miss the post. I am trying to listen to as many points of view on this stuff as I can and relate it all to what I am feeling and thinking.
I also want to hear more about what this minister said and Obama's reaction speech. I have only heard snippets and don't want to jump to conclusions.
"...As far as what all those people are saying about the speech being ingenuous and political, who isn't? Who is this mythical presidential candidate that doesn't give political speeches that lack sincerity? That's ridiculous."
THANK YOU!!!! That is exactly what I think anytime someone tries to play that card as if their candidate or party of choice doesn't do that. Can't we get past that now. Politics have been like this for decades if not centuries.
"....Why is that only Obama should talk about race? Don't white people have a racial identity as well?"
Another good point. We seem to forget that whites are a race as well and we have concerns and needs and problems and shortcomings etc. We also have an opinion and feelings and they are valid. We care about our relation to people of other races both positive and negative and our own race as well.
Was it you that once told me we all are racist (we as in everyone not just whites) and we need to get to a point where we all admit it and begin to move past it and heal? Regardless of who said this, it made me think.
Hey, check out this link..
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=ap-voguecover&prov=ap&type=lgns
It's a yahoo article on the exact same thing. I'm sure Vogue had the King Kong intention the whole time.. maybe not referring to race.. but more to the "King" James nickname.. or probably both.. believe me, the marketing people know exactly what they are doing.
I don't know if I said it to you, Huey, but I have said basically that we are all racist. It's time we take some ownership of these feelings, opinions and deal with it instead of acting like we know nothing of racism. Like I said, a blog post is coming on just this very subject.
Good point, Mike. A magazine like Vogue has been around too long to not be aware of any contorversy this cover might have stirred.
If anyone gets a chance, listen to a podcast of Steven A Smith on ESPN. He addressed this topic in a way that is clear and concise. His theory on the whole thing explains the issue in plain English so that any red-neck can understand...oops, was that racist?
Post a Comment