Racism Fatigue

by Guest Contributor Kate Harding, originally published at Shakesville

Latoya’s Note: This is a long post, but well worth the read. Please read the whole thing before launching into the comments.

So, everybody’s talking about the Vogue cover featuring LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen in a pretty blatant, uh, homage (*cough*) to King Kong, which many are–zanily enough!–calling racist.

Young’uns out there who haven’t taken film courses might not be familiar with the actual plot of King Kong, released in 1933 (not beyond “big gorilla climbs Empire State Building with woman in hand,” anyway) let alone with any analysis of its racist imagery. For a primer on both, let me point you to David N. Rosen’s article “King Kong: Race, sex, and rebellion.”

It doesn’t require too great an exercise of the imagination to perceive the element of race in KING KONG. Racist conceptions of blacks often depict them as subhuman, ape or monkey-like. And consider the plot of the film: Kong is forcibly taken from his jungle home, brought in chains to the United States, where he is put on stage as a freak entertainment attraction. He breaks his chains and goes on a rampage in the metropolis, until finally he is felled by the forces of law and order.

The causative factor in his capture and his demise is his fatal attraction to blonde Ann Darrow (Fay Wray). As Denham says in the last words of the film, “Oh, no, it wasn’t the airplanes. It was Beauty killed the Beast.” If we look at KING KONG in terms of a racial metaphor, “Beauty” turns out to be “the white woman.” …

Aside from the sexual aspect implicit in the question of race, there’s the more direct, and somewhat delirious, sexual imagery in the film. The ape often functions as a most appropriate anthropoid symbol of “lower,” “animal” instincts. In this case we have a giant ape (literally a huge, hairy monster) and his unrestrained, headlong pursuit of a “blonde,” that archetypical Hollywood sex-object, ending on top of the world’s foremost phallic symbol.(1) The sexual theme touches on the standard racist myth of the black male’s exaggerated sexual potency, and the complementary notion of his insatiable desire for white women.

Emphasis mine. Any questions? Good.

Now, let’s have a look at that cover.

And at Kong:

And for good measure, check out this old U.S. Army recruitment poster (H/T Jill at Feministe):

Any questions? GOOD.

I first became aware of the Vogue cover the first time Jill blogged about it, two weeks ago, and like her, I probably wouldn’t have noticed anything without having it pointed out to me. But as soon as it was pointed out to me, I saw the screamingly clear Kong echo–and since I did study King Kong in a film class many years ago, I was well aware of the racist underpinnings of that story and its imagery. So it didn’t take long for the penny to drop.

Some people, though, are still not only not getting it, but insisting that those of us who do get it are hypersensitive, overreacting, “looking for racism everywhere,” etc.–the usual, in other words. For the most part, I can just roll my eyes at that, because it’s all so familiar. Anything short of someone saying on national TV, “If you see a black man, you should shoot him in the face, and let me be perfectly clear that I mean you should shoot him in the face because he is black,” might not be racism after all, because some white people can’t see it. And if not all white people can see it, then the benefit of the doubt should automatically go to whomever made the racist statement/took the racist action/produced the racist image, not to the people identifying it as racist–because there is NOTHING WORSE IN THE WORLD than being a white person unfairly accused of racism! You lucky people of color have NO IDEA how horrible that is!

Like I said, the usual. But Wesley Morris at Slate has thrown a new twist into that argument. He (sort of) lays out the argument in favor of the Vogue cover being part of a long tradition of racist imagery depicting black men as primal brutes coming after white women, so he obviously gets it, but then follows that up with, “But even typing that just gave me a headache.”

The problem, you see, is not that it isn’t racist–it’s that all these discussions of racism are boring him.

I, for one, have racism fatigue. I’m wiped out. Between the outrage over Obama’s Jeremiah Wright problems and Bill Clinton’s unbelievable mutation from American’s first black president into Karl Rove, I don’t have the bandwidth to fight Anna Wintour. Seeing that cover as purely racist doesn’t give the people looking at it enough credit. It dates Vogue for relying on the allusion but it also dates us for going crazy over it. Racial hysteria is the old black.

Now, here’s the other twist: Wesley Morris, despite sounding exactly like a textbook example of white privilege in that passage, is not white. Which means, of course, to some of his readers, IF HE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT IT, IT’S NOT A PROBLEM! SEE! HA! TAKE THAT, ALL YOU P.C. HYSTERICS! (See also: Charlotte Allen and sexism.)

You know, on the one hand, I can actually empathize with Morris. There’s a part of me that has “sexism fatigue” these days, because I am so fucking sick and tired of explaining to people why the attacks on Hillary Clinton, 9 times out of 10, are not just about her politics. 8 gazillion people sent me links to stories about Miss Bimbo this week, and I’ve chosen not to write about it because, well… maybe I just don’t have the “bandwidth” to fight sexism in video games right now.

But do you see what I did there? I chose not to write about it–instead of choosing to write an article in which I dismiss other people’s concerns and announce that I am tired of all this talk about sexism, and those who focus on the sexist aspects of sexist things are failing to give people enough credit. We can’t all address every instance of bigotry in the world, and for those of us who are frequently asked to address specific brands of it, it can get fucking tiring. But when you get tired, the thing to do is take a break, not tell other people to shut up and focus on more important things. It’s all important, from the most subtle instances to the most blatant and institutionalized.

And it can be especially important to talk about the subtle things, because that’s where privilege reveals itself most clearly. Any white person who’s neither an idiot nor an asshole can see and deplore the racism in, say, this image. But we can’t all see it in the Vogue cover. So when we start talking about the Vogue cover as part of a long tradition of racist imagery that casts African-American men as aggressive apes, we get a much more useful conversation going. Instead of just a bunch of white liberals saying, “That’s horrible!” and a bunch of white supremacists saying, “No, it’s right on!” we get to see all the grey areas of privilege brought out in the open: those of us who try to be anti-racist and educate ourselves accordingly but still missed the racism there until it was pointed out to us; those of us who sorta see it once it’s pointed out but still think people are making a mountain out of a molehill; and most importantly, those of us who missed it in the first place and, on the basis of that, continue to insist it is not there.

We’ve been talking a lot around here recently about that last category of people, with regard to sexism. And as a woman and a feminist, I can tell you those people are FUCKING INFURIATING. The people who actually live as the subjects of discrimination and hatred are not oversensitive; we are sensitized to the more subtle manifestations of those things, because we’ve seen how they’re wielded against us, over and over and fucking over. So many people have trouble grokking the concept of “privilege” and will respond to having their own pointed out with laundry lists of the disadvantages they’ve experienced in their lives. But privilege, in this sense, is not just about obvious advantages. It is about the luxury of not seeing the subtle shit.

As a white person, I haven’t been sensitized to covert racism by a lifetime of experiences. Unlike a person of color who has no choice but to see and feel it every day, I actually do have to “go looking for it”; my privilege could otherwise allow me to go through life believing it doesn’t exist. Because I care about being anti-racist, I do go looking, do make an effort to educate myself about patterns of racism I wouldn’t automatically recognize–and to question myself when my kneejerk reaction is, “Oh, come on–I’m supposed to believe that’s racist?”

But because I’m white, I also have the option of not looking any time I don’t feel like it. That’s what privilege is. It’s the option to ignore nasty shit that doesn’t directly affect my own life, my career, my relationships, my bank account, my social standing, my housing situation, etc. And I won’t lie to you–I take that option plenty. I have not publicly flipped out about racism directed at Obama the way I have about sexism directed at Clinton. I had not given all that much conscious thought to making sure people of color feel welcome at my blog or within the movement it partially represents, until it was pointed out to me that many didn’t. I haven’t written jack shit about LGBTQ issues in I don’t know how long, despite being an ally in my own mind. I spend most of my activism energy on feminist issues and fat issues, things that affect me directly.

And you know, I don’t even feel guilty about some of that. Each one of us can only do so much, and I’d wager most of us spend more energy on things that affect us directly than on things that don’t. Even among those things, we pick and choose. I blow off Miss Bimbo. Wesley Morris can’t be arsed to care about King James as King Kong. Charlotte Allen neglects to think about… anything. In the big picture, that’s fine. No one has to save the world single-handedly.

But those of us who care about social justice have no excuse for not being aware of issues that don’t affect us directly, or for not taking people seriously when they tell us something that’s hidden behind the screen of our own privilege really is there. None of us has an excuse for wanting to maintain that privilege regardless of whom it hurts. And for my money, there is no better education in privilege for those who need one–and that includes all of us who have it, no matter how many times we’ve read “Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack”–than these heated conversations about the more subtle forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, sizeism, ableism, what-have-you. Because that’s when it really comes out. That’s when people start making the “I don’t see it, so IT IS NOT THERE” arguments, and the “You people are just looking for things to get pissed about!” arguments. There’s a lot to be learned from those.

I don’t have to go looking for instances of sexism and sizeism to get pissed off about; I’m a fat woman, so they find me. But I do look for instances of other forms of bigotry, because in so many cases, if I don’t look, I won’t see them. And those of us with privilege need to look. So the problem with a Wesley Morris telling us certain instances of racism should be beneath our notice, or a Charlotte Allen telling us pretty much all of sexism should be, is that it gives those who really need to look a handy excuse not to. And it’s a hell of a lot easier to look for excuses not to care than to look at experiences outside our own.

That Vogue cover is bloody well a call-out to King Kong, and Kong himself is bloody well a profoundly racist metaphor. And it bloody well matters, even if there are more important things to think about. Even–especially–if you “just don’t see it.” I can totally understand Morris being too worn out to challenge Anna Wintour, but for fuck’s sake, dude, if the rest of us aren’t? Don’t tell us to shut up about it. Because one thing a lifetime of experience as a white person has taught me is that a whole lot of white people love little more than being let off the hook by a Bona Fide Person of Color. You don’t think I need to care about this? And you’re not white? HALLELUJAH! Hey, I’ve totally got racism fatigue, too, my brother, let me tell you! Nobody’s got it worse than me!

It’s one of the many ways our privilege gets reinforced. And that matters in the big picture, even if one stupid magazine cover doesn’t.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. nubianimp.com » Blog Archive » Contemplating privelage and race = tired on 16 Apr 2008 at 9:42 pm

    […] I visit regularily posted a link to an blog post at http://www.racialicious.com by Kate Harding on Racism Fatigue. That in turn reminded me of an incident I had at work last […]

  2. Why Michelle Obama’s Vogue cover matters at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 19 Feb 2009 at 1:17 pm

    […] showing her mouth hanging open, while the Lebron James/Gisele Bündchen cover was widely derided as overtly racist, with its unmistakable allusion to a renowned World War I propaganda poster. Vogue could have […]

  3. Why Michelle Obama’s Vogue cover matters on 24 Feb 2009 at 4:01 pm

    […] showing her mouth hanging open, while the Lebron James/Gisele Bündchen cover was widely derided as overtly racist, with its unmistakable allusion to a renowned World War I propaganda poster. Vogue could have […]

Comments

  1. Aaminah wrote:

    **Standing ovation**

  2. Da BeesKnees wrote:

    There is a certain Christian forums board that is infested with people that would just love to be let off the hook by folks like Mr. Morris. Down to a “tee” they have the perspective of “If I can’t see it… must be you LOOKING to find offense.”

    The sad thing is: they call themselves Christian.

    Makes me ashamed to call myself one.

    Keep on writing.

  3. gatamala wrote:

    This bears repeating:

    But privilege, in this sense, is not just about obvious advantages. It is about the luxury of not seeing the subtle shit.

  4. team wrote:

    Really, really great post. –CVK

  5. donna wrote:

    Da BeesKnees NEVER be ashamed of calling yourself a Christian, doing so is like saying they’re right and unfortunately I’m associated with them oppose to that is so un-christ like that one needs to question if they’re a Christian for thinking of such insanity.

  6. Celeste wrote:

    That was kick-ass! It really motivates to me want to be aware of my privileges and not just issues that affect me. I think that all the various advocacy groups for marginalized people would benefit from reading this essay. It might encourage more cooperation between the groups instead of more of the petty bickering and dismissal of complaints that we seem to have now.

  7. Matt wrote:

    Great post, just great.

  8. Eva wrote:

    “I can totally understand Morris being too worn out to challenge Anna Wintour, but for fuck’s sake, dude, if the rest of us aren’t? Don’t tell us to shut up about it.”

    This is important because to me this is part of the problem. People will always have different opinions but neither side should tell the other to shut up.

  9. cacy wrote:

    Amazing post. Videogamers need to read this…

  10. mince wrote:

    I loved this post the first time i saw it, and i love it again!

  11. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    **Throws flowers**

  12. Paul wrote:

    I immediately thought of the following racist joke when I saw the Vogue cover, rather than Kong.

    How do you stop a black man from raping a white woman?

    Toss him a basketball.

    I bet that reference wasn’t lost on many whites.

  13. Stacy wrote:

    I jumped into the Slate Fray on the day Morris’s piece was featured. If you want to see something scary, read the commentary there. A small handful of posters were outraged by the Vogue cover and by Morris’s nonchalance. I was called a racist when I suggested that such images propagate negative stereotypes and are even linked to the high incarceration rates among black males. How is that racist?! About 95% of the other [liberal? Slate?]posters in the forum argued that those who see the image as offensive are the real racists. The picture is great! they said. Beautiful! A testament to James’ prowess and skill on the court. And doesn’t Giselle look happy?

    But here’s the bottom line. In a country that remains largely segregated, the images–even the pop images–especially the pop images–matter a great deal. When white people have limited meaningful interaction with POC, and they find themselves in positions to make judgments about POC, [like sitting on a jury? hiring a job applicant? accepting a bid on a piece of real estate?] from which sources do they draw their information? Such images as the Vogue cover work on us subconsciously. We never know for sure what our brains store or don’t store. We judge people all the time based on what is real and also based on what we THINK we know to be true about them.

    I read Harding’s piece on Shakesville & felt somewhat calmed after the Slate mess. Thank god for sane voices.

  14. David Wynn wrote:

    I very much enjoy the acknowledgment of your own shortcoming’s blended with a tone that sees the light for the continued pursuit of social justice.

    To me, it makes the whole piece sound much more inspiring than if it didn’t.

  15. bdsista wrote:

    Excellent, going to use it for the diversity course I teach! Some of the best writing about the subtlety of racism and privilege yet!

  16. Fatemeh wrote:

    Oh, my gawd. What a great article! The points about “looking for privilege” and “dismissing concerns about others” are GREAT!

  17. ebogjonson wrote:

    Shorter Wesley Morris: I woke up this morning wanting to write something counterintuitive about Vogue and King Kong, but just couldn’t be bothered to work too hard on it. So instead I wrote this obvious 1000 words intended to make some white people I know feel better about themselves.

    Personally, my biggest problem with Morris’ piece is that it’s lazy film criticism. (Morris is the film critic for the Boston Globe, so that’s a harsher dig than it sounds like.) There are still lots of curious and counter intuitive things worth writing about King Kong and its role in the culture, but writing about those things takes work, and reading the Slate article it’s apparent Morris didn’t feel like doing that work that particular morning.

    Morris has a germ of a point about how these discussions tend to be strategic and restrictive as opposed to critical, in that they focus on education/consciousness raising and redress, which are just some of the many roles things one can do when faced with something like a racist Vogue cover. Education is fine, but you can also riff, provoke, extend existing arguments, find new lines of argument, research, perform various kinds of visual and memetic archeology and so on, acts that are (to me, at least) a lot more fun than helping white people be better or giving them standard what-for. (For those interested in discussions of Kong that don’t rely on rote racist/not-racist binaries, the anthology Planks of Reason: Essays on The Horror Film has a great piece on King Kong, evolution and Scopes-Trial era discussions of dinosaurs - http://books.google.com/books?id=QHg7m_ESR54C&pg=PA213&dq=kong+amour+fou&sig=IZJncmWVK9jBIyyGBtQsndM-Flk#PPA215,M1
    Fatima Tobing Rony also has a very neat book called The Third Eye on the history of surrealism and ethnographic film that makes great use Kong as well. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZFZTUSikmFkC&pg=PA186&lpg=PA186&dq=roni+king+kong+surrealism&source=web&ots=vDMTbPsKFT&sig=W8K3QtQKrnVq_XU0Qf8_vm43wTE&hl=en)

    If Morris is that bored with the argument over the Vogue cover, he should gotten it together to write some hot, non-boring ish about the relevant issues and dazzled us with new thinking, analysis and so on. I personally suffer from racial fatigue all the time, so I can relate. But I also put in a fair amount of work avoiding rote and obvious cliche’s, so Wesley’s decision to phone this one in kind of annoys me. One of the most tiring aspects of the Vogue fracaso is that as a general discussion it forces you into a restrictive Racism 101 debate that focuses on the education of racially undeveloped white people and their colored admirers, this while I would much rather have a higher level conversation with some grown folks about stuff like images or movies or surrealism or amour fou. I mean, what does Kara Walker have to say about Kong? or Judith Butler or Julia Kristeva?

    what Wesley should have written is “I’m an elitist and a film snob, and as a result I find King Kong to be both thoroughly racist AND a completely fascinating and rich object of discussion. Unfortunately there are a lot of well meaning people out there who don’t know half of what I’ve forgotten about these issues, and sometimes catering to their particular, perpetually early undergraduate stage of discussion doesn’t allow me the kind of roomy discursive stage necessary to put all my erudition on proper display. This lack is a longstanding condition of my personal and professional life, and it fills me with a great ennui and sadness. It makes me think of the choices I’ve made in life, how I found myself laboring in obscurity at second city paper when I should rightly be communing with the great minds at the New Yorker. When I read these arguments about the Vogue cover, I agree to be sure, but I also can’t help sighing a deep, dark Eeyorian sigh.”

    I mean, that’s TOTALLY what I would have written.

  18. Jennifer Gandin Le wrote:

    Oh HELL yeah. This is the first time I’ve seen this piece, and it is fantastic. Thank you for reposting it!

  19. Collie wrote:

    I’m a graphic design student, and as a queer feminist and (I hope) an ally to WoC, I’ve become fairly tuned in to the messages people’s designs send. I’ve been yelled at for pointing out racism, hetereosexism, misogyny, etc, or called “humorless” or “too PC”. But designers- and the people at Vogue should KNOW THIS- have to be VERY AWARE of the possible meanings their work may send to people.
    So, despite what some people claim, Vogue KNOWS that cover is racist, but they went with it anyway. They WANT to send that message that black men are dangerous, subhuman, lust after white women, etc. And that’s just f*cked up.

  20. johnjihoonchang wrote:

    I have to admit that I sometimes don’t say anything because I just can’t handle another discussion on racism with boneheaded obstinate deluded self-righteous racists with the intent to inform them just how racist X or Y is.

    Maybe we need to figure out a new approach, because one thing I’ve learned is that serious and intelligent critical thought really doesn’t work with the intended audience. We need to be able hit people more emotionally and create empathy for our plight as those on the receiving end of racism.

    Is that too far off?

  21. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    *got her name back!*

    johnjihoonchang - I guess it depends on what you mean by discussion. People do like and respond well to intelligent critical thought - when they want it. But a lot of times, they don’t know they want it. So I think it’s more of a gradual pull to bring people around to your way of thinking.

    So, here, we have one type of conversation on race and when I go to Cerise, its a different kind of conversation. One of the biggest things I am knocking my head against as an anti-racist gamer is that people really have never heard of/given a thought to a lot of the truths and intellectual concepts we take for granted here.

    So, the idea, I think, is not to reach out to the openly hostile, but the shoulder shrugging “whatever” population who doesn’t really care either way but gets defensive when something they like is analyzed.

    That’s one of the reasons that I am spending so much time on RE5 - it’s one of those sticky ass gray areas which seem pretty clear to anti-racists, but make no sense to gamers because it fits in with the acceptable level of racism in gaming. So I’m puzzling on that and thinking of a way to present the issue in a way where most people (read: most gamers who are interested in a decent conversation) can think on the ideas without feeling preached at. And then take that issue, throw some sprinkles on it, and present it for mass consumption.

    But then again, that’s just me. A lot of people aren’t interested in deconstructing their audience at that kind of level.

    (Also, keep in mind that the virtual world is kind of weird in that you generally get slammed in the comments, but a lot more people are reading the piece and not commenting, but agreeing and learning and thinking. So it’s not always going to be an immediate reaction to your action.)

    Hope all that made sense.

  22. Iaypo wrote:

    I’ve been following this conversation for a while now and I honestly couldn’t see the connection until I saw all of the images that you have up. Seeing those images all together really made it clear to me why it is racist imagery. Thanks.

  23. marge twain wrote:

    What can I add except “Bravo, Kate!” great response to an idiotic article, one that nevertheless needed a response. The comments at Slate should validate for the author why challenging racism in pop culture matters, still, I hope he reads this.

    I was unfortunate enough to see The Ladies Man movie on tv this past weekend and was beyond appalled at the racism that permeates every scene of the story.
    For those of you who haven’t seen it, Tim Meadows plays an oversexed cheap-dressing ignoramus with an unbridled lust for women. A gang of white men want to kill him because they’re so angry that their wives can’t resist him and his downfall is when he’s caught naked with Will Ferrell’s wife. There’s a horrible scene where he’s surrounded by the white gang and one of them actually threatens to castrate him with hedge clippers. That this is supposed to be comedy underscores the problem of too many people being under-sensitized to racism or too fatigued to care. And in what world do people turn themselves inside-out trying to be outraged about racism? A lot of white people get immediately defensive and the discussion never begins.
    It seemed like the movie and the vogue cover it should have been a relic from the distant past, but they wern’t.

  24. sfsinger wrote:

    I’m so glad I can come to this site and read such an intelligent and thought-provoking article. It was very refreshing! I am in the midst of a disagreement with what a blogger posted about homosexuality. He turned my comment into a posting of it’s own. Since he didn’t ban me I’m not backing down with challenging him. We may never agree but I have to take a stand for what I think is right.

  25. Hot Tramp wrote:

    The people who actually live as the subjects of discrimination and hatred are not oversensitive; we are sensitized to the more subtle manifestations of those things, because we’ve seen how they’re wielded against us, over and over and fucking over.

    Yes. This. Right here.

  26. lockedwithpatience wrote:

    you know what makes me cringe when I think of this photo? It’s the fact that they barely have blacks on their covers, and this is what they portray when they do have one.

    It’s not about King Kong, if a magazine like VIBE was to do that I’d be ok. Why? Because they have blacks on their covers all of the time and take pictures of them in different lights. At times elegant, serious, ghetto, oversexed, etc. They provide a mix.

    But VOGUE has only had a handful, and this is how they do it. This is how we are represented, and this will be in the minds of their readers for the next few years until they put another black on the cover.

    This is why people are so critical when it comes to the way people of color are portrayed in the media. It’s not about “looking for racism”, it’s about making sure that your portray us right because who knows when we will ever be featured again!

  27. johnjihoonchang wrote:

    LP - I guess I’m just frustrated with both forum surfing and personal conversations and people getting hyper defensive if you even imply that what they said, think, or what they like has racism connected to it.

    I don’t think it’s really the place of Racialicious to reach out to all the “whatever” people. It feels more like a safe community for the aforementioned critical thought.

    I guess in some sense, I’m just reaching out for a Steven Spielberg of anti-racism. Someone who can reach a broad audience and still get across his/her point in a way that isn’t overtly intellectual, but hits people in a way that doesn’t require a whole lot of critical analysis. I still remember feeling my eyes sinking into the back of my head and hiding during my film theory classes, because, despite the value of the concepts presented, film intellectuals frequently lack the ability to present their ideas cleanly and simply.

    It might reduce the fatigue just to go about the comment wars in a way that doesn’t require dissertations. You make a strong empathic point, let it sit and people will either accept it or dismiss it.

    Maybe it’s just the tired guy in me dreaming. I’ve sort of quit engaging in the comment wars in the general internet and just write about racism on my own, far less widely distributed blog. At least I know that my readership will at least give ears to what I have to write.

  28. Black Magic Woman wrote:

    You know, this is a great piece. I got into it with the Slate Cultural Gabfest people. Check out the gabfest last week where they talk very limply about the Vogue cover. I emailed the group and discussed why I felt the cover was racist and offensive and all I got back in reply was a willful misinterpretation of my email.

    I also asked them to include some differing perspectives - including those of people of color - in their gabfests for a change and I pointed them back to this website for some commentary and differing perspectives on the Vogue cover.

    The response was “hey, Wesley Morris is Black and he liked the cover” - which, btw, is so fucking typical I could have written it down on a separate sheet of paper like Kreskin. But a nameless White person in their editorial offices was offended by the cover, so it isn’t just Black people who should be included in the discussion.

    Yeah well, maybe in the Slate editors’ heads do people of color=Black, but not in mine.

    It is deeply ironic that a podcast with the name “cultural podcast” could be so White and lacking in meaningful discussions of issues/topics/concerns of those who are not White.

  29. lori wrote:

    Re: “And doesn’t Giselle look happy?”

    The thing is, she’s smiling but she looks so stiff and uncomfortable, brittle, which is clearly how VOGUE wanted her to be… because surely there were less “stiff” versions of this image in the gazillion photos they shoot in a photoshoot?

    It’s a weird and ugly picture. And I hadn’t heard that racist joke, but, wow–even if VOGUE editors hadn’t heard it, it exactly expresses the logic of this picture, this history.

  30. MoeHailstone wrote:

    Very well written.
    I hated that cover from the moment my eyes came across it. LeBron should know better and shouldn’t be given a pass on it. When you’re making over $150 million, you know he has power to say what he would want depicted of himself and not some sh*t like that. He’s his own corporation and someone within that corporation should have said something.

  31. m.dot wrote:

    I totally thought about King Kong when I saw that too… I also thought about the stereotype of Black athletes dating white women.

    Can’t say VF ain’t kill 3 birds w/one stone.

  32. Ash wrote:

    There is one person whose opinion matters here at least as much, probably more, than ours: LeBron “King” James himself. Now, I don’t follow basketball and I don’t know the man, but I’m prepared to bet that the “King” of his nickname is a deliberate reference to King Kong, given the man’s enormous size and the image of ferocity he likes to portray.

    So, a photographer posing him like King Kong, especially if Giselle Bundchen was *actually there*, is unlikely to come as a complete surprise to him. So we must believe that either the photographer made a cruel joke of a poor simple basketball player in an extremely manipulative way, *or* (and this is the option I prefer to believe) he was a voluntary and informed participant, who was presumably *told* “we’re going to pose Giselle here in your left arm, squat down a bit, look like King Kong enraged, like in this poster here”. Maybe it’s my imagination, but I do detect a twinkle of humor in his eye. That strengthens the “voluntary participant” theory.

    So if that’s the case, why would he voluntarily go along with being portrayed as an “offensive racial stereotype”, as the “first black man on the cover of Vogue”? Firstly, on further digging it turns out that LeBron is the third man of *any race* to appear on the Vogue cover (Richard Gere in 1992 and George Clooney in 2000 were the other two). The first black *person* to appear was Donyale Luna in March 1966. Vogue was established in 1892. So having men on the cover at all is extremely novel; and it’s pretty clear that all three men (and all of the thousands of women) were chosen specifically for their sex appeal. That’s what Vogue does.

    Now it’s brutally clear that overt portrayal of black people, especially men, as apes of various kinds has a long history in racist philosophy and racist propaganda. King Kong, Planet of the Apes, and a number of other films have used apes to some extent as “stand-ins” for black people, to make racist and/or anti-racist points; remember the plot of King Kong involves him being taken in chains from his home, mistreated horribly, put on display, and in the end brutally killed to “save” a woman he *never harmed* from him: Kong is either the doomed hero, plot element, or the victim of the movie(s), but he is definitely not the villain. The villain of the movie is the filmmaker Carl Denham, Jack Black’s character in the recent version: a white man, stereotypically so, a “villain of entitlement”, ie his belief that he is *entitled* to do as he does, regardless of the rights or feelings of others, brings about his villainy.

    But all this is an aside to the main question: what’s *LeBron’s* opinion? Does anyone know? Has anyone asked? I’d really want to hear what LeBron himself has to say about it, before I made up my mind as to what to think of his actions. Assuming he says that posing as King Kong was perfectly OK with him (and again, he embraces a nickname with that connotation already), what next? Is LeBron *allowed* to voluntarily choose to adopt elements of the identity of a formidable, fierce and tragic movie monster, into his own identity, and can he do so without trailing a trainload of offensive racial propaganda along with it?

    Would anyone want him to give up calling himself “King James” as well? Because that, it seems, is where this leads. If he can’t be *photographed* as King Kong, can he be *named* for King Kong?

  33. Rich wrote:

    Response to Ash:
    The “King” in Lebron James’s nickname is a reference to the “King James” version of the bible, first published in the 1600s that is still in wide circulation today. It fits nicely with Lebron’s other nickname, “the chosen one” , which has messianic overtones. So the whole argument about Lebron embracing the King Kong character connotations, therefore the Vogue cover is less racist is bunk. I’m sure the editors of Vogue immediately made the connection between a large black man nicknamed “King” and King Kong. Then decided to go with that ridicously idea of a cover.

  34. flabbyabby wrote:

    Wow what a refreshing and insightful post!! Because at first I didn’t think any thing of this picture either but when I heard all the nasty,stupid,delusional comments on ‘other’ blogs it did become more disgraceful the more I saw it. For f$$k’s sake this is a FASHION magazine and if they are going to put him with a model then why NOT have him posed like a model too?!! I say that because this picture would be perfect for Sports Ill. but not Vogue they wouldn’t have Robert Englund dressed as ‘Freddy’ with a severed head in his hand why have Lebron like this?!

  35. Ash wrote:

    To Rich:

    Do you have a verifiable source for the origin of his nickname? I just tried to find any interview or bio or anything that might mention it, and my google-fu is failing me.

    I will admit to having serious doubts that he’s nicknamed for King James I of Scotland. :)

    To all:

    Has anyone read the actual Vogue article? Skimmed it in the newsagent? Is there any mention of the cover pose, or the origin of James’s nickname, in the text? Googling reveals exactly *nothing* on the issue said by the one man who can really shed light on LeBron James’s opinions: himself!

    He has a blog at http://lebron.msn.com/ which appears to be written on his behalf by some PR guys. They *might* pass on an email to him, though.

    But in the absence of hearing from him, I think we can safely say that either LeBron was aware he was being posed with Gisele in King Kong’s classic stance, or he was not. If he was not, that strongly implies she wasn’t there. I seriously doubt that they could possibly have been told “Giselle lie like this, LeBron hold her like that, now squat a bit and yell” without them realizing, hey, we look like the King Kong poster. Nothing I’ve read about either person implies they’re that much dumber than the average. It’s *possible* neither one is familiar with the movie, but she at least has *heard* of it ( http://www.wireimage.com/GalleryListing.asp?navtyp=gls====152621&evntI=1694 ).

    In LeBron’s particular case, he’s probably heard the words “King Kong” a *lot*, as as he is *a 6′9″ tall black man*. I remain unconvinced that his nickname has another origin; even if it is a religious reference (and it seems an odd sort of nickname for a religious man), the connection has surely been made in his awareness between then and now. I’ve never seen an interview or read a transcript, but I have no reason to assume he’s any more clueless or media-unaware than the average person. It’s possible he has no interest in old movies so hasn’t seen the original “King Kong”, but he was aged 20 in 2005, and I bet he saw the latest version of the movie.

    As for his racial political awareness, commitment, etc; again, that’s something only he and people who know him personally can express an opinion on. He wouldn’t be the first person to make a deliberate choice to subversively adopt an offensive stereotype and claim it as something powerful for himself. He also wouldn’t be the first person to be made fun of, without his awareness and against his will, by the “fashion establishment”.

  36. Kate Harding wrote:

    I’m super late in responding to this, but thanks so much to everyone for the kind words about the piece!

  37. Rich wrote:

    To Ash:
    First, I don’t care if Lebron knew or didn’t know about the whole King Kong motiff inspiring his photoshoot. But I will pretty much guarantee, he wasn’t the person who intially brought it up. Second, as an avid basketball/ NBA fan for almost 20yrs and a person raised in a Black American Christian household(where bible-study is a big deal), I can tell you that Lebron’s nickname is derived from King James I of Scotland/England and not some giant gorilla. Any person who has ever had to do any bible study is familiar with the King James Bible. Its the most popular English Translation of the Christian bible in the World. People with any kind of bible-study in their past, get the “King James” reference in a heartbeat. Lebron was raised as a Christian so, I’m sure he gets it too. There are a lot of large blackmen in the NBA. Many are larger than James. Why aren’t they nicknamed after “King Kong “or “Mighty Joe Young”. Lebron is called “King” because his last name is James and he has been dominating the Bball courts since High School. Real Talk.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.