That LeBron James Vogue cover

Sam — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 15:48:15 GMT

He doesn't look like King Kong. He looks intense; posing much like he would after scoring a game winning dunk over Shaq. There's nothing racist there unless you're deliberately trying to make it racist.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Ray Brady — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:14:20 GMT

Re: "I'm having a real hard time believing the elephant got such good shots."

The elephant was essentially a delivery system for a remote controlled camera. Once the elephant got the camera reasonably close to the subject, a remote operator was able to move it and frame the actual shots.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Michael, Halifax, Canada — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:39:22 GMT

Ok, first of all let’s look at photo 8 of 11 titled "Crouching Tiger". A white man is holding a woman over his shoulder caveman style (I.E. I-just-knocked-this-girl-over-the-head-and-I'm-draging-her-back-to-my-cave style). If the Lebron James picture is sexist and racist than this photo is at least twice as sexist (if not racist simply for the ‘there is no racism vs whites’ reason). I mean, he’s holding the girl over his shoulder like she’s the trophy at a weight lifting contest. Maybe no one is outraged over this photo because of that whole idea of racism being more in the social spotlight than sexism (that idea was discussed about Hillary and Barack at one point).

Now, I have one other thing to say, but I must warn you that I am about to talk about South Park. There was one episode of South Park that was about the city flag. Chef (who is Black, for those of you that don’t watch the show) get’s really upset at the flag since it’s basically a picture of a Black man being hanged by Whites. Chef goes to city hall to demand that the flag is changed and eventually (after some Whites get mad and say that the flag is historic and can’t be changed) city hall decided that the flag must be redesigned. Of course, the task of redesigning the flag goes to Stan, Kyle, Eric and Kenny’s class. The children all then make new flags, but most of these flags are still considered racist by Chef (most of them haven’t taken the Black man being hanged off of the flag). Eventually Chef gets mad at the children for being a bunch of “racist crackers” (which is funny, since ‘cracker’ is a racist term for white people) and the children ask Chef why he’s so angry. Chef explains that the flag is a bunch of White people lynching a Black man and all the children go “Ohhhhh *expression of finally understanding* hhhhhh”.
At this point Chef realizes that the kids just saw ‘people’ on the flag and not ‘White people’ and ‘Black people’. Basically the children were so un-racist (that can’t be the proper word…) that they didn’t even see colour.

The episode I’m talking about is called “Chef goes Nanners” and is in season 4 (this goes well with that South Park link you had the other day). You should all watch it.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Steve, Springfield, Ill. — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:34:43 GMT

Thank you, thank you, thank you for being the first commentator I've read who gets the King James connection. I'm almost positive that's what the editor was going for.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

kim, paducah, ky — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:50:47 GMT

I don't get it. How does he look like King Kong? I just don't see it. I agree with Sam that he looks intense and pumped up.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Darrell, PA — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:03:35 GMT

I think the one detail that draws comparisons to King Kong is the way James has his arm on Gisele's waist. I don't see the picture as a whole as racist, but whomever chose to have James' hand curled around her made a huge mistake. That detail along with the King Kong-esque pose by Lebron is the troubling part. If Lebron were there by himself snarling, no problem. If Lebron is there standing next to Gisele snarling, no problem. Lebron snarling with his arm grasping Gisele's waist = moderate problem. Even those of you who do not see it as offensive in any way do have to admit it plays up the whole "black men are dangerous to our white women" stereotype. I don't think it was meant to be offensive, and on the grand scale of offensiveness, it's pretty low. But still, that's a dumb choice for the art director to make.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Sean, NY — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:04:52 GMT

The thing is it's not just some gorilla, it's an icon, it's King freaking Kong and the movie and creature are beloved. I saw the similarities immediately and never thought "racism" until the professional activists started whining about it.

This is the specific poster artwork that the cover is imitating...

http://www.corusent.com/images/store/hi_king_kong.jpg

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Darrell, PA — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:07:26 GMT

Also, unless you know the legacy of racist, stereotypical propaganda that grew out of Uncle Tom's Cabin and minstrel shows, you don't get to decide what is or is not a racist caricature.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Steve, AR — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 01:29:29 GMT

That's right. Only Darrell from PA gets to decide!

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Sean, NY — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 04:16:26 GMT

I don't think anyone is saying LeBron looks like King Kong, it's the composition of the image and the pose that's similar to a famous poster for the film.

I also find it peculiar (and I've heard this several places) when someone tells people to do research in order to be as offended as they are. To a large extent that kind of thing is what perpetuates conflicts between races by introducing to every new generation the injuries and insults of the past.

Beside that King Kong was never about the Black experience in America, that was an analogy attached to it afterwards and if all someone sees in the imagery is "gorilla" they are the ones with the hangup.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Darrell, PA — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:53:14 GMT

Steve, I am not saying it's racist. I'm saying that African Americans who have lived the legacy of those racist caricatures get to, individually, decide if they think it is offensive, not me. And not a bunch of other white people who like to pretend we are somehow "beyond race." I am sure many black people are offended by it, just as many are not. That's their choice. I get so frustrated when a bunch of white people get all up in arms because they want to decide what is or is not offensive for other people.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

MW, NV — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:32:58 GMT

That cover is what every jock in high school looks like if you're a nerd. It's not racist-- It's nerdist!

That LeBron James Vogue cover

BRIAN C RICHMOND,VA — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:25:51 GMT

i dont know if the photographer is racist not...but its CLEAR that the likeness to king kong was INTENTIONAL...theres noway u could possibly come up with that by accident..so RACIST maybe...TASTELESS definitely!!

That LeBron James Vogue cover

KRW — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:49:50 GMT

It seems to me that if you took this picture 30 years ago and anyone objected, they would likely be coming from the perspective that it's offensive because it shows a black man "taking" a white woman, and those people would be the racists. The race-sensitive types would have denounced the objection of it being offensive because it's just two people and their color doesn't matter, and those people would be the multi-culturalists. Now, for almost the exact same reasons, the objectors and defenders are on the opposite sides. This we call progress?

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Steve, AR — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:33:42 GMT

I'm saying that everyone has a right to decide.

I certainly don't think that every African-American somehow has exclusive rights to decide what can and cannot be said or shown in contemporary media.

Are you going to give Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan the right to tell you what you can see or say strictly by virtue of the fact that they are black. Be my guest, but I decline.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Tom, CO — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 13:22:31 GMT

Annie Leibowitz is an Icon the Babe Ruth of Photography if she chooses to shoot a guy who is as he says is 6'10" and 260lbs with tatoos and a reputation for intensity. Giselle is 5'11" maybe 120lbs and is known and admired for being willowy and slender. If Leibowitz chooses to contrast their personas let her, she knows what shes doing. If you don't like that men with big muscles and agressive attitudes excel in sports... maybe you should write a letter. Or maybe you are offended that nature made bananas phallic shaped because it is so sexist, either way your opinion doesn't matter.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Rebecca, Brownsville, Kentucky — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 15:22:28 GMT

If Lebron James and Giselle like the cover, why are we making a big deal out of it? It is a picture of them and not us.
When I saw the cover I didn't notice anything racist or sexiest. I just saw a basketball player and a model having fun. I asked myself, "What is the problem?", so I had to read what everyone else thought. The more I read the more I thought you know this could be considered racist and maybe sexiest. Then I also thought..you know I didn't find this racist or sexiest until I read what others had written. So, humm....maybe, just maybe if we keep our negative view points to ourselves we will not influence others by our negativity. I know, it is just a thought and it will never happen.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Darrell, PA — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 03:15:12 GMT

I agree partly with Rebecca, in that I didn't find it patently offensive at all when I first saw it. And I still don't. But I'm white and I'm not going to pretend that it can't be offensive for other people. And I think there is something potentially offensive about the picture that Michael from Halifax mentioned, where the huge weightlifter is holding a woman over his shoulder. But the problem is, someone was smart enough not to put that picture on the cover. So one of two things happened: 1) Someone (the art director?) saw that the cover looked like King James and saw no problem with it or 2) They did not even see the connection. Neither possibility means they were being racist or mean-spirited or whatever. I don't think it's a terrible picture or that the people who made it are terrible. I think we have to acknowledge that some people find it offensive. It doesn't mean the cover has to be changed or anyone needs to be fired. But, seriously...did no one watch Obama's speech? We have not even come close to working through our race issues in this country; to pretend they don't exist isn't an option. I know too many people (many of them in my family) who somehow think the 1960s solved all the race problems in our country.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

Darrell, PA — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:48:32 GMT

Err...to clarify, in that sentence where I said "the cover looked like King James" should say "King KONG." Oops.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

John Makuta, Hazleton, Pa. — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:09:27 GMT

I'm thinking most "white" people these days are uninvolved with the whole racism thing.

I know it's terribly important to the press who sell sensationalism and the "Black" leadership who must perpetuate the hatred to keep their importance, how can a working "white" guy of immigrant heritage get all worked up about something that isn't remotely his problem?

MOST "white" people in America can't trace their roots back to the slave days or the Civil War. MOST "white" people's ancesters came to America to escape virtual "slavery" in Europe or Asia.
MOST "white" people in America didn't have anything to do with Jim Crow laws or racial segregation.
MOST "white" people in America are worried about the price of gas at the pump and the falling purchasing power of their hard-earned dollars.

I find the cover an interesting, eye-catching contrast of a great athlete and beautiful woman. As for racism...
Until the "victims" of racism pointed it out, I didn't even notice it!

It leaves me wondering if the "black" leadership aren't the new racists?

That LeBron James Vogue cover

T, Southfield, MI — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:18:33 GMT

Wow.. I've never seen more people in denial in my life.. Are you folx kidding? This is a coincidence?

http://photos-c.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v197/77/3/32803729/n32803729_33781898_9923.jpg

C'mom. They couldn't have used this photo instead?

http://cache.jezebel.com/assets/resources/2008/03/lebrongisele031708.jpg

That LeBron James Vogue cover

John Makuta, Hazleton, Pa. — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:19:58 GMT

Just a silly observation in the interest of accuracy...
(as IF accuracy was important in racial matters!)

If I recall correctly, King Kong wasn't DANGEROUS to Faye Wray.
He loved her and was VERY protective of her.

Could it be this supposed menacing look on the face of Lebron is meant to scare away someone threatening her?
As it was on the face of King Kong?

If we want to be offended, we really should get offended for the proper reason.

That LeBron James Vogue cover

NOLA Darling, New Orleans, LA — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:28:55 GMT

John, the issue wasn't whether or nor Fay Wray perceived King Kong as a threat, but the rest of society's perception of him. As for the picture, it is a very loaded image that can and will create a subconscious association for some people and if you don't see it, then that means that you might not have had the kind of exposure that would make you sensitive to it. Ironically, I didn't make the association with King Kong because I've never really liked the movie so really wouldn't recall it, but the image did turn me off enough to make me not want to buy the magazine.