Invalidating Jemele Hill: When You Cause a Stir… Face Slaps Follow

By: D.K. Wilson

Because articles from its computers are more often than not the first to be read by the public, the Associate Press news service monolith often acts as a tone-setter for discourse of news events. In the case of the stir caused by the LeBron James-Gisele Bundchen American Vogue cover, though, someone at the organization feels that the growing controversy is important enough to attempt to act as the final word when it comes to discussions of race and racism.

And, of course, act to invalidate the concerns of many black people and people in general who feel the depiction of James is closer to King Kong then King James.

The article in question, which can be found at NBCsports.com, is, ostensibly an attempt at a balanced look at the arguments caused by the Vogue cover. Instead the author acts to trivialize the issues at hand surrounding the pose. Additionally the AP writer (I love the selective anonymity used by websites and media publications when it comes to AP articles) directly attacks the assertion made in a column ESPN.com’s Jemele Hill that the depiction of ‘James as beast’ image is normative when it comes to black men. The writer accomplishes this by quoting Hill’s column, reiterating her thoughts, not through a professor, but an assistant professor of kinesiology, then immediately providing an opposing quote from a black, female “Los Angeles account supervisor:”

In a column at ESPN.com, Jemele Hill called the cover “memorable for all the wrong reasons.” But she said in an interview that the image is not unusual - white athletes are generally portrayed smiling or laughing, while black sports figures are given a “beastly sort of vibe.” …

“James is a huge, black beautiful masculine statue and Gisele is a feminine, sexy gorgeous doll,” said Christa Thomas, 36, a black account supervisor in Los Angeles.

“I didn’t see any kind of racist overtone to it,” she said. “I still don’t. I think there is such a hypersensitivity to race still in this country.”

It is immediately unsettling that a black woman would commit a double-faux pas normally reserved for men.

The photo is obviously meant to show movement with respect to James, so Thomas’ use of the word statue is so far off base that it appears contrived. Then Thomas supplies us with an overt over-sexualization of James in a photo and a pose that is far from sexy - no one ever confused James with Denzel Washington - and fails to reveal his body in a way from which a person can extrapolate beauty. Thomas’ mention of Bundchen as “gorgeous doll” is equally odd. Is the “doll” reference a nod to the 1930s through early 1960s use of the word in relation to women? Is she using the word “doll” as in Barbie doll? Surely a 36-year-old with one foot in the late 20th century and another foot here and now would not use an antiquated and demeaning term for woman. Yet to refer to Bundchen as a doll in a literal sense and is, therefore, an inanimate object, is equally demeaning.

This is an extremely troubling statement coming from the mind and mouth of a woman. And it is a quizzically callous statement coming from the mind and mouth of a black woman. Thomas’ words are, at best, on the extreme edge of the black Diaspora, as it is not a normative one coming from either side of the viewpoint of the Vogue cover; whether it is felt that it is a positive or negative image.

Thomas’ last statement is a beauty. It’s the, ‘why are we so caught up’ quote. It’s the quote white people use to say, “See, even your own people are telling you ‘to get over it.’” It is the quote everyone who wants to dismiss racism searches for from a black person.

Further, the quote, in total, is used as a slap in the face of Hill. They abrogate her position as a noted sports journalist and analyst of socio-cultural issues within the milieu of sports and attempt to dismiss her voice as viable.

The precursor for the Hill-Thomas exchange is an analysis of the American Vogue cover by magazine analyst, Samir Husni, who is quoted in the article saying:

“So when you have a cover that reminds people of King Kong and brings those stereotypes to the front, black man wanting white woman, it’s not innocent.”

Yet his “controversial” statement is followed with:


O’Connell, the Vogue spokesman, declined further comment.

Where is the opposing viewpoint here?

Also of interest is the manner in which the author sets up the back-and-forth that makes up the bulk of the article. A quote from “Tamara Walker,” a 29-year old woman from Philadelphia whose profession is curiously not made known, is used to open the debate with a flat, lifeless, and ultimately weak statement about the cover:


“It conjures up this idea of a dangerous black man.”

This quote is immediately followed by, in comparison, an elaborate apology from the other side of the issue by male “authorities” Vogue spokesperson Patrick O’Connell and by LeBron James:

Vogue spokesman Patrick O’Connell said the magazine “sought to celebrate two superstars at the top of their game” for the magazine’s annual issue devoted to size and shape.

“We think Lebron James and Gisele Bundchen look beautiful together and we are honored to have them on the cover,” he said.

James told The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer he was pleased with the cover, saying he was “just showing a little emotion.”

“Everything my name is on is going to be criticized in a good way or bad way,” James told the paper. “Who cares what anyone says?”

The subtle message here is that “the public” as represented by Walker, is generally so outside of the process involved in the deriving of a magazine cover that it speaks from the soapbox of the uninformed.

However Tamara Walker, who is, by omission, depicted as outside of the print magazine community, is allowed the final article’s final say:


“If more people of color worked for Vogue in positions of editorial authority, perhaps someone in the room might have been able to read the image the way so many of us are reading it now, and had the power to do something about it.”

Walker has been already set up as ignorant of the workings of Vogue, ignorant of the photographic editorial process involved in creating the cover, and ignorant of the fact that James has no problem with his own depiction. She cannot, then, have any knowledge of what she speaks.

Nor, so we are so underhandedly - consciously or unconsciously - told, can anyone else who feels queasy about the portrayals of LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen.

And Ms. Hill, even an accountant supervisor can tell you that.

  • Subscribe to the CSR RSS feed today. Click here.
  • Subscribe to the SSNN RSS feed today. Click here.
  • Discuss this story here.

    • Tags: , , , , , ,

    D.K. Wilson is a freelance sports writer. He is better known on the internet as "DWil," and writes for Sports On My Mind.

    Share This Article

    No Comments

    No comments yet.

    Comment On This Article