Black skin too light for NBA hype

While racism is an oft-discussed topic in black culture, an embarrassing issue many don't want to discuss is the bias that exists amongst blacks themselves. Embarrassment is the appropriate response to falling prey to the ugly reality of intra-racism. This topic became the center of conversation on ESPN's "First Take" with Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing last week as the two sports analysts discussed this year's NBA Finals between the defending champion Golden State Warriors and the Cleveland Cavaliers. I have great admiration for Stephen A. The man is a man among boys in charisma, presence and passion. His knowledge is rivaled only by his ability to articulate that knowledge. So I have the utmost respect for his mastery of his craft and willingness to take on a complex issue. I just find it disheartening that in the year 2016, the topic has a place.

While discussing Warriors superstars Stephen Curry and Klay Thompson, affectionately referred to as the Splash Brothers for their amazing shooting ability, Stephen A. began a conversation about the guys' complexions, how it affects how seriously -- or not so seriously -- people take them as greats of the game. He expressed that there are those who hate on the two because they've had much success -- while being light-skinned.

Stephen A. said, "As great as they are, there is some resentment because they're perceived as being relatively pretty boys. ... In the black community, whether folks want to admit it or not, you've got these brothers -- light-skinned -- looking all good and shooting the lights out. You've got hardcore brothers of a darker hue that's sitting up there like, 'Who the hell do they think they are?' It's affectionate. It's nothing disrespectful or anything like that, but does that enter conversations when you hear folks talking about them? It absolutely does."

Concerning what he calls "the light-skinned and the darker pigmentation issue," he said that "it's a reality."

Sure, it's a reality, but it's a sad reality. Is nothing safe from race? What do their skin complexions have to do with basketball and their quest to win another title? Must everything these days be colored by ... color?

According to Stephen A., and I'm not doubting him, the color of these two men's skin is a source of contention.

"There are people, and that includes black people, or rather, I should say, especially black people, that hold that to some degree against a Klay Thompson, a Steph Curry." He added, "But at the end of the day, it's just Â… something in jest because there's no question that you can't help but have profound respect and admiration for their game and how they go about playing the game of basketball."

How ignorant. I don't care if they're black, white or something else. If folks are hatin' on these two for something they cannot control, that's got to be the most ignorant thing ever.

Stephen A. went on to say that for all the "extreme love [that] comes in their direction, there's a little bit of Hater-aid that gets thrown in the equation." Why? "Because in our society, we think, we believe, particularly as black people, the darker you are, the more of an uphill battle you constantly have to climb. That's something that has existed throughout American history. It's undeniable. And I don't think it's deniable here in this case with the Splash Brothers."

Is the assertion that they have not had to fight battles as professional players because they're not dark enough to qualify for tough times? Really?

Chiming in, Skip Bayless talked about "looking the part," something he said Curry and Thompson do not -- not just because they're light-skinned, but because they are without some of the qualities -- physical and otherwise -- of black NBA superstars.

"They don't look the part," he said, comparing the "nonchalant guards -- two greatest shooters ever ... versus a LeBron James, who, you want to talk about looking the part? -- buffed up, muscled up, tattooed, big, broad shoulders, a weight-room product, an intense warrior in the weight room." He stated that when LeBron gets going "...he not only looks the part, but he's intimidating because he's capable of explosively playing the part."

So let's put this all together: Successful black NBA stars, to actually be accepted as successful black NBA stars, must be muscle-bound, intimidating, tattooed -- and dark-skinned. And while Stephen A. states that mindset-bias exists within the black community, Bayless admits to buying into it.

Bayless added, "They're light-skinned, but there are no glaring tattoos. ... So it's hard to buy into them as an all-time dominant team because they don't look the part."

Should their complexions be an issue when discussing their greatness, their fierceness, even their blackness? Can we not just enjoy a Finals game, and yes, compare both teams' star players -- LeBron James and Steph Curry -- but not by their tattoos, or lack thereof, or their black quotient, but by their ability to bring a championship to their city and fans?

Wrapping up the segment, Stephen A. claimed, "It's nothing but respect because if they weren't great, it wouldn't even be an argument."

But it shouldn't be an argument at all. Black folks taking "respectful" offense to other black folks because they have the nerve to do great things in the athletic arena while being light-skinned, reserved, and not covered in tattoos is just asinine. Can we just play ball?

I don't doubt Stephen A. when he says the topic is real for people. I just find it really sad. It seems the more progressive people think they've become, the more regressive they actually have become.

Adrienne Ross is an editor, writer, public speaker, online radio show host, former teacher and coach, Southeast Missourian editorial board member and owner of Adrienne Ross Communications. Reach her at aross@semissourian.com.