Kanye dons a MAGA hat, Lebron draws on Malcolm X in an interview – what commonality holds in the conjunction of these two events? As events, of course, either can only be described in terms of radical difference, insofar as an event appears as the fact of its singularity, its existence not as process but as event. Nonetheless these events – irreconcilably separate though they may be – are strung together under a certain process, namely, antiblackness. 

The question is the role of celebrities in politics. Apparently, there would be two answers to this question: that celebrities do, on the one hand, or do not, on the other, merit our political respect. Of course, as with all simple dichotomies, either of these responses would be incorrect.  

Celebrity is itself an obscure category. The New Oxford American Dictionary is helpful: “a famous person.” Then, a definition of famous: “known about by many people.” 

Who are these celebrities – in our society, who is most known? Donald Trump may be the first to come to mind. We quickly encounter a problem. Perhaps the question of celebrities in politics should not, in the first instance, be taken to regard figures like Kanye West and Lebron James, but figures like Donald Trump.

But Donald Trump in what sense? Of course, the man would, likely, have been considered celebrity even before he was the celebrity, i.e. the president. Yet it was not only with the presidency that Donald Trump has exerted political influence. 

Perhaps there is something distinguishing Donald Trump from Kanye West and Lebron James. Indeed, the commonality to be drawn between the three names is precisely the distinguisher: wealth.

Trump’s wealth is of a different kind. Trump’s wealth – as opposed to West’s or James’ – is of a nature that its role in politics was only ever seriously drawn into question after it had already amassed political distinction. Trump’s wealth faces questions of impeachment. On the other hand  – West’s and James’ – questions of desert, of legitimacy.

All three could be said to have obtained their wealth through entertainment. Why, then, is Trump’s wealth so much more potent?

Trump’s wealth is of a distinct character to the others: Trump’s is a wealth that is already political, whereas neither West nor James can claim a similar lineage. 

In fact, in terms of hyper-wealth, neither West nor James can really be said to be in a family lineage. Trump – by which I mean Donald – was born into his name. Both West and James had to somehow obtain theirs. What lineage do West and James claim wealth in?

“Rap Or Go To The League” (2 Chainz, 2019). 

Perhaps the distinction can be drawn out materially with reference to the recent news. Trump – by which I mean political celebrity – is in the position of being able to render the political impediments largely obsolete. In a vacuum – of course, politics never occur in a vacuum – Trump would have in 2017 paid the same in income taxes as someone making $7,500 in the single income tax brackets.

Why not add two more words? Namely, Barack Obama and George W. Bush. Both of these figures, according to the article linked above, regularly paid more than $100,000 in income taxes. Obama cannot be said to come from a lineage of political celebrity in the same way either Bush or Trump can. Yet neither can Bush and Trump quite be equated; what differentiates the political celebrity of Trump from that of Bush?

Perhaps these two belong in entirely different categories: Bush, a political-celebrity, Trump, political celebrity. The difference of a political-celebrity is twofold. One, the definite article “a” acts upon “political-celebrity” to confer this category descriptively onto the man George. Two, the bar striking political to celebrity operates akin to the bar of the signifier, namely, as the logical coordinates through which a meaning must pass before assuming its meaning as a meaning. 

I will explain this second difference before returning to the first. In the expression of language, a meaning is arrived at only through compounding dimensions of mediation. The first of these mediations is the concrete position of a signifier in relation to other signifiers. If you need an example, look at these words and notice that, prior to your reading and conceptualizing them, they are already arranged in a certain order regarding one another. In the same way, political is the grammar which precedes any meaning to Bush’s celebrity: Bush’s celebrity is always already understood through the logic of the political. George Bush’s role in politics is thus not an object of debate in this discourse. 

The first of the differences, the addition of a definite article before Bush’s category, is less important than the absence it draws attention to. There is no definite article attributing political celebrity a place of identity with Trump. The reason for this is that identity is always already a falsity, whereas Trump truly is the same thing as political celebrity.

This can perhaps be clarified by repeating another point of diversion through this discourse. Trump has, throughout, been meant in at least two senses: as the man Donald and as the concept political celebrity. Although these are first articulated through different signifiers, what I mean by each of them here is exactly the same: Trump is political celebrity, political celebrity is Trump.

Donald Trump is president of the United States Federal Government not in spite of his celebrity but precisely as his celebrity, as the logical endpoint of political money, as the inevitable culmination of a logical structure which far exceeds the man Donald himself. 

Before attempting to name this logical structure, we should trace a few emergences in this discourse. A conception of politics as celebrity. A conception of celebrity as money. A conception of money as politics. Structures of demarcation wherein this triad is rendered increasingly obscure the further removed one is from practical access to the meanings of these terms – i.e. politics, celebrity and money. A general denial of history wherein this triad and the exclusion of access to its effective (and affective) apparatuses are rendered invisible and inevitable.

Yet, these apparatuses of dominion are not inevitable, and thus we return to West. More recently than the MAGA hat, West has tweeted a historical reminiscence of the Haitian slave revolution, the too-often hidden dimension of the French revolutionary years in the late eighteenth century and early nineteenth century. West is, in his assertion of the relevance of the Haitian revolution, in fact in vein with an important trend emerging from the undercommons of this settler society, a vein emerging as well in the act of Lebron James endorsing “The Autobiography of Malcolm X” in an interview.

What trend is this? In a word: remembering. Not simply in the sense of recollection but also in the sense of radical difference. Being recollected here are not the narratives dominating the social discourse of white settler society – recollected here are instead the narratives bracketed out by the dominant discourse. Re-membering: reconceiving the most basic notions of a society.

This Re-membering is an important politics to be endorsed by these celebrities, precisely because these are the celebrities bracketed out from the internal levers of the American political apparatus, for example, the types of engagement through which Donald Trump is able to lower his tax price to $750. Re-membering demonstrates the ways in which a society is only ever meant to work for certain members. Re-membering challenges the very notion of what it means to be a member in a society.

This is particularly important on the so-called American landmass today. The power apparatus which claims hegemony over this land, namely, the United States Federal Government, was founded in genocide. What Re-membering does is evaluate our presupposition that these genocides ever stopped. 

Native folk live primarily in resource-deprived reservations –and we should already question this grammar, i.e. to reserve; who, and by whom? People of Afrikan descent are disproportionately housed in the American concentration camps – the geographic loci of the prison-industrial complex. They are disproportionately murdered by a militarized police force, disproportionately deprived – politically, economically, resourcefully, etc. – by antiblack legislation, for example, redlining laws.

All this amounts to a question of the question. To ask whether celebrities belong in politics is already an antiblack question. The political and the celebrity occur in the same processes, they are cohered in money. It is already a politics of antiblackness that the celebrity and money of Trump confers upon him a relation to the political that it does not confer upon West or James. 

What is really in question here is what in fact underlies every question, namely, the historicity which provides any given question with its conditions of enunciation. The answer to whether celebrities belong in politics is thus a descriptive and not a normative answer: celebrities both do and do not belong in politics. Following the internal logic of settler society, the features of celebrity are conferred upon the epidermal layer of the subject called celebrity. 

Specifically, of white celebrities, their position in politics is not often brought into question until after they have shown themselves to be intractably corrupt, and even then, Donald Trump is still in office. For a black celebrity – i.e. a widely known person whose skin is codified in the dominant discourse as black – access to political power is overwhelmingly already foreclosed. The logic of antiblackness demarcates certain bodies as outside the historical narrative of who belongs, i.e. whose life it is worthwhile to address. 

Trump would not have become president were he black. The question we should be asking under conditions of settler colonialism is not whether celebrities belong in politics but precisely whether politics belong. Prior to evaluating the dichotomy of Trump-Biden, we should mercilessly interrogate the triad of Politics-Celebrity-Money – specifically the ways that this triad represents a unity of possibility in whiteness but a series of foreclosures in blackness, and the ideological mystification that renders this system of antiblackness natural. 
Our first question of an institution built on the genocidal exploitation of the nonwhite other should always be this: why does this institution still exist?

Sports have returned after a brief hiatus due to COVID-19, and the absence seemed to highlight their economic and social importance. In the face of crises, sports can be a uniting force, and in this current environment, that can be extremely powerful. However, the return of sports has also reignited past controversies and debates within them. 

During Game 6 of the NBA Western Conference first-round playoff series, Los Angeles Clippers forward Marcus Morris Sr. was ejected after committing a flagrant foul 2 against Dallas Mavericks guard Luka Doncic. 

After the game, Morris defended himself, saying, “I think Tim Hardaway had an extremely hard foul with [Paul George] last game, and it wasn’t taken in [the same context].” Morris then said of Doncic, “He’s a young player. He’s going to be the face of the league. I’ve taken into account all of that. I have been around for a while. I know how this thing works.” 

Morris implying that Doncic was being protected by the referees started up a long-time debate about the influence and power of superstar players.

Before looking at specific examples of superstars in sports, the question must be asked: what exactly is a superstar? What separates superstars from other athletes in the same sport? There are a few factors. One is what is sometimes called flashiness, or big-play ability. For all the Chiefs fans out there, Patrick Mahomes is a very flashy player. That is part of what makes him a superstar. He makes plays that people have never seen before, such as this no-look pass against the Baltimore Ravens in 2019. These are the types of players that sell out stadiums. People pay money just to see what flashy players will do next. Then, those flashy plays are seen by millions of people around the world, and suddenly a certain player becomes a household name.

Another factor is a player’s ability to perform well in clutch moments. For example, a basketball player making a tough shot in the final minute to put his team ahead, or a baseball player hitting a walk-off home run. This factor is often what separates the superstars and the good players. You will often see a player like Steph Curry or Damian Lillard with the ball in the final minutes of the game because they have cemented themselves as superstars who can consistently make big plays in clutch situations.

The final factor, in my opinion, is legacy. Have these players done something that will impact the game long after they are retired? Have they set records, won championships, been dominant at their sport over the course of several years? These are the kind of players that people love to hate because of how dominant they are and how often they appear in championship games. 

The biggest superstar in the NBA right now, one who has been for over a decade, is LeBron James. He is a four-time league most valuable player, 16-time NBA All-Star, three-time NBA Champion, and a 15-time All-NBA selection – and the list goes on. His jersey has been among the top two highest-selling jerseys for years, and it’s hard to watch an episode of SportsCenter on any given day without hearing his name. 

James has done a lot for the game of basketball, but arguably his biggest contribution was when he decided to join Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh with the Miami Heat, forming what is called The Big Three. At the time, James’ decision to leave was criticized. Fans burned his jerseys. 

While all of these things still occur today, James’ decision paved the way for player empowerment in basketball and beyond, normalizing the idea that players should play with whom they want and where they want. Kevin Durant likely would not have signed with the Golden State Warriors in 2016 or Paul George and Kawhi Leonard teaming up in Los Angeles without LeBron James paving the way. The entire landscape of the NBA would be completely different without LeBron James. Considering how James normalized players taking care of themselves and doing what is best for them, I believe that change is for the better.  

Never one to shy away from speaking up on social issues, James has often been criticized for being vocal on issues of race and politics. Most notably, Fox News host Laura Ingraham told James to “Shut up and dribble” in response to some comments James made about President Donald Trump. Ingraham’s comments only seemed to strengthen James’ dedication to supporting social causes.

In 2012, James posted a picture with his Miami Heat teammates, all dressed in hoodies, with the hashtag #WeAreTrayvonMartin as a call to justice for the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. This marked the beginning of a new era of social and political activism in the NBA, to the point where 300 of the 350 involved in the NBA restart have social justice messages on their jerseys. James has done a tremendous amount of good for the NBA and its players but the amount of awareness he has brought to social issues plaguing our country and the way he uses his platform to do so has arguably been more significant. 

Like James, Tom Brady is a man of many accolades. The long-time New England Patriots quarterback, who recently signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers in free agency, has racked up numerous MVP awards, Super Bowl rings, and NFL records in his 20-year career. Unlike LeBron James, however, Brady’s impact on football has been more erratic than James’. 

During the first game of the 2008 season, Kansas City Chiefs safety Bernard Pollard lunged at Tom Brady, which took him out for the season with a knee injury. Despite the Patriots’ relatively successful 11-win season without Brady, the NFL had still lost its Golden Boy and decided that offseason that more needed to be done to protect quarterbacks. Thus, the Brady Rule was conceived, where defenders who are knocked to the ground can no longer lunge into quarterbacks if the play is still going on. 

The rule sounds pretty reasonable, until the next season when officials misinterpreted the rule on two key plays in a game between the Patriots and the Baltimore Ravens. One was when Defensive Tackle Haloti Ngata barely made contact with Brady’s helmet when trying to deflect a pass, and the other was when Linebacker Terrell Suggs pressured Brady. He went low, but Suggs clearly tried to avoid Brady’s knees. Yet the flag was still thrown despite Suggs not making contact with Brady’s knees. Both of these plays extended Patriots’ scoring drives, in a game they won 27-21. 

You could argue that these calls are not Brady’s fault, but you can clearly see on the second play that he is pleading with the official to call a flag while pointing at his knees, even though little contact was actually made. Brady took advantage of his status as a superstar to get a beneficial call on a play where no foul was committed. 

This instance was not a one-time occurrence either. Since then, more rules have been passed to protect quarterbacks that make defenders’ jobs significantly harder. And Brady, one of the best actors in the NFL, has continued the trend of exaggerating contact by defenders to get a beneficial call from the referees. This, in my opinion, is an example of a superstar using their status and their influence in a negative way.

Baseball is not considered a very flashy sport, especially when compared to basketball and football, but Fernando Tatis Jr. is changing that narrative. The 21-year-old shortstop for the San Diego Padres is turning heads this season and is currently tied for the league lead in home runs and second in runs batted in (RBIs). He was at the center of controversy when he cranked a 3-0 pitch to right-field for a grand slam against the Texas Rangers with the Padres already up 10-3 in the 8th inning. 

“I didn’t like it, personally,” Rangers manager Chris Woodward said of Tatis’ 3-0 swing. “But, like I said, the norms are being challenged on a daily basis. So just because I don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not right.”

Baseball is known for having a lot of unwritten rules, which are essentially just generally held beliefs as to how players, coaches and teams should act in certain situations. Young players like Tatis Jr., however, are challenging those rules, and people are loving it. They will not hesitate to do their job and play hard no matter what the score is, and they will have some fun along the way. He may anger some old-school fans of the game, but with baseball falling behind other sports in popularity, Tatis Jr. is leading the way for a revolution that, I believe, will save the game of baseball.

It is clear that superstar athletes have a lot of influence, both in their respective sports as well as society as a whole. People look up to them, and their words, actions and beliefs hold a lot of weight. These players have an incredibly large platform and audience – LeBron James has 71.8 million Instagram followers, for example – and with that audience comes a responsibility to use that platform, as well as their highly influential superstar status within their own sport, for the benefit of society and the sport as a whole. For the most part, I believe that superstars have done a good job of doing this. 

The problem arises when the leagues create overprotective rules on behalf of the superstars that prevent other players within that league from playing the game – like the Brady Rule. However, superstar players are crucial for evolving their individual sports as well as spreading important societal messages. Without them, sports would be a lot less exciting, and our society would lose some of its loudest and most influential voices.

Fox news host Laura Ingraham’s response to these comments about President Trump was less than positive, calling the statements “ignorant.” Ingraham added that the two players shouldn’t “run their mouths like that” because of their influence on young minds, citing their lack of education. James finished high school early for the NBA, and Durant completed a single year at the University of Texas before entering the league. Ingraham encouraged the two league ambassadors to “keep the political commentary to yourself… shut up and dribble.”

The reaction to Ingraham’s response by the basketball world was swift and unifying.

James thanked the host, saying “So, thank you, whatever her name is. … I get to sit up here and talk about what’s really important and how I can help change kids, it lets me know that everything I’ve been saying is correct for her to have that type of reaction, but we will definitely not shut up and dribble, I will definitely not do that, I mean too much to society, I mean too much to the youth, I mean too much to so many kids that feel like they don’t have a way out and they need someone to help lead them out of the situation they’re in.”

James furthered this sentiment by likening himself to former outspoken African American athletes like Muhammed Ali, Bill Russell, Jim Brown and Jackie Robinson.

“We know it’s bigger than us, it’s not about us… this is bigger than me playing the game of basketball,” he said.

Durant insisted that he and other professional athletes have an obligation to use their platforms to incite positive change in the world.

“We’ve got to speak what we believe in, we’ve got to speak our truths and we’ve got to keep it real out here,” he said.

Many in the NBA came quickly and voluntarily to James and Durant’s defense against Ingraham and those who agree with her. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver released a statement praising them for speaking out on the issues important to them and their responses to Ingraham’s comments.

San Antonio Spurs head coach Gregg Popovich, a five-time NBA championship coach who has not been shy in speaking out on issues he feels are important, criticized Ingraham’s comments and praised James for speaking out. Popovich called the Fox host’s comments “an unbelievable show of arrogance” while comparing James to the Marvel comics hero Black Panther. The recent movie release has inspired many African American outspoken personalities, particularly those in the sports world.

James’ best friend and former teammate Dwyane Wade also spoke out on Ingraham’s comments. Wade is a career leader in nine different statistics for the Miami Heat, has won three championships with and has played for the team for almost 14 of his almost 15 seasons in the NBA. He is objectively one of the greatest, if not the greatest, player to ever wear a Heat jersey. After the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting Feb. 14, one of the victims, Joaquin Oliver, was buried in that very jersey. Wade used this particularly personal instance as an example, saying “this is why we will not just SHUT up and dribble” via Twitter Feb. 26. The next day, Wade hit the game-winning jump shot over Ben Simmons and the Philadelphia 76ers while wearing shoes with Joaquin’s name on them, and his family sitting courtside.

Photo courtesy of Bleacher Report

Cover photo courtesy of nydailynews.com

The Houston Rockets defeated defending champions the Golden State Warriors in Oakland 122-121 after Kevin Durant’s final basket at the buzzer was waved-off. This gave James Harden and his Rockets their first win of the season while dropping the Warriors to their second 0-1 start in a row.

LeBron James and his defending Eastern Conference champions the Cleveland Cavaliers welcomed back former teammate Kyrie Irving and the Boston Celtics to Cleveland for their first game of the season. Irving was traded to Boston late this offseason after requesting a trade from his team of six years, the Cavaliers, this summer. The Celtics quickly fell into a large deficit after newly-acquired star Gordon Hayward gruesomely broke his ankle in the early minutes of the game. The Celtics were able to recover, but LeBron’s 29 points, 16 rebounds and nine assists proved too much for Boston with the Cavs taking the win 102-99.

These two nail-biting games featured both teams from the NBA finals last year and set the tone for what should be an interesting and competitive season. The big question after the Warriors’ 15-1 postseason championship run and the Cavaliers’ pre-finals 12-1 record is whether these two “super-teams” will have any legitimate challengers this season.

Photo courtesy of Bleacher Report

A wave of talent hit the Western Conference as the Houston Rockets and Oklahoma City Thunder have each added All-Star players to their already playoff-caliber rosters and will undoubtedly be in the conversation of top teams in the Conference. Reigning MVP Russell Westbrook added All-Star forwards Paul George and Carmelo Anthony to the Thunder from the Eastern Conference but lost interior defense and bench depth as a result. MVP finalist and All-NBA guard James Harden added former All-NBA guard Chris Paul to the Rockets’ back court, sacrificing bench depth as well in the process.

However, with reigning sixth-man of the year Eric Gordon still on the roster, don’t expect Houston to lack the bench scoring necessary to be a contender. MVP finalist and current MVP favorite Kawhi Leonard and his San Antonio Spurs will surely be in the conversation as well. They have the best coach in the NBA, Gregg Popovich, on their bench. With players like center Lamarcus Aldridge embracing and thriving in their roles, the Spurs will surely be a team to beat in the West this year, as always.

Photo courtesy of NBA.com

Finding a team in the Eastern Conference to challenge LeBron has been an issue since Paul George and his 2013 Indiana Pacers team pushed LeBron’s then Miami Heat team to seven games in the conference finals. Eastern Conference runner-up the Boston Celtics are the only team in the East that have drastically reloaded their roster, adding two All-Star players in guard Irving and forward Hayward. Unfortunately, Irving’s addition came at the expense of adding talent to the Cavaliers rosters in the form of playoff-superstar guard Isaiah Thomas and three-and-D forward Jae Crowder.

With these additions, along with former MVP Derrick Rose and Finals MVP Dwayne Wade, combined with Hayward’s season-ending injury, the Celtics still may not be at the level of Cleveland and “King” James. The usual Eastern powers like John Wall and the Washington Wizards and the All-Star backcourt pair of DeMar DeRozan and Kyle Lowry for the Raptors in Toronto will surely make their presence felt in the east, but perhaps some fresh teams will look to make the jump to contenders this season.

Giannis Antetokounmpo has absolutely exploded out of the gates to start his 2017-2018 campaign. Leading the NBA in scoring and leading his Milwaukee Bucks to one of the best records in the league have given Antetokounmpo a very real stake in the MVP race as well as giving his team a chance to compete with the Cavs as a top team in the Eastern Conference.

The average draft position of the Philidelphia 76ers’ starting lineup is 5.6 overall and the average age is 23.8 years old. Led by second-year phenomenon Joel Embiid, attempting to play the first full NBA season of his career, and two consecutive number one overall picks in Markelle Fultz and Ben Simmons, the 76ers’ young and overflowingly talented roster may just make their mark on the East as they will attempt to reach the playoffs for the first time since 2012.

The 82-game narrative that began this October will end sometime next June and will surely be a memorable one. If it is anything like previous seasons, there will be drama, excitement and anger, and if fans are lucky, history will be made on multiple occasions.

Photo courtesy of Uproxx.