Of course the WWE is doing this right now to cover their asses. Michael Hayes left a "Black" eye on the business. A billion dollar company, and a person with a position of power, is making racially charged comments towards a man that has been successful outside of the WWE, Henry was an Olympic competitor, it doesn't look very good for business.
IC said it best, it reeks of the old WCW with Sonny Ono claiming that the company was racist, and all of a sudden Booker T becomes one of the most decorated stars in the history of that company.
But it's nothing new. The WWE plays towards demographics. The WWE wanted more Latino viewers, so Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio receive title shots and title reigns. Now the WWE feels like they need the African American viewer back, so they put titles on those guys. It's nothing new. There's a reason Bruno Sammartino held the title as long as it did. 1. It was reflective of the times and people didn't mind dynasties, or were just use to it. Look at the 60's and look at the Dynasties in sports at the time. 2. Bruno looked like the people he was meant to entertain in the northeast, most noticably in New York with a heavy Italian-American market.
The WWE evolves with it's culture. Why was Hogan so successful in the 80's, because guys like Arnold and Faringo knocked the door down on huge body builder men being the new american Hero. GI Joe and Hogan were all by-products of the culture.
The wwe is very fluid. The culture changes, their demographic changes. Steve Austin was a champion because the cute little kids that watched in the 80s were now becoming rebellious teenage punks. This is no different. If the WWE feels there is more money to be made with African Americans included to, then they will continue to push African Americans.
I would say that a much bigger issue would be, why after nearly 50 years of either the WWWF/WWF/WWE has there never been a pure blooded African American as the holder of the WWE Championship? That's a problem. (Booker T was World Champion, Rock was half Samoan/African-American).
IC said it best, it reeks of the old WCW with Sonny Ono claiming that the company was racist, and all of a sudden Booker T becomes one of the most decorated stars in the history of that company.
But it's nothing new. The WWE plays towards demographics. The WWE wanted more Latino viewers, so Eddie Guerrero and Rey Mysterio receive title shots and title reigns. Now the WWE feels like they need the African American viewer back, so they put titles on those guys. It's nothing new. There's a reason Bruno Sammartino held the title as long as it did. 1. It was reflective of the times and people didn't mind dynasties, or were just use to it. Look at the 60's and look at the Dynasties in sports at the time. 2. Bruno looked like the people he was meant to entertain in the northeast, most noticably in New York with a heavy Italian-American market.
The WWE evolves with it's culture. Why was Hogan so successful in the 80's, because guys like Arnold and Faringo knocked the door down on huge body builder men being the new american Hero. GI Joe and Hogan were all by-products of the culture.
The wwe is very fluid. The culture changes, their demographic changes. Steve Austin was a champion because the cute little kids that watched in the 80s were now becoming rebellious teenage punks. This is no different. If the WWE feels there is more money to be made with African Americans included to, then they will continue to push African Americans.
I would say that a much bigger issue would be, why after nearly 50 years of either the WWWF/WWF/WWE has there never been a pure blooded African American as the holder of the WWE Championship? That's a problem. (Booker T was World Champion, Rock was half Samoan/African-American).