The Warring States of NPF - Was Vogue being Racist?

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Dead threads (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=91)

- - Was Vogue being Racist? (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=28106)

Was Vogue being Racist?

Here is the story:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slu...v=ap&type=lgns

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yahoo! Sports

NEW YORK - When Vogue announced its April cover starring LeBron James and Gisele Bundchen, the magazine noted with some fanfare that James was the first black man to grace its cover.

But the image is stirring up controversy, with some commentators decrying the photo as perpetuating racial stereotypes. James strikes what some see as a gorilla-like pose, baring his teeth, with one hand dribbling a ball and the other around Bundchen�s tiny waist.

It�s an image some have likened to �King Kong� and Fay Wray.

�It conjures up this idea of a dangerous black man,� said Tamara Walker, 29, of Philadelphia.

Photographer Annie Leibovitz shot the 6-foot-9 NBA star and the 5-foot-11 Brazilian model for the cover and an inside spread. 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?�

But magazine analyst Samir Husni believes the photo was deliberately provocative, adding that it �screams King Kong.� Considering Vogue�s influential history, he said, covers are not something that the magazine does in a rush.

�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,� he said.

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

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.�

For example, former NBA star Charles Barkley was depicted breaking free of neck and wrist shackles on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Dennis Rodman graced the cover of Rolling Stone with horns poking out of his forehead and his red tongue hanging out.

Images of black male athletes as aggressive and threatening �reinforce the criminalization of black men,� said Damion Thomas, assistant professor in the Department of Kinesiology at University of Maryland.

But others say the image show James� game face � nothing more. And they note that Bundchen hardly looks frightened.

�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.�

Husni said it is too soon to know how the magazine is selling, though the controversy could increase sales as people rush out to get a �collector�s edition.�

If nothing else, Walker said the cover underscores the need for a more diverse workplace.

�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,� she said.

I don't really see the racism here. I think it was more of a masculine versus feminine stereotype than a black versus white. I guess other people disagree though, so I decided I'd ask the people who think they know best!

So.... what say you?

Not so much racist as just not thinking of the reactions of others when they shot it.

I guess I could see how that could look racist if you're the kind of person who spends a lot of time caring about what Vogue magazine puts on its covers. There's probably actual racisms somewhere that those people could be concerned about, but why worry about those, when we have Vogue magazine covers to distract us from being worried about actual things?

That was probably somewhat more sarcastic than good Discussion Forum practice allows. I am sorry. I mean it's not like I can judge -I follow presidential primary journamalism, which is basically fashion industry journamalism without all the attractive and well-dressed people to look at.

Quote:

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.”

For example, former NBA star Charles Barkley was depicted breaking free of neck and wrist shackles on the cover of Sports Illustrated. Dennis Rodman graced the cover of Rolling Stone with horns poking out of his forehead and his red tongue hanging out.

That's actually a pretty interesting comment on the pernicious insinuations of institutionalized racisms and image politics.

That said if I were a white athlete I would totally be like "so how come the black guys get to look like tough badasses while I have to sit here and grin like an idiot?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funka Genocide

I'd say that the backlash sounds rather insulting to LeBron, who after all posed for the picture and in so doing approved of the image resulting from it. I'm sure he wasn't thinking "Oh boy, let me generalize my entire ethnicity with this fearsome mug shot"

In photoshoots the person taking the picture gives directions, so it's more like, "Okay, let me emote and pose in the way I'm being directed for money, " so it's more of the photographer and magazine playing into stereotypes that have existed for hundreds of years because most people in that arena(fashion, sports, pop culture) accept it as the norm, not an intentionally racist thing to do, but more racist because they don't know what's wrong with it.

Quote:

Things like this only serve to press the racial divide further away from true equality. People defeat their own supposed causes with hypersensitivity to trivial things.

I disagree, you're average person with a little knowledge on cultural racism will see that and go "man, that's kinda racist" whilst your average "Racist= dick to black folks" and nothing more won't see or comprehend that there's decades of precedence for negative stereotyping of this kind. If someone with the public ear brings attention to it, then the average guy can realize that racisim is much deeper than mere asswholery and promote equality on his own level. But at the same time, the guy with the "racist only=dick" mentality could also negatively react to it, so it's a double edged sword.

It's obvious to me that discussion no longer serves it's intended purpose. I withdraw all my comments.

Quote:

By posing for the picture, by allowing it to be published LeBron endorses it a priori. It's his face making that expression, regardless of whether or not it was his idea to make it.

I agree with this but where I disagree is whether LeBron's endorsement or agreement affects whether or not the image is racist. A racist activity doesn't stop being racist just because one person of whichever race agrees to participate, least of all when that person is participating for the sake of personal financial gain.

Again I don't know that the particular image is racist, just that LeBron's endorsement doesn't affect it either way. If it's not racist then LeBron was in a photo that isn't racist and all well and good, if not then LeBron lent his image to a racially biased depiction and he should probably feel ashamed of himself.

Quote:

I feel the converse is far more provocative.

I don't see where the outcome that allows people to comfortably congratulate themselves on their non-racism without undertaking any kind of particularly difficult examination of themselves or their society is the more provocative.

And again I am putting this as a separate statement from whether in this case provocation is correct. I mean if someone is in fact a totally great guy and you tell him "you know, you're a totally great guy," then hey you're completely correct! But you're certainly not provoking anything by saying so.

Quote:

You argue that a wrong has been done and most people didn't notice, I believe that continually reinforcing the concept of these hidden racial meanings is just another way to reinforce racism in the minds of people. If we let it be a picture, it is a picture, if we turn it into a statement on the demonization of blacks it becomes that.

Seriously, how would that work? I mean just for starters, by this argument we are more racist in 2008 then we were in 1950, and more still than we were in the 1800s.

If something is racist then it's racist, and if some of us don't want to admit that it's racist then that accomplishes nothing but giving racism free reign to insinuate itself further into our society. Acknowledging racism for what it is, is precisely how you root it out and do away with it.

I mean if you have a bunch of pictures of black men depicted as scary monsters and someone points out to people looking at it "hey, that's racist", then those people have to stop and consider "oh hey, maybe that is racist." Whereas if that someone decides that oh well, a picture is just a picture, and doesn't point out anything, then all those people look at those pictures and think "Hey, those black people are scary monsters!" I'd really appreciate if you could explain to me exactly how it works that the former of these outcomes is the more racist one.

Quote:

hypersensitivity

There's no need to be writing off anyone's views like that. I sincerely doubt you'd be particularly okay with it if say, Premonitions had decided to start referring to you as a hyper-dullard.

So I got a reported post about this thread? I thought I would share it with everybody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Funka via Reported Post

Look, I don't know what your problem is Fifth, but this epeen measuring is getting on my nerves. Your pithy little remarks are amusing sure, but I mean come on, hyper dullard?

Moderation isn't your own little soap box. Honestly, you're doing more harm than good with your hamfisted approach. Cut the hypocrisy and stop provoking people please.

Funka -

1. The report-post function is not for bitching at moderators.

2. I love how the same person who wants to bitch about other people being "hypersensitive," throws a crying fucking tantrum when someone so much as points out that he would not appreciate being referred to in the same manner in which he chooses to speak to others.

3. As far as my "mod soapbox", even if there is such a thing hey guess what that wasn't it. It wasn't mod-colored, I didn't say it was a warning, nothing. That was nothing more than me trying to helpfully suggest as one poster to another that you could maybe try being the slightest bit more civil and condiserate of other points of view. HOLY GOSH I'm sorry that was SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fucking much to ask.

4. Re: "hypocrisy," I don't know what you think that word means but it sure looks like you think it means "Funka gets to insult people however the fuck he likes, and if anyone tells him that he should maybe not do that, then that person is a hypocrite."

5. Re: "provoking," I would love to know how it's provocation to point out that you would be insulted if someone spoke to you the way you were speaking to other people, but it's somehow not provocation for you to fucking speak that way in the first place to other people.

6. Re: "epeen", that you're sitting there thinking this has anything to do with some kind of dick-measuring contest probably says about everything that needs saying about why you are continuing to have this problem with this forum's rules.

7. As far as this -

Quote:

discussion no longer serves it's intended purpose.

- you know I don't know where in the fuck you got the idea that discussion's purpose was for you to act like an asshole who can't bother showing fuck-all worth of respect for any opinion that isn't his? But you are a hundred percent right that it does not now and is not ever gonna serve that purpose.

IN CONCLUSION

Banned for a week for abusing the post report and discussion-banned for a week after that for being an asshole.

If anyone else has got any particular thing to say about this then make a thread in Forum Stuff where that kind of thing belongs. Anyone who wants to actually discuss the subject go on ahead.

Wait, okay.
So... who was calling the picture (the same picture James APPROVED) racist?

I have a distinct feeling it was a whi- never mind. Samir Husni then.

Still... if Mr. James didn't feel offended by it, I hardly see how anybody else SHOULD. Yes, there's the principle-argument, but I hardly see how using a person's natural vibe would result in racism.

I mean, they only use beautiful supermodels to model clothing.
Does that mean it's only a matter of time before some "ugly duckling" jumps out and calls that racism as well?

I could easily see them doing the same kind of set-up for a white guy, and I can see that getting no shouts of RACISM! RACISM! I do really believe it was a masculine vs. feminine stereotype more than anything.

Some people will always make things more racist than they really are by terying to point out how it's racist. And really, that's kinda racist of them.

Quote:

if Mr. James didn't feel offended by it, I hardly see how anybody else SHOULD.

Like I said earlier, Irwin's approval shouldn't change anything one way or the other. If something is racist, then it's racist regardless of whether one person of the race being slurred agrees to participate.

I mean, here - I'm Pakistani. If you offered me oh let's say, ten million dollars to dress up as a terrorist and take a bunch of pictures of me beheading Christians, or some such kind of thing? I'd be in costume before the ink on my check had dried. And that wouldn't make it less racist to depict Pakistanis as christian-beheading terrorists; it would just mean that I personally had chosen to benefit myself, by helping to portray my race in a racist manner.