Is Vogue's Recent Cover Racist? Um, Yeah.

why didn't they just use Brady?

Posted at 4:02 p.m. ET on Mar 31, 2008 by K.

The thought that this might be racist is the stupidest most convoluted idea put forth...stop looking for something that is not there. Perhaps the racism exists only in the people who deem it racist.I see a man and a woman ....not a black man and a white woman. I bet you see see misogyny in everything as well.....get off the politically correct boat and stop with the coloring label.

Posted at 11:06 p.m. ET on Mar 31, 2008 by randy Focazio

RETARDED...!

Posted at 11:07 p.m. ET on Mar 31, 2008 by randy Focazio

I bet you scream racism whenever a ...Hmm as you put it black man is not on the cover of VOGUE....there is no winning with people like you who feel they must implement past stereotypes and keep racism alive and well...congrats you did it.

Posted at 11:12 p.m. ET on Mar 31, 2008 by randy Focazio

Ugh. This is everywhere and there is apparently no use in arguing about it since everybody is expected to see this image the same way. I guess Vogue will have to go back to their usual policy of not using black people on their covers.

Posted at 6:54 a.m. ET on Apr 01, 2008 by tone

OK, Randy? Come on, seriously. Your attacks are just dumb and mean. Read a book.

And "tone" -- I'm all for Vogue putting black people on their covers; but are we relegated to simply take what we can get? It's like, 'Oh, thank you, Vogue, thank you for putting a black person on the cover even though it perpetuates a racist stereotype.'" Nah, I'm gonna hold out in support of a more thoughtful, intelligent approach.

Posted at 2:00 p.m. ET on Apr 01, 2008 by rebecca

of course the cover is not racist !!!!!!nowadays everything has to be so politically correct. im so tired of it. have you ever thought that maybe you are being a racist by saying that vogue is. . to be honest, i nowadays feel that not only white people are racist, but black too. What is the big deal anyway. There is a guy and a women on the pic. who cares about colour.

Posted at 3:16 p.m. ET on Apr 01, 2008 by alex

hey paper, way to strike when the iron is cold. were you waiting until it seemed like enough people were angry about the cover until you considered posting about it too?

i agree with randy and the others- call me ignorant all you want, but it looks like lebron and giselle are having an awesome time to me. and yeah, it would have been nice to see lebron in a suite - but all of the athletes in the issue are wearing some kind of sports uniform. so stop trying to make an issue when there isn't one. the fact that you automatically think of king kong etc when you see a black man the cover is racist in itself. and believe me, i've taken plenty of classes on peace & justice, so don't bother asking me to read a book.

Posted at 7:38 p.m. ET on Apr 01, 2008 by tee

Here's one for you ---I am married 10 years to a very,super intelligent very wild ,very ,very,black man with dreds and I am a blue-eyed blond,I thought yeah maybe this is racist, it made me a little uncomfortable so I SHOWED IT TO HIM without saying a word except what do you think about this cover? and HE thought it was great,loved it,loves LE BRON JAMES and felt that ANDRE LEON TALLEY must have been o.k. with it OR it wouldn't have happened.
I love what ALEX said ,there is so much more to think about then a person's color,like being hypocrits,elitists,cheats,liars,zombies

Posted at 11:16 p.m. ET on Apr 01, 2008 by c.c.

This is a situation where when you decide to write a rebuttal about someone being accused of being racist or not, then, you really have to do your homework before expressing emotions from the "top of your head." The facts are:
Racism IS still very much alive in this world. Historically, with regard to interacial relations, the stereotyped image has always been: a black man w/a white woman. Now there's nothing wrong with that, but wait...even the chosen career is a stereotype: Sports figures/entertainers (basketball being the most stereotyped) Historically, Blacks have been stereotyped to be good at two things: sports & entertainment. What people like Focazio is NOT considering or realizing is this:
If the "chosen" cover image was of a sucessful European white male, Wall St. exec type, grabing a black female model w/obvious African features - say Alec Wek (sp)....what do you think the reaction would be by the general public?, the magazine editor? IF that image would "sell", more people would be using it. Think about WHY that image is rarely, if ever, used....Then think, "why hasn't it?" Because THAT image breaks the typical mold for too many to handle. It would "offend". But WHO would it offend the most? Those who make the decisions for the product...and their background is??? I'm not placing blame, that's just the way thing work,...presently. The questions that need to be asked is why this current image never gave anyone at the magazine pause, but a role reversal - the image of a successful anglo-saxon male attracted to an woman w/african features is never run anywhere except in the old "Benneton" ads.
The very fact that this topic generates anger on both opposing views is proof that there remains "intolerance" on both sides of the racial coin that needs to be understood, educated and addressed. The fact that the magazine didn't think about the possible impications of their cover image says that they were not aware. But then, Vogue obviously doesn't have anyone of color in a position of "authority" to have alerted anyone to these possible "tender-spots". Personally, I don't think that Vogue INTENDED to be racist, but please folks, those of you who are protesting the most emotionally, have not checked your history in race relations in this country and the imagery that it conjures up for those that came through racism as regards Black folks in this country. Italians, Irish, Jews, Native Americans, Mexican...all have their own racially stereotyped images that they can be sensitive to...They're all differnt experiences. All anyone is asking is to be aware, be sensitive and use "informed/educated" judgement. To simply react without being informed of the context has NEVER worked to resolve anything...obviously.If you find that you have no intention of and probably will never have any intention of "refreshing yourselves" with the historical references that this Vogue cover summons up, then that is proof of why racism continues to flourish and is not going way as we all wish would. I'm a product of a multi-racial family so I hear and see all side of these issues. They ARE out there and someone of position should have done their homework before deciding upon that cover.

Posted at 8:00 a.m. ET on Apr 02, 2008 by Jim

"But then, Vogue obviously doesn't have anyone of color in a position of "authority" to have alerted anyone to these possible "tender-spots". "

Meet Andre Leon Talley : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/André_Leon_Talley

To overanalyze this cover is to continue to empower racism, its that simple. It's too professionals a basketball playing man and supermodel woman. When I heard all the rumblings about the cover I could see what people were saying and understand why people felt it was racist, but lets face it, its not. To say its embodying stereotypes thats absurd as well, Lebron is not merely another basketball player he is an enterprising young professional who is working with Nike in branding in the same vein as Michael Jordan did. Who is now widely seen as an extremely successful business man not just an athlete.

Posted at 2:20 p.m. ET on Apr 02, 2008 by Joey

Alex/"who cares about color" : I do and, well, that counts.

Tee/"the fact that you automatically think of king kong... when you see a black man on the cover is racist in and of itself": That's precisely the point! That's what makes it A STEREOTYPE!

Joey/"to over analyze this cover is to continue to empower racism, it's that simple" : No, it's not that simple, if it were that simple Barack Obama wouldn't have had to defend his choice of minister.

I don't believe Vogue intended to be racist -- again, that's kind of the point; a stereotype is a stereotype because the image is so deeply imbedded in your subconscious that it causes you make choices and/or jump to conclusions that very often bear no ill intent whatsoever.

What surprises me most about these responses/posts is the the lack of generosity, compassion, genuine interest in real dialogue -- the egregious defensiveness and accusatory tone are so unsettling and sadly, so counterproductive.

Posted at 3:16 p.m. ET on Apr 02, 2008 by rebecca

One more note, Joey -- I never said Lebron was "just an athlete"; that's on you. Think about it. It's great that he's "now widely seen as an extremely successful businessman" -- does he speak proper English too? How's his diction? Neither the fact that he is an athlete nor that he is a businessman has anything to do with this discussion. I'm talking strictly about the image, what it evokes and why it's important to think about -- not the careers or characters of Lebron James or Gisele Bundchen.

Posted at 3:49 p.m. ET on Apr 02, 2008 by rebecca

Hey Rebecca my comment was in response to the comment by Jim. Jim brought careers and social standing into the argument if you took the time to read his comment you would notice that.

The fact that Obama "has to defend" his choice of a minister is not purely for the reasoning of being black but because he is a public figure. Associations play a large role in people's lives and those in the public eye must work to ensure their associations are not troublesome (I'm not judging his choice of minister what so ever). That goes for all people just like for instance how Lindsay Lohan gets judged for whom ever is closest to her at any given moment.

Also I like how you say
"does he speak proper English too? How's his diction?"
You're insinuating that I am being racist in saying that he is becoming a businessman like I am apparently amazed by this transformation. Your patronizing and obviously angry responses to these comments so far have just showed your immaturity on these matters. You've shown since writing this article that you feel a sense of superiority towards the readers/commenters. You feel as if you are the only one truly grasping just how racist this Vogue cover is. Fighting the fight just to fight. Personally I don't give a fuck about the color of people skin some of my closest friends have backgrounds that are the furthest from my own.

Posted at 5:52 p.m. ET on Apr 02, 2008 by Joey

yes rebecca, i am aware of stereotypes. but my point (which you seem to have misunderstood) is that i am not the one perpetuating the stereotype - you ARE by automatically insinuating that LeBron is less than human, which in my humble opinion is a pretty shitty thing to say about another human being. LeBron's got feelings too.

you know what? you know paper's recent photo shoot with black guys in suits - i'm gonna go ahead and say that was racist. so these young men are supposed to represent obama because they're black and wearing suits? ummm, that was quite possibly the dumbest concept for a photo shoot - and i'm for obama! so whats next, white men in suits = mccain?

So yes, racism is everywhere, but the only way to change the nature of society is to begin to think differently. everyone faces some sort of adversity in life - whether it be racism, classism, corrupt family life or dealing with other people's superiority complexes. I'm in no way trying to belittle african american history, I just feel that constantly living in the past does nothing but fester anger and dig a deeper hole.

Posted at 9:57 p.m. ET on Apr 02, 2008 by tee

Joey: I do feel very passionate about the issue -- and if I come across as sounding superior, I'm sorry for that. I have been writing and talking about race for over 20 yrs, and it's just so frustrating when people trivialize something that is so deeply ingrained in our society, country and history -- it is an issue that, as Barack said in his recent speech (defending his choice of minister), if we don't address often and openly, we all lose. We lose our character, integrity, human interaction with each other, and all the rest.

Posted at 11:31 a.m. ET on Apr 03, 2008 by rebecca

To argue that pointing out a stereotype when it appears is like blaming the victim. To borrow a sports metaphor, Vogue committed the foul, not the ref who blows the whistle... And the stereotype does not lie in the mere persons of James and Bundchen, it is nature of the image, how it is shot: James as roaring hulk and Bundchen as swooning, sexualized female -- that's the stereotype, as Rebecca suggests. Vogue could have done the cover in a number of other, more sensitive ways with the same models. Again, the identities of James and Bundchen off the page is irrelevant -- the image is what it is.

Posted at 4:06 p.m. ET on Apr 03, 2008 by Vic B

Vogue is not a magazine that seems interested in the complexities of race and gender issues, Andre included. I'm not surprised by the cover. I am very surprised at the negativity posted here! I would think that the unschooled pop culture consumer, once given the historical knowledge of how race has been represented and how those images are in our cultural subconscious, would instantly see the inherent racism in the Vogue cover. Images do not exist in a vacuum and are always tied to their cultural references. To ignore those larger image systems and their implications is exactly how the worst of history repeats itself. I think the Vogue cover is an excellent point of departure to see how race is represented today. The question is not about how successful Lebron is or isn't. Why are we seeing the exact same image that has previously signified a racist paradigm? What does that say about our culture? These are the questions we should be asking!

Posted at 5:38 p.m. ET on Apr 03, 2008 by Kate

"Why are we seeing the exact same image that has previously signified a racist paradigm?" -- thank you, Kate. Spot on.

Posted at 6:17 p.m. ET on Apr 03, 2008 by rebecca

lets look at some other facts to why the vogue cover turned out the way it did:

1. lebron is an athlete, and to quote vic b, his stance as a "roaring hulk" is probably due to that fact that aggressiveness is the nature of most star bball players. this photo was much more energetic than the one shown inside the issue (plus the way the other photo was shot made it too vertical to fit appropriately on the cover) yeah, they could have shot more photos, but that's something you should ask annie leibowitz.

2. lebron has his arm around gisele - this is probably the most universal and natural stance between a man and a women who are engaged in some sort of relationship, whether they're dating or posing for a photo. people like you are why people in inter-racial relationships deal with so much bitching and backlash.

2. gisele is smiling, and therefore not holding up the steretype of the young maiden in distress - this girl obviously wants to be here. she might be "sexy" but she sure isn't "swooning."

if gisele had stood on lebron's left side would any of you have brought up the king kong poster?

keep on living in your world of stereotypes, i won't have anything to do with it. stereotypes are for people who are too lazy to take into account the truth and the real nature of the situation they are throwing the stereotype on. its bullshit.

Posted at 7:27 p.m. ET on Apr 03, 2008 by tee

and by the way kate, i dont understand why you are surprised by all the negativity, when you and everyone who is pissed about the cover are the people causing this negativity to begin with.

Posted at 7:35 p.m. ET on Apr 03, 2008 by tee

Tee, you are welcome to insist that you are not part of a "world of stereotypes." Ignorance, as they say, is bliss.

All of your arguments are based on the idea that the Vogue image evolved out of some 'natural' 'inherent' process: that "aggressiveness is the nature of most star bball players" (which assumes that they must walk around like that all the time), and that a man's arm around a woman is "the most universal and natural stance" (which is just arbitrary and self-serving)... and those are the kinds of beliefs that led to stereotypes in the first place: for example, that black people are "naturally" not as intelligent, or are better workers or more athletically gifted, or that white people are racially, genetically --that is, naturally-- a superior race. Arguing that the image is just a "natural" presentation of these figures is about as lazy as you can get...
The entire image is culturally constructed and determined. Nothing "just happened" for this shoot, or the image's presence on the cover. Annie posed them this way, in a lazy "beauty and the beast" concept that completely failed to consider the long history of the image's racial implications (what side Gisele stands on is entirely moot). Stereotypes are not, I'm afraid, simply in the eye of the beholder. If you want to ignore them, that's fine for you; but why insist that they are not there?

Posted at 5:16 p.m. ET on Apr 04, 2008 by vic b.

It strikes me as more sexist than racist...but I haven't seen or read it.

Posted at 9:17 a.m. ET on Apr 07, 2008 by Victoria

has anyone seen the "face wars" episode of sarah silverman when she dresses up in black face? it's hilarious and pretty relevant to this discussion...

http://sarahsilverman.comedycentral.com/index.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=118609

Posted at 12:57 p.m. ET on Apr 08, 2008 by tee

No way is it racist. Totally historical. Totally forward. Totally yay. Pro-Black, pro-people, pro-Amazon (Fashion Wrestling Say Muah!). I see the point peeps are making but a cover in 2008 is not the same as a cover in 'the Benetton era'. Things are shifting. Think different. Go deep. Be a playa. Focusing on signifiers and psychoanalytic PC blah blah blah right now and you'll totally miss the game. Separating race gender class is like navel gazing lalala and we don't even have 4 minutes for that. Think complex and win-win-win not either/or. Trash your Freudian framework and 'universal' humanism (both of which will always lead to some of the people some of the time) and go with the winners Adorno/Horkheimer, Arendt, Batman, Plato, Einstein...

My few ¢: 1) Annie Liebowitz doesn't know her tropes? pshaw. have some respect. 2) It's a brilliant trifecta complementary move to a) andre j on french vogue and b) 'he's-too-skinny' Obama who's demonstrated among other things how camel-needle difficile it is to be a black man that DOESN'T look like a stereotype on camera. again think win-win-win these are not in opposition to each other. 3) It's FASHION, not sports. Bigger proportions, bigger models, yay! hot hot hot push it represent thankx ALT! he's prolly been waiting his whole life for this cover. ps It's not about sportswear. 4) First black man on American Vogue? what. how could that be wrong. mad respect. 5) In plain ol fashion trend terms, it's an out loud proud spirit moment -- OWN it! -- and in real terms the audience/power base is shifting. Unbelievable and OMG yay! gbye tiny white models. gbye bird bones. 6) The silencing of the 'urban agenda' and 'American masculine subject' and simultaneous very real conditions in which more peeps are losing their homes moving under bridges living in their cars getting very very angry makes this cover look more like Britney w umbrella than King Kong. Deny this and you might be 'shocked' all over again when this conflict explodes... this summer? around the election? who knows but the way things are heating up it'll just take one little match. 7) How do you represent class?

IMHO someone was in their office going booyah! Branché this, bitches!

Posted at 12:49 p.m. ET on May 15, 2008 by Call Me Audrey