Do You Find This Vogue Magazine Cover Racist Or Offensive? Some Say It Is

Good point. Probably the most stereo-typed group of folks on the planet are blond women. And it's not just all good clean fun. I have blond friends who are very intelligent and who tell the horrors of trying to be taken seriously . . . of constant unwanted passes and leering, stupid men. But no one defend them. Hell, it's not like anyone is afraid they are going to organize gangs and terrorize people.

Which also brings up something I have been bothered about lately. Have you noticed that when we talk about racism, it's about black men being stereo-typed? Why? Because racism is a man thing. I think if a person looked honestly at the world, they would find that black men STILL have it better than any woman and a million times better than black women. Remember, black men abandoned the women's movement that freed them and it would be half a century before women of any color had the right to vote. And again, in the 60s, the civil rights movement was aided and abetted by the women's movement which it abandoned the second black men got what they wanted. And yet, I almost guarantee you, one of the major reasons Obama is getting ahead is that he's not a woman. Skin doesn't matter. It's what's hanging between your legs.

Skin doesn't matter. It's what's hanging between your legs.

Both matter and; if you think that racism is only about men, you must have missed the entire Imus incident.

Gwenny, I find your comments very offensive. To suggest that males of colour have it better than any woman is simply false. What percentage of the female population of the US are currently incarcerated; and do you get pulled over for "Driving While Female"? Men of colour do not have it worse or better; they are simply discriminated against, sometimes in different way, and sometimes in the same ways as women.

What percentage of black men will be raped by the time they are 16? How many "driving while black" men are asked to give cops blow jobs? What percentage of black men are abused by their partners or live in virtual imprisonment in violence, unhappy marriages? The violence against women, the oppression of women knows no racial boundary. It is something that goes back to our roots in Middle Eastern culture and philosophy . . back to the Greek belief that women were inferior. The discrimination is NOT the same.

Don't get me wrong. I don't hold women blameless and a lot of what is going wrong with black men is their mothers. It's one nice incestuous pit of blame all around. But there is no real comparison between sexism and racism.

So let's not compare gwenny, as comparing in the way that seems to be happening here, gets one into less than useful conversations about who's oppression is/was worse. Of course, judgments can be made through the act of comparison [for example, one in four women will be sexually assaulted by the time they leave college, might be compared in some ways to one in four African-American men can will be involved with the criminal justice system in their lifetime--plenty of violence, sexualized and otherwise, there]. Then we can get entangled in what kind of judgments we will make given the kind of data our comparisons produce. And while we are talking about apples and oranges here, we are talking about the fruit of our American tree, whose roots have been historically nourished by patriarchal and racial ways of knowing and differentially valuing life.

I think your point also brings up a concern that aught to be raised about the various archetypes, or common sense notions, or virulent stereotypes, that are being drawn upon to produce emotional and affective responses, that are really about increasing the amount of time one spends looking at the magazine, and the odds that one will actually buy it. Presenting these images works to produce profit. They are understood to be profit generating vehicles because we can see and feel, quite quickly, that they are "moving" or that they "look right." Seems to me that having such affects so blatantly turned to the service of money making, should concern us; especially as that is a kind of practice for the very same dynamic being exploited by political actors, to motivate particular activities on our part (like voting certain ways, or quietly accepting this or that policy, etc.)

Because racism is a man thing. I think if a person looked honestly at the world, they would find that black men STILL have it better than any woman and a million times better than black women.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there
Have you ever looked at statistics of men vs. women college admittance? 59%, though the more advanced the degree, the greater the gap is. Amongst minorities, it is much greater than than 59% overall and continues to grow.
You use only unsubstantiated emotional appeals.
Please spare us your feminist tirades.

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with you there

Feel free.

Have you ever looked at statistics of men vs. women college admittance? 59%, though the more advanced the degree, the greater the gap is. Amongst minorities, it is much greater than than 59% overall and continues to grow.

Perhaps you would like to reconstruct this into a comprehensible argument? 59% what? More men than women? More women than men? You have a link to that?

You use only unsubstantiated emotional appeals.

What percentage of black men will be raped by the time they are 16?

Divorced or separated, urban, poor women, ages 16-24 experienced the highest risk for rape/sexual assault.¹

Race/Gender    # rapes      Rate/1k
White Men        20,100         .2
Black Men        5,460           .5
White Women     325,230         3.5
Black Women      63,360         4.5

How many "driving while black" men are asked to give cops blow jobs?

Are you saying this is not true. Feel free to answer my question. Please provide a link to your data.

Remember, black men abandoned the women's movement that freed them and it would be half a century before women of any color had the right to vote.

Fact: Woman's right activists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton were valiant abolitionists who fought to free blacks.

Fact: Black MEN got the vote in 1869, with the passing of the 15th amendment. Interestingly enough, the 14th amendment is the first amendment to define a citizen as male, by specifying "But when the right to vote . . . . is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State. . ". (If you really need links to this I can provide it.)

Fact: WOMEN would not get the vote until 1920, when the 19th amendment was ratified.

The violence against women, the oppression of women knows no racial boundary.

You really question this?

Please spare us your feminist tirades.

::snort:: Watch, most of the feminists here hate me. You will get on their bad side. LOL But thanks for showing how sexist you are.

Other interesting data:

Domestic Violence Statistics

• 95% of batterers are men.
• A woman is battered at least once every 15 seconds in the U.S.
• Battering is the single largest cause of injury to women in the U.S.
• 3 to 4 million are beaten in their homes each year. (Battering is severely underreported. This number accounts for only those cases of assault severe enough to warrant police or medical intervention. Many cases are not reported.)
• 25 to 45% of battered women are battered during pregnancy.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

Similar to other types of nonfatal violent victimization, nonfatal intimate partner violence is primarily intraracial in nature.

* About 84% of white victims were victimized by white offenders.

* About 93% of black victims were victimized by black offenders.

According to the Dept of Justice

From 1976 to 2005 -- ²

* 86% of white victims were killed by whites * 94% of black victims were killed by blacks

According to the CIA World Fact Book

white 81.7%, black 12.9%, Asian 4.2%, Amerindian and Alaska native 1%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.2%

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report:

Of the 14,990 murder people in 2006 69,56 were White and 7,421 were Black³

This looks bad. Until you see that 17,399 murders, 5,339 were White and 6,843 were Black. 1,151 were female of either race, I can find that stats that show that white women are statistically the least violent. Here's a chart of Race of Victim/Race of Murder.

There you go. Some food for thought. Oh, and one last thing

Between 2001 and 2005, American Indians experienced violence at rates more than twice that of blacks, 2 1/2 times that of whites, and more than 5 times that of Asians. ^*

Racism isn't a man nor a woman thing, racism isn't a black or a white thing. It's a human issue. Which we can defeat, it is a disease we can cure. Sadly it is a disease that is taught.

Facts & numbers do not help teach the next generation about equality, only love and compassion can do such a thing.

59% what? More men than women? More women than men? You have a link to that?

59% of people in college in the U.S. in the United States are now women.
I don't think it's appropriate to consider women a disadvantaged minority. Blacks and Mexicans have serious disadvantages, and giving women special privileges does nothing but muddy the waters and ignore real societal problems that exist.

What percentage of black men will be raped by the time they are 16? How many "driving while black" men are asked to give cops blow jobs? What percentage of black men are abused by their partners or live in virtual imprisonment in violence, unhappy marriages?

Highlighting incidents of sexism in no way proves that sexism is any worse than racism.

The violence against women, the oppression of women knows no racial boundary. It is something that goes back to our roots in Middle Eastern culture and philosophy . . back to the Greek belief that women were inferior.

The discrimination against people of colour knows no sexual boundary. It is something that goes back to the earliest history of modern man.

The discrimination is NOT the same. But there is no real comparison between sexism and racism.

So stop trying to compare them.

I don't hold women blameless and a lot of what is going wrong with black men is their mothers.

Nice. So people of colour are responsible for the discrimination against them?

59% of people in college in the U.S. in the United States are now women. I don't think it's appropriate to consider women a disadvantaged minority.

I did NOT say that women are a disadvantaged minority. I said we experience more violence. I'm saying racism and sexism are different and based in difference causes and racism will be likely be eradicate sooner than sexism. Domestic abuse knows no economic or racial or class boundaries. Women getting educations are possibly (I say that because the several of the studies most statistics are based on are being questioned.)getting sexually assaulted at a HIGHER rate than women NOT in college.

Statistics on College Rape

• One out of four women will be sexually assaulted on a college campus.
• One out of eight women will be raped while in college.
• 84% of women who were raped knew their assailant.
• 57% of rapes occur on a date.
• 75% of male students and 55% of female students involved in date rape had been drinking or using drugs. 5

If you have ANY doubts what I say is true, try this experiment. Go into your place of business. Tell a blond joke. Everyone laughs, right? Now, tell a black joke that ridicules a black man in the same way as you just ridiculed white women. Tell me how it turns out.

I said we experience more violence.

No, what you said was, that black men STILL have it better than any woman.

Regardless, the statistics that you supplied shows that black men experience more violence than females.

I'm saying racism and sexism are different and based in difference causes and racism will be likely be eradicate sooner than sexism.

Tell that to the Armenians in Turkey, Kurds(any of the four countries) Uighur/Tibetans in China, Jews in various countries, Or pretty much any country with any ethnic minorities.

I did NOT say that women are a disadvantaged minority. I said we experience more violence.

Violence against women has nothing to do with sexism. It has to do with individuals who have problems.

If you have ANY doubts what I say is true, try this experiment. Go into your place of business. Tell a blond joke. Everyone laughs, right? Now, tell a black joke that ridicules a black man in the same way as you just ridiculed white women. Tell me how it turns out.

Bars aren't exactly a shining bastions of feminism. Watch oxygen or go to curves and you'll get your fair share of man-hate. Besides, blondes can change their hair color, but few do. Instead, many women choose to change their hair color to blonde, get breast implants, ect. How's that for feminism?

Violence against women has nothing to do with sexism. It has to do with individuals who have problems.

Well, you are either stupid or a liar or you don't live in the US. Of course, you ARE a man, so you may be unaware. Violence against women is inherent in our social system which, unlike our government IS based in Judeo-Christian values.

Bars aren't exactly a shining bastions of feminism.

That is not the point, the point is, you could make a blond joke anywhere but you can't make a black joke, if you are not black, anywhere. Obviously you are too cowardly to try the experiment and fall back on misdirection instead of admitting I am correct.

How's that for feminism?

::sigh:: I'm not a feminist. I don't watch television. Even women can be stupid about their choices, I, wisely, choose to be a redhead not a blond, which I would not do if I lived in England where being a redhead is a liability. :D I play WoW, can change almost any bit of a pre-90s car and made my money mowing lawns as a kid. Yesterday I may have pissed off one of my feminist friends by insisting the women MUST take responsibility for their share of the blame for the violence of men in the world today, as men children are raised by women.

And I have very little tolerance for ignorant, sexist men. Goodbye.

Well, you are either stupid or a liar or you don't live in the US. Of course, you ARE a man, so you may be unaware. Violence against women is inherent in our social system which, unlike our government IS based in Judeo-Christian values.

Tell me which "social system" advocates violence against women. I can think of many that advocate racism.

Obviously you are too cowardly to try the experiment and fall back on misdirection instead of admitting I am correct.

Yours is misdirection, not mine. Tell a joke anywhere about a woman who did a violent act against a cheating spouse in any crowd primarily of women, and you'll get cheers. Do the inverse in a crowd of men, and the teller will receive very little respect.

And I have very little tolerance for ignorant, sexist men. Goodbye.

Stick your head in the sand, point remains, and which you have successfully avoided, post after post, is that Black/Mexican communities in the United States remain stuck in a cycle of poverty that only worsens, wheras women now constitute a large majority of college graduates, especially with advanced degrees, and increasingly, the workforce. The case is the same even in Muslim countries where women constitute a clean 70% of college attendants, yet where many minority races such as the Kurds, remain severely institutionally repressed. Yet you will not find a single agency that advocates violence against women. Violence against women requires a violent individual to be inherently sadistic and will always exist. Institutionalized racism and the poverty of minorities is institutional and is much more effectively addressable.
But that doesn't matter because I'm ignorant and sexist, though women who want special privileges are not sexist, they're civil rights advocates. You can mold the words however you want to fit your subjective reality/feelings, but the objective reality remains.

Really? What a surprise.

Isn't this a chick's rag? I would guess they are trying to attract the eye of women so they will buy the magazine.

I don't find it offensive, but I'm getting a little tired of the white women with black guys thing. Can't we white guys and the sisters get a little love? Of course, posing Peyton Manning with Oprah probably wouldn't have quite the same effect.

Neither would I have thought King Kong

Remember, LeBron's nickname is "King James."

Of course, posing Peyton Manning with Oprah probably wouldn't have quite the same effect.

What if it had been Peyton manning and Beyonce' ?

Uh, Beyonce can make any white man look good.

Uh, Beyonce can make any white man look good.

So true. But seriously, what if it had been Peyton Manning and Beyonce on the cover of Jet Magazine with the same pose? Would it get the same kind of reaction and discussion?

Didn't see it that way, but I certainly see your point. And this idea that all white women are vulnerable is crap too. All I need to do is look next to me in bed. My wife is cunning as a cougar. I dunno Ms Cyprah, I think we white guys and you sisters need to get together on this issue. I can be just as agressive as a black guy. And I know the sisters want to be swept off their feet by a strong man every bit as much as the white women.

When "American Idol's" Jennifer Hudson appeared on Vogue's cover, the first Black woman to appear there in many months, Vogue was swamped with complaint letters. She was a Hollywood newcomer, but more importantly, she's overweight, Black and not embraced by the magazine's snooty readers. Never mind she'd made a splash in the movie "Dreamgirls," she was no more welcome than tennis's Williams sisters.

I suppose if we keep being as oversensitive on the subject as we are, we're not going to be too far away from going back to segregation, just for the sake of political correctness. Whites in America are already so afraid of offending blacks (for fear of being labeled a racist), that it makes the idea of being a white person in the company of blacks an edgy situation. This is unfortunate, because it's a result of the "laws of unintended consequence"; it's true that we need to be sensitive to one another, but being oversensitive just creates further resentment and mistrust.

MsCyprah,

I didn't see her as vulnerable. She looked like she was enjoying herself and in full control.. They looked fine to me. He looked more like" Growl, just leave us alone, get out of here!" and she was having a laugh at that. That is what I first thought when I saw it. I no more thought of racism, vulnerability, or typical "black man" aggression(what ever that is supposed to mean). People, get a grip. When is just having fun ok only if you are of the same race?

Fred, a cover with a black woman/white man would never go over. Why? Because it would be seen as a throwback to slavery days when white men used black women sexually.

Sorry about te double post. I got a message telling me my first one didn't post.

Thanks

I can be just as agressive as a black guy. And I know the sisters want to be swept off their feet by a strong man every bit as much as the white women.

Right on, brother. There is one sister right here that wouldn't mind being swept off her feet by a shining (white) knight like you! :o)

People, get a grip. When is just having fun ok only if you are of the same race?

Just because you do not feel the same way, mysteryone57, does not mean others should be denied their own feelings on the matter, or that those perceptions are any less valid than yours.

Why not make the first - first black man on Vogue's cover - more interesting by having him with a black woman

Why not let the first black man on the cover of Vogue have the cover to himself? Period.

Excellent question, AmazingSDJ. But I guess her presence is a reassurance to white readers that all is well and it is still their magazine! Many people don't see any kind of racism with the picture but I would bet a lot that they would NOT have put a black woman on there with him. :o(

Why not let the first black man on the cover of Vogue have the cover to himself? Period.

I realize that he is part of a best bodies, or some such nonsense, but to be relevant to the magazine, there needed to be some kind of reference to Haute couture, and well Giselle is a fashion model.

But I guess her presence is a reassurance to white readers that all is well and it is still their magazine!

I'm a white reader (or least least I'm a cover-glancer). I don't need to be reassured that it is still "my" magazine. I'm a sports fan, so I actually relate more to a magazine with an athlete (male or female) on the front than I do to one with a skinny Brazilian chick. Granted, since I'm a sports fan I'm probably also not the demographic that Vogue aims for; if it weren't for the movie "The Devil Wears Prada" I wouldn't even know what Prada was.

I don't see it either.

The first impression that hit me when I saw the cover was that he was appearing like a tough, ferocious athlete, which isn't an uncommon photo stance, especially for football players more than basketball.

Since Gisele looks comfortable being in the crook of his arm and is laughing, she doesn't look like the "damsel in distress" either.

Another thing to remember...they may have come up with this pose on their own just joking and kidding around, and Liebovitz snapped the camera at just the right moment. If you've ever seen a photo session, the photogs usually allow the models to just freely move about, pose, smile, laugh, almost like a pseudo-dance between themselves and the camera, and that's how you get the most natural look. It even mentions something like this in the article.

It wouldn't be at all racist, it would just be a fairly clever photo juxtaposing the aggression of a warrior with the demurity of a model

IF

we didn't have such a strong history in out culture of fear of the black savage lusting after white women.

And that is the real heart of the matter, greck, thank you!

Just as McCarthy saw a Communist under every rock, the professional Hyper-Racists find racism everywhere.

They rightly complained about discrimination when inter-racial couples dated and married and now they are complaining about a Black man with a White woman on his arm on the cover of Vogue--something that would not have happened decades ago. I view the magazine cover not as racist, but as progress!

The thing is TO, they're not showing a happy interracial couple or anything like it. They could have shown a dapper James on the cover and I don't think anyone would have cared. I've never seen a cover of Vogue that wasn't plastered with high fashion before- this is an unusual departure.

I think Dennis is definitely on the right track in 1.1 with the imagery this photo evokes. It also reminds me a little bit of The Birth of a Nation- white women captured by aggressive black men, in need of rescuing. I doubt the photographer intended to offend, but it seems a little thoughtless given the history. To me, the problem is one of history and context.

You're more than welcome to your opinion jdl, but seriously, anyone who disagrees with you is "sick in the head"?

Oh it's definitely there, if you look at the pictures linked above you can see the comparison. You also have to realize they did a shoot, meaning they took several hundred photos with different angles, lighting, costumes and poses and THIS is what they put on the COVER.

Just break the image down - what is it saying? When viewed i see "Black aggressive male holds White Female." You won't see an inversion, "White agressive Male holds Black female" anywhere else in major media.

You can 'see it' or not, but just because you don't doesn't mean it's not there.

I do have to wonder at the true mindset of people who can look at a photo of a black man and see "King Kong", then yell racism. Oh my god, the real racist is the person who sees a black man as a large gorilla! A little - no, a lot - of introspection is needed for such a person to see why they interpret photos like that.

badkungfu

"The thing is TO, they're not showing a happy interracial couple or anything like it."

She's SMILING!

True. He's not. Look, I probably wouldn't have given the cover a second thought if I'd seen it before this. I don't think it's outright offensive or was necessarily trying to be, but it would be nice to see more covers where the black guy wasn't confined to the role of hulky athlete. It's Vogue, for crissake, not Sports Illustrated. Why can't he be a stylish and well-dressed guy who's done well for himself when he's on the cover of a magazine that is strictly about being stylish, well-dressed, and well-off?

It seems like it's perpetuating the idea that a black guy can only be admired as an athlete...or a rapper.

it would be nice to see more covers where the black guy wasn't confined to the role of hulky athlete.

But, but...it's LeBron James. He always looks like that.

If you want that picture, you need this guy.

How anyone could call this racist or offensive must be sick in the head, to many people read to many thing in to something that is not there.

Actually, there's a lot there: a history of demonizing black men, and athletes in particular (boxers, anyone?) as savage beasts.

Just break the image down - what is it saying? When viewed i see "Black aggressive male holds White Female." You won't see an inversion, "White agressive Male holds Black female" anywhere else in major media.

The image is hailing a lot of things--King Kong, certainly. But is it "saying" something? When was the last time you saw a fashion magazine with a cover that "said" anything? The photographer's job is to take dynamic photographs, and the editor's job is to select the most eye-catching cover shot. The image works because it hails visual history. Is it exploitative? Sure. But what ad isn't?

I do have to wonder at the true mindset of people who can look at a photo of a black man and see "King Kong", then yell racism. Oh my god, the real racist is the person who sees a black man as a large gorilla! A little - no, a lot - of introspection is needed for such a person to see why they interpret photos like that.

Yes and no. Images reflect the milieu in which they were produced. The study of art history takes this premise for granted; it's how we are able to talk about the relevance of art. The problem I see here is critics are taking some other things for granted: that the subject of the photo are being patently exploited, that they aren't in on "what the image is saying", and that the photographer isn't aware that he's quoting King Kong. In short, they're so caught up in sublimation that they're not giving credit for visual literacy where it's due.

it would be nice to see more covers where the black guy wasn't confined to the role of hulky athlete.

Sure it would. How does this strike your fancy? In LeBron's case, though, the black guy is an athlete. He's "hulky" by definition--what would you have him do, remove his muscles? He also wears Armani.

Sure it would. How does this strike your fancy? In LeBron's case, though, the black guy is an athlete. He's "hulky" by definition--what would you have him do, remove his muscles? He also wears Armani.

Sure. Will Smith. So between him and Jordan there are two black guys that get to dress up in suits. I imagine we could find a couple others- Denzel, I'm sure.

No, he need not remove muscles. A good suit, which he obviously owns, would be fine. Tom Brady generally gets to wear sleeves and full length pants when he's in a fashion mag.

To an extent I'm playing the devil's advocate to the initial "sick in the head" comment. The image itself isn't a big deal...outside of the context of our society and it's history. Even taking that into account, it doesn't bother me much, but I can empathize with people who might actually be offended by it. In my part of the country especially I think it rings a little close to the actual, generally under-the-radar racism that still exists and that I've had experience with.

I doubt the photographer intended to offend, but it seems a little thoughtless given the history. To me, the problem is one of history and context.

Precisely, badkungfu, because behaviour cannot be divorced from context or history. They both have to be applied to have meaning. If a man went to New York and erected a maypole at Times square and start to dance around it, in girly type dress and holding a ribbon, many people would probably think he was transgendered or going dulally. Until one puts it in context: it's the first of May, and history: traditional Morris Dancer from the UK dancing round the maypole to celebrate May morning. Take that history and context away and it would have an entirely different interpretation or appearance. So, though it really is just a black man and white woman on that cover, it's how some people in a racist society will perceive them.

While I agree with pretty much all of the above, lets keep in mind that basketball players actually don't like to wear suits. So much so, that they have made it a part of the collective barganing agreement that teams can not make them wear suits. Uh, I don't blame them. I prefer a pair of jeans a a tee shirt myself. But the NBA garb certainly is appropriate. It's really only the pose that's in question as far as I'm concerned.

Tom Brady generally gets to wear sleeves and full length pants when he's in a fashion mag.

That's exactly the point that someone on ESPN made earlier this week.

...basketball players actually don't like to wear suits. So much so, that they have made it a part of the collective barganing agreement that teams can not make them wear suits. Uh, I don't blame them. I prefer a pair of jeans a a tee shirt myself. But the NBA garb certainly is appropriate. It's really only the pose that's in question as far as I'm concerned.

That's a pretty broad generalization. While the player's union agreement with the NBA may say that the NBA can't force the players to wear suits (it is really meant to prevent the NBA from controlling every aspect of a players public image), you will find a good many players that prefer to "dress up" when not on the court... and understandably so, when you wear shorts and a basketball jersey for a living.

I don't want to be too sensitive in regards to this photo, but substitute any other popular white athlete for Lebron (lets say, Steve Nash or Dirk Nowitzki) on the cover of Vouge (come on... VOUGE), and I am willing to bet they won't be portrayed the same way. As someone mentioned in an earlier post, whenever David Beckham graces the cover of a fashion magazine, he looks fashionable. He doesn't come off as one-dimensional, as Lebron (and many other black athletes) is presented. In this context, he comes off as little more than a fashion accessory for Gisele Bundchen.

I'm trying not to read too much into this photo, but hearing all of the commentary about it today, and knowing the history of this type of imagery in America, it is impossible to avoid. And also, knowing the process of photo shoots like this and knowing how Annie Liebowitz tends to work (she usually controls every aspect of a scene, as much as is possible), the choice of image for this cover is no accident. At the same time, I would like to think that people don't feel forced to censor themselves because they might offend someone (though a little discretion can never be a bad thing).

Funny people are upset that a basketball player is asked to appear in uniform...but not that a woman is once again asked to appear all "dolled up"...when was the last time a model was asked to appear in sweats? The answer is WHY would she be asked to? People know her and like her as a model. Same with LeBron James, I would think. He seems to be happy with the cover.

The image itself isn't a big deal...outside of the context of our society and it's history.

Yeah, same with the bible. The thing with this image is that the context in which we recognize black athletes has changed: they're not just court jesters (pun intended) anymore, they're dads and millionaires and activists. They're role models. What boy in the last 20 years didn't want to be like Jordan?

Just so we know what we're talking about here: a few more black athletes in suits.

Oh, and look! A model in sweat pants!

Ok. I yield.

LOL. Sorry, but I have to laugh at that little designer "sweat suit"...that's a sweat suit? You haven't seen my comfy greys...

and she's wearing makeup....to work out. LOL

bigger, yeah, I think it's J-Lo actually, but that's what my tracksuit looks like, so...I dunno, are you a lady or a gent?

Good point; someone up above was offended that LeBron James wasn't pictured in a business suit but was instead put in his basketball "uniform". I could ask the same thing about Gisele Bundchen - I'm sure she owns many sweat outfits, but they put her in her model "uniform"....

I could worry and wonder about it, but it really doesn't matter to me...and I'm sure LeBron isn't ashamed of his uniform.

You know, Craig, I have to wonder at the kind of people who make an issue of every little thing like this. No, a black man (LeBron James) can't possibly have a cover on Vogue magazine without being brought down and having his accomplishment torn down and stepped on. Ironically, it's the people who say they are not racist who are doing this. Let's shout to the world that this black man looks like a huge mythical ape so that everybody who didn't think that will now. And so when he looks in a mirror, he sees it too. In my opinion, all of this "protectionism" and "political correctness" rum amok is just a more subtle way to keep black people down.

that wouldn't work either, morethanhappy; if she were grimacing and he were smiling, people would say it was meant to convey that he was striking a benign, non-threatening attitude so white people wouldn't feel threatened...that it was racist because he can't "be himself".

The possibilities are endless. A person with an agenda can twist it in any direction.

I think it's a lot of projection, myself - people projecting their own insecurities and biases upon the outside world. You're right - if they had taken a different pose for the two on the cover, they'd be supposedly reinforcing some other set of stereotypes, victimizing someone somehow. It's all so squishy.

You can't please all the people all the time. You are so right More Than Happy & biggerthebetter.

That might be,

IF

the cover was chosen at random, like the editor just threw a dart at a stack of photos and said "OK, that one. Print it!"

but I'm under the impression that a good amount of thought and discussion goes into this kind of thing.

Plus, I could be wrong, but I thought photographers direct their subjects to evoke certain looks (ie "magnum" and "blue steel") and/or themes, creating not just a nice picture, but a story or something evocative. Could it be that Austin Powers's alias misled me?

this pic was chosen specifically for the theme and it's impact. Somebody, and probably more than one person, put some thought into this.

Purposefully racist? remotely possible. More likely, the photographer knew EXACTLY what he was doing as did the editor and it was done this way to strike at this exact nerve. "give me rage.." "give me aggression" "give me Mandingo..." "give me jungle fever..."

This is a fine example for those out there who don't think photography is "art."

Purposefully racist? remotely possible. More likely, the photographer knew EXACTLY what he was doing as did the editor and it was done this way to strike at this exact nerve. "give me rage.." "give me aggression" "give me Mandingo..." "give me jungle fever..."

Having been a magazine editor, greck, that's exactly what would have happened. The themes are decided in advance to match the content and get the best alignment fro advertising. In such a famous magazine that has a certain kind of reputation to maintain, nothing is ever random.

I'll jump on the "sexist" train, why not?

could you elaborate? Give us an education.

OOO Gwenny used the F and the C word...Im telling MOM!

Well . .and just for the record this doesn't bother me either . . . it's the obvious big caveman get defenseless woman. It plays on cultural images of women . . especially stupid blonds . . as weak and happy to be protected by a big strong man who will protect her, even if it means he will probably be brutal about it. There are undertones of "White Knight" . . the weak woman waiting for the man who will protect. All the negative stereotypes that keep women weak and needy. As a strong, both physically and emotionally, woman this used to really annoy me. But I am secure in my kick ass womanliness now. :D

Don't know if you remember the Andy Kaufman's publicity stunt of the 80s, where he went around offering to pay women to wrestle him because he believed women were unable to compete, unable to defeat men in one on one battle. My first husband believed that. One night, when I had heard enough, I said, "Fine. I'll wrestle you to prove it." "Sure," he said and laughed. BOOM. He was pinned in about 20 secs. He got up and rubbed his shoulder. "BEST TWO OUT THREE," he bellowed. BOOM, he was back on the ground. He got to his feet, enraged. "THREE OUT OF FIVE." SLAM, so hard the window fell off the prop holding it open and smashed down, the glass shattering all over the living room. He admitted defeat.

NEVER challenge a woman with two older step brothers, who worked in the hay fields to a wrestling match. :D

I was waiting for that, Gwenny. You win the prize.

My first thought when I saw this was that it wasn't racist, but it was sexist as hell. But in a good way. Liebowitz is just having fun with archetypes, as I said above.

i can see why people might think it looks racist, or sexist. if i had seen the cover without seeing this article, i would have just thought it looked ridiculous (like when everyone is dressed up for prom and smiling for pictures, and then the cheesy photographer tells them to all do something stupid) but probably wouldn't have given it a second thought, or a second glance.

My first husband believed that. One night, when I had heard enough, I said, "Fine. I'll wrestle you to prove it." "Sure," he said and laughed. BOOM. He was pinned in about 20 secs. He got up and rubbed his shoulder. "BEST TWO OUT THREE," he bellowed. BOOM, he was back on the ground. He got to his feet, enraged. "THREE OUT OF FIVE." SLAM, so hard the window fell off the prop holding it open and smashed down, the glass shattering all over the living room. He admitted defeat.

My husband would consider this fore play....and then tell me he let me win!! lol fragile lil ego's.....

Scott,

Everything in an Annie Liebowitz photo is intentional. Everything.

My husband would consider this fore play....and then tell me he let me win!! lol fragile lil ego's

::looks interested:: If you ever get tired of him . . .

It is a women's mag. I kinda thought that Lebron looked like Giselle's fashion accessory.

Lebron looked like Giselle's fashion accessory

hah. the rich irony. now let's have some reverse sexist claims:-)

/shrugs

I thinks he's a tremendous basketball player, and totally gorgeous. He can be my fashion accessory any day.

Arcturas - my comment was so subtle, even I don't quite get it now. Relax. I think you made an excellent observation. My comment was really aimed at those who feel the image was sexist (as in anti-women).

Look at the unnatural pose Gisele is in!

It's as close as she could get to Fay Wray's pose considering she's about 5x taller....

Ah yes, but he is still just fine with the photo after the fact Scott.

Also effective in how much publicity they got. Really, who remembered that Vogue was even there any more?

Also effective in how much publicity they got. Really, who remembered that Vogue was even there any more?

Right--as someone pointed out elsewhere, no press is bad press. This is advertising, pure and simple. I actually really like the photograph--there's really a lot to look at. Especially when you compare it to the Vogue usual. Snooze.

Thanks, Scott. Keep seeding articles that are relevant to my undergraduate degree and personal interests and I just might. ;)

i had no clue!

i had no clue!

Sorry, about which part?

vogue, yall's coments weren't there until after i posted mine, even though yall's are in front of. ???

compare it to the Vogue usual. Snooze.

Hey, that was a awesome cover !

Hey, that was a awesome cover !

We have a Kate Hudson fan in the audience. Mmm. Boooooring! :P

Comparative Ethnic (Asian/Am) and American Studies.

I agree, oneTheory. Now, had they dressed him in hip-hop rags, and posed him as though he was about to hit her and had her grabbing for his crotch, then I'd say they've been made too agressive and stereotyped and that it's offensive.

I saw an awesome supermodel and a basketball plater.

That's exactly what we'd expect liberals to see! I saw a cover story that purports you are not what you eat, that's a bigger problem than an overpaid pair of stereotypical American celebrities.

That's exactly what we'd expect liberals to see!

Meaning? Relevance?

I saw a cover story that purports you are not what you eat, that's a bigger problem than an overpaid pair of stereotypical American celebrities.

Agreed. Though, I'd point out a couple of things:

First, LeBron isn't just an athlete--he's an entertainer, a personality, and from Ohio (woot!). He's also more active in politics and community initiatives than your average baller. Second, the uproar isn't about celebrities, it's about the way images and advertising inform and reinforce racial stereotypes.

I think it would be interesting if our reaction to those who actually try and be offensive is to ignore them. . . . . .

Boys in elementary and middle school frequently tease the girls they want attention from with obnoxious behavior (offensive even). I tell my daughters to ignore them because all they really want is attention.

I simply think it would be fun to not give offense to so much so easily----I wonder how many articles seeds and columns in all of Newsvine's history do not contain the phrase "Im offended" or "thats offensive". . . . . .Seems to be present in most of the ones I have read in the last few months. . . .

I would say that is just classic Annie Leibovitz. She likes to take stunning photo's that get people's attention's and that is exactly what she did. Different people are going to look at it in a different way, if it was the cover of Sports Illustrated Magazine, I doubt anyone would complain as those readers have seen Lebron in that kind of expression before. With the crowd that buy's Vogue, I would guess it was a little on the surprising side. However at least if you look, Gisele looks pretty happy about it, so its just a pose. I don't see a big issue with it.

Agreed, Tedd.

Sorry here should have been a *smirk* up there to flag it as snarky. I agree its a tempest in a teapot but my concern is what's in the tea leaves, irony intended. :~)

I'd pay money to watch them do "it".

Do what?

*innocent face*

Ah Stolte, you ' so fine, now come here and walk nasty for papi'...

I dunno whether to blush or gag. :D

...uhm, your choice but I would have you gag...

Of course you would.

That's what sh.... oh @!$%# it.
We all know where this is headed, I'll be in my trailer.
(...Frigging crappy material... get some real writers on set... jackass director...)

-Dave