France and Australia have more in common than you think

Wait, France and Australia? They are on opposite sides of the world. Literally. They don't have a share history. The people in Australia like beer, France has wine. Australia is mostly a big desert known for Mad Max and Mel Gibson. France has the Eiffel Tower, cheese, and hasn't won a war (or really mattered) since a short guy named Napoleon.

These things are all true. But they are very similar in their desire to display buffoonery that mocks Blacks. For Australia its the Aborigine people that are the special focus of this backwards kind of thinking. In France it's usually Moroccans, but they really stepped up the insults with the latest venture into pugnacious "art".



The French Vogue magazine, in all its brilliance, decided that supermodels needed more attention. Which is fine if not a bit absurd. But when it came time to have photos of Black models they decided that blackface was a far more appropriate and fashionable thing to do. Yes, blackface. The key part of the minstrel show that the uneducated and repugnant of the 19th century loved.

I realize that there aren't a lot of models, or supermodels for that matter, that are women of color. It's a problem the entire fashion industry can't seem to figure out. Then again, in my experience, it's far easier to find White women the size and flat board curvaciousness of Olive Oil. And as I have said before

"I have to believe that the designers are the biggest group of fetishists in plain public sight. That's the only explanation. The women they use, or airbrush, are so far from the norm that Janeane Garafalow (her politics) is mainstream in comparison. Obviously they just saw one Popeye cartoon too many. Especially Ralph Lauren."

Still I find it hard to believe that none of the Black supermodels were available. I mean there is Naomi Campbell, Tyra Banks, Iman, Alek Wek, Liya Kebede, Chanel Iman. I mean the photographer, Steven Klein is an American. Couldn't he have had the balls to simple say what Harry Connick Jr. said to the nation of Australia? Did Klein think that no one in America would notice, or care?

Perhaps I'm not as artsy and cultured as our European "friends" or as burly as those down in Australia. But at least I am in the 20th century. Though the fact that both these nations consider racism and prejudice a normal and current way to deal with people of color in their own nations.

Vogue knows better than what they did. They had the ability to bring in Black models, they have the intelligence to know this is offensive. They knew that they were insulting tens of millions of people of color around the world. But maybe they are just like the Australian audience for Hey Hey, its Saturday night! in that they just don't care.

Considering that Blacks across the world have contributed to freedom (including saving the French in WWI, WWII, and Viet Nam), made innovations that have eased life and saved untold millions of people over the centuries, and the least of all - President Obama - you would think they might have a bit of a wake-up call. But it seems not.

I would suggest to every reader I have that buys Vogue to skip it for 3 months (or more if you would like). Send them a message in a color they are sure to respect and understand - money. Blackface is an insult. ANYWHERE in the world to ALL people of color. Perhaps France and Australia would like to join us in the 21st Century on that.

LeBron James, Gisele Vogue cover controversy hides a lot - 3.27.2008.2

LeBron James. Gisele Bundchen. King Kong and the blonde or success and good looks?



The cover of Vogue does not make a preference. Beyond saying both look good and are in shape there is nothing more said. But in America, images of Blacks and Whites together always evoke issues older than the nation itself. This is no different.

How you see the cover has a lot to do with what you want to see, and I think what race you are. I would guess that most African Americans will either see nothing or a Mandingo image. Most Whites will see nothing or the stereotypical sexual image of a Black male, or a taboo that far too many Black men have died over for centuries. And that is perhaps the problem.

Not that some see anything, but that so many see something more. And that was exactly what Vogue wanted. Ads and images for companies are important. They promote sales, and bring profit. They make your brand memorable. In a nation that is obsessed with sex, yet repressed from having it the residual suggestion is enough to get some into an uproar.

I personally did not see anything wrong with the photo at first glance. My next thought was, couldn’t LeBron have worn something more classy or professional? Then I saw the sexual insinuation. Note that I had to work to that conclusion.

But there is no lack of people who go to that 3rd thought first. Whether it’s an African American that thinks the Black race is being breed out of the world (which considering the numbers in Africa I doubt), or a White seeing visions of Slavery rape fantasy/fears. We are a nation that has yet to resolve our initial circumstances, and companies that recognize this seek the profit out of it.

I’ve read many that say the photo is one thing or another. Actually I think it’s both. It is meant to be on the edge, allowing deniability and thus feeding a frenzy that happened with too much ease. And the real question to me is if this was so easy to cause uproar, how can we ever believe that all the issues and baggage since 1619 no longer exists?

While on an individual level I’m sure many are not racist or tied to prejudice, just as LeBron did not envision this as being a negative portrayal of him. But as a nation that cannot be said. The first day of 2007 I commented on the interracial couple that made headlines with their proposal on national television. Later that same year I discussed the lesser covered news of their wedding marred by death threats and violence at the wedding.

Barely a week ago Senator Obama had to discuss race, and the racism of his own grandmother. 2 weeks ago Rev. Wright was often taken out of context as a group of 10 second soundbites from 5 sermons were strung together to form polispeak against Senator Obama’s campaign; to the delight of the Clinton campaign that had been using race as an issue since October 2007 at least.

If there is anything more at issue in America than sex (who’s having it and with whom) it is absolutely race. Neither issue is one that gets an honest or open conversation.

What is the real thing the cover is saying that is not being dealt with in the media? That several successful Black entertainers and businesspeople, like Kimora Lee Simmons or Sean Combs (aka P Diddy), never got attention on the cover of Vogue though they had successful and popular clothing lines for a decade. That holding up a question about an entertainer completely obfuscates the real issues of poor educations for our children, skyrocketing drop-out and teen pregnancy rates, unequal legal sentencing policies, and the proliferation of drug in low income communities to name a few.

Magazines about women’s clothing lines are about sex. A cover is meant to exemplify that fact. Sex sells in America (if not the world). And this cover absolutely attacks the American precepts of sex appeal and sexuality. It dives right into the unspoken and still held belief in restricting or preventing interracial couples. It swings the door open to the learned fears and fantasies and questions that have plague this nation since the first African slave was sold in America and a White woman gave him a second glance.

Is this image troubling? Maybe in some respects. But more troubling is what this cover is attempting to distract from. That is what we really need to pay attention to. At least that’s what I think.