Is Vogue magazine Racially profiling?

On the cover of the newest edition of Vogue magazine is an example of racial profiling?


Take a good look at the new cover, and think about some of the emotions and profiles that come in mind… King Kong… primal…. primitive…dangerous…aggressive…powerful…criminal… Aren’t these thing we should be moving away from? Especially on the cover of a magazine that represents ‘high’ society in North America?

“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,”

“Images of black male athletes as aggressive and threatening reinforce the criminalization of black men.”

Whose standpoint is coming through in these pictures? What is mistakenly being represented? Keep in mind that this is the first black man to ever pose on the cover of Vogue magazine…

I am not taking a side in this argument, what I want is to generate discussion on my post… Pease let me know what you think!


4 Responses to “Is Vogue magazine Racially profiling?”

  1. Could they be making fun of it? Probably not…it is Vogue Magazine.

  2. Not only is this fairly racially insensitive, it’s sexist and plain retarded.

    Vogue: Hey america, this is what you should look like.
    America: *Purge*
    Vogue: Keep up the good work America.

  3. howsoonis08 Says:

    The painting was used in a recruiting poster for soldiers during WWI, done between 1914-1918. I don’t believe the ape depicted in the painting was even meant to be a representation of a person of African decent. It just fit so perfectly with the picture taken for Vogue.

    The fact that these two images are so much alike, in spite of being more than a century distant from each other speaks, I think, to the tenacity of this kind of stereotype/hegemony.

    I also want to consider the idea of intention. The woman who made the
    Vogue cover photo (Annie Liebowitz) is well known for her startling and
    beautiful photography. Liebowitz is also Jewish and a lesbian, so she’s
    not exactly the oppressor. This is where Gramsci is helpful. Liebowitz
    is not ‘intending’ to act as the oppressor – she is simply in this
    instance an organic, but traditional, cultural worker who is
    unreflexively reproducing hegemonic ideas about race and masculinity,
    and femininity. In other words, this is orientalizing, and even if it seems like it’s good in the short term, it carries a hefty price tag.

    While hegemony might SEEM natural, it is anything but – it is a social construction, usually with a long, dirty history, and usually constructed by dominant forces whose interests have been well served by portraying things intellectually, morally and culturally in a certain light. Eventually, these ideas have been reproduced from so many quarters so frequently, that they become ‘like second nature’. That’s why they’re so dangerous, and so easy to conjure up.

  4. howsoonis08 Says:

    Thanks for your e-mails and comments everyone! Keep it up!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: