August 21, 2007
Right but still wrong
From the London Times...
Naomi Campbell has fired a broadside against glossy magazines, which she believes sideline black models in favour of fair skinned women.
The 37-year-old supermodel singled out Vogue, saying that she found it harder and harder to make it on to its coveted front cover. Campbell said that she planned to set up a modelling agency in Kenya to scout for new African faces in an attempt to redress the balance.
“Black models are being sidelined by the major modelling agencies. It is a pity that people don’t appreciate black beauty,” she said at the weekend during a beach holiday in Kenya.
While I agree that Madison Avenues perception of "beauty" is blatantly racist, I went to find a picture of Naomi Campbell (I remembered her name, but not being a purveyor of those kinds of magazines, I couldn't quite place the face) but after finding porn photo after semi-porn photo, I gave up. Perhaps someone not so willing to degrade themselves for a buck could get behind the issue. But, maybe that's too much to ask from Madison Avenue.
One aspect of the word "discrimination" is to be selective between what is of good quality and what is not. We're all familiar with the word being used to describe what is actually wrongful discrimination. We've trashed the word a bit by using it that way. That's like calling bad food, food, so long the word food now is understood to mean bad food.
Selecting models based on how white they look is wrongful discrimination, even with the false claim of "artistic license". Allowing yourself to be photographed nude, or in erotic poses shows a complete lack of discrimination.
That's what I find so annoying about the story, someone with apparently no discrimination complaining about others with too much of the wrong kind of discrimination. What's right about what Naomi Campbell is saying, can be too quickly dismissed by what wrong about what she's doing.
Posted by Danny Carlton at August 21, 2007 6:43 AM
It has nothing to do with race. America is still predominantly white, so the magazines are going to focus more on their main audience. It's common sense that a business will focus on their main audience the majority of the time.
I don't know the stats, but assuming America is 75% white and 25% brown or black then the magazine will most likely feature a white person on the cover at least 75% of the time if not more.
If I read a hip hop magazine, I'd expect the cover to be 95% black people, with the occasional Eminem / Vanilla White thrown in.
Posted by: John Caruso at August 24, 2007 10:16 AM
First of all Black magazine specifically target Blakc readers. If Vogue wants to start labeling their magazine as specifically for white poeple, then that'd be a different thing all together. The point is that the media, glossy magazijnes included, long ago realized that by pushing the edge of whatever boundaries existed in term of consumers' interests, they could then slowly shape those interests.
They have no qualms glorifying homosexuality, demonizing Christians and dissing Conseratives in spite of stats that would show a sizable part of their viewers find such material offensive. Why are they so afraid of showing an attractive Black woman, who doesn't like like a white woman with a deep tan? Take Halle Barry v. Naomi Campbell, both very attractive, but were it not for her skin tone, Halle Berry could easily pass for being white. Maomi Campbell however has features that are unmistakably Black, beyond just her skin tone, but she's also very pretty. If a percentage of the white consumers don't like that (and I'd be willing to bet that it's actually the piublishers, not the consumers that have the problem) then why worry about that percentage enough to abandon any effort to use the opportunity to shape the attitudes of those consumers?
Honestly, how many people would really be turned off by a clean (non-nude) pose of Naomi Campbell? Why would Madison Avenue want to keep that part of the demographics at the expense of those who find the blatant racism of adverisers unsettling?
Posted by: Danny Carlton at August 24, 2007 10:54 AM
I have no problem with black women on the cover of Vogue. I was just saying that due to U.S. demographics, Vogue may only have a minority on the cover 25% of the time.
Of course white women are going to get predominantly displayed. These magazines are often bought by women in check out lines at the grocery store. If I am a white women interested in makeup tips from a white supermodel, I'm more apt to buy that issue than a similar article written by a black supermodel. Totally different skin types that require different types of foundation, blush, lipstick, etc.
It's not racism - it's just a matter of wanting to read something you can relate to. We all subconsiously or consciously are drawn to people that look more like us. Publishing is a business, so they are going to try and sell the most magazines. It's a fact - white woman will sell more when on the cover. If you take that same Vogue magazine with a white model on the cover and took it to India, it wouldn't sell as well. Put an Indian supermodel on that Vogue cover and it will sell like gangbusters.
it's just the way it is. i don't consider it racism. The publisher is simply trying to sell the most magazines. I don't think we need a quota for black women to be on the cover. White women still make up the majority of our female population. it's simple supply and demand economics. As a conservative blogger i would think you'd be for the free market. Now if the publisher never had a black woman on the cover, then maybe i'd be suspicious of racism.
To boot, Naomi Campbell is a notorious whiner and high-maintanence. So I feel no sympathy for her.
Posted by: John Caruso at August 24, 2007 7:41 PM
