Trackbacks & Pings

1. Jundullah | Pretty as a Picture: Ethnic Women as Consumable Art on 01 Dec 2007 at 5:16 pm

   [...] Media Watch thanks Racialicious for the [...]

Comments

1. Fatemeh wrote:

   BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 1:42 pm ¶

2. Karen wrote:

   Looking through the various pages of “Ethnic People,” you realize what would also be an equally appropriate title for the category: “Ain’t No White People Here.”

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 1:58 pm ¶

3. BoredJane wrote:

   aww, how cute. I wonder if these people in the photos are aware that their faces and bodies are being sold off? And do they get paid for it?

   It’s only fair that way.

   But my guess is that they are being ripped off and exploited without recieving a dime in return. pity.

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 2:12 pm ¶

4. Sara wrote:

   Are there people who are not ethnic?

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 2:17 pm ¶

5. BoredJane wrote:

   yeah, what about Irish villagers or French farmers? Or what about redneck cowboys in Texas? Aren’t they ethnic too?!?!?

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 2:30 pm ¶

6. gatamala wrote:

   Webshots has the same category.

   co-sign with Sara. I hate that word.

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 2:36 pm ¶

7. Jasmine wrote:

   Oh man, this totally reminded me of a shopping trip to the Bloomingdale’s in Chicago a few years ago. I was wandering through the shoe section when I found a display of animal print heels (leopard, tiger, zebra), arranged on display pillars. The column behind the display had the word ETHNIC spelled out in bold letters. Wish I had said something about it then — I was too shocked, so I just ran off and spent my shoe money at Marshall Field’s instead.

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 2:52 pm ¶

8. Kat wrote:

   What. The Fuck.

   I have seen some of these photos in Lonely Planet’s guide to Kenya. Which leads me to believe that LP’s photographers are selling these images off to poster companies without their subjects’ knowledge or consent. That’s fucking great.

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 2:57 pm ¶

9. Karen wrote:

   Yeah, college and graduate level seminars often talk about the trade of Oriental (and Orientalized) imagery back in the 1800s and early 1900s as an antiquated practice. (This mostly included post cards of female subjects from the Near East.) Guess it’s still alive and well.

   Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 3:22 pm ¶

10. Amory wrote:

    wow. did anyone else notice the emphasis on landscapes along with people? Maybe I’m reaching but it feels like reifying both together amplifies the effect- like putting a picture of silhouettes of Arab(?) people in front of sand dunes articulates something more about Arab peoples… Like the photographer is trying to make a statement about a person (or in this case, entire nations of people lumped into one category) by visually associating them with landscape imagery? “Nature” and all that?

    Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 5:42 pm ¶

11. EVD wrote:

    Off the subject a bit, but why are groups of brown people called a tribe, but groups of white people are called a clan?

    Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 6:25 pm ¶

12. Amory wrote:

    oh, and the fact that in this category there is a poster of two black children with the word “Respect” above them?!
    I am amazed.

    Posted 09 Nov 2007 at 8:19 pm ¶

13. dnA wrote:

    Geez what do you want white people to do? It’s not like they can ENSLAVE “ethnic people” anymore, how else are they supposed to keep some around the house? Would you DEPRIVE a poor, defenseless white person of their right to use “ethnic people” as decoration?

    There’s a word for that you know. An ugly little word called “prejudice”.

    Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 11:04 am ¶

14. justin wrote:

    EVD, Tribes are loose social groups and clans are blood relatives who have title and inheritance, rights etc. Groups of brown people live in tribes because its easier for us to steal their land when we only recognise the most basic form of organisation. It’s also to do with the klan and brave heart, in my mind.

    Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 11:07 am ¶

15. Wendi Muse wrote:

    as a person who has postcards from the arab museum of france of people engaging in daily activities in francophonic north africa, i am not sure if i should comment on this.

    BUT i see this type of art beautiful, much in the same way that some people in other countries may find photos of americans on the street engaging in their daily activities as art as well (apparently i am in some photospread in japan called “happy” of americans smiling…though they never sent me a copy!).

    my mother also is a big collector of african, south american, and south asian art pieces, which i think influenced my appreciation for both the art they created and the photos taken of their respective countries, cities, and societies.

    HOWEVER, i think the big problem here is how it’s labeled. people of non-european ethnic backgrounds are not objects nor do they exist solely for the purpose of decorating our living room walls. i think it’s important for us to KNOW something about the group or even just acknowledge on our own that these are REAL people. maybe the seller should have labeled the pictures based on the country…i.e. life in qatar, or a sunday afternoon in bangledesh as opposed to simple rendering all nonwhite folks as generic “ethnic people”

    i’m a black american, so technically i’m one of those “ethnic people” too, but it’s odd how ethnicity is related only to non-americans and non-europeans, and then objectified for the sake of prophet.

    Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 12:02 pm ¶

16. Anna wrote:

    I’ve worked for several big photography agencies that license images by professional photographers for use by companies such as AllPosters.Com.
    If the images were licensed through an agency the photographer would need to present a model release giving permission to use that person’s likeness in a commercial product(not editorial like a newspaper or magazine article). The persons are supposed to be paid something. Many times professional models from a nearby city are used, not members of the indigenous group depicted. Agencies know that with the internet they can get caught and sued by anyone, anywhere.
    However more business are taking photos from Flickr and other sites where amateurs post photos online. That was how the young girl in the mobile phone ad was used without permission.

    Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 1:18 pm ¶

17. FranSky wrote:

    “Oh that picture of the African girl is just soooo cute!” Or “aren’t Native American’s so cool.” That’s what this catagory on allposters.com is all about. Yuck!
    ~F

    Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 7:44 pm ¶

18. TheLostGirl wrote:

    Does this mean that black is the new black?!?

    Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 12:39 pm ¶

19. April wrote:

    BWAHAHA. Hilariously true.

    Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 5:09 pm ¶

20. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    Oh

    My

    God!

    “Ethnic People (Color Photography)”?

    Yes, that’s actually what allposters.com calls that catagory!

    Maybe they MEANT to say “Ethnic People (Colored Photography)”???

    Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 8:52 pm ¶

21. NayLah wrote:

    Hmmm, wonder what happened to my post or are they immediately taken down when you disagree with the initial issue being discussed?

    yeah

    Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 10:05 am ¶

22. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    NayLah, see points 8 and 9 of our comment moderation policy:

    8. Don’t respond to a post or comment by saying “why don’t you focus on some real issues like the war/starving children in Africa/police brutality/etc.” Newsflash: this is a blog about race and pop culture. If you’re not interested in discussing the intersection of those two things, please go elsewhere.

    9. Don’t respond to critiques about racism by telling the person making the critique that they’re just too sensitive, or they need to “get a life,” or that they need to stop playing the “race card.” We welcome disagreements here on Racialicious, but make an intelligent case for your point of view. Don’t just dismiss others’ views.

    Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 10:20 am ¶

23. NayLah wrote:

    Oh I get it so you can let me know the wrong Im doing publically but leave it to question for other readers? Carmen, Im not dismissing anything. I stated my opinion but because it went completely against what was posted my comment was taken down??? Thats a joke. I dont agree with the point of view being posted at all and I never told anyone to get a life. But sometimes its not about race with some things and you are not being true to what this posting board is about by censoring me. Everyone on here does not make intelligent cases for what they say and you would think that someone like you would have a thicker skin by now with criticism – this is what you do. I didnt mean to offend you but I dont believe that the Allposters.com site or the pictures for sale on the site were racist. Like I said on my previous post before you took it down – to me this was not Race/pop culture worthy.

    Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 9:57 am ¶

24. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    NayLah, you asked publicly what happened to your comment so I answered publicly.

    I actually did post your comment briefly but received several complaints that your comment violated the comment moderation policy, so I took it down.

    Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 10:32 am ¶

25. NayLah wrote:

    So noted and advice taken. If I dismissed someone else’s view I wouldnt respond.

    Happy Posting

    Posted 13 Nov 2007 at 10:37 am ¶