LeBron James as King Kong on cover of Vogue? at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture

LeBron James as King Kong on cover of Vogue?

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

The King Kong-esque imagery on the latest cover of Vogue is so striking that even bloggers who don’t usually write about race are sitting up and taking notice. Blog Fashionista said: “It shows personality, sure, but the whole “Me, Tarzan. You, Jane,” vibe doesn’t sit well with the french fries we had for lunch.”

Brigitte at Make Fetch Happen wonders “why does Anna Wintour have such a hard nipples for black folks with their mouths hanging wide open on her magazine? Specifically, I’m thinking about Jennifer Hudson’s horribly unflattering cover last year.”

And Chic and Untroubled asks if Anna Wintour is just blatantly ripping off her French counterpart, sans drag queen: “Sure, Lebron could never be confused with the ultra-fabulous Andre J. But look how both covers - featuring black man and attractive model - are so similar in format. Even right down to the cover lines - look how they are both mostly concentrated to the left side.”

What do you think of the cover, featuring athlete LeBron James with supermodel Gisele?

Trackbacks & Pings

hairlikewool.com › Image of the day ( Racist ? )LeBron James magazine cover) . . . on 25 Mar 2008 at 7:28 pm

[…] The King Kong-esque imagery on the latest cover of Vogue is so striking that even bloggers who don’t usually write about race are sitting up and taking notice. Read On Racialiscious […]
Late Pass: LeBron and Gisele on the Cover of Vogue. « PostBourgie on 27 Mar 2008 at 10:10 am

[…] and I disagree on the hullabaloo surrounding the cover for this month’s cover of […]

Comments

gatamala wrote:

hate it

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 2:39 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

The cover blows on multiple levels. Visually, racially, from a fashion standpoint - what the hell were they thinking?

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 2:43 pm ¶
JustPlainOl'Me wrote:

I guess I just don’t see the fuss.

LeBron makes that face in many instances after (or while) making an emphatic dunk or powerful play. I wouldn’t say that it betrays his profession. Also, it’s not as if they have Gisele portrayed as a cowering or scared person. She’s smiling.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 2:51 pm ¶
nola wrote:

I hate it too…
Has anyone seen the other two Vogue USA covers featuring men- Richard Gere and George Clooney ?
They feature Cindy Crawford and Giselle (again) romantically cozied up to their male counterparts.
Wonder why they chose to change the format?

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 2:56 pm ¶
EvilAngelfish wrote:

@ gatamala -
your comment just took me back to the days of “In Living Color”. Damon and David’s sing-song “Hated it!” is now on loop in my head.

About the cover - not that I usually buy Vogue anayway, but I definitely wouldn’t buy it based on this cover. King Kong imagery aside, it’s a very unflattering shot of LeBron. I’m more familiar with his confident smirk, not his gaping maw. Had I been the layout person, I’d have put him in a dapper tux and made a a James Bond-esque shot: babe on one arm, weapon of choice (the basketball) balanced on one finger. But I guess that wouldn’t have been fashion-forward enough…

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 3:00 pm ¶
Cynthia wrote:

There are always going to be multiple ways of looking at a picture. One can look at a picture of a woman, especially a non-white woman bowing and say that she’s a servant and someone else will say that she’s an actress, musician or dancer and she’s bowing at th end of her performance.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶
tasha wrote:

Lebron isn’t the only large athlete in the NBA. It’s, the NBA, for crying out loud! If they wanted to depict “big” in this “Shape Issue” they could’ve used Yao Ming. He has a high Q rating, and people know his name, but then, that would’ve been defying a stereotype, and we can’t have that, now can we.

And if you see Lebron, be sure to thank him for me. He probably ruined the chances for Chanel Iman, Jourdan Dunn, or Liya Kibede to get on the cover before 2009, seeing that he filled Vogue’s black person quota for this year.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 3:13 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

Stereotype of Savage Black Man? Check.

Stereotype of Fair-Haired White Woman in Said Man’s Grip with a Case of Stockholm Syndrome? Check.

Migraine coming on? Check.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 3:19 pm ¶
Laura wrote:

Um, its weird, I’ll admit. I assumed he was attempting to maintain his masculinity after appearing on the cover of a magazine that has shown only a handful of men ever on their cover. I see the King Kong thing -now- but that definitely wasn’t my first thought.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 3:21 pm ¶
raisa wrote:

My though was that I’d rather be him than her, he looks like he has more fun! I didn’t see the king kong thing. Not questioning those who do, I just don’t, I think LeBron is attractive in the pic.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 4:00 pm ¶
Kai wrote:

Compare the Vogue cover to the historical image chosen for the cover of the (recommended by me!) book Typecasting: On the Arts & Sciences of Human Inequality.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 4:00 pm ¶
raisa wrote:

I’m a long time BBall fan, WNBA and NBA. Photograph the athletes in action and they often look gloriously aggressive. As I said I think LeBron looks great. Wold you think he looked like king kong if he was alone, same pose?

Would you think the cover was okay if he has paired with a WOC model? Or how bout with a female athlete?

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 4:08 pm ¶
Black Canseco wrote:

LeBron’s as much a fashion icon as Beyonce’s House of Dereon (?) is a relevant clothing line. Unfortunately, King James is bent on becoming a billion dollar global icon by 2010–his marketing team’s words, not mine. Consequently, LeBron’s gonna show up everywhere there’s eyeballs given the opportunity.

Vogue, which caters to mainstream uber fashion-conscious types makes them look fools, so is it any wonder they’d do the same to someone outside their core audience?

And as old and trifling as the blackman-taking-all-our-white-women construct is, it’ll work on huge segments of America until the interracial coupling turns everyone beige.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 4:28 pm ¶
cacy forgenie wrote:

i hated this cover as soon as i saw it, not because of the king kong reference but because i thought james looked like a monster. after reading about the king kong connection i became angry and wrote off vogue as shameful. two black men are on the covers of both french and american vogue in the space of several months and their images are being debated. one because he wears women’s clothes and a beard and is basically being himself, the other an athlete with documented homophobia. andre j positioned on the right of carolyn murphy on the cover of french vogue would not look right visually…

when i think about the james/bundchen cover, deeply, i wonder how complicit james was in the creation of this image. it is possible that james may have wanted to be associated as a king kong figure , a monster; that this image is just another way of boasting he’s the king of the basketball court.

further associations reminded me of the denzel washington character in “training day” where he said ‘king kong’ aint got shit on me”. denzel had to portray a monster in order to win that oscar, yall.

then i thought about hip hop and the whole gorrilla/ape fantasy rappers glamour themselves in…specifically Redman….check the lyrics from the song —’gorillaz in my mind’

[Redman]
Yo, who’s that hey? It’s Mighty Joe Young
Lights, camera, action, roll drums
Now let me ask you what it feel like
What a banana in your tail pipe
Immortal I walk the jungle…

oftentimes i’ve heard friends say if they were monsters they would rather be gorillas…

was james pulling a hip hop move ? i say james because i doubt photographer annie lebovitz considered this… this is a photographer who shot chris rock in white face in the 90’s…what are her other images of black people like. remember whoppi goldberg in a bathtub of milk with her mouth open? hmmm… gaping mouths seem to be a theme with her and black folks…

so, who knows.. it looks fishy and racially insensitive and tacky but unless we hear from the models and the photographer we won’t know what the deal is..i’m not defending this image, i’m just saying there’s tons of ways to look at this and racist imagery is just too easy to blame, even tho it looks like it…

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 4:29 pm ¶
Angel H. wrote:

Hated it!

I’m a long time BBall fan, WNBA and NBA. Photograph the athletes in action and they often look gloriously aggressive.

But this is Vogue, we’re talking about. If this was the cover of Sports Illustrated, it might be different. But the big, aggressive, Black “buck” next to the willowy “damsel” reaks of racist stereotypes.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 4:44 pm ¶
Grace Chu wrote:

LeBron James looks like he suddenly suffered a pinched nerve in his groin and dropped the ball in pain just as the photographer snapped the picture, and Gisele failed to notice.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 4:47 pm ¶
Faith wrote:

A missed opportunity, for sure. Since this a fashion magazine, I would have liked to see LeBron in something more stylish than gym clothes. This cover could have been done tastefully, instead it’s horrific.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 5:58 pm ¶
Orville wrote:

I hate the cover it makes it appear as though Lebron is a monster. And why is Lebron dribbling a basketball? Why couldn’t he be in a suit or tie and look sexy for the cover of Vogue? Gisele appears frightened and afraid. I think the cover is offensive and just plain whack.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 6:39 pm ¶
Jaye wrote:

I personally don’t like the cover, but I think the intent of the image is debatable. Different people can see it in different ways, and it’s hard to judge what message Vogue was deliberately trying to send without first understanding the context (ie. #14).

What I think is stranger is that in a season where the lack of jobs for black models (or any models who don’t look white) on the runway and on magazine covers has been so controversial that major designers are speaking out about it…that Vogue would take the opportunity to put 2 black men on the cover. To me, it seems more like a slap in the face to black models, like Vogue is saying, “You’re complaining that black people don’t get the cover of magazines?…well, we’ll put a black man with a white woman. What are you going to do about it?” It’s almost like Vogue is mocking them. People want to complain there are no black women on covers, so they’ll put a black man on a cover, it’s still a black PERSON. Can’t complain if a person of color is on the cover, right? As though there is no difference in meaning between putting a black male athlete and a black female model on the cover of Vogue, or even better, put a black man dressed in women’s clothing on the cover. I think the editors of Vogue are just mocking black women, or any women of color for that matter.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 7:45 pm ¶
Anonymous wrote:

What do you all think of this French Vogue cover?

http://i20.tinypic.com/e13h42.jpg

That’s not Andre Leon Talley, by the way, but another man, also named Andre.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 8:03 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

I agree with Faith’s assessment overall, but Orville, Gisele doesn’t look frightened at all to me. After all, why would she be, she’s a Brasiliero.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 8:16 pm ¶
Hokae pascal wrote:

I think the cover is bold, because many African Americans have ape- like features. I do not believe a cover such as this should appear once a year.

Moderator’s Note: Normally, hateful items like this get deleted outright. But since some people say they can’t see the problem with this cover…

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 8:27 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

Oh, and Jezebel has an alternate photo that was considered for the cover after the jump:

http://jezebel.com/368655/is-vogues-lebron-kong-cover-offensive

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 8:37 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:

I had a visceral reaction in the store when I first saw this poorly thought out cover. This. is. a. fashion. magazine. Why isn’t he wearing anything high fashion? His athletic gear isn’t even that interesting. Hmmm…I wonder if it were say ,Tom Brady, if he’d be going ape-shit on the cover. I rarely if ever like the juxtaposition of hypermasculine (do black men come any other way in the media) with some itty bitty delicate white women. If it’s a shape issue, why can we see Gisele’s figure but not LeBron’s? Why not some nice rippling muscles so at least it could have some sex appeal instead of shock value?
Why are black people always so intense on Vogue covers? Why can’t we be cool and laid back on the cover like other people get to be ?
As they said on Men On film: Hated it.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 8:41 pm ¶
DivergentDana wrote:

Lol… Pascal. Trust, I’ve studied Physical Anthropology. Sorry to burst your bubble, but all humans have “ape-like features.” Goodness, what’s going on behind the scenes, Mods? Is it like YouTube comments back there?

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 8:48 pm ¶
Lola wrote:

Well hey, if most African-Americans have ape-like features, and most African-Americans have white ancestry…

I agree with most about the cover. Hated it. And the other cover option looks like he’s holding a white woman trophy. Hate that one too.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 11:03 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:

Um…is 22 like a real comment or a stab at irony. Do people really think we look like apes? Wow…wow!

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 11:19 pm ¶
sfsinger wrote:

I hate this cover more than the Jennifer Hudson one from last year. So in following their trend of mouth agape, ’scary’ Black person who’s it gonna be next year? I haven’t written to Anna “I Hate Fat People” Wintour since she put Kiara on the cover of a July issue and asked her readers to be ‘open-minded’. I told her then I didn’t need her to validate my beauty. Now I hope Andre Leon Talley didn’t have a hand in choosing this. It’s just wrong on so many levels and not even flattering.

Posted 17 Mar 2008 at 11:58 pm ¶
mr guy wrote:

I personally have no problem with it.I didn’t think king kong when I saw it and I still don’t that even after it’s been explained why.But I understand that everyone will see the same picture differently.So what’s a average picture of a basketball player and a model together to me, will be blantant racism, an insult to black men/women and insult to white men/women, or bring out stupid racial comments (like the above ) to others.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 12:13 am ¶
meownette wrote:

Jaye, I think your point is soooo excellent. How out of touch are these magazine editors? I can’t think of anything much more slap-in-the-facey with respect to the dearth of female models of color than this cover.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 1:18 am ¶
Ron wrote:

Scientifically, whites have just as many features similar to apes than blacks.

Body hair
skin color
lip size
hair texture
body shape (unatheletic)

Note: I am not trying to be racist. Blacks have consistently dealed with this myth that non-blacks perpetuate.

I hope you publish my comment since the anti-black comments seem to always get through.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 1:22 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous, your question about the French Vogue cover is so hard to answer! I can tell you what I feel about it, and then I’ll tell you what I think. I feel uneasy when I look at that picture. I’ve seen that guy before (I think he’s a fixture on the nightlife scene in LA or NYC), and there’s something freakish about his look. In fact, he looks like the bearded lady from the classic circuses! But he fashions himself that way, and so whatever borders of gender/sex/beauty/ugliness/normalcy/freakishness/conventionality/fabulousness
he’s trying to disturb are his to disturb.

BUT, the French have long had a weird relationship to blackness. Without having studied this, but having a gut reaction, I think Americans take male blackness and make it savage and scary, where the French turn blacks into exotic pets they can domesticate. In short, Americans deal with othering black men by making them the enemy, and the French neutralize them by either over-sexualizing them into fetishes or turning them into cute little pets like this guy. Sigh. I feel dirty.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 1:37 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:

One more thing — it’s the contrast with the white model that makes both the French and American Vogues offensive. The black men are othered in different ways, they’re the ones we’re reading, while the white women just blithely get to be white, unread, the true subjects and not objects of vision. They’re the ones the viewer is implicitly asked to identify with as subjects. It’s very bizarre how they are somehow immune from any reading. They’re viewers to the very pictures they’re in!

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 1:44 am ¶
Celeste wrote:

Yeah, she does look like a trophy on the other one. And to those who would say that this cover could be interpreted differently, etc… i would use pascal’s comment that we should ere on the side of not suggesting blacks are similar to apes. Also, gisele seems soooo passive in contrast to his aggressive stance that I don’t even like it as a woman.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 7:25 am ¶
Rob wrote:

The first thing that popped into my head when I saw that cover was the quote from Blazing Saddles:

“Hey, where the white women at?”

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 9:00 am ¶
cacy forgenie wrote:

about the andre j. french vogue cover…

true the image of andre may be disturbing but its an image of andre’s creation, not french vogue’s editor or photographer.

was andre kidnapped and fashioned that way? no. he got on a bus and went to long island to have his picture taken. and from what i have read about him, his image and dress is an every day occurence. i think he deserves to be seen regardless of how ‘comfortable’ or ‘uncomfortable’ we are with ideas of black male masculinity and other ideas about gender…i think its remarkable he made that cover considering that most powerful people in fashion, including some people of color, are in love with the image thin white boys looking like 14 year old girls…

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 11:23 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

I don’t understand how folks can’t see the King Kong aspect of this picture.

He’s grabbing a white woman with his mouth agape and in a decidely aggressive stance.

Is the fact that it’s so blatant that folks are willing to go into denial than acknowledge what is right there in front of them? If this does NOT have racist overtones, then what does?

If the point was the secret of the “best” athlete/model bodies, than why not have an artsy shot showcasing LeBron’s vertical vs. Giselle’s? Surely his blocking/dunking abilities show off his physique more than king kong…

If Tyra can do it, surely this photog can…

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 11:36 am ¶
Keetha wrote:

I like the idea of a female athlete with a male model. THAT would have been challenging some barriers (and body typical imaging). The athlete as the aggressive babe magnet is overdone and boring. The king kong image the same. Boo to Vogue and their old-school conformity, not to mention racial typecasting. Where is the creativity?

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 12:11 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

this is just sad, especially considering how intelligent lebron james is. what a shame that we are still seeing this type of imagery on our newsstands. it makes me want to move to another planet, where stereotypes haven’t been formed and cemented, then rehashed over and over again, as they are here and in other countries.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 2:17 pm ¶
Karen wrote:

Agressive looking Black man, helpless White woman. Looks like a high fashion replay of King Kong and what’s-her-name to me. Vogue should be ashamed of promoting even the suggestion of a Black man as an ape. Don’t they have a racial stereotype editor over there?

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
Zaike wrote:

I don’t usually get offended by this sort of stuff (racial representation in fashion…who’s not used to it by now?), but this is just something else. I’ve actually been seeing this image alot lately, especially in sidebar advertisements for under armour. A huge black football player towering over a small (reduced image size) white female tennis player, or the such. It’s so fucking obvious that I almost can’t believe it’s on the cover of vogue. okay wait…there we go, I believe it.

ps. as much as I’d like to just blame Vogue magazine, Lebron James should fucking know better.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 2:23 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:

Yup. Hated it. The alternative cover was less disgusting, but the trophy issue is gross, too. Damned if you’re Lebron, damned if you’re Gisele.
I liked what Keetha wrote about a female athlete and a male model. But Vogue isn’t about empowering ladies who lunch through strong role models, it’s about empowering ladies who lunch through purchase power and brand names. Sadly, until this changes, I don’t think we’ll get to see a female athlete and a male mole on Vogue’s cover.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 3:43 pm ¶
La - msviswan wrote:

The Cruel Secretary wrote:

“Stereotype of Savage Black Man? Check.

Stereotype of Fair-Haired White Woman in Said Man’s Grip with a Case of Stockholm Syndrome? Check. ”

Exactly. This is so Jim Crow revised. Every time I think we move one step forward, something “subtly” and “innocent” like this actually puts us three steps back. This was so obvious, and it Suck.

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 8:24 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:

Gatamala wrote,

Is the fact that it’s so blatant that folks are willing to go into denial than acknowledge what is right there in front of them? If this does NOT have racist overtones, then what does?

But that’s because you’re always looking for racism where there’s none /sarcasm

I wonder how many non-black athletes are pictured full-rage mode? Any media studies folks interested in doing a survey of Vogue shots of athletes and models?

Posted 18 Mar 2008 at 11:37 pm ¶
bdsista wrote:

As a 30 year subscriber to Vogue, I was immensely disappointed particularly when he could have been in a nicer pose. It would have been fabulous to see him in a suit. Suits give the image of intelligence, athletic gear give the image of physical prowess, so connect the dots on what you think his strengths are, obviously not his mind. I am really sick of it and Vogue has been really white on the covers for a loooong time! Yes it looks just like King Kong, another dehumanization of a Black man cloaked in the excuse of “its just fashion” Would have been nice if he had been with a Black model or Asian, something that Vogue usually put on the cover once a year.

Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 9:58 am ¶
Gregory A. Butler wrote:

Yesz, the Black menz loves the White womenz and the basketballz!!!

It’s truly hard to believe that this is a real magazine cover - could anybody, in the 21st century, be that clueless and that racist?

This looks like some Birth of a Nation type shit!

Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 11:08 am ¶
Celeste wrote:

“Yesz, the Black menz loves the White womenz and the basketballz!!!”

GAB, that’s some funny shit/ish lol…

Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 12:45 pm ¶
Nina wrote:

I hated this cover too for all the reasons mentioned above. But Lebron and Gisele probably had next to nothing to do with the selection of the photo used. As far as I know, when you agree to a be a cover model, you are not granted the right to select the image . Leibovitz is a powerful figure in the industry and Lebron and Gisele probably trusted her to capture them in their best light. Well for the cover shot she missed the boat.

If you go to the Vogue website they have a video feature called Vogue Diaries where they show a “behind-the-scenes” look at the photography shoot. There are scenes of Gisele and Lebron shooting basketballs and ballroom dancing. The cameras were flashing throughout so I am sure there was at least one image from those two set ups that was cover worthy. And the two really seemed to have fun in those set ups and had great chemistry. Perhaps those images appear on the inside of the issue.

I gave up reading most mainstream fashion magazines long ago due to their poor racial representation, skewed body images and non-stop perpetuation of feelings of inadequacy(”how to lose 5 pounds before the end of the week” ; “want longer lashes” etc.) Oh and because I actually like to read articles and not just look at ads for clothing that I cannot afford.

Posted 19 Mar 2008 at 9:44 pm ¶
Kmoney wrote:

Kai: wow! now i really feel queasy…

Posted 20 Mar 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶
Dana wrote:

Once again the black man is portrayed as a monster. I blame LeBrone for allowing this to take place. Remember Mr. James no matter how much money you make your still just another black man to the majority. They proved that point when the comment was made about Tiger! Maybe you should take a course in Black history LeBrone!

Posted 23 Mar 2008 at 9:54 am ¶
mordicai wrote:

Gisele looks like she’s enjoying herself, & LeBron is pictured as an aggressive basketball player. Not knowing the history of the photography, I can’t speak to her consistent portrayals of black people or anything like that, but I can say that this cover doesn’t particularly offend.

Posted 24 Mar 2008 at 7:23 am ¶
Guy Smiley wrote:

Don’t like the cover, but I do not see the “King Kong” thing at all.

Wouldn’t be surprised if in the many shots taken in this shoot, there were several in a more dignified or “cozy” style. I think the problem here is not that anyone was trying to dehumanize James through a deliberate “King Kong” concept, but that they chose an arguably fun or playful image because it avoids the “discomfort” that would apparently be felt, overtly or subtly, by many if this black dude was remotely “cozy” with the white chick.

If you go to Vogue’s site, there’s a 3-min. video clip about the cover shoot, and it’s clear that a lot of shots were done in a “cozier” style. We see the two of them sort of dancing together, her spinning into his arms for a close embrace, flash bulbs going off. So unless every shot except the “game face” that went on the cover had some kind of flaw (and at this level, the tiniest flaw will take it out of contention for the cover), then it was simply a choice to go with “game face” playfulness (to give the benefit of the doubt) rather than anything that could be read as romantic. That’s an editor’s choice, and it strikes me as one that’s probably at least partly fueled by societal discomfort with black men being with white women.

The video: http://www.style.com/vogue/voguediaries

I think going with the “It’s King Kong!” cry cheapens the argument because most people would call that a stretch. The real issue is that the magazine was more comfortable with the two of them being at play (”Hey, maybe they like to joke around together!”) instead of more relaxed and intimate (”Hey, maybe they’re attracted to each other!”)

Posted 24 Mar 2008 at 1:57 pm ¶
R.A. Bartlett wrote:

If they were trying to go the King Kong route, couldn’t they have picked a better model than Gisele Bundchen, who’s tall, rather androgenous, her “fair hair” is a pretty obvious dye job, and while lighter-skinned than many South American women, probably doesn’t rank too high up on the White Supremacist’s Top 10 List.

Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 12:10 pm ¶
Andre wrote:

‘White girl with black man’, they want that to continue. They always do sh..it like this, hahaha. Stupid.

Posted 25 Mar 2008 at 1:12 pm ¶
deb wrote:

Don’t like the cover, but I do not see the “King Kong” thing at all.

It was the first thought that came to mind when I saw it.

This photo doesn’t help matters much, either.

Posted 30 Mar 2008 at 1:48 pm ¶
deb wrote:

Try this link.

Posted 30 Mar 2008 at 2:06 pm ¶
michelle wrote:

I think it’s a bad cover because of the poses and it got thinking when was the last black male model on the cover of Vogue. and Giselle is ehhh

it never occurred to me that people would interpret this negatively to the point of referencing King Kong or the rich basketball player grasping unto his pampered white woman. my initial thought of the cover was eww at the poses

Posted 30 Mar 2008 at 3:34 pm ¶