GQ’s Jim Nelson Frankly Talks About Race in His Editor’s Letter
One quiet evening, my boyfriend broke the relative silence in the living room by reading aloud:
Remember a long, long time ago – it almost seems like a recession and a half ago – when Barack Obama first came (via Kenya, of course) to power? Remember how certain hope-doped commentators predicted that his election would finally allow Americans to have a frank discussion about race?
Something different and less hope-inducing has happened. His presidency has allowed us to talk around race, to talk about it constantly and subliminal, without ever truly discussing it. And by doing so, we’re proving how much distance we have to grow up.
I held up a hand to stop him.
“Wait, that’s in GQ? The one with the Michael Jackson cover?”
Oh yes. Jim Nelson, GQ Editor, dedicated his editor’s letter to discussing how far conversations about race have fallen. And stranger still, there aren’t any articles specifically dedicated to race in the issue. Perplexed, I checked out the letter for myself. After all, isn’t this Jim Nelson of “Asian Whores” fame? Back in 2007, he raised some ire by using the term twice in his editor’s letter. Later, he told Page Six he was merely ” skewering a Western attitude that one ought to find noxious. The notion that Westerners can have and exploit whatever they want.”
Hmm…not quite there with that one.
Yet, while reading over the letter, I was struck by how much Nelson seemed to just get the roots behind racial hysteria. (Or at least, when the issue is reduced into discussions of black and white.)
Here are some of Nelson’s greatest hits:
[The birthers] do not seek documents; they seek time travel, a machine to shoot them back to the magical time when black men could not get elected. For them, this supremely white fantasy of No Change is more important than silly matters such as health care.
Everywhere you look, people keep making batshit-crazy comments about race and ethnicity, stream-of-consciousness-style, as if the election had unleashed some Freudian anxiety in the cultural air.
Then [Pat Buchanan] made his more ignorant racist claim yet: “This has been a country built basically by white folks.” Which, apart from ignoring the entire history of slavery, is the subtext of every song I’ve ever heard by Toby Keith.
Fox News commen-hater Brian Kilmeade, while chatting about a Swedish study that shows marriage can delay Alzheimer’s suddenly went all Third Reich on his co-hosts: “We keep marrying other species and other ethnics. The Swedes have pure genes, because they marry other Swedes…They have a pure society. In America, we marry everybody. So we’ll marry Italians and Irish. [This study] does not apply to us.
My Irish-English-German-American head spun. Does that mean I’m definitely getting Alzheimer’s?
[I wish Obama would] address the nation like [he did in the race speech] more frequently, to resolve to move and persuade us. Maybe he could even address the National Association for the Advancement of White People.
Otherwise known as the U.S. Senate.
Readers, it was like Christmas.
More proof that GQ decided to give us all a Christmas present?
John Cho, in various suits:
Ryan Kitwaten Jason Stackhouse, in tight clothes:
And attractive men receiving job interview make-overs:
I don’t know what’s going on over there at GQ, but I like it. And if Jim Nelson keeps improving, I may be persuaded to give his magazine another chance.
(Image credits: GQ)
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:
mmm, John Cho.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 12:07 pm ¶
miss a. wrote:
Thumbs up from me on this issue. Nelson may be trying to redeem himself, and this is definitely a step in the right direction. The John Cho editorial is lovely. So is Jason Stackhouse.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶
Sara wrote:
John Cho is so pretty…
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 12:19 pm ¶
Big Man wrote:
I resent how these men are being objectified for female pleasure!
Nah, I’m effing with y’all. That was a funny letter though. I wish more people would just admit these angry conservatives are either loony or hypocrites. Or both.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 12:32 pm ¶
Evan wrote:
Given the number of death threats made against President Obama, we are pretty far from this so-called “post-racial society”. It’s really chilling to read horror stories of white, right-wing nutjobs with AR-15 assault rifles spewing their hatred against the president because of his race and his political beliefs. They are heavily advertising violence as the only means to resolve political discussions.
I really believe the greatest terrorist threat to the United States is from domestic, right-wing (and white supremacist) groups.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 12:34 pm ¶
Amused0472 wrote:
Let me run out and get my copy.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 12:35 pm ¶
jen* wrote:
thank you for the hotness, GQ! I had no idea. Cosign, Latoya – keep this up and I may need to get in on that.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 1:19 pm ¶
WestIndianArchie wrote:
FYI, That right wing nut job with the AR-15 @ the political rally happened to be Black.
Not that it wasn’t 3 black cats that shot Malcolm.
Nor would I be comparing Barry to X…
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 1:51 pm ¶
Shadow And Act wrote:
Been a GQ reader for a number of years, and still am. Yes, Jim Nelson does “get it” once in awhile. You should read it more often
)
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 2:48 pm ¶
Persia wrote:
Mmmmm. John Cho.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 2:56 pm ¶
Katie wrote:
Uh, I’ll just join in the chorus of “Mmmmmmmm John Cho.”
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 3:18 pm ¶
Hyphen wrote:
Love a man in a well-made suit. Love it even better when that man is John Cho.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 3:38 pm ¶
Celeste wrote:
Delicious (John Cho and other assorted tasty men) and nutritious (great racial commentary)!
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 3:54 pm ¶
SarahSimone wrote:
Yesssss John Cho.
And yessss to that editor’s letter also!
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 4:17 pm ¶
Kandeezie wrote:
I think they let all that diversity training get to their heads and *actually* hired POCs!! And look at what happened as a result! ::gasp::
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 4:23 pm ¶
Michelle wrote:
Ditto John Cho-oh!
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 5:12 pm ¶
Mammith wrote:
“Maybe he could even address the National Association for the Advancement of White People.
Otherwise known as the U.S. Senate.”
That. Was awesome.
I wonder how a lot of the readership took it?
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 5:59 pm ¶
j chang wrote:
What demographic composes the core readership of GQ? I do remember seeing a few magazines here and there, but I refuse to spend too much time with them, because I have a thing for nice clothes and, well, out of sight, out of mind.
Glad to see that some people aren’t so post-racial after all. Or at least, they get it once in a while. Hopefully, the insight sticks around and extends to Mr. Nelson’s related views regarding race and filters into his magazine in less obvious ways.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 6:11 pm ¶
Winn wrote:
Ok, I’ll diverge slightly and say: Aaaahhhhh, John Cho. Whew (fans self), Ryan Kwanten. High-five, Jim Nelson.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 6:24 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
This post was so refreshing to read. Sometimes the fear-mongering gets so frightening, I need some reassurance that I’m not crazy, that I am fighting for some real change and progress.
And then I get a little John Cho to top it all off.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 7:16 pm ¶
honeybrown1976 wrote:
Tasty men, tasty editorial!
While impressed, I’ll wait for more consistency before I lick my fingertips from this delicious morsel of reading delicacy.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 8:24 pm ¶
pilot wrote:
“Everywhere you look, people keep making batshit-crazy comments about race and ethnicity, stream-of-consciousness-style, as if the election had unleashed some Freudian anxiety in the cultural air.”
Seriously! I’m glad I’m not the only one who noticed.
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 9:08 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
Amazing article and the comments made in the editorial are insightful and spot on. And while I wholeheartedly mean that I just want to remark on how ridiculously smoking hot John Cho is, dang. Oh yeah, insightful article…..
Posted 01 Sep 2009 at 11:44 pm ¶
BSK wrote:
I once had a subscription to GQ and I would say that, overall, the audience they wrote to was predominately “liberal”. I put that in quotes because I don’t know if it fits the definition many readers here would use for liberal, but it certainly attempted to emulate that line of thinking. It was borderline preachy, at times, but was still dripping with unexplored privilege, classism, racism, sexism, etc. But, hey, they did promote Obama, regularly bash conservatives, and I’m pretty sure they’re “green”.
Posted 02 Sep 2009 at 12:09 am ¶
octogalore wrote:
Great pics, esp the last dude. That’s what I call great tailoring. Of course, with his bod, he can make super-tight slacks look classy; most men would fail at that.
Nelson raises an interesting point about how exactly conversations about race have changed, or not. I do think the fact of Obama and his family has created more conversations about race. Whether those conversations have been a net positive, it’s hard to say, but I’d guess probably yes. I’ve noticed more discussion around the black-white axis than about race in general (as with what you said about Nelson’s repertoire).
One possibly controversial thought about the impact of a black president who is a liberal Democrat. I find that often, whether or not it should, it can introduce another variable into policy discussions. eg, non-black people who are aligned with Obama on a particular policy point sometimes (not always of course) appear to be seeking brownie anti-racist points. Whereas people who aren’t aligned with Obama are possibly antagonistic because of race (esp if they didn’t have issues with similar positions taken by Clinton), or become worried that they will be perceived to be motivated by race even where they do have issues with similar positions taken by Pelosi, Reid, etc. These phenomena can be both revealing and distracting.
Posted 02 Sep 2009 at 12:17 am ¶
Neev wrote:
Good for him. It seems to me that even if he doesn’t “get it” all the time, he’s at least TRYING and that is definitely a step forward. After all no one is perfect, so it’s good to see that even if he slipped up in the past, he may have actually absorbed whatever criticism he got from that and applied it to his world view.
Also: MMMM. John Cho AND Jason Stackhouse. *stamp of approval*
Posted 02 Sep 2009 at 3:55 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
jason stackhouse! lol
i remember thinking once that the offices over at detais, gq, and men’s health must be something like what we see on mad men.
at least gq is trying to take a step away from the old boys’ club image.
Posted 02 Sep 2009 at 12:30 pm ¶
Joy wrote:
Wow to this article. (”Wow. And what’s wow upside down? Mom.” LOL! Gotta love Tony Horton.) I guess this was really on his mind since it wasn’t the theme of the issue.
And men should definitely only be allowed to wear suits. Unless maybe when they are working out. (And maybe they can go without ties in the summer. Maybe.)
Posted 02 Sep 2009 at 7:39 pm ¶
ashlynn wrote:
Okay, so I knoooow we’re straying a bit(and you can certainly delete this if you wish, mods), but I feel the need to note that as I’m drooling over these lovely, well dressed men, one of them is definitely. my. ex. boyfriend. faaaail.
Posted 02 Sep 2009 at 10:59 pm ¶
Rita wrote:
o_O
Wow. I’m amazed he said those things. (And I’m also ogling John Cho).
Obama’s presidency is definitely bringing out America’s schizophrenia. On the one hand, lots of ugly racism stuff coming up. But there are other people who are taking a serious look at racism in a way they never quite have before. It’s bringing out the worst in some people, but the best in others. I’m going to be teaching an anti-racism class later this fall, and I’m really, REALLY looking forward to it. I think there will be a more frank, deep, meaningful discussion than there would have been before Obama became president.
Maybe I’m wrong. But I do believe that for all the scary nut jobs out there, there are at least as many people who are also ready to really wrestle with this stuff. It’s just that the nut jobs get more press time.
Posted 03 Sep 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶
urbia wrote:
@Rita
We live in exciting times!
And yes, I’ve noticed the same thing. Good luck with the anti-racism class. I had a similar sort of role myself (though not exactly, I was heading a college club). One of the administrators, white and male, actually started to censor my e-mails to the club members after I highlighted the violence against Native women in Canada in a way that was too ‘militant’ for his tastes. Funny thing was he never really gave a clear explanation aside from using that adjective.
Canadian elections are coming up. Will we ever get our Obama?
Posted 04 Sep 2009 at 5:53 am ¶
Steelerzfan wrote:
Mr. Nelson’s commentary in GQ’s September ‘09 edition regarding the National Association for the Advancement of White People; otherwise known as the U.S. Senate . . . . says so very much about this governing body and its true impact on our society.
Posted 07 Sep 2009 at 10:01 pm ¶
nico wrote:
As much as I like the comment I dislike GQ fashionwise. I know it’s dedicated to the state of being a (straight) gentleman but yeah, for me there’s just nothing good in telling readers that men should all be that bulletproove.
Posted 17 Sep 2009 at 7:21 pm ¶
Andy wrote:
How do you like this: a 52 yr old married white guy was truly touched by Jim’s editorial. Not one to read GQ, I picked it up, waiting for a haircut appointment. He instantly had me riveted. I thought he cut right to the bone of the Obama Era, was proud of him standing up and articulating what the rest of us have barely pondered.
His analysis of Fox News was particularly on target. As a pre-teen, I spent many evenings hunched over a shortwave radio marveling at Radio Peking, Radio Moscow, Radio Sofia, and others. The harsh rhetoric, buzzword cadence, and myriad techniques employed to sway vulnerable minds are those employed by Fox in the present age. The fact that defenders of these antics declare themselves American Patriots is nearly as offensive as the material itself.
Anway, hats off to Jim for the courage and wisdom to call it like it is.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 2:51 pm ¶