By Fashion Correspondent Joseph Lamour

Thanks to the Obamas are in order, fellow African Americans! Black people–like me!–can look in a closet and not immediately reach for the saggy jeans and other “street wear codes.”

At least, according to Elle France.

For the first time, the chic has become a plausible option for a community so far pegged [only] to its street wear codes…

-Nathalie Dolivo, in French Elle
Tendance [Trend] – Black Fashion Power

Nathalie Dolivo, a writer for the magazine’s blog, seems to think that since the Obamas are so fashion-forward, they serve as a public forum to inspire African Americans to dress more fashionably in 2012. First of all, lady, this is the fourth year of Barack’s term. You’re a little late with this intensely racist idea, aren’t you?

That’s not even the worst of it. Dolivo goes so far as to coin the term, and this hurts me to type it, “black-geoisie”.  Now, we really should institute a “Sh-t Fashion Magazines Say” to add to the hundreds of others on YouTube. We have a wealth of material to work from. First we had Slave Earrings. Then we had the whole Rihanna, N*ggabitch debacle. To which Rihanna herself replied with a heartfelt “F*CK YOU”. And now this. It seems like American magazines are on their best behavior! Good work.

Dolivo uses a picture of Janelle Monae in the post to show how far we’ve come from over-sized pants, but Monae is a musician who’s particular style existed since her music was first released in 2003, well before this “black fashion renaissance” (Dolivo’s words, not mine) was to have taken place. And of course, much before public consumption as well.

The post has since been removed from Elle France’s website. Without an apology, I believe the magazine is hoping they can deny the post was published–or published in error, at least , if caught (too late for that!). Elle, you can’t un-ring a bell.

This weekend, I received the following breathless entreaty through a listserv that I subscribe to:

Ebony/Jet Magazine on The Verge of Financial Collaspse (J P)
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:45:31 -0400

One of the most notable permanent fixtures in every black household (back in the days), was the Ebony and Jet magazine. If you wanted to learn about your history, the plight of Black America, current issues facing Black Americans, how the political process of America affects you, how politics works, who the hottest actors were, what time a particular black television show aired, who got married recently, who were the most eligible bachelors and bachelorettes in your town, what cities had black mayors, police chiefs, school superintendents, how to register to Vote, what cars offer the best value for the buck, who employed black Americans, how to apply for college scholarships, etc., more than likely, Ebony or Jet magazine could help you find answers to those questions.

We have recently been informed that the Johnson Publishing Company is currently going through a financial crisis. The company is attempting a reorganization in order to survive. Many people have already lost their jobs with a company that has employed thousands of black Americans during the course of its existence.

In order to support this effort to save our magazine, my friends and myself have pledged to get a subscription to both Ebony and Jet magazine, starting with one year. We are urging every other club member who comes across this plea to do the same. Please post, repost, and post again, to any blog that you may own or support.

Please email this to every person that you know, regardless of their background. Let them know that Ebony and Jet magazines have been part of the black American culture for three quarters of a century, and that there is a lot that they can learn about black American culture from reading them.

We are currently discussing the idea of throwing an Ebony/Jet Party, where people can eat, drink, and sign up for their subscription on the spot. Please spread this idea around to all that you know. Your Sororities, Fraternities, Lodges, VFW Posts, Churches, Civic Groups, Block Clubs, Caps Meetings, Book Clubs, etc.

It would be a crying shame, to lose our historic magazine, during the same year of such an historic event as the election of our first black President of the United States.

Now, like a lot of other black people, I grew up with Ebony and Jet magazines on the family coffee table. I remember fondly sitting in the brown recliner in my grandparents’ back room reading a then-oversized Ebony with Billy Dee Williams, James Earl Jones and Richard Pryor on it. (Don’t know why I specifically recall that issue of the magazine, but for some reason it is one that remains etched in my mind.) I say this to illustrate that these magazines are part of my cultural history. Nevertheless, when I read the missive above, my first thought (after wondering if the message-writer understands that subscriptions generally account for far less of a publication’s revenue than advertising does) was…”Meh.” I’m not so sure that Ebony and Jet, as they stand today, are institutions worth going to the mat for.

To be sure, John H. Johnson, founder of the Johnson publishing empire that produces Ebony and Jet, represents an inspiring success story. When the 27-year-old entrepreneur launched Ebony in November 1945 (Jet was founded in 1951.), he did so in a climate of mainstreamed racial injustice. Black GIs, like my grandfather, were returning from fighting for “freedom” in World War II to find they were less than free at home in America. Real black voices and black life were obscured by stereotype in American media. Local black newspapers, such as another iconic Chicago publication, The Defender, and Johnson’s magazines were among the few places where black people could see their lives and culture reflected and read news important to them. We mattered to these news and lifestyle outlets. Forget the New York Times, these were our publications of record.

Today, Ebony enjoys a circulation of more than 1.4 million, while Jet reaches nearly 1 million people each week. But I suspect neither magazine is as ubiquitous in the homes of my generation of black folks (GenX) as they were for my parents and grandparents. The truth is, like many Civil Rights-era institutions, both publications began feeling irrelevant a long time ago. Yes, black people still need someplace to see their lives and culture reflected and to read news important to them. (Today’s media is much better in covering people of color, but far from perfect.) But are Ebony and Jet the go-to places for that anymore? No, because while black America has changed over the last 60-some years, these publications have seemed largely the same–like museum pieces. I think of them fondly (like my grandparents’ old recliner in the back room), but emphatically not as publications-of-record.

An example of Johnson Publishing’s out-of-touchness? Sunday at the neighborhood Wal-Mart, I picked up a Jet for the first time in forever, in preparation for this post. I wanted to know if it was still there. In an age when black women are fighting stereotyped images of ourselves as Jezebels, playthings and acoutrement for the latest hip hop star whose cuts are banging in the whips of white, teenage suburbanites–it couldn’t still be there. But, yeah, centerspread, there it was–that paean to black woman thickitude–the Jet Beauty of the Week, a young, black woman in a teeny swimsuit giving sexy face. Is this what I’m supposed to rush to the battlements to save?

The forefront of the black communications revolution is now on the Web, where brothers and sisters are breaking news (Jena 6), championing causes and serving up provocative opinions. Ebony and Jet, I think, have failed to keep pace with a world where there is Ta-Nehisi Coates and What About Our Daughters and Racialicious and Aunt Jemima’s Revenge and Womanist Musings and TransGriot and Something Within and Color of Change and Pam’s House Blend and The Root and Black and Married with Kids, and, hell, Bossip. Today, black readers can get superior writing about politics, black life, marriage, parenting, sexuality, pop culture, identity, racism, sexism, spirituality, finance and a host of other issues, for free, everyday, all day, online. The topics covered (or not covered) by Ebony and Jet, the lack of depth in writing, the formats, the frickin beauty of the week, make these publications seem frozen in time, while the world speeds up around them.

Beyond all that, how is Johnson Publishing going to adjust to the new digital age? It’s not the only print purveyor facing this question. Local newspapers across the country need to answer it too. America has changed the way it consumes information, and so far, print media hasn’t found a profitable way to adapt. That’s a shame, because we desperately need the Fourth Estate. We need in-depth reporting. Marginalized folks need these things more than most. God knows that black folks could use the shot to our collective self-esteem that Johnson Publishing’s products offer. But taking extraordinary life-saving measures to rescue publications like Ebony and Jet is merely stalling the inevitable unless ailing publications put strategic plans in place to innovate and evolve.

Look, the older I get the more pieces of my past mean to me. (That’s probably why I spent the weekend watching old episodes of “Columbo,” “Quincy” and “MacMillan and Wife” on Netflix.) But nostalgia isn’t enough reason for me to join the charge to save Ebony and Jet. All the Ebony/Jet parties in the world won’t make a difference if these black cultural icons aren’t making the changes necessary to save themselves.

Last summer saw the launch of ALO Hayati, “America’s Top Middle Eastern Lifestyle Magazine.” Thanks to a gracious donor, I finally got my hands on a copy of the July 2008 issue.

All lifestyle magazines have an aspirational feel to them, and this one was no different. Chock full of advertisements for Dubai hotels and Swiss watches, ALO wasn’t particularly different than any other lifestyle magazine. Considering the economic situation of magazines, it doesn’t seem like an incredibly auspicious time to launch one aimed at a materialistic lifestyle. I wasn’t able to find any updates about the magazine’s publication on the website, and as far as I’m aware, this is the only edition, though in the magazine they refer to an earlier issue in some places.

As someone who enjoys a good glossy every now and then, I delighted over advertisements with Kim Kardashian, and interview with exclusive designer Bijan, and a fluffy piece on intercultural relationships (though I did not care for the cover teaser: “Shocking Intercultural Stories”).

The magazine featured an interview with Leila Ahmed, which was a great one, likening the current western media representation of Muslim women to the same patronizing Orientalism that played out in the first wave of colonialism in Middle East. Her interview shed lots of light on the history and future of the headscarf. Despite the educational qualities of her interview, I kept thinking, “Who is this educating?”

While not every Middle Eastern person is going to be familiar with the history behind the headscarf, it seems sort of odd to have an educational feature about hijab in a magazine aimed at a demographic that has a fairly lengthy history with headscarves, even if many of them aren’t Muslim. Something about this piece tugged at me. It almost felt as if it was aimed at people who were not Middle Eastern.

Other pieces confirmed my suspicions. A photography section, entitled “Faraway Faces” (cue Aladdin soundtrack!), featured lots of “natives.” Lots of women wrapped up with only their eyes showing, lots of traditional attire, wizened old men, and even a camel. And the website isn’t any better. There are tons of shots of women wrapped up to look mysterious in glammy scarves (one such example is pictured at left).

This wasn’t even the worst part. This issue featured a special section on weddings, complete with all the typical wedding stuff (dresses, rings, honeymoon destinations). But it also contained coverage of an actual wedding. Neither the bride nor groom had Middle Eastern heritage. I assume that if they had, the magazine would have mentioned it, because otherwise, why would they be in a magazine about Middle Eastern lifestyles?

Because their wedding was entirely Ancient Egyptian themed.

(sigh)

Now, I don’t want to go dogging anyone’s special day. I know people who’ve had themed weddings of other time periods. And I can even dig that they have a lot of interest in Ancient Egypt (when I was in sixth grade, I would devour anything and everything related to the time period. It was interesting.)

But this? In a Middle Eastern lifestyle magazine? I mean, they did their homework and everything (the article mentions that the bride wore custom-made accoutrements modeled on those of ancient Egyptian queens), but the cake was in the shape of a step pyramid. Come on. It’s like attempting to have a traditional Mexican wedding with a cake in the shape of a sombrero. It just plays up the stereotypes that they’re (hopefully) trying to avoid.

The article conjured up not only some major Orientalist vibes, but reminded me of a similar craze in the Gulf: Arab brides dressing up in saris for their wedding celebrations. The dynamic is further complicated by the fact that many of them have South Asian maids, lots of whom aren’t treated well. It’s called cultural appropriation, people.

Fuckery aside, I did like a lot of the articles in the magazine. They profile not only legendary designer Bijan, but also civil rights activist and author Jack Shaheen. They interview not only Jordanian princess Sumaya bint El Hassan, but also Lebanese chef Viviane Chamieh.

I like the aim of the magazine: peace, regional association (despite the region being an ambiguous Western-defined term), and intercultural and interfaith collaboration. I liked the emphasis on “Middle Eastern” rather than religion or lineage (profiling those who are both born/raised in the Middle East as well as those born in the U.S. with Middle Eastern heritage on either side of their family). I liked a piece on double standards when it comes to sex that I found on the website (yes, admittedly fluffy, but we already covered that). I liked the fact that the wedding section had designs by Middle Eastern designers (more of that, please! There are plenty of them!). I liked that ALO uses Middle Eastern Americans as their cover models. So I really wanted to like this magazine as a whole.

If ALO can cut down on the exoticizing and play up the actual Middle Eastern angle of things (wouldn’t hurt to incorporate more Middle Eastern writers on staff, would it? Or cover things actually happening in Middle Eastern countries rather than covering countries themselves as tour destinations? And profiling more Middle Eastern Americans, like you did in your interview with director Mark David?), it can fully live up to its name.

The September 25 issue of Time Out New York (TONY) featured a list of their favorite 40 New Yorkers who have made an impact on the city in the past 13 years. I was appalled to see that out of the 40 cultural leaders that they highlighted, only three were people of color (Jay-Z, Derek Jeter, and Junot Diaz), two weren’t even human (Spider-Man and the MetroCard), and the other 35 were white.

Right after reading the issue, I and probably hundreds of other readers wrote letters to TONY to call them out on their list’s glaring lack of diversity as it tried to represent one of the most culturally diverse cities in the world. In my letter I said, “Rather than reminding us that white people are still in power, you could have been a little more creative with this list.” And I proceeded to list several people I would have liked to see on the list: Rosario Dawson, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Jean Grae, David Paterson, Chang-Rae Lee, Rosie Perez, Majora Carter, Rosie Mendez, etc.

They must have gotten quite a number of these letters, because a week later they had posted a piece online called “Where are all the people of color?” In the article, a TONY editor basically continued to defend and justify the lack of diversity in the list, and sparked even more angry comments from readers. The response piece, in some ways, was even more appalling than the original list because it showed no sign of regret and stated even more clearly (in case we didn’t get the point the first time) that they believed that New York’s “cultural elite” was made up of mostly white people.

After commenters threatened to cancel their subscriptions and criticized the editorial staff for being clueless and lacking in diversity themselves, TONY must have started to realize the significance of their mistake. I received an email from another editor saying that they were preparing for a future issue on the topic and were looking for suggestions of more people of color that readers would have liked to see on the list. So I wrote back listing a few more people I had thought of since, such as James McBride, Pauline Park, and Nydia Velazquez. Even though my respect for TONY was waning, I was eager to see what they would do next.

The November 6 issue displays the result of their scrambling to make things right. The feature of the issue focuses on what is most essential to New York City, and the first topic they address is diversity. They asked questions about diversity and multiculturalism to a panel of 15 well-known New Yorkers including Santogold, Talib Kweli, James McBride, Vijay Iyer, and Young Jean Lee. TONY showed themselves to be naive with some of their questions; for example, “Are we a melting pot or a mosaic?” and “Is ‘color-blind’ the right approach?” But I did appreciate the fact that that they published these panelists’ responses, including some harsh criticisms of TONY, like Danny Hoch saying: “Only entitled white people who are in charge possess the cluelessness to ask these benign questions in 2008.” I get the vibe that TONY still doesn’t fully understand what the problem was in the first place, but is at least willing to host conversations about racism, gentrification, and diversity.

On the last page of the article about diversity, there’s a box that says, “Despite NYC’s diversity, it’s not often that you find yourself amid a nice racial mix. Here are some of our favorite places to break out of the monochromatic social scene.” They list 10 places you can go to hang out among a mixed crowd (like TV On the Radio concerts and the New York Public Library). It got me thinking about the places I hang out and whether it is actually difficult to find racially diverse spots. Sure, there are plenty of bars and restaurants and venues in the city that are chock full of people from similar backgrounds, but I don’t think you really have to look that far to find a place with a more diverse crowd. (I might not use Time Out New York to find it, though!)

Readers in New York and other culturally diverse places, what has your experience been? When you go out, is a diverse crowd the norm or the exception?

In this month’s issue of Vibe, Barack Obama receives a formal endorsement from the magazine. Danyel Smith’s Editor’s Letter is an impassioned plea to get involved and help push Barack all the way into the White House. She writes:

We value freedom and aspire to be better than we are, and to live in a country that will be better than it is. We must vote for Senator Obama and for Senator Joe Biden. We must make sure our friends get to the ballot box. We must reach deep for every bit of idealism we had at the beginning of rap music. We must not be cool. We must not again make manifest the “apathy” label that has been thrust upon us. This is not a moment to be reviewed or dissected, or gazed upon from an ironic distance. This moment in history is ours. Our country will not be okay if Obama loses.

The issue goes on to provide three key pieces of political commentary: Obama’s own letter to Vibe readers, Jeff Chang’s “The Tipping Point,” a piece that explores the shifting nature of our political landscape, and a compilation of 99 hip-hoppers positions on politics.

Obama’s letter cuts straight to the heart of the apathy Danyel Smith describes in her intro piece:

Now, I’ve heard people say, “My vote doesn’t matter,” “My vote won’t count,” or “I’m just one person, what possible difference can I make?” And I understand this cynicism. As a young man attempting to find my own way in the world, I faced many of the same choices and challenges facing many of you today. I sometimes doubted that my thoughts and actions really mattered in the larger scheme of things.

But I made a choice. I chose to check in, to get involved, and to try and make a difference in people’s lives. It’s what led me to my work as a community organizer in Chicago, where I worked with churches to rebuild struggling communities on the South Side. It’s what led me to teach and run for public office. And even today, I hear the skepticism. Too often, our leaders let us down, They don’t seem to do much to make our lives better. So I understand the temptation to sit elections out.

But this year, when the stakes are this high, and the outcome will be so close, I need you to choose to vote.

Jeff Chang pens “The Tipping Point,” which provides a glimpse into each convention as well as a look towards the shifting demographics of America. I was particularly interested in his description of the Republican National Convention:

John McCain has outflanked the Democrats, and the next night, he was in a taunting mood. “Let me offer an advance warning to the old big-spending, do nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd,” he said in his speech. “Change is coming.”

But the Xcel Center’s pale masses belied his message. Only 36 of the 2,380 Republican delegates were African-American, the lowest tally since 1968. Even after adding Hispanics and Asian-Americans, the Republican National Convention was a 90-percent white gathering, whiter even than Minnesota.

It’s a tough time to be a black Republican. The young ones complain that they’re still seen as Carlton Banks stereotypes – which they most definitely are not. Not Sean Conner, 24, the tall Republican National Committee staffer from East Oakland who favors freshly caught fish and piping hot sneakers; or Lenny McAllister, 36, the pinstriped political commentator from Charlotte, N.C., who multitasks interviews with radio, TV, and print outlets; or Claudio Simpkins, 23, the slim Black/Puerto Rican/Cuban Brooklynite, who is finishing Harvard Law School and aspires to become the conservative Obama.

They call themselves hip hop Republicans.

“We are the trailblazers,” McAllister said, comparing themselves to rap’s pioneers. “We’re trying to bring about political diversity.”

They all grew up with the struggles of average inner city kids and joined the party that ended slavery because their views on community and service had led them there. “Don’t let Sarah Palin know this, but I used to be a community activist,” said McAllister, who, through the Hill House Association in Pittsburgh, Pa., organized young fathers around the issues of parenting and social responsibility.

They were frustrated that their party didn’t seem to care for them. “You don’t get much of a policy platform discussion about providing adequate housing, about gentrification, about funding adequate jobs, about reforming our public education system,” said Simpkins, who worries that the party is focused on “God, gays, guns, taxes, and terrorism.”

With Obama’s nomination and the rise of anti-immigration demagogues in the party, they figure tougher times are ahead. “I personally love Barack Obama. I see him as a role model for myself,” said Simpkins. “[But] I look at the policies and values that were instilled in me through my church and my family and I think it lines up more with what McCain talks about.”

He added, with a sigh, “Like it or not, I’m kinda stuck with this party.”

Chang’s piece also briefly touches on the Green Party, non voters, the DNC, and how Will.I.Am decided to make the iconic “Yes We Can” video.

Vibe also obtained 99 quotes on the politics in the age of Obama.

Here are a few of my favorites:

I was with a girl the other night. She’s like “I just don’t vote.” Finally, I said, “Just do it for me. You like me, right? You like me enough to have sex, could you just like me enough to go vote? Do it ’cause you love me.

—Murs, rapper

Athletes should step into politics only if they know what they are talking about. I am personally handing out voter registration forms to the ‘hood, to enlighten them on what it takes to help change the United States.

—Amare Stoudemire, Forward/center, Phoenix Suns

Obama is not perfect – his ideology, what he’d like to do versus what he’s able to do are two different things. It’s not like Great, we got a black president and it’s all good. We need to hold Obama to a higher standard than most.

—Bun B, Rapper

We can’t make records calling Hillary Clinton a bitch. Every rapper should just back away until November. And then we can make any remix we want.

—Fatman Scoop, Radio personality

I hope there’s a radical shift in the image of America in the world. And the image of black Americans in the eyes of the world.

—India.Arie, Singer

I’m not a voter at all. But this year I gotta vote for Barack. And I’ll probably never vote again. For me this is one-time only. I think all these guys are the Illuminati – straight up. I’m gonna cast my vote for this member of the Illuminati.

—KRS-One, Rapper/author

I voted in 2000. Felt like it didn’t count – and I was sour to the whole process. But the past eight years have been terrible. When he gets elected, I just want Obama’s platform to come to fruition. I feel like education is the key…the fact that we have to pay so much to get degrees…living in a democratic society and being capitalists, you get to see the fruits of your work rewarded. But people should take a look around and see educational system outside of America and how they work. We need to borrow from other people’s philosophies.

—Q-Tip, Rapper/producer/actor/DJ

This election won’t be the end of anything. It may be the most important election in history. But it won’t change things by itself. It’s just the beginning.

—David Banner, Rapper/activist

The October issue of Glamour magazine, on newsstands now, has a feature story on race and friendship among women. Read the PDF here.

It’s the second in a series of conversations the magazine has been hosting about race, at least partially in response to the controversy last November surrounding a beauty editor’s alleged remarks about black hair styles being “political.” The first installment was about race and beauty, and we gave it a luke-warm review here on Racialicious.

This article is a rehash of a discussion panel I participated in back in May at the Conde Nast headquarters. The audience was made up of Glamour staff, as well as an ethnically diverse group of media, fashion, semi-socialitey types.

Sidenote: I have newfound respect for fashion models after doing the shoot for this article. See that photo where the three of us seem oh so relaxed and casual? Um… in reality we were each perched on a narrow wooden crate, and I was literally straddling Aisha Tyler. Seriously, my crotch was like, all up on her hip, my boob on her arm, and my face on her shoulder. Sooooo… awkward. Especially considering I had met her just an hour earlier.

Anyway, back to the article.

I walked away from the discussion panel in May pleasantly surprised. The discussion was really substantive, and people were not at all shy about exploring topics one wouldn’t ordinarily associate with Glamour magazine. I mean, we talked about white privilege and white supremacy (yes, in those words), about feeling like the token, about being asked to represent your entire race, about feeling used, about feelings of rejection, etc. Not only were the panelists refreshingly forthright, but some of the greatest nuggets actually came from the audience members.

Does the article reflect the depth of that conversation? Unfortunately, no. But I guess that’s what happens when you’re forced to boil down what would have been 20-30 pages worth of text into just a few.

Still, I’m impressed that Glamour is hosting these conversations on race, and doing it in an intelligent manner that does not talk down to the reader. Let’s not forget how mass this magazine is — they’re Cosmo’s no. 1 competitor, with a circulation of over 2 million. That’s a hell of a platform, and I hope it will spark some authentic conversations about race among their readers.

Interestingly enough, the question we kept coming back to during the panel was this: How do you define friendship? Who’s a friend and who’s just an acquaintance? I’m the type who only considers a handful of people in my life to be genuine friends, but other folks have much looser definitions of friendship.

What about you? Do you have friends (real, genuine friends) of other races? If you do, what are some of the challenges to interracial friendship? What are some of the rewards? If you don’t have friends of other races, why not?

Of course, people at Michelle Obama Watch, Daily Kos, Politico, and other blogs have expressed rightful and righteous outrage over the cover.

The Washington Post’s and CNN’s Reliable Sources’ Howard Kurtz said: “I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added. (Source)

Bill Burton, The Obama campaign spokesperson, responded: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” (Source)

My current live-in partner, who works at the New Yorker, just couldn’t believe that so many people responded so angrily at the cover at the Daily Kos and other sites. He “wanted to see [my] reaction.” When I emphatically told him that I didn’t find it funny, he said, “You’re so angry.”

“Of course I’m angry. What do you expect? This is my reaction is to your employer doing something so racist.”

“I’m trying to have some fun here.”

Humph, you gotta love hipster racism.

I define hipster racism (I’m borrowing the phrase from Carmen Van Kerckhove) as ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate another’s person race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning “ironic” nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy. This racist and sexist balderdash that’s the New Yorker cover fits squarely into that definition. So, honestly, does the behavior of my partner, who prides himself on coming from a California family of educators who taught him to be colorblind and on working at a magazine renown for being, well, urbane, witty, educated, liberal, and trendy yet likes to view me as the Angry Negress.

Well, some of the New Yorker editorial staffers, in trying to demonstrate these traits, showed themselves far more closely aligned to some of those “hardworking white folks” who may hold these beliefs that the Obamas aren’t true Americans, who will use the White House to carry out the collective and international people of color revenge against white people, as the high afro-wearing Black militants (think 6os era Black Panthers) and non-Western garbed folks seem to signify in the popular consciousness. The editorial staffers also must not have heard the ad nauseum arguments of their fellow media workers employing racist and sexist stereotypes of presenting the Obamas as “angry”—especially presenting Michelle as an “angry, vengeful Black woman,” as the cover more subtly conveys with the framed picture of Osama bin Laden over the fireplace, which has a burning flag in it. In other words, the New Yorker cover isn’t hip at all; it’s damn tired.

The cover actually corresponds to a story about how Senator Obama’s work in Chicago influenced his current presidential bid. (So, according to the cover, Obama learning the ropes in Chi-town and loving a South Side sistah makes him—and them–Black “radical terrorists.” There’s a eau de blame-Yoko-Ono-for-breaking-up-the-Beatles odor about it, the “powerful” woman of color exerting some imagined extraordinarily negative power through an intimate relationship over her otherwise likable—if not beloved—man that grinds my nerves.) And the magazine actually wrote another pro-Obama article about a year ago. So, perhaps, Remnick and Co, thought they’d get a pass on the cover because they did good by Obama with the articles and thought people would catch the wink and nudge of the visual joke because, hey, they’re all on the right side anyway.

No, the New Yorker is not. They’re not even on the right side of hiring practices: having the opportunity of working and Conde Nast and the New Yorker’s advertising and editorial floors (I temped as a receptionist about a year ago, so I got to observe the make-up of the staff), I noticed that there were no senior editors of color; the people of color in editorial capacity were already superstar writers before coming to the magazine (Malcolm Gladwell) or they were writing for the entertainment section (Hilton Als, who writes the theater column.) The former PR director, and African American woman, left the position. In other words, there’s no one of color to at least talk Remnick off the ledge of this kind of glib bigotry. (Not saying that having a person of color guarantees a firm commitment to anti-racism efforts. But I hope for a fighting chance.) And whichever white folks pride themselves on being anti-racist or at least race-tolerant at the magazine either didn’t get to Remnick in time or simply chose to shut up and run for cover from the mounting fallout. Or choose to entertain themselves with the anger of people of color.

And that’s the ultimate rub about hipster racism: as much as the people like to think they’re above it because they got degrees and live in the big city and befriend/sex up/marry people of color, these folks really aren’t above it.

At all.

Paging through the new issue of GQ, I happened to notice an article on the upcoming Harold and Kumar movie. I browsed the article – which is a critique of the film that gives away way too much of the plot – before pausing at this paragraph:

The lowly stoner comedy has always had interesting underpinnings, too, starting with the ethnic angle that dates from Cheech & Chong’s invention of the genre. Even when the stoners are Anglo, the basic gag amounts to a weird modern spin on old-fashioned race humor. Like the comic minorities white folks used to laugh at in a bygone screen era, they’re funny because they can’t get with the program. Face it, they’re our time’s inoffensive equivalent of that offensive Jim Crow caricature, the Happy-Go-Lucky Negro: those childlike perceptions, that puzzlement about responsibility. Sean Penn’s Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High is the perfect example.

Umm…I didn’t read the movie that way at all. But I suppose I see how that perspective could be argued.

Well, I did see how that perspective could be argued until I hit the next paragraph, which reads (emphasis mine):

Hurwitz and Schlossberg’s trick is to take advantage of all this at the same time they’re turning it inside out. One joke is that the heroes come from two immigrant groups with reps for industrious conformity, not rebellion. Another is that they aren’t slackers: They’re bright college grads on the fast track to success—à la Borat, the clouds of reefer smoke and the actors’ ethnicities barely hide Harold and Kumar’s secret identities as a couple of brainy, affluent Jewish kids who aren’t too unlike, dare I guess, their creators. That just shows how things have changed, since Jewish characters used to have to be disguised as—or in a pinch, played by—goys to keep Middle America buying tickets. Now they’ve got to be passed off as dope-happy Koreans and Indians to avoid looking like juvenile Woody Allens.

Whoa, whoa, whoa – WTF?

I find a great many things wrong with that statement, but I’ll open up the floor on this one – what do you think the writer is implying?

Associate Editor Alex Alvarez, befuddled to find that her boobs and hips, or lack thereof, seem to fall in and out fashion like leggings and stirrup pants and poppers, takes a look at the American women’s magazine industry in an attempt to decipher just how, exactly, they can get away with telling women their bodies are ok – if only they’d look more like white girls. (Take The Quiz On Page 62!)

My name is Alex Alvarez. And I hate women’s magazines.

Don’t get me wrong: I like fashion and I’ve worked at several magazines over the past couple of years. I can talk about Courrèges and Two Girls, One Cup in the same breath. But so many women’s magazines, both “fashion” mags like Glamour and Vogue and “sexy” mags like Cosmo and Horse & Hound do women so much more harm than good.

Women’s magazines have long been accused of creating a standard of beauty that will forever be just out of the grasp of most women – prompting them, of course, to wait until next month’s issue for more advice on how to be perfect. (Hint! Transplant your face with this other face.) Selling women this promise not only keeps magazines on newsstands and subscriptions in the mail, it also helps appease the real driving force behind all magazines — advertisers and Satan. And what women end up purchasing is cosmetic “whiteness.” You know you’ve made it, baby, when you wake up looking like you faceplanted on Plymouth Rock.

In this feature, I’ll take a look at women from four, over-simplified ethnic or racial backgrounds and see just how, exactly, magazines are fucking them all up. Then, after a few dozen sex quizzes and several minutes of trying to figure out how you can both “Love Your Body!” and orient yourself on the latest “Plastic Surgery Tips Every Woman Should Know!” without wanting to gag yourself on an exclamation point, I’ll give the magazine industry a few tips on how to talk to women.

Latina

Brief Overview: Latinas are portrayed as being sultry and seductive. They can get away with playing the “bad girl,” possibly because they are allowed – and even encouraged – to have more overtly sexual bodies, with an emphasis on curves, dark eyes and bright, plump, shiny, slick, wet lips shown in loving close-ups, usually while the face to which they’re attached is growling or purring or doing something else that’s totally fierce. They also give better head. Oh. There goes my attempt at subtlety.

The ideal: Jennifer Lopez

Hair: Often enough, Latinas have “big hair” with lots of volume, possibly as a middle ground among the various hair textures found among Latinas of different races.

Skin: Latinas are often depicted as having an olive complexion, with lighter or darker generally ignored or unmentioned by mainstream media.

Ass: Big, round. Makes a “ka-ching ka-ching” sound when bouncing in time to a song about cars and beach houses.

Breasts: While Latinas are generally depicted with large backsides, breast size is allowed to vary. As long as they’re big.

How magazines fucked up: “Latina” is not a race. It’s a diverse group made of many racial, ethnic and religious groups. Some who don’t even look like J-Lo. Additionally, women can’t have it both ways. While Latinas have been “en vogue” for a period of time, certain celebrated icons of “Latina beauty,” such as Jennifer Lopez and Salma Hayek, have whittled down their once-celebrated curvy figures as the years have gone by. Wait until Jennifer loses all that baby weight. She’ll look so much better without Marc.

Black

Brief Overview: While black women can come in a variety of shapes and complexions, those who are most often represented in mainstream American magazines are often, for lack of a better, equally descriptive phrase, “white-washed” in appearance. Features that are seen of characterized of black people, like curlier hair textures, wider noses and fuller lips, are often downplayed in American magazines, conforming to a white standard of beauty.

The ideal: Halle Berry

Hair: There was quite a controversy surrounding a Glamour magazine article that portrayed “ethnic” hairstyles, such as afros and cornrows, as being inappropriate for the workplace. This works to politicize the black body, hair included, and also upholds the standard that in order to be neutral, apolitical and inoffensive in the public sphere, one must become as white as possible. As such, many black women in magazines have relaxed hair, extensions and weaves.

Skin: Lighter-skinned black women are more often represented in magazines than those who are darker complected.

Ass: While black women are “allowed” to be more overtly sexual than those who are white, many “high fashion” black models are quite thin and thus their backsides are smaller and the object of less focus than black women represented in other areas of mainstream entertainment. Like in any rap video that airs after midnight in between commercials for “Girls Gone Wild: Preschool Edition.”

Breasts: The more high fashion the magazine, the less busty the models. After all, even your eyeballs’ll look fat in a Hervé Léger bandaid dress.

How magazines fucked up: While Halle Berry is a stunningly attractive woman, she happens to have a white mother. And while Latinas are allowed to “fiery” and “seductive,” the magazine and fashion industry seem confused about how, exactly, to portray black women, choosing instead to whitewash them and choose only light-skinned women with whittled-down figures, or very dark “exotic beauties” that are treated more like sculptural objects than flesh and blood women.

Asian

Brief Overview: Asian women hold a curious place in the beauty stratum. Often, what is perceived as their “natural” physical traits are encouraged and often emulated by White women trying to achieve a certain standard of beauty. The idea of a natural physical ideal is a harmful one, because those who do not possess such traits are ignored or considered somehow inferior, physically. The Asian ideal, as perceived by American fashion magazines and elsewhere, revolves around the idea that one must be petite, slim, fair and delicate. Doll-like would be the best way to describe this ideal, both in terms of physical appearance and attitude.

The ideal: Ziyi Zhang

Hair: Straight. What was interesting to me, actually, was that a former Korean roommate of mine had all these magazines that featured girls with curly hair all dyed a sort of reddish color. Seriously, every. Single. Girl. In her magazines had the exact same hairstyle. She also had one magazine dedicated to Japanese girls who wanted to emulate the style of American Black women -this included wearing afros. Also interesting? Girls in Japanese and Korean magazines are generally much, much thinner than in American ones.

Skin: Clear, light. Although there are many, many ethnic groups prevalent throughout Asia, only porcelain-skinned girls find representation in American fashion mags.

Ass: N/A

Breasts: N/A

How magazines fucked up: Some Asian girls are chubby. Really! Some are muscular, some are tall, some are dark, some are doughy, and some are boney and awkward.

White

Brief Overview: The gold standard of white beauty is a woman who is thought of as being the least “ethnic” and most “neutral” as possible. Fair skin, fair hair and thin, often lacking in curves that would be considered vulgar or distasteful (or exotic?) the stereotype of corn-fed Midwestern girls or sun-kissed, muscular athletic girls are eschewed for fair, tall, boney girls – often with what is described as a “boyish” figure, one without the tell-tale markers of womanhood – hips, ass. Personality.

The ideal: Gwyneth Paltrow

Hair: Hairstyle changes with the season but barring avant-garde styling, styles are usually pretty tame, alternating from loose ringlets to super-straight, shiny, sleek hairstyles. Comes in a variety of haircolors, again, depending on the season.

Skin: Pale or tan, depending on the season and the style of the photoshoot. Like to mix colonialism and cultural oppression with your couture? Bring a healthy glow!

Ass: N/A

Breasts: Depends. In magazines focused on middle to upper-middle class women, breasts are often normal to large. In high-fashion magazines, however, fuller bustlines are used to indicate “plus-size” or “seductive” women like Eva Mendes, not necessarily elegant or stylish ones.

How magazines fucked up: There’s been a long tradition of a “fight for white,” meaning that various ethnic groups over the years have had to struggle for the chance to be seen as normal and neutral. Irish-Americans, for example, who are today almost synonymous with the concept of what it means to be white (fevered dancing without the use of hips or shoulders, the consumption of potatoes), were very much “the other” for a very, very long time in America. Jewish and Italian Americans were also not always considered white folks here in the old U.S. of A. This isn’t mentioned to encourage anyone to wait whiteness out, it’s meant to highlight the fact that whiteness is a culturally manufactured concept and is only given meaning by a certain segment of society in a certain slice of history.

Sigh. What can you do? Well, for one, you can stop reading fashion magazines.

No, ok, calm your ass down. (Ooh! See what I did there?) And remove your stiletto from my cornea. You can still celebrate fashion and enjoy girlyness without conforming to patriarchal and Anglo-centric standards of beauty. There are some magazines out there that will let you know you’re fine, and even beautiful, exactly as you are without telling you to lose five pounds in three days to fit into a bathing suit you can’t afford. Dig around. Put effort into being a consumer, and be discerning in your taste. Women make up the majority of the U.S. population; it’s not far-fetched to say we drive a lot of the economy. So why do we give up all our power to the beauty and fashion industries, only to be rewarded with the idea that we’re still not good enough? These standards and fads only have meaning if you elect to give it to them.

—

Latoya’s Note: In the comments to the original post, Alex addresses something that appears to be an omission in her piece:

I purposefully used these four, generalized groups because these are found most often in mainstream media / American fashion magazines. Your statement on not being able to find Middle Eastern or South Asian women in such magazines is exactly why I chose not to include these groups in my feature. It’s the same reason I didn’t include, say, Native American women or ethnic groups in China who didn’t fit the “pale, small” stereotype.

Additionally, I did not mean to include South Asian women under the “Asian” header at all, on purpose, because there is almost always a distinction in popular culture and language between “Asian” and “South Asian.”

There’s a lot of hating going on over at Bossip on a thread that posted the cover of Jet, featuring the gorgeous Garcelle Beauvais and her adorable twins:

(The one on the right is making a black power fist. I’m for surrious.)

Most of the hating takes the form of the “why she datin’ that white man” or “them babies is white and ugly” or “I thought they had AIDS” ect, ect. The kids better get used to it though, because just judging by the choice of wardrobe, Mrs. Beauvais-Nilon is going to be raising those kids to think of themselves as black, so they’re going to hear a lot of this:

That white man got some STRONG genes. What is he german?

And:

Not impresssed at with her ALL WHITE TWINS!!! Just what we need more white folks in this world. Pathetic!!!

Sigh.

by guest contributor Brigitte, originally published at Make Fetch Happen

Do you remember when Vogue India hit the stands and Australian model Gemma Ward was front and center flanked by two presumably Indian models in what I like to call “the coveted Beyonce spot?” All I could do was laugh at how predictable that move was on the editors part.

In the months since that launch last year, Vogue India has featured a dazzling array of Bollywood actresses and models on the cover. It’s as if to say, “yeah, we thought the cover on that premiere issue was lame too but we fully intend to make up for it!”

Anytime I think about that launch I wonder if an African country will ever get its own Vogue. Maybe a Vogue Nigeria or a South African Vogue.

I’ve debated back and forth on message boards about who would be chosen for the imaginary inagural cover. Legendary Iman? Alek Wek? Liya? Oluchi? Gemma in a safari hat?

I read an article in The Times last week about Oluchi in which she was quoted as saying that top magazines in South Africa (like Glamour and GQ) refuse to put blacks on their covers. This in a country that is 79% black.

She said:

“As a Nigerian and an African I have done so much in my career to represent everything African in Western countries. There is a diverse group of people in South Africa, be it black, white, Asian. …If you pick up Vogue India everything about it, from the first page to the last, is very Indian…I would like to see that in South Africa. They [magazines] need to embrace diversity and show more love …It doesn’t give me joy to pick up a copy of South African GQ and feel like I’m reading American GQ.”

Damn.

This saddens me. I recall seeing the cover of South African ELLE once with a dark skinned woman on the cover and for months I tried to find an issue at various newsstands only to come up empty. I was dying to know if the cover I saw was an anomoly. So far, I’m not willing to pony up the $90 or so for a subscription to find out.

Back to my magazine fantasy…I picture two covers. The first one featuring a mix of models from all over the continent with Iman or Liya Kebede, Alek Wek or Ajuma to show the very different types of African beauty. My second thought has editors mixing it up a bit more with the likes of a Jourdan Dunn, Emanuela dePaula, Chanel Iman, Chrystelle Saint-Louis Augustin, or Damaris Lewis to illustrate how there isn’t a corner of the world that hasn’t been touched by this so called dark continent’s beauty and influence.

Seriously, I could ponder this for hours. I am so much more satisfied by made up magazines than by their real conterparts. Maybe there’s an editor out there dreaming of this launch too, and of Gemma Ward posing on an elephant for the cover.

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?

I was dumbfounded to read Freakonomics author Steven D. Levitt’s response on his NYT blog to a reader’s question about the economic ramifications of international adoption (thanks to durgamom on resist racism for bringing this to my attention). I’ve commented on Levitt before in this post.

Q: What is your opinion on how international adoption affects the economy, race and class divisions, and the widening income gap within the U.S.? What do you think of the argument that children are “readily available for adoption” in the U.S., and, further, that adoption is marketed as a product with benefits?

A: I don’t think international adoption affects the economy in any meaningful way. We are talking about very small numbers of children being adopted from foreign countries into the U.S. each year – perhaps 20,000 children total, compared to the 3 million children born each year in the U.S. Adoption does, however, profoundly affect those families that adopt. My life has been completely changed because of the two daughters my wife and I adopted from China.

You’re right that some people in the U.S. really don’t like foreign adoption. Some have argued that it is a form of subtle racism, in that parents like me will go to China to adopt, but won’t adopt a black child here in the U.S. This is a complex issue – far too complex for me to discuss in all its richness here. But let me at least explain some of the thinking underlying my own decision to adopt from abroad. The first factor was that our son, Andrew, had just died. We were not emotionally prepared to navigate the U.S. adoption scene, which is full of uncertainty for adoptive parents for two reasons: 1) the relative scarcity of healthy but unwanted babies being put up for adoption since the legalization of abortion; and 2) the emphasis on birth parent rights.

We did give some serious thought to adopting either a black child domestically, or adopting from Africa. It turns out that African adoption is extremely complicated, as Madonna discovered the hard way. Ultimately, my own view was that the identity issues faced by a black child raised by white parents would be too difficult. Some of my academic research with Roland Fryer has made clear to me the stark choices that black teens, especially boys, have to make about “who they are.” As a parent, I was not willing to take the chance on loving and raising an adopted child, only to know that when he became a teenager he would have to face the choice of being “black” or “white,” and that either choice would be very costly for him (and also for me). That same sort of racial “all or nothing” choice is not at play for Asian youths in our society.

First of all, Levitt doesn’t really respond to the majority of the reader’s question. He only tackles the economy part in terms of how it affects the overall US economy. Using the average fees for the most well known and respected adoption agency in my state, if adoptive parents paid an average of, say, $20,000 – $25,000 a child then those 20,000+ children adopted from other countries last year add up to $400,000,000 – $500,000,000. We know that not all of this money stays in the United States economy. So, granted, Levitt is correct that this sum is pretty insignificant in terms of how it affects the overall US economy. If you calculate the 108,006 children adopted internationally from 2002 – 2006 at an average of $20,000 per child, that pumps in $1,080,060,000 that pays for adoption workers and adoption agencies. However, Levitt doesn’t mention that the overall “adoption industry” expands way beyond the singular item of agency fees. There are all the post-adoption services provided by agencies, books, those damn t-shirts, culture camps, therapy, trainings, etc. Considering that in 2000, the adoption industry generated 1.5 billion dollars* and prices have only risen exponentially, I argue that Levitt is minimizing the economic impact because, like many of us, it appears unseemly to talk about children in terms of a financial spreadsheet.

Levitt’s response to the next part of the reader’s question really begins to veer away into his own personal rationalizations.

Levitt begins by answering What do you think of the argument that children are “readily available for adoption” in the U.S with:

We were not emotionally prepared to navigate the U.S. adoption scene, which is full of uncertainty for adoptive parents for two reasons: 1) the relative scarcity of healthy but unwanted babies being put up for adoption since the legalization of abortion; and 2) the emphasis on birth parent rights.

First, I couldn’t help but react to the blatant judgmental attitude towards first parents. I really really really really dislike the statement healthy but unwanted which is really really really old-school talk. Children relinquished for adoption are not always unwanted. Many women and men choose or are forced to relinquish for more reasons than can be outlined in this post.

Also, the fact that he is afraid of birth parents rights and uses that terminology suggests that he doesn’t want the messy business of dealing with an open adoption or any chance that birth parents might sabotage his parental authority.

It’s also just plain naive to believe that just because his daughters were born in China that 1) they are completely free of health issues (especially if they were in an orphanage) and 2) that they were somehow more “wanted” than a child relinquished in US (guess he believes the only reason for relinquishment is a heavy-handed government population control policy) and 3) that his child’s Chinese parent(s) won’t ever want to have contact.

At any rate, both of these reasons that Levitt uses to argue why he didn’t adopt domestically seem to emphasize a consumer-based perspective. Classic supply and demand: a lack of supply on the “scarcity of healthy but unwanted babies” and the demands of birth parents vs. adoptive parents.

By the time I got to Levitt’s response to race and class, I was shaking my head at the multiple assumptions he makes and how clearly he is settling down in his comfy white privilege. The response to the question “how international adoption affects race and class divisions, and the widening income gap within the U.S.” was:

As a parent, I was not willing to take the chance on loving and raising an adopted child, only to know that when he became a teenager he would have to face the choice of being “black” or “white,” and that either choice would be very costly for him (and also for me). That same sort of racial “all or nothing” choice is not at play for Asian youths in our society.

Okay, you all know what I’m going to say here. Repeat after me: Asian adoptees are NOT THE OTHER WHITE MEAT.

While I’m glad he recognizes that adopting a black child has significant racial meaning, it’s clear that Levitt is buying into the stereotype that Asians are less “ethnic” and therefore do not have to “choose” whether to be “yellow” or “white.” I guess Levitt missed out on asking me or other Asian Americans about whether or not that is true. Or has he been hanging with the Asian American community as of late? Maybe he knows something about my people that I don’t. Or is he merely more comfortable in perpetuating stereotypes about Asians which superficially seem more along the “model minority myth?” Mr. Levitt, I think you should educate yourself and go read this post or this post.

As for the question, What do you think of the argument . . . that adoption is marketed as a product with benefits?

While this seems like it would be of interest to an economics professor since it’s dealing with a market economy issue, Mr. Levitt apparently decided it wasn’t worth answering. He also didn’t respond to the impact of the ever-widening gap between those who can afford to adopt children from foreign countries versus those who can’t. This is definitely becoming a class issue because of the sheer enormous expense of adopting internationally which continues to increase each year. Which is too bad, because I for one would have been interested in his response.

Overall, I give Mr. Levitt’s answer a D+ considering he really doesn’t address the multiple economic-related questions about international adoption. In terms of dealing with the racial realities of adopting a child from China? I give the professor an F. I think he missed the point completely. I would suggest he read the article cited below from Outsiders Within for extra credit.

*Cited by Kim Park Nelson in Shopping for Children in the International Marketplace in Outsiders Within: Writing on Transracial Adoption by South End Press (2006) p. 94.

East West

Billing itself as the complete Asian-American lifestyle magazine, East West runs the gamut from business advice to romance. East West (formerly East West Woman) is also the only magazine that regularly features Desi contributors as well as Desi cover girls.

In terms of articles, East West has a wide range of fare to satisfy all sorts of palates. From global news coverage to an in-depth analysis Asian-American roles on televisions to a Sake 101 primer and tips for bargaining at Asian markets, this publication aims to keeps its readers informed and connected to both of their cultures.

East West also features first person perspectives, like “Growing Up ABCD” by Farah Z. Khalid. In the article, Khalid explains the concept of being an American Born Confused Desi and pulls us into her childhood with tales of trading soccer for Islamic school and annual pilgrimages back to visit relatives, laden with gifts.

The fashion spreads are also cute and wearable, but East West feels like it skews a bit older, made for the professionally settled woman in her thirties to forties. While there is plenty of content for younger readers, East West occupies the same sphere as Essence – a publication designed to reach their demographic in all walks of life. It is a great challenge, but the East West editors handle it well.

Thirteen Minutes

“A Bicultural Asian-American Magazine.”

I must admit it was the tagline that caught my eye on the newsstand, even while accompanied by a very striking cover image.

Thirteen Minutes distinguishes itself with truly gorgeous and distinctive fashion, buoyed by excellent photography. The spreads are so engaging, I literally caught my breath a few times just looking at striking images that leaped off the page demanding my attention. The magazine manages to walk the line between high fashion and wearable with aplomb. I used some of my purloined Yes/No/Maybe stickers from a Lucky Magazine to mark up the pages – and it is one of the few times where a fashion magazine has inspired me enough to track down a designer and pay for an item displayed in spread, rather than using the spread as inspiration for my own budget conscious finds.

The articles are also useful, if a little boring. All the standard women’s interest fare is in here, with a distinctly Asian twist: “How to Lose 10 Pounds by Lunar New Year,” “Finding Your Inner Feng Shui,” and “This Isn’t Your Mother’s Plastic Surgery.” There are also excellent articles on Asians and Asian Americans in the media, featuring everyone from Anna May Wong to Alex Thuy. Thirteen Minutes even manages to cover international pop stars and local acts. It’s a music lover’s dream.

However, one thing kept nagging me as I paged through a few issues of Thirteen Minutes. The magazine employs Asian models and white models, but no other ethnicities. I had asked Hae and her friends if the use of white models in Asian American magazines was normal and they all said no.* This was more than a little strange to me – after all, most specialty magazines tend to stick to their demographic as a focus. After all, Essence and Latina don’t use white models in their spreads. Neither do East West or Audrey, even though they use hapa models. I wondered briefly about the magazine enforcing both Asian and white standards of beauty, but quickly pushed that out of my mind. After all, I thought to myself, aren’t I being a little too critical of a fashion magazine? I still read all the majors, and they act like they are allergic to PoCs.

I shuttled this off to the back of my mind, but was rudely reminded of my apprehensions in the current issue. In the article “Who Is Prince Charming,” the authors decide to take “a look at the different aspects of masculinity in the American and Asian cultures.” Fair enough. I scanned down the page to the chart. The page is divided into two: The Caucasian-American Guy and the Asian Guy. I flip the page. Nothing. Well, damn. I guess unless you are American white, you don’t factor. All of the Asian-American men fit the general pop star mold. I thought it was interesting that while Kal Penn was featured as an actor to watch in an earlier article, no Desi men – or darker skinned Asian men – managed to make the dream guy cut. Then I noticed this line:

“Skin Tone: His skin is enviably white and smooth. How does he do it when we can’t?”

Oh – I guess you have to pass the paper bag test to be featured in this magazine.

I have had a few Asian friends of mine school me about colorism and how it plays out in their communities. Two Desi-Americans, two Vietnamese-Americans, one Cambodian-American, and one Korean-American all told me about how people doubt their attractiveness (and occassionally, the “purity” of their ethnicity) because they are considered dark by the standards of other Asian Americans.

It’s another thing to be confronted with that in print though.

The uneasy feeling became too much to ignore. So while the fashion spreads make me weak – and manage to magically free my credit card from my wallet – I am going to have to leave the next issue of Thirteen Minutes on the shelf.

Audrey

Scanning the shelves of a local bookstore, I noticed one small copy of Audrey peering out from behind the dozens of Women’s Interest magazines crowding the shelf. I snatched it up excitedly – after hearing about it in the comments for my post lamenting the loss of Vibe Vixen (thanks joyous!), I wanted to see what Audrey was all about.

After reading the last few issues, I can tell you this: The woman who reads Audrey is a woman I need in my friends circle.

For real.

Completely enjoyable, Audrey blends the perfect amount of intelligence and frivolity. For example, Audrey affords ample front-of-the-book space to the latest in pop culture, including art, fashion, books, film releases and DVDs. In addition to their Upstarts column – which focuses on Asian/Asian-American activists – Audrey also features profiles of Asian-Americans wherever they are found: in the boxing ring, at an entrepreneurial gala, behind a movie camera, or on stage.

Audrey was also the only magazine that people frequently commented on. With their au courant cover models featured prominently, I found myself involved in a few dozen checkout line conversations.

“Oh, you like her?” The Asian cashier at Barnes and Noble cafe started paging through the magazine, leaving my iced chai tea to melt on the back counter. “Did you see the movie?”

It took me a moment to place what she was talking about, as the cover was Tang Wei – and I had not yet seen the advertisements for Lust, Caution.

The next issue I purchased had the same effect. The smiling face of Lindsay Price prompted many people to ask me if I was going to watch Lipstick Jungle.

Audrey also features he said/she said feature, along with fashion and make-up trends. There is also an amusing “Cultural Collage” section on the back page which covers trials, tribulations, and Asian-Americana with a humorous gloss. Overall, the magazine was solid. (And, I must fully disclose that the magazine did a feature on hottie DJ Hapa which means I will love them 4eva.)

But my favorite part of the magazine was it’s overall tone of inclusiveness. A recent first person perspective piece explored the realities of being bi-racial and the quest for identity, with the author taking the last paragraph to openly muse about the identity issues that surface if she were to have a child with another bi-racial partner.

Audrey’s movie and media picks reflect the best of culture period, from African-American fronted movies like This Christmas to the soundtrack for the indie film Dedication to novels about Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu “rudeboys” in London. Audrey also featured a letter from an African-American woman who had married into a Japanese family and is now fielding very targeted questions from her mother in law about how she is going to raise her child. I adore the multicultural perspective in Audrey because I feel like this is a glaring flaw on the part of targeted magazines. Why don’t we – as minorities – see each other?

In sum, the new crop of magazines is promising, but fighting for shelf space. While all three publications add a valuable new voice to the cacophony of recycled images and material in mainstream mags, their survival is not guaranteed. As with most PoC targeted magazines, their advertising revenue never quite reaches the same level as comparable titles from the larger publishing houses. Without ad revenues, it is difficult for fledgling magazines to thrive in an already oversaturated market. And if the publication happens to fail, both the industry and advertisers will assume that consumers have no use for Asian-American targeted magazines.

It is my sincere hope – regardless of how I personally feel about each title – that I still see all of these glossies available on the newsstand next year. We cannot continue to have one token magazine for each demographic of color.

And we must let the industry know that our voices, our ideas, and our thoughts matter.

—

*No, this isn’t normal. I read a lot of Japanese fashion magazines (and a few Korean ones) and while there may be white people featured in advertisements, very rarely do they use white models in their spreads. I must admit, my import magazines have an Onee-Kei bias, but I can only remember one magazine (Ginza) that featured predominantly white models in their fashion spreads. Ceci (S. Korea), S Cawaii (Japan), Kera (Japan), CanCan (Japan), JJ (Japan), Egg (Japan), and ViVi (Japan) all feature Korean, Japanese, or hapa models. I’ve also skimmed the Gothi-Loli bible, Cawaii, Fruits and a few others and the leads are generally Japanese, with a few mixed people modeling.

When I first starting researching this article (back in late December), I asked the attendees at Hae’s birthday party – 22 or so generation 1.5 or 2.0 Asian-Americans, all in the target demographic of 20 – 30 years old. No one could think of why white models would be used in a magazine targeting Asian-Americans.

I’ve been waiting for this shoe to drop.

Last August, a former Glamour editor found herself in a hailstorm of controversy after she gave a speech to a law firm where she indicated that an afro was not an office appropriate hairstyle. Jezebel had the scoop:

[A] recent slide show by an unidentified Glamour editor on the “Dos and Don’ts of Corporate Fashion” at a New York law firm shed some light on the topic, according to this month’s American Lawyer magazine.

First slide up: an African American woman sporting an Afro. A real no-no, announced the ‘Glamour’ editor to the 40 or so lawyers in the room. As for dreadlocks: How truly dreadful! The style maven said it was ‘shocking’ that some people still think it ‘appropriate’ to wear those hairstyles at the office. ‘No offense,’ she sniffed, but those ‘political’ hairstyles really have to go.

In November of that year, Glamour tried to make amends to its readership by hosting a panel to discuss Women, Race, and Beauty. The March Issue of Glamour contains the transcript from the panel as well as some extra information about the panelists and some sidebars.

Reading the finished product, I notice I am left feeling unsatisfied. It’s kind of like when I saw The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift soundtrack advertised. DJ Shadow, Mos Def, Verbal from M-Flo, Dragon Ash, The Far*East Movement, and N.E.R.D. were all featured but after I previewed the tracks, I ended up leaving the CD in the store. How did something so right go so wrong?

I got the same feeling from this Glamour article. All the all stars are here: Farai Chideya (NPR, News & Notes), Vanessa Bush (Essence), Jami Floyd (TV Anchor), Daisy Hernandez (Colorlines), Lisa Price (Carol’s Daughter Hair Products), Venus Opal Reese (PH.D, University of Texas), Mally Roncal (Celebrity Make Up Artist/make up creator), and Barbara Trepagnier (Professor of Sociology). And yet…

The Panel

With Farai Chideya moderating, the panel got off to a quick start. The panel answered questions on the perception of natural hair in the workplace, self-acceptance, community pressure from both perspectives, and hair and identity. The audience also chimed in, lobbing questions about intra-community hair politics, adding more woman of color in the beauty business, and instilling confidence in teenage girls.

The conversation that resulted was good, but very surface level. The panelists used a lot of anecdotal evidence to make their points and generally stayed away from any topic that would seem a little too controversial.

What Was Missing

There were two comments that broke from this mold, one from Venus Opal Reese, and the other from Mally Roncal:

REESE: I’d like us to consider how we see things. When it comes to race, we’re looking from the past. When people see me with my natural hair, they don’t see Dr. Venus Opal Reese who has four degrees, they see an historical idea of what natural hair means. And that’s what it meant in the 1970s and 1960s; it equaled black nationalism and was linked to the Black Panther Party. It was considered militant. That doesn’t mean it’s true now, but that’s how it’s linked.

RONCAL: But you have to be comfortable with yourself before it can be about having fun. With my makeup line I work with everyday women, and obviously I give them tricks to enhance their own beauty. But I get a lot of Asian girls saying, “My eyes are too slanty. How do I make them look rounder?” And African American women asking, “How can I make my nose or lips look smaller?” I tell them, “We all deserve to feel as beautiful as we are. But I don’t want to hear you say, ‘I want to look more like a white girl.’”

With the exception of Roncal’s comment, the prevailing dominance of the white beauty ideal was not mentioned. Most of the discussion focused around corporate ideals of what is acceptable and what is not. Many of the panelists talk about straightening their hair to fit into a certain corporate culture or to advance. However, not much was discussed as to why certain people conform to the prevailing beauty standards and others do not. The corporate culture piece is an important one, but this panel happened because a group of lawyers thought there was something wrong with a beauty editor condemning natural hair. So there is a corporate component, but I would have liked to have seen a little more about individual attitudes.

Individual attitudes towards different kinds of beauty are immensely important in these kinds of conversations. It is quite telling that Dodai from Jezebel can post monthly articles about the lack of models of color in fashion magazine spreads, advertising, and on the runways, and still get comments like this one:

“It’s not the modelling agencies or fashion designers fault that black chicks aren’t as hot as white chicks. But this article in itself is racist. Maybe they were rebelling against these people trying to force them to diversify.”

There are institutional forces who propagate the idea that the white ideal of beauty is the only acceptable ideal of beauty. And then there are those individuals who are willing to disregard all other information to prove that the way things are is what is natural and right. I am not sure which of the two is harder to fight.

Now, I understand that there are different levels of racial conversation. Glamour is a national magazine that reaches two million women through paid circulation (subscriptions and newsstand). So a hard targeted conversation may not have played too well with their targeted readership. But their responses seem a little anemic considering the situation that sparked the panel.

Other Bits of Strange

This was Glamour’s response to their readers after a hurtful comment came from one of their staffers. (It should be mentioned that the staffer in question, Ashley Baker, says the comment was taken out of context. Her version of the story has not yet been revealed.) And Glamour has had other staffers make questionable statements that fly against their self-proclaimed belief “in the beauty of all women.” For example, touting the assumption that no one in their right mind would ever want a larger rear end.

So there is a bit of history here.

But I have to say I do find it interesting that a major article like this one wouldn’t merit a cover line. This is Glamour’s way to make amends and instead of promoting their discussion on race and beauty, they choose to go with the following cover lines:

“Pssst! Why guys love your body exactly as is”
“Sexy Hair in 10 Minutes or Less”
“99 Juicy New Secrets of Hollywood!”
“Find Your Best Birth Control”
“The Fashion, the Fun, the Dos & Don’ts”
“Spring Clothes for You”
“Naomi Watts: On the ballsy move that got her the man she loves”

Seriously? Y’all couldn’t take the corner spot you dedicated to the same old birth control article I read in every other women’s magazine and plug this panel?

I guess Sexy Hair grabs more attention than Icky Race Issues.

I also noticed some attempts at inclusiveness in the article, manifested through the sidebars. While the panel focused mostly on black women and hair issues, there were small glimpses of the experiences of others along the margins. N. Jamiyla Chislom talked about embracing the versatility of her hair, saying “Whether it’s ‘locked, Afroed, twisted, or straightened, we have the option of any and every style.” Serena Kim explains the single-fold eyelid and cultural pride. (It reminded me of Carmen’s earlier post asking if this issue was the number one concern in the Asian community. From my outsider’s view, I think this issue gets so much play in American magazines because it is (1) uniquely Asian and (2) something many Americans would find strange and exotic.) Laura Checkoway writes about wanting to trade her size zero figure for a larger frame to emulate “the two hottest black girls in my class, who had all the boys’ attention when they strutted by.” Taigi Smith writes about letting her hair be what it is. And Shirley J. Velasquez confused me with an article about facial hair and Latinas:

Latinas have two ideas about facial hair: that it makes a woman look dirty and that it’s sexy. When I was 13, my mother began taking me to a salon to get my upper lip threaded. “Now you look clean,” she’d say, and I’d feel good. I liked Frida Kahlo’s striking appearance, but I didn’t want facial hair like hers. One day, I noticed the woman attending me. She was beautiful with her facial hair, not despite it. I realized that I am too. I love the way my skin glows when it’s bare, but I know that there’s nothing embarassing about my body doing what it’s supposed to. Now, instead of continuing time-consuming waxes, I had laser hair removal. I was proud that it was less about shame and more about practicality.

Umm…I love my facial hair, so I got it permanently removed? Ok…I guess. My hair doesn’t grow that fast, so maybe she had to hit the waxer once a week? I dunno – someone please enlighten me.

At any rate, these perspectives were interesting soundbytes but not much else. I think they were intended to add some other ideas of race and identity, but left nothing substantial to hold on to.

The short segments did remind me of another piece that I had read about beauty – which accidentally brought race into the mix. Over on the Fat Acceptance blog, Shapely Prose, Kate Harding penned a piece called the Fantasy of Being Thin. Though the entire piece is excellent (and well worth the read), it can be summed up in this sentence:

Because, you see, the Fantasy of Being Thin is not just about becoming small enough to be perceived as more acceptable. It is about becoming an entirely different person – one with far more courage, confidence, and luck than the fat you has. It’s not just, “When I’m thin, I’ll look good in a bathing suit”; it’s “When I’m thin, I will be the kind of person who struts down the beach in a bikini, making men weep.”

There are now 471 comments to that post, but this one knocked the air from my lungs:

Tracy, on November 27th, 2007 at 8:13 pm Said:

I have been thinking about my thin fantasies for a while and the biggest one to come to me is probably particular to women of color:

If I were thin, I would be white…well as close as possible.

That was the biggest and most heartbreaking revelation for me. I always considered myself the exception to the rule about black folks and maybe it was my way of separating myself from my peers.

And then another one:

lactose intolerant lisa, on December 6th, 2007 at 7:08 pm Said:

I had an eating disorder based on my fantasy of being thin. For me, it was completely outrageous expectations: that my mom and dad would not get divorced, that I would be popular, that I would be worthy of all of the things I wanted to do, that I could finally wear the clothes I wanted to make, and the most outrageous one: that I would be white. I’m half white, and I so internalized all the racism I’d encountered that I always fantasized that when I was thin, I would be white. Talk about impossible. I’ve come very far on beating my eating disorder, but my fantasy of being thin seems like one of the very last things to go.

We can discuss differences in hair texture.

We can discuss differences in body type.

We can discuss differences in facial features.

But this does not change the reality that “white” is considered the golden standard and that everything else is deemed unacceptable. Straightened hair, fairer skin, keener features are all considered beautiful while anything else is automatically considered unattractive. If you are a woman of color, you suddenly find yourself under enormous pressure to compensate for that you “lack.” The situation isn’t hopeless. As Afrobella writes in Black Woman, Know That You Are Beautiful, there are ample resources created by and for women of color that need our support. While most of us can and do support the endeavors of our community, does that mean we have to stop advocating for inclusion and support in mainstream publications?

Going back to the Glamour article, I find myself a bit sad. Rarely does a mainstream magazine decide to tackle race directly and so Glamour should be commended for putting the panel and article together. However, the piece feels like a wonderful beginning, a springboard to a multi-part series, the small start that leads us into a more enlightened conversation. It deserves more follow up, discussions, check-ins, maybe even a small monthly feature.

But I can’t shake the feeling that this article – as well as the conversation it sparked – ends on page 246, never to be mentioned again.

(Image taken from the Glamour website)

by Guest Contributor Alisa Valdes-Rodiguez, originally published at Multiplicative Indentity

In 2007, Mexican-born author Reyna Grande’s first novel, “Across a Hundred Mountains,” is released to critical acclaim, and wins the American Book Award – yet Grande’s San Diego bookstore appearance is canceled after anti-immigrant patrons call the manager to protest their support of a novel by and about “illegals”.

In 2004, the South Coast Repertory Theater in Costa Mesa, Calif., kills its Hispanic Playwright’s Project, in part to appease donors who fear “illegals” benefiting from their money.

In 2007, Touchstone Pictures pulls the plug on “Deep in the Heart of Texas,” a feature film starring Eva Longoria, about a fully assimilated Mexican American woman, saying there is nothing particularly “Latina” about an educated, professional shopaholic from Texas; meaning, the character is “too American” for audiences to believe as “Latina”. (Meanwhile, Texas is no longer a majority-white state, and most Latinos there speak English…)

In 2005, the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles dismantles all four of its minority playwright development programs.

In 2008, People magazine puts Latina singer Christina Aguilera on the cover and sees the average number of copies sold drop by more than 100,000.

The Latin Grammys, created in 2000 with a mainstream English-language CBS audience in mind, have since been downgraded to Univision only, in part due to protests from anti-Latino viewers.

In 2007, ABC decides to pull the plug on The George Lopez Show, even though the show had better ratings than at least two other series that were renewed; he is replaced by a short-lived sitcom about cavemen.

Also in 2007, Jennifer Lopez wraps filming on the Gregory Nava movie “Bordertown,” about serial killings of Mexican women along the US-Mexico border, only to find that it will not be released in the United States after all; hostile anti-Mexican reaction in screenings relegate the film to release in Europe only. Variety magazine savages the film’s anti-NAFTA stance. The film goes on to win several awards at the Berlin film festival, including one from Amnesty International.

I, meanwhile, have seen my publisher decide to stop printing my books simultaneously in Spanish for the domestic market, citing a waning interest from booksellers for such material. Latina authors in my circle of friends all say times have gotten harder and harder for them over the past two or three years, with several telling me they, like I, have been on the receiving end of more and more hate-mail through their web sites and blogs. Personally, I have seen the advances paid on my books decline by 80 percent, and the size of my book tours slashed from 14 cities to 4.

Taken separately, these anecdotes might appear to be nothing more than bad luck, or flukes, a the natural ebb and flow of a career in the fickle entertainment industry. But taken together, and held up against a shifting corporate media climate that increasingly scapegoats and targets immigrants and Latinos (a trend both the ACLU and FBI blame for drastic rise in hate-crimes against Latinos), they paint a frightening picture of an increasingly hostile America for all Latinos – creative artists included.

There are more than 30 million Latinos in the United States – that is more than the entire population of Canada. We make up the fastest-growing segment of the nation, and make up the largest slice of the demographic pie in cities like New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Houston. We are consummate consumers, spending more than we save, and we are the first in line on opening night at the movies. We watch more TV, and buy more beauty products. In other words, in a capitalist society, it makes no sense to overlook us and our $686 billion spending power – which is growing at twice the rate of non-Latino spending power. Our economic muscle in the United States is expect to reach $1.2 trillion by 2011.

And yet we are being ignored – and maligned. And if we are artists, it seems, punished.

While Latinos make up close to half the population in Los Angeles and New York, UCLA’s Center for Chicano Studies has found that prime-time portrayals of these cities on TV do not come close to reflecting reality. The vast majority of programs on TV have no Latino characters at all, said the study, and the numbers are declining. We are the single most underrepresented group on American television. The only prime-time program featuring a cast of Latinos is currently “Cane,” which is mafioso and violent, and as of last week CBS had made no move to renew the show for next season – meaning it is all but canceled.

Mary Beltran, of the Univ. of Wisconsin, took a similar look at Latino roles in movies. Her conclusion? That Hollywood still portrays “Latinas as exotic, sexually hot, passionate ‘spitfires,’ for example, or language-mangling comic relief.” While Latinos “seldom play fully realized characters. Although there may be more jobs available, they are basically the same roles that Latinos have assumed for the last 80 years.”

So it was that, after toiling for years to learn the screenwriting craft, I finally sold the DIRTY GIRLS SOCIAL CLUB movie script, and got two amazing producers signed on, with high hopes. Our numbers are there. The need for this sort of material is there. The book is a mega-bestseller. Latina actors are hungry for real, meaty roles. Studios would jump at the opportunity, right?

Well, not quite. It turns out that to get financing, we have to have at least one famous actress signed on. When it comes to A-list Latina actresses, you’ve really got few enough to count them on one hand. We approached them all. And they all said no. We were, in a word, shocked.

Several of them (and several, when you are counting a handful, is telling) said with great apology that they had been advised by their handlers and management NOT TO PLAY LATINAS in movies that were ETHNIC, because that was seen as being too political a statement at the moment. In other words, they could play the exotic Latina love interest of an action hero in a “white” movie, but they could not play self-actualized Latinas with depth in a Latina movie. These actresses, many of whom have complained in interviews about the lack of exciting roles for Latinas, in private meetings said they were unwilling to play Latinas in a Latino project lest they be seen by the powers that be as “going the JLo route.”

Now, I know I am not supposed to talk about this. I am supposed to keep it quiet. I am expecting calls from my producers telling me to can it. They don’t want me to do anything to make the movie seem risky. Right? Me. Like the problem here is ME making it look risky. Yeah.

But here’s the conclusion I’ve come to: Hollywood, America, the mainstream media, they have already decided the DIRTY GIRLS project is too risky – just like “Bordertown,” just like “Deep in the Heart of Texas”. This one, and every other one like it. Look at what is happening across the country, to all of us who are Latino and creative. We are, in a word, screwed, because America has been on a hatefest against immigrants, and the media confuses the words “immigrant” and “Latino,” and the resulting effect is that over the past few years, Americans have been trained to see all of us as a huge threat to their well-being, at the very same time the economy has tanked. We are the face they blame.

So I’m not worried about screwing the movie over by telling the truth. The truth will set you free. This movie won’t get made anyway. Not in Hollywood. Not this way. If you can’t get an A-lister, you can’t get financing. If you can’t get financing, you can’t get a movie made. If you can’t get a movie made, you can’t control the images. If you can’t control the images, the climate is in the hands of others, like Michael Savage, Lou Dobbs and Glenn Beck and those who canceled Lopez’s show. The climate, in the hands of others, has led us here. And so, here we are. In a resounding, terrifying silence.

I don’t know what the answer is. But I do know the question: What the hell do we do now?

by Carmen Van Kerckhove

It was just Thursday when we wondered why fashion designers and editors don’t seem to be able to use models of color without exoticizing/exploiting their race or culture. And last summer, we discussed Vogue’s obsession with romanticizing colonized Africa and Asia.

Folks at Hermes must have been reading closely because they managed to squeeze both blunders into a single ad campaign.

Check out their new ads, featuring desi model Lakshmi Menon. And lo and behold, what else appears in the ads? Elephants! With colorful henna-esque tattoos! And jodhpurs! Lest we forget the glorious days of British colonial rule in India!

See the rest of the ads here. Via FabSugar.

by guest contributor Brigitte, originally published at Make Fetch Happen

Last season Vivienne Westwood raised a few eyebrows when she publicly lambasted fashion editors, calling them racist for refusing to use black models on their pages. Westwood even went as far as to call for an affirmative action of sorts, to force editors to use a certain percentage of black models. Later, she also spoke of her upcoming ads which would feature the beautiful Kenyan model Ajuma Nasenyana, no stranger to Westwood’s runway, as the face of the Spring campaign.

I was impressed with Westwood’s willingness to speak so openly about what we’ve all been decrying for years and looked forward to seeing the new ads with Ajuma (whom I think is one of the most stunning models to emerge in the last few years.) In my view, the grande dame could have just as easily said nothing, accepted the status quo, and had another cup of tea.

Well, low and behold, the ads have finally made their way into fashion magazines and sadly, I am not impressed. Westwood’s ads are usually on the fringe but seeing Ajuma posing with a spear and gun in a series of ads that also includes African masks, animal corpses and even bananas is crossed the line from provocative to stereotypical and wholly unnecessary.

Is it a political message? I don’t know. Shot by Juergen Teller, they are certainly eye-catching. Nasenyana’s dark shiny skin absorbs ever bit of the stark white background. In one, Ajuma wears a yellow and green dress reminiscent of the plumage of an exotic bird while holding a machine gun. In spite of the dress, Ajuma, with her closely cropped hair and somewhat androgynous appearance, could easily be mistaken for a young boy, or more aptly, a child soldier, much like the ones who are all too often shown on the evening news or in documentaries on Africa’s war torn regions. Is this ‘empowerment’ or is Westwood alluding to the ‘force’ she wants used to put models like Ajuma on the pages of Vogue and Elle?

Another image show Ajuma standing behind an armchair, casually holding the hand of a casually seated white male model who is also holding a gun while yet another has her alone, holding a spear.

Maybe it’s just my own irritation at this subject but I can’t help but wonder what the reaction would be if say Gisele or Kate Moss were photographed in this ‘safari chic’ manner nearly every time they appeared in an ad or editorial. Or better yet, as cavewomen? Wouldn’t it be promptly dismissed as tiresome or unoriginal? I have honestly seen Ajuma, and other black models, used in this exploitative manner dozens and dozens of times.

Where fashion used to be a fun past-time for me, it has now become repetitive and tiresome.

I’ve posted before about the refusal of some fashion photographers to view black female models as anything but an exotic other, to be dressed up in feathers or pelts to exploit their racial origins. To see this trend continued into yet another decade is troubling. Haven’t we made any progress?

As for Dame Westwood, to her I would say that although I appreciate her support of the struggle, maybe next time she should just send a check.

Photo source: BerlinRocks!/TFS

Colorlines Magazine
November/December 2007 Issue
www.colorlines.com

This entire issue of Colorlines is worth a full, thorough read, but here are a few of the articles that caught my eye:

Wasting Away in Margaritaville (p. 10)

Exploring the construction of mega-casino, Margaritaville (a $700 million dollar joint venture between Harrah Casino and Jimmy Buffet), the article points out how the people living and working in East Biloxi have been shut out of the city planning dialogue.

Q & A: Etan Thomas (p. 16)

A refreshing peek into the mind of an athlete who embraces speaking out about social and political political issues.

Inner Peace (p. 48)

Article Tagline: “As more Americans take to the mat, Black teachers use yoga to uplift their community.”

Bomb Magazine
Winter 2008 Issue
www.bombsite.com

This entire issue focuses on discussing the contemporary art scene in Brazil. Not to be missed: Adelia Prado’s poems “Opus Dei” and “The Dictator in Prison”; the excerpt from the new novel Jonas, by Patricia Melo; the interview with Bernardo Carvalho, in which he says “There is nothing further from posing than art. On the contrary, literature is the affirmation of truth.”

Glamour Magazine
January 2008 Issue
www.glamour.com

3 Condi Surprises (p. 29)

Condoleeza Rice wants to run for Governor of California, and may possibly run for Vice President in the future. I have no words.

.

GQ
December 2007 Issue
www.GQ.com

Nine Minutes at Virginia Tech (p. 254)

A moving interview with Derek O’Dell, one of the few students that was wounded in the attack but managed to survive.

Give This Man a Pulitzer (p. 260)

A profile of Josh Marshall, the main man behind Talking Points Memo. The article also includes an interesting take on the downfall of mainstream media and the new rise of blogosphere based investigative journalism.

Year of the Pig (p .272)

Next time I head to New York, I know exactly where I am going to eat – the Momofuku Ssam Bar. GQ provides a vivid and hilarious profile of chef David Chang, maverick chef and culinary innovator.

Details Magazine
November 2007
www.details.com

I am so done with Details. And yet, even though I terminated my subscription last year, I still skim it on the newsstand. Why? Articles like this one:

This Man Doesn’t Want Your Sympathy (p. 106)

Tagline: “Ten Years and a $9 million settlement haven’t bought Abner Louima peace.” Excellent follow up piece, with a lot of wry commentary from Louima. A sample quote, in reference to how people react when they see he is living comfortably in Floridia: “People are disappointed because they expected me, as a black man, to be stupid,” he said, “to get all this money and blow it in two years like I won the lottery.” Also, excellent racial commentary.

The Atlantic Monthly
December 2007
www.theatlantic.com

Goodbye to All That (p. 40)

From the article:

Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America – finally – past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in American in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly – and uncomfortably – at you.

At its best, the Obama candidacy is about ending a war – not so much the war in Iraq, which now has a momentum that will propel the occupation into the next decade – but the war within America that has prevailed since Vietnam and that shows dangerous signs of intensifying, a nonviolent civil war that has crippled America at the very time the world needs it most. It is a war about war – and about culture and about religion and about race. And in that war, Obama – and Obama alone – offers the possibility of a truce.

Teacher and Apprentice (p.56)

Article Tagline: “Hillary Clinton tried to teach Barack Obama about power, but then he got ideas of his own. A story of nasty surprises, dueling war rooms, and the Drudge Report.”

Scents and Sensibility (p. 80)

Article tagline: “How the author helped Afghans build a thriving soap and body-oil business – and overcame the imcompetence of America’s aid establishment.” A must read, particularly for those of us who wonder where all this money we are spending on rebuilding and redevelopment is going.

I always chuckle to myself when I hear someone say that other countries don’t have the same problems with race in the way we do in the US. I guess we aren’t reading the same media.

On my most recent perusal through the periodicals section of the bookstore,* I happened to come across a new imported magazine called Pride. The tagline reads “Celebrating the woman of colour.” I grabbed the magazine, excited at the potential. Is this finally the magazine that realizes that a black girl may have a latina or Asian or Arabic friend? Am I going to be treated to multicultural women perspectives?

Alas, no. Pride is geared toward black women in the UK. However, my disappointment was short lived as Pride is a treasure trove of perspectives on being black and British – which sound remarkably similar to being black and American.

In the Sista Circle section of the November 2007 issue, author Vanessa Walters chronicles the problems involved in dating a “wasteman:”

When Darwin developed his theory of evolution, he clearly forgot about the Wasteman – the man who hunts women and gathers children but doesn’t provide; the man not in the history books because he has no official name, just several aliases – one for every manor. Like Samuel L Jackson in The Long Kiss Goodnight, he’s Frank and Ernest: in New York he’s Frank and in Chicago he’s Ernest.

My ex was a classic wasteman. I used to carry a box of eggs in the glove compartment of my car; each time I passed his gleaming black BMW (we lived close by) – Kapow! Splat! Boom! Just on of those days that a girl goes through, when she’s angry inside and gonna take it out on you. What on earth did he do to deserve that? Oh, only lie, cheat, slap me in the face, try to bully me into taking out a 10,000 GBP loan for him – you know, the usual.

Whoa, we’re quoting Monica? Well, since we’re dredging up the ghosts of nineties music past, I would like to inform you that your wasteman is a garden variety scrub. Also known as a busta.

Moving on to the Man’s Point of View, Dotun Adebayo continues to stoke the flames of the black gender wars** in “How to Love a Black Man Without Being Shagged Out, Part 1:” ***

Black men are hard work, and when you decide to go soul to soul with a brotha, you’ve only got yourself to blame if you’re not prepared for the stress (and I don’t just mean of the double bed’s springs.) Because black men ain’t built for comfort. We’re rough riders/ Built to last. It’s in our DNA. We’re the survivors in this age of racist misphilosophy. How do you expect us to have gone through all we’ve been through and still be able to hold down a nice, easy, smooth, worry-free relationship?

[...]

So the number one rule in making love to a black man without being shagged out is to have a strong back. Otherwise you’ll snap under the pressure and then you’ll start playa-hatin’ on all brothas just because your man gave you agony and you didn’t have the backbone to hold it down.

Adebayo then asserts that all men have another woman they go to when their regular girl gets to be too much to deal with. (Yes, he did.) He continues his piece by explaining to women why they need to take advice from the woman on the side:

Now I know you ladies will be cussing me for suggesting that you need to learn lessons from the “other woman” about how to make love to your man without getting tired and disillusioned, but hear me out. How else could a woman who knows that she is little more than a curvy lovebox and whose name is scandalized on the streets as a slag or whore still be strong enough to ask your man to do anything he wants just as long as he is prepared to make sweet love to her every now and then? You’ve got everything – the man, the wedding ring, the kids, the beautiful home, the ways and means – while she has nothing but hopes and dreams. Yet she never tires of it. She is never shagged out. So how can you be sitting there telling me that you don’t know how anybody can love a black man without being exhausted from trying when the other woman you man is making love to is coping?

Yes. He. Did. I could spend all day on this article, but the next page holds a conversation called Couchtalk. Carole Campbell asks “Why do we hate seeing success from our own?” It is the British take on the oft-repeated black mantra that “we don’t support our own:”

The problem is that members of our community just do not like to support those of us who reach up and strive for success. This fact was further highlighted this week when I went to an Indian event with a couple of old friends from university. Again, there were a couple of technical hitches, and one poor model actually tripped over and fell off the stage, but everybody leaving the event could only speak about the good parts of the show. They were like a family visiting their uncle’s event: they only focused on the good and were proud of what was achieved.

That is our problem. While we speak of black pride, we do not exhibit much of it when it comes to others trying to excel.

Campbell then trots out a very familiar analogy – a friend’s father decides to “break the Asian monopoly of hair-product shops in Shepherd’s Bush.” Hmm…now where have we seen this discussion before?

I hit a little snag here though:

Prof Milton Brown from Howard University argues that, generally speaking, Afro-Americans support one another, while in the UK that does not happen.

For real? Hmm…sounds like I still hear the same speeches everytime I am around a group of black people discussing economics. Maybe it’s just me.

The rest of the issue covers a lot of the same ground as Essence does – diva style, celebrities, inspirational black women from the community, Karrine Steffans(!)****, Chaka and Solange, dating sins, and fashion.

Overall, it’s an enjoyable read.

Now, back to the bookstore! I need to see if they received December’s issue…if for nothing else than to finish Adebayo’s guide to life.

- – -

* I know, I know, I have a problem. They’re tryna make me go to rehab, but I said no, no, no!

** In the last piece, the woman speaking referred to a very specific group of men. The author in this piece says ALL women need to recognize. Hence why he gets charged with fanning the flames of the black gender wars.

*** I completely misinterpreted that statment thanks to my Austin Powers infused grasp of British slang. Shagged in this case does not mean sex. It means tired. Refund your plane tickets, ladies.

**** No, they did not put her under the “inspirational” category.