"Not because he was gay, but because it felt like another castration of unabashed black heterosexual manhood."

Brother Jimi,

I hear ya, but don't trip over that man!  You know, someone who has jokes might ask why you're so worried about the cover of Vogue. ;)  

It's easy to forget that, just like there are plenty of women that don't look Giselle, there are a lot of young brothers out there who don't have King James' body, game, or life and they spend a lot of time feeling bad about themselves.  

You really broke it down in the last paragraph there though.

You nailed it Jimi....

Annie is the shyt. This isn't even that controversal.  Just think if LBJ and miss Brady struck that John Lennon/Yoko pic pose.  Now that would be Controversy. I was hoping LBJ would wear a suit too but I see that he is plugging his athletic gear. Vogue wins, LBJ wins, Giselle reps Brazil and Annie has done it again without really trying hard.

That French cover is on another level.... but that's a female fashion mag.  I would have more of an issue if that was the cover of Black Enterprise or GQ.

Jimi,

Thank you so, so much for interpreting the Vogue cover for we overly sensitive black folk. Whatever would we do without you? Thanks for letting us know how we should think, feel, and write about race and for also letting us know that just because YOU think Annie Leibovitz is a brilliant photographer, we should too. You are so evolved, so different, so at the forefront of racial progressivism. Hopefully the editors at Vogue will snatch you right up--you deserve better than blogging for tired, reactionary, hung up black folk like us.

" Not because he was gay, but because it felt like another castration of unabashed black heterosexual manhood."

"...can we get a (straight) brother in a suit on the cover, in a dignified manner?"

Contradictory statements.  Immediately offensive to homosexuals.  Being a black homosexual, I encounter discrimination from all sides, and I certainly know it when I hear it....no matter how subtle.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT AN AFFRONT TO HETEROSEXUALITY.

Seeing a gay, black man on the cover of ANY magazine should not be the source of indignation.  A gay man who receives more exposure, does not diminish you heterosexuality.  He's simply a gay, black male, representing his niche.  

How can you insinuate that black people are being too sensitive about this Vogue thing, and in the same breath, jump off the deep end, when a a gay brotha is flashin' on Vogue?  It's this type of ignorance that keeps people from ever being united. I think it's time someone called you out!

Gay black men have just as much of a right to representation as straight black men.  

Homophobia-- much like racism-- can't be ignored by just trying to see the other point of view.  It's a problem...they're both problems.  I find neither of them tolerable.  

Furthermore, Vogue may not be in the business of social commentary, but they are aware of their impact on consumers, and the public as a whole.  Should we just ignore they're ploy to exploit racial tensions, so that they can sell more mascara?  Come on!  You know better than that!  There are about a million ways for Vogue to sell, and they've used a lot of them.  Surely, their marketing department can be more resourceful.

Don't use rhetoric to mask your ignorance. Racism is prevalent, and obvious on that vogue cover...and you know it.  You're comments paint you as a homophobe...and you know it.

It doesn't matter if Vogue wants to be in the Social Commentary business, the fact is that they are. And there is no question that Annie is...at what cost do you create controversy? How about a picture of Lebron dressed as a SS Stormtrooper on the cover? I bet you fifty that wouldnt make it on the cover..

http://www.afroamericanpie.com

thank you RazizaM!

"...can we get a (straight) brother in a suit on the cover, in a dignified manner? Please?"

...ignorance is bliss, and bliss is abounding in this article.

vogue is just loving the whole thing more money on their pockets, they wear prada for a reason.

you got the point.

Thanks everyone for reading, and I really appreciate the comments here.

It wasn’t my intention to sound “homophobic.” Rather, to the extent that we even need black men on the cover of women’s fashion magazines, and to the idea that this is a milestone of some sort, I question why we needed a bearded drag queen on the cover. I freely give that the image is artful and provocative, challenging conventional masculine tropes. However, it the picture read too close to gay samboism to me: gay black drag queen, as clown, not artist or provacateur (SP?). Europeans are fond of fetishing blackness in an artful way—this particular twist just turned me off.

I felt like the French Vogue cover was schlock. And that’s allowable—it’s OK that I have a critical opinion. That’s what I do. It doesn’t make me homophobic. It makes me discerning: it means I have my own ideas. We can agree to disagree.

I understand that the French Vogue cover is supposed to accomplish the same thing as the Lebron cover. Both offend, for different reasons. I’m convinced that there are images between ‘black-man-as-beast’ and’ black-man-as-woman’ that have not been explored by the mainstream, perhaps because the image of a straight black man, smile-less, at attention and smartly dressed, is threatening.  Because we haven’t seen black men on Vogue before, I think we have to consider both covers, side by side, and discuss the implications.

For some reason I wasn't upset when I saw the Vogue cover. I heard there was some controversy about it but when I first saw it I didn't see Lebron James as "Kong."  I did, however see a rich, successful black man/pro athlete with a white woman. Although, it's Giselle so I and lots of people are plenty aware that she is Brazilian I thought that was the controversy. Go figure. And I was really surprised that a black man and white woman on a cover of a mag was controversial.

Within the fashion industry, and Vogue is first a fashion magazine, Andre J is an of-the-moment person. Regarding the cover of French Vogue, well ruckus would be too strong a word but I do remembering reading on some other blog a little agitation about his presence not because he is gay or a drag queen but because it is so rare and hard for  Black female models to land covers.

What I do remembering thinking about is the shared cover. It's the cautionary move of sticking your toe into the tub to see just how hot (or cold) the water is before you put your whole body in. It made me think of think of Tyra Banks being the first Black woman on the cover of Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue in 1996. With Argentine model Valerie Mazza. Then after the issue still sold (shocker) they put Tyra on the cover alone the following year.

Bold cover images, but not to bold.

"but insofar as a black man even needs to be on the cover of a women’s fashion magazine, can we get a (straight) brother in a suit on the cover, in a dignified manner? Please? "

New to the forum, but am curious as to why the man has to be straight? Dignified, I get, but Vogues is a fashion magazine. There are TONS of gay men in fashion. Andre J may be paving the way for a young gay black man to get his foot in the door of fashion, Vogue, whatever.

I'm not completely familiar with your viewpoints, but it seems you think that "gay man" is an oxymoron. Sad to say, but that viewpoint is clearly part of the reason the rate of STDs amongst black people and black women is so high. (It won't take a genius to figure out that correlation).

Tea and Such, I think we all like to see ourselves reflected in popular media. I happen to be straight and black, so that's the reflection I'd like to see. Nothing bad or negative against or about gay men, or any of that stuff. No offense, but this needs to be said: The quicker the gay community stops trying to find homophobia and anti-gay sentiment in a ham sandwich, the better off we'll all be. It's ok to be straight and proud too.

Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.

I'm not trying to find phobias where there are none.  You've handed them to me.  Phobias, as you well know, can be both "overt" and "covert".  There was nothing about your article, or the Vogue cover, that made it even SLIGHTLY necessary to introduce sexual orientation to the equation.

Any writer who's worth the stationary on which he scribes, could rewrite your entire article, and make the same point...and, he'd do it without the mention of orientation.  However, those with phobias always have to find some way to make their ignorance/hatred/fear known.  Then, of course, they're pissed off when confronted.  

You could omit the third paragraph of your blog, entirely, and defend the same stance.  If you want to rid yourself of the burden of whiny homosexuals...do a better job of masking your homophobia.  Then, we won't have to respond to ridiculous claims.

Perhaps we should just stop the civil rights movement all together (what's left of it), because you think that black people just need to get over it.  I'd like to see where that leaves us.  

No offense, but this needs to be said:  The quicker folks realize that they're phobias shouldn't be used as ammunition, the better off we'll be.  

Sometimes, a hater is just a hater.

Jimi Izrael says, in reference to the VOGUE April '08 cover:

"Some see racism.

"Not me."

Then:

"Vogue is not in the social commentary business, or in business to beatify black people. They are in business to sell ads for mascara and feminine hygiene products. Controversy sells. And that’s the point."

I've heard this basic point made by both white and Black people about the cover.

However, I've yet to hear anyone say why the two are exclusive, that is, racism and marketing.

The same day Jimi Izrael published this piece, March 31, I wrote a post for my blog, *Media Assassin*, titled "Monkey See, Monkey Doo-Doo: How VOGUE 'Honoured' LeBron James by Smearing Black People with White Supremacy & Gorilla ***."

If you wish, you can see it here: http://harryallen.info/?p=363

I make the point of the date only because that was a full weekend after which a number of prominent sites had already posted the grotesque, 1917 Hopps poster on which Leibovitz based the VOGUE image.

As well, it was also shortly after a recent scientific study that further nails this issue, and a long-forgotten, similar debacle almost exactly twenty years earlier. I addressed all of these topics in my post.

In short, the problem with the Leibovitz photo is that it appears to be making fun of James on the basis of his physical characteristics. This is something that racists (white supremacists) often do.

My guess is that a careful and thoughtful review of all the facts will help readers and viewers see this more clearly.

Produce Justice,

Harry Allen

to  RazizaM

"HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT AN AFFRONT TO HETEROSEXUALITY"

How can it not be?  What is it then?   It is clearly an affront.  Otherwise there would be no way to distinguish one from the other.

"It wasn’t my intention to sound 'homophobic.'"  Of course it wasn't!  It was merely your intention to sound sophisticated.   But instead it was your ignorance that was showing. If you think a degrading depiction of African Americans (gay or straight, male or female) is permissable simply because it may have attention grabbing qualities -- or because the primary intention supposedly was to sell magazines and not to dehumanize us -- you are extraordinarily naive -- and frightening.  With black people like you around, who think of themselves as enlightened social commentators but are actually extraordinarily naive sycophants, we don't need racist politicians and racist cops to help us destroy ourselves.  We can do the job all by ourselves.