It was the general idea being expressed in the comments that one needs some sort of permission to black/white/brown up that I took umbrage at. If people want to do it, let them. And if people want to laugh/criticise, let them.

a) white person dresses/makes up as black or brown person – they’re being insulting and offending all black/brown people

Im not sure where or if that was insinuated in the thread, if anything the comments seemed to suggest context is important. Noone asked for a veto (or permission) from ethnic minorities about who can and cannot ‘black up’ rather it was critising something that was untactful and bizarre.

I have no problem with any kind of risque joke or art as long as i understand the thought behind it – assuming there is one. To me Alf Garnett is funny and i understand the subtlety; i cringe when im watching Borat or anything made by Sacha Baron Cohen. I suppose the difference is between being let in on a joke thats a self-parody and laughing at people whom you have no connection with simply because they ‘speak funny’. By the same token i find the blaxploitation of the 60s/70s and the gayploitation of the late 90s/00s equally shit.

Blacking up Kate Moss wasn’t racist nor should it be taken as such, it was however another example of the shallow thoughtlessness that bubbles up whenever the fashion/music/entertainment/press/political worlds decide to join the five rings of power and summon captain planet for another dose of radical chic.

It was the general idea being expressed in the comments that one needs some sort of permission to black/white/brown up that I took umbrage at. If people want to do it, let them. And if people want to laugh/criticise, let them.

My point about Prince William (or was it Harry ? these princes all look alike to me) is that according to the commenters here

a) white person dresses/makes up as black or brown person – they’re being insulting and offending all black/brown people

b) Royal dresses up as Nazi – they’re giving a big boost to and generally cheering up all Nazis.

?????????? Why aren’t the Nazis complaining about Royal insensitivity ?

=>”I’m sure the Chelsea players could dance better than Abhishek Bachchan.”

I’m sorry man, I have to object to this. Junior B is a very good dancer these days. Not as good as Hrithik, but still impressive (haven’t you seen Dus or Bluffmaster ?).

Not that this has anything whatsoever to do with the main topic of this thread, of course !

Oh, that’s the cover of the Mirror…

The Inde used Kate Moss to create controversy, get attention and make people buy the paper with a view to getting them to READ inside about Africa and what’s going on out there.

Whichever way you look at it, if they had put a another model on the front (whether they were black OR white) it wouldn’t have created such a stir. I’m not confirming that this makes it morally right but the strategy of creating a media buzz has worked, and the fact that we’re paying it such lip service proves this.

It seems slightly hypocritical to say that The Independent should have put a positive message on the front cover in the form of a black model when we are all sharp enough to know that people pay more attention to an issue when it is controversial or negative. How many newspapers do you know run stories about shiny happy people?

Also, some people suggest it should have been a black model on the front, why not a white one? You might think this is a ridiculous question to ask as the red issue is all about Africa BUT the problems out there pose a global issue which impacts everyone. There are white people in parts of Africa as well.

Black people ARE put on the front of magazines by the way. Naomi has graced the cover of Vogue many times, Beyonce and Jamelia are on every front cover of every women’s mag going at the mo, black footballers are on the front of titles such as GQ. I’d like to see statistics which prove to me that when someone has put a black person on the front of a title that their sales have fallen, before I believe this argument.

On another note, we’re increasingly using powerful words very flippantly. Racism is when a person believes one race is superior to another and I’m not at the moment convinced that putting a picture of a black Kate Moss on the cover is a case of racism in the purest sense of the word – unless someone can convince me otherwise. For example, if the Inde ran a special edition on poverty in India and ‘browned up’ Kate Moss, in all honesty, I don’t think I would have taken offence to it and I wouldn’t call it a racist act. Call me naive if you will but I’m open to a different explanation.

Here’s a question – who would you have chosen to put on the front cover?

1) Morally, given this issue was to help Africa, I think even a black model (Armani was editor remember) would have said something positive. But they used Kate Moss because she sells. And it once again reinforces the idea that putting black/brown people on the front of mags or newspapers (unless they’re blowing things up) don’t sell. Morally wrong, even if it is a clever PR trick. But this was not supposed to be about clever PR tricks.

2) Blacking up has traditionally had negative connotations – meaning the people blacked up were meant to play African or Asian caricatures. I.e., roles played to laugh at. Any return to blacking up, given it wasn’t even that long ago, will inevitably invite its cultural baggage. That baggage associated with blacking-up cannot be dismissed overnight. For more on this see Hannah Pool’s article.

oh and where is the 99% going to?

I’m so disappointed in you Bono…and you really rocked as a musician!

some thoughts:

would a black model be particularly representative of ‘Africa’?

would any one person be ‘representative’ of an entire continent? I think not. SHould anyone even be trying to represent an entire continent? why not leave off having a ‘person’ in terms of imagery. in any case, this obsession re: ‘representativeness’ is interesting.

something else that intrigues me reading these posts – the attitudes towards ‘blacking up’. now how can we ban people putting shoe-polish on their face and why would we want to! i’m curious as to this attitude – why is blacking up automatically bad? is it in itself bad? why so? is black = bad? it may have been in the past but so what? is someone ‘dressing up’ as ‘black’ automatically bad and why should we assume it to be the case. If i take a picture on myself and tint it black tomorrow will people assume i’m racist? why? why do we insist in ‘keeping’ ourselves within this discourse of white = superior and black = inferior? or assuming that black is still inferior? so if someone is ‘blacking up’ why should we automatically assume we know what they mean? these assumptions people make are intriguing. it reminds me of this ‘friend’i was talking to – he said oh you’re only ever going to be a brown person. ( in context of a discussion on racism and how all ‘white’ people think they are superior – this chap was asian) it made me think – hmm – so what’s wrong with being brown anyway – i’m perfectly fine with it even if you aren’t! in his mind he seemed to be accepting brown as inferior – if you’re going to give in to such discourse like that, it doesn’t matter if you never come across racism, you’ve done yourself down already. you’ve done yourself a disservice.

suggesting that ‘blacking up’ is automatically ‘wrong’ – what does that say about people’s attitudes towards ‘black’? – that perhaps they accept that black is ‘inferior’ and that it’s something ‘superior’ people ‘make fun of’ and that we musn’t let them get away with it! well perhaps that reaction is ‘keeping’ up those connotations and associations which don’t necessarily have to be kept up.

ah well.

All part of a marketing/business ploy for Chelsea to have a massive Indian following (what with India being a growth economy).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/5378958.stm

I just wish that Kate Moss would fuck off.

In my direction

Kate Moss IS an absolute travesty

lies! shes pretty to look at

Kate Moss is mingin anyway.

lies

Well, yes, it is at least in part. I don’t know whether she actually put on the make-up or a photo was doctored or if she was asked beforehand in the latter case, but has she said anything about a vile and contemptible display? If this was done without her permission I’m surprised she isn’t very pissed off- or does she think anything that gets you in the paper is OK?
“the ‘druggie’ comment is surely unnecessary.”
Again, One of the aims of the picture was to play on the “Kate Moss icon” image, which includes the use of drugs, so, yes, the “druggie” aspect is part of that image, so it goes with it.

Has there been any explanation from the Independent as to what they were trying to do and why? Or is it just all-purpose amorphous “if-you-don’t-get-it-you’re-uncool irony?

Designing a magazine page spread crrying an interview with F.W. de Klerk last year, we inverted his photo so all the whites were blacks and all the blacks were white. An easy trick but quite effective.

In both cases, as with the Kate Moss photo, surely the entire point being made is that skin colour does still ‘matter’, especially with regards to Africa. And that fact is what is most offensive, surely. The image of Moss is not lampooning Africa or Africans in itself. She’s not in any kind of traditional dress or with an afro or dreadlocks. The offensiveness of the image is derived from its association with earlier, negative stereotyping. The Independent knows this. That’s why they’ve done it.

Putting a black model on the cover would simply be a different message, so complaining on that issue is a red herring, I think. Nor is Kate Moss’ history an issue. As one of the most famous models in the world I cannot think of anyone more suited to being pictured for this particular concept.

Whether you think the concept is a good one or not is still an open question however. Persoanally I think its a lazy use of ‘shock factor’ to say something that has been said before in better ways. If she had been juxtaposed with a black model who was ‘whitened,’ would it have been as offensive?