hm. i find it tasteless as well, and i don't consider myself PC in the least on racial questions. there are many points of disagreemant between you (siddartha) & i on how we get to the same end point, but that's another thread.

Ah, them crazy whitefolks, what will they come up with next?

Seriously. I can't even believe that something like this still happens. I (mistakenly) thought that the negative connotation of blackface was well-known by now. For instance, Ted Danson donned blackface a while ago for some gag, and was roundly criticized. It's definitely the whole "We want to show we are in touch with African people, without having to actually (shudder) include any African people!"

And for reference, last time I checked human beings are never pitch black. Why don't they just have Kate stand there naked holding a big N*gg*r sign. It would have been more subtle.

razib_the_atheist,

"there are many points of disagreemant between you (siddartha) & i "

That should be "and me"

I think this was the point they were trying to make.

I'm not sure blackface has a universl connotation of racism, it may be just an american thing, but I could be wrong. As much as I love to call out bleeding hearts on racism, I think they were just trying to show solidarity. Plus, many--and more than a few Mutineers--have bemoaned "white standards of beauty," so having a white person look more black may very well serve to subvert this standard.

I have to agree with Manju on this [did I just say that? ;)]. I think that the intention of the picture was subversive - even provocative - in order to draw the readers attention to the issue in a new way.

Still, given the issues you discuss above, I don't know if this was done in the best taste.

Manju, the point is that if they wanted to show that we all have aids, they could have shown a group of people on the front page, rather than just Kate Moss, and instead of having a real black person on there, they decided to "blackface" her. And it's offensive no matter what country you're in because that's not a real skin colour, it's merely a literal depiction of "black" people.

Manju, the point is that if they wanted to show that we all have aids...

i didn't mean it literally, but as a way of saying "we are all african" or "we are all the same." one and all.

I'm not sure blackface has a universl connotation of racism, it may be just an american thing, but I could be wrong. As much as I love to call out bleeding hearts on racism, I think they were just trying to show solidarity. Plus, many--and more than a few Mutineers--have bemoaned "white standards of beauty," so having a white person look more black may very well serve to subvert this standard.

universal? well, check out black peter.

yep, their hearts were in the right place.

and yep, if white people talk about race no matter what they say there is a way to "take offense." (e.g., put a black african woman on the cover and some might say, "well, are they saying that HIV is a 'black disease'? why not universalize it."

that is why i say that though i find it tasteless and racist, how i get to that position isn't quite the same as others would say it was tasteless and racist.

You know, it is one thing if the cover is meant to be art, meant to be provocative, meant to be subversive or simply the vision of, well, an artist. But I don't think that is what is going on here? Is it? It's kinda weird. It's really weird, actually. What was the point?

Plus, Ms Moss is responsible, more than any other woman, for popularizing the skinny jean. I forgive her nothing.

hmm. "not a fashion statement." yet it says on their website that this special issue was guest-designed by giorgio armani. couldn't find an explanation for their rationale for the cover, its symbolism etc. evidently they thought it was self-explanatory, but i agree with md, what is the point of that statement and how does it correlate to moss and digitally altering her to try and look more african? is there some sort of editor's note in the issue itself explaining the reasoning behind the design?

no matter what they say there is a way to "take offense."

Tru Dat. It's a catch-22. Reminds me of the cosby show. when it first came out many bemoaned it as portraying blacks acting white in order to make them more palpable to americans. But of course, if you show a black acting black, then you're steroetyping. there's no way out.

but i see blackface goes beyond the US. next year, they should just paint naiomi white.

Wow I don't know what to say. Speechless. What is the article about? There are so many people other than the obvious faces of AIDS in Africa that are suitable for the cover. If they wanted glam and Africa Waris Dirie would have been more appropriate!!

But of course, if you show a black acting black, then you're steroetyping. there's no way out.

No, Manju, there is no way out. My heart bleeds for you.

No, Manju, there is no way out. My heart bleeds for you.

Siddhartha, I know it's safer to hide behind vagueness, but if you got something to say...spit it out.

There are sooooo many more images that could have been used for an "Africa Issue." This extends even beyond choosing a black super model. Here's an idea, why couldn't they show the people they are trying to help by donating the day's proceeds? Or how about you choose a picture that celebrates the colors and culture of the continent in order to show how AIDS is affecting that culture? At the very least, choose someone who, unlike Kate Moss, is actually attractive!!!!

Oh, I've already said what I have to say. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

I don't see tasteless or racist, I see provocative art. The Guardian article (that is outraged by the potrait) asks rhetorically

what does it say about race today when a quality newspaper decides that its readers will only relate to Africa through a blacked-up white model rather than a real-life black woman?

Yes, what does it say? It says that African lives aren't worth as much as European lives to Europeans. It says the same thing as all those interviews with white model and Tsunami survivor Petra Nemcova say. Tragedies don't matter unless a pretty white woman is involved (see Natalee Holloway). It's a good cover -- it makes you think, intentionally or not.

It's a good cover -- it makes you think, intentionally or not.

sum thoughtz are unacceptable.

If you don't get it, you don't get it.

This has become a popular phrase. In this paradigm, there is no argument, no reasonable disagreement. Opponents simply "just don't get it." End of story. I first noticed it in regards to issues of sexual harrasment, but now I see my fellow right-wingers using it to describe opponents of the war on terror.

Ok, I heard somewhere else that they supposedly changed Kate Moss' features too look more black and I must really not know what she looks like 'cause all I see is Kate Moss dunked in a bucket of paint. Lack of imagination perhaps?

Manju, I'm not buying the "we are the world" theory. [sarcastic wit] If they wanted that they could have gotten a horde of black models to put on the cover and made them wear "native dress" which would regressively immodest and attract more readers. [/sarcastic wit] Does that mean that this particular photo shoot was concocted in willful rascism? Doubtful. It was concocted in willful arrogance and that is just as deplorable.

I often blog about Indian films. I read a horde of filmi (and sociopolitical) blogs every day. Part of the reason I do that is because I’d be full of crap if I thought I could write about cultural elements that I’ve only peripherally embraced without (in a sense) inviting with those whose culture I’m supposedly embracing to be a very visible part of that experience.

What else does that tell us about Georgio Armani and the whole Independent crew? They’re all for “helping” so long as they (non-Africans) can remain the visible and dominant force in the work being done.

Razib, if Armani called up a couple of the glamorous African models he has access to as a world-class designer and asked if he thought he should paint Kate Moss black or get an African model and they were like, “OMG! Painting Kate Moss black would totally represent Africa!” then he would be in the clear AND have an alibi wouldn’t he?

The subtitle is “The Africa Issue”. It’s not racist to say that AIDS has more than decimated the population there. It’s not racist to say that the population in Africa has dark skin. It’s striking to me that in spite of the other changes they made her hair is untouched. It shows they were well aware of the negative connotations of changing her skin color and didn’t want to push the envelope. [eg “bad/Afro” hair]- So much for subverting the standard of beauty.

"well, are they saying that HIV is a 'black disease'? why not universalize it."

That’s stretching it don’t you think? Hopefully enmasse we are not as hypocritical as that. If the people behind this cover really subscribed to the view that 'we are all Africans'; Why does the African that represents all of us have to look like Kate?

This has become a popular phrase. In this paradigm, there is no argument, no reasonable disagreement. Opponents simply "just don't get it." End of story. I first noticed it in regards to issues of sexual harrasment, but now I see my fellow right-wingers using it to describe opponents of the war on terror.

you want to analyze. some people aren't feeling it. end of story. and yeah, i think your analogy is right, speaking as someone who "conservative" on race and "liberal" on the war.

then he would be in the clear AND have an alibi wouldn’t he?

he's rich. rich people aren't racist in public explicitly cuz it costs them money & time. when they are racist it is usually a "slip," or cuz they are being patronizing, blah, blah, blah. people know the broad outlines of what to say and not to say about race. stuff like this happens because they are "not racist" by following a rule book, not by reflecting on the role of race in society.

Tru Dat. It's a catch-22. Reminds me of the cosby show. when it first came out many bemoaned it as portraying blacks acting white in order to make them more palpable to americans. But of course, if you show a black acting black, then you're steroetyping. there's no way out.

The irony of that statement (with the benefit of bolding) speaks for itself.

What the cosby show did, was show that all black people in real life do not "act black" as you so kindly put it. That they span the gamut of human existence and experience, in addition to sharing commonality at being an ethnic community, and this ethnic community is not a natural community rather a forged one, in that each member has the collective historical experience of slavery, sanctioned discrimination, etc.. (Gospel, Jazz, Blues, Tap dancing, Hip Hop/Rap, breakdancing, etc. all have that historical collective as their foundation, and many of these elements were highlighted in the Cosby Show) It showed that Theo could want to be a rapper (something traditionally "black") and still get nervous about asking a girl to a prom (something traditionally "white")

"The irony of that statement (with the benefit of bolding) speaks for itself."

the statement isn't an irony, it is a recitation of the mixed response to the cosby show, and one of cosby's stated reasons for starting thee how.

"What the cosby show did, was show that all black people in real life do not "act black" as you so kindly put it. That they span the gamut of human existence and experience, in addition to sharing commonality at being an ethnic community, and this ethnic community is not a natural community rather a forged one, in that each member has the collective historical experience of slavery, sanctioned discrimination, etc.. (Gospel, Jazz, Blues, Tap dancing, Hip Hop/Rap, breakdancing, etc. all have that historical collective as their foundation, and many of these elements were highlighted in the Cosby Show) It showed that Theo could want to be a rapper (something traditionally "black") and still get nervous about asking a girl to a prom (something traditionally "white")"

thanks for being the resident "blackologist."

just to be precise HMF, i happen to agree with your whole paragraph. but so what? i can still imply that you have some bizarro-ass motivation.

I don't think they were trying to represent 'Africa' on the cover. Yes, the objective was to highlight the plight of AIDS sufferers in Africa, but, they were trying to reach a British audience with this picture to get them involved. Kind of like a call to the Brits to start caring about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. In that sense they probably took someone that represents an average (save the supermodel looks, body, money, etc) Brit and 'black-face' her to show that we are all Africans. Yes, there are African-Brits (Is that the correct PC term?) but, they are not the average joe on the street. In a weird way of looking at this, it is kind of like soccer players exchanging jerseys after a match with their opponents. What better way to exchange jerseys here than to make an average Brit appear to be African.

Could they have placed an African model on the cover and achieved the same, maybe even better, results? Well, for one, we wouldn't really be talking about this now would we? In a subversive kind of way they got people talking. Now hopefully people get beyond the controversy of the cover and actually see that the intentions were good, albiet a little mis-guided.

What the cosby show did, was show that all black people in real life do not "act black" as you so kindly put it.

exactly. and some find this notion offensive, ie "acting white" not being authentically black. Uncle tom, brown sahib, etc. you take offensive to me saying "blacks acting black" as if i believe there is a black way to behave. there isn't, i didn't put "black" in quotes b/c i thought it was self evident.

but there's no way out.

This is why comedy is so popular, it's the only place an honest discussion of race can take place.

I saw another version of this same idea/campaign in another magazine. Two famous actors,I believe both white, splashed with brown paint so it covered their faces half way, and the splash perhaps looked vaguely like Africa? And it was again this idea of "we are all africa, and here is the unbelievably clever way we are going to show it."

I even kind of get a little confused by the "when one of us has aids, we all have aids" ads, which is the same idea. It's like ..well, no, that's not true at all.

I'm hyper aware, today, of the important of empahsizing our interconnectedness with each other. But saying--"this person is incredibly important t me, this person is like my family, this person deserves the same regard and respect as the closest people in my life"--is not the same as saying this "person IS ME." the first is subtle and compassionate, the second is jarring and disrespectful. Unfortunately the second is a lot easier to photograph.

well, no, that's not true at all.

grrrl, wut duz "truth" have to do with anything? power is truth!

After earlier briefly mentioning The Independent cover photo in the Borat thread (#20) - it gets its own.

I don't think it was the intention of The Independent to come across as racist, although that was the effect, to me anyway. But it seems to be unintentional, simply because the Wesrern press is so insular, it cannot fathom how such a picture will anger readers.

On Chappelle Show's, Paul Mooney was reviewing films, and commenting on the idiocy of Hollywood when it comes to casting minorities, said about The Last Samurai, "Tom Cruise is The Last Samurai? Then here's my next film. The Last Nigger in America, starring Tom Hanks."

"the statement isn't an irony, it is a recitation of the mixed response to the cosby show, and one of cosby's stated reasons for starting thee how."

I wasn't referring to the criticism, I was referring to the "black acting black" part., I guess the light in the room refracted off a glass cup striking your monitors pixels in the exact location where this statement was "The irony of that statement (with the benefit of bolding) speaks for itself." Happens all the time.

"thanks for being the resident "blackologist.""

Why can't I have a female arch-enemy here? At least, that way people could assume we have the hots for each other

"Why can't I have a female arch-enemy here? At least, that way people could assume we have the hots for each other"

why are you assuming that this forum is so heternormative? if your assumption reflects the tenor of these boards than that is a reflection of the moderators i suppose and their choice of posting material.

"exactly. and some find this notion offensive, ie "acting white" not being authentically black."

Why the binary classification? And the major criticism levied has to do with the Cosby show's lack of discussion about race, and race issues. Not that they aren't "black" enough. When you take a family show for the most part deals with the problems of parenting, adolescence, usually ending on a positive note, with parents imparting positive values, etc.. and go on to state the show isn't "black" enough, there is inherent racial bias in said context.

Why the binary classification?

white racists started it and black identitarians and white sensitarians help perpetuate it.

i.e., the rule of hypodescent applies to people of african ancestry. tiger woods, who is 1/4 black african ancestrally is a 'black golfer.' dean cain, who is 1/4 japanese ancestrally is not a 'japanese actor' (keanu reeves chinese ancestry does not make him a 'chinese actor').

"Could they have placed an African model on the cover and achieved the same, maybe even better, results? Well, for one, we wouldn't really be talking about this now would we? In a subversive kind of way they got people talking. Now hopefully people get beyond the controversy of the cover and actually see that the intentions were good, albiet a little mis-guided."

i think maybe that was the point, not any conscious racism (although unconscious maybe, maybe not). moss attracts attention both from detractors (due to her drug scandal) and worshippers in the fashion world/public who think she is the be all and end all of models. the photo was shot, at armani's request - i guess he picked moss as well, by nick knight (who apparently features work by moss at his own studio), a famous fashion photographer apparently known for this "blackened" skin technique. the whole issue benefits bono's Project Red, and i'm not sure how many would accuse bono of being a racist. in the end it just comes across like a lot of fashion photography and fashion shows - pretentious masquerading as something really meaningful. it's just a celebrity-insiders project that in its own typically detached celebrity way will end up raising money for a good cause in the end.

And the major criticism levied has to do with the Cosby show's lack of discussion about race, and race issues.

The Fresh Prince of Bel Air did deal with these issues and people did appreciate it. Like when the boys got arrested for driving the father's Mercedez because of the assumption that they had stolen it.

" the rule of hypodescent applies to people of african ancestry. tiger woods, who is 1/4 black african ancestrally is a 'black golfer.' "

From Wiki:

"Woods's father, Earl Woods, was a Vietnam War veteran and a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, of mixed African American (50 percent), Chinese (25 percent) and Native American (25 percent) ancestry."

With all your grandstanding about factual errors, you seem to make your fair share. Perhaps you might consider reducing your post rate to 400 posts/min? And my question pertained to the term "acting white" and "acting black" , nothing to do with hereditary traits, in the sense, that if someone acts too "white" they are not "black" enough.

"why are you assuming that this forum is so heternormative"

Gee, I don't know.

"This makes Woods himself one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch.[4] "

Shit my bad, they were talking about his father, you got it.

HMF:

Coz was criticized (not by me) for not being black enough. It's an arguemnt that goes beyond coz. "Authentic" black popular culture, in this world view, is identified with low culture. Coz was seen as more integrationist and pandering to whites, much like malcom X criticized MLK. Contrast the way Heathcliff spoke to the way say richard pryor does and you catch their drift. As I said, it goes way beyond coz, look at what newark major cory booker had to put up with. The former major, sharpe james, portrayed himself as authentically black...corruption and all.

So if you're coz or booker and want to placate your critics all you have to do is act "black". (i put it in quotes this time so you don't interpret this as me saying there is a black way to behave). But guess what, you still have a problem, now your perpetuating negative steroetypes of blacks.

So that's my point. There's no way out.

i am fine with people cathing me in errors. happens all the time. the world is better for it :-)

they should have used stills from this bollywood film instead:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nhzGesSusL8

Ah, them crazy whitefolks, what will they come up with next?

That's what I always think when I see this kinda stuff. For some reason I was also reminded of when Time magazine's artist darkened O.J. Simpson's face on the mag. cover...apparently to make him look more sinister?

"Coz was criticized (not by me) for not being black enough. It's an arguemnt that goes beyond coz. "Authentic" black popular culture, in this world view, is identified with low culture."

Whoa whoa, I'm talking about the sociological function of a TV show, not a person. Bill Cosby and his personal views are another matter. Richard Pryor is a pure stand up comedian, Cosby started out this way, but branched into more mainstream forms of entertainment, ie TV. My point is, if we take the frame of reference of the TV show - the characters showed that being black isn't necessaraily being "black" - and that doesn't mean they're being "white" , or "more white"

Cosby as a person however, I can see being criticized as pandering, vis a vis the statements he makes in the media, etc.

Malcolm's criticism of MLK had to do with non-violence's ineffectiveness in the US context, this is especially true towards the later years of his life, post Mecca. And the context is entirely different, there the primary concern was basic civil rights, the right to work, to attend school, etc...

What about the black UK angle? My understanding is that the great majority of blacks in the UK are from the Carribean, or has African immigration reduced their percentage? SES-wise, I believe the Afro-Carribeans are doing fairly well. Would Jai or other UK mutineers shed some light on the perceptions of black Britishers by the white British public?

HMF: I always thought Malcolm X was less likely to advocate violence and more, well, mellow, after visiting Mecca and seeing different races interacting as one cohesive group of Muslims? That's how I remember reading the autobiography anyway....but it was 20 odd years ago when I read the book. Did I remember it so incorrectly all these years?

employment patterns by race. education by race. A2. Who is most affected by HIV/AIDS in the UK?:

Ethnicity:

In 2005, 7,208 reported HIV diagnoses were made in the UK. Among the 5,848 people whose ethnicity is known, 39% were white, 51% black-African, 3% black-Caribbean and 7% of other or mixed race.6

HIV infection in black Caribbeans in the United Kingdom:

"The rate of AIDS among black Caribbeans in the United Kingdom was known to be three times higher than in the majority white population nearly 10 years ago.2 The potential for heterosexual spread of HIV within Britain’s black Caribbean community is well recognised because of the high risk of gonorrhoea and chlamydia in people from black Caribbean backgrounds3–7 and the facilitating effect of bacterial sexually transmitted infections on HIV transmission.8 It is, however, the absence of an HIV epidemic that has been remarked upon because of the paradox whereby black Caribbeans have the highest rates of bacterial sexually transmitted infections but black Africans in the United Kingdom bear the highest burden of HIV of any ethnic group with much lower rates of other sexually transmitted infections.9 The apparent lack of spread of HIV to black Caribbeans has been attributed to assortative (like with like) sexual mixing within ethnic groups.9

The extensive HIV epidemic among Britain’s black African communities distracts attention from HIV in black Caribbeans. New HIV diagnoses in black Africans now exceed those in white people,10 although black Africans comprise only 0.8% of the population.11 By contrast, there were reassuringly few new HIV diagnoses in black Caribbeans in 2002 (table 1Go). We need to look at rates of infection, however, to put things in perspective. The rate of newly diagnosed HIV infections is 12 times higher in black Caribbeans than in the white population (table 1Go). This is about the same as the ethnic difference in gonorrhoea rates6 that has generated widespread alarm.1"

Whoa whoa, I'm talking about the sociological function of a TV show, not a person

i was using coz as shorthand for the cosby show.

Malcolm's criticism of MLK had to do with non-violence's ineffectiveness in the US context, this is especially true towards the later years of his life, post Mecca. And the context is entirely different

part of the NOI appeal was a rejection of white culture and an attempt to create a seperate black society, based not on the white mans values.

My point is, if we take the frame of reference of the TV show - the characters showed that being black isn't necessaraily being "black" - and that doesn't mean they're being "white" , or "more white"

That's my point too.

Kate Moss was a drug addict. Big deal. It's not the moral flaw people are making it out to be.

As for the poster, it's not as original as one might think. It simply fuses the concepts from two precursor campaigns.

One is Benetton's Colors magazine, which made of tame racial "transgressions" a visual style that was firmly married to the flogging of over-priced polo shirts. It screamed "our society is hypocritical" while appealing to the only-mildly subversive tendencies of a segment of the middle-classes who in any case soon jettisoned Benetton for Ralph Lauren and, as that became passé, Lacoste.

The other is Gwyneth Paltrow's recent and widely pilloried poster that showed her (without blackface- in fact with only a synechdochic stripe of color on her cheek) making the declaration, in all her peroxide glory, "I am African." Sure you are, my sweet, sure you are.

Two fundamental cankers rot this whole trend. One is that Africa is faddish just at this moment, a subject that the New York Times addressed recently, from the Namibia-birthing Angelina Jolie (shut the whole nation down), to the ego-tripping U2 frontman, to the "genocide is uncool!" brigades of newly-hatched Darfur activists. Africa today, tomorrow Japanese animation or finger-transplants, the day after whatever catches the fancy of marketers and "consumer" focus-groups.

The other canker is that tying good causes to the capitalist project is as inevitable (in the current set-up) as it is doomed. That temptation to try to make some dough while transforming the world for better is hard to resist.

"I am African" or "I am Indian" or "I am a one-legged Chinese rice-farmer with explosive flatulence" means nothing, unless you really are those things. It's a false "I am," and all it really means is "I thank my lucky stars I'm not."

Appropriation is only the tip of this iceberg.

The bulk of it, the unspeakable larger portion, is human greed and callousness, the willingness to dance on the misery of others, as part of the wide-range of entertainment options available. Where some good is actually done, it often has more to do with the do-gooder's ego than anything else. For a nuanced (and controversial) take on this, see Zizek's article on Bill Gates. Gates and Soros are simply (larger and more palatable) extensions of what waifish Kate's up to here.

We need a new way of thinking about what we owe each others. We can't assume that the market will create the necessary ethics, and neither can we assume that ethics ith a thurbub of London.

I recently talked to a billionaire venture capitalist genetics guy. He part-owns and runs a big drugs farm. "We can't think about Africa," he said to me, "no one can. The only drugs we can spend time and money developing are the ones that will pay for themselves. Unfortunately, Africans can't make it worth my while to pump a few hundred million into a new therapy. My stock-holders would never go for it. That's capitalism for you. And there isn't a damn thing we can do about it."

He was sorry for it, and so was I. The truth is that there's no less a question mark hanging over my head than over his.

Okay thanks razib. UK blacks are obviously facing difficulties, so i was misinformed. damn.

"part of the NOI appeal was a rejection of white culture and an attempt to create a seperate black society, based not on the white mans values."

And part of Malcolm's transformation was rejection of and by the NOI, and forming the more global OAAU.

" I always thought Malcolm X was less likely to advocate violence and more, well, mellow, after visiting Mecca and seeing different races interacting as one cohesive group of Muslims?"

He never advocated violence. He advocated self defense. But after his first trip abroad, including the Hajj, he did reject many of the tenets purported to him by Elijah Muhammed, namely the all whites are devils, etc... But he still believed in defending oneself when pushed into a corner.

Ah, thanks for the correction and thanks for the reply. Can't argue with any doctrine of self-defense, myself.

Mr. Kobayashi - there's nothing a billionaire can do about it? Huh. I can think of something he can do.....

"I am African" or "I am Indian" or "I am a one-legged Chinese rice-farmer with explosive flatulence" means nothing, unless you really are those things.

Ever since JFK, pop culture and celebrities have appropriated the "I am ..." to fit whatever agenda they have to push, regardless of what it really means.

i think gwyneth is smoking. too bad she's racist cuz she doesn't hook up with the brown :(

"I am African" or "I am Indian" or "I am a one-legged Chinese rice-farmer with explosive flatulence" means nothing, unless you really are those things.

So how come you are so sure, unless you are all of the above?

Right on Mr. Kobayashi. I couldn't have said it better than you in #49.

Hey desitude, I ain't from the UK but I know this film would never get off the ground here in the US:

'It's going to be the flagship programme for racism. If you're a racist, and you want something to beat black people over the head with, here comes Shoot the Messenger. It's the BNP's calling card.'

This is the verdict of Toyin Agbetu, of the media campaign group Ligali, on the 90-minute BBC drama Shoot the Messenger. Originally entitled F*ck Black People, it has already provoked an angry reaction from some within the black community.

White guilt gets the best of white people some times.

Ew.

White Liberal Guilt exposed in all it's ugly, misinformed, patronising glory.

We are not 'all Africa.' Standing in solidarity with AIDS sufferers does not equate to getting a cokehead supermodel to paint her face black, thicken her lips, flesh out her emaciated frame and call it a day. Oh, and there's a poster too!

What the hell were the editors of the Independent thinking? They were right about one thing, it's NOT a fashion statement.

It's a statement indicating the nature of the insidious racism underlying Western society, particularly British society with is sizeable population of Black Britons, that they couldn't find one African model to grace the cover instead.

I guess non-white people only make the cover when they're some emaciated African kid or American-funded terrorist. I don't know how this ever got to the newsstands without someone realising what they were doing. Maybe the Independent execs were too full of their meal of red beans and rice to see that 'blackface' is never a good idea.

just some perspective. about 8% of britons are non-white. about 30% of americans are non-hispanic and/or non-white.

t-Hype, I believe it was shown in the US.From the link you sent -

The film has been shown at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York and won its writer, Sharon Foster, the Dennis Potter Screenwriting Award.

"White guilt gets the best of white people some times."

No idea what you mean by this,

With regards to 'Shoot the Messenger', which t-hype highlighted - the problem isn't as much that the writer wants to show that black people in the UK can also be to blame for their own problems (duh) but rather that the only time there is a programme about black people, there is a majorly negative connotation. The last time the BBC did a program featuring a black person talking about his community it was called 'Who you callin a nigger?' and had one guy (you guessed it) pointing out problems within his own community. There is nothing aspirational and negative/positive in the way, let's say Meera Syal's Life Isn't All Ha Ha Hee Hee was, for black people.

Of course this narrative now extends to Muslims - with most discussions about them framed in a context around terrorism or (lack of) integration.

With regards to the original post, someone above said: "it makes you think, intentionally or not."

I think the paper's aim was more to get a reaction, which is highly stupid given it was the rare issue focused exclusively on a moral issue that should not need to be made into a fashion statement. The Indy tries to get a reaction every day otherwise anyway with its screaming headlines. It has embarassingly become the Daily Mail for liberals.

i dont like the cover.. it's racist.. a better cover would have been a whole lot of different faces of all colours & hues to form the shape of the map of Africa..

i dont like the cover.. it's racist.. a better cover would have been a whole lot of different faces of all colours & hues to form the shape of the map of Africa..

how about bits & pieces of gwyneth paltrow assembled into a map of africa?

The Independent ran this front-page image in honor of its “Africa issue” with half of the day’s revenues to help fight AIDS on the continent.

Well, at least there doing something, which is more than most. Bono, Gates, Buffet, Paltrow--these guilt ridden liberals that are being mocked as racists--aren't going to solve any problems (that won't happen until Africa liberalizes, especially economically) but maybe they can supply a bridge loan of sorts to this end.

Only Africans can save Africa, but one thing we can do is stop spending billions subsidizing our agricultural sector, which leads to chronic overproduction and the dumping of surpluses on global markets, making it imposible for africa to compete.

don't hate on the paltrow. puleez.

Racist? I don't really think so. But it is definitely patronizing. *Especially* coming from a white person. If it were me, I would have used 3 different models. One Black, one Indian, one E. Asian. THEN, I might have switched the ethnicities around. 3 different covers. So maybe have a black woman saying "I'm Chinese." That way they could have spotlighted how HIV is affecting Africa, India, and China.

Whoever said this cover gets people talking is right. We ARE talking. But we aren't talking about HIV... which makes me doubt the sincerity of the campaign.

The rule of hypodescent applies to people of african ancestry. tiger woods, who is 1/4 black african ancestrally is a 'black golfer.' dean cain, who is 1/4 japanese ancestrally is not a 'japanese actor' (keanu reeves chinese ancestry does not make him a 'chinese actor').

From my experience, the general rule for most observers regarding mixed-race people... is that the person is associated with the racial group he most resembles. If Tiger Woods looks black, he is black. If Keanu Reeves looks white...
Of course this just highlights the silliness and superficiality of most discourse on race.

Speaking of assumptions... I don't buy the idea that the negative behavior described in this or other threads is inherently "white"... unless I was out of town the day all the other races transcended the limitations of human nature...

If white people putting black paint is offensive, then what do you think about the movie 'the party' movie? I liked the movie and the Peter Sellers.

What do you think about the movie 'the party' movie? I liked the movie and the Peter Sellers.

His character in that movie was pretty much Inspector Clouseau with a suntan... and Sellers never got any heat for making the "Pink Panther" series. Of course jokes and stereotypes within a racial group are usually seen as a lesser wrong... more bad manners than malice... i.e. Americans ridiculing the French or the Irish... Indians making fun of Sikhs, etc...

If Tiger Woods looks black, he is black. If Keanu Reeves looks white...Of course this just highlights the silliness and superficiality of most discourse on race.

subjective. oprah winfrey asked tiger how he felt when people "saw a black man." well, many americans might, but many asians "see an asian." race is a genetic reality, but its perception is high subjective. many part-asian "whites" are clearly part-asian post facto.

one thing we can do is stop spending billions subsidizing our agricultural sector, which leads to chronic overproduction and the dumping of surpluses on global markets, making it imposible for africa to compete.

but many asians "see an asian."

Did they "see an asian" before he got famous? Razib, can you please define (clearly and in layman's terms) what it is to be black? Also, can you define an exact moment when a person ceases to be a member of one race, and becomes another? Because you seem to have this idea that black americans are somehow not actually black... which I really don't get.

"race is a genetic reality, but its perception is high subjective. many part-asian "whites" are clearly part-asian post facto."

skin-reflectance (that wonderful metric I was introduced to, by, hmm, who was it?) is a genetic reality, race in so far as it limits the amount of privelage or lack thereof is purely social.

Of course jokes and stereotypes within a racial group are usually seen as a lesser wrong... more bad manners than malice... i.e.... Indians making fun of Sikhs, etc...

Ask the objects of this ridicule oh I mean 'jokes' how much of a lesser wrong it is...or how lacking in malice it is.

Ask the objects of this ridicule oh I mean 'jokes' how much of a lesser wrong it is...or how lacking in malice it is.

Perception does not equal reality. Lots of people think such conduct is harmless, but that does not mean they are right...

Did they "see an asian" before he got famous?

how am i supposed to know? they probably would have thought he was a low class thai, as lower class southeast asians (in thailand that means little chinese admixture) are stereotyped as dark-skinned. i suspect tiger could actually pass as cambodian, some of them have curly hair and are generally darker than other southeast asians.

Razib, can you please define (clearly and in layman's terms) what it is to be black? Also, can you define an exact moment when a person ceases to be a member of one race, and becomes another? Because you seem to have this idea that black americans are somehow not actually black... which I really don't get.

black? that's socially constructed. e.g., many americans who are more than 50% white ancestrally are "black." as for "racial membership," on can assign with probabilities membership of a particular group for particular individuals depending on the information you have. but in any case, they key for genetics is thinking in terms of populations (this was darwin's key insight, and reaffirmed by thinkers such as ernst mayr in the 20th century in relation to evolutionary biology). populations are quite separable given information. a lay person's way would be to think of it this way:

you have three humans: a, b, c.

you are told, that

a has blonde hair
b has black hair
c has black hair

you know with a high probability that a is probably european (some aborigines are blonde). but what about b or c? black hair is common, so more information

you are told that
b has straight black hair
c has tightly curled black hair (you can define the tightness of the curl via a geometrical definition, or, you can define the shape of the follicle, as that correlates closely with hair curliness)

with c the high probability is now that they are african (some other groups, e.g., melanesians might qualify, but their numbers are small)

but what about b?

you are now told that b has an epicanthic fold. now you have narrowed down b to eastern asia.

with genetics the principle is the same. given a finite set of genes it is rather easy to ascertain populational identity because the intersection of particular alleles tend to exhibit population specific signatures. please see question 4 for a.w.f. edwards (a statistical geneticist) and question 7 for luigi cavalli-sforza. for more on my perspective, you can get my perspective by following the exchange here. also, the granularity is now being extended to europeans, as one can distinguish between northern and southern to a non-trivial probability.

for a readable exposition of race in a genetic context, i also recommend richard dawkins ancestor's tale, starting on page 406. you can also read his essay here, but it seems to have gone behind the pay window. i recommend amazon search inside.

you are now told that b has an epicanthic fold. now you have narrowed down b to eastern asia.

Epicanthic folds are not unique to east asians and are quite prominent in certain parts of Africa... Actually, there are many characteristics that occur naturally in people of other races without needing to mix.

If you can only *clearly* define race in terms of population means, then how do you precisely measure out an individual? I am not saying that Tiger is just black, but if you are going to nitpick about his race, you should have some guidelines for when an individual stops being one race in favor of another. Especially when that individual looks more phenotypically average for the race that he supposedly isn't.

Epicanthic folds are not unique to east asians and are quite prominent in certain parts of Africa... Actually, there are many characteristics that occur naturally in people of other races without needing to mix.

yes. but look at the heuristic, we already eliminated groups with curly black hair. the intersection of traits is the key. there is a great deal of variation between and within groups on traits where groups intersect, but, the overlap of traits tends to characterize groups.

If you can only *clearly* define race in terms of population means, then how do you precisely measure out an individual? I am not saying that Tiger is just black, but if you are going to nitpick about his race, you should have some guidelines for when an individual stops being one race in favor of another. Especially when that individual looks more phenotypically average for the race that he supposedly isn't.

nitpick about his race? he's 1/2 asian genetically. he's 1/4 african. i don't feel like there is any room to nitpick. tiger has been clear that his asian heritage is not to be trivialized. many americans, white and black, implicitly or explicitly reject this and hold to a rule of hypodescent. that's their privilege, just as it is tiger's privilege to accept the range of his ancestry and heritage (which includes therevada buddhism as a prominent locus from what i am to understand).

if you want "individual measurements," you can go with kits like ancestry by DNA. i've criticized these tests before on methodological grounds, but, they give a rough measure of genomic ancestry for particular populations.

Especially when that individual looks more phenotypically average for the race that he supposedly isn't.

unless you go by morphometric analysis, most of these ascertainments are subjective at the boundaries. human gestalt perception doesn't have the precision and accuracy that genetic analysis does obviously (e.g., many melanesians "look african," but are genetically as distant from africans as east asians, and far closer to east asians on the phylogenetic trees).

let me "unpack" the issues to their base. i reject the concept that there are platonic races with clear boundaries. there aren't. rather, human populations are clusers of discrete genetic lineages. the substructure is elucidated by correlations across these lineages, but, our own conception of population lineages is a human construct. an individual is just a physical assemblance of genes for that one generation, so that itself is epiphenomenal. there are gene lineages where you can find that you are "more closely related" to a chimpanzee than your sibling (e.g., MHC). that is, if you trace the ancestry of your sibling's gene, and your own equivalent, it maybe that the last common ancestor of your gene and a chimpaznee's is more recent than that with your sibling. that doesn't mean on average across genes you aren't more closely related to your sibling than a chimp, you are.

to be clear here, if you wish a determistic criterion for relatedness, you would have to throw out siblings as valid term, as there is an expectation of 0.5 relatedness, but no guarantee becasue of sampling variance (this is why some siblings look more similar than others). the only deterministic relationship is between parent and child, who are guaranteed to be 0.5 related because of the nature of diploid inheritance (you can two copies of a gene, one from each parent).

Manju,

Only Africans can save Africa, but one thing we can do is stop spending billions subsidizing our agricultural sector, which leads to chronic overproduction and the dumping of surpluses on global markets, making it imposible for africa to compete.

It's not that simple (MS Word).

More at Dani Rodrik's commentary page.

Also, from Michael Pollen:

Sooner or later, the inexorable trend toward free world trade also will force the food security issue to the forefront of our attention. Economists will tell you that when we stop subsidizing American farmers (and the pressure to do so is mounting, from an unlikely alliance of the World Trade Organization, developing world countries and U.S. agribusiness companies) and protecting their market with tariffs, our food will come from wherever in the world it can be produced most cheaply. That means it will come from countries where land is cheapest and environmental laws most lax. This is precisely where the logic of free trade is taking us: the iron law of competitive advantage dictates that we should put our land to "higher uses" -- like houses -- rather than doing something as old-fashioned with it as growing food. And indeed I've heard projections from people working for the governor of California suggesting that by the end of this century, the Central Valley – where most of America's fresh produce is grown -- will be wall-to-wall houses and highways: no more farming.

Where will our food come from then? From Mexico, South America and, increasingly, China. And how do you feel about that? I find that, whatever people may think about free trade in sneakers and electronics, they are distinctly uncomfortable about giving up our ability to feed ourselves. Food feels different from other commodities, which may explain why, worldwide, many of the most powerful protests against globalization have centered around food: the protests against genetically modified crops, the movement to defend local food against the global tide of homogenization. We see every day how our dependence on foreign energy has crippled our foreign policy. Imagine how much more debilitating a dependence on foreign food would be. Make no mistake, how we feed ourselves is about to become a national security issue.

I think a lot of hands on work in Africa needs to be done to maintain localized agricultural and keep industrialized agriculture at bay. As Americans, we can offer no advice on this matter because we tossed local agriculture aside in favor of corporate ag. The elimination of EU/US/Japan subsidies will not mean that the African farmer will suddenly have access to markets because distribution systems are too costly to develop, sustain and grow unless *surprise suprise* you are big, can absorb the costs, and have economies of scale. That's why the "winners" in the developing countries are not te poor pictured in our weeklies but Brazilian corporate ag, Indian corporate ag, South African corporate ag. Africa needs to develop for Africans- not for our appetites. And, for the love of god, they certainly don't need our cheap yet high-calorie sugars and fats processed mish mash laced with high-fructose corn syrup that would inevitably come in boatloads as we strongarm any negotiation for reciprocal access to their markets.

Desitude,

Would Jai or other UK mutineers shed some light on the perceptions of black Britishers by the white British public?

This is just my own subjective opinion so you shouldn't interpret this as the definitive version, but I'll do my best to answer your question. The earlier answers by Sunny and Razib should supplement the following.

Black people in the UK used to face the same racism-related problems as South Asians until the early/mid-90s; however, they had a much higher profile in the media and in the public eye, to the extent that at the time you would get the impression that they were the largest non-white ethnic group in Britain, not South Asians (it wasn't until much later that I realised this wasn't the case). They did, however, gradually have an increasing influence in British popular culture as black music -- both British and, especially, American (and later "Ragga"/dancehall etc) -- became more mainstream, with the corresponding influence on younger white Brits. This is stll the case.

When South Asians, particularly Indians, "went mainstream" in the UK from the mid-90s onwards, especially via the impact of Goodness Gracious Me along with some other factors (again, music, fashion, films etc), contrasts were drawn between the academic and professional success of desis compared to the local black population, especially considering that in many cases, members of both groups were not from affluent backgrounds and everyone faced racism within the majority population as a whole.

9/11 played a part in reversing this perception (and 7/7 more recently); black people were still viewed as having their own respective issues, but they were -- and still are -- regarded as being much more assimilated into Western culture as a whole (in terms of lifestyle attitudes, more liberal morality etc), which is viewed as a positive thing. Because they're regarded as being significantly more Westernised, many white Brits these days are more sympathetic and accepting towards them than they are towards South Asians.

There is probably some conflation between black Brits and black Americans in a popular cultural sense -- music, fashion etc being the major factors -- so that also plays a part in how they are viewed.

Something else to bear in mind is that the inter-marriage rate between white Brits and black people is much higher than that between whites and South Asians -- I can't remember the exact figure, but I believe that 1/3 - 40% of black British people are estimated to be involved in long-term relationships with white partners.

There are, however, still some professions where black Brits are markedly under-represented, especially those sectors which are traditionally white strongholds; my own professional environment -- the investment banking sector -- is a striking example of this. There are black people here, but they are few and far between. I've always found their absence very noticeable indeed, especially bearing in mind that London itself has a huge black population.

My understanding is that the great majority of blacks in the UK are from the Carribean, or has African immigration reduced their percentage?

Yes, the majority are from the Caribbean although there is also a sizeable percentage of African people. Immigrant families from Nigeria -- which now includes a lot of British-born 2nd-Gen adults too -- in particular are frequently highly-educated professionals. There are a lot of them in the medical profession, for example.

skin-reflectance (that wonderful metric I was introduced to, by, hmm, who was it?) is a genetic reality, race in so far as it limits the amount of privelage or lack thereof is purely social.

HMF is correct, although it should be stressed that "race" is about facial features too, not just skin-colour, even though there's frequently an overlap between the two.

This is just small point I've been meaning to make for a while here on SM now -- I'm not interested in getting into yet another debate here about race etc, especially considering the precedents on this blog. It should, however, considerably clarify my own previous comments on the matter.

The Fresh Prince of Bel Air did deal with these issues and people did appreciate it. Like when the boys got arrested for driving the father's Mercedez because of the assumption that they had stolen it

Thanks, JoAT! I thought I was the only one who liked the sociocultural analysis going on underneath those baggy pants and Carlton's dance moves.

Razib, your scientific particle-by-particle analysis of race is interesting but often doesn't really answer questions of identity faced by multicultural people, or people of any culture struggling with their identity. Indigenous people are a prime example - if they're 1/2 indigenous is it okay to identify then, or is 1/4 too little?

What of the person who is 1/4 indigenous but has been more exposed to indigenous culture and identifies strongly with this aspect of their genetic make-up compared to a person 1/2 indigenous?

I know it's fun to divide things up into alleles, genomes and chromosomes, but things are messier than that. Discussing percentages misses the point of this post, which is really more about identity. Kate Moss isn't 'white' solely because she's genetically Caucasian and devoid of African blood. She seems to have little or no connection with African culture except for maybe a couple of Benetton ads from days gone by when people other than 15 year olds in Tokyo bought Benneton. I'm not saying cultural contact is everything and that Angelina Jolie's now Namibian, I just think looking at race solely from a scientific lens misses the other side of the story.

I'm not saying cultural contact is everything and that Angelina Jolie's now Namibian

There are white Namibians. They are decended from various colonial / colonist types who moved to Southern Africa, but they've been there for a while. They're just few in number compared to black Namibians.

Razib: You mentioned that siblings are on average, approximately 50% identical genetically...but there is some variance around that number, some may be more and some may be less than 50%...fair enough...but are resemblance of facial features any real indication of this? I mean, you could have two siblings, one has a very similar face to yours, and one doesn't...you might conclude that the one who resembles you has a higher % of genes shared with you...but that's only for those loci which contribute to facial features, right? Maybe for other, less apparent traits, you might resemble the other sibling more (like for lipid metabolism, MHC, various enzymatic pathways, etc). In fact you might even have slightly more genes in common with the sibling who doesn't resemble you, but it just so happens the other sibling looks more like you, right?

In other words...I look exactly like my dad...I don't look like my mom at all. But I am equally related to both, it's just that my dad's looks somehow were more strongly expressed in me. I know the situation with siblings is different than with parents, but I'm using it as an analogy.

In other words...I look exactly like my dad...I don't look like my mom at all. But I am equally related to both, it's just that my dad's looks somehow were more strongly expressed in me. I know the situation with siblings is different than with parents, but I'm using it as an analogy.

amitbah, there is sampling variance on the features that our innate psychology uses to recongize those as related to us ("similarity"). these traits are a small subset of our features (eyes, nose, height, color) and so sample from from the genome itself. so, they are not accurate in reflecting (between siblings) the full genomic correspondence. just because you look like sibling A rather than B has no bearing on whether A or B is a good kidney donor match (unless there is genetic linkage between say nose shape and immune profile, but i doubt this). since the number of genes is quite high the sampling variance isn't that much...but, check out this review of a paper which analyzed it from the genomic angle.

i think gwyneth is smoking. too bad she's racist cuz she doesn't hook up with the brown :(

Just because she wouldn't look at your ugly ass doesn't make her a racist!!!

The issue with Tiger Woods is not his multiracialness or the way he "acts" but the fact that he will very quickly point out, when confronted about his African hertiage, that he is also Asian, Native American and White. He doesn't seem to embrace his African ancestry and much as his other racial hertiage."Cablanasian" as he calls it. I always felt it stemmed from his father who experienced alot of racism in the army and seemed uncomfortable with his mixed African ancestry.

I have never heard of this paper until they did this cover, so their objective of creating publicity and controversy has been fufilled. The equation is really simple Kate Moss darkened equals controversy. The greater the controversy, the higher the sales and more money towards AIDS charities.

If you want to talk about "black face" lets discuss Flavor of Love or essentially everything on BET. The minstrel show is alive and well even in this day and age.

There are white Namibians. They are decended from various colonial / colonist types who moved to Southern Africa, but they've been there for a while. They're just few in number compared to black Namibians.

I once worked with a German guy from Stuttgart who studied the history and culture of the descendants of Germans who went to Namibia a hundred years ago. He was doing an anthropology degree, and after the fifth beer, broke down with laughter telling me about some ritual they used to have over there amongst the German Namibian colonists, where they would get drunk and insert firecrackers on sticks up their anus (facing outwards) of course, then run around naked having races and stuff. It was a hoot. If there was a German word for that, it would be a greater word than the greatest word in the English language (callipygian) or even Schadenfreude , which as you know, has no English equivalent.