1. acolyte

September 27th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

If you ask me, this is just plain pathetic because if you look back in American history some white artistes would perform in blackface; painting their faces black with black make up so as to perpetuate racist stereotypes about black people.In this case that black people and AIDS are intertwined.Seems blackface minstrelsy isn’t dead at all!

2. mshairi

September 27th, 2006 at 2:26 pm

I don’t get this fascination with all sorts of people wanting to be Africa for the day/event/fashion shoot. I thought the Paltrow ‘we are all African’ malarkey pretty horrendous; however, the poster of Kate Moss almost defies rational comment. She doesn’t look like a black person or any person for that matter. More like an alien from the planet Pluto.

3. anonymous

September 27th, 2006 at 5:50 pm

I think its just plain artistry. Not everything white people do is racism.

4. omodudu

September 27th, 2006 at 6:09 pm

Art is supposed to evoke such emotions as this, as far as I am concerned the artist/photographer as succeeded. We can also blame it on the structure of the magazine/tv/fashion getup. I look forward to the day when Givenchy or the likes will choose to do a runway show with regular non ‘model’ types, then we shall trully see artistry, but till then we are stuck with all this generic stuff.

5. dara

September 28th, 2006 at 5:18 am

i wonder who said, “hey, let’s get the model who was recently caught snorting coke to help save Afica.”

6. cooper

September 28th, 2006 at 7:03 am

“but 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?”

The above is the statement. The sad sick statement which should smack everyone in the face.

Instead they sit around wondering ..is it art?
Is it a political statement?

No it is Kate fucking Moss and she looks like hell and she definitely does not look black.

7. Ababoy

September 28th, 2006 at 7:35 am

I think it’s essential to have some sense of balance with this. I don’t really know the story behind the picture, but the one thing I know is that as a newspaper, The Independent has done quite a lot to fight the ‘African corner’ and bring ‘African’ related concerns to a wider audience. If this picture turns out to be poor judgement/taste on their part, then I for one will be willing to excuse it.

8. Clair

September 28th, 2006 at 10:09 am

Sokari please email me, I’m not getting thru on your email address…damn new machine!! love C

9. alexcia

September 28th, 2006 at 12:26 pm

i see you can also get a free poster!!!
who do you think will ask for one of those?

10. Sokari

September 28th, 2006 at 2:30 pm

Alexcia - Good question - other representatives of the planet Pluto no doubt!

Aba Boy: I am actually disappointed with the independent for publishing this and consider it bad judgement. I find this general resurgence of ancient garbage in appropriating and fixating on Africa and Blackness highly offensive.

11. Jay Sennett

September 28th, 2006 at 8:48 pm

As a U.S. citizen, we have had a terrible history of white people in black face.

Frankly this ad, in my opinion, runs neck and neck with those stupid “I am Africa” ads getting much airtime here in the U.S.

To say, as anonymous did, that it is art is to suggest that art somehow exists outside of human history and behavior. Art is every much a product of the human mind and hand as the Nazi death camps.

Art is always bounded by the mind of its particular creator. In the case of the collective hive mind at the folks at the Independent, they haven’t evolved past 1920’s Hollywood versions of black people with Al Jolson and the Birth of a Nation.

12. jaywalking: cartoons about a way of life

September 28th, 2006 at 8:55 pm

Black Face is Alive and Well…

Sokari, at Black Looks, bring us this piece of 21st century Al Jolson Black Face:anonymous provides the obligatory "but it’s not racist it’s art" statement in the comments section…….

13. Lisa Stone

September 29th, 2006 at 7:17 am

Hi Sokari, everyone:

Agreed, it’s the resurgence of blackface that shocks me. And I don’t want to hear anything about the concept of art — Moss could have just as easily been painted green, pink or polka dots. The choice of black was deliberate and appalling. Laina Dawes got a lot of response on BlogHer with her piece, I guess I didn’t get the memo - Is minstrelsy back?. Beautifully put…did you see American comedian Chris Rock’s decision to pose for Leibovitz in white face? It’s not a brand new photo (it was shot in 1998), and, of all ironies, it’s running in Newsweek this week. Slide #7.

14. sokari

September 29th, 2006 at 10:40 am

This is even more disturbing as it is part of a trend for white celebrities to use Blackness and Africa in this insiduous way. Whether it is Joli acting the part of a woman of colour or Paltrow “dressing up as an African woman” and defining herself as such or Moss. It seems to me that there is a shift in the boundaries of racism whereby it is acceptable for whiteness to appropriate and act out blackness in these ways. African and Blackness has always been consumed through art, dress, music and so on but now it has gone beyond that to our identities. I would not be surprised if painting yourself black becomes a fashion trend like dread locs.

I dont know how but I think theses are issues we need to challenge

15. Araceli Aipoh

September 29th, 2006 at 4:52 pm

I agree with Anonymous (comment No 3.) that not everything white people do is racism.

When black people interpret almost everything that white people do, or say, or write, or wear as “being racist,” that, in itself, is being racist.

It’s not only whites who are capable of being racist, black people too.

16. Araceli Aipoh

September 29th, 2006 at 5:11 pm

And oh, please remember that the colour black does not belong to the black race alone. Blacks don’t have a monopoly to it, and should not “prohibit” other people from using it. In the same way that the whites cannot tell blacks not to paint themselves in red, blue, or green.

17. Rombo

September 30th, 2006 at 11:48 am

Araceli, methinks you miscontrue Sokari’s point:

True, Africans do not have a monopoly on the colour black.

Still, that The Africa Issue as it is so advertised is best illustrated by putting a blackened Kate Moss on the cover is both trivializing and patronizing.

It confirms to me, once again, that the non-African world stubbornly refuses to listen to Africa when she speaks for herself and will only give audience to ‘advocates of Africa’ whom she deems acceptable.

18. Araceli Aipoh

September 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pm

Rombo, in what way is putting a blackened Kate Moss patronizing?

Are Beyonce and Naomi Campbell therefore being patronizing and trivial when they wear blonde wigs day in and day out? Have you ever heard a white person crying “foul” when Michael Jackson changed his colour from black to white and his sister changed her nose from broad to narrow?

And I think Ms Pool has no right to ASSUME that this is what probably happened between WME1 and WME2. Hers is a classic case of being presumptuous. And for her to suggest that Ms Moss “maybe has HIV”… that should be enough to throw the ‘article’ into the RECYCLE BIN before it got to The Guardian website.

Ms Pool claims she is black. Well, I think she is actually green.

Just read her last sentence.

19. Sokari

September 30th, 2006 at 2:43 pm

Araceli Aipoh: I will make this brief. Both your comments and that of anonymous show a complete lack of understanding of the power dynamics of race and the meaning of racism - how it is constructed and expressed in the media and in our daily lives.

20. Jikomboe » Una masizi umtumie Bill Clinton?

October 1st, 2006 at 1:31 pm

[…] Huenda watu walivyokuwa wakidai kuwa eti Bill Clinton ni rais wa kwanza mweusi Marekani walikuwa hawajakosea! Clinton alikuwa rais wa kwanza wa nchi yenye “kibri”, Marekani, kutembelea Afrika baada ya miaka 20 kupita toka ziara ya mwisho ya rais wa nchi hiyo barani Afrika. Isitoshe, wanadai, anapuliza mdomo wa bata kwa mtindo wa muziki wenye historia ya watu weusi (ambao wazungu wameshauchukua), Jazz. Isitoshe, siku hizi nasikia sio ajabu kwa wazungu kuwa weusi. Si umesikia eti mcheza sinema, Gwyneth Paltrow, ni Mwafrika? (ingawa ni mzungu). Kama huamini bonyeza hapa. (soma maoni kwenye kiungo hicho)  Tena siku hizi, nasikia, mzungu akitaka kuwa Mwafrika anachotakiwa kufanya ni kujipaka masizi…mara ameshakuwa Mwafrika! Au unabisha? Muulize Kate Moss. Au akibisha, bonyeza hapa.(soma maoni ya wasomaji kwenye kiungo hicho) […]

21. Peter

October 3rd, 2006 at 4:45 pm

Maybe this is Kate Moss in another universe (are supermodels real anyway?), who could be black, and could have AIDS, and if you think it is shocking - maybe you will buy the paper and help some actual Africans with actual AIDS. I suspect this is what the Independent was thinking, regardless of all the other possible interpretations. I wonder how much they actually raised and sent, and where?

22. Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » White face, painted black

October 4th, 2006 at 11:16 am

[…] What do you do when you don’t want a real black woman on a magazine cover? Sokari has a suprise for you! […]

23. wendalita

October 4th, 2006 at 5:05 pm

it seems that the blackened kate moss was armani’s call as guest editor. who even knows what he could have been thinking?

24. Lilah Dee

October 4th, 2006 at 11:58 pm

Araceli, you are missing the point, Ms Moss was coloured Black to highlight an African issue, if it was done as a fashion statement it would still be offensive, but it would not raise the same questions. Such as will people only listen when a White face is put on a Black problem? If yes, why does that face need to be painted Black? Is that to placate Black people or to emphasise that it is a Black problem/issue?

Therefore, Black women wearing wigs etc is just that a fashion statement. People changing their body is dysmorphia and it affect all races. Collagen implants for fuller lips, buttocks etc

As for the colour Black insofar as it relates to race, then yes Black people do have a monopoly on it. There is no other race described as Black nor is there one described as White.

The consensus in print media is there is up to a 25% drop in sales when there is a Black Person as opposed to blackened person on the cover.

Like Sokari said you need to be more questioning about the intention behind the image you encounter in the media EVERYDAY and EVERYTIME, that is not to say the all white people are racists or that everything they do is, it’s so that you will be prepared when you do encounter it in its most covert form. But I fear it maybe too late

25. Araceli Aipoh

October 8th, 2006 at 11:37 am

Hi Lilah Dee,

Contratry to what sokari said, that my comments “show a lack of the power of dynamics of race and the meaning of race,” it may just be the other way around: it’s those who shout RACISM who do not really know what it means.

Thank you for providing us with statistics. 25% drop in sales. I dont know but I wish there are figures that will show the race of these readers who actually decline to buy these publications when there is a black person on the cover. Maybe I’m wrong, but it’s probably the black readers themselves who will not buy these mags. And when the ‘Kate Moss edition’ came out and maybe the sales shot up, guess who were responsible.

What I’m trying to say here is that black people who shout RACISM would be the first ones to buy a book written by an African if the author has won a ‘WHITE-INITIATED LITERARY AWARD or is published by an American Publisher. In Nigeria, we see that as “having arrived.”

For every one of these PRIZE WINNERS being hailed in the white world, there are thousands of home-based writers whose books can’t sell beyond 100 copies because their people - the black race - refuse to buy the books. “You didn’t win an award in Sweden and you dont have UK-based publisher, so you are not good enough.”

Now, tell me something about racism. Maybe I’m still missing the point.

26. Sokari

October 8th, 2006 at 6:29 pm

Sorry these two comments deleted in error so here they are again:

By ASHCAN

“wonder what would have happed if she had been painted canary yellow and the caption said she was ‘Chinese’ trying to save China from SARS?”
AND

“3. anonymous

September 27th, 2006 at 5:50 pm

I think its just plain artistry. Not everything white people do is racism.”

NO COMMENT!

27. Nat X

October 8th, 2006 at 6:30 pm

“18. Araceli Aipoh

September 30th, 2006 at 2:11 pm

Rombo, in what way is putting a blackened Kate Moss patronizing?

Are Beyonce and Naomi Campbell therefore being patronizing and trivial when they wear blonde wigs day in and day out? Have you ever heard a white person crying “foul” when Michael Jackson changed his colour from black to white and his sister changed her nose from broad to narrow?

And I think Ms Pool has no right to ASSUME that this is what probably happened between WME1 and WME2. Hers is a classic case of being presumptuous. And for her to suggest that Ms Moss “maybe has HIV”… that should be enough to throw the ‘article’ into the RECYCLE BIN before it got to The Guardian website.

Ms Pool claims she is black. Well, I think she is actually green.

Just read her last sentence.”

Don’t be silly, there is NO history of Black women wearing blonde wigs for the sole purpose of mocking or demonizing whites, but ‘blackface’ such as this women Kate Moss is wearing has a racist history. Perhaps (YOU) Araceli need a Black history sensitivity lesson.

28. Lilah Dee

October 9th, 2006 at 2:57 am

Hi Araceli,
you are not still missing the point, you have proved it. That you can say with a straight face the people who will not buy a magazine when there is a black face on the cover are probably black? Conversely the Moss edition sales was bumped by these same group? Hello?! Your arguments remind of that condition where hostages start to identify with the kidnapper.

There is a vast difference between refusal to do something and an inability to do it. Most people in Nigeria can barely afford to eat so books do not come high on the shopping list if at all. I know because I happen to come from Nigeria.

You may be justified in your bitterness and anger at the lack of support of blacks by blacks but that does not change the fact that the image of Kate Moss is inherently racist. You seem to be unable to grasp this small but salient fact. That is the crux of this discourse, not whether black people can be racists or not, they can, or whether wearing blonde wigs means a person wants to be white, they don’t, it is a fashion statement.

You know you could do something about making books available cheaply, to students, people on low in-come instead of castigating them for not buying homegrown authors. They are not buying anyone’s books. One book is read by some many people it literally falls to pieces, it is not a lack of love of words it is POVERTY!

I recently read of a British-Nigerian woman who has come back to nigeria to start a publishing company for writers in Nigeria so book lovers in Nigeria can get books cheaply.

So, Araceli, let me ask you, What have you done to improve things?? Good God you wouldn’t even put another author’s name on your blog in a complimentary letter written to you by another writer. Damn.
I mean he compared your work to this person’s, now if a person has read and liked that person, but have not read you, that gives an idea of what your style is like, but oh no, you too busy labelling everyone neocolonialists to add their name.

There is a proverb that says “when you point one finger at a person your other fingers point at you”
And another truism, (yes i know its lazy but it works) if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

29. wordsbody

October 10th, 2006 at 12:42 pm

*[This was posted on Araceli’s blog]*

Araceli,

I have tried not to get involved in this issue of Kate Moss blacking up, because I feared it would be make me too angry.

Whilst I respect your views as stated on Sokari’s blog, I was somewhat taken aback by them. To equate Kate Moss blacking up with Nigerians or black people in general not buying books by their fellow men/wowen - is moving the goalpost to a worrying degree. Permit me to say it is not the same thing.

I fear you do not appreciate enough, that there is a long ideological history of white supremacy behind blacking up, and black thinkers have worked themselves to distraction over this for many decades. Those same intruments of ideological domination are still very much at play, though very subtle. Laurence Olivier ‘blacking up’ and hamming up the “changeable” ‘fool’, Othello (a racially charged Shakespearean character anyway) calls to question many issues of race and representation. Issues about which we are charged to remain vigilant.

How can you bring it down to the level of Nigerian publishing? We are talking about an issue that affects blacks wherever they may be. It is also one which non-blacks may not fully empathise with. It does not mean we stop talking about it. Watch the 80s film ‘Soul Man’ (about a white man who blacks up to win a black scholarship; when he later tells a black friend that he ‘knows’ what it means to be black, the friend tells him he doesn’t, because he can opt out of being black. The black person is invested in the predicament/condition for life. Also please watch the film, ‘Bamboozled’ by Spike Lee.

Kate Moss has been jumping around in her usual ‘druggy rock chick’ lifestyle since the Independent shoot. What does this woman know about blackness or Africanness? Of course there are certain difficulties, in dealing with issues of this nature on a blog, which I trust Sokari now appreciates. Whilst I may not have expressed my concerns quite the way she has, I respect where she is coming from on this.

The reasoning behind Kate Moss on ‘Africa’ Independent is this: she carried a £2.99 Superdrug bag (admittedly, even I don’t have a bag that cheap) instead of her £5000 Gucci ones, and the Superdrug bag sold out like hot cakes. So, if Kate Moss can pass for an African for a day, Africans would become the height of fashion, surely? That was the thinking, and it is offensive and condescending. It’s the same reason why, when all things Indian became fashionable in Britain some years ago, such that English roses were wafting around in saris and bindis, right thinking Asians paused. You looked down on it all these years, but just because you say it is fashionable now, we should celebrate? You dont validate us! And right the right-thinking Indians/Asians were.

Whilst the decision to put a blacked out Kate Moss on the Independent ‘Africa’ cover may not have been a knowingly or overtly racist one, it still came out of a long history of ideological racism. And there is a need to express concern.

As for Hannah Pool, I’m familiar with her work, though I must confess I have not read her piece on ‘blacking up’ (for fear of becoming angered, as stated earlier). However, if this Ethiopian woman raised by white/English adoptive parents recognises publiclly that she is Black/African, then we ought not to tarnish her with Greeness.

With Respect,
MW

*I will post this on Sokari’s blog also.

30. Sokari

October 10th, 2006 at 12:53 pm

Wordsbody: Thanks for this considered response. I understand your anger and not wanting to read some of the material written on this and similiar issues. I myself have opted out of this conversation for similiar reasons so it was refreshing to read your comment - and yes I wholly agree with you.

31. Sean

October 10th, 2006 at 8:46 pm

Why is everybody turning this into a race issue? Yes it seems a little stupid that Brad Pits production company would apoint a white women to represent a mixed race women BUT consider that Angelina Jolie is Brads partner and that would better explain the decision than the conclusion that the white populus has somehow done this because of racism.

32. Nat X

October 13th, 2006 at 1:53 am

“31. Sean

October 10th, 2006 at 8:46 pm

Why is everybody turning this into a race issue? Yes it seems a little stupid that Brad Pits production company would apoint a white women to represent a mixed race women BUT consider that Angelina Jolie is Brads partner and that would better explain the decision than the conclusion that the white populus has somehow done this because of racism.”

But would you blow it off so easilly had a Black or Asian woman played Jackie O. Kennedy?

Whites should play whites, Asians should play Asians and Blacks should play Blacks, what’s wrong with that?

33. danielle antwi

October 13th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

all the people that say its art and the independent fights for africans so we can let it past are obviously not black !!! it angers me that they are getting white people to do all of are jobs there will soon be no need for black people and we will be back to square one. it seems like another Minstrel show to me.

34. Nat X

October 18th, 2006 at 8:56 am

” danielle antwi
Oct 13th, 2006 at 3:59 pm

all the people that say its art and the independent fights for africans so we can let it past are obviously not black !!! it angers me that they are getting white people to do all of are jobs there will soon be no need for black people and we will be back to square one. it seems like another Minstrel show to me.
”
It IS another Minstrel show Danelle, the ‘enemy’ is resurrecting Blackface, look at this link to see an upcoming film that has bf in it.

http://www.blackfilm.com/20050909/features/slowburn_p4.shtml

35. Nat X

October 18th, 2006 at 8:59 am

Jolene Blalock (Star Trek Enterprise) is in BF.

36. Pittwatch.com: Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie Gossip » Black Looks Upset By Jolie’s Portrayal of Mariene Pearl?

January 3rd, 2007 at 7:26 am

[…] […]

37. Feministe » You could be my black Kate Moss tonight

December 8th, 2007 at 7:47 pm

[…] course, it is better than taking white models and painting them black. (That’s me, always looking on the bright […]