Is the “Fashion Industry” racist?
In a recent article on ABC News, a fashion photographer by the name of Nick Knight made his feelings about “racism” in the fashion industry known by creating a short, silent film starring the anger-management-impaired model Naomi Campbell and a pair of Uzi pistols.
What we have here is not a cry against injustice; it is another attempt to play the racism card to gain notoriety.
Why isn’t there an outcry for American Indian, Fillipino, Inuit or Pakistani women? It is not because they are less deserving; it is because they don’t have a powerful lobby in their corner.
Interesting, but ultimately unimportant.
The answer to this problem lies not in the racial sensibilities of the fashion and cosmetic industries, but in the accountants’ ledgers of the marketing firms that create the demand for the products.
The only colors that matter here are black and red, not black and white.
Latest posts by David "Preacher" Slocum (Posts)
- 8 years later and nothing has changed - October 12, 2009
- Fund healthcare by targeting the infirm and elderly! - October 9, 2009
- Big Brother coming to a city near you? - October 4, 2009
- Olympic hopefuls, or Chicago politics goes international? - October 1, 2009
- Obama the shill? - September 30, 2009
Print This Post
Just curious: you don’t think it’s possible that there is discrimination against black models in the fashion industry? Given the amazing diversity of human beauty, how would you explain the apparent paucity of black models in major fashion shows and magazines? A total accident?
Are you rejecting the claim that there is a shortage of black models? Or are you saying such a shortage is simply unimportant?
Have you spoken with any black women about the struggles they face in a society that pretty much rejects their beauty (Tyra and a few others notwithstanding.) Do you think it’s an accident that there are no major black women movie stars for example?
I am not all that informed about the fashion industry per se, but when I went to the link you provided, and I re-read your entry, I didn’t think you engaged the issue here. The photographer in question is white and I’m not quite sure how he would be “playing the race card.”
Perhaps you can clarify.
Halle Berry is a major movie star, isn’t she? And Beyonce may not be a model, but she is a sex symbol and appears in advertisements as a model would, and is so popular as a music star (her beauty is a huge part of this) that they put her in movies. (Janet Jackson was a sex symbol in her day. Society didn’t reject her beauty. Her posters sold like crazy and plenty of men were watching her videos for reasons having nothing to do with her music.) I bet there are other examples from the music industry. And why would Tyra be notwithstanding? She was so successful as a model, they gave her a TV show.
Robert, can you clarify/support the view that society pretty much rejects the beauty of black women? I don’t think I can name five models, certainly not 10 (super or otherwise), but I can name Tyra and I can name Naomi. Given the proportion of women in the U.S. who are black, being able to name two famous black supermodels is more than representative. I don’t know what struggles black women have as models generally, but then I don’t know what struggles asian women have, either. I can’t name a single Chinese-American supermodel. Can you?
Anyway, I think Preacher’s point, which maybe he did not clarify or support to Robert’s satisfaction, was that marketing companies see red and black (that is, they see green), and they are making marketing decisions that they think will sell their products, without racist motives.
Scott,
Scott,
What’s up my man! I’m glad you engaged here.
The argument that marketing companies are only looking at red and black is a long-standing hackneyed argument that has long been offered up by companies engaging in all kinds of discrimination.
Civil rights groups: Why won’t you hire any black clerks?
Store answer: We don’t oppose hiring colored girls. It’s just that our customers wouldn’t go for it. We’d lose business.
Why won’t you allow blacks to eat in your restaurant?
Southern segregations: We don’t mind. It’s just that our customers wouldn’t like it. We’d lose business.
That argument is in fact not an argument. It’s a dodge. So to say that businesses are only looking at the bottom line is to make a circular argument because businesses fail every day–so clearly they make mistakenly calculations about the bottom line everyday. Just because a business does something doesn’t mean there’s economic sense to doing! Sub-prime lending, anyone?
You’re right about Beyonce and Halle Berry. They are both breakthrough figures in this culture. Very much so. I will note that both are very light (Halle is in fact half-white). As far as Tyra, she is a great breakthrough. I would,, though, recommend you to read the NY Times magazine profile on her earlier this summer where she says, pretty much every day of her model life, some photographer or fashion editor uttered racist comments in her presence. “Black girls can’t do this … Black girls don’t look good doing that …:” Her treatment on the set of various shoots is one of the inspirations for her desire to have a diverse group of contestants on her show.
As for black women not having their beauty appreciated, I simply suggest you go and stand before the rack of women’s magazines and look at the faces of the women who grace the covers. Come back the next month and do the same thing. Come back the month after that and do the same thing.
I still don’t think I get what Preacher’s point was. There was some mention of “race card” in there. But I’m not sure what his point was.
I don’t reject the claim that there is racism in the fashion industry, because I am certain that it exists. Racism is real and is a factor in our society no matter how we might wish otherwise.
What I rejected was the idea that there is a ‘grand scheme’, an overwhelming racist policy in place.
In Nick Knight’s video he asserts “profit cannot be a justification for bigotry and racism.” He assumes that the reason for fewer black models must be racism and cannot be anything else.
My stance is that he has based his assertions on an initial supposition that is incorrect. He then compounds that mistake by applying his faulty reasoning to the industry as a whole and condemns the innocent with the guilty.
It is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect corporations to throw away profits in the name of racial equity. There are laws in place to prevent discrimination based on race, but there is no law saying the public must buy products based on the race of the spokesperson. To assume that a corporate entity is going to voluntarily short-change the stockholders by using less effective advertising is just silly.
Robert, I should clarify that I know nothing about the fashion industry and don’t care to know much more. I don’t know to what degree its history is racist, or what Tyra thinks about it. I’m just not that interested. I can say that I don’t think that fashion magazines equal “society” or that the preferences of the fashion industry represent what beauty “society” appreciates.
What I do know is there aren’t Chinese women on the magazine covers. Or, a whole bunch of other ethnicities. I am not sure what cause there is to single out black women as being discriminated against (Tyra’s experiences aside — I am only basing this on my assignment to look at the magazine covers). Maybe editors discriminate against everyone except thin, attractive white women. Are these editors (mostly based in New York City, one of the liberal centers of the universe — a haven for bigotry, I guess) really hateful toward everyone but thin, attractive white women? Or are they just doing what they believe will improve their business by giving advertisers what they believe advertisers want? Are these equivalent?
If I did examine the magazine covers month after month, I’d probably see lots of people who kind of look the same, or who are famous. Mostly attractive white people, I guess. I wouldn’t generally see fat women or short men, either. The magazines are mostly trying to appeal to white women, the ones who buy the magazines, and — if this makes any sense — to allow them to visualize themselves as the person on the cover. It’s fantasy stuff, in order to sell products advertised in the magazine. “Try our hair tips on page 32 and you could look like this blonde model.” Maybe people can visualize (a prettier version of) themselves just as easily when the model is of a different race from themselves (I wonder about this below).
Forget fashion magazines — I think you’d get a better sense of what men think is beautiful by looking at Maxim, Playboy, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, etc. My guess is that there is more ethnic diversity there than on the cover of Glamour, maybe because Glamour is trying to sell cosmetics to white women, and selling sex to men requires less discrimination, since men are less discriminating. Sorry to play with such a dangerous word as “discrimination.”
By the way, I do not claim that because a business does something, it is the best business decision. It is possible that businesses believe it to be in their interests to have white models selling products to white women, and that they are mistaken and this is not really in their business interests. It is also possible that it is indeed in their business interests, much as people might not like it, and they know, better than their critics do, how to run their businesses. These businesses sometimes fail, but that could be for other reasons altogether. If the entire industry more or less excludes black women as models, as you imply, then such exclusion cannot be the reason a particular company is failing, since they’re all doing it and none has a competitive advantage, and we have no way of knowing whether changing this practice would mean more, less, or the same success.
(However, do you really believe, with all the racists running around, that businesses that voluntarily desegregated, before it became the law that everyone followed, faced no consequences? You imply as much when you call it a circular argument. But is it? Really? If a town was as racist as could be and only some lunch counters desegregated while the rest did not, that might mean less business for the ones who desegregated. Or it might not. But why the certainty that with racists all around, it would have no affect on business? (I am leaving out the moral argument here, of course, and how abhorrent segregation was.) In fact, even today, some businesses prefer to have requirements mandated because they’d rather have the competition forced to have the same competitive conditions that they have.)
I think there is a contradiction lurking beneath the surface here. On the one hand, we are told how important media role models are — people need to see people who “look like them” (of the same race) on the covers of magazines, in heroic roles in movies and TV, etc. Otherwise they will not know that it’s possible for them to excel and succeed and they will feel bad about themselves, like they don’t belong or aren’t a valued part of society. On the other hand, we’re told that customers are not more likely to buy cosmetic (or other) products from spokespeople of the same ethnicity. Which is it? Do people need to see people who “look like them” and do people identify with people of their own race on TV, or do white customers have no preference for the people on TV and will buy products just as readily from a black or Chinese model as from a white one? These aren’t neat opposites, but they do seem to conflict.
When it comes to modeling, acting, entertainment, and marketing in general, discrimination is everywhere — discrimination of every kind. I’m sure it’s common for someone to say: I want a white man to play this part in this movie; I need a blonde woman for this role; someone’s skin tone is wrong for this makeup we’re trying to sell; that kid is too fat for this commercial; that guy’s hair is too long for him to be a country music star; we need a black actor for this demographic. People get more upset when discrimination is based on race than when it is based on the individual, and I understand why.
But must we compare all discrimination to lunch counter segregation? How far do we take this? Men are not allowed to wait tables at Hooters because Hooters wants women in skimpy outfits to wait tables. That’s their whole business plan. There’s a guy — a bus boy or cook or something — who sued over this (this is old news). Not everything — even when it involves discrimination and even when it involves race or some other category — rises to the level of segregation, and not everything requires a legislative solution (not that you suggested one).
Scott,
Paula and I did an exchange about racism and Bill Clinton by the way. It’s relevant to this discussion. We sent it to When Falls. It is not up, I don’t think.
I responded to what seemed a plainly dismissive response to the claim that there was a industry practice to limit and exclude black models.
I asked the simple question: did the writer reject the argument that there is a shortage of black women models or did the writer simply not think this was an important issue? I sensed that Preacher thought that black women shouldn’t be singled out for discussion, that all women (minorities) should be included. I think he can perhaps make an argument for not singling out black folks, but there needs to be an argument.
Second, as far as I know the Fashion industry execs all support Barack Obama and send money to black political candidates and teach their children to treat all people fairly. That is not the issue. In fact, this is NEVER the issue. The issue is not what’s in the hearts of these folks or what they intend. I don’t care what’s in their hearts. The question is whether there is a industry practice of limiting and excluding black models. That’s it. Raising your kids to respect minorities doesn’t give an industry exec a pass in how he handles the hiring or not hiring of models. It simply ain’t so. The “I am not a racist” defense misses the boat. This is discussed in the exchange Paula and I had.
Saying discrimination is necessary for profit is not a valid defense in my book. Too many nasty unforgiving bigots used that argument for too long in the 1950’s and 1960’s. It is, to my mind, presumptively reactionary argument. Thank God, American lawmakers realized they could not accept this logic and they pushed for integration. Otherwise, we would be trapped in 1964 America with all kinds of industries and businesses claiming they couldn’t allow blacks as customers because it harmed their business. .
By the way, the southern small business owners were proven wrong on this. Their white customers still ate at their establishments after blacks were allowed in. Their boosters still supported the university athletic teams after black athletes were allowed in the SEC and elsehwere. Yes, there is still some aversive racism in this society. But the bigots, thank God, were wrong!
Just to be clear, I am not “[s]aying discrimination is necessary for profit is … a valid defense.” As I noted, I left out the moral argument. I was focused on the rather nitpicky point about your certainty that these decisions have no affect on business. I happen to agree that businesses should do the right thing and treat people fairly. But as far as the business owners being proven wrong, my point was I don’t believe they were, exactly. Since all the businesses were forced to integrate, their competitors had the same conditions they had. What I think some of them feared was that if they voluntarily integrated, people would instead go to the store next door that had not integrated. Since all of them were forced to have the same conditions, that was not an option for customers and no, they would not lose customers to a non-integrated store next door. All of this is a silly discussion — as history played out, they did all integrate by law at close to the same time.
I don’t like labels like “reactionary” — the word serves to shut down discussion, even hypothetical silliness like we’re engaging in here, much like “racist” does. It is not reactionary to wonder if what we have been told, what you believe, about whether people are affected by the ethnicity of the people pitching products, is true or not. I know people buy sneakers from Michael Jordan. I don’t think race matters, at least if the individual doing the selling is liked and famous and all that. I think our society generally doesn’t care about this stuff much. In Hershey Park the other day we saw a show for kids in which the male lead was black and the female lead was white and they danced romatically at the end. It was noteworthy how un-noteworthy it was. But I like to think about things for myself and not to refuse to consider how the world really operates just because it might strike someone as reactionary. And I wonder, given just how liberal the fashion industry is, why they would discriminate, as you say they do.
I believe that people are more likely to buy products from someone who is attractive (generally, of course). I think it’s possible that men are more likely to buy certain products from other men than from women, unfair as that might be. And women are more likely to buy certain products from women. A straight, very masculine, unattractive man might not be the best person to be selling perfume and makeup at a department store.
I had no intention of having an argument about segregation. Segregation is wrong. History is history. I am more interested in human nature and behavior. Do people see race, as we’ve been told, or don’t they see race? Does it affect their purchasing decisions? Does it affect their decisions in some fields and not in others? Does it depend on the gender of the consumer? I am not defending discrimination on the basis that it means more profits. I am wondering what affect race really has, not the politically correct cover-my-ass position. It might be that it has no affect. I’d prefer that.
Robert, you say you don’t care what’s in people’s hearts; what matters is the industry practice. The thing is, forget about people’s “hearts” — if their brains tell them that decision x is going to lose their company money, they are not going to do it. Even if their brains are wrong. Even with a law, they will find every way around it. Now, you believe that decision x does not lose them money. I hope you’re right and in many cases I think you are. But I wonder about it. If the reality doesn’t line up to your hopes, change is not going to come easy.
(I never received the piece you mention. Send it again.)
Scott,
You libertarians are always interesting to argue with on business issues. I do indeed have respect for many libertarian arguments. I think they are often wrong, but I do respect them.
To be clear, I did not casually use the term “reactionary.” I thought it was quite precise term, for issues such as this. The reason I bring up segregation is that these issues have been before us earlier. These are not new questions. And we can learn a lot from the earlier debates.
By the way, the legal term for this entire issue/challenge is, I think, “the heckler’s veto.” This is all an extension of the heckler’s veto dilemma.