capitalism is teh awesome!

i spent 6 months in india in 1995, and i swear to cruise, there were coke machines in villages that had no drinking water.

you can't water your crops with coke. unless you live in the world of Idiocracy.

brought to you by carl's jr.

my family is from Bihar (the poorest state) in India and this photo shoot isn't just cool at all. There's so much poverty, illiteracy, health problems, and AIDS all over India. Sure India may be booming, but at whose cost? Rich upper caste Indians so they can buy diamonds and fur coats while millions of small kids are starving and dying in the slums?!?!?

I am outright disgusted by this exploitation in VOGUE India. This is so fucking wrong and disgusting on all sorts of levels. and many people ask me why I hate rich Indians so much.

OMG, it's the Derelict fashion campaign from "Zoolander" come to life.

I felt a similar disgust when I realized American Apparel used "real" models in some ads. It's almost like nowadays, the only people the things that should be done, are doing them in horrible, corrupt ways. Where's the justice?

and i thought Vogue might have experienced some shame after their Keira "Great White Hope" Knightley colonialist safari spread.

who was i kidding?

Derelicte, exploitation, . . . really? As opposed to ALL advertising? If that's the case then every advertisement for something outside of someone's means suffers the same fate. Make $50K, but want to buy a BMW - exploited. All advertising and fashion is an attempt by a company that wants your money to get it, by making you think it's necessary, cool etc. Wake up, that is exactly the point, it doesn't really matter who is in the ad and who is the audience?

Once again you bring up a good point TangerineSpeedo. But what is especially cruel in this ad is the blatant disregard for suffering. I don't think they were going for irony selling an umbrella to a family that literally doesn't have a roof over their head. The artistry is lost in the truth of the matter.

Well done, Cord.

the point of advertising = get people talking about your product/magazine/whatever. 99% of the time, it works every time. tastefully? maybe not. but it worked, and we have no one to blame for that but us. damn us!!

TangerineSpeedo, you are naive. Different groups have different burdens in societies and are impacted differently, so who is in the ad and who the audience is DOES matter. Presenting an editorial of Parisians, for example, doing stereotypical "Parisian" things like drinking coffee, wearing berets, and smoking in cafes doesn't carry the same import as an editorial portraying "simple" poor Indians, Africans, etc. as backdrops (usually to white models). Despite how stereotypical and trite that display of Parisians would be, Parisians (and the French as a whole) as a group aren't a suffering people - whether that be economic suffering, or discrimination. On the other hand, constantly portraying people of color and poor people in inferior, stereotypical scenarios tends to cement their already second-class status in the world.

I stopped reading Vogue years ago precisely because of its continual disrespect toward people of color - its almost exclusive use of white models is no surprise and at least once a year, the magazine manages to do some fetish/colonialist/exoticism editorial picturing "unsophisticated natives" in some subservient pose to a white model. It is not only offensive, but from an editorial point of view, just tired and hackneyed.

It's mind-blowing how Vogue is able to find a new low every year. It the Michael Lohan of fashion-magazines.

there is no post-colonialism, that would mean it had to of ended at some point!

pinky re: the disrespect of races - I had no idea - that sucks. I quit reading Vogue because literally within 2 hours it could take me from confident to self-loathing. The only other thing on earth that can do that to me is my precious grandmother, and I feel I chose to keep the right one.

pinky, this is awesome: "I stopped reading Vogue years ago precisely because of its continual disrespect toward people of color - its almost exclusive use of white models is no surprise and at least once a year, the magazine manages to do some fetish/colonialist/exoticism editorial picturing "unsophisticated natives" in some subservient pose to a white model. It is not only offensive, but from an editorial point of view, just tired and hackneyed."
Thank you for saying that so eloquently.
I boldy loudly co-sign.

So the impoverished cannot aspire to the trappings of wealth? Is Prada just for the wealthy of good breeding? In actual fact, most of the couture brands used to see themselves that way (see Jay Z Roederer), but saw the allure of the teeming masses as too great a market to ignore. Now men and women of limited means have closets of handbags worth more than third world homes and represent credit card debt higher than their savings account (if they have one). Sorry, Pink, but I just can't see it your way, perhaps the lady doth protest too much and sees victims instead of people.

I do not mean to imply that the persons in the photo are untouchables, but it's a pretty ironic quote from Ghandi:

"Anger, lust and such other evil passions [greed] raging in the heart are the real untouchables."

TangerineSpeedo you miss my point. It is not that the poor can't aspire to or acquire more expensive material goods (although I don't place much value on acquiring material goods anyway - and realistically, many of the poor won't acquire these goods). It's Vogue's choice of imagery that's offensive. The image of these Indians with these luxury goods is supposed to be a juxtaposition - the juxtaposition being "poor, simple Indian" v. "sophisticated luxury goods usually owned by worldly, unsimple people". The choice to even make this a juxtaposition, and the mindset behind it, is offensive. This image is supposed to evoke irony, and I find that belittling to Indian people.

This is a typical example of the manipulation and use of the image of one group of people (here, poor Indians) to suit another's purposes (very un-Indian Vogue, regardless of whether it is an Indian edition). It shouldn't be surprising that all people like to be in control of their own image, but in the case of people of color and poor people, this rarely happens. This is one of the reasons why people are always clamoring for more diversity and an end to racial discrimination in the workforce - if this were achieved, you'd find more points of view, more diverse corporate decision-making, and less asinine editorials like this.

Actually, I don't think it is supposed to be ironic and by you saying that you may be imposing your predispositions to it. The quote from Vogue was, Vogue is about realizing the “power of fashion” she said, and the shoot was saying that “fashion is no longer a rich man’s privilege. Anyone can carry it off and make it look beautiful,” she said. I agree it's bull, but I don't think you can say it's belittling to all Indian people, maybe the Dalits, but if I were them there would be more things to be offended by such as the fact that in a country of almost a billion people the Dalits represent 90% of its poor and 95% of its illiterate. In 1989, India had to pass The Prevention of Atrocities Act, which specifically made it illegal to parade people naked through the streets, force them to eat feces, take away their land, foul their water, interfere with their right to vote, and burn down their homes. So you decide, are your bourgoise senses more offended by Fendi or outright discrimination perpetuated by a government and its people against its own.

"Diverse corporate decision making?" I'll leave that one alone.

TangerineSpeedo -sigh- if you want to enter a discourse on modern-day Indian social policy, caste discrimination, skin-color discrimination, government corruption, and mismanagement of resources, sure, we can get into that. There's a lot to discuss there. But all the commentary above was concerned with the depictions of a group of Indians in a fashion magazine. One thing has nothing to do with another - sure Indians have big problems to deal with in their own country, very serious problems to be exact, but that doesn't negate the existence of other problems, regardless of whether they appear to be more minor. And whether you realize it or not, all these things are tied together anyway - groups who have achieved some level of power, prestige, or dominance usually don't have to deal with these sorts of depiction issues precisely because they are in a position to own their own images. The idiotic editorial just drives this point home because, well - if given a choice, do you think this is how these people would have depicted themselves?

That was related to the point I was making about "diverse corporate decision-making" (which you didn't want to touch). As far as the U.S. is concerned, far too often whites take for granted that their point of view is just mainstream, or standard, or the norm, when in reality, it is just a white point of view. Which in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but becomes a bad thing when other views are seen as "niche" views, or when other views are blatantly disrespected or shut out. This has continually happened throughout American history, in everything from politics to the boardroom. Disparate access to opportunities among racial and ethnic groups, coupled with actual workplace discrimination, have made corporate decision-making here very homogenous. And as a result, you get magazine covers like the Gisele Bundchen-LeBron James one, the New Yorker cover with the caricature of the Obamas, movies like "Tropic Thunder", and a host of other things that end up offending many (although not all) members of the groups portrayed. I mean, do you actually think Essence would ever do one of those colonial-style editorials a la Vogue?

And if a magazine like Vogue just called itself a "white woman's magazine" (as Essence and Latina define themselves by their black and Latina populations), then I could have a little more respect for its white-centric view and decision-making. Because Vogue is a white womens' magazine: in addition to its almost exclusive use of white models, the subjects of its articles are almost always white, its writers are mostly (if not all) white, subjects that apply to its non-white readers only are never addressed, and the cosmetic and hair suggestions are designed for white skin and hair (and when it applies to non-whites it is happenstance, not by design). But Vogue does not define itself as such and sees itself as a "general" womens' magazine, which it is not. If you purport to be something for ALL people, then you need to make sure you get the input of the people you supposedly serve.

"These people" did have a choice - they chose to be in the pictorials. What the eff is a white point of view - do you seriously believe that there is such a thing? There is no way I have more in common than a poor white from Appalachia than an urban college educated African American. Views should not be attributed to classes of people, but individuals, this is the equivalent of calling Clarence Thomas an Uncle Tom because his values, thoughts and ideas don't jibe with his perceived "group." Corporate boardrooms in many respects mirror society in the distribution of wealth, but not the distribution of skin color. Achievement is an individual's, not a group's as is failure. I will be first in line to denounce discrimination (de jure not de facto), but there is no discrimination being discussed here - you were offended by the juxtaposition of images and their perceived slight of millions, that's it. LeBron has more media consultants, agents and handlers than you or I will ever have (most them his handpicked friends whom he can trust) and yet he didn't see the slight - you are seeing through your preconceived notions. Why can't a powerful black athlete be depicted as a powerful black athlete? The New Yorker cover was "satire" for god's sake! Should we remove the word "niggardly" from our lexicon because it might have the unintended consequence to offend?

I've read Vogue probably less than 6 times in my life and all I can remember was that it was shockingly all ads with very little of any editorial content and never Essence or Latina, but they serve CondeNaste and its stockholders, and I would bet Essence and Latina do the same they just do it by grabbing a different market.

All of this pc bullshit does hide the bigger picture and makes a laughingstock of real issues. If you protest everything then you protest nothing - the protest of Crystal Pepsi was great, because it shows how ridiculous most people view protests that have become the equivalent of crying wolf.

TangerineSpeedo, obviously you have this fantasy where all people are the same and have the same viewpoints. I'm sorry, but that does not exist. Groups experience different realities, and develop differing viewpoints, as a result of their differing experiences. These differences can be based on race, ethnicity, gender, nationality, region - the list is limitless. Just like Americans and Sudanese have differing experiences, cultural traits and views, why would you find it so hard to believe that American blacks, latinos, Asians, whites, and others have different experiences, and correspondingly, different views regarding certain matters? Are you crazy? For instance, whites are Democrats and Republicans both in large numbers. Conversely, blacks are overwhelmingly Democrat and are Republican only in very small numbers - obviously there is something about the black American experience that makes the Republican party less appealing to them, or else they would be attracted to it with the same frequency as whites. This is not to claim groups are monoliths - of course not every member of a group will think the same and members of different groups may at times have more in common with each other. But there are patterns of thinking among groups because of their joint experiences. As a well-dressed person with a graduate degree who still gets followed around in stores because of her race, I can guarantee that you and I have different views based on our races (and since you probably believe America is racism-free: yes, I know when people are being assholes in general and when they're being assholes because they're racist. You get good at discerning the difference when it happens to you enough times). And to speak of more trivial matters other than racial-profiling - yes, Vogue IS white-centric. I'm sorry if this makes you uncomfortable, but it's true. As a person of color, I don't need Vogue's tanning tips, or tips on how to wear the new "nudes" (which are always defined as the peaches and beiges which tend to match white skin), or tips on how to style my hair in manners that can't typically be achieved with black hair. Just like you probably can't wear braided or natural styles that Essence might recommend. Pretending that racial differences don't exist is not the answer to ending racism. We are NOT all the same, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. It is only a bad thing when people act as if it is.

As far as the The New Yorker cover is concerned, it was "satire" at the expense of Black people. Just because the New Yorker is edited and written by white, NYC, self-professed liberals, that does not give them a pass. If that cover had been published by a right-wing magazine, everyone would have been up in arms, but because the New Yorker considers themselves to be "good" white people who are liberal and "get it", that makes it okay? It was still a white editorial decision which belittled a black American couple making groundbreaking strides and the struggle of black Americans in general (the black Panther imagery). I can appreciate satire, but I have problems when groups manipulate the sensitive history of others to make their OWN points.

And your assertion regarding the makeup of corporate boardrooms is false. This applies to senior management in general. And even if you look at it from a class standpoint, why do you think there are so many class disparities among races and ethnicities? I know it's easier to close your eyes and cover your ears, and pretend all is well in America. And I know it's easier to convince yourself that people just get judged on their merits. And I know all of this is even easier to believe when you can point to some examples of famous people and maybe a few friends whose experiences support that belief. But until you've lived in my reality, please don't pretend that there are millions of American people of color who are just crazy for identifying these problems. Based on your worldview, it is obvious that you can afford to decide which racial matters are "big problems" and which things are "small problems". It is also obvious that you can afford to dismiss things as "PC", because these things aren't happening to you.