I did a poll recently on my newspaper's Web site (dailytidings.com) that asked locals a question about the prevalence of racist attitudes in the region. The most popular response was racism was still prevalent and just hidden.

I find that the marketing industry in America is one of the most telling industries of prevalent racial attitudes. And this magazine issue is just one indicator.

Ever notice that blacks have to have our own mags, our own TV shows, our own music, etc? The country is still quite segregated. And there's a lot of evidence of it all over, not just in the churches (although that's quite telling right there).

The wholde uproar over this issue of Vogue shows how enslaved the minds of people in this country are. I'm Black but not from this country. When I saw it, I thought they looked like two people having a fun. I did not anticipate all this nonsense. I think you're right. It will be a long time before vogue put another Black on it's cover. I guess those people got what they wanted.

I agree nadia! America is so damn PC it's stupid! That cover was not racist in anyway!

The cover is racist. Ignorance is why you can't see it. Trust, photography is all about eliciting an emotional response from stilled images. Ann Wintour knew EXACTLY what she was doing and it BACKFIRED.

Just because YOU don't see it does not mean it isn't there. Maybe you should read a bit more about black imagery in the past. This has been a mainstay since Birth of A Nation.

Yeah google that reference while you're at it.

As if Vogue needed a reason to not feature blacks on its cover. Regardless of the rationale behind the photo, James was the first black man to make it to the cover and this is, what, 2008? I know and have seen many men of color who could grace any runway and outVogue any emaciated figure the mag features. If being criticized for having exaggerated body images doesn't stop Vogue from putting them on the cover, why should criticism for the James cover stop Vogue from snapping more black men for their front page?

Anna Wintour's overeducated, poncy sensibilities got the best of her with this one. I guarantee it went straight over the heads of 99% of Americans.

And if Wintour was having a little too much fun with the idea of raw, animal power, I might point out that this was the cover of the "shape" issue, and LeBron is on it because of (you guessed it) his raw, physical power. Not his keen grasp of Elizabethan poetry. His muscles.

Gisele is also there because she's a leggy blonde damsel in distress. She's there as an object, because of her body. Is the cover sexist? Maybe, but it would take a mental leap to say it influences my view of women.

Now that I look at the two images back to back, I think Wintour and the photographer knew what they were doing, maybe they didn't think anyone else would remember the King Kong picture. I think they did it to be controversial and it was, except it was more than controversial, it's offensive. I'm just an ordinary white middle class woman, not some rah-rah liberal or anything and I FIND it offensive. I wouldn't buy it and apparently others felt the same way.
I bet the athlete and the model on the cover didn't realize the similarity or they wouldn't have posed for it if they did.

Well, its not the worse cover since 2001….

that honor now belongs to the cover with Gwyneth Paltrow (iron man)…that mag only sold 310,000 copies.

So, I guess they can't say that black are the only ones to bring in low sales.

i'll tell you why the mag did not sell well. i love vogue, considering i am a fashion design major in college. i don't want some f***ing athlete on the cover of MY fashion mag. yes, that's right. i don't care if they are white, black, asian, or hispanic, i don't think they belong in vogue. they have espn mag for that. keep it where it belongs. trust me, a lot of other "fashionistas" were quite disappointed with this cover as well. vogue is the messiah of fashion mags and to ruin it with sports, which i despise, ruins the sales. i also feel like models should not ruin sports mags either, to be fair.

The original poster was a World War I army recruitment ad. The ape is not supposed to be King Kong, nor is it supposed to be a representation of a black person. Unless you're upset that LeBron James is being compared to the Kaiser, this is really a stretch.

When I saw the cover I thought, "Loudmouth athlete and skinny boring model." The photo isn't particularly attractive or clever. Maybe that's why it didn't sell.

Talulazoeapple, I wholeheartedly agree with what you're saying, just want to add that although its been a mainstay in the media since Birth of a Nation, it merely brought to light views that were so highly prevalent during (and before) that era. Could this cover be a subliminal reflection of how Anna Wintour and those like her view minorities?

Why don't black people want to live SEPARATE from whites, and then they would never suffer from 'racism' ever again?
Whites sure as hell want to live separate from YOU, but you just can't seem to stop yourselves, and follow us around the planet…

Obviously, when blacks live on their own, they end up with the wonderful, successful countries that make up Africa…