But that wouldn't have the statement of reversing expectation of who wants to play into what ideal. I'm not sold by any means that's part of the thinking with those who produced it, do wonder though.
Originally Posted by sew and sew
As clever as that might have been, you just don't touch some things w/ a ten foot pole...unless you want to ruffle some feathers. Which the magazine did.
Originally Posted by spiderlashes5000

Anna - it's just a thought with very debatable legs. But again, using a Black African woman wouldn't work if that thought was actually in play.

What spiderlashes said about offense being present in the racist art form of it didn't cross my mind. If that's what people who're familiar with racist art like that are clearly seeing/it's unmistakable, then it's safe to say the thought doesn't apply.

The only way I assumed people were reacting to it was "so even when they want to honor Black African beauty they use a white woman, out of perception that her beauty is superior."

Which made me wonder if the shoot's team could have conceived of it like "here's a white woman who wants to capture Black African beauty." Western-idolizing behavior turned around. She's altering herself to fit the mold she's aspiring to. You couldn't send that message with a Black African model.
Originally Posted by sew and sew
I'm sorry but capturing Black African beauty isn't done by painting your skin black. What kind of ridiculousness....
There are people with dark skin all over the world - it isn't unique to Black Africans. The problem here is that once more the features associated with SSA's are avoided by using a white model (or most of the time a East African model because they tend to be closer to the Western standard of beauty). Those same features that are mocked and considered unattractive in the industry should be part of an editorial that wants to show their admiration of African beauty. But I really doubt that that was the intention here in the first place.