Esquire Magazine asks if Sen. Edwards is last, white hope—contradictions ensue

Guest Columnist

Esquire Magazine asks if Sen. Edwards is last, white hope—contradictions ensue

Esquire asks: “can a white man still be elected president?”

Does Race Matter? has recently posted a response to the latest cover of Esquire Magazine, which boldly asks, “can a white man still be elected president?”

On the cover towers Sen. John Edwards, positioned in a superman stance (as one person commented on Racialicious) and looking ahead in all of his white glory.

Let’s not forget the icing on the cake. Above John Edwards lies a half-naked woman accompanied by the headline, “sexiest woman alive.” This cover says enough. We are being told that women and people of color are rising above a history of injustices, yet the reality is that the injustices persist today. Even if we do elect a white female or Black male president, people like the editors at Esquire, will continue to forget what racism and sexism looks like, especially as they make ‘white man’ synonymous with man and leader.

Ultimately, Esquire can’t see how Sen. Hillary Clinton does not represent all women, and Sen. Barack Obama all people of color. Which is why Esquire conveys the message of the dawning of an age of “minorities”—a dystopia for the white man, as Wendi Muse reports.

However, women and people of color are far from beating ‘the white man’ in other, non presidential races. Our television remains dominated by ideas of white masculinity, our celebrities, our news, our schools and other institutions remain Eurocentric. The current way in which our world is dominated by the white man will not be overcome by mere change of the American president.

Further, racism and injustice are strongest when they give the appearance of their absence. So while I hope we elect a president who is not a white man, I hope also that we will not use this election as a way of discrediting future claims of inequality by women and people of color.

Thoughts?

—Sara Rosell, an intern at the Applied Research Center, is a junior rhetoric and ethnic studies major at the University of California-Berkeley.

Posted at 11:01 AM, Jul 25, 2007 in Permalink | View Comments

Comments

HOLY COW! (assuming I shouldn't cuss on this blog)! That cover is one of the most racist things I have seen in a long time. It is reminiscent of the racist slogan "The Great White Hope" when the world heavy weight boxing champion was a black man and they were looking for a white man to beat him.

Another thing rarely pointed out is that the U.S. government was formed to further ultra elite white privilege, as only propertied white males where allowed to vote. This U.S. system still holds high the ultra elite white privileged, afterall, they're the ones that own it.

The cover is also sexist. "Sexiest Woman Alive"? Esquire is a male oriented magazine, right? How about "Dr. Helen Caldicott Tells Men How Radiation Shrinks Their Balls." How about women of Merit? Vandana Shiva, Ramona Africa, Winona Laduke, etc. Nope. They gotta talk about their t*ts and ass, as if nothing else mattered about women. As if they aren't our mothers, sisters, aunts, co-workers, fellow activists (often more motivated than their male counterparts), etc.

All I can say is Esquire is indeed a racist and sexist magazine and I've never read the thing. It is obvious from their cover.

Although blacks are 12% of the population in reality it is just 2% of the blacks that commit 50% of the murders and a greater percentage of other crimes. Consider: black females - 6%. Blacks from zero yrs. to 12yrs. and black males from 50-100 years commit an infinitesimal percentage of the crimes. Therefore we are left with two percent. If we eliminate crimes committed by this two percent from the U.S. statistics our country compares very favorably with all Western countries. Fact -- blacks kill 7 times more than whites kill. Fact -- blacks kill whites 20 times more than whites kill blacks. Fact -- blacks mug or commit group crime against whites 50 times more than whites commit against blacks. Fact -- blacks rape white women 2000 (yes 2000) times more than whites rape black women. In New York City, about 300 white women are raped by blacks every year BUT there has not been a black woman raped by a white male in anybody’s memory (going back over 20 yrs.) Consider: Al Sharpton had to go upstate New York to find a hoax and that was over 10 years ago.
(Source NYT: 4/23/02)

Perhaps the better question is, "can a malpractice lawyer be elected president?"

The 2004 elections proved "no," as many doctors and their voting-age children didn't vote democratic because of Edwards.

Woah, who is this Josh character?
His "facts" seem way out of line, and not just in terms of this particular blog. I guess his words speak to Ms. Rosell's "Further, racism and injustice are strongest when they give the appearance of their absence."... In truth, racism temporary disappearance has been mitigated to a fact-based theory of criminality and deviance as well as that discussion of who is worthy/unworthy of basic human rights.

Of course, those statistics indicate nothing more than the institutionalized racism of the judicial and penal system, police sterotyping, etc. The reason we dont hear about black women being raped by white men is lack of news media interest, lack of social supports in commnities of color - internal or farther reaching - underappreciation or complete disrgard for black female innocence or virginity. The list goes on.

But while I could spend days discussing the black hymen as a trope for neocolonialism, the matter at hand is John Edwards, AKA Superman on the cover of Esquire. It is interesting that there is so much fear in the white community of losing its virility -- even in the Viagra-era. The image of Edwards coupled with the women does not necessarily evoke "meritless woman." She has a purpose. Her face does not show, and with her hand across her belly, she looks like she has recently been seduced, had sex, whatever. If Edwards is the new and last White Hope, his sexual power comes from conquering the female. And a Blonde, much like our Hillary Clinton.

I have not read the article, but my question hinges on the word "still" -- can a white man "still" be president? Should a white man EVER have been president would have been a better question. I think the presidency should be open to a person of any race, but why SHOULD a white man have been president? Maybe only because he created that position and title after decimating Native (Red Man) populations?

Also, its interesting that what is implied is if not White, than what color? I know Barrack is the leading person of color in this race, but this discussion should approach why brown, yellow, red or otherwise people of any gender are not even assumed worthy of the seat.
While Barrack, who I adore and recently met, will be a strong leader, the fact is that it WILL have a serious effect on color-blind dialogians, and there are other races whose progress and needs will likely be pushed to the back burner. Or maybe not, just a thought....

Natasha's comment is very insightful, I agree completely and I am also bugged by the fact that the question itself rests on the assumption that the white man is, in a way, the most worthy of the job. Unfortunately, I can also see how Obama's success will not necessarily bring all racial/gender issues to the forefront. I believe that we can make so much progress, yet at the same time, as I said before, he does not represent all people of color--more specifically, I am worried about the continued marginalization of poor women and children of color. Thanks for the thoughts everyone, this is a very interesting election time and it's something we must keep talking about.

Wow. I wonder what Edwards, who I think is pretty decidedly not racist, thinks about being used in this racist propaganda.

I understand the cover of the Esquire magazine to be pretty clearly racist and sexist. Thank you, Sara Rosell, for highlighting it for those reasons.

I wonder, though, at Sara Rosell's comment that "racism and injustice are strongest when they give the appearance of their absence." It seems to me that racism, and other injustices, can appear to be both present and absent at the same time, depending on the communities that are witnessing the actions. Also, stating that a racism is "strongest" in any sense seems to put value on a particular type of racism, and measuring racisms is something that, I think, is not possible and not useful.

I checked the April 23, 2002 edition of the NYT, and couldn't find anything that supported Josh's comments.