Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:
Why the photographers in this thread that are concern by the label BLACK don't have skin color diversity in their portfolio... hmmm?

Do black and white photos count? ;^)

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

So "black humor" should be revisited ?? So would black Monday...

You leave my black coffee alone!

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

Define exploitation and then demonstrate that Alain was exploiting anyone...
waiting...

Good news!  Your waiting is over!

C'mon...take a look at that web site.  The snappies focus almost entirely on Black women's breasts, pelvises and birthing parts.  It's a modern day version of the National Geographics that little White boys used to scurry off to the bathroom with back in the '60s.  These images do nothing but objective the Black woman while depriving her of her modesty and dignity.  This "work" reduces the Black woman down to nothing more than a collection of body parts.

Yours truly,

Edouard-Jacques Goodwin

UnoMundo Photography wrote:

So can we exploit the naive models on MM and get some "art" nudes .

Sounds like a plan, man.

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
It's a modern day version of the National Geographics that little White boys used to scurry off to the bathroom with.........

That sounds like a racist comment.

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
C'mon...take a look at that web site.  The snappies focus almost entirely on Black women's breasts, pelvises and birthing parts.  It's a modern day version of the National Geographics that little White boys used to scurry off to the bathroom with back in the '60s.  These images do nothing but objective the Black woman while depriving her of her modesty and dignity.  This "work" reduces the Black woman down to nothing more than a collection of body parts.

Yours truly,

Edouard-Jacques Goodwin

Good news, that means that you are good. You are able to interpret his art and you have an opinion of your own... based on your cultural and social background.
Now, why don't we ask the author ... and the models.
You see tits and asses... I see jewelry, fabrics, shapes, shadows and skin... That's my problem.

Nora_Neko wrote:
Honestly I don't think it's fair that you can have Black entertainment television but not white entertainment television.I mean not trying to say I'd even watch it if it did exsist but I just don't understand how it's ok to say black only but it's not ok to say white only.It's still racism.Back in the day African Americans didn't want to have seperate water fountains or bathrooms, yet now they rejoice to have BET.

I believe to single out any race for any reason is being racist.This doesn't really offend me but it is my opinion on the matter.Although after looking over the site I don't find it to be much of a race thing.It seems to be genuinely an art thing.

Take a look at your cable program guide.  There is only one "BET" and several hundred channels targeting non-Blacks.  Why begrudge folk their channel?

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
Take a look at your cable program guide.  There is only one "BET" and several hundred channels targeting non-Blacks.  Why begrudge folk their channel?

There's no Whitemen toothpaste in the US. Why begrudge folk their toothpaste?

Dawn Winter wrote:
What next, going to go after every photographer that only has pics of only white, black, asian or hispanic women in their ports???

You guys sure love to reach.

I just did (but on this thread only).

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:

Take a look at your cable program guide.  There is only one "BET" and several hundred channels targeting non-Blacks.  Why begrudge folk their channel?

Do you know owns BET ? have you seen their staff ?


Neko starts that BET dipstick thread every couple weeks. She must not get cable in Arkinsaw !

CantikFotos wrote:
That sounds like a racist comment.

The comment itself is not racist, but the behavior that it describes is/was the result of racist policies of National Geographic.  NG never had any problem publishing photographs of women of color nude.  There is no way they could have gotten away with publishing photographs of nude White women.  The message was that women of color are sub-human so there is no reason to afford them a level of modesty.

CantikFotos wrote:

Mais oui! "mirage noir" zounds zo much more....how do you sayz it? Sophisticated! Yes?

SO much for ordering "blackened" swordfish

Dawn Winter wrote:
What next, going to go after every photographer that only has pics of only white, black, asian or hispanic women in their ports???

You guys sure love to reach.

A portfolio of Dawn Winter pics would be nice !

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:
Jeez you mispelled my name... pffff han han han!!! oui oui...... ;-)
LOL

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
see that is the picky picky French for ya!  I am calling you "Bob" from now on


Felipe with one "L"

how about just JP

CantikFotos wrote:

There's no Whitemen toothpaste in the US. Why begrudge folk their toothpaste?

A travesty, I'm sure.

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
The comment itself is not racist, but the behavior that it describes is/was the result of racist policies of National Geographic.

You specifially mentioned "little white boys"........I suppose little black boys in the 1960s didn't look at nude photos.

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
There is no way they could have gotten away with publishing photographs of nude white women.

Few white women do their shopping or walk around town nude.

CantikFotos wrote:

You specifially mentioned "little white boys"........I suppose little black boys in the 1960s didn't look at nude photos.

no, little black boys wanted  Playboy. Little white boys wanted National Geographic.

cross cultural masturbation ; what a concept.

CantikFotos wrote:

You specifially mentioned "little white boys"........I suppose little black boys in the 1960s didn't look at nude photos.

It's entirely possible they did.  However, the imagery of White boys drooling over NG has been presented as a near cliche over the years in the popular media.

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
However, the imagery of White boys drooling over NG has been presented as a near cliche over the years in the popular media.

So have images of little black boys drooling over watermelons.

CantikFotos wrote:
Few white women do their shopping or walk around town nude.

Well... in France there are quite a few nudist villages... and there are photographer that did work on it... no-one told them they were degrading the white people...

Jay Bowman wrote:
It's like saying the NFL is sexist because they don't let women play and they women who are connected to the teams are "forced" into exploitatively revealing clothing.


Please.  It's a football team.  They're cheerleaders.  Don't make an issue where there isn't one...

Well, if you ignore the cheerleaders and note that they only accept male players... yeah, that's sexist.

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

Well... in France there are quite a few nudist villages... and there are photographer that did work on it... no-one told them they were degrading the white people...

I wonder what Jock Sturges has to say about that subject.

CantikFotos wrote:

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
The comment itself is not racist, but the behavior that it describes is/was the result of racist policies of National Geographic.

You specifially mentioned "little white boys"........I suppose little black boys in the 1960s didn't look at nude photos.


Few white women do their shopping or walk around town nude.

Doesn't matter.  Magazines that depicted nude White women were often either banned or locked up back in the '60s while NG was laying around unmolested on members' coffee tables across the country.

Jean-Philippe Martin wrote:

Well... in France there are quite a few nudist villages... and there are photographer that did work on it... no-one told them they were degrading the white people...

They were not being photographed because they are White.

CantikFotos wrote:

So have images of little black boys drooling over watermelons.

What does that have to do with anything?

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:

What does that have to do with anything?

You're the one who brought up stereotypes. So, are only your stereotypes acceptable?

Nora_Neko wrote:
Honestly I don't think it's fair that you can have Black entertainment television but not white entertainment television.I mean not trying to say I'd even watch it if it did exsist but I just don't understand how it's ok to say black only but it's not ok to say white only.It's still racism.Back in the day African Americans didn't want to have seperate water fountains or bathrooms, yet now they rejoice to have BET.

I believe to single out any race for any reason is being racist.This doesn't really offend me but it is my opinion on the matter.Although after looking over the site I don't find it to be much of a race thing.It seems to be genuinely an art thing.

Dont forget Telemundo, i wonder who thats marketed for, haha.  i dont see things like BET as being racist, just marketing to a different culture who may be interested in subject matter on their own culture.  Trying to say White Entertainment TV is just not really working, cuz "white" is the culture we live in.  we get that same perspective everyday by watching the regular evening news.  but me, being Hispanic, if i want to get more a perspective on news that would interest me, such as more info on a hurricane back at home, then i would switch more to Telemundo.  why? cuz they are gonna provide the perspective of news i want to hear.  Also they are gonna have a perspective fitting my culture. I had some family friends who are Japanese, who suscribed on their satelite provider to a Japanese TV channel.  Why? cuz they wanted to get a perspective that fits their culture, and to hear news and watch shows that are relevant to them.   BET is marketed to another cultural minority, calling it racist isnt exactly right, because they dont exclude others on BET.  How many times have I seen Pitbull(a puerto rican/cuban of light skin tone) or Eminem(a white dude)  on there?  Hell, ive even seen a white host or 2 on there.  its not a racist thing, the name is just to easily identify with who its targeted too, people who are into the Hip Hop/Black culture.

Ed Goodwin Photography wrote:
Take a look at your cable program guide.  There is only one "BET" and several hundred channels targeting non-Blacks.  Why begrudge folk their channel?

I think, because the existence of its name alone sustains racial divides. What makes African-Americans a people seperate from other people? The labels they apply to themselves.

Bryan Benoit wrote:
As a black man that has experienced racism first hand I can tell you that there is NOTHING racist about that site. People need perspective.

Perspective? You think we should ignore the small issues? That seems to work in a lot of situations. Oh, wait, no it doesn't.

The site's name refers to the racial background of the subjects, not the social background. How is that not racist?

Searcher wrote:

I think, because the existence of its name alone sustains racial divides. What makes African-Americans a people seperate from other people? The labels they apply to themselves.

Alberto already answered you quite eloquently. Something bothers you when blacks have stuff.

Does UniVision bother you ?
Does the Filipino channel bother you ?
Does the Japanese channel bother you ?

Go look at BET; you might get influenced and become a rap star.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
www.whitemeat.com

JK - nobody's bought that domain yet.

Um, that name's been registered for over three years now.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
Alberto already answered you quite eloquently. Something bothers you when blacks have stuff.

No, but thanks for playing the lowbrow responses, you only strengthen my argument.

No, something bothers me when people cluster together by race when we've been relatively free of geographic divisions for quite some time now, particularly in the USA.

UnoMundo Photography wrote:
Does UniVision bother you ?
Does the Filipino channel bother you ?
Does the Japanese channel bother you ?

Those networks are in other languages. They are also based on cultures. "Black" is not a culture, it is a race.

By your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to start an english-language Yellow Entertainment Television channel for all the asians. That doesn't sound right.

I'm saying it would be fine if it were called African-American Entertainment Television, but the word "black" makes it racist. If you think otherwise... why?

UnoMundo Photography wrote:

Some the "name" is racist, the website is fine, the pics are gorgeous.  He should just find a couple Berbers to photograph to make jittery Americans happy ?

the concept of a man going to Africa and having to explain to you all why he has photos of black Africans is beyond effing stupidity


So if i go to China and I must find some non-Chinese to photograph in order not to be labeled racist.

You understood what I was suggesting the the first sentence, so why did you bother typing the rest of the irrelevent rant that was your post? 
Sheesh, some people just like to complain.

The guy chose his domain name poorly and it has offended people.  End of story.

Wynd Mulysa wrote:
The guy chose his domain name poorly and it has offended people.  End of story.

He's French and used English and it offended a few Americans.