Before we all jump on the “Bloomberg Businessweek is racist” bandwagon, let’s take a second to ask: Who actually drew that cover depicting four people, all apparently minorities, sitting on wads of cash?
Turns out it’s a guy named Andres Guzman, according to both Businessweek’s design Flickr account and Guzman’s Tumblr.
I haven’t heard back from Guzman yet (will be sure to update if I do), but the artist, born in Lima, Peru and currently residing in Minneapolis, wrote on his blog that he “was asked to make an excited family with large quantities of money.” He added: “Drawing dollars was a drag.”
Sounds to me like it might have been Guzman’s decision to make the family members minorities — not Businessweek’s. And I have a hard time believing that a man from Latin America deliberately intended to portray minorities, including Latinos, in a negative light.
All that said, it’s surprising that no one at Businessweek took a minute to consider that the cover could be viewed as racist (and Ryan Chittum ably points out several reasons why it certainly appears that way). Businessweek editor Josh Tyrangiel told Jim Romenesko that “our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we’d do it differently.”
Update, 4:35 pm: Bloomberg Businessweek just sent us this statement from Andres Guzman: “The assignment was an illustration about housing. I simply drew the family like that because those are the kind of families I know. I am Latino and grew up around plenty of mixed families.”
It's screamingly absurd to argue that an idea can't be racist simply because it's voiced/drawn by a brown person.
#1 Posted by Sergei, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 02:28 PM
As Boing Boing noted, the art that Andres Guzman produced was not in itself racist, but the context it was used in, with the associated text, changes the perception of the image greatly. Also, based on Guzman's post, it seems as though he wasn't provided any inclination of how his illo would be used.
#2 Posted by Leo, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 03:11 PM
Why would you assume that a man from Peru (Latin America) identified himself with minorities and therefore wouldn't portray them in a negative light? Do you consider all people from Latin America to be "minorities"?
#3 Posted by Erica, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 03:34 PM
I am a black man who bought a him during the tech and housing bubbles. The only thing missing from this racist garbage is a watermelon and some fried chicken in their hands.
White people have talked themselves into the miraculous disappearance of all racism with the sentiment we colored people ought to just lighten up.
#4 Posted by Richard Bottoms, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 04:10 PM
Ms. Morrison's analysis is a horribly off-base and misinformed. Two racial crimes occurred here that should not be diminished or minimized. One, the commission by Bloomberg Businessweek editors of cover art that would play to THE BIG LIE of the subprime/housing crisis (ie: it was mooching blacks & Latinos that caused the crash and they stand ready to do it again); and two, the rampant use stereotypical caricatures of black and Latino people by the artist, Mr. Guzman.
It's astounding that Ms. Morrison would trot out the incredibly simpleminded argument that the cover wasn't racist because the artist is from Peru. Peru, Brazil and other Latin American countries have struggled with racism and colorism for centuries. While one wouldn't expect Ms. Morrison to be a scholar on Peru, much of this history is easily found through a Google search. Not to be snarky, but it's kinda what one would expect a top editor at CJR to do, before publishing.
Further, in communities across the US, there many clashes and simmering resentments between African-Americans and immigrants from Latin America (and also the Caribbean and Africa) over the exact thing that a reasonable person could conclude is being projected in this cover - the false belief that African-Americans are lazy, scheming or otherwise less hardworking and ethical.
Ms. Morrison would have better served CJR, the issue and her readers by interviewing the actual players and some experts on this issue (like the Maynard Institute), instead of upchucking poorly reasoned defenses that confuse and muddy. All in all, not a good look.
#5 Posted by Jim, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 07:48 PM
So because he is from Peru the cover isn't racist??? What does his origin have to do with the BusinessWeek Editors choosing the cover??
#6 Posted by Ron , CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 05:28 AM
That's what Businessweek has editors for. Shame on them for laying it on the illustrator for a cover they shouldn't have used.
#7 Posted by Karel H, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 12:32 PM
It's always easy for a white person to readily dismiss a portrait with blatantly racist undertones, even if the artist is a nonwhite person. Guzman being Latino doesn't excuse the offensive nature of the picture, especially when the article on the inside of the magazine makes no mention of race. So lets stop the "they didn't mean to be racist game" and call it for what it is. I am a black woman and every singel day, there is a story, article, comment whether on television/newspaper/online of something pertaining to black people in a negative way. It's almost like a daily, sick obession to constantly be bombarded with racist crap. Business Week editorial team knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they proceeded with this cover. Guzman knew what he was doing. They wanted controversy and to be offensive for the sake of being offensive and they got it, smirking all the way.
#8 Posted by Renee, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 09:53 PM