This week's New Yorker features on its cover the Obamas, depicted "terrorist" style (htp Gina from What About Our Daughters). So, is this supposed to be a "parody" of right-wing conservative "anxiety," or, more likely, the anxiety of racially repressed liberals using "humor" to express the racism that is being projected onto the other party?Also, before I get accused of not having any sense of humor when it comes to "racial" jokes, I have to ask: are we, as a nation, truly sophisticated enough to make these kinds of jokes? There are far too many who take black people quite literally. What symbolism and irony are invoked here that would make this imagery acceptable?
I ask these questions because, although it would seem absurd for Fox News to confuse the love fist jab as some kind of "terrorist gang sign," and, therefore, quite appropriate for the New Yorker to poke fun at their stupidity, how many did take this news account seriously? After all, there are Americans who do think the Obamas are just as dangerous (if not more so) than the guy whose name rhymes with theirs.
22 comments:
I know that the cover was meant to be satirical, but there are going to be some idiots who won't "get it" and will completely misinterpret things. There are people who actually see them that way and it is ridiculous.
i did not think it was satirical when I saw the cover, perhaps I too lack a sense of humor. And think your question is justified, (paraphrase) "as a nation are we able to make these kinds of jokes."
If this was a joke, it sucks.
Also, I don't understand the whole "terrorist fist jab" thing. How does it relate to terrorism? It's innocent nonverbal communication, like a high five or something.
Spot on, ABW. I see the satire, but the image plays into the fear-mongering more than it satirizes it. Depicting the Obamas this way isn't funny -- not when there are very real fears about them in the conservative consciousness of America.
Hey there!
It is amazing that Bernie Mac was CONDEMNED by Obama for making jokes about white people but I don't see Obama condemning this publication for their racist depiction of him and his wife....
I am very tired of Obama stepping up to repudiate the actions of blacks (Bernie Mac, Jeremiah Wright) that he feels are divisive but all the whites get a pass?
Please, don't get me started...
Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa
Nah, not satirical, really. Just bad.
Hey, ABW, I could really use your help (aka a smart way of phrasing things) replying to an email I got today, but I didn't see an email link on your blog to write you in person. How can one get in touch with you?
Thanks everyone for your comments, and welcome to my blog! :)
Lisa, don't you think if Obama said something to The New Yorker, he would be accused of being "petty" or "over sensitive"? Double-edged sword, these things.
Charlotte, I try not to make my email public. Is what you have to share too sensitive to discuss here?
It's not a joke if you have to explain it. With apologies to Jonathan Swift.... Satire my ass. American journalism and its media-industry (and even various sections of the blogosphere) have completely bastardize the entire literary concept of 'satire.' Shame.
I just finished sending an email to that RAG (I've just dubbed it) expressing my discontent with their lack of forethought. Certainly they knew the intelligence quota of this great country and knew that those who fell below it would dance a "jig" at the sight of it. It was inappropriate and unexcusable.
I agree with what everyone has said, and I do think that it was in bad taste, but the history of the New Yorker is to do things like this. It is supposed to be "high brow"--for "The Intellectual" but it fails miserably in this case. The people that I was referring to who wouldn't get what the magazine "thought" they were doing, were the people that already have these pre-conceived ideas about Obama and his wife anyway. The cover just plays up to that. I am an Obama supporter and I'm on pins and needles anytime something like this happens. Everyone is watching him to see how he is going to act and he always has to be on his best behavior, it seems. The last thing he wants to do is appear to be an "Angry Black Man". So, it may look like he's pandering to the White mainstream, but I actually think that he's trying to downplay the negativity and not trying to comment on it too much because it could backfire on him somehow. It's a "Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't" situation.
barry didn't condemn Bernie, he said under his breath, but which was heard and reported "I'm just messing with you man"
no it's not satire and it's not racism. It's the truth.
we haven't seen much of that lately so that's probably why no one recognizes it.
Now that Cynthia McKinney is finally running, possibly we have a good chance of putting someone very credible in office.
@blackwomenblowthetrumpet.com:
His campaign gave a statement on the cover: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-07/15/content_8545516.htm
(also, I love your blog!)
I agree with vrajavala, but I do think it is satire. Also, don't think you can have it both ways. If America is ready to have a black man as a candidate for president (and I'm not saying it's ready just because he's running) then it's ready to have this kinda discourse. We can't hide behind the "some people will take this seriously" curtain. With satire, somebody ALWAYS DOES take it seriously. And the chips fall where they may. NYkr has done much satire on Bush administration...no outcry there...
A colleague of mine sent me an article by Laurie Fendrich in the Chronicle of Higher Ed - "Brainstorm: The Bad Cover" - in which she aptly points out that in order for satire to work, there must be a kernel of truth to it.
In order for the New Yorker cover satire to work, then, is for there to be a kernel of truth that the Obamas are black militant, Osama-supporting, American-flag-burning "terrorists," who will unleash their master plan once they reach the Oval Office.
Now, since we know there are Americans who think this, who is this satire meant for?
ABW - from the moment I saw this cover at Feministe, I felt like there was something missing in the image. Your comment about the kernel of truth crystalizes for me exactly what isn't there - nowhere do the people supposedly being satirized by the cover image appear. Instead, the Obamas are the sole subject of the image and, as such, appear to be the subject of the satire.
Hey ABW. No, it's not too sensitive or too personal--it's potentially too long. But ok, here we go:
A friend of mine, a staunch Libertarian, forwarded me one of the most Limbaugh-worthy diatribes on Michelle Obama's thesis. I found a copy of the email here: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/browse_thread/thread/16784b926a74f63f/79d125b559958df3
So, I replied to her that, if she wanted to form her own opinion, Michelle's thesis is available to read on the internet and sent her the link. I then got an email back that reads:
"Actually, the link only provides the first 18 pages; however, that was enough to guage her outlook. I found it extremely telling that her premise was to find how educated blacks respond to the needs of other blacks, especially in the lowest rung of black society.
"Personally, I have assisted people most of my life and I don't ever recall trying to do more or less for a white person. A person in need is a person in need whatever color and I would not give preference or deny preference to anyone based on color as that would be racist. I think Michelle displays a definite racist attitude after reading her first 18 pages and that is just one of the things that concern me about the Obama's - that and Barry's far-left socialist leanings."
Now, this comes from a woman with a graduate degree in theology who's worked in executive levels all her life. And I don't know what to respond to this any more because anything I write will sound upset, defensive, and hurt. So, I need some help here. What would you answer to this?
Charlotte, I would simply explain to this person that Racism is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over all others and, thereby, its right to dominance and supremacy. I would then explain that there is nothing in Michelle Obama's outlook that would suggest that, by exploring how educated blacks might be in a position to help less educated blacks, there is nothing to suggest that she is interested in the "inherent superiority of the black race and the right to dominate over others.
That one always starts within their own community before branching out to other communities for help and leadership.
If that person still is not convinced, then you will just have to tell her that she's a white supremacist, plain and simple, and to stop projecting her racist views onto others, which is what she is doing when making such a ludicrous statement about the Obamas.
And THIS, Lisa and others, is why the Obamas CANNOT afford to look as if they are catering to black folk, if they want to make it to the White House. They're not even doing this, and we still have ignoramuses who think they are!
Thanks for the wise words, ABW. I cut-and-pasted your points in my reply to her email.
The thing that vexes me most about this whole situation (apart from the blatant racism coming from the mouth of an otherwise educated woman) is that I don't know how to respond to this garbage; all I know is that it's very disturbing for me to find out a longtime friend haws gone off the deep end that much ...
Glad to be of help, Charlotte. Good luck!
Great blog. I'm very late to the party but I wanted to leave a comment, since I've been obsessively thinking about this topic since long before my NYer arrived in the mail. I think your question - is this cover an expression of repressed racism - is great. I don't know the answer. My first reaction upon seeing the cover was "WHOA!" I found the image blatantly offensive. The more I thought about it, though, the more I realized how perfectly this piece of cartoon art was aimed to pierce through the current cultural and political discourse, like a particlarly sharp and poisoned arrow.
The bottom line for me is that this cover plays on two fears: that Obama is a Muslim (and therefore automatically an Osama Bin Laden sympathizer) and that Michelle Obama is a Black Liberation Theologist/some sort of militant Black sympathizer (a la Angela Davis in the 60s and 70s). Those are the fears that are being satirized (or "satirized"). Here's the thing about the cover, though, as I see it: it turns out these fears are not only present in the right-wing political community; they also exist in the liberal/progressive political community, whether expressed or not. The cover is exposing these fears in both camps. Even those progressives who understand that neither fear is truly justified, are still terrified that their candidate should be (or has been) tarred with these two particlar brushes. THIS is why so many on the left are causing such a hue and cry about the cover. Anyway, that's my theory. I still find the thing offensive, but I think it might have served a purpose in exposing the dirty underbelly of peoples' hearts and minds, as it were. Not that that actually makes me feel any better. And I don't know if that was the cartoonist's orginal intent.
I hope I'm making sense here. The question of whether the NYer should never have run the cover is something I just don't know. I think, in any case, as a country we are not ready for this cover, which, unfortunately, might elevate it to the realm of art.
Hi Christy, Thanks for your comments and welcome to my blog! What you said makes perfect sense, but if, as you said, "as a country we are not ready for this cover," does that mean we're not ready for a black president?
You know, I think WE (the country) think we're ready for a Black president. But maybe some are just not quite ready yet to face down certain personal fears, no matter how irrational. But I'm making assumptions about the psychology of the country here, when maybe there's really no such thing and it really comes down to individuals and their own experience. If I had to guess, I would say, Yes, we are ready. But that doesn't mean that the next few months - and maybe the next four years - are not going to be rough in some ways, as we (as a country) struggle with these issues as they surface. But hey, what else is new.
In other, perhaps more interesting news, the Port Huron project and the Oakland Museum are re-creating a 1969 speech by Angela Davis, "The Liberation of Our People," in Oakland's DeFremery Park, August 2 at 6:00 pm. Yeah!
Post a Comment