Ok, I get it. The hype over the Obamas, that is. At first I was distracted by the fact that there is actually a presidential race going on here; gas prices rose again over the weekend to $4.19, we are still at war, soldiers are still dying, and our deficit is getting bigger. But now I get it. Sometimes it takes me a little longer to come up from under my “bubble” of Chai lattes, bookstores and great-paying jobs, where you don’t have to do a whole lot but talk about how you could do a whole lot. Ahem, ok…
By now most of you have seen, or at least heard about, the so called “satirical cartoon” of the Obamas on the cover of The New Yorker. If you haven’t, the image is of a turban-wearing Obama standing in what looks like a room in the White House, with his wife, Michelle, wearing a gun around her neck, militia attire and rocking an Angela Davis hairdo, while fist jabbing her husband as the American flag burns in the background.
Shocking? It’s called satire, according to editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who said the purpose was to make fun of the media-spread rumors intended to derail the Obama Campaign.
"The intent of the cover is to satirize the vicious and racist attacks and rumors and misconceptions about the Obamas that have been floating around in the blogosphere and are reflected in public opinion polls," Remnick says. "What we set out to do was to throw all these images together, which are all over the top and to shine a kind of harsh light on them, to satirize them."
Umm, does that include the propaganda endorsed by The New Yorker with this cover?
I get satire. I do. But this does not scream satire to me. Satire is the use of irony to make fun of or show how silly or stupid something can be. In order for this cover to work as satire, I’m going to need David Remnick to write me a caption underneath it or include the media somewhere in the picture, unless the medium in The New Yorker, then well, I get it. I get that The New Yorker in partaking in the latest trend we’ve been seeing in making fun of or picking on the Obamas because it’s good for business. Fox News (aka mindless entertainment) has figured that out with its “Obama’s Baby Mama” reference about Michelle to coining the “terrorist fist jab” Michelle gave her husband. Everyone is talking about The New Yorker. The powers that be knew the cover was going to create a buzz and they knew they could use the excuse that its satire to justify publishing it. They don’t care that the cover is tasteless, perpetuates stereotypes, fails the satire test, not that it would lessen the numerous incendiary stereotypes represented here; it’s partly about selling magazines, but mostly it’s about keeping you away from the truth that the predominately White hierarchal structure is not ready to hand over powers to someone who looks like Barack by belittling and making a mockery of a legitimate candidate. Here you have a qualified, educated; charismatic, good-moral person who wants to lead this country out of this economic, political and social insanity and America still can't get past the fact that he's black. Obama is unequivocally a threat to the white status quo.
The possibility of having a generation grow up in the most powerful country in the world where a black man is in power...if that's not a threat to the white supremacy ideology, I don’t know what is. How is a white child supposed to believe that blacks are good for nothing when his president is black? How are people supposed to believe what they see on TV about blacks if their president is nothing like that? How is a black child supposed to want his first choice of profession when he/she grows up to be an athlete when the chances of him/her becoming a doctor or lawyer are much greater if there is a black president as his/her role model? How are little black kids supposed to drop out of school at a higher rate than whites, engage in risky behaviors, be arrested for crimes they don’t commit if the first family is wholesome and educated?
This man and his family undermine every stereotype perpetuated by the white supremacy ideology about the black race.
8 comments:
I must applaud a most well written article. You make a very compelling argument, however, I disagree. The New Yorker cover was merely satirizing a point of view that is, unfortunately, shared by a number of conservative and misinformed Americans. It was smartly done and humorous, at least, to the portion of the public that is still capable of independent thought.
Much ado has been made of the cover, but there has been something conspicuously absent from the airwaves. The news media, in a display of its usual bumbling, has the populous distracted by a "controversial" cover and has not discussed in any way, shape, or form the content of the magazine. (The old adage, "Don't judge a book by its cover," comes to mind.)
So much has been made about an artist rendition of a conservative dream, that was inked without the obvious malice of Fox news or the other right wing organs of evil, that no one has digested the intellectual pearls that are found inside the magazine, which is the real shame.
This was not an attempt to belittle or slapped down Obama. It was satire, plain and simple. There was no wanton disregard for the truth or attempting to portray the candidate in a poor light.
The right conversations will not occur because the segment that believes the cover to be racist and the segment that actually believes the cover to be true will both be otherwise occupied and seeking enlightenment.
Again, I thoroughly enjoyed your article! Keep up the good work.
Please excuse the mistakes my post. It was written quite hastily. Also the last paragraph beginning "The right conversations..." should conclude with "...occupied and without seeking enlightenment."
Thanks!
Thank you dredscottfitzgerald, you add a unique perspective to this controversy. I'm curious to see how others feel about this. Please continue to read and thank you for your support!
Initially I was outraged that the NYer would have this on the cover. They might see it as a satire but they also know for sure that the general public will see these stereotypes and think things like "hey, isn't his middle name hussein...I think he is a terrorist!" or Now that I think about it, he doesn't seem too American to me." All because the NYer has made small stereotypes about the Obamas more prevalent. Furthermore, I think it was an attempt to belittle Obama and have the public think that it's ridiculous that a black man is seriously running for president. That's what "satires" do, criticize someone or something's stupidity. i.e. Obama's (and the millions of people supporting him) belief that he can be elected and change America for the better.
The New Yorker made a satire with its July issue cover, that’s my standpoint. Not of conservatives and their over-the-top rumors as it claims, it has made a mockery of a fine presidential candidate and his wife. The cover is not appropriate nor is it funny, but it did get our attention and that’s the point! If the magazine’s main intent was to satirize the latest Obama rumors, then it should have targeted for its caricature the source of the rumors instead of the victim. If I wanted to capture the insensitivity of jokes made on the mentally challenged, how would a sketch of a child with Downs’s syndrome, reading a book upside down and sucking his fingers fit the criteria? I would be propagating negativity, and that is what The New Yorker has blatantly done with the ridiculous rumors on Obama.
And to use as a cover-up, a story inside conveying the man in a positive light; tsk tsk David Remnick.
And of course we were told never to judge a book by its cover, but hey, this is America, where all we do is indulge in the superficial. Where wealth is synonymous to happiness, beauty topples brain power, and talent-less people can become rich and famous. Superficiality is ingrained into our culture, like it or not. No doubt in my mind, The New Yorker did its homework.
Also, I am no stranger to satire and political cartoons, but usually if you are going to put a political cartoon on the cover of a nationally known magazine, it would depict a satirical view of something that has been discussed a little more widely than Obama's name. I know there are those out there that will criticize my viewpoint as overly sensitive, but I will then criticize them for being overly dismissive of the role of gender and race in this nation, and by extension, in politics.
Just replace "irony challenged literalists" with "black people," and you know what Horsey was really trying to communicate. He was saying, here's another cartoon for all of the black people who thought that the political cartoon on the front of The New Yorker was racially driven.
Here's how I would say put it. Here's a cartoon in the BODY of an obscure publication in an attempt to normalize the obscenely prejudicial political cartoon depicting the first Black Democratic presidential nominee and his wife as members of the terrorist sect that killed nearly 3,000 Americans in the most recent terrorist attacks on the United States.
I tell you what, when David Horsey accepts a New Yorker cover depicting himself dressed in a Grand Wizard hood, burning a cross, with a depiction of Obama hanging in a tree behind him as benign satire...I will accept the Obama's most recent New Yorker cover as benign satire. Until then...put the Horsey back in his stable with the other animals.
Okay...my first comment was actually my second, then I had to go back and post my first comment again...so, they are in reverse order.
Post a Comment