Last night, the interwebs were all abuzz with news of the most recent New Yorker cover. Generally, left-wing bloggers appear pretty outraged: 
There’s no other ulterior motive to publish cartoons like this right? …This is disgusting. Might be worth canceling a subscription or two. [Daily Kos]… so singularly out of touch … It may not be unusual for Upper East-Side liberals that a half-black man with an African father and Hussein for a middle name … might ascend to the presidency, but to some Americans IT IS EVERYTHING. [TPM]
While I was alarmed at first, the image grew on me as satire. It’s a veritable Where’s Waldo compendium of right-wing fears about the Obama candidacy:
- Michelle Obama as old American black nationalism allied with …
- Barack Obama as the purported American who is still loyal to his immigrant roots
- The alliance between them represented by the “terrorist fist-jab”
- Washington’s replacement by Osama Bin Laden in the painting over the mantel (OMG OBL Booga Booga!)
- Patriotism discarded, as shown by the flag in the fireplace
As I see it, the cartoon intends to show just how absurd people’s fears are: fears of foreigners as fifth columnists, fears that men who wear turbans (even if once, for a foreign photo-op) must be Muslims, and therefore unpatriotic. The cartoon makes these images concrete and then laughs at them, like a riddikulus spell against a boggart.
This approach is one I take with kids, who are both fascinated and afraid of me. When a five year old whispers loudly to his mother “Hey look Ma! A genie!” I turn around and offer the kid three wishes. This confuses them because they know that genies aren’t real, and it breaks through the wall between us. When 10 year olds say to each other “look out, he’s got a bomb!” I look at them and go “Boom!” More often than not, they laugh in response.
The problem is, it doesn’t work with grown-ups, who generally take themselves far more seriously then kids do. The kinds of people who have these fears are also generally deaf to irony.
I don’t think this cartoon will change people’s minds, nor do I think it’s trying to. It’s more like an episode of the Daily Show or the Colbert Report, something that mocks narrow-minded knee-jerk bigotry by pretending to take it seriously. If it makes you either squirm or laugh, it has done its job.
UPDATE Here’s the New Yorker’s explanation of what they were trying to do (thanks reader):
In a statement, The New Yorker magazine said the cartoon “combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are.” The New Yorker said the cover, called “The Politics of Fear”, was a critique of unfounded allegations that have tried to portray Mr Obama, a Christian, as a closet radical Muslim. “The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover,” the statement said. [BBC]
Uh, what? No, I’m not. You’re telling me fashions don’t change with the eras in African-American culture? That’s not white-centric. The reasons behind the waxing and waning of such trends may be, but the comment is not in and off itself. But, I’ll check with one of the gals here at work who’s got the natural. I’m sure she’ll give me a strange look for asking if my comment is white-centric, though….she’ll probably think I’m crazy.
44 · KXB said
I’m not so sure it did fall flat on its face. It didn’t make you laugh–fine–but it has sparked an important discussion, or at least put a welcome new spin on an ongoing discussion. I consider that a success.
48 · Ennis said
I disagree.
Freedom of speech: you’re either with it or you’re against it. Eff yeah!
Agreed. New Yorker has every right to do this but the bloggers have every right to be outraged. The difference from Danish cartoons is the response. Shutting down the conversation is not a solution. And blowing up and burnign stuff is not acceptable either – no matter how offensive.
Thanks a lot, Ennis. I just asked (N=1) and got laughed at and am now totally embarrassed! (Was I being white-centric or racist, I asked, and got a head on desk guffaw in response. Although, maybe they were just trying to be polite).
Anything for a laugh =)
54 · melbourne desi said
I agree on the voilence part being unacceptable. But many a times controversies such as these appear convoluted to me. For e.g. it is considered that denying somebody the right express/publish is considered as violation of freedom of expression. But at the same everybody has the right to be outraged about the insensitivity and prejudices that it can propagate. So people will keep expressing insensitive things and people will keep expressing outrage…so where does this lead to healthy discussion and mature democracy..?
Isn’t all this in the first place just noise ?
Finally what everyone will say to all such controversies is –
Doug Saunders: Actually, the United States, Britain, France and numerous other countries have expressed explicit criticism of the cartoons themselves, and the newspaper for publishing them. Jack Straw in Britain (he’s the Home Secretary) thanked the British media for not printing them. Both Condi Rice and President George W. Bush in the States attacked the cartoons. And Dominique de Villepin (the French Prime Minister) has condemned the insensitivity of the cartoons. Yes, they also all said that it should be the right of a paper to publish them, and that no government should interfere with such publications, but their main message was to criticize the cartoons themselves
“CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that’s–you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that.
KROFT: And you said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim.
CLINTON: Right. Right.
KROFT: You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim or implying? Right.
CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.
KROFT: It’s just scurrilous —
CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors.”
26 · LadyMaverick said
Don’t tell me Obama and his wife are closet spelling bee fanatics/constestants too? Oh, the horror. What’s next?
See, they’re desi wanna-bes! All the cool people are doing it!
Hee hee. Riiight. Since you don’t provide any quotes, links or sources, we have to take your word that you actually speak to people in “news programming”, and that they tell you these things. And then we’re supposed to accept that as proof positive, lol!
Glass houses is a very apt name for someone like you who throws the word “liar” around.
61 · cc said
Andrews says he heard racist strategy from Clinton camp
I am really offended most about the image of Michelle Obama. The cartoon is making Michelle look like she is a black panther Angela Davis kind of person. And Michelle Obama is NOT that at all. I think there is a serious fear in America in the liberal and conservative media of the Obamas. White America doesn’t know “what” to think of them. The Obama’s are a powerful couple and the real fear is white America want to MAINTAIN the STATUS QUO meaning they don’t want the USA to have their first black president. Michelle isn’t even running for president. It seems to me in America there is a fear of an intelligent, beautiful, hard working, outspoken black woman. Michelle Obama is no wimp and she’s no wallflower, girlfriend speaks her mind and I applaud her for that. I do find it interesting that the mainstream white feminist organizations such as the NOW Organization aren’t speaking up to support Michelle.It is no surprise though anyone that knows anything about the feminist movement knows the racial divide between black and white women.
Gee, Manju! I’d like to thank you for entirely missing the point of my post. Congratulations!
And that was supposed to prove that a guy entirely full of phony bluster who names himself “glass houses” DOES has special connections to “news programmers” who happens to know the “truth” and therefore anything she says is a lie? And all because of that link you provided? (And about Rob Andrews, too… since when is HE a news programmer?)
Well, now I feel differently about “glass houses”. I had no idea he was such a prominent insider.
Whoosh!!
“What was that?”
“That was the entire point of the cover, flying way over Orville’s head.”
I agree that this New Yorker cover grows on you as biting, well-thought-through satire.
An excellent recent post from Ram Mannikalingam at 3 Quarks Daily makes for some related, provocative reading.
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2008/07/barack-is-black.html
Quote: “The US is a strange place. How you look really matters. Of course it matters everywhere else too. The clothes you wear, the way you wear them, your hairstyle or lack of it, your shoes and the bag you carry, all of these make a difference wherever you live. But, in the US, the colour of your skin, the shape of your nose and the way your hair curls, really really matters. Now the US is not the only place where lighter skin is considered better than darker (Indian magazines are full of skin whitening advertisements), or the wave of your hair or the shape of your nose is a focus of hairstylists and plastic surgeons. But in the US all this matters in a different way. It suggests not just social ideals of beauty or the social pressure to conform to particular aesthetic and stylistic sensisbilities associated with particular settings – it also indicates where you come from geographically and where your station might be in society and how society ought to treat you.”
Probably more true than false. Can white America really handle a black President – I sincerely hope so.
I’m surprised that nobody here has picked up on the real hidden message from the New Yorker:
Barack Obama’s robes and headgear is a reference to Shirdi Sai Baba.
Michelle Obama’s hairstyle is a reference to Sathya Sai Baba.
What’s common? “Baba”.
OMG! The New Yorker is calling them both “black sheep”. Alert the intarwebs!
Or maybe it’s comparing them to a yoga-mudra-making heavy metal devil-worshipper, I don’t know. Either way, alert the intarwebs!
64 · cc said
oh c’mon cc. don’t be such a literalistic prude. i gave you something better than the media, buttressing glass houses general point, but not his specific one. listen to the music, not the words.
63 · Orville said
http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/005291.html# Italic
I agree. Michelle Obama can’t hold a candle to the likes of Angela Davis, Kathleen Cleaver, Assata Shakur and so many other Black Panther kind of persons who dared to challenge the racist state through COINTELPRO repression and still found time to raise their families and give so much to their communities. The New Yorker is cheapening the image and legacy of the Black Panther Party.
harbeer, racism isn’t the only evil in this world:
Russian dissident and Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn criticized Davis’s sympathy for the Soviet Union in a speech he delivered to the AFL-CIO on July 9, 1975 in New York City, pointing out hypocrisy in her attitude toward prisoners under Communist governments. According to Solzhenitsyn, a group of Czech dissidents “addressed an appeal to her: `Comrade Davis, you were in prison. You know how unpleasant it is to sit in prison, especially when you consider yourself innocent. You have such great authority now. Could you help our Czech prisoners? Could you stand up for those people in Czechoslovakia who are being persecuted by the state?’ Angela Davis answered: ‘They deserve what they get. Let them remain in prison.’â€
comparing michelle to angela is a smear.
Of course you’re right that racism is not the only evil in the world, Manju, but I’ve said a lot of stupid things in my own life and I don’t think it’s fair to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I was being slightly (just slightly) hyperbolic in my comment, but I really do think it’s crazy to compare middle-of-the-road centrists like the Obamas (who only appear left of center because the “center” has moved so far right) to people who fought tremendous odds for a shred of dignity and autonomy under severe repression.
If Orville is right about “white America’s” fear that Obama is going to shake up the status quo, their fear is completely unfounded (duh). Come January 20, 2009, Big Money will still be running the show.
why?
73 · Pankaj said
Why ask why?
That sums it up for me. Never, never overestimate the intelligence of the American public, especially when it comes to ‘the other’ esp. black others. The cartoon would have been better placed inside, or in a ballon thought as suggested above, by an identifiable ‘rightwinger’.
You got that right! What about little Malia Obama wearing cornrows, which were appropriated** circa 1979 by HipHop impresarios and subsequently exported to Africa. Appalachia is supposed to relate to that? Never mind the fact that there were Americans,in America, with hair worn that way, while the predecessors of some in Appalachia were still looking for spuds in Ireland.
**those really in the know, like my summer camp swim instructor, are aware the style was really invented Bo Dereck in the movie 10
Have to agree , why exoticize themselves even more? Dick Cheney,the template for real Americans, wouldn’t do that.
I’m saddened that the cartoonist felt it better to err on the side of making her skin more pinkish than tan/brown. I’m sorry to say I think many “black” people (I don’t mean that literally);-),white,frequenlty mistaken for Greek-Italian, brown, wheat etc feel its a slur,slam, insult, to insinuate a darker skin tone.
Yes, this cover is very “Danish” and it shows how sly the New Yorker really is, with their plain out and out put down of the Obamas parading the newsstands disguised as satire.
70 · Harbeer said
Remember that the BPP was partly responsible (in sort of a proximate cause kind of way) for that charming larrikin ,David Horowitz.
72 · Harbeer said
That is Gibson‘s dystopia(from your POV–the author is more inclined to say that it is just the future). Are you ready for it?
With all this talk of afros in this thread it should be pointed out that God himself has incarnated in India in a human body that sports a large afro. Sathya Sai Baba has an estimated 100 million followers including Presidents and Prime Ministers, scientists and spiritualists, business tycoons and professionals of all races and from all countries.
http://www.eaisai.com/baba/
Dilettante: Did you read my follow-up to Ennis? 🙂 I respectfully disagree. Clothing and hairstyles do come in and out of fashion, even if we forget that the fashion wasn’t rooted in a particular decade (for current fashion types, nothing exists before, like, 1920) and it’s not wrong to refer to the decade that popularized a particular hair-style, among the general public. I think it’s academic bunkum and, worse still, got me laughed at(sample,N=1). Isaid, “hey, can I ask you a question? Are you offended, is it white-centric or racist, if I make the observation that afros are, like, retro 70s?” Which got a huge laugh and, “oh, no. I don’t think that’s a bad thing to say!”hahahahaha. Why are you asking?” Again, thanks Ennis 🙂 I’m so glad I didn’t go to college in this decade.
Anyway, a bob, crew-cut, or that stupid feathered Farrah hair style are fads, as are other hairstyles, which shall now remain unmentioned by me, lest I be accused of being white-centric, when, in reality, I am me-centric and a narcissist.
melborne desi: Is Australia ready for a black prime minister? I think the US is plenty ready for a black president and will likely have one before, say, European Union country du jour (substitute prime minister, or whatever). Has it occurred to some of you that maybe some people disagree with Obama’s positions on issues? I mean, whatever they happen to be today. FISA, FISA, FISA!
Okay, enough for now, have a good day all. This is a really interesting thread. Thanks.
Here’s the McCleans cover of Bush as Saddam. Just good fun, this one. The New Yorker, not so much. Why?
Like I said, if Obama’s gonna be president, he’s gonna get a lot more covers like this. It’s the nature of the job.
oh wow cc got your panties in a bunch much? 🙂
MD, be fair. It was more commentary than mockery. Quote the tagline too, it’s straight forward policy. The illustration accompanies this story:
That’s one reason there was no outrage. Another is that nobody actually confuses Bush and Saddam, whereas people do allege that Obama is a fifth columnist, and many more believe that he is either a secret muslim or openly one (and they say it without saying “not that there is anything wrong with that”). A recent poll found 12% of Americans believing that Obama swore his senate oath on a Koran. Somehow the whole Wright business seems to have gone over their head. So that’s why the two situations aren’t equivalent. Lastly, MacLean’s is Canadian and nobody cares what they do.
80 · MD said
Because if Hillary Clinton won the nomination, she would be defying the last 50 years of electoral history and tacking further to the left. And yes, i wonder if there is a single blogger/editorialist, other than putative Obama supporters, who consistently engage with his actual policy positions. And the real issue with FISA was not retroactive immunity (about which many bloggers unnecessarily tied their undergarments), but the fact that the current language seems to stipulate non-specific roving surveillance.
78 · Nayagan said
Oh yeah, I can’t say I’m thrilled, but I’m ready and I’ve got another word for it.
Hi Ennis, I liked your post. I am curious if you or any of you who have left comments can explain if text on the picture would have made a difference to the satire? Sometimes I have felt that when watching the news that the images overpower the words of the commentator, leaving the viewer possibly with a completely different message. Though it is the New Yorker, I am wondering as many of your readers have pointed out if in passing this picture will speak a “1000 wrong words”
MD, be fair. It was more commentary than mockery. Quote the tagline too, it’s straight forward policy. The illustration accompanies this story:
Also, there isn’t an undercurrent
Like I said, if Obama’s gonna be president, he’s gonna get a lot more covers like this. It’s the nature of the job.
No, it’s the nature of American racism, and xenophobia. Minorities who have the courage to accept and stand against that understand this, those that don’t, enroll in the university of texas.
Also, there isn’t an undercurrent
of questioning patriotism for Gw. the counterpart to this picture would be of bush as hitler or something like that.
88 · HMF said
Exhibit A.
Harbeer – LOL. Alfred E. Newman != Hitler.
Yes, good point, Jews in Europe complained so much about the endless MAD magazine subscriptions they were forced to receive from 1939-1945.
90 · Ennis said
You have no idea of the trauma that man has indirectly inflicted on those of us with big ears. Veritable torture, I tell you.
90 · Ennis said
I’m not the only one who sees it.
86 · jaya said
It would be the equivalent of saying, “I’m going to tell you a joke now. The punchline will be ‘and then she said she’d already had lunch!’ Ok. Are you sitting down? Are you ready for the joke now?”
Harbeer,
I get your point but don’t you think the joke is lost on people who don’t know much about Obama.
MD #80:
Niether Ennis, nor I said it was racist- that’s all you. As I understand it, that’s not what “white centric” means. In this particular instance, it meant ignorance about what a founding population of America looks like. Don’t sweat it. Many black people are uninformed as well,albeit in different ways. Hopefully you’re not offended and can also laugh if off when your co-workers approach you with a comment/observation/question starting with“hey, can I ask you a question? Are you offended, is it white-centric or racist”… insert comment about Sati/widows, cow worship, skin skin lighteners, honour killings and you know, other funny stuff, that minority people in a work environment love to have to provide a proxy answer for, in the stead of an entire continent, race ,group of people etc.
94 · umber desi said
I don’t think it’s The New Yorker‘s job to coddle the stupid. I think it’s asinine to assert that this magazine cover is giving ammunition to Obama’s critics–if somebody is dumb enough to believe Obama is a “Manchurian Candidate,” they’re still going to believe it. If somebody is smart enough to know that’s a ridiculous idea, this magazine cover is not going to suddenly convince them otherwise.
I think this cover is a success because it dilutes that ridiculous “Manchurian Candidate” meme and stirs debate. Obama could have played it much cooler than he did.
I don’t think it’s The New Yorker’s job to coddle the stupid.
No, it’s their job (and every other media outlets job) to be aware that the stupid exists, and at the very least, counterbalance whatever satire they place with legitamite coverage.
of course, what obama really has to fear is a successful pullout from iraq, a subsequent defeat for al qaeda, and the oil price bubble, if it is that, bursting b/f the election. not much time for that to happen thought, especially since you need time for events to sink in and change perceptions.
97 · HMF said
Hey, you guys in the Sepia Mutiny bunker, I got a newsflash for you: STUPID EXISTS! [In case you didn’t know.]
Oh gawd, are you saying The New Yorker doesn’t cover legitimate stories? Wasn’t it Seymour Hersh who broke the Abu Ghraib story in the pages of The New Yorker?
The problem in my mind is not if New Yorker covers legitimate stories. To say that Stupid exists is to state the obvious. To expect everyone to take the cartoon of Obama as a satire and everyone that doesn’t, is not the intended audience is shortsighted. It for me fuels the fear of the unknown which in this case in Obama.