The New Yorker and Hipster Racism

by Guest Contributor AJ Plaid, originally published at The Cruel Secretary

By now, you’ve seen the latest New Yorker cover, with the Obamas garbed in the gear of the latest fear-mongering Americans’ wet dream.

Of course, people at Michelle Obama Watch, Daily Kos, Politico, and other blogs have expressed rightful and righteous outrage over the cover.

The Washington Post’s and CNN’s Reliable Sources’ Howard Kurtz said: “I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added. (Source)

Bill Burton, The Obama campaign spokesperson, responded: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.” (Source)

My current live-in partner, who works at the New Yorker, just couldn’t believe that so many people responded so angrily at the cover at the Daily Kos and other sites. He “wanted to see [my] reaction.” When I emphatically told him that I didn’t find it funny, he said, “You’re so angry.”

“Of course I’m angry. What do you expect? This is my reaction is to your employer doing something so racist.”

“I’m trying to have some fun here.”

Humph, you gotta love hipster racism.

I define hipster racism (I’m borrowing the phrase from Carmen Van Kerckhove) as ideas, speech, and action meant to denigrate another’s person race or ethnicity under the guise of being urbane, witty (meaning “ironic” nowadays), educated, liberal, and/or trendy. This racist and sexist balderdash that’s the New Yorker cover fits squarely into that definition. So, honestly, does the behavior of my partner, who prides himself on coming from a California family of educators who taught him to be colorblind and on working at a magazine renown for being, well, urbane, witty, educated, liberal, and trendy yet likes to view me as the Angry Negress.

Well, some of the New Yorker editorial staffers, in trying to demonstrate these traits, showed themselves far more closely aligned to some of those “hardworking white folks” who may hold these beliefs that the Obamas aren’t true Americans, who will use the White House to carry out the collective and international people of color revenge against white people, as the high afro-wearing Black militants (think 6os era Black Panthers) and non-Western garbed folks seem to signify in the popular consciousness. The editorial staffers also must not have heard the ad nauseum arguments of their fellow media workers employing racist and sexist stereotypes of presenting the Obamas as “angry”—especially presenting Michelle as an “angry, vengeful Black woman,” as the cover more subtly conveys with the framed picture of Osama bin Laden over the fireplace, which has a burning flag in it. In other words, the New Yorker cover isn’t hip at all; it’s damn tired.

The cover actually corresponds to a story about how Senator Obama’s work in Chicago influenced his current presidential bid. (So, according to the cover, Obama learning the ropes in Chi-town and loving a South Side sistah makes him—and them–Black “radical terrorists.” There’s a eau de blame-Yoko-Ono-for-breaking-up-the-Beatles odor about it, the “powerful” woman of color exerting some imagined extraordinarily negative power through an intimate relationship over her otherwise likable—if not beloved—man that grinds my nerves.) And the magazine actually wrote another pro-Obama article about a year ago. So, perhaps, Remnick and Co, thought they’d get a pass on the cover because they did good by Obama with the articles and thought people would catch the wink and nudge of the visual joke because, hey, they’re all on the right side anyway.

No, the New Yorker is not. They’re not even on the right side of hiring practices: having the opportunity of working and Conde Nast and the New Yorker’s advertising and editorial floors (I temped as a receptionist about a year ago, so I got to observe the make-up of the staff), I noticed that there were no senior editors of color; the people of color in editorial capacity were already superstar writers before coming to the magazine (Malcolm Gladwell) or they were writing for the entertainment section (Hilton Als, who writes the theater column.) The former PR director, and African American woman, left the position. In other words, there’s no one of color to at least talk Remnick off the ledge of this kind of glib bigotry. (Not saying that having a person of color guarantees a firm commitment to anti-racism efforts. But I hope for a fighting chance.) And whichever white folks pride themselves on being anti-racist or at least race-tolerant at the magazine either didn’t get to Remnick in time or simply chose to shut up and run for cover from the mounting fallout. Or choose to entertain themselves with the anger of people of color.

And that’s the ultimate rub about hipster racism: as much as the people like to think they’re above it because they got degrees and live in the big city and befriend/sex up/marry people of color, these folks really aren’t above it.

At all.

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

New Yorker WTF « dre poetic: words by adrien salazar on 14 Jul 2008 at 11:38 am

[...] AJ Plaid has an excellent response on Racialicious. [...]
New Yorker « this poetic: art politic on 14 Jul 2008 at 11:41 am

[...] AJ Plaid has an excellent response on Racialicious. [...]
Feministe » Speechless Indeed on 14 Jul 2008 at 12:33 pm

[...] say than I do, so check out more coverage from Michelle Obama Watch, which offers a great round-up; Racialicious, which talks about hipster racism and defending bigotry with claims of irony; What About Our [...]
Some Posts « Off Our Pedestals on 14 Jul 2008 at 12:59 pm

[...] The New Yorker and Hipster Racism: Hands up who’s ready for the Age of [...]
Offensive? « Tariq Nelson on 14 Jul 2008 at 2:00 pm

[...] The take at Racialicious [...]
Don’t forget it’s satire « Feminocracy on 14 Jul 2008 at 2:02 pm

[...] it’s satire Believe it or not, I only caught the New Yorker cover that everyone is talking about this morning. Perhaps if the image included a reference to all of the Fox newspeople who [...]
Magazine Milf » Blog Archive » Conde Nast Down Love Love on 14 Jul 2008 at 3:44 pm

[...] get drowned out in the blogosteria over The New Yorker’s Obama cover. More on that Conde Nast race incident in a few [...]
Hipster Racism « ZOMBIE Blog on 14 Jul 2008 at 9:24 pm

[...] From A.J. Plaid at The Cruel Secretary and Racialicious [...]
Manly Monday: Jay Smooth is Not Barack Obama | FUNKYBROWNCHICK.com | sex. dating. relationships. on 15 Jul 2008 at 4:27 am

[...] The New Yorker and Hipster Racism (Racialicious) [...]
Okay, NOW it’s sexism?: Ms. and the Obama New Yorker Cover « Possumstew’s Weblog on 16 Jul 2008 at 12:13 pm

[...] I recommend that any readers who would like to join a REALLY interesting discussion about it read AJ Plaid’s cross-post and comments. (Also, she is fabulous – do yourself a favor and check out her blog. Yes, that was yet another [...]
Classic Hipster Racism « The Angry Black Woman on 17 Jul 2008 at 12:05 pm

[...] Posted on July 17, 2008 by nojojojo Racialicious’s AJ Plaid talks about “hipster racism”, in the context of the New Yorker Obama cover debacle: I define hipster racism (I’m borrowing the phrase from Carmen Van Kerckhove) as ideas, speech, [...]
The Agony of the Tees at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 21 Jul 2008 at 9:00 am

[...] Talk about hipster racism: [...]
acceptable racsim? « The Last Stand on 02 Aug 2008 at 12:05 am

[...] not going to claim the term since I saw it is a Racialicious article commenting on the racist New Yorker magazine cover. This term (and the [...]
more than just words: tropic thunder boycott « cripchick’s weblog on 12 Aug 2008 at 9:58 pm

[...] you wanna say and not being accountable for it. (Another example of this being The New Yorker’s recent magazine cover of [...]
Oregon Commentator » Blog Archive » United By Our Hipster-Hating Bonds on 20 Aug 2008 at 2:22 pm

[...] Karol Collymore at Blue Oregon: Last week, I believe I had three instances of the so-called “hipster racism.” I will only talk about one since it is pretty reflective of the other two. I was at a hip [...]
l33t ism « mireille + mischa on 16 Sep 2008 at 11:27 pm

[...] just say it doesn’t take a hipster racist to know what usually follows the u-word. And if you think I’m being too sensitive, noted [...]
Quote Me: Hipster Racism and Sexual Correspondent Edition « The Cruel Secretary on 31 Aug 2009 at 4:59 pm

[...] Wow, what a difference a fortnight makes! Two weeks ago, I wrote a piece for Racialicious (and expanded on this blog) about the effects that hipster racism had on allowing David Remnick and [...]

Comments

Prometheus wrote:

Perception is truth. While I’m all good for satire, some will certainly exclaim “I told you so!” when they see this. Hipster racism is real and whether the intent of this cover is satire or not, a little bit of controversy never hurt sales.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 9:54 am ¶
Ista wrote:

I get the New Yorker, but after this I won’t be renewing.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 9:57 am ¶
RJG wrote:

Hipster racism, now that you explained it, is one of those terms where I’m now going “So THAT’S how I should have explained why [insert satire about living in Bed-stuy/Bushwick/Williamsburg/etc] is so god damn moronic.”

I’m probably going to end up excessively using this phrase as more and more people decide to write their humorous anecdotes about contributing to gentrification.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 9:57 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

This reminds me of a portion of Kai’s article that LP put up last week.

Yet the consistent outcome of their institution-building agendas is to deprioritize and marginalize our voices, perspectives, experiences, concerns, cultures, and initiatives. When you get right down to it, the unrecognized political reality is that most white liberals have more in common with white conservatives — social cues, family ties, cognitive biases, cultural backdrops, etc. — than they do with people of color. I’m calling this tangle of contradictions the white liberal conundrum.

http://www.kaichang.net/2007/10/the-white-liber.html

I’d also call it a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

“The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

“Angry”…mmm hmm.

The staff and readership may think that they are more urbane, witty, educated, liberal in contrast to the backwards/right-wing caricature they so often lampoon, yet they are sorely mistaken.

Before folks start screaming that black people don’t get satire, why don’t you hire some black folk so they can show you how satire should be done?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:02 am ¶
Lauren wrote:

The New Yorker cover read to me as well-played satire. Of course, as a white woman, I certainly don’t claim to be any sort of authority on potentially racist imagery.

But I have to wonder- if we acknowledge, as I think is self-evident, that humor, and satire in particular, is vital to delegitimizing bigoted ideas, what makes a satire “acceptable”?

It seems to me that the most important element of satire is that it’s exaggerated enough to be clearly not real, but close enough to the real thing that folks can make the connection. To me, the New Yorker cover hit that spot.

But maybe another important element is that the people making the satire are the ones affected by the offending viewpoints. That just like not everyone can say f– or n—–, a group of upper-class white people shouldn’t be in charge of satirizing institutional racism.

(On the other other hand, I personally saw this as a political satire, not a race satire. Yes, they overlap- but the New Yorker is a political magazine and should, IMO, be allowed to satirize an aspect of the campaign.)

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:25 am ¶
KXB wrote:

I eagerly await the cover that depicts John McCain, with the wreckage of five Navy jets in the background, while he pursues a pill-popping Cindy McCain, using such lovely language like called her the C-word, while his crippled first wife is standing nearby.

Then, the staff of The New Yorker can say they are satirizing the more rabid comments by the left wing.

Don’t hold your breath.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:25 am ¶
Matt wrote:

There’s something that really surprises me about this: The New Yorker really does know satire. I do believe they intended this as such, but I’m amazed at their inability to look critically at how it would work.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:26 am ¶
Abu Sinan wrote:

Some people will never see past their own prejudice. The cartoon below makes that point very well about those who dont like Obama:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_O5OuU90ru-Y/SHpeipYFrpI/AAAAAAAABog/2OVp113C3Xk/s1600-h/070808_Burka_Obama.gif

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:31 am ¶
Jennifer Gandin Le wrote:

Oh good God. How did this ever get past the brainstorming stage? I don’t read The New Yorker precisely because of its tight “insider” feel; even when I lived in NY, I knew that the magazine wasn’t aiming for me as its target audience. With this cover, I see it even more clearly. Yecch.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:35 am ¶
Alyssa Clutterbuck wrote:

Yo great article,

but in whatever relationship type you have with you “live-in partner”, anyone who makes you feel like an “Angry Negress” is wack and you should empty out those toxic relationships before they bear impact on how you see yourself in the world.

Know your worth and don’t let racism infiltrate your life. Clearly you’re brillant and fighting the fight. don’t sacrifice!!!!!

much love and shame on “The New Yorker”

Lyss

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:44 am ¶
VELMA SABINA!!! wrote:

sometimes satire just does NOT work at all.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:45 am ¶
Glossolalia Black wrote:

I feel uncomfortable admitting this, but I actually think the Angela Davis-looking Michelle Obama is rather fetching.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:47 am ¶
Eva wrote:

The only reason the New Yorker did this is because it wants to get people to buy the magazine. I didn’t even know that magazine still existed; it’s no longer in its heyday anymore and really not too many folks read it; not even the Hamptons crowd.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:48 am ¶
Ejunco wrote:

I agree with what EVA said its just trying to make money by trying to be funny when it’s not

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 11:10 am ¶
Tara K. wrote:

I was particularly disturbed that they used exaggerated ‘blackness’ as part of the supposed “satire.” A lot of us can handle a crack at the Islamaphobia surrounding the “secret Muslim” accusations — that’s an old joke by now. However, the ‘fro on Michelle and the militant angry black woman projection bother me the most.

While the editors defended this as satire, I think we’re all clearly taken aback, and it clearly oversteps those bounds. This is not the same as Jon Stewart satire because the tone is not blatantly there — this same graphic could just as easily be used as propaganda for a lot of racist and prejudiced groups.

In whatever way, the laugh’s just not there.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 11:20 am ¶
RJG wrote:

On another note, I find it more obnoxious that this is lampooning the whole Muslim = Osama = Terrorist angle than the Obama = Muslim = Osama = Terrorist angle again.

I’d like to imagine that this was a cover where the concept was originally “hey lets have the Obamas giving each other a fist jab and play off the ridiculousness of people considering that it was a *TERRORIST FIST JAB 9/11 NEVER FORGET* ” and for some godawful reason they decided to suddenly throw Muslims and Afros and AK47s into the mix because they assumed it would make [what I imagine as] the primary joke [because it's the least racially/religiously fueled one in the mix and I don't want to have to drink heavily tonight to forget this artistic idiocy] even funnier.

I can imagine and hope this was the case, right?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 11:40 am ¶
Bob Simpson wrote:

I’m a regular New Yorker reader. They do sometimes have incisive stories about unusual topics as well as Seymour Hersh looking for the latest special ops skulduggery.

I also enjoy their wry humorous cartoons.

I did not however enjoy this cover. Satirists are expected to go right up to the edge, but not fall off into the abyss. This was failed satire of the worst kind and it takes the entire editorial and art staff of the New Yorker down with it.

It reminds me of the high school yearbook story concerning the misnamed members of the Black Students Union.Where were the responsible adults at the high school?

And where were the responsible adults at the New Yorker?

These are smart educated people so they can’t plead either ignorance or stupidity. New York, despite what you might discern from Woody Allen movies, is not an all-white city. However the hiring practices of the New Yorker apparently resemble a Woody Allen movie where people of color are invisible.

I hope New Yorkers are raising their voices against this because the name of their city is on this magazine and both they and the city deserve better.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 11:41 am ¶
CVT wrote:

I live in Portland, Oregon. “Hipster racism” reigns supreme here. I’ve said it a million times, but why else would all these people that “celebrate diversity” so much come to live in the whitest city in the U.S?

This is my take on satire – satire works when the intentions are crystal clear – when it is making a clear commentary on the subject being addressed.

This cover does no such thing. How many people are going to see that cover and say, “See? Even the New Yorker knows the truth (about the Obamas).” Or think it’s funny because it makes fun of black people and Muslims in one go? Many.

Not to mention all of us who just get pissed off by this kind of crap.

“Hipster racism” – where the media can get laughs with cheap racist jokes, and then disguise it as “laughing at how ridiculous it all is.” In the second Harold and Kumar movie, for example, nobody laughed at the joke about the Koreans’ “fake ching-chong language” because it was “so ridiculous.” They laughed because they think it’s true – and they got a chance to “get away with” laughing at racist jokes.

In the end, that’s what this cover and all the hipster racists out there are – a joke. A joke that I don’t ever want to know “how to take.”

Too bad they “don’t get it.”

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 11:44 am ¶
summer wrote:

^^what she (Tara K.) said. Thanks, I was too frustrated to get it from my head to my fingers.

I imagined the brainstorming session:

“How do we make her look angry?”

“How about give her fro!”

“Yeah, that’s it. Perfect.”

Before, I just had a fro. But now, I really am pissed off, too.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 11:47 am ¶
Cheryl wrote:

@KXB:

Yeah, but all of that (about McCain) is true.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 11:54 am ¶
Fatemeh wrote:

Hey, CVT! Hello from a fellow Oregonian (and someone else who is so irritated at the stupid fucking hipster racism here)!

This cover is NOT. ACCEPTABLE. Just….just NO. NO!

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:02 pm ¶
Radfem wrote:

No, the New Yorker is not. They’re not even on the right side of hiring practices: having the opportunity of working and Conde Nast and the New Yorker’s advertising and editorial floors (I temped as a receptionist about a year ago, so I got to observe the make-up of the staff), I noticed that there were no senior editors of color; the people of color in editorial capacity were already superstar writers before coming to the magazine (Malcolm Gladwell) or they were writing for the entertainment section (Hilton Als, who writes the theater column.) The former PR director, and African American woman, left the position. In other words, there’s no one of color to at least talk Remnick off the ledge of this kind of glib bigotry. (Not saying that having a person of color guarantees a firm commitment to anti-racism efforts. But I hope for a fighting chance.) And whichever white folks pride themselves on being anti-racist or at least race-tolerant at the magazine either didn’t get to Remnick in time or simply chose to shut up and run for cover from the mounting fallout. Or choose to entertain themselves with the anger of people of color.

And that’s the ultimate rub about hipster racism: as much as the people like to think they’re above it because they got degrees and live in the big city and befriend/sex up/marry people of color, these folks really aren’t above it.

At all.

Yeah. It’s hard to trust an industry as steeped in racism and sexism as “mainstream” media is and has been. It’s hard to trust their intentions.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶
Morgan wrote:

wow. i can see how the artist (and the ed staff) probably thought they were doing this with satirical, “good guy” intentions, but the fact that they did not get the hurt it would cause speaks to considerable white privilege.

a good rule of thumb when contemplating satire about another group would be, “if someone outside my group did this exact piece about my group, would i be offended?” —usually, the best rule of thumb is, when contemplating satire about an oppressed group of which you are not a member, is: don’t.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:17 pm ¶
Joseph wrote:

When Failed Satire Attacks!

I can hear the arguments defending this cover already. “Free speech…oversensitive, satirizing racism isn’t racism, blah, blah blah…” I am waiting for the first libertarian editorial comparing the negative reaction to this cover to the Dutch “Allah-cartoon” scandal…

There’s a lot to say about this (and I’m sure it’ll get said) but I think it’s worth cosigning the anger and dismay about the Michelle Obama part of this image. Why is she there? The idiots who think Barack Obama is a Muslim double agent aren’t the New Yorker’s intended audience…But the image of Michelle as a Black Radical potentially speaks to white liberals as much as conservatives, for all the reasons gatamala (#4) states.

The French theorist Roland Barthes talks about the “punctum,” which is like a little wound at the center of every photograph: I think Michelle Obama is the “punctum” of this cartoon. In other words, this “Black nationalist” image is the dog whistle here. For me, that is what makes this failed piece of satire an example of “hipster racism.”

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:22 pm ¶
Jaye wrote:

#5-Lauren:
“But I have to wonder- if we acknowledge, as I think is self-evident, that humor, and satire in particular, is vital to delegitimizing bigoted ideas, what makes a satire “acceptable”?”

When it actually delegitimizes the bigoted ideas. In this cover, it just seems like a reflection or an extension of the fears the media has attempted to instill. It’s a visual representation of the insinuations, where’s the delegitimizing?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶
fed up wrote:

No blohg headlines about B Mac calling black women Ho’s at an Obama fundraiser. Maybe a bit of a double standard about whats offensive.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:42 pm ¶
atlasien wrote:

This is what I thought was a very good satire on the exact same topic. It would make a good compare/contrast with the New Yorker cover.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:48 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@ Fed Up,

You don’t see that headline because Bernie Mac didn’t say that. ABC News made a “ho” joke.

Please see What About Our Daughters for further information:

http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/2008/07/bernie-mac-embarrasses-hey-ell-out-of.html

http://whataboutourdaughters.blogspot.com/2008/07/everybody-wants-to-call-black-women.html

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:51 pm ¶
Aja wrote:

@CVT- I moved to Portland recently, and you’re so right; hipster racism reigns supreme here.

Re: The New Yorker cover- I just imagine the staff previewing that cover and patting themselves on the backs at how “tongue in cheek” and “ironic” they were. And that’s the problem with hipster racism, the perpetrators think it can all be explained away by calling it ironic, and if you don’t get the joke, it’s obviously because you lack sophistication.

It’s this kind of thing that just exhausts me.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 12:56 pm ¶
Free wrote:

@CVT – you are so right about Portland and the same can be said for Seattle. Both cities possess the veneer of liberalism that serves as cover for conservative power. Diversity is tolerated as long those “diverse” people follow the approved guidelines making them safe for white people. Read The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. Seattle plays an important role. After reading this book, I understand this city and American political power even more.
http://jeffsharlet.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post.html

The New Yorker cover doesn’t surprise me at all. In fact, I’m going to buy one today to add to my Obama collection. Michelle as Angela Davis (black power baby.). Barack as The Muslim (shudder). Both expressions of the secret fears: President Barack Obama will order Black Panther death squads to kill whitey. After that, the Qu’ran will replace the Gideon Bible in all hotel rooms and the White House will be replaced with a giant Mosque. LOL

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 1:11 pm ¶
Jack D. wrote:

Good satire focuses the heat of critique to a fine point on the instigator of the questionable subject. This attempt at satire (the cover art) fails because it reinforces racism and culturism rather than draw attention to the original bigots. They may have started with good intentions, but they totally missed the angle of delivery.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 1:26 pm ¶
coco wrote:

a commenter at sepia mutiny pointed its readers to the response at Fox News where some commenters [like the one below] take the New Yorker depiction at face value:

Way to go New Yorker! Thank God, some media outlets have the backbone to tell the TRUTH about this anti-American Communist, who’s trying to run for the highest office in the Country. He’s nothing but a terrorist sympathizer who wants to disarm Americans and weaken our military might. He wants to abort our children, euthanize our elderly, and tax the rest of us to death. He wants to handcuff American corporations from drilling OUR OWN OIL, in our own Country, yet allow the Chinese to drill for oil just 20 miles offshore from our mainland.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 1:35 pm ¶
Mary wrote:

Thank you for writing about this insidious strain of racism.

Another corollary to hipster racism is the smug, self-congratulatory attitude that “Racism is a Southern and Midwestern problem; I live in enlightened, diverse New York/New Jersey/California/other blue state, so I can’t possibly hold the same racist views as you toothless hillbillies.” This would be the one and only time I actually get a little defensive living in the South. Mind you – that’s not to downplay the very real racism that does exist here.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 1:45 pm ¶
Ron wrote:

What is it about afros that are threatening?

I thought everbody liked fuzzy-wuzzies.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 1:49 pm ¶
Elise wrote:

I agree with everyone who says that the people who hold the views that are supposed to be the subject of satire are absent from the cover, so its reinforcing the racists’ ideas instead of mocking them.

@ those who live in Portland/Seattle areas – I was excited that I might be trasnferred out to the Seattle area for work, but now I’m worried that it might not be a place I want to live. Is it possible to get away from or find places that reject the hipster mentality or is it pretty prevalent?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 1:52 pm ¶
Anya wrote:

I think ‘hipster racism’ is a great and useful term — but can it accurately be applied to the ‘New Yorker’? This is a magazine filled with ads for stock brockerages and vacations in French hotels, and thus, not what I would consider to overlap with hipsters — more middle-aged liberals. I think of ‘Vice’ mag, American Apparel ads, and ‘ironic’ usage of the word chola to be hipster racism, but not so sure about the NYer. . .

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 1:53 pm ¶
Nate wrote:

Morgan, you are so right. Intent vs. impact is such an overlooked aspect of how people act, what you say and do when it comes to topics and discussions on racism.

White privilege, you bet! Aja, I agree. Hipster racism especially pushes my buttons…
Aargh, what is wrong with people? (rhetorical)

And Lauren, come down from your tower, you are oozing white privilege. “As a white woman” you should stand up to and recognize “racist imagery”, otherwise you are no ally of mine.
Oh, by the way, I’m a white male.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:18 pm ¶
Eric Grant wrote:

A question for the thread:

Could this cartoon in fact be improved/made amusing if the image were presented in a thought balloon of, say, a waking-from-a-nightmare Fox News anchor, or something?

Or is it just, um, made of fail.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:19 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Eric –

Actually, I was thinking about that in light of Vee’s response on this morning’s thread.

It is made of fail, true, but here’s how I could see it salvaged:

It appears in a majority black (or majority minority) publication as a split panel. One side there is a normal drawing of Barack and Michelle. That side of the panel is titled “What We See.” The other side of the panel is the New Yorker cover and it is titled “What They See.”

Any other ideas?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:23 pm ¶
Tasha wrote:

@ Jack D – glad i read through the comments first. You have pinpointed why this piece is failing.(I am still mentally reviewing how many objects of satire are not in the actually piece)

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:24 pm ¶
Eric Grant wrote:

Actually, I just pictured some kind of endlessly recursive cartoon of a stereotypical liberal imagining a stereotypical conservative imagining a stereotypical liberal [etc....] conservative imagining the New Yorker’s Obamas image.

Now _that_ would make one lousy magazine cover.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:29 pm ¶
Mary wrote:

Actually, I just pictured some kind of endlessly recursive cartoon of a stereotypical liberal imagining a stereotypical conservative imagining a stereotypical liberal [etc….] conservative imagining the New Yorker’s Obamas image.

Now _that_ would make one lousy magazine cover.

Actually, THAT sounds like a typical New Yorker cover

Does anyone remember the Ahmadinejad cover the New Yorker ran last year? He was in a toilet stall in a clear visual callback to the Larry Craig scandal. This was shortly after the “no gays in Iran” controversy, so at least the target of the satire was a little clearer than the current Barack/Michelle cover. I remember that struck me as inappropriate too, although I have a hard time articulating why; it’s certainly not that I think Ahmadinejad deserves the kid-gloves treatment, but…

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:43 pm ¶
CVT wrote:

@Elise -
This is what I want to “warn” people about when they are coming to the NW (I think Seattle is a bit better than Portland, by the way) – first no sunlight really does make a difference (you WILL get depressed “for no reason” in the winter).

Second – it’s super-white (I don’t know your racial background). You have to really work here to find other people of color to be with. You have to really work to avoid smug “hipster racists” who love to tell you all about “diversity.”

That said – if all the people of color/real anti-racists keep leaving or avoiding this area, the rest of us are screwed! We’d love a few more (if not a million more) to even things out.

. . . when I talk to people about moving here, I always wonder how I’m still here . . .

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:44 pm ¶
rikyrah wrote:

I’m going to leave out the entire ‘ Obama is a Muslim Terrorist’ part of this.

No, my focus is the obvious racist depiction of Michelle Obama.

How many racist stereotypes can you have of Michelle Obama..

THE ANGRY BLACK WOMAN.

1. The Angela Davis Afro
2. The Fatigues
3. The Requisite Black Panther Machine Gun
4. The Sapphire ‘Hand on the Hip’
5. The accentuated lips
6. The Terrorist Fist Bump

THE ONLY thing missing is an exaggerated posterior.

There is a poster over at my regular blog who believes it’s all about Michelle.

Michelle’s not
the washerwoman
the maid
the janitress
or the MAMMY

Michelle Obama doesn’t have ‘ WHITE BLOOD’ to make her ‘ acceptable’.

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson Obama is a BLACK WOMAN.

A VISIBLY BLACK WOMAN

Who is highly educated, and unapologetically Black- it reeks from her.

And some folks can’t take it.

I questioned when the poster first wrote it, but now I’m beginning to seriously agree with it.

This is all about Michelle, and MANY FOLKS unwillingness to accept her as the First Lady.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:

@Latoya: It’s hard to find news reports that actually quote the offensive parts in the Bernie Mac monologue. Here’s two:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/07/14/bernie_mac/index.html

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/07/unbelievable.html

and commentary from Michelle Obama Watch:

http://michelleobamawatch.com/?p=170

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

@rikyrah – it’s going to be really awesome when Michelle Obama is first lady.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 3:00 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Marge –

Yes, the issue that I have isn’t that Bernie Mac told that hoary old misogynist joke. I’ve heard that mess so many times, right along with “Life’s a bitch and then you marry one” – it’s not funny.

But it’s different than saying Bernie Mac called black women hoes. He told a joke I have heard white comedians crack as well – and I think it was joke of the day on AskMen.com – no particularly racialized aspect.

(This is different from DL Hugley, who has, will, and will continue to call a black woman a ho whenever it works for his bit. He was the one who made the crack that the Rutgers girls really were “nappy headed hos”)

So that’s the issue I had with the commenter I corrected. The idea that we cannot challenge the New Yorker without challenging Bernie Mac – on something he did not say. Even in the comments on the MOW post you linked, Gina mentions that his intent toward black women was not clear; my prior experience with the joke says it isn’t. Just disgusting, ill-timed, and misogynist.

Which, admittedly, isn’t much better, but I must admit I look at any comments that imply we can’t criticize one thing without criticizing something else with a lot of skepticism.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 3:11 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

Could this cartoon in fact be improved/made amusing if the image were presented in a thought balloon of, say, a waking-from-a-nightmare Fox News anchor, or something?

Actually, that’s what went through my head!

They should also satirize themselves (possible?).

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 3:19 pm ¶
Maanu wrote:

Bottom line: would they debut this cover in front of an Apollo audience?
Would the Apollo audience be “savvy” enough to get it, or would it not matter at that point?
People can take offense with anything. Somethings, however, are guaranteed to anger others.
Good job New Yorker! Mission Accomplished.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 3:45 pm ¶
Gouw wrote:

@ KXB

Exactly, I will declare this to be legitimate satire when their cover does that or portrays Ron Paul as a KKK Nazi. ( http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_racist_anti_semite/ If you’re thinking I’m out of my mind for saying that)

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 3:50 pm ¶
Elise wrote:

@CVT – thanks for the info. It’ll depend on my job, but now I’m going in with my eyes open, so that’s good.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶
fed up wrote:

Latoya

Get your facts right its in the Lynn sweet column 11 july chicago sun times. But its ok for Mac to call women hoe’s because hes one of us and the New yorker’s wrong because thats them.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:09 pm ¶
Ayo wrote:

Is there a literary mag put out soley by PoC? I think it’s about time.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:14 pm ¶
Rebecca wrote:

Hipster racism. Hm. Reminds me of a certain homegrown comedy troupe, Picnicface (of Halifax, NS, Canada). Their video “Powerthirst” was a runner-up in the comedy videos in the last Youtube awards. They have a fair amount of material in their sketches which has to do with racial stuff, even though they’re all white (except for one Jewish woman – are Jews white? I don’t know, haven’t really thought about it much). I think they’re funny but the racial material always made me feel a little uncomfortable, like “should I be laughing at this?” I showed some of their videos to friends from Vancouver and they really thought the vids were on the edge of being racist or something. Does anyone know what I’m talking about? Sorry if this is off topic.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:26 pm ¶
Jennifer wrote:

F.Y.I. — It’s 5:15pm and I just heard a piece on NPR that they did about this cover and they got an interview with the editor in chief, David Remnick (sp?) who was not apologetic about the cover at all but kept insisting that it was satire. When the NPR interviewer asked him if the artist couldn’t have made the satire more apparent, Remnick said that he got email messages from people saying that while “they” got it they didn’t think that people in, say “West Virginia” would get it. And Remnick believed that people are smart enough to get it, not just those who lived on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

So many have said what I would have written already (as in, it may have been intended as satire but really missed the mark, which so often racial satire does), so I’ll just say that if you’re interested from the New Yorker’s perspective, go to NPR website( http://www.npr.org/)and you can add your two cents there.

Or better yet, go to the New Yorker website (http://www.newyorker.com/) and let them know how you feel about the cover.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:31 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@fed up –

You supplied a reference, but no links to my two and Marge Twain’s three. Not looking good for you.

And two, here’s what you do when you have an issue with what we cover – you send an email to team@racialicious.com and *ask* us to cover it.

Don’t derail another thread to do it, or make snide comments. Just ask for what you want.

Three, finally, no, things are not okay because Bernie Mac is “one of us” – it still a misogynist joke. But your initial premise is still wrong. Criticism of the New Yorker cover (which we received tips about all weekend) is not predicated on criticism of Bernie Mac.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:40 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:

@Latoya: Hey, I’m glad that TCS posted about the offensive New Yorker cover. I was late coming in and agree with many who’ve already commented, particularly Eric Grant’s suggestion for making their intent clear.

I agree with you that this thread is not the place to bring up everything Racialicious should be pissed about, but I felt the need to step in when you said

“You don’t see that headline because Bernie Mac didn’t say that. ABC News made a “ho” joke.”

Yeah, It wasn’t an appropriate headline for ABC and most of the news headlines on this incident have missed the mark because they’re steeped in racism/sexism and they think it’s all relative(see also: certain recent metropolitan magazine covers)

The joke you seem to be referring to in your second comment

“….hypothetically speaking, we should have $100,000. But realistically speaking we live with two hos”

is at least as old as George Bernard Shaw and oft used against any woman who lives within the confines of feminine acceptability(dependant on the financial support of her husband/father) while denying that what she’s contributing is of equal value. You get why that’s misogynist, I know, but I find it particularly upsetting in the context of who it’s coming from (black male comedian who acts like he’s speaking the bold truth about “our women”) and that it’s followed with the joke about the pushy, emasculating black first lady who’s going to make the Prez wash the dishes and pick up the kids:

“Having a black first lady is different. You’re still going have to do the dishes and the laundry and all that …you got to pick up the kids. You didn’t pick up the kids? I just came from Korea, talking about nuclear weapons. You were on Air Force One and you couldn’t stop to pick up the kids?”

BM’s usual act is peppered with complaints about black women. It was toned down for this event and the jokes were certainly vetted in advance, so I’m disappointed in their choice of him and in Obama’s bland rebuke. Post-primary Obama has repeatedly dismissed and offended pro-choice women and Clinton supporters. That’s part of the context here too. Like he’s said before, he thinks we have nowhere else to go and he has more important things going on. I’m interested in your thoughts, but if you want to continue this conversation, maybe it should be over e-mail? this is becoming a thread derailment here..

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:49 pm ¶
Mickey wrote:

Jesus H. Christ on a crutch!

This makes me kinda glad my local magazines ignore people of color.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:50 pm ¶
Jack D. wrote:

If no one knows it’s satire, does it still count?

The comments are killers: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/14/obama-camp-slams-satirical-new-yorker-magazine-cover/all-comments/#comments

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:53 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Marge –

Yeah, it’s a derail, but an important one.

I’ll open a new thread on that tomorrow where we can discuss that comment and the way it plays out vis-a-vis racism and *acceptable* sexism, particularly in comedy. Because again, a lot of the “Barack in the White House” comedy focuses on Michelle.

And while my hunch is they picked Bernie Mac because he is (1) from Chi-town and (2) has a family show on TV…but if they actually watched the show and it’s one man against the world narrative, they may have been hesitant to cast him. (Or maybe not, you know how these things go…)

So I’ll set it for tomorrow sometime, and we can continue this discussion over there.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:54 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:

@Latoya, Okay, I hadn’t refreshed the page to see the next comment from fed-up and from you. Let me just reiterate that I know this isn’t the place for this conversation and fed-up just needs to read the sidebar before posting. Yikes, so inappropriate.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 4:56 pm ¶
Marge Twain wrote:

@Jennifer:Exact mimicry is not satire! When will this excuse die??
Their editor-in chief doesn’t sound so smart. He probably only got the job over some more qualified brown person because of affirmative action for white people.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶
Eccentric1 wrote:

I’m late to this discussion but wanted to put forward a thought that has likely already been stated in one of the comments above. This cover reminds me of an advertisement that came out several months ago that had a group of black track athletes crouched at a starting line. There was a white man standing over them looking rather authoritative. Once viewed by the public it appeared very racist. This New Yorker cover, and the advertisement I mention seem to be products of insulated, cognitively homogeneous group think. Maybe at the New Yorker there are a group of liberal minded, snarky, educated people who think that their readership sees the world the same way they do and thinks the way they do. This in no way lessen the damage of what was done. Ignorance resulting in racism and sexism maximized for the sake of “satire” does not make the racism and sexism any less hurtful or damaging.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 5:06 pm ¶
Annie wrote:

I understand why people are offended but I got it as soon as I saw the “terrorist fist jab.” As a black woman I don’t think it’s racist because it’s making fun of people who do have racist and stereotypical ideas of the Obamas, hence the afro which racist think is militant, the muslim attire which to some equate to terrorist.

The issue here is the satire wouldn’t be apparent to those who do not read or even heard of The New Yorker and how this cover will be circulated.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 5:18 pm ¶
Mike wrote:

I think this much ado about nothing, this is the New Yorker’s style they have done it before. The only thing you can blame them for is being late with it. The people who take this at face value were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

Everyone needs to lighten up.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 5:18 pm ¶
Arturo wrote:

Speaking of Obama, I found this on ThinkProgress today: John McLaughlin saying he “fits the stereotype of an Oreo.”

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 5:41 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

@Mike
It’s not about winning votes for Obama. It’s about the continued mistreatment of images of people of color in the media. Someone who takes this picture seriously is never going to vote for Obama, but that doesn’t mean they are beyond influence in their daily understanding and interactions with people of color. It’s about the proportion of negative images of people of color to positive ones, which is horrendously low.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 5:51 pm ¶
A. wrote:

A note to the Hipsters:

You’re really no different from the people in the South and poorer areas of the country – the ones that you decry for being “openly racists” and “rednecks.”

If anything, I find many of you more insidious because of the fact that you think racism is a joke.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 6:05 pm ¶
rikyrah wrote:

Arturo,

Not only did he call Obama an ‘ Oreo’, but he was quoting Jeremiah Wright. It was stunning political theater.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 6:07 pm ¶
Free wrote:

@Ron – re: Fuzzy-wuzzies. http://www.kipling.org.uk/pix/fuzzy_1.jpg

The so-called Fuzzy-wuzzies are the Besharin of the Beja tribes, desert dwellers of Egypt and Eritrea. They once lived in the same lands as the ancient Greeks.

In the late 19th century, British colonial soldiers called the Besharin tribes Fuzzy-wuzzy to help them conquer their fears: it was also a reference to their hairstyles. At the the Battle of Tamai in March of 1884, the Besharin broke the British fighting square – the first non-European army to do so. They Besharin lost the battle, but their extraordinary feat was commemorated by Ruyard Kipling.

“Fuzzy-Wuzzy” (excerpt)
(Soudan Expeditionary Force)
An’ ‘ere’s ~to~ you, Fuzzy-Wuzzy, with your ‘ayrick ‘ead of ‘air –
You big black boundin’ beggar — for you broke a British square!

And this gem, which reminds me of 10 Little Indians
Fuzzy-wuzzy was a bear
Fuzzy wuzzy had no hair
Then Fuzzy Wuzzy wasn’t fuzzy.
Was he?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 6:17 pm ¶
Free wrote:

Fuzzy-wuzzy wasn’t only used to deride the Besharin. And the British weren’t the only ones to use the term.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/146100.html

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 6:21 pm ¶
lxy wrote:

This episode shows that White Supremacy and chauvninist American nationalism can come in many different mutations from the deluded rantings of Fox News conservatives to the glib, we’re-so-clever snark of the New Yorker liberals.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 6:24 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:

I’m going to echo TCS, Gatamala and Tara said. It is problematic, the people involved are not part of the group being denigrated and you can be sure that the same “satirical style” would not be used on McCain anytime soon (or ever).

On a completely unrelated issue, why do I get the feeling that fedup’s concern trolling sounds so familiar?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 6:29 pm ¶
Mike wrote:

Slush

Because of Obama’s status in life as a public figure he is going to get it the fair way or the cheap way but he is going to get it. To ask for mercy because of his heritage is unrealistic.

He is a politician who is getting the same treatment from the press that all politicians have been getting.

In fact you can make the case that he has been getting it easy, his wife is the one catching hell.

I understand the New Yorker’s intentions and seriously doubt that this cover is going to breed more ignorance, it’s already out there.

In fact I think this is a good thing, by bringing it out in the open we can see exactly were people stand.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 6:32 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

I agree with you on all of that second post, Mike.

But none of that takes away from people taking umbrage and responding to racist imagery in the media. If not challenged and criticized, then it’s just the same old racist status quo and everybody’s okay with it.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 7:25 pm ¶
ivelleo wrote:

I apologize in advance for my anger, but so far all I’ve read is the typical liberal avocado… Allow me to bring the progressive bacon.

Clearly the all powerful, expansive and pro McCain Jewish lobby placed a call to their friend at the New Yorker -chief editor david remnick- to target Obama in this way. Far be it for the “merchants” among us to stand by idly and allow this African-American to become President of the USA without bringing the otherwise unfounded and ridiculous to the forefront. and giving it to a large extent credibility. When you have a populous that is simple in its collective thought process, unread, less than well educated and easy to manipulate this approach is a slam dunk

It is also my opinion that this practice has been perpetuated by the Jewish controlled media largely at the expense of blacks and people of color in this country for at least a generation now. Lets face it, this is clearly an effort to play to the worst fears of some, and the absolute worst in others, in an underhanded albeit unsophisticated manner.

Mod Note – This is the wrong blog to talk about “the Jewish controlled media” and other slurs towards Jews. Commenters, care to debunk this one?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 8:37 pm ¶
dirkdiggler wrote:

wow. i didn’t know that barack had such big ears.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 8:48 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

My reaction to the cover was “WTF?”

I didn’t get the idea that it was “satire”, I just thought, “Did the American Spectator or Washington Times effect a hostile takeover of TNY?”

Sewere, go check out http://www.pamshouseblend.com for the first (of many, I expect) parodies on the TNY cover. Of course, no-one will see this but liberal bloggers.

As for Gatamala and her quote – yes, of course US white liberals are more like US white conservatives than like US black liberals or liberals from outside the US. Many white liberals are born to white conservative parents, and vice versa. Majority cultural references, some experiences of white privilege, common hero figures are going to be approximately the same for all whites. It takes some effort and imagination and background knowledge for John and Jane Q. Average White to imagine how a John and Jane Q. Average Black would view the cartoon, etc. Getting the background knowledge and correctly imagined empathy is a gradual learning process.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 9:29 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

What all-powerful Jewish lobby supporting McCain? You flatter Sen. Joe Lieberman too much – he may THINK he’s all-powerful, but you know what they say about politics: it’s show biz for ugly people. DINO Joe can’t even muster the energy to finish crossing the aisle, for heaven’s sake!

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 9:35 pm ¶
Orville wrote:

I know my comment won’t sound PC but I wonder if the author of the article should “think” about her relationship with her partner. I mean I know it is none of my business but I was actually a bit surprised that the author of this piece was actually involved with someone at the New Yorker. And it isn’t just because she is involved with this guy but that the guy doesn’t see the joke as offensive. The author of this piece articulates her points so passionately and yet she doesn’t even acknowledge perhaps the racism of her own partner.

I mean she shouldn’t throw stones in glass houses right? Didn’t Audre Lorde say the Masters Tools can’t be used to dismantle the Master’s House. So here is the author of this piece writing so eloquently about how upset she is about the New Yorker and yet she doesn’t take her partner to task about his own racism. I think that’s a bit hypocritical just my personal opinion. I would SERIOUSLY question a relationship with that person but that’s just my personal opinion.

I mean the cartoon is obviously offensive to her and sees the cartoon as very racist. Yet she has a partner that works at the New York magazine and he doesn’t see a problem with it. I know people in relationships are entitled to have divergent points of view but…..You got wonder if there are deeper issues going on here. Is the writer of this article dating a racist…Makes you kind of wonder…

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:03 pm ¶
Slush wrote:

Actually, Ivelleo, when it comes down to conspiracy theory you ought to know that the whole cover as well as all the commenters at Fox News were staged by Ted Haggard, still bitter because Obama snubbed his amorous attention many years ago in Chicago. Duh.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:16 pm ¶
ivelleo wrote:

Oooohh.. hear comes the wrath. with all due respect to the moderator; if you want to debunk what I say why not do so on your own accord?

Hey, I understand I too work in NYC….just doing your job.

-I

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:27 pm ¶
Eric Grant wrote:

RE: post 76

See, THAT’s how you parody the equivalently nutty and racist left wing paranoia.

That was a joke, right? A failed attempt at an unfunny joke? Right?

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:39 pm ¶
KXB wrote:

This is the wrong blog to talk about “the Jewish controlled media” and other slurs towards Jews. Commenters, care to debunk this one?

An ugly comment.

There is a world of difference between pointing that the McCain is trying to scare older Jewish voters about Obama, and the idea that the press is run by Jews. Are there a lot of Jewish reporters? Yes. Are they uniform in their opinion? No – the old saw is “Two Jews, Four Opinions.”

But, it is fair to say they Jewish reporters in the American press, and most American news outlets, tend to stick to one set of ideas when discussing the Middle East. This is an idealogical straight-jacket that is not shared by a more free-wheeling Israeli press, which is far quicker to criticize the Israeli government than the American media. If you ever see the website for Haaretz, the Israeli paper of record, it reports things that the American media would not touch with a 10 foot pole.

But that is a topic for another thread.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:49 pm ¶
RON wrote:

Free -

I was just be light hearted regarding the term fuzzy wuzzie – it is like someone talking about the watusi (dance) and not referencing actual Tutsis.

I do not about them living in the same land as the ancient greeks because they clearly are an East African people.

They are also sometimes referred to as the Medjae (protectors of the pyramids and nubian battalions) of ancient egypt. They the modern day Beja.

Posted 14 Jul 2008 at 10:58 pm ¶
waxghost wrote:

CVT and Elise, I have to take issue with the idea that Seattle is “very white”. You seem to be dismissing all of the Asian-American and Native American people who live there. I lived there for many years myself and knew a lot of Asian-Americans, but I also looked for statistics to see if my own inclinations were right and found that (according to this website, anyway: http://www.city-data.com/ ) the number of POC in Seattle is pretty comparable to some other cities of similar size (I looked at Seattle, Tucson, Kansas City, Baltimore, Boston, and Virginia Beach, VA, so that you can compare too or critique how I came to this conclusion).

Sorry if I am going too far off-thread with this, but I felt it was also relevant because I knew quite a few Asian-Americans when I lived there – several who could probably be described as “hipster”, and so could fall into a weird non-space in this thread.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 12:40 am ¶
meownette wrote:

I honestly can’t tell if ivelleo is a hipsterly racist troll or a full-on anti-Semite, and the references to bacon and “merchants” don’t shed a ton of light on the matter. Ivelleo could be either. In any event, I wish this comment hadn’t seen the light of day; at the risk of violating commenting rule #11 and complaining about the comments, isn’t Ivelleo’s response a blatant #2? Isn’t the assertion of a fiendish Jewish chokehold on the media a grossly stereotypical slur at this point?

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 3:15 am ¶
Brian wrote:

The whole point of satire is that it makes the people it is lampooning question and ultimately decide against whatever aspect of their actions or beliefs is being satired. A successful satire would have conservatives look at this cover and say, “Wow, that is pretty ridiculous. Maybe we should re-think our perspective.” Obviously, this requires a person who is capable of being reflective and willing to change his belief. A satire does not necessarily fail because all those who may have initially agreed with it’s subject matter continue to do so. BUT, I find it hard to believe that this maid even a small minority of conservatives question their role in the creation of such an image. People have seem to lost an understanding of what true SATIRE is and what its function is. That is why we end up with shit like this.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 6:25 am ¶
Jess wrote:

Ordinarily I wouldn’t dignify any rant about the Jewish controlled media with a response, but here goes.

First, the relationship between Jews, Israel, AIPAC, and a dozen other groups is a lot more complicated than the “Jewish Lobby” calling up Rennick and getting a cartoon published. Anyone who writes that crap has zero knowledge of the magazine industry — or the media, for that matter.

Second, there are plenty of Jews voting for Obama. One in every seven people in New York City is Jewish, even if they aren’t religious. A good chunk of them are voting for Obama. There are a few Jews out there who vote GOP or based on Israel alone, but they aren’t exactly representative.

Third, the whole Jewish-controlled media thing is a canard anyway. Yes, Jews are in the media industry. But last time I checked Rupert Murdoch was a gentile. (We’re all happy to have him convert if he wants. I’d love to have him get ranted at by my Grandfather — who organized fighters for the Spanish Civil War –at a Seder table).

On the relevant topic, I have to say that I found the cover a satire that missed precisely because it needed explaining. I’ve been an editor at a publication that did cartoons occasionally. Coming up with an idea that works and isn’t offensive is hard sometimes. Occasionally you mess up, big time.

While I understand and second the issues with ‘hipster racism’ I am less sure that’s the case here, though I can see how it manifests. That is, I think it’s a case of a brainstorming session gone wrong, and the presence of a PoC’s perspective might have helped. A lot of suggestions for improving the cover have been floated here already.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 6:52 am ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@meownette – Yes, it is. But sometimes I will let certain comments though for the commenters to deal with depending on the content of the comment.

In light of the discussions with Matt and The Girl Detective about anti-semitism in progressive circles, I thought it was important for people to see how this manifests.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 7:47 am ¶
Orville wrote:

The cartoon is not SATIRE the cartoon is RACISM plain and simple. The cartoon is trying to say the Obamas are not AMERICANS that they are the OTHER. The burning American flag to me is a symbolism of white America viewing the Obamas as “not American” and “too different” meaning NOT WHITE.

The truth is in the USA it isn’t just the conservatives that have a problem with the Obamas it is also the LIBERAL WHITES there are some of them that are uncomfortable with the Obamas as well. White America doesn’t really know “‘what” to “think” of them. I think the cartoon is really an expression of this irrational fear in white America..and that’s the fear that the country REALLY is changing. Some white liberals and conservatives want to MAINTAIN the STATUS QUO they don’t mind John McCain after all he’s an old white heterosexual man. However, they fear Barack Hussein Obama because he’s a young black man and in America it is all about “keeping” blacks in their place. They also don’t like Michelle even though she isn’t running for President because she’s an articulate, intelligent, confident young black woman. Michelle is opinionated and they don’t like that. So they are attacking Michelle as well. I just hope people pay attention that it isn’t just the white conservatives that have a problem with Obama it is also the so called open minded “white liberals” that have an axe to grind with him as well.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 8:14 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

When you have a populous that is simple in its collective thought process, unread, less than well educated and easy to manipulate this approach is a slam dunk

Imma need you to put down the Protocols, the Willie Lynch letter, your coded dollar bill and back away from the computer.

Lets face it, this is clearly an effort to play to the worst fears of some, and the absolute worst in others, in an underhanded albeit unsophisticated manner.

I thought prison literacy courses were a good thing…

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 8:24 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

The author of this piece articulates her points so passionately and yet she doesn’t even acknowledge perhaps the racism of her own partner.

Check the last paragraph.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 8:29 am ¶
Korolev wrote:

The reason why this cover is offensive is due to the fact that many will not see it as such. The editor of the New Yorker might believe it is “obvious”, but there are many (predominately white) Americans who are prejudiced/foolish/stupid enough to actually believe the cover is an accurate representation.

When looking at the cover – there isn’t really anything in it to show they are trying to counter the rumors about Obama. The cover could be easily misinterpreted (and it will be, by the racist crowd).

Often newspapers use humor to either make a point or refute a point. Many news-paper cartoonists poke fun at bush’s stupidity, but they aren’t trying to refute it, they are trying to point it out.

Was the New Yorker trying to use these images to refute the rumors, or point them out? I’m not really sure. I know they shouldn’t have done this cover, because these images help perpetuate a lie – the lie that Obama is a Muslim.

Obama is not a Muslim. Nothing wrong with being a Muslim, but saying Obama is a Muslim is a pure lie, and lies are never a good thing.

But one thing is for certain – it won’t hurt the New Yorker sales. And that’s all they really care about. And of course, McCain is probably extremely happy these images were made. It doesn’t do anything to hurt his campaign.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 9:34 am ¶
Eric Grant wrote:

I’ll say that when I first saw the cover image, I thought it was pretty funny, precisely because the rumours and situations depicted are SO ridiculous to me and anyone I talk to, that to see them all in one amusing image is completely over the top (I’m a white Canadian, and while “hipster” might be a stretch to describe me, I’m probably comparable to the New Yorker’s perceived audience–and certainly capable of making similar mistakes if I don’t step far enough out of my own perspective).

I see is a magazine who apparently has been very supportive of Obama in print, and who assumes that its readership is similarly supportive, maybe trying to make a little fun of its own Obama-inspired hero worship, while also mocking the paranoia of its political opponents, what I don’t see is any actual mockery of the Obamas themselves.

And then I read a little bit here, and I see how it the image gets read differently and why people with different backgrounds think that basically, in the current wider social climate this gag will fail, or presume that the intent was mean spirited, or that the intended message is mixed, at best.

So, I get that
1) if people don’t get the joke the joke fails. And,

2) this particular image may have negative consequences for a few million people who have absolutely zero chance of moving into the White House in the next 12 months.

The more often people point out these errors to people like me, the less likely people like me are going to make similar goofs in the future.

I’d bet that within the New Yorker circles, Ms. and Mr. Obama are regarded as, basically, “one of us”, and so this cartoon was supposed to be sort of like one of those jokey videos the presidential communications people make lampooning the domestic life in the White House.

Except, you know, the subjects of the spoof weren’t actually involved in its production.

Slightly shorter version: while I wouldn’t bet that this image was the product of a hate-based capital “r” Racism (although I see why a person might bet the other way), I’d buy the argument that it is, effectively, the product of an ignorance-based racism, which isn’t necessarily less harmful, and can help capital R racism to thrive.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 9:52 am ¶
Josh wrote:

The people who ask whether we will ever see an equivalent cartoon satire concerning McCain raise a good point, but not the one they mean to raise: The point is, none of the mainstream media have subjected McCain to the kind of crazy, absurd rumors that have been heaped on Obama. I mean, “terrorist fist jab”?!! Come on! Naturally, the reason Obama gets this treatment (in my opinion) is because he’s black, and there are a lot of people in this country who reflexively fear and distrust black people.

What’s been going on throughout this campaign is that one crazy rumor after another about Obama has been given way too much media attention and legitimacy, due in large part to the irrational fear that many white people have of black people. Every time another one of these rumors makes the rounds in isoloation, it gets serious, deliberate treatment from the talking heads, gets bounced around on talk shows, and ultimately blows over. But in that process, we may fail to take the larger view and say, “Holy shit, look at all this dumb stuff that we are bothering to take seriously! A guy who is running for president had his patriotism questioned for not wearing a flag pin! People think he is in league with our enemies because of his middle name!” The idea of the cartoon, which I think is quite clear, is to put all of these really dumb things together so we can all stand back and appreciate how idiotic they are.

Atlasien (comment #27) rightly points us to a cartoon at Salon which is a much better-executed attempt to hold the mirror up to all this madness. I’ll concede that the New Yorker cover is ham-fisted, but I don’t think it’s an iteration of hipster racism or racism at all. Hipster racism is throwing a “pimps and hos” party or whatever it was that those kids did at, um, Princeton, maybe (I don’t remember). It’s doing something blindly insensitive and then excusing yourself by saying it was an ironic commentary on race relations, without having actually meant any commentary at all. The New Yorker cover is not blindly insensitive – it’s a carefully crafted attempt to show just how insane the treatment of Obama has been. Maybe we can all agree that it fails, but that doesn’t make it racist per se.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 10:10 am ¶
gatamala wrote:

I love atlasien’s cartoon. AmeriQa!

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 10:36 am ¶
Joseph wrote:

@ ivello
This morning I went to brush my teeth and discovered that I had almost completely run out of toothpaste. I mean, I’d purchased a giant tube of toothpaste not that long ago and I haven’t been brushing my teeth more often than usual…so how could this happen?

And then it hit me: the Jews! In between controlling world banking and running the media, the Jews have stolen my toothpaste! Isn’t sabotaging the Obama campaign with this New New Yorker cover enough, Jews? Do you have to go after my oral health too???

::Shakes fist at bathroom ceiling::

Annnnd scene.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 11:33 am ¶
Jaye wrote:

I think the privileged people at TNY really are so arrogant and so used to being fawned over that they simply can’t get it through their minds that they’re not funny, not satirical, not edgy, not provocative, and not particularly blowing anyone’s minds or ways of thinking. It doesn’t occur to them, they’re THAT arrogant and insular.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 12:46 pm ¶
Orville wrote:

I don’t think the writer of the article went far enough in challenging the racism of her own boyfriend. My perspective is she’s being hypocritical because she is complaining about the New Yorker and their hiring standards. And yet here she is in a relationship with a racist and she doesn’t take her partner to task HARD ENOUGH. My perspective is I wouldn’t put up with someone like that. I think the writer of this piece needs to look into the mirror at herself and her own life as well. I mean on the one hand she’s writing so passionately about racism and yet here she is dating a racist. Talk about throwing stones in glass houses give me a break.

Mod Note - Chill Orville. Relationship dynamics are complicated and do not always need to be translated into the blog world. Just because there was no retribution taken in the piece, this does not mean there was not retribution taken in real life. -LDP

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 1:23 pm ¶
Tim Wise wrote:

While the whole Jewish-controlled media thing, brought up earlier, is absurd of course, one point is worth making as regards the different way that publications like the New Yorker deal with (or “satirize”) some folks as opposed to others. Bottom line: the New Yorker does this to the Obamas (folks of color) as a way to mock stupid white racists and anti-Muslim religious bigots. But they would never do the same thing, or take the same chance at being misunderstood, to/with Jewish folks, as a way to make fun of stupid anti-semites.

So, for those who might seek to defend the New Yorker on this cartoon, (not so much on this board as elsewhere), and who think it’s legit satire, because it “obviously” pokes fun at the whole right-wing “Obama is a muslim” conspiracy B.S….

Can anyone on here imagine the New Yorker, or any other MSM outlet doing a “satire” where they poke fun at the absurd conspiracy theories about Jews and 9/11 (like 4000 Jews stayed home from work that day because they got tipped off by the Mossad)? Can you imagine them satirizing the loons who say that shit by doing a cover with a bunch of rabbis, calling each other on the phone reminding other “members of the tribe” (as we occasionally call ourselves, for those who don’t know) to stay home? Or perhaps a rabbi pushing down on a TNT charge, and bringing the WTC down? Of course not. They would NEVER do this.

Likewise, whack jobs have been spinning conspiracy yarns for centuries about Jews baking matzo using the blood of gentiles, etc., but never would any media outlet think it was ok to make fun of such stupidity by showing Jewish men in kippahs snacking on flatbread made from the plasma of someone named Mikey O’Malley (for lack of a more authentic gentile name!)

In other words, though the Jews-control-the-media thing is garbage, it is almost certainly true that MSM outlets, whether or not there are lots of Jewish folks working there, are far more sensitive to the sensibilities of our community as Jews, than they are to black communities, or Muslim communities. They would never ’satirize’ Holocaust denial, for example, by showing a cover with Jewish prisoners at Auschwitz, playing cards, or shuffleboard, as a way to show the absurdity and venality of those who claim there was no mass murder of Jews and that Auschwitz was “actually a pretty nice place, with an orchestra, for entertainment,” (a claim David Duke made several years ago, for example).

Least of all would a media outlet in New York do this, because indeed there is a large Jewish community in the city, which is indeed influential (though no, not ubiquitous, and not controlling, and not all-powerful), which would scream bloody murder, and with good reason. Note, I am not saying it would be ok to do any of the covers mentioned above, just pointing out that no publication would ever even THINK of doing one of them.

Even if it were an election season, and a Jewish candidate were in the race (as was the case for Lieberman as VP in 2000), there is simply no way that the New Yorker would have done a cover with Lieberman playing the role of a puppeteer, and say, pulling the strings of an Al Gore marionette, with, let’s say, an Israeli flag flapping in the background, as a way to satirize the buffoons who said things about how Joe L. was just a Zionist Manchurian candidate, brainwashed in shul to “destroy all goyim,” as one Nazi froot loop swore to me was true eight years ago.

Bottom line: white folks don’t take chances at offending Jewish folks the way we will black folks or Muslims. Now, it’s not because of Jewish “control,” but it does have reasons behind it. Namely:

1. Jews are a dangerous target to offend because we have more economic clout than folks of color and can punish anti-Semitic acts in ways that folks of color often can’t when the acts are racist, and,

2. Jewish suffering and pain is taken more seriously than the pain and suffering of other groups, and garners more sympathy, in large measure because it is the suffering of a people who are now thought of as white (wasn’t always the case but it is now by most folks). This is why no one ever worries that Holocaust Studies programs that focus on the Shoah (and it alone) will encourage Jews to develop a “victim mentality,” or cause us to “shirk personal responsibility for our community,” while Af-Am studies or Ethnic Studies programs that discuss the oppression of folks of color, and their struggles to overcome that oppression and define themselves in history, are met with constant cries of “PC” and concern that indeed, folks of color are being encouraged to think of themselves as permanent victims in such classes. Jewish pain counts. Black and brown pain does not. Jewish pain can be blamed on others (Nasty Germans, for example), while black and brown pain is very much our shame in the U.S….so we can’t face it, or care the same way, or worry about offending folks of color, while we would never think of risking such offense with Jewish folks, for the most part.

We who are Jewish should call that out and make clear how unacceptable it is, when done to anyone.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 1:37 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:

@ ivello

But it’s not just the media, it’s everything man EVERYTHING. They put stuff in the water too, if I were you I would stick with koolaid… oh wait……

@ Orville,
just because TCS decided to focus more on the magazine than her conversation with her partner doesn’t mean she did not do so in real life.

Further question, what the hell is it with people who assume that interracial relationships are the only ones who have to deal with racism?

@ Tim Wise.

When you bring the knowledge, you REALLY bring the knowledge.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 2:49 pm ¶
A. Taveras wrote:

I’ll echo others whose sentiment is that it is surprising New Yorker dropped the ball on an otherwise good idea. Nothing in the image serves as a good cue of the satirical nature of the drawing, even though I personally don’t doubt satire was the intent as they claim. If you consider the narrow audience of the publication you can see why they would assume it would be seen clearly as satire … but they had to know it would garner attention far beyond their monthly audience.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 2:55 pm ¶
Chris Osborne wrote:

Based upon previous New Yorker covers lampooning politicians over the preceding half century, I have interpreted all of these as directly making fun of the celebrities being lampooned as opposed to satire.
Thus when I first saw the cover I interpreted it as an attempt to create a barrel of laughs at the Obamas’ expense. The cartoon dredges up stereotypes; and then puts them out on the proverbial clothesline once more so people can have yet another laugh. The images of the Obamas are already well known, and the combination of them is likely to produce multiple laughs on the part of those who make fun of and have a low opinion of Senator and Michelle Obama anyway. The cartoon casts the Obamas as buffoonish carcicatures rather than trying to “send a message” to right-wingers (from a fellow Rightist) to stoke up their hate passions.
The assertion that the cartoon instead makes fun of the Far Right in fact has no bearing in reality, as the first thought entering a person’s mind looking at the cover will not be to laugh at the Right. That excuse sounds more like a magazine scrambling for political cover after the initial wave of outrage. The cartoon thus does not qualify as satire at all.
The only mystery remaining is what percentage of would-be McCain voters actually believe the stereotypes about Obama and his wife as opposed to those planning to vote for the Arizona Senator for other reasons, who don’t take the stereotypes seriously, and are oblivious to them one way or the other. I have no idea how the percentages would stack up in this case. (I might as well identify myself as a White male in closing).

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 2:57 pm ¶
Hilary wrote:

Ugh, I feel bad for being the 100+ person to reply, but I need to post a comment.

This was one of the best pieces I have seen written on the topic of the Obama New Yorker cover. I just wanted to say thanks.

Imitation is not irony. Being better at sexism or racism or xenophobia alone is not ironic. For something to be humorous, it has to have a punchline of some sort, a double entendre, a twist. This cover was at best childish and at worst racist.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 3:19 pm ¶
Eric Grant wrote:

You know, they should have included Sasqatch and the Loch Ness Monster on the cover, possibly also “dressed as Muslims” (whatever that means) as V.P. and Secretary of State.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 4:09 pm ¶
Fiqah wrote:

@TCS: You’re the shit. Brava, darling.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

TCS, that’s brave of you to post about your current partner and his reaction to the cover and your reaction to it. This should be a wake-up call for any white person contemplating an interracial relationship – contemplate the Golden Rule first.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 7:39 pm ¶
Amber wrote:

While this is racially offensive, that’s not really a surprise coming from the source. My problem is the gross misuse of the word “satire.” Satire isn’t just drawing a picture of what some people actually think. It is, at best, sarcasm, as in:

person 1: “I don’t like other countries.”
person 2: “I don’t like other countries.”

See, person 2 said it in a whiny voice, which makes it liberal and important. Take that! I’d like a national education program on satire, and irony for that matter. Satire, is a powerful tool of fighting the man. Saying something racist and then saying it was post-ironic is just you, being a racist, and using words wrong.

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 8:48 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Everyone—thanks so much for the fascinating conversation about this cover. Y’all remind me why I absolutely love Racialcious.

I dig most commenters’ opinion on why this damn cover failed as satire. Now, let me see if I can respond to some of your specific comments. And it’s going to be long—please forgive the length.

::gives Latoya, Sewere, and gatamala hugs::

Thanks so much for defending the way I presented my relationship in this post. I heart you. But y’all know that.

::grabs a chair, slides it next to Orville, sits downs, and whispers::

@Orville—friend, let me use another stone-throwing analogy. According to Biblical legend, David didn’t kill Goliath with a big, hard rock. He used a small, well-aimed pebble. Think of David’s stone and that glass house you believe me to be in. Beyond this, I’ll say nothing more because, as Sewere and Latoya so appropriately stated, 1) “just because TCS decided to focus more on the magazine than her conversation with her partner doesn’t mean she did not do so in real life” and, more importantly,
2) “relationship dynamics are complicated and do not always need to be translated into the blog world.”

::turns to the rest of the group::

@Anya and Nate—semantics, friends?:-D Okay, let me see if I can clarify what I mean. I think The New Yorker appeals to a particular kind of middle-aged liberal: one who prides (or at least fancies) him/herself to be very well-read (think Junot Diaz, Zadie Smith, and yeah, Malcolm Gladwell well-read), a keen sense of what’s happening in the world (maybe even well-traveled, like stayed-in-an-ashram-in-India well-traveled), and a “sophisticated” sense of cultural and artistic aesthetics (think jazz and John Cage). In other words, a “hipster” in the American Heritage Dictionary sense of the word, namely, “One who is exceptionally aware of or interested in the latest trends and tastes.” As far as their sense of humor, their “wry” then is your “ironic” today. And just because these TNY readers are middle-aged and monied doesn’t mean that they don’t consider themselves hip. The money allows them to continue to pursue their tastes and interests in stock firms and French hotels, and jazz and John Cage just as the under-40 set who can buy overpriced jeans and T-shirts at places like American Apparel, Abercombie & Fitch, and Urban Outfitters. A good read on this is Barbara Ehrenreich’s Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class , where she discusses the ideas of temporary poverty and hipsters.

@ Prometheus, Eva, Ejunco, Korolev, and Mike—perhaps this was an(other) attempt for TNY to prove its relevance and boost sales, but it’s a devil’s deal and Remnick and his staffers are catching hell, not only from us bloggers and commenters and even some MSM types, but from people sending nasty and threatening voicemails and emails. Actually, Korolev, the ad department is catching some serious hell, too:

http://www.wwd.com/memopad/article/126466

So, in light of this development, were the cover and the sales *really* worth it?

@ Ista—friend, if you check out the Daily Kos, you’ll find you’re in great company! I’m curious to know how the Subscription Department will handle your cancellation and, actually, how many subscription cancellations this cover caused. Please feel free to leave a comment about it at my blog….

@RJG—you gotta thank (and attribute) our very own Carmen for the phrase. Perhaps, if we work at it, it’ll be entered into the Oxford Dictionary? Wow, Racialicious gets dictionaried….:-D

@ gatamala—friend, you always support, and I loves you for it! Yeah, that Kai’s pretty slammin’ with the analysis, which is why I heart him, too. As for TNY hiring Black folks in influential positions, jobs where they may have a say in such things as covers? Well…I’ll be hopeful that this radioactive situation will wake up the staff to the polycultural present and their needing to reflect it seriously as far as personnel.

@Lauren and Josh—you and I are going to have to agree to disagree, friends. Matt actually states my disagreement with what you said precisely: “The New Yorker really does know satire. I do believe they intended this as such, but I’m amazed at their inability to look critically at how it would work.”

@ KXB—I’m not going to hold my breath.:-D

@Abu Sinan—Co-sign. The cartoon actually recalls a piece Michael Moore did about the fatal effects of some of the NYPD not looking past their prejudices when they fire 40 shots into a innocent Black person. Moore, surrounded by an all Black onlookers, ask for one of their cell phones. He hold it high in his hand and asks the crowd what the object looks like in his hand. The audience says, “A cell phone.” Moore give back the celly and asks the owner to hold it high. He asks, “What does it look like in his hand?” The audience responds, “A gun!”

@ Jennifer Gandin Le—Perhaps you’re being rhetorical, but I’ll answer your question honestly re: how this got past the brainstorming stage. Three words: Editor David Remnick. He has the final say over the whole magazine, including the cover. That’s why he’s on news shows defending the cover, talking about he was going for some Jon Stewart-esque satiric humor. ::eyeroll::

@ Glossolalia Black—friend, you and I need to agree to disagree. If I’m not mistaken, even Angela Davis is critical of her afro’d iconography. So, I’m doubly critical about putting it on Michelle’s head, even in an illustration.

@ Tara K., RJG, summer, Free, and rikyrah—all of your reads on the cover are spot-on. I can’t add anything more to them.

@ Fatemeh, Aja, Free, Elise, waxghost—interesting discourse about hipsters, race, and big-city stats and lived experiences. If I can add another thought, hopefully without derailing the thread—what about college (or college-dominated) towns? I’m thinking about Ann Arbor (University of MI), New Haven (Yale), Oberlin (Oberlin, OH)?

@ Bob Simpson— And where were the responsible adults at the New Yorker?
These are smart educated people so they can’t plead either ignorance or stupidity.

No, Bob, they just plead the First Amendment (or plead the 5th) and say the rest of us need to “lighten up’” or “stop being so PC,” that’s all.:-D Seriously though, you ask the million-dollar question. I wonder how many at the magazine were allowed to even see the cover before it was released this past Sunday. I think the adults may have been part of the group that didn’t see it. With that said…

@Eric Grant, Latoya, Mary (#42), gatamala (#48), and Gouw—any and all of these are great ideas. Perhaps Remnick should hire you as cover illustrators.:-D

@Maanu and Morgan—your guidelines are perfect.

@Joseph—someone already made the comparison: Time Magazine’s Jonathon Alter on Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

http://thecruelsecretary.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-about-new-yorker-cover-mess-from.html

@ coco—actual proof of many commenters’ concern about how people would identify with the cover. SMH

@ Mary (#33), lxy and A.—exactly! That’s the self-delusion of hipster racism, that somehow, racism occurs as some wildly overt statement or activity (dragging a Black man behind a pick-up truck) in the deep woods in the South—in other words, big-R racism. However, their small-r racism (one commenter on another Racialicious referred to it as “microaggressions) can be winked and nudged away with irony or by being your friend/co-worker/intimate partner. Whether overt or covert, it’s still racism…and it needs to be stopped, not displaced and projected “over there.”

@ Ron—you got schooled on “fuzzy-wuzzy.” I say no more.

@ Marge Twain—I see you’re on Latoya’s race, misogyny, and comedy thread. Cool. And thanks for your appreciation of this post.

@Ayo—I’m not sure about lit mags by and for PoCs. But I also think blogs fill that need, considering that the print media seems to be slowing fading.

@ Rebecca—I’ll definitely check out Picnicface. Thanks for the tip, friend!

@Eccentric1 and Jaye— “This New Yorker cover, and the advertisement I mention seem to be products of insulated, cognitively homogeneous group think. Maybe at the New Yorker there are a group of liberal minded, snarky, educated people who think that their readership sees the world the same way they do and thinks the way they do. This in no way lessen the damage of what was done. Ignorance resulting in racism and sexism maximized for the sake of “satire” does not make the racism and sexism any less hurtful or damaging.”
Exactly, and co-sign.

@ Mike—gosh, I wish I could “lighten up,” but Slush’s response to you is exactly why I—and quite a few of the other commenters–can’t.

@ivelleo—wow, I see you didn’t get the memo about anti-Semitism not being a good look here at Racialicious. (And you went after Latoya, too? SMH However, I’m thankful to her for showing us all how this creeps into progressive circles.) I also see that NancyP, Slush, KXB, Jessee, meowette, gatamala (#92), Joseph (#98), Sewere (#102) and Tim pretty much handled it, so I have nothing more to add.

@Tim Wise—I’m co-signing with Sewere: “When you bring the knowledge, you REALLY bring the knowledge.” Thanks for helping out, friend.

@Hilary, Alyssa, and fiqah—

::deep curtsies::

Thanks so much for the compliments! Alyssa, your words of encouragement are right on time, friend. Oh…and fiqah, I may have to double up on the honeydew melons, whipped cream, and chocolate.;-)

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 9:53 pm ¶
Kirk Van Irvin wrote:

@ Tim Wise: man, that was deep!

@ Elise; I don’t live in Portland but I do live in the Puget Sound area Most of the black people I know live south part of the city; you have to look hard to find them anywhere else. I came here thinking that Seattle was going to be some hip , laid -back place to live, but that’s not the case; in my opinion there is a lot of pretentious people up here . That being said, Seattle is not a bad place to live. Crime is low , and there are jobs here( and WXB wasn’t kidding about the rain, but you get used to it. ) There are worse cities you can live in. If you’re going to worry about some something in Seattle, worry about the relatively high housing prices in the metro area! But if you are worried about living in a racist /prejudiced place in America, you’re going to have to live in the ocean; no place is going to be perfect!

Posted 15 Jul 2008 at 10:03 pm ¶
Renee wrote:

I have roamed around the blogosphere reading blog post after blog post on this story and honestly I am emotionally exhausted. The ignorance of some people in regards to this cartoon is at times overwhelming. I have perhaps invested too much of time and emotion on this issue but as a POC I am to enraged to allow this to stand without saying that this is racist and a reflection of white privilege. I cannot say that I am surprised by the reaction or that the cartoon was drawn in the first place but it does make me question how we can even pretend to exist in a post racial society. Racialicious is one of the last blogs I am reading on this subject because I knew that you would call it for what it is and I am happy to see that you have. For those supposed allies that for one minute believe that an offer of friendship gives you permission to demean, think twice. POC are more aware of your intentions than you realize.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 4:18 am ¶
Slush wrote:

@Tim Wise

Great point. Here’s my question:

“1. Jews are a dangerous target to offend because we have more economic clout than folks of color and can punish anti-Semitic acts in ways that folks of color often can’t when the acts are racist”

I completely agree this is true, but why is that so? I think you suggested some of the historical reasons, and I can think of some others, but I mean it tactically. How does the Jewish community punish anti-Semitism effectively and what strategies can we learn from that?

In my experience the Jewish community calls something anti-Semitic and there’s a big freakout, whereas you call something racist and everyone denies it. How can people of color gain that same legitimacy?

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 8:16 am ¶
sk wrote:

i have to agree: this is one of the best discussions, on this issue and maybe any other dealing with this particular election season, i have ever seen. i didn’t get a chance to weigh in on Latoya’s thread about why we’re here, because mostly i just read things, but this is *precisely* why i come here. because the discussions can be so smart and challenging and still provide a safe space for people of color to be listened to. that is, as i have learned lo these recent months, a very hard thing to do, and yet it is done here so gracefully.

thanks.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 11:11 am ¶
Arturo wrote:

Jon Stewart discussed this last night, and said the response from the Obama campaign should have gone something like this: “Barack Obama is not upset about the cartoon in the New Yorker depicting him as a Muslim extremist. You know who gets upset about cartoons? Muslim extremists, which he is not. It’s a (bleeping) cartoon!”

So, was he oversimplifying the matter?

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 11:13 am ¶
jessica wrote:

TIM WISE, you are my hero.

By the by, the New Yorker’s been selling like hotcakes on ebay!
http://search.ebay.com/search/search.dll?from=R40&_trksid=m37&satitle=barack+obama+new+yorker&category0=

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 11:14 am ¶
lunanoire wrote:

Tim Wise,

Thanks for articulating so well what i have thought for years but was unable to say clearly.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 11:42 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:

@AJ – ROFF!

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 12:17 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Arturo–I think Slush has a great response to Jon Stewart’s statement:
But none of that takes away from people taking umbrage and responding to racist imagery in the media. If not challenged and criticized, then it’s just the same old racist status quo and everybody’s okay with it.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 12:17 pm ¶
SR wrote:

I would caution against taking the path that Ista suggested. We should confront TNY on their terms and encourage them to write more stories from different perspectives. I always look back to last year’s A Paler Shade of White by Sasha Frere-Jones as an example of what TNY can publish and should publish more frequently.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 12:30 pm ¶
Ron wrote:

Tim Wise as usual breaksdowns a touchy subject without straying from the main point.

I think the solution is education and structural and systematic engagement – I think that is the difference.

@ Cruel Secretary -

I did not get schooled on Fuzzy Wuzzy (everbody knows about the British in the Sudan) lay off the caffeine.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 5:03 pm ¶
Morgan wrote:

Tim Wise—I agree with the spirit, but I would hate to see this kind of thing slippery slope into a justification of Antisemitism. I, as a fellow white Jew, understand everything you say rationally, but that doesn’t mean that words don’t sting. I was genuinely hurt by ivelleo’s words, and reflecting upon Jewish people’s economic capital (or presumed, I’ve known plenty of Jews on welfare) never makes this stuff less scary. Money never saved any Jew when the shit got really ugly.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 7:05 pm ¶
Morgan wrote:

btw- as a white Jew, I try to differentiate between POC expressing anger at white people, racism, and privilege, which is important, and anyone’s Antisemitism, which is attacking an oppressed group.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 7:08 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Ron–not to derail the thread, but your comment needs a response.

First of all, I didn’t know you had the capability of “knowing” what “everyone” knows.

Also, if “everyone” knew, friend, then why did Free had to say anything to you about it? Because what should have been known, esp. by you, is the term is insulting. And to use this insulting term in conjunction to afros? In a culture where–to bring it back to the original topic of this cover–some folks see them as punchlines or “political” (as a Glamour Magazine editor derisively referred to them)? You may want to rethink that statement, friend. For myself, I find your comparison very insulting.

BTW, I can’t lay off something that I don’t use. But you should have known that ’cause…you know what everyone knows, right?:-D

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 7:24 pm ¶
Tim Wise wrote:

Thanks to everyone for the props on my prior post…

@ slush – I wish there was some easy-to-apply strategy that POC could use to punish racism, the way Jewish folks have been able to punish antisemitism (real or imagined, cuz let me be clear, sometimes my people see antisemitism in some crazy places: historically understandable, but presently dysfunctional as hell). Sadly, it aint that easy. The reason we as Jews can effectively respond to anti-Jewish bias (I don’t even like the term antisemitism actually because most Jews are not Semitic peoples, linguistically, unless you go back, waaaaay back. I dunno ’bout the other Jewish folk on here, but my people were Yiddish-speaking Russians who weren’t ashamed of their class standing, and so didn’t feel the need to go “reclaim” ancient Hebrew) is because we are effectively white now, and actually “uber whites” whose “success” in relative terms can be used to justify and rationalize the system (since, if we can “make it” anyone can, or so the claim goes). We garner sympathy to the extent we are seen as white. Prior to our whitening, which didn’t happen until the last sixty years or so, for the most part, we wouldn’t have been very successful at punishing anything. But that’s what “becoming white” will do for ya…sadly, folks of color don’t get to partake in the goodies of whiteness the same way (or actually, maybe that’s a good thing, in that POC get to maintain their cultural integrity by not becoming white, which integrity is something we Jewish folks have largely had to sacrifice in order to become members of the white club…so was it worth it? Another post and discussion for another day…)

Obviously slush, the one piece of advice is that unity is paramount…POC have to be as strident as we Jewish folks are about not airing dirty laundry in front of those who would use it against you. That means all that Bill Cosby shit, which Obama is trying to pull lately needs to happen behind closed doors, among friends, not in front of white journalists.

@Morgan – I feel you on the concerns you express, but here’s the deal…nothing I said could remotely justify anti-Jewish bias. I said, at least three times, that the whole Jewish media domination thing is bullshit. In fact, I’ve written about that elsewhere, at the following link:

http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/paranoidprejudice.html

But the fact is, media will not attack or poke fun at Jews the way they will do so with folks of color. That’s true because Jews are white folks now, in the eyes of the dominant portion of the white community. Obviously we aren’t in the eyes of Nazis, but those fuckers (I mean the real Nazis, not folks who we sometimes call Nazis just for effect) run exactly nothing, so I’m not really sweatin’ them, truth be told.

I totally understand the difference between critiquing Jews as whites and critiquing us as Jews. The one is a critique leveled against us as members of the dominant group, while the other is a critique of us as members of an historically subordinated group: got it, and that’s true. At the same time, unless we as Jews speak out about our whiteness, and the privileges we receive because of it, and stop lying to ourselves and others about how we’re not “really” white, because Hitler said we weren’t (as if white were a real thing, biologically, rather than a social construct, to which we now most certainly have laid claim), then all kvetching about our victimization seems callow to me.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 8:07 pm ¶
Morgan wrote:

tw—i won’t derail this thread any further, but google the word “Jew” and see what you get.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 10:48 pm ¶
Leigh-Anne wrote:

AJ Plaid: thank you for this sharp critique! I appreciate your rage, open-ness about a single complex aspect of your relationship dynamic, and your effort to use your views to challenge and subvert the white supremacist–U.S. neo-imperialist attitudes to which, I believe, the July 21 New Yorker cover contributes.

I am willing to concede that the satiric illustration that dons the New Yorker’s cover *might* be well intended *if* the image is truly meant to mock the admixture of racism, sexism, xenophobi & neo-imperialist attitudes and views used to tear apart, in order to discredit, Michelle and Barack Obama — (vs. an attempt by the New Yorker to exploit for profit the attitudes of both Obama’s supporters and detractors).

However, in an institutionally racist/white supremacist, sexist, xenophobic and neo-imperialist context — good intentions become moot because
*everything* (or most everything) a person says and does *and* an institution’s messages/views and practices — operates in that oppressive context.

That said, the New Yorker’s attempt at progressive satire would’ve been more useful and effective had they used a cover image that shifted the focus from one of the routine targets of oppression (i.e. people of color) to the those most empowered by that oppression (i.e., white folks).

In other words, the New Yorker should have rejected satiric portrayals centering on people of color — i.e., the Obama’s — and instead, used a satiric illustration that focused on the most powerful segments of the population forwarding bigoted critiques of people of color/the Obamas — i.e., white folk — and The New Yorker should have done THAT precisely because of the oppressive attitudes and practices it wants the public to believe the July cover is meant to critique.

In the U.S./”Western” context, it is more useful to challenge and resist white supremacy by directly challenging and resisting *white racism* and white peoples’ (intentional and unintentional) participation in white supremacy.

Efforts to challenge and resist white supremacy by mobilizing racist-sexist-xenophobic-neoimperialist (visual or textual) discourse of people of color is tantamount to using gasoline to put out a fire; it’s stupid and it won’t work.

But then, I expect that if the New Yorker cover image chided whites who believe themselves progressive — whites who self-identify or believe themselves to be anti-racist (etc.,) — THAT COVER IMAGE would have provoked the animus of the bulk of their audience — the very people upon which the New Yorker’s economic survival depends: middle and upper-class white liberals.

Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 11:16 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Leigh-Ann–thanks for the compliment, friend! About your last statement:

But then, I expect that if the New Yorker cover image chided whites who believe themselves progressive — whites who self-identify or believe themselves to be anti-racist (etc.,) — THAT COVER IMAGE would have provoked the animus of the bulk of their audience — the very people upon which the New Yorker’s economic survival depends: middle and upper-class white liberals.

See, I think what some of the other commenters offered as alternative covers would actually serve the purpose of poking fun of their readership’s hipster racism/bigotry as well the dog-whistled fears of the people do deeply believe “those things” about the Obamas. By doing that, the cover would do what you wanted: poke fun at what some white folks on both sides of the political spectrum believe about the Obamas and perhaps serve as a meditative point of what they believe about themselves.

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 8:45 am ¶
Ron wrote:

@ Cruel Secretary -

You can live your life offended by every derisive term white people use against us but I will not waste my time. In fact, I will actually use it as well because I love my fuzzy wuzzy self.

I used to be a nile-centric history buff so its not too much someone can tell me about Bejas that I have not already heard.

Dr. Ben, Diop, Van Sertima, Obenga, Rashidi, and others have exhausted this issue already regarding moniker fuzzy wuzzy.

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 9:12 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

@ Ron–suit yourself, friend.

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 9:17 am ¶
ivelleo wrote:

@ Renee- I think you understand the broader point I was trying to make.

You see, I am a person of color with a hebrew name and jewish roots. And since I have this connection my inflammatory remarks should somehow not be seen for what they really are. Is that what I am suppose to bring you all to understand?

Perhaps i missed my day of “whitening”, but when I do undergo this “treatment” – should i forget my history- belonging to an ethnic group of a once oppressed people? And as a result join in the continued oppression of those yet to undergo their whitening?

I would think MAYBE I would be a little more sensitive to that.

Blessed are those that burn the bridge they themselves have been so fortunate to have crossed- after they have crossed it. -I think this was written somewhere. -oh yes, right here by me.

-I

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 11:13 am ¶
M wrote:

I can only imagine how the New Yorker is going over in my old neighborhood of East New York.

Oh wait, that’s not their target demographic.

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 2:08 pm ¶
ccch wrote:

@ Joseph
I do believe they are controlling world banking, if nothing else….just look at how they trying to systemmatically destroy UBS!!!.

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 4:14 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

*looking at the recent turn in the comments*

Talk about pulling shit out of the woodwork.

I am about to close this thread.

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 4:17 pm ¶
Meep wrote:

And that’s the ultimate rub about hipster racism: as much as the people like to think they’re above it because they got degrees and live in the big city and befriend/sex up/marry people of color, these folks really aren’t above it.

You’ve just said what I’ve been thinking / noticing for a while.

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 4:31 pm ¶
Kai wrote:

Latoya, yeah what the hell happened around here?

AJ Plaid, excellent post, probably the best one I’ve seen on this matter.

For what it’s worth, I gave in and wrote a post too.

Cheers.

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 5:20 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@Kai -

Apparently, I just proved a theory right. I will post on it later.

Thanks for the link!

Posted 17 Jul 2008 at 5:21 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

::yawns from a deep tissue massage-induced night’s sleep and looks at ivelleo’s and ccch’s comments::

@ ivelleo and ccch–Honestly, you two.

::eyeroll and shakes head in disgust::

@ Meep–yeah, it’s really pervasive, friend. Here’s what our woman, Carmen, from whom I borrowed the term “hipster racism”, said about the trend a couple of years ago:

http://www.racialicious.com/2007/01/15/the-10-biggest-race-and-pop-culture-trends-of-2006-part-1-of-3/

@ Kai–why, thank you for the compliment, kind man! And your post is on point and hot as hell as well!;-D

@ fiqah–friend, I’m going to have to triple my honeydew melon/whipped cream/chocolate order.:-D

Posted 18 Jul 2008 at 8:25 am ¶
Serapio wrote:

The New Yorker’s claim that the magazine cover with Michelle and Barack is simple satire is bullshit! It’s code for those few, but perhaps very powerful white racists, to take action…to stir the shit until it stinks. The ONLY winners are the terrorists as a results of any in-fighting.

Posted 18 Jul 2008 at 5:32 pm ¶
Marsha Christ wrote:

If a picture is worth 1000 words, than the New Yorker has made itself quite clear . They made themselves clear and offended most people who saw the picture; but didnt read the article.
Peace out

Posted 22 Jul 2008 at 2:18 pm ¶
Saladin wrote:

“…showed themselves far more closely aligned to some of those “hardworking white folks” who may hold these beliefs that the Obamas aren’t true Americans, who will use the White House to carry out the collective and international people of color revenge against white people…”

Yes, such slander! Why this cover will obscure the beautiful, post-racial TRUTH about Obama: that he’ll ACTUALLY use the White House just like every white man before him has — to make rich white Americans and maybe five rich Black people even richer, while bombing and starving “international people of color.” Why won’t the New Yorker let this beautiful truth through???

Sheesh. Cry me a river….

Posted 23 Jul 2008 at 7:18 am ¶
Anonymous wrote:

As far as I can see, the cover points to the fear-mongering seeded by the Rovian Right and perpetuated by the Mainstream Media. It isn’t funny, and that’s the idea.

It actually ended up serving as a cultural commentary; the reaction to the cover should have been, “Wow, yeah there are some stupid people out there, I can’t believe anyone would actually THINK that about Obama. Hahaha.” Instead, most liberals are wringing their hands about it. Anyone who votes for McCain based on this magazine cover would be convinced by his campaign anyway. Sure, it’s not a knee-slapper, but it certainly isn’t racist. It shows the racists on the right for what they are: ridiculous.

Posted 12 Aug 2008 at 6:04 am ¶
allison wrote:

pretty sure this is how the cover should have read.

http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/properties/Wuerker/art_images/mw1080526_lr.jpg

Posted 18 Aug 2008 at 11:59 am ¶
itsalljustaride wrote:

“I live in Portland, Oregon. “Hipster racism” reigns supreme here. I’ve said it a million times, but why else would all these people that “celebrate diversity” so much come to live in the whitest city in the U.S?”

Because when white people move into “diverse” neighborhoods they get shat on for “contributing to gentrification”. Which is a backwards, racist dialogue in and of itself.

Posted 15 Sep 2008 at 12:44 am ¶
Lolo wrote:

Fantastic, the curious guestbook style of site. What CMS do you use ?

Posted 28 Sep 2009 at 7:04 pm ¶