The New Yorker Makes a Statement About Barack and Michelle
My thoughts later.
This one is open to the floor – satire or subtly playing to fears?
Trackbacks & Pings
Comments
-
Vote for “subtly playing to fears.” It’s a crystal-clear encapsulation of what people think (and like to think) about the Obamas–Black radicals with an (unpatriotic) agenda and (international) allies bent on destroying all things Americans hold dear.
The more insidious message is they’re African Americans with violent vendetta against white Americans, the manifestation of Malcolm X’s famous “chickens coming home to roost.”
I would have gone with satire if the US national discourse were a bit more sophisticated about race and gender and international relationships. But, except in certain pockets and communities, we (still) don’t know how to discuss and relate to people of color without falling back on stereotypes and other prejudices, regardless of how urbane the people involved are. (And the New Yorker’s brand is all about the (white) urbanity.) This ish ain’t witty. It’s quite witless: tired and miscalculated misfire of racism, xenophobia (specifically Islamophobia) and sexism.
The sad part is that the cover’s corresponding article is somewhat pro-Obama, discussing his political upbringing in Chicago:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza
Mixed message much?
-
I think this is just another example of white liberals thinking that they are ‘on-side’ and can get away with using such images under the pretense of satire and irony.
I’m not against using images like this in a context where it makes sense and theres enough signaling the viewer at what the point exactly is, but having this as a front cover to a magazine with nothing to anchor itself with, easily plays into the hands of the worst kind of fears that a lot of people still have about black people.
Its obviously deliberately provocative, but whether they meant it as vindictive or they’re just idiots I can’t really hazard a guess at.
-
Not being an american and so having little idea about what audience the ‘New Yorker’ plays to i’d like to think it’s a good example of someone taking the piss out of the ‘oh no his name is funny’ crowd. However, the concern that Obama is a ’secret muslim’ is a pretty touchy subject and maybe would have been best saved for after the election to satirise the ‘politics of fear’ or whatever. So in all that garble what i’m saying is even if it’s meant as a joke the editor must know it’s going to reinforce negative ideas about Obama and so should have sat on it. This makes me lean towards being cynical and thinking subtle fear campaign – unless there’s a cover next week with McCain in an old folks home being nursed by Pres. Bush,etc. That being said – i think cartoon Michelle’s pose with a rifle might win her some NRA buddies….
-
Lame attempt at satire. FAIL.
-
Reading the New Yorker it’s pretty obvious they lean liberal, so I’m guessing they intended this cover as a mockery of the “OMG OBAMA MUSLIM!!1!” crap.
The problem is that the “punchline” is not visually obvious at all – if these caricatures were intended to make the sterotypes look absurd, they have instead only made the Obamas themselves look absurd using those very stereotypes.
This is my most generous interpretation.
-
I think it is entirely possible it is doing both to a certain extent.
-
The negative thing is, the people who HOLD these stereotypes are the ones least likely to read the actual New Yorker magazine, but this image WILL be shown on website after website. I wouldn’t be surprised if it makes it to yet another “Concerned Troll” email.
NPR has been running a series on the Latino vote, Latino-Black relations, etc., and I’ve been a little freaked out by the level of misinformation out there from some people being interviewed. I don’t tell anyone who to vote for, but at least fact-check, people! But I know a lot of people are going to trust what someone from their own community tells them is true, esp. if there are linguistic, literacy, educational, and economic divides.
Then again, there’s my recent experience at my local diner, when the group seated behind me started LOUDLY throwing out every Obama stereotype and “factoid” out there. All white, all middle-aged, mixed-gender, and really really hostile. It’s a fairly middle class , even upper middle class area, but still not the type to read the NYT or the New Yorker.
-
My first thought was, what’s with Michelle’s afro? Obama’s outfit and the Osama painting and even Michelle’s rifle and ammo clip all suggest a coherent (if toothless) theme: that the Obamas are secretly Muslim terrorists.
The Afro is, I guess, meant to suggest 70s-era black nationalism: a second “fear,” which is that the Obamas and particularly Michelle are black militants or Communists or otherwise “un-American.”
This cover is about blackness as much as it is about “terrorism” or any other purportedly race-neutral satirical point that can be made about it. And I think that’s where the fault line is: the smooth blending of blackness with terrorism, foreignness, and danger that lies beneath the “secret Muslim” whispers.
-
They might as well have depicted the Obama’s kids as video hos and completed the racist imagery trifecta.
If the wanted to make it satirical, then they ought to have had a sacred-looking white person looking at the Obamas and seeing that image in his/her mind’s eye. That might’ve been satire.
-
Holy lord… subtle? What on earth are they thinking.
If it is satire, they should have a satire based headline to make it more obvious; otherwise, yes, it does play on peoples assumptions and their fears.
-
Cosign with Cruel Secretary and Mammith. I don’t think it’s meant to be much of a statement about the Obamas at all so much as directed to psycho media attacks. But even if it makes fun of them, it doesn’t really help the case because the drawing makes them look ominous.
The “Muslim” freakout continually pisses me off not because it’s unfounded or irrelevant but because it is meant to be demonizing. It’s the ultimate example of how we continue to demean a huge global religion on the basis of political rivalry, and it is so unfair to Muslims in this country and around the world it just makes me crazy. What if Obama were Muslim? Great! He would be our first fucking non-Christian president in this closet theocracy. About damn time. I’d be all for it!
-
The media has always protrayed Black Americans as unpatriotic so this is both satire and racism just like Oliphant’s cartoon and be prepared for more outrageous articles, cartoons and after it’s over there will be studies and synpousims on how the media was racist towards African- Americans. I say it’s no more surprising than the O.J. trial or other media “mistepps”.
-
I personally don’t care what the intent of the image was the image itself is racist. It turns blacks into objects rather than subjects. The purpose is to ridicule those that think that Michelle is an angry black woman and that Barack is a Muslim terrorist, then they should have used some graphic to depict those thinkers and use Obamas body that way.
-
I’m leaning towards satire, albeit an unfunny attempt at satire.
Maybe they’re trying to poke at the Fox News deal where the broadcaster wondered aloud if the fist pump BO gave to MO was a “terrorist fist jab”? -
Not sure which one makes me more angry. That picture or all the people I’ve seen defending it.
-
Without caption or title the illustration reads well. Everybody who’s familiar with the history of this campaign race, from all the inuendos, graphic errors from Fox, and religious jabs against Obama this image tells the complete story. It is so ridiculous it is cartoonish.
I think it is satire. Michelle’s afro is funny. Why? Because many people view the fro as a controversial political statement.
————————-
Obama is not a Muslim “as far as I know”
- Hillary Clinton -
This reminds me of the Daily Kos picture and I think they were trying to be the images are too strong in order for it to be effective. The New Yorker cover definitely plays into subtle fears. In the daily kos picture a she’s been unfairly attacked we are left with image of an over-sexualized black woman being brutalized, in this one its an “attack” on the negative media but all that left is certain people’s worst nightmare. These pictures do demonstrate their obliviousness and subtle racism. Hope this makes sense.
-
I think at the very least, the cover is in poor taste and represents a disconnect from mass-market thinking and right-wing political strategies.
What I was wondering is how many times has the New Yorker portrayed people of color on the cover? How many times have they used people of color as every day characters in their “slice of life” scenes as opposed to depicting a specific POC who was big in the news that week? How many African American writers – how many African American female writers – does the New Yorker publish and how often?
I’m not a regular NYer reader, although I do pick up an issue occasionally if the headlines are compelling, but my impression is that the New Yorker, like so much mainstream liberal media, is very focused on the white (male) experience. Because of that, whatever irony their decision to portray Barack and Michelle Obama in such an outrageous way is supposed to convey falls flat for me – the New Yorker is claiming to mock the media of which they themselves are part and parcel.
-
Basically, I agree with The Cruel Secretary and Mammith!
-
Too annoyed for words. GRRRRR.
-
I like the fact that they did this. We need this type of expression from the media like the New Yorker to cast out their inner boogey man syndrome.
This represents a synthesis of one’s inner impulses through expression which really opens the door for real discussion.
The bigger question has nothing to do with Obama. The question is why would any rational person come up with this.
This is like the child who shows you a dark and menacing drawing. You look at the drawing to see inside the child’s psyche.
I think must analyze the psyche of who ever decided to run this to understand them rather than to condemn them.
-
If it were completely outlandish and unheard of for people to think the Obamas are Muslims & terrorists, this cover might be absurd enough to be clearly and unequivocally accepted as satire by even the stupidest Americans. The problem is that so many people actually believe that stuff that there’s no way this can play well. It’s like joking about something traumatic too soon.
-
To all those defending this image:
If that cover were on The Weekly Stanard or
The National Review, would you still think it
was satire? -
He would be our first fucking non-Christian president in this closet theocracy.
Ain’t no closet in this country!! Nothing left but broken hinges and smoke.
****
Why not lampoon the inaccuracies of the people who actually believe this mess?
-
I have to agree with Slush.
And I have an issue with the idea that Muslim automatically equals terrorist or an association with Osama bin Laden.
-
and for god’s sake, the artist forgot to add big glittery hoop earrings to Michelle Obama’s face.
you NEED big earrings, goddamnit!!!
*sarcastic*
-
Hm. My ear is pretty well tuned to Orientalist/Islamophobic rhetoric so, while I cosign concerns about that part of this image…the more I look at it, the less I think that’s what it is about. Take your hand and cover up Obama ‘n Osama and what are you left with? Michelle, dressed in Black Panther drag, giving a Black Power salute in the Oval Office as the flag burns…
As I said on the other thread, I think this cover image is really about white fear of “Black Nationalism,” which white liberals (the theoretical audience of the New Yorker) are as susceptible to as their conservative brothers and sisters.
-
So,we mostly agree the New Yorker is mainly a white liberal rag, and that is also who they think their audience is, and they’re right. But that fact lends itself to believing that the image is meant as – and will be received as – wholly satirical, because it is in fact pretty ridiculous.
I think there’s some contradiction in claiming that the New Yorker is both an elitist white liberal magazine and that it will blast a big wrong message to people who don’t see it as satire. Those people don’t read the New Yorker.
Which isn’t necessarily to disagree with any of the offense taken or criticisms above. I think all those criticisms were pretty right on, I’m just pointing out an inconsistency in the logic.
I also don’t trust the New Yorker enough to wholly give them the benefit of the doubt on the incorporation of Black Nationalist imagery as being part of the satire. That is, was the afro intended to be making fun of people who think Michelle Obama is an [extremist], or was it, as someone suggested, an off-the-cuff inspiration as to what would make her look scary?
-
@Slush -
Earlier this morning, when I checked the HuffPo, there was a good comment about why this matters. But it appears that comment has been removed or swallowed up in the fray.
Anyway, the gist of the comment is this:
When Regan was running for president some of his opponents ran a campaign ad attacking all kinds of issues and inconsistencies. But Regan was pleased with the ad. Why? Because the image showed Regan on a horse under a blue sky. As a Hollywood man, he understood early that the *image* is what endures, what sticks in the minds of the people.
I would argue that in our MTV saturated time, the visual is going to reach way more people than the text of the eighteen page article.
An example: When I locate pics for posts here, I often run a Google search for images. If I search “barack obama” I will often get all manner of images delivered to me. In order to get the *context* of the image, I have to keep clicking.
-
I’m wondering what would happen if this image was buried in Ebony, Black Enterprise or Jet magazine or Amsterdam News, would it then be considered a satire or even called Hipster Racism?
-
somewheres, up there…
Nat Turner is smiling
-
@ Vee –
Counter question:
Would Ebony or BE – publications that are interested in serving and uplifting the black community – ever create an image like this?
Would Jet magazine, even in a humorous way throw these types of images out there, knowing how images influence reality as they have reported on black issues for over 50 years (and being the mag that dared to show the full open casket picture of Emmett Till?)
Not familiar with Amsterdam News, but I am having a hard time trying to think of a black publication that would have thought this was funny. Vibe? Don’t think so…
Even with black comedians (who do *not* speak for the whole African-American community) a lot of the “Barack in the White House” jokes revolve around black culture shock – like Bernie Mac’s ill-timed “why can’t you pick up the kids?” joke, or DL Hughley’s “What is a pressing comb?” joke.
I have yet to see someone crack on Barack and Michelle as being agents of hostile take over. If anyone else has a reference (or idea on a mag that would run it) let me know.
-
I think the artist was trying to consolidate all of the racist garbage people have been saying about the Obamas. But in doing so, the artist has revealed current racial wounds and has obviously offended many in making light of something people have been screaming to be taken seriously. But at the same time, if people weren’t crossing their fingers and holding their breath, hoping that nothing else goes wrong with Obama’s campaign, it would have been an indictment on the craziness that people have been believing and poking fun at their ridiculousness.
-
Since the conversation has turned to discussing the context for satirical images it reminded me of a New Yorker cover that Art Spiegelman drew for Valentine’s Day in the wake of the Crown Heights riots in ‘93. It depicted a Hasidic man and a black woman in a passionate kiss and it caused a ton of controversy about POC/Jewish representations. But unlike this mess on the current cover, Spiegelman’s cartoon spoke to the inflammatory political situation without employing racist/anti-Jewish visual stereotypes, something he was really conscious of.
I found this interview with Spiegelman where he discusses the creating the cover from his point of view.
http://www.bookwire.com/bbr/interviews/art-spiegelman.html
Here is the important chunk:
AS: The signs are highly recognizable. The sign for Hasid is clear and unavoidable, without the usual anti-Semitic physiognomy that goes with it. The sign for African-American woman is equally unavoidable, without entering into Aunt Jemima stereotypes or anything of the kind. Then there’s this other sign that has to do with the Valentine’s Card-the kiss, the field of red with the lacy decoration around it, all of it weaving together separate meanings. The irony is you have these two groups that are at each other’s throats at each other’s lips instead. That’s supposed to conjure up carnality and yet Valentine’s Day, the image of Valentine’s Day, isn’t about carnality but a kind of benign romantic love. All those things course through this image and the impossibility of it is what’s so entertaining for me. What got people most upset that week was not other magazines with the usual S&M imagery-chains and whips, leather and hurt-but something quite benign on the surface, playing with signs. Reverend Dougherty, a representative of the black community in Crown Heights, was very upset I used a black woman: one more time, he said, a white man was oppressing a black woman. Why didn’t I have a black man and a Hasidic woman, he asked on the radio. Maybe he’s a good reverend, I don’t know, but he’s a rotten art director. A Hasidic man is a lot easier to recognize than a woman with a handkerchief on her head. In terms of visual signs you’ve got one thing that works and one thing that doesn’t. Even more important, I answered him, if I had used a black man and Hasidic woman, you’d be complaining I was once again showing the black man as a rapist and defiler of white woman. This shows me the problem has nothing to do with the signs being shown but the reverberation of those signs in people’s heads. The same thing happened in op-ed articles. There was an op-ed in the New York Times in which a woman who was very upset about the New Yorker cover writes about the Jew’s lascivious lips. Another person, equally upset in the Washington Post, described the Jew’s prim lips. Now you know I can’t draw lips that are simultaneously lascivious and prim; I’m limited.
-
This cartoon is totally unsuccessful for a plethora of reasons, the primary one being the problem that plagues New Yorker cartoons in general: they’re not funny. On the rare occasion that I’ve leafed through a copy of the New Yorker, I feel like the cartoonist assumes some kind of bizarre consensus among the readers, a jumping off point that has to be understood in order to “get” the cartoon. For example, there just haaas to be something I’m missing in order for a dog sitting in an office chair to be funny. I’m not actually referring to a real cartoon here, but I’m sure you’d be able to find a similar one if you tried.
The reason this particular “cartoon” (I use the term loosely) fails is that it assumes that a consensus exists about what it’s trying to say. And what is it trying to say? On its face, and I honestly have no idea what I as an interpreter am supposed to bring to it, it’s an image of the Obamas looking fiendish and dressed respectively in paramilitary and Islamic garb and burning a U.S. flag. I’m sorry, but I’m totally missing the funny here. What is satirical about this image? What kind of information should I be bringing to this image in order to make it so?Why on earth should we give the New Yorker the benefit of the doubt in this situation?
-
Hi there,
Thanks for calling attention to this!
I have been seeing this image all over the blogosphere very recently and it is OUTRAGEOUSLY racist and offensive…
So if this publication wants to do a feature on sexism…it’s okay to show Michelle Obama squatting on all fours with a dog chain around her neck? What more does it take before we start FLOODING these publications with complaints?
Phone number:
800-825-2510
(This is the number for the Subscriptions Department but people can ask to be connected to David Miller.)Or they can write a letter:
David Miller
Associate Publisher
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036david_miller@newyorker.com
shouts@newyorker.comfax: 212-286-5024
Peace, blessings and DUNAMIS!
Lisa -
i think it depends on the viewer…
i would hope anyone with a 9th grade literacy level or higher would know that all those things they say about obama = total crap
but people are also easily convinced of the strangest things, no matter how absurdi didn’t take offense to the cover only b/c i totally recognize what they are getting at
but if someone saw it and hadn’t been keeping up with the news or the rumors, then i would wonder how he/she would take it…and i think that’s where the problem lies
then again, those people wouldn’t be voting for obama anyway, or, to be honest, have a real understanding of poc, islam, etc…even if he/she identifies as such
so maybe it’s not such a loss? -
(sigh!)
…..
-
I agree with Ron that it is better to see what your enemy looks like than to hide in the shadows like they have with phony rhetoric. The only good thing it has bought out in the open is White America’s institutional racism in all it’s guises from media to the racism of white liberal feminists and the Clinton’s racist/sexist campaigning. I always go back to what Malcolm X said that the Democrats and Republicans were one of the same and we shouldn’t trust either party.
As for the cover it’s buisness as usual for the media who is totally clueless about POC and will show it’s racist or insenstive attitudes and sterotypes about the Obamas. Many Whites think Black Americans hate their country and are not patriotic regardless of the fact we have fought in every war in the Americas since the 1600’s. I think this election just opened those pangs of angst that Whites and others feel and their justication of it’s policies towards Blacks.
I think in the future it will be Mexicans who will bear the brunt of the racial sterotypes and questions of their patriotism regardless of their intermarriage or generations they have been here because deep down inside the opperssor is always fearful of retribution for past sins they have committed real or imagined, the New Yorker pic of the Obamas is the nightmare of many Americans who truly fear economic revenge from a man and a woman they fear are closet Black Nationalists.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
ZEITGEIST / That Obama Cartoon: What You Think on 15 Jul 2008 at 6:20 pm
[...] [...]
everybody else is talking about it, why not me « Clueless White Woman on 21 Jul 2008 at 9:39 am
[...] everybody else is talking about it, why not me Filed under: CONSPIRACY!, cluelessness — by clueless @ 5:35 pm Tags: cluelessness, CONSPIRACY! Yes, it’s that “satirical” Obama cover. [...]