The delusion of hatred immunity
by Special Correspondent Thea Lim
Excuse me if I seem a bit dim, but this week I’m having trouble figuring out exactly what satire is. When satire takes the form of straight-up replication of offensive images and ideas, is it still satire? Or is it just imitation? And if it’s the case that imitation really is flattery, why is the New Yorker flattering Fox News?
At the heart of much satire and all bad satire, is something snarky and holier-than-thou, the belief that when someone (allegedly) enlightened articulates the exact same thing as someone unenlightened, it’s different solely because of the mouth it comes out of. Underpinning this kind of satire is often classism, ignorance and a pretty gross lack of self-awareness. The thing about last week’s New Yorker cover is that, like all quintessential hipster racism, it manages to hit (or oppress, I suppose) three birds with one stone. The hatred trifecta!
Instead of just being racist or ignorant, in the way E.D. Hill’s off-hand reference to a “terrorist fist jab” was, ye olde cover is simultaneously:
1) hateful
2) absolves itself of hatred: by creating and printing an image, that the New Yorker would immediately abhor if printed by a right-wing blog, the McCain campaign or poor old E.D. Hill, the New Yorker is saying that it’s above the censure that it lays on others; it’s immune to being hateful.
3) classist: an opinion that was hateful when articulated by folks in poor, rural areas, is clever when articulated by someone who reads high-brow art reviews, and can differentiate between camembert and brie.
According to my favourite website Dictionary.com, central to satire is the act of exposing or unmasking hatred that simmers beneath the surface of “polite society.” What is it then, that the New Yorker is unmasking? The fact that many people are suspicious of the Obamas? The fact that some people think Obama is secretly Muslim? I hate to break it to you New Yorker, but pointing out “Osama” and “Obama” rhyme is not exactly this season’s hottest exposé.
The cover fails as satire because it fails to unveil anything new about race in America, or the perception of Barack and Michelle. Satire without the element of exposure is just replication. The New Yorker cover simply reinforces hateful ideas. It helps propagate some pretty serious misinformation not just about the Obamas, but about black folks and Muslims.
And I would argue that the drawing of Michelle (who you’ve probably noticed seems much more menacing than Barack) adds in a just a little dash of its own latent hatred of strong black women. If you ask me, the only people who would find this cover funny, is people who on a conscious or unconscious level believe the misinformation this image is peddling.
This quote from the Daily Telegraph nails the New Yorker’s blindspot:
The New Yorker’s 630,000 or so readers know what the magazine is about. It has highbrow arts reviews, intelligent metropolitan opinions, and quirky, knowing cartoons. Woody Allen writes for it. Any regular reader would immediately ‘get’ that cover as it was intended. A not too subtle lampoon of exaggerated right wing
smears…
Actually, I have to disagree.
Attention all insensitive and arrogant hipsters, liberals and bobos, I’ve already said it here, but one more time: sadly, highbrow arts reviews, knowing cartoons, Woody Allen and even a lifetime subscription to the New Yorker are not an amazing elixir that will protect you from being racist, or classist, or sexist, or homophobic or ableist or just an all-round jerk. It’s not as if as soon as you pick up that Jim Jarmusch box set, no hateful words will ever be able to pass from your lips again.
Anxious Black Woman asks
are we, as a nation, truly sophisticated enough to make these kinds of jokes?
Page 1 of 2 | Next page