Monday, July 14, 2008
The New Yorker cover
By now everybody and his brother is aware of the hyperventilating reaction to The New Yorker's obviously satirical cover drawing this week. Our relentlessly curious mind requires us to ask why there was no similar outrage over this cover.
MORE: Ezra Klein has the right take, I think.
7 Comments:
By 
Larry Sheldon, at
Mon Jul 14, 11:10:00 PM:
"Our relentlessly curious mind requires us to ask why there was no similar outrage over this cover."
Because nobody that cared reads New Yorker?
Works for me.
Have you heard anything about the LA Times going tits-up?
By Dan Kauffman, at
Tue Jul 15, 07:42:00 AM:
IMO this and some other trivia outrages are stalking horses to fill up the media coverage so no one is tempted to jump on the Boston Globe series about Obama's connection with the subsidised housing corruption in Barack's old Illinois Senate District
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jul 15, 12:57:00 PM:
Bush/Cheney aren't whiney political lightweights. They learned to ignore carping 'satirists' long ago.
By 
, at
Tue Jul 15, 06:47:00 PM:
"...why there was no similar outrage over this cover."
I really don't know, nor do I particularly care. But, I can tell you as an African-American, that I am painfully offended by the Obama cover (and I'm actually not much of an Obama sympathizer). He might as well had portrayed them as gangstas eatin fried chicken & watermelon, while selling drugs outside a housing project which I suppose you (and Remnick) would have found equally fair game. There is such a thing as taking a joke too far.
Maybe it's that whites look at the presidential race and figure, hey blacks should be ecstatic, after all, one of you people are in the game. But, what you don't get is that we are still extremely skeptical that mainstream America could have any capacity to get past the race question. In the end, we expect big racial wounds to be reopened - and in the worst way. It would be one thing for Obama to lose on merit. That we can handle. Like I said, I don't see eye to eye with the man on a lot of things. But, the problem is that we suspect the truth of this campaign will be so much uglier than that. The NYer cover just serves to confirm our worst fears about how much latent racism still exists, including in the media, and on a larger scale, the sad truth about where we really stand in America.
To understand the reaction, you truly have to step into my shoes for a moment as someone who has spent a lifetime enduring and attempting to overcome racial stereotypes.
- Coach
P.S. And yes Tigerhawk, I'm sure you'll be pointing out that you too have endured much suffering under the weight of WASP stereotypes, some of which I may have directly contributed to.
By Dawnfire82, at
Tue Jul 15, 11:19:00 PM:
"He might as well had portrayed them as gangstas eatin fried chicken & watermelon, while selling drugs outside a housing project which I suppose you (and Remnick) would have found equally fair game."
I think that's a load of crap.
The picture of Bin Laden? The turban? Burning flag? 'Terrorist fist bump?' All have absolutely *zero* to do with race, and everything to do with personal characteristics and reputation. The Michelle caricature has been described as a 'black nationalist,' but I thought 'terrorist' as that seemed to fit the overall theme (such as it was) better.
I think you're offended because you want to be offended.
"But, what you don't get is that we are still extremely skeptical that mainstream America could have any capacity to get past the race question."
90% of blacks who voted in the primaries voted for Obama. Every single other demographic was split about 60-40 to 50-50 between him and Clinton.
So who's hung up on race?
By , at
Wed Jul 16, 02:43:00 PM:
"The picture of Bin Laden? The turban? Burning flag? 'Terrorist fist bump?' All have absolutely *zero* to do with race..."
I beg to differ. Can you say militant angry black man (or woman for that matter).
"The Michelle caricature has been described as a 'black nationalist,' but I thought 'terrorist'..."
Okayyy... You're welcome to think whatever you want. A lot of other people, including myself, saw black nationalist.
"I think you're offended because you want to be offended."
Do I know you? On what rational basis could you possibly make that statement? Do you always make a habit of insulting anyone who happens to have a different view than yours? FYI, Doesn't exactly help your credibility. Tigerhawk can vouch for the fact that I'm one of the most thick-skinned black persons he knows. Anybody who knows me well, would tell you that I don't go around looking for reasons to be offended (otherwise it would be quite impossible to maintain a +25 year friendship with le Tigerhawk).
"90% of blacks who voted in the primaries voted for Obama."
Duh. And so freakin what? What does that have to do with the discussion? How on earth do you even remotely figure this has any relevance what so ever?
"So who's hung up on race? "
Apparently you are.
- Coach
By Dawnfire82, at
Sun Sep 07, 04:28:00 PM:
You dissected my comments so you could reply to them piecemeal and thereby warp their meanings.
You're a sneaky douchebag, aren't you?
"Duh. And so freakin what? What does that have to do with the discussion? How on earth do you even remotely figure this has any relevance what so ever?"
But still not very smart. Let me spell it out for you.
Whites are split up between the candidates according to ideological lines.
Blacks, according to racial lines.
Therefore, which of the two groups is 'hung up on race' politically?
