Discussions
The New Yorker Cover and Victorian Postures
Posted by Norski • 7/14/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: america, Culture, election, obama, satire, the new yorker, victorian
Did anyone else notice this?
Not the cover - that's all over the news -
The lady's posture:
Never mind the pants and the Afro - the lady's posture on that cover remind me, strongly, of some of those sweet, submissive women in Victorian-era illustrations.
I go on about this, and a bit more, at anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/07/new-yorker-satire-obama-cover-b...
User Comments
-
The cover is disgusting. I'm sending it back and canceling my subscription. Satire my ass!
FWIW, I was going to blog about it, but don't want to give it any more legitimacy or publicity than it's already getting.
Michelle's posture, I suppose, is to emulate the look she gave Obama just before his end-of-primary speech.-
About the posture - I haven't seen that. It makes more sense than a deliberate evocation of Victorian mores.
-
That Afro reminds me of Kathleen Cleaver of the black panther movement.
www.itsabouttimebpp.com/Women_BPP/images/photo_set1/2_womens_2.html
This sure doesn't help to heal an already messed up America.
-
-
I also blogged about this issue. www.womanist-musings.com/2008/07/it-not-called-racism-anymore-it-called.htm... I cannot believe that they are calling it satire. Blacks need this kind of help like we need a deadly strain of influenza. Today the racist have turned in the white sheets for suits and ties. -
I'm fairly ambivalent over this whole debacle.
I did post on it if anyone would like to read it.
wonderlandornot.net/2008/07/14/the-new-yorker-obama-and-real-tragedy/ -
Thanks for the comments - I've added links to the two posts cited to mine.
I can see the point of trying to ignore this loony tune cover away. On the other hand, when a national magazine goes so far out of its way to encourage buzz - isn't humoring them the polite thing to do?
The thing is, I'm not convinced that this is buzz (nobody here's said that - and I can't remember where I read it). Free publicity is a reasonable motive for a display like this - but then, there's The New Yorker's reputation to consider.
What's interested me is the ill will stirred up in non-Republican, non-right-wing-extremist circles. Considering the sophistication of The New Yorker's audience, I'd have thought they'd have understood their own culture better.-
I responded at your site. This whole thing is exhausting me.
I mean the election.
It really should not be this fraught with stupid shit like this.
-
-
my other half reads the new yorker all the time. i'm familiar with their usual slant and their love of satire. however, to my mind, this cover goes too far as a cover. as an interior piece where they can explain all of the "fantastical images about the Obamas" and then take the text-space to explain "them for the obvious distortions they are" (cited from the BBC article) seems like a reasonable thing.
on the cover, with no context, i find myself surprisingly reviled by it. not the reaction i would have expected from myself over a piece of satire. but yeah, i think it went too far.-
I see your point. And yes, I'm aware of the 'we're just kidding' disclaimer inside.
My problem is that I thought the New Yorker was more subtle than that.
On the other hand, neither of the Obamas are in blackface, so I suppose it could be worse. -
lol - agreed on all counts. and the blackface just makes me *really* shudder.
i think they overshot. always a danger with satire. -
That was my reaction too, Ender. Just - ugh.
-
It is definitely repulsive, but I guess that is the point. People seem to think that one little comment (baby mama, oreo, etc) or slip of the tongue doesn't add up to much, but the image is a manifestation of these attitudes. Where is the national umbrage about that? Seems to me there is "let's kill the messenger" attitude rather than attention on those who created the message in the first place.
-
-
Insightful comment I read by a Redditor:
No actually, it's quite poor for satire. But it is in line with the quality of satire that the New Yorker puts out, which is rarely subtle or complex.
It's poor because all it is doing is putting into visual form the verbal caricature of both Obamas that the media has drawn. It simply repeats the lie.
It would be good satire if it took the caricature further into the realm of absurdity, or if it were ridiculing or criticizing those who promote the caricature. But it does neither.
You could argue that the caricature is already so absurd as to be funny on its face. That is true, but the sad fact is that many (perhaps most) people (including some well educated, middle class, progressives) actually believe at least one of the slanders against the Obamas. Simply repeating the lie in this case does not accomplish anything but furthering the slander.
As simple a change as actually publishing the title of the work ("The Politics of Fear") on the cover would have enhanced the effect of the work appreciably, shifting the focus onto those who should be ridiculed, rather than ridiculing the victim.
In case you still don't understand why some people would be offended: picture that exact same drawing, used on, for example, a republican leaflet or flyer. If it works in that context, then it's just not good satire. -
Barack needs to be pushed a little. Just wait until he's President. I don't think he has any idea what he's in for.-
I'm inclined to agree. I've no idea how savvy Obama actually is.
He's a great orator, when he's got a prepared text, or fairly tight set of questions to deal with. How he'll manage as the chief executive may be an interesting thing to watch.
-
-
Look I hope they don't print this picture in the school history year books.
It's a terrible way to portrait someone.
I want to know who sat back and thought up this crap because a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Not to mention the fact that they are wasting our time with this crud.
It's ashame to see this country now resort to cheap thrills at any cost.
Any publicity is now considered good publicity. That's pretty desperate.
And exactly how do we explain this to our children? What a world.-
Crap? Crud?
Maybe. It's certainly caricature.
If that cover does wind up in school books, it could either be in art history, or history.
You school may not have been like this, but mine had textbooks that showed political cartoons from, say, the Lincoln-Douglas debates. I don't think many students thought that the former president actually looked like some of those pictures - but I could be wrong.
-
-
Aren't they making fun of the people who think this way rather than the obama's? I dunno ... maybe it's cause I'm not american but that's what I thought when I saw it. It's kinda silly, but it's generating lots of response so I guess it's achieved what it intended.-
Yep>
"The intent of the cover is to satirize the vicious and racist attacks and rumors and misconceptions about the Obamas that have been floating around in the blogosphere and are reflected in public opinion polls," Remnick says. "What we set out to do was to throw all these images together, which are all over the top and to shine a kind of harsh light on them, to satirize them. That’s part of what we do."
blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/new-yorker-edit.html
I guess even those who spew misinformation about obama and his wife can't cope seeing it and cry foul the loudest. This is a result of attitudes that have been prevalent and it is ugly, and nasty and that is exactly what some on the right have been doing. -
That does seem to have been the intent.
-
-
@Norski... Mine too showed political cartoons and that's what I'm afraid of.
Oh boy...this world is sinking further and further into the pit and people are just getting dumb & dumber.
I have nothing against caricature, it's still an art form that is appreciated but to portrait someone in this way with no solid proof that sticks that he's a terrorist, aiding terrorist, yet this caricature can potentially show up in the school history books is not the way I want to be portrayed if I was to be the next President of America, not alone the 1st potential Black American President.
@DM..This issue is very interesting to me because I have always heard from Americans how America does not have a race issue yet it is clear to me that we do and it's waiting to explode.
I always knew it would rear it's ugly head again because whenever some African Americans brought up the issue, it was always swept under the table and dismissed but this time I don't think it can be swept under the table. Guess who's coming to dinner? Natty Dreadlocks. hahaha -
Just have a wee question, well a couple really and pondering. The image portrayed is a satire that puts into visual form the view that many far right have spewed regarding Obama and his wife (is that a correct assessment?) It is a distasteful image and yet it is a manifestation of some real attitudes and comments made on fox news and various other right wing media. Why is it when the misinformation, the racist comments etc are pointed out there is a big defensive mode, but when a paper shows the right wing attitudes it in its full ugliness there is an outcry?
-
@jafabrit...This is darn good question maybe most black people read newspapers.
I still don't have the answer to that question but it's a good one.
I doubt most blacks buy the New Yorker but I could be wrong.
-
-
IMO this isn't satire it's balderdash. It's not funny. It's just utterly tasteless and totally uncalled for. IMO the New Yorker made a huge mistake when they published it. BTW there are now two forum threads going on this topic here in General Discussion, and one in the political forum as well.
www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/you-didnt-think-id-be-just-silent-on-this... -
1st of all I would demand a damn apology from the New Yorker to Obama and his supporters.
Also any money made from the purchase of their stupid magazine for that month
should go to a charity or something. I am pissed and I want REVENGE.
I would BOYCOTT there stupid magazine if I thought any African Americans actually bought it.-
But Jeunelle, like I said in the above post why kill the messenger and not the one's sending the message. The cover is showing what racism looks like and yet people who make the racist comments and spread misinformation that led to this image seem to get away with it all the time.
maybe it is time people were shocked out of their complacency and if this image does that, isn't that potential for good to come out of it?
-
-
@jafabrit... I am all for it but the problem is they have a tendency to hide
and the law has a tendency to hide them, so they get away with Murder.
American Law itself is predjudical.
Of course sometimes they may throw you a bone
and give you only one person to crucify but the rest get away.
That's how it's always been here in America.
What you are asking for is a complete cleaning out of the house and I don't think that will happen
in Obama's lifetime. Obama alone has daily death threats to worry about.-
So everyone is going to be angry with a magazine that portrays the manifestion of racism being put forth about the obama's by the right wing? Something about it seems terribly off kilter. Kill the messenger but ignore the person/s making the message because they hide. Well the magazine didn't want to hide the reality of it but now everyone is screaming at them for being offensive. The whole attitude by the extreme right wing towards the obama's is offensive but woe betide anyone who shows what it actually LOOKS like!
Jeenelle, I am just offering my take on it, humble as it is.
-
-
Discussion on this thread has been mostly about race. Something's missing.
While the candidate's wife is shown as a more-or-less-seventies cartoon black radical, the candidate himself is shown wearing clothing that many Americans associate with Islam.
The portrait of bin Laden over the fireplace reinforces that.
What's bothered me as much as anything in this campaign is the idea that someone who is a Muslim would be unsuitable as a president.
More to the point, this view seems to be held by more than the usual bucket of loose nuts that comes with every election.
I've harangued about this elsewhere ( anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2007/11/posts-about-islam-christianity-... ).
The long and the short of it is: Islam is not some monolithic organization, run from some secret headquarters. Islam isn't the enemy.
Being a Catholic, and half Irish, probably biases me. It's not that long since "Irish Need Not Apply" signs made job searches awkward. I can be Catholic and American - I don't see why someone couldn't be Muslim and American.-
that is all good and well but we all know that after 911 and all the propaganda put out about muslims it is an image that will help form an unfair image of muslims, and about obama.That is the ugly reality.
-
-
@jafabrit... I feel the same way but what do you suggest we do?
If the NAACP has nothing to say about it, Jesse Jackson has nothing to say about it
and other black leaders, what do you suggest we do?
Personally I want to kill both the ones sending the message
and the messenger but how do we find them (the ones in hiding) and make them pay?
What Law will punish them?
This corrupt law we have here in America that need to be overthrown and remade?
Because if they were to put me in the White House I would be making all things new.
Has anyone seen the movie American Gangster, staring Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe?
I rented it this weekend, good movie, sometimes in order to get things done, you have to destroy lots of lives (those who are corrupt that is) to get the effect you want.
Sometimes you have to go in and disrupt everything to start anew.
In my view the entire American Government, Congress and Judicial System needs reforming. Corruption is predominant and this nation is stinking.-
We don't jump on the bandwagon and lambast those who have the courage to point out the ugly face of racism. It seems the anger is misdirected and maybe that is convenient for those who would like to see the attention shifted to make the messenger the bad guy. As ugly as the image is they are trying to make a point and instead of anger we should be talking about it, and exploring why the supposed innocent slips and racism/misinformation is not acceptable.
-
"As ugly as the image is they are trying to make a point and instead of anger we should be talking about it, and exploring why the supposed innocent slips and racism/misinformation is not acceptable".
I don't know maybe you would like to tell African Americans how they should feel,
if they should be angry and how to direct their anger.
African Americans have been talking about it for years yet nobody listens and nothing is done about the matter that sticks and the law needs reforming as it harbors those responsible.
-
-
Jeunelle in particular has carried the black flag against this cover.
I've noticed a remarkable absence in the national debate.
Why hasn't the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) raise a fuss over the cover? About half of the cover was at least potentially insulting to Muslims and/or Islam. CAIR hasn't been particularly shy about complaining in the past - why the silence now?
Or did I miss their voice?-
maybe because they see it for what it was meant to portray or maybe they are busy formulating a reasoned response rather than a knee jerk one.
-
@Norski...hahaha I love this kind of mess. Why should they?
I'm sure they have other plans in our immediate future.
@jafabrit...lambast those who have the courage to point out the ugly face of racism.
I think I was misunderstood there, that is not what I am saying.
@jafabrit...What you said here is how I feel too.
"We all know that after 911 and all the propaganda put out about muslims it is an image that will help form an unfair image of muslims, and about obama. That is the ugly reality".
Besides lynching what has changed here in America?
If a good majority of people still feel the same way about those who are non-white,
we have a problem, an internal problem that could create or set off another civil war.
I mean we have educated people, who read and write in this day and age
but still secretly harbor these offensive and hurtful thoughts and views about race.
Yet going a step further, clearly voicing their views in public and expecting to be vindicated
for their choices and actions. The old problem of race never left. -
jafabrit,
I think you may be right: "...maybe they are busy formulating a reasoned response rather than a knee jerk one...." CAIR, nationally and regionally, were getting to be rather hair-trigger (I won't say knee-jerk in this context), in their responses - and as a result let their mouths get far ahead of the facts in some cases.
Maybe they did learn. -
Jeunelle,
"@Norski...hahaha I love this kind of mess. Why should they?
I'm sure they have other plans in our immediate future."
[my emphasis]
I'm no fan of CAIR (that's putting it mildly). However, I don't think they're part of some Islamic conspiracy. At least, there's no evidence that they're anything more than another hypersensitive civil rights outfit.
As to why should Muslims be concerned or upset by that cover?
The same reasons that you are. Just substitute "Muslim" for "black," "religion" for "race." -
"Just substitute "Muslim" for "black," "religion" for "race." I have already done that.
Do I think they are part of some Islamic conspiracy?
I don't think that's what I said but I guess that how one interrupts the sentence.
Muslims are still individuals and not all will be upset, just like this topic will not upset all blacks.
I've already said in another similar discussion
"I must be numb because I always expect to see the worst today in this day and age, so does this offend me? I am waiting for the day for something to truly offend me".
Personally I do not care. There will always be ignorant people everywhere you go,
as long as they don't come near me, I won't have to shoot them. -
Jeunelle,
Point taken, about the 'conspiracy' thing.
-
-
Sorry. Wrong click.
-
Whatever their response may be, I do not think that they will make a comeback
with a hurtful response, they obviously will rebuke it. -
I see I didn't correct this fast enough. Sorry 'bout that.
This belongs in responses under
"Norski
Jeunelle in particular has carried the black flag against this cover. ..."
-
-
Jeunelle hates inaccurate caricatures.
-
I think I can see your point with that.
And that cover was 'way off - in quite a few ways. -
how is it inaccurate if it portrays the mindset of a segment of the population who are racist?
It is not about obama and his wife, it is about how others see them.
-
-
Does anyone grasp who writes for the New Yorker? Who the subscriber base is? Who reads it?
Readers of the New Yorker, if they don't live in or around New York City, live in other major metropolises of America. They tend to be liberals, vote Democrat, and probably already support Obama.
Quite simply, regular readers of the New Yorker are amongst the Americans least likely to believe the sorts of smears that inspired the front cover illustration.
Most regular readers get that cover was meant to satirize the rumor-mongers and the lies they tell-- in part because regular readers of the New Yorker are accustomed to seeing satirical covers. New Yorkers get the joke (even if they don't like the way it was told.)
The sort of folk who actually believe that the Obamas enjoy burning the American flag in their home, don't read the New Yorker anyway.
Anyway, opinions from a number of cartoonists are featured here:
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/14/MNID11P4V2.DTL&tsp=1 -
I think most people get it what they are concerned about is the cover which has been on every blog site I've even to today - almost and on all media outlets will be misinterpreted by those too stupid to get satire. Which face it is a large number of people.
I feel similar to you, and think this is getting way too much play.
wonderlandornot.net/2008/07/14/the-new-yorker-obama-and-real-tragedy/-
"misinterpreted by those too stupid to get satire."
I suppose that was how Stephen Colbert was able to get all those Republican politicians to make appearances on his show for his first year or so: they didn't get that he was satirizing their entire movement.
That said, reportedly Colbert doesn't let his children watch his show because he doesn't believe his children are old enough to understand irony yet, and the character he plays on the show represents the polar opposite of the values he tries to teach in the home.
-
-
I say everyone needs to get over it... There have been a lot worse cartoons of other political figures and I suspect he'll see even more in the future.
bobsdailyblog.com/node/122 -
I've been waiting all day to get in on this one - and now you guys have already discussed it out. Sigh. But for what it's worth:
a) Now we know reason why the campaign time is called the Silly Season.
b) I agree with those who saw it as a satire on the Repub's characterization of Obama. Then I noticed a bit of irony - the Repub's also like to slam the Dem's as wimpy & weak, but this picture shows some power to it. Which just goes to show, the Repub's will do their attack mode no matter what the candidate does.
b.1) Fist bumps? That makes me feel dated. I'd just gotten the high-five thing figured out, and now we're doing fist bumps. Sigh.
c) One good thing about this, maybe (dare I hope?) we'll collectively get this song & dance out of our systems now, so we can spend the rest of the campaign on the important issues. Oh wait, when was the last a campaign actually focused on the important issues? Who can remember?
d) As far as being offensive - to me, there's nothing in this illustration that is anywhere nearly as offensive as Bush's parting shot at the G8 Summit: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter." Real funny, Shrub - trash the planet and then laugh about while you're high-fiving or fist-bumping or whatever. I call THAT offensive. -
I just don't get the joke. Sure it is tasteless which I am fine with. But the stereotypes just don't fit at all. Nobody thinks of either of them in the way they do. It's just a confusing political cartoon with out-of-place relevancy.
If you put both of them in Communist garb and had them both saluting a hammer and sickle flag while the American flag burned in the fireplace, now that is funny, tasteless, and hits upon the actual stereotypes non-moonbats have about Obama.
That is why liberal humor fails. They confuse stereotypes and think it is funny. It would be like someone joking that Polish people are weird because they like watermelon and fried chicken. Waka waka!
Edit: I should add that the Communist stereotypes are actual truths. My bad for the implication. -
I think the cover is funny. I also think you're wrong about the posture, Norski. I've commented about it on your blog.
-
Honestly, it's no worse than the caricatures we've seen of...shall we say - other politicians.
The vibe I get from the Obama supporters is a desire to be offended so that they can portray any possible smear on Barrack St. Hussein as racist. It then gives them a moral position of superiority as the defender of the poor minority guy running for President.
Folks just need to calm down on the offensive trail a bit. I know, it's hard - it's a constitutional right to be offended and everything and claim it should be banned/silenced/burned in a bonfire.
Seriously, remember the cartoons of Clinton of Bush? Is this really any worse? I don't recall the level of outrage at those caricatures - so is what we're saying "well, I like Obama - so you can't do to him what is fine to do to others."
Just sayin' -
I didn't think the cover was appropriate, or nearly as funny as they apparently thought it would be, but I didn't view it as Victorian, either.
I collect Victorian postcards, and typically women in Victorian imagery/advertising were actually shown as fairly extroverted-- particularly when it came to the Gibson Girls. Active, out riding bicycles, flirtatious, gregarious etc.
Perhaps we're not talking about the same type of artwork, I don't know. -
i loved it -
I cancelled my New Yorker subscription in the 1990s when they ran a graphic first-person account of sex with preteen prostitutes. This cover, while nowhere near that article, is offensive. -
Some of you might enjoy this satire of the satire: a Washington Post cartoon about the cover: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles_main.html
-
IT is funny. I like the way it can be interpreted both ways depending on how you interpret the line "but one's ironic."
That said, a whole lot of trouble could have been saved had Obama himself said, "this is hilarious! I just love the way the New Yorker is making fun of those people who have these crazy fearful ideas about me!" and what would happen is that all of those hateful rumor mongers would no longer be able to say, "we're telling the truth Obama doesn't want you to hear!" they'd be forced to retreat, whimpering "Obama laughs at us." -
I wish he had done that.
-
Good call Ian. Missed opportunity. In that sense, I fear Obama is very much a creature of his own times, where we take everything way too seriously in our public discourse.
-
-
And an animated cartoon from the same newspaper: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/telnaes/telnaes_ma... (The talking heads all have a pen or pencil running in one ear and out the other.)
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
