-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/07/new-yorker-and-obama-makes-me-wanna-holler/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
What, he's just in it for the intellectual stimulation? Elitist little prick.
I'll hold my breath until one of you defend Condi Rice with the same zeal!
An Artist's Reply
The New Yorker cover doesn't present any truth. It's a satire of the smears without any context for those smears in the artwork.(Notice that this satirist provides context for the main focus of the cartoon!)
The New Yorker cover is pure propaganda and the editors know it. Which is why they spent a whole day trying to explain themselves.
Well, you know, by getting on "Larry King" and telling everybody I'm a Christian and I wasn't raised in a Muslim home. And pledge allegiance to the flag. And, you know, all the things that have been reported in these e-mails are completely untrue and have been debunked again and again and again. So, all you can do is just tell the truth and trust in the American people that over time, they're going to know what the truth is.
One last point I want to -- I do want to make about these e-mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this "New Yorker" cover.
You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out.
You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about.
It is called, "We f*cked up". That is what it is called.
I saw Roland Martin on CNN last night, steaming. He had the actual magazine, with the ad wrap and showed it on tv.
Nothing of the magazine showed any explanation, nothing of the cover. In fact, the actual article does not relate to the cover at all.
The New Yorker picked a controversial cover, to sell magazines. That is what it did. And why not use one of the most popular politicians WORLD WIDE, right now, and that is Barack Obama.
Word here in Chicago is that Michelle is pissed and rightfully so.
In the end, The New Yorker will wish it would have not done this. Sure, they have sophisticated readers, but even they had a problem with the cover and what they were trying to convey.
Will it hurt Obama? I don't think so. It just reinforces ugly smears, already out there. And those bigoted voters were not going to vote Obama anyway.
Lastly, The Obama Campaign has been slow in responding on the smears. I remember, on one of my trips to Iowa, I asked the office mgr. what r u going to do about the internet smears. The standard line was, we tell the people it is not true, yada, yada, and I could tell she was frustrated. But, you got to nip this crap in the bud and the campaign has been too slow in doing this. Again, once the debates start then we will see the full force of the whisper campaign on the internet, full blown. Get ready, y'all it is going to get ugly.
1. With the exception of the burning American flag, the drawing-looked it by itself-is funny.
2. However, it's also a little racist.
3. But, as someone who laughs off these type of smears when they come across some of the fringe right wing sites, I see the point they were trying to make.
4. They could have expressed that point in a different way.
5. Hasn't President Bush-since we like to invoke him here for just about anything-gotten a lot worse treatment for a lot less?
6. Isn't this what normally happens to politicians and public figures?
That's all.
I'm not going to patronize you about how being a "little racist" is tantamount to be a "little pedophiliac". And I'm not sure what to say about your ease and comfort around quasi-white supremacists.
Actually, I'm not sure what to say ...
You just slapped an entire generation of people in the face.
This country was founded on racism. From the looks of it, racism isn't going away anytime soon. Not even Obama's impending coronation will fix that.
Does being pissed off at the New Yorker help lower the price of gas? End the war in Iraq?
Yes, it sucks. But unless we're gonna declare war on every racist in America-which may or may not go over too well, since that means we'll have to take out some of our own!-aren't there more important issues for us to deal with at present? Is this really our biggest deal?
I don't know from "a little racist;" is that like being a little pregnant?
Shrub invites critics whenever he speaks: Other than that, your points are excellent, and as I've posted below, Obama says he's moved on from the cartoon, and so have I.
Right now on CNN, Cafferty is saying:Cafferty then switched gears:
Obama has been smeared as a Muslim. Not true.
George Bush has been smeared as the devil. Also, not true.
In terms of theology, which do you consider worse?
And a liar.
And a sociopath.
And incompetent.
And a buffoon.
And a drunk.
And a cokehead.
Other than that, he's all right.
and everything that you could possibly think that means.
And it's not a smear to call Obama Muslim. Islam is a beautiful religion that deserves protection and respect along with all other faiths. It is untrue however and the inaccuracy is usually coupled with other accusations designed to make Obama look un-American.
I'm not defending Bush. But if Obama wants to be president, this is what comes with the territory. You get clowned, occasionally in ways that aren't flattering.
And if being called a Muslim isn't a smear, it's damn sure on the "fight the smears" site in those words.
None of these feelings and beliefs matter, though. Actions matter. And when you publish a cartoon that would be roundly condemned if it had appeared in the National Review, you're no less a racist than the hillbillies in WV and KY depicted during the primaries news coverage.
-Beause the clown doesn't think he's done anything wrong.
He doesn't get it.
Fuck The New Yorker.
Thanks Jill
I'm glad you realized it too: they don't even have the Black face ON THE STAFF to pimp and hide behind when #($* like this comes up.
VVERRRRY instructive indeed.
-BULL
SHIT
Exhibit A: Wax Hitler beheaded - B/c the Jewish community would completely shut you down completely before you're even add the color red to that caricature.
Exhibit B: Black Hole racist? - I realize some things aren't racist, and sometimes knee-grows can be OVERLY suspicious / sensitive. That NYer situation does not fall into that catergory.
It would NEVER happen...
Exhibit A: Wax Hitler beheaded - B/c the Jewish community would completely shut you down completely before you're even add the color red to that caricature.
Exhibit B: Black Hole racist remark? - I realize some things aren't racist, and sometimes knee-grows can be OVERLY suspicious / sensitive. That NYer situation does not fall into that category.
In short, a person who would come up with the "terrorist fist jab" comment deserves to be ridiculed and made fun of. Now, where the analogy falls flat is that a person that repeats the jewish canard deserves to be more ostracized than ridiculed because it is more pernicious than ridiculous. Thus, I viewed the cover piece in its intended light which is lampooning a ridiculouos comment from the right.
Now, it sucks that so many people are ignorant and don't get it (I'm talking about the people that think Obama is a Muslim not the people on this site). So in this vein I kinda of think that Obama protesting this is like Bush protesting all the monkey/chimp cartoons. In short its silly for a President or Senator to take satire seriously.
Also asked: Do you think that billary's "blue collar[in some cases - RED NECK], hard-working Americans, white Americans" know anything about SATIRE?? Probably think that it's a new brand of Michelin radials and hope they're on sale!!!
So should you.
I hear you. Just as I hear the opinions of everybody who is offended by this. I disagree, but since I decided that it simply doesn't offend me, I've been asking my self, "Was it worth it?" Was the New Yorker making it's statement (a statement I agree with) worth the controversy and negative attention? As I noted earlier, people are simply not in a place to flippant or jokey right now. Everybody has just been too emotionally charged. But a little controversy isn't always a bad thing if it stretches people and makes them question and grow. To my mind this cover will convince no one who previously thought highly of Obama to believe he is literally what the cover shows BUT it might make a few people go, "You know what, it IS ridiculous the way he's been portrayed. I'm going to do a little research on what this guy's really about." or, as you and others have asserted, it might entrench these ideas into the heads of people who already saw him this way. But they weren't going to vote for him anyway, so again, I'm asking where's the real harm? If it is worth it or not will be determined by the media; if they honestly tackle the issue with discussion of this "Politics of Fear" and the treatment of Barack Obama, then the cover would have done good. But while I may have too faith in America's people, I have very little faith in America's media; the very thing that made this cover relevant and possible.
This is mockery, ridicule and contempt--disguised as satire. A relative handful of "White Kids" who believe that they have license to be as contemptuous of Black folks as they wish. People who have decided who is worthy of respect and decency, and who is not.
As I've said before, poking fun at Barack's ears or his lankiness or even the way he speaks, is all fair. But the worst thing about the New Yorker's cover is that the authors (a) don't have a clue as to how offensive it is to an entire people; and (b) believe that they are rightfully entitled to offend those people.
As someone mentioned earlier, we can all count on never seeing an image of a bug-eyed, big-nosed Jew wearing Nazi oven mits. Why?
Because some satire really isn't satire at all.
And I hate how people are saying, oh no, the Obama campaign shouldn't have responded. This is another situation, where he is screwed either way. Did it ever occur to people that in addition to Obama, other Muslim Americans are taking a hit with all this is he or isn't he back and forth. Are people that naive to believe that you can just put something out there, and you are not entitled to respond if it directly involves you and/or your family? Give me a break.
And when people talk about how Obama is too sensitive, all I can do is laugh. Just a few weeks ago, when Obama pointed out that McCain was "losing his bearings" by painting him as the Hamas candidate in a fundraising email, McCain cried foul about ageism. Then when Sen. Kerry pointed out that McCain has shown an increasing lack of awareness about what is actually going on in Iraq (Shunni, Shite, tomatoe, tomato), McCain cried foul. And when Gen. Wesley Clark answered a question about whether being shot down in a fighter plane qualified McCain to be president, McCain went after his head. (this is where the Obama camp should have looked at the context of the statement--I tsk, tsk them for this episode).
These people have no sensitivity towards Black people at all if they think these things are no big deal. I hope I never become the type of person to become insensitive to this crap so that I alienate myself from my brothers and sisters because then I would become a useless waste of skin.
No white person can fully understand what it means to be a minority in this country. Some (liberals) think they can but when it comes down to it they are only fooling themselves. So, yes, a lot of whites don't have sensitivity toward AA's. Some are trying to work on it and some don't give a damn.
Now, you know how a lot of people say that we should have a serious national discussion on race but we never do? Well, if we ever did I think an interesting topic would be perceptions of the different races. One thing I was told by an AA on the internet (and in my experience it seems to be largely true) when we were discussing some issue around a decade ago was that whites and blacks perceive thinks radically different. I forget the issue but all the white people were saying that the issue had absolutely nothing to do with race and the AA said that "for us everything has to do with race".
Now, I had never thought about it quite like that but it did turn on a light a bit in my head and your post (and many others) seem to confirm this. In this particular instance I (a white) don't see any racist intent and see it as actually making fun of ignorant right wing white people and really had very little to do with Obama. But you are obviously very hurt by it and basically state "screw" white people.
So, yes, whites don't have a good idea of what insults AA's because, I think, a lot of whites don't view the world in a "everything has to do with race" mentality. For example, Bush is routinely portrayed as monkey or a chimp. White people (except maybe the Klan types) don't view this as an affront to whites. But if Obama was portrayed in a similar fashion the uproar would be huge and, I believe, but perhaps I'm wrong, that you would feel even more insulted than about this satirical cover.
Anyway, I've rambled enough and will end on this thought. Yes, whites are human and fallible and probably not sensitive enough. But perhaps AA's are human and fallible and probably too sensitive. I wish you well and would welcome any thoughts.
You really had a fairly good "RAMBLE" going on which almost started to sound as IF you were, somewhat, getting "it". This was, in my opinion, firmly negated by "probably TOO SENSITIVE."
I won't even go back and re-state other statements which should have given me the clue to expect that last statement. "I wish you well"??????? "We" are NOT sick - just "Sick and tired" of the RACIST CRAP that goes on DAILY!
So, I wish YOU WELL! And please - NO MORE THOUGHTS NEEDED!
Anyway, sure, I admit I don't quite get it. I can only guess at what it is like to put up with the crap that you and other minorities have to put up with. I can only imagine what its like to have people to treat you differently because of the amount of melanin in your skin. I can only imagine the rage that I would feel if I wasn't given a promotion (or offered a job) simply because of the body I was born into. I fully understand that there is a lot more racism out there that you and most AA's have to deal with than I and most whites think there is.
Hell, I was shocked when I was talking to one of my former co-workers and he related a story about how our black co-worker and he went to an apartment complex five minutes apart and one was given an application while the other was told that there were no vacancies. I don't need to tell you which one got the application and which one didn't. And this was in "liberal" Northern California just a few years ago.
But I'm trying to understand because I think it's important for me to grow as a person and I think it's important for our country for each of us to try to grow as individuals and as a society. Being raised post-MLK I am sick of racism and sometimes it amazes me the level that still exists.
And yes, maybe I'm wrong, but here is another of my beliefs that you may not agree with, but I believe that, generally speaking, there is more racism in our country than whites believe there is but at the same time I think that there is less than what AA's believe there is.
Now, I don't have a real good idea how you would react to that statement because I don't know you. But I believe that some AA's would be mad at that statement (much as you were mad at my previous statement) and others would say, well, yes, of course. What is the breakdown of those that would agree and those that would disagree, I don't know. I could guess (as could you) but I would trust your guess better than mine because you probably know a lot more African-Americans than I do.
Anyway, here is another thought, if an AA went to, say, an Irish Catholic website because they were interested in getting a different perspective on things and made a comment and announced he was black and then he was told that "NO MORE THOUGHTS NEEDED!" what percentage of AA's would consider it racist? It's an interesting thought experiment and exploring these differences in thoughts, I believe, is worth it because it can led to better understanding and hopefully a better world.
(Not to say that I took your comments as racist)
To your point of "but I'm trying to understand" and "getting a different perspective": You have formed your opinions - "AA's are TOO SENSITIVE"; "there is less(racism) than what AA's believe there is". So, again, you are trying to learn??? Continue in your quest.
Check out rikyrah's post below.
Jeff, it's terrific that you're stretching yourself in this way. Racism in not a "Black" problem. It threatens the entire country, white and otherwise, so the more you can learn and sophisticate yourself to this the better. Lord knows, I'm still learning too, we can never fully understand another person or what it feels to be in their skin, but we can train ourselves to be empathetic and attuned to the real nature of the world around us. So Jeff, a piece of advice. When discussing race, it's best to avoid blanket statements like "most African-Americans" or "you probably know," because one of racisms greatest feats is convincing the majority that minorities are all the same or have the same experiences. Not true. There's nothing I can pretend to know about a Black person before I get to know that person just as there is nothing I can pretend to know about you just because I know you're white.
We've all been taught in school that racism was a fad in the '50's and that MLK fixed it and everythings great now. NOT TRUE. I don't know if there is "more" racism than whites believe or "less" racism than Black believe because racism is racism. There are no shades. I will say this; in 1965 a study was done that polled white people. It asked if they believed Blacks were given equal treatment in America. In 1965. 75% of whites said yes. They did the same poll in 2005 with the same results. Now, if we were so wrong then, what makes us so enlightened now.
I'll try to do a better job of explaining these two beliefs about "sensitivity" and "less racism than AA's think" (which is really part of the same argument.). First off, let me say, you are absolutely right that you and basically all minorities experience racism on a daily basis. I understand and deplore this. But lets take a step back and look at it from a larger perspective.
Take the next 10 events in the country that are viewed differently by AA's and whites. Let's say that on each of the issues that 80 percent of blacks view each of these events as proof of racism and that 80 percent of whites think that the issue has little or nothing to do with race and, even if it was racial, it wasn't racist (a very important distinction). What I'm saying is that out of those 10 events just because AA's believe that they were racist doesn't make it so. And just because whites didn't think it was racist doesn't mean that it wasn't. Therefore I think that blacks may be "too sensitive" and believe there is more racism out there than actually exists and that whites aren't "sensitive" enough and that there is more racism out there than they think.
To bring it closer to home if one of your male friends tells you that he got on an elevator today and there was a white women in there and she moved to get as far away from him as possible I think that some AA's would view this as the more subtle form of racism that is prevalent in society. And you may be right. But it is only a guess and a perception and not necessarily reality. It may be the case that this woman went home to her friends and said "I was so embarrassed today. My lunch did not sit with me well and I was real gassy and as I was riding in an elevator a guy hopped in. I had to squeeze to keep from farting and moved toward the corner of the elevator just in case I couldn't hold it in."
So the racism that was earnestly perceived was not racism at all and was merely a funny incident. But that funny incident has real effects if it is perceived as racism and it has to grind on you, wear on you, and it has to make some people sick to their core to have to live under these conditions. But of course, in our hypothetical situation, it was more likely that she either was afraid of a black man and consciously moved away or wasn't consciously aware but still moved away due to "latent racism".
I hope that clears it up a bit.
Amen.
IF I tell you I find something RACIST... don't tell me that I just don't 'understand the real meaning'.
HELL YEAH, I get the REAL Meaning...
It's RACIST.
If the MSM ever had a sense of responsibility, and that I doubt, they lost it long before Bush.
But that was way back in the 20th century, ending around the 80s.
If Obama's campaign is upset by a magazine satire, what will it do when the real attacks begin..
is like saying, ignore our ignorance and protect us from those other ethnic scary people. Bull.
It is very difficult to win a war that has more than one front.
I'm not sure that the same kind of reclamation can be done with propaganda like this. I think it would be best to let it fade away.
Which is why I almost didn't even come in here but here I am.
I just saw Michelle Bernard on Hardball from yesterday, commenting on the New Yorker cover.
Obama needs to hire her.
Oh Yeah - I saw her on an earlier panel during the primary race. Her
response to the question of billary "stealing" the primary race from
Mr. Obama: "If she does, Black folks would riot in the streets."
Rest of the panel: CRICKETS**********
Fade to black! :>) :>)