The New Yorker was just messin’ with you, man
The possums are having themselves an epic wankfest over the New Yorker cover showing Michelle and Barack as a couple of revolutionary/Muslim/terrorist types. The illustration is an obvious satire on rightwing tropes, especially since the accompanying article is about how much of a non-revolutionary Obama really is. The dude is a creature of the Chicago machine. All ego and personal ambition, as cynical as they come. He’s about as revolutionary as Goldman Sachs. So whence the wank?
Well, in large part because of that accompanying article. Any piece that exposes the truth about Obama is bad for the Hope & Change® brand. Can’t give the game away. Gotta keep the Amway salesmen in line. Clearly, a diversion is required.
The wankfest also distracts from the recent revelation that Obama thinks it’s funny to call women “hos.” “I’m just messin’ with you, man,” he said to the odious Bernie Mac. Later, of course, somebody from the campaign came out with a pooper-scooper and tried to pretend that Obama Does Not Approve Of That Kind Of Language, but everybody had already gotten a good look at the turd.
Finally, and most importantly, it plays into the possums’ heroic myth that Obama is bravely battling an enormous tide of racism. This is a difficult myth to sustain, since in reality Obama hasn’t actually met with a whole lot of racism in this campaign — there’s been some, of course, but nothing compared to the gleeful public orgy of misogyny that trailed Hillary. But the possums need to believe otherwise. Racism is their answer to everything: it is, in their minds, the reason most Democrats voted for Hillary, the reason millions of Democrats are still refusing to back Obama, even the reason Obama never spoke out against the virulent sexism and misogyny of his supporters (he was too busy battling racism).
So the New Yorker cover, with its maybe-racist stereotypes, is a precious relic. The possums clutch it to their chests like it’s a bar of gold-pressed latinum, proof that the Enormous Tide of Racism is real. And the timing couldn’t be better, what with the Bernie Mac thing. So what if Obama is a sexist pig? He’s the victim of an Enormous Tide of Racism!
By the way: is the New Yorker cover really racist? I wonder. It is, after all, satire. The magazine is poking fun of stereotypes, not perpetuating them. I also question the extent to which these are really racist stereotypes, as opposed to simply stock bogey-persons of the rightwing imagination: the gun-toting leftist revolutionary, the fundamentalist Muslim jihadist. (And to those would say the Muslim jihadist is a racist stereotype: I disagree. In a world where people are afraid of Cat Stevens, it’s myopic to interpret these anxieties as nothing more than racial bigotry. Islamophobia is much more like the good old-fashioned Fear of Commies I grew up with.)
But be that as it may. Even if the New Yorker cover is flirting with (or even heavy-petting with) racism, surely it’s worth noticing that the magazine is presenting the stereotypes only to debunk them. Contrast that with The New Republic’s hit job on Hillary last spring:
That, for any possums reading, is an example of non-satirical, 100% sincere ridicule. Hillary is portrayed as a hysterical, manipulative, power-hungry bitch. The accompanying article does nothing to debunk these stereotypes, or even address them. In fact, the article is more about the men who are supposedly pulling Hillary’s puppet strings — thus contributing yet another layer of sexist stereotype to the mix.
See the difference?
33 Responses to “The New Yorker was just messin’ with you, man”
-
slythwolf says:
Gold-pressed latinum! LOL! The Possums are kind of like the Ferengi, aren’t they?
July 15th, 2008 at 3:30 am EST -
myiq2xu says:
You’re obviously bitter. You’re not armed are you?
-
Perry Logan says:
You’re the best, Violet.
The New Yorker cover is even funnier, now that we know Obama is a neocon.
-
BettyBoondoggle says:
“By the way: is the New Yorker cover really racist?”
Here’s the thing. It may have attempted to be satire, and might, in the eyes of some, have worked as satire.
But, rumor has it that the WND crowd is buying this issue just to frame that pic. Assuming that’s true, the epic level of fail in that should be obvious. When edactly the people you’re trying to criticize are delighting in your satire, you’ve failed.
“I also question the extent to which these are really racist stereotypes, as opposed to simply stock bogey-persons of the rightwing imagination:”
“stock bogey-persons of the rightwing imagination” are inherently bigotted. Racist, sexist, classic, etc. That’s what the right-wing is known for - bigotry with LOTS of excuses. (not that the left is immune from this, as they have bent over backwards to excuse,justify and ignore misogyny).
-
ea says:
I’m also going with the gold-pressed latinum carrot–too tempting! (Are you a DS9 fan?)
Obama -> one of those greedy, but incompetent Ferengi.
HRC -> I’m going with Jadzia, because I want
McKinney -> to be Kira.
Though I can accept HRC as Kira.
Sorry, if those of us riffing in this theme appear to take away from the point of the post, but I’ll take my fun where I can get it in this whole mess.
-
Hazel Stone says:
I also question the extent to which these are really racist stereotypes, as opposed to simply stock bogey-persons of the rightwing imagination: the gun-toting leftist revolutionary, the fundamentalist Muslim jihadist. (And to those would say the Muslim jihadist is a racist stereotype: I disagree. In a world where people are afraid of Cat Stevens, it’s myopic to interpret these anxieties as nothing more than racial bigotry. Islamophobia is much more like the good old-fashioned Fear of Commies I grew up with.)
I was right there with you up until this point. Why do you have to dismiss the racism that is wrapped up in Islamophobia? It isn’t needed for you to make your central point, which you do well.
I get that you are unhappy with the situation, but Obama IS black and he’s getting some racist AND islamophobic treatment. That doesn’t excuse his myriad failings. It certainly doesn’t mitigate the thrashing HRC got for daring to be a woman candidate. These things are not related.
Anyway, I’m normally a fan but I disagree on this one.
-
kenoshaMarge says:
Glad you keep posting on the poisonous desire from the left to be continually outraged over some perception of racism while ignoring or giving slight lip service to sexism. It’s as if someone gave them a menu and told them they only got to pick one from the “ism” list.
Until these whiny lackwits are as outraged over misogyny as they are over every perceived suggestion of racism, they are not worth the energy to engage. The phony outrage is tiresome at best and harmful to the outing of actual racism at worst. The term “crying wolf” didn’t become a cliché without reason.
Most of the people I know are all ready tired of hearing the “oh the evil racism” rants. Most people don’t give a damn what color the fireman is when he/she comes to put out the fire in their neighborhood or in their home. They just want the fire out. Just as voters want the country set on a better course and politicians to at least tell them the truth some of the time.
If Obamacrats can’t take the heat, then they certainly need to get out of the national kitchen. I fear that with these whiny little cooks in our national kitchen we all ready know we won’t get a decent meal in the next four years.
The election in November seems set to put American Voters between a rock and a hard place at a time when we need real leadership and actual plans to fix what’s wrong.
Instead we get whiny the Democratic Wimp and McCain the Republican Nit. What great choices our system gives us. I’ve heard it called the evil of two lessers. About sums it up.
-
sister of ye says:
All right! A secret nest of DS9 fans - the most discerning subset of Trekkies, IMHO. I’d go with Clinton as Kira over Dax, but either kicks ass.
Even discounting satire, Obama’s portrayal as a Muslim is highly ironic. He has carelessly fueled anti-Muslim sentiment with his “No, I’m not one of those horrible Muslims, I’m a nice, safe Christian” spiel. When a sensible position would be, “No, I’m not Muslim, but so what if I were? I lived among Muslims in Indonesia, they aren’t scary, and many upstanding Americans are of the Muslim faith.”
Not to mention how his self-serving playing of the race card makes it that much harder for victims of real racism to be believed and get justice. Hell, he condescends to black Americans as badly as racist white politicians. Instead of promoting him as president, I wish Oprah had anointed him the next Dr. Phil. That seems to be the role he likes best.
But it’s just like with Dubya, who cares who gets hurt as long has he gets his way? Why couldn’t there be Some Power above or below who would save us from Juniors with Daddy issues?
-
sister of ye says:
Oops, sorry for the double post.
-
Annie Oakley says:
I thought the article that accompanied the relic (Lol. Precious in its own right) claimed that Obama is not part of the Daley Machine. One of the more harmful charges against Obama has been that he’s just another Chicago pol. The article places him in some insurgency against Daley, calls him an Independent.
If I focus on Michelle’s career, it is clearly, entirely part of the Daley Machine. I don’t know every nuance of Chicago politics, but I think the New Yorker’s suggestion that Obama stands apart from it is absurd.
-
Anna Belle says:
Annie, actually the article paints Obama as a pol who built his career on being Independent, even though he was very far from it. It’s not kind to Obama, and portrays him as an opportunist, though there is a somewhat sympathetic tone overall. And it talks about him in the context of the Chicago Machine. That’s kinda why the hoopla over the cover is so disappointing. If people actually read the article, they might not be so fooled by his, um, machinations.
-
mountainsage says:
Eleanor Smeal,President of Feminist Majority was silent on the cover that featured Hillary but is now all up in arms over the cover with the Obama’s.
In an email to the Feminist Majority membership she said: ” As feminists we refuse to be silent. We who have been infuriated at the sexist media coverage of Hillary Clinton will not tolerate the racist and sexist coverage of Michelle and Barack Obama. Express your outrage to David Remnick and demand that the cover be pulled.”
Where was the outrage over the Hillary Clinton New Yorker cover?
-
thebewilderness says:
When the satire of fear mongering looks the same as fear mongering, the piece doesn’t work.
You are making a very fine distinction here.
Both those cover pieces are stand alone statements for the millions of people who will never read the article. -
descanso says:
wow. so many people have lost their minds during this election season. i thank the goddess for the small corner of sanity you provide.
i can’t believe ellie smeal demanding the cover be pulled, although i shouldn’t be surprised. as i recall, Patricia Ireland was far more worried about how OJ was being treated than the woman whose throat he cut. what is with these so-called feminists?
it’s hard to find anybody with a stable identity anymore.
-
Ciccina says:
Brilliant job, Violet!
As a long-time subscriber to the N Yorker, I saw the cover as completely in line with their particular tone of satire. This uproar is unintentionally hilarious - I’ve seen so many comments along the lines of “I would cancel my subscription, if I were a subscriber” (you’re not? no kidding!) and “if the editors of the New Yorker would leave Manhattan once in a while…” (possums, its is called the New Yorker .
But in the larger scheme of things there’s nothing funny about this at all. Obama whistles and the pitchfork wielding mob appears, torches ablaze. Its totally in keeping with the ingroup/outgroup, us and them mentality nurtured by his campaign. Step outside the group and you’re the enemy. I think the reason so many possums hurl the term racism so freely is not because they perceive actual racism - its because in their lexicon its the worst insult they can muster. The person who is racist is the lowest of the low (not that I disagree), the New Yorker is the lowest of the low, ergo the New Yorker is racist.
I was very disappointed to see a rather nutty action alert from NOW about the evil, racist cover. I can’t believe they - and the Feminist Majority - got sucked into this vortex. Why can’t our groups keep their eye on the ball?
As a veteran former staffperson of several of the big name women’s groups, I’m loathe to say we need a new feminist group because I know what a time-and-resource pit that can turn into. But it does seem that the existing groups just aren’t filling the need (at least my need) for a ferocious watchdog of sexism and misogyny… like a feminist Media Matters (rather, a Media Matters focused on sexism and misogyny) perhaps with an added dimension of monitoring non-media cultural contributors. And Violet, you would in charge.
Sigh.
-
Ciccina says:
@ myiq2xu - call me ableist, but I presume Violet has two. At least!
[please hold your applause till the end of the show...]
-
octogalore says:
The timing of the cover blowup was fortuitous given the Bernie Mac incident. Perfect cover, so to speak, for “feminist” sites like Feministing to cover the cover and not the misogyny.
While I agree with thebewilderness that the Obama cover’s irony may not translate to certain readers (though it should to the target audience), the Clinton cover wasn’t even arguably ironic.
-
ginmar says:
Oh, and Pandagon called taking the sexism against Hillary ‘handwringing.’ Cause you know we’re just a bunch of bitter dried up old hags.
-
ea says:
A couple of things–
1) Here’s a cartoon idea that I’d love for someone to realize and get distributed. I doubt there would be much confusion over its meaning and intent.
Presidential Campaign Cartoon Idea:
Three rows of panels: top with John McCain, middle with Barack Obama, bottom with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
1. First frame of each panel shows the person standing on a bluff, discovering the United States (large USA-shaped block) teetering on the edge of a precipice.
2. Second frame shows the person running off to get something.
3. Third frame shows each individual’s action and new prop:
a. McCain with helmet, standing atop the USA in a “full steam ahead” pose
b. Obama with a sledge hammer breaking off the eastern part of the country so that it falls over the edge
c. Clinton pulling on a rope tied around the middle of the country, dragging the entire country back onto safe ground.2) Anyone interested in using a song which has lyrics from HRC speeches may go to this site and scroll down to the “In her own Words” files. The instrument in the recording is a requinto so the key does not match the lyric sheet. Anyone is welcome to make her or his own arrangement–just keep the melody structure. This info may have been posted earlier, but I found some file problems.
-
Violet says:
“stock bogey-persons of the rightwing imagination” are inherently bigotted. Racist, sexist, classic, etc. That’s what the right-wing is known for - bigotry with LOTS of excuses. (not that the left is immune from this, as they have bent over backwards to excuse,justify and ignore misogyny).
Having grown up with Fear of Commies, I have to disagree that all right-wing stereotypes are racist/sexist/classist. It’s bigotry, to be sure, but not all bigotry is racist. Or sexist, or classist.
-
Violet says:
Why do you have to dismiss the racism that is wrapped up in Islamophobia?
I didn’t “dismiss” anything. I said, and I believe, that Islamophobia is much more complex than straightforward racial bigotry. Racism is one ingredient in the mix: for some people it’s a big part and for some people it’s not even there at all. In my opinion Fear of Communism is a better analog.
It matters because mis-labeling things leads to misunderstanding things (and vice versa, for that matter).
-
octogalore says:
Violet, re the “Enormous Tide…” I admit, I speculated for about a second after hearing the TV coverage if this were a deliberate strategy. Because it does acccomplish exactly what you said — refocusing from seeing him as a targeter (through Bernie M) to a target. Which signals to any good liberal that it would be in extremely poor taste to criticize, in light of the circumstances.
Too bad I’m a bad liberal.
-
Hazel Stone says:
This is where I read you as being dismissive of racism towards Obama:
[i]Finally, and most importantly, it plays into the possums’ heroic myth that Obama is bravely battling an enormous tide of racism. This is a difficult myth to sustain, since in reality Obama hasn’t actually met with a whole lot of racism in this campaign — there’s been some, of course, but nothing compared to the gleeful public orgy of misogyny that trailed Hillary.[/i]I’m glad to hear that your position is more nuanced, but it came off as dismissive of racism to me. Anyway, i totally agree with you on the NR hatchetjob. What a load of drek.
-
K.A. says:
Oh, and Pandagon called taking the sexism against Hillary ‘handwringing.’
I can’t believe people believe that shit over there is feminist. It’s a way for sexist liberal men to feel like they’re on the right side of ethics because they know they should be. It offers not terribly more than that comforting delusion.
I think the point Dr. Socks was making is that Obamabots in particular are making a huge deal out of it not because they are on the right side of bigotry, but because they are cultists! They could care less about the nuances of satire and analyzing its effect on all blacks and Muslims in the context of an ignorant populace. All they care about is when someone might be knocking the precious and feigning outrage at any moment there might be a detriment to his candidacy. After the Clinton debacle, to think otherwise about them is laughable, really. You could laugh ’til you cry…I think I’m going to die laughing….
-
donna darko says:
What would we do w/o Violet????? She tells it like it is!!!!!
Hazel, Obama’s black but the Islamophobia/his non-ties to Islam are a separate issue.
-
Pat Johnson says:
The difference in the insanity is that if this cover was on Mad Magazine they would be slapping their thighs with hilarity. This just gives them another pseudo reason for victimization. Not that they need an excuse to collectively reach for the fainting chair.
-
wry says:
I don’t think “Islamophobia” is racist. Most of my Muslim friends are white. By the way they LOVE Bill & Hillary.
As for the cover, how is the depiction of Michelle sexist?
I’m tired of all the organized feminist groups sucking up to Obama. Now I don’t have to feel guilty about not sending any of them a dime any more.
They weren’t there for my girl Hillary, they can go to hell for all I care. -
Alikatze says:
There’s a deeper issue here with the fury this cover has caused in Obamabot-landia: it’s the fact that someone tried to poke fun at the sacred cow. See, if he seems to have even one chink in his well-oiled armor, Democrats (and it’s mostly the white ones) fear he won’t be able to defeat John McSame. Somehow, the wheels will come flying off and the whole campaign will founder. There’s such a desperate terror amongst certain groups of Democrats (they call themselves liberals) that any negative press about The Holy One will mushroom into something that will keep him out of the White House. I’m convinced this is why they all decided to railroad Hillary — she wasn’t “squeaky clean”, and, far more than Michelle, Bill is a *huge* liability.
Nope, this is all just desperate, panties-in-a-twist paranoia on the part of Democrats. Salon had a great piece about this today, http://www.salon.com/opinion/. See the article by Kamiya, “Rush Limbaugh Was Right”.
-
sassysenora says:
KA, i agree completely that many Obama supporters don’t care about racism. many love Obama because supporting him allows them to continue to benefit from white privilege without doing anything to upset (or even acknowledge) that privilege, i.e., their support of Obama absolves them of any responsibility for institutional racism. i don’t think most of them care about black (or brown or yellow) ppl, esp poor ones.
to many of them, support of Obama is the sole criteria for judging if you’re a racist, i.e. a higher being like them.
support Obama = not a racist (so you don’t need to do anything else) and GOOD
oppose Obama = racist (no matter what else you do) and BAD
supporting Obama is like a get out of jail free card. it’s cheap grace. it has the added bonus of being able to freely demonize and vilify anyone who opposes Obama, especially if they are female, poor, old, or less educated
it seems to me that the OFB are deep into resentment tribalism with all that entails. they have no consistent principles: Obama is inspiring (and we should all embrace him) because he proclaims to represent a new kind of politics in order to get the nomination yet he is savvy and perceptive (and we should all embrace him) because he abandons his positions once he is the presumptive nominee. he advocates clean politics, public financing, and relying mostly on small donors when he’s wooing media endorsements or disaffected voters (or attacking his opponents for being beholden to special interests) but abandons that promise as soon as he thinks large donors and special interest money will help his campaign. he says he’ll uphold the Constitution (and restrict executive power) when it suits him but completely abdicates that principle once he thinks he will be president — while still insisting that he believes in limiting executive power! he says he fully supports Roe on the very same day he (once again) advocates restricting it yet his supporters still defend him and vilify his opponents for putting Roe at risk by their opposition to his candidacy. Obama and his supporters “misconstrue the plain meaning of long standing constitutional principles and federal policies . . . and show irrational, rabid anger at any disagreement. They see (anyone who opposes Obama) as “traitors” fighting for the other side, just as the Southerners of the 1850’s accused the “Black Republicans” of fomenting slave revolts. They brook no compromise and instead repay those who would reach out to them with furious perfidy unless they show absolute fealty to every facet of the program. It is loyalty to “the cause”, however it is defined and however it changes in principle from day to day, that matters.”
As long as individuals can stand up outside of the tribe and claim (the Democratic Party)as their own, (the OFB) is revealed as weak, because it is their own lies about themselves that they cannot stand. Proof in the form of our existence is enough to make them angry. This is why they keep getting madder as they . . . gain power. They are not really after a (progressive) agenda in terms of policy; they are not even after power, really. They are after a complete and utter subjugation of the American consciousness to their tribal mentality. And they will not stop until they get it. (the words in the parentheses were changed from the original, which was directed at the right instead of Obama supporters)
finally, i’m not disappointed that ellie smeal protested the New Yorker cover. i agree with bewilderness that the cover will be misinterpreted by many. however, I am dismayed that Smeal said nothing about the New Republic cover.
-
sassysenora says:
violet,
i have been struggling with the issues raised by the New Yorker cover, your post, and the replies to it. i have some concerns about some of your statements. i am not posting this to cut off discussion. in my opinion, one of the biggest problems with the charges of racism (and sometimes sexism or ageism) in this campaign is that they are used to silence opponents and suppress opposing points of view instead of to encourage open and frank discussion of important and often divisive issues.
i agree completely that attacks on Muslims are more than simple racial bigotry. the bigotry is partly racial, partly cultural, partly political, and partly religious. invidious, uninformed stereotypes underlie all those dimensions. my problem with your approach is that i thought you were opposing that type of argument when you endorsed “every line” of Apostate’s article “Why Honor Killings Are A Religious Issue”.
Apostate condemned Antonova’s article which, while condemning honor killings, argued that they are not per se Islamic but more cultural (i.e., Islam does not always embrace or embody Arab cultural traditions such as honor killings depending upon the culture of its adherents). to me, Apostate’s post was in large part an explicit rejection of the idea that honor killings are cultural as well as religious. Even in non-Arab cultures, she asserts: “Islam IS Arab culture, to a very great degree. Arab culture IS Islam to a very great degree.” Apostate rejects the view that honor killings are not an inherent part of Islam even though (1) honor killings don’t exist in non-Arab Muslim countries, e.g., Indonesia or West Africa and (2) honor killings cross religious divides but tend to follow cultural ones, i.e., if Muslims in a country practice it, usually so do Hindus, Sikhs and Christians.
perhaps we interpreted Apostate’s and Antonova’s articles differently, but your positions seem inconsistent to me. how can you say that honor killings are not partly cultural and partly political as well as partly religious but then say that Islamophobia is only partly racial? it seems to me that implies that Muslims are not motivated by things like culture and politics as well as religion and gender while we’re more complex. If you are not Islamophobic, why do you “embrace” Apostate’s argument that Islam inherently promotes honor killings even though some Imams insist that it condemns them?
-
sassysenora says:
sorry, i meant to say that “i’m not posting this to criticize your position or cut off discussion. on the contrary, i am posting in order to further our understanding of the issues and our views.”
-
julia says:
What would Hillary say?
‘If you can’t stand the heat, you don’t belong in the White House!’. -
NomNomNom says:
“a bar of gold-pressed latinum” heehee, and everything Obama says is true, especially the lies!
