FameCrawler

HOW exactly are these racist stereotypes?  Are all African Americans now considered likely to be terrorists or Muslims? The cover makes no comment on a racial group, or even a religious group.  There's no stereotyping here of anyone except Barack and Michelle Obama, and it's really a comment on stereotyping that has already been in the air for about as long as Obama has been running.

Incendiary? Absolutely.  Racist? No.  Satirical?  Indubitably, and I for one doubt that most Americans are stupid enough to get that.  

How is this racist? Gawd! Are we that scared of freedom of expression that we cringe at cartoon images? oooh, scary. This is gonna turn people into racists with a glance. ummm...NO!

Even if it's not racist, it's still completely out of line. I thought the New Yorker was supposed to be a progressive magazine..

The New Yorker probably thought this cartoon was so over the top that it was obviously satire and that no one would take it seriously.  What's interesting (and frightening) is that so many right-wing commentators have put forth this image of Obama that there are people who actually see this cartoon as an accurate depiction of the senator.

The cartoonist should have drawn a picture of Obama with the word " Nigger" written in bold over it, then explained he was only trying to make the racists look rediculous, and that it was only satire. hows that for satire.

It would have worked better if it was captioned with the title of the accompanying article. As it is, it's a cheap publicity ploy.

Nothing racists about this.  WHere do you guys come up with this racist angle?

It is very hard for me to imagine how anyone could possibly take this seriously. I nearly snorted coffee out my nose when I saw it. Even if you don't find it funny (which it is, trust me) you should at least be able to recognize that it was intended to be funny.

Sadly, this is what the world has come to.  A place where no one see's this as racial. Where the defination of bigotry has been watered down to satire. We have become so used to putting each other down that a satirical oops like this is considered hilarious instead of humiliating.  Sounds like it won't end until the end, I feel sorry for us all.  :(

Here's the proof that it's objectionable.  Instead of Barack and his wife on the cover, picture McCain and his wife.  McCain is dressed as Hitler, complete with Charlie Chaplin moustache, and his wife is tied up in black leather bondage garb, complete with a ball gag in her mouth.  Not so pretty when it's white people, huh?

sweatpantsmom,

To be fair, I haven't read anything you've written before today's piece. But, resting solely on your post today, it's my suggestion that your affiliation to any official media outlet should be severed until you go back to school and learn the meaning of satire.

You say, "shame on you New Yorker for trying to pass off this piece of racist crap for anything more than it is: a gutless, shameful way of getting attention.   It's a pity a publication that's supposed to appeal to the intelligent, thoughtful reader would stoop to using incendiary, tired racial stereotypes to sell more magazines."

It appeals to intelligent, thoughtful readers because intelligent, thoughtful readers understand it.

Calliope,

You know, the Canadians and Europeans like to make fun of us Americans for not understanding irony, satire, sarcasm, etc. I think a collection of comments surrounding this issue today would illustrate this point well. You point out that "so many right-wing commentators have put forth this image of Obama that there are people who actually see this cartoon as an accurate depiction of the senator."

Did it never occur to you that this is the point of the cartoon? It's a satire, lampooning the right-wing, neo-conservative morons who say Obama is an Islamic terrorist who, as soon as he is elected president, will throw away our freedoms and work with terrorist organizations around the world.

Chevy_1976_Impala,

Oh, never mind. It's hopeless.

"And I know the meaning of satire, and this tasteless display goes way beyond it.  It's offensive."

----------------------

Can you explain this (as you should have in your post)? Saying something doesn't make it true. How does it "go beyond [satire]"? How is it offensive?

----------------------

"The Huffinton Post said it best today: 'Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism — well, here's your image.'"

----------------------

Yeah? What exactly is Rachel Sklar over at the HuffPost saying in this remark? And what is so great about it? That somehow those who believe this garbage didn't previously have an image of it solidified in their minds, and now that they do, they are somehow going to benefit from it?

Hooey.

The only reason that this Mr. & Mrs. Obama satire DOES have impact — and may very likely spread — is because like all good satire, or good humor for that matter, there’s more than a germ of truth in it. Otherwise, the satire would utterly roll off the Obamoids’ backs, having no impact.

Chevy_1976_Impala said:

Here's the proof that it's objectionable.  Instead of Barack and his wife on the cover, picture McCain and his wife.  McCain is dressed as Hitler, complete with Charlie Chaplin moustache, and his wife is tied up in black leather bondage garb, complete with a ball gag in her mouth.  Not so pretty when it's white people, huh?

Honestly: If there had been undercurrents for the past year that McCain was a secret Nazi and his wife had a penchant for S&M, then a cover like the one you describe would be perfectly in keeping with past New Yorker covers.  Are you familiar with the New Yorker? The same magazine that once showed the Easter Bunny crucified on the backdrop of a tax return? The magazine that more recently showed Ahmadenijad looking askance at a foot crossing over into his public bathroom stall, a la Minnesota airports?

Again: If McCain were reputed by some to be a Nazi who subjugates his wife sexually, a cover like the one you describe would be satirical.  Incendiary? YES! Just like this one.  But not racist.  

I was discussing this with my husband last night, who pointed out that really the most objectionable thing about this cover is that it's not particularly witty.  It's a very straight-ahead satirical portrait of the wrongheaded stereotypes that have been propagated since Obama started running.  The ironic thing here is that the people who are really being satirized aren't the Obamas -- it's the ignorant people who are saying these things ABOUT the Obamas. Since they're nowhere to be seen on the cover, in that sense one could say the cover has failed.  But I simply do not see how anyone could say the cover is racist.  It ain't.

The Huffinton Post said it best today: "Anyone who's tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who's tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism — well, here's your image."

Right: An image that clearly scoffs at all of the above.  Do you really look at that and think, "OMG, it's all TRUE!"? No, you don't.  You just think other people, less intelligent than yourself, will.  I doubt it highly.

Dear New Yorker, I am not an African-American, but I am deeply offended and embarrassed by your satirical caricature of Barack Obama and his wife.  It reminded me of how blacks were portrayed back in the Jim Crow era in the mainstream media like the Saturday Evening Post.  It has been over 40 years since the Civil Rights movement and the ostensible "end" of the Jim Crow Era.  Barack Obama and his wife are each extremely and individually accomplished black persons.  They are an inspiration to many, especially many young black youth.  By perpetuating the portrayal of Barack and his wife in gross caricature, you have essentially swept aside their accomplishments in favor of perpetuating insulting and offensive stereotypes.  You call it satire.  Explain that to the Obama girls at the dinner table tonight.  You have told untold number of black children that not much has changed in the past 60 years.  No matter how successful a black person becomes in this country, he or she can always look forward to the dehumanizig indignity of being seen as the "angry black woman," "the dangerous/untrustworthy black man"-- and, as not a full American.  I am sure your magazine will generate a lot of publicity and readership because of the caricature.  I also know that your caricature will be defended as pure political satire devoid of any racial element.  However, given the history in this country of dehumanizing black persons through media stereotype, your caricature of the Obama family necessarily involves race.  Your current issue will be remembered as a shameful episode in journalism.

Here, sweatpantsmom: www.huffingtonpost.com/.../jon-stewart-takes-on-medi_n_113025.html

Maybe that will enlighten you a bit.

The question remains whether in the last seven years The New Yorker has depicted George Bush as a Fascist dictator and Dick Cheney as Goebbels giving him the "heil Hitler" salute. There have been rumors of Fascist inclinations in the current administration--maybe they aren't so funny? Or maybe there is no "germ of truth" Malloy?  The fact is that bringing out these fascist overtones might be elucidating...even satirical, whatever that is!

Not racist per se, but stupidly offensive nonetheless.  Why didn't they use John McCain as "the Manchurian Candidate?"  It's a lot closer to possibility based upon background.  McCain seems to be the perfect choice, after spending all that time as a prisoner of war under  "Red Chinese/North Vietnamese" control.  He could easily be a "sleeper" just waiting to get his trigger phrase.

Seems to be equal fodder for Lampoon?

Kill that fucking nigger Obama, hell all niggers!!!!

Long live the KKK!