I don’t know how many black women have responded to New Yorker’s Obama Family cover. Thus far all I’ve seen among the Defender’s of Their Write have been white males. So, here is an observation of a black female published today in the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

“Given the long-standing history of such stereotypes against black women, we should not have been surprised that some have tried to paint Michelle Obama as Every Black Female Stereotype, instead of as Everywoman or as the potential first lady that she is.

Mrs. Obama has been called unpatriotic. Fox News refused to acknowledge that she is married and that her children were not born out of wedlock when it referred to her as “Obama’s baby mama.” There are apocryphal claims that she uses the term “whitey” to malign whites. And now, she is depicted on the cover of the New Yorker magazine in an afro, fatigues and a machine gun as though she is the second coming of Stokely Carmichael or Huey Newton.”

Later on…

“In many ways,  Michelle Obama represents the antithesis of her husband. She cannot escape race the way her husband has tried to escape race. She cannot invoke a white parent or an exotic upbringing to deflect racial anxiety. And because the stereotypes leveled against black women are less visceral (though no less demeaning) than the more brutal stereotypes of black men, they are harder to identify, harder to counter and more likely to be successfully used to cast subconscious doubt about Barack Obama’s fitness to be president.

In short, Barack Obama could easily deflect the guilt-by-association charges during the Jeremiah Wright and William Ayres incidents, but it is much harder to escape guilt-by-association when the associate is his wife of 15 years.

Michelle Obama could very well become the human barometer for the impact of racial anxiety on vote choice. As we saw in a New York Times/CBS news poll released last week, blacks and whites agree that America is ready to elect a black president. However, Barack Obama’s favorability ratings diverge wildly among blacks and whites. Obama enjoys high favorability ratings among blacks, but more whites have an unfavorable view of Obama than have a favorable view of him. If Michelle Obama continues to be a successful target of racially tinged criticism, then this could have a negative impact on her husband’s chance at getting elected.

This is why the New Yorker cover, while perhaps well-intentioned, was ill-advised. The magazine’s editors have defended the cover, arguing that it is a satire of the ridiculous charges leveled against the Obamas in recent months. Editors clearly hope that people will look at the cover and realize that the scenario depicted is farcical.

Unfortunately, many people miss the fact that the cover was intended to be a mockery. More than 10 percent of those surveyed for a recent Newsweek poll believe that Barack Obama is a practicing Muslim, despite his campaign’s best efforts to dispel such gossip. If people can still believe that rumor, then they can certainly internalize vicious and false smears about Michelle Obama that are rooted in centuries-old stereotypes about black women.

” Much of the media outcry has focused on the religious depiction of Barack Obama or on the general tastelessness of the cartoon.

The Obama campaign would do better to vigorously and explicitly challenge any depiction of Mrs. Obama that is sexist and racist, including this cartoon. It is precisely that type of subtle and insidious attack that could be the Democratic campaign’s undoing if it is allowed to fester in the minds of undecided voters. Besides, it is time to bury the negative depictions of black women in popular culture once and for all.”

From:
 
The Michelle Obama drama

Candidate’s wife must, unfairly, contend with century’s worth of racial stereotypes

By Andra Gillespie
For the Journal-Constitution

Published on: 07/20/08

RE DHFabian, July 18 at 4:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I can understand that there are some who didn’t “get it”; this is probably true of any example of humor, and especially of satire. What surprises me is that the media appears to employ a hugely disproportionate share of such people.
——————————————————————————-Fabian,

You noticed that too, did you? It’s an amusing phenomenon in itself. THE definitive commentary on this particular matter was made day before yesterday by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, which you can watch in Truthdig’s AV section at

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080716_jon_stewart_its_just_a_f_ing_cartoon/

It’s so brilliant I can think of nothing to add. Your question is answered by his final conclusion.

JoeJ,

You hit it on the head.  The drawing was satirical, but not effective.  It didn’t offer an insight, as every element was so obvious.  However, the huge issue being made of it will probably be effective, as it has the right wingnuts talking about it.  That means they are inadvertently countering their own smear campaign.

They are using this to attack “liberal media.”  Had they not done so, the FOXNews audience might never have heard any counter to the rumor that Barack is a Muslin and Michelle a member or the Weather Underground.

But progressives need to cool down and recover our sense of humor.  Because that is the strongest antidote to fear and defence against fearmongering.

I’m chastised. I judged a book by its cover. A picture IS worth a thousand words, or in the New Yorker’s case, a thousand extra sales. The Chinese may have said it best:畫意能達萬言. It’s all Greek to me.

Sabiago,

To compare this single frame cartoon to a complete literary work is patently unfair.  The cartoon only has a half dozen elements, while Gulliver’s Travels has many chapters.

The most important factor in the change of direction this nation started in 2006 was humor and satire; The Daily Show and The Colbert Report were able to make points that progressives could not get into the MSM, and that the public ignored anyway.  Conservative ideologues just don’t “get” metaphor, analogy and satire.  (Evidence: the FOXNews failure to establish a conservative version of Stewart and Colbert.)  Conservatives tend to take analogies and metaphors literally.

But your reaction to this cartoon causes me to think it may not be a trait of conservatism, but of the ideologue.  I realize that 7 1/2 years of Bush and a bitter primary battle has left people on edge, but “Ease up, People!”

I guess the New Yorker’s brilliant satire is so brilliant it’s Blinding. Gulliver’s Travels and the Barber of Seville, brilliant political satire and threats to the regimes and rulers of their times.  The New Yorker Obama Cover? Not brilliant, not satire,  not even entertaining. That’s what’s disappointing.

When progressives find themselves on the same side of an issue as Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, they better stop, shut up, sit down, do a relaxation exercize and, finally, engage the brain.

By calling the cartoon “offensive,” the Obama campaign missed the opportunity to explode the smear campaign and seal the election.  The cartoon aimed to get people to laugh at the ridiculous claims of the smear campaign; if you laugh, the attempt succeeds; if you get offended, you screw the pooch.

The conservative talking heads realized this, at some gut level, perhaps.  That is why they jumped on it in an attempt to discredit it.  The cartoon makes fun of the fear that they are trying desparately to instill and maintain.

And laughter destroys fear.

I have never considered the New Yorker to be the pinacle of fair and accurate journalism, but why the big deal over this cartoon?  Is it because the Obamas are considered “untouchables?”  I think that has more to do with this outcry than humor, accuracy, misconceptions, or anything else.

The New Yorker cartoon has had its uses.  While it may not be the funniest cartoon every published, it has exposed a good many politicians, media personalities and bloggists as seriously dumb, who might not otherwise have made themselves that obvious.  New York’s governor is a case in point. It seemed like he might be a smart guy, if somewhat laid back; turns out he’s another klutz.  It’s disappointing, but the information may prove useful in the future.

What you said in defense of the New Yorker’s Intent is credible. What bothered me was the incompetence displayed in the cover’s presentation. When a magazine as prestigious as The New Yorker has had to follow-up with explanations by their editors about what they really meant, that it was satire, a joke, “what we meant was..” says that the New Yorker has descended to the Ranks of Rupert Murdoch, FOX and Time Magazine’s digitally enhanced covers. In short a “Fall from Grace.” Now that’s disappointing. Beyond, redemption? For the time being, maybe.

Sabagio Mauraeno, still subscribing to the New Yorker, but not as much a Believer Reader as he once was.

Sam Snedegar, any relation to Sam Seder?

De gustabis non disputandum est. I usually don’t get New Yorker cartoons or care much for their articles either. Just not my style. But this one I actually though was funny, myself, and I completely agree with this article. I guess according to SamSnedegar there I must not have a “real sense of humor”, but I do try to avoid excessive pontification. Personally, I think it was intended to help Obama and it in fact did so. The best way I know to counter racial stereotypes is to make fun of them.

To Thomas Bills regarding your comment:

Yes..a little rough but, yes; yes, indeed..

Vita brevis; ars longa…

To Thomas Bills regarding your comment:

Yes, a little rough but, yes; ultimately, yes indeed.

Vita brevis; ars longa…

There never seems to be much outrage on these pages over the way G.W. Bush is portrayed.  Sure, he deserves every caricature and then some, but why is freedom of speech only important until someone says something that you don’t like?

Are we angry because Obama’s patriotism has been sullied?  I say, “What patriotism?”  He, McCain, Bush, Cheney, Clinton…none of them are patriotic in the least.  And they all deserve the kind of satire that Swift or Dickens would provide, not a hack New Yorker cartoon.

Perhaps what is funniest of all is the way New Yorkers slap themselves silly at how “sophisticated” their satire is thus justifying the clueless outrage from the rest of the country. 

Hell, from where I stand (a good ways from Manhattan), any local high school rag could have done it better.

it wasn’t tasteless, it wasn’t unfair criticism, and it wasn’t funny enough to make an internal cartoon in the New Yorker. Yes Joe, we “get it,” but what is funniest of all is that the New Yorker could have had as many as a thousand things on its cover which were far funnier and far more appropriate to lampoon a government which is headed by a moron, and it chose to use something which went over with a thud for anyone with a real sense of humor.

Even good magazines don’t always win the prize, and I promise you that this cover won’t win anything, even approval from humorists.

Let us always appeal to the lowest common denominator.The great fear that some may not get the satire is laughable.If they do not"screw them”.The right is outraged because it puts a crimp in there plans to start those whispeing campaigns in the fall that Obama and Michelle are all those things that the New Yorker lampoons.It actually forces, as Joe said,those half a moron talking heads to acknowledge that the the cartoon lampoons things that are absolutely ridiculous.When those who do not get the joke learn to read they will also smile showing those two or three teeth they have left.Obama should write the New Yorker a thank you note for bringing these absurd accusations out into to the open and force the issue to be discussed.Bravo New Yorker.