You Gotta Love Racist White New York Liberals
...Yeah, I said it, and I meant it too. The New Yorker staffers and editors who thought it was acceptable to run the cover of Barack-and-Michelle-Obama-as-Muslim-and/or-black-nationalist-militants are racists. And assholes. Their liberalism does not acquit them. The fact that most of them will probably vote for Obama in November doesn't acquit them. The fact that they think themselves hip and urbane, and oh-so-pithy and oh-so-ironic, and oh-so satirical doesn't make a bit of difference. What they have done, irrespective of their intent, is to further the right-wing white racial frame that has been placed on the Obama candidacy from the outset. By trafficking in stereotypes, presumably to poke fun at them, the New Yorker has reinforced imagery that is guaranteed to push certain buttons with many voters, and not "irony buttons" (I mean most Americans can't even define the term, which is why folks thought that Alanis Morrissette song was so good, even though every example of irony she mentioned wasn't an example of irony at all), but bigotry ones. Intent does not matter with this kind of thing: impact is what counts, and the impact will be to reinforce white fears about the Obamas. White folks don't tend to appreciate irony when the joke is on us, you see.
But for those who choose to defend the New Yorker on this cartoon, (and who think it’s legit satire, because it “obviously” pokes fun at the whole right-wing “Obama is a muslim” conspiracy B.S….), here's why no such defense is possible....
Let's think about some other examples of satire, which, theoretically, the New Yorker could have turned into covers, where they could have poked fun at stupid conspiracy thinking and obviously absurd bigotry...
Can anyone on here imagine the New Yorker, or any other mainstream outlet doing a “satire” where they poke fun at the asinine conspiracy theories about Jews and 9/11 (like "4000 Jews stayed home from work that day because they got tipped off by the Mossad")? Can you imagine them satirizing the loons who say that shit by doing a cover with a bunch of rabbis, calling each other on the phone reminding other “members of the tribe” (as we occasionally call ourselves, for those who don’t know) to stay home? Or perhaps a rabbi pushing down on a TNT charge, and bringing the WTC down? Of course not. They would never do this, and with good reason.
Likewise, whack jobs have been spinning conspiracy yarns for centuries about Jews baking matzo using the blood of gentiles, etc., but never would any media outlet think it was ok to make fun of such stupidity by showing Jewish men in kippahs snacking on flatbread made from the plasma of someone named Mikey O’Malley (for lack of a more authentic gentile name).
They would never ’satirize’ Holocaust denial, for example, by showing a cover with Jewish prisoners at Auschwitz, playing cards, or shuffleboard, as a way to show the absurdity and venality of those who claim there was no mass murder of Jews and that Auschwitz was “actually a pretty nice place, with an orchestra, for entertainment,” (a claim David Duke made several years ago, for example).
Even if it were an election season, and a Jewish candidate were in the race (as was the case for Lieberman as VP in 2000), there is simply no way that the New Yorker would have done a cover with Lieberman playing the role of a puppeteer, and say, pulling the strings of an Al Gore marionette, with, let’s say, an Israeli flag flapping in the background, as a way to satirize the buffoons who said things about how Joe L. was just a Zionist Manchurian candidate, brainwashed in shul to “destroy all goyim,” as one Nazi froot loop swore to me was true eight years ago.
Bottom line: hip white liberals don’t take chances at offending Jewish folks the way we will black folks or Muslims. And the reasons are simple:
1. Jews are a dangerous target to offend because we have more economic clout than folks of color and can punish anti-Semitic acts in ways that folks of color often can’t when the acts are racist, and,
2. Jewish suffering and pain is taken more seriously than the pain and suffering of other groups, and garners more sympathy, in large measure because it is the suffering of a people who are now thought of as white (wasn’t always the case but it is now by most folks). This is why no one ever worries that Holocaust Studies programs that focus on the Shoah (and it alone) will encourage Jews to develop a “victim mentality,” or cause us to “shirk personal responsibility for our community,” while Af-Am studies or Ethnic Studies programs that discuss the oppression of folks of color, and their struggles to overcome that oppression and define themselves in history, are met with constant cries of “PC” and concern that indeed, folks of color are being encouraged to think of themselves as permanent victims in such classes. Jewish pain counts, it seems, while black and brown pain does not. Jewish pain can be blamed on others (nasty Germans, for example), while black and brown pain is very much our shame in the U.S….so we can’t face it, or care the same way, or worry about offending folks of color, while we would never think of risking such offense with Jewish folks, for the most part.
Those of us who are Jewish should speak up and demand that the same standard of care be taken with other groups as is taken with us. What would be unacceptable when done to us, must be unacceptable when done to others.
And those of us who are Southern should probably use examples like this to point out that Northern racism, while perhaps more veiled and "hip" than that which comes from our part of the country, isn't any more acceptable for it.
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
RSS- Bookmark With:
m+ b+ says:
It's not racist, just different.
As someone who is every bit as sensitive to racism as you are, Mr. Wise, I assure you that sometimes satire is offensive and still satire. Often it is the best kind. The fact is that this cartoon has not perpetuated nor endorsed any particular racist image of the Obamas. Rather it has forced the incredible barrage of hidden racist imagery in the media to the absolute extreme and is making all of American media emphatically disavow it and any suggestion that they are drawing similar parallels. It has engaged the absurd attempts to equate everything Obama with every xenophobic, racist instinct and made every media head stand back and take a careful look at what they say or do.
This is exactly what the cartoon was intended to do. It's not playing into any media stereotype, it has tackled the stereotype head on and forced every person in America to disavow it or enjoin it. In the same vein as 'A Modest Proposal' the picture is incredibly offensive on the surface. The smallest amount of examination reveals that such a portrayal cannot be taken seriously because it is so absurd. Calling the New Yorker cover 'racist' is little different than calling a woman who accuses any man of misogyny a sexist.
Tim Wise says:
so please explain...
...why wouldn't the New Yorker, or any other media outlet, EVER do a satire of this kind, skewering absurd anti-Jewish bigotry, with pics of rabbis blowing up the WTC, or Lieberman, pulling Gore's strings with an Israeli flag behind him? Or prisoners at Auschwitz playing cards? All of those would also "engage the absurd attempts to equate everything" Jewish with evil and conspiratorial control, etc. But you and I both know good and well they would never do any of these...so there has to be a reason. I argue that the reason is, the media is willing to take a chance of being misunderstood and insulting black people, Muslims, or other folks of color, in ways they are not willing to do with others, such as those of us who are Jewish. So whether the intent is racist, the impact is seen as potentially so, in the case of Jews, and the mistake is never made, nor the satire engaged. But with folks of color or Muslims, either the impact is not seen as potentially racist, which is amazingly ignorant, or it is, but there is less concern about the pain it might cause...that too is racist. That was my point, and one which you seem to have missed in your attempt to justify a cover that is indefensible, and would never have a counterpart that did the same thing with Jewish folks
m+ b+ says:
You make two points which are not necessarily related
I didn't respond to the point you bring up because I don't particularly disagree with it, I just don't think it has much bearing on the other issue that you raised that I take issue with: that the New Yorker cover advances the Right Wing's agenda in smearing Obama with Fox News talking points.
The stigma against saying anything negative whatsoever about jewish people, Israel, AIPAC, etc. is very well doctumented, however, and not necessarily reflective of your argument, which, as I said before, I do not disagree with. I simply think you've completely missed the point of the New Yorker cover. I solidly believe it will do more good in forcing people in denial of their own racist and anti-muslim tendencies to confront those attitudes.
Frederic Christie says:
His Point Is The One That Matters
Let's say you're correct. Tim could easily be right that satirizing Nazis and anti-Semites in such a manner could have the same impact, yet the point is that there the people who'd be used as our political weapon have the clout to fight back if they're offended. Blacks don't. And it's exactly that wholesale ignorance of fundamental power differences that characterizes New York liberals.
Notice how you describe it as the "Right Wing's" agenda. As if Democrats and liberals played no part in racial or anti-Muslim agendas. As if it's only reactionary Republicans.
Frankly, I doubt that most whites of the group that Tim would be concerned about would pick up the New Yorker. But it DOES contribute to the backdrop of allegations and I am sure has already been used by some Horowitz-level ass to argue that "Even the Left knows that Obama's a terrorist!"
N Q says:
hidden racist imagery???
Hidden in plain view, maybe.
Andrew Oetzel says:
Unfair comparison . . .
Hey Tim,
While I half way agree with your overall point . . . that the cover was in bad taste. I think however your argument falls down when you make the comparison to Jewish issues and the Lieberman candidacy. Beyond some sort of Nazi sympathizer that you cite, no one was making overt claims of a Jewish conspiracy surrounding the Lieberman candidacy. Whereas with the Obamas major news organizations (NOT just Fox) have been making the suggestions that they are Muslims or terrorists or both. The Daily Show even did a comic montage of all of the various news agencies reporting on the rumors as part of its coverage of the New Yorker cover. Maybe if there had been rampant rumors and major news outlets reporting on the possibility of Lieberman being a Zionist Manchurian candidate the New Yorker might have run just such a cover as you describe. We'll never know because it wasn't at all a similar situation.
I think you are right to point out that overall anti-African American and anti-Muslim feelings are more permissible in American society in 2008 than Anti-Semitism. I honestly do think however that the folks at the New Yorker were reacting to that instead of taking part in it. They overplayed it and certainly underestimated the amount of outrage it would generate. (Another point that also undercuts one of your main points, but that’s another post.)
Just my 2 pennies.
Drew
Tim Wise says:
Actually....
your point only begs the question: why did the rumors, started by whack jobs, about Jewish conspiracies, not catch fire the way the Obama rumors did? In other words, you are right: the anti-Jewish rumors didn't have legs the way these against Obama have...but why not?
Secondly, if one wants to poke fun at the absurdity of these rumors, and not take any chance at being misunderstood (which is the kind of caution they would take with Jewish folks, but not folks of color or Muslims), one could always do a cover in which one caraicatured the PERPETRATORS of the rumors, as knuckle-dragging idiots, which they are, rather than caricaturing the TARGETS of the rumors. So, for instance, if any media outlet was going to satirize anti-Jewish conspiracies, they would picture klansmen or neo-Nazis, in appropriately unflattering ways, as a way to lambast THEM, rather than Jewish folks...they could have done the same here, and the fact that they didn't, is not, to me, a meaningless coincidence
Andrew Oetzel says:
Actually actually . . .
I think your rebuttal WAS my point. As I said above, you are quite right to point out the present currency of anti-black and anti-Muslim sentiments in American society. That being said, I don't think by second guessing the New Yorker's editorial choices you have found prima facie evidence of racism. Bad judgment certainly, but you haven’t made the case for racism.
That is not to say it couldn't be racism, just that the evidence you provide both in your main post and rebuttal is scant.
Tim Wise says:
Actually x3
...racism isn't determined by intent, but rather by impact. For example, even if poll taxes for voting hadn't been intended to disenfranchise blacks (but had merely had that effect, as if by coincidence), they still would have been racist. Standardized testing is racist and classist, irrespective of intent, because it furthers inequality. Likewise, humor of this kind is racist, regardless of intent, because it furthers a dominant racial framing of people of color, and can serve to reinforce racist thinking about people of color as "dangerous" and "exotic" and outsiders who are a threat to the established order. If people are ignorant and incapable of discerning irony--and sadly, that is true for most of us, an awful lot of the time--then the impact is not to get people thinking "my how ironic, how satirical" but rather to reinforce what polls suggest 15 percent of white folks already are willing to say they believe. Impact matters, intent is irrelevant. To the extent the cover merely keeps the discussion about Obama's Islamic connection alive as a centepiece of discussion, it harms him, because it allows for people to continue to wonder about it...it serves that function, regardless of intent. The impact is racist against this man as a man of color and religiously bigoted against Muslims generally (given the graphic linkage of Islam with fanaticism in the cartoon), and what they intended simply doesn't matter one whit.
It is also racist because the action was taken using a much lower threshhold than would have been used for other groups...in other words, the standard of care is different and less complete than with Jews, etc. That means that the New Yorker is willing to take the risk of being misunderstood or hurting people of color, in ways they wouldn't with other groups. That is racist in impact as well.
Andrew Oetzel says:
Intent vs. Impact, Cause vs. Symptom
First off I'd like to look at your assertion that impact only determines what is and isn't racism. And since you seem fond of Nazi examples, I've come up with a nice one. Swastikas as you know are not only symbols of the 3rd Reich but also potent religious symbols in many South Asian religions. So if a practicing Jane makes a vase covered with swastikas with the intent of honoring her religion, in your view, she would also be guilty of racism. This is of course an extreme example, but it makes the point that intent does matter. It's not exonerating in and of itself, but it does matter.
What I think is behind my basic objection to your first post and this reply is the focus on the effect and not the cause. For example, racist intent or no, standardized tests aren't the true cause of lack of achievement. By the time an underprivileged student takes the SAT she's already had 17 years of racist and classist educational and societal neglect to bring about a bad score. When we chose to advocate for changing the test or even abolishing the test we may be striking a blow against inequality, but are we really helping the core cause of the problem? Or are we providing a nice cover for the institutional and societal problems that lurk behind racist standardized tests?
In our present example, the New Yorker put a distasteful, controversial, and ill-conceived cartoon on its front cover. It can be argued that they were racist in their lack of consideration of how these satirical images might be seen and viewed beyond their own over-privileged and over-educated readership. But like the standardized tests above, this New Yorker cover is the symptom of a deeper problem. Unlike Fox News, the New Yorker had little to do with putting the ideas they were satirizing into the zeitgeist. So even if we were to obtain a full apology from the editors of the New Yorker with a special apologetic cover coming out next month, the racism spewed by Fox and echoed by the other television networks would continue. So maybe I'm right in thinking the editors of the New Yorker are stupid and insensitive but not racist, or maybe you are right in saying they are racists (and stupid and insensitive too I'm sure!) . . . but either way we're pointing our rhetorical guns in the wrong direction to truly solve or at least get society to look at the root cause of the issue. Luckily for us there are other folks who are!
Frederic Christie says:
Individual Instances Matter
"First off I'd like to look at your assertion that impact only determines what is and isn't racism. And since you seem fond of Nazi examples, I've come up with a nice one. Swastikas as you know are not only symbols of the 3rd Reich but also potent religious symbols in many South Asian religions. So if a practicing Jane makes a vase covered with swastikas with the intent of honoring her religion, in your view, she would also be guilty of racism. This is of course an extreme example, but it makes the point that intent does matter. It's not exonerating in and of itself, but it does matter."
She'd be guilty of incredible ignorance. ESPECIALLY if she made the mistake you did. The swastika is a REVERSED manji: It was designed to reverse the original intent as a representation of Surya, the sun. In Japan, manji are often depicted in manga and anime. When taken to America, they are routinely either censored or a disclaimer notice is put into the manga. This is all quite appropriate.
Remember that ignorance is in and of itself based in the capacity to BE ignorant. Blacks cannot be afford to be ignorant about racist symbols and warning signs, but whites can.
"What I think is behind my basic objection to your first post and this reply is the focus on the effect and not the cause. For example, racist intent or no, standardized tests aren't the true cause of lack of achievement. By the time an underprivileged student takes the SAT she's already had 17 years of racist and classist educational and societal neglect to bring about a bad score."
This is a silly argument. It's like saying that mortgage discrimination isn't why blacks are confined in poor neighborhoods, it's actually employment discrimination. Well, actually, it's both. That is, even kids who SURMOUNT the previous hurdles have numerous problems with the SAT, particularly the stereotype threat. Thus, the SAT functions as a racist gatekeeper, no matter how many other racist gatekeepers there are.
"When we chose to advocate for changing the test or even abolishing the test we may be striking a blow against inequality, but are we really helping the core cause of the problem? Or are we providing a nice cover for the institutional and societal problems that lurk behind racist standardized tests?"
We could do either or degrees of both depending on how our advocacy and tactics play out. That's moot to whether or not the SAT itself is racist, only as to the tactics we'll use to combat it.
"Unlike Fox News, the New Yorker had little to do with putting the ideas they were satirizing into the zeitgeist."
This is buck passing of the worst variety. It's like saying that if I make a racist joke, that racist joke is okay because in the background there's dozens more being said. Each has to be confronted and defeated in its own way. NAS illustrates the point: Don't give Fox a break, don't give the New Yorker a break.
Andrew Oetzel says:
lemme 'splain
Ok first off, my mistake. In spell checking my document I let MS Word change Jain to Jane . . . I was referring to a Jain not a Hindu. But no matter, let me give a few more examples to show how intent and not just impact matter.
Take for example the controversy over the use of the word niggardly in Washington DC back in 1999. An aide to the mayor in DC used the word in describing a budget item. Another person present heard the word as a racial slur and filed a complaint. Claiming he meant absolutely no racial slur in the use of the word, which is etymologically completely separate from the racial slur it resembles, the aide resigned anyway. Once it hit the general public there was a huge outpouring of support for the misunderstood aide, and even the president of the NAACP advocated that the aide be reinstated, which he was, in a different position. Intent always matters. As I stated above, intent is not the end of the discussion, but it cannot be ignored, and it certainly can't only be the impact of something that defines it.
I'm not passing the buck on the New Yorker. It's not at all "like saying that if I make a racist joke, that racist joke is okay because in the background there's dozens more being said." You have missed my point entirely in your rush to rebut it. Instead it's like telling a joke meant to make fun of racists but due to a clumsy telling coming off sounding racist instead. Is the joke teller guilty of racism automatically because they botched the joke? Probably not. Were they perhaps guilty of it in not thinking better of even trying to tell the joke at all? Perhaps. You seem to be saying that anything that can be misinterpreted as racism is racism, I just can't agree with that.
For instance what if the New Yorker cover had been two televisions, one labeled CNN and the other labeled Fox News. On the CNN television they depict the Obamas in the Oval Office dressed normally, and on the Fox television they depict the Obamas as they were on the cover dressed as a 70s Black Nationalist and a Muslim. This more directly aimed satire would also fail your test since any depiction of the Obamas in those outfits no matter what the context or the intent is always racism. I just can't buy that notion. Intent matters. Context matters.
As to cause vs. symptom, I stand by what I said. Mortgage discrimination is not separate at all from economic discrimination. It’s part of it. However, when we focus on mortgage discrimination we provide an easy fix and allow the public to think it’s doing right. “Look, we’ve outlawed mortgage discrimination, now we have color blind lending.” Never mind the fact that the harder to fix basic economic issues that underlie mortgage discrimination will continue unabated and unaddressed. In the same vein, all of us flipping out about how horrible and racist the editors of the New Yorker are (as much as I enjoy doing it), shines the light away from the true perps.
Now if only Nas's petition were getting as much attention as this was . . .
Frederic Christie says:
Stupidity Is Not An Excuse
Take for example the controversy over the use of the word niggardly in Washington DC back in 1999. An aide to the mayor in DC used the word in describing a budget item. Another person present heard the word as a racial slur and filed a complaint. Claiming he meant absolutely no racial slur in the use of the word, which is etymologically completely separate from the racial slur it resembles, the aide resigned anyway. Once it hit the general public there was a huge outpouring of support for the misunderstood aide, and even the president of the NAACP advocated that the aide be reinstated, which he was, in a different position. Intent always matters. As I stated above, intent is not the end of the discussion, but it cannot be ignored, and it certainly can't only be the impact of something that defines it."
But this is an incredibly silly example. The IMPACT of his speech was to offend almost no one, just one person who misheard. It clearly didn't contribute to a broader social scenario. There is a difference between being misheard and CONSCIOUSLY making a joke that plays on stereotypes.
"I'm not passing the buck on the New Yorker. It's not at all "like saying that if I make a racist joke, that racist joke is okay because in the background there's dozens more being said." You have missed my point entirely in your rush to rebut it. Instead it's like telling a joke meant to make fun of racists but due to a clumsy telling coming off sounding racist instead. Is the joke teller guilty of racism automatically because they botched the joke? Probably not. Were they perhaps guilty of it in not thinking better of even trying to tell the joke at all? Perhaps. You seem to be saying that anything that can be misinterpreted as racism is racism, I just can't agree with that."
That's neither Tim's nor my argument. Pay careful attention.
If I'm going to make a joke about racists and I'm going to make a joke about Jews to satirize Nazis (depicting them stealing money), inherently due to the way the power dynamics play out I am going to be stepping through far more minefields than if I do the same thing about blacks or Muslims.
Now, to even MAKE that choice, the choice the New Yorker made, is to be complicit in white privilege. Because the New Yorker had to know that if they DID inadvertently piss someone off, they weren't too likely to lose too many advertising dollars for it.
See the difference?
Your earlier argument WAS saying that due to the broader backdrop of racism, any individual misstep is unimportant. That was buckpassing and it's disingenuous to backpedal now. Your argument has been refined (I DO assume good faith on your part) to the idea that if due to the racist backdrop an ironic statement is misheard, then it's not your fault.
But why the hell isn't it?
If you consciously think about making a joke, as they undoubtedly did (since this is NOT a faux pas at a dinner party but cover art that had to be drawn and colored and put through editing and so forth, so they had plenty of time to think about it), and don't realize that the joke you're making, however well-intentioned, will have racist impact, YOU ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THE PROBLEM.
Are you as bad as a Nazi telling a joke? Maybe not. But the fact that a group like the New Yorker would go ahead and make the joke anyways, instead of going the much safer route and satirizing the type of person making the ridiculous allegations to Obama (and boy, are there some good satires there), shows that they are perfectly aware of how unable blacks are to fight back if they get offended. And it is THAT decision, not the decision to print the joke, that is racist.
The difference is that they didn't botch the joke. They did the joke right. It's just that the joke will be misheard, no matter how well it's told.
"As to cause vs. symptom, I stand by what I said. Mortgage discrimination is not separate at all from economic discrimination. It’s part of it. However, when we focus on mortgage discrimination we provide an easy fix and allow the public to think it’s doing right. “Look, we’ve outlawed mortgage discrimination, now we have color blind lending.”"
But that is true of absolutely ANY social change that doesn't immediately fix every problem in the world and thus is a fallacious argument from perfection. Even if we overturned racism, someone with Marxist or anarchist or leftist predilections like Tim and myself could easily argue that now we're being misled to thinking capitalism or statism are just. But that argument doesn't cut the mustard.
Think about it this way. If a movement gets up and says, "Mortgage discrimination is THE lynchpin issue. We solve it, we solve all of racism", and of course that turns out not to be the case, then not only will they have bred artificial contentment and cooption among those not paying attention, they'll have bred cynicism and renewed resistance to alternatives from those who do see the sham. And if the state manages to pacify or coopt the movement by granting this reform, same thing. But if the movement says vocally that mortgage discrimination is only the beginning, then leverages their victory in the mortgage discrimination field to enhance their resources and volunteers and hope, quite the opposite occurs.
Further, if a patient is too sick to fight off the cause, you have to treat symptoms. Aspirin is useful despite the fact that it doesn't solve the root cause of headaches. Similarly, social change that solves a symptom IS a good thing, even if it does nothing else.
Movements have had both trajectories. What trajectory NO movement has ever had, not once, is to skip all the hard work of social change and just jump right to the utopia. You have to begin where you are and use the right tactics to turn successes into momentum rather than complacency.
"For instance what if the New Yorker cover had been two televisions, one labeled CNN and the other labeled Fox News. On the CNN television they depict the Obamas in the Oval Office dressed normally, and on the Fox television they depict the Obamas as they were on the cover dressed as a 70s Black Nationalist and a Muslim. This more directly aimed satire would also fail your test since any depiction of the Obamas in those outfits no matter what the context or the intent is always racism. I just can't buy that notion. Intent matters. Context matters."
No, see, both Tim and I said CLEARLY that THAT would be fine. Because then it's clearly satirizing FOX. The question for you is: Why didn't the New Yorker make that simple, easy choice?
Is it because they were stupid? And do you want to let them off the hook for the type of stupidity and insensitivity that only privileged white folks can have?
Or is it because they made a CONSCIOUS choice to go for the "edgier" satire, the choice they NEVER would have made were the targets Nazis and Buchanan mocking Jews, because they knew that they could get away with it?
Either way, the New Yorker made a racist decision.
Yeah, intent matters and context matters. But drunk drivers don't intend to kill anyone. It's still no excuse.
Carol M says:
I believe impact holds more weight...
I know you have stated in your later posts that your INTENTION was not to pass the buck, but this last paragraph smells like pass-the-buckism. We can look at the root cause of the issue and look at this issue as well, both have succeeded in opening up half-baked dialogues about race in which blacks are pinned as too stupid/too sensitive/too whiny to differentiate racism from non-racism. Both have served the purpose of allowing white liberals and white conservatives to have a "racial bonding" moment and rant incessantly about how blacks play the "race-card" too much. The New Yorker's intentions are out the window, this moment now goes down into the White Nationalist Record Book as one more time where blacks have gotten "whiny" over "nothing". Courtesy, of New Yorker.
I have a very difficult time believeing that New Yorker didn't think they were skating on offensive thin ice or that their picture would be perfectly understood, and that it would serve the purpose of making fun of conservative views (without actually making fun of CONSERVATIVES in the picture). Regardless to what their intent was, they chose to make fun of the VICTIMS instead of the PERPS. That's comparable to someone making fun of sexists by showing a very sexist picture of a woman.... what good does it do? If sexists are sexist against women...how exactly is a SEXIST picture of a woman going to pull the chords of the sexist man? How is that going to make them look inside themselves and question their views? It's not. New Yorker's picture is epic failure to say the least, and has just surfaced back the racial tension that had calmed after Rev Wright. Not only that, but it served the purpose of reinforcing more stereotypes. I hate to meet the white conservative raised kid (who is exposed to NO black people) when they first saw that picture.
I don't think that the New Yorker's intent is relevant in this case. It had an effect that was not intended, but it darn sure had an effect...at the expense of Muslims and blacks. There is a cartoon called The Boondocks, that at first glance is HIGHLY offensive; upon reading the views of the creator, it becomes obvious that the creator of the television show had intended on it being a satirical cartoon that reveales issues in the black community (by using extreme versions of stereotypes). Shirley Q. Liquor is a gay man who does blackface in drag, he claims that his "intent" is to do God's work. He claims that making fun of black women was what God told him to do...his "intent" is his scapegoat, and when people oppose his blackface routine..he relies on his "intent" to keep people (mostly white) from calling him racist. No surprise, but using "intent" as an excuse goes over well with many people (not many seem to be racial or religious minorities, though). Both examples that I have used, perpetuate the most common stereotypes blacks have to endure, and BOTH of the people who perpetuate these stereotypes claim to not have malice in their heart...but honestly, what difference does that make? If my intention is to spread the word of God to a gay teen, and I (without malice) tell them that homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord and they BELIEVE me and internalize that view. Than what difference does it make for me to claim that I didn't "intentionally do it"? The least I could do is apologize for the mishap and harm that I caused the gay teen, similarly the LEAST New Yorker could do (I'm unaware of whether they have done this or not) is apologize for inadvertantly perpetuating more anti-black and anti-Muslim stereotypes.Most people classify spreading anti-black, anti-gay, anti-Muslim ect stereotypes as being racist/heterosexist/bigoted ect, but I suppose that is one of those "eye of the beholder" type things.
Frederic Christie says:
Boondocks Aren't SO Bad
I'm actually okay with the Boondocks. It's a show that takes radical assumptions to heart and undergirds it, with brilliant critiques of white privilege within it. I must admit I wince when I see some of the more extreme racial stereotypes. But the stereotypes are one thing when within the community (McGruder being black) and quite another when outside.
Carol M says:
Hmmm
I suppose it all depends on what angle you are looking at it from. Initially, I loved the Boondocks for the exact reasons you described, it shed light on issues that white people, collectively, seem to not want to hear, however...later in the series, the Boondocks went from "educational and funny" to "This is a Ni**a Moment". I also think that the audiences McGruder marketed to changed greatly. Originally, everyone from Larry Elder to white conservatives hated Aaron for his comic strip and his cartoon, however something happened. As the show progressed, it became more of a "take personal responsibility Black folk" cartoon instead of the cartoon it was before. One of the most bothersome cartoons of them all, for me, was the Hurricane Katrina episode. The Blacks on the show were portrayed as lazy bums who just wanted to "get they check" and mooch off of the government.
You are absolutely right, Blacks often times have "race talk" amongst themselves and call for "responsibility moments" (actually this happens a LOT) but this cartoon isn't all-in the family, so to speak...it's shown in conservative households where they ALREADY view Blacks as "thugalicious", Afrocentric, and non-productive. Huey makes wonderful points throughout the show, but I fear that his views are often over-looked by people who are not apart of the Black community, and instead they take notice to other things such as the incessant use of the n word that is said throughout the show.
Frederic Christie says:
I'm Not So Sure
Yeah, I must admit that its presence on Adult Swim means that it's likely to be targeting at least in part a lot of white college students and generally the white 18-35 demographic. Then again, this is nothing new for McGruder. He's constantly been on the most controversial edge of self-criticism for the black community. But I do think that a lot of the explicitly critical stuff from the comic has definitely been lost, which is a pity. Reading what was available of the strips on Adult Swim, there is DEFINITELY a massive juxtaposition with the daily radical information. And in interviews, McGruder has backpedaled from the politics, saying he's trying to provide entertainment.
I do have to say that it being shown in conservative households is mostly an accident. It's on UPN, which most conservatives won't go to unless they're paid to, and Adult Swim, which is a late-night cartoon broadcast and thus is only really interesting to the young demographic they target (otaku, college kids, etc.)
Among my mostly white friends, it's a mixed story. Most of them think Huey, Riley and Grandpa are awesome characters, which is definitely good. Some of them use the Boondocks to give a sort of cultural veneer to stereotypes. Then again, the average impact that I've seen has been overwhelmingly positive. They'll hold those stereotypes no matter how many PSAs we throw at them that say that the stereotypes are horseshit. What the Boondocks has managed to do is make thoroughly black characters into REAL people. Maybe flawed people, maybe even satires of people, but at least real, relatable people. For example, the episode with Thugnificence moving in ended up showing that underneath the rap and glitter, Thugnificence WAS trying to be reasonable to his neighbors and it was actually Riley at fault for a substantial portion of the friction. Gin and Rummy are brilliant satires of Bush and Cheney as well as the general politics of white privilege. The episode with the X-Box Killer was very good with this: A black man wrongly accused, an implicit criticism of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc. And the satire of some of the over-the-top sexuality and masculinity of rappers being homoerotic was also brilliant.
I think that at the end of the day, the Boondocks does give some ammo to those already predisposed to have stereotypical views. But there is no shortage of ammo in daily media. Those who don't will recognize the Katrina moochers and such as a satire of the stereotypes from within the black community. Meanwhile, the show opens up a lot of issues within the black community and I think really makes the culture accessible to outsiders (Chappelle's Show did something similar). And its critiques are just spot on. In general, Adult Swim tends to lean liberal or even radical in its presuppositions and arguments. And since it's an explicitly POLITICAL show, it also helps to counter apathy by making politics entertaining. Bringing people to the table is probably the most important thing a show can do. I think that if Huey became much more anvilicious with his points, it'd simply turn off a lot of viewers.
The show's second season, I'm afraid, did something worse for me: It started drifting away from politics. The episodes with Stinkmeaner's Return and with Soul Plane 2 are brilliant and funny, with gorgeous martial art scenes, but most of the season abandoned much political criticism at all, bad or good. I think THAT'S the problem.
There has definitely been a rightward drift in McGruder's work, though. Pretty predictable...
James Morney says:
Very eye-opening essay
I must say that you have a truly wonderful gift when it comes to dissecting bogus defenses offered for racism. I only found out about you just a couple of months ago and have been captivated by some of your essays as well as youtube videos.
I agree whole-heartedly with this essay. As another example, one could play the hypothetical game if Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic Party nomination. Women are often stereotyped as being weak and female politicians are thus often stereotyped as not being strong enough to be a commander-in-chief. On a side note, I think that's probably why Hillary refused to apologize for her Iraq war vote when it was clear that Obama was garnering the support of the anti-Iraq War crowd. The Republican Party would have portrayed her (as they are trying to do with Barack Obama) as wanting to surrender, cut and run, and embrace defeat. Could you imagine a New Yorker cover aimed at "debunking" the stereotype of female politicians being weak on military using Hillary? I guess they would have a picture of her bending over grabbing her ankles while military leaders of other countries are standing in line outside of the room waiting to come in. The New Yorker would probably be shut down if they published something like that because it would obviously be sexist.
Please keep up the great work. There aren't enough advocates in this country like yourself.
Bruce Cohen says:
You Gotta Love Racist White New York Liberals
No, really, I don't. As a Jew, a left-wing progressive, and a person who dislikes bigotry of any kind, I've been dealing with "liberals" like the ones who decided that cover was a good idea for more decades than I like to think about, and I still boggle every time I see see that sort of clueless "satire". How anyone can grow up in the US and not be aware of the extent of white privilege and lack of sensitivity to non-white lack of privilege and its consequences is something I've never understood, though I've had the truth of it jammed in my face many times.
Only a couple of days ago a person I'm fond of whose intelligence and learning I respect succeeded in bringing a discussion about this subject to the point where most of the participants left rather than continue. No amount of clear and cogent explanation would get him to see that he was causing a number of people of color a great deal of distress and anger by insisting that reactions to that sort of casual racist remark were "too sensitive" and "counterproductive". Needless to say I'm not as fond of him as I once was.
It's clear to me, and to a lot of people I know, both persons of color and white people, that there is an implicit hierarchy of privilege and of the right not to be harmed physically and emotionally by others in this country. Until this fact becomes part of the consensus view of our society, we'll never get past it, and America will remain a racist society.
Stockton ToMalone says:
I have only recently been
I have only recently been introduced to your work Mr. Wise, and I must say, I am very, very impressed, and thankful for your contributions. Thank you.
William Branch says:
It's a juggling act...
...taking advantage of what one perceives as an opportunity to slam the people who harbor notions that lead them to take discriminatory actions against people of color (voting against Obama, for instance), while taking care not to hurt the feelings of pocs.