On this episode of The Gay Agenda, VisibleVote08.com's Jennifer Vanasco and Jon Mallow give their opinions on the cover of this week's New Yorker magazine.
The Obama caricature is stirring up controversial conversation everywhere. See what Jen and Jay have to say about it from a gay point of view.
The Gay Agenda July 18, 2008
Submitted by
on July 18, 2008 - 9:00am.
Sad but true
God, We're Becoming a Nation of Dolts
Let's avoid the use of satire or irony to express ourselves. We should always stoop to the lowest common denominator lest we not be understood.
This might hurt the election because people who didn't think Obama was a terrorist might now be swayed by an illustration.
H.L. Mencken once said of democracy, "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."
Let's do away with allusion, metaphor, and any form of creative expression to please the people who are incapable of independent, original, critical thought.
Oh the world is a scary place for the literalists.
Not Above Criticism
I have to agree with Jon..
I have to agree with Jon. So many people believe all these things that The New Yorker portrayed on the cover. They really do. And it can't be ignored. The Obama campaign needs to address this, and in this way The New Yorker cover brought it up and did so early enough in the campaign that it can be dealt with.
Democratic candidates rarely fight back or address those issues that are there but unspoken. Remember the Swift Boat campaign... Kerry's campaign seemed so offended (rightly so) that they did virtually nothing about it. Democrats can't have another unapproachable, humorless candidate that isn't willing to engage.
There are some people who are just racist and you can't do anything about it. These people are never going to vote for Obama. But for those who are uninformed.. I think that talking about the subject, engaging people, and realizing that there is a problem early in the campaign is a good thing.
And really, we can't act according to the lowest common denominator. Anyone who believes that the image is an accurate depiction of the Obama's is just scary. Let's not be afraid to talk, debate and be challenged.
To be offended by the
To be offended by the cartoon itself, is to misinterpret it. It's a piece of satire lampooning the depiction of the Obamas by the media at large, not the Obamas themselves.
Like the others above have stated, the real cause for sadness here--more so than the mass literal understanding of a completely satirical image--is the reality that, while some would claim it no longer exists, racism maintains its hold on so many American citizens and institutions.
Yuppie Liberals
Sorry if that's an offensive term, but I'm trying to make a point.
I grew up low-income, you're typical blue-collar Democrat. I have at times been frustrated by the divide and how far out of touch upper-class "college educated" Democrats can be.
This is not the first time I've seen this kind of academic satire go horribly wrong. I get where the New York Post was trying to go with this, but it ended up being stupid. Those folks can be the dumbest smart people. They think this is an exaggeration, sarcastic, or ironic. It is none of the above. And that's why it's not funny.
This is how a lot of Americans actually see the Obamas where I am. They are not some mythical group of people living in some mythical rural area with shotguns and cowboy hats. I know them personally. I work with them. They are the ones laughing at it because they see it as upholding their views. This is not unlike the shit they forward me in emails. (At work no less. Sometimes I gotta say "Hey, don't forward political stuff to your clients, because not everyone in South Carolina is a Republican!")
The New York Post was trying to present an exaggeration of the way some view the Obamas, and they failed because they don't realize that they actually portrayed how those people view the Obamas literally. Democrats like myself are in the thick of it, and we're the ones trying to win the face-to-face arguments and set the record straight.
In order to successfully satirize something, you need to have an understanding of where the literal reality lies. Please just leave the satirizing of middle-class conservative views to South Park and Family Guy.
And for the record, I don't think Obama is himself out of touch. He was spot on with the clinging to guns and religion and antipathy towards people who are different. Describes my neighbor perfectly. He pissed people off because it was the truth, and they know it.
The New Yorker
I get the points you made. There's just one glaring thing. The magazine was The New Yorker, NOT The New York Post. These two print media are on very different ends of the political spectrum.
The New York Post is a daily newspaper which is owned by the same guy that owns FOX, Rupert Murdoch. If the New York Post had put the illustration of the Obamas on its front page, believe you me it would not be meant as anything approaching satire. The Post as it's known in New York often reads like a newsletter for the KKK. It is to the far right.
The New Yorker is a weekly magazine that discusses art, culture, politics and whatever is current both in New York and around the globe. It has superb writers and journalists such as Seymour Hirsch to writers who do puff pieces on celebrity gossip. I haven't read it in a while, but the views it expresses go from center to left.
eh sorry
GrrrlRomeo Speaketh the truth!
Man, thanks for breaking it down like you did. I think you are right on point and I really appreciated your insights. You really hit on what makes satire work and why this bit did not work effectively as a satirical piece.
And King of the Hill
That one's my personal favorite on that front.
Indoctrinating young people into the underground pink pistol packing group of lower socioeconomic status in order to cause harm since 2008.
New Yorker not the New York Post
I think it's spot on. And very funny. If the literalists of the world can't understand it or don't get it, then that's their problem.
I refuse to accept that we should further dumb down the world just so the literalists of the world feel comfy. How about we raise standards instead of lowering them?
And please, if there are Americans who actually think Obama is some kind of terrorist, and an illustration reaffirms it for them, then I feel very sorry for this nation indeed.
Thanks grrlromeo and
Dear Jay,
Duh. You could have asked any Black person I know and found that out way before reviewing the Poll of Ignorance. (Another sign of the ills of this society is when most people feel more confident in what they find out from the foolish than the words of those who are well acquainted with them. )
If you need help understanding: It's like when in a conversation, White people bring up slavery for no reason or find a reason to say the N word (there is never a valid reason to say that word) and when they're called on it, contend that it was a joke. Really, do people say the K word and make draw "satirical" cartoons depicting the Sho'ah and pretend to be surprised when someone is offended? No.
The fact that anyone can use this kind offensive image of a monority and expect to be able to downplay it is just a sign of that minority's current position in society, not an indicator of the minority group's abiltiy to understand literary devices or "take a joke." But it's not surprising that people are arguing about this. Even during slavery and the 1960's, the Dominant group thought that race-relations were A-okay, and just last year, White college students were having Blackface parties, you know, as a "joke," as satire, if you will.
Something to think about.
**********************************************************************
Indoctrinating young people into the underground pink pistol packing group of lower socioeconomic status in order to cause harm since 2007.