The New Yorker's Fear of a Black President

As someone who wrote "Getting Whitey: Michelle Obama's Secret Negro Agenda" satirizing the right's twisted vision of the aspiring black first couple, I understand what New Yorker cartoonist Barry Blitt was trying to accomplish with his now-notorious cover art. However, he did it poorly, and in doing so, he advanced the point-of-view he tried to satirize instead of deflating it.

In his own defense, Blitt told Huffpo's Nico Pitney:

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

If only Britt had depicted the concept. Instead, he simply parrots the concept with no context. He parrots the concept; and parroting is not parody. For instance, had he depicted a right-wingish figure seeing the regular couple as the Muslim/militants he depicted, he would have achieved his aim. We would have seen the reality, and seen how certain individuals choose to twist it. Instead, he offers the right-wing narrative with no context whatsoever -- thereby reinforcing it.

The kind of double-barreled image true parody would have required is difficult to pull off. What Britt provided was comparatively easy. But it's hard to believe that the editorial staff of the New Yorker did not see this straight depiction of Obama and his wife as militant/Muslim terrorists for the Red State red meat that it is.

There seem to be two possibilities. The first: they truly find the idea depicted in the image so ridiculous that they couldn't conceive of anyone taking it seriously. However, if that were the case, there'd be no need for the satire in the first place. Attempting to satirize it acknowledges the idea's prevalence.

The other possibility is that somewhere, deep in the recesses of their upper east and west side white minds, lurks a restive "fear of black." To provide such an image without context is to accept its message to some degree. No similar cartoon would have ever appeared about a white candidate.

Where is the drawing of the left's vision of John McCain as an adulterous gold digger, with McCain hiding his current wife behind his first wife's hospital bed curtain? That analogous image would never appear on a New Yorker cover.

There was probably no conscious malice here -- just laziness and latent "fear of black."

Comments

[DarthVector]

Just something I noticed...

Bill O'Reilly telling his Fox viewers that Obama would be justified in being offended by this cartoon...

... All those Fox viewers getting the idea "This is wrong" implanted in their heads by O'Reilly...

... Could this have the unexpected effect of shutting these stupid ideas down in the campaign discourse?

A hope, which I hope is true... time will tell.

[eden4barack08]

Precisely as I've been saying, it's like a joke that delivers the punch but is missing the line.
It doesn't reach as far as it should, or it's not subtle enough.

[kellysmalltowngirl]

Long ago, in 1985, I took a literature class on satire in which I learned that satire, by definition, must offend. All art, whether visual, literary, musical, dance, etc., is an attempt to express a viewpoint and is open to interpretation. Satire often points out the follies of all because those who are offended are those who interpret it to be insulting to them.

[StephenDedalus82]

When we were instructed to read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in school, we were not told it was satire. It was easy to mistake it for a serious treatise. Good satire is not obvious but subtle. The cover is over the top; anyone who believes it represents reality is truly an idiot, and they deserve to be mocked by the New Yorker.

On the contrary, the fear is not of a black president (by this quite progressive magazine), but of stepping on the toes of the racially sensitive. It's fear of repercussion for any criticism or satire of Obama. During the primary many Hillary supporters felt this sting--every action that displeased Obama or his supporters could be labeled racist, the ultimate conversation stopper. The irony was that racism is so taboo, so forbidden, while sexism enjoys so a full and healthy a life in the public conversation that you were ridiculed not for being sexist but for calling sexism out.

Obama thinks he must respond to every tidbit of potential negativity in the media. It has caused him not only to come across as an entitled whiner, but his campaign's own actions draw far more attention to the incidents than they would have had in the first place.

Let the New Yorker print whatever it damn well pleases. It's still a free country, whether Obama's wittle feelings are hurt or not.

[larry278]

Could the NEW YORKER in 2009 emulate the LITERARY DIGEST of 1936-37?

[barackobama4prez]

Thank you. I was so mad earlier..but I realize that my anger doesn't help anything. Only thing I can hope is that this cover doesn't hurt O's chances.

[Turningfool]

Leonce, the thing about satire is that it stops being satire and becomes heavy-handed moralizing if it is made too obvious. One person's subtle may be another's obvious. One the one hand the author risks people not getting it and thinking the message is the opposite of what is intended. On the other hand, the risk is insulting the audience by suggesting that they have to be told, "Hey, here is the way you are supposed to see this." Your suggestion about visually adding that it is the viewpoint of a certain anti-Obama bigot would do the latter. Good satire requires some courage, since some of its audience has to miss the point, and be offended: if at least some part of the audience does not take it seriously, or at least be uncertain whether to take it seriously, it is not very good satire. Considering that the audience is readers of the New Yorker, I'd say the artist got it about right.

[belikejeanvaljean]

I'm glad someone gets it.

The magazine says it is satirizing not the Obamas, but the people who lie about them.

The problem is, they haven't caricatured the liers, but rather their victims, the Obamas.

Caricaturing a victim is neither amusing nor perceptive satire. It is merely taking the easy path by depicting the lies that have been told. True satire would caricature, for example, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh ridiculously spewing these hateful lies about the Obamas.

To draw a satiric caricature of a victim is 180 degrees off the mark. You don't satirize the KKK by drawing a parody of a black man that depicts the stereotypes they promote. You satirize them by showing how idiotic THEYare acting.

There is a difference, and that is why this cover is so offensive. The people running the New Yorker need to apply for jobs at Mad Magazine.

[DallasMike]

Once again the liberal press are bringing up race again.
For a party that claims to be tolerant you guys can't get off the race card.

[ohboynotagain]

Martina1965, after reading your post it's obvious you just don't get it. What point were you trying to make anyway? How did you turn this cover discussion into a rant about not agreeing with Obamas policies? I believe the New Yorker was addressing the issues with fear mongering so again you lost me. Perhaps you should take that stuff to CNN

[martina1965]

That's O.K., I'll explain. I was trying to make a point that, in my opinion, it is ridiculous to explain anything said or written about Obamas, which is not straightforward, by "latent fear of black" or racism. That is fear-mongering, not to mention hypocritical.

[Petey]

Regular New Yorker readers recognize this underplayed style of humor -- what you call "parroting" -- as their normal sensibilities. And like all serious artists, the magazine is less concerned with political efficacy (which is unpredictable anyway) than with artistic expression that is truthful to its sensibilities.

The cover is true to their longstanding droll style. Most of their covers hold a mirror to an aspect of culture and are worth mulling over. It's not their job to get Obama elected -- although I doubt this cartoon will do any harm in that regard.

[JimR]

I like the New Yorker, and fully support their right to satire whatever and whomever they want, but they misfired on this one. It wasn't clear what their point was. It was missing something.

[Marcee]

I agree with your take on The New Yorker's record of underplayed humor. They have been known for that since the mid 1920's, and in most cases, it is delightful. However, what you miss is this cover is based on lies and rumors that you and I understand, but many Americans in the towns and byways of this country may not. In their July cover selection, The New Yorker was very naive giving far too much credit to the intelligence of the masses. In fact, the magazine demonstrated they are desperately out of touch with what is happening out there in the real world where a July 13 online poll by WorldNetDaily.com showed 60% of the respondents found that "The image isn't too far from the dangerous truth about the Obama family." The magazines insular New York sensibility served as a serious disadvantage this time and may have done some serious harm that you don't seem to acknowledge.

[levibatgirl]

Great point.

[calluna]

Please. Like every other publisher in this wretched economy, all the New Yorker fears is sagging sales, and this is the type of cover that will help them sell a few extra copies. I don't really think it goes much deeper than that.

The actual article -- which is up on the mags website -- is quite good. I'd recommend a lot of the people here stop judging the book by its cover, so to speak, and give it a read.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza

[robynuva]

Satire would have been a cartoon of the idiots that progogate the lies regarding O. This was not satire. Also, If you have to explain the joke, it's not funny.

This was racist and stupid.

[martina1965]

Yes, but isn't The New Yorker and its audience supposed to be the most eager Obama supporters? You know, well-educated high-income people? And if, according to you, they have a deep fear of a black president, then who isn't? Anyway, I think it is time to stop accusing everyone who critisizes or laughs at Obama of "hidden fears" or racism. He is not even a president yet! Before we know it, it will be French president or Japan prime-minister with "deep fear of black president "of USA if they won't agree with his politics.

[paul15260]

Then you don't understand racism.