Satire? I’m Not Laughing.

By Jonathan Adams

I don’t read the New Yorker as often as I should because, as Seth Wessler puts it, the magazine “pegged for postgraduate degreed liberals and post-political hipsters” can be a little verbose and pretentious. But I don’t think you need rockabilly glasses to see that this perpetuation of ignorance is not satire, but perverse and irresponsible.
The New Yorker knew that the magazine would cause an uproar. Obama’s campaign is condemning the cover as “tasteless and offensive.”
To submit a letter in response to a New Yorker article for publication by the magazine, you may send an e-mail to themail@newyorker.com.

Jonathon, you are so kind.

You say that the cover is "perverse and irresponsible". I feel that we have arrived at that point in history, when what I term that 'polite social speech', that we have corraled our tongues to offer in order to be included in the conversation, just 'ain't gonna get it' anymore.

Now is the time to, with compassion, frankly and clearly speak our truth.

As a woman of African descent, I see the cover as a clear tool of propaganda.

I see the New Yorker Editors choosing to create an image that absolutely leaves a first impression of horror and fear within the minds of the masses of white Americans, as well as those non-white Americans that live from the dominant culture's way of viewing the world.

Now the fact that the editors and staff thought they could disguise their covert racism and bigotry by labeling "....their cover (as)is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create", is an attempt to hide behind something so onerous that if we persist in speaking politely, and calling it 'simply irresponsible', ...well, then they've been successful.

However, if we call a spade a spade, then why don't we intelligent conscious human beings, working to harmoniously exist in our communities, in this nation and in the world, declare to them that we see their devious intention to divide and promote fear and revulsion?

In fact, that's a good point for debate. They see it as political satire. We do not. We understand why they might want to label it such, but do they understand why we see it as more than that? As we're talking about race alot these days, these are the points of discussion that add to a deeper understanding of people and their feelings. This is an example of what the conversation needs to include today.

If we tell them we refuse to laugh with them, at this critical evidence, of the ugly putrid cesspool from which their thinking and creativity emerge, we can help them to see themselves and their actions for what they are.

They are not contributing anything positive to the dialogue. They are purposely muddying the waters, to make sure that good hearted people will not be able to make a clear minded decision.

I appreciate one of their writers, Mr. Seymour Hersh.

But other than his articles, for the most part, with it's subtle arrogant and pretentious editorial line, The New Yorker fosters and contributes significantly to the prisons of delusion that hold the American people from experiencing the presence of wholeness and the joy of simply Being.

For New Yorkerphiles,-'postgraduate degreed liberals and post-political hipsters' these are foreign concepts.

Kentke

WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's campaign says a satirical New Yorker magazine cover showing the Democratic presidential candidate dressed as a Muslim and his wife as a terrorist is "tasteless and offensive."

The illustration on the issue that hits newsstands Monday, titled "The Politics of Fear" and drawn by Barry Blitt, depicts Barack Obama wearing sandals, robe and a turban and his wife, Michelle, dressed in camouflage, combat boots and an assault rifle strapped over her shoulder — standing in the Oval Office.
The couple is doing a fist tap in front of a fireplace in which an American flag is burning. Over the mantel hangs a portrait of Osama bin Laden.
"The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."
In a statement Monday, the magazine said the cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are."
"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover," the New Yorker statement said.
The statement also pointed to the two articles on Obama contained inside the magazine, calling them "very serious."
In Arizona, Republican John McCain said the cover was "totally inappropriate and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would find it offensive."
Already the cover was generating controversy on the Internet.
The Huffington Post, a left-leaning blog, said: "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."
___
On the Web: http://www.newyorker.com

http://www.racewire.org/

http://www.colorlines.com/