Furor Over New Yorker Cover
| July 15th, 2008 | Crossposted from The Blog and the BulletShineThePath blogs on the latest controversy involving the Obama campaign and the New Yorker:
So why has the The New Yorkers’ cover art coming under heavy criticism when it simply is poking fun at all the right-wing racist attacks against the Obamas? Attacks which the Obama campaign had to create their own website to defend themselves from the campaign. They’ve had to tell you his father wasn’t a Muslim, he was an Atheist. That he, himself, didn’t go to a Madrassa. He threw his pastor under the boss for the sake of appearance, had to to denounce Louis Farrakhan, had to tell Black fathers in Bill Cosby-esque “get-your-shit-together” patriarchal uncle tom tone to be personally responsible just to seek the approval of white America. The reason why the Obama camp is trying to squash The New Yorker cover article is to really get rid of race from the agenda of discussion in this campaign altogether. Obama doesn’t want race brought up, and he sees it as only a harmful element in his campaign. So rather than dealing with race and white supremacy, he has only talked about a post-racial society.
[Hat Tip: Mike E.]
July 16th, 2008 at 1:43 am
In all the election talk that has gone on white prilvilege has been the elephant in the room that is never discussed. This of course is what allows the New Yorker to feel that under the supposed guise of an ally that it is acceptable to print the cartoon that it did. We are under the illusion that we are having a conversation when actuality it is a one sided lecture. Barack speaks about personal responsibility to blacks without ever really challenging the system that impoverishes in the first place. Obama needs to come across to the white population as suitably passive otherwise he will be labeled similarly to his wife as an angry black man. That the anger might be legitimate is not even considered. I kind of think of it as the malcom/martin split…Martin Luther King is praised because he pushed a doctrine of turning the other cheek and non-violence whereas Malcolms by an means necessary (which btw did not necessarily imply violence) to this day is still consider angry black rhetoric by many supposed white liberals. To validate the feeling of POC white liberals need to acknowledge not only racism but the ways in which they continue to benefit from racism. We cannot always play passive to suite a white agenda it is often times counter to our needs as a people. It is time to get real about the state of this world, and speak truth to power.
This comment was written by Renee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Kevin Moore has a different theory about why Obama’s statement indicated he didn’t get the cover.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Furor, not furror. Tract, not track.
I’m going to start sending you invoices.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 9:45 am
I corrected the spelling of “furor.”
However, I don’t see the word “track” here, except in “trackback.” So I don’t think I’ll be sending you a check this week. (Otherwise, I definitely would have sent you a bazillion dollars!)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 10:00 am
In your post about the racist Mexican comic, you say it’s not a “KKK track”. Ooh, extra invoice now.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Should that not be “furore”? I mean, if we’re being pedantic, ought we not to use the spelling closer to the Latin?
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 10:55 am
No, it’s spelled “tract” in the Memin post. You must have misread it.
(Walks away, whistling innocently.)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I’m a little confused at the report that Obama threw his pastor under the Boss for the sake of appearance. Is there some sort of prestige to be gained from such an action? And what does Bruce think of the matter?
This comment was written by Bjartmarr.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
No, it’s spelled “tract” in the Memin post. You must have misread it.
I have inadvertently committed thoughtcrime. Please forgive me, big brother.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Wow. Why not call him an Oreo and have done with it?
Amp, I can’t believe you’re letting this kind of nonsense be linked to here, even aside from the juvenile yay-for-Marx stuff.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 16th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Juvenile Marx stuff? I’m not sure what you mean by that as there are plenty of non-juvenile Marxist out there. You have the very respectable Dr. David Harvey, a pioneering geographer and social theorist, you have Ernest Mandel, one the best heralded socialist theorists in the 20th century, and Dr. Franz Hinkelammert a respect economist from Costa Rica. So, I’m slightly confused by your “juvenile” comment as all movements have their juvenile cheerleaders from them, libertarians, socialists, democrats, greens, etc., etc.
This comment was written by Jack Stephens.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Aside from the opportunity to name drop, what was the point of that? I was obviously referring specifically to that website.
And you’re right, “juvenile” was the wrong word. I should’ve used “adolescent”.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 11:45 am
I guess as a one of the writers of the “juvenile” Marxist blog, I should perhaps comment a bit.
The speech by Obama on father’s day fit perfectly every promise of patriarchal moralism that a white supremacist America loves to dig. I am not sure what, quite frankly, can be any more fulfilling of what I indeed said. Talk about “personal responsibility” while playing down the systematic inequalities and national oppression that are presented by this system is purely the talk of a white chauvinism.
Maybe Obama is a smoother spokesman of that nonsense than ‘ghost dad’ Bill Cosby, but it is the same bullshit.
This comment was written by ShineThePath.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Yeah… See, if you very narrowly define something and only notice the facts and conditions which support your belief, you’re going to come out on top every time.
How fulfilling it must be to be able to escape the pesky grasp of those nasty, inconvenient facts.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Mike, you’re no longer making an argument. You’re just being insulting. Please support your assertions in the future.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Ok, Mandolin. Will you apply the same standard to ShineThePath?
From my POV, it’s legit; STP is treating the situation as the expression of his Marxist views. In that respect, he is focussing solely on them as expressions of a “class” rather than individuals; by ignoring them as individuals and thus denying their agency except as the expression of a larger historical dialectic trend, he is focussing on the stuff which is supportive of his greater philosophy while ignoring that which undermines it. IOW, narrowly defining something and only noticing the facts and conditions which support his belief.
What’s that old saw about only having a hammer?
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
I’m not going to respond to rules lawyering, Mike. When you make arguments on this site, you will support them, or you’ll be asked to leave.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Arguing for fairness and equivalency by local authority figures in the matter of the behaviour of someone enjoying special local status and his cadre is rules lawyering?
And, well, puh-lease. If not supporting an argument were sufficient to have someone sent away, you’d be fresh out of commenters.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Mike, we really don’t appreciate people just coming in to insult others. And the mod warning was met with… basically trolling. This is a warning. Do it again and I’m banning you.
(Also, yes, it’s rules lawyering to say “nuh uh, your rule doesn’t apply, he did it first.”)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Noted. And when you see me coming in just to insult, you’ll have my contrition. As it is, the insult was the cheery on the cake; a nice and interesting addition, but a sideline to the main event.
That’s your prerogative, even if you do choose to abuse it.
By the way, what’s your definition of trolling? At the moment it seems like “doing something the mod doesn’t like”. Marxist-baiting by telling them that their arguments don’t work doesn’t fall under trolling by the usual definition thereof; but, you know, might makes right and all that.
Ah, OK. I’ll make sure not to ask about consistency again, in that case.
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Mike,
It is possible to operate here as a dissident voice, but you’re going to have to be a lot smarter about it. Getting into an argument with Mandolin isn’t going to help you.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 1:56 am
No, mike, an argument that says “you ignore facts” without specifying how, what facts, citing proof of those facts, and etc. is in fact JUST an insult. There’s no argument there. You are the only poster on this thread to do that, and you show no willingness to mitigate your behavior.
It is trolling to show up, insult people without basis, ignore the moderator, and throw a tantrum that calls the thread to a halt.
Hence, goodbye.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Not pedantic enough for my taste.
“Furor” is Latin: “furor” is the nominative, “furore” the ablative. We take the word from Italian, however, which, for reasons best known to philologists, maintains Latin singular nouns in their ablative form.
This comment was written by Tom Nolan.Report this comment to the moderators