Why The New Yorker Shouldn’t Have Published That Cover
| July 17th, 2008This is something I just wrote in a comment, but I thought maybe I should “promote” it to a post.
That someone might see this cover at a newsstand and think “hey, this magazine I know nothing about is literally saying that the Obamas will burn American Flags in the Oval Office fireplace” doesn’t concern me. All that says to me is that “there are some idiots out there, and some of them will glance at this cover,” which is something I can live with.
On the other hand, I am bothered by the idea of Black, Muslim, and Black Muslim readers seeing this cover on newsstands, and understanding the satiric intent, but nonetheless feeling “othered” by it. Since I the cover is pretty weak tea anyway, I wish The New Yorker hadn’t published it, because the negative result — contributing to the othering of Blacks and Muslims — seems to me to outweigh both the cover’s good points.
July 17th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Yeah, that’s generally what I think as well, especially this quote:
Well put.
This comment was written by Jack Stephens.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Among other things because it implies being Muslim is a bad thing to be — something that fits into the category “slur.”
I mean, that’s obviously not the cartoon’s main intention, but it remains a political reality that exists at this point in time. Charges of being Muslim should be neutral, not an attack — it should be baffling why anyone would even bother to make them.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Gee, that’s funny. You had no problem with Doonesbury’s “black sugar.” Go figure.
This comment was written by sh.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Mandolin - that’s what’s been so mystifying to me, from this distance
I’m not convinced that the cartoon in itself does imply that being muslim is a bad thing to be. But the reaction to the cartoon has. By condemning portraying , in the language that people have (and just as concerning to me, by condemning portraying Michelle Obama as a radical black liberationist/black panther) that implies that these things are unacceptable.
To me the reaction is as ‘othering’ as anythign else. As it seems to be saying “how dare you portray these people like this, they are not like this they are normal.”
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Doesn’t condeming the portrayal of these things when they are not true imply only that lying about these things is unacceptable?
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
But, then it comes back to the bears in the woods cartoons. It’s not supposed to be true, most cartoons don’t represent the exact truth (I hear there are no such things as witches or trolls). To say it’s not true, doesn’t explain why the depiction would other those for whom it is true.
This comment was written by Maia.Report this comment to the moderators