The New Yorker Doesn't "Feed" The Stereotypes. It EXPOSES THEM TO DAYLIGHT. Exactly What's Necessary

[KittyWampus]

Too many DU'ers want to keep those stereotypes in the dark, whispered behind our backs. Sent in emails but then hushed up. OMG! They're saying nasty things about Obama...

The smears the Rightwing is pushing about Obama need to be exposed to daylight. We can't pretend they don't happen or refuse to have them aired. We need to shove them into the Right wingers faces on a daily basis.

In fact, DU'ers reaction to that cover is 180 degrees against what needs to happen.

Embrace the cover and utilize it to our/Obama's advantage. It's showing the stupidity of the smears for what they are.

Look at the expression of Obama in that line drawing. He's looking directly out at the viewer with an expression that reads to me "can you believe this shit"?

This is a lot like during the primaries when Clinton supporters used Obama's middle name "Hussein" when referencing him.

Some DU'ers freaked out. And the Reactionary Screamer tendency was to complain about it. Like pretending that wasn't his name was going to work? Or hoping people would stop using it and mentioning it?

Yeah, they were trying to feed into bigotry by using the name Hussein. But the appropriate PROACTIVE strategy is to embrace the name "Hussein" and make it become so mundane it looses most of it's sting as a smear by becoming banal. Hence the kids who adopted Hussein as their middle name.

That's the difference between being a reactionary screamer and a proactive narrator who controls the larger conversation.

As black people embrace the word "nigger" and gay people the word "queer". You have to seize what others are trying to bludgeon you with and use it to empower yourself.

[TexasObserver]

1. Obama disagrees with you. His campaign disagrees with you.

Most Democrats disagree with you.

Maybe your impression of things is wrong, not everyone else's.

[KittyWampus]

2. "Most Democrats" LOL! BTW, I've been right about a bunch of things most of DU was wrong about

I remember the first year I logged on here... DU'ers regularly disagreed that Democrats should embrace the flag and not allow the Republicans own it.

Ultimately, the reaction happening on DU is totally reactive and not at all proactive.

[TexasObserver]

19. Well, this isn't one of them.

Things you've been right about, that is.

You have an opinion. It's not shared by most Democrats, and it's not shared by the Obama campaign.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: “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. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

[GihrenZabi]

14. No, the OP is right

It's all in the last line: you embrace words to take away their power. Difficult for anyone who isn't afflicted by those words to understand and if you haven't undertaken cultural studies it's not an idea you may be familiar with, but it works.

[TexasObserver]

21. Nonsense.

Do you ever get anything right? I don't think so.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton says: “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. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

[defendandprotect]

24. I agree . . . and I don't see any right-wingers complaining about it . . .

because they just got off scott-free . . .

[LowerManhattanite]

3. “Reactionary screamer! Reactionary screamer! Reactionary screamer!...”

“Reactionary screamer! Reactionary screamer! Reactionary screamer! Reactionary screamer! Reactionary screamer! Reactionary screamer-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z...”

[KittyWampus]

4. you're probably one of the DU'ers who freaked out at other using Hussein during the primaries..

[LowerManhattanite]

5. Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z.... n/t

[Goblinmonger]

I would think that is a sarcastic statement in support of the OP

but I know you don't agree with it. What is the point?

[Mz Pip]

6. I certainly believe in mocking

those who make up shit about Obama and pass it off as fact. And while I do believe that may have been the intention of the New Yorker, I'm not sure how successful it is. If there had been an accompanying article that included and made fun of all the bullshit about Obama to reinforce the cover it might have been successful.

INstead there is an article about what a ruthless politican Obama is. The two together don't work if you're going for satire and mockery.

[Redbear]

7. I agree.

As a nation, we have to address these issues. Better to do so in broad daylight. Not in emails and whispers.

[Resuscitated Ethics]

8. About time SOMETHING New Yorker did wadded panties

And not just those of the exposed war criminals. Well thought article except for the N-word thing. Just ask Patty Smith (Rock-n-roll N----), Yoko (Woman is the N----- of the World, we make her paint her face and dance), or even a Brit, that Costello fellow who had the bad judgment to try to turn the N-word on its ear referencing his respect for Ray Charles. RUINED his rock-n-roll career for years and years. Some words can't be recaptured in one generation!
But the New Yorker offending? Must be a slow news week.

[stray cat]

9. Stephen Colbert anyone? Just because some think he is a sincere conservative

doesn't mean he should be condemned.

[ravishane]

12. come on

Colbert has a t.v. show. This is passively sitting there in magazine racks for dumb people to just see the cover and have re-enforced fears regarding the Obamas.

[KittyWampus]

15. Dumb people are too busy gawking at the airbrushed tits and biceps on Cosmo/Sport Illustrated

to notice a boring, muted color line illustration on the cover of New Yorker.

[ravishane]

10. But it doesn't expose them to daylight

To the right people. The people who need a "correction" about things like "whitey" and the pledge of allegiance, etc. etc. will just see the cover and vapidly take it in as opposed to thinking "yeah Fox and Republicans really are using the politics of fear with respect to the Obamas."

This does NOTHING good for the 10% or whatever in this country who are that ignorant about the Obamas.

[defendandprotect]

11. This wasn't "exposure" . . . which I'm all for . . . it was repeating the criticism....

I was just in the New Yorker website to comment on the cover with the Obamas dressed up

as Muslims . . .

Supposedly "satire" offering a "mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd" . . . ?

The problem with the cover is that it simply repeats the prejudices and lies without

showing the right-wing propagandists.

Any good "mirror" should have done that ---


The New Yorker is sophisticated enough to understand that somewhere in that cartoon

the purveyors of hatred have to be shown. The New Yorker isn't new to cartoons or satire!


The spirit of the cover isn't clear . . . except in what it repeats.

And should I now believe it was a near-miss, or should I question whether it was purposeful?


Meanwhile, I think the criticism of the cover may get us to where we want to go.























The New Yorker Doesn't "Feed" The Stereotypes. It EXPOSES THEM TO DAYLIGHT. Exactly What's Necessary
Posted by cryingshame
Too many DU'ers want to keep those stereotypes in the dark, whispered behind our backs. Sent in emails but then hushed up. OMG! They're saying nasty things about Obama...

The smears the Rightwing is pushing about Obama need to be exposed to daylight. We can't pretend they don't happen or refuse to have them aired. We need to shove them into the Right wingers faces on a daily basis.

In fact, DU'ers reaction to that cover is 180 degrees against what needs to happen.

Embrace the cover and utilize it to our/Obama's advantage. It's showing the stupidity of the smears for what they are.

Look at the expression of Obama in that line drawing. He's looking directly out at the viewer with an expression that reads to me "can you believe this shit"?

This is a lot like during the primaries when Clinton supporters used Obama's middle name "Hussein" when referencing him.

Some DU'ers freaked out. And the Reactionary Screamer tendency was to complain about it. Like pretending that wasn't his name was going to work? Or hoping people would stop using it and mentioning it?

Yeah, they were trying to feed into bigotry by using the name Hussein. But the appropriate PROACTIVE strategy is to embrace the name "Hussein" and make it become so mundane it looses most of it's sting as a smear by becoming banal. Hence the kids who adopted Hussein as their middle name.

That's the difference between being a reactionary screamer and a proactive narrator who controls the larger conversation.

[NYC_SKP]

25. Mirrors multiply the image.

It's pretty simple.

The use of a mirror as a tool for introspection depends upon the user.

Absent any intent to BE introspective, it merely repeats the image.

You got it right.

[defendandprotect]

13. Part of the formula is missing . . . this isn't remedy, it's repetition . . .

THIS wasn't "exposure" which I'm all for . . .

I was just in the New Yorker website to comment on the cover with the Obamas dressed up

as Muslims . . .

Supposedly "satire" offering a "mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd" . . . ?

The problem with the cover is that it simply repeats the prejudices and lies without

showing the right-wing propagandists.

Any good "mirror" should have done that ---


The New Yorker is sophisticated enough to understand that somewhere in that cartoon

the purveyors of hatred have to be shown. The New Yorker isn't new to cartoons or satire!


The spirit of the cover isn't clear . . . except in what it repeats.

And should I now believe it was a near-miss, or should I question whether it was purposeful?


Meanwhile, I think the criticism of the cover may get us to where we want to go.

[KittyWampus]

17. Satire doesn't show perpetrators of stupidity directly. It's up to the viewer to complete thought

that's why it works and is effective.

[defendandprotect]

20. In this case, the "satire" has misfired --- and the cover is being found "offensive" . . . !!!

"Sterotypes" used in cartoons don't show those who depict them in this manner . . .

But satire . . .

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

requires EXPOSURE ...



or denouncing, or deriding voice ---

[KingFlorez]

16. Where is the exposure?

There is nothing about that cover that exposes anything.

[KittyWampus]

18. Um, it puts all the smears in one line-drawing. And has Obama looking out at the viewer

with a look of disbelief on his face.

[KingFlorez]

22. It just doesn't come off that way

They may have intended "exposure", but it comes off looking like right-wing propaganda.

[Raineyb]

27. That's not satire, that's an illustration

Merely drawing a picture of the smears does not a satire of the perpetrators of said smears make.

Regards

[Overseas]

23. BORING SATIRE to make an obvious point that has already been made repeatedly.

In order to make the tired old point that THERE ARE DUMB STEREOTYPES OF THE OBAMAS CIRCULATING, you're going to circulate a dumb cartoon of those dumb stereotypes. Wowee-- how very cutting edge of you. WE SMART PEOPLE get it. Wow. Aren't we clever? Oh hah hah. We know how foolish these images are.

Yes of course, now that the grotesque cartoon has been printed, Democrats can refer to it as just designed to expose how foolish the stereotypes are once and for all. But what a pity that they have to fight against a cartoon image that pulls together all the various insults that have been made about the Obamas. An efficient little drawing that compiles all the smears in one strong visual image-- how conveeeeenient--- but see, it's just to mock those stereotypes, don't you know.

[defendandprotect]

26. Thom Hartmann today also found the cover misfired . . .