Ta-Nehisi Coates on the New Yorker's Obama Cover

He writess:

Ta-Nehisi Coates: Maybe white folks shouldn't draw pictures of Michelle Obama...: UPDATE: So David Remnick went ahead and talked to Huffpo about the cover and why he chose to run it:

What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's — both Obamas' — past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.

The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are...

I think this basically true, except that, again, satire doesn't just reflect it actually exaggerates.... Sadly, that picture exaggerates nothing--that's exactly what a slice of Americans believe about Barack Obama.... Later in the interview Remnick compares this to Colbert's lampooning of the Right. Um, no. Again, Colbert is so exaggerated that only an alien could think that he was actually a right-winger.... I get the intent of the picture, but I think it just fails.... 13 percent of people actually believe that Obama's a Muslim.... Much worse though is the Michelle Obama attempt. No less than Christopher Hitchens--who exists well within the world of NYer readers--has argued that Michelle really is a Stokely Carmichael disciple who pushed Barack into Trinity--this despite the fact that Barack joined Trinity, like, five years before he knew Michelle. "The Whitey Tape" was the work of Hillary supporters, not the right-wing smear machine. At this moment there are Hillary-supporters, over at No Quarter, clamoring for Obama's passport. At the very least, the Michelle Obama caricature exists--not just among right-wing nuts--but amongst the thuggish Neandrathal wing of the Democratic party.

My point is that that this cover actually does reflect--not exagerate, not satirize--the views of a sizeable portion of Americans. That image is exactly what Fox News thinks of Barack and Michelle. Compare that, again, to Colbert. No real conservative actually thinks bears are the greatest threat to America. But that's not the point. Steven Colbert's threatdown/bear riff exagerates the right-wing stance on the enviornment. That's why it works as satire.

Comments

[jerry]

I was pleased to see that Barack Obama is taking the route suggested by Harvey Silverglate, and not the route that others would have him take of offense.

I am not certain I understand Ta-Nehisi's argument. On the one hand, he starts off by suggesting white folks just should not do it at all, but then moderates that by saying the problem with the New Yorker is that it wasn't extreme enough to be seen as over the top ridicule.

I find both arguments problematic.

The problem with the second argument is that the value of the joke will always be subjective. What has me rolling in the aisles will be different that what has you rolling in the aisles. The argument basically comes down to "I didn't find it funny." But your perceptions do not a terrific argument against humor, or comedy, or satire (or even drama) and we can look to Richard Pryor, George Carlin, Lenny Bruce, Jonathan Swift and many other satirists to see why. Related, yesterday people were complaining the cover wasn't funny and saying that Art Spiegelman would have made it so much better. It wasn't funny like Art Spiegelman, so it should have been spiked. Today, Art Spiegelman comes out solidly in favor of this cover. (As too does Tom Tomorrow, as too does Sadly No, as too do The Editors (The Poorman).

Here's a New York Times article talking about the issues with Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Jimmy Kimmel, and David Alan Grier.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15humor.html

They all note that it is certainly easier for African American comics to talk about Obama, but all stress that there is no way that they will not touch Obama. Cause it would be wrong and cowardly.

If comics can go after Obama, why not cartoonists? If non African American comics, why not non African American cartoonists?

Or, at the risk of having Brad pull my comment, can they go after the part of Obama that is half white?

Cause that's the other part of Ta-Nehisi's argument I don't get. Obama wants to be President of a pretty powerful nation. What are the parts that are off limits to discussion, and why so for a black guy that would be acceptable for a white guy?

Will all such discussions and criticisms have to come from David Alan Grier or other black comics and commentators?

I never enjoyed Coming to America. Eddie Murphy's role as that Jewish Guy wasn't over the top enough for me to appreciate. To me, all Eddie Murphy seemed to be doing was reinforcing the common stereotypes of elderly Brooklyn Jews. And who is Eddie Murphy to do that? Some African American? When Jews of that era had often either come from Russia, or Germany, or fought there? It was basically tasteless and offensive.

Full disclosure: bullshit. It was the highlight of the movie when I realized that old Jewish guy was ALSO Eddie Murphy. I think there are fewer Jews than African Americans, and I think too, that Jews in America have faced discrimination, although of course, not to the degree that African Americans have.

I don't get the argument, "white folks shouldn't draw pictures of Michelle Obama."

And if you haven't seen Eddie Murphy or Arsenio Hall as Jews in Coming to America, you're missing a real treat. And a deliciously offensive one at that.

[anatol]

Ever since the magnificent Colbert's presentation at the White House Correspondents' Dinner a few years back I thought that US has reached a stage in its development esthetically similar to that of the USSR of 70s and 80s, when the most relevant and important news and analysis has been provided by out of mainstream actors and satirists.

Here's yet another example of that - this is what Jon Stewart had to say on The Daily Show of 07/15 about how Obama's campaign should have reacted to the cartoon: "Barak Obama is in no way upset about the cartoon that depicts him as a Muslim extremist, because you know who gets upset about cartoons? - Muslim extremists". We can dream, can't we...

[Thomas York]

Some international response, front page of the China Times - http://tommy-york.com/?p=11

[maxwell]

Why doesn't the New Yorker just be honest and say "we screwed up" and maybe "we're just not as funny as we'd like to be."

[Richard Hershberger]

As a point of information, I have a friend who teaches social studies in a predominently white, middle class high school in a Republican area. She tells me that some of her students think that Colbert was put on Comedy Central to balance Stewart. That is, they appreciate that he is doing humor (and watch him for that) but think he is doing humor from the conservative viewpoint, not realizing that he is actually mercilessly mocking the conservative viewpoint. The Archie Bunker effect is very hard to overcome.

[john]

Ta-Nehisi Coates has apparently gone blind. "Sadly, that picture exaggerates nothing"? How many people on the right actually believe that Obama really, truly has a picture of Osama bin Laden above his fireplace? That's certainly an exaggeration. That Michelle really, truly has a submachine gun and wears it around the house? That's certainly an exaggeration. That Obama really, truly burns American flags in his fireplace? That's certainly an exaggeration. That at home Obama changes into African / Muslim clothing? Michelle wears combat fatigues like the Sandinistas did? That's certainly an exaggeration. And the reference to terrorist fist jabs, which 98% of the population knows full well isn't a terrorist fist jab at all.

Just LOOK at the picture. The thing is filled with exaggeration.

Ta-Nehisi Coates has gone blind - blind with hatred for, and contempt of, the very people who the cartoon is making fun of.

[Q the Enchanter]

Ta-Nehisi's basically got it right: A caricature that reflects the views of even a significant minority of persons isn't transmogrified into "satire" by a change of venue.

[Q the Enchanter]

John [July 16, 2008 at 07:57 AM], yes, the image is exaggerated, but that doesn't get at the problem Ta-Nehisi's talking about: What do the exaggerations connote? They could connote a liberal "satire" of the perverse notions many conservatives have about Obama's (supposed) alienness and disloyalty. Or they could connote a conservative "satire" of Obama's (actual) alienness and disloyalty. In short, the "correct" interpretation here is too indeterminate for the illustration to count as effective satire.

(Whether this particular piece of bad satire is quite worth the virtual ink spilt about it is another matter.)

[john]

Q the Enchanter: I agree that one might be able to read the satire from either a liberal or a conservative perspective, but we disagree on what Ta-Nehisi's talking about.

I don't think he sees it that way; he says, for example, "My point is that that this cover actually does reflect--not exagerate[sic], not satirize -- the views of a sizable portion of Americans". He is denying the exaggeration and satirization altogether, not pointing out that it could, in a different context, be read as a conservative satire.

I also think that one shouldn't take the illustration out of context - how upset we get when quotes are taken out of context! - and the context is that it was on the front cover of the New Yorker, so it seems inescapable to me that it was a liberal satire. If it had been on the front cover of the Weekly Standard, I'd have read it as a conservative satire.

BTW, that, to me, means it was a really good satire, because it managed to poke at the Weekly Standard types as well as the (fill in the blank with words of your choice) types. On this, as on so many things, reasonable people can disagree.

[mary]

The target of Colbert's satire is . . . Colbert-as-conservative-hack. But what is the target of the NYer cover? It's not at all clear, unless you think you know the NYer's schtick well enough to assume they're not going after Obama. This is a big part of the reason it fails (and is, in my opinion) offensive.

[jerry]

Mary, I am sure you will be heartened to find that Jonathan Swift agrees with you.

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2008/07/obama-new-yorker-cover.html

"...I don't even understand the point of satire. If the editors of the New Yorker actually believe that Barack Obama is not a Muslim, Michelle Obama is not a dangerous revolutionary and that they do not actually burn American flags, as Remnick now claims, couldn't they have just said that? Wouldn't it have been simpler and clearer to run the illustration with a big X over it so that we knew what they were trying to say? We are not mind readers. It doesn't make much sense to say the opposite of what you mean and then attack people for being unsophisticated because they thought you were sincere. Do New Yorkers always say the opposite of what they mean and then expect you to understand? Real Americans, I think, prefer straight talkers, like John McCain, who means what he says when he tells us that he doesn't know very much about economics, can't figure out how to use a computer and believes that we will be in Iraq for 100 years.

Satire, I believe, is supposed to be funny, though I don't see how being dishonest is humorous. I think it's just sad. If the New Yorker wanted to run a humorous cover that showed Obama is not a Muslim, they could have accomplished that goal by depicting him slipping on a banana peel on the way to church. That would have made the same point and it would also have had the virtue of being funny....
"

Is whole essay is well worth reading and drives home just how offensive that cover really was.

[john]

Nicely done, Jerry.

[anatol]

Jerry,

Thanks a lot for the reference to the Jon Swift's post - it was funny. I stand by my previous observation - all this discourse about what satire is allowed and appropriate, and whose nefarios needs it objectively serves is very reminiscent of the USSR, may it rest in peace. I wonder if someone like Mary would treat "A modest proposal" by Swift as a culinary recipe. With technology fast advancing it shouldn't be long before cartoons will be accompanied by a laugh track, so nobody will be in any doubt as to when to laugh.

The USSR link reminded me of a quote from a novel by a great Russian writer and satirist of the 20-th century Mikhail Bulgakov about another great satirist - Moliere. Bulgakov mentions Moliere's defence of one of his comedies as "an honest and allowable satire" and goes on to say (quoting from memory): "He was wrong, of course. Any literate person knows about honest satire, but nobody has ever managed to produce for the authorities an example of satire that was allowable". Exactly.