The latest New Yorker cover has been a topic of debate on the blogs, both for its non-illuminating satire and for the misguided response from the Obama campaign. Responding to Jason’s post on whether it was a gusty move for the magazine, lamh31 objects to people who have written the cover off as inoffensive satire:
You know what,I would bet that the marjoirty of the people who "don't" think this is a big deal or not african american or muslim american. I don't blame the artist, it's the editors of the new yorker who decided to run with this caricature. But I can't say that I'm surprised. The New Yorker mag subscribers are the mainly white liberals, who may see the satrie in this, but I would bet if the New yorker had a larger number of african american subscribers, then they would have thought twice about putting this image on the cover.The sad thing is that being an African-American myself the idea that we are supposed to not be upset "because it's satire" is bullshit!! If this image was on the cover of "the national review" or on the front page of some right wing hate site, then would we still be told to "see the satire" in it.I've learned that there are 2 types of funny when it comes to racial insenstivity: 1) funny HAHA, and 2) funny, sad. to most african americans who woke up this morning to hear/see this cover, it's definitely not funny HAHA to us.
Besides, to some people the Sambo image was satire too. Should I not be upset by that either.