Satire : Muslim Barack with Gun-Slinging Michele Obama

"If The New Yorker wants to get into the political cartoon business, it ought to hire some political cartoonists," added Rall.

If Barry Blitt is anything, it's brilliantly provocative. The New Yorker artist sent up the furor over gays in the military by playing off a famous end-of-World-War-II photo: Instead of a sailor and a pretty girl in amorous embrace, he drew two male sailors doubled over in a lip-lock.

A few years back, Blitt spoofed the idea of President Bush as a maid -- complete with apron and feather duster -- to the shadow president, a scowling, cigar-smoking Cheney.

In March, no one seemed to mind when Blitt had Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama in the same bed (maybe there is progress?), both in their pajamas and lunging to be the one to answer that proverbial 3 a.m. phone call on some global crisis.

H2O_MAN wrote:

After watching and listening to Obama's speech I think the magazine cover depicts the Obama's realistically.

And you would be the butt of the cover's joke, then... :wink:

H2O_MAN wrote:

After watching and listening to Obama's speech I think the magazine cover depicts the Obama's realistically.

And you would be the butt of the cover's joke, then... :wink:

what do most people associate with black people: Anger, violence, etc.

GALA :

Quote:

what do most people associate with black people: Anger, violence, etc.

]

Maybe you do, but neither I nor anyone I know would associate anger and violence with blacks anymore than with any other ethnicity.

So Gala, what stats do you have that prove that blacks are the most angry and violent people living in the USA?

Miller wrote:

GALA :

Quote:

what do most people associate with black people: Anger, violence, etc.

]

Maybe you do, but neither I nor anyone I know would associate anger and violence with blacks anymore than with any other ethnicity.

So Gala, what stats do you have that prove that blacks are the most angry and violent people living in the USA?

Stuff it with the pretension, Mildew, formeerly Kak-- I am talking about stereotypes.

H2O_MAN wrote:

After watching and listening to Obama's speech I think the magazine cover depicts the Obama's realistically.

And you would be the butt of the cover's joke, then... :wink:

I suppose, but us flyovers are more connected than ever...

Lash wrote:

Gala---

You are avoiding the question. What specifically about that picture is a racial insult to Obama or his wife. I think you are having a hard time finding something, like I did when I decided to really analyze it.

If you can find something specific in that cartoon that is racist, I'd be interested to hear what it is and why it's racist.

I say, why would The New Yorker even bother to go there. It's because it's about race and angry people and what do most people associate with black people: Anger, violence, etc.

G. Bush as a dunce, B. Clinton as the philanderer, Al Gore with his air-brushed shlong...but Michelle Obama = angry black woman.

I believe in free speech all the way, but publishing this cartoon exhibits poor choices among an elite few who thinks they're in with Obama.

cjhsa wrote:

I suppose, but us flyovers are more connected than ever...

You're hardly representative of people in the flyover states in general, Cjhsa... the overwhelming majority of 'em is quite sane.

Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque

In Dallas we recently had a flap among the City Council when a white politician referred to a particular agency as a "black hole," because applications go in but never seem to come out approved. One of the black politicians stood up and declared the comment racist and that the agency should be called a "white hole." What's more a local black judge who was at the meeting agreed with the charge and demanded an apology.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pitiful.

Either the black Dallas politician and judge are ignorant buffoons or they have honed for themselves hair trigger responses to anything in which they think they can deploy the race card to their advantage.

There is plenty of actual racism around without having to manufacture it and that people do suggests to me that they are using the concept for personal gain.

Williams Aide Resigns in Language Dispute

By Yolanda Woodlee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 27, 1999

The director of D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams's constituent services office resigned after being accused of using a racial slur, the mayor's office said yesterday.

David Howard, head of the Office of Public Advocate, said he used the word "niggardly" in a Jan. 15 conversation about funding with two employees.

"I used the word 'niggardly' in reference to my administration of a fund," Howard said in a written statement yesterday. "Although the word, which is defined as miserly, does not have any racial connotations, I realize that staff members present were offended by the word.

"I immediately apologized," Howard said. " . . . I would never think of making a racist remark. I regret that the word I did use offended anyone."

When Howard, who is white, noticed the reaction to his use of the word, he apologized to his three-member staff, which is made up of two blacks and another white. It is unclear which two employees he was addressing when he used the word.

Soon after the remark was uttered, the rumor mill started churning that Howard had used the word "nigger."

Howard said he has received numerous telephone calls since Jan. 15 from people in the community who had heard "I had made a racist remark . . . [which is] in fact unquotable here."

The Barnhard Dictionary of Etymology traces the origins of "niggardly" to the 1300s and the words nig and nigon, meaning miser, in Middle English. It also notes possible earlier origins in languages including Old Icelandic, Old English and Middle High German. There is no mention of any racial connotation.

Howard said the rumor that he had used a racial slur "has severely compromised my effectiveness as the District's Public Advocate and in the best interest of my office, I resigned," effective Monday.

Gala wrote:

Lash wrote:

Gala---

You are avoiding the question. What specifically about that picture is a racial insult to Obama or his wife. I think you are having a hard time finding something, like I did when I decided to really analyze it.

If you can find something specific in that cartoon that is racist, I'd be interested to hear what it is and why it's racist.

I say, why would The New Yorker even bother to go there. It's because it's about race and angry people and what do most people associate with black people: Anger, violence, etc.

G. Bush as a dunce, B. Clinton as the philanderer, Al Gore with his air-brushed shlong...but Michelle Obama = angry black woman.

I believe in free speech all the way, but publishing this cartoon exhibits poor choices among an elite few who thinks they're in with Obama.

You're really forcing the racial point.

First of all you are entirely missing the fact that the cover is a joke on their critics, not on the Obamas. It is not intended to be a representation of any actual aspect of their personalities or character.

Secondly you are trotting out stereotypes that don't exist. "Most people" do not associate blacks with anger and violence. Someone else who is as hyper-sensitive as you about this issue could easily target you for a racist comment.

Michelle Obama's image on the cover is intended to depict a militant (a la Angela Davis) not a gangsta. Because you can't see the difference doesn't mean the artist was employing (for whatever purpose) a racial stereotype.

Everyone is angry. We've heard about "Angry White Men" throughout the Democratic primaries.

If this were a game show lightening round and a contestant was asked to come up with five stereo-typical African-American images. It is highly unlikely that among the list would be

1) Muslim
2) Flag-burner
3) Admirer of Osama bin Laden
4) Militant

This screaming of "racism" at every turn is dull witted.

In Dallas we recently had a flap among the City Council when a white politician referred to a particular agency as a "black hole," because applications go in but never seem to come out approved. One of the black politicians stood up and declared the comment racist and that the agency should be called a "white hole." What's more a local black judge who was at the meeting agreed with the charge and demanded an apology.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pitiful.

Either the black Dallas politician and judge are ignorant buffoons or they have honed for themselves hair trigger responses to anything in which they think they can deploy the race card to their advantage.

There is plenty of actual racism around without having to manufacture it and that people do suggests to me that they are using the concept for personal gain.

Some may think that this represents some sort of justice. Why shouldn't blacks who have been the victims of racism get to employ it in some way for their own benefit?

Because truth is truth and falsity is falsity. You can't bemoan lying if you are going to use it for your own purposes.

Our societal skin is getting so thin we bleed whenever we brush up against one another.

Miller wrote:

Who knows if they'll get this in Dubuque

yeah

ignorant hicks

they're not sophisticated and smart like you

dumb rednecks

they probably don't 'get it'

Wait, I cannot know what it's like to be judged by my skin color because I'm white?

Did you ever go to a baseball game at the old Tiger Stadium in Detroit?

As long as you are white you will never know what it is like to be judged for your skin color. You will just never know.

As long as you are white you will never know what it is like to be judged for your skin color. You will just never know.