Gala wrote:
I agree with you on some of these points-- especially about our being thin-skinned. But this is exactly my point-- Michelle Obama as Angela Davis? C'mon. 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.
I know the picture was aimed at the critics-- but it's an elite mentality and it failed miserably. They overestimated their brilliance at the New Yorker.
I bet Angela Davis would be surprised and upset by the notion that a comparison to her was outrageous, insulting, and involved a racial stereotype.
It doesn't matter whether or not I have been judged by my skin color. I've been judged for equally superficial reasons, but that doesn't matter either. This cover had nothing to do with skin color, except that the Obamas were depicted, accurately, as having dark skin.
If you agree that as a society we are too thinned skin, than put down the sandpaper.
I appreciate, far more, your elitism argument, although I'm not sure I would frame it as elitism and I do think you bring to it your fervor for Obama.
It probably is true that (especially) the cartoonist and the magazine thought they would be forgiven any possible fall out against Obama because "clearly" they supported him and found his critics (at least on this front) to be buffoons. I'm not sure that's quite elitist -- more like a smug sense of being part of the Club.
In any case whether unintentionally or not I'm damned happy that they didn't prevent themselves from publishing this cover because despite the fact that they knew they were lampooning dolts, the image of Obama in muslim garb might still hurt the candidate.
Again, the New Yorker owes the Obama campaign no special consideration at all, and particulary the sort for which you seem to be calling.
