Consider this a rebuttal of sorts to my good friend Ted's blog about the current controversry surrounding the Obama New Yorker cover.
First, let me point out that I too am a lover of satire. I am in 100% agreement with Ted that it is one of the best, if not THE best, ways to criticize one's own society. It is entertaining, thought-provoking, and simple...
When done right.
There is a big difference between well-designed satire, and the crappy variety of satire that is too often thrown around in the name of irony. We can't pass everything off as satire. Sometimes I tell my friends that I like to pop my collar and wear puka shells because I too can be an Abercrombie-wearin-California-beach-lovin'-douchebag. This doesn't make me a great satirist, it just makes me a jackass...albeit a somewhat humorous jackass, but a jackass all the same.
No, proper satire requires careful structure and critical thinking. And here is where I have a problem with the recent New Yorker cover. There is absolutely nothing clever about throwing together a collage of rumors and ridiculous speculation surrounding a presidential candidate. And I hate to say this--because I am the LAST person to be politically correct--but I think it is distasteful to show Michelle Obama as a Black Panther or Barack Obama as a Muslim terrorist. There are times when we do need to be sensitive to certain groups, and I think that when this race has so many subtle layers to it, we cannot indiscriminately fling about such things. Yes, I get it. White America is scared that a black president would mean blacks will take over all the powerful positions in the U.S. Yes, I get it. Republicans like to spin this election as Barack being a Muslim terrorist/a candidate who won't stand up for America's safety and freedom yadda yadda yadda. Stupid.
A SIX-YEAR OLD could draw something similar with as much thought. It doesn't take much thought to put together every stereotype/stupid thought out there. Would it be funny if I drew a Mexican mowing someone's lawn if a presidential candidate were Hispanic? No! Because these are very hurtful images that have dark connotations linked to racist ideologies!
Again, I'm not denying the New Yorker the right to do whatever they want. They can. Freedom of press is one of the most basic principles of democracy. I fully support their right to be jackasses. I don't have to agree with it, but the great thing about America is we are all free do be who we want to be, to say what we want to say, and to do what we want to do. This blog is proof that my voice is not censored. I simply ask those that enjoy satire to try and stimulate interest in creating a conversation. Don't take the easy route. Think.
The problem is that the cartoon is representative of a systemic problem in America. There is nothing specific to Obama per se. Yes, the cartoon contains references that are technically specific to claims made about Obama, but would it be any different if we inserted another African-American candidate? Or someone else whose name is reminscent of an Islamic terrorist? The references are to real underlying currents of hate and fear in America. I don't think that's funny at all. Yes, Ted: Americans are stupid. Sure, they don't get satire, but worse, there are individuals who actually believe that Obama is a terrorist. Or that a black person shouldn't be elected president. How do I know? Because I've overheard their conversations in shopping malls and fast-food restaurants. This is why the New Yorker's cartoon is so careless. And I realize that this may even be the point the New Yorker is trying to make, I just don't think they went about it correctly.
There is nothing like good satire, and this is nothing like good satire.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Ah, I posted a response to your comment, but I didn't know you wrote your own commentary. I'll just post it here (with a little elaboration).
First off, I can understand the outrage at portraying, stereotyping and ridiculing sensitive groups and issues.
I suppose that satire is in the eye of the beholder.
For me, who is a visual person, I had always heard the rumors surrounding Barack Obama's campaign, and while I thought them silly and unfounded, to see them drawn out visually and for me to actually really see them for what it is, the sheer idea of it was so ludicrous that it caused me to laugh - and yes, to think.
Even if it's a bewildered "How does anyone even think that?" I feel the cartoon helped push it all into the forefront of national dialog instead of the dark corners of the internet and email inboxes and hushed whispers of neighbors over the fence.
I would contend it has caused people to think - to the conservative, "Is this true?" To the liberal, "How could it have gotten this ridiculous?" To the independent and everything in between, "Is this what they are saying about Obama?"
Sophomoric, yes, if the intent of the cartoonist was to merely slander Obama with every outlandish internet rumor flying around, but this cartoon is so unbelievably outrageously drawn (and purposely so!) that it would be hard for someone to seriously think that all of it was true. We see pictures of a smiling Obama on CNN and charismatic, family woman Michelle on t\The View. Then we see these grotesque caricatures, people we hardly recognize, and we wonder how such a dichotomy exists in our country's psyche. I've drawn political and editorial cartoons and while I am no expert, it is easy to spot someone who is poking fun, working the part of the Medieval court jester or fool - holding up the mirror to reveal our flaws and follies in a witty manner, and one who is merely bitter, or has a chip on his shoulder or his own revenge filled agenda. I suppose a six year old could think up of the same picture, if he followed the rumors that surround Obama's campaign like an electron cloud, but his intentions would be certainly different - most likely more malicious and of a slandering humor, single minded in defaming Barack's character rather than what I feel this cartoonist's intention was, which was to visually display each exaggerated rumor after another and show how ridiculous it is.
Many people can debate the delivery method. This is good. It is certainly controversial, as the whole media explosion around it can testify, and some people would consider it tasteless. I think under many circumstances it is, and to an extent, the way it is drawn right now is very much tasteless and offensive; but I think it was done purposely so, and not just to get their kicks out of making Americans upset and offended. After all, there is a difference between a tasteless, shock value sex joke from a stand-up comedian or a cliche teen movie, and the shock and tastelessness of Jonathan Swift's suggestion we eat babies to alleviate world hunger (not that this cartoon is on par with Jonathan Swift's masterful humor, but the comparison for now tenuously holds). The offense is for a reason, which is to be offended with the very ideas which some of us think to be true, which causes thought and self reflection. There is shock value, yes, but again, it is calculated. Shock to get our attention, then shock at the images portrayed, which then causes us to think about the rumors in a more critically thinking manner.
Because of the very fact that it is offensive and tasteless, I find it rather effective, though definitely sardonic and a very acerbic. In my opinion, this is an issue we cannot tiptoe around. Racism is real. Irrational fear is real. Here, I contend and feel that the cartoonist is holding up the proverbial mirror and showing us a very dark side of some of America's thinking and feelings, and then silently asking, "Don't you realize how ridiculous all of this is?" Of course it is uncomfortable. But the shock and offense we feel is directed towards real thoughts, real feelings, real justifications, real rumors, real emails that real Americans, who for love of their country, security and freedom, will believe. There is purpose in the offense; we are, for all sense and purpose, offended by ourselves, and this is uncomfortable and painful. But unless we get these issues to surface up - that yes, people really think this way - we will never directly confront them.
The talk surrounding this cartoon has brought up good discussions. Why do people think this way? Just why is this so offensive? After all, these are "legitimate" opinions and beliefs of a certain percentage of Americans. We outcry the offensiveness, tastelessness, sophomoric and kitsch penetrating this cartoon, and yet forget that the things we are offended by people really do still believe in this country.
This is good discussion for our country to resolve. Better, really, than the usual talk of celebrities and entertainment. Let us get this issue out in the open and discuss it once and for all! It has become too big to be handled by an internet crusade or for one website to address. It is too big for Barack to discuss by himself, to make one or two speeches on race or to shoot down each rumor one by one when it is perpetuated within the echo chambers of the internet. We have become desensitized to the fuzzy feelings of diversity and inclusion, tired of the constant accusations of racism, but most of us never really seeing its dark underbelly in our everyday lives, fatigued by the constant call against racism but never really addressing its dark and disturbing issues, only skirting the edges as we talk about how we should say "African American" instead of black, or how we shouldn't assume black people are good at basketball, or that Mexicans landscape, or that Muslims are terrorists, or that Christians are fundamental, or any of these face value issues, when at the real core of it all, we are dealing with a very primal fear of that which is different, dealing with attitudes taught to us at an early age by our parents, of our belief in lies or rumors or stereotypes told to us but never verified which we readily believe, of our small, taken out of context experiences with people and our brain's natural tendency to lump one individual's characteristics with the whole group he or she represents, and how hard it can be to fight nature. We need to talk about this as a country, not as the daily forwarded email circulating the office.
I know that people really do believe these rumors about Obama, some of my friends being believers in some of them. But I also hope that when they see the caricatures of a blown out of proportion rumored Barack and Michelle, they would realize that yes, it does seem ridiculous and hopefully reconsider some of their opinions, or at least investigate the matter more fully for themselves. The cartoonist exposes it all for exactly what it is - silliness and incredibly fantastical slander - and I believe it causes people to think, even if the question is, "How did it get this far?"
Again, I suppose satire is in the eye of the beholder. If you have a symptom, the neurologist will say it's your brain, the cardiologist will say it's your heart, the immunologist will say it's your immune system. As an Asian American, racism is an important subject I believe America needs to address, that the candid discussion is long overdue. As a minority I am often upset and discouraged at what I feel are baby steps, or token, but shallow attempts to address such a real and malicious thing as racism, and am glad that someone is finally willing to tell it as it is, at the expense of some hurt feelings. As a cartoonist, I feel the delivery method was effective, if not a bit harsh. But I can certainly understand why people would be offended and upset.
I will not debate its tastelessness, for I find it offensive, but also very funny because of its outrageousness in offense. But for someone to take this cartoon seriously as a literal commentary and accurate depiction of Barack and Michelle Obama, that is stupidity, a failure to critically think about the cartoon in its context with what has been going on with the presidential campaigns.
However, to think it is tasteless is not stupidity, though it can devolve into a waste of a cartoon if we do not consider why we think it is tasteless, why we think it is stupid. Whether it's tasteless or not, that is a healthy debate which we should discuss, as we work out how we should view race and allusion to a turbulent chapter of our country's history, which continues today in different forms. Just remember what it is we are finding tasteless, and let's try not to kill the messenger while we're at it.
I hope I do not come across as combative or argumentative. I know you want to expose yourself to different ideas, and so I wanted to post a more analytical argument (my argument) of why I found this cartoon to be effective and relative to what's going on in our country right now.
Hope we can still be friends. :)
I didn't think you came across as combative at all. But I will add this, as I agree with much of what you say: I never said that the medium in which this message was delivered was not effective (a point I felt you emphasized many times, though not explicitly stating that I disagreed). Oh, and you clearly disagree with my characterization of the cover as being sophomoric and stupid. Well, we can play a game of semantics, if you wish, but I feel the real point is that there are certain limits to satire. Perhaps this isn't at that limit yet, but it is certainly approaching that limit of what is appropriate. For instance, is it appropriate to satirize abortion? Rape? For some, it may be, and for others, certainly not.
What I do know is that this particular example of satire made me more uncomfortable than thoughtful. And so I agree with you: satire is all in the eye of the beholder. And appropriate or not, it has sparked a conversation. But for this blogger, I wonder at what price? Is the intended audience really those that believe such silly things? And if so, are they really going to reconsider their opinion based on the ridiculousness of the image? I have a feeling that the answer, sadly, is no. Those people that I have overheard in the supermarkets and shopping malls will most likely laugh, but not because they understand the truth or meaning of the image. They will laugh because it amuses them to see a picture of their "nemesis" drawn in such a fasion, much as a small child laughs when they see physical comedy on an adult sitcom. They will be laughing, but not because they understand what is truly funny.
I guess I might be the wrong audience. I am already aware of the ridiculousness of the accusations thrown at Obama's camp by his rivals. To me, it is simply redundant and unnecessary to draw them out for me to see. I have already seen them in my own mind's eye! When Ted posted a YouTube video to his blog about the "terrorist fist jab," I laughed my head off the whole time I watched the Fox "News" coverage. Ridiculous! To think that anyone could believe such a thing or that a supposedly credible news organization would entertain such an interview of such an obviously harmless pop gesture was hysterical. But was it necessary for someone to draw a picture of that for me? No.
The more I write, the more I feel persuaded that perhaps the cover has done its job after all. Obviously, on this forum, we are debating the seriousness of the issues it references. I only caution (again) that I think we are not really the intended audience, or at least we shouldn't be. It is those that live in ignorance of the falsehoods besmirching Senator Obama that need to come to their own realization from this cover. They need to understand that these accusations are ridiculous and incredible, not me or Ted. In the end, I hope that they do.
Oh, and if I didn't say it before, I always appreciate your thoughtful comments. Even if I disagree with your conclusion, I welcome your sound reasoning and analytical argument! I believe there is no "right answer" in this case. I simply thought the New Yorker did a poor job of satire, and you disagree. But we both agree that it is satire, nonetheless. The effectiveness of that satire is completely subjective, and, as you said, in the eye of the beholder. But many thanks for your extremely well-articulated response! I am rather pleased that together, I feel, we have covered both sides of this argument with clarity and level-headedness.
Agreed!
If I wasn't Mormon, I'd suggest we go out for a beer.
Maybe I can brew you some rooibos chai tea instead. :)
Sounds delicious my friend! Maybe even iced! ;)
Post a Comment