In Counterpunch.
Racist Humor or Just Racism at the New Yorker? Remnick's Latest Blunder, by Ishmael Reed.
Reed runs down the long tradition and history of racism at the magazine within the context of the cover. As usual, I don't personally agree with every one of Reed's assertions, but mostly, I do. And as usual, Reed is worth reading, because he provokes you to think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
To me, the cover was a self-referential in joke that told New Yorker readers that of course they were too sophisticated to fall for any of the phony Obama rumors. There's also the unspoken point that the same cover on the National Review would actually be racist.
Reed gets at a real issue but makes the wrong argument. Who cares if 95% of NY writers are white when their market is affluent whites? I mean, I have a feeling that Field & Stream, if it still exists, doesn't have many PETA members on its staff. If it's true that the writers are all white men, then women have an argument here.
But as I said, he is onto something, which is that all institutions -- particularly those who regard themselves as progressive -- should examine their organizational attitude and presentation of race from time to time. I suspect that had the NY done that, they may have concluded that the cover had more social costs than benefits.
As for the 1st Amendment, I'm pretty certain that Katrina Vanden Heuvel would defend a cover depicting Holy Joe Lieberman as Reed describes. What I would like to know is where Reed stands on the 1st Amendment aspect of the cover. Surely he wouldn't suggest banning it. And if not, why counter Katrina's position so weakly? I might have said "Do they have the right to print the cover? Sure. Did they use the right judgment in printing it? Not so sure. There's a good argument that it is 'more difficult for people to handle' than had been imagined, but that they should have imagined it."
For some other perspectives:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080721/kvh3
I've been more and more disappointed in The Nation, despite Vaquero's welcome to write for them when he wants to, and their support of him.
They all hang too close the D.C. insider beltway dems and the limousine liberals.
I still believe with all my intellect that the NYer choosing to run that cover was arrogant and stupid and ignorant, and that if they'd thought just a little bit they'd realize they were adding more fuel to those who WANT to believe that Obama's a Muslim, and that Muslim are all terrorists, and neither of those false memes are anything to encourage.
Love, C.
Also, this being New York City and great metropolitan region, there are many, many, many Muslims here, who shall see that cover whether they read the magazine or not. There are many, many, many Muslims, particularly from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, or their parents or their grandparents were from there, and they DO read the farkin' New Yorker. Some even write for it, and are written about in it.
But obviously, for a while Remnick forgot that fundamental fact of where the Nyer is created.
Love, C.
Not to mention the Muslim who died in the 9/11 act of terror.
It just goes to broadcast, yet again, that unless you are white, and a protestant of some sort, you just cannot be a 'real' American, and thus your ideas and points of view aren't worthy to be even considered, much less voiced.
Love, C.
Post a Comment