The Flap Over the Cover
The flap over the The New Yorker Magazine cartoon cover that depicted Barak Obama in Islamic garb and his wife Michelle packing an Ouzi was a revelation for those who monitor the sometimes silly state of American political discourse. The outrage expressed by Obama supporters and opinion makers on the left was enough to make even the most cynical observer scratch his head in disbelief. Otherwise intelligent and widely respected commentators in the progressive media were quick to condemn the magazine for publishing a cartoon that, on its surface, seemed to give credence to the most damning false characterizations used by ultra-conservatives to attack the Obama campaign. These commentators apparently feared that, in addition to insulting the Obamas, the cartoon could sway opinions of those trying to make up their minds about the presumptive Democratic nominee. They dutifully attacked the New Yorker for not providing “context” to the image; some even demanded an apology. The ghost of Torquemada had risen again on the left.
It was fascinating to hear David Remnick, the magazine’s editor, as he appeared on radio and television programs trying to explain that a satirical cartoon is meant to explode falsehoods and shallow stereotypes by highlighting their absurdity. From the time of the great French artist Daumier until the present, the role of the editorial cartoonist has been to critique the government, political parties and even society itself through humorous - and at times absurd - public display. By brazenly presenting a ridiculous belief as a cartoon, the artist usually intends to expose the ridiculous nature of that belief. Remnick said that explaining a joke to someone who “doesn’t get it” usually means destroying the joke, but that he was compelled to come on the airwaves and do precisely that because of the firestorm that erupted over the cartoon’s publication.
When an editorial cartoon in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, was published in 2006 depicting the prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban, the Islamic world universally damned what it deemed as a titanic insult. They excoriated Denmark as a racist country, called for a boycott of its goods and threatened the cartoonist and the newspaper that published the offending image. In the Gaza strip, a group of Hamas gunmen stormed the office of the EU in protest. Many in the west condemned Muslims in turn for their lack of respect for the concept of freedom of speech – as though this fundamentally western ideal had an equivalent in the Islamic world. One cannot help but wonder how many of those criticizing the reaction to the Danish cartoon were also among those who attacked the sacrilegious artwork that graced the cover of the New Yorker. If anything can give us reason to hope about the eventual unification of the world, perhaps it is that the small minds of orthodoxy and the lack of a sense of humor are shared the world over... get it?
The flap over the The New Yorker Magazine cartoon cover that depicted Barak Obama in Islamic garb and his wife Michelle packing an Ouzi was a revelation for those who monitor the sometimes silly state of American political discourse. The outrage expressed by Obama supporters and opinion makers on the left was enough to make even the most cynical observer scratch his head in disbelief. Otherwise intelligent and widely respected commentators in the progressive media were quick to condemn the magazine for publishing a cartoon that, on its surface, seemed to give credence to the most damning false characterizations used by ultra-conservatives to attack the Obama campaign. These commentators apparently feared that, in addition to insulting the Obamas, the cartoon could sway opinions of those trying to make up their minds about the presumptive Democratic nominee. They dutifully attacked the New Yorker for not providing “context” to the image; some even demanded an apology. The ghost of Torquemada had risen again on the left.
It was fascinating to hear David Remnick, the magazine’s editor, as he appeared on radio and television programs trying to explain that a satirical cartoon is meant to explode falsehoods and shallow stereotypes by highlighting their absurdity. From the time of the great French artist Daumier until the present, the role of the editorial cartoonist has been to critique the government, political parties and even society itself through humorous - and at times absurd - public display. By brazenly presenting a ridiculous belief as a cartoon, the artist usually intends to expose the ridiculous nature of that belief. Remnick said that explaining a joke to someone who “doesn’t get it” usually means destroying the joke, but that he was compelled to come on the airwaves and do precisely that because of the firestorm that erupted over the cartoon’s publication.
When an editorial cartoon in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, was published in 2006 depicting the prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb as a turban, the Islamic world universally damned what it deemed as a titanic insult. They excoriated Denmark as a racist country, called for a boycott of its goods and threatened the cartoonist and the newspaper that published the offending image. In the Gaza strip, a group of Hamas gunmen stormed the office of the EU in protest. Many in the west condemned Muslims in turn for their lack of respect for the concept of freedom of speech – as though this fundamentally western ideal had an equivalent in the Islamic world. One cannot help but wonder how many of those criticizing the reaction to the Danish cartoon were also among those who attacked the sacrilegious artwork that graced the cover of the New Yorker. If anything can give us reason to hope about the eventual unification of the world, perhaps it is that the small minds of orthodoxy and the lack of a sense of humor are shared the world over... get it?
Comments