Bowing To Santa: Satire or Racist?
The New Yorker done did it again. One can never forget their controversial cover last year depicting Barack Obama as a Muslim and Michelle as a militant radical. Many liberals insisted it was racist, clumsy, or dangerous for The New Yorker to publish such an image--toothless racists in Kentucky could pin it up in their trailer as a joke and cost Obama the election. Many conservatives became aware of the existence of a publication called "The New Yorker."
But this. This is beyond the pale...
Illustrator Barry Blitt returns this week with a blatant attack on our Peace Prize War President. It is an apparent reference to Obama recently bowing to some Asian leader in some country somewhere. As with Blitt's controversial Muslim cover there is absolutely NO WAY to tell this is satire. No labels, speech bubbles, title or warning sticker to inform us dolts that is merely a joke that we should not riot over. I guess we should take it at face value.
So does Barry Blitt think Obama will literally bow to St. Nicholas when he arrives to deliver presents and snack on cookies? Does the White House even have a chimney or does he make that assumption based solely on Obama's race? (He's an African-American.) And does Obama's reverence for the rotund semi-secular symbol of Christmas show that his Yuletide allegiance is to consumerism and not Baby Jesus? (The clear implication being that he is a Santa-friendly Muslim.)
And what of that dainty little move Santa is doing with his feet? Totally gay. A smack in the face to Mrs. Claus at her home in the North Pole all the way from David Remnick's ivory tower in New York. (Lots of gays in that city. Coinkydink?) She could not be reached for comment as this post went to press.
I'm going to call my close personal friend Wolf Blitzer and get him on this. It's been too long since idiots opined on illustrations and cartoons that went completely over their head. And in America, those are the only cartoons we talk about!
But this. This is beyond the pale...
Illustrator Barry Blitt returns this week with a blatant attack on our Peace Prize War President. It is an apparent reference to Obama recently bowing to some Asian leader in some country somewhere. As with Blitt's controversial Muslim cover there is absolutely NO WAY to tell this is satire. No labels, speech bubbles, title or warning sticker to inform us dolts that is merely a joke that we should not riot over. I guess we should take it at face value.
So does Barry Blitt think Obama will literally bow to St. Nicholas when he arrives to deliver presents and snack on cookies? Does the White House even have a chimney or does he make that assumption based solely on Obama's race? (He's an African-American.) And does Obama's reverence for the rotund semi-secular symbol of Christmas show that his Yuletide allegiance is to consumerism and not Baby Jesus? (The clear implication being that he is a Santa-friendly Muslim.)
And what of that dainty little move Santa is doing with his feet? Totally gay. A smack in the face to Mrs. Claus at her home in the North Pole all the way from David Remnick's ivory tower in New York. (Lots of gays in that city. Coinkydink?) She could not be reached for comment as this post went to press.
I'm going to call my close personal friend Wolf Blitzer and get him on this. It's been too long since idiots opined on illustrations and cartoons that went completely over their head. And in America, those are the only cartoons we talk about!
posted by Matt Bors at
2:06 PM
11 Comments:
That whole uproar was awful last year.
Do I have to rabble about this too?
I wish the rest of the New Yorker were as good as its covers. After a dozen years as a subscriber, I declined to renew my subscription last year because of the declining quality -- and because they cut back on the number of cartoons.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Santa's bag sure could use a "Health Care Reform" label...
and Santa's beard should be labeled "creeping socialism" and his boots "secularization."
Are you suggesting artists need to label their work as "satire" to avoid being confused as racist? (Just because some dolt can't differentiate between the two.)
I voted for Obama, I for the most part approve of the job he's done under difficult conditions, and I laughed out loud when the New Yorker arrived the other day.
This post was satire, though I didn't label is as such.
Dear Sir:
All public figures open themselves up to criticism on every conceivable level -- including jabs from the great, unwashed masses (who are easily manipulated and incited by groundless innuendo) or carefully framed commentary from writers and artists (who may have a legitimate ax to grind).
As a professional writer who generated thousands of words on behalf of Obama the candidate (scorning hundreds of racist emails challenging his birth certificate, his religious affiliations, and alleged socialist tendencies), I not only find the recent cover of the New Yorker acceptable in terms of the President's disappointing first year performance, but credible considering some unexplained and unorthodox approaches he took (also ineffective) to US foreign policy.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised a "Bowing Obama Non-Action Figure" wasn't sold in toy stores this year. Too bad the Republicans have their heads so far up their collective asses (without a candidate, platform, or message) as the Democrates are giving us great motivation to vote the current bottom-feeders in the House and Senate out of office. They have rewritten the GOP playbook on how to screw the common man, and have taken it to an art form.
Fondest regards,
Once again: the post itself was satire.
Look at the damage the "...NOT!" phenomenon has done - 30 % of the population is no longer able to identify irony without the suffix.
I demand that the government does something immediately! (...NOT!)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home