From the first OMG! and WTF! over the New Yorker cover, I have been waiting for the correct measure and context about what is going on. I have been saddened by what I do not see in the arguments of the very wise people I review around the web.
Where are the comparisons and contrasts to the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad?
And where is the recognition that the graphic is a 'swiftboat' attack?
Several years ago, a Danish newspaper printed some images of Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam. The drawings were not flattering. Muslim leaders objected to the images, demanding the Danish government take action. Soon, the anger and uproar spread throughout the Islamic world. There are too many stories in the web to catalogue them all, but here is one:
http://www.independent.ie/...
The reaction here in the United States was interesting, and mixed. Radio programs, newspaper articles, magazine articles, and television broadcasts all made attempts to put some context around the issue. But I felt that all attempts failed, because they viewed the incident through the lens of our ideals, and our broad-based Judeo-Christian society.
To me, the cartoons were like the golden calf that greeted Moses as he came off the mountain. The first commandment in Christianity is that followers will accept no other deity. The golden calf was an idol created in praise of another deity. As I understand it, the Islamic faith views any representations of the Prophet as Moses viewed the golden calf. All representations are an abomination; those that treat Islam as a religion of war, hatred, and evil, are especially so.
Through all the conversations, I heard people praising the Danish newspaper for adhering to the principle of a free press. I heard people praising the Danish government for not buckling under those who were indignant at the images. Certainly, there was more, or less, of a degree of uncomfortableness with the argument among the more liberal. On whole, I believe, our society sided with the artist, the newspaper, and the Danish government.
But, now, we have our own offensive presentation of the Prophet.
Certainly, the cartoonist for the New Yorker failed at his attempt at satire. There have been enough reviews, and man-on-the-street interviews to indicate that most of us don't "get it". And we have heard all the explanations why we are wrong for not getting it. We have heard that the image is offensive and in bad taste. But we have not heard the cheers for the First Amendment.
The cartoonist and the magazine have every right to print and publish this article. Just as our society, in general, respected the Danish newspaper for upholding the idea of a free press (even to the point of printing the images of Muhammad a second time), we must respect the New Yorker for the stupidity of printing this image. The First Amendment protects bad taste.
The First Amendment, sadly, also protects Islamophobia. The book by Mr. Gottschalk and Mr. Greenberg does a good job exposing how the cartoon images in our society, going back decades, have played on, and fed the belief that Muslims are the enemy. Sadly, this cover plays right to that image. (I imagine the next edition of their book, if it is ever published, will have an appendix on this New Yorker cover). I need to recognize and state that while this image misses the mark, I should be careful not to say the magazine should not have published it. (Haven't we seen parts of this image on different right of center outlets for some time? Is there some measure of good that can come from one left-of-center source combining all the slurs in one place?)
But, (and there always is a but, isn't there), it appears we have been slow to recognize the 'swiftboat' attacks coming through and from the image.
A quick definition ~ the way I saw the swiftboat process play out in 2004, include the introduction of a widely offensive lie about Senator Kerry's service. This lie got "reported" in small partisan media locations. The larger fish in the news media swamp reported on the noise being generated on the partisan sites, without providing context or determining fact. The lie then entered the subconscious of our society.
And now, we see the swiftboating of Senator Obama. In this instance, it is perhaps more subtle. The imagine is certainly in bad taste. Every negative stereotype is presented, but not explained in the image. Without that explanation, those in the news media swamp, are working hard to provide context. And in that context lies the swiftboat attack.
When a reporter explains the manner in which the image presents the Obamas touching, he repeats the slur from Fox News. The slur, the phrase gets repeated in our subconscious.
When a reporter explains the clothing and hairstyle of Mrs. Obama, he provides the context that makes the image satirical. The context gets repeated in our subconscious.
When a reporter explains the satire of the fireplace, the charge gets repeated in our subconscious.
I am trying to be careful in this post to not describe the image. For even if I were to describe the image appropriately, I would be repeating the charges, and reinforcing that which is entering our common subconscious by simple repetition.
I believe the New Yorker had no intention of turning up the heat on the Swiftboating of Senator Obama. But with our anger, we are allowing the right wing smear machine to use political jiu-jitsu against us.
I am not certain what the correct response would be to this image. My best hope is that we quickly move on (I saw a headline to a post that suggested that very thing).
Senator Obama knew the attacks would come. He promised us he would not allow himself to be so attacked. And yet, we look around, and we are in the middle of the attack.
They created blatant lies. Those lies were reported in small partisan locations. Those lies are now reported on the cover of a prestigious mainstream magazine. And the story is reported, without fact, by the swamp of the mainstream media. I am trying to be careful, not to participate in the swamp, in any way.
Thanks.