Okay, so let’s say that National Review decided to do a racist caricature of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, but they decided to do a racist caricature that changed her race? Would that be better?
That may seem like an insane question to ask, but you haven’t met insane until you’ve met the National Review:
You see, it’s funny because…um…all those brown people look alike? Yeah, maybe that’s it.
On occasion I’ve said, sardonically, “Gee, and the GOP wonders why they have trouble attracting non-white voters.” But they don’t wonder that, really. They’ve embraced racism in a big bear hug, and they’re not going to let go of it, even as it pulls them into the electoral abyss.
That is offensive on so many levels.
Brown people?
Figuring that you’re referencing people from India, I’ve met people from India who are damn near black and people who are as white as I am. I don’t have the mental image that “Indian” = “brown/black”. But then I’ve probably met more people from India than many. Do you think that’s the common perception?
Also – on that cover the caricature doesn’t look particularly brown. I’d say she looks white.
My interpretation was that the Budha is commonly accepted as a symbol of wisdom so they drew a caricature of Judge sotomayor and putit on top of a classic picture of the Budha to riff on that stupid wise latina line.
Didn’t see it as a racist caricature but maybe I’m just clueless. not that anyone is obliged to do it, but i’d sure appreciate a breakdown since i’m missing it on this one. Feel free to call me stupid if that motivates someone to explain.
Joe–
The imagery they used for Sotomayor was classic anti-Asian stereotyping from the worst of times. I wasn’t aware that Sotomayor had very slanty eyes and buck teeth, for example.
Joe:
There are 1.2 billion people in India; the northerners are fairer and the southerners have darker complexion; but a vast majority of us have a tan; and “brown” is the acceptable group name.
Jeff Fecke writes:
If you dig really hard, I’m sure you can find a way to take offense at that image (I take offense, but not for the reasons you appear to).
For starters, all caricatures (look around this page for examples …) exaggerate features. I paid money once (exactly ONCE) to have a caricature of me drawn and learned to hate the genre. Given that the outsides of the eyes are higher than the insides when someone smiles, a person with a big smile is going to have “slanty eyes”. Likewise, people who are smiling often expose their teeth. That her lower lip is visible below the teeth shows that they aren’t “buck teeth” at all.
Personally, I think that given our host is a cartoonist who’s drawn caricatures, complaints about a CARICATURE of Sotomayor are extra-plus stupid. Focus on what is definitely offensive — the setting of the subject, Buddhist robe, pose and all.
Does Sotomayor deserve to be ripped for the “wise Latina” comment? Yeah, maybe a little. It’s a meme she’s apparently repeated numerous times.
Do Buddhists need to be objectified by the National Review? No, that’s just stupid and demonstrates that, yes, the Republican Party is a bunch of racist idiots.
It would have been easy to do the caricature without the racist slant-eyes, actually. And the eyes in this illustration really are extreme! That’s not necessary to generate recognition (or to show a character smiling); in fact, if anything the eyes, where bear little resemblance to Sotomayor’s eyes, work against recognition.
Amp,
Obviously you know more about the art than I do. To me she looks like she has a sh*t-eating grin.
What I take-away from the caricature is a rejection of the old adage “Experience is the best teacher”. They can’t deny her experience, so they make fun of it.
WTF? I agree it’s a riff on the “wise latina” line, but it’s middle-school level humor, and it’s really pretty nasty (in a bad way). I can’t believe that’s on the cover of a serious periodical. It’s like something you’d see in Mad Magazine, but meaner.