Debate and Discussion

The New Yorker Cover of Barack & Michelle Obama - Satire?
blntmaker at 11:07AM, July 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 340
joined: 6-2-2007
I think they could have done this satire another way. Seriously…

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:26AM
mapaghimagsik at 11:41AM, July 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
There's more than a few discussions going on about this, and I find myself torn because it brings up a variety of questions – which may or may not be a good thing. So I'm gonna pick at this from several angles.

From an art perspective, I love the watercolor and pen combo. At least, that's what it seems. I have enjoyed many New Yorker covers in the past. The one done for around Hurricane Katrina was outstanding. I'd link it here, but the current cover brouhaha has made it hard to search for and my current copy is a print. – EDIT: My mistake, it was a runner-up.

Okay, I found it here.

As satire, and it is satire, it falls a little flat for me. According to the artist the attempt is to put all the crazy smears into one package and point out how crazy they all are. I think there are elements that could have been added – like that its all in Rush Limbaugh's mind, or that a viewer was watching Obama make a speech and that was what he saw, no matter how Obama really looked – that would have made the satire more pointed.

Posters on blogs have mentioned while the New Yorker doesn't exactly have the readership to get the actual article – how the smears are crazy – to the same people that are going to see a picture of the smears, and I think there's some validity to that. If I had been on the editorial board of the New Yorker, I would have picked a different cover and let that be an interior picture to compliment the article. I don't think the art works standing on its own, and was meant to sit alongside an article.

That editorial stance has kind of brought up the topic of self-censorship. Knee jerk reactions aside, if we didn't feel that there had to be some restraint, we'd have no problem with Michelle Malkin putting up people's addresses and phone numbers and wistfully asking, “Can't anyone *do* anything about this” (or, as another said, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”).

At the same time, “Hooray Free Speech!” I can't wait for the National Review Cover that shows McCain crashing Cindy's private jet with “Straight Talk Express” on the side into the Keating Five, while waving goodbye to his injured first wife in a wheelchair as Cindy guzzles prescription medication stolen from one of her Charities. Oh wait, those are all facts.

So love the art, would like to see the message placed differently. I'm not even sure its going to sell more magazines for the New Yorker.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Ronson at 7:42PM, July 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
This isn't successful satire, because it doesn't address the actual message. The message is supposed to be “look at what those idiots think Obama and Michelle are like, isn't that funny?”

Instead, it is just an image made real of all the smears. The ironic point at the idiots is missing. Like you just said, showing this in Rush Limbaugh's drug addled mind would have brought that out.

This would be akin to a picture of Al Gore inventing the internet (something he never claimed) or John Kerry trying to get shot on purpose so that he could run for President a few decades later (another smear spread about).

I can't even think of an equitable cover for McCain. I haven't heard a McCain smear job like any of the hits the democrats always take. If anyone has one, feel free to list it. I know that McCain's critics say he's too old (legitimate, I think), they say he's out of touch (8 houses across the country and he has access to millions of dollars - so, probably), that his war record doesn't qualify him to be president (why should it, when Kerry's was dismissed so readily?) and that he's a continuation of the Bush administration (rhetoric and voting record pretty much confirms that economically and internationally but perhaps not socially)…where's the smear?

I support the New Yorker's right to run the picture. I support angry subscribers to drop it. I support real free speech.

…but I hate the fact that this image is going to become something the right wing fear mongers use. I hate it that there will be t-shirts of it and the image will be tacked onto the cubicles of ditto heads across the world.

But the toothpaste is out of the tube. So now we can only sigh and hope the idiots don't rule this day.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
blntmaker at 8:31PM, July 14, 2008
(online)
posts: 340
joined: 6-2-2007
Well put, Ronson…

I guess I'm thinking, if The New Yorker wanted to make a point while leaning to the Left, why not paint a picture of John McCain in a nursing home or if they really want to have a bizarre brand of fun, make fun of his experience as a POW.

They painted that picture down to the ‘fist dab’ the Obamas were famous for doing month back. It just seems like it will do exactly what you said, pertpetuate fear and fruitcakes into a pop culture frenzy.

What's going on with these East Coast magazines??? Quickly off topic, but remember this?



Makes me want to start another topic in another section of the forum.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:26AM
bobhhh at 9:20PM, July 14, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
blntmaker
Well put, Ronson…

I guess I'm thinking, if The New Yorker wanted to make a point while leaning to the Left, why not paint a picture of John McCain in a nursing home or if they really want to have a bizarre brand of fun, make fun of his experience as a POW.

They painted that picture down to the ‘fist dab’ the Obamas were famous for doing month back. It just seems like it will do exactly what you said, pertpetuate fear and fruitcakes into a pop culture frenzy.

What's going on with these East Coast magazines??? Quickly off topic, but remember this?



Makes me want to start another topic in another section of the forum.
Well I got the joke immediately, it's pretty obvious to anybody with a little intelligence that he is being either ironic or atl east artificially gathering a bunch of related stereotypes together for some artistic effect… so let's be clear about what we're saying.

On the one havd there is a subjective criticism about the successful artistic success in accurately driving home the gag, and to that I agree to a certain extent, although you could make an argument that Rush Limbaugh's brain is implied by the content, because after all like I said I bet most of us here got the joke immediately.

The second point is more frightening and that seems to be that most Americans are too thickskulled to appreciate irony and will respond to the image by having its iconic smears seep into their subconcious fears and fuel irrational dislike for the Obamas. Alternately the vast majority of the zealous oppostition will cynically cleave to this image, in full realization of it's original irony and use it as a pessimistic image to reassure each other and frighten the aforementioned numbskulls about their negative views of the Obamas.

So what we are saying is that a great deal of our countrymen are at best petty and at worst morons.

Just so we get this straight.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
Skullbie at 3:20AM, July 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 4,711
joined: 12-9-2007
There's a thing about my beloved country I always have to come to terms with every time i watch the news: there are idiots out there. Dumb, trailer-park, dropped-out-of-third grade class retards who bring Americas standards to a knee.

You dangle a touchy issue like abortion, gays, immigration and the 08 election in front of there faces they're going to react. And probably badly based on the grades they got in high school.

But the best part about this- the majority of America is smart enough to pull the rest through all these blunders time and time again. And i emphasize that last part because this stuff is going to happen over and over again-has been for years.



But you think we're the only ones? Look at that political cartoon in Britain about Muhammad having a bomb as a turban- the Muslims were ready to kill everyone over there for one persons little cartoon.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:46PM
Ronson at 5:01AM, July 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
blntmaker
I guess I'm thinking, if The New Yorker wanted to make a point while leaning to the Left, why not paint a picture of John McCain in a nursing home or if they really want to have a bizarre brand of fun, make fun of his experience as a POW.

The difference there is that McCain WOULD be the oldest elected president for a first term, and McCain WAS a POW. Making political satire on them is - I think - completely fair.

What they're satirizing here is the perception that Obama's opponents want people to think Obama is…but they didn't accomplish that.

There is no smear comparison against McCain. The worst I've heard is that McCain is a bitter angry old man who is mentally unstable because of his time as a POW … but is that a smear, or a possibility?

_____

The media has decided to go full bore against the Obama campaign. They are nitpicking everything and even taking his long held stances on guns and the death penalty and painting them as moves to the right. He didn't move! He was there and if you wanted someone who wasn't, you should have voted for Kucinich.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
lothar at 5:07AM, July 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
i dunno , i saw this image this morning and i was pretty pissed off !~
it looks a lot less like satire and a lot more like a blatant racist smear .
i'm not living in the USA so i don't know just how plugged in the average american is or if they will recognize this as the joke it is supposed to be .but i can guess that a lot of people will be influenced by it subconsciously and i bet that was the whole purpose anyway. plant the seeds and reap the primitive tribal paranoia come november.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
mapaghimagsik at 9:28AM, July 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
See, that's the great thing this cover has done. Even if you feel the cover is racist, you'll have all sort of people who will say, "Well, you don't just get satire"

Satire is hard stuff to pull off well, and the New Yorker thought themselves too clever by half.

David Horsey tried to make a point. What he missed is one cover is *real*, and the other is is a figment of Horsey's imagination, which would never happen because the National Review handed their sacks over to the radical right over the whole Beauchamp dustup.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
blntmaker at 11:26AM, July 15, 2008
(online)
posts: 340
joined: 6-2-2007


Ha! Too funny!

The New Yorker has put out some great covers which leave it up to the reader to decipher the satirical message. That's The New Yorker's baseline.

Great find here, mapaghimagsik.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:26AM
bobhhh at 12:36PM, July 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
lothar
i dunno , i saw this image this morning and i was pretty pissed off !~
it looks a lot less like satire and a lot more like a blatant racist smear .
i'm not living in the USA so i don't know just how plugged in the average american is or if they will recognize this as the joke it is supposed to be .but i can guess that a lot of people will be influenced by it subconsciously and i bet that was the whole purpose anyway. plant the seeds and reap the primitive tribal paranoia come november.

What you are missing is classic New York sarcasm. If you knew the politics and ritzty intellectualism of the New Yorker, then you know they would never seriously print a cover which was racist, it would be suicide for their readership, not to mention against their ethics. The joke is that that clearly inflated, ridiculous set of stereotypes, as ridiculous and untrue as it appears to you and me is EXACTLY what some morons , in defiance of all facts and readily available source material, think is the god's truth.

Small minded, ignorant slobs who don't care spit for their country enough to be even dimly aware of current events that effect their lives think this stuff is true about Barack. And the New Yorker I feel was making a pointed criticism of the level of political stupididty in this country that passes for an informed electorate.

Don't you get it? You and I can research our vote until our fingers are numb and bloody from surfing news and information sites, and the election will likely be decided by somebody who thinks Barack Osama is a terrerist.

As a former New Yorker, let me tell you how it works. Things get really bad, things start to suck, there is little hope….what do you do? Well if you're a New Yorker, you most likely let loose some very bitter sarcasm and share a rueful chuckle about it to ease the pain. So its really more about the hoplessness of the situation than the fact that the images are essentially untrue.

That's all that cover was and to try to make it more than that shows you either don't get the bitterness it is jokingly commenting about or you ARE the cause of the bitterness it is jokingly commenting about.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
mapaghimagsik at 3:10PM, July 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
You know I love you like an estranged half-brother, but generally wouldn't you agree that if you have to explain how its “funny” to people who generally have a sense of humor, its *not always* them?

With love,

Mappy.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
teedomoonstrider at 4:23PM, July 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 42
joined: 12-7-2007
mapaghimagsik
You know I love you like an estranged half-brother, but generally wouldn't you agree that if you have to explain how its “funny” to people who generally have a sense of humor, its *not always* them?

With love,

Mappy.

Very important point. If you have to explain the joke, it's not funny. Same with satire and irony.

Hey, don't call me an i-ron :(
This is a signature. There are others like it but this one is mine.

Wang.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:08PM
bobhhh at 4:24PM, July 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
mapaghimagsik
You know I love you like an estranged half-brother, but generally wouldn't you agree that if you have to explain how its “funny” to people who generally have a sense of humor, its *not always* them?

With love,

Mappy.

Aww shux, lurve you too Mappy!

But i have to say, I'm not explaining the joke because I would hardly call it funny so much as sarcastic. I usually consider funny worthy of more than a ruefull chuckle.

And while I don't need to explain the basic premise of the irony to most people here, I did feel from Lothar's post that he mistook the New Yorker's satire for veiled racism, and that I'm sure you could see is a cultural thing that does need some ‘splainin’. Plus, I thought, in a discussion about why it failed some people as satire, that my status as a wise ass, former Manhattanite might add some perspective as to why the editor is so confused by everyone's reaction.

It reminds me of the old man in Slaughterhouse five who when confronted with freezing miserable weather immediately rejoins with “You think this is bad? This isn't bad.” He almost sounds like he is bragging about worse times. He's not trying to be funny and neither is Vonnegut, he is comiserating. I think those guys were comiserating with other thoughtful people about how dense so many of our fellow countrymen are.

And not because they don't subscribe to my political dogma, but because they are so lazy in making up their minds that they allow themselves to be swayed by rumour and inuendo.

A fair percentage of people in this country still think Saddam Hussein ordered the 911 attacks fercrissakes. People that stupid voting is depressing concept and the New Yorker cover gave me a brief chuckle to momentarily chase away the pain of that reality.

And given your work Mapster, which I admire, I wouldn't think I need to explain THAT to you.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
mapaghimagsik at 10:52PM, July 15, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
My BFF Bob,

Your perspective is always appreciated. First, I am in agreement that the NY cover was indeed a misfire of satire. (I'm *so* patening that). Having said that, I can see where someone could use the shield of satire as a way of communicating their covert racism. If the National Review, who is known for their interesting brand of racism can find new vehicles for racism, then I'm sure that some people have considered the use blackface and other racial typiers and call it “irony”

In any event, I think you're spot on, as usual and that the true price of freedom is clobags on the freeway yacking on their phones.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
Ronson at 6:08AM, July 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
blntmaker


Ha! Too funny!

The New Yorker has put out some great covers which leave it up to the reader to decipher the satirical message. That's The New Yorker's baseline.

Great find here, mapaghimagsik.


Okay, but again, this is a satire of a real issues. McCain is old and medicated. Cindy McCain did steal drugs from her nonprofit. In the Obama piece, NONE of it is true and only perpetuates the lie.

I get it, though. I do. It's the New Yorker's subtle satire. But I think it has an overall opposite effect intended outside of the “sophisticated” readers. Ultimately I just think it was a dumb move by an obviously pro-Obama magazine.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 6:17AM, July 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
Maybe the fact that so many people are annoyed and not amused is the most positive aspect of that cover?

Think about it.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
bobhhh at 6:49AM, July 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
ozoneocean
Maybe the fact that so many people are annoyed and not amused is the most positive aspect of that cover?

Think about it.

Exactly, by shining a light on it, it's harder to let those lies breathe.

After all shouldn't we be more upset at the life these scurrilous rumours have enjoyed much more than the cover which has everyone rushing to admit these same lies are unequivacably untrue in the national media??

Maybe it will ultimately have a positive effect in the long run.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
Ronson at 10:45AM, July 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I disagree. All of us are part of a large minority of people - internet savvy and interested in truth over titillation (I hope). Sure, those on the web can scream to high heaven that it's wrong and racist and unsuccessful satire, but MOST Americans are spoon fed their opinions from national media outlets.

EXAMPLE: At a party a few weeks ago, a friend of mine was complaining about the Chinese drilling oil just 5 miles off the coast of Florida because they had a contract with Cuba. I explained that first off it was an untrue fabrication created by Dick Cheney and that his office immediately corrected their error publicly. Second off, any contract any country had to drill oil off the coast of Cuba could not, geographically, get within 5 miles of Florida.

This lie, by the way, has been repeated at least a dozen times on air by high-ranking Republicans and right wing pundits. The fact that they find out it isn't true doesn't matter because they feel it's a good point anyway (seriously, throw logic out the window with these matters).

He thanked me for the strength of my argument and then continued to make the argument that if China can drill just a few miles from our shores we should be able to as well.

My friend isn't a watcher of much news, but he does catch the occasional incendiary pundit show and, of course, there's word of mouth. I don't know how he heard the story originally, but he believes it. Just like he probably believes there is “something” about Obama that doesn't add up. And he's going to look for that something in a way that is illogical, irrational and ridiculous.

Imagine some friend of his hands him a copy of that cover … what happens then? There it is! The Something that bugs him is thereby proven in that cartoon.

…and that isn't a small section of America. I believe that the percentage of really intense internet surfers who are interested in politics or news is very small. We are passionate, but we're still disregarded.

It isn't that Americans overall aren't intelligent or sophisticated. It's because we live in a society where paying attention to things like this is very difficult if you're trying to manage work, a family and getting your bills paid. Those of us who are fortunate to have the spare time to seek truth and type postings like this aren't going to be talking to anyone but people like us…that's the nature of the internet. Has anyone here ever REALLY won a forum debate?

Something like this can turn an election, or many small somethings like this can turn it. That is assuming, of course, that the elections are somewhere even close to fair this time around.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
bobhhh at 2:05PM, July 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Hey my dad was a greek immigrant. He was denied access into this country in the fifties because of communist fears inspite of the fact that he was a decorated solideir in the white army that defeated the communists in Greece. After establishing residence in Canada, he emigrated to the US. Helearned to speak english at age 34 and worked two jobs regularly and odd jobs for extra money at least until I was a teenager. He read both greek and english newspapers and watched PBS.

There was no internet, but he insisted on not wasting his vote by being ignorant. He wasa conservative democrat, but he hated Reagan as well as Carter because he insisted on examining issues on their own merit as opposed to regurgitating talking points.

It doesn't take much to form your own opinion, you just have to care enough about your country to give a shit to stay informed.

So many people get steamed if you disrespect a flag or refuse to wear one on your lapel or some kind of symbolic crap like that. Real patriotism, as Franklin suggested, is holding your government accountable by remaining informed and voting accordingly.

Again I suggest there be a civics exam for voting registration just like with a driver's liscense, as I said before you can do a whole lot more damage with your vote than with a motor vehicle.

Ignorance should not be tolerated, instead in this country it is encouraged.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
Ronson at 4:56PM, July 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I'd vote for YOU, bobhhh. Nicely said.

But true Americans like your father aside, native Americans are told from the day they are born that they must be consuming machines. Not only that, they are bombarded daily with messages that they aren't really happy because they don't have the right kind of (or enough) things.

As far as our education system goes, civics went out the window with Reagan, when they decided understanding the Constitution and a citizen's responsibility was too “liberal.” Now they get - if they're lucky - rudimentary history lessons that enforce jingoism to an extreme that many dictatorships would envy…not to mention the whole forced “Pledge of Allegience” every morning in most public schools.

And if people were using the methods your father used today, they would be stuck in a morass of he said/she said news reporting that never actually digs deep enough to accurately report the factual events.

But to label the uninformed American as unsophisticated (or worse an aberration) is a mistake. THEY are what our government wants … easily led and easy to lie to. They have spent decades creating a system that gets them the chattle they need.

So while I agree that staying informed is a very important duty for real American patriotism, there is no mechanism in place that encourages Americans to do just that. And if they aren't all self-starters like your father - or, to some extent, those reading this posting - then they will float along with popular opinion and our nation will be lost … if it isn't already.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 5:32PM, July 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
bobhhh
Again I suggest there be a civics exam for voting registration just like with a driver's liscense, as I said before you can do a whole lot more damage with your vote than with a motor vehicle.
Good in theory, But in practise those tests tend to be manipulated to control who can and can't vote.

Didn't African Americans used to be subjected to some sort of vote test?
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:31PM
bobhhh at 6:34PM, July 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
ozoneocean
bobhhh
Again I suggest there be a civics exam for voting registration just like with a driver's liscense, as I said before you can do a whole lot more damage with your vote than with a motor vehicle.
Good in theory, But in practise those tests tend to be manipulated to control who can and can't vote.

Didn't African Americans used to be subjected to some sort of vote test?

sadly that may be true, just like redistrcting, the rich and pwerful will always find a loophole, but atleast if we take some personal responsibility and stay informed, we are still up and swinging.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
bobhhh at 6:39PM, July 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 893
joined: 5-12-2007
Ronson
I'd vote for YOU, bobhhh. Nicely said.

But true Americans like your father aside, native Americans are told from the day they are born that they must be consuming machines. Not only that, they are bombarded daily with messages that they aren't really happy because they don't have the right kind of (or enough) things.

As far as our education system goes, civics went out the window with Reagan, when they decided understanding the Constitution and a citizen's responsibility was too “liberal.” Now they get - if they're lucky - rudimentary history lessons that enforce jingoism to an extreme that many dictatorships would envy…not to mention the whole forced “Pledge of Allegience” every morning in most public schools.

And if people were using the methods your father used today, they would be stuck in a morass of he said/she said news reporting that never actually digs deep enough to accurately report the factual events.

But to label the uninformed American as unsophisticated (or worse an aberration) is a mistake. THEY are what our government wants … easily led and easy to lie to. They have spent decades creating a system that gets them the chattle they need.

So while I agree that staying informed is a very important duty for real American patriotism, there is no mechanism in place that encourages Americans to do just that. And if they aren't all self-starters like your father - or, to some extent, those reading this posting - then they will float along with popular opinion and our nation will be lost … if it isn't already.

I cannot say now that I am a candidate, and I enjoy my current unelected position as left wing curmudgeon, but I am forming a fact finding committee.

In all seriousness, there is still places to hear some unfiltered news, surprisingly the BBC world service gives some very lucid comment on our politics, for one.

PBS is not too bad and tries hard to remain impartial onpolitics, save their few bias issues like the environment.
My name is Bob and I approved this signature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:30AM
mapaghimagsik at 6:55PM, July 16, 2008
(offline)
posts: 711
joined: 9-8-2006
ozoneocean
bobhhh
Again I suggest there be a civics exam for voting registration just like with a driver's liscense, as I said before you can do a whole lot more damage with your vote than with a motor vehicle.
Good in theory, But in practise those tests tend to be manipulated to control who can and can't vote.

Didn't African Americans used to be subjected to some sort of vote test?

There was that, and the poll tax, which disenfranchised the poor.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:51PM
arteestx at 7:39PM, July 16, 2008
(online)
posts: 285
joined: 6-1-2007
ozoneocean
bobhhh
Again I suggest there be a civics exam for voting registration just like with a driver's liscense, as I said before you can do a whole lot more damage with your vote than with a motor vehicle.

Good in theory, But in practise those tests tend to be manipulated to control who can and can't vote.

Didn't African Americans used to be subjected to some sort of vote test?
Yes, and it was used as a form of intimidation to prevent the poor from voting. Here's some history from a group called the Civil Rights Movement Veterans…

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.crmvet.org/info/lithome.htm
In addition to completing the application and swearing the oaths, you had to pass the actual “Literacy Test” itself. Because the Movement was running “Citizenship Schools” to help folk learn how to fill out the forms and pass the test, Alabama changed the test 4 times in less than two years (1964-1965). At the time of the Selma Voting Rights campaign there were actually 100 different tests in use. In theory, each applicant was supposed to chose one at random from a big loose-leaf binder. In real life, some individual tests were easier than others and the registrar made sure that Black applicants got the hardest ones.

A typical test consisted of three-parts. For example:

* In “Part A” the applicant was given a selection of the Constitution to read aloud. The registrar could assign you a long complex section filled with legalese and convoluted sentences, or he could tell you to read a simple one or two sentence section. The Registrar marked each word he thought you mispronounced. In some cases you had to orally interpret the section to the registrar's satisfaction. You then had to either copy out by hand a section of the Constitution, or write it down from dictation as the registrar spoke (mumbled) it. White applicants usually were allowed to copy, Black applicants usually had to take dictation. The Registrar then judged whether you were able to “read and write,” or if you were “illiterate.”

* In Parts “B” and “C,” you had to answer two different sets of four written questions each. Part “B” was 4 questions based on the excerpt you had written down. Part “C” consisted of 4 “general knowledge” questions about state and national government.

Your application was then reviewed by the three-member Board of Registrars –often in secret at a later date. They voted on whether or not you passed. It was entirely up to the judgment of the Board whether you passed or failed. If you were white and missed every single question they could still pass you if – in their sole judgment – you were “qualified.” If you were Black and got every one correct, they could still flunk you if they considered you “unqualified.”

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

The CRMVet website also has a sample voting test from Alabama.

I know, this is extremely unfair and no one suggesting literacy tests today would approve of such a clearly corrupt method. But I do think it's instructive to know the history. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 made these kinds of tests illegal.

Yes, I too get impatient with those who don't follow enough news and don't understand our government, etc. But I always remind myself that this nation was founded on the principle that ALL people have certain inalienable rights.

Xolta is not intended for anyone under 18 years old.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:02AM
lothar at 4:04AM, July 17, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
Ronson
But to label the uninformed American as unsophisticated (or worse an aberration) is a mistake. THEY are what our government wants … easily led and easy to lie to. They have spent decades creating a system that gets them the chattle they need.

Exactly ! and this is how they use them
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
bravo1102 at 10:26AM, July 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,228
joined: 1-21-2008
So many good points made so far and I suggest a ticket with bobhhh and mapaghimagsik. It may be too late for 2008, we could shoot for 2012?

But please upon reading some of the posts you talk about the offense done to Obama and then make offensive remarks about Rush Limbaugh. It damages your position. Just because you don't agree with someone's politics is not a reason to talk trash about them. And that is one thing that the New Yorker cover is trying to point out by putting every bit of offensive stereotyping about the Obamas into one illustration.

The references to prescription medication are particularly troubling to me as a mental health advocate and the husband of a woman with chronic pain. Many of greatest people in history have struggled with problems that today would be treated with prescription medication.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
Ronson at 7:17PM, July 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Rush Limbaugh has admitted to being hooked on prescription medication - to the point of nearly going deaf. He is “drug-addled” to say the least. That isn't a smear, but an observation.

Add to that the FACT that Rush Limbaugh lies to people regularly on his show in an effort to scare and/or fool them. There isn't a single show that isn't at least partly the ravings of a madman and/or a propagandist for the right wing.

Rush Limbaugh illegally aquired prescription drugs and used them for his own pleasure…just like Cindy McCain.

That's the difference. It's true. The Obama thing isn't, but will be used to back up the morons who think it is true.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved