Tonight would have been a perfect time for me to post about Miss. America doing her own version of the "slip n slide" at the Miss. Universe Pageant, and how it's a perfect metaphor for so many things that's screwed up with our republic these days . But alas, I have some other things on my mind, mainly presidential politics and the latest bru ha ha over his "O" ness.
Now first, I am going to surprise a whole lot of people and say that I understand what the "New Yorker" was trying to do with their cover. It was meant to be satirical, and I might be the only black person that's not a republican in these divided states to see it as such. If anyone should be offended by this, it's Muslim A-merry-cans, but then I am sure that they are so used to facing prejudice on a daily basis, that a magazine cover lampooning the people that show them prejudice, probably isn't all that offensive to them. Even Mr. Morton's people have gotten into the act: " The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree." Yeah right, sure you do Mr. Burton. And I am quite sure that most of the people it's lampooning will be voting for your candidate. Of course, as is usually the case, you Obamaholics have been losing your natural minds over this dis from the rest of A-merry-ca.
But isn't this a case of shooting the messenger? If you Obamaholics don't think that a significant number of your fellow citizens feel that the idiotic caricature on the cover of this magazine is accurate, well then I have a nice little antique bell with a crack in it to sell you from my hometown. Which, if you believe the Editors of this magazine, was the point of the cover: To make fun of the ignorant folks in A-merry-ca who actually believe that the pic is an accurate portrayal of his "O" ness. Ahhh field, come on, if this was FOX you would be all over them. I smell a double standard here. If you smell double standard, you have a heck of a good nose, because it probably is on my part. You see it's like this: FOX has a history of doing ignorant and racist shit, and they cater to the very folks this magazine happens to be lampooning. The clowns over at FOX are the ones who gave us the terrorist fist pump, the intentional mispronunciation of Obama's name, and the studio pundits who make fun of his wife and call her angry. So you damn right that if this was FOX I would have been all over their backwards ass behinds, and I make no apologies for that.
But not these folks, they don't have that history. This is not Vogue, who tried to take a serious picture and came off looking just flat out stupid, racist, and insensitive. The "New Yorker Magazine" folks know that this picture looks stupid and insensitive, and that was their point. What is a shame is that this cover created such an uproar, because the article in the magazine--I wonder how many people actually read it-- was a pretty good one. It chronicled the "O" man's rise as a typical South side Chicago politician, and featured an interesting cast of characters who seemed all too familiar to me. If some of you Obamaholics read it, you will find that your boy is a politicians like all the rest of the politicians here in A-merry-ca. It doesn't mean he won't do a good job, or that he doesn't deserve our vote, but I swear that wasn't water I saw him walking on.
97 comments:
Knowing the definition of satire and knowing that this is The New Yorker's idea of such does not preclude the cartoon from being offensive.
Intent has little to do with outcome and/or response.
I'm a sister who's been a subscriber to the NYorker mag for over twenty-five years. The writing is superb, and the articles are highly informative. The cartoons are an absolute blast. I utilize the movie reviews to help me gauge the worth and decency of the (artsy) films that I attend. My subscription is renewed through 2010. With that said, when I saw the cover, I thought it was absolutely hilarious. I got the point, and I've always understood the satirical nature of their covers. I would hope that serious readers and viewers would understand that the NYer editors were absolutely not being racist. The cover reminds me of one of my favorite NYer covers from some years ago. It was during a period when much media news was devoted to New York because taxi cab drivers weren't -- more than usual -- weren't picking up African Americans on NY streets. Well, this particular cover, which appeared on MLK's birthday, Jan. 15th, was a wonderfully drawn cover of MLK standing on a NY curb trying to hail a cab -- thumb sticking out -- and the frightened white driver was high-tailing right pass him, with a terrified look of sheer terror on his face. The cover was an absolute hoot. I framed that cover -- as I will this one -- and took it to class and used it as a teachable moment, because I understand the point: let us take a serious look at ourselves and make an ernest attempt to discern the realness and/or falsity of what we see, hear, and speak.
The New Yorker has a long history of Satire and a pretty consistent body of work that has been quite revealing and complimentary of Obama.
I only wish more attention was paid to the enlightening and revealing article on Obama's Chicago Politics pedigree and less to the cover.
There has been a certain Pavlovian impulse on Black folk to rush and protect Obama from the Man, much in the same way we were so quick to protect folk who come under what they seem as being irrational scrutiny.
The complex reality is that while it is clear that Black folk are so enamored with the possibility of a Black President that they are actually paying attention to politics moreso than usual, it is also clear that they are taking this WAY too personally and need to stop treating Obama like Cousin Barry and go ahead and treat him like politician of choice.
Barack Obama is a grown ass man. He can protect himself.
...offensive is not synonymous with racist.
LOVED the grown ass man comment!!!
Once again the O man's bad judgment is overshadowed by a fake scandal. Bernie Mac was poor judgmement. Saved by The New Yorker. Obama only knows victim status.
To compare MO with Angela Davis is heresy. Davis is the shit. MO is a jack and jill wannabe.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! Thank you for this post. Every race related blog I've been to have taken this way to seriously. It's The New Yorker and anyone with half a brain should be able to tell that it's satire.
The only problem is that most of America do not have half a brain and not be able to tell it's satire.
"Barack Obama is a grown ass man. He can protect himself."
the ink, that sentence ended a rant which I co-sign witn 100%.
anon 8:55PM, like you, I have been a long time reader of the New Yorker,so in the spirit of true disclosure, I must say that it might have clouded my position on this issue.
"Intent has little to do with outcome and/or response."
missy, the thing about satire is that it can thrive because some folks will never get it. I mean the folks who want to believe this stuff are going to see exactly what they want to see, period.
So because I find it offensive means that I don't "get it?"
If Golf Magazine fired its editor who put a hangman's noose on its cover to highlight a two-week suspension for an on-air comment connecting "lynching" with Tiger Woods.
Then The New Yorker might need to do likewise. Race and terrorism are already heated and explosive poitical environment. The country is already in crisis-mode as we speak. We don't need too much more of this.
"So because I find it offensive means that I don't "get it?"
No missy, you can find it offensive and still get it. Often times satire IS offensive. But that doesn't mean the person is racist or whatever ( and I am not saying you are accusing them of that),it just means that you don't happen to appreciate the way they chose to make their point. Some people appreciate it, becuase it makes the point of how ridiculous the folks that they are lampooning look to the rest of us.
You can only satirize a truth. You cannot satirize a lie.
For example: in pre-WWII German cartoons Jews were "satirized" as money-grubbing long-nosed creeps. It was not satire. It was stereotyping based on a lie. And it fanned the flames of anti-semitism instead of enlightening a wider populace about European Jewry. That's what is wrong with the New Yorker cover art. It is NOT, I repeat NOT, satire. It is stereotyping.
jjbrock, I understand your point, I really do. I personally found the Golf Magazine cover offensive, and Tiger's response was just as offensive to me. But again, they were not trying to make a point with satire. They were doing a serious story about an actual incident.
This illustration is inappropriate and lacking in taste. Never mind the fact that Fox Noose will have a field day (not you Field) with this. As George Lakoff will point out, this will be seen by many as verification of what they already believe.
The senior editor who approved this illustration—they are not obligated to approve a cover illustration, showed extremely poor judgment.
Thank you for "getting me."
You expressed my sentiments exactly.
"You can only satirize a truth. You cannot satirize a lie."
Wrong Mary, you can satirize a lie if people who are pushing it believe it's the truth.
satire="the use of ridicule,irony,sarcasm, etc.,to expose folly or vice,or to lampoon an individual." ~Oxford Dic.~
The problem with the cover is that it perpetuates the lies with images. If The New Yorker had portrayed the liars, such as Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, etc. with these caricatures the cover could indeed communicate satire, instead it serves as propaganda.
I subscribe to the New Yorker and I understand the satirical nature of the cartoon, and do not find it offensive because it was not making fun of Obama and his wife, but the absurdity of those vacuous individuals who believe the rumors contrary to the factual information about the man and his wife. I am not canceling my magazine subscription. I discussed it with a friend of my mind who commented that probably two black read the magazine in the first, and I do find that a sad commentary because it just buy into believing the stereotype that blacks do not read. I was listening to an interview with the blogger from Afro Nerd who mentioned that the number one blog blacks read is with the subject of entertainment of what is Beyonce is doing these days and not social commentary or political blogs like Field's.
We have the idea of being offended for the sake of being offended. The cartoon is information as it is telling that a lot of right-wingers who hold that belief as well some ignorant people who get their only source of news from Fox. Satire is not nice, and that's the point. When Jonathan Swift wrote "A Modest Proposal" by suggesting that the people of England should take unwanted to infants and use them as a food source, it was suppose to challenge the readers by questioning their morality and look at the problems of poverty and overpopulation. Satire's purpose is to shock so you can see the absurdity. The cartoon is absurd and it is what we are suppose to recognize. I am an Obama supporter and I know he is not muslim, and the cartoon does not make angry just support the idea that their some foolish individuals who do. I was listening to a woman from Staten Island who believes that if Obama becomes President, he will empower black people. That somehow black people will rise up from the ashes to smite and vanquish all the white people, and that was before cartoon came out.
The so-called "satire" of the New Yorker cover art fuels racism in the same way that the so-called "satire" of pre-WWII German cartoons fueled anti-semitism.
If this is satire, then when will we see the McCain cover where he's running off with Cindy the Trollop to her LearJet with the Keating 5's money falling out of his pockets?
The problem is that a lot of folks between, say, Philly & Pittsburgh, don't read the New Yorker ever & aren't much for sophisticated, multi-level satire. They tend to take things literally.
I said this on another blog.
A satire for whom. When I saw the cover, if I knew nothing of The New Yorker, I would not have read the rest of the news story. Satire wasn't evident to me, just from observation. I think it will feed the fire, especially since seeing such similar cartoons in blogs that believe this stuff. This image probably will be cut and pasted, uploaded to all those blogs that are into fear mongering. Many people are actually fearful, may not defeat Obama in the election, but have enough influence to create a backlash.
If you compare that cover with this cartoon, which is the satire. One has to see it in a context. A cover on a magazine is the picture of a thousand words. It is not as inconsequential as you might think. There are some influential people touting this stuff; not just some hayseeds that no one listens too.
@r.j., that's what I want to know!
I am not a fan of the cover. But then, I don't subscribe to the publication, so I don't have any history to compare it to. Field, I will have to take your word for it, in regard to their intent...
Granny, I'm waiting on your words of wisdom.
Sorry if multiple postings show up - having tech diff tonight...
This cover is no different than the one of GWB and Cheney in a "Brokeback mountain" scene. People who worshipped GWB didnt like it, everybody else loved it. Im sure the cover of Ahminiejad (sp?) in a restroom stall a la the Idaho senator pissed off some clerics down Teheran way. Im sure they thought it was driven by racism. They were wrong.
Somebody will always think the satire goes too far. Our skin must get a little thicker if were gonna get through this election. Its starting to look like us blacks are whining again.
Field,
I think you've missed several points:
1. Satire, doesn't need an explanation. What the New Yorker did wasn't "satire" and to suggest it is, means you don't understand the meaning of the word.
2. If the New Yorker is now in the business of "satire," where is an illustration of Hillary Clinton, with huge thighs, and the string from a Tampon hanging down between her legs?
Sorry friend, but the New Yorker's market is that great plantation called Manhattan and ruled over by Bill and Hillary Clinton.
BTW, the PUMA websites are all but masturbating tonight over this racist illustration of Michelle and Barack Obama. They are the intended audience for this perfectly dreadful piece of filth.
PS, Miss USA's name is Crystle Stewart, & she's gorgeous. I recommend shorter heels or less wax on the stage floor.
Good point about it being offensive to Muslims. Because I'm an Obamaholic, I immediately kirked out over how FOX was going to twist it into Obama-bashing. But Mr. Belle is a Sunni Muslim and his response surprised me. He said he felt there was a real, palpable hate of Muslims in this country and this cover--with Osama and the flag burning in the fire place is indicative of that.
I don't thinkit's satire. Or it's weak satire. There's no irony in pointing out that some Americans believe Barack is a Muslim andhis wife an Angela Davis throwback. I think an antebellum scene with George and Laura dressed as Aunt Jemima and Uncle Mose and Barack and Michelle as the Master and Mistress of the plantation might have been more ironic. Because people's distrust of Barack is about race, not religion or some Manchurian plot to get an Islamist in the White House.
FIELD!!!!
What happened to the "Backstabbers" album cover!?! Damn, I needed to show to that to some friends...
It was J. Jackson, Michael Nutter. Who was the third one?
"If this is satire, then when will we see the McCain cover where he's running off with Cindy the Trollop to her LearJet with the Keating 5's money falling out of his pockets?"
r.j., we just did :)
"The problem is that a lot of folks between, say, Philly & Pittsburgh, don't read the New Yorker ever & aren't much for sophisticated, multi-level satire. They tend to take things literally."
And bob, that's the problem isn't it? Those folks aren't voting for Obama anyway, that's a fact! And they will find one reason or another not to.
I think it's a good idea to read the article before solidifying your opinion about the cartoon. The New Yorker has written at least three articles on Obama since 2004. I think the article have been fair in giving a description who OB is as a politician. Here is the link, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all
Here is another article first written in 2004, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact1
Here is one that was written last year, which I thought was very informative, http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/05/07/070507fa_fact_macfarquhar
Brother Field,
I hear what you are saying and I love satire and a good joke also but that was way over the top. First, when you have to explain the satire, that means it did not work. Second, did they satire Lieberman with a yarmulke and a Uzi pointing at a Palestinian when he was running, NOPE. Or maybe Giuliani with Mafia cloths acting like a mafia don.. NOPE.
They made that the cover because they knew they would sell magazines.
And if you are ever in DC, I will buy you a drink!
B1bomber
~
... If some of you Obamaholics read it, you will find that your boy is a politicians like all the rest of the politicians here in A-merry-ca. ...
Posted by field negro at 7:29 PM
field, should you not credit the Reverend Jeremiah Wright with already having said this.
`
It was not satire FN. It was not irreverent or funny. That depiction only puts a lot of prejudice in one scene. It wasn't just racist it was anti-Muslim. How about looking into the motivation of the editor of the mag who is pro-Zionism? There's a way to do satire that everyone gets. It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek. You don't put a photo of a naked child to show the ills of child pornography. It was inflammatory and unnecessary. It was also an attempt at creating notoriety since magazine ad revenue is way down. They have harmed their brand and the article did nothing to suggest it was satire it was a hit job on Obama. It was a sexist attack on Michelle..and Angela Davis, who has not been co-opted like so many others from that time. The end. You might come around to seeing other's outrage the same way you did with the King Kong Vogue cover. If it was satirical a lot of racist people who don't like the Obamas would not be dancing with glee right now. They'd be embarrassed or humiliated if any good had come out of this. Instead we just see an example of people who would protest being labeled racists in fact understand and condone the very people and mentality they claim to be protesting against.
"If this is satire, then when will we see the McCain cover where he's running off with Cindy the Trollop to her LearJet with the Keating 5's money falling out of his pockets?"
I would agree with using the TRUTH as satire as in the example given above but when a LIE is used, again I say, we have propaganda
Obama's message, if he actually has one, is getting buried beneath all of these "Scandals."
Jonathan Swift suggested eating children in "A Modest Proposal."
Satire is supposed to be shocking.
The Wingnuts are passing around chain emails that make the claim that not only is Obama a Muslim, but that he's the "Anti-Christ."
They even cite the Book of Revelations claiming it details his rise to power.
They. Are. Lunatics.
I think the editors and publisher either had a hell of a LACK of consideration and forethought here...or they KNEW the storm they would raise and were counting on the controversy to bring attention to them.
I'm white and this just struck me as all wrong. Regardless of the New Yorker's history of satire, this is an image that begged for some kind of tag line, like:
Is this how the Heartland sees the Obamas?
Ok, not catchy, I know, but it's late and I'm in a hurry here. ;-)
Point is, if this were National Lampoon or Mad magazine or some publication that ALWAYS served up parody and satire, it wouldn't be as much a problem. But there was just too much potential here for misunderstandings, and so the New Yorker's leadership is either sadly lacking in tact and cultural awareness...or they are trying to cause a stir.
I'm an editor and writer with nearly 20 years of magazine and other print media experience, and I would eitehr never let this pass as-is if I were in charge...or if I did miss the potential for the resulting controversy, I would be apologizing for weeks for blowing my responsibility so badly.
Sorry, Field, I can't back you up on this one.
Field, stick to your guns on this.
The folks who are saying "this is NOT satire" are driving me the most nuts. It's freaking satire! It might have missed it's mark, you might not think it's funny, it might not work, but dammit IT'S SATIRE! If you don't see that then you shouldn't be discussing this with the grownups.
The second group that drives me nuts are those who say "How come they don't satirize McCain (Hillary, whoever) by depicting him this way...?" and then proceed to describe something that's not remotely satirical (see Fields' definition) or even funny. That's why you guys don't do cartoons, I guess. The New Yorker will (and probably has) satirized McCain, Hillary and all the rest of them, and when they do, trust me, it will actually be funny (like this cartoon is to me).
Most of the people here got it (even if like Missy they didn't like it). I just spent about an hour on some other sites where NOBODY seemed to get it, so I actually feel better coming here.
The cover is fucked-up. I don’t care if it’s a liberal magazine, what have white liberals (the majority) done for us? Exploiting us for their financial gains (magazine sales) disguised under the liberal banner is just as hideous as any plantation owner.
And this notion of satire is bogus. Satire usually involve some irony, where is the the gun totin, bible quoting, moomshine drinking cracker on the cover, saying I told you so.
The next edition of the magazine should have McIdiot on the cover, taking mid-day naps, with his dentures in a glass of water next to his bed side, and his wife holding a bottle with extra strength viagra. Of course I could go into the shit his wife have done with her non-profit, but that’s for some other time.
I guess Michelle spoke too soon. These mofo’s make it impossible to be proud of this country.
I agree with field and the others that the cover is satire, although I'm concerned about how the Obama foes will use the illustration. In any case, I can't wait to buy the magazine and read the article.
Makes me wanna holler--throw up both my hands
Field! Thank you! We need to see the satire about the 2,000,000+ displaced refugees, the 100,000+ dead Iraqis, the 4,000+ dead American soldiers and the 3,000+ 9/11 victims and the 1,200+ dead Katrina victims, etc.
All this cartoon conveys is the truth about the sorry moral state of conservatives.
Satire is the hardest thing to pull off. I remember having a disagreement with a friend about the movie UNDERCOVER BROTHER. The movie was a satire. She thought it was offensive.
Satire pushes right to the edge. I haven't read the New Yorker article but thought the cover was satirizing the hysteria in America about Barack's true background. Believe it or not there are many folks who think that Barack is really Muslim and that pound was some kind of signal. sigh.
That said I'm sure they knew this cover would be controversial so they should man up and take the flack.
As for the campaigns saying there are offended of course they have to say that. If Barack said anything less he would be again be painted as elitest because only they read the New Yorker (sorry Mr. Field. ha).
Personally I'm more offended about the Iraq war than about this New Yorker cover.
"the use of ridicule,irony,sarcasm, etc.,to expose folly or vice,or to lampoon an individual."
This cover tries to RIDICULE the Right by exposing the FOLLY or VICE of protraying the Obamas as radical America haters, etc.
"Point is, if this were National Lampoon or Mad magazine or some publication that ALWAYS served up parody and satire, it wouldn't be as much a problem."
The New Yorker does always have absurd covers like these.
The problem is the satire wasn't totally clear and is going to be used as propaganda by the Right. The artist defeated his own intent. (And I believe his stated intent because I totally got it upon first viewing.)
heartsandflowers said..."If it was satirical a lot of racist people who don't like the Obamas would not be dancing with glee right now."
Good point, hearts.
Sometime satire is like the not-so-well-meaning friend who tells you what he or she is really feeling, and then say, "I'm just kiddin'."
So, with this New Yorker cover, who's kiddin' whom?
I'm told that the article on the inside (although positive) never clarifies the cover (has nothing to do with it), which was meant to criticize radio and television pundits that spew misinformation about the Obama's.
I agree with one of the commenters here, that, if that was the case, why not lampoon those personalities who promote the falsehoods, rather than perpetuate the lie, to denounce the lie.
It just seems troubling.
And, as far as blacks being too sensitive, I say that we're not sensitive enough.
If you step on my toe often enough, and long enough, don't blame me if I become Pavlovian, as one commenter suggested, and yell, "ouch" every time you come near my toe.
If I holler often enough and long enough, whether the pain is real or not, you may get the idea that stepping on my toe or anyone else's toe cause pain, and won't be tolerated.
Jews still holler, and so should we, if for no other reason than to remind those who might be serious toe manglers that we're not going to take toe-crushing quietly.
"Catch a nigga by the toe, if he hollers, let him go."
I say holler like hell and, where possible, stomp your size 14 on the source of your pain.
Because our toes have been battered for so many years, almost without let-up, I say be as relentless in your hollering, whether the threat seems real or imaginary.
And just for the record: Obama is not the only one running for president.
Like it or not, All of black America is running.
We will look the other way on some things, and we will defend some things.
But to say that we're thin-skinned, and that we need a tougher hide, is like telling us to grow an elephant's hide, when our hide for years has been systematically stripped from our backside.
I say, instead, that America, and the rest of the world, should take into account that we're mostly hideless--or face the consequences.
forget the new yorker. someone get that girl a bowl of cheesy grits. she probably fell because she is so damn skinny and hungry.
bygbaby
@ Nelson M.
I'm no regular reader of the New Yorker, but they don't "always" have parody/absurd covers.
That said, I do agree with you that the artist's stated intent is probably honest. My quibble is with the judgment of the editorial and publishing staff that thought the parody was clear enough not to have a tagline of some sort that makes it clear that it is lampooning ridiculous images of the Obamas.
THANK YOU! THANK YOU! I knew I couldn't be the only person who saw that and thought "This is EXACTLY what the Right is portraying the Obamas as."
Republicans and the neo-cons have been playing on prejudices through out this whole election. From the time of the primaries to now. And the New Yorker's cover aptly illustrates what they've been saying. People are too quick to jump on the 'cism bandwagon.
The picture is neither racist nor offensive (and as a Muslim American, that goes double). It displays, in caricature, the message the Right has been sending out about what an Obama administration would be like. All anyone needs to do is tune into one of the numerous AM talk station programs and listen for about twenty minutes (provided you can stomach listening to that bile for so long) and you'll hear it.
And in full disclosure: The only time I've picked up a New Yorker magazine was while in the waiting room of my doctor's office, and more often than not it was several months (if not years) out of date. So I have no connection to, or special admiration for, the New Yorker.
"My quibble is with the judgment of the editorial and publishing staff that thought the parody was clear enough not to have a tagline of some sort that makes it clear that it is lampooning ridiculous images of the Obamas."
I totally co-sign onto that, deacon.
The only reason that this Mr. & Mrs. Obama satire DOES have impact — and may very likely spread — is because like all good satire, or good humor for that matter, there’s more than a germ of truth in it. Otherwise, the satire would utterly roll off the Obamoids’ backs, having no impact.
If you have to explain it then you probably shouldn't say it.
This is a bad joke and the New Yorkers editors arguments are flawed and full of intellectual BS trying to get it mixed up with freedom of speech and satire. Satire is the exaggeration of facts, not the blowing up of stereotypes. Then to couch it by saying we are going to show how stupid it is just read inside.
That's like me saying all the bad things about you. All the stereotypes and then saying but he's a nice guy. Just give him a try. It's flawed logic. This will go down as being racist whether they intended it or not.
What did I think about New Yorker’s cover, well…? When I first saw the picture on the cover, I said to myself. “Okay, Fox News and Rush are going to have a field day with this one. Thanks to the New Yorker, it gave those silly folks over at Fox and of course Rush the drug addict some more fodder to feed to those folks who tend to think that Fox and Rush are the best thing since peanut butter and jelly. Because we all know, that Fox News loves to twist things around, leave out, mislead, deceive, and lie. Whelp, what do you know, I was right. In fact, they’ve amplified it up a few octaves.
Nor is this satire.
Longtime Washington talk-show host John McLaughlin is facing fire Monday for referring to Barack Obama as an "Oreo" during a segment on his Sunday political program, "The McLaughlin Group.
The veteran Washington journalist was discussing the recent comments from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who was caught last week by an open microphone on Fox News saying the Illinois senator is "talking down to black people" as he campaigns for the White House. Those remarks were largely seen in reference to Obama's recent admonishment at a Chicago church of some black men who he said were not living up to their responsibilities as parents.
Referencing Jackson's comments, McLaughlin said Obama "fits the stereotype blacks once labeled as an Oreo — a black on the outside, a white on the inside."
"Does it frost Jackson, Jesse Jackson, that…an Oreo should be the beneficiary of the long civil rights struggle which Jesse Jackson spent his lifetime fighting for?" McLaughlin asked his panelists.
Wow, I stilll disagree with the folks who found the cover offensive, but I respect your positions. Personally though, I get it. And I think it sums up what quite a few folks in this country are thinking about the Obamas, which is kind of sad.
Still, I understand why folks like "tough times ahead" feel the way they do. This is new territory for black folks in A-merry-ca, and we are still trying to figure out how to react to certain things.
b1-Bomber I love D.C., that drink is on, as long as we go to a bar where they serve "Red Stripe".
Chris, I saw that "Oreo" comment from the senile one, I will have more on his ass later.
The cover is offensive to me because it lacks judgement. I totally get the satire, however this would only work if America didn't believe all this.
It's the same reason Dave Chappelle stopped his comedy.
What about the art installation that was shut down that did basically the same thing. I got that and was kind of sad it was taken down because I thought that really hit home as to the racism this country hurls.
The problem is this is the cover, and as we have found with Vogue (which I'm sorry I wasn't offended by), and you must think about it. I don;t think I would have had a problem if it was an inset in the article. Too me this was just too much. America is not ready for it.
I mean I can never imagine them putting a cover of HRC crushing male genitalia. That's satirical but it is also crosses a line of being sexist.
Yeah I get the cartoon, I think it tasteless and brash more than racist, well like you said the racism has more to do with Muslims.
The New Yorker should have thought this through and know where we are. That is the issue. Even McCain has called it tasteless.
However the New Yorker may have known exactly what it was doing, they have explained the cover and maybe many people who thought this way of the Obama's see the error in their ways. (yeah right...but I can dream right?)
Yes I want to know what's up with black Miss Usa's and that Miss Universe runway FOR REAL?
-OG
Last year, TAN had a post in EbonyJet about why black people don't get satire and I went at him for it.
Most people probably realize that the cover was satirical. They seem to be upset because they think that this cover wil reinforce the beliefs of those who actually believe the stereotypes.
Allowing the reaction of dense people to govern your behavior is the first step toward inertia.
I had a few things to say about this. I don't know if you'll like them though.
http://mikeb302000.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/the-obamas-on-the-new-yorker-cover/
i loved the cover on next week's The New Yorker, when i get my issue (if my damn mailman doesn't steal this issue) i'll probably get it framed for my office (it would be neat if i could get Barack and Michelle to sign it for me after the election in November... yeah! he's gonna win!).
field, we're real close on this one (i even linked to this post in my post of this subject over at plezWorld). i find the cover neither racist nor offensive. for those who actually stopped to examine the artwork, it is a satirical look at the way the Obamas have been portrayed by the right-wing-nuts over the past year... and then, the laugh is on their detractors (Sean Hannity, the Faux News Network, The Republicans, Hillary Clinton, Bill O'Rielly, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of their race baiting, Muslim hating ilk), as Barack and Michelle share a private fist bump in the Oval Office after he is sworn in as President!
this thing is a classic!!!
I did like the cover. But I'm a person who still thinks Angela Davis should be glorified and to see Michelle in Angela mode was the best part of the drawing. I gave up on the US thirty years ago and left. So I guess my stupid little opinion doesn't count for much. Barack looks better in GQ mode. He's too skinny for the bedouin outfits. Something all the Obama fans better get used to is that there is a whole industry in the US devoted to mocking the leadership.
Comics and satirists are not going to go into suspended animation after Obama is in the Oval Office.
This cover is nothing.
We got problems if people can't understand satire. I loved the cover.
When I saw it, I got what the NYT was trying to do, but I think it came out wrong. If they are lampooning the people who think of the Obama's like this, then where are they in the picture? I don't find fault with the message, but I think NYT could have done better because now that it's as widespread as it is every right-wing nut is going to be holding it up as an image of Obama to rally themselves against.
I think one of the problems people are having with this cover is the wide spread belief that if it's a cartoon or a caricature or satire it's always supposed to be funny, to provoke a guffaw or a laugh, and that's not true. Good satire should make you wince, feel uncomfortable, and (hopefully) think a little. It may also make you laugh, but that's not satire's primary goal.
Judging from the discussions it's stirred up, IMHO the New Yorker succeeded beautifully with this cover -- they're mocking the ignorant right wing bigots and know-nothings, and have managed to do so in a way that has the whole country talking about just how ignorant and know-nothing those bigots are. Among other things, they've put Faux News in the position of having to tell its own viewers just how misinformed and racist they are.
Thank you, Field. I was initially not offended, but then felt like I should be when the furor erupted. Thanks for bringing me back, and doing what you do.
Signed, A big fan and new commenter
Should we really worry about what backward ignorant people think? There are plenty of people who think that the earth is 5000 yrs old. There are plenty of people who think the government created AIDS. Plenty of people think Saddam Hussein was a member of Al Queida. So what?
What stands out to me is that it is that the people who are outraged about this cover are the same people who are ALWAYS outraged about anything. So many of us are perpetually outraged. They seem to revel in it. It seems a little contrived to me
I have to say this:
I am reading the comments about how they find the cover to be offensive, but have failed to read the article. The cover is pathetic and it's projecting of how people who really believe the rumors about OB. If you read the article, you will find how he became a very deft politician and how he made some decisions to get to where is now. Barack was not lucky and he is not naive he gives the appearance of being an outsider, but really knowing the rules of the game. If you do not know the rules of the game, you are not going very far. It's a part of the picture which we sometimes miss. It's about keeping your eyes on the prize. Stay focused on the goal.
My bigger concern is that we are paying so much attention to the cartoon without bothering to read the content. Read the article and then you will see the irony. I understand the level of sensitivity, but we need to be realistic that when you are in politics, satire will be part of it. Field is correct in saying Barack Obama is a politician, but he is a very good politician and I appreciate that.
Hey Brother Field I guess I will get my two cents in here as well I keep thinking that other places (Iraq,Afghanistan) and issues (foreclosures, loss of jobs) should be consuming our energy.
And by the way Sister Stewart Ms.America is an example of grace under fire I have never seen anyone fall with such composure, she never lost her smile or her confidence.
Field when I saw that picture I laughed and I mean I really laughed because the caricature is funny. However it is problematic.
I have been an editor and am still a writer/journalist and I have to tell you I always considered what the impact of something we were going to run would have on the people who were going to read what we put out.
In that vein the editors had to be aware that this cartoon would have an adverse affect on how folks view Obama. They had to take into consideration that it may actually reinforce a stereotype, which quite frankly it does. And the stereotype that is reinforced that is the most damaging is the perception of black women who are independent and strident as Michelle Obama. In fact a negative view of confident black women is not limited to right wingers or conservatives but is too often held by liberal whites as well.
In fact Field I have found that it is liberals more often than conservatives that do the most damage to the cause of justice because we assume wrongly that they would know better. I still think that too often folks who are white don't apply the same standards to people of color that they do to themselves. There are too many ooops when it comes to things that affect us as people of color, for my liking.
They should have thought this through a bit better. But in their defense they put the Easter Bunny on the cross around Easter one year and as more progressive minded Christian I thought it was hilarious. Of course I held a minority view among Christians on that one.
A more accurate lampoon would have been to make fun of the things that Obama actually has been doing, like flip-flopping or being not so nice to poor black folks. They should have shown him with two faces, you know one saying one thing and the other saying another thing. Or they could have shown one face smiling at white people and the other face could have been scowling at black people. That would have been good satire.
Or they could have shown two groups of folks watching the Obama's on the tube. One group would see them as they are and the other group would be foaming at the mouth rednecks or whatever, saying 'I tell you he is a commie loving, Muslim and look at her she ain't even proud of us.'
Now how and the hell did that woman die in the emergency room of a hospital in the most advanced and richest country in the history of the world.
liberation then peace
Yes the cover was an attempt to satire what people think of the Obamas but do not think they did not know that it would cause a stir and hopefully sell few more mags. They probably told the artist to go for broke and he did. Now I would have went for it if the article on the inside would have been about the stupid people who think that or about people who are perpetrating those images BUT they did not. The article is about how Obama is a shrewed politician. SO they knew exactly what they were doing.
And Please, when is that Pill-Popping and Pill stealing picture of Cindy McCain going to be on the cover?? Maybe pushing McCain in a wheel chair. Because the people over at the New Yorker know that type of satire will not be tolerated, no matter how funny it is!!!
And Field - I also know a good restaurant that serves a mean ox-tail to go along with your Red-stripe!
I get the cover, but I agree with other commenters that the pic needed a representation of conservative/right wing folks that perpetuate these myths and this is where the NYer folks missed the mark.
Consider satire such as SNL skits, Weird Al songs or Scary Movie--the subject matter/person being mocked/ridiculed is clearly represented.
I do recall that Miss USA fell last year as well--a bit of schadenfreude on the part of the rest of the world no doubt.
It is offensive but I'm not going to lose a lot of sleep over it. I posted at CNN that if Michael Bloomberg were a third party candidate and there were issues about his Jewishness, would it be amusing to put him on the cover of the NYer wearing a long beard, a long black coat, a yarmaluke, dancing a jig and waving the Israelil flag? CNN deleted my comment, answering my question.
If 13% of the American public didn't think Obama is a terrorist and Muslim, it would be mildly amusing. But they are playing off a bed of lies that a significant segment of population believes. As for the New Yorker's liberalness, I'm a little sick of hearing about how liberal whites (because I'm certain there are precious few black people working there) are entitled to say whatever they want about us "'cos they're on our side." Oh, please.
Whatever. This is mild stuff compared to what he's going to get before the campaign is all over.
I think the Obama camp needs to stop making speeches about this kind of stuff. All he had to say is that he wasn't amused by the cartoon and let it go. Why the freaking press release?
I just think those folks (and there are a lot of them) who are saying it didn't work or it isn't satire because the fools who actually believe Michelle and Barak are radicals aren't depicted are missing a point. It was subtle. They didn't HAVE to include that because frankly most of their subscribers are smart enough and familiar enough with the New Yorker to know that's who they were really sending up without having to include them. Subtlety among the New Yorker readers is generally considered a virtue - which is why a lot of the fixes people are imagining ("show this as a dream bubble of some rightwing dingbat) wouldn't be funny. That would be more like how Mad magazine or SNL would do it.
Call it an elitist thing. But I'm guessing Obama's team, in spite of their posing, loved it.
I think you have a good take on it. That said, I still lament the fact that the people being lampooned have yet another image to point at and say, after spitting out their chaw, "I told you so." Like the artist who did the "Assassination" show and got shut down, despite their intentions, the New Yorker just quite possible have laid another brick in the hell-bound (Morton presidential) road.
Amen!!!And, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! FN. I knew you were a true field Negro. Your take on the New Yorker cartoon-satire cover is one of the reasons I like this blog/site. My only criticism of Remnick's defense has to do with his omission of the real purpose - to make some money. He, you and I know that subscribers, and those who actually do READ and THINK, had moved beyond the point of the satirical cartoon - ergo, I'm disappointed that this particular cover/issue was designed to sell the magazine; make a few dollars. Thanks,
Georgia "Flash"
You have got to love it when other people tell you what should/should not offend you.
How can you disagree with something as subjective as finding the cover offensive. It's an opinion. Everyone is entitled to one regardless of whether or not you agree, basically all you can really do is state your OWN side--which is an opinion also. There is no statistical data, explanation or intent nor historical notes on what The New Yorker has or has not done in the past that will change my OPINION.
Additionally, people that keep saying what should offend me is offensive (just kidding on that one but I had to lighten the moment some)
This has indeed been a great discussion Field. I didn't comment on any other blog about this because they are basically stated the same thing concerning racism. I didn't get "racist" but I did get offended. Have I said that enough??? Even though we disagree on this point, keep doing what you do!
@ hennasplace:
This comment you made really hit home my worry about all this:
"My bigger concern is that we are paying so much attention to the cartoon without bothering to read the content."
-------------------------------
The people who will get the most negative mileage out of this are among the LEAST likely to read the article, I suspect...or to agree with anything in it. Instead, the cover potentially becomes THEIR tool to perpetuate wrong-headed images. The cover is blank of text and absolutely PERFECT for misuse.
I know this is only the start. And what scares me is how often people who are theoretically in Obama's camp are giving his enemies more ammunition (Hillary's race-baiting and other shit, Jesse Jackson's testicular diabtribe, and now the New Yorker...who needs enemies with friends like these to fan the flames?)
how does the person who was 2 chicken 2 print there name figure that MO is a jack and jill wannabee...i read the article and while i did find it insightful...i am an ardent obama supporter but i also know that he is a politician...grimy and gutter are the words that i use 2 describe the city that i love Chitown's politics and streets, forget NY if u can survive in chitowns streets or in its politics than u can make it anywhere....after reading the new yorker story....i am more respectful of obama for playing the game their way and still coming out on top....field u commented that a lot of names in the article u were familar with, i would like 2 know who
Great blog, Field. You hit the nail right on the head. We're all getting carried away by a bunch of nonsense and need to bring back real issues which are affecting each and everyone of us who isn't a fat cat rich right (white) wing gun totin' A-Merry-can.
Substance not nonsense. A little satire never hurt anyone.
Oh, yeah.....O'Man's getting a whole lot of free publicity, too. Think the New Yorker thought of that?
WashingtonPost.com (7/15/08) has a very well-written article regarding the NYer cover.
I co-sign with the ink's comments 100%.
As I see it, the New Yorker cover illustrates the complete absurdity of the smears surrounding the Obamas.
Now, could the magazine have made the same point about Muslim/black radical smears in a less provocative manner? Absolutely! But if they'd gone that route, we wouldn't be taking about the cover or the magazine and ... they wouldn't enjoy all this FREE publicity.
Missy,you are right, this has been a pretty damn good discussion.Folks being civil but dropping their two cents to fullest.
No no,barry4Obama,when I say I am familiar with these people,I meant that I know my way around Philly ward politics,and it's a lot like Chicago.I could relate because you could change the names and put them in another city,and that would be the only difference.That article could have just as easily been about the "O"man moving to Philly.
And hennasplace is right,everyone should read it, and forget about the cover for a minute.
I look and look but fail to see the part where they're satirizing the smears against the Obamas. All I see is caricatures.
Now if there are a couple of Republicans sitting in a lounge chair watching the Obama family chilling at a grill or whatever it is non-terrorist Americans do and bubbles over the heads of the Republicans showed that though they were viewing a normal American family, they were seeing terrorists, well then that would be satirizing the ridiculous right-wing scum. But that's not what the New Yorker did. Not even close.
It was indeed satire but it was not funny for one reason: the wingnuts control the media to the point where this shit will always be taken seriously by a large segment of dumbass A-merry-cans.
On the other hand, it is disconcerting to see so many Obamamaniacs massively overreacting to this and carrying on like Hillbots. Not very becoming at all...
Another day...another distraction. Ho-hum.
On "Obamaholics": while I will more than likely vote FOR him, it is more of a vote AGAINST McCain. Does that qualify as an Obamaholic move?
Just asking...
Speaking of stumbling beauty contest entrants, don't they send those women to classes to teach them how to walk on those stilts?
Shoot, you wouldn't find RuPaul or Lipsinka sitting on their butts when walking out on stage.
Those boys are pros!
Oh my lawd, Field,
I just read your sidebar about that iggiot, Gerrard McClendon "...show you negroes how Fox News is clowning you all."
My husband and his family (Cajuns) all say "ax". Dialect is dialect, nothing more or less. Achually, most folks down south, no matter color, seem to say "ax".
But I watched another clip with WTTW where Mr. Perfect McClendon said "I've also spoke at..." now, that bad engrish. It should be "I've also spoken at..." But, if he was to be really proper, he should have said "I have spoken to..." I'm a former English major and he's supposedly an English teacher!!! Argh!!!
White folks here in Philly say "Chalie" for Charlie. What's the diff?
In my 'hood, mostly folks of color, say ask. But, it matters not. Yes, we all need to know how to speak properly for job interviews, etc., but I don't think most folks look at "ax" as an issue in a job interview. I certainly never judged anyone for dialect when I was interviewing folks.
FAKE news needs to get blasted away, as does WTTW (a CBS Chicago affiliate) for this kinda crap.
Back on topic:
By the way, last I heard, at the NAACP convention the house negroes have a resolution against the New Yorker for their "nasty" cover. When did this become a big huge issue? :)
don't flatter yourself. You're not the only non-GOP brother who understand that it's satire.
Damn, Miss America is looking good! Great representation this year for the states.
FN,
We disagree.
I'll leave on the table the ' Obama/Muslim' stuff..
How about the pure racist crap pulled on Michelle Obama?
Every Black stereotype known for 'The Angry Black Woman' is there.
I read the New Yorker on a regular basis. This was neither funny, nor satirical.
And, if the title on the masthead said The National Review or The Weekly Standard, I think you'd be writing a different post.
But, the images and their racist intent are the same, no matter whose name is on the masthead.
[quote]It was meant to be satirical, and I might be the only black person that's not a republican in these divided states to see it as such.[/quote]
You know Field-Negro - the day that you commit yourself to going against the grain regarding things that are devastating the BLACK COMMUNITY rather than being an unpaid campaign cheerleader for the Obama campaign you might really accomplish something.
Get this Field-Negro references MOVEON.ORG in a post that is about political satire and slander. MOVEON.ORG!!! They have the nerve to call Fox "racist". I guess a "Snarling Fox" as defined by Malcolm X would know something about racism.
Field-Negro could you define "racist" for me?
"And, if the title on the masthead said The National Review or The Weekly Standard, I think you'd be writing a different post. "
You got me there! But they have a history.
"And Field - I also know a good restaurant that serves a mean ox-tail to go along with your Red-stripe!"
anon.11:57AM, you are on.
"Field-Negro could you define "racist" for me?"
....It's like a famous Chief Justice defined pornography; I know it when I see it.
I even consider self hatred a form of racism ;)
FN, I was waiting for you to jump all over this like the faifthfull little Obama sheep like you are. Guess what my fellow moonbat: The New Yorker was wrong for doing Sen Obama dirty like that... That was over the top and I'm a Republican... wait, Sen Obama got a taste of what it feels to be a Republican... Condi Rice has been down right call Bush's bottom bitch and what did I here from you is "crickets" and I'm not talking the cell phone. The New Yorker is saleing magazines. For every moonbat that cancels three more new customers come into the fold (like me). Well get back to practicing on feeding the Messiah grapes, I'll be defending America.
Condi Rice as Dubya's "bottom bitch"? The way Condi was always glued to the prez's side and always with him at the Texas White House too, I think a lot of folks, myself included, figured Condi and Dubya were knocking boots at some point.
But bottom bitch? Hell nah...she was on top if she was anywhere. Bush woulda been the bitch.
Holy Jesus Field I love you so much after reading this post. I want to have your children, we can run away to Boca Raton and open up a burger stand and read The new Yorker together. It'll be GREAT!
Field,
I understand the "satire" angle. I immediately "got it". However, in this case, the satire was misused and misplaced. The use of the image was irresponsible, and it should not have been done in the current political climate.
If someone's baby died during delivery, I wouldn't send them a greeting card saying "congratulations on the new baby". Even though there is nothing wrong at all with the card itself, if viewed in a vacuum...just on its own. The card may be a wonderful gift. But when placed in the wrong environment, in the wrong context...when given at the wrong time, it can be a negative.
So what political environment am I referring to that is so bad.... that constitutes wrong timing? Well, we are in a Country where tens of thousands of potential voters still believe that Obama is a Muslim and terrorist sympathizer. NPR did a segment last week that featured a Moderate Latina Political group that was going around spreading misinformation about Obama's religion...and this was a so-called informed political group. There are many within the general public who are just as poorly informed.
Obama is in a situation where he has a chance to make headway among moderates, independents, and White Southern voters in certain States. Included in these populations are folks who have been sitting on the fence regarding who they will vote for in November, and they may not be all that informed about Obama. Many voters have been introduced to Obama for the first time over the last 5 or 6 weeks. They may not know the backstory about the whisper campaigns, the misinformation campaigns, etc. Obama can do without anything that might blow his chances with these voters.
The New Yorker Magazine cover, while it might be satire, and "we" may understand it, might not send the same message to others. Others may not "get it". There are a lot of folks out there who are just plain dense and out of the loop on this stuff, especially in parts of the Country where Obama has a chance to flip States and districts from Red to Blue. Some may see the cover and not read the story inside that explains everything. Remember, Americans by in large have been turned into zombies by this soundbite culture. If folks don't get enough information from the cover (such as an explanation of what they are seeing) then they will walk away with the image and little more. An image that will play into fears that they already have from the previous rumors. This cover feeds right into the misinformation efforts that racist neo-Conservatives have put into the mainstream.
Did you read the Washington Post report about the experiences of Obama staffers in West Virginia, and other parts of the South and Midwest? The sentiments are real. The damage from the misinformation campaign is very clear. There is no excuse for anything that plays into that fear, satire or not, especially from a so-called friendly progressive magazine.
The New Yorker should have known that such an image could be misinterpreted and that this was not the right climate to publish it. But they chose to do so anyway, to create controversy and to sell more magazines, at Obama's expense. Print media has been suffering of late, due to the increase in the number of Americans who choose to get their information from other platforms. So they have a motive for engaging in this kind of behavior.
Yes, I know what the satire is. You know what the satire is. Many progressives know what the satire is...and they may even read the article. But there is a large segment of the American populace that won't get it, and won't bother to read the article. The use of the image was irresponsible and a little racist at best. Yes, there are Americans who just won't get it... remember, many of these people are the same folks who voted for Bush twice....or voted for Nader in 2000 and swung the elect......no, they insured the (s)election. These are the same people who saw the Twin Towers burning on 9/11 and wondered why anyone would want to harm America...and believed that the terrorists attacked us because they had a vandetta against "our American Freedom", and that they hated our domestic political system (complete nonsense...but they bought it hook, line, and sinker...and now the U.S. is in a war that it will be stuck in for at least another decade). So yes, there are tons of Americans who are just plain stupid...and they are armed with voter registration cards (deadlier weapons in the hands of stupid people, than any handgun in the possession of a responsible citizen).
Would the New Yorker have dared to do this for any other progressive candidate? Would they have engaged in this kind of a stunt for a white Democrat? Would they have painted any other progressive candidates patriotism, religion, allegiance, race, or character in this same way, satire on not? I don't think so. For some reason, Whites (many, but not all) of various backgrounds- progressive, Moderate and Conservative- feel comfortable & safe doing this to Blacks. Even against the best and the brightest who don't deserve anything close to this kind of treatment. Why the feeling of safety and comfort?
The New Yorker had to know that this was not a good idea.... that it was misplaced and just plain irresponsible under the circumstances.
____________
Field, you threw me off with this one. Last time, I was on the more Conservative side of the argument, and you were your true blue liberal self (on guns). This time, you are taking the more Conservative/Moderate position, and I am in the progressive camp (where I am most often).
I love being an Independent, but i'll be damned if it's not confusing sometimes.
When is the New Yorker going to have a cover showing John McCain patting the behind of a female lobbyist with one hand while money is falling from his pockets, holding his wife Cindy's hand with his other hand (you'll know it's Cindy; she'll be wearing the wet T-shirt that says "C**T on it", and money and pills will be falling from her pocketbook), and a crashed, burning jet in the background, and McCain's first wife on the side?
Hey, don't get mad at me; it's only satire!
Right?
what is silly, is all the folks upset and ask, "when we goona see the mcsame satire cover, or the lieberman starire, or gwb saitre new yorker cover". you dolts. new yorker or satire don't owe you folks nothing in the way of eqaul opportunity satire.
"All the folk upset" know that it (mcsame satire cover, or the lieberman starire, or gwb saitre new yorker cover) won't happen, but thanks for playing.
The New Yorker explanation is bullshit.
I see the satire. I do find it offensive, in that it pushes the "on-the-fence" undecided voters over to McCain. A lot of folks here said that anyone with half a brain should be able to tell it's satire. That, in itself is the problem - those who don't have half a brain will go running for the Great White Hope to insure that no Muslim, flag-burning terrorist with a militant wife becomes the grand leader of Amerikkka.
A great deal of White Amerikkka still views us as what Hollywood portrays us to be. They see only what is presented in the news and they have no opportunity to see Black folk in the reality of it all. Therefore, they take the photo as gospel - the man and his wife are no good for this country.
Although I am a fan of satire, this one did not st well with freedom. Peace.
KOLKATA HOTEL ESCORTS
KOLKATA MODEL ESCORTS
KOLKATA CALL GIRL
KOLKATA CALL GIRL SERVICE
KOLKATA CALL GIRL SERVICE
KOLKATA CALL GIRLS
CALL GIRL
Call GirlS
KOLKATA INDEPENDENT CALL GIRLS
KOLKATA INDEPENDENT CALL GIRL
ESCORT
ESCORTS
ESCORTS SERVICE
ESCORT SERVICE
INTERNATIONALSEX GUIDE KOLKATA
CALL GIRLS NEAR ME
CALL GIRLFRIEND RELATIONSHIP
ESCORT SERVICES
KOLKATA SEX
CALL GIRL IN KOLKATA
ESCORT SERVICE IN KOLKATA
GIRLS WHATAPP NUMBER
ONLINE GIRLS
FEMALE ESCORTS
FEMALE ESCORT
CALL GIRL NAME AND MOBILR NUMBER
CALL GIRL KOLKATA
ESCORTS SERVICE
MASSAGE IN KOLKATA
GIRLS PHONE NUMBER
INDIAN MASSAGE PARLOUR SEX
ESCORTS SERVICES
Post a Comment