A brief roundup of takes on the new National Review cover image of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor:
Apparently if you're not white or male, it really doesn't matter what your racial or ethnic identity is. They're all interchangeable. You're just Other.
It’s not offensive because it’s someone else’s stereotype, like if I say a woman can’t do the same job a man can because women have hook noses and are obsessed with money.
... there’s this deranged fascination with walking up to the line and dancing around there in hopes of getting called on it. Then you get to become indignant. Because, again, the contemporary right’s main view on race is that actual racism against non-white people is only a tiny problem compared with the vast social crisis that allegedly exists around people being vigilant against racism.
And now for a defense from Rich Lowry, editor of the NRO:
Turn out my correspondent from Salon is way behind the curve—TPM and Daily Kos have already accused us of racism. You gotta move fast when you’re competing with your fellow hair-trigger PC cops on the left! I take it the theory is that we don’t think Latinas can be wise so we had to make her look somewhat Asian. Or something like that. What these people don’t understand is the entire concept of caricature (or of a joke). Caricature always involves exaggerating someone’s distinctive features, which is all that our artist Roman Genn did with Sotomayor. Oh, well. Keep it humorless, guys, keep it humorless.
Huh? So one of Sotomayor's distinctive features is that she is Buddhist? That she's considered wise? What am I missing here? Because an important aspect of good humor is not having to explain your "joke."
But among conservatives, I believe this is considered a form of strategery. Certainly pissing off liberals should get them back into power any day now.
Let's keep waiting, shall we?