I could actually imagine this same image being used in Tricycle or Shambhala Sun if they decided to publish an article about Sotomayor comparing her beliefs to those of buddhists. (I don’t actually know much about her beliefs, so I don’t know if such an article would make sense, but y’know) If such a thing had happened, I wonder if the image would still be considered racist.

For what it’s worth, I’m a Buddhist and a liberal (mostly). I think the headline strikes me as more racist than the picture, because it seems to imply that she might be the only wise latino.

(Not that I think Sotomayor should be “confirmed,” or anything, or that anyone else should be, or that the Supreme Court and the rest of America’s hell-on-earth prison-system gulag should even exist.)

How about Asian people?

Please explain what you did mean, because I for one* am mystified.
___
*I had to restrain myself, Strangelove-like, from typing “…welcome our new Wise Latina overlords” after that. NnnnnNNGG!

It is also truth in advertising, accurately depicting the sort of hamfisted caricature that is NR’s bread and butter

I think this whole race thing is being blown out of proportion. We just elected a black* man president. Do people really still think there’s a barrier that prevents an Hispanic from being on the Supreme Court? I see this as a non-issue. As long as someone more qualified than her wasn’t passed over to get to her, then confirm her, and let’s be done with this.

*he’s also half-white, which the press never bothers to point out (racism by the press)

I disagree. Without context (I have none, know nothing about her), it’s utterly innocuous.

http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2009/0905/chair_sonia_sotomayor.jpg

Looks like her, and the quote that clearly means something I’m unaware of, superficially makes it clear she’s not asian, and seems to equate Buddhism with wisdom, which is possibly strange since apparently she’s not Buddhist, but it’s hardly insulting.

How can you graphically satirize somebody who refers to themselves as “wise” without being racist? (Maybe the quote was taken out of context in Sotomayor’s case, but I’m asking about caricature generally.) If they’re thin, you could draw them as Gandhi, but would that be racist too? Would Moses get the point across? Einstein seems more smart than wise. Besides, that’s two Jews in a row.

With regard to the OP, the slanted eyes and prominent teeth strike me as pretty much textbook Asian stereotype. It’s not exactly subtly done.

The sort of Buddhist iconography the illustration references is a good, widely-understood visual shorthand for “wisdom” and “enlightenment.” Illustrators often rely upon widely-understood visual metaphor; it’s an efficient way of getting across a point. If Hillary, Bill, Barack, or McCain had implied that they were particularly “wise” on account of their race and/or cultural experience (or whatever) they’d be due for the same sort of razzing, and the same iconography would have been among the sharpest tools at hand.

Sotomayor’s race (and the Buddha’s) is incidental to the gibe. In fact, the only thing “racist” within 100 yards of this image is Sotomayor’s original quote. I find it hard to fathom that intelligent and honest adults think otherwise.

(I too admire the craftmanship of the piece, which indeed warrants a reference to Artzybasheff and Covarrubias, two of my all-time favorites. A glance at Roman Genn’s website suggests that the artist really hit his stride with this one.)

It’s the bigotry that makes it offensive.

Also, um, the Buddha was born in current day Nepal, which was culturally North Indian and racially Aryan. He’s reported to have had light skin and blue eyes, as is still common in northern India.

http://howard53545.wordpress.com/2007/07/08/1996-emerge-magazine-cover-thomas-lawn-jocket-for-the-far-right/

Or not.

http://www.buddhanet.net/budart/pages/buddha13.htm

And Aryans (real ones) are not blond and blue-eyed, despite what [name censored by Godwin-o-matic] claimed. They are short, dark-haired people. The eyes I don’t know about. Don’t Berbers have blue eyes too?

Teller, the New Yorker cover was racist too. Whether they did it on purpose or not. Since the National Review was founded by racists and has been consistently racist throughout its history, we don’t give them the benefit of the doubt. I suppose they could have been as clueless as the New Yorker was, but personally I’m just not inclined to cut those toad-fuckers any godsdamned slack.

Of course they’re jumping the gun, but Obama has struck so much fear into their pale, cold hearts, simply because of the colour of his skin.

She also claims to attempt “complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives,”, “I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences, but I accept my limitations,” and says:
“I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.”

Anyone who reads the paragraphs immediately preceding and following her statement would know that her speech was addressing the complexity of race and was not insulting to anyone. This is manufactured controversy. The researchers at SCOTUSblog actually find that she has a record of rejecting discrimination claims more often than not.

Knowing all this, I do think that all this objection to Judge Sotomayor’s comment is racist, though at best willful ignorance is at play.

How can you graphically satirize somebody who refers to themselves as “wise” without being racist?

Owl in a mortarboard.

And the Jonah Goldberg and his critics was hilarious in a way that I don’t think they meant it to be.