If Businessweek’s next cover features a mash-up of Trotsky, Dorothy and the W. of OZ characters, spaghetti bolognese, infant sloths and dozens of different flower species, I look forward to discussing it with you.

The amount of ignorance and disingenuousness displayed in this thread is really depressing. It suggests that many commenters on BB, whom I consider a thinking, informed crowd, have great gaps in their knowledge and understanding of American history. Further, it suggests that they’ve never hung out with their friends and discussed race.

What surprises me about that is that among my friends, being the type of people who discuss current events, politics and society (like most BB commenters), race in America is a common topic for conversation. Because it’s relevant. And it’s enraging. Sometimes it’s encouraging. but it is always relevant to what it happening in the US.

Race has played and continues to play a significant role in our country’s history. I don’t understand how it can remain an obscure topic for well-informed, curious, well-meaning, and knowledgeable people.

Oh, irony.

/s

Regardless of the artist’s intentions, however, the artist is not the one who critiques or accepts a cover illustration. It doesn’t work that way in the industry. I’ve designed covers for two issues of Businessweek, although it was a couple years ago and personnel/process may have changed since then. But I’m very familiar with standard client/artist dynamics.

The client has initial, inter-process and final say. Rough draft suggestions are green-lighted by them and they maintain all control over what appears on the cover of their magazine.

What I would suggest, since you’re lacking in experience to fairly judge such a cover, is to buy that magazine. Invite some friends over- African American, Native American, Latino/a, S.E Asian Indian, Asian, Middle Eastern– and discuss the cover.

Failing that, devote some time to researching WHY this cover is offensive to so many.

You will learn something about the lives and experience of friends and other Americans. And I believe that what you would learn would help you better understand contemporary American society and the history of race in the US. 

I predict that you would also strengthen friendships while gaining a better understanding of how racism functions in this country. Which, in turn, would help you make more informed  choices in future elections.

This may sound patronizing. I’m sorry if it does. But I am extremely frustrated by how many (mostly white) people, simply through ignorance or lack of experience, make judgements that impact the lives of so many other people. 

This is important. Racism has always played a powerful role in the history of the US. This history affects all Americans, and living in ignorance of its impact on society makes a citizen an uniformed voter whose vote affects the lives and the future of every American.

Try to see the world through others’ eyes for a change. It will change your life for the better and make you a wiser and more compassionate person. Isn’t this change something that most people would welcome?

Right.  The reason I don’t agree with you because I don’t know what black people look like.  It’s all so clear now, obviously that’s the problem.

The fact that some black people can have very light skin tones has no bearing on the fact that the caricature in the lower-left looks to a lot of people like an overweight white woman rather than a black woman.  It’s presumptuous of you to claim that it’s *actually* a black woman who just happens to look white, as if you were in any way involved with the original intent, and that anyone who disagrees with you is obviously wrong and should just go away (and complete with foul language, in some of your thread posts).  If the intent was a caricature of a black woman, it failed to exaggerate the main aspect that would make that clear.

Am I missing something or are my nerves not as highly sensitive to even a whiff of racism in the manner that Victorian ladies were primed to respond to even a faint hint of naughtiness by fainting?

“Dark-skinned” people (I am white and am darker than two of the people in the drawing) can own houses and have lots of money too, it’s not just reserved for white people any more.

Stupid and greedy people come in all colors and it was stupid and greedy people who caused the last crisis and who will cause the next.

i see that she could be interpreted as a wide variety of ethnicities, im seeing a latina / philipino sort of thing going on, but white or light skinned black definitely isn’t off the table

Hmm…wonder who said that originally…

I don’t even see the art as meaning what it was originally intended to mean. As one commenter above said, what, they got a house AND money too? Is that what flipping is about? And then there’s the weird big circle cut out of the house. And the money inside the house doesn’t read easily, to me at least, as money at all–more like a bunch of Popeye spinach. 

Also, coming from Miami, plenty of Latinos hate other Latinos. You know, the “dirty” ones.

Anyway, yeah, I think the problem here is that the editor wasn’t doing their job. The context makes this illustration … problematic.

If you’re referring to the word “poor” in the quote you referenced, the article devotes exactly two sentences to increases borne by those of us who are less than affluent:

“The most immediate change affects nearly all workers: Congress allowed a two-percentage-point cut for the employee portion of the Social Security tax to expire. As a result, each will owe up to $2,425 more in payroll tax this year than in 2012.”

Here’s the most relevant succinct quote describing the main focus of the article:

Backdoor Tax Increases

“At first glance the law appears simple. In terms of income tax, for example, only the highest tax rate in 2012—the 35% bracket—will increase in 2013, to 39.6%. And that applies only to individuals with at least $400,000 of taxable income or couples with at least $450,000.
“But there are two backdoor tax increases that will apply to people earning far less—$250,000 for singles and $300,000 for couples.”

And what the heck do you mean when you say:

‘…I’m not sure “they were just implicitly excluding non-rich people from the conversation” is really the best defense here’.

Defense against what? Are you suggesting that there’s something wrong with writing an article that discusses the impact — on affluent people — of a law designed to affect affluent people?

In any case, I’m not sure that “they were just implicitly excluding non-rich people from the conversation” is really the best defense here.