Forget for a second that it is a conservative magazine and the fact that most Republicans have outright spoken against Ms. Sotomayor for that supposed "racist comment" she made way back when. I think seeing this cover on any magazine would seem somewhat of an outrage. Why does she look Asian? Why is she dressed like Buddha? What's up with that title? If I didn't know better, I'd say the whole thing is straight-up racist.
According to my Mac dictionary, a caricature is defined as: "a picture, description, or imitation of a person or thing in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect."
Now, I haven't been following every step of Ms. Sotomayor's career, but I don't think I've ever seen a picture of her and thought, "Wow, she sure looks Asian." On the contrary, I don't think I've ever thought that at all. Is the only way for her to seem validly "wise" to be artistically manipulated to look Asian?
The mere fact that they titled it the "The Wise Latina" seems to imply that Latinas are usually not wise. If you want a good title, you need to catch the attention of passersby. And by doing so, you need to employ a somewhat ironic phrase.
Personally, I wouldn't title an article about an adept basketball star "The Good Athlete," because that's boring. You want some jazz, some pizzazz. A little bit of an unexpected juxtaposition. For instance, about that basketball star...I might say "The Poetic Athlete" because that's a fairly uncommon mainstream stereotype. So here, National Review writer Ramesh Ponnuru came up with this juxtaposition-y title, as though "wise" and "Latina" have no business being in the same sentence, which doesn't sit very well with me.
Many critics, from Salon to AngryAsianMan have discussed their utter confusion and condemnation of the cover. According to Salon, Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, said of the cover:
"Seems kind of self-explanatory...she has characterized herself as a wise Latina, so we ran a caricature of her in a pose associated with extraordinary equipoise, peace and — yes — wisdom..."
Thanks, Lowry. I think we get what you're trying to say here, but the idea behind actually doing this cover is definitely not as clear-cut or self-explanatory as you might think.
But are we reading too closely? I've been known to rack my brain too seriously over certain things. Could it be that Ponnuru simply penned a straightforward title? Is it possible that it is all just as innocent as Lowry makes it seem?
