We don't. We'd spoken with Isaiah about this at length and asked him if we could touch base with him at a future time about this issue. He agreed to that and the fact that the currecnt issue (March 5, 2007) of The Nation offers a rare thing, an African-American on the cover, seemed a good place to start.
When we spoke with you about portrayals before, it had to do with the sexualization of women in The Nation's December 4th cover as well as their portrayals of people of color. Could you talk about little Joe Lieberman?
Isaiah: Sure. That was what I thought of. The day of Lieberman's primary, I did three cartoons on the outcome and told C.I. to grab whichever one reflected the results. The results, as we all know now, were that Lieberman lost the primary. I had Lieberman stating, "You didn't like me as a Democrat . . . Get ready to hate me as an independent." Now I don't go into any of the accounts, the public e-mail account or the private ones. Usually Shirley or Jess forward my e-mails to me. Most of the right wingers who don't like a cartoon I do write once and that's it. The Joe Lieberman comic resulted in the angriest e-mails I had ever gotten. I was accused, repeatedly, of distorting his nose to make him look "Jewish" or "more Jewish." I stared forever at the drawing and I didn't see it then and don't see it now. So on the next Sunday, when I did my follow up, I ended up blowing it. There were some positive e-mails on that but, my opinion, I blew it. I've got Lieberman pledging his love for Bully Boy and I was so bothered by the claims that I was targeting Lieberman because he was Jewish, he ended up looking more like John Kerry than Joe Lieberman. I didn't give Lieberman his nose but if I don't draw it in a way that resembles what it is, I blow my comic.
And that's what you went to when we were asking your opinion about the Grossman illustration?
Isaiah: Right. I said I didn't think he'd be illustrating for the magazine if he was racist, I'm not sure about the sexism issue, but in terms of the racism, I was willing to allow that possibly it was just an attempt to capture the unqiue qualities of the men he was drawing. When you've got a woman with her leg tossed in the air, a Congress woman, I do think you need to wonder about the sexualization. If others were sexualized in the illustration, men, it would be one thing, but I didn't see others being sexualized.
Now comes the March 5th issue with a cover done by two people [CORRECTION: Illustration was done by two people, not four people]. What do you think of the cover?
Isaiah: From what I was told of the e-mails here and also from the complaints I read about the previous illustration in The Nation's letter pages, I didn't see pigment as an issue. No one was complaining about, for instance, the different shades used for John Conyers and Obama. So it's surprising that The Nation's cover illustration robs Obama of pigmentation. He's presented as White on the cover. And with questions arising over his commitment to the African-American community, I did find that puzzling in terms of, "Are they making an editorial statement?" If they were, it wasn't clear, and Patricia J. Williams article only muddied the issue. I think when you feature so few persons of color, you need to be clear if you're intending to make a statement by rendering Obama White. I don't think they did that. I fault this illustration more than the earlier one.
Because?
Isaiah: Well one reason is the other one was attempting to present about thirty people in one illustration. When you're dealing with two or more, you're having to fit them into something. That wasn't a portrait but a comic look at the celebration going on immediately after the election. That was the theme of the illustration and that's why I was bothered that a woman's got her leg straight up in the air but I was willing to give leeway on it. With the new cover, the one just of Obama, you've got several different things going on. First off, it's just him, no one else. So there's no, "He has to fit into a theme." He is the theme. So why did they decide to rob his skin of pigment and present him as White? And if you look closely at the cover, you'll note it's his skin that's lost color. His shirt, his tie, his suit jacket, they all have color. So what is the message? If people are offended with this cover and feel that when The Nation finally puts a person of color on the cover, they rob the person of their color, I think that's a valid complaint.
It's made more valid by the fact, again, that his wardrobe has color, it's his skin that doesn't.
While we're on The Nation, we understand from Jess, that a recent comic has proven to be the most popular?
Isaiah: The Peace Resister continues to result in e-mails. People love that one. It's gone way beyond the community and e-mails come in, week after week, praising it.
Give us the history of that comic.
Isaiah: I probably wouldn't have done it if we weren't all in DC. The subject's Katrina vanden Heuvel and we all know The Nation hasn't been supportive of war resisters. It's ignored them in the print edition. Katrina vanden Heuvel is the editor and publisher of the magazine. She has her own blog. She's never weighed in on war resisters so it's not that surprising that the print edition has never offered anything except a sidebar. Her refusal to cover war resisters, made her the peace resister. But I was concerned about C.I.'s reaction. I always hear it [the comic] is my space and that, other than language concerns, do what I want. But, because we were all in DC for the rally and the march, I was able to show that to C.I. ahead of time. I was told, "Go for it, it's your space." So I did. I'd drawn it out roughly and had the dialogue done when I showed it to C.I. but after being told, again, that it was my space, I went ahead and worked on the lines some more and also added the colors. It continues to result in e-mails and I don't think I've ever had one that has resulted in so many. That does surprise me but sometimes it's just a case of saying what needs to be said.
We promised we'd be brief because you told us you had no idea what you were doing on Sunday and needed to get some sleep to think of an idea. So we'll wrap up by asking if there's anything else you'd like to add?
Isaiah: I think questions about intent are important and worth raising. With my own work, it will keep me on my toes. But it's also true that sometimes the motive that gets pinned down may not have been intended. So I see it as a fine line. I put off drawing Ehren Watada due to the complaints from right-wingers about Lieberman's nose. I probably would've have done something sooner with him had it not been for those e-mails. I was especially nervous because the switch to Flickr [from the Hello program] has resulted in some things I can't control. Things I have colored yellow, for instance, have shown up as green in Flickr. With the earlier cover of The Nation, I think it would have been productive on the part of the magazine for them to present the illustrator explaining what he was going for with the illustration. With the latest one, I find it hard to see another side to it when it is obvious that they intended to rob his skin color of tone while allowing other things in the illustration to have color. If people have questions, concerns or complaints about that illustration, I think the problem rests with the magazine and the illustration.
