Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Should The Guardian Have Apologised For Cartoon ?
The paper has apologised for a cartoon it published and removed it from its archive, after protests from jewish groups. They say the depiction of Richard Sharp who resigned as BBC Chair is anti semitic.
https:/
https:/
Answers
I am not a Jew and a lot of anti-
06:16 Mon 01st May 2023
It does seem to have included details having a dig that only those in the know would recognise. It's the Grauniad's decision whether it is in their interest to apologise or not. Personally I don't believe one can expect everyone to know of everything they might be told they need to look for; but they will be aware of effect on tbeir business. Seems a pity, though that those offended didn't concentrate on the artist rather than concentrate on the newspaper that seems to have unwittingly published the political cartoon caricature in good faith.
I have enjoyed this discussion.
My initial take was that I couldn’t see anything anti semitic about it and the Guardian were too quick to apologise.
But then some memes/tropes were highlighted and I was not so sure.
1. I do not think the Caricature of Sharp made him look jewish. The nose and lips were normal not overly jewish, and the Sunak head had an even bigger nose.
2. The squid/octopus thing seems to be a red herring. An author claimed it was a well worn trope, but after extensive searching, I couldn’t find that.
3. My searching found multiple references to Goldman Sachs, who Sharp recently worked for, and a quote from Rolling Stone magazine describing them as a ‘vampire squid’. Which explains the inclusion in the drawing.
In conclusion, I think the cartoon is not anti semitic, and allegations that it is are contrived.
I didn’t think the cartoon was clever, funny, or that satirical, other than reinforcing that the Johnson Premiership was just a mound of gunk.
My initial take was that I couldn’t see anything anti semitic about it and the Guardian were too quick to apologise.
But then some memes/tropes were highlighted and I was not so sure.
1. I do not think the Caricature of Sharp made him look jewish. The nose and lips were normal not overly jewish, and the Sunak head had an even bigger nose.
2. The squid/octopus thing seems to be a red herring. An author claimed it was a well worn trope, but after extensive searching, I couldn’t find that.
3. My searching found multiple references to Goldman Sachs, who Sharp recently worked for, and a quote from Rolling Stone magazine describing them as a ‘vampire squid’. Which explains the inclusion in the drawing.
In conclusion, I think the cartoon is not anti semitic, and allegations that it is are contrived.
I didn’t think the cartoon was clever, funny, or that satirical, other than reinforcing that the Johnson Premiership was just a mound of gunk.
This was the original article on the vampire squid. Quite an article ...
https:/
Of course, it doesn't say the word "Jew" once ... so is it about it?
https:/
Of course, it doesn't say the word "Jew" once ... so is it about it?
Ellipsis,
A brilliant article, no wonder the ‘vampire squid’ metaphor stuck.
As part of the case against the Guardian, the author and Rolling Stone magazine were denounce as anti semitic because of that article.
// Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, famously described Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”.
This metaphor was, and remains, antisemitic. Goldman Sachs was founded by Jewish families and has a Jewish sounding name. Antisemitic conspiracy peddlers regularly describe the fantastical Jewish power network they believe exists as a squid or octopus, its tentacles reaching into every part of society. In the antisemitic imagination, Jewish power is never about muscular strength or straightforward authority, but is more insidious and manipulative. This is why anti-Jewish zoomorphism tends towards snakes, spiders and, yes, squids, rather than, say, predators like sharks or lions. There is nothing honourable, in this way of thinking, about how Jews acquire and deploy money and power. //
A brilliant article, no wonder the ‘vampire squid’ metaphor stuck.
As part of the case against the Guardian, the author and Rolling Stone magazine were denounce as anti semitic because of that article.
// Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, famously described Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”.
This metaphor was, and remains, antisemitic. Goldman Sachs was founded by Jewish families and has a Jewish sounding name. Antisemitic conspiracy peddlers regularly describe the fantastical Jewish power network they believe exists as a squid or octopus, its tentacles reaching into every part of society. In the antisemitic imagination, Jewish power is never about muscular strength or straightforward authority, but is more insidious and manipulative. This is why anti-Jewish zoomorphism tends towards snakes, spiders and, yes, squids, rather than, say, predators like sharks or lions. There is nothing honourable, in this way of thinking, about how Jews acquire and deploy money and power. //
there's a little bit about Jews and octopuses on page 5 of this
https:/
But it's not necessarily anti-semitic. I've often heard it applied to any person, or any business, that has its tentacles in a lot of other businesses. The implication is usually that they're acting behind the scenes, in secret. There's a strong element of conspiracy theory in this - but no suggestion that they must be Jewish. That usuallyquote[ was] the suggestion in Nazi Germany, but since the war I've never seen it. If you're anti-semitic you have to specify that the octopus is a Jewish one, otherwise you won't be understood.
I don't know where squid got involved in this. I haven't been able to locate any reference to Jewish squids before the Rolling Stone article (which was about one specific company rather than Jews in general); maybe others can.
https:/
But it's not necessarily anti-semitic. I've often heard it applied to any person, or any business, that has its tentacles in a lot of other businesses. The implication is usually that they're acting behind the scenes, in secret. There's a strong element of conspiracy theory in this - but no suggestion that they must be Jewish. That usuallyquote[ was] the suggestion in Nazi Germany, but since the war I've never seen it. If you're anti-semitic you have to specify that the octopus is a Jewish one, otherwise you won't be understood.
I don't know where squid got involved in this. I haven't been able to locate any reference to Jewish squids before the Rolling Stone article (which was about one specific company rather than Jews in general); maybe others can.
here is one from 2009
https:/
If I get one from 1823 ( the time of the numerosus clausus - the new quota of jews allowed in imperial universities) does it make it more or less likely to be anti-semitic ?
https:/
If I get one from 1823 ( the time of the numerosus clausus - the new quota of jews allowed in imperial universities) does it make it more or less likely to be anti-semitic ?
you knew I was gonna drag a bitta Latin into this
(eek! done it alreadz - numerus clausus = quota for Jews)
Oh and yes we did ( dig up something from AD 30 or threabouts)
https:/
and not a vestige of christianity showing - time here is not everything
(eek! done it alreadz - numerus clausus = quota for Jews)
Oh and yes we did ( dig up something from AD 30 or threabouts)
https:/
and not a vestige of christianity showing - time here is not everything
I have to say, given jno's PDF link (https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Antisemitic-imagery-May-2020.pdf), especially page 5 (octopus) and page 11 (vampire), that the Rolling Stone link is off on the wrong foot at the very start of that article by talking about a "vampire squid". Consciously or not, it brings up old tropes from decades, if not centuries.
That said, the PDF conflates Judaism, Israel, Goldman Sachs and more. You have to speak truth to power. If Israel does something nasty, it has to be brought up without being labelled automatically antisemitic - Israel does not equal all Jews and vice versa. Similarly, Goldman Sachs. And similarly, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Richard Sharp - a cartoon about their greed is reasonable, but the squid/octopus as a cartoon image was a stupid idea. If it had been a shark, it probably would have been ... better??? You have to lampoon greed, without being antisemitic about it.
As for Charlie Hebdo - other than the obvious, the other difference was that its cartoon was not withdrawn, unlike the Guardian's:
https:/
That said, the PDF conflates Judaism, Israel, Goldman Sachs and more. You have to speak truth to power. If Israel does something nasty, it has to be brought up without being labelled automatically antisemitic - Israel does not equal all Jews and vice versa. Similarly, Goldman Sachs. And similarly, Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak and Richard Sharp - a cartoon about their greed is reasonable, but the squid/octopus as a cartoon image was a stupid idea. If it had been a shark, it probably would have been ... better??? You have to lampoon greed, without being antisemitic about it.
As for Charlie Hebdo - other than the obvious, the other difference was that its cartoon was not withdrawn, unlike the Guardian's:
https:/
Latest Posts
ChatterBank61 mins ago
ChatterBank123 mins ago
Crosswords124 mins ago
Spectator N0 2651 By Fieldfare
Crosswords131 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.