|
View Poll Results: Is this Anti-semitic? | |||
Yup | 28 | 28.57% | |
Nope | 70 | 71.43% | |
Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools |
06-05-2003, 03:25 PM | #3 (permalink) | |
Psycho
|
Quote:
A cartoon is the way an artist speaks. It's the exact same thing as a writer putting his thoughts into an essay or a poet into a poem. This is how he expresses himself. The real question is, "is the thinking behind the cartoon anti-semitic?". |
|
06-05-2003, 03:45 PM | #4 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: NYC
|
Quote:
There is no spoon...
__________________
When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression |
|
06-05-2003, 04:22 PM | #6 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: The True North Strong and Free!
|
i wouldnt call it antisemetic.
__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill |
06-05-2003, 04:24 PM | #7 (permalink) |
The GrandDaddy of them all!
Location: Austin, TX
|
look, if people started taking cartoons seriously, the everyone would always be mad.
cartoons are going to offend somebody in some way, if they take it seriously
__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal |
06-05-2003, 04:26 PM | #8 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Beijing, China
|
Personally, I don't think that a comic that appears to have a message along the lines of, "He's not doing it on his own, so lets appeal to his pockets..." dictates anti-semitism. Now, if they showed Bush arguing with a subordinate and saying, "they like money" or something like that, that would be more along the lines of racism. This cartoon is purely political, not a statement about racist beliefs.
On a side note, the artist, in portraying America's desire to please Israel, does so pretty well.
__________________
I'm never gonna know you now... but I'm gonna love you anyhow -Elliott Smith |
06-05-2003, 07:56 PM | #11 (permalink) |
Conspiracy Realist
Location: The Event Horizon
|
No. As Im seeing it: Sharon is wearing the Star of David, but I think thats just for those who would recognize Sharon. This is a suggestion into personal character rather than an entire religious philosophy.
Its not even a really good one.
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking |
06-05-2003, 08:13 PM | #12 (permalink) |
Minion of the scaléd ones
Location: Northeast Jesusland
|
The problem with this is that whether or not it's anti-semitic boils down to intent. It's right on the line. On the one hand, it harks back to the myth of the greedy Jew ("How was copper wire invented? "). On the other hand, paying Israel aid money to go along with US peace initiatives has been pretty standard since Carter. So it depicts actuality in a way that could be argued as tactless. So it's borderline. If it was intended to be anti-semitic, then it is, but no one would ever admit that such was their intent (with the possible exception of Jim Moran, that fumbletongue). If it wasn't, it's not.
Personally, I think The star of David on the sleeve is the equivalent of putting an American Flag and a cowboy hat on a horses ass so that everyone will know it's Dubya, or the Khaffieyeh on the obvious Palestinian on the far side of the Gulch.
__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns. Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life. |
06-05-2003, 09:31 PM | #16 (permalink) |
Insane
Location: Tigerland
|
Well then...Yes it is! Yes it is! Yes it is! And why...? The Star of David. It identifies Sharon as a Jew, not as an Israeli (and yes, I know that Israelis are for the most part Jewish).
If he had an Israeli flag on his jacket it would be a different matter- simply that of the offensive stereotype of the money-grubbing Jew. Are offensive stereotypes part of racism or anti-semitism? Of course they are. |
06-05-2003, 10:23 PM | #17 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
I'm surprised no has commented on who's putting the money down...
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
06-05-2003, 10:28 PM | #18 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: Sweden
|
If you think that giving or withdrawing money are needed to grease wheels and twist arms in these peacenegotiations then you must be hyper-politicly correct to be offended by this cartoon.
__________________
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalms 137:9 |
06-05-2003, 10:36 PM | #19 (permalink) |
I run E.
Location: New York
|
Not nescessarily hateful, but definitely critical of at least one Semite. But there have been many political cartoons starring our president current or past that aren't necessarily anti-US. Hard to say without your definition of anti-Semetic.
__________________
I hold with those that favor fire. |
06-05-2003, 10:40 PM | #20 (permalink) | |
Conspiracy Realist
Location: The Event Horizon
|
Quote:
So by adding a line above and below the star your saying that makes the difference? One thing that annoys me (not accusing you) is where someone disagrees with some of the things Israel is doing or showing any sympathy inthe direction of the Palestinians; they are anti-semetic. Sean Hannity is notorious for this. So I guess the real question here is if someone is against Zionist philosophies are they anti semetic?
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking |
|
06-06-2003, 05:32 AM | #21 (permalink) |
Psycho
|
Here's the scoop:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...epagenews2-utl Don Wycliff When a cartoon offends readers Published June 1, 2003 In my nine years as the Tribune's editorial page editor, the moments of greatest controversy and personal anguish all were the result of editorial cartoons. In the early `90s there was the late Jeff MacNelly's irreverent depiction of the thoughts of a group of Catholic priests as they watched the singer Sinead O'Connor on television. That one prompted then-Cardinal Joseph Bernardin to take up the cudgels against the newspaper--and made me wish I had a bunker instead of an office. A bit later on there was another MacNelly panel in which he compared Slobodan Milosevic's Serbs in Yugoslavia to a barnyard animal wallowing in filth. That brought a torrent of angry phone calls and a number of visits from members of the local Serbian community. In the late `90s MacNelly hit upon a visual device with which to hammer a Monica-bedeviled Bill Clinton: He drew the lantern-jawed president naked, except for a necktie that covered his private parts. Result: another torrent of rancorous phone calls. The editorial cartoon is a permanent stranger in its own environment. With written material--editorials, commentary articles, even letters to the editor--we nip, tuck, trim, fine-tune and adjust so that the piece will say just what the writer and editor want it to say, no more and no less. The best editorial cartoons, by contrast, have all the nuance and delicacy of a stick in the eye. But even at its roughest and bluntest, there are lines that a cartoon should not cross. On Friday, our editorial page ran a cartoon that crossed all the lines. Drawn by former Tribune cartoonist Dick Locher, the cartoon depicted President George W. Bush on one knee on a bridge over what was labeled "Mideast Gulch." The president is laying down a carpet of bills--U.S. currency, presumably--in front of a portly male figure with a large, aquiline nose and clad in a black suit marked with the Star of David. As a Yasser Arafat-like figure looks on with arms crossed, the black-suited man--is he Ariel Sharon? a generic Israeli? a generic Jew?--remains riveted on the money, and says, "On second thought, the pathway to peace is looking a bit brighter." Locher could not be reached for comment Friday evening. But editorial page editor Bruce Dold said, "I think Dick Locher intended to comment on the influence the U.S. can exert through the foreign aid it provides to Israel. I think that's all Locher intended. But the cartoon carried several other messages that could be seen as drawing on anti-Semitic symbols and stereotypes. It also implied that the U.S. is bribing Israel to support the road map to peace, but there is simply no evidence to support that. On those levels, the cartoon failed." Did it ever. The telephones began ringing early and continued to ring late. E-mail inboxes started to show that telltale subject line: "cartoon." Some callers identified themselves as Jewish; some did not. But all identified themselves as offended. "One need not be a supporter of either Ariel Sharon or many current policies of the state of Israel to be deeply offended by today's editorial cartoon, which suggests that money alone is the incentive for Israel/Sharon to engage in peace talks," wrote long-time Chicago political activist Don Rose. "The cartoon is blatantly anti-Semitic, reinforcing the long-held racist image of Jews as avaricious and greedy." My own reaction was very much the same as Rose's. It is no secret to readers of this column that I have been no fan of Sharon and his policies. But I was jolted when I looked at the cartoon and saw that figure with the hooked nose, the Star of David and those words (particularly since money has never been the decisive issue in the Middle East dispute). Since the Tribune does not currently have a staff editorial cartoonist, each day's cartoon is selected from a batch bought from various syndicates. Locher's cartoons come through Tribune Media Services. Dold was out of town on Thursday, so the selection of Friday's cartoon fell to his deputy, John McCormick, with help from Voice of the people editor Dodie Hofstetter. McCormick said he settled on the Locher cartoon because the policy issue it depicted--the use of U.S. aid to influence the Israeli government--was one that had often been discussed in editorial board debates. There is no question in my mind that McCormick and Hofstetter, two of the most honorable people I have ever worked with, did not knowingly try to smuggle an anti-Semitic cartoon into the newspaper. But that this cartoon did indeed give grievous offense to many good people is beyond question. |
06-06-2003, 07:52 AM | #23 (permalink) |
Conspiracy Realist
Location: The Event Horizon
|
popo I respect your experience; you have an extensive amount of it with your past history. Being that I didn’t draw the cartoon I can only state what you asked for in the beginning of this thread, my opinion and/or interpretation.
With your explanation I understand why you see what you state, but looking at it again I don’t see the cartoon downing Jewish people for being Jewish. The Israelis have a unique situation that no others have; a country they have created within a fellowship of their religion. On top of that, the flag of their country is the symbol that represents who they are religiously and culturally. Perhaps the fact that its easy to tell Arafat in this cartoon because of his headpiece, so it would be assumed that a fat black suited figured would be looked at in context as Sharon. Perhaps to guide slower people the star was placed interpretational guidance. (Again it only MO, I didn’t create it) The funny thing is I’m apart of the "slow crowd" because I honestly did not know who was laying out the money. Sure it would make since that it would be President Bush, but for one thing it doesn’t look like him; and two since when does he EVER smoke cigars? So I was going through my mind who in his administration is this supposed to be representing? If he would have put a cowboy hat on him; even if he had the same face as he does now I would have instantly interpreted it to be GWB. If he had put a cowboy hat on him does that mean he is stating that American are conniving hicks that think they can buy their way out of anything, or would it just be referencing the Bush Administration latest actions. I’m not saying your wrong so please don’t take it as such, but I do feel the word or accusation of anti-Semitic can be misused if not abused.
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking |
06-06-2003, 11:53 AM | #24 (permalink) |
Psycho
|
Some interesting comments. FWIW, I never said what I thought about it, nor did I say what my background is.
Here's what I do think. Like another poster said, it HAS to come down to what the cartoonist meant with it. The caroon itself can really be seen both ways, dependng on your viewpoint. Some things that I did not like about it are: 1) the HUGE nose on Sharon is very reminiscient of another era's propaganda, especially considering the fact that Sharon himself does not have a large nose. If he'd been drawn as a man weighing ~500 lbs, that would be more apropos. 2) I do think it would've made a huge difference if the star of david was drawn with a stripe above and below it, like the flag of Israel. Again, without it being the flag it could easily be thought to represent Jewry instead of the state of Israel. The way it's drawn here is the way it's drawn in propaganda cartoons. 3) It doesn't reflect what's going on in the news. Yes, there's the tired old screams about Israel getting $2.5-3B/year in aid/loans while no one frets about Egypt getting $2.1B/year while at the same time fomenting hate against the US in govt run newspapers. But the current peace process is not about money and to my knowledge Bush has not been dangling it in Sharon's face in order to get him to negotiate. Sharon has always said that he will not negotiate while there is terror going on and when he does negotiate that it will not be with Arafat. Well, he seems to be willing to negotiate now that Arafat is sort of out of the picture. Where has money come into it? Have finacial deals been in the news recently? Not that I've seen. Usually, editorial cartoon are meant to comment on what's on in the news, but this cartoonist seems to have a message that he wants to get out without any regard for what's actually going on. This being said, these are very bad caricatures. |
06-06-2003, 12:57 PM | #25 (permalink) |
Dubya
Location: VA
|
If I got offended every time some comedian made a white guy joke, I'd have busted an artery by now.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work." |
06-06-2003, 01:32 PM | #26 (permalink) | |
Insane
Location: Beijing, China
|
Searched a little about the topic of Israel, "road map", and bribe. Came up with an article entitled "The Bribe" from 5.22.2003. Here's a brief quote from the article, followed by a link to the full article. Granted, the source is miftah.org (The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue & Democracy) so as is anything written in the 21st century, take it for what you will:
Quote:
__________________
I'm never gonna know you now... but I'm gonna love you anyhow -Elliott Smith |
|
06-06-2003, 01:40 PM | #27 (permalink) | |
Psycho
|
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2003, 04:41 PM | #29 (permalink) | |
Conspiracy Realist
Location: The Event Horizon
|
Quote:
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking |
|
06-06-2003, 05:20 PM | #31 (permalink) | |
Psycho
|
Quote:
This is Israel's product to sell or not to sell. To suggest that Bush easing up here is buying ($$$) Israel's support for negotiations is really stretching it. Last edited by popo; 06-06-2003 at 05:23 PM.. |
|
06-06-2003, 07:55 PM | #32 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
|
|
06-06-2003, 09:57 PM | #34 (permalink) |
Cute and Cuddly
Location: Teegeeack.
|
Seems to me that the cartoonist isn't talented enough to show who is who without resorting to stereotypes. I'd vote for no, but the cartoonist should withdraw and practice.
As for anti-semitism - anti-zionism; it's ridiculous to say they're the same. The Jewish lobby is making a big mistake by claiming that. In a way, they are legitimizing anti-semtism by doing so. They are redefining the word "jew" into something most jews would not agree with. They're undermining their own organizations.
__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000 |
06-07-2003, 12:55 AM | #35 (permalink) |
Crazy
Location: Never Never Land
|
No more than this cartoon is also 'anti-semitic'. I seem to have had this conversation very recently in another thread, but here it goes again. http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/S0258700.html Semite 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs , Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians. 2. A Jew. 3. Bible A descendant of Shem. It therefore stands to reason that an anti-semite includes all of the above ethnic groups. Although it may not mean this here in this country, we have been using the term incorrectly for far to long because it does mean this in the Tri-Continental Hub region. Any member of the above ethinic groups cannot be an anti-semite without hating their own ethinic group. Now can someone explain to me why it is 'ok' to have cartoons like this one, but not ok to have cartoons about Israel??? seems like a double standard to me. (cartoon was pulled from June 2, 2003 Newsweek btw) |
06-07-2003, 01:27 AM | #36 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
This is illustrated by aspersions cast on news reports from various Middle Eastern sources, the inability (or refusal) to make a distinction between semites and non-semites in the region, and a general disdain for the long cultural and political history and innovations of the peoples in that region. |
|
06-07-2003, 03:48 AM | #37 (permalink) |
Psycho
Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks
|
I agree with popo on almost everything he/she's said and I voted Yes.
My reasons: - The only recognisable person is Bush, who is caricatured the way he is in the UK - looking like a monkey with his tongue hanging out (its not a cigar Sun Tzu) . At a *very* big stretch the distant person could be Arafat, but looks more like a generic arab/palestinian. - The person on the near side of the bridge is a generic Jew. He is fat, has a beak nose, a star of david and is looking lovingly at money. He bears no resemblance to Sharon other than being a big man. - The message of the cartoon is: The Jew is only genuinely interested in peace with Arabs/Palestinians if they are given money for it. - This in itself would be okay if it was true. But it isn't. The Jewish people care passionately about the promised land and the security of their state. They care little about money. In fact they are paying billions to keep (what they see as) the Palestinian threat at bay. IMO they would *pay* billions more if it meant a genuine, lasting solution to the perceived threat was achieved. So in conclusion: The cartoon tells the lie that the Jew is a greedy person only interested in peace if they are bribed with money. This to me is anti-semitic. Final point: It doesn't really matter what the intention of the cartoonist was. You can offend without intending to. You can hurt without intending to. You can be ignorant without intending to be. You can discriminate or be a rascist without intending to. And you can make rascist statements without intending to.
__________________
I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! |
06-07-2003, 08:02 AM | #38 (permalink) |
Psycho
|
Regarding the anti-Israel vs. anti-Semitism debate, I think that it's much ado about nothing. There's no question that the cartoon is anti-Israel and I (nor anyone else) has a problem with that. You can have an anti-Israel view (like this cartoonist in this instance) but what I'm asking is whether people think it crosses the line into anti-semitism.
There is a distinction, and the discussion is about whether the cartoonist blurred it. Now, the term "anti-semitism". Yes, a semite is anyone originating from a Semitic region but anti-semitism was originally coined by a German in the late 1800's referring to Jews and it's stuck. Technically not correct but this is the current definition. Exactly like saying that someone is anti-American does not mean that they are anti-South, Central, and North America (which is what America really is). Technically incorrect but it accepted to specifically point to anti-US feelings. Last edited by popo; 06-07-2003 at 08:13 AM.. |
06-07-2003, 09:16 AM | #39 (permalink) | |
Loser
|
Quote:
Who do you think will foot the bill to reestablish Isreals economy which has taken a severe blow over the last two and a half years? Who do you think will foot the bill to develop and maintain a sustainable infrastructure if a Palestinian state becomes reality? Does it seem so incredible that Ariel Sharon is more than likely demanding major concessions since he has to make concessions of his own toward the existence of a Palestinian state? Or is that statement itself anti-semitic? If this cartoon is anti-semitic for reasons posted,then what about the other side of the equation. An Arab could look at this cartoon and say it's stereotypically racist of how people perceive Arabs,that being looking dishevelled and dirty and not nearly important enough to even be offered money. Or what about proud Americans who think it is distasteful that the most powerful man in the world is on his knees pandering to someone when he has the power to not only make the rules,but also to be the rule. If this is seen as anti-semitic by some,then so be it. Sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees. |
|
06-07-2003, 10:59 AM | #40 (permalink) | |
Conspiracy Realist
Location: The Event Horizon
|
Quote:
I still think it looks more like Ronald Regan with a cigar
__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking |
|
Tags |
antisemitic |
|
|