Excluding december, of course.
No, seriously.
If he wanted to be offended, that’s certainly his prerogative, although I certainly think there are more productive things for him to be offended about than a single ambiguous political cartoon. People are dying every day in acts of religious violence, for chrissakes, and he’s worried about how a cartoonist at a second-rate paper chose to draw a guy’s nose, even if it’s relatively accurate?
My issue was with his having made erroneous assumptions about my prospective political opinions based on nothing more than the fact that he and I contribute to the same Jewish geneaology-themed listserves. I would never approach a complete stranger about such a sensitive issue without some clear indication, based on relevant facts or previous interchanges, that he/she mmight not mind.
december, in my view, takes offense inappropriately in relation to anti-Israeli statements more than anyone else here, but even he has never equated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.
What we’ve seen on the SDMB is that highly vitriolic, one-sided attacks on Israel do correlate on occasion with anti-Semitic views.
As to exaggerating physical characteristics in cartoons being no big deal: True, that’s a standard practice in cartooning (for instance partly explaining why George Bush’s ears tend to stick straight out). But having a WASP’s ears stick out is not a matter of ethnic insult (whatever Opie might say).
Try this example, hopefully a better one than december’s.
Let us say a Republican cartoonist wanted to make a point about Democratic presidential candidates kowtowing to special interests. The result is a cartoon showing a Democratic candidate handing wads of cash to the leader of the Black Congressional Caucus. The BCC leader is portrayed as having an exaggeratedly flattened nose and extra-thick lips.
One might expect a number of people to be offended at 1) the stereotype of blacks demanding handouts, and 2) the physical stereotype. From the way this thread has gone, I’d also expect people to point out that gee, you can walk the streets of Bedford-Stuyvesant and see some black people with similar physical characteristics. And Eva Luna might want to know why the people offended at such a cartoon aren’t spending their time solving the problem of starvation in the Sudan.
Sorry, those arguments just aren’t going to fly.
For what it’s worth, the Anti-Defamation League has a reaction to this editorial cartoon on their website.
Also, the Chicago Tribune’s public editor Don Wycliffe wrote in his column that the cartoon “crossed all the lines”. That according to this part of the ADL’s website about the issue. I tried getting a direct link to Wycliffe’s editorial, but it requires registration, and I don’t feel like giving out an e-mail address to anyone right now.
Personally, I’m inclined to agree. There are caricatures, and there are caricatures. This cartoon seemed to combine as many negative stereotypes of Jews as possible into a single frame.
I don’t think the cartoonist should be forced to resign, and a forced apology would be worthless and empty of sincerity. I hope that if the cartoonist does apologize, he does so because he genuinely understands the problems with this cartoon, and not because his editor told him to do so.
I would like to take another whack at explaining just how nasty I found the cartoon’s message. Let me begin with a personal note. My cousin’s son is getting married near Tel Aviv in two weeks. My cousin’s only sister, who lives in New Jersey, decided not to go to the wedding because she fears a terrorist attack. Terrorists try to attack large groups. Of course, Israelis have to live with this fear day and night.
Palestinians also live in fear. They are under attack from the Israeli military. Whether or not the Israeli attacks have been justified responses, the human carnage is all too real.
Israel’s concern is getting a peace treaty that will work. Some Arabs want peace. Others want to destroy Israel. It’s a delicate negotiation for Israel, with their very existence at stake.
The cartoon implies that Sharon doesn’t care about the human toll of Israeli and Palestinian casualties. He doesn’t care about Israel’s long- term security. He only cares about money. This implication is obviously false. Also, it repeats a traditional antisemitic stereotype, in a particularly insulting way
Again, my primary annoyance was because a stranger made erroneous assumptions about my political views based on next to zero information. Plus he used an e-mail address he gained through our mutual participation on a nonpolitical forum to spam me with his political views. He never would have had my e-mail address to begin with if we hadn’t once communicated about the geneaology info.
The geneaology site (www.jewishgen.org) is a tax-exempt nonprofit, and as such is prohibited from engaging in partisan politics. I released my e-mail address to users of the site on the premise that any communication with them would be somehow related to genealogy. This communication was not. FWIW, I didn’t get into a virtual shouting match with him; I simply asked him where he got my e-mail, since I had no recollection of who he was. I’m not planning to engage this guy (oops, almost typed “goy” instead of “guy”!) in a debate; it’s not worth my energy. I’m sure he meant well; he just happened to be wrong.
And I just think there are more constructive things he could do with his views than spamming strangers in foreign countries. Even a letter to the editor would be an improvement. The comment about religious violence was pretty much a throwaway, but still something that makes me wonder.
I am constantly bombarded with forwarded political jokes and emails and diatribes that people think I might be interested in because, get this, I write poetry. Evidently, people who write poetry are supposed to be marching in lockstep politically.
I was supposed to be appalled–APPALLED–that Laura Bush cancelled some function with a whole bunch of hostile poets. Didn’t I understand that the sanctity of ~Poetry~ was at stake?
Bah.
I feel your pain. Whap the chucklehead.
Julie
In the absence of stereotypes of jews as hook-nosed, money-grubbing shylocks, it wouldn’t be an anti-semitic cartoon, and it would make perfect sense: Bush is trying to buy Israeli in the peace process, and Sharon is holding out for money. Arguable, yes, but not of nowhere.
The problem is that those stereotypes do exist, and are widely known, and its irresponsible of the cartoonist not to acknowledge them. Basically, he should have known that his specific point would not be separable from the context of jews and zionism, and he should have given this one a miss.
Likewise the star of David on Sharon’s lapel. If the Holocaust hadn’t happened, it would be a perfect example of the political cartoonist’s device of explicit labelling; since the Holocaust did happen, and the parallel is so obvious, he should have found another way.
Anti-semitic, no. In such bad taste as to render the cartoon worthless, yes.
None of us know what the cartoonist intended. It may or may not have been an antisemitic jibe. The similarities to oldtime antisemitic stereotypic portrayals is suspicious but then again that nose is less a Shylock than a beak. Certainly not an exaggeration of Sharon’s features though; he meant something by it.
Minimally it was offensive (and not for its political message, which was just dumb) and resonated with old Nazi-type propoganda, whether or not such was the intention.
Apology made by the editorial staff for not catching it. The Trib is not famous for sensitivity to Jewish sensibilities, to get them to acknowledge their mistake on this one is enough. Let it go.
Well, that Star of David is right out, that’s to be sure. Without it, I hardly see anything offensive per se - the Sharon nose hardly looks like the stereotypical ‘semite’ nose (Arafat has one, good lord what a beak). But that Star… that’s at minimum pretty bloody unfortunate imagery. At minimum.
As for december implying criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, he’s managed to imply it many times to my recollection. Your mileage may vary of course.
Happens all the time man.
In this instance I suggested that an invasion of Israel would a means to peace in the middle east. I am accused of anti semitism. I guess all the pro Iraq war folks are anti arab?
Most anything you say derrogative about Israel will be contrued as anti semitic by someone.
Maybe you could provide us with a link to the thread in question, Hank, so we could decide if your suggestion about invading Israel was merely loony, and if Sam owes you an apology.
Jackmanni,
The link doesn’t even matter. The challenge was to find someone who said that to criticize Israel was to be antisemitic. This quote does not do so. It expresses a belief that this one bizzare thought of destroying Israel to provide for peace had an antisemitic basis. Maybe not true, I dunno. But accusing someone who wants to have the US invade (?destroy?) Israel of antisemitism is hardly the same as saying that any criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Heck, most Israel supporters I know have been pretty critical of various Israeli policies in various directions.
Most of us are very reluctant to accuse someone of antisemitic motivations, even if their complete one-sidedness and stereotyping comments make us suspicious of such. We prefer to point out the use of stereotypes and the lack of balance and leave speculation as to motivations out of it. People can come to their own conclusions.
Which is, again, my take on this cartoon: it uses a portrayal that is offensively similar to old Nazi type cartoons; it is a stupid analysis of the political situation, completely out of touch with the real problems on the ground; it may be such just out of ignorance or out of malice, but such speculations are without reward - the use of the stereotype was wrong and the Trib apologized for not editing it. End.
And BTW, some pro-War folk have been accused of being anti-Arab and some probably are, even if Iraq isn’t really Arab. And Iraq isn’t the sole Islamic country. A wee different.
Then again Israel at least really probably does have WMDs …