Masculen Titan Male Enhancement 100%...
Food & Drink0 min 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-
05:16 Mon 01st May 2023
The squid in the drawing (probably intentionally) looks like the vampire squid. It was also famously used to in an article by Rolling Stone who described the investment bank Goldman Sachs, as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money.”
I am intrigued.
I am not a Guardian reader, so didn't see the original cartoon.
But having looked at it closely, I see nothing that appears anti-Semitic in its content, at least nothing that I think the averagely aware and intelligent reader would see and interpret as such.
If there are apparent subtleties that I have missed, then I suggest they are just that - subtleties that would escape the eye and mind of anyone not actively looking for things to be offended over.
Mr Sharp is a highly paid public figure, who appears to have realised that is conduct is unacceptable, and serious enough to merit hes resignation.
As such, he is completely fair game, and a legitimate target for the political cartoonists to lampoon, as has been tradition for centuries.
If people see anti-Semitism, they must be privy to a selection of apparent indices of which I, and I suspect millions of others, are competely unaware of.
And if I am unaware of something, it makes it tricky to take offence on behalf of someone else, over it.
I am not a Guardian reader, so didn't see the original cartoon.
But having looked at it closely, I see nothing that appears anti-Semitic in its content, at least nothing that I think the averagely aware and intelligent reader would see and interpret as such.
If there are apparent subtleties that I have missed, then I suggest they are just that - subtleties that would escape the eye and mind of anyone not actively looking for things to be offended over.
Mr Sharp is a highly paid public figure, who appears to have realised that is conduct is unacceptable, and serious enough to merit hes resignation.
As such, he is completely fair game, and a legitimate target for the political cartoonists to lampoon, as has been tradition for centuries.
If people see anti-Semitism, they must be privy to a selection of apparent indices of which I, and I suspect millions of others, are competely unaware of.
And if I am unaware of something, it makes it tricky to take offence on behalf of someone else, over it.
But Andy didnt the Nazis(sorry for invoking Godwins Law)not use the same indices in their anti-semitism?It was always a slow drip,drip with them.Just as the Guardian is doing,lets just introduce a wee bit of anti-semitism into the narrative now and again until we can achieve full blown anti-semitism into our programme.Its always the poor old Jews to blame for everything.Left-wing anti-semitism should always be pointed out alongside right wing anti-semitism.
Aye,but always too late Duggie.Starmer at last has grasped the nettle.There should be no place for Jew haters or anti-semites in any political party nowadays.Starmer has done the right thing.Next thing he should do is get rid of the whole Momentum cancer within the Labour Party.If he does ,we might get a proper non anti-semite Labour Party back in government again...possibly.
-- answer removed --
Guardian and the cartoonist both agreed it was antisemitic when it was pointed to them, and were apparently mortified. So it was antisemitic.
The question really is whether it was meant to be antisemitic. For some people, including some prominent Jews, it obviously must have been as it was so obvious that anything otherwise could only be originated from somebody completely thick. I have some sympathy with that thinking, but unless The Guardian or the cartoonist have previous antisemitic complaints then I'll accept their excuses this once.
The question really is whether it was meant to be antisemitic. For some people, including some prominent Jews, it obviously must have been as it was so obvious that anything otherwise could only be originated from somebody completely thick. I have some sympathy with that thinking, but unless The Guardian or the cartoonist have previous antisemitic complaints then I'll accept their excuses this once.
Guardian and the cartoonist both agreed it was antisemitic when it was pointed to them, and were apparently mortified. So it was antisemitic.
oddly enough, that doesn't follow. In fact the Guardian is terrified of being accused of being accused of anti-semitism. Though they open many stories to user comments, these never include stories about Jews or Israel. They are perfectly capable of apologising for something they haven't even done, which I find cowardly. But cancel culture is endemic there, and they'll even cancel themselves.
oddly enough, that doesn't follow. In fact the Guardian is terrified of being accused of being accused of anti-semitism. Though they open many stories to user comments, these never include stories about Jews or Israel. They are perfectly capable of apologising for something they haven't even done, which I find cowardly. But cancel culture is endemic there, and they'll even cancel themselves.
I am not a Jew and a lot of anti-Semitism would go over my head unless it was blatant. I did not get the squid reference
"Author Dave Rich, an expert in anti-Semitism, said images of squid have often been used to depict the conspiracy theory that 'Jewish forces' have their tentacles wrapped around society and power."
I can see no reason for a squid to be in the cartoon other than as a Jewish reference. The pig's head can be explained away as politicians with their snouts in a trough; the exaggerated facial features as typically cartoon caricature but the cartoon looks nothing like Richard Sharp. The skin tone is far too dark and in life his nose,eyes and lips are not unusual enough to be exaggerated in cartoon.
The caricature is not really of Sharp as a BBC chairman but of Sharp as a Jew.
As a Christian, non-political man I did not see the cartoon as anti-Semitic but having read commentary by Jewish people and history buffs I can understand the complaints and why the Guardian has apologised.
"Author Dave Rich, an expert in anti-Semitism, said images of squid have often been used to depict the conspiracy theory that 'Jewish forces' have their tentacles wrapped around society and power."
I can see no reason for a squid to be in the cartoon other than as a Jewish reference. The pig's head can be explained away as politicians with their snouts in a trough; the exaggerated facial features as typically cartoon caricature but the cartoon looks nothing like Richard Sharp. The skin tone is far too dark and in life his nose,eyes and lips are not unusual enough to be exaggerated in cartoon.
The caricature is not really of Sharp as a BBC chairman but of Sharp as a Jew.
As a Christian, non-political man I did not see the cartoon as anti-Semitic but having read commentary by Jewish people and history buffs I can understand the complaints and why the Guardian has apologised.
Squidding is a form of protest aimed at Goldman Sachs…
https:/
https:/
> Guardian and the cartoonist both agreed it was antisemitic when it was pointed to them, and were apparently mortified. So it was antisemitic.
>> oddly enough, that doesn't follow
I was just writing in shorthand on my phone. Anyone can say that it is or isn't antisemitic, as an opinion. The point is that if both the people who created the opinion and the people who were offended by it agreed that it was antisemitic, even through "unconscious bias", then for our intents and purposes it is antisemitic.
>> oddly enough, that doesn't follow
I was just writing in shorthand on my phone. Anyone can say that it is or isn't antisemitic, as an opinion. The point is that if both the people who created the opinion and the people who were offended by it agreed that it was antisemitic, even through "unconscious bias", then for our intents and purposes it is antisemitic.
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.