JordsDisco wrote:

I’ve seen the cartoon and I am struggling to see why anyone would take offence and consider it anti semitic at the actual caricature of the former chairman of the BBC. There again, I am not reading anything into it positive or negative.

What next, no cartoon of King Charles with a big nose and ears?

Also see no one complained about the caricature of Boris, which I’d consider is actually more offensive despite the fact I don’t like the guy.

IMHO it’s people looking for an excuse to have a pop. Save the bile for something thats more worthwhile and actually needs highlighting. This is right off the Richter pettiness scale.

With respect, the reason that you're struggling to see why anyone would take offence is due to your lack of knowledge of historical antisemitic cartoons and caricatures, including those published by the Nazis.

Should you or anyone else here wish to gain some knowledge on the subject this is a good place to start:

https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/upl...y-2020.pdf

RRSTDV8 wrote:

"Prejudice" is better because it covers the fact that the issues goes both ways. True, "racism" also goes both ways but it has become associated with whites being bad to blacks and getting people to accept that it means the opposite too is going to be difficult.

Until a few years ago, I naively thought by-and-large everyone was getting along quite nicely. BLM, "unconscious-bias" training and zealous "decolonisation" did much to b*ll*cks it up. That said, I suspect a lot of this was instigated by white middle-class people, not BAME (horrible term) people.

Hardware wrote:

The squid reference was not aimed at Jews per se, but at Goldman Sachs

Quote:

Where Did the Vampire Squid Come From?
November 18, 2009 by Jan Herman

I didn’t want to post this item, especially because I have no interest in writing anything that might be misconstrued as a defense of Goldman Sachs. But has anybody besides my staff of thousands — Bill Osborne, to be precise — noticed that Matt Taibbi’s description of Goldman Sachs as “a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money,” bears a peculiar resemblance to this cartoon? (It’s from Der Stürmer.)

However, the Goldman-Sachs family, as the names suggest, is very much Jewish:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman%E2%80%93Sachs_family

Whilst the squid or octopus have long been used in anti-Jewish images and cartoons; See link below for references:

https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/upl...y-2020.pdf

Quote:

His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

RRSTDV8 wrote:

We still have a Robertson's mug like this one:



We still use it however SWMBO won't use it when on a video call for obvious reasons. Now, neither of us are racist and we both understand why the "golly" was dropped by Robertson's, but we don't see why a perfectly useable mug should be thrown away. So it's the "ah, all the other mugs are being washed but I want a coffee" mug in the cupboard.

Would we buy such an item today? No, we wouldn't.

(I was surprised to read that the golly was dropped by Robertson's as recently as 2002.)

Don't search for images of HMS Crichton...

pjm-84 wrote:

Cheers for the link LT

I thought the squid was odd but didn't know why. Now good to know.

HWN wrote:

Don't search for images of HMS Crichton...

Wow, different times, eh?

LT wrote:

JordsDisco wrote:

I’ve seen the cartoon and I am struggling to see why anyone would take offence and consider it anti semitic at the actual caricature of the former chairman of the BBC. There again, I am not reading anything into it positive or negative.

What next, no cartoon of King Charles with a big nose and ears?

Also see no one complained about the caricature of Boris, which I’d consider is actually more offensive despite the fact I don’t like the guy.

IMHO it’s people looking for an excuse to have a pop. Save the bile for something thats more worthwhile and actually needs highlighting. This is right off the Richter pettiness scale.

With respect, the reason that you're struggling to see why anyone would take offence is due to your lack of knowledge of historical antisemitic cartoons and caricatures, including those published by the Nazis.

Should you or anyone else here wish to gain some knowledge on the subject this is a good place to start:

https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/upl...y-2020.pdf

RRSTDV8 wrote:

"Prejudice" is better because it covers the fact that the issues goes both ways. True, "racism" also goes both ways but it has become associated with whites being bad to blacks and getting people to accept that it means the opposite too is going to be difficult.

I like the explanations of both David Baddiel and the Anne Frank House Organisation as to why modern day antisemitism is rarely not racism as we know it:

https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/david-b...80696.html

https://www.annefrank.org/en/topics/antise...rm-racism/

LT wrote:

Look closely at Rowson’s cartoon and you’ll see what appears to be gold coins under the tentacles.

JordsDisco wrote:

LT wrote:

JordsDisco wrote:

I’ve seen the cartoon and I am struggling to see why anyone would take offence and consider it anti semitic at the actual caricature of the former chairman of the BBC. There again, I am not reading anything into it positive or negative.

What next, no cartoon of King Charles with a big nose and ears?

Also see no one complained about the caricature of Boris, which I’d consider is actually more offensive despite the fact I don’t like the guy.

IMHO it’s people looking for an excuse to have a pop. Save the bile for something thats more worthwhile and actually needs highlighting. This is right off the Richter pettiness scale.

With respect, the reason that you're struggling to see why anyone would take offence is due to your lack of knowledge of historical antisemitic cartoons and caricatures, including those published by the Nazis.

Should you or anyone else here wish to gain some knowledge on the subject this is a good place to start:

https://antisemitism.org.uk/wp-content/upl...y-2020.pdf

Yes, you’re right and I suspect 99% of the population are pretty much oblivious to it as well. Does that make me and everyone else ignorant?

Personally I don’t see why I should have to enlighten myself to something that has never surfaced in my 60 plus years on this planet.

Cartoon apart, I dare say if you look close enough at most things in life, you’ll find fault, sometimes real, sometimes imagined.

I was simply providing an explanation as to why I believed that you were "struggling to see why anyone would take offence and consider it anti semitic". Which seems to be correct.

It's up to you if you want to educate yourself more on the subject or not. I just provided a link to a publication which, if you read it, would enlighten you as to why many people (I shan't guess a percentage of the population), myself included, did find it offensive and antisemitic.

You're correct that there is a shameful lack of knowledge about the Holocaust and antisemitism, not just here in Britain but across the world. Shameful, as important lessons need to be learned from it, to ensure that history doesn't repeat itself.

Tragically, the more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur represent a failure of humanity to learn from the Holocaust and are a harsh reminder for all of us that we must be prepared to guard against genocide happening again in the future.