The Guardian has apologised after a cartoon depicting BBC chairman Richard Sharp was criticised as antisemitic.

The author of the cartoon has said he was aware at school that sharp is Jewish.
None of that is especially relevant. It’s the anti semitic cartoon that’s relevant alongside attempts to deny it was so

When you're at school you don't take an interest in your fellow pupils' racial origins. Unless, of course, you're from the sort of family to which things like that matter, and matter not in a good way

Why wouldn't you be interested in other children's background when you are at school. I went to a convent school that was attended by a significant number of Jewish girls. I did wonder why and dicovered it was because the CofE grammar school had a clause in its foundation document that said that the school could only take girls who professed christianity, what kind didn't seem to matter, so Jewish girls couldn't attend that school, so, if they passed their 11 plus they came to the convent that had no such restrictions. Their only distinction was that they didn't have to attend any religious instruction classes. As these were, separately, for catholics and then other Christian denominations.

Like me, many of those who boarded (it was a mixed boarding and day school) I had parents who were in the forces, others had parents who were in the diplomatic service, or otherwise worked overseas and I was always curious about where they lived and their experiences.

To show an interest in other people's backgrounds is not to be prejudiced or discriminatory, any exchange of experiences is usually two-way.

Callistemon not sub-liminal anti semitism. A classic example of institutional racism.

MaizieD are you suggesting Jewish people and children are able to pass as white providing they don’t wear religious clothing? And thst fifty years ago that's what Sharp did. It seems not as his fellow pupil thr cartoonist says he knew Sharp was Jewish hernia they were at school

Yes my grandchildren are at schools which were predominantly white thirty years ago when their parents attrnded. The school population reflects changing Britain snd thr children are curious about each others faith culture origins

I said I had not idea why and there were several heated exclamations along the lines of “you should know” or “look it up”. Later, a more measured discussion agreed that in fact it wasn’t an antisemitic image at all.

It was me who said "look it up" alongside a quote explaining why octopus/squid is offensive to Jewish people. It was not a "heated exclamation" at all..more a demonstration of just how easy it is to look up something of you don't know it/understand why some people have a particular perpective!

Later on there was NO agreement that an octopus/squid is not an anti semitic image; your statement is misleading! There WAS some agreement amongst some posters that the cartoon was not anti semitic which is different and not in anyway related to my suggestion to "look it up!"

Back from dinner with our Jewish friends, their take on it is that there is so much unconscious bias directed towards their faith it’s like water off of a ducks back.

It hurts, but they have to ignore.

MaizieD

Iam64

MaizieD I don’t believe it’s accurate to say when you’re at school you aren’t interested in fellow pupil’s racial origins unless you’re from a family with EDL\national front leanings. My grandchildren are primary school age and interested in their friends cultural/faith/race. Their schools are now very mixed where 30years ago when their parents were attending, the pupils were predominantly white british

I suspect that your grandchildren are at a school where cultural and racial differences are obvious. I doubt that this obtained 40 or 50 years ago. There is nothing in Mr Sharp's appearance which marks him out from being any different from other white British people, so unless he was an obviously practising Jew I see no reason why his fellow pupils would be aware.

Is he a practising Jew? Does anyone know?

Because all those years ago the school, as did most schools in England, probably would have had morning assembly which would be a short religious service (Christian Protestant based).
In the school I attended, Jewish and Roman Catholic pupils were excused assembly.

Is he a practising Jew? Does anyone know?
Does it matter?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Actually, I should report your post.

I've got to the bottom of page 2 and from my reading so far it seems that the majority of posters do not often read the Guardian. If they did, they would realise that Martin Rowson's cartoons are invariably and as equally disgusting.

Well, I read some of it online but don't buy it so don't see the cartoons.
Unless it comes free from Waitrose (do they still do that?)

I was educated at a private school in the 60's/70s. But I'm sure that state schools would have been the same.

We were all well aware which children were Church of England, Jewish, Roman Catholic

As someone has already pointed out in Assembly, those with different religions to Protestants stood outside and waited until we had finished.

I always found it slightly odd that they literally had to stand outside the doors whilst we sang our hymns and said our prayers.

But to suggest pupils at a school would have no knowledge of other children's religion is odd. And to infer that if they did, then it was something suspicious, is offensive.

I've now finished all 10 pages and am surprised at the attitudes displayed by many of you.

I didn't see the cartoon when it was in the paper but have since seen it reproduced on GN. It didn't strike me as being anti-semitic but just another cartoon with exaggerated features. From the mid 18thC onwards cartoonists have used exaggeration of the features and bodies of their subjects. As mentioned above Gerald Scarfe exaggerated Thatcher's features, as he did with many other well know people, such as Mick Jagger. The Spitting images puppets also had grossly exaggerated features.

Much has been written about the subliminal anti-semiticism contained within the cartoon. Sorry, but I didn't see it. To me it looks like a depiction of a bloated, gross Johnson, sitting on top of his dunghill, looking down upon one of his cronies, one of whose largesse he has benefited from. And the crony is supposedly being given a peerage in Johnson's resignation honours list.

I went to a school, all girls, in the 60s and I was well aware of which girls were Catholic or Jewish. Only the Jewish girls stayed outside the assembly hall, all the other girls joined in the daily act of Christian worship, as is required by the law. The Jewish girls joined us for the notices at the end of the assembly.

I still find it difficult to understand any person claiming that they see no antisemitism in that vile cartoon. I’m tempted to think that there absolutely must be unconscious bias as there is no other explanation, unless of course, the bias is deliberate. I cannot believe that, so it must be unconscious.

Dinahmo

I've got to the bottom of page 2 and from my reading so far it seems that the majority of posters do not often read the Guardian. If they did, they would realise that Martin Rowson's cartoons are invariably and as equally disgusting.

That's a point.

I'm often shocked at the gross and scathing distortion of his target's features - the depiction of Sharp is exactly the same as many of his other caricatures. In that respect, it really is possible that he, Rowson, did not deliberately depict the man in the way he's being accused of doing.

Yet it's also quite easy to see why people would think he did.

its true that many cartoons are gross whoever is depicted. But cartoonists nevertheless have to be aware of the historical tropes used most offensively when there are racist allusions, which there clearly are in this case..

Wyllow3

its true that many cartoons are gross whoever is depicted. But cartoonists nevertheless have to be aware of the historical tropes used most offensively when there are racist allusions, which there clearly are in this case..

But the allusion in this cartoon is to Goldman Sachs, not to Sharp. That is the only feature which can be construed as antisemitic, but even then there are two possible explanations of the octopus.

And I really admire all these people with long memories who can recall exactly which of their fellow pupils didn't attend assembly 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago. 🤔

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

Don't worry about that MaizieD

If you can't read posts properly then I will indeed avoid anything you say in future.
I should have learned the first time you twisted posts, not just mine either.

I’m another Spartacus who remembers who didn’t attend assemblies. Jehovah’s witnesses for one

Iam64

I’m another Spartacus who remembers who didn’t attend assemblies. Jehovah’s witnesses for one

But do you remember each individual one?

I'm afraid that i do remember some people from my school years Maizie . Two Jewish sisters who didn't go into assembly. A friend from my first year at grammar school whose family owned a patisserie (not called that back in the fifties). I took Welsh cakes to school and she took lovely cream cakes and we swopped - each preferring the other one's less familiar cakes. It could be to do with ageing - early memories come to the fore more quickly.

At my all girls Grammar School in London, the Jewish girls were noticeable due to them having days off of school for their Religious holidays.

All religious days were marked in daily morning assembly.

This was the same at two of our children’s school.

Iam64

I’m another Spartacus who remembers who didn’t attend assemblies. Jehovah’s witnesses for one

Yes, I remember well. Like Dinahmo there were two Jewish sisters who didn’t go into assembly, but sat outside the hall, in the entrance hall, and were there as we all filed into assembly. I queried why they didn’t attend assembly, except for the notices, and was told they were Jewish. They were the first Jewish people I met/knew, to my knowledge. I thought at the time it was all very strange as I also thought that everyone in the world went to church and Sunday School as I did. Obviously, and thankfully, I’ve known different to that for a very long time. But that is why I remember. They were to my very innocent and indeed ignorant, young mind, different. They looked like the rest of us but were different. I even remember their long plaited hair. I’m not exceptional, I just remember them well.

Even our RE lessons were totally about Christianity. I sat O Level RE and it was exclusively about the gospels. There was no inclusivity in those days, I learnt as I matured and met different people and found out about different things and different places. I’m happy about that knowledge. It has enriched my life.

Yes, I can remember quite clearly which girls did not attend the religious instruction classes - all the Jewish girls -. I won't list all their names, some might be on GN. They neither looked, nor dressed any differently to anyone else, why should they? My best friend dates from these school days and I could name probably a dozen or more of the girls in my class of 30-33. Plus a host of others in other years.

I just took the information they were jewish in my stride. We had 2 Trinidadian girls in the boarding house as well, I think they were of Indian origin, Their presence caused no remark, this was in the 1950s. I can also remember a French girl, a Colombian and lots of Polish girls. In fact we were quite international in our outlook.

Apart from the fact that I had Jewish blood so understood a bit more, I also remember the seriously Jewish girls being different because they went to a nearby classroom for Assembly. They had Hebrew names like Hannah, Myriam, and surnames like Baum, Gold. Thinking about it they also lived in the expensive leafy area in town associated with Jewish families.