BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[briantrumpet]

The eyebrows?

Do they have a history as an antisemitic trope?

 

[Pross]

I’ll settle for this if it turns out to be correct. Plaid / Labour coalition and comfortably enough left of centre seats to stop Reform and Reform Lite destroying the good things the Senedd has done on issues such as the environment. I’ve never previously voted Labour in a Welsh election but feel some sympathy for Welsh Labour getting a kicking due to the behaviour of the spineless Westminster party. They’ve been much better and standing by their policies even when the media has tried to drum up campaigns against them such as the 20mph speed limit or their green energy schemes.

https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast/senedd

 

[Dorset Boy]

Does the cartoon chat really need to be across 2 threads?

 

[BoldonLad]

We're not going to agree on this, as I think he is either knowingly or carelessly using the sort of well-worn trope that doesn't have a parallel for white western men. You don't think that, quite obviously.

Do we need an official list (updated annually, say) or acceptable and non-acceptable tropes or stereotypes for all groups?

 

[First Aspect]

Do we need an official list (updated annually, say) or acceptable and non-acceptable tropes or stereotypes for all groups?

This is somewhat the point I'm trying to make.

In practice acceptable/unacceptable is judged by unwritten prevailing societal opinion. In this instance it will be "meh" as opposed to "if you don't think this is anti Semitic then you are anti Semitic".

I'm equally concerned, incidentally, at home high the bar is proposed for racist black tropes. The only examples seem to be black and white mintrels imagery. Which seems higher, as bars go.

 

[briantrumpet]

Do we need an official list (updated annually, say) or acceptable and non-acceptable tropes or stereotypes for all groups?

No. Try doing it for white westerners, and you'll see why the Jewish & black tropes are a thing. They are recognised symbols of hate & demonisation/oppression. They are deliberately used to 'other' and ridicule groups of people based on physical characteristics. It's really not complicated.

I'll admit my total naivete when I was younger: I hadn't even realised that Leon Brittan was Jewish until quite late on, when the slurs started to be deployed and commented on. And I enjoyed the Epaminondas books for the stories, but can now see why black people are justifiably offended by the imagery. And why the 'gollies' of Robertsons jam, or the blackface of the Black & White Minstrels have been banished to the history books.

 

[First Aspect]

No. Try doing it for white westerners, and you'll see why the Jewish & black tropes are a thing. They are recognised symbols of hate & demonisation/oppression. They are deliberately used to 'other' and ridicule groups of people based on physical characteristics. It's really not complicated.

I'll admit my total naivete when I was younger: I hadn't even realised that Leon Brittan was Jewish until quite late on, when the slurs started to be deployed and commented on. And I enjoyed the Epaminondas books for the stories, but can now see why black people are justifiably offended by the imagery. And why the 'gollies' of Robertsons jam, or the blackface of the Black & White Minstrels have been banished to the history books.

View attachment 14950

No one is saying anything different Brian.

But the maths equivalent would be rounding up twice, to make 45 approximately 100.

 

[briantrumpet]

In practice acceptable/unacceptable is judged by unwritten prevailing societal opinion. In this instance it will be "meh" as opposed to "if you don't think this is anti Semitic then you are anti Semitic".

The Jewish ones are well established, and it's not a growing list. It's not like they aren't well recognised. Not recognising doesn't mean someone's anti-semitic, but if you're a cartoonist, then you have a responsibility to understand their history, and be prepared for blowback if you either carelessly or deliberately deploy them in your work. As mentioned before, any plausible deniability by Brookes is reduced by his Richard Sharpe/octopus reference - unless someone's going to claim that Brookes just randomly likes to include an octopus now and then, and just by chance he put one in sharpe's hands, without realising.

 

[First Aspect]

I am losing track on which cartoons you are combining.

Where is the trope? Is it just the nose? If so, just the one on the right, or is that a Jewish policeman as well?

 

[briantrumpet]

I am losing track on which cartoons you are combining.

Where is the trope? Is it just the nose? If so, just the one on the right, or is that a Jewish policeman as well?

At this point I'm assuming you're deliberately ignoring my point that tropes only work if applied the target group, and that if Brookes didn't know he was using a trope on a recognised Jewish person he's extremely careless. It's his job to be aware of incendiary stuff. Sticking some big red lips on a caricature of me isn't going to work to 'other' me or turn me black.

You might care to read this mea culpa from Martin Rowson on his unwitting carelessness re Richard Sharp:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/26/britain-prejudices-cartoon-antisemitic-tropes

Maybe he was just saying all this stuff to keep his job, but maybe he meant it.

"At the end of April, I drew a cartoon, part of which included a depiction of the former BBC chairman Richard Sharp as a typical employee after being sacked, carrying out their possessions in a cardboard box. After the cartoon was published on the Guardian’s website, another wholly plausible description was posted on Twitter by Dr Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust, describing it as brimming with vicious antisemitic tropes

You can read my account of what I thought I’d drawn on my website, written within hours of Rich’s initial tweet. In the same piece I apologised unconditionally and took full responsibility for the enormous hurt and upset I had unintentionally caused. But how could both things be true? I had drawn an antisemitic cartoon, yet I had not been aware I was doing so.

Having unwittingly broken my first two rules, I had quickly acted on my third. But soon this no longer mattered. Intentionality became irrelevant. I could now only see what Rich and thousands of others saw, and saw it for what it was. I was now consumed with deep, devouring shame."

FWIW, I would normally tend to err on the side of causing offence in cartoons, as I think that's a very important part of how they should function. But with that comes the responsibility to be aware of lines that shouldn't be crossed, as Rowson admits here.

PS - I might be conflating Brookes and Rowson re Sharp, in which case, apologies.

 

[briantrumpet]

Well, I never knew that.

 

[First Aspect]

At this point I'm assuming you're deliberately ignoring my point that tropes only work if applied the target group, and that if Brookes didn't know he was using a trope on a recognised Jewish person he's extremely careless. It's his job to be aware of incendiary stuff. Sticking some big red lips on a caricature of me isn't going to work to 'other' me or turn me black.

You might care to read this mea culpa from Martin Rowson on his unwitting carelessness re Richard Sharp:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/26/britain-prejudices-cartoon-antisemitic-tropes

Maybe he was just saying all this stuff to keep his job, but maybe he meant it.

"At the end of April, I drew a cartoon, part of which included a depiction of the former BBC chairman Richard Sharp as a typical employee after being sacked, carrying out their possessions in a cardboard box. After the cartoon was published on the Guardian’s website, another wholly plausible description was posted on Twitter by Dr Dave Rich of the Community Security Trust, describing it as brimming with vicious antisemitic tropes

You can read my account of what I thought I’d drawn on my website, written within hours of Rich’s initial tweet. In the same piece I apologised unconditionally and took full responsibility for the enormous hurt and upset I had unintentionally caused. But how could both things be true? I had drawn an antisemitic cartoon, yet I had not been aware I was doing so.

Having unwittingly broken my first two rules, I had quickly acted on my third. But soon this no longer mattered. Intentionality became irrelevant. I could now only see what Rich and thousands of others saw, and saw it for what it was. I was now consumed with deep, devouring shame."

FWIW, I would normally tend to err on the side of causing offence in cartoons, as I think that's a very important part of how they should function. But with that comes the responsibility to be aware of lines that shouldn't be crossed, as Rowson admits here.

PS - I might be conflating Brookes and Rowson re Sharp, in which case, apologies.

This is a bit like discussing something with Magandy. Every time I try to pin down a specific issue, you raise a new one. And because I don't necessarily accept that all of the four depictions in that original Blue sky post you shared are anti Semitic, you assume I don't comprehend what a trope is.

Brookes, Rowson and Sharpe are indeed all different people. They have all also drawn more than one cartoon each.

So let's look at the one that oddly seems to be creating most umbrage, the complete version of which I put in my previous post.

If that "joke" (the joke being Polanski defending the guy with the knife rather than the police risking their lives) was drawn by someone else with a different style, lefts say in the style of South Park I don't think you'd have any issues with it.

But what if Gerald Scarfe had drawn it, with his usual pointy noses and angry faces?

I think it would have gone unnoticed, because that's his style.

 

[Pross]

Well, I never knew that.

View attachment 14952

One of those few people you never hear a bad thing about and who has successfully crossed several generations (my 22 year old daughter thinks he’s amazing)

 

[Ian H]

This is a bit like discussing something with Magandy. Every time I try to pin down a specific issue, you raise a new one. And because I don't necessarily accept that all of the four depictions in that original Blue sky post you shared are anti Semitic, you assume I don't comprehend what a trope is.

Brookes, Rowson and Sharpe are indeed all different people. They have all also drawn more than one cartoon each.

So let's look at the one that oddly seems to be creating most umbrage, the complete version of which I put in my previous post.

If that "joke" (the joke being Polanski defending the guy with the knife rather than the police risking their lives) was drawn by someone else with a different style, lefts say in the style of South Park I don't think you'd have any issues with it.

But what if Gerald Scarfe had drawn it, with his usual pointy noses and angry faces?

I think it would have gone unnoticed, because that's his style.

There is considerably more nuance than 'pointy noses'. Draw a rapacious, sneering, bulbous-nosed face, with a hint of greasiness, A bit like those depictions of Polanski.

 

[First Aspect]

There is considerably more nuance than 'pointy noses'. Draw a rapacious, sneering, bulbous-nosed face, with a hint of greasiness, A bit like those depictions of Polanski.

Which one? Or does any one mean they all are?