UKC

I'd like to gather people opinions on "that" mural, if any one feels like they can / dare / want to.

Follow this link

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/28/antisemitism-open-you...

You can click on the picture to get a larger view. Please don't read the article, I'd like your thoughts first of all.

If you already know of this mural and the people within it, did you already know who they were, or did you have to find out?

If you already know something about it could you comment about what you might think, seeing it for the first time (I realise this id very difficult to unknow something, but you best shot might be useful), ( you still might know the people involved, so that's fine). And then about what it means after you've heard more about it?

I won't post what I think at present because I don't want to influence any one.

Chag Pesach Sameach.

Seeing it for the first time, and I clicked on the picture so as not to see the article.  Looked at it and now telling you what I see from memory.  

I saw something that might suggest illuminati but I don’t know much about that (it reminds me of Lara Croft films to be honest, and American conspiracy theories)

Workers or slaves maybe squashed under a table of buildings from capital cities.

At least some of the men sat at the table were drawn in a caricature of Jewish (exaggerated noses) 

No women at the table.  

A mother and child at the side. Something implies distressed but I can’t tell you what.  

Can you explain, I don’t know what you mean?

Hi you don't have to do it from memory, please look at it and tell me what you see.

A well rendered disgrace. A turd polished to a high sheen. A pretty, ugly thing.

History is littered with similar hateful propaganda, carefully crafted to make it palatable.

For example, this N Korean poster is, in my opinion, visually stunning http://www.newsweek.com/north-korea-targets-us-capitol-latest-propaganda-po... (scroll down the page to the second image) but the underlying semantics are disturbing.

Why do you say that? I'm trying to find out people perceptions, you might not think that's important, I tend to think it is.

By not discussing things, we're left to assume things, you seem to have made an assumption of me, which is fine, but I doubt it's really who I am.

I've just spent 30 minutes trying to find out who's depicted in the mural, I found an article yesterday but can't seem to find it again.

This isn't about being amusing, it's about trying to find some answers and possibly educate myself. Feel free to snipe and not contribute, but is there really any need to take the piss?

Apart from you don't like it, it doesn't really explain what you seeing or what specifically is the disgrace bit, in either the mural or the picture in the post you posted.

I cheated and read the article and found this:

The artist himself confirmed they were intended as such, writing: “Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are.”

What I see is you digging yourself into a ever deeper and lonelier hole by your instinctive support for someone indefensible in his support for anti-semitic groups, even if he is not an anti-semite per se.

With every new thread (how many now?) you post on this matter your detachment from what is acceptable in a civilised society yawns wider, and you resemble more and more the the thing you deny.

For goodness sakes man, drop it. Then have a good look at yourself.

From the top.

All seeing eye: the most common image beloved by bullshit conspiracy theorists convinced of a hidden world government/plot to rule the world.

Obvious caricatures of jewish men.

Monopoly board: obvious symbolism.

Bowed slave types supporting the game table: obvious symbolism.

In conclusion: crude and unlovely piece of racist propaganda with no pretence towards anything else.

I wouldn't take somebody defending this piece as obvious evidence that they're a racist, but I would take it as evidence that they're either dangerously unworldly or a bit thick (maybe both).

Two new threads, that how many.

Instead of having a go at me why not spend the time reply to the OP.

Since I'm exploring prejudice here, you and Mike seem to have plainly demonstrated yours already.

Are you suggesting the mural doesn't need discussion? That everyone should be able to understand it's message?

This isn't an attempt to garner support for anyone, I'm trying to separate, what were told we're seeing with what we're actually seeing. And what other people know to compare my knowledge with theirs.

For Jeremy Corbyn?
In virtually every single thread you contribute to!

I've just looked at it and didn't read the article. I don't really understand the symbolism or understand what it is trying to convey but the caricatured features of the people being jewish and the one counting money I would describe as stereotyping and with a degree of racism.

I don't recognise any of the people in the mural except Alf Garnett on the right hand end.

I see, from left to right: Charles Darwin, David Attenborough, Colonel Mustard, my late grandfather, George Bush Jr and Gandhi playing monopoly (Illuminati edition), and my obvious first thought is: "bloody hell, that was NOT button mushrooms in my lunch omelet"

Great well done.

So don't have any views of your own then?

And without the snippet of text, people in the street would know the same thing?

LOL,

I thought I saw Warren Mitchell, same as EddIna.

(Oops I'm not supposed to say owt)

Sorry I miss read, I thought they were saying I supported the mural.

I've edited my original post.

This is a weird thread.

But we're not really talking about the man in the street are we? what we're really discussing is Jeremy defending this mural and what it says about his judgment, awareness and common sense.

What ever his good qualities (and they're many) this gaff presents pretty damning evidence that JC isn't fit to lead one of the World's most powerful and influential democracies (not that I think TM is either).

Unfortunately, it was impossible to look at without first seeing the word "antisemitism" in the Guardian headline.  So primed somewhat, beyond seeing the pyramid/eye sign (Illuminati cospiracy?), I immediately thought "ah, Jewish caricatures of the bankers in control of everything" at the table.

I guess if they all had Stars of David the connection would be a lot more overt.

But two thoughts then came to my mind:

1.  Maybe the "people in control" are predominantly Jewish.  And maybe that's not a bad thing.  Jews seem to punch well above their weight when it comes to arts, culture, science and, yes, probably banking, finance and law.  So it wouldn't surprise me if Jews were over-represented in high ranking political positions or positions that have influence over the political system.  Doesn't necessarily mean that influence is a bad thing, and perhaps the image of Jewish looking gentleman working the chessboard isn't necessarily anti-semitic (could equally just show Chinese or Americans).

2. I then started to question whether they really were Jewish caricatures at all.  They could simply be what old white men tend to look like.  Which then made me think, funny how it is entirely politically correct and even a signifier of social-political acumen, to be able to specifically point to "old white men" in an entirely negative, derogatory, and accusatory manner...little different to the way anti-semites refer to Jews.

Not one who ascribes to the Labour-has-an-anti-semitism-problem argument, I can see however that their brand of identity politics and activism can very easily accommodate that sort of discrimination under the guise of idealism.

BTW, I had never seen the mural before and think I may have vaguely heard of something to do with Corbyn and possibly a mural.  I largely avoid these sorts of news stories these days.

I know, I did  think twice, but thought it might be worth getting other people's views.

But if you don't ask you don't find out, do you?

sometimes even if you do ask you still don't find out.

No this (for once    ) is nowt to do with JC, I simply wanted to see two things really;

1. What the mural meant to people, without the background explanation of what it depicts.
2. What the mural meant given what you know about it.
3. Possibly, if you know the people depicted does this change things.

Actually that's three

But also depicted on US dollar note. Given that it's green in that mural, I'd suggest 'money' might be the allusion, rather than Zionist or illuminati conspiracy.

Other than that, your interpretation matches mine.

Overall? It reminds me of Nazi anti-jewish propaganda.

Fair enough Kriks, only person depicted I could ID would be Warren Mitchell (Jewish) couple of the others seem vaguely familiar (Israeli politicians?). 

I'd still maintain that the intent of the mural's creator is blindingly obvious.

When I first saw it I got the anti capitalist motifs but saw all the figures as stereotypes of Jewish bankers - a cabal indeed. Ive read since the artist saying only 2 of the figures are Jewish but he stuck with well tried anti-Semitic motifs for the others which makes his claim dubious. 

Perhaps I'm prejudice but does anyone know if the artist is African-American? Or maybe British black but influenced by African American street art? There is a  history of anti-Semitic/anti-capitalist imagery being used in hip hop culture and earlier from some black radical groups.

I do think you are digging yourself further into a hole though.

I'm sure if you'd found the article that you're referring to, then you would have posted that in every single thread pertaining to the mural including this one...

At a casual glance, I'd see obvious depictions of Jewish men sat around a table. Looking for a couple of seconds or so, I'd see them counting money on a Monopoly board supported by what looks like slaves, etc. On further investigation, I would see the 'all seeing eye'.
From the casual glance, I probably wouldn't read anything into it. 
However, on the second look, I'd link the Jewish men with the counting of money, etc. and come up with the obvious conclusion that it was anti-Jewish/Semitic.  If I was really bothered, I'd probably link in the 'all seeing eye' and think that the painter was trying to conjure up an image of a conspiracy involving the Jews having unjust influence and power in world politics, etc.
As a non-Jew, I'd probably not be too concerned on a personal level, but would fully understand why it would be offensive to some. To be honest, I would assume that it was a painting from some time ago and would be astonished if it was contemporary. 
If I was Jewish, I'd probably be a bit concerned that it was allowed to be shown publicly and would wonder about the motivation about it, from both the artist and perhaps more importantly, the council that permitted it to be shown in the first place.
 

The artist:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/artist-mear-one-kalen-ockerman-admits-he...

If you're really bored have a google around 'dollar bill symbolism and the Illuminati'. Loads of the imagery on the bank note is held up as evidence by a whole heap of loons. In the context of the mural I'd definitely see the eyes inclusion as a pointer to New World Order type shenanigans.

The men are: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Aleister Crowley, Carnegie and Warburg.

Possibly not. Some are more cued in to visual semiotics than others.  That doesn't make any difference to the anti-Semitism (or otherwise, if you think that's the case) of the mural. 

Great, that's exactly what I was wondering, does knowing who these people are have any influence on what you think the mural portrays.
It isn't Warren Mitchell by the way, but it does look like him.

Not true, I deliberately wanted people to give their views without being influenced. And then if like me you'd found out who they were, whether that then made any difference to people opinions.

As was pointed out though, I failed by posting the link to the Guardian, emblazoned with "Anti-Semitic" in the title.

That’s interesting, I tried not to read the article but I don’t know if I saw the title or not, and if I did is that why I noticed that some of the men were shown as Jewish in a bad way.  

I can see why people are saying it’s anti capitalist but it is also anti Semitic I think.  

I wasn’t aware of the connection before with the pyramid image.  

I'm not... But I am aware of the Masonic connection. And the fact that the dollar bill imagery is the subject of much nonsense...

Illuminati and New World Order conspiracy bollocks to one side, it doesn't take a Masters in symbolism in art to see a picture of a man with a giant hooknose counting a wodge of cash and understand what the artist is reaching for.

The Illuminati/NWO/David Icke world is absolutely laced with overt and codified anti-Semitism to its core. The problem is that the idiots who believe this shit don't think that they are being racist because it's not just a poisonous stereotype; it's "the truth". And how can "the truth" be racist?

I'd never seen the mural and had barely heard about it (where have I been?!)

I unfortunately saw the words anti-Semitism in the link but if I hadn't, I wouldn't have necessarily thought they were all Jewish around the board. However, I am a bit clueless like that sometimes.

They do all look like older white males. I feel it depicts sexism, elitism, ageism (against the young), abuse of power. I also feel it is anti-capitalist, and makes me feel the artist has a paranoia of an elite few who hold all the power.

I feel the rest of us are either the slaves under the board (too oppressed or comfortable with the status quo to do anything other than support this structure blindly), or the people on the left (young uprising) or bottom right (young mother and child - children are the future).

I feel at least one of the men is a media mogul, the others seem like leading bankers, politicians or economists.

The eye thing feels big brother-y and dominant/all seeing, not sure what else to make of it but it does feel sinister.

BUT...now that people have pointed it out and, having read the article afterwards, yes perhaps the men look Jewish and it does seem reminiscent of anti-Semitic propaganda (again, I googled for images as I am pretty clueless otherwise).

I believe that, without all this fuss, hardly anyone would notice it and most people wouldn't care if they did look at it (as in it would have no effect on their lives).

Well, tell me, when you compare this image to your image what do you notice?

http://lancasteronline.com/features/entertainment/shylock-has-his-day-on-st...

Who was, as it happens, Jewish.

It really doesn't matter one iota whether or not the average bod would recognise the anti-semitic content in the mural. What really matters is that it's there and was put there deliberately. In law, the prevailing interpretation of an ambiguous text is usually the meaning intended by the author, not necessarily that inferred by a reader.

If you lived in the vicinity of that mural, how long do you think it would take before the intended and hardly concealed anti-semitism message was known throughout the local community, even if many/most observers didn't pick up on it themselves? Once known, it should rightfully become an embarrassment to those in the neighbourhood, and indeed to those elsewhere in prominent political positions, who don't share the anti-semitic values of its creator.

How do you prove what meaning was intended?  He claims it wasn't.  

I wasn't aware of that, but he apparently has identified some or all of the characters as prominent jews. That doesn't appear to leave a great deal of doubt, given the blatant symbolism used, but I accept it does cloud the issue a little, perhaps deliberately on his part.

He says it's anti capitalism not anti semitic.

I think it's both.  

The mural is an innocuous depiction of some ordinary workers at a cog factory  who, during their lunchbreak, have repaired to the local freemasons hall for a game of monopoly  Because the tables at the hall are away being repaired the workers are taking turns to bend over and act as the game table. Meanwhile the foreman of the factory has just realised that the hooter is about to blow,  signalling the end of the break and is beckoning the game players to return to their work benches before they are admonished by the factory owner , whom we can't see .

It is a fine example of socialist realism, not a bit antisemitic. 

Anti-capitalist portrayal of the illuminati was what our screamed to me. Personally I don't see anti-semitic, just stereotypical billionaire tycoons.

Were they perhaps all financial leaders of a certain time, hence at the table?  It might be more a case that there are certain figures, irrespective of ethnicity or religion, who materialised across US history who are rightly looked on today pretty poorly.  Having just listened to a podcast on Roosevelt, one character that comes out of the period in a less than glowing light is Morgan.  I really don't know much about the others, but no doubt a lot of very powerful people fit that criteria and can easily end up on a mural like this.

Thought of another way, while we can easily point the finger at perceived anti-semitism, the overall point of the mural could simply be anti-capitalist.  If the alternative to capitalism has been communist-socialism (which the mural design does somewhat seem to idealise), you could argue that the more horrific element of the mural is to disdain an economic ideology that has raised billions out of poverty while subtly presenting favourably an alternative which starved, killed and enslaved millions. 

Obviously its a bit of a stretch.  But we seem far more sensitive to one area of horror than another.  

Is it a mural of Corbyn displaying astoundingly bad judgment towards some crook because they have aligned socialist views?

Thin ice mate , extremely thin ice . Go careful is all I would suggest ay , you just couldn't let lie could you  ? ( in a Bob Mortimer silly voice , whilst shaking head profusely ) . . .

youtube.com/watch?v=v3O9vNi-dkA& 

I haven't studied the mural in any detail but it struck me as being in the style of Dada, maybe Georges Grosz, a style of art from between the two world wars and European. There were some very dubious politics associated with the movement which flirted with political extremism from both ends of the spectrum and of course was sympathetic to the view that capitilists/jews controlled the world and oppressed ordinary decent Germans / Italians etc. We all know how that panned out.

So yes, there is an aspect of the mural that is anti semitic in my view. Further it is not that important what the artist intended, it is what people see in the work that really matters and if they see something offensive in it then it is offensive.

My take on this is that Jeremy probably hadn't looked at it, joined a conversation half way through and asked a reasonable and innocent question. 6 years later someone digs it back up and uses it as a convenient stick to beat him with. Has no one else ever asked an innocent question and found they have stirred a hornets nest?

If Corbyn hadn't looked at it, why did he comment with: “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller [sic] destroyed Diego Viera’s [sic] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.”?

Doesn't that suggest, that he had looked at it and understood the fundamental meaning of the mural? 

Not necessarily. I don't know the context of this quote, do you?

Corbyn said he saw the mural but failed to see the content.  If that was the case, why would he compare it to another work of art that was removed for 'political' reasons?
Additionally, why would Corbyn bother to comment on the removal of a random piece of art unless he had some sympathy with the imagery portrayed in the mural?
The crux of the matter, is whether you believe that he was doing it purely for Freedom of Speech reasons, or, that he was backing the artist because he actually thought the mural had political/ideological merit. 

Did he? I thought he was commenting on the artist being in the same category as some other artists who had all at some time or other had their art banned, rather than comparing the actual piece to something else.

Funny how you’re often very vocal on here against the persecution of Arabic/Islamic groups - I’d expect the same sort of gusto when it comes to defending Jewish groups as well, but you seem to be looking to defend Corbyn instead?

Is there any real difference and does it really matter?
 

You incorrectly posted that he compared the mural to other works of art and therefore had considered it. He didnt. So there is a difference and context matters.

Im not defending jc just pointing out a mistake.

He did compare it to another work of art:

Corbyn's Facebook comment: “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller [sic] destroyed Diego Viera’s [sic] mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.”

Murals and cartoons with a political slant have a habit of condensing falsehoods/truth/opinion into a single image in such a way that the understanding of an intended message can be established rapidly at a quick glance, in contrast to the slower reading of detailed articles on the same subject. 

My own interpretation is that the illuminati symbol of the all seeing eye put me 'on guard' from the start, which coloured what I was seeing afterwards in the whole image. I saw the caricatured Jewish gentlemen in the light of that symbol, which led me to believe that the whole image was then likely to be controversial in its message. The crouched figures underneath the Monopoly board further emphasised this, which then screamed 'antisemitism' first, followed by 'anticapitalism'.

What I'm saying is that some people are able to see immediately with what the graphic message is portraying, and there are others who need to read detailed articles in order to form opinions. Maybe Jeremy Corbyn is the latter, and didn't immediately click with the message in the mural - and is now getting a lot of flak for it (possibly undeserving).

Sensitive subjects like antisemitism are surrounded by fragile eggshells, on which nobody dares walk. But sensitivity has a habit of masking truth with an absence of analysis, and the truth in this case is that Jewish people are successful (and synonymous) with wealth, finance and business, which then becomes ripe for prejudice. Had the table been surrounded by British businessmen, the mural would not have had the same impact or sense of outrage. 

Fair enough, stands corrected, but your comment shows he was comparing the artist not the artwork, yes?  

Maybe both, but there is definitely a comparison to another work of art that Corbyn was obviously aware of.

Yep.

It seems that no one knows the content of this tweet that has been brought up 6 years after he made but 6 weeks before the London elections.

I can imagine Jeremy doesn't take a huge interest in art, he may have only known about the painting because, as a local politician, he knew about the decision to commission it or some such reason. If he did see it he may well have only glanced at it while travelling down Brick Lane on a bus, briefly glancing up from an article in Pravda that had caught his attention. I don't know no one else seems to know and no one who is eager to point the finger seems to be as eager to fill in the background details.

This is the facebook page that started it all in 2012:

https://www.facebook.com/290156246477/photos/a.290349386477.157415.29015624...

He didn't have to see it in person, as the mural was perfectly plain to see on the very facebook page that Corbyn contributed to... 

Thanks but I don't see any contributions from Jeremy.

I'm not part of facebook so can't open all of the page started by MEAR ONE about his mural being banned. However, there are many screen-grabs of Corbyn's response to it in which he says:  “Why? You are in good company. Rockerfeller destroyed Diego Viera’s mural because it includes a picture of Lenin.” 

https://e3.365dm.com/18/03/1600x1200/skynews-jeremy-corbyn-anti-semitism_42...

https://tendancecoatesy.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/bba58-1fzmhsrgmzv_entv2...

(Deleted a link to the Sun because it was the Sun...).

Hi All,

Sorry I'm really busy today, so not much chance to reply to everyone.

For those that did reply, and didn't know the people in the mural, would it change your opinion if one of the people around the table was a well known anti-Semite?

Even for those that already had an opinion, would this knowledge change the way the picture is viewed?

The trouble with your statement is, I'd only be allowed to support the Jewish groups you would approve of, the other Jewish groups, you know the one's you don't agree with would, I imagine not be suitable.

I support all people against racism, it's nothing to do with being Jewish, you statement is a perfect example of the selectiveness, of some people's "caring".

I support both JVP and JPL are they Jewish enough for you? or are they the wrong kind of "Jews"?

I've seen Jews being verbally abused by other Jews, because they supported freedom for Palestinians, what "tag" can we label them with?

This simple post of your's highlights the whole issue in the fight against anti-Semitism, while not actually accusing me of it, you intimated that I'm against Jews. It's insulting and it's hypocrisy of the highest order. What you are actually saying is "if you don't agree with me, then you anti-Semitic" and yet there isn't even a consensus within the Jewish community.

We, at least  most of us, know what racism is, we don't need a twelve page discussion about semantics to know, roughly, what's racist and what isn't. There are border line cases, or simple mistakes, or even cases which can be argued from either side, but on the whole people know themselves what they are. Having someone say the opposite doesn't make it right.

We might all keep quiet and not challenge, what we're being told, is that what you are suggesting?

I'd like to know what this mural means to people, and if it matches what we're being told it represents.

It takes a certain amount of prejudice to conclude there are Jews in the Mural in the first place. Without "knowing" Jews have big noses, you could pick many races for the people in the picture. Look at cartoons the world over and you'll find exaggerated feature, usually the nose. There's plenty of cartoon of Corbyn and May with huge hooters.

What do you think about the mural?
As for it matching what we're being told it represents, are you referring to what Mear One has said about it in retrospect? If so, do you trust what he says - especially as he acknowledged that it was likely to upset Jews before commissioning. 

Corbyn believes it is anti-Semitic and therefore must believe that are Jews in the mural.

   Nonsense. It requires a certain amount of cultural capital, otherwise known as "general knowledge". Incidentally,whichare you, prejudiced or ignorant?

  By the way, why do you think Jezzer attended the Jewdas event last night? Making a point or just wanted to meet old friends?

It was in his constituency and he had been invited.

What *exactly* is wrong with Jewdas and how can a Jewish organisation be anti Semitic?

  I'm not suggesting there is anything "wrong" with it or anti semitic about it although I probably disagree with many of it's views. eg that Israel shouldn't exist.

  But obviously Jezzer was going to get huge criticism for attending, which would add fuel to the flames burning around the issue. So I am wondering about his rationale. There could be several.

Also oddly appears on US dollar bill which is where most people not well versed in conspiracy nonsense will know it from especially when painted greeny-grey.

Apparently caricatures of actual individuals, some Jewish. I'm not familiar with the people or good with faces so I can't judge how credible that is or whether the caricatures overplay the dog-whistle cues to race/religion.

Symbolic of what, the dangers of unregulated capitalism?

Symbolic of what, racist attitudes toward Black people by white people?

The same could be said of the artist, that the racist interpretations are imposed on the work rather than intentionally included. The truth probably lies somewhere between.

I guess that makes me a racist or thick.

jk

My reading of his rationale is that he wanted to demonstrate that he is not antisemitic, rather that it depends entirely on what individual Jews *believe* whether he will support or oppose them. Which is an entirely fair point.

However, one must be aware at all times that Jeremy simply does not understand politics, which makes him somewhat ineffective as leader of the opposition. He apparently couldn't see, or didn't care, that meeting with people who say the allegations are a load of crap will be interpreted as a public statement along the lines of: "I said I was going to deal with those allegations, but really I think they're a load of crap". Which of course has been the reaction.

Also oddly appears on US dollar bill which is where most people not well versed in conspiracy nonsense will know it from especially when painted greeny-grey.

1-Already gone over this ground down thread. Do try to keep up.

Apparently caricatures of actual individuals, some Jewish. I'm not familiar with the people or good with faces so I can't judge how credible that is or whether the caricatures overplay the dog-whistle cues to race/religion.

2- See 4.

Symbolic of what, the dangers of unregulated capitalism?

3- if you like???

Symbolic of what, racist attitudes toward Black people by white people?

4- 'Slave' denotes a specific status not an ethnicity. If you're going to play the dog-whistle cues to race/religion card, it seems rather foolish to fall victim to it yourself in the same post.

The same could be said of the artist, that the racist interpretations are imposed on the work rather than intentionally included. The truth probably lies somewhere between.

5- Pure sophistry and blather.

I guess that makes me a racist or thick.

6- No idea James, but point 4 doesn't do you any favours in either regard.

jk

Good thread.

So: I haven't seen the mural before, haven't researched it, and haven't read any other posts.

First impressions are that it's a pretty conventional depiction of of white, middle-aged capitalists metaphorically playing property Monopoly on the backs of the third world, and the fetishisation of the almighty dollar, as symbolised by the masonic eyed pyramid symbol. 

Don't recognise any of the individuals, unless the one on the left is ironically depicted as Marx (which would make it slightly more interesting if true).  If they aren't fictional presumably they are all well-known industrialists, bankers and property-owners.  Not being completely naive, I'd be being dishonest if I admit to wondering whether they might be Jewish but I don't recognise them and they seem to me more caricature capitalists (just as the Monopoly box has a caricature capitalist on the lid) than caricature Jews.    

Now I'm slightly uncomfortable that I made the association between exploitative capitalism and Judaism at all on such flimsy signifiers, but obviously I know a bit of the back story, so I can't say how much this would have struck me without any foreknowledge.  Does that make me anti-semitic in itself? 

I'd be more inclined to believe it was intentionally antisemitic if all those included were Jews or if the intention was not to depict real people, simply stereotypical Jewish capitalists. I'll take the artists word that they're real people caricatured since I can't judge for myself.

You're arguing one has to be thick not to make the connections. I'm arguing your argument must also extend to the artist. Probably doesn't but could.

They're apparently black people under the board (or at least much darker skinned than those sat at the board) and apparently enslaved/oppressed. I'm not saying 'slaves are black' but that the black people under the board in the picture appear to be enslaved. To me the most obvious thing this bit of the picture suggests is the economies of the cities/countries referenced on the board were built on the the subjugation of non-white people. There's a grain of truth in that.

The whole thing is set against a backdrop of belching industrial imagery, at a glance it is obviously anti capitalist. Whether it was additionally meant to be antisemitic or whether that is something that can be relatively easily hung upon it by those who wish to I'm undecided of. Without the Illuminati thing which is a connection most won't get you're basically down to a man with a hooked nose counting cash and a couple more with hooked noses. That doesn't look great but the men do not all look alike except in age and colour, without recognising them as depictions of real people (assuming they are) one could lazily assume they're all Jews.

I haven't got time at the moment.

But it's a mural, a picture on a wall, walking down the street or passing it on the bus, and you don't have the benefit of what the painter was intending, or knowing who's in the picture, or the reams of print which tell us it's anti-Semitic.

Does the fact there's a prominent anti-Semite sat at the same table as the others change in any way what the picture might represent?

It's pretty hard not to upset "some" Jews about just about anything. Look at Gaza, there's some Jews that got upset that there was a peaceful protest there, so much upset they fired bullets ate them. They hadn't touched the sacred fence, at the time, so in reality posed no threat, certainly one that couldn't have been stopped at the time it happened. Instead, people lost their lives and many more were injured, on what might have been going to happen. where's your outrage against that, people demonstrating, in what they've been told is their part of their own land, yet still get killed and the world simply looks on.

  Well, I tend to agree with you. It could be that he was thinking "these are my old mates so I'm not going to be swayed by a lot of media blather" but I suspect, like you, that he just  didn't see it coming. Weird.

It's not without interest that the man some people like to portray as a jolly social democrat who wants the UK to be more like Denmark, feel the need to spend his "personal" time with what appear to be hard line anti-capitalists. (their website is down so we can't tell if  really they are just happy clappy liberals)

You're assuming the "slaves" under the table aren't Jewish, isn't it just a likely for them to be "Jewish" as anyone else in the picture.

Does it bother you there's a prominent anti-Semite sat at the table?

The only thing I had assumed was that they were slave types. Until JK prompted me to look again at the mural I'd mistakenly remembered them as being depicted in shades of blue(?). The table image had prompted a mental recollection of similar figures supporting buttresses on a  Bauhaus style building (perhaps from the film Metropolis?).

Is there? It bothers me more that The board of deputies of British Jews and the Jewish leadership council, amongst others, see the images as obvious Jewish caricatures. I'm not an expert on racist caricatures but I'm inclined to agree with them.

The whole point of the thread though is to garner "peoples" thoughts, what you think, not what they think, whoever "they" are.

Obviously, it's possible, that someone might think there's nothing wrong with the picture at all, but after finding out more information, they could decide it's an affront to everyone that might see it. Conversely there could be people who instinctively are repulsed by the picture, who then find out more information and the see it as something totally different, which should be available for all to see.

The whole point of the thread is to see what you think.

Considering it's a painting on a wall, you could have conflicting views, one simply what the picture says to you, a second based on what it means to other people or a third based on what you now know of the people within it or the symbolism contained. There may be many more as you learn more about it.

which was why I asked people to "try" and view it as they hadn't heard about the controversy and then afterwards.

In reply to

Where did you get your information on Jewdas from then? Guido Fawkes or The Sun?

I did tell you what I thought. I told you last Friday afternoon and you've kept coming back to pick at the same scab time and time again because time and time again you keep getting an answer you don't like.

Originally  the Telegraph reporting the recording linked to the GF website (is it a fake?), which was why I tried to check it on the organisation's website and opened the door to somebody else to provide more information(which I note you've failed to do) But their own tweets describe themselves as "revolutionaries" and "radical" which I doubt means that they want to take over the local rotary club and the New Statesman refers to them as "radical left" as does the Jewish Chronicle.

If you have an alternative insight about what they are promoting, I'm all ears.

I realise that, but then you mentioned the Board of Deputies in a reply to someone else intimating they were wrong, because of the BoD. The person you were replying to has their opinion too.

You seem to assume the BoD has dibs on what's correct, are you assuming they speak for all Jews in the UK. Is there any room for dissension against the BoD?

Translation: "If you'd been accused of hating Jews, and then to prove this was a lie you'd gone to meet with some Jews". 

Whilst Corbyn is a muppet for not seeing this backlash coming, you're effectively saying he's an anti-semite because he met some Jews you don't like.

I realise that, but then you mentioned the Board of Deputies in a reply to someone else intimating they were wrong, because of the BoD. The person you were replying to has their opinion too.

You seem to assume the BoD has dibs on what's correct, are you assuming they speak for all Jews in the UK. Is there any room for dissension against the BoD?

First time I've mentioned the BoD to anyone in my entire life was at 13:07 today.

Edit: apologies, 12:52, just the once, my whole entire life.

I'm not able to post links right now but you'll find an account of last night's event and some background on Jewdas on Labourlist. If you can steel yourself to cross to the dark side for 10 minutes of course.

The Charlotte nichols piece? It sheds no light on their views

And yet you're are happy to quote them as knowing the truth?

I don't understand what you're trying to assert by saying you've only just mentioned them!

Do they know better than the Jewish group JC went to visit or not?

I'm as happy to quote them as the Guardian was, which is who I'm actually quoting. Perhaps you should take this up with them? After all, they're a reputable left wing newspaper without any anti-labour axe to grind. I'm just some bloke on UKC without the time, inclination or resources to chase up the validity of their sources.

I'm just pointing out that I don't keep bringing them up... you mentioned the Board of Deputies in a reply to someone else intimating they were wrong, because of the BoD.You seem to assume the BoD has dibs on what's correct, are you assuming they speak for all Jews in the UK. Is there any room for dissension against the BoD?.....That was you, replying to me at 13:34. I'd never mentioned them before.

Who knows? Who cares? Well apart from you, obviously. Why ask me anyway? I'm far from a font of all Knowledge.

You started this thread asking for peoples opinions. You got them. I'm sorry you're not happy with some of those opinions but such is life.

peaceful protest with firebombs, rocks, live ammunition, IED attempts.... over 10 hamas armed military wing members killed out of the 17.

nice definition of peaceful.

military expert are you ?

But they were on their own land, weren't they?

All the IDF had to do was wait out of the way until people were actually attacking the fence, they the might have had an excuse for killing people.

No but I can watch videos from the IDF and see that people going down wounded or killed were not near the fence. Their own videos!! So possibly they didn't deserve to die. Let's just say all of the 10 were Hamas, does that negate the the other 7 deaths, or the 1,400 other injured. 1,400 !!?

Your dismissal of the situation is astounding.

Maybe it's time for a new thread on this.

Anyone hurt by tear gas is considered 'injured'... 

Clearly you think israeli soldiers should risk their lives until someone snipes at them....

So, what do you think of the mural?

Here's what I said earlier on in the thread:

At a casual glance, I'd see obvious depictions of Jewish men sat around a table. Looking for a couple of seconds or so, I'd see them counting money on a Monopoly board supported by what looks like slaves, etc. On further investigation, I would see the 'all seeing eye'.
From the casual glance, I probably wouldn't read anything into it. 
However, on the second look, I'd link the Jewish men with the counting of money, etc. and come up with the obvious conclusion that it was anti-Jewish/Semitic.  If I was really bothered, I'd probably link in the 'all seeing eye' and think that the painter was trying to conjure up an image of a conspiracy involving the Jews having unjust influence and power in world politics, etc.
As a non-Jew, I'd probably not be too concerned on a personal level, but would fully understand why it would be offensive to some. To be honest, I would assume that it was a painting from some time ago and would be astonished if it was contemporary. 
If I was Jewish, I'd probably be a bit concerned that it was allowed to be shown publicly and would wonder about the motivation about it, from both the artist and perhaps more importantly, the council that permitted it to be shown in the first place.

So, what do you think of the mural?

I'll post when I have time, too busy at the moment, I haven't forgotten.

Thanks

I noticed Alf Garnet in there.

Personally I would find it offensive as it is playing to an obvious stereotype such as one might have found back in WW2

Initially I saw the pyramid with the eye, which suggests to me a nut job illuminati theme.

There's a number of old men playing monopoly, a game, with iconic symbols from around the world, in front of a number of gears and cogs.

The board is balanced on the backs of a number of unclothed dark skinned people.

So my initial critique would be, it's rich people playing games with the world on the backs of poor people. Suggesting an anti-Capitalist and possibly again reinforcing the illuminati theme. While the cogs and wheels of industry turn behind then, producing a polluted and poisoned world.

The protestor seems like a lonely figure, protesting in a dystopian world, against the "New world Order", which I suppose are the older characters in the picture. A lonely voice against the establishment, if you like.

The woman with the baby, whose arm is mirroring the protester would be an indication to me that, there will always be someone new to take on the protest in the future.

I don't know, and can't be arsed to look it up, if  the "New World Order" are supposed to be a Jewish organisation. From memory, it would have Nazi connotations, so the poster in the protester hand would indicate the New World Order is bad for humanity, whoever they are.

The text, "From LA to London 'Freedom For Humanity'" would indicate a dedication to the whole of humanity and wishing freedom to it. Which indicates the people around the table might be slave owners and the outsiders, including the people under the table are slaves or at least under their control.
 

With the exception of Colonel Abraham (bloke on the left with the beard) I wouldn't have said any were overtly Jewish, and not sure I'd have made that link anyhow.

Warren Mitchell of course is Jewish, but I think I'd have wondered what the painting had to do with Warren Mitchell rather than making the link to Jews without thinking about it a little more. This would probably have been my key to having to look up who the people were, I'd have had to find out why Warren Mitchell was included in a picture about the illuminati. Other than that I'd have thought it was a reasonable anti-capitalist painting.

Given that there is no Jewish symbolism other than "big noses", the viewer would need to know the stereotype of big nose = Jew. If you look at most other cartoons, noses seem to be a feature ripe for enlarging, be they Jewish, Muslim or even Corbyn noses. I wouldn't have made the connection that it was to do with Jews. Possibly a failing on my part.

I could see how some people might be offended by it, especially if you recognise some of the people depicted within it. I was not convinced it was anti-Semitic, but can also see how some people might think it was.

Second Viewing after I've been informed it's anti-Semitic.
I have to look up who the people are to find out who's depicted I didn't recognise any of them.
The men are: Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan, Aleister Crowley, Carnegie and Warburg.

So I now know three of them, Rothschild (rich man and a Jew, who had something to do with the foundation of Israel), Rockefeller ( a rich American man, but not sure if he's Jewish) Carnergie ( a rich America, who made his money from steel production and who has a hall named after him).

I don't know the others, and still haven't discovered who they are apart from Aleister Crowley, who I had to look up and who seemed like a colourful, and nutty character. I also now know that Warburg is Jewish, because of the article and the artist's quote “Some of the older white Jewish folk in the local community had an issue with me portraying their beloved #Rothschild or #Warburg etc as the demons they are.”
So on the face of it two rich Jewish blokes and some other rich blokes, symbolism still of capitalist / illuniati.

It could possibly be said that it's even less anti-Semitic, and more about money being in control, once you know the people depicted. After all if these people, who are supposed to despise each other can sit around a table, then it sort of proves money is more important than anything else.

I'm torn between not wanting to offend people and a freedom of speech for this mural, if there were a more open Jewish iconography in the picture then I'd definitely be against it.

I'd see this less offensive than many murals from Northern Ireland, but there again I'm not the one being depicted.


 

I personally think you've over studied the mural and come up with an answer to suit your needs.  For example, I never noticed such detail as the graffiti and I also wouldn't have noticed the 'all seeing eye' on a casual glance.
What I did see immediately, as I believe most did, was that the men had generic Jewish characteristics.  Nothing wrong in that per se.  However, at a second look, I saw the further details that made it look like it was criticising certain elements of the Jewish community.  Whether or not it is anti-Semitic is obviously subjective.  You've decided not, but the consensus appears to be edging towards the opposite.  I personally don't believe it is directly anti-Semitic, however, I do believe that it is criticising Capitalism and it does little to hide that those elements of the Jewish community are instrumental in that and therefore it could easily be construed as anti-Semitic.

Another slightly tangential observation: why is Aleister Crowley identified as one of the figures in the mural?  The painter says it is a depiction of the evils of Capitalism, etc. If that is the case, why include Crowley? 
Being slightly cynical, is it perhaps when faced with criticism of being anti-Semitic, he decided to say that a known anti-Semitic was one of the figures?
The figure certainly doesn't look like Crowley...
 

I did say in the OP to try and give opinion on first viewing, knowing nothing of the people involved and then an opinion after you'd learned a bit more, if you did. So I'm not sure I've over analysed anything. Maybe because it's part of my job to be analytical, I might look a bit closer.

I think it's pretty hard not to see the "all seeing Eye", it's probably what I saw first.

I have no idea why he included Crowley, if indeed it is him, I can see he sort of fits  with secret societies etc. but who knows? He might have specifically included him to fend off the accusations of anti-Semitism, to try and reinforce his assertion it's about capitalism and not about Jews being in charge.

We used to say "I'm not Rothschild" as children, without knowing anything of his roots, or indeed anything about anti-Semitism, it was simply a way of saying, "how much? I'm not rich!". Rothschild like Rockefeller are simply archetypal rich people.