A sign of anti-Semitism at the New Yorker?

Barry Blitt’s cover illustration for the current (October 24) New Yorker is a post-modern version of cartoons from the late 19th century that savaged the trusts and Tammany Hall.

NEW-YORKER-COVER-OCCUPY-WALL-STREET

Joseph Keppler’s illustration “The Bosses of the Senate,” for Puck magazine (January 23, 1889), which appears on the U.S. Senate’s own Web site, is a well-known example of both the spirit and style of the era:

Bosses of the Senate

Like Keppler, Blitt dresses his plutocrats in top hats and cutaways; unlike Keppler, he does not overtly lampoon the influence of money on politics. An October 17 New York Times article on Robert S. Halper (“He Made It on Wall St. and Used It to Help Start the Protests”) helpfully shows how even the Occupy Wall Street movement is backed by … Wall Street dollars.

More interesting still, although four of the plutocrats in Blitt’s cartoon carry signs with ethnically neutral slogans (“I’ve got mine”; “Keep things precisely as they are”; “Leave well enough alone”; “I’m good, thanks”), one of them is brandishing a sign that reads “Change shmange.”

Is there any other way to interpret that image except as targeting Jewish Wall Streeters?

Of course there’s always the defense that it’s a cartoon, it’s satirical, it’s lampooning anti-Semitism, not expressing it, etc., etc. But put aside all those post-modern meta-defenses, and submit the cartoon to a simple smell test. If Blitt had portrayed one of the bankers as a black man carrying a sign proclaiming, “I’m chill,” would the New Yorker have run it?

It’s worth remembering that Puck was animated not just by populism but by nativism. Irish and other ethnic immigrants were often singled out in both cartoons and editorials:

Anti-Immigrant Images

It’s easy to demonize plutocrats — who can really feel sorry for billionaires? But populism has often been a disguise for nativism. Yet the effort commentators (mostly unsuccessfully) put into discrediting the Tea Party as racist (or “racial” ) has now twisted itself into knots in order to deny that OWS is anti-Semitic. In other words, “conservatives” bear scrutiny; “progressives” merit excuses.

This entry was posted in Politica, Rhetorica and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to A sign of anti-Semitism at the New Yorker?

  1. I think the cartoon is brilliant, and a charge of anti-semitism is unwarranted. Blitt previously did the cover featuring Obama as a muslim & Michelle as a Black Panther. Does that make him a birther? Blitt is clearly drawing on the gilded age plutocrat images of Teddy Roosevelt’s day. As a fellow cartoonist, I speculate Blitt was just scrambling for a 5th slogan. By your own reckoning, 4 of the five signs have no semitic tone. If the fifth one does, is it unfair to imply that perhaps 20% of current Wall St. villains might be jewish? That also implies that 80% aren’t, if you draw the first inference. And of course, in NYC it isn’t only jews who use slang derived from jewish culture. Many “oy-sters” (yiddish using gentiles) do as well.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

11 − six =

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.