"Blood Libel" Cartoon Wins First Prize In Competition

Almost a year ago, a political cartoon by Dave Brown that depicted Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian baby generated much heat in the blogosphere. Diana from Letter from Gotham was so offended she complained to The Independent, which printed the cartoon. Ampersand wrote that the cartoon drew on the old "Jews eat gentile children" blood libel myth. The blood libel myth is better known in Europe than it is in the U. S. He says that it is "on a par with an American newspaper editor printing a cartoon showing Colin Powell raping white women. It's not just tasteless; it's drawing on a specific, deeply-felt cultural image of bigotry. And it draws on that racist imagery regardless of intent." Amp had more to say after The Independent defended itself against anti-semitism charges.

Andrew Sullivan has just learned that "that disgusting cartoon" has just won first prize in the British Political Cartoon Society's annual competition.

If there was a "bad taste" award, the cartoon and the award would tie for first place. The cartoon first appeared on Holocaust Memorial Day. It won the award shortly after the bombing of synogogues in Turkey. Such timing is insulting to the Jewish people.

Haaretz reported that "in his acceptance speech, Brown thanked the Israeli Embassy for its angry reaction to the cartoon, which he said had contributed greatly to its publicity."

The BPCS comments board is full of angry posts from people who are offended by that cartoon. A supporter of the award wrote that ""Zionism, not cartoons, are the main cause of antisemitism in the world today." Quickly following that comment was this response: "Antizionism is. Zionism is the main cause of Jewish freedom from antisemites. Cartoons and comical antisemites, if they disseminate such blatant classical Jew hate disinformation - and this was published amid the monumental grave error in newspapers' reporting of the battle in Jenin - should not be rewarded. The decision is either an antisemitic celebration or pathetically shortsighted, and serious apologies are owed."

There is more commentary at the BPCS's message board area.

I had written about this cartoon and the charges of anti-semitism when it was first printed. I did not think that Brown had meant for the cartoon to be anti-semitic, but I believed that he had not taken responsibility for not being aware of the full impact his cartoon would have.

The main point of his cartoon rested on the viewers ability to recognize Goya's Saturn Devouring One Of His Children. If the viewer was not aware of that painting, Brown's meaning would have been lost.

I recognized it immediately. Brown depicted Ariel Sharon as a savage, child-eating monster. An explanation of the painting may help to explain Brown's perspective. Goya began his career sucking up to Spanish aristocrats as court painter. He, like most painters of the time, created lovely portraits that depicted aristocrats in the favorable manner they preferred. He ended his career with horrifying depictions of the brutality of war and disgust with the same Spanish aristocracy he had once served. Saturn Devouring One Of His Children is a scathing commentary about the corruption of a political regime that would sooner devour its own children than see its power fall. I believe that Brown's cartoon may have been a reference to Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, in particular Ariel Sharon's bombing of Gaza. This may be a stretch, but I believe it may have also referred to police investigations of "allegations of bribery, payoffs and other corruption during the the [Likud] party's selection process for candidates for parliament." This scandal had diverted attention away from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

I understand why Brown had drawn upon this particular painting. However, regardless of his intent, the cartoon is overpowered by the hateful imagery of "blood libel." Brown may have been unaware of the "blood libel" myth. He may have been unaware of how that myth would affect subjective interpretation of his cartoon. Subjective intent is as important to art as the original intent of the artist. The way I see it, his cartoon was not as effective as it could have been. Viewers unaware of Goya would miss the point. Brown's lack of awareness of "blood libel" diluted the intent and effect of his cartoon. I did not find it to be anti-semitic in its original intent. Subjective intent, however, is another story.

It should also be brought to everyone's attention that the cartoon appeared on Holocaust Memorial Day.

Here are some old links related to that cartoon the charges of anti-semitism it had generated, and an explanation of "blood libel": The Independent responded to the anti-semitism charges. defended his cartoon. Another commentary, citing the use of "blood libel."