A few words on the current row between two highly respected left-wingers. What appears to be behind it is the misapplication and misreading of iconography and stereotypes of a pretty mediocre piece of street graffiti.
The way I see it...
Corbyn's original comments seem to reference the anti-globalisation anti-capitalism movement.
This would be infered from the US dollar symbol that is known as 'God's all seeing eye' that sits atop a pyramid (a piece of iconography normally associated with the largely Christian history of the Freemasons); and a monopoly board (which I think was first designed by a Socialist as an educational tool); being supported on the backs of what appear to be anonymous slaves.
In a hasty tweet Corbyn makes some glib comment about a similar piece of street art depicting Lenin having being threatened with erasure in the same way that this piece is; he makes some claim to political solidarity.
Berger draws attention to the racist stereotypes used in the street art some time later, when Corbyn has become leader of the Party because his tweets have become important news.
Indeed sat round the monopoly board are a number of what might be loosely described as 'Dickensian' stereotypes of a Victorian-era Jewish bourgeois. In terms of narrative there doesn't seem to be any reason for these figures to be there apart from to reinforce a 1930s Nazi style propaganda. That is, as some sort of racial targets for anti-capitalists, which is a highly suspect political message.
So Lucianna is absolutely correct to bring attention to the sinister nature of the message being communicated to those who would not necessarily be able to read its disturbing language and demand an apology from a leader who should know better.
Corbyn apologised for being an artistic 'philistine' and agreed he had misinterpreted the whole thing. End of.
But no. Since then the opportunity to make a massive news story out of a stupid mistake has been too good to miss. Such is politics.
One has to wonder whether who wins from dragging race and religion into politics in such a way but who am I to judge?
The way I see it...
Corbyn's original comments seem to reference the anti-globalisation anti-capitalism movement.
This would be infered from the US dollar symbol that is known as 'God's all seeing eye' that sits atop a pyramid (a piece of iconography normally associated with the largely Christian history of the Freemasons); and a monopoly board (which I think was first designed by a Socialist as an educational tool); being supported on the backs of what appear to be anonymous slaves.
In a hasty tweet Corbyn makes some glib comment about a similar piece of street art depicting Lenin having being threatened with erasure in the same way that this piece is; he makes some claim to political solidarity.
Berger draws attention to the racist stereotypes used in the street art some time later, when Corbyn has become leader of the Party because his tweets have become important news.
Indeed sat round the monopoly board are a number of what might be loosely described as 'Dickensian' stereotypes of a Victorian-era Jewish bourgeois. In terms of narrative there doesn't seem to be any reason for these figures to be there apart from to reinforce a 1930s Nazi style propaganda. That is, as some sort of racial targets for anti-capitalists, which is a highly suspect political message.
So Lucianna is absolutely correct to bring attention to the sinister nature of the message being communicated to those who would not necessarily be able to read its disturbing language and demand an apology from a leader who should know better.
Corbyn apologised for being an artistic 'philistine' and agreed he had misinterpreted the whole thing. End of.
But no. Since then the opportunity to make a massive news story out of a stupid mistake has been too good to miss. Such is politics.
One has to wonder whether who wins from dragging race and religion into politics in such a way but who am I to judge?
