So who’s a mensch, then? And who cares?
Today the Sun put that picture of Ed Miliband trying to eat a bacon butty and getting it all down his shirt, suggesting that if he can’t even eat without making a
mess, he’ll do the same to the country if elected as Prime Minister tomorrow. A few people on Twitter have suggested that the picture is a reference to his Jewish background, because anti-Semites have a history of depicting Jews as pigs and because people will make the link if they see a Jew and pork together, even though the association is negative. I’m not so sure - if there’s one thing you can’t accuse the Sun of, it’s anti-Semitism, given that Rupert Murdoch is a noted Zionist. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t subliminal messages in the use of the picture.
1. Not ‘true’: the one thing people know about Jews is that they don’t eat pork. Now, we all know that some Jews are not practising, some are atheists and some have converted to Christianity, all of which have been true since at least the 19th century. Many people will call that a classic example of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. But it’s still a fact that the religion prohibits it, that even minimally observant Jews do not eat it, and that even if someone’s a ‘true Jew’ by birth, as far as religious Jews are concerned they’re not one by practice if they eat pork, especially if they do so brazenly and in public. I suspect that the picture elicited an “eeew” reaction from quite a few people, and reproducing it will remind them of it. I suspect it’s not only Jews who would make this connection, and think “if he’s not true to his roots, what is he, or will he be, true to?”. The perception that he is disloyal to his people might also remind people of the Daily Mail’s “his Dad hated Britain” campaign and of how he “stabbed his brother in the back” by standing against him for the Labour leadership, an entirely baseless claim since his older brother had no more right to it than he did, but still one that some people believe.
The Sun of course knows that there is tension between the Jewish community (the religious, Zionist mainstream of it, I mean) and Ed Miliband, not only because of the bacon sarnie incident but also because he supported the vote to recognise Palestine as a state earlier this year. Jews are only 1% of the population, but they are much more than that in certain north London constituencies, and there is suggestion that the Finchley and Golders Green seat (an earlier version of which was Thatcher’s seat) might fall to Labour. So a reminder of Ed chomping on a bacon butty might convince a few people to stay loyal, and remind them that he isn’t, as Maureen Lipman put it when she announced she was switching sides last November, “a mensch”.
2. Posh: a favourite (and justified) accusation against the Tory leadership is that they’re upper class and don’t know the price of eggs (or bacon). The Sun likes to present itself as the voice of the ‘real’ working class while the Labour leadership are dominated by middle-class academics and ‘champagne socialists’ who are out of touch with their intended voters. If Ed Miliband ate bacon sarnies a lot, rather than posh food, some might think he’d know how to eat one without getting it down his front, unless of course someone hurried him away while he was in the middle of eating it. (Of course, there’s posh food that is as difficult to get in your mouth as a bacon sarnie, like paninis, but I guess they’re content to gloss over that.) It’s right-wing anti-intellectualism on display, but it’s also saying “look, he’s pretending to be a bit like you, but you can tell he’s from out of town”.
3. SOB: I couldn’t help notice that this is what the initials of “Save Our Bacon” are. Coincidence? You decide.
I’m not Jewish and I don’t really care if Ed Miliband is a “true Jew” or not. I suspect that the “not true Jew” implication is thought worth making because Jews are a well-respected and privileged, predominantly white, minority; a Muslim (or person of Muslim background) seen drinking or eating pork would be thought an example of integration, because Muslims are seen as obstinately refusing to integrate, much as Jews were in the late 19th century. Differences are regularly presented as threats. But much as I don’t believe there is anti-Semitic intent behind this, the paper is giving different subliminal messages or ‘dog-whistles’ to different parts of its audience, but besides the thin impression of incompetence the picture gives, the main impression is of disloyalty and treachery, all relating to utterly baseless accusations.
(Someone also said they heard there was a ‘three-page diatribe’ including that front page. In fact, it was at least another four pages of the usual Tory propaganda, including two purporting to expose Miliband’s and Labour’s “lies”. It’s about time newspapers delivered news, especially just before elections, rather than being vehicles for the rich to advance their personal interests.)
Possibly Related Posts:
- Who really lost, and why?
- You were warned
- Andy Burnham: an uninspiring, Tory-lite shop-minder
- Picking up the pieces from Thursday’s disaster
- Word from the local Lib Dem office
