Cartoons and the Pious Mind

James Thurber claimed that he first gained a sense of the surreal from hearing the cliches of his neighbors and family in Columbus, Ohio. In the world of his childish mind, men left town under actual clouds, and women existed who were literally all ears. Hearing about Mrs. Huston, who was all cut up when her daughter died, threw him into a panic: “I could see the doctors too vividly, as they set upon Mrs. Huston with their knives, and I could hear them. ‘Now, Mrs. Huston, are we going to get up on the table like a good girl, or will we have to be put there?’”

Well, for better or worse, I grew up in a world where nobody knew his neighbors; my relatives lived too far away for me to hear very regularly. But that didn’t mean that my imagination went undernourished, because I did have cartoons. They promised a world very different from the visible one, but not completely out of sync with the world of religion. One Walter Lantz Productions short borrows heavily from Genesis (and a little from Dante): Andy Panda, advised by the devil, steals some apples and dreams he is in hell, being force-fed the things until he bursts. Nobody who has seen a coyote recover from the impact for a falling anvil can disbelieve in the Resurrection totally.

This priming should explain my initial understanding of the Crucifixion, about which I learned from my father when I was six. Being Jewish, he was possibly the less reliable parent to consult on the subject of Jesus, but it wasn’t Jesus I was asking about. We were driving — he had the wheel — along the Garden State Parkway one Sunday afternoon, past one of those cemeteries that looked to have more permanent residents than Newark. I asked why so many of the headstones were shaped like crosses; he answered, “Because Jesus Christ died on the Cross.” I demanded details, and he delivered.

The story as I constructed it went something like this: Jesus, apparently something of an underdog, got in deep with a pilot named Pontius, who I pictured as a Lindberghian figure in goggles, jodhpurs and flowing scarf. Pontius the Pilot chased Jesus all over Judea — I could imagine the dust trails billowing behind them. Finding a cross growing in the middle of the desert, Jesus clambered up in hope of escape. Exactly what happened next I couldn’t quite make out. I guessed Pilot got Him down — and did Him in — with an axe or a armful of red sticks marked TNT.

Fortunately, cartoons and the cartoonish imagination are elastic, capable of absorbing any data and making it serviceable by the smallest of distortions. If you ever meet my mother, she will show you a drawing I made for Easter when I was seven. Since it shows Jesus expiring on the Cross, nailed on properly, his side gouged in the right spot, it looks like the result of proper catechesis — in artistic conventions, as well as in religion. Well, look again: coming from Jesus’ mouth is a speech balloon enclosing the words “OH, BROTHER.” I’m pretty sure this Jesus wasn’t addressing St. John the Beloved; instead, he was using the words in the sense of “Oy, vey!” or “Ma, che palle!” – that is, in the same way Boo-Boo Bear or Fred Flintstone would have used them.

I am quite sure Chesterton was on board. He preferred his art as bizarre and fanciful as he could make it — especially where animals were the subjects. In “A Piece of Chalk,” he writes of tramping out to the down with a sheet of brown paper and a handful of colored chalks. Rather than record nature, he improves on it:

When a cow came slouching by me in the field, a mere artist might have drawn it; but I always went wrong in the hind legs of quadrupeds. So I drew the soul of the cow; which I saw there plainly walking before me in the sunlight; and the soul was all purple and silver and had seven horns and the mystery that belongs to all the beasts.

Chesterton died in 1936. A year later, Daffy Duck debuted onscreen. A year after that, audiences first laid eyes on Happy Rabbit, Bugs Bunny’s immediate forebear. From here, the timing looks as tragic as Voltaire’s death before the Revolution.

From the very beginning, Chesterton showed signs of geeky fanboydom. At school, he seemed to wander about in a daze, tripping over his own huge feet — when none of his classmates was sticking out a foot to trip him. Sometimes in adulthood, mesmerized by the lights in train stations, he would forget where he was and where he was supposed to be going. At times, he seems to appreciate Christianity because it favors the outsized and grotesque over the mundane and conventional.

This is especially apparent in his life of St. Francis of Assisi. In words, he sketches a cartoon, a religious Robin Hood — a figure too inspired, too charitable, too chivalrous and brave for anyone to keep up with. If Chesterton took his Francis a little more seriously, he might have turned him into a superhero in the early DC Comics mold; but Chesterton can’t help dwelling — and fondly — on the absurdities in Francis’ life. He calls the episode where Francis returns from the Sultan’s camp with neither converts nor the martyr’s palm “a tragedy comedy called The Man Who Could Not Get Killed.” Am I the only one who remembers when Popeye and Bluto tried to top each other in harming themselves, hoping to serve sculptress Olive Oyl as a mode for a statue called “Pooped”?

Neil Postman would have no patience for any of this. In Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Entertainment, the NYU professor warned that television, which could not sustain truly rational discourse, was turning Americans into a nation of highly entertained but unthinking slobs. By his lights, Tom and Jerry, Bugs and Woody, had corrupted me early, wrecking my worth to the Republic long before I’d reached voting age.

Speaking generally on politics, Postman might have been overstating his case. Did rational discourse sway the nation in favor of Andrew Jackson? But on my cognition and my experience of Christianity, he might have a point. In the Catholic intellectual tradition, I’m told, faith and reason reinforce one another — swell. If those two have such a mutually supportive relationship, I’m happy for them and wish them the best. But when I brag on the reason part, I must sound like a man bragging on some local team he follows only through the box scores. When I thought I might be called to join the Dominicans, I found a copy of Summa Theologica online and started reading — the better, I figured, to get hip to the jive. After dragging my eyes through two summae, tops, I loaded Skype and called the Friars Minor.

The phone rang 14 times before the assistant to the vocations director picked up the phone. I’ll bet anything he’d been watching Fritz the Cat.

Foreskin Man: Peeling Back the Mystery

Product of a real, live anti-Semite
A vigilant reader has informed me that I was entirely wrong in supposing that Foreskin Man, the comic put out by San Francisco circumcision opponents, was someone’s bad idea of meta-humor. The artist, Matthew Hess, is a real person of real German ancestry — not, as I had hoped, a Jewish prankster who named himself after a Nazi for a lark.

Debra Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed Hess. The interview is brief, but still revealing:

UPDATE:I spoke with Matthew Hess of Foreskinman.com this morning. I asked him if the comic is anti-Semitic. He answered, “A lot of people have said that, but we’re not trying to be anti-Semitic. We’re trying to be pro-human rights.”

The “next issue will deal with a different kind of circumcision.”

And he gave me permission to post material from the site.

Not anit-Semitic, but pro-human rights, huh? Well, now we know anti-circumcision activists can be just as mealy-mouthed as any other activists. I also have to wonder just what other kind of circumcision Foreskin Man is going to tackle in the next issue. Having taken down Monster Mohel, will he go after the Malevolent Mullah?

My reader made a point which I think valid. He said I had dismissed evidence that failed to jibe with the picture of the world I’d formed already. I had figured that anti-Semitism — at least of the overt, Nazi-like kind that Hess is plugging — was confined to the margins of America’s political dialogue. Sure, some far-leftists’ support for Palestine might evolve into a hatred of the so-called Israel lobby, but they’d have little to gain by banning circumcision. Sure, Jesse Jackson and Cornel West might pop off at the Jews every once in a while, but they would not expect any Aryan to avenge them; they’ve got serious Aryan issues of their own.

When I read that Hess and his friends call themselves “inactivists,” my heart broke a little. That’s clever, damn it. Urbanites who are clever enough to come up with a name like that and geeky enough to draw passable comics have no business disliking Jews. If anything, they should BE Jews. But now I realize I’m stuck in the New York of my childhood. It’s whole ugly new ball game out there.

My reader also warns of a new breed of anti-Semite I couldn’t have dreamed up in a million years:

In this instance, I think it’s yet a third kind of acceptable anti-Semitism, a little-known one yet one that is persistent especially in California: Gay activist anti-Semitism. A certain subset of gays are strong “uncut” proponents and want all penises to have foreskins because they prefer them that way, and so try to force the world to comply; when they get the biggest pushback from Jewish groups, their frustration turns to hatred.

I have no idea if he’s right. (I certainly don’t pretend to know anything about Matthew Hess’s sexual orientation.) But if he is — wow. Isn’t anti-Semitism supple? Isn’t it versatile? It slices, it dices, it makes Julienne fries! Historically, it’s proven able to provide a solution and an explanation for anything, even mediocre sex. Speaking from the Jewish side of my family, I quote the Scots: Whae’s like us? Damn few, an’ they’re a’ deid.

UPDATE: It’s occurred to me that some readers may not understand what’s so anti-Semitic about Hess’s portrayal of Monster Mohel and his band of no-goodniks. In a way, that’s a good thing — it suggests ancient slanders and stereotypes have fallen so far out of common use as to look new. Well, sorry to break it to everyone, but there’s nothing new under the sun — especially not the act of depicting Jews as ugly, hook-nosed ruthless monsters who harm children.

Here’s a poster from Der Ewiger Jude, or the Eternal Jew, a 1940 Nazi propaganda film:

Here’s one from Jud Suss, or Suss the Jew, which came out the same year:

I wish I could say these stereotyped images began with the Nazis, but they didn’t; they’re much older. Here’s a fresco from St. Paul’s church in Sandomierz, Poland:

The Nazis weren't that original.

No, they’re not circumcising the kid; they’re about to kill him and pour his blood into their Passover matzoh. Will Hess be able to top that in his next issue? We’ll just have to wait and see.

UPDATE: For an object lesson in how propagandists use distorted images to demonize their enemies, here’s an engraving of Joseph Suss Oppenheimer, the man whose life formed the basis of the movie Jud Suss:

Doesn’t look very foreign or very threatening, does he?

The Mystery of Foreskin Man

Tatler of Pajamas Media claims to have found proof that behind San Francisco’s proposed circumcision ban lurks the blue-eyed monster: 19th-and 20th-century race-based anti-Semtism, the philosophy that brought you the Final Solution.

The smoking chimney, so to speak, is an indie comic book, allegedly circulated as “campaign literature.” The eponymous hero, Foreskin Man, battles a gang of fanatical orthodox Jews led by Monster Mohel, whose goal, apparently, is to seal the Abrahamic covenant with every child in the world, whether or not its parents approve.

Now, I’ll admit, Tatler makes a pretty good prima facie case. All the tropes of Nazi propaganda appear to be in ordnung. Foreskin Man is one of those blond Ubermensch types that Jesse Owens ate for breakfast. (Indeed, had the comic come out 20 years earlier, its film adaptation would have given Dolf Lundgren the role of a lifetime.) Monster Mohel and his henchmenschen could have been extras in The Eternal Jew. They’ve got that whole Shylock-on-meth look: shaggy beards and peyot, hooked noses, maniacal gleams in their beady eyes.

And yet, for me, it doesn’t quite add up.

Anti-Semitism has been called the oldest hatred, and I have no doubt it’ll always be around — somewhere, in some form. But if it’s re-emerged and metastasized in a major American urban center, I have a hard time believing it would take the form suggested by the tropes in this comic.

Let me put it another way: I can think of two types of anti-Semitism that might find a warm reception in a left-leaning cosmopolitan city. The first is the anti-Semitism of a disaffected urban underclass, or as I like to call it, Hymietown anti-Semitism, in honor of the Reverend Jesse Jackson. But even that doesn’t really fit. To take root, Hymietown anti-Semitism requires: 1) a visible Jewish elite; and 2) poor people who hate its guts. Look, I know San Francisco only as a very occasional visitor, so I’m willing to be proven wrong here, but I’ve never gotten the impression that Jews make up a very large, very visible, or very dominant group. For that matter, I don’t remember seeing too many poor people. Weren’t they all fed to the sea lions back in the 1980s?

Also, Hymietown anti-Semitism, at least in its original form, was the intellectual property of people of color. If Foreskin Man were their champion, he would not look as he does. He’d be a lot darker, for one thing, and would probably have a name like The Black Python.

The other type is what I like to call Israel-Bashing Gone Wild. Right-wing supporters of Israel exaggerate the frequency with which their opponents on the Left slip into bona fide Jew-hatred, but it does happen. I can see this becoming popular in San Francisco, particularly among academic types. But it would make no sense for rabid Israel-bashers to ban circumcision. Muslims, including Palestinian Muslims, circumcise their children, too. You’d think some representative of the Muslim community would tell them, “Listen, guys, thanks, but no thanks.”

No, I’m betting Foreskin Man is someone’s idea of meta-humor — a form of satire that mocks at stereotypes by invoking them in an exaggerated way. South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone have dined out on this for almost fifteen years, first packing Kyle Broflovski off to Jewleeard, and later transforming Barbara Streisand into a giant mechanical monster known as the Kiken. Mr. Hess, Foreskin Man’s creator, looks to me like their heir. The name “Hess” (as in Rudolf Hess, the top Nazi who deserted to England in 1941) is probably a pseudonym, calculated to stir the pot. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the artist turns out to be a Cohen or a Moskowitz. Every Jew knows by heart the pejorative images he deploys; most American gentiles would have to crack open the history books to find them.

But here’s the thing about meta-humor. In many instances, there’s nothing meta about it. The humorist isn’t really mocking stereotypes; he’s milking them for whatever juice they’ve got left. So, to Hess, whoever he is, I leave the following Yiddish curse involving his favorite body part:

Zol dir lign in keyver der eyver, in der kishkes a lokh mit a sheyver.

(“May your penis rest in a grave; may a hole and a hernia lie in your guts.”)

So there.