This is the first I’ve heard of it, but here’s one of his infamous quotes:
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews.
I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere; even a stinker like Hitler didn’t just pick on them for no reason.”
His other quotes tend to be condemnation about specifically Israeli zionism and barbaric murder, but i don’t have context as to whether he’s referring to palestine or not. Some people might have more sympathy for these statements these days, but a lot of his other quotes have to do with Jews controlling money and media, less defensible prejudice.
I was called into this thread to give my opinion as a bona fide and official Jew. I will say this about Roald Dahl- yes, he was an antisemite. But I still grew up with his books. Even my dad, who was incredibly sensitive to antisemitism and definitely knew about Dahl could not deny that he was an amazing writer both of children’s books and macabre adult fiction. I remember specifically that he gave me The Twits when I was a kid, while at my also very sensitive to antisemitism grandparents’ house. I don’t remember others he gave me, but I really enjoyed that one, so I remember it.
I don’t know, I guess we all have the occasional intentional blind spot for these things. Sometimes people are just so talented that you have to overlook their flaws. Of course, some flaws can’t be overlooked. I won’t watch a Woody Allen film anymore. I won’t watch the work of a pedophile.
But Roald Dahl’s racism was one where didn’t actually do anything to hurt Jews. As the quote says, he wasn’t even pro-Hitler. So I can get past it due to his talent. He was not the real danger to my ancestors in his lifetime and he was not responsible for a genocide. On top of that, he didn’t extend his bigotry to any of his novels that I ever read.
You can’t say as much for H. G. Wells, who had a virulently antisemitic moment in War of the Worlds. It’s considered a classic these days. And what about beloved Charles Dickens’ novel Oliver Twist? I would bet that the character of Fagin caused a lot more issues with British Jews than anything Roald Dahl said or did considering that novel was and is so popular that 19 films based on it have been made, including one based on a hit Broadway musical.
Piece of shit rapist Roman Polanski made a straight remake as recently as 2005 (and that’s just weird because he’s Jewish). It did really well at the box office and got a lot of positive reviews.
Imagine if a book with a character that was a disgusting caricature of a black person in it who is also one of the villains of the book and they were still making movies about it within our lifetime.
Edit: Also re Oliver Twist, I hear that in the version Alec Guinness is in, he’s an especially antisemitic Fagin, but I’m going to choose to never watch it and pretend that isn’t true because that man was amazing. Never mind Star Wars, ever see Kind Hearts and Coronets? He plays 8 members of the same family- believably- including a woman.
This is the crux of a lot of the counter arguments to ‘cancel culture’. Don’t get me wrong, if you’re a racist shitbag, or a pedophile, you are a terribly flawed human, but that doesn’t detract from other merits in other areas in my opinion. This may seem like a cop out, or an excuse for shitty behavior, but in my view you can be ‘Flying Squid, the Nobel Laureate in physics and Racist Cocksniffer’. Humans are very complex beings: how can we fit them into black and white categories of good and bad?
I had an emotionally volatile childhood, devoid of positive influences that were beyond reproach. People I looked up to certainly had their flaws. I quickly learned to take the best out of what they had to offer, and be mindful of their faults. If we simply discarded people who were flawed we wouldn’t have many people around us. Similarly, think about how much music came out of the 60s. Now think about how shitty a lot of those artists were, morally. Does that make their music less beautiful? No, but it does add an overtone, I suppose.
I don’t feel like Fagin is explicitly Jewish in that version. I only found out it was originally “Fagin the Jew” later in life. He’s kind of a loveable rogue with a London accent.
Edit: wrong version of the film, on second thoughts I think he might definitely be definitely supposed to be definitely Jewish in the Alec Guinness version.
I really don’t think that makes it much better.
Imagine if the original written version A Christmas Carol had a big, stupid, lazy black character that was also needlessly aggressive. And then they made a movie, but instead of “Big Black Buck” or whatever Dickens decided to name him, he was changed to “Buck” and was played by a white guy? I doubt people would say that was a story worth making a movie about at all if you’re going to have to erase the racism to make it work for a modern audience.
Well that would be Huckleberry Finn wouldn’t it, I’m not sure if there’s a film. Don’t get me started on The “Merchant” of Venice, either.
Apparently played by Serge Nubret in one version. That’s incredibly funny to me.
Absolutely not Huckleberry Finn. Jim has a terrible nickname, but the whole point is that Huck and Jim become the closest of friends and companions despite Jim being black. It is an *anti-*racist book.
Here’s Twain with his long-time friend John T. Lewis. He said of him, “I have not known an honester man nor a more respect-worthy one.” Lewis apparently inspired Jim in the novel.
Twain (or more properly Clemens) and Lewis grew up together going to the same church in Maryland, which had slaves but also a large free black population, and that church was an abolitionist church and had been since the late 18th century.
https://marktwainstudies.com/john-t-lewis-mark-twain-a-friendship/
But yes, definitely The Merchant of Venice. People think the “hath not a Jew eyes” speech makes up for the rest of the play. Gee, thanks for recognizing Jews as not some sort of other species from you. Very generous, Shakespeare.
I know, I know. I’m being facetious.
Sorry, I didn’t realize that. Anyway, I hope this might have helped someone else who hasn’t read Huckleberry Finn and only knows about Jim’s racist nickname.
Piece of shit rapist Roman Polanski made a straight remake as recently as 2005 (and that’s just weird because he’s Jewish).
Well - you kind of answered your own reservation there: He’s a piece of shit rapist. So I believe it’s safe to say his main character traits are probably not defined by the religion he was born into, which makes it not quite so weird to me, as I generally do not try to rationalize behavior of people who have otherwise proven a complete disconnect from ethical norms.
I won’t watch a Woody Allen film anymore. I won’t watch the work of a pedophile.
I already had one Lemming absolutely lose their shit when I challenged them on this assumption, I hope you won’t be another one. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
You mean apart from the word of the person he molested, right?
Yes, I know, “she was coached.”
She was 7. I know I don’t have many memories from that age I can be 100% confident about.
The simple fact is that neither of us know for sure what, if anything, happened. That’s why I find it curious when people jump to the “he’s 100% guilty” point of view.
“During the investigation the Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale–New Haven Hospital, which concluded that Allen had not sexually abused Dylan and the allegation was probably coached or influenced by Mia Farrow. The New York Department of Social Services found “no credible evidence” to support the allegation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation
It happened to me when I was 8 (not by Woody Allen). I can still remember every detail. It sticks with you
I’m sorry to hear that. Surely you can accept that everybody is different and that may not be the case for someone else?
I can. I wouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume I know what everyone’s experience is, or to claim my experience is the single universal experience.
Surely you can accept that it is the case for some
Of course. I hope you’re in a good place now.
Why are you willing to believe this person’s claims? No experts have weighed in at all.
Blocking you now. Your approach to this discussion has been embarrassing.
She was 7. I know I don’t have many memories from that age I can be 100% confident about.
What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7?
Maybe believe victims.
What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7?
Like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.
Maybe believe victims.
Good grief, no. Take victims seriously, give them support, get their story, investigate, absolutely. Believe everything everybody says who identifies as a victim? That’s asinine.
Scroll up, you didn’t answer my question. You’re choosing to believe something based on what evidence? Please explain why you’re certain when the people who actually investigated these allegations are not.
Like I said, I don’t have many memories from that age and none I would be 100% confident about in their accuracy.
That is not an answer. What sort of thing on that level of trauma happened to you when you were 7? Because, believe it or not, people remember traumatic things that happen to them at that age quite well. They spend years in therapy because of it.
There’s a difference between remembering something traumatic and remembering what happened at your birthday party.
Also, let’s say she isn’t “100% confident.” Let’s say she’s “70% confident.” Maybe still believe her.
The man literally made a movie, at age 44, where he’s fucking a high schooler.
Again, maybe believe her.
“On August 17, 1992, the Connecticut State Police announced that they were investigating the molestation allegation. In September the police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale New Haven Hospital. The main questions were whether Dylan was telling the truth and whether she was sexually abused. Frank Maco, State’s Attorney for the Litchfield district, declared in 1997 that he asked the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic to evaluate whether Dylan would make a viable witness. The clinic’s professionals met with the police and Maco for preliminary information. Between September 18 and November 13 they conducted nine separate interviews with Dylan and her mother. On October 14 they interviewed Groteke, and between November 17 and January 7 they had three interviews with Allen. Finally, they met with Farrow to review the recording she had made of Dylan between August 5 and 6. Berge, the other nanny present on August 4, was also interviewed, as were the two psychotherapists treating the children, Coates and Nancy Schultz. The Child Sexual Abuse Clinic medical director, Dr. John M. Leventhal, signed the team’s report while Dylan was interviewed by the social workers. Completed in March 1993, the report concluded: “It is our expert opinion that Dylan was not sexually abused by Mr. Allen.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen_sexual_abuse_allegation
You’re still refusing to answer a simple question. More to the point, what on earth gives you the confidence to pass judgement from a distance when your judgement is 100% at odds with experts who were directly involved in the case?
Again, maybe believe her.
You piss off the wrong person, they go to the police with a story that you committed a violent sexual assault against them. You didn’t.
By your logic, you’re a rapist.
See how stupid that is?
You would make a great witness to the a crime…I would love you if I was defending.
I don’t follow?
I much prefer this stance to shutting down the museum. They acknowledge the issue in a way that allows people to form opinions and act in a way they are comfortable with.
Definitely, this was the right move by the museum.
When an interviewer asked Maurice Sendak (of Where the Wild Things Are fame) about Dahl, his response was memorable: “The cruelty in his books is off-putting. Scary guy. I know he’s very popular but what’s nice about this guy? He’s dead, that’s what’s nice about him.”
People are so much more professional back in the day.
If someone asked me about Bill Cosby, I would immediately go, “Yeah fuck that dude he drugged and raped women. All the good shit he did and he was a shitbag.”
Ha! Thank you, that’s amazing.
Great piece of history
don’t have context as to whether he’s referring to palestine or not
In 1990, during an interview with The Independent, Dahl explained that his issue with Israel began when they invaded Lebanon in 1982. “they killed 22,000 civilians when they bombed Beirut. It was very much hushed up in the newspapers because they are primarily Jewish-owned. I’m certainly anti-Israeli and I’ve become antisemitic in as much as that you get a Jewish person in another country like England strongly supporting Zionism. I think they should see both sides. It’s the same old thing: we all know about Jews and the rest of it. There aren’t any non-Jewish publishers anywhere, they control the media—jolly clever thing to do—that’s why the president of the United States has to sell all this stuff to Israel.”
I didn’t realize he was referring specifically to Lebanon. Thank you for that context.
I have that quote in another comment somewhere.
That’s what I was referencing when I was saying people can probably relate to his anti-israeli stance because of recent events.
He doesn’t need to be specifically referring Gaza when speaking about the large scale land theft and genocide of the Palestinian people perpetrated by the state of Israel. The region of Palestine was stolen, not just area that is Gaza.
Israel was created largely because powerful people in Europe wanted the Jewish people out of Europe. Its very foundations are antisemitic. These notions of a Jewish state in Palestine started to have widespread antisemitic support before WWII and immediately after WWI.
Dahl may have been the type of bigot to be antisemitic and against Zionism. They aren’t directly linked hand in hand.
“He doesn’t need to be specifically referring Gaza when speaking about the large scale land theft and genocide of the Palestinian people perpetrated by the state of Israel.”
I doubt he was.
“Dahl may have been the type of bigot to be antisemitic and against Zionism. They aren’t directly linked hand in hand.”
Yes, those views are precisely his stated prejudices in the above quotes.
He doesn’t seem to have linked those two instances directly or causally, each is a skewed reasoming for why he doesn’t like jews in general, within or without Israel.
Yeah I wrote that before you edited your post, you mentioned Gaza. All good in the hood my dude!
Gooot it, no sweat.
Didn’t want anyone else getting confused over gaza/Palestine, or me and Roald Dahl, haha.
Yep, he was a piece of shit in many ways.
The stories are still pretty great, though.
The stories are undeniably fantastic, how else was he a piece of shit?
Let me TIL something else about the guy.
The reality is that most people are terrible people, especially when we look at them years later, once the dust has settled.
(Look into what Dr. Seuss did to his first wife)
I remember reading a similar “dark” article about seuss.
Cheated on her?
Yes, cheated on her while she had an incurable wasting disease and married her friend.
“Helen Geisel struggled for more than a decade with partial paralysis from Guillain-Barré syndrome. Depressed by her worsening symptoms and possibly by suspicions of her husband’s affair with a close friend who would become his second wife, Helen took her own life in October 1967 at the age of 69. “I am too old and enmeshed in everything you do and are, that I cannot conceive of life without you,” read her suicide note. “My going will leave quite a rumor, but you can say I was overworked and overwrought. Your reputation with your friends and fans will not be harmed.””
Let’s all try to be kinder.
I will.
Can you share the source?
Funny hearing a Brit complain about another race’s lack of generosity towards others. Especially since he helped the colonialist Empire to win a war
Ha, “these buggered imperialists, old boy!” exclaimed Nigel, pulling taut his waistcoat.
Wow you’ve really brought into the racist mindset and amplified it to genuinely insane levels, I’m actually impressed!
Please tell me you think you’re left wing?
I’m not gonna explain why my indigenous ass doesn’t have the finest view of history’s biggest colonial power. By the way “Brit” isn’t a race
I’m indigenous too so that doesn’t win the argument by shocking me into the stunned silence you hoped.
Why should I think your current racist mindset is acceptable? And if you think racist mindsets are correct then what do you even have against the colonial era brits?
And of course brit isnt a race, are you one of these racists that tries to ignore the actual definition and common usage of the word racism to excuse your racist ideology?
deleted by creator
"There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews.
Taken out of context, this is literally anti-semitism though, not racism. Thereby maybe not the best quote to underline the post title.
It’s pretty anti-semitic in context too.
Do you mean you don’t find anti-Semitism a form of racism?
Do you mean you don’t find anti-Semitism a form of racism?
To be fair, that’s a difficult question because the forms of anti-semitism changed a lot over the course of recent and not-so-recent history.
By definition, semitic people are not just jewish people, and indeed, “semitic” describes an ethnicity, and by that, anti-semitism would also be racism.
However, many contemporary forms of anti-semitism are exclusively directed at jewish people, at which point they typically occur in people who are often also quite racist shitbags, but their anti-semitism in and of itself is not racist, because they direct their hatred at everything that is jewish, and for example the conspiracy theories surrounding jewish influence in the world have nothing to do with ethnicity, and all with religion.
As I learned it, one of the main historical factors contributing to this (and to anti-semitism) is that jewish people were not forbidden by religion from taking interest on money loans (from non-jews), whereas christians were. All the while in medieval times some other jobs were forbidden to them. So naturally there was an overrepresentation of jewish people in the emerging finance sector, and for the simple mind it is convenient to hate on people who you owe money to. And this form of anti-semitism I see as absolutely unrelated to racism.
PS: I intentionally write “jewish” and “christian” in lowercase because all religions suck donkey balls and while they can be tolerated, they deserve no special emphasis.
You’re overanalyzing racism.
Racism is prejudice toward an ethnic group.
Angry about money lenders - prejudiced against money lenders - not anti-semitic, not racist
Angry about money lenders - prejudiced against Jewish people - anti-semitic, racist
And I disagree that these are the only two options you can observe in society. You can very much observe anti-semitism that has nothing to do with perceived ethnicity. Especially because - as much as racists don’t like to admit that - the ethnicity of jewish people is very diverse.
Can you elaborate?
Racism isn’t about perceived ethnicity specifically, it’s about prejudice toward an ethnic group regardless of whether you can perceive the ethnicity accurately.
When someone racist toward Arabs discovers that someone they didn’t think was Arab is Arab, then demonstrates prejudice, obviously the perceived ethnicity doesn’t matter as much as the prejudice of the idea of being an error.
I don’t see the disconnect between anti-Semitism and perceived ethnicity, or how such a theoretical disconnect removes racism from anti-Semitism.
Honestly, I don’t think our viewpoints differ enough to waste our time on a discussion. The usefulness of debating nuances is a bit too academic in nature and better done over a beer or so. I like to make a distinction between anti-<insert religious group here> and racism in order to deface the blatant racism disguised as anti-<whatever religion>-ism.
E.g. 95% of the European citizens claiming they’re “not racist, but” (we call them but-Nazis) they have an issue with islamic traditions, are just stupid racists against brown people but don’t have the spine to admit that.
I can’t imagine how anti-(fill in the ethnicity) cannot be perceived as racism, so I assumed our perspectives on racism were diametrically opposed.
Thank you for “but-Nazis”, haha, I haven’t heard that term before and I’m definitely going to be propagating it in the wild.
And let’s not even get started about the disgusting mix of rightful criticism of the Israeli government with anti-semitism and racism. This topic is so emotionally charged, and gets “overcharged” each time a new sequence of Hamas-Israel mutual war crimes is started (whatever the name), and every time civilians suffer, and people nurture their hate. Mankind is so messed up.
