‘Anti-Semitic’ Shakespeare Makes Test Scores Fall
In the news today I found an article that began, “A JEWISH school tumbled down national league tables after pupils refused to answer questions on Shakespeare because they believed he was antisemitic.” A lengthier article on the same subject also sheds more light.
Read the articles, form your own opinions first. Were these students right to stand up for what they believe in this case? Or are they making a mountain out of a molehill? Do you think it’s a big deal? Some don’t even believe that Jews are presented negatively in the form of Shylock in The Merchant of Venice, but that’s another story. Let’s make the same deduction that the students did for the moment.
I think if you believe something, the best thing you can do is stand up for it and accept whatever comes your way because of it. In this case, they didn’t get good scores on their standarized test.
Then again… what was the point? So Shakespeare may have been Anti-Semitic. I’m sure 90-something percent of England was at the time as well so shouldn’t they avoid all accounts of British history from that era? Shakespeare wasn’t too kind to blacks either, so how do we deal with that in this case?
I respect those students for voicing their opinion (and rebelling against a portion of standardized testing… I’m not a fan of those) but I don’t think avoiding Shakespeare – or any other author, historian, and artist, for that matter – because of their beliefs is really a good idea. Shakespeare may have been a writer “for all time,” but his ideas in many cases were a product of his time, and what he wrote appealed to his audience. I think that if we accept it as a product of its time there’s less chance of finding it offensive and more chance of moving on with our lives.
Ian Thal Mar 1
It takes a very skilled director and cast to make a version of The Merchant of Venice that doesn’t come off as a piece of skillfull anti-Semitic propaganda, and if you are sensitive to those to comparisons between Jews and devils, the historical practice of forced conversions, abductions and conversions of Jewish children (a practice that continued into the 1940s), then it can be a very painful play to read– even if you happen to love Shakespeare’s work.
The young people may not be reacting in the best manner (adolescents are not particularly good at compartmentalizing their emotions), but they are certainly not making a mountain out of a molehill.
We should also point out that Shakespeare likely never met a Jew (they were forbidden to reside in England) and only knew of Jews from defamatory stories.
I’m not certain how you jump to the claim that “Shakespeare wasn’t too kind to blacks”– Aaron (a villain) from Titus Andronicus and Othello (a tragic hero) were Moors (likely of Arab or Berber ancestry) so while dark by the standards of 15th century England, they were not “black” in the sense that we use the term today. Even then, Aaron’s villainry was never presented as an attribute of his racial heritage as Shylock’s was.
Gedaly Mar 1
In Elizabethan times outward appearance was often a reflection of one’s inside. One’s ‘Black’ soul was not a compliment. Aaron makes many references to the color of his skin and relates it to the purity of his intentions “Aaron will have his soul black like his face.” True, Aaron’s villainy isn’t presented as an attribute of his heritage as much by others as in Merchant, but he does it for himself.
Likewise calling someone or soemthing ‘Ethiope’ had negative connotation again in reference to the notion that darker skin was inferior. “Such Ethiope words, blacker in their effect Than in their countenance.” (As You Like It)
Ian Thal Mar 2
That’s also the same way that Falstaff’s weight was taken as a sign of his moral character.
Still, Shakespeare’s notion of skin color as moral failing made corporeal was something he articulated when he was drawing upon traditional theatrical and poetic conventions that came before him– and he was quite willing to dispense with these conventions as the story or the poem demanded. i.e. Ethiopia, or Moorishness, was sometimes an attempt at description, and other times a metaphor; rarely did they serve both purpose at once except in the rhetoric of a character like Iago, who was a liar.
And keep in mind that even Aaron the Moor, has some modicum of moral virtue that the other villains of Titus Andronicus lack.
This is qualitatively different from the manner in which Jews and Judaism are treated in The Merchant of Venice– where the use of anti-Semitic stereotypes, and explicit portrayals of the humiliations that Jews endured under Christian rule are unambiguous. We must also keep in mind that these are Jewish students in the United Kingdom, which in recent years has come to be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as an increasingly more anti-Semitic society, so while the students acts are misdirected, there is some underlying rationale to their protest.
A.K.Farrar Mar 22
Very American perspectives on show!
Incidentally – the girls did badly because they didn’t put their names on the paper, not because they didn’t answer the question which is part of the test (so much for having the courage of their convictions). In previous years a similar thing had happened but the girls had included their names – no story.
The school opted to be in the state system (for financial gain) a few years ago – it was a choice made to participate – obviously there is an element that would prefer not to take part.
As I’ve said elsewhere – this is not he views of the girls – it is that of their adult minders.
Gedaly Mar 23
It’s happened before but no story… what makes this incident so ‘hot’? Is it just because they didn’t put their names on their paper? Or is the issue of anti-semitism just popular in the news right now?