Is Underdog a harmless children’s cartoon of the late 1960s and early 1970s – or is it a really slick promoter of antisemitism?
You also may have actually investigated some of these claims of antisemitism and found some of them to be less than convincing. For example, the Ferengi in Star Trek are almost certainly not in reference to Jews. The very name “Ferengi” is very obviously a re-spelling of “Feringhee” – a term whose resemblance to that of the Star Trek aliens in question shocked me when I first encountered it when reading the Sherlock Holmes novel, The Sign of the Four. It is a disparaging term used in India to refer not to Jews, but to Westerners. It is especially used on the Portuguese, though in the incident of usage that I encountered it, it was being used as an Englishman.
And what view did the characters have of Westerners? Well – that question is answered a few paragraphs earlier when the character who is about to be referred to as a “Feringhee” asks what is wanted of him and is told “We only ask you to do that which your countrymen come to this land for. We ask you to be rich.” So basically – what is seen as the dominant characteristic of Westerners is the desire to be rich – in other words, to turn a profit.
Now – considering how European colonists have ransacked so much of the world, this stereotype is far more reasonable when held against them than when held against Jews who were only into the money trade due to being legally barred from making a living any other way. But that is beside the point – the point is that the claim that the Ferengi are a representation of Jews is a claim that fails to check out.
Refutations of the other accusations are not as strong as the refutation of that accusation against the Ferengi – but it is nonetheless highly unlikely that the Gringotts goblins are a resurgence of old antisemitic trope, and there really isn’t as much to ground that accusation against Gargamel as it might seem at first glance either.
So, being desensitized by all these false alarms, you might roll your eyes if I were to tell you that I have identified a cartoon character from the late 1960s and early 1970s who is indeed an antisemitic representation. But bear with me. I know that there are people who make these accusations without good reason – but I hope I have made it clear that I am not one of those people. For that reason, when I take issue of a particular depiction in entertainment, I hope that I am worth hearing out.
So – what is it that tripped my alarms – alarms that are unconcerned with the Ferengi, or the Gringotts goblins, or even the evil wizard Gargamel? The answer is the principal villain of the Underdog children’s cartoon from the late 1960s and early 1970s – a villain who regularly develops high-tech weapons and/or attempts to hoard common resources in order to steal money or force people to pay him money. This is a villain driven by a motive that the most virulent antisemitic tropes have always (albeint, as I explained, unreasonably) associated with Jews – that motive being plain, unadulterated greed.
But wait, you say. Didn’t I myself already point out that there are plenty of people other than Jews that have had greed associated with them? I even pointed out how in some of these cases, the association of greed is far more reasonably applied than when it is applied to Jews. So what is it that causes this greed-driven to trip my antisemitism alarms.
Well – just as in the case of the Ferengi it was the name that acquitted them – in this case, the character’s name is probably the most damaging piece of evidence that there is. The name of this character is Simon Bar Sinister. As you may or may not know, “Bar”, like Hebrew “Ben”, means “Son of”, and has often been used in such a manner in Jewish names. And the Hebrew origins of the name “Simon” requires no introduction.
But you might point out that though the name “Simon” does indeed have Hebrew origins, there are plenty of non-Jews by that name. But what else, realistically, could “Bar” be referring to? Well – one page that I found suggested that it could be a heraldic heraldic pun whose insinuations are actually not about any association between this character and Jews, but rather, about the marital status of his parents at the time of his birth.
Interestingly enough, this counter-explanation seems to check out. At least on the surface it does. There is a such thing as a “Bend Sinister” that is often added to a heraldic shield to indicate that its bearer is someone who is of illegitimate descent. Its proper term is “Bend Sinister” as it is a diagonal barrier, as opposed to a “bar” which refers to horizontal barriers. However, it is far from unheard of for people to erroneously refer to it as a “Bar Sinister”.
So, it seems like this supposedly nefarious antisemitic reference has a perfectly innocent explanation after all. Right? Well – not so fast. This alternate explanation does indeed hold enough water to add some ambiguity to the inherent antisemitism of this character, but not enough to let the character off the hook – which in some senses, makes this representation even more pernicious than an unambiguously antisemitic one would have been.
For starters, there are a number of ways that one could have referred to this heraldic sash in question that, unlike “Bar Sinister” would both be more correct ways of referring to it and less likely to arouse suspicions of antisemitism. For starters, the closest accurate term for it, “Bend Sinister”, would not have tripped my alarms – provided, of course, the ‘d’ is fully pronounced. Of course, if the pronunciation of the ‘d’ were swallowed, then it might sound like “Ben Sinister” which would be even more problematic, as Hebrew generally is more recognizable than Aramaic, and the “Ben” name prefix even more so.
However, there are other ways of referring to this heraldic notation that (like “Bend Sinister” and unlike “Bar Sinister”) are also correct, and which would not carry this risk. There is no way that I would have been in the least bit concerned about a character because of his name being “Simon Baton Sinister” or “Simon Baston”. So while this alternate explanation is credible enough to add some ambiguity to the antisemitism in this portrayal, it already is not enough to let this portrayal completely off the hook.
But also, in the discussion thread on the article that brought this alternate explanation to my attention, someone mentioned that a name like “Frederick Bar Sinister” or “Phillip Bar Sinister” would have been far less disconcerting. I might even add that other names of Hebrew origin that are commonly used by Europeans too, such as “Joseph Bar Sinister” or “Daniel Bar Sinister” would still be a tiny bit less disconcerting.
So, why is “Simon” the worst possible first-name for a character whose surname is “Bar Sinister” – even worse than other Hebrew names? Because that was also the first name of Simon Bar Kokhba, a Jew from the time of the Roman Empire, thought of by many as a national hero – and the most famous example of the Aramaic “Bar” being used in someone’s name. Having a villainous character whose name differs only at the end from that of such an important figure of Jewish history is highly suspicious to say the least – especially if that villain’s primary motive is something as strongly associated with antisemitic stereotype as greed.
Therefore, though the counter-explanation of this character’s “Bar Sinister” seems at first to check out, it does not by any stretch acquit this character of the charge of being an antisemitic trope. If anything, it pushes this character into the especially disturbing grey area of tropes whose inherent antisemitism is clear enough to be a definite problem but not clear enough to be easy to call out.
Then again – detecting a racist trope from a cartoon of the late 1960s or early 1970s is hardly a hold-the-presses moment. Cartoons of that era were filled with them. However, in most cases, the studios who produced such racist cartoons tended to show some degree of repentance in later decades – and would generally alternate between trying to live-down having made such racist cartoons on one hand and attempting acts of contrition on the other. However, as far as I can tell, there has been no such sign of repentance with regards to the Simon Bar Sinister.
Now, there are multiple explanations why this might be so. It could very well be that the unaccountability given to this portrayal by its heraldic counter-explanation is at fault. After all, when a prejudicial portrayal is harder to call out, that also makes it harder to make the studio regret it in later decades. But there will be people who will suspect another possible reason. All too often, people and groups who are very vigilant of opposing other forms of social injustice are all too willing to give antisemitism a free pass.
Concerns that this might be the reason for Simon Bar Sinister’s persistence are not to be dismissed lightly.
