Jewish Olympics

Jewish Olympics:

Jewish Olympics.jpg

I find this cartoon, beyond its initial humor, to be rich with meaning. Comments are welcome, so long as they aren’t anti-Semitic. :-)
Posted by Lawrence Auster at September 10, 2003 01:22 AM | Send


The Lord certainly acted in such a manner for His people…

Do you know who wrote it, and where it first appeared? Just curious.

Posted by: Will S. on September 10, 2003 4:34 AM

Er, not “wrote it”, but “drew it”, I meant to say…

Posted by: Will S. on September 10, 2003 4:35 AM

It was sent to me by a third party. I’ll try to find out who created it.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on September 10, 2003 7:53 AM

and in both instances they ran the race and held up the gold.

Posted by: abby on September 10, 2003 4:35 PM

The fellow is actually Mark Spitz - remember the guy? As he grew older he naturally lost much of his swimming prowess and, with it, the source of income. He became quite depressed and decided to consult a local rabbi who suggested he join a yeshiva. It was there where he learned some new (actually quite old) technique.

Posted by: Tadeusz Hanski on April 21, 2004 10:37 AM

Mr. Hanski’s comment is a little too obscure for me. But perhaps some people regard the cartoon itself as too obscure. :-)

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on April 21, 2004 12:16 PM

Clearly Mr Hanski is still living in the 1970s, and must wonder how the composer of Godspell
( )
turned into the Moslem provocateur discussed on another of tonight’s posts:

Posted by: Reg Cæsar on April 22, 2004 3:16 AM

The drawing indicates eight blocks but only six swimmers are shown in competition. Given that two are either ahead in the drawing and not shown, then the Rabbi becomes the ninth person illustrated. Artistically, it makes no sense. Are we forced to read into what is not there?

Posted by: joan vail on April 22, 2004 10:56 AM

There are eight blocks, and seven racers including the rabbi; the swimmer in the far right lane is not shown.

The humor of this illustration, which even some very intelligent people I know have missed, is that the figure at the back of the pool is either Moses or the Lord who is dividing the waters so that the rabbi can run the race on dry land.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on April 22, 2004 11:09 AM

Lawrence, you stole my thunder! Not exactly, but I did wonder about the figures in the background and did not pursue it any further. Had I done so, I most likely would have arrived at the same interpretation. But you have explained it to the better enjoyment of the cartoon! Question: Can there possibly be one or more understandings of this drawing?

Posted by: joan vail on April 22, 2004 12:27 PM

I said at the beginning that it is rich in meaning. That’s why I posted it and invited comments. But maybe I should give my own interpretation(s). I’ll do that soon.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on April 22, 2004 12:30 PM

Here is a little background on Mark Spitz, if anyone is interested:

Posted by: Michael Jose on April 22, 2004 6:26 PM

Mr. Caesar,
How does my little comment betray that I still live in the 1970s and, therefore, “must wonder how the composer of Godspell turned into the Muslim provocateur?
Well, I do wonder, but it has nothing to do with Mark Spitz’ using a uniquely Jewish technique of water parting in a swimming competition. So, please explain where do you see the connection if you can spare a few moments. I swear I am not being ironical - it is really too obscure for me.
Thank you.
T. Hanski

Posted by: T. Hanski on April 22, 2004 9:58 PM

Mr Hanski’s own words: “Mark Spitz - remember the guy?”
Only those with active memories of the Me Decade would…

Posted by: Reg Cæsar on April 23, 2004 1:39 AM

Mr. Caesar,

Do you mean had I not had “active memories’ of the 1970s I would have found nothing surprising about the metamorphosis of Godspell’s composer? Quite possible. Still, you, too, must remember 1970s, since you, correctly, connected Mark Spitz to that decade.
So, how did you manage to rein in your own wondering at the composers’ turning onto the Muslim provocateur? Is it because your own memories of 1970s are, unlikely mine, “inactive”?
Also, I would like to hear from you answers to the following questions :
1. How did you know my memories of the “Me Decade” are “active”?
2. What are “active” memories and how to distinguish between active and the inactive ones?
3. How to deactivate active memories - thus avoiding being surprised by the antics of some composers in the future?

Thank you,

T. Hanski

Posted by: T. Hanski on April 23, 2004 3:30 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):