A timeline of prejudice, from Shylock to Shoah

FARAYI MUNGAZI HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY TRUST

One of the first books I read in high school was TheMerchantof Venice. It was required reading in GCSE English literature because in my native Zimbabwe the education system mirrored that of colonial master Britain. The villain of the play, a Jew named Shylock, lends money to Antonio, a merchant, on condition that he will cut o a pound of his flesh if he fails to repay the loan. Antonio does not need the money for his personal use; rather, he borrows it on behalf of a friend Bassanio, who needs it to woo a wealthy woman called Portia.

When Antonio defaults on his loan, Portia disguises herself as a male lawyer to defend Antonio in court, and outsmarts Shylock, telling him he is entitled to a pound of Antonio’s flesh and no more – not a drop of his blood. The story ends with Shylock losing half his fortune and agreeing to convert to Christianity.

Shylock is rarely mentioned by name in the play; he is simply ‘the Jew’. The Merchant of Venice is likely to be a product of its time –an era when antisemitism was rife in Europe – though Shakespeare has also been credited with using the antisemitism to highlight audience hypocrisy and engender sympathy for Shylock.

In other words, the antisemitic undertones in Shakespeare’s portrayal of Shylock have long been a source of debate.

As I look back, though, it is impossible to ignore its impact on me and my peers. I can’t help thinking that it may have had more influence on our way of thinking than we realised.

It certainly triggered a conversation with my father about the Jewish owner of the company he worked for. I had asked whether his boss was a miser like Shylock. My father, a student of history, took the opportunity to explain how hatred of Jews led to the Holocaust. And he was unequivocal in his belief that all people are born equal in dignity and worth.

I was reminded of The Merchant on a recent visit to the National Holocaust Centre and Museum in Newark. In conversation with one of the museum’s curators, I recalled how in a previous a role, a former workmate often cited the play as justifica- tion for vilifying Jews. She believed that Jews were pulling the strings of the world’s media. As we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, it is important to remind ourselves that antisemitism has not dissipated.

We saw how antisemitic narratives and conspiracies proliferated online during the pandemic, with a wave of posts claiming that Covid vaccines were a Jewish plot to poison the world. Similarly, many people have distorted the conflict in Israel and Palestine to promulgate antisemitic tropes. I am not so naïve as not to know that there is legitimate criticism of the policies of the Israeli government vis-a-vis Palestine. But in a world in which hatred and intolerance are increasingly common, many forget that Jews have a traumatic history; including the six million murdered in the Holocaust. So, when Jews are being abused because of who they are, we all have an obligation to come together in their defence.

Anyone who gets the privilege of hearing survivors of genocides speak will gain a new understanding of the effects of identity-based hostility. Thus, from a mere human point of view, it is easy to see why prejudice should never be tolerated in a civilised society, regardless of which group it is directed against.

Some people bristle at being charged with antisemitic bias and say Jews ought to develop thicker skins. Such a thought is more than troubling.

As a black person, I know how hurtful it is to be on the receiving end of abuse or discrimination simply because of the colour of my skin.

I would not take kindly to anyone telling me to be more resilient in the face of racism. There is no acceptable level of racism, just as there is no acceptable form of prejudice towards anyone.

 Farayi is senior communications officer at the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust