3
1
1
The Oliphant in the Room: A Discourse Analysis of Pat Oliphant’s Political Cartoons 1993-2013
Alistair Craig | PEAC 490
Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the
degree of Postgraduate Diploma in Arts
Word Count: 15,069
2 3
3
I certify that this dissertation does not incorporate without acknowledgment any material previously submitted for a degree or diploma in any university; and that to the best of my knowledge and belief it does not contain any material previously published or written by another person except where due reference is made in the text.
Signed: Date: 16/10/2013
4 5
5
ABSTRACT
The political cartoon inhabits a rare space of discourse. It combines visual and (often)
rhetorical metaphors and symbols that are widely culturally accepted and recognised to
provide political and social critique. Pat Oliphant is an internationally recognised master
of the art and has provided a longitudinal stream of cartoons that are ripe with historical
resonance in terms of America’s history in the last five decades.
By the use of a discursive grounded theory approach it is possible to map a sense of how
America as a nation sees itself and its place in the world.
From within the data set of over 1600 cartoons over a 10-year period post 9/11, a strong
correlation with American public opinion surfaces on a broad range of conflict issues and
related state policy implementations, suggesting that political cartoons are a consistently
reliable barometer of the nation’s public discourse space and perhaps even a predictor of
future normative leanings.
6 7
7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Acknowledgments 9
2 Introduction 11
3 Editorial Cartoons -Theory 15
4 Methodology 23
5 Discourse Streams 31
5b. Bin Laden & Terrorism 31
5c. Domestic Security & Civil Liberties 32
5d. Presidential Leadership and the Politics of Power 33
5e. Foreign Policy Fallout—the consequences of conflict post 9/11 36
5e-1. Afghanistan 37
5e-2. Iraq 39
5e-2. The Allies & the UN 41
5e-2. WMDs & “Rogue Actors” 45
5 Uncle Sam 51
6 Conclusion 71
Appendix 1: Sample Cartoon Analysis 73
Appendix 2: List of Figures 77
Bibliography 81
8 9
9
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
How do tiny electrical impulses between neurons made of atoms co-ordinate to constitute
thought and consciousness and such academic sentience as “I think therefore I am?” If there
is no God, then there is no-one to thank—just time and unfeasible statistical odds of chance
amongst the universal darkness of chaos and entropy. You, me and this paper, a transient and
random arrays of chemical elements—here today and carbon tomorrow. If that is so, throw
this in the bin and go now, eat, drink and be merry...
OR
Not.
Thanks to the brilliantly sharp mind of my supervisor, Richard Jackson for his academic
advice (assuming he actually exists and is not merely a socio-cultural construction of my mind
or I have incorrectly labeled him as Richard when in fact he is a tree or a table or an embodiment
of someone’s ancestor…)
Thanks also to Karen Brounéus - scholar—for her confidence and encouragement.
A special thanks to Peter “Penguin” MacKenzie for proof reading services above and beyond
the call of duty.
Thanks in even greater measure to my wife Joanne for virtues of patience and faith.
In the words of the uniquely qualified Jewish carpenter
“It is finished!”
10 11
“Books and all forms of writing are terror to those who suppress the truth,”
Wole Soyinka | Nigerian poet, dramatist and Nobel Prize winner
The political cartoon is arguably the most powerful format of that terror. More art than
speech, the best editorial cartoons are lie-piercing tools in the fight for human rights. With scalpel-sharp wit, they carve away at
political power where it holds unhealthy sway. And with their accessibility to a broad
swath of followers—illiterate as well as educated—cartoons can become the banners
of democracy.Barbara Collier | SAMPSONIA WAY
11
INTRODUCTION
Cartoons are information graphics. They are usually constructed as a metaphorical meme
that requires a certain contextualised understanding. Editorial cartoons are highly reflective
of the “news of the day” so are firmly situated within the current socio-political discourse of
the time and are geared to fit the broad public audience. Editorial cartoons are by subject
frequency, highly political. Because of this many exponents of the art are referred to as ‘political
cartoonists.’ They often reflect or encapsulate a critical or agonist opinion on the power and
motivation of a government’s policies, actions and personalities. In doing so they can form
a powerful counter-commentary to that which is normatively controlled by media interests.
To situate this paper it will help to contextualise the particular cartoonist referenced—Pat
Oliphant. This is helpful as all creative endeavours are reflective of their creator. The art of the
editorial cartoon is both ‘by someone’ and ‘for someone’, so holds in tension personal opinion
versus the need to fit the editorial demands and frameworks of publication.1
Patrick Oliphant is the world’s most widely syndicated political cartoonist of the current day.2
The New York Times described him as “the most influential editorial artist now working”3 He is
a Pulitzer prize winner (1967) and seven-time award winner (1971, 1973, 1974, 1984, 1989,
1990, and 1991) of the US National Cartoonist Society, as well as being a recipient of a host
of various awards in recognition of his work. The extraordinary reach of his weekly cartoons
gives a hint to the resonance and relevance his messages generate with the purchasing public.
Born (July 24 1935) and raised in Australia, but a long-term resident of the United States of
America, (since 1964) his work has become in many ways a measuring stick of public discourse
for American politics. Perhaps of significance for peace and conflict studies, his uncle, Sir
Mark Oliphant was one of the elite physicists employed on the Manhattan Project prior to the
1 Katz H. An Historic Look at Political Cartoons. Nieman Reports 2 Universal Press Syndicate: http://www.universaluclick.com/editorial/cartoons/patoliphant3 King, Wayne (5 August 1990). “What’s so Funny About Washington?”. The New York Times Magazine (The New York
Times).
12 13
end of the second world war. The horror of nuclear weapons becoming a significant legacy
in his uncle’s anti-nuclear and strong political stance post conflict. A renowned academic,
he was to become the Governor of South Australia and knighted for his contributions to
public service. How much his uncles fame and political voice affected Pat is speculative, but
the cutting cartoon imagery that crosses the realm of the political divide is unsparing and
suggests a significant concern for the consequences of power wielded within the political
landscape.
Secondly, my personal point of reference in choosing to study this particular area, lies in
my own direct association with the print media. I am (at the time of writing) employed as an
editorial artist in a daily newspaper and work in close association with both the editor and
the editorial cartoonist on a daily basis. These particular associations allow me some technical
and professional insight into the machinations of newspaper production, editorial boundaries
and expectations, as well as a sense of the public feedback loop.
My initial proposal was to follow and analyse against known events and common media
reporting the cartoon commentary of Pat Oliphant over the course of the Iraq conflict. The
tentative hypothesis being that the cartoonist—within the boundaries of a free press society -
has a unique ability to critique government policy and action and by a reflective analysis post
period of those cartoons we can either legitimise or contradict that commentary—validating
or discrediting its value as a barometer on public discourse. In essence it was to be a reflective
discourse analysis of one strand of political criticism of a major conflict.
While choosing a singular cartoonist over the option of a larger multi-representational
cohort and arguably a more reflective sample, might seem a surgically concise but limiting
methodology, the significance of Oliphant’s work to public acceptance (indicative by the scale
of syndication) provides an appealing tightness of variable over the longitudinal discourse.
The process of analysis—described in the following chapter—bought up some very
interesting discourse strands that while never precluding the initial proposal led me to sense
a greater discourse message overall.
From the process, the first obvious pattern to emerge was the sense of a concrete
connectedness of the discourse over the entire decade of the post 9/11 period. By locating
13
and examining cartoons in sequential order, a distinct pattern emerged from the elements. To
apply a metaphor—it was like examining multiple jigsaw pieces. Various cartoons began to
logically sort into related themes causing a larger picture to emerge than could be extrapolated
from the individual cartoons themselves. The “big discourse picture” was illuminated by the
overview of the many pieces. This meant that by reading cartoons directly depicting the Iraq
conflict as an isolated discourse I cut out the many strands that build the larger and more
informative discourse. The significant picture appears to be much more intimately reflective of
the wider American public discourse on global terrorism, US domestic security and politics as
well as the wider liberal (read capitalist) globalisation under American political and business
interests. One thematic strand in particular seemed to articulate the DNA of the big picture.
“Uncle Sam” appears regularly as a
commonly repeated characterisation of
the condition of America.
While this was only one of many
strands of distinct social/political
discourse that runs through the data
set (1664 cartoons), it does generate in
microcosm all the fundamentals of the
other strands.
The highly repetitious use of
singularly strong metaphorical and
representational images across the
period display a distinctive lineage
of development. By way of example
President George Bush has an extremely
high rate of occurrence (396 times or a
total of 23.8% of total cartoon subjects portrayed).
The development of his political character and performance is searingly represented almost
exclusively within the domains of an infantile or naive child, (Figure 1) playing at cowboys
Figure 1
Figure 2
14 15
(Figure 2) and the witless puppet of
business and political interests (Figure 3
- overleaf).
Not a single cartoon represents him
in any positive measure and yet we find
the American public still chose to re-
elect him for a second term. An initial
observation then would be to deny the
cartoons their legitimacy or power in
representing public opinion. However
when contextualised we see in public
opinion polls of the time a very polarised
public. (Bush was re-elected with a 52%
approval rating but quickly dropped to
the longest term ever, presidential sub-
40% approval rating - Gallup4)
To understand what’s happening
we need to realise that political cartoons invariably gravitate to the side of the antagonist.
Weighted against cartoons depicting opposition politicians at the time we see equally strong,
negative and narrow representations (Figure 4), thus in reality we see cartoons reflecting the
broader discourse, specifically magnifying (and likely feeding and reifying ) the polarisations.
Deciphering agreed upon meaning is complex because of the way we are constructed. As
an artist I stand with many creatives in saying “Let the art speak for itself ”. As a scholar I note
the picture does speak a thousand words, quite easily, and when there are one thousand six
hundred and sixty four pictures?…
…there is an Oliphant in the room!
4. http://www.gallup.com/poll/14653/
Figure 4
Figure 3
15
EDITORIAL CARTOONS - THEORY
A number of legitimate questions might be asked as to the value a study of editorial cartoons
can bring to the research table? What do they offer in terms of insight that can’t be garnered
from more immediate sources, say research polls? What is intrinsic to them that gives them
added weight to national discourse over other media forms. In essence, what theory frames
their value? Certainly a lot of research has been done on cartoons and differing theories have
emerged in regard to processing interpretation—what they say, how they say it and what
saying it might mean.
Because the cartoon lies at the junction point of many disciplines it has been interpreted
with appropriate tilt towards each of the disciplines in question.
Three general types of interpretation strategy are suggested by Umberto Eco (1994) —
author-oriented, reader-oriented, and text-oriented: To quote Diamond (2002)
“Research on political cartoons starts from the phenomenon of the cartoon, not from the
methodology. Nevertheless, each of these three hermeneutical strategies leads to different
analytical frameworks in which political cartoons might be examined. An author-oriented
strategy would point toward psychological and historical analyses of the cartoonist and his
or her historical context, while a reader-oriented strategy would point toward sociological
and public opinion analyses of cartoon readers (see De Sousa & Medhurst, 1982). Finally, a
text-oriented strategy would point toward semiotic analysis of the text itself.
These include adapted theories based on verbal and Burkean rhetoric (Kenny and Scott
2003 pp19-26) to theories drawn from art criticism (Gombrich, 1971) and critical discourse
analysis (Greenberg, 2002). So cartoon analysis is not an unexplored area, but neither has it
been mined for all it has to offer. The question the theories highlight is “What elements of
knowledge are trying to be extracted?”—like the cartoon itself, its a matter of who is it by?
and who is it for?
Firstly it may be helpful to situate the value by saying what it is not. A study of editorial
cartoons is quite obviously a limited media extraction. It is one small facet of a many-faceted
16 17
conversation that helps to frame, inform and mould the views of a population. It is a discrete
part of a popular culture dialogue therefore we can assume from the outset that it has specific
limitations. A study of cartoons therefore falls squarely in the category of qualitative research
in spite of drawing from a quantitative base of available data.
Why then should we bother?
Primarily because they are relevant and powerful. There is a significant and growing body of
research indicating the value of the place they hold and of the contributive impact they have.
The following introductory quotes from research papers give a condensed sense of their value:
“Political cartoons are a visual or visual–verbal type of opinion news discourse. Prized as
artistic objects and historical records of contemporary attitudes, admired for their humorous
skill, feared and valued for their power to persuade public opinion, cartoons enhance the
prestige and appeal of newspapers but can also trigger social protest and legal action on
account of the critical positions they adopt towards powerful individuals, institutions and
groups. They are accordingly a rich terrain for the analysis of visual and visual–verbal
evaluation.” Swain (2012)
“Cartoons provide a medium and a platform for exploring key debates in political geography.”
D. Hammett & C. Mather (2011)
Political cartoons are often able to expose a certain kind of essential truth, which can
encourage viewers to see things from a new angle. The suggestive nature of the genre also
allows cartoonists to be more forthright in their criticism than would be acceptable in
journalistic writings and to avoid the charge of libel Templin, (1999: 21.)
By its very nature, political cartoon art in a democratic society has been one of the purest
artifacts of popular culture, seeking to influence public opinion through its use of widely
and instantly understood symbols, slogans, referents, and allusions. The artist must exploit
conventions in fundamental harmony with the ‘cultural literacy’ of the public or risk almost
certain failure, for obscurity and snob humor are fatal to the medium. Thus the context of
the effective editorial cartoon, disregarding altogether its ideology or the issue at hand, can
tell us much about the popular culture of its day. Fischer (1998)
17
“the political cartoon is stronger even than the written editorial for the simple reason that it
is a picture, because it communicates more surely with the emotions of the reader, because it
speaks visually in a tongue that knows no barrier of language or education, because it often
strikes some half-forgotten aspiration that transcends geography and is common to all men
everywhere” Scott Long (1962)
Cartoons utilise creative cognitive mechanisms such as conceptual integration (or blending
—see Fauconnier & Turner 2002), conceptual metaphor (Lakoff & Johnson 1980, Lakoff 1993,
and Kövecses 2002), and cultural modelling (Holland & Quinn 1987) to convey the intended
message. Because of the variance of potential interpretations and the complexity of means
used to convey meaning, cartoon analysis needs to retain some “brakes” to ensure complexity
doesn’t create meaning that isn’t there or is non-intended. By the use of a descriptive discourse
analysis (as opposed to a purely critical discourse analysis) it’s possible to identify the broader
discourse flowing through the series, rather than becoming overly obsessed with particular
meaning of any particular cartoon. To quote Conners (1998)
“When looking at a political cartoon as opposed to reading an editorial or opinion column,
readers can quickly and easily interpret its message (Coupe 1969; Medhurst & DeSousa
1981; Morisson 1969) The ease of interpretation is due to the presence of metaphors and
symbols that represent and simplify ideas”
By combining forms of communication that are broadly powerful and easily accessible, they
have a unique ability to convey a distilled message. The combination of image, humour and
brevity work with the same theoretical underpinnings of general mass media advertising used
to create loyalty to brands but with the added sting in the tail—namely a political message.
They don’t carry the same agenda as the bulk of consumer media (to sell product) but act as
billboards of critical and reflective political discourse. Cartooning as a medium could be said
to “punch well above it’ weight”
The old adage of “a picture is worth a thousand words” is truly realised in the cartoon’s power
to characterise and thus create a reinforced stereotype. As earlier noted by Figure 1 of George
Bush—once depicted as imbecilic and naive, it becomes hard to see him as anything else. The
characterisation reduces the available framing size, restricting or severely limiting alternate
18 19
views. The characterisation is usually quickly absorbed and reinforced by a culture that adopts
and legitimises it. Note the following characterisations of George Bush by other cartoonists
(Figures 5-9) which play on similar features and which serve to reinforce the discourse.
One would assume becoming President of the United States of America requires something
more than just family connections and wealth but the caricaturisation of the personality
undermines any political conversation and replaces it with a potent product branding.
Very few other media sources combine the potency to undermine political image formation,
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8 Figure 9
19
a reason why political cartoonists have both historically and contemporaneously faced political
repression and reason enough to take notice of them.
What the cartoon discourse says is not just a reflection of how some lone dissident views
their communities/nations, they reflect a message that is broad, self-reinforcing and in a sense
prophetic of a nation’s direction.
Ilan Danjoux (2008) draws solid comparisons of the reflective power of political cartoons
to encapsulate public opinion, which in turn is seen as a very direct influencer of security
policies in the Israel/Palestinian conflict. In other words the public discourse, made apparent
via political cartoons of the time, tracked accurately political processes that seem to bend in
accordance with the cartoons reification of conflict actors and situations. Politicians will bend
to meet constituents’ pressure when it is deemed public opinion holds sway. Just like corporate
advertising, the repetitious use of characterisation sells a concept to the public. The more we
see Bush drawn as a monkey, a child, a cowboy or a child - the less we are able to divorce fact
from reality. The depiction becomes the reality in the mind of the audience.
Take a contemporary example—ask yourself how do you perceive and situate any political
leader?—for instance—Vladimir Putin? Unless you are an astute student of political science
with a good knowledge of both Putin’s personal and Russia’s political history, the perception
will be derived from small video sound bites, photos and perhaps political commentary from
news snippets or websites. Where he fits in your imagination as a person and politician may
well be more informed by the type of characterisation shown in the following two cartoons,
(Figures 10-11) typical of others you likely will have seen and digested as elements of
contemporary culture. A hard-line controller determined to rule by political will and force
Figure 10 Figure 11
20 21
(which may or may not of course be true)—but it’s not nuanced. It’s a powerful descriptive
force by which we quickly assume knowledge of political identities.
This makes political cartoons something more than just background commentary, it elevates
them to a place where they become discourse feeders—propaganda of political dissonance
(from where much of the originating DNA of political cartoons seems to emanate)
How people are depicted can elevate or dehumanise the subject in the slash of a pen. The
study of depictions of “the enemy” have shown strong correlations to outbreaks of violence.
(Rowland 2002:1) Much academic research has gone into identifying the links between the
dehumanising of the “other” as a progressive step towards a socialised structure that will
progressively accept violence against others. Cartoons often play a significant contributive
factor to the creation of those alternate images of others.
Consider the intended effects in the
following cartoons from World War 2 Nazi
Germany and the Balkan conflict 1990’s.
In Figure 12, where Jews are depicted as
hungry spiders feeding on German citizens
the message helps build a psychological
profile designed to engender fear. The greater
the fear of the “other”, the more suspicion
will drive division and polarise communities.
In the second cartoon
(Figure 13) from 1992, the
drawing is of a Serbian
soldier as a “primate” (his
name tag reads “Serbian
Irregular”). It infers that
they are de facto animals,
lessening their humanness.
The consequence is the
21
creation of a discourse legitimising a violent response.
Does this discursive power make the political cartoon any more valuable than any other
media discourse? Not necessarily—but it does lend to it a certain weight of efficacy that is
not easily arrived at by other means. To discover the same kind of commentary across the
media spectrum we could turn to political blogs or columns (these would likely give a much
fuller development of argument and be spectrally divided so as to give a wider discourse
from multiple nodes—it would also require a significant investment of time reading and
processing).
Some politically motivated songs and poetry or conceivably novels may give similar
discourse strands but will have limitations of focus, broad appeal and output. In contrast
political cartoons are usually produced on a (near) daily basis and are stringently focused
on relevant news-of-the-day items of concern to the target audience. Whereas a news photo
can be a powerful image and its use can be
manipulated for media or political purpose,
the cartoon goes beyond by being able to
transcribe multiple layers of meaning by the
flexibility of the medium—limited only by
imagination and to a lesser degree artistic
ability to convey. Consider how many levels
of message are being conveyed by the two
images of Obama. (Figures 14, 15)
The press photo tells us what he looks like,
it may pick up certain personal gestures
or mannerisms but who he is or how he
behaves has to be accumulated knowledge
from multiple other sources. The cartoon
of Obama doesn’t even require his face -
identification is spelt out and beyond the
characterisation, a significant criticism of his
Figure 15
22 23
political persona and performance is given.
From having viewed the cartoon, a conceptual frame is seeded in your mind that has the
potential to now filter any references you have of the man. Each time you see him now you
will may be weighing up “is this a pretty speech” or an “agonisingly slow decision”?
To conclude: The political cartoon is a strong discursive meme, it hold relevance as a marker
of political climate and an internal framer of international relations and stereotypes. This is
important because how people frame others can be decisive in how they act towards them.
America has been trumpeted as the global policeman due to its military capacity and its
historic place as “the land of the free” Howbeit this has become highly contested from both
within and without. America finds itself now in a transitional phase of power relationships
within a rapidly changing global community. There are many avenues of research that can be
taken to give a sense of how that is playing out.
By following the single strand of a recognised political cartoonist over a decade via a discourse
analysis by a grounded theory methodology, I believe we can add to our understanding of
where America sees itself and how it perceives others.
23
METHODOLOGY
In order to understand what is essentially a visually presented discourse and be able to
extract coherent patterns of meaning from a large combination of individual images it is
necessary to formulate a systematic way to create and manage discourse linkages between
individual cartoons.
The obvious format for such research analysis is Grounded Theory.5 This is by design a
reverse engineering process whereby codes or tags are credited to the individual cartoons
in a systematic way, aiming to capture the content and nuances of meaning generated. From
this collection of tags, collections or categories can be created on a thematic string. The
resulting collections then create a dynamic resonance that can then be articulated via theory
or hypothesis. It is a process of discovery and hypothesis development by way of examination
of the variables as opposed to the process of discovery by testing of an originating hypothesis
by control, application or testing of variables.
I alluded to this in the introduction, whereby I had an originating hypothesis of a critical
theory manifestation via the political cartoons based around the specific data set of a distinct
time frame in reference to a particular conflict. The methodology of analysis (grounded
theory approach) however led to a deeper understanding of the multi-threaded correlations
of content to a broader discourse on how America views itself and others.
This came about as a result of the process as opposed to the original purpose of the process.
Following is an outline of the steps I utilised and the processes’ evolutionary path, followed
by a brief posit of the major discourse strands that emerged and some thoughts on the utility
of the process.
Action 1: Step one in the diagnostic was the initial gathering of the data set. This was greatly aided by
a complete online catalogue of Oliphant’s cartoons (http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant)
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grounded_theory
24 25
The set of published cartoons is available online6 (along with most other substantially
syndicated cartoonists) and are searchable by publication date. All cartoons on the site
have a file-naming protocol based on date of publication. Thus a cartoon with a file name of
po010913 refers to Pat Oliphant published on the 13th September 2001, a Gregorian year/
month/day format preceded by the cartoonist’s initials. This enabled me to download and
file low-resolution copies of the complete data set I was seeking. (A total of 1667 cartoons,
published between 13th September 2001—2 days after 9/11—until 28th December 2012, the
official “withdrawal” year and tenth anniversary of the American troops stationed in Iraq)
One of the primary and potentially useful outcomes of the process of selecting and
downloading the files was the host website’s use of a feedback section for each cartoon. The
value of this is the presence of a bonus discourse received via the general public specifically
around the cartoon’s particular content and its related theme. In a real-time sense it is an open
forum of public debate that helps situate and critique each cartoon within its publication
context. In some cases it was this public debate on a cartoon’s legitimacy and its contextual
setting that gives it a much deeper nuance in relation to its reflection of public opinion. Because
of the nature of content (politics, religion, people group/stereotypes etc) and the visual power
of art utilised in the cartoon, they often generated distinctly polarised public debate.
The majority of the public forum content seems to reinforce the cartoon’s commentary
(possibly reflecting the concept that those who enjoy the cartoons are more likely to seek
them online and respond with opinion). In contrast a smaller proportion generally offered
very strong and often bitter contradictory critiques—a likely reflection of the stereotyping and
characterisation that the cartoon enjoys but which denies room for alternative voice. A classic
example may be how organised religion was most commonly portrayed as a hierarchical
institution with a major orientation around sexual deviancy and moral hypocrisy. Nearly all
content in reference to Catholicism depicts priests as paedophiles or potential paedophiles7
- see Figure 16 as exemplar. One would imagine a strong Catholic voice in response to such
continued depictions and yet in terms of website content nearly all comments are explicitly
6 .http://www.gocomics.com/patoliphant7 This was largely reflective of national issues of accountability over publicised lawsuits against the Church
25
supportive of the expressed view with
only minor (in both number and
dialogue efficacy) attempts to voice
a defence of the broader nature and
expanse of the faith. In other words the
narrow depiction of a stereotype seemed
to receive broad public affirmation.
From a diagnostic viewpoint based
on historic outcomes of “labelling” I
suggest this would indicate at least a temporal directional movement of the socio-cultural
discourse, which in turn is reflected in the Gallup Polls8 at the time.
Action 2:
Having acquired copies of the full data set, the process of categorising cartoon’s seemed
to demand a certain architecture which would allow me to segregate them into thematic
groups as diagrammed >
8 http://www.gallup.com/poll/155690/Confidence-Organized-Religion-Low-Point.aspx
Figure 16
26 27
This seemed like a logical order. To first examine the policy content of cartoons to segregate
cartoons with a purely domestic flavour from those associated with terrorism and foreign
policy that lead to the Iraq conflict. From this grouping of files I could further subdivide them
into those that related to the “War on Terror” which would feed either into the conflict in
Afghanistan and later Iraq with issues relating to domestic terror threats and security linking
back to the domestic grouping. The content relating to conflict invariably focused on either
the main protagonists (the “baddies”), Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein with the balance
reflecting a combination of troops/civilians and diplomatic/political issues.
The breakdown of the architecture became apparent very quickly as many cartoons crossed
multiple boundaries of divison, for example a cartoon may feature both Osama Bin Laden
but also in the same frame have him situated on American soil—posed as a traveller at an
immigration point or as an ominous shadow on Halloween—an obvious domestic reference
invoking the horror/threat of terrorism
during the Halloween festival. (Figure 17)
Another example of this was a Christmas
themed depiction of Bin Laden trying to
join himself as a “fellow Arab” to the magi
(the three wise men of the birth narrative
of Jesus Christ) To categorise the whole
was confounded by the juxtaposition of
the elements within. Terrorism and Christianity being linked thematically by the frame of
“the time”—the cartoon being published at Christmas endeavoured to include the Christian
narrative, while the hunt for Osama and the conjecture of where he might be at the time
creating the political discourse connection. Again it hinted at the continued haunting threat
of terrorism on American soil but had no particular reference to America in particular. While
it was easy to file such cartoons under those containing Osama, the file “Osama” sat entirely
under the Foreign Conflict/Afghanistan hierarchy. By doing so it disavowed the contents
connection to American domestic threat and civilian discourse. Thus content elements alone
can preclude or at least hinder the contextualisation of meaning. A single cartoon may have
Figure 17
27
elements that could prescribe it to any number of “boxes”. To overcome this impediment to
collating and interpreting strings of discourse a better methodology grounding images within
their contextual voice was required. For how this was accomplished refer to a sample analysis
of a cartoon - Appendix 1.
Action 3: The solution was to import all the images into an image data-bank -I used Adobe Lightroom
but other image management programmes are equally valid with the proviso that individual
images can be tagged with searchable keywords. This gives the researcher an unlimited array of
key words that can be tagged to any image creating the ability to search and collate significant
groupings based around any keyword or combination of keywords.
Using Figure 18 as an example.
A keyword list might include the
following: 2001, December (publication
year and month), President, G.W. Bush,
Bin Laden, Business, IBM, Enron, GM,
War, Afghanistan, Public, Profiteering,
Government, Patriotism, Civilians,
Cannon, Flag and more dependent on
level of analysis.
These then give an ability to contextually search for and group this cartoon in any array
of themes with cartoons containing corresponding metadata. For example - all cartoons
between 2001 and 2011 that contain “Business” or “Business and Government” or “Business
and Government and War”, or all cartoons that contain “G.W. Bush and were published in
2006” etc.
Key-wording is a time-consuming but valuable process that results in a “broad picture”
being built up of the overall discourse. It is through this process of analytical examination and
tagging of each cartoon that the larger patterns emerge with clarity.
The interesting by-product of doing the analysis over a protracted time segment was the
Figure 18
28 29
clarity of historic news record that is revealed. This may seem obvious in recognition that
the editorial cartoon is produced on a near daily basis (between 3 and 4 times per week on
average) and the content reflects the main news stories of the current day. Perhaps even more
telling—they don’t just reflect the main news story in a “neutral” report sense, but have a more
acute focus on telling the story of what the public’s perception and attitudes are at the time.
They tend to be a “critique” of the news—and a snapshot of prevailing attitudes.
Re-examine Figure 18 and what you see is not just the news that America is retaliating in
response to 9/11. It frames the news—America is hitting back with a military response, but it
is actually critiquing that decision by inferring that Government action is in reality a thinly
disguised business opportunity. Patriotism is promoted by the civilian waving the American
flag and responding with encouragement to Bush’s military action and then is totally subverted
by big business claiming its “patriotic duty” to pick the pockets of the American public while
they are distracted by the war on terrorism. It is a reflection of a much deeper and more
critical understanding of power and the theatre of politics. It is an attempt to enlighten the
public to what the cartoonist sees as a observable threat to the American way of life.
The ironic value of this, is that the cartoonist is able to publish widely this critique via a
corporate mechanism (media conglomerates who are subject to commercial revenues from
the likes of the businesses featured in the cartoon). Its no wonder that historically cartoonists
have been amongst the “first against the wall” under oppressive regimes9 .
Action 4: Having key-worded all cartoons an emergent picture of various lines of discourse became
apparent through the consistency of reiteration of the keywords. Identifiable strands of
commentary began to stand out quite clearly. What was left to do was identify and confirm
the discourses, their meta-level connections and the substance of what was being said in
relation to the subject matter.
What follows is a brief descriptive outline of the main strands of discourse identified, with a
small selection of representative cartoons by way of illustration.
9 See Persecuted Cartoonists: Steady Hands and Brave Hearts, Sampsoniaway.org
29
Like a rope, the various individual threads bind around the singularity of American
perceptions (of both domestic and foreign politics and their intersection with civic life)
forming a rather robust “selfie” snapshot of national character.
30 31
31
DISCOURSE STREAMS
Stream 1: - Bin Laden & Terrorism
The first emergent stream of discourse post
9/11 is the American national response to the
attack framed as “The War on Terror” by George
Bush. This follows a clear line of development
in accord with the division of the main actors.
Firstly cartoons featuring Osama Bin Laden as
the (seemingly sole responsible) perpetrator
and the focus of American “retributive justice”
Bin laden is consistently featured as a
compatriot of the devil. (Figure 19) He
features regularly as an ominous and constant
background threat to American security.
(Figure 20). As the hunt for Bin Laden becomes
an apparent failure, a focus continues on
his ability to hide with a number of overt
references to international collaboration of
actors obstructing the American demand for
“justice” The net of complicity extends with
very forceful reification of Saudi complicity
and Arab stereotyping (Figure 21) and widens
to include a heavy-handed sarcasm towards
French resistance to the American war agenda.
(Figure 22)
He continues to haunt the America psyche
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
32 33
until his final demise in the raid in Pakistan
(Figure 23). Obama stands in defence of the
American action in spite of international
criticism. The context is framed by use
of the mythical “hydra” - Bin Laden is no
longer a single threat to America but has
now morphed into a multi-headed monster
made of terrorist clones. The single terrorist has now become self-perpetuating. An evil and
existential threat to international peace and security. The message is caught in the tension
between ‘human rights’ and ‘just response’.
America is portrayed as being caught in a moral dilemma, accused of overstepping sovereign
boundaries (the raid in Pakistan & use of drones) and seeks to justify the action by increasing
the discourse volume around the magnification of terrorist evil.
A defence of means justifies ends.
Stream 2: Domestic Security & Civil Liberties
The second stream post 9/11 is formed
by a commentary questioning the efficacy
of domestic security challenges. (Figure 24)
A series of cartoons uses the screening of
passengers at airports to highlight at first the
weaknesses of border security, then as time
progresses the transition to overt and heavy-
handed actions such as racial-profiling. A sense
of national security anxiety strongly associates
with a sense of inter-agency incompetence
and communication breakdown between the
disparate security forces. (Cartoon 25).
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
33
This becomes a recurrent theme
transposing electoral cycles as the issue of
national security and living with the threat of
terrorism becomes embedded in the national
psyche.
The issue of quashed civil liberties
moves progressively to the forefront of the
conversation (Cartoon 26) and security
agencies change in representational
form from being lax and incompetent to
entrenched ogres that seem paranoid and
unaccountable. (Cartoon 27)
Stream 3: Presidential Leadership and the Politics of Power
The third clear stream is the discourse
around the President’s and the Government’s
response to 9/11, the course of action,
motivations and accountability to the
American public. Much attention is paid
to the characterisation of George Bush and
how that plays out over the course of his
presidency.
The 9/11 revenge against Bin Laden is
distinctly overridden by a sense of a one-
track determination to go to war with Iraq,
irrespective of international opinion.
Some have argued that Saddam was always
Figure 27
Figure 26
Figure 28
Figure 29
34 35
George Bush’s scapegoat for war10 and a
significant number of cartoons are dedicated
to the determination of GW Bush to target
Saddam. (Figures 28-29)
In relation to George Bush, the Iraq conflict
is firstly framed as the opportunity for dreams
of boyhood glory and a way to reify Bush’s
personal ‘manliness’ in spite of cost to the
domestic public, the civilian population of
Iraq or any sense of the ramifications that a war
would engender. It is construed as ‘finishing
his father’s business’ (The first Gulf War),
where Saddam was allowed to retain power in
Iraq after his defeat following the invasion of
Kuwait.
The cementing of Bush as a naive child playing
cowboys gives way to the implication that he
is nothing more than a puppet of a malignant
cohort of behind the scenes manipulators.
Dick Cheney—the vice-president becomes
the ominous and ever-present puppet-master,
directing Bush for the fiscal benefit of big
business. (Cartoon 30) With a massive 420
cartoons (25.1% of the total!) referencing
Cheney and/or Bush we see a Herculean
discourse on government complicity and
subjugation to business interests. Other
members of the repetitive cohort of power are
10. See “The Secret History of 9/11” Terence McKeena
Figure 30
Figure 31
Figure 32
Figure 33
35
Condoleeza Rice (The Secretary of State and National Security Advisor to George Bush) who
is depicted almost exclusively as Bush’s pet parrot, saying what Bush wants to hear. ( Figure 29)
Donald Rumsfeld (Secretary of Defence by way of Cheney’s recommendation to Bush), joins
the gang as one of the “Bush manipulators” (Figure 31).
Much of the later cartoons show Bush in a bewildered reflexive state questioning why he
or his government are so unpopular. Other formats in which Bush is depicted in consistent
stereotypical terms are the “child” Bush—usually relating to his father the magnitude of the
mess he has created and seeking fatherly advice. (Figure 32).
Later as he enters his second term of office he is presented as at first a ‘puppet king’ again
under the oversight of Cheney and then we see Cheney himself on the king’s throne and Bush
relegated to court jester. (Figure 33)
With the presidential position relinquished
to Obama11 the narrative changes to reflect
the challenges the new president faces. At
first we see him portrayed as the beacon of
hope, which mirrors the general narrative
that bought him to power. (Figure 34).
Progressively he becomes portrayed as
being stymied by the entrenchment of the
government system (Figure 35) and then
more and more as being unable to act through
either indecision or manipulation by external
actors—predominantly associated with big
business interests and a strong narrative line
around international actors (Afghanistan and
Karzai, Libya and Gaddafi, Syria and Assad,
Egypt and Mubarak, Korea and Kim Jon-il and Israel/Palestine). These are seen as being either
manipulators of American aid and diplomatic efforts or so completely intransigent or corrupt
11. Obama features in 157 cartoons, 9.55% of the total sample
Figure 34
Figure 35
36 37
as to be ‘unhelpable’ (Figure 36)
Increasingly we find a tone of public
disappointment, though often mitigated
via reference to a broader discourse of a
general failing or decay of America. (Figure
37). Issues around external conflict become
merely background noise to the far stronger
emphasis on domestic issues of the economy12,
healthcare and political electioneering. Even
the touted victory of the killing of Osama Bin
Laden is challenged with a broader narrative
questioning American hegemony and a sense
of bewilderment at the lack of international
support for American foreign policy.
(see Figure 23)
Stream 4: Foreign Policy Fallout—the consequences of conflict post 9/11
At the time of writing (2013 - the international news being the use of chemical weapons
in Syria and the global debate on the morality of a military intervention) it is quite evident
that the once reified discourse of America as the global policeman—“the defender of
freedom” and the leading exporter of liberal democracy as a new world order, has come to
a significant impasse. The public’s appetite for
war appears to have slid from the post 9/11
attack high to a no longer “taken for granted”
solution to international conflict. This reflects
quite evidently in Oliphant’s cartoons over
the time frames analysis, derived from the
12. Over 220 cartoons or 13.22% of the total refer to intrinsic domestic issues
Figure 37
Figure 36
Figure 38
37
consequences of invading both Afghanistan
and then Iraq. While the incumbent threat of
terrorism via rogue actors acquiring nuclear
capabilities is a recurrent theme, (see Figures
38, 39, 40 as examples) the weight of casualties
and intransigence of conflict scenarios
begins to tilt themes to a sense of delusion
around America exporting democracy and
freedom by means of military intervention.
Diplomacy begins quickly to be referenced
as a frustrated track and in many cases a
completely hopeless task, bringing into
question America’s military involvement.
(Figure 41)
Foreign policy implications fall neatly
along the lines of American relations with
specific countries with an overall thematic
of poor UN and allied commitment and a
consistent questioning of the wisdom of US
interventions. (Figure 42)
Following is a brief overview of the
individual discourse threads in relation to
America’s major foreign involvements.
Thread One: Afghanistan
Considering the longevity of the conflict
in Afghanistan the actual total of cartoons
directly referencing it is surprisingly small—
Figure 41
Figure 39
Figure 40
Figure 42
38 39
at just 38 or 2.28%of the total.
The Afghanistan conflict goes from being
America’s first target of revenge aimed at Bin
Laden to a grander framed “war for human
rights”, targeting the Taliban and discursively
sanctioned by the presence of NATO and
British allies (Figure 43-44).
As the intransigence of the situation develops
and state-building is repetitively undermined
by warlordism and corruption, the conflict
recedes in prominence and the focus of
‘terrorism origins’ gravitates to the impending
conflict in Iraq under the guise of an imminent
threat from weapons of mass destruction.
Meanwhile American militarly dominance
seems to become quagmired by the asymmetry
of the protracted conflict and it is soon seen as
a repetition of Vietnam—a no-win war with
no exit strategy. (Figure 45).
Diplomacy and state-building are failed due
to Afghani corruption. Eventually it is is viewed
as nothing but a burden on the American
Figure 43
Figure 44
Figure 45
Figure 47Figure 46
39
taxpayer (Cartoon 46) and a rewrite of the
Afghan history lesson (Cartoon 47).
Thread Two: Iraq
The road to war with Iraq premised on
the threat of global terrorism and the fear
of weapons of mass destruction and neatly
packaged in the language of liberation to
the Iraqi people was in the historical context
a discourse that leveraged the language of
patriotism and moral obligation to curtail
legitimate debate. (Figure 48)
This tension is evident in the cartoons’
development, as they seek to frame the issues
of the time. Saddam is painted ostensibly as
the militant dictator, at the same time Bush
is shown as consistently focused with a set
determination for personal revenge. (Figure
49).
From the moment war is declared the locus
of conversation centres around the conflict’s
legitimacy. Bush is painted as being alone on
this venture while the rest of the world is still
making up its mind. (Figure 50).
Before long, the ties of big business,
government and war economies are bought
into question. (Figure 51) with a strong
emphasis on the winners being contractors
linked to political insiders and the losers—
Figure 48
Figure 49
Figure 50
Figure 51
40 41
the American public. (Figuire 52). Notably,
in nearly all cartoons featuring US citizens
—they are depicted as physically minuscule,
burdened with debt and under a sense of
patriotic manipulation. They are virtually
always dominated by large and overbearing
politicians or businessmen. In short they are
seen as victims of government, business and
military collusion.
It soon becomes obvious that the export of
democracy is perceived as doomed to failure.
The Iraqi population goes from being difficult
adopters of democratic process (Figure 53). to
a strong stereotype of tribalist spoilers with no
hope of ever adopting legitimacy.
Once again America is left to reflect on the
cost of intervention as the war anniversaries
mount up along with the ever-increasing body
count of US soldiers. (Figure 54).
While the occupation drags on the
significance of the debate refocuses on the
foundational issues of the war—the intelligence
regarding the regime’s supposed stock of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs).
A significant proportion of the later cartoons
around Iraq feature the Bush cohort (Bush,
Cheney, Rumsfeld & Rice) contriving to
obfuscate criticisms and to bury the truth in a
thinly disguised attempt to rewrite history by
Figure 53
Figure 54
Figure 55
Figure 52
41
force of political power. (Figures 55-56)
The shortness of political memory is
emphasised and even the weight of political/
military disaster gives way to a sense of
ambivalence—one cartoon features a civilian
talking to a crippled Iraq veteran saying:
“Jeez, what happened to you? You in some sort
of accident or something? Iraq? Is that thing
still going? Oh yeah, well gotta run, shopping with the wife and all that... well stay cool and
have a nice day” America has moved on and Iraq is just a memory best forgotten. Primary
domestic issues, in particular the economy after the fiscal meltdown and the current election
cycle circus, become the main focus, with just a few token nods to the troop withdrawal.
Thread Three: The Allies & the UN
Of relevant interest is how the cartoons depict, and therefore reflect in a general sense,
the American attitude towards other global actors. When a dichotomised framework is used
(“You’re either for us or against us”)13 for reasons of legitimacy or for the public sales pitch
of “The War on Terror” it creates political tensions by demanding an either/or standpoint.
The rhetoric reduces space for legitimate argument and polarises issues, creating division.
You become either “a pal” or an “enemy”, a beneficiary of American might and economic
benevolence or an adversary to be contained,
ignored and if necessary punished or
pressured.
Prior to the Iraq invasion the UN is seen as
potentially useful, a legitimising agency for
any future conflict and stands with American
support (Figure 57).
13. Hillary Clinton September 13, 2001 - “Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price.” George Bush September 20, 2001 “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”
Cartoon 56
Figure 57
42 43
However—perhaps in response to the
refusal to legitimise an invasion, any further
references to the UN revolve around framing
them as impotent (Figure 58), or as some
group that should take greater responsibility
for assisting America.
As the war progresses and the situation
becomes more and more intractable a few
cartoons begin to infer an expectation for UN
assistance. (Figure 59)
Very few cartoons reference the UN in
particular and in fact the total cartoons
referencing foreign ally are conspicuous by
there absence. Cartoons referencing England
(a committed allie in the American political
discourse) total only eight—of those four
reference the monarchy, one references the
media and two are only minor references as
sub-plot to the main cartoon thought. There
is only one in reference to the coalition of the
willing (Figure 60) which is more about the
loss of an ally due to the posturing of George
Bush.
Europe as a whole barely features in the Iraq
debate.14 but it is significant in the discourse
picture that it paints. (Figure 61).
Europe is painted as self consumed in its
14. It is more predominant post the economic crisis where a number of cartoons address the fear of global economic meltdown.
Figure 58
Figure 59
Figure 60
Figure 61
43
own sophistication and economy and expects
America to do the ‘dirty work’ of managing
the Middle Eastern neighbourhood while
they enjoy coffee.
The one European nation that features with
a particularly strong emphasis is France.
While France had been an active ally in
the first Gulf war it was opposed to military
intervention in the Iraq war, siding with
nations such as Russia, China, Germany
and Belgium. President Chirac and Bush
had very frosty relations which led to quite
deep mistrust and a strong media stereotype
inflation. One magazine’s survey15 showed
only one in six Americans believing France
to be an ally in 2006. Cartoons went as far as
accusing France of, at various times - hiding
Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi.
(Figure 62 is an example)
Russia features sixteen times in the cohort
as well, usually in the context of irony—that
Russia and America have common ground as
superpowers, dealing with global issues and
most tellingly in figures 63 and 64—the lack of moral high ground for America on issues of
conflict.
The other ally that gets semi-regular attention is Israel.
Because of the long-standing and deeply rooted conflicts in the Middle East, in particular
the Israel/Palestine issue and America’s involvement as both peace negotiator and Israeli
15. United States Harpers Magazine 2008-12-17
Figure 62
Figure 63
Figure 64
44 45
friend, cartoons depicting Israel are nearly
always in the tone of deep frustration regarding
diplomatic efforts.
Israel and Palestine become like the
proverbial “thorn in the side” cropping up
frequently (at least 39 times), almost as a
persistent distraction and a recalcitrant and
unresolvable problem. (Figure 65). Diplomacy
seems impotent and in spite of Israel’s position
as a long-time American ally (Figue 66), it is
frequently portrayed as highly belligerent and
aggressive. (Figure 67)
Bridging the divide between ally and enemy
are the Saudis/Arabs who come in for an
extreme stereotypical depiction. They are
clearly seen as necessary, but untrusted allies.
A situation largely stemming from the fact
that the majority of the terrorists involved in
the 9/11 attack were of Saudi origin.
They are pictured as, at once complicit with
the US Government because of oil dependence
and then duplicitous because of Arab/Muslim
Figure 65
Figure 69Figure 68
Figure 67
Figure 66
45
Figure 70 Figure 71
Figure 73Figure 72
solidarity. From a reading of the thread of cartoons one senses no reticence in painting the
Saudis/Arabs as completely untrustworthy and either totally ambivalent towards or directly
undermining of US interests in the region. (Figures 68-69)
Thread Four: WMDs & “Rogue Actors”
As an extension of the Arab/Muslim personifications, the Arab spring and its consequences
for regional instability amidst the global drive for democratisation become more frequently
referenced. Lurking behind these conflict arenas is a larger discourse on global stability and
access and accountability for WMDs. With the threat of WMDs being sold into terrorist
hands, the personification of rogue actors is constantly reinforced.
The main players in regard to the future threat of WMD’s are George Bush’s “Axis of Evil”16—
Iran—which features with regularity as the next potential target of American/Israeli military
intervention (Figure 70), and North Korea as the nation that America is forestalling while
16. President George W. Bush in his State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002
46 47
dealing with other threats (Figure 70). Both
North Korea and Iran become the duplicitous
agents interested in selling nuclear arms to
terrorists. (Figures 72-73)
North Korea (with 18 cartoons) is
first depicted as a major threat with
characterisations that make it large and
ominous in scale visually. One cartoon early in
the discourse depicting North Korea as a giant
venomous snake about to strike while G.W.
Bush is focused on shooting Saddam Hussein
—depicted as a tiny snake.
Later references invert the imagery by
depicting Kim Jong as a tiny boy or a small
barking dog that gains attention by seeking
appeasement.
As the Arab spring takes hold the fate of
dictators is followed and speculation as to
where the conflicts will end is entered into.
The sense is one of “evil men getting their just
deserts” but is hemmed by the question being
asked by the Arabs in Figure 74—and rebutted
by Oliphant’s trade mark penguin (nicknamed
Punk). The sense of loss of control in the middle east becomes exacerbated by the inability of
democracy to take hold (Figure 74) and the rise of the Syrian conflict. (Figure 76).
By now America is much more war-weary and under Obama far more timid in international
unilateral actions. Like the background conversation in figure 76, the killing goes on amidst
the moral debate.
Figure 74
Figure 75
Figure 76
47
Figure 77
Outside of the Middle East and Europe the
only other nation that features significantly
in the political discourse is China, which
is characterised mainly as an economic
powerhouse that has come to dominate
America. (Figure 77)
The eighteen cartoons featuring China
display a strong sense of an aggressive and
militant state function, whereas one cartoon showing a Chinese runner at the Olympics being
pursued by a Chinese soldier—puts it “Winning isn’t everything, winning is the only thing” .
These singular discourses bind to form a grander view of Pax Americana.
This is the underlying theme of the discourse analysis in the following section.
48 49
And so once againOh, America my friend
And so once againYou are fighting us all
And when we ask you whyYou raise your sticks and cry and we fall
Oh, my friendHow did you come
To trade the fiddle for the drum
You say we have turnedLike the enemies you’ve earned
But we can rememberAll the good things you areAnd so we ask you please
Can we help you find the peace and the starOh my friend
We have all comeTo fear the beating of your drum
Joni Mitchell | Musician
49
Figure 78
In 1961 the U.S. Congress acknowledged what political cartoonists had known for years, that Uncle Sam was a
national symbol. Congress passed a resolution saluting “Uncle Sam Wilson of Troy, New York, as the progenitor of America’s
National symbol of Uncle Sam.”
50 51
Figure 79 The character of Brother Johnson was the per-eminient early personification of America. In this cartoon from Harpers Weekly in 1820 note the striped pants, tailed coat and top hat which all became features of the development of the Uncle Sam image.
Figure 80Uncle Sam comes to life in this first know
cartoon personifying him cutting up the symbolic state of Virginia at the onset of the
civil war.Harpers Weekly December 21 1861
Figure 81Uncle Sam sans the recognisable clothing but sporting the iconic goatee beard cuts up the thanksgiving turkey for a broad collective of nationalities represented at the “table of America” The cartoons title “Uncle Sam’s Thanksgiving Dinner; Come One, Come All, Free and Equal.” speaks pointedly at the spirit of freedom and equality. Harpers Weekly November 20 1869
51
UNCLE SAM
Uncle Sam is of course the quintessential personification of America. While there is some
robust debate on the exact origins of the character, most sources attribute it to anecdotal
evidence around Samuel Wilson, who was a major supplier of food to the US Army. While
generally accepted as fact, some strong points of argument suggest other alternatives.17
Of note, is the fact that early references to Uncle Sam were apparent in “Peace Papers”
opposing the 1812 war. This may indicate that the first incarnations were designed as a
criticism of Government and would give credence to differing anecdotes about the name
origins being a jibe at the letters USLD (United States Light Dragoons) on the cap of a soldier
who when asked, said they stood for “Uncle Sam’s Lazy Dogs”. Even this would suggest that
“Uncle Sam” was already a recognised reference to the state.
By the early-mid 1800s Sam had become a common representation of American government
supplanting the commonly used image of “Brother Johnathon” (See Figure 79)
The first recognised publication of Sam as a unique character was in an earlier edition of
Harpers Weekly in 1860. (Figure 80) Note the early origins of the clothing—decked out with
the patriotic symbolism of the stars and stripes. What is probably more important than the
origin is the rapid metamorphosis into a representation of the “American Spirit”.
A slightly later cartoon by
Thomas Nast shows Sam not just as
representative of the Government
but representative of the “Spirit
of America” (Figure 81) carving
up the dinner for all the gathered
guests of numerous nationalities.
The modern version took
17. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/621/whats-the-origin-of-uncle-sam
Figure 83Figure 82
52 53
substantive root with the build up to and outbreak
of the First World War. The iconic poster (Figure 78)
was the work of James Flagg (1877-1960) and was an
Americanised version of the English recruiting poster
of Kitchener (Figure 82)
Another likely influence may well have been the
English personification of “John Bull”—also used as a
war recruitment figure. (Figure 83) and an established
personification of England.
By the onset of WW1 Sam’s image was well and truly
cemented as the personification of America. (Figure 84)
While the image was used for wartime recruitment
and as an appeal to patriotic feelings to support
the war effort (Figure 85, 86) its real value as a
source of discourse analysis lies in it’s non-partisan
representation of America.
Uncle Sam represents US Government but not a
political party—it may be more correct to say he
represents the American people’s expectation of
government, closely linked to the constitutional
understanding of freedom, liberty and justice.
The iconic nature of the image has
of course been co-opted as a device
to advertise any number of concepts
and products, but the force of such
usage relies on the retention of the
foundational meme of meaning
“Patriotic America” or “the spirit of
America” (Figures 87-90)
Figure 86
Figure 85
Figure 84
53
Figure 87
Figure 88
Figure 89
Different constituents adopt the imagery for leverage and promotion of their own particular
propaganda but the contextual meaning always seems to resonate around the appeal to
“goodness” and “freedom”. Even when employed
by a particular political party (Figure 90), it still
supersedes the partisan by appealing to a higher
order of “right”, patriotic duty for the good of the
country.
In many cases it is used with ironic intent
which re-contextualises the interpretation for a
target audience (Figure 91). Even here where Sam
represents the corruption of government, his image
still retains an appeal to the moral foundations of
governance.
Figure 90
Figure 91
54 55
Uncle Sam in the works of Oliphant
With the saturated recognition of Uncle Sam as representative of greater America, it comes
as no surprise that directly after the terrorist attack of 9/11 he appears in the very first of
Oliphant’s cartoons post event. (Figure 92) published on the 13th September, four days after
the attack.
Here as we might expect is the American icon revisiting earlier incarnations of wartime
imagery, rolling up his sleeves. (Figure 94) Once again America dresses itself with the discourse
of righteous anger. It is the same contextual message of Figure 94—a poster from WW2
designed to send a message to Japan after Pearl Harbour, as well as the comic book cover
from the same period (Figure 95). It speaks to the American people of the heritage of might
and to the enemies of America as a direct threat. It is an image of Sam that can be found
recurrently as an iconic pose.
Understandably the image has a weighty resonance and helps set the stage for the national
rhetoric of a powerful military response. The smoking rubble of the World Trade Centers is a
hurting “black eye” against the nation, setting the frame that no other response is appropriate.
One could image an alternate framing where Sam is sitting up somewhat dazed with a black-
eye—allowing the question to be asked “what was the justification for the attack?”
Having framed the stage, or maybe just reflected the stage that existed as a natural reaction
to such an event, it remains to be seen how
the national psyche develops over the span of
conflict in this new war.
The second cartoon published by Oliphant
(Figure 93 - published on the 17th September
2001) is equally telling in a rather prescient
manner. Sam stands firmly grounded, sword
in hand and warning the patriotic civilian
(wearing the T-shirt tagged “civil liberties”) behind him, to “Watch out for the backswing kid”
Figure 93
55
Figure 92
Figure 94
Figure 95
56 57
Oliphant recognises that the significance of this conflict is going to impinge upon the
American public in ways that are yet to be determined. The scene clearly gives the impression
that this is a big-boys’ fight—read Government responsibility, therefore civilians would be
best to stand clear and not interfere with policy matters. A warning that could be read as
either a challenge to citizens to be aware of the danger of loss of civil liberties or as a message
that part of the price you pay for instigating a military action is a necessary curtailing of civil
liberties. Either way, in retrospect to the legacy of the war on terror, citizens have had to face
significant liberty issues from the increased security screening for travellers to the invasive
privacy issues and the detainment and torture of prisoners. Once again the framing may well
be an accurate perception of the situation at the time, but inherent in it is the patriotic appeal
to silence civil society and keep citizens subjugated to the halls of power.
The next cartoon featuring Sam brings to the
surface the state of controversy the country
finds itself in as it debates an appropriate
response. (Figure 96) Aptly titled “Sam has two
brothers and a sister”, we see the main figure of
the cartoon, Uncle Sam dressed in a military
uniform with his bags packed and on the road
to conflict. He is tasked with the hard work while the rest of the nation still debates the issues
on the couch. The two other “Uncle Sams” are depicted as quarreling liberal and conservative
voices respectively, and with the added religious voice (the little sister) seen as holding a
diminutive and confused opinion. Oliphant’s little penguin figure expresses the sense of a
dysfunctional family meeting where nothing can be easily agreed upon. It carries the tone
of a call for a united rational response to support the military action for which Sam No.1 is
committed. An added sense of exasperation is intoned by Sam’s comment “I’ll see you folks
after the long haul”. America seems divided on politics, but committed to an action that is
neither quick nor easy.
Figure 96
57
Sam’s next appearance is at the end of
November 2001. (Figure 97) The Christmas
season gears up, invoking a sense of gratitude
to the domestic services that dealt with the
9/11 tragedy. Sam is seen shaking hands with
a fireman18 in front of the smoldering remains
of the twin towers. Inherent in the message
is the states commitment to a solidarity with
the nation, in respect to the lives lost and the sacrifices and services of its citizens.
When we next see Sam it is in connection with the troop presence in Afghanistan, it is April
2002. Sam remains staunchly representative
of a just America on a mission to liberate
and bring democracy but is beginning to
feel undermined by the drug economy of
warlords. The irony of the Western appetite
for opioids feeding a demand for production,
in large part due to the retreat of the Taliban,
which was a consequence of American
intervention. Again, Punk the penguin nails the discourse in case we miss it. Afghanistan
is rewarding America for ridding the Taliban by gifting it a drug problem. The drug money
becoming a conduit for armaments to be
used against America by the “evil” Afghan.
In the same month a second cartoon appears
(Figure 99)—Sam now sans the military
uniform, is benevolently bringing democracy
and freedom, however the perception is that
18. Firemen in particular were elevated as the heroic public service figures on the front line of rescue events particularly in regard to the twin towers collapse.
Figure 97
Figure 98
Figure 99
58 59
it is a wasted exercise as the recipients are armed to the teeth, happily receiving whatever
America may give but with no intention of developing a civil, liberal democratic society.
America is not an invading army or occupying force—it is a agent of peace, liberty and
justice—It is after all—Uncle Sam.
Four months later in August of 2002 there is a serious examination going on as to who is
really behind the attack. Afghanistan it seems
is an insufficient target to get the message
across that no-one messes with America.
While Osama Bin Laden was the key target,
the tracing of the operatives’ connections and
movements has begun to cast a wider net.
America wants to know the truth and holds
deep suspicions. With the revelation that
15 of the 19 terrorists were citizens of Saudi
Arabia (Figure 100) a nation considered a US
ally, Sam is justifying his tolerance while the
real message is the daggers in his back and
the sniggering Arab figures. This is the second
appearance of the Saudis post 9/11, the first
cartoon (Figure 21, pg 29) has already set them
up as a deeply duplicitous stereotype and now we see this discourse reinforced.
In Figure 101 he now waits patiently for an apology. The Saudi group are huddled together and
appear secretive and unwilling to engage with America. To confirm the take-home message,
Oliphant’s penguin is being accosted by aggressive Arab stereotypes claiming they know
nothing about a Trade Centre. America is deeply sceptical that the Saudi Government could
not know about the indigenous terrorism networks. The question of allegiance is compounded
by American oil dependence and a legitimising need for (Arab/Muslim) alliance partners.
By February 2003, the focus extends now to Bush’s determination to implicate Saddam
Figure 100
Figure 101
59
Figure 102
Figure 103
Hussein (Figure 102). Uncle Sam is now feeling
like a blind man being led unwillingly and in
grave danger of becoming a casualty. Again a
rather prescient cartoon capturing the reality
of the situation in retrospect. The American
public somewhat in the dark as to what
was or was not intelligence and “patriotic”
discourse preventing any space for leverage of
any alternate discourse to inform policy. The dog (George Bush) has sniffed the cat (Saddam
Hussein) and nothing is going to prevent the US being dragged into the path of the “eighteen
wheeler”.
There is a public relations victory in March of
2003 when Sam appears as the major partner
with ally Pakistan holding up the head of Al
Qaeda operative Shaikh Mohammed who
was captured at the time in Pakistan. (Figure
103). CNN reported that “The White House
commended the arrests, calling Mohammed
one of Osama bin Laden’s “most senior and
significant lieutenants, [and] a key al Qaeda planner and the mastermind of the September 11th
attacks.” The US State Department had offered up to $25 million for information leading to
Mohammed’s arrest.”19
The tone of the cartoon reinforces Americas need for local allies in the fight against extreme
terrorism as pictured by the multiheaded hydra. The implication of the discourse is that
Pakistan is both a willing and able ally, a strong and committed friend of the US. The reality
was Pakistan was the “meat in the sandwich” caught between local ideologies and largely
bullied into compliance as an ally by political threat of economic sanction. Caught in the
19. http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/01/pakistan.arrests/
60 61
Figure 104
Figure 105
middle of George Bush’s “You are either for us or against us” rhetoric, and largely dependent
on US aid, yet as a sovereign state, built with a high constituency of anti-American, armed and
militant sentiment.20 In reality Pakistan was a “bought Ally, with no hegemony on stable State
power” which rendered the relationship tense at a very fundamental level and which was to
prove exasperating to US efforts later in the decade.
By late April an emergent picture of the
Afghani discourse is becoming clear. Now Sam
has “boots on the ground” having effectively
bombed al Qaeda and the Taliban into a
diaspora. The newly liberated Afghan (Figure
104) is positively self-defeatist. America
has come to help but the local mentality
seems ungrateful and even resentful. Sam
is reinforcing the goodness of US intentions by informing the self flagellating local that at
least now they have the freedom to be self-defeating. America has bought them freedom,
a little help rebuilding the country would be
appreciated.
Later in April Sam is challenged by a North
Korea threat. (part of the George Bush’s “axis
of evil”) During 2003 North Korea had ceased
to be a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. North Korea is drawn as aggressive but
diminutive - posing no real threat—and Uncle
Sam is an appeasing donor. Contextually the cartoon seems to reflect the sense that US citizens
are being manipulated by Korean threats and works on a level of irony—Sam capitulating out
of his good nature, essentially humouring a wayward child.
The sense of manipulation of the American people is again visited when Sam appears as the
hand puppet of George Bush in Figure 106. Africa is suffering and Bush is shown looking for
20. http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/us-pakistan-relations-common-and-clashing-interests
61
ways to boost his vote demographic by foreign
policy initiatives. It’s a political manipulation
of Sam’s image which has consequences for
international perceptions of US integrity.
Foreign policy initiatives—whether
providing aid or using drones becomes the
main measure of the discourse whereby the
international community assesses America.
We judge others by their actions but ourselves by our intent. When a nation’s actions are
construed to be motivated by corrupt intent (Pharmaceuticals for market profiteering or drone
strikes as illegal breaches of sovereignty) the stage is set for a complete breakdown of trust.
From here on with the discourse around the image of America (Uncle Sam), we see an
accelerated decline in how he is portrayed. From the outset he was always robust, pragmatic
and dignified by moral attributes. As fallout from the Afghani and Iraqi conflicts continues
to mount and the American domestic economy begins to feel the challenge of mounting debt,
the feedback loop of discourse, nationally
and internationally can be seen to be taking
its toll.
The recurrence of the relationship with
Israel and diplomatic efforts by America to
broker peace are highlighted by consistent
framing of the difficulty. (Figure 107) What
is of interest is the diminutive scale of Sam
in the context of the setting. Israel has just
killed the Hamas leader (front page of the
paper being read by the soldier) and Sam
is left with a road to nowhere—courtesy of
Israel. One year later (August 2004) and we
can juxtapose this with the next cartoon
Figure 106
Figure 107
Figure 108
62 63
featuring Israel and Sam (Figure 109). Sam is on his home ground and Israel is portrayed
as the untrained dog urinating on America. Sam’s response is “What? again??!!” in disbelief.
America’s powers of diplomacy seem to be constantly thwarted by miscreants.
At a deeper level however, all is not well—
as the interim cartoon (Figure 109, May
2004) reveals, the issue of torture, rendition
and human rights abuses by US soldiers is
on the agenda. Sam is standing somewhat
horrified at the revelation of these abuses
while comparison is made to the similarity
of tactics used by Saddam Hussein. As the
penguin mentions to reinforce the fall from grace “How we lost the moral high ground—If we
ever had it” . A re-evaluation of America’s moral authority will haunt Sam for his remaining
appearances in this cohort of cartoons.
John Bolton’s election as the ambassador to
the UN is construed as a further embarrassment
for America at a time when UN support was
badly needed for internationally legitimising
US actions. (Figure 110)
Bolton was America’s main representative
in negotiating avoidance of subjection to the
International Criminal Court on constitutional
grounds. He also led the US efforts in derailing the endorsement of a UN resolution to enforce
the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention. His own opinion of the UN was best expressed in
this quote:
“(...) there is no United Nations... there is an international community that occasionally can
be led by the only real power left in the world, and that´s the United States, when it suits our
Figure 109
Figure 110
63
Figure 111
Figure 112
interests, and when we can get others to go along.”21 It may be what the Administration was
thinking but it didn’t make for good diplomatic relations on the international stage, and Sam
is suitably embarrassed.
By now we can sense that Uncle Sam is
feeling the pressure of both domestic and
international opinion. The jail at Guantanamo
has become another embarrassment of
America’s moral authority. Joseph Stalin, the
notorious dictator of the Soviet era gives some
advice on the legacy of history. As friendly
advice he infers the world forgets history and
the “enemy” doesn’t even qualify as human. The message is of course indicative of where
America is potentially heading and the penguin explains the pathway—via the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act (Acronym for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 200122) created an atmosphere of
“big brother” where transparency of Government and the threat to civil liberties became part
of the larger nation’s discourse. America is mirroring it’ cold war rival.
Sam’s relationship with Russia is visited
again with the next cartoon. (Figure 112)
The nostalgic memory of a more clear-cut
world order, where power was dichotomously
balanced is now challenged by a world that
is more complicated as nuclear weapons
proliferate among smaller rogue labeled
nations. The penguin again adds the ironic
21. Bolton, John (February 3, 1994). “John Bolton on the United Nations”. Gouda. Retrieved 2012-08-19 | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton
22. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/html/PLAW-107publ56.htm
64 65
truth that the good ol’ days were in fact a balance of terror. Nuclear threat was always nuclear
threat, irrespective of the players.
In Figure 113, as the war in Iraq drags
on Oliphant revisits a former cartoon
where Sam was taking up the call to arms
against Afghanistan (Figure 96). Now it is a
reassessment of what America is thinking and
the “family dysfunction” is further entrenched.
It is a picture of a non-united states, divided by
strong debate and with no clear direction. Iraq
is now only one of many threats to the sense of coherent social order, with global warming
debates/immigration and sexual-orientation issues making Sam feel decidedly uncomfortable.
One of the last images of Sam posed in a position of dignity and strength is in fact an ironic
take of America’s recent legacy. (Figure 114)
Here he is shown reassuring the people of
Cuba that America will bring them democracy.
The horrified look on the citizens faces is mute
testimony that America has failed dismally in
previous endeavours. The contextual message
is the last thing Cuba needs is American help.
By 2008 the legacy of the Republican government and George Bush’s track record has
become the last straw. Sam is firing Bush for the damage done to Americas reputation (Figure
115). Sam is stripped of his dignity. A place of deep anger sets up the presidential transition to
Obama. The early cartoons depicting Obama (see Figure 34) ascribe an almost messianic awe
and a romantic hope for the nation. Oliphant captures the feeling of America with the new
president inviting him back to join the world. Sam is looking despondent on the park bench,
Figure 113
Figure 114
65
just a glimmer of hope in the deadpan eyes.
Hope is rather short lived as Obama
faces the 2009 financial crisis. The bail-out
of bankers and industry is seen as deeply
problematic and begins the discourse string
whereby American citizens are increasingly
depicted as living in extreme poverty while
bankers and business representatives are
constantly framed as wallowing pigs, as fat
and opulent party-goers or hungry sharks.
(Figures 115, 116). Both Sam and Obama are
seen as victims of business interests bleeding
the nation.
Obama has inherited the conflicts in
Afghanistan as well as Iraq and while looking
for an exit strategy from Iraq the complexities
hark back to that other earlier American
military disaster—Vietnam. (Figure 118)
Uncle Sam wants out and there is distinct
impatience with a president to do something
about it.
Further embarrassment is heaped upon
Uncle Sam in 2010 when documents from
Wikileaks exposed the diplomatic discourse
taking place. Sam is backed into a corner
(Figure 119) where moral perception demands
he expresses deep concern yet as Hamid
Karzai replies “these leaks tell me nothing
Figure 115
Figure 116
Figure 117
Figure 118
66 67
we both didn’t already know” In other words
public perceptions of corrupt government
were already implicitly understood and
didn’t really come as a surprise. This further
delitigimisation of Government underscores
the increasingly fragile appearance of Uncle
Sam.
2010 has already taken a severe toll on
America’s confidence and this is underscored
by Sam’s appearance in relation to global
economic activity and standing. (Figure 120)
Sam’s grand appearance has become almost
an historic memory as he struggles upon a
Chinese built bicycle to compete with the
Asian (China) economy and manufacturing
prowess and then in Figure 121 appearing as a
museum piece against the global community.
America seems to be developing a fear of
being left behind in a new global rebalancing.
An interesting occurrence of Sam during
this period is in Figure 122. Here in tow with
Obama, Sam is seen as a completely naive
country bumpkin loaded with huge piles
of cash wandering into a seedy looking old
western style bar. The opening introduction
uses an idiom to set the foundational
interpretation of the situation—“Falling off
Figure 119
Figure 121
Figure 122
Figure 120
67
the turnip truck” which is an American English idiom defined by UsingEnglish.com23 as: If
someone has just fallen off the turnip truck, they are uninformed, naive and gullible. The group
of unscrupulous characters are not readily identifiable but is consistent with revelations of
huge levels of profiteering and disappearing funds in relation to the wars and business dealings
of Government at the time. The message seems to be the American public are being taken
for dummies. That taxpayer dollars are essentially being looted by profiteers and Obama by
implication is not equipped to deal with it. The grand dream of America’s black messiah seems
to be slipping with time and realisation of the magnitude of America’s plight.
In a continuation of the linked theme of
Obama and Sam being together in the plight
(as opposed to the diametrical framing of
Sam with George Bush) Figure 123 finds
them both at a bus stop labelled “Statas Quo”
The situation is the Egyptian revolution and
the Egyptian president, Murabak is cowering
between Sam and Obama, the population
have run ahead, change will happen with or without America’s support or direction. Like the
cartoon of Sam on the bike—the world moves forward with scant regard for the superpower.
By Figure 124 in March of 2011, Sam is about
ready to give up on supporting democracy-
building. A very tired looking Sam mans
the help desk for the Middle East, besieged
by people wanting a handout or assistance.
The sign above the window is telling in that
it purposefully tries to divorce the foreign
actions of the American government with
23. http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/fall+off+the+turnip+truck.html
Figure 123
Figure 124
68 69
the sentiments of the American people. By saying that the “help desk” is not in any way
affiliated with the US it suggests that there is a disconnect with what the people of America
want—in reads like a subtle message to terrorists—if you don’t agree with American foreign
policy or actions don’t target ordinary American citizens who may well disagree with what’s
happening as well.
Events in 2011 continue to add to the feeling
of a failing America. (Figure 125) Sam leads an
archaic train towing a mothballed shuttle to a
museum, vainly waving a tiny stars and stripes.
The penguin adds the comment underscoring
the loss of American vision and innovation,
when asked “How will you get to Mars?” he
replies “Hitchhike”.
Even the concept of truth and justice as
underpinning of the American way come into
disrepute (Figure 126) as Sam at home reads
the paper about the death penalty in a very
dubious case. He lampoons the slave-trade-
era lawyer who twists logic to justify an errant
position. Its seems to be the “nail in the coffin” for Sam’s legitimate claim to American virtue.
Reinforcing the old adage that the rats
are first to leave the sinking ship—the
next cartoon (Figure 127) shows congress
abandoning the sinking ship of American
citizens. The rich and powerful have and
an ‘out’, the passengers (citizens) are left to
fend for themselves and Sam makes one last
righteous and angry response—calling them
Figure 125
Figure 126
Figure 127
69
back to take responsibility. Interestingly Obama is absent, suggesting that he too is a victim of
a governmental system of manipulative elites.
International pressures continue to besiege
America and in particular in 2012 with Israel
pushing for pre-emptive strikes on Iran’s
nuclear programme. Sam is seen (Figure 128)
as an impotent partner tied unequivocally to
the armaments, either as a supplier of arms or
as a sanctioning ally for Israel. This is not an
issue Sam can avoid and so he appears again
a month later (21/03/2012) as the battered
fighter in the ring egged on by Israel’s Prime
Minister—Netanyahu. Sam’s last stand as
an international force and he is setup as the
punching bag—a proxy force in someone
else’s war.
The final year of the sequence and the
discourse can’t be interpreted as anything
other than a death spiral for Uncle Sam.
The economic crisis seems to be terminal.
(Figure 130) Sam is bedridden and on a drip.
Even Europe, a party which has never had a
discursive affinity to America is seen giving
his condolences while admitting his own part
in the fiscal chaos and global instability.
Recovered enough to get back to work and
Sam is cleaning windows. (Figure 131) but it
Figure 128
Figure 129
Figure 130
Figure 131
70 71
is window dressing for the rich and powerful,
polishing the corporate tower while the very
mechanism of Government collapses. The
penguin ensures we “get it” by reinforcing
Obama’s statement about the private sector
doing well. Certain rich sectors are in control
of their self-interests, America is just an
employee.
By September 2012 Sam is all but drowning. (Figure 132) and the Government (represented
by the Ben Benanke24 fishing club) stands idly by wondering why Sam can’t sort his fiscal
problems.
The final picture featuring Uncle Sam is the
prescient view of his demise. Vainly imploring
politician Mitch McConnell—to respond to
a debt ceiling crisis. While America survived
that round it continues to face debt issues with
the potential to cripple the economy.
It is December 2012 and Sam has covered a lot of miles since standing up to fight the terrorist
enemy just days after 9/11. The global war on terror—euphemistically framed as operation
freedom, a response to the terror attacks that killed 2996 and injured a further 2,97725 has
resulted in a further estimated loss of at least 10,000 US lives with a further 60,000 US injuries,
well over 100,000 Iraqi deaths26 of which at least 60,000 were civilians and anywhere between
20,000 and 60,000 Afghanis27, and more than 2,000 Pakistanis. This is compounded with a
nation-crippling economic cost that beggars belief.
We are left with what appears in the traverse of this discourse to be the unravelling of
America.
24. The chairman of the federal reserve25. Not including long term residual casualties from event health related issues26. Staff writer (October 23, 2010). “Iraq War Logs: What the Numbers Reveal”. Iraq Body Count. Retrieved November 20,
2010. | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror27. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/20/afghanistan.comment
Figure 132
Figure 133
71
Conclusion
The theoretical underpinnings of this dissertation lie within the boundaries of discourse
theory when applied to a specific media stream. The political cartoon can give a robust string
of discourse that is intrinsically tied to the national psyche via its continued reference to
significant news of the day.
Pat Oliphant has provided an uninterrupted commentary on American politics and a
window into how America perceives itself since the mid 1960s. From within the substantial
body of work a multitude of commentaries on various topics emerge on life in America and
how political leadership and policy interfaces with the general population. It does create a
longitudinal snapshot of a nation’s perceptions.
While not a conclusive pointer, it does correlate with other threads of media reflection
and commentary. While America remains the exclusive superpower in terms of military
dominance, a fact not likely to change in the near future—its domestic coherence seems
increasingly fragile. The large question is the question of patterns of empire?28 This is an
extensive debate with both macro-historical and micro-variable contingencies.
Has America followed the common pattern of military overstretch so commonly associated
with the decline of hegemonic powers?
By asking these questions we can say that, yes political cartoon analysis does add to the
picture, not in an empiric sense but as a minor contribution to the thick understanding of the
world’s most powerful nation.
28. See: Kennedy, Paul, The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, New York: Vintage Books, 1987. ISBN 0679-720197 also Julian Go, Patterns of Empire: The British and American Empires, 1688 to the Present
72 73
73
APPENDIX 1: Sample cartoon analysis
Figure 134
Methodology: A sample cartoon analysis.
The first element of cartoon analysis requires a situating of the cartoon. The political cartoon
is referencing something that is topical at the time of publication. Using Figure 134 as our test
template, in this case the cartoon is dated 22nd January 2002, the author is Pat Oliphant, a well
circulated and popular cartoonist based in America. Its primary audience is the American
public. It is syndicated cartoon so owes no particular allegiance to any specific publisher but
is possibly constrained in content by what may be interpreted as generic editorial boundaries
(what any particular publisher feels they can safely do without alienating public opinion and
advertisers). However one can immediately sense the controversial nature of the subject by
the attitudes and depiction of the characters. It is not a “safe” cartoon, but a strong statement
about a political/ethical situation.
A brief search of news items from America at that specific time juncture reveals that
the first 20 prisoners of the US military were taken to the Guantanamo Jail on January
11th29(Washington Post). Further research on the history of Guantanamo gives some specific
29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#cite_note-Wapo020111-2
74 75
insights into the controversies in the media at the time. It was a prison camp set up specifically
for detainees (prisoners) of the declared “war on terror”. Significant legal issues concerning
human rights made it a highly controversial political decision. America was still hurting and
angry over the 9/11 attack and determined to pursue the network(s) of terrorism they felt
were responsible.
There was a political discourse that was weighted towards the expediency of American
justice. By framing the fight against terrorism as a clear and present danger there was a
justification for “whatever was necessary” to prevent further terror attacks. The baddies were
seen as beyond human rights. American political posturing demanded a hardball solution
to getting answers and preventing further attacks and was accepting of potential “collateral
damage” from the process.
Out of this context (political events and US audience) we can begin to see what the cartoonist
is trying to say and we can begin to make sense of who the various characters symbolise and
appreciate how their representations feed into the intended message.
The obvious link to current events is the depiction of the Guantanamo prison. While it is
obviously a prison, it is euphemistically labeled as a country club and day care centre. The
detainees are stereotypically depicted as Afghani/Muslim terrorists, demanding not just
human rights but “five-star hotel service”. The American Govt. (or by proxy the American
people) are seen as respectable society servants—not only granting prisoners basic human
rights but giving them levels of treatment that far exceed anything that would be expected in
a reciprocal position. This is reinforced by Oliphant’s trademark penguin having a separate
discussion with a detainee. The prisoner declares he’s never had such service, and the penguin
replies “I’d bet on that” It’s a tacit understanding that American respect for human rights
exceeds that of the enemies by a country mile. The intrusion of a ‘bolshie’ looking red cross
nurse (identified by the hat) as a contender on behalf of prisoner rights is seen as an insult to
America’s pursuit of justice. Not only is this person making an unwelcome noise about what is
going on, they are expecting America to act with pity and mercy by describing the prisoners as
‘poor boys’. The tenor of the message is not as we would expect, an exposure of human rights
abuses, but rather a reinforcement of the discourse around the inhumanness of the enemy.
75
This interpretation then gives warrant to keyword the cartoon for the purpose of locating
and referencing it against any others in the larger discourse on terrorism or human rights.
In the case of this cartoon I would keyword with the following terms:
22, January, 2002, Oliphant, Guantanamo, prisoners, Afghan, prisoner, human rights, red
cross, terrorism, war on terror, Muslim, Infidel, law, justice.
Other keywords could be used with equal validity but to retain consistency need to be
applied across the range of images used and be in accord with the framework of the discourse
being pursued. In other words as an artist I could keyword it quite differently with a focus
on what elements have been used: Thus terms like butler, nurse, cage, penguin, island would
be more appropriate and generate meaning if I were to be searching for a discourse on
anthropomorphism or symbolism.
Having extracted and transcribed as much content meaning as possible, it then gives the
cartoon a location in the discourse. By linking it to other cartoons with similar thematics over
time, a discourse picture is built up of attitudinal changes or shifts that might be happening
within a society. In this case a specific search for “Guantanamo” in the cartoon cohort reveals
the following four cartoons. (By adding “torture” and “prison” to the key word search a further
28 cartoons are added to the string.)
76 77
77
APPENDIX 2: List of figures
Figure 1: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 September 2006Figure 2: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 January 2005Figure 3: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 February 2006Figure 4: Pat Oliphant, Dated 2 September 2003Figure 5: Luckovich, Dated 3 November 2008Figure 6: John Murdoch, Dated 20 May 2009Figure 7: Pat Bagley, Dated 2007Figure 8: Mike Luckovich, Dated ?Figure 9: Tom Fluharty, Dated 2010Figure 10: Dave Granlund, Dated 27 June 2012Figure 11: Peter Brookes, Dated 3 December 2010Figure 12: Anti semetic cartoon - “Sucked dry” Der Stürmer, 1930Figure 13: Heath, Dated 29 May1992Figure 14: Press Photo, Approx. 7 June 2013Figure 15: Can Cardow, Dated 21 March 2011Figure 16: Pat Oliphant, Dated 25 March 2010Figure 17: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 October 2001Figure 18: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 December 2001Figure 19: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 December 2001Figure 20: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 August 2006Figure 21: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 October 2001Figure 22: Pat Oliphant, Dated 2 April 2003Figure 23: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 May 2011Figure 24: Pat Oliphant, Dated 6 November 2001Figure 25: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 June 2002Figure 26: Pat Oliphant, Dated 19 November 2001Figure 27: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 August 2004Figure 28: Pat Oliphant, Dated 7 August 2002Figure 29: Pat Oliphant, Dated 17 June 2002Figure 30: Pat Oliphant, Dated 30 August 2003Figure 31: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 October 2003Figure 32: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 February 2004Figure 33: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 August 2006Figure 34: Pat Oliphant, Dated 23 October 2006Figure 35: Pat Oliphant, Dated 25 January 201Figure 36: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 December 2008Figure 37: Pat Oliphant, Dated 26 January 2010Figure 38: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 January 2003Figure 39: Pat Oliphant, Dated 25 May 2004Figure 40: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 September 2009Figure 41: Pat Oliphant, Dated 27 November 2006Figure 42: Pat Oliphant, Dated 8 December 2009Figure 43: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 October 2001Figure 44: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 April 2002Figure 45: Pat Oliphant, Dated 1 September 2009Figure 46: Pat Oliphant, Dated 9 June 201Figure 47: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 March 2012Figure 48: Pat Oliphant, Dated 7 October 2002Figure 49: Pat Oliphant, Dated 9 December 2002Figure 50: Pat Oliphant, Dated 12 September 2002Figure 51: Pat Oliphant, Dated 15 April 2003Figure 52: Pat Oliphant, Dated 23 April 2005
78 79
APPENDIX 2: List of figures
Figure 53: Pat Oliphant, Dated 8 October 2005Figure 54: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 June 2005Figure 55: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 November 2006Figure 56: Pat Oliphant, Dated 20 December 2011Figure 57: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 November 2002Figure 58: Pat Oliphant, Dated 1 May 2002Figure 59: Pat Oliphant, Dated 5 September 2003Figure 60: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 February 2007Figure 61: Pat Oliphant, Dated 9 March 2011Figure 62: Pat Oliphant, Dated 17 April 2003Figure 63: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 October 2008Figure 64: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 October 2002Figure 65: Pat Oliphant, Dated 18 April 2002Figure 66: Pat Oliphant, Dated 30 August 2004Figure 67: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 May 2011Figure 68: Pat Oliphant, Dated 2 January 2002Figure 69: Pat Oliphant, Dated 5 August 2003Figure 70: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 April 2006Figure 71: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 February 2005Figure 72: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 September 2009Figure 73: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 October 2006Figure 74: Pat Oliphant, Dated 2 March 2005Figure 75: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 October 2011Figure 76: Pat Oliphant, Dated 28 February 2012Figure 77: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 January 2010Figure 78: Uncle Sam - WW1 recruitment poster, J.M. Flagg, 1917Figure 79: Brother Johnson, Harpers Weekly, 1820 Figure 80: Early Uncle Sam, Harpers Weekly December 21, 1861Figure 81: Uncle Sam’s Thanksgiving Dinner; Come One, Come All, Free and Equal.” Harpers Weekly November 20 1869Figure 82: WW1 British recruitment poster, Alfred Leete.Figure 83: WW1 “John Bull” British recruiting poster.Figure 84: Patriotic Empire poster, 1918Figure 85: WW1 US Government investment posterFigure 86: WWI Department of Agriculture posterFigure 87: Contemporary American tee shirtFigure 88: Product packaging, Yakima Valley ApplesFigure 89: Product packaging, CerealFigure 90: Political party campaign badges.Figure 91: Contemporary posterFigure 92: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 September 2001Figure 93: Pat Oliphant, Dated 17 September 2001Figure 94: American WW2 PosterFigure 95: American Comic book cover circa. WW2Figure 96: Pat Oliphant, Dated 31 October 2001Figure 97: Pat Oliphant, Dated 20 November 2001Figure 98: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 April 2002Figure 99: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 April 2002Figure 100: Pat Oliphant, Dated 12 August 2002Figure 101: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 September 2002Figure 102: Pat Oliphant, Dated 26 February 2003Figure 103: Pat Oliphant, Dated 4 March 2003Figure 104: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 March 2003
79
APPENDIX 2: List of figures
Figure 105: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 March 2003Figure 106: Pat Oliphant, Dated 7 July 2003Figure 107: Pat Oliphant, Dated 26 August 2003Figure 108: Pat Oliphant, Dated 30 August 2004Figure 109: Pat Oliphant, Dated 4 May 2004Figure 110: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 April 2005Figure 111: Pat Oliphant, Dated 6 June 2005Figure 112: Pat Oliphant, Dated 17 January 2006Figure 113: Pat Oliphant, Dated 26 June 2006Figure 114: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 August 2006Figure 115: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 October 2008Figure 116: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 April 2009Figure 117: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 September 2009Figure 118: Pat Oliphant, Dated 1 September 2009Figure 119: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 January 2012Figure 120: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 January 2010Figure 121: Pat Oliphant, Dated 12 October 2010Figure 122: Pat Oliphant, Dated 28 July 2010Figure 123: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 February 2011Figure 124: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 March 2011Figure 125: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 July 2011Figure 126: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 September 2011Figure 127: Pat Oliphant, Dated 25 December 2012Figure 128: Pat Oliphant, Dated 7 February 2012Figure 129: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 March 2012Figure 130: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 April 2012Figure 131: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 June 2012Figure 132: Pat Oliphant, Dated 5 September 2012Figure 133: Pat Oliphant, Dated 4 December 2012Figure 134: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 January 2002
80 81
81
Bibliography
Benjamin Bergen, (2003 ) To Awaken a Sleeping Giant: Cognition and Culture in September 11 Political Cartoons, Language, Culture, and Mind. Michel Achard and Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), CSLI Publications.
Carl, L. M. (1970). Political cartoons: ‘ink blots’ of the editorial page., Journal of Popular Culture, 4(1), 39.
Daniel Hammett & Charles Mather, Juana I. Mari´N-Arrese, (2008) Cognition and culture in political cartoons, Intercultural Pragmatics 5-1 Beyond Decoding: Political Cartoons in the Classroom
Elisabeth El Refaie, (2009) Multiliteracies: how readers interpret political cartoons, Visual Communication 8: 181
Elizabeth Swain, (2012) Analysing evaluation in political cartoons, Discourse, Context & Media 182–94
Fauconnier, G, & Turner, M. (2002) The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Ilan Danjoux, Lines in the Sand: A Cartoon Analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Doctoral Thesis, University of Manchester
Ilan Danjoux, (2005) Political Cartoons and Conflict: Revealing shifts in the Israeli Palestinian Conflict, Centre for International Politics University of Manchester
Joan L. Conners, (1998) Hussein as Enemy: The Persian GulfWar in Political Cartoons, The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 3: 96
Katz H. (2004 ) An Historic Look at Political Cartoons. Nieman Reports. Winter 2004;58(4):44-46. Communication & Mass Media Complete, Ipswich, MA.
Kövecses, Z. (2002) Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edition, ed. A. Ortony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2001) Unpublished ms. September 11, http://www.press.uchicago.edu/News/911lakoff.html
Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson, (1980) Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
Martin J Medhurst, Michael Desousa, (1981) Political Cartoons as Rhetorical Form: A Taxonomy of Graphic Discourse, Communication Monographs Volume 48, September 1981
Matthew Diamond (2002) No Laughing Matter: Post-September 11 Political Cartoons in Arab/Muslim Newspapers, Political Communication, 19:2, 251-272, DOI: 10.1080/10584600252907470
Ray Morris, Visual Rhetoric in Political Cartoons: A Stucturalist Approach, Metaphor And Symbolic Activity 8(3), 195-210
Roger Fisher, (1996) Those Damned Pictures: Explorations in American Cartoon Art, Archon.
82 83
Scott Long, (1962) The Political Cartoon: Journalism’s Strongest Weapon. The Quill, Vol 50, No. 11 (November) p. 56
Thomas Milton Kemnitz, (1973) The Cartoon as a Historical Source, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 4, No. 1, The Historian and the Arts (Summer, 1973), pp. 81-93, Published by: The MIT Press
Villy Tsakona, (2009) Language and image interaction in cartoons: Towards a multimodal theory of humor, ScienceDirect, Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1171–1188
William A. Gamson and David Stuart, (1992) Media Discourse as a Symbolic Contest: The Bomb in Political Cartoons, Sociological Forum , Vol. 7, No. 1, Special Issue: Needed Sociological Research on Issues of War and Peace (Mar., 1992), pp. 55-86 Published by: Springer.
83