an oliphant in the room

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.)

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


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


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

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.

an oliphant in the room

Documents

editorial cartoons theory

special thanks

discourse streams

abstractthe political

rare space of discourse

nations public discourse

sample cartoon analysis

degree of postgraduate