An Oliphant in the Room

3

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

1

2

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

3

4

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.

5

6

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Acknowledgments

9

2 Introduction

11

15

3

Editorial Cartoons -Theory

4 Methodology 5

23

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

7

8

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!”

9

“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 liepiercing 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

10

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/patoliphant 3 King, Wayne (5 August 1990). “What’s so Funny About Washington?”. The New York Times Magazine (The New York Times).

11

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

12

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

Figure 1

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

Figure 2

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

13

(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 reelect him for a second term. An initial observation then would be to deny the

Figure 3

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 sub40% approval rating - Gallup4) To

understand

what’s

Figure 4

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/

14

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

15

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)

16

“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

17

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

18

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

19

(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

20

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

21

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.

22

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

23

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/patoliphant 7 This was largely reflective of national issues of accountability over publicised lawsuits against the Church

24

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

Figure 16

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

25

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

Figure 17

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

26

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

Figure 18

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

27

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

28

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.

29

30

DISCOURSE STREAMS

Stream 1: - Bin Laden & Terrorism The first emergent stream of discourse post 9/11 is the American national response to the

Figure 19

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

Figure 20

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

Figure 21

“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

31

Figure 22

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

Figure 23

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

Figure 24

progresses the transition to overt and heavyhanded 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 25

32

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

Figure 26

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

Figure 27

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 Figure 28

presidency.

The 9/11 revenge against Bin Laden is distinctly overridden by a sense of a onetrack determination to go to war with Iraq, irrespective of international opinion.

Some have argued that Saddam was always

Figure 29

33

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

Figure 30

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.

Figure 31

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

Figure 32

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 33

34

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

Figure 34

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,

Figure 35

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

35

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 economy ,

Figure 36

12

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)

Figure 37

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 Figure 38

12. Over 220 cartoons or 13.22% of the total refer to intrinsic domestic issues

36

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

Figure 39

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

Figure 40

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

Figure 41

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 42

37

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).

Figure 43

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

Figure 44

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 45

Figure 47

Figure 46

38

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

Figure 48

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

Figure 49

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

Figure 50

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 51

39

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

Figure 52

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.

Figure 53

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

Figure 54

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 55

40

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

Cartoon 56

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).

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.”

41

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

Figure 58

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

Figure 59

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.

Figure 60

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 61

42

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

Figure 62

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

Figure 63

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

Figure 64

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

43

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

Figure 65

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

Figure 66

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 68

Figure 67

Figure 69

44

Figure 70

Figure 71

Figure 72

Figure 73

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

45

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

Figure 74

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

Figure 75

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

Figure 76

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.

46

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

Figure 77

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.

47

And so once again Oh, America my friend And so once again You are fighting us all And when we ask you why You raise your sticks and cry and we fall Oh, my friend How did you come To trade the fiddle for the drum You say we have turned Like the enemies you’ve earned But we can remember All the good things you are And so we ask you please Can we help you find the peace and the star Oh my friend We have all come To fear the beating of your drum Joni Mitchell | Musician

48

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.”

49

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 80 Uncle 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 81 Uncle 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

50

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 Figure 82

17. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/621/whats-the-origin-of-uncle-sam

51

Figure 83

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 Figure 84

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

Figure 85

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

52

Figure 88

Figure 89

Figure 87

Figure 90

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 91

53

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 blackeye—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

Figure 93

(wearing the T-shirt tagged “civil liberties”) behind him, to “Watch out for the backswing kid”

54

Figure 92

Figure 95 Figure 94

55

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

Figure 96

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.

56

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

Figure 97

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

Figure 98

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 Figure 99

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.

57

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

Figure 100

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

Figure 101

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

58

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

Figure 102

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

Figure 103

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/

59

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

Figure 104

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

Figure 105

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

60

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

Figure 106

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

Figure 107

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 108

61

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

Figure 109

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

Figure 110

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

62

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

Figure 111

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

Figure 112

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

63

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

Figure 113

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.

Figure 114

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,

64

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

Figure 115

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

Figure 116

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.

Figure 117

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 118

65

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.

Figure 119

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

Figure 120

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

Figure 121

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 122

66

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

Figure 123

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 democracybuilding. 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

67

Figure 124

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

Figure 125

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-tradeera lawyer who twists logic to justify an errant

Figure 126

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

68

Figure 127

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

Figure 128

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

Figure 129

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.

Figure 130

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 131

69

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.

Figure 132

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.

Figure 133

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 reserve 25. Not including long term residual casualties from event health related issues 26. 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_Terror 27. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/20/afghanistan.comment

70

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

71

72

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

73

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.

74

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.)

75

76

APPENDIX 2:

List of figures

Figure 1: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 September 2006 Figure 2: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 January 2005 Figure 3: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 February 2006 Figure 4: Pat Oliphant, Dated 2 September 2003 Figure 5: Luckovich, Dated 3 November 2008 Figure 6: John Murdoch, Dated 20 May 2009 Figure 7: Pat Bagley, Dated 2007 Figure 8: Mike Luckovich, Dated ?

Figure 9: Tom Fluharty, Dated 2010 Figure 10: Dave Granlund, Dated 27 June 2012 Figure 11: Peter Brookes, Dated 3 December 2010 Figure 12: Anti semetic cartoon - “Sucked dry” Der Stürmer, 1930 Figure 13: Heath, Dated 29 May1992 Figure 14: Press Photo, Approx. 7 June 2013 Figure 15: Can Cardow, Dated 21 March 2011 Figure 16: Pat Oliphant, Dated 25 March 2010 Figure 17: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 October 2001 Figure 18: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 December 2001 Figure 19: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 December 2001 Figure 20: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 August 2006 Figure 21: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 October 2001 Figure 22: Pat Oliphant, Dated 2 April 2003 Figure 23: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 May 2011 Figure 24: Pat Oliphant, Dated 6 November 2001 Figure 25: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 June 2002 Figure 26: Pat Oliphant, Dated 19 November 2001 Figure 27: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 August 2004 Figure 28: Pat Oliphant, Dated 7 August 2002 Figure 29: Pat Oliphant, Dated 17 June 2002 Figure 30: Pat Oliphant, Dated 30 August 2003 Figure 31: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 October 2003 Figure 32: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 February 2004 Figure 33: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 August 2006 Figure 34: Pat Oliphant, Dated 23 October 2006 Figure 35: Pat Oliphant, Dated 25 January 201 Figure 36: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 December 2008 Figure 37: Pat Oliphant, Dated 26 January 2010 Figure 38: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 January 2003 Figure 39: Pat Oliphant, Dated 25 May 2004 Figure 40: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 September 2009 Figure 41: Pat Oliphant, Dated 27 November 2006 Figure 42: Pat Oliphant, Dated 8 December 2009 Figure 43: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 October 2001 Figure 44: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 April 2002 Figure 45: Pat Oliphant, Dated 1 September 2009 Figure 46: Pat Oliphant, Dated 9 June 201 Figure 47: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 March 2012 Figure 48: Pat Oliphant, Dated 7 October 2002 Figure 49: Pat Oliphant, Dated 9 December 2002 Figure 50: Pat Oliphant, Dated 12 September 2002 Figure 51: Pat Oliphant, Dated 15 April 2003 Figure 52: Pat Oliphant, Dated 23 April 2005

77

APPENDIX 2:

List of figures

Figure 53: Pat Oliphant, Dated 8 October 2005 Figure 54: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 June 2005 Figure 55: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 November 2006 Figure 56: Pat Oliphant, Dated 20 December 2011 Figure 57: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 November 2002 Figure 58: Pat Oliphant, Dated 1 May 2002 Figure 59: Pat Oliphant, Dated 5 September 2003 Figure 60: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 February 2007 Figure 61: Pat Oliphant, Dated 9 March 2011 Figure 62: Pat Oliphant, Dated 17 April 2003 Figure 63: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 October 2008 Figure 64: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 October 2002 Figure 65: Pat Oliphant, Dated 18 April 2002 Figure 66: Pat Oliphant, Dated 30 August 2004 Figure 67: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 May 2011 Figure 68: Pat Oliphant, Dated 2 January 2002 Figure 69: Pat Oliphant, Dated 5 August 2003 Figure 70: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 April 2006 Figure 71: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 February 2005 Figure 72: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 September 2009 Figure 73: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 October 2006 Figure 74: Pat Oliphant, Dated 2 March 2005 Figure 75: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 October 2011 Figure 76: Pat Oliphant, Dated 28 February 2012 Figure 77: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 January 2010 Figure 78: Uncle Sam - WW1 recruitment poster, J.M. Flagg, 1917 Figure 79: Brother Johnson, Harpers Weekly, 1820 Figure 80: Early Uncle Sam, Harpers Weekly December 21, 1861 Figure 81: Uncle Sam’s Thanksgiving Dinner; Come One, Come All, Free and Equal.”

Harpers Weekly November 20 1869 Figure 82: WW1 British recruitment poster, Alfred Leete.

Figure 83: WW1 “John Bull” British recruiting poster.

Figure 84: Patriotic Empire poster, 1918 Figure 85: WW1 US Government investment poster Figure 86: WWI Department of Agriculture poster Figure 87: Contemporary American tee shirt Figure 88: Product packaging, Yakima Valley Apples Figure 89: Product packaging, Cereal Figure 90: Political party campaign badges.

Figure 91: Contemporary poster Figure 92: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 September 2001 Figure 93: Pat Oliphant, Dated 17 September 2001 Figure 94: American WW2 Poster Figure 95: American Comic book cover circa. WW2 Figure 96: Pat Oliphant, Dated 31 October 2001 Figure 97: Pat Oliphant, Dated 20 November 2001 Figure 98: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 April 2002 Figure 99: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 April 2002 Figure 100: Pat Oliphant, Dated 12 August 2002 Figure 101: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 September 2002 Figure 102: Pat Oliphant, Dated 26 February 2003 Figure 103: Pat Oliphant, Dated 4 March 2003 Figure 104: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 March 2003

78

APPENDIX 2: Figure 105: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 March 2003 Figure 106: Pat Oliphant, Dated 7 July 2003 Figure 107: Pat Oliphant, Dated 26 August 2003 Figure 108: Pat Oliphant, Dated 30 August 2004 Figure 109: Pat Oliphant, Dated 4 May 2004 Figure 110: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 April 2005 Figure 111: Pat Oliphant, Dated 6 June 2005 Figure 112: Pat Oliphant, Dated 17 January 2006 Figure 113: Pat Oliphant, Dated 26 June 2006 Figure 114: Pat Oliphant, Dated 3 August 2006 Figure 115: Pat Oliphant, Dated 29 October 2008 Figure 116: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 April 2009 Figure 117: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 September 2009 Figure 118: Pat Oliphant, Dated 1 September 2009 Figure 119: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 January 2012 Figure 120: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 January 2010 Figure 121: Pat Oliphant, Dated 12 October 2010 Figure 122: Pat Oliphant, Dated 28 July 2010 Figure 123: Pat Oliphant, Dated 10 February 2011 Figure 124: Pat Oliphant, Dated 24 March 2011 Figure 125: Pat Oliphant, Dated 14 July 2011 Figure 126: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 September 2011 Figure 127: Pat Oliphant, Dated 25 December 2012 Figure 128: Pat Oliphant, Dated 7 February 2012 Figure 129: Pat Oliphant, Dated 21 March 2012 Figure 130: Pat Oliphant, Dated 11 April 2012 Figure 131: Pat Oliphant, Dated 13 June 2012 Figure 132: Pat Oliphant, Dated 5 September 2012 Figure 133: Pat Oliphant, Dated 4 December 2012 Figure 134: Pat Oliphant, Dated 22 January 2002

79

List of figures

80

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.

81

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.

82

83