If They Would Exchange Presents

Cartoonist John Knott ridicules the post World War I predicament of U.S. and European relations in regards to the stalemate between war debt revision and disarmament.
Cartoonist John Knott ridicules the post World War I predicament of U.S. and European relations in regards to the stalemate between war debt revision and disarmament.

If They Would Exchange Presents is a political cartoon by John Francis Knott mocking the predicament of U.S. and European relations post-World War I. It depicts “Europe” giving the gift of disarmament to the U.S., represented by Uncle Sam, in exchange for war debt revisions. The cartoon implies that Europe would disarm if the U.S. would revise, or essentially decrease, European war debt; likewise, the cartoon suggests that the U.S. would gladly decrease European war debt if Europe were to disarm first (Knott 2). The accompanying editorial titled “The Reparations Problem” summarizes the context of the cartoon. It explains that by the end of 1931, the U.S. Congress finally gave approval for a one-year postponement of German reparations, acknowledging a proposal made in the previous year by then President Herbert Hoover. The U.S. Congress did not want to cancel war repayments, as it strongly indicated to the International Committee on Reparations, but instead wanted to suspend payments. The reason for Germany’s inability to pay was that it could only pay from borrowed money that it was no longer able to obtain or from money made off of exports that were heavily tariffed (“The Reparations Problem” 2).

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria by Serbian nationalists in 1914 catapulted Europe into the First World War. The assassination set off a domino effect, causing country after country to get involved in the escalating conflict that eventually developed into World War I. What ensued after the war was the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, a meeting that established the terms of peace after the war, and during this conference the Treaty of Versailles was established (Cochran). The reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles stated that Germany was to take responsibility for the damages caused by World War I and that it must adhere to a payment schedule to pay back the cost of those damages. The mindset of the United States and its allies was that they were essentially dragged into the war out of obligation, and therefore should be repaid for everything lost in the war. However, it was known that Germany could not pay the entire costs of the war and that it was nearly impossible to create a realistic repayment schedule in 1919, the year that the treaty was signed. The Treaty of Versailles did not have a definitive reparation settlement (Merriman and Winter 2207). Therefore, naturally, Germany wanted debt revisions. Germany, however, wasn’t the only European country in debt. For example, in 1934, Britain still owed the US $4.4 billion of World War I debt (Rohrer). For this reason, Knott’s cartoon depicts “Europe” in need of war debt revision and not just Germany.

The disarmament portion of the cartoon pertains to the U.S.’s insistence on worldwide disarmament, highlighted in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points peace proposal that said, “All countries should reduce their armed forces to the lowest possible levels (Multilateral disarmament.)” (Fuller). The Treaty of Versailles initiated the notion of disarmament by targeting Germany in particular, forcing them to take full blame for World War I and to disarm. “The German army was to be limited to 100,000 men and conscription proscribed; the treaty restricted the Navy to vessels under 100,000 tons, with a ban on the acquisition or maintenance of a submarine fleet. Moreover, Germany was forbidden to maintain an air force” (“Treaty of Versailles, 1919″).  The Treaty’s main concern was the disarmament of Germany. Politicians, journalists, and academics argued at the time that the naval race for arms was one of the major causes of the war. Based on this idea, the victors of the war decided to force Germany to disarm due to its previous invasion attempts toward France. It was thought that by forcing its disarmament, Germany was being stripped of its power to wage war (Merriman and Winter 856). Soon, this philosophy was expanded to include all European nations. “Following the atrocities of World War I, both nations [the U.S. and Great Britain] hoped to avoid any future conflicts, and both faced difficult economic times that restricted military spending. As a consequence, the two governments were willing to consider serious limits on offensive weapons” (World History Encyclopedia 593).

Reduction of conflict, however, wasn’t the only motivation behind disarmament. The Great Depression diverted attention from the issue of disarmament to debt and unemployment. In 1932, everyone owed America money, but because of the depression, few countries could repay their loans. The U.S. decided that if nations didn’t spend money on arms, they would be able to repay the United States; therefore, the U.S. called for worldwide disarmament (Bradley 38).

Knott’s cartoon represents a very circular predicament. The two entities were at a stalemate. The U.S. was the world’s major creditor nation, and in order to get paid back, it insisted on worldwide disarmament so that funds could be redirected to debt repayment. Europe, however, would only disarm if war debts were lowered and revised first. It was as though this political stalemate could only be resolved by some miracle.

That is exactly the point Knott wants to impress upon his audience. The illustration of the Christmas tree, along with the fact that the cartoon was being published on Christmas Eve, gives the cartoon an air of Christmas spirit. The term “Christmas Miracle” is typically used to emphasize how unlikely an event is to occur, and that seems to be what Knott is implying as the only solution to this conflict – a Christmas Miracle – given how unlikely a compromise seemed in 1931.  What is also humorous is how nonchalant the gift exchange is, almost trivializing the damages and lives lost in the war. It is as if there is no rivalry or conflict of interest between the two parties; it’s not as aggressive, or desperate, or even as somber as one would expect. It is definitely not a gift exchange of good will either; Christmas is regarded as a time of selfless generosity and community, a time of giving rather than receiving without the expectation of anything in return. However this is a very self-interested exchange, defying the traditional, selfless ideals of Christmas. These contradictions serve as indirect attacks on the U.S. and Europe’s inability to reach an agreement.

If They Would Exchange Presents is a political cartoon by John Knott that focused attention on and mocked the diplomatic gridlock between the U.S. and Europe. It uses the setting and themes of Christmas to criticize the two sides’ uncompromising stances toward disarmament and war debt revisions, comparing the successful exchange of “presents” to a Christmas Miracle. The cartoon serves as political commentary on post-World War I negotiations and ranks as one of Knott’s many politically motivated cartoons.

Works Cited

Bradley, F. J. He Gave the Order: The Life and Times of Admiral Osami Nagano. Bennington: Merriam Press, 2014. Google Books. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.

Cochran, Philip. Austin Community College. Austin, Texas. 27 Oct. 2015. Lecture.

Fuller, Richard. “The Treaty of Versailles – 28th June 1919.” rpfuller. rpfuller, 3 June 2010. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.

Knott, John. “If They Would Exchange Presents.” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News [Dallas, Texas] 24 Dec. 1931, sec. 2: 10. Print.

Merriman, John, and Jay Winter. “Disarmament.” Child Care to Futurism. Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2006. 855. Print. Vol. 2 of Europe since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction.

Merriman, John, and Jay Winter. “Reparations.” Nagy to Switzerland. Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 2006. 2206. Print. Vol. 4 of Europe since 1914: Encyclopedia of the Age of War and Reconstruction.

“The Reparations Problem.” Editorial. Dallas Morning News [Dallas, Texas] 24 Dec. 1931, 85th ed., sec. 2: 2. Print.

Rohrer, Finlo. “What’s a Little Debt between Friends?” BBC News. BBC News Magazine, 10 May 2006. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

“Treaty of Versailles, 1919.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 18 Aug. 2015. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.

Oct Reserve Bank Contemplates Housing Bubble

a door marked "reserve bank" thirteen men sitting at a table one is saying "Professor Beancycle, must you chew bubble gum while the board is discussing the housing boom" while another man blows a bubble. In the background there is a chart titled "lending" that shows a rising graph
a door marked “reserve bank” thirteen men sitting at a table one is saying “Professor Beancycle, must you chew bubble gum while the board is discussing the housing boom” while another man blows a bubble. In the background there is a chart titled “lending” that shows a rising graph

 

In Peter Nicholson’s cartoon “Oct Reserve Bank Contemplates Housing Bubble” the members of the Reserve Bank Board are seated at a long table with the Governor, or chairman, at the head of the table. There is a door marked Reserve Bank and a chart that shows lending is rising in the background. One man at the table is blowing a bubble with chewing gum, and the Governor asks him not to do so “when the board is discussing the housing boom,” (Nicholson). The humor in this cartoon comes from the author’s use of dramatic irony. The reader knows that the “boom” will lead to a bubble, and this bubble will eventually burst (Nicholson). The cartoon was published before the recession of 2008, but anyone reading the cartoon after the recession would know that the bursting of the housing bubble was a major cause of the worldwide economic downfall. Nicholson obviously knows this and points the readers attention to the fact that lending has always been, and will always be, a major factor in economic downturns. This cartoon also relies on the homophone “bubble,” referring to the housing bubble and the bubble gum (Nicholson). The Governor asks his colleague not to chew bubble gum because it will pop just like the housing market.

Nicholson’s cartoon was published in 2002 in The Australian, a long standing news source Down Under. It depicts worries held about a housing bubble that has, arguably, yet to burst. A ‘housing bubble’ is a period of time in the property market during whcih prices go through the roof. A housing bubble is fueled by an increase in demand and speculation. The Australian bubble was not spread evenly throughout the country. Rather, housing markets in Sydney and Melbourne saw a “double digit growth” while elsewhere home values were declining or stagnant (Spasik). This extreme price difference was caused by a shortage in the Sydney housing market (Spasik). To account for the demand “over 720,000 homes will be built across” Australia, at least half of which will be in either Sydney or Melbourne (Spasik). 

The text of the cartoon refers to the property market as a boom rather than a bubble. Excessive optimism was what allowed the bubble to expand. Investors and buyers alike are swept up in the boom of the market, but they always seem to forget the bust. The speculation that prices will continue to rise causes the market to soar. In order to accommodate the demand “loose lending” is often used to entice buyers (Razzi). However, these low interest mortgage rates are one of the primary causes of a housing bubble (Holt).

In a similar fashion to John Knott’s cartoon “It Was a Fool’s Paradise,” published in the Dallas Morning News in January of 1933, Nicholson points the blame at lending, or credit. Just as it was in the 1930’s America it is not the average buyer’s fault for using this credit, but rather a trick that will wreck their economy. Knott depicted the allure of credit as enticing buyers to their doom. Similarly Nicholson makes an effort to include lending in his cartoon while he does not include the Australian public at all. By doing this he alleviates the buyers of any fault and places the blame on the lenders.

While it is clear that the Reserve Bank depicted in Nicholson’s cartoon is the Australian Reserve Bank, the US Federal Reserve plays a large role in Australia’s economy. This global connection caused the worldwide economy to fall into a recession in 2008. The value of the US dollar influences the value of currencies around the world, and should it lower it will “push the Aussie dollar higher,” (Russell). In order to combat the this the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) is “lowering interest rates…to keep the Aussie dollar low,” and it is this lowering of rates that has allowed for the housing bubble to expand (Russell). The low interest rates lead to the housing bubble in a couple of ways. They “encouraged the use of adjustable rate mortgages” to combat buyers’ inabilities to pay for their home on a fixed rate mortgage (Holt). These low rates also led to leveraging, or “investing with borrowed money” (Holt). Once again this is reflective of Knott’s cartoon criticizing the use of easy credit, and how lending can turn an economy on its head in a matter of years.

Whether in 1930’s America or twenty first century Australia lending has proven to be a serious problem in the economic longterm. In Australia during the early twenty first century it lead to an incredible increase in housing prices, almost double that of the US (Sheehan). In his cartoon Nicholson is critical of the Reserve Bank’s role in the housing market as well as the role of borrowed money.

Works Cited

Holt, Jeff. “A Summary of the Primary Causes of the Housing Bubble and the Resulting Credit Crisis: A Non-Technical Paper.” The Journal of Business Inquiry 8.1 (2009): 120-29. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Nicholson, Peter. “Oct Reserve Bank Contemplates Housing Bubble.” Nicholson. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Razzi, E. “Bursting the Bubble about the Causes of the Housing Bubble.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 08 May 2010. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Russell, Shae. “Why the US Federal Reserve’s Next Move Matters to Aussie Investors.” The Daily Reckoning Australia. The Daily Reckoning Australia, N.p., 04 Nov. 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Sheehan, Paul. “Paul Sheehan: All Bubbles Burst, First China, Later Australia?” The Sydney Morning Herald. The Sydney Morning Herald, N.p., 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Spasic, Mat. “Why the Aussie Property Bubble Just Popped.” The Daily Reckoning Australia. The Daily Reckoning Australia, N.p., 21 Sept. 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.

Same-Sex Marriage

07769dfb5ab5cb65a27547eeed74a23c

Individual rights have always a hard thing to define. Things like property rights are defended time and time again by the judicial system, but many substances remain banned for recreational use. In more recent news, same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide in the United States(Liptak), even though many states had banned it. As recently as 2012, less than a fifth of states had legalized same-sex marriage. This landmark case had a lot of people asking why same-sex marriage was banned anywhere in the first place. The cartoon above seeks to use recognizable symbols of justice and liberty to reflect on the now-obvious solution of letting an individual marry whoever they want.

Many conservative and religious groups were outraged by this decision. The argument that same-sex marriage should be illegal is a more complex one than may seem obvious. Many opponents clung to the bible(Blinder and Pena), quoting the book of Leviticus as declaring homosexuality as a sin. But for those with a more subtle complaint, it would seem that the threat they experienced was over the definition of the term “marriage.” Some opponents of same-sex marriage argued that if homosexuals could be married, then their marriage would be somehow cheapened. The idea there being that a marriage means less the less exclusive it is, almost like a club. Ultimately, however, the Supreme Court sided with the people who believed any consenting adults who were in love could be married.

The symbols contained in this cartoon seek to convey the degree to which the author deemed this solution obvious. The first way this is done is through the use of an ancient symbol, Lady Justice. Since ancient times, Lady Justice has been portrayed as a blindfolded woman holding scales. This represents an idea that goes back nearly as far as civilized human society, the idea that justice should be blind, and therefore give fair treatment to everyone. The scales held by Lady Justice are meant to symbolize a system that cannot be fooled by counterfeit ideas or testimony. This symbol is meant to convey that justice was done, as a blindfolded woman cannot tell whether a marriage is same-sex or not. Towards the same end, the scales that are designed to depict fair treatment, would be symbolically unable to tell if the two people being married are a same-sex couple or a “traditional” couple. A symbol that has forever exemplified the principles of justice applies again so far in the future from its creation.

The second of the symbols in the center of this cartoon is the Statue of Liberty. This American icon has always been a beacon of hope to oppressed peoples, as her broken shackles symbolize a place where one can live free of judgement. The torch Liberty holds is meant to represent enlightenment and hope for outsiders looking towards America. By using Liberty and Justice in conjunction, Bennett also visually evokes one of the most famous phrases from the Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge which describes America as a place that has “Liberty and Justice for all,” even though there were many couples that couldn’t be legally married until 2015. Using this visual joke highlights the misstep of many states in outlawing same-sex marriage. All of these symbols represent, in the more abstract, fair treatment and equal rights.

Finally, Lady Justice, and Lady Liberty are perched upon a wedding cake together. The wedding cake reads: “Same-sex Marriage.” This visual joke is meant to highlight the fact that when Liberty and Justice came together, to truly be “for all,” same-sex marriage had to be legalized. This joke also explores the irony that the symbols that represent the individual right to marriage are both female, so the figurative marriage of these ideals is also same-sex. Triumph is the theme of the cartoon, and the fact that the most appropriate symbols to represent the victory of same-sex marriage over restriction turned out to be the same sex is almost too impressive to be true.

This cartoon is meant to evoke the joy of a wedding while using symbolism to root this joy to the resolution of a long-debated issue. Opponents of same-sex marriage were finally defeated, and the euphoria of a wedding was rooted to the most popular symbols for liberty and justice. By portraying Lady Liberty and Lady Justice as a newly married couple, the artist also employed the figurative meaning of marriage, intending this to be a symbol of a meeting of the minds more than literal marriage. In using these symbols, Bennett captured the cultural rejoice that followed the defense of same-sex marriage by the Supreme Court. Individual liberties were again defended from States’ encroachment by the judicial system.

 

WORKS CITED

 

Blinder, Alan, and Richard Perez-Pena. “Kentucky Clerk Denies Same-Sex Marriage Licenses, Defying Court.” New York Times 2 Dec. 2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

 

Liptak, Adam. “Supreme Court Rules Same-sex Marriage a Right Nationwide.” New York Times 26 June 2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

 

McKinley, Jesse, and Laurie Goodstein. “Bans in 3 States on Gay Marriage.” New York Times 5 Nov. 2008. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

Ura, Alexa. “Texas Concedes Legal Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ban.” The Texas Tribune 1 July 2015. Web. 13 Dec. 2015.

 

John D. Does a Mural for Radio City

John D. Rockefeller Jr. painting a mural representing prohibition
John D. Rockefeller Jr. painting a mural representing prohibition

John D. Does a Mural for Radio City

John Francis Knott, October 26, 1933

As the Roaring Twenties swung by with economic prosperity, cultural dynamisms, and progressivism, the law of the land prohibited the use or sale of alcohol. As Public Policy, However, Prohibition was a complete failure. Illustrating this on October 26, 1933, John Knott published John D. Does a Mural for Radio City, a complex, controversial political cartoon exemplifying the government’s condemnation of prohibition and the liquor problem.

The complexity of the drawing mirrors that of the Prohibition conundrum; Knott presents the problem – the 18th amendment – with a dry barrel and a vacant saloon (Findlaw). The said amendment was placed in effect to eliminate alcoholism and lower crime; however, it was “not free from bootlegging and liquor control evasions” (The Liquor Problem). Noticeably, Uncle Sam, whose face is stern and displeased, suggests the nation’s dissatisfaction with the 18th amendment – Prohibition generated major political controversies and conflicts of interest in the country. Additionally, complete abstinence of alcohol caused a decline in tax revenues, a greater consumption of alcohol in Speakeasies, and corruption (History.com). According to Uncle Sam, the country required a solution.

Dissecting the cartoon further, Uncle Sam stares displeased at Lady Temperance, who forces an olive branch of peace and abstinence to the government. Many political groups believed alcohol was to blame for many of society’s problems including health problems, destitution, crime, and the overall destruction of families (PBS). Uncle Sam’s expression, however is dissatisfied, exhibits aloof towards Lady Temperance’s teetotalism. He believes that Temperance has caused destruction upon the country.

In the forefront of this cartoon, Knott places John D. Rockefeller Jr. as the artist of the problematic mural. Although the Rockefeller family supported the anti-saloon league and the temperance movement, Rockefeller personally “rejects the old license system and bone dry State prohibition [and] leans toward a State dispensary”(The Liquor Problem, Rockefeller). Therefore, Rockefeller commissioned the Fosdick-Scott survey to notify those in favor of the alcohol regulation. It stated, “Integrity and intelligence are of far greater importance than the administrative device” and reminded readers, “No dispensary system can exist when politics and graft handle it” (The Liquor Problem). The survey was a devise used to inform the public—providing a template for alcohol control (Serendipity). This controversial stance and survey of Rockefeller follows his controversial actions he displayed while constructing Radio City Music Hall (NPR). Humorously, Knott cleverly interjects the inappropriate mural removed by Rockefeller due to dissimilar visions between Rockefeller and renowned artist, Diego Rivera (New York Herald).

In summary, Knott exemplifies the country’s controversial liquor problem by illustrating Rockefeller’s position: America declines in social and economic status for each day held in prohibition. Exploiting Rockefeller’s views enlightens the public of Prohibition’s effects on the country. Although as controversial was his decision to remove Rivera’s mural, Rockefeller still painted the scenery to permanently end prohibition.

Citations

“Destroyed By Rockefellers, Mural Trespassed On Political Vision.” NPR. NPR, 9 Mar. 2014. Web. 05 Nov. 2015. <http://www.npr.org/2014/03/09/287745199/destroyed-by-rockefellers-mural-trespassed-on-political-vision>.

“Eighteenth Amendment – U.S. Constitution – FindLaw.” Findlaw. Thomson Reuters, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2015. <http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment18.html>.

“The New York Herald.” New York Herald Tribune May 10, 1933. THE NEW YORK HERALD TRIBUNE, 10 May 1933. Web. 05 Nov. 2015. <http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ma04/hess/rockrivera/newspapers/NYHerald_05_10_1933.html>.

“Prohibition.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 05 Nov. 2015. <http://www.history.com/topics/prohibition>.

“Prohibition.” PBS. PBS, 2011. Web. 05 Nov. 2015. <http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/prohibition/roots-of-prohibition/>.

Rockefeller, John D., Jr. “Note.” Letter to Nicolas Murray Butler. 6 June 1932. Http://www.drugpolicy.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. <http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/RockefellerLetter1937.pdf>.

“Serendipity.” Serendipity. Merge Divide, 26 June 2007. Web. 05 Nov. 2015. <http://dgrim.blogspot.com/2007/06/great-scheme-alcohol-based-fuels-ford.html>.

“The Liquor Problem.” America’s Historical Newspapers. Dallas Morning News, 26 Oct. 1933. Web. 5 Nov. 2015. <http://infoweb.newsbank.com.ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/iw-search/we/HistArchive/HistArchive?

 

 

What Now?!!

 

political cartoon picture 2
Uncle Sam’s political view on the Prohibition of Marijuana
WHAT NOW?!!

Keith Tucker

As America ventures towards the legalization of marijuana, many political cartoonists boost their agenda by associating their political itinerary with American history. Specifically, Prohibition is widely used amongst cartoonist due to its well-known details and final 1930s decision that creates an easy analysis or similarity to the reader. Cartoonist, Keith Tucker, poses the controversial question, “what now?!!” to question America’s next step towards the legalization of marijuana.

Dr. Keith Martin states, “The “war on drugs” has done nothing to reduce illegal drug use, crime, harm, or cost.” Tucker compares prohibition to today’s marijuana problem. He portrays that the government’s decision to legalize marijuana will diminish the negative activities, which were caused by the prohibition of marijuana. He acknowledges, “Prohibition has failed [and] its time to legalize [marijuana] in America.” Similarly to those during the 1930s, he accents the effect that illegal marijuana has currently on the states – cost to the states and corruption – similar to the negative effects of the prohibition of alcohol (Martin). As Tucker lists the negative consequences, he implies the positive impact associated with the legalization of marijuana: cutting the cost to fight marijuana from the Country’s budget and the gain in tax dollars to stimulate the economy. He implies how States could tax the sale of marijuana as they do with alcohol and tobacco. For example, after Colorado legalized marijuana and implemented a tax, Colorado collected seventy million dollars in taxes after one year while alcohol only collected 42 million (Basu). This shows the significant advantage of ending the prohibition on marijuana. Ending prohibition of marijuana can save tax dollars that could be used in more beneficial ways to stimulate our economy. Additionally, the 21st amendment ended the major corruption associated with prohibition. Cartoonist, John Knott exposed the negative effects caused by prohibition in the cartoon John D does a Mural for Radio City. He claimed that America’s desire to eliminate the prohibition of alcohol decreased the number of bootleggers, speakeasies, gang violence, and other illegal activities (Van Essen). Similarly, the end of marijuana prohibition could dampen these social problems.

Tucker explicitly presents Uncle Sam stating, “It’s time to legalize it, America!” He notes that millions of American citizens have several uses for marijuana – from recreational uses to known medical value. Statistically, “over 94 million people in the US have admitted using it at least once (Marijuana).” So again, “what now?!!” Research has proved that the THC in marijuana helps with diseases such as multiple sclerosis, nausea from cancer chemotherapy, seizures, and Crohn’s disease (Feature). These various uses of marijuana tie back to tax profits, utilizing marijuana as a medical use may increase the total revenue collected.

In summary, Tucker highlights the progressive points that rise from dismissing the prohibition of marijuana. His title expressing, “what now?!!” is appropriate now as several states have legalized marijuana. Moving forward and following the history of the prohibition on alcohol, it seems as history may repeat itself with yet again another failed attempt on prohibition.

Bibliography

 Basu, Tanya. “Colorado Raised More Tax Revenue From Marijuana Than Alcohol.” Time. Time, 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. <http://time.com/4037604/colorado-marijuana-tax-revenue/>.

Feature, Anne HardingWebMD. “Medical Marijuana Treatment Uses and How It Works.” WebMD. WebMD, 04 Nov. 2013. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. <http://www.webmd.com/pain-management/features/medical-marijuana-uses>. 

“Marijuana Statistics – Cannabis Use Statistics – Drug-Free World.” Marijuana Statistics – Cannabis Use Statistics – Drug-Free World. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. <http://www.drugfreeworld.org/drugfacts/marijuana/international-statistics.html>.

Martin, Keith. “Decriminalize Pot, Destabilize Gangs.” Cannabis Culture. Cannabis Culture Magazine, 13 Apr. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. <http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2009/04/13/decriminalize-pot-destabilize-gangs>. 

Tucker, Keith. “What Now Cartoons Archives – by Keith Tucker.” What Now Cartoons Archives – by Keith Tucker. KTC@whatnowtoons.com, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2015. <http://www.whatnowtoons.com/wnt_archives.asp?.

Van Essen, Dane. “John D. Does a Mural for Radio City.” Web log post. Ut Libraries Blog. University of Texas at Austin, 5 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Dec. 2015. <http://blogs.lib.utexas.edu/nonaka/page/3/>

 

It Was a Fool’s Paradise

A snake is wrapped around an apple tree labeled "tree of unlimited credit" the are many apple cores littering the ground and a couple in plain clothes are walking away from the tree holding their stomachs and looking sick
A snake is wrapped around an apple tree labeled “tree of unlimited credit” the are many apple cores littering the ground and a couple in plain clothes are walking away from the tree holding their stomachs and looking sick

In John Francis Knott’s 1933 cartoon “It Was a Fool’s Paradise,” we see a man and woman walking away from an apple tree labeled “tree of unlimited credit” (Knott). The snake wrapped around this tree makes the biblical allusion to Adam and Eve quite obvious. The couple is holding their stomachs with sick expressions on their faces. The obscene amount of apple cores found on ground tell the reader that this expression is likely caused by overindulgence. In the biblical tale of Adam and Eve the latter eats a piece of forbidden fruit and damns the rest of humanity to be compelled to sin. However when read with the accompanying article “We Just Thought We Had” it becomes obvious that Knott’s cartoon is not commentary on original sin, but rather on the frivolous spending of unsound credit in the United States a few years prior, and how it ultimately caused the Great Depression.

The humor of this cartoon is found in its incongruity with the original story. In the Bible Eve only took a single bite of an apple whereas this couple has eaten far too many to count. The innumerable apple cores littering the ground represent the greed and gluttony of 1920’s America, and Knott even goes so far as to imply that this is worse than original sin. This discrepancy also points blame at the American public and their careless spending,  as well as the tempting “unsound credit” mentioned in the accompanying article (“We Just Thought We Had”). Knott parallels the immense spending of credit to this couples binging. The couple in the cartoon are clearly not dressed in the fig leaves like the biblical Adam and Eve, but rather in the plain clothes of  1930’s middle class Americans. Not only does this set them apart from Adam and Eve, but it sets them apart from the upper class, who are not affected by the economic crash as greatly as the lower and middle class (“Everyday Life 1929-1941″).

In the accompanying article, “We Only Thought We Had,” the Dallas Morning News comments on the use of unstable credit in 1929. They claim that the use of credit in the 1920’s was taking business away from the early 1930’s . The article is highly critical of this credit and employs multiple rhetorical questions throughout the article in order to force the reader to think about what was really going on. By asking the reader “where is all the money we used to have?” or “where is all the business we used to do?” the author is implying that there is no money and business anymore (“We Just Thought We Had). These rhetorical questions lead the reader into thinking a in a similar way to the author.

The forbidden fruit depicted in Knott’s cartoon is the seemingly unlimited credit of the previous decade. During the 1920’s the American economy was booming, and playing the stock market was all the rage. This ‘game’ of stocks became so popular that investors began to buy them “with little or no money down”, and soon the American use of credit would cause the market to collapse (Woodard). The stock market had seemingly become an embodiment of the American dream, and it soon became flooded with “small scale investors” looking to go from rags to riches overnight (“Playing the Market: The Effects of the Great Crash”). The brokers who were handing out credit were playing a risky game, but as long as the market was growing they couldn’t lose (“Playing the Market: The Effects of the Great Crash”). However, as they always do, the stocks inevitably went down and “the great sell-off of 1929” brought the market, the brokers, the investors, and the entire American economy down with it (“Playing the Market: The Effects of the Great Crash”).

Knott’s cartoon compares the credit crisis of the early 1930’s to the story of Adam and Eve. The allure of the credit had been so strong to the American public, as well as the brokers, that in Knott’s cartoon unlimited credit is analogized with the proverbial apple that Eve ate. The most important aspect of this comparison is that of original sin. As the Dallas Morning News writes the economy of 1929 was conducting business that “legitimately belonged to 1933-35” just as Eve’s sin caused the downfall of human kind in the future, the gluttony of 1929 affected the future indefinitely (“We Just Thought We Had”).

Works Cited

“Everyday Life 1929-1941.” Historic Events for Students: The Great Depression. Ed. Richard C. Hanes and Sharon M. Hanes. Vol. 1. Detroit: Gale, 2002. 305-329. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.

Knott, John Francis. “It Was a Fool’s Paradis.” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 29 Jan. 1933, sec. 3: 8. Print.

“Playing the Market: The Effects of the Great Crash.” Social History of the United States. Ed. Daniel J. Walkowitz and Daniel E. Bender. Vol. 3: The 1920s. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 2009. 372-375. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.

“We Just Thought We Had.” Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 29 Jan. 1933, sec. 3: 8. Print.

Woodard, David E. “Stock Market Crashes.” St. James Encyclopedia of Popular Culture. Ed.      Thomas Woodard. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: St. James Press, 2013. 722-724. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.

Homeless Holidays

Mike Keefe illustrates the hypocrisy of charity that often occurs around the holidays.

Despite being one of the wealthiest countries in the world, chronic homelessness is overwhelmingly present in the United States. This reality does not register in its entirety in the mind of many Americans until the”season of giving” is marked not only on the calendar, but also through the communal holley, twinkling lights, and oversized trees present in public places: Christmas time. Denver Post political cartoonist Mike Keefe illustrates the irony often present between the “season of giving” and homelessness in America in his cartoon published on Christmas Eve in 2010 titled, “Homeless Holidays.”

“Homeless Holidays” shows a young child running toward a homeless man with an eager smile on his face and change in his hand. His parents are walking behind him with a smile on their faces and shopping bags in their hands. The homeless man is slumped over on the sidewalk next to a sign that says, “anything helps.” The boy is saying, “I wish all homelessness would disappear!” The homeless man replies, “Don’t worry, we’ll become invisible again on December 26th.”

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) identifies a homeless person as “someone who resides in a place not meant for human inhabitation,” including the street, a sidewalk, etc. (United States, Government Accountability Office [Page 4]). Much like the Great Depression, the recent Great Recession in 2009 reintroduced the country to intense homelessness of men, women, families, and unattached children. Perhaps one of the most troubling statistics of this most recent country-wide economic downturn is the thirty percent increase in homelessness from 2007 to 2009 (United States, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [Page 8]). In response to the troubles citizens began facing, President Barack Obama soon instituted the Opening Doors policy in May 2009. This policy aimed to end chronic homelessness in ten years, and veteran and familial homelessness in five (United States, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [Page 4]).

Opening Doors was one of the first policies of its kind—never before has an American president introduced legislation so specific and so galvanizing in the discussion of eradicating homelessness. However, the state of homelessness in the U.S. has taken on a face unlike that of the past. Traditionally in recessions and depressions people lost their homes due to the inability to maintain a steady and subsistent job, but the issue many face today is the increase in the cost of housing (“The State of Homelessness in America”). This is why, despite the increase in job availability, there are still 4.8 million people living in poverty (“The State of Homelessness in America”). In his open letter that discussed the reasons and means behind the policy, President Obama cited “‘home as being the center of the American dream” (United States, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [Page 4]). Introducing this platform appeals to the reader’s pathos, and makes them more apt to listen to the continuous plan he intended to institute. This plan included providing the homeless with apartments in which the government paid the rent—allowing the homeless to achieve the “American dream” that is idolized by many, yet is unachievable in the minds of others (United States, United States Interagency Council on Homelessness [Page 4]).

The Opening Doors policy is working. According to an article published by Dina ElBoghdady in the Washington Post on October 31, 2014 titled “These five charts show the progress and challenges in fighting homelessness,” there was a decrease between 2010 and 2014 of ten percent in overall homelessness, thirty-three percent in veteran homelessness, and sharp decline in the use of temporary shelters. However, the plan has yet to create an all-encompassing, completely housed society. While there are less homeless people in the U.S. than there were in 2010, the program requires more money than initially called for in the original legislation— $300 million, to be exact— and many people remain unsheltered and without a home (ElBoghdady). Regardless, there is still support for the administration’s efforts to decrease homelessness. While the plan has not been instituted at the speed it originally called for, the U.S. government is spending $4.5 billion a year in efforts to lessen the evils that are synonymous with homelessness (“The state of homelessness in America” 4). The Secretary of HUD, Julian Castro, was quoted in the Washington Post article saying, “we’re confident that we’re not only saving lives, we’re saving money because folks are no longer caught in the cycle of shelters, emergency rooms and other public services that require taxpayer dollars” (ElBoghdady).

The viewer can easily understand the  satirical outlook the artist has taken strictly via the dialogue between the young child and the homeless man sitting on the street. The child is saying, “I wish all homelessness would disappear!” The homeless man replies, “Don’t worry, we will become invisible again on December 26th.” The “season of joy” and “spirit of giving” will run out— demonstrating the seasonality of homelessness assumed by the public.
The child is part of a nuclear family that appears to be well-off financially, as seen by the parents walking behind their young son carrying shopping bags. The parents have a nearly adoring look in their eyes as they watch their young son run to the homeless man with change, completely ignorant of the struggles he faces day-to-day. Their focus is on the fact that their son is sharing charitable actions with the world, rather than the actual depravity of the circumstance the child is “helping.” This illustrates the disconnect many Americans experience with their fellow citizens who are homeless. There is a concerning failure to understand that the people on the streets begging for food are, in fact, people, and are living a life many could not imagine.

This seasonality many place on homelessness is not entirely ignored by the general public. Bonnie Kavoussi published an article on Huffington Post’s website concerning the issue that consisted of minimal writing and an infographic courtesy of the website Thinkprogress. The article explained that the amount of money the citizens of the U.S. spend on Christmas decorations every year could eradicate homelessness. $20 billion is the price tag on the countless decorative trees and lights Americans buy every year— and it could cure homelessness and even leave a surplus of funds (Kavoussi).

Homelessness unfortunately is a topic that has transcended time. While government assistance programs have helped in the past, it is yet to be completely eradicated. Obama’s concept of “opening doors” is a chronic and universal one— John Knott even indirectly addressed it in his cartoon “Somebody’s at the Door,” which was published in 1931. In it, we see a family standing in front of a closed door of a prominent charity at the time, a family who is not receiving the Christmas charity so often celebrated by the mass public. This proves that there are several aspects of society that will always be present. However, despite their immortality, we as a society can still learn from mistakes and progresses made in the past, and use then to influence decisions and policy in the future.

Works Cited:

ElBoghdady, Dina. “These Five Charts Show the Progress and Challenges in Fighting Homelessness.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 31 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

Kavoussi, Bonnie. “U.S. Could End Homelessness With Money Used To Buy Christmas Decorations [INFOGRAPHIC].” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

“Obama Vows to End Homelessness in 10 Years.” Mcclatchydc. Web. 20 Nov. 2015.

“The State of Homelessness in America.” National Alliance to End Homelessness. Web. 20 Nov 2015.

United States Interagency Council on Homelessness. Opening Doors: Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. Washington: GPO, 2015. United Sates Interagency Council on Homelessness. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.

United States. Government Accountability Office. Homelessness: A Common Vocabulary Could Help Agencies Collaborate and Collect More Consistent Data. 111th Cong., 2nd sess. Rept. 702. Washington: GPO, 2010.  ProQuest Congressional. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.

“Somebody at the Door”

John Knott illustrated the lack of effective governmental policies and public intervention regarding the problem of hunger and homelessness in Dallas during the Great Depression.
John Knott illustrated the lack of effective governmental policies and public intervention regarding the problem of hunger and homelessness in Dallas during the Great Depression.

The Great Depression will forever be remembered as a time in America of great trials and tribulations, especially hunger and homelessness. John Knott effectively localized these concepts to the Dallas metropolitan area through his cartoon titled “Somebody at the Door,” which ran on December 16, 1931 in the Dallas Morning News. In the cartoon, Knott depicted a family standing outside a door that has a wreath with “Merry Christmas” written on it. There is a note in the bottom right-hand corner that says “Citizens Emergency Relief Fund,” and claims that every dollar donated to the said cause it attributed to feeding the “hungry of Dallas.” Significantly, a mother and her three children are standing outside, and there is an absence of a father figure. The youngest child is knocking on the door, and the middle child is expressing hunger to his mother, the figure that for so long was the provider of food in the family. In this way, the viewer understands the absolute desperation the homeless population of the Great Depression faced; all previous typicalities of life turned into unattainable luxuries, and the guaranteed home-cooked meal that was so long provided daily turned into a search for a charitable soul that would spare scraps of food.

By the end of 1930, the population of jobless people in Dallas was around seven percent. This statistic was uncharacteristic of Dallas, a city that had recently experienced an economic boom due to industries such as banking and railroads and was on the road to a population that exhibited extreme wealth(Hill 204). The city had a sixty-four percent growth rate between 1920 and 1930, and the elites of Dallas viewed their city as a progressive city with conservative politics (WPA 96). However, the atmosphere quickly changed in the 30s. Initially, the Stock Market Crash of 1929 was slow to affect Dallas due to its recent status as a business mecca (WPA 96). However, the turn of the decade brought intense unemployment, homelessness, and even labor strikes. In 1931, the emergency relief committee requested the city government allocate $100,000 to help abate the atrocities of poverty and hunger that encompassed the city, and were bound to intensify as time continued(WPA 96). It is unfortunate to note that the majority of the little charity that was given by the people and government of Dallas was racially driven; the rise of the KKK in Dallas in the 1920s fueled racial tensions in the city that resulted in refusal of charity to blacks by many privately funded organizations—even religious charities such as the Salvation Army (Kusmer 196). This was one of the many examples of the absolute corruption present in Dallas at the time, which was further explained in both a news and editorial article that ran on December 16, 1931 in the Dallas Morning News.

The news story, titled “$1,000 sent to stave off starving,” discussed the first $1,000 donated to the emergency relief fund. Nathan Adams, president of the First National Bank in Dallas, was grateful for the generosity of the large anonymous donation, but did not fail to point out that there were many other able donors in the Dallas area. “Dallas is an affluent city, the resources of which have not been impaired by economic activity,” Adams said in an interview with the Morning News. He further pointed out that, while one individual paid his part, it was only one percent of the total amount of money needed to ensure the hungry ate that winter (“$1,000 Sent to Stave off Starving [Page 1]).

The editorial, “Hungry Christmas?” capitalized on that same sentiment, and appealed to the ethos of the reader by explaining that that children will be “crying, not because Santa didn’t come, but because breakfast didn’t.” By employing this emotionally-driven rhetoric, the author reached out to the entire public of Dallas with the hopes the image of a child starving would encourage donations. By associating the lack of Santa and the lack of hunger, there is an underlying hope that people will think about the hypocritical greed they so often exhibit during the season of giving, and how there are essentially more pressing issues that need monetary attention than  lavish gifts (“Hungry Christmas?” [Page 2]).

The city of Dallas’ government was slow to implement policies regarding the homeless and poor on the level of the local government, yet the city still received federal funding (Rose 43). This came at a time when private charities were on the decline, as the wealthy who funded them started to decrease contributions due to the impending economic state of the country (Rose 43). As monetary backing decreased for these privatized charities, the demand for their resources increased(WPA 284). This is one of the main issues Knott illustrated in his cartoon; the lack of funding for the charities, coupled with Dallas’ slow movement of policies designed to benefit the poor and hungry, lead to a population of dismissed homeless people.

The mother in the cartoon is most likely a single mother who lost her husband to either death or divorce. Unfortunately, the first workers to loose their jobs in the 1920s were women, and government efforts to create jobs were often directed towards men, proving problematic to single women throughout the state (WPA 96-97). It is estimated that 70 percent of women who were the head of “transient” families, or families who spent much of their time illegally riding trains across the country in search of work and aid, were either widowed or separated (Kusmer 208). While Knott does not specify if the particular family depicted is transient, it is quite possible this was their fate, as Dallas was on the verge of becoming a major railroad hub before the Great Depression hit (Weinstein 115). Knott appeals to the pathos of the viewer by including young children, one of which is complaining to his mother—the figure he has relied on his whole life to cook and provide him with meals—about being hungry. These children were taught the evils of chance and possibility at a young age. Many children are naive to the concept of prolonged hunger or discomfort; for these children, hunger surpassed discomfort, and was taken to the level of a fight for survival in a world they only so recently entered.

The Great Depression favored the rich; it did not spare the lives of the poor, and completely disregarded the complexities of all human life, regardless of socioeconomic status. Many people learned to function on little to no food, as well as live off the land and accept death for what it is. This great tragedy is horrifying, yet its memorialization is essential to the American people. There is no better way to tell history than through the creative outlets of the people of the time, which is why Knott’s cartoon has proved important and survived the transience of time.

Works Cited

“$1000 sent to stave off starving.” Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 16 Dec. 1931, sec. II: 1. Print.

Hill, Patricia Evridge. “Dallas, Texas.” Encyclopedia of American Urban History. Ed. David Goldfield. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2007. 204-206. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

“Hungry Christmas?” Dallas Morning News [Dallas] 16 Dec. 1931, sec. II: 2. Print.

Knott, John Francis. “Somebody at the Door.” Cartoon. Dallas Morning News  [Dallas] 16 Dec. 1931, sec. II: 2. Print.

Kusmer, Kenneth L. Down & Out, On The Road : The Homeless In American History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Rose, Harriett DeAnn. “Dallas, Poverty, and Race: Community Action Programs in the War on Poverty.” University of North Texas, 2008. Ann Arbor: ProQuest. Web. 27 Oct. 2015.

Weinstein, Bernard L., and Terry L. Clower. “Dallas.” Encyclopedia of Homelessness. Ed. David Levinson. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Reference, 2004. 103-105. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 25 Oct. 2015.

Writers’ Program of the Work Projects Administration in the City of Dallas, et al.. The WPA Dallas Guide And History. [Dallas, Tex.]: Dallas Public Library, Texas Center for the Book , 1992. Print. 25 October 2015.

The Waking Giant

The Waking Giant
A giant is lying in slumber, while a man, who is smaller in comparison, is standing in wait of battle. John Knott illustrated the lack of unification of China and the conquest by Japan during the Battle of Shanghai

The Waking Giant

John  F. Knott – February 10, 1932

The political cartoon The Waking Giant, created by John Knott and published in the Dallas Morning News on February 10, 1932, depicts a giant lying in slumber and a man, who is smaller in comparison, standing in wait of battle. The man wears a hat with the word “JAPAN” written across it. He is holding a sword upon which the words, “MOVE TO CUT UP CHINA” are written, symbolizing Japan’s efforts to break up China into sections of conquest (Knott). The cartoon conveys the lack of unification of China and imperial conquest by Japan during the Battle of Shanghai in 1932.

This era in global history was littered with tension between colonizing nations. The French Empire, Spanish Empire, British Empire, and other western nations were colonizing large swaths of the world. Among the nations seeking to expand their territory was Japan. In the early 1930’s, Japan, a heavy industrialized nation, was in financial distress and looked towards neighboring China for the necessary natural resources to keep Japan’s national economy afloat (“Japan Invades Manchuria 1931”). The giant, which represents China in Knott’s political cartoon, is wearing traditional Chinese clothing, tangzhuang, while the Japanese soldier is in more modern military attire. The difference between traditional and modern clothing is used to emphasize China’s lack of technological and industrial progress compared to Japan and also to suggest that if engaged in war, China would face an unfavorable battle with Japan.

Perhaps the most critical question that comes to mind is: Why did Knott, or anyone in America in the early 1930s, care about what happened to China? During this era of colonization, America stood by the idea that every nation should cease to expand their territory any further. America also had a political and diplomatic investment in China through Chiang Kai-shek. Chiang Kai-shek was the nationalist political and military leader at the time. He had support from many American political leaders and citizens (Whitman). Chiang Kai-shek started to lead unification of politically disarrayed China and opposed the colonization of China by Japan  (“Chiang Kai-shek: Internal and External Conflict In China”).

Similar to the Japanese soldier ready to strike before the giant fully awoke from his slumber in Knott’s political cartoon, Japan needed to find an excuse to act against China and gain their natural resource-filled territories. Japan found its self-justification to take up arms when the Chinese military “violated” Japan’s established boundaries within which the Chinese military was allowed to operate in Shanghai. In response, Japan sent a naval fleet to Shanghai. On January 28, 1932, Japan started bombarding the city, and fighting between the Chinese and Japanese military ensued with no end in sight (Chen).

Also appearing in the Dallas Morning News along with Knott’s political cartoon was the editorial A Stubborn Defense, which conveyed how the Chinese military was desperately attempting to face off against a nation with greater military might. The article depicted China as a tenacious nation that was willing to defend what was rightfully theirs until the end. The article also stated that, even though military forces were continuing to advance in Manchuria, the Japanese public was not completely invested in the cause of war. The editorial argued that if such a tenacious defense continued, the situation might lead to withdrawal of armed forces due to disapproval on the part of the Japanese public (Dallas Morning News Section 2 Page 4).

The fighting did on stop, however, until almost three months later, when the Shanghai Ceasefire Agreement was signed. In contrast to the hopes of the editorial, the result was not in China’s favor. Shanghai and the surrounding cities ended up under the control of Japan (Chen). The relationship between Japan and China after the battle remained tense and eventually gave away to the Second Sino-Japanese War. As for America, their political and diplomatic investment fell through when a civil war erupted in China between the nationalist party Kuo Min Tang and the Communist forces led by Mao Tse Tung. After the Communist Party took power, Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan (“Chiang Kai-shek: Internal and External Conflict In China”). America continued to support Chiang Kai-shek and also engraved its influence on defeated Japan after World War II (“Article 9 and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty”).

This historical incident holds relevance even today. Similar to the previous tensions surrounding Japan’s colonization of China, recently China has been in dispute with Japan over islands in the East China Sea. Juxtaposed to when America supported China under Chiang Kai-Shek, the U.S. now has a strong political and diplomatic investment in Japan. In keeping with formal U.S. treaty obligations negotiated after the Second World War, President Barack Obama has announced that America will support Japan with military power if tensions over the disputed islands were to turn violent (“How Uninhabited Islands Soured China-Japan Ties”). The constant change is diplomatic alliances conveys the fact that, among other things, each nation is looking out for its own self-interest. This is neither a selfishly evil or a morally righteous act, but rather is something that everyone should be aware of as the world’s balance of power(s) continues to shift.

Works Cited

“A Stubborn Defense” Dallas Morning News 10 Feb. 1932: Section 2 Page 4. Print.

“Article 9 and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.” Asia for Educators. Columbia University, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Budge, Kent G. “Shanghai.” The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia:. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Chen, Peter. “First Battle of Shanghai.” WW2DB RSS. Lava Development, n.d. Web. 25 Oct 2015.

“Chiang Kai-shek.” History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

“How Uninhabited Islands Soured China-Japan Ties – BBC News.” BBC News. BBC, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

“Japan Invades Manchuria 1931 – Inter-war Period: Causes of WWII.” Japan Invades Manchuria 1931 – Inter-war Period: Causes of WWII. Weebly.com, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Knott, John. “The Waking Giant” Dallas Morning News 10 Feb. 1932: Section 2 Page 4. Print.

“The Mukden Incident of 1931 and the Stimson Doctrine.” The Mukden Incident of 1931 and the Stimson Doctrine – 1921–1936 – Milestones – Office of the Historian. U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2015.

Whitman, Alden. “The Life of Chiang Kai-shek: A Leader Who Was Thrust Aside by Revolution.” Nytimes.com. The New York Times, 6 Apr. 1975. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Japan-China Island Dispute

Patrick Chappatte epicts an island lying in-between two naval ships rushing towards each other. One of the ships displays Japan’s national flag, while the other displays China’s national flag. A man that resembles Uncle Sam is tie to an anchor that is being dragged behind the Japanese ship. Uncle Sam is holding up a hand to signal “stop”.
Patrick Chappatte epicts an island lying in-between two naval ships rushing towards each other. One of the ships displays Japan’s national flag, while the other displays China’s national flag. A man that resembles Uncle Sam is tie to an anchor that is being dragged behind the Japanese ship. Uncle Sam is holding up a hand to signal “stop”.

Japan-China Island Dispute

Patrick Chappatte – September 19, 2012

The political cartoon Japan-China Island Dispute, created by Patrick Chappatte and published in The New York Times on September 20, 2012, depicts an island lying in-between two naval ships rushing towards each other. One of the ships displays Japan’s national flag, while the other displays China’s national flag. A man who resembles Uncle Sam is tied to an anchor that is being dragged behind the Japanese ship. Uncle Sam is holding up a hand to signal “stop” (Chappatte). The cartoon conveys the conflict between China and Japan over disputed islands and America’s role in this complex foreign issue.

The island in the political cartoon represents a set of eight uninhabited islands that are called “Senkaku” islands by the Japanese, “Diaoyudao” islands by the Chinese, and “Diaoyutai” islands by Taiwan (Yu). The Senkaku/Diaoyudao/Diaoyutai islands are located northeast of Taiwan and consist of seven square kilometers in total area. Their importance lies in their proximity to nearby shipping lanes, rich fish-filled waters, nearby (possible) oil and gas reserves, and strategic military location for dominance within the Asia-Pacific region (“How Uninhabited Islands Soured China-Japan Ties”). These islands are located on the East China Sea and should not be confused with another set of disputed islands between China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam in the South China Sea (McKirdy and Hunt).

In some ways the disputes over these islands resemble events in Asia before, during, and after World War II, when nations were in conflict over territory and colonization (“The Mukden Incident of 1931 and the Stimson Doctrine”). The current Disputed Islands Conflict holds relevance to our lives because the countries in these territorial disagreements are the same major political players who were at odds immediately before and during the Second World War and also because the failure to satisfactorily resolve earlier territorial disagreements is now the source of renewed geo-political tension and potential conflict. This is worrisome; for as George Santayana would once wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it” (Santayana 284).

In Chappatte’s cartoon, the two colliding battle ships represent Japan and China and their this territorial dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyudao/Diaoyutai islands. Japan claims it originally surveyed the islands, found them uninhabited, and officially made them part of Japan’s territory on January 14, 1895. According to the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, however, Japan had to give up some of its islands to China, although these disputed lands were not a part of the treaty. The Senkaku/Diaoyudao/Diaoyutai islands remained under US trusteeship until they were returned to Japan in 1971. Meanwhile, China contends that the islands have been apart of China since before Japan’s nineteenth century survey and therefore should have been given to China under the Treaty of San Francisco (“How Uninhabited Islands Soured China-Japan Ties”).

Not mentioned in the political cartoon but equally important is Taiwan’s involvement in this conflict. Taiwan argues that the islands belong to them. The Senkaku/Diaoyudao/Diaoyutai islands are crucial fishing areas for the Taiwanese economy and food supply. Japan offered a diplomatic solution to Taiwan by allowing them to fish in the area in exchange for naval assistance in surveillance of the islands (Chiu Bi-Whei). This strategic move not only gave Japan a neighboring ally in this matter but also bolstered the division between China and Taiwan.

In Chappatte’s political cartoon, Uncle Sam represents America’s involvement on the side of Japan in this dispute. After its loss in World War II, Japan’s constitution was rewritten by U.S. General Douglas MacArthur (“Bringing Democracy to Japan”). Under Article Nine of the new constitution, Japan was to disband all military forces. After the formal U.S. Occupation ended, Japan was only able to operate a defensive military Self-Defense Force (“Article 9 and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty”). Not having any military whatsoever would have left Japan crippled if foreign affairs were to turn violent. To resolve this pressing matter, in 1952 the two countries signed the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty. Under this treaty, America was allowed to station U.S. military bases in Japan; in exchange, Japan would receive U.S. military aide if they were to experience foreign conflicts (“Article 9 and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty”).

The current discord between Japan and China is reminiscent of tensions between the two nations during the early 1930’s and leading up to World War II. The tense situation over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyudao/Diaoyutai islands in the East China Sea revelas a continuous, unresolved source of friction between China and Japan. In order to maintain open international ocean trade routes as well as overall peace in the Asia-Pacific region, America has given support to Japan in this complex foreign dispute. If violent conflict were to erupt, the damage would not only be felt by Japanese and Chinese citizens and others in the region, but also by the American people here at home due to our alliance with Japan and our obligations to provide military support under the terms of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.

Works Cited

“Article 9 and the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty.” Asia for Educators. Columbia University, n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

“Bringing Democracy to Japan.” Crf-usa.org. Constitutional Rights Foundation, n.d. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.

Chappatte, Patrick. “Japan-China Island Dispute.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Chiu Bi-Whei. “Taiwan Wants a Say in Senkaku Talks.” DW.COM. Made for Minds, 09 Sept. 2013. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.

“How Uninhabited Islands Soured China-Japan Ties – BBC News.” BBC News. BBC, 10 Nov. 2014. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

McKirdy, Euan, and Katie Hunt. “Showdown in the South China Sea: How Did We Get Here? – CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network, 28 Oct. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.

Santayana, George. The Life of Reason, Or, The Phases of Human Progress. New York: Scribner, 1954. Print.

“The Mukden Incident of 1931 and the Stimson Doctrine.” History.state.gov. U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, n.d. Web. 4 Dec. 2015.

Yu, Miles. “Taiwan’s First President Ignites Firestorm with Claim That Disputed Islands Belong to Japan.” Washington Times. The Washington Times, 6 Aug. 2015. Web. 17 Nov. 2015.