The Bear, the Bomb, and Uncle Sam:

The Evolving American Perception of “Russians”

Viewed Through Political Cartoons

A thesis submitted to the

Graduate School

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

Master of Arts

in the Department of Geography

of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences

by

Beth Ciaravolo

B.A. University of Cincinnati

June 2012

Committee Chair: Dr. Colleen McTague, Ph.D.

ii

Abstract

This project entails an analysis of the popular discourse of political cartoons

involving Russia and the former USSR as they fit into this category. Cartoons are

selected from a number of the most widely-read papers in the United States. All

signs, symbols, and text are linguistically analyzed, with the ultimate aim of

uncovering Americans’ underlying perceptions of Russia and the former Soviet

states and how these views have changed (or not changed) over the years since the

Cold War. Points of interest include the kinds of words used, the symbols selected to

represent various personalities and nations, and any notable omissions of related

facts. These findings are then situated in the original sociopolitical context, so that

the question may be asked: What do cartoons tell us about the changing American

perceptions of Russia and the former Soviet states?

iii

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my committee, especially my advisor, Dr. Colleen

McTague, without whom this thesis would never have been possible. Thanks also go

to my colleagues at UC and my best friend Jen Weber for all their help and support,

and to all the staff at the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library and Museum at The Ohio State

University, particularly Mrs. Susan Liberator, for all their help in procuring the

cartoons and permissions to use them.

v

Table of Contents Abstract..………...….……………...………………………………………….…….………….ii Acknowledgements……..…...………………..…………………...…………………..…….iv Table of Contents………………………………………………………………….….………..v List of Figures……..…………………………………………………………….…………….vii

Chapter 1: Introduction and Literature Review Problem Statement……………..…………………………….……….…….…1

Research Questions…………………………..……….………...……..….…..1 Critical Geopolitics…………………….…….………………..….…………...2 Popular Geopolitics………………………………..……..…………………...5

Previous Cartoon Studies……….……………..……….………….…..….….7 Dissecting Cartoons as a Medium……………...………………………...….9 Hegemony and Anti-geopolitics……………..……………………..…..….11 The Importance of Context…………………..…………………………..….16

Visual Symbol, Metaphor, and Allusions………..………………….……..24 Synthesis/Conclusion………………………………..……………………....32

Chapter 2: Methodology

Introduction……………………………………………………............……..34 Selecting and Obtaining the Cartoons………………………….….…..….35

Authors, Dates, and Geographical Locations………………….………….36

Chapter 3: Background/Historical Context Post-World War II………………….……………………………...…...…….44

The Cold War, Détente, and the Second Cold War………...…….……..45 The Post-Soviet Era…………………………………………….……………..46

McCarthy and Political Repression…………………………..………..…...47

Chapter 4: Critical Analysis 1947-1950……………………………………………………………………..51 1951-1960……………………………………………………………………..59 1961-1970……………………………………………………………………..64 1971-1980……………………………………………………………………..66 1981-1990……………………………………………………………………..69 1991-2000……………………………………………………………………..72 2000-2007……………………………………………………………………..76

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Directions for Further Research ……………………………..…………….79 Conclusions………………………………………………………..…………..80

vi

Bibliography…………………………………………………………….……………………..83 Appendix: List of Cartoons…………………………………………….…………………….85

vii

List of Figures Figure 2.1: Cartoon Publication Dates………………………………………………..……37 Figure 2.2: Geographical Distribution of Cartoons………………………………..…….38 Figure 2.3: Proportional representation of each cartoonist with more than

4 cartoons in study…………………………………………………………..………..40 Figure 4.1: “Why Not?” L.D. Warren……………………..………………………………..55 Figure 4.2: “Try Anything But Blasting” L.D. Warren…………..………………………..58 Figure 4.3: “Safety Patrol” L.D. Warren………………………….………………………..61 Figure 4.4: “World Trade” L.D. Warren……………………..…………………………….62 Figure 4.5: “Everyone in Russia Should Win a Gold Medal Just for Living”

Ray Osrin..………………………………………………………..……………………67 Figure 4.6: “[USA/USSR]” Kate Salley Palmer………………..…………………………..70 Figure 4.7: “How Do You Feel About the New Freedom Now, Comrade Gorbachev?” Ray Osrin………………………………….…………………………..71 Figure 4.8: “President Gorbachev, There’s an American Businessman

on the Phone…” Ray Osrin………………………………………………..…………73 Figure 4.9: “Solzhenitsyn Returns to the Motherland” Nick Anderson………..………73 Figure 4.10: “Howdy, Neighbor!” Nick Anderson……………………………….………74 Figure 4.11: “[Russia Crumbling]” Nick Anderson…………….………………………..75 Figure 4.12: “What Axis of Evil?” Jeff Stahler……………………..………………..…….76 Figure 4.13: “The Driving Lesson” Ed Stein……………………..………………………..77

1

Chapter 1: Introduction and

Literature Review

Problem Statement

This study aims to evaluate the changing opinions about “Russia” and

“Russians” portrayed in American political cartoons between World War II and

2012.

Research Questions

In seeking to describe the meta-narrative about “Russia” and “Russians”

during this time period as it is discursively established in political cartoons, I will

address the following series of questions:

What is the historical sociopolitical context surrounding the publication of the

cartoons?

2

What is the intended audience of the cartoons?

What kinds of symbols are used in the cartoons and why?

How is the cartoon’s interpretation reliant upon the context in which it is published

and read?

How do cartoons mediate messages between author and reader?

Critical Geopolitics

According to Gearóid Ó’Tuathail (1996) “geography is about power.” The

mere existence of the state relies upon the power of some individuals over others,

and the ability of those with authority to “organize, occupy, and administer space.”

According to Ó’Tuathail,

Geography [is] not something already possessed by the earth but an active writing of the earth by an expanding, centralizing imperial state. It [is] not a noun but a verb, a geo-graphing, an earth-writing by ambitious endocolonizing and exocolonizing states who [seek] to seize space and organize it to fit their own cultural visions and material interests. [Emphasis in original] (1996, p. 2)

Ó’Tuathail takes a poststructuralist approach in asserting that this state is created

through the production of maps; through the power which delimits, delineates, and

defends the state; and through the discourses which surround these actions and

representations. This is what he refers to when he defines “geo-power” as “the

functioning of geographical knowledge not as an innocent body of knowledge and

learning but as an ensemble of technologies of power concerned with the

governmental production and management of territorial space (1996, p. 7).”

As Ó’Tuathail (1996) catalogues the evolution of geopolitical perspectives

through time, he carries the understanding that these evolving understandings of

3

“geopolitics” necessarily changed the essence of not only the geographical

discipline, but of the world itself. On the whole, these views have always sought to

describe and define the world in a way which is satisfactory to those who are doing

the describing; therefore, certain groups are marginalized, certain places and

processes made less important than others, certain political and popular opinions

suppressed to create a clean, concise image. This results in not only the erasure of

the struggles which necessarily occur in order for this understanding to be attained,

but also in “the depoliticization of certain political processes by representing them

as inevitable and eternal processes of nature (Ó’Tuathail, 1996, p. 54).” This

depoliticizing representation occurs in geopolitical texts, which discursively

establish certain processes as necessary and natural and others as unacceptable and

unnatural.

During the 1980s, Ó’Tuathail and Agnew had put forth a series of theses which

were intended to revolutionize the way academics approached the problematic of

geopolitics (Ó’Tuathail, 1996). First, there was the idea that merely speaking about

geopolitics was the same as engaging in it, because it is impossible to discuss a

concept without situating it within a particular context of perceived normality. Their

second thesis distinguished between “practical” and “formal” geopolitics, with the

former referring to the spatializing actions of military and political figures, and the

latter referring to those intellectual “experts” whose expertise communicates a

certain worldview to the general public. The third thesis states that the actions of any

spatializing individual cannot be fully understood without reference to their own

position in reference to existing structures of state and power. Finally, their last

4

thesis sought to incorporate the Gramscian concept of hegemony into the

understanding of how geopolitical “rule writing” occurs (Ó’Tuathail, 1996).

Thus, it is no longer possible to accept geopolitics as an exact science.

Instead, as Dalby asserts, a new critical geopolitics must be employed wherein

nothing can be taken for granted and we must “investigate the politics of the

geographical specification of politics (Dalby, quoted by Ó’Tuathail, 1996, p. 62).” In

this spirit, Ó’Tuathail is searching for “the politics of the construction of a mythology

or imaginative economy around geopolitics-as-object (a concept, but also a focus of

desire) rather than in a revisionist demythologization (Ó’Tuathail, 1996, p. 114).”

Here he divides the types of media which can be used to interrogate such a

perspective into two types: “popular” and “middle-brow.” He defines the “popular”

as “short, largely propagandistic pieces… found in mass-circulation newspapers,

news magazines, and journals like Current History, Life, New Republic, and Reader’s

Digest, as well as film (1996, p. 114).” This is distinguished from middle-brow, more

scholarly/elite sources of which Ó’Tuathail does not provide specific examples; they

are merely “those works addressed to the mass-market-book-buying general

public, the public intelligentsia. Books published by nonuniversity presses that get

reviewed in Time or Newsweek (Ó’Tuathail, 1996).”

Many authors such as Dodds (2004) and Dittmer (2005) have used Ó’Tuathail’s

classification to place political cartoons into the category of “popular” geopolitics.

But is this really the correct way to view them? And at that, does it matter whether

this is the correct way to view them?

5

Popular Geopolitics

I am hesitant to use Ó’Tuathail’s distinction in the types of media perspective

despite the fact that other authors seem to have taken it as read. For one thing, in

Critical Geopolitics, it is clear that the heuristic distinction between “popular” and

“middle-brow” media is set up purely for the convenience of Ó’Tuathail’s particular

case study and was an ad hoc decision intended to facilitate his analysis. Also, it is

not necessarily appropriate to apply the same understanding to a different historical

and geographical context altogether. Indeed, Ó’Tuathail’s own insistence on the

importance of context in understanding media would seem to forbid the heedless

borrowing and application of his informal heuristic tool.

While it is true that certain media may be held to more rigorous standards

than others, it is also true that this is exactly the kind of imposition of categories on a

diverse, undefinable postmodern world that Ó’Tuathail himself had earlier

disparaged. His definitions of “popular” and “middle-brow” geopolitics are at best

vague, and it is left to the reader to wonder what in fact they actually mean. What,

then, is “popular” geopolitics exactly? How is it really different from “middle-brow”

geopolitics? And where do political cartoons fall on this spectrum? Is it possible that

these categories overlap and, in actuality, are not categories at all?

My first inclination in attempting to decode these terms would be to return to

Ó’Tuathail’s distinction between “practical” and “formal” geopolitics, which again

distinguish between the spatializing actions undertaken by political and military

figures and those undertaken by “experts” and the intelligentsia. Perhaps, then, the

6

media created and consumed by “practical” geopoliticians is of the “middle-brow”

(or even of the unexplored and unnamed “high-brow” genre), and “popular”

geopolitics refers to the media created and consumed by the intelligentsia. This

distinction interestingly follows public/governmental and private/civil lines.

However, while I believe that the terms “practical” and “formal” geopolitics can

safely be applied to individual spatializing actions themselves, the same cannot be

said of the media in which spatializing actions may occur. It would be nonsensical to

match newspapers, nonfiction books, and magazines with a given socioeconomic

status, since their readership spans the gap between the political elite and the

intelligentsia and even includes others who belong to neither group. What is more,

the “political elite” and the “intelligentsia” are far from being hard and fast

categories themselves. If the former U.S. president Bill Clinton writes a book, is he

acting as a former head of state or merely as an “expert”?

Finally, one single issue of one single newspaper can contain dozens and

dozens of articles, advertisements, opinion columns, and political cartoons, each

written by a different author and therefore each based upon a different sociopolitical

narrative. Each idea within each article carries a different weight, based upon the

sociopolitical status of its author, of the paper in which it was published, and in

relation to the greater zeitgeist. It would seem, then, that the reference to “pieces”

from the newspaper can say nothing of the genre of the newspaper itself, nor of each

of the different sub-media (articles, opinion columns, cartoons, crossword puzzles)

in which it appears, nor of the individual assertions of fact and opinion which it

contains. So what then can be said about the genre of nonfiction books, or of political

7

cartoons? It appears that each piece must be taken individually, resulting in a

poststructuralist understanding of these geopolitical narratives which defies

Ó’Tuathail’s categorizations. Still, this has not prevented other scholars from

conducting explorations of “popular” media. Perhaps their insights can help to shed

light on these genera.

Previous Cartoon Studies

In her 2009 article, the linguist Elizabeth El Refaie sought to discover how

exactly political cartoons are interpreted by a typical reader. She wanted to know

how various types of literacies (cultural, linguistic, familiarity with current events,

familiarity with the work of the cartoonist) impact the reader’s ability to understand

the intended message of the cartoon. The study drew attention to some previously

underappreciated aspects of cartoon interpretation, such as the importance of

cultural and political literacy and awareness of idioms. It was also the first to explore

through interviews just how people parse the visual messages they are shown. This

context-specific understanding requires an incorporation of readers’ visual literacy,

that is, their ability to critically view images and interpret the various allegorical

levels of the message conveyed. “Seen from this perspective,” El Refaie says,

“issues of social identity, power relations and ideology become central to the

argument,” since some concepts are so culturally embedded that they can scarcely

be considered conscious interpretations. That is, the interpretation of a cartoon is

highly variable and is a function of a person’s identity in relation to political

ideologies, issues, and relationships of power. Cartoonists themselves must be

8

aware of a general level of “cultural literacy” in order to be successful (although the

meaning of the term “cultural literacy” itself is far from constant.)

To explore this aspect of the cartoon medium she used a series of semi-

structured interviews. She first chose four men and four women as respondents, all

of whom had similar backgrounds in terms of education and class, under the

assumption that they would have similar interest in current politics. She showed

them three cartoons which had been printed on the same day in three different

periodicals, which allowed her to account for the differing political bent of the

periodicals. It is important to note that while interesting, her eventual conclusion that

political cartoons are often difficult to understand may be somewhat premature, as

her study was limited to a mere four cartoons and three of her participants did not

speak English as a first language.

It is interesting to note that not only did El Refaie find that political cartoons

required specialized political and cultural knowledge to be understood, but she

discovered this after making the assumption that such cartoons were most likely

viewed and enjoyed by those who were highly educated. This assumption was taken

for granted to such a degree that there was no debate around her decision to choose

candidates in this way. In light of this, might a case not be made that political

cartoons are, in fact, a “middle-brow” medium?

In his study of the cartoons of Sidney Strube, Brookes (1990) says that the

readership of the Daily Express is one which defies categorization since “readership

surveys had shown that it had succeeded in its intention in reaching a good

proportion of all classes and regions simultaneously, rather than retaining a ‘class’

9

appeal like the working-class Daily Herald or the voice of the ‘New Poor’, the Daily

Mail.” Greenberg (2002), in his study of temporality in political cartoons, classified

the Vancouver Sun as a “middle-brow, family newspaper, catering to a socio-

economically diverse readership.” So into which category would Ó’Tuathail place

the Vancouver Sun? The Daily Express? And what about the cartoons contained within

them?

Dissecting Cartoons as a Medium

In Greenberg’s 2002 study, he notes the importance of distinguishing

between “hard” news and “opinion” news. Hard news is assumed to be factual and

unbiased reporting, whereas opinion news is “intentionally biased,” and it “blends

normative prescriptions and factual beliefs.” Again, these categories are unclear;

what is “hard news” and what is “opinion” is in reality highly subjective, by both

reporters and consumers alike. Indeed, some very naïve media consumers seem to

believe that ALL news is “hard” news and do not seem to understand that “opinion”

news even exists. “Opinion” news is no more than hearsay, but “hard” news is no

more than hearsay with the support of evidence or credibility. Political cartoons are

considered to be of the “opinion” variety (Greenberg, 2002).

In the same year that Critical Geopolitics was published, Joanne Sharp (1996)

wrote a geopolitical analysis of the articles in “Reader’s Digest” in terms of how they

constructed American ideas of the “Soviet Union” and “communism” during the time

period of 1930 to 1945. Her claim is that geopolitics needs to take into account the

discursive manner in which knowledge is produced, and that structuration theory

10

plays an important role in understanding how this is done; her first interest is in the

question of hegemonic power structures, and how these structures are created and

function in society. Within structuration theory, she views the “Reader’s Digest” as

an institution designed to create and disseminate knowledge by donning the guise

of honesty and authenticity. Her geopolitical interest is the geopolitics of geopolitics;

that is, she aims to uncover the hidden power relations within the state which

secretly guide its international actions. These are the temporally and culturally

specific circumstances and attitudes surrounding national behavior. But these

processes are not limited to political conversation; rather, many occur in the private,

civilian realm of society. She situates the “Reader’s Digest” as an actor in these

processes, but she does not define its genre as “popular” or otherwise.

Klaus Dodds, (1996, 2007) also publishing in that same year, was the first to

apply Ó’Tuathail’s geopolitical theory expressly to the medium of political cartoons.

The contributions of both Dodds and Sharp have led to later works by Jason Dittmer

and others to formulate the sub-discipline of Popular Geopolitics. This area of

Geography emphasizes a critical reading of the “popular” in an attempt to uncover

latent ideological and cultural values and beliefs, and explores the role of popular

culture and the visual in geopolitics, and how these discourses contribute to a

poststructuralist understanding of the society in which we live. But while the term

“popular geopolitics” was applied to this field throughout the history described

above, the term itself remains to be closely examined or delineated.

11

Hegemony and Anti-geopolitics

In his analysis of Steve Bell’s cartoons, Klaus Dodds (2007) emphasizes the

importance of cartoons in particular due to their popularity, persuasiveness, and

their ability to draw on a common knowledge base which is shared by their

community of readers. Dodds acknowledges the aforementioned idea that cartoons

are capable of reinforcing and creating hegemonic narratives; however, he also

asserts that cartoons are anti-geopolitical because they are capable of ridiculing

those in power. As El Refaie (2009) points out, cartoons are able to get away with

making such challenges to hegemonic structures since their subversive messages

are implicit and not explicit. However, while Dodds’ study mentions possibilities

such as studying these works in terms of sociocultural reader interpretations, or

exploring the cartoons as antigeopolitical entities which attempt to destabilize

existing power structures, he does not fully elaborate on these possibilities, leaving

these tasks to El Refaie (2009) and Dittmer (2005), respectively.

Jason Dittmer (2005) wrote about the influence of Captain America in scripting

the nation-state. He explores the paradigm which requires us to view the world in

terms of nation-states, and questions the true significance of these boundaries and

borders. He, like Sharp, recognizes the importance of Gramsci’s notion of hegemony

in establishing these narratives. Unlike Sharp, he hits upon the importance of scale:

the concept of national identity relies upon a person recognizing his or her own

place in larger dichotomies of self and other. This means that the individual impacts

global relationships and vice versa. Once the geopolitical “link between scales” is

12

recognized, he can then make the case that Captain America, by impacting identity

at the scale of the individual, has a wider impact at the scale of the state and the

world. Through this focus on scale, he has uncovered one of the hidden forces which

drives state policy—the individual-- and thus he has also, like Sharp, conducted the

geopolitics of geopolitics. He sees Captain America in much the same way that

Sharp sees the “Reader’s Digest;” it is an institution through which and in which

structuration occurs. Dittmer believes that comic books are particularly important in

formulating metanarratives because they are directed at children, who are still

formulating their conceptions of the world.

Dittmer also identifies anti-geopolitical scripts in Captain America. In context

of that cartoon, villains may be taken seriously for their qualms with the state and

given a chance to voice their counter-narratives. Through these dialogues, serious

issues of imperialism and violence are raised. While these subjects are discussed, it

is important to note that they are never accepted as justification for actions against

America. In this way the comic approaches American hypocrisy via the disconnect

between American values and American policy actions, but still manages to avoid

taking an explicit anti-geopolitical stance on a given issue. This allows the cartoon to

be provocative without taking an overtly controversial stance.

Brookes (1990) conducted a cartoon study on the Daily Express cartoons

created by Sidney Strube. His focus is upon how these cartoons created and

reproduced a certain image of “Englishness” which coincided with a wave of

nationalist sentiment put into effect by the then-Prime Minister Baldwin. At the time,

13

the political opinions expressed in cartoons were largely those of the newspaper

owners, who had their own political agendas and sought to turn the hegemonic

narrative in their favor. Sidney Strube’s cartoons were published entirely under the

judgment of the Daily Express and its editor, Beaverbrook, who could reject any

cartoon which did not fit with his perception of the geopolitical narrative. While

Brookes seems to imply that this is very different from how cartoons are produced

now, the interviews which Dodds conducted with Steve Bell suggests that a cartoon

must still align with the editor’s views to be accepted for publication (Dodds, 2007).

In her 1996 analysis, Sharp asserted that the “Reader’s Digest” plays an active

political role by allowing its readers to play a passive one; it “digests” their news,

mediating it through a series of “experts,” and provides the reader with the

information that they “need to know” to fulfill their duties as a “well-informed

citizen.” This mediation also occurs through careful expression of the issues. “Both

sides” are shown, but one argument is clearly less well-constructed than the other,

and “conservative magazines are condensed to produce articles on weighty political

topics, [while] liberal magazines [are] used for less consequential matters.” Above

all, she finds that “a dichotomous understanding of the world is promoted and

everything is boiled down to a simplistic and “common-sense” explanation where

matters are right or wrong, true or false, and all the grey area in between is

obscured. Of this Gramscian “common-sense” language, Brookes (1990) says: “It is

distinguished from ‘philosophy’ as a form of pragmatic reasoning rooted in practical

experience, that it represents itself as a commonly-held set of values, and that it is

14

continually in the process of reworking and transformation.” Brookes also notes

Strube’s use of this language in his cartoons which featured the Little Man.

According to Sharp (1996), the “well-informed citizen” itself is an identity

which is also created and reinforced within the pages of the “Reader’s Digest.” This

builds the reader’s “cultural capital” and allows them to participate in electoral

politics in an informed way. Certain American identities, including this “well-

informed citizen,” are created through this medium by the use of words such as “I”

and “we” to place the reader squarely into the “American” role created for them.

The “Digest” propagates such beliefs by repeating them, and this repetition is

important to a concepts’ ability to gain popular support. However, Sharp says that

despite this, if an idea does not already have a degree of popular support to start

with, repetition will only serve to make it less popular. Nonetheless, national

periodicals such as the “Reader’s Digest” create a national consciousness by giving

attention to issues from all over the United States, “consciously incorporating each

reader into the imagined community of the USA.”

All of these considerations provide the backdrop for Sharp’s analysis of

changing American perceptions of the United States the Soviet Union, and

communism. The results of this analysis chiefly point to a shift: Initially, America and

the Soviet Union are viewed as similar states with varying economic designs but

working to the same goal. Over time, though, two states are gradually painted as

standing diametrically opposed on social, political, and moral grounds.

15

“Until the late 1930s, Soviet socialism offered an alternative system to American capitalism; the distinction between the two societies had been written as one of economic organization. By the late 1930s, however, Soviet socialism was reconstructed as a system opposed to American democracy; in other words, the terms of the opposition broadened from the economic sphere to encompass social organization and, indeed, the myth-history of America’s exceptionalism.”

Socialism became tantamount to fascism. Capitalism is, after all, the “natural” state

of society, and in America there is equality of opportunity, whereas in the Soviet

Union there is widespread oppression and, despite the Marxist ideal, classes as well.

If this evolution had taken place in a cartoon, Greenberg (2002) would have called it

a case of opposition, since the once-complex entities of America and the Soviet

Union are now simplified and painted as natural enemies.

The historian Douglas (2009) finds cartoons to be a useful medium for

studying the past, since they show not only historical events but also present

opposing viewpoints that may be obscured in current histories. While the depiction

of these multiple viewpoints may provide a glimpse into the mindset of the public

and a hint as to why historical events panned out in a certain way, it is important that

they be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, Douglas specifically recommends caution

when dealing with Cold War cartoons because “British and American cartoons were

drawn by artists who sought to express their own opinions, or the opinions of their

employers, which were not necessarily the opinions of their governments.” On this

advice, I will take care to contrast the views being presented in my political cartoons

with the stated official policy objectives of the government, and to view them in this

respect as presenting anti-geopolitical and subaltern viewpoints, rather than a

“mainstream” perspective.

16

Attwood and Lockyer (2009) focus on the role of controversial images in

society, like the controversial images of Steve Bell of which Dodds (2007) makes

mention. Attwood and Lockyer ask what exactly makes an image controversial or

“obscene.” They argue that what images are controversial and how they are treated

grants important insight into societal norms, ethics, and practices. I support this

conclusion, as I believe that an image is controversial precisely because it

challenges the hegemonic narrative by failing to adhere to the norms embedded in

that narrative. Attwood and Lockyer suggest that obscene images are defined as

such because they remove the distance between the event that is being observed

and the observer; they are not representation but rather the actual thing. To borrow

Sharp’s (1996) term, events are being reported without being “digested” for the

consumer. With the rise of technology like smartphones, it is becoming more

difficult for images to be censored. Attwood and Lockyer ask how these changes in

technology will affect the way the world is depicted to and understood by the world

as a whole. I wonder if this move toward an “unmediated” perception of the world

(which is in fact composed of an infinite number of mediations), is itself anti-

geopolitical in that it will inevitably weaken the status of today’s hegemonic

narrative. But what will replace this narrative? Can direct observation and

unmediated experience itself become the new hegemony?

The Importance of Context

Ó’Tuathail (1996) describes the Foucauldian processes of

governmentality and the relationship between knowledge and power. Since

17

all knowledge requires the existence of a sociopolitical hierarchy and vice

versa, no piece of knowledge can be fully understood outside of its

sociopolitical context. As has been shown in the previous sections, the state

has to create itself by establishing the hegemony of its own constructed

narratives and illustrations. Ó’Tuathail reflects upon Said’s assertion that “we

are all at the mercy of geography,” saying that

The struggle over geography is also a conflict between competing images and imaginings, a contest of power and resistance that involves not only struggles to represent the materiality of physical geographical objects and boundaries but also the equally powerful and, in a different manner, the equally material force of discursive borders between an idealized Self and a demonized Other, between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Viewed from the colonial frontier, geography is not just a battle of cartographic technologies and regimes of truth; it is also a contest between different ways of envisioning the world (1996, p. 14-15).

Thus, there is no single geography but in fact a multiplicity of geographies which are

reliant upon the backgrounds and worldviews of those who create them. Indeed,

Ó’Tuathail asserts that the purpose of his book is to “disturb the innocence of

geography and politicize the writing of global space (1996, p. 20).” The world can

never be viewed from a Cartesian perspective, since the viewer cannot be removed

from the equation; it is impossible to have a representation of the world which has

not been in some way shaped by the beliefs of the observer. The “eye/I” always

views the world with the express intent of imposing order and control upon it.

Here Ó’Tuathail also has some things to say on the ocularcentrism which is

integral to Western thought. He traces this obsession with the visual all the way back

18

to the Greeks, who based their entire knowledge structure on what could be seen

and observed. Thus, we have the perceived superiority of the permanent visual

“sight” over the comparatively ephemeral, esoteric, verbal “cite,” and we can use

both tools to attempt understanding of that which objectively exists, the “site.”

Therefore, “in studying totalizing, detemporalizing spatializations of global(ized)

politics, critical geopolitics must problematize the relationship between subject,

object, and text, or, more prosaically, that between sight, sites, and cites (p. 71).”

Ó’Tuathail draws on Foucault’s understanding of how History came to be,

when all previously known stories and facts were condensed into a concise,

categorized and logical format which no doubt was inspired by the neat

classifications of the Linnean model. During this time there grew a mechanism for

determining what was History and what was not, for separating “fact” from fiction.

Similarly, the millions of geographies which had existed up to that time were

condensed and filtered into a monolithic Geography. To achieve this simplification,

the role of Geography’s “sight” had to be reassigned, not to a multiplicity of

individuals but to “Man,” the Geographer, the scientist. This “seeing-Man,” in the

terms of Ó’Tuathail, was nothing more than an objective eye through which the

world could be observed by the masses. In practice, however, the role of “Man” was

fulfilled almost entirely by white male Europeans, resulting in a certain series of

biases in the writing of the world. These biases continue today, and are still

circulated and reproduced in our media, including political cartoons.

19

The end result of all this, according to Ó’Tuathail, is that “geopolitics in all its

forms- whether subdivided into formal, practical, and popular culture variants or

not- is best studied in its messy historical con-textuality,” with the understanding that

“context” itself is far from definable. Douglas (2009) also notes in his historical

perspective of political cartoons that if texts themselves are viewed outside the

context in which they were originally created, this may result in a completely

different interpretation. I will now explore how this critical contextual component

has been utilized in previous cartoon studies.

Hammett and Mather (2011) believe that “it is the context of the cartoon as

well as what is and is not covered that provides a key resource for the interrogation

of power relations and social justice.” They believe that cartoons can thus be used to

teach about geopolitical events in a critical fashion. They showcase an event

together with cartoons which present a certain perspective upon it. “In other words,

the cartoons provide a medium and a platform for exploring key debates in political

geography.” Cartoons draw attention to certain sides of issues which would

generally go unscrutinized, to voice opinions that might not otherwise be heard. The

ways in which people respond to the publication of a given cartoon may also

provide insight into how society feels about the subject.

Hammett and Mather think that all of this otherwise unnoted context makes

political cartoons extremely useful tools for teaching students to think critically

about events and about the ways in which the media chooses to portray them.

Teaching students about the context surrounding a political cartoon will also help

20

them to understand the humor and to see how various perspectives shape events.

They can also learn to think critically about such positions, and they can see how

different opinions fit into and oppose greater geopolitical discourses. Hammett and

Mather define critical geopolitics as a call to understand the relationship between

groups and forces at different scales, and how they interconnect. One example of

how scale can be used to understand the role of cartoons is Dittmer’s (2005)

recognition of Captain America having influence at the individual scale which

carries to the scale of the state. In seeing how various fellow students have different

interpretations of cartoons, students can also understand that there can be a wide

array of different, but equally valid, interpretations of both the media and the events

to which it refers; in other words, they can begin to see the multiplicity of

geographies which is implied by Ó’Tuathail’s geo-graph. Cartoons can also be used

to broaden students’ awareness of the world beyond our borders, since as Hammett

and Mather note, “students’ perceptions of the global south are often framed

through their depiction in popular culture.”

In his study of Steve Bell’s work, Dodds (2007) situates Bell’s cartoons in their

temporal context when he explores the role they play in illustrating and challenging

hegemonic narratives. He discusses the importance of media and language in

establishing a narrative surrounding the 9/11 attacks, establishing America as a

victim with the strength and integrity to defend itself. The government also enrolled

the media to help establish the case for the War on Terror. He discusses the

influence of the visual at that time in history in establishing some parties as victims

and others as threats. In particular, he uses the example of US Secretary of State

21

Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations. Dodds directly interviews the

cartoonist to obtain an understanding of his goals in drawing the cartoons. By

examining four of Bell’s cartoons, Dodds hopes to “[contend] that Bell’s work offers

important insights to those seeking to critically comprehend some of the ongoing

visual and political consequences of 9/11 and the declaration by the Bush

administration of a long-term ‘war on terror’.” Thus the emphasis of Dodds’ whole

analysis is on the sociopolitical context, even more than on the cartoons themselves.

Katz (2004) writes a concise history of political cartoons in the United States,

stretching all the way back to the cartoons drawn by Benjamin Franklin. This

overview grants useful historical context for political cartoons of every generation.

He notes the eroding influence of political cartoons as the popularity of newspapers

and print media declines. Cartoons (and newspapers) must also vie for reader

attention in a world with increasing information overload. He notes that during the

McCarthy era, only two major cartoonists, Herbert Block and Walt Kelly, actually

satirized and attacked McCarthy’s stance. The word “McCarthyism” was first used in

a Herbert Block cartoon. In the 1960s dissent became more common as anti-Vietnam

war protests grew. Cartoons with a political focus were more common in the 1980s

as Garry Trudeau went after Reagan, and in the 1990s H.W. Bush and Clinton were

prime targets because of their features and antics. 9/11 brought about a new era of

solidarity and suspicion, of black-and-white issues and terrorist threats. Katz

believes that this dichotomous way of thinking has slowly softened, however, such

that by 2004 criticism was again allowed. Thus, context becomes important in the

very prevalence of the medium itself, and not just in the understanding of its content.

22

An interesting thing that Brookes (1990) mentions is also the short-term,

situational context in which the newspaper (and its cartoon content) is expected to

be consumed; specifically, assumptions and norms are created about the way

reading the newspaper is an activity which helps to shape the reader’s day. There

are certain circumstances under which the paper will be read and others under

which it will not, and these are tied in with societal norms about work and leisure

time. Therefore the context in which the paper is read is implicit in all its content,

articles, advertisements, cartoons, and all. In the context he investigated, the total

content of the paper pushed forward a particular view of the world and of the

English, and this view was supported by the Sidney Strube cartoons he analyzed.

Greenberg’s (2002) main focus is temporality. For background on this

concept he draws largely on Mead, whose view emphasizes the bias we introduce

from history when we view it through the lens of what we now know and what is

occurring in the present day. Since telling stories of the past is largely the domain of

the media, they are able to implicitly and discursively legitimize themselves as the

authoritative source of societal storytelling. At the same time, according to Gitlin, the

temporality of news suffers from a shortsighted focus which places emphasis on the

event itself rather than the complex sociopolitical context which caused it to happen.

Discourse analysis, according to Greenberg, cannot hope uncover what a

reader will actually understand from a cartoon. It can, however, offer a series of

possible messages and interpretations which are possible to draw from the reading.

An important caveat which he attributes to Knight is that mere understanding does

23

not necessarily equate to agreement. While a person might grasp the message of a

cartoon, this does not mean that they will embrace it and incorporate it into their own

worldview.

In wake of his acknowledgement of multiple readings, Greenberg

nonsensically acknowledges that it is possible he may have interpreted his cartoons

the “wrong way” to start with. But in light of his previous assertions, the argument

may be made that, in post-modern fashion, any interpretation is correct. Cartoons

are meant to be interpreted by their readers; therefore, since Greenberg is a

reader, his interpretation cannot be “incorrect;” it may, however, be more or less

aligned with the interpretations of others in similar and different temporal and

sociopolitical contexts.

Thus, Ó’Tuathail, Hammett and Mather, Katz, Dodds, and Greenberg all

acknowledge the importance of situating political cartoons in their sociopolitical and

temporal context. In this thesis, I pay close attention to the events surrounding those

depicted in my cartoon. However, I also caution that my conclusions are not

necessarily similar to those which might be drawn by a person who read the cartoon

soon after it was printed, or at any time between then and now, or in another part of

the country. The biases of today’s local perspectives and the subsequent relative

reputability and accessibility of certain historical understandings over others will

limit my ability to understand geographies and worldviews to which I was never

exposed.

24

Visual Symbol, Metaphor, and Allusions

The linguistic work of George Lakoff is invoked in Ó’Tuathail’s observation

that “the metaphorics of our vision infuse our inherited language and

conceptualizations, and it would be folly to assume that we could ever fully break

from them.” Douglas states that the visual medium is even more striking, and easier

to remember, than the verbal; this viewpoint is corroborated by Plumb (2004) in his

article “Politicians as superheroes: the subversion of political authority using a pop

cultural icon in the cartoons of Steve Bell,” where Plumb argues that the messages in

political cartoons carry more weight than their contents alone, simply by virtue of

their medium.

Previous studies which investigate the understanding of metaphor in

discourse, such as those by the linguists Lakoff and Johnson (1980), have led to the

understanding of certain metaphors which are embedded in our cultural and

practical understanding of the world. In this understanding, all language is to some

degree metaphorical in that it assists us in conceptualizing relationships between

items in the actual world; it states the less common in terms of ideas with which we

are more familiar. The metaphorical significance of language is highly context-

dependent since different cultural groups understand concepts in terms of a wide

variety of metaphors. There is also the hitherto neglected influence of the actual

signifier itself and the nuanced role it can play in the understanding of the signified.

25

Elizabeth El Refaie (2003) incorporates all this theory into an attempt to

understand exactly how visual metaphor is understood. While research has begun

on the impact of the form in verbal language, El Refaie is the first to examine its

influence in visual discourse. Previous linguistic studies simply analyze the visual in

terms of the verbal, but she draws attention to the unique features and drawbacks

which are inherent in a visual medium as opposed to a verbal one. El Refaie takes

issue with the fact that those previous linguistic studies had attempted to apply

verbal analysis to visual communication, because they can miss out on visually

transmissible concepts that simply cannot be conveyed verbally. Verbal and visual

communication have different parameters and therefore different communicative

abilities; the temporal aspect of verbal communication is lost in the visual medium,

but artists have found ways to conventionally convey these concepts—for example,

through the use of motion lines, progressive panels, and spatial orientation (El

Refaie, 2003). Verbal cues such as character/object labels and written speech

bubbles may also be used to “fix” the images meaning by narrowing a myriad of

possible interpretations to the one which the author intended; thus, verbal and visual

methods may be complementary and not necessarily competing modes of

communication (El Refaie, 2003).

One important consideration in analyzing visual metaphors is that they tend to

more frequently blur the line between the literal and the metaphorical, an

observation which has profound implications for the type of statement a visual

metaphor is able to make. This strengthens the argument that cartoons need

sociopolitical context in order to be properly understood , and it is echoed in Dodds’

26

(2007) analysis of Steve Bell’s cartoons, when he notes that the caricature of persons

or groups of people as animals assigns stereotypical and culturally embedded

animal traits to the person or people in question. For example, Hammett and Mather

(2011) describe a cartoon in which the South African president Zuma is depicted as a

pig. This draws upon the idiom of a “chauvinist pig,” thus condensing the message

that the cartoonist wished to convey.

El Refaie (2003) argues that the challenge is to understand that there is never

a single understanding of an attempted metaphor, nor will a single image be

universally understood as figurative rather than literal. The key to understanding this

leap is to take the conventionality of a given metaphor into account when conducting

analysis. If the metaphor is highly conventional, it is obviously meant to be

understood metaphorically rather than literally. Doubt increases as conventionality

of the metaphor decreases (El Refaie, 2003). But conventionality itself is always

relative, so even this does not guarantee “perfect” understanding of the message. El

Refaie suspects that mere repetition may provide the basis for conventionality. In

light of all I have previously noted about the establishment of hegemonic discourses,

I hold that the prestige of the author and viewer and exposure of the phrase or image

are also factors.

El Refaie undertakes a case study wherein she analyzes a series of four

Austrian cartoons, with respect to the recommendations and conclusions of those

who have conducted previous similar studies. She then identifies the issues not

addressed by these studies and attempts to address them herself, by pointing to her

27

examples. Her study offers a useful overview of the ways that visual attempts at

communication can be interpreted, and is a necessary call for more emphasis on the

socio-political context of a given piece. El Refaie also identifies a number of

problems with previous theory about the interpretation of cartoons. She addresses

the way that metaphors in cartoons may use a combination of linguistic and visual

signs, drawing on common background experience, on typical verbal metaphors,

the spatial relationships between objects, or on the condensation of diverse groups

into a single stereotype in order to convey a large amount of information with few

words. Despite her desire to address a linguistic problem, El Refaie makes

incredibly useful additions to geographical theory by addressing the way in which

cartoons use spatial relationships between objects to convey relative importance or

temporal patterns, and by the way the homospatial depictions can condense

multiple signs into the same space, thus creating a new sign. She also incorporates

the idea of identity by addressing how “otherness” can be conveyed visually by use

of stereotypes, and how groups can be dehumanized by their literal marginalization

within the frame of the image.

Conners (2007) has a particular focus on allusions to characters from popular

culture. His argument is that such images are used as a bid to interest viewers who

do not normally follow politics, and that through the use of these references, the line

between reality and fiction becomes blurred. He refers to a study by Medhurst and

DeSousa which lists four themes of electoral political cartoons: “political

commonplaces (tying the campaign to other current events or the political process),

personal character traits (physical or psychological exaggeration), situational

28

themes (short-term situations that appear unexpectedly during a campaign), and

literary/cultural allusions.” These allusions can be not just from pop culture, but from

any other kind of media. This raises another interesting question in the debate over

the categorization of political cartoons as “popular” media. If they contain allusions

to other media which is “middle-brow”, does this effectively situate them in a

“middle-brow”?

Conners’ study involves a quantitative analysis of how often certain tropes and

allusions appear. He chose two cartoonists whom he believes frequently use popular

culture references and analyzes their cartoons, supplementing his data by

interviewing the cartoonists. He finds several contextually relevant allusions (to

Munch’s “The Scream” right after its robbery, to Superman, to holidays), and is told

by the cartoonist Steve Benson that “In the milieu of current politics and culture and

fads, we try to symbolically and instantaneously relate to our audience.” Thus, the

desire to connect to the audience through appeal to context is a major factor in the

decision to use a certain allusion.

Conners notes that allusions are more typically made in the visual content

rather than the textual. The role which Conners ascribes to such popular culture

references is similar to that which Dodds assigns to the animal metaphor: it serves as

shorthand to ascribe characteristics to a thing or person. It is also a guide for the

reader to tell them how to think about the subject, casting them in a fictional script

which adds, through allegory, to the script of “reality.”

29

In his cartoon study, Captain America himself is the first symbol which Dittmer

(2005) chooses to deconstruct. The obvious characteristics personified by Captain

America are “courage and honesty,” and his physical appearance betrays a certain

ideal as well (Dittmer, 2005). He always “acts in the name of security, not empire,” a

trait which is reinforced by his weapon choice of a shield (Dittmer, 2005). His

deepest value is revealed to be individualism, in keeping with a certain American

image (Dittmer, 2005). Dittmer notes the importance of Captain America’s being a

human personification of America, in that he is able to speak and act beyond the

capabilities of other national symbols which are mere inanimate objects (Dittmer,

2005). Dittmer also deploys Said’s and Gregory’s concept of “geographical

imaginaries” to understand how Captain America functions as a geopolitical

territorial symbol; in order for him to defend America, there must be an America to

defend, and it must be set up in opposition to an external “other.” In the pages of

Captain America, this role of America’s opposite has been filled by different villains

over time, and his interpersonal relationships have reflected America’s changing

spirit and values.

Captain America cartoons also makes use of setting. The idyllic image of vast

suburbanized middle-class America helps to perpetuate the idea that this is an

inherent piece of our cultural and national identity, while a depiction of Ground Zero

emphasizes the universality of our national sentiments (Dittmer, 2005). The rise of

the term “homeland” to refer to America was also a new phenomenon following

9/11, and one which Dittmer points to as a shift in the tenor of American identity

discourse. Following the work of Simon Dalby, he asks just how the world has

30

changed following 9/11. The answer he points to is in the return of dichotomous (or

oppositional) worldviews in the popular scripts, and he illustrates how these

worldviews are reflected in Captain America and its treatment of religion, ethnicity,

and terrorism.

According to Brookes (1990), Strube’s character, The Little Man, is purely

used as a mouthpiece through which to express the thoughts and opinions of an ideal

Englishman, without intending to appeal to any one class or social group over

another. His Britishness was also much less overt than that of the already-accepted

character John Bull; he was, perhaps, more of a British man than Britain itself. The

roles of The Little Man and his wife performatively established norms of gender

roles and politics through their portrayal as “common-sense” characters.

Plumb (2004) also speaks of superheroes in the context of popular culture

allusions. Because readers are already familiar with the character, they are

immediately able to pick up on the traits which the cartoonist is trying to portray.

The prevalence of visual media has also played a part in the evolution of caricature;

since we now know, thanks to television and the internet, what these politicians look

like, it is expected that we will be able to recognize them when they are caricatured.

This is in contrast to the past, when leaders were not as efficiently depicted.

The superhero persona is particularly effective, according to Plumb, because

politicians are similarly leading a double life; just as a superhero must have a secret

identity, so too are politicians presenting a false image to the rest of society. Thus,

by painting the politicians as campy superheroes, Bell can draw attention to their

31

real-life wiliness. But the reverse can also be true. When there is a contradiction

between the political figure and the role he is assigned to play, this juxtaposition can

make the message more powerful:

Because William Whitelaw is so recognizable, and so inextricably linked to a government far removed from the accepted ideals of the superhero, the acknowledged meaning of the superhero is lost. What the reader sees is a politician in a superhero costume, not a superhero. Herein lies the melancholy, which manifests itself as the representation of a pathetic character, which instead of trivializing the essentially serious message of the cartoon actually amplifies it.

Similarly, by assigning politicians superhero identities that are based upon their

least admirable traits, the cartoonist can imply that these are in fact their best

qualities and the mockery is underscored. Drawing them in the personality of a

fictional superhero who possesses traits opposite those held by the politician also

has the same effect.

One issue which results from cartoons’ excessive reliance on metaphor is that

of “metaphoric entrapment.” This concept, which Greenberg (2002) draws from the

work of Mumby and Spitzack, describes what happens when a problem is so

frequently described in terms of a certain metaphor that it becomes next to

impossible, or apparently nonsensical, to approach the issue from a different angle.

This effectively hems in the understanding of given issues and thus limits the extent

of the hegemonic narrative.

According to Douglas (2009), it is also important to observe not simply what

cartoons depict, but also what they deliberately omit and why. The changing nature

of cartoon content can often be attributed to changing societal norms and tastes, or it

32

may be the fault of a controlling government; in this case, the disappearance of

certain types of cartoons may be a reflection of disappearing liberties. I will ask this

question in my research as well, although I believe that there are many reasons

beyond government intervention for the repression or omission of certain issues,

symbols, or viewpoints.

Synthesis/Conclusion

These studies show that cartoons utilize rhetorical principles, symbols,

metaphors, and allusions in attempt to influence readers’ opinions and attitudes.

Perhaps this makes them “propagandistic” in the sense in which Ó’Tuathail

intended. But since they are open to interpretation and often do not overtly state

their goal, can they truly be propagandistic?

Ó’Tuathail also defines “popular” geopolitical media as “short” articles.

While it is true that political cartoons are generally restricted to a single panel, we

have seen that by use of symbol, metaphor, allusion, and textual cues, a great

amount of meaning can be packed into even a single-panel image. So, are political

cartoons “short, propagandistic pieces” from mainstream newspapers, or are they

something more?

In my analysis, I will discard the “popular” and “middle-brow” labels

altogether and instead address political cartoons as a form of “mediated

geopolitics.” This label is preferable because the important classification is not on

the media and its readership, but rather the process of mediation itself. Here the

33

medium and the sociopolitical context of a communicative act become paramount,

as these criteria create the message itself by determining how it is presented and

understood. From this information, we can extrapolate how a given worldview has

influenced, is influencing, or might influence the hegemonic narrative. “Mediated

geopolitics” is a much broader term for the process of understanding how our

worldview is shaped by a vast array of interpersonal communication which takes

place through mediated conversation, whether that be through a television show, a

book, a movie, or a political cartoon.

34

Chapter 2: Methodology

Introduction

This study is most informed by a poststructuralist understanding of the world

in which we live. Under this theory, entities such as states exist solely because

everyone behaves as if they do—that is, they draw them in maps, appoint

governments to rule them, and talk about them as if they exist. All of these state-

creating actions, which are discussed in greater depth in Ó’Tuathail’s Critical

Geopolitics (1996) and Simon Dalby’s Creating the Second Cold War (1990), function

as part of a “discourse” which discursively reifies the state.

The research in this thesis is qualitative in nature. Most notably, this study is

informed by the method of discourse analysis. This research method, pioneered by

Michel Foucault, involves examining the language or discourse surrounding an issue

35

or event in order to understand how its meaning is created. In this case, the

construction I will be examining is that of “Russia” and “Russians,” and the medium

through which this discourse occurs will be political cartoons.

Selecting and Obtaining the Cartoons

All cartoons used in this thesis were obtained from the archives of the Billy

Ireland Cartoon Library & Museum at the Ohio State University in Cincinnati, Ohio. A

search was conducted of their electronic art database (see cartoons.osu.edu) using

the search terms “editorial cartoon Russia.” The results were then examined to

eliminate all which did not have an associated author or publication date, or which

were not printed in a newspaper.

Once the cartoons had been selected, I made appointments to view the

cartoons on three separate occasions in December, February, and April of 2011-

2012. I traveled to the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library & Museum and took photographs

of the originals with a digital camera. This allowed me to retain a copy of every

cartoon for the entire duration of this project. The unlimited opportunity to view each

piece effectively eliminated the likelihood of missing out on any forgotten detail.

During the screening process I discovered that one cartoon had made it into

my list that did not actually pertain to Russia, while another was from 1944 and

therefore beyond the target time period. The staff of the cartoon library was able to

provide corrections of some publication dates, and while in the citations these errors

have been corrected to the fullest extent possible, it is important to note that some

errors may still exist. Following the procurement of all cartoons, some additional

36

cartoons were eliminated based upon the fact that they did not in fact deal with

Russia, or that they had not been printed in a newspaper, or simply that the museum

was unable to locate them. The final list of 247 cartoons, together with their dates and

newspapers of publication, may be found in the Appendix.

The cartoons were analyzed in batches according to the decade in which they

were printed, with consideration given to the year and the date in cases of specific

event references. In this manner it was possible to see the emergence of temporal

patterns in both the content and the tone of the cartoons.

Authors, Dates, and Geographical Locations

Since I was looking for temporal patterns, I found it necessary to control as

much as possible for other variables which may have affected content and symbols. I

wanted to ensure that any perceived shift was not purely a result of a shift in the

perspective of a single author or newspaper over time. I also wanted to be sure what

I captured was indeed a snapshot of the “American” zeitgeist, and not just a spirit

specific to say, New York City, or to Houston, Texas. For a temporal perspective, I

also required an adequate number of cartoons from varying years so that my sample

was not biased toward a single year or decade. All of these considerations led to my

desire to include as many carto

37

ons as possible which were drawn by different cartoonists in different U.S. cities

during different years.

Figure 2.1 depicts the publication years of the cartoons used in the study. As

becomes apparent from this figure, the earliest cartoon published post-1945 that I

was able to find was in fact published in 1947, and the most recent was published in

2009. Although this time span was not ideal, I regarded it as sufficient under the

assumption that the largest shift in content and tone would have occurred around the

time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While it is apparent that the Soviet

collapse caused a spike in cartoons dealing with Russia during that year, I am

38

cautious in drawing any conclusions from this data about the actual number of

cartoons about Russia being published in a given year. This is because I personally

have seen a variety of cartoons in more recent years from varying sources, but since

they were not from the same archive I could not justify using them in this study.

The same can be said of the locations of cartoon publication depicted in

Figure 2.2. By this figure I do not mean to imply that there were more cartoons about

Russia published in the eastern U.S. during these years; my sample is likely biased

toward the eastern U.S. and toward Ohio in particular due to the location of the of the

archive in Columbus, Ohio, and due to the difficulty of procuring and transporting

the actual pieces across distance. Therefore the perspectives of the Midwest and

39

eastern coast are predominant in the study, but it is true that this pattern largely

reflects the population distribution of the U.S. Obviously the ideal would have been

to get more cartoons from the western U.S., but there did exist at least a few of these

to help offset the hugely eastern view.

Another consideration is the number of cartoonists whose work was included

in the study. Although the work of forty-one authors was represented, some were

definitely represented more than others. The most salient example is the fact that

100 of the cartoons, or forty per cent of the total sample, were drawn by the

Cincinnati Enquirer cartoonist L.D. Warren. This is likely due to a combination of

factors; for one, he may have been more fond of Russia as a subject than other

authors, and again, his spatial proximity to the Columbus archive likely played a

part in their ability to procure his artwork. Other highly-represented artists (defined

as having contributed at least 5 cartoons to the study) included Nick Anderson of the

Louisville Courier-Journal; Al Liederman of the Long Island Press; Ray Osrin of the

Cleveland Plain Dealer; Kate Salley Palmer, who published for multiple South

Carolina newspapers; Arthur Poinier and Burt Randolph Thomas of the Detroit News;

David Seavey of the USA Today, and Ned White of the Akron Beacon Journal. The

relative number of cartoons drawn by each of these authors is charted in Figure 2.3.

Again there is a location bias here, but the inclusion of forty-one authors did

effectively ensure that the study was not limited to a single cartoonist’s or editor’s

point of view.

40

The 247 cartoons will be analyzed in batches according to their decade of

publication. Since in-depth analyses of the manner utilized by Dodds (2007) and El

Refaie (2009a, 2009b) cannot conceivably be applied to such a large volume of

cartoons, my analysis will more closely resemble that of Brookes (1990) in his study

on the Daily Express, of Dittmer (2005) on Captain America, of Plumb (2004) in the

examinations of Steve Bell, or of Sharp (1996) in her analysis of the Reader’s Digest.

Brookes, Dittmer, Plumb, and Sharp all focused their analysis on a particular body of

media and drew out the main themes and symbols. So, in stating that my analysis will

be similar to theirs, I mean that the analysis will be unavoidably subjective, in that I

will be selecting the cartoons and symbols which I find to be indicative of a temporal

trend within the data. Such subjectivity makes sense, however, in the context of a

medium which relies upon subjectivity to be effective. By drawing from this large

body of data, I hope to be able to identify trends which capture the general zeitgeist

Cartoonist # of Cartoons

% of total cartoons

Nick Anderson 18 7.29 Al Leiderman 9 3.64 Ray Osrin 19 7.69 Kate Salley Palmer 10 4.05 Arthur Poinier 8 3.24 David Seavey 7 2.83 Burt Randolph Thomas 12 4.86 Ned White 6 2.43

Figure 2.3: Representation of each cartoonist who contributed more than 4 cartoons to the study in proportion to total number of cartoons

41

of the United States at that period in time, by recognizing that trends in the political

cartoon medium are indicative of societal processes which discursively occurred

between the cartoonist, his or her editor, and the readership of the newspaper in

which they appeared.

My analysis uses the methods for understanding and interpreting political

cartoons and news that is presented visually suggested by Greenberg (2002). He

emphasizes the importance of “social problems” which are constructed through

discourse in the media. Those with control of the media get to decide which issues

are worthy of bringing to the attention of the public, and this attention will be drawn

in different ways depending upon the medium. Cartoons establish some issues as

problems by “framing” the problem; that is, by placing the problem in a context that

is intended to invoke common-sense and “universal values.” For framing to be

successful, world events must be condensed and depicted in a manner which allows

for simple understandings and categorizations. To do this, cartoons frequently use

“symbolic representations, myths, narratives and meanings” as shorthand for

conveying their message. Thus, what political cartoons really supply is a “mini-

narrative,” a microcosm of life. “The claims constructed in political cartoons are

illustrative of whether a society will see itself as a collective or a mosaic of different

groups, whether it will interrogate its past critically or accept it as given, and

whether and how it will see the past as relevant to the needs of the present and

future.” This condensation of complex ideas into simple ones to create an easy-to-

understand narrative is a theme which appears again and again in other cartoon

studies.

42

Greenberg discusses Morris’ understanding of the “mini-narrative” as a

“‘cognitive map’ for understanding everyday life.” He believes that this goal is

achieved in four ways: Firstly, by setting up an opposition between the newspaper

or cartoonists as an expert and “locating and labeling certain ‘other’ elements as

‘troublesome;’” secondly, by painting the problem as an “‘intellectual crisis,’” and

by presenting a proposed solution for the crisis; thirdly, by imposing a morality on

the situation and characters; and finally, by arranging constitutive elements of the

message in such a way that they are assured of connecting with the audience on an

experiential level and inspiring them to action.

In relation to this integral need for “connection with the audience,”

Greenberg also points out Burke’s principle of identification. Identification occurs

when the reader feels himself to be part of the artist’s argument. Here Greenberg

also shares Ó’Tuathail’s sentiments about the importance of context. He argues that

while political cartoons may have inherent influence, they are most effective in the

context in which they are intended to be understood. This context is not just

sociopolitical, but also historical. It is important to consider that a cartoon which is

not relevant to the current zeitgeist would be unlikely to be published; similarly, it

would also have to fit the agenda and political views of the periodical’s editorial

staff. By framing, the cartoons are not simply reporting the event: they are

overlaying it with a particular perception of relevant problems, and providing a

ready-made judgment of who is at fault and why. Thus the cartoons are not merely

descriptive, but also prescriptive. Their endorsement is not one of action, but rather

one of attitude.

43

Greenberg also refers to Morris’ four rhetorical devices found in cartoons:

these include condensation, combination, opposition, and domestication.

Condensation occurs when a single cartoon addresses multiple (sometimes

unrelated) issues and ties them together, thus implying that they are in fact related.

Combination is the term for creating an assembly of ideas from disparate paradigms

whose meanings may vary or conflict. Opposition is the term for establishing

dichotomies between two discrete forces, simplifying the subject into the easily

digestible “mini-narrative.” Domestication is the method of using local experiences

as metaphors for foreign ones. Greenberg proposes the addition of a fifth rhetorical

device: transference, which he uses to refer to the way blame is assigned via various

elements in a cartoon. He notes that “transference normally operates in an implicit

way that absolves the cartoon’s actors of their absurd actions or commentary by

displacing blame to another, normally non-visible, actor.”

In my analysis I will look for ways in which the cartoons have made use of the

rhetorical devices listed above to create a hegemonic metanarrative about U.S.-

Soviet interaction and about “Russian-ness” or “Soviet-ness.” I will note any anti-

geopolitical narratives if they are present, however, based upon the study of Katz

(2004) and the repression discussed by Gibson (1988), I do not expect that many will

be found, especially not prior to the 1960s. For the interpretation of context, I used

the historical sources reviewed in Chapter 2 combined with my own personal

memory of the more recent events.

44

Chapter 3: Background/Historical

Context

Post-World War II

By the end of World War II, relations between the United States and the Soviet

Union had deteriorated substantially due to a variety of factors. Stalin’s constant

need to territorially expand the Soviet empire and his violent tendencies, coupled

with tensions over the Eastern European states and Germany, led to the Cold War.

In the late 1940s the Soviet Union disputed with the U.S. over removal of

troops from Iran, as well as over the partition of Germany. Disputes over Germany

45

led to the Soviet blockade of Eastern Germany and the subsequent Berlin airlift. The

West’s efforts to safeguard Europe from Communism through the use of Marshall Aid

were also not viewed favorably by the Soviet Union. In 1949, the Soviets developed

nuclear capabilities. Stalin’s desire was to not only survive, but be able to win, a

nuclear war (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998).

The Cold War, Détente, and the Second Cold War

By the 1950s the Soviet Union was boycotting the United Nations, as a show of

support for the People’s Republic of China which the UN refused to recognize (Petro

and Rubinstein, 1997). Stalin died in 1953, bringing Nikita Khrushchev into office.

Khrushchev rolled back Stalin’s more repressive policies and maligned his

predecessor. This de-Stalinization resulted in a loss of stability and control within the

Soviet Union

In the 1960s the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States

was marked by the Cuban Missile Crisis, and by deteriorating relations between

Communist China and the Soviet Union due to China’s improved relations with the

United States. Nixon’s overtures to China around 1969-1970 improved the likelihood

of détente, and resulted in the 1970 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT) talks

(Kennedy-Pipe 1998).

Ronald Reagan’s hardline policies toward the Soviet Union in the 1980s again

made relations tense. In 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came into power, and instituted

reforms which dramatically changed the Soviet system (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997;

46

Hough, 1990). These reforms, however, were still unable to fix the Soviet system,

and it collapsed in 1991 (Shiraev, 2010).

The Post-Soviet Era

In the wake of the Soviet collapse, Yeltsin’s “shock therapy” attempted to

rapidly convert the Soviet economy to a capitalist system (Shiraev, 2010). This

resulted in concern for Russia’s stability. NATO expansion into the Eastern European

states was not well looked-upon by Russia.

After the events of 9/11 and the ascendance of Vladimir Putin, relations

between the United States and Russia have improved. Policy documents such as the

Council on Foreign Relations report (2006) describe the relationship as one which is

optimistic, yet tempered by misgivings about Russia’s record on human rights and

democratic practices.

According to Petro and Rubinstein (1997), there were a number of reasons

why the United States and the Soviet Union never moved to all-out war. Neither party

ever took the final step toward war in any of the numerous conflicts that arose during

the 1940s and 1990s; neither ever truly sought to remove territorial holdings from

the other; the two societies shared many cultural appreciations, such as literature,

art, music, and sports; they both shared Enlightenment ideologies based on a faith in

science and technology; and finally, both had problems consistently aligning with

their immediate neighbors (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). These factors which united

47

rather than divided the two major world powers are important considerations when

trying to understand how each viewed the other.

McCarthy and Political Repression

Political repression stateside during the McCarthy era was reviewed by

Gibson (1988), as he sought to determine if political repression was a result of

popular intolerance. This era was a case study in his application of what he calls the

elitist theory of democracy, a theory predicated on the inconsistency between

public opinion and elite opinion. Policies are determined by elites, while actual

public opinion is much less represented. Gibson posits that the elites are more

tolerant than the general public, which is conducive to the production of

controversial legislation which protects minorities. Political repression, then, is

implemented in a bottom-up fashion rather than in a top-down one. The intolerant

public is typically silent, but becomes mobilized when there is a perceived threat

against which they must unite. When popular intolerance becomes focused upon a

certain minority group in this manner, the public exerts pressure on the elites to

enact repressive measures.

Gibson’s working definition of political repression includes the outlawing of

particular political parties or registration requirements which do not apply to other

parties. It also includes a freedom for formulation and expression of opinions, and a

guarantee that these opinions will be treated as equally valid by the government. His

48

working definition of tolerance is the support of equal rights regardless of personal

traits or opinions.

The results of Gibson’s case study show that during the McCarthy era,

repression against Communists and the Communist party took place in some form in

22 of the 50 United States. In various states Communists were banned from public

employment and/or from politics, were banned altogether, or were required to

register with the government regardless of whether other parties were or not.

To compare the amount of repression with the amount of popular and elite

intolerance, Gibson used the responses from a previously conducted tolerance

survey and used a weighted least squares regression model to determine

correlation. He found that the intolerance of the elites was actually a better indicator

of repressive policies, while the popular intolerance actually seemed to have very

little effect. Elites were more likely to require more concrete proof of Communist

affiliation, but once this proof had been provided they were just as likely to be

intolerant. Gibson found that elites were also much more likely to be discussing the

threat of Communism on a frequent basis. This is important to take into consideration

when evaluating the relative impact of a political cartoon, or any medium for that

matter, on its readership.

In Creating the Second Cold War, Simon Dalby (1990) explores the ways that

discourse was used to establish a certain American perspective of Soviets and

Russians. He identifies the “security discourses” which effectively create the Soviet

Union as an Other opposed to American values and goals. He relevantly

49

acknowledges the belief that “the polity was completely dominated by the central

party elite, whose ultimate goal was global domination, [which] precluded the

possibility of serious or long-term cooperation between the superpowers (1990, p.

12).” The political repression which Gibson discussed occurs through a discursive

self-policing society, where “Dissenters are vilified as giving support and assistance

to an external enemy (1990, p. 13).” This rationalizes the persecution of those who

supported détente.

Another commonly-articulated fear is that of “dominoes.” The fear that

communism will literally spread from one country to the next is one which Dalby

finds rooted in the basic writings of geopolitics (Dalby, 1990). It gives rise to the

geopolitical measures of containment and justifies them on the grounds of

preventing the spread of a “dangerous” ideology (Dalby, 1990). All of these factors

came into play in formulating the way Americans thought about the Soviet Union. In

his 1990 analysis of documents from the Committee on Present Danger, Dalby finds

that

The USSR was portrayed as different, threatening and crucially as threatening precisely because it was inherently geographically expansionist. The discourse of the Soviet threat thus provided the external antagonist against which domestic political identity was formulated and mobilized. ‘They’ are constituted as different, threatening, requiring ‘us’ to act in specific political ways, in this case to militarize international politics through a massive weapons building programme and an interventionist foreign policy (Dalby 1990, p. 41).

By 2012, however, foreign policy toward Russia has changed dramatically. In

an Independent Task Force Report put forth in 2006, the authors note that “Russia is

not the same country it was a decade and a half ago. It is not even the same country it

50

was when President Vladimir Putin took office in 2000. U.S.-Russian relations have

changed as well (CFR Report, 2006).” The Independent Task Force of the Council on

Foreign Relations advocates a policy of alliance with Russia, but with a spirit of

critical evaluation about Russian domestic and international policy (CFR Report,

2006). In the next chapter, I will analyze the political cartoons from 1947-2012 to

determine to what extent these changing policy objectives and political attitudes are

reflected in that medium.

51

Chapter 4: Critical Analysis

1947-1950

Many assume that the Cold War was a dramatic about-face in U.S.-Russian relations

following their alliance in World War II. But according to Caroline Kennedy-Pipe

(1998) and Petro and Rubinstein (1997), even the wartime relationship was

somewhat tenuous. As Petro and Rubinstein (1997) note:

The post-1945 Cold War was rooted in the incompatible objectives of the wartime Allies. Each sought security against a possible German revival, but this meant different and conflicting things to each. Subsequent Soviet maneuvering for power, position, and economic advantage and insistence on ideological conformity from the elites under its military control increased Washington’s suspicion and rendered the task of shaping a congenial postwar settlement impossible.

52

At the start of World War II, Stalin expected to stand by and watch the

capitalist powers destroy one another (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). He was, in

theory, neutral, but in fact he used the war to secure substantial territorial gains

(Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). Stalin’s primary concern was to protect the homeland

from the expanding German and Japanese powers on either side (Kennedy-Pipe,

1998). In April 1941, he signed a neutrality agreement with Japan which he used to

secure Japanese recognition of Moscow’s control of Mongolia and to settle their

outstanding border disputes (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). To assuage Germany, he

provided their army with logistical and materiel needs. He trusted Hitler, right up

until the start of Operation Barbarossa- the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union

(Kennedy-Pipe, 1997; Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). After Hitler’s betrayal, Britain and

the United States offered aid to Stalin, which led to the formation of the Grand

Alliance (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998; Petro and Rubinstein, 1997).

But this alliance was an uneasy one from the start, due to Stalin’s intense

xenophobia and the contentious past between the capitalist countries and the USSR

(Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). Stalin’s desire to open a second European front was

one bone of contention, while the issue of Poland was another. The partition of

Poland meant that the Soviets would maintain control of its largely Ukrainian- and-

Byelorussian eastern part (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). When 15,000 Polish officers

taken by the Soviets following this partition mysteriously died in the Katyn Forest

and the Polish government-in-exile requested a formal investigation into the deaths,

Stalin interpreted this as Polish belief of Nazi claims that the Soviets were

responsible (never mind that this later turned out to be the case, or that the actual

53

death toll was closer to 25,000 [Petro and Rubinstein, 1997]). The subsequent

diplomatic tensions between the Polish and the Soviets added yet another negative

dimension to the Grand Alliance.

Stalin’s goal was always to expand the Soviet Empire, as he saw this to be the

method to establish control and security (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). By the end of

World War II, however, this very desire to expand spatially ironically threatened the

security of the Soviet Union by raising tensions with the West (Petro and Rubinstein,

1997).

Thus, when explaining the roots of the Cold War, Petro and Rubinstein

(1997) point to these wartime-era factors: Stalin’s xenophobia, his perpetual

desire to expand and thereby secure the Soviet state, and the ongoing

suspicion between the West and the Soviet Union. These elements, together

with disagreement over the fate of the Eastern European states and Germany,

created an undercurrent of distrust in the supposed alliance between them,

and laid the foundation for the Cold War to come.

According to Caroline Kennedy-Pipe (1998), what is labeled the “Cold War”

was mainly precipitated by the 1946 Iranian crisis. Petro and Rubinstein (1997) also

call the crisis “the Allies’ first major postwar confrontation.” The problem occurred

when Stalin refused to remove his troops from Iran. These troops, along with those of

the British, had entered Iran during the war to protect it from German control. A 1942

treaty had provided for the troops’ removal after the war, but Stalin remained in

defiance of these terms until international pressures finally forced him to relent

54

(Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). Stalin did, however, receive concessions in return for his

agreement to withdraw, in the form of an Iranian-Soviet joint-stock oil company and

relaxed control of Azerbaijan (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). This action caused

George Kennan, the U.S. ambassador to Moscow, to distrust the USSR’s motives and

to argue for a more cautious approach to the relationship with them (Kennedy-Pipe,

1998).

Further tensions grew over the partition of Germany. The Western powers’

desire to reunite the country was seen as a threat by the Soviets, since they believed

that reunification would result in the capitalist powers exerting their influence over

the whole of Germany. The Western powers, however, were nervous about giving

the Soviets command of the Ruhr for fear that this would lead to a Communist

Germany with a strong central government. Disagreements over Germany

continued through the Soviet blockade of East Germany in 1948 and 1949 (Kennedy-

Pipe, 1997). The Soviet blockade and the subsequent Berlin airlift led to the formal

partition of Germany. Petro and Rubinstein (1997) see this division of Germany as a

microcosmic symbol of the wider split between East and West.

“…Once the Berlin airlift started, the Soviets’ decision in favor of a lengthy

test of strength brought results that were almost diametrically opposite to their

original expectations (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997).” The spirit of this reversal is

perhaps nowhere better illustrated than in L.D. Warren’s 1950 cartoon from the

Cincinnati Enquirer, entitled “Why Not?” At first (during World War 2) Uncle Sam

and Stalin (labeled as “Russia” and the “U.S.”) are working together on the side of

55

justice, as implied by the fact that Uncle Sam wears a police uniform. Uncle Sam

gives his “arms” baton to Uncle Joe as they hunt down Nazism (represented, of

course, by Hitler). In the next panel

(labeled World War 2 ½),

Communism has taken the place of

Nazism and now it is West Germany,

with patches in his pants and a hole in

his shoe, who needs arms aid to help

Uncle Sam. The opposition, to use

Greenberg’s (2002) term, that occurs

here is cast in clear terms of hero and

villain, of cops and robbers. The

sleight of hand in this cartoon is that

Communism has literally taken the

place of Nazism, effectively

conveying to the American readers that while they remain the hero, the role of the

villain has been passed on. What is more, the conflict is established as two countries

locked in struggle with an ideology; yet, the ideology is nevertheless in both panels

exemplified by the leader of a country. Thus the abstract idea is turned into the

concrete political structure, allowing concrete actions to be taken against it. By

personifying the ideology, it is also depicted as monolithic and totalitarian.

Figure 4.1 “Why Not?" L.D. Warren, Cincinnati Enquirer, 1950. Reprinted with permission.

56

Stalin, who died in March 1953, was a prominent figure in cartoons from this

era. According to Kennedy-Pipe (1998),

It has been said that if we were to caricature the two main stories about the origins of the Cold War we would find two diametrically opposed interpretations of Stalin’s behavior. One has a power-crazed Stalin masterminding the subjugation of Europe and gloating at the inability of the Western Allies to deter him in his bid for expansion, whilst the other has a cowed dictator, the worse for drink, fearing imminent attack and driven into Eastern Europe in a desperate bid to protect soviet wartime gains… neither are accurate accounts of Stalin’s foreign policy in the period after 1945.

While both of these depictions of Stalin may have existed during that time

period, the cartoons in this study would seem to contradict her analysis. With

the exception of a single cartoon where he is intoxicated, Stalin is unfailingly

depicted in the first of these two caricatures. He is always clever, ruthless,

violent, and cruel, dominating the helpless Eastern European states and often

China as well.

In a 1947 Ned White cartoon from the Akron Beacon-Journal, the

“Mother-Russia” bear is shown forcing its “cubs” (the Eastern European

states) away from the “game” of the Paris conference on Marshall Aid. A 1948

Burt Randolph Thomas cartoon entitled “Inspiration in Russia” shows an artist,

author, and composer all cowering beneath the whip of a beefy Soviet guard.

Other cartoons from the time period show Stalin perpetrating the rape of

Czechoslovakia, enticing Uncle Sam with an olive branch that is really

attached to a giant club, pushing “peace” (personified by a young woman)

57

down a set of stairs, stepping on the head of “China” and pulling his braid. In

other cartoons, Russia as a bear is literally swallowing other countries whole.

1947 saw the declaration of the Truman Doctrine and the establishment of the

Marshall Plan. The unstated goal of Marshall Aid was to strengthen the war-torn

countries of Western Europe so that they would be able to stand against the

pressures of Communism. For a time the Soviet Union remained ignorant of this goal,

speculating on other probable reasons for the aid. It was not until later that they

understood the aid’s true purpose (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). When Moscow became

incensed over what it saw as an attempt to extend the U.S. sphere of influence, it

withdrew from the Paris conference on Marshall Aid, forcing the Eastern European

states to do the same (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997).

In February of 1948, the already-Communist Czechoslovakia was brutally

brought under Soviet control, which effectively removed it as a space for negotiation

between East and West (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). The establishment of NATO in

April of 1949 was seen as being anti-Soviet, and further deepened tensions (Petro

and Rubinstein, 1997).

The impact of the nuclear arms race is not to be ignored. The USSR achieved

nuclear capabilities in 1949 (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). Stalin had always believed that

war with the capitalist countries was inevitable, and so he had always sought to

prepare the USSR to survive and win in the event of a nuclear conflict. Under

Khrushchev, however, an impressive arsenal became more of a deterrent than a

ready tool. The Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957, and developed Intercontinental

58

Ballistic Missiles. Khrushchev also excelled at playing up the country’s defense

capabilities in his communications with the international community. This led to

assumptions on the American side that the USSR was better armed than it actually

was, resulting from what John Lewis Gaddis called Khrushchev’s “rhetorical

rockets.” (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998).

This nuclear issue appears

frequently in the discourse. The 1950

cartoon by L.D. Warren entitled “Try

Anything but Blasting” is probably the

least antagonistic depiction of Stalin, or

the most disapproving depiction of

Uncle Sam, in any cartoon from the

period. Here he and Uncle Sam sit

together atop an “A-bomb log jam,” and

the transference of blame, to use

Greenberg’s (2002) term, seems to be

shared equally by both parties. Subtly,

however, Stalin’s poker is a much more

wicked weapon than that of Uncle Sam, since it has the hallmark sickle sticking out

the side.

Petro and Rubinstein (1997) argue that “[The] expansion of Soviet military

power was seen by the Western nations as a permanent threat to their security. The

Figure 4.2 “Try Anything but Blasting" L.D. Warren, Cincinnati Enquirer, 1950. Reprinted with permission.

59

roots of the Cold War lay both in this fundamental conflict between incompatible

conceptions of security and the worst-case assessments that each side made of the

other’s moves and intentions.”

1951-1960

In 1950 the Soviet Union began boycotting the UN because it would not

recognize the leadership of the People’s Republic of China; in that same year, North

Korea invaded the South and the UN passed a resolution calling for their withdrawal

(Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). This conflict also temporarily galvanized the

relationship between the Soviets and the People’s Republic of China by uniting them

against the U.S. (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997).

After Stalin’s death in 1953, Nikita Khrushchev led an era of de-Stalinization,

wherein many of Stalin’s radical policies were rolled back, and a closer relationship

with the West was sought (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). In 1955, not only did the

Soviet Union sign a peace treaty with Austria, but they also released holdings

including Port Arthur (to China) and Porkkala-Udd (to Finland), and declared

Turkey. They also sought to improve their diplomatic relations with Greece and Iran

(Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). Khruschchev also disagreed with Stalin’s belief that

war with the West was an inevitability, thus allowing for a thaw in relations and a

move toward détente (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). This improvement in U.S.-Soviet

relations was seen as a threat by China, causing tensions to build in its relationship

with the USSR (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997).

60

Due to the effects of de-Stalinization, unrest grew among those who had

previously been repressed by Stalin’s brutal policies. The lack of control of Eastern

Europe was seen as a grave threat to Soviet security (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997),

and in 1955 it created the Warsaw Treaty Organization to counter-balance NATO and

to safeguard the Eastern European States (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). In June of

1956 food and consumer good shortages sparked riots in Poland, while revolution in

Hungary became a distinct possibility (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). In Poland, the

Soviets made concessions, reducing their influence in the government and

improving trade in favor of the Polish (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). In Hungary,

however, the Soviet government took a far more brutal approach. Although the

international community insisted upon Soviet withdrawal of their troops and tanks

from Hungary, Moscow ignored the pleas of the UN, taking advantage of both the

diversion of the Suez crisis and the fear of beginning a third World War (Petro and

Rubinstein, 1997). All of this demonstrated the decline of Soviet power, since without

the use of radical force, it was difficult to guarantee Soviet influence over the Eastern

European states (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997).

In 1960, the Soviets shot down a U.S. spy plane over their territory, which

increased Soviet fears of an American nuclear attack (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997), an

event which is actually celebrated in a 1960 cartoon by Jack Knox entitled “1,400

miles inside ‘impenetrable’ Soviet Russia.” In this cartoon Russians wearing

hammer-and-sickle armbands look up at the sky in fright.

61

As stated in Chapter 2, the

establishment of NATO in 1949 was

seen as an anti-Soviet motion and

enhanced tensions between the

USSR and the West. L.D. Warren’s

1951 cartoon “Safety Patrol” is a

visual depiction of this perceived

division between East and West.

Stalin is driving a tank which

threatens to run over and crush all

the other countries, who are

depicted as innocent

schoolchildren. The brave

Eisenhower, in the role of a valiant

crossing guard, holds off Russia’s

power by ushering the children/countries into the schoolhouse, or the NATO pact,

which rings out with a chime of security. With the creation of this pact, the innocent

member states have foiled the evil Stalin’s plots of world domination. By depicting

Eisenhower as a crossing guard, he is assigned all the attributes that an American

reader would conventionally attribute to such a role: trustworthiness, bravery,

helpfulness, and so on. Stalin, by contrast, is depicted as metaphorically poising a

tank to run over schoolchildren. This absurd and shocking threat only underscores

Figure 4.3 “Safety Patrol." L.D. Warren, Cincinnati Enquirer, 1951. Reprinted with permission.

62

the perception of Stalin as an evil mastermind, whose plot can only be foiled by the

American bravery and virtue.

Another 1951 cartoon by L.D. Warren shows Democracies and Communism

“filling coffers… and coffins!” respectively. The message of this cartoon is that

Stalin/Russia takes the aid given to him by but returns only dead American soldiers.

This cartoon makes use of Greenberg’s (2002) tactic of condensation to conflate

North Korean/Chinese Communism with Russian Communism. By use of this tactic,

an act committed by any Communist country is an act committed by all Communist

countries. Again, it is the ideology and not the country which is responsible. The

idea of Communism itself is blamed

for the death of American soldiers,

whereas “Democracies”-- that is,

literal and concrete democratic

countries—can be credited with

giving aid.

Note, also, the contrast

between the jovial expression of

Stalin/Russia as he welcomes arms

aid into his open treasure chest, and

the somber, respectful expression of

Uncle Sam/U.S., who removes his hat

in deference to the deceased Figure 4.4 “World Trade" L.D. Warren, Cincinnati Enquirer, 1951. Reprinted with permission.

63

soldiers. This effectively implies that Stalin/Russia does not care about the dead, and

that Uncle Sam/the U.S. by contrast has his priorities in the right place. What is more,

the Democracies are depicted as generous, which allows the implication that their

kindness has been abused by the deceitful Stalin/Russia/Communists.

In contrast to the previous decade, the predominant depiction of Russia in this

decade is not as a violent character, but rather as one who is mean-spirited and

deceitful. This may be attributed to the change in leadership: where Stalin was seen

to be ruthless and vicious, Malenkov and Khrushchev are only rude and

untrustworthy. Still, every Russian is assigned the traits which their leader carries.

Russia is a mouse stealing the cheese from the Geneva Conference, the Big Bad

Wolf, a thief, a giant man who blocks Uncle Sam’s view of the “Foreign Aid Picture.”

One such L.D. Warren cartoon depicting the German situation shows West Germany

as a young German man and East Germany as a young German girl sitting on a park

bench. The proportionally enormous Malenkov/Russia sits in between them, asking

“Why don’t you two get together?” even as he pokes West Germany in the eye with

his gesture.

By the end of the decade, Communism begins to lose its monolithic image.

Tensions between China and Russia had become apparent in 1960 when the Soviet

Union could not muster enough support at the international Communist conference

to have China removed (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). Now, affected by disputes over

the Sino-Soviet border and threats of Soviet nuclear strikes, the two Communist

countries stood at odds with one another. In a 1960 Ned White cartoon entitled

64

“Peaceful Coexistence?” China and Russia are apparently fighting inside a bear suit

labeled “Communism.” Here we see the beginnings of the process decoupling

Communism from the Soviets; rather than being one and the same, they are merely

overlapping identities.

1961-1970

In 1962 the Soviets began building nuclear missiles in Cuba, in an attempt to

defend the Communist Castro from military action by the United States (Kennedy-

Pipe, 1998; Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). Khrushchev denied to President Kennedy

that any such construction was taking place and Kennedy professed to believe him,

despite the fact that American intelligence had already discovered the weapons.

Kennedy announced these facts to the American people in October of 1962,

declaring a blockade on Cuba and stating that any military action originating from

Cuba would be assigned to the USSR (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). Khrushchev then

backed down (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998; Petro and Rubinstein, 1997), a move which

invigorated the political opposition back home in the USSR (Petro and Rubinstein,

1997).

The crisis led to the creation of the famous “hot line” with Washington, and by

August of 1963, Russia and the United States signed the Treaty Banning Nuclear

Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water (Petro and

Rubinstein, 1997). Surrounding the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis in the

late 1950s and early 1960s, Castro makes many appearances. He seems to have

65

taken the place of China as the “other” red threat on Russia’s side. In this decade,

Russia is not so much a direct threat in and of itself as it is a participant in other world

events which chiefly have to do with Cuba, China, Germany, Czechoslovakia, and

the Arab world.

Khrushchev’s rule came to an end in 1964, by which point Soviet influence in

the world was becoming manifestly weaker and weaker (Petro and Rubinstein,

1997). Czechoslovakia removed their Soviet-affiliated leadership in 1968 and began

to liberalize (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). Worrying that the precedent of

Czechoslovakia would breed similar losses of influence in other Eastern European

states, Russia decided to invade in September of that year (Petro and Rubinstein,

1997).

By 1969-1970, China’s continuing influence led it to become a major player in

the Cold War, adding a new axis to the conflict (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). The newly

elected U.S. President Nixon advocated better relations with China, a prospect

which made the USSR nervous (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). Fears of this alliance led to talk

of détente at the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) in Vienna in 1970 (Kennedy-

Pipe, 1998). The rift between China and Russia is still apparent in an L.D. Warren

cartoon from 1962 where China and Russia are dancing but can’t seem to avoid

stepping on one another’s feet.

In the 1960s, the bomb becomes a more common symbol, possibly due to

these arms limitation treaties. It is clear that economic woes at home caused some

attention to be drawn away from the Russian threat during this decade. This can be

66

seen through the cartoons because domestic policy is contrasted with foreign

interests, again utilizing condensation to draw a connection between seemingly

unrelated issues. This is interesting because according to Dittmer (2005) and Sharp

(1996), domestic policies are exactly the stuff from which international policy is

derived; therefore, an illustration showing the relationship between the scales is not

necessarily misleading.

1971-1980

Other motivating factors for détente on the Soviet side included the poor state

of the Soviet economy and the need to import western technology to improve living

conditions (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). In 1972 Nixon signed important agreements with

the USSR, including the SALT I treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, and the

Basic Principles Agreement (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998; Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). The

last of these documents was seen as a victory for the Soviet Union, as it guaranteed

Moscow equal treatment in international negotiations. From the Soviet perspective,

this was concrete proof that they had finally “caught up” with the capitalist countries

of the West (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998).

The cartoons from the early 1970s are generally about the improvement of

U.S. relations with China in the wake of Nixon’s talks and Russia’s subsequent loss of

an ally. One such Roy Osrin cartoon depicts this in the language of a poker match, in

which Brezhnev/Russia walks away from the table having lost all his money and his

clothes to Nixon in the China talks.

67

The 1976 Ray Osrin

cartoon about that year’s

Olympics sums up an

American image of Russians

perhaps better than any other.

Every detail in this image

supports a certain perspective

of Russia and its people.

Firstly, up to this time, images

of a “typical Russian” are not common. The vast majority of cartoons before this

focused mostly on political leaders who would stand in for their entire country. By

contrast, this is an image of a single Russian citizen, presumably in her home.

Everywhere around her are signs of poverty. The room is dimly lit by a single bulb,

and her television seems to work only by means of some mechanical effort. It is

snowing inside her home, prompting her to wear her patched-up coat, even indoors,

and her breath to freeze as it escapes her mouth. Even the mouse who came to steal

crumbs starved to death. This cartoon may be directly compared to a 1948 Burt

Randolph Thomas cartoon entitled “If US Television Could Reach Russia.” In that

cartoon, two men and a woman sit in a spare room, commenting that in America,

workers drive to the factory using their own cars, women wash laundry in machines

in their own homes, and everyone has nice watches and shoes. This image of the

poor and starving Russian, who would want what we have if only they knew, has

persisted from the 1940s to the 1970s.

Figure 4.5 Ray Osrin, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1976.

68

In this cartoon, the Russian language is imitated by turning some letters

backwards and tacking a “ski” on to the end of others. This is an interesting

depiction of what “their” language looks like to “us,” especially because it ends up

making it look like Russians simply don’t know how to write or read properly.

Finally, there is the picture of Karl Marx hanging on the wall, as if to underscore the

idea that Russians are Marxists and Communists.

Simon Dalby (1990) deliberately points to “the particular ‘common-sense’

notion of security as spatial exclusion; the Other as a threat is specified in spatial

terms as inhabiting somewhere else.” This application of the aforementioned

Gramscian “common-sense” concept may help to explain the complete “otherness”

of this Russian’s existence. She leads a life of poverty, backwardness, and cynicism

to which we simply cannot relate.

The time of attempts at pursuing peace was brought to an end, however, by

the expansion of Soviet influence in Angola and Afghanistan , acts in which it was

egged on by Cuba’s encouragement that the Soviets should intervene in the Third

World on behalf of Communism (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). These military interventions

would continue into the late 1970s, and the Soviet Union would become friendly with

Vietnam after the American withdrawal (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). This newfound

boldness in the world beyond its borders was partially a result of the perceived

weakness of the United States in the wake of Vietnam and the belief that this would

force the U.S. to negotiate with the USSR (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998).

69

1981-1990

Following the period of détente, U.S.-Soviet relations again plunged into what

some scholars have called the Second Cold War (Kennedy-Pipe, 1998; Dalby, 1990).

Ronald Reagan led a strengthening of American military and strategic resources to

protect the country against what he called the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union

(Kennedy-Pipe, 1998). In 1985, he would argue that any weapons that had not been

in existence at the time of treaty establishment were not banned (Petro and

Rubinstein, 1997).

Mikhail Gorbachev came into power in March 1985, and instituted sweeping

changes to the Soviet system (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). Gorbachev’s rule brought

a period of unprecedented reform to the Soviet system (Hough, 1990). His policy of

glasnost, or openness, led to even more questioning of previous Soviet policies

(Petro and Rubinstein, 1997); together with perestroika (economic restructuring),

demokratizatsia (democratization), and novoe myshlenie (new thinking) were

intended to reform the broken Soviet apparatus so that it could survive (Anderson,

10/20/11).

Kate Salley Palmer’s 1981 cartoon entitled “[USA/USSR]” depicts Uncle Sam

showing his confidence with the success of the U.S. space program, and a

disgruntled Brezhnev looking on. Brezhnev does not appear to be a threat; he

merely looks disgruntled at the American success.

70

A popular theme

from this decade is

Ronald Reagan and his

hawkish dealings with

Russia. This supports the

statement by Ó’Tuathail

(1996) that scripts

created through media

were effectively

deployed in Ronald Reagan administration’s creation of the Cold War conflict, in

which “patriotic blue space… [was] in conflict with foreign red space…. The Soviet

Union was scripted as the ‘evil empire’ in a tale of conflict between forces of light

and the forces of darkness.”

While initially, the cartoons give the impression that Reagan’s attitude is just

as Ó’Tuathail says, there is a different undercurrent here than during the McCarthy

Era. Symbolizing this is a cartoon of Ronald Reagan and Gorbachev ice fishing with

their two fishing wires tangled in an enormous knot over their heads. This cartoon is

similar to the 1950 L.D. Warren “Try Anything but Blasting” cartoon discussed

earlier, in that it implies an inherent interconnectedness in the problems of the U.S.

and Russia. Unlike “Try Anything but Blasting,” however, there is no subtle message

that Russia is somehow more evil than the U.S. The perspective on Russia has begun

to shift. The differences now are more policy-based than culturally based; there is

Figure 4.6 [USA/USSR] Kate Salley Palmer, Greenville News, 1981. Reprinted with permission.

71

more of an emphasis on Mutually Assured Destruction, and the former adversarial

spirit has been converted into one of necessary cooperation. While previous

decades of cartoons depicted Russia as an unreasonable “Other” who simply could

not be dealt with in an evenhanded manner, there is now a sense that Russia and the

U.S., as the world’s preeminent superpowers, must learn to cooperate despite the

stark differences in their worldviews.

This era also sees the beginning of the cartoons which suggest Russia’s

inability to adjust to a

capitalist, democratic

system. The 1989 Ray

Osrin cartoon pictured at

left shows a voice from

inside the Yeltsin-poster-

plastered Kremlin asking,

“How do you feel about

the new freedom now,

Comrade Gorbachev?” The implication here is that Communism has caused Russia

to be poor, repressed, and backwards for so long that, although they may want to

have the “right” kind of governmental and social systems like the West, they simply

cannot understand what they are getting themselves into and cannot anticipate what

the results of these reforms will be.

Figure 4.7 Ray Osrin, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1989. Reprinted with permission.

72

Part of the novoe myshlenie or “new thinking” in foreign policy was a push

toward a more moderate, peaceful approach to the nuclear question (Shiraev, 2010).

“In July 1985, [Gorbachev] announced a unilateral moratorium on all nuclear testing

from August 6 until January 1, 1986, and invited the United States to follow the Soviet

lead. Through 1986 he extended the moratorium…,” seeking the establishment of a

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). Moscow even

allowed the United States to place monitoring equipment on its soil. The United

States, however, declined to follow suit on the grounds that some testing could and

should still occur (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). In 1990, however, the U.S. and USSR

did sign two more treaties to limit nuclear testing underground (Petro and

Rubinstein, 1997).

Gorbachev’s reforms, however, were only partial. They did not go far enough

to treat the root problems of the Soviet system, and indeed only served to worsen

the situation in many respects. Following a failed military coup, the Soviet Union

inevitably collapsed in 1991 and broke into its constituent states (Shiraev, 2010).

1991-2000

In post-Soviet foreign policy, the rest of the world received little attention

compared with the time necessarily devoted to the formerly Soviet states (Petro and

Rubinstein, 1997). Yeltsin’s rule saw the establishment of the “Key Tenents,” all of

which established Russia’s preeminence in the former Soviet states (Petro and

Rubinstein, 1997).

73

Overall, the economic climate of

the post-Soviet era was dismal. In

the late 1990s Yeltsin instituted

“shock therapy” by privatizing vast

amounts of state-owned industrial

property in an attempt to quickly

convert the country to a capitalist

system (Shiraev, 2010).

The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought a large influx of cartoons. In them,

the United States visibly struggles with how to approach the new Russia. Again, in

the 1991 Osrin cartoon entitled “Mr. Gorbachev, there’s an American Businessman

on the Phone,” Bush Sr. and

Gorbachev are far from mortal

enemies; rather, they are both

facing the same domestic

issues. Russian people are still

depicted as starving, but that

perspective has now been

given a softer dimension;

indeed, it has been toned down

so much that it can be compared with what is happening in the U.S. itself. The

willingness to be equally critical of the Western system, paired with the willingness

Figure 4.8 “President Gorbachev, there's an American businessman on the phone..." Ray Osrin, Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1991. Reprinted with permission.

Figure 4.9 Nick Anderson, Louisville Courier-Journal, 1994. Reprinted with permission.

74

to treat Russia as though it wants to be “on par” with the rest of the world, will

become a common characteristic as we move toward the present day. The tone of

these cartoons becomes patronizing, almost affectionate, as we watch “them” try to

be like “us.” The 1994 Nick Anderson cartoon “Solzhenitsyn returns to the

motherland” shows Solzhenitsyn disembarking from a plane to find Russia

Westernized, complete with a McDonalds and Pizza Hut, with a “-ski” tacked on to

the end just to remind us that we are in Russia (and also to remind us of how

Americans think of the Russian language).

NATO has continued to be a point of contention. President Clinton’s desire to

extend NATO into the former Soviet States via the 1993 Partnership for Peace (PFP)

was seen as a threat by Moscow and worsened tensions (Petro and Rubinstein,

1997). Russia did sign the treaty, on the condition that it would still be consulted on

the issue of these states, but soon afterwards many Russian officials changed their

opinion about the agreement (Petro and Rubinstein, 1997). In 1995, American

bombings of the Bosnian Serbs

would further strengthen the

anti-PFP position (Petro and

Rubinstein, 1997).

1999 Nick Anderson

cartoon entitled “Howdy,

Neighbor!” expresses a sense of

unfairness about the nature of

Figure 4.10 Nick Anderson, Louisville Courier-Journal, 1999. Reprinted with permission.

75

NATO. Here Russia is pictured as a house, and the Russian people are personified as

a poor old woman. NATO, while friendly, is nonetheless fencing her out of her entire

yard. What is not pictured is the actual nature of her “yard”—the Eastern European

states. This omission implies that America still does not pay much attention to these

states, treating them as the mere chessboard upon which the West and Russia play

with one another. A similar cartoon pictures two unhappy soldiers guarding the

Russian border as a sleeping Uncle Sam rolls toward them in a “NATO expansion”

tank. One of the soldiers wearily says to his comrade, “Maybe he’ll wake up if we

start firing.”

The intense fear of Russian instability and its possible consequences appears

frequently in cartoons from this time period. The crashed Mir makes several

appearances; Russia is shown as an airplane in the act of crashing and a ship in the

act of sinking; Yeltsin is walking a tightrope; and Putin eyes the chained-up enraged

bear of Chechnya as he

murmurs; “Just keep smiling

until the election.” One

cartoon shows a Russian

man, while on a park bench

with a beautiful woman we

can safely assume to be

representative of

Capitalism, still gazing Figure 4.11 Nick Anderson, Louisville Courier-Journal, 2000. Reprinted with permission.

76

lustily at the old crone of Communism, who winks back at him. To represent this

slew of “unstable Russia” cartoons, I have selected Nick Anderson’s “[Russia

Crumbling]” from the year 2000. Here the crumbling of Russia is literal rather than

figurative, and dozens of nuclear warheads are perched precariously on top. The

transference of blame in this cartoon is unclear, implying that the Soviet Union’s

collapse was an inevitable fate, and the concern has merely to do with controlling

the aftermath. Perhaps this could have been avoided if the Russians had been able to

properly transition to a market economy.

2001-2007

A number of sources cite the events of September 11, 2001 as a turning point

for U.S.-Russian relations

(see Cross, 2006 and CFR

Report, 2006). Putin’s

rule brought an era of

stability (CFR, 2006;

Anderson, 2011) which

more or less served to

allay the fears of a

crumbling atomic power

that were expressed so

frequently the decade before. Now, Russia is no longer the main enemy of

Capitalism and Democracy or the villain standing against Western Powers. The 2003

Figure 4.12 Jeff Stahler, Cincinnati Post, 2003. Reprinted with permission.

77

Jeff Stahler cartoon “What Axis of Evil?” refers to the attempts by France, Germany,

and Russia to block the U.S.’s appeal to the UN on the invasion of Iraq (CFR Report,

2006). While portrayed in a somewhat negative light, here Russia nonetheless stands

equal with Germany and France. This cartoon can be contrasted with the 1955 L.D.

Warren cartoon “The Girl of my Dreams is the Sweetest Girl,” (not reprinted in this

thesis) wherein Britain, France, and the U.S. sing about their love of Lady Liberty,

and Russia is a mere dog howling in front of the piano.

Americans do still have their doubts about Russia, but they are now handled in

a more bemused, amiable tone. By the time Vladimir Putin came into power, the

system did indeed begin

to stabilize (CFR, 2006;

Anderson, 11/17/11), but

the results of shock

therapy meant that the

new system was built on

major inequalities and

remained deeply corrupt

(Anderson 11/17/11;

Shiraev 2012). Putin’s

commitment to truly

democratic ideals is also in question, as his patterns have been shown to

increasingly centralize power in the hands of the president (CFR, 2006; Anderson,

11/17/11). Ed Stein’s 2005 cartoon depicts this sentiment, with President George W.

Figure 4.13 Ed Stein, Rocky Mountain News, 2007. Reprinted with permission.

78

Bush giving President Putin a driving lesson in Democracy, where Putin is deathly

afraid to take both feet off the brake. The Council on Foreign Relations report

describes the American perspective in this way: “Under President Putin, power has

been centralized and pluralism reduced in every single area of politics. As a result,

Russia is left with only the trappings of democratic rule- their form, but not their

content (CFR report, 2006).” Thus the aforementioned belief that Russia does not

“get” how to implement Western-style policies, and that it requires “our” help in this

regard, still persists today.

79

Chapter 5: Conclusion

Directions for Further Research

While the analysis conducted in this thesis is new in terms of its attempt to

understand the role of political cartoons over time in discursively stating and re-

creating an approved hegemonic narrative, it is far from exhaustive. For example,

comparisons could be made between different cartoonists, different newspapers, or

different areas of the United States to gauge the relative impacts of these factors

upon the messages conveyed. To this end, cartoonists and newspaper editors could

also be interviewed to better ascertain how their respective interests are

represented; however, the sheer number of cartoonists and newspapers included in

this study prohibited this possibility (in addition to the fact that some newspapers no

longer exist, and that some cartoonists have passed away).

80

It also remains to be seen just what effect political cartoons really have on

helping to establish hegemonic narratives. In order to investigate this question,

surveys could be conducted to see how frequently people actually read the

cartoons, from which source they read them, and whether they accept or reject the

opinions put forward in the cartoons.

Conclusions

This overview of cartoons about “Russia” and “Russians” over the years since

the end of the Second World War has revealed a number of both constants and

changes in the tenor of the discourse surrounding these identities. There are many

factors which remain consistent throughout the entire time period studied. The most

notable of these is likely the fact that during Soviet era, symbols of the Soviet Union

are nearly always labeled “Russia” rather than “USSR,” implying a conflation of

these two entities and a marginalization of the Eastern European states in the minds

of Americans. This remained the case even after the Soviet Union’s demise, when the

issue of Eastern European States was often omitted from the discussion.

There is an aspect of perceived “Russian-ness” which has shifted as political

leaders came to and went out of power. Stalin’s brutal and violent leadership

seemed to correlate with a perspective of a violent and ruthless Russia, which gave

way to Khrushchev-era perceptions which were less violent, but still deceitful. In

early decades, the untrustworthy Russians are drawn as burglars; by the 1990s, they

have become mafia. This perception seems to be one of the new Russian state’s

81

socially entrenched corruption, rather than the former view of the Soviet Union’s

diplomatic intransigence.

Not surprisingly, the cartoons drawn during the McCarthy Era of the 1940s

and 1950s convey an extreme feeling of fear about Russians and Communism as an

ideology. As we move into the 1960s and 1970s the fear is more concretely aligned

with the nuclear capabilities of the Soviet Union, and not with their ideology of

Communism.

By the 1970s, we finally see some interest in the lives of Russian citizens

themselves, rather than just in the government which represents them on the world

stage. In that regard, the image of Russians as poor and backwards endures from the

1950s all of the way through to the early 1990s. Overall, fear of the Soviet Union

seems to take on a less apocalyptic tone; they are now to be pitied, rather than

feared. What is more, they have been humanized to the point that comparisons

between American and Soviet problems are now possible.

The Ronald Reagan era brings a series of cartoons about U.S.-Soviet

diplomatic hardball. The Russians again become impossible to deal with. Despite

the impossibility of negotiations, however, the impression starts to creep in that the

fate of the two superpowers is somehow intertwined, and that working together is

necessary if they are to save the world from ultimate destruction—if only the Soviets

were willing to do it.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, a new and consistent theme arises:

backwards Soviets trying to adapt to a Western way of life. This patronizing tone

persists until the late 1990s, when fears of economic instability prompt concern for

82

the Russian system. While the Russians may be a danger here, their threat does not

arise out of malice but merely from ineptitude.

After 9/11, there is yet another change of perspective. As articulated in the

2006 CFR document, the American perspective on Russia has become somewhat

schizophrenic. We place great hopes on Russia as an ally, but at the same time we

disdain their domestic policies. Putin is a man with whom we can deal, but his lack of

commitment to democratic ideals still keeps him in need of our guidance.

In sum, the American view of Russians has softened considerably over the

years; slowly they have shifted from being murderous to being dubiously friendly.

Not until recently have they begun to embrace our ideals, and they have yet to do it

properly, so we must step up to guide them. Like Greenberg (2002) notes, cartoons

do not simply convey a message, they also inspire the reader to adopt an attitude.

These beliefs about Russians have shifted with the evolution of our leadership,

technology, and global circumstances, and they will continue to shift and shape our

opinions as we move into the future.

83

Bibliography Anderson, Jane. Lecture. Political Science 574. University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati,

20 October- 4 November, 2011.

Attwood, Feona, and Sharon Lockyer. 2009. Controversial Images: An Introduction. Popular Communication 7: 1-6.

Brookes, Rod. 1990. “Everything in the Garden is Lovely”: The Representation of National Identity in Sidney Strube’s Daily Express Cartoons in the 1930s. Oxford Art Journal 13 (2): 31-43.

Council on Foreign Relations, 2006. John Edwards and Jack Kemp, Chairs; Stephen Sestanovich, Project Director. Russia’s Wrong Direction: What the United States Can and Should Do. Independent Task Force Report 57.

Cross, Sharyl. 2006. Russia’s Relationship With the United States/NATO in the US-led Global War on Terrorism. Journal of Slavic Military Studies 19: 175-192.

Dalby, Simon. 1990. Creating the Second Cold War. New York: Guildford Publications.

Dittmer, Jason. 2005. Captain America’s Empire: Reflections on Identity, Popular Culture, and Post-9/11 Geopolitics. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 95 (3): 626-643.

Dodds, K. 2007. Steve Bell’s eye: Cartoons, geopolitics and the visualization of the ‘war on terror’, Security Dialogue 38 (2): 157–177.

Dodds, Klaus. 1996. The 1982 Falklands War and a Critical Geopolitical Eye: Steve Bell and the If… Cartoons. Political Geography 15 (6-7): 571-592.

Douglas, Roy. Summer 2009. Cartoons and the Historian. Historian 102: 12-18.

El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2009a. Understanding Visual Metaphor: The Example of Newspaper Cartoons. Visual Communication 2 (1): 75-95.

El Refaie, Elisabeth. 2009b. Multiliteracies: How Readers Interpret Political Cartoons. Visual Communication 8 (2): 181-205.

Gibson, James L. 1988. Political Intolerance and Political Repression During the McCarthy Red Scare. The American Political Science Review 82 (2): 511-529.

84

Greenberg, Josh. 2002. Framing and Temporality in Political Cartoons: A Critical Analysis of Visual News Discourse. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 39 (2): 181-198.

Hammett, Daniel, and Charles Mather. February 2011. Beyond Decoding: Political

Cartoons in the Classroom. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 35 (1): 103-119.

Katz, Harry. Winter 2004. An Historic Look at Political Cartoons. Nieman Reports: 44-46.

Kennedy-Pipe, Caroline. 1998. Russia and the World 1917-1991. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Ó’Tuathail, Gearóid. 1996. Critical Geopolitics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Petro, Nicolai N., and Alvin Z. Rubinstein. 1997. Russian Foreign Policy: From Empire to Nation-State. Addison-Wesley.

Plumb, Steve. 2004. Politicians as Superheroes: The Subversion of Political Authority Using a Pop Cultural Icon in the Cartoons of Steve Bell. Media, Culture & Society 26 (3): 432-439.

Sharp, Joanne P. 1996. Hegemony, Popular Culture and Geopolitics: the Reader’s Digest and the Construction of Danger. Political Geography 15 (6-7): 557-570.

Shiraev, Eric. 2010. Russian Government and Politics. New York: Palgrave McMillan.

85

Appendix: List of Cartoons Anderson, Nick. I want to assure you I’m not looking for a handout. Editorial Cartoon.

Louisville Courier-Journal, 1991. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. Solzhenitsyn returns to the Motherland. Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 31 May 1994. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. Why does Boris not trust his comrades to perform operation? Editorial cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1996. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum. Accessed date?

Anderson, Nick. [Russian Poverty]. Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1996. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. I suppose everyone’ll make a big fuss about this now... Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1997. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. We’ll do whatever it takes to keep Mir aloft… Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1997. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. We come in peace… Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1997. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. [Russia and the United States]. Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1998. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. This is the captain, you’re all fired… Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1998. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. Maybe he’ll wake up if we start firing… Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1998. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

86

Anderson, Nick. Howdy, neighbor! Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1999. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. Are you sure you want to turn back? Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 1999. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. [Russia crumbling]. Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 2000. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. Just keep smiling until the election. Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 2000. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. ‘I’m thinking of writing a book about post-Crimean war Russia...’ Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 21 July 2000. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. Could I take another peek into that soul, Mr. Putin? Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 26 March 2003. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Anderson, Nick. [Bush as Santa Claus giving away Iraq contracts]. Editorial Cartoon. Louisville Courier-Journal, 12 December 2003. From the Nick Anderson Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Ashley, Edward J. Russia is outlawed! Bombing begins in five minutes! Toledo Blade, 14 August 1984. From the Ed Ashley Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Block, Herbert. Aren’t you grateful for all the strategy I supply? Washington Post, 1951. From the Ned White Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Breen, Steve. Sure, building a missile defense shield might ruffle a few foreign feathers… Asbury Park Press, 2001. From the Jimmy Margulies Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Carlson, Stuart Scott. ‘Is it SOUP yet?’ Milwaukee Sentinel, 5 December 1990. From the Tom Curtis Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

87

Craig, Eugene. The pious act. Columbus Dispatch, 2 August 1967. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Davies, Matt. It’s heartwarming to see that these loans to bolster the ailing Russian economy are working... Journal News, 1999. From the Robert Roy Metz Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Davies, Matt. Pro-Serb. Journal News, 1999. From the Robert Roy Metz Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Duffy, Brian. Mid-east. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Post, 1979. From the Bill Sanders Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Duncan, John Allison. Seems like it’s getting hotter! St. Augustine Record, 1968. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Duncan, John Allison. The Kibitzers. St. Augustine Record, 1968. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Fischetti, John. ‘They don’t make revolutionists like they used to’. New York Herald Tribune, 1963. From the John Fischetti Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Fischetti, John. ‘Russia says that our conduct is sheer insanity-bootlicking will get them nowhere’. Chicago Daily News, 18 July 1967. From the John Fischetti Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Fischetti, John. Hands-Down Winner in the International Talk-to-the-Plants Competition. Chicago Daily News, 16 April 1976. From the John Fischetti Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Gorrell, Bob. ‘So…all this peaceful nuclear technology you’re selling me...’ Richmond Times Dispatch, 1995. From the Gary Brookins Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Knox, Jack. Salve, U2 flights penetrating Russia. Nashville Banner, 1960. From the Jack Knox Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Knox, Jack. ‘1,400 miles inside ‘impenetrable’ Soviet Russia’. Nashville Banner, 1960. From the Jack Knox Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

88

Knox, Jack. Aw, don’t be sore, uncle – it’ll all wash off after election. Nashville Banner, 1960. From the Jack Knox Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Kuekes, Edward D. …Just holding his coat. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 15 July 1958. From the Edward D. Kuekes Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Kuekes, Edward D. A bear with a man by the tail. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 22 January 1965. From the Edward D. Kuekes Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Kuekes, Edward D. [Russian space records]. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 19 March 1965. From the Edward D. Kuekes Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Larrick, James. ‘Better stand back, Russia – I have a very short fuse!’ Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 21 August 1980. From the Jim Larrick Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Larrick, James. Whither Russia? Whence Gorbachev? Columbus Dispatch, 12 March 1985. From the Jim Larrick Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Larrick, James. Russia. Jackson Clarion-Ledger, 14 June 1999. From the Jim Larrick Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Liederman, Al. Trying To Ride Two Horses, Too. Long Island Press, 15 October 1967. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Liederman, Al. Security Is Two Blankets. Long Island Press, 4 August 1970. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Liederman, Al. New Washington Hot Line? Long Island Press, 29 February 1972. From the Al Liederman Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Liederman, Al. Mavericks. Long Island Press, 12 April 1972. From the Al Liederman Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Liederman, Al. Not A Very Willing Pupil. Long Island Press, 23 June 1972. From the Al Liederman Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

89

Liederman, Al. To Each His Own? Long Island Press, 14 February 1973. From the Al Liederman Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Liederman, Al. ‘You like her better don’t you?’ Long Island Press, 4 September 1973. From the Al Liederman Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Liederman, Al. The Grand Gesture. Long Island Press, 27 September 1973. From the Al Liederman Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Liederman, Al. ‘See why we have to keep Germany apart?’ Long Island Press, 8 August 1976. From the Al Liederman Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Luckovich, Michael. Shoppers, we’ve torn down the old system to build you a new, modern, free market! Atlanta Constitution, 1990. From the Ed Stein Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Luckovich, Michael. ‘You’re surrounded. Come out with your checkbook…’ Atlanta Constitution, 1991. From the Stan Stamaty Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Luckovich, Michael. Ivan, take back what you said about Olga!... Atlanta Constitution, 1991. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Luckovich, Michael. I surrender! Just don’t run over me! Atlanta Constitution, 1991. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Luckovich, Michael. That’s Dr. Gorbachev. He created her… Atlanta Constitution, December 1991. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Luckovich, Michael. My trip to Libya is about jobs, jobs, jobs! Atlanta Constitution, 1992. From the Ed Stein Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Manning, Reginald. Horsehide Diplomacy. Arizona Republic, 9 March 1977. From the Mark J. Cohen and Rose Marie McDaniel Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

90

McLeod, Jack. New Whistle? Buffalo Evening News, 1979. From the Jack McLeod Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Miller, David Wiley. [Russia and Iran]. Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 1951. From the Mark J. Cohen and Rose Marie McDaniel Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. U.S.S.R. wheat. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 7 February 1974. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘Oh goody… an American tourist’. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 25 June 1974. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. U.S. grain deal. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 23 October 1975. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘Everyone in Russia should win gold medal just for living’. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 13 February 1976. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. Welcome home, confuseniks! Cleveland Plain Dealer, 30 December 1986. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. Mother Russia. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 5 April 1988. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘How do you feel about the new freedom now, Comrade Gorbachev?’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, 21 March 1989. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. The KGB are a bunch of commie, pinko, weirdos! Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4 June 1989. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. Betsy Rossky. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9 February 1990. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘That’s it! That’s it! Then look the Russian people square in the eye and tell them…’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, 3 June 1990. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

91

Osrin, Ray. ‘I said ‘free’ market!’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, 25 September 1990. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. A Valentine Message from Baghdad via Russia. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 14 February 1991. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. Russia. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 27 February 1991. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘Open wide…here comes an arms agreement, choo-choooo…’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, 13 May 1991. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery…’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, 20 August 1991. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘Oh, nothing much, dear…’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, 13 September 1991. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘I see…much worse, eh?’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1 November 1991. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. ‘President Gorbachev, there’s an American businessman on the phone…’ Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4 December 1991. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Osrin, Ray. Yeltsin’s Market. Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2 January 1992. From the Ray Osrin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. To Russia, with Love. Greenville News, 28 March 1977. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. Russia. Greenville News, 7 December 1980. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. The Russians are gonna hafta accept on-site verification in a new salt treaty or they’ll be in an arms race they can’t win! Greenville News, 6

92

September 1981. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. [USA/USSR]. Greenville News, 17 April 1981. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. Arms control. Greenville News, 20 February 1983. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. Ron…, you’ve studied enough for you summit-er-meeting-with Gorbachev! Now, come to bed! Greenville Piedmont News, April 1983. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. It’s Andropov’s Latest Arms Control Proposal. Greenville News, 9 May 1983. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. Korean airliner incident. Greenville News, 8 September 1983. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. Well, I’m Ready Now To Meet With Gromyko. Florence Morning News, 24 September 1984. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Palmer, Kate Salley. Agnes, the Russians are here. Greenville News, June 1985. From the Kate Salley Palmer Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Payne, Eugene. [Ice fishing in Russia]. Charlotte Observer, 14 October 1986. From the Eugene Payne Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Poinier, Arthur. That Roadblock on Route 9 10 C. Detroit News, 5 March 1971. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Poinier, Arthur. Instant Friendship? Detroit News, 23 April 1971. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

93

Poinier, Arthur. A Royal Flush – And Me with a Lousy Pair! Detroit News, 21 July 1971. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Poinier, Arthur. It says here! Detroit News, 30 September 1971. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Poinier, Arthur. What you need is a friend you can trust! Detroit News, 26 January 1972. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Poinier, Arthur. Stand off? Detroit News, 7 May 1972. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Poinier, Arthur. Tired of Dancing? Detroit News, 23 June 1972. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Poinier, Arthur. Welcome to the club! Detroit News, 6 August 1972. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Priggee, Milt. From Russia with Love. Dayton Journal Herald, 5 May 1983. From the Arthur B. Poinier Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Roche, Leo Joseph. One for the Book. Buffalo Courier Express, 14 August 1962. From the Louis P. (Doc) Goodwin Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Rogers, Rob. 1991 Economic Summit. The Pittsburgh Press, 16 July 1991. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Rogers, Rob. Better fed than red. The Pittsburgh Press, 26 July 1991. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Rogers, Rob. We here in Russia think countries like Yugoslavia should be allowed to govern their own people as they see it! Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 13 April 1999. From the Scott Stantis Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Rogers, Rob. Looks Like the Russians Are Bringing Back The Cold War. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 19 December 1999. From the Matt Davies Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

94

Sanders, Bill. ‘Other than that, how do you think the debate went?’ Milwaukee Journal, 10 October 1976. From the Bill Sanders Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Seavey, David. “They’re trying to trash our good name!” USA Today, 1986. From the David Seavey Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Seavey, David. Russia Go Home Driver’s permit. USA Today, 28 March 1990. From the David Seavey Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Seavey, David. Free Market Vintage 1992. USA Today, 30 December 1991. From the David Seavey Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Seavey, David. “Here we are, hungry, and they send us something high-tech!” USA Today, 5 February 1992. From the David Seavey Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Seavey, David. “Yo Boris, wrong door!” USA Today, 31 March 1992. From the David Seavey Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Seavey, David. Congress/Russia. USA Today, 1 July 1992. From the David Seavey Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Seavey, David. B-O-S-N-I-A. USA Today, 5 May 1993. From the David Seavey Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Smith, Mike. “That kind of stuff is going to cramp my style”. Buffalo Evening News, 16 February 1973. From the International Museum of Cartoon Art Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Smith, Mike. Every time I turn around, Yeltsin is back in the hospital and his condition never seems to improve. What’s going on? Las Vegas Sun, 1996. From the Jeff Stahler Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Stahler, Jeff. Soviet Protest Cincinnati Post, 1990. From the Jeff Stahler Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Stahler, Jeff. What axis of evil?... Cincinnati Post, 2003. From the Bill Schorr Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

95

Stantis, Scott. So, did anything happen while I was on my fishing trip? Arizona Republic, 1990. From the Scott Stantis Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Stantis, Scott. The Mir space station represents the height of the Soviet technology! It is perfectly safe!... Birmingham News, 1997. From the Scott Stantis Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Stantis, Scott. Can you believe that war mongering… Birmingham News, 2003. From the Robert Roy Metz Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Stein, Ed. Back- By popular demand. Rocky Mountain News, 1993. From the Scott Stantis Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Stein, Ed. The Driving Lesson. Rocky Mountain News, 2005. From the Rob Rogers Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Stein, Ed. Siberia. Rocky Mountain News, 2007. From the Rob Rogers Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Szep, Paul. The White at the End of the Tunnel. Arizona Republic, 1990. From the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists Archives, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Temple, Keith. Couldn’t we try this booster? New Orleans Times Picayune, 27 September 1964. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. A lesson in manners from a bear. Detroit News, 27 September 1947. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. Light and heat. Detroit News, 15 October 1947. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. Russia’s contribution. Detroit News, 21 October 1947. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. Russia is revising the sciences. Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

96

Thomas, Burt Randolph. Is it safe to send the red army out of Russia? Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. Ivan the terrible fibber. Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. If US television could reach Russia. Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. Inspiration in Russia. Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. Get that through your head, Joe! Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. Maybe he doesn’t know about safety valves. Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. He is swallowing angry bees with the honey. Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Thomas, Burt Randolph. If history is correct he is swallowing trouble. Detroit News, 1948. From the Draper Hill Collection, the Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Valtman, Ed. ‘It falleth as the gentle rain from heaven’. Editorial Cartoon. Hartford Times, 28 March 1962. From the Phillip Sills Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Ides of March. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 March 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Joe – where ya workin’ – John’. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 5 April 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

97

Warren, L.D. Waving the olive branch. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 May 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Vienna Waltz. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 May 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Rough Going. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 7 July 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Bear Facts. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 July 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Looking over a four-leaf clover. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 July 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Steppe by Steppe. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 September 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Say when, Joe!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 September 1948. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. The pen is mightier. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 April 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. More rent control. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 5 April 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Table talk. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 May 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Fur Storage. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 7 May 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

98

Warren, L.D. Caught with his plans down. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 23 May 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Kibitzers. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 May 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. This is where we came in. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 June 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Don’t look now, but...’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 July 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Honest Ma – but he got away!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 August 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Aw, they’re sour anyway!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 September 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Points to remember. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 September 1949. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. He chose freedom. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 March 1950. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Closer and just as deadly. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 April 1950. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. May Pole. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 1 May 1950. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Try anything but blasting. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 6 June 1950. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

99

Warren, L.D. ‘I’m a lucky guy!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 September 1950. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Why not? Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 September 1950. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Pain in the Neck. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 November 1950. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Safety Patrol. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 May 1951. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. World Trade. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 January 1951. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. China in a bull pen. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 June 1951. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Coming Events. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 2 July 1951. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Red sales in the sunset. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 6 August 1951. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. And with a hangover yet! Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 September 1951. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Winter Sport. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 1 December 1951. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Sidewalk Superintendent’s Delight. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 27 June 1952. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

100

Warren, L.D. Another Pow Deadlock. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 September 1952. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Landslide Victory. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 7 November 1952. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Quick- another log for the fire!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 November 1952. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘There’s really nothing to it!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 December 1952. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Music to his ears. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 5 March 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Atom Go Brath. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 March 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Come on down, I’m ready to talk!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 9 April 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Shut your eyes and stick out your neck!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 June 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘The winnah and still champeen!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 June 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘What pretty teeth you have Grandma!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 June 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Why don’t you two get together?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 1 September 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

101

Warren, L.D. Does he really want to be rescued? Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 28 October 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘It looked good before I plucked it!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 23 November 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Carry your bag – mademoiselle?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 3 December 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Maybe I’d better lend a hand’. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 December 1953. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘You’ll find food in the refrigerator, Georgi!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 3 April 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Low man on Geneva May pole’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 1 May 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. The best laid schemes o’ mice and men… Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 May 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Think they’ll recognize me, Georgi?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 May 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Oops- she slipped!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 June 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Now we’ll split the difference!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 7 June 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Get in there and fight – he can’t hurt us!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 5 November 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

102

Warren, L.D. ‘I’m beginning to feel like a turkey!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 23 November 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Take it off – we know you!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 20 December 1954. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘We must have stolen the wrong seed’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 16 March 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘And what’s new with you?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 22 March 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. He finally got a hit. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 March 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘And what goodies did you bring Granny today?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 12 April 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘I hope you’re right!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 3 May 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘You sure you don’t want to change your mind?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 11 June 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘The girl of my dreams is the sweetest girl…’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 28 June 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘You did order a gun for protection?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 October 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Now what was the next item on the agenda?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 2 November 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

103

Warren, L.D. ‘On Sobolev – on Tsiang!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 December 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Anyone for tennis?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 17 December 1955. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Can’t we fly it out there for a change?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 29 March 1956. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Pardon me – pardon me – pardon me!!!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 May 1956. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Charity with strings. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 May 1956. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Where is my wandering boy tonight?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 7 June 1956. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘You sure your mind’s made up this time?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 23 June 1956. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Nothing trivial, I hope!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 November 1956. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘How many times must I tell you to keep out of there?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 1 February 1957. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘We were expecting you last October!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 26 June 1957. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘What’s going on – can’t you gentlemen read?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 28 June 1958. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

104

Warren, L.D. ‘We may sit here until spring – then you can drive!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 15 December 1958. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Good, I like your modern technique – hope you can sell it in Paris!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 31 August 1959. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘I may return your lawn mower-if you lend me the shovel!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 15 January 1960. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘We’re expecting a rather vicious shipment from Russia!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 15 September 1960. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Yankee Imperialists!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 16 December 1960. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Despite Russia’s space twins, we will be first to land on the moon’ –James Webb. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 21 August 1962. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Game called because of rain. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 11 September 1962. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘What are you going to do for your encore, dearie?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 27 November 1962. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Sure I said – two forward and one back! But not together – stupid!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 6 December 1962. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘I’m taking a bus to Cuba! Why? Where are you going?’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 14 January 1964. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Khrushchev grocery? I’d like to place another order!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 July 1964. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

105

Warren, L.D. A tree grows in South Vietnam. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 3 March 1965. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. These are the days the birds come back. Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 19 March 1965. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. 9998 – 9999 – 10,000 – 10,001, 10,002, 10,003 -------! Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 21 June 1967. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Yup! Ya gotta keep an eye on them foreigners, they’re dangerous!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 October 1967. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D.’I did fix it!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 16 August 1968. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. Bear with a bear by the tail Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 August 1968. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘I can lick any man in the house! Help me up!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 10 October 1968. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘What say we take a break and talk a while!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 24 January 1969. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Moscow!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 2 February 1969. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘Don’t take it so hard, Walter – you’re still as faithful as any dog!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 23 March 1970. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Warren, L.D. ‘…BURP!’ Editorial Cartoon. Cincinnati Enquirer, 30 March 1971. From the L.D. Warren Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

106

White, Ned. Getting Nowhere. Editorial Cartoon. Akron Beacon Journal, 16 April 1947. From the Ned White Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

White, Ned. Deeper and deeper. Editorial Cartoon. Akron Beacon Journal, 7 July 1947. From the Ned White Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

White, Ned. The ‘Moscow’ Cubs. Editorial Cartoon. Akron Beacon Journal, 13 July 1947. From the Ned White Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

White, Ned. Show Windows. Editorial Cartoon. Akron Beacon Journal, 4 June 1950. From the Ned White Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

White, Ned. Big Hinge. Editorial Cartoon. Akron Beacon Journal, 25 January 1954. From the Ned White Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

White, Ned. Peaceful Coexistence. Editorial Cartoon. Akron Beacon Journal, 24 June 1960. From the Ned White Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Wright, Dick. Thank god for nine lives!! Editorial Cartoon. Providence Journal-Bulletin, December 1993. From the Bill Sanders Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Wright, Dick. Russia crisis possible. Editorial Cartoon. Providence Journal-Bulletin, March 1994. From the Bill Sanders Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Wright, Dick. Russian Roulette. Editorial Cartoon. Providence Journal-Bulletin, March 1994. From the Bob Englehart Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.

Wright, Dick. What line does an unstable fanatic terrorist zealot get in? Editorial Cartoon. Providence Journal-Bulletin, May 1995. From the Bill Sanders Collection, The Ohio State University Cartoon Library and Museum.