Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
(In)visible Asian American women: an analysis of how stereotypes in political cartoons reveal symbolic annihilation
(USC Thesis Other)
(In)visible Asian American women: an analysis of how stereotypes in political cartoons reveal symbolic annihilation
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
i
(In)Visible Asian American Women:
An Analysis of How Stereotypes in Political Cartoons Reveal Symbolic
Annihilation
By
Laura B. Yen
Political Science and International Relations
University of Southern California, Los Angeles
A thesis submitted to University of Southern California in partial fulfillment of the
requirements of the degree of Master of Arts
May 2013
ii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to the members of my
thesis committee, Dr. Alison Dundes Renteln, Dr. Janelle Wong, and Dr. Brian Bernards,
for their support and guidance. In particular I would like to thank Dr. Renteln for her
unwavering faith in me and this project, without her encouragement and guidance this
project would not exist. I would like to thank Dr. Wong for her constant help despite
geographical distance. And, Dr. Bernards, for his enthusiastic support and for providing
me with a classroom space that allowed me to pursue tangents that interested me.
I would also like to thank the staff of the Political Science office- Cathy Ballard,
Veri Chavarin, Jody Battles, and Aurora Ramirez for everything they do to support the
department and for always making the time to help me and answer my questions.
I would be remiss if I did not thank my colleagues for their support and
friendship. In particular I would like to acknowledge Tyler Curley, Matthew Mendez, and
Míchel Martinez for their unending patience and thoughtful feedback while I repeatedly
talked through this project. And, Kymberly MacNeal for her technical support and
assistance.
Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family for their patience and
understanding over the past few months. In particular I would like to thank my siblings
for reminding me of what is important, and to my parents for always answering the phone
and their unconditional support and love.
iii
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..ii
List of Illustrations and Figures…………………………………………………………..iv
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………v
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….1
Literature Review
Stereotypes………………………………………………………………………...3
Stereotypes about Asian Americans.……………………………………………...8
Asian American Women in the Media and the Use of Yellow Face…………….21
Political Cartoons and the Role of Humor………………………………………24
Theoretical Foundation: Race, Invisibility and Symbolic Annihilation…………………34
Case Selection ……………………………………………………………………………40
Cartoon Analysis
Michelle Rhee ……………………………………………………………………44
Amy Chua………………………………………………………………………..51
Mazie Hirono…………………………………………………………………….63
Results and Discussion…………………………………………………………………..67
Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….72
Appendix A. Mohammad Cartoon……………………………………………………….74
Appendix B. Cartoon Search…………………………………………………………….75
References………………………………………………………………………………..77
iv
List of Illustrations and Figures
Tables
1. Asian American Stereotype Organization …………………………………………9
Political Cartoons
Figure 1. “Education reformer Michelle Rhee” by Taylor Jones……………………47
Figure 2. “Hu Jintao, Tiger Mothers, and Human Rights” by Sage Stossel…………57
Figure 3. Barry Blitt for The New Yorker……………………………………………59
Figure 4. “Tiger Mom” by Annie R. …………………………………………………61
Figure 5. “Meanie Mazie” by John S. Pritchett………………………………………65
v
Abstract
Symbolic annihilation renders minorities invisible and powerless, which results
in the promotion of a status quo and racial hierarchy that further disadvantages the group
being symbolically annihilated. While many scholars have investigated symbolic
annihilation, none, to my knowledge, have analyzed the symbolic annihilation of Asian
American women in political cartoons. This thesis addresses the stereotypes employed by
political cartoons featuring Asian American women, and argues that the result is that the
women being depicted in these cartoons are symbolically annihilated. In order to
investigate this process I have selected three prominent Asian American women
(Michelle Rhee, Amy Chua, and Mazie Hirono) and examined how they were portrayed
in political cartoons. I found evidence suggesting that the Yellow Peril and Dragon Lady
stereotypes were being employed for all three women, rendering them as one-
dimensional stereotypes and suggesting that they have been symbolically annihilated.
1
Introduction
Minorities face a troubling problem, that in an age of extreme visibility and media
presence they are invisible, and without visibility they are powerless to change the system
in which they are trapped. Scholars refer to this as symbolic annihilation, specifically
caused by absence, silence, stereotypes, trivialization, degradation, under-representation,
condemnation, or being featured as incompetent (Gerbner 1980, Tuchman 1978). Asian
American women are no exception to symbolic annihilation, and this study will discuss
how prominent Asian American women like Michelle Rhee, Amy Chua, and Mazie
Hirono are stereotyped and symbolically annihilated in political cartoons. Political
cartoons have proved to be a fascinating medium of media to analyze due to its
complexities and simultaneous rebellious and conformist nature. By this I mean political
cartoons are supposed to buck authority and show the world the “hard truths.” Yet
political cartoons are guilty of maintaining the status quo- at least when it comes to race
and racial hierarchy.
In this study I will review pertinent literature about stereotypes, specifically
addressing why we find them so necessary and the role that they play in social structures
and dynamics. From there I will discuss specific stereotypes about Asian Americans,
focusing on both broad stereotypes (e.g., Yellow Peril, forever foreign, and model
minority) and subject specific (e.g., Charlie Chan, Madame Butterfly, Dr. Fu Manchu,
and Dragon Lady). Then I will narrow in on Asian American women in the media, as
well as address the use of yellow face and its many meanings. Shifting gears I will
introduce political cartoons and will discuss their nature, history, evolution, and concern
for political correctness. I will also briefly discuss the role of humor in political cartoons
2
and how humor aids the proliferation of the status quo in regards to social structures and
power. Shifting focus once again I will elaborate on the theoretical underpinnings of race
and symbolic annihilation. This will include a discussion of how race is a socially
constructed phenomenon, as is racial hierarchy or ordering. A discussion of case selection
will follow once these theories have been established, and then I will analyze the cartoons
and present the findings which indicate that Asian American women continue to be
stereotyped and symbolically annihilated in political cartoons, which may lead to
invisibility and powerlessness while maintaining the racial status quo.
3
Literature Review
Stereotypes
There is no one definition for stereotypes, but they have famously been referred to
as the “pictures in our heads” and as perceptions that serve as a quick way to code and
understand information (Lee et al. 2007, Lippmann 1922). Stereotypes also serve a
secondary function, which is to act as justification for the perpetuation of social dynamics
(Crandall et al. 2011). Stereotypes fulfill these various roles because of their ubiquitous
nature- everyone stereotypes because the process occurs (in part) out of necessity. We are
constantly flooded with ideas, events, images, and people,
1
and instead of viewing each
new interaction as a fresh and unique experience we apply culturally created ideas to
quickly interpret and fill in the blanks (Lippmann 1922, Lyons and Kashima 2001, Tajfel
1963). Due to this way of processing and perceiving the world, we are able to
“understand” things quickly and require only a few traits to indicate or activate
stereotypes. This process results in generalizations that are incomplete, vary in accuracy,
and perpetuate stereotypes- that is, we see what we expect to see, tending to disregard
aspects that are inconsistent (Zhang 2010, Lippmann 1922, Lyons and Kashima 2001).
To reiterate, stereotypes are a tool to aid quick understanding, but that does not mean that
they are necessarily true, false, or some combination; nor does it mean that their effect is
necessarily negative, positive, or neutral (Dundes 1975, Lippmann 1922). Furthermore,
while stereotypes are not inherently negative, stereotypes about out-groups are more
likely to be negative and are more likely to view the group as being homogeneous (Hilton
and von Hippel 1996).
1
For the purposes of this project I will be discussing stereotypes only with regard to
stereotypes about people.
4
In order to better understand stereotypes, it is important to address briefly how
and where they operate. Since stereotypes exist within culture, they are not static and
evolve over time (Lyons and Kashima 2001, Garcia-Marques et al. 2006). However, this
does not mean that stereotypes necessarily change dramatically, disappear or are
replaced. Additionally, the valence (if the stereotype is perceived as portraying the
subject in a positive or negative light)
2
does not necessarily change over time either. This
is partly because stereotype inconsistent information is often disregarded, and stereotype
confirming information tends to be perpetuated and therefore reinforced (Lyons and
Kashima 2001, Hilton and von Hippel 1996, Lippmann 1922). This means that each time
a stereotype is used, it is reinforced, grows more prevalent, and often retains a certain
amount of consistency despite the evolving nature of culture and stereotypes. This
consistency helps sustain a history for stereotypes, which lends stereotypes an aura of
truth- that the stereotypes represent an inherent, and unquestionable, fact (Merskin 2009,
Lippmann 1922). The more entrenched and shared stereotypes become in culture and in
our minds, the more difficult it is not to stereotype and the more difficult it is to change
or disprove the stereotype (Larosa and Dai 2007, Hilton and von Hippel 1996, Lyons and
Kashima 2003). Also, since stereotypes exist within culture they are a frequently utilized
part of communication because references are drawn from a “common ground” (or shared
understanding), and stereotypes form a part of this shared understanding. By virtue of
being part of this “common ground”, it is clear that stereotypes are a shared construct and
their employment in communication reinforces them (Lyons and Kashima 2001).
2
Although there are multiple stereotypes per group or subject, they do not all have to
have the same valence (Ehrlich and Van Tubergen 1971).
5
Stereotypes are a tool that aid how the world is perceived, but they can also be
used to justify a particular view of the world because certain stereotypes are ubiquitous
and are assumed to reflect reality. In short, stereotypes have been used to help justify and
reinforce social constructs and dynamics, attitudes, and behaviors between groups (i.e.,
discrimination, racism, sexism, superiority and inferiority) (Alexander et al. 2005,
Crandall et al. 2011, Lippmann 1922). Since stereotyping ignores the diversity of a group
and instead represents it as a homogeneous bloc with a few defining (i.e., stereotypical)
traits that are accepted and taken to represent what is normal and natural, they have been
used to bolster racial hierarchy and social structures (Merskin 2009). For example,
stereotypes about women have served to justify gender roles (and supporting behavior
and attitudes) that dictate women’s subordinate position in society (Espiritu 1997,
Anderson and Jolly 1977). Taken to extremes, stereotypes have also served to justify
racially motivated crimes and racist laws- like Japanese internment. After the bombing of
Pearl Harbor Japanese Americans and Japanese living in America were put in internment
camps, this unprecedented action was justified because of prolific and historically rooted
stereotypes of sexually aggressive, inferior, forever foreign, and animal-like Japanese
(Renteln 1995).
Stereotypes also affect social structure and racial hierarchy by reinforcing racial
supremacy or inferiority (often through a creation of “the other”) and by creating tension
between groups. For example, the model minority stereotype valorized Asian Americans
over other racial minorities (specifically African Americans) by saying that Asian
Americans are the superior minority because they are hard workers, excel in academics,
are not reliant on welfare, and tend to be politically quiet. The term alone suggests that if
6
Asian Americans are the “model minority”, then there have to be other minority groups
who, by comparison, are inferior. As a result, tension exists between Asian Americans
and other racial minority groups (Kim 1999). Even though stereotypes evolve and are
contextually situated, it is necessary to note their history because stereotypes carry with
them the remnants of the context in which they were created. Without this knowledge,
social structures, beliefs and attitudes may be unknowingly or subconsciously reinforced.
The effects of stereotypes extend beyond the more macro power dynamics and
can deeply affect individuals as well. One broad, but damaging effect of some stereotypes
is that they inform attitudes, which direct behavior- when someone attributes a stereotype
to another individual then the stereotype informs the perceiver’s behavior and treatment
towards the stereotyped subject (Lippmann 1922). Stereotypes are not entirely external
though, people consume culture and therefore consume stereotypes about themselves.
This can influence their behavior as they try to distance themselves or live up to
stereotyped (or expected) behavior (Merskin 2009; Sinclair, Lowery, and Hardin 2006).
In some ways they become self-fulfilling prophecies, and thereby reaffirm the stereotypes
for others (Hilton and von Hippel 1996). This can become complicated though since
people are often subjected to possessing multiple stereotypes, like Asian American
women are subject to Asian American stereotypes (e.g., Asian Americans are good at
math) and gender stereotypes (e.g., women have better verbal skills and do not excel at
math) that sometimes contradict. In the case for Asian American women when one part
of their identity is salient (either being Asian American or female) the corresponding
stereotype is activated and they are more confident in the corresponding strength
(Sinclair, Lowery, and Hardin 2006).
7
The media provides an interesting forum to examine stereotypes since the media
often reflects social feelings, trends, and values (Anderson and Jolly 1977). The media
can more easily employ subtle stereotypes, which can be even more insidious because
they are not easily identifiable and discounted. Despite relative subtlety, these stereotypes
in the media do reinforce and magnify themselves (Lester and Ross 2003). In fact,
evidence suggests that perceptions about Asian Americans tend to line up with media
portrayals (mostly that Asian Americans are academically successful and nerds), which
ultimately impacts interactions, or lack thereof, with Asian Americans (Zhang 2010).
Another example of the negative effects of stereotypes can be seen in cases of domestic
abuse amongst Asian Americans. Due to stereotypes of Asian American women as
hypersexual, and therefore unworthy of protection, and Asian American men as asexual
and evil, allegations of domestic abuse are sometimes not taken seriously (Zia 1997,
Espiritu 1997).
Even stereotypes that are perceived as positive can have a negative impact, like
the model minority concept. The trait of extreme competence that is part of the model
minority stereotype, renders Asian Americans as a group to be admired, but also one that
is resented. This in addition to the stereotype that Asian Americans are incompetent
socially often portrays Asian Americans as unfriendly, heightening resentment (Lin et al.
2005). Perhaps Asian Americans perceive the effects of this stereotype because in a study
of Chinese American high school students, they were concerned with being ostracized for
being too smart, and would adjust their work to make sure that they did not finish before
anyone else (Goto 1997). Other studies suggested that Asian American students face
more discrimination from their peers than other non-Asian students do. This has been
8
attributed to model minority perceptions (i.e., that Asian Americans do better than non-
Asian students, which leads to resentment), or perceptions of teachers favoring Asian
American students (Rosenbloom and Way 2004). As a result, Asian American students
tend to be clannish, and more Asian American students suffer from depression, isolation,
self doubt, and poor social adjustment (Rosenbloom and Way 2004, Grossman and Liang
2008, Qin et al. 2008).
Stereotypes about Asian Americans
In discussing stereotypes about Asian Americans, I distinguish between
overarching stereotypes and subject (or character) specific stereotypes- some of which
embody overarching stereotypes. By overarching stereotypes, I mean stereotypes that
depict Asian Americans as a homogeneous group, rendering Asian Americans as a
solitary unit. Stereotypes that I have classified as overarching include Yellow Peril,
forever foreign, and model minority. While these stereotypes can be, and often are,
applied to individuals they are more broadly applied to all Asian Americans. Subject
specific stereotypes are often more easily identified in literature and the media- which
ultimately inform perceptions and beliefs. Furthermore, subject specific stereotypes are
more dependent on the individual, although there are only a few available typologies that
can be applied to the individuals. These stereotypes can broadly be considered as either
unthreatening or threatening, with male and female equivalents for both.
The unthreatening male characters can broadly be called Charlie Chan characters
and the female version either Madame Butterflies or Lotus Blossoms. The threatening
version, and an embodiment of the Yellow Peril, for male characters is Dr. Fu Manchu
and the female version is Dragon Lady (Mok 1998, Ono and Pham 2009, Ma 2000). (See
9
Table 1.) It should be emphasized though that the delineation outlined in this paper is a
simplification and that the stereotypes overlap and inform each other (e.g., the
embodiment of Yellow Peril is Dr. Fu Manchu and the Dragon Lady). At first glance, it
may seem that the subject specific stereotypes are opposites and may even cancel each
other out; however, what actually occurs is the construction of what Ono and Pham have
referred to as an ambivalent dialectic (Ono and Pham 2009). An ambivalent dialectic
creates a set of contrasting representations that work together to provide a limited and
ultimately problematic representation. In the case of White women, for example, it is the
idea that women must be either virgins or whores, indicating that women cannot be
anything in between and illustrates a masculine hetero-normative narrative. A similar
construction is created about Asian American women, they must be either Madame
Butterflies or Dragon Ladies- they must either be submissive, obedient, and sexually
available or they must be domineering, evil, and still sexually available but in an
unfeminine and sometimes unappealing way (Ono and Pham 2009).
Table 1. Asian American Stereotype Organization
Overarching Stereotypes Character and Gender Specific Stereotypes
- Yellow Peril
- Forever Foreign
- Model Minority
Unthreatening Threatening
Male: Charlie Chan Male: Dr. Fu Manchu
Female: Madame Butterfly Female: Dragon Lady
Lotus Blossom
One of the most enduring stereotypes about Asian Americans is that of the
Yellow Peril- that Asians are infiltrating America to “destroy white civilization” either
10
through racialized economic or moral means (Shim 1998, p. 388, Ono and Pham 2009).
Yellow Peril has a long history in America and has been traced back to the 1850’s when
Chinese began to immigrate in large numbers to the United States. White Americans
perceived this as a threat to the racial order and economy. Initially the threat of Asians in
America followed two distinct veins- economics and morality (specifically sexuality).
Economically, Americans were concerned that Asians were “stealing” their jobs and
when Chinese immigrants (and later other Asian immigrants) did not return to their
countries of origin it became clear that Asians were not temporary workers. Not only did
white Americans resent this additional competition in the workforce, but Asians were
sometimes employed to break strikes- increasing distrust and resentment (Lee 1999).
Sexuality has been at the heart of morality for many Americans, and Americans
questioned the sexuality and gender of Chinese immigrants. At the time Chinese men
wore long robes and kept their hair long in a queue, which was seen as highly feminized
behavior by Americans. Furthermore, while Asian men worked jobs that involved both
taxing manual labor, they also took jobs traditionally held by women. Together their
appearance and occupation prompted a questioning of their sexuality and masculinity. At
the same time though Asian men were seen as a threat to white racial purity, which was
controlled (and in some ways defined) as access to white women’s sexuality. Many of
these foreign men did not arrive with wives and women rarely immigrated alone (if they
did, the assumption was that they were prostitutes). Later Chinese women were barred
from immigrating in part out of a fear that whites had of female Asian sexuality. Beyond
issues revolving around sexuality there was also growing concern for opium dens and
gambling- both of which were viewed as a threat to the dominant morality of the time. As
11
a result of the fears promulgated by the Yellow Peril stereotype, there were riots, violence
directed at Asian immigrants, and a slew of legislation passed which limited the rights
and citizenship status of Asians in America and effectively barred Asians from
immigrating until the Hart- Cellar Act of 1965 (Ono and Pham 2009, Lee 1999, Choy et
al. 1994, Prasso 2006, Aoki and Takeda 2008, Wong 2009).
Political cartoons played a significant role in the dissemination of negative
stereotypes. Indeed, they aided the distribution of the Yellow Peril by depicting Asians as
an evil and animalistic blight swarming the nation, particularly in California (Choy et al.
1994). Prior to the widespread panic of the Yellow Peril Asians were featured in a more
benign manner in cartoons. It is unclear though if this was a result of either the
cartooning trends of the time or popular sentiment about Asians. These earlier cartoons
featuring Asians were more or less accurate representations- they more closely resemble
photographs and were unbiased, life like sketches (Choy et al. 1994, Wong 2009). It was
not until the Yellow Peril picked up steam in the later part of the nineteenth century that
physical features were exaggerated and distorted until Asian immigrants were rendered
inhuman with long sharp nails, slanted eyes, big teeth, large heads, and savage, animal-
like traits (Choy et al. 1994).
Yellow Peril was not just limited to political cartoons, but was also a theme in
serial comics (which sometimes utilized similar artistic interpretations and styles as
political cartoons) like Flash Gordon and Terry and the Pirates both of which started in
the 1930s and inspired further interpretations along the same theme (Ma 2000). These
comics enjoyed widespread popularity because of their adventurous narratives, which
often blatantly exploited Orientalist fantasies and ideas. As a result of their popularity
12
these images reached a wide audience and became rooted in the popular imagination of
Asia and Asians. The Yellow Peril was not limited to just comics, but has been a
consistent feature in popular culture and media, although the current focus is more on
potential economic threats rather than sexual or moral threats (especially since
stereotypes about Asian American men have evolved from sexually threatening to
something more akin to asexuality) (Ma 2000, Prasso 2006, Lee 1999). In the twenty-first
century Yellow Peril can be seen in political rhetoric about the rising power of China,
exporting jobs to Asia, and even a threat through imported commodities like lead paint
being used in the production of children’s toys (Ono and Pham 2009). The recession in
particular has shifted focus to China’s growing economic power (Poon 2011).
While the Yellow Peril is often applied broadly to all Asians, it is often alluded to
when specific nations fall out of favor due to the current state of foreign relations. For
example, prior to World War II the Chinese were the primary targets of Yellow Peril
hysteria; however, once America went to war with Japan, the Japanese became the new
villains and the Chinese were redeemed. After the war and during the rise of communism
China (and the Chinese) reclaimed its place at the helm of the Yellow Peril and the
Japanese were reprieved (Ono and Pham 2009). Because white Americans were
sometimes unable to distinguish among Asian Americans, members of many groups have
been at risk. For example, Japanese immigrants did not want to be mistaken as Chinese
during the systematic exclusion of Chinese immigrants in the later part of the nineteenth
century, so they distanced themselves from Chinese immigrants (Espiritu 1992). During
World War II Chinese Americans distanced themselves from Japanese Americans who
were being placed in internment camps, and some Chinese Americans even went so far as
13
to join anti-Japanese groups and wore buttons that said, “I Hate Japs Worse than You
Do” (Espiritu 1992, Daniels 1988, p. 205).
Since the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, however, the national and
ethnic lines have blurred for many non-Asian Americans (if they were ever actually
distinct before), which can be seen in the brutal murder of Vincent Chin in 1982. Chin
was a Chinese American man murdered by two autoworkers who blamed him for the
increased unemployment in Detroit due to the increased imports of Japanese cars. They
believed Chin to be Japanese and while beating him with a baseball bat yelled racial slurs
at him and blamed him for the shift in the economy (Ono and Pham 2009, Espiritu 1992).
Chin’s murder shows the extremes to which the Yellow Peril can be taken and also
suggests that Asian Americans are seen as one large, indistinguishable group.
Another stereotype that cannot be easily separated from the Yellow Peril is that
Asian Americans are forever foreign. This is the assumption that Asian Americans are
unable to assimilate, are not American, and that they are new immigrants and/or their
loyalties are not to America, but rather their countries of origin (Ono and Pham 2009,
Kim 2006, Ngai 2004). Asian Americans experience this daily when they are asked
where they are really from (with the expectation that the answer should be an Asian
country) and sometimes are not expected to be proficient in English. Furthermore, the
media often fails to differentiate between Asian Americans and Asians, instead the two
are often conflated to be simply Asian (Mok 1998). The forever foreign stereotype is
similar to the Yellow Peril in that both assume Asian Americans are foreign. The two are
often used together, like when politicians were worried that Asian governments were
trying to influence the 1996 presidential election and the Democratic Party returned or
14
delayed depositing campaign donations from contributors with Asian sounding last
names because doubt had been raised about the citizenship and loyalty of Asian
American contributors. This cloud of suspicion was also cast on Asian American
politicians who then had to defend their allegiance and citizenship (Kim 2006).
The final overarching stereotype is the model minority stereotype, which some
have argued was influenced by the Yellow Peril (Chang 2011, Ono and Pham 2009). The
model minority stereotype claims that Asian Americans are smart, good at math and
science, financially successful, quiet, family oriented, hard working, responsible, and will
not rock the boat (Ono and Pham 2009, Lee 1999). Proponents of this stereotype often
claim that its validity is due to an inherent (or essentialized) quality that people of Asian
heritage possess, or that it can be attributed to cultural and familial structures. Regardless
of the reasoning behind it this stereotype has painted Asian Americans as the minority
group to aspire to and could possibly “out-white” the whites when it comes to education
(Poon 2011). As a result of this stereotype tension and resentment has been created
amongst minorities, and while it has been suggested that Asian Americans could be on
even ground with whites the fact that they are the model minority ensures that that will
never happen. That is regardless of achievement and gains made economically, via
education, etc. Asian Americans will always be a minority and can never claim racial
whiteness as it is currently constructed. The tension that is created between Asian
Americans and minorities has only served to benefit white supremacy since this has acted
as a barrier to keep racial minorities and the underprivileged from uniting to become
politically and socially active (Ono and Pham 2009, Kim 1999).
15
The concept of Asian Americans as the model minority is often cited as starting in
two articles from 1966 “Success Story: Japanese American Style” and “Success story of
One Minority in the U.S.” (Ono and Pham 2009, Lee 1999). The fact that this new term
emerged immediately following the success of the Civil Rights Movement (which was
spearheaded by the African American community, but was being embraced and
appropriated by other disenfranchised groups) is no coincidence. Rather, some see this as
a part of a broader strategy to keep these groups from uniting (Lee 1999). However, this
idea of the competent, yet socially inept,
3
Asian American existed prior to the coining of
the term and was often seen in characters like Charlie Chan (Lin et al. 2005).
Not only has the model minority stereotype complicated race relations, but it is
also been harmful to Asian Americans since the stereotype encompasses all Asian
Americans (Shim 1998). As is often the case with stereotypes, the model minority
stereotype casts Asian Americans as a homogenous group, when that is far from the case.
There are huge disparities of wealth and education amongst Asian Americans, but this
stereotype glosses them over and presents one (inaccurate) picture (Hu 1989, Ono and
Pham 2009). As a result, Asian Americans are rarely thought of as a group that may need
additional help (like government assistance) and are sometimes met with resistance and
hostility when they ask for it. Not only does this image misrepresent Asian Americans,
but it also employs the old Yellow Peril image and actually paints Asian Americans as a
threatening group that is going to take over schools and businesses, and eventually the
country (Ono and Pahm 2009). This seemingly complimentary stereotype ultimately
3
The model minority stereotype is not necessarily explicitly socially incapable, but often
implied in the portrayal of mathematical and scientific aptitude (i.e., nerdiness) (Lin et al.
2005).
16
creates tension and distance; it harms Asian Americans by portraying them as a
homogeneous and threatening group.
Shifting focus to subject, or character, specific stereotypes, some prevalent
stereotypical characters that typify the unthreatening Asian stereotypes found in
American media are Charlie Chan and Madame Butterfly/Lotus Blossom. The Charlie
Chan type character originated in the media in the 1930s and was portrayed as asexual,
effeminate, weak, comical, loyal to America, spoke in broken English, obedient,
dependable, somewhat competent (never as competent as white male heroes), and may
have been an early version of the model minority (Ono and Pham 2009, Prasso 2006,
Mok 1998, Shim 1998, Ma 2000). In his original movies Charlie Chan type characters
were often played by white actors in yellow face because it was easier to believe that a
white actor could be inherently good and moral- it was thought that no one would think
that an Asian could be that good or moral (Rogin1996, Ma 2000). However, his sons (and
some later versions of the Charlie Chan character) were often far less competent and
provided comedic relief (Mok 1998, Prasso 2006). These incompetent versions were
sometimes cast with actual Asian American actors, and this was the most common role
for Asian American men in American cinema until the 1970s (Mok 1998, Ma 2000).
Visually, Charlie Chan type characters were drawn/portrayed with “a bald head, a blank
and dumb face, buckteeth, slant eyes, [and] giant ears,” like the Charlie Chan type
character named Connie in the comic Terry and the Pirates who provided comedic relief
because of his incompetence which was attributed to his race (Ma 2000, p. 14). Overall,
Charlie Chan was a non-threatening Asian American character and was more easily
17
accepted because he did not challenge white dominance, especially when played by a
white man (Ono and Pham 2009).
The female equivalent to Charlie Chan exists in several forms, but the two
dominant characters are Madame Butterfly and Lotus Blossom. For the most part they are
similar in that they are supposed to be submissive/passive, feminine, sexual, obedient,
docile, demure, mysterious, and they should desire to serve men (Prasso 2006, Ono and
Pham 2009, Mok 1998). The main difference between Madame Butterfly and Lotus
Blossom characters is that Madame Butterfly is tragic and sacrifices herself, either
because of love for her child or shame. For the purposes of this study I will refer to this
unthreatening female stereotype as Madame Butterfly despite the slight differences (Ono
and Pham 2009). The Madame Butterfly character has a long history that spans literature,
operas, cinema, and theater- it was originated by French writer, Pierre Loti in 1887 who
was inspired by a relationship he had in Japan and subsequently wrote Madame
Chysantheme. It then became a short story and a play that Giacomo Puccini saw in 1990,
inspiring his opera Madame Butterfly (Prasso 2006, Mok 1998).
The theme of a tragic and self-sacrificing Asian (and eventually Asian American)
woman continued throughout various forms of media and culture and then in 1988 the
story was adapted by David Henry Hwang in M. Butterfly where the tragic butterfly is
instead a man, pretending to be a woman, and spying on the white male lead. Three years
later Broadway was embroiled in controversy over the casting of Miss Saigon, a more
traditional variation of the Madame Butterfly story, when white actors were cast in Asian
roles (Mok 1998). The Madame Butterfly story is generally about an Asian woman
falling in love with a white, Western foreigner, who leaves her and returns (or remarries)
18
to a white wife. His Asian bride is left pregnant and alone. Some years later he returns
with his white wife and the Asian woman kills herself (and sometimes her child) due to
shame or so her child can have a “better” life with his father (Mok 1998). The original
version took place in Japan with a Japanese wife; however, over time other Asian
countries and ethnicities were also featured in this story (i.e., Chinese, Vietnamese). This
suggests that this stereotype is not limited to one ethnicity, but instead spans ethnic and
national boundaries. In other words, Madame Butterflies can be found in all Asian
countries and that there is something inherent about Asian women which leads them to be
submissive, docile, sexual, obedient, self-sacrificing, and so forth. While, this stereotype
may seem to be about Asian women only, audiences (i.e., consumers of stereotypes) do
not see there being a difference between Asian women and Asian American women, so
this stereotype is easily transferable to Asian American women and then perpetuated and
strengthened (Ono and Pham 2009).
Another stereotype has proven to be particularly damaging for Asian American
men is the negative, or threatening, stereotype of Asian American males as the Dr. Fu
Manchu character. Dr. Fu Manchu represents the Yellow Peril- he is evil and wants to
take over the world and destroy the West (Ono and Pham 2009, Lee 1999). Dr. Fu
Manchu is notable for his intellect and scientific expertise, which make him a fierce and
dangerous opponent to western democracy and morality (Ma 2000, Prasso 2006). He was
created by novelist Sax Rohmer in the 1913 work The Insidious Dr. Fu Manchu and
featured in Rohmer’s novels until 1959 (Lee 1999, Shim 1998). Rohmer admitted that he
knew nothing about China, but did know about western Chinatowns, which provided
some of the inspiration to his infamous Dr. Fu Manchu (Ma 2000). Visually, Dr. Fu
19
Manchu and other similar villains, were portrayed as an evil Chinese foreigner with thin,
long facial hair, slanted eyes, long fingernails, and occasionally pointed ears (Ma 2000).
In some respects he more closely resembled some sort of animal than a human.
The female equivalent of Dr. Fu Manchu was the Dragon Lady, and in some
narratives she is actually his daughter (Tajima 1989). Regardless of her lineage, she is the
female embodiment of the Yellow Peril (Ono and Pham 2009). She is portrayed as evil,
lethal, clever, calculating, manipulative, treacherous, deceitful, castrating, and
unfeminine (although she may use her sexuality as a weapon of corruption against white
society) (Prasso 2006, Ono and Pham 2009, Tajima 1989, Mok 1998, Worrell 2003,
Espiritu 1999). Visually, the Dragon Lady is decidedly female; however, her sexuality is
at times masculine (in that she is not passive nor chaste) and she lacks “womanly”
qualities like empathy and maternal instincts (Ono and Pham 2009, Prasso 2006).
Milton Caniff’s serial comic (not to be confused with political cartoons) Terry
and the Pirates started in 1934 and followed the stories of white American men in the
exotic Orient, and was one of the first narratives to include the Dragon Lady. The Dragon
Lady was one of the villains of the series and was infatuated with the American hero, Pat
Ryan. She would manipulate and deceive him (often violently) and other characters for
her own gains, yet even she was helpless when it came to the white male hero (Ma 2000,
Brush 2009). Interestingly enough, the illustrations of the Dragon Lady (and many other
Asian female characters) show her as being more Eurasian than Asian. This is largely due
to the notion that completely Asian women cannot and should not be desirable to
wholesome, moral white men. But if she was portrayed as partially white, then any
attraction to her would be acceptable. In some of the narratives where she was the
20
daughter of Dr. Fu Manchu her mother was white, which serves to both show how evil
Dr. Fu Manchu was corrupting and violating white women and once again rendered the
Dragon Lady as an acceptable focus of white male attention (Ma 2000).
The Dragon Lady character’s popularity was pervasive in comics, and she has
been widely featured in films and continues to be a stock character in contemporary
twenty-first century media. Historically the Dragon Lady has been one of the few roles
for which Asian American women were cast. Furthermore, since she was an evil figure,
there was not any worry that she would be involved with the white male hero (Worrell
2003). And the Dragon Lady continued to appear in contemporary television and films-
like Lucy Liu’s character Ling Woo on Ally McBeal (Ono and Pham 2009, Kim 2004).
However, the term and idea of the Dragon Lady has transcended literature, comics, film,
and television to lose some of its racial intent (although it is still there and cannot be
separated from its racialized origin or implications) and has been used to refer to
unpopular women like Yoko Ono who was infamously blamed for the break up of the
Beatles; Madame Nhu, the hated sister-in-law of the former President of South Vietnam;
and women in elections like Judge Dorothy Chin-Brandt (who is Asian American) and
Leslie Crocker Snyder (who is white) (Prasso 2006, Brush 2009, Chin-Brandt 1997,
Robbins 2005). These examples illustrate the wide reach of the term Dragon Lady and
show how this idea has been diffused widely into American culture and media.
It is noteworthy that while some of these stereotypes may have originated with
specific Asian ethnicities or Asians, they are applied to all Asian Americans. Asian
Americans are often the victims of racial lumping by both the media and society more
broadly. This is the assumption, and corresponding behavior, that all Asian Americans
21
are the same (Espiritu 1992, Osyerman and Sakamoto 1997, Mok 1998, Ono and Pham
2009, Prasso 2006). Due in part to the forever foreign stereotype, there is an assumption
that Asian Americans remain intrinsically Asian and unable to assimilate, and stereotypes
about Asians (like the Dragon Lady) can be easily transferred from Asians to Asian
Americans, who are viewed as being all the same.
Asian American Women in the Media and the Use of Yellow Face
Asian Americans have had limited representation in the media, and when they are
represented it tends to be in accordance with the stereotypes previously discussed (Kim
2004, Shim 1998, Tajima 1989, Worrell 2003). As a result, Asian Americans have been
represented in highly restrictive ways that ultimately serve as methods of perpetuating
power dynamics, which keep Asian Americans as outsiders. It bears repeating that Asian
American women have historically been portrayed as Eurasian in illustrations and
narratives. Also, they have been played by white women in yellow face in film and
television to make these characters attractive (or to make their attractiveness permissible)
(Tajima 1989, Ma 2000). The use of yellow face in film was in part a consequence of the
need to make these women desirable according to white standards of beauty and morality,
but also because laws were passed forbidding any love scenes between white and non-
white actors; however, even after laws changed and other forms of racism like black face
fell out of fashion yellow face has continued unquestioned (Mok 1998, Brislin 2003). To
adhere to these laws white women often dressed in yellow face,
4
which obviously
caricatures Asians and Asian Americans.
4
Men were also in yellow face for comedic effect or to portray the hero, but were rarely
in yellow face because of anti miscegenation laws (at least in comparison to women).
Also, there were also cases where studios claimed that there were not any suitable Asian
22
Ono and Pham refer to yellow face as “a substitution of an object for a subject, a
substitution of a mocking mask for a human being” (Ono and Pham 2009, p. 49). Yellow
face is a degrading mimicry of what predominant white discourse (steeped in orientalism)
considered Asian Americans to be. It is a peculiarly successful type of cultural
appropriation. In an insightful analysis, Ono and Pham identify two types of yellow face,
the first is explicit yellow face, which is essentially when someone who is not Asian or
Asian American is cast as an Asian or Asian American. As a result, they wear
exaggerated make-up, may tape their eyes back, speak in a “fortune cookie-like” Asian
accent, and behave in a submissive and incompetent manner. The second type of yellow
face is implicit and is more concerned with racial power relations and maintaining white
dominance through creating an “authentic” Asian-ness that actors can portray, treating all
Asians and Asian Americans as being the same regardless of nationality or ethnicity, and
the employment of stereotypes that essentialize, trivialize, and dehumanize (Ono and
Pham 2009). Yellow face is another way to maintain power dynamics and create barriers
between Asian Americans and everyone else by presenting an Asian American-ness that
is “true” and natural through stereotypes. As a result Asian Americans are further
ostracized, rendered invisible, and disempowered. Ultimately yellow face represents just
another form of symbolic annihilation, which I will explain in more detail later.
Historically the available roles for Asian American actresses were as characters
that were in the background, tragic, subservient (i.e., housekeepers), or sexual (i.e.,
prostitutes). Whereas, honorable (or good) Asian American characters were historically
played by white actresses in yellow face (Shim 1998, Tajima 1989, Worrell 2003). In
American male actors so white actors were cast in place (Mok 1998, Ono and Pham
2009).
23
television female Asian American characters were largely servants, foreigners or absent
all together in the 1960s and 70s, and in the 1980s they were token or model minority
characters. In the 1990s the roles started to change in that there was more diversity, but
they still fell into the categories of Lotus Blossoms or Dragon Ladies, with the exception
of Margaret Cho’s All American Girl, the first television show to feature an all Asian
American family. However, Cho was criticized for being both too Asian and not Asian
enough and her show was cancelled after one season (Kim 2004). It would seem that
without these strong stereotypes people did not know what to make of this Asian
American family on their television (there were still stereotypes employed in the show,
but Cho’s main character was not stereotypical). In the early twenty-first century more
Asian American female roles could be found, but many were still stereotypical roles like
doctors, following the model minority stereotype and sometimes overlapping with
Dragon Ladies, and Dragon Ladies (Kim 2004). As a result of the employment of
stereotypes, many of these Asian American female characters are interchangeable
because the stereotypes only present a one-dimensional interpretation of Asian
Americans. This further suggests that Asian American women were the same and
interchangeable as well (Tajima 1989). While these stereotypes may not be widely
discussed, all one has to do is turn on the television to a show with Asian American
characters (a challenge unto itself) to see the stereotypes continually being invoked. They
may have evolved from their original form, but they are still being used to create a highly
limited and therefore problematic representation of Asian American women. It is the
persistence of this negative imagery that constitutes symbolic annihilation of Asian
American women.
24
Political Cartoons and the Role of Humor
Stereotypes of Asian American women have been explored in television, film,
and literature, but not, to my knowledge, in political cartoons. What makes political
cartoons intriguing for the study of stereotypes and symbolic annihilation of Asian
American women is that political cartoons are supposed to be a voice for the underdog
and, as such, a means by which to challenge authority. If stereotypes are invoked in
political cartoons and Asian American women are symbolically annihilated in these
political cartoons, then there could be much broader implications. This might reveal how
ubiquitous and unconscious racial hierarchy is and how deeply embedded stereotypes are.
While the focus of my analysis will be solely on how Asian American women are
portrayed in American political cartoons, I will discuss the nature, history, evolution, and
operation of political cartoons in America and the impact they have on society.
Political cartoons, also referred to as editorial cartoons, have historically held an
important position in the public discourse surrounding politics and current affairs. They
serve several functions, including interpreting the news, propaganda, social criticism,
protecting democracy, voicing minority or unpopular beliefs, drawing attention to
problems, presenting the truth, reflecting popular sentiment and culture, and challenging
their audience and society (Hess and Northrop 2011, Lamb 2004, Wiid et al. 2011,
Ashbrook 2004, Heller and Chwast 2008, Kenney and Colgan 2003). In fact, many
cartoonists would say that it is their responsibility to look out for the disadvantaged and
the underdogs and to challenge authority, corruption, hypocrisy, and injustice (Lamb
2004). As a result, political cartoons’ ideas and messages are generally negative and
should “resonate with readers in a way that is intimate, personal, and often
25
uncomfortable” (Lamb 2004, p. 25). Political cartoons achieve this because they are a
unique form of communication combining art (not limited to any one particular style) and
social commentary, and unlike similar mediums like comics, political cartoons are
usually one frame and do not have an ongoing sequence, storyline or characters- although
there are certain icons and symbols that are commonly used (e.g., Uncle Sam, Lady
Liberty, the “Common Man”) (McCloud 1993, Hess and Northrop 2011, Heller and
Chwast 2008). Through messages that are complex and layered, political cartoons convey
complicated, difficult, and emotional ideas that may not be sufficiently communicated by
prose alone; however, they must also be easily recognizable and understood (Mazid 2008,
Lamb 2004, Hess and Northrop 2011, Connors 2007, Gilmartin and Brunn 1998). In
order to accomplish this feat, a balance must be struck so that the message is simplified
enough to allow for easy comprehension, as well as encapsulating the issue and
commentary all within a limited space (Worcester 2007). As a result cartoonists must
draw on a common or shared pool of information and narratives, like popular culture,
literary references, and stereotypes to quickly communicate their message (Fischer 1996,
Connors 2007, Kenney and Colgan 2003).
One key tool that cartoonists use in crafting their message is humor, which can
mask aggression and (sometimes subtle) social tensions and problems; as well as
communicate and reinforce norms and stereotypes that lend themselves to social control
and power distribution (Anderson and Jolly 1977, Dundes 1975). However, this may be
challenging to identify because humor is inherently subject to many interpretations, and
at times it can be difficult to interpret its underlying messages (Lamb 2004). If the humor
26
can be interpreted, then valuable insight might be gathered in regards to social power and
dynamics.
Among the many types of humor upon which cartoonists rely are satire and
caricature, and both lend themselves to illustrations. Satire shows how the world truly is
(not how people want it to be), but in an exaggerated manner based on reduction-
stripping away status and influence to show that underneath wealth and power is an
ordinary person (Lamb 2004). One way to distinguish visual satire from other types of
illustration is that the goal is to pass moral judgments, and when applied to politics, the
aim is to show powerful individuals as weak (McPhee and Orenstein 2011). Another
form of illustrative humor and commentary is caricature, which is easily recognized by
the (sometimes grotesque) exaggeration of physical features. However, caricature in
political cartoons has declined considerably since the late 1960s for various reasons.
Some contend that this reflects censorship based on concerns about political correctness
so as not to offend those depicted or offend any readers (Heller and Chwast 2008). One
consequence of caricature’s signature exaggeration is that it can lead to ethnic
stereotyping (Lamb 2004). Humor and comedy more broadly have been involved in the
affirmation and challenge of social power dynamics like racism and racial hierarchy.
There is no question that humor is rarely benign (Wagg 1998).
Cartoons are more than a source of entertainment. They also helped shape
American political discourse. By examining briefly the historical role political cartoons
have had, as well as contemporary effects of selected political cartoons internationally,
one can better understand the unique, and varying, influence and power political cartoons
can wield. Some of the most notable contributions that political cartoons made to
27
American politics were the easily identifiable Republican party elephant, Democrat party
donkey, and Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam first appeared during the War of 1812 as an homage
to Sam Wilson, who would supply the troops with fresh food and was well liked by the
men. It would not be until World War I that the image would gain widespread popularity
(Hess and Northrop 2011). The impact that political cartoons have had on American
politics is not just limited to visual symbols, but also to terminology like “McCarthyism”
which Herbert Block (AKA Herblock) used in his criticism of Joseph McCarthy and his
policies (Hess and Northrop 2011).
The power of political cartoons is underscored by the reactions from politicians
and the public. If political cartoons did not matter, then politicians would not care about
them. However, they do, as William “Boss” Tweed’s infamous reaction to Thomas
Nast’s negative cartoons was “Stop them damn pictures” (Hess and Northrop 2011, Lamb
2004, Fischer 1996). Ultimately, Nast’s cartoons did not prevent Tweed from being
reelected, but that does not mitigate how threatened Tweed felt by them. And more
recently, both Presidents Bush were reported to have an ongoing feud with Doonesbury
cartoonist Garry Trudeau because of the commentary reflected in his cartoons (Lamb
2004).
Sometimes political cartoonists can even affect policy as when Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld proposed leaking incorrect news to foreign journalists, he
received such a strong backlash from journalists, particularly cartoonists, that he decided
to abort his plan and attributed this changed in course in part to pressure from cartoonists
(Lamb 2004). Furthermore, cartoonists have historically faced legislation attempting to
ban or censor cartoons. In the rare cases where such legislation was successful (California
28
and Pennsylvania), the laws were easily circumvented and became the subject of the
cartoons themselves (Lamb 2004). The effect of political cartoons is unclear and difficult
to measure. Despite these concerns, there is a widely held perception that political
cartoons can be damaging and threatening, and sometimes perception is enough to lead to
action.
One of the important roles that political cartoons play has been to present
perspectives that the American public would not have appreciated otherwise, like the
harsh realities of war. During World War I cartoonists glamorized war and employed
nationalism and jingoism, but they took a different approach during World War II when
Bill Mauldin’s cartoons exposed the realities and hardships of war (Lamb 2004, Hess and
Northrop 2011). This marked a shift towards even more independently minded
cartoonists who valued their ability to be critical of the government and commonly held
beliefs. This continued throughout the twentieth century. However, after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001 there was a drift back to unquestioning patriotism, and
cartoonists exhibited an uncharacteristic restraint, especially with regard to
characterizations of President Bush. This restraint was neither universal nor long-lived
though, as some cartoonists continued to criticize Bush (Lamb 2004).
Political cartoons have not just played a prominent role nationally, but have also
sparked conversation, riots, and violence internationally. In 2005 the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten solicited and published a dozen cartoons featuring the Prophet
Mohammad, including one particularly offensive cartoon that featured Mohammad with a
turban resembling a bomb.
5
These cartoons sparked an international debate about
5
See Appendix A.
29
freedom of speech, Islamaphobia, religious respect, and the boundaries of journalism and
political cartoons. Over the next several months and into 2006, the cartoons were
reprinted. The controversy culminated in demonstrations, violence, arson, death threats,
and eventually involvement from the United Nations (Keane 2008, Klausen 2009).
Political cartoons featuring Mohammad have continued, and in 2012 a spate of cartoons
were published in a French satirical magazine bringing issues of appropriateness and
freedom of speech to the forefront again. These later cartoons were a reaction to the
incendiary video, The Innocence of Muslims, and subsequent protests and violence. The
French government cautioned editors against publishing the cartoons (some of which
featured Mohammad naked and in pornographic scenarios), and in anticipation of a
potential backlash, they also temporarily closed and increased security in embassies,
consulates, and schools in twenty countries (Sayare and Clark 2012). It would seem that
France learned a valuable lesson from the Jyllands-Posten cartoons from 2005, that some
topics (and some portrayals) apparently cross a line, which can lead to serious
repercussions. More significantly, that a government temporarily closes embassies
because of political cartoons is an amazing feat for a piece of art or commentary, and it
demonstrates the power of images to influence political action.
Overtime cartoons themselves have changed, as have their role in daily life. This
change can be attributed to general shifts in American culture and improvements in
technology, which prompt cartoons to change in both style and substance. In the early
nineteenth century, the illustrations in political cartoons employed reportage, or realistic
30
depictions and portraits of politicians and individuals.
6
However, by the end of the
century, these illustrations became increasingly less detailed and less lifelike, and
caricature and symbols became more popular (Heller and Chwast 2008, Hess and
Northrop 2011). This change reflected an increase in the popularity and demand for
political cartoons. It was also a consequence of new technology like lithography that cut
down on publishing time enabling publications to meet the increase in demand and often
forced cartoonists to be less detailed and rely more on symbols and caricatures in order to
keep up with demand (Hess and Northrop 2011, Lamb 2004). Eventually, the prevalence
of photography rendered cartoons less necessary and replaced them on the front page of
newspapers, and cartoons moved to its current home among editorials. Also, television
introduced visuals of international actors, which broadened potential political cartoon
subject matter and created a shared base of references (Hess and Northrop 2011, Fischer
1996). In some ways technology may be to blame for both the decline and revitalization
of political cartoons. As photography, television, and the Internet became increasingly
accessible, people grew less reliant on political cartoons for entertainment and
commentary. Moreover, faster communication made syndication more influential and
more prevalent. Ultimately, the Internet may be the salvation that political cartoonists
have been looking for because of its low barriers of entry and cost.
Syndication occurs when a cartoonist sells the license to his or her work to
multiple newspapers. The benefit is that it allows newspapers to continue publishing
political cartoons without requiring the expense of a cartoonist on their staff. Cartoonists
6
Although the illustrations were lifelike, they were not always accurate and it was not
uncommon for the same image to be used to represent several politicians (e.g., the same
portrait was used to represent Abraham Lincoln and Horace Greeley) (Hess and Northrop
2011)
31
hoping for syndication need to appeal to as broad an audience as possible and therefore
must alienate or offend as few people as possible. As a result, syndicated cartoons tend to
focus on national headlines, are generally less creative, and rely on inoffensive gag
humor, all of which inhibits their powers to create influential social commentary (Lamb
2004, Marlette 2004). Also, because of the general nature of syndicated cartoons there
has been concern that they have less impact because unlike local cartoons syndicated
cartoons do not understand the local sentiments, context, and dynamics at play in regards
to both local and national issues (Lamb 2004).
In the early twenty-first century there has been concern about the decline of
political cartoons. There is a worry that the quality of commentary may have dipped, and
that political cartoons are less popular, influential, and diverse. As print media has been
on a decline, so, too, have political cartoons, and as a result a historically important
watchdog and voice is being silenced. The first to be affected have been small, local
newspapers, which are closing or decreasing their coverage and often the first to be
effected are political cartoonists who are either replaced with syndicated cartoons or are
just forgotten all together. In 1984 there were almost 200 political cartoonists, but as of
2004 there were fewer than 90; furthermore, between 2005 and 2010 thirty cartoonists
lost their jobs (Marlette 2004, Northrop and Hess 2011). The lack of newspaper jobs has
left cartoonists with two other popular options (that often overlap): syndication and
posting online. Despite the growing criticism that cartoons are not as funny, editorial, or
focused on important news, there has been some suggestion that syndicated cartoons are
relatively more hard-hitting and compelling because they do not have to answer to an
editor. Although the obvious tradeoff is that there is not any job security (Kelley 2004,
32
Lamb 2004). The other option is to post cartoons online, which means there are fewer
barriers to being a cartoonist and having cartoons viewed by a different or specific
demographic. Also, online (or self publishing) can help cartoonists bypass editor imposed
censorship, and even cartoonists with steady jobs often post rejected cartoons online
along with a catalogue of their work (Hess and Northrop 2011, Danjoux 2007, Lamb
2004).
Censorship and political correctness have played a huge role in contemporary
political cartoons. Censorship often occurs when cartoonists are encouraged or attempt to
be politically correct so as to be inoffensive when it comes to sensitive topics like race,
gender, and religion. Cartoonists have always been censored by their editors, but it used
to be centered around partisan concerns. As newspapers became less partisan and more
objective, cartoonists began to face different pressures like being politically correct.
During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, cartoonists were so
apprehensive about portraying issues regarding race that many cartoonists avoided the
topic completely or used symbols instead of portraying individual actors (Northrop and
Hess 2011). This trend has continued in regards to race as many cartoonists would rather
not discuss race or feature characters of color, than get called racists, prejudice, bigots,
etc. because often times the inclusion of a single character of color makes it so the one
character represents the entire group, not an individual (Lamb 2004, Hernandez 1994).
This concern extends to the depiction of women and religion in political cartoons as well
(Edwards 2007, Keane 2008). Overall, as newspapers’ operating budgets grew
increasingly tight, they could not afford to offend readers (who are increasingly
33
comfortable voicing their dissatisfaction) and lose business. Being inoffensive has
become more important (Marlette 2004, Lamb 2004).
So, how much attention should be paid towards being offensive and the role of
humor? A lot of cartoonists feel that it is their job to point out uncomfortable truths,
which often means offending someone is part of a job well done (Hernandez 1994).
Additionally, there are concerns about freedom of speech, with some believing that
cartoonists are on the frontline of the battle for freedom of expression (Lamb 2004, Hess
and Northrop 2011, Marlette 2004). The effectiveness of political correctness is also
suspect because while political correctness may hinder the use of offensive speech, it
does not address the root problem of prejudice and intolerance (Lamb 2004). Although,
the concern about political correctness may be an indication that people are aware of the
power and potential for harm that humor and political cartoons have (Littlewood and
Pickering 1998). Questions regarding freedom of speech aside, there is another concern
that humor using (and sometimes masking) stereotypes contributes to the confirmation of
social dynamics with real world implications. That is that humor has the potential to be
an insidious tool to cause social harm. This renders the classic defense humorist use to
not take the joke literally, or “it’s only a joke” and should not be taken seriously, weak at
best. It begs the question as to whether we should take the jokes seriously, to what degree
do we need to analyze humor, and is there such a thing as a benign joke? These questions
are far too broad for this study, but I would suggest that jokes need to be analyzed for
their use of stereotypes and their place within a broader conversation about society and
race.
34
Theoretical Foundation: Race, Invisibility and Symbolic Annihilation
The risks associated with political cartoons and humor are particularly
problematic for minorities because political cartoons and humor can be used to reinforce
the racial status quo. A largely unspoken racial ordering exists in the United States with
white Americans at the top and racial minorities following. This racial ordering and the
creation of race relates to relative power that these groups have- the “more desirable”
racial groups (i.e., whites) wield more power and have better opportunities and life
chances than people who have been forced into a “less desirable” racial category. Race,
even though is a socially constructed phenomenon that has been created and reinforced
through institutions, policies, and everyday interactions (Omi and Winant 1994). In order
to maintain dominance and state stability, white Americans
7
have employed and fueled
racial ordering (Kim 1999). Furthermore, whites have created tension between minority
groups through powerful rhetoric and stereotypes that prevented these groups from
uniting and help keep whites united (Kim 1999, Marx 1998).
Sociologists Michael Omi and Howard Winant set forth a theory of racial
formation that argues that there is nothing inherent or natural about race, but that it is
instead socially constructed. They “define racial formation as the sociohistorical process
by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed.” (Omi and
Winant 1994, p. 55). Race is a fluid concept that has shifted and changed through micro
(individual level) and macro (institutional) interactions. One element of the micro level is
7
I’m using white Americans as a relative term since the racial category of “whiteness”
has always been in flux and the barriers and definitions vary across time, location, and
broader context. Additionally, I’m using white Americans to refer to those with the most
social power (i.e., these are the people who benefit from whatever the current
social/racial hierarchy is and have a vested interest in maintaining it) (Mills 1997).
35
that race is something experienced on an individual and everyday level; race is used as a
way to identify other people and to quickly construct an expected behavioral profile.
Whereas, the macro level examines the role the state and other overarching institutions
have had in creating and reaffirming race (Omi and Winant 1994).
Race and racial hierarchy are a result of history and include the events that
actually occurred and the more widely accepted historical narratives that are a version of
events created by those with power. We cannot evade nor erase our history, and its
echoes will continue to impact how racial minorities are represented- this is to say that
history shapes the present. Furthermore, if narratives throughout history perpetuate the
same ideas, terms, categories, ideologies, and representations, then these dominant
discourses become difficult to challenge. One way to challenge racist and discriminatory
representations is to present an alternative to it. This is not easy to do, however, if for no
other reason than the alternative has to gain traction and be accepted over the historically
rooted and accepted idea. This is often where the media comes in because the media has
the ability to reach a broad audience and change (or reinforce) perceptions (Ono and
Pham 2009).
When groups are omitted from history by those who write, frame, and interpret it,
it is not just their stories that are erased, but they are rendered unimportant and in some
cases dehumanized (Mazon 1984). This lack of recognition can have real consequences
politically and socially (Cottle 2007). Taken to an extreme, the result can be invisibility
and a deafening silence that leaves subjugated groups without a voice or recourse to push
back against the forces keeping them down. The reasons and methods of invisibility are
important, and I suggest that a closer examination of Asian American stereotypes may
36
show how particular types of representations reinforce the tendency to treat minorities as
invisible. One possible way that this invisibility has occurred can be seen in the case of
the Asian American model minority stereotype, which renders a significant portion of
Asian Americans invisible insofar as they do not match the stereotype (Poon 2011, Hu
1989). The result of not fitting in with the dominant stereotypes can be social and
political invisibility with socio-political consequences. When Asian Americans speak out
against racially specific injustices, they are often met with shock and sometimes outrage
because it is unclear, after all, what the (invisible) model minorities really have to
complain about (Yamada 1983).
It should be noted though, that as consumers of culture (and therefore stereotypes)
it is not just whites or non-Asian Americans who perpetuate these troubling stereotypes
about Asian Americans, Asian Americans can and do participate in the affirmation of
stereotypes and invisibility too. Artist Roger Shimomura, has discussed the impact of
what he has coined as cultural amnesia, that younger generations and immigrants are
unaware of historical prejudices (often visual and symbolic). This lack of awareness may
be tied to patterns of immigration (and that most history text books do not cover Asian
American history). Also people may not care to educate themselves or may not see their
identity as tied to these historic stereotypes. The result is that some Asian Americans are
not aware or have not protested against these images or ideas, and by failing to do so,
may risk perpetuating them (which may be attributed to the power and ubiquity of
stereotypes, but also the ability of stereotypes to be self fulfilling prophecies) (Uradomo-
Barre 2009, Hilton and von Hippel 1996).
37
Another avenue of invisibility, and the focus of this paper, is symbolic
annihilation. Symbolic annihilation occurs when a minority group is absent, silenced,
trivialized, degraded, underrepresented, stereotyped, condemned, or featured as
incompetent which renders them invisible in a culture that is increasingly focused on
what is visual (Gerbner 1980, Tuchman 1978, Gilmartin and Brunn 1998). Ultimately
this invisibility renders these groups powerless, reinforces social hierarchy, tells people
how they should look and act, and assigns value to traits and characteristics (generally
with dominant groups like Caucasians, men, heterosexuals, and young people in the
positions with the most power) (Gerbner 1980, Tuchman 1978, Klein and Shiffman
2009). It cannot be stated more emphatically that symbolic annihilation renders groups
invisible and secures their position within social and racial hierarchies and structures.
This is not a superficial issue of how many minorities are on television or are there
enough minorities in a magazine, but rather an issue of presence and voice and the ability
to present your own story and experience regardless if it adheres to the dominant
discourse. Those that benefit the most from existing norms and structures want to
maintain their position; therefore, they want to keep their would be challengers silent and
powerless.
Absence and trivialization have been argued to be the easiest and clearest facets
of symbolic annihilation to evaluate; however, stereotyping, which by its nature is an
incomplete sketch, is also an important contributing factor to symbolic annihilation
(Coleman and Yochim 2008). Furthermore, some scholars believe that only negative
stereotypes should be taken into account, but positive stereotypes can also symbolically
annihilate (Coleman and Yochim 2008, Tuchman 1978). Women have been and continue
38
to be stereotyped, both positively and negatively, and often positive stereotypes trivialize
women and reduce them to a partial portrayal or a single element further marginalizing
them (Carter and Steiner 2004, Tuchman 1978). Stereotypes about Asian Americans,
such as being the model minority, which on its face seems positive (i.e., Asian Americans
are smart, wealthy, strong family values, etc.) does not represent all Asian Americans and
further beliefs that Asian Americans are unfairly competent and do not need government
assistance (Lin et al. 2005, Hu 1989). Like women, Asian Americans are also
symbolically annihilated through the engagement of positive stereotypes. Additionally,
symbolic annihilation occurs when groups are treated as though they are homogeneous
(like all Native Americans belong to one larger culture and Asian Americans are
interchangeable because they are all the same) (Ganje 2003, Merskin 2009).
Symbolic annihilation is not only perpetrated by groups external to the group
being symbolically annihilated, but also members of the symbolically annihilated groups
can contribute to their symbolic annihilation (Tuchman 1978). This is interesting if we
keep stereotypes in mind that people can and do perpetuate stereotypes of themselves
(Hilton and von Hippel 1996). Symbolic annihilation is not necessarily permanent, and
Cottle suggests that symbolically annihilated groups can be “rehabilitated” through
acknowledgement. This acknowledgement needs to occur publicly, and there needs to be
a deliberate intent to challenge the symbolic annihilation and to display this change (often
through an increase in diversity) (Cottle 2007). While there is merit to Cottle’s argument,
it is overly simplistic and some of these symbolic gestures can be hollow. Even if the
display of diversity challenges symbolic annihilation and moves beyond tokenism, there
is still often an entrenched history and subsequent structures that needs to be challenged.
39
This involves more than gestures, but instead genuine changes in opinions and beliefs and
access to platforms like the media to challenge longstanding beliefs.
Symbolic annihilation can occur in many forms of communication, including
political cartoons. In the wake of the 1995 United Nations Women’s Conference in
China, political cartoons focused on human rights violations in China and the Chinese
government, but did not focus either on women or the issues discussed. Instead, the
women were trivialized and featured as ineffectual, and therefore symbolically
annihilated (Gilmartin and Brunn 1998). The symbolic annihilation of women has
potential real life implications, like reinforcing subordinate positions that have a negative
effect on “female political leadership” (Edwards and McDonald 2010, p. 317).
40
Case Selection
In order to examine the effects of political cartoons and its employment of
stereotypes on the visibility of Asian American women I selected a few women to
examine as subjects of cartoons. Contemporary political cartoons are rarely examined,
and to the extent of my knowledge, there has only been one study focusing specifically
on symbolic annihilation in political cartoons (see Gilmartin and Brunn 1998).
8
Furthermore, while stereotypes about Asian Americans have been examined few studies
focus on how Asian American women are represented in the visual print media (most
studies have focused on film, television, and some advertising). To my knowledge there
have not been any studies about Asian American women featured in twenty-first century
political cartoons.
Some requirements that I used in my case selection were that these women must
be active at roughly the same time, and they must be in the spotlight. As shown in the
overview of Asian American stereotypes and in the discussion of stereotypes in general,
stereotypes are not static and evolve with the culture they are situated in. Therefore, it is
important that the cartoons about these women (and therefore the controversy or
newsworthy stories that inspired these cartoons) were created roughly around the same
time. The other requirement was that these women were in the spot light because
otherwise it would be unlikely that they would be at the center of any political cartoons.
Unfortunately, these requirements created a slim list of potential women and cartoons to
examine and I ultimately chose three women as subjects of political cartoons- Michelle
8
Other studies have focused on aspects of symbolic annihilation like the
underrepresentation, trivialization, or stereotypical depiction of minorities in political
cartoons (see Anderson and Jolly 1977, Edwards and McDonald 2010, Edwards 2007,
Zurbriggen and Sherman 2010, Thibodeau1989).
41
Rhee, Amy Chua, and Senator Mazie Hirono. Despite all three being different ethnicities,
these three women are broadly categorized as Asian American and have all received
public attention. I will briefly describe them now, and will go into further detail in the
analysis.
Michelle Rhee was born in Michigan to Korean immigrant parents and rose to
national prominence when she was appointed by Mayor Fenty, Chancellor of Washington
D.C. public schools and initiated what some call “radical” school reform (Ripley 2008,
Risen 2008, StudentsFirst). She ultimately resigned when Mayor Fenty lost his bid for
reelection and a shadow has been cast over her tenure as Chancellor as accusations of
cheating have come to light (Gillum and Bello 2011, Rotherham 2011, Rotherham 2010,
Maranto and McShane 2011, Toppo and Bello 2012). Amy Chua was born in Illinois to
immigrant parents from China by way of the Philippines, and is a law professor at Yale
who made national headlines when she published a memoir entitled Battle Hymn of a
Tiger Mother. Her memoir has sparked a national debate regarding “the best” way to
parent (Chua 2011a, “About Amy Chua”, Wang 2011, Paul 2011, Poon 2011, Ninh
2011). Mazie Hirono immigrated from Japan as a child and has been active in Hawaiian
politics serving as a representative for the state House of Representatives, Lieutenant
Governor, Congresswoman for the second district, and has been elected as the first
female Asian American woman to serve in the United States Senate (“Mazie Hirono,”
“About Mazie- Biography”, Nedd 2009, Star-Advertiser 2012). Hirono has rarely made
national news, but she is a fixture in Hawaiian news. By selecting these three unique
women I will be able to examine both national (Rhee and Chua) and local (Hirono)
cartoons. Although these three women have different ethnic backgrounds I do not
42
anticipate that this will impact the results since Asian Americans are viewed as a
homogeneous bloc and ethnicity is often overlooked.
Finding and selecting cartoons was much more difficult as there are not many
cartoon databases and most of them seem to focus on national cartoons, which is
understandable considering the lack of local jobs and the shift away from local cartoons.
Despite the controversies or notoriety these women have, they were not widely covered
in political cartoons. This unto itself is telling and could possibly indicate that cartoonists
were hesitant to portray Asian American women or that they did not find these stories
compelling enough. For the most part, cartoons were more easily found through the brute
force of Google Image search; although, cartoons about Hirono were mostly found
through the website of Hawaiian cartoonist John Pritchett. I used cartoon databases,
syndicate websites, and specific cartoonists’ websites
9
to amass a very small collection of
cartoons.
10
In that collection most cartoons were negative, which logically follows the
often negative news coverage and controversies surrounding these women. The main
exceptions were Pritchett’s cartoons of Hirono, this is in part because she has often been
depicted as part of a group or she is shown as diminutive and childlike. This latter
portrayal is ultimately negative in that these cartoons are trying to show her as unable to
handle to responsibilities of her political career and suggests that there is some symbolic
annihilation at work in how Pritchett is trying to trivialize Hirono. However, they are not
negative in that they are not directly employing a stereotype previously discussed, and
that is where the heart of this examination lies. Also, there were many instances for Rhee
9
Most prominent cartoonists (those that are represented in newspapers with larger
circulations) are already part of these cartoon databases, so searching both databases and
personal websites are rendered redundant.
10
See Appendix B.
43
and Chua where they were referenced by name, but not shown. While this has interesting
implications it is outside of the limited scope of this paper, but may be an avenue for
future research. The cartoons that I ultimately selected to examine utilize stereotypes
about Asian Americans and prominently feature the women in question.
Other interesting cartoons that I have rejected were those where the subject is
obscured or not easily identifiable. Specifically I have decided to not include cartoons of
Rhee flying away and out of the frame like a super hero with only her legs visible; Rhee
underneath a bus with her legs sticking out; and Hirono behind the wheel of dog catching
truck, but barely visible because the truck is so far away. These cartoons have interesting
implications in regards to the symbolic annihilation of these women- in some cases they
actually seem to be annihilated (e.g., Hirono under the bus). The fact that they were only
identifiable because of labeling and captions suggests that even if they were being praised
as being super hero-like, they still were not being fully represented, and in the most literal
of terms. Instead I examined cartoons with clearer representations of these women that
depict them fully (in a literal sense), that way I can really test the impact and relationship
between stereotypes and symbolic annihilation.
44
Cartoon Analysis
Michelle Rhee
Michelle Rhee is the founder and C.E.O. of StudentsFirst, an organization
dedicated to improving schools, and the former Chancellor of District of Columbia Public
Schools. In analyzing Taylor Jones’ cartoon, “Education reformer Michelle Rhee,” I will
show how Rhee is portrayed as a Dragon Lady and as part of a broader Asian threat. First
though, I will present a brief biography of Rhee, which will pay close attention to her
time as Chancellor and the relevant controversies that inspired political cartoonists to
feature her.
Michelle Rhee was born in Michigan and spent her formative years in Toledo,
Ohio. Her parents were immigrants from Korea, and her father was a doctor and her
mother owned a clothing store (Whitmire 2011, StudentsFirst). Education was a priority
in her family and Rhee was expected to help her brothers with their school work, and she
was even grounded when her brothers did not perform to their parents’ standard
(Whitmire 2011). After sixth grade Rhee went to South Korea for a year where she lived
with an Aunt and went to school with a cousin. Upon her return she was enrolled in
private school, Rhee was the only Korean American in her class (Ripley 2008, Risen
2008, Whitmire 2011). Rhee later attended Cornell University and then joined Teach for
America, a program that sends college educated young people to underprivileged
classrooms in areas with struggling schools. Rhee struggled during her first year and a
half of teaching second and third grade in a Baltimore school, but persevered and
eventually saw results with her students and stayed until the end of a third year (Whitmire
2011). Rhee went back to school and received her Masters degree from Harvard
45
University’s Kennedy School of Government. Afterwards Rhee was hired to help and
ultimately lead the New Teacher Project, which was similar to Teach for America in that
its goal was to get more teachers (and better teachers) into classrooms (Ripley 2008,
Risen 2008, StudentsFirst, Whitmire 2011).
After the election of Mayor Fenty in Washington, D.C., Rhee was appointed to
the position of Chancellor of District of Columbia Public Schools in 2007 (Ripley 2008,
Risen 2008, StudentsFirst). Her goal was to improve schools and public education
through what some have referred to as “radical” reform. She wanted to end teacher tenure
and overhaul the bogged down bureaucracy of D.C. public schools. Instead of firing the
newest teachers, Rhee was a proponent of rewarding the best teachers and laying off the
teachers whose classes had the lowest test scores, regardless of seniority. In her first year
and a half as Chancellor, Rhee laid off 270 teachers, 36 principals, and closed 21 schools
that were underperforming. Rhee eventually laid off the principal of the public school her
two daughters attended (her ex-husband also moved to D.C. to support Rhee’s career)
(Ripley 2008, Risen 2008). While Chancellor of D.C. public schools’ graduation rates
and test scores in math and reading increased dramatically. Fenty ultimately lost his bid
for reelection in 2010, and while Rhee was not the sole reason for his defeat she had been
mentioned as a possible anchor on his ticket because of how unpopular she and her
reforms were (Rotherham 2010). As a result of Fenty’s loss, Rhee resigned and started a
new organization called StudentsFirst, an advocacy group for students, which champions
many of the same reforms Rhee tried to implement in D.C. (StudentsFirst).
Rhee was a polarizing figure during her time as chancellor. Some parents and
community members appreciated her and welcomed the reforms, while others saw her as
46
a cold and unfriendly outsider, a dictator, and her followers as robots (Brannum 2010,
Risen 2008). Furthermore, Rhee was criticized for her ambivalence towards
environmental factors like poor facilities, dangerous neighborhoods and schools, students
with insufficient food, etc. Instead her focus was on raising test scores and weeding out
ineffective staff and faculty (Thomas et al. 2008, Risen 2008).
Controversy did not abate after Rhee left, in the spring of 2011 a USA Today
article brought to light a possible cheating scandal in D.C. public schools during Rhee’s
reign. On standardized math tests an unusually high percent of incorrect answers were
changed to correct answers (Gillum and Bello 2011, Rotherham 2011). This cast a
shadow of doubt over Rhee’s reform and prompted people to question if her focus on test
scores pressured teachers into changing their students’ answers or helping them to cheat
(Maranto and McShane 2011). Over the course of a year a very limited investigation was
conducted and some teachers admitted that cheating did occur (Toppo and Bello 2012).
This scandal and subsequent findings have cast a shadow of doubt over Rhee and some of
her reform measures.
Taylor Jones’ cartoon, “Education reformer Michelle Rhee,” was posted online on
April 12, 2012, and is set in a classroom with Rhee looming over a desk and dragging her
hand over a chalkboard (Figure 1). There was no clear precipitating event for the cartoon;
Rhee has often been featured in the news and was mentioned in some ongoing stories and
controversies.
11
Furthermore, the cartoon does not seem to focus on anything in particular
11
In the weeks leading up to this cartoon, school vouchers were in the news again (Rhee
is in favor of schools that function, whether they are private or public), National Public
Radio featured a brief story about how D.C. teachers’ unions are pushing back against
some of the reforms under Rhee’s administration, and Students First released a survey
47
regarding Rhee, but it instead serves as a critique of one of her major reforms that she
continued to champion even after leaving D.C. On the chalkboard is written “Reform
101” and “more testing- minus tenure= better schools,” referencing Rhee’s plan to reform
public education in Washington D.C. and a goal of StudentsFirst (Ripley 2008, Risen
2008). Rhee is behind the desk and in a clear position of authority as she addresses an
unseen audience. She is literally clawing the chalkboard, leaving marks in the wake of
her nails- suggesting that she is ruthless and potentially violent. There is also an apple
featured on her desk with a worm coming out of it. Apples have become emblematic of
teachers, and the fact that there is a worm in the apple suggests that maybe something is
wrong with the current system with teacher tenure or something wrong with Rhee’s plan.
One likely message of the cartoon is that Rhee is going to be making some drastic and
serious changes to schools and that she will be ruthless in her approach.
Figure 1. “Education reformer Michelle Rhee” by Taylor Jones
showing that Alabamians favored charter schools, which was contrary to other polls
(Willis 2012, Weekend Edition Saturday 2012, Leech 2012).
48
Looking more closely at the illustration itself, one of the most notable elements is
the overly exaggerated size of Rhee’s head and her exaggerated and amplified facial
features. However, this is common for Jones’ cartoons, as he employs caricature
technique in his rendering of individuals.
12
This particular style is noteworthy for its
exaggeration of physical features; also, it is not entirely clear if the exaggeration in Jones’
cartoon is related to visual stereotypes about race (Heller and Chwast 2008). That being
said, this should not be dismissed without further examination. Jones’ cartoon is
reminiscent of other stereotypical illustrations; for example, anti-Japanese propaganda
during World War II featured the Japanese as animal like and having buckteeth and
slanted eyes (Minear 1999, Uradomo-Barre 2009). These visuals were prevalent and can
be seen in other types of media like the explicit yellow face in the movie Breakfast at
Tiffany’s which featured Mickey Rooney in yellow face with buck teeth and taped back
eyes (Ono and Pham 2009). These are markers of “Asian-ness,” especially slanted eyes
that are reduced to single lines. These markers define the subject as “other” and have
been employed to dehumanize Asians and Asian Americans, underscoring the inherent
difference and threat, and thereby reinforcing ideas about the Yellow Peril. Again, this
could just be a product of caricature and Jones’ intention is not clear, and ultimately his
intentions may not matter if these stereotypes are deeply embedded in the broader
American psyche. However, the resemblance to older, more overtly stereotypical,
cartoons is disturbing and worth a second look.
12
A sampling of Jones’ work is available on his personal website
(www.taylorjonescartoonist.com) and on Daryl Cagle’s political cartoon database
(www.politicalcartoons.com/).
49
Rhee’s hands are also drawn to be disproportionately larger than her body, which
is unusual when observing Jones’ other cartoons that tend to be more proportionate with
the exception of the head and face. This cannot be written off as merely artistic style, but
instead seems to be done with a purpose, especially since it is incongruous with some of
his other cartoons. These larger hands do not coincide with western notions of female
beauty (i.e., that women should be dainty), and in this cartoon the size of her hands
suggest masculinity. Furthermore, Rhee’s nails are long and sharp, and her hand
scratching down the chalkboard looks claw-like and animalistic. That paired with the
disproportionately large size suggest that physically Rhee is not feminine and might not
even be human. This falls in line with previous Yellow Peril depictions of Asian
Americans as a sub-human and animalistic threat towards moral white Americans (Choy
et al. 1994).
Overall, there is something menacing and ruthless about how Rhee is depicted.
Her general body language is aggressive and domineering as she is leaning forward and
taking over the desk in front of her. Furthermore, her clawing of the board is destructive
and violent, yet she does not appear to be upset. If anything it almost looks like she is
smiling. This expression of happiness paired with the damage her claw-like hand is
inflicting would be seen as incongruous and deviant, which is ultimately unsettling if not
alarming. This sort of violent and destructive behavior, in addition to the portrayal of her
femininity as either questionable or non-existent and the references to the Yellow Peril,
cast Rhee as a Dragon Lady while also using other stereotypical representations of Asian
Americans (i.e., big teeth and slanted eyes). Furthermore, Dragon Ladies are supposed to
be domineering, threatening, and violent, and in some cases emotionally or mentally
50
abnormal, as evident by Rhee’s enjoyment at the destruction she is causing (Ono and
Pham 2009, Mok 1998, Ma 2000).
13
By referencing Rhee as a Dragon Lady Jones has
reinforced one-dimensional stereotypes about Asian American women and shown Rhee
as beyond driven and perhaps ruthless, but also a threat to America and American values
as a whole.
13
Caniff portrayed his Dragon Lady character as being manipulative, immoral, and
unstable in her infatuation for the white hero of his comics. She went to dangerous
extremes and compromised her own safety in attempts to manipulate the situation to
bring her and white hero together. While this may be more of a direct commentary on her
sexuality, it also serves as an example of her own mental and emotional deficiencies (Ma
2000).
51
Amy Chua
A law professor and public intellectual, Amy Chua has also been caricatured in
ways reminiscent of late nineteenth and early twentieth century stereotypical renderings
of Asian American women. Amy Chua was born in Illinois to immigrant parents from
China by way of the Philippines. Education and disciplined were emphasized in her
family, anything less than a perfect grade was considered to be unacceptable and, as Chua
recounts, was grounds for being called “garbage” by her father. In an act of rebellion
Chua attended Harvard University for both her undergraduate and law education.
14
Although at first Chua practiced law, she then shifted her attention to the instruction of
law first at Duke University and currently at Yale University (Chua 2011a, “About Amy
Chua”). Chua also rebelled against her parents’ wishes when she married a non-Chinese
man, Jed Rubenfeld (Chua 2011a). Despite already being a published author Chua gained
notoriety for publishing a memoir entitled Battle Hymn of a Tiger Mother and an article
for the Wall Street Journal- “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.”
15
Both memoir and
article try to differentiate between “Chinese” parents and Western parents; however, the
difference was muddled since Chua claims that “Chinese” parents do not need to be
Asian, but can be of different ethnicities. Furthermore, Chua sometimes claimed that
“Chinese” parenting was really that of immigrants, but at other times she suggested that
“Chinese” parenting was innate in parents who are ethnically Chinese. According to
Chua what separates “Chinese” parenting from Western parenting was that “Chinese”
14
Chua’s father wanted her to attend a school closer to home, but was ultimately proud
that his daughter went to such a prestigious school (Chua 2011a).
15
Chua has stated that she was unaware of the title of her article in the Wall Street
Journal, and that it was created by the editors of the paper and is not a claim that she was
trying to make.
52
parents push their children and demand that they work hard, whereas Western parents
care more about their children’s psyches and their self esteem. Chua believed that
something only becomes enjoyable when one is good at it, so her children would not
enjoy the piano or violin (which they were forced to play) until they achieved their (i.e.,
her) goals and excelled. To achieve that end, there are infamous examples from Chua’s
book of Chua putting her three-year-old daughter outside in the snow when she would
bang on the piano and refused to play, and another episode a few years later with the
same daughter who could not manage to play a song called “White Donkey”. When her
daughter was struggling with the song, Chua threatened to give away her daughter’s toys
and would not allow her to stop for food, water, or bathroom breaks until she mastered
the piece, which she eventually did (Chua 2011a, Chua 2011b).
Chua received a lot of criticism for her parenting techniques, which have varied
from blatantly racist tirades to others voicing concerns if her parenting technique
constituted child abuse (Wang 2011, Paul 2011). (It should also be noted that Chua
received support and encouragement from other parents as well.) Chua’s critics were not
just concerned parents, but also academics who have commented on how some of her
(and her publisher’s) rhetoric conjured up Yellow Peril anxieties and reaffirmed the
existence of a Yellow Peril. Chua’s publisher, Penguin, released the book during a time
of increased concern about China’s rising power, this alone could be coincidence or a
reflection of what Penguin believed would be marketable and turn a profit. Penguin set
the release for the book to be a week before Chinese President Hu Jintao’s visit to
America and marketed the book as self help and instructional. By doing so, the book was
53
perceived as to be an instructional aid and a critique of America’s waning power, and
further evidence of a rising Yellow Peril (Poon 2011, Ninh 2011).
Chua also had a hand in invoking Yellow Peril imagery and other problematic
stereotypes. Part of the hook of Chua’s book is that she is claiming an “authentic” and
“insider” perspective of China because of her heritage and self-proclaimed strong ties to
an immigrant experience (Wang 2011, Poon 2011, Ninh 2011). However, by doing so,
she presents and reaffirms the idea that there is one “authentic” and homogeneous image
of China. This sort of narrow presentation and generalization is common in implicit
yellow face- the idea that a culture, nationality, country, and race, can be reduced to a few
stereotypical traits (according to Chua’s hard work and education) (Ono and Pham 2009).
Furthermore, Chua’s attempts to recreate the immigrant experience for her children,
which she sometimes conflates with “tiger parenting,” has been viewed as rather odd and
arrogant. Chua believed that as the daughter of immigrants, she benefited from parents
who sacrificed for her and pushed her to work hard, and that she benefited from
challenging circumstances (e.g., language issues, not fitting in at school because she was
different). However, she has been criticized for trying to manufacture a similar childhood
for her children since the environment she grew up in was a result of circumstances that
occurred out of necessity, by contrast neither Chua nor her children were immigrants and
they have benefited from the privilege and status of being the children of a Harvard
educated Yale law professor. Some thought that Chua’s attempts to recreate an
environment that many people are trying to get out of was inconsiderate and exploitive
(Wang 2011).
54
In this immigrant narrative Chua reinforced the model minority, forever foreign,
and Yellow Peril stereotypes (Chang 2011, Wang 2011, Pan 2011, Poon 2011, Ono and
Pham 2009). The basis of Chua’s parenting is to instill a strict work ethic with the
necessary tradeoff that social experiences (like team sports, school plays, or sleepovers)
would be neglected (Chua 2011a). Chua believed that this would lead to disciplined,
obedient, high achieving children who would excel at school and play classical music,
but may be asocial- in short, the model minority (Chua 2011a, Chang 2011, Wang 2011).
In the tiger parent narrative, this quickly morphed into the Yellow Peril because through
this model minority and tiger parenting induced achievement Asian Americans were
becoming dominant in education and by extension the world (Chang 2011). Chua also
conflated and essentialized herself as an Asian American (and Asian Americans more
broadly) to be the same as a Chinese person in China. Despite her claims that anyone can
be a tiger parent, much of her rhetoric implied that there is an inherent difference between
Asians and Westerners. This difference paired with her essentialist account of identity
created a portrait of Asian Americans as unable to assimilate and inherently un-
American- which is the forever foreign stereotype (Wang 2011, Poon 2011). As
discussed earlier the forever foreign stereotype overlaps with and reinforces Yellow Peril
ideas about a foreign threat (Ono and Pham 2009). Chua has, perhaps unwittingly, played
a role in reaffirming stereotypes about Asian Americans. Considering her unfortunate
influence, it is interesting to see if the same stereotypes are reflected in the political
cartoons that feature her.
In response to accusations that Chua has been reinforcing the model minority
stereotype Chua has said:
55
This is a major frustration because I see my book as the opposite of entrenching
the idea that Asians are obedient, meek, robotic and non-creative. Look at what
happens in the book--I fight with my girls! They're the heroines of the story and
talk back at me constantly. They have the best lines. The stereotype of Asians is
that we have no sense of humor. But my book is a self-parody humanizing the
Asian mother (Lum 2011).
While the model minority stereotype touches on the idea that Asian Americans are
obedient, and perhaps socially cold and distant, it also places an emphasis on academics,
which Chua does not mention in her statement (Lin et al. 2005, Ono and Pham 2009, Lee
1999). Furthermore, with the model minority stereotype there is an underlying theme of
the Yellow Peril- that Asians and Asian Americans are a threat to American prosperity
(Chang 2011, Ono and Pham 2009). While this was not necessarily a theme in Chua’s
book, it was understandably difficult to read some of her claims and not perceive an
implicit critique of “American” parenting. Also, the perception of Chua was that she was
advocating a claim that there was something better about “Chinese” parenting that will
lead to higher achieving children and adults. Even if this was not what she was actually
arguing in her book, the perception exists and the damage may already be done.
One of the most widely circulated cartoons
16
was Sage Stossel’s entitled “Hu
Jintao, Tiger Mothers, and Human Rights”, featured in The Atlantic and posted online
January 20, 2011 (Figure 2). Stossel’s cartoon features President Obama showing
Chinese President Hu Jintao a picture of a mother berating her daughter who is playing
16
It is worth noting that all of the cartoons about Chua are from January and February of
2011, and that they were prompted by the controversy surrounding her book, Battle
Hymn of the Tiger Mother (2011).
56
the piano, and at the top of the cartoon it says “Obama urges Hu Jintao to put an end to
ongoing Chinese human rights abuses.” The mother is supposed to be a tiger mother, if
not Amy Chua herself (the picture is reminiscent of the infamous stories about Chua’s
strict parenting in regards to her daughters’ musical instruction). The cartoon is calling
tiger parenting a human rights abuse and since tiger parenting has been understood as a
trait inherent in Chinese parenting, Stossel is equating tiger parenting with broader (and
real) human rights violations in China. By conflating tiger moms and Chua with China
and the human rights violations occurring there, the cartoon suggests that there is no
difference between Asian Americans like Chua and the Chinese population in China.
This conflation is part of how the forever foreign and Yellow Peril stereotypes operate-
both of these stereotypes claim that Asian Americans will never fully be Americans and
that they are still attached and loyal to their countries of emigration (i.e., someone who is
Chinese American and born in America is essentially Chinese and loyal to China) (Ono
and Pham 2009, Kim 2006, Ngai 2004). This is the same thing that the cartoon is trying
to accomplish; Obama is telling Hu to address China’s human rights abuses by showing
him an example of such an abuse- tiger moms like Chua who employ strict parenting
techniques. This appeal to Hu squarely places tiger moms and Chua as a Chinese problem
that the president of China needs to address, and when it occurs in America it is a
Chinese problem transplanted to America. This is to say that America is being invaded
and influenced by problems in China and that these tiger parenting human rights
violations are negatively affecting America. Furthermore, China’s human rights
violations serve to underscore the difference between China and America, and “other”
China by painting China as backwards and misguided, similar to orientalist and
57
imperialist rhetoric. By continuing to “other” China a distance and fear is created which
promotes the Yellow Peril stereotype.
Figure 2. “Hu Jintao, Tiger Mothers, and Human Rights” by Sage Stossel
The illustration also utilizes racial stereotypes; however, they only seem to apply
to the mother. In the cartoon the mother’s eyes seem to be little more than lines, whereas
all the other characters (including Hu) have more rounded eyes. The depiction of the
mother’s eyes is reminiscent of other stereotypical and racist cartoons where Asian
Americans’ eyes were featured as nonexistent lines, which was part of a broader agenda
to “other” Asians and dehumanize them (Minear 1999, Uradomo-Barre 2009).
Furthermore, the mother is portrayed as a Dragon Lady since she is the embodiment of
the Yellow Peril (i.e., tiger parenting is the same as human rights abuses). Her role as the
Dragon Lady is further affirmed in the illustration by her angry demeanor as shown by
her scolding gestures, angry facial expression, and the appearance that she is yelling.
58
Barry Blitt’s cartoon from The New Yorker illustrates one of the prime challenges
of analyzing political cartoons, namely that there are multiple interpretations. With
political cartoons there is often a literal interpretation, as well as one based on metaphor
and humor, which can temper the sometimes offensive literal interpretation (Figure 3). In
Blitt’s cartoon Chua is like a lion (or perhaps more appropriately a tiger) tamer with her
whip and chair, forcing her children to jump through a flaming hoop. If the cartoon is
taken literally, then Chua is an intense taskmaster cracking her whip to force her children
to jump through a flaming hoop. Chua’s brutality and lack of maternal instinct paints a
picture of a fierce Dragon Lady with no concern for her children’s safety. If, however, the
cartoon is analyzed with metaphor and humor in mind, the message of the cartoon seems
to be that like a tiger trainer, Chua uses a firm hand and discipline to instruct her children
as she makes them do what she wants (jump through a hoop on fire, play the piano, etc.).
In this case though, she may be going too far since the children are clearly in danger. The
broader message is that tiger moms employ strict parenting techniques that may be too
extreme.
59
Figure 3. Barry Blitt for The New Yorker
In the cartoon Chua and her daughters are drawn with barely visible eyes. The
smallness of eyes is hardly a new theme in these cartoons, and like others is reminiscent
of stereotypical illustrations of Asians and Asian Americans (Minear 1999, Uradomo-
Barre 2009). What is especially interesting is that the daughters’ eyes are drawn the same
as the mother’s. Interestingly, though, Chua’s daughters are half white, yet were drawn as
if they were completely Asian. Giving Blitt the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he did not
know that the father of Chua’s children is white. This oversight may indicate an
assumption that Asian Americans marry partners of the same race and ethnicity, although
this is hardly the case.
17
Or there could be an assumption that the “Asian-ness” of Chua’s
children is more dominant than their “whiteness”- or in other words that regardless of
their white heritage they will never be white. This harkens back to a more colonial
17
According to a PEW study in 2010 Asian Americans out-marry (that is marry someone
who is not of their race or ethnicity) more than any other racial or ethnic group, although
the rates of out-marriage have not increased dramatically (Passel et al. 2010).
60
perspective on mix raced children who were shunned by their European colonial fathers
and often by their native mother’s community as well (Stoler 2010). While this is
tangential to the question at hand, this cartoon has interesting implications for how mixed
race Asian Americans will be represented, if at all, and therefore how they will be treated.
As Asian Americans continue to marry non-Asian Americans the definition of Asian
American may be evolving as the face of Asian Americans changes, it will be interesting
to see if representations change with it.
The cartoon from deviantART
18
by Annie R. (AKA user “Arr! Cartoons”) is
unusual, yet important, in this collection of cartoons because it exemplifies how the
Internet has transformed political cartoons (Figure 4). Instead of political cartoons being
controlled by the purview of the few, the Internet has broken down barriers to cartooning
and allows for the possibility that more voices may be heard. This cartoon was from
February of 2011, at the time Annie R. was still in high school, drawing cartoons for her
high school paper and getting second place for Editorial Cartoons at the Orange County
Journalism Education Association Write-Off Competition. She subsequently went on to
John Hopkins University where she draws cartoons for the university’s newspaper (“arr-
cartoons on deviantART”). Although she might not be considered a professional
cartoonist, professionalism is not a requirement for political cartoons to be effective. In
fact, the requirement of professionalism would seem to contradict the rebellious ethos of
political cartoons in general (Lamb 2004).
18
The website deviantART is “largest online social network for artists” and allows users
to upload various types of art with the goal of creating a community and empowering
artists. The website gets about “45 million unique visitors a month” (“About
deviantART”).
61
Figure 4. “Tiger Mom” by Annie R.
Annie R.’s cartoon is entitled “Tiger Mom” and features a strict looking woman,
with a cat-like shadow, looming over a young white girl. In the background are various
awards and certificates of achievement, and surrounding the girl are piles of books. The
tiger mom character appears strict- from the conservative (and perhaps outdated) clothes
she is wearing and the bun on top of her head, to her authoritative gesture and stern
expression. She also seems to be part tiger as evident by her cat-like face (i.e., the
shadows and shading of her mouth and nose resemble a cat and the markings- or stripes-
on her face reference the markings of a tiger), long and pointed nails, and her shadow that
does not match up with her body- instead the shadow has cat ears and a paw with claws
rather than a bun on top of its head or a pointed finger. By portraying her as part tiger (or
perhaps morphing into a tiger, it is difficult to say) Annie R. reinforces that this woman is
62
a tiger mom, but also that she is not entirely human. This portrayal of an Asian American
woman as animal-like is part of a long history of anti-Asian propaganda, which is part of
a Yellow Peril cycle (the propaganda is created to justify the Yellow Peril and once it is
accepted it is recreated and therefore recreates the Yellow Peril) (Choy et al. 1994, Wong
2009, Lee 1999). Furthermore, the relationship between the woman and girl is unclear-
they may be mother and daughter, or teacher and student- regardless the young girl looks
distressed and is seated looking up at the woman, who remains stern, authoritative, and
threatening with her claw-like hand on the girl’s arm. The woman is a threat to the young
girl, and represents a broader Asian threat to America- the Yellow Peril.
63
Mazie Hirono
Like Rhee and Chua, Senator Mazie Hirono has also been depicted in political
cartoons as an embodiment of the Yellow Peril and has been dehumanized. Unlike Rhee
and Chua, Hirono is an immigrant and was born in Fukushima, Japan on November 3,
1947 and immigrated to Hawaii when she was eight years old (“About Mazie-
Biography”, “Mazie Hirono”, “Mazie Keiko Hirono”, Nakanishi and Wu 2002). In Japan
Hirono’s father struggled with addictions to alcohol and gambling, and after her mother
left him, Hirono was sent to live with her grandparents on a rice farm. In 1955 Hirono,
her mother, and one of her brothers left Japan for Hawaii, and her other brother and
maternal grandparents joined them two years later (Ohira 1999, LaFrance 2011, “Mazie
Keiko Hirono”). Hirono became a naturalized citizen in 1959 when Hawaii became a
state (LaFrance 2011). She attended public schools in Hawaii, the University of Hawaii
for her undergraduate degree, and then Georgetown University from which she received
her law degree. She became a Deputy Attorney General for Hawaii and later joined the
private firm of Shim, Tam, Kirimitsu, Kitamura, and Chang (“About Mazie- Biography”,
“Mazie Keiko Hirono”, Nakanishi and Wu 2002). From 1980 to 1994 Hirono served in
the Hawaii House of Representatives, then served as lieutenant governor with Governor
Ben Cayetano from 1994 to 2002, and in 2002 she ran for Governor and lost to Linda
Lingle (“Mazie Hirono,” “About Mazie- Biography”, Nakanishi and Wu 2002, Nedd
2009). In 2006 she was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives to represent the
second Congressional District and served on the Committee on Education and the
Workforce, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and House Democratic
Steering and Policy Committee (“About Mazie- Biography”). She served three terms in
64
the House before being elected to the U.S. Senate in November 2012, winning the seat
vacated by Senator Daniel Akaka and beating former Governor Linda Lingle. Hirono’s
victory makes her the first female Asian American U.S. Senator (Star-Advertiser 2012,
“Mazie Hirono”).
John S. Pritchett’s cartoon, “Meanie Mazie” posted July 27, 2012 and featured in
the Hawaii Reporter, seems to be in response to the sole televised debate between Hirono
and Ed Case on July 26, 2012 during the Democratic primary for Senator (Figure 5).
19
Prior to the debate Hirono had declined several invitations to other state-wide televised
debates, but earlier in July she changed her mind and agreed to participate in a televised
debate (DePledge 2012). It has been noted that Case is a more skillful debater who
pressured Hirono (along with the moderators) to answer questions that she was trying to
sidestep (Blair 2012). In watching the debate, it is clear that Hirono was not as
comfortable as she sometimes fumbled for the right word and did not always speak to the
camera, but rather to the off screen moderators. Case also pointed out when Hirono did
not answer questions, and moderators had to redirect Hirono on occasion back to the
question at hand (Hawaii News Now 2012). The cartoon seems to comment directly on
Hirono’s lack of direct answers by her statement of “Any Questions!” which itself is not
phrased as a question, but instead a statement. This change from question to statement
within the context of the cartoon, suggests that Hirono is not actually interested in
answering more questions, but instead the phrase is more of a frustrated or angry
comment. It is also suggested in both the title and in the illustration that Hirono was mean
19
A search through Hawaiian newspapers and blogs give no other indication that the
cartoon could be in reaction to anything other than the debate. This is part of the
challenge with analyzing political cartoons- it is not always clear as to what the cartoon is
in reaction to, so it is necessary to understand the context of the cartoon.
65
during the debate. Like most political debates, Hirono and Case were a little heated at
times; however, Hirono did not appear to be more mean (or passionate) than Case. If
anything this debate seemed more civil than most with both candidates adhering to the
format and neither interrupting the other.
Figure 5. “Meanie Mazie” by John S. Pritchett
Stylistically this cartoon is very different from many of Pritchett’s other drawings
of Hirono (and his cartoons in general), which tended to be more detailed, realistic, and in
black and white. In this cartoon Hirono is in color and the style is less detailed. This lack
of detail adds to the crudeness of the cartoon and Pritchett relies off of other indicators to
show his audience that the subject is Hirono- she has a sign that says “Mazie”, and he
relies on reducing her eyes to mere slits as a marker of her “Asian-ness” (Uradomo-Barre
2009). More striking though is her mouth, which is a slight frown that has been stretched.
Her lips undulate in an unnatural manner and the only teeth visible are her top row, which
are sharp little triangles. Not only does this depiction of her mouth make her look
unhappy, dangerous, and unnatural, but it also renders her inhuman. Portraying Asian
66
Americans as inhuman is nothing new and has been done in cartoons since the Yellow
Peril gained steam in the latter part of the nineteenth
century (Choy et al. 1994). This
visual reference back to the Yellow Peril is clear in how she is dehumanized and made
into a monster.
20
Furthermore, this cartoon reinforces the Dragon Lady stereotype, which is a
female embodiment of the Yellow Peril (Ono and Pham 2009). Hirono is still feminine,
although not hypersexualized like the traditional Dragon Lady stereotype,
21
and she is
presented as angry and mean, if not violent and dangerous judging by her teeth.
Contextualized within the debate, it is intriguing that she was labeled mean when her
disposition did not differ from her opponents. This may be an indication of a gendered
double standard that an assertive male is considered to be a leader (or his assertiveness
goes unnoticed), while an assertive (Asian American) female is a Dragon Lady.
20
In examining some of Pritchett’s other cartoons of recent notable politicians (former
Governor and Republican Senator candidate Linda Lingle, former Senator Danial Akaka,
and former Representative Ed Case) only one cartoon out of 112 (with some overlap)
featured any of these politicians as something other than human or their respective
political party animals. The sole cartoon was one that featured Lingle’s head (accurately
portrayed) on the body of a poodle being led by a Democratic donkey labeled the
“Senate.” Even though Lingle is being dehumanized, it is not being done in a threatening
way. Instead she is the domesticated pet of one of the parties, and not a monstrous
debater like Hirono. Ultimately, this cartoon featuring Lingle may speak more to gender
stereotypes and could be grounds for further research. Overall though, Pritchett does not
generally depict politicians as dehumanized or monstrous figures like he did with Hirono.
21
The hypersexualization of the Dragon Lady has seemed to diminish in the past couple
decades, and in some instances replaced with proficiency in martial arts. This could be
because the boundaries between stereotypes are less clear and stereotypes are becoming
too big (or prevalent) to be so narrowly confined. Also, stereotypes may be conflated
with each other to create new version. Another reason for diminished hypersexualization
could be that female empowerment and feminist agendas have helped to end overt
stereotypes of hypersexualization. Finally, this change (or omission) could be due to
Hirono’s age (she is 65 and older women’s sexuality is often ignored, although not
always) and respect for her position as U.S. Congresswoman.
67
Results and Discussion
In analyzing these cartoons two dominant trends were found in all of the cartoons.
The first was that Asian American women are drawn with slanted eyes and/or small eyes
that were often represented with single lines. These representations were reminiscent of
earlier, more overtly racist, political cartoons that aimed to dehumanize and “other”
Asian immigrants (Minear 1999, Uradomo-Barre 2009, Choy et al. 1994). This led to the
second trend, which was the Yellow Peril and by extension Dragon Lady stereotypes that
were present in all of the cartoons. These women were drawn as domineering,
threatening, dangerous, and violent taskmasters- whether through inhuman or animalistic
representations (like claw-like hands, sharp teeth, or cat-like traits) as seen in Jones’
cartoon of Rhee, Anne R.’s cartoon of Chua, and Pritchett’s cartoon of Hirono, or
endangering and abusing children like in Stossel’s, Blitt’s, and Annie R,’s respective
cartoons about Chua. These stereotypical representations contributed to the symbolic
annihilation of Asian American women because they presented one picture of how Asian
American women are supposed to inherently be and act. Instead these women were
reduced to one-dimensional figures. The symbolic annihilation of Asian American
women, and minorities in general, maintained the status quo of racial hierarchies because
by ignoring the reality and humanity of these women they are rendered powerless and
unable to change social structures that we are all a part of (Gerbner 1980, Tuchman
1978).
Cartoons are a complex medium to analyze in part because of how much is
communicated in such a small space, but also because of the use of humor. This
complexity is part of their value though because they help our understanding of implicit
68
feelings about race and how racial hierarchy is maintained. Overt racism is less
acceptable than it used to be, so now people turn to implicit racism and implicit racial
messaging. Racist sentiments are now coded in more politically correct jargon. Yet
racism, implicit and in more subtle forms, is still evident in humor, visual representations,
and political cartoons (Mendelberg 2001). Furthermore, humor is often a way of
reinforcing social structures, like racial hierarchy, and in examining the complexities of
humor some insight can be gained (Anderson and Jolly 1977, Wagg 1998). Political
cartoons do not just employ humor, but also stereotypes, visual stereotypes, and
commentary- enriching (and complicating) insight into social structures.
Having observed that the newer forms of visual culture still reflect the old
stereotypes, there are some potential problems inherent in examining the symbolic
annihilation in political cartoons. One is that if cartoons rely heavily on stereotypes, then
do all cartoons that employ stereotypes symbolically annihilate? In addressing this
question, it is important to keep in mind that stereotypes are not the sole form of
symbolic annihilation, and other factors need to be taken into account. Chief amongst
them is frequency and diversity of representation. For example President Obama is often
the subject of political cartoons, and even if he is stereotyped, he is not being
symbolically annihilated in the same way as these women. In part this is because he is
frequently featured in political cartoons, and there are various cartoonists depicting him.
This means that there is not one predominant image, and even if some cartoonists employ
racial stereotypes it does not mean all of them will. The frequency and diversity of
depiction helps to mitigate any symbolic annihilation, but so does the frequency with
which the public is presented with pictures and videos of President Obama. As a result
69
people already know what President Obama really looks like and are less likely to believe
that the cartoon represents an accurate depiction.
In examining Rhee, Chua, and Hirono only a handful of cartoons were found that
featured these women, and even fewer showed them in their entirety, and many were
included in this study.
22
While obviously none of these women are as high profile as
President Obama, they often make front page news in their regions, yet they are seldom
featured in political cartoons. So not only are they rarely featured, but when they are it
tends to be in one-dimensional stereotypical ways that reference the Yellow Peril.
Another concern about cartoons is that if they are supposed to represent the
underdog or challenge power, then do these cartoons of Rhee, Chua, and Hirono do that
(Lamb 2004)? I would argue that the answer is yes on an individual level, but no on a
societal level. On an individual level these women have varying degrees of power and
notoriety ranging from Chua’s national commentary on parenting to Hirono’s influence
as a U.S. Senator. Considering the potential influence of these female leaders, cartoonists
should engage in commentary on the actions and messages of these women. However, as
shown in the analysis of these cartoons, cartoonists rely heavily on stereotypes that only
serve to reinforce one-dimensional representations of Asian American women that fail to
present them in a nuanced, realistic manner. By treating them in this fashion, the political
cartoons help perpetuate the racial status quo as it relates to Asian American women and
22
There were six political cartoons featuring Michelle Rhee, two of which only featured
part of Rhee’s body. There were four political cartoons featuring Amy Chua, the only one
not examined in this study barely featured her at all. Mazie Hirono had the most political
cartoons, numbering twelve. However, she has been a public figure in Hawaiian politics
since 1980, so that averages to be less than one political cartoon every two years. (See
Appendix B)
70
ultimately the cartoons symbolically annihilates them. In this regard these political
cartoons do not challenge broader societal structures and problems.
Political cartoons have been charged with two different responsibilities- to reflect
popular sentiment, but also to give a voice to minority or unpopular beliefs (Hess and
Northrop 2011, Lamb 2004). Generally the latter is stressed as a primary role of cartoons,
but as has been established these cartoons do not challenge the status quo (which would
be voicing an unpopular belief). So, what about political cartoons acting as a mirror of
current beliefs and culture? In the news Rhee, Chua, and Hirono were portrayed as
emotionally cold, strict, and severe, which was reflected and amplified in the political
cartoons analyzed here. This raises the concern that these political cartoons are merely
presenting an amplified version of public perception, and might therefore be acceptable.
However, when public perception is already based on stereotypes, then the amplified
version featured in political cartoons would clearly show the stereotypes already at work.
More broadly, political cartoons may also mirror public sentiment or beliefs about
race. That is, if the cartoon’s use of stereotypes or humor are not understood by the
reader, then the cartoon would be rendered ineffective and pointless. The fact that
cartoons resonate and are understood by readers indicates an understanding of the
message of the cartoon and the cues that help deliver and translate the message. At the
very least this shows that the audience is familiar with the images and stereotypes.
Furthermore, the audience may be comfortable with these depictions since cartoonists
continue using these stereotypes- if the public was truly unhappy or uncomfortable with
them then perhaps public demand would be enough to change the cartoons. However, this
71
could lead to another potentially damaging outcome, which is to have no representation
of Asian American women in cartoons at all.
23
This paper’s scope is limited, and cannot speak directly to popular sentiment and
stereotypes. However, since the stereotypes were so blatantly used, it suggests that these
stereotypes are commonly held, although to what degree is unknown. Furthermore, this
amplification of popular sentiment is exactly why political cartoons can give important
insight into attitudes about race and social structures. This leaves ample room for further
research including analyzing political cartoons of Asian Americans across time to see if
there are changes in how Asian Americans are being depicted. Additional projects could
also include other minority groups or other visual mediums that employ stereotypes
(which are most), and studies about the effects of these cartoons.
23
During and after the Civil Rights Movement, cartoonists were uncomfortable
portraying African Americans and did not want to be perceived as racists. As a result
very few cartoonists depicted African Americans in their cartoons (Thibodeau 1989,
Northrop and Hess 2011).
72
Conclusion
I think there is a lot of racist coverage about Jeremy Lin, but I don’t that people or
journalists are meaning to be racists. They’re just aren’t used to talking about Asian
Americans, I mean the only experience they have with us is that they want us to take their
order [at Chinese restaurants]… I think people are so excited about his presence and they
want to write about him and talk about him, but the fact that Asian American men have
been so invisible for forever. That it’s like how do we talk about this without being
racist? All we have is stereotypes. That’s all we have.
- Margaret Cho on the Melissa Harris-Perry Show March 11, 2012
As comedian, actress, and activist Margaret Cho has pointed out, stereotypes are
“all we have,” and while she was speaking directly about Asian American basketball
player Jeremy Lin and Asian Americans, her message may apply to minorities generally.
When stereotypes are all that we have to base our impressions and understandings of each
other on then the stereotypes will endure and feed into symbolic annihilation, which
renders groups powerless to fight their stereotypes and continues symbolic annihilation. It
has been suggested that symbolic annihilation and stereotypes can be challenged by
addressing the issue head on and by allowing stereotyped groups to create their own
messages and media (Cottle 2007). While these are necessary steps, they imply a certain
degree of agency on the part of stereotyped groups as well as awareness and willingness
to create change on behalf of those that benefit from the status quo. These elements may
be more challenging to come by, but are necessary if there is to be any hope for long
lasting change. By examining political cartoons featuring prominent Asian American
women, it has become evident that stereotypes are still being invoked more than many
realize. This may be an unfortunate indication that broad popular sentiment still embraces
these stereotypes and that the stereotypes and the symbolic annihilation of Asian
American women are not likely to vanish anytime soon. The implications are not limited
just to Asian American women or Asian Americans, minorities and disadvantaged people
73
are often stereotyped, and the stereotypes and mediums in which they are being used
need to be examined. Furthermore, it is too easy and dangerous to dismiss older
stereotypes as features of a bygone era, especially when the language is “politically
correct,” but the visuals remain. Therefore, both scholars and the public need to turn their
attention to visual culture, because left unchecked these mediums could become
incubators for harmful stereotypes and symbolic annihilation.
74
Appendix
Appendix A. Mohammad Cartoon
This is the cartoon that was cited as being the most offensive cartoon out of a dozen
featuring the Prophet Mohammad in the Jyllands-Posten in 2005.
(http://www.cynical-c.com/archives2/bloggraphics/JP-011005-Muhammed-
Westerga.jpg)
75
Appendix B. Cartoon Search
(In order to be included in the appendix the political cartoon cannot be a comic, the
subject must be visually featured, and it cannot be a foreign political cartoon.)
Michelle
Rhee
Amy Chua Tiger
Mom
Tiger
Mother
Mazie
Hirono
Google
Image Search
(“Search
name” and
cartoon)
-“Education
Reformer”
by Taylor
Jones*
-
“Frenemies?
” featured in
National
Council on
Teacher
Quality
- untitled-
Rhee under a
bus
- untitled-
Rhee as a
super hero
lifting a bus
- “Obama
and Hu
Jintao
discussing
human
rights
abuses” by
Sage
Stossel*
- “Tiger
Moms” by
David
Fitzsimmons
(Chua
featured as a
small picture
on a
newspaper
held by
Obama)*
-Barry Blitt
cartoon in
The New
Yorker*
- “Tiger
Moms” by
David
Fitzsimmo
ns*
- “Tiger
Mom” by
Annie R.
- “Obama
and Hu
Jintao
discussing
human
rights
abuses”
by Sage
Stossel*
-Barry
Blitt
cartoon
in The
New
Yorker*
- “Obama
and Hu
Jintao
discussing
human
rights
abuses”
by Sage
Stossel*
-Barry
Blitt
cartoon
in The
New
Yorker*
- “Tiger
Moms” by
David
Fitzsimmo
ns*
- “Meanie
Mazie” by
John
Pritchett*
- “Lazy
Mazie” by
John
Pritchett*
Politicalcarto
ons.com
(Cagle.com
redirects to
politicalcarto
ons.com)
-“Education
Reformer”
by Taylor
Jones*
- “Local DC-
Rhee
Resigns” by
Nate Beeler
(Only Rhee’s
legs and
torso were
featured)
- “Local
DC- Stand
by your
None - “Tiger
Moms” by
David
Fitzsimmo
ns*
None None
76
man” by
Beeler (Rhee
with Kevin
Johnson)
Cartoonstock
.com
None None None None None
Cartoonistgr
oup.com
None None None None None
New York
Times
Syndicate
None None None None None
Pritchettcarto
ons.com
None None None None -“Dog
catcher”
- “Meanie
Mazie”
-“Amazingly
it’s Mazie”
(Hirono as a
Daisy)
- “Year of
the dragon”
(Hirono as an
outline)
- “Teachers
on strike”
- “Mud
wrestling”
- “Mazie and
Ben”
- “Mazie
ignored”
- “Mazie in a
crowd”
- “Hirono for
Governor”
- “Mazie
Who? Alice
in
Wonderland”
- “Lazy
Mazie” by
John
Pritchett*
* repeated/duplicated in other searches
bolded entries were examined or discussed
77
References
Alexander, Michele G., Marilynn B. Brewer, and Robert W. Livingston. 2005. “Putting
Stereotype Content in Context: Image Theory and Interethnic Stereotypes.”
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31(6): 781-94.
Amy Chua. “About Amy Chua.” Accessed September 18, 2012.
http://amychua.com/about-amy/
Anderson, Ronald E. and Elaine Jolly. 1977. “Stereotyped Traits and Sex Roles in
Humorous Drawings.” Communication Research. 4(4): 453-84.
Aoki, Andrew L. and Okiyoshi Takeda. 2008. Asian American Politics. Malden: Polity
Press.
“arr-cartoons on deviantART” http://arr-cartoons.deviantart.com/ Accessed November
16, 2012.
Ashbrook, Tom. 2004. “Journalism Mirrors the Public Mood.” Nieman Reports 58(4):48.
Blair, Chad. 2012. “Case versus Hirono, but Lingle’s In the Mix.” Honolulu Civil Beat.
July 26. http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2012/07/26/16623-case-versus-hirono-
but-lingles-in-the-mix/ Accessed October 28, 2012.
Brannum, Robert Vinson. 2010. “Reforming Public Education Without the Public.”
Washington Examiner. September 26. Accessed October 22, 2012.
Brislin, Tom. 2003. “Exotics, Erotics, and Coconuts: Stereotypes of Pacific Islanders.” In
Images that Injure, 2
nd
ed., edited by Paul Martin Lester and Susan Dente Ross,
103-112. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Brush, Peter. 2009. “Rise and Fall of The Dragon Lady.” Vietnam 22(3): 32-37.
Carter, Cynthia and Linda Steiner. 2004. “Mapping the Contested Terrain of Media and
Gender Research.” In Critical Readings: Media and Gender, edited by Cynthia
Carter, and Linda Steiner, 11-36. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Chang, Mitchell James. 2011. “Battle Hymn of the Model Minority Myth” Amerasia
Journal 37: 137-43.
Chin-Brandt, Dorothy. 1997. “Neither Madame Butterfly Nor the Dragon Lady: Rather,
Ms. Justice.” Harvard Women’s Law Journal. 20:27-33.
Choy, Philp P., Lorraine Dong, and Marlon K. Hom. 1994. The Coming Man: 19
th
Century American Perceptions of the Chinese. Seattle: University of Washington
Press.
78
Chua, Amy. 2011a. Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. New York: Penguin Books. Kindle
Edition.
---. 2011b. “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior.” The Wall Street Journal. January 8.
Accessed October 18, 2012.
Coleman, Robin R., and Emily Chivers Yochim. 2008. “The Symbolic Annihilation of
Race: A Review of the ‘Blackness’ Literature.” African American Research
Perspectives 12: 1-10.
Connors, Joan L. 2007. “Popular Culture in Political Cartoons: Analyzing Cartoonist
Approaches.” PS: Political Science & Politics 40(2): 261-65.
Cottle, Simon. 2007. “Mediatised Recognition and the ‘Other.’” Media International
Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy. 123: 34-48.
Crandall, Christian S., Angela J. Bahns, Ruth Warners, and Mark Schaller. 2011.
“Stereotypes as Justifications of Prejudice.” Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 37(11):1488-98.
Daniels, Roger. 1988. Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since
1850. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Danjoux, Ilan. 2007. “Reconsidering the Decline of the Editorial Cartoon.” PS: Political
Science & Politics 40(2): 245-48.
DePledge, Derrick. 2012. “Case, Hirono duke it out.” Honolulu Star- Advertiser. Last
updated July 27. Accessed October 29, 2012.
deviantART. “About deviantART.” Accessed November 16, 2012.
http://about.deviantart.com.
Dundes, Alan. 1975. “Slurs International: Folk Comparisons of Ethnicity and National
Character.” Southern Folklore Quarterly 39: 15-38.
Edwards, Janis L. 2007. “Drawing Politics in Pink and Blue.” PS: Political Science &
Politics 40(2): 249-53.
Edwards, Janis L., and C. Austin McDonald II. 2010. “Reading Hillary and Sarah:
Contradictions of Feminism and Representation in 2008 Campaign Political
Cartoons.” American Behavioral Scientist 54(3): 313-29.
Ehrlich, Howard J. and G. Norman Van Tubergen. 1971. “Exploring the Structure and
Salience of Stereotypes.” The Journal of Social Psychology. 83: 113-127.
“Embattled D.C. School District has a New Vibe.” 2012. Weekend Edition Saturday.
79
Television transcript. April 7. Accessed November 20, 2012.
Espiritu, Yen Le. 1992. Asian American Panethnicity. Philadelphia: Temple.
Espiritu, Yen Le. 1997. “Race, Class, and Gender in Asian America.” In Making More
Waves: New Writing by Asian American Women, edited by Elaine H. Kim, Lilia
V. Villanueva, and Asian Women United of California, 135-41. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Fischer, Roger A. 1996. Them Damned Pictures: Explorations in American Political
Cartoon Art. North Haven: Archon Books.
Ganje, Lucy. 2003. “Native American Stereotypes.” In Images that Injure, 2
nd
ed., edited
by Paul Martin Lester and Susan Dente Ross, 113-20. Westport: Praeger
Publishers.
Garcia-Marques, Leonel, Sofia C. Santos, and Diane M. Mackie. 2006. “Stereotypes:
Static Abstractions of Dynamic Knowledge Structures?” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 91(5), 814-31.
Gerbner, George. 1980. “Death in Prime Time: Notes on the Symbolic Functions of
Dying in the Mass Media.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science. 447: 64-70.
Gillum, Jack and Marisol Bello. 2011. “When Standardized Test Scores Soared in D.C.,
were the Gains Real?” USA Today. March 30. Accessed October 27, 2012.
Gilmartin, Patricia, and Stanley D. Brunn. 1998. “The Representation of Women in
Political Cartoons of the 1995 World Conference on Women.” Women’s Studies
International Forum. 21(5): 535-49.
Goto, Stanford T. 1997. “Nerds, Normal People, and Homeboys: Accommodation and
Resistance Among Chinese American Students.” Anthropology & Education
Quarterly. 28(1): 70-84.
Grossman, Jennifer M. and Belle Liang. 2008. “Discrimination Distress among Chinese
American Adolescents.” Youth Adolescence. 37:1-11.
Hawaii News Now. 2012. “2012 Senate Showdown: Debate Part 1.” Online video. Last
modified July 27. http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/category/240193/new-video
landing-page?clipId=7552333&autostart=true. Accessed November 17, 2012.
---. 2012. “2012 Senate Showdown: Debate Part 2.” Online video. Last modified July 27.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/category/240193/new-video-landing
page?clipId=7550169&autostart=true. Accessed November 17, 2012.
80
---. 2012. “2012 Senate Showdown: Debate Part 2.” Online video. Last modified July 27.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/category/240193/new-video-landing
page?clipId=7551347&autostart=true. Accessed November 17, 2012.
Heller, Steven, and Seymour Chwast. 2008. Illustration: A Visual History. New York:
Harry N. Abrams.
Hess, Stephen, and Sandy Northrop. 2011. American Political Cartoons: The Evolution
of a National Identity, 1754-2010. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Hernandez, Debra Gersh. 1994. “Cartoonists Confront Political Correctness.” Editor &
Publisher. 127(32):14.
Hilton, James L., and William von Hippel. 1996. “Stereotypes.” Annual Review of
Psychology. 47: 237-71.
Hoffman, Donna R., and Alison D. Howard. 2007. “Representations of 9-11 in Editorial
Cartoons.” PS: Political Science & Politics. 40(2): 271-74.
Hu, Arthur. 1989. “Asian Americans: Model Minority or Double Minority?” Amerasia.
15(1): 243-57.
Jones, Taylor. “Taylor Jones Cartoon Blog.” Accessed November 14, 2012.
http://www.taylorjonescartoonist.com/taylorjonescartoonist.com/Home.html
Keane, David. 2008. “Cartoon Violence and Freedom of Expression.” Human Rights
Quarterly. 30: 845-75.
Kelley, Steve. 2004. “Martha Stewart or Genocide: The Cartoonists’ Conundrum.”
Nieman Reports. 58(4): 33-35.
Kenney, Keith, and Michael Colgan. “Drawing Blood: Images, Stereotypes, and the
Political Cartoon.” In Images that Injure, 2
nd
ed., edited by Paul Martin Lester and
Susan Dente Ross, 223- 232. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Kim, Claire Jean. 1999. “The Racial Triangulation of Asian Americans” Politics and
Society. 27(1): 105-38.
Kim, L.S. 2004. “Be The One That You Want: Asian Americans in Television Culture,
Onscreen and Beyond.” Amerasia Journal. 30(1): 125-46.
Kim, Thomas P. 2006. The Racial Logic of Politics: Asian Americans and Party
Competition. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Klausen, Jytte. 2009. The Cartoons that Shook the World. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
81
Klein, Hugh, and Kenneth S. Shiffman. 2009. “Underrepresentation and Symbolic
Annihilation of Socially Disenfranchised Groups (“Out Groups”) in Animated
Cartoons.” The Howard Journal of Communication. 20(1): 55-72.
LaFrance, Adrienne. 2011. “A Day on the Hill: Mazie Hirono.” Honolulu Civil Beat.
October 17. http://www.civilbeat.com/reg/articles/2011/10/17/13210-a-day-on
the-hill-mazie-hirono/. Accessed October 29, 2012.
Lamb, Chris. 2004. Drawn to Extremes: The Use and Abuse of Editorial Cartoons. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Lasorsa, Dominic, and Jia Dai. 2007. “When News Reporters Deceive: The Production of
Stereotypes.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 84(2): 281-98.
Lee, Robert G. 1999. Orientals: Asian Americans in Popular Culture. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Lee, Yueh-Ting, Sandy Vue, Richard Seklecki, and Yue Ma. 2007. “How Did Asian
Americans Respond to Negative Stereotypes and Hate Crimes?” American
Behavioral Scientist. 51(2): 271-93.
Leech, Marie. 2012. “Two Charter Schools Polls Enter Debate 48% and 35% Support
Tallied.” Birmingham News. April 12. Accessed November 20, 2012.
Lester, Paul Martin and Susan Dente Ross. “Images that Injure: An Introduction.” In
Images that Injure, 2
nd
ed., edited by Paul Martin Lester and Susan Dente Ross, 1-
4. Westport: Praeger Publishers.
Lin, Monica, Virginia S.Y. Kwan, Anna Cheung, and Susan T. Fiske. 2005. “Stereotype
Content Model Explains Prejudice for an Envied Outgroup: Scale of Anti-Asian
American Stereotypes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 31(1): 24-47.
Lippmann, Walter. 1992. Public Opinion. Mineola: Dover Publications.
Littlewood, Jane and Michael Pickering. 1998. “Heard the One About the White Middle
Class Heterosexual Father-in-Law?: Gender, ethnicity and political correctness in
comedy.” In Because I tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics, and Social
Difference. Ed. Stephen Wagg, 291-312. New York: Routledge.
Lum, Lydia. "More than just a tiger mom: celebrated but controversial author and Yale
University law professor Amy Chua's takes on world geopolitics have long been a
hot topic in the academy." Diverse Issues in Higher Education 12 May 2011: 19.
Gale Biography In Context. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Lyons, Anthony and Yoshihisa Kashima. 2003. “How are Stereotypes Maintained
82
Through Communication? The Influence of Stereotype Sharedness.” Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 85(6): 989-1005.
---. 2001. “The Reproduction of Culture: Communication Processes Tend to Maintain
Cultural Stereotypes.” Social Cognition. 19(3): 372-94.
Ma, Sheng-Mei. 2000. The Deathly Embrace: Orientalism and Asian American Identity.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Maranto, Robert and Michael McShane. 2011. “What Michelle Rhee Got Right.” The Sun
(Baltimore, MD). April 12. Accessed October 22, 2012.
Marlette, Doug. 2004. “Freedom of Speech and the Editorial Cartoon.” Nieman Reports.
58(4): 21-24.
Marx, Anthony W. 1998. Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of the United States,
South Africa, and Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mazid, Bahaa-Eddin M. 2008. “Cowboy and Misanthrope: A Critical (discourse)
Analysis of Bush and bin Laden Cartoons.” Discourse and Communication. 2(4):
433-57.
“Mazie Hirono.” Honolulu Civil Beat. http://www.civilbeat.com/topics/mazie-hirono/.
Accessed November 18, 2012.
"Mazie Keiko Hirono." Federal Directory. Bethesda, MD: Carroll Publishing, 2011.
Gale Biography In Context. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.
Mazón, Mauricio. 1984. The Zoot-Suit Riots: The Psychology of Symbolic Annihilation.
United States: University of Texas Press.
McCloud, Scott. 1993. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. United States: Harper
Collins.
McPhee, Constance C., and Nadine M. Orenstein. 2011. Infinite Jest: Caricature and
Satire from Leonardo to Levine. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
New York.
Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the
Norm of Equality. Princeton University Press.
Merskin, Debra. 2009. “The Princess and the SUV: Brand Images of Native Americans
as Commodified Racism.” In Studies in Symbolic Interaction. Vol. 33, 129-47.
Ebook.
Mills, Charles W. 1997. The Racial Contract. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
83
Minear, Richard H. 1999. Dr. Seuss Goes to War: The World War II Editorial Cartoons
of Theodor Seuss Geisel. New York: The New Press.
Mok, Teresa A. 1998. “Getting the Message: Media Images and Stereotypes and Their
Effect on Asian Americans.” Cultural Diversity and Mental Health. 4(3): 185-
202.
Nakanishi, Don T. and Ellen D. Wu. 2002. Distinguished Asian American Political and
Governmental Leaders. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Nedd, Trevor. 2009. “Ms. Hirono goes to Washington- What’s she up to, anyway?”
Honolulu Weekly. December 16. Accessed October 22, 2012.
Ngai, Mae. 2004. Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America.
USA: Princeton University Press.
Ninh, erin Khuê. 2011. “Advice on How Not to Misread the Tiger Mother.” Amerasia
Journal. 37(2): 123-29.
Ohira, Rod. 1999. “Lieutenant Governor Reflects on the ‘Bookends’ of her Life” Star
Bulletin. May 8. http://archives.starbulletin.com/1999/05/08/news/story5.html.
Accessed November 18, 2012.
Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From
the 1960s to the 1990s. 2
nd
Edition. Great Britain: Routledge.
Ono, Kent A. and Vincent N. Pham. 2009. Asian Americans and the Media. USA, Polity
Press.
Oyserman, Daphna, and Izumi Sakamoto. 1997. “Being Asian American: Identity,
Cultural Constructs, and Stereotype Perception.” Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science. 33(4): 435-53.
Pan, Arnold. 2011. “The Year of the Tiger Mom.” Amerasia Journal. 37(2): 121-22.
Passel, Jeffrey, Wendy Wang, and Paul Taylor. 2010. “One-in-Seven New U.S.
Marriages in Interracial or Interethnic: Marrying Out.” Released June 4.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/06/04/marrying-out/. Accessed November
19, 2012.
Paul, Annie Murphy. 2011. “Tiger Moms: Is Tough Parenting Really the Answer.” Time.
January 20. Accessed October 18, 2012.
Poon, OiYan A. 2011. “Ching Chongs and Tiger Moms: The ‘Asian Invasion’ in U.S.
Higher Education.” Amerasia Journal. 37(2): 144-50.
84
Prasso, Sheridan. 2006. The Asian Mystique: Dragon Ladies, Geisha Girls & Our
Fantasies of the Exotic Orient. New York: Public Affairs. Kindle edition.
Qin, Desiree Boalian, Niobe Way, and Preetika Mukherjee. 2008. “The Other Side of the
Model Minority Story: The Familial and Peer Challenges Faced by Chinese
American Adolescents.” Youth and Society. 39(4):480-506.
Renteln, Alison Dundes. 1995. “A Psychohistorical Analysis of the Japanese American
Internment.” Human Rights Quarterly. 17(4): 618-48.
Ripley, Amanda. 2008. “Rhee Tackles Classroom Challenge.” Time. November 26.
Accessed October 17, 2012.
Risen, Clay. 2008. “The Lightning Rod- Michelle Rhee Charged in as chancellor of the
Washington, D.C., Public Schools Wielding BlackBerrys and Data- and a Giant
Axe.” The Atlantic. November. Accessed October 22, 2012.
Robbins, Tom. 2005. “The Dragon Lady Runs For D.A.” The Village Voice. May 25-
May 31.
Rogin, Michael. 1996. “Racial Masquerage and Ethnic Assimilation in the Transition to
Talking Pictures.” In Blackface, White Noise: Jewish Immigrants in the
Hollywood Melting Pot. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Kindle
edition.
Rosenbloom, Susan Rakosi and Niobe Way. 2004. “Experiences of Discrimination
among African American, Asian American, and Latino Adolescents in an Urban
High School.” Youth and Society. 35(4):420-51.
Rotherham, Andrew J. 2011. “Cheating on the Hard Work of School Reform.” Time.
March 31. Accessed October 17, 2012.
---. 2010. “Fenty’s Loss in D.C.: A Blow to Education Reform?” Time. September 16.
Accessed October 17, 2012.
Sayare, Scott, and Nicola Clark. 2012. “French Magazine Runs Cartoons That Mock
Muhammad.” The New York Times. Sept. 19. Accessed November 16, 2012.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/world/europe/french-magazine-publishes-
cartoons-mocking-muhammad.html
Shim, Doobo. 1998. “From Yellow Peril through Model Minority to Renewed Yellow
Peril.” Journal of Communication Inquiry. 22(4): 385-409.
Sinclair, Stacey, Curtis D. Hardin, and Brian S. Lowery. 2006. “Self-Stereotyping in the
85
Context of Multiple Social Identities.” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 90(4): 529-42.
Star-Advertiser and Associated Press. 2012. “Hirono defeats Lingle in U.S. Senate Race.”
Honolulu Star Advertiser. Last updated November 6.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/elections/2012ElectionsBreakingNews/20121106_
Hirono_defeats_Lingle_in_US_Senate_race_in_Hawaii.html?id=177583691.
Accessed November 18, 2012.
Stoler, Ann Laura. 2010. “Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Gender and Morality
in the Making of Race,” chap. 3 in Carnal Knowledge and Imperial Power: Race
an the Intimate in Colonial Rule. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
StudentsFirst. “Michelle A. Rhee, Founder and CEO of StudentsFirst.” Accessed
September 18, 2012. http://www.studentsfirst.org/pages/about-michelle-rhee
Tajfel, Henri. 1963. “Stereotypes.” Race Class. 5(2): 3-14.
Tajima, Renee E. 1989. “Lotus Blossoms Don’t Bleed: Images of Asian Women.” In
Making Waves: An Anthology of Writings By and About Asian American Women.
Ed. Asian Women United of California, 308-317. Boston: Beacon Press.
Thibodeau, Ruth. 1989. “From Racism to Tokenism: The Changing Face of Blacks in
New Yorker Cartoons.” The Public Opinion Quarterly. 53(4): 482-94.
Thomas, Evan, Eve Conant, and Pat Wingert. 2008. “An Unlikely Gambler- By Firing
Bad Teachers and Paying Good Ones Six-figure Salaries, Michelle Rhee Just
Might Save D.C. Schools.” Newsweek. September 1. Accessed October 22, 2012.
Toppo, Greg and Marisol Bello. 2012. “D.C. Investigates Just One School in Test
Cheating Scandal.” USA Today. August 8. Accessed October 25, 2012.
Tuchman, Gaye. 1978. “Introduction: The Symbolic Annihilation of Women by the Mass
Media.” In Hearth and Home: Images of Women in the Mass Media. Ed. Gaye
Tuchman, Arlene Kaplan Daniels, and James Benet, 3-38. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Uradomo-Barre, Stacey. 2009. Yellow Terror: The Collections and Paintings of Roger
Shimomura. Seattle: Wing Luke Asian Museum.
U.S. Congresswoman Mazie K. Hirono. “About Mazie- Biography.” Accessed September
18, 2012. http://hirono.house.gov/aboutmazie/biography.htm
Waag, Stephen. 1998. “Introduction.” In Because I tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics,
and Social Difference. Ed. Stephen Wagg, xi-xiv. New York, NY: Routledge.
86
Wang, Grace. 2011. “On Tiger Mothers and Music Moms.” Amerasia Journal. 37(2):
130-36.
Whitmire, Richard. 2011. The Bee Eater: Michelle Rhee Takes on the Nation’s Worst
School District. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kindle edition.
Wiid, Ria, Leyland F. Pitt, and Anne Engstrom. 2011. “Not so Sexy: Public Opinion of
Political Sex Scandals as Reflected in Political Cartoons.” Journal of Public
Affairs. 11(3): 137-47.
Willis, Gerri. 2012. “The Willis Report for April 10, 2012.” The Willis Report. Television
Transcript. April 10. Accessed November 20, 2012.
Wong, Sau-Ling C. 2009. “The Yellow and the Black: Race and Diasporic Identity in
Sinophone Chinese American Literature.” In Diasporic Histories: Cultural
Archives of Chinese Transnationalism. Ed. Andrea Riemenschnitter and Deborah
L. Madsen, 77-92. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Worcester, Kent. 2007. “Introduction.” PS: Political Science & Politics. 40(2): 223-37.
Worrell, Joseph. 2003. “On the Dragon Lady’s Trail: Rediscovering the Films and Image
of Anna May Wong in Classical Hollywood Cinema.” Asian Cinema: A
Publication of the Asian Cinema Studies Society. 14(2): 3-34.
Yamada, Mitsuye. 1983. “Invisibility is an Unnatural Disaster: Reflections of an Asian
American Woman.” In This Bridge Called my Back: Writings by Radical Women
of Color. Ed. Cherríe Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa, 35-40. New York: Kitchen
Table: Women of Color Press.
Zia, Helen. 1997. “Violence in Our Communities: ‘Where are the Asian Women?’” In
Making More Waves: New Writing by Asian American Women. Ed. Kim, Elaine
H., Lilia V. Villanueva, and Asian Women United of California, 207-214. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Zhang, Qin. 2010. “Asian Americans Beyond the Model Minority Stereotype: The Nerdy
and the Left Out.” Journal of International and Intercultural Communication. 3(1):
20-37.
Zurbriggen, Eileen L. and Aurora M. Sherman. 2010. “Race and Gender in the 2008 U.S.
Presidential Election: A Content Analysis of Editorial Cartoons.” Analyses of Social
Issues and Public Policy. 10(1): 223-247.
Images
Blitt, Barry. 2011. “America’s Top Parent: What’s behind the ‘Tiger Mother’ Craze?”
The New Yorker. Last updated January 31.
87
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2011/01/31/110131crbo_books_kol
bert?currentPage=all. Accessed November 16, 2012.
Jones, Taylor. 2011. “Education reformer Michelle Rhee.” Posted April 12.
http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/35185b28-bd53-40ed-b1ac-
ccebc0fb47c5.html. Accessed November 16, 2012.
Pritchett, John. 2012.“Meanie Mazie” in Hawaii Reporter July 27.
http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/mazie-2.htm Accessed November 16, 2012.
R., Annie. 2011.“Tiger Mom.” Posted February. http://arr-
cartoons.deviantart.com/art/Tiger-Mom-198725925 Accessed November 16,
2012.
Stossel, Sage. 2011.“Hu Jintao, Tiger Mothers, and Human Rights.” The Atlantic. Last
updated January 20. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/01/hu-
jintao-tiger-mothers-and-human-rights/69927/ Accessed November 16, 2012.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
Symbolic annihilation renders minorities invisible and powerless, which results in the promotion of a status quo and racial hierarchy that further disadvantages the group being symbolically annihilated. While many scholars have investigated symbolic annihilation, none, to my knowledge, have analyzed the symbolic annihilation of Asian American women in political cartoons. This thesis addresses the stereotypes employed by political cartoons featuring Asian American women, and argues that the result is that the women being depicted in these cartoons are symbolically annihilated. In order to investigate this process I have selected three prominent Asian American women (Michelle Rhee, Amy Chua, and Mazie Hirono) and examined how they were portrayed in political cartoons. I found evidence suggesting that the Yellow Peril and Dragon Lady stereotypes were being employed for all three women, rendering them as one-dimensional stereotypes and suggesting that they have been symbolically annihilated.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Global governance of sport in a digital age: the political economy of sport integrity regulation
PDF
An argument for the criminal hoax
PDF
An alternative model of transition in the Middle East: bounded consociotionalism
PDF
The political representation of Kurdish, Kemalist, and conservative Muslim women in Turkey (1990-2010)
PDF
Greening law: a socio-legal analysis of environmental human rights in India
PDF
Photography in movement: the right to photograph, ethics in imaging, and the art of making social change
PDF
Policing accountability: an empirical investigation of state-sponsored police reform in Riverside, California
PDF
Noise & silence: underground music and resistance in the People's Republic of China
PDF
The YouTube phenomenon: YouTube stars eliminating stereotypes in new media
PDF
Partisan media bias vs. structural media bias: which one dominates in a polarized environment?
PDF
The relationship of model minority stereotype, Asian cultural values, and acculturation to goal orientation, academic self-efficacy, and academic achievement in Asian American college students
PDF
How Evangelicals are born-again and again: race, ethnicity, religion and politics in American culture
PDF
The cultural expression of depression in Asian Americans and European Americans
PDF
Crimes of honor: an international human rights perspective on violence against women in South Asia
PDF
Political incorporation and transnationalism: a study of South Asian immigrants in the United States
PDF
Cultivate hope in troubled times: the periodical discourse on children in Republican Shanghai
PDF
The role of skin tone on candidate evaluation: an analysis of racial socialization among Latino immigrants
PDF
Antipodes of Asian American literature: heterolingualism and the Asian Americas
PDF
Changing political attitudes and behavior in a diverse America: incorporating individual and contextual determinants
PDF
Projected coevalness and post-colonial tourism: the persistence of cultural hierarchy in contemporary Japanese-Taiwanese film
Asset Metadata
Creator
Yen, Laura B.
(author)
Core Title
(In)visible Asian American women: an analysis of how stereotypes in political cartoons reveal symbolic annihilation
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Master of Arts
Degree Program
Politics and International Relations
Publication Date
01/25/2013
Defense Date
01/24/2013
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
Asian American,OAI-PMH Harvest,political cartoons,stereotypes,symbolic annihilation,Women
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Renteln, Alison Dundes (
committee chair
), Bernards, Brian (
committee member
), Wong, Janelle (
committee member
)
Creator Email
laurayen@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-129365
Unique identifier
UC11291594
Identifier
usctheses-c3-129365 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-YenLauraB-1408.pdf
Dmrecord
129365
Document Type
Thesis
Rights
Yen, Laura B.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
Asian American
political cartoons
stereotypes
symbolic annihilation