"Wrong Protest, Lady": Chip Bok's Editorial Cartoon

In recent weeks, many comparisons have been made between the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street movements, with some pundits emphasizing the differences and others the similarities. Editorial cartoonists like Chip Bok are uniquely positioned to stimulate reflection and analysis by means of their humor and their focus on critical details. This cartoon was released for distribution in numerous U.S. newspapers on October 3, 2011.

Read it here: Bok, "Wrong protest, lady"

1. Bok draws a comparison between the Tea Party demonstrations and those of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The humor of the cartoon is based on Bok’s implicit assertion that there are both similarities and differences in the two campaigns. In what ways are the Tea Party participants and the Occupy Wall Street participants similar? In what ways are they different?
2. Why do you suppose the young man in the cartoon does not recognize the couple as fellow Occupy Wall Street participants? What (in addition to simply their age) distinguishes those people from the other participants? What point is Bok establishing in drawing this distinction?
3. The older couple in the cartoon has arrived with a clear grievance, but the woman says that she does not want to “occupy Wall Street.” What is the significance of that assertion? What is Bok implying?
4. Can you discern Bok’s position on the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street? Do you think he is advocating for one or the other? Both? Neither? Write an essay in which you interpret Bok’s position, relying solely on what is expressed and inferred in this cartoon. If you conclude that Bok’s position remains indeterminate, explain your reasoning. Provide examples and evidence to support your conclusions.

 

Comments

[Barahona, Erick]

In my interpretation of the comic, the couple experiences a bizarre culture that surrounded the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Bok is simply narrating a possible scenario from the protest. The humor of the strip is placed in the demands that people hold. The signs read, “Free College”, “End Greed”, and “People Not Profits.” People are demanding communist ideals from a capitalist nation. With no official voice, the movement was no more than a sporadic flock of sheep. Bok uses his comic to do his job, allowing us to laugh over our errors. Maybe with a little planning, organization, and evaluation things could have had more similarities to the Boston Tea Party.

The similarity between the Boston Tea Party and the Occupy Movement can be vaguely defined as a revolt against a higher society. Society was fed up with those in higher social standings and attempted to change the system. Colonies boycotted taxes and social media mobilized people around Wall Street. That is where the similarities end, though the differences are astounding. Where one was successful in crafting a new nation, the other was a waste of taxes and energy.

Part of the joke is how naïve the young man is. He is unable to see the couple as part of their movement and is limited to a social barrier where he assumes they are unaffected. He also assumes the couple’s goals that do not align with the crowd’s unrealistic demands. In a way, he is teasing them about their credible demands and not asking for more. Their demands are not to get financial gains but rather to be freed from capitalist rule, “People Not Profit.”

“I don’t want to [occupy] Wall Street… I just want our money back!” the older lady proclaims. By this Bok is implying that even the name of the movement did not imply change but rather a sort of a temporary habitat on Wall Street. The older lady in the comic is demanding something more realistic in comparison to the abstract demands from other younger members. Bok was capable of poking fun at people’s ideals without insulting anyone. He has allowed for people to step back and reconsider how to tackle the situation.