April 19, 2009

Protests in perspective: Wisdom from the comics

Timing is everything.

The late Charles Schulz drew the following Peanuts strip, 'way back on April 15, 1962, and it turned up today in the Journal Times and hundreds of other newspapers that subscribe to "Classic Peanuts." This is just part of the Sunday strip; I edited out the non-essential bits.

The whole strip is HERE. And just to make things perfectly clear, nobody stood on his or her head during either of Racine's two protest rallies yesterday... at least not while we were watching.


  1. I like it! Action should be taken when someone believes a wrong is being committed against themselves or others, but holding signs and yelling...seems pretty passive.

  2. Cleanliness is Next to Godliness4/19/2009 12:03 PM

    Is that why demonstrations by liberals are often riots and needs police to bring them under control? But demonstrations by conservatives lack people getting handcuffed and when they leave, not a scrap of paper remains to be seen on the grounds.

  3. I think it's a way of getting noticed. If you believe in something strongly you won't stop anything by blogging, talking in bars, the workplace or with friends/family. You can write letters but that is just ONE opinion. You are lucky if the person whom you're against will even get it or read it. A group will get at least a picture in the paper and if you have unsung followers they may join in the next time. It's more of getting a message across from a big group to whoever is in charge. It can backfire if there is damage done or if the group consists on only one segment of the whole, i.e. all white, all men, all pregnant women, all hispanics,etc.

  4. It's a way to tell the world the common people are tired of 'whatever' and we don't want this to continue. We don't have the answer but we don't like what is being done. Think of another way. The more people the more attention.

  5. An honest question: Seeing as the RacinePost sells advertising space, and this strip was produced after 1923 (and is still in syndication), doesn't this particular post dip into the waters of copyright infringement? Or does this constitute "fair use"?

    If you guys are also paying for the syndication service, then it's a moot point. But I'm sure if you had a film reviews segment that streamed 75-90% of a studio-owned feature film, they'd sic the Digital Millenium Copyright Act on you. Don't really understand why Shultz' lawyers wouldn't do the same.