Shankar 1

Jayashabari Shankar

Mrs. McKay

IB English 11

22 September 2021

Homelessness: Not an Exclusive Problem

It is human nature to place blame on others. Such is the case with the problem of

homelessness in the United States. Plagued with staggering increases of homelessless, many

people blame the issue on others, usually the other political party, without considering the fact

that complex and large problems such as homelessness seldom have simple causes and

solutions. The article "Silicon Valley's $250 million answer to the homelessness crisis," by

Marisa Kendall, published by Mercury News on September 1, 2021, encourages technology

companies to donate to emergency homeless shelters. Meanwhile, the cartoon “Whose

Problem is it?” by Signe Wilkinson, published in September 13, 2020 in the Philadelphia

Inquirer, takes a more negative tone: people are depicted as blaming the homelessness

problem on the current political party, that is, calling homelessness a “democratic” or

“republican” problem, until a women dressed like the Statue of Liberty claims it is an

“American” problem. Indeed, whereas Kendall’s article maintains an informative and positive

tone throughout, with reasoning and logic, precedent, and evidence, the cartoon offers a

harsher and more negative tone with the help of rhetorical tools such as symbolism and ethos.

While both the article and cartoon make use of different tones and rhetorical devices, the

articles are extremely similar on a fundamental level as they use logic and reasoning to support

their similar claims that everyone must take a part to solve homelessness.
 Shankar 2

Kendall’s deft use of precedent and logic in the article begins with a quote from Aubrey

Merriman, CEO of LifeMoves, one of the largest homeless nonprofits in Silicon Valley. Merriman

calls on corporate leaders, asking them to "pony up" 250 million dollars for emergency housing,

further noting that "‘There are only so many Teslas and trips to space that you can

have’"(Kendall). This is a reference to Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, two of the world’s richest

billionaires who have been comparatively less philanthropic than other figures like Facebook

CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Apple CEO Tim Cook. Indeed, Kendall notes that both Facebook and

Apple have pledged millions of dollars for those in encampments and for affordable housing

opportunities respectively. She further details that Facebook has given 150 million dollars to

build four housing communities in the San Jose area. By noting that other tech companies have

pledged millions, Kendall manages to put a precedent on Bezos and Musk to do the same. After

all, it is easier to do something when others have already done it and established a precedent.

Moreover, by mentioning the specific number of dollars Facebook plans to donate and how

exactly it will be used, Kendall makes her argument more foolproof, because statistics are

perceived as facts, not opinions. The reader will inevitably question why other tech companies

can’t do something about homelessness when Facebook and Apple have already done so much.

Just as deft as Kendall’s use of precedent is her use of counterarguments and evidence.

For example, she cites Richard Bramson, CEO of Destination: Home, who is also working with

Facebook for affordable housing projects. For those readers who may question why tech

companies are obliged to participate in mitigating the homelessness crisis, Bramson explains

that government funds aren’t earmarked for the first step of the development process: buying

land and planning construction. Neither will traditional loans work: lenders may find investing
 Shankar 3

in this step too risky. Bramson then goes on to explain that tech companies, with high tolerance

for risk and deep pockets, are ideal for this step. Kendall, by including an understandable and

simple quote from a man who is in this industry, will gain the support and acceptance of

numerous skeptical readers who question what role tech companies play in the homelessness

crisis. This is yet another adept use of logic: if government funds and private loans cannot start

the first step of development, then who will? By strengthening her article with a

counterargument, Kendall not only gains support of skeptics but also foolproofs her argument

against those who may hold differing opinions. Furthermore, for readers to disagree with

Kendall and her argument, they would need to disagree with Richard Bramson, a successful CEO

who works alongside Facebook. Kendall thus accomplishes two feats( counterargument and

ethos) with just one piece of evidence.

On the other hand, the political cartoon, aptly titled “Whose Problem is it?”, conveys a

strong message through ethos and analogy. It consists of three identical scenarios, involving a

homeless tent, with three different passersby and their three different reactions to it. The first

man claims, “It’s a Democratic mayor’s problem!” (Wilkinson). The second man claims, “It’s a

Republican president’s problem!” (Wilkinson). The last person, a woman donning a green dress

and crown-like ornament and carrying a torch in her right hand, which makes her resemble the

Statue of Liberty, claims, “Maybe it’s an American problem” (Wilkinson). It is important to

consider the way the woman is dressed, because she resembles the Statue of Liberty, also from

top to bottom. One can see 6 spikes on her crown, and since she is turned sideways, one cannot

see the seventh spike, probably on her left. The Statue of Liberty’s head ornament consists of 7

spikes as well. She is also carrying the characteristic torch on her left hand, just like the Statue
 Shankar 4

of Liberty. The most resemblance, however, is from the color of her dress, which is nearly

identical to the Statue of Liberty’s light greenish tint. By characterizing the lady as the Statue of

Liberty, an image most Americans associate with equality and justice, readers will be more

likely to believe her words because she is associated with this idea of fairness. The Statue of

Liberty is always depicted as a symbol of justice and the American dream, a symbol of equality

for all, and hearing words from her, or from those that seem analogous to her, makes

Wilkinson’s message easier to get through, because for readers to disagree with the cartoon,

they would have to disagree with the Statue of Liberty herself; that is, they would have to

disagree with what she represents. Readers will probably be more open to the cartoon’s

message of claiming homelessness is an American problem, not a Republican or Democrat one.

The cartoon’s ultimate message is that instead of blaming the homelessness problem on the

opposing party, all American people should take blame. By using ethos and analogy in a unique

manner to link a character to a universally recognized concept( here, it is justice and what is

right), Wilkinson and ultimately her argument, gains the approval and sympathy of many

readers who respect what the Statue of Liberty represents.

Wilkinson bolsters her cartoon’s message with other techniques, including stereotypes

and symbolism, which she skillfully adds through minute details in the cartoon. The first man is

wearing a red hat as he is blaming homelessness on a Democratic mayor, so it can reasonably

be inferred that he is a member of the Republican party, especially considering that red is the

color of the Republican party. The next man can be inferred as a Democrat, because he blames

the problem on a Republican president. The woman, dressed like the Statue of Liberty, does not

show any indication of any Party affiliation. The first two have their hands in their pockets,
 Shankar 5

while the woman holds a torch. It is generally assumed having hands in one’s pockets is a sign

of indifference. The first two people reinforce this idea: Indeed, they just blame the problem of

homelessness on others, instead of thinking about their own faults/ ways they could help. It is

also interesting to note that the woman’s gaze is downwards, and her face has a look of

compassion and empathy. This contrasts with the Republican man’s sideways gaze and the

Democrat man’s upward gaze.

Not only is the detail of the three people's gaze important, but also the way their eyes

are formed. The two men have full eyes drawn- that is, one can see both the “white part” and

the “darker part” of their eyes. However, the woman has only two black dots for eyes. Perhaps

this could be inferred as her eyes widening so much so that only her iris is seen. This could be

interpreted as the compassion and care she has. All of these small details are symbolisms that

contribute to Wilkinson’s argument that the indifferent blame problems on others, while the

compassionate see the bigger picture. Indeed, the cartoon’s goal is to show that homelessness

is an American problem, that is a problem of every single person in America, regardless of party

affiliation. Those who blame the issue of the other political party are indifferent and too

uncaring to be willing to make a difference. Since no reader wants to be perceived as uncaring

and indifferent, they will probably perceive hoemelessness, and other problems, as everyone’s

problem, not just the mayor's or president’s.

Despite the several initial differences one can note between an article and a cartoon,

the two pieces analyzed here are intricately related to each other. Indeed, they convey the

same message- homelessness is not an exclusive problem, it is everyone’s problem. The article

conveys that tech companies should help the homeless in their community by donating money
 Shankar 6

for housing. Indeed, Kendall quotes Bramson who says, “ ‘And homelessness and the lack of

affordable housing is a community problem, and it really requires a community solution’ “

(Kendall). Since tech companies are a vital part of the community they are in, they must take

part in the way they can: by donating money. The cartoon does not have this specificity. In

other words, it does not call for people to donate money or do otherwise. It has the broad

message that people should not be so quick to blame others: instead, they must take some of

the blame, as an American. Indeed, that is why the woman dressed as the Statue of Liberty

notes that maybe it is an American problem. The even broader message of the cartoon is that

all people are to blame for homelessness, and thus all people must partake in finding a solution.

The article argues for the same thing, along these same lines. Instead of waiting for other funds,

tech companies must take charge to help their community. On a more rhetorical level, both of

these articles use elements of logos, ethos and pathos. The article uses precedent, which can be

interpreted as pathos, and logic, all while quoting CEO’s, a sign of ethos. The cartoon uses

concepts of ignorance and compassion, which is pathos, an indirect form of ethos with the

Statue of Liberty analogy, all while logically connecting the argument. Although the way this is

achieved varies, both the article and cartoon on a fundamental level, use similar persuasive

techniques and have the same message to readers.

It is also of utmost importance to consider the differences of the two pieces, because

this can glean light on their similarities even more. As mentioned earlier, the cartoon just calls

for people to recognize that homelessness is not the problem of a particular party, but of

America. It also targets all Americans in general, not just companies and their CEO’s, like the

article does. This is not that much of a significant difference because the message conveyed to
 Shankar 7

both audiences is the same. Perhaps the biggest difference is the fact that the cartoon also

contains a political message. While it is not supportive of either party, it calls to reduce the

extreme partisanship that is so characteristic of politics these days. It contains the subtle

message of coming together to solve American problems like homelessness regardless of party

differences. It calls for a sense of togetherness and solidarity regardless of party. The article has

no underpinning political message, however, It calls for tech companies to donate and pledge

money on a more moral stance, claiming it is their duty as a member of the community. Despite

these differences, the article and the cartoon both advocate the idea that homelessness is not

an exclusive problem.

Homelessness is not meant to be blamed on one group of people, be it political parties

or the government. Instead, everyone must recognize that they have unique roles in solving the

homelessness problem. Tech companies can donate, while others can do their part by not

blaming others and doing something to solve the crisis as an American. Both pieces of work call

for a community solution to homelessness with the use of varied persuasive techniques like

precedent, ethos, analogy and symbolism and their underlying similarities far outweigh the

minor differences they have.

Works Cited

Marisa Kendall, et al. "Silicon Valley's $250 million answer to the homelessness crisis." Mercury

News, 1 Sep.2021, https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/01/silicon-valleys-250-

million-answer-to-the-homel essness-crisis/. Accessed 16 Sep. 2021.

 Shankar 8

Wilkinson, Signe. Whose Problem is it?. Signe Wilkinson, Sep. 13, 2020. The Philadelphia

Inquirer, https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/cartoons/homeless-democrats-

republicans-americans-poverty-economy-20200913.html.