3 big questions we should all be asking about this painting in the halls of Congress.

It all started with a congressional art contest.

The winner would get to display their painting in the long hallway that connects House office buildings to the U.S. Capitol. It would be seen by thousands of people, including some of the most powerful in the country — members of Congress, staffers, lobbyists, and visitors.

David Pulphus, an 18-year-old student in the Missouri district represented by Rep. Lacy Clay, won the contest with his striking painting of a violent and tense clash between police and protestors — a nod to the civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, that garnered national attention in 2014 after Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson.


As promised, Pulphus' painting was displayed in the hallway of the U.S. Capitol complex, where it hung for seven months. Then things got interesting.

For better or worse, the painting has become the centerpiece of a complicated conversation about race, power, and the role of art in politics. The painting depicts police officers as pigs. Literally. (Actually, they're more warthog-ish, but that's just my interpretation.)

Some police organizations took issue with this depiction and asked, in a strongly worded letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan, that the painting be taken down. Shortly after, Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California) took it down himself. Then Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Missouri) put it back up. A few hours later, two other Republican representatives — Dana Rohrabacher and Brian Babin — took it down again.

If the point of art is to get people talking, here are three big questions we should be talking about:

1. First, what really is "offensive"? And what should you do when you're offended by something?

If you're a police officer, being depicted as a pig is probably offensive to you. That's fair. Likewise, you'd probably want to speak out against any narrative that all police officers are bad or inherently violent or racist.

If you find the painting offensive, however, consider this: Is the painting more offensive or horrifying than the number of unarmed black people gunned down by police officers every year? Isn't it totally reasonable and completely understandable for black Americans to want to express their feelings and speak out through protest, the written word, or visual art?

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

When members of Congress took the painting down without the permission of the colleague who hung it up, that was a declaration that their point of view on the issue — that the painting is offensive and police officers shouldn't be depicted looking bad — takes precedence over Pulphus' right to express how he feels about the police.

When one of the most powerful people in the United States government calls an 18-year-old's painting "disgusting," he contributes to the kind of active silencing that Pulphus' painting speaks out against.

2. What kind of art should be in our congressional halls, anyway?

The halls of our Capitol are where history gets made and where the giant machine of government operates (in theory). Presumably, the artwork in those hallowed halls should reflect the best of us.

There's definitely something to be said for not wanting to hang a painting that depicts a moment in our history no one is proud of. If that’s the case, though, those speaking out against the painting should hold all of the art in the Capitol complex to the same standards.

It kinda makes you wonder why those same people haven't done anything about these giant marble statues of racists and slave owners:

3. Is it possible there's a larger point being missed?

Maybe? Just a little?

All this quibbling over whether the painting should hang in Congress means no one is really talking about what the painting actually depicts.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

The unrest in Ferguson happened after the shooting of Michael Brown and escalated after a report found evidence of racial bias in the town’s policing. That’s a real problem that people — especially black people living in Ferguson — were right to be mad about.

It's also a problem with some tangible solutions. If only the people fighting over the painting had some sort of power to introduce or support legislation that could address it. If only! Perhaps their time would be better spent doing that rather than playing hide-a-painting with their colleagues in Congress.

What we have here is a sobering reflection of the state of conversation around race relations in the United States, and it reminds us why we need art like this so badly.

One side is voicing frustration about the violence and distrust he sees in his community, asking only for someone to listen or to see what's happening. The other side frames it as an attack on police officers who are simply trying to keep communities safe. It's not really about the painting — it's Black Lives Matter vs. Blue Lives Matter condensed into a petty quibble you might have with a roommate.

So make no mistake: The fate of this painting is important. Not just because it will settle this particular argument, but because it will set a precedent for what the government is willing and ready to pay attention to.

Ask yourself: If members of our Congress can't even stand to look at a painting, how can they be prepared to take on the complicated and sensitive work needed to heal the divide that the painting represents?

If art exists to raise questions and ignite discussion, than this painting has gone above and beyond. Maybe that was the point. Art has a way of getting under people's skin and getting them to talk about things they might not have otherwise.

Art has a way of revealing the truth.

Photo by Daniel Schludi on Unsplash
True

The global eradication of smallpox in 1980 is one of international public health's greatest successes. But in 1966, seven years after the World Health Organization announced a plan to rid the world of the disease, smallpox was still widespread. The culprits? A lack of funds, personnel and vaccine supply.

Meanwhile, outbreaks across South America, Africa, and Asia continued, as the highly contagious virus continued to kill three out of every 10 people who caught it, while leaving many survivors disfigured. It took a renewed commitment of resources from wealthy nations to fulfill the promise made in 1959.

Forty-one years later, although we face a different virus, the potential for vast destruction is just as great, and the challenges of funding, personnel and supply are still with us, along with last-mile distribution. Today, while 30% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated, with numbers rising every day, there is an overwhelming gap between wealthy countries and the rest of the world. It's becoming evident that the impact on the countries getting left behind will eventually boomerang back to affect us all.

Photo by ismail mohamed - SoviLe on Unsplash

The international nonprofit CARE recently released a policy paper that lays out the case for U.S. investment in a worldwide vaccination campaign. Founded 75 years ago, CARE works in over 100 countries and reaches more than 90 million people around the world through multiple humanitarian aid programs. Of note is the organization's worldwide reputation for its unshakeable commitment to the dignity of people; they're known for working hand-in-hand with communities and hold themselves to a high standard of accountability.

"As we enter into our second year of living with COVID-19, it has become painfully clear that the safety of any person depends on the global community's ability to protect every person," says Michelle Nunn, CARE USA's president and CEO. "While wealthy nations have begun inoculating their populations, new devastatingly lethal variants of the virus continue to emerge in countries like India, South Africa and Brazil. If vaccinations don't effectively reach lower-income countries now, the long-term impact of COVID-19 will be catastrophic."

Keep Reading Show less
Canva

As millions of Americans have raced to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, millions of others have held back. Vaccine hesitancy is nothing new, of course, especially with new vaccines, but the information people use to weigh their decisions matters greatly. When choices based on flat-out wrong information can literally kill people, it's vital that we fight disinformation every which way we can.

Researchers at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, a not-for-profit non-governmental organization dedicated to disrupting online hate and misinformation, and the group Anti-Vax Watch performed an analysis of social media posts that included false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines between February 1 and March 16, 2021. Of the disinformation content posted or shared more than 800,000 times, nearly two-thirds could be traced back to just 12 individuals. On Facebook alone, 73% of the false vaccine claims originated from those 12 people.

Dubbed the "Disinformation Dozen," these 12 anti-vaxxers have an outsized influence on social media. According to the CCDH, anti-vaccine accounts have a reach of more than 59 million people. And most of them have been spreading disinformation with impunity.

Keep Reading Show less
Photo by Daniel Schludi on Unsplash
True

The global eradication of smallpox in 1980 is one of international public health's greatest successes. But in 1966, seven years after the World Health Organization announced a plan to rid the world of the disease, smallpox was still widespread. The culprits? A lack of funds, personnel and vaccine supply.

Meanwhile, outbreaks across South America, Africa, and Asia continued, as the highly contagious virus continued to kill three out of every 10 people who caught it, while leaving many survivors disfigured. It took a renewed commitment of resources from wealthy nations to fulfill the promise made in 1959.

Forty-one years later, although we face a different virus, the potential for vast destruction is just as great, and the challenges of funding, personnel and supply are still with us, along with last-mile distribution. Today, while 30% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated, with numbers rising every day, there is an overwhelming gap between wealthy countries and the rest of the world. It's becoming evident that the impact on the countries getting left behind will eventually boomerang back to affect us all.

Photo by ismail mohamed - SoviLe on Unsplash

The international nonprofit CARE recently released a policy paper that lays out the case for U.S. investment in a worldwide vaccination campaign. Founded 75 years ago, CARE works in over 100 countries and reaches more than 90 million people around the world through multiple humanitarian aid programs. Of note is the organization's worldwide reputation for its unshakeable commitment to the dignity of people; they're known for working hand-in-hand with communities and hold themselves to a high standard of accountability.

"As we enter into our second year of living with COVID-19, it has become painfully clear that the safety of any person depends on the global community's ability to protect every person," says Michelle Nunn, CARE USA's president and CEO. "While wealthy nations have begun inoculating their populations, new devastatingly lethal variants of the virus continue to emerge in countries like India, South Africa and Brazil. If vaccinations don't effectively reach lower-income countries now, the long-term impact of COVID-19 will be catastrophic."

Keep Reading Show less