Eastern Michigan University forum addresses controversial Ku Klux Klan editorial cartoon
EMU students and Echo cartoonist Jason Promo (center, blue shirt) met after a forum to discuss a controversial cartoon Promo drew featuring Ku Klux Klan members.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
An Eastern Michigan University forum was designed to start the healing process after a cartoon deemed racially insensitive ran in the Eastern Echo. But some students said it fell short.
The panel discussion Thursday was called after the Echo, EMU’s independent student newspaper, ran a cartoon showing a group of Ku Klux Klan members standing around a tree with a noose in it. Underneath the caption read “Honey, this is the tree where we met."
The intention of the “You Are Here” cartoon was to illustrate the hypocrisy of people who can show affection for one person but hate others enough to lynch them, the Echo editorial board explained in a statement.
Black students and many others took offense.
A panel of four faculty and staff members spoke for five minutes each to an audience of several hundred at the forum, which was followed by student comments. Afterward, several black students said they thought the forum was a step in the right direction, but fell short of healing wounds.
Porsche Griffin, an EMU junior, said she was still irritated and felt the meeting didn’t go far enough in its discussion. The cartoonist, Jason Promo, should have been on the panel, she said.
Moments later, Griffin got to confront Promo. At the urging of Ron Woods, a professor in the African-American Studies Department, Promo and a group of Echo staff met with roughly 30 black students who had not yet left.
Panelists (left to right) Kevin Devine, Ron Woods, Mary Ann Watson and Martin Shichtman.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
Although the two-hour impromptu meeting got heated at points, Kevin Devine, director of student media and the staff member most closely involved with the Echo, said he sensed students were beginning to move forward.
Devine said a student asked Promo what he had learned, to which Promo replied he had a lot to mull over. But Woods stopped that student and asked them all to consider what they learned from the discussion.
“(Dr. Woods) had a way of drawing a nice conclusion to the whole program,” Devine said. “The students left saying this has got to continue with more dialogue, more chances to educate and let’s build some bridges.”
Still, emotions ran high during the impromptu session. EMU student Blake Odum echoed the sentiments of many when he asked how Promo thought black students would take a cartoon with a noose.
“That’s the tree where we met? That’s the tree where they should have kicked your ass,” Odum said, further demanding to know how Promo could have found humor in a Ku Klux Klan hanging.
Promo told the students the purpose of the cartoon was to point out hypocrisy, not to make people laugh.
“There is nothing to find funny in it,” he said.
The cartoon ran on Sept. 28 and has since caught the attention of media around the region. In a statement, the Echo acknowledged it may have offended some readers.
“We apologize for the lack of sensitivity some felt we showed for publishing the cartoonist's work,” the statement read. “The cartoon points out the hypocrisy of hate-filled people. Its intent was to ask how can someone show affection for one person while at the same time hating someone else enough to commit such a heinous act as hanging.”
EMU Student Ivory Harris speaks at the forum.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
The university also released a statement saying it does not “exercise any editorial control over the content of the newspaper." More recently, EMU President Susan Martin released a statement saying she was taking the opportunity to expand the campus discussion on race and social issues.
“While I fully support a free and independent press, appropriate care and concern about hate imagery and its impact must be a consideration in the editorial process,” she wrote. “I personally find the imagery (in the Sept. 28 Eastern Echo KKK comic) disturbing and distasteful, and do not believe it advances the cause of positive understanding of the wonderfully rich and diverse community in which we live.”
Devine, who was one of the four panelists, said during his comments at the forum’s outset that the Echo’s editorial staff meets to discuss what content to run. He said there had been internal debate over the cartoon.
Devine has no control over the content but said the editorial process at the paper is under review.
Panelist Mary Ann Watson, a professor of communications, told students editorial cartoons are not meant to be funny like regular comics. She called it a “painfully naïve attempt” at a political cartoon, but said it was “an attempt to bruise the ego of bigots” and not race-baiting, as many understood it.
Watson explained editorial cartoons usually have some relevance to an issue in the news, and the KKK cartoon had none. For that reason, it wouldn’t have run if she was the editor-in-chief, she said.
“This is out simply because it’s not good — there’s no context,” Watson said. “There was no news peg to hang it on.”
Panelist Martin Shichtman, a professor of Jewish Studies, showed images of swastikas and a confederate flag with a noose in front of it while explaining the power of symbols. He said he was prepared to show images of lynchings, but decided against it.
Dr. Ron Woods holds up a book full of images of lynchings at the forum.
Tom Perkins | For AnnArbor.com
EMU graduate student Yolanda Brown-Spidell told Shichtman he should have showed the images so people know what happened and could understand what a noose represents.
“I would have preferred they have the vision,” she said. After the meeting, she called the forum a “whitewash” and said a “huge teaching moment” had been missed.
Woods said the use of a noose as “light fare” came out of “sheer ignorance.”
“We need to figure out how to lift the veil of ignorance and when issues like this come to the table so we understand them fully within their historical context,” Woods said.
Others echoed those sentiments, and several black students who stayed after the meeting said their race’s history isn't thoroughly taught in schools, which leads to incidents like this one.
“This is a product of not being educated,” EMU senior Orlando Bailey said. “Our job is to begin a process of healing and education. Let’s teach (Promo), let’s educate him.”
Tom Perkins is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
Orlando Bailey
Mon, Oct 11, 2010 : 4:58 p.m.
@Elizabeth Nelson. Hi there, I'm the guy who made the comment you chuckled about. I do understand the the difference between political cartoons and humorous comments. I would like to point out that this was not a political cartoon, it was a humorous comic (at least it was in the humorous comic section). If this cartoon was NOT meant to be funny, it should not have appeared in the Humorous Comic Section. I understand that when you are looking at an Editorial/Political cartoon, you are to look at it with a analytical eye to see the imagery and meaning behind it. When you read the comics, you get and laugh. This was not the case. Just wanted to point that out. I applaud you for using your real. Most of the people on these boards are cowards.
ShadowManager
Sat, Oct 9, 2010 : 4:20 p.m.
It's a waste of resources for EMU to spend any time on this controversy, is my point.
djacks24
Sat, Oct 9, 2010 : 9:45 a.m.
As an EMU alumni, I hope this too doesn't set the University back just as past events in EMU history have done so. Why is it that whites can't cry out about being portrayed as supremacists? Isn't portraying all whites as supremacists the same as calling all Muslims terrorists, yet whites are not allowed to play the race card? The only comment that really hit home for me so far are KeepingItReals comments. It would be really nice if those so offended by this cartoon could move on more pressing problems facing the black community such as black on black violence and poor academic performance rather then getting all up in arms over a presently non existent issue. Last I've heard, the black community hasn't lost sleep over any present threat of the KKK.
ShadowManager
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 9:49 p.m.
The faculty also gives free reign to the most reactionary elements of the student body, which, unlike most other schools in the state, usually ascribe to a "us vs. them" racial reactionary stance common in urban school districts. The loudest voices of outrage and disagreement...which drowns out any fairminded dialogue, discussion of issues, and actual intellectual free discourse on campus... are, usually, students from those urban districts. Not how this "forum" obviously devolved into a shouting match. That's par for the course at EMU.
Mark A.
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:56 p.m.
@TheAnnouncerMan007 I don't think that you and I read the same article. You also obviously don't like John Kerry and your saying that I would get along with him is an obvious and intentional personal attack on me. I can see now why you don't understand how something can be obvious to others but not to yourself.
Cash
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 5:24 p.m.
Dictionary definition: Political Cartoons Article from: Dictionary of American History "Political cartoons manipulate well-known cultural symbols to enhance the cartoon's comments about newsworthy situations. Political cartoons are the legitimate offspring of graffiti, and they retain the salacity and naughtiness of their parent. Political cartoons have become more pervasive with advances in communications technology." The cartoonists depiction of two people who express love to each other but display pure hate to their fellow man is well done. How else do you show it in a political cartoon? Well done, Mr Promo. I'm sorry your message was lost on so many people.
angela
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.
you got it, macabre
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 3:37 p.m.
I'm thinking the full-face hoodies make it difficult for KKK members to read a newspaper. Having now seen the cartoon in question (no thanks to the overly PC blog here) I don't see any evidence he wanted to offend anyone. I think his personal opinion is that the KKK spread hatred, so it would be ironic if KKK members found love in what is an obvious symbol of that hatred. But I do see plenty of evidence that the First Amendment isn't held very highly at EMU. And I see people who are determined to be offended at every turn. Mary Ann Watson (once a writer for Leave it to Beaver, IIRC) is right. It's an attempt at a political cartoon that doesn't really hit its mark. But universities are supposed to help students learn to hit their mark, not condemn those who try and fail.
Jay Allen
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 3:30 p.m.
@mark a: No, I am quite convinced that it is you that does not grasp this. Here are your comments [er, I mean "opinions"!]. "A lot of you are misreading the issue. If he had intended to offend blacks, and be insensitive, it would be a first amendment issue. He didn't mean that. It's a miscommunication issue and an eye opener for the artist on how he works." "I agree that you have the right to miscommunicate. But it's not the issue here. The issue is that he offended people that he had not intended, not that he shouldn't have the right to post something that could be misinterpreted. The unintentional interpretations were obvious and this cartoon could have just as easily appeared in a KKK newspaper, and probbly will. The artist likely didn't realize the impact of his art." 1. "A lot of you are misreading the issue". This is YOUR opinion sir. Just because other opinions do not align with yours does not make another person wrong. 2. "If he had intended to offend blacks, and be insensitive, it would be a first amendment issue" Do you know or understand what the 1st Amendment does and to whom it protects us from? Next how are you entitled to say what he was or was not thinking? Are you the artist? And whether or not you agree with the drawn picture, thinking that would not upset someone is hilarious. He KNEW exactly what he was doing and as Cash said, it worked. 3. "It's a miscommunication issue and an eye opener for the artist on how he works" Are you Dr. Phil? You are deeply psychoanalyzing this w/o any proof. Just opinions. More on this. 4. "I agree that you have the right to miscommunicate. But it's not the issue here. The issue is that he offended people that he had not intended, not that he shouldn't have the right to post something that could be misinterpreted" I put 2 or 3 points together because you cannot have one w/o the other. If he did NOT have the right, then he would be in North Korea and this is a non issue, right? And if you have the RIGHT to communicate it is the mentality such as YOURS that feels I must be "PC" about it so I do not upset you! Hogwash. If this "artist" wanted to do exactly what he did then it is his right. "Offending" people, C'est laVie. Pull your skirt up. In another words what you wrote is classic chicken or the egg rhetoric. 5. "The unintentional interpretations were obvious" Really? You just said. "The issue is that he offended people that he had not intended". How can it be BOTH ways? If it was "unintentional" then how on God's green earth was it "obvious"? 6. "this cartoon could have just as easily appeared in a KKK newspaper" How many do YOU subscribe to? My guess (yes a guess) is ZERO. Thus, if you have no direct knowledge, then how can you say either way? 7. "The artist likely didn't realize the impact of his art." Dude, you just said: "interpretations were obvious". I have a feeling you and Senator John Kerry would get along great.
Carl Duncan
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 1:01 p.m.
It should be mandatory for Michigan public education to educate students about american history, including the civil war, and Michigan history as well. The author of this "cartoon" obviously believes lynchings were common in Michigan before, during, and continue to this day.
Mark A.
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 1 p.m.
@5c0++ H4d13y I agree that you have the right to miscommunicate. But it's not the issue here. The issue is that he offended people that he had not intended, not that he shouldn't have the right to post something that could be misinterpreted. The unintentional interpretations were obvious and this cartoon could have just as easily appeared in a KKK newspaper, and probbly will. The artist likely didn't realize the impact of his art.
5c0++ H4d13y
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 12:47 p.m.
@Mark A. or maybe it's a miscommunication issue for the cartoon reader and an eye opener for them. Anyone can perceive anything in any way they want. There is no way for any artist to make their work perfectly clear to everyone and not offend anyone. Someone somewhere for some reason will take offense for right, wrong or to gain attention.
Mark A.
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 12:39 p.m.
A lot of you are misreading the issue. If he had intended to offend blacks, and be insensitive, it would be a first amendment issue. He didn't mean that. It's a miscommunication issue and an eye opener for the artist on how he works.
Mr. Tibbs
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 12:26 p.m.
I saw the picture of the Prof holding up a book illustrating all the lynchings that occured....OK we get it. The democratic party was formed to help with the political power fighting the abolishionists, but somehow that is conveniently forgotten. Along with a text book from 1855 illustrating the black heros of the revolutionary war....also conveniantly forgotten about. and of course one of the most famous amendments to the constitution was made to make it illegal to sell firearms to former slaves so that they could defend thier freedom....because without the ability to defend your freedoms....you truly have none.... but today we hear all about how power comes from the barrel of a gun.... maoist talk.... freedom of speech, is freedom of speech. be careful of what you wish for, you may well be on the other side of this issue someday. Google Doug McKelway or maybe McElway....and find out what happens when you share the truth with others seeking to do the same. and this happened in this country....look it up.
bunnyabbot
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 12:09 p.m.
hypersensitivity and over-reaction come to mind. Even without seeing the cartoon but reading the caption that went with it I can see the irony of it. If the cartoonist had been black and not white this would likely be a non-issue.
Jay Allen
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.
I am sure that 2 or 3 of you will find my comments not in line with the "PC" Parade. This is America the last I checked. The 1st Amendment is in full effect. Whether you like the comic, hate the comic or are indifferent is irrelevant. The artist has the RIGHT to draw it and the Echo has the RIGHT to print it. Getting all up in arms about it appearing is as hypocritical as a person being a racist. Then you have the kids who wanted the artist present on the panel. Okay, why? So they could yell at him? So they could be mad at him? Why? Because he drew a cartoon that was an illustration against EXACTLY what they are in fact doing? So in reality, isn't there fault on BOTH sides of the aisle? Now a few of you have commented on what the cartoon stood for, what it represented. Okay, we get that. And as a few pointed out, it did EXACTLY what it was intended to do. I think Cash pointed that out and although we do disagree at times, in THAT regard, Cash is right. But we cannot discuss our differences? Things have to be withdrawn and "panels" formed to get to the "bottom" of stuff? Really? Nothing illegal was done. In poor taste, yes. Socially unacceptable? Yes. But this PC stuff has gone too far. Someone stated that people needed "thicker skin" and I agree 100% with that. Lastly, isn't what the KKK did a part of U.S. History? Albeit a small part but it is a part of history along with other events that make you cringe. But because it involves Racism, we are no longer allowed to discuss it? Are we so uncivilized now that our 1st Amendment right only applies to PC things? We can only discuss items that are socially accepted across the board? While I DO NOT agree (please for all of the reading challenged, READ that again) I do not agree with the KKK at all, it is a part of History. The 1st Amendment covers that folks can discuss it, even if we/personally disagree with it. ~Carry On~
Chad Livengood
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 11:15 a.m.
For those wondering, here's the cartoon in question: http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/section/comics#img14
Adam
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 11:02 a.m.
American's need to grow up. Everyone needs to calm down. Students need to realize everything is not about them and stop getting so offended at everything that is said. When there were demonstrations on the EMU campus claiming that American military personnel were torturers and murders, I simply walked by and laughed. I've served 3 tours of duty in the war as a combat infantryman...why wasn't I offended? Because what good does it do to take that kind of crap personally? Grow up people...you are a tiny speck in this world and life goes on.
angela
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 10:34 a.m.
It doesnt seem like a free country if someone not allowed to voice their oppinion. People got affended, does that mean we can never mention things that happened in the past because someone might get offended. The cartoon was misunderstood he still has the right to create it, the real right not like the right to a home or healthcare because we dont have the right to those things but we do have the right to an oppinion. Even a hurtfull one, but how is this any different than offensive art, its a university, diversity is always going to lead to someone being affended, pull up some big kid pants and get over it.
Cash
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 10:23 a.m.
@John, Sad and tragic was the message that I got from the cartoonist. Sad and tragic that people can express love to each other while remaining in full garb hateful "uniform", totally oblivious and in full denial of that hate all around them.
John
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 10:19 a.m.
It is relatively easy to understand the comic underpinning of this drawing. It is not funny because certain images can never, under any circumstance, be funny. A hanging tree is one of those images. The students involved here should listen to the great Billie Holiday singing "Strange Fruit". It would illuminate for them why this image specifically can never be anything but deeply sad and tragic.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 9:47 a.m.
Ah, the American version of the Muhammad controversy. Don't you dare draw a noose, people. Notice this blog won't show the cartoon, much like many news outlets wouldn't show the Muhammad cartoons that led to all the calls for violence. The problem is when you become so sensitive that you need to threaten people over drawing a protected symbol, you are ceding far too much power.
d_a2
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 9:46 a.m.
@dading your student dollars didn't pay for crap. Were you forced to go to this forum or do an assignment on it or take a test on the subject matter? How did your student dollars pay for this?
Chuck
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 9:16 a.m.
So much for free speech in this gestapo America.
KeepingItReal
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
I've hesitated to comment on this article because while I find the cartoon offensive, I am not willing to condemn the cartoonist or ECHO Board for allowing it to be printed. They are within their first amendment right to do so. The fact of the matter is that lynching was considered a social event by whites and whole families would show up to view it. Even as a kid growing up down south, I could never quite comprehend how people could bring their children and love ones to view the lynching and act like this was the biggest event of the year. Like slavery, its a part of American history that we don't want to talk about or acknowledge. My concern is seeing black students and professors who are responding to the cartoon but yet will not raise an eyebrow over the black on black crime, black youth killing each other, not to mention that black students are perennially under performing in school. There are so many issues that deserve this type of attention, yet, they go ignored for the most part. I wish that EMU. UM black students and professors would be just as vigilant about the problems facing the African American community as they are about this cartoon.
jjc155
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.
Freedom of speech CAN NOT be conditional. I MUST be 100% free or it might as well be 100% controlled. Like I said in the blog for the previous article, I do not agree with the KKK but I fully understood the intent of the cartoon immediately, it was not a cartoon meant to invoke racial tension, which atleast to me was obvious. Could the cartoon have been drawn entirely differently to convey the same message? Most likely, but that was not how the artist chose to express himself. I actually commend the ECHO and the artist for having the "stones" to publish the cartoon. The only thing that I see the artist learning out of all of this is that he can not freely express his art how HE see's fit but must cowtow to others feelings. Anyone remember Robert Mapplethorpe? His art/photography is Very offensive stuff to the vast majority of people who have viewed his work, but fully protected by the constitution. Either 100% free of 100% controlled, there is no other option.
tracyann
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.
This whole issue and the comments made just reinforces the fact that there is a double standard when it comes to being PC. Chris Rock has made millions with his stand-up comedy in which he refers to white people as crackers. His whole schtick is based on poking fun at white people. Look at the comedy movie "White Chicks" where 2 black guys pose as rich white girls, complete with "whiteface". Granted, the movie was awful but does anyone remember when Ted Danson did the whole "blackface" thing, meaning to be funny? Remember the backlash? Is it only comedy if it involves white people? Maybe the comic was in poor taste but the author has tried to explain that his intention wasn't to make light of the awful things perpetrated against black people by the KKK, but to point out hypocrisy. Apparently, an explaination isn't good enough. Tell me, what exactly would "help the healing"?
PeaceMaker
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 8:36 a.m.
"No mirror ever became iron again; No bread ever became wheat; No ripened grape ever became sour fruit. Mature yourself and be secure from a change for the worse. Become the light." Rumi
Tom
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 8:21 a.m.
It would seem to me that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are only for those with whom you agree? If you don't want to be offended don't read it. If everything that offended me was banned you all would have to change a whole lot. For too long intolerant would-be dicators have been deciding what we can say and think- "step out of line and the man comes and take you away". This whole discussion has a chilling effect on free speech and is totally out of place in a university that prides itself and openess and inclusiveness. What a bunch of hypocrites.
peg dash fab
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.
I give Mr. Promo props for trying to send a message that promotes racial harmony. (Epic fail.) I agree with Prof. Watson: the editorial board let him and the EMU community down by accepting his flawed cartoon for publication.
Mark A.
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 8:05 a.m.
This just goes to show how an artist's motivations can be completely different than the interpretations of his or her art. I can understand his motivation, but I can also understand those who interpreted the way that they did. In one way, it appears to be humanizing the KKK and another is simply showing them fondly remembering a previous hanging. These unintended interpretations were obvious, and the artist should have realized it.
Steve Pepple
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:56 a.m.
The spelling of Dr. Ronald Woods' name has been corrected. Also, the story has been updated to remove an incorrect reference that listed him as the chairman of the African American Studies Department at EMU.
Angela
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:43 a.m.
Dr. Ronald Woods is no longer the head of the African American Studies Department. For many years, the permanent Department Head has been Dr. Victor Okafor.
Cash
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:34 a.m.
stunshif The campaign and election of President Obama brought race to the forefront for Americans and thus it did become a "news item", right, wrong or somewhere in between. The prof said the cartoon wasn't relevant to current news....and I disagree.
Cash
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:28 a.m.
stunshif, Of course hatred is wrong in every aspect. Again that was the point. But the cartoon demonstrates that it exists! Love and hate reside within the same person. And a comment that because Barack Obama won the presidency that means the majority of Americans aren't racist.... Do they talk about the stereotypical differences between black men and white men? Do they tell racial jokes? (This is in regard to ALL races, not white against black) Do they think that because people of a particular religion perform a horrible act, all people of that religion are suspect in our society? I could go on but really this isn't the point. Prejudging a group of people due to their ethnicity, color creed etc....therein lies the bite. To assume that a vote for a black person to hold office shows people have no prejudices is misguided. The comments continue....today we see a Christian minister saying Christians should not practice yoga! Oy!
CincoDeMayo
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:26 a.m.
When I first saw the cartoon I thought that the point being made was how effective hate against a certain group can be in bringing people together - that common enemy. And I immediately had a connection with some of the anti-Muslim, anti-Hispanic rhetoric that is so prevalent today. Apparently I was wrong. But, again, I saw it as communicating an ugly reality. This definitely goes on and it not out of context to anyone living in our world today.
Former A2rite
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.
No matter where you go, what school of higher ed you attend, you will always find ignorant and bigoted people. Think how many people in higher level, influential positions...with doctorates and legal degrees who have a white hood hung in the back of their closets. I don't care what was stated as the intended purpose of the cartoon, the creator, editors and publishers of this piece all need to be REMOVED from their positions. They're clueless and irresponsible!
CincoDeMayo
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:15 a.m.
How was the question "...illustrate the hypocrisy of people..." answered by the cartoon? He wasn't trying to answer the question - he was pointing out that it exists and it is ugly. Looks to me like that mission was accomplished, as painful a lesson as it is. How many times have people who you have believed to be loving, caring people made hateful comments to you about another group of people, (often thinking this is okay to say to you just because they share some commonality with you?) It can be shocking to have that happen. And it happens all the time. Look at what another commenter seems to be suggesting by saying "Perhaps a nice 'reeducation camp' would be just the place." Is it funny? I don't think so. Just like the image of a noose is very real to many people, veiled threats of violence and beatings are very real to others. But I understand, with that statement, that he is just making a point. Any of us could be one of the people from the cartoon under the tree - loving a person on one hand, and threatening violence to somebody else on the other hand. Sometimes the image in the mirror is ugly.
stunhsif
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:14 a.m.
@Cash, "So veiled racial hatred hasn't been an issue recently? Wow. Where has she been hiding? There was an election two years ago........" And Obama won "going away", the vast majority of Americans are not racist. Keep in mind racists come in all different colors and flavors. Jason's intent was good, his delivery was in poor taste, he made a big mistake. Speaking of "hate", it appears there is some being directed at Jason which is just as misguided as his poor attempt to show the "hypocrisy of hate filled people".
Top Cat
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:13 a.m.
This is nonsense. These people should all take a few minutes to read the First Amendment out loud and then get back to their classes and studies. Sounds like a lot of people with too much time on their hands.
Cash
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:08 a.m.
Sonny Dog 09, http://www.easternecho.com/index.php/section/comics cartoon number 14
Elizabeth Nelson
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7:04 a.m.
I was about to quote the same bit as Cash did... surely MANY political cartoons include highly offensive imagery to make their point, so judging it without any reference to intended meaning/context is unfair. (And Watson's point about it failing without context is perhaps exactly where it went wrong-- not the use of the imagery itself.) I chuckled a bit at that quote from the student who thinks Promos need 'education'--- were any of them listening to Watson when she tried to explain to them that political cartoons are NOT THE SAME as humorous comics? It sounds like the whole concept went way over their heads. One of my professors in college told the story of being scolded (by a student) in a classroom for uttering the word 'niggardly' in a context that was appropriate and accurate (he might have been reading something, I don't remember details). The students didn't understand that it was a word unrelated to *the* word, they were just having a knee-jerk reaction. Sometimes you just have to THINK a little bit. It sounds to me like Promos is hearing the message that he missed the mark with his cartoon but the indignant kids are not 'getting' that this is more complicated than simply saying that nooses and trees are offensive in every context all the time.
TC
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7 a.m.
I think that Mr. Promo learned that racial issues are taboo. Free speech on this subject is simply not allowed. Promo was brave to create and publish that cartoon, one that had what I consider to be a positive message and that intended no disrespect. I commend him for that. I wonder if those who criticize him are as brave.
Technojunkie
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 7 a.m.
Thats the tree where we met? Thats the tree where they should have kicked your ass Well, at least the FBI hasn't had to advise him on how to go into hiding like that Seattle cartoonist did over "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day". Still, the threat of violence is disturbing. I thought that art was supposed to shock? Christians are told to get over it when blasphemous taxpayer-funded art creates a stir. All this over a 'toon by a mere student? Maybe EMU should mandate a course in Newspeak to avoid such problems in the future? Personally I think that would be double plus ungood.
Steve Pepple
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:55 a.m.
A comment that contained what might be considered a personal attack against another commenter has been removed.
SonnyDog09
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:44 a.m.
Can someone please provide a link to the cartoon in question? It might be good if we could actually see what all the fuss is about so that we can judge for ourselves.
Cash
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:33 a.m.
"Watson explained editorial cartoons usually have some relevance to an issue in the news, and the KKK cartoon had none. For that reason, it wouldnt have run if she was the editor-in-chief, she said." So veiled racial hatred hasn't been an issue recently? Wow. Where has she been hiding? There was an election two years ago........
CincoDeMayo
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:23 a.m.
Right Cash. I think it is good people are offended - by what the cartoon is showing goes on in our world - not by the cartoon itself.
Chip Reed
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:19 a.m.
May I recommend reading the book "Buried in the Bitter Waters". It tells many stories of American racial cleansing in in the years after the Civil War right up into the 1930's. In the appendix, data reveals the extent of this despicable action, sometimes quite close to where we live. Five counties in northern Ohio in an arc from the border with Michigan, near Hillsdale, towards and around Findlay, Ohio became all-white in a short span of time.
Cash
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:11 a.m.
The cartoonist had great motivation and chose a hideous representation of it. How many times do we talk with people who claim great Christian love and yet use hideous racist/ethnic slurs? The point is well taken. The representation of the point is hideous. But in the hideous representation, didn't he really make his point? Love and hate....how far apart are they in many people?
braggslaw
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:10 a.m.
People need a thicker skin...
toadsan
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:09 a.m.
@Alan Goldsmith I know right? If he doesn't get that it offended some people, or doesn't care possibly, what good will this education they speak do? So some people are all sensitive about race. What else is new? People get all hurt at race issues, but they care not about human race issues with the multiple wars in the middle east. We have more important problems in America right now. I get annoyed how minorities are so sensitive about race that certain people are not even allowed to make racial comments. Sure his comic was it bad taste, but people are allowed to make mistakes. I feel like if were directed towards gays or vets nobody would care.
Cash
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 6:03 a.m.
@dading, Yes. Student dollars and tax dollars are spent to TEACH. This is and will continue to be, a teachable moment. Not everything you need to learn is taught in a lecture hall. Much of campus learning happens in "real life" settings like this.
Killroy
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 5:41 a.m.
Well, if there was any doubt regarding the sad state of k-12 education this situation clearly proves that we have a long way to go as a nation. The very fact that a student (or group of students) thought it was okay to proceed with publishing this disgusting racist cartoon means that EMU ought to raise its academic standards, or we need to overhaul the liberal arts education in all high schools immediately. This is completely unacceptable.
racerx
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 5:26 a.m.
As a grad of EMU and someone who has a child currently attending EMU, I just wonder why do some people think that the comic would not have any reverberations? Who approved the cartoon? Is there not a faculty oversight or is the Echo student run only? How was the question "...illustrate the hypocrisy of people..." answered by the cartoon? I just don't understand how people these days would deem it appropriate to suggest that using the history of lynching any where near acceptable. America really needs to have a conversation with each other to begin fully understand how race affects our nation.
dading dont delete me bro
Fri, Oct 8, 2010 : 5:17 a.m.
a forum...? really...? as i stated before (the other annarbor.com article) i thought it was tasteless and wondered what an individual would be thinking to sketch such a cartoon. but a forum? two hours of forum? my student dollars pay for that?