My artifact originally appeared in the Star Tribune (largest newspaper in Minnesota) and was created by Steve Sack. Steve is a Pulitzer Prize winner in 2013, the same year this political cartoon was created. As my generation has come to age we’ve started paying more attention to politics and world issues. It’s worth noting that there have been immigration issues in the US long before President Trump was even a thought in our mind, as this clearly impossible path to citizenship cartoon was released in 2013.
This artifact’s importance lies in the strong imagery conveyed. There is not only a path to citizenship, but an impassible path TO the path to citizenship. While political cartoons are simplified versions of real issues, they do a great job of depicting the issue quickly for political discourse. Political cartoons have some irony and exaggeration in them, which is why they’re so effective and still widely used in physical media despite the introduction of technology. There is not literally a pit full of dangerous creatures, brick wall with barbed wire, quick sand, and land mines on the path to citizenship but there is POLITICS which is clearly states as well. This helps the viewers of the cartoon understand the struggles and hopelessness of being granted citizenship in the U.S.
Why are political cartoons so effective at drawing attention to policy and corruption? How does the media use these bite-sized images to further encourage political discord, and what is the line between thought provoking imaging and propaganda?
I plan to use the two short videos “No Way” and “Think you know ICE?” as thought provoking media artifacts from class. Although they are video formats, I believe the message still remains the same. They’re short, but pack a lot of information during their time which can be related to the single political cartoon I’ve chosen. These two videos also represent some of the “impassable obstacles” on the “path to the path to citizenship”.
for future reference :
How does (my artifact) do x, y, and z?
Hi John,
Overall, this is a promising proposal. You take up the subject of the genre of political cartoons as a device, and it’s a great idea to expand on that discussion in the paper itself. See if you can incorporate some existing research on the power and limitations of political cartoons.
One thought — if you find that this one artifact limits all that you have to say about political cartoons and their role in the migration debate/narrative, you could consider adding an additional cartoon or two (from dissimilar perspectives) to make wider and more comparative claims about the genre. But if this single cartoon encapsulates that for you, no need to go that route.
I look forward to reading this!