A critical discussion on propaganda and the extent at which it can shape our history
It’s been said by Carr (2008) that “The history we read [...] though based on facts, is, strictly speaking, not factual at all, but a series of accepted judgements”. It rejects the assumption that historians have an accumulation of knowledge which remains objective to their interpretation. It can be postulated that with expansive knowledge, one must decide which facts to make use of; that it’s possible we hear the side of the ‘winners’ and improved media meant history could be manipulated with ease.
Churchill once said that ‘History is written by the victors’ meaning we could be receiving falsified events in order to embellish a victory or create fear to maintain authority, as “structural factors are those such as ownership and control” (Herman and Chomsky 2010, p.11), meaning reports may’ve been overseen by authorities whom controlled the writer’s job security and personal safety. This could’ve possibly changed the path of history, with physical organizations enforcing their mantra through propaganda which is used for “sugar coating bitter pills, of making people accept policies they would not accept spontaneously” (Ellul, 1968, p.21). A technique used by the Nazis was to create a victim for the German people to focus sole blame for their own faults. By infiltrating their ideas, one has civilians defining history as it’s laid out by propagandists. This is referred to as black/ covert propaganda, whereby “The people are not aware that someone is trying to influence them, and do not feel they are being pushed in a certain direction” (Carr, 2008, p.15).
There’re many counterparts to the opinion that victors write history: one being the telling of the Eastern front in World War II because “scholarship adopted the tone set by the losing German generals and veterans [...] summaries tended to echo the wartime propaganda of Goebbels and led to distortions in the literature.” (Clarke, 2013) Likewise, the recount of the Vietnamese War was dominated by American historians; and the Peloponnesian War told by the losing Athenians. It’s disputed that history is simply written by the people who can be bothered, and that facts may not be maliciously misrepresented but a settlement between two variables. ‘Facts of the past’ are deemed unimportant and ‘historical facts’ are deemed important. An example being that Carr claims millions had crossed the Rubicon but only Julius Caesar’s crossing in 49BC was marked as significant. This suggests we should question how historians record information in regards to their own bias and to “study the historian before you begin to study the facts” (Carr, 2008).
Many techniques have been employed in the past to strengthen ‘white’ propaganda, which is when the aims and intentions are known. The first “is to connect the idea or object you are propagandizing with some attitude, symbol, or emotion [...] that appeal to broad, general attitudes or sentiments which are so vague that people may be for or against them emotionally and yet not know precisely what such symbols mean”(Cantril, 1938). Symbols such as: justice, beauty, liberty, economy and patriotism. In 2016 we were bombarded with the phrase “Make America Great Again”, a campaign promising justice against minorities who were to be blamed for the downfalls of America, to be free of the ‘oppression’ of progression and political correctness and repeated words like ‘wall’, ‘Muslim’, ‘They’. According to Cantril the “vague words are so intrinsic to the propaganda that the layman is aware of the manipulation so the second principle is employed” (1938). He claims the aim is “to build up a new attitude around your product or idea by using subtle, concealed suggestion.” The propagandist advances their idea via popular media “to occupy every moment of the individual’s life” (Ellul, 1968); or disguise it as explanation so that “the educators will teach, without knowing it, the things that would preserve the interests of those who now control utilities” (Cantril, 1938).
Propaganda readily penetrates our mind, for reasons which we should understand; the first being that we contextualise words that are lined with emotion, i.e. ‘Muslim’ (unfairly) creates tension around Americans or bigots. Secondly, people are inherently lazy and fear the unknown, so will gladly have views analysed and rationalised for them by an authority to not seem ignorant. Lastly, people won’t actively claim to be more superior to others but will accept it from someone else (with race and social hierarchy). It allows one to feel void of guilt when reaping the benefits of their privilege.
Propaganda’s continued to flourish and “one of the chief reasons for this tremendous barrage is the last development [...] in the mediums of communication” (Cantril, 1938). The benefits of having less outlets in the early 19th century is that the propagandist could be more specific about who they reach without interference of other platforms. For instance Saunders says the CIA “used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell [...] as a weapon in the Cold War” in attempt to encourage expressionism (1995). It’s hard to avoid current affairs with a plethora of knowledge at our fingertips due to internet and social media, yet it’s argued that “these technologies of memory also act as filters or editors. They help us remember much by discarding even more” (Vaidhyanathan, 2011) because material can be edited and kept away from us as easily as it’s presented. One can avoid being influenced by propaganda media because we’ve the ability to research and gather our own knowledge. Social movements can use media to craft their aims and reach millions; the extensive streaming of ‘Black Lives Matter’ events unfolding in America made it possible to see social injustice that’s often not shown, because people are uncomfortable by the magnitude of their own privilege. However the internet can give people a skewed impression of current events; Twitter showed Brexit leaning to Stay because of its use by Millennials and an overwhelming 75% of 18-24 year olds remained, but the platform was not representative of older voters.
It can be assumed that history is built on a foundation of truths, which have been shaped by historians or authorities with a bias relaying of events. Similarly, pieces of the puzzle may’ve been accidentally or purposefully missed out. We continue to make the same mistakes in not owning our ‘history’ by accepting the information we are fed through propaganda without actively deciding our own opinions. One could say that the history we’re currently making will be recorded more truthfully because a multitude of agreeable accounts and footage cannot lie, but every individual will relay a bias message in regards to the context of the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment