The Word
by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
Originally, I drafted this article with a preface about the story Michael Hastings recently broke on BuzzFeed about an amendment to the latest defense authorization bill that would “legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences.” However, as I worked on it this morning, our very own poet laureate and research librarian extraordinaire Elaine Magliaro cut me off at the pass with her own excellent article on the subject. So instead of repeating the points she makes which illustrate why understanding propaganda is important, I will refer you to her post “How about Some Government Propaganda for the People Paid for by the People Being Propagandized?”
Now that the kid gloves have come off regarding the governmental efforts to control your mind by controlling both your information and how you receive it, let’s discuss the nature of propaganda. Now more than ever, it is important to know the basics of how propaganda works. Since words are the basic building block of the English language, we’ll start with asking what is propaganda, look at some general history of the practice, consider the importance of meaning of words, the ideas of connotation and denotation, and the process of selecting “value loaded” words.
What is propaganda? Webster’s defines the word as follows:
propaganda \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\, n.,
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions (ed. note: Not relevant, but interesting.)
2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect
But that’s not exactly what people feel when they hear the word, is it? Why do most people have a negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? After all, by definition, “propaganda” is much like the verb “to persuade” in meaning.
persuade \pər-ˈswād\, v., v.t.,
1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
2: to plead with : urge
Etymologically speaking, the word “propaganda” is fairly new as a political science term. “Propaganda” didn’t come into common use as a political science term until World War I. Even then it was not a pejorative in use like it is today. The word originated (some would say unsurprisingly so) as shorthand referring to the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregatio de Propaganda Fide or the “congregation for propagating the faith”. This committee of cardinals was established in 1622 by Pope Gregory XV to supervise foreign missions. The word “propaganda” is the feminine gerund of the Italian verb “propagando” which in turn is derived from the Latin verb prōpāgō, meaning “to propagate”.
propagate \ˈprä-pə-ˌgāt\, v., v.t.,
3a : to cause to spread out and affect a greater number or greater area : extend b : to foster growing knowledge of, familiarity with, or acceptance of (as an idea or belief) : publicize c : to transmit (as sound or light) through a medium
Clearly the largest distinction between persuasion and propaganda is that propaganda is a form of large scale persuasion. Persuasion isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Changing someone’s mind is a better tactic than violence. Persuasion is at the heart of society’s pillar and replacement for self-help justice and dispute resolution, the adversarial court system. Persuasion is an alternative to coercion.
So what is propaganda? It’s a tool to change people’s minds. Like any tool, it is capable of beneficial use and horrific misuse. This makes understanding how the tool works critical if you want to recognize (and possibly work to prevent) its misuse.
If that is the case the word originally had no pejorative use, then why do most people have an automatic negative reaction to the word “propaganda”? This brings us to the ideas of connotation and denotation. Plainly put, denotation is a direct specific meaning; the literal meaning of a word and nothing more. Connotation is a “something” suggested by a word or thing; an implied meaning. I suggest the negative connotation for the word “propaganda” comes from both the negative denotation built in to the word itself (part of the definition is “for the purpose of helping or injuring” and injury carries the negative notion of harm to self and/or others) and the recent historical use of propaganda to dastardly ends culminating to create an implied negative meaning beyond the definition. The denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. They have to know what the words actually mean, but that is of limited value to them. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. More on that topic as we move along. In the 20th Century, we have seen what truly evil injury propaganda is capable of inflicting on a society. To know how we got to today, it is important to have a bit of historical perspective.
Historically, the idea of propaganda has been around as long as there have been society and governments. For example, in ancient Egypt, the Pharaoh Ramses II claimed a great victory over the Hittites in the Battles of Kadesh (possibly the largest chariot battle in history). The two most common forms of Egyptian records of the battles are known as “The Poem” and “The Bulletin”. Both are found carved into multiple sites in Egypt, all built or expanded upon by Ramses II – one of the greatest builders of ancient Egypt. “The Bulletin” is found on seven different temples or monuments and eight total sites have “The Poem”. When you add numerous other references on papyrus and in tangentially related carvings, this makes the Battles of Kadesh one of the best recorded battles of antiquity. The tale told is of an overwhelming victory for Ramses II and Egypt.
There’s only one problem with that depiction.
It is most certainly a lie at worst and an exaggeration at best.
Hittite records, although not as numerous, all tell the tale of a Hittite victory. Archaeological evidence is inconclusive. One of the two parties is lying and possibly both. Most modern historians have come to the conclusion that the battle likely ended in a draw. Given that, why did Ramses II carve his non-existent victory into stone? Propaganda is the answer. Ramses II wanted the reputation as a strong military leader even if the reality wasn’t so glorious. So he fluffed the details and spread the word that “Ramses II Kicks Ass!” Unless you were at the Battles of Kadesh, who were you to argue with a Living God? Then realizing that his chances for immediate military exploits were practically nil, Ramses II did what any respectable Pharaoh would do and a secondary exercise in propaganda: he returned to the building spree he started as a young man. Some would say the greatest building spree in the history of the ancient Egypt. Just like the Romans after him, Ramses knew that impressive buildings were a kind of psychological warfare – non-verbal propaganda geared at projecting the power of the throne to the masses, but more on this at a later date. The focus here is language and the basics of propaganda.
In the beginning, there was the word. Those with the word were limited. If they could not speak directly, they were limited by how many manual physical copies they could get out to the masses and how many of the masses could read. Then came the printing press in the 15th Century. When Guttenberg invented it, one of the early adopters of the technology was the Holy Roman Empire. By the end of the Renaissance, book making was industrialized to the point that printer/binders could produce between three and four thousand pages per day: a hundred fold increase in production compared to the most prolific of scribes. Books and written material went from rare treasures to common items. As knowledge became democratized, the use of printed propaganda grew in unison: public notices, political flyers and proto-newspapers became cheap and abundant.
The 20th Century was in some ways a Golden Age for deploying propaganda. Unlike any previous age, the 20th Century was the age of mass communications. Industrial mass printing of newspapers, radio, television, telephones and the Internet radically changed the way humans communicate. The word became King and the picture became Queen. Even illiteracy wasn’t the barrier it had posed to the ancient world as the spoken word supplemented the written and the truism that “a picture is worth a thousand words” is a truism for a reason. Even physical handicap was less of a barrier to getting the message out as those blind to the printed word and picture and deaf to the spoken word now had the channel of communication created by the 19th Century invention of Braille. As propaganda is large scale persuasion, mass media provided a natural accelerant. What had previously been a candle of propaganda became a bonfire necessarily becoming a political science term in common usage. The 20th Century saw probably the most devastating use of propaganda to date on any population. Propaganda was instrumental to both the Nazi war effort and their social engineering that allowed them to industrially murder six million Jews, Roma, homosexuals and handicapped. Propaganda was key to the crimes of the Khemer Rouge. Mao’s Cultural Revolution. Castro’s rise to power in Cuba. The wrongful, misguided and likely illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq. These are a few of many examples where propaganda has been used to either garner public support for ethically wrong actions by government or obfuscate the truth to aid the guilty from being brought to justice. This point will be addressed further in a later column, but it goes a long way to explaining how a word of neutral value became a word of negative value due to recent history.
We are still left with the word. As far as the word “propaganda” proper, we know what it means. We know where it comes from. We know the goal of propaganda in general. That leaves us with word choice and the idea of “value loaded” word and how it relates to propaganda. What are words loaded with? They are loaded with implication. This is why connotation is the edge of the propagandist’s knife. Word choice is critical. As I noted earlier, the denotation of a word is not the direct province of the propagandist. The edge of the propagandist’s knife so to speak lies in the connotation of words. However, knowing the proper denotation of words – i.e. having a large vocabulary – puts one at a tactical advantage against the propagandist. If one knows the actual meaning of words, it becomes more difficult for the propagandist to use connotation against you.
For example, consider the use of media outlets like NPR that made a public and conscious decision to refrain from reporting on “torture” – a word with extremely negative denotation and connotation – and instead choosing to use the euphemistic language “enhanced interrogation”. Everyone with a conscience thinks torture is a bad thing and torturers are ethically abhorrent people. It’s not only a Federal crime, cruel and unusual punishment is specifically barred by the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. The word choice here is designed to clearly shift public attitudes from “those guys need to be prosecuted as criminals” to “maybe they aren’t so bad after all”. NPR (aided by the Bush Administration no doubt) chose words with a neutral/positive value load compared to the word “torture”. Connotation plays to your emotional response over your rational response. When the word choice becomes more subtle, the damage of connotations can be even more insidious. Compare:
- war – limited police action
- conquest – liberation
- famine – widespread hunger
- pestilence – outbreak
- death – casualties
Be aware and suspicious of word choice, certainly. Especially when dealing with adjectives as they have by their nature a great capacity to carry connotation. However, it is equally important to consider the speaker. When evaluating something you suspect is propaganda, ask these questions:
- Who is the speaker?
- What does the speaker want from me?
- What advantage does the speaker gain from my agreement or lose from my disagreement? And vice-versa?
- Does the speaker represent other interests that may not be obvious?
- Why is the speaker giving this message now?
What is your first line of defense against propaganda?
Be aware of the meaning and choice of words. To that end, work to strengthen your vocabulary. Buy a “Word A Day” calender or download an app for your phone, use a website or download a tickler program for your computer.
Always question the message and the messenger as well as any who may have sent the messenger. Practice reading with emotional detachment and a critical eye to not only what is said, but how it is said and by whom.
Keep in mind that propaganda is a tool. It is inherently neutral. The good or evil is found in the intent of the speaker and their desired actions and/or reactions on your part.
What is your first line of defense against propaganda? You are. And that is my unhidden message to you: Wake up. Civilization calls. The world is what we make it.
The next article in this series will address methodology, strategy and tactics in deploying propaganda.
~submitted by Gene Howington, Guest Blogger
The Propaganda Series;
Propaganda 105: How to Spot a Liar
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Streisand Effect and the Political Question
Propaganda 104 Supplemental: The Sound of Silence
Propaganda 104: Magica Verba Est Scientia Et Ars Es
Propaganda 103: The Word Changes, The Word Remains The Same
Propaganda 102 Supplemental: Holly Would “Zero Dark Thirty”
Propaganda 102: Holly Would and the Power of Images
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Child’s Play
Propaganda 101 Supplemental: Build It And They Will Come (Around)
Related articles of interest;
id707,
What I said could also imply the moon is made of cheese if the person inferring meaning is simply looking for something that isn’t there.
Whether or not you choose to have a good time playing grabass with the nurses is entirely up to you.
Boot licker,
Your response is disjointed and nonsensical. The retort “That was completely expected. An essential component of the Big Lie strategy is relentless repetition. . . .”? Is a statement about your tactics. That you found a fringe group of radical Jews who wrote something you could cherry pick in support of your ridiculous apologetics for the Nazis is simply to be expected. You are not the only ignorant person in the world. You can even find “Jews for Jesus” if you look. Some people are just born confused.
“And yes, “endless repetition” is an essential component of the Big Lie strategy, which likely accounts for the endless repetition of “atrocity propaganda” against Germany by the same zionist groups that published the banner headline, “Judea Declares War on Germany.””
Ooooo. You stepped up your game to try to pull a Rove. There is only one thing wrong with that. There is no such thing as “atrocity propaganda”. The Nazis actually committed atrocious war crimes. I know this because of the abundance of historical evidence that they did, including discussions with a first hand observer of one of the liberators of Dachau. My cousin’s grandfather was among the American troops who freed that camp. He was neither a liar nor prone to exaggeration. The same can be said of an author I knew named Ben Edelbaum. He used to do book signings all the time at a book store I worked at in high school. We had many hours to talk between customers. His book? “Growing up in the Holocaust”. It recounts his story of being a young boy in Auschwitz. It is non-fiction. I’ve also read extensively about the trials at Nuremberg from both a historical and a technical perspective. The evidence of Nazi atrocities is simply overwhelming.
I think I’ll believe the evidence left by the camps and the witnesses instead of your denier nonsense no matter how often your repeat yourself or try to build rationalizations for what the Nazis did.
Any sensible person would.
TalkingBack, from what you write, and assessing the destructive successes of the “Jewish persons,” I am betting that the Jew Bigots are going to thrash your ass yet again.
Gene wrote: “That was completely expected. An essential component of the Big Lie strategy is relentless repetition. . . .”
the comment consisted exclusively of quoted material. The material was written by Jewish persons. On the assumption that you are at least capable of reading at a fourth-grade level, I assumed your failure to comprehend the words published by Jewish groups was a result of your not having clicked the links and read the actual documents.
And yes, “endless repetition” is an essential component of the Big Lie strategy, which likely accounts for the endless repetition of “atrocity propaganda” against Germany by the same zionist groups that published the banner headline, “Judea Declares War on Germany.”
“Oddly enough, this is something bigots do all the time.”
GeneH,
You say: You have a good time playing grabass with the nurses.
That could imply that I am not “man” enough to play with the you.
Is my understanding of your meaning correct?
Please clarify.
Oooo. Evasion and repetition. That was completely expected. An essential component of the Big Lie strategy is relentless repetition.
The fact that Hitler had been publicly blaming the Jews for everything bad in the world since 1925 had nothing to do with the rampant antisemitism is Germany, did it? Or that Hitler was merely building on a tradition of German and Austrian (and indeed European and Russian) antisemitism he himself encountered in earnest for the first time in Vienna while a struggling artist after WWI. And still, a boycott is not a declaration of war, the AJC didn’t represent all Jews, there was no Jewish state and no Jewish military to declare war on Germany.
Thanks too for pointing to evidence that Jews don’t act or believe as a monolithic bloc either.
Do you often try to win arguments by making the oppositions point for them?
Have you noticed that I don’t blame Germans en masse for the acts of the Nazis and the Nazi controlled German government but rather blame the Nazis proper?
You should look in to the logical fallacy of composition.
You certainly seem fond of asserting that something true of part of a whole must also be true of the whole.
Oddly enough, this is something bigots do all the time.
“A group of Jews declared an economic boycott on German goods. That’s not the same thing as a group of Jews let alone all Jews declaring war on Germany no matter how many times you repeat yourself. A false equivalence is not only a logical fallacy, it’s a form of lie.”
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/zionism/jewishwar.cfm
“The Express said that Germany was “now confronted with an international boycott of its trade, its finances, and its industry….In London, New York, Paris and Warsaw, Jewish businessmen are united to go on an economic crusade.”
. . .
On March 27, 1933 the planned protest at Madison Square Garden was attended by 40,000 protestors . . .
Similar rallies and protest marches were also held in other cities. . . .
Hitler’s March 28, 1933 speech ordering a boycott against Jewish stores and goods was in direct response to the declaration of war on Germany by the worldwide Jewish leadership.
. . .
Growing anti-Semitism in Germany and by the German government in response to the boycott played into the hands of the Zionist leaders. Prior to the escalation of anti-Semitism as a result of the boycott the majority of German Jews had little sympathy for the Zionist cause of promoting the immigration of world Jewry to Palestine. Making the situation in Germany as uncomfortable for the Jews as possible, in cooperation with German National Socialism, was part of the Zionist plan to achieve their goal of populating Palestine with a Jewish majority.
boot licker,
“genius,** I **didn’t “DECLARE WAR ON GERMANY”
That’s a straw man. I didn’t say you declared war on Germany, but I am a genius. Thanks for noticing.
“Jews did.”
That’s a false equivalence. A group of Jews declared an economic boycott on German goods. That’s not the same thing as a group of Jews let alone all Jews declaring war on Germany no matter how many times you repeat yourself. A false equivalence is not only a logical fallacy, it’s a form of lie.
“When a non-state actor takes it upon itself to destabilize the diplomatic relations of two sovereign nations, the citizens of BOTH nations have a right and even an obligation to call them out on it and demand that it not occur again.”
And both the U.S. and Germany did protest the boycott. Protests which according to the terms of our Constitution, the AJC was free to ignore as a matter of protected political free speech under the 1st Amendment. That 1st Amendment! She is a two-edged sword.
“unless you hold that the U S Declaration of Independence is just “a sentence that propagates an idea,” or the NYTimes was just “propagating an idea””
Actually they are both propagating an idea – in the case of the Declaration of Independence a whole set of really good ideas – but the New York Times isn’t the titular head of all Jews. They are in the newspaper business and in the news business, hyperbole sells papers. “Jews Declare War on Germany” sells a lot more papers than “Jews Refuse to Buy Mercedes”. A statement made by a party with no power to represent Jews in any official capacity made a hyperbolic statement to sell newspapers and thus cater to their vested interests in profit. Who’d have thunk it?
“Similar activities ARE occurring again — the “Israel lobby” — a group that lobbies for a foreign government but refuses to register as foreign agents — is subverting the rights of the people of the United States to influence their legislators and leaders in an issue as serious as waging a war that could involve nuclear weapons.”
They are many PACs representing Jewish interests in Washington, so there is no unified “Israel lobby”. If you’re talking about AIPAC being a bunch of war hungry scumbags? You’ll get no argument from me. They’ve been busted twice for harboring spies and they should be put out of business, however, AIPAC does not speak for all Jews or even Israel in any official capacity. There are even Jews who post here regularly who despise AIPAC and the war-mongering far right neoconservative interests that they do represent. You keep making the error of thinking that Jews operate as some sort on monolithic entity behind some vast conspiracy. They don’t. Some of them are indeed rotten rat bastards like AIPAC, but a great many Jews would also welcome a two-state solution to the Palestinian issue because they value peace over Netayahu’s ego and vanity. You are making the error of the fallacy of composition again and blaming the whole for the properties of constituent members of a class. In this case, a very large and diverse class, thus compounding the error in scale. Logic. It’s not just for breakfast anymore. I’d suggest you get some, but at this point given you make the same errors over and over even after they are pointed out, I’m sure it’s just pearls before Nazi supporting swine.
“btw, “gangs of thugs in blue smocks . . .” didn’t “herd” zionists who declared war on Germany OR German Jews “into a gas chamber.”
Forgoing the ridiculous false equivalence that a boycott is a declaration of war (and the fact that you apparently don’t understand what an analogy is or how it works)? No, the people who rounded up “the Other” and herded them into gas chambers didn’t wear blue smocks or work for Wal-Mart. They wore brown shirts with red, white and black armbands and natty black uniforms with Death’s Head insignias on their caps and worked for the Nazi led German government.
You do seem to get awfully worked up defending the actions of the Nazis.
Tell the truth.
It gives you a little wood, doesn’t it?
And I do mean little.
Please, feel free to foam at the mouth some more.
It’s pathetic and a provides perfect examples of the tactics of propagandists. In this particular episode, the false analogy, the fallacy of composition, mischaracterization, hasty generalization, displacement, cherry picking and obfuscation by using a kernel of truth to clothe your lies and distortions. How’s that working out for you, Stormfront?
That was a rhetorical question.
Let me figure this out.
Last time war got declared on Germany, they lost.
Well, I would guess from this that I can handicap the next race.
Gene —
genius,** I **didn’t “DECLARE WAR ON GERMANY”, Jews did. A declaration — particularly one so public and specific as to be printed in bold face type in an international newspaper, complete with details of how the ‘war’ was intended to be waged; and that was reinforced by numerous radio broadcasts, massive protest rallies, several ‘mock trials’ and other events and activities that were, as they were intended to be, destabilizing to US State Department diplomatic activities with Germany, is not just ‘a sentence that propagates an idea” — unless you hold that the U S Declaration of Independence is just “a sentence that propagates an idea,” or the NYTimes was just “propagating an idea” on Dec 8 1941 http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1208.html
When a non-state actor takes it upon itself to destabilize the diplomatic relations of two sovereign nations, the citizens of BOTH nations have a right and even an obligation to call them out on it and demand that it not occur again.
Similar activities ARE occurring again — the “Israel lobby” — a group that lobbies for a foreign government but refuses to register as foreign agents — is subverting the rights of the people of the United States to influence their legislators and leaders in an issue as serious as waging a war that could involve nuclear weapons.
btw, “gangs of thugs in blue smocks . . .” didn’t “herd” zionists who declared war on Germany OR German Jews “into a gas chamber.”
Ever since Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson managed to get the Trayvon Martin case into the media’s eye and mouth, and into the public ear and eye, we have seen propaganda at work. Some of the propaganda was perfectly clear about its goal: to get the feds to investigate what happened down there in Florida, and to get charges drawn by the prosecutor, against George Zimmerman, for killing Trayvon Martin.
Propaganda that showed up “on the other side” wanted to make sure that charges were not drawn and that, presumably, no federal investigation would be instituted into what happened. Yet after charges were drawn and the investigation was undertaken, the “other side” propaganda continued.
I’m looking at that now.
Thought experiment: In the context of a conversation that’s been taking place on the web, perhaps what the Zimmerman side wanted to sell was the idea that on February 26, 2012:
“Trayvon Martin attacked George Zimmerman, giving rise to a general attack by African Americans against Zimmerman and against whites in general.” After all, Taafe actually said it: “This is when George became the victim.”
Sharpton and Jackson, Crump and others, all said that Zimmerman should have been charged with and tried for a crime.
That is a horse of a different color: it was a public declaration of a commitment. To paraphrase an analogy used by writing expert Kenneth Bruffee, such a declaration “is like saying ‘I Do’ in a marriage ceremony. You are taking public responsibility . . , and there is no going back.” [in Writing Arguments, by Ramage & Bean, p. 440]
Just as “I Do” in a marriage signifies “taking public responsibility” for other promised and intended actions, so the February 26, 2012 attack by Martin on Zimmerman, and the declaration by his supporters thereafter that Zimmerman should be punished even more after that, listed its intentions and promised actions. Some of those intentions and actions were:
1. We will not stop demonstrating and turning up the volume on the public outcry until we see action.
2. Seventy-five percent of the American people believe that George Zimmerman should be held accountable for his actions on 2/26/2012.
This statement amounts to a public denouncement of an individual. It blames Zimmerman for violence that was actually the result of an attack upon him, when he was only trying to stand his ground. He and his family have been forced to hide out; his wife has not been able to see her own mother for weeks because of the fear of public exposure; the things that are being said about Zimmerman are all untrue and horrible and designed to cause hatred against him. yada yada blah blah blah.
3. Now the entire Sanford Police Department is under investigation and suspicion and has been badly damaged for no reason other than people trying to second-guess law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties.
4. Public officials in Florida have had to devote substantial taxpayer-paid resources to this case when other cases are far more important and the ability of the state to carry on its business in the best interests of its people is being threatened by this inappropriate outcry.
This big protest movement is twice curious: first, Many African American youths are actually in trouble with the law, and a good number of them actually HAVE burglarized the homes of innocent residents of various nice communities, and thus there was no reason for Zimmerman not to suspect that this was the problem on 2/26/2012.
Furthermore, the activists leading this campaign had led other campaigns that were ultimately judged to have little or no credibility and therefore, to judge this campaign by its leaders, it is obvious that only Zimmerman’s story, and not any alternative story, has credibility. The second curiosity — or irony, perhaps, is that it appears that probably Trayvon Martin was actually a thug and therefore the idea that Zimmerman killed an innocent young man who was unarmed at the time is a gross misconception. He probably only killed a thug who would have been armed and dangerous at the first opportunity, if permitted to go on living. Since George Zimmerman was truly innocent of wrongdoing, and, in the words of the manufacturers of the Trayvon Martin targets in Virginia: “Is Innocent [because] he shot a thug”
The real issue that all who call for his prosecution and punishment are dealing with is their opposition to the good people of this country limiting the criminal conduct of thugs.
[caveat: this analysis is strictly fictional and does not represent the position of this station; it is a political message endorsed by some elves that found their way into the computer lab]
Apparently your failures in self-education include the English language, boot licker.
Both are sentences that propagate an idea.
That one is expressed in the form of a command and the other is expressed as a statement is irrelevant.
Thank you for your fine example of argumentum verbosium though.
You took an awful lot of words to say nothing of any substance.
Gene H @ May 22 1:32 am wrote:
“Consider that the common workplace sign found in restaurants reading “All Employees Must Wash Hands Before Returning to Work” is just as much propaganda as “Jews are destroying Germany!”. The wash sign, however, isn’t about division of the other or destruction of the other but rather about personal hygiene and food safety. That’s an example of propaganda put to good use.”
Seems to be a failure of differentiation in the definition of propaganda. By this definition, Any written or spoken words constitute propaganda.
wrt to specific examples given, this differentiation can be made: The first statement is a command; the second statement, as written, is merely a declaration or assertion. Tested against the definitions you posted; namely:
“2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect”
as well as the definitions of “to persuade:”
1: to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course of action
2: to plead with : urge”
Neither sentence seems to have any propaganda value. The first statement is a simple command: Employees must was their hands.
The second statement, as written, is a simple assertion; it is unaccompanied by evidence to prove its validity, nor by other context calculated to generate a response one way or the other.
Thought experiment: In the context of a conversation that’s been taking place here, perhaps what Gene had in mind for the second statement was a direct quote of the banner headline in the London newspaper on Mar 24, 1933: Judea Declares War on Germany; Jews of All the World Unite In Action.
That is a horse of a different color: it is a public declaration of a commitment. To paraphrase an analogy used by writing expert Kenneth Bruffee, such a declaration “is like saying ‘I Do’ in a marriage ceremony. You are taking public responsibility . . , and there is no going back.” [in Writing Arguments, by Ramage & Bean, p. 440]
Just as “I Do” in a marriage signifies “taking public responsibility” for other promised and intended actions, so the Mar. 24, 1933 Judea[n] Declaration of War on Germany listed its intentions and promised actions. Some of those intentions and actions were:
1. ” If the present plans are carried out, the Hitlerite cry will be:
“The Jews are persecuting Germany.”
that is, it was the intent of the Judean boycott to unite Jews to “persecute Germany.”
2. “Fourteen million Jews, dispersed throughout the world, have
banded together as one man to declare war on the German
persecutors of their co-religionists. Sectional differences
and antagonisms have been submerged in one common aim – to stand by the 600,000 Jews of Germany who are terrorised by Hitlerite
anti-Semitism and to compel Fascist Germany to end its
campaign of violence and suppression directed against its
Jewish minority. ”
This statement includes a Declaration of War AND an allegation of a casus belli – 14 million Jews unite to wage war against the “campaign of violence and suppression” of the “600,000 Jews of Germany.” [side note: in light of Gov. Glynn’s complaint in August 1919 that “SIX MILLION MEN AND WOMEN ARE DYING from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And THIS FATE is upon them through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a BIGOTED LUST FOR JEWISH BLOOD,” the numbers printed in the London Daily Express on Mar 24, 1933.]
3. “[Germany] is faced with an international boycott in commerce, finance, and industry.”
4. ” Germany is a heavy borrower in foreign money markets, where
Jewish influence is considerable. Continued anti-Semitism in
Germany is likely to react seriously against her. A move is on
foot on the part of Jewish financiers to exert pressure to force
anti-Jewish action to stop.”
This declared action is twice curious: first, Many Jewish financiers had expressed to newly appointed Amb. William Dodd their concern over this imposed boycott, fearing that it would impair their ability to collect on the loans made to Germany to repay reparations imposed at Versailles. The second curiosity — or irony, perhaps, is that, as mentioned above, Germany found a way around the money lenders to work its way out of debt, to bring about an easing of Germany’s acute unemployment problem, and to move forward economically, without resort to the world financial markets. THAT may have been Nazi Germany’s greatest offense against the west.
That’s pretty funny considering that entire comment was passive-aggressive (i.e. expressing aggression in non-assertive ways).
You have a good time playing grabass with the nurses.
GeneH,
You are not keeping up with me now. I’m no longer passive-aggressive. Don’t run from bullies anymore. I punch (figuratively) them in their faces if I feel like it. If it is worth it.
I found out about how they work the bully tricks now.
So no sweat anymore. Was good advice from you and MikeS, but now it is a thing of the past. So much more peaceful now. Always good to have a shrink, but as someone said, you have to do the heavy lifting yourself. And I did it.
It was just a question of finding where my fears lay.
Amd you don’t qualify any more as a worry point.
Good luck with yours, if you have any. Apparently opposition gets you upset. But that I’ve said before.
GeneH,
Right you are. Touché.
It was a moment of hubris and amusing myself attacking windmills. Which most of us do. When did you do something dangerous last?
Seems like I know only one here and she ain’t bragging.
Bye y’ll. gone to bed. Sheesh, the hours you keep, six after me. ¨Which means I go up first. The early bird gets worms.
Speaking of worms:
The black thrush’s wife is hunting worms now. Which means the eggs are hatched. And the husband has quietened down. He has no time for warning others now. Food is vital. So they both run and fly, run and fly.
Again, you have mistaken yourself for someone who’s opinion of me matters to me or to anyone of any import to me, id707.
If you find what I write not to your suiting, you are free not to read it.
GeneH,
Good stuff. Even I could understand (somewhat) the strawnan issue. And you as I said will always be you. But when you start casting shit, and MM seems to inspire this in you, you demean yourself and frankly are boring.
As someone wrote once, the others leave the biker bar brawl and go into to salon to drink their tea, occasionally snorting it out of their noses when they are amused at the noise coming from the biker side.
Why in the hell a smart man uses biker tactics is a wonder to contemplate.
Good luck with yours. You need it as long as you show your hairy chest to impress here. And as for nurses. Typical bully browling. NB browling, not brawling.
If I prefer the attentions of women is no concern of yours. As in fact nothing I say and do is. My arguments don’t depend on my manhood qualifications. Do yours?
That I keep getting into your brawls amazes me too.
Particulaly as neither of you are on my level.
But am please you said a little without belittling me and the strawman which I did not honestly understand was appreciate. But your other antics don’t be a magnum cum laude. But I know, you don’t need it, so ignore it.
But I always enjoyed kicking the shins on pompous asses.
Even the one who was my CEO and bossed over 110,000 employees. He only glared at me the day after from the next table at luncheon.
So you ain’t nothing special in my life, Mr Big Frog in a Small Pond. I mean only we are not senators, thank god.
Also, some really nice examples of cherry picking and conflation there, talkingbacktocspan.
I think you should know that I personally boycott Wal-Mart since you seem to think that is a declaration of war.
Strangely enough, gangs of thugs in blue smocks haven’t tried to round up me and my family and herd us into a gas chamber.