http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ww1.cpi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Public_Information
http://www.firstworldwar.com/posters/usa.htm
Is propaganda necessary during war? Is the Committee on Public Information created by Wilson justified given the “clear and present danger” of the war? These are all small pages, please look at them all and let’s talk. Is war propaganda Orwellian or is it just common sense? Clearly arresting Eugene Debs and suggesting people eat less meat are in different categories, but where do you draw the line?
22 comments:
Is propaganda necessary during war? I don't think so. I think it absolutely helps though. At the start of WWI, Americans didn't really have much of a unified position on the war. Wilson's creation of the CPI and use of propaganda, I feel, definitely brought American citizens together. Nevertheless, I believe that the CPI and what it did was wrong, and I don't think that the "clear and present danger" of the war justifies the creation of the CPI. In fact, there was no clear and present danger to American citizens at all - only to those on merchant ships. Solution: have British merchant ships do all the carrying of goods. If it got really bad, we arm the merchant ships. In regards to the levels of propaganda, I think none of them should exist. Arresting Eugene V. Debs for speaking against the war? Come on. Are we serious? The first amendment - it guarantees free speech. (Well, apparently not after the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act were created.) Suggesting that people eat less meat is a little bit less of a crime, but should the government really be sponsoring a particular industry? I doubt the cattle owners and meat packing industries were very pleased with that. I think that propaganda should not exist - at least propaganda sponsored by the government. There's a difference between a group of people campaigning for a cause and rampant censorship and subsidization by the government.
propaganda isn't necessary but it indefinitely helps. It helps to establish a position on the war. It creates unity and it makes people feel like they are part of the war, that they're doing something for their country, that they too are fighting. To contradict my previous point, proganda may actually be necessary now that i am thinking about it was i'm writing. in war, there is always going to be a split decision and proganda helps to minimize conflict and maximize unity.
Shawn Fateh
i agree with billy in the sense that that progaganda does create unity. it defines a clear position on the war. i think you're overthinking the fact that the government is sponsoring a partilcar industry and the that shouldnt really be the issue whether a particular industry is being sponsored but whether propaganda is necessary. what the gov't did with that whole meat thing was a good thing and that whole particular industry is not really realted.
shawn fateh
You're right Shawn. This isn't completely about whether or not the government is subsidizing an industry or not. (However, I do think it's another issue to be discussed.) The question is whether or not propaganda is necessary or, in fact, ethical, is times of war. My stance is no. I think the American people should decide for themselves whether or not they should support a war effort, and I think they should do that after experiencing unbiased media concerning the situation. Now that brings up another issue because all media sources, unless they present the news from two different perspectives, are, ultimately, biased. Am I being too idealistic in my approach here like Wilson and his 14 points? (Yes! I know my history!)
I feel that certain amounts of propaganda are necessary during war (times of clear and present danger) because it gets the people in support of the war. If the people don't support the war, then it's very hard to win that war. Wilson was elected on an anti-war platform, but after learning that he must go to war, he needed to use propaganda to make the people go with him. However, there is a line that I believe was crossed during WWI. It is perfectly to suggest to the people with posters and advertisements encouraging people to conserve supplies so our troops can have more and to encourage them to join the armed forces. However, I believe Wilson, the CPI, and the Sedition Act were wrong to limit the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution is what makes this country what it is, and it separates us from the oppressive countries, but when we pass laws like the Sedition Act we go against the Constitution. Free speech is and was a huge part of our idealism, but with laws restricting free speech we go against what we stand for. Some propaganda during war is acceptable and even helpful, but other propaganda goes to far and goes against what makes our country different from those we fight against.
Propaganda is a necessary part of modern-day society whether it is during a time of war or peace. I think the point at which it becomes an issue is when we are only seeing one side of the issue, one point-of-view, when censorship comes into play.
Organizations and businesses thrive by selling us their ideas through advertisements, but how we respond to them is our responsibility as consumers. The government is no different than that. It is an organization that seeks our support, and in order to receive our support, they show us pictures and cartoons and tell us how horrible their opponents are. As long as we see the opposition’s argument, there is no problem. The point of having a democracy is so that people can disagree with the government, voice their opinions, and be heard. Once that right is infringed upon (ie the Sedition Act), propaganda becomes a problem.
Even if the opposition represents a “clear and present danger,” they should not be denied their basic right to free speech. Our country was founded on a set of principles that cannot be compromised, even during wartime. If the government begins to strip us of our democratic freedoms, where will they stop? At what point do we become like the totalitarian or dictatorial countries, which we claim to be so superior to?
I think I’ve gone completely off-topic and began rambling. Sorry if this makes no sense.
Although I disagree with Billy when he said that the government should not be able to create propaganda, I agree that censorship and subsidization are not acceptable by the government.
This becomes a really complicated issue once every aspect is looked at. As Billy also mentioned, there is no such thing as an unbiased news source, which brings me back to my original point: while propaganda should exist (because it is obviously unavoidable), we should get to see it from both perspectives of an issue.
In terms of the fact that propaganda unifies us in a time of crisis, I'm not really sure where I stand. I still think we should all be able to hold onto our own views, but what if that is detrimental to our government's cause? If we are not unified in the war effort, is it inevitable that we fail?
I don't know. Once again, I am confusing myself. I definitely think this is the hardest blog yet. Not only am I not 100% sure of my position on the issue because I would need to take account of and incorporate so many different aspects of the debate, I also am unable to articulate any thoughts that I have. AAAAH! Goodnight. Sorry for any of you who try to read this.
I don't think propaganda is necessary, but I don't necessarily think it hurts either. The propaganda during WWI was probably really essential to our success. Some things like conserving food weren't as terrible as denouncing the Germans as savage, but they all contributed to American support of the war. On the other hand, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were completely unnecessary. Those acts definitely violate the "freedom of speech" part of the Constitution, and no one should have been arrested for speaking his or her opinion. Everyone should have the right to voice their opinions, even if those opinions go against the government's wishes, within reason.
Allie makes a really great point in bringing up the importance of being able to see both sides of an argument. The pro-war propaganda was an acceptable, maybe even positive thing, and it's a good thing that the Americans were able to see that aspect of the argument. At the same time, that makes the supressing of anti-war sentiments even worse. If we were unable to see opposite opinions of an argument, we would lose valuable insight, and we would start to break apart the principles on which our country was founded.
Although it is understandable that the government wants its citizens to be unified during a time of war, we have a right to our own opinions. Americans need to open their eyes to more than one side of any given situation and not be completely blinded or manipulated by government's desires and ideals. The use of propaganda to persuade Americans can be a bit dangerous because if a story is fabricated, the information is dishonest and it will reflect badly on the government. It is important to be able to advertise and advocate for war in order to unite a nation, but fabrications in stories are not okay because they persuade people into believing something untrue. I don't believe in censorship of information because it denies citizens of another point of view. Citizens should have the ability to decide for themselves which side of a given situation they agree with. As for the Sedition Act, I think that punishing those who speak freely and have a different stance on the issue of war can be dangerous for the government. Citizens could potentially lose their loyalty to the government if it limits their rights so significantly.
-NISHA
I agree with Shawn in that propaganda helps to minimize conflict and maximize unity, but think about this: if the government has to use propaganda in order to gain support and loyalty of its citizens for a united effort, maybe there shouldn't be a war to begin with. If the war is not supported in the first place, why go to war? I am beginning to think that propaganda is just a corrupt way to manipulate people into thinking something is true, and that is just immoral.
-NISHA
I agree with Shawn that propaganda does create a sense of unity, and I think that this unity is both a good thing and in a way necessary to unite the people to back our country in times of war. War needs the support of the people from that country, and this propaganda is both useful and necessary to rally the people around a united cause. And Billy, I don't think that encouraging people to buy less meat is the government sponsoring a particular industry because while the people don't buy that product, the product is bought for and used by the soldiers--the whole point of encouraging people to ration supplies is to have more of that product to provide for the soldiers. The industry might suffer a little bit, but it is a small price to pay to maintain independence and to help the rest of the world. Also, censorship and propaganda, I feel, are separate things that should be dealt with separately. Censorship is worse than propaganda in my mind because censorship reduces the public's awareness while with propaganda all the ideas are out there, the government just tries to encourage the publics position to one side--but the options are still out there for the public to decide.
Although propaganda will always be present in society, I definitely do not advocate its utilization as a tool to control public opinion. Regardless of the national situation, propaganda is immoral and fake. Yes propaganda may bring some people together, but it does so under false and slightly evil pretenses. Propaganda is lying, no matter how you spin it. Newspapers fabricating stories and exaggerating real reports is totally wrong.
Sean, I disagree with you. I really don't think that Americans should have to be lied to and coerced into a certain opinion. We are supposed to be a free thinking country; our people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves. Allie you make a really good point: we all need to see both sides of every issue. Like I said, Americans are perfectly capable of defining their own mindsets.
I think that propaganda can be good or bad, depending on its purpose. The idea of using propaganda during World War I to establish a sense of nationalism and encourage people to be more active members of our country is a good, beneficial usage of it. However, propaganda in the news that attempts to persuade opinions and that sets out biased ideas as if they were facts is harmful to the community. I understand how the Sedition and Espionage Acts were formed to protect the nationalism and morale of the United States during war, but the restrictions made were closed-minded and irrational, not giving people the ability to form their own opinions.
Additionally, government censorship as a form of propaganda is a debatable issue. Whether it's being brutally honest or merely hiding some of the truth, the media has a huge effect on the war at home. It is the barrier between the front and the mainland. Although some people might want to full, honest truth of what is occurring in the war, there must be a limit of what can be shared and spread. Although I would, personally, not like to be lied to, I understand why government censorship takes place, especially during times of war and crisis.
Allie makes a good point. The censorship the government uses in its propaganda is just a form of manipulation of the public. It is an attempt to persuade people into believing what the government wants everyone to believe. And even though we don't see it all the time, it happens to us all the time even today. From little things, like false advertisement of a product, to bigger things, like propaganda in the presidential campaign. It is something that has evolved into a subtle part of our everyday lives.
I think propaganda is really important to convince people to support a certain cause, even though it can be a necessary evil. Propaganda is often used when the gov’t needs to cover up the truth, so the public will rally with the gov’t as a big, nationalistic force. Especially in times of war, the gov’t needs to use it and to basically deceive people or else the truth can be found and they’ll lose support. I think that America, despite its display of democracy with pride, has used propaganda since day one. When Wilson created the CPI, he knew that he had to tap into the people’s sense of patriotism to rally support for the war. Without some sort of censorship in media, education, art, and the business world, it would be harder to convince the public because they needed a widespread, biased viewpoint to follow. If the truth of the matter was exposed, then they would be less inclined to join the army and be so devoted to the war cause, especially since many wanted neutrality before the war started. By creating laws like the Espionage and Sedition Act, free speech was limited, but it kept people in support of the war since no one said otherwise. Even though we may think that Wilson and the CPI’s extremism was ridiculous (such as adding the word “liberty” to everything), it was really smart to involve patriotism in every aspect of life that made sure that wherever people went and whatever they read, the gov’t had some influence on their beliefs. Eventually, people started to voluntarily involve themselves, which meant that the US gov’t was very successful.
I agree with Coco that the gov't needs to do some convincing to earn support. From the government's standpoint, they need to persuade people to join there side and be active in the war cause. Personally, I hate war and censorship and any sort of persuasion that is pressed on us by the gov't, because the US always praises itself for being democratic and in support of free speech, etc. But in a time of war, no hard-lined anti-war people are going to switch sides because of propaganda, so it shows that teh gov't is not all-powerful by limitting what Americans watch, read, or hear.
When tensions are high during war, teh gov't feels the need to establish who's the "good guy" and "bad guy." So i think propaganda was justifiable in WWI, for the biggest world powers were fighting against each other, and the US, as a single nation, needed to make sure that Americans supported America.
and i accidentally posted the same thing 3 times, so that's why they're deleted
Although I do not think it is right, I do believe that propaganda is necessary to wage a war. It is completely illogical to risk one’s life for something without a clear notion why or a single belief worth fighting for. Propaganda, whether honestly or not, provides the simple and memorable reasons needed to stir people to fight. Propaganda targets the beliefs that people hold dear and threatens those beliefs in order to manipulate a crowd to act in a particular way. It can create a machine of unity without a thought for logic.
This is a scary thought to me. As Nora said, it’s evil! Maybe I’m being idealistic, but I think people should be given the opportunity to process information and make their decisions in a logical way without being manipulated down a single alley of thoughtless devotion to a cause. If that cause is a moral one I guess propaganda’s okay (if it rallies support where there wouldn’t otherwise be any), but as for the Great War, I’m still not convinced we had any right or reason to fight in that war.
Frankly, I don’t think absolute unity is a good thing. It disconnects people from reason. If everyone agrees on everything, who will question? I agree that propaganda can be a useful tool in uniting for practicality, but more important than getting things done is getting things done justly. Big choices should not be easy. It’s corrupt to rob people of their honest opinions.
In an age where an almost infinite amount of information is at our fingertips, it's hard for us as members of "Generation I" to realize just how powerful and necessary propaganda is/was. Remember, during WWI, there were no cell phones, TVs, internet, or computers even. People could not easily leave their immediate environments either. All information came from the papers, word of mouth and one's surroundings. in reality, if people are exposed to less, they're much more likely to comply and agree with the ideas surrounding them. Look at North Korea, perhaps the most oppressive "nation" in existence. AND YET, people love Kim Jong-Il, truthfully (not out of force). He has mastered the art of taking everything so that every little bit he gives back ("The Americans stole it from us") is received with great praise. This is propaganda to the extreme, and its success is unarguable. In times of war, the only way a nation consisting of millions of people is to assert an image of value in the cause, otherwise there WOULD be no support. Honestly, who WANTS to fight? No one. But if you ask, who want to die for democracy, or who wants to die for their nation, or who wants to help eliminate evil in the world, THAT's what people fight for. The only way to get that message across is via propaganda. We're slammed with it every d ay with those marine ads, army ads, etc, that have been tailored to our generation. For us, instead of saying "FIGHT FOR PEACE", they've switched to a tone saying "Gain experience for your future." This is due to the higher number of kids focused on college and careers than in the past, as competition for jobs increases. It IS propaganda. You could go into the military, learn technical skills, how to take direction, and get into great shape. OR you could simply get a job. Same outcome, except the propaganda gives the military option this romantic edge, portraying a life of honor, bravery, and respect. For those who aren't observant enough to see right through it, they buy into its ploys and the US gets another addition to its roster, and another kid gets exposed to grave danger.
Post a Comment