Propaganda

Roger Hicks said:
...... I've shot propaganda ...... for the village of Guadalupe in California......
Click to expand...

Roger: are there any of your Guadalupe photos on line? I've bicycled through there twice and always fell behind schedule from spending too much time there. I remember the large mural showing a map of the State of California with Guadalupe indicated along with Los Angeles, San Francisco, and other places. Also the only place I have seen a 1959 Edsel being used as a normal daily use automobile.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
. . . a propagandist takes a position on a subject and then supports it by presenting partial truths and neglecting or discrediting any evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...
Dear Brian,

As noted before, I think this is a regional/personal reinterpretation of a word which does not hold the same meaning elsewhere or to others.

At my wife's suggestion, we looked the word up in a 1968 Funk and Wagnell and in the second edition of the OED (1989). The former does indeed support your view that it is (or was in the 1960s) used in a derogatory sense; the OED does not.

I do not know whether the difference is a question of dialect or time; almost certainly a mixture of the two. But as an English speaker, this explains why I was unfamiliar with the American usage, and why I asked the question I did in the original post.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Limpovitj said:
It may be more ironic than relevant, but the notion that Mussolini made the trains run on time is just a product of fascist propaganda...
Click to expand...
Why am I not astonished to learn this? Even so, I thank you very much for bringing it to our collective attention.

The point is, of course, I'm sure that someone could find something nice to say about him: that he was kind to cats, perhaps. 'Balance' in a case is one thing; but (for example) as long as the Chinese tell only their side about Tibet, there is certainly room for people to put the Tibetan side.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Bob Michaels said:
Roy Stryker was open about the fact that FSA mission was not to create an objective record but to generate images that would elicit public support for the farmers.
Click to expand...

Dear Bob,

Thanks for your contributions to both strands of this question: both the nature of propaganda, and what you do. I was hoping that more people might address the second part, with stories like yours, but most seem much more interested in the semantics of 'propaganda'. This does prompt me to wonder what some of them do shoot, but I fear there is little hope of getting this thread back on the track I had originally hoped.

Most of the propaganda pics I shot for Guadalupe (which I left in 1992) were of the annual Passion Play. Padre Julio Roman was a good friend, and I learned a lot about the politics of the American Catholic Church from talking with him and from paying more attention to news items about the church than I might otherwise have done. Some of these pictures do appear in www.rogerandfrances.com but they are scattered around the site and are not easily pointed out.

Cheers,

Roger
 
Roger Hicks said:
The point is, of course, I'm sure that someone could find something nice to say about him: that he was kind to cats, perhaps. 'Balance' in a case is one thing; but (for example) as long as the Chinese tell only their side about Tibet, there is certainly room for people to put the Tibetan side.

Cheers,

Roger
Click to expand...

Apparently, the only argument made by the Chinese is that

"Tibet has always been a part of China, and must remain so."

The age old "we've always done it this way." Of course the revolutionaries have not always made such an argument.
 
crawdiddy said:
Apparently, the only argument made by the Chinese is that

"Tibet has always been a part of China, and must remain so."

The age old "we've always done it this way." Of course the revolutionaries have not always made such an argument.
Click to expand...

And, of course, even that claim is flatly untrue. But this is veering very close to the 'The Protest' thread, and is even further from my original intention with this thread. I'm not complaining that you've brought this up -- indeed, I'm grateful -- but I fear that there are many people whose attitude can be summed up as either:

My mind is made up: do not confuse me with the facts

or

Tibet is a far-away country about which we know little

Of course, this brings me back to why propaganda is important...

Cheers,

R.
 
I get Guadalupe and Gonzales mixed up. But let us know if you come back to California. We, or at least me me, would like to meet you.

Carter
 
This definition is more in line with what I observe:

"propaganda

Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect."

From:
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
 
Brian Sweeney said:
This definition is more in line with what I observe:

"propaganda

Official government communications to the public that are designed to influence opinion. The information may be true or false, but it is always carefully selected for its political effect."

From:
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Click to expand...

Dear Brian,

Yes, well, that ties in with it being regional rather than time. Or, of course, with an old-fashioned or narrow view in the book you quote.

Interestingly, the word 'propaganda' was used on the BBC news tonight (Thursday 17th April) without a hint of disapproval, concerning John Betjeman and his ode to Miss J. [for Joan] Hunter Dunne ('furnish'd and burnish'd by Aldershot sun'), who died today aged 92. They met, apparently, when he was commissioning propaganda films in 1941 (the BBC's words, albeit from memory, not mine).

Without wishing to be unduly parochial, I prefer the Second Edition of the OED to an American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy. But then, I would, wouldn't I?

Cheers,

Roger
 
Last edited:
Roger are ever coming back to Guadalupe, CA? I know where it is now, I looked it up on the map. I was there many years ago. My son lives somewhat close to there. Let us know.
 
Last edited:
Vic said:
I think the world is being a bit racist. If they were white, nobody would care.
Click to expand...
Sure it's racist. If Tibetans were white, people might care more. But (and I quote a Tibetan friend), 'No-one cares what little yellow men do to one another'.

EDIT: It might be interesting to ballot the inhabitants (or in some cases, ex-inhabitants) of all of the places you mention, to see what country they think 'ought' to rule them, rather than asking their next-door neighbours if they would like to invade.

The Maloumes (as the Falklands/Malvinas are known to the French) are a particularly interesting example. Uninhabited when they were discovered by John Davisa in 1592, East Falkland was first colonized by the French in April 1764; the British under John Byron disputed this, and were kicked out by Spain (who acquired the colony from France) in 1770. They soon returned but closed down the colony (while still claiming sovereignty) in 1776. So Argentina's claim is based on the Spanish take-over of a French colony in once-uninhabited islands that have a colony that is now of almost exclusively British origin.

Hong Kong was leased by the British and returned to China when the lease ran out, so that's an even worse example for your case.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
My corrections and clarifications in bold:

Vic said:
It's quite fashionable for Westerners to be anti-China these days. How is it that they get away with doing the same thing themselves, yet never question their own governments' policies.

Examples:

(1) The Malvinas (Falklands). Isn't that the same thing. Geographically it should be Argentinian, but brute force settled that, the same way as in Tibet, and the British have had a holier than thou attitude about it.

The Falklands were settled by the British, the Spanish and the French long before Argentina existed.

(2) Diego Garcia. The US government was "given" this island in the middle of the Indian Ocean by the kind British colonizers (to counter Soviet expansion); then promptly shipped off all its inhabitatants to Mauritius, where they languish in abysmal poverty, and without any assistance from the richest country that evicted them from their ancestral home (60 minutes did a story on them a few years ago). The island is now literally a permanent aircraft carrier for the US Navy, to control its hegemony of the Gulf Region.

(3) Gibraltar. It's attached to Spain and not to Brighton. It should belong to Spain, yet the British still occupy it.

Legally ceded to Britain by Spain in perpetuity under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht.

(4) Hong Kong. It's only been part of China since 1997. Before then, the British claimed "legal" authority over it.

Legally ceded to Britain by Spain in perpetuity under the terms of the Treaty of Nanking. The Convention of Peking added the New Territories under a 99 year lease. At the end of that lease, the New Territories, together with Hong Kong itself and Kowloon were peacefully and lawfully returned to Chinese dominion.

(5) Guantanamo. It belongs to Cuba, yet the US Government "rents" it in perpetuity for a small sum, and Castro has never cashed the rent checks.

(6) France occupies some Polynesian Islands (think Paul Gaugin), mainly using them to test nuclear weapons and polluting the land. What's up with that?

There are many more examples. Compared to the above, what the Chinese are doing in Tibet doesn't seem to be out of the ordinary, don't you think. I think the world is being a bit racist. If they were white, nobody would care.
Click to expand...

Vic, I don't mind your quoting examples, but please quote relevant ones, and be aware of the history.

Regards,

Bill
 
I have photographed poor people extensively, specially in rural areas, in my own country and elsewhere. Just bringing up unpleasant realities. For me, the term "public relations" reeks of multi-million corporations and dishonest governments.
 
Vic said:
Bill, I'm sure the Chinese were well represented at the Treaty of Nanking.

All these so-called treaties were foist upon the rest of the world by colonisers.
Click to expand...
Dear Vic,

Of course, Spain was never a colonial power... (Gibraltar, Falklands).

And Britain didn't honour the treaty with the Chinese by returning it...

Sorry, you're being a bit selective. Yes, there are some disgraces, Diego Garcia in particular. But as Bill says, you could have chosen better (and better researched) examples.

Cheers,

R.
 
Agreed. I seem to recall that the Treaty of Nanking & Convention of Peking were preceded by some unpleasantness between the British & Chinese empires. Also, the Brits actually got HK in perpetuity; the 99-year lease was for the New Territories. Somehow I think that if China were as inconsequential a power as Cuba, HK would still be a colony, like the Falklands.

I am by no means a supporter of China's annexation of Tibet, but much of the criticism in "Western" countries does seem a bit hypocritical. I mean, come on, practically all of the U.S. is conquered territory, with places like California & Texas being doubly so. Reminds me of Chris Rock's swipe @ the Republican stance on illegal immigration during their convention in San Diego in '96.

If U.S. history is any guide, perhaps the eventual solution will be for China to allow the (surviving) Tibetans to own & operate casinos.

Vic said:
Bill, I'm sure the Chinese were well represented at the Treaty of Nanking.

All these so-called treaties were foist upon the rest of the world by colonisers. I guess those were the times, when the sun never set on the British Empire. The same way the US claims that Guantanamo is a legally binding lease.

As for Argentina, we shouldn't forget that they killed off the native population of blacks and Indians. The term "Cabesito Negro" (black head) is still a term of insult in Argentina, and many were not proud that Maradona became a superstar, the face of Argentina, a land full of Italian and English stock, sprinkled with former Nazis. They are neighbours of Brazil, but have no blacks. Isn't that amazing.

The world has a long way to go, treaty or no treaty. Whatever happened to the concept of ethics and morality. I suppose that is the diffrence between law and justice.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
payasam said:
For me, the term "public relations" reeks of multi-million corporations and dishonest governments.
Click to expand...
Precisely. That's why I prefer the honest term, 'propaganda'. But from what you say about what you shoot, I assume that at least part of your motivation is a belief that others should have unpalatable tuths brought to their attention: a form of advocacy for the poor.

Cheers,

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top