History | Between Asgard and the Western Paradise

Archive for the History Category

May 15 2008

Propaganda in 21st Century America

Posted by: 阿偉 in History, The Modern World

Many people who study history are already familiar with the propaganda posters of the early 20th century. As early as World War I, the Americans used a variety of propaganda and public service announcements in order to convince citizens to contribute to the war effort. They are immediately identifiable in their artistic stye, and have become a part of the American ‘cultural’ identity.

Today, many people might speak of ‘Chinese propaganda’ or ‘Arab propaganda,’ when referring to opinions that they don’t agree with, but few realize that America still generates a large deal of propaganda themselves. The primary difference is that control of propaganda has passed from the government to the private and corporate sectors, and as a result, is not immediately recognizable. For example, consider this cartoon from shortly after the September 11 attacks. The purpose of this piece is two-fold: it not only asks liberals, homosexuals, feminists, and athiests to undertake an ideological battle against the “right-wing fundamentalist” Taliban, but tells ordinary Americans to fight terror by encouraging these groups. Although it may lack the virile symbolism of “socialist-realist” propaganda, the tone of this propaganda piece still echoes the far-left socialist axiom of using ideology as a “hammer which we use to crush the enemy,” or “supporting everything the enemy opposes”.

Government propaganda still exists, but has taken on a form altogether different from that in World War II. During WWII, many propaganda posters focused on developing a concerted war effort in all areas. Thus, they not only encouraged people to save materials, but also that the war was going smoothly to increase the morale on the home front. After World War II, such propaganda became less and less common. Those old enough might remember the Village People’s hit 1972 song “In the Navy,” which was actually intended for use in recruitment ads, until there was a dispute over the appropriation of taxpayer funds for the musical group. With the rise of professional and corporate advertisment, military recruitment propaganda changed its appearance completely, is now euphimistically called “advertisment”. However, while government propaganda in the domestic sphere has been relegated to commercialist natures, the functionality of the product is essentially identical: to convince dedicated young people to join the army in the service of their country. Internationally, the American arm of propaganda consists of Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe, and Voice of America, all of which attempt to favorably sway non-Americans to sympathize with America, America’s allies or American interests in the name of democracy.

This brings us to our next point. Another aspect of American propaganda is found in the media. At first, some Americans might deny this, citing that America has a “free press”. Despite being free in the spirit of the law, the media does often favor certain perspectives, helping to enforce stereotypes and acheive political ends. Thus, through a process of selectivity and clever misuse of logic, the media is able to influence the opinions of the public at large. As an example, nations like Iran are seldom mentioned except in a negative context. A more recent example that some people might be familiar with is the treatment of the Olympic Flame relays in Europe and North America. There was relativley little coverage of those who came out to support the Flame, and many Chinese overseas complained that the media chose to focus on the protestors. This may speak to the tendency of American tendency towards a more cynical media which reports negative facts, but is nonetheless an example of one-sidedness. Of course, all media has biases, and we should not make the mistake of believing that a propagandistic media is exclusive to the United States.

Comments 1 Comment »

Feb 13 2008

The Tibet Question and Political Correctness

Posted by: 阿偉 in History

I first encountered the Tibet Question many years ago, when I was still in high school. Some young students had taken it upon themselves to wear shirts with Tibetan flags, with the catchphrase “Free Tibet” written across them. At first, I did not think much of this, but gradually my interest piqued, and I decided to do some research on the topic. However, I did notice a curious thing among the participants in the meetings; nearly all of them held socially liberal beliefs, and with the exception of a single young man who loosely fit the mold of a “Republican,” when I attended meetings, I found myself among a sea of socialists, feminists, militant vegans, and self-proclaimed anti-fascists. At the time, I was very young and rather sympathetic to the CCP, so I of coursed opposed them for some very different reasons than I did now.

Though the general clamour over the Tibet Question has died down since it emerged as one of the fads of the 90’s, there is still a consensus in the West among the many varieties of liberals and social-leftists that China is in the wrong, and that Tibet is in the right. Ask the average American on the street if he thinks Tibet should be free, and he will likely say “yes.” Whether or not he can tell you why, or even find Tibet on a map is a different story. Sympathy often plays a role; after all, Tibet is the ‘little guy’ compared to China; and who doesn’t want to stick up for the “little guy”?

Historical considerations aside, the stream of political correctness pervades most debates on the Tibet Question at the academic level. In an extreme example, some have even gone as far as to set up the Tibetans as a “dark-skinned indigenous minority” being constantly persecuted by “light-skinned Han Chinese,” giving the Tibet Question a Afrocentrist framework. Deconstructivism comes into play here - disagreeing with the leftists who support the independence of Tibet is being ‘anti-Tibetan’; not supporting an independent Tibetan state is being ‘racist’; and so on. Of course, Tibet seems to be a special case in this regard. One can say that Palestine should not exist, but he would not be considered a racist (in fact, he might get criticized as an ‘anti-semite). One can criticize the Pope without being accused of being ‘anti-European’ or ‘anti-Catholic’. Surprisingly, these accusations come from the Western supporters of Tibetan independence, and not from many Tibetans themselves.

Some of those who advocate “Tibet independence” tend to classify the world into “pro-Tibetan” and “anti-Tibetan” camps. In fact, Gareth Sparham, when reviewing the book “Buddhism in Contemporary Tibet” did just this. He accuses three authors as being “anti-Tibetan” and praises two for being “pro-Tibetan.” I think this shows a tendency among those who hold such views and conceptual biases to polarize the other side. In the case of Sparham, it seems he has split the World into either pro-Tibetan people or pro-Chinese and therefore anti-Tibetan. This logic is fundamentally flawed; for it assumes that it would be possible for someone to be “for” Tibetans only if he or she is “against” Chinese, (I would also say the same is true, to a lesser degree of the PRC government). Such people may believe that by such categorisation, they are indicating the related politics, but in reality, they hardly ever speak of Chinese politics but rather of “the Chinese.” This whole attitude, I find is very detrimental to those who are concerned about Tibetan relations with China, for it casts many neutral or genuinely peace-driven Tibetans along with their militant supporters, and drives a wedge between more moderate Chinese.

Even expressing a view deviating from the mainstream discourse can bring about verbal attacks. In the West, it is viewed as a very cut and dry fact that ”Tibet was invaded in 1951.” In reality, differing interpretations of history may include the phrases ‘resumed administration’ or the like. Personally, I have experienced harassment, since I —a social conservative of Han ethnicity who takes an interest in all religions — have had the wherewithal to have an opinion on Tibet (on a side note, I have also recieved criticism from fellow Chinese because of my support of the Dalai Lama). Most interestingly, such verbal attacks from the pro-Tibet camp, like those mentioned above, come once again from Western Tibet-supporters than from Tibetans themselves.

Of course there were and are still major problems in China-controlled Tibet—problems of economy, ecology, and human rights. Nevertheless, to so resolutely demonize China by voices from all over the World is to never solve those problems. One who really tries to look deeply into the issue, tries to figure its nature and analyze the specific problems can easily realize that things have changed in Tibet. Tibet of today is very different from the one of 20 years ago, and not all of the changes are bad. In addition, if changes could happen there, it makes further changes in the future plausible. Although there is control and, partially, suppression, a great many monks and nuns live in monasteries and temples, which again account, according to my personal estimate, to a number of at least 3,000 all over the Tibetan Highland. At least 150,000, maybe even more than 200,000 monks and nuns all over the Plateau are doing their best to revive and keep alive Buddhist traditions and teachings. Tibetan culture is not non-existent in Tibet herself. It would be unfair to say so, unfair towards all the Tibetans who are living it actively and even developing it further.

Sparham says, “Knowledge is itself socially constructed.” Therefore, to him many of our so-called “truths” are constructions or, at least, severely inclined interpretations of what we believe to be the truth. The unhappy thing about Sparham realizing this is that he does not reflect on whether the West’s Tibet image might be a weird construction as well. Old Tibet having been a Shangri La has become a Western “convention,” which is yet about to be deconstructed by many Tibetologists, including quite a number of exile Tibetan scholars. However, many people do not want to have it deconstructed, as this would mean their views have been wrong for a long time. This is why they repeatedly discourage open debate or criticize people who speak against them. It comes down to this: today’s leftist intellectuals put so much pride on distancing themselves from reality as possible. After all, if we could read the truth from books, or weighing words equally, instead of simply being told what it was, we wouldn’t need so many leftist intellectuals after all — and that is exactly what they don’t want.