The Use of Propoganda

Prompt:

Is it okay for the government to mislead in order to promote nationalism?

Propaganda is a term that refers official government communications released to the public in order to influence an opinion.  Statistically the use of propaganda increases in times of war or international conflict. As propaganda is heavily biased it has a tendency to provide extremist views in order to voice a strong opinion. Also a group tends to favor certain information and in a sense may provide a misleading image to their audience as the "whole story" is not visible.  The documentary "control room" aims to voice that the broadcasting network Al Jazeera was the only broadcasting station at the time of the Iraq-USA war that showed the public the "entire story".  

Governments have been known to withhold, spin and even at times fabricate information in order to promote a sense of nationalism within the country's civilian population. Personally I do not agree with this ideology. A government of a country is one of the key foundational elements in a nation and not only do they voice the views and opinions of a nation but they also influence and impact other worldwide audiences. When there is a sense of instability in the foundation it is obvious that the structures surrounding it will also be impacted. Similarly when this key establishment misleads the public there will be an impact, in this situation a negative one. For example in the United States there tends to be large parties with opposing extreme ideologies. When the information presented to them is misleading the claims they build off of this original idea will be irrelevant and inaccurate.

 In the documentary it was evident that the director aimed to portray Al Jazeera as a superior news-reporting station and claimed that they were more reliable than the American news coverage. There is even a section in the documentary where there is a clip from an interview with an American official stating that the images and stories broadcasted to their audience is in a sense "fake “as Al Jazeera would quote "go find children and crying women to act as if they were in pain". From prior understanding it was stated from President Bush that Al Jazeera was the "mouthpiece to Bin laden".  Hence it is clear that this was a form of American Propaganda which was "spun" from an original source (Al Jazeera) to clarify to the American Public that there was no large negative consequence from the bombing of Baghdad.

The Jessica Lynch story is another example of how propaganda has been theatrically spun in order to sway the public’s opinion through misleading information. Jessica lynch was put across as a war hero rescued by her American comrades in Iraq. It was stated by the Pentagon and United States news broadcasting network that she was “shot” and interrogated by soldiers in a hospital where she was being held hostage. Her miraculous “prison-break” was used as propaganda for the American Public with a negative outlook on the Iraqi people holistically.  This story was sold well in the States and the nationalistic view and patriotic response increased. After the initial story was released there were apparent discrepancies with resulted in counter-stories being released with perspectives of the actual patients and doctors in the hospital who claimed that there were not any armed individuals in the hospital. They also claimed that the Americans had used this story as way of communicating to the American public with video footage in a dramatic “Hollywood” style way. This use of propaganda to form the public’s opinion is not only negative but in some ways also completely fiction.  Yes this did initially result in a increased patriotic response but after people understood the counterclaims it made them question their government. 

Class activity : Bias

Original Article:
 http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/hillarys-view-benghazi-we-live-dangerous-worldwe-have-learn-things
(Side note: This is a class activity, in no way do I support the claims made in the following passages)

Being the secretary of state at the time Hillary was in charge of ensuring national security Did she deliver? In simplistic words no. As this woman runs for presidency it makes sense to look at her past and dig up the real skeletons so you know the kind of person you are voting to run and ensure the success of our nation.

Hillary claims she was blindsided by the tragic events of the Benghazi crisis where our nation lost the beloved souls US Ambassador J.christopher stevens and U.S foreign service information management Officer Sean Smith. America's tragic heroes fell at the hands of another American , Hillary Clinton. There has been much speculation to whether Hillary had a faint idea but according to the evidence she did. There have been recordings and reportings of the then secretary of state receiving emails from her top aids about the security precaution from Libya. The messages are a part of a collection of back and forth information exchange with over 250 messages made public. The messages not only reveal the truth but also expose Hillary's thinking and "executive style". 

After the initial public shock of the crisis Hilary was not done. It was uncovered that she intentionally cut security and silenced her witnesses. After silencing her witness she still had to clear her name so she lied about the video which was leaked. In the video Hillary blamed the deaths explicitly on the "libyans" holistically. Even as she stood over the caskets of the fallen heroes she denied to tell the truth and had the audacity to tell the parents that the maker of the video was responsible.

Not only did Hillary lie to the public but she lied to congress as her entire story unwinds it is clear that Hillary can not be trusted. A woman capable of lying and keeping the truth from not only the public but fallen heroes just proves that she  does not have the right to hold a position of honor in our glorious nation's government.

Sylvia Plathe Lady Lazarus

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxlDC1rJ8toCSkN2b0xob2Q1dG41dE9BWDVGZzlKYjNleHpJ

Family Furnishings

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxlDC1rJ8toCcE5DVTRLTEQyM2c

Boys and girls

https://drive.google.com/drive/my-drive

you should be able to download it

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxlDC1rJ8toCVi1oMFduWTlVV1k

English Class Activity

What is the purpose and benefit of the study of literature? 

Literature helps in so many areas.  After doing the activity in answering this deep question I was provided with so many answers. Firstly literature provides one with a way to escape to another landscape. By studying literature critically one also develops social skills by connecting with the character on an empathetic level. This is because literary characters are representations of life at the particular moment in time and also because they are human just like you and me.  The purpose is not only to over analyze so that you can answer that one question on your exam, no! Its so much more than that, it helps build your vocabulary (especially if you're shakespeare). By learning the skills you do when analyzing literature you are able to apply them to real problems, you face socially and economically.

What is women’s literature and what is the value in studying it? 

"Women's literature is literature written for women by women". As part of this is true I feel women's literature is a form of art. Just like any art form it provides women with a stream to voice their opinions and views freely. Although the modern voice of women today is highly respected, at the time many famous women's literature came out women did not have the voice they had today. The value of studying it is quite similar to history. I feel history helps one reflect on the past in order for them to shape their future. It even works on a greater scale to help avoid the problem that is presented in the past, present, and future. Just like this I feel the value in studying women's literature is to help understand the conflicts women faced in the past in order to avoid them in the future. It also helps gain a perspective of how times have changed. 

Why were the themes and values of Munro’s social realism so significant during the 1950s-1980s? 

Munro was one of the first female author's in that time whose work revolved around the conflicts of women and social realism. She was one of the first author's to tell the realistic truth on the social struggle of women.  This realistic portrayal today helps us understand and realistically shape the society during the late 1900s

Although she does not identify as a feminist writer, how has Munro’s work contributed to gender equality? 

Munro did not identify as a feminist writer but her work did help towards the women's equality movement which ended in women getting the right to vote. Munro's work as stated earlier was a realistic depiction of women's role in society during the late 1900s. Her work expressed the socially issues women faced, and after having multiple stories published in the New Yorker she gained a certain "respect" in the literary society.  So in a sense her rising in that community and her work together contributed to gender equality. Her work was also used by many feminist writers as inspiration in order to continue the movement. 

What do you enjoy most about the content of Munro’s work and what impact has it had on you?

Personally I did enjoy Boys and Girls because I found somewhat of a similarity between that plot and themes to the stories by grandmother's have told me about their lives. Neither one of my grandmother's were given the opportunity to do manual labor or have a job.  This story had an impact on me because I was able to see the realism in her work at this stage. I also enjoyed Runaway because even though it was written at a later time it somewhat relates to the relationship status of our community. 

Summer blog posts

Post 1

As I sat at my local coffee shop sipping my artisanal latte I had an epiphany. What is with it with people reading at coffee shops and why has it become such a universally accepted thing. Not that I am one to talk, here I am drinking coffee and reading what seems to be the longest not so short story ever by Alice Munro. Well drinking is the same eating so why is that reading the dinner table is considered rude, and reading at a coffee table is more than just the norm but considered weird if you doing anything else (tested that one by playing temple run on full volume in a quite café). The thing the stuck me is that this isn’t something that’s just a thing in India, but it happens worldwide, so how or rather where did this universal tradition come from? From my understandings afternoon is considered to be a moment of relaxation therefore a coffee in needed to wake you up, but doesn’t reading a novel just make on want to fall back asleep? I did a little research on ye old faithful internet and found a few interesting theories. First of all people who sit alone at coffee shops don’t look “lonely” if their noses are buried in books, which is actually quite clever, points to that kid.  Secondly the amount of caffeine in your coffee and how much you actually understand from the book go hand in hand. Finally international corporate companies such as Starbucks and Barnes and nobles push one to indulge in both their products at once by putting their shops inside each other by selling this ideal of comfort in a chair with a book in one hand and a coffee in the other. They obviously have a secret agenda but the truth of the matter is, I too indulge in this international tradition and can honestly say I enjoy it, so I will go back to my not so short story and my latte. Byrista (coffee humor)

Post 2

Over this summer the idea of archetypes were something that stood out to me. I am not sure why, but after seeing multiple plays and constantly rereading the tempest was getting to me to the point where I was seeing a recurring role which in a sense made me curious about the basic archetypes good and evil. Looking back at my life I could see that there are extremes but not in my everyday life. I decided to reflect on myself and see where I fit on this scale of archetype extremes.

I am many things. The little intricate details make me. I reflect myself and my family both physically and mentally. If one had to pick an archetype that most fits me they would choose the innocent but I see myself as a rebel.

Carl Gustav Jung a psychologist came up and used this theory of archetypes to help us better understand the human psyche. He came up with a concept which would help us identify and relate to common types of people in stories and life. He believed that we all could relate to these characters/archetypes from our collective unconscious. There are a variety of different archetypes from the bold and courageous heroes to the rebels.

The rebel in me comes out every day. In context of my family my rebellious qualities are quite bold. Being the oldest in a family one is expected to set a good example for the younger children but in the eyes of my parents I am not a good role model because I do the opposite of what they ask. Small examples include not listening to simple commands like clean your room to or large ones like sneaking out.  By managing to lock myself out from them, tension has been raised. Disrupting family traditions and etiquettes by shocking actions has cast me out to be an outlaw. Love was once there for and in me but with the years of hurt, anger, and pain my mind has automatically turned off to building strong relationships with my family and peers.

My biggest fears are of being the worst in activities which I practice strenuously in and enjoy. Dance being one of these, is something I have received adulations in. Dance has always brought joy to both me and my family and it is one of the only things we can connect in. Being average is out of the question for me because when there are people who excel me I feel like I have lost the only connection I have with my family. Being ineffective in what I love the most is both scary and motivational for me.

In my recent 17 years I have not displayed my rebellious qualities publically because I did not see the need to show them. Society sees me as they do every other teenager rebellious and repulsive. Acting without thinking. The only intentional way I make myself to be is strong. Weakness for me is looking weak and powerless as for I feel people will have leverage over me and can easily manipulate me. Coming from a country where crime is at a high toll I’ve been taught how to act in order to sustain myself in society. Almost every woman can relate and think I may have gained this quality from family stories.