True. I do think that there is a qualitative difference, though, between propaganda to convince someone of a very specific position with regards to history like “June 6th incident was a tragedy but caused by a CIA coup” and this sort of general encouragement propaganda. But both are propaganda surely
of course, one was intended to mislead to accomplish covert and overt political actions by the upper class - but also the story behind that muscle girl is as misleading as the June 6th one tbh - women got encouraged to enter the work force, then when the war ended they where told to go back in the kitchen and wouldn’t gain rights like laws against martial rape, no fault divorces, the ability to own a bank account or the ability to drink alcohol in a pub till the 90s - It was a promise of rights and of autonomy that was ripped away from them.
To be clear, I totally take the Chinese side of the June 6th incident, the side with actual facts, witnesses, etc. By you using that phrase, I assume you do too, but for the sake of this thread I’m going to make that clear.
I agree that propaganda also Always implicitly and explicitly makes an argument for the entirety of the society and current ideological push of the class/state that creates it! But whether that is implicit (the propaganda can be directly true or have no “truth” value at all, but is undergirded by lies) or explicit (June 6th as China says is the truth, not the other claims) is a difference which is relevant to mention for convincing the OP of this thread, and for making our arguments clearer
Yeah with any propoganda you really just need to evauluate everything in a wider context and see what its doing and how its saying, and also it in contrast to what actually happened and the historical context it exists within.
All that to say propoganda can still easily be accurate, truthfull and not misleading - its a perspective with all that entails behind the author and is a medium like any other.
True. I do think that there is a qualitative difference, though, between propaganda to convince someone of a very specific position with regards to history like “June 6th incident was a tragedy but caused by a CIA coup” and this sort of general encouragement propaganda. But both are propaganda surely
of course, one was intended to mislead to accomplish covert and overt political actions by the upper class - but also the story behind that muscle girl is as misleading as the June 6th one tbh - women got encouraged to enter the work force, then when the war ended they where told to go back in the kitchen and wouldn’t gain rights like laws against martial rape, no fault divorces, the ability to own a bank account or the ability to drink alcohol in a pub till the 90s - It was a promise of rights and of autonomy that was ripped away from them.
To be clear, I totally take the Chinese side of the June 6th incident, the side with actual facts, witnesses, etc. By you using that phrase, I assume you do too, but for the sake of this thread I’m going to make that clear.
I agree that propaganda also Always implicitly and explicitly makes an argument for the entirety of the society and current ideological push of the class/state that creates it! But whether that is implicit (the propaganda can be directly true or have no “truth” value at all, but is undergirded by lies) or explicit (June 6th as China says is the truth, not the other claims) is a difference which is relevant to mention for convincing the OP of this thread, and for making our arguments clearer
Yeah with any propoganda you really just need to evauluate everything in a wider context and see what its doing and how its saying, and also it in contrast to what actually happened and the historical context it exists within.
All that to say propoganda can still easily be accurate, truthfull and not misleading - its a perspective with all that entails behind the author and is a medium like any other.