Marco definitely is realistic about the past and present effects of propaganda and the role it plays in society. It is clear that not only the definition of propaganda has transformed throughout the years, (reference to Linebarger and Doob), but there are many other factors in society causing this change. When Linebarger states how propaganda is, “mass-produced communication…”, I can’t help to ask myself what isn’t a mass-produced communication now a day? If this is the true definition of propaganda, then I think almost every type of communication, whether it is a brand on a billboard, or a logo in a store window, or a banner ad via the Internet are all forms of propaganda. This may very well be true, but then why does the word propaganda even exist? I agree that with every movement we take today, we are hit with either someone trying to bribe us, persuade us, or sell us something. However, I don’t necessarily think that all of these tactics can be considered propaganda. Propaganda, to me, has a certain view or bias. Coming from an advertising major, some advertisements work to please a large target audience. And by pleasing them, it is to appeal to their values and attitudes with a product, not to necessarily change their mind and make them act a different way. It can definitely be a toss up, but I feel that people are taking the term propaganda and spinning it into a powerful evil force that is overtaking society.

I like how Marco was sensitive, yet to the point and honest regarding the article “Representations of Arabs/Arab Americans”. I agree that stereotypes one hundred percent play a role in shaping the public’s view on different races, values, cultures and social standards. However, sometimes stereotypes are shaped based on a specific reason, whether it be a major public event, a political raff, or just a social problem that reoccurs in society. Marco admits that’s stereotypes are in fact more harsh on Arabs and Arab Americans, but this is also partially due to the September 11 attacks and the events that occurred afterwards. Being a New Yorker, a specific event I remember were many Arabs/Arab Americans selling memorabilia’s around ground zero after the attacks. I remember having a sense of anger and wanting to ask them why they were making a business off of the terrible event. This may have been a personal opinion of mine, but it could have also been shaped by propaganda on the news and stereotypes it shaped of Arab/Arab Americans. If the news had never put ideas in my head about these individuals, chances are I would have never felt that way at such a young age. Interesting to think about now looking back on ten years ago.

Vincent’s Global Communication and Propaganda is an interesting introduction to not only propaganda but also to how it affects us nationally and internationally. He seeks clarification on what propaganda is, establishing what seems to be middle ground between the positive and negative definitions of it (much like our guest speaker did today, which I was very happy about when it came to such a controversial, though relatively misunderstood or unknown subject). He then goes on to examine the more modern uses of propaganda in public relations, wartime and terrorism. I liked how he analyzed further into the strategies and tactics that we all can probably readily identify with here in America. I find it a bit ironic how we as Americans tend to consider ourselves in one of the countries that is most influenced by propaganda, when it originated in Europe and is said by Vincent to have come to America rather late. He makes a great point about how we tend to only think internally about such schemes, and find it more difficult to consider these things going on elsewhere. Like our guest speaker talked about, there are several things that go on that we are very unaware of. Much like the Armenian genocide, the “Yugoslavian” bombing, I feel, is a subject that many don’t completely know. It’s interesting how distorted the facts about the event were, however I also feel as if because it’s something I barely know, it’s difficult to take a stand on one side or another. Naturally, the victims are likely to exaggerate and the bombers are likely to say, “it wasn’t that bad”. Therefore, I think it is unfair to say that one side skewed information over another. That being said, it makes me question other acts that the United States has been involved in, such as Hiroshima. I’m not going to get too much on this, but it makes one think about how much propaganda played an influence here at that time.

Speaking of bombs, let’s talk about those damn terrorists. I’m kidding, but that phrase is probably the most commonly used one out of everything else I’ve typed. Luther’s Representations of Arabs/Arab Americans points out and follows the progression of how negative stereotypes against Arabs have developed and have continued to thicken. While it’s more of a topic that I have been exposed to, I have to admit there was much that I didn’t know either. I feel like a common stereotype of Arab women is that they conceal almost all of their body, however according to Luther, a popular misconception is that men use these women as tools for sex. I thought it was interesting also because of how oppositely prevalent sex appeal is in America, yet there are not many comparisons made between taking advantage of women for sex in America and the Middle East. Also, I thought some of the other stereotypes were interesting because I have never heard of them before. Traits such as lazy, demonic and barbaric were all concepts I would never think affiliates (even as a joke) to this group, or any group for that matter. When I think of negative stereotypes of Arabs, much like everyone else I know, terrorism is the key word – as supported by the test that the teacher in this reading conducted on their students. One thing I wish to learn and talk more about is how 9/11 has caused others to view a change (if any) in stereotypes with this group. Either way, it’s easy to get confused with the actual terrorists, and what better way to illustrate this than by using Family Guy? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpP7b2lUxVE

Being an advertising major I cannot help but point this out. Propaganda serves the exact same purpose as general advertising and maybe I should be blunter with my opinion. These two terms are twins, separated at birth but both aware of each other’s analogous existence. Vincent’s “Global Communication and Propaganda” would agree with me as he spreads the subject of propaganda over a wide variety of topics and even compares it to advertising. In my opinion advertising is sneakier than propaganda because it is so covert. Most actions undertaken by an advertising campaign are hidden and are perceived on a very sensitive level or not perceived at all. This art form is wrapped in confusion because the public tends to recognize that advertising is the devil however pointing finger as to why is difficult. Why is that toothpaste commercial more evil than the sneakers one? Why are they even both considered evil? Many reasons can be given but just as many counter-reasons arise. Propaganda on the other hand is a tad more obvious with its message so I actually believe that it is the lesser of two evils. At least it sticks to its ignorant roots where as advertising revels in secrecy.

The Arab portrayal in the media has obviously deteriorated and it is truly fascinating that this is happening considering the fact that we live the 21^st century. I would have though tolerance or better yet acceptance would be at a high; apparently not as the second article for this week pointed out some glaring atrocities. The negative connotation displayed is truly upsetting because I am an optimist and this idiotic behavior makes absolutely no sense to me. How can a modern society so bent on social and environment improvement still concede to primal thoughts such as racism? But to be honest hate is everywhere, I come from a country that is still extremely overt and severe about its racism. Whether it is covert or obvious racism remains horrifying and unnecessary. I cannot even make a connection to my above paragraph saying one version of racism is “the lesser of two evils”. Society has so many acceptance-filled paths to take yet they continue to trudge along the one that has historically always led them in the wrong direction.

INITIAL

Propaganda has always confused me. I always thought that it was very difficult to decide if a piece was just overly opinionated. Did I not like that article or ad I just saw because it was propaganda or because I just did not like the message? Something becomes propaganda when the intent is to influence people in a specific way of thinking. How is this any different from a piece meant to persuade someone? It can get tricky.

I really enjoyed lecturing this week. Just thought I would put that out there! I think it fit in nicely because The Vagina Monologues is a good example of globalism, but also because we never talk about those difficult topics on a college campus. We need to.

Anyway, back to propaganda. For the portion of Dunja’s lecture that I was present for in class (sorry I had to leave, Janelle!), I did enjoy it. She outlined for us characteristics of propaganda that were very helpful, like name calling, plain folks, card stacking, and the bandwagon approach. This was helpful because it gave us a checklist to evaluate something that might be propaganda. We talked about propaganda in the context of the war in Kosovo, which especially hit home with me.

In The Vagina Monologues, Becky Kelley performed “My Vagina Was My Village.” This piece was absolutely beautiful and heart-wrenching. She told the story of a woman who was raped during this time. (I am not familiar with the war in Kosovo or if there were many, but 1999 was about the time that the Vagina Monologues premiered, so I just assumed it was the same incident.) She speaks of many men gang raping her for an entire week. She constantly bleeds and hurts from the rapes. She became so attached from her vagina because of this experience.

I wonder if The Vagina Monologues could be considered propaganda. It is the main goal to change public opinion about domestic and sexual violence. The whole point of the show is so that people learn about those difficult topics. While I think it is a wonderful experience, other people could absolutely disagree. We even used some of the strategies. We definitely used the bandwagon approach—at the end of the show, we asked victim-survivors and people who knew victim-survivors to stand as we asked for anyone who would work to end violence against women and girls. Opposition of the show could claim that we are card stacking—the show is always performed by an all-female cast. The entire show is a big example of testimonial—the monologues were taken from interviews by over 200 real women.