So, in English recently we have been doing a unit called “power and propaganda”. In that unit, one of the things we have talked about (been lectured to about) is the 2 sides of propaganda. They point to nazi propaganda during ww2 as a blatant example of propaganda being used to galvanise people to commit horrendous acts, but also point towards British propaganda and how it was for a good cause, the argument being that not all propaganda is bad. Now, I take issue with this, not on a personal level, of course I believe allied propaganda was justified and that the nazis should be condemned to history, but when teaching about the intricate topic that is propaganda I think some slight things are being overlooked.

For one thing, the British won the war, history is told by the winners after all, if the Germans had won they probably would have been teaching their kids the exact opposite. In the universe of 1984, people are probably told that the propaganda around them is necessary to unite and stand strong (or something). The implication that there is good propaganda and bad propaganda is to simple, to binary, I think there will always be a need for propaganda, if only to teach, for at the end of the day all it is is presenting a message.

Teaching kids that just because the British were (in today’s mind) morally right, therefore their propaganda was justified is failing to acknowledge that the British DID a win the war, and that that bias exists. I’m not sure what an alternative would be, but starting by acknowledging that the bias is there I think would be a bit better.

Idk, this really only ticked me off once and it’s not really a big problem, it more just connects with a broader discussion around how the victors of a war have all the influence over how they are portrayed.