Is
propaganda ever acceptable? I’ve been thinking about this the past several days, as I
prepared a presentation I was asked to give for Veteran’s Day.
The
word “propaganda” originated in the Catholic Church with a positive meaning. In 1622, Pope Gregory XV appointed a committee of
cardinals to organize and oversee a system of establishing missions to
“propagate the faith” to the heathen. The committee was called the propaganda.
Eventually, the word came to mean the spreading of a message, instead of the spreaders
themselves. Later still, the word began to have a negative connotation of
spreading false information.
The
presentation was about General Douglas MacArthur and his activities in Japan.
The Japanese people, for the most part, hold the General in high esteem for his
accomplishments there. He did get a lot done, especially considering that he
was working in a country American had just atom-bombed as an enemy. But it’s
one thing to change systems (he rebuilt infrastructure, restored the economy,
abolished monopolies, democratized the government, reassigned land...) and
another to change hearts and attitudes. General MacArthur did both. He used
written materials to accomplish the latter.
 |
| General Douglas MacArthur |
The
Allied Occupation, under the direction of MacArthur, censored all published
material in Japan. They decided what could and could not be printed. All books
that made the cut portrayed the idealized American way of life. The first book
put out under the Occupation was The Long
Winter by Laura Ingalls Wilder. (Why, yes, I do tie everything in to LIW.
Why do you ask?) The rest of her books followed, along with such titles as Little Women, Anne of Green Gables, the Nancy
Drew mystery stories, and Gone with
the Wind. The Little House books
were most popular.
There
were boys’ and men’s and women’s books, too, but most were girls’ books. Why?
Because “the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world.”
MacArthur knew getting the young women who would be mothers of the next
generation on his side was key in establishing a friendship between Japan and
the U.S. He was right, and it worked. The outcome was positive, helping
establish peace and friendship where enmity had existed. Did the end justify
the means?
My
old Webster’s Dictionary defines
propaganda as “information, especially when biased in nature, used to promote a
particular cause, and especially a political or religious view.” Logic informs
us that any information used to promote a particular cause is by definition biased
in nature, whether the cause is good or bad, and whether the information is
true or false. So really, anytime we speak positively about something we like,
or negatively about something we don’t, we are spreading propaganda. (Kinda
makes me stop and think about what I’ve been spreading...)
So
is it ever acceptable? My personal opinion is that true information is always
acceptable. But that means the whole truth - not just the cherry-picked good
parts we like. And since people don’t always agree on what’s true, everyone
should be able to make up their own minds, from all available information. So I
don’t have an issue with MacArthur distributing books promoting American
values. The part that bothers me is the censoring of any other materials. What do you think? Did the end justify the means,
or not?
