I just think generally this kind of “propaganda” is produced because it reflects a well-entrenched view people genuinely hold. It’s like asserting that minstrel shows were produced as propaganda to keep black people subjugated by making people think black people are inferior. I think it’s much simpler than that - the people who commissioned such things were racist, so they made shows which depicted black people poorly. That had the effect of perpetuating racism, but it’s a stretch to say the perpetuation of racism was the motivation, rather than the enactment of racism.
Same here, as I see it. The people who make such things are misogynists who believe in misogynist practices, so they make films which reflect those practices. I don’t see where there’s evidence for a conscious choice to do more than that.
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. As far as I know minstrel shows were mostly small groups making the money they got from their performance, but movies like the one in this post are funded by multi-million dollar media companies that have a large say in what kind of movies will be made.
I really had in mind minstrel shows on in the 20th century on TV. But if you prefer, I think it still applies to most situations which seem to be entrenching any view, whether that view is hateful or indeed positive. We don’t think of someone making a movie whose central message is about the virtue of kindness as being “propaganda” - it’s just people putting their own values into a story. So too if the central message is negative.
If you want to infer a more purposeful, self-conscious motivation, you need more to go on.
I just think generally this kind of “propaganda” is produced because it reflects a well-entrenched view people genuinely hold. It’s like asserting that minstrel shows were produced as propaganda to keep black people subjugated by making people think black people are inferior. I think it’s much simpler than that - the people who commissioned such things were racist, so they made shows which depicted black people poorly. That had the effect of perpetuating racism, but it’s a stretch to say the perpetuation of racism was the motivation, rather than the enactment of racism.
Same here, as I see it. The people who make such things are misogynists who believe in misogynist practices, so they make films which reflect those practices. I don’t see where there’s evidence for a conscious choice to do more than that.
I’m not sure that’s a fair comparison. As far as I know minstrel shows were mostly small groups making the money they got from their performance, but movies like the one in this post are funded by multi-million dollar media companies that have a large say in what kind of movies will be made.
I really had in mind minstrel shows on in the 20th century on TV. But if you prefer, I think it still applies to most situations which seem to be entrenching any view, whether that view is hateful or indeed positive. We don’t think of someone making a movie whose central message is about the virtue of kindness as being “propaganda” - it’s just people putting their own values into a story. So too if the central message is negative.
If you want to infer a more purposeful, self-conscious motivation, you need more to go on.