Thread: About Cold War and more

Originally Posted by Hanna

.. Making kids learn storybook style anecdotes about American historical figures, "founding fathers" loyalty pledges every day in school, and singing of national anthem with much drama. I don't think the USSR quite matched their level and scale of patriotic and ideological indoctrination!

Hanna... you've been down this path before We are not the only place that says a pledge or sings anthems. Believe me, it is more of a tradition than being patriotic. Young boys (and girls) today, they don't even take off their hats, EVEN when reminded to before hand by the Principal. Some of the kids don't even bother to take out their earbuds or put away their cell phones... let alone stand.

I received a message from my daughter (she texted me during lunch) and she got her paper back during class today and she got an A!!!! Her teacher wrote on her paper "This is excellent!!" and didn't make any other notations. He told the class if he didn't mark up the paper then it was "a damn good paper." AND... he talked about her in front of the class (don't know if he used her name or not or what he said and she didn't say in the text.)

Thank you all for your help with this and while she may not have used what you gave her directly in the paper, I must say you have helped to educate me and my entire family on this topic. I cannot begin to tell you how much I have learned from this thread. Propaganda or not, lack of my education or lack of caring when I was supposed to learn this stuff, you all have really helped to shed light on this entire subject. Things I'm too embarrassed to admit I had no clue about... I now have a much better understanding of thanks to all of you.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

Hanna... you've been down this path before We are not the only place that says a pledge or sings anthems. Believe me, it is more of a tradition than being patriotic. Young boys (and girls) today, they don't even take off their hats, EVEN when reminded to before hand by the Principal. Some of the kids don't even bother to take out their earbuds or put away their cell phones... let alone stand.

Haha, I am a broken record. Oh well! And I agree with you , discipline in school is probably an issue in most countries...

But America has a great deal more patriotism than countries in Europe, I can absolutely promise you that. So from my perspective the USA is quite extreme.

There is next to no patriotic stuff AT ALL anywhere in Europe. Once or twice a year you sing the national anthem in school - there is no loyalty pledge and no glorification of heroic history like there is in the USA. There are no old time kings or others that are glorified really - all of the old time heroes were involved in activities that are unacceptable now, or politically incorrect. There is the terrible legacy of devastating wars, guilt from colonialism, persecution of minorities and terrorism by separatist states. All that has put people off nationalism and patriotism. The only exceptions are the "new" countries in Eastern Europe, that have some kind of point to prove.

So looked at it from our perspective, the nationalism of the USA is pretty extreme, with 4th of July, daily pledges in school, famous anectotes about leaders. There is endless talk about supposedly "American values" that are all about "freedom" and things like that. Sounds good, but for whom, how and at what price?

I think it's pretty much comparable in intensity with the USSR which had parades, loyalty pledges, idolizing Lenin and talk about idealistic utopian ideas which they did not quite live up to... Just a different flavour of propaganda.

I have seen young pioneer reciting some kind of pledge, on TV - guessing that must have been compulsory, so an equivalent to what Americans do. Not sure whether Russia today does anything like that.. I would guess, probably not.

Joke video about American Pledge of Allegiance in school! Funny!!!



I don't dislike patriotism at all, it can be a really nice thing.
As long as every country keeps their patriotic and nationalistic stuff within their own borders and don't use it to justify starting wars or invasions!

If the USSR had been the winner of the Cold War and was violently pushing their agenda while being hypocritical about their ideology then I would have just as much an issue with that.

Originally Posted by rockzmom

I received a message from my daughter (she texted me during lunch) and she got her paper back during class today and she got an A!!!! Her teacher wrote on her paper "This is excellent!!" and didn't make any other notations. He told the class if he didn't mark up the paper then it was "a damn good paper." AND... he talked about her in front of the class (don't know if he used her name or not or what he said and she didn't say in the text.)

Great news!

Rockzmom, now you have to tell us what she wrote about the Cold War that impressed the teacher!

Originally Posted by Hanna

Haha, I am a broken record.
Some patriotic kids in the USA... As far as I understand, this is done EVERY day in school!

Hanna, just remember that in the US, you are free NOT to participate, no one forces you to say the pledge...

"The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that students cannot be forced to salute the flag. Maryland law explicitly allows any student or teacher to be excused from participating in the pledge, according to the ACLU. The Montgomery school system's student handbook contains a section about "Patriotic Exercises" that reads: "You cannot be required to say a pledge, sing an anthem, or take part in patriotic exercises. No one will be permitted to intentionally embarrass you if you choose not to participate."

It is my understanding that in Canada, at school you sing O Canada and recited the lord's prayer in the morning and end the school day by singing God Save the Queen.

Originally Posted by Hanna

There are no old time kings or others that are glorified really

And that big wedding that happened last year across the pond from the USA... and all the brouhaha about Prince Harry's blue shoes and the Queen's Diamond Jubilee??? What is all of that my dear? Is that not patriotic and also great PR??

Yes, and it's good that they are not getting forced. That is a good thing about the USA. People CAN choose to go against the stream, and nothing very serious will happen as long as they don't take it too far.
I saw a film about some people who were Jehova's Witnesses and had some trouble because they did not want to salute the US flag. But it was nothing major, just inconvenience.

I don't know about the USSR either, but I think they could opt out of most patriotic stuff, but probably at a higher cost to their career etc than in the USA. I remember Crocodile commenting that he joined the Komsomol organisation despite the fact that he did not really want to. Not sure what would have happened if he had just said "stuff it I can't be bothered." Does anyone know?

As for the royals, I don't care for the monarchy at all and I am not defending it! I would not care if they disappeared tomorrow. (But I would not get rid of them in the way that the Russians did!!!! )

They are not allowed to do or say ANYTHING political, they just perform official duties inside the country, and add a bit of glamour outside the country.

The curent King of Sweden is dyslexic and has a mild speech problem. He could never run the country.
These people are basically just ambassadors.

The media obsession with them is really terrible, I think. Obsessing about the royals is a kind of modern "opium for the people..." Why worry about the state of schools and hospitals when you can talk about Kate Middleton looking too skinny, or what Princess Madeleine really is doing in New York..

Originally Posted by Marcus

What's the connection? самиздат appeared because the government forbade to publish many things and it was partially the result of uneffecient propaganda. But it doesn't mean that FoxNews say something closer to the truth.

FoxNews competes with many other privately owned media companies whose content and opinions are not tightly controlled by a centralized government. And not all of FoxNews's competitors are large corporations; there are small "indie" publishers and academic printing presses, etc. This was true even before the Internet age and the "digital distribution" revolution.

In short, in Western society, people who dissented from the government's official point of view had a much easier time propagating their own views than Soviet dissidents did. (Which is not to say that there was NEVER censorship in the US, or legal harassment of dissidents; but in general, censors in the US had much less power, and dissidents had much greater opportunities to express and publish their beliefs legally.)

P.S. I would add that although FoxNews is clearly biased, its biases have sometimes been exaggerated by people who devoutly believe in the "objectivity" of the BBC and The New York Times, etc.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I don't know about the USSR either, but I think they could opt out of most patriotic stuff, but probably at a higher cost to their career etc than in the USA. I remember Crocodile commenting that he joined the Komsomol organisation despite the fact that he did not really want to. Not sure what would have happened if he had just said "stuff it I can't be bothered." Does anyone know?

I know for a fact that nothing would have happened, at least, not in the 70-80's. My cousin refused to join Komsomol (not because of any political believes, though). His teachers were mildly shocked, but there were no repercussions (just a lecture from a distraught teacher, which was ignored).

My mom, who was a constructor of military sea crafts, refused to join the Communist party, when her boss offered her to do that as an encouragement for her excellent work. Such an offer was considered an honor, and could potentially aid her career. While the Party was much more serious business than Komsomol, again nothing happened. Her career did not suffer because of that (though it could, that's true), even despite the ridiculous and slightly disrespectful way she refused (she said essentially: "No way! Party meetings are boring and a waste of time").

At least that was my family's experience, So I take horror stories about "courageous people" who opposed Soviet system (by doing pretty safe things like refusing to be a pioneer) with a grain of salt. Circumstances differ, but in many cases it was not as dangerous as it probably sounds to people who never lived in the USSR.

I remember that when I was in grades 3-5, probably 95% of the boys my age (including me) participated in the Cub Scouts. But that percentage was, I think, unusually high because most of us were "military brats" whose fathers (or in a few cases, mothers) were stationed at a small US base in Turkey. So being a Scout was "practically mandatory" (though, of course, not literally mandatory) because of the military culture that prevailed on the base.

But in public schools back in the States, the rate of participation in Scouting programs was generally lower -- unless you happened to belong to a religious community (such as the Mormons) that strongly pushed kids to be Scouts.

So looked at it from our perspective, the nationalism of the USA is pretty extreme, with 4th of July, daily pledges in school, famous anecdotes about leaders. There is endless talk about supposedly "American values" that are all about "freedom" and things like that. Sounds good, but for whom, how and at what price?

Well, it's good for new immigrants -- they can go on wearing the clothing styles from "The Old Country", and eat their "Old Country" foods, and speak English with an extremely heavy accent... but if they wave the American flag on the 4th of July, if they can sing the words to "America the Beautiful", and if they idolize Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, etc., people will generally accept them as "Real Americans". True, there is still some anti-immigrant prejudice, but merely by waving the flag, immigrants can give themselves a degree of "immunity" against prejudice.

I think it's pretty much comparable in intensity with the USSR which had parades, loyalty pledges, idolizing Lenin and talk about idealistic utopian ideas which they did not quite live up to... Just a different flavour of propaganda.

Despite their ideological differences, the US and USSR had something significant in common: they were both multi-ethnic states that tried (however imperfectly, in both cases) to do away with racism, blood-prejudice, and citizenship privileges based on ethnicity. This meant that it was necessary to create a common identity that was not based on shared ancestry. And thus the Christian socialist Francis Bellamy wrote the Pledge of Allegiance so that schoolchildren whose parents had recently immigrated from Poland, Lithuania, Italy, Greece, Norway, Portugal, Hungary, etc., would all be encouraged to think of themselves as simply "Americans" who had left behind their loyalties and hatreds based on blood-lineage.

Originally Posted by Throbert McGee

FoxNews competes with many other privately owned media companies whose content and opinions are not tightly controlled by a centralized government. And not all of FoxNews's competitors are large corporations; there are small "indie" publishers and academic printing presses, etc. This was true even before the Internet age and the "digital distribution" revolution.

In short, in Western society, people who dissented from the government's official point of view had a much easier time propagating their own views than Soviet dissidents did. (Which is not to say that there was NEVER censorship in the US, or legal harassment of dissidents; but in general, censors in the US had much less power, and dissidents had much greater opportunities to express and publish their beliefs legally.)

P.S. I would add that although FoxNews is clearly biased, its biases have sometimes been exaggerated by people who devoutly believe in the "objectivity" of the BBC and The New York Times, etc.

BBC, The New York Times etc are not much different from FoxNews. Russia Today is probably different, but who watches it? All the big Western media belong to one group of people, behave coordinately and are connected with the states. Of course there is more possibilty to publish something in the West than in the Soviet Union, but that happens only because the Western rulers are able to make their people ignore other sources of information.

Here is her essay... try not to be too harsh, remember, she is in her 1st year of high school... [edit] I forgot to mention. Even though he had not given instructions to include footnotes, as you will see she did and apparently she was the only student who did so and that was what he mentioned to the class.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,”[1] might have been what President Eisenhower would have liked as his sound bite if it hadn’t already been used by President Roosevelt, instead he choose to go with, “There is too much hysteria.”[2] The fears of the American people after the Second World War were based in a large part on just that, fear. Would the Communism take over the world and the United States? Just how many Communists were in the U.S. Government already? How long before a nuclear attack would happen and what did one actually do if there was one? Could that Sputnik thingy really listen to everything we say? Eisenhower and his administration could choose to address these and other fears by either feeding into it or by calming it; they seemed to do a little of both as they told Americans to be calm, but their actions said to be prepared and fear the worst.

When President Eisenhower addressed the nation in March of 1954, he used the word fear six times and hysteria three times.[3] If you tell someone there is nothing to fear or not to become hysterical, the first thing they usually do is scream back at you “I am calm!” While on the face of it one might think he was trying to calm a nation, to others he was instilling the very hysteria he was hoping to avoid. When Eisenhower’s Secretary of Defense, John Dulles, was speaking about the expansion of Communism and the Domino Theory and proclaiming that “If world communism captures any American State, however small, a new and perilous front is established which will increase the danger to the entire free world,”[4] he was not helping to elevate the fears of the American public. Because, “If the Communists took over Guatemala (where is that by the way?), we are certain to be next!” Secretary Dulles only helped to fan the fires of another possible Red Scare and that there was a Communist hiding around every street corner just waiting to take over the United States.

While the threat of a nuclear attack was looming, Americans decided to ease their worries and take matters into their own hands. They began building bomb shelters and stocked them with food rations and supplies.[5] In schools, children practiced “duck and cover” drills and learned where to go in the case of an attack. The government also helped citizens by creating National System of Interstate and Defense Highways which allowed for easier movement of cars or military vehicles especially in “cities having a population of 50,000 or more and serves the country’s principal industrial and defense areas.”[6] This would enable people in high population areas or target zones such as Washington, D.C. or New York City, a way to quickly escape the city or for the military to quickly move troops to these cities should an inbound missile be detected. This mixed message from the administration of be really worried about these evil people and be prepared and ready for the worst; but, don’t panic, caused many to not know what to really believe.

By 1953, America was spending 68.1% of its budget on defense from only 32.7% in 1949.[7] By 1958, this percentage decreased; however, not by much and it was not lost on the political cartoonist, Herblock, when he depicted President Eisenhower putting all of the money from the federal budget into the Missile Programs at the expense of all of the other programs like Space Development, School Construction, and Welfare Programs.[8] By spending all of the funds on Missile Programs and Defense, one can only imagine the increased fear the American public would feel at seeing this. A nation does not ramp up their military that much for no reason or if they are trying to calm hysteria. The game of “Massive Retaliation[9]” and “If you launch a deadly missile, I’ll launch two right back at you,” instead of diplomacy also did not lend itself to a feeling of security. What money was not spent on the military, President Eisenhower seemed to want it to go to education “because of the growing importance of science and technology[10]” and that this was a matter of “emergency Federal action.”[11] Learning that our Nation’s youth must become scientists and engineers is a matter if national concern and that at any moment the USSR could “push a button, and 35 minutes later much of the U.S. could be laid waste,”[12] would increase not decrease public anxiety.

President Eisenhower and his administration created more hysteria and fears than they calmed. While the fears were real, they planted the seeds and then feed into them reiterating over and over again instead of playing to the strengths that the nation already had. The fact that the USSR was so far away from the US and that McCarthyism was hysteria and not real. President Kennedy, during his inaugural address stated, “that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.”[13] However, he also followed that up with a firm yet unwavering declaration that, “We dare not tempt them with weakness.”[14] President Kennedy let the USSR and the people of America know that he wanted to stop the games and talk about peace; however, don’t underestimate him. If you thought he might be young and therefore a weak President unable to push the button, don’t test him. This speech was a much better speech to calm the nerves of Americans than, “All of these, with their impact on the human mind, makes us act almost hysterically, and you find the hysterical reactions.”[15]

---

[1] Franklin D. Roosevelt, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1933

[2] Dwight Eisenhower Press Conference, March 1954, Source Document A

[3] Ibid.

[4] John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, June 1954, Source Document B

[5] Life magazine, May 1955, Source Document C

[6] Saturday Evening Post, October 1956, Source Document D

[7] Historical Statistics of the United States, Statistical Abstract of the United States, Department of Commerce, Source H

[8] Herblock, “Well, I Got That In, All Right”, the Washington Post, January 14, 1958, A14, Source Document F

[9] Must U.S.Take the First Blow?, U.S. News and World Report, December 1957, Source Document E

[10] Special Message to the Congress from President Eisenhower on Education, January 1958,. Source Document G

[11] Ibid.

[12] Must U.S.Take the First Blow?, U.S. News and World Report, December 1957, Source Document E

[13] President John F. Kennedy, inaugural address, January 1961 , Source Document I

[14] Ibid

[15] Dwight Eisenhower Press Conference, March 1954, Source Document A

Originally Posted by Hanna

I remember Crocodile commenting that he joined the Komsomol organisation despite the fact that he did not really want to. Not sure what would have happened if he had just said "stuff it I can't be bothered." Does anyone know?

To tell the truth, I joined the Comsomol simply not to stand out of the crowd. I was not a hero (and I'm not a hero now) to fight the system I dislike. The whole society those days was not really tolerant to those who singled themselves out in any way, and I was a good boy to play by the rules. I have no idea what would have happened if I refused, and I didn't really want to know that back then. Maybe nothing serious. I had other more important stuff on my mind.

"...If you tell someone there is nothing to fear or not to become hysterical, the first thing they usually do is scream back at you “I am calm!”..."

Originally Posted by Crocodile

To tell the truth, I joined the Comsomol simply not to stand out of the crowd. I was not a hero (and I'm not a hero now) to fight the system I dislike. The whole society those days was not really tolerant to those who singled themselves out in any way, and I was a good boy to play by the rules. I have no idea what would have happened if I refused, and I didn't really want to know that back then. Maybe nothing serious. I had other more important stuff on my mind.

Croc... I read this and became saddened by your choice of words and your situation. As a child who was different for many reasons and none of them for being a hero, I can tell you, being singled out in the US was not much of a cake walk. While I am thankful that today, it is much easier being a kid in school and being different/hero, even though in my girl's situation, it is has been the adults who are the meanest. I cannot even begin to imagine what it would have been like in the USSR for a child to say "Umm, ya know what guys, I don't wanna play your reindeer games."

Originally Posted by Hanna

So looked at it from our perspective, the nationalism of the USA is pretty extreme, with 4th of July, daily pledges in school, famous anectotes about leaders. There is endless talk about supposedly "American values" that are all about "freedom" and things like that. Sounds good, but for whom, how and at what price?

Okay, let me try to put it this way. In 2006 the United States accepted more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined. That does not even begin to include the illegal immigrants that we get. Now, how do you go about uniting all of these people into a "blended" family. How do you get them to assimilate? You want them to be able to keep some of their culture, but at the same time "can't we all just get along?" You have to understand, if one family just came from Israel and one from Egypt and they moved in next door to each other, we don't want a bloodbath on our hands here. By having these "American" traditions, it is something that everyone "can" do no matter what. It's the Fourth of July, it's a national holiday, go out and watch the fireworks with your neighbor and forget for one night that you have been sworn to kill him as your life long enemy. There's time enough to hate him tomorrow.

The Judge at my hubby's Citizenship ceremony said something like ... today you become American. You are not Irish American or Russian American or Central American, you are American.

Now, that really doesn't work, except... when we say our pledge or sing our anthem or on national holidays. For in those few moments, that is when we forget all the negativity about who we are supposed to dislike or kill and we remember that we are all "united."

Originally Posted by rockzmom

in my girl's situation, it is has been the adults who are the meanest.

Maybe, today's adults are the former kids...
I guess, the kids these days might be more focused on their iGadgets and on fitting their virtual company than on how to fit their society better.. Besides, almost everything that we've been taught to beleive and conform to eventually turned out to be garbage. Maybe, kids these days are aware of that.

I think the arguments that Rockzmom and Throbert McGee gave about being a multinational country are valid and good arguments for trying to encourage a bit of nationalism. I understand that this is something that the USA has to handle, and that emphasising history and achievements is key to that. For me, the idea of a truly "multicultural" country is exciting and interesting.

What we have in Europe with the traditional population + "refugees" is just a weird and frustrating situation. In many cases the cultural clash is extreme and there is really no way for them, with their culture, level of education and religion to be a part of society.

America is different from Europe in that way. And I think that most people who emigrate to the USA are probably keen to put their past behind them and willing to identify as Americans.

My impression is that the USSR tried to get people to feel "Soviet" rather than anything else, but they probably did not succeed very well with the majority of people for different reasons.
Perhaps when Soviet people thought of the experiences of the the War, and about sports, they were able to identify with that nationality, but otherwise not...

The EU is another example of an artificially created country that is trying to create some kind of unity. However, the 'propaganda' for this is quite low key. Kids are told that the EU is a very successful peace project for Europe, which is essentially true, although there is more to the story.
Everyone can see the benefits for themselves when they travel in Europe, and compare with the past with endless wars that benefited practically nobody.

You don't really feel "European" until you LEAVE Europe and compare yourself with people on some other continent - that's when you realise how much we have in common despite language differences. The level of enthusiasm about the EU varies a lot between countries too.

My issue with American values / nationalism is that it is sometimes used as part of the motivation for invasions etc. I.e. "there is no "freedom" in this country, we need to liberate them (and their natural resources...)". The values that are relevant for Americans are not necessarily what other people want - and if they do, let them get it themselves! What the US gets up to, in my view, is just a modern take on colonialism/imperialism - but twisted around in such a way that it is hard to recognise.

But invading a country and forcing your values on them, and obtaining their resources cheaply, IS imperialism, regardless of whether you talk about democracy and freedom, or Queen and the need for christening the pagans....
That is my view, anyway.

I understand that America uses its strength and conducts wars, I understand that the American state tries to justify all those polices, but I don't like when some people start saying that American media are somehow more truthful than any other and that those policies are more justified than any other.