Part Two, Section 9
"The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in mid-sentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax... Oceania was at war Eastasia; Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia."
Truthers argue that the events on 9/11 happened with President Bush's complicity and that he is therefore a traitor. Birthers argue that President Obama was not born in the United States and that he is therefore not constitionally eligible to be President of the United States. Not surprisingly, Truthers are more likely to identify as Democrats, and Birthers are more likely to identify as Republicans. And any attempt to convince them otherwise with evidence only makes their convictions stronger.
Why do you think The Party intentionally switched the war at the apex of Hate Week from Eurasia to Eastasia? Do the speaker and all who follow him bear similarities to the Truthers or the Birthers? How so?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I believe they intentionally switched the war at the apex of Hate Week because everyone became so caught up in the hate and the strength of those emotions that the distinct enemy did not matter so much as a general enemy to which the hate was directed towards. For example, during the 2 minutes hate the crazy worshipers at the front of the crowd are simply so incised and enraged that they are simply hating, not truly hating on any one thing. It makes it easier to transfer hate onto a different object.
I believe that the speaker and the Truthers and Birthers do share similarities in that they exist to hate, and to pass negative thoughts along. The three also create this truly irrational thought which spreads among followers like wildfire.
I would disagree with Calvin. People in Oceania are subjected to Hate Week and are forced to fallow the speaker. Therefore, there are two fundamental differences between birthers/truthers and the people of Oceania: 1) the latter has no option but to participate in the crazy, hateful rhetoric, and 2) the birthers/truthers argue AGAINST the government, while the speaker and his followers push the governments agenda. This is important because it shows a fundamental difference in society that already undermines the argument of the birthers/truthers. As Rep. Barnie Frank said to a birther once, "It is a testament to the first amendment that people like you are allowed to speak." People have the option of joining the birthers or truthers, while in Oceania they have no real choice but to participate in the government-sanctioned hate, and that is a fundamental difference.
I agree with both Calvin and Kalind's approaches here to the prompt. While I do agree with Calvin that the government of Oceania changed the enemy of the state to Eastasia just to use the peoples' misplaced emotions, I also think there is another piece to this puzzle. Calvin is correct that the people in Oceania are easily manipulated, but the real power lies within the government. I believe the enemy of the state was changed from Eurasia to Eastasia in order for the government to see how well the brain washing had worked on the citizens of Oceania. Or,in other terms, the government wanted to flex their muscles and show how controlled the people are, that they would blindly follow orders from a totalitarian government without question.
In the second part of this prompt, I completely agree with Kalind. The truthers/birthers strive to topple the figurehead of the government and bring changes, while the speaker in 1984 is simply trying to push the influence of Big Brother and the Party onto the people, and not try to make radical changes in the government. The speaker wouldn't even be able to question the Party anyways, as he would probably be taken by the Though Police and hauled off to god knows where.
while i respect Steven's analysis, and may agree that part of the government's intention was to test its powers, I would agree with Calvin and Kalind that the main reason for the placement of the announcement was to make the announcement come at a time when it would be well received.As to the second part I would agree with kalind and Steven in saying that the truthers and birthers differ in that they are against the government. I would take this one step further and say that another difference between the two would be that the truthers/ birthers arrived at the conclusion that they currently believe after looking for themselves at the facts and making a decision on what to believe. While this does not mean that they are right (some people will believe all conspiracy theories),it means that they will be hard to dissuade from their opinions. I think that the government in 1984 is attempting to mimic that thought process in 1984, except limit the information the public is given. I believe that that is the reason why similarities exist.
I don't believe the Party had any form of higher intent to change positions in the war. I believe that either the Oceanic forces were in a better position to attack Eastasia and make significant advances, or were winning in Eurasia and thus, to keep the war from ending, switched sides. Their motives were not political (unless you consider war an extension of politics), but were more strategical.
Why would the government risk failure by pushing the boundaries? What if someone did notice, or a lot of people noticed? All of a sudden the government has to liquify people, or make an explanation. There's too much of a risk for people. Why test a system that is working perfectly well anyway? If it's not broken, then don't fix it.
Hate week happens to be a great time to pull off a stunt like this because no one will notice, and if someone noticed the Thought Police have to spend money by capturing them, interrogating them, and "re-educating" them. The sheer emotion just pouring off of people can sweep you away, as discussed in one of the part one discussions. Just like breaking up with a girlfriend, the Oceanic government waited for the right moment to ease the shift.
Because I intend on getting back to playing Pokémon, watching "Say Yes to the Dress," and eating Double Fudge Brownie-flavored ice cream, I'm going to agree with Kalind. My only counterpoint would be that the people listening to the Speaker are most likely not fallowing him, because I don't think he is a farm.
Unless they're cultivating deception.
Some people are so infused with their own beliefs that they won't listen to reason. Birthers, for example, believe that President Obama's Certificate of Live Birth AND the newspaper articles mentioning his birth are forgeries. The "logic" behind this belief stems from a rumor that circulated during the presidential campaign. The whole Birther argument was ultimately rejected by most Republicans due to its incoherency - yet some persisted and still persist to believe in the folly of the "argument."
And why? Probably because it's easier; It's easier to dismiss a predisposed opponent by simply saying, "Obama's birth certificate wasn't good enough; he shouldn't be president," than actually considering the arguments. Birthers cannot be swayed in their beliefs because they choose to not hear the other side of the argument. It's easier to have an argument knowing the other side cannot possibly win, and it's easier to appreciate the side you support when you truly believe the other side is absolutely in the wrong.
In essence, Birthers are truly black and white people. They have decided what is wrong and what is right, and facts and reason are unimportant. At the first sign of weakness this type of person will grab and not let go, like a dog refusing to give a ball back to its owner.
In this sense, the people of Oceania are just like Birthers. They have a predisposed hatred for the common enemy, and it really doesn't matter who that enemy is. All they KNOW is hatred - hatred, begot by fear. They also know that the Party is the only thing that stands between them and the arbitrary Enemy. And so, when the Party tells them who that Enemy is, they simply accept it without regard for fact or reason.
I concur with Carlos in that the party switched the enemy due to the fact they were in a better position at defeating Eastasia or that a peace treaty with Eurasia was imminent. This goes on to the theme of changing history to fit the needs of the regime, however I digress. I don't believe their is a big similarity between the people of Oceania and Truthers and Birthers because the people of Oceania are forced to go with the crowd. If the people of Oceania have reservations about something they keep it in their head. The Birthers and Truthers willfully ignore reality to advance a political view of one party being better than another. This however has a big similarity with the speaker of Oceania because the speaker is also advancing a political view and ignoring reality to accomplish it.
I agree that The Party intentionally switched the enemy, as Goldstein said, they were really constantly at "war" (if you could call it that) with both other countries. (After looking up the word complicity:) I agree with some of you in that the fundamental difference between Birthers and Truthers lies in free speech. I believe that the Truthers have no proof in that Bush ran a series of attacks on his own people, and in a sense the followers of this conspiracy theory "hear what they want to hear." They are anti-Bush democrats and therefore they will believe anything said against him. This is a feature shown by the avid Party members in that they will hate whoever they are told just because they are told they are evil. They have no proof that Goldstein or the Eurasians or Eastasians at the time are doing any harm to them, but they are told to hate their enemy, so they do so without questions. The Party may have switched over the enemy just to show they can, they may have done it because they had actually made some "alliance" with Eurasia at that given time period, but to the people of Oceania it does not matter. They are told to hate, and so they do. And Whenever they are given anything, anything at all which shows a possible flaw in their enemy, they will exploit it and use it to hate to the fullest extent. That is why they are similar to the Birthers/Truthers.
I agree with Steven on this prompt. I do not believe that the government had any big secret goal in suddenly changing the enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia. The people have been forced to hate with such strong emotion, and the government has decided to demonstrate its power over the people by immediately switching the enemy.
The Truthers and Birthers both have a primary goal of bringing down their leader with harsh rhetoric and make radical changes within the government. In 1984, the speaker was merely acting as a representative of the government and was not looking to make any internal changes. In a place like Oceania, the speaker would never get away with anti-government remarks, and if he did, would be arrested
Post a Comment