[HoniSoit]

This is something that bothers me a lot when I watch the news or current affair programs on TV or read the newspapers. In all fairness, I never expect the media explains in details what the historical backgrounds of the stories are. But I think it is justified to expect relevant and critical historical context especially those that could fundamentally change people's perception if mentioned.

To use the most uncontroversial example, while the media did an excellent job to follow the US government's script to portray Saddam as a dictator, it failed utterly to stress that the US government supported him all the way up until the moment of the invasion of Kuwait - including providing him with materials that could be used to manufacture WMDs. Had the media done that, it is resonable to speculate that would have created more critical public reflections on government's statements about promoting democracy etc..

I think you could go further to argue its failure is not just the absence of historical context, but of any meaningful context. I'd pretty much like to see what others think on this issue.

[redcarpet]

Yes I agree, like when there's a WW2 doc. on it usually starts with the German attack on Poland in 1939, as if the first country Germany attacked was Poland, when it was Austria.

Or like Britons will praise Nelson for winning the Battle of Trafalgar and that's it, as if nothing happened before it.No discussion about the events that led to it, like from the beginning.

If we read about the USSR theres no mention of the Russian Civil War in 1918, no doubt because of Western intervention like the British use of mustard gas against the Red Army.

On top of propaganda purposes people are basically only given snippets of historical events without going into much detail.

While we talk about Japanese war crimes in Manchuria we don't talk about Allied war crimes against German and Japanese cities, but if we do we justify it but also are vague on the events.

If you look at school textbooks on other faculties like science, maths, psychology there's lost of information provided. Whereas with history it's mostly whitewashing.

[QatzelOk]

On top of propaganda purposes people are basically only given snippets of historical events without going into much detail.

Propaganda almost never contextualises events. History is used as just another vocabulary from which to borrow ideas and myths to copy and paste together into a "coherent" narrative that tells the story that "gets the job done."

This is one reason why TV is suited for propaganda, and not much else. There is no time for context, and the colorful images dominate the story and are emotional rather than rational.

[Sniperwolfe]

If we read about the USSR theres no mention of the Russian Civil War in 1918, no doubt because of Western intervention like the British use of mustard gas against the Red Army.

I have never met someone else who knows what the Polar Bear Expedition was, here in the U.S..

I think the point of propoganda often requires a lack of historical context. Just as you clearly stated in the beginning article, the United States media did not show the history between them and Saddam Hussein because it would not fit their "script" well. This, I think, is the case in all media, when it doesn't explain it all.

Not to mention, I don't think people would like listening to it, they prefair to be ignorant to evil so that they feel that there's nothing for them to fix.

[Kylie]

it failed utterly to stress that the US government supported him all the way up until the moment of the invasion of Kuwait - including providing him with materials that could be used to manufacture WMDs. Had the media done that, it is resonable to speculate that would have created more critical public reflections on government's statements about promoting democracy etc..

Ha! Those "WMDs" we were looking for were ones we helped to pay for. I always loved that irony of this current Iraq farce.

As far the OP, it bothers me they only pick things out from history that seem relevant to the particular cause or issue, but they never provide a comprehensive historical context.

We'll name another person on America's hate list. Osama Bin Laden. Granted, nobody knows why he seems to hate America so much, other than "Oooooh, McDonalds are evil." or some other ignorant nonsense. What was one catalyst behind his hatred was the war between the former Soviet Union and Afghanastan in the 80s. Not to mention, and Qatz will LOVE this, the pipeline oil companies wanted to drill through the entire country.

Yeah, people's perception of what happen is clouded by the spin given to us in all shapes and forms, and nobody bothers to learn why. It doesn't justify certain actions, but if people would do a little more critical research as to WHY things happened, it would help them to solve the problems in the future.

This is why history always repeats itself.

[Mikolaj]

This is why history always repeats itself.

...Because voters always vote for the same wanktards

[HoniSoit]

...Because only wanktards are available to be elected

[Kylie]

..Because only wanktards are available to be elected

You have your choice of deciding who's the least 'wanktardish'. Bah!