PDA

View Full Version : FDR's racist propaganda?



LWW
01-13-2012, 05:18 AM
http://www.crazywebsite.com/Free-Galleries-01/USA_Patriotic/Pictures_WWII_Posters_LG/World_War_II_Patriotic_Posters_USA_Conservation_To kio_Kid_SayLG.png

LWW
01-13-2012, 05:19 AM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_QmJeViixKF8/S43zCT3izTI/AAAAAAAAB4M/-NVtGGytau0/s400/1942x~This_is_the_Enemy_US_%5B2%5D.jpg

LWW
01-13-2012, 05:20 AM
http://www.crazywebsite.com/Free-Galleries-01/USA_Patriotic/Pictures_WWII_Posters_LG/World_War_II_Patriotic_Posters_USA_Conservation_To kio_Kid_Say2LG.jpg

LWW
01-13-2012, 05:23 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/Anti-Japan2.png

LWW
01-13-2012, 05:24 AM
http://media.brainz.org/uploads/2010/03/propaganda/Anti-Jap1.jpg

LWW
01-13-2012, 05:26 AM
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/draft_lens1388219module147607340photo_1297061393wo rld-war-2-anti-Japanese.jpg

Soflasnapper
01-13-2012, 02:32 PM
This is probably wrongly attributed to FDR, as to his being responsible for them directly. We always had virulent wartime propaganda against our enemies. You could find similar things about 'the Huns' in WWI propaganda, which were not the doings of FDR.

Were these <u>FDR-era</u> propaganda efforts? Sure. Was he, and other American wartime leaders like Wilson and Eisenhower, racist? I think that is true.

But by what chain of reasoning is this 'FDR's' racist propaganda?

cushioncrawler
01-13-2012, 03:57 PM
Japs are priques.
Geeez i hate japs.
mac.

LWW
01-14-2012, 06:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is probably wrongly attributed to FDR, as to his being responsible for them directly. We always had virulent wartime propaganda against our enemies. You could find similar things about 'the Huns' in WWI propaganda, which were not the doings of FDR.

Were these <u>FDR-era</u> propaganda efforts? Sure. Was he, and other American wartime leaders like Wilson and Eisenhower, racist? I think that is true.

But by what chain of reasoning is this 'FDR's' racist propaganda?
</div></div>

Were they put out by the US military? Yes.

Was FDR commander in chief? Yes.

But in the warped mind of a cult member ... unless your godking actually drew the posters, they have no liability? Pathetically, yes.

OTOH, in today's age we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism ... but if one calls a radical Islamic terrorist a radical Islamic terrorist the left will scream R-R-R-RAY - SISSSSMMMM!!!!

You don't see the contradiction? Of course you don't ... for to do so you would have to admit that the leftist godkings in question were mere mortals.

Soflasnapper
01-15-2012, 01:41 PM
I deny FDR's racism, by admitting it?

Ok, then. New glasses prescription, or better readers, for you in the New Year!

You say, Were they put out by the US military? Yes.

When the first image clearly says it was put out as part of a series by a private corporation? (Hard to read, I know, but kind of squint up your eyes, if you know what I mean.)

Missing this clue in what you yourself posted, what else about this story have you also missed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When World War II began, most Americans viewed propaganda as a tool of totalitarian dictatorships.[1] Furthermore, many remembered with hostility the fervor of World War I propaganda efforts, which were later regarded as violating basic rights as well as conveying misinformation.[2] At first, the government was reluctant to engage in propaganda campaigns, but pressure from the media, the business sector and advertisers who wanted direction persuaded the government to take an active role.[3] Even so, the government insisted that its actions were not propaganda, but a means of providing information.[4] These efforts were slowly and haphazardly formed into a more unified propaganda effort, although never to the level of World War I.[5] [...]

The Writers' War Board was privately organized for the purposes of propaganda and often acted as liaison between the government and the writers. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Many of the writers involved regarded their efforts as superior to governmental propaganda,[9] as they regarded their material as bolder and more responsive than governmental efforts.</span>[10] However, the writers both responded to official requests and initiated their own campaigns.[9][...]

Media

Posters

The U.S. used posters more than any other type of propaganda media, and produced more propaganda posters than any other country fighting in World War II.[12] Almost 200,000 different designs were printed during the war.[13]

These posters used a number of themes to encourage support for the war, including conservation, production, recruiting, home efforts and secrecy.[12] Posters were usually placed in areas without paid advertisements.[12] The most common areas were post offices, railroad stations, schools, restaurants and retail stores.[14] Smaller posters were printed for the windows of private homes and apartment buildings.[15] These were places where other propaganda media could not be used.[16]

The Office of War Information (OWI) Bureau of Graphics was the government agency in charge of producing and distributing propaganda posters.[17] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The main distinction between United States poster propaganda and that of British and other allied propaganda was that the U.S. posters stayed mostly positive in their messages.[17] The United States posters focused on duty, patriotism and tradition, whereas those of other countries focused on fueling the people's hatred for the enemy.</span>[17] The positive messages on U.S. posters were used to increase production on the home front instead of insuring that the "money raised was not lost."[17] U.S. Posters rarely used images of war casualties, and even battlefield scenes became less popular, and were replaced by commercial images to satisfy the "consumer" need for the war.[18]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The war posters were not designed by the government, but by artists who received no compensation for their work.</span>[17] Government agencies held competitions for artists to submit their designs, allowing the government to increase the number of designs that it could choose from.[19] [...]

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Artists and writers were strongly divided on whether to encourage hatred for the enemy, which occasioned debates.[89] The government rarely intervened in such debates, only occasionally suggesting lines for art to take.</span>[90]</div></div>

Here's a link (http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:World_War_II_posters_from _the_United_States&fileuntil=~%22Having+seen+the+quality+of+work+and+ of+the+workerson+our+production+lines...%22+-+Franklin+D.+Roosevelt+-+NARA+-+534385.tif%0A%22Having+seen+the+quality+of+work+a nd+of+the+workerson+our+production+lines...%22+-+Franklin+D.+Roosevelt+-+NARA+-+534385.tif#mw-category-media) to some 2,000 or more poster images.

While I didn't look through all of them, I looked at about 1,000, and it seems the ones LWW wants to say are typical of 'FDR's' propaganda are rare. Very few other than the ones he's already copied above.

cushioncrawler
01-15-2012, 04:45 PM
Saving waste. The bloody dagger duznt exaktly go with the message. But otherwize ok.

Saving water. Jack Campbell again shows a bloody dagger.

This iz the enemy. A clean dagger.

Death march. No dagger, but a rifle.

Cars colliding. Toyotas???. No dagger. Why iz the navy interested in road safety??????

Rape and burning of an Asian village and girl. No dagger -- but an auto-handgun.

Theze all look ok to me.
mac.

Soflasnapper
01-15-2012, 06:01 PM
Sure, but then I think you've just agreed you hate 'Japs,' right?

I think the exaggerated bad teeth look is racist, especially with giant fang-like eye teeth.

But in showing a slightly darkened Japanese SOLDIER clubbing someone with the butt end of his rifle, or carrying off a woman, is historically correct, and not racist. "The Rape of Nanking" is an infamous historical event, as is the Bataan death march.

cushioncrawler
01-16-2012, 12:22 AM
Thems big teeth must hav kum in handy for eating Chinese, and when i say Chinese i dont meen Chinese takeaways -- and nowadays for eating whales n dolphins.

I dont think that daggers were uzed much -- Japs mainly uzed bayonets, and nowadays harpoons.

Japs found that when it kame to Chinese girls, u kood hav them and eat them -- ummmmm, yummmmy.
mac.

Soflasnapper
01-16-2012, 05:11 PM
The Japanese also liked the Korean 'comfort women' they raped.

LWW
01-17-2012, 04:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sure, but then I think you've just agreed you hate 'Japs,' right?

I think the exaggerated bad teeth look is racist, especially with giant fang-like eye teeth.

But in showing a slightly darkened Japanese SOLDIER clubbing someone with the butt end of his rifle, or carrying off a woman, is historically correct, and not racist. "The Rape of Nanking" is an infamous historical event, as is the Bataan death march. </div></div>

How about locking up tens of thousands solely for the color of their skin ... or appointing a Klansman to the SCOTUS?

Soflasnapper
01-17-2012, 06:28 PM
I think that's been adequately answered. From above:

Was he [FDR], and other American wartime leaders like Wilson and Eisenhower, racist? I think that is true.


As for your evident allusion to the internment of the Japanese, that was not because of the color of their skin, but their national origin or heritage (still a form of racism, of course, but not based on skin color). FDR probably disliked Chinese and other Asian Americans as well, and they perhaps shared the same skin color, but they were not interned, and our propaganda posters featured Chinese stating 'he fights for US!' We also supported the Filipinos, despite the color of their skins.