|
|
Thursday, July 01, 2004
An essay on Propaganda in Animal Farm
Would you consider the following to be a good essay?
The term propaganda is sometimes brought up in casual conversation, however, many do not realize the potential power that propaganda can have. Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. In the novel Animal Farm by George Orwell, propaganda is shown to indeed cause harm. An examination of various sections of the book will be conducted in order to demonstrate three aspects of propaganda: how it is used by Snowball to positively obtain the control of Animal Farm; how Napoleon uses it in a sinister way to exile Snowball and his paradigm and to show Napoleon's propaganda as a scapegoat for his own problems. Again, Merriam-Webster states propaganda as the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. First, it can be seen how Snowball uses propaganda to effectively assume leadership of Animal Farm. After the rebellion, Snowball took control and broadcast his ideas upon desprate ears. Vote for Snowball and the three day week... (p.34) Snowball spread propaganda that would promote Animalism by building a windmill. This windmill was to be used for luxuries that would make life better for everyone on Animal Farm. Snowball also said that although the construction would be difficult all animals would benefit in the long run. His positive attitude, ideas and propaganda excited the animals so much that they wanted to build it, until the demise of Snowball and his crimes of treason. Napoleon decided to use propaganda in a negative manner to destroy the reputation of Snowball's righteousness. During a vote when the animals of Animal Farm were to decide the fate of the windmill, the animals seemed to be siding with Snowball. That is when Napoleon implemented his wicked plot to rule Animal Farm. Napoleon exiled Snowball from the farm by means of death and then spread propaganda about how he was a traitor from the beginning and how he has been working with Mr. Jones the past (exiled) owner of Animal Farm. Napoleon did this to guarantee his position of leadership at Animal Farm to counteract when he was outsmarted by the plans for the windmill and the fact that Snowball was likely to be the one in complete control of the farm. However, all the animals accepted Napoleon's propaganda and continued with him as their new leader. . During the unjust reign of Napoleon at Animal Farm, he encountered many problems that would eventually be attributed to the use of propaganda. This use of propaganda was again corrupt, but it was used in a different way, propaganda served as a scapegoat for Snowball and every issue that would threaten his role as leader. This was obliviously evident in many ways. When the windmill (a bad idea to begin with) was being built under the rule of Napoleon, it toppled in a violent storm. It was declared destroyed by Snowball but he could not have destroyed the windmill due to sheer size. The animals thought about how Snowball was a traitor in the past and believed every word that Napoleon directed. This also shows how propaganda is very powerful when it is used in leadership situations. People will believe anything. The novel Animal Farm clearly indicates how propaganda is used to change others beliefs When people are motivated by positive ideals and wish to promote those ideas, propaganda is a wonderful tool. However, when we see the darkness from Napoleon and it becomes difficult to separate the truth from lies. Hopefully, when propaganda is brought up in casual conversation it comes out in the way that Snowball intended. To help people.
Words: 621
Comment on the quality of this essay using the intellectual standards which can be found at this website
| Clarity |
Clarity is the gateway standard. If a statement is unclear, we cannot determine whether it is accurate or relevant. In fact, we cannot tell anything about it because we don't yet know what it is saying. For example, the question, "What can be done about the education system in America?" is unclear. In order to address the question adequately, we would need to have a clearer understanding of what the person asking the question is considering the "problem" to be. A clearer question might be "What can educators do to ensure that students learn the skills and abilities which help them function successfully on the job and in their daily decision-making?" |
| Accuracy |
A statement can be clear but not accurate, as in "Most dogs are over 300 pounds in weight." |
| Precision |
A statement can be both clear and accurate, but not precise, as in "Jack is overweight." (We don't know how overweight Jack is, one pound or 500 pounds.) |
| Relevance |
A statement can be clear, accurate, and precise, but not relevant to the question at issue. For example, students often think that the amount of effort they put into a course should be used in raising their grade in a course. Often, however, the "effort" does not measure the quality of student learning, and when this is so, effort is irrelevant to their appropriate grade. |
| Depth |
A statement can be clear, accurate, precise, and relevant, but superficial (that is, lack depth). For example, the statement "Just say No" which is often used to discourage children and teens fro using drugs, is clear, accurate, precise, and relevant. Nevertheless, it lacks depth because it treats an extremely complex issue, the pervasive problem of drug use among young people, superficially. It fails to deal with the complexities of the issue. |
| Breadth |
A line of reasoning may be clear accurate, precise, relevant, and deep, but lack breadth (as in an argument from either the conservative or liberal standpoint which gets deeply into an issue, but only recognizes the insights of one side of the question.) |
| Logic |
When we think, we bring a variety of thoughts together into some order. When the combination of thoughts are mutually supporting and make sense in combination, the thinking is "logical." When the combination is not mutually supporting, is contradictory in some sense, or does not "make sense," the combination is not logical. |
Posted at 09:01 pm by gepentrance
|
|
|
