MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Nineteen Eighty-Four

Nineteen Eighty-Four

posted 3 years ago by BullSchmidt (3189)
27 replies | jump to latest

This is a reply to minababe24's reply to me in this thread: https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/6110687a90e43b221b2257d4/deleted

Unfortunately, the OP deleted the initial post in that thread and in doing so, locked the thread, making it impossible for me to reply there, so I have to do this as a fresh thread.

> I'm not trying to be condescending, but are you sure you really read this book and not going by the movie?

Of course I've read it, at least a dozen times. And I cited enough specific details in that essay[*] to demonstrate that. And BTW, the movie is quite faithful to the book.

> I read your essay, and you kept dismissing Winston as a nobody who didn't pose any real threat. How can you say that when he was part of the apparatus responsible for erasing history and distorting truths? His JOB was literally to take scraps of news and put them down a "memory hole."

Well ... not quite. The "memory holes" in the Ministry of Truth were for disposing of trash. His job was to alter past issues of newspapers and other such written records per the Party's directives. And yes, he was no threat -- to the Party, to the Oceanic government. He was carrying out their policy. Now, you might say he was a threat to decency, to our concepts of civilized morality, and I might agree with you. But it was not decent people he feared, it was the Party.

> He then poses a very real threat to the state because when he starts connecting the dots, he has the potential to be a whistleblower, or become another Emmanuel Goldstein.

Yes -- he would be a threat if he actually did something about his insights. His becoming a diarist is the first act he takes, and that's not much of a threat to the State -- keeping notes he's surely scared to ever show to anyone else. But before that, he was too terrified to do anything at all, even though he reflects that when making diary entries, "all he had to do was to transfer to paper the interminable restless monologue that had been running inside his head, literally for years." He had been having these heretical thoughts for years but had never done anything -- and as long as he didn't, he was no threat.

> I don't understand your other dismissals of Winston Smith, calling him paranoid and such.

Ocean⁮ia is a place where one need be worried. Probably those who are in the most danger are those like Parsons, who was ratted out by his own daughter. Having children who can and will inform on you puts you at grave risk. But Winston has no children, lives alone, and is long separated from his wife. Julia is proof that one can get away with a lot in Oceania. Even if one dismisses her claims of having had numerous lovers, her ability to work the black market demonstrates that. Yet Winston is scared of even showing an improper facial expression -- "facecrime," it's called. And he's terrified despite the fact that -- as I pointed out in that essay -- Oceania is rife with corruption, and he's well aware of that; yet he's scared to do much more than buy black market razor blades and have a hooker once every few years.

Winston, having nobody (until Julia) with whom he can discuss his fears, can work up wild ideas with nobody to tell him, "that's ridiculous." And he does. At one point, after waking from a dream he confesses to Julia that "until this moment I believed I had murdered my mother," even though he was old enough at the time of her disappearance to remember the circumstances. He invents a fantasy about O'Brien based on nothing more than a moment of eye contact and O'Brien's courteous manner. He even deludes himself that O'Brien spoke to him in a dream, telling him, "we shall meet in the place where there is no darkness." Yes, when I said Winston is half-psychotic, I meant exactly that.

My academic training, undergrad and PhD, is as a research scientist, in psychology. I haven't done any research in decades and was never in the clinical end, but I did hear some things along the way. From what I recall, a hallmark of some mental illnesses is that the sufferers know they've got problems but avoid treatment, and also don't discuss their problems with family and friends, thinking "My God, if I tell anyone that they'll think I really am crazy and have me put away!" The result is that they have no one to give them reality checks and so fall prey to some of their delusions. That's Winston to a tee, fearing that if he voices his ideas Very Bad Things will happen. Those fears are of course justified even though overblown. But still, until meeting Julia he has no reality checks.

Regarding O'Brien -- He tells Winston they've been aware of his unorthodoxy and have had him under scrutiny for seven years. OK, since 1977, maybe late 1976. But if that were true, how would he know about the event with the photo of Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford, which happened in 1973? No, O'Brien is definitely flinging some horseshit around.

(continued)

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

Winston isn't the only such person. Parsons is even more squeamish, afraid to do anything even slightly unorthodox. In the movie he raves about how good the wretched cafeteria food is. In the novel, when Winston excuses his son's bad behavior, Parsons immediately retracts his apology and substitutes an orthodox statement:

“By the way, old boy,” he said, “I hear that little beggar of mine let fly at you with his catapult yesterday. I gave him a good dressing down for it. In fact I told him I’d take the catapult away if he does it again.”

“I think he was a little upset at not going to the execution,” said Winston.

“Ah, well—what I mean to say, shows the right spirit, doesn’t it?"

I'm not saying Oceania doesn't have its terrors. Put it this way. A prudent person won't get near a tree during a thunderstorm. Winston, Parsons -- and surely many others -- are like people who never get near trees at all, for fear of lightning.

> the book makes pretty damned clear that if you even so much as look cross-eyed, you could be reported and sent to a dungeon, never to be seen again.

No, what the book makes clear is that Winston believes this to be true. But in all of the novel, we never hear of anyone being punished for that. And as a practical matter, if they vaporized people for a single such infraction they'd have very few people left.

Now, I'm going to ask you a similar question to the one you asked me. In a post in the now locked thread, you said that 1984 is "junk" and that you "hate" Orwell. Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinions. But I find it hard to believe that you would read a book you consider to be junk as many times as I've read Orwell's novel. That, combined with some things you've said, for example, your implied characterization of Winston as smart, resourceful, and compassionate, makes me wonder if it's been quite some time since you've read Nineteen Eighty-Four and might be confusing it with another work. When was the last time you read the book?

[*] https://moviechat.org/tt0087803/Nineteen-Eighty-Four/5f19b68a52f94046634138e0/Julia-the-Thought-Police-and-other-matters

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

I'm not going to waste more time debating this topic, because I explained why you're dead wrong about all this.

Orwell hated Stalinism so much that he wrote two famous books bashing it. 1984 was one book. Animal Farm was the other.

1984 is a polemic against Stalinism. Big Brother is Stalin himself and the entire setup of the novel based on Stalinist Russia, from the constant surveillance to dissidents disappearing into thin air. The book was written just after WW2, when the Red Scare was just getting underway in both the US and the UK.

You don't get it-- that you're supposed to hate everything that Big Brother is and stands for and be on Winston Smith's side. The fact that you identify with Big Brother so much that you keep disparaging Smith as just being crazy is one of the reasons why I now hate the book and consider it junk. It did such a poor job at doing what it's supposed to do that over the decades, people are claiming or praising it for all the wrong reasons.

Worst yet, it's literally become some kind of "bible" now that people quote or cite as some kind of truth about everything from the human condition to politics. All it was, when you get down to it, was a British guy from the 1940s expressing his terror of Stalinism because he felt it was the greatest threat to humanity the world had ever seen. But people now see it as "timeless" and it's outgrown its significance to such an extent we have people like you identifying with the villains and denigrating the protagonist. 🙄

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> I'm not going to waste more time debating this topic, because I explained why you're dead wrong about all this.

No you haven't, you've only made your own ignorance manifestly clear. (And I notice that you didn't answer my question -- when did you last read Nineteen Eighty-Four?) But you are correct that our debating it is a waste of time.

> The fact that you identify with Big Brother

I've let your previous personal remarks fly by me in hopes of keeping the conversation on topic, but not an insult of this magnitude. I challenge you to defend this accusation. Produce just one statement I have ever made which justifies your claim.

> so much that you keep disparaging Smith as just being crazy

I guess you've never heard of an "unreliable narrator." Yep, this is a waste of time.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

You never read the book. Here's how I know--

I guess you've never heard of an "unreliable narrator."

For there to be an "unreliable narrator," a story has to be told in the FIRST PERSON, as in, "Once upon a time, I did this. I went there. I called my friend. I laughed. I cried." 1984 is told from the THIRD PERSON, as in, "Once upon a time, there was a guy called Winston Smith, and HE did this, and HE did that. HE started a journal."

You didn't know that 1984 was written in the third person, making this argument about Winston being an "unreliable narrator," nonsensical? Winston's not narrating anything. Orwell, the writer, is narrating Winston's experiences. But you've read this book so many times, apparently. 🙄

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> For there to be an "unreliable narrator," a story has to be told in the FIRST PERSON

Yes, you're correct.

> You didn't know that 1984 was written in the third person

I did know that. My remark was very much "off the cuff," and for you to jump to this conclusion based on a single mistake is the height of absurdity. But since the entire story is told from Winston's POV, the effect on the story is the same.

I won't ask you again for the last time you read Nineteen Eighty-Four, because I have strong doubts you would answer honestly.

I won't ask you again to justify your accusation that I identify with Big Brother, because you can't.

I'll just point these things out for the benefit of anyone else reading, then say that although I have given you the benefit of the doubt up to now, I am now satisfied that you are either a fool, a troll, or both. So yes, this is a waste of time. I am done with you.

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"For there to be an "unreliable narrator," a story has to be told in the FIRST PERSON"

Not true. This doesn't apply to 1984, but from here: https://thehistoryquill.com/top-tips-for-pulling-off-an-unreliable-narrator/

Unreliable first-person narrators are most common. That way it’s the character lying to the reader, not the author (or so goes the logic). But it’s also possible to do it in the third person. Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House, Stephen King’s Secret Window, Secret Garden, and Dennis Lehane’s Shutter Island are excellent examples of third-person unreliable narration. George RR Martin also uses it in his A Song of Ice and Fire series, most often when his POV characters have memory lapses, but also to withhold information from the reader for dramatic effect.

One of the best ways to achieve unreliable narration in the third person is to use third-person deep (also known as third-person intimate or third-person close), in which the line between character and narrator becomes blurred. That way, the character’s unreliabilities can bleed into the narration. The following passage, rendered both in normal third-person limited and in third-person deep, shows the difference:

Normal third-person limited:

Robert watched as Jacob smiled at Susan and approached her, shaking her hand. As he heard them exchange warm pleasantries, Robert fumed with jealousy. If he comes near her again, he’ll regret it, he thought.

Third-person deep:

Jacob, that rat. He was smiling at Susan like some lovesick puppy. Not a second later, he swooped in, shaking her hand, clutching on like he had a right to her. Next came the compliments, whispered sweetly in her ear as if they were already lovers. He wanted her – it was obvious. If he came near her again, he’d regret it. Robert would make sure of it.

Notice how we take out phrases like ‘Robert watched’ and ‘he heard’ in third-person deep in order to achieve a more direct connection to the character. We also use free indirect discourse, in which the voice of the character becomes infused into the narration. In the second version, the narration itself becomes coloured and distorted by Robert’s jealousy, creating an unreliable picture of the interaction between Susan and Jacob. But as Robert’s subjectivity is so obviously infecting the narrative, the reader will be prepared for this.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Gotta love the internet. In the end, no matter how much schooling you've had, no matter how much experience you've acquired, a site on the internet trumps it, even if it's inaccurate or padded.

Case in point: the entire concept of "third person unreliable narrator" makes no sense AT ALL. The unreliable narrator specifically refers to narration told by a person whose personal account we're supposed to take at face value, but it turns out is untrustworthy for whatever reason (dreaming, mentally ill, lying, etc.) and we're left shocked or confused by a story we were emotionally invested in and aren't sure is true or are surprised to learn was complete and utter crap.

If a character narrates their own experiences and is untrustworthy--and it's conveyed through the third person--then it's a case of a character just being a liar, crazy, delusional, etc. It's not a case of unreliable narration.

All of this other stuff on the site you quoted is filled with pseudo-literary junk. There's only Third Person; there's no such as "third person deep, close, etc." This is junk jargon, like when someone trying really hard to sell themselves as a guru makes up all of these fake terms that sound as if they're filling in readers on industry secrets.

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

The 'Third Person Deep' technique is explained clearly, and if you actually read it, you would see the difference. If you can't grasp it, that's your deficiency. I've used it in my writing, and it's effective when used properly and in the proper places.

Here's some other websites discussing it. It's obviously a topic you know nothing about, but want to sound intelligent about. It seems your debating style is full-on aggression, using bluster to cover up your lack of knowledge.

How to Write Deep POV: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-write-deep-pov

4 Ways To Make Limited Third Person Into Deep POV: https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-write-deep-pov

Deep POV—What’s So Deep About It: https://theeditorsblog.net/2011/11/16/deep-pov-whats-so-deep-about-it/

Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Deep Point Of View: https://www.standoutbooks.com/deep-pov/

How To Write In Deep Point-Of-View: https://www.well-storied.com/blog/how-to-write-in-deep-pov

There are many more out there, and I have some books I could recommend that discuss the technique further. That is if you want to actually learn about it, rather than just sound smart on the internet.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

It seems your debating style is full-on aggression, using bluster to cover up your lack of knowledge.

I wasn't being full-on aggressive. I was dismissing the website you quoted. YOU'RE the one being full-on aggressive. You went from Zero to Sixty after I made my response dismissing that website and the concept of "Third Person Deep", "Close", etc.

Did you write that article, Andrew Noakes? Is that why you got angry? Or are you just doing that cheesy tactic of going on the attack against your opponent, so that you can bait them and cry about how they are "the aggressive one"?

The 'Third Person Deep' technique is explained clearly, and if you actually read it, you would see the difference. If you can't grasp it, that's your deficiency. I've used it in my writing, and it's effective when used properly and in the proper places.

No. You don't get it.

You only used Third Person in your writing. Third Person "Deep" is pseudo-jargon, like all of these other internet terms that seem to be "delving deep" into a topic ("intersectionality", "late stage Capitalism", etc.) but aren't doing anything special other than imbuing the people who use them with the sense that they're talking about it at a more "advanced", "higher" level than everyone else.

It's an OBNOXIOUS tactic, and I call it out as soon as someone pulls it.

What's so laughable about your response, too, is that you want to pretend to have some kind of "superior insight" into this topic of "Third Person Deep", "Close", etc. but you are INCAPABLE of explaining it IN YOUR OWN WORDS. You tell me to "look it up on it", "read about it", drop more links.

Interesting. You're a writer with such a grasp of writing concepts, but you can't actually explain or give any examples, LOL. You have to resort to that bullshit artist tactic of, "Do your own research," and try to impress me with the fact that you use a concept you can't even explain "in your writing." 🙄

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"I wasn't being full-on aggressive."

Of course you were. Using phrases like "pseudo-literary junk" and "junk jargon" and "fake terms", attacking what was said instead of presenting your point of view.

"I was dismissing the website you quoted."

How about the other websites? Are you dismissing those too? I guess you know more than all of those writers.

And, as I said, an example was given. An easy to understand example that clearly showed the difference between third-person and third person deep. But you just ignore the evidence right in front of you.

"Did you write that article, Andrew Noakes? Is that why you got angry? Or are you just doing that cheesy tactic of going on the attack against your opponent"

Wow. You attack me, claiming I'm the guy who wrote that, calling me angry, and then accuse me of going on the attack.

Classic projection.

"You only used Third Person in your writing."

You have no idea what I've used in my writing.

"What's so laughable about your response, too, is that you want to pretend to have some kind of "superior insight" into this topic of "Third Person Deep", "Close", etc. but you are INCAPABLE of explaining it IN YOUR OWN WORDS. You tell me to "look it up on it", "read about it", drop more links."

Wow. Seriously? I provide evidence from multiple expert sources, and you see that as me being incapable of explaining it in my own words? I'm sorry, I meant INCAPABLE of explaining it IN MY OWN WORDS. (psycho.)

"You have to resort to that bullshit artist tactic of, "Do your own research," "

What are you talking about? I didn't ask you to do your own research. I did the research for you. All you had to do was read it.

It's a normal step in a debate where two people disagree on a subject, to look to the experts to see what the truth is. That's what I was doing. Showing you the experts' opinions on the subject.

But no, you know more than them. Because you're so smart, and no one can tell you otherwise.

More writing experts talking about Third Person Deep:

Using Deep POV In Limited Third Person: https://writersinthestormblog.com/2020/09/using-deep-pov-in-limited-third-person/

Using Deep POV in Your Novels: https://www.alessandratorreink.com/home/deep-pov

Deep Third Person Limited POV: https://www.how-to-write-a-book-now.com/deep-third-person-limited-pov.html

Deep POV: https://annlaurelkopchik.com/category/deep-pov/

Deep Point of View: https://revisiondivision.com/tips/f/deep-point-of-view

How to Make Readers Captivated Using Deep POV: https://writingcooperative.com/how-to-make-readers-captivated-using-deep-pov-6741b0cc3171

The difference between third person POV and Deep POV: http://kristenstieffel.com/the-difference-between-third-person-pov-and-deep-pov/

How to Write in ‘Deep’ Third-Person Point Of View: https://lorraineambers.com/2020/09/10/how-to-write-in-deep-third-person-point-of-view/

So, all those people who have written before don't know what they're talking about, and you know better than them. Your arrogance is incredible. Especially when you've demonstrated your obvious ignorance on the subject.

What it boils down to, is that you can't tell the difference between these two writing styles:

Robert watched as Jacob smiled at Susan and approached her, shaking her hand. As he heard them exchange warm pleasantries, Robert fumed with jealousy. If he comes near her again, he’ll regret it, he thought.

Jacob, that rat. He was smiling at Susan like some lovesick puppy. Not a second later, he swooped in, shaking her hand, clutching on like he had a right to her. Next came the compliments, whispered sweetly in her ear as if they were already lovers. He wanted her – it was obvious. If he came near her again, he’d regret it. Robert would make sure of it.

Either you're completely clueless, or you're being willfully ignorant.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

Nice try, but it seems our resident fool has flown the coop. In any case, some people just aren't worth the trouble.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

i knew she wouldn't last.
i shouldn't be pissy, because i think there may be some serious problems with that person. i don't know that, but she has a history here of barely controlled but continuously expressed rage.

personally, i hope she stays away. she's just bad news.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> i shouldn't be pissy, because i think there may be some serious problems with that person.

I dunno ... over the years I've concluded that ultimately, the kindest thing one can do with a person with serious problems is to give them honest feedback on their actions. If you try to be kind to someone like her, you're just enabling them.

> personally, i hope she stays away. she's just bad news.

Agreed ... Not. Our. Problem.

[–] MartyDeniro (4171) 3 years ago

it's atomicgirl, and she'll be back.

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

"and it's outgrown its significance"

I disagree. Some of the things Orwell described are so similar to what's happening today, it looks like his biggest mistake was setting it forty years too early.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> it looks like his biggest mistake was setting it forty years too early.

I'm old enough to remember the real year, 1984. Lots of smarmy newspaper editorials calling attention to the parallels between reality and Orwell's setting ... as well as a few cynical ones lamenting, "oh Lord, we're going to have a full year of smarmy newspaper editorials calling attention to the parallels between reality and Orwell's setting."

Now, that couldn't happen. The Thought Police wouldn't allow it. Which means, perhaps you're right.

[–] KinkyInk (1694) 3 years ago

Yeah, forty years is probably an exaggeration though. We're not quite to the oppressive dystopian scenario Orwell described just yet. But it is bothersome so much of what's going today on is reminiscent of the book.

Maybe more like fifty years.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> But it is bothersome so much of what's going today on is reminiscent of the book.

I've said before that sometimes I feel like a Roman in the declining days of their empire -- I see that things are falling apart, I understand many of the reasons, perhaps most, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Oh well, I'm an old geezer. I've already had my fun. If I'm lucky things won't get too much worse before I die. But I fear for what the younger generation might go through. IMO we're headed for a real bloodbath.

[–] Adam60z (3766) 3 years ago

Looks like O'Brien isn't the only one.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> Looks like O'Brien isn't the only one.

Huh?

[–] jriley555 (8117) 3 years ago

1984 couldn't be more timely, in the internet age, where history re-writing is a cottage industry, as well as the product of large corporate media interests.

orwell ingeniously, and in dramatic fashion, explores the relation between power and what passes for truth. the thing is, power has always and always will assert its control of truth, even in ostensibly democratic systems, but the proliferation of political free-booters has amped up the volume of disinformation (yet in service to political overlords), with far more moving parts than the autocratic scribblers in the 1984 regime's would recognize. they just got their orders - but if we look at the process now, it is not so dissimilar, except that sensationalism pushes the lever to ever further distortions.

this process is, of course, going apeshit on the right (election denialism, vaccine rejectionism, etc.). the left hawks their pet issues, but the malignant dez we're seeing comes, in lions share, from the right. the establishment left doesn't pull stories from whatever equivalent of Q or the gateway pundit or radio-show fulminatores by the dozens in most large cities might be expected to exist. the left mainly has the establishment high-profile magazines, NYT, WAPO, LATIMES, MSNBC and now CNN. none of it is radical.

orwell saw it all.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

He didn't see it all. He created this current environment, like how Fight Club, The Matrix and Network inspired the very things they were railing against. Nobody up until that novel could've seen with clarity how to use information to manipulate the public. He not only gave everyone a primer but the means through which to do it, so that politicians, demagogues and other people applied Big Brother's techniques in the Real World. The book, in other words, was the equivalent of an anti-war screed but at the same time giving warmongers both an enticing view of war and a pitch perfect guidebook on how to wage war effectively. Bottom line, it gave the assholes a "leg up."

For example, the reason why we have no privacy is that the people who read this book realized, "Hmm, if we wanted to force a surveillance state on everyone because humans have a natural aversion to having their privacies violated...how do we get around this? Oh, let's incentivize people into giving away their privacy. Let's tell them it's for the sake of public safety or that they're being cool, hip and modern by installing cams all over their house or that there's no expectation of privacy so have no right to complain when leaked photos of themselves wind up all over the internet."

Another thing people have to understand is that 1984 was never, ever a broad, generalized view of politics. It was a point blank polemic against Stalinism. Literally, the entire thing boils down to, "Be afraid of Stalinism. This is what Stalinism would look like if we had WW3 and this time the Stalinists won." It was not a projection or a prediction of anything. If life today resembles the book, it's a question of "life imitating art," a principle people used to be aware of but seem to now be completely ignorant to, this idea that works of art have the power to create the very circumstances they write about.

[–] joi2049 (5561) 3 years ago

Nobody up until that novel could've seen with clarity how to use information to manipulate the public.

What about the stories we're told in history books about how COLUMBUS discovered the AMERICAS, when there were also already about 25 MILLION other inhabitants living here for THOUSANDS of YEARS by the time he arrived (who also got here by walking across the LAND BRIDGE).

Isn't that PROOF that MISINFORMATION was used as a way to MANIPULATE PUBLIC OPINION way before the 1984 NOVEL was ever written??? And that kind of INDOCTRINATION also begins in GRADE SCHOOL where young kids are taught what a BIG HERO that COLUMBUS was suppose to be.

The Control of a NARRATIVE as a way to make oneself look GOOD isn't anything NEW.

The HEBREWS also did the same kind of thing with their GENESIS story (which they also STOLE from the SUMERIANS -- who wrote about GILGAMESH -- who was the ORIGINAL WILD MAN running around in the WOODS with the animals before a FEMALE is introduced as a way to TAME him).

But then the HEBREWS also introduced their PATRIARCHAL AGENDA into to the TALE as well, in an effort to try to MANIPULATE and CONTROL the females in their society (a process that also still continues to this very day even by other cultures who are NOT HEBREW in origin).

In other words, it's VERY EASY to be able to see

"with clarity how to use information to manipulate the public"

when one examines other stories that have been told throughout HISTORY.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

Good grief...you guys are not getting it.

1984 is not about "whitewashing" of history or propaganda, which--you're right--has been here since the beginning of time. It's about a more subtle form of propaganda known as "Psy-Ops" or what kids these days are calling "gaslighting."

The difference is enormous. It's the difference between lying about history and going so far as to both erase evidence, as well as CHANGE LANGUAGE to keep anyone from learning the truth.

For example, how do we know that Columbus didn't really discover America? We have photos of Native Americans. We have documentation and their descendants to tell us what happened. We have historians. We have, in other words, evidence and words to contradict the lie about Columbus. Because of this, the books could've spent all the years it wanted lying about them but the truth--documents, oral history, etc.--would've come out eventually, like those bodies turning up in Canada right now in spite of its every effort to bury the past.

In a Big Brother regime, we wouldn't know anything, because Big Brother would destroy all documents, artifacts and traces of Native American history. Also, if descendants tried talking about what happened to their ancestors, Big Brother would manipulate you into not understanding what they were talking about. If, for example, Native Americans said, "They exploited our people," Big Brother might confuse you and say, "Exploited only means that we took them into our homes, fed and sheltered them like they were members of our family. It doesn't mean anything bad; being exploited can be a good thing."

On top of that, Big Brother would delegitimize historians. For example, say historians are able to prove--in spite of manipulated language and disappearing artifacts--that Native Americans were exploited. Big Brother would gaslight you into not understanding what historians say or do, say something like, "Historians are folk tellers who make shit up to go against the state."

END OF PART 1

[–] joi2049 (5561) 3 years ago

In a Big Brother regime, we wouldn't know anything, because Big Brother would destroy all documents, artifacts and traces of Native American history.

That's pretty much what they attempted to do by handing out BLANKETS INFECTED with the SMALL POX VIRUS to natives that they knew would catch it, get sick, and DIE from it. And they also rounded them up and moved them onto RESERVATIONS (THE TRIAL of TEARS is a good example where they MARCHED many of them to their DEATHS so that they wouldn't have CONTACT with others who were WHITE SKINNED).

When that wasn't enough they also kidnap their kids, force them to LEARN the ENGLISH LANGUAGE (as a way to try to WIPE OUT their own language), and that's why you've got all of those BODIES of children being found in graveyards now.

In other words, due to the way all 3 involve DECEPTION and MANIPULATION, imo, WHITEWASHING or the use of PROPAGANDA is basically the SAME thing as GASLIGHTING.

WHITEWASH:

>>deliberately attempt to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about (someone or something).

GASLIGHT: | Definition, Origins, & Facts | Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/topic/gaslighting

>>Gaslighting, an elaborate and insidious technique of deception and psychological manipulation, usually practiced by a single deceiver, or “gaslighter,” on a single victim over an extended period.

PROPAGANDA:

>>Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

[–] [deleted] 3 years ago

PART 2

In short, what 1984 talked about wasn't straight up propaganda or whitewashing but a sophisticated form of gaslighting, manipulation of language and disappearing of evidence to prevent people from even getting to the point where they COULD question lies.

Until the book was written, no one could've possibly imagined this very sophisticated form of propaganda, where you're not only destroying artifacts, documentation, etc., you're changing the meaning of language itself to make it harder and harder to point out or even talk about the lying in a cogent manner.

Again, the difference between one and the other is someone flat out saying something like, "Susan was never raped by the football captain," =AND=, "Okay, maybe the football captain punched her in the face, broke her jaw, anally violated her until she bled and then told her 'she had it coming'...but that's not rape. That's just rough sex. That's just role playing."

Or, how about this: a medical expert argues that, based on the exam that he ran on Susan, that she most certainly WAS raped because her injuries were consistent, and someone says, "These medical experts all are repressed Puritans trying to redefine sex acts they're uncomfortable with as being rape, in order to control the population. None of their findings are valid."

I don't know how much clearer I have to be about this issue, that 1984 basically introduced subtle forms of manipulation and gaslighting that the public wouldn't have been aware of otherwise. That's my problem with the book. Without the book, we would've still had the same old propaganda bullshit but of the type we would've been able to call out. This book had the unintended effect of teaching assholes more sophisticated ways of lying--and getting away with it.

[–] BullSchmidt (3189) 3 years ago

> this process is, of course, going apeshit on the right

Well, there's plenty of horseshit coming from both sides -- for example, there are many who have been led to believe that tens of thousands of unarmed blacks are being gunned down by white police officers every year, when the actual number is a few dozen, a drop in the bucket in a country of over three hundred million. But this is the General Discussion board, and we're supposed to keep it free of politics. Admittedly difficult to do when discussing Nineteen Eighty-Four.

It's scary how far the warping of reality can be taken. At one point in the novel, Julia muses that the war might not be real at all, that the Oceanic government might simply be bombing its own citizens to keep up war hysteria. Winston is shocked, realizing that idea had never occurred to him. But I saw a discussion of this on another forum recently, where a poster speculated that perhaps there was no Eurasia, Eastasia, or Oceania, just one big World State, in which the government feeds the locals everywhere this lie about three superstates at war and bombs them to maintain war fever. That idea had never occurred to me, but for all we -- and Winston and Julia -- know, that might be true.