Skip to main content

These are lecture notes for my Library and Information Science 101 class next Fall.  In it I am exploring aspects of media and information literacy ultimately in hopes of expanding my students' understanding of media coverage of global warming.  This lecture is about government censorship.

The former Soviet Union provides us an excellent example of censorship in action.  Theirs was a huge, monolithic government capable of controlling virtually all information their citizens were exposed to.  Everything had to be run though “official channels” to make sure it corroborated the state’s version of reality.  Even when people KNEW that the story was a lie, they knew better than to talk about it with anyone but their closest friends and family members.

Take for instance, the disappearing Russian cosmonauts.  You can look online and find before and after photos that show how they “disappeared” someone who had fallen out of favor.  There would be a picture of a bunch of people and then one of them would fall out of favor, and the officials would retouch the photo to take him out of it and republish it.  So they could point to it and say, “See, look?  Sergei was not there!  He was never in the space program.  We knew that guy was a cretin from the start!”  And after the retouched photo surfaced, even the people who actually saw him there knew better than to disagree with the official story.

It isn’t shocking to think that people in power will want to control their image or manipulate people to ensure that they stay in power.  What is shocking is how TOTAL the level of control was.

I am going to be cribbing a lot from James V. Wertsch’s “Blank Spots in Collective Memory:  A Case Study of Russia,” so if you want to read that article, you should.   But he calls these instances “blank spots,” and explains, “In some cases these were literal blank spots, as in photos where people’s images had been painstakingly airbrushed out of existence; in other instances, the notion was more figurative, having to do with what could—and could not—be discussed in a public setting.”

But something interesting happened in 1939. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was basically a non-aggression agreement between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.  Not only were they not going to fight one another, there were secret plans within the pact in which they agreed to divide the countries between them into “spheres of influence.”  Germany was going to exert influence over some countries, among them Poland and Romania, and Russia was going to influence the others, specifically Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Russia did more than exert influence on them.  They actually annexed those three countries INTO the USSR.  It’s like all the people in those countries just woke up one morning and found out they were actually Russians.  They KNEW that the M-R Pact must have had something to do with it, but officials denied it, and they knew better than to go around asking questions.  Think for a second about how much state control there must have been for there to be that kind of dynamic.  Now, the interesting thing about this--and the wonderful case study the collapsed Soviet Union provides us--is how this information was handled in textbooks at the time and in subsequent years.

In textbooks that reflect the official Soviet version of  history—which was all of them until the late 1980s—there was nothing to say about the secret plans in the M-R Pact because, according to official channels, there were no secret plans.  In A SHORT HISTORY OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION (1970) the M-R Pact is discussed as follows:

In August of 1939 Hitler’s government proposed a non-aggression pact to the Soviet Government.  The Soviet Union was threatened with war on two fronts….[and] agreed to make a pact of non-aggression with Germany.  Subsequent events revealed that his step was the only correct one under the circumstances.
The non-aggression pact was treated as a good idea and made no mention of secret plans or spheres of influence.  Again, because in the official record, no such plans existed.  Later in the book, in a completely unrelated passage, the annexation of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia are discussed:
In 1940, when the threat of German invasion loomed over Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, and their reactionary governments were preparing to make a deal with Hitler, the peoples of these countries overthrew their rulers, restored Soviet power and joined the USSR.
The official version of what happened fit neatly into the USSR’s narrative—that the people overthrew their corrupt government and rushed to join the Soviet Union.  This was how the M-R Pact was taught in Russia until the late 1980s, when Gorbachev, the Soviet Union collapsing around him, admitted that the secret protocols had in fact existed.  A textbook in use at the time shows the transition between one version of history and another. Note how ambiguously worded the passage is, so as to avoid laying responsibility on anyone:
As a result of complex processes of international and internal development, Soviet power was established anew in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia….However, in the new regions entering the USSR, breaches of the law characteristic for those years of the abuse of power were tolerated along with democratic revolutionary transformations.  All of this made the situation more complicated in these regions,  It had a negative effect on people’s psychological state and at the same time on the military preparedness of the USSR.
Interestingly, this version of history is implicitly critical of the Soviet Union, but it still dances around telling its readers what exactly happened.  There is no mention of the pact, no mention of who entered into the agreement, and no mention of what exactly happened besides “complex processes of international and internal development.”  Whatever that means.  Wertsch states that the “obvious awkwardness” of the account was the product of a couple of competing impulses.  On one hand, they had to acknowledge that something happened.  But on the other hand, there was not a clear idea as of yet what the new version of truth was going to be.  You can imagine that people, after years of living under complete state control, were wary that anything they said could come back to haunt them.  But on a grander scale, cultures always play with the facts to make them fit within their narratives.

By 1998, a 9th grade history book reflects that a new narrative has taken hold, one of the “difficult choice.”  By this time, it was safe enough to actually tell people about the secret plans in the pact, as well as to talk about the machinations behind the scenes.  But in order for these facts not to be a source of shame for the country, the pact is rationalized as a difficult decision that had to be made, despite any reservations.  In the textbook there is language such as:

Stalin was confronted with a difficult choice:  either reject Hitler’s proposal, thereby agreeing to have German forces move to the borders of the USSR in case Poland was defeated in a war with Germany, or conclude an agreement with Germany that would provide the possibility for pushing borders back from its west and avoid war for some time.
So we see through three different time periods how the past is presented in different ways.  This is a rare glimpse of this process made possible only because of the USSR’s dissolution in 1991.  But consider the examples that are right in front of your face.  How is Hollywood’s portrayal of American Indians different now that it was in the 1950s?  That is happening on a different scale, for sure, but both shifts reflect a change in the culture and the agreed-upon cultural narrative.

Perhaps a closer parallel can be found when we look at textbooks in America.  First, it is important to clarify that the US government does not wield nearly the kind of authority that the Soviet Union’s did. But there is a confusing and confounding political and media landscape in America that allows for censorship, some of which is more obvious than others.  Noam Chomsky says that there are two kinds of censorship—the kind in Iran and the kind in America.  Iran lives under the kind of Soviet model that we saw earlier (totally different politics, by the way, but the same overall effect on the freedom of information).  That is, everything is censored…but Chomsky says that because everyone KNOWS that everything is censored, they also know enough to go around the official channels to get to the truth.  He states that the kind of censorship in America is much more insidious.  Because we live under the illusion of freedom, we are much less likely to seek any truth beyond what is given to us by the same official channels that in other countries they know to go around.

Consider the Texas school board.  Up until 2011, they had the power to decide what was included in all textbooks used in Texas.  (For reasons of economy, many other states adopted the textbooks, as well, so the effects were felt all over!)  In 2012, individual school districts started having more say in the process, and the Texas School Board no longer had the final say.  But up until then, this relatively unknown group of people who had been voted in by a very small number of people, had an enormous say in what appeared in the state’s textbooks.  The documentary The Revisionaries details how the Texas State Board of Ed, led by Don McElroy, changed textbooks to reflect conservative values and fundamentalist religious beliefs.  I recommend watching the film's trailer on that page if you are not already familiar with those guys.

Bill Moyers offers some examples of the Texas State School Board in action, noting that the board skews conservative and that decisions about what is put in and taken out are often politically motivated.  For instance, according to the New York Times, Thomas Jefferson's role as an enlightenment philosopher was nixed because he coined the phrase "the separation of church and state."  

In a particularly telling episode, as documented by Moyers, religious freedom is downplayed:

A proposed amendment from one of the Democratic board members would have required students to “examine the reasons the Founding Fathers protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” One Republican member argued that the “founders didn’t intend for separation of church and state in America” and called the statement “not historically accurate” and the conservative members voted down the standard. The board then added a new one that suggests the “separation of church and state” is not a key principle of the First Amendment.
Sometimes the decisions are completely arbitrary, as also noted by Moyers:
South Texas artist Santa Barraza was recommended for inclusion in a 7th grade standard by a Latina board member. Another member googled the artist and was offended by one of her paintings that included minor female nudity. She showed it to her colleagues and they refused to add her to the standard. The Texas Freedom Network notes that several of Barraza’s paintings were hanging in the Texas governor’s mansion while George W. Bush was in residence in the 1990s. The conservative bloc also removed hip hop from a list of culturally significant musical genres.
We have in effect here, two different examples of censorship, the former Soviet Union kind and the present-day American kind.  Though they are different, the net effect is the same:  students are not getting the truth they need.  If the information in a textbook can be inaccurate, then who can be the final arbiter of truth?  If the very notion of truth is subject to change with political whims, how do we ensure a well-informed populace?

Wed Aug 07, 2013 at 12:44 PM PT: I kind of wish the comments had been more germane to the diary.

Originally posted to NearlySomebody on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 01:07 PM PDT.

Also republished by History for Kossacks and Progressive Friends of the Library Newsletter.

Poll

This is going to be ________ for college freshmen.

26%6 votes
43%10 votes
17%4 votes
0%0 votes
13%3 votes

| 23 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I didn't learn anything useful about Socrates (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ojibwa, Catte Nappe

    in an excellent High School. College introduced me to Plato and The Apology. I didn't learn that he was a one percenter in favor of Spartan rule until I worked in a used book store and I. F. Stone's excellent book, 'The Trial of Socrates' came to my attention.

    •  If someone were a one percenter, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, Catte Nappe

      all that means is that their income or wealth put them in the top 1%. They were rich. It doesn't mean that they were bad, or illiberal; it actually tells us very little about who a person is or was. Hating someone because he or she was rich makes little more sense than hating someone for being tall or for growing a beard.

      •  There are two kinds. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Words In Action, Barton Funk

        Only one kind thinks that they deserve it and are better.

        •  So why lump both together and (0+ / 0-)

          use "1%er" in a denigrating way? Why not call them "greedy people" or something like that? You know, as this site gets more successful, Markos himself will become (if not already) a one-percenter. And there are many here in this community who are as well. FDR and JFK and RFK and John Kerry and Barack Obama are also one-percenters, and Warren Buffett is a .001%er. Lumping all rich people together with people like the Kochs is no better than any other type of stereotyping.

          •  Which kind do you think Plato was? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Barton Funk

            I disambiguate between the wealthiest one percent, the top one percent of earners, and one percenters.

            Which are you?

            •  None of those categories tells you (0+ / 0-)

              what a person is about or who they are. There are plenty of high-earning and/or wealthy liberals. And what difference does it make to you what someone called doc2's financial situation is? Again, you seem to be convinced that you can tell something about someone based on what sort of activity takes place in their bank account. I'd think you'd want to not be so open about your prejudices.

      •  More than likely (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Barton Funk

        they left a few dead and many injured bodies in their wake as they single-mindedly pursued their ambitions, which is what 1% usually takes, unless of course you begin on third base...

        Even more likely, they believe they're "better" than everyone else and have difficulty sharing credit for the things they've accomplished with those who helped make it possible. This is especially true among those born on third base...

        Pretty much universal among the one percenters I have known.

        The reason the 1% is so powerful is that 99% of the 99% has a sleeping sickness. ☮ ♥ ☺

        by Words In Action on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 01:52:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Substitute the word "blacks" (0+ / 0-)

          for "one-percenters". For some reason you think you can stereotype people based on income, as if success in and of itself determines how good a person is. Just ugly.

          •  False equivalence. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Barton Funk

            You know, psychologists will tell you that psychopaths, who are 1% of the general population, are 10% of executives.

            It IS a special population, by definition.

            Just as you can say that center-fielders tend to be faster than players at other positions, on the whole, you can say that 1 percenters are more selfish than everyone else, too. That has also been established.

            And my own experience, with 15 years as a corporate executive and 10 off an on as a small business owner in a market heavy with 1 percenters bore that out.

            You know which customers were most likely to give labor employees a decent tip in an industry where that is customary? Rich ones. Especially those with $10M+ homes. Same people who were most likely to make bogus claims in order to get money back... Just the way it is.

            The reason the 1% is so powerful is that 99% of the 99% has a sleeping sickness. ☮ ♥ ☺

            by Words In Action on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 02:19:11 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  .. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Barton Funk, Klusterpuck

            The reason the 1% is so powerful is that 99% of the 99% has a sleeping sickness. ☮ ♥ ☺

            by Words In Action on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 02:40:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  So... (0+ / 0-)

      is that the fault of the teacher or the fault of the student?

  •  Wow, this thread (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Barton Funk

    escalated quickly.

  •  The history books I grew up with (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NearlySomebody, ZhenRen

    in the 70s were baisally the history of rich people. Thankfully I lived in a former anarchist colnony that had many 90+ year old retired anarhists fromthe turn of the century. They liked to tell the stories of their younger days. From them I learned the true story of unions, heard eyewhitness accounts of the haymarket riot, heard the tales of coalmine strike where many strikers died because the government intervened on behalf of the coal companies and so on.

    I now love history, and learn all I can about the conditions and lives of those who came before us. Everyone should eally know and get a feel for it because we seem to be repeating it.

    It is the heart that makes a man rich. He is rich according to what he is not what he has -Henry Ward Beecher

    by PSWaterspirit on Mon Jul 08, 2013 at 02:59:05 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site