Pakistan and India used to be one country before the British split them with the idea one would be for Muslims and the other for Hindus because they couldn’t really get along. But was there ever a time they could? Yeah actually. When the British conquered India, their strategy was to divide and conquer. The colonial narrative split India into “a nation of communities, above all what were deemed the two great communities of Hindu and Muslim”. The British emphasized their differences and shaped the way history was told. The British went to the Hindus and fueled their nationalist ideas by saying they had a Golden era before the Muslims invaded and screwed things up, so “Many Indian nationalist leaders found it useful, specifically, to accept the notion of an Indian Golden Age that ended with the presumed oppression of Muslim rule.” The British also went to the Muslims though and told them the Golden era was during their rule. These ideologies stayed with the people and fuel conflict to this day. So, like the Ministry of Truth, the British changed the way history was told and they ended up fueling hate between the Muslims and the Hindus from which comes conflict.
(My sister was doing a research project for her history class and told me about this. The book is Islamic Contestations Essays on Muslims in India and Pakistan by Barbara D. Metcalf)
Another way I feel like we have a “Ministry of Truth” is not by literally recording history differently, but by framing events in a certain way that helps you make your point. I’m pretty sure we all have read I am Malala at one point. When you learn about her, lessons generally frame the conflict as if it can all be solved by education and that you should always stand up for what you believe in. But people living in northern Pakistan don’t necessarily agree with this. The issues they deal with are more complex and can’t all be solved by getting an education, so saying education can solve everything is an oversimplification. Generally, people there, including the girls (Malala focuses on girl’s education), want to be safe and stay alive more than they want to go to school. People also aren’t necessarily willing to stand up for themselves because Malala did get shot and she got lucky. So, as you can imagine, it’s not easy for them to be convinced to fight for girls’ education. I feel like this relates to the Ministry of Truth because how you learn about these issues changes your view, like how the Ministry changes their records so that Big Brother is always right, which makes the people more willing to love and trust Big Brother.
(Now I’m not saying that fighting for girl’s education is bad, it’s just that it’s not their only problem, their issues are a lot more complex than sending girls to school).
The last thing I want to address is how the media’s portrayal of other countries is similar to the Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Truth changed its records to say that they have always been at war with Eastasia when they switched from being at war with Eurasia. It was important to them to make it seem like they never switched sides. The portrayal of the war helps them keep their people in check. The media’s portrayal of a country shapes how you view it and media tends to portray Pakistan as a backward, dangerous, poor country full of terrorists. But hopefully, you guys don’t believe that because it’s a terrible stereotype. Once someone was talking with my dad and my dad mentioned how my family often visits Pakistan. The other guy was kind of surprised because “isn’t it dangerous there” to which my dad replied, “it’s about as safe as schools in the U.S.”
There are a lot more examples of “real life Ministries of Truth” but here were a few. Can you guys think of any examples that aren’t well known?
You made some really interesting connections here between the Ministry of Truth and our own history. I also think that things like the media and who we surround ourselves with can influence our perceptions of certain peoples, countries, ideas, etc. until what we see as the "truth" may not actually be true at all.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you show multiple aspects of the Ministry of Truth, going beyond the basic idea of recording history differently. I especially like how you take something that most of us are familiar with, I am Malala, and relate it back to the Ministry of Truth. It's also think it's interesting to read how the media, something that we tend to take for granted and blindly believe its information, may not be the truth.
ReplyDelete^^^ This post did a really great job going beyond a surface-level look at the Minitru (I think that's what it's called) and looking at the different ways it perpetuates certain ideas. Both oversimplification and blatant reframing are prevalent across the globe, despite information being more widely available than in the 1984 society. Imagine if our knowledge was as limited as it is in 1984.
Delete(Also, this part slayed me: The other guy was kind of surprised because “isn’t it dangerous there” to which my dad replied, “it’s about as safe as schools in the U.S.”)
I had no clue about how the British used propaganda to split up the Hindu and the Muslim populations. I think this real-world example just goes to show how impactful a particular narrative can be towards a group of people. We are very influenced by the people around us and we pick up on their ideas and such. Imagine only being able to understand a particular narrative created by the 1984 society. That would totally mislead a whole population of people which could be potentially scary.
ReplyDeleteI like your points about the Ministry of Truth. It's like the old (and kinda overused) saying "winners decide the history". The people in charge are the ones that decide the narrative of history. I think you can see that everywhere (even here in the US). In elementary school we learned about Christopher Columbus as a brave explorer and "discovered" a land that already had millions of people living on it. Sometimes the truth is altered to suit certain ideals. This is exactly what happens in 1984 but it's extremely overdone.
ReplyDelete- Anna Ondrejckova
Nice post!! I love the points you make about the Ministry of Truth and how you tied it together with the portrayal of other countries & how their history is changed just so they can be made to look a certain way. It's interesting to see what you wrote about the actual history of pakistan and India. I think that just goes to show how they are portrayed very different from the truth, much like what the Ministry is doing in the book.
ReplyDeleteI love how you use the Ministry of Truth's function to explain current political and religious situation between Pakistan and India. It reminded me about how during the colonial era Europeans played off different groups against each other to weaken a country so they could either neutralize the country's power or take it over. I also agree that many of the news stories don't paint a positive picture of many countries and perpetuate stereotypes. Way too often am I faced with people who recoil when I say that I visit Lebanon.
ReplyDeleteThese are interesting examples and ideas that you bring up. The Ministry of Truth is probably the ministry that I was able to draw the most connections to with our society. The government definitely uses media to shape the way things look, leaving out certain details and emphasizing others.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really nice post! It's interesting just how many ways our world is altered based on framing, media, and government shaping. It's strange to think that an organization or even a person has that much control over someone's ideas about the past or the present. While we may not have a world where it's people's explicit job to rewrite history (like Winston), it's still disturbing that people might be doing that, even unconsciously.
ReplyDeleteThe examples you came up with are really interesting! The example of the British splitting Pakistan and India was eye opening. It really shows how long-lasting the effects of changing the way history is told can be.
ReplyDeleteThankfully today, we are taught to read a variety of sources and to be skeptical of news we read which should help somewhat in preventing us from being easily brainwashed by false ideas.
I loved the examples you gave because I hadn't really known the extent of their reframing of history, especially in the case of Britain's meddling. Skewed truths are almost everywhere, particularly in the media, because it can be difficult to eliminate bias. And it doesn't help when outlets are owned or controlled by people and companies with agendas to push. Fortunately, in the U.S. (and plenty of other countries as well), even though there is control over media, the control is not entirely from one entity (like the Party in 1984), so we can look at various sources to get a more accurate and nuanced picture.
ReplyDeleteI liked how you managed to relate the events that occurred in the book to things that happened in the real world. Even today, we fell like we are well informed but it seems really easy for the media and propaganda to manipulate events to their liking.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how you are using the concepts that came up in the book and creating connections with modern society. I especially like what you wrote about framing events and situations in a way that proves your point. There are many ways to spin any given event, which can be seen with the way that different news outlets spin different events, I think.
DeleteIt is quite interesting how you managed to find parallels between real-world events and events in George Orwell's 1984. The media has the power to alter the public's perception of reality.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThe idea of editing history really reminds me of History as Fiction, specifically Mumbo Jumbo and Libra. It's not necessarily the winners who write history, but the people who understand how history gets written. Obfuscation and misinformation are powerful motivators, and even the language of history communicates bias.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post! It scares me how many comparisons there are to 1984 and our own society. Even this one which I hadn't even though about that much before. Hopefully these comparisons are full parallels though.
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting! Thanks for sharing this information because I definitely was not aware of most of it. I completely agree with your point about the American media's portrayal of countries, especially in the middle east. I find myself thinking about this issue a lot and it's really frustrating.
ReplyDeleteWow, I didn't know the history of how Britain used propaganda to split up the Hindu and the Muslim populations; I really see the connection between the fictional Ministry of Truth in 1984 and the actual "Ministry of Truth" in the real world! Like a lot of people pointed out above, I'm glad that the US has numerous news outlets so that we can get information from multiple sources and that we have the ability to corroborate facts. Good post!
ReplyDeleteI hadn't recognized the extent to which the British played the Hindu and Muslim populations of India against each other as you described, though I am honestly not surprised. I think the connection you make between the behavior of the British in India and that of the Ministry of the Truth is a good one and highlights the impact that strategies for control portrayed in 1984 can have in the real world.
ReplyDelete