The Perfect Paper 1 (Highly Idealistic)

Why fight for Russia?

The following text is a leaflet written by British Pacifist Norman Angell in 1914 in response to Britain’s decision to enter the World War 1 alongside Russia. The extract displays conventions of a leaflet all throughout including bold titles, use of a variety of persuasive techniques and also facts and figures. The given extract was written in 1914 when essentially Britain was an empire where the sun never set. Norman Angell approaches this issue not only as a pacifist but also as a patriotic British national. Through the effective use of stylistic devices such as rhetorical question, anaphora and antithesis to compare Russian and British ideologies, Angell establishes the argument that Britain has no need to enter the World War 1 alongside Russia.

The purpose of this leaflet is to persuade the audience to protest against Britain’s decision to enter World War 1. The audience can be anyone as leaflets are freely distributed to the public but the target audience is clearly the working class as Norman Angell says “Make your Trade Union, you I.L.P., or B.S.P. branch pass strong resolutions”. He therefore creates this leaflet as a call to action, the action being to protest against Britain’s involvement in the war. The theme of this leaflet is merely the notion that war causes violence and this is also obvious as Norman Angell was a Pacifist.

The content of the leaflet revolves around this idea and Angell provides factual information to drives the desired response from the reader. He compares Russian and British ideologies and states that Russia’s system is against British ideals of liberty and justice and against ‘western civilization’ as a whole. Norman Angell then asks a direct question which compares Germans to Russians and provokes a logical thought process. He calls Russians ‘slaves of a corrupt autocracy’ and does this to send the message that that Great Britain as a civilized nation should not relate or associate itself with Russia. Norman Angell goes a step further to state that Germans are of the same race and blood and just like the British, are engaged in trade and industry and peaceful occupations. This induces the reader to relate to a German rather than a Russian and also adds to his purpose to persuade the reader to protest against War. He also mentions that a war for Russia is like a war against civilization and this further provokes the desired response from the working class, that is, to vote against Britain taking part in WW1 and to live in peace and harmony.

The tone of this leaflet is preachy and is therefore convincing and this creates a patriotic mood that turns it into a matter of urgency. The author indicates that the information should be spread by saying “write your member that you will try and turn him out”. Norman Angell essentially questions what the reader expects of their country and the values it upholds. The author effectively uses logos to explain why Britain shouldn’t take part in the war using and example from Crimea where Great Britain spent 50 million pounds. He also uses figures to compare the population sizes of Germany compared to Russia to emphasize the much greater threat Russia could be in comparison to Germany. He also indirectly uses pathos in the form of a patriotic angle to change the opinion of a reader that Britain should fight alongside Russia in World War 1. The author effectively uses a range of literary devices in the leaflet, such as anaphora when he repeats ‘Russia’ three times to grab the reader’s attention. He uses the antithesis that a war for Russia is a war against civilization to directly influence the reader’s opinion and perspective to one that is for peace and thus against Britain taking part in WW1.

The structure of this poster is one that is organized and shows a logical but biased thought process. The title itself asks a question ‘Why fight for Russia?’ This rhetorical question indicates the start of the thought process. The reader can then use the information and the question provided by Norman Angell to think about the War and its consequences. The author’s intention to re-emphasize that this is a violent war to be fought alongside Russia, is satisfied with the the statement ‘A War for Russia is a War against Civilization.’ Again, the use of an antithesis combined with the big bold black text conveys the underlying message to the reader. Lastly Angell reiterates what he means: ‘BRITAIN, STAND CLEAR!’ and this provides a conclusion to his well-organized argument.

In conclusion, Norman Angell effectively uses persuasive techniques and bias to create a leaflet that questions the patriotism of the British by comparing them to Russians who he mentions in the leaflet, are against the values and ideals of the nation. He therefore provokes the desired response from the reader, to protest and vote against Britain taking part in World War 1.

Obviously he failed…. hahaha

Are you caring?

Rationale:

This propaganda poster aims to present ‘Caring’, one of the essential IB learner profile ideals as the most important. The poster has been created using propaganda appeals such as card stacking which involves testimonials, glittering generalities and transfer device.

The transfer device takes the form of an image where a dog is feeding milk to a goat using a bottle. Since most people will agree that the picture is cute, they will also identify the fact that the dog and the goat are from 2 different species and this gives an essential realization that we as one species should take care of each other. The quote from Mahatma Gandhi has been provided to contribute to the ethos of this propaganda just as the picture of the caring dog has been used to apply to the pathos of the viewer in a subtle way. The testimonials provide physical evidence on the importance of being caring, and solidify the message being conveyed.

The glittering generalities (...Strive to be EXCELLENT at...) provide a new dimension to the poster. It showcases an IB learner as one who shines even amongst the most clean of mirrors. The visual language contributes to the importance of caring for each other as the bold font emphasizes the ideal. The background picture also provides a general overview, as the heart sign made using the hand is a mainstream thing and it can be easily identified. The picture of the globe within the heart has an obvious connotation, to love and take care of the world around us.

Poster: http://www.docdroid.net/zYKX3MJ/caring-propaganda.pdf.html 

It is acceptable for a government to try to shape public opinion through information campaigns

During the Iraq War, the Pentagon and the Bush White House controlled what went out to the world about what was happening through media centers such as CNN, BBC and Fox News. They did so by providing vague information about the location of the American troops and also by emphasizing the glory and might of the American army in Iraq.

Al Jazeera, a famous Doha-based news channel tried to provide a balance of stories by presenting the war from the perspective of a civilian in Iraq to tell the world that the Iraq war was not a clean one by any means but was rather messy and bloody. Pentagon officials called Al Jazeera the 'mouthpiece of Bin Laden'. For example, the story of Jessica Lynch was so dramatized  and the Pentagon was giving out false information of what had happened when Lynch was rescued. They told the media that Lynch had sustained stab and bullet wounds and had been slapped but it was later found out that Lynch only suffered injuries from the accident in which her team was caught. Also the Pentagon claimed that the US troops came under fire during the 'rescue' operation but the doctors at the hospital said that the Iraqi troops had fled the area two days prior to the arrival of the American special troops. So who fired at the American troops?

Personally, I believe that it is not acceptable for a government to try and shape public opinion through information campaigns. It is inevitable to some extent to glorify the American army based on patriotism of the people in power and of the people and reputation of America as the most powerful nation in the world but that is still not a good enough reason to provide biased information campaigns that can shape the public opinion to a massive extent. I was personally appalled by what the Pentagon did and i believe that this is why I disagree with this statement but yet I don't strongly disagree because it is tolerable to some extent.

Migrant Crisis: A BOON or a CURSE?

Rationale

The article that has been chosen was published recently on October 14, 2015 by Tom Porter, a reporter for the International Business Times UK who had previously worked for the BBC and the East London Guardian. It has a clear bias against the migrant crisis and provides facts and figures to concretely explain the negative impact of the crisis and the unpopularity of Angela Merkel's decision among the people of Germany.

This pastiche will look at how the influx of refugees may turn out to be advantageous for Germany. Personally, I believe in the ideology that although Germany may have had good intentions about helping people, it has now turned into a massive political and economic necessity to counter balance Germany's ageing population. This ageing population needs migrants to take the menial jobs in order for the economy to work efficiently, and this is going to be the basis of my pastiche.

FYI! This pastiche represents a perspective of a group of people and of myself on this massive world issue that is the refugee crisis caused by the Syrian civil war and the up rise of the extremist group, ISIS, or ISIL, or IS, or Da'esh.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE BY TOM PORTER, published on the IB times UK

Migrant crisis: Germans increasingly feel the country cannot cope with influx of refugees.

Most Germans believe there are too many refugees in the country and that Chancellor Angela Merkel was wrong to say "we'll manage this". Approximately 800,000 refugees and migrants are expected to arrive in the Germany this year.

The survey by YouGov, published on 13 October, found that 56% believe there are too many refugees in the country, a 10 point raise on the previous month.

It also found failing confidence in the German government's insistence that Germany could cope with the influx, with only 32% of respondents agreeing with Merkel's repeated insistence "we'll manage this", down by 11 points from a month ago.

Only 19% thought the country could take in more refugees, down from 28% in mid-September.

The survey comes as support for Merkel's Conservatives dropped to its lowest levels since June 2014 in the wake of the refugee crisis. The Forsa poll conducted for broadcaster RTL and Stern magazine showed that support for the party has slipped to 38%.

Merkel and Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Conservative's Bavarian sister party, are currently locked in dispute, with Merkel favouring an open door policy towards those wanting to enter the country, and Seehofer threatening to take the government to court unless it does more to stem the flow of refugees and migrants, with Bavaria often their point of entry.

PASTICHE

Many say that Germany's attitude towards the refugees stems from an event that happened in the dark history of Germany, the Holocaust of 1941 when the Germans were forced to be refugees themselves. But, realistically, that is just a load of nonsense, these scholars might have been on moonshine!

The way to look at it politically is from statistics that are completely entrenched in economic values and not in values of the general German populace. For a country like Germany to take in so many refugees there’s no two way about it. Of course, it is easy to fool the people and make them sympathize with the refugees, this will only benefit the German economy.

Generally in the EU, over 50% of the population is above 45 years old and as humans, the older people get, they become less active and therefore it becomes harder to do menial jobs that require no skill but a lot of physical labor. For countries like Germany, people inflow requirements can't be met just by policy changes that allow more migration to the country. The fact is that most western European countries need an inflow rate of 7x- 8x higher than the current rate. 

So what is the advantage of this influx of refugees?

Angela Merkel announced late in August that Germany is willing to accept a massive 800,000 refugees this year. Merkel's decisions are ones to be admired though as she is trying to make economic as well as political gains by taking advantage of this the crisis. She uses the ideology articulated by Michael Heppell in his book 'FLIT IT: How to get the best out of everything.' and turns this crisis into a massive boost for an ageing economy. 

The introduction of younger, healthier refugees into the German workplace will surely benefit the German economy as it may be able to increase its output overall as an economy as the immigrants bring specific skill sets with them. The real tragedy here is that the pitiful plight of the persecuted masses might turn out to be an excuse to cause them still more pain and adversity.

GOOD LUCK TO THE ASYLUM-SEEKERS!

 

PS: I am sorry about the pictures if they aren’t displayed.