![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Don't Be A Sucker
Sep. 8th, 2018 12:21 pmA film from the U.S. War Department recently crossed my path:
Don't Be A Sucker
It was made in 1947, to combat the sort of political rhetoric that could lead to America going the way of Nazi Germany. Aside from its relevance, I found it interesting how much of this 1940s view of America, as a multiracial, multireligious, multicultural smorgasbord that is stronger in its diversity, sounds like what you hear from today's metropolitan Millennials, and is labelled "progressive", while the Right wants to "return" to some imagined golden age. In this context, the progressives are the traditionalists!
Also interesting was the assumption that Catholics would be labelled an out-group. They were an easy target for divisive populists for most of US history; it makes me wonder why they aren't, now. Is it because conservative Catholics are useful enough to the Evangelical cause that they're tolerated? Has there grown a distinction between "American Catholics" (i.e. white, and WASP-ish in their habits) and all the other ones – Latino, African, Filipino – who are more conveniently excluded by race than by religion? Why aren't the "useful" white Catholics, on the inside of the Republican fence for their voting record, sticking up for their browner brethren?
It seems to me that a lot of people are drawn to conspiracy theories and quasi-fascism out of a fear of being taken as a sucker. Not gonna fall for the gubment's coverups and lies, or the liberal agenda of the media, or pie-in-the-sky ideas about equality. Hence Fox News pushing its message that it's the only unbiased, fact-based news source. Don't get suckered by those other networks! And then they've got you.
Don't Be A Sucker
It was made in 1947, to combat the sort of political rhetoric that could lead to America going the way of Nazi Germany. Aside from its relevance, I found it interesting how much of this 1940s view of America, as a multiracial, multireligious, multicultural smorgasbord that is stronger in its diversity, sounds like what you hear from today's metropolitan Millennials, and is labelled "progressive", while the Right wants to "return" to some imagined golden age. In this context, the progressives are the traditionalists!
Also interesting was the assumption that Catholics would be labelled an out-group. They were an easy target for divisive populists for most of US history; it makes me wonder why they aren't, now. Is it because conservative Catholics are useful enough to the Evangelical cause that they're tolerated? Has there grown a distinction between "American Catholics" (i.e. white, and WASP-ish in their habits) and all the other ones – Latino, African, Filipino – who are more conveniently excluded by race than by religion? Why aren't the "useful" white Catholics, on the inside of the Republican fence for their voting record, sticking up for their browner brethren?
It seems to me that a lot of people are drawn to conspiracy theories and quasi-fascism out of a fear of being taken as a sucker. Not gonna fall for the gubment's coverups and lies, or the liberal agenda of the media, or pie-in-the-sky ideas about equality. Hence Fox News pushing its message that it's the only unbiased, fact-based news source. Don't get suckered by those other networks! And then they've got you.
