Dehumanization through propaganda

Throughout history, politicians have used propaganda to dehumanize the enemy. By doing this, politicians trick their followers into believing that the enemy deserves to be killed, for they are portrayed in the propaganda as being murderers, rapists, or just plain scum. The result then is that the people are more willing to engage in war against the enemy since they have a firm belief that the enemy should be out-right eliminated.
For example, Hitler was able to gain widespread support for World War II by using the Jewish population as a scapegoat. He used propaganda to make them seem disgusting and different, making them the root of the German people’s troubles (Nazi Propaganda). Which as a result, created greater support from German citizens. Hitler used caricatures that represented Jews having huge noses, skinny, and just plain ugly. Of course, this was not a true representation of the Jewish population. However, when people would see these posters, they associated them with the Jewish community. As this association grew, so did the atmosphere of hate towards the Jews. Violence became more accepted towards Jews and soon came the Nuremberg Race Laws in 1935 which restricted the Jewish population from many normal activities (O’Brien). Then the movement by the Nazis to completely eliminate the Jewish population, by using concentration camps, that the German population was well aware of. All were supported because of the slow progression of using anti-Jewish propaganda that slowly turned the minds of the non-Jewish community into hating the Jews and agreeing with the Nazi regime that they were the root of Germany’s problems.
A modern day example is the dehumanizing of Saddam Hussein. We dubbed him “the new Hitler” after claims in 1988, that he was supposedly gassing his own people (Clark 1). Along with other claims of Saddam’s cruel acts towards his own people, the U.S. population began to view him as a murderer, a womanizer, and just an overall horrible being. One of the main reasons that President Bush gave for invading Iraq was the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (Clark 1).The Bush administration was unable to articulate exactly why we were going to war, being the true reason was the “plans for U.S. domination and exploitation under its New World Order” (Clark 1). So, in demonizing Hussein, they were able to still gain support even without telling the U.S. exactly why we were going to war. Doing so lead the United States into believing that invading Iraq and driving Saddam out of power was the right thing to do. As a result of the U.S. population, being influenced by the demonization of Saddam Hussein through modern propaganda, supported the U.S. invading Iraq February 22, 1991 which became known as the Gulf War. To this day, we are still in Iraq, after a new invasion in 2003, even though Saddam Hussein is now dead.
Why do we dehumanize others? This is an easy answer. To help make it easier to hurt the “enemy”, it gives one a justification for killing, torturing, and hurting those they believe are bad. The theory that we must dehumanize others in order to aggress against them is called moral justification. Looking at moral justification it is seen that with it, “ people can see themselves (or one’s group) as having fought in the name of righteous ideologies or nationalistic imperatives.” (Cehajic-Clancy). It is clear that many people in this situation probably feel much cognitive dissonance. They know hurting people is wrong, but they know that these bad people must pay. So to make their cognitive dissonance disappear, they simply tell themselves that these people are far from human! They are animals who have committed horrible acts against others and deserve to pay. Cognitive dissonance occurs when two thoughts contradict one another. So, “ When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior.” (Cognitive Dissonance (L. Festinger) ).
When a leader uses dehumanization of the enemy, their country fall into a mindset of pure hate for the enemy. Thus, the people are far more willing, whether they know all the facts of why their country wishes to go to war, to back up their leaders. Propaganda clearly wins in ensnaring the minds of a population into believing the lies their leaders tell them about their enemy with the use of dehumanization.



"Nazi Propaganda". Holocaust Encyclopedia. October 3, 2009 /wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005274>.

O'Brien, Joseph. "Nazi Racial Legislation: The Nuremberg Laws". Information For
Students. October 3,2009 .

Clark, Ramsey. "Demonize to Colonize". Global research November 29, 2005.

Cehajic-Clancy, Sabina. "Dehumanization of the victims." Puls Demokratije. 30 June 2009. Puls Demokratije, Web. 10 Dec 2009. .

"Cognitive Dissonance (L. Festinger) ." Explorations in Learning & Instruction: The Theory Into Practice Database . Web. 10 Dec 2009. .

Nationalism = Internal Conflict

Nationalism moves countries to conquer great feats, like winning a war. It brings countries together in patriotism, to reach a common goal for their nation’s advancement in the world. Although it helps mobilize a population towards war, it always causes an internal war among the population.
This is clearly evident post-9/11. After the attacks on the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, American nationalism sky rocketed. Americans came together towards a common goal: fight the war against terrorism. However, because the people involved in the 9/11 attack were Muslim, soon people had the misconception that all people of Middle Eastern descent were terrorists. Americans soon came to this idea that all Muslims in America were Muslim extremists. Because of the high nationalism following the attacks and the misconstrued beliefs of Americans towards Muslims and Middle Easterners, there was a 70% rise of violence and harassment in 2002 towards Muslims. In the following years discrimination rose another 30%.(Smith)
Nationalism is supposed to bring a country together, not tear it apart by violence and discrimination within its own borders. Why is this such a common phenomenon? It is most likely due to group polarization. When 9/11 occurred the United States as a whole came together as one. Nationalism was high and so was the hate for those of Muslim faith and those of Middle Eastern decent. Because Americans were under the impression that all of said people were bad, and because Americans were already so close ideologically through nationalism, they raised arms against Muslims and Middle Easterners living in the United States. Group polarization is a concept that explains how populations band together and act in extreme ways. It is a theory that says that when people join a group that is fixed on an idea, in this case on the hate towards Muslims after 9/11, they tend to act in more extreme ways than they would if the individuals were acting alone(Stonor). After 9/11 with Americans, who had never shown violence towards others before, beating up Muslims, shooting, and killing Muslims(America’s Muslims after 9/11). Also American group polarization could be seen in a less non-violent way, in the work force. After 9/11 job discrimination against Muslims was a huge issue.

As I have shown you, nationalism can be a terrible thing. Yes, it brings countries together and promotes patriotism, but it can also rip it apart. Many examples can be given to show this, how it has happened in the past and how to this day it is still common. Nationalism, when steering a population towards a common goal, can turn these patriots into terrorists themselves.

Smith, Sharon. "Stoking Racisn After 9/11". Socialist Worker 24 September 2004: 4-4.

Stoner, J. A. F. (1961). A comparison of individual and group decisions involving risk. Unpublished master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Industrial Management.

"America's Muslims after 9/11". Voice of America. 25 October .

Violence against the LGBT community

Today we are still witnessing violence against the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) community by religious radicals. They believe it is their duty to rid Earth of all homosexual persons in any way. The reason they believe they must do this is because of their strong convictions and devotion to their religion. They find that their violence against the LGBT community is justifiable by the teachings of the Bible and should not in any way be punished, for they are simply doing Gods will.
In the Bible it is said that punishment for those who engage in homosexual behavior or even wear the clothes of the opposite sex, is death. Today, we see less and less of such crimes against LGBT persons by religious persons in the United States, although hate crimes and protests are still prevalent. Where we see violence of LGBT persons is in South Africa and the Middle East by radical religious people. In South Africa, women who are lesbian are subjected to gang-rape. Those who do such a horrible thing to be done to these women intend for it to supposedly "cure" the women of being lesbian. A lesbian woman, Soldaat, living in South Africa was ganged raped, and was told during her attack by her attackers that they were going to make her into a real woman again. She says that "Most of the lesbians in my community are being subjected to 'corrective rape', in the hope that it will cure us of something which the rapists believe we have copied from white people."(SOUTH AFRICA). This as well as terrible torture and murder of gay men in Iraq. BBC News reported from a Human Rights Watch researcher that gay men are kidnapped, then have their anuses glued and force fed laxatives, inevitably resulting in death.(Saddam's Rule)
So why is it that these people who murder and torture LGBT persons feel like what they are doing is justifiable by the Bible? There are many reasons why people will commit such acts without remorse because they believe it is what they are supposed to do according to the Bible and other Holy texts. There is the Belief Bias, this theory states that people "accept any and all conclusions that fit in with their systems of belief, without challenge or any deep consideration of what they are actually agreeing with."(Henel 69). People are using their Holy text to justify their cruel, horrible actions against the LGBT community. They believe what they are doing is morally right.

"SOUTH AFRICA: Tide of violence against women drowns out homophobia." Medilinks. 01 February 2007. Plus News, Web. 10 Dec 2009. .


Henle, M. (1962). On the relation between logic and thinking, Psychological Review, 69, 366-378


"Saddam's rule 'better' for gay Iraqis ." BBC News. 06 July 2009. BBC, Web. 10 Dec 2009. .

Incentives and Benefits to Entice Soldiers

Individuals have different motivations in putting themselves into dangerous professions such as military service. Why do soldiers, today and in the past, decide to join the military particularly when a country is at war? Wars have been occurring for as long as mankind has been on this Earth and yet we continue to fight even though we know the potential individual consequences could be death. What possesses them to want to make such a sacrifice? The reasons can be explained through the theory of Extrinsic Motivation. This is when an outside force drives one’s motivation to do certain things, i.e. join the military, in order to receive “tangible rewards”, such as health insurance or a promise of a brighter future which the military offers (Extrinsic Motivation).
For many, there is much more to joining the military than their dream of being a soldier or even their choice. Men during the Civil War and the Vietnam War had no say in whether they wanted to go to war or not. They were drafted. So, one reason for a government to get men to go to war is to give them no choice at all.
During World War I, many men went to war to protect their country’s pride. There was a significant amount of nationalism and patriotism. However, today it is much different than it was during the Civil War and World War I. Today, there is no draft, and because of the media we experience the immediacy of war’s consequences. So how are modern governments able to still recruit so many soldiers?
In most countries now, militaries give their personnel accommodations and special privileges in order to gain more soldiers. If militaries didn't give such benefits, there would be a smaller amount of people who would be willing to join. One soldier, recently deployed to Afghanistan, joined because he had lost his job and health insurance. Through the U.S. military, he had a job and full health insurance for him and his family (Killed After One Month in Combat). He was only over there for a month before being killed. The sad thought is that the military offers such enticing incentives knowing what is required to attract people who cannot find such benefits elsewhere. Such behavior falls under the Acquired Needs Theory. The Acquired Needs Theory explains that one’s needs can greatly affect one’s behavior (Acquired Needs Theory). Another example is the U.S. military’s offer to pay for a soldier to go to college. Many soldiers in America, during recent wars, have been young men and women fresh out of high school. Many young adults have nowhere else to turn. They may not have made the grades in high school to get into a university or they may not have the financial support necessary to attend college. Therefore, they join the military which gives them ample opportunities for their future. If they survive.
Some soldiers fight because of their religious views. Some to live out a dream. Some join for an adventure. Some out of pride and nationalism. And some do it to protect the people and interests of their country. Most, however, join for the incentives and benefits military service provides (Ginexi, Miller, Tarver). These soldiers are willing to risk their life for these benefits. The gratification of immediate needs and wants outweigh the vague, possible future consequences of going to war.

"Extrinsic Motivation". Changing Minds. October 3, 2009

.

"Killed After One Month in Combat". CNN. September 6, 2009

<http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/09/07/acosta.soldier.sacrifice.cnn>.

"Acquired Needs Theory". Changing Minds. October 3, 2009

.

Ginexi, Elizabeth, Tarver, Steve, and Alison Miller. "A Qualitative Evaluation of

Reasons for Enlisting in the Military. Interviews with New Active-Duty Recruits.."Storming Media