![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Among world Lit buffs and historians or specially interested connoisseurs it is fairly common knowledge that communist countries produced children's literature aimed to politically incline young readers towards a certain ideology or political leader.
In general it could probably be said that while censorship and propaganda, dictatorship and limited options is a bad thing, it could also be said that there are fairly few in the US with the kind of knowledge & insight it takes to really have a perspective to all the dynamics going on in some of these books without totally demonizing them at the same time.
However, I don't think it is a far step from a decent bulk of common knowledge and a sense of critical analysis into an ironic observation on three children's books produced in the US recently. Now..what makes these three books different in a literary analysis of a political text aimed towards children from certain books not produced in a capitalist country?
The answer: not so much.
If I try to only be slightly biased and attempt a neutral literary analysis, I still have to say that the McCain book is the most blatant one in which no attempt whatsoever is made to produce any literary quality alongside the personal propaganda that all three books are guilty of.
The McCain book bears a striking likeness to the "grandpa Stalin" or "Daddy Stalin" genre of children's books, where you mainly toot the horn without actually telling a story. The visual art in this book also have many similarities with stalinist glorification and prettification of one single larger than life man contrasting with an intimate narrative tone and a paternal gloria.
The Obama book has another angle - here we see a version of "American Dream" self made, fantastically intelligent and strong kid who conquers against all odds. It bears a likeness to the classical folk tale of the brave farmer's son who becomes king, a humble person from humble background but with an extraordinary gift which also glorifies him and separates him from most other folk.
The Clinton book is a curious one. It's Anne of Green Gables goes political, Pollyanna for president, Caddie the Pioneer girl goes to Senate. A girl with a dream, a "we can all do it, girls" kind of book. I have to say, I like this one the most, or should I perhaps say, I dislike this one the least. This book is the only one which makes a real attempt to tell the story of a once-child, to another child.
I really wanted to draw attention to this similarity in political children's books between the US and its old political arch-nemesis, since many Americans seem under the illusion that a sea of diversity separates the American culture from other countries cultures when it comes to political strategies.
About McCain's vice president I have to say that I don't really give a rat's ass about teenage pregnancies really, it can be right and it can be wrong, completely depending on context - morally I don't think anyone should toot about it, BUT, politically, from the perspective of what Palin preaches, I think this cartoon sums it up pretty well (thanks Jamie):
And if I should examine why I in the end have some positive views on Obama, I have to conclude that it doesn't come down to economy or war, but to just taking a stance and to talking about the mere act of spirituality or of being human. I like how the spiritual way of thinking in a positive way instead of a condemning one, is applicable to both other religions, to atheists who want to be good people and to more obscure spiritual paths. In the end he attempts (and somewhat succeeds) to justify religiousness and making a stand on the pro choice position and at the same time show respect for other views.
It's long, and it's by Obama, so skip it if you feel subject to too much propaganda, or simply think it too long
I am not an Obama fangirl, but I respect him and i think this country has produced his voice from some really deep needs for multifaceted debate. He very well might disappoint, as all political wielders do sooner or later if you set yourself up to have certain expectations - but in the aspect of debate, which is the main and only aspect people can really be certain of at this point, let me re-phrase this: from a spoken word/literary/debate analytical standpoint, he is certainly the best option, at this point.
Partially cross posted in![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
biblio_life
In general it could probably be said that while censorship and propaganda, dictatorship and limited options is a bad thing, it could also be said that there are fairly few in the US with the kind of knowledge & insight it takes to really have a perspective to all the dynamics going on in some of these books without totally demonizing them at the same time.
However, I don't think it is a far step from a decent bulk of common knowledge and a sense of critical analysis into an ironic observation on three children's books produced in the US recently. Now..what makes these three books different in a literary analysis of a political text aimed towards children from certain books not produced in a capitalist country?
The answer: not so much.
If I try to only be slightly biased and attempt a neutral literary analysis, I still have to say that the McCain book is the most blatant one in which no attempt whatsoever is made to produce any literary quality alongside the personal propaganda that all three books are guilty of.
The McCain book bears a striking likeness to the "grandpa Stalin" or "Daddy Stalin" genre of children's books, where you mainly toot the horn without actually telling a story. The visual art in this book also have many similarities with stalinist glorification and prettification of one single larger than life man contrasting with an intimate narrative tone and a paternal gloria.
The Obama book has another angle - here we see a version of "American Dream" self made, fantastically intelligent and strong kid who conquers against all odds. It bears a likeness to the classical folk tale of the brave farmer's son who becomes king, a humble person from humble background but with an extraordinary gift which also glorifies him and separates him from most other folk.
The Clinton book is a curious one. It's Anne of Green Gables goes political, Pollyanna for president, Caddie the Pioneer girl goes to Senate. A girl with a dream, a "we can all do it, girls" kind of book. I have to say, I like this one the most, or should I perhaps say, I dislike this one the least. This book is the only one which makes a real attempt to tell the story of a once-child, to another child.
I really wanted to draw attention to this similarity in political children's books between the US and its old political arch-nemesis, since many Americans seem under the illusion that a sea of diversity separates the American culture from other countries cultures when it comes to political strategies.
About McCain's vice president I have to say that I don't really give a rat's ass about teenage pregnancies really, it can be right and it can be wrong, completely depending on context - morally I don't think anyone should toot about it, BUT, politically, from the perspective of what Palin preaches, I think this cartoon sums it up pretty well (thanks Jamie):
And if I should examine why I in the end have some positive views on Obama, I have to conclude that it doesn't come down to economy or war, but to just taking a stance and to talking about the mere act of spirituality or of being human. I like how the spiritual way of thinking in a positive way instead of a condemning one, is applicable to both other religions, to atheists who want to be good people and to more obscure spiritual paths. In the end he attempts (and somewhat succeeds) to justify religiousness and making a stand on the pro choice position and at the same time show respect for other views.
It's long, and it's by Obama, so skip it if you feel subject to too much propaganda, or simply think it too long
I am not an Obama fangirl, but I respect him and i think this country has produced his voice from some really deep needs for multifaceted debate. He very well might disappoint, as all political wielders do sooner or later if you set yourself up to have certain expectations - but in the aspect of debate, which is the main and only aspect people can really be certain of at this point, let me re-phrase this: from a spoken word/literary/debate analytical standpoint, he is certainly the best option, at this point.
Partially cross posted in
biblio_life
