Instructions
Complete your reading of George Orwell's novel 1984 by Wednesday, December 3, 2008. When you reach one of the stopping points given below, respond to the Essential Question for that section of the novel. For each of the essential questions, you must respond to the question in 100-300 words and respond to the comments of at least one of your classmates in separate posts of the same length. Since this is a Web Log, your comments will not be nested, so be sure to identify the question and response you are addressing. Given that there are four stopping points and Essential Questions, I expect at least 8 responses from each of you.
NOTES: There is a cut-off date by which you must complete your responses to each essential question. I expect to read direct references to the novel and relevant discussion of pertinent ideas. Lastly, sign your posts with first name and last initial. Like this--John D.
Respond to the following question by Monday, November 10, 2008. The cutoff for responding is midnight Monday night.
How extensive are the similarities between the totalitarian government of Oceania and contemporary governments, including our own? What are those specific similarities?
83 comments:
I don’t think, or would like to believe, that our government is too similar to the one depicted in “1984.” The media as well as other entities scrutinize our government enough that something even remotely similar to Oceania would not be allowed to happen easily. It is more likely that our government monitors us more than we think without us even knowing it. This notion could be supported with the knowledge that our government was wire tapping our phones at one time while keeping it secret. Again, this was not allowed to go unnoticed because of the media’s power to report the government’s doings. An obvious similarity between our lives and Winston’s are the video cameras continually recording what we do every day, although their presence in the book is much more intrusive. When I think about comparing foreign governments to Oceania’s, China comes to mind. The Chinese government is very similar to Oceania’s government when comparing censorship and their treatment of people. In past history, China has also controlled people with fear and prosecuted them without much reason or evidence.
I think that the similarities are quite extensive. Classes are still seperate, theres an Inner and Outer Party. There is plenty of Patriotic propaganda posted everywhere. There is a lightly enforced curfew for juveniles, and with the Patriot act still in place mail and telephones can be searched/monitered at the governments will. They can demand organizations to hand over any papers or records with no probable cause whatsoever. It widened the range of the definition of "acts of terrorism" to be anything from actual mass murder, to kidnapping. Also there was a point when "french fris" were to be called freedom fries due to a dispute over the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Of course no one really followed through with it, but it was still there. During World War I Sauerkraut was called "liberty cabbage" and the same for hot dogs and hamburgers, the well known "liberty pups" and "liberty steaks" Those lame bits of patriotism are in use but not enforced. Even when Winston is exercising and he is singled out for not keeping up to standards, we have that here in America, only in Illinois though. We are forced to go to gym class and can be held back if we do not fulfill those requirements. It was enforced by the government and we really cant change that. So yes, there are similarites, while not as well enforced, they are almost oneand the same. Last one is they use dollars too.
America is slowly moving toward moral and ethical policies dictated by the mass opinion. As our government becomes more and more a reflection of its people, everyone, even those who didn't share the original opinion, are forced to take part in the communal mentality. Examples include recent legislation on abortion, marriage rights, etc. Opinions that may be divided over these issues are rapidly becoming indisputably consolidated. Those who disagree must accept the common conception. In a word, doublethink: accepting both yours and the crowd's ideas.
It would not be wise to describe America in terms of a "Big Brother", as watching us maliciously without our knowledge. In "1984", Oceania makes no attempt to appear sensitive to the privacy of the citizens. Rather, it expects citizens to accept surveillance as part of the lives, and also to take part in it by "tattling" on neighbors and family members. This mentality is rendered moot by policies that have become ingrained in the minds of Oceanians. In this way, America has not approached such an extreme. However, it does seem that in the way that Oceania abandons top-down control for a spread-out sideways dependency on its human constituents, America is falling back on the expectance that citizens accept certain rights and rules. The media, corporate advertisements, and party propoganda (see the recent election) all invite people to literally sell out their minds to an idealogy of consumption, absorption and ultimately agreement. That is why, like the chocolate rations in Oceania, we complain when product prices (oil, grain) rise as result of the war, but we ultimately accept it as a sacrifice to the government effort. Like many other things in our society, it is an example of doublethink.
I would like to think that the similarities between the totalitarian government of Oceania and our own contemporary government are not too extensive. Yet, they are still present. For instance, both governments have regulations and consequences. The people of Oceania may disagree saying that they have no set laws yet this is because they are ignorant and unaware that their lives are controlled by these set laws. One such consequence that both governments have is the death penalty, even though ours is more ethical then Oceania’s method of shooting someone in the back of the head. This is because our government is held to different standards then Oceania’s government. In our government the people and the media have a say and can set such standards as morality and choice. On the other hand, Oceania’s standards are to follow the government with blind faith. So, in each case these standards, regulations, and consequences are upheld and yes to an extent the two governments are similar but with radically different standards. Also, in each government there is a sense of ambiguity in the fact that no one can always be certain what is happening behind the curtain. We do not actually know how much control or knowledge the government has of our daily lives. Just like Oceania, we indeed have spies and elusive inner workings of the government. Our government does to an extent control the people just not nearly as much as in the case of Oceania.
I am responding to the post written by Chris M. I found the example of how the government wire tapped our cell phones quite interesting. I had heard this before but never thought much of it because I believed it to be a myth. It is a bit frightful to think that the government can actually monitor people like that. Also, I would agree that media plays a big role in preventing such government control to get too extensive. Our freedom of speech and press is what sets us apart from Oceania. However, there definitely are some similarities. Chris M. brings up the similarities of cameras and how often we are actually being watched. It makes you think who is actually watching the cameras in the same way that Winston wondered about the doings of the thought police. I think that the comment about China was very important because it’s good to look at the situation from different view points. China definitely doesn’t have as much freedom as other people from different countries or governments and I would agree with the comparison to Oceania. However, I think that it’s important to note that in some cases we are persuaded to look at such foreign countries with a certain mindset because our government may want us to see them as the enemies or as an inferior country or government system. For example, propaganda was used a lot in war times to persuade people to see the enemies as ruthless animals that were in the wrong. This could be another similarity to Oceania, the fact that our government can control or change the minds of people through advertising and propaganda. So the media can be a good and a bad thing depending on who is controlling it.
One of the most startling similarities between our own government and the government of Oceania is the use of fear as a means to control people. Many political figures, particularly conservatives, try to scare people into voting for them by telling others that if their opponent is elected, the country will be more vulnerable to attack or that crime rates will rise. This tyranny of fear has given rise to some of the most despicable stripping of liberty in the past half-century under the guise of the PATRIOT Act. The government can now hold people without trial for years, and they have access to all of one’s personal records; I can’t even check out a book at the library without George Bush knowing about it! The government of Oceania uses similar tactics to subjugate its people by inciting fear of Goldstein and the Eurasians. A quote from Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: “Those who would sacrifice…liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” If the objective of our opponents is to strike fear into our hearts, then we should not respond by acting out of fear, but by doing everything possible to preserve our normal way of life and to keep promoting progress as we would have beforehand.
One of the most startling similarities between our own government and the government of Oceania is the use of fear as a means to control people. Many political figures, particularly conservatives, try to scare people into voting for them by telling others that if their opponent is elected, the country will be more vulnerable to attack or that crime rates will rise. This tyranny of fear has given rise to some of the most despicable stripping of liberty in the past half-century under the guise of the PATRIOT Act. The government can now hold people without trial for years, and they have access to all of one’s personal records; I can’t even check out a book at the library without George Bush knowing about it! The government of Oceania uses similar tactics to subjugate its people by inciting fear of Goldstein and the Eurasians. A quote from Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: “Those who would sacrifice…liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” If the objective of our opponents is to strike fear into our hearts, then we should not respond by acting out of fear, but by doing everything possible to preserve our normal way of life and to keep promoting progress as we would have beforehand.
@Matt Sulikowski:
The Patriot Act is a troubling legislation, and suggests that the inner government has more control over us than we previously assumed. I would like to point out, though, that the tightening of control is NOT due to a spontaneously malicious government, and the same goes for that of Oceania. The fear and paranoia comes directly from a system of safety and control that was initially DEMANDED by the peopl. For example, the war in Iraq is currently very unpopular. However, we must remember that at the time of its inception, a majority of Americans were vehemently prejudiced towards the Middle East after 9/11, and Pres. Bush's approval rating was much higher. The internal fear/hatred created by the terrorist threat is what gave the government a reason and a way to attack Iraq - the knowledge that public outcry would emerge only much later when the war was going badly...if ever. In conclusion, Matt, you definitely hit the nail on the head by pointing out the considered renaming of certain objects of Americana, and also with the mandated gym program. But again, these programs have only the overeagerness of the people to blame for their creation. The gym example works well: Chicago is/was the fattest city in America. This data, which triggered a public outcry against obesity, led to the Illinois school gym law.
The government depicted in George Orwell’s 1984 is too powerful for me to believe that our own government of democracy can be similar, but at the same time I can think of many similarities between the two. The use of propaganda is seen everywhere in the United States, especially during this past election. Posters and commercials of Barack Obama and John McCain were seen everywhere just like the appearance of Big Brother everywhere in sight. In the past during WWII, the United States promoted victory gardens just like the government in 1984 that promotes victory gin and cigarettes. “Big Brother is watching you” is also similar to the slogans of Uncle Sam. The engravings of famous presidents and slogans are also imprinted on our coins promoting patriotism. When the war in Iraq first began, Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussein were enemies promoted to people of all ages like Goldstein. Just like the children who Winston saw as he was fixing the neighbor’s kitchen sink, I knew at a very young age that they were bad people. There are secret services in both governments that everyone is aware of, but do not exactly have knowledge regarding their whereabouts. Undercover cops are a part of law enforcement now in the United States, similar to the idea of Winston’s totalitarian government that everyone is being watched whether they know it or not. Both of the governments have different parts. In America, there are executive, legislative, and judicial branches like Ministry of Truth, Peace, Love, and Plenty in 1984. Although there are similarities between the two governments, I do not believe that the democracy of the United States has the same influence over the people as the totalitarian government. In the totalitarian government there is no room for doubt or disagreement with their ruler. In America we all share the freedom of speech. The United States also does not make people disappear or die with out a fair trial. The influence of the “telescreen” on the people of this utopia is also very extreme.
I was listening to a story on Lee Atwater, a former of the RNC, and was surprised to see how similar Atwater’s political tactics were to Big Brother’s. Atwater ran what is considered to be one of the most racist political campaigns in recent history, George H.W. Bush’s 1988 campaign, retooled the Republican Party’s image from WASP to working man, and was an incredibly powerful political operative. Just like the Party uses emotional appeals to fear and patriotism to control the populace, Atwater played with human emotions to win elections. In 1988, Atwater produced a political ad concerning Willie Horton, a rapist who was part of a furlough program, to frame Michael Dukakis as soft on crime and use fear to push voters towards Bush. This is the same sort of fear tactic is used in the Two Minute Hates, except this time it is Goldstein not Horton. Atwater was a mentor of Karl Rove and in a way the politics of fear has transitioned from a campaign tactic to governmental protocol. Orwellian rhetoric is very much a part of our current political climate.
As I read 1984 I kept thinking about how I was fortunate to live in a country that was founded on the antithesis of the Oceania government. Unfortunately, when I thought about the question without my bias I realized that there are some striking similarities between the Oceania and United States government. The Patriot Act and other technological advances have violated many of the freedoms that I hold in my head as being the groundwork of America. America is creeping closer to becoming like the Thought Police in 1984. Similar to the totalitarian government in 1984, the American government can now look through e-mails, internet search logs, and many other sources in order to get a feel for what is going through each American’s head. The privacy of American’s has been invaded and the government often knows more information than they should about each citizen. The motives for obtaining this information, which are to protect citizens from internal attacks, are identical to that of the Thought Police’s motive. The main difference between the United States government and the Oceania totalitarian regime is the level of justice that accompanies the invasion of privacy. American’s have to live with the knowledge that the government knows a little about what they are thinking, but they can also rest assured that they will not be punished unjustly. They can freely think about things, unlike the people in Oceania, but they simply can’t act on all of their thoughts.
In response to Chris M :
You bring up an interesting point on the power of the media. The first amendment certainly provides the populace with a substantial check on government power. Yet, I wonder if this is really enough to protect us from Big Brother. Our government can control the media and the flow of information somewhat easily, as evidenced by war propaganda and McCarthyism. Totalitarian governments curb media readily. Freedom of speech is usually the first right to be taken away by dictators. So, can we really put faith in the media to protect us from government tyranny?
To a certain degree, there are many similarities. If we look at North Korea, the communist government plasters pictures of Kim Jung Il all over much like posters of Big Brother. The thought police parallel the secret services or henchmen of the communist party; they weed out rebellious people. What struck me was the accurate portrayal of "education" for the youth. From birth, all that the Parson kids learned was that Big Brother was good and Goldstein was bad. This similar issue is true in other countries dominated by anti-american sentiments including the middle-east, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. If the U.S doesn't try hard to change its image, we'll have even more trouble in the future once these kids grow up. But in contrast, the reach of the government through the telescreen goes beyond what we see in modern totalitarian governments. People in any country have some degree of privacy in their homes, while the only privacy Winston gets is in the alcove. What we see in 1984 is the idealistic model for current totalitarian governments. What Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinejad would love is have total control over people's thoughts. What frightens me are the "hate sessions"--if people can be manipulated that way, then I fear for mankind.
-Will C
Matt Sulikowski, I don’t think that Illinois’s requirement of gym is tyrannical, but has been put in place to better allow each person to contribute to society in the manner they choose. Shortening one’s life by refusing to exercise detracts from society as a whole and degrades human life generally. It is important to ensure that each person does not die before they’ve had a chance to contribute to society. If an Illinois resident doesn’t like that idea, they can always vote for a politician who wishes to repeal the law, a process not available in Oceania.
I would like to say that I don’t have a problem with the government protecting one group’s civil rights from abuses by others, as long as the government does not infringe upon the rights of the potential abusers as well. What I mean by this is that government regulation in itself is not bad as long as it functions to ensure the well-being of its citizens. One more important problem I see with both the government of Oceania and the government of Illinois is that the government exists to serve itself and not to serve the citizens. For example, large amounts of revenue are being siphoned off not to be returned to the taxpayers, but to fund a large and unnecessary bureaucracy not even remotely connected to the well-being of the citizens, which works to their detriment by taking away resources that could be used for production.
One of the most startling similarities between our own government and the government of Oceania is the use of fear as a means to control people. Many political figures, particularly conservatives, try to scare people into voting for them by telling others that if their opponent is elected, the country will be more vulnerable to attack or that crime rates will rise. This tyranny of fear has given rise to some of the most despicable stripping of liberty in the past half-century under the guise of the PATRIOT Act. The government can now hold people without trial for years, and they have access to all of one’s personal records; I can’t even check out a book at the library without George Bush knowing about it! The government of Oceania uses similar tactics to subjugate its people by inciting fear of Goldstein and the Eurasians. A quote from Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: “Those who would sacrifice…liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” If the objective of our opponents is to strike fear into our hearts, then we should not respond by acting out of fear, but by doing everything possible to preserve our normal way of life and to keep promoting progress as we would have beforehand.
I feel that our government today is what the government in "1984" is trying to prevent. In "1984" their society is broken into 4 different ministries each with a specific job. No one is allowed to express a bad opinion of the government. In the United States today, I feel that we have thrived because we have so many freedoms including the freedom of speech. However, some other countries in the world are similar to the one express in "1984". The first one that comes to mind is China. China's government has the ability to limit the amount of children a couple can have. It is very similar to how the society of Oceania have to watch Two Minutes of Hate. When reading the first two chapters, I was shocked to read how children are so loyal to the government that they are willing to turn in their parents that are acting against the government.
The totalitarian government of Oceania depicted in “1984” and contemporary (democratic) governments do not share many commonalities. One major difference between the two is the deprivation of basic human rights and privacy. In “1984,” the words “Big Brother is Watching You” Winston sees on the poster relate perfectly to the totalitarian government. Through the use of telescreens, Thought Police, and government officials, Big Brother has the ultimate advantage over its citizens, leaving them with little or no rights. The government has the ability to spy on any given individual at any given time. All of this is an effort to encourage the citizens to love their Big Brother. Yes, one can argue that this is somewhat similar to how our government uses cell phones to track certain individuals. The key difference here, however, lies solely in the intentions of the government. Our CIA and FBI only use this capability to track down certain individuals who are endangering the country. It does NOT do this to ensure that citizens are complacent with their government. Each citizen is still entitled to privacy and the five basic freedoms in a democracy.
The only similarities I see between Oceania's government and ours along with others are minor. For example, the people of Oceania are being video tapes twenty four hours a day. Our government video tapes us but not nearly as much. We have a stronger sense of privacy. For example, we are not being taped in our homes, or in classrooms, and most definitely not in bathrooms. It would be an invasion or privacy. But not only are they video taped but any mail they get can be looked over by the government as well as the phone converstaions we have. Another minor similarity is the fact that the leader of Oceania and our leaders have been all male. We do have females that are high up in government but we have'nt yet elected one as the president. These similarites that I see are only minor and are few. I dont think Oceania's government is much like ours at all and hope it never becomes significantly similar.
I believe that the similarities of the totalitarian government created in 1984 is in some ways similar to the government that is established in our country. Winston in "1984" is constantly being observed by three paradoxical branches of government. Most strongly by the thought police. Similar to the citizens of America under constant watch by video cameras posted on street corners watching pedestrians and individuals trying to break the law, also cameras posted all over highways and inside every establishments, extremely relevant in schools, cameras are watching our every movement. But dissimilar to "1984", our thoughts are still our own. Our thoughts are free to think and can be controlled by ourselves, but as soon as someone acts on their thoughts, they are being monitored closely. The Patriot Act established by the Bush Administration in 2001, took a step closer to the invasive government of "1984" by monitoring calls, intercepting letters, and executing numerous other ways of invading the privacy of the American citizen.
In 1984, the government comes across to be known as “Big Brother” in which the government watches everyone. The screens hummed continuously about how good the government was, and the empowering slogan of War is Peace, Slavery is Freedom, and Ignorance is Strength. The government in 1984 acts as a peeping twenty four hour shadow, and I choose to believe that our government does not act in the same way. Of course it would seem pointless to pretend that our government does not use their own tactics to “check up” on people. E-mails, post mail, and telephone calls are today being monitored by the government, thanks to the Patriot Act of 2001. The government in 1984 is a widely stretched imagination in which the people of the community are put under surveillance twenty four hours a day and seven days a week. One thing that I noticed was widely different from our own government, other than the fact that they were totalitarian, was the Two Minute Hate. The Two Minute Hate was a video shown that depicted the enemy and show the evils of democracy and then the people chant the letter BB, which I understood it to man Big Brother. While some aspects are similar to our democracy, there is not nearly enough to put the two together. In Oceania, the people admire Big Brother and its values, they do their tasks according to Big Brother, and they think and act as they believe Big Brother wants them to. In the United States, there are those who trust the government regardless but there are always those that cannot stand the government.
While our government is not entirely totalitarian, it has its similarities to the government presented in "1984." Our government has the capacity to monitor our daily activities, from phone calls to emails. Although we do not have a machine implanted in our homes like the telescreen, we are subjected to being watched over. This statement, I think, correlates fairly well with the capabilities of our government: "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment." For example, there is no way of knowing whether or not our internet activites, our phone calls, or even our activity in the library is being reviewed at any given moment. I agree with what Chris M. has to say about the telescreens: their presence is much more intrusive than the video cameras monitoring our moves. There is also a more obvious brainwashing element present in "1984" than in our government. From propoganda advertizing that "Big Brother is watching you," to the three line slogan, it is evident that the intent of that government is to try to get the people to subject themselves to the workings of the government and to strip them away of their privacy and freedoms. There are some aspects of Oceania's government that are similar to ours, but I wouldn't necessarily say they are extensive.
To comment on what Matt Sulikowski said, I didn't think about how there is a lot of propaganda all around oceania. That is a huge similarity that i didn't even realize. It goes to show how the government influences us without consciously realizing it. Propaganda is all around us, especially with the election. I also did not think about the perfume for juveniles and how that is the same for our government.
There are many similarities between the government of Oceania and governments of the modern world. As many other people have made comments on our government, I shall chose a different one; the English Parliament. The English government has always had a very tight hold on its people, just like Oceania, be it monarchy or parliament or both. As England has developed however, so has its ruling. Although, it still has more totalitarian aspects than that of America. For example, driving is considered a right in the United States but a privilege in England. The tests overseas are not simply a seven minute drive around the block but a one hour written exam followed by an hour long practical. Make only one or two mistakes and you are likely to fail. The punishment for not complying with the driving laws is also far more costly. A drinking ticket will revoke the recipients licence immediately, causing them to retake the test after a lengthy suspension. This shows that the English government still believes that its people must do more to respect the laws given. They are not meant to be broken as some people believe and if you do: you will pay the price. The English do not have the same rights as Americans, yet far more than the people of Oceania. Oceania must control every aspect of its people’s lives, via the telescreen, where as the English simply wants its people to know that they are not in charge.--
Kurt S.
There are many similarities between the government of Oceania and governments of the modern world. As many other people have made comments on our government, I shall chose a different one; the English Parliament. The English government has always had a very tight hold on its people, just like Oceania, be it monarchy or parliament or both. As England has developed however, so has its ruling. Although, it still has more totalitarian aspects than that of America. For example, driving is considered a right in the United States but a privilege in England. The tests overseas are not simply a seven minute drive around the block but a one hour written exam followed by an hour long practical. Make only one or two mistakes and you are likely to fail. The punishment for not complying with the driving laws is also far more costly. A drinking ticket will revoke the recipients licence immediately, causing them to retake the test after a lengthy suspension. This shows that the English government still believes that its people must do more to respect the laws given. They are not meant to be broken as some people believe and if you do: you will pay the price. The English do not have the same rights as Americans, yet far more than the people of Oceania. Oceania must control every aspect of its people’s lives, via the telescreen, where as the English simply wants its people to know that they are not in charge.--
Kurt S.
The society established in Oceania serves as a parallel society to the way we live in the United States. Being considerate and appreciative towards each society respectfully is held in high regard. In both societies there is a strong emphasis upon patriotism and as a result there is a lot of propaganda. This is especially prevalent in times of war. The nation comes together, no longer do individuals strives matter, the persistence of the nation is a more imperative matter. The nation depicts itself as a stronger and better nation. There are flags draped from buildings, fluttering in the wind on cars, seen in every window; enticing the people to support the government and the operations of the government. Each day we have the routine of pledging to the American flag, a sign of patriotism and honor. This routine is no different than how the people of Oceania will shout out in anger towards the big screen revealing Goldstein which transformed into the Eurasian soldier. These two reactions are of course different but they both display a patriotic deed. The ways the governments are assembled are in many ways the same. Besides propaganda the divisions amongst the societies are similar in the sense that there is a separate branch for each activity, creating a state of order. Both societies are also very concerned with watching over individuals. Each society is capable of finding all that it desires about its citizens with only certain pieces of information. We are constantly being watched and being recorded. In both societies we have the ability to think as we choose but it is the actions that we take which can often result in undesirable consequences.
The main theme in the first two chapters allows us to get a look at the psychological manipulation of the people of Oceana and the control Oceana’s government has over its citizens. The people live in fear of what they cannot do. I do not think there is any way that the citizens of our country could become as mind-controlled as the people of Oceana. Our freedoms are what define us as Americans. Taking them away from us would not go very well for the government. However, even though the totalitarian government of Oceana is very extreme, it does share some commonalities with our modern society. For instance, Oceana’s government has the right to listen in on any conversation and basically tap into the lives of its citizens. Even though our government cannot do this quite as radically, they can at least monitor emails and set up security cameras.
The most common aspect between 1984’s totalitarian government and our government today is how you are always being watched, although our government is not as invasive as 1984’s. In 1984, monitors are placed in rooms so that at almost every angle, the government can see what you are doing. Our lives today are lived via credit cards and the internet and each time you use either, the government can essentially see you. Emails are filtered for key words that involve terrorists etc. and purchases are monitored for national safety. In both 1984 and today you can avoid the government, but it is not easy. Purchasing items with cash and not having a permanent address are ways you can live in our society under the radar, but in 1984 you simply have to conform to society’s ways in order to remain unseen and even then, there is no where to hide.
Response to Chris M:
While the government is capable of controlling the media, that is a form of power that the government has over the people. We become subjective to what the media releases to society. The government has the final decision in almost all matters; one way or another. It is true that we are monitored more than we might like to know, but that is proving that there is a closer resemblance to the society in Oceania then not. The fact that we are being constantly watched is the same as having a ‘Big Brother’ watching over us. There is not a lot that we can do to prevent the government from recording our daily activities so we become powerless. We can certainly attempt to find loopholes and fight the government but in the end it is useless. One because it would become quite expensive and two it is simply impractical, the reason that the cameras exist is to ensure safety for the citizens.
Overall I do not believe the totalitarian government of Oceania and contemporary governments are extensively similar. However, I do believe that there are quite a few similarities. For one thing we live in a world that is constantly being monitored by our government. After September 11th, our government is now allowed to search its citizens’ email communications, telephones, medical, and other personal items in order to help protect our country from future terrorist attacks through the Patriot Act. Although most countries in today’s world support some sort of civil liberties the governments always seem to find a way around these. This is obviously not as severe as the Ministry of Truth or posters reading: BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, which reflect how closely Oceania monitors its civilians. Another similarity is the use of the media to portray Goldstein as the villain and Big Brother as the protector. We experience the affects of media portrayal often, especially after a major disaster like the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Televisions and newspapers began to show all the negative aspects of the terrorists which are very similar to what they did against the Japanese after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. A totalitarian government may seem excessively protective and involved in its citizens’ lives, but it’s clear that the governments of today’s world are not so different than the one of Oceania.
In response to Chris M.’s Essential Question #1, I believe the example of China’s government and Oceania’s government is very accurate. Out of all the countries in the world, I find China to be the most similar when it comes to the extensive government control on the media. The Chinese government is extremely involved in the media, so much so that it actually is in charge of most of the largest corporations in its media. From those large corporations, the Chinese government is able to decide exactly what and what not it wants the citizens of the country to be able to watch. From the first two chapters of “1984,” it is evident that Oceania practices very similar techniques as the Chinese government in the area of media. Chris also brought up the point of the Chinese government controlling its citizens through fear which is exactly what the Oceanian government does in its advertisements of Goldstein. The advertisements create the uncontrollable feelings of fear and dislike toward Goldstein, which not only China does but other countries as well through its media.
I find that the government of Oceana has many parallels to our own. The tenet I would like to focus on is one of the three slogans of the party: War is Peace.
I recently had a discussion with a kid in my gym class regarding the recent election of Barack Obama. He apparently regarded the whole scenario as a tragedy. So I inquired, “What is it about Obama that you dislike so much?” The answer I received was something to the effect of “He’s gonna destroy the country because he’s gonna end the war.” After a series of clarification questions I understood his meaning. My gym peer was under the impression that we needed to stay at constant war with the Middle East in order to protect us from them. This seems to me a similar ideology to that of the party in 1984. The idea is doublethink, that by constantly being at war, we’ll be at peace. And, I don’t think this type of thought is unique to that one kid in my gym class.
I do not believe that the similarities between our government and the totalitarian government described in “1984” are too extensive. We have freedom of speech, the right to vote, along with the rights to assemble and bear arms. However, I do think that our contemporary government is continually becoming more controlling and more involved in our daily lives. We do have to pay a little attention to the fact that our phone lines may be tapped into. We also have to think a little bit about the fact that our actions are possibly being videotaped by surrounding cameras, but none of this even compares to the authoritative government in Oceania. When looking back at our contemporary governments, I believe that the Venezuelan government is more similar to the Oceania government than ours is. Hugo Chavez has complete control over the Venezuelan government. The Venezuelans cannot do anything without the government’s permission. They have little or no control over their economy, jobs and businesses. They have little rights and their creative ideas are constantly stifled. Our government today has not reached a totalitarian one, but has steadily gained more control. We, as citizens should just be aware of our government control, and remember that the government is the people.
I agree with Matt S.’s response in the fact that there is extensive monitoring in 1984 and in today’s government. However I don’t think the monitoring of U.S. citizens is as invasive as he claims it is. Yes we are monitored, but only for public safety. You could make the same case for 1984 but there is a difference. 1984’s government watches people to make sure there is no overthrow or change in government. Our government is constantly changing and new ideas are accepted. 1984’s government wants everything to stay the same because they believe that that is a utopia. In the U.S., we know we have no utopia. I would hardly compare Winston not trying hard enough during physical jerks to our physical education program today. It is the same idea, but again, the U.S. does not enforce it nearly as harshly as it is in 1984.
In response to Matt Sulikowski’s entry, I find what you say to be a very compelling argument for the similarities between our government and Oceania’s. . They way you put it, the government is a strong controlling force in our lives now as well as years past. Many of your examples I had forgotten about or maybe just ignored, but now I am remembering them after reading your response. I can see where you are getting at when you say that we have many similarities but our lives are not as enforced and controlled as Winston’s is in the book. Your example of high school kids being forced to do physical exercises is a good example that has meaning in our lives. We are all forced by the Illinois State Government to continue our physical education throughout all of high school whether it is necessary or not. Another comparison could be made for the food choices we have. While Winston did not have any choice of which foods he wanted to eat, our choices have diminished each year at high school. The school dictates what we are allowed to eat depending on if the food is healthy or not.
It's difficult to tell how similar the real and fictional governments are. That's because there seems to be a one-way flow of information between citizens and government. The government tells us whatever it wants us to know and the government is free to gather all the information it cares to about us.
So how similar are the real and fictional governments? The only reason we know what we do about Oceania is because Winston works for the government and tells us quite a bit. As for my government, I'd like to think that it's simply a lot of old men with powdered wigs arguing for whatever is in my best interest--but I know that things are not so. We're lucky if we get a glimpse at a CIA document of blacked-out words with the occasional pronoun.
I would certainly hope that no current government is too similar to that of Oceania's totalitarianism. However, there are certainly some connections between this government and present day governments. For example, the United States government reaches into the lives, many would argue, of everyday citizens far too much. Is it fair that every year a citizen should have to devote much of his or her income to his or her country or that the government should have the power to (attempt to) regulate the economy? Is it just that what is supposed to be a representation of our government's system consists of little minorities and few unwealthy people? While I'm not making an attempt to fully critisize the American government, I'm trying to deliver the point that almost every government holds control over of its people, and as many would argue, in an inherently unjust way. Both Oceania and America do such, but to different extents. Therefore, they share similar characteristics, but the government of Oceania is obviously much more overpowering than that of America.
"It is more likely that our government monitors us more than we think without us even knowing it." -Chris M.
I find it unlikely that America could readily do such and not be caught. Also, the government does not have the time to just haphazardly monitor us. Not to mention that if the government was to monitor us, I feel as though many more people would be convicted of crimes. If police officers don't catch most people blowing stop signs or people speeding down the highway with radar, what makes you think that they have the power and time to actually monitor our lives through more stealthy methods? So, I see this as being impossible due to the extensive cost of monitoring as well as the fact that is is not feasible that monitoring could be heavily used. I like to think that I have had maybe one or two emails read or maybe one or two phone calls monitored, but that's what I expect. I expect the American democracy to find the fine line between the safety of its citizens and freedom of its citizens, unlike that of Oceania's government. In this respect, I see the two as having different qualities.
I doubt that, with the way our government and media work together, anything like Oceania would or could happen in the United States in the modern day. However, there are certain similarities that cannot be ignored, as Matt S. stated: enforced curfew, the Patriot Act, and the ability of our government to monitor and curtail us should the need present itself. Again, the extremes in which "1984" present would (hopefully) never be seen in our world, but one can argue that, in some way, they must have been necessary at one point in order for such a strict regime to be put into place and supported. The same could have been said during 9/11: some might have argued then that a stricter government might have saved us unnecessary strife at the time. The increased security throughout our country is an obvious similarity between our world and Winston's.
-Annie D.
While there are some similarities between the governments of Oceania and modern day countries, I think that the government of Oceania is extremely overpowering to the point of driving their citizens mentally insane. The fact that the main character is afraid to write in a dairy is very disturbing. No one should be vaporized for a simply expressing themselves on paper to maintain mental health. A similarity I found was that both governments have a system of currency. In Oceania coins have big brother on them and the slogan “WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” Similarly, U.S. coins have presidents’ heads on them, as well as the slogan “In God We Trust.” Both forms of government also publicize their patriotism. Oceania has large posters of Big Brother’s face, and we have flags. Our patriotism, however, is voluntary whereas their patriotism is forced upon them with posters plastered everywhere. Another odd commonality is the Ministry of Love which is in charge the law and order for the people of Oceania. It has no windows and high security to enter the building: barbed-wire, steel doors, and hidden machine guns. To me this seems like a prison or high security government buildings like FBI and CIA headquarters. While our government is much less restrictive and invasive, it still has ways of monitoring us, and Oceania may be similar to present government after all.
The similarities between the totalitarian government of Oceania and our government today are few, but still more than they should be. We obviously do not have a totalitarian government that makes every decision and we do not go to rallies everyday to chant. We do, however rely completely on our government to defend us and tell us how much to pay in taxes, for example. We allow them to track us if they want, for our own “privacy”. Our government is not literally watching us with telescreens in every apartment and house, but are we really free from their gaze? Oceania has the “three slogans of the party”, “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” These make today’s Americans balk, for we value peace, freedom and knowledge as three of our highest traits. However, how far away from these slogans are we really? We are constantly at war with somebody, our freedom is limited by numerous laws and acts, and we are generally ignorant of the inner workings of the government and the world, much like Oceania.
As I said in my post, I don’t exactly agree that the government that Oceania employs is very similar to ours except for a few details. I think Chris is on to something though. It would be extremely difficult in our society to create a government that holds the same values and the same impact on people as they do in 1984. There is also truth to the statement made that the government watches us more than we know. I think that those that do know have done or said something that would cause suspicion that would entitle government intervention. There are rare stories of the government becoming too involved in our ways of communication but to think that somehow our government could transform to one like Oceana seems close near impossible, mainly because the people of our society have experienced the freedom and rights. It is true that while we are at school and in stores there are constant cameras around to watch us move, but the book seems to illustrate the presence of the cameras as being invasive.
I disagree with Chris M. in his relationship between China and Oceania. China is a "light" communism with a large dose of capitalism in today's world, and is responsible for many of our markets/products as well as owning a decent portion of our debt. They do censor their people and the government does keep pretty strict control but I do not think that they are close to Oceania. I do not think that any country today could really get away with that level of governmental control with the countries around it still being free. Civil War would break out before it got to that point. As to the media's "power to report the government's doings", it is true that they can report it, but can they change anything? Did the reporting of the phone taps really change how the government monitored us? Does this help us or hurt us? Who makes that decision? Those are the things that separate us from governments and countries like Oceania.
In response to the post about the Chinese government being like Oceania’s:
One main similarity I found between Big Brother and the Chinese government is that they both control all media and publications in their respective nations. Big Brother sends out orders for old press releases and news items to be changed. The totalitarian government of Oceania changes information to however it best suits their interests, which sounds surprisingly familiar to anyone who followed the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. There were widespread rumors and quite a bit of evidence that some of the Chinese female gymnasts didn’t meet age restrictions, which could give them an advantage in the competition. When the International Olympic Committee looked for evidence to lead them to a conclusion, the Chinese government simply showed them passports that identified their ages. The only problem was that the passports were government documents issued recently that could very well include false information. Also, many news accounts that named the gymnasts as being too young or being “up and coming stars” suddenly couldn’t be found after the investigations began. Much of the evidence points to the Chinese government for altering legal documents and censoring news articles in order to keep the gymnasts from getting disqualified. This altering and censoring is very much like what Winston does in his job, which is changing documents for the government.
-Lela D
In response to Matt Sulikowski…
I do agree that there are some similarities between Oceana and the United States. I am unsure where the argument about different “acts of terrorism” leads in his response though. He says that “actual” mass murder and kidnapping are now considered forms of terrorism based on “it,” which I assume he meant the Patriot Act. I am unsure how this relates to the current discussion because murder and kidnapping both can be considered acts of terrorism no matter if you live in our modern society or Oceana’s society. I suppose his argument about spreading patriotism relates because Oceana uses so much propaganda to promote the society they created. Any method governments can find to make their agenda seem better than that of the rest of the world is certainly relative to both Oceana and modern America. Patriotism is always advocated. Also, the use of the dollar does not present a relationship between totalitarian government and contemporary America.
Chris M. brings up many good points; I too wish that our government was unlike that of Oceana, but unlike Chris I do think that there are many similarities between the two governments. The media does definitely have great control over the people of the United States. If the government messes up or does something drastic it is very quickly known throughout the country by means of media. Media is everywhere and all around us, therefore we have grown accustomed to it. We have also gotten used to the idea of cameras monitoring us everywhere. Our school alone has thousands of cameras. I remember when they first arrived people were a little nervous about them, but now they are hardly noticed. It is almost sad that we are constantly being watched and yet we are completely desensitized to the whole idea of it. Although I do believe that Oceana is a very drastic form of government, I think that it could eventually happen anywhere, maybe even in the U.S.
Response to original question:
The government of Oceania has many subtle similarities with some communist governments existing today, such as that of China. When the communist regime took over in China, they enacted laws and with those laws they began to regulate many aspects of a Chinese citizen’s life. If the Chinese government continues to enact new laws and further regulate Chinese life, it definitely has the potential to evolve into being very similar to Big Brother. Chinese censorship of the press is very similar to Oceania’s censorship that Winston does. Chinese lifestyle rules such as only being allowed one child are very strict, just in a lesser form of the complete regulation Oceania has. If communism in China prevails over free markets and trade, connection with other nations could be lost and China could become a totalitarian nation.
The U.S. government has a few similarities with Oceania’s, but not too many. The U.S. government censors films and some internet and press, but not to the great extent of the Chinese government. Policies like taxing the American people and putting money into Social Welfare, Medicaid, and Social Security are based on the notion that some money does belong to the community and needs to be used for the common good, a basic belief of the totalitarianism of Oceania.
-Lela D
In response to Matt S, I would have to partially agree. I do believe that with the Patriotic Propaganda, the searching of emails and phones, and with our curfew, that our government is a bit similar to that of Oceania. However, I do not believe that it is quite as extensive. Yes, we do have some rules and restrictions, but are they as authoritative as the totalitarian government in Oceania? I do not believe that they are. Even though our government forces us to do some things, for example, take gym class, they still do not have complete control. There may be a chance that our contemporary government may become more oppressive, but as for now, we have more freedom and rights than that of a totalitarian government.
This is my response to Chris M.’s answer to the question. I agree with Chris in his first sentence “I don’t think, or would like to believe, that our government is too similar to the one depicted in 1984” . I am not sure where our democratic government is going in the long run, and I sure hope that the similarities in propaganda and control are not leading us to totalitarian life. I think America as a whole is still somewhat intact with the slogan “the land of the free”. I also forgot to mention in my answer to the question before that there are other governments around the world that are very similar to that of the one in 1984. Chris discussed the Chinese government similarity, and I agree with his analysis that their governments are very much alike. The idea of sharing rations with everyone else and believing everything the same as everyone else bothers me. I am so lucky to being living in a environment where I am not influenced by my government every waking moment. Governments like China are scary because they could potentially grow to become a worldwide empire due to their powerful influence on the people.
While we like to believe that we live in a land of freedom, new technologies in the 21st century have brought us closer to the totalitarian government than we realize. George Orwell's 1984 depicts the reality of government control over citizens' lives. In the United States, government doesn't control the lives of citizens to such a severe degree as in 1984, but we are progressively moving towards it. With theprevalent presence of cameras, for example, we are being watched more than we like to believe. At varying levels this is happening; from people taking videos on their phones and posting them on the web, to cameras throughout our school and even satellite cameras, our actions are not as private as they once were. This stands true in the action of wire tapping as well; we are constantly being invaded of our privacy.
Chris makes a valid point in mentioning the media’s role of keeping the government in check though. We certainly don’t have the restrictions on our lives that people suffer in other countries. Countries with dictatorships, such as North Korea under the reign of Kim Jong Il, more accurately represent the negative utopia that is described in 1984. For that matter any country that has government regulated media leans more towards totalitarian government. The United States is a country that doesn’t live under government-controlled media; a concept that doesn’t allow for issues such as video surveillance and wire-tapping to go unnoticed, as Chris mentions. Overall I would have to say that the United States does possess some of the characteristics of a totalitarian government, but my no means all of the characteristics.
After reading the first two chapters, I did not want to believe that current governments resemble the one depicted the one in "1984," but there are quite a few similarities. I agree with Matt on the topic of patriotic propaganda. The government in the novel thrives on an intense form of nationalism which relies on this propaganda. It is this nationalism that justifies the Thought Police and Police Patrol. The population gives their full support to all of the government's actions and strongly condemns the few who stand in its way. Our government also benefits from nationalism. Almost everyone is proud to be an American and strongly supports our capitalistic government over the ones in other countries. The difference is that the United States' government allows criticism to some level, and in fact views it as a form of patriotism because it will eventually help America to progress. This novel shows how dangerous nationalism can be. To a certain extent, nationalism is necessary and desired. But, it can cause the people to be blinded. The people in "1984" are under the influence of this large dose of nationalism and think themselves to be of higher status and believe that everything the government does is for its benefit. Instead, people should have a critical eye and aim to perfect the government they love.
The dystopia depicted in Orwell’s “1984” shares similarities with some aspects of contemporary governments. This is not to say that there is an Oceania lurking on some yet unappraised part of the globe but that facets of a “ Big Brother” governing body do exist in the real world. Notably the practice of government agencies clandestinely- or in the case of Oceania, the intrusion is publicly known and is for the alleged safety of the people- monitoring their citizens. For example, the Patriot Act and the U.S. governments use of it to keep an eye on suspected terrorists. Actual governments that most closely resemble “1984’s” totalitarianism, include China and World War II Germany. China is infamous for its censorship of the media and strict control of the populace and during the second great war millions of people were persecuted for little reason other than their ideological or religious beliefs. In a system such as these unfortunate souls would be whisked away in the dead of night only to be tossed in the gulags for the slightest whisper of dissension, or strung up in front of a live television audience complete with boos and rotten tomatoes for dramatic affect....oh and then murdered of course. In addition, the sensational nationalism proposed by the perpetual campaigning of Big Brother, resembles any propaganda ever produced in the name of unity. The message of each leaflet being kill the bloodsucking (arbitrary group) and that these traitors and usurpers are trying to break down the guard towers and barbed-wire fences that protect the faithful.
Chris M.
I’m not sure where you stand in response to this question. You begin by denying the similarity between our current government and that of Oceana. Yet, later in the response, you state, “It is more likely that our government monitors us more than we think without us even knowing it.” That statement seems to contradict your earlier assertion. I think it is essential to the fundamentals of IngSoc that secrecy regarding their actions and intentions be maintained. That’s why even party members may not enter government building beyond the ones to which they belong. So your statement that what the government does is secret hardly distinguishes it from Oceana.
I don’t think our government is similar to Oceania’s at all. In their government, they have no privacy whatsoever. In our government, there are certain situations where we don’t have privacy, but there are certainly places we can go in order to have that privacy. I understand that the government can tap into our phone conversations, but people know that and it’s why we often don’t give things like social security numbers and credit card numbers over the phone. If I want to have privacy, all I have to do is simply open up the door to my house and walk up to my room. It’s that easy. I don’t have to hide in the corner with a diary that could potentially kill me. As to the point made in class about how we’re constantly surrounded by cameras, in truth, we’re really only surrounded by cameras if we choose to be. If we want no possibility of our actions being seen by other people, we have the option of going to places where there are no cameras. The people of Oceania don’t even have that option.
The government system in Oceania shares little resemblance with modern day governments such as our own. The governmental structure in Oceania represents the most extreme kind of totalitarianism imaginable and was designed to bring about fear towards the rise of communism in western nations. The government in Oceania takes away each person’s identity and independent thought, and replacing it with fear in the Party through the use of physical and psychological control. Citizens are no longer in control of their own minds because even having a controversial thought is against the law. They are constantly being monitored by telescreens and hidden microphones all over the city. However, the technology used in our government is used for a completely different purpose. It promotes security and provides material for investigation when suspicion arises. It is not created to monitor every person’s life and force them to conform to a certain set of beliefs. So, I disagree with Matt. I think that although mail and telephone conversations can be searched, this does not compare to the extreme measures taken by the government of Oceania nor is there a common motive.
While reading the book 1984 I saw some definate similaritys between the U.S government and Oceania, the government in the book. Some things that are alike, are the currancy, patriotism, and set of inforced rules. For instance, we are forced to attend school just as they are forced to complete every day activies. However in the book the people litteraly have no free choice. That is what sets there government apart from the U.S. In the book everyone is controlled by computers, and montered on screens. Because of this, they are dictated and forced into doing what the master wants them to do, no questions asked. In our government we have rights and freedoms. One of our freedoms is speech. We are able to say what ever we want and express our selves in anyone way possible. For the people in Oceania, they had no right to say what they wanted, there thoughts were always corrupeted by the government.
In most respects I agree with Matt. There is plenty of sensational nationalist propaganda in the novel as well as in the real world. During W.W.II, the U.S. published many different fliers and produced news bulletins slandering the Germans and the Japanese; labeling them as bloodsuckers and down right evil. I also agree in regard to the similarities of the invasion of privacy in both the novel and in our society: specifically the Patriot Act. I would not go so far as to say that Oceania is the next level on the governmental evolutionary pyramid but there are certainly aspects of our societies that bear a likeness. From my own experiences, I find the governing body in "1984" is very similar to that found in the movie Equilibrium- or perhaps the other way around. In the movie, the government controls everything, even people's emotions through the use of synthetic drug and anyone who goes against the regime, " a sense-offender" is deemed a threat, interrogated and subsequently killed. I recommend this movie if not for its relevance to the book, then for its incredible and jaw-dropping fight scenes in which Christian Bale pretty much brutalizes the hell out of everything....except the puppies. I agree with Chris in that governments such as the Chinese and North Korea attempt to censor the voice of the nation as well as the information that nation receives. In the United States we are protected from many of these violations of rights by the constitution- or we would like to think so- but it may be just a matter of time before the notion of freedom does become synonymous with slavery.
In Response to DJ:
The critical difference between the American government and the totalitarian regime of Oceania is that the Oceanian governement not only tries to save its people from the darkness of the world, but, due to the elaborate policies to protect its citizens, the government in turn shapes the citizens lifestyle. The Oceanian government provides the people with a pathway to light, but the definition of light was created by the dictator, not the individuals. In America people are free to pursue their own light as long as their path to the light does not involve harming others. Harming others is the main violation that the American government tries to prevent. Harming the government is Oceania’s main concern.
Regardless of the differences, the fact is people in America would not argue with a small invasion of privacy if they knew that it could prevent a large number of fellow citizens from dying. It is easy for people to argue about the negative affects of policy when they can’t see the negative affects of not initiating a policy at all. The United States government is not over stepping its bounds at all, it is simply saving its citizens from the darkness.
I don’t think it can be said for certain how many similarities exist between Oceania and our current government. Fundamentally, the idea of us having a democratic-republic government is vastly different from Oceania’s totalitarian government. This effects all part of the how each government functions. Being a totalitarian government, the governing body of Oceania controls and observes all aspects of a Party member’s life using telescreens and hidden microphones. Not only does the government of Oceania control its people socially, it controls the economy. But perhaps most importantly, it also controls the media. The Oceania government has complete control over what all Party members see on the news and thus they can alter it however they want. In comparison to our government, ideally, there are no similarities in this way. We are supposed to believe that the government isn’t watching us and doesn’t control the economy and media. However, I believe that we cannot be certain. Throwing wild conspiracies aside, I believe it is possible that the government is watching all of us no and could very heavily be influencing the media. Once again, however, we are led to believe that our government would never do anything like that. And maybe they don’t. That’s why I say that it is impossible for us, as citizens (proles?), to know for certain how much of our lives are being controlled., and how similar our government is to Oceania’s.
I think that our government has some similarities to Oceania's. The only difference is that their citizen's may be more aware of it. A lot of our government's monitoring is done undercover. Most of Chicago is filled with camera's that go unnoticed every day. Now a days everything is on tape with out one's consent. It may be for our own saftey, but is there a limit that should not be exceeded? There is a point that monitoring could even become sickening. It can make people feel uncomfortable. People can get a sense of not being in control because they don't have the choice or knowledge that they are being recorded. Someone else is in control and it can instil fear.
I don't believe that the two governments have very many similarities. In 1984 basically all the peoples rights were taken away. They could only do what they were told. They know that they are being watched, and that fear paralyzes the majority of them against taking revolutionary actions. This is unlike our government. Although our government might be able to watch some of the things we do. They do not monitor everything. People are still able to say and write down what they feel. The most shocking difference between the two, was that Winston couldn't even write his thoughts in a private diary without fear of prosecution. Our government still gives us these basic freedoms. Oceania is also blatantly brainwashing all its citizens, something our government doesn't do. The two minute hate, is just a tool to brainwash. Thats why the children are getting nastier and nastier
-Megan C.
Comments on Matt S.'s Post
Although our government and their government do have similarites. The level to which there rules are enforced are much more severe then ours. Although we have the patriot act, it is not the same thing as being constantly watched by the government. Our government may be similar to that of Oceania's but only in the most basic sense. Just because the ideas or principles are the same doesnt mean that the two governments are similar. There government has an enforced curfew, our government laid out rules and laws, that it is our choice to follow. If not there will be a penalty but usually monetary. Where as there government the penalty for disobedience is dissapearing.
-Megan C
In response to Chris' post I agree that China's government shares similarities to that of Oceania's. China has conceived control through fear in it's citizens. The chinese government is like a huge filter. Everything must go through it before it goes out to the public. Their government censors their lives. They can't do anything without going under their rules. Inorder for a government to function this way fear has to take place. Fear also takes place in Oceania. Winston demonstrates this when he fells a page with "Down With Big Brother". Right after he writes this down he gets a feeling of panic. He started to think of how the Thought Police would get him. This shows that through fear control can take place.
Thanks to Chris and Matt for taking the lead on this and commenting on the question BEFORE the last minute. Now, the rest of you need to take the lead and comment on Essential Question #2 BEFORE the last minute this Friday.
Sarah G.P-
You bring up an interesting point about how females are not seen in positions of power. Given Mr. Orwell's intelligence, this can't be mere coincidence. I think that Orwell's point is less about gender discrimination in modern government, and more reflective of the generally patriarchal societies of history. If we look at Babylonian, Chinese, Roman, and even contemporary societies in Arab countries, females are suppressed and dominated by male agendas. It's more difficult to maintain power through a "Big Sister" than Big brother.
Will Chan,
You bring up a good point in the connection between Oceania with countries like North Korea and Iran. I have known through experiences from my father, that in Iran an individual is strictly not allowed to express a bad opinion or thought on the government. Any slander towards the government could result in the government limiting that person's freedoms and even lead to the imprisonment of that person. In "1984" we do see the perfect totalitarian government where all members of society have to strictly obey the government. It is scary to see today the possible governments that are developing in North Korea and Iran.
Will C. and Sarah G.P:
I really like the thought that a "Big Sister" would never hold within a government such as that of Oceania's. The comment regarding other countries and cultures is a valid point as well. It seems that Oceania, as outlandish as it seems, is merely following the social trend of history by highlighting a male dictator.
The similarities between Oceania and contemporary governments are strikingly strong. Oceania’s government relies on hatred towards a common enemy, limitless surveillance, and language mutilation to run society. Close scrutiny of the American government will find that we hold each of these characteristics in common, although to varying degrees.
Oceania’s common enemy, as provided by the Two Minutes’ Hate, is Emmanuel Goldstein, “the Enemy of the People”. The Party keeps Oceania’s citizens feeling united against this common cause. Likewise, we the American people have a similar enemy: Osama bin Laden. How many videotapes of him threatening America have we seen? How about hours of footage of Muslim fundamentalists chanting “death to America!” Surely we all remember watching live footage of terrorists celebrating the attacks of September 11th. Look at the “War on Terror” in general. This is an even more effective enemy than Goldstein! Sure, Americans don’t generally have outbursts of rage like participants of the Hate. But Goldstein is a real, actual person. When he’s dead, the enemy will be vanquished. Not so with terror. We are at war with an idea . Much like medieval lords warred against the concept of absolute monarchy, much like 19th century white-men warred against the concept of equality, we are at war with this terrorist ideology. This is a war that cannot be won. Ideas cannot be killed. Just like the citizens of Oceania, we have been galvanized against a common enemy, and this provides justification for the second common characteristic of our societies. Unfortunately, our government has one-upped that of Oceania’s, by choosing an enemy that will never die.
Limitless surveillance. Of course that doesn’t exist in America – does anyone have a telescreen in his/her house? Yet how many of us are really familiar with the text of the USA PATRIOT Act? As the ACLU surmises Title II, Section 215, “The FBI need not show probable cause, nor even reasonable grounds to believe, that the person whose records it seeks is engaged in criminal activity.” Furthermore, “The FBI can investigate United States persons based in part on their exercise of First Amendment rights.” So, we can be put under surveillance for exercising a fundamental right? That makes about as much sense as putting the Americans who choose to vote on the terror suspect list. As it stands, our government has given itself the authority to spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime. That’s about as good as it gets, without having telescreens in every home.
Newspeak and doublethink exist in contemporary America. Don’t believe it? Look at the war in Iraq. News stories regularly label suicide bombers in the middle east as “homicide bombers” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447826,00.html). Think about that for a second…wouldn’t the entire United States Air Force be a bunch of homicide bombers then? Or take the term “jihadist”. Do we call our servicemen and women “warists”, or crusaders? Of course not, but in the end both sides are simply fighting for what they have grown to believe in (see second paragraph: this war on terror is a conflict of ideas. And no, I not posit that their beliefs are correct.). How about the USA PATRIOT Act, which stands for "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.” Under this act, those who exercise their first amendment rights are persecuted! How patriotic is that, really?
Well, this is about 600 words so I’ll stop…gosh, this makes me so frustrated. People need to wake up and realize that, intentionally or not, the American government is more your enemy than your friend.
The guiding principles of Oceania are enveloped by the three slogans of the party: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. These three slogans, though we take great care not to admit it, define contemporary parties as well. Multiple wars show us that we must constantly fight unknown enemies to maintain peace within our borders. The Patriot Act and other legislation show us our personal freedoms could hide our destruction. Our lack of understanding for current issues guides to elect leaders and do tasks that will serve the greater good, however they choose to define it. “If you aren’t with us, you’re with the terrorists,” we’re told. Effectively, if you have an informed opinion that contradicts taken action, then you are directly contributing to the weakening of our nation.
For Oceania these principles are something followed but, for Winston, not believed. For America they are something followed but, for many people, not believed. It is common acceptance that to achieve a higher moral state, for oneself and for society, one must pursue peace, freedom, education, and enlightenment. The structure of government was founded on the encouragement of change and introspection- to love one another and respect one another despite differences. However today these are just values; things we are encouraged to pursue (so honorably!) on our own accord, but are not considered to be provided for by our government. Our government is entitled to protect us and save us from the darkness of the world, not necessarily provide us with the pathway to light.
Although we feel it is against our moral code to wiretap civilians, no one will doubt that if it is necessary to catch modern terrorists, those that would threaten our life and liberties, that it should be done (though let us condemn it whole-heartedly.)
David Nolan brings up an interesting difference between Oceania and our government, that even if we are not entitled to unjust actions we still are allowed to consider all manners of action. Locke gave us a great definition of the inalienable rights of a person (life, liberty, and property) and it is his idea that provided the framework for the American, and in fact, most democratic nations today. It is in accordance with the majority of people’s belief and the structure of our government that we should be and are protected from actions that would inhibit our freedoms. It is also in accordance with the way our system works that we are entitled to have convictions and thoughts that may not be shared by the majority of other people. In fact, the only real consequences of one’s thoughts are not brought about by our government but by the judgments of people around us; we are more bound by society than we our by our government.
This separates us from Oceania, but does it really make us any less dictatorial? What is the right to think, but merely the ability to scream silently? You could say that although our government provides greater freedoms than that of Oceania, the American society is just as dictatorial as the society that supports Oceania’s government. You are condemned if you disagree with the common opinion, ruined if you fight or disagree with the common principle or cause. In essence, like Winston, we are only free within our heads to truly be who we want to be and explore the thoughts we want to explore. The only difference is we are exiled instead of murdered. Then again, are they really not the same punishment? Is our response, perhaps, even worse? Could silence be worse than death?
@ Sarah g.p.
"One thing that I noticed was widely different from our own government, other than the fact that they were totalitarian, was the Two Minute Hate."
Widely different seems to be a gross exaggeration. Have you watched the news recently? The constant barrage of videos and images from foreign wars acts as similar propaganda. Sure, most people wouldn't say they hate Arabs, Iraqis, or Muslims...but to be in a war that has killed over 100,000, displaced millions, and thrown two countries into years of chaos, there has got to be some sort of hate. While the feelings of "patriotism" (whatever you want to call support of the government) are not nearly as strong or apparent in American society, the same ends is being achieved. Clearly we have enough support of the people to continue the death and destruction, to continue support for the military-industrial complex. Hell, we just found out in the news that the $2 trillion in fed loans aren’t going to be transparent at all, a condition that many legislators demanded be met before passage of the bailout. But who’s doing anything about it? No one. Or how about this: Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are each taking 65% of their bailout loans, about 13 BILLION dollars, and giving it away to themselves as bonuses. No, we may not be brainwashed. But we sure as hell are complacent to outright theft and robbery from our own government. The inner party of Oceania couldn’t ask for much more.
America, whether we like it or not, is moving toward the ideals of Ingsoc.
War is Peace
In the course of American history there are precious few years where America was not at war with someone. First the British. We fought the Indians throughout the 19th century, with occasional guest stars such as the Mexicans, Confederates, and Spanish. In the 20th century we fought in the Philippines,the World Wars then the USSR until its collapse. In the 1990's we had Kosovo, the War on Drugs, and the Gulf War. Now, we are in the War on Terror. Like Oceania,we always have had an enemy. Since we have an enemy, political radicals can be held back, called unpatriotic. The war prevents change in the nation, creating peace.
Freedom is Slavery
In America, we have fought hard for civil rights, allowing all Americans regardless of race or gender to get any job. However, in order to get such jobs, in many situations, the individuals must relinquish their culture and differences, in order to be accepted. Women CEO's are incredibly masculine, especially in the work place. Our military has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on homosexuals, basically, if you are homosexual, just pretend to be straight like everyone else. While they may be free, in order to truly escape the bonds of poverty, racism, or sexism, they must enslave themselves to the majority lifestyle. Assimilate or fail.
Ignorance is Strength
This sentiment has become more and more evident in America than any of the others. Intelligence is frighteningly frowned upon. Americans have a tendency to want someone just like them to run something, as opposed to someone smarter and better than them. In this recent election cycle, Governor Sarah Palin showed a perfect example of this. Regardless of political ideology, you have to admit that she was either dumb, or acted stupid in order to appeal to the masses. She was unable to name any newspapers she read, instead responding "all of them" to Katie Couric, even was asked for specific examples. As we now know, she lost the election, and America went with the more intelligent candidate, but it was close. Too close for my comfort. We could have had a woman, who didn't know that Africa was not a single country, as the first woman president. Yet, we believe that the eloquent intelligent people are "elitist" and "pretentious". We vote for the person most like us.
"I feel that our government today is what the government in "1984" is trying to prevent." - Paymon S.
I think Paymon has a valid point. Obviously, George Orwell was an individual against any sort of imperialistic or totalitarian society. Instead, he was more geared towards a democratic or socialist environment. George Orwell wanted to express his hatred for state power through "1984" and even "Shooting an Elephant."
What strikes me the most, however, is that Orwell's book shows the true power of democracy. Although this was just a fiction novel, he predicted there was about thirty-five years before a totalitarian regime would begin. Our democacy has lasted for over two-hundred years and is still staying strong. We have spread democracy to other countries and are still in the process of spreading democracy. I think George Orwell wanted to let readers know just how strong a democracy really is. By using the hypothetical situation of having a totalitarian society, he has shown that other forms of government are not even comparable.
I believe that the US government is moving towards a lesser form of the government of Oceania. A perfect example of this is the US Patriot Act (which has been mentioned a few other times). The government is violating first amendment rights…specifically the right to privacy. In “1984”, the telescreens are Oceania’s über version of the Patriot Act. They monitor the society’s activity while also giving mandatory commands. In America, our version of this is the “justified” phone taps and internet activity monitoring. The government gives us the excuse that it’s for our own protection mainly against possible terrorists. There are other ways that the government could “protect” us from terrorism rather than hacking into our private lives.
Newspeak is another example in Oceania’s government that can be related to the United States government. In history, there have been words that were not acceptable. For example, during World War II, sauerkraut was dubbed “liberty cabbage” because of the hatred burned into United States citizens by the government. Propaganda also had a major impact by vilifying the citizens. There was a recent attempt at American “Newspeak” with French fries being called “freedom fries” against France because they did not support us in the war. I would like to think there aren’t many similarities between the United States government and Oceania, yet the more I think about it, the more similarities I pick out.
In response to Megans comment, I would like to say that I found it very interesting that the government meddled that much with Bush Seniors campaign. One of the main themes in 1984 is the appeal to the people using fear and manipulation, which seems to have been demonstrated perfectly in Megans example. The Two Minutes Hate is there in order to keep the citizens' of Oceanias more united in hatred and they only do it due to fear. The citizens who are "into it" are brainwashed by Big Brother, therefore showing manipulation, and all the other citizens who participate in the Two Minutes Hate only do it due to the fear of being caught and being called a traitor.
In response to Meredith R.'s comment...
She says that we are similar to Oceania's government because we always being watched. Not necessarily through cameras, but through credit cards, etc. While this is somewhat a similarity, it is completely different from our government. In Oceania, they have no option of not being watched. In our government, we have the option of not using things like credit cards, or being aware that if we make a phone call, the government could tap into it. If this bothers anyone, we can communicate in other ways or make purchases with cash in order not to be watched. It's not the easiest way, but it's not very difficult either. The people who have the most privacy are the ones who are the least lazy. It's not that difficult to go to a bank and get cash, or talk to someone in person or through letters. It is a lot easier to avoid government intervention in our society than in 1984, where it is almost impossible.
The similarities between Oceania’s totalitarian system of government and our own are not all that extensive. The length to which one’s government should involve itself in private citizens’ affairs is something to always be contested. However, rampant posters, Two Minutes Hate, telescreens, and Thought Police do not permeate our lives whatsoever. While the role of the American government is indeed considerable, the intrusions are not arbitrary or so consistent as Winston Smith’s government. Necessary intrusions by the government, an example being the Patriot Act, cannot be held comparable to the arrests and executions by the Ministry of Peace. Contemporary governments around the globe exemplify the principle personal freedoms we all know by heart. Oceania, on the contrary, does not. The suspicions and reservations about the American government today are encouraged by the very institution under such scrutiny. American concerns are largely vocalized and accepted. The two-party system is one example. Protests occur regularly and modern infrastructure (Victory Mansion replacements) is consistently approved. Such characteristics are the exact opposite of those present in Oceania. While some communist governments do still exist today, their prevalence and influence is negligible. History and the present prove that totalitarian methods of governance are simply ineffective. And advanced systems, like the United States, Great Britain, France, and Canada, hold few similarities to the statist and unbending Big Brother of Oceania.
Response to Matt Sulikowski
To call simple correlations similarities is somewhat impulsive and naïve. Social classes in the United States, and other contemporary societies today, are not forever separate. Social mobility is one of the great touchstones of modern society. Additionally, there is more to the social framework than the rich and the poor. The American middle class is a beacon of hope, and aspiration for millions around the world. Concerning the Patriot Act, the daily lives of the hundreds of millions of Americans remain unaffected by the legislation. I have never had my privacy abused. Have you? The law was designed, and is intended, to protect citizens from individuals determined to harm others. As for the appellations assigned to various forms of sustenance during the course of history, none were required or enforced whatsoever by the United States government. The reality that these more extreme nationalists were even allowed to voice their opinions suggests a contrast between modern government and that of Oceania.
@ Woody
Re: Matt Sulikowski
I disagree that it is not tyrannical to make it so everyone can contribute to society in the way they choose, instead, I argue that it is tyrannical not to allow people the choice of contribution. Sure, they can choose their means of contribution, but if a person doesn't wish to contribute to a broken society, i.e. Nazi Germany, forcing them to contribute in itself is wrong.
I don't believe that the forced gym classes effectively give people that choice either. Either people want to do gym, work hard, and have a good time; or people are lazy and there is no benefit for them. Mandatory gym classes can be enforced, but you can't enforce someone to work hard. Similarly, people who work hard outside of school to keep themselves in shape, and want to use the learning environment offered by the school in order to better themselves for their end contribution, one not physical but mental, are forced to take unnecessary gym classes in stead of an academic class. Gym classes do not significantly save lives either. 30 minutes a day of half-assed exertion isn't enough to counteract obesity.
@ Will Chan
Will brings up a great point that there are very many startling similarities between the government of Oceania and the contemporary governments of North Korea, Russia, and Iran. In my opinion, this is redundant. The contemporary governments of North Korea and the likes describe perfectly a totalitarian government ruled by fear, but when you compare those governments to Oceania, it is like comparing bread to bread: they are the same thing. I think Big Brother’s original post refers to all contemporary governments including our own and in that case, we must look at all of these modern governments in comparison to Oceania’s. And I think that although North Korea and Iran show certain characteristics, Oceania’s government does not compare much to other modern governments and North Korea’s government is not a representation of where our governments will head in the future.
Our government differs from that of oceania mostly on the basis of intent. While I could easily go on a rant pointing out each governmental action or policy that seems to coincide with Oceania's ideals, I don't believe that this is an accurate representation of the extent that these governments are alike. The American government encourages free thought, an organization like the thought police would never be able to function under the American system. The often harsh criticisms that the press is permitted to place on the government is evidence that our government is not trying to create an unquestionable authority of itself. Thus, the American government strives to maintain different opinions and people, whereas Oceania's government tries to suppress opposition and create robot-like nationalists of its people with things like the "two minute hate."
@ Charlie:
War is Peace-
Radicals are not held back because of the wars we have been involved in. There are many politicians that oppose the war and have not been called unpatriotic at all.
Freedom is Slavery-
I agree with the fact that often times freedom does correspond with this kind of cultural slavery. However, this is a problem with American society, not our government. Our government allows us all liberties necessary to be whoever we choose.
Also this slogan is used in the book as rational to strip people of their freedom, by stating that freedom IS actually slavery you are supporting the point that Oceania's government is trying to make.
Ignorance is Strength-
Most moderates and conservatives that I know of used the fact that Palin was so stupid as a reason NOT to vote for her. Also, our government is not structured to encourage ignorance, but there are inevitably going to be unintelligent people in every society that make poor decisions. Oceania's government did not ALLOW people to educate themselves through totalitarian rule, while in our democracy stupid people occassionally vote, this is a drastic difference.
I think the government of 1984 or "Big Brother" is very similar to our government today. The government in 1984 is highly controlling. They have thought police to actually inhibit the thoughts of society with "thought police". Everything about everybody is known by the government down to every move they make with they telescreen monitoring them. I know our government isn't as controlling or all knowing as 1984's but we are certainly headed that way. With technology growing comes new ways for our information to be exploited into the government's databases. With George Bush's Patriot act emails and even phones can be tapped and exploited. Also our medical files are being debated on being included on a card to replace currency. More and more things carry our identity and everything about us. Even at grocery stores, fingerprints can now be used to pay for groceries. The government is also requiring us to do more and more things for our "well being". An example is IL's requirement of gym class, like in Winston's mandatory tv exercise.
Post a Comment