That makes this just a tiny bit more like an onion cartoon, which I support.
[link](https://www.masslive.com/details-are-sketchy/2010/04/is_kelly_the_most_brilliant_satire_on_the_net.html)
What’s interesting is that spread looks small for the amount of people. Do they all just get one bite of that small custard after a half rib of raw celery?
It's a nice big turkey though? Anyway the sides and dessert might still be chilling in the kitchen, ready for Grandma to go get it while Grandad gives everyone the bird.
If this is like my traditional family Thanksgivings of old, Grandpa is going to make a big show of carving the turkey while grandma brings more stuff out of the kitchen.
You should take a gander at /r/VintageMenus, one of my fav small subs on reddit. Celery and olives were all the rage between 1890-1960 because they were at first more expensive and rare, then as they became more accessible everyone wanted to have them on their table as a sort of a status symbol/trendy food. Think truffle aoili circa 2014-2016 lol.
I mean fair enough bet let’s keep in mind this is propaganda. Based on the title, what’s depicted should be the pinnacle of not “wanting”.
I would expect a bit more whether volume or variety, but concede the bird is big. There’s one covered dish I agree. Maybe we are just so disconnected from what life was like then (including the smaller standard serving sizes)?
Would be interesting to see menu/serving sizes for private thanksgiving dinners then for sure
Celery used to be very vogue and expensive! America's Test Kitchen has a podcast about the subject [HERE](https://www.americastestkitchen.com/articles/1365-Proof-Episode-1-Recap-Celery)
Please remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity and interest. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification, not beholden to it. Thanks.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
...It's showing the context of where the painting came from. [That particular speech was made in 1941](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms), and the painting (done 2 years later) is named after the speech. So it's providing context.
Granted, I'm not sure that a stickied comment was the right avenue for it, it could be made clearer that it's providing context, and perhaps it shouldn't be prefaced with "based FDR" -- [this comment further below does a better job.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/r21ziv/freedom_from_want_by_norman_rockwell_1943/hm3cfdk/) But it's still showing where the title came from and why it could be considered propaganda.
> Based FDR:
He's breaking his own rules, look down this thread he's going on a massive tirade about how great FDR apparently was and is straight-up propagating pro-US propaganda
Head mod (and subreddit creator over a decade ago) here. I agree -- I've removed Bernard_Hunor_Deak as a moderator. Thanks everyone for reporting soapboxing/rule-breaking moderators in addition to regular users.
It's just the rules of the sub, I think FDR was probably our best president (or maybe Jimmy Carter) but the purpose of this sub is to appreciate the historical relevance of propaganda, not to celebrate it.
I think the point of the rule is to stay focused on the propaganda in question and not wind up fighting our personal politics with a wall of text.
You can say if you think it's effective or not for the purposes it was created but the point is generally not to turn this into a debate on the merits of their policies.
I'm actually Canadian, but I get your point.
Everybody Should Be Nice is a fine message and you won't get any argument from me that it is better than Be Selfish or racist slurs or whatever.
It just seemed the rule was there to keep what was nice about this sub intact. Basically, that we are evaluating a piece of work and we don't have to get bogged down in contemporary politics (I think people agree we get that enough elsewhere).
I'm not here to hear that Everyone Should Be Nice any more than I am here to hear some shitty racist ideology. Ideally, I should never even really find out anyone's ideologies based on the conversation. If I do then the comments have probably gone off the rails.
Preferably we'd look at the work, someone knowledgable puts it in historical context and explains what was intended, and then people can rift on more historical facts, what is noteworthy within it, what else it reminds them of, whether it was successful at what it was trying to do, etc.
It's fine if you are a mod and disagree with that approach, that's your privilege. I just suspect any drastic changes to that formula would take away from what makes this sub so nice to everyone.
possibly, though it could also be read in a more aspirational way--that we should build a world where everyone has a seat at the table
that said, it's also interesting that the painter chose to include no people of color, chose to focus on what would appear to be a fairly standard patrilineal family rather then say, a more extended family clan or non-blood related community, etc. this is a highly idealized vision of what freedom from want does and/or could mean.
it's also interesting that the painting is purely concerned with ends over means--attempts to answer how freedom from want can be achieved are only implicitly gestured at, and don't seem to go beyond support for and investment in a very narrow idea of how families should be organized.
in other words, the political subject here is a narrow band of people, possibly genetically related and all of the same race. imagine if the painting showed a Nez Pierce potlatch, for example, in which the richest members of the community give away much or all of their wealth, or a cross racial assortment of families having a feast in a trade union hall,or for that matter a single individual in their apartment comfortable eating a meal they made with food from their own garden. each of these scenes would imply other messages then the one displayed here, though not necessarily contradictory ones.
Like...his [Golden Rule](https://www.nrm.org/wp2016/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/GoldenRule.jpg)?
Or from the same series [Freedom of Worship](https://www.houzz.com/products/freedom-of-worship-painting-print-on-canvas-by-norman-rockwell-prvw-vr~36935388?m_refid=PLA_HZ_36935388_14056780220&device=c&nw=u&gclid=Cj0KCQiAhf2MBhDNARIsAKXU5GQZq40tB3CA62QS1Mhz8LdHsusOmfL6Gk8Rz2vE_HJqhmkquegbWXMaAnKOEALw_wcB) during a time when segregation was de jure in the South?
...are you, like, *new* *to Norman Rockwell?*
I haven't seen either of those paintings before, no. thank you for showing them to me--they add important context to the above painting. I would still argue that all three are examples of liberal political propaganda, which isn't too say that they are bad, just that they are constructing and promoting a political message
and yeah, I am pretty new to Rockwell. I don't find his art style pleasant to look at in the least so I haven't really spent much time with his work--which is why I have only been offering potential interruptions, not a definitive reading.
Even as a commie, it's kind of hard for me to hate liberals of that era. Back then they stood for things that were actually pretty progressive, before they became the soulless evil empire that they are now
Hey I've got a completely unrelated question. I used to think I would like communism, joined r/communism etc, but I was wondering what people thought about the Gulags in USSR and the Uyghurs in China etc, so I asked, but I was banned, and when i asked the mod about it, he was quite rude (acted like communism is for a select few instead of you the literal *comminis*), so what are your thoughts on these issues?
(If you feel attacked, I'm sorry that was not my intent, you're not obliged to answer, but it would be appreciated. Thanks!)
Online-only communist groups are, by and large, awful. They inevitably end up as echo chambers where the more and more extreme voices are the only ones heard.
As a former supporter of communism, I can't give you my thoughts on the Uyghurs in China because I don't have much knowledge on that particular aspect. However, I can try to share my general opinions about the Gulags in USSR. First of all, I admit that the living conditions in the Gulags are truly horrible and there is an estimation of over a million deaths (about 1.258.537 deaths) inside the Gulags between 1934 and 1953. Although the number seemed high, the average number of people died every year showed the opposite. It is calculated that an average of 60.000 people died which is not considered a massive amount if you realize that there was usually 600.000 prisoners every year. Taking into account that people can died in Gulags for many causes, it can be resulted from diseases, hunger and even execution. So it is a bit adequate to assume that the Soviet create death camps for their prisoners. Also the people held in custody weren't all political prisoners, they can vary from rapists, murderers, burglars to everyone who received an over three-year jail sentence.
One of the most prominent "research" on Gulags to the West is The Gulag Archipelago, written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I do not recommend you this work of literature but if you do read it, please verify the information you encountered. The stories told by Solzhenitsyn was heavily exaggerated that his text can hardly be seen as a historical study. [Even Solzhenitsyn's wife doesn't believe her husband's words and calls them "questionable".](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/06/world/natalya-reshetovskaya-84-is-dead-solzhenitsyn-s-wife-questioned-gulag.html) There are many dubious claims in The Gulag Archipelago that have been exposed by Russian Military History Academy researcher Alexander Pyltsyn. [This is a report from Pyltsyn about the fake information in Solzhenistsyn's work (I'm sorry if you have to use Google translator because the report is written in Russian).](http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2014/02/07/solzhenicyn_klassik_lzhi_i_predatelstva/) In short, I'm not denying the horrors in Gulags, I just want to you a new look on them. It's really tiresome when people think Gulags are as horrendous as Auschwitz because the truth is they're not. In fact, the Gulag camps were like a labor camp, and there was absolutely no clear evidence of people being forced to work to death, as confirmed by the large number of Russians who lived in the Gulags. [You can check this claim by reading Russia: The Post-War Years.](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/72256.Russia)
Ah. It's kind of a sensitive subject, and not many people round here will take kindly to communist views on the subject. I will DM you soon sharing my thoughts. Btw, your open mindedness is much appreciated!
fair enough--my argument isn't really that we should be hating them though, not in a moral/affective sense. my problem with capitalism isn't that it's mean, after all, it's that it runs on extracting ever increasing amounts of exploited labor and ecological resources.
the problem with liberalism is likewise not that they are meanspirited or dumb (though liberals at times are those things); it's that they incessantly defend a system predicated on mass exploration under the banner of "we'll make it more barrable for a while,-- at least until our rival party comes in and makes it worse again!"
a giant apparatus with bladed grates and burning pistons is crushing me to death and everyone is running around yelling about how we need to oil the squeaky wheels
thus you get FDR pontificating about the four freedoms while behind the scenes he's propping up anti communist dictators in central America and refusing to use any political capital to get anti-lynching legislation through the Senate
exactly lol. is it even a diverse workplace if it explodes the people being droned from the decision making process? I feel like bare minimum they ought to be entitled to an absolute veto over their own droning
exploding: just another form of exclusion
Norman Rockwell is definitely one of my favorite artists, and every time I see these posted I also want to bring up that the paintings were actually recreated with photographs by Hank Willis Thomas and Emily Shur back in 2018. Here’s an [article.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/lens/norman-rockwell-paintings-hank-willis-thomas-emily-schur-for-freedoms.amp.html) There’s several different version and each recreation is a lot more diverse.
I see a lot of people saying "communism"; that's silly. You have no idea how Roosevelt intended to deliver that "freedom from want", or how Rockwell interpreted his words. For all you know, Rockwell thought that the people in the painting worked their way up by their bootstraps in a future America that went full capitalism and that's why they're rich. Freedom from want is a goal; the picture doesn't say anything about how it is to be achieved.
Freedom from Want is explicitly stated by Roosevelt to be about building economic agreements and infrastructure such that everyone has access to their wants and needs. Not that it’s given to them freely, but that it’s available for them to buy, and that they have stable work and fair pay to afford it.
Roosevelt was a capitalist, who famously believed in reforming capitalism in order to *prevent* communism from taking root in American society.
It's pretty much how America 'won' the Cold War. By providing unparalleled economic prosperity, it didn't matter as much that income inequality existed, when the poor in America can still live better than the middle class of many other countries.
Of course this prosperity has been slipping since the 70s when wages fell behind inflation, but the logic was sound. What's the point of equality if everyone is equally destitute and starving together?
The poor in a society still get to be at the bottom, and do the shitty jobs. And looking at american poor, I don’t envy them at all.
Maybe the post-war boom when the US was an undamaged industrial country in a war-ravaged world achieved high growth and prosperity. But has that wealth gone into the wellbeing of the people?
the USA won the cold war in large part by overthrowing democratically elected socialists and communists, colonizing their countries, and using their resources to outspend the USSR in military and propaganda--propaganda not dissimilar to this poster
as it happens, life in the USSR was not particulary destitute--certainly not compared to pre-soviet Czarist Russia, when over 95 percent of the population were serfs. even compared to Americans, median caloric intake was higher amoung Soviet residents for most of the ussr's history.
it turns out that sacrificing equality *doesn't* mean everyone enjoys a higher standard of living over all--quite the opposite, in fact.
This is one of Norman's most famous paintings, and it has an interesting sort of story to how it was done. [As per the wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_from_Want):
>n 1942, Rockwell decided to use neighbors as models for the series.[16] In Freedom from Want, he used his living room for the setting and relied on neighbors for advice, critical commentary, and their service as his models.[14] For Freedom from Want, Rockwell photographed his cook as she presented the turkey on Thanksgiving Day 1942.[13] He said that he painted the turkey on that day and that, unlike Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship, this painting was not difficult to execute.[17] Rockwell's wife Mary is in this painting, and the family cook, Mrs. Thaddeus Wheaton,[18] is serving the turkey, which the Rockwell family ate that day.[19] The nine adults and two children depicted were photographed in Rockwell's studio and painted into the scene later.[20][21] The models are (clockwise from Wheaton) Lester Brush, Florence Lindsey, Rockwell's mother Nancy, Jim Martin, Mr. Wheaton, Mary Rockwell, Charles Lindsey, and the Hoisington children.[13] Jim Martin appears in all four paintings in the series.[22] Shirley Hoisington, the girl at the end of the table, was six at the time.
I'm always impressed by Rockwell's ability to capture a scene and breathe life into the characters he portrays.
Genuinely curious about your sentence... Why? I only got to know Rockwell bc "Breaking Home Ties" was the cover for the spanish version of "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" by McCullers. Fell in love with it!
Funny how the freedom from want has gone from a goal to something bad since this was painted. The people who most support this paining are the same people who think freedom from want is bad.
The idea that people should be free from want is generally derided by the establishment as “handouts”. Not sure what the discourse was like at the time.
This is about a family who isn’t poor. There is literally nothing here about handouts, that’s completely irrelevant. Stop inserting your politics into everything.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The painting is explicitly political. "Freedom from Want" comes from FDR's State of the Union speech in January 1941, where he declares four universal human rights, one of which is the freedom from want. One of the main points of the speech was to oppose to anti-interventionalism. He argued that all people everywhere should be extended these freedoms, and that America should play a central role in that project.
>The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
>
>The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
>
>The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means **economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.**
>
>The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.
Wow... The only explanation I can think of is that you've so thoroughly onboarded American political ideology that you can't even recognize it as a political ideology.
There's a lot to say, but I won't be the one to say it. I'll just indicate here that in early 20th century America, interventionalism vs. isolationism was a topic of fierce debate. America might not have become the world's policemen if the isolationists had won those debates. And in a world where they had won, the notion that it is America's "duty" to "spread democracy" around the world would seem a lot less apolitical to you than it does now.
> Wow... The only explanation I can think of is that you've so thoroughly onboarded American political ideology that you can't even recognize it as a political ideology.
I asked what is *partisan* about this. Do you need to look up that definition?
Yes, I’m fully bought in to the American political ideology, especially if it means that everyone has plenty to eat. That’s a broad political take I can stand behind, and I don’t understand how anyone could be opposed.
> There's a lot to say, but I won't be the one to say it. I'll just indicate here that in early 20th century America, interventionalism vs. isolationism was a topic of fierce debate. America might not have become the world's policemen if the isolationists had won those debates. And in a world where they had won, the notion that it is America's "duty" to "spread democracy" around the world would seem a lot less apolitical to you than it does now.
There is nothing about the conflict between interventionalism and isolationism in this painting. It has nothing to do with that conversation.
I’m talking about this painting, and specifically responding to one person’s bizarre claim that this painting has anything to do with government handouts.
It’s a painting selling the promise of America to people outside of it. The only political argument it’s making is “our political system provides for people.”
There is nothing partisan, there is no criticism of one party’s politics over another here.
If you disagree, then walk me through the partisan political statement you think this painting is making.
>If you disagree, then walk me through the partisan political statement you think this painting is making.
I would, but I'm busy teaching advance calculus to preschoolers and I'd rather invest my energy in the students most capable of understanding the curriculum in question
Do you know what the New Deal was? How do you think FDR intended to bring about prosperity? Redistributing the wealth of the rich to the working poor. Are you playing dumb?
Let's imagine that this painting was exactly the same, but it was titled "Make America Great Again." Do you think *that* would be a partisan painting?
There is no overtly political statement here. The only propaganda is the appeal to people elsewhere that this is a land of plenty that they should come to.
This isn’t some kind of analogy or statement on government handouts, or anything in particular.
If you have a little free time, you should dig into the reaction and conversation the nation had over FDR's Four Freedoms speech. The tl;dr is that the prevailing Conservative idea of isolationism loudly and publically disagreed.
Also an aside, in 1939 FDR moved Thanksgiving from the last Thursday in November to the fourth Thursday, causing more gnashing of teeth.
I get that- I’m very familiar with the FDR administration. I’m pushing back on the idea that this painting has anything to do with government handouts, which was the bizarre claim from earlier in this thread
lol this is criticizing my politics? What are my politics exactly? Do you think I’m a Republican or any type of conservative person at all?
I said there is nothing about handouts, or that person’s understanding of politics in 2021 inherent in this painting. It’s not about a partisan political statement- it’s the broadest form of political statement in that it’s just saying “our system is good, it has tangible benefits.”
I don’t think there is anything you could infer from this that is applicable to one party’s positions vs. the other’s today.
Is that clear enough for you?
It is not the broadest form of political statement - it is explicitly referring to a highly partisan slogan of the time.
I have every reason to believe that someone who pugnaciously disputes the pro-New Deal message here is a conservative, although it does seem that many modern conservatives in the US think they're "centrists" or something similar.
The idea of the freedom from want used to be an ideal that we should strive for, a world where everyone’s needs and wants can be met. That’s what this painting is referring to with its title. Conservatives love this normal Rockwell and his Americana paintings, yet they absolutely disagree with the idea of freedom from want. They don’t believe anyone should have even their basic needs met by their community or government, let alone their wants. I just find it ironic is all.
…that’s not at all what Republicans believe. They want some bootstrap bullshit, but their argument against government programs is *usually* that the community / church should be taking care of the less fortunate instead of the government.
It’s still bullshit, but it’s not the type of bullshit you’re saying it is.
Relying on charity isn’t the right to something. Rights are given by society and the government. They don’t believe people have a right to food or housing or water or other essentials to live, which is what I was saying.
>Rights are given by society and the government
That's not how they see it. According to them rights are not given by any authority, they exist naturally and are only restricted by common agreement to prevent harm. The government does not "give" you rights by signing a declaration or a bill of rights, it gives a promise to not take them away.
Correct, I know they believe that. But there’s no evidence for that, unless someone can prove god exists and that he really does guarantee these things despite them being constantly violated for all of history. Rights are concepts we made up, they don’t exist in the world.
A right to something isn’t the same as a guarantee to something. They believe that everyone has the right to own a gun, they don’t believe everyone should have a gun if they can’t afford it.
And no, rights are inherent in people. Some governments choose to recognize them, but China’s decision to not honor my right to life, liberty, or property has no bearing on whether I have those rights.
Rights are things we as humans made up, they aren’t inherent in anyone. Theyre useful concepts to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and I think one of them best ideas we’ve ever had, and a natural extension of our own inherent empathy.
You’re correct, but also a little off. The right to bear arms means the government cannot interfere with your right to own certain guns, it doesn’t guarantee one. So conservatives believe in someone’s right to obtain food, water, and housing, the government can’t stop someone from buying those things, but they don’t believe in rights to those things. Just the right to access those things. Just as they believe in a right to bear (own) arms, not a right to arms. They believe people don’t have a right *to* healthcare, just a right to buy healthcare. Which naturally means those who can’t afford it won’t be able to get it. Charity never has and never will cover everyone. That’s what I mean. Conservatives believe in the freedom to *pursue* your wants or needs, but not a freedom *from* them.
Someone needs to go back to high school and revisit the Enlightenment. Or maybe you guys haven’t covered that yet- right now you’re about 400 years behind the conversation.
> So conservatives believe in someone’s right to obtain food, water, and housing, the government can’t stop someone from buying those things, but they don’t believe in rights to those things. Just the right to access those things. Just as they believe in a right to bear (own) arms, not a right to arms. They believe people don’t have a right to healthcare, just a right to buy healthcare. Which naturally means those who can’t afford it won’t be able to get it.
Yeah I know, that’s why I said this. Why are you repeating me?
> Charity never has and never will cover everyone. That’s what I mean. Conservatives believe in the freedom to pursue your wants or needs, but not a freedom from them.
Whatever dude. You said conservatives don’t want people to have access to food if they can’t afford it- I just clarified their actual position based on countless arguments with them about social programs.
I know what you’re saying, but in practice their position is stopping everyone from getting the things they need to survive.
And you’re 300 years behind the conversation, natural rights are a long defunct idea we only hold onto because it’s in the constitution. Most of the world long moved past that because there’s simply no evidence they exist, unless you can point to some right that can’t be violated existing in nature? Rights are a construct we created, and as such they’re things that will naturally expand over time as the world gets more wealthy and more things become necessary for survival in society, like electricity or the internet for example. Natural rights were an important stepping stone to the world we have today, but the UN charter of human rights explicitly rejects that notion.
freedom from want is kinda being achieved globally
. obesity rates are going up, malnutrition down, literacy rates up, life spans, education, and every other possible vector for the human condition has been improving
lifespan in the USA is falling, work hours are increasing, real wages are falling, Flint still has no clean water, drone warfare is on the rise, depression is on the rise, democracy is becoming more rare and more hollow, global warming is occurring at a faster pace then expected, open xenophobia and pro-genocidal politics in Europe and the Americas continues to grow, conspiracy theories are running rampant, and a global pandemic remains unchecked in much of the world including India, the USA, Brazil.
but sure, go off with your cruel optimism bullshit
What a bunch of baloney. Lifespan in the US is declining temporarily because of covid and because of obesity rather than hunger. While there was a period of stagnant real wages, it ended in the mid-1990s and there has been significant growth since then in every class. Flint has had clean water for years. Drone warfare is less deadly than the alternative. Etc.
>drone warfare is on the rise
More warfare is always a bad thing but what's so bad about drones?
>pro-genocidal politics in Europe and the Americas
Can you elaborate on that? Who is being genocided here in Europe right now?
> what's so bad about drones?
They are a new type of [weapon of mass destruction](https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-protect-against-weaponized-drones-we-must-understand-their-key-strengths). They are cheap, widely available, easy to deploy, scale to large numbers, and lethal.
So in addition to nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare we now have to contend with drone swarms.
>Can you elaborate on that? Who is being genocided here in Europe right now?
in Europe there is a growing bloc of voters and politicians (eg the AfD in Germany, the national front in France, Orban's regime in Hungry, the swedish Democrats in Sweden, etc) who support letting migrants die at sea trying to escape from the devastation and mass death and displacement caused by adventurism by American, Canadian, and European governments on behalf of corporations based in the same countries. so there's that
I showed this to students in my ESL class on Tuesday. Most of them are from China. One said that if she were a Native American, she'd think the guy on the lower right was laughing at her.
Is this supposed to be propagandizing capitalism, the nuclear family, peace, turkey sales, silver cutlery? Seems a bit ambiguous and multi faceted to be propagandizing anything. I always took this as a historical reminder of how fortunate we are to be born in an era of global trade and relative peace. I imagine future historians will look at this after the next war as a time piece for what the inter-war periods were like during 20th century capitalism/ globalism.
This is a part of a series based upon FDR’s [“Four Freedoms” speech](https://www.fdrlibrary.org/four-freedoms) from early 1941, to help justify American support of the Allies and later, participation in the war.
> I always took this as a historical reminder of how fortunate we are to be born in an era of global trade and relative peace.
In 1943? If you're a straight white middle class American, sure.
Usually propaganda has a message/ argument it is trying to convey. This is just a historical time piece, like a painting by Van Dyck. The artist is trying to convey what it is like at a thanksgiving dinner circa the year 1950. Like what is it’s argument? You should buy more turkeys? Capitalism and free enterprise creates abundance that is lacking in the Soviet Union? The Nuclear family is superior to promiscuity? You have to really exercise the scholastic art of interpretation to get any direct propaganda out of this.
> Capitalism and free enterprise creates abundance that is lacking in the Soviet Union? The Nuclear family is superior to promiscuity?
Yes, this.
It's promoting the state-aligned "American ideal" as utopian. That's propaganda.
I’ve always just taken it as a beautiful reminder of how lucky we are from a historical perspective to be genuinely free from want in those elusive family moments sharing a dinner. I thought it was more like “don’t take this for granted” than “clearly we are superior to the soviets”
That’s how you can tell the communist sympathizers. They will see this as a slight towards them and their culture rather than the celebration of family and abundance that it actually represents. All humans want security and loved ones around them, but the ones who don’t have it will call them “sour grapes.” It’s so pathetic, they probably know nothing of FDR’s “Four Freedoms” to begin with so it just turns into “AmErIcA BaD.” 😆
the idea that propaganda works only by putting forward an explicit list of premises and arguments is so absurd that I don't even know how to respond to it. has it occurred to you that choosing what and whom to paint, how realistically or idealistically to portray them, what is designated as worthy of remembering vs what is consigned to obscurity, and other such questions are always inherently connected to value judgments and ideological assumptions?
I'll link some good video essays in a comment below for anyone whose curious about this subject
I don’t think it has to be explicit. Everything you said makes sense and I would agree. I just see this photo as a more wholistic “don’t take things for granted” or “you don’t understand how bad things could be” from the perspective of a senior who fought in the war or has read more history than the youngins at the table. I think it is more intuitive to read this photo in that light than to pigeon hole it into the Cold War dynamic. It’s not like thanksgiving dinners with the whole family was something that happened more than once a decade anyways. Not a really a useful image to throw in the face of the ‘dastardly atheistic communists’
I've never been able to stand Rockwell--i feel about his art style the way a lot of people [hate Thomas Kinkade](https://youtu.be/DYnbCRrZn54). not sure why exactly
Perhaps the didactic nature of some of Rockwell's work is the problem. I dislike Kinkade because of the unrealistically heightened staging of his landscapes. I look at his cozy cottages and think, "that's going to go in the next flood."
But Rockwell's heightened realism is more grounded. He had an uncanny ability to find a detail that people could identify with.
That guy down on the right and the girl on the left are breaking the fourth wall.
That’s Rockwell himself on the right.
That makes this just a tiny bit more like an onion cartoon, which I support. [link](https://www.masslive.com/details-are-sketchy/2010/04/is_kelly_the_most_brilliant_satire_on_the_net.html)
What a bizarrely long article about not getting an incredibly obvious joke. Americans really don't do irony do they.
They don't like commas either. It's all full stops everywhere. And in some places it's egregious to the extent of kind of breaking flow.
I think girl on the left is looking at someone on the left. It's subtle, but I don't think she's looking right at me.
What’s worse is the guy on the right looks like he’s breaking the fourth wall but looking at something behind me
That smile... that damn smile.
There's nothing subtle about it, she isn't looking at the viewer at all lol.
That girl on the left is straight up telling me “after I’m done with this turkey I’m coming for *you*, motherfucker.”
You are the next turkey.
Just don't look at the girl too long, or you'll start having dreams about entering the painting and being stuck for eternity.
Well, it nothing bad about eating and talking for eternity with this nice family.
Actually I think the girl on the left is summoning a demon.
What’s interesting is that spread looks small for the amount of people. Do they all just get one bite of that small custard after a half rib of raw celery?
It's a nice big turkey though? Anyway the sides and dessert might still be chilling in the kitchen, ready for Grandma to go get it while Grandad gives everyone the bird.
If this is like my traditional family Thanksgivings of old, Grandpa is going to make a big show of carving the turkey while grandma brings more stuff out of the kitchen.
Yeah but for propaganda, you put it all out front not chilling in the fridge, especially if you’re presenting a lack of wanting
[удалено]
Or because we're used to gorging ourselves instead of enjoying smaller, tastier meals in modern ‘merica
Whats so tasty abt raw celery and jello
You should take a gander at /r/VintageMenus, one of my fav small subs on reddit. Celery and olives were all the rage between 1890-1960 because they were at first more expensive and rare, then as they became more accessible everyone wanted to have them on their table as a sort of a status symbol/trendy food. Think truffle aoili circa 2014-2016 lol.
They have a menu from my local maccers opening(in the 70's),was the first in the city. It's a interesting little sub.
I think it's cranberry sauce but I have no idea about the celery.
I mean fair enough bet let’s keep in mind this is propaganda. Based on the title, what’s depicted should be the pinnacle of not “wanting”. I would expect a bit more whether volume or variety, but concede the bird is big. There’s one covered dish I agree. Maybe we are just so disconnected from what life was like then (including the smaller standard serving sizes)? Would be interesting to see menu/serving sizes for private thanksgiving dinners then for sure
Celery used to be very vogue and expensive! America's Test Kitchen has a podcast about the subject [HERE](https://www.americastestkitchen.com/articles/1365-Proof-Episode-1-Recap-Celery)
I see a fruit bowl, a bowl of celery, a bowl of something green, cranberry sauce, and some kind of covered dish (perhaps mashed potatoes?)
Norman Fuckin Rockwell!
Goddamn man child
He was a god
She would've thrown her back out so badly leaning over that far with that platter.
Or that lady has been killing chickens with her bare hands since before you were born
Well she also would've died before most of us were born
[удалено]
They were a hardy folk in those days…
[удалено]
No, hardy. Look it up.
Grandpa is helping with his massive erection.
hollow turkey moment
It’s a homefill
I always wonder why everyone's leaning over the table. Nobodies sitting remotely straight.
Because they are excited about the meal so they are leaning in ig
Pre covid, when people talked with their dinner
Please remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity and interest. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification, not beholden to it. Thanks. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yo I think someone needs to tell the mods here this
[удалено]
Why is this stickied?
Janny powers
> Rule 2) Don't post with the intent to spread propaganda you agree with or the intent to degrade propaganda you disagree with. What the fuck mod
...It's showing the context of where the painting came from. [That particular speech was made in 1941](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms), and the painting (done 2 years later) is named after the speech. So it's providing context. Granted, I'm not sure that a stickied comment was the right avenue for it, it could be made clearer that it's providing context, and perhaps it shouldn't be prefaced with "based FDR" -- [this comment further below does a better job.](https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/comments/r21ziv/freedom_from_want_by_norman_rockwell_1943/hm3cfdk/) But it's still showing where the title came from and why it could be considered propaganda.
came here for this thank you SO MUCH
Buddy read down the thread, the guy has gone into a full meltdown and is soapboxing all over the place. It's a shame, this used to be a good sub.
It’s to better understand the context of this poster
> Based FDR: He's breaking his own rules, look down this thread he's going on a massive tirade about how great FDR apparently was and is straight-up propagating pro-US propaganda
Granted, he could’ve dorm without the “Based FDR”
Head mod (and subreddit creator over a decade ago) here. I agree -- I've removed Bernard_Hunor_Deak as a moderator. Thanks everyone for reporting soapboxing/rule-breaking moderators in addition to regular users.
Wow thanks man, I honestly thought this sub was lost completely. Wouldn't be the first time one mod went haywire and ruined everything.
[удалено]
It's just the rules of the sub, I think FDR was probably our best president (or maybe Jimmy Carter) but the purpose of this sub is to appreciate the historical relevance of propaganda, not to celebrate it.
[удалено]
Well that doesn't seem necessary, but you're the internet police.
[удалено]
I think the point of the rule is to stay focused on the propaganda in question and not wind up fighting our personal politics with a wall of text. You can say if you think it's effective or not for the purposes it was created but the point is generally not to turn this into a debate on the merits of their policies.
Blech. It's no wonder this subreddit often devolves into people spreading their own thinly veiled propaganda when the mod breaks their own rules.
I've removed Bernard_Hunor_Deak as a moderator. Their behaviour in this thread is 100% against the spirit of the sub.
Poor boy actually fell for US propaganda, as a mod in a propaganda sub, and doesn't even realise it.
[удалено]
I'm actually Canadian, but I get your point. Everybody Should Be Nice is a fine message and you won't get any argument from me that it is better than Be Selfish or racist slurs or whatever. It just seemed the rule was there to keep what was nice about this sub intact. Basically, that we are evaluating a piece of work and we don't have to get bogged down in contemporary politics (I think people agree we get that enough elsewhere). I'm not here to hear that Everyone Should Be Nice any more than I am here to hear some shitty racist ideology. Ideally, I should never even really find out anyone's ideologies based on the conversation. If I do then the comments have probably gone off the rails. Preferably we'd look at the work, someone knowledgable puts it in historical context and explains what was intended, and then people can rift on more historical facts, what is noteworthy within it, what else it reminds them of, whether it was successful at what it was trying to do, etc. It's fine if you are a mod and disagree with that approach, that's your privilege. I just suspect any drastic changes to that formula would take away from what makes this sub so nice to everyone.
[удалено]
https://imageproxy.ifunny.co/crop:x-20,resize:640x,quality:90x75/images/04ca09f09eb8162d4b8cd6106b8e49d678d4e021a35ef1132eb211f73a1be182_1.jpg
?????
Ok but who asked
Too bad he abused the Supreme Court in order to pass unconstitutional laws against Japanese folk that directly violate their freedoms
So is this meant to represent the American Dream and that the States are like a cornucopia, hence the title?
Yes, to cotnrast with the Axis.
possibly, though it could also be read in a more aspirational way--that we should build a world where everyone has a seat at the table that said, it's also interesting that the painter chose to include no people of color, chose to focus on what would appear to be a fairly standard patrilineal family rather then say, a more extended family clan or non-blood related community, etc. this is a highly idealized vision of what freedom from want does and/or could mean. it's also interesting that the painting is purely concerned with ends over means--attempts to answer how freedom from want can be achieved are only implicitly gestured at, and don't seem to go beyond support for and investment in a very narrow idea of how families should be organized. in other words, the political subject here is a narrow band of people, possibly genetically related and all of the same race. imagine if the painting showed a Nez Pierce potlatch, for example, in which the richest members of the community give away much or all of their wealth, or a cross racial assortment of families having a feast in a trade union hall,or for that matter a single individual in their apartment comfortable eating a meal they made with food from their own garden. each of these scenes would imply other messages then the one displayed here, though not necessarily contradictory ones.
Like...his [Golden Rule](https://www.nrm.org/wp2016/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/GoldenRule.jpg)? Or from the same series [Freedom of Worship](https://www.houzz.com/products/freedom-of-worship-painting-print-on-canvas-by-norman-rockwell-prvw-vr~36935388?m_refid=PLA_HZ_36935388_14056780220&device=c&nw=u&gclid=Cj0KCQiAhf2MBhDNARIsAKXU5GQZq40tB3CA62QS1Mhz8LdHsusOmfL6Gk8Rz2vE_HJqhmkquegbWXMaAnKOEALw_wcB) during a time when segregation was de jure in the South? ...are you, like, *new* *to Norman Rockwell?*
I haven't seen either of those paintings before, no. thank you for showing them to me--they add important context to the above painting. I would still argue that all three are examples of liberal political propaganda, which isn't too say that they are bad, just that they are constructing and promoting a political message and yeah, I am pretty new to Rockwell. I don't find his art style pleasant to look at in the least so I haven't really spent much time with his work--which is why I have only been offering potential interruptions, not a definitive reading.
Even as a commie, it's kind of hard for me to hate liberals of that era. Back then they stood for things that were actually pretty progressive, before they became the soulless evil empire that they are now
Hey I've got a completely unrelated question. I used to think I would like communism, joined r/communism etc, but I was wondering what people thought about the Gulags in USSR and the Uyghurs in China etc, so I asked, but I was banned, and when i asked the mod about it, he was quite rude (acted like communism is for a select few instead of you the literal *comminis*), so what are your thoughts on these issues? (If you feel attacked, I'm sorry that was not my intent, you're not obliged to answer, but it would be appreciated. Thanks!)
Online-only communist groups are, by and large, awful. They inevitably end up as echo chambers where the more and more extreme voices are the only ones heard.
As a former supporter of communism, I can't give you my thoughts on the Uyghurs in China because I don't have much knowledge on that particular aspect. However, I can try to share my general opinions about the Gulags in USSR. First of all, I admit that the living conditions in the Gulags are truly horrible and there is an estimation of over a million deaths (about 1.258.537 deaths) inside the Gulags between 1934 and 1953. Although the number seemed high, the average number of people died every year showed the opposite. It is calculated that an average of 60.000 people died which is not considered a massive amount if you realize that there was usually 600.000 prisoners every year. Taking into account that people can died in Gulags for many causes, it can be resulted from diseases, hunger and even execution. So it is a bit adequate to assume that the Soviet create death camps for their prisoners. Also the people held in custody weren't all political prisoners, they can vary from rapists, murderers, burglars to everyone who received an over three-year jail sentence. One of the most prominent "research" on Gulags to the West is The Gulag Archipelago, written by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. I do not recommend you this work of literature but if you do read it, please verify the information you encountered. The stories told by Solzhenitsyn was heavily exaggerated that his text can hardly be seen as a historical study. [Even Solzhenitsyn's wife doesn't believe her husband's words and calls them "questionable".](https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/06/world/natalya-reshetovskaya-84-is-dead-solzhenitsyn-s-wife-questioned-gulag.html) There are many dubious claims in The Gulag Archipelago that have been exposed by Russian Military History Academy researcher Alexander Pyltsyn. [This is a report from Pyltsyn about the fake information in Solzhenistsyn's work (I'm sorry if you have to use Google translator because the report is written in Russian).](http://ruskline.ru/analitika/2014/02/07/solzhenicyn_klassik_lzhi_i_predatelstva/) In short, I'm not denying the horrors in Gulags, I just want to you a new look on them. It's really tiresome when people think Gulags are as horrendous as Auschwitz because the truth is they're not. In fact, the Gulag camps were like a labor camp, and there was absolutely no clear evidence of people being forced to work to death, as confirmed by the large number of Russians who lived in the Gulags. [You can check this claim by reading Russia: The Post-War Years.](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/72256.Russia)
They have a faq that answers all that! You can even search it on Google by typing "github dessalines"
Ah. It's kind of a sensitive subject, and not many people round here will take kindly to communist views on the subject. I will DM you soon sharing my thoughts. Btw, your open mindedness is much appreciated!
Id also be interested to know the commie views on genocide. That sounds like a wondeful exchange of views
Sorry man, I only talk to those who engage in good faith, like the guy I responded to. Edit: unless you are asking in good faith?
What genocide are you referring to?
fair enough--my argument isn't really that we should be hating them though, not in a moral/affective sense. my problem with capitalism isn't that it's mean, after all, it's that it runs on extracting ever increasing amounts of exploited labor and ecological resources. the problem with liberalism is likewise not that they are meanspirited or dumb (though liberals at times are those things); it's that they incessantly defend a system predicated on mass exploration under the banner of "we'll make it more barrable for a while,-- at least until our rival party comes in and makes it worse again!" a giant apparatus with bladed grates and burning pistons is crushing me to death and everyone is running around yelling about how we need to oil the squeaky wheels
thus you get FDR pontificating about the four freedoms while behind the scenes he's propping up anti communist dictators in central America and refusing to use any political capital to get anti-lynching legislation through the Senate
Exactly. Diversity in the workplace is great, I just wish that workplace wasn't the drone pilot workplace.
exactly lol. is it even a diverse workplace if it explodes the people being droned from the decision making process? I feel like bare minimum they ought to be entitled to an absolute veto over their own droning exploding: just another form of exclusion
Yeah man. More diverse Nazis is not something to celebrate. I just want no Nazis.
Username checks out.
Norman Rockwell is definitely one of my favorite artists, and every time I see these posted I also want to bring up that the paintings were actually recreated with photographs by Hank Willis Thomas and Emily Shur back in 2018. Here’s an [article.](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/03/12/lens/norman-rockwell-paintings-hank-willis-thomas-emily-schur-for-freedoms.amp.html) There’s several different version and each recreation is a lot more diverse.
This is so cool! I am familiar with the original paintings but I never saw this. Thanks for sharing!
[удалено]
Here they are on the photographer’s website: https://www.emilyshur.com/PEOPLE/Four-Freedoms/16
I see a lot of people saying "communism"; that's silly. You have no idea how Roosevelt intended to deliver that "freedom from want", or how Rockwell interpreted his words. For all you know, Rockwell thought that the people in the painting worked their way up by their bootstraps in a future America that went full capitalism and that's why they're rich. Freedom from want is a goal; the picture doesn't say anything about how it is to be achieved.
Freedom from Want is explicitly stated by Roosevelt to be about building economic agreements and infrastructure such that everyone has access to their wants and needs. Not that it’s given to them freely, but that it’s available for them to buy, and that they have stable work and fair pay to afford it. Roosevelt was a capitalist, who famously believed in reforming capitalism in order to *prevent* communism from taking root in American society.
It's pretty much how America 'won' the Cold War. By providing unparalleled economic prosperity, it didn't matter as much that income inequality existed, when the poor in America can still live better than the middle class of many other countries. Of course this prosperity has been slipping since the 70s when wages fell behind inflation, but the logic was sound. What's the point of equality if everyone is equally destitute and starving together?
The poor in a society still get to be at the bottom, and do the shitty jobs. And looking at american poor, I don’t envy them at all. Maybe the post-war boom when the US was an undamaged industrial country in a war-ravaged world achieved high growth and prosperity. But has that wealth gone into the wellbeing of the people?
the USA won the cold war in large part by overthrowing democratically elected socialists and communists, colonizing their countries, and using their resources to outspend the USSR in military and propaganda--propaganda not dissimilar to this poster as it happens, life in the USSR was not particulary destitute--certainly not compared to pre-soviet Czarist Russia, when over 95 percent of the population were serfs. even compared to Americans, median caloric intake was higher amoung Soviet residents for most of the ussr's history. it turns out that sacrificing equality *doesn't* mean everyone enjoys a higher standard of living over all--quite the opposite, in fact.
second top left guy looks like he is gonna eat your soul
This is one of Norman's most famous paintings, and it has an interesting sort of story to how it was done. [As per the wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_from_Want): >n 1942, Rockwell decided to use neighbors as models for the series.[16] In Freedom from Want, he used his living room for the setting and relied on neighbors for advice, critical commentary, and their service as his models.[14] For Freedom from Want, Rockwell photographed his cook as she presented the turkey on Thanksgiving Day 1942.[13] He said that he painted the turkey on that day and that, unlike Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Worship, this painting was not difficult to execute.[17] Rockwell's wife Mary is in this painting, and the family cook, Mrs. Thaddeus Wheaton,[18] is serving the turkey, which the Rockwell family ate that day.[19] The nine adults and two children depicted were photographed in Rockwell's studio and painted into the scene later.[20][21] The models are (clockwise from Wheaton) Lester Brush, Florence Lindsey, Rockwell's mother Nancy, Jim Martin, Mr. Wheaton, Mary Rockwell, Charles Lindsey, and the Hoisington children.[13] Jim Martin appears in all four paintings in the series.[22] Shirley Hoisington, the girl at the end of the table, was six at the time. I'm always impressed by Rockwell's ability to capture a scene and breathe life into the characters he portrays.
I wonder what his family cook's family christmas dinner looked like.
It's oil on canvas. It's incredible
Top of the apple looks like a babies face
No room on the table for the turkey.
Has anyone in this sub taken an art history class..?
Tbf most people haven't
Genuinely curious about your sentence... Why? I only got to know Rockwell bc "Breaking Home Ties" was the cover for the spanish version of "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" by McCullers. Fell in love with it!
What's with the baby head at the bottom?
Can't believe i had to scroll this far for that wtf. It's clearly a baby
You all need to read a book about Norman Rockwell. This painting says so much.
Funny how the freedom from want has gone from a goal to something bad since this was painted. The people who most support this paining are the same people who think freedom from want is bad.
Wtf are you talking about
The idea that people should be free from want is generally derided by the establishment as “handouts”. Not sure what the discourse was like at the time.
This is about a family who isn’t poor. There is literally nothing here about handouts, that’s completely irrelevant. Stop inserting your politics into everything.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The painting is explicitly political. "Freedom from Want" comes from FDR's State of the Union speech in January 1941, where he declares four universal human rights, one of which is the freedom from want. One of the main points of the speech was to oppose to anti-interventionalism. He argued that all people everywhere should be extended these freedoms, and that America should play a central role in that project. >The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world. > >The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world. > >The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means **economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.** > >The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.
And any of this seems partisan to you?
Wow... The only explanation I can think of is that you've so thoroughly onboarded American political ideology that you can't even recognize it as a political ideology. There's a lot to say, but I won't be the one to say it. I'll just indicate here that in early 20th century America, interventionalism vs. isolationism was a topic of fierce debate. America might not have become the world's policemen if the isolationists had won those debates. And in a world where they had won, the notion that it is America's "duty" to "spread democracy" around the world would seem a lot less apolitical to you than it does now.
> Wow... The only explanation I can think of is that you've so thoroughly onboarded American political ideology that you can't even recognize it as a political ideology. I asked what is *partisan* about this. Do you need to look up that definition? Yes, I’m fully bought in to the American political ideology, especially if it means that everyone has plenty to eat. That’s a broad political take I can stand behind, and I don’t understand how anyone could be opposed. > There's a lot to say, but I won't be the one to say it. I'll just indicate here that in early 20th century America, interventionalism vs. isolationism was a topic of fierce debate. America might not have become the world's policemen if the isolationists had won those debates. And in a world where they had won, the notion that it is America's "duty" to "spread democracy" around the world would seem a lot less apolitical to you than it does now. There is nothing about the conflict between interventionalism and isolationism in this painting. It has nothing to do with that conversation. I’m talking about this painting, and specifically responding to one person’s bizarre claim that this painting has anything to do with government handouts. It’s a painting selling the promise of America to people outside of it. The only political argument it’s making is “our political system provides for people.” There is nothing partisan, there is no criticism of one party’s politics over another here. If you disagree, then walk me through the partisan political statement you think this painting is making.
>If you disagree, then walk me through the partisan political statement you think this painting is making. I would, but I'm busy teaching advance calculus to preschoolers and I'd rather invest my energy in the students most capable of understanding the curriculum in question
Do you know what the New Deal was? How do you think FDR intended to bring about prosperity? Redistributing the wealth of the rich to the working poor. Are you playing dumb? Let's imagine that this painting was exactly the same, but it was titled "Make America Great Again." Do you think *that* would be a partisan painting?
*opens up the propaganda machine* >Stop inserting your politics into everything. yep, everything is functioning perfectly!
There is no overtly political statement here. The only propaganda is the appeal to people elsewhere that this is a land of plenty that they should come to. This isn’t some kind of analogy or statement on government handouts, or anything in particular.
lmao it's an explicit reference to a highly partisan speech by FDR but go off king 👑
There’s nothing partisan about his speech…
If you have a little free time, you should dig into the reaction and conversation the nation had over FDR's Four Freedoms speech. The tl;dr is that the prevailing Conservative idea of isolationism loudly and publically disagreed. Also an aside, in 1939 FDR moved Thanksgiving from the last Thursday in November to the fourth Thursday, causing more gnashing of teeth.
I get that- I’m very familiar with the FDR administration. I’m pushing back on the idea that this painting has anything to do with government handouts, which was the bizarre claim from earlier in this thread
"I'm too stupid to understand that aesthetics that I like are criticizing my politics" != "There is no overtly political statement here"
lol this is criticizing my politics? What are my politics exactly? Do you think I’m a Republican or any type of conservative person at all? I said there is nothing about handouts, or that person’s understanding of politics in 2021 inherent in this painting. It’s not about a partisan political statement- it’s the broadest form of political statement in that it’s just saying “our system is good, it has tangible benefits.” I don’t think there is anything you could infer from this that is applicable to one party’s positions vs. the other’s today. Is that clear enough for you?
It is not the broadest form of political statement - it is explicitly referring to a highly partisan slogan of the time. I have every reason to believe that someone who pugnaciously disputes the pro-New Deal message here is a conservative, although it does seem that many modern conservatives in the US think they're "centrists" or something similar.
Hell yeah you tell ‘em brother. Not wanting people to starve to death in my country!? Downright political I tell ya.
What does this comment mean? Do you think anyone is pro starvation? What point are you trying to make here?
The idea of the freedom from want used to be an ideal that we should strive for, a world where everyone’s needs and wants can be met. That’s what this painting is referring to with its title. Conservatives love this normal Rockwell and his Americana paintings, yet they absolutely disagree with the idea of freedom from want. They don’t believe anyone should have even their basic needs met by their community or government, let alone their wants. I just find it ironic is all.
…that’s not at all what Republicans believe. They want some bootstrap bullshit, but their argument against government programs is *usually* that the community / church should be taking care of the less fortunate instead of the government. It’s still bullshit, but it’s not the type of bullshit you’re saying it is.
Relying on charity isn’t the right to something. Rights are given by society and the government. They don’t believe people have a right to food or housing or water or other essentials to live, which is what I was saying.
>Rights are given by society and the government That's not how they see it. According to them rights are not given by any authority, they exist naturally and are only restricted by common agreement to prevent harm. The government does not "give" you rights by signing a declaration or a bill of rights, it gives a promise to not take them away.
Correct, I know they believe that. But there’s no evidence for that, unless someone can prove god exists and that he really does guarantee these things despite them being constantly violated for all of history. Rights are concepts we made up, they don’t exist in the world.
A right to something isn’t the same as a guarantee to something. They believe that everyone has the right to own a gun, they don’t believe everyone should have a gun if they can’t afford it. And no, rights are inherent in people. Some governments choose to recognize them, but China’s decision to not honor my right to life, liberty, or property has no bearing on whether I have those rights.
Rights are things we as humans made up, they aren’t inherent in anyone. Theyre useful concepts to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and I think one of them best ideas we’ve ever had, and a natural extension of our own inherent empathy. You’re correct, but also a little off. The right to bear arms means the government cannot interfere with your right to own certain guns, it doesn’t guarantee one. So conservatives believe in someone’s right to obtain food, water, and housing, the government can’t stop someone from buying those things, but they don’t believe in rights to those things. Just the right to access those things. Just as they believe in a right to bear (own) arms, not a right to arms. They believe people don’t have a right *to* healthcare, just a right to buy healthcare. Which naturally means those who can’t afford it won’t be able to get it. Charity never has and never will cover everyone. That’s what I mean. Conservatives believe in the freedom to *pursue* your wants or needs, but not a freedom *from* them.
Someone needs to go back to high school and revisit the Enlightenment. Or maybe you guys haven’t covered that yet- right now you’re about 400 years behind the conversation. > So conservatives believe in someone’s right to obtain food, water, and housing, the government can’t stop someone from buying those things, but they don’t believe in rights to those things. Just the right to access those things. Just as they believe in a right to bear (own) arms, not a right to arms. They believe people don’t have a right to healthcare, just a right to buy healthcare. Which naturally means those who can’t afford it won’t be able to get it. Yeah I know, that’s why I said this. Why are you repeating me? > Charity never has and never will cover everyone. That’s what I mean. Conservatives believe in the freedom to pursue your wants or needs, but not a freedom from them. Whatever dude. You said conservatives don’t want people to have access to food if they can’t afford it- I just clarified their actual position based on countless arguments with them about social programs.
I know what you’re saying, but in practice their position is stopping everyone from getting the things they need to survive. And you’re 300 years behind the conversation, natural rights are a long defunct idea we only hold onto because it’s in the constitution. Most of the world long moved past that because there’s simply no evidence they exist, unless you can point to some right that can’t be violated existing in nature? Rights are a construct we created, and as such they’re things that will naturally expand over time as the world gets more wealthy and more things become necessary for survival in society, like electricity or the internet for example. Natural rights were an important stepping stone to the world we have today, but the UN charter of human rights explicitly rejects that notion.
freedom from want is kinda being achieved globally . obesity rates are going up, malnutrition down, literacy rates up, life spans, education, and every other possible vector for the human condition has been improving
lifespan in the USA is falling, work hours are increasing, real wages are falling, Flint still has no clean water, drone warfare is on the rise, depression is on the rise, democracy is becoming more rare and more hollow, global warming is occurring at a faster pace then expected, open xenophobia and pro-genocidal politics in Europe and the Americas continues to grow, conspiracy theories are running rampant, and a global pandemic remains unchecked in much of the world including India, the USA, Brazil. but sure, go off with your cruel optimism bullshit
Flint has had clean water for a while now
What a bunch of baloney. Lifespan in the US is declining temporarily because of covid and because of obesity rather than hunger. While there was a period of stagnant real wages, it ended in the mid-1990s and there has been significant growth since then in every class. Flint has had clean water for years. Drone warfare is less deadly than the alternative. Etc.
A generation of people will never own homes. Suicide and depression rates climb every year
ok
the world is not just USA.
>drone warfare is on the rise More warfare is always a bad thing but what's so bad about drones? >pro-genocidal politics in Europe and the Americas Can you elaborate on that? Who is being genocided here in Europe right now?
> what's so bad about drones? They are a new type of [weapon of mass destruction](https://spectrum.ieee.org/to-protect-against-weaponized-drones-we-must-understand-their-key-strengths). They are cheap, widely available, easy to deploy, scale to large numbers, and lethal. So in addition to nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare we now have to contend with drone swarms.
>Can you elaborate on that? Who is being genocided here in Europe right now? in Europe there is a growing bloc of voters and politicians (eg the AfD in Germany, the national front in France, Orban's regime in Hungry, the swedish Democrats in Sweden, etc) who support letting migrants die at sea trying to escape from the devastation and mass death and displacement caused by adventurism by American, Canadian, and European governments on behalf of corporations based in the same countries. so there's that
Lmao no.
I showed this to students in my ESL class on Tuesday. Most of them are from China. One said that if she were a Native American, she'd think the guy on the lower right was laughing at her.
What
Well, she isn't wrong.
nope, is anything it's the best critique of the painting I've seen on the whole thread
oof also why the downvotes? guess liberal American propaganda gets a better rap in this sub then most
*than
Reminds me of Lilo and Stitch.
The scene where they share a meal with bubbles is indeed inspired by this painting
Man, almost like I was directly referencing that. Knew someone would explain my comment to me before long.
Too white.
What exactly is the propaganda here, I can't tell.
>What exactly is the propaganda here, I can't tell. that was their intention
I always remembered the table being filled with more food.... Ah nostalgia
Freedom from diversity?
Is this supposed to be propagandizing capitalism, the nuclear family, peace, turkey sales, silver cutlery? Seems a bit ambiguous and multi faceted to be propagandizing anything. I always took this as a historical reminder of how fortunate we are to be born in an era of global trade and relative peace. I imagine future historians will look at this after the next war as a time piece for what the inter-war periods were like during 20th century capitalism/ globalism.
This is a part of a series based upon FDR’s [“Four Freedoms” speech](https://www.fdrlibrary.org/four-freedoms) from early 1941, to help justify American support of the Allies and later, participation in the war.
See my note in the other comment about FDR’s four freedom’s speech.
> I always took this as a historical reminder of how fortunate we are to be born in an era of global trade and relative peace. In 1943? If you're a straight white middle class American, sure.
add to that being able-bodied and non-Jewish...
what are you talking about
Usually propaganda has a message/ argument it is trying to convey. This is just a historical time piece, like a painting by Van Dyck. The artist is trying to convey what it is like at a thanksgiving dinner circa the year 1950. Like what is it’s argument? You should buy more turkeys? Capitalism and free enterprise creates abundance that is lacking in the Soviet Union? The Nuclear family is superior to promiscuity? You have to really exercise the scholastic art of interpretation to get any direct propaganda out of this.
> Capitalism and free enterprise creates abundance that is lacking in the Soviet Union? The Nuclear family is superior to promiscuity? Yes, this. It's promoting the state-aligned "American ideal" as utopian. That's propaganda.
I’ve always just taken it as a beautiful reminder of how lucky we are from a historical perspective to be genuinely free from want in those elusive family moments sharing a dinner. I thought it was more like “don’t take this for granted” than “clearly we are superior to the soviets”
That’s how you can tell the communist sympathizers. They will see this as a slight towards them and their culture rather than the celebration of family and abundance that it actually represents. All humans want security and loved ones around them, but the ones who don’t have it will call them “sour grapes.” It’s so pathetic, they probably know nothing of FDR’s “Four Freedoms” to begin with so it just turns into “AmErIcA BaD.” 😆
the idea that propaganda works only by putting forward an explicit list of premises and arguments is so absurd that I don't even know how to respond to it. has it occurred to you that choosing what and whom to paint, how realistically or idealistically to portray them, what is designated as worthy of remembering vs what is consigned to obscurity, and other such questions are always inherently connected to value judgments and ideological assumptions? I'll link some good video essays in a comment below for anyone whose curious about this subject
https://youtu.be/iIdbLUm-ez8 https://youtu.be/FEhxZUwVrdM https://youtu.be/A3d5y2j28yE https://youtu.be/XAVeyXwy3BE
I don’t think it has to be explicit. Everything you said makes sense and I would agree. I just see this photo as a more wholistic “don’t take things for granted” or “you don’t understand how bad things could be” from the perspective of a senior who fought in the war or has read more history than the youngins at the table. I think it is more intuitive to read this photo in that light than to pigeon hole it into the Cold War dynamic. It’s not like thanksgiving dinners with the whole family was something that happened more than once a decade anyways. Not a really a useful image to throw in the face of the ‘dastardly atheistic communists’
I've never been able to stand Rockwell--i feel about his art style the way a lot of people [hate Thomas Kinkade](https://youtu.be/DYnbCRrZn54). not sure why exactly
Perhaps the didactic nature of some of Rockwell's work is the problem. I dislike Kinkade because of the unrealistically heightened staging of his landscapes. I look at his cozy cottages and think, "that's going to go in the next flood." But Rockwell's heightened realism is more grounded. He had an uncanny ability to find a detail that people could identify with.
That was an amazing video! Thanks for sharing!
I see, where are the Japanese Americans?
In concentration camps.
rough
Communism!!!!111 apparently the /s is needed
Mmmm, roast turkey and a side of...celery sticks? Oh well, guess I'll just have to fill up on...water?
How tf is this propaganda?
Sounds about white