Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Let's start with a challenging assertion. Stamps can be divided into three types: utilitarian bits of paper which pay for letters ('definitives'); pretty stuff produced exclusively for stamp collectors to buy; and propaganda. There may be some crossover - Brunstrom toys with the idea that any stamp featuring a monarch or ruler is propagandist; he cites the Penny Black. But these three just about cover anything you'll find in the catalogues. Any others? You decide.
But there are different types of propaganda. 'White' propaganda presents pleasing images of a country's best face, soothing to the nation's populace, enticing to foreigners whose spending power is eagerly importuned. 'Black' propaganda, when aimed at its own people, seeks to force opinion by dramatic and often deceptive means; when aimed at foreigners, to sneer or gloat. Naturally, this is the stock-in-trade of our ideological foes - Brunstrom ranks Hitler and Franco definitives alongside some entertaining and powerful anti-USA images from North Korea or Vietnam, but notes that British stamps declined to reference World War One at all during and after that conflict (curiously he omits to note the same for World War Two). We, naturally, are high-mindedly above black propaganda. Nasty regimes do nothing but.
Brunstrom mixes all these up. He claims any religious imagery as some form of propaganda, not to mention space travel (those Russians!) and tourism. "Nations like France, Italy and Spain," he reveals, "have released large numbers of stamps intended to encourage visitors to their many famous tourist sites." Ignoring for a moment the insipid blandness of that sort of writing, more suited to the Children's Newspaper or the Eagle Annual than an adult publication, it seems obvious that imagery of this kind is an entirely separate matter from black political propaganda as practised by our 'enemies'.
"Bad regime" propaganda?
But do bad regimes consistently spew out dangerous propaganda? Are good people (I mean us, or maybe even US) above that sort of thing? Two examples for you to ponder. First, the well-known Berlin Olympics set of stamps. They illustrate, quite neutrally, you may think, various sports to be witnessed back in 1936. The imagery is flat and undramatic - quite the opposite to, for example, Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia, a film which illustrates the same thing, but far more incisively and memorably. There is none of the racial supremacism that we know accompanied the actual event. How propagandist are those stamps?
"White" propaganda? Purest white?
Britain's colonial issues of the 1950s, designed and printed over here and exported to our far-flung but rapidly diminishing empire, are expertly produced, illustrating the many facets of life in faraway places, their strange customs, beautiful animals and breathtaking scenery. But they also mask the behaviour of a colonial power desperate to cling onto what had been its own for so long. Every one of those lovely stamps insists, quietly but unarguably, "We own this". Next time you admire the finely engraved giraffes, the Owen Falls Dam, or the lions and elephants of the De La Rue KUT stamps, remember (or look up, if you have the stomach for it) how the British treated the uppity natives who perhaps built that dam, but who certainly dared question our right to order them about. These attractive stamps, seeming to straddle what we have termed 'black' and the 'white', prompt us to ask the same question: how propagandist are they?
How would you define propaganda on stamps?
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"How would you define propaganda on stamps?"
Well, my first thought in response to that question is another question;
WHY do I need to??
I would dare say that this is an honest question posed by Guthrum after reading the article he mentioned.
However, as most of us know, a very similar question/discussion took place not long ago on these same boards that didn't end so well for most.
I am of the mind that this may well end up in the same vein and may - again - alienate some.....why start again?
My 2 cent opinion here.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
If I've identified the discussion you refer to correctly, the original debate (back in July) was about collecting the stamps of abhorrent regimes, which is not quite the same debate I am suggesting above. If the July postings did not end well, that is because the original point was lost in a tangential exchange of views - I am not even sure what the final redacted post said.
The reason why we need to define propaganda - quite apart from my semi-jocular assertion that it comprises one third of all stamps produced - is because lazy articles like the GSM one I referred to confuse the matter entirely, thus making it less likely that we spot propagandist material for what it is.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This may well fall into the "who cares" category.
1. Propaganda is someone telling you the grass is actually greener on their side and generally involves promoting someone who is or wants to be or stay in charge.
2. It might also be more benign in using stamps to promote the cultural, historic and geographic attractions of a particular place.
Over the years stamps have probably evolved from 1. to 2. except in places like North Vietnam where #1 is the rule.
This is a subject with no clear boundaries so were back to the first statement
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
12:28:24pm
I believe that we spend too much effort "redefining" terms such as this to suit ourselves and our own views.
In a case like this, I prefer to defer to the experts on the English language, the publishers of the accepted and respected dictionaries.
Merriam-Webster
"1 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
2 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect"
Oxford
"1. Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view."
The Oxford definition concentrates on Guthrum's "black propaganda" with the "especially" clause, but does not preclude the "white" propaganda if one leaves it out i.e. "Information... used to promote a ... point of view."
The Merriam-Webster definition clearly allows "white propaganda":
"the spreading of ... information ... for the purpose of helping ... a cause."
According to these definitions, all advertising and promotion of ideas is a form of propaganda, but without the negative connotations that the word usually carries (as evidenced by Oxford's "especially" clause).
And if one accepts that, then ALL stamps carrying a message of some sort, other than perhaps "numerals of value" or images of sovereigns (which can be attributed simply to identification) are a form of propaganda, as are magazine ads.
As far as a stamp collection is concerned, a collection of those items which CLEARLY represent Oxford's "especially" clause would be most interesting.
Roy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
12:39:51pm
And further to my previous post, here is a great example of one that clearly qualifies under Oxford's "especially" clause:
BTW, further reading and research answered my question on the album page. The claiming of British Honduras/Belize by Guatemala is a long-standing political issue and similar maps appear on other Guatemala stamps.
This cover therefore represents
a) propaganda in the design of the stamp and
b) counter-propaganda in the handstamp and postal treatment (Return to sender for political reasons)
Roy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
"Who cares?" - well, that is a revealing comment from a philatelist! I should mention here (though many will already know this) that I care, since that is precisely the basis of much of my stamp collection, and nearly all of my research.
Actually, I feel we are getting somewhere, especially with the fascinating cover Roy has just posted. The "Oxford specific" neatly encapsulates 'black propaganda', while Merriam-Webster properly separates the two types, which is what the GSM article failed to do.
I suggest that a thoughtful collection of stamps and covers based on either or both is well worth both the doing and any concomitant discussion.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
To some it would depend on which cause was being promoted. I see this thread getting political and no good coming from it.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
I don't think that this thread needs to get 'political' at all. In some regards, almost any stamp can be seen to have propaganda value (unless it's a pattern and value). If one takes a look at most commemorative stamps, they promote some form of state-sponsored values. After all, postal services are, for the most part, national agencies. There are criteria for selection of suitable themes. These themes are designed to tell us WHO or WHAT we should remember, which is always a powerful political and historical statement.
Even something as innocent as the US issue of Charlie Brown's Christmas (my all time favourite children's Christmas special) a few years back can be seen as propaganda (how should Americans view Christmas, what should they should be nostalgic for) combined with Kwanzaa/Eid/Diwali/Hannukah stamps (look how open and diverse we are as a society). Same with Canada (Mathieu da Costa - how far does the Black experience in Canada go back), Netherlands (Johan Cruyff as a national hero), France (remember the sacrifices of the poilus at Verdun) ... and so on and so forth. Definitives accomplish this as well (national symbols, leaders, flags, etc).
I'm with Guthram on this. I'd say the vast majority of stamps are 'white' propaganda.
Darryl
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
There is no definitive answer(s) to the question unless a person had access to government documents which outlined their actual intent of a stamp release. Seems pretty unlikely that any of us would have access to those. So that leaves speculative opinions. Defining the term ‘propaganda’ does not change this, we are still left with guessing at a countries true intent at time of issue no matter what the definition is.
I assume that someone could use a “Freedom of Information Act” (in US) or some similar legal pressure to force a government to offer documented evidence of the intent of a stamp issue. Beyond that I doubt that there will ever be any consensus on the opinions that this question will generate.
Don
Login to Like
this post
Well Guthrum,
I like this subject, and find it very interesting. We can't all be hiding behing the shades of propriety all the time.
Thank you for your contributions to this fascinating subject.
Login to Like
this post
"There is no definitive answer(s) to the question unless a person had access to government documents which outlined their actual intent of a stamp release."
Yes, this is the sort of information I (and others, by the looks of it) would be very interested to find out. I know of no source which reveals the discussions the 'panel of experts' has ever had in the matter of choice of stamp issues. That there is such a panel (in the UK and I believe also in the US) is not in doubt, or that its composition may well vary from time to time. (In the UK it has comprised venerable members of the RPSL, as well as a 'layman' presence, presumably to reflect the interests of the common man!). I presume their discussions are considered to be incommunicado; nor, surely, would they admit to an agenda which promoted any kind of propaganda. But it would be interesting to know if they were acting on higher orders, and if so whence those orders emanated. I suspect in totalitarian regimes any such higher orders might come from the top, or near enough. In the Third Reich this would certainly mean Minister of Posts Wilhelm Ohnesorge, who might in turn be briefed by Goebbels. I have been scouring the latter's diaries for any indication of this, and I think have posted what I have found so far on these boards.
The fact that this speculation is all we have to go on, unless someone unearths a decent source, should not deter us from discussion. I admit to being somewhat concerned by those responses which claim that such discussions are 'political'! I do hope this is not an attempt to shut down this debate, which has already thrown up several worthwhile opinions and a couple of interesting items. I trust the moderators to adjudge this matter - meanwhile I propose to continue posting my own speculations (and even researched sources, if I can find them!) on the many, various and fascinating aspects of philatelic propaganda.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
This month's Gibbons Stamp Monthly features, tucked away near the end, an article "Philatelic Propaganda" whose author, GSM regular Christer Brunstrom, clearly has as much difficulty in defining 'propaganda' as many of us do.
Let's start with a challenging assertion. Stamps can be divided into three types: utilitarian bits of paper which pay for letters ('definitives'); pretty stuff produced exclusively for stamp collectors to buy; and propaganda. There may be some crossover - Brunstrom toys with the idea that any stamp featuring a monarch or ruler is propagandist; he cites the Penny Black. But these three just about cover anything you'll find in the catalogues. Any others? You decide.
But there are different types of propaganda. 'White' propaganda presents pleasing images of a country's best face, soothing to the nation's populace, enticing to foreigners whose spending power is eagerly importuned. 'Black' propaganda, when aimed at its own people, seeks to force opinion by dramatic and often deceptive means; when aimed at foreigners, to sneer or gloat. Naturally, this is the stock-in-trade of our ideological foes - Brunstrom ranks Hitler and Franco definitives alongside some entertaining and powerful anti-USA images from North Korea or Vietnam, but notes that British stamps declined to reference World War One at all during and after that conflict (curiously he omits to note the same for World War Two). We, naturally, are high-mindedly above black propaganda. Nasty regimes do nothing but.
Brunstrom mixes all these up. He claims any religious imagery as some form of propaganda, not to mention space travel (those Russians!) and tourism. "Nations like France, Italy and Spain," he reveals, "have released large numbers of stamps intended to encourage visitors to their many famous tourist sites." Ignoring for a moment the insipid blandness of that sort of writing, more suited to the Children's Newspaper or the Eagle Annual than an adult publication, it seems obvious that imagery of this kind is an entirely separate matter from black political propaganda as practised by our 'enemies'.
"Bad regime" propaganda?
But do bad regimes consistently spew out dangerous propaganda? Are good people (I mean us, or maybe even US) above that sort of thing? Two examples for you to ponder. First, the well-known Berlin Olympics set of stamps. They illustrate, quite neutrally, you may think, various sports to be witnessed back in 1936. The imagery is flat and undramatic - quite the opposite to, for example, Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia, a film which illustrates the same thing, but far more incisively and memorably. There is none of the racial supremacism that we know accompanied the actual event. How propagandist are those stamps?
"White" propaganda? Purest white?
Britain's colonial issues of the 1950s, designed and printed over here and exported to our far-flung but rapidly diminishing empire, are expertly produced, illustrating the many facets of life in faraway places, their strange customs, beautiful animals and breathtaking scenery. But they also mask the behaviour of a colonial power desperate to cling onto what had been its own for so long. Every one of those lovely stamps insists, quietly but unarguably, "We own this". Next time you admire the finely engraved giraffes, the Owen Falls Dam, or the lions and elephants of the De La Rue KUT stamps, remember (or look up, if you have the stomach for it) how the British treated the uppity natives who perhaps built that dam, but who certainly dared question our right to order them about. These attractive stamps, seeming to straddle what we have termed 'black' and the 'white', prompt us to ask the same question: how propagandist are they?
How would you define propaganda on stamps?
6 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
"How would you define propaganda on stamps?"
Well, my first thought in response to that question is another question;
WHY do I need to??
I would dare say that this is an honest question posed by Guthrum after reading the article he mentioned.
However, as most of us know, a very similar question/discussion took place not long ago on these same boards that didn't end so well for most.
I am of the mind that this may well end up in the same vein and may - again - alienate some.....why start again?
My 2 cent opinion here.
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
If I've identified the discussion you refer to correctly, the original debate (back in July) was about collecting the stamps of abhorrent regimes, which is not quite the same debate I am suggesting above. If the July postings did not end well, that is because the original point was lost in a tangential exchange of views - I am not even sure what the final redacted post said.
The reason why we need to define propaganda - quite apart from my semi-jocular assertion that it comprises one third of all stamps produced - is because lazy articles like the GSM one I referred to confuse the matter entirely, thus making it less likely that we spot propagandist material for what it is.
5 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
12:15:53pm
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
This may well fall into the "who cares" category.
1. Propaganda is someone telling you the grass is actually greener on their side and generally involves promoting someone who is or wants to be or stay in charge.
2. It might also be more benign in using stamps to promote the cultural, historic and geographic attractions of a particular place.
Over the years stamps have probably evolved from 1. to 2. except in places like North Vietnam where #1 is the rule.
This is a subject with no clear boundaries so were back to the first statement
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
17 Dec 2017
12:28:24pm
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
I believe that we spend too much effort "redefining" terms such as this to suit ourselves and our own views.
In a case like this, I prefer to defer to the experts on the English language, the publishers of the accepted and respected dictionaries.
Merriam-Webster
"1 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person
2 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect"
Oxford
"1. Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view."
The Oxford definition concentrates on Guthrum's "black propaganda" with the "especially" clause, but does not preclude the "white" propaganda if one leaves it out i.e. "Information... used to promote a ... point of view."
The Merriam-Webster definition clearly allows "white propaganda":
"the spreading of ... information ... for the purpose of helping ... a cause."
According to these definitions, all advertising and promotion of ideas is a form of propaganda, but without the negative connotations that the word usually carries (as evidenced by Oxford's "especially" clause).
And if one accepts that, then ALL stamps carrying a message of some sort, other than perhaps "numerals of value" or images of sovereigns (which can be attributed simply to identification) are a form of propaganda, as are magazine ads.
As far as a stamp collection is concerned, a collection of those items which CLEARLY represent Oxford's "especially" clause would be most interesting.
Roy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
BuckaCover.com - 80,000 covers priced 60c to $1.50 - Easy browsing 500 categories
17 Dec 2017
12:39:51pm
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
And further to my previous post, here is a great example of one that clearly qualifies under Oxford's "especially" clause:
BTW, further reading and research answered my question on the album page. The claiming of British Honduras/Belize by Guatemala is a long-standing political issue and similar maps appear on other Guatemala stamps.
This cover therefore represents
a) propaganda in the design of the stamp and
b) counter-propaganda in the handstamp and postal treatment (Return to sender for political reasons)
Roy
4 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
"Who cares?" - well, that is a revealing comment from a philatelist! I should mention here (though many will already know this) that I care, since that is precisely the basis of much of my stamp collection, and nearly all of my research.
Actually, I feel we are getting somewhere, especially with the fascinating cover Roy has just posted. The "Oxford specific" neatly encapsulates 'black propaganda', while Merriam-Webster properly separates the two types, which is what the GSM article failed to do.
I suggest that a thoughtful collection of stamps and covers based on either or both is well worth both the doing and any concomitant discussion.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
To some it would depend on which cause was being promoted. I see this thread getting political and no good coming from it.
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
I don't think that this thread needs to get 'political' at all. In some regards, almost any stamp can be seen to have propaganda value (unless it's a pattern and value). If one takes a look at most commemorative stamps, they promote some form of state-sponsored values. After all, postal services are, for the most part, national agencies. There are criteria for selection of suitable themes. These themes are designed to tell us WHO or WHAT we should remember, which is always a powerful political and historical statement.
Even something as innocent as the US issue of Charlie Brown's Christmas (my all time favourite children's Christmas special) a few years back can be seen as propaganda (how should Americans view Christmas, what should they should be nostalgic for) combined with Kwanzaa/Eid/Diwali/Hannukah stamps (look how open and diverse we are as a society). Same with Canada (Mathieu da Costa - how far does the Black experience in Canada go back), Netherlands (Johan Cruyff as a national hero), France (remember the sacrifices of the poilus at Verdun) ... and so on and so forth. Definitives accomplish this as well (national symbols, leaders, flags, etc).
I'm with Guthram on this. I'd say the vast majority of stamps are 'white' propaganda.
Darryl
2 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
There is no definitive answer(s) to the question unless a person had access to government documents which outlined their actual intent of a stamp release. Seems pretty unlikely that any of us would have access to those. So that leaves speculative opinions. Defining the term ‘propaganda’ does not change this, we are still left with guessing at a countries true intent at time of issue no matter what the definition is.
I assume that someone could use a “Freedom of Information Act” (in US) or some similar legal pressure to force a government to offer documented evidence of the intent of a stamp issue. Beyond that I doubt that there will ever be any consensus on the opinions that this question will generate.
Don
Login to Like
this post
08:45:24pm
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
Well Guthrum,
I like this subject, and find it very interesting. We can't all be hiding behing the shades of propriety all the time.
Thank you for your contributions to this fascinating subject.
Login to Like
this post
re: Propaganda - How Do We Define It?
"There is no definitive answer(s) to the question unless a person had access to government documents which outlined their actual intent of a stamp release."
Yes, this is the sort of information I (and others, by the looks of it) would be very interested to find out. I know of no source which reveals the discussions the 'panel of experts' has ever had in the matter of choice of stamp issues. That there is such a panel (in the UK and I believe also in the US) is not in doubt, or that its composition may well vary from time to time. (In the UK it has comprised venerable members of the RPSL, as well as a 'layman' presence, presumably to reflect the interests of the common man!). I presume their discussions are considered to be incommunicado; nor, surely, would they admit to an agenda which promoted any kind of propaganda. But it would be interesting to know if they were acting on higher orders, and if so whence those orders emanated. I suspect in totalitarian regimes any such higher orders might come from the top, or near enough. In the Third Reich this would certainly mean Minister of Posts Wilhelm Ohnesorge, who might in turn be briefed by Goebbels. I have been scouring the latter's diaries for any indication of this, and I think have posted what I have found so far on these boards.
The fact that this speculation is all we have to go on, unless someone unearths a decent source, should not deter us from discussion. I admit to being somewhat concerned by those responses which claim that such discussions are 'political'! I do hope this is not an attempt to shut down this debate, which has already thrown up several worthwhile opinions and a couple of interesting items. I trust the moderators to adjudge this matter - meanwhile I propose to continue posting my own speculations (and even researched sources, if I can find them!) on the many, various and fascinating aspects of philatelic propaganda.
3 Members
like this post.
Login to Like.