Category Archives: Language

Westinghouse: The Riveter

More people in the modern era have seen the iconic “Rosie the Riveter” poster, than when it was originally released. Although the image now carries a feminist connotation, Dr. Gwen Sharp, in her review of “Visual Rhetoric Representing Rosie the Riveter: Myth and Misconception” conveys that the origin of the image was as an internal Westinghouse propaganda piece. Its beginning, according James Kimble and Lester Olson, was in a commissioned series of images and messages, shared in production facilities to soften labor issues. The 1940’s labor unions struggled with the controversies of communism, discrimination and red-baiting. Kimble and Olson feel that the posters were created to stabilize the mood of the workforce from those disruptive sentiments. They find that the modern understanding of the image is grounded in myth, and that the poster’s purpose wasn’t necessarily to reflect women’s empowerment, or to encourage women into the workforce.
“The image is widely seen as a symbol of women’s empowerment and a sign of major gender transformations that occurred during the 1940s. The assumption of current viewers of the image is usually that it was meant to recruit women into the workforce, or to rally women in general — an early example of girl power marketing, if you will — and was widely displayed. But the audience was actually only Westinghouse employees.” (Sharp)
“Events and process are often more important for what is expressed than for what is produced.” (Bolman, p. 253) Although the intention of the image was not for mass dissemination, nor was it produced with the aim of aiding women’s issues, the poster has had a second life in modern times, where it is widely disseminated and perceived as a gender equality icon.
“The company commissioned artists to create posters to be hung in Westinghouse plants for specific periods of time” (Sharp)
“Culture forms the superglue that bonds an organization, unites people, and helps an enterprise accomplish desired ends.” (Bolman, p. 253) Culture, rather, the creation of culture by Westinghouse propaganda, worked, it appears, to allay labor issues during the war effort. It also seems that it reflected something underlying and subconscious in their workforce, perhaps the mindset of equality, and it reinforced the idea—an unintentional, self-fulfilled prophecy—to give the poster it’s modern interpretation.
“Westinghouse workers would have seen it in a different context, as one of a series of posters displayed in the plant, with similar imagery and text. When seen as just one in a series, rather than a unique image, Kimble and Olson argue that the collective “we” in “We can do it!” wouldn’t have been women, but Westinghouse employees, who were used to seeing such statements posted in employee-access-only areas of the plant. By addressing workers as “we,” the pronoun obfuscated sharp controversies within labor over communism, red-baiting, discrimination, and other heartfelt sources of divisiveness.” (Kimble, p. 550)
“Facing uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, find direction, and anchor hope and faith.” (Bolman, p. 253) The War Committee was faced with the potentiality of extreme labor issues and discontent, at a time when they needed certain output. ‘We’ is a strong pronoun, which could be argued to have an effect on the mind, and individuals’ willingness to participate in a group endeavor. It is commonly used in propaganda campaigns, and its use within the context of the Westinghouse posters, gives validity to the notion that the image was created with propagandist intent, rather benevolence or specific concern to gender. Rosie, in many respects was a cardboard stock image, a “default” warehouse employee in a marketing campaign.
“One of the major functions of corporate war committees was to manage labor and discourage any type of labor disputes that might disrupt production. From this perspective, images of happy workers expressing support for the war effort and/or workers’ abilities served as propaganda that encouraged workers to identify with one another and management as a team; “patriotism could be invoked to circumvent strikes.”(Kimble, p. 562).
“In collective bargaining, labor and management meet and confer to forge divisive standoffs into workable agreements. The process typically pits two sets of interests against each other.” (Bolman, p. 253) To avoid work stoppages during a critical time, the Westinghouse Company attempted to minimize the friction of the competing interests by working a patriotic angle and incorporating teambuilding imagery and language into art.
“Of course, today the “We Can Do It!” poster is seen as a feminist icon, adorning coffee cups, t-shirts, calendars, and refrigerator magnets (I have one). Kimble and Olson don’t explain when and how this shift occurred — when the image went from an obscure piece of corporate war-time propaganda, similar to many others, to a widely-recognized pop cultural image of female empowerment.” (Sharp)
“What is most important is not what happens, but what it means.” (Bolman, p. 253) Ultimately, the image has acquired its modern connotation, which differs from its roots. The current interpretation is noble, and as Dr. Sharp discusses, it is an effective and empowering symbol, that will mean different things to different people. Seventy years into the future, it may have yet more meanings, but it remains a good exercise to understand and gain insight from its origin.

Works Cited:
Bolman, Lee G, and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2003. Print. Page 253.
Kimble, James and Lester Olson. “Visual Rhetoric Representing Rosie The Riveter.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs. 9.4 (2006): 533-569. Print. <Excerpts: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/04/myth-making-and-the-we-can-do-it-poster/>.
Sharp, Gwen. “Myth-Making and the “We Can Do It” Poster.” Society Pages 4 January 2011. Web. 10 Nov. 2013. <http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/04/myth-making-and-the-we-can-do-it-poster/>.

“Genocide” – Still a Crime w/out a Name

9 Replies

centurys-first-genocide-2

“The aggressor … retaliates by the most frightful cruelties. As his Armies advance, whole districts are being exterminated. Scores of thousands – literally scores of thousands – of executions in cold blood are being perpetrated … there has never been methodical, merciless butchery on such a scale, or approaching such a scale.

And this is but the beginning. Famine and pestilence have yet to follow … We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”

***

On August 24, 1941, Winston Churchill broadcast the atrocities being committed against Jews and Jewish Bolsheviks in Eastern Russia by Nazi forces. The worst of the Holocaust was still to come, and post-war, name would be invented to describe these crimes. [1] “The crime of … deliberately wiping out whole peoples is not utterly new in the world,” Rafael Lemkin would say in 1945. “It is so new in the traditions of civilized man that he has no name for it.” Setting out to label these crimes, he formed the word “genocide,” combining words “genes” for race or tribe, and the Latin ending “–cide” for killing.[2] This simple term and its subsequent use and non-use would eventually be the subject of great debate. For the interracial courts to prosecute someone for genocide, the charges would have to be clear. Sometimes, even the most heinous human rights abuses never obtain the label. Recent situations, such as the crisis in Sudan highlight the frustrations of the word, and how it is used. In his autobiographical account, “What is the What,” ‘Lost Boy’ Achak Deng witnesses many of the atrocities that the United Nations (UN) considers genocide — yet the crisis still fails to receive the official designation. The UN and the rest of the world, in its dalliance upon the issue, are cold in their consideration of the separated families, uprooted lives, and merciless, cold blooded death since the beginning of the conflict.

The United Nations would define the term at the “Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.” Adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 9, 1948, the nine articles call genocide “a crime under international law, contrary to the spirit and aims of the United Nations and condemned by the civilized world.” Article II of the convention names a series of acts that are prosecutable offenses when “committed with intent to destroy … a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, such as: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”[3] The events that Deng witnessed amount to ‘acts of genocide’ and seem fit the definition, but lack the term officially. In his time in south Sudan, he recalls experiences similar to the listed Article II items, in much more descriptive and harrowing language.

When the murahaleen entered his hometown of Marial Bai, Deng recalled, first, the “crack of gunfire.” There were easily two hundred, three hundred or more.” Thinking the men were there only to steal the cattle, soon the “sky broke open with gunfire.” The invaders would burn down the church, and kill indiscriminately taking slaves when it suited them. “Those who ran were shot. Those women and children who stood still were herded onto the soccer field. A grown man made the mistake of joining this herd, and was shot … He was tied by the feet and dragged by a pair of horses” [4] Indiscriminate killing would seem to be an act of genocide, if “killing members of the group” is literally interpreted. But here it is not. Situations like this were not mere isolated incidents, they occurred throughout southern Sudan, and the Dinka people were the common victims to Moslem raiding parties of the north. Wells were poisoned, with the bodies of family members. Houses, if not burnt initially, would be burnt in the next invasion, causing further depravity and bodily harm. Those who managed to run a distance were picked off by long range rifle. As prerequisite of Article II, if the case of bodily harm was dismissed, surely the psychological harm should be noticed–these were acts of terror and extermination.

Deng’s time in the desert with the Lost Boys, also fits genocide criteria on paper. A forced walk in the desert, surviving the ferocity of African wildlife and limited food resources, for weeks on end, could be argued as “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” To expect children to survive such a march is improbable.[5] Another Article II item, the prevention of births, occurred from the start, with the kidnapping of girls and women into slavery. With the deaths and capture of young men and women, such as Deng’s childhood friend Moses and future potential mothers like his boyhood crush, Amath, a generation or more … perhaps the entire Dinka existence, is left in limbo. With no women left free to reproduce and populate the tribe, the tribe would in essence, cease to exist.

Lemkin notes “the term does not necessarily signify mass killings although it may mean that. More often it refers to a coordinated plan aimed at destruction of the essential foundations of the life of national groups so that these groups wither and die like plants that have suffered a blight.”[6] Was Deng’s experience not considered coordinated enough to be called genocide? The definition given by the UN is too vague and problematic to serve these modern unnamed crimes. Is not murder, rape, and enslavement a crime against humanity? Perhaps the term ‘genocide’ has lost its effectiveness, or become a shell of its former meaning. Could it be that genocide is specific word that only properly defines the events of the Holocaust? Lemkin concedes that “genocide is too disastrous a phenomenon to be left to fragmentary regulation. There must be an adequate mechanism for international cooperation in the punishment of the offenders.” There needs to be a new way of classifying these atrocities, one that can’t be debated in the midst of crisis and for years afterwards. “Genocide” still can’t define these “crimes with no name.” A new term, broader in its application and less tangled in bureaucracy, is needed[7]: ‘Genocide’ still doesn’t adequately define these “crimes without a name.”

Works Cited

Eggers, Dave (2006). “What is the What.” Vintage Books, New York. p. 91-93

Fussell, James T. “A crime without a name.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/crimewithoutaname.htm (accessed April 30, 2009)

Lemkin, Rafael. “Genocide-a modern crime.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/freeworld1945.html (accessed April 30, 2009)

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Geneva, Switzerland. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm (accessed April 30, 2009)

[1] Fussell, James T. “A crime without a name.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide/crimewithoutaname.htm (accessed April 30, 2009)

[2] Lemkin, Rafael. “Genocide-a modern crime.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/freeworld1945.html (accessed April 30, 2009)

[3] Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Geneva, Switzerland. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm (accessed April 30, 2009)

[4] Eggers, Dave (2006). “What is the What.” Vintage Books, New York. p. 91-93

[5] It is in this author’s opinion, that if the murahaleen had the resources to find and exterminate the Lost Boys, they would have.

[6] Lemkin, Rafael. “Genocide-a modern crime.” Prevent Genocide International. http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/freeworld1945.html (accessed April 30, 2009)

[7] The author’s suggestion is simply “Human Rights Abuse,” but as with the term ‘genocide,’ even that phrase is tangled in red tape.

Irish Language Revival w/Melodrama

Leave a reply

Fluency from Irish Soap Opera

Throughout the history of the Republic of Ireland, crises have intervened against the native Irish language, in the form of famine and emigration, as well as the connotation and stigma of poverty associated with the dialect. The native tongue all but disappeared due to the pervasiveness of the English language in Ireland; with English becoming, “by far, the dominant language in Ireland,” as well as “the language of all its major cities.” For the most part, native Irish speakers are limited to the west coast, “the so-called Gaeltacht,” and the language confined to a niche. It’s not certain to what degree the public uses the language. “Official sources relating to minority-language speakers often use rather loose categories which conflate various levels of fluency and thereby tend to overstate the number of native speakers, making “reliable figures can be difficult to come by.” The best estimates suggest a “figure of sixty thousand—or around two per cent of the population.” [1]

an-gaeltacht-maps

There is an active effort to re-popularize the language, “Despite its weak numerical status” and “Irish has historically been linked, as part of a clearly defined political project,” out of “notions of both cultural distinctiveness and of nationhood.” The Republic has taken measures to support it; from teaching Irish in schools,[2] and, more popularly, sponsoring dramatic televised programming, specifically the ‘soap opera’.

***

“As an independent state, Ireland has, its own press, though this is overwhelmingly in English.”[3]

Ireland produces media of its own, on its own television channels: the public service channels RTÉ1, launched in 1961, and Network 2, launched in 1978,” however, these stations broadcast programs in English. “In terms of British cultural influence it is worthwhile bearing in mind that before Network 2 was set up there was a referendum as to whether or not it should consist of BBC1’s programs relayed live to Ireland.”[4] Attempts to revive Irish began when “the public service Irish-language radio station Radió na Gaeltachta” (RnaG) was set up in 1972, and “listened to—though with different levels of frequency—by both native and non-native speakers of Irish amounting to around fifteen per cent of the population.”[5] Far more than just two percent, these ratings displayed that there was a great deal of interest for programs broadcast in the Irish language. To accommodate a market for Irish-language television, the channel TG4 (formerly, TnaG) launched in 1996, followed by the commercial channel TV3 in 1998.” TG4’s launch “was preceded by a heated debate concerning whether it should be seen as a television channel for the Gaeltacht or for the Irish ‘nation’.”[6] Though “the bulk of TG4’s programs are in Irish, some English-language productions are shown on this channel; including quite large numbers of English advertisements,”[7] with subtitles available in both languages. This approach allows for an audience to sample programming in their choice of either language, while also helping to proliferate the Irish language casually in a media context.

***

A TELEVISION SHOW IN IRISH
The Gaeltacht themed series Ros na Rún “was seen from the outset as TG4’s flagship program.”[8]

The show styles itself as “a soap opera based in the countryside in Ireland,” reflecting on “life and rural Gaeltacht with humor and spirit.” The TG4 soap opera “focuses on major social circumstances as well as simple and advanced complex personal situations,” and stories abound with small town intrigue involving “murder, fraud and lies,” while also managing to broach controversial issues of abortion, rape, steroid addiction, adoption, and foster care. [9] Ros na Rún made its first appearance on with English subtitles on the Republic’s most dominant channel, RTÉ1 at Christmas 1992, achieving 381,000 viewers. It was picked up by TG4 as a regular series, which airs twice weekly. While the genre is not heavily written about by the Irish press, making “reliable viewing figures are difficult to come by,” the show certainly maintains a large following. Press reports suggest that Ros na Rún “appears to attract around 400,000 viewers per episode, around fourteen per cent of the total available audience.”[10]

The producers of the show began with the emphasis on delivering a quality program, rather than merely a program which used Irish to convey its message. In reference to the programming model of TG4 it was felt that “the staff and the authority, believe that we must have something as an anchor in this schedule and there’s no better way to do that than to provide a credible drama.” Ros na Rún’s success while it aired on the English station, RTÉ, proved, “for that short period, it can be done.” The producers also believe that because “their hearts are in it,” (writing/producing Irish-language programming) “this will be an enticement for people.”[11]

***

REACHING AN AUDIENCE

Ros na Rún is the largest independent production ever commissioned in Irish broadcasting.

“The current version was commissioned from the companies EO Teilifis and Tyrone Productions at a total cost of IR£2,500,000, or, approximately IR£10,000 per episode.”
Representing roughly “one quarter of TG4’s overall budget,” the sum spent to “produce the series highlights the national “importance of such productions for minority-language broadcasting.” As the flagship of the Irish-language channel, Ros na Rún “is by far TG4’s most successful program,” however, the stations typical viewing share is “usually around two per cent” [12] amidst a sea of English-language channels and programming. It has entered its 18th season.

The similarly themed, also long-running, RTÉ English-language soap opera, Fair City, differs in its setting, trading the ‘townie’ Gaeltacht for suburban Dublin. Fair City has been broadcast on RTE, since 1989, “twice a week until 2001 and four times a week since then.” It is Ireland’s longest-running soap opera and “has a viewership of between 500,000 to 600,000, making it additionally the country’s most-watched TV drama.” It remains highly popular, as the “winner of Ireland’s TVNow Award as “Favorite Soap” in 2008 and 2009.”[13]

INTRIGUE AND LANGUAGE EXPOSURE

The story is told in Carrigstown, “a fictional suburb on the north side of Dublin,” and it was created consciously with a view toward representing the realities of modern-day Ireland. While presenting in English, it covers intrigues similar to its Irish-Language counterpart, and thusly attracts spillover audiences in its presentation of “an all-encompassing view of daily life in Dublin,” revolving around “sex in the city, of clubbing and cocaine, of refugees and racism, of crime and compassion, of poverty and property, of books and websites and universities” Similar to Ros na Rún, Fair City has dealt with homosexuality, rape, abortion, domestic abuse, prostitution, and suicide, among other social issues. In fact, the program has “witnessed a huge surge in viewership figures recently, because of their controversial domestic abuse storyline,” which “focused on the married couple Suzanne and Damien, (with) Suzanne inflicting regular beatings on her husband after she discovered he had been unfaithful.” For better or for worse, these types of intrigue—the kind that we potentially experience in reality—attract audiences, and can provide additional benefits to society, aside from regular exposure to a minority language. Through fiction, stigmatized issues can be brought to the fore, addressed and discussed openly.

Entirely aware of the implications of airing such a storyline, “the show was researched and developed over an 18-month period” with organizations such as “Amen, Women’s Aid and Stop Seeing Red.” Over 721,000 viewers tuned in to watch the climax of the storyline between the two characters. The storyline had led to a rise in the number of calls to the national voluntary helpline Amen, which provides support for male victims of domestic abuse.” Brigie de Courcy, executive producer of Fair City, commented that “We’re delighted with this fantastically strong performance… We’ve done a lot of work in honing our craft and delivering what ultimately makes the difference – stories that really resonate and grip our viewers.”[14]

CONCLUSION

Different in set and setting, the two shows Fair City and Ros na Rún are not in direct competition with each other, or from other domestically produced soap operas, which air at different times, though the two shows face a “certain amount of competition from UK soaps,” such as Eastenders, Coronation Street, and Emmerdale, “which have large and faithful followings in the Republic.”[15] It is “a notable feature of the Irish television landscape is the strong presence of the four mainstream UK channels—BBC1, BBC2, ITV/UTV and Channel 4—initially by overspill, now via cable.”[16] Katie Verling, who learned Gaelic in school, was the initial marketing director for Telegael (TG4). She noted that “speaking Irish used to be considered terribly old-fashioned, associated with poverty,” she said. “It was taught resentfully and learned resentfully. It didn’t develop in affluence. Kids were ashamed of their Irish-speaking parents. The parents wanted them to concentrate on English. They were ashamed to speak in their own language.”[17]

Soap opera might have been the most successful medium for saving the ‘lost’ Irish language. There is positivity around the notion of its long-term recovery, now that “the ‘seonin’[18] mentality is disappearing,” said Terry O’Laoghaire, an official of the Gaeltacht Authority, an agency charged with preserving Gaelic culture that receives tens of millions of Dollars (equivalent, USA) per year, mostly to attract and develop industry, particularly from overseas, in Gaelic-speaking areas. Now, in Dublin, there is a ‘reawakening’ of interest in the language.”[19] Because many have gotten a rudimentary primer through the media, most people of the Gaeltacht believe that the Irish language “is spreading inland, all the way east to Dublin,” and potentially further (subtitled, of course), to foreign screens.

REFERENCED:

[1] O’Donnell, Hugh. “Peripheral Fissions? Soap Operas and Identity in Scotland, Ireland and the Basque Country.” 178.

[2] Ibid, 180.

[3] Ibid, 181.

[4] Barbrook, Richard. “Broadcasting and National Identity in Ireland,” in Media, Culture and Society,

1992, 14, 201.

[5] Watson, Iarfhlaith.“A History of Irish Language Broadcasting: National Ideology, Commercial Interests

and Minority Rights,” Media Audiences in Ireland (Dublin: University College Dublin Press, 1997), 218.

[6] Ibid, 223.

[7] O’Donnell, Hugh. “Peripheral Fissions?” 181.

[8] Ibid, 181.

[9] Ros na Rún webpage. “About the show.” http://www.rosnarun.com/faoinseo.php

[10] Watson, Iarfhlaith.“A History of Irish Language Broadcasting.” 226.

[11] Ibid, 225.

[12] O’Donnell, Hugh. “Peripheral Fissions?” 187.

[13] Elwood, Kate. “Soap Opera Thankfulness ̶ A Comparison of Expressions of Gratitude in Fair City and EastEnders.” 109.

[14] Muldoon, Molly. “Irish soap opera draws record numbers for domestic abuse plot.” IrishCentral, December 1st, 2010. http://www.irishcentral.com/ent/Irish-soap-opera-draws-record-numbers-for-domestic-abuse-plot–SEE-VIDEO-111104519.html

[15] Ibid.

[16] O’Donnell, Hugh. “Peripheral Fissions?” 186.

[17] Clarity, James F. “Dead Language? Irish Soap Opera May Wake It Up.” New York Times. October 21st, 1996. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/21/world/dead-language-irish-soap-opera-may-wake-it-up.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[18] Seonin is a word indicating a preference for the English language and culture.

[19] Clarity, James F. “Dead Language?
[1] O’Donnell, Hugh. “Peripheral Fissions? Soap Operas and Identity in Scotland, Ireland and the Basque Country.” 178.