What "facts" Do People Today Or Recent History Believe as a Result of Propaganda?

Going back to history, to make sure I offend someone, I will also briefly talk about the most widely spread propaganda poster I see.This poster is propaganda to the extreme, and i bet most people have seen it. The problem is basically nothing it claims is remotely true. For example, the first map shows Jewish settlements in a land largely owned by Palestinians. Well firstly, at this point this land is not owned by Palestinians, but by the British government, and it shows all land occupied by the British as Palestinian, it also shows all unowned land as being Palestinian, and it even shows the Negev desert as being Palestinian, despite almost no one living there. And in the records of the time, there is no mention of Palestinians even existing, though some land is owned by Arabs, its not nearly what is shown on the map.

The second shows the UN partition plan, however, this plan was rejected by the Arabs, who instead launched a war against the Jews which they lost.The third map, shows Israel after this, with the west bank and Gaza being Palestinian. But again this is false, Gaza was Egyptian and the West Bank was part of Jordan, neither of these countries recognized the Palestinians as a people.

The fourth map shows current settlements in the West Bank, and I believe its not totally inaccurate, but I cant attest to its detail. Its also out of date from what I know.The maps also just ignore the parts where Israel actually gave up the entire Sinai as land as part of a settlement with Egypt, which is them giving up more land than they ever took in other ways. I am not a fan of Israeli politics, but its very hard talking about things regarding Israel, when people have such a hate boner for it because of propaganda which simplifies or outright lies about pretty important aspects of the conflict. Not that the Israelis dont do that too.

• Suggested Reading

Why does cultural relativism make no sense?

Descriptive cultural relativism makes perfect sense. Cultures are actually different. This has impacts on our lives.Prescriptive cultural relativism, where we say that the differences between cultures are therefore morally benign, is self-refuting. After all, if I am from a culture that is culturally imperialist, then I am correct to be culturally imperialist. Unrestricted comprehension kicks us in the shin again.But just like naive set theory still was useful as long as you didnt try to break it and the concept has been worked on, the fact that a really extremist version of the idea of prescriptist cultural relativism is a bad thing doesnt mean that the idea has no merit.For one, theres the basic reality of human respect. I live my life and you live yours. Neither of us live it perfectly. All too often, those who want to criticize other cultures are happy to do so imperiously, dishing out criticism, while then getting on their high horse when someone criticizes them back. The most extreme version of this is of course imperialism and invasion: One culture deciding that its superiority is so obvious that it can justify taking over another culture by force or other exertion of power. A more restricted form of cultural relativism can remind us to be more humble and respectful, and to try to make sure that other people may not have a good reason of living their lives differently from us.

Let me offer a personal example. When I heard of The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down, I thought it was a story of people who were being misled by traditional medicine. But thats not the story. Sure, traditional medicine may not work, but neither did modern medicine for this family. The attitude I had, based in a good idea of testing if youre right and not merely doing things because some authority said you should, actually misled me. Modern medicine failed too, not because its epistemology or ontology is bad but because its practitioners were misled by attitudes that were implicitly culturally imperialist.Josh Hills response is insightful to introduce an additional problem: Why should we ever think there is one single correct culture? That would be as silly as saying that we should build a house the same way whether we live in the desert or the tundra. There are probably ideas that are good to try to bear in mind universally: women and men need to be treated with equity, racism and tribalism are bad things, etc. But cultures evolve and change based on external needs and problems. There may also be ideas that are useful in one environment but not in another. Sure, sexism is never a good idea, but what about, say, wearing a face mask? A culture going through a pandemic may need to very strongly police that response and use cultural forces like shame and confrontation to deal with those who dont comply. But that wouldnt be appropriate at another time.In other words, perhaps culture is a lot like whether we choose to drive on the right side of the road or the left. There may be a number of equally valid cultures that are equally just and fair but are arbitrarily different otherwise.

Cultural relativism can remind us that theres lots of practices we have that are fundamentally morally benign that therefore dont matter. Some cultures say that a good belch honors the cook. Others say this is rude. This difference doesnt matter. Aside from potential health concerns with a belch, which are obviously avoidable, its perfectly okay.

Similarly, in normal circumstances a bow and a handshake are equally good ways of showing respect and courtesy, but in a pandemic the bow is much smarter. Maybe Western societies need to switch to the Japanese-style bow if were planning on infectious disease being a more serious problem?Cultural relativism makes no sense if one adopts the most extreme version of the idea. But that is true of any idea