Suchergebnisse

In this article the author discusses the practice of cannibalism by, asking why the practice was popularly attributed to distant people long after Europe had exchanged the myths of classical antiquity for the cold and sceptical application of human reason to the wonders of the unknown world. The article discusses Jan Nederveen Pieterse's (1992) opinion about cannibalism as the fearsome trait of those just across the border, just beyond the line that divided the known from the unknown. To explain the persistence of cannibal imagery in the West, and its attribution to the inhabitants of Africa just as the conquest and pillage of Africa by European powers began Pieterse points out that cannibalism earlier served to position Europe's "others" in a hierarchy of exclusion and denigration, delineating the moral boundaries of European "civilization" against the "savagery" of others. Another part of the article analyses cannibal humour, from the late nineteenth century onwards; and from 1980 to the present, that of mechanized cannibalism. The stereotypes that clash here may well reveal profound historical antagonisms, may well embody historical relations between the black and the white. But to disentangle these images from each other, to see them deriving from different "histories" or orders of signification, to see difference emerge from such a binary simplicity, these things require a look at the mechanisms and politics of displacement.

In this article the author discusses the practice of cannibalism by, asking why the practice was popularly attributed to distant people long after Europe had exchanged the myths of classical antiquity for the cold and sceptical application of human reason to the wonders of the unknown world. The article discusses Jan Nederveen Pieterse's (1992) opinion about cannibalism as the fearsome trait of those just across the border, just beyond the line that divided the known from the unknown. To explain the persistence of cannibal imagery in the West, and its attribution to the inhabitants of Africa just as the conquest and pillage of Africa by European powers began Pieterse points out that cannibalism earlier served to position Europe's "others" in a hierarchy of exclusion and denigration, delineating the moral boundaries of European "civilization" against the "savagery" of others. Another part of the article analyses cannibal humour, from the late nineteenth century onwards; and from 1980 to the present, that of mechanized cannibalism. The stereotypes that clash here may well reveal profound historical antagonisms, may well embody historical relations between the black and the white. But to disentangle these images from each other, to see them deriving from different "histories" or orders of signification, to see difference emerge from such a binary simplicity, these things require a look at the mechanisms and politics of displacement.

The Biafra war as an event offers a variety of angles from which it could be analysed, though this topic, apart from the dimensions of genocide or humanitarian crises, has never been much in the interest of scholars. On the one hand, it could be related to the lack of real facts as many figures and stories were fabricated during the war; on the other hand, as John K. Wa'Njogu would say, any story from Africa is not interesting if it is not an exceptional and aberrational news level. However, there have been several partly related articles about mass communication, propaganda and public relations during the Biafra war, but most of them have been taking the Western point of view, at the same time misjudging the role of the Biafran leader Ojukwu and his input in forming the propaganda apparatus by using approved propaganda guidelines from the West and adapting it to local realities. According to Scot Macdonald, the Biafra war was a war of images fought in the court of public opinion, which was won by Biafra, though the war was lost in the military and political arena. Ojukwu fairly quickly recognized the importance of controlling information and the power of messages delivered via mass communication channels, while Nigerian officials had never fully grasped the importance of this coverage. Therefore, Ojukwu built a team from local and Western professional propagandists and PR specialists whose main task was to find a proper angle of propaganda that could help to win this asymmetric war. The first attempts to use political emancipation of the oppressed people, religious, pogrom and genocide angles had limited success, but the image of starving and dying children was a very new angle, which, with the help of mass communication, helped to deliver the message to a much broader public arena. [.]

The Biafra war as an event offers a variety of angles from which it could be analysed, though this topic, apart from the dimensions of genocide or humanitarian crises, has never been much in the interest of scholars. On the one hand, it could be related to the lack of real facts as many figures and stories were fabricated during the war; on the other hand, as John K. Wa'Njogu would say, any story from Africa is not interesting if it is not an exceptional and aberrational news level. However, there have been several partly related articles about mass communication, propaganda and public relations during the Biafra war, but most of them have been taking the Western point of view, at the same time misjudging the role of the Biafran leader Ojukwu and his input in forming the propaganda apparatus by using approved propaganda guidelines from the West and adapting it to local realities. According to Scot Macdonald, the Biafra war was a war of images fought in the court of public opinion, which was won by Biafra, though the war was lost in the military and political arena. Ojukwu fairly quickly recognized the importance of controlling information and the power of messages delivered via mass communication channels, while Nigerian officials had never fully grasped the importance of this coverage. Therefore, Ojukwu built a team from local and Western professional propagandists and PR specialists whose main task was to find a proper angle of propaganda that could help to win this asymmetric war. The first attempts to use political emancipation of the oppressed people, religious, pogrom and genocide angles had limited success, but the image of starving and dying children was a very new angle, which, with the help of mass communication, helped to deliver the message to a much broader public arena. [.]

The Biafra war as an event offers a variety of angles from which it could be analysed, though this topic, apart from the dimensions of genocide or humanitarian crises, has never been much in the interest of scholars. On the one hand, it could be related to the lack of real facts as many figures and stories were fabricated during the war; on the other hand, as John K. Wa'Njogu would say, any story from Africa is not interesting if it is not an exceptional and aberrational news level. However, there have been several partly related articles about mass communication, propaganda and public relations during the Biafra war, but most of them have been taking the Western point of view, at the same time misjudging the role of the Biafran leader Ojukwu and his input in forming the propaganda apparatus by using approved propaganda guidelines from the West and adapting it to local realities. According to Scot Macdonald, the Biafra war was a war of images fought in the court of public opinion, which was won by Biafra, though the war was lost in the military and political arena. Ojukwu fairly quickly recognized the importance of controlling information and the power of messages delivered via mass communication channels, while Nigerian officials had never fully grasped the importance of this coverage. Therefore, Ojukwu built a team from local and Western professional propagandists and PR specialists whose main task was to find a proper angle of propaganda that could help to win this asymmetric war. The first attempts to use political emancipation of the oppressed people, religious, pogrom and genocide angles had limited success, but the image of starving and dying children was a very new angle, which, with the help of mass communication, helped to deliver the message to a much broader public arena. [.]

The Biafra war as an event offers a variety of angles from which it could be analysed, though this topic, apart from the dimensions of genocide or humanitarian crises, has never been much in the interest of scholars. On the one hand, it could be related to the lack of real facts as many figures and stories were fabricated during the war; on the other hand, as John K. Wa'Njogu would say, any story from Africa is not interesting if it is not an exceptional and aberrational news level. However, there have been several partly related articles about mass communication, propaganda and public relations during the Biafra war, but most of them have been taking the Western point of view, at the same time misjudging the role of the Biafran leader Ojukwu and his input in forming the propaganda apparatus by using approved propaganda guidelines from the West and adapting it to local realities. According to Scot Macdonald, the Biafra war was a war of images fought in the court of public opinion, which was won by Biafra, though the war was lost in the military and political arena. Ojukwu fairly quickly recognized the importance of controlling information and the power of messages delivered via mass communication channels, while Nigerian officials had never fully grasped the importance of this coverage. Therefore, Ojukwu built a team from local and Western professional propagandists and PR specialists whose main task was to find a proper angle of propaganda that could help to win this asymmetric war. The first attempts to use political emancipation of the oppressed people, religious, pogrom and genocide angles had limited success, but the image of starving and dying children was a very new angle, which, with the help of mass communication, helped to deliver the message to a much broader public arena. [.]

The Biafra war as an event offers a variety of angles from which it could be analysed, though this topic, apart from the dimensions of genocide or humanitarian crises, has never been much in the interest of scholars. On the one hand, it could be related to the lack of real facts as many figures and stories were fabricated during the war; on the other hand, as John K. Wa'Njogu would say, any story from Africa is not interesting if it is not an exceptional and aberrational news level. However, there have been several partly related articles about mass communication, propaganda and public relations during the Biafra war, but most of them have been taking the Western point of view, at the same time misjudging the role of the Biafran leader Ojukwu and his input in forming the propaganda apparatus by using approved propaganda guidelines from the West and adapting it to local realities. According to Scot Macdonald, the Biafra war was a war of images fought in the court of public opinion, which was won by Biafra, though the war was lost in the military and political arena. Ojukwu fairly quickly recognized the importance of controlling information and the power of messages delivered via mass communication channels, while Nigerian officials had never fully grasped the importance of this coverage. Therefore, Ojukwu built a team from local and Western professional propagandists and PR specialists whose main task was to find a proper angle of propaganda that could help to win this asymmetric war. The first attempts to use political emancipation of the oppressed people, religious, pogrom and genocide angles had limited success, but the image of starving and dying children was a very new angle, which, with the help of mass communication, helped to deliver the message to a much broader public arena. [.]