Thursday, October 26, 2017
Colourized
'Colour allows us to understand in a deeper sense': Hitler, Churchill and others in a new light: The story of global conflict is all the more powerful when it isn’t seen in black and white. Artist Marina Amaral explains her latest work
CONfucius Xuānchuán CCP Institutes
2020 CONfucius Institutes | Full Measure > .
24-4-17 [Open Translation Act 2024 - translating & interpreting X's OS ] - Update > .
22-10-17 China Rebrands Confucius Institutes to Hide Subversive Past - Unc > .
22-9-9 No, China is Not A Peaceful Nation - laowhy86 > .
22-2-14 Arrogant Bullying Punishment of China's Enemies - VP > . skip ad > .
video: A recent report released by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reported that, of the 118 Confucius Institutes (CIs) opened at U.S. universities over the past few years, at least 104 have closed their doors. However, the report warns, at least 38 universities have reportedly replaced the programs run at the CIs with identical activities, but under a different name. This would have allowed the universities to continue their relations with the Chinese communist regime that promoted these Institutes, but disassociating themselves from the CIs themselves, which in recent times have been the subject of much controversy and criticism.
21-12-14 CCP recruiting, training Wumaos - Focus > .
Societal Manipulation
...
Since 2004, the Chinese government has sponsored Confucius Institutes on college and university campuses around the world, providing teachers, textbooks, and operating funds. NAS’s 2017 report, Outsourced to China: Confucius Institutes and Soft Power in American Higher Education, found that Confucius Institutes undermine academic integrity and import censorship....
Some are urging American colleges to shut down their China-funded Confucius Institutes. Critics claims the learning centers could be used as tools for China to spy, and influence our students. Defenders say the threat is overblown.
In the short time-frame of their rapid expansion, the institutes have been the subject of much controversy. Criticisms of the institutes have included administrative concerns about finance, academic viability, legal issues, and relations with the Chinese partner university, as well as broader concerns about improper influence over teaching and research, industrial and military espionage, surveillance of Chinese abroad, and undermining Taiwanese influence. There has also been organized opposition to the establishment of a Confucius Institute at University of Melbourne, University of Manitoba, Stockholm University, University of Chicago and many others. More significantly, some universities that hosted Confucius Institutes decided to terminate their contracts. These include Japan's Osaka Sangyo University in 2010; Canada's McMaster University and Université de Sherbrooke, and France's University of Lyon in 2013; the University of Chicago, Pennsylvania State University, and the Toronto District School Board in 2014, the German Stuttgart Media University and University of Hohenheim in 2015, and Vrije Universiteit Brussel in 2019.
Controversy regarding Confucius Institutes in the US, Australian, and Canadian press includes criticism that unlike other governments' language and culture promotion organizations, the Confucius Institutes operate within established universities, colleges, and secondary schools around the world, providing funding, teachers and educational materials. This has raised concerns over their [oppressive] influence on academic freedom, the possibility of industrial espionage, and concerns that the institutes present a selective and politicized view of China as a means of advancing the country's soft power internationally.
Underlying such opposition is concern by professors that a Confucius Institute would interfere with academic freedom and be able to pressure the university to censor speech on topics the CCP objects to. An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education asserts that there is little evidence of meddling from China, although the same article did go on to say the institutes were "distinct in the degree to which they were financed and managed by a foreign government." After interviewing China scholars, journalists and CI directors, a writer for The Diplomat, a publication covering politics, society, and culture in the Indo-Pacific region, also found little support for the concern that CIs would serve as propaganda vehicles, though some of her sources did note that they would face constraints in their curriculum on matters such as Tibet and human rights. An article in The New York Times quotes Arthur Waldron, a professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, saying that the key issue is academic independence. "Once you have a Confucius Institute on campus, you have a second source of opinions and authority that is ultimately answerable to the Chinese Communist Party and which is not subject to scholarly review."
In October 2013, University of Chicago professor Marshall Sahlins published an extensive investigative article criticizing the Confucius Institutes and the universities hosting them. Later, more than 100 faculty members signed a protest against the Confucius Institute at the University of Chicago. In September 2014, the University of Chicago suspended its negotiation for renewal of the agreement with Hanban. Two months later, the Canadian Association of University Teachers urged Canadian universities and colleges to end ties with the Confucius Institute.
In June 2014, the American Association of University Professors issued a statement urging American universities to cease their collaboration with the Confucius Institute unless the universities can have unilateral control of the academia affairs, that the teachers in Confucius Institutes can have the same academic freedom enjoyed by other university faculty members, and that the agreements between universities and Confucius Institutes are available to the community. The AAUP statement was widely noticed by US media and prompted extensive further debate in the US.
Two months later, in August 2014, Xu Lin, Director-General of the Hanban and Chief Executive of the CIs worldwide, became embroiled in an incident in Braga, Portugal, when Xu ordered her staff to rip pages referring to Taiwanese academic institutions from the published program for the European Association for Chinese Studies conference in Braga, claiming the materials were "contrary to Chinese regulations". When Roger Greatrex, president of the EACS, learned of this censorship, he ordered that 500 copies of the original program immediately be printed and distributed to participants. He later wrote, "The seizure of the materials in such an unauthorized manner, after the conference had already begun, was extremely injudicious, and has promoted a negative view of the Confucius Institute Headquarters". The EACS letter of protest said this had been "the first occasion in the history of the EACS that its conference materials have been censored." It concluded, "Such interference in the internal organization of the international conference of an independent and democratically organized non-profitable academic organization is totally unacceptable." The Wall Street Journal described Xu's attempted censorship as the "bullying approach to academic freedom".
In September 2014, the University of Chicago closed their CI after pressure from faculty members, blaming Xu's comments that her threatening letter and phone call forced the university to continue hosting the institute. The Business Spectator concludes that the Xu Lin's hardline behavior highlights one of the biggest problems for Beijing's charm offensive. "It still relies on officials like Xu, who still think and act like party ideologues who like to assert their authority and bully people into submission." Less than a week later, Pennsylvania State University also cut ties with the Confucius Institute after coming to the conclusion that "its objectives were not in line with the Institute's".
In December 2014, Stockholm University, the first university in Europe to host a Confucius Institute, announced it was terminating the program. Press coverage of the Braga incident in the Swedish press was said to have influenced the decision. "Generally it is questionable to have, within the framework of the university, institutes that are financed by another country," said the university's chancellor.
In the same month, the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations held a hearing entitled "Is Academic Freedom Threatened by China's Influence on U.S. Universities?" Chairman Chris Smith said, "U.S. colleges and universities should not be outsourcing academic control, faculty and student oversight or curriculum to a foreign government", and called for a GAO study into agreements between American universities and China. On 5 December 2014, PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied the House testimony and said "We have assisted with supplying teachers and textbooks at the request of the U.S. side but have never interfered with academic freedom."
Controversy continued in 2018 as U.S. Congress members from Texas wrote a letter to four universities in that state urging them to close their Confucius Institutes. Texas A&M did so shortly after receiving the letter. Throughout 2018 and 2019, all of the institutes in Florida were closed: the University of West Florida, the University of North Florida, the University of South Florida, and Miami Dade College.
A U.S. law passed in 2019 that prohibits universities hosting Confucius Institutes from receiving funding for Chinese language studies from the Department of Defense led to more closures of Confucius Institutes. Unable to obtain a waiver from the Department of Defense, Indiana University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Rhode Island, San Francisco State University, the University of Oregon, Western Kentucky University, Arizona State University, the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and San Diego State University closed their programs in 2019. In 2020, the University of Maryland also announced the closure of its Confucius Institute, the oldest one in the U.S.
On 19 February 2019, Leiden University in The Netherlands promised to end its agreement with Confucius Institute in August 2019. On June 30, 2021, Baruch College - The City University of New York - ended its agreement with the Confucius Institute.
In 2020, Sweden ended agreements with all Confucius Institutes in the country. Management consultant Ross Feingold said the closure of the Confucius Institutes was the result of Sweden taking a much tougher view of China, as a result of Swedish national Gui Minhai being imprisoned for 10 years, and also comments by China's ambassador to Sweden, Gui Congyou, who threatened Sweden during an interview with broadcaster Swedish PEN in November 2019 saying that "We treat our friends with fine wine, but for our enemies we got shotguns." over the decision to award Gui Minhai with the Tucholsky Prize, the ambassador later clarified saying that China would impose trade restrictions on Sweden for this award. The embassy has systematically worked to influence the reporting on China by Swedish journalists.
On 13 August 2020, U.S. Department of State designated the Confucius Institute U.S. Center as a foreign mission of the PRC. On 8 March 2021, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that would restrict colleges hosting Confucius Institutes from receiving some federal funding.
According to the Hessische/Niedersächsische Allgemeine report on July 3, 2021, the Göttingen Young Union (Junge Union) City Association is striving for the University of Hannover and the University of Göttingen to terminate their cooperation with the Confucius Institute. The Youth League promoted a motion on the grounds that the Confucius Institute is under the control of the CCP and "is aimed at strengthening the propaganda of Beijing's totalitarian ideology and exerting harmful influence on German universities." Yuhan Huang from Kunming, Yunnan Province of China wrote the motion proposal. He came to Germany in 2018 and is a member of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), a main German political party, and a member of the Young Union youth organization. He introduced the situation of the Confucius Institute to the members of the organization, and organized related activities in Germany to request the termination of the cooperation between the Confucius Institute and German universities.
On August 4, 2021, the Human Rights Foundation published a report stating that Confucius Institutes "cultivated a climate of intimidation and surveillance within American classrooms." and "Both information censorship and self-censorship are especially prevalent, as educators, researchers, administrators, and students alike are steered away from learning and critically thinking about topics that may be deemed sensitive to the Chinese government such as democracy, “the three T’s,” Hong Kong, the Uyghur genocide, and the CCP’s other prevailing human rights infringements."
The Confucius Institute has been alleged to have non-academic [political] goals. Li Changchun, the former 5th-highest-ranking member of the Politburo Standing Committee said in 2007 that the Confucius Institutes were "an important part of China's overseas propaganda set-up". Some foreign scholars have characterized the CI program as an exercise in soft power, expanding China's economic, cultural, and diplomatic reach through the promotion of Chinese language and culture, while others have suggested a possible role in intelligence collection. The soft power goals also include assuaging concerns of a "China threat" in the context of the country's increasingly powerful economy and military.
Retired British diplomat and China expert Roger Garside concludes in his submission to the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission that academic freedom is "inherently compromised by permitting a state agency controlled by the Communist Party of China to establish a teaching operation in any school or university".
While Chinese authorities have been cautious not to have CIs act as direct promoters of the party's political viewpoints, a few critics suggest that the Confucius Institutes function in this way. Officials say that one important goal of the institutes is to influence other countries' understanding of China. Peng Ming-min, a Taiwan independence activist and politician, claims that colleges and universities where a Confucius Institute is established have to sign a contract in which they declare their support for Beijing's "One China" policy. As a result, both Taiwan and Tibet become taboos at the institutes.
The CI's soft power goals are seen as an attempt by the PRC to modernize away from Soviet-influenced propaganda of the Maoist era. Other initiatives include Chinese contemporary art exhibitions, television programs, concerts by popular singers, translations of Chinese literature, and the expansion of state-run news channels such as Xinhua News Agency and China Central Television.
Xuānchuán - CCP Propaganda ..
The Standard Chinese word xuanchuan "dissemination; propaganda; publicity" originally meant "to announce or convey information" during the 3rd-century Three Kingdoms period, and was chosen to translate Russian propagánda пропаганда in the 20th-century People's Republic of China, adopting the Marxist-Leninist concept of a "transmission belt" for indoctrination and mass mobilization. Xuanchuan is the keyword for propaganda in the People's Republic of China and propaganda in the Republic of China.
As China's involvement in world affairs grew in the late 20th century, the CCP became sensitive to the negative connotations of the English word propaganda, and the commonly used Chinese term xuanchuan acquired pejorative connotations. In 1992, Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin asked one of the CCP's most senior translators to come up with a better euphemistic English alternative to propaganda as the translation of xuanchuan for propaganda targeting foreign audiences. Replacement [euphemistic] English translations include publicity, information, and political communication domestically, or media diplomacy and cultural exchange internationally.
Confucius Institutes (CI; 孔子学院; Kǒngzǐ Xuéyuàn) are public educational and cultural promotion programs funded and arranged currently by the Chinese International Education Foundation and formerly by Hanban, an organization affiliated with the Chinese government. The stated aim of the program is to promote Chinese language and culture, support local Chinese teaching internationally, and facilitate cultural exchanges. The organization has been criticized over concerns of the Chinese government's undue overseas influence and suppression of academic freedom.
The Confucius Institute program began in 2004 and was supported by the Chinese Ministry of Education-affiliated Hanban (officially the Office of Chinese Language Council International, which changed its name to Center for Language Education and Cooperation in 2020), overseen by individual universities. ...
Some commentators argue, unlike [other national language instruction] organizations, many Confucius Institutes operate directly on university campuses, thus giving rise to what they see as unique concerns related to academic freedom and political influence.
Confucius Institutes are used as a form of "soft power" by China, and the Chinese government spends approximately $10 billion a year on CIs and related programs to exercise these initiatives. Communist Party of China general secretary Xi Jinping in 2013 stated that the intentions are to "give agood praise-filled Chinese narrative". Being affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education, CIs have received increasing scepticism over its censorship of content taught, such as topics related to individual freedoms and democracy, Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.
There have been a number of reports pointing to controversial incidents in the past, including a former senior CCP official, Li Changchun's comment that Confucius Institutes are "an important part of China's overseas propaganda set-up". In July 2020, Hanban announced its renaming to the Center for Language Education and Cooperation, stating that The Confucius Institute was handed over to Chinese International Education Foundation, a self-described "non-governmental private organization" [as though the CCP permits non-governmental organizations!]. On 13 August 2020, the United States Department of State designated the headquarters of the Confucius Institute in the U.S. as a foreign mission of China. This designation has been protested [of course!] by the Center in an open letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.
The Confucius Institute program began in 2004 and was supported by the Chinese Ministry of Education-affiliated Hanban (officially the Office of Chinese Language Council International, which changed its name to Center for Language Education and Cooperation in 2020), overseen by individual universities. ...
Some commentators argue, unlike [other national language instruction] organizations, many Confucius Institutes operate directly on university campuses, thus giving rise to what they see as unique concerns related to academic freedom and political influence.
Confucius Institutes are used as a form of "soft power" by China, and the Chinese government spends approximately $10 billion a year on CIs and related programs to exercise these initiatives. Communist Party of China general secretary Xi Jinping in 2013 stated that the intentions are to "give a
There have been a number of reports pointing to controversial incidents in the past, including a former senior CCP official, Li Changchun's comment that Confucius Institutes are "an important part of China's overseas propaganda set-up". In July 2020, Hanban announced its renaming to the Center for Language Education and Cooperation, stating that The Confucius Institute was handed over to Chinese International Education Foundation, a self-described "non-governmental private organization" [as though the CCP permits non-governmental organizations!]. On 13 August 2020, the United States Department of State designated the headquarters of the Confucius Institute in the U.S. as a foreign mission of China. This designation has been protested [of course!] by the Center in an open letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.
Controversy regarding Confucius Institutes in the US, Australian, and Canadian press includes criticism that unlike other governments' language and culture promotion organizations, the Confucius Institutes operate within established universities, colleges, and secondary schools around the world, providing funding, teachers and educational materials. This has raised concerns over their [oppressive] influence on academic freedom, the possibility of industrial espionage, and concerns that the institutes present a selective and politicized view of China as a means of advancing the country's soft power internationally.
Underlying such opposition is concern by professors that a Confucius Institute would interfere with academic freedom and be able to pressure the university to censor speech on topics the CCP objects to. An article in The Chronicle of Higher Education asserts that there is little evidence of meddling from China, although the same article did go on to say the institutes were "distinct in the degree to which they were financed and managed by a foreign government." After interviewing China scholars, journalists and CI directors, a writer for The Diplomat, a publication covering politics, society, and culture in the Indo-Pacific region, also found little support for the concern that CIs would serve as propaganda vehicles, though some of her sources did note that they would face constraints in their curriculum on matters such as Tibet and human rights. An article in The New York Times quotes Arthur Waldron, a professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, saying that the key issue is academic independence. "Once you have a Confucius Institute on campus, you have a second source of opinions and authority that is ultimately answerable to the Chinese Communist Party and which is not subject to scholarly review."
In October 2013, University of Chicago professor Marshall Sahlins published an extensive investigative article criticizing the Confucius Institutes and the universities hosting them. Later, more than 100 faculty members signed a protest against the Confucius Institute at the University of Chicago. In September 2014, the University of Chicago suspended its negotiation for renewal of the agreement with Hanban. Two months later, the Canadian Association of University Teachers urged Canadian universities and colleges to end ties with the Confucius Institute.
In June 2014, the American Association of University Professors issued a statement urging American universities to cease their collaboration with the Confucius Institute unless the universities can have unilateral control of the academia affairs, that the teachers in Confucius Institutes can have the same academic freedom enjoyed by other university faculty members, and that the agreements between universities and Confucius Institutes are available to the community. The AAUP statement was widely noticed by US media and prompted extensive further debate in the US.
Two months later, in August 2014, Xu Lin, Director-General of the Hanban and Chief Executive of the CIs worldwide, became embroiled in an incident in Braga, Portugal, when Xu ordered her staff to rip pages referring to Taiwanese academic institutions from the published program for the European Association for Chinese Studies conference in Braga, claiming the materials were "contrary to Chinese regulations". When Roger Greatrex, president of the EACS, learned of this censorship, he ordered that 500 copies of the original program immediately be printed and distributed to participants. He later wrote, "The seizure of the materials in such an unauthorized manner, after the conference had already begun, was extremely injudicious, and has promoted a negative view of the Confucius Institute Headquarters". The EACS letter of protest said this had been "the first occasion in the history of the EACS that its conference materials have been censored." It concluded, "Such interference in the internal organization of the international conference of an independent and democratically organized non-profitable academic organization is totally unacceptable." The Wall Street Journal described Xu's attempted censorship as the "bullying approach to academic freedom".
In September 2014, the University of Chicago closed their CI after pressure from faculty members, blaming Xu's comments that her threatening letter and phone call forced the university to continue hosting the institute. The Business Spectator concludes that the Xu Lin's hardline behavior highlights one of the biggest problems for Beijing's charm offensive. "It still relies on officials like Xu, who still think and act like party ideologues who like to assert their authority and bully people into submission." Less than a week later, Pennsylvania State University also cut ties with the Confucius Institute after coming to the conclusion that "its objectives were not in line with the Institute's".
In December 2014, Stockholm University, the first university in Europe to host a Confucius Institute, announced it was terminating the program. Press coverage of the Braga incident in the Swedish press was said to have influenced the decision. "Generally it is questionable to have, within the framework of the university, institutes that are financed by another country," said the university's chancellor.
In the same month, the United States House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights and International Organizations held a hearing entitled "Is Academic Freedom Threatened by China's Influence on U.S. Universities?" Chairman Chris Smith said, "U.S. colleges and universities should not be outsourcing academic control, faculty and student oversight or curriculum to a foreign government", and called for a GAO study into agreements between American universities and China. On 5 December 2014, PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Hua Chunying denied the House testimony and said "We have assisted with supplying teachers and textbooks at the request of the U.S. side but have never interfered with academic freedom."
Controversy continued in 2018 as U.S. Congress members from Texas wrote a letter to four universities in that state urging them to close their Confucius Institutes. Texas A&M did so shortly after receiving the letter. Throughout 2018 and 2019, all of the institutes in Florida were closed: the University of West Florida, the University of North Florida, the University of South Florida, and Miami Dade College.
A U.S. law passed in 2019 that prohibits universities hosting Confucius Institutes from receiving funding for Chinese language studies from the Department of Defense led to more closures of Confucius Institutes. Unable to obtain a waiver from the Department of Defense, Indiana University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Rhode Island, San Francisco State University, the University of Oregon, Western Kentucky University, Arizona State University, the University of Hawaii at Manoa, and San Diego State University closed their programs in 2019. In 2020, the University of Maryland also announced the closure of its Confucius Institute, the oldest one in the U.S.
On 19 February 2019, Leiden University in The Netherlands promised to end its agreement with Confucius Institute in August 2019. On June 30, 2021, Baruch College - The City University of New York - ended its agreement with the Confucius Institute.
In 2020, Sweden ended agreements with all Confucius Institutes in the country. Management consultant Ross Feingold said the closure of the Confucius Institutes was the result of Sweden taking a much tougher view of China, as a result of Swedish national Gui Minhai being imprisoned for 10 years, and also comments by China's ambassador to Sweden, Gui Congyou, who threatened Sweden during an interview with broadcaster Swedish PEN in November 2019 saying that "We treat our friends with fine wine, but for our enemies we got shotguns." over the decision to award Gui Minhai with the Tucholsky Prize, the ambassador later clarified saying that China would impose trade restrictions on Sweden for this award. The embassy has systematically worked to influence the reporting on China by Swedish journalists.
On 13 August 2020, U.S. Department of State designated the Confucius Institute U.S. Center as a foreign mission of the PRC. On 8 March 2021, the U.S. Senate passed a bill that would restrict colleges hosting Confucius Institutes from receiving some federal funding.
According to the Hessische/Niedersächsische Allgemeine report on July 3, 2021, the Göttingen Young Union (Junge Union) City Association is striving for the University of Hannover and the University of Göttingen to terminate their cooperation with the Confucius Institute. The Youth League promoted a motion on the grounds that the Confucius Institute is under the control of the CCP and "is aimed at strengthening the propaganda of Beijing's totalitarian ideology and exerting harmful influence on German universities." Yuhan Huang from Kunming, Yunnan Province of China wrote the motion proposal. He came to Germany in 2018 and is a member of the Christian Democratic Union of Germany (CDU), a main German political party, and a member of the Young Union youth organization. He introduced the situation of the Confucius Institute to the members of the organization, and organized related activities in Germany to request the termination of the cooperation between the Confucius Institute and German universities.
On August 4, 2021, the Human Rights Foundation published a report stating that Confucius Institutes "cultivated a climate of intimidation and surveillance within American classrooms." and "Both information censorship and self-censorship are especially prevalent, as educators, researchers, administrators, and students alike are steered away from learning and critically thinking about topics that may be deemed sensitive to the Chinese government such as democracy, “the three T’s,” Hong Kong, the Uyghur genocide, and the CCP’s other prevailing human rights infringements."
The Confucius Institute has been alleged to have non-academic [political] goals. Li Changchun, the former 5th-highest-ranking member of the Politburo Standing Committee said in 2007 that the Confucius Institutes were "an important part of China's overseas propaganda set-up". Some foreign scholars have characterized the CI program as an exercise in soft power, expanding China's economic, cultural, and diplomatic reach through the promotion of Chinese language and culture, while others have suggested a possible role in intelligence collection. The soft power goals also include assuaging concerns of a "China threat" in the context of the country's increasingly powerful economy and military.
Retired British diplomat and China expert Roger Garside concludes in his submission to the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission that academic freedom is "inherently compromised by permitting a state agency controlled by the Communist Party of China to establish a teaching operation in any school or university".
While Chinese authorities have been cautious not to have CIs act as direct promoters of the party's political viewpoints, a few critics suggest that the Confucius Institutes function in this way. Officials say that one important goal of the institutes is to influence other countries' understanding of China. Peng Ming-min, a Taiwan independence activist and politician, claims that colleges and universities where a Confucius Institute is established have to sign a contract in which they declare their support for Beijing's "One China" policy. As a result, both Taiwan and Tibet become taboos at the institutes.
The CI's soft power goals are seen as an attempt by the PRC to modernize away from Soviet-influenced propaganda of the Maoist era. Other initiatives include Chinese contemporary art exhibitions, television programs, concerts by popular singers, translations of Chinese literature, and the expansion of state-run news channels such as Xinhua News Agency and China Central Television.
Conspiratorial Cognitive Dysfunction
...
Societal Manipulation
1930s - Cult of Personality in Stalinist Russia
23-2-8 [Propaganda - Effective Emotional Manipulation] - OBF > .
Pravda (Правда, [ˈpravdə] (
listen), "Truth") is a Russian broadsheet newspaper, formerly the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, when it was one of the most influential papers in the country with a circulation of 11 million. The newspaper began publication on 5 May 1912 in the Russian Empire, but was already extant abroad in January 1911. It emerged as a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union after the October Revolution. The newspaper was an organ of the Central Committee of the CPSU between 1912 and 1991.
Though Pravda officially began publication on 5 May 1912 (22 April 1912 OS), the anniversary of Karl Marx's birth, its origins trace back to 1903 when it was founded in Moscow by a wealthy railway engineer, V.A. Kozhevnikov. Pravda had started publishing in the light of the Russian Revolution of 1905. At the time when the paper was founded, the name "Pravda" already had a clear historical connotation, since the law code of the Medieval Kievan Rus' was known as Russkaya Pravda; in this context, "Pravda" meant "Justice" rather than "Truth", "Russkaya Pravda" being "Russian Justice". This early law code had been rediscovered and published by 18th Century Russian scholars, and in 1903 educated Russians with some knowledge of their country's history could have been expected to know the name.
During its earliest days, Pravda had no political orientation. Kozhevnikov started it as a journal of arts, literature and social life. Kozhevnikov was soon able to form up a team of young writers including A.A. Bogdanov, N.A Rozhkov, M.N Pokrovsky, I.I Skvortsov-Stepanov, P.P Rumyantsev and M.G. Lunts, who were active contributors on 'social life' section of Pravda. Later they became the editorial board of the journal and in the near future also became the active members of the Bolshevik faction of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP). Because of certain quarrels between Kozhevnikov and the editorial board, he had asked them to leave and the Menshevik faction of the RSDLP took over as Editorial Board. But the relationship between them and Kozhevnikov was also a bitter one.
The Ukrainian political party Spilka, which was also a splinter group of the RSDLP, took over the journal as its organ. Leon Trotsky was invited to edit the paper in 1908 and the paper was finally moved to Vienna in 1909. By then, the editorial board of Pravda consisted of hard-line Bolsheviks who sidelined the Spilka leadership soon after it shifted to Vienna. Trotsky had introduced a tabloid format to the newspaper and distanced itself from the intra-party struggles inside the RSDLP. During those days, Pravda gained a large audience among Russian workers. By 1910 the Central Committee of the RSDLP suggested making Pravda its official organ.
Pravda (Правда, [ˈpravdə] (
listen), "Truth") is a Russian broadsheet newspaper, formerly the official newspaper of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, when it was one of the most influential papers in the country with a circulation of 11 million. The newspaper began publication on 5 May 1912 in the Russian Empire, but was already extant abroad in January 1911. It emerged as a leading newspaper of the Soviet Union after the October Revolution. The newspaper was an organ of the Central Committee of the CPSU between 1912 and 1991.Though Pravda officially began publication on 5 May 1912 (22 April 1912 OS), the anniversary of Karl Marx's birth, its origins trace back to 1903 when it was founded in Moscow by a wealthy railway engineer, V.A. Kozhevnikov. Pravda had started publishing in the light of the Russian Revolution of 1905. At the time when the paper was founded, the name "Pravda" already had a clear historical connotation, since the law code of the Medieval Kievan Rus' was known as Russkaya Pravda; in this context, "Pravda" meant "Justice" rather than "Truth", "Russkaya Pravda" being "Russian Justice". This early law code had been rediscovered and published by 18th Century Russian scholars, and in 1903 educated Russians with some knowledge of their country's history could have been expected to know the name.
Finally, at the sixth conference of the RSDLP held in Prague in January 1912, the Menshevik faction was expelled from the party. The party under the leadership of Vladimir Lenin decided to make Pravda its official mouthpiece. The paper was shifted from Vienna to St. Petersburg and the first issue under Lenin's leadership was published on 5 May 1912 (22 April 1912 OS). It was the first time that Pravda was published as a legal political newspaper. The Central Committee of the RSDLP, workers and individuals such as Maxim Gorky provided financial help to the newspaper. The first issue published on 5 May cost two kopeks and had four pages. It had articles on economic issues, workers movement, and strikes, and also had two proletarian poems. M.E. Egorov was the first editor of St. Petersburg Pravda and Member of Duma N.G. Poletaev served as its publisher.
Egorov was not a real editor of Pravda but this position was pseudo in nature. As many as 42 editors had followed Egorov within a span of two years, till 1914. The main task of these editors was to go to jail whenever needed and to save the party from a huge fine. On the publishing side, the party had chosen only those individuals as publishers who were sitting members of Duma because they had parliamentary immunity. Initially, it had sold between 40,000 and 60,000 copies. The paper was closed down by tsarist censorship in July 1914. Over the next two years, it changed its name eight times because of police harassment.
The overthrow of Tsar Nicholas II by the February Revolution of 1917 allowed Pravda to reopen. The original editors of the newly reincarnated Pravda, Vyacheslav Molotov and Alexander Shlyapnikov, were opposed to the liberal Russian Provisional Government. However, when Lev Kamenev, Joseph Stalin and former Duma deputy Matvei Muranov returned from Siberian exile on 12 March, they took over the editorial board – starting from 15 March. Under Kamenev's and Stalin's influence, Pravda took a conciliatory tone towards the Provisional Government—"insofar as it struggles against reaction or counter-revolution"—and called for a unification conference with the internationalist wing of the Mensheviks.
...
The offices of the newspaper were transferred to Moscow on 3 March 1918 when the Soviet capital was moved there. Pravda became an official publication, or "organ", of the Soviet Communist Party. Pravda became the conduit for announcing official policy and policy changes and would remain so until 1991. Subscription to Pravda was mandatory for state run companies, the armed services and other organizations until 1989.
Other newspapers existed as organs of other state bodies. For example, Izvestia, which covered foreign relations, was the organ of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, Trud was the organ of the trade union movement, Bednota was distributed to the Red Army and rural peasants. Various derivatives of the name Pravda were used both for a number of national newspapers (Komsomolskaya Pravda was the organ of the Komsomol organization, and Pionerskaya Pravda was the organ of the Young Pioneers), and for the regional Communist Party newspapers in many republics and provinces of the USSR, e.g. Kazakhstanskaya Pravda in Kazakhstan, Polyarnaya Pravda in Murmansk Oblast, Pravda Severa in Arkhangelsk Oblast, or Moskovskaya Pravda in the city of Moscow.
...
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union Pravda was sold off by Russian President Boris Yeltsin to a Greek business family in 1996, and the paper came under the control of their private company Pravda International.
In 1996, there was an internal dispute between the owners of Pravda International and some of the Pravda journalists which led to Pravda splitting into different entities. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation acquired the Pravda paper, while some of the original Pravda journalists separated to form Russia's first online paper (and the first online English paper) Pravda.ru, which is not connected to the Communist Party. After a legal dispute between the rival parties, the Russian court of arbitration stipulated that both entities would be allowed to continue using the Pravda name.
The Pravda paper is today run by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, whereas the online Pravda.ru is privately owned and has international editions published in Russian, English, French and Portuguese.
In 1996, there was an internal dispute between the owners of Pravda International and some of the Pravda journalists which led to Pravda splitting into different entities. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation acquired the Pravda paper, while some of the original Pravda journalists separated to form Russia's first online paper (and the first online English paper) Pravda.ru, which is not connected to the Communist Party. After a legal dispute between the rival parties, the Russian court of arbitration stipulated that both entities would be allowed to continue using the Pravda name.
The Pravda paper is today run by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, whereas the online Pravda.ru is privately owned and has international editions published in Russian, English, French and Portuguese.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
sī vīs pācem, parā bellum
igitur quī dēsīderat pācem praeparet bellum therefore, he who desires peace, let him prepare for war sī vīs pācem, parā bellum if you wan...
