Finn: ''How to analyze a historical source and propaganda.''

Introduction.

Far too often nowadays, I see people making arguments or statements that have clearly been largely influenced by propaganda. As regards historical sources, one can gain a lot of information about a certain period of time by looking at or reading a source, but all too often, people fail to analyze the source properly, establishing and interpreting provenance (where the source has come from), purpose and presentation.

This guide will also be useful for those studying History, as it demonstrates how a source should be analyzed, and assesses the factors that should be considered whilst judging the source. I guarantee that the way in which I have answered my below questions is the best way to seize marks in source analysis situations, and is also the most successful way in which you can analyze sources whilst debating and the like.

When analyzing a source, remember the ''three Ps''. Although I cannot stand corniness, this is a superb way of remembering the structure of analyzing sources and propaganda. The ''three Ps'' are as follows:

Provenance:

• Where has the source come from?
• Was the source commissioned?
• If so, who commissioned the source?
• Taking all relevant information into account, does that mean the provenance is reliable/unreliable & biased/unbiased?
• Is the source from a party/person we can trust? Are they biased?

Purpose:

• What purpose does the source serve?
• What sort of response is the source trying to evoke?
• Does the purpose of the source result in reliability/unreliability?

Presentation:

• What is being presented in the source?
• Is there a hidden message?
• Using hindsight and our own knowledge, is the presentation accurate?
• Why is the source presented in this way?

Example - Stalinist Propaganda.



So, firstly, we should assess the provenance of the source. The source was produced by an artist who was commissioned to create the source by the government. It is fair to say that if the source had of depicted Stalin as a hideous, small, frail man, the artist would likely not only have been refused payment, but also punished in one way or another. In this respect, it is also fair to assert that only one presentation of Stalin could have ever been given in this piece of propaganda. As the source was commissioned by the government to present Stalin in a certain way, which may not necessarily have been a true or accurate presentation, it is safe to say that the provenance of the source is unreliable and biased.

Secondly, we assess the purpose of the source. Stalin is shown lovingly, holding a child who is brandishing a revolutionary Communist flag in midair. The source is quite inspiring. I suspect that due to the ways in which Stalin and the ideology of Communism are presented in the source, the purpose is that of presenting Communism endearingly, inspiring love of Stalin and of Communism. Two ways in which a dictator can successfully rule are through fear and love. This source shows Stalin in such a way that it evokes love of the man and his ideology, as it has been presented so lovingly.

Finally, we should assess the presentation used in the source. At the time, statistically, less than 50% of Russian people were literate, and from our own knowledge we can assert that a large, inspiring picture with some minor font at the bottom was the way to convey the message to every person in the nation, which suggests it was important to inspire said people and gain their support. Secondly, regarding the presentation of Stalin himself, he is clearly presented in a number of ways: gentle, peaceful, majestic. The presentation given in the source is questionable. We know from hindsight that Stalin sent off millions of people to the Gulags (labor camps) which resulted in the death of millions of Russian people. We also know from a number of sources that Stalin enjoyed signing death warrants as a 'hobby', and so we could assert that the presentation of him being gentle is certainly biased.

Although there is clearly more for each 'P', I feel I have written extensively enough to demonstrate how a source should be analyzed properly, identifying bias and reliability.

 

This is an excellent guide on how to analyze historical sources and the example of Stalin was great, you had very relevant information.

Another example you could have used was the popular "Uncle Sam" which basically was asking people in America to go fight in wars and support the country.

 

Great guide... this will help with me Western Civ homework haha...

 

^ My favorite propaganda poster. I love the use of "Be a man and do it". It totally fucked with men's egos.

Yes, this guide is useful. A person should always do their own research and not blindly accept filtered versions from faceless men.

GJ Mr. Finn ^_^

 

Excelent guide again! 10/10

 

lol, i myself cba to read this, but i think there are so few replies becuz people don't understand XD
i'll read it now..

 

I doubt it interests many people, as only a select few are interested in history and propaganda.

 

History isn't my strongpoint, but I have learned enough about history to have learned about propaganda and the uses of propaganda. I have found that propaganda has been used largely throughout history to encourage young men to join the army, and civilians to help with economical output back in the home country. This supports your picture of Stalin, and the use of propaganda by the USSR.

 

-Basically a simple but well made guide, 8.5/10. I'm sure you can explain in more details.
-I like how you used Stalin as an example as Russia basically used propaganda for everything.
-Remember to give credit to the picture.

Edit: Sorry for the mistake before, I was thinking about the Evasion of Stalingrad .

 

An EXCELLENT GUIDE! Thank you very much

 

I can't, actually. I covered all three basis of source analysis very extensively. Any practical additions?

''I like are you'' doesn't make any literal sense, and Stalin was unrelated to Germany.. he was a Communist dictator of the USSR (now Russia).

That's only necessary for applications. (See application rules.)

Perhaps you ought to read the rules and try to establish some basic knowledge of what you're talking about (and criticizing) before you try again.

 

Great guide...there are tons of misinformed souls in the world. Given, half of them aren't very intelligent in the first place, but the other half generally just don't know how to tell propaganda from truth. Hopefully this will make SFA easier to deal in.

 

Seemingly it hasn't been effective. Tragedy!

 

Wow, this guide is great. You're really good at making guides, I also enjoyed your hair one.

The only thing I don't like is the big words which you use that make it somewhat hard to understand.

 

Nice guide man! 10/10.
This is sure to help me in History and it's good for Basic knowledge anyway.
You're really good at making guides. =]

 

Excellent, informative guide.

 

I don't like this guide, reminds me of History lessons too much. Actually, if you listen in your History classes you will learn exactly this.

 

The U.K GCSE syllabus does not mirror that of every other country, The Dark, and it's the only valuable skill I've ever picked up from learning history.

 

That is unfortunate, Finniscool.

 

i've my GCSE history exam coming up soon and i'm looking to take it at advanced level, this is bound to help me, tyvm man