Appeasement On the Daily

Let's be real here. Nearly every single person I have ever known has been appeasing their whole lives like it aint nothin'. And when you think about, it really isn't. Since the very day we all became aware of our surroundings, we have been appeasing society as if appeasing= hella monies. And, hey, sometimes appeasement does= hella monies, or happiness (realistic or delusional), or simply relief. but no one can deny the truth that the system we have created for ourselves has virtually shaped our lives into a basic model of conformity and living within boundaries. When we regard laws, go to school, and eat timely meals we are defining our lines of daily life. Society today depends upon the appeasement by citizens of the modern world, in their respective regions. But also, who really hasn't questioned a political or educational system at some point in their life? I know that sometimes school frustrates me so much that I condemn the forefathers of America for not willing to adjust to the individual aspect of a democratic society. I feel that society has unjustly placed my life within an inescapable and suffocating bottle that is the shape of life. But then I see that it is undeniable that I have contributed to the placement of this bottle. And I also realize as a I type this, how hypocritical it is of me to criticize and negatively analyze appeasement while I so willingly oblige to the demands of our society right now by writing this paper. Really, what is to stop me form giving up all possessions and joining a monastery, or travel to Europe to immerse myself in ancient civilizations, or even just wholly dedicate my life to a cause or goal? Ultimately, it is the impenetrable bond between my life and society that holds me back. All I have ever known, is holding me back. I leave with a question, if the definition of appeasement is to bring peace/content to a situation or person, will we ever actually be able to stop appeasing?

Appeasement

Appeasement is just one of many paths to take. You can be passive, rebel, or appease. Personally, I've noticed more recently how much I take the latter path. By definition, to appease is to pacify (someone) by acceding to their demands or to relieve (a feeling or demand). I experience it with my friends and with my family. When we come to a point of disagreement and end up getting into a serious argument, I can't keep going. I always give in and admit to mistakes or faults that a lot of the time aren't true in order to stop the disputing. I don't see the point in fighting with my friends and family, all it does is cause stress and more fighting in my life. So, not matter what the circumstances, I usually give into the pressure of someone else, so things will go back to normal. I think it's a path that many people choose, but not all. There are a lot of people that can't admit to failure. I am not trying to make myself sound like this great person, "admitting to my faults" or just "trying to have peace", but there are people who can't ever be wrong, not matter how much controversy and problems their beliefs cause.

The appeasement that we see in history, referring to Hitler in particular, is similar to our everyday examples; however, it is on a more extreme scale. People didn't rebel and just did horrible things to please Hitler for a reason; basically, many people did what they did for their safety. I give in just to stop drama. For some germans in the 1930's, they followed the Nazi party to keep their life. There hadn't been any notable rebellions against this socialist party, a huge example of appeasing. Citizens gave into this controlling force for a variety of reasons, but one of many overarching questions is what other choice did they have?

***Addition***

I don't think I initially understood all aspects of appeasement. Honestly, reading more op-eds on compromise vs. appeasement, I've become more confused. But I do understand the basic differences and appeasement is not the way to go. Appeasing others is the easier way out, or so it seems at the time. It's easier to give in then to go through all the trouble of compromising. But in the long run, settling the problem initially is better. Appeasement just puts the problem aside and eventually it will come back to haunt you. This isn't the path to take because all it does is put off the issue until later, nothing good, except for possible temporary peace, can come of appeasement.

Guess What? You are in Total War!

A classic, filled with stereotypes and false persuasion sprinkled with fear -- all the ingredients for an effective propaganda poster! The ironic thing is/was that this is what our country ultimately needed on the home-front. No American truly knew what conditions existed in Europe and Japan, thus it was easy for the government to convince citizens that their troops were endangered, and in need of their home country's support. It was a total war, as the home-front became ever present in the fight to stay alive on the battle-front. Every American took on more responsibilities as food-rationing went into place. Families, wives, girlfriends, sisters, brothers, etc. were constantly writing letters, sending cigarettes and chocolate just to make sure their men had something to hold onto. This poster illustrates the importance of what it really means to work. Each day is another day towards the war effort, and if one person takes it off, that could be one more American soldier killed.

Appeasement-Not a Good Solution

Appeasement is rarely the best way to solve a conflict. Rather compromise or discussion is a better solution. I fight with my sister very often. In order to resolve these fights we promise to do favors for one another. Overtime these favors build up and up until they rarely mean anything at all. Our initial fight was never resolved and continues to escalate. We keep pacifying the other with irrelevant favors that don't help anything. Perhaps if we discussed the fight with one another and came to a compromise it would be over. On a slightly larger scale, perhaps other countries didn't appease Hitler, maybe they could have stopped his eventual destruction. By attempting to pacify him rather than attempting a compromise, the "fight" escalated and turned into a war.

Propaganda- More Clever with Time

I found that the propaganda posters during the time of WWII were surprisingly clever. They were full of rhyming slogans and satirical pictures that, instead of conveying the serious fear or intense nationalism that the WWI propaganda posters were aiming for, they seemed to be mocking the war. One of my favorite posters was one that said sugar is scarce, make it stretch. It was promoting the conservation of resources just as many posters wanted to do during the first World War. Yet, the silly picture of a stretched bottle of sugar makes you want to giggle rather than fear that food will run out. I think that one of the reasons that governments wanted to eliminate the promotion of fear and nationalism, is that they saw it as an outdated tactic and it wouldn't work again. Obviously no one wanted another war, especially so soon since the other war. In the first war it was easier for people to fight for and have pride in their country because they all had hope that they would win and that it would be short and fast. After the lengthy war, people knew not to have such great expectations. People weren't naive enough to invest themselves in another war. Governments stopped promoting nationalism and instead tried to make people laugh. Perhaps they thought that it would downsize the looming of another World War.

After World War I, people couldn't be feeling too happy with their country. The pride felt before the first war just wasn't there. Through propaganda posters, governments were just trying to get people involved as many different ways as they could. Nationalism obviously was no longer an option, and fear was outdated, so humor seemed to be the last chance.

Food is a Weapon - propaganda extra credit

The propaganda poster I choose to analyze has the words, "Food is a weapon, don't waste it" which definitely resembles a propaganda poster you may either see in WW I or WW II. However, my poster is from World War II and the rhetoric in this poster seems to have gotten worse than ones that may have appeared during World War I. This particular propaganda poster focuses on the families on the home front and is aimed on telling them where to put their money. However, the army wants the money to go towards manufactoring companies and wants civilians back home to save money on food. This is apparent because of who sponsored this message, The National Wartime Nutrition Program. In the picture, there is a clean plate with an empty cup which to me symbolizes fullness, so while eating all of your food you are not only taking in protein to maintain energy for the following day but also, not spending as much on food so you can be able to finish everything on your plate. Also, this may also have a positive spin, influencing the citizens that although times are tough, maintaining a healthy diet is still very important. I think this propaganda poster had a very strong effect on the people who viewed it because of the harsh tone and simplicity of this poster.

Appeasement vs. Compromise

As we have seen in 1938 and 1939, and throughout history, for that matter, compromise is a much more just and efficient way of bargaining than appeasement. However, I find that appeasement is often much easier at the spur-of-the-moment that compromise. For example, my brother and I often squabble over who's turn it is to set the table. Often, I won't set it, even if it's my turn, forcing my brother to set it. To repay him, and to live with a clear conscience, I'll just repay him with some sort of snack (in my family, my parents only let us each have a certain amount of snacks per month, so we covet them), and then not set the table for the third day in a row. To prevent him from telling my parents, I usually only have to bribe him with one snack, which is a concession I am willing to make. Clearly, then, appeasement does have its advantages, even if it seems futile, or lazier than compromise. To relate this back to history, in 1938, I can imagine that the Brits and the French could have cared less if German invaded Sudetenland - the minuscule northwestern corner of Czechoslovakia. All they wanted is peace, and they achieved that (albeit momentarily).

(This post was edited at 6:25 on Thursday to clarify my ideas about appeasement.)