Safety in lies Every four years we elect a president, and every 6 years we elect senators. When we elect government officials we trust them to have the best interest of all of us in mind first and foremost. After all they were elected because often time that person was the best candidate for the job and received the most votes. So what happens when the government betrays the people who voted them in to office or when doesn’t have the people’s best interest in mind. What happens when the government messes up or betrays our trust and puts us in harm’s way. No matter what the government decides we as citizens still live in the U.S. Do we automatically expect the government to lie to us, is the government lying to us to try to protect the people? It was clearly presented to me in the film that the government lies to the people and gives false hopes of survival and a life after an atomic bomb, this became evident when shown to duck and cover with a jacket or underneath a table. In the film “The Atomic Café” [1]the film makers are trying to open the viewer’s eyes to see that the government was withholding information from the people of the United States. The filmmakers would like for the viewer to question why the government didn’t tell the people everything they needed to know about the atomic bomb. The film is a bunch of clips all compiled together to influence whomever watches it to get mad that the government didn’t tell people the whole truth of what would happen what dangers lye behind using an atomic bomb. The film is nothing more than factual information trying to lead you to one conclusion, that you have been misled. The filmmakers show footage that shows what an atomic bomb would do to a city if it was used. In the scene there is a bus, the first thing that happens is all windows and paint is blown off of the old metal bus then there is a second where you see nothing but dust the bus falls over. The filmmakers show the scene of what would happen in a city if the atomic bomb hit in the city. They show this scene to open the viewer’s eyes not to believe the lies of life after an atomic bomb, but also to scare us. If the trees are blown to smithereens in the fake city what will happen to a person who is caught outside when the bomb hits? The government started a campaign for duck and covers, in a film shown to some younger children the teacher tells the students that they are teaching them how to protect themselves from an atomic bomb not to scare the students but instead to teach them preventative measures for if an atomic bomb did hit. Internet archives showed a clip from the federal civil defense program shown to young children.
“I began kindergarten in 1969. A few times each year, all throughout elementary school, we had drills that taught us this exact technique if "the bomb" was coming. By that time, the bomb everyone feared was not atomic, but nuclear. When I was that young, I believed with all my little heart that huddling under my flimsy desk would save my young behind.” Said by username: “wishiwashere” [2] The man or women who gave the statement above gave us an insight of a child’s mind who was watching the duck and cover techniques. Further proving that the government wanted us to feel safety in a lie. If you hide under a jacket or under a table you will be protected from a nuclear bomb is the theory the government wants the people of that time to think. The film starts off with a joke which leads me to believe that they want us to think that the government is joking when they tell citizens at the time about duck and cover methods. The government built fall out kits and shared information about what you should take to a fallout shelter for a survival kit. All about life after an atomic bomb, but what happens when the people come out of a fallout shelter? What life is there after a fallout shelter, all of the crops and homes are disintegrated there is nothing to come back to. The filmmaker is very convincing in trying to persuade people to that the government lies aren’t something to make us feel safe but to clear their conscience. The message that I received was that instead of trying to protect the people why not make them believe they will be safe. The government would have done “all that they could” to protect and warn the people of this time. Instead of fearing what the bomb did they should have feared a government that would casually and nonchalantly lied to them about the damage the atomic bomb would do to the world they live in. The film only shows factual information which adds to its appeal and makes the viewer be persuaded very easily. Who wouldn’t believe a bunch of facts being given? The filmmaker uses logos and pathos to persuade the viewer. They used logos when they showed factual information and scenes that were found of testing sites. The use of pathos was clearly used when they showed how an atomic bomb would affect a city, they wanted to show how it would be and scare the viewer. If the government had of came out and just said what the dangers would be I think that the people would have begged for the government not to use it or begin testing in remote areas outside of the United States.
Every four years we elect a president, and every 6 years we elect senators. When we elect government officials we trust them to have the best interest of all of us in mind first and foremost. After all they were elected because often time that person was the best candidate for the job and received the most votes. So what happens when the government betrays the people who voted them in to office or when doesn’t have the people’s best interest in mind. What happens when the government messes up or betrays our trust and puts us in harm’s way. No matter what the government decides we as citizens still live in the U.S. Do we automatically expect the government to lie to us, is the government lying to us to try to protect the people? It was clearly presented to me in the film that the government lies to the people and gives false hopes of survival and a life after an atomic bomb, this became evident when shown to duck and cover with a jacket or underneath a table.
In the film “The Atomic Café” [1]the film makers are trying to open the viewer’s eyes to see that the government was withholding information from the people of the United States. The filmmakers would like for the viewer to question why the government didn’t tell the people everything they needed to know about the atomic bomb. The film is a bunch of clips all compiled together to influence whomever watches it to get mad that the government didn’t tell people the whole truth of what would happen what dangers lye behind using an atomic bomb. The film is nothing more than factual information trying to lead you to one conclusion, that you have been misled. The filmmakers show footage that shows what an atomic bomb would do to a city if it was used. In the scene there is a bus, the first thing that happens is all windows and paint is blown off of the old metal bus then there is a second where you see nothing but dust the bus falls over. The filmmakers show the scene of what would happen in a city if the atomic bomb hit in the city. They show this scene to open the viewer’s eyes not to believe the lies of life after an atomic bomb, but also to scare us. If the trees are blown to smithereens in the fake city what will happen to a person who is caught outside when the bomb hits? The government started a campaign for duck and covers, in a film shown to some younger children the teacher tells the students that they are teaching them how to protect themselves from an atomic bomb not to scare the students but instead to teach them preventative measures for if an atomic bomb did hit. Internet archives showed a clip from the federal civil defense program shown to young children.
“I began kindergarten in 1969. A few times each year, all throughout elementary school, we had drills that taught us this exact technique if "the bomb" was coming. By that time, the bomb everyone feared was not atomic, but nuclear. When I was that young, I believed with all my little heart that huddling under my flimsy desk would save my young behind.” Said by username: “wishiwashere” [2]
The man or women who gave the statement above gave us an insight of a child’s mind who was watching the duck and cover techniques. Further proving that the government wanted us to feel safety in a lie. If you hide under a jacket or under a table you will be protected from a nuclear bomb is the theory the government wants the people of that time to think. The film starts off with a joke which leads me to believe that they want us to think that the government is joking when they tell citizens at the time about duck and cover methods. The government built fall out kits and shared information about what you should take to a fallout shelter for a survival kit. All about life after an atomic bomb, but what happens when the people come out of a fallout shelter? What life is there after a fallout shelter, all of the crops and homes are disintegrated there is nothing to come back to.
The filmmaker is very convincing in trying to persuade people to that the government lies aren’t something to make us feel safe but to clear their conscience. The message that I received was that instead of trying to protect the people why not make them believe they will be safe. The government would have done “all that they could” to protect and warn the people of this time. Instead of fearing what the bomb did they should have feared a government that would casually and nonchalantly lied to them about the damage the atomic bomb would do to the world they live in. The film only shows factual information which adds to its appeal and makes the viewer be persuaded very easily. Who wouldn’t believe a bunch of facts being given? The filmmaker uses logos and pathos to persuade the viewer. They used logos when they showed factual information and scenes that were found of testing sites. The use of pathos was clearly used when they showed how an atomic bomb would affect a city, they wanted to show how it would be and scare the viewer. If the government had of came out and just said what the dangers would be I think that the people would have begged for the government not to use it or begin testing in remote areas outside of the United States.
[1] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0083590/plotsummary?ref_=tt_stry_pl
[2] https://archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava11109vnb1