On The Most Common Propaganda

Dictionary.com describes "Propaganda" as follows: "[I]nformation, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc." While propaganda in "Black Boy" was quite blatant with the promotion of KKK ideas and such, today, in 2011, I don't think it would be appropriate or effective to spread the hate/ideas, etc to other groups. I find there are 2 strong points advocating different points: The Church (and such groups. Though not necessarily religious) and Music.
Before I say a word, I am currently a Christian so I am in no way insulting Christians. I'm merely stating something I observed. The church influences the thought of many people regardless of whether you're religious or not. The churches teach against Homosexuality in any shape, way, form, etc and regardless of what others say, it's leaked into non-religious people. I still question why it's against the Bible to be gay, bi, whatever, but I find it interesting how so many people are adamantly against religion but agree on this theme (Not everyone). There are many non-religious people who cannot stand homosexuals and the reason for that can range from numerous things, but in some way, shape or form, the church influenced such thought regardless of how far back it had said influence. The church seems to teach that homosexuality is wrong and that it is like a "sickness."
How is this propaganda? It spreads bad hatred about a group of people the church REFUSES to get to know. There are rumors that have been contributed to the church's anti-homosexuality policy that makes homosexuals the target of abuse and in some areas, genocide. There are people, not all religious, that feel homosexuals are a flaw of the earth and need to be taken out or shown they are inferior (Hmm, sound familiar??? Like the Jews with Hitler? Slavery?). There have been people who have been killed or killed themselves due to the abuse they endured. The most heart-wrenching stories I've heard has been those of teenagers between the age of 13-19 taking their lives because of teasing at school for being gay (And not all of them were gay. Some were mere assumptions). While one can argue the church doesn't condone this kind of activity, I beg to differ. There is a church in Washington D.C (Or that area) that protested gay marriage, saying that soldiers in Iraq were dying because of gays and that they needed to continue to be killed because it was God's reaction to the shame sexuality brought. With adults thinking like this, is there no wonder why children are teasing/abusing others who are suspected to be gay the way they are??
Music is, in my opinion, the easiest propaganda to see. Music uses rhythmic beats with catchy tunes to convey not only what the artist, but the record company wants to convey. More and more commonly, a life of wealth is exemplified. Such a lifestyle isn't promoted via good messages and legal ways of getting rich, but talking about how the artist has access to all the cars, women/men, drugs they want. Men seem to see women as nothing but objects for their use, calling them degrading names. The best example of this is a song entitled "Make it Rain" by Travis Porter. The clean version can be a little misleading, but taking a look at the original lyrics shows that the girl will WILLING dance for cash and that the guy determines how much she makes dancing and how long she does. While all music doesn't denote such degrading, inappropriate topics, many commonly heard, top rated music is (At least in the R&B/Rap world in which I have listened to).
How is this propaganda you ask? Well, the recording companies dictate to some extent what the artist can and can't do. Is it no coincidental that a life of luxury and attractive cars and women/men coincide with magazines. Attractive, booming lifestyles are what people want. One rarely hears about the person who did something for a charity or something unless someone famous was involved (This doesn't apply all the time). My argument for music merely comes from things I've come to realize about it and how a lifestyle is exemplified opposed to another. Most people want jobs to make money, not pursue what they want and with the music and society influence of today, this is not a surprise.

P.S. I'll be tweaking this here and there. I just had to write something down and such.

The Reaction of a Black Girl to "Black Boy"

While I'm not sure what chapter we are to have read, I'm at Chapter 8 and one thing has intrigued me overall in the previous couple chapters-Richard's take on religion. Having not grown up in a religious household, he hadn't given it much thought, but when he is forced to live with Granny after his mother takes ill, he's forced into a complete religious routine in which he finds absurd. While I cannot remember exactly what chapter he states his thoughts on this when he was this age (I want to say Chapter 7), an interesting point comes up. He says that religion is nothing but a tribe; nothing but something for people to have in common and be the same with. He said it had nothing to do with saving souls, but just being seen as good in the public eye.
I feel this is not only true for actual religious people, but non-religious too. You need to BELIEVE that what you feel is (or isn't) real is so and while there are many different religions, everyone is telling everyone else that they should (or shouldn't) believe what they do. It's not always about their soul but about having someone believe the same thing you do and, in a sense, reassure yourself that what you believe is actually plausible. Richard's being forced to be religious or being condemned by the family doesn't let him see why religion could be good, but actually the opposite. He doesn't believe in God and his being forced to only pushes him away from said concept. As of now, he hasn't changed his position, but with his family's attitude toward him, I don't see it changing anytime soon.
Another quite interesting point that seems to come up in later chapters is his wondering about his rebellion. He began to see that everything he aspired to do was everything the government in Mississippi tried to keep from him. Everything he has always liked to do was things that he should never have thought and every concept of life he thought toward was things only "Whites" at the time were allowed to really think about. He didn't fit in where he was supposed to; he hated taking orders and knew he wouldn't last long in the white-surrounded world if he continued as he was going now.
While his rebellious attitude in my opinion (from about chapter 5 on) is justified, I believe Richard was merely a pre-revolutionary African American. He wasn't a person to "play by the rules" and act as though he were still on a plantation. While everyone else acted as they were supposed to, he saw no reason for his having to be constricted and contained (which is where the lack of religion could also fall into). He was a post-Martin Luther King man living in a pre-Emancipation Proclamation type world. He was a trendsetter to many who would come up to fight for Civil Rights and while he was still naive in some senses, he was the average teenager living in a world where all teenagers were not equal and could dream the same dream.

Want Attention? Burn Things and Get Drunk.

Contradictory to what my title is, I feel Richard wasn't doing these things to get attention. One must realize the age in which Richard was when he first burned down his house- 4 years old. At 4 years old, most don't realize the danger of fire unless it's presented to them directly. Assuming Richard had never experienced the danger and hazard of a fire, he would not have properly known what would have happened. Until he "Experimented" and experienced this, he couldn't know. The broom sticks didn't set anything ablaze and he didn't see the fire going out of control with the curtains...until he actually did it. It was then that he knew fire was bad.
As we read deeper into the story, we see Richard is a "bad boy"-he craves rebellion and dislikes living by other's rules, except when it comes to subjects that could threaten his life (i.e. "white" people and such). He submitted when needed, but one quickly sees that he loves doing things he shouldn't do, rebelling, etc. Maybe Richard does this because he wants the attention he lacks, but the environment he lives in doesn't produce a need to (His friends don't seem to have both parents). One almost does crave what they don't have and sometimes acting out is the only way to express those needs.
Personally, I think it's too premature in the story to decide accurately. Right now, it's a situation where the question could straddle the fence and one could argue either point with a plethora of evidential points. Being as young as we have known Richard to be (Between ages 4 and 9), a cry for attention and being who he wants to be is both plausible. I will remain impartial to such decisions until there is an amplitude of evidence to sway me in one direction.