Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of this is widely talked about in the United States where we debate the legitimacy of drone warfare, the history and legacy of racism, and the missteps of American foreign policy. We read Howard Zinn in my (public) High School history class. You appear to want to debate "whether America is evil" or something but I'm talking about a distinction between manufacture-of-consent propaganda and state control of speech…
> You appear to want to debate "whether America is evil" or something No. I have no interest in saying that at all. I have not said that anywhere in this comment thread. All I started out saying, and am continuing to say is that the major difference with propaganda in the USA is that the vast majority of Americans have no idea they are subjected to it, and would get angry if it was pointed out to them. That's all. >…
This just doesn’t jive with my experience growing up in what was (at the time) a fairly conventional somewhat conservative state (Virginia). We were exposed to Zinn and Manufacturing Consent in our public school. We learned about slavery, Indian extermination, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, etc. We learned about our interventions in Latin America and Iran. Socialism and the labor movement was taught very sympathetically. For example, we were taught that Upton Sinclair’s “the Jungle” was muckraking journalism. It wasn’t until I was an adult that I learned that the novel was intended to be socialist propaganda. We certainly were never we exposed to the contemporaneous criticism of Sinclair: https://fee.org/articles/29-upton-sinclairs-the-jungle-prove...
If anything, I’d argue the propaganda was in the other direction. America was almost always painted in a bad light, except for two things: the founding, and WWII. (Although, teachers are already trying to delegitimize our founding by incorporating material from the 1619 project.) We never learned all the bad things about the Soviet Union, or socialism as tried in Latin America.