The Pledge of Allegiance

[averygoodun42]

So, some of you might know that I'm taking a public speaking class to, theoretically, overcome some of my social fears. (Not going very well. The fear has been ramping up.) We have to not only give six different types of speeches, but also critique each classmate's speech (one nice thing, one thing that could be improved).

This week's speeches have been of the persuasive sort, with most of the same old topics that everyone covers. I generally am pretty generous with my praise and pretty gentle with my critiques where speeches are concerned because, yeah, golden rule and such. They're mostly doing the best they can.

But there was an exception today.

This girl, I'll call her "Jane," had her entire argument based on "tradition." We Americans have been saying the pledge of allegiance for over two hundred years one hundred years (she had bad math, too! AAACK!), and been using the words "under God" for over 60, so we should continue to do so, no matter the (paltry [my take]) reasoning for inserting the words in the first place, nor how offensive a small minority of people find the phrase.

That was her entire argument.

When I asked, in the question period, what the point of saying the pledge of allegiance was, she kind of hemmed and hawed about supporting our troops and honoring our country.

I was not impressed.

(I also pointed out that Athiests are not the only people who might object to saying the pledge or the "Under God" bit, as the pledge is, in fact, idolizing the flag, which, I believe, is a big no-no in Judeo-Christian belief system, isn't it?)

Now, I know I am in the minority of Americans who find the very concept of a pledge of allegiance (especially to a frickin' flag) offensive, but I can respect a good argument. My argument against saying the pledge is that its purpose is to indoctrinate children into a false patriotism that can then be used to manipulate them into supporting all sorts of evils. It is a tool of totalitarianism, not democracy, because it encourages behavior without thought. And making young kids repeat words (oaths!) that they don't understand the meaning of (as evidenced by this young woman's "argument") is really quite low.

So in my critique I told her that "tradition" is a weak argument as it generally shows a lack of critical thought. I imagine she will not be pleased. Oh well. That's what college is for.

Harrumph.

Anyway. That's my daily rant. I'll probably have something else to rant about by the end of the day, but I just needed to get that out of my system.

Comments

[timestep.livejournal.com]

This is much of the conversation my husband has had with the girls. Now, he believes that if you want to say the pledge, by all means, do so. But, if you think you should force crowds to say the pledge, it's forced indoctrination.

He also hates the crowd recognition of troops at sporting events. I know I feel that they shouldn't stand out above all other amazing people. And, mr. Step served four years in navy ROTC and six years in the navy. I think he has earned his opinion.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

I asked Page what he thought of the pledge, and he said he liked it. That it makes him feel a part of the group (something he doesn't feel very often). I can respect that, though I would far rather the group be repeating something less... indoctrinating (how about singing "America the Beautiful" or "This Land is My Land"? Something that unites people without swearing fealty?). But, yeah, this idolization and false worship of our military and flag get my goat every time.

Though I still stand for the pledge. It's like not taking communion at a church when I'm not baptized - I will respect others' feelings on the matter even if I don't share them.

[keladry_lupin]

Tradition reeks of the herd mentality: I don't need to think because everyone else is doing it for me and everybody can't be wrong. Which usually means a few people are doing the thinking, and everyone else thinks they don't need to think because everyone else is doing it for me. Problem is, those few people can be right or completely batshit. Tradition has its place -- I will preserve my family's recipes until I die and pass them to the next generation -- but don't force it on anyone.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Exactly. And so often, yes, everybody IS wrong.

There definitely is a place for tradition, but not in an argument that's supposed to be persuasive. Or, at least not a good argument... ;-)

[dickgloucester.livejournal.com]

A tool of totalitarianism...

This.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

you will be assimilated. resistance is futile.

[shiv5468.livejournal.com]

It's also not allegiance because technically you can only swear that to a person seeing as it comes from feudal law.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Yep. It's just nationalistic propaganda as far as I can see. Go, nation, go! whee.

[timestep.livejournal.com]

The irony is that in America we have spent years talking about the natzis and communists for forcing herd mentality of pledging to their cause. Yes, we define ours as patiatism instead.

Also, I think she missed that in the 50s, under god was added as a way to identify communist because it was believes they would not swear an oath to god. It had nothing to do with a love of god, but a means to discriminate. I did an entire lesson about the pledge to my college freshman. Must admit, until I did this, I really didn't understand the evolution of the pledge.

[averygoodun.livejournal.com]

Yes! THAT! How... *breathes* Granted, we are a nation of hypocrites, especially where competition is involved. So caught up in being "#1" that we don't examine why we're racing in the first place.

As for the other bit, actually, she DID point that out, but saw it as a fine thing to do. Because, yeah, 'Murica! (Okay, that might be a bit harsh, but she put so little thought into her speech that I was offended. And that's hard to do.)