NationStates Jolt Archive

I was messing around today at my mom's house trying to fix her webcam, and my three year old begged and begged for me to make a video (http://media.putfile.com/annikapledge2) of her saying the pledge to email to her grandpa...

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?

teaching it to them is not bad.

forcing them to say it is.

I was messing around today at my mom's house trying to fix her webcam, and my three year old begged and begged for me to make a video (http://media.putfile.com/annikapledge2) of her saying the pledge to email to her grandpa...

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?

nothing wrong with being patriotic. but like everything, it gets bad when taken to the extreme.

nothing wrong with being patriotic. but like everything, it gets bad when taken to the extreme.

define "taken to the extreme"

Some patriotism is part of a person's national heritage. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's going too far when you don't ever question your countries actions and just follow along blindly.


Oh, and the video was just black, but I could hear it. Just me, or meant to be like that?

First of all, let's not confuse terms. Patriotism=Nationalism.

Now that that's cleared up, there shouldn't be any more confusion. Patriotism, by definition, puts a higher value on one's own country than on other countries (ditto for the people therein).

I'd say there is nothing wrong with being patriotic I’m a little myself she probably just wanted to impress her Grandpa anyways (slap her none the less though)

If only I knew the national anthem…

Some patriotism is part of a person's national heritage. And there's nothing wrong with that. It's going too far when you don't ever question your countries actions and just follow along blindly.


Oh, and the video was just black, but I could hear it. Just me, or meant to be like that?

the video works here, sometimes with putfile I have to run it through twice.

First of all, let's not confuse terms. Patriotism=Nationalism.

Now that that's cleared up, there shouldn't be any more confusion. Patriotism, by definition, puts a higher value on one's own country than on other countries (ditto for the people therein).

so what does nationalism mean then?

I'd say there is nothing wrong with being patriotic I’m a little myself she probably just wanted to impress her Grandpa anyways (slap her none the less though)

If only I knew the national anthem…

I know mine. The Irish national anthem is great.

define "taken to the extreme"

Patriotic.
"I love my country, for all the good and bad that it's done, I love my country."


Extreme
"I love my country, anyone who doesn't is a pinko commie mutie traitor!"

Patriotic.
"I love my country, for all the good and bad that it's done, I love my country."


Extreme
"I love my country, anyone who doesn't is a pinko commie mutie traitor!"

ah, count me as extreme ;)

Nothing wrong with what you're doing. But never let a child seriously take a pledge of any kind, and then hold them to it.

First of all, let's not confuse terms. Patriotism=Nationalism.
This is not true. Patriotism is love of one's country. Nationalism is the belief in the supremacy of your country and is much more politicised.

ah, count me as extreme ;)

never...

oh, and I heard the video... Kawaii!!!! :D

do you have your 3 year old say the pledge every day?

thats the problem i have with it. why do we teach our children to pledge an allegiance to a FLAG every damned day? does it wear off? is there a difference between pledging to a flag and pledging to a country? when do they explain that?

i find it sad that our children are no longer taught patriotic songs. when i was a kid we sang the national anthem, america (my country 'tis of thee), america the beautiful, battle hymn of the republic every school day (not all of them, just one from the list) (oh yeah in the early grades only)

my son learned none of them.

ah, count me as extreme ;)

Oh we do. Ya big crazy. ;)

ah, count me as extreme ;)
How can you not see that extreme nationalism is bullshit?

I was messing around today at my mom's house trying to fix her webcam, and my three year old begged and begged for me to make a video (http://media.putfile.com/annikapledge2) of her saying the pledge to email to her grandpa...

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?


Well, I for one am very patriotic. I say the pledge (but in its original form), and I stand and sing the national anthem.

Hell, the reason I hate Bush and the republicans so much is because I love my country. If I didn't like America, I'd be glad that Bush is fucking it up. The only analogy I can really think of is that it's like watching someone rape your mother. Sorry if that's a bit extreme, but I couldn't think of anything to describe the way I feel about it that was less graphic than that which also carried the intensity that was necessary for an accurate analogy.

I get annoyed at other liberals for burning the flag and turning it upside down. They've let the right wing hijack what is our flag, too.

But hey, I have few opinions that aren't strong.

My problem with the pledge is two fold.

1: You pledge you aliegence to an object instead of to the ideals the object is supposed to represent.

2: (and this aplys only when the pledge is used in a public school) The meantion of the Christian God (don't try to sell me any crap about it not specifying when you see a capital G and singular usage it's the Christian's deity that is being refered to).

It is always wrong to be patriotic; it privileges some people over others and involves servility towards an entity that does not even deserve to exist, let alone be honored.

I get annoyed at other liberals for burning the flag and turning it upside down. They've let the right wing hijack what is our flag, too.


What our flag is is cloth (or in some cases plastic). Don't confuse a symbol with what is symbolised by it.

Their blood has washed out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,

Eep.

It is always wrong to be patriotic; it privileges some people over others and involves servility towards an entity that does not even deserve to exist, let alone be honored.
How does it privilege some people over others? How does it involve servility towards an entity?

It involves love for an entity, land and cultures which are very real. Not a government.

Why do Americans have so much trouble distinguishing between patriotism and nationalism?

personally, I think the pledge and anthem have little meaning to children because they are said every day.

I know I personally didn't think about their content (particualrly the pledge) untill I was in middle school. Beyond that, it was just "those words we say every morning". I knew what the words said, but not their meaning.

I also don't think the US pledge and anthem are very good...speaking in a purely literary sense, they kinda suck. Alot.

My problem with the pledge is two fold.

1: You pledge you aliegence to an object instead of to the ideals the object is supposed to represent.

2: (and this aplys only when the pledge is used in a public school) The meantion of the Christian God (don't try to sell me any crap about it not specifying when you see a capital G and singular usage it's the Christian's deity that is being refered to).

Do you actually KNOW the pledge?

1. "...and to the republic for which it stands..." is NOT the object! It is using an object to get to a non-tangable.

2. Of course it's referring to a Christian God. The guys who wrote it wanted it to do that. Many years now of misunderstanding the seperation of church and state have led people to believe that any mention of a Christian God in a state sponsored school is bad.

Just so you know, (Not that you specifically are of this opinion, necessarily, but I'm sure some reading this are...) the idea was that the state would not have a state sponsored church, the way many states in Europe at that time had. There STILL is a Church of England, but at least now you aren't killed if you don't go. We just didn't want a Church of America to which everyone was required to do. Freedom of religion does not equate to freedom from religion. The idea was that you would be free to practice religion as you wished, not to omit religion entirely. If you want that to be the case, don't you dare call on the initial setup as support.

ah, count me as extreme ;)

your not extreme... the poster Meanstoanend in the Torture bill thread is extreme...

How does it privilege some people over others?

By honoring one nation over others.

How does it involve servility towards an entity?

It involves love for an entity, land and cultures which are very real. Not a government.

No, it involves more than love, it involves loyalty. Can I be "patriotic" in regard to every place on the globe? No; patriotism is definitionally exclusivist.

Why do Americans have so much trouble distinguishing between patriotism and nationalism?

Because patriotism is just a liberal's way of expressing nationalism without sounding un-PC.

2. Of course it's referring to a Christian God. The guys who wrote it wanted it to do that..

The guy who wrote it did not include the words "under God." Congress added that years later.

2. Of course it's referring to a Christian God. The guys who wrote it wanted it to do that. Many years now of misunderstanding the seperation of church and state have led people to believe that any mention of a Christian God in a state sponsored school is bad.

The author of the pledge did not infact want that. It was only added in the 50's to seperate us from the godless commies.

What our flag is is cloth (or in some cases plastic). Don't confuse a symbol with what is symbolised by it.

What I'm saying is that people have let the right take it as if it is somehow their symbol, as if it stands only for their beliefs. Which is not true at all. The civil rights' movement used the flag as what it should be, a symbol of this country and the ideals it should stand for.

As I said, we've let the right-wing, who actively work against those ideals (you know, freedom of speech of speech and such, all those great things) hijack the flag as if it is somehow their symbol.

That wasn't my main point of my post, though, in fact, it was really a bit of an afterthought.

teaching it to them is not bad.

forcing them to say it is.
Hit the head on tthe nail.

I don't know why, but patriotism makes me want to puke.

Did I spell "patriotism" right?

if i ever have kids who want to learn the national anthem they can go find it out for themselves. i'm not going to stop them but then neither am i going to encourage their interest. patriotism seems to be a positive thing if you only think of it's effect on nationals of your own country but it is a concept defined in opposition to other nations and cultures, an idea that we are better than they are. when something is defined by it's opposition to something it is inherently negative and can do nothing good for anyone else. why should we believe our own countries we grew up in are any better than anyone elses? it seems utterly ridiculous to me.

I don't know why, but patriotism makes me want to puke.

Did I spell "patriotism" right?

*Pukes all over RealAmerica's PC*

In your honor, Il Riffino.

How can you not see that extreme nationalism is bullshit?

how so?

I oppose having children learn the pledge in school.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think patriotism is bad (although, since I've only lived in the world of Bush and co, for me there will always be a twitch negative reaction when I hear the word), and I beleive that America is a wonderful country (although you'll never hear me try to claim that we are better or worse than any other nation that tries hard to make it's people free). However, I beleive that it is incorrect and immoral to effectively brainwash children by making them stand for the pledge on a regular basis. Learning and choosing patriotism over unpatriotism should be a personal choice, and not one hammered into your brain from a young age. I stopped saying the Pledge in sixth grade, because I felt that the pledge no longer represented me or my beleifs (I pledge allegiance to the wellbeing and freedom of the American people, not a scrap of cloth or a government) and that I was being insulted by it's language (You may beleive that this is a nation under God. However, I do not, and it does not make you more American than me that you do), but it was an uphill battle against scornful peers and teachers.

If someone wants to be patriotic, let them. A school, however, should not engage in teaching social or political conformity.

do you have your 3 year old say the pledge every day?

she says it whenever she wants to. She learned it for AWANA to get a patch for her vest.

Since when does Patriotism = extreme nationalism?

As far as I'm concerned, it's simply loving your country, wanting what's best for it and for it to be its best (not the best, like some international penis waving contest, but for it to live up to its potential).

I don't believe that my country is superior to say, France, but I love my country more than France, because, well, France isn't home.

Whatever. I guess we liberals are supposed to be ashamed of where we're from instead of trying to make it great.

The author of the pledge did not infact want that. It was only added in the 50's to seperate us from the godless commies.

Granted. But that's fairly irrelevant to my pont. The ones putting it in certainly intended it to be a Christian God, no matter who it was that put it in. I was merely agreeing it was indeed not a generic "god" reference. The rest of my rant was regarding the "seperation of church and state" which was by no means inserted in the 50s.

If someone wants to be patriotic, let them. A school, however, should not engage in teaching social or political conformity.and neither should it engage in teaching that social or political conformity is evil.

Since when does Patriotism = extreme nationalism?

As far as I'm concerned, it's simply loving your country, wanting what's best for it and for it to be its best (not the best, like some international penis waving contest, but for it to live up to its potential).

I want what's best for human beings, including human beings who happen to fall between certain abstract lines on the North American continent.

That is not the same as loving the space between those abstract lines for some weird reason.

I don't believe that my country is superior to say, France, but I love my country more than France, because, well, France isn't home.

So?

Whatever. I guess we liberals are supposed to be ashamed of where we're from instead of trying to make it great.

Not "ashamed." It is simply not relevant.

Granted. But that's fairly irrelevant to my pont. The ones putting it in certainly intended it to be a Christian God, no matter who it was that put it in. I was merely agreeing it was indeed not a generic "god" reference. The rest of my rant was regarding the "seperation of church and state" which was by no means inserted in the 50s.

I believe the Knights of Colombus (a Roman Catholic organization) lobbied heavily for the "under God" (I think it should be noted that, as far as I know, only the Abrahamic religions capitalize the word "god") phrase.

Since when does Patriotism = extreme nationalism?

As far as I'm concerned, it's simply loving your country, wanting what's best for it and for it to be its best (not the best, like some international penis waving contest, but for it to live up to its potential).

I don't believe that my country is superior to say, France, but I love my country more than France, because, well, France isn't home.

Whatever. I guess we liberals are supposed to be ashamed of where we're from instead of trying to make it great.

patriotism is a particular kind of nationalism which is associated more with the state than with the people (hence pride in the military, flag waving, support for bad leaders) and therefore is an extreme form of nationalism. i really wonder why we should be expected to identify so strongly with our countries. what's the point? how can you believe that your country really has such an identity that you can identify with. today's countries are incredibly diverse and constantly changing communities and, while that diversity is exciting and to be celebrated, the idea that you can really identify with the whole of your country outside your own social circles i find absurd.

I want what's best for human beings, including human beings who happen to fall between certain abstract lines on the North American continent

So, following the same logic, you attach the same importance to people you pass on the street as to your family?

It seems as though what you say makes a lot of sense to you, but will never make much sense to me, and what I say makes sense to me, but will never make sense to you. Meh.

Patriotism is okay, in SMALL doses. I mean, I love my country (not our current leader, though), but I don't feel the need to wear maple leaf bathing suits or sing my anthem every morning before breakfast. And just because we have more donut shops than any other country (per capita), I don't have Timmy Ho's every morning. In fact, I haven't been there for quite some time.

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.Actually, it has more to do with the fact that Germany doesn't have a silly pledge :p

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?Being patriotic isn't bad, but letting it get in the way of reason is. Indoctrinating kids is almost always wrong (example for when it is right: I have no problem with indoctrinating kids with traffic rules). There's nothing wrong with learning the Pledge and the National anthem. I had to learn the Pledge as a requirement for the BSA. I had to do it independently and never really got asked to recite it again after that.

So, following the same logic, you attach the same importance to people you pass on the street as to your family?

Since when is a nation a family?

Since when is a nation a family?

it can be...

patriotism is a particular kind of nationalism which is associated more with the state than with the people (hence pride in the military, flag waving, support for bad leaders) and therefore is an extreme form of nationalism.


Pride in the military? Not really. The military is something whose necessity I find a bit unfortunate, and I don't think it should be on the other side of the world getting people killed for no reason.

I see no problem with flying the flag of one's country.

Support for bad leaders? Any true patriot hates bad leaders, because they're fucking up the country. I bet you didn't see my first post where I compared watching Bush and the republicans ruin the country to watching one's mother get raped.

I hardly think that would be called "support." Believing everything politicians say and ignoring the fact that their policies are at best incompetant is false patriotism, in my opinion. There's nothing patriotic about willingly being blind to the fact that the people in charge are pretty much criminals. True patriots should be outraged at this state of affairs.

Patriotism isn't such a bad thing. It operates as an ideal, embodied by the patriot, an individual dedicated to something beyond himself, the well-being of his fellow citizens and the country. The country is represented by the ideals it embodies, and so it exists as an abstract. "Truth, Justice, and the American Way!", something like that.

The problems associated with patriotism are the same as any belief based upon trust. That trust can be taken advantage of by the leaders of the country, the same way that priests, mullahs, or any other religious leader can twist holy words to justify violence and hatred. The country isn't to blame for the bad deeds done in its name, any more than another abstract concept is responsible for the killing its adherents caused. It's the people that claim to represent the abstract, like the government or a church, that may try to get this trust in ideals transferred to themselves and individuals that claim to embody the ideals of the patriot.

The pledge to the country operates as a promise to live up to the ideals of the nation. As laudible as that may be, its wording blurs the lines between the ideal and the government, until people become afraid that the children will learn to think of them as one and the same. So long as that separation can be maintained, we can raise our kids to try and make the country live up to its ideals rather than trusting that the government will live up to those ideals.

it can be...

The difference in population size is considerable, and is the essence of the difference I am trying to point out.

It is perfectly natural - though not morally perfect - for me to have a different relationship with my families and friends than I do with a random stranger on the street. I know them, I spend time with them, I have an immediate connection to them.

A nation, however, is an abstract entity; it is a collection of people who might hold a few genetic similarities, or might all reside within certain imaginary lines. If I can somehow love every one of the two hundred eighty million people who make up my nation, why can I not extend this love to every person? After all, once I move beyond the people I know and interact with, the level of abstraction is pretty much the same whether we are discussing ten thousand people or ten billion people.

And if my love is not for the people, but rather for the entity itself, then it is not for anything worthy, and should be abandoned.

Pride in the military? Not really. The military is something whose necessity I find a bit unfortunate, and I don't think it should be on the other side of the world getting people killed for no reason.

I see no problem with flying the flag of one's country.

Support for bad leaders? Any true patriot hates bad leaders, because they're fucking up the country. I bet you didn't see my first post where I compared watching Bush and the republicans ruin the country to watching one's mother get raped.

I hardly think that would be called "support." Believing everything politicians say and ignoring the fact that their policies are at best incompetant is false patriotism, in my opinion. There's nothing patriotic about willingly being blind to the fact that the people in charge are pretty much criminals. True patriots should be outraged at this state of affairs.

so you don't follow the complete defiitions of patriotism. many patriots would tell you you hate america for what you've said in this post. you're patriotic to an extent but you are obviously capable of moral and objective reasoning above this patriotism. i wonder why you think flying the flag is a good thing? i'm not saying it's a bad thing, but why do you do it? what's the compulsion? what makes you proud i suppose?

how so?
See every fascist country, especially those that your nation defeated in a world war.

All of their nationalists thought that everyone who wasn't like them was an unpatriotic commie.

Learn from history.

By honoring one nation over others.
That's nationalism.

No, it involves more than love, it involves loyalty. Can I be "patriotic" in regard to every place on the globe? No; patriotism is definitionally exclusivist.
You can only feel patriotism for your own country. Similar feelings for other countries are called (nation)-philia, for example Francophilia.

Because patriotism is just a liberal's way of expressing nationalism without sounding un-PC.
It's not nationalism.

The difference in population size is considerable, and is the essence of the difference I am trying to point out.

It is perfectly natural - though not morally perfect - for me to have a different relationship with my families and friends than I do with a random stranger on the street. I know them, I spend time with them, I have an immediate connection to them.

A nation, however, is an abstract entity; it is a collection of people who might hold a few genetic similarities, or might all reside within certain imaginary lines. If I can somehow love every one of the two hundred eighty million people who make up my nation, why can I not extend this love to every person? After all, once I move beyond the people I know and interact with, the level of abstraction is pretty much the same whether we are discussing ten thousand people or ten billion people.

And if my love is not for the people, but rather for the entity itself, then it is not for anything worthy, and should be abandoned.

there we go, what i was trying to say pretty much. thank you soheran :)

That's nationalism.


You can only feel patriotism for your own country. Similar feelings for other countries are called (nation)-philia, for example Francophilia.


It's not nationalism.

What is "patriotism" then, in your conception?

Patriotism is okay, in SMALL doses. I mean, I love my country (not our current leader, though)
You're patriotic then. The country is quite separable from its leader.

but I don't feel the need to wear maple leaf bathing suits
That's just tacky!

and neither should it engage in teaching that social or political conformity is evil.

Why does it have to be one way or the other? Just like not having official prayers in school doesn't say that prayer is evil, not having the pledge in school doesn't teach anything negative about the pledge either.

No comment is a viable and reasonable answer when it is not your place to answer a question.

so you don't follow the complete defiitions of patriotism. many patriots would tell you you hate america for what you've said in this post. you're patriotic to an extent but you are obviously capable of moral and objective reasoning above this patriotism. i wonder why you think flying the flag is a good thing? i'm not saying it's a bad thing, but why do you do it? what's the compulsion? what makes you proud i suppose?

It's not a compulsion. I'm proud of things like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to protest, the right to a fair trial and due process. I think the country should aspire to live up to those ideals expressed in the bill of rights. To me, the flag is a symbol for the ideals that the nation should stand for.

And how do I not follow the complete definitions of patriotism?

From Merriam-Webster:

"patriotism

One entry found for patriotism.
Main Entry: pa·tri·ot·ism
Pronunciation: 'pA-trE-&-"ti-z&m, chiefly British 'pa-
Function: noun
: love for or devotion to one's country"

So how does it follow that it is unpatriotic not to support leaders who are harming one's country?

Patriotism is okay, in SMALL doses. I mean, I love my country (not our current leader, though), but I don't feel the need to wear maple leaf bathing suits or sing my anthem every morning before breakfast. And just because we have more donut shops than any other country (per capita), I don't have Timmy Ho's every morning. In fact, I haven't been there for quite some time.

Just as long as you actually know your national anthem. I understand many American kids don't know the words to our own anthem. :(

That's just tacky!

yeah... extremely tacky...

You're patriotic then. The country is quite separable from its leader.


That's just tacky!

you've got your definitions muxed ip. nationalism is love for the nation i.e. the supposed group of people with a common history, culture, language and ethnic makeup. the kurds can have nationalism because they see themselves as a nation even though they don't have a cohesive territory to call their own. americans cannot be nationalists unless you take the ethnic bit out of the definition. patriotism is love of the state/political leader(s) hence the 'pat' bit (think 'patriarchy'). kurds aren't patriotic because they have no state of their own (a state being a politically cohesive community capable of self-determination and having a well defined leadership), americans can be patriotic but unless they are racist they cannot be nationalists (kkk are nationalists, as were the black panthers).

I think it's fine to teach the pledge and the anthem. Every citizen should know the pledge, whether they agree with it or not, and at least enough of the anthem to know how badly the ballpark singers are slaughtering it.

But there's no big need to make kids say it every day, although I appreciated having a couple of extra minutes for my brain to wake up. And it made all the kids focus on one thing, resulting in a momentary lessening of the general gradeschool chaos. It was noticably more chaotic in the mornings when they stopped having us say it. So overall it was a good practice, just probably not for what whoever made the "say the pledge" rule probably was thinking of...

Is it indoctrination to say the pledge? It takes a heckuva lot more than reciting a few short lines every day to indoctrinate someone. The patriotism level at home and in the wider family outside of the home (grandparents, aunts & uncles, etc), I think, has a lot more to do with it.

I did, and still do, think it is dumb to pledge allegience to the flag first, and THEN "to the republic for which it stands!" But c'est la vie...I've found that the world is full of mucked-up verbiage that really doesn't make logical sense.

And when I was really young, like 1st - 3rd grade, I didn't concern myself with any of those thoughts: It was just words we had to learn and parrot out, unthinking-robot style. Same as the rest of the tsunami of information that was coming in at that age: The response was to file it, make sure I could spit it back out on demand, but decipher it later.

I was messing around today at my mom's house trying to fix her webcam, and my three year old begged and begged for me to make a video (http://media.putfile.com/annikapledge2) of her saying the pledge to email to her grandpa...

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?

Having read several pages of this thread, I decided "Bah" on that and came back to the OP...

Good for you, Good for her, and Good for Grandpa :D That's great.

As to the topic, yes, I think teaching the kids their national anthem and pledge of allegiance is just fine. If they choose not to do it when they are older (adult older, not just punky kid older), then that's up to them, but at least they will have a choice on knowledge instead of choosing out of ignorance what they want to do for themselves.

(BTW: Of course I'm sure you know, there is no video, it's just audio, right?)

Having read several pages of this thread, I decided "Bah" on that and came back to the OP...

Good for you, Good for her, and Good for Grandpa :D That's great.

As to the topic, yes, I think teaching the kids their national anthem and pledge of allegiance is just fine. If they choose not to do it when they are older (adult older, not just punky kid older), then that's up to them, but at least they will have a choice on knowledge instead of choosing out of ignorance what they want to do for themselves.

(BTW: Of course I'm sure you know, there is no video, it's just audio, right?)
yeah, I am not really sure what's up with that, because it worked at my mom's and now it works over here on my computer.....weird.

Extreme
"I love my country, anyone who doesn't is a pinko commie mutie traitor!"
Is that a reference to Paranoia?

Back on topic, I have no problem with moderate patriotism. That is, you respect your country, it's acheivements, and it's ideologies. With respect to the video, it was cute.

I think the problem with patriotism is that when it gets taken to extreams you end up with "My country, right or wrong". This sounds rather harmless, you are, after all, supporting your home and mother (or father) land. What's so wrong with tossing unconditional support behind that?

Then Germans must support the Holocaust.
And Japanese must support the Rape of Nanking.
The Chinese must always give nod to the Cultural Revolution.
The French must agree with the Reign of Terror.
We Americans must hold that My Lai was good.
The Russians must aprove of the gulags.
The British must be ok with imperialism.
And so on and so forth. There's a lot of wrong done in a country's name that, usually, as soon as it is challenged those who have done it start screaming about patriotism and the lack of it in those who would challenge it.

I would much rather prefer the patriotism of "My country, may she always be right, and may we have the will to change her when she is wrong."

As for teaching children, I think it's a fine line to walk. Japan, due to its past nationalism, has issues with its flag and its anthem. There is a large fight between the nationals who want patriotism taught in the schools, where teachers have to force students to stand and sing, and will walk through and make notes of any child not doing so (Yes, this was a law in Tokyo), and those who remember all too well the secret police doing the exact same thing in Japan in the 1930's before it launched into a patriotic war that culminated in Japan's ruin.

Having said that, my students have, what I feel, is a helathy dose of patriotism. They love their country, they are proud of being Japanese, but they do not feel the need to wave a flag in everyone esle's face or sing Kimigayo at the drop of a hat.

No, there's nothing at all wrong with patriotism. There's nothing wrong with your child learning the pledge either.


As for the idea/view/theory that nations and borders are or should be irrelevant. That of "global citizenship" over state, nation and country.. I find this sort of globalistic ideological bile to be disgusting and quite perverse.

Wow, it took me until first or second grade to even know what the words were...I always tried to fake it. Of course I stopped saying the BS in 7th grade...

It amazes me that few people can even say the first 15 words of the anthem. they did a thing on Jay Leno about this a few weeks ago. The pledge is retarded. they never explain it and no on ever thinks baout what it means.

Wow, it took me until first or second grade to even know what the words were...I always tried to fake it. Of course I stopped saying the BS in 7th grade...

It amazes me that few people can even say the first 15 words of the anthem. they did a thing on Jay Leno about this a few weeks ago. The pledge is retarded. they never explain it and no on ever thinks baout what it means.

Me too... cuz after that I started doing this seemingly odd practice of combining thoughts and making concepts.

Works wonders for one's confidence.

I would much rather prefer the patriotism of "My country, may she always be right, and may we have the will to change her when she is wrong."



*nods*

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.


Or we fail to see how pledges and oaths to authority qualifies as "patriotic" celebration of a nation formed via an act of insubordination and rebellion. If this country needs anything at the moment, it's a good dose of insubordination and rebellion. Indeed, where have all the patriots (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Minuteman-250px.jpg) gone?

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?

I don't have a direct problem with the pledge of allegiance(sp?). I said it when I was a kid and look how I turned out! :D

I am a little disapproving of the fact that children who say the Pledge have no idea what they are saying, or the power of those words. It kind of diminishes the Pledge a bit. Lewis Black said it best:

"By the time children understand the Pledge of allegiance, they don't have to say it anymore." and

"The Pledge, ultimately is coffee for elementary school students. 'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. ... Fuck! I'm in School!!' " -Lewis Black

Being a patriot will make my prospect of ruling the world much more difficult. So yes, it is bad. Very, very bad.

Every child should know the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Athem. It's part of a country and each and every country teaches its young their respective songs, sayings, etc. There's nothing wrong with it and that is part of the reason that the Pledge is said in schools each and every day and why the National Athem is sung before sports games and such. The day when I am not allowed to say either whenever I want is the day that the PC police has won and that is a day when America is not the land of the free.

It is always wrong to be patriotic; it privileges some people over others and involves servility towards an entity that does not even deserve to exist, let alone be honored.

Ditto.

Patriotism has no basis in reason, and is really only the result of indoctrination and the culture a person is raised in.

I think its good as long as you can admit that every country has its flaws and no one country is bettre than the others in every respect AND that we are all part of a global village and we have to rely on each other. As dumb and incorrect as the statement is: No country is an island. I obviously mean that metaphorically.

Is that a reference to Paranoia?

Back on topic, I have no problem with moderate patriotism. That is, you respect your country, it's acheivements, and it's ideologies. With respect to the video, it was cute.

yep! *hands out cookie*

As has been said, moderate patriotism is fine. Hell, everyone in the world should have a basic level of pride in their nation, because it leads them to want to make it better. I find it funny that the OP has such a distorted view of those who do not feel compelled to overdo patriotism, though. Not wanting kids to have to parrot a pledge, especially one that includes an acknowledgement of a god in which they may or may not believe, does not mean that one disapproves of patiotism.

What is "patriotism" then, in your conception?
Love of your own country and its culture. People in America think that the Republicans are a "patriotic" party, while they're actually a nationalist/fascist party.

As has been said, moderate patriotism is fine. Hell, everyone in the world should have a basic level of pride in their nation, because it leads them to want to make it better. I find it funny that the OP has such a distorted view of those who do not feel compelled to overdo patriotism, though. Not wanting kids to have to parrot a pledge, especially one that includes an acknowledgement of a god in which they may or may not believe, does not mean that one disapproves of patiotism.

I don't believe I do have a distorted view, I have had many people tell me that they wouldn't teach their children the pledge because the thought of it makes them ill.

I was messing around today at my mom's house trying to fix her webcam, and my three year old begged and begged for me to make a video (http://media.putfile.com/annikapledge2) of her saying the pledge to email to her grandpa...

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?

It depends. Some people call me unpatriotic because I hate the way the United States national government is being run, and the policies it is spitting forth. However, I consider myself the ultimate patriot, because I care about the path my nation takes, and that it does what it was created to do, and what my ancestors fought over the centuries to protect.

Indoctrinating kids to what our nation truly* stands for: Good.

Indoctrinating kids into Government propagenda bias: Bad.


*: Freedom, Rule of the People. Not a nation for Corporations, like we're becoming.

It depends. Some people call me unpatriotic because I hate the way the United States national government is being run, and the policies it is spitting forth. However, I consider myself the ultimate patriot, because I care about the path my nation takes, and that it does what it was created to do, and what my ancestors fought over the centuries to protect.

Indoctrinating kids to what our nation truly* stands for: Good.

Indoctrinating kids into Government propagenda bias: Bad.


*: Freedom, Rule of the People. Not a nation for Corporations, like we're becoming.

*gives Wanderjar a cookie*

It matters if one's patriotism takes away the nations ideals.

In the US the ideal is that every person should protest any wrongs the country is doing. The opposite is to say that it isn't patriotic to criticize the government or those holding political office.

A person that is patriotic and loves the country demands the best of that nation.

I don't believe I do have a distorted view, I have had many people tell me that they wouldn't teach their children the pledge because the thought of it makes them ill.

How many of them objected to the pledge as opposed to expressions of nationalism? I hate seeing cars with a 3 mini-flags, 2 different yellow ribbons, and a "U-rah-rah USA" bumersticker, but does that mean I object to patriotism? Not at all, it means that I think there's a difference between patriotism and nationalism, and I find such displays either pathetic or unnerving. I'm sure some may feel the same away about kids having to recite a pledge on a regular basis. If the US has enough of which to be proud, why must we grind it into our childrens' heads?

The difference mentioned above is something I do not think you understand, and thusly, why I think you have a distorted view. You began this thread with the idea that there are those who teach their kids the pledge and those opposed to patriotism, hence I drew my conclusions. If you do not see something between the extremes, your perception is evidently flawed.

This is not true. Patriotism is love of one's country. Nationalism is the belief in the supremacy of your country and is much more politicised.
If one even goes so far as to state "I love my country" that puts a primacy on one's OWN country rather than any other country. You might say, "No, it doesn't mean that at all", but how about this: Do you think there is any country on Earth that Americans care about more than America (and no, we're not counting Israel:p )?

Patriotism is an exclusive type of love. There is nothing wrong with loving the people of a country, but when you begin to personify the country, then the head of the nation weilds power over you, because by extension, you love the head to some degree or another.

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.

I'm against mindless nationalism.


So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?

In my experience, the pledge of allegience doesn't indoctrinate the ideas it has expressed in it - the words just become a monotone to be repeated. Other things (media and culture) are more effective at indoctinrating people.

However, what it does teach is how to parrot authority figures on command. Which indirectly helps prepare for 'patriotic' nationalism/jingoism or of course, nazism or fascism or authoritarianism or whatever else.

It is always wrong to be patriotic; it privileges some people over others and involves servility towards an entity that does not even deserve to exist, let alone be honored.

(smiles) you have such heart. Nice to rub shoulders again.

But you were a little terse, so I'll amplify, since I mostly agree :)

The grating problem about privelege is that it is conferred upon citizens unevenly by the government (citizens whom by that gov'ts ideas should all be treated the same). Some privelege, when it is paired with equal levels of responsibility, and aptitude, is permissible. Some people have the aptitude to merit being exempt from regular restrictions, to pursue their duties more effectively

Such people damned few and far between. I'm not one of them. I'm certain that our masters include almost none, either.

The distortion is that the government claims to be advancing some virtuous and worthwhile cause... by exempting certain opinions from criticism, certain laws from cross examination, the special perks of certain classes. Both parties do this. This process advances no worthwhile cause. The government used patriotism as tool to help measure out patronage to the supporters it values.

And the point is that the State is simply the collective monopoly on the use of force. Force applied to try and prohibit undesired activity and strong arm or bribe people into serving the State's agenda. There is nothing inherently good in this authority. To be proud of it is like worshipping a club or a gun.

To be _servile_ to it, to bow and scrape and venerate it as a profound goodness is vile.

Power is a dangerous servant, and a terrible master. Yes, it feels good to look at a weapon and feel it will be used to advance what you regard as good.

But if what you regard as good _needs_ a gun or club _regularly_ something is very wrong with what you regard as good.

Patriotism is merely the logical conclusion of the creation and glorification of hte Leviathan, the collective authority and pomp of state meant to terrify all into accepting the decrees of the leaders.

Do you actually KNOW the pledge?

1. "...and to the republic for which it stands..." is NOT the object! It is using an object to get to a non-tangable.


Tell me in all seriousness that most people in practice make this distinction.
Especially young children who don't start understanding metaphors until age 10-12 generally.

More pointedly, tell me that they understand "the republic for which it stands". If most people do not understand the label on the box you are telling them to worship the contents of, they end up worshipping the box.


2. Of course it's referring to a Christian God. The guys who wrote it wanted it to do that. Many years now of misunderstanding the seperation of church and state have led people to believe that any mention of a Christian God in a state sponsored school is bad.


As you say, the original seperation of church and state was to ensure that _no sect_ received the State's endorsement. But you seem to have lost sight of the fundamental reasons this was so.

Practically speaking, It was a measure to uphold civil peace despite strong cultural tensions between, say, the Catholics and the Puritans and the Quakers (who in the days of the 13 colonies were moderately numerous and influential.)

The _real_ misunderstanding regards the process of law. Law is an ongoing education about what our inherited intentions mean when combined with our current circumstances and beliefs.

The point is, the common law system is all about keeping laws contemporary. It is about judges deciding when to say "things are different now" or "logically, this rule implies this rule". Without the process of ongoing editing, the laws would swiftly lose most relevance and be a barrier to sensible behaviour rather than an aid.

There is a well honed system for the establishment of precedents. It's why there is a court of appeals and a supreme court in each relevant jurisdiction. If three different judges say the _same thing_ (however approximate their agreement in some cases) then it is granted to be sufficiently likely the change is warranted. And if the change outrages public opinion, there can always be a law to override it.

Now, if the point is to favor no party over another, and to enforce "the King's Peace" over arguments regarding religion....how can the government support a religion, no matter _how_ generalized, and remain impartial ?

Would you trust a cop who was an abuse survivor to treat you fairly if you were falsely accused of rape ? For the government to take sides, even if one side is larger than the others, is to undermine its credibility with the minority.

That credibility is important. American government was all about the experiment of using a generous amount of _positive_ incentives, of rights and freedoms, to maximize individual liberty and make everyone feel safe from undue meddling from their neighbours.

Freedom of conscience was just one of the important freedoms granted to maximize the positive incentives of citizens to obey on the few universal requirements levied upon them. It worked surprisingly well for a long time.

The point is that as cases were resolved, it became clear that the State could not simply fund "all Christian churches equally." The task of saying what expenditure of tax dollars was fair was too controversial. If the faithful think a certain measure is worthwhile, they organize to provide it among themselves. Trying to step into the morass of competing beliefs and values and tread on no toes was too complex to be possible in practice.

Now, as time wore on, an unusual historical advent occured. There was now a significant minority of eclectic agnostics/"spiritual" types, atheists, Moslems, Buddhist, Hindus etc. And once a person of that persuasion could point and go "I'm not just some kook, Bob and Dave (or Jawarahul and Davinder etc) believe the same thing too. There's a whole community of us. " suddenly the logic of this tradition of impartiality became apparent.

The core of the laws regarding the State and Religion is this: if you cannot fairly endorse a single sect without effectively robbing the nonmembers of that sect of money and administrative labor by their leaders....you cannot fairly endorse a single religion, either. No matter how many people believe it.

The point is, the country changes. The laws must change to keep pace. The current vision of the separation of Chruch and State _still_ follows the essential dynamic of keeping the state neutral in matters of spirituality.

It used to be a politician could invoke the Christian deity...because that invocation excluded no one, nor represented a bias anyone objected to. The change that now a politician cannot make that invocation reflects how being neutral is harder when the population is heterogenous, not some corruption of the system.

You are either absolutely committed to a modern vision of the pursuit of happiness and the theory of liberty as JS Mill synthesized it...or you're not. It's one of those rare things where compromise is not possible. And these two things are _far_ more fundamental to the Constitution than "Christian values".

If the values of a religion are so worthwhile, then they should fare well in votes where they are proposed as a basis for public policy, stripped of their religious references. If they don't, then maybe those alleged values weren't so valuable after all.


...We just didn't want a Church of America to which everyone was required to do. Freedom of religion does not equate to freedom from religion. The idea was that you would be free to practice religion as you wished, not to omit religion entirely. If you want that to be the case, don't you dare call on the initial setup as support.

And in this closing cluster of statements, you show obliviousness to the purpose of not having a Church of America. There were no articles stating "Christian values" that were implicit in laws or guidelines for the courts. No amendments stating that every citizen was obliged to "be part of some Christian church, whichever they chose". There were no laws saying any law that any pastor or priest or elder could find a spiritual objection to was void. That's the vision you're implying they had.

The confusion stems from the indisputable fact that the founders were pious and Christian. It is natural to think that thus the document the system they established was designed to promote Christianity.

But what you're not seeing is that they could not find consensus for any _concrete_ measures in governance to reflect Christianity. They "voted with their pens" (in not writing legislation) to compromise on contentious issues of faith. By omitting any explicit role of the State in those matters.

People would always be free to be virtuous. And if they weren't free to be _non virtuous_ then they had no freedom at all.

Remember, in the eyes of the aristocrats, the founders were a pack of traitors and selfish, disobedient children. The founders realized to be consistent, to say that they deserved to decide how to live, despite Britain's opinion....they had to practice what they preached.

And thus as a mix of compromise and principle, they made no religious provisions in the nature of government. Do point out what articles in the Constitution or the bill of rights are explicitly religious. Beyond appealing to deity as their source of justification, ultimately, for their actions.

They wrote in an age when Christianity in their society had a near monopoly on the realm of spiritual opinion. So certainly they would look at the modern climate of belief (and the high incidence of non belief) with shock and horror. It would be inconceivable to them.

But that's the beauty of the Constitution. It was a mechanism for promoting the barest minimum number of essential values. Fairness. Consistency. individual liberty. "Let everything else take care of itself as much as possible". It was laissez faire applied to the political sphere. In turning its back on an explicit role for the state in religion, it was of the same nature as rejecting state intervention in the economy, of rejecting state intervention in private conduct of almost every kind.

The other path, where the state says such intervention is justified, had been tried to death in many variations everywhere else in the world. They saw this, and saw that the cure was worse than the disease, regarding religion.

No, they wouldn't have been happy with how their experiment has progressed. But they would also have to recognize that all that our religious plurality reflects is the still strong right to fail (in the estimation of your neighbours) to do right, so long as you obey the laws of the State.

Perhaps if they could have forseen this age, they would have written differently. But if they had, they would have been traitors to the values they said their Revolution was fought on behalf of. Fairness. Consistency. Liberty.

*gives Wanderjar a cookie*

Yay!

*does Cookie Dance*

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.

"A lot" of people would do that? Really? You think "a lot" of people are against patriotism, and would refuse to teach their children the national anthem or pledge because of it?

Weird.

I'm against nationalism. I'm against loyalty oaths. But neither one of those things equates to me being against patriotism. And neither one has anything to do with teaching kids the words to a song or a pledge.

"A lot" of people would do that? Really? You think "a lot" of people are against patriotism, and would refuse to teach their children the national anthem or pledge because of it?

Weird.

I'm against nationalism. I'm against loyalty oaths. But neither one of those things equates to me being against patriotism. And neither one has anything to do with teaching kids the words to a song or a pledge.

That, I believe, is wrong. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions.

I believe that Nationalism is important, as long as you're nationalistic for the right reasons, (i.e, you don't agree with our Dictator in Chief, and his manical views....)


Edit: I mean no offense to you of course :)

That, I believe, is wrong. But hey, we're all entitled to our opinions.

I believe that Nationalism is important, as long as you're nationalistic for the right reasons, (i.e, you don't agree with our Dictator in Chief, and his manical views....)


Edit: I mean no offense to you of course :)"It" isn't defined clearly enough to be for or against, in my opinion. My heritage partly defines who I am. Some of my heritage is the history & ideals of my nationality, but my culture extends beyond that.
I don't believe in being national-centric, because objectively, countries are just arbitrary divisions of people. I do, however, believe it's a good idea to understand where you come from, with all the implications, good & bad, that it has. History defines the world & our ideals & values our place in it.

Some kid saying the pledge is just that; some kid saying the pledge. There's nothing good or bad about it. It might be bad if the kid is raised to believe in national supremacy & imperialism, but simply knowing the pledge doesn't mean the kid's been indoctrinated.

I honestly couldn't care less.
We had to learn the words to our national anthem at school, and that was about the only time I ever sang it. I was 7 at the time, several decades ago now. I never understood how anybody could see patriotism or nationalism as something positive.

I guess I must agree in a way with you Similization.

Might I ask what you meant by your heritage? I am merely curious :)


Such as I am Scottish (Blair Clan,w00t!), Prussian, and many other things.

I guess I must agree in a way with you Similization.

Might I ask what you meant by your heritage? I am merely curious :)


Such as I am Scottish (Blair Clan,w00t!), Prussian, and many other things.I'm a Euro-Mongrel too, hehe. Slightly different pedigree though.

teaching it to them is not bad.

forcing them to say it is.

+1

it is wrong to be proud of your country "just because". you should have a legitamate reason.

I was messing around today at my mom's house trying to fix her webcam, and my three year old begged and begged for me to make a video (http://media.putfile.com/annikapledge2) of her saying the pledge to email to her grandpa...
I couldn't tell you the name of the Queen at the age of three, let alone, as a British equivalent, sing the national anthem. To me, it seems a little odd. But each to his own, I suppose.

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.
Memorising a few lines doesn't equate patriotism. I like the UK, sure. But I don't have a clue about the National Anthem anything beyond the first verse, if at all.

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?
Like I said, it seems rather strange. But really, how you bring up your kid isn't my business.

My sense of "Patriotism" has diminished significantly since the Bush Administration took power, and passed the PATRIOT ACT. I am still a super patriot for the US, but in a different, more dissident since, as I personally hate, and frankly fear my government now.


Like I've mentioned previously, I am considering moving to Canada or Austrailia after College.

I was messing around today at my mom's house trying to fix her webcam, and my three year old begged and begged for me to make a video (http://media.putfile.com/annikapledge2) of her saying the pledge to email to her grandpa...

anyway, it occurred to me that a lot of you probably wouldn't teach your children the pledge or the national anthem to your country because you are against being patriotic.

So, what do you think? Is being patriotic bad? why? is it wrong to indoctrinate kids with it by making them learn the pledge and the national anthem? why?

I am against the idea of 'patriotism'.

Let me explain - it is good to like where you are, want to be where you are, protect where you are, etc.

But, to make that a matter of purely politically decided borders is a bad thing. It makes me less accountable for Paco there, because he lives 2 miles from my house, but his house is that side of such-and-such a border, and mine is this side.


I oppose the pledge because it is indoctrination. I think it is essential that it be optional... but I would actually like to see it completely removed from schools, etc, until the pupils reach the age of majority. Otehrwise - you are making them say things they cannot fully comprehend, and have had no choice in decidining how they 'feel' about.

Now - for adults, I see no problem with a pledge to the flag.

(Although, I do think that Christians should remember that there is no perceivable difference between repeating an oath of alleigance before a flag, and bowing the knee to a graven image.)


As for the national anthem... again, children cannot fully understand all the ramifications of what they are singing, and have too little experience to make their own judgements. Thus, teaching them to sing the national anthem is indoctrinating them with propaganda... whether or not you believe the 'message' to be good.

I am against the idea of 'patriotism'.

Let me explain - it is good to like where you are, want to be where you are, protect where you are, etc.

But, to make that a matter of purely politically decided borders is a bad thing. It makes me less accountable for Paco there, because he lives 2 miles from my house, but his house is that side of such-and-such a border, and mine is this side.

Patriotism can also mean a love of 'nation,' which is not necessariy defined by political boundaries but cultural and historical ones. I don't think it's a bad thing... but as with social relationships, I think elevating one object of 'love' above the others is unfair.


(Although, I do think that Christians should remember that there is no perceivable difference between repeating an oath of alleigance before a flag, and bowing the knee to a graven image.)

That's a really good point.

As for the national anthem... again, children cannot fully understand all the ramifications of what they are singing, and have too little experience to make their own judgements.

Generally they also lack the vocal experience and technique to sing it right. All the more reason not to try teaching them to sing it.

Generally they also lack the vocal experience and technique to sing it right. All the more reason not to try teaching them to sing it.

Perhaps a better point than all the others... :)