<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 17 2003, 08:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 17 2003, 08:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think this all is because of <b>low self esteem</b>. Yes, that is my theory. Here in Finland I see our flag only in national-special-celebration-thingy-days and we don't have to sing or anything on those days. There's just a flag in the pole.
I'm proud of my country and I'm patriotic in a normal way and I sure as hell don't need other people to stuff it down my throat. So my theory is that USA has a low self-esteem and that's why it wants to keep everyone über patriotic.
Edit: It's like a olympic for retards: "I love my country very much" "But I love it even more" "But I love it most!!!" "Ok, the one who sings loudest loves his country most"
Silly americans trying to show off how much they love their country. No other country has that kind of need to show off. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> AH thank you! You described it perfectly. Incidentally, that's also what I think was the reason for the Iraq war (I read an editorial once that described it as bush's desire to show that the :white man still had power despite being bested in every other category.")
The Flag is more than a flag, it is the heart and sole of this contry. It is a standing testomony that, what it means to americans, freedom, will allways stay standing.
The origin of the 'Star Spangled Banner' (The US Nat'l Anthom) On Sept. 13, 1814, Francis Scott Key visited the British fleet in Chesapeake Bay to secure the release of Dr. William Beanes, who had been captured after the burning of Washington, DC. The release was secured, but Key was detained on ship overnight during the shelling of Fort McHenry, one of the forts defending Baltimore. In the morning, he was so delighted to see the American flag still flying over the fort that he began a poem to commemorate the occasion.
First verse of that poem which is the recited Nat'l anthom. (there are acctually 4 verses)
O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light, What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight, O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there. O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
As the Pledge goes, it is not so much a pledge to the flag, but to the country, and to freedom. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if you put the Union Jack up you get a letter from the local Council asking you to take it down as it may cause offence<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What is offencive about it? If you are in Great Brittain then you shoutl <b>expect</b> to see the Union Jack. Same as in any other country, you should expect to see that countrys flag. If it offends you, then leave that country. There is nothing offensive about sombody showing support for their country. And this bit about brainwashing, what do you call that article, the truth? Because it is from a seconday source, not an American who knows.
Not to push any buttons or any thing, but the royal family... They do not run the country,the prime minister does, but they are very important none the less. Same with the US flag. It is a sense of pride.
Spooge <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That leads me to the initial point of The Pledge of Allegiance and the abundance of "flag-wavers". Patriotism here isn't about moving outward and spreading Capitalism like a virus, it's about remembering our history. Remembering all the people who reached as far as they could and tried their best to make a difference or challenge adversity. Yes there have been deep scars in our history, but that's part of the remembering also. Saying The Pledge or holding your hand over your heart during The National Anthem isn't about obeying the government or hailing America, it's about remembering your obligation to those around you who are on the same journey to make the best possible life they can attain. The focus in the article around the school's reciting of The Pledge would lead a reader who doesn't have the opportunity to witness daily life here to believe that children are only given specific instructions and all other input is controlled. That simply isn't true. Yes I believe that lessons in schools are metered way too effectively by groups who have no business teaching children, but this society is so open that Nationalistic indoctrination is practically impossible. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awesome. This is by far, the most accurate answer of why we say the pledge I have seen.
<!--QuoteBegin--Josiah Bartlet+Sep 16 2003, 05:13 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Sep 16 2003, 05:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Sep 16 2003, 10:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Sep 16 2003, 10:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This newspaper or whatever it is just seems like some crazy, conpiracy theorist crap.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> God damn it man, I already explained what The Daily Telegraph is. Its not the bloody Socialist Worker! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> LOL, sorry. I just don't know what else to think of it if it's calling us "brainwashed". Any newspaper, far left or right, just seems like crap to me. I'm a middilist or whatever the hell you would call me. I'm not afraid of communists yet I don't like them and I'm also not afraid of powerful governments but yet, I don't like them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think this all is because of low self esteem. Yes, that is my theory. Here in Finland I see our flag only in national-special-celebration-thingy-days and we don't have to sing or anything on those days. There's just a flag in the pole.
I'm proud of my country and I'm patriotic in a normal way and I sure as hell don't need other people to stuff it down my throat. So my theory is that USA has a low self-esteem and that's why it wants to keep everyone über patriotic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? America has low self esteme because it shows the flag? I think Finland has low self esteem because it does not show off it's flag. Sounds like Finland is not proud of it's flag, the symbol of the nation. Thats like saying, I'm not going to show my flag because all of the other countries will pick on me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--Fluffybunny+Sep 20 2003, 12:12 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Fluffybunny @ Sep 20 2003, 12:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think this all is because of low self esteem. Yes, that is my theory. Here in Finland I see our flag only in national-special-celebration-thingy-days and we don't have to sing or anything on those days. There's just a flag in the pole.
I'm proud of my country and I'm patriotic in a normal way and I sure as hell don't need other people to stuff it down my throat. So my theory is that USA has a low self-esteem and that's why it wants to keep everyone über patriotic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? America has low self esteme because it shows the flag? I think Finland has low self esteem because it does not show off it's flag. Sounds like Finland is not proud of it's flag, the symbol of the nation. Thats like saying, I'm not going to show my flag because all of the other countries will pick on me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe Finland doesn't feel it needs to have its flag all over its country for its people to be proud of it.
I'm honestly surprised to see people so worked up about the term 'brainwashing', because it's an accurate description of any centralized education surpassing basic reading / writing skills. Public schools are there to feed the youth of a nation with a range of information supplied via a stately controlled curriculum. This fits the term 'brainwashing' quite nicely, and just because we're used to hearing more politically correct descriptions of this practice that's a necessity in our todays world, it doesn't make the statement less valid.
Anyway, being the third German after Crystal and Hyper to post in this thread, I won't tell anyone something new when I state that my country has big problems with everything patriotic for obvious reasons. Personally, I can not accept the basic premise of patriotism as I can't feel pride for the achievements of people in no closer than a random geographical connection to myself. It's thus difficult for me to understand the basic reasoning behind such things as ritualized pledges to a nation or its symbol, but I'll go with Spooges definition: <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Patriotism here isn't about moving outward and spreading Capitalism like a virus, it's about remembering our history. Remembering all the people who reached as far as they could and tried their best to make a difference or challenge adversity. Yes there have been deep scars in our history, but that's part of the remembering also. Saying The Pledge or holding your hand over your heart during The National Anthem isn't about obeying the government or hailing America, it's about remembering your obligation to those around you who are on the same journey to make the best possible life they can attain.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The most important point made herein is that such a display of alleigance to the nation has to be in concious memory of both the achievements as well as those aspects that are described as "deep scars". If you want to be proud of the Bill of Rights, you've also got to be ashamed of Wounded Knee and the fact that the inventors of modern genocide were US-Americans. This does, however, clash with the practice described in the article: I'm referring to the teacher who has her "three-year-olds doing it", which is after all I know not too uncommon a practice. Making young children who can not possibly have yet understood what the Stars and Stripes stand for in the entirety of the meaning do the pledge does in my opinion not only violate the philosophy Spooge described, it directely contradicts it: If children are growing up with the pledge, if it is a ritualized tradition practiced from the day they can memorize the text, they will barely be able of the concious commitment of "remembering your obligation to those around you who are on the same journey to make the best possible life they can attain". Instead, the pledge becomes a part of daily life, comparable to brushing ones teeth. Thus, making pupils do the pledge before they truly understand what the flag stands for by having studied the history and society of the nation it's a symbol of seems to contradict the very purpose of the pledge to me.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 21 2003, 01:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 21 2003, 01:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm honestly surprised to see people so worked up about the term 'brainwashing', because it's an accurate description of any centralized education surpassing basic reading / writing skills. Public schools are there to feed the youth of a nation with a range of information supplied via a stately controlled curriculum. This fits the term 'brainwashing' quite nicely, and just because we're used to hearing more politically correct descriptions of this practice that's a necessity in our todays world, it doesn't make the statement less valid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a negligible amount of curriculum control over our public schools in the US. Beyond grade school, in general, the only requirements are the names of the courses. For instance, in ohio as a junior you are required to take US history, but no where does it state that you should be taught a traditional "dead white males" approach, or a sociological history, or a revisionist history, or any other type of approach to history that someone can dream up. That's up to the teacher, or occasionally the principal or school board for the city.
I don't think that even fits your loose use of the term brainwashing, or the definition that I think most of us are thinking of: "Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs."
Back onto the original topic, I didn't think of the pledge as anything more than a ritual when I was younger, much like brushing my teeth. But there is a philosophical distinction that is essential to understanding why we see such rituals as appropriate. It is the idea of the "loyal opposition". I (and I think many others) make a big distinction between being loyal to the country and railing against its policies. Loyalty to the flag just symbolizes that you believe in the process through which we effect change, that you are commited to making the country the best that it can be, regardless of what you think of its current state. That is something that is appropriately expected of anyone in the country. Pledging allegiance to the flag isn't endorsing any policy or belief. It is endorsing the freedom that lets anyone, ANYone, from bob jones to the KKK, have their opinions without fear of prosecution.
Genocide was invented several thousand years before the English language was even spoken. There are accounts of civilizations being wiped off the face of the Earth by the likes of Sumeria, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, and the fledgling tribes of Judaea just to name a few.
Even recently take a look at what the Spanish did in South America and what Columbus did in the islands. To say the US invented it is ludicrous.
What the settlers did to the Native American population was horrible, but it was by no stretch of the imagination the first time one people had done it to another.
And on topic, when I was in elementary school in the 80s we said the pledge once or twice a week. The flag was, of course, flown at all of my schools but if I remember correctly we said the pledge to a picture of one on a wall.
In High School we didn't say the pledge at all. Not even in Civics or US History class. Did study the national anthem but I don't remember saying it in school, mostly at hockey and basketball games.
Some schools probably differed so mileage may vary. I don't consider it brainwashing really, because a variety of ideas are presented in our educational system. Most kids probably don't even understand the words by the time they stop saying it in junior high.
We do have to say it at least once at some point in order to be charged with certain crimes when they are committed. Also have to say it to enter government service and to be granted citizenship if I remember correctly.
<!--QuoteBegin--Kheras+Sep 21 2003, 09:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Sep 21 2003, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Genocide was invented several thousand years before the English language was even spoken. There are accounts of civilizations being wiped off the face of the Earth by the likes of Sumeria, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, and the fledgling tribes of Judaea just to name a few.
Even recently take a look at what the Spanish did in South America and what Columbus did in the islands. To say the US invented it is ludicrous.
What the settlers did to the Native American population was horrible, but it was by no stretch of the imagination the first time one people had done it to another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I have to apologize, what I should have written was 'modern genocide', referring to the concept of putting an ethnic group into camps with the primary aim of this groups eventual destruction, which the early reservations were the first examples of. I'll edit the post accordingly.
The other issues I'll debate tomorrow, when I'm not too sleepy to keep both eyes open.
I'd say that the reservations are still like that. Never sat well with me that we have a whole segment of society that's set apart. I guess that might be intentional on the Native Americans' part because there are few enough left that they have to stick together to retain their culture, but still...
I think Canada had/has problems along the same lines as well, especially in British Colombia.
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 21 2003, 06:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 21 2003, 06:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Kheras+Sep 21 2003, 09:34 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Kheras @ Sep 21 2003, 09:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Genocide was invented several thousand years before the English language was even spoken. There are accounts of civilizations being wiped off the face of the Earth by the likes of Sumeria, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, and the fledgling tribes of Judaea just to name a few.
Even recently take a look at what the Spanish did in South America and what Columbus did in the islands. To say the US invented it is ludicrous.
What the settlers did to the Native American population was horrible, but it was by no stretch of the imagination the first time one people had done it to another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I have to apologize, what I should have written was 'modern genocide', referring to the concept of putting an ethnic group into camps with the primary aim of this groups eventual destruction, which the early reservations were the first examples of. I'll edit the post accordingly.
The other issues I'll debate tomorrow, when I'm not too sleepy to keep both eyes open. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong.
The first Europeans explorers at America enslaved the natives and treated them terribly, killing them by the thousands.
Case in point:
There was an estatmated 20 million Native American's before European explorers, and it dropped down to 1 million in around 10-20 years time.
The camps that you feel are needed to describe modern day genocide were things as simple as farms. Eventually, when the Europeans realized that they ran short on their supply of Natives, they took Africans, as they could withstand normal European diseases, unlike the Natives.
And don't say that taking in Natives that would die to dieseases isn't genocide. The explorers weren't blind, and were clearly aware of the effects of things like smallpox or the common cold.
Spooge:
Your short essay owned this thread. Good post!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm honestly surprised to see people so worked up about the term 'brainwashing', because it's an accurate description of any centralized education surpassing basic reading / writing skills. Public schools are there to feed the youth of a nation with a range of information supplied via a stately controlled curriculum. This fits the term 'brainwashing' quite nicely, and just because we're used to hearing more politically correct descriptions of this practice that's a necessity in our todays world, it doesn't make the statement less valid. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not accurate at all. There is no more brainwashes in American schools than there is in convience stores. As you would find products to range differently from store to store, the same goes for every education experience in America. Why do you think that the standardnized tests in America are so hard to make? Every kid who takes them will always see something he never learned, simply because he was never taught it. There is very little coordination between American schools. Hell, there is little coordination between the classrooms in America, I know several teachers in one of my departments here at my school, and they teach things nearly completely oppisite from each other... while some of their material overlaps, calling it centralized is the farthest thing from truth imaginable.
While I'm unaware of the conditions used in schools in Europe, I'm going to guess from your assumptions that school over there is quite centralized, unlike ours.
Case in point: The pledge is not said in every classroom in America. It varies from teacher to teacher. Some teachers ignore it completely. Some teachers practically force kids to say the pledge. Calling it brainwashing is one hell of an ignorant blanket statement.
When I was a young child, I would say the pledge, true, everyone would, like an obident child. None of us really understood it. We just said the pledge like we obeyed our parents. (Being obident as a young child does not qualify as being 'brainwashed'. A good example of being brainwashed would be listening to the media 24/7, or how Nazi's would threaten you if you didn't believe what they wanted you to believe.) As kids got older however, each took their own meaning on it, and some stopped saying it, and others continued, whatever. If saying the pledge is brainwashing us then it failed with flying colors because apparently it didn't work at all. The USA school system does nothing to make 100% sure that you must say the pledge. If a kid has a teacher who makes him say the pledge, and the kid doesn't want to, then the kid can change teachers. If you think we are being brainwashed, then all I can do is laugh.
And onto my last point:
Yes, we say our pledge because we feel the need to make ourselves feel good. If I did not say the pledge, I would surely kill myself.
Man, and sometimes I think these threads are supposed to be serious. We say our pledge at important events(whatever is considered important, anyhow) as a tradition for all that has been done and said in our country. God forbid we say it at our schools, for our education certainly cannot be considered important.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'd say that the reservations are still like that. Never sat well with me that we have a whole segment of society that's set apart. I guess that might be intentional on the Native Americans' part because there are few enough left that they have to stick together to retain their culture, but still...
I think Canada had/has problems along the same lines as well, especially in British Colombia. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Believe you me, native reservations in BC are not like that anymore. Back in the day, yes. The residential schools primary purpose was to brainwash the culture out of them. There is a new resurgence again. I have many "native" friends who love their status cards. (Far less taxes, hunt and fish whenever, however, wherever) And you see alot of brand new housing in reservations thanks to the government. And their culture is now being revived. Watch the 2010 Olympic games in Vancouver. You'll see alot of references to native culture here. Heck, there are government processes happening to give them there own level of government. (Last I heard anyway.)
This leads me to a point. (Tying this hijack back to the original point) America has VERY little other culture to tie them together. Britain has (as many other countries) alot of history to be proud of. Here in Canada, there is a lot of pride in our country. We have all sorts of icons that define us. Traditions is another word I'm looking for. It isn't about pride. It isn't about brainwashing. It's about doing your own thing. Britain doesn't need to salute the Union Jack just because America does it. If the native people here in BC want to do there dances and hold potlucks, they can go right ahead. It's their thing that they do. You can question it, but you'll probably never get a really definitive answer that'll satisfy the emotions of both sides. I don't know if I'm making much sense.
Note that I deleted three posts to keep this thread from going down in flames. Get a grip.
I am honestly not surprised to see the main point of my post - that a 'training' to do the pledge in early age contradicts its very purpose - ignored, and instead see a minor point and half a phrase that isn't even necessary for my argumentation to stand attacked, but what the hell.
The first Europeans explorers at America enslaved the natives and treated them terribly, killing them by the thousands.
Case in point:
There was an estatmated 20 million Native American's before European explorers, and it dropped down to 1 million in around 10-20 years time.
The camps that you feel are needed to describe modern day genocide were things as simple as farms. Eventually, when the Europeans realized that they ran short on their supply of Natives, they took Africans, as they could withstand normal European diseases, unlike the Natives.
And don't say that taking in Natives that would die to dieseases isn't genocide. The explorers weren't blind, and were clearly aware of the effects of things like smallpox or the common cold. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my definition you quoted, I specifically mentioned "the primary aim" of modern genocide: "This [ethnic] groups eventual destruction". While it is questionless that conquistadores, explorers, and early colonists were incredibly careless towards the native population, their intention was not the removal of the Natives, it was the exploit of their workforce, which you prove when noting that "eventually, when the Europeans realized that they ran short on their supply of Natives, they took Africans". Modern genocide is characterized by the planned and often philosophically 'justified' intention of bringing an ethnic minority to death in a quasi-industrialized process. <i>This</i>, one can not apply to the Conquistida, whichs primary aim was gold and land, nor the crussades, whichs main aims were the occupation of important trade routes and resource sources, nor the antisemitic attacks throughout the Dark Ages, which were backed by a 'philosophy', but amounted in the death of single scapegoats or families of scapegoats, as opposed to a planned large-scale-murder.
The United States after Little Big Horn, however, were moved by two slogans: "Revenge for Custer!", and "Only a dead Indian is a good Indian!". Here, we clearly see an intention of killing as many people as possible because of their ethnic heritage. The reservations they were sent into were conciously supplied with too little nutrients to support the whole of their population. In addition, the land the reservations were placed on was choosen for its hard climates. Such ideas were pioneered by US-Americans, and later put to cruel perfection in the British colonies, the Soviet Union, and, worst of all, the Third Reich.
On an unrelated note, I am aware that I'm living in the most warlike continent of history, so if you were trying to land a pot shot by citing European cruelties, tough luck.
--
Now, for the whole 'brainwashing' issue. Note by the way that I did not specify this as an American issue, but as a necessity due to the basic concept of public schooling.
First, I'd like to point at the two different valid definitions of brainwashing. Let's open a <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brainwashing' target='_blank'>dictionary, and have a look:</a>
<li>Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what we first think of when hearing the term, and I assume that most of you operated on this defintion when resenting my claim, under which it truly can not be held. There's more, however:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><li>The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what I used.
No matter whether the curriculum is worked out by a federal government, a states government, a districts council, or a teacher, it will inevitably contain a number of reoccuring themes - be that 'Believe in god or suffer for your sins!' or 'Stay open minded and respect other religions', 'America is flawless' or 'Americas history has many very different facets', or 'Only believe what <i>we</i> tell you!' or 'Always consider all available sources.'. And give me a better example for "concentrated means of persuasion" than obliging all children aged six to eighteen to attend averagely six hours of this curriculum on five days of the week. See what I'm getting at? When hearing the word 'brainwashing', we always instantly assume the transport of problematic content, when in fact, the ideas of pluralism and democracy could just as well be transported. We use the word 'education' or 'character building' to describe the latter because we (and this 'we' includes myself) deem it positive, but the use of euphemisms doesn't change a practices nature. One might now argue that the means, which are in this case of a very timid nature, anyway, are justified by the ends, but I never implied this very specific instance of very mild brainwashing to be 'evil'.
Take this preface and look at the case presented in the article: Three years old being made do a pledge every day, five days a week. Now tell me how it doesn't fit. It <i>is</i> brainwashing. Accept this and ask yourself the truly important question: Is it agreeable?
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Sep 22 2003, 04:05 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Sep 22 2003, 04:05 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No matter whether the curriculum is worked out by a federal government, a states government, a districts council, or a teacher, it will inevitably contain a number of reoccuring themes - be that 'Believe in god or suffer for your sins!' or 'Stay open minded and respect other religions', 'America is flawless' or 'Americas history has many very different facets', or 'Only believe what <i>we</i> tell you!' or 'Always consider all available sources.'. And give me a better example for "concentrated means of persuasion" than obliging all children aged six to eighteen to attend averagely six hours of this curriculum on five days of the week. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well considering that you can pick your classes after sixth grade, you can drop out at age 16, you can pick your school including dozens of private schools that can be wildly different, or you can be home schooled, I still don't think it fits your definition. Do you consider any form of teaching to be brainwashing, no matter how heterogenous the content?
I think part of the reason its done every day is so that we know how to do it. I'm sure I was taught the star spangled banner at one point in my life, but I sure don't remember it now.
I believe I addressed why it's agreeable in my last post.
Saying the pledge isn't being brainwashed, even at an early age. It is no more of a brainwash than being told to eat your peas and carrots by your mother, even though they taste like poo.
Being obeident as a young child =! brainwashed. We don't even understand the pledge, and it's only once kids start to understand what it means do they stop saying it or continue to.
theres a blatant difference between being told to eat your carrots by your mother, and being told to repeat some 'pledge of alegance' speach about your country... every day... from an early age...
carrots are food, not political idologies. your mother is your mother, not the state.
well... you get the idea.
kids! their brains arent properly grown yet! i mean, who know what kind of sub consious effects this <b> may or may not </b> have. either way, it fits the definition of brainwashing well!
<!--QuoteBegin--Melatonin+Sep 22 2003, 07:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Melatonin @ Sep 22 2003, 07:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> theres a blatant difference between being told to eat your carrots by your mother, and being told to repeat some 'pledge of alegance' speach about your country... every day... from an early age...
carrots are food, not political idologies. your mother is your mother, not the state.
well... you get the idea.
kids! their brains arent properly grown yet! i mean, who know what kind of sub consious effects this <b> may or may not </b> have. either way, it fits the definition of brainwashing well! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Hello? The child doesn't understand the political crap behind it. To him it's respecting some weird thing. That's all. They say the pledge because their parents and teachers tell them to. No one tells him why, other than it's to respect our country. And that's all the child will need to know. To the child, saying the pledge is just like eating your vegatibles, except saying the pledge is easier.
Later on, as the child gets older, matures, and starts to form his own oppinions... then he will probably stop saying the pledge or continue saying it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Sep 23 2003, 05:03 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 23 2003, 05:03 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hello? The child doesn't understand the political crap behind it. To him it's respecting some weird thing. That's all. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So why should they say it in the first place, because they don't understand it? How about explaining it to them and asking them to say the pledge after they are old enough?
The kids say it because it makes them feel good to say "our country is cool! yay!". Not even all of 'em do it. I remember one kid that sat around eating glue while we said the pledge. Then, like clockwork, he'd run out of glue and cry until the teacher called his parents to bring him home. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
We're in far more danger of brainwashing as adults, and it affects people to a greater degree. Think back to when you were a kid and half the time you'll go "man, was I dumb", provided you can even remember more than a handful of things. Then look at a protest on a college campus over <x> and try interviewing some of the louder folks about their argument. The ones that can't even explain what they are talking about in a coherent thought are examples of brainwashing.
Annnnnnd........
Again, North America is not the most warlike continent in history.... not even in "modern" history. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif'><!--endemo-->
Look at the history of Africa and the Near East and you'll see conflicts that have waged for thousands of years, many of which continue today. Entire countries in Africa and South America exist in a state of perpetual war. Many more on the brink of it, hoping for their opponent to drop the other shoe.
Basically, where you have people and those people make up more than one group you'll have conflict. Where you have conflict you'll eventually have war. It is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 23 2003, 05:48 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 23 2003, 05:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So why should they say it in the first place, because they don't understand it? How about explaining it to them and asking them to say the pledge after they are old enough? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't think of the pledge as anything more than a ritual when I was younger, much like brushing my teeth. But there is a philosophical distinction that is essential to understanding why we see such rituals as appropriate. It is the idea of the "loyal opposition". I (and I think many others) make a big distinction between being loyal to the country and railing against its policies. Loyalty to the flag just symbolizes that you believe in the process through which we effect change, that you are commited to making the country the best that it can be, regardless of what you think of its current state. That is something that is appropriately expected of anyone in the country. Pledging allegiance to the flag isn't endorsing any policy or belief. It is endorsing the freedom that lets anyone, ANYone, from bob jones to the KKK, have their opinions without fear of prosecution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 23 2003, 02:03 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 23 2003, 02:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't think of the pledge as anything more than a ritual when I was younger, much like brushing my teeth.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Brushing teeth is not a ritual. It's essential to your well-being. However saying some pledge is not. Not at least before you even understand it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Loyalty to the flag just symbolizes that you believe in the process through which we effect change, that you are commited to making the country the best that it can be, regardless of what you think of its current state. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem here is that you don't believe in anything when you are 6 years old. You are not trying to symbolize how you love your country or whatnot. It's just doing something because you are taught to do it and imo I can't see the reason for this. If you seriously think it won't affect children(so it's not brainwashing), then it's completely useless! Why are torturing your kids with this kind of _useless_ stuff?! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Then again, if it does affect the kid, we're back to brainwashing. And imo, shoving personal opinions of politics or religion to a small child is brainwashing to a certain extent. Would you concider it brainwashing if some KKK-member starts teaching his child to hate certain people before the child can form his own opinion? I would, but then again it's only my opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 23 2003, 08:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 23 2003, 08:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem here is that you don't believe in anything when you are 6 years old. You are not trying to symbolize how you love your country or whatnot. It's just doing something because you are taught to do it and imo I can't see the reason for this. If you seriously think it won't affect children(so it's not brainwashing), then it's completely useless! Why are torturing your kids with this kind of _useless_ stuff?! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Because it's a cultural custom.
Surely you have customs and table manners you can't explain but everyone does it nonetheless. Don't say you were brainwashed into doing the customs either because that's ****.
<!--QuoteBegin--Forlorn+Sep 23 2003, 04:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 23 2003, 04:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Because it's a cultural custom.
Surely you have customs and table manners you can't explain but everyone does it nonetheless. Don't say you were brainwashed into doing the customs either because that's ****. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was brainwashed into doing the customs <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There is a difference between flagging everyday and doing something small/avoiding doing something while you eat. Now my table manners are pretty much limited in to a) Don't eat with your fingers(unless it's meant to be eaten so) b) Don't fart in the table c) Don't 'mess' food that others are going to eat(for example sticking my finger in someone others steak) Yes, I am popular with the girls <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
So my table manners are actually usefull to me, or to others. For example eating with fork benefits me, and not farting benefits other people.
Give a better example of something useless I do that could be compared to going out and doing something only for the sake of doing it. I can't think of anything.
Surely you have customs and table manners you can't explain but everyone does it nonetheless. Don't say you were brainwashed into doing the customs either because that's ****. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I was brainwashed into doing the customs <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you do the customs because you want to, or because you think it's right no matter what?
You weren't brainwashed into doing any customs.
Being obiedient as a young child does not constitute being brainwashed.
Nor does following your social norms. Following your social norms is well within your control and concencous being. I know when I do a social custom, it's only because people are used to it and therefore will think it polite; however when I do not feel like following it I most centainly will not.
I see a lot of education being confused with brainwashing. A parent teaching their kids can be considered brainwashing. Any information you learn against your will, when you are not informed enough to understand it can be considered brainwashing if you strech the definition enough. But we have to take some "brainwashing" in life to become informed.
Again I'm gong to bring up my point about the US having a high rate of immigration. Any country has cultures and costums and citizens of that country must eventually adapt to it. Since so many kids that go to public schools aren't native to the US or at least have parents who aren't the school has to provide some kind of cultural education to them, patrotism has always been part of America. If this kind of indoctrination didn't happen in a massively immigrated culture people would have a terrible time relating to each other, this just sort of gives people who aren't native to the country a certain middle ground to adapt to. Just like if you go to Britain you won't find many people who talk with South Carolina accents, and just like in France the majority of the people will be rude to you, and stink and eat cheese, erm, well you get the idea it's just the culture.
*Sigh*. When I made my point about brainwashing and how it is part of the eductaional process, this was in no way valuing. What I was trying to prove was that the use of the word in the initial article does not necessarily constitute 'America bashing', which some seem to regard as some sort of inexplicable crime that instantly renders any other point made by the same person invalid. Maybe we should drop the term, because neither side of this discussion is bound to the article and the points stand with or without the existence of brainwashing in upbringing.
Kheras, I'd like to note that I'm aware North America isn't the most warlike continent on Earth - I'm living in Europe.
Back to the initial point, we seem to have reached consensus about little children being incapable of grasping the background of patriotism. Thus, the pledge in Elementary is not justified by the practice of a philosophically agreeable action, it can only be justified as some sort of custom comparable to the sale of milk in school. The argument that usually follows is "<i>you </i> have many pointless customs, too, after all", which brings us back to my alltime favorite, the defense of relative dirt, but I disgress...
The matter of fact is that there is no objective reason for the pledge in lower school: If the children are educated to some sort of patriotism, it'll inevitably be an overly positive 'flag-waving' one as opposed to the mature definition Spooge offered, if not, it's a tedious and pointless piece of bravado that might even hurt patriotism via the "Man, was I stupid back then." - symptom Kheras noted. Well now, traditions that don't serve a purpose anymore were at all times discontinued. What good reason is there for the continued pledge of alleigance amongst small children?
Comments
I'm proud of my country and I'm patriotic in a normal way and I sure as hell don't need other people to stuff it down my throat. So my theory is that USA has a low self-esteem and that's why it wants to keep everyone über patriotic.
Edit: It's like a olympic for retards:
"I love my country very much"
"But I love it even more"
"But I love it most!!!"
"Ok, the one who sings loudest loves his country most"
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Silly americans trying to show off how much they love their country. No other country has that kind of need to show off. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
AH thank you! You described it perfectly. Incidentally, that's also what I think was the reason for the Iraq war (I read an editorial once that described it as bush's desire to show that the :white man still had power despite being bested in every other category.")
The origin of the 'Star Spangled Banner' (The US Nat'l Anthom)
On Sept. 13, 1814, Francis Scott Key visited the British fleet in Chesapeake Bay to secure the release of Dr. William Beanes, who had been captured after the burning of Washington, DC. The release was secured, but Key was detained on ship overnight during the shelling of Fort McHenry, one of the forts defending Baltimore. In the morning, he was so delighted to see the American flag still flying over the fort that he began a poem to commemorate the occasion.
First verse of that poem which is the recited Nat'l anthom. (there are acctually 4 verses)
O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
As the Pledge goes, it is not so much a pledge to the flag, but to the country, and to freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> if you put the Union Jack up you get a letter from the local Council asking you to take it down as it may cause offence<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is offencive about it? If you are in Great Brittain then you shoutl <b>expect</b> to see the Union Jack. Same as in any other country, you should expect to see that countrys flag. If it offends you, then leave that country. There is nothing offensive about sombody showing support for their country. And this bit about brainwashing, what do you call that article, the truth? Because it is from a seconday source, not an American who knows.
Not to push any buttons or any thing, but the royal family... They do not run the country,the prime minister does, but they are very important none the less. Same with the US flag. It is a sense of pride.
I probably sound repeditive, so I will stop now.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Awesome. This is by far, the most accurate answer of why we say the pledge I have seen.
God damn it man, I already explained what The Daily Telegraph is. Its not the bloody Socialist Worker!
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
LOL, sorry. I just don't know what else to think of it if it's calling us "brainwashed". Any newspaper, far left or right, just seems like crap to me. I'm a middilist or whatever the hell you would call me. I'm not afraid of communists yet I don't like them and I'm also not afraid of powerful governments but yet, I don't like them.
I'm proud of my country and I'm patriotic in a normal way and I sure as hell don't need other people to stuff it down my throat. So my theory is that USA has a low self-esteem and that's why it wants to keep everyone über patriotic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? America has low self esteme because it shows the flag? I think Finland has low self esteem because it does not show off it's flag. Sounds like Finland is not proud of it's flag, the symbol of the nation. Thats like saying, I'm not going to show my flag because all of the other countries will pick on me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> .
I'm proud of my country and I'm patriotic in a normal way and I sure as hell don't need other people to stuff it down my throat. So my theory is that USA has a low self-esteem and that's why it wants to keep everyone über patriotic.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa? America has low self esteme because it shows the flag? I think Finland has low self esteem because it does not show off it's flag. Sounds like Finland is not proud of it's flag, the symbol of the nation. Thats like saying, I'm not going to show my flag because all of the other countries will pick on me <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe Finland doesn't feel it needs to have its flag all over its country for its people to be proud of it.
Anyway, being the third German after Crystal and Hyper to post in this thread, I won't tell anyone something new when I state that my country has big problems with everything patriotic for obvious reasons. Personally, I can not accept the basic premise of patriotism as I can't feel pride for the achievements of people in no closer than a random geographical connection to myself. It's thus difficult for me to understand the basic reasoning behind such things as ritualized pledges to a nation or its symbol, but I'll go with Spooges definition:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Patriotism here isn't about moving outward and spreading Capitalism like a virus, it's about remembering our history. Remembering all the people who reached as far as they could and tried their best to make a difference or challenge adversity. Yes there have been deep scars in our history, but that's part of the remembering also. Saying The Pledge or holding your hand over your heart during The National Anthem isn't about obeying the government or hailing America, it's about remembering your obligation to those around you who are on the same journey to make the best possible life they can attain.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The most important point made herein is that such a display of alleigance to the nation has to be in concious memory of both the achievements as well as those aspects that are described as "deep scars". If you want to be proud of the Bill of Rights, you've also got to be ashamed of Wounded Knee and the fact that the inventors of modern genocide were US-Americans.
This does, however, clash with the practice described in the article:
I'm referring to the teacher who has her "three-year-olds doing it", which is after all I know not too uncommon a practice. Making young children who can not possibly have yet understood what the Stars and Stripes stand for in the entirety of the meaning do the pledge does in my opinion not only violate the philosophy Spooge described, it directely contradicts it: If children are growing up with the pledge, if it is a ritualized tradition practiced from the day they can memorize the text, they will barely be able of the concious commitment of "remembering your obligation to those around you who are on the same journey to make the best possible life they can attain". Instead, the pledge becomes a part of daily life, comparable to brushing ones teeth.
Thus, making pupils do the pledge before they truly understand what the flag stands for by having studied the history and society of the nation it's a symbol of seems to contradict the very purpose of the pledge to me.
There is a negligible amount of curriculum control over our public schools in the US. Beyond grade school, in general, the only requirements are the names of the courses. For instance, in ohio as a junior you are required to take US history, but no where does it state that you should be taught a traditional "dead white males" approach, or a sociological history, or a revisionist history, or any other type of approach to history that someone can dream up. That's up to the teacher, or occasionally the principal or school board for the city.
I don't think that even fits your loose use of the term brainwashing, or the definition that I think most of us are thinking of: "Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs."
Back onto the original topic, I didn't think of the pledge as anything more than a ritual when I was younger, much like brushing my teeth. But there is a philosophical distinction that is essential to understanding why we see such rituals as appropriate. It is the idea of the "loyal opposition". I (and I think many others) make a big distinction between being loyal to the country and railing against its policies. Loyalty to the flag just symbolizes that you believe in the process through which we effect change, that you are commited to making the country the best that it can be, regardless of what you think of its current state. That is something that is appropriately expected of anyone in the country. Pledging allegiance to the flag isn't endorsing any policy or belief. It is endorsing the freedom that lets anyone, ANYone, from bob jones to the KKK, have their opinions without fear of prosecution.
Even recently take a look at what the Spanish did in South America and what Columbus did in the islands. To say the US invented it is ludicrous.
What the settlers did to the Native American population was horrible, but it was by no stretch of the imagination the first time one people had done it to another.
In High School we didn't say the pledge at all. Not even in Civics or US History class. Did study the national anthem but I don't remember saying it in school, mostly at hockey and basketball games.
Some schools probably differed so mileage may vary. I don't consider it brainwashing really, because a variety of ideas are presented in our educational system. Most kids probably don't even understand the words by the time they stop saying it in junior high.
We do have to say it at least once at some point in order to be charged with certain crimes when they are committed. Also have to say it to enter government service and to be granted citizenship if I remember correctly.
Even recently take a look at what the Spanish did in South America and what Columbus did in the islands. To say the US invented it is ludicrous.
What the settlers did to the Native American population was horrible, but it was by no stretch of the imagination the first time one people had done it to another. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to apologize, what I should have written was 'modern genocide', referring to the concept of putting an ethnic group into camps with the primary aim of this groups eventual destruction, which the early reservations were the first examples of. I'll edit the post accordingly.
The other issues I'll debate tomorrow, when I'm not too sleepy to keep both eyes open.
I think Canada had/has problems along the same lines as well, especially in British Colombia.
Even recently take a look at what the Spanish did in South America and what Columbus did in the islands. To say the US invented it is ludicrous.
What the settlers did to the Native American population was horrible, but it was by no stretch of the imagination the first time one people had done it to another. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to apologize, what I should have written was 'modern genocide', referring to the concept of putting an ethnic group into camps with the primary aim of this groups eventual destruction, which the early reservations were the first examples of. I'll edit the post accordingly.
The other issues I'll debate tomorrow, when I'm not too sleepy to keep both eyes open. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wrong.
The first Europeans explorers at America enslaved the natives and treated them terribly, killing them by the thousands.
Case in point:
There was an estatmated 20 million Native American's before European explorers, and it dropped down to 1 million in around 10-20 years time.
The camps that you feel are needed to describe modern day genocide were things as simple as farms. Eventually, when the Europeans realized that they ran short on their supply of Natives, they took Africans, as they could withstand normal European diseases, unlike the Natives.
And don't say that taking in Natives that would die to dieseases isn't genocide. The explorers weren't blind, and were clearly aware of the effects of things like smallpox or the common cold.
Spooge:
Your short essay owned this thread. Good post!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm honestly surprised to see people so worked up about the term 'brainwashing', because it's an accurate description of any centralized education surpassing basic reading / writing skills. Public schools are there to feed the youth of a nation with a range of information supplied via a stately controlled curriculum. This fits the term 'brainwashing' quite nicely, and just because we're used to hearing more politically correct descriptions of this practice that's a necessity in our todays world, it doesn't make the statement less valid.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not accurate at all. There is no more brainwashes in American schools than there is in convience stores. As you would find products to range differently from store to store, the same goes for every education experience in America. Why do you think that the standardnized tests in America are so hard to make? Every kid who takes them will always see something he never learned, simply because he was never taught it. There is very little coordination between American schools. Hell, there is little coordination between the classrooms in America, I know several teachers in one of my departments here at my school, and they teach things nearly completely oppisite from each other... while some of their material overlaps, calling it centralized is the farthest thing from truth imaginable.
While I'm unaware of the conditions used in schools in Europe, I'm going to guess from your assumptions that school over there is quite centralized, unlike ours.
Case in point: The pledge is not said in every classroom in America. It varies from teacher to teacher. Some teachers ignore it completely. Some teachers practically force kids to say the pledge. Calling it brainwashing is one hell of an ignorant blanket statement.
When I was a young child, I would say the pledge, true, everyone would, like an obident child. None of us really understood it. We just said the pledge like we obeyed our parents. (Being obident as a young child does not qualify as being 'brainwashed'. A good example of being brainwashed would be listening to the media 24/7, or how Nazi's would threaten you if you didn't believe what they wanted you to believe.) As kids got older however, each took their own meaning on it, and some stopped saying it, and others continued, whatever. If saying the pledge is brainwashing us then it failed with flying colors because apparently it didn't work at all. The USA school system does nothing to make 100% sure that you must say the pledge. If a kid has a teacher who makes him say the pledge, and the kid doesn't want to, then the kid can change teachers. If you think we are being brainwashed, then all I can do is laugh.
And onto my last point:
Yes, we say our pledge because we feel the need to make ourselves feel good. If I did not say the pledge, I would surely kill myself.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>ROFLMAO</span>
Man, and sometimes I think these threads are supposed to be serious. We say our pledge at important events(whatever is considered important, anyhow) as a tradition for all that has been done and said in our country. God forbid we say it at our schools, for our education certainly cannot be considered important.
I think Canada had/has problems along the same lines as well, especially in British Colombia. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Believe you me, native reservations in BC are not like that anymore. Back in the day, yes. The residential schools primary purpose was to brainwash the culture out of them. There is a new resurgence again. I have many "native" friends who love their status cards. (Far less taxes, hunt and fish whenever, however, wherever) And you see alot of brand new housing in reservations thanks to the government. And their culture is now being revived. Watch the 2010 Olympic games in Vancouver. You'll see alot of references to native culture here. Heck, there are government processes happening to give them there own level of government. (Last I heard anyway.)
This leads me to a point. (Tying this hijack back to the original point) America has VERY little other culture to tie them together. Britain has (as many other countries) alot of history to be proud of. Here in Canada, there is a lot of pride in our country. We have all sorts of icons that define us. Traditions is another word I'm looking for. It isn't about pride. It isn't about brainwashing. It's about doing your own thing. Britain doesn't need to salute the Union Jack just because America does it. If the native people here in BC want to do there dances and hold potlucks, they can go right ahead. It's their thing that they do. You can question it, but you'll probably never get a really definitive answer that'll satisfy the emotions of both sides. I don't know if I'm making much sense.
I am honestly not surprised to see the main point of my post - that a 'training' to do the pledge in early age contradicts its very purpose - ignored, and instead see a minor point and half a phrase that isn't even necessary for my argumentation to stand attacked, but what the hell.
<b>Forlon:</b>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong.
The first Europeans explorers at America enslaved the natives and treated them terribly, killing them by the thousands.
Case in point:
There was an estatmated 20 million Native American's before European explorers, and it dropped down to 1 million in around 10-20 years time.
The camps that you feel are needed to describe modern day genocide were things as simple as farms. Eventually, when the Europeans realized that they ran short on their supply of Natives, they took Africans, as they could withstand normal European diseases, unlike the Natives.
And don't say that taking in Natives that would die to dieseases isn't genocide. The explorers weren't blind, and were clearly aware of the effects of things like smallpox or the common cold.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In my definition you quoted, I specifically mentioned "the primary aim" of modern genocide: "This [ethnic] groups eventual destruction". While it is questionless that conquistadores, explorers, and early colonists were incredibly careless towards the native population, their intention was not the removal of the Natives, it was the exploit of their workforce, which you prove when noting that "eventually, when the Europeans realized that they ran short on their supply of Natives, they took Africans".
Modern genocide is characterized by the planned and often philosophically 'justified' intention of bringing an ethnic minority to death in a quasi-industrialized process. <i>This</i>, one can not apply to the Conquistida, whichs primary aim was gold and land, nor the crussades, whichs main aims were the occupation of important trade routes and resource sources, nor the antisemitic attacks throughout the Dark Ages, which were backed by a 'philosophy', but amounted in the death of single scapegoats or families of scapegoats, as opposed to a planned large-scale-murder.
The United States after Little Big Horn, however, were moved by two slogans: "Revenge for Custer!", and "Only a dead Indian is a good Indian!". Here, we clearly see an intention of killing as many people as possible because of their ethnic heritage. The reservations they were sent into were conciously supplied with too little nutrients to support the whole of their population. In addition, the land the reservations were placed on was choosen for its hard climates.
Such ideas were pioneered by US-Americans, and later put to cruel perfection in the British colonies, the Soviet Union, and, worst of all, the Third Reich.
On an unrelated note, I am aware that I'm living in the most warlike continent of history, so if you were trying to land a pot shot by citing European cruelties, tough luck.
--
Now, for the whole 'brainwashing' issue. Note by the way that I did not specify this as an American issue, but as a necessity due to the basic concept of public schooling.
First, I'd like to point at the two different valid definitions of brainwashing. Let's open a <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brainwashing' target='_blank'>dictionary, and have a look:</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>brain·wash·ing</b>
<li>Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what we first think of when hearing the term, and I assume that most of you operated on this defintion when resenting my claim, under which it truly can not be held. There's more, however:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><li>The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is what I used.
No matter whether the curriculum is worked out by a federal government, a states government, a districts council, or a teacher, it will inevitably contain a number of reoccuring themes - be that 'Believe in god or suffer for your sins!' or 'Stay open minded and respect other religions', 'America is flawless' or 'Americas history has many very different facets', or 'Only believe what <i>we</i> tell you!' or 'Always consider all available sources.'.
And give me a better example for "concentrated means of persuasion" than obliging all children aged six to eighteen to attend averagely six hours of this curriculum on five days of the week.
See what I'm getting at? When hearing the word 'brainwashing', we always instantly assume the transport of problematic content, when in fact, the ideas of pluralism and democracy could just as well be transported. We use the word 'education' or 'character building' to describe the latter because we (and this 'we' includes myself) deem it positive, but the use of euphemisms doesn't change a practices nature. One might now argue that the means, which are in this case of a very timid nature, anyway, are justified by the ends, but I never implied this very specific instance of very mild brainwashing to be 'evil'.
Take this preface and look at the case presented in the article: Three years old being made do a pledge every day, five days a week. Now tell me how it doesn't fit.
It <i>is</i> brainwashing. Accept this and ask yourself the truly important question: Is it agreeable?
And give me a better example for "concentrated means of persuasion" than obliging all children aged six to eighteen to attend averagely six hours of this curriculum on five days of the week. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well considering that you can pick your classes after sixth grade, you can drop out at age 16, you can pick your school including dozens of private schools that can be wildly different, or you can be home schooled, I still don't think it fits your definition. Do you consider any form of teaching to be brainwashing, no matter how heterogenous the content?
I think part of the reason its done every day is so that we know how to do it. I'm sure I was taught the star spangled banner at one point in my life, but I sure don't remember it now.
I believe I addressed why it's agreeable in my last post.
Saying the pledge isn't being brainwashed, even at an early age. It is no more of a brainwash than being told to eat your peas and carrots by your mother, even though they taste like poo.
Being obeident as a young child =! brainwashed. We don't even understand the pledge, and it's only once kids start to understand what it means do they stop saying it or continue to.
carrots are food, not political idologies.
your mother is your mother, not the state.
well... you get the idea.
kids! their brains arent properly grown yet!
i mean, who know what kind of sub consious effects this <b> may or may not </b> have.
either way, it fits the definition of brainwashing well!
I've explained how the pledge isn't a political ideology.
carrots are food, not political idologies.
your mother is your mother, not the state.
well... you get the idea.
kids! their brains arent properly grown yet!
i mean, who know what kind of sub consious effects this <b> may or may not </b> have.
either way, it fits the definition of brainwashing well! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hello? The child doesn't understand the political crap behind it. To him it's respecting some weird thing. That's all. They say the pledge because their parents and teachers tell them to. No one tells him why, other than it's to respect our country. And that's all the child will need to know. To the child, saying the pledge is just like eating your vegatibles, except saying the pledge is easier.
Later on, as the child gets older, matures, and starts to form his own oppinions... then he will probably stop saying the pledge or continue saying it.
So why should they say it in the first place, because they don't understand it? How about explaining it to them and asking them to say the pledge after they are old enough?
We're in far more danger of brainwashing as adults, and it affects people to a greater degree. Think back to when you were a kid and half the time you'll go "man, was I dumb", provided you can even remember more than a handful of things. Then look at a protest on a college campus over <x> and try interviewing some of the louder folks about their argument. The ones that can't even explain what they are talking about in a coherent thought are examples of brainwashing.
Annnnnnd........
Again, North America is not the most warlike continent in history.... not even in "modern" history. <!--emo&::marine::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/marine.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='marine.gif'><!--endemo-->
Look at the history of Africa and the Near East and you'll see conflicts that have waged for thousands of years, many of which continue today. Entire countries in Africa and South America exist in a state of perpetual war. Many more on the brink of it, hoping for their opponent to drop the other shoe.
Basically, where you have people and those people make up more than one group you'll have conflict. Where you have conflict you'll eventually have war. It is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't think of the pledge as anything more than a ritual when I was younger, much like brushing my teeth. But there is a philosophical distinction that is essential to understanding why we see such rituals as appropriate. It is the idea of the "loyal opposition". I (and I think many others) make a big distinction between being loyal to the country and railing against its policies. Loyalty to the flag just symbolizes that you believe in the process through which we effect change, that you are commited to making the country the best that it can be, regardless of what you think of its current state. That is something that is appropriately expected of anyone in the country. Pledging allegiance to the flag isn't endorsing any policy or belief. It is endorsing the freedom that lets anyone, ANYone, from bob jones to the KKK, have their opinions without fear of prosecution. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Brushing teeth is not a ritual. It's essential to your well-being. However saying some pledge is not. Not at least before you even understand it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Loyalty to the flag just symbolizes that you believe in the process through which we effect change, that you are commited to making the country the best that it can be, regardless of what you think of its current state. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem here is that you don't believe in anything when you are 6 years old. You are not trying to symbolize how you love your country or whatnot. It's just doing something because you are taught to do it and imo I can't see the reason for this. If you seriously think it won't affect children(so it's not brainwashing), then it's completely useless! Why are torturing your kids with this kind of _useless_ stuff?! <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Then again, if it does affect the kid, we're back to brainwashing. And imo, shoving personal opinions of politics or religion to a small child is brainwashing to a certain extent. Would you concider it brainwashing if some KKK-member starts teaching his child to hate certain people before the child can form his own opinion? I would, but then again it's only my opinion.
Because it's a cultural custom.
Surely you have customs and table manners you can't explain but everyone does it nonetheless. Don't say you were brainwashed into doing the customs either because that's ****.
Surely you have customs and table manners you can't explain but everyone does it nonetheless. Don't say you were brainwashed into doing the customs either because that's ****. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was brainwashed into doing the customs <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
There is a difference between flagging everyday and doing something small/avoiding doing something while you eat. Now my table manners are pretty much limited in to
a) Don't eat with your fingers(unless it's meant to be eaten so)
b) Don't fart in the table
c) Don't 'mess' food that others are going to eat(for example sticking my finger in someone others steak)
Yes, I am popular with the girls <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
So my table manners are actually usefull to me, or to others. For example eating with fork benefits me, and not farting benefits other people.
Give a better example of something useless I do that could be compared to going out and doing something only for the sake of doing it. I can't think of anything.
Surely you have customs and table manners you can't explain but everyone does it nonetheless. Don't say you were brainwashed into doing the customs either because that's ****. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was brainwashed into doing the customs <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you do the customs because you want to, or because you think it's right no matter what?
You weren't brainwashed into doing any customs.
Being obiedient as a young child does not constitute being brainwashed.
Nor does following your social norms. Following your social norms is well within your control and concencous being. I know when I do a social custom, it's only because people are used to it and therefore will think it polite; however when I do not feel like following it I most centainly will not.
But we have to take some "brainwashing" in life to become informed.
Maybe we should drop the term, because neither side of this discussion is bound to the article and the points stand with or without the existence of brainwashing in upbringing.
Kheras, I'd like to note that I'm aware North America isn't the most warlike continent on Earth - I'm living in Europe.
Back to the initial point, we seem to have reached consensus about little children being incapable of grasping the background of patriotism. Thus, the pledge in Elementary is not justified by the practice of a philosophically agreeable action, it can only be justified as some sort of custom comparable to the sale of milk in school. The argument that usually follows is "<i>you </i> have many pointless customs, too, after all", which brings us back to my alltime favorite, the defense of relative dirt, but I disgress...
The matter of fact is that there is no objective reason for the pledge in lower school: If the children are educated to some sort of patriotism, it'll inevitably be an overly positive 'flag-waving' one as opposed to the mature definition Spooge offered, if not, it's a tedious and pointless piece of bravado that might even hurt patriotism via the "Man, was I stupid back then." - symptom Kheras noted.
Well now, traditions that don't serve a purpose anymore were at all times discontinued. What good reason is there for the continued pledge of alleigance amongst small children?