Hacker News Reader

Comment by zanny | Hacker News Reader

Well, you had a lot of peer pressure in that pledge thing. If you sat and didn't pledge (hell, some teachers would force you to stand) your peers would become quite hostile.

I find that odd though, since most children love being rebellious over frivolous things like that.

View on HN

It is so utterly bizarre to ask children that young to "pledge" their allegiance to something. I didn't even have a functional understanding of what those words meant until I was much older, before then they were just words that I had memorized. But because it was introduced so young, it only had the opportunity to appear strange in retrospect...

It is amazing how our institutions enroll their new members into their private agenda with intent to promote the longevity of the institution, in the long term, and their immediate survival, in the short term. In some strange way, we feed off our young and consume them, rather than nourish them. Sad

Young children are ridiculously easy to indoctrinate. You see this type of thing with religious education and upbringing all the time. A lot of adults are religious not because they chose to do so, but because they were brought up in religious households and their childhood activities involved going to church. As such, religion became a part of their identity.

There do seem to be plenty of parallels; enough for me to feel confident that the mechanism is the same.

I wonder though if these systems were implemented accidentally or in a cool calculating way. The religion one seems like something that could bootstrap itself from true belief (if you honestly think that you have life figure out, chances are you are going to tell your kids), but the pledge one seems more calculated to me. There just really is no reason to have young children pledging allegiance to a flag and its government.

Personally, I'm glad my children say the "pledge" every day to start school. Yes, I'm religious, but I'm also liberal on some things. For instance, I think anyone charged with marijuana possession should be freed from jail-- that's absurd in my opinion. However, you have to draw the line somewhere. My childrens' identity isn't tied to "religion" per se, but rather "faith." But I wouldn't expect someone with hostility towards religion/faith to get that...

What do you think the benefits of having them recite the pledge at school every single day are? Some sort of loyalty to government that could not be taught?

If you think loyalty to government is a good idea, that is fine, but why not teach them why that is the case? I'm sure you have plenty of good reasons lined up, so give them those reason instead of making them recite a pledge...

It has nothing to do with "loyalty to government." It's loyalty to the concept of a free country, where you can even choose not to say the "pledge." I really don't care what you do. The point of the pledge has nothing to do with a physical piece of cloth, and everything to do with the "republic for which it stands." That's the benefit. It's a reminder to be loyal to the people, not to the mechanisms of the government. The fact that people from all backgrounds/countries can be united under common principles is the point.

So, no, I don't teach my children loyalty to "government", but rather their country, which, up until recently was pretty free from their government.

The pledge is not teaching, it is brainwashing. If you value the notion of a free society (and I am sure that you do) then you should be able to teach that appreciation (and I am sure that you could, if you tried). Explain to them why it is something to be valued, don't merely have them accept it as axiomatic by having them repeat it ad nauseam.

Also, the pledge is absolutely to a particular government; I don't know how that could be any more clear.

Your condescension does nothing to further your argument. And I'm quite happy with what I teach my children about their country--warts and all. I was simply replying to the GP about the pledge. If you don't like my opinion I don't care and you can go pound sand.

I don't think there was condescension in my comment. I am saying that if you believe something, you should be able to defend it. I am confident that you are right, a free society is something that is to be valued, and I am confident that you could teach it. If you are also confident that you are right, then you don't need to brainwash your children to agree.

So if you are pleased with what you are teaching your children, as you claim, then why is the pledge important? Your lessons should carry sufficient strength. Brainwashing is the tool of people who are not confident in what they say; it is not a tool for you.

Let me put this briefly: the pledge was used to teach children the basics of what this country values. You can argue that this is brainwashing. So, then, argue that teaching rote math and English rudiments is brainwashing. Children can't internalize the important concepts of the constitution when they're 5-6 yrs old. They can recite them for a while, but the ideas are too abstract until they get older. You say "indoctrination", I say "rote memorization until they can understand it."

Do you think my 5 & 6 yr olds will understand my explanation of what Snowden did, and why?

And, yes, there was lots of condescension in your comment, just so you know for the future...

If you value the notion of a free society (and I am sure that you do) then you should be able to teach that appreciation (and I am sure that you could, if you tried).

Not to be a dick, but if you were one of my personal friends and said that to me at a bar, I'd slap you in the nuts to get your attention. Maybe midwestern Americans take that differently.

If children cannot understand the pledge, then they are too young for their loyalty to a free society to be important. Seriously, when could that issue come up for someone who is incapable of understanding it?

Furthermore, the pledge is not some sort of "teaching through rote repetition". If it were, then why is it not done in social studies or american government classes (you know, like rote memorization of arithmetic tables is done in mathematics classes), why the emphasis on ritual (you don't stand up, face the front of the room, and salute a multiplication table...), and why does it continue past school grades for toddlers? What place does "rote memorization of why freedom is rad" have any place in, say, high schools? Those children are surely capable of receiving a proper lesson. And they get those proper lessons... but for some reason the pledge continues.

I don't think your interpretation of what the pledge it is holds water in the slightest. You are trying to treat it as something that it simply is not.

> "Do you think my 5 & 6 yr olds will understand my explanation of what Snowden did, and why?"

I am suggesting nothing of the sort. Not sure why you would think I am suggesting that.

> "I'd slap you in the nuts to get your attention. Maybe midwestern Americans take that differently."

Yeah, on the coasts we don't take kindly to physical assault in retaliation for minor perceived slights. What the hell... I hope you are exaggerating.

>>Yeah, on the coasts we don't take kindly to physical assault in retaliation for minor perceived slights. What the hell... I hope you are exaggerating.

I hope he doesn't treat his kid that way... holy hell.

No, i'm not advocating assault. Don't you ever slap your friends in the arm, or somewhere not as sensitive as your nuts, when you're trying to get their attention. That's what I meant--sorry to derail the conversation.

You lost all credibility with me by claiming you would assault someone over an argument.

Yes, my words were too strong, but we do frequently "rough house". I wouldn't literally hit someone there. But, you're right, it was out of line.

>>Let me put this briefly: the pledge was used to teach children the basics of what this country values. You can argue that this is brainwashing. So, then, argue that teaching rote math and English rudiments is brainwashing. Children can't internalize the important concepts of the constitution when they're 5-6 yrs old. They can recite them for a while, but the ideas are too abstract until they get older. You say "indoctrination", I say "rote memorization until they can understand it."

Memorization != Understanding.

Nobody says that they need to understand the importance of the Constitution when they are 5 or 6 years old. Wait a bit longer until they actually can understand it, and then teach it to them.

As a non-American responder, are you talking about the original pledge, or the 1948-1954 changes that added the words "under God" to it?[1] The original was formally adopted in 1942 by Congress, prior to this change:

The original: I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

This change was largely brought about by the realization that the pledge was dangerously close to the NAZI party's way of indoctrinating Nationalism (however Fascistic it was)[2] and that there should be some manner to differentiate between the good, moral, American version and the evil, unethical German version.

Nationalism (and Socialism) were ideologies of the 19th Century, and America does not have a great history of citizenship for all, with certain cultures not sharing in it until post WW1.[3]

So, I'm afraid: the pledge does, and always has had, a streak of Nationalism a mile wide to it. I find the modern American denial of this fascinating.

And, if you cannot see how it is used to indoctrinate children, then I am happy to provide non-wiki specific psychology papers proving that it does.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance#Addition_... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924

I'm talking about the current incarnation which makes the most sense to me anyway. I know there were different versions but I like the current version the best. And it's clearly the most "liberal" in language.

The only differences between the current pledge and the pledge as it was many decades ago are superficial. Changing the salute and adding the (problematic for other reasons) reference to a god serve to change the appearance of the pledge, but not its substance. It remains as nationalistic as ever.

(Also, the addition of the words "under god" and a reference to a particular government hardly make it more "liberal"?)

Actually adding "under God" happened in the 1950s and was about the Cold War and the fight against godless Communism.

Correct, though the Bellamy salute was phased out because of the Nazis.

Please read what I wrote, and the links provided. I stated 1948-1954, and this is exactly correct:

Louis A. Bowman [in 1948], an attorney from Illinois, was the first to initiate the addition of "under God" to the Pledge. The National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution gave him an Award of Merit as the originator of this idea...

President Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian very recently, just a year before. He responded enthusiastically to Docherty in a conversation following the service. Eisenhower acted on his suggestion the next day and on February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect

The "Daughters of the American Revolution"[1] were a political group that had considerable influence in American politics pre-WWII and their initial drives had nothing to do with fears of Communism (they were also against the revocation of the Bellamy salute until the declaration of war in 1941). So, your blase claim is not wholly correct ~ they're also a fascinating element of female power within the United States and the influences of matriarchal organization "behind the scenes of power" are little known, sadly. Well worth looking into.

However, yes, of course this period includes "the Red Scare", and this pledge was tied into this new strand of the American National Psyche. I apologize, I assumed this was a given at this level of debate.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revo...

Not every non-believer is hostile towards religion and/or faith.

I dislike the pledge because every time I hear it I'm reminded that Americans were once stupid enough to believe that modifying the words to it would be enough to thwart communist spies. It's like they forgot that athiests don't really acknowledge the concept of blasphemy.

Should I become Benevolent Dictator of some future anarchist America, the Pledge might actually be the first thing I get rid of. I'm of the opinion that if people are going to pledge allegiance to anything it will be because they want to, not because they were made to recite some prose.

Of course I know that opinion isn't exactly controversial around here.

Well, foundationally here, if you want to talk about voluntarism all those kids are forced to be there, and their parents often don't have a power to stop it (too busy to homeschool, too poor to private school).

There's a very compelling societal interest in having children receive a basic education though. We make kids get shots, require them to learn to drive to get a license, etc. for the same reason.

There's no compelling societal interest in brainwashing kids to claim to support a government (since even making them recite the Pledge hardly makes them more reliable citizens).

Public schooling often doesn't provide a basic education, though. The graduating illiteracy rates, lack of any retained historical knowledge ("is Britain a state? or "isn't Toronto in the US?") the inability to do basic arithmatic without a calaculator, etc.

It also doesn't teach anything close to critical thinking, problem solving, questioning fundamentals, or anything close to an exposure to career domains.

Also, the shots are at a parents discretion, even if peer pressure is applied. The choice to get a drivers license is inevitably on the child (you can't force them to take the test). Public education is compulsory by gunpoint (ie, imprisonment of parents who withhold their children from the public school system or homeschooled exams, though there are so many exceptions it is silly).

> This is not a form of brainwashing. This is not a form of brainwashing. This is not a form of brainwashing. There is nothing creepy about having children pledge allegiance every morning to something they don't even understand...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=618U-_8o31k

I rebelled against the pledge in my freshman year of high school. I don't remember any significant outcomes though, other than sitting through pledges until I started missing homeroom every day from ever-increasing laziness.

Likewise, I stopped pledging freshman year of high school with no significant consequences. At some point the school stopped doing the pledge.

On the other hand, a friend of mine was nearly suspended for wearing a military jacket with an upside-down American flag patch on the shoulder.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com