What Are Your Thoughts On Pledges Of Allegiance

[Aamayska]

For me, I honestly appreciate the Pledge of Allegiance when I was a kid. And up until now, I still appreciate it when elementary and secondary schools recite an oath of Pledge of Allegiance before classes. The Pledge of Allegiance doesn't really do much to be honest. In the end, is what they do in class is the end-all-be-all.

It is enough to inculcate to children to "know where they are" but not enough to brainwash them into thinking that your sole purpose is in this country alone. And besides, here in the Philippines, we need more dosages of nationalism and patriotism, a lot of Filipinos are leaving the country - and we are still suffering from brain drain because of it.


This of course is only applicable to my country.

Lol? Anti-individualist? Well, still to this day...I am still a little bit of an asshole. So I am kinda bit ashamed of myself to be honest.

I get the rationale, but I don't think good vibes are enough to keep people in place that have better opportunity abroad, which is why they leave. Conversely, creative people are usually less conservative, so you're probably shooting yourself in the foot by cultivating such an atmosphere, too.

But yeah, pledges of allegiance are anti-individualist. The purpose is to cultivate the "us", instead of the "you". Should you really be proud of your country? Is it inherently good for you? Irrelevant, the government decides for you. All the POA ever did for me was push me farther away from the US. I never wanted to be told how to act or think, even as a kid, but that's just me.

I think patriotism and nationalism are seen in a myopic manner- exclusively as methods of control and uniformity. While they certainly are anti-individualist, people today- especially in western countries- tend to have a weird obsession with individualism imo. Like everything, it exists on a sliding scale. Technically, laws that limit behavior in any form are anti-individualist, as are ideas of culture, ethnicity, religion, and nationhood in general. There's a difference between demanding conformity and simply providing an opportunity for communality.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I get the rationale, but I don't think good vibes are enough to keep people in place that have better opportunity abroad, which is why they leave. Conversely, creative people are usually less conservative, so you're probably shooting yourself in the foot by cultivating such an atmosphere, too.

But yeah, pledges of allegiance are anti-individualist. The purpose is to cultivate the "us", instead of the "you". Should you really be proud of your country? Is it inherently good for you? Irrelevant, the government decides for you. All the POA ever did for me was push me farther away from the US. I never wanted to be told how to act or think, even as a kid, but that's just me.

I think patriotism and nationalism are seen in a myopic manner- exclusively as methods of control and uniformity. While they certainly are anti-individualist, people today- especially in western countries- tend to have a weird obsession with individualism imo. Like everything, it exists on a sliding scale. Technically, laws that limit behavior in any form are anti-individualist, as are ideas of culture, ethnicity, religion, and nationhood in general. There's a difference between demanding conformity and simply providing an opportunity for communality.

I would have to disagree that Westerners are obsessed with individualism. I think they like to think they are, but that changes very quickly when someone says or does something that conflicts with them and this applies to all political persuasions to varying degrees. Like you said, everything is a sliding scale and someone's idea of a happy balance between the collective and the individual will be someone else's extreme. My ideal concept of the things you listed would exist without coercion or engineering--nationalism with healthy scepticism, communitarianism thru volunteerism instead of obligation, culture without conformity and so on.

[Aamayska]

I think patriotism and nationalism are seen in a myopic manner- exclusively as methods of control and uniformity. While they certainly are anti-individualist, people today- especially in western countries- tend to have a weird obsession with individualism imo. Like everything, it exists on a sliding scale. Technically, laws that limit behavior in any form are anti-individualist, as are ideas of culture, ethnicity, religion, and nationhood in general. There's a difference between demanding conformity and simply providing an opportunity for communality.

I would have to disagree that Westerners are obsessed with individualism. I think they like to think they are, but that changes very quickly when someone says or does something that conflicts with them and this applies to all political persuasions to varying degrees. Like you said, everything is a sliding scale and someone's idea of a happy balance between the collective and the individual will be someone else's extreme. My ideal concept of the things you listed would exist without coercion or engineering--nationalism with healthy scepticism, communitarianism thru volunteerism instead of obligation, culture without conformity and so on.

When I say I see Westerners as obsessed with individualism, I don't mean what individualism actually is, but rather a very western, very idealized form of individualism. I should have been more specific. What's more I would argue any form of society engineers behavior and that it isn't necessarily a bad thing. To a certain degree, serial killers and rapists are non-conformists. I see no issue with attempting to engineer people against those actions, therefore I see nothing inherently wrong with engineering behavior. I do, however, believe in limits to social engineering, and in replacing our old, outdated methods of violence, threats, and exclusion with newer, more positive methods of inclusivity and empowerment.

[Neutraligon]

The pledge of allegiance should only occur in very specific circumstances, namely going into office, joining the military, or becoming a citizen. It should not be in schools spoken by children who have no idea what they are saying and have no concept of what it means to pledge allegiance.

[Uiiop]

The pledge of allegiance should only occur in very specific circumstances, namely going into office, joining the military, or becoming a citizen. It should not be in schools spoken by children who have no idea what they are saying and have no concept of what it means to pledge allegiance.

They feel entitled to have an badge that says "We are great". I'm not even sure it's about convincing them rather than just plain virtue signaling. An excuse to punish people in other words.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I would have to disagree that Westerners are obsessed with individualism. I think they like to think they are, but that changes very quickly when someone says or does something that conflicts with them and this applies to all political persuasions to varying degrees. Like you said, everything is a sliding scale and someone's idea of a happy balance between the collective and the individual will be someone else's extreme. My ideal concept of the things you listed would exist without coercion or engineering--nationalism with healthy scepticism, communitarianism thru volunteerism instead of obligation, culture without conformity and so on.

When I say I see Westerners as obsessed with individualism, I don't mean what individualism actually is, but rather a very western, very idealized form of individualism. I should have been more specific. What's more I would argue any form of society engineers behavior and that it isn't necessarily a bad thing. To a certain degree, serial killers and rapists are non-conformists. I see no issue with attempting to engineer people against those actions, therefore I see nothing inherently wrong with engineering behavior. I do, however, believe in limits to social engineering, and in replacing our old, outdated methods of violence, threats, and exclusion with newer, more positive methods of inclusivity and empowerment.

I agree, in general. So, how would you articulate what this Western individualism is? It feels like it's ultimately collectivist with a utopic endgame. It's very utilitarian in that it wants people to express themselves just enough for the perceived benefit of society. The methods are different depending on your politics, but the individual always feels like a stepping stone, rather than a thing in and of itself, if that makes sense.

[Makko Oko]

The pledge of allegiance should only occur in very specific circumstances, namely going into office, joining the military, or becoming a citizen. It should not be in schools spoken by children who have no idea what they are saying and have no concept of what it means to pledge allegiance.

Funny fact about that, in the US, the pledge of allegiance isn't even what is spoken when becoming a citizen, something called the Oath Of Allegiance is instead, you can read what it is below, it is quite intriguing.

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[Victorious Decepticons]

(USA)

As for the idea of indoctrination, I don't think the Pledge was effective at that. We mindlessly blabbed out the words and then sat down. I, personally, love patriotic/nationalistic iconography (ironically, far more now than when I was in school) - but there were PLENTY of my classmates who thought it was all bullshit, or simply a waste of time activity we were stuck with, and were glad when the school stopped doing it. As you might expect, opinions got more adamant as the students got older, with grade-schoolers thinking it was just meh and high-schoolers actually having arguments about it.

The one objection I have about the US Pledge is that it starts out, "I pledge allegiance to the flag ... " and that concept seems silly to me. Sure, we've got a cool flag that really exemplifies America in a logo - but it should NOT be listed first, above "the Republic for which it stands!" The allegiance, when present, is to the REPUBLIC, not our logo - and everyone beyond third grade or so knows it. It's really unseemly for big, bold, brash America to beat around the bush like that. We should say exactly what we mean. I would love to change the words to something like this: "I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the ideals for which it strives..."

I also have another perspective on the Pledge, which has nothing to do with patriotism, indoctrination, or any of the most obvious points of contention.

My school district was, and from every report about it that still trickles in, still IS, a needlessly-overbearing, totalitarian, authoritarian hellhole. Because of that, there was never a choice about the Pledge of Allegiance. When it was legal to make everyone say it, they did. When the courts said that it had to be a choice (if done at all), they banned it from the classrooms entirely rather than actually allow a choice.

The same thing also happened with the patriotic song. When it was mandatory, we'd say the Pledge, and then we had to sit still and quietly through one of about 4 possible songs (randomly chosen by the office secretary and put over the PA). The songs actually came from vinyl records, and they'd been played so much that it's a wonder the needle hadn't ground through the other side. By 6th grade, the music was unintelligible to anyone who hadn't heard the same thing over and over since 1st grade.

Due to the sudden switch from mandatory Pledge/song to NO Pledge/song, I got a different perspective on it than most. It caused a sudden change in how things were done, thereby making the results of the change very obvious. When it was mandatory, all of the kids had to shut up for a few seconds and actually concentrate on something, namely, getting the words right. This completely changed their behavior from running around screaming like little monkeys, to being quieter and more ready to get down to business. The song, which required us to just sit quietly while it played, calmed everyone down even more. Once it was banned, that mental switch no longer happened, and the grade school experience got much worse.

Because of that more than anything, I'm biased in favor of there being something at the start of each school day - other than attempts to just plow into the lesson plan - that forces kids to focus and then be quiet. Just jumping into the regular part of the day didn't work for this nearly as well as these excuses to demand a bit of mental focus and then silence.

[Ethel mermania]

Its got a lousy beat and you really can't dance to it. 1/5, would rewrite

[Aamayska]

When I say I see Westerners as obsessed with individualism, I don't mean what individualism actually is, but rather a very western, very idealized form of individualism. I should have been more specific. What's more I would argue any form of society engineers behavior and that it isn't necessarily a bad thing. To a certain degree, serial killers and rapists are non-conformists. I see no issue with attempting to engineer people against those actions, therefore I see nothing inherently wrong with engineering behavior. I do, however, believe in limits to social engineering, and in replacing our old, outdated methods of violence, threats, and exclusion with newer, more positive methods of inclusivity and empowerment.

I agree, in general. So, how would you articulate what this Western individualism is? It feels like it's ultimately collectivist with a utopic endgame. It's very utilitarian in that it wants people to express themselves just enough for the perceived benefit of society. The methods are different depending on your politics, but the individual always feels like a stepping stone, rather than a thing in and of itself, if that makes sense.

I see Western individualism as being limited to a certain expression and conceptualization of 'true' or 'proper' individuality as it relates to other things. Western individualism, in this sense, is like a moral judgement more than it is about the concept itself. It is always framed through choice. What do you have the choice to do? Who do you choose to be? And then paints each option as being inside of or outside of the circle of legitimate 'individualism'.

Identifying myself with an unacceptable movement is anti-individualist. Promoting unacceptable policy is anti-individualist. For example, it doesn't matter whether I'm arguing to increase government power to protect individual rights or to actively restrict those same rights, if I'm arguing for increased government powers to interfere in private life, I'm anti-individualist.

I argue that it's this labeling of the unacceptable as anti-individualist and anti-individualism as unacceptable as being 'ultimately collectivist with a utopic endgame' as you described. It's a double-speak version of individualism, where the only things that are individualist are things that are likewise 'approved'.

[Indomitable Friendship]

I agree, in general. So, how would you articulate what this Western individualism is? It feels like it's ultimately collectivist with a utopic endgame. It's very utilitarian in that it wants people to express themselves just enough for the perceived benefit of society. The methods are different depending on your politics, but the individual always feels like a stepping stone, rather than a thing in and of itself, if that makes sense.

I see Western individualism as being limited to a certain expression and conceptualization of 'true' or 'proper' individuality as it relates to other things. Western individualism, in this sense, is like a moral judgement more than it is about the concept itself. It is always framed through choice. What do you have the choice to do? Who do you choose to be? And then paints each option as being inside of or outside of the circle of legitimate 'individualism'.

Identifying myself with an unacceptable movement is anti-individualist. Promoting unacceptable policy is anti-individualist. For example, it doesn't matter whether I'm arguing to increase government power to protect individual rights or to actively restrict those same rights, if I'm arguing for increased government powers to interfere in private life, I'm anti-individualist.

I argue that it's this labeling of the unacceptable as anti-individualist and anti-individualism as unacceptable as being 'ultimately collectivist with a utopic endgame' as you described. It's a double-speak version of individualism, where the only things that are individualist are things that are likewise 'approved'.

Well said and I think that speaks to the wider disingenuous, superficial and illusory nature of Western culture. Identity is a privilege, not a right, be it personal or public and that identity is treated as both a product and a commodity in relation to authority. It never exists independently, or even semi-independently.

[Free Algerstonia]

they're ok if allegiance is being pledged to me

[Makko Oko]

they're ok if allegiance is being pledged to me

And in what real life scenario would somebody do that exactly?

[Free Algerstonia]

they're ok if allegiance is being pledged to me

And in what real life scenario would somebody do that exactly?

once i take over this planet and begin my life-long rule

[The Alma Mater]

Its got a lousy beat and you really can't dance to it. 1/5, would rewrite

Without the "under god" part it is actually quite snappy.
I do regret the author did not toss in the socialist words like equality and brotherhood like he originally wanted to use though.

[Bear Stearns]

And in what real life scenario would somebody do that exactly?

once i take over this planet and begin my life-long rule

based