Several years ago, when I served on the governing council for a public school my kids attended, our hamlet suddenly had to deal with THE PLEDGE. Chapel Hill is blissfully liberal and the majority of our elementary and middle schools weren't having kids recite the pledge daily, weekly or monthly. Most parents had not realized that and most, when they found out, were discomfitted. The School Board decided to defer to site-based management and said each school should chart its own way. At my school, we polled our public. We had our teachers send in anonomous ballots and asked our parents to come and speak to our board. Ultimately, 92% of the teachers who responded said they would like to regularly say the pledge and, of the parents that came to plead their case, all but one said 'Say the pledge."
Now this put me in an awkward place. I am profoundly against the "under God" addition to the pledge. It was added for racist reasons and it disrupts the flow of words. But, I was an elected representative, chosen to represent the views of the parents. The parents who had spoken on this issue were clear. They wanted their kids to say the pledge. So, when our board voted, I ended up being the only person who voted to have our kids regularly say the pledge. I decided that my role as a representative was to represent the will of my constituency.
My children have never learned the pledge of allegiance in the schools and we don't say it at home. However, it's not clear to me that it is educationally viable to take all references to God and Christianity out of the schools. As this article from the NYT makes clear, God was a big part of the founding of America and it's hard to envision Washington or his peers without their profound belief in an all powerful God.
*******************************
Lately I have been thinking about the idea that it's the winners who write history. I think that notion has been turned on its head in modern times and now, it is those who were downtrodden whose stories have more academic weight. I don't have a problem with that per se. However, if it is the "loser's" version that we want to make our children aware of, let's make sure we analyze their versions for bias as well. No one is perfect. Power corrupts. History's tale will always be based in bias--let's not forget that while we learn the stories of its victems.
Monday, December 06, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I would disagree with the assertion that we have somehow swung to the "losers" side as far as history goes. Reading any stock public school history textbook can tell you that the underbelly of history is routinely looked over. You don't see expoundments on the Spanish Civil War in Modern European History classes, or the Haymarket Revolts in American History. You rarely if ever hear about the handful of important women in history or other minorities, and you tend to hear the same glossed over facts of history's "victors" who were very often not the kind of men anyone should be adoring. The fact that some history textbooks have thrown a couple bones out that have upset conservative whitewashers, does not mean that history is siding on the side of the lsoers.
Dabney,
Two points:
(1.) Removing the pledge or even the "Under God" part does not mean removing all mention of religion from school. Religion has played a big role in American (well, in all history) and should be explained in history class. That is different to having children swear an oath daily that the United States is "Under God" or even 'indivisible" (what about those poor secessionists?).
(2.) My second point is actually a question: what were some of the arguments that parents gave for forcing children to say the pledge? Was it simply a tradition? Did they see it as a form of education? Was it mostly an emotional reaction?
Thanks,
Carl/catfish
Parents wanted their kids to say the pledge because:
1) the parents had done so as children and considered it a part of their childhood that they wanted their children to experience as well--call it the pull of tradition.
2) they felt saying the pledge was a way of supporting their country--they believed in the value of that kind of patriotism. Interestingly enough, the most ardent pleas to say the pledge came from immigrants who had become Americans and were proud of their new country.
3) they were uncomfortable with the idea that the schools had made this choice without any input from the community--they wanted to be the ones who decided whether or not their kids said the pledge.
As for the point made about textbooks in the schools, Anonymous is completely correct. I was thinking more about the adult world,in particular the world of colleges and universities as well as the world of the high end press--the NYT, NPR, and such.
I'm not in favor of the "under God" addition to the pledge because I believe it does imply government endorsement of religion, but ... it was added for RACIST REASONS? What racist reasons?
-- Cathy Young, here via isthatlegal.org
Cathy is right--I should have said anti-communist reasons. I was confused in my issues, but I am still against this addition due to its historical intent.
"In 1953, the Roman Catholic men's group, the Knights of Columbus mounted a campaign to add the words "under God" to the Pledge. The nation was suffering through the height of the cold war, and the McCarthy communist witch hunt. Partly in reaction to these factors, a reported 15 resolutions were initiated in Congress to change the pledge. They got nowhere until Rev. George Docherty (1911 - ) preached a sermon that was attended by President Eisenhower and the national press corps on 1954-FEB-7. His sermon said in part: "Apart from the mention of the phrase 'the United States of America,' it could be the pledge of any republic. In fact, I could hear little Muscovites repeat a similar pledge to their hammer-and-sickle flag in Moscow." After the service, President Eisenhower said that he agreed with the sermon. In the following weeks, the news spread, and public opinion grew. Three days later, Senator Homer Ferguson, (R-MI), sponsored a bill to add God to the Pledge. It was approved as a joint resolution 1954-JUN-8. It was signed into law on Flag Day, JUN-14. President Eisenhower said at the time: "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." 4 With the addition of "under God" to the Pledge, it became both "a patriotic oath and a public prayer...Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change." 3
This info is taken fromhttp://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
It's the "under God" part which was always a problem for me. I'm 35 now, and grew up with the pledge through early elementary school (and occassional occurances through high school). I've always been an atheist and every day was placed in the stressful situation of how to deal with publically, falsely proclaiming my allegiance to God. Sometimes I would just say the words, sometimes I would leave out the "under God" part, and sometimes I would stand quietly throughout the pledge. But I was six... years old, I didn't ever have the courage to just sit through the pledge, I didn't even realize that open dissent was an option.
I don't remember how it happened, but I bet some of my classmates noticed that I wasn't really saying the pledge all the time like they were. When I was asked about it I explained I didn't beleive in God. I never got beat up for it, so I won't claim persecution, but I did get harassed about my nonbelief for years. (This was in a pretty liberal East coast area with a university around the corner. I hate to think what someone in a strongly conservative religious community would face.)
While I know that what I faced shouldn't be considered persecution, it gave me that feeling and that feeling has stuck with me. What the pledge did for me was reinforce that my beliefs (or lack thereof) aren't really acceptable, that the Christians (and I know it's not a Christian pledge, but that's how I identified it at the time) want to harass or convert me, and my government is on their side.
This is awfully divisive. And it's a good reason not to have kids say the pledge of allegiance so long as it includes "under God".
Post a Comment