How famous are Cristiano Ronaldo and Messi in the USA?

[Aeson]

I don't recall the Pledge affecting any of my peers. Most people just mumbled their way through it, or were silent. Maybe it had an effect, but without a control group, it's impossible to test that hypothesis.

The effect would differ from class to class, student to student. My class most of the kids were pretty into it. I remember one kid who wouldn't say it because they were JWs, and some of us thought maybe they were commies. Cold war was still "game on" even if it was winding down, so maybe that was part of it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's lost most of that hold.

I had my share of patriotic stirrings in various pledge or anthem settings as a young child. I was a flag waving douchebag until I was about 10 years old. How much of it was due to the pledge at school would be tough to say of course, but that certainly was the influence with the most consistent effect. My parents were probably the most powerful effect, even though it was usually only a 4th of July and on road trips they would talk to me about how great our country is. Singing the national anthem and a couple other songs were rather effective. GI Joe (USA #1) and Cobra (which I instinctively equated to Nazi Communists and Russians) were a smaller influence given that I didn't have TV and so only saw it at friends houses at birthday parties. (The only friends I lived near enough to walk to on a day to day basis also didn't have TV reception.)

There wasn't much else to it. I remember being really proud when the US Hockey team won the gold medal because we beat the Communists. By the time the Berlin wall came down though I wasn't really surprised that the people on the other side of the wall weren't some sort of demons, so I had beat it by then. Some people never seem to make it.

[Felch]

Yeah, they changed that when we entered WWII. It was based on the old Roman salute.



XPOST - obviously

[Felch]

I didn't have TV

I'm so sorry. I'm so so so sorry. In fact, I can't even cope with how sorry I am. Seriously. It's ****ed. I'm sorry.

[Elok]

Right-o, Asher's on ignore until he starts making actual arguments again. The rest of you let me know when that happens. I don't have to put up with his usual "you rejected my main argument, so know I'm going to be a dick rather than try to hold a meaningful discussion" schtick.

It's all part of having the pledge in the classroom. You can't divorce the meaning that the pledge has been given from the pledge itself and say the pledge has no meaning because of it. Otherwise you've just proven that language is meaningless, because we had to be taught the symbolic value of words.

Uh, could you run that by me again? The words have meaning, they're just perfectly opaque to the learners, and the act of reciting the thing from memory is not conducive to actually thinking about what it means.

The actual repetition is where all that symbolic value you're talking about get's hammered away at over and over again day after day. Affirmations can be powerful towards shaping psyches, group affirmations even moreso, ritualistic and repetitive chants in group formation even moreso.

The thing is, it's not a "ritualistic and repetitive chant." That conjures up the image of something enthusiastic and voluntary. You're an American, right? Did you grow up saying the pledge? If so, could you tell me where and when, and how your class thought about it? Because I can't recall being in a class where anybody gave the faintest hint of a damn. We just babbled out the words in a dull singsong: "I PLEDGE allegiance, TO the flag, of the uNITed STATES of aMERica, and TO the republic..." Until we got to high school and that one kid refused to even stand for it. He was a real rebel type, he's probably occupying some city or other as we speak. Anyway, even the teacher didn't care. He said "we'll talk about this after class" in a tired voice, and the talk never happened AFAIK, and that was that. He was supposed to make the kid stand, but he couldn't muster up the gives-a-****.

In such an environment, we could have been repeating that Lovecraft couplet about Cthulhu and nothing would have happened. Contrariwise, in many parts of the country students are absolutely required to recite the pledge, and if they try to opt out they're regarded as unAmerican turds by their peers--but do you think it makes sense to credit the pledge itself with any ensuing spirit of nationalism, when it was recited against that social backdrop?

EDIT: Okay, you gave a pretty good synopsis of your background with the pledge already, while I was typing this. Don't you think that the pledge-fervor was more of a symptom of your pre-existing nationalism inculcated by other sources, rather than a meaningful cause? It sounds that way to me.

[Asher]

Right-o, Asher's on ignore until he starts making actual arguments again. The rest of you let me know when that happens. I don't have to put up with his usual "you rejected my main argument, so know I'm going to be a dick rather than try to hold a meaningful discussion" schtick.

What meaningful discussion is possible when you just blatantly refuse to believe anything other than "kids don't know the meaning to all of the words at five, therefore it has no harm".

You've not provided anything of import or, honestly, rationality in this thread. And then you put me on ignore while ranting that I'm not making actual arguments. Here's why your argument is ****ing retarded, for lack of a better word:
1) Indoctrination by repetition is known by the professional community as well as anyone with an IQ north of 75 to be an effective method of indoctrination
2) Even if a 5 year old may not comprehend the gravity or meaning of every word he repeats, the general thrust of it definitely sticks
3) Children do not stay 5 years old. They get older, and sooner than you may think they understand what the pledge is in its entirety
4) Anecdotally, people who don't repeat the pledge are frequently singled out and accused of not being patriotic, which in American parlance means secular commie or something similarly horrific. This just proves that the pledge does serve to indoctrinate -- it tells everyone in the class that you're "on the same team", and you don't ever want to be anything but patriotic.

It's textbook indoctrination with proven effectiveness. Why do you think Eisenhower added "under God" when he felt under threat from secular communists?

[Hauldren Collider]

Asher, he's not the only one who thinks you aren't the most honest of debaters

[Aeson]

I'm so sorry. I'm so so so sorry. In fact, I can't even cope with how sorry I am. Seriously. It's ****ed. I'm sorry.

Well, it's not quite true. We had a TV, just no reception. We had a disc player and Star Wars, The Ten Commandments, and Marry Poppins.

[Asher]

Asher, he's not the only one who thinks you aren't the most honest of debaters

I'm not at all surprised that other people who share his tactic of repeating dogma without backing it up or rationalizing the argument believe rational debate is not honest.

Your loss.

[Asher]

Look, kids have no idea what the pledge is about...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201102/mommy-dont-we-love-america

Mommy, don't we love America?
Kids puzzled when school pledge rebuffs Mom and Dad.
Published on February 22, 2011 by Dave Niose in Our Humanity, Naturally

By most standards, Lisa and John are model citizens. He's a veteran, they are both college grads, and they've been married for over ten years. Both have good jobs, John in high-tech and Lisa in the medical field. They live in the Boston suburbs, send their kids to public school, and spend most of their waking hours juggling busy schedules involving work, school, and the kids' activities.

Nevertheless, in the eyes of some, there is reason to question the patriotism of Lisa and John. Their flaw, it seems, is that they don't conform to official government doctrine on the existence of a divinity. "Our six-year-old daughter came home from first grade very confused," Lisa explains. "In school she was taught to stand up each morning and declare that we are a nation under God, but she knows that mommy and daddy don't believe in any gods. She wanted to know, why does the school say there's a God when mommy and daddy say there isn't?"

Lisa and John, who both consider themselves Humanists, explained to their daughter that not all Americans believe in divinities, and that the "under God" wording was added to the Pledge of Allegiance by people who thought it was important. Trying not to overwhelm the small child with too much information, they simply explained that people who don't believe in God should not have their patriotism questioned.

Of course, Lisa and John are right. The Constitution guarantees religious freedom, including the right to not believe, as well as the separation of church and state. The Constitution also forbids religious tests for public office, making it clear that religiosity and good citizenship are unrelated concepts.

"She's a confident little girl and she knows that we are good citizens," John explains. "But she takes words seriously, and she was obviously troubled by the fact that the school was saying one thing and her parents were saying another."

Lisa and John feel that they gave their daughter the assurances she needs, but they nevertheless resent that, on a daily basis in school, she must confront a religious truth claim that contradicts their family's beliefs. "Why should my child go to school every day to be told by the school, in an official flag-salute ceremony with teachers and classmates, that the religious views we've been teaching her are wrong?" John asks. "We teach her good values, right from wrong. She's a good girl, and her family's religion shouldn't be disparaged by her school."

Lisa expresses concern that the "under God" wording strongly implies that nonbelievers are less patriotic than those who believe. "This is a patriotic exercise, let's be clear about that," she says. "So if this official patriotic ceremony, conducted every day with hand over heart, declares that our country is under God, then obviously the inference is that true patriots must believe in God. That's always made me uneasy, but now that my kids are getting to school age it really worries me."

And John and Lisa are not alone. From sea to shining sea, secular Americans who love their country find themselves dealing with the problem of governmental religiosity in an age when religious activists are politically engaged, well funded, and ready to assert their agenda on such issues. As such, anyone who questions governmental God-talk immediately becomes a participant in the culture wars.

The problem, says Ron, a father of two from California, is that many Americans are oblivious to history. "A lot of people think the Pledge was written by the Founding Fathers," he says, when in fact it was actually written about a century later, in 1892, for a children's magazine. That original Pledge had no religious language, as it promised allegiance to "one nation indivisible." Though it proved catchy and was eventually utilized widely by schools, it remained secular until the "under God" wording was added in 1954 at the height of the McCarthy era, after much lobbying by the Knights of Columbus and other religious groups.

Around the same time that "under God" was added to the official federal version of the Pledge, religious lobbyists succeeded in convincing Congress to make "In God We Trust" the national motto. Again, Ron says many Americans are unaware that this religious motto was adopted only as recently as the 1950s.

"The real motto of this country, from the days of the Founders, was E Pluribus Unum," he says, referring to the Latin motto (meaning "Out of many, one") found on the Great Seal of the United States, which dates back to 1782. Ron and others point to what they feel is the beauty of E Pluribus Unum, in that it exemplifies the federal structure of the country (out of many states, one nation) and the pluralistic, melting-pot nature of the American population (out of many peoples, one American people).

Thus, secular parents like John, Lisa, and Ron teach their kids that America's sharp turn toward public religiosity actually contradicts traditional American values. Religious conservatives can cherry pick examples of the Founders making religious references, of course, but such arguments ignore the fact that the Founders did not have a religious pledge, a religious national motto, or for that matter an official annual National Day of Prayer. To be sure, practical politics in the 18th century required a certain level of respect be paid to religion, but what's most remarkable about the Founders is not their religiosity, but their secularism. Many Founders, such as Thomas Jefferson, considered themselves Deists and rejected outright the notion of revelation-based religion.

Some have argued that secular families and children should simply stop complaining, that they should learn to accept official governmental bias against their religious views. If the Pledge wording really bothers you, these people argue, then don't participate in the flag-salute ceremony each day. (The Supreme Court ruled in 1943, in a case involving a Jehovah's Witnesses child, that schools cannot force children to participate in the Pledge.) This argument assumes, however, that nonparticipation is an easy option, but numerous documented instances of harassment toward those who refuse to participate in patriotic exercises suggest otherwise.

Even more importantly, secular families feel that the burden of resiliency should not rest with the child, who simply comes to school expecting to be treated as an equal, but with the government, which has a duty to treat all children equally. "My child doesn't want to sit out while the rest of her class says the Pledge," argues Melissa, an Illinois mother of a junior high student. "No kid likes to be the odd one, the one who's different. She wants to participate like everyone else, but she doesn't want the government criticizing our family's religious beliefs."

Some secular parents are active in Humanist and atheist communities, whereas others simply have no group affiliation. Almost all of them, however, are more likely to spend Sunday morning in a museum than a church, and all must find ways of dealing with the religiosity that is regularly imposed on their kids. Though it comes in various forms, the most persistent problem seems to be the regular, often daily, recitation of the religious Pledge of Allegiance in schools.

These secular families address this issue in different ways, depending on numerous factors - their own willingness to be visible dissenters, the temperment of their child, the level of sympathy of teachers and administrators, the religious and patriotic climate in the school community, and other factors. Most atheist and Humanist children indeed participate in the Pledge, though many parents report that their kids discreetly remain silent while the words "under God" are spoken. (Melissa's daughter quietly, and cleverly, says "under law" instead.)

Most secular parents are not thrilled with such compromises, but realize that there are few better options. "By participating, even if you don't say 'under God,' you are validating the religious language, because nobody knows that you aren't saying the religious words," John says. "By standing and participating, you give the appearance of unanimity. It perpetuates the ridiculous idea that all patriotic people believe in God."

Regardless of how secular families deal with the issue, most wish they simply weren't forced to do so. They see the entire dilemma as being caused by overzealous religious conservatives and the politicians who are reluctant to stand up to them, fearful of doing the right thing to keep government out of the religion business and protect the rights of minorities.

To illustrate what it's like to have their religious views rejected on a daily basis by the schools, atheist and Humanist parents suggest imagining a hypothetical where the Pledge wording is changed to "one nation, under Jesus." There would be no question, of course, that such a Pledge would discriminate against Hindus, Jews, and Muslims. As such, atheist and Humanist parents argue, the "under God" wording is really no different. The assertion that a country is "under God" is, by definition, a specific religious truth claim, a claim that is believed by some and not others.

Since America is growing increasingly secular, especially among the younger generation, this is a problem that is unlikely to go away soon. But until it does, the goal of true indivisibility may remain elusive.

[Aeson]

Uh, could you run that by me again? The words have meaning, they're just perfectly opaque to the learners, and the act of reciting the thing from memory is not conducive to actually thinking about what it means.

You claim the pledge is given symbolic meaning. You claim this symbolic meaning is greater than the actual meaning of the words. What you don't seem to recognize is the symbolic meaning will influence the impression of the meaning of the words.

Rote recitation from memory is actually more of an influence than if you say them while thinking about them. I've felt it.

The thing is, it's not a "ritualistic and repetitive chant."

It is when done as it's supposed to be. You stand up. You face and look up to the flag. You assume a specific posture with your hand over your heart. You said the words with a certain cantor every time.

Certainly if it's just a joke to everyone in the class it's going to have a much different effect. But that is true of any ritual or chant.

That conjures up the image of something enthusiastic and voluntary.

No. Rituals do not have to be voluntary. Witness initiation rites to African death squads. "Kill him or we'll kill you". They get you to kill enough, and then they don't have to anymore because you're a killer.

This is obviously much less pressure, but the pledge is still obviously intended to play on social pressures of having everyone doing something, as well as to have them do it over and over again until it's ingrained. (Whether or not it achieves that effect in any given situation, it's the obvious intent.)

Okay, you gave a pretty good synopsis of your background with the pledge already, while I was typing this. Don't you think that the pledge-fervor was more of a symptom of your pre-existing nationalism inculcated by other sources, rather than a meaningful cause? It sounds that way to me.

You seem to be trying to paint my experience with your own bias, rather than listen to what I am saying. There are a lot of people out there with a lot of different experiences. I'm not affected at all by what people around me do these days. When I was 5-6 though, I was, rather dramatically so. I can still remember the silly pride of being part of a group (a nation represented by my classmates) proclaiming their patriotism.

If it was just me standing to say the pledge I would have thought it was stupid and not done it. It's not like when my friend and I were out throwing rocks at each other or whatever we did for fun that we started reciting pledges to the republic just because that's our nature. We would have thought that was stupid!

That's part of the power of these things on the developing mind. I know kids who came from that same sort of background who never broke out of that whole mindset. They can't seem to come to grips with the fact that we might be wrong sometimes, we aren't always the good guys, we don't have this perfect liberty. The indoctrination comes from many sources, and the pledge is one of them. I've been in that mindset and remember what it was like.

Having spent quite some time in mental hospitals and therapy, I also know the power that affirmations and rote recital can have as well. I am likely only still alive (or at least able to live outside the hospitals) because of the effects of rote recital of affirmations in fact. (In a negative sense, it's that sort of rote recital that put me in there in the first place.)

[Elok]

There's a confounding variable at work here, though: you grew up in a fiercely nationalistic (and xenophobic) place and time. As a result, you experienced what is a trifling nuisance to most people of my generation as an affirmation of values that were already instilled in you. You assume that background as a default; I will concede that such a background would produce such an effect, but maintain that it would produce such an effect if the pledge were never said, or if it were replaced with an entirely different ritual that had no nationalistic connotations. Lacking such a background, all the kids at all the schools I ever went to did the same thing you did with no observable effect--and yes, you acknowledge this would be the case, but if it only works in a given emotional background (which is the case), and the given emotional background would produce the same results without the pledge (which, I feel pretty confident, is also the case), why should the pledge be assigned any importance? It's simply an accessory.

Affirmations may well have done marvelous things for you in the hospitals--but you wanted to believe in them, or so I assume. You were not made to do them against your will by an authority for no clear reason, they were given to you as a means to heal yourself, and you did what you were told voluntarily. You said these things more than once a day. And when you said whatever you said, most crucially, you wanted to believe the things you were saying. No?

I haven't the foggiest idea what you mean by "symbolic meanings," I said the meaning completely eludes the students. Suggest we drop that whole line of argument.

[Asher]

How can you still be arguing that crap?

There's clearly many examples of six year olds comprehending the words in the Pledge. Just because you were too dimwitted to comprehend it at six doesn't mean everyone else was in the same boat.

[Tupac Shakur]

Who care if they comprehend the words? The words are completely unobjectionable unless you hate liberty and justice.

[Asher]

under God.

[Hauldren Collider]

I haven't said the under god part since I was like eleven years old and either no one noticed or no one cared.