Political rant number 1: Pledge of Allegiance.
I was reading an article by Marc Singer in the New Yorker today. I was in a doctor’s office waiting to get an x-ray for my hand to detect the remnants of glass from my act of stupidity several months ago, the circumstances of which I shan’t here repeat. The article’s background was this: in early 1999, Wisconsin adopted a law (a rider to its annual budget bill) which decreed that every school day was to begin with the pledge of allegiance. Of course in the interest of fairness, I am reporting this as factually as I can from this article: the bill called for either the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem to be recited or sang, each day. This all happened before 9-11.
The law stipulated that “No pupil may be compelled against the pupil’s objections or those of the pupil’s parents or guardian to recite the pledge or sing the anthem.” Something I think is a fair statement, however, 9-11 happened, and as did the following: parents apprehensive about the new rules called in, and came to a school board meeting which roughly outlined the opposition’s points, firstly the reference to God, a God, a single, God, etc. the usual jargon. Also, the feisty nature of the national anthem and its militaristic attitude was offensive to those who were devoutly non-violent. Lastly there was the argument that the law was basically “an unsubtle form of coercion, one that smacked of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths and defined patriotic self-expression in narrow and unimaginative terms.”
The board in Madison Wisconsin, basically voted that every school could offer, every day, a wordless instrumental version of the national anthem. Which allows expressions of patriotism without the necessarily violent militarism of the anthem, or the conflict of church and state in the use of “God” in the pledge. Which again, I think is a prudent and acceptable act in wake of 9-11.
The following day, the spin doctors got to work, pasting headlines reading “PLEDGE BANNED IN CITY SCHOOLS.” Which firstly I consider a misinterpretation of the actions of the board which was to produce a less offensive, more diverse, and over-all, broader, and inclusive way to be patriotic, than the narrow version the original law called for. If anything, the board showed more tolerance and patriotism, and faith in what makes this country great, than anything that the pledge of allegiance could have done. Secondly, I find it to be offensive that journalists would in such an ugly fashion, misshape the news to further their own political ideology.
What happened next hit me with a profound realization of who I am and where I stand. A new school board meeting was held, the auditorium packed with people chanting the pledge and shouting “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” the exact resolution of the situation was less important than what had transpired there. During the recitation of the pledge, the entire audience stood, and the board, with the exception of 2 men, Bill Keys, and Shwaw Vang, a social worker, immigrant from Laos. Then during his three minute speech, Vang got up and said, and this is what really touched me, “ ‘As Americans, each of us has a right to do what he feels is right, and I have as much right as anyone else. I won’t be forced to do something against my will. That’s a right I have as a citizen. I also believe in the Pledge of Allegiance. I say it because I believe in it, and when I want to say it – not because a group of people forces me to say it. Now I’m going ot say the pledge. I invite everyone to stand and say it with me. Those who don’t want to do so, I respect your right not to, and I hope you have the courage to remain seated.’ Whereupon he faced an American flag, stage right, and, along with virtually the entire audience and all the other school-board members except Keys, recited the pledge.”
Later a local radio shock-jock taunted Vang by saying, “You’ve been called Seesaw Shwaw. You’ve said ‘yea’ and ‘nay.’ You say the pledge promotes war, but this is not Vietnam – this is America.” For the record, Vang was Laotian, the son of an officer in a special guerilla unit funded by the CIA. And he later said, “… In Thailand or Laos, if the pledge or the national anthem is being said, no matter where you are you’d better stand up straight and salute. There’s a feeling of fear that goes with that, the fear of a government that wants to control every single move a person makes. In Laos you have ot have total respect for the government or you will be persecuted. Almost every Laotian teacher and student says the pledge, but does that teach them to be more patriotic, I don’t think so.”
I wrote a lot of other sh!t here which I later erased because it made my contentions unfocused. Basically my thoughts are this: the pledge itself is an act of formality that for existing students remains more of a formality than an actual act of an oath, if even such acts exist in our society any more. Secondly, I believe that it is wrong to indoctrinate this in young people before they know what “allegiance” or “pledge” means. To do so is dangerous. Every dictatorship had its pledge of allegiance, every evil empire. But the strongest argument I could give is the one Vang gave above. That if one believes in the pledge, one should say so out of his own accord, not because he was compelled to do so lest he appear unpatriotic.
This made me think long and hard about the pledge. In the current crisis, if I were asked to fight an enemy like Bin Laden, I would not hesitate to take up arms, answer the call. Bin Laden is an enemy of humanity, and humanity’s persistence in its own being, as well as its drive to better itself, drives me, as a member of the human race, to defend it against the new peril. However, I still will not take a pledge of allegiance. Ever since I’ve really thought about what the pledge meant, and could understand what “allegiance” is, I stopped saying the pledge, because I answer to a higher authority, a higher bond, the bond between men, not the bond to a government, a state. The bond between men is sacred, it passes through race, religion, nationality, it is the will to preserve civilization, the bond of brotherhood, the bond between everything that is good. It is less regional, less political, less territorial, and less temporal than the policy of any nation. I owe my allegiance to the brotherhood of the human race, who is not interested in power, domination or political ends, but in the end, in only what is right, what is fair and just. And while the aims of humanity and the aims of the United States are the same, I will gladly help the US achieve its goals, if I am called to fight, I will. I will defend this country, and I will defend humanity, because that is the right thing to do. But still, I will not take the pledge, because as an old Chinese saying goes, a man may not have two masters.
There are many times when I think the interests of humanity are at odds with the interests of the US, and rather in those times rescind my allegiance to the US, I won’t give it at all. I choose to serve the US with action, not vacant words. And I certainly respect other people’s right to say, or not to say the pledge of allegiance. If a person does so willingly, I can respect it. If he can do so having acknowledged all the atrocious acts the US has inflicted on other peoples in the name of its own interests, and then with a clear conscience recite the pledge, I think the man is a fool, but nevertheless I will not question his faith, I think it’s rather admirable. However, I don’t think something so grave as an oath, should be uttered without a full understanding of its commitment, and to force youngsters who are themselves too young to drink, or to drive, or to vote, to indoctrinate them with this coercion.
One argument I hear is, “if you don’t like this country, go back to China.” Well, I answer, who said I held an allegiance to China? My allegiance is to mankind, and everywhere man has set foot, that is my country. I will protect what is right, regardless of what country I’m in. that is my rant about the pledge of allegiance, I think I ranted about this before, but this article really made me think…
I was reading an article by Marc Singer in the New Yorker today. I was in a doctor’s office waiting to get an x-ray for my hand to detect the remnants of glass from my act of stupidity several months ago, the circumstances of which I shan’t here repeat. The article’s background was this: in early 1999, Wisconsin adopted a law (a rider to its annual budget bill) which decreed that every school day was to begin with the pledge of allegiance. Of course in the interest of fairness, I am reporting this as factually as I can from this article: the bill called for either the pledge of allegiance or the national anthem to be recited or sang, each day. This all happened before 9-11.
The law stipulated that “No pupil may be compelled against the pupil’s objections or those of the pupil’s parents or guardian to recite the pledge or sing the anthem.” Something I think is a fair statement, however, 9-11 happened, and as did the following: parents apprehensive about the new rules called in, and came to a school board meeting which roughly outlined the opposition’s points, firstly the reference to God, a God, a single, God, etc. the usual jargon. Also, the feisty nature of the national anthem and its militaristic attitude was offensive to those who were devoutly non-violent. Lastly there was the argument that the law was basically “an unsubtle form of coercion, one that smacked of McCarthy-era loyalty oaths and defined patriotic self-expression in narrow and unimaginative terms.”
The board in Madison Wisconsin, basically voted that every school could offer, every day, a wordless instrumental version of the national anthem. Which allows expressions of patriotism without the necessarily violent militarism of the anthem, or the conflict of church and state in the use of “God” in the pledge. Which again, I think is a prudent and acceptable act in wake of 9-11.
The following day, the spin doctors got to work, pasting headlines reading “PLEDGE BANNED IN CITY SCHOOLS.” Which firstly I consider a misinterpretation of the actions of the board which was to produce a less offensive, more diverse, and over-all, broader, and inclusive way to be patriotic, than the narrow version the original law called for. If anything, the board showed more tolerance and patriotism, and faith in what makes this country great, than anything that the pledge of allegiance could have done. Secondly, I find it to be offensive that journalists would in such an ugly fashion, misshape the news to further their own political ideology.
What happened next hit me with a profound realization of who I am and where I stand. A new school board meeting was held, the auditorium packed with people chanting the pledge and shouting “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” the exact resolution of the situation was less important than what had transpired there. During the recitation of the pledge, the entire audience stood, and the board, with the exception of 2 men, Bill Keys, and Shwaw Vang, a social worker, immigrant from Laos. Then during his three minute speech, Vang got up and said, and this is what really touched me, “ ‘As Americans, each of us has a right to do what he feels is right, and I have as much right as anyone else. I won’t be forced to do something against my will. That’s a right I have as a citizen. I also believe in the Pledge of Allegiance. I say it because I believe in it, and when I want to say it – not because a group of people forces me to say it. Now I’m going ot say the pledge. I invite everyone to stand and say it with me. Those who don’t want to do so, I respect your right not to, and I hope you have the courage to remain seated.’ Whereupon he faced an American flag, stage right, and, along with virtually the entire audience and all the other school-board members except Keys, recited the pledge.”
Later a local radio shock-jock taunted Vang by saying, “You’ve been called Seesaw Shwaw. You’ve said ‘yea’ and ‘nay.’ You say the pledge promotes war, but this is not Vietnam – this is America.” For the record, Vang was Laotian, the son of an officer in a special guerilla unit funded by the CIA. And he later said, “… In Thailand or Laos, if the pledge or the national anthem is being said, no matter where you are you’d better stand up straight and salute. There’s a feeling of fear that goes with that, the fear of a government that wants to control every single move a person makes. In Laos you have ot have total respect for the government or you will be persecuted. Almost every Laotian teacher and student says the pledge, but does that teach them to be more patriotic, I don’t think so.”
I wrote a lot of other sh!t here which I later erased because it made my contentions unfocused. Basically my thoughts are this: the pledge itself is an act of formality that for existing students remains more of a formality than an actual act of an oath, if even such acts exist in our society any more. Secondly, I believe that it is wrong to indoctrinate this in young people before they know what “allegiance” or “pledge” means. To do so is dangerous. Every dictatorship had its pledge of allegiance, every evil empire. But the strongest argument I could give is the one Vang gave above. That if one believes in the pledge, one should say so out of his own accord, not because he was compelled to do so lest he appear unpatriotic.
This made me think long and hard about the pledge. In the current crisis, if I were asked to fight an enemy like Bin Laden, I would not hesitate to take up arms, answer the call. Bin Laden is an enemy of humanity, and humanity’s persistence in its own being, as well as its drive to better itself, drives me, as a member of the human race, to defend it against the new peril. However, I still will not take a pledge of allegiance. Ever since I’ve really thought about what the pledge meant, and could understand what “allegiance” is, I stopped saying the pledge, because I answer to a higher authority, a higher bond, the bond between men, not the bond to a government, a state. The bond between men is sacred, it passes through race, religion, nationality, it is the will to preserve civilization, the bond of brotherhood, the bond between everything that is good. It is less regional, less political, less territorial, and less temporal than the policy of any nation. I owe my allegiance to the brotherhood of the human race, who is not interested in power, domination or political ends, but in the end, in only what is right, what is fair and just. And while the aims of humanity and the aims of the United States are the same, I will gladly help the US achieve its goals, if I am called to fight, I will. I will defend this country, and I will defend humanity, because that is the right thing to do. But still, I will not take the pledge, because as an old Chinese saying goes, a man may not have two masters.
There are many times when I think the interests of humanity are at odds with the interests of the US, and rather in those times rescind my allegiance to the US, I won’t give it at all. I choose to serve the US with action, not vacant words. And I certainly respect other people’s right to say, or not to say the pledge of allegiance. If a person does so willingly, I can respect it. If he can do so having acknowledged all the atrocious acts the US has inflicted on other peoples in the name of its own interests, and then with a clear conscience recite the pledge, I think the man is a fool, but nevertheless I will not question his faith, I think it’s rather admirable. However, I don’t think something so grave as an oath, should be uttered without a full understanding of its commitment, and to force youngsters who are themselves too young to drink, or to drive, or to vote, to indoctrinate them with this coercion.
One argument I hear is, “if you don’t like this country, go back to China.” Well, I answer, who said I held an allegiance to China? My allegiance is to mankind, and everywhere man has set foot, that is my country. I will protect what is right, regardless of what country I’m in. that is my rant about the pledge of allegiance, I think I ranted about this before, but this article really made me think…
