Is the U.S.A's pledge of allegiance creepy and cultish? Is it brainwashing and do Americans even know it? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
40 ups - 16 downs = 24 votes
78 comments submitted at 03:00:56 on May 9, 2014 by david-me
Is the U.S.A's pledge of allegiance creepy and cultish? Is it brainwashing and do Americans even know it? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
40 ups - 16 downs = 24 votes
78 comments submitted at 03:00:56 on May 9, 2014 by david-me
To be fair, flag worship is creepy.
You ever want to start a shit show, sit down during the national anthem at a baseball game. I thought I was going to get fucking murdered.
Twins fans don't seem to give a single fuck. Maybe its because I always look stoned out of my mind...
Why would you even do that?
That's intentionally antagonistic.
I specifically study the First World War. I was kind of drunk at the time and I wanted to see the ugly face of nationalism for myself. It kind of broke my heart to see how quickly it happened, actually.
> ugly face of nationalism
I mean, you intentionally did something you knew would create a rise out of people. Its like saying, "I wanted to see the ugly face of religion" so I threw a bible on the ground at a bible study.
I don't think people need to stand for the pledge.national anthem, they don't need to take off their hats, they don't need to say a single word. I would however think poorly of a person who purposefully sat down as the national anthem was being played.
>Its like saying, "I wanted to see the ugly face of religion" so I threw a bible on the ground at a bible study.
Literally all I did was continue to sit. I was not burning flags, or screaming death to America.
> I would however think poorly of a person who purposefully sat down as the national anthem was being played
Why?
The way you put it, it made it sound as though you were standing, and then sat as the national anthem came on.
For the same reason I would think poorly of a person who threw a bible on the ground at a bible study. It is a deliberate attempt to bother other people rather than merely a choice not to participate the activity.
As an aside, I have sat during the national anthem at sporting events and have seen others do the same. Different stadiums on different days can lead to different results.
> For the same reason I would think poorly of a person who threw a bible on the ground at a bible study
My word. This type of thinking is AMAZING to me. Do you know what happened a hundred years ago? You just equated the national anthem at a fucking baseball game to bible study. I know these precepts still exist, but to see nationalism taken as some quasi-deontolgical virtue hurts me to the core of my soul.
Bro, I know your intro to [insert gen ed] courses are awesome and all, but I've been to college, have a degree in history, and have a professional degree in law, but please, continue with your pop-psychology history lesson; i'm fascinated. What ever could have happened 100 years ago?
I tied the two together because, as I've said (a) you sound like a bravetheist who is le oppressed, and (b) I already used the example, and (c) it conveys the idea that criticizing things other people hold as valuable in a manner that you know will cause them pain/anger is not something I see as a good character trait.
>it conveys the idea that criticizing things other people hold as valuable in a manner that you know will cause them pain/anger
Why will it cause them pain or anger? I am doing nothing to them. In fact, they are doing something to me by compelling me to act in a certain manner, and then shamming/threatening me when I don't conform.
Why does criticism of the nation entail threats? Is the nation beyond reproach? Why is a mass spectacle like a sporting event an appropriate place for such things like the national anthem?
Why are you getting so mad that I point out the national anthem is a form of nationalism? Why do you resort to hostility and name calling when I point these things out?
Truly fascinating stuff.
More Comments - Click Here
Mmm please continue. This is the wheat from which delicious copypasta shall be made.
Oh, and now that I'm thinking. It's quite telling the first thing you jumped to for a comparison with nationalism was the bible. It's incredible to see an imagined community like the nation treated as some sacred truth deserving worship.
I likened it to the bible scenario because your comments make you sound like a super bravetheist.
Huh? What are you even talking about? You're the one who equated the nation with religion.
It has nothing to do with nationalism. It has to do with respect.
It's the same reason you don't call someone an asshole in their eulogy even if they were one.
The National Anthem is the eulogy to everyone who has died in the service of the United States.
Are you seriously trying to say the NATIONAL Anthem has nothing to do with nationalism? It's a military spectacle tied to mass sporting audiences. It has everything to do with nationalism.
It's not nationalism.
It's certainly very patriotic, and is probably a big factor in why the rest of the world sees us as gun toting, Bible thumping rednecks who think they own the world, but calling it "nationalism" implies it's just like doing the Hitler salute and chanting "SIEG HEIL!" at a sporting event.
Patriotism, not nationalism. There is a line between the two, although sometimes it can get pretty blurred.
>but calling it "nationalism" implies it's just like doing the Hitler salute and chanting "SIEG HEIL!" at a sporting event.
I want you to tell me how it's different.
You made the claim, you support it. Tell me exactly how it is nationalism. Support your claim, make your case, and don't just say "Tell me how it's not!"
I say the two are worlds apart because when they play The Star-Spangled Banner, nobody's being told to go kill some Jews, oppress some minorities or conquer a bunch of sovereign countries.
The whole point of Nazi rallies in 1930's Germany was to whip people into a frenzy and support their fascist government. They play the Star-Spangled Banner at sporting events to get the players and the fans pumped up for the game, not for any wars or battles.
Would you still be calling it nationalism if European countries did the same thing at their sporting events, at the beginning of every soccer (or football, whatever)/rugby game?
When they play the national anthem of the victorious nation at an Olympic event that is a display of national pride, patriotism, and nationalism. It extends to every country on Earth, America is not unique in this regard.
We can also happily disregard the fact that one of the most widely cherished lyrics in The Star-Spangled Banner "O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!" was written at a time when over 1/7th of the US population was enslaved. So maybe the oppression of minorities isn't the best thing to have on that list. Also during one of the most patriotic moments in our countries recent history we rallied our way into invading the sovereign nation of Iraq, so that maybe should be pulled of the list too.
Our patriotic songs and pledge of allegiance project a view of an idealized America that we sometimes fail to live up to, and occasionally it is good to mull over the words and see how well we fit the standard we hold up for ourselves. "Liberty and Justice for all" is a damn powerful claim, and that is what we assert the flag and the Republic are defined by.
Does that suffice to illustrate some of the nationalist overtones at work here?
> Would you still be calling it nationalism if European countries did the same thing at their sporting events, at the beginning of every soccer (or football, whatever)/rugby game?
Yes.
>Tell me exactly how it is nationalism. Support your claim, make your case, and don't just say "Tell me how it's not!"
The national anthem is a form of nationalism. It was and is a common tactic to tie mass spectacle to national and militaristic virtues. If you'd like to read more, historian Bonnie Smith has an excellent article titled "the Machine, the Military, and the Masses."
For pictures, what is the difference, other than the form of salute, between this picture during the 1936 [Olympics] (http://www.ushmm.org/m/img/14495-700x.jpg), to this picture of a baseball [game]?(http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/kgo/cmsexf2007/news/sports/pro/baseball/kgo-all-star-ss1-071211-508x331.jpg)
Are you seriously going to Godwin your way through the distinction between nationalism and patriotism?
It's not nationalism in the negative connotation that you're using it as.
Oh really, I'd say demanding conformity for a celebration of the nation and the military is nothing but negative. That type of thinking was one of the major causes of the First World War.
Nationalism is just a sophisticated form of tribalism. If you want to see how it is negative, preform the benign act of not participating in mass national spectacle and see what I mean. Furthermore, why must I respect the military and those who have served? That is another ugly ism I see implicitly accepted as a positive truth.
> Furthermore, why must I respect those who have served?
Because they are fellow human beings that have died.
Do you go to cancer walks and tear down memorial banners?
Do you call the deceased an asshole at their funeral?
Do you go to candle light vigils and blow all the candles out?
Put your edginess aside for two fucking minutes and have some goddamn respect for the dead.
How about show some respect for the over a thousand people who died last year by not shopping at Wal-Mart? (The rana plaza building collapse). Oh wait that's totally different because instead of "showing respect" you are actively contributing to these people's deaths. To hold up one persons corpse while ignoring plenty of others is quite hypocritical- objectively there is a lot our country has done that is not honorable.
You're the one getting offended here over a person sitting. Why should one care about this death over another? It's military worship that makes the soldiers death worth more.
All of your examples are of someone trying to stop/interfere with the act, rather than just not participating in it.
You can respect the dead while sitting down.
And, forgive my ignorance as a non-native speaker, but are "those wjo have served" and "the dead" synonyms? Because where I live, people can serve their time on the army without dying.
Wow! This is amazing. It's like I'm reliving that baseball game all over again. The fact the the benign act of not participating in nationalism can inspire such venomous rhetoric from people blows my mind.
>Because they are fellow human beings that have died.
Two questions. Is the national anthem an elegy to dead soldiers? What did they die for and why must I "respect" that?
>Do you go to cancer walks and tear down memorial banners?
So sitting at a baseball game is the same as going to a hospital and tearing down "memorial" banners (whatever the hell those are) for cancer patients? How did you get from "nation anthem" to cancer patients anyways?
>Do you call the deceased an asshole at their funeral?
It is AMAZING to me you consider a sporting event an elegy for soldiers. How do you not see the rampant militarism and nationalism inherent in your beliefs? How do you not see the binding of public spectacle with military worship and an inherent belief in the goodness of the nation?
Not to mention, calling someone an asshole at their funeral is an active action. Sitting during the anthem is not.
>Do you go to candle light vigils and blow all the candles out?
See above.
>Put your edginess aside for two fucking minutes and have some goddamn respect for the dead
Why do I need to do that at a sporting event? Why are we only "respecting" the military dead? What about those killed by the military? Is it because we are supposed to worship our "side?" What exactly is being accomplished with this "two fucking minutes of goddamn respect for the dead?"
More Comments - Click Here
The famous philosopher Shopenhaur had the only true thing to say about nationalism:
>“The cheapest form of pride however is national pride. For it betrays in the one thus afflicted the lack of individual qualities of which he could be proud, while he would not otherwise reach for what he shares with so many millions. He who possesses significant personal merits will rather recognise the defects of his own nation, as he has them constantly before his eyes, most clearly. But that poor beggar who has nothing in the world of which he can be proud, latches onto the last means of being proud, the nation to which he belongs to. Thus he recovers and is now in gratitude ready to defend with hands and feet all errors and follies which are its own.”
—Arthur Schopenhauer