On the Pledge of Allegiance

 

At American Thinker, Charlotte Cushman explains why students should have the opportunity to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom:

. . .

Should the Pledge be recited?  And should children be taught the Pledge of Allegiance?  Here is what I wrote to a group of teachers who were discussing whether or not a child should learn the Pledge of Allegiance:

There are a lot of lies being told about the United States and its history right now.  The goal is to get people to hate our country, divide us, and make our country and Western civilization fall.  (I have literally heard people say this.)  Our country was the first country on Earth that was created that recognized individual rights — that each individual had a right to pursue his/her own happiness as long as the rights of others were respected.  Before the creation of this country, people had to live their lives for a king or some other authority.  Slavery was common at that time in history, and while it took time for change to happen (as it always does), it was the idea in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal that led to the Civil War and ended slavery in this country.

I understand that some people think that teaching children the Pledge is a form of indoctrination.  Indoctrination is repeating an idea or belief to someone until they believe it.  As this idea or belief is repeated, no proof is given for it, and no questions or discussions are allowed.  The Pledge is not indoctrination if children are taught the accurate history of our country and understand the meaning of the pledge to our flag.  The United States flag is a symbol for freedom, and freedom is essential to life.  It stands for individual rights, and individual rights are essential in order to pursue happiness.  When I pledge to the flag, in my mind I know that I am pledging to the original ideals put forth by the founding fathers: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Therefore, it is logical to say that you're teaching children about the fidelity that the Pledge represents — the fidelity of the concept of individual rights.

By reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, Americans promise to be true to these ideals, not to take freedom for granted, and to remember the countless men, women, and children who have given their lives through the centuries so Americans can live peacefully today.  When children recite the Pledge, they are given the opportunity to think about their roles as citizens, the founding principles of their country, and may be incentivized to think more about the meaning and significance of the Pledge.  The Pledge can stir up curiosity regarding their country and the desire to learn more about early American history.

Only when a person understands the significance and profound meaning of freedom that America has provided can one feel a stab of pride and patriotism.  However, patriotism cannot be forced upon anyone.  Therefore, the recitation should not be compulsory, which means no punitive action should be taken against children who do not recite the Pledge.

. . .

She makes good points.  Full article is here.

# # #

Land of Hope: book review

Land of Hope: An Invitation to the Great American Story 

by Wilfred M. McClay

Philip Tervian’s review at Commentary concludes:

. . . [McClay] begins at the beginning—the archaeological evidence of our aboriginal inhabitants—and like most American histories, McClay’s tends to pass a little quickly over the first century-and-a-half of European settlement. But this is a minor complaint. His description of America on the eve of revolution is perceptive and succinct, and capacious as well. The reader never doubts the author’s perspective on the colonists’ revolt, or British government in America, but he tells the story with illuminating clarity and, above all, fair-mindedness. The answer to ignorance is not indoctrination but knowledge.

This virtue in the writing of history is not necessarily self-evident. The American Revolution, like any such episode, was a complicated matter, reaching back in history and forward in effect; and both sides—one is tempted to say all sides—were benighted and heroic, generous and arbitrary, products of their various places and time. George Washington was not without his flaws, and the Loyalists were not without their reasons. McClay sets all this out in crisp detail, balancing his judgment in conjunction with the evidence, flattering his readers to draw their own conclusions.

Which is what distinguishes this from other history texts. The present sits not in judgment but inquiry. And to the extent that we can understand people and events in circumstances far removed from our own experience, the past is revealed in Land of Hope to the present, without prejudice. The dramas and their actors—the drafting of the Constitution, Andrew Jackson, westward expansion, John C. Calhoun, the Mexican War, Samuel Gompers, women’s suffrage, Woodrow Wilson, the Great Crash, Ronald Reagan—are given the chance to speak for themselves in explaining themselves to modern sensibilities.

This is especially useful in contending with subjects—slavery and its relative significance in national life, the Civil War and its aftermath, the condition of African Americans in their own country—that routinely disrupt the historical profession, and are just as routinely distorted by ideology. This is no small matter, and no small achievement. McClay’s skill in furnishing context to emotion, in introducing modern presumption to past evidence, puts the history of the American republic in a new light by revealing its inward and outward complexity. This makes Land of Hope important, compelling, essential reading.

“Nothing about America better defines its distinctive character than the ubiquity of hope,” he writes, “a sense that the way things are initially given to us cannot be the final word about them, that we can never settle for that.” I hope he’s right.

Land of Hope sounds like a must-read. Full review is here. Amazon listing is here.

# # #