So I gave the NY Daily News to my friend and he laughed his head off, and he told me to post it on the forums. So here it is.
A public school principal in New York City has banned kindergartners from singing "God Bless the USA" at their graduation, but according to the New York Post, is allowing them to perform Justin Bieber's "Baby":
A controversial Coney Island principal has pulled the plug on patriotism.
Her refusal to let students sing “God Bless the USA” at their graduation has sparked fireworks at a school filled with proud immigrants.
Greta Hawkins, principal of PS 90, the Edna Cohen School, won’t allow kindergartners to belt out the beloved Lee Greenwood ballad, also known as “Proud to be an American,” at their moving-up ceremony.
Yeah, who was actually planning the event? I'd be surprised if the kindergartners were actually picking the songs themselves. Although if they wanted to do a patriotic song, there are certainly other ones they could have picked if they didn't want to do "God Bless the USA" for whatever reason.
And come on Mannahnin, it's not that bad of a song.
“We don’t want to offend other cultures,” they quoted her as explaining.
Maybe the problem is not the "...the USA" part of the song, but the "God bless..." part of the song?
So maybe it's not about suppressing patriotism, but about not having a lot of kids from different cultures singing a song about a Christian God blessing them all at a Government event (tax payer funded school)?
Just a thought, feel free to continue with the scheudled "Oh my gods people hate america!!!!11!!!" thread that I am sure this will become .
I've always kind of felt like "I'm proud to be an American, 'cause at least I know I'm free", implies that other people aren't free. It seems really arrogant and ignorant, which is an offensive combination. And that's coming from an American.
“We don’t want to offend other cultures,” they quoted her as explaining.
Maybe the problem is not the "...the USA" part of the song, but the "God bless..." part of the song?
So maybe it's not about suppressing patriotism, but about not having a lot of kids from different cultures singing a song about a Christian God blessing them all at a Government event (tax payer funded school)?
Just a thought, feel free to continue with the scheudled "Oh my gods people hate america!!!!11!!!" thread that I am sure this will become .
I was wondering the same thing, if the problem was the "God bless" part. But really, they could have just picked another patriotic song if they wanted to go that route. "Grand Old Flag" or something like that might have been fun for kindergartners, and I don't think it has any religious references.
Well...from what I read, saw on TV, and googled...it was planned by the teachers for several weeks already. Then the principle, Greta Hawkins made a surprise entrance and barred the song from being sung, amongst outraged teachers and parents. The song she chose to replace that one might have added a bit to the outrage too, I would assume
Also, this is not the first time she did something that caused such anger, back in 2010, she held a press conference and has made many prejudice and segregated remarks to school staff and parents. Bear in mind, she is black.
Mannahnin wrote:I've always kind of felt like "I'm proud to be an American, 'cause at least I know I'm free", implies that other people aren't free. It seems really arrogant and ignorant, which is an offensive combination. And that's coming from an American.
Mannahnin wrote:I've always kind of felt like "I'm proud to be an American, 'cause at least I know I'm free", implies that other people aren't free. It seems really arrogant and ignorant, which is an offensive combination. And that's coming from an American.
Mannahnin wrote:I've always kind of felt like "I'm proud to be an American, 'cause at least I know I'm free", implies that other people aren't free. It seems really arrogant and ignorant, which is an offensive combination. And that's coming from an American.
Well, to be fair, there are other people who aren't really free. Not everyone of course, it just depends on the country. It never struck me as that arrogant, but when someone tells me they like something or think something is good, I don't usually take that to mean that they're implying everything else sucks. I also don't consider it ignorant or arrogant to be cognizant and appreciative of one of the many benefits of living in a country like the US. I think a lot of Americans would benefit by thinking about that a little bit more from time to time.
dogma wrote:But why would you know you're free? And free from what?
Freedom is a given right, if anyone say's you have anything less than that, then he/she is wrong. There is no free from what, there is simply free. After all, isn't that what many of our fathers, mothers, and many immigrants came here for? So they can simply be?
It's certainly what many of these childrens parents where reminded of when they heard their children rehearsing this song.
...when someone tells me they like something or think something is good, I don't usually take that to mean that they're implying everything else sucks. I also don't consider it ignorant or arrogant to be cognizant and appreciative of one of the many benefits of living in a country like the US. I think a lot of Americans would benefit by thinking about that a little bit more from time to time.
Absolutely.
Well, to be fair, there are other people who aren't reaslly free. Not everyone of course, it just depends on the country. It never struck me as that arrogant, but...
It just feels like the strong (only?) implication of that particular sentence. Like what distinguishes us as Americans from everyone else is that we're free. When in fact lots of other places are free too. Admittedly there are a lot of unpleasant places in the world where people aren't; but that's not how the line reads to me. Gut level or analytical. From the first time I heard it it's always stuck in my craw. Like a fulfillment of the stereotype of the ignorant parochial American who thinks nowhere else is nice.
dogma wrote:But why would you know you're free? And free from what?
Well, it's hard to say what 100% freedom would really be like, and obviously no country really has that. There are limits (i.e., laws, etc.)
Perhaps a better way to put it would be that the US has a much higher level of freedom in general than many other countries (and I'm not talking about democratic first world European countries here, so no one needs to chime in about how the UK is just as free as US - I get it, and that's not what I'm referring to.). I know that the US is more free because I have spent time in other countries where the people are significantly less free than the US. There are many other countries with higher levels of government oppression, police brutality and corruption, government crackdowns on peaceful protesters, lack of free elections, and so on. There are a lot of different ways to measure it, none of which are perfect, but when taken as a whole it's often pretty clear that the US has a lot of advantages in the freedom department, and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging and being appreciative of that.
I will also say that the US is not perfect and has problems of its own, and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that either.
dogma wrote:But why would you know you're free? And free from what?
Freedom is a given right, if anyone say's you have anything less than that, then he/she is wrong. There is no free from what, there is simply free.
That's untrue. Or true in the sense that it's meaningless. I'm not free to park wherever I want. Or to steal. I'm not free to do a lot of things. And I live in arguably the freest country on Earth. By some standards, Somalians are freer than us. They have fewer laws that mean anything. But that's not really a good kind of freedom.
LumenPraebeo wrote:After all, isn't that what many of our fathers, mothers, and many immigrants came here for? So they can simply be?
Mostly they came here for economic opportunity. Though that's freedom in a sense. Some did come here for political freedom, though.
dogma wrote:But why would you know you're free? And free from what?
Well, it's hard to say what 100% freedom would really be like, and obviously no country really has that. There are limits (i.e., laws, etc.)
Hordini wrote:[Perhaps a better way to put it would be that the US has a much higher level of freedom in general than many other countries (and I'm not talking about democratic first world European countries here, so no one needs to chime in about how the UK is just as free as US - I get it, and that's not what I'm referring to.).
Cool. But my feeling has always been that Lee Greenwood isn't making any caveats about the UK or France. Maybe I'm reading him wrong.
Hordini wrote:I know that the US is more free because I have spent time in other countries where the people are significantly less free than the US. There are many other countries with higher levels of government oppression, police brutality and corruption, government crackdowns on peaceful protesters, lack of free elections, and so on. There are a lot of different ways to measure it, none of which are perfect, but when taken as a whole it's often pretty clear that the US has a lot of advantages in the freedom department, and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging and being appreciative of that.
100% agreed. I just think it's a bad song for that.
Is it a song that has meaning for the kids that are singing it?
Or are the kids basically just trained monkeys singing a song that has meaning for the parents even though the kids don't really understand what they are singing about?
...when someone tells me they like something or think something is good, I don't usually take that to mean that they're implying everything else sucks. I also don't consider it ignorant or arrogant to be cognizant and appreciative of one of the many benefits of living in a country like the US. I think a lot of Americans would benefit by thinking about that a little bit more from time to time.
Absolutely.
Well, to be fair, there are other people who aren't really free. Not everyone of course, it just depends on the country. It never struck me as that arrogant, but...
It just feels like the strong (only?) implication of that particular sentence. Like what distinguishes us as Americans from everyone else is that we're free. When in fact lots of other places are free too. Admittedly there are a lot of unpleasant places in the world where people aren't; but that's not how the line reads to me. Gut level or analytical. From the first time I heard it it's always stuck in my craw. Like a fulfillment of the stereotype of the ignorant parochial American who thinks nowhere else is nice.
I can understand your interpretation and I don't think it's invalid. I do think that it's possible to interpret the line a couple of different ways, however. I think one could also interpret it more along the lines of no matter what other challenges I'm facing, no matter how difficult things are going for me, "at least I know I'm free."
That said, I understand why you don't like the line, and believe me, I'm pretty sure I dislike the "ignorant parochial American who thinks nowhere else is nice" stereotype just as much as you do. That's something I have to battle against (I hope successfully) on a pretty regular basis.
d-usa wrote:Is it a song that has meaning for the kids that are singing it?
Or are the kids basically just trained monkeys singing a song that has meaning for the parents even though the kids don't really understand what they are singing about?
Either way, that's usually how history gets passed down. By teaching what we know to our young....we train them....and by doing so, once they get old enough to think for themselves, we can consider them taught.
d-usa wrote:Is it a song that has meaning for the kids that are singing it?
Or are the kids basically just trained monkeys singing a song that has meaning for the parents even though the kids don't really understand what they are singing about?
Either way, that's usually how history gets passed down. By teaching what we know to our young....we train them....and by doing so, once they get old enough to think for themselves, we can consider them taught.
d-usa wrote:Is it a song that has meaning for the kids that are singing it?
Or are the kids basically just trained monkeys singing a song that has meaning for the parents even though the kids don't really understand what they are singing about?
Either way, that's usually how history gets passed down. By teaching what we know to our young....we train them....and by doing so, once they get old enough to think for themselves, we can consider them taught.
That's how propaganda works as well
Yep...and I know, i gotcha the first time you implied it.
d-usa wrote:Is it a song that has meaning for the kids that are singing it?
Or are the kids basically just trained monkeys singing a song that has meaning for the parents even though the kids don't really understand what they are singing about?
Either way, that's usually how history gets passed down. By teaching what we know to our young....we train them....and by doing so, once they get old enough to think for themselves, we can consider them taught.
That's how propaganda works as well
That's true. That's why it's so important to have teachers who's primary concern is education, not indoctrination.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a patriotic song now and then though. There are obviously limits, but I guess that's the difference between a reasonable and healthy sense of patriotism and ridiculously ignorant nationalism.
I can understand your interpretation and I don't think it's invalid. I do think that it's possible to interpret the line a couple of different ways, however. I think one could also interpret it more along the lines of no matter what other challenges I'm facing, no matter how difficult things are going for me, "at least I know I'm free."
That would definitely improve it; I just don't think that's what it's saying. I may well be wrong.
That said, I understand why you don't like the line, and believe me, I'm pretty sure I dislike the "ignorant parochial American who thinks nowhere else is nice" stereotype just as much as you do. That's something I have to battle against (I hope successfully) on a pretty regular basis
I want to go on a rant of graduation just for learningg your colors but i wont.
But maybe the principle is right. Maybe he didnt want kids ruining the song so he gave them a Bieber song to ruin(more)
Hordini wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with a patriotic song now and then though. There are obviously limits, but I guess that's the difference between a reasonable and healthy sense of patriotism and ridiculously ignorant nationalism.
That is the fine line. It is one thing to be proud of your country because it is great, and it is one thing to be proud of your country because you think it is better than any other country.
Maybe having dual-citizenship influences my view on some of these things. The only time I truly have the "my country is better than yours" mindset is during the World Cup and the UEFA Cup. Soccer FTW
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:But maybe the principle is right. Maybe he didnt want kids ruining the song so he gave them a Bieber song to improve
Mannahnin wrote:And in that respect, I'd be happy for them to learn better patriotic songs.
I can understand your interpretation and I don't think it's invalid. I do think that it's possible to interpret the line a couple of different ways, however. I think one could also interpret it more along the lines of no matter what other challenges I'm facing, no matter how difficult things are going for me, "at least I know I'm free."
That would definitely improve it; I just don't think that's what it's saying. I may well be wrong.
I definitely agree that there are better songs they could have chosen, better than both "God Bless the USA" and "Baby."
That said, I understand why you don't like the line, and believe me, I'm pretty sure I dislike the "ignorant parochial American who thinks nowhere else is nice" stereotype just as much as you do. That's something I have to battle against (I hope successfully) on a pretty regular basis
I'm sure you do. Sincerely.
I appreciate that. I'm doing the best I can, at least.
There must be a ton of songs being performed about dear leader Obama if you guys are always posting the same dang video. Surely if there is such widespread propaganda going on there must be more videos on YouTube by now...
Hordini wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with a patriotic song now and then though. There are obviously limits, but I guess that's the difference between a reasonable and healthy sense of patriotism and ridiculously ignorant nationalism.
That is the fine line. It is one thing to be proud of your country because it is great, and it is one thing to be proud of your country because you think it is better than any other country.
Maybe having dual-citizenship influences my view on some of these things. The only time I truly have the "my country is better than yours" mindset is during the World Cup and the UEFA Cup. Soccer FTW
I agree, but as long as you understand where the line is, it's a pretty easy line to not cross. I think the problem arises not so much because the line is fine, but because there are people who don't see the line at all, on both sides.
dogma wrote:But why would you know you're free? And free from what?
Having been to a few third world countries, I've got a pretty good ideawhat I'm free from. Working with people from all over the world and hearing their stories does make me both proud and happy to be from the U.S.A.
d-usa wrote:There must be a ton of songs being performed about dear leader Obama if you guys are always posting the same dang video. Surely if there is such widespread propaganda going on there must be more videos on YouTube by now...
It doesn't take much searching to find it, either. Since thisthread is about school kids banned from singing a patriotic song, I thought this video was a good counterpoint.
It's ok if the kids are taught to sing praises to the dear leader Obama, but are turned away from singing songs about love of country.
That is terrible reasoning. A nonsequitur, really. Did anyone here in this thread saying that the Lee Greenwood song is a bad one opine that the pro-Obama song was okay? Did the same school Principal approve it, but disapprove the Greenwood song?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, then you're just dragging the thread off topic for a generic bash at lefties taken from Limbaugh re-runs. Come on. We were having a decent and respectful conversation here.
Hordini wrote:I don't think there's anything wrong with a patriotic song now and then though. There are obviously limits, but I guess that's the difference between a reasonable and healthy sense of patriotism and ridiculously ignorant nationalism.
That is the fine line. It is one thing to be proud of your country because it is great, and it is one thing to be proud of your country because you think it is better than any other country.
Maybe having dual-citizenship influences my view on some of these things. The only time I truly have the "my country is better than yours" mindset is during the World Cup and the UEFA Cup. Soccer FTW
I agree, but as long as you understand where the line is, it's a pretty easy line to not cross. I think the problem arises not so much because the line is fine, but because there are people who don't see the line at all, on both sides.
Very true. I used to volunteer for a fire department and the one thing we were allowed to decorate (within reason) was our helmets. So people had stuff about their hobbies, sports team, etc on it.
I ended up getting two 3x4 inch stickers for it, a US flag and a German flag. I even made sure to review the flag code to make sure I attached them the right way (followed the guidelines for hanging flags from a wall, have the US flag mounted on the flags right, no flag higher than the other). I still got grief because the German flag was on my helmet. I got two flag poles on my porch, I fly the US flag on US holidays (usually fly it by itself on those days) and I fly the German flag on German holidays (always with the US flag flying as well). I also fly both flags on days that Germany plays soccer matches .
I have found that for the most part the only people that give me grief about flying the German flag are the same people that are most likely to vacation or live in a European country while wearing their flag shorts and flag t-shirt while wearing their American Eagle ball cap.
Isn't clothing made from the flag a violation of the flag code?
That's probably your point.
I think you may be giving those people too much credit. IME people who give you crap for having a foreign flag probably wouldn't consider vacationing in Europe. Too far. Too high a risk of broadening their minds.
It's ok if the kids are taught to sing praises to the dear leader Obama, but are turned away from singing songs about love of country.
That is terrible reasoning. A nonsequitur, really. Did anyone here in this thread saying that the Lee Greenwood song is a bad one opine that the pro-Obama song was okay? Did the same school Principal approve it, but disapprove the Greenwood song?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, then you're just dragging the thread off topic for a generic bash at lefties taken from Limbaugh re-runs. Come on. We were having a decent and respectful conversation here.
Just shows that e need to be aware of what teachers in our school system are allowing. This principle has had other issues of a similar nature in the past.
Mannahnin wrote:Isn't clothing made from the flag against the flag code?
That's probably your point.
I got a whole discussion I can get into with people who start quoting flag code stuff to me . So I hear where you are comming from
My favorite is "anything that is even a partial representation of a flag is considered a flag according to the flag code. So you are throwing a flag into your dirty laundry or on the floor and covering it with dirty underwear."
Hordini wrote:
Perhaps a better way to put it would be that the US has a much higher level of freedom in general than many other countries...
But it still leaves the question "What is freedom?"
Hordini wrote:
I will also say that the US is not perfect and has problems of its own, and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that either.
Hordini wrote:
Perhaps a better way to put it would be that the US has a much higher level of freedom in general than many other countries...
But it still leaves the question "What is freedom?"
Hordini wrote:
I will also say that the US is not perfect and has problems of its own, and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that either.
Not at all, in fact I think its good.
That's a good question, I hope this gives an answer,
Relapse wrote:Just shows that we need to be aware of what teachers in our school system are allowing. This principle has had other issues of a similar nature in the past.
Yeah, trying to get the point of having such people teaching our young across....but it seems like everyone is focused on if the song is suitable or going too far.
But it still leaves the question "What is freedom?"
Dogma...freedom itself is a notion given name....and you can't ask people on the spot in a warhammer forum to define a notion/belief accurately. The question itself is redundant.
Hordini wrote:
Perhaps a better way to put it would be that the US has a much higher level of freedom in general than many other countries...
But it still leaves the question "What is freedom?"
Hordini wrote:
I will also say that the US is not perfect and has problems of its own, and I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that either.
Not at all, in fact I think its good.
That's a good question, I hope this gives an answer,
Arise, ye workers from your slumber, Arise, ye prisoners of want. For reason in revolt now thunders, and at last ends the age of cant! Away with all your superstitions, Servile masses, arise, arise! We'll change henceforth the old tradition, And spurn the dust to win the prize!
So a website with the tagline "exposing and combating the liberal media bias" has found a story that someone has banned a patriotic song, I wonder how thoroughly they've researched and reported this story.
d-usa wrote:Are you saying they have a conservative bias?
It's certainly within the realms of possibility, they could be liberals though, writing such things to discredit their rivals by making them appear ill informed and reactionary.
d-usa wrote:Are you saying they have a conservative bias?
It's certainly within the realms of possibility, they could be liberals though, writing such things to discredit their rivals by making them appear ill informed and reactionary.
That does make more sense than conservative nitpicking of stories and facts.
So a website with the tagline "exposing and combating the liberal media bias" has found a story that someone has banned a patriotic song, I wonder how thoroughly they've researched and reported this story.
As usual...thorough enough to make a good story, but as with a lot of media news, you gotta look into it to get a clearer picture. But its not about the songs being switched. Judging from past actions, this principle is extremely biased towards a multicultural community and has actively attempted and to an extent succeeded in dividing the school staff into two camps...and in any other work place, it might be bearable, but this has caused the school to receive negative ratings, and can possibly affect the young ones under the schools wing.
d-usa wrote:Are you saying they have a conservative bias?
It's certainly within the realms of possibility, they could be liberals though, writing such things to discredit their rivals by making them appear ill informed and reactionary.
That does make more sense than conservative nitpicking of stories and facts.
If we follow that train of thought though, it could mean that all conservative media is written by liberals, and all liberal media is written by conservatives.
Star-Spangled Banner is far more interesting of a song with more evocative lyrics and a better tune, if you're looking for a patriotic song.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Mind you, congressional members tend to be rather boring and uninspired just in general. I mean, E pluribus unum is a far better motto than "In god we trust", yet in '56 they chose the latter to replace the former as the US government's motto.
The former signifies unity and strength (literally meaning "from many, one"), while the latter indicates passiveness without strength.
But it still leaves the question "What is freedom?"
In part, the right to ask impossible to answer questions about apparently simple philosophical concepts without being strung up as a persistent trouble maker.
Orlanth wrote:
In part, the right to ask impossible to answer questions about apparently simple philosophical concepts without being strung up as a persistent trouble maker.
It isn't a difficult question to answer, really. It is either the ability to do a thing, or the ability to do a thing without consequence. People get turned around because of the consequence bit, and the resultant questions regarding appropriateness.
See, took me only 3 sentences, which leaves one to wonder what everyone else is doing. Probably making gak up because they want to feel righteous, that's what most do (Which you'll try and turn around, but I expected that.).
Orlanth wrote:
In part, the right to ask impossible to answer questions about apparently simple philosophical concepts without being strung up as a persistent trouble maker.
It isn't a difficult question to answer, really. It is either the ability to do a thing, or the ability to do a thing without consequence. People get turned around because of the consequence bit, and the resultant questions regarding appropriateness.
See, took me only 3 sentences, which leaves one to wonder what everyone else is doing. Probably making gak up because they want to feel righteous, that's what most do (Which you'll try and turn around, but I expected that.).
Freedom is not without consequence. So for example the freedom to make love to whoever you want rather than be forced into a strict marriage partnership is a form of 'freedom', but it will not absolve you of the potential consequence of pregnancy without proper precautions. Or alternately you can be given freedom from absolute speed limits on the autobahn, but there can be consequences for going too fast.
d-usa wrote:Other countries allow you the freedom to prostitute yourself and smoke weed.
Are they more free than us?
In those specific respects yes, the problem with the term freedom is it needs qualifying. Hence why the European Code of Human Rights grants freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly etc. The term freedom itself is a silly goal to chase as you can end up in lawlessness, although in a Utopian society there may not be a need for law to exist, so in that situation an absolute freedom could be allowed.
I am genuinely struggling to conceive of a person who would genuinely care if some children sung a corny patriotic song. I am struggling just as much to conceive of a person who would genuinely care if such a song were banned.
This whole thing just reads like the most ridiculous nonsense. Why is anyone choosing this as an issue to fight over?
Orlanth wrote:
Freedom is not without consequence.
Then I'm not free to kill, and murder doesn't exist.
Bad objection.
Your confusing yourself, for murder not to exist you must be free to kill.
This can occur, for example soldiers are given release to open fire. 'Weapons free'. That is an element of freedom there, and it results in non-murders, yet even so there are consequences for having taken life.
Orlanth wrote:
Your confusing yourself, for murder not to exist you must be free to kill.
No, wrong.
First the word is "You're" if you're (See what I did there?) going to correct me, don't feth up.
Second, still wondering what freedom is.
Orlanth wrote:
This can occur, for example soldiers are given release to open fire. 'Weapons free'. That is an element of freedom there, and it results in non-murders, yet even so there are consequences for having taken life.
It does? Many disagree.
Orlanth wrote:
Objection still holds. Try again.
Nope, lazy, and weak. Nice try though. But I'm better (smarter).
Nope, lazy, and weak. Nice try though. But I'm better (smarter).
Youre extra arrogant today then.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Your confusing yourself, for murder not to exist you must be free to kill.
First the word is "You're" if you're (See what I did there?) going to correct me, don't feth up.
Actually if you were 'smarter', you might try have a go at the logic rather than the speedtyping. Perhaps you cannot.
For murder not to exist - i.e a killing not being murder
You must be free to kill - i.e. given the freedom to commit an act which if not enabled would be murder.
dogma wrote:
No, wrong.
If you are going to have pretentions of superiority, please actually address what is written for a change. Otherwise get off your high horse.
Besides we are used to your flat denials without support enough times already. Its you're schtick.
You say 'no' or 'wrong' and don't say why, and expect people to just believe you.
I brought you up on this before, without result, and am still not buying that, nor should I.
dogma wrote:
Second, still wondering what freedom is.
Not wondering if I will get a reasonable definition from you. Your last one was way off. Still stranger things have happened. You are not dumb, I wont accuse you of that, but you are not half as smart as you think. If you were you wouldn't post the way you do.
Its a topic I've long felt strongly about ever since during a talk with the missus 4 or 5 years ago she told me that in her elementary school AND kindergarten (she said she specifically remembers a girl in Kindergarten who was a Jehovah witness because she used to just sit there when everyone else stood up!) they had to get up and pledge allegiance to the flag and say "Indivisible under God" and all this gak. And it really did stun me. I couldn't believe that they had children doing it, and I found it to be a really odious story. It felt almost like Red China style brainwashing.. she mentioned something about it being introduced in the 50s to combat the spread of communism or something?!
Anyway, I think most Europeans would find the idea as repellent as I did. Do you still do it in most kids schools? Bear in mind she is 8 years younger than me so.. it was only the 90s she was still in school.
But I digress, I noticed it living in America and in the American military facilities and such.. the US seems to me to be literally the only Western nation that is still obsessed with this gak. Like some sort of strange paranoia?
Freedom this and freedom that.. God bless America, and how many times a day do you hear someone on TV in the States say "This is the greatest country on earth!"
Basically, I love America and Americans, but on this score it makes you guys look like total dicks. I told you I was arguing with a bloke about Religion in the pub once in Virginia and I said "Why do you think there are so many more deeply Religious people over here? and he said "Oh cos in America we are allowed to choose our own Religion!" as If that's not the case almost everywhere else?!
Basically endlessly harping on about this gak makes you look either ridiculously ignorant (think everyone in other countries lives in servitude/slavery) or ridiculously rude (think your way better than everyone else and always likes to mention it) and I think that lessening it is always a good thing.
I would be disgusted if they made my 6 year old kid stand up once a week salute a British flag and sing God save the Queen, and I fething love the Queen! I just don't like the idea of forcing that stuff onto kids..
Whats so amazingly aweomse is how we don't care what Europeans think on the subject.
Is it stupid? Maybe. So's life.
So what? Its our country and our rules.
The concept of your Royal Family is utterly stupid, but if you like thats schtick then fine by me. I just want a set of the cool dragoon armor I see so I can wear on Halloween, or maybe the next time I have to go to the DMV.
They should sing Neil Diamond's America or God Bless America or Blame Canada.
ideally all three, then we give them muskets and sent them off to conquer Canada. All your tasty maple glazed donuts are belong to us!!!
I just realized - is that the "new" song from the 80's or 90s? Yea its as the Brits say...bullocks. Now lets all bury our differences and invade France.
Frazzled wrote:Whats so amazingly aweomse is how we don't care what Europeans think on the subject.
Is it stupid? Maybe. So's life.
So what? Its our country and our rules.
The concept of your Royal Family is utterly stupid, but if you like thats schtick then fine by me. I just want a set of the cool dragoon armor I see so I can wear on Halloween, or maybe the next time I have to go to the DMV.
It's like you and matty colluded so that what he said, you'd make a perfect example of!
mattyrm wrote: almost like Red China style brainwashing...
I would be disgusted if they made my 6 year old kid stand up once a week salute a British flag and sing God save the Queen, and I fething love the Queen! I just don't like the idea of forcing that stuff onto kids..
A friend of mine is currently doing teacher training for primary level and she told me as part of the National Curriculum they have to do a certain amount "worship" every day, she was kind of appalled at the idea of it.
mattyrm wrote: Its a topic I've long felt strongly about ever since during a talk with the missus 4 or 5 years ago she told me that in her elementary school AND kindergarten (she said she specifically remembers a girl in Kindergarten who was a Jehovah witness because she used to just sit there when everyone else stood up!) they had to get up and pledge allegiance to the flag and say "Indivisible under God" and all this gak. And it really did stun me. I couldn't believe that they had children doing it, and I found it to be a really odious story. It felt almost like Red China style brainwashing.. she mentioned something about it being introduced in the 50s to combat the spread of communism or something?!
Anyway, I think most Europeans would find the idea as repellent as I did. Do you still do it in most kids schools? Bear in mind she is 8 years younger than me so.. it was only the 90s she was still in school.
But I digress, I noticed it living in America and in the American military facilities and such.. the US seems to me to be literally the only Western nation that is still obsessed with this gak. Like some sort of strange paranoia?
Freedom this and freedom that.. God bless America, and how many times a day do you hear someone on TV in the States say "This is the greatest country on earth!"
Basically, I love America and Americans, but on this score it makes you guys look like total dicks. I told you I was arguing with a bloke about Religion in the pub once in Virginia and I said "Why do you think there are so many more deeply Religious people over here? and he said "Oh cos in America we are allowed to choose our own Religion!" as If that's not the case almost everywhere else?!
Basically endlessly harping on about this gak makes you look either ridiculously ignorant (think everyone in other countries lives in servitude/slavery) or ridiculously rude (think your way better than everyone else and always likes to mention it) and I think that lessening it is always a good thing.
I would be disgusted if they made my 6 year old kid stand up once a week salute a British flag and sing God save the Queen, and I fething love the Queen! I just don't like the idea of forcing that stuff onto kids..
Well....this country is made up of many different nationalities and religions, and as so, the american nationality is a collection of these. If there was no identity to it, then it would just be a collection of people in cities, cities in states, and states in a so-called nation. However, I do agree it is brainwashing. But I'm still not sure if it is a good or bad thing. The roots of a nation with a common cause must be established somewhere, or else its back to the 13/50 colonies all over again.
mattyrm wrote: Its a topic I've long felt strongly about ever since during a talk with the missus 4 or 5 years ago she told me that in her elementary school AND kindergarten (she said she specifically remembers a girl in Kindergarten who was a Jehovah witness because she used to just sit there when everyone else stood up!) they had to get up and pledge allegiance to the flag and say "Indivisible under God" and all this gak. And it really did stun me. I couldn't believe that they had children doing it, and I found it to be a really odious story. It felt almost like Red China style brainwashing.. she mentioned something about it being introduced in the 50s to combat the spread of communism or something?!
Anyway, I think most Europeans would find the idea as repellent as I did. Do you still do it in most kids schools? Bear in mind she is 8 years younger than me so.. it was only the 90s she was still in school.
But I digress, I noticed it living in America and in the American military facilities and such.. the US seems to me to be literally the only Western nation that is still obsessed with this gak. Like some sort of strange paranoia?
Freedom this and freedom that.. God bless America, and how many times a day do you hear someone on TV in the States say "This is the greatest country on earth!"
Basically, I love America and Americans, but on this score it makes you guys look like total dicks. I told you I was arguing with a bloke about Religion in the pub once in Virginia and I said "Why do you think there are so many more deeply Religious people over here? and he said "Oh cos in America we are allowed to choose our own Religion!" as If that's not the case almost everywhere else?!
Basically endlessly harping on about this gak makes you look either ridiculously ignorant (think everyone in other countries lives in servitude/slavery) or ridiculously rude (think your way better than everyone else and always likes to mention it) and I think that lessening it is always a good thing.
I would be disgusted if they made my 6 year old kid stand up once a week salute a British flag and sing God save the Queen, and I fething love the Queen! I just don't like the idea of forcing that stuff onto kids..
Well....this country is made up of many different nationalities and religions, and as so, the american nationality is a collection of these. If there was no identity to it, then it would just be a collection of people in cities, cities in states, and states in a so-called nation. However, I do agree it is brainwashing. But I'm still not sure if it is a good or bad thing. The roots of a nation with a common cause must be established somewhere, or else its back to the 13/50 colonies all over again.
I agree its brainwashing, but what most americans also quickly forget is you are free not to say it, and you are free to mock it. I've had many a fun debate when schools have stopped doing the pledge and that same group of people get all upset about it. or mention taking under god out of it.
The original was: "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all." <--- see no god. The original hand salute was precious to.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:The "flag pledge" was invented by a flag salesman in order to sell more flags to school. Capitalism at its finests.
ya damn bloody socialists:
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,
Like some other dakkanauts in this thread, I reckon the principal might have simply disliked the term "God" in the lyrics, which is divisive for a nation where, supposedly, freedom of religion is part of the basic rights. Maybe not all of the children are Christians or from Christian parents?
dogma wrote:
LumenPraebeo wrote:
Freedom is a given right, if anyone say's you have anything less than that, then he/she is wrong.
In the past I would have said "Yeah, sure." but now I would ask "Are you free to kill person X without person X trying to stop you?"
I think that, by now, there are (sadly) better examples to be made, see how some of the Occupy Wallstreet protests were handled, or what SOPA/PIPA/etc are actually doing, or what the authorities, the secret agencies and the military are allowed to do these days in the pursuit of "homeland security". All of these measures have a certain justification on their basis, but at the same time it looks like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It's a dangerous development that may very well lead to "freedom" becoming nothing more but an empty word.
Freedom is very subjective, and I think most democratic governments, whilst starting out driven by idealism and honesty, have since become corrupted, exerting various amounts of oppression and indoctrination on their populace. Okay, that may sound a little too grim now; of course it's still preferrable to living in NK etc, but I think we can agree that "freedom isn't what it used to be".
sirlynchmob wrote:The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy (1855–1931), who was a Baptist minister, a Christian socialist,
If you've taken that from wikipedia, the very same paragraph finished with:
"The event was conceived and promoted by James B. Upham, a marketer for the magazine, as a campaign to instill the idea of American nationalism by selling flags to public schools and magazines to students." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance
sirlynchmob wrote:well like they say, whoever trades freedom for security, will have neither.
It's a good thing then that nice maxims like these have very little relevance in reality.
Mattyrm wrote:Anyway, I think most Europeans would find the idea as repellent as I did. Do you still do it in most kids schools? Bear in mind she is 8 years younger than me so.. it was only the 90s she was still in school.
My father use to tell me that he did things like these back in the early 60s, but that he remember that it became a huge issue and was never done again.
Frazzled wrote:Whats so amazingly aweomse is how we don't care what Europeans think on the subject.
Is it stupid? Maybe. So's life.
So what? Its our country and our rules.
Thus you claim your country to be stupid, and are proud of your employ of freedom to promote stupidity on the national level.
Kovnik Obama wrote:It's a good thing then that nice maxims like these have very little relevance in reality.
Do they, though? Very few oppressive regimes act like they are governed by Darth Vader or Sauron, most such nations justify the actions of their security forces with the "need to keep order" and "prevent the evil [insert name of foreign country, ideology, religion or organization] from destroying their way of life" and how they just want to "protect the innocent people". Needless to say, anyone getting caught and incarcerated is then either a bandit, a terrorist or a foreign spy.
Thus you claim your country to be stupid, and are proud of your employ of freedom to promote stupidity on the national level.
Just remember Tim Horton's is owned by the USA
Like I care about that piss water they call 'steeped tea'...
Any 'fast-food' restaurant that doesn't take debit card as a policy deserves to fail, and it's a first world problem that they haven't already.
Do they, though? Very few oppressive regimes act like they are governed by Darth Vader or Sauron, most such nations justify the actions of their security forces with the "need to keep order" and "prevent the evil [insert name of foreign country, ideology, religion or organization] from destroying their way of life" and how they just want to "protect the innocent people". Needless to say, anyone getting caught and incarcerated is then either a bandit, a terrorist or a foreign spy.
The maxim suggest that trading freedom for security is something immoral, not that 'Dictators will use good Laws to do evil acts'. Someone who trades freedom for security still derseves security, and he probably still deserves some freedom. Otherwise, the consequence of that claim is that the only people who deserve freedom and security are those that can both assert freedoms and security for themselves : the tyrants.
Thus you claim your country to be stupid, and are proud of your employ of freedom to promote stupidity on the national level.
Just remember Tim Horton's is owned by the USA
Like I care about that piss water they call 'steeped tea'...
Congratulations, you've just been reported, not to Dakka Mods, but to the Canadian Mounties. Canada will not stand for such an insult to the greatness of Tim Horton's (wow someone actually drinks tea there?) Sinner! Blasphemer! Repent for the end of Kovnik is nigh!!!
Orlanth wrote:
Actually if you were 'smarter', you might try have a go at the logic rather than the speedtyping. Perhaps you cannot.
You mean reasoning, not logic. Logic would involve a series of proofs with monosyllabic articles standing in for elements, which is nice, and fun, but since your argument is basically that freedom is freedom (X=X) it would be pointless.
I provided you a means by which to define that which you claimed to be impossible to define, there's nothing left but for me to mock you.
Orlanth wrote:
For murder not to exist - i.e a killing not being murder
You must be free to kill - i.e. given the freedom to commit an act which if not enabled would be murder.
No, I can be free to kill, and murder can exist. I can kill, without material consequence, and still be called a murderer.
Orlanth wrote:
Its you're schtick.
Funny how you needed to illustrate "my shtick" by selectively quoting a part of my post that prefaced a decent amount of text. Perhaps, just perhaps, it isn't my shtick at all.
Orlanth wrote:
Not wondering if I will get a reasonable definition from you. Your last one was way off. Still stranger things have happened. You are not dumb, I wont accuse you of that, but you are not half as smart as you think. If you were you wouldn't post the way you do.
Sure I would, because its fun to annoy.
Either way, freedom is freedom is not a good, or reasonable position to argue from.
The song choices are horrible, but the controversy is being stirred up by the right because of their POV. Just like if Abortion were to be more regulated. The left would be up in arms about it. Why? Because they are fighting a war of hearts and words. Which ever side wins gets more of their poeple elected which equals more power. Standard Republic Operating Procedure. The true problem is the political class (including the Media; both sides) are willing to divide poeple to get the power they want. As Americans we let them.
This is a non-issue, but it was made into an issue to further an agenda. Study your history folks this kind of thing happened a lot in Athens and Early Rome when they were ruled as republics. The only difference is that we now get information within seconds, and armed rebellion uses guns instead of arrows.
Frazzled wrote:
Congratulations, you've just been reported, not to Dakka Mods, but to the Canadian Mounties. Canada will not stand for such an insult to the greatness of Tim Horton's (wow someone actually drinks tea there?) Sinner! Blasphemer! Repent for the end of Kovnik is nigh!!!
I also have a profound dislike for hockey. Don't tell them that, I'll get stoned to death with pucks and octopi.
And lot's of people prefer tea to coffee here. The Brits couldn't have done so many bad things to us without doing a few good...
mattyrm wrote:...they had to get up and pledge allegiance to the flag and say "Indivisible under God" and all this gak. And it really did stun me. I couldn't believe that they had children doing it, and I found it to be a really odious story. It felt almost like Red China style brainwashing.. she mentioned something about it being introduced in the 50s to combat the spread of communism or something?!
I did it until...5th grade? So until age 10. And yes, that's exactly what it is; "brainwashing" that people accept because they like it. Sort of like history courses pre-college, and in college if you talk to some.
mattyrm wrote:
Do you still do it in most kids schools?
I'm 26, so as of 16 years ago we did it.
mattyrm wrote:
Freedom this and freedom that.
Because America means freedom, and such.
Kovnik Obama wrote: Don't tell them that, I'll get stoned to death with pucks and octopi.
Frazzled wrote:
Congratulations, you've just been reported, not to Dakka Mods, but to the Canadian Mounties. Canada will not stand for such an insult to the greatness of Tim Horton's (wow someone actually drinks tea there?) Sinner! Blasphemer! Repent for the end of Kovnik is nigh!!!
I also have a profound dislike for hockey. Don't tell them that, I'll get stoned to death with pucks and octopi.
And lot's of people prefer tea to coffee here. The Brits couldn't have done so many bad things to us without doing a few good...
ya that came as a shock to me, and I've been banned from making tea. You go to put a cup in the microwave once
Frazzled wrote:
Congratulations, you've just been reported, not to Dakka Mods, but to the Canadian Mounties. Canada will not stand for such an insult to the greatness of Tim Horton's (wow someone actually drinks tea there?) Sinner! Blasphemer! Repent for the end of Kovnik is nigh!!!
I also have a profound dislike for hockey. Don't tell them that, I'll get stoned to death with pucks and octopi.
And lot's of people prefer tea to coffee here. The Brits couldn't have done so many bad things to us without doing a few good...
All the Canadians I palled around with just skipped the tea and went straight to beer.
I don't pledge allegiance to the flag, mainly because it is just a symbol. Maybe instead of pledging to a piece of cloth that is a representation of our 'freedoms' we should pledge on the piece of paper that gives them to us.
Kovnik Obama wrote:The maxim suggest that trading freedom for security is something immoral, not that 'Dictators will use good Laws to do evil acts'. Someone who trades freedom for security still derseves security, and he probably still deserves some freedom. Otherwise, the consequence of that claim is that the only people who deserve freedom and security are those that can both assert freedoms and security for themselves : the tyrants.
I'm fairly sure that this is not how that saying is supposed to be understood.
It's a criticism leveled against those who are willing to enslave themselves out of fear. A wake-up call for those who would voluntarily surrender their freedoms just because they are being told it's better for them.
Or rather ... perhaps it is as you say, but that trading all freedom for 100% security is something immoral. And in this instance I'd still be inclined to agree. My belief is that an ideal society needs to find a good balance between both and should not lean too far towards either extreme. This, of course, is easier said than done, but it should be obvious that there's a lot of fearmongering going on right now, and it makes me suspicious as to who has an interest in making people afraid, and what kind of power they get from the legislations passed in such an atmosphere.
An important difference also needs to be made between security for the state and safety for the individual citizen - a lot of people get these mixed up, allowing the government to increase the former but actually only wishing for the latter. Does anyone really want a return to McCarthian witch hunts? What about Operation Gladio? The lines between freedom and oppression are beginning to get pretty blurry here.
dogma wrote:Also, have you heard of the Red Scare?
The term I've heard just now as I quickly browsed the wiki entry since I forgot McCarthy's name. I've been familiar with the basics for a long time, though. I wouldn't call myself an expert on history, but I love reading about it.
dogma wrote:The bold is the problem. I think it was Churchill that said something about that.
Indeed he did. I used to agree with him, though by now I'm not so sure anymore. Or is it perhaps that what calls itself "democracy" today isn't what it should have been? Can something even be called "democracy" when the democratic elements seem manipulated by money and connections? How much influence can the ordinary citizen even take, and how much of it gets lost by the use of speakers who speak for speakers who speak for speakers who supposedly speak for him? There are many different forms that democracy has taken over the eons. Undoubtedly, some are more democratic than others.
dogma wrote:Always was, its just transparent now; sort of.
Maybe. Or easier?
Is it delusion to believe that democratic governments once used to be more honest than they are now?
dogma wrote:What does the ordinary citizen look like?
I'm referring to options available not everyone, not even any individuals or groups of individuals. For example, in Germany you cannot elect the Chancellor - you are only allowed to choose between a number of candidates groomed for this job by the parties presenting them. In essence, people's influence on politics is extremely indirect; they can only try voting for people who are then voting for other people, etc. Maybe a more direct participation would solve a lot of issues.
I keep thinking about the asari's "e-democracy" from Mass Effect where everyone can vote on everything. A system like that might do a lot of damage if implemented right away, though. I'm not sure if the majority of humans are ready to make smart decisions, especially concerning long-term issues, and especially when lobbies and media still have this much hold over people's opinions. So I suppose that one shall remain a dream for another era. Could be interesting to see it implemented on a local level, however. Like some village. Just to see how it works out.
Lynata wrote:
Is it delusion to believe that democratic governments once used to be more honest than they are now?
Ask William Randolph Hurst.
Lynata wrote:
Maybe a more direct participation would solve a lot of issues.
Doesn't work in California, and Athens killed Socrates.
The simple fact is that governing a state involves a particular set of skills (different from Liam Neeson's), and not just any yokel can have a reasoned say on the matter.
Lynata wrote:
Could be interesting to see it implemented on a local level, however. Like some village. Just to see how it works out.
Some municipalities do work like that, at least in the US. Then there's the Basque Region.
LumenPraebeo wrote:Well....this country is made up of many different nationalities and religions, and as so, the american nationality is a collection of these. If there was no identity to it, then it would just be a collection of people in cities, cities in states, and states in a so-called nation. However, I do agree it is brainwashing. But I'm still not sure if it is a good or bad thing. The roots of a nation with a common cause must be established somewhere, or else its back to the 13/50 colonies all over again.
But this is the puzzling thing. When asked a question about a uniquely American thing (such as having a pledge of allegiance, let alone one in which the pledge is given to God), Americans will explain this by pointing out something that is not unique to America (such as having diverse cultures and religions within a country - something that is not even slightly unique to America).
Frazzled wrote:Whats so amazingly aweomse is how we don't care what Europeans think on the subject.
Is it stupid? Maybe. So's life.
So what? Its our country and our rules.
The concept of your Royal Family is utterly stupid, but if you like thats schtick then fine by me. I just want a set of the cool dragoon armor I see so I can wear on Halloween, or maybe the next time I have to go to the DMV.
Great post, like you purposely attempted to...
Wait... this is satire right? Ah Frazz, you are a hoot after all.
And my missus and her family (California) said Texas is full of flag waving-gun toting reactionary bigots/historical revisionists who wrongly think they are the lifeblood of the USA and should form their own country, and as a result it isn't worth visiting... wait until she reads this, she will change her tune and we can finally come see you!
LumenPraebeo wrote:Well....this country is made up of many different nationalities and religions, and as so, the american nationality is a collection of these. If there was no identity to it, then it would just be a collection of people in cities, cities in states, and states in a so-called nation. However, I do agree it is brainwashing. But I'm still not sure if it is a good or bad thing. The roots of a nation with a common cause must be established somewhere, or else its back to the 13/50 colonies all over again.
But this is the puzzling thing. When asked a question about a uniquely American thing (such as having a pledge of allegiance, let alone one in which the pledge is given to God), Americans will explain this by pointing out something that is not unique to America (such as having diverse cultures and religions within a country - something that is not even slightly unique to America).
Well, it was founded on the notion, what else would you have America say? It doesn't matter if its not unique does it? That's what happened, and we can't change what has already happened. Not yet anyway.
Also, I would like to point out again that the news is talking about this lady who is a bigot, and happens to be head of an educational organization. Not about freedom or what song is appropriate and not offensive or conceited.
LumenPraebeo wrote:Well, it was founded on the notion, what else would you have America say? It doesn't matter if its not unique does it? That's what happened, and we can't change what has already happened. Not yet anyway.
No, you miss the point. In asking the question 'why does America have this unique thing' it doesn't make sense to say 'because we have this thing that is not unique'. The answer doesn't work, because if a diverse population needed something to unite them, then all the religiously and ethnically diverse countries of the world would have something similar.
But they don't, so whatever the answer is to why America has a pledge and no-one else does, diversity ain't it. Which in itself wouldn't be that interesting, people suggest answers to questions all the time that aren't quite right, but what is interesting is that people ask questions about some unique attribute of America all the time, and the answers are almost always something that doesn't match.
Also, I would like to point out again that the news is talking about this lady who is a bigot, and happens to be head of an educational organization. Not about freedom or what song is appropriate and not offensive or conceited.
No, the story you linked to in your OP is talking about a terrible song getting swapped out for another terrible song. You just mentioned that the lady also happens to be a bigot.
Frazzled wrote:Whats so amazingly aweomse is how we don't care what Europeans think on the subject.
Except we do, hence all the comparisons.
What you mean is I don't.
Exactly. Frazz uses the term "we" in the infantile manner that kids arguing about football do, because any educated nation is a nation of contradictions. There are citizens that support gay marriage, there are also citizens that hate gays. They are both citizens.
Frazz meant "I" and thankfully Americans like him are a minority.
Why do you think I like Americans so much!
And that's why Obama won, and Palin is a laughing stock.
Frazzled wrote:Whats so amazingly aweomse is how we don't care what Europeans think on the subject.
Is it stupid? Maybe. So's life.
So what? Its our country and our rules.
The concept of your Royal Family is utterly stupid, but if you like thats schtick then fine by me. I just want a set of the cool dragoon armor I see so I can wear on Halloween, or maybe the next time I have to go to the DMV.
Great post, like you purposely attempted to...
Wait... this is satire right? Ah Frazz, you are a hoot after all.
And my missus and her family (California) said Texas is full of flag waving-gun toting reactionary bigots/historical revisionists who wrongly think they are the lifeblood of the USA and should form their own country, and as a result it isn't worth visiting... wait until she reads this, she will change her tune and we can finally come see you!
She wouldn't like my view of California and Californians then. Did she notice her state's imploding as we speak budgetwise, whilst worrying about building a multibillion dollar high speed rail line?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Puerto Rico?
I hear they make excellent pork.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Whats so amazingly aweomse is how we don't care what Europeans think on the subject.
Except we do, hence all the comparisons.
What you mean is I don't.
Exactly. Frazz uses the term "we" in the infantile manner that kids arguing about football do, because any educated nation is a nation of contradictions. There are citizens that support gay marriage, there are also citizens that hate gays. They are both citizens.
Frazz meant "I" and thankfully Americans like him are a minority.
Why do you think I like Americans so much!
And that's why Obama won, and Palin is a laughing stock.
I don't think you understand. "We" means Texas, and all the other states Texas allowed to join it. "They" means everyone else. "You" means everyone who even so much as thinks about being on my lawn.
sebster wrote:No, you miss the point. In asking the question 'why does America have this unique thing' it doesn't make sense to say 'because we have this thing that is not unique'. The answer doesn't work, because if a diverse population needed something to unite them, then all the religiously and ethnically diverse countries of the world would have something similar.
But they don't, so whatever the answer is to why America has a pledge and no-one else does, diversity ain't it. Which in itself wouldn't be that interesting, people suggest answers to questions all the time that aren't quite right, but what is interesting is that people ask questions about some unique attribute of America all the time, and the answers are almost always something that doesn't match.
Nothing is unique about American diversity, nor its laws, its beliefs, or anything that humans have or do that they can do anywhere else in the world. But that didn't mean it wasn't when the nation was first established. Perhaps to answer a question like what makes America unique with something that totally isn't; probably doesn't work. I know I certainly won't answer it that way. Other people can say all they want for all I care, but my opinion stands that the unity of an American nation still does work, because we were one of the first to defend that idea. Nowadays, other countries practice religious tolerance too, but that still doesn't make our capacity for tolerance any less stronger, or not-unique.
If you find out why America has a pledge, be sure to let me know, cause I have no clue, nor do I have the curiosity to find out. But you are right when you say diversity isn't it, but I still think that diversity is still one of many reasons for what brings this nation together, whenever we need it. Also you shouldn't bother to question peoples answers man, a lot of times the answers won't match and more often than not, you will never find out or understand the reason why.
P.S. I like how this thread alone has given me about 10 post counts.
LumenPraebeo wrote:Other people can say all they want for all I care, but my opinion stands that the unity of an American nation still does work, because we were one of the first to defend that idea.
Yep, America was the first nation.
LumenPraebeo wrote:
Nowadays, other countries practice religious tolerance too, but that still doesn't make our capacity for tolerance any less stronger, or not-unique.
Actually, it does make it not-unique, because "unique" implies the absence of parity.
LumenPraebeo wrote:
...nor do I have the curiosity to find out.
.
.
