Well, it's nice to know that we can pass our fanatical views on to our children, with no hope of the school interfering: Russian Pledge If they want to make this an issue of disrespect, then lets talk about how disrespectful it is to sit during the pledge of allegiance, regardless of the language it's spoken in. This boy should be suspended for being a stupid, snotty, ignorant brat. If your teacher tells you to stand, you stand. You're at school to be taught, not to preach your beliefs. His parents should be happy that they still recite the pledge, as most schools have elminated it completely. Instead, they talk about "soldiers at war", as if this somehow vidicates every close-minded, ignorant view that zealots like this have ever had. I know what we should do. Since we're at war, we should outlaw anything even remotely related to anything outside our wonderful MotherLand! That means no more french fries (again), no more German beer, no tacos, no towels (wouldn't want those towel-heads getting the wrong idea), no pizza (I know, not really Italian, but we're at war darnit!)
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Don't worry about it. The kid probably got in trouble last week for wearing a confederate flag.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Heaven forbit they should get some tiny level of cultural understanding in public schools.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Boris, I have no doubt in my mind, that at this school, Confederate flags are allowed. Wouldn't want to deny anyone their history...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I have no doubt in my mind, that at this school, Confederate flags are allowed. Wouldn't want to deny anyone their history...
Why would you say that? The school isn't giving into this kid's demands.
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Forgive my ignorance, but I'm not sure I understand the purpose behind reciting the American Pledge of Allegiance in foreign languages. Help?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
I think the point was simply to expose the students to different languages, using the Pledge as a basis for comparison. They could have said anything at all in honor of Foreign Language week, but the Pledge probably seemed a good choice because everyone would be familiar with it.
[ March 10, 2005, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
That does make sense, but I have to say that I'm not sure I completely agree with using the Pledge. It's not like there aren't other passages or whatever that are just as familiar. I would not necessarily have made that big of a stink, though. Like, I would have stood because the Pledge is still the Pledge in any language, but I might have brought up my issue with the teacher, and being that it would continue for a full week, I would have asked to be excused from it or something.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Well, for one thing, they're not really "foreign" languages. Except maybe for Latin, each of those languages are spoken by good old America people. It's not actually un-American to speak Spanish (although French is a completely different story. We shouldn't even be saying the word. It's should be the Freedom language. Wait....).
Second, they're having National Foreign Language Week, in which they are trying to incorporate these languages more fully into the school context. In this case, they're reciting the Pledge of Alliegance in English and then in the other language. They're taking a standard part of the school day and recasting it. That's just one of the things schools do during NFLW.
---
All in all, I don't necessarily see that what the kid did is so bad. He was deeply offended by something he was being forced to do at school (I'm making the assumption it's public) and is protesting it. I personally think his reasoning as to why this is offensive is pretty bad, but that's not really relevant. I think his methods are a good match to the situation. In this situation, I think he did the right thing. Of course, the school is also right to bring disciplinary action against him.
---
But take into account that I think that the Pledge of Allegiance represents a great failure to live up to the putative ideals of this country in favor of submissive nationalism.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
The purpose of reading the pledge in foreign languages?? WHY NOT???
English is not our official language. We don't have an official language. What's so wrong with embracing other cultures and other languages? What makes us American has nothing to do with what language we speak. Language is simply a tool to communicate with others.
Sure, it ticks me off when people immersed in an English-speaking population refuse to put for the effort to learn the language--it's just common sense that when you're living where they generally speak another language--you LEARN that language. But in turn, we all should be grateful to add to our language and culture information bank. (Spoken as a wannabe linguist.)
I find it amazing that on one hand the bigotry of the English-only crowd is easily apparant, but the equally offensive ridicule against the FREEDOM citizens of this country have to be proud of their confederate history is somehow okay. If you still think the civil war was only about slavery or that it was even the most prominent cause of the civil war, then you haven't been paying attention. In addition, the confederate flag issue is not related to the topic of this thread.
Personally, I think it's great that they are reading the pledge in many different languages. We are a nation built on many cultures and peopled primarily by immigrants. There's nothing wrong and everything right with embracing that.
-Katarain
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote: ...but I might have brought up my issue with the teacher, and being that it would continue for a full week, I would have asked to be excused from it or something.
Sincere curiousity here: why?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Admittedly, the student and his father are rather unenlightened individuals. If they think that the Pledge of Allegiance is worth reciting, is worth standing for in English, then they shouldn't be chicken/ashamed to repeat, to stand for that Pledge in languages which foreign speakers can understand.
On the other hand, the school asking the kid to remove himself because he didn't wish to stand for the Pledge is wa-a-ay out of line: against the Law of the Land, against the Principles upon which this Country was Founded.
[ March 10, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Yeah, the whole thing about kicking him out of class was really odd.
When I taught, I had several students who refused to stand during the pledge because someone somewhere along the line told them that we couldn't make them stand if they didn't believe in it. So they took advantage of that and refused to stand because they were lazy and "too cool." Occassionally, I'd make them stand anyway, but it was my first year and I wasn't sure how to handle it.
I never even considered sending them out of the room. That would have been ridiculous anyway, sicne the loudspeakers with the pledge were on in the halls as well.
-Katarain
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
To stand and show respect is not the same as reciting the pledge. I think that the school has every right to demand that a certain level of respect be paid to any organized school sanctioned activity. Whether it's the pledge, a pep rally, or a school band recital.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
*shrug*
I refused to stand for the "Black National Anthem" during my senior year graduation exercise.
Not quite the same thing considering only the language was altered and not the message or intent.
However, the pledge was probably not the best place to start exploring multi-culturalism.
-Trevor
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think the kid is freaking absurd, and is missing the point. Saying the pledge is not disloyal--far from it! It is specifically an act of loyalty to show how even people who came to the United States from other cultures and speak other languages still pledge their allegiance to this country. (The appropriateness of the pledge is a different issue.) Too many Americans believe that immigrants are not really Americans and are disloyal at heart anyway, and this activity addresses that. The kid is a fool, because his disloyalty, by refusing to even stand respectfully during the pledge, is far more meaningful than any disloyalty in saying the pledge in a different language. (Disloyalty to what? Certainly not the United States, since the pledge is being said. Disloyalty to the English language.)
-o-
quote:His parents should be happy that they still recite the pledge, as most schools have elminated it completely. Instead, they talk about "soldiers at war" . . .
Could you substantiate this? I have never worked in a school where the pledge was not said each day. It also sounds like you're suggesting that teachers, as a whole, work at planting dissension.
-o-
The Civil War was primarily about slavery, and the confederate flag movement was primarily about opposition to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. Sorry if you don't like my saying so, but I most assuredly have been paying attention.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Ic - my elementary schools recited the pledge, but neither my junior high nor high school (both public) did.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Could you substantiate this? I have never worked in a school where the pledge was not said each day. It also sounds like you're suggesting that teachers, as a whole, work at planting dissension.
I was told by a teacher friend I know in Alexandria that the pledge is optional, and has slowly been phased out of their daily routine. Not because of a desire to sow dissension, but because she'd rather be teaching them. This trend has been happening with mostly new teachers.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Depending on which historian you talk to, the Civil War was about the issue of States' Rights and whether or not these rights took precedence over Federal law.
Granted, at the core of this disagreement was the issue of slavery and whether or not the Federal Government had the right to eliminate the practice in opposition to the support of said practice by the Southern States.
As for the Confederate flag - I'm a native of Georgia and yes, it was instituted in the 60's as a protest regarding Federal mandates involving Civil Rights. Which makes the "heritage, not hate" argument a little flawed.
-Trevor
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So basicly TheHumanTarget is arguing that not making eg reading a book per day mandatory is the same as banning reading.
[ March 10, 2005, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by fiazko (Member # 5812) on :
Ok, Miro, this discussion has gotten to the point that I will not be able to express myself coherently, but I will give it a shot.
I have nothing against immigrants. Whether or not English is the official language of this country, it's not like every sign is in English and Spanish (or any other language). Until we get to that point, I maintain my standpoint that if you're gonna live here, you need to at least be able to function. I worked in an emergency room for a year and a half. How healthy is it when a Spanish-only speaking patient comes in and has to wait up to several hours for an interpreter because the line of communication is completely broken, and why should it be a nurse's or doctor's or even the hospital's responsibility to have someone physically present 24/7 for the significant, but still small percentage of Spanish-speaking patients.
Isn't unity one of the main themes of the Pledge? How can a country be unified if there are communication barriers. It just so happens that back in the day, the main language was English, and that is how the country developed. I would feel the same if we spoke Swahili.
As far as asking to be excused, I was just saying that my method of protest would be less agressive than the kid's in the article. I wouldn't exactly call myself a lobbyist, but there are some things I don't agree with and I won't go along with "just because." If it helps, let me tell you about an actual act of protest of mine from high school. We had to sign a paper saying something along the lines of "I agree to let my locker be searched" or something like that. First of all, I'm pretty sure schools can search lockers whenever they want anyway because aren't they school property or whatever? Well, I didn't agree with whatever the paper was asking me to do, so I refused to sign it. By refusing, I was not allowed the use of a locker. I had an alternative, so this wasn't an issue. And that was the extent of it.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Aspectre, I don't believe that I mentioned banning the pledge anywhere in anything that I've said. I merely pointed out that it has become less prevalent in school systems where I live, and that his parents should be happy that it still occurs there. Either way, trying to relate this to banning books doesn't make any sense at all. Deciding not to do something doesn't institutionalize consequences for doing it, where as banning something carries it's own intrinsic consequences for someone who breaks the ban.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
The CivilWar was about whether terrorists had the right to attack the UnitedStates with impunity. That certain States wished to withdraw from the UnitedStates is a secondary matter.
What is probable-nearing-certainty is that the States which expressed a desire for independence would have been granted a greater degree of autonomy than they enjoyed before the CivilWar -- States already possessed a far greater degree of autonomy before the CivilWar than they would afterwards -- and possibly&more-like-probably would have been recognised as fully independent, IF the rebel leadership hadn't initiated hostilities.
[ March 10, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Aspectre, did you just say that the civil war was about terrorists? Did that make us terrorists when we decided to split from England? I'm very confused about the track that this discussion is taking.
Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
Aspectre, first you claim that Farmgirl is OK with cops shooting civilians (she's not), now you're twisting theHumanTarget's word's around. Why put words in other's mouths? What's up with that?
Morbo
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Thanks Mormo. I had to re-read my post to make sure I hadn't banned the pledge from schools Posted by Mormo (Member # 5799) on :
quote:What is probable-nearing-certainty is that the States which expressed a desire for independence would have been granted a greater degree of autonomy than they enjoyed before the CivilWar
possible, maybe. Nearing certainty? Hardly.
Also, Trevor, the Georgia flag incorporated the Confederate battle flag in 1956, not the 60s. Mainly done in response to Brown v Board of Education in 1954 as I understand it.
quote: As for the Confederate flag - I'm a native of Georgia and yes, it was instituted in the 60's as a protest regarding Federal mandates involving Civil Rights. Which makes the "heritage, not hate" argument a little flawed.
I agree, I bought the heritage argument somewhat (though realizing it was offensive to many) when I thought the Georgia flag had always had the battle flag, but when I found out it had been changed as a slap in the face to integration I was all for changing it. Note: removing the Confederate battle flag was a hot-button issue recently here in Georgia, and changing it cost the last democratic governor his office. http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/002084.html
[ March 10, 2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Mormo ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
The pledge stopped being a uniting piece ca. 1954.
Personally I think the kid is silly, and the school is idiotic.
-Bok
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Shows you how seriously I take the issue.
-Trevor
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
...and Barnes was a damn fine Governor.
...that is all...
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Opinions seriously differed on that point.
And the voting block of flag supporters was not enough to replace a governor.
I think they were just the most vocal.
-Trevor
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Isn't unity one of the main themes of the Pledge? How can a country be unified if there are communication barriers?
En Canada nous n'avons pas un problem with unity and language.
Posted by Ben (Member # 6117) on :
sadly i think the voting block of flag enthusiasts WAS large enough to vote out the sitting governor. i think the flag issue got people off their asses and into a voting booth...
[ March 10, 2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Ben ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
We'll put that theory to the test come the next election, but honestly the "flag flap" is such a waste of bloody time that I hate to think it was the one deciding factor over any and all other considerations.
Although I suppose the flag supporters may have been more motivated to show their numbers and the larger numbers of generally apathetic people didn't bother to vote at all.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Did that make us terrorists when we decided to split from England? I'm very confused about the track that this discussion is taking.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)