Any place that forces kids to salute the flag and say the pledge of allegiance every day, to the point where they can be disciplined for simply, peacefully opting out of it, has thrown all aspirations of inspiring original thinking out the window before the day has even kicked off. The message is loud and clear--the only thinking permitted is whatever permutation one can construe out of the boundaries of that spoken contract of allegiance with government, culture, and society. The kind of thinking that comes with questioning the so-called importance of showy oaths over substance is the stuff that detentions are made out of it--insubordination and sedition where the kid ought to be getting a commendation for thinking freely. Public school is a place where these agendas have confused themselves.
And this is just the most clear example of the ways the school is set up to quench truly original thinking in its student body, and in the grand scheme of things, not anywhere near the most severe one. Such distinction belongs to the methods of profiling students for their potential to commit offenses and restricting them in such manner (such as the Mosaic 2000 program), the archaic scheduling of the school day and the curricula, and the school-to-prison pipeline our glorious Zero Tolerance policy has unleashed on its unsuspecting kindergartners (particularly those of ethnic minority in lower income communities). In truth, if compulsory schooling was not already a prison in how it locks an individual into "minor status" for a time long enough to be exploited, now those who don't come out fabricated to think in prearranged terms may find the school also doubles as a prison in it of itself (even with power to issue satellite monitoring devices for the truant student to wear even when off grounds).
In light of all this, let's consider the Pledge of Allegiance in the United States, and how little its supposed "hand on heart" adherents in the first grade really understand what they are "consenting" to. I could say that when I was little, and expected to be giving my consent to bend my will to the authority of the state by taking this daily pledge, I often confused words in it, as any child would. Does my confusion at seven, or the inability to understand the complex characteristics involved in making an "oath" to one's country in such convoluted language make the oath invalid? Of course not, you say, because it's a wholesome and Christian oath for a child to make, even if they don't understand what they are consenting to, besides, what damage could it do? And while that is true, no damage is done by being forced to take this daily oath (besides perhaps the dignity of the child), I can't help but wonder what is gained by doing it.
I as a child took the oath as thus, "I pledge allegiance...to the flag... of the United States of America... and to the republic," (I had no idea what a "republic" was), "for whichitstands," (whatever "whichitstands" was supposed to mean), "one nation," (with no idea that this was part of the same sentence), "under God," (I happened to believe in God, but what if I didn't?), "indavisibal," (once again, another word completely lost on a 1st grader), "with liberty and justice...for all!" (once again, with no idea this is still part of the same highly recursive sentence). Does my inability to understand the consent I was giving in making this oath make it invalid? Once again, no damage done because this is not a legally binding contractual obligation of allegiance the child is unknowingly taking. But if not a legally binding contract, what purpose does it serve to make even the least politically adept toddlers recite it as if they were knowing adherents of it?
No comments:
Post a Comment