Bush Makes a Pitch for Teaching Patriotism

November 2, 2001 7:15 AM

Bush Makes a Pitch for Teaching Patriotism At a Washington, DC area high school—whose mascot is the Patriot—President Bush spoke on the supposed importance of patriotism.

"The Bush administration has backed a series of initiatives aimed at boosting children's patriotism and enlisting the young in the effort to counter anti-American propaganda abroad."

Is this how the Hitler Youth started?
posted by terrapin (44 comments total)

yes. patriotism = nationalism.
posted by isildur at 7:21 AM on November 2, 2001

yes and the evil girl scouts and the Civil air patrol who will rain confetti down....Ya know terrapin, your stupid question is not laughable. In my high school. we had a science teacher who was Hitler Youth. He was a good teacher, a good man. all knew what he was but did not hold this against him. he saved the life of a girl who was choking in the hall one day. religion+ fundementalism = kill all those who dont support your views.
posted by clavdivs at 7:30 AM on November 2, 2001

Godwin.
posted by aramaic at 7:31 AM on November 2, 2001

sorry terrapin.your question is valid. The pattern could be there historically, but i dont see it. I just think of german kids running to the Gauleiter informing that their parents listened to BBC for something.
posted by clavdivs at 7:40 AM on November 2, 2001

Cliv? Just a bit too cryptic today.

Meantime . . . Wow. A lot more going on in the article than discussed. Great idea from McCain to expand Americorps, which should've received more support before Sept. 11, but was seen as a make-work program or something by most of his fellow Republicans before. And writing Muslim school children? (Hitler did the same? Wasn't aware.) Sounds like early Cold War containment techniques -- which, y'know, economic aid and cultural exchanges work better than bombs. Didn't plenty of people say that here after the disaster? The major problem I have here is, Increasing the students's civic understanding, and not just patriotism, would be nice too, and much better for the country in the long run.
posted by raysmj at 7:42 AM on November 2, 2001

Amercian students know little, if anything about the country they live in. I support this effort 100%!
posted by Macboy at 7:46 AM on November 2, 2001

I posed a question. I certainly didn't say that this plan was the beginning of a new Hitler Youth-like movement, or even that I thought as much. The article itself mentions Hitler Youth and the Children's Crusade of 1212.

It is a valid question; however, to be concerned when the government recruits children for anything.

raysmj: I was thinking the same thing. The Republican-led Congress has been trying to cut AmeriCorp for years.
posted by terrapin at 7:53 AM on November 2, 2001

MacBoy: How does instilling patriotism teach children about the country they live in? Isn't that was History, Social Studies, etc are for?

If you ask me, children in this country—and adults for that matter—don't know enough about *other* countries and cultures, and that this coupled with nationalism is a dangerous mixture.
posted by terrapin at 7:58 AM on November 2, 2001

children in this country...don't know enough about *other* countries and cultures

That's pretty much true of everybody everywhere, and therefore a vacuous statement.
posted by aramaic at 8:07 AM on November 2, 2001

Teach them history, teach them the principles of government and law, teach them logic and reasoning skills, and then teach them to be critical observers and participants in our democracy.

By intelligently comparing our stated principles with our actual, collective behaviors, the appropriate level of patriotism will come about of its own accord.
posted by yesster at 8:22 AM on November 2, 2001

Wow. If we invoke Godwin's Law, does that mean this discussion was over before it started?
posted by dogmatic at 8:30 AM on November 2, 2001

"If you ask me, children in this country—and adults for that matter—don't know enough about *other* countries and cultures, and that this coupled with nationalism is a dangerous mixture" on this i agree. 100%. Nicolas led 30,000 . most died of hunger, ate by wolves, robbed by "Christians". many settled in Genoa(hmm) Stephen led some children from france(20,000 ) to Philip Avg. some died in shipwrecks. the others, sold into slavery in Tunisia. Fredy II hung the shipowners. perhaps these events led to Joan de Arc?. The 4th crusade was over by 1212. most agree, in 1291, the hanging of 19 moslems from a seized caravan, by Christians, brought the wrath of Sultan Khalil. He took back Acre, Tyre, Haifa, Beriut.... the latin kingdom of Jerusalem was basically gone. the article said that the kids crusade was used for Ill?. well, how do you fight the visions of a 12 year old. All the powers(kings etc.) told them to go home. hence eliminating sovereign responsibility, and culpability. (yes, i checked out the info from a book)
posted by clavdivs at 8:43 AM on November 2, 2001

influenced Joan....(no womens lib?-HA)
posted by clavdivs at 8:44 AM on November 2, 2001

well said yesster.
posted by clavdivs at 8:45 AM on November 2, 2001

Teaching patriotism is like the attempts to package self-esteem. It is confusing cause and effect. Just as dumb ass lazy twerps have no right to self esteem a country shouldn't try to indoctrinate itself by teaching 'patriotism' (What's next? Classes on optimism?)

If you want a patriotic country than you should teach history (and maybe ethics?) and make sure your country's history and current conduct is something to be proud of.
posted by srboisvert at 8:54 AM on November 2, 2001

As far as I know, the Hitler Youth and the Young Pioneers never sent money to Jews or capitalist children respectively, nor engaged in a Pen Pal campaign.
posted by Dagobert at 8:56 AM on November 2, 2001

good analogy, srboisvert

as if it makes sense to teach people to feel good about being stupid
posted by yesster at 9:11 AM on November 2, 2001

Ever heard the phrase "ignorance is bliss"?
posted by evixir at 10:18 AM on November 2, 2001

children in this country...don't know enough about *other* countries and cultures

That's pretty much true of everybody everywhere, and therefore a vacuous statement.

wrong. Before september 11, if you compared the news coverage in america with the news coverage in any other country, there would be a huge discrepency in the coverage that international news gets. Try even comparing american news to, say, the CBC or the BBC. Not even close.
posted by jnthnjng at 10:28 AM on November 2, 2001

Teaching children that their country is something to feel good about is not a stupid or pointless endeavor. Small children aren't capable of making informed decisions about something like patriotism or God.

Nevertheless, a child who is taught to believe in something will grow into an adult who believes in something; the "something" may change but the finished person will have the ability to believe. A child who is taught to believe in nothing will become an adult who believes in nothing.

The Hitler Youth was intended to make children more loyal to the state than they were to their own families -- to turn the children into agents of the state, specifically as a safeguard against their parents' disloyalty. I presume that nobody intends that. Moreover, it fostered patriotism in the service of a horrible totalitarian murder-industrial complex. (I just made that term up).

I guess if you believe that the United States is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany, and that "Lessons for Liberty" will be used to undermine the fundamental social bond between parent and child in favor of a bond between child and state... then I guess you should be worried about the parallels.

The Washington Post is certainly concerned about these things. I can't find the link, but... when the National Guard showed up in local airports the first Metro section article breathlessly described them as "jackbooted.
posted by coelecanth at 10:43 AM on November 2, 2001

I don't want them to teach patriotism. I want them to teach civics.

What is the Constitution? What are its principles? What trends in thought inspired its ideas? What is the Bill of Rights? How has interpretation of it changed over the years? What are its practical applications? How does it compare to rights granted in other countries? Why are there three branches of government? What are their purposes? How do they compare to the structures of other governments? How are our leaders elected? Why do we hold them to a higher standard? What systems do we have in place to guarantee those standards? What is the difference between a pure democracy and the American democracy? What rights are reserved by the federal government? Which rights are left to the states? What wars have we fought? Why did we fight them? What was the outcome? Etc., etc.
posted by Mo Nickels at 10:54 AM on November 2, 2001

coelecanth - No, I don't think that "the United States is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany." In fact, the moral difference (as exemplified by our documented principles) is exactly why patriotism-for-patriotism's-sake is completely unnecessary. A government that asks for patriotism (even if it doesn't demand it) is suspiciously like a parent who expects love and from her children regardless of her behavior. Love, respect, and loyalty emerge seemingly spontaneously, when warranted by the face value of the thing in question.

Your comments about belief in nothing are specious. Nihilism is a straw man.

Finally, small children are not only incapable of making informed decisions, they are also (and consequently) not allowed to participate in our government. Unless your ambition is indoctrination, then inculcating patriotism in persons who are neither rational nor political agents is, at best, questionable.
posted by yesster at 11:19 AM on November 2, 2001

Nevertheless, a child who is taught to believe in something will grow into an adult who believes in something

I think you will find this is not the case. My mother raised me Catholic. I grew up as an altar boy. I played Catholic Youth Organization (CYO) basketball. I went to catechism. But my own life's experiences allowed me to forge my own beliefs—which rarely agree with the dogma of the Catholic church.

And one of the things the Catholic church requires is for children to make their "confirmation." They need to stand up in front of the church and essentially pledge their devotion. Well, this happens when kids are 12 or 13. Does one expect that these pre-teens are going to say "you know, I don't really believe this." Or "I believe a lot of this, but I want more information" on this or that before I decide. Instead they feel they have to do this because their parents believe this and they don't want to look like an outcast.

So I don't think that blanket statements such as the one above apply all the time.
posted by terrapin at 11:25 AM on November 2, 2001

What Mo Nickels said.
The most important function of education should be to teach young ones how to think for themselves, how to ask questions, and how to obtain the answers to those questions. No spoon fed pablum, no dittoes for Rush.
posted by nofundy at 11:50 AM on November 2, 2001

Hmmm, actually I do believe that Godwins' Law was automatically invoked by the topic itself, according to my interpretation of the FAQ:

(Hmmm, I'm getting debug errors when I try to build a MeFi link, I'm using satan's brood browser v.6.0.26)
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin
posted by jkaczor at 11:54 AM on November 2, 2001

I wish someone would gut Americorp. I would not be so opposed if they were not paying the "volunteers". Not a function of government.
posted by thirteen at 12:43 PM on November 2, 2001

I doubt people die for the "three branches of government." No patriot ever put his or her life on the line for the difference between "pure" and "American" democracy, or bicameral assemblies, or the implementation of checks and balances.

Some of the greatest patriots of our history fought and died before any of these things existed, or were even imagined.

Patriotism is a love of one's society, a love of home. It doesn't have to be perfect or uniform or unanimous, but a society that can't agree to love SOMEthing with a roughly general consensus, probably can't maintain and probably shouldn't form a government. Parents teach patriotism to their children so that the society can endure.

A politician who invokes patriotism to advance his or her own political agenda is a demagogue. (The Nazis disregarded German civil society, and considered the state itself paramount). But if that politician believes the society itself is at risk -- not this or that government but the society -- then an appeal to patriotism is appropriate. It's a matter of judgment which is occurring here, but I'm pretty sure Bush is sincerely worried about more than just re-election.

I didn't know about Godwin. Very interesting.
posted by coelecanth at 12:50 PM on November 2, 2001

Do we get the fancy daggers with "Blood and Honor" insribed on them too?
posted by revbrian at 1:47 PM on November 2, 2001

I wish someone would gut Americorp. I would not be so opposed if they were not paying the "volunteers".

Yikes. The Americorps programs I've looked into all payed roughly $100 / week and didn't provide housing or food. These are not exactly luxury wages. The Americorps members I've met take public transportation, live in dirt cheap apartments, don't have cable tv or long distance phone plans. Or is your concern that the government forgives a portion of college loan debt for participants? Would you rather Americorps became a program for the wealthy? Because I don't think many rich Americans are looking for what Americorps has to offer.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 3:25 PM on November 2, 2001

aramaic, I was raised and educated in the US, was also fortunate enough to get to know the world a little, Israel a bit, Spain/Europe much more. I live in Spain.

I can tell you that children here know a great, great deal much more about the world outside Spain than children in the US. I've seen the texts they study up to high school and they are far broader in coverage of historical events and more profound in the extent to which they are discussed than anything I ever saw in any of my honors classes.

The same with French and German children.
posted by mmarcos at 3:45 PM on November 2, 2001

They are not volunteers if they are being paid $100 a week, they are (granted low-paid) employees of the government. I knew this was the wage when I posted, and it does not affect my opinion. I would like to see off target programs like this go, just as much as I want corporate welfare ended.

Would you rather Americorps became a program for the wealthy?
I would like to see it as a private organization rather than governmental program, at which time they could pay the volunteers as much as they would like and I won't make a sound. As it is, it is an abuse.
posted by thirteen at 5:31 PM on November 2, 2001

mmarcos: yes, and I can show the opposite with Canadian, British, Vietnamese and Chinese children. Thus my point.
posted by aramaic at 10:30 PM on November 2, 2001

aramaic, you wrote: "That's pretty much true of everybody everywhere, and therefore a vacuous statement." in response to: "children in this country [US]...don't know enough about *other* countries and cultures"

What point, thus? I replied referring specifically to education in Europe. Canada is in many ways very similar to the US, and, uh, is not in Europe. Vietnam and China are countries with a tremendous rural population in comparison, much weaker economies, non-western and repressive political systems, and, uh, are not in Europe.

Britain, although it's part of the EEC, is a very different political and cultural animal from much of mainland Europe but I'm willing to argue that one. It would not surprise me that education is not that great across the board. The UK and the US are strikingly similar regarding the presence of some marvellous higher educational institutions in the midst of so-so general education, in that case.
posted by mmarcos at 5:07 AM on November 3, 2001

The vast majority of AmeriCorps members receive from the federal government only health insurance, loan forbearance, and the educational voucher, with the living allowance coming from the sponsoring organization, generally a state or local government or a non-profit.
posted by lesingesavant at 5:29 AM on November 3, 2001

CNN.com piece on the Underground Railroad: Americorps Activity: "Americorp volunteers erect an historic marker next to the Mississippi River in St. Louis. The National Park Service dedicated the Mary Meachum Freedom Crossing Thursday, named after a free black local woman who helped slaves flee to freedom." A good way to learn some American history, get work skills, and spend a couple of years growing up--like the time my dad spent in the Civilian Conservation Corps in Depression-era South Dakota.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:12 AM on November 3, 2001

I don't expect to change anyone's mind, but I do expect basic understanding. These people are not volunteers, they are receiving benefits that need to be paid for by taxpayers. I don't care if how little it is, it is the wrong word to be using. Just because it is a fleeced make work program that involves nature and happiness, and probably soft warm puppies, that does not mean it has anything to do with what our government was meant to do. Let them volunteer, and don't make me pay for it. Having my money taken to get people to learn history does not excite me.
posted by thirteen at 8:17 AM on November 3, 2001

fleeced was suppose to be feel good, I don't know what happened.
posted by thirteen at 8:20 AM on November 3, 2001

receiving benefits that need to be paid for by taxpayers

And you don't think the taxpayers are getting their money's worth? You think that corporations or someone else is going to foot the bill to do all the things AmeriCorp members do?

I can certainly think of dozens of real wastes of tax payer money to get worked up about than kids learning and bettering the world around them while they better themselves.

The previously mentioned catch-all "corporate welfare" comes to mind. The Drug War comes to mind. Giving back $300 to people and watching the economy go down the tube comes to mind. Bailing out the airline industry but not the people who actually lost their jobs comes to mind.

But you're right, we should cut off those kids who are making a killing in their work as AmeriCorp members. Those bastards are just in it for the stock options, huge salaries and respect and glory that come with teaching people to read, responding to natural disasters, cleaning parks, mentoring at-risk youth etc. I wish I could get the $.10 a year I probably pay in taxes to this organization back so I could spend it on really important things.
posted by terrapin at 12:46 PM on November 6, 2001

I can certainly think of dozens of real wastes of tax payer money to get worked up about than kids learning and bettering the world around them while they better themselves.

So can I and those should go too. Both are inappropriate. I believe I was the one who mentioned corporate welfare

I wish I could get the $.10 a year I probably pay in taxes to this organization back so I could spend it on really important things.
Not being exceptionally dim, I was able to detect your sarcasm. Not being a fan of the sarcasm I will take you at you word and agree with you about getting my dime back too. Americorp is just as wrong as corporate welfare and should be done away with. I don't feel like giving it a pass because it is cheap. If it is worthy, there should be no problem organizing it without the government.
posted by thirteen at 3:35 PM on November 6, 2001

I can certainly think of dozens of real wastes of tax payer money to get worked up about than kids learning and bettering the world around them while they better themselves.

So can I and those should go too. Both are inappropriate. I believe I was the one who mentioned corporate welfare

I wish I could get the $.10 a year I probably pay in taxes to this organization back so I could spend it on really important things.
Not being exceptionally dim, I was able to detect your sarcasm. Not being a fan of the sarcasm I will take you at you word and agree with you about getting my dime back too. Americorp is just as wrong as corporate welfare and should be done away with. I don't feel like giving it a pass because it is cheap. If it is worthy, there should be no problem organizing it without the government.
posted by thirteen at 3:35 PM on November 6, 2001

Dammit!
posted by thirteen at 3:41 PM on November 6, 2001

Well, my sarcasm was to point out that we don't have an option to pick what things we want our taxes to fund. If so, perhaps (as the bumper sticker reads) the defense department would have to hold a bake sale to fund their bombings. But we don't.

And their is a huge difference between corporate welfare and programs like AmeriCorp. Because tax payers funding AmeriCorp get something back for their money. They get cleaner streets, literacy programs, etc. Corporate welfare only goes to line the pockets of the corporations. For example, the pharmaceutical industry. They get tax breaks (and exemptions) out the wazoo in order to develop new drugs. When those drugs are brought to market they are too expensive for the people who funded them to afford to pay for them.

By your logic above, if the government didn't fund this research someone in would step in to do so. Well, I'm waiting. That's the same logic that trickle down economics was based on. If you give rich folks and corporations tax breaks they will use the money they save to develop jobs and therefore boost the economy. I'm sorry, but when times are tough, rich people save their money just like everyone else.
posted by terrapin at 2:52 PM on November 8, 2001

There is no difference beyond you liking one, and not the other. Anyone who supports something can dress it up and make it sound nice. Literacy program? How could I have opposed it! Really, what makes this such a huge difference? They are twins.

We do have the right to complain about how our money is spent and this is not a service government was designed to provide. Are you saying people could not set something like this up without the government? It is the easy and lazy way out. If people would not support this if they were given a choice then the program is no better than stealing. I would really love the tax system to be completely level, so that we all paid an equal share of the cost of government. I believe then we would really see what a necessary program looked like. This is just a free lunch on someone else's tab. That does not sit right with me.

So, does that tax money line the pockets of the rich, or is it funding vital research? It really sounds like you are saying corporate welfare is a necessary evil. I think you have me all wrong, as none of my ideas are considering what is best for business. I was saying if you want something like this to exist, do it yourself.

By your logic above, if the government didn't fund this research someone in would step in to do so.
Not really. Maybe someone would, maybe they would not. I think if you want this sort of thing done, you should get people organized. Anything else is just one step closer to getting the government to cut your meat for you.
posted by thirteen at 12:47 AM on November 12, 2001