This is why you should encourage your kids to cross their fingers behind their backs while placing their hands on their hearts and reciting the new pledge of allegiance:
Size matters
It’s three times the length of the American one.
Nazis love this stuff
Pledges of allegiance are typical of totalitarian states, not democratic ones. The American Pledge of Allegiance, which so obviously inspired South Africa’s proposed pledge, was written by a Christian Socialist openly aiming to promote obedience to the state.
Until World War II forced a change, the American pledge was accompanied by a gesture identical to the Hitler salute. It’s still more fitting.
Obedience to the state is bad for democracy.
Obedience to the state would not have ended apartheid.
The proposed kids’ version begins: “We the youth of South Africa, recognising the injustices of our past, honour those who suffered and sacrificed for justice and freedom.”
We are not honouring those who suffered and sacrificed by encouraging obedience.
Freedom is not for sissies
I recognise the right of some to not recognise the injustices of the past, or to disagree with me on what those injustices were. There’s one such person living in my block of flats. He’s an arsehole. But he’s allowed to honour whatever and whomever he wants to as long as he doesn’t break the law or step into my sunshine.
That’s freedom.
Patriotism schmatriotism
One of the great lessons of the 21st century so far is that a globalised world requires a globalised conscience and less mindless flag-waving.
One nation … invisible?
American kids routinely get the pledge wrong and are often left uncorrected. As long as you’re stamping out those syllables, maintaining an appropriately zombie-ish rhythm, you’re doing fine.
So kids are programmed to recite something they don’t actually understand. Words separate from substance long before a child can consider what any of it means.
Once it becomes appropriate to have a conversation about the significance of our history and what it means to be a human living among other humans, the issue has already been trivialised through years of brainless recitation.
Will the honourable minister please compose a to-do list?
Where did they find the time?
Every damn day?
Daily repetition is a brainwashing technique built for cults and, if you have the numbers, religions. You pledge something once. That’s the point. A promise that needs to be made every day — like too many I-love-yous — should be left to the liars.
As far as brainwashing goes, it’s bad brainwashing
Well-constructed pledges start with “I”… not “We”, as this one does (thrice). It makes them personal and therefore more effective. Perhaps they’re confusing the American Pledge of Allegiance with the beginning of the US Constitution, an easy mistake to make since they follow each other in the plagiarist’s handbook.
It’s like a corporate mission statement … for a country!
Companies like Adcock Ingram just love their mission statements. They take a Tiger Oath every morning.
But most of all …
The writing is awful. It’s the kind of crap that could only come from a committee, or worse, a task team.
Why should “we sincerely declare that we shall uphold the rights and values of our Constitution and promise to act in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that flow from these rights”?
“Sincerely” is a word that insincere people use. Only posers “declare” things. “Shall” feels prehistoric. “Will” is a much stronger word.
Must we have “duties and responsibilities”? Won’t either “duties” or “responsibilities” do? I don’t need to call the proposed pledge “hollow and empty”. I can just call it hollow. Or empty.
Also, it uses the word “accordance”. The most unfortunate of us are forced to use this word two, maybe three times in our lives, most likely when reading the microwave-oven manual in a smoky whisper to a lover with the lights down low.
Now, this pledge asks millions of children to say the word roughly 3 000 times in a school career. What if this leads to human beings using this ugly, soulless word in their daily lives? What would separate us from the lawyers?
And the words “… that flow from these …” should be saved for antacid advertisements.
Truth is, I might have flung aside arguments against the pledge if there were some poetry to it. I might have happily joined the herd if it rumbled the lungs and lifted the heart off its seat. Instead, we’re asked to chew bits of old gum stuck to a foot of string.
About the god thing
There’s a version floating around with God in it. (One god too many for atheists, several gods too few for polytheists.) I’d get into the whole debate over the separation of church and state, but it’s such an obvious one and I’ve run out of space. Let’s just imagine we had it and I won.