|
Author
|
Comment
|
Carrie
Unregistered User
(3/5/03 10:00:35 am)
|
American ideology
Not exactly a fairy tale perhaps -- but I wanted to see if anyone would engage in a discussion with me on the rituals of American culture -- the ones under fire in Congress and on the judicial circuit for instance. I want to try and find the references of "God" and the idea of separation of Church and State and how these have become an intrinsic part of American culture. I remember saying the pledge of alliegance in school and I remember the pride I had when my then six-year-old son recited it to me just after the terrorist attack in New York. It almost had a sing song sound -- like London Bridge is falling down -- the two towers falling down. I'm digressing, but I think that the pledge was part of the icon of childhood -- I remember it like I remember "Ring Around the Rosy." These childhood chants represented a secular prayer for me. In other words, it was a ritual that represented my unity with a People. I think the Declaration of Independence also took a place in this during my later school years. The national anthem before a baseball game also seems to follow this thought. And what is a culture when you strip those rituals away? What child has not wondered at the all seeing eye on a dollar bill and the phase "In God We Trust"? For a country founded by people searching for religious freedom, it seems odd that anyone would want to strip that heritage away. What would take its place?
Comments? Related ideas in the study of folklore and fairy tales? Reflections?
Carrie Miner
|
swood
Unregistered User
(3/5/03 10:23:29 am)
|
Media relationship to religion
There is an op/ed piece from yesterday's New York Times that might interest you. It is about the media's relationship to evangelical Christianity
www.nytimes.com/2003/03/0...4KRIS.html
Sarah
|
swood
Unregistered User
(3/5/03 10:26:23 am)
|
Essay on view of US from abroad
Also, in this week's New Yorker, a hilarious essay about the view of the US from abroad. It uses lots of 19C literary/historical examples.
www.newyorker.com/fact/co...310fa_fact
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(3/6/03 1:51:55 pm)
|
Re: Essay on view of US from abroad
Carrie,
I'm not sure I know who's trying to strip away our heritage--that is, who's attempting to pull the plug on The Pledge of Allegiance, or on the National Anthem?
I also remember reciting the pledge as a child, in Iowa, without the words "under God" in there. It was, as you say, a sort of secular prayer up to that point. The only debates I've seen on the issue of the pledge are with regard to the inclusion of those two words, added late, by a politician with a religious agenda. I've not heard anyone say they want to eradicate the pledge. Throughout most of my childhood, the pledge was kind of a drone. After the first few dozen times it was recited (daily) it lost all meaning. It was no different than reciting multiplication tables. And it wasn't till a candlelight vigil the night after September 11, that I felt anything like its original power again.
I do think that there's a big difference between archetypes and iconography of meaning in art, and nationalistic emblems. These days, I have to say, I find our nationalism to be fairly terrifying, purblind, and ultimately self-destructive. But I'm the kind of cynic who believes that the moment a politician wraps himself in a flag, he's preparing to lie to me on a grand scale--and so far I see nothing to dissuade me from this opinion.
Greg
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(3/7/03 5:34:28 pm)
|
Under God
I believe the phrase "under God" was added to the Pledge by Congress in 1954. With or without "under God" it remains a powerful declaration of patriotism.
There has been, and will continue to be, much discussion over the dedication and involvement of "God" in U.S. official documents, oaths and institutions. I don't think that anyone would argue that the country was not founded on the basis of a Christian foundation. But I think that the arguement over whether "God", unnamed, representing all monotheistic religions or no "God" but a purely secular government is best will continue to cause debate for centuries to come.
Certainly, athiests now are guaranteed rights that were previously denied them, such as the ability to testify in court or hold office, when the government was somewhat religiously, but not denominationaly based. I am certain that I would not want to go back to those days. Tolerance for religious differences, and in this case no religion at all, is something the U.S. excels at.
Oops, forgot where I was going with this. I guess the idea is that we are not losing our culture with this change. Tears are still possible. The beauty of our Constitution and our form of government is that debates like this one ARE possible.
Jess
|
Judith
Berman
Registered User
(3/8/03 12:16:40 pm)
|
under gods?
>But I think that the arguement over whether "God", unnamed, representing all monotheistic religions or no "God" but a purely secular government is best will continue to cause debate for centuries to come.
OT, but I'd be interested in how Americans of Hindu faith, for instance, feel about "under God." Seems a bit chauvinistic to assume that all religions worth the name are monotheist.
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(3/8/03 8:16:43 pm)
|
Not meant to offend
JB: OT, but I'd be interested in how Americans of Hindu faith, for instance, feel about "under God." Seems a bit chauvinistic to assume that all religions worth the name are monotheist.
Jess (also a JB): The comment is not meant chauvintisticly in any sense of the word. I think that "under God" by its grammer and history refers to a monotheistic god as opposed to gods of polytheism, although I recognize the fact that many Native American peoples were polytheistic. Part of the growing religious diversity of the population of the U.S. makes it all the more questionable that the government use these phrases.
FYI, my best friend is Jain, born in the U.S. of Indian ancestry. She has never mentioned having a problem with "under God", but I will ask her directly. I am sure she will have something enlightening to add. On thread - this leads me to ask Carrie, are our cultural symbols, stories and phrases stagnant? Or are they ever changing reflecting the changes in our society and its influences?
Jess
|
Judith
Berman
Registered User
(3/9/03 1:59:50 pm)
|
monotheism or not
JB: OT, but I'd be interested in how Americans of Hindu faith, for instance, feel about "under God." Seems a bit chauvinistic to assume that all religions worth the name are monotheist.
Jess (also a JB): The comment is not meant chauvintisticly in any sense of the word.
Judith B again: Jess, my comment wasn't aimed at you so much as sparked by the folks out there who talk about how this is a Christian nation, the founding fathers were Christian, etc., etc. I'm of mixed WASP-Jewish descent, Jewish enough to be not just alienated by but to feel a bit threatened by such talk, and to feel that freedom of religion should also mean freedom from YOUR religion, meaning "you" here in the most general sense. So that leads me further to wonder about those whose religious heritage comes from outside the Judeo-Christian-Islamic stream.
And not to inject history into a discussion about myth, but as I understand it, the founding fathers were a bunch of Freemasons and God they talked about, the God in the "In God We Trust" on the dollar bill, was the Masonic/Enlightenment God of Nature and not the literal Biblical God.
Judith
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(3/9/03 3:13:27 pm)
|
founding fathers and Christianity
OT - Judith, my understanding is consistent with yours that several of the more illustrious founding fathers were Diests rather than Christians. Perhaps that is one reason why the Constitution as drafted is so tolerant of religious freedom (the other reason being the fear of state-imposed religion and the potential resulting break-up of the colonial alliances). I think though that Christianity was the prevailing religion at the time of the formation of the country is also a true statement. To ignore completely Judeo-Christian influence on the founding of the country would be equally wrong.
I AM rather chauvenistic in the traditional sense of the word having studied and worked with the Constitution. It has been my privilege on rare occasion to represent individuals whose rights have been violated by Congressional laws and individuals in the government acting pursuant to those laws. It has also been my privilege of seeing the Constitution prevail and the individuals' rights restored. I guess the idea that a government that should be and can be challenged when wrong is better than a government that is unchallengable is an idea I wear gladly on my sleeve. Okay Greg, sorry to wrap myself up in the flag. lol
Jess
|
Gregor9
Registered User
(3/10/03 7:49:17 am)
|
Re: founding fathers and Christianity
Jess,
As long as you're not a politician, you can wrap all the flag around yourself you want to, and I won't be predisposed to reach for the kerosene and matches.
You're right about the Deism, and about the skeptical regard toward a more fundamentalist expression of Christianity that some of the founding fathers took. You need look no further than Thomas Jefferson's version of the Bible. Jefferson removed from his personal Bible all of it that he considered irrelevant, mythological or just plain false. The Jefferson bible is a very slim book, about the size of a Paul Auster novel. Most of it is derived from New Testament, and deals with how true Christians should treat one another.
This past weekend I spoke as part of a "Poets for Peace" event here in Philadelphia, and the topic of what defines a Christian did come up in conversation afterwards (some of the poets were/are quite religious in their convictions). I said that I am not a Christian nor ever will be simply because I don't accept the divinity of Jesus; but that given the braying of such representatives of the faith as Falwell and Robertson, I find that I seem to be much more closely allied with the opinions and teachings of Christ than these loud, bigoted and obtuse "real" Christians where this lust for war and condemnation is concerned.
Greg (climbing down off the soapbox now)
|
Judith
Berman
Registered User
(3/10/03 9:00:55 am)
|
symbols of the *conscience collective*
>I AM rather chauvenistic in the traditional sense of the word having studied and worked with the Constitution.
JB: Yes. Which, besides my difficulty with the "under God" phrase, is why, as an adult, I find the pledge of allegience a bit objectionable. I do understand that for many people the flag is a sacred symbol, in exactly Durkheim's definition thereof. But my personal allegience is NOT to a piece of cloth, however fraught with emotional and symbolic significance for the collective social body -- it's to the Constitution, which is the foundational charter for that social body. Why can't we say, "I pledge allegience to the Constitution, and to the Republic that's founded upon it"?
All that being said, as a child I was never particularly bothered by having to say the pledge, beyond its predictable tedium. As a child I didn't even parse the words as such.
Judith
|
swood
Registered User
(3/10/03 11:25:47 am)
|
The Constitution
From Jess: are our cultural symbols, stories and phrases stagnant? Or are they ever changing reflecting the changes in our society and its influences?
I think the Constitution itself is an excellent tool with which to reflect the changes and influences in our society. We still have the same original document as a guide for our country's laws, but a great deal of flexibility on how they are interpreted.
Oh yes, I think the symbols and stories change. For example, in the movie Holiday Inn, Lincoln's birthday and the end of slavery is celebrated by a musical number in black face!
Our treatment of veterans has changed dramatically through the years. Does anyone remember veterans handing out red paper poppies? It was a reference to the red poppies that grew in Europe during WWI, and the fields steeped in soldiers blood. I almost never see these poppies handed out anymore. Armistice Day isn't a big deal in the US.
It is much more common to see our country's freedom celebrated by dissent. The discussion in this thread about the draping of the flag is emblamatic of changing mores. There was a time when draping anything in a real, US, flag would be an unthinkable disgrace to a symbol of which many people feel proud. Flag protocol is very rarely observed. How many times have you seen flags left out at night, displayed with tattered edges, folded improperly? Not to mention all the patriotic memorabilia which displays the Stars & Stripes. If our flag is supposed to be this great symbol, why is it being used on disposable items?
Sarah
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(3/10/03 9:57:06 pm)
|
Uncle Remis
Sarah,
You have mentioned some very valid things about changing attitudes as well as traditions, although I do recall seeing poppies last year AND around this neighborhood, anyway, flags left out all night are spotlighted or we have to account to the flag police - and I am not really joking.
What you said about blackface numbers though reminded me of a couple of things that may put this back on thread. First, I think there were some interesting things about the documentation of the Briar Rabbit stories. I can't recall what they were, but I know Midori? maybe knows something more about the chronicling of this collection. Attitudes about these stories have changed greatly over the years. At various times they have been lauded as "American folktales", censored as racist, and then brought back as American dirivatives of African tales, but not as originally published. Do I have that right?
Minstral shows were subject to similar dirivatives. African slaves imitated white plantation owners manners and dance (often comically) in such things as "cake walk dances". It was perhaps one of the few outward forms of expression against an otherwise repressive situation. These were imitated by white entertainers trying to make fun of African slaves, perhaps not realizing they were really poking fun at their white audience. By the late 1800's, minstral shows had African-Americans performing IN BLACK FACE making fun not only of themselves, but of white performers making fun of African slaves making fun of white plantation owners. By the time Holiday Inn was made in the early 1940's, nobody really remembered what the whole thing was about - or so it seemed. Eventually, with the truly comic part lost it all became racist and ridiculous, as seen in that movie, any hidden political or satirical reference having long been lost with other more direct forms of expression being available. I have actually thought that minstrals are a very interesting in that I wonder whether there were two levels of messages one of which the entertainer himself may have been unaware - well, at least in the early shows. Also, without white audiences being used to minstrals, one wonders if musicals such as "Show Boat", dealing with serious racial issues could have been successful in the late 1920's. Oops - off thread again.
Jess (stream of conciousness driving me off thread again)
|
swood
Registered User
(3/11/03 7:06:29 am)
|
Re: Uncle Remis
Jess,
I think Uncle Remus is a topic worthy of its own thread. There is a new edition, has anyone seen it?
Your history of the black face is interesting. I also think it's important to note that many of the offensive cultural stereotypes of the 40s & 50s were intended as being multicultural in their time. For example the sudden influx of Latin American influences in US culture around WWII, was due in large part to the Good Neighbor policy in politics. It doesn't excuse how hurtful some of these portrayals are, then or now, but it should give us a little perspective on how our own attempts of multi-culturalism may be viewed in the future.
And they say Americans aren't ironic!
Sarah
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(3/11/03 8:36:09 am)
|
Absolutely!
Sarah,
Exclusion, whether religious, racial, or otherwise, is painful. Despite progress made in our society becoming more sensitive, it remains woefully inadequate. Will modern American folklore be a form of release for excluded individuals and groups? Will it reflect increased understanding? How will this affect our "cultural icons"/
One of the more interesting things about those movies of the 40's and 50's are that, at least with respect to rising African-American stars, scenes highlighting them were often censored out releases in the South. Movies showing them in serious dramas and as positive roles were not released at all. I wonder if ignoring and censoring our past is the right move or whether coming to terms with the gross insensitivity is a better method. I don't have the answer to that one.
I would love to hear more on the new Uncle Remus release.
Jess
|
swood
Unregistered User
(3/11/03 9:11:57 am)
|
Exclusion
Exclusion/inclusion is one of the things I was thinking about when everyone was discussing the differences between sci fi and fantasy, and after I read Kerrie's essay on recruiting new readers to genre fiction.
I feel that in many ways genre fiction has really failed to be inclusive. It's very genre-ness suggests that it is an alternate space where anyone or anything could gain inclusion, but sometimes I think that it hasn't gone far enough.
I would be interested in what members of the board have to say about this topic.
Sarah
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(3/12/03 10:10:14 pm)
|
Back to "Under God"
Judith, my Jain friend responded that "the God thing always bothered me since I never felt it refered to 'my god'." So there you go - that is one person's opinion. Pretty consistent with what you expected.
Sarah - why not start a thread on inclusion/exclusion in fantasy, folklore and fairytales?
Jess
|
MarkS
Unregistered User
(3/13/03 8:27:42 pm)
|
Addendum to the pledge thread
When I was in junior high in the late 60's/early 70's, I and others resented saying the pledge from a purely political stand. It was a time when pledging our allegiance to a country that was drafting and sending our older brothers to the Vietnam meatgrinder was abhorent. One's idea about what a country can represent in a given time period change radically, depending on who is in office interpreting the constitution you're talking about. As far as we were concerned, "pledging allegiance to a flag" was tatamount to swearing in to the Nazi party. We would have considered the "under God" bit a luxury arguement compared to the political one that was abusing people and packing them off to their deaths and mutilation at the prime of their lives.
|
oaken
mondream
Registered User
(3/16/03 2:46:29 pm)
|
more feelings about "under god"
in my personal view, saying the pledge at school with "under god" was never my biggest problem. At various times I've just mumbled through, said "under gods", or not say that part at all. By the time I was a senior in high school saying the pledge merely entailed standing up and maybe looking at the flag while the tv (with the school's morning show) said the words outloud. In tenth grade, I had an internship at the county legislature. They would open every session with an invocation, otherwise known as a prayer, and then they would get to business voting on county taxes and such. This bothers me a lot because I don't understand why exactly this is necessary to do in public and officially as a part of the legislative agenda.
Likewise, I believe that when one swears in at court they may omit
saying "so help me god". I think that this should be the
phrase that needs to be removed. Does an oath carry more precedence
because a diety is called upon to back it up? People might be more
likely to believe one person's testimony rather than another because
they did call upon god (and are therefore god fearing people or
something) rather than being an atheist (which for many people is
a bad thing ::shrug: :) .
|
Jess
Unregistered User
(3/16/03 6:00:49 pm)
|
Oaths in court
Actually, your estimation is exactly correct. Until the mid 19th C to early 20th C (depending upon the state), atheists were not permitted to testify because they could not swear "so help me God". Later, this became another issue of credibility and can be left out. A jury or judge is allowed to make the decision whether the athiest witness's testimony should be considered reliable.
Jess
|
GailS
Unregistered User
(3/17/03 6:43:07 am)
|
Jury Duty
Re: oaken mondream’s statement:
"I believe that when one swears in at court they may omit saying, "so help me god"."
I just finished a story on jury duty in Delaware, and when one serves on a panel here, an individual is allowed to “affirm” to do their best to be honest and truthful, rather than to make a pledge to God.
GailS
|
|
