Teaching Patriotism
I wish I could find the text book from my college Logic class, as I’m sure there is a term for what I’m about to explain; if you know it, please share. While I’m reading a chapter from Postman’s book, The End of Education, entitled “The American Experiment,” I’m finding myself in agreement with almost all of Postman’s premises, but not his argument. Postman feels that one concern educators, and those who create curriculum, leave out is “acquiring and/or deepening a love of one’s country.” My first reaction was simply to roll my eyes and keep reading, but then stopped and considered the implications of teaching patriotism. I posed the question to my friends along side some of the other points Postman not:
“Hey guys, do you think it is an educator’s place to develop the self-esteem of students, broaden their understanding of people of different cultural heritages and make them develop an appreciation for the arts?”
The answers I got to this first question were mixed, but mostly yeses. So, I posed the second part of my question, which is, of course, Postman’s argument:
“Do you think we should teach patriotism?”
I knew my friends were cynical, but this surprised me; from one friend I got, “Please, the last thing we need is for public schools to start teaching jingoism.” A second answer followed: “Schools are already run by the state, i.e. government, so the fact that they don’t teach patriotism is good. It means we’re still not a fascist country.” I nodded my head and went back to reading the essay. On page 131 Postman notes that throughout the country “there is a certain uneasiness about where patriotism might lead.” I know Postman believes there is a certain fear of teaching patriotism, but I feel, and maybe this be partly due to where I’m from, the exact opposite. At my high school patriotism was taught. I was in my sophomore year of high school when 911 occurred, and later one of the teachers that I was very close to lost a son in Iraq; in my high school, currents of patriotism ran high, and I would argue, to the point of unfounded, unquestioning, blind faith. And this is where I start to agree with Postman.
Students should not be blind. They should be involved in the argument. Arguments are important for students to understand and participate in; they need the skills to be able to sniff out false premises. We should have students look at documents, historical and current, examine the questions of our forefathers and see if the arguments they made still hold. And sure, why not a little rote memorization of the First Amendment, in fact, Hell Yes! Make the students know the entire Bill of Rights. I even like the ideas he has for testing students on them; although, I do think it is a bit extreme to make a student rewrite the First Amendment and give a rational for any changes they made, in order to graduate – but to argue that point here would just be quibbling… Save for The Scarlet Letter (the bane of my literary existence), I appreciate the texts he believes every teacher should read; but I’m sad to add that two of those (Democracy in America and Democracy and Education) have been left out of both my education classes and philosophy classes – so it looks like I have some reading to do before I get to the classroom. I could continue to list the things I agree with, but it all boils down to this: I believe, as Postman does, at American students need to be involved in the Great American Conversation! Yes, but I think there is more involved in that conversation…
I want to restate a point I made in the last paragraph: I feel teachers are afraid not to teach patriotism. It seems that there is a “if-you’re-not-with-us-you’re-against-us” attitude present in a lot of media and individuals concerning the War on Terror. That being said, patriotism is a little vague of a term, but it is closest we have. To me, patriotism consists not only of the men and women who created this country, wrote its first laws and fought for its independence, but also everything that happened after that. We have to ask our students if prohibition laws were really “okay.” If they were not, what does that say about our government? Does that make bootleggers in any way “true patriots” as they fought against laws they felt were wrong. We need to ask our students if the Constitution should ever be allowed to limit freedom. We must teach students that the true patriots are the ones who question, the ones who act and subsequently the ones who make changes. But, that is dangerous for educators to do. I think of the teacher from Cory Doctorow’s young adult novel Little Brother. She was removed from her position for talking about Abbie Hoffman (in my eyes a true patriot, even naming his son america – with a little “a”) and the Yippies. I know that Postman calls for participation in the conversation, most importantly from the youth, but he leaves out any youthful voice in his list of “must reads.” The only work included that comes close to a youthful voice is that of Martin Luther King, Jr. This is not the way to reach young people; they need to hear voices as passionate as their own, questions as upsetting as what they know and be safe when their answers diverge from the predicted.
Maybe I shouldn’t profess this, but I am more understanding of Ani DeFrano’s patriotism; in her poem “Grand Canyon” she says: “I love my country/ By which I mean/ I am indebted joyfully/ To all the people throughout its history who have fought the government to make right.” This poem professes the wonderment of free speech and thanks the “foremothers” feminism. This is the kind of patriotism that should be taught, the kind of patriotism that remembers just how much of America is built on disobedience.
NOTE: Postman makes a good point about technology being part of the Great American Conversation, but it comes in too late. While it is good, and again, I agree with him on this part, the argument is too small and no where near as compelling as the rest of the essay. I wish he had devoted more time to this section of the essay, as I think a better case can be made that understanding and participating in what happens with technology is patriot. Also, I was so happy that he used McLuhan in the essay, as I feel the medium is the message, and that means I feel this essay was more about teaching patriotism than anything else.
Ani DeFranco’s “Grand Canyon”
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment
This was a wonderful read. You clearly have a well rounded and broad worldview in the scope of patriotism in the classroom. Sometimes people get confused with words like patriotism and nationalism. In the context of the American Revolution, it’s easy to inspire those types of feelings among students, and many of us who are studying the framing of the constitution feel an intense desire to move forward in the name of the united states. All too often, the title of American ties in with other words like consumerism, elitism, waste-ism, and other products of the free market capitalism we helped globalize. The truth is that the system was a step forward two hundred years ago, but is ancient technology. You seemed to make a great point when you said that everyone should probably be involved in the conversation. I would definitely read more of your posts.