The Pledge of Allegiance: Two very different versions...

I saw this video earlier this morning. Please watch it...

I like edgy humor that makes me think. I also enjoy movies, music or art that challenge me to stretch beyond my comfort zone. As a performer, I hope that people who listen to my work find some fresh twists on the material that I play. Bottom line, I like artistic innovation, intellectual challenges and the creative process being used to take us places we might not want to go.

I thought about this video for much of the afternoon. I "get" it. We're taught at a very young age to recite, daily, an oath of allegiance to the United States of America. As children, seeking to fit in, the vast majority of us fall in line, learn the words and say them with our classmates. To have a child recite things they don't necessarily comprehend smacks of indoctrination. That's the ugly way to put it. The more standard rationale for it is that the Pledge is a tradition that, for a few seconds a day, perhaps focuses a young person on the symbolic importance of our Flag and Country. Sure, perhaps its hypocritical to say when we do it, its lovely patriotism, but when some other country's children do it, its brain washing and indoctrination. I understand the alleged double standard. I get it.

Videos like this are a form of artistic expression. If art is a form of communication, and I believe it is, that implies the transmission of some sort of a message. To those who question many of the intentions, goodness, etc. of the United States, this video will reinforce attitudes that audience already possess. It will go down smoothly.

To the people who don't share those attitudes, I think they will find it to be offensive. I don't think the way the message is constructed, via the kids in the video and the script; any attitudes, beliefs, etc. will be changed. Its too inflammatory and disrespectful. It doesn't ask the person with a different (traditional) perspective to consider an alternate reality. It mocks them. It mocks something that portion of the audience values in a rather deep way.

So, I wonder what the makers intent was? It wasn't executed in a way that the people who value the Pledge could likely digest and see their attitude be changed because of it.

I was reminded of another famous video, this one much older, about the Pledge...

 We can all agree that there are parts of the Pledge we as a Country don't do so well with. We can debate whether the words "under God" should've been added or not. (I say no...) But there are honorable sentiments within those lines. To crassly mock the Pledge with not something intended to improve, but rather just insult, I think is bad art. Its cheap.