Imitative patriotism

Still, the brain of Russian officials is surprisingly arranged. They curse America on what the light stands, but it is constantly cited as an example when it is necessary to reinforce their administrative delight. The question is - where is the logic? Here is the Kaluga Governor Anatoly Artamonov, who introduced the daily compulsory obligatory execution by students of the state anthem in schools, refers to the American experience of patriotic education of youth:

We often scold the Americans and scold a lot, but the Americans have been doing it since time immemorial and do not find anything bad in this.

As can be seen from the comments in the blogosphere, many Russian citizens are convinced that "the execution of the US anthem is legally enshrined in all schools in America since the first grade." It is in such an edition that this phrase walks on social networks.

Governor Artamonov repeats the mistake of Captain Lebyadkin from the "demons", which

I read in the newspapers a biography about one American. He left all his enormous fortune in the factories and on positive sciences, his skeleton to students, to the academy there, and his skin on the drum, in order to knock out the American national anthem on it day and night.

In fact, the USA appeared in the United States 59 years after writing the novel, March 3, 1931, when President Herbert Hoover signed the relevant law. Before this date, the state existed, scary to imagine, without a anthem. Therefore, to perform in schools, especially since "from time immemorial," there was nothing.

But even after the adoption of the law, students did not fulfill the anthem as an obligatory beginning of the school day. In 2004, a survey of the sociological service Harris Interactive showed that only 39 percent of Americans are able to end at least the third line of the anthem without error, the rest do not know that.

The National Association of Musical Education decided that it was time to beat the bells, and established the project "National Anthem" aimed at popularizing the anthem among schoolchildren. The honorary chairman of the project was the first lady Laura Bush. He received the support of a number of state institutions, public organizations and officials, including governors, mayors and members of Congress, National Funds for Support of Fine Arts and Humanities, the Department of Defense, the Gerleskauts of the United States (but for some reason not Buyskauts). The initial goal of the project was the Renaissance of American Patriotism, but subsequently the organizers changed the task and began to say that it consists in attracting public attention to music lessons that receive clearly insufficient funding.

Within the framework of the project, a patriotic musical tour for all states of America with the involvement of local school orchestras was arranged. Among the spectators, a competition was held for the best knowledge of the hymn text - the winner worshiped to him could not receive in his hands, but he could give any school for a musical education. The tour ended in June 2007 by a final concert at National Molla in Washington, in which five thousand schoolchildren participated along with the presidential wind orchestra of the Marine Corps.

Why did the organizers abandon the initial plan to achieve the introduction of the collective execution of the anthem in each school? Because of criticism. The main objection was that primary school students could not sing a hymn meaningfully, not to mention the fact that not all American schoolchildren are citizens of the United States, which means that not everyone is obliged to know its text. It was also indicated that the melody of the anthem, borrowed from the old feast song, is by no means a musical masterpiece, and the words are distinguished by militarism. Not everyone liked the sponsorship of the Pentagon.

Currently, schoolchildren do not sing the hymn as a mandatory ritual either in the United States, the UK, or in Canada, or in Australia or in New Zealand. There are only attempts to introduce such a ceremony at the local level. For example, last year, Bolton City Council (a city near Manchester) recommended schools to start a school day with raising a flag and the performance of the anthem. This event has become national news. Interestingly, the initiator of the proposal, conservative Mudasir Dean, is an Indian. Lighted opponents immediately accused him of politicism and, of course, that he imitates the Americans.

Probably, those who nod to America have in mind the oath of fidelity to the flag that US schoolchildren pronounce before the start of classes. But participation in this ceremony is voluntary. However, this was not always the case. The current order was the result of a long and difficult struggle.

In 1935, children of Jehovah parents, 12-year-old Lilian and 10-year-old William Gobitas, were excluded from school in the city of Minorsville, Pennsylvania, for refusing to take an oath to the flag. Before that, they systematically suffered the grass of classmates, in most Catholics. Jehovah's witnesses consider the rite before the flag idolatry. Parents Lilian and William decided to achieve justice on the basis of the first amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of religion. They reached the US Supreme Court and lost. In 1940, the court ruled that the school administration has the right to force students to bring the oath to the flag, since it symbolizes national unity and has nothing to do with religion. The only voting against a member of the court, Harlan Stone wrote in his special opinion that the decision contradicts the very essence of the concept of freedom.

The decision of the Supreme Court entailed the pogroms against Jehovah's and their religious buildings throughout the country. Members of the church were branded as traitors. The first lady of Eleanor Roosevelt spoke in defense of Jehovah's witnesses, a campaign in the press began. Two years later, three members of the Supreme Court admitted that they were mistaken. And in 1943, the Supreme Court, considering a similar case, canceled the previous decision.

Since then, that do not want to swear the flag invariably win the lawsuit with the school administration. In 2006, the Florida Federal District Court recognized the state law of the state of 1942, obliging schoolchildren to take an oath. As a result, the school district paid a student who refused to participate in the ritual, 32,500 dollars for the fact that the teacher called his act nonpatriotic.

In 2009, in Maryland, the teacher for the same reason scolded a 13-year-old student and called the police who expelled her from the class. He had to apologize to avoid the consequences for his career.

Finally, in 2008, in Minnesota, three schoolchildren remained to sit during the oath of oath in protest against an unfair punishment. The director made a decision on their temporary exclusion - this is one of the most severe disciplinary measures in an American public school. However, the lawyer of the school district pointed out to her the unconstitutionality of the decision and recommended that he immediately cancel it. Which she did .

In America, of course, there are enough kvass patriots, ready to plant love for the homeland forcibly. But reasonable people are well aware that only the opposite effect is achieved with such measures.

It is appropriate to recall the scene of a psychiatric examination of the brave soldier Schweik in the end. Members of the commission, consisting of three people, could not come to a common opinion, since they represented three different schools of psychiatry.

And if in the case of Schweik three opposite scientific camps came to a complete agreement, then this should be explained only by the enormous impression that Schweik made to the whole commission when, having entered the hall where the study of his mental state was to take place, and noticing the portrait of the Austrian emperor on the wall, exclaimed loudly: “Gentlemen, the sovereign Emperor Franz-Joseph is the first!”

As a result, the medical opinion listed:

The lower judicial doctors converged in determining the complete mental dullness and the innate cretinism of the Schweik Joseph, who appeared before the aforementioned commission, whose cretinism appears from the statement “Long live the emperor Franz Joseph the first,” which is quite enough to determine the mental state of Joseph Schweik as a clear idiot.