Prompted by the discussions about Harding University, Americanism, and anti-communism here, here, here, here, here and here — I recently went looking online for more information about Harding’s National Education Program (NEP) and found a gold mine of videos at the Prelinger Archives.
In the 1940s and 50s, Harding College became nationally known for its anti-Communist, pro-American activities through the NEP and sponsorship of these great “propaganda” films. What’s the non-pejorative word for persuasive efforts to further, or propagate, one’s cause? Unfortunately “propaganda” carries a connotation of deception, and I don’t believe these films are deceptive. However, they are strikingly upfront about their purpose, which is to advocate Americanism.
In today’s culture, we tend to prefer our biases with with a veneer of objectivity, which can actually be more deceptive than straighforward “propaganda.” The overt cheerleading in these films reminds me of the great Frank Capra, and it’s far too rare these days.
What’s wrong with cheering-on the American ideal?
Some are cartoons by John Sutherland, who “worked with Disney on Sleeping Beauty and several other Disney productions before starting his own production studio in 1945.” Others feature a young Clifton Ganus lecturing on the benefits of free enterprise and the American way of life.
Here for your enjoyment are these entertaining cartoons and educational films sponsored by Harding College:
Make Mine Freedom: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download avi
Why Play Leapfrog: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download avi
Meet King Joe: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download mpg
Going Places: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download mpg
The Secret of American Production: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download avi
A Look at Capitalism: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download avi
Why Kill the Goose: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download avi
A Story of Enterprise: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download avi
America’s Distribution of Wealth: Prelinger Archives entry | Quicktime streaming | Real streaming | download avi
Some may be embarrassed by this history because they buy the liberal lies that Communism was no big deal and that socialism might work if we dress it up in Christian clothes for one more chance. These are the same folks who rail against Harding’s current efforts through the American Studies Institute (ASI).
On a related note, Larry James said:
Yep, ole Harding U (”College” when I was there back in the day) was no citadel of free thought or scholarly investigation. As a matter of fact, if you didn’t pretty well “toe the party line” there in your thinking, you were asked to leave or you were dismissed. I watched brilliant professors leave by the truck load. Sad.
So when all the “brilliant” professors left, did that make room for folks like Mark Elrod? (I wonder if that will provoke him to finally comment on this blog, at least to defend himself if not his employer) < — just teasing. 
It did have the wonderful affect [sic] of causing me to question everything I heard there. My liberal arts education seemed to come along just fine given my academic MO at the time!
How ’bout you extremist? I bet you have a slightly different point of view on this one!
Why yes, Larry, I do. But, I’m glad that you were smart enough to educated yourself despite the environment at Harding. Bully for you. Unlike left-leaning Harding alumni (who seem to be disproportionately represented in the blogosphere), I respect the institution and her history. There is no lack of rigrous thought and scholarship at Harding, and disagreeing with Larry James is not incompatible with brilliance.
During the Coulter mess, Mike Cope said that some alumni love our school the way a two-year old loves his mommy — uncritically. Cope said we love “because THE INSTITUTION IS ALWAYS RIGHT AND SHOULDN’T BE CHALLENGED.”
Here’s a tip. When Mike Cope writes in all caps, it usually means he’s drawing an unfair caricature of his opponent’s position. He says his camp loves Harding in spite of her flaws, like a spouse after years of marriage. I say they love from a point of condescension — like an effete, pseudo-intellectual might love his slow half-sister from the wrong side of the tracks.
As Jim Shelton pointed out, Mike Cope borrowed his line from Al Franken. How fitting that he would choose to parrot the words of a leftist, anti-American demagogue. The small group of alumni who led the crusade against Coulter oppose much more than just one speaker. They oppose the point of the entire ASI program. They seem to think there is something wrong with instilling a knowledge and appreciation of Americanism. They see patriotism as simple-minded, unsophisticated, and probably incompatible with Christianity. No wonder they bristle at a commitment to America’s founding principles. I wouldn’t be surprised if they find these films “embarrassing” too.
I find them delightful.
{ 12 } Comments
Wow, extremist, kinda got to you didn’t we!
Larry James
P. S. it would be nice to know your name. . .but I guess that is too risky for you.
Larry,
I just thought it would be nice for folks searching the blogs to find something from Harding alumni about our school other than patronizing critiques.
Don’t you just love these films?
–ex
p.s. Check your email; I’ll be happy to share whatever you want to know.
Harding promoting Americanism? Nah! Who would have ever thought that!
For the record I have no real problem with patriotism. There is certainly many ideas of Americanism that is consistent with a gospel of liberationa and redemption. The idea that anyone can speak without fear of persecution, the idea that can work and provide for their families in a responsible manner, etc… These are good ideas.
Yet during my years in Searcy, in its promotion of the American idea, what bothered me was not the patriotic overtones in chapel and abroad. What bothered me was what seemed to be the blind acceptance of Americanism by not funneling it through the lens of God’s world view. What do I mean? Scripture consistantly and overwhelmingly portrays the vision that our hope does not rest upon worldly civilizations, material possesions, and human operatives. Our only real hope rest upon God and his promises. Yet the idea of Americanism would leave us to believe in a dual hope (eternal hope in God but worldly hope in America). This is where Christians must reject Americanism (an idol of our heart) and remind us and everyone else that the U.S. and its American idealism is just one of the many principalities and powers that has been, is being, and wiil be overthrown by God at the feet of Jesus.
Further, I have a huge problem with churches and Harding chapel when we sing the chorus of “Jesus is Lord” then pray to God as the sovereign Lord and then turn around and recite the “I pledge allegiance to the United States of America…” Oh, I thought we just claimed that God was our Lord by singing “Jesus is Lord” and praying to God as the sovereign Lord. Oh yeah, I almost forgot… the American brand of Christianity says we can have a dual allegiance (found in Matthew 29.1
).
Rex said “For the record I have no real problem with patriotism.”
Let me correct myself and say I have no problem with SOME of the ideas promoted by patriotism and Americanism
Rex, I just don’t see the problem with singing both “Jesus is Lord” and the Pledge of Alligence. We make pledges all the time to people and entities. A man “pledges alligence” to his wife, his company, his friends, and his country. When one takes a pledge, in addition to the one to our God, and marriage is but one of those types of pledges, it doesn’t mean he is choosing that individual, company or country OVER God. In fact, if any of those ask something of a person that is against God’s will, he has the choice (and responsibility) to refuse. If a wife would ask her husband to do something that he knows is against God’s will, he can make the choice to NOT do that but so choosing does not invlaidate the marriage vows. I keep hearing a refrain that it’s either Christianity or patriotism. What is it about the combination of Christianity and patriotism that has you so on edge?
Rex, I would challenge you to point to a concrete example of a problem with this duality. As I said here, there is a spiritual realm distinct from the physical realm and the Kingdom is spiritual, Luke 17:20-21.
Americanism contains within it the indispensable notion of citizens having their first allegiance to God. That’s why we have freedom to worship and freedom from an established religion. That’s why the pledge was incomplete until the part you left out was added: “under God.”
Many secularists argue that this aspect of the idea that is America is disposable. That’s why it is so important to maintain this part of who we have historically been as a people. What’s wrong with that?
If that is lost, then you will be right; we will just be another country like all the rest. The way to assure that happens is for us to withdraw from the public sphere and retreat into our “citizenship in heaven.”
If you want to have an influence, you have to be engaged and committed, in some sense, to our form of government. I’d bet that’s something Larry and I would agree on. We just have different ideas about what we should try to accomplish with our participation.
I make pledges all the time. That is true, as we all do. But the pledges I make do not conflict with my pledge to God. For arguments sake, we will assume there is such a thing as just war (even though I personally do not believe so). But the fact that many Christians have no set criterion for deciding when a war is just but will give their pledge to the country and it leaders is just one example of where such a pledge has confused our pledge to Jesus is lord. How can any Christian begin to endorse war if they have not even seriously thought to inquire as to whether a war is just or not (keeping in mind that just war theologians normally say that a war/military action is never just as a preemtive strike.
But enough about that because we have hased that out in previous post.
Why else would a pledge to our country be wrong? Maybe because our Country led by the leader we elect practice selective justice around the world and our primarily interested in furthering their own worldy empire, while the Christian faith calls us to embrace a non-discrimatory policy to justice and certainly to not be concerned with ourselves. Further mroe, I have served time in the Army and guess what… I remember being told my first day in boot camp that “God could have me on Sunday’s but my A** was the Army’s on Monday-Saturday.” That sure sounds real compatable with Lordship to Jesus.
Exremist. You want one reason why dualism is wrong, because it comes from platonic philosophy. It seems to me that Paul held a very low view of the Greek Philosophers (1 Cor. 1.20; Col 2.8) and so did the Christian church until sometime in the third century.
The point of the passage you cite is to imform the disciples that the kingdom of God will not be a kingdom visible by an earthly ruler and enforced by an earthly power (which is what they were anticipating of the Kingdom of God). But that passage has NOTHING to suggest that the kingdom is spiritual and not physical. Why because the Kingdom is physical as well as spiritual, as it has everything to do with physical life as well which is why Jesus ministry of proclaiming the good news of the kingdom also included the physical ministry to those around him. That is why Jesus taught us to pray for the kingdom to come, asking for the will of God to be done on earth (physical) as it is in heaven (spiritual)(Mt. 6.10).
Why was early Christianity so opposed to platonic dualism? Gnosticism borrowed heavily from platonic dualism and so did the Arian. Of course, I am pointing this out just to show some of the heresies which borrowed from dualistic thinking (not that I think you, based on your blog writings, would endorse gnosticism or arianism).
Color me an uncritical thinker and a Platonic dualist if you like, but I found these films positively delightful, and so did my sons who watched some of them last night.
In a world that prefers sophistication and nuance, these films may appear anachronistic and simplistic. But I think such gems are gaining a new audience among the rising Millenial generation who are more unabashedly patriotic, perhaps in reaction to the rejection of traditional Americanism on the part of many Boomers and Gen-Xers.
Rex, I still don’t think you have answered the question in light of what I wrote. I don’t have to agree with my politicians in order to be patriotic. That, in itself, is part of the beauty of the Republic. In the same light, I don’t have to agree with everything Exxon does to buy gas there (though there are still some folks who are boycotting Exxon for the Valdez oil spill.) If you look at the words of the pledge of alligence, none of them even say you have to support the war in Iraq. “I pledge alligence to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.” You are pledging support of our way of government, not to the politicians who lead it. I simply do not see that pledge as interferring with my higher pledge to God. Please try again, maybe I’m just slow.
ooops, left out “indivisible…”
A bit to the left wrote: “If you look at the words of the pledge of alligence, none of them even say you have to support the war in Iraq. “I pledge alligence to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands; one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all.†You are pledging support of our way of government, not to the politicians who lead it. I simply do not see that pledge as interferring with my higher pledge to God. Please try again, maybe I’m just slow.”
In my judgement (which could be wrong), it seems to me that when one pledges support to any institution or organization, they automatically are lending support to the way in which that institution or organization operates and enacts policies. This is the reason why some people who once were die hard democrats have withdrawn from their party, because their party (organization) unholds certain policies which they believe are morally/ethically wrong and to remain supportive of the democrat party is to give support to immoral policies.
Well the same is true for our nation, when we support the U.S. through a pledge, we are giving our support to its policies and actions (whether right or wrong). That is why I refuse to pledge my allegiance to the U.S. and why I refuse to claim allegiance to any political party (because I believe that Democrats and Republicans alike support and uphold practices and policies which our immoral and unethical).
I pledge allegiange to Jesus Christ alone and claim to be one thing: I Am Christian (see: http://rexeffect.blogspot.com/2005/08/i-am-christian.html ).
Rex, you contend “In my judgement (which could be wrong), it seems to me that when one pledges support to any institution or organization, they automatically are lending support to the way in which that institution or organization operates and enacts policies.” Maybe or maybe not for all people and all pledges. But I would agree that in large measure I do support “the way in which that institution or organization operates and enacts policies.” I may not agree with all those policies, but I do support the way (choosing candidates, having them vote on laws and issues, etc.) our government is set up. Is it perfect? Absolutely not! But it is a more representative government than most of those in the world. I have said earlier in this blog that I feel a bit duped by the President about the war in Iraq (the reasons we initially went there), and I do not support many of his economic policies. But that does not mean I do not support our way of government. Giving the power of a vote (and a voice for that matter) to people who are easily swayed (liberal, conservative, ignorant, godly, etc.) and only get their political information by means of the mass media or even second hand or third hand from friends, is just plain down-right scarey and I would agree with your blog myself in that I don’t hold to the liberal social agenda (abortion and gay rights) nor do I hold to all of the conservative right platform. But I believe this form of government allows us to do just what we are doing now - speak, disagree. I also think that to take all of the advantages of living in a country and yet renounce it, is more dualistic than pledging alligence to God and to country.
{ 1 } Trackback
[…] BACKGROUND: Harding University Films Permalink TrackBack […]
Post a Comment