The name is absent

Keskel argues that oaths are not taken for mere patriotic reasons. He
states, for example, that a military officer’s oath is “a call to a higher power, a
statement to perform to the best of one’s ability, a sense of honor, an
acknowledgement of the consequences of failing to live up to one’s word.”¹¹
These military oaths can be traced back to ancient Rome where soldiers pledged
allegiance to their commanders for as long as the engagements lasted.
Therefore, once the engagement ended, soldiers were no longer bound by the
oath.¹²

Although this analysis of oathing in the United States provides details on
how it is applied in government and in education, it misses an opportunity to
explain the oathing experience and to convey what makes oathers feel they
“have to live up to one’s word.”¹³ In this case the power of the oath is still
predominately locked into a patriotic space, if this was the primary goal, it misses
the important social and cultural applications of oathing. Keskel represents one
of many perspectives on the topic.

Quamie-Kyiamah offers his interpretation of oathing in Africa by showing
primarily how it was used by different groups. All chiefs in the Gold Coast
possessed oaths, some of which were adopted by the State.¹⁴ Oaths that
belonged to chiefs could only be declared by owning chiefs. Anyone found
repeating the oaths of chiefs were punished, and the punishment could include
death. Oaths were extremely significant. The oaths of chiefs that were adopted

¹¹ Keskel “The Oath of Office,” 2.

¹² Keskel “The Oath of Office,” 1-14.
'³Keskel “The Oath of Office,” 2.

¹⁴ Quamie-Kyiamah “The Customary Oath,” 139-147.

65

<<   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   >>

More intriguing information