Can You Sing Your National Anthem? Pt. 4
Jul 28th, 2008 by Micah Tillman | 16 Comments |
Whenever I hear someone talk about the violence of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” I can’t help but think of France’s national anthem:
To arms, citizens! / Form your battalions / Let’s march, let’s march! / May a tainted blood / Soak our furrows!
To arms, citizens! / Let us form our battalions / Let us march, let us march! / May their tainted blood / Soak our furrows!
A lot of Mennonites are of German ancestry, though. So maybe Mennonites could sing the US national anthem if it were more like Germany’s:
Germany, Germany above everything / Above everything in the world
When it always for protection and defense / Brotherly stands together
From the Meuse to the Neman / From the Adige to the Belt
Germany, Germany above everything / Above everything in the world
Hmmm. . . . Maybe not.
Wait. How about the Netherlands? That’s where Menno Simons came from. And the Dutch are famous for their tolerance:
Seated [on horseback] like a prince / with my armed forces
Defied by the tyrant / I awaited the battle.
Those buried at Maastricht / were afraid of my might
People saw my horsemen ride / bravely through the fieldsIf it had been the Lord’s will / at the time
I would have gladly relieved / you of this heavy tempest
But the Lord above / who rules all
He who we should always praise / did not desire so
Um . . . .
England, then?
O Lord, our God, arise / Scatter her enemies / And make them fall
Confound their politics / Frustrate their knavish tricks / On Thee our hopes we fix / God save us all
Ouch.
Then Spain, perhaps?
Wait. Their anthem has no lyrics.
No. I’ve got it.
O Canada! / Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise / The True North strong and free!
From far and wide, O Canada / We stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free! / O Canada, we stand on guard for thee
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
Nope. It’s got “standing on guard,” self-glorification, and God in it.
But they have an official English and an official French version. Maybe the latter would be better. Here’s the wikipedia translation:
O Canada! / Land of our forefathers
your brow is wreathed with a glorious garland of flowers.
Because your arm can wield the sword / and it is ready to carry the cross.
your history is an epic / Of the most brilliant exploits
your valour steeped in faith / Will protect our homes and our rights
Will protect our homes and our rights
Guess not.
To whom shall we go for inspiration.
To whom?!
________________
Note: Thanks to Christine for suggesting I investigate the Canadian anthem :-)
I like our National Anthem.
There, I said it.
Maybe because I’ve been to Fort McHenry a few times and can envision our country’s flag still waving.
There, I’m done.
I heartily agree with you, Amanda.
The image of the first verse always seemed to me to be one of miraculously surviving a brutal onslaught even though you had no chance and couldn’t fight back.
That may not be how the battle actually happened, but it makes me feel good.
Comparing the US anthem to the other (equally violence-glorifying) anthems kind of misses the point. Or at least what the point is for me. Yes, the violence is a problem, but I’m hesitant to sing any song that expresses/implies/demands commitment to something other than God. In the “Star-Spangled Banner”’s case, the singer glorifies a particular piece of cloth and that which it symbolizes. (There is a commandment about that, no?)
I’ll stick to hymns, thank you.
(I should note that many of my Menno-progressive friends are very happy to sing “O Canada” but not the SSB–the assumption being that the song represents a kinder, gentler country, never mind the pledge to stand on guard. But following the logic of idolatry and devotion, “O Canada” should be just as problematic.)
Misses the point, eh? :-) I’m not sure what point I was making.
That happens to me some times. Kind of disturbing for a philosopher.
Person A: “So, what are you saying?”
Me: “I have no idea.”
Person A: “Some philosopher.”
Me: “Tell me about it.”
There are 3 other “parts” to this post, though.
If I’m making a point, maybe it’s in those parts.
In fact, this post makes no sense without having read the first three.
Or at least it doesn’t make the sense I wanted it to make. Whatever that was.
How do you feel about love songs?
Sorry–the point I was assuming is that the critique leveled against SSB is that it is a violent song. That is only part of the critique.
As for love songs, it depends. I can love someone (or even something) without worshiping him or her. Some of the alternate anthems (such as “America the beautiful”) are closer to love than worship. Just about any anthem, though, winds up being a de-facto worship song regardless of content. The singer is expected to stand as part of a congregation, place a hand over the heart in an act of commitment, and sing towards an object.
Great point about worship. I feel that way about this.
I feel you, as the kids say.
One small observation about the idolatrous aspect of national anthems: of every country I’ve lived in (and many more that I’ve seen on televised sporting events like the World Cup), the US is the only country where it’s de rigeur to place the hand over the heart. This is no coincidence, methinks.
Regarding “singing towards an object,” large sporting events are about the only place national anthems are sung these days - which means people are seated to face a certain direction (the field) for a totally separate reason (the game), then a flag is waved in front of them incidentally during the opening ceremonies. It’s almost a bait-and-switch tactic.
Mexico as well. (Though it’s really a military style salute over the heart there as indeed it briefly was in the United States. It’s known as El saludo civil a la Bandera Nacional.) But I think Mexico and the U.S. are it.
The origin of the salute was with Francis Bellamy who wrote the Pledge of Allegiance. The salute that was given (known as the Bellamy salute) was what we now think of as a “Nazi salute.” When the Nazis stole it, the United States changed it to the now familiar hand over heart (with a brief period when the palm was pointing down rather than flat on the chest). At about the same time, it also became common practice to put the hand over the heart for the national anthem.
I suspect it is not a coincidence, as well. The United States is a nation of immigrants. I’m sure it was frequently thought throughout its history that little rituals like that could create a common culture where one didn’t actually exist.
This part of the german national anthem: “Germany, Germany above everything / Above everything in the world…” is not in (official) use anymore. Only the last stanza is in use, for the last 50 years:
Unity and justice and freedom
For the German fatherland!
For these let us all strive
Brotherly with heart and hand!
Unity and justice and freedom
Are the pledge of fortune;
|: Flourish in this fortune’s blessing,
Flourish, German fatherland. :|
look also here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7461606.stm
Interesting.
That does sound much more friendly.
Not that the first verse was shockingly offensive to me. I expect the citizens of every country to see theirs as the best country in the world.
There’s something wrong if a person can’t see hers/his that way, IMO. It’s kind of like sports.
Really? I think there’s something infinitely more sane in not being devoted to one’s country, let alone to any other country. By my account, patriotism is one of the worst mental afflictions a person can suffer. But then, I’ve never been a very sportif kinda guy either.
Another example:
I’m never offended when I hear someone say his/her mother/father was the best mother/father in the world. Not even when I think they’re serious.
There’s something wonderfully right about having such a positive experience of one’s parents. And anyone who can’t say their parents were the best parents in the world has truly missed out on something.
It’s not their fault, necessarily (it’s probably their parents’), but still, they have missed out.
Same thing with your country.
If your experience of your country has been anything other than one that would lead you to superlatives, this is a sad fact.
Again, it’s not necessarily your fault (some people have had absolutely awful experiences of their countries!) but it’s still sad.
But you’re right, Seb. There is a danger here. As there is in sports (e.g., riots, those stories you hear about fans murdering players they’ve grown to hate, etc.).
I see where you’re going with this, but a more apt metaphor would be one’s country as one’s family. Parents are a sufficiently specific & finite unit that they’re more like, say, your hometown. Because, no matter how messed up, unglamorous, or poorly socialised one’s hometown/parents may be, there’s always a grudging affection and a sense of attachment that can’t be rendered asunder. (Not to mention that, like “cool” cities, “cool” parents are scarcely so infallibly awesome to those who grew up with them.)
Your country, on the other hand, is a lot more like your family: large, sprawling, probably spread-out to one degree or another, and composed of elements you both heavily identify with & would prefer to disown (much as various members of your own family undoubtedly feel about you). The kind of antipathy between, say, rural Ankansans and San Franciscans could easily be paralleled at almost anyone’s family reunion.
Micah, it seems that your point, from Part I, was that if Colombians can sing their national anthem, considering the problems that they have had in their country, then “affluent, white” Americans should not object to singing their national anthem.
It also seems that your point is that the United States is not unique in having a national anthem that refers, in some way or other, to warfare. Of course, the logical conclusion for a pacifist would be that nobody should sing any national anthem.
My wife’s father was a Mennonite, but he is not a pacifist. Some of my wife’s ancestors actually served in the military during the World Wars, which violated their ancestors’ convictions but which they considered a duty. They figured that if they were grateful for the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” then they had better be willing to make huge sacrifices for her.
I actually think that one can be against warfare and violence but still participate in it when necessary. In fact, only a twisted person enjoys war or thinks of it as something good.
I suppose some of our pacifist Mennonite friends were against the liberation of the death camps of the Nazis.
Oh, and it’s kind of silly to refuse a song that is an about an accomplished historical event. You cannot deny that the War of 1812 occurred. And if you reap the benefits of being an American, you cannot deny that the outcome of that war was favorable for you.
Godwin and straw-man! You lose.
The Godwin people must be stopped. It was funny (and a good idea) when they restricted themselves to comparisons to Hitler. (”Bush does all the same things Hitler used to do.”) But the above contains no such comparison. It uses World War II to make a perfectly valid point. Pacifists are not being compared to Hitler.
However, you’re right about the straw man.