ABC: High School Declares National Anthem 'Racist'; Bans it at School Functions

[BTR1701]

Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?


http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/

SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.

"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.

He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.

In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".

Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."

But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.

Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.

But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.

"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.

As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

[Rhino]

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

The first three lines of the previous version were:
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

Of course there's a downside to this. Our anthem has been changed a few
times now, always to placate someone who was offended by it, and now I
no longer know what to sing at Remembrance Day or other occasions where
it is played. I'm not alone either. If you stand in a crowd during the
singing of the anthem, you hear all the different versions at once with
the youngest people singing the newest version and other people singing
the version *they* learned back in the day. Nothing says unity like
hundreds of people singing several different versions of the same
national anthem!

[BTR1701]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

Too bad you couldn't work 'peoplekind' in there somewhere.

[Rhino]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about theOur
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

Too bad you couldn't work 'peoplekind' in there somewhere.

I think it's suppose to be the new title of the song in the next
revision: O Peoplekind ;-)

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

Too bad you couldn't work 'peoplekind' in there somewhere.

Why don't you address original complaints of the national anthem's third verse, which includes: 'No refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave' ?

[trotsky]

Post by m***@hotmail.com

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

Too bad you couldn't work 'peoplekind' in there somewhere.

Why don't you address original complaints of the national anthem's third verse, which includes: 'No refuge could save the hireling and slave from the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave' ?

Breitbart didn't cover that.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino
There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

Too bad you couldn't work 'peoplekind' in there somewhere.

Heh heh heh. Canada will survive Justin Trudeau just as you folks will
survive Trump.

One of the glories of democracy is that the people occasionally elect
idiots yet the country stands strong.

[FPP]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino
There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

Too bad you couldn't work 'peoplekind' in there somewhere.

Heh heh heh. Canada will survive Justin Trudeau just as you folks will
survive Trump.

Oh, the question isn't whether we'll survive Trump... but whether will
the rest of YOU will survive Trump.

Because if it's him, or you... you're toast.

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by FPP

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino
There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

Too bad you couldn't work 'peoplekind' in there somewhere.

Heh heh heh. Canada will survive Justin Trudeau just as you folks will
survive Trump.

Oh, the question isn't whether we'll survive Trump... but whether will
the rest of YOU will survive Trump.

No, because Senator Schumer said that the intel agencies could get back at the prez "nine ways to Sunday" if they went all out
(but yes I agree, the rest of us can't).

So the question is this. Which would happen first? Us all not surviving Trump? or all the intel agencies suitably intervening.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino
There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".

Too bad you couldn't work 'peoplekind' in there somewhere.

Heh heh heh. Canada will survive Justin Trudeau just as you folks will
survive Trump.
One of the glories of democracy is that the people occasionally elect
idiots yet the country stands strong.

The United States had a number of weak to bad presidents in the decades
leading up to the Civil War.

Then we elected an intellectual like Wilson, who got us in the First
World War after promising to keep us out of it.

We had a number of accidental presidents, like Truman and Ford, who
turned out to be pretty damn good. Ford had a good reputation as a
leader in the House of Representatives, but who could have predicted
Truman would have made a good president? It would have been nice if he'd
shut down anti-Commie hysteria.

There's no magic formula for who will make a good president, but after
Reagan and Trump, I'd like to not elect another president from tv.

[Alan Smithee]

Post by Rhino
There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

"Our home ON Native land" :-D
That should do it...

[moviePig]

Post by Alan Smithee

Post by Rhino
There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

"Our home ON Native land" :-D
That should do it...

Nice shot...

[Rhino]

Post by Alan Smithee

Post by Rhino
There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

"Our home ON Native land" :-D
That should do it...

You might have something there except for one thing: the Indians/Innuit
concept of land ownership wasn't anything like ours, where we (often)
enclose land and take other steps to keep others - human or animal - off
it. They saw themselves more as stewards of the land - park rangers if
you will - which doesn't much resemble OUR concept of ownership.

But the public doesn't know that. When these matters are discussed in
the press, most people assume - reasonably but incorrectly - that the
aboriginals have always had the same idea of land ownership throughout
history that we have today. Therefore, all sorts of misunderstandings
abound.

[moviePig]

Post by Rhino

Post by Alan Smithee

Post by Rhino
There's an easy solution to that: just imitate the Canadian Parliament
and revise the national anthem to change offending passages! For
instance, we very recently revised "In all thy sons command" to say "In
all of us command".
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.

"Our home ON Native land" :-D
That should do it...

You might have something there except for one thing: the Indians/Innuit
concept of land ownership wasn't anything like ours, where we (often)
enclose land and take other steps to keep others - human or animal - off
it. They saw themselves more as stewards of the land - park rangers if
you will - which doesn't much resemble OUR concept of ownership.
But the public doesn't know that. When these matters are discussed in
the press, most people assume - reasonably but incorrectly - that the
aboriginals have always had the same idea of land ownership throughout
history that we have today. Therefore, all sorts of misunderstandings
abound.

Barbarians: The land belongs to everyone!

Civilization: The land belongs to (certain of) us!

I'm not sure that stands as an exception to the OP's point...

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say. The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past. The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.

No, they really don't, considering the 'scary' words appear in a verse
that is never sung and most people don't even know exists. For all
practical purposes, the National Anthem is the first verse only.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.

No, they really don't, considering the 'scary' words appear in a verse
that is never sung and most people don't even know exists. For all
practical purposes, the National Anthem is the first verse only.

So your argument is that ignorance negates everything...

[Rhino]

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me
speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.

No, they really don't, considering the 'scary' words appear in a verse
that is never sung and most people don't even know exists. For all
practical purposes, the National Anthem is the first verse only.

So your argument is that ignorance negates everything...

And, as usual, you don't even *have* an argument but jumped in anyway.

[FPP]

Post by Rhino

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.

No, they really don't, considering the 'scary' words appear in a verse
that is never sung and most people don't even know exists. For all
practical purposes, the National Anthem is the first verse only.

So your argument is that ignorance negates everything...

And, as usual, you don't even *have* an argument but jumped in anyway.

Fuck off, asshole. Thanny is arguing that because people are ignorant
of the other verses, they don't count as part of the anthem.

That's stupid. Like you.

[BTR1701]

Post by Rhino

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.

No, they really don't, considering the 'scary' words appear in a verse
that is never sung and most people don't even know exists. For all
practical purposes, the National Anthem is the first verse only.

So your argument is that ignorance negates everything...

And, as usual, you don't even *have* an argument but jumped in anyway.

Fuck off, asshole. Thanny is arguing that because people are ignorant
of the other verses, they don't count as part of the anthem.

No, I'm arguing that because the other verses are never sung and most
people are ignorant that they even exist, it's idiotic to clutch your
pearls and get the vapors over them.

It's practically the definition of searching for something to be offended
by.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.

No, they really don't, considering the 'scary' words appear in a verse
that is never sung and most people don't even know exists. For all
practical purposes, the National Anthem is the first verse only.

So your argument is that ignorance negates everything...

And, as usual, you don't even *have* an argument but jumped in anyway.

Fuck off, asshole. Thanny is arguing that because people are ignorant
of the other verses, they don't count as part of the anthem.

No, I'm arguing that because the other verses are never sung and most
people are ignorant that they even exist, it's idiotic to clutch your
pearls and get the vapors over them.

Yep. Never! Ever!

Want more? You do know what "never" means, right?

[NoBody]

Post by FPP

Post by Rhino

Post by FPP

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.

No, they really don't, considering the 'scary' words appear in a verse
that is never sung and most people don't even know exists. For all
practical purposes, the National Anthem is the first verse only.

So your argument is that ignorance negates everything...

And, as usual, you don't even *have* an argument but jumped in anyway.

Fuck off, asshole. Thanny is arguing that because people are ignorant
of the other verses, they don't count as part of the anthem.
That's stupid. Like you.

Yep, FPP doesn't have an argument.

[Rhino]

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened....

Also, can someone please explain to me why simply not singing that verse
isn't a perfectly acceptable solution to the problem posed by the
troublesome words? It sounds like this problem was identified long ago
and already solved by not singing them any more. Why isn't that good
enough any more?

[BTR1701]

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

VERSE 1 (the one everyone sings and knows)

O say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

VERSE 2

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner-- O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

VERSE 3

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

VERSE 4

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto-- "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Post by Rhino
Also, can someone please explain to me why simply not singing that verse
isn't a perfectly acceptable solution

Because that's the way it currently works. No one *ever* sings anything
past the first verse. Most Americans don't even know there's more to it
than the first verse.

But leaving things as they are doesn't give the social justice whackos
anything to bitch and moan about. So we have to ban the whole thing
because of one un-sung verse no one knows.

[Rhino]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

VERSE 1 (the one everyone sings and knows)
O say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
VERSE 2
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
'Tis the star-spangled banner-- O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Combining what I know about the English language used in those days and
the history of the times, it seems to me that Verse 3 is essentially
about the naysayers, those who opposed a revolution to throw off the
yoke of the English crown. The verse seems to look back on those who
didn't want to rock the boat by opposing the Crown because they might
lose; it observes that they've all either died in the war or fled to
other countries.

I'm not completely clear on the meaning of hireling and slave in this
context. The dictionary says hireling is someone who will do a dirty or
immoral job for money and implies someone who has no moral principles;
I'm guessing that's a reference to those American-born men who fought
for the British simply because of the pay and willingly fought their
fellow Americans who were on the Revolutionary side - and possibly
abused woman and children if ordered to do so by their commanders.

Slave obviously invokes a mental image of blacks working in the fields
in plantations as we've seen in Roots and such shows but is that what
the lyricist actually meant? Or did he mean slaves in some
broader/vaguer sense as in everyone who stayed loyal to the Crown when
they could have joined the Revolutionaries? Many such people fled
America and quite a few ended up here in Canada, where we call them
United Empire Loyalists or Loyalists for short. Most of those people
were white.

Post by BTR1701
VERSE 4
O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto-- "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Post by Rhino
Also, can someone please explain to me why simply not singing that verse
isn't a perfectly acceptable solution

Because that's the way it currently works. No one *ever* sings anything
past the first verse. Most Americans don't even know there's more to it
than the first verse.
But leaving things as they are doesn't give the social justice whackos
anything to bitch and moan about. So we have to ban the whole thing
because of one un-sung verse no one knows.

I can't disagree with you there; that's how the SJWs roll ....

Still, is there any reason you can't just drop the problematic verse
from the song "officially" to satisfy all involved that it is no longer
part of the anthem? I don't know who "owns" the song so I'm not sure if
that would be a big deal.

That would seem a much better solution than what they're doing now,
which is a whole lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater....

[m***@hotmail.com]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

VERSE 1 (the one everyone sings and knows)
O say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
VERSE 2
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
'Tis the star-spangled banner-- O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Combining what I know about the English language used in those days and
the history of the times, it seems to me that Verse 3 is essentially
about the naysayers, those who opposed a revolution to throw off the
yoke of the English crown. The verse seems to look back on those who
didn't want to rock the boat by opposing the Crown because they might
lose; it observes that they've all either died in the war or fled to
other countries.
I'm not completely clear on the meaning of hireling and slave in this
context.

'You' don't exactly have to be clear on it. Its speaks for itself.

[Lesmond]

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say. � The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past. � The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

VERSE 1 (the one everyone sings and knows)
O say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
VERSE 2
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam
'Tis the star-spangled banner-- O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Combining what I know about the English language used in those days and
the history of the times, it seems to me that Verse 3 is essentially
about the naysayers, those who opposed a revolution to throw off the
yoke of the English crown. The verse seems to look back on those who
didn't want to rock the boat by opposing the Crown because they might
lose; it observes that they've all either died in the war or fled to
other countries.
I'm not completely clear on the meaning of hireling and slave in this
context. The dictionary says hireling is someone who will do a dirty or
immoral job for money and implies someone who has no moral principles;
I'm guessing that's a reference to those American-born men who fought
for the British simply because of the pay and willingly fought their
fellow Americans who were on the Revolutionary side - and possibly
abused woman and children if ordered to do so by their commanders.
Slave obviously invokes a mental image of blacks working in the fields
in plantations as we've seen in Roots and such shows but is that what
the lyricist actually meant? Or did he mean slaves in some
broader/vaguer sense as in everyone who stayed loyal to the Crown when
they could have joined the Revolutionaries? Many such people fled
America and quite a few ended up here in Canada, where we call them
United Empire Loyalists or Loyalists for short. Most of those people
were white.

Thank you. I thought I was the only one who didn't see clear racism there.

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
VERSE 4
O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto-- "In God is our trust"
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Post by Rhino
Also, can someone please explain to me why simply not singing that verse
isn't a perfectly acceptable solution

Because that's the way it currently works. No one *ever* sings anything
past the first verse. Most Americans don't even know there's more to it
than the first verse.
But leaving things as they are doesn't give the social justice whackos
anything to bitch and moan about. So we have to ban the whole thing
because of one un-sung verse no one knows.

I can't disagree with you there; that's how the SJWs roll ....
Still, is there any reason you can't just drop the problematic verse
from the song "officially" to satisfy all involved that it is no longer
part of the anthem? I don't know who "owns" the song so I'm not sure if
that would be a big deal.
That would seem a much better solution than what they're doing now,
which is a whole lot like throwing the baby out with the bathwater....

It'll never be a movement, don't worry. I don't know why BTR gets all bent
out of shape when a high school from nowhere does something wacky.

Without the wacky high schools, what would we talk about? TV?

[Obveeus]

Post by Lesmond

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Combining what I know about the English language used in those days and
the history of the times, it seems to me that Verse 3 is essentially
about the naysayers, those who opposed a revolution to throw off the
yoke of the English crown. The verse seems to look back on those who
didn't want to rock the boat by opposing the Crown because they might
lose; it observes that they've all either died in the war or fled to
other countries.
I'm not completely clear on the meaning of hireling and slave in this
context.

Thank you. I thought I was the only one who didn't see clear racism there.

Just to be clear, this song was written with regards to the war of 1812.
That being said, apparently no one got around to asking Francis Scott
Keyes what he meant in the lyrics. There is some speculation on the
wiki page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner

The speculation is that this lyric refers to escaped/freed U.S. slaves
who joined the British army to fight against their oppressors.
Alternatively, it could be a reference to 'impressment', where the
British forced people into serving in their military.

Post by Lesmond
It'll never be a movement, don't worry. I don't know why BTR gets all bent
out of shape when a high school from nowhere does something wacky.

BTR1701 must be on the Alt-Right mailing list updated daily by Russian
agents to fool idiots into waves of faux outrage over irrelevant crap in
order to detract from the real disasters going on within American
government. Every idiotic gun nutter response and every idiotic racist
response and every idiotic misogynist response on the internet seems to
funnel through BTR1701 and into this newsgroup.

[Lesmond]

Post by Obveeus

Post by Lesmond

Post by Rhino

Post by BTR1701
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Combining what I know about the English language used in those days and
the history of the times, it seems to me that Verse 3 is essentially
about the naysayers, those who opposed a revolution to throw off the
yoke of the English crown. The verse seems to look back on those who
didn't want to rock the boat by opposing the Crown because they might
lose; it observes that they've all either died in the war or fled to
other countries.
I'm not completely clear on the meaning of hireling and slave in this
context.

Thank you. I thought I was the only one who didn't see clear racism there.

Just to be clear, this song was written with regards to the war of 1812.
That being said, apparently no one got around to asking Francis Scott
Keyes what he meant in the lyrics. There is some speculation on the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner
The speculation is that this lyric refers to escaped/freed U.S. slaves
who joined the British army to fight against their oppressors.
Alternatively, it could be a reference to 'impressment', where the
British forced people into serving in their military.

Post by Lesmond
It'll never be a movement, don't worry. I don't know why BTR gets all bent
out of shape when a high school from nowhere does something wacky.

BTR1701 must be on the Alt-Right mailing list updated daily by Russian
agents to fool idiots into waves of faux outrage over irrelevant crap in
order to detract from the real disasters going on within American
government. Every idiotic gun nutter response and every idiotic racist
response and every idiotic misogynist response on the internet seems to
funnel through BTR1701 and into this newsgroup.

He can totally be normal. I've seen it.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Rhino
. . .
I'm not completely clear on the meaning of hireling and slave in this
context. The dictionary says hireling is someone who will do a dirty or
immoral job for money and implies someone who has no moral principles;
I'm guessing that's a reference to those American-born men who fought
for the British simply because of the pay and willingly fought their
fellow Americans who were on the Revolutionary side - and possibly
abused woman and children if ordered to do so by their commanders.
. . .

If the job is immoral, that makes him more of a henchman, I suppose.

A hireling cares more about his safety and income and reputation, than
performing the task he was hired to perform, especially if there is a measure
of personal risk involved in doing the job right. For civil defense
purposes, someone standing watch who doesn't remain at his post but runs
away in the face of potential danger would be a hireling, hence Key's
desparaging lyric.

There was a fear that slaves would rise against their masters during a
British invasion and join the invaders. I don't know how many did that.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership. Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino
Also, can someone please explain to me why simply not singing that verse
isn't a perfectly acceptable solution

Because that's the way it currently works. No one *ever* sings anything
past the first verse. Most Americans don't even know there's more to it
than the first verse.

The reason it's not *perfectly* acceptable is that it glosses over the
racist sentiments of the song and songwriter -- like those infamously
controversial Confederate statues, which were for most passersby merely
a long-standing repository for pigeon shit, that were nevertheless held
in high racist esteem by a non-negligible stratum of today's public.

Though I don't believe in stuff like "reparations", I still don't know a
workable formula for resolving such issues. (As BTR elided above) the
larger question is about where a nation draws its line in disavowing a
shameful past. The answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership. Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership. Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership. Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership. Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

Since moving from "Die, motherfucker, die!" to chorused philosophy.

[Rhino]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger
question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful
past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
 From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

 From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally
included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership.  Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

Since moving from "Die, motherfucker, die!" to chorused philosophy.

WTF is "chorused philosophy"? I took a bunch of philosophy courses back
in the day and I've never heard of such a concept. Is this some kind of
autocorrect nonsense?

[BTR1701]

Post by Rhino

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger
question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful
past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
 From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

 From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally
included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership.  Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

Since moving from "Die, motherfucker, die!" to chorused philosophy.

WTF is "chorused philosophy"? I took a bunch of philosophy courses back
in the day and I've never heard of such a concept. Is this some kind of
autocorrect nonsense?

No, just more of Pig's "look at my awesome vocabulary" inscrutability.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger
question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful
past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
 From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

 From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally
included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership.  Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

Since moving from "Die, motherfucker, die!" to chorused philosophy.

WTF is "chorused philosophy"? I took a bunch of philosophy courses back
in the day and I've never heard of such a concept. Is this some kind of
autocorrect nonsense?

No, just more of Pig's "look at my awesome vocabulary" inscrutability.

Okay, then let's rewind. How do *you* see "hireling and slave" and its
author as other than pro-slavery racist?

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

Since moving from "Die, motherfucker, die!" to chorused philosophy.

WTF is "chorused philosophy"? I took a bunch of philosophy courses back
in the day and I've never heard of such a concept. Is this some kind of
autocorrect nonsense?

No, just more of Pig's "look at my awesome vocabulary" inscrutability.

Okay, then let's rewind. How do *you* see "hireling and slave" and its
author as other than pro-slavery racist?

Pointing out that there are slaves among the enemy troops does not make
one pro-slavery or a racist.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

Since moving from "Die, motherfucker, die!" to chorused philosophy.

WTF is "chorused philosophy"? I took a bunch of philosophy courses back
in the day and I've never heard of such a concept. Is this some kind of
autocorrect nonsense?

No, just more of Pig's "look at my awesome vocabulary" inscrutability.

Okay, then let's rewind. How do *you* see "hireling and slave" and its
author as other than pro-slavery racist?

Pointing out that there are slaves among the enemy troops does not make
one pro-slavery or a racist.

When the context -- if not indeed the mere phrase all by itself -- is a
demeaning one, yes, it pretty much does.


----------------

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-30/historians-disagree-whether-star-spangled-banner-racist


“And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave,
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave.”

The language is definitely archaic and seems a little confusing unless
you know the context.

“Essentially,” says writer and academic Jason Johnson, “Francis Scott
Key was happy to see former slaves, who had joined the British as part
of their Colonial Marines, getting slaughtered and killed as they
attempted to take Baltimore.”

“The entire song sort of leads up to this point,” Johnson adds, “where
he’s essentially saying to these terrible, ungrateful, black people,
this is the consequence of standing up against the United States.”

“So it’s clearly racist; it’s clearly pro-slavery, but it’s pretty much
in line with the kind of man that Francis Scott Key was.”

Key was a typical white Marylander of his time, and he favored slavery.

About 6,000 African Americans fled to the British during the War of
1812, on the promise of freedom. Most of the men were recruited into the
Royal Navy or into the Colonial Marines, a mostly black unit, which
fought with distinction.

“It was an amazing opportunity for African Americans to fight for their
freedom,” says Johnson.

Many historians agree with Johnson, but some disagree. They point out
that Key never told anyone what he actually meant, and some historians
interpret his mention of hirelings and slaves to reference all of the
invading British forces.

They say it echoes similar rhetoric used since the Revolutionary War to
describe the forces of the king of England, especially those units
purchased from German princes. American writers contrasted these
miserable hirelings and slaves with the virtuous all-volunteer citizen
armies of America.

However, Johnson counters that argument. He points out that Key himself
faced the black Colonial Marines in battle. His unit was beaten and
humiliated by them.

“His troops were slaughtered so aggressively,” Johnson says, “that he
had to run home and hide in Washington DC. ... So this was personal for
him."
--------

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Okay, then let's rewind.  How do *you* see "hireling and slave"
and its author as other than pro-slavery racist?

Subjects and servants of the British crown; the Bad Guys attacking
America and not actual Black slaves, whose contribution to the British
effort in the War of 1812 was minor and irrelevant.

[moviePig]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig
Okay, then let's rewind.  How do *you* see "hireling and slave"
and its author as other than pro-slavery racist?

Subjects and servants of the British crown; the Bad Guys attacking
America and not actual Black slaves, whose contribution to the British
effort in the War of 1812 was minor and irrelevant.

That's defensible. But check my subsequent post.

(
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-08-30/historians-disagree-whether-star-spangled-banner-racist
)

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig

Ed Stasiak
Subjects and servants of the British crown; the Bad Guys attacking
America and not actual Black slaves, whose contribution to the British
effort in the War of 1812 was minor and irrelevant.

That's defensible.  But check my subsequent post.

But what’s important (as BTR1701 pointed out several times) is that nobody
sings the “offending” lyrics and most people don’t even know they exist.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/opinions/star-spangled-banner-criticisms-opinion-clague/index.html
By Mark Clague
Wed August 31, 2016

"Editor’s note: Mark Clague is a musicologist and professor of music history,
American culture, African and AfroAmerican studies, and entrepreneurship
at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor). With NEH support, he is writing
a book on "The Star-Spangled Banner" and he serves as founding board
chair of the Star Spangled Music foundation and its anthem history website.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.”

"The Star-Spangled Banner" in no way glorifies or celebrates slavery. The
middle two verses of Key's lyric vilify the British enemy in the War of 1812,
what Key refers to in Verse 3 as "hirelings and slaves." This enemy included
both whites and blacks, largely British professional soldiers (hirelings) but
also the Corps of Colonial Marines (slaves). The Colonial Marines were
escaped black American slaves who joined British forces because of the
promise of freedom in return for fighting their former masters.

Yet in 1814 Key's lyric honored American soldiers both black and white.
"The Star-Spangled Banner" celebrates the heroes who defended Fort
McHenry in the face of almost certain defeat against the most powerful
gunships of the era. America's soldiers included mainly whites, but also
free and escaped blacks.

Escaped slave William Williams served in the US infantry at Fort McHenry and
was killed by a fragment of a British bomb. Another escaped slave, Charles Ball,
writes in his memoirs of being among the American soldiers of the Chesapeake
Bay Flotilla who courageously repelled a night attack and saved the city. "The
Star-Spangled Banner" thus honors American military heroes, black and white,
without regard to race. In this respect, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not racist.

It is thus my belief that "The Star-Spangled Banner" encompasses all Americans;
not only is Key's use of the word "freemen" surprisingly inclusive, but because
nation and song have both changed — if imperfectly — since it was written. As
our nation's anthem, it can and should be sung by any and all for everyone."

[moviePig]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig

Ed Stasiak
Subjects and servants of the British crown; the Bad Guys attacking
America and not actual Black slaves, whose contribution to the British
effort in the War of 1812 was minor and irrelevant.

That's defensible.  But check my subsequent post.

But what’s important (as BTR1701 pointed out several times) is that nobody
sings the “offending” lyrics and most people don’t even know they exist.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/31/opinions/star-spangled-banner-criticisms-opinion-clague/index.html
By Mark Clague
Wed August 31, 2016
"Editor’s note: Mark Clague is a musicologist and professor of music history,
American culture, African and AfroAmerican studies, and entrepreneurship
at the University of Michigan (Ann Arbor). With NEH support, he is writing
a book on "The Star-Spangled Banner" and he serves as founding board
chair of the Star Spangled Music foundation and its anthem history website.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.”
"The Star-Spangled Banner" in no way glorifies or celebrates slavery. The
middle two verses of Key's lyric vilify the British enemy in the War of 1812,
what Key refers to in Verse 3 as "hirelings and slaves." This enemy included
both whites and blacks, largely British professional soldiers (hirelings) but
also the Corps of Colonial Marines (slaves). The Colonial Marines were
escaped black American slaves who joined British forces because of the
promise of freedom in return for fighting their former masters.
Yet in 1814 Key's lyric honored American soldiers both black and white.
"The Star-Spangled Banner" celebrates the heroes who defended Fort
McHenry in the face of almost certain defeat against the most powerful
gunships of the era. America's soldiers included mainly whites, but also
free and escaped blacks.
Escaped slave William Williams served in the US infantry at Fort McHenry and
was killed by a fragment of a British bomb. Another escaped slave, Charles Ball,
writes in his memoirs of being among the American soldiers of the Chesapeake
Bay Flotilla who courageously repelled a night attack and saved the city. "The
Star-Spangled Banner" thus honors American military heroes, black and white,
without regard to race. In this respect, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not racist.
It is thus my belief that "The Star-Spangled Banner" encompasses all Americans;
not only is Key's use of the word "freemen" surprisingly inclusive, but because
nation and song have both changed — if imperfectly — since it was written. As
our nation's anthem, it can and should be sung by any and all for everyone."

Maybe I'm biased, but methinks he doth enthuse too much. (E.g., in
light of the info in my link, it's hard to see Key as an abolitionist.)

Regardless, though, I'll ask (rhetorically, if necessary) whether Key's
poem would be approved if we were choosing Anthem candidates today.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig
Regardless, though, I'll ask (rhetorically, if necessary) whether Key's
poem would be approved if we were choosing Anthem candidates today.

Well, of course not. He's white. That would put him squarely out of
consideration if this was a contemporary choice.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
Regardless, though, I'll ask (rhetorically, if necessary) whether Key's
poem would be approved if we were choosing Anthem candidates today.

Well, of course not. He's white. That would put him squarely out of
consideration if this was a contemporary choice.

Then, suppose the "ideal" circumstance that his ancestry were unknown.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
Regardless, though, I'll ask (rhetorically, if necessary) whether Key's
poem would be approved if we were choosing Anthem candidates today.

Well, of course not. He's white. That would put him squarely out of
consideration if this was a contemporary choice.

Then, suppose the "ideal" circumstance that his ancestry were unknown.

We can assume he rides a unicorn that shits rainbow-colored gumdrops while
we're at it.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
Regardless, though, I'll ask (rhetorically, if necessary) whether Key's
poem would be approved if we were choosing Anthem candidates today.

Well, of course not. He's white. That would put him squarely out of
consideration if this was a contemporary choice.

Then, suppose the "ideal" circumstance that his ancestry were unknown.

We can assume he rides a unicorn that shits rainbow-colored gumdrops while
we're at it.

Yes, we can assume that, if you're trying to avoid the import of the
question (...which we can also probably assume).

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
Regardless, though, I'll ask (rhetorically, if necessary) whether Key's
poem would be approved if we were choosing Anthem candidates today.

Well, of course not. He's white. That would put him squarely out of
consideration if this was a contemporary choice.

Then, suppose the "ideal" circumstance that his ancestry were unknown.

We can assume he rides a unicorn that shits rainbow-colored gumdrops while
we're at it.

Yes, we can assume that, if you're trying to avoid the import of the
question (...which we can also probably assume).

No, I'm making the point that the premise of your question is a fantasy and
needn't be seriously considered.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig
Regardless, though, I'll ask (rhetorically, if necessary) whether Key's
poem would be approved if we were choosing Anthem candidates today.

Well, of course not. He's white. That would put him squarely out of
consideration if this was a contemporary choice.

Then, suppose the "ideal" circumstance that his ancestry were unknown.

We can assume he rides a unicorn that shits rainbow-colored gumdrops while
we're at it.

Yes, we can assume that, if you're trying to avoid the import of the
question (...which we can also probably assume).

No, I'm making the point that the premise of your question is a fantasy and
needn't be seriously considered.

You seem either never to have heard of thought experiments, or to
blithely discount their value as tools for understanding.

[FPP]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by Adam H. Kerman
moviePig

Ed Stasiak
Subjects and servants of the British crown; the Bad Guys attacking
America and not actual Black slaves, whose contribution to the British
effort in the War of 1812 was minor and irrelevant.

That's defensible. But check my subsequent post.

But what’s important (as BTR1701 pointed out several times) is that nobody
sings the “offending” lyrics and most people don’t even know they exist.

And, yet, I just provided multiple examples where people did just that.

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by FPP
FPP

Ed Stasiak
But what’s important (as BTR1701 pointed out several times) is that nobody
sings the “offending” lyrics and most people don’t even know they exist.

And, yet, I just provided multiple examples where people did just that.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Who has been singing of the offending lyrics?

[FPP]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by FPP
FPP

Ed Stasiak
But what’s important (as BTR1701 pointed out several times) is that nobody
sings the “offending” lyrics and most people don’t even know they exist.

And, yet, I just provided multiple examples where people did just that.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Who has been singing of the offending lyrics?

It happens all over the place - just not where everybody will see it.

http://youtu.be/ICaNsSuxjmo

http://youtu.be/lvVtFD9Na0I

It ain't real popular, but it ain't never, either...

[Ed Stasiak]

Post by FPP
FPP

Ed Stasiak
Sorry, I must have missed it. Who has been singing of the offending lyrics?

It happens all over the place - just not where everybody will see it.

The first vid is a 4th of July show, so the song is being presented
in a historical context and the second appears to be in a recording
studio.

You’re going to have to do better then that…

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by FPP
FPP

Ed Stasiak
Sorry, I must have missed it. Who has been singing of the offending lyrics?

It happens all over the place - just not where everybody will see it.

The first vid is a 4th of July show, so the song is being presented
in a historical context and the second appears to be in a recording
studio.
You’re going to have to do better then that…

FPP, like most people here, offer proof of what they say. You don't. You should do better.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by FPP
FPP

Ed Stasiak
Sorry, I must have missed it. Who has been singing of the offending lyrics?

It happens all over the place - just not where everybody will see it.

The first vid is a 4th of July show, so the song is being presented
in a historical context and the second appears to be in a recording
studio.
You’re going to have to do better then that…

FPP, like most people here, offer proof of what they say. You don't. You should do better.

Well I was the one who raised it - and I never said it was
super-popular - just that anyone who wanted to hear the original
lyrics could easily find them on youtube which is what the posted
links are.

There are of course all sorts of historically obscure tunes on Youtube
including the 1907 (roughly) lyrics to the Maple Leaf Forever which
includes lines about Ireland which at that time was part of the
British Empire.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by FPP
FPP

Ed Stasiak
Sorry, I must have missed it. Who has been singing of the offending lyrics?

It happens all over the place - just not where everybody will see it.

The first vid is a 4th of July show, so the song is being presented
in a historical context and the second appears to be in a recording
studio.
You’re going to have to do better then that…

FPP, like most people here, offer proof of what they say. You don't. You should do better.

Well I was the one who raised it - and I never said it was
super-popular - just that anyone who wanted to hear the original
lyrics could easily find them on youtube which is what the posted
links are.
There are of course all sorts of historically obscure tunes on Youtube
including the 1907 (roughly) lyrics to the Maple Leaf Forever which
includes lines about Ireland which at that time was part of the
British Empire.

The F. Scott Key poem was written just after slavery had ended in British regions. So there was probably anger by Key at that occurence alone.

[FPP]

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by FPP
FPP

Ed Stasiak
Sorry, I must have missed it. Who has been singing of the offending lyrics?

It happens all over the place - just not where everybody will see it.

The first vid is a 4th of July show, so the song is being presented
in a historical context and the second appears to be in a recording
studio.
You’re going to have to do better then that…

No, I don't. Thanny said the other verses are "never" sung.
If you have ears that work, they will put the lie to that notion right
quick.

Those other verses are sung less frequently that the first, but that
doesn't mean they aren't sung, or that they're not part of the anthem.

You can no more slice off major parts of the anthem just because you
feel like it, than you can chop the first verse in half.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by FPP
No, I don't. Thanny said the other verses are "never" sung.
If you have ears that work, they will put the lie to that notion right
quick.
Those other verses are sung less frequently that the first, but that
doesn't mean they aren't sung, or that they're not part of the anthem.
You can no more slice off major parts of the anthem just because you
feel like it, than you can chop the first verse in half.

Really? The Germans seem to have managed that with Deutschland Uber
Alles since 1945.

And from 1952-1991 the Soviet anthem was an instrumental. When the
Russian team played in Montreal in 1972 Roger Doucet (who sang the
anthem for the Montreal Canadians for 40+ years - mostly just Oh
Canada and the Star Spangled Banner though he sang at the 1976
Montreal Olympics as well) learned the Soviet lyrics phonetically
including the part about Stalin. One of the Russian players who later
played in the NHL said he had asked one of their KGB handlers if this
was a "provocation" and was told that "no those are the actual words
but I don't have to explain to you why we always play it as an
instrumental eh?"

(Am pretty sure that was Igor Larionov who later played for the
Canucks and Black Hawks who told that story but no matter)

[Ed Stasiak]

The Horny Goat
(Am pretty sure that was Igor Larionov who later played for the
Canucks and Black Hawks who told that story but no matter)

Ahem…

Loading Image...

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2018 17:18:39 -0800 (PST), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

The Horny Goat
(Am pretty sure that was Igor Larionov who later played for the
Canucks and Black Hawks who told that story but no matter)

Ahem…
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/PHOTOFILE/AADN039~Igor-Larionov-with-the-2002-Stanley-Cup-14-Photofile-Posters.jpg

Oh dear - well my apologies to any offended Detroit Red Wings fans out
there......(headbang)

[The Horny Goat]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2018 21:27:03 -0800 (PST), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

Post by FPP
FPP

Ed Stasiak
But what’s important (as BTR1701 pointed out several times) is that nobody
sings the “offending” lyrics and most people don’t even know they exist.

And, yet, I just provided multiple examples where people did just that.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Who has been singing of the offending lyrics?

Just for starters - Youtube has 4 or 5 versions plus some done
according to the SSB 1814 version.

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say. The larger
question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful
past. The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership. Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

Since moving from "Die, motherfucker, die!" to chorused philosophy.

WTF is "chorused philosophy"? I took a bunch of philosophy courses back
in the day and I've never heard of such a concept. Is this some kind of
autocorrect nonsense?

No, just more of Pig's "look at my awesome vocabulary" inscrutability.

Well, "Die, motherfucker, die!" is pretty awesome!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Rhino

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger
question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful
past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
 From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

 From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally
included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership.  Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

'Enemy troops' doesn't require reference as unprincipled lowlife.

Since when?

Since moving from "Die, motherfucker, die!" to chorused philosophy.

WTF is "chorused philosophy"? I took a bunch of philosophy courses back
in the day and I've never heard of such a concept. Is this some kind of
autocorrect nonsense?

moviePig is nothing more than a Usenet posting entity autospewing
random words into bizarre sentences because whoever is behind this
"persona" is at war with communication via plain language, attempting to
wipe it from existence.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by moviePig

Post by BTR1701

Post by Rhino

These kids may have a point, I'm sorry to say.  The larger question is
about where a nation draws the line in disavowing a shameful past.  The
answer may seem easy until one thinks about it...

Is there any information on precisely what the troublesome words were
actually trying to say when they were written? In other words, is there
any chance that the words are being taken out of context in some way? It
wouldn't be the first time that ever happened...

...
VERSE 3
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
...

From Googling, I infer that King George's forces occasionally included
slaves freed from the Colonists' ownership. Francis Scott Key viewed
those slaves (which apparently once kicked his ass) as "turncoats".

Or just, you know, enemy troops.

Sure, that explains why he felt the need to mention them separately.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701
Because that's the way it currently works. No one *ever* sings anything
past the first verse. Most Americans don't even know there's more to it
than the first verse.
But leaving things as they are doesn't give the social justice whackos
anything to bitch and moan about. So we have to ban the whole thing
because of one un-sung verse no one knows.

Perhaps the students would prefer Borat's (Sasha Baron Cohen) version
of the Kazakhstan anthem!

https://genius.com/Erran-baron-cohen-o-kazakhstan-annotated

[t***@gmail.com]

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that
us
Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.

Maybe the school should concentrate more on English instead of the anthem. Because me and Bobby Magee know freedom is not just another word for nothing left to lose. Here's a thought, teach English using the text of the American Constitution.

Then when us get together, us will know what the songs and symbols represent.

God Bless the We

[trotsky]

On 2/14/18 10:45 AM, BTR1701 wrote:


Who gives a shit?

[FPP]

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?

Forever might have gotten considerably smaller, now that he has his
hands on nukes...

[Hass]

Post by BTR1701
Sigh... Trump's gonna be president forever, isn't he?
http://abc7news.com/society/san-ramon-high-school-pulls-national-anthem-f
rom-rallies/3074911/
SAN RAMON, CA (KGO) -- There has been debate over the national anthem at
an East Bay school. The student leadership at San Ramon's California
High School has pulled the Star Spangled Banner from school rallies and
not everyone is happy about it.
"The rally started and it got going and I realized there was no National
Anthem," said California High senior Dennis Fiorentinos, who said the
omission of the song was unusual since rallies traditionally start with
it.
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.
In a letter to the school paper, Student Body President Ariyana
Kermanizadeh specifically noted the third verse, which in part says, "no
refuge could save the hireling and slave".
Kermanizadeh wrote, "This verse translated, finds joy in the killing of
African-Americans. To think that our nation's anthem once had the word
slave and 'land of the free' in the same sentence leaves me speechless."
But Fiorentinos has a different take. "The importance of singing the
national anthem to honor and respect those who've died and sacrificed
their lives and protect the freedoms that us Americans take for granted
everyday is a much more important and unifying issue," he said.
Cal High has struggled with racial issues before. Two years ago, racist
graffiti was found on campus, including the bathrooms where someone
scrawled "whites" above one toilet, and "colored" above another.
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Hopefully some patriot will go and shoot up that fucking school...that'll teach 'em. Fucking traitors.

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.

(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)

How many Americans know ANY of the verses where the Star Spangled
Banner in victory shall wave o'er the land of the free and the home of
the brave? (Hint - most of them except the first verse)

[BTR1701]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.
(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)

Key didn't write the music. He wrote the poem, "Defence of Fort
M'Henry". John Stafford Smith later set it to the music of a popular
British song-- "To Anacreon in Heaven"-- as part of a commission by the
Anacreontic Society.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.
(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)

Key didn't write the music. He wrote the poem, "Defence of Fort
M'Henry". John Stafford Smith later set it to the music of a popular
British song-- "To Anacreon in Heaven"-- as part of a commission by the
Anacreontic Society.

Smith composed The Anacreontic Song; lyrics by Ralph Tomlimson. This was
four decades before Key's poem.

The song was well known. Key had set an earlier poem to the music as well,
and so had any number of poets.

Try pulling a stunt like that today without getting a nasty note from a
lawyer for copyright infringement. Copyright law is designed to thwart
creativity.

[BTR1701]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.
(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)

Key didn't write the music. He wrote the poem, "Defence of Fort
M'Henry". John Stafford Smith later set it to the music of a popular
British song-- "To Anacreon in Heaven"-- as part of a commission by the
Anacreontic Society.

Smith composed The Anacreontic Song; lyrics by Ralph Tomlimson. This was
four decades before Key's poem.
The song was well known. Copyright law is designed to thwart
creativity.

Creativity? Between this and "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" being a
reworking of "God Save the Queen", it seems like our early musicians
didn't have an ounce of creativity among them. All they did was steal
British songs and change the words!

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.
(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)

Key didn't write the music. He wrote the poem, "Defence of Fort
M'Henry". John Stafford Smith later set it to the music of a popular
British song-- "To Anacreon in Heaven"-- as part of a commission by the
Anacreontic Society.

Smith composed The Anacreontic Song; lyrics by Ralph Tomlimson. This was
four decades before Key's poem.
The song was well known. Copyright law is designed to thwart
creativity.

Creativity? Between this and "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" being a
reworking of "God Save the Queen", it seems like our early musicians
didn't have an ounce of creativity among them. All they did was steal
British songs and change the words!

They were poets, not songwriters.

[trotsky]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Adam H. Kerman

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.
(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)

Key didn't write the music. He wrote the poem, "Defence of Fort
M'Henry". John Stafford Smith later set it to the music of a popular
British song-- "To Anacreon in Heaven"-- as part of a commission by the
Anacreontic Society.

Smith composed The Anacreontic Song; lyrics by Ralph Tomlimson. This was
four decades before Key's poem.
The song was well known. Copyright law is designed to thwart
creativity.

Creativity? Between this and "My Country, 'Tis of Thee" being a
reworking of "God Save the Queen", it seems like our early musicians
didn't have an ounce of creativity among them. All they did was steal
British songs and change the words!

Wow, you'd think they came from British colonies or something! That's
just weird!

[The Horny Goat]

Post by BTR1701

Post by The Horny Goat
Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.
(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)

Key didn't write the music. He wrote the poem, "Defence of Fort
M'Henry". John Stafford Smith later set it to the music of a popular
British song-- "To Anacreon in Heaven"-- as part of a commission by the
Anacreontic Society.

Actually I knew that but had forgotten - and have even listened to 'To
Anacreon in Heaven' on Youtube and been surprised at the lyrics!

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.
(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)
How many Americans know ANY of the verses where the Star Spangled
Banner in victory shall wave o'er the land of the free and the home of
the brave? (Hint - most of them except the first verse)

Keys didn't write a song or music. He wrote a poem which was later put
to music.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by BTR1701
But parents we talked with say the national anthem is sacred.
"How can you start any event without the national anthem," one said.
As for the district, a spokesperson says it just learned about the
student leadership's position on the anthem and officials are looking
into it.

Worst case scenario they don't sing certain verses. Deutschland Uber
Alles has a couple of verses that are rather out of fashion since 1945
and the Germans have retained their anthem.
(Admittedly Josef Haydn was a much greater musiciant than Francis
Scott Key but who's paying attention?)
How many Americans know ANY of the verses where the Star Spangled
Banner in victory shall wave o'er the land of the free and the home of
the brave? (Hint - most of them except the first verse)

Keys didn't write a song or music. He wrote a poem which was later put
to music.

No, his poem was set to The Anacreontic Song when he wrote it.

This type of thing was common, setting poems to well-known music.

[Neill Massello]

Post by BTR1701
He was told the student leadership removed the song due to what many
consider racist lyrics in the unsung verses.

In clown world, satirists are unemployed.