The slaveowners’ anthem
So that national anthem thing – first Gabrielle Douglas, now Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers (US football). Jon Schwarz at The Intercept explains something about the anthem.
“The Star-Spangled Banner,” Americans hazily remember, was written by Francis Scott Key about the Battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the War of 1812. But we don’t ever talk about how the War of 1812 was a war of aggression that began with an attempt by the U.S. to grab Canada from the British Empire.
However, we’d wildly overestimated the strength of the U.S. military. By the time of the Battle of Fort McHenry in 1814, the British had counterattacked and overrun Washington, D.C., setting fire to the White House.
And one of the key tactics behind the British military’s success was its active recruitment of American slaves. As a detailed 2014 article in Harper’s explains, the orders given to the Royal Navy’s Admiral Sir George Cockburn read:
Let the landings you make be more for the protection of the desertion of the Black Population than with a view to any other advantage. … The great point to be attained is the cordial Support of the Black population. With them properly armed & backed with 20,000 British Troops, Mr. Madison will be hurled from his throne.
Whole families found their way to the ships of the British, who accepted everyone and pledged no one would be given back to their “owners.”
Men were trained to fight along with the British.
Then on the night of September 13, 1814, the British bombarded Fort McHenry. Key, seeing the fort’s flag the next morning, was inspired to write the lyrics for “The Star-Spangled Banner.”
So when Key penned “No refuge could save the hireling and slave / From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,” he was taking great satisfaction in the death of slaves who’d freed themselves. His perspective may have been affected by the fact he owned several slaves himself.
Oooooooooooookay then – that’s not something I want to stand up for either, or stick my hand on my chest for, or sing.
In fact we need a new national anthem, yesterday.
(No, I didn’t know this. I’ve never really sung it much. It wasn’t a thing at school, and I don’t go to football games. I knew some of the first stanza, and that’s it.)
As Kurt Vonnegut said, the US national anthem is “gibberish sprinkled with question marks”.
On the other hand, I find pretty much every national anthem to be by nature jingoistic. I find the hand-over-heart thing adds a tone of cloying sentimentality to the patriotism. (Canadians are taught to stand at attention; feet together and arms at the side.)
“Anthem” from Chess, the musical by Björn&Benny, is a great example. I just can’t decide whether it is a caricature of the genre — it’s magnificent and genial, anyway, and Tommy Körberg sang it fantastically. A classic!
To be fair, most of us are unfamiliar with this line because it’s in the third verse. I’d bet most Americans don’t even realize the song has more than just the first one. (There are four, and a fifth verse was penned in support of the Union during the Civil War.)
The best part of the anthem is that the melody is based on an old British pub song.
Interesting. So Canada is the first of a long line of countries that the US decided, needed to be ‘liberated’. The Canadians were luckier than Mexicans. Without the distractions of the Napoleonic wars the British might have won the war of 1812 resulting in the end of slavery, two generations earlier and probably a different US gun culture.
Most national anthems are embarrassing.
It’s hard to find a truly honorable historical event to memorialize, though.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but… I mean, the country was founded on some wonderful ideas, yes, but also genocide and slavery.
Oenotrian – well, true. As I said, I didn’t know…but then I’m not big on patriotic displays, so that doesn’t tell us much.
Anyway I think we could surely do better. Solidarity Forever, maybe.
“We’ll Do Better, Starting… Now”?
Oooh. I’d like Solidarity Forever. Or how about This Land is Your Land?
The Smithsonian’s website had some interesting Banner trivia there, too.
Ha I was thinking This Land too.
To be fair, wars don’t often start for simple reasons, and the War of 1812 was no different. Both sides had legitimate grievances, not the least of which for the Americans was the British practice of Impressment–forcing American sailors into serving in the British Navy–and the British support of Indian raids against American territory, among other things. So it’s a bit reductionist to say that it was a “war of aggression started by the US to grab Canada from the British Empire”; in fact, the attack on Canada was probably meant more to obtain a decent bargaining position in eventual peace talks in order to address the existing grievances, than for any real desire to obtain more territory. In the actual event, the Americans were the losers in that initial attack with British troops gaining control over American territory.
Bear in mind, too, that slavery was not universally abolished in the UK until 1833. So, although it’s praiseworthy that Britain supported freedom of the American slaves, it was really only done as one tactic in the overall strategy to win the struggle against the Americans.
All that being said, the USA’s long, horrible history of slavery shouldn’t be forgotten, and I’m glad that this verse in the national anthem is getting some coverage.
Yeah, that.
I know nothing about that war. Besides what James just told us, I mean. It’s one of those big blank spots on the history map.
Back in junior high, I got what I assume was the standard Canadian schools history of the War of 1812, which went something like: The Americans tried to take us over because Manifest Destiny, and they burned Toronto, the bastards. But we kicked their Yankee asses back over the border and burned Washington to show we meant it. Yay us.
And that’s what I thought for the next 40 years, until the War Museum here had a bicentenary exhibit (in 2012, obvs), which gave a more nuanced view. The gallery was divided into four wings, representing the major parties involved, and signage invited the visitor to make their own determination of who “won”. Thinking in terms of who came out ahead and behind, I get:
1) The British: came out about even. Nothing really gained, but nothing really lost, either.
2) Americans: Won, in that they got the Brits to knock off harassing their shipping, and generally start respecting them as adults who had grown up and left the house, and should be allowed to manage their own affairs.
3) Canadian colonists: Won, in that they gained a sense of national identity and pride, and Ma Brittania had to start paying them some attention or risk losing them to the US, one way or another.
4) Indians: Lost, big time. They threw in with the British in exchange for future territorial promises, which *of course* were never made good on, and south of the border they were looked on as traitors and enemies.
American patriots sometimes talked of people of other countries as being slaves to their king in those days, so I thought it was a rude way of talking about enemy soldiers… not that they were actually freed American slaves helping the Brits he was gloating over the deaths of. ::shudder::
I’m tempted to suggest “America, fuck yeah” because irony, but am worried that if I did mention it, some confederate-flag-waving Trump supporter will think it’s actually a good idea and start a movement to actually do that…
I’ve always thought that if we really needed a national anthem, it should obviously, *obviously* be “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” I like the version by Odetta. It’s goddy and militaristic, of course, but as a nation so are we, and it’s the best possible version of that, written for and about the war that was pretty much the first glimmer of moral clarity in our history – the first step on a long and continuing march toward fulfilling the promise of our ideals.
Also, it’s catchy.
The impression we get from American TV is that schoolchildren sing the national anthem and recite the Pledge of Allegiance regularly.
I think most public schools require recital of “the pledge of allegiance” every day – which revolts me, and which I think should not be the case, especially since it includes a bow to “God.” I don’t think the same applies to the song.
‘Counterattack?’
In the sense that the Americans had invaded Canada and burnt Toronto (then York). The landing of the force that marched to Washington was part of the same campaign as the bombardment of Fort McHenry.
The water was too shallow for the ships to get in reasonable range. So the mortars on the ‘bomb ketches’ lobbed shells from beyond maximum range in the vague hope the wind might carry them to the fort. And a few boats with launching tubes rowed closer to try their luck with their hopelessly inaccurate fireworks.
It was probably loud and dramatic enough for Key, but (I think) almost the only lives lost were on a rocket-boat that caught fire.
And…when were these slaves supposed to have been armed and trained? In the few hours of march? I read recently that one of the biggest failures of the Royal Army during the revolution was their disinterest in actually organizing/training/leading the American loyalists in any effective way. Perhaps the most powerful local force on their side was left floundering.
Is it rappable?
Now I’m wondering what is the purpose (and what are the results) of getting kids to sing anthems and make patriotic pledges every day. Probably there are more effective ways to grow good citizens, if that’s the goal.
On the Pledge: Most schools do the pledge thing. However, by court ruling, they are not supposed to make it mandatory (a student who is bold enough to resist peer pressure can sit it out). Of course, there’s flagrant violations of this, which in turn is why we have the ACLU.
That said, I do know that some schools (mostly in Blue parts of the country, of course) still use “indivisible” instead of “under God”, which at least removes the religious aspect.
*slaps self upside the head* I knew that, about the court ruling. I suppose I still think of it as the schools “requiring” it because doing it at all is a not-subtle form of social pressure.
I just hate the damn thing, and think it’s fascist and coercive and awful.
I remember reading “The Cat Ate My Gymsuit” by Paula Danziger, where a teacher is suspended for not reciting the pledge. She wins her case but then resigns. The book is aimed at teenagers. I recall a discussion with friends at school where we all said that the story made no sense to us the first time we read it because we couldn’t see what all the fuss was about. There is no equivalent in British schools.
A friend of mine whose family lived in the USA for a short time said that her brothers had to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at school even though they were British. Since they would have been pretty young then its unlikely they would have understood its significance or wanted to opt out of something everyone else did (a problem in the UK for parents who want to remove their kids from collective worship) but it seems very weird to expect foreign nationals to join in.
But it also seems very weird to expect non-foreign nationals to join in. It’s a loathsome custom that I wish had never been invented and could now just stop.
But that sounds too dismissive. Yes, it’s weird and downright rude to expect foreign nationals to join in.
For your listening pleasure I finally googled “Anthem” above, for those of you with access to Spotify: https://play.spotify.com/track/6Ka6U9MweGJjrMUtLdOlW0?play=true&utm_source=open.spotify.com&utm_medium=open
Ditto, Youtube, Swedish TV from a concert performance in 2006: https://youtu.be/R7QJe1oxpps
I hope they play where you are, but no guarantees.
Meanwhile, Australia’s National Anthem is actually quite light on the jingoism, being mainly about coming across the seas and working hard to make the best of these natural resources which don’t seem to have any claimants. Which sounds quite nice actually, so long as you ignore the fact that there most certainly were claimants to the land here already.
oneoclockfox @15
We used to sing that at assembly at the Christian school I attended, I didn’t realise that it’s an American patriotic hymn. It was known as “Mine Eyes”, It’s certainly ‘goddy and militaristic’ and somewhat menacing, it was obvious that someone was going to be shafted.
Although it’s probably an appropriate symbol of US foreign policy since 1945, I wouldn’t recommend it as a national anthem without altering the words, it would scare the bejeezus out of foreigners.
@27,
Love “Waltzing Matilda”. Wasn’t there an effort to pick it as the Australian anthem? As a little girl I had a neighbour named Matilda and she convinced me that it was written for her. Even now I bet many people singing it have no idea what the words mean.
Helene, @29
There are two interpretations- -(1) it celebrates the defiance of the lower classes against the squatters ( land-owning oligarchs) or (2) it’s a morality tale about a sheep thief who drowns himself rather than face justice.
Typically Australians don’t really care about the words, just the tune.
Yep, we don’t have anything like the pledge in British (or Irish) schools. Once a year we’d sing the first verse of ‘God Save the Queen’ at the end of final assembly before the school broke up for summer.
Seeing film of USAian kids standing up, hand on heart, reciting, reminds me of North Korea.
Me too. It always did, even as a child. I went to private school and we didn’t say it.
I have a friend who has done business in the US for decades (at least 5) and travelled there extensively. He used to be a huge promoter of the US as a cultural powerhouse and ally. Recently he confided that he felt the nation had lost its way and was headed down a very sad path. He specifically mentioned the rise of the hand-on-heart pledge and excessive nationalism combined with the authoritarian pressure to conform to prescribed patriotic norms.
You could see it was almost like a grieving process for him.
Well, in the days of Trump, it’s quite impossible to dispute him. I can’t begin to express how ashamed of this country Trump’s candidacy makes me feel.
Don’t feel too bad Ophelia. The rest of us are having to admit he’s human. I’m long over blaming the people in a country for the behaviour of other people in their country. There’s no shortage of ignorant assholery going on everywhere. Trump does rank right up there to be fair, which I could ignore except that he’s being taken seriously.
Oh, I know there are Trump-equivalents everywhere but we allowed this one to become one of the two viable candidates for president of the whole stinking country. The shame is real.
Ophelia,
I wouldn’t call President Duterte of the Phiilipines a ‘Trump equivalent”, he’s far worse, a promoter of extra judicial executions in fact. Of course he doesn’t matter outside the country, unlike US politicians.
I was a teenager during the Cuban Missile Crisis and I’d nominate John Kennedy as the most dangerous leader the US ever produced, he and the world were extremely lucky, and there’s also George Bush II, destroyer of the Near East. It’s impossible to predict how politicians will perform in office.
Rob,
I hope that the US hasn’t ‘lost its way’, I can think of far worse hegemons.
RJW, for what’s it worth I’m hoping the USA is geospatially confused, rather than lost. The US political and administrative system was designed to ensure stability and is inherently conservative. It requires a reasonable amount of consensus and good will to function properly. Decisive and extreme action by the State requires a very high degree of alignment by all key players. What we’ve seen happen over time is that players have increasingly withheld or delayed their participation, or even been outright obstructive to the function of Government. That has resulted in an ever expanding cloud of frustration, unilateral action, claims of illegal process and polarisation of the political and cultural milieu.
Most serious players still use the stock phrases about freedom, opportunity, democracy etc etc; but things are far from what they used to be, or indeed should be. It’s not irretrievable, but it will absolutely require both major parties to take a hard cold look at their own part in all this.
If I had to accept a hegemon, I might have willingly accepted JFK, far from perfect as he was. At least he had vision, some principles and strove to leave the world a better place. Yes, I know he failed at much of that. Trump? the thought makes me shudder. NZ suffered material harm in terms of lost trade and preferential access as a result of standing up to the US over nuclear weapons in our territory and supply of soldiers in various modern wars. That was with supposedly reasonable rational leaders in charge.
Rob,
My guess, admittedly it’s a guess, is that the political climate in the US is not much different from other democracies, ie an electorate that’s disenchanted with the political elites and is turning to populism and minor parties, or maverick politicians. It’s easy to ignore the causative economic and class factors and conclude that opposition to immigration and the push for protectionism are essentially driven by xenophobia. The assumption that the Brexit vote was fed by racism is an example of this type of narrow analysis.
As a citizen of a parliamentary democracy it’s difficult to understand how the US system actually functions, I can’t think of any Western democracy that has a similar form of government.
Of course Trump is a narcissistic windbag, however he’s not the real problem, unless the economic situation of millions of Americans improves dramatically, in the future, there might be more populist and far cleverer politicians than Trump.
RJW, there is undoubtedly an element of disenchantment. But in the US a significant number of people have been disenchanted by not just the routine fact of politicians acting to favour the rich at the ‘peoples’ expense, but by Politicians actively working against the body politic with the aim of tearing it down. Politicians have always acted venally, done favours for ‘mates’ and sought to use power for the exercise of power. It’s really only during the Clinton and especially Obama administrations that I’ve witnessed pretty much the entirety of a political party attempting to burn the government and functioning of the State to the ground in a temper tantrum over not getting their way by political means.
The only way to unwind that is either by a landslide political rout, or at the point of a sword. Progressives tend to avoid swords and if they can’t gather the necessary scale of majority the rout never happens.
RJW @28,
Yes, fair point. It is a bit menacing. But in historical context, as a poem written for the Union by abolitionist Julia Ward Howe (and in its invocation by civil rights figures, particularly Martin Luther King, Jr., a hundred years later), I think it’s a much more positive message of righteous struggle than “The Star-Spangled Banner.” Kind of the opposite of the ‘slave-owner’s anthem.’
As a side note, the exact same tune was later used again for “Solidarity Forever,” which Ophelia recommended @6, so it can pull double-duty. Which anthem you hear when it plays could depend on which one you like better. :)
Given that the economy in the US has improved over the last eight years, and given the amount of xenophobia and racism that exist in the US, I’d say that there is nothing “narrow” about an analysis that points out that economic and class factors have not by themselves produced Trump. The white supremacism and American exceptionalism Trump stokes have always been with us. Their popular resurgence owe as much to a changing society (one whose face is getting browner) as to economic factors.
Trump also owes a debt of thanks to the Republican establishment, which has courted and manipulated racists and nationalists since what–1962?
@Myrhinne
US kids start saying the pledge when they are way too young to understand its significance. Six year olds don’t really understand the meaning of words like “allegiance” or the stuff about indivisibility. In my experience it was just something you learned by rote and did automatically. Expecting non-USA children to join in is of a piece with that, I guess. Understanding the thing isn’t really the point. It’s propaganda by reflex.
When I was old enough to understand the thing I realized it was a pointless exercise; allegiance can’t be compelled. Though I remember sometimes I used to try to get in the patriotic spirit and make myself “feel” it. It was kind of like praying: self-willed earnestness directed at a nebulous something I thought I was supposed to sense but didn’t really.