[Lindsyburnsy]

Hummm. I won't watch Woody Allen movies because he is a pedophile. With that being said, I feel the SSB is a good song with appropriate, thoughtful lyrics and I would like to believe that in this era, Francis Scott Key wouldn't promote slavery. Changes do need to be made as people become more educated. I don't know the answer. I do know the Confederate Generals lost the war for good reason. They do not need statues in their "honor". I don't remember seeing a "Hitler" statue anywhere in Germany, while I was there.

Originally Posted by Northwoods

It looks like the Star Spangled Banner is next. An Op Ed in the LA Times says Francis Scott Key was a slave owner so the song has to go. After all, the statue of Francis Scott Key was toppled by protesters in Golden Gate Park.
Major League Soccer announced that the anthem would not be played before games when its season resumed in July following the coronavirus lockdown. A petition posted on Change.org advocated dropping the song as the national anthem, pointing to “elitist, sexist, and racist” verses in Key’s poem, “Defence of Fort M’Henry,” from which “The Star-Spangled Banner” was adapted.
Here's the Op Ed.
Replace The Star-Spangled Banner with a new national anthem - Los Angeles Times

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by tvbound

"A song that in a verse glorifies hunting down and killing slaves."


You are correct. Further research of a missing verse in his poem, also shows what Key thought about slaves and black people.

The Missing Verse of The Star Spangled Banner That May Change Your View Of Our Anthem. - YouTube

Thank you for the link to another view. Although I am generally sceptical of you tube as a good source for information, I was willing to give it a try. Several attempts and all I got "site not available" on my tablet. So, I went to dictionary.com for the forgotten verses and read all the verses. Trying to take what (admittedly) little I remember of the history of those times, I could see , depending on ones perspective, it could be taken either way.
I then went to Intercept.com to see what they had to say. They said that the words "hireling and slave" has been interpreted in both ways, depending on ones perspective. They then go on with further information that "hireling and slave" may have referred to a group of former slaves who joined the British and fought against the Americans, but more likely referred to America slaves and wage earners. They continued with a history of Fancis Scott Key, showing first how he was portrayed in history, followed by another and darker portrayal of him. Key himself never spoke of his poem, thus never explained the actual meaning of his usage of " hireling and slave".
Many artists don't feel the need to explain their work and prefer to let the viewer make their own conclusion. I cannot say for certain that he felt that way, but I can see that, while there seems to be some ambiguity here, if one accepts the darker portrait of Key there would be much evidence to support that he was referring to America slaves and wage earners. I am always open to information in hopes of finding truth and common ground.
So, where do we go from here? Earlier, I had suggested striking all but the first verse so that the anthem that the rest of the world recognizes could still be played at venues like the Olympics. If dumping all but the first verse is not acceptable, what song might you recommend?
What now? I believe further discussion is necessary, by those willing to listen as well as speak, and have the power to actually make the changes.
Again, thanks for the info.

Stay safe. Stay well. Peace!

[donassaid]

It's not about diversity or change. It is about destroying our history and you are willingly being sucked in by this anarchy. So sad.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Thank you for the link to another view. Although I am generally sceptical of you tube as a good source for information, I was willing to give it a try. Several attempts and all I got "site not available" on my tablet. So, I went to dictionary.com for the forgotten verses and read all the verses. Trying to take what (admittedly) little I remember of the history of those times, I could see , depending on ones perspective, it could be taken either way.
I then went to Intercept.com to see what they had to say. They said that the words "hireling and slave" has been interpreted in both ways, depending on ones perspective. They then go on with further information that "hireling and slave" may have referred to a group of former slaves who joined the British and fought against the Americans, but more likely referred to America slaves and wage earners. They continued with a history of Fancis Scott Key, showing first how he was portrayed in history, followed by another and darker portrayal of him. Key himself never spoke of his poem, thus never explained the actual meaning of his usage of " hireling and slave".
Many artists don't feel the need to explain their work and prefer to let the viewer make their own conclusion. I cannot say for certain that he felt that way, but I can see that, while there seems to be some ambiguity here, if one accepts the darker portrait of Key there would be much evidence to support that he was referring to America slaves and wage earners. I am always open to information in hopes of finding truth and common ground.
So, where do we go from here? Earlier, I had suggested striking all but the first verse so that the anthem that the rest of the world recognizes could still be played at venues like the Olympics. If dumping all but the first verse is not acceptable, what song might you recommend?
What now? I believe further discussion is necessary, by those willing to listen as well as speak, and have the power to actually make the changes.
Again, thanks for the info.

Stay safe. Stay well. Peace!

I'm not sure what happened to the other link, so try this one.

The Missing Verse of The Star Spangled Banner That May Change Your View Of Our Anthem. - YouTube

it is from the Thom Hartmann Program.

Sorry about that.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by donassaid

It's not about diversity or change. It is about destroying our history and you are willingly being sucked in by this anarchy. So sad.

There is nothing historic about any of these statues.

Do you know who built them? Do you know anything about them, other than who they represent?

The statues themselves are NOT historical. You could easily remove the statues, and put the explanation plaques down on the ground (as many historic places have), so when people walk by, they can see the plaque and read it if they wish, to know what happened in that spot.

Except in MOST cases - nothing happened in that spot. In MOST cases, the only thing that "happened" in that spot, was that a statue was erected to honor someone who promoted slavery.

It's not that they *had* slaves. It's that they *promoted* slavery, and fought to protect the right to continue owning them. Yes, Washington had slaves. But he didn't use slavery as a campaign promise, he didn't fight over the right to own them. Slavery was not on his political agenda.

Statues that honor slave-promotion heroes don't belong in prominent public places. They shouldn't be destroyed, but they should be in museums, which is where all other artifacts depicting or representing the darker side of humanity belong.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by donassaid

It's not about diversity or change. It is about destroying our history and you are willingly being sucked in by this anarchy. So sad.

Without mentioning which post you are referring to, I assuming it is mine.
As to being sucked into anarchy, I respectfully disagree.
Just because one wishes to learn something does not automatically change there entire point of view. Take religion for example, just because if I was Christian it and wanted to learn about my Jewish friends Faith does not mean I would covert. Same with trying to understand the anger felt by my friends in other communities.
Therefore, sucked in, I think not. Trying to understand, yes.

Stay safe. Stay well. Peace!

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by donassaid

It's not about diversity or change. It is about destroying our history and you are willingly being sucked in by this anarchy. So sad.

I struggle with understanding this type of thinking. Are there really those that believe that accurate history books, first-hand accounts, scholarly thesis, etc. will magically disappear, should a monument or statue be removed or taken to a different location? If so, that seems to me to be a legitimate basis for condemnation of the education, or more accurately the lack thereof, that those types of people received.

[Bay Kid]

No more history to be taught in schools. Evidently some think America's history isn't correct and offensive. So just teach english, reading, writing, science and math. Especially in college.