Americans everywhere took a brief pause from threatening to kill each other online to share that they believe Ingrid Andress should have been sober during her performance of the National Anthem Monday night.
It has four verses, even though typically only the first verse is performed. The full version has these lyrics:
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.
the entire songs context is around the Battle of Baltimore which included 25 hours of naval bombardment. from the perspective of the ships where it was witnessed and given the volume of shells fired they assumed everyone would be dead.
Because it talks about other people in other places. Also, in context it could be referring to the British forces themselves. It had already been used as a rhetorical device for that after the revolutionary war.
Really though the idea that he would take a break in a poem about the war of 1812 and specifically the bombardment of Fort McHenry to dunk on slaves is just weird too. It doesn’t fit.
Here’s the complete extra stanzas.
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!
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 wash’d out their foul footstep’s 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.
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d 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.
i didn’t say it doesn’t talk about others anywhere. I’m talking in context of terror of flight and gloom of grave. how can anyone not see the contrast between how freemen and slaves are mentioned here I don’t understand. it’s clear why it says freemen stand for their loved home and slaves shall have no refuge. really weird seeing this shit being defended.
To be clear: your interpretation of it is not being defended. People are arguing instead that you’ve interpreted it wrong – i.e. that the ‘hirelings and slaves’ are the British soldiers, being likened to mercenaries (hirelings) and pointing out that they often served unwillingly after being press-ganged (slaves).
I have no skin in the game, but you seem to be taking others’ statements in pretty bad faith.
it’s cope, post hoc rationalization. the person who wrote the poem was a slave owner who believed black people to be an inferior race. it was a threat to black slaves not to flee or fight for the British side (i wonder why they would ever do that).
Ah, thought it might be something like that. Pretty much nobody knows any stanzas past the first exist, so it’s a bit silly to criticize it for that. It sucks just fine without it.
i don’t understand your point. it’s one thing to say you can’t say people are racist for liking it, because they wouldn’t know the full lyrics which, i didn’t say anyway… but it’s silly to criticize a song for being racist just because people stop singing it before it gets really bad? bit of a weird take.
It’s silly to use a stanza that is literally never sung as criticism for why it sucks as a national anthem. As a reason for why the whole song as a general concept sucks, sure.
It has four verses, even though typically only the first verse is performed. The full version has these lyrics:
I don’t really read that as condoning slavery, as much as acknowledging that slaves fought and died in the war?
how does that work with “the terror of flight”?
the entire songs context is around the Battle of Baltimore which included 25 hours of naval bombardment. from the perspective of the ships where it was witnessed and given the volume of shells fired they assumed everyone would be dead.
They’re running from the British troops.
that’s still not good. why does it only talk about slaves and hirelings then?
Because it talks about other people in other places. Also, in context it could be referring to the British forces themselves. It had already been used as a rhetorical device for that after the revolutionary war.
Really though the idea that he would take a break in a poem about the war of 1812 and specifically the bombardment of Fort McHenry to dunk on slaves is just weird too. It doesn’t fit.
Here’s the complete extra stanzas.
i didn’t say it doesn’t talk about others anywhere. I’m talking in context of terror of flight and gloom of grave. how can anyone not see the contrast between how freemen and slaves are mentioned here I don’t understand. it’s clear why it says freemen stand for their loved home and slaves shall have no refuge. really weird seeing this shit being defended.
To be clear: your interpretation of it is not being defended. People are arguing instead that you’ve interpreted it wrong – i.e. that the ‘hirelings and slaves’ are the British soldiers, being likened to mercenaries (hirelings) and pointing out that they often served unwillingly after being press-ganged (slaves).
I have no skin in the game, but you seem to be taking others’ statements in pretty bad faith.
it’s cope, post hoc rationalization. the person who wrote the poem was a slave owner who believed black people to be an inferior race. it was a threat to black slaves not to flee or fight for the British side (i wonder why they would ever do that).
This was you right?
Did you read any of what I wrote?
Ah, thought it might be something like that. Pretty much nobody knows any stanzas past the first exist, so it’s a bit silly to criticize it for that. It sucks just fine without it.
i don’t understand your point. it’s one thing to say you can’t say people are racist for liking it, because they wouldn’t know the full lyrics which, i didn’t say anyway… but it’s silly to criticize a song for being racist just because people stop singing it before it gets really bad? bit of a weird take.
It’s silly to use a stanza that is literally never sung as criticism for why it sucks as a national anthem. As a reason for why the whole song as a general concept sucks, sure.