Anthems and Egregores
Nov. 9th, 2023 09:15 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gbejmI confess: I just do not like The Star-Spangled Banner. Since it's the anthem of my country, I find myself in an awkward place similar to someone who feels salty about whoever happens to reside in the White House at any given point in time: respecting the official role but loathing the incumbent.
What's my beef, specifically? Focusing on the first verse, which is pretty much the only portion known or performed, I have three.
1. First of all, the theme is a poor match to the ideals of this country. Instead of focusing on reasons why the country is great, it focuses on the things that are great only if the country itself is. In other words, it spends its time honoring a symbol (the flag) instead of the more important things represented by the symbol. Likewise for persevering through battle, which is only worthwhile if you're fighting for something worthwhile in the first place. The heavily martial theme is also a poor fit for a country that is, at best, uncomfortable about most of its wars. By which I mean, out of all the ones we've had in our history there are really only three that are generally -- though by no means universally -- viewed as "good" wars: the war for independence, the Civil War, and World War II.
2. Somewhat ironically given my previous complaint, it's also ridiculously generic. How many countries can't boast of having a flag and making it through great battles? Even "land of the free / home of the brave" doesn't distinguish us much. North Korea could arguably describe itself that way. Isn't it free of domination by China (at least on paper), Japan, and America? Doesn't it have brave soldiers? When literal North Korea could in theory adopt our national anthem word for word -- other than changing the plural "stars" to the singular "star" (after all, its flag is adorned by some stripes and a prominent star) -- and have it be factually correct, maybe we've picked the wrong anthem.
3. It's hard to sing. Right from the outset, we have two different pitches on a throwaway filler syllable, and it's pretty much all downhill from there. By "rocket's red glare" we all know it'll have run off the rails unless it's being sung by a trained singer, which most of us -- myself included -- are not. The tune meanders across an octave and a half, leaving most of us behind along the way. For comparison, "O Canada" is polite enough to barely exceed an octave.
The Star-Spangled Banner only became the official anthem in the 1930s. What have we seen since then? For starters, the end of non-interventionism abroad, reflecting the martial theme of the song. To be fair, prior to the 30s our commitment to non-interventionism waxed and waned, but since our entry into World War II has there been any significant period where we even bothered to try it at all? In addition, we've ended up with a genericized landscape where one can drive from one corner of the 48 continguous states to the other and patronize less than half a dozen different businesses. Lastly, we've seen the ascension of a professional class in major institutions of power.
My speculation: cause and effect here are interconnected, like the proverbial chicken and egg. A country that considers but rejects the Star-Spangled Banner as an anthem gets nudged down a slightly different path than a country that considers it and adopts it. A country that doesn't seriously consider it all because it doesn't fit the country's vibe would be starting in a different place altogether.
Thus, when we're more open to considering a path different from our modern legacy of interventionism and professional managerialism, we may be open to changing the anthem as well. If we manage to do so, that's just a little extra boost to change course. Think of it like an affirmation that we end up performing over and over across the country. Furthermore, it's not like we lack good alternatives: America the Beautiful ("O beautiful for spacious skies") and America / My Country, 'Tis of Thee are both already well known, for example, and either is a fine choice.
What's my beef, specifically? Focusing on the first verse, which is pretty much the only portion known or performed, I have three.
1. First of all, the theme is a poor match to the ideals of this country. Instead of focusing on reasons why the country is great, it focuses on the things that are great only if the country itself is. In other words, it spends its time honoring a symbol (the flag) instead of the more important things represented by the symbol. Likewise for persevering through battle, which is only worthwhile if you're fighting for something worthwhile in the first place. The heavily martial theme is also a poor fit for a country that is, at best, uncomfortable about most of its wars. By which I mean, out of all the ones we've had in our history there are really only three that are generally -- though by no means universally -- viewed as "good" wars: the war for independence, the Civil War, and World War II.
2. Somewhat ironically given my previous complaint, it's also ridiculously generic. How many countries can't boast of having a flag and making it through great battles? Even "land of the free / home of the brave" doesn't distinguish us much. North Korea could arguably describe itself that way. Isn't it free of domination by China (at least on paper), Japan, and America? Doesn't it have brave soldiers? When literal North Korea could in theory adopt our national anthem word for word -- other than changing the plural "stars" to the singular "star" (after all, its flag is adorned by some stripes and a prominent star) -- and have it be factually correct, maybe we've picked the wrong anthem.
3. It's hard to sing. Right from the outset, we have two different pitches on a throwaway filler syllable, and it's pretty much all downhill from there. By "rocket's red glare" we all know it'll have run off the rails unless it's being sung by a trained singer, which most of us -- myself included -- are not. The tune meanders across an octave and a half, leaving most of us behind along the way. For comparison, "O Canada" is polite enough to barely exceed an octave.
The Star-Spangled Banner only became the official anthem in the 1930s. What have we seen since then? For starters, the end of non-interventionism abroad, reflecting the martial theme of the song. To be fair, prior to the 30s our commitment to non-interventionism waxed and waned, but since our entry into World War II has there been any significant period where we even bothered to try it at all? In addition, we've ended up with a genericized landscape where one can drive from one corner of the 48 continguous states to the other and patronize less than half a dozen different businesses. Lastly, we've seen the ascension of a professional class in major institutions of power.
My speculation: cause and effect here are interconnected, like the proverbial chicken and egg. A country that considers but rejects the Star-Spangled Banner as an anthem gets nudged down a slightly different path than a country that considers it and adopts it. A country that doesn't seriously consider it all because it doesn't fit the country's vibe would be starting in a different place altogether.
Thus, when we're more open to considering a path different from our modern legacy of interventionism and professional managerialism, we may be open to changing the anthem as well. If we manage to do so, that's just a little extra boost to change course. Think of it like an affirmation that we end up performing over and over across the country. Furthermore, it's not like we lack good alternatives: America the Beautiful ("O beautiful for spacious skies") and America / My Country, 'Tis of Thee are both already well known, for example, and either is a fine choice.