Some of you might have heard something about this debate last year:
Wyclef Jean, hip-hop star Pitbull, and Carlos Ponce and Olga Tanon from Puerto Rico were among a group of performers who released a Spanish-language translation of "The Star-Spangled Banner."
You can imagine the wide range of public responses generated. Investigate the matter yourself, but here's a starting point, from NPR:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5369145
That article includes a literal translation from the Spanish BACK into English, which you might find interesting.
The essential question: Is it wrong to translate a national anthem into another language?
LAZ
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
I don't think it is wrong at all. Reading the translation from the Spanish version back to English, I can see why there is a debate. However, I think it is just a misunderstanding. When you translate from one language to another, you can't do it literally. Each language has its own way of saying things. If you translate it literally, you may interpret it differently from others. Using the anthem as an example, when one reads the literally translated version, you can see a difference in the meanings. However, maybe those words were different to how the Spanish people who heard the song.
Am I making sense?
What if the translation into spanish is litteral too? Myabe it was poorly translated into spanish and therefore looses the meaning. I agree that the translation on the website didn't seem like our national anthem, but how do we know the spanish is any better? I doubt it is.
Also, even if we make English our national language, how does that stop people from translating the national anthem into a different language?
(Arvind Kalidindi)
I, too can see why there is a debate over the Spanish translation of our national anthem. Clearly, there seems to be a difference in meaning for many parts of the anthem between the English version and the Spanish version.
I agree with Mary that the fact that differences in meaning exist between the two versions does not necessarily make the translation of a national anthem into another language WRONG. As Mary said, every language has its own way of saying things, so it would be impossible to have an EXACT translation from one language to another. Many of us have probably realized this in our world language studies.
However, at the same time, I feel as if something is lost when a national anthem is translated into another nation's language. Each country has its own national anthem for the purpose of representing the uniqueness of each nation or for "national unity," whether or not it actually serves this purpose(which is besides the point). Then why should a nation's anthem be translated into another language? I know that the United States is comprised of people who speak a wide range of languages, but isn't The Star-Spangled Banner what is supposed to unite all of us as "Americans"?
If it is acceptable to translate a national anthem into another language, then hasn't the purpose of a NATIONAL anthem been compromised?
Consider, for example, the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing. Imagine for a moment that an American athlete who immigrated from Italy has received a gold metal and it is time for the US national anthem to be played. An Italian version of the anthem is projected through the stadium. Is this anthem really the national anthem of the United States of America?
Thoughts? I hope I made at least a little bit of sense.
(Janet Lee)
I honestly think that the great-great grandson of Francis Scott Key is more offended by the fact that the anthem was translated into Spanish rather than by what it was translated into.
I think that American nationalists should be overjoyed that people of other cultures are expressing their love for the United States in other languages. In fact, that contributes to more national unity than does making English the offical language of America.
We need not compel the population to speak English, but rather bring it together despite language and cultural barriers.
I looked up 'Nuestro Himno' and listened to it. The essential tune remains the same, despite the jazziness that comes along with contemporary-sounding songs. The lyrics, I daresay, are even empowering. In fact, they explain more about good moral values for a nation than the original lyrics do. Where is the problem here?
(Sam Maliha)
This is a tough question, because I can see both sides of the argument. On the one hand, we have to realize that by the time the Spanish version of the anthem was translated back to English, it had been through two translations, and chances are good it had lost something in both processes of translation. So, unless we are fluent Spanish-speakers, we really cannot judge whether or not the translation into Spanish is accurate enough. But, in general, why should Spanish Americans not be able to enjoy our national anthem in their own language? I guess this argument goes hand-in-hand with the argument concerning whether or not we should have a national language.
On the other hand, our national anthem is a symbol of national unity, and it was originally written in English. Do we want to lose some of the essence of the national anthem by translating it? If people from other countries really want to sing it, why can't they just sing it in English/learn English. Again, I'm realizing how much this argument relates to the national language argument.
(Emily T.)
Upon reading this post the first thing that came to mind was, naturally, APEuro.. Didn't a strikingly similar controversy start when Christian humanists such as Martin Luther bypass the Latin Vulgate Bible in favor of the original Greek Bible? The concept of translating the original Bible into vernacular was simple - make God's message available to more people.
Is this that different? Yes, things get lost in translation, but the original English lyrics are widely available for comparison (Polyglot Bible, anyone?). Then again, isn't it a tad difficult to totally corrupt abstract concepts such as national unity? Our understanding of the idea isn't one rooted in the English language, but in emotion. Language simply serves as a way of communication, not as a creator of concepts. Just as we have (mistakenly or not) come to think of the national anthem and patriotism/national unity as basically one and the same, this same relationship can be developed with the Spanish version for a different demographic.
Honestly though, how many of us know the national anthem from start to finish? An overwhelming majority of Americans only know several lines of it at best. It's another case of the symbolized being confused with the symbol. National unity existed long before the Star Spangled Banner, or any anthem, really.
Just as vernacular Biblical translations arose to meet (part of) the demand of a more fulfilling spiritual experience, this Spanish version of our national anthem is also a reaction to the demands of some of our citizens. Pro-immigration (I'm assuming this has to do with the illegal immigrants debate) activists and supporters regard this translation as a sort of rallying cry.
The translations of the Latin Vulgate Bible, however, were looked down upon because it spread the word of God to average men and women everywhere.
Why should a Spanish translation of the American anthem be condemned? We are living in a time when a spread of beliefs is widely encouraged. If anything, the translation spreads patriotism to the Hispanic societies in the United States.
And if the symbol is not the thing symbolized, if they are independent, it shouldn't matter which language it's in, as long as it still inspires the same feelings/concepts.
(Sam Maliha)
The translations of the original Greek Bible were condemned by the Catholic Church because they encroached upon the power of the papacy while also bypassing the Latin Vulgate Bible. If ordinary people were able to read the Bible by themselves, it basically negated the purpose of the Catholic clergy and undermined the whole religious hierarchy in Europe.
Also, in bringing up the whole symbolized/symbol argument, I was simply making a distinction between the two entities, not divorcing them entirely. It would be strange to say that they have nothing to do with each other when in fact a relationship has developed between the anthem and national unity over the years. Yes, it arises from the misconception that the symbol is the thing symbolized, however one can only admit that the two are tied together in the minds of most Americans.
After reading Janet's point I tend to agree that if translated into different language than that in which the original was intended for, that meaning is lost or twisted. In this case it is quite obvious that that has happened with the re-translation back into English. Some themes from the original are retained, but overall it is completely different in meaning and intention.
Steve Szumski
Alright, well I must say that the translation of our anthem is a huge deal. One might make the argument that all American's have the right to freedom of speech, and this is just an extension of that rule. People may say that it's not a big deal if our anthem was translated. I mean so what? Who cares if Spanish speakers have their own version of our national anthem? I care...
It was brought up that the national anthem is a song that symbolizes the strength and unity of America. Well, how unified are we if we have more than one anthem? At the next Super Bowl should we sing the anthem in both languages? The Spanish version, need I remind you, is also translated very differently from the original English version. Which means we're not even singing the same anthem! Should we make a Spanish Pledge of Alligance too? Maybe we can make new anthems in Italian, French, Spanish, Greek, Chinese and every other language that is spoken in America too. Hearing things like this makes me think that America is weakening as a unified body. Symbolically, this is a huge blow to America.
What makes us American? America has long been known as the melting pot of the world. We carry this title with pride, and we promote cultural understanding more so than many countries. However, we must remember that we are a nation. Yes, its true we believe in cultural diversity, but we are still one country. There is no Spanish America, there is no English America, there is just America. We should remain that way, one country, under one anthem; united as a nation.
(Kevin Trainer)
It is important to note that these Spanish performers have not declared their version of our anthem to be "the" national anthem, nor have they attempted to supplant the one we know with their own. It is merely a translation of the anthem, just a reflection of how they, as Spanish-Americans, view America and its anthem. I don't feel that anything is wrong with that: we are all open to our own interpretations and are free to declare them.
Yes, the lyrics have different nuances and some meanings have been changed. But, after all, what is the true "meaning" of the Star-Spangled Banner? Unsurprisingly, even so-called "real" Americans have disagreed over this, and people have attempted to change our anthem to "America the Beautiful". Most people do not even know the full lyrics of the Star-Spangled Banner, so how can they know what the lyrics really "mean"? The Spanish language translation merely presents what our national anthem means to a group of Spanish-American musicians: it is nothing more, nothing less.
We all have different intensional worlds and differing perceptions, and all Wyclef Jean and co. have done is to put forth their intensional perceptions of the anthem to the extensional world.
Kevin, you wondered how we can be united if we do not even share a single anthem. Well, there isn't really just one anthem: depending upon the intensional perceptions of the listener, there could be thousands of different versions of the anthem. The Star-Spangled Banner means something special and different to the mother who has sacrificed her son in Iraq, to the protester determined to end the Iraq War, to a member of the KKK, and to a Spanish immigrant: There are multiple anthems out there playing in our hearts and minds. There isn't just one anthem. This Spanish version is just a tangible manifestation of how some Spanish American performers perceive the anthem.
In addition, Kevin, why must we have only one anthem for unity? Knowing the anthem does not necessarily make you patriotic, and besides, most of us do not even know the full anthem.
There is no Spanish America, there is no English America, there is just America. (Kevin Trainer)
If that is true, then why must one specific English version be imposed upon all of America? It is not necessarily wrong to translate the anthem to another language: if anything, it strengthens unity because we now understand how other people perceive the Star-Spangled Banner.
We've had the Star-Spangled Banner as our national anthem since 1931: For those almost two hundred years before 1931 when we did not have a national anthem, America did just fine. Our anthem truly is national and American, and anyone is open to their own interpretation (or translation) of it.
(Eric Wei)
"We should remain that way, one country, under one anthem; united as a nation." (Kevin)
How can we possibly be united if we don't embrace different expressions of something so simply as our anthem? In a way, isn't it somewhat of a source of flattery? I honestly do not understand where the problem is here.
"Hearing things like this makes me think that America is weakening as a unified body. Symbolically, this is a huge blow to America." (Kevin)
Since when was a melody our source of unification? Basically, you're saying that after these past two hundred years of molding and shaping an organized country, all efforts have gone down the drain because other cultures and languages have embraced the American ideals. They mean no harm, and like Eric said: they aren't proclaiming it as the official and only acceptable Star-Spangled Banner.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was inspired more by monetary profit than by patriotism. It's not harming us, it's not changing the way we feel about the country.
Let's leave it be.
(Sam Maliha)
Even the "original" version of the Star Spangled Banner isn't the one we have today. (I believe it initially involved drinking) What can stop a newer version/translation from being released? It makes our anthem more relevant and more comprehensive.
Mr. Lazarow has mentioned before that language has to continue evolving or face extinction. How is a translation different from an evolution as long as it maintains the same affective connotations to its demographic as the "official" anthem?
I thought "My Country 'tis of Thee" was the anthem for the longest time. Does that make me any less American as long as the song inspires pride etcetc in me?
As Eric said, it's not like the artists were trying to replace the anthem we have now. Honestly they were probably a little bored and someone thought it would be interesting to translate the anthem. I don't see anything wrong with having another version. The way some people sing the national anthem, even in English, is so different from the "traditional" that it is found offending by some people. Isn't that what this country is all about? Taking liberties? Trying something new? The melting pot.
I see the problem with icing out spanish speaking Americans and trying to force English on them but I feel that it is necessary. Schools should be able to teach in one language. America needs something to keep it "united" and language is an extremely powerful tool. If we can't even be united under one president (due to media-induced critisims), what else do we have to make us one nation?
(Kelley Volosin)
Why can't they translate the national anthem into Spanish? What's wrong with translating The Star Spangled Banner into Spanish, or possibly into other languages?
There is no national language of United States. If people can speak in whatever language they want to speak, then what's the big deal about translating the national anthem into other languages? It was not as if the United States was culturally united before the Spanish version of the anthem was released for there were (and still are) huge cultural/linguistic barriers between English-speaking Americans and Spanish-speaking Americans.
What if translating the Star Spangled Banner into Spanish makes the Spanish-speaking Americans more Americanized? Since they don’t understand English better than Spanish, would it not be a better method for truly integrating them into the ‘American’ society?
The Star Spangled Banner is the symbol for America. Sharing that symbol with others may possibly lead to sharing the ‘thing’ itself (i.e. patriotism). For example, we say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning (doesn’t matter even if you’re an ESL student or even a foreign exchange student) to strengthen the idea of patriotism in our minds.
In addition, I realized that some people pointed out the mistranslations and errors of the Spanish version. Again, what’s the big deal? They can get that fixed and easily release another record. May be some radical people will convince the government to publish the official Spanish version of The Spangled Banner.
(Jennifer Park)
I agree with what Jen said about translating the Star Spangled Banner into Spanish emphasizing patriotism. Disregarding the symbolic meanings behind the Star Spangled Banner, it's really only a song; an artistic creation that should be made available for all to enjoy. How can Spanish speaking Americans have pride in their country when their country discrimiates against them?
At the Olympics when a country wins a gold medal, their national anthem is played WITHOUT WORDS at the medal ceremony. It isn't the language or even words that give the national anthem meaning, it's the general feeling of patriotism and belonging that it evokes in its countrymen.
(Paige Schlesinger)
The translation has been skewed twice. Once when translated into Spanish, then again when we translated it back into English. The lackluster acuracy is partially English's fault, so let's not completely blame its translation into Spanish as the source of inacuracy.
Personally, I have no issues with the Spanish version. It's "Our Anthem". It belongs to the Spanish-speaking community of America. The translators did not title it The Anthem or The National Anthem. There was no declaration in its name that it was the Star Spangled Banner that we know and love. They (Spanish-speaking Americans) made it for their community and I do not believe that we have a right to say that they can't have an anthem.
However, this translation does not help create a national bond as the "Our" in "Our Anthem" appears to refer solely to Spanish- speakers, not the entire population of the United States. Because of this, I feel that they are destroying what they're trying to create. They are seperating themselves from the general populace with this song, not helping to tie themselves to it.
Do I think the translation of the Star Spangled Banner is wrong? No. Translate whatever you darn well feel like translating. Do I think it helps national unity? Absolutely not.
(Megan West)
Wow...I really must not have been thinking properly when I posed the example about playing anthems at the Olympics. Of course the words aren't heard! I apologize, and I do in fact agree with Paige that this is a good example of how the WORDS of an anthem don't matter nearly as much as the emotions they provoke in us.
(Janet Lee)
I have to agree with Kevin that just because there are multiple languages spoken in a nation, that doesn't mean that the national anthem should be translated into those languages. For example, in India, the national anthem is in Hindi, but there are at least 21 different regional languages in India. None of these regional languages have any known translations of their national anthem, and not everybody knows Hindi. In fact, in southern India, Hindi isn't even the major language, and many schools teach in either Telegu or English. Is there anything wrong with that?
Their isn't anything the government can do if people want to translate the national anthem. As long as these Spanish Americans don't call it the national anthem, I don't see the problem. But the national anthem should not be translated into different languages because it starts a chain of events, just as Kevin stated. Don't you agree that you feel more national unity when you have one Pledge of Allegiance, and one national anthem, instead of two or three or more!
(Arvind Kalidindi)
I would like to thank Arvind for pointing out how something like this can lead to a "slippery slope" or "downhill spiral." I see many of you critisized what I wrote under the guise that I said translating the anthem was "wrong." Please, I encourage all of you to read over what I wrote and see if you can find one time I said translating the anthem was "wrong."
So if I didn't say it was "wrong" what did I say? I simply said that translating the anthem was a HUGE DEAL. That's because it is! The creation of another anthem weakens the symbolic significance of the original. It single handedly proves that there is division in America. Some of you seem to be under the impression that this "version" of the national anthem could have been made just for kicks; that somehow the anthem was translated in this way because someone got bored, or that Spanish Americans just wanted to have a Spanish version of the anthem and this was just created so they can sing it in their own language.
Just look at this as far as semantics is concerned. Did no one notice the title change? OUR Anthem? OUR OUR OUR Anthem? If there's an "us" then there has to be a "they". Megan even pointed out that, "the "Our" in "Our Anthem" appears to refer solely to Spanish- speakers, not the entire population of the United States." Does this not prove disunity? Rather than giving the creators of the anthem the benefit of the doubt, did anyone think that maybe the reason the anthem was created was because the people who wrote it were not satisfied with the English American anthem?
Even Mr. Lazarow said that this translation stirred up "a wide range of public responses". If it was so harmless; if some kid just wrote it cause he was bored, why on earth would it have stirred up such contraversy?
I'm not saying we need an anthem to remain united. However, I am saying that by having one anthem for a country, you do promote national unity. I definately think Arvind's post about India's anthem is a good example of how different cultures can be united by one common anthem.
It's "our" anthem. It might as well say "it's not your anthem". What we're witnessing is cultural revolution! To say that this is not a huge deal symbolically is simply ludicrous! You can determine whether you think this is right or wrong yourselves, but to say it's not a big deal is to simply ignore the issue.
Obviously many of you already think I believe it to be wrong. However, I just see this as a weakening of national unity. It disheartens me on many levels. It's not illegal, it's not technically "wrong" but is it really good?
(Kevin Trainer... if it was not already obvious)
National unity may create a national anthem, but national unity does not necessarily arise from or require a single specific national anthem.
Some of you seem to believe that having a national anthem in multiple languages somehow promotes disunity. Actually, translating into multiple languages can help foster unity. If we assume that the anthem is what keeps us together, then isn't it notable that Wyclef Jean and co. still used the Star-Spangled Banner as the basis for "Nuestro Himno"? It is not as if they pulled up some obscure Spanish songs from the past to use as an anthem; they acknowledge and build upon the American one. The anthem still is present, it's just translated.
Yes, some meanings have been changed, but the very fact that these Spanish Americans have used the national anthem as a basis for their anthem shows that there is unity in America. Wouldn't you rather have "Nuestro Himno", which is directly tied to the Star-Spangled Banner, as the "Spanish-American anthem," instead of a medley of Spain and Mexican songs? Our anthem is powerful precisely because it can be translated into other languages and endure multiple perceptions and perspectives, while still remaining "American."
As I said before, all of us have a different intensional perspective of the anthem anyway. However, there is still common ground we stand upon: we still acknowledge the Star-Spangled Banner as the national anthem. Wyclef Jean and co. have done the same thing here: they recognize that the Star-Spangled Banner is the anthem and have simply shown us their perspective of it.
Translating the anthem merely allows more groups to understand it and build unity, even if their perspective is different from ours.
Besides, our national unity is not dependent upon keeping one particular English national anthem. The symbol is not the thing. Kevin, you asked why there is such a controversy over this: Well, most people confuse the symbol and the thing as Hayakawa pointed out. If patriotism really requires us to all know by heart the words and melody of the Star-Spangled Banner, are you less patriotic if you would rather listen to "America the Beautiful"? Or "God Bless America", "My Country Tis of Thee"? Or maybe just a Spanish translation of the Banner?
Being open to different perspectives of our anthem does not foster disunity, and perhaps we should be tolerant of Spanish versions and any other versions out there that in good faith attempt to bring the anthem's message to those who might not otherwise understand it.
(Eric Wei, who has just woken up from a nap and apologizes if this post is incoherent...)
"I'm not saying we need an anthem to remain united"
Direct quote from my post
(Kevin Trainer)
Eric if you'd kindly read my post you would find that I don't disagree that the anthem is a symbol. But it is a powerful symbol! It symbolizes patriotism your right it is not patriotism. But to diminish the symbol of patriotism to Americans is to diminish the use of that symbol to inspire patriotism. Which naturally, is a problem. I'm not saying we need one anthem. What I am saying is that we already have one, and that this new version is obviously not meant to be unifyingbased on the word "our" as I explained before.
Also, Eric, have you considered that possibly the people who wrote this new anthem do not like the current national anthem? I noticed you ignored this from my last comment so I bring it up again. I also noticed you ignored my semantic argument about the seperatism/exclusionism of the word "our." Eric, let's be more realistic and not just assume that every single person just wants to be "more patriotic". Do you not agree that there is at least a possibility that this could have been written in spite rather than support?
(Kevin Trainer)
Why should a nation have more than one national anthem? I know this is just a translation, but it has its own name, so in a way there would be two anthems if this became a national anthem for Spanish Americans. As Eric said, we all have our own perspective of the national anthem. Currently, at least we all agree that "The Star Spangled Banner" is our national anthem. But if "Nuestro Himno" became the national anthem for Spanish Americans, we won't all have the same national anthem. An entire segment of the country recognizes a different national anthem than the rest of the nation! Doesn't that create disunity instead of unify?
Also, it was mentioned that a translation of our national anthem is better than Spanish Americans just using some Spanish or Mexican song. However, as long as they live in the United States of America, they should have the same national anthem as the rest of the country. The Spanish-Americans cannot just have their own version of the national anthem.
For example, my grandmother speaks only Telegu and understands very little English. I know a lot of elderly people just in this area that speak only a language other than English. They are all citizens of the United States, so should they have their own national anthem . Before games are we going to sing multiple national anthems? We are currently all unified under one anthem, "The Star Spangled Banner", and we have no reason to change that.
(Arvind Kalidindi)
In response to your question, Arvind, just a quick note: I'm not advocating that we adopt multiple national anthems. I'm just answering the original question posed: Is it wrong to translate a national anthem into another language?
Just a quick addition. I'll type up more later...
(Eric Wei)
From a semantic perspective, I would just like to add that I enjoy watching this "conversation". I particularly like the use of rhetorical questions which have particular answers in mind. And, is this argument not progressing in a similar fashion to a political debate (answering some parts of questions and ignoring others)?
One question that I have deals with intensionality, which was brought up a little bit earlier. With the translating of the national anthem, wouldn't intensional perceptions of the anthem change, too? If we understand the anthem differently when translated into another language, is that a bad thing?
(Emily T.)
It is difficult to consider both sides of this argument and choose one side with which to argue, because both sides have presented such persuasive views. Nonetheless, I will try my best to be as clear as possible.
In response to Arvind's last post:
How could "Nuestro Himno" become the NATIONAL ANTHEM of Spanish-Americans if there is no such nation as Spanish-America? Yes, we Americans are a diverse peoples but we are all part of but ONE united nation: the UNITED States of America. Thus, this country will never have more than one NATIONAL anthem. It can only have multiple TRANSLATIONS or versions of the SAME anthem, "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Even if the Spanish-American populace collectively embraces "Nuestro Himno" as "their" anthem, they still have the same national anthem as the rest of the country; the song and the emotions it stirs remain the same. The song has simply been translated into another language.
Furthermore, there would be no need to sing every version of the national anthem before a game; the original English version would likely be sung. The emphasis here is on the fact that, even if every version were to be sung, we would not be listening to DIFFERENT ANTHEMS; we would simply be hearing different translations of the same anthem. Then isn't "national unity" still standing strong? I agree with Eric: "translating into multiple languages can help foster unity...translating the anthem merely allows more groups to understand it and build unity, even if their perspective is different from ours."
It is important to remember that, although varying perceptions of the national anthem may exist, the formation of these different perceptions/versions does not alter the essence of the national anthem off of which the perceptions have been formed; the actual anthem itself ("The Star-Spangled Banner") remains intact.
(Janet Lee)
There is one thing we all need to take into consideration:
Is "Nuestro Himno" actually sung anywhere? I'm sorry to phrase this so blatantly. Other than a video clip on youtube and possibly a few performances (for the sake of entertainment), have we heard the hymn played in place of the original Star-Spangled Banner?
..I didn't think so.
Mr. Lazarow mentioned within the first few days of class that humans fear change, and this argument is a perfect example of that. By failing to accept the Spanish version of this national anthem, we are practically claiming it to be beneath the English version. Yet if we are all brothers and sisters in this nation, how can one cultural group be separated from the rest of the population? All for one and one for all!...doubtful.
"What we're witnessing is cultural revolution!" (Kevin)
Well, what's wrong with a cultural revolution? What's wrong with broadening our horizons and accepting other lifestyles? Mustn't we live in a harmonious society?
Doesn't the anthem itself speak of tolerance of others? And I quote from the song, itself...
"O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
....
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"
The brave and free men are those daring enough to incorporate American ideals into their own language. Language, as we have discussed, is a powerful tool indeed. Why should Spanish-Americans be deprived of the right to feel a personal connection to the United States? I refuse to believe that it sparks disunity in any way, shape, or form. How do we know that "Our Anthem" wasn't referencing to all American citizens as a whole?
On that note, why don't we make Spanish the official language of the United States? Honestly, it's a perpetual cycle of discussion.
Kevin, I understand your love for national unity - we all possess it when need be. But when you are feeling particularly patriotic (depends on your definition of the word), do you break out into song (i.e. The Star-Spangled Banner)? I'd like an honest answer.
Just for experimental purposes, I'd like to pose a question. How would you feel if the Bulgarian national anthem, for example, was translated into English?
(Sam Maliha)
Just to briefly answer Emily's question:
I believe that we intensionally percieve the national anthem differently each and every time we hear it. All is dependent upon the new experiences we have gained up to that certain point. The way I interpret The Star Spangled Banner today may be different than how I understand it tomorrow after I've had either a good or bad day (depends on your defintions of the word).
Some may feel that the translation of the anthem changed its core meaning. The truth of the matter, however, is that it never had a "core" meaning since the song is NEVER the same in more than one context, to more than one person.
I hope I made sense.
(Sam Maliha)
I'm not sure if this has been brought up yet, but Hayakawa mentions singing the Star-Spangled Banner in the context of "without thinking about the words at all" as a "reaffirmation of social cohesion." And that "such utterances rarely make sense to anyone not a MEMBER OF THE GROUP."
So (while my initial opinion stands), in the SEMANTIC context, is the anthem translated into Spanish exclusionary?
Let's face it people, the national anthem isn't even that good. The lyrics are cumbersome, the melody is not catchy in the slightest, and it alludes to violence and war, unlike the more poetic Canadian national anthem. The only reason it stirs emotion in any American citizen is due to its symbolism and the connotations associated with it. Therefore, why should anyone worry about a slightly different Spanish version of the anthem? Can't they both exist?
I find the whole debate a bit ironic. America is proud to be known as a Melting Pot, right? Everyone in this nation has ancestors that came from somewhere else originally, and in turn almost everyone feels a nationalistic pride for not only the USA, but also their country of origin. (By the way, I don't believe that pride is about nationality, but we'll save that for a later debate). These individuals are simply infusing two cultures together, in the spirit of American values (if such a thing exists).
Who are we, or anyone for that matter, to judge or even care?
(taylor)
Sam please try to read what I wrote and realize that I never said a Spanish Anthem is wrong. I simply implied that it was bad. Bad does not equal wrong. Let me give you an example. When the stock market plundged the other week did we say it was wrong, or did we say it was bad? We said it was bad because it hurt the economy, it's not wrong for the economy to go down the tubes, its just bad. In a similar way, it's not wrong for Spanish Americans to have their own anthem, but it certainly is "bad" at the level I have described; that level being a cause of disunity. So please, stop trying to make this a right or wrong argument because it's not. We know that making a new anthem is not punishable by law or in any way morally reprehensible. I'm not arguing whether or not they should be allowed to make their own versions, I'm arguing that the creation of these versions is detrimental to the cohesiveness of our nation. Ahhh semantics...
Sam I don't understand what your trying to get out with the question you posed about whether or not I sing the National Antehm when I'm feeling patriotic. I think the question should be transposed. I feel a more correct question to be; do I feel patriotic when singing the national anthem with my fellow students? (say at a football game) Absolutely. It's a pwerful symbol of our unity, that despite our differences we are all American.
To answer your other question, would I care if the Bulgarian anthem was translated into English? No, I would not if it was a direct translation, and was titled "The Bulgarian Anthem translated into English". Because in this case, the anthem would not take on a different identity, it would still be the Bulgarian Anthem, I would just have a translation of that anthem. I would certaintly never sing it, or use it, for that Anthem was meant to be sung in Bulgarian, and therefore should be sung in Bulgarian as their national anthem. I would only want a translation to understand the meaning of the words I was speaking, not to give the song a new form (or a new title for that matter).
Also, if "our anthem" refers to all Americans as you suggest, then why is it in Spanish (if most Americans speak English), and why is it not the same as the original? The truth is I don't believe interpreting "our" to mean all Americans is a very good interpretation. The anthem was obviously created for those who speak Spanish, which, last time I checked, was not even near a majority of Americans.
(Kevin Trainer)
Post a Comment