Considering the blog looks pretty dead right now, maybe it's a good idea to talk about the reading we had to do. So, what does everyone think? Is it a good idea to change the National Anthem? If so, to what? America the Beautiful? Also, as a secondary thought, what did everyone think of that test?
(Kevin Trainer)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
To start this conversation off, I'll post a few of my responses to the questions on page 1195, which go along similar lines as Kevin's questions.
Personally, I believe that "The Star-Spangled Banner" is the strongest POEM among the four cited in the book, contrary to Caldwell Titcomb's argument. By simply concentrating on the words of the poem rather than the way it sounds when it is sung, my mind creates an image of our flag waving in triumph, particularly when I read the last stanza of the poem (lines 25-32). I praise the poem's specificity.
I think that Samuel Francis Smith's "America" is the weakest POEM among the four cited. When I read it, I feel as if the words are too general and do not provide a real sense of what America stands for. Obviously the poem mentions freedom that will ring "from ev'ry mountain side," but I just don't get the same sense of national unity (excuse me for bringing this up again) or patriotism that I get from reading "The Star-Spangled Banner". Yet at the same time, I am forced to recall Hayakawa's principle that the symbol is not the thing symbolized, and then I realize that my argument does not have any backing. Perhaps I should not even be basing my argument off of the feeling/emotions that the poem gives me.
On the contrary, while I believe that "The Star-Spangled Banner" is the strongest POEM, I do not think that the poem is suitable to be the national anthem. Here, I agree with Titcomb. The words are overly militaristic to be sung out loud, and while the poem's specificity can be praised in the written form, it is not ideal for a national anthem.
Which of the four poems should be the national anthem? I think I am leaning towards Titcomb's argument: how about "America the Beautiful"? I think the words of this poem would be easier for people to remember and the tune would be much easier to sing. After all, shouldn't the national anthem be a song that can be sung easily by any American with the utmost sense of pride? But I am certainly open to other opinions, so please, post your thoughts here. :)
(Janet Lee)
P.S. And please, let's not remind ourselves of the test we just took. What's done is done.
One quick question:
Has Francis Scott Key's FULL poem (all four stanzas) ever been sung as the national anthem, or have we always just sung the first stanza?
I hadn't thought about this when I posted my first comment (and unfortunately I can't go back and edit it). I am under the impression that the full poem has never been sung. If so, then I am inclined to reevaluate the suitability of our current national anthem. I guess the shortened version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" is perfectly fine to be sung as our anthem, just as it has been since 1931.
I now wonder, is it really necessary to change our anthem? I was merely suggesting "America the Beautiful" as an alternative. Thoughts? (Sorry for these two separate comments!)
(Janet Lee, again)
I think that there is no need to change the national anthem. To start, I think that Titcomb's argument is a bit weak. I understand why he talks about the lyrics of the song, but why include the range of the tunes and the harmonization? We sing a song we like even if we can't sing the notes or sound horrible singing it. Such a point just seems irrelevant and minor.
Also, I think Janet brings up a good point. One of the problems that Titcomb has with the song is the militaristic lyrics, but most of those types of lyrics are found in the third verse of the song, a part I didn't even know about until I read this passage, and it's not only me. Think about it. At the beginning of a baseball game, what part of the anthem is sung? The first verse, and that's it.
Before we argue what particular song the anthem should be, we have to recognize that the anthem really is only a symbol. Will changing America's anthem actually change America? Will changing from the more militaristic Star Spangled Banner to the more pacifistic America the Beautiful actually decrease violence and war? All of the debate over the anthem is of questionable value and usefulness.
We want the anthem to represent America, and show its strengths. Basically, we want that the anthem to answer the question, "What is America?" (the land of free, the home of the brave, to use one song. Or maybe it is a land of brotherhood, from sea to shining sea.) But every American has a different perception and perspective on what is America, and so no one song can satisfy everyone's vision of America. The African American community may prefer "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing", but war veterans might see America as the one depicted in the "Star Spangled Banner." Titcomb calls the Banner too militaristic in his essay, but Hertzberg says that America the Beautiful is too "wimpy". Unfortunately, there is no anthem out there that will satisfy everyone, because everyone has different priorities that the anthem will need to fulfill.
Titcomb even admits this, when he points out that if a nationwide contest for a new anthem were tried, "there would surely be no agreeement." So, why should we try to impose one particular anthem upon everyone else? We cannot agree anyway.
Perhaps, as during the Olympic games, only the instrumental version of the anthem should be played, which hopefully should placate some people. But to get to the heart of the matter, it is impossible to choose the "right" anthem for America. Every song has its own problems. Thus, since we already have the Banner, too much energy would be expended in trying to change it. Then, as soon as the Banner were changed to America the Beautiful, a new movement would arise demanding that the anthem change back.
Seems like an awful lot of controversy over just a symbol, doesn't it?
(PS: Regarding the test, I agree with Janet: let sleeping dogs lie, and let tired AP students take a break.)
The fact of the matter is that "The Star-Spangled Banner" underwent extreme conditions until it was finally chosen as our national anthem. A twenty-year effort filled with more than forty bills and joint resolutions paved the path for the adoption of our national anthem in 1931, under Herbert Hoover. Could this be accredited to the sever need of national unity at a time so desolate and harsh?
Given this information, it is highly unlikely that the United States' national anthem will change anytime soon, yet the discussion is worthy for future considerations.
Like Janet, I felt the lyrics of "The Star-Spangled Banner" to be the most influencial. Within the first stanza, Francis Scott Key recounts his memories of "the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in the air." Were these words actually sung after September 11th? Wasn't anyone irked in the slightest?
Hendrik Hertzberg's essay title proves to be a misnomer. The national anthem is anything but banter (playful remarks). In fact, quite oppositely, it entices a great array of feelings, some positive and some surely negative. All is dependent upon one's intensional and extensional worlds; this is the deciding factor between whether an individual is offended by or supportive of the text.
Since Katharine Lee Bates' "America the Beautiful" speaks to the audience at high levels of abstracion, American citizens are capable of relating to and agreeing with the lyrics. We are more likely to relate to "brotherhood from sea to shining sea" rather than to "the perilous fight / O'er the ramparts we watched...".
I feel that if the United States were to be more internally militaristic, "The Star-Spangled Banner" would be an adequate representation of our norms and values. Yet with such raving about peace and hope, Key's poem seems inappropriate and somewhat unreasonable.
We must also take into consideration that when Key composed his work, he had been aboard a British ship searching for an American prisoner of war following the War of 1812. He was in close proximity to the bombardment of Fort Henry on the night of September 13, 1814. Thus, his perceptions of the war were bound to vary greatly from those of other colonials. Even at the time, in the early ninteenth century, many citizens may have found themselves unable to connect with the lyrics of our present-day national anthem. The absraction levels of the writing are low.
Thus, I, personally, am an advocate of "American the Beautiful" as our nation's future national anthem.
(Sam Maliha)
I agree that "America The Beautiful" is better suited to be our national anthem. It summarizes what America believes it is, instead of creating a vivid picture of war. And I personally, like the melody better.
Even though we really only use the first verse, it think it's similar to when Mr. Lazarow was talking about cropping a picture. What we focus on is nice and fine and dandy, but when we look at it's whole, it's not as wonderful as we thought it was. So even though we only use a fraction, we really do need to focus on the other pieces of the song as well. Unfortunately, these pieces aren't all that flattering.
I always forget this!
(Megan West)
I think the cropping of the picture is different than this situation. With the picture, you are only trying to get the best part of the scenery to show. In this situation, though, most people don't even know that the other four versus of the song exist. There's nothing that we really 'focus' on. Therefore, I still think that the current anthem is fine. Whether the other songs are 'better' I still have to think about.
Maybe we only know the first verse for a reason? We only know the "best part"?
I'm inclined to agree with Janet. The symbolism and imagery that "The Star Spangled Banner" evokes is far stronger than "America the Beautiful" etcetc, even though it isn't necessarily American. But, then again, what exactly is America/what is being represented?
Our motto for the Seal of the US came from a cheese recipe and does double duty as the motto for a Portuguese soccer club. The bald eagle beat out the turkey to become the "national" bird/symbol, despite a strong argument made for the former by Ben Franklin.
Yet we have agreed to assign some sort of "patriotic" meaning to them. When things are ritualized, the meaning is not in the words. It's in the result--social cohesion.
As long as our national anthem continues to reaffirm said cohesion, there isn't anything wrong with it. Almost all of our other "national" symbols probably are/seem absurd to either half the American population or half the world. As far as I know, the anthem does not create cohesion/patriotism. It only reaffirms it. Conversely, a newly-naturalized USA citizen isn't (likely) going to take the next flight out of the US just because they didn't like the anthem.
Or would they? :o
I agree with what Eric said in class today. We are not inherently attached to the song itself, but to the symbolism of it. The song is a symbol of patriotism, and that is something we value highly here. But there is another level to the symbolism. The category of National Anthem is what creates the symbol, not the actual song itself. If the anthem was "God Bless America", we would still see it as a symbol of patriotism. So while I see no reason to be particularly opposed to changing the song in favor of something more musically "user friendly", I see no concrete reason to. It would be replacing one symbol for another, a change that would bring negative feelings from those attached to the current, and indifference from the rest. Overall there is no real upside for changing the anthem.
Steve Szumski
The whole purpose of the national anthem is to make people more patriotic. Why is the national anthem of the country of the gold medalist played in the Olympics? It's because that song symbolizes that country...Why change the anthem so we confuse the rest of the world(plus some Americans)?What's the point of it?
Some Americans don't even care..
Also, one of the main arguments for changing the anthem is that the words are too hard+harsh. Afterall, we only play the first verse anyway..so why does that even matter?
Even if the anthem is changed to America the Beautiful, there still will be controversies. Lastly, if none of us emphasize the fact that The Star-Spangled Banner is an English drinking song, the rest of the world is not gonna know about it.
(Jennifer Park)
I have a few thoughts regarding the current national anthem. First, why should we change it in the first place? There will be controversy either way, and why worsen the already existing controversy if you don't have to? I don't know... the whole argument in and of itself doesn't make much sense to me...
My second point is that the already exisiting national anthem, while it may be unpleasant at parts, we don't sing the whole thing, anyway. And the parts we do sing are on lower levels of abstraction, making the experience seem more real to the listener. If one listens to the words carefully, one has the opportunity to experience Francis Scott Key's emotion. That has potential to create national pride, and the experience shared by Americans creates unity.
My last point is that, yes, maybe we don't think that people, in general, have a very strong connection to the national anthem, but I would argue that deep down inside each American has a (italics) connection. After all, we have grown up learning the song and hearing it at every sporting event. If that were to change spontaneously, I would think that people, in general, would feel that something is missing. I think that the fact that we have had the anthem instilled in us since childhood has merit and is a reason for not changing the anthem now.
I don't know if these points would stand up to argumentation, but they are what I came up with.
(Emily T.)
To be perfectly honest, I'm of the opinion that the "huge controversy" that is continually referenced here is probably being a bit exaggerated, if it even exists at all, that is. Even then, it's most probably limited to the more-semantically inclined among us. Americans are generally known to be a bit apathetic in regards to their feelings towards the nations at times. I mean, why else would the U.S. be ranked 35th among the world's most prominent democracies in terms of voter turnout? Yes, we do "rally around the flag" so to speak in times of crises, but that is a human instinct, not a uniquely American reaction.
I guess what I'm trying to get at is that the majority of America simply doesn't care enough to dissect the semantic appropriateness of our national anthem.
Moreover, has anyone honestly considered the fact that few of us really had any concrete (semantic) complaints with the anthem until the topic was introduced? The anthem hasn't changed in the slightest - the only thing that's different is our perception of it. Thanks to our varied intensional worlds, this perception is different for everyone, just as it's always been.. So are we really debating this question because we honestly think that overnight the anthem has "become" (And I use this word lightly) ill-suited for serving its role?
I just wanted to end on this question/thought: The flag, the pledge of allegiance, our collective label/name (Americans), and our anthem - they're all symbols of our country. The romantic in us wants us to believe that they all stand for patriotism and national unity... But does the flag or the anthem cease to represent America when we are divided? If not, then why must be define the role of the national anthem so absolutely as a symbol of national unity and nothing else?
Let's think here. If the national anthem were to be deleted from political records and from our memories, would patriotic sentiments also fly right out of the window? In a way, this relates to George Orwell's 1984 and his concept of Newspeak.
If the denotation were to be forgotten, would the connotation also dissipate into the abyss, almost mystically?
To me, this seems doubtful. So once again, the question is posed: Why are we arguing over a mere symbol? I am inclined to say, like Tiffany, that this is solely because we were assigned to pursue this discussion. Honestly - who would have pondered it otherwise? It's all part of our training in semantics.
If our national anthem happened to be "American the Beautiful," would we be progressing with this same argument? Would we then be in favor of "The Star-Spangled Banner"? I cannot help but wonder.
Would anyone be likely to wish for a national anthem which speaks in low abstractions and targets its focus on a seemingly insignifigant battle from the War of 1812? The world will never know.
(Sam Maliha)
Sam, you say the world will never know, but I have to disagree. Even though we may never be able to experience it, but I think that to a certain degree we can infer what would have happened.
As stated many times, the symbol is not the thing symbolized, and that the connotation stays even if the denotation were to disappear. So even if America the Beautiful was chosen as the national anthem to begin with, there would still be some sort of controversy, something that a group of people find wrong with it and try to find an alternative. To some people the battle may have been extremely important and would want it as the national anthem. In the end we would still be stuck in a similar situation.
Mary, I totally understand your point of view. I guess the world could possibly know at some point in the future, even if we'd be long gone by that time.
And I have to agree with you about "America the Beautiful". Is it safe to say that it is clearly impossible to please the members of every type of party out there? I'm going to have to say yes. But then again, isn't that an absolute? And aren't absolutes unable to exist?
..S.O.S.!
(Sam Maliha)
Sam asked:
Is it safe to say that it is clearly impossible to please the members of every type of party out there?
I agree with Sam; yes, indeed, it IS safe to SAY that it's impossible to please everybody. Logically, if everyone were to agree on such a controversy, there would be no reason for argument, which is an important aspect of our linguistic society.
Except let me rephrase the statement to read, "It SEEMS safe to ASSUME that it's impossible to please everybody." I think that this rephrased statement is slightly less "absolute" than the original statement, although it doesn't really contain a direct qualifier. So now is the statement more "acceptable"?
(Janet Lee)
Post a Comment