this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
959 points (98.4% liked)
The Onion
4419 readers
1023 users here now
The Onion
A place to share and discuss stories from The Onion, Clickhole, and other satire.
Great Satire Writing:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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).
It was a poem about the bombardment of a fort at the subsequent repulsion of the British forces in the Battle of Baltimore in 1814. It was literally titled "Defence of Fort M'Henry" before it was used as the lyrics to the national anthem.
The context of the poem doesn't jibe with it being about African slaves.
We have lots of bullshit revisionist history that tries to whitewash racism, but this ain't it.
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.