Video & Multimedia
Related: About this forumJohnSJ
(92,060 posts)a good choice for the National Anthem, the racist second part is just the most flagrant reason
America the Beautiful is a more appropriate one I think
I believe it would require Congress to change it, and currently I dont think that would be easy
msongs
(67,347 posts)JohnSJ
(92,060 posts)national anthem.
In addition, not having a national anthem would never get through Congress
RVN VET71
(2,689 posts)Its easy to sing. Its fun to sing. A happy, simple tune that suggests a nation of happy people. The Banner should be kept for ceremonial occasions, maybe specifically military because its about a military clash, and America the Beautiful can alternate with This Land is Your Land at public gatherings -- like ball games.
I still think Woody Guthries anthem is the best and most American.
JohnSJ
(92,060 posts)RVN VET71
(2,689 posts)Aint nuthin gonna happen. For sure.
Ocelot II
(115,576 posts)and almost everybody screws it up - though not usually like this hair-raising rendition at CPAC:
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Warpy
(111,124 posts)and that doesn't glorify war.
Nobody ever sings the slavery verses of "The Star Spangled Banner," it's just kind of a rotten song.
I'm sure we can do better. Maybe a contest?
Ocelot II
(115,576 posts)so maybe it was assumed that it would never be sung well. It isn't the only national anthem with a vocal range outside the capabilities of average singers, though. Check out this one, with a range of an octave and a fourth:
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,852 posts)... to any American slaves who escaped to help them during the War of 1812, and earlier during the American Revolution.
There were about 4,000 slaves in Virginia and Maryland who did so in 1812, which was understandable.
Never mind that England didn't end slavery until 1833, and they were in charge when it started over here.
The royal family made its fortune from slave trade
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/the-royal-family-made-its-fortune-from-slave-trade-readers-letters-3161300
The British monarchy initially approved monopolies to carry out the African slave trade, after merchants like John Hawkins were envious of the enormous profits from the long-established practice in places like Spain and Portugal. Then other merchants in England appealed to Parliament for their "share" in the terrible practice, which was finally granted. Then it really took off, becoming cheaper to slave buyers from the increased competition.
Unbelievable how anyone thought it was morally acceptable, but it's not like the poor in England were treated with basic dignity back then either.