Some Thoughts on the Proposed Anthem Amendment
March 5, 2010 · By Mark Peters
- I unequivocally loathe the suggestion.
- Is the CPC conservative or not? If so, should not a “conservative” government act to conserve or preserve the nation’s traditions?
- Following the thought line of a National Post commenter, the vast majority of people who have served and laid down their lives for this country are male, they are the nation’s sons. The vast majority of those who will further serve and lay down their lives for this great nation are male, they are the nation’s sons. Do we change the anthem because women are now more prominent in the military and are becoming battle casualties? Is this reason enough?
- Isn’t the whole thing a bit like straightening the deck chairs on the Titanic? I mean, we’re in the hole up to our nostrils, we continue to be taxed on birth, life and death, government is no smaller than it was five years ago, we still involved in war in Afghanistan, and we’ve got people suggesting we should add air pistols to the list of licensed firearms. There are a thousand higher priorities than fiddling with the anthem.
- Misplaced priorities aside, what is there to gain in this enterprise? Was there some sort of national outcry over the anthem that I didn’t hear about? Seems to me Canadians sang the living heck of our anthem for two weeks in February, to the point of being hoarse, with tears on our cheeks and pride in our hearts, all of us — male and female and the transgendered/unknown/confused/experimenting. I didn’t see or hear any females, full or quasi, having identity crises or feeling somehow slighted and emotionally damaged by singing “in all Thy sons’ command.” Tinkering with the anthem is likely to create more headaches for government than having left it completely alone. It causes me to wonder who is the imbecile whispering these dumb suggestions in the PM’s ear? Or is it the man himself?
- Speaking of sexual identity, how far would the government have to go to make a phrase completely sex neutral? And what certainty do we have that whatever is contrived will stand the test of sexual identity evolution, which seems to result in another letter being appended to the acronym each and every year?
- Are there any truly sacred national icons or traditions? Seriously.
Mark, I agree with most things here, but the one about women in the military is a little out of line, imho. There’s something about totally dismissing the feelings of a minority simply because they’re a minority that strikes a very sour chord with me. I have no problems dismissing the feelings/thoughts of a minority IF it’s the right thing to do and is justifiable, but if it’s just because it does have the right kind of numbers behind it….well, I think you can see where I’m going with that.
As for the whole Anthem Agony happening right now (yes, I felt I had to come up with an alliteration on par with Flag Flap), I agree that there are probably a billion more important things to deal with before that should even be on the radar. In fact, I can think of about 52 of them, billions that is.
If this is supposed to be a distraction, it’s been a successful one, except that it’s particularly weak.
And as far as the conservativeness of changing it, well, I believe the suggestion is to actually return to the original wording which was changed to “in all they sons command” purely for speakable reasons. It was thought to be unseemly to stumble over words during a national anthem. As such, it’s a very conservative thing to do.
Sean:
Thanks for addressing the point about the military. In truth, the thought expressed there came from one I read in the comments section at National Post. I will amend the post and put a reference to that comment section specifically. It is worthy of discussion.
I’m not advocating dismissing the concerns of a minority. My opinion on that would be related best by the subsequent point about not realizing we had an issue on our hands. Few be there who are outraged by the reference to sons and only sons in the anthem. I have personally never heard a single female friend or acquaintance remark on it. Have you? Why, then, is the gov making an issue of it?
Regarding the return to the original wording, you are correct. That is arguably more conservative than keeping the existing wording.
Did everyone fail to notice the part where the ORIGINAL wording was NOT “in all thy sons command”, but “in us dost thou command”?
I don’t care one way or the other on this matter. Don’t make a big deal out of it, though. The papers may be making a big deal about this, but has anyone even noticed the part where the government has openly stated, on several occasions, that the idea of changing the anthem is all that is being looked at? They haven’t committed to changing it. All they’ve said is that they would consider looking at possibly making the change. Not even in the “considering making the change” stage yet. Get your panties untied.
Yep, that’s a dead issue now. Not that I would call it a flip-flop, but acting on an answer given.