‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ and Why Revisionist History Is Dangerous
The current mania for tearing down statues and stifling free speech by cultural ingénues ignorant of history and logic has reached a stellar absurdity in the demands to censure “The Star-Spangled Banner” on lame claims that it is racist. If ignorance is bliss, then those who indulge their revisionism must be in Nirvana.
Francis Scott Key penned the words in 1814, later set to an English song “To Anacreon in Heaven,” a tune that is a challenge to singers, as even Renéee Fleming confessed after performing it at the 2014 Super Bowl.
It is often mutilated by rock stars calling attention to themselves by “interpreting” it. Key wrote the words after watching 19 British ships fire more than 1,500 cannon balls, mortar shells and rockets on Baltimore.
Key was a slave owner, which was, sadly, not in contradiction to common practice. But he ordered the manumission of his slaves, and in 1820 he embarked on a seven-year effort pleading before the Supreme Court for the liberation of 300 African slaves captured off the ship “Antelope” along the Florida coast. He also worked with John Quincy Adams in the “Amistad” case to free 53 slaves.
Key’s poem “The Defence of Fort McHenry” — which, renamed “The Star-Spangled Banner,” became the national anthem in 1931 — was based on verses he composed in 1805 to celebrate victory over the Muslim slave-trading pirates on the Barbary coast (“the shores of Tripoli”).
“And pale beam’d the Crescent, its splendor obscured / By the Light of the star-spangled flag of our nation ... And the turban’d heads bow’d to the terrible glare” — John Langdon, was a Founding Father who, as first president pro tempore of the Senate, administered the vice-presidential oath of office to John Adams.
In 1805 as governor of New Hampshire, he set aside a day in thanksgiving “for the termination of our contest with one of the African powers; the liberation of our fellow-citizens from bondage…”
Islam, which means “submission,” has never had abolitionists like the Christians Bartolomé de las Casas and William Wilberforce. Muhammed was a slave trader, and the Qur’an devotes five times as much space to regulating labor slavery and sex slavery as it does to prayer.
Nearly 200 million slaves, white and black, were sold by Muslim traders over 14 centuries, and almost all the Africans sold to European traders for export to America were enslaved by Muslims. Muslim slavers even raided Ireland in 1631. So many Eastern Europeans were enslaved that the word “slave” itself comes from “Slav.”
While lip service is given to abolition in Islamic lands, slavery today is blatant in Sudan, Niger and Mauritania, and it was not abolished in Saudi Arabia and Yemen until 1962 (under western pressure).
Where is the indignation of protesters here? If revisionists would burlesque the past and mute the voice of reason, they should first recognize that the value of life is secured best by the standard of the Cross and not the Crescent.
http://www.lifezette.com/faithzette/star-spangled-banner-revisionist-history-dangerous/
by Fr. George Rutler | Updated 27 Sep 2017 at 9:14 AM
Tags
Who is online
106 visitors
"Those throwing a fit these days need to take a look back at how and why Francis Scott Key wrote the national anthem in 1814"
Now that the manic left has trivialized the National Anthem, the next step is to ban it from being played in ALL public places. Following that, the flag itself will be discarded. (Seems to me they deserve an all-white one.) The Battle Hymn of the Republic is already disrespected, because, after all, it has more religious references than the National Anthem. "Glory, glory, Hallelujah" Freedom of speech.....play it for what it's worth.
You really don't know much about our Constitution, do you?
Nope, just watching what Americans are doing these days. Very educational.
How in the world do you jump from taking a knee during the anthem to banning it? Especially when taking a knee has proven to be so unpopular?
Small steps. People used to respect the anthem - considered it and the flag to be symbolic of a great country. Seems a lot of people are agreeing with the kneeling.
Small steps don't repeal constitutional amendments.
Small steps, and small steps, and small steps.........
Eventually......accomplish.
People used to respect law enforcement too, until their training turned from de-escalation to shoot black people first ask question later.
Wonder if some priorities are wrong.....maybe attack some of the more pressing issues:
I mean, if we really want to fix a problem, wouldn't we be attacking the glaring problem? Will those protesting the anthem point there vast sums of money towards helping out the Black Community? Or are they nothing more than posing for a photo op?
Of course, I'm sure this is because of Whites/Law Enforcement Officers.
My comment is about police officers murdering black people. Try to keep up.
I'm still wondering how he went from The Star Spangled Banner to it being about Islam and Chrisitianity?!....but he calls the left manic!
Soo......what does that have to do with racial injustices in the criminal justice system and the high numbers of unarmed black people being killed by police?
Just a side note.....I tried looking for that chart you supplied and a funny thing about it.....it doesn't exist on either the FBI report which the bottom claims it came from....care to link where you got that chart from?
Yeah, we haven't banned hate speech, or made slander or libel criminally prosecutable, but we're going to make the anthem illegal.
Sure.
Yeah? And how do you feel about a policeman that shoots a 12 year old African American with a toy gun less than two seconds after arriving on the scene to "investigate"? Does it make you proud that he is walking around a free man while a little boy is in a grave and his black parents are grieving? That's what the protest is about.
What about this flag Tessylo?
Is it just a piece of cloth? If a player came on the field carrying it, would it just be a piece of cloth?
Yeah, that's what I thought. Crickets.
It uses the data from the FBI uniform crime report to make the chart.
This is the data the chart reflects.
Umm.......I know where he got the FBI table from, but that graph he linked actually does not accurately represent the actual statistics so let me clarify where did he get that lying piece of shit chart from?
Because there are other people that are on their feet rallying and organizing to do something about said violence
But of course you do huh? Tell me when was the last rally you attended, organized, donated to? When should they expect you in Chicago to discuss how to stop the violence with the community?.....or is the only time you give a rat's ass about black lives is to fit your agenda disregarding black lives
From the chart or from the FBI the numbers are shocking. Blacks kill twice as many whites as whites kill blacks. Almost half of the homicide victims in America are black yet blacks are only 13% of the population.
Statistically the most vulnerable person in America to homicide is a young black male. His killer will be another young black male.
BLM and the athletes are protesting a few deaths while thousands die in black on black violence. They protest cops killing blacks yet do nothing about blacks killing people.
If the klan were killing blacks at the same rate blacks kill blacks there would be high righteous outrage. Where is the outrage over the 15/100k black homicide rate?
I don't think he is having a problem keeping up. Actually he's way ahead of you. That must be someone else you see behind you.
Thanks Ausmth.
And you do realize that that chart does not specify anything you just said right? Now let's add all that together and what does that have anything to do with this topic or discussion? What does the murder rate by races have to do with police officers shooting people?
Exactly! I got rid of my Miami Dolphins tickets and jersey right after Marino retired because they sucked not because of what somebody did 2 minutes before kickoff that I usually was at the concessions stand when it was going on anyway!
You are welcome!
Actually it does. The chart uses per cent to state the numbers in the 2013 FBI ucr.
2491 black homicides. 189 were killed by a white. 189/2491+.0758
No, it is not another argument, it is the reason for the protest and very much the backbone of this argument.
Because that is exactly what is happening in Chicago. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
And after that it will be the Constitution, which is their ultimate goal
Which crazy talk show host told you that?
Supporting free speech is somehow banning the anthem and doing away with the Constitution?
Care to explain that logic?
Typical distractingly nonsensical and misleading "conservative" article on Newstalkers.
The Star Spangled Banner has absolutely nothing to do with Muslims or Islam.
I guess that makes the seeded article islamophobic, or purposefully anti-Muslim.
How many readers of this seed will instantly see that? They should.
======
Francis Scott Key was a slaveholder who both defended and prosecuted blacks or black interests in court. For example he would on occasion defend individual (free) blacks in personal legal cases they were involved in, but he also prosecuted certain abolitionists when they encouraged slave rebellion.
Key seems to have been a "decent" slaveowner who did not abuse his small contingent of slaves, but is also recorded as having said on more than one occasion that negroes were “a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community.”
That is somewhat immaterial since we are concerned with the poem which became our national anthem. It does contain a somewhat negative reference to slaves, in reference to the fact that they were being recruited to fight for the British in the war. I don't think the line in the SSB is enough in itself though to make the poem racist.
The issue with the seeded article here is that it is gratuitously anti-Muslim, for no reason related to the actual SSB other than to bash Muslims.
In other words, the seed is ridiculous.
Key’s poem “The Defence of Fort McHenry” — which, renamed “The Star-Spangled Banner,” became the national anthem in 1931 — was based on verses he composed in 1805 to celebrate victory over the Muslim slave-trading pirates on the Barbary coast (“the shores of Tripoli”).
Yeah, nothing to do with Muslims.
Are you kidding me?
Oh, say can you see by the dawn’s early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
‘Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
-
That is the entire text of "The Defence Of Fort Henry" , show me a word in there that refers to Muslims.
Who cares what a poem that is NOT the Star Spangle Banner says? Someone who wants to bash Muslims.
Key’s poem “The Defence of Fort McHenry” — which, renamed “The Star-Spangled Banner,” became the national anthem in 1931 — was based on verses he composed in 1805 to celebrate victory over the Muslim slave-trading pirates on the Barbary coast (“the shores of Tripoli”).
Let's see those verses.
Google them.
He uses the words "star spangled" in both poems. That is the extent of the connection between the texts of both poems.
The seeded article is ridiculous.
Yeah it has nothing to do with Muslims because the VERSES were not based on "When a Warrior Returns" he used the same rhythm and Star Spangled flag imagery but NOT the verses!
You do realize repeating a lie still makes it a lie!
That is like saying Macbeth was based on Hamlet. Two different works, written by the same guy in the same style (which is writers do) Separate content.
Oh! To him Muslims aren't really Americans
"...the seed is worthless." Exactly, John.
And yet, here he is, spending his time arguing it.
So someone who thinks the seed is worthless shouldn't point it out, and explain why? That is odd logic.
To you, if you don't smile at a Muslim you're being Islamophobic.
Wow! Talk about revisionist history!
Actually no, he didn’t base the verses off that composition, he based the rhythms of composer John Stafford Smith’s “To Anacreon in Heaven”, who Key had already used as a setting for “When a Warrior Returns”
As for his high ideals regarding slavery he must have been szchiophrenic because this is the same man that made the statement “Africans in America were a distinct and inferior race of people, which all experience proves to be the greatest evil that afflicts a community” Also if he did all that why did he use his office as the District Attorney for the city of Washington from 1833-1840 to defend slavery, attacking the abolisionist movement in several high profile cases, like prosecuting a New York doctor living in Georgetown for processing abolitionist pamphlets, U.S. v. Reuben Crandall, so much so that he tried to get Crandall hanged for no more than printing out abolitionist literature!
He used his office as District attorney to defend the law that was in place at the time.
That is the sworn duty of a district attorney.
Doesn't matter what his personal opinion is.
If you actually knew anything about the law or how the governments administrative branch should actually function under the law you would then understand how stupid this comment was.
The difference is which side of the spectrum the site caters to.
Well since you are so well versed care to cite me ANY law during that period stating printing literature was not only against the law but also a death penalty offense? Because printing literature about the wrongs of slavery being construed as publishing seditious libels didn't hold up then.....so was he defending a law or trying to prosecute someone with a law? And obviously the people back then agreed that there wasn't because he was acquitted of all charges in under 3 hours on top of that! You would also know that Key's argument and I quote "The white man’s property rights versus the free speech rights of an anstislavery man".....in other words he tried to put a man to death for exercising his FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH
.....now tell me again how stupid my comment was again, this time with feeling!
You misunderstand the point. which is pretty typical.
Today is today, it has it's beliefs and views.
Back then had theirs.
In today's world it is ok for a District Attorney (or attorney general) to only defend those laws him/herself deems righteous.
Back in the days of FSK, not so much.
That was the main point, you are imputing your ideals onto someone from history..... and that the ideals you impart are wrong, even today.
Yes the jury acquitted, as well it should have. Printing is a direct part of free speech and was the mass media of it's day. The charge was based upon what was printed, which was advocating and supporting the breaking of laws. this was considered illegal under the property laws, escaped slaves were to be remanded to their owners when captured.
Was it right of course not. But it was the law in effect at the time. your insulting a man today for doing his job in trying Crandall.
Reuben Crandall, M.D. was charged with publishing and circulating seditious and incendiary papers in the District of Columbia, with the intent of exciting servile insurrection.
Seems to me he was doing his duty....
And the jury did theirs. the fact that they came to the correct decision only serves to prove that when properly applied, the system works as it is supposed to.
Unlike today when so many wish to insert their own ideals into the system and as a result fail to do their jobs.
No, you are being willfully disingenuous with the point, even back then there was no law that was in place to make what Crandall did guilty, the state and Key used a law to prosecute a man doing nothing but exercising his rights!
That trial was about no such thing! All Dr. Crandall did was publish information AGAINST slavery...I have no idea where you got that from
Which was NOT against the law at that time.......they tried to fit what he was doing into that law....and failed. So once again were they defending a law or were they trying to prosecute a man hoping to use a law?
Kind of like what Key did way back in 1836? It's well known in history the Key did not like abolitionists, and he used this trial as a way to kill the movement because if he would have gotten a conviction then that would have basically been the death of it!
Yeah, thank you for explaining your position. We have a lot of people here that apply today's morality to yesteryear and claim they were all racists.
You'll fit right in with them......
And get appropriate responses.
Welcome to the site.....
And the point you missed, was drawing you out and exposing you. or at least your attitudes for the perusal of everyone.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Dude just because it was legal to be a racist back then.....still doesn't negate the fact that they were racist!
Exposing me?! For what? Proving that I know a little bit more about history than you? That I know Key was a staunch anti-abolitionist before working for the government and after, and that in order for him to further his agenda he had to argue the point that blacks were inferior to whites, which regardless of how many slaves he freed or fought for freedom, he still believed that ideology of black inferiority, which made him RACIST! As for drawing me out...Dude, you must not have been on a lot this week, you're a little late!
So let me get this straight - What some on the left seem to be saying is that because Francis Scott Key was a slave owner back in the early 1800's, he cannot have any good side or any redeeming virtues. And that the song he wrote deserves no respect or shouldn't be the national anthem.
So if we extend that logic - those who wrote the Constitution (most were slave owners), are equally evil & irredeemable. Thus the fragile Constitution must be replaced. (by progressives, of course!)
Have I cut to the chase ?
It's amazing to me that as a Canadian I have more respect for the anthem and the flag as being symbols of America as a great country, than the "progressive" leftists and wannabes have. The administration of a country is temporary, but the country is permanent so there is nothing wrong IMO with being critical of the administraiton, but why disparage your country, which should never be despised.
I dont think many Americans actually despise the country but some of the things our country has done has been pretty despicable.
Many Americans never want to even acknowledge America is not perfect and especially would never admit that America has done some pretty despicable crap and still is.. No America is not perfect and we the people know it. Probably no place on earth is.
Many Americans still want to live under the illusion America can and has done no wrong. But, many are seeing reality and voicing their opinions. Equality is still a joke 241 years into this experiment. Some are unhappy about it.
I dont see that changing soon. Trump is doing nothing to unite the masses. And leadership starts at the top.
Maybe you could explain that to us. Show us exactly why equality is a joke
If I need to point out details to you I fear I am wasting my time. Let me guess you are probably an older well established white male.
However, here is a small example.
1. The 30 Richest Americans Own as much as Half of the U.S. Population
2. The Bottom Half of America Owns a Smaller Percentage of National Wealth than Almost All Other Countries and Continents
3. Less Mobility: North America's Bottom Half Has Less Chance to MOVE UP than Any Other Region of the World
4. America's MIDDLE CLASS is Further from the Top than in All Other Developed Countries
Extreme inequality means that people without homes are freezing to death in America. On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless in the United States.
...........................................................................................................
Social inequality manifests in many different spheres, most of which relate to mere accidents of birth, and by virtue of those accidents of birth a person either has more unearned privileges and advantages or fewer unearned privileges and advantages.
For example, a child born female will automatically face discrimination in careers, education and pay ("gender/wage gap") relative to males; this continues to be well-documented although it is declining, particularly with pay because male pay has dropped a great deal in the last 25-30 years due to the end of the labor/trade union era in the U.S. & Europe--not because women have gotten rises. Women often pay as much as 40-60% more for a car versus men. Women pay an average 4-5 times more for a haircut than men. Women with short hair or who go to get 1/4" trim of their end will be charged 4-5 times what a male pays to get his long hair cut.
With respect to race, African Americans will automatically suffer interpersonal and institutional racism making simple daily tasks --that middle class whites take for granted-- very difficult or even impossible. Getting a car loan, a good job, mortgage, moving to the wonderful neighborhood with the white picket fence, attending a high-quality public school on track to a Tier-1 university education, simply getting equal and fair treatment relative to whites.
Children born into poor and working class families are socialized by the school system and society to 'work hard and play by the rules' and they too will be able to live the American Dream; yet the schools are of such poor quality and the children are socialized to follow the rules and submit to authority. However, for a boy born in the poorest 20% of U.S. households, only 7.4% of them will reach an annual household income of $100k or more--9.7% for girls since the average male makes more than the average female, women will likely marry men who make more than they do. Upper middle class and wealthy children are socialized through they elite education and social connections that they were born to reign over society, that everyone else is inferior to them, poor people are poor because they are lazy and stupid and rich people are rich because they are better and smarter.
In reality, the data overwhelmingly show that America is the least mobile of all the industrialized nations and that where you end up in life is largely predicted by where you start out.
I hope this gives you a better understanding of inequality in the U.S.
And what other countries have "Affirmative Action"? "Safe Rooms"?
I agree that these days women are not paying that much more but as always some men will take advantage of some women and some women will take advantage of some men. Hey at least that shits equal.
We respect the values for which our country is supposed to stand more than we respect the symbols of those values, especially when our country isn't living up to said values. Surely actual freedom and equality deserve more respect than symbols purporting to represent them.
American values are ideals, and it is difficult to visualize ideals, so for most people, symbols of those values are what they need to adhere to = symbols they can see and hear. Say it in whatever way you want, but to disrespect the symbols of those values, is to disrespect those values.
Not when the symbols are a lie.
And the fact that some people "need" symbols - well, that's not the fault of those who can respect freedom without needing a placeholder for it, is it? It's a pretty simple mind that can't respect freedom and equality without needing a visual representation of them.
You know what? I surrender, I give up. You win. Congratulations. I'm sick and tired of discussing loyalty and respect for one's couintry and its symbols. So I wish you good luck with what's happening in and to the USA.
Thanks for worrying about us Buzz but you needn't bother.
We will find forms of protest against our countries short comings that work for us, just as citizens in all other countries do.
The folks taking a knee are showing respect for our country. They're quietly and legally saying, "We have a problem in our Nation that needs addressing. Lets talk."
It's a very patriotic, American kind of thing to do.
I prefer their form of protesting an injustice;
To any of these;
If you think I give a shit about your attempts to poke me with those photos, forget it. I'm not Chinese, I'm a Canadian. I'm in China for the greatest adventure of my life. I haven't tried to escape the world holed up in the wilderness like a hermit.
You must be addressing the wrong person. I never said anything about linking the flag to the police and the military, or even implied it.