Sports is a nice stage but ................................

Nobody wants protests.  We'll still have them until we are happy. 

Blacks don't want to be killed by police anymore. They won't be happy until they get social justice.  Republicans don't want Americans to have healthcare.  They won't be happy until the border has machine gun towers every 50 feet.

Protests are gonna be here for a long time.

Complete version of "The Star-Spangled Banner" showing spelling and punctuation from Francis Scott Key's manuscript in th e Maryland Historical Society collection.

O say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight
O'er the ramparts we watch'd were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,
O 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 - O 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 wash'd out thei r foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banne r in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation!
Blest with vict'ry and peace may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the power that hath ma de and preserv'd 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 banne r in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

amhistory.si

Team USA hammer thrower Gwen Berry takes exception to the lines in red being in the song as disrespectful. Many Black Americans stand for this rendition (at least the first stanza) anyway. Many Black American leaders in politics and in entertainment do so as well. But to her point, the offensive wording is present in the song!

How many people know that those words are in there? Someone did some damned digging to FIND something, ANYTHING that they could be offended by. FFS will this bullshit never end and people just live their fucking lives and quit being oppressed victims? It would go a long LONG way.

usatoday

Where's the fucking riots?

Easy for you to say. Nobody penned a national song calling some conservatives out for time immemorial. And on that note, I have a question:

Can Congress modify our national anthem? "Hireling" was a pejorative word at the time of the song's delivery. After all, no white man worth his 'salt' delighted in working ("slaving") for the good of another man. In addition, to be a hireling meant one serves under a "boss" - another substitute word for 'Master.'

"Slave"  and "From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave"  speaks horribly for itself.

You can't unsee it once you know its there, can you Jim? Now you will remember that 3rd stanza forever!

I know. I know. I know. You're a conservative. Thus, letting go of some of our national old "slave timey" classics is difficult. Yes! Change can be hard!

You know what is similar in the cases of many of these "unarmed" shootings? Like the white kid in the link I provided? The LEO's orders and commands weren't being heeded in either or the majority of the time in any of them. In a lott of cases also, flight was the chosen response to the orders. Period. Listen and heed what you are being told to do. Easy concept really .....................unless you have something to hide.

Can Congress modify our national anthem?

Do you know the answer to this question? Or should I ask elsewhere?

To answer your condescending query, yes I know they can. Do I think it is warranted? HELL NO. Why? How many others feel the same as you do you suppose and what do you think they may have in common?

Well then the third stanza should not go a day longer. Modify the verse. Put some effort into it. It's a national song for crying out loud!  It is not 'holy' or sacred text!

This nation would not offend Israel this way (not to 'disturb Jewish Americans' over this injurious verse for children of former slaves) with our anthem, eh?

As for the rest of your comment; I have already stated the song in its entirety for me is a moment of solemn reflection even on past slavery from my fore descendants (although how could I know my descendants with a DNA test-because the country "f-ed" us over like livestock, "boxing and crating" "packin and sellin" is all we were and all  we heard.)

Yeah, I guess "my people" and I have that past in common.

people are trying to divert the attention to a song and a flag

she’s, of course, the one doing it.  

Yeah, that caught my eye too, as well as this.

I was exercising my constitutional right," she added. "But I will not stand for any type of symbol or song that does not stand for all people in America.

Let me see if I follow that line of thought. The flag, that is the symbol of the freedoms she claims to be exercising, doesn't stand for her...the person claiming to be exercising the freedoms the flag is a symbol of?

It’s pretty straightforward. If you can’t respect the country, the flag, and the anthem, then don’t put the flag on your uniform and represent the country.

This woman is a hypocrite. She wants to turn her back on the flag and the anthem, but she doesn’t mind the idea of having the flag on her uniform to pursue her goals -  be they for competition or endorsements.

Many thousands (I don’t know; maybe it’s millions) of African Americans have worn the uniform of America’s military even though there are things about this country they would change. They still manage to muster the integrity to salute the flag, and stand at attention for the anthem.

And yet, we have all this liberty and freedom as individuals to think as independents, libertarians, liberals, and conservatives some SAY we do anyway. Which is it? Or is her blackness entitled only to be dictated to what/when/where she defers to flag and country?  Maybe she has a justified complaint against her country.  You think of that?

I never said she couldn't think what she wanted to think or even be critical of her country.

To be clear, does this imply:  You SAY she CAN think what she wants to think (about the flag) and be critical of her country?

Sure, just not when she is literally in the act of representing the country.

Our country is the model for independence, liberty, freedom in the world and so everybody watches and continues to watch how we navigate the aforemetnioned. Through our media and press cycles (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News) our dirty laundry gets shown daily and routinely.  And then there is this: Shame? Embarrassment? Is there a hint of it I detect in your writing?

Through our media and press cycles (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News) our dirty laundry gets shown daily and routinely.

Good. Then we can afford to set that aside for a few days during the Olympics in the spirit of competition and fellowship. In fact, that is literally what the Olympics are supposed to be for.

Actually no. She has her own 'platform.' I can't understand why you don't get it. Maybe its because you have little to nothing to lose in these crisis over people of color? She has decided to protest using her 'stage.' The 'powers that be' can shut it down or let it continue by allowing or denying her entry/participation.

Now then to the 'pressing' question I asked: Shame? Embarrassment? Is there a hint of it I detect in your writing?

She has her own 'platform.

Sure she does. But the awards stand while being a member of Team USA is not that platform.

Maybe its because you have little to nothing to lose in these crisis over people of color?

She is not in so much crisis that she needs to act in that particular way at that particular time. Lots of people have problems, but that doesn’t give them license to do any thing they want in any place at any time.

Look! She is a 'demonstrator.'  In the video above I posted, she states they were told the anthem would not be playing during their time on the platforms. Moreover, no other recipients had the anthem played. In so, she felt conspicuously betrayed once she was out there and the anthem music started. Thus, she activated when the song began.

Somebody lied to her and the other two contestants that day. Do you still say she should "go along to get along"? She has a problem with the complete song, and for that matter, when the complete song is regarded, many of the people living at the time of its making had a problem with its wording. "Hireling," "Slave," and "In God is our Trust."

Shame? Embarrassment? Is there a hint of it I detect in your writing?

Well for your information, she is not at the Tokyo Olympics yet. Other arrangements can be considered and made, I should guess. What say you?

To be clear, none of this is easy, for the athlete or any teams involved. That is, when a national stage is borrowed to make a political or social point!

The song was scheduled to play at a certain time (5:25 if I remember right) so if someone told her it wasn't going to play when she went out, she was lied to (read pranked) and THAT is tough shit.

Do you still say she should "Go along to get along"?

Disrespectful and rude is 'old boy' @5.1.7 above with the flag 'sweatin' his nether-region! Should he "Go along to get along"?

Tough shit for whom? Because she "activated." And by the way, because she activated, we are gathered to discuss the third stanza of The Star Spangled Banner

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 wash'd out thei r foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banne r in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

@5.2 .

What say you to this, Just Jim NC TttH?  And criticism for Francis Scott Key's writing? Or do you just pick on liberals and other "unfortunates" in our society?

Shame? Embarrassment? Is there a hint of it I detect in your writing?

Why the "H" you asking me? I ain't going to compete or be at the Tokyo Olympics! (Smile.) Wait. Watch. See. That is what I will be doing.  And what about you?

No refuge could save the hireling and slave From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,

Let me help you our here........................

“Essentially,” says writer and academic Jason Johnson, “Francis Scott Key was happy to see former slaves, who had joined the British as part of their Colonial Marines , getting slaughtered and killed as they attempted to take Baltimore.”

Johnson is an associate professor at Morgan State University in Baltimore, and has a piece in online magazine  The Root on this issue.

The third stanza of Francis Scott Key's “Defence of Fort McHenry.”

Credit:

NPS.gov

“The entire song sort of leads up to this point,” Johnson adds, “where he’s essentially saying to these terrible, ungrateful, black people, this is the consequence of standing up against the United States .”

And the plethora of liberals decry the South for fighting against the North as traitors? But this was okay though right? I say, due to the time and circumstance, tough shit again.

How many times is this verse sung and again I say, the majority of Americans have no clue this verse exists and someone had to dig to find something to be offended about............and they found it.

Instead of these nauseous attempts to play between words and not extract meaning. Consider this:

@5 Team USA hammer thrower Gwen Berry added: "We need to be talking about the racial and social injustice issues that the black community still faces to this day. It's the same thing, and people are trying to divert the attention to a song and a flag when that's not even the biggest thing we need to be focusing on right now."

and in the video @5 she points out an additional problem (recognized when the song-anthem was delivered and accepted nationally too) with the wording of the song itself. There words are there. She is not lying about them being there. 

In conclusion, It is not too far to go to see she sees both sets of racial overtone and social justice issues as affecting her.

You're holding up nothing and calling it something. It is a big waste of your time here. I'm moving on.

How many times is this verse sung and again I say, the majority of Americans have no clue this verse exists and someone had to dig to find something to be offended about............and they found it.

Do you know how obviously reaching that is? The words are not 'found' by anybody! They are part of the song legend. All anybody would have to do-here or abroad- is just sing the song through to its finish.  "They found it." Are you serious, Jim? Really?

Would I have it wrong to suggest you are ASHAMED the words are there? Are are you 'sorry' you did not know those words were there?

She does not care about your opinion and in this case, I'd give you a dime for a dozen of those.

Look! She is a 'demonstrator.' 

No. She is a guest. She has been invited to an event that has a purpose. She has no right to hijack it for her politics.

Yep you would be totally wrong. And no I don't care if the words are there. Different times. Why is it people want to change history to suit themselves? And who the hell sings all the verses...........no one I know and I knew there were other verses. Just didn't and don't care what they are as the first is the only one I have ever known and care about.

Ya wanna drop this now or would you like to continue on with your virtue signaling victimhood?

Is that your commentary on her actions or the team's 'front office' addressing the issue? 

Shame? Embarrassment? Is there a hint of it I detect in your writing?

Why is it people want to change history to suit themselves?

Ask Trump and revisionist some conservatives that one-and then get back to me. /s

And why should I, Team U.S.A., and/or Tokyo care about what you don't care about?

The third stanza of the song needs REWRITE; dissipation; taken out service. Or, she is free to 'rebuke' the song in its entirety. Her call.

You don't get to tell her to ignore the reference to slavery in our national anthem, simply because it makes you feel 'uncomfortable.'

As for that dig at the end; yeah, miss me with that. The anthem does not bother me, per se.

Team USA hammer thrower Gwen Berry takes exception to the lines in red (above @7.1.16) being in the song as disrespectful.

Many Black Americans stand for this rendition (at least the first stanza) anyway. Many Black American leaders in politics and in entertainment do so as well.

But to her point, the offensive wording is present in the song! You won't admit that it is? Is that because it does not offend conservative values?  No, I don't want to put words in your mouth; so you should speak up loudly, proudly, and clearly.

And why should I, Team U.S.A., and/or Tokyo care about what you don't care about?

Not asking you to. You are the one badgering and trying to lay the guilt trip on me and a couple of others because WE are supposed to give a damn what you think.

The third stanza of the song needs REWRITE; dissipation; taken out service. Or, she is free to 'rebuke' the song in its entirety. Her call.

Yes she can and no it doesn't. It is what it is as written and you're telling me to ask Trump and other conservatives why they want to change history? LMMFAO

You don't get to tell her to ignore the reference to slavery in our national anthem, simply because it makes you feel 'uncomfortable.'

Not telling her she has to do anything and unless I am mistaken (which I am NOT) SHE is the one who is "uncomfortable" not me.

As for that dig at the end; yeah, miss me with that. The anthem does not bother me, per se.

You sure are raising a stink if that is the case.

Team USA hammer thrower Gwen Berry takes exception to the lines in red (above @7.1.16) being in the song as disrespectful.

Disrespectful of what? Wanting the opposition Navy members to die for our freedom? Give me a break. Were you for the nazis or North Vietnamese?

Many Black Americans stand for this rendition (at least the first stanza) anyway. Many Black American leaders in politics and in entertainment do so as well.

As they should. thus the title and survey brought forth in this article.

But to her point, the offensive wording is present in the song! You won't admit that it is? Is that because it does not offend conservative values?  No, I don't want to put words in your mouth; so you should speak up loudly, proudly, and clearly.

I think I have covered that pretty well. No it's not and that was NOT its intent when written. I explained that above. And it has nothing to do with conservative or liberal. It has to do with Americanism and honoring its history as it unfolded.

Is that your commentary on her actions

Yes. Why is that confusing for you? Have you not been reading my comments?

or the team's 'front office' addressing the issue? 

I couldn't care less what a "front office" is doing

Shame? Embarrassment? Is there a hint of it I detect in your writing?

No, you don't. I have no reason to feel either emotion. Although you might detect what you want to detect and I can't do anything about that. Why don't you stop with this bullshit? You've spammed this trollish comment all over this seed. It's stupid.

The third stanza of the song needs REWRITE;

No it doesn't. It's an original poem. You don't "rewrite" someone else's poetry. Write your own poem!

dissipation; taken out service.

It's not "in service." You don't have a problem. No one sings the national anthem using the 3rd verse. It's the first verse and we're done. You can't not know that. Stop acting like anyone ever sings the 3rd verse. What a stupid complaint.

And that's full of bull patty. America's history is as plain as the 'nose' on it face.  And about those links you posted. The first one does not read in a positive light for Francis Scott Key:

Star-Spangled Bigotry: The Hidden Racist History of the National Anthem

Jason Johnson

In the case of our national anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner,” perhaps not knowing the full lyrics is a good thing. It is one of the most racist, pro-slavery, anti-black songs in the American lexicon, and you would be wise to cut it from your Fourth of July playlist.

. . . .

The story, as most of us are told, is that Francis Scott Key was a prisoner on a British ship during the War of 1812 and wrote this poem while watching the American troops battle back the invading British in Baltimore. That—as is the case with 99 percent of history that is taught in public schools and regurgitated by the mainstream press—is less than half the story.

To understand the full “Star-Spangled Banner” story, you have to understand the author. Key was an aristocrat and city prosecutor in Washington, D.C. He was, like most enlightened men at the time, not against slavery; he just thought that since blacks were mentally inferior, masters should treat them with more Christian kindness. He supported sending free blacks (not slaves) back to Africa and, with a few exceptions, was about as pro-slavery, anti-black and anti-abolitionist as you could get at the time.

Of particular note was Key’s opposition to the idea of the Colonial Marines . The Marines were a battalion of runaway slaves who joined with the British Royal Army in exchange for their freedom. The Marines were not only a terrifying example of what slaves would do if given the chance, but also a repudiation of the white superiority that men like Key were so invested in.

All of these ideas and concepts came together around Aug. 24, 1814, at the Battle of Bladensburg, where Key, who was serving as a lieutenant at the time, ran into a battalion of Colonial Marines. His troops were taken to the woodshed by the very black folks he disdained, and he fled back to his home in Georgetown to lick his wounds. The British troops, emboldened by their victory in Bladensburg, then marched into Washington, D.C., burning the Library of Congress, the Capitol Building and the White House. You can imagine that Key was very much in his feelings seeing black soldiers trampling on the city he so desperately loved.

A few weeks later, in September of 1815, far from being a captive, Key was on a British boat begging for the release of one of his friends, a doctor named William Beanes. Key was on the boat waiting to see if the British would release his friend when he observed the bloody battle of Fort McHenry in Baltimore on Sept. 13, 1814. America lost the battle but managed to inflict heavy casualties on the British in the process. This inspired Key to write “The Star-Spangled Banner” right then and there, but no one remembers that he wrote a full third stanza decrying the former slaves who were now working for the British army:

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 wash’d out their foul footstep’s 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 bra ve.

In other words, Key was saying that the blood of all the former slaves and “hirelings” on the battlefield will wash away the pollution of the British invaders. With Key still bitter that some black soldiers got the best of him a few weeks earlier, “The Star-Spangled Banner” is as much a patriotic song as it is a diss track to black people who had the audacity to fight for their freedom . Perhaps that’s why it took almost 100 years for the song to become the national anthem.

theroot

|\

'Just' Jim, (see what I did there, Jim?) this is one reason why some conservatives can't be trusted to delivery. The first 'block' of red type makes your point coming from the writer, Jason Johnson (pictured above); the second 'block' of red type is from the same writer on the same article on the same subject and you 'diss-regarded" it from your commentary. Why Just Jim did you do that?

And the second link is a 404 Not Found "skunk."

Well, that comment reeks of emotion. You are definitely feeling something right now. Reread your commentary. It's pretty 'charged." And it ain't trolling until after one deals with the question put forward. You don't 'get' to just label people as trolls. It's a thing, after all.

It's in the poem, Tacos! Fix the song, and not the 'messenger.' This team representative has brought it to your, our, attention and you are here 'blasting' her out of her socks and not Francis Scott Key for penning it or our nation for continuing the line in its ANTHEM.

That 'no one' sings the third stanza (how would you know that?) and it being available for singing is not the issue. It is in the song lyrics. It is "in-Service."

You wish to bash this woman athlete because apparently she appears 'opportunistic.' And I ain't having that! The burden is on the song to right itself for time immemorial or she can call it out on a daily basis.

Well, that comment reeks of emotion.

Again, you are just seeing what you want to see. Please stop or move on.

Reread your commentary. It's pretty 'charged."

Empty accusations are just empty. If you have a point, make it and support it with specific evidence. Otherwise, you can move on.

You don't 'get' to just label people as trolls. It's a thing, after all.

Well that's super because I haven't labeled you or anyone else as a troll. I said the comment was trollish. Try honestly responding to comments or again, maybe you should move on.

That 'no one' sings the third stanza (how would you know that?) and it being available for singing is not the issue. It is in the song lyrics. It is "in-Service."

Give us examples of people singing the national anthem as such and using the 3rd verse. Then we might have something to talk about.

You wish to bash this woman athlete because apparently she appears 'opportunistic.' 

No. I bash her for being a disrespectful, self-centered brat who has zero respect for her country or the opportunity she has been given. She is rude.

Look at that picture of her up there! She looks like a pouting toddler. How embarrassing! And you should be embarrassed for excusing it.

No one sings the national anthem using the 3rd verse.

It's in our national anthem: Deal with it.  Blame Frances Scott Key and those who keep it "in-place" as part of the national anthem. Or is it just easier to 'toss dirt' in the face of a Black American woman? I am trying to follow your motivation here.

It's in our national anthem

If that's true, then you should have no problem coming up with many examples of people singing it. Honestly CB, how long are you going to cling to this absurd line of argument? Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously claiming that the 3rd verse of Key's poem is somehow the National Anthem of the United States? 

I mean ok, there is probably somebody out there in the world who sang all four verses as some kind of special performance, but you and I and everyone else knows that I could link you to thousands of examples of the National Anthem being performed with only the one verse.

For starters, it is played at the beginning of every major league baseball game. At 30 teams scheduled for 162 games (divided by two because they play each other) that is 2,430 performances each year of the one-verse national anthem. They have been doing it regularly for a century. They also do it in the playoffs and pre-season. A quarter of a million performances with just one verse.

And that's only Major League Baseball. We haven't talked about the minor leagues. Or football. Or basketball. Or the Olympics. Or every government function where it's played. Or every parade. Or Little League games. No rational person gives two shits about the third verse of Francis Scott Key's poem.

The most interesting this about the third stanza of the National Anthem is that it serves witness to the idea that we need a "1619 Project" or something like it to fil in the blanks of the nation's past, in ways both important and unimportant, big and small. 

Some runaway slaves fought for Britain in the War of 1812, and were either involved in or in the vicinity of the burning of the White House during that war. The third stanza of the anthem appears to be referring to those people in a derogatory way. 

Which is fine, after all the writer of the words was cheering for the US, not Britain, but still we have the unpleasant case of people so sick and tired of slavery that they would actually fight on the side of an American enemy. 

Did you learn about this in school?

The Star-Spangled Banner ,  national anthem  of the  United States , with music adapted from the anthem of a singing club and words by  Francis Scott Key . After a century of general use, the four-stanza song was officially adopted as the national anthem by an act of  Congress  in 1931.

The Star-Spangled Banner | American national anthem | Britannica

Why can't you move on?! Just 'move on' already!

Honestly CB, how long are you going to cling to this absurd line of argument? Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously claiming that the 3rd verse of Key's poem is somehow the National Anthem of the United States? 

Who do you think you are talking to, Tacos! What kind of virtual "creature" do I come across to you as? Should I start calling you names or implying you're not intelligent?!!!

I have demonstrated for you the words of the song and now JRussell is showing the complete stanzas in song, so just who do you think you are 'gaslighting'? Because it ain't me and clearly it ain't JR! 

Stubbornness is not the same as ignorance.

For starters, it is played at the beginning of every major league baseball game. At 30 teams scheduled for 162 games (divided by two because they play each other) that is 2,430 performances each year of the one-verse national anthem. They have been doing it regularly for a century. They also do it in the playoffs and pre-season. A quarter of a million performances with just one verse.

And you over-explain that to say what? The official Star-Spangled Banner has four and five stanzas, period. It does not matter if people sing 1/4 or three lines of the song - the song itself is complete with four stanzas! Your line of argument is pure folly.  You don't give "two shits" about it is obvious!

That you try to argue that it is not meaningful or has meaning is an insult to the song and to the intelligence of us who can read and think for ourselves! Including this Team U.S.A. player!

The third stanza is indeed part of the official national anthem of the United States. The fact that is almost never performed in song does not change that fact. 

The issue with the third stanza is not is it part of the national anthem, the issue is what does the third stanza mean. Some historians think it refers to slaves who fought for Britain , and other , fewer,  historians think it refers only to the British. 

Did you learn about this in school?

Yes, I am sure I learned about it in several ways:  A mention here. A 'tid-bit' of information there. Novel series like "Mandingo!"  parse these types of information in narrative forms. (For example, we are told about the different racial classifications for Africans during the period - Octaroons, Quadroons, Mulattos, et ceteras based on a quantity of mixing of white and blackness in said individuals.) As children, we hear it and let it 'brush' over us. As young adults, we remember the words and forgot the meanings. As adults we do not normally address it, but it is in the recesses of our minds.

There are many multiples of "oddities" which can occur (and do) as circumstances when one is systematically a servant people to a master class for life! Hope I answered your question properly.

Mostly, it was history. We accepted it for what it 'is.' And more or less 'let it alone.' However, nowadays, people are able to affect change to the past 'record' and that I guess is okay too!

It's in our national anthem

If that's true, then you should have no problem coming up with many examples of people singing it. Honestly CB, how long are you going to cling to this absurd line of argument? Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously claiming that the 3rd verse of Key's poem is somehow the National Anthem of the United States? 

CB is 100% right about this, and you are 100% wrong. 

Why are you discussing anybody's looks for simply standing? It is a photo, a mere instance out of a 24 hours day and night. For going there: Shame on you!

Like I did with CB, I invite you to post the many links to people singing four stanzas of Star Spangled Banner. Truly, no one cares about stanzas 2 through 4. And the fools that are fretting over stanza 3 are totally misinterpreting things anyway. 

Why people would try to make an issue out of a song no one sings is one of the dumber mysteries we have encountered.

What kind of virtual "creature" do I come across to you as?

One who is clinging to the dumbest argument I have seen in a long, long time.

Should I start calling you names or implying you're not intelligent?!!!

Why would you call me names? Did I call you a name?

Still waiting on the links to the many performances of all four stanzas. Sheesh!

You don't give "two shits" about it is obvious!

I said I didn't, so don't worry about it. I also think anyone who employs basic common sense feels the same way.

Your line of argument is pure folly.

Say how, or your claim is empty.

Who gives a shit?  You argue just for the sake of arguing.  Just have to have the last word no matter what. Just keep beating that dead horse

Who gives a shit?  You argue just for the sake of arguing.  Just have to have the last word no matter what.

Just keep beating that dead horse

Why are you discussing anybody's looks for simply standing?

[deleted]

We?

Too big a word?

There actually are quite a few videos of all four stanzas being sung. Of course, its all relative. 

Your mistake was insisting that the third stanza is not part of the official national anthem.  It most certainly is. 

Can't bring yourself to be open and honest with this discussion. But you SLAM THE YOUNG WOMAN with 'relish.' I'm moving on. Which goes without saying (but I will say it) that if I have something else to add I have an option to do so.

The fact that is almost never performed in song does not change that fact. 

It does make it 100% irrelevant, though. I don't think I have disputed that under the US Code the entire poem is the legal national anthem. The code is about as vague as it can be, though. It doesn't define the words or the notes in the song, so complaining that words need to be changed is pointless. 

What I have said - over and over - is that no one sings that part, anyway. No one thinks of those words when we consider what the national anthem is. It has literally been performed millions of times with only the first verse. To act like the third verse - which no one ever sings or hears - is somehow a part of the national consciousness, and therefore a problem, is sheer lunacy.

Can't bring yourself to be open and honest with this discussion.

Nothing but personal attacks from you. No details, just wild claims and attacks.

But you SLAM THE YOUNG WOMAN with 'relish.'

Not with relish. With disapproval. Other than this incident, I don't know here, so I have no reason to relish my negative feelings in this regard. She represents me if she wants to be on Team USA, so my opinion matters.

No one thinks of those words when we consider what the national anthem is. It has literally been performed millions of times with only the first verse. To act like the third verse - which no one ever sings or hears - is somehow a part of the national consciousness, and therefore a problem, is sheer lunacy.

Folks, that up there is not a critical thinking exercise. The commenter just 'argued' that the official National Anthem written, scored, and song is not the anthem we think should reflect on during celebratory or other official proceedings. Also, he puts no value on the 'art' of the song being an arduous prose set to a slow melody to understand why routinely (in the interest of time and activity) on the first stanza is 'played,' voiced, or known outright.

And so Tacos continues to spread disinformation (@7.1.64) labeling it reasonable and insulting us as fall-out. Absolutely astonishing! What else can we do?

What a giant pile of shit that was. 

Yeah, I do have to slow down at times when typing and getting distracted. Other than that, I repeat with correction :

@ 7.1.64 [TACOS!]  No one thinks of those words when we consider what the national anthem is. It has literally been performed millions of times with only the first verse. To act like the third verse - which no one ever sings or hears - is somehow a part of the national consciousness, and therefore a problem, is sheer lunacy.

@ 7.1.68   [CB]   Folks, that up there is not a c ritical thinking exercise. Tacos! just 'argued' that the official National Anthem written, scored, and song is not the anthem we think, and should reflect on during celebratory or other official proceedings.

Also, he puts no value on the 'art' of the song being an arduous prose set to a slow melody to understand why routinely (in the interests of time and activity) only the first stanza is played, voiced, or familiar outright.

And so Tacos continues to spread disinformation (@ 7.1.64 ) labeling that as reasonable and insulting us as fall-out. Absolutely astonishing! What else can we do?

Stubbornness is not the same as ignorance. And now you know.

Tacos! is simply being stubborn. He does not wish to admit the obvious. I mean, really, obvious. So there is this 'pitch' to how-comes and what-fors and misdirection. It would be funny, but really its sad. I clearly see what is occurring here is an intent to rush back to bashing the female athlete rather than deal with the problematic lines in the song. Shame on some conservatives for suggesting children of former slaves should have to 'endure' a song with such an outrage in it!

In sum,  "hireling" and "slave" references exist in the song. It's a slave-timey reference that would be better served catalogued in a museum archive. Of course, some conservatives and conservatives in general, exist as a group to keep life as it were from the 'start.' Having accepted the Star-Spangled Banner as our national anthem these folks insist everybody defer to it wholly. Using such passion displays as - 'we only sing the first stanza' as a cure to the problematic third (and for some fourth) stanzas!

I clearly see

No. You don’t. If this exchange has established anything at all, it’s that.

I clearly see what is occurring here is an intent to rush back to bashing the female athlete rather than deal with the problematic lines in the song. Shame on some conservatives for suggesting children of former slaves should have to 'endure' a song with such an outrage in it!

Tacos is just 100% wrong but he wears people out with his clinging to his arguments even after they've been defeated. 

People who want to complain about the national anthem because of the lyrics don't have to prove or demonstrate that they are sung or normally performed. All they have to do is show the offensive lyric exists and is part of the official national anthem.  Period, end of story. 

Personally, I think there are a couple reasons the 2nd , third and fourth stanzas are not normally performed that has nothing much to do with the lyric. First of all performing all the stanzas would make the song MUCH longer and people dont want to sit through a 5 or 6 minute long song before a ball game. Secondly, the lyrics after the first stanza are much less coherent or inspiring than the first stanza. 

Nonetheless , they are there and are part of the national anthem and anyone who wants to complain about the offensive lyric is well within their rights to do so. 

Tacos is just 100% wrong

I'm 100% wrong about people traditionally only singing the first verse? Sorry, but that's insane.

Here is Lady Gaga singing this allegedly racist song at President Biden's inauguration - an official government function. 

If you would, please give us the time codes for the racist parts. Also, be sure to pen a letter to our new Vice President to let her know that by applauding for this performance, she is betraying her race, or some such shit.

In the words of one of our infamous members, "Exactly right!"

All kidding aside, I love the first stanza. In 1991, I was stunned to hear the rendition song by Whitney Houston (her version). I did not watch Super Bowl that year, but the local San Diego, California station I frequent thought so much of her version that it went 'live' with it for months at 10 AM station call. I remember stopping what I was doing at work and literally "popping tall" for the duration.

That first stanza is a 'crusher' and 'exciter" if you internalize it and sing heartfelt (as Whitney Houston and that orchestra did in 1991).

Coming down to reality again. This young athlete has a point. The 3rd stanza can bother people of color and yes, White men were bothered by the term "hireling" which equated to a 'minimally paid slave' in the vernacular of the period. It was a time when these occupational terms were coming into their own. And people had not fully settled on even the word, "boss" was a synonym for the dreaded word: Master.

The fourth stanza offered religious implications that offended non-religious people of the nation.

I can handle the song's. . . construction throughout. However, what I will not do is what some conservatives tend to gravitate towards: a pretense that no offense was meant by the inclusion of the lines. Even Francis Scott Key was mocking hireling and runaway slaves about their comeuppance in the war.

You are wrong when you say the third stanza is not part of the national anthem. It most certainly is. 

If someone wants to complain about racially offensive language in the national anthem they have every right to do so. 

You have the right to say you arent impressed. 

Just "unforgivable" that this communication could be so dense.

You are wrong when you say the third stanza is not part of the national anthem. It most certainly is. 

If you believe that, go ask 10,000 people to sing the national anthem. I would bet real money that not one of them would go past the first verse.

If someone wants to complain about racially offensive language in the national anthem they have every right to do so. 

I never said anyone didn't have a right to express themselves. Meanwhile, I have every right to say they are tilting at windmills. And I am correct.

Just "unforgivable" that this communication could be so dense.

You can relax. No one is seeking your forgiveness.

If you believe that, go ask 10,000 people to sing the national anthem. I would bet real money that not one of them would go past the first verse.

Most people cannot recite more than the first line of the Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address. Doesnt mean the rest of those documents are not there. 

Just "unforgivable" that this communication could be so difficult to transmit to another life-long citizen of our country. .

(Excerpt.)

Francis Scott Key wrote the poem that became the song’s lyrics on Sept. 14, 1814, after witnessing the British bombardment of Fort McHenry in Baltimore during the (poorly named) War of 1812. As The Intercept recently noted , Key’s little-known third stanza includes these lines:

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.

By the time Key wrote these words, the British military included a regiment of former slaves called the Colonial Marines, whom the British had encouraged to escape and then trained and armed.

In fact, just weeks before, on Aug. 24, 1814, the Colonial Marines had participated in the Battle of Bladensburg outside Washington, D.C. The Bladensburg fight was a quick, embarrassing defeat for American troops — something Key knew because he’d witnessed it up close  as a volunteer aide to a U.S. general. The British forces, including the Colonial Marines, had then continued to Washington the same day, infamously occupying and torching the White House.

The Intercept stated that “slave” referred to these Colonial Marines. However, an enormous number of readers argued that this identification was incorrect, and that Key did not literally mean escaped slaves.

Many such commenters cited an obscure website that describes itself as “history for kids” and states that “slave” refers to U.S. sailors who had been seized and press-ganged into the British navy. (The impressment of Americans was a central grievance cited by the U.S in the lead-up to war.) Others suggested that small-r republican rhetoric from the era often referred to any subjects of a monarch as slaves, and hence the word simply signified all the British.

Key himself never explained precisely what he meant by the third stanza. According to Marc Leepson , author of a recent biography of Key, Key spoke about “The Star-Spangled Banner” in public just once and did not mention this issue. Key did not write about the song in his surviving letters.

That said, Leepson explains, while researching his book he “did not find any historians who interpreted the ‘hireling and slave’ line as anything but a reference to the enslaved people who escaped their bonds and went over to the British side.” Leepson himself also believes it is “clear” this is the correct way to interpret the stanza.

theintercept

I see. And what would you like us to do about it? Are you proposing that we change the words to a song no one sings? Do you realize the specific words of the anthem are not even defined by law? Neither is the music. 

All the US Code says about it is this:

The composition consisting of the words and music known as the Star-Spangled Banner is the national anthem.

That could mean anything.That's why whether it's Kate Smith or Jimi Hendrix , it can all be the national anthem.

And we're talking about words no one ever uses. Words that people can't even agree on what they mean.

Furthermore, when they do play at the anthem at the Olympic games or trials, they don't even usually have the words. It's just the music.

I don't know how to explain it any clearer: There. Is. No. Problem.

Well, since you are not going to budge or cease, I might as well add the daughter of President Woodrow Wilson. She sang the Star Spangled Banner before it was chosen to be our anthem. (Some say it is because of her that it was helped in its election):

Note: Ms. Woodrow Wilson "bookends" the first and last stanzas, plural,  together. I guess we can call that encompassing "the whole enchilada." What say you? Can we call it the whole version or not?

Please, move away from my comments. Is there no one else you can vex readily available?

So you’re telling me 1) She wasn’t singing it as the national anthem, and 2) She skipped the part you find offensive? Not to mention 3) This was 106 years ago.

So if you want to know do I see a problem? No, I still don’t.

Without comment:

Maybe the time has come for the Star Spangled Banner to be updated in its third (fourth) stanzas? Or is retirement of this song to the vault of history finally arrived?

The song is completely and beautifully song by a black youth ensemble at 10:00 on the video. Very informative and nuanced video.

The Original wording by Francis Scott Key. Can you make out the third stanza? Oh, it's true. It's true.

loc