Americans everywhere took a brief pause from threatening to kill each other online to share that they believe Ingrid Andress should have been sober during her performance of the National Anthem Monday night.
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.
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 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 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 made 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 banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
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.
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?