cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
r3020
Senior Advisor

Re: Probably OK with objecting

As Sam said. Democrats.

WCMO
Senior Advisor

Re: Probably OK with objecting

According to British historian Robin Blackburn, the phrase allude to the thousands of ex-slaves in the British ranks organized as the Corps of Colonial Marines, who had been liberated by the British and demanded to be placed in the battle line "where they might expect to meet their former masters." Mark Clague, a professor of musicology at the University of Michigan, argues that the "middle two verses of Key's lyric vilify the British enemy in the War of 1812" and "in no way glorifies or celebrates slavery." Clague writes that "For Key ... the British mercenaries were scoundrels and the Colonial Marines were traitors who threatened to spark a national insurrection." This harshly anti-British nature of Verse 3 led to its omission in sheet music in World War I, when the British and the U.S. were allies. Responding to the assertion of writer Jon Schwarz of The Intercept that the song is a "celebration of slavery," Clague said that: "The reference to slaves is about the use and in some sense the manipulation, of black Americans to fight for the British, with the promise of freedom. The American forces included African-Americans as well as whites. The term 'freemen,' whose heroism is celebrated in the fourth stanza, would have encompassed both."

Others suggest that "Key may have intended the phrase as a reference to the British Navy's practice of impressment (kidnapping sailors and forcing them to fight in defense of the crown), or as a semi-metaphorical slap at the British invading force as a whole (which also included a large number of mercenaries).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner

sam1wiseone
Senior Contributor

Re: Probably OK with objecting


@jennys_mn wrote:

@sam1wiseone wrote:

@sdholloway56 wrote:

Nor does Y'all Qaeda, which appears to much more deeply invested in violence here.


Democrats are the ones burning looting and destroying public property.  Only an idiot would say otherwise.


I’m not an idiot.  And I will say otherwise.  The riots were not a result of a political uprising - they were the result of unnecessarily police brutality.  And that affects all political parties.  To say otherwise, you bringing that crap here, makes you ghe idiot....

Jen


Once again you justify  burning looting and murder, against people who had little to do with your excuse.    

sam1wiseone
Senior Contributor

Re: Probably OK with objecting


@sam1wiseone wrote:

@jennys_mn wrote:

@sam1wiseone wrote:

@sdholloway56 wrote:

Nor does Y'all Qaeda, which appears to much more deeply invested in violence here.


Democrats are the ones burning looting and destroying public property.  Only an idiot would say otherwise.


I’m not an idiot.  And I will say otherwise.  The riots were not a result of a political uprising - they were the result of unnecessarily police brutality.  And that affects all political parties.  To say otherwise, you bringing that crap here, makes you ghe idiot....

Jen


Once again you justify  burning looting and murder, against people who had little to do with your excuse.    


The ones responsible for any systemic police brutality that might be occurring are the ones running the police departments, democrats. 

cmilligan1958g
Senior Contributor

Re: Probably OK with objecting


@jennys_mn wrote:

@sam1wiseone wrote:

@sdholloway56 wrote:

Nor does Y'all Qaeda, which appears to much more deeply invested in violence here.


Democrats are the ones burning looting and destroying public property.  Only an idiot would say otherwise.


I’m not an idiot.  And I will say otherwise.  The riots were not a result of a political uprising - they were the result of unnecessarily police brutality.  And that affects all political parties.  To say otherwise, you bringing that crap here, makes you ghe idiot....

Jen