(Originally written in 2020)
I was watching “Uncomfortable Conversations With A Black Man”, by Emmanuel Acho, recently and came across a quote. In the episode, Acho said “history is meant to be remembered but history isn’t always meant to be celebrated.”
What does it mean to remember history vs. celebrating it?
Following the fall of Apartheid in South Africa, and following the end of World War 2 in Germany, there were commissions set up that had the goal of helping the countries move forward, while dealing with their pasts. These truth and reconciliation commissions were painful, but they also served as key components of learning from the past, seeking to reconcile wrongs committed, and moving forward.
It may have been easier for all parties involved to tear down Auschwitz. For those that lost family members there, the sight would be a painful one. At least 1.3 Million people were imprisoned in the concentration camp, and at least 1.1 million of them were killed. For the Germans, it could be a painful reminder of the sins of their ancestors. But in spite of all the reasons why people would want the camp of terror and death removed, it has been preserved, lest we forget. But do you know what you won’t find in Germany? You will not find any statues of Nazi officials or their leader.
There have been a lot of discussions about statues and other traces from the past in our country. One notable discussion over the past decade or so has regarded The Star Spangled Banner as our national anthem. Should we keep it? Should we get rid of it? And, no matter which side you fall on, why? Before we answer those questions, let’s look at some of the events that have brought us to this point.
Our nation has a pretty murky past. Just to clear things up before we move forward, I don’t expect all people from all points in history to be as “woke” as we may be today. As anyone who has studied history can tell you, there are examples of good people who have done bad things, there are bad people who have done good things, and so forth.
By the time of our Founding Fathers, there was already discussions regarding slavery and the role it should play in the new nation. Some of the men favored slavery, while other’s thought it shouldn’t be allowed, or at least there should be a plan to phase out slavery early into the new nation’s history.
On paper it is noble and laudable that the Declaration of Independence says, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” All men are created equal. This would be great, if they actually believed it. Unfortunately, what they meant by all men here is all white men. I’m not saying this myself, but rather some of the signers said it themselves. Six of the same men who signed the Declaration of Independence also worked on the Constitution more than a decade later. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution said that for taxation and representation purposes, blacks were to be counted as 3/5 a person. So, as the United States begins as a new nation, slavery will continue and the plight of the blacks doesn’t improve.
As the young nation is moving forward, the idea of slavery keeps coming up. Every time a new state seeks to be admitted, it causes problems. Will slavery be allowed in the new state or no, and what will a decision either way do to the balance of power between pro-slavery states and anti-slavery states?
The first part of remembering vs. celebrating our past that I want to dive a little deeper into is our current national anthem.
After a short period of time as an independent nation, the United States is back at war with Great Britain, in the poorly named War of 1812. Poorly named, because the next thing I want to talk about happens in the war in 1814.
In September 1814, a lawyer by the name of Francis Scott Key was onboard a British ship, if my memory serves me correctly, trying to negotiate the release of a friend of his. While on the ship, he witnessed the battle of Fort McHenry, which inspired him to write a poem called The Defense of Fort M’Henry.
Let’s explore a little of the background of the war before we look at the poem.
The British weren’t ready to fight the United States again when the war stated, and it put the Brits on their heels. Over time though they were able to bring more soldiers to the States, and added allies along the way. Britain, which had abolished slavery a few years before the war, thanks to a lifelong mission of abolitionist William Wilberforce, and to add able-bodied men to their fight, they offered freedom to slaves or money to impoverished individuals who would join their fight. This may seem like treason to us that people would go fight for the enemy. However, when you consider that the enslaved men were only counted as 3/5 human, and had no real rights, the promise of freedom would be appealing. To these men, the Union Jack likely would have been to them what the Statue of Liberty would become to others a century later. Some of the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free”, took their chances and joined forces with the British and fought, maybe not as much against their former captors, but for their freedom.
One more aspect we need to consider, before looking at why I, as well as others, view the Star Spangled Banner as racist, is the background and life of Francis Scott Key. Key’s family was heavily invested in owning slaves. At the age of 21, Key purchased his first slave. Later in life he served as the district attorney in Washington D.C.. While D.A., he repeatedly used his position to defend slavery and attack abolitionists. Once, when a slave went after his mistress with an axe, Key used his position to go after a man who was known for spreading abolitionist material and put him on trial. A mob tried to hang Rueben Crandall but they were unsuccessful. After he was eventually acquitted, Key lamented his loss in the trial, and the trial sounded the death knell of his political career.
So, why do I share all of this? It gives background to Key’s famous poem.
The first verse is what most people think of when they think of the National Anthem.
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 rockets’ red glare, the bombs 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?
However, that is one of four stanzas to the poem/song. The third stanza is what many consider racist.
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.
Without knowing some background, this stanza seems like the poem takes an odd turn to talk about the hireling and slave. However, if you consider that hundreds if not thousands of black slaves had decided to take the British up on their offer, and many of them were fighting against their own slave owners, it starts to paint a clearer picture. Key voices his disdain to the hireling and slave who had joined the other side. “Their blood has washed out their foul footstep’s pollution”, paints a picture of what Key seems to think is the deserving fate of the slaves who opted for freedom by fleeing to the British side—namely their blood should be shed. He goes on to say that nothing can save them from the “terror of flight or the gloom of the grave.” If Key, and other men like him, cannot benefit from the labor of the slaves, than the grave is possibly the next best solution. So, when Key repeats the refrain “O’er the land of the free and the home of brave”, Key obviously didn’t mean what we interpret this phrase to be as white Americans in 2020.
Some may contend that we shouldn’t hold with such scrutiny the lyrics of the National Anthem, since it was penned 206 years ago. If it had become the Nation’s song at that point then maybe that would make this conversation take a slightly different turn. However, The Star Spangled Banner didn’t become the National Anthem until 1931.
The Star Spangled Banner had been used on occasion before 1931, as had Hail, Columbia and My Country ‘Tis of Thee.
In 1915 President Woodrow Wilson held a screening of the film Birth of a Nation, formerly known as The Clansman” at the White House. Wilson hailed the movie, which portrayed the Ku Klux Klan as heroic individuals helping to preserve the American society of values and pushed an agenda of white supremacy. In 1916, Wilson backed the use of Key’s poem as the official song for the country. I do not have proof of whether Wilson’s move has any causation or collation between his known racist views, but any study of Wilson will show that he held many racist views.
In 1931, Congress officially made the song the National Anthem.
As noted earlier, over the 150 or so years before 1931, The U.S. had used multiple songs for official use. So, the idea of changing the National Anthem isn’t outside the realm of possibility. If our country truly seeks to live out it’s official motto E Pluribus Unum--out of many, one—then we need to consider the voices of the many, and not just voices that sound a lot like our own. Do we truly wish to be “one nation”, as the Pledge of Allegiance proclaims, then compromises will have to take place. If we wish to be one country, made up of many nations, we can proceed as we have—as long as we maintain the majority.
We can remember history, and I would contend we must remember history. But should we celebrate history? In some cases yes, and in other cases no. As for me, I do not view The Star Spangled Banner as something that should be celebrated. However, living in the country we do, I realize others will disagree with me.
