arugula2 wrote:

Animavore wrote:There's no real way around it. Marvel are going ahead with phase 4 and they've said they're increasing diversity. The anti-SJW crowd aren't going to win this. Disney have already seen massive earnings for Black Panther and Captain Marvel and now realise non-white men are very bankable. Despite the rally cry from the detractors of "Get woke. Go broke."

Well, Nike's earnings after Kaepernick proved this too. It's a shame these incidents aren't more of a "teachable moment". The biggest indictment of the broad conversation so far (with respect to Kaepernick) has been the lack of scrutiny into the national anthem, and its boastful glorification of slavery.

3rd verse:

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.

Lines 5-6 (pink) are a rejoinder to the first line (blue), which refers to the British - who, along with posing a threat to the republic in the War of 1812 (during which this garbage anthem was penned) also promised American slaves freedom if they fled & fought on the British side. The gleeful boast in this verse is exactly what this nation is built on. It's long overdue that its citizens get a clue.

You seem to be well informed on the topic, but perhaps you're unaware that the narrative you're presenting here is not definitive. It's a legitimate attempt at interpreting Key's words, but it's not the only such attempt. Mark Clague, an acknowledged authority on the US national anthem whose music history credentials are solid, has shown that Key may have had a rather different idea in mind when he wrote the phrase "hireling and slave."

I'll quote a section that is germane to the issue, but the whole piece is worth reading.

"'Star-Spangled Banner' critics miss the point" | CNN

"The Star-Spangled Banner" in no way glorifies or celebrates slavery. The middle two verses of Key's lyric vilify the British enemy in the War of 1812, what Key refers to in Verse 3 as "hirelings and slaves." This enemy included both whites and blacks, largely British professional soldiers (hirelings) but also the Corps of Colonial Marines (slaves). The Colonial Marines were escaped black American slaves who joined British forces because of the promise of freedom in return for fighting their former masters.

Fortunately, Britain honored this promise after the war, relocating the former slaves and their families to Halifax and Trinidad. For Key, however, the British mercenaries were scoundrels and the Colonial Marines were traitors who threatened to spark a national insurrection.

The graphic language of Key's denunciation of this British enemy led to the removal of Verse 3 in sheet music editions of the song in World War I, when the United States and Britain became staunch allies.

Yet in 1814 Key's lyric honored American soldiers both black and white. "The Star-Spangled Banner" celebrates the heroes who defended Fort McHenry in the face of almost certain defeat against the most powerful gunships of the era. America's soldiers included mainly whites, but also free and escaped blacks. Escaped slave William Williams served in the US infantry at Fort McHenry and was killed by a fragment of a British bomb. Another escaped slave, Charles Ball, writes in his memoirs of being among the American soldiers of the Chesapeake Bay Flotilla who courageously repelled a night attack and saved the city. "The Star-Spangled Banner" thus honors American military heroes, black and white, without regard to race. In this respect, "The Star-Spangled Banner" is not racist.

[Link to full article.]

SkyMutt wrote:You seem to be well informed on the topic, but perhaps you're unaware that the narrative you're presenting here is not definitive. It's a legitimate attempt at interpreting Key's words, but it's not the only such attempt. Mark Clague, who is acknowledged as an authority on the US national anthem, and whose music history credentials are solid, has shown that Key may have had a rather different idea in mind when he wrote the phrase "hireling and slave."

I have read alternative takes on the meaning, so yes I'm aware. None of them so far makes sense or read plainly.

A couple items re: method here. 1) You open by remarking I'm well-informed (but not well-informed); 2) assert there are other "legitimate" interpretations; 3) make an appeal to authority in place of actual argumentation; and 4) never articulate any one such "legitimate" interpretation. A quote won't do. Said quote, by the by, attempts to argue that "the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave" against "the hireling and the slave" (ie, they're too afraid to flee and guaranteed to die - either generally or at the hands of the soon-to-be-victorious Americans, according to F. Scott Key) is not an answer to the British inducement of slaves into fighting for Britain, because... there were freed slaves who fought on the American side & were recognized for doing so? That's a specious argument. You see, both can be true: that freed slaves might have fought against British forces & been honored in posterity for doing so and that the anthem explicitly taunts British promises to free brown conscripts, by promising terror and death to would-be 'defecting' slaves.

Iron out the logic yourself, otherwise you're employing the weakest kind of drive-by apologetics.

Perfectly in line with F. Scott Key's slaveholder status, incidentally. Can't expect more from him. And it's a curiously American sentiment to applaud slavers for allegedly being less cruel towards their enslaved persons than other slavers, like he and others of that era sometimes are.

arugula2 wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:You seem to be well informed on the topic, but perhaps you're unaware that the narrative you're presenting here is not definitive. It's a legitimate attempt at interpreting Key's words, but it's not the only such attempt. Mark Clague, who is acknowledged as an authority on the US national anthem, and whose music history credentials are solid, has shown that Key may have had a rather different idea in mind when he wrote the phrase "hireling and slave."

I have read alternative takes on the meaning, so yes I'm aware. None of them so far makes sense or read plainly.

A couple items re: method here. 1) You open by remarking I'm well-informed (but not well-informed); 2) assert there are other "legitimate" interpretations; 3) make an appeal to authority in place of actual argumentation; and 4) never articulate any one such "legitimate" interpretation. A quote won't do. Said quote, by the by, attempts to argue that "the terror of flight and the gloom of the grave" against "the hireling and the slave" (ie, they're too afraid to flee and guaranteed to die - either generally or at the hands of the soon-to-be-victorious Americans, according to F. Scott Key) is not an answer to the British inducement of slaves into fighting for Britain, because... there were freed slaves who fought on the American side & were recognized for doing so? That's a specious argument. You see, both can be true: that freed slaves might have fought against British forces & been honored in posterity for doing so and that the anthem explicitly taunts British promises to free brown conscripts, by promising terror and death to would-be 'defecting' slaves.

Iron out the logic yourself, otherwise you're employing the weakest kind of drive-by apologetics.

Thanks for the advice. I'm wasn't attempting to engage in apologetics. I was pointing out that you presented one interpretation as if it were definitive, when in fact that interpretation is disputed. My objective was achieved, and your disparagement of my "method" is irrelevant.

Hermit wrote:

felltoearth wrote:

Hermit wrote:

Svartalf wrote:As they have a right to be. halle berry as catwoman was enough of a disaster that the producers should have learned the lesson.

What's the lesson? Casting women in the lead role of movies titled "Batwoman" leads to disaster?

No, black women, of course. Duh.

Ah, yes. I forgot about Svarty's racist posts.

The new Batwoman should be a widowed, retired school teacher, in her late 60s, who dabbles in mystery writing. She would conveniently show up at crime scenes, proving more effective than the official investigators, thanks to her keen detective skills and astute questioning abilities.

And she should wear a twin set and pearls and be known to some as ‘Aunt Jessica’?

Murder she wrote, is this not?

Fallible wrote:And she should wear a twin set and pearls and be known to some as ‘Aunt Jessica’?

Hmm. That could just work.

Svartalf wrote:Murder she wrote, is this not?

No, no. This is the reimagined Batwoman: a totally original story concept.

Is she called Batwoman because of her batwings?

You are thinking of bingo wings.

"Bingowoman" is a different movie.

62. Tickety Boo.

BingWoman, I think I've read it, it's an underground comic about a lady with the superpower to find the links she wanted by searching on bing.

laklak wrote:"Bingowoman" is a different movie.

62. Tickety Boo.

Two fat ladies, 88.

SkyMutt wrote:Thanks for the advice. I'm wasn't attempting to engage in apologetics. I was pointing out that you presented one interpretation as if it were definitive, when in fact that interpretation is disputed. My objective was achieved, and your disparagement of my "method" is irrelevant.

An outlining of the method, not just a disparagement. You did not make any argument yourself, but deposited someone else's and asserted it as an adequate (and "authoritative") disputation. That's weak apologism.

I actually didn't focus at all on the first part of the quote - because it plainly argues what I'm arguing: that F. Scott Key was mocking the British legacy of conscripting enslaved persons with the promise of freeing them. So when he refers to "the slave" facing only "terror" and "the grave", he's boasting that all such enslaved persons could look forward to if they joined the Brits was to be hunted down and/or killed. Your author is making my point for me. He whitewashes it in the sentimental language of war ("...the [black conscripts] were traitors who threatened to spark a national insurrection.") Yes... and? An insurrection of enslaved persons against their slavers, nationwide? Would that we were so lucky. When we look back on the actions of these "traitors" what do we see? Enslaved persons willing to take up arms against slavers, to gain freedom for themselves - and possibly for hundreds of thousands more, depending on eventualities should Britain prevail (British abolition of slavery was still 2 decades away, but Britain had already taken steps in that direction - see below). It's good to note that when Key wants to identify the target of his threat, he is plain and forthright, referring to "the slave". I doubt Key would thank your author for whitewashing that vocabulary, but I'm sure posterity won't.

The 1812 war was unfinished business after the Revolutionary War, during which American slavers already had a taste of "slave treason" (as your author might characterize it on Key's behalf... a silly concept any modern writer should at least qualify). That prior national experience includes maybe 20,000 such enslaved persons having fought for the British by 1782. The terms of the peace included, of course, renumerations to Americans for their escaped (and treasonous) property. (I would love to see the minutes of those negotiations.) This is the culture F. Scott Key inherited, so his words are in keeping with the American official character. Nobody's arguing he's not a man of his time. Key's special beef with such "traitors" is fully explained by him being a slaver, with slaver friends, in a slaver-friendly country. His taunt has a personal (and yes, patriotic) ring to it.

By 1812, Britain had been actively suppressing the Atlantic slave trade for years, having already committed itself to harrassing American "merchant ships", which forms much of the basis for the Americans declaring war. So Key's taunt isn't just fitting for the time, and fitting for a slaver, but just the kind of pent up fist-shaking growl the presumptuous Brits had triggered by their years-long interferences.

But again, the author is making my argument for me... except he trims out most of the historical context, he generously whitewashes the language to parrot Key's own "patriotic" thinking, and he leans heavily on a non sequitur about there having been former slaves on the American side (addressed above). His conclusion does not follow. This does add up to weak apologism, and I hope I've adequately counted the ways.

I'm going to assume there's no real "dispute" because I haven't seen one so far.

Someone commission a memorial near Mt. Vernon, to the "traitor" Harry Washington, who fought for the British as his erstwhile "master", George, led the good American fight. Later, Harry would rebel against British colonial rule in Sierra Leone. A tiny fist in the eye of white supremacism everywhere - and not erased from history. Where is that statue?

arugula2 wrote:

SkyMutt wrote:Thanks for the advice. I'm [sic] wasn't attempting to engage in apologetics. I was pointing out that you presented one interpretation as if it were definitive, when in fact that interpretation is disputed. My objective was achieved, and your disparagement of my "method" is irrelevant.

An outlining of the method, not just a disparagement. You did not make any argument yourself, but deposited someone else's and asserted it as an adequate (and "authoritative") disputation. That's weak apologism.

I actually didn't focus at all on the first part of the quote - because it plainly argues what I'm arguing: that F. Scott Key was mocking the British legacy of conscripting enslaved persons with the promise of freeing them. So when he refers to "the slave" facing only "terror" and "the grave", he's boasting that all such enslaved persons could look forward to if they joined the Brits was to be hunted down and/or killed. Your author is making my point for me. He whitewashes it in the sentimental language of war ("...the [black conscripts] were traitors who threatened to spark a national insurrection.") Yes... and? An insurrection of enslaved persons against their slavers, nationwide? Would that we were so lucky. When we look back on the actions of these "traitors" what do we see? Enslaved persons willing to take up arms against slavers, to gain freedom for themselves - and possibly for hundreds of thousands more, depending on eventualities should Britain prevail (British abolition of slavery was still 2 decades away, but Britain had already taken steps in that direction - see below). It's good to note that when Key wants to identify the target of his threat, he is plain and forthright, referring to "the slave". I doubt Key would thank your author for whitewashing that vocabulary, but I'm sure posterity won't.

The 1812 war was unfinished business after the Revolutionary War, during which American slavers already had a taste of "slave treason" (as your author might characterize it on Key's behalf... a silly concept any modern writer should at least qualify). That prior national experience includes maybe 20,000 such enslaved persons having fought for the British by 1782. The terms of the peace included, of course, renumerations to Americans for their escaped (and treasonous) property. (I would love to see the minutes of those negotiations.) This is the culture F. Scott Key inherited, so his words are in keeping with the American official character. Nobody's arguing he's not a man of his time. Key's special beef with such "traitors" is fully explained by him being a slaver, with slaver friends, in a slaver-friendly country. His taunt has a personal (and yes, patriotic) ring to it.

By 1812, Britain had been actively suppressing the Atlantic slave trade for years, having already committed itself to harrassing American "merchant ships", which forms much of the basis for the Americans declaring war. So Key's taunt isn't just fitting for the time, and fitting for a slaver, but just the kind of pent up fist-shaking growl the presumptuous Brits had triggered by their years-long interferences.

But again, the author is making my argument for me... except he trims out most of the historical context, he generously whitewashes the language to parrot Key's own "patriotic" thinking, and he leans heavily on a non sequitur about there having been former slaves on the American side (addressed above). His conclusion does not follow. This does add up to weak apologism, and I hope I've adequately counted the ways.

I'm going to assume there's no real "dispute" because I haven't seen one so far.

The fact is that historians who know more about this topic than you or I do have differing interpretations of Key's lyrics. According to a number of articles that I've read, there is no consensus on this because there is nothing from the primary source on which to base a definitive interpretation. Two examples:

It doesn’t appear that Francis Scott Key ever specified what he did mean by the phrase, nor does its context point to a single, definitive interpretation.

[source]

But although claims of this sort ["racist anthem"] have been circulating since at least the 1990s, it would not be fair to say that historians are of one mind on whether Key’s song was understood in its day to be making any reference to race.

[. . .]

There’s no record of [Key] ever explaining why he chose those words. When we decide whether to give his words a reading that is charitable or otherwise, we make a choice too.

[source]

Within the scope of a piece written for the general public, Clague gives a reasonable historical context to his discussion of the question. One would expect no less from a respected musicologist. As a professor of Musicology, American Culture, and African American Studies who has worked to promote knowledge of black composers, it seems unlikely that he's somebody who's inclined to ignore or excuse racism. Rather it appears that his interpretation is based on his extensive research into the topic.

Regarding the use of scare quotes in referring to American merchant vessels: The US had banned the trans-Atlantic slave trade in 1807, the same year that Britain did. The Royal Navy's harrassment of American shipping may have caught an occassional American slave smuggling ship, but that was not its primary aim, and the US's complaint in regard to the actions of the Royal Navy had nothing to do with its blockade of the slave trade.

Examining Key's life, we find that his position on slavery was complex. As a lawyer he argued both sides of the question--as an advocate for blacks striving for their freedom (often pro bono) and also as an advocate for slave owners in court to keep people enslaved. He owned seven slaves, but freed four of them. He opposed abolition, but he was one of the founders of the American Colonization Society, which raised funds to buy slaves' freedom and pay for their passage to Africa. He also helped found a school to provide education for free blacks. To paint him as a "slaver" may serve a rhetorical purpose, but it fails by a wide margin to provide an accurate description of Key's position on how American society should move toward resolving the conflict between its stated ideals and the sordid reality of slavery.

Those who advocate for the interpretation that you favor have valid points. Perhaps it's true that Key wrote the phrase in question with racist intent. Those who advocate for a different interpretation also have valid points.

It seems likely to me that Key was referring to the escaped slaves who were fighting on the side of the British. His poem unequivocally revels in the defeat of those he describes as "hireling and slave" who prosecuted the British attack on the American fort. However, in the actual text there is no glorification of slavery, nor is there any promotion of racism. In my opinion, given the complex nature of Key's position on slavery and the lack of any primary source evidence regarding his intended meaning, those who find such ideas in a three word phrase are on no firmer ground historically than those who do not.

Yabbut slavery.

wage slavery still is slavery.

I will now read the post fully, and digest, and respond.

...
Almost there.

Allowed myself to be sidetracked by a minor dip into the Lancaster School system, so I'm waiting for access. Leave it to an author to not directly answer a question, but offer up a sale of his book... but I don't blame him, it's his livelihood.

The blog writer whose blog article is cited in support of the claim that the Georgetown Lancaster School was a school set up "for freed people of color", hasn't replied either - but also his article says no such thing.

The full range of possibilities regarding Key's involvement in the school is irrelevant to the core argument anyway - of Key's racism behind the "slave" lyric - but it's another example of obfuscation & sloppy apologism, and fleshing it out is arduous because propagators have no incentive to do it themselves. This is why trained historians (Clague is not one) are at least a good starting point - they cite all their sources and generally contextualize all their arguments.

Anyways, overlong summary soon. It's already almost 20,000 words including quotes, but I'm trimming as I go.