In an opinion piece from the Washington Post titled, "O say can you see that we need a new anthem?", its objective was to push the idea that the national anthem should be replaced with a more, dare I say, user-friendly piece that we can remember and sing along with.
While I cannot say with all honesty that I can repeat the anthem word for word. Nor can I say that I am able to hit each note pitch perfect.
Yet, to say we should get rid of it, simply because to sing to an easier tune, that is another sign that we as a people have become so distant from our roots, that we are willing to sacrifice an song that has become synonymous with our nation, even before it became our official anthem.
Yes the song is difficult, and it requires a trained voice to sing it properly, but it also signifies the conditions that led to its creation, and the nation that claims it today.
The song was written by Francis Scott Key, a man who was forced to stay aboard a British warship, while the battle for Ft. McHenry was waging.
This engagement followed the burning of Washington, D.C., and was one of two engagements that helped to secure American sovereignty during the early 19th century.
The real issue that must be looked at is; whether or not it is the song's fault or our fault for its difficulty?
If we gave a care about the song, and its cultural investment, we would make the effort to know the words, to try and hit the notes, success or no.
The sad fact is we don't care about our heritage, our culture, about anything that doesn't mean result in our own enjoyment and amusement.
I think whoever wrote this editorial needs to stop blaming the song, and blaming the people who have forsaken it, for they allowed this problem to fester itself into being.
Comments