I wonder where else one would derive the 'principles on which America was founded,' than from national documents? Of course, the Star Spangled Banner was not an uncontested foundational text in the sense that the Declaration of Independence was. But a generally accepted national anthem that contains a verse about exterminating all those who would threaten the home of the brave, and specifically refers to leaving them 'no refuge,' certainly suggests that America never was the sparkling, egalitarian utopia whose principles are now belied by the War On Terror.
Chuck D might call call this kind of verse, as he does others, one of 'America's macho bar-room tales of a beat-you-down past.' To Chuck, and to me, America has always had quick recourse to the cudgel and the sword, and only the misty-eyed perceive things to be different.
First, I have no idea who Chuck D is. I can live with this. (Also, given when the SSB was written, wouldn't he say it was one of "America's macho bar-room tales of a beat-you-down present"? It's not like it was written decades after the fact by a misty-eyed soul.)
Second, as you yourself noted, the Star-Spangled Banner is not a founding document. I also suspect you might be hard-pressed to find many people who know the verse I quoted, or can tell you which one of how many it is.
Third, I reiterate what I said earlier--I think you are ascribing intent to the verse describing the fate of the enemy, where the author is simply recording events.
I can live with your not knowing who Chuck D is, too.
As to the present/past issue, the valorization of a document - the continued identification with the behaviors identified - indicates to me the continued acceptability of those methods. Your intent/recording distinction is thus not as obvious to me as it seems to be to you.
I put it to you that America, founded in war and rebellion, and with both contitutional and cultural cornerstones celebrating that violence, never existed in the utopian, rights-observing-ABOVE-THE-NEED-FOR-SECURITY sense that the OP indicated. This returns me to the question of which founding principles are being perverted in the modern day? The Trent Affair is pretty contemporary to the writing of the Star spangled Banner - why don't we look there for an indication of what concrete practices were in place at the time the anthem in question was written?
theweaselking posted the initial post, and said nothing of the sort. I posted the initial reference to the Star-Spangled Banner in unhappy recognition of how stated ideals (not practices) were giving way before actual practices--to wit, the havoc of war and the battle's confusion overriding a home and a country to the point where even the concept seems impossible.
Which OP (original poster?) are you claiming indicated an actual utopian existence of America?
As to the valorization of a document, I would like some reference that indicates that the contents as a whole are widely known and valorized, rather than just the first verse, and that such valorization is accepted as a guidebook rather than an abstract ideal.
You may look for concrete practices all you like, and when I am interested in having a discussion of what was going on, rather than sadly observing how what is going on reflects an occurrence which was (according to the rhetoric quoted) avoided lo those many years ago, I shall be happy to hear what you turn up.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-02 09:40 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 09:43 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 03:56 pm (UTC)Chuck D might call call this kind of verse, as he does others, one of 'America's macho bar-room tales of a beat-you-down past.' To Chuck, and to me, America has always had quick recourse to the cudgel and the sword, and only the misty-eyed perceive things to be different.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 05:58 pm (UTC)Second, as you yourself noted, the Star-Spangled Banner is not a founding document. I also suspect you might be hard-pressed to find many people who know the verse I quoted, or can tell you which one of how many it is.
Third, I reiterate what I said earlier--I think you are ascribing intent to the verse describing the fate of the enemy, where the author is simply recording events.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 07:22 pm (UTC)As to the present/past issue, the valorization of a document - the continued identification with the behaviors identified - indicates to me the continued acceptability of those methods. Your intent/recording distinction is thus not as obvious to me as it seems to be to you.
I put it to you that America, founded in war and rebellion, and with both contitutional and cultural cornerstones celebrating that violence, never existed in the utopian, rights-observing-ABOVE-THE-NEED-FOR-SECURITY sense that the OP indicated. This returns me to the question of which founding principles are being perverted in the modern day? The Trent Affair is pretty contemporary to the writing of the Star spangled Banner - why don't we look there for an indication of what concrete practices were in place at the time the anthem in question was written?
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 07:35 pm (UTC)Which OP (original poster?) are you claiming indicated an actual utopian existence of America?
As to the valorization of a document, I would like some reference that indicates that the contents as a whole are widely known and valorized, rather than just the first verse, and that such valorization is accepted as a guidebook rather than an abstract ideal.
You may look for concrete practices all you like, and when I am interested in having a discussion of what was going on, rather than sadly observing how what is going on reflects an occurrence which was (according to the rhetoric quoted) avoided lo those many years ago, I shall be happy to hear what you turn up.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-12-03 06:54 pm (UTC)