The only way the BLM/ANTIFA types, with their Marxist beliefs and tactics, can make history is to teardown and erase the history of their betters, most of whom have built and grown from their own troubled and scarred history to liberty, opportunity and prosperity. Communists have always pitted people against each other, based on race or religion or class. Communism cannot move in and take a foothold unless the morale of the people they seek to control fully has been beaten down into a deep emotional and psychological depression.
At the core of today’s dangerously willful lack of logic and reasoning is the refusal to permit but one interpretation of meaning apart from that of the current dictatorial mob. Again, this stems from the fact that this same collective of anti-American destructionists insist we only consider that during the time of slavery in this country, a person may have owned slaves. That and only that. Nothing else that they accomplished. Nothing.
For decades now, with the destruction of our history as a goal, this collective has relentlessly inched toward that goal. Who are they? Highly paid tenured university overseers of the generations after them and the media who yearn to be officially recognized as ‘state-run media’ as a badge of accomplishment and honor. Their underlying goal ventures far beyond holding any discussion of the slavery abolished nearly eight score years ago. Evidenced now in our children’s schools, young people have been conditioned to throw away individuality, our genetically designed critical thinking traits, and the ability to think and decided for ourselves.
Hell, a whole new social media industry has been built around this desecration of doing away with thinking for ourselves … “Influencers” is what they’re called, in everything from fashion to entertainment to what and how you are expected and demanded to feel and ultimately to ‘think’, according to some low IQ, polished and expensively coiffed would-be celebrity who insists you follow their feelings on issues and the world.
Well, the predictable result is the mob of influencers in today’s streets, desecrating our nation’s history and demanding you follow their ideological rampage of destruction and vengeance, and accept the blame for the perceived sins of generations long before you, or you will be cancelled (perhaps permanently).
About three years ago, probably about the time a certain NFL quarterback out on the left coast started “taking the knee” during the National Anthem before football games, National Review writer, Walter Olson, wrote an article titled, Is ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ Racist? Olson discusses the different ways to look at and interpret the song’s lyrics, most especially the much criticized third verse:
Exhibit A in critics’ account is the anthem’s seldom-sung third verse, which gloats at the defeat of the “band who so vauntingly swore” America would lose its independence:
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.
There it is: the word “slave.” To an American of 2017, the word is likely to mean one thing only: the system of chattel slavery prevailing in Key’s day in Maryland and throughout the American South. Key was from a slaveholding family and litigated many cases involving slavery issues; he argued numerous cases in favor of slaves’ freedom, but also prosecuted a prominent abolitionist.
Not so clear is what the phrase “hireling and slave” would have meant to listeners in Key’s day.
To some critics who believe the reference to be racial, it’s significant that among the British troops Key fought against in Maryland during the War of 1812 were the Corps of Colonial Marines, free persons of color who had formerly been slaves.
But there are other possibilities to consider, too.
At the time Key was writing, the word “slave” (we’ll get to “hireling” in a minute) had long functioned in English as a wide-ranging epithet, hurled at persons of any and all colors, nationalities, and conditions of servitude or otherwise.
This usage had not disappeared by Key’s lifetime. In Robert Burns’s battle poem “Scots Wha Hae,” written in 1793 though set more than 400 years earlier, the word “slave” is an insult directed at his fellow Scots who would flee rather than follow their king into the Battle of Bannockburn.
To Americans, while “slave” was both a common descriptive word and an epithet, “hireling” — especially in contexts of poetry and literature — ordinarily carried derogatory connotations. It meant someone such as a soldier, official, or laborer who served for money rather than from some more durable loyalty such as to family or nation. Yet another Robert Burns song, “Parcel of Rogues,” describes Scotland as having been sold out for “hireling traitor’s wages.” “Hireling and slave” is not an accidental pairing; the two words often occurred together as epithets.
Some soldiers on the British side were involuntary conscripts, and the British crown’s policy of in effect kidnapping young men and sending them into battle had roused indignation, contempt, and disgust on the American side.
Was Key pursuing a grudge by describing, or misdescribing, the Corps of Colonial Marines as slaves? Or did he have the (predominantly white) conscripts in mind? Or was he just reaching for a common word pairing, familiar to his listeners, that provided him with a rhyme?
There’s no record of him 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.
EXACTLY! Thank you!
As with any art, literature or song/dance, the consumer adopts an impression or meaning even outside its creator’s intended meaning. For me, reading the terminology of the time, I can see Francis Scott Key’s usage of the term “slave” as describing those enemy soldiers forced into conscription by the British, enslaved by the King to whom that military belonged. And if Key was indeed including the black freed slaves who were conscripted into the British military in that war, I then interpret it as meaning they were now slaves of the King as well. You see how that works, free thought and interpretation?
However, in the current rancid stagnant water that is seeping into our nation today trying to drown us and our history, you and I, and even Francis Scott Key, are forbidden from having our own perceptions of anyone or anything outside the fortress of the ideological plantation that is being nailed up around us.
Quora: Did the British rescue slaves in the War of 1812? … “Rescue” is a tricky term to use. The ones that did escape and flee plantations in the American south were taken into duties in the British army and navy, but mostly in menial work positions on British ships or posts, eventually being permitted to fighting status in exclusively black regiments under white command as the Brits began to struggle in numbers as the war progressed. Post-war they were offered positions on ships and in the military, or allowed to live, mostly as farmers, on a number of the British-held West Indies Islands, some even going to Canada. All still faced the same degree of segregation, racism and bigotry as was the case in the States, even for free former slaves in the north. Since those antebellum and post-emancipation it was well-over a century of civil rights struggles in the entire nation. But to think this was not, and still isn’t the case, in other countries … even in the countries of the African continent under black African rule … is wrong.
Editor’s note: The War of 1812 was fought because of the practice of impressment, among other reasons. Americans, quite simply, were beaten senseless and when they woke up were on a Royal Navy ship, forced to serve. So, yes, these Americans were slaves. I’m fairly certain Key had that in the back of his mind … ~~Maggie