• Socsa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I don’t really read that as condoning slavery, as much as acknowledging that slaves fought and died in the war?

      • kewjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        4 months ago

        the entire songs context is around the Battle of Baltimore which included 25 hours of naval bombardment. from the perspective of the ships where it was witnessed and given the volume of shells fired they assumed everyone would be dead.

        • pyre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          that’s still not good. why does it only talk about slaves and hirelings then?

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            4 months ago

            Because it talks about other people in other places. Also, in context it could be referring to the British forces themselves. It had already been used as a rhetorical device for that after the revolutionary war.

            Really though the idea that he would take a break in a poem about the war of 1812 and specifically the bombardment of Fort McHenry to dunk on slaves is just weird too. It doesn’t fit.

            Here’s the complete extra stanzas.

            On the shore dimly seen through the mists of the deep Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes, What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep, As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses? Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam, In full glory reflected now shines in the stream, 'Tis the star-spangled banner - O long may it wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

            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 wash’d out their foul footstep’s 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.

            O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation! Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto - “In God is our trust,” And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

            • pyre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              9
              ·
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              i didn’t say it doesn’t talk about others anywhere. I’m talking in context of terror of flight and gloom of grave. how can anyone not see the contrast between how freemen and slaves are mentioned here I don’t understand. it’s clear why it says freemen stand for their loved home and slaves shall have no refuge. really weird seeing this shit being defended.

              • chumbalumber@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                ·
                4 months ago

                To be clear: your interpretation of it is not being defended. People are arguing instead that you’ve interpreted it wrong – i.e. that the ‘hirelings and slaves’ are the British soldiers, being likened to mercenaries (hirelings) and pointing out that they often served unwillingly after being press-ganged (slaves).

                I have no skin in the game, but you seem to be taking others’ statements in pretty bad faith.

                • pyre@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  it’s cope, post hoc rationalization. the person who wrote the poem was a slave owner who believed black people to be an inferior race. it was a threat to black slaves not to flee or fight for the British side (i wonder why they would ever do that).

                  • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    It was a poem about the bombardment of a fort at the subsequent repulsion of the British forces in the Battle of Baltimore in 1814. It was literally titled “Defence of Fort M’Henry” before it was used as the lyrics to the national anthem.

                    The context of the poem doesn’t jibe with it being about African slaves.

                    We have lots of bullshit revisionist history that tries to whitewash racism, but this ain’t it.

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                4 months ago

                This was you right?

                that’s still not good. why does it only talk about slaves and hirelings then?

                Did you read any of what I wrote?