Flags, songs & Identity: Rule Britannia?
So, lunchtime today, we listened to Any Questions. Jennie's take is here (and it's worth noting that her current display name is "Vince Cable Fangirl"), but one of the topics that came up was the subject of the National Anthem. Because, seriously, this Govt has, apparently, just figured out that having the line Rebellious Scots to crush might not actually be the best idea in a song meant for all of Britain. Of course, the interesting thing in the story wasn't actually covered.
Not England, Britain nor the UK as a whole actually has a national anthem; I'll let Gareth explain at Anthem4England:Surprisingly it is not the official UK national anthem as it has never been adopted by Royal Proclamation or Act of Parliament, and hence there is also no authorised version.
The order of the verses is disputed (I was taught verse one and three were the whole song in the Scouts, but that was wrong) and it has no legal status as far as I know, at least not in the UK-in many Commonwealth countries it does, it's the Royal anthem, which is all it actually is here-it's the song for the family, not the country (and remember, it's Queen and Country).
One of the worst songs ever written
It's also one of the worst songs ever written, bloody awful to sing, completely uninspiring and dull as ditchwater. There is of course a less dull version, but even I'd not propose that to be officially adopted.
Given that England has no anthem, I'd personally favour either Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem, but neither is great, merely adequate. Perhaps we could commission a decent one? Or maybe the national sporting bodies could do it, but please, not Baddiel and Skinner.
As for Britain? No contest, can anyone really object to this? When Britain first at Heav'n's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain;
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
The nations not so blest as thee,
Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame,
All their attempts to bend thee down
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crowned,
And manly hearts to guide the fair.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
I sure as hell don't, and the anti-slavery/anti-tyranny message appeals to me on a number of levels. There is, of course, a different, valid objection. Lorna alluded to it here awhile back: What really freaked me out was seeing St George's flag posters, since I generally associate that with an even more virulent brand of nationalism.
Personally, I view the surrendering of national symbols to the extremist bigots and xenophobes to be a problem. Many people want identity, they want to belong to something.
When I first started a politics only blog, I said in the first post:
I'm a Devonshire, Westcountry, English, British European. I can be, and am, proud to be all of these things, and it remains true today. There's a reason that site, and most other sites I build about politics, will have symbols people identify with within the design-it helps get the message across to those who don't have strong opinions, and it persuades people who softly oppose your position to still listen to you. Taking an extremist view, even if it's one I would agree with such as:
So now I'll sing no anthems,
Of death and glory,
And I'll stand beneath no flag, shout no cheers for victory.
But I vow that I will
Live my life in harmony,
And teach my children's children to love my father's enemies.
means that some people who would otherwise be sympathetic will ignore the actual point-they'll dismiss the messenger and thus ignore the message. By reaching out, by updating symbols of identity that mean things to people, we're not giving up the idea of the nation and the identity to the bigots, we're reclaiming it as ours.
Reading The Glorious Revolution reminded me of just how radical England (and indeed Britain) has really always been, and even when the radicals are in the descendent or out of power, they've always been there.
Nothing wrong with symbols of identity
There's nothing wrong with symbols, of identity, of wanting to belong and feel part of something. Even a damn filthy liberal internationalist like me likes to have an identity, but it's fluid, not fixed. I'm not just Devonshire, not just British, I'm both, and many other things as well. I dislike categories because people like to use them in an exclusionary way-that's wrong. Being one thing doesn't prevent you from being another, and sometimes portraying it as if it does does more damage than it should.
The problem with political identity is that it sometimes gets hijacked by extremists, and then those that oppose them sometimes thing they also have to oppose the symbols they've stolen. I disagree; rejecting the symbols means that those who feel they belong sometimes go to those we object to, and thus we lose. Sometimes.
The biggest problems with British and English symbols of identity is that many of them, like the cross like flags and that awful dirge, are simply crap. I'd like to see the Welsh Dragon included on the Jack not because I have many Welsh friends, but simply because, well, Dude? Dragons are cool.
Not England, Britain nor the UK as a whole actually has a national anthem; I'll let Gareth explain at Anthem4England:Surprisingly it is not the official UK national anthem as it has never been adopted by Royal Proclamation or Act of Parliament, and hence there is also no authorised version.
The order of the verses is disputed (I was taught verse one and three were the whole song in the Scouts, but that was wrong) and it has no legal status as far as I know, at least not in the UK-in many Commonwealth countries it does, it's the Royal anthem, which is all it actually is here-it's the song for the family, not the country (and remember, it's Queen and Country).
One of the worst songs ever written
It's also one of the worst songs ever written, bloody awful to sing, completely uninspiring and dull as ditchwater. There is of course a less dull version, but even I'd not propose that to be officially adopted.
Given that England has no anthem, I'd personally favour either Land of Hope and Glory or Jerusalem, but neither is great, merely adequate. Perhaps we could commission a decent one? Or maybe the national sporting bodies could do it, but please, not Baddiel and Skinner.
As for Britain? No contest, can anyone really object to this? When Britain first at Heav'n's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain;
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
The nations not so blest as thee,
Shall in their turns to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame,
All their attempts to bend thee down
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine;
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crowned,
And manly hearts to guide the fair.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves:
Britons never shall be slaves.
I sure as hell don't, and the anti-slavery/anti-tyranny message appeals to me on a number of levels. There is, of course, a different, valid objection. Lorna alluded to it here awhile back: What really freaked me out was seeing St George's flag posters, since I generally associate that with an even more virulent brand of nationalism.
Personally, I view the surrendering of national symbols to the extremist bigots and xenophobes to be a problem. Many people want identity, they want to belong to something.
When I first started a politics only blog, I said in the first post:
I'm a Devonshire, Westcountry, English, British European. I can be, and am, proud to be all of these things, and it remains true today. There's a reason that site, and most other sites I build about politics, will have symbols people identify with within the design-it helps get the message across to those who don't have strong opinions, and it persuades people who softly oppose your position to still listen to you. Taking an extremist view, even if it's one I would agree with such as:
So now I'll sing no anthems,
Of death and glory,
And I'll stand beneath no flag, shout no cheers for victory.
But I vow that I will
Live my life in harmony,
And teach my children's children to love my father's enemies.
means that some people who would otherwise be sympathetic will ignore the actual point-they'll dismiss the messenger and thus ignore the message. By reaching out, by updating symbols of identity that mean things to people, we're not giving up the idea of the nation and the identity to the bigots, we're reclaiming it as ours.
Reading The Glorious Revolution reminded me of just how radical England (and indeed Britain) has really always been, and even when the radicals are in the descendent or out of power, they've always been there.
Nothing wrong with symbols of identity
There's nothing wrong with symbols, of identity, of wanting to belong and feel part of something. Even a damn filthy liberal internationalist like me likes to have an identity, but it's fluid, not fixed. I'm not just Devonshire, not just British, I'm both, and many other things as well. I dislike categories because people like to use them in an exclusionary way-that's wrong. Being one thing doesn't prevent you from being another, and sometimes portraying it as if it does does more damage than it should.
The problem with political identity is that it sometimes gets hijacked by extremists, and then those that oppose them sometimes thing they also have to oppose the symbols they've stolen. I disagree; rejecting the symbols means that those who feel they belong sometimes go to those we object to, and thus we lose. Sometimes.
The biggest problems with British and English symbols of identity is that many of them, like the cross like flags and that awful dirge, are simply crap. I'd like to see the Welsh Dragon included on the Jack not because I have many Welsh friends, but simply because, well, Dude? Dragons are cool.