Many of the "burning issues of the day" pass me right by. And unfortunately, those are the very things that masses of readers want to talk about. I think maybe they get whipped up by television, which I don’t watch. Why don’t I watch it? Because it spends so much time on these issues.
It’s not that the issues are uninteresting per se; it’s that you’re expected to passionately assume one or the other idiotically exaggerated position. And if you don’t, you lose your audience. They can get more stimulation elsewhere.
Take the National Anthem in Spanish "issue." Please.
We have letters on "both" sides in today’s paper. (People always want to see "both" sides of every issue in the paper. As if there were only two.) Here’s the first:
Singing anthem in Spanish shows unity
If the Gideons hand out a New Testament to you on a street corner, inside the front cover you will find John 3:16, a verse at the center of the Christian faith, translated into dozens of languages.
I’ve always thought this was wonderful — a potent reminder of the universality of faith and the unity of people.
And yet now, we hear our president, among others, complaining about a Spanish-language version of the national anthem. This is embarrassing and shameful.
Apparently, our attitude toward immigrants is “We stole this country first; now you can’t have any.”
Given the number of anti-American slogans being shouted in foreign languages these days, I think it is wonderful to hear an expression of patriotism in Spanish. I would love to hear “The Star-Spangled Banner” in Arabic. Is it any wonder we are so unpopular in the world when we clutch our luxuries as Americans to our chests so covetously and with such anti-foreign bigotry?
ROGER KEANE
Columbia
Here’s the second:
Translating anthem changes its meaning
Francis Scott Key wrote “The Star-Spangled Banner” because our flag and the men who fought under it withstood an all-night barrage of shelling from the British to protect their freedom at Fort McHenry. That should be enough not to change a word in the national anthem. If you change the language, it will lose its meaning in translation. If you change any of it, you have changed it all.
Whether you are born here or come from another country to live and work, you are American; just American. You should be a legal, taxpaying, voting, English-speaking citizen and conform to America’s ways. Ways that have been proudly celebrated and revered by every voice that has recited the Pledge of Allegiance or sung the national anthem, in English.
There are people among us who do not have the courage to take the right stand, putting us in these messes. They should be ashamed. If you do not like the way things are done, the way we speak, our national anthem or anything else concerning our patriotism, heritage or beliefs, then leave. If you stay, learn to respect the things that allowed you to come here in the first place, don’t change them.
DARRELL C. WATKINS
Bishopville
Here’s my problem relating to the first:
Yeah, in a way, I suppose it is cool to see the Star-Spangled Banner translated into another language. It’s an interesting exercise. But I think this reader misses something: It’s not the same anthem. The translator didn’t want any stuff about "bombs" and "rockets," substituting the vague "fierce combat." And the second stanza is very different. Of course, I don’t remember the second stanza; I don’t think I’ve sung it since grade school. But somehow the idea of the anthem changing in translation is less than charming.
I remember reading a well-put point in The Economist years ago. I wish I could find the specific quote. It was in one of their leaders, I believe, and it was explaining the difference in what it meant to be Japanese versus what it meant to be American. The first refers to a very specific racial, ethnic identity — in other words, in the eyes of Japan, your genes make you Japanese. All other foreigners — Koreans, Chinese, Americans, whatever — will forever be gaijin. To be an American, you essentially have to hold a set of ideas put forward by a bunch of guys of English descent in the 18th Century. You could be a little green man from Mars, and still become an American.
Now, I’m not certain they said "English." Maybe it was European. Maybe there wasn’t even an ethnic reference at all, since the whole point was the universality of Americanism. But I remember it that way, because I’m acutely aware that the Founders started out insisting upon the rights that Englishmen enjoyed. They went beyond that, of course, but their sense of justice was grounded in English ideas.
I don’t know how important that is — that one be able to read and think about the ideas in English. Maybe not at all. But it’s interesting that no other country has been more successful at forming a stable liberal democracy than the U.S., Britain, Australia and Canada. Other nations have had great success, but over what period of time? Look at that word "stable" again, and then look at the political histories of Italy, Spain, France and Germany (the Great Powers of Europe) over the past century.
Ultimately, I doubt these ideas HAVE to be expressed in English. But I don’t think it’s "shameful" to
prefer a cherished anthem to be sung in the customary tongue.
By the way, is there a reason that Puerto Rican singer Carlos Ponce is wearing a Union Jack as he sings the "Himno" at right? Probably not, but it is ironic.
Here’s my problem with the second:
Despite what I just said, isn’t it a bit extreme to say that ANY change of any kind would be anathema? Basically, what that means is that you can’t translate the anthem into ANY language, even another European one (with their relative cultural similarities), because literal, word-for-word translations that don’t take idiomatic differences into account will always be, on some level, gibberish. And I think the letter-writer would agree with that. On the one hand, I think the letter-writer has a point — the anthem was written within a certain historic and cultural context, and that should be preserved. Of course, it’s a context that is largely lost on English-speakers in 2006, most of whom don’t know what the War of 1812 was about. And nobody is talking about erasing the English version, or replacing it. It’s just a rendition. So why should we be "ashamed" for tolerating it, for the brief time that it gets air play?
Yes, I think I realize the emotional center for this writer. He finds it threatening to our culture. I don’t feel that way. Maybe it’s because I lived in South America as a kid, and once spoke Spanish as easily as English. It’s just not that alien-sounding to me. If everyone in America suddenly started speaking Spanish tomorrow, I would cope just fine. I’m no longer fluent (see my headline above, which may make no grammatical sense as far as I know), but I’m often surprised by how much of it is in my subconscious memory. A short period of total immersion would probably bring most of it back.
I often suspect that the people who feel the most threatened by immigration from the South simply don’t speak or understand Spanish. I don’t think that’s all of it, but there would seem to be a correlation.
I think another difference is that I don’t think English is in danger. Why? Because anyone that refuses to learn it within the foreseeable future will be left behind. They can make the choice, if they like, not to learn it, but that would be a huge mistake. And anyone who is incapable of learning it would probably be left behind, too — even more so than those who are limited to Ebonics or a thick Southern white accent. It’s an economic liability. But are we going to refuse those few incapable of learning a language the ability to make a living in their barrios, by insisting English be spoken (and sung) at every moment in every corner of the United States?
Perhaps I’m a bigger cultural imperialist than that letter-writer, only I’m the more arrogant and confident one, because the things that worry him don’t worry me. I see people who want to succeed in China learning English, and hear people in India already speaking it, and I just don’t see it as in danger of extinction.
So, I don’t see the "Himno" as anything to get all excited about, either to celebrate it or to fear it. It’s kind of like The Beatles singing "I Want to Hold Your Hand" in German. I just say, "That’s interesting," and move onto the next thing. Of course, maybe that’s because I haven’t bothered to study an English translation of "Deutshland Uber Alles." Maybe if I did, I’d start worrying.
Related Posts
Derogatory versions of our national anthem are not the problem.
The illegal immigrants being here is the problem. Our police not showing up to arrest thousands of them on Monday is a problem of our legal system breaking down, failing to stand up to the threat of gangs of criminals in the street.
From what I have heard, and seen firsthand, most the Mexicans did NOT leave their jobs Monday to protest. I saw several lawn care workers on the job as usual. For those who just want to work and earn a living, there is some hope.
Mexican Constitution’s Solution to US Immigration Policy
4/10/06
The Congress has received lots of free advice lately from Mexican government officials and illegal aliens waving Mexico’s flag in mass demonstrations coast-to-coast. Most of it takes the form of bitter complaints about our actual or prospective treatment of immigrants from that country who have gotten into this one illegally — or who aspire to do so.
If you think these critics are mad about US immigration policy now, imagine how upset they would be if we adopted an approach far more radical than the bill they rail against which was adopted last year by the House of Representatives — namely, the way Mexico treats aliens.
In fact, as a just-published paper by the Center for Security Policy’s J. Michael Waller points out, under a constitution first adopted in 1917 and subsequently amended,
Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants,
naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of
those who carp about US immigration policy, have to be called “racist” and “xenophobic.”
Mexico’s Glass House
For example, according to an official translation published by the Organization of American States, the Mexican constitution includes the following restrictions:
• Pursuant to Article 33, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic
politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent
days.
• Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32:
“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”
• Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered “indispensable” include,
pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens
of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and
chiefs of seaports and airports.
• Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers. A Mexican congressman or senator must be “a Mexican citizen by birth.” Article 91 further stipulates that immigrants may never aspire to become cabinet officers as they are required to be Mexican by birth. Article 95 says the same about Supreme Court justices.
• In accordance with Article 130, immigrants — even legal ones — may not become members of the clergy, either.
• Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property
rights. For example, Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and
Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their
appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters.”
• Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in
the country.” What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests. Article 16 states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising
such a right!
• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners — not just illegal immigrants — may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”
Brad,
You’ve written a good piece here, and I have much enjoyed reading your thoughts.
Perhaps there is something more substantial underlying the English vs. Spanish singing of the National Anthem “debate”. I think you are right about referring back to the English interpretation of the Enlightenment as to define what being American meant to the Founding Fathers. I would take issue with one of your assumptions, however.
The U.S. is no longer a liberal democracy and it has not been one for quite some time. In name, we’re still a democratic-republic, but in reality, we’ve literally become a corporate state. We’re still heavily influenced by classic liberal ideas, but the Bill of Rights for example is in shreds and it has been legislated around for decades. The Bill of Rights protects people from governmental abuse, not the misdeeds of powerful corporate interests. When everything is privatized and when everything is done by private agreement, where the majority of the people are beholden to a wealthy minority, then the Bill of Rights becomes less meaningful. It’s wrong in my opinion to think that other liberal democracies were less stable than we. We’re going down the same path that both Italy and Germany traveled while they were still liberal democracies. Fascism was (and is) an economic movement at heart. Today, this sounds strange to people because they associate Fascism with what they’ve been shown on TV-only a right wing social totalitarian movement. To politically astute people though who actually lived through the depression and later fought in WWII, the relationship between Fascism and economics was obvious. Fascism is the necessary outgrowth of free market capitalism because unregulated capitalism produces monopolies and cartels that inevitably become stronger than the government itself. This is the situation my father grew up in before the war-liberal democracy had failed even back at that point in time because corporate interests had already co-opted the government decades before the depression. I think if my father were alive today, he would be shocked at the right wing notion of being American. In many people’s minds of that day, not only were they fighting against Fascism in foreign lands, but against its American corporate cousin at home. Fascism is the merger of corporations with government.
The experience of the depression and the war changed my parents’ generation notion of what being American was for good-hence the New Deal (and even that was just barely adequate in their minds). Undoubtedly, the most important New Deal reform was the notion of progressive, re-distributive taxation because it gave people enough wherewithal to move into a new middle class, and it greatly reduced the egregious levels of wealth inequality. The second most important reform was the GI Bill (the real thing: not the watered down version).
The extent to which the US is still a liberal democracy is entirely dependent upon the vestiges of the New Deal corrective policies that were enacted and survived until the mid sixties. The New Deal saved liberal democracy and the US. I hope we can learn by its example.
Mark, I thought we had turned into two Americas, one for the rich liberal Democrats (like Ted and Patrick Kennedy) and one for the rest of us. I wonder if your pap would be shocked at the total abuse and disregard for the laws of the land by the New Deal Kennedys.
The New Deal was a form of fascism, as many scholars of the era noted. Liberal Democrats in the 1930s openly praised Mussolini and Hitler, and copied many of their programs. The New York Times and Time magazine praised Hitler as the “man of the year”. Hitler, like FDR, used propaganda slogans about “correcting the excesses of big business”, while cozying up to special interests.
The thing that broke off support of a few of the American Left for fascism is when Hitler helped crush the communist uprising in Spain, but most changed their allegience when Hitlers attacked his former ally, the Soviet Union.
Mark, I’m beginning to think you are right. At least that last post was. And I’m beginning to think I should take back my apology to Lee. If anyone is advocating fascist policies, it is he. Cultural superiority is the first clue, and it looks to me like racial superiority is mixed in right with it. And now characterization of Roosevelt’s New Deal is sounding more like the Völkischer Beobachter’s kind of reporting — a deliberate smear campaign. Interesting logic — because some extremists characterized Roosevelt’s policies at the time as “fascist,” therefore they were so. Is this the kind of stuff Rush Limbaugh is spouting? Sure glad I don’t listen to him. I’d be mad all the time!
I could go into what Germany was really like in the 1930s, since I spent some time — quite a bit, in fact, talking with people who lived through it, and got their view point, but I have neither the time, nor is there probably any point. Lee isn’t listening to anybody except those who tell him what he wants to hear, and who agree with his economic policies. And those, it seems to me, are the survival of the fittest, dog eat dog.
Um. Hasn’t pretty much every major despot of the century been Man of the Year in TIME? And wasn’t it because they had a major influence on the world in the year in question? I guess that’s an easier concept to grasp if you’re a journalist. Recognizing someone’s influence is neither a matter of approval nor disapproval.
Besides, if it did mean anything, wouldn’t it have indicated TIME was right-wing? And wasn’t Henry Luce a Republican? And didn’t his wife rather famously accuse FDR of "lying" the United States into war (sound familiar)? Eventually, there was a sort of rapprochement by which the Luce empire helped build support for the war, although it came a bit late.
I was talking about the FDR supporters who admired the programs of Hitler. Is that historical reality so uncomfortable that people still have to divert their thoughts to Henry Luce, Henry Ford, or Joe Kennedy?
Mrs. Henry Luce actually helped her husband sell entry into the war by going to China to write about our “volunteers” flying against the Japanese long before Pearl Harbor.
If any apologist for illegal immigration wants to tell us what cultural superiority is being provided by these criminals, I am anxious to here it. Everyone talks about the value of “cultural diversity” as if the illiterate is the equal of an Oxonian scholar, but they never offer any examples.
But even an Shakespearan scholar with a PhD in nuclear physics should be deported if he comes here illegally.
Herb, Lee doesn’t need me to defend him but the only thing I see is his call for enforcing the laws on the books to enforce our immigration policies. Because Mexico is a dirt poor nation run by corrupt politicos is not justification for us to be overrun by everyone who wants to walk across the border. This has nothing to do with cultural superiority as I can see it. Canadians are not flocking to the USA across our border, except for heading temporarily to Myrtle Beach on vacation. They don’t because they have a nation and jobs to go home to. We have no obligation to accept, house, medicate, employ, feed, and school every non-American around the world. If we did, every citizen of Bangladesh would already be here, and throw in every person in the Sudan. What are we after that? Chaos is the answer.
All this horsecrap by the righteous rednecks, virulently pissed off,over the fact that some enterprising hispanic attempted to translate the “Star Spangled Banner” so that immigrants (legal or otherwise) could feel proud and join in the signing.
Look around you ….most of you don’t even know the words yourselves dumbasses! If you are angry go after some of the horrible versions that have been sung by Roseanne Barr and her ilk!
The Spanish rewriting of our national anthem was intended to be an insult, and intelligent and patriotic Americans were appropriately offended.
Let’s not be diverted by this contrived issue from the real work of deporting all illegal immigrants.