Changing Canadian National Anthem!?

I'm sure having the Olympics being on for the past few weeks, and hearing the Canadian National Anthem at least 14 times (boo-ya!) that most people are familiar with the phrases in that song. Dating back over 100 years in its original form, it provides a cornerstone of national patriotism and pride for Canadians 'far and wide'.

I heard on the radio today that there is a lady who formally contacted the federal government and wants to have the lyrics changed. The part where 'in all thy sons command' is seen by her to be sexist - why only in 'thy sons', not 'thy people's'. While I disagree with her motives, I am impressed that one person can be heard amongst millions, and the fact that her serious concern is being heeded.

As far as changing the anthem goes, and for one person, I think that is just stupid. It was written in 'all thy sons command' because it came into its final version in 1908, close to the onset of WWI, in which only men fought. Thy sons command pays respect to the soldiers who died for our freedom, and I still believe that men play an important role in the direction and success of a nation. Nothing sexist meant by that, but I honestly believe men and women are gifted differently, men are often given leadership roles, and are held to accountability in those roles and I don't see that as wrong. Later the anthem goes on to say 'we stand on guard for thee', not 'just the dudes stand on guard for thee'.

I'm interested as to what any other Canadians think on this issue, as well as anyone else for that matter. If you want to learn more about the Canadian National Anthem, follow this link:

http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/anthem-eng.cfm

Were you listening to 680AM (All News Radio) when you heard this? This is a very minor issue that some journalists have dragged up as a special-interest story. 680 is bad for this, instead of real news, they come up with this stuff.

Still it is an interesting topic. Personally, I do not really care, one way or the other. But I think that if enough people petition for a minor revision, for a good reason, it should be implemented. The anthem has been changed before, more than once, to keep it current with the times, so this change is consistent with previous changes.

1. The anthem has been extensively revised in the past to update wording, phrases and concepts.

2. Our current anthem replaced the original anthem, which was "God Save the Queen" (or King, as appropriate).

3. Also, the existing line is a bit sexist. The vast majority of Canadians, especially the younger generations are not in the least bit sexist, so this particular line really is out of touch with modern social norms and should be changed.

Other Canadian nations symbols have been changed, too, such as.

1. The flag (where we lost our majestic Canadian Red Ensign, in exchange for our current "Beer Can Label")

2. The loss of the British North America Act in exchange for the repatriated Constitution.

3. The loss of much of the North West Territories, in order to create various western provinces and Nunavut.

So, change happens often, and this one is warranted and really is no big deal, imo.

Actually I heard this on another radio station yesterday (102.1), and on my morning radio today on yet another channel, so I think the issue is getting more attention than you think.

With all due respect to your position and opinion on the matter, I think it is a very big deal. At what point do we say anything has credibility and is not 'up for revision'? Surely the Pyriamids are too old, perhaps we should apply a new 'coat of paint', or some landscaping to make them more attractive. I think it's ideas like this that wipe out cultures, because they no longer have a history or heritage to cling on to, everything is brought 'into the times'. Not everything should be brought up to date, that is the point. Canada has enough struggle with cultural heritage, which if anything is Native Indian, which we taught in schools for decades was 'wrong'. Harper last year made a public apology for decades of mistreatment of young Native Canadians, realizing that their culture is in fact sacred to their people, and doesn't need to be consumed by the greater metropolitan culture of Canadians as a whole.

This line is not sexist, and surely we have raised a generation that has enough wit, intelligence and gender appreciation that we don't need to personally evaluate every level of our national anthem and how it refers to us. Are we now going to say 'it says native land - I'm not native, take it out!'. Or how about 'God keep our land', I don't believe in God, take it out! Or 'glorious and free', I vote communist, take it out! At what point do we give a little bit of credibility to a visionary man that wrote this, and realize that he had nothing but the best (and chances are non-sexist) intentions for this anthem to represent all Canadians? It was voted on - several times - and has not changed since its official inception on July 1st, 1980. The lyrics have not bee changed or revised since that official day.

Perhaps if there is enough support for a vote then it is up to the people to decide. But at that point I would again ask, why? Instead we should be educating people of what it means instead of changing it for every complaint the government receives. People complain that Canada just bends over for every pushy request and this is one of those cases when they can simply say don't like it? Don't sing it. Or move. 29.999 million other Canadians will proudly sing it, because they know their grandfathers died to this anthem and it means more than a sexist interpretation.

Hey anybody from the United States of America out there, what would happen if someone campaigned to change the Star Spangled Banner? How do you think that would turn out?

Imagine if we still sang the original O Canada:
"O Canada! Our home and native land!
True patriot love thou dost in us command.
We see thee rising fair, dear land,
The True North, strong and free;
And stand on guard, O Canada,
We stand on guard for thee.

Refrain

O Canada! O Canada!
O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.
O Canada! We stand on guard for thee.
O Canada! Where pines and maples grow.
Great prairies spread and lordly rivers flow.
How dear to us thy broad domain,
From East to Western Sea,
Thou land of hope for all who toil!
Thou True North, strong and free!

Refrain

O Canada! O Canada! etc.
O Canada! Beneath thy shining skies
May stalwart sons and gentle maidens rise,
To keep thee steadfast through the years
From East to Western Sea,
Our own beloved native land!
Our True North, strong and free!

Refrain

O Canada! O Canada! etc.
Ruler supreme, who hearest humble prayer,
Hold our dominion within thy loving care;
Help us to find, O God, in thee
A lasting, rich reward,
As waiting for the Better Day,
We ever stand on guard.

Refrain

O Canada! O Canada! etc."

Actually I heard this on another radio station yesterday (102.1), and on my morning radio today on yet another channel, so I think the issue is getting more attention than you think.
Actually, my comment was more about the sorry state of popular journalism in Canada, and elsewhere. Read the Wall Street Journal, or The Economist, and you will get a feel for what constitutes serious and attention-worthy national and international news stories are. IMO changes to the Anthem are NOT worthy of front-page or leading stories. There are more important issues at hand.

The way this story was treated is typical of yellow journalism... cheap, easy-to-produce stories designed to incite strong feelings and bias in people, to serve the interests of the news outlets themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Of course stories like this get attention, because we are slaves to the outlets of journalists. They dictate what is newsworthy for us. But, imo, this is a not worthy of being a major news story. :), so I think such sensationalistic journalists should all get off their lazy butts and actually produce balanced news articles that require research and intelligence to write.


At what point do we say anything has credibility and is not 'up for revision'? Surely the Pyriamids are too old, perhaps we should apply a new 'coat of paint', or some landscaping to make them more attractive. I think it's ideas like this that wipe out cultures, because they no longer have a history or heritage to cling on to, everything is brought 'into the times'. Not everything should be brought up to date, that is the point. Canada has enough struggle with cultural heritage, which if anything is Native Indian, which we taught in schools for decades was 'wrong'. Harper last year made a public apology for decades of mistreatment of young Native Canadians, realizing that their culture is in fact sacred to their people, and doesn't need to be consumed by the greater metropolitan culture of Canadians as a whole.

In this, I completely agree with you. Canada has divested itself of large portions of its culture and history. Before WWII Canadians, for the most part, were proud British citizens, and very supportive of the British empire and British culture (less so in Quebec, though :) ) After WWII, English Canada divested itself of every British institution and cultural point as quickly as possible, in a quest to carve out its own identity. This was almost like Orwellian revisionsim, where the Britishness was erased as fast as possible.

I think that far too much British history and culture was erased, including the Flag and the constitution. FWIW, I am surprised we kept the Queen as head of state. IMO, she's probably next to get chopped, and we'll end up with a CBC journalist appointed President. :)


This line is not sexist, and surely we have raised a generation that has enough wit, intelligence and gender appreciation that we don't need to personally evaluate every level of our national anthem and how it refers to us. Are we now going to say 'it says native land - I'm not native, take it out!'. Or how about 'God keep our land', I don't believe in God, take it out! Or 'glorious and free', I vote communist, take it out! At what point do we give a little bit of credibility to a visionary man that wrote this, and realize that he had nothing but the best (and chances are non-sexist) intentions for this anthem to represent all Canadians? It was voted on - several times - and has not changed since its official inception on July 1st, 1980. The lyrics have not bee changed or revised since that official day.
The line IS sexist. There is no other way around it. I can read, and it is not gender neutral.

Of course, as you say, the 'sexism' in this is subject to interpretation. You may not see it as sexist, but it is understandable that some may do so.

The historic aspect of the lyrics are not relevant. They were written when a sexist bias was the law of the land in Canada. In 1908, women did not have equal rights or treatment under that law, including not being allowed to vote so modern standards of gender neutrality was simply not an issue at the time. .


Perhaps if there is enough support for a vote then it is up to the people to decide. But at that point I would again ask, why? Instead we should be educating people of what it means instead of changing it for every complaint the government receives. People complain that Canada just bends over for every pushy request and this is one of those cases when they can simply say don't like it? Don't sing it. Or move. 29.999 million other Canadians will proudly sing it, because they know their grandfathers died to this anthem and it means more than a sexist interpretation.

Millions of Canadians have made it clear they support changes to Canadian cultural icons, by permitting changes to the flag, final separation of Canada from Britain etc.
They also have made it clear that changes or exemptions to cultural norms are allowable, so long as there is significant popular support, as seen in the Notwithstanding Clause of the Canadian constitution. Therefore, this change to the anthem is completely valid within Canadain culture and historic norms.

IMO you accept the validity of such changes, too, because you accept so many of these changes.Therefore, I do not see how your claim of historic purity or accuracy as being valid reasons for not allowing the change.

You obviously accept our anthem, and do not want to go back to the original (God Save the Queen). Do you accept Canada becoming an independent nation? Do you accept the new flag? Do you accept the Canadian Constitution? I think you do, so I cannot understand why you want such change to freeze right where it is. :)

So, imo if enough people support and petition for this change, and for a good reason, then it should be allowed. I do not think there are enough Communists or atheists in Canada to justify their changes to the anthem. But the slight majority of Canadians are women, which, imo is enough to warrant this change, even if it may be difficult for some of us to accept.


EDIT:
Well, it turns out many vocal people agree with you akboss, and the issue is now dead, due to a vocal backlash. I am happy that the government acquieses to the requests of the majority.
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/05/don-martin-tories-backpedal-on-anthem-change.aspx
Now, if only we can get our old Red Ensign flag back! :)

So, imo if enough people support and petition for this change, and for a good reason, then it should be allowed.
...
Now, if only we can get our old Red Ensign flag back! :)

As usual, you state a good, well argued point, and I would have to agree with you - if there is enough support to change something, that is the freedom of democracy, and it should be changed.

The flag, well...let's take it to vote! :p

I enjoyed your comments on how Canada went through a tumultuous period after becoming a sovereign nation, very interesting!

Cheers,
A.

As usual, you state a good, well argued point, and I would have to agree with you - if there is enough support to change something, that is the freedom of democracy, and it should be changed.

The flag, well...let's take it to vote! :p

I enjoyed your comments on how Canada went through a tumultuous period after becoming a sovereign nation, very interesting!

Cheers,
A.
Thank you for your kind words.

But, I fear this issue is not going away anytime soon. Take a look at the webpage for Senator Nancy Ruth, who has championed this cause.
http://sen.parl.gc.ca/nruth/EN/welcome.html

She is obviously focused on her interpretation of "women's issues" to the exclusion of everything else. The problem here is that such social activists end up having to stir-up controversy in order to keep themselves relevant, as this lady is now.

As women achieve greater equality and access to society's opportunities at all levels, feminists become increasingly irrelevant, because they have achieved many of their goals. Therefore, they must either fade into obscurity or create new, often-fake, alleged injustices requiring our attention.

Senator Ruth seems to be using public money to do the latter. If the anthem change was the result of a grass-roots campaign, I would be sympathetic.

But since it is obviously the product of one irrelevant old biddy with access to public money to fund her pet project, I have little sympathy or support for this change.

Actions like this remind me why the senate should be abolished or elected. Unlike elected politicians or civil servants, senators are accountable to no one it seems, which imo is wrong.

BTW if you look at her official CV, I have NO idea why she was qualified to be a senator.Her CV is laughably inappropriate and her qualifications are embarrassingly shoddy. Apparently, they will appoint anyone who happens to be a Party member. :rolleyes:

http://sen.parl.gc.ca/nruth/EN/About.html