It must be tough being a social engineer. All the long days and nights working at changing things to make them as the outta be and, you are convinced, as they really were at some past purer point in time. A time so pure that no one brushed their teeth let alone with minty floride paste. A time so innocent we referenced the male aspect of humanity once in a while... or did we?
The Canadian Heritage website says the poem written by Stanley Weir in 1908 that formed the lyrics of the anthem did not mention sons at all. Instead, it says, the second line was “True patriot love thou dost in us command.” But Stephen William Weir Simpson, the grandson of the poet, said several years ago that the first version was “in all thy sons command” and he has a copy in his grandfather's handwriting to prove it. “You don't change Shakespeare or Shelley,” he told The Globe in 2001. “Either you have tradition or you don't.”
Ah, heritage. That most convenient of words. Where history is what was, heritage is what we want it to be. History has bumps, smelly bits and even the odd deep crevasses that one can fall into. Heritage is smooth and gleams and no one has to worry about it much at all.
But, apparently, the Prime Minister has been getting complaints. And you know what that means. Time to add a dollop of heritage. We can't really say that we were not so nice in the past, that we need to move ahead. To progress. Because that would not be conservative. We would be changing not conserving. Thank God the Prime Minister is not tied to history. He will overcome it. He will.
Comments
Ben (The Tiger) - March 4, 2010 12:09 PM
If we have to bring back old stuff, could we get the old air force rank table back and start calling the air force and the navy "Royal" again?
Alan - March 4, 2010 12:15 PM
Well, don't go changing the anthem and then somehow say that the Grits were not right to update the flag.
Pok - March 4, 2010 12:42 PM
There is a difference between heritage and sentimentality or worse - human resistance to change. Our heritage is the physical country we are presently hosted by and the manifestations of behaviour it has caused us to adopt and evolve to in order to thrive. A song about our Country is not heritage. It is a tool to inspire the understanding, respect and pride that we need to have in order to be good stewards of the land and our fellow citizens. The anthem has a purpose. If you need to change it to improve its effectiveness in meeting its purpose then change it. By all means increase its appeal by making it gender neutral, incorporating both official languages and maybe even getting rid of the god references - just make sure it inspires and that it rhymes.
Alan - March 4, 2010 2:02 PM
Don't buy it. Our heritage is shaped by geography but isn't geography. That is natural history.
Ben (The Tiger) - March 4, 2010 4:00 PM
All things considered, I'd rather the anthem stay the way it is.
Pok -- if you want to get rid of God, I suppose we could go back to the old lyrics for the end of the first stanza:
"O Canada! Glorious and free!
We stand on guard, we stand on guard for thee!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!"
A touch repetitive, which is why we changed those lyrics in the first place... but that's how it goes.
Alan --
I don't even like the new lyrics to "The Maple Leaf Forever" -- I say if we don't want to sing about "Britannia's flag" or "Wolfe the dauntless hero", do as the Germans did to theirs and just deep-six the first verse.
***
A thought -- is this just something governments do when they're in minority parliaments and have too much time on their hands?
Alan - March 4, 2010 4:13 PM
There is nothing wrong with having many versions of one song. That's the basis of all folk music. But don't "change" it. Just make a new version.
But, my real point, how is it we have social engineers in government shifting the goal posts of history retroactively and still go around saying they are the safe keepers of heritage and tradition?
Ben (The Tiger) - March 4, 2010 4:25 PM
Sometimes, this government restores a proper historical perspective -- as with that new citizenship guide. (Though I'd have left the gay rights stuff in -- we _want_ gay immigrants. They make money, keep nice houses, and improve neighbourhoods. And they piss off fundamentalist Muslims, for those who care about that sort of thing.)
Sometimes, it does silly things like this.
I think -- given what we saw of the new citizenship guide -- that this government is a better steward of Canadian history than its immediate predecessors.
But yes. Don't care for this proposal.
Alan - March 4, 2010 5:35 PM
Well, I might have also included WL MacKenzie King and the repatriation of the Constitution as well. Hardly a return to an objective historical perspective through also not the partisan slag fest that is alleged.
Pok - March 4, 2010 5:38 PM
No - heritage is all about place and indirectly about how we adapt ourselves to it. Traditions of food and drink only materialize based on the crops the land and climate could historically deliver. Same for our "hockey heritage" - no cold no ice no skating no hockey.
Alan - March 4, 2010 8:27 PM
Equally valid statement:"Heritage is all about my shoes. My lovely shoes."
Pok - March 5, 2010 10:59 AM
If you are trying to make the point that heritage, if it is not really just about the geography, is a construction of human fancy - "quaintism" made all big and important through committees and regulations then I whole heartedly agree. Quaint sells big.
Alan - March 5, 2010 1:12 PM
On the other hand if you were correct then we are all Crees and Algonquins. Which we are not.
Pok - March 5, 2010 3:10 PM
That is a matter of time and resources.