PDA

View Full Version : No more national anthem in Indiana?


GonzoTheGreat
01-05-2012, 05:16 AM
Right wing idiocy for professionals (http://www.politicususa.com/en/indiana-law-would-punish-schools-for-getting-national-anthem-wrong).
Indiana State Sen. Vaneta Becker (R) has proposed legislation that would not improve math or science skills, or indeed, anything having to do with education, but which would introduce, reports the Indianapolis Star, “’performance standards ‘for singing and playing ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ at any event sponsored by public schools and state universities.” Also affected would be private schools receiving state or local scholarship funds, including vouchers. That’s a lot of schools.
The law would fine schools and musicians if they fail to play the anthem to the correct standards. Of course, what is and isn't good enough would be left up to activist judges to decide, as this lawmaker probably did not come up with an objective standard for musical quality.

The obvious solution to this, at which I already hinted in the title of this thread, is that schools and such in Indiana completely stop playing the anthem at all. If it isn't played, then it can't be botched, and they won't be fined.

Now, can someone explain to me why the Republican Party is so hostile towards the US National Anthem?

Zombie Sammael
01-05-2012, 05:36 AM
If only we could get a similar law passed in Britain. Then we wouldn't have to listen to that dreary, religious, nationalistic excuse for an anthem anymore.

SauceyBlueConfetti
01-05-2012, 07:57 AM
Right wing idiocy for professionals (http://www.politicususa.com/en/indiana-law-would-punish-schools-for-getting-national-anthem-wrong).

The obvious solution to this, at which I already hinted in the title of this thread, is that schools and such in Indiana completely stop playing the anthem at all.


The answer, which is intuitively obvious :D, is to just have everyone use the Canadian anthem. It is my favorite, and therefore, the best.

fdsaf3
01-05-2012, 08:02 AM
Um, wow. Probably what happened is the author of the bill heard a rendition of the national anthem that she didn't like (it probably didn't do enough justice to the good ole U S of A), and so she wrote this bill.

I don't care about the first amendment issues - someone else can carry that flag and fight that battle. My problem with this legislation is that it's another egregious example of using legislation to turn preference into law. This is perhaps the silliest example in recent years.

The law has to be universally applied, so I guess that unless a kindergarten class is full of musical prodigies we won't be hearing any more kindergarten classes singing the national anthem. I guess this might be a positive or negative thing depending on your view.

Stupid law though, and completely indefensible.

Davian93
01-05-2012, 08:08 AM
Not every country can turn an old drinking song into their national anthem. We deserve props just for that.

Sei'taer
01-05-2012, 08:45 AM
Not every country can turn an old drinking song into their national anthem. We deserve props just for that.

Doesn't the Irish anthem do the same thing?

"Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh, IIIIIIIIII...Love to go swimmin' with bow legged women, I do, I do, I do...!
I love to go swimmin' with bow legged women, don't you, don't you, don't you...!

CHORUS: I love to go swimmin'...I do, I do...with bow legged women, don't you, don't you...I love to go swimming with bow legged women I do, I do I dooooo...!
****OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...IIIIIIIIIIIIIII...
Love to go swimmin', with bow legged women and swim between their legs...! I love to go swimming with bow legged women and swim between their legs...!

CHORUS: I love to go swimmin'...I do, I do...with bow legged women, don't you, don't you...I love to go swimming with bow legged women I do, I do I dooooo...!" is a really nice anthem in my opinion. The Irish have really deep meaning to their songs sometimes...especially anthems like this. So beautiful, it makes me tear up a little.

DahLliA
01-05-2012, 09:00 AM
If only we could get a similar law passed in Britain. Then we wouldn't have to listen to that dreary, religious, nationalistic excuse for an anthem anymore.

just do like Sweden. make it racist to sing it.

Basel Gill
01-05-2012, 09:01 AM
Holy sh*t. What a dimwitted excuse for a law...

GonzoTheGreat
01-05-2012, 09:10 AM
Look on the bright side: this Republican may have chosen her timing just right to get national name recognition when it counts: when Romney needs to find a VP-candidate. It worked previous time, didn't it?

Zombie Sammael
01-05-2012, 10:58 AM
just do like Sweden. make it racist to sing it.

Some of the now-unused versions of the British National Anthem are pretty racist.

Res_Ipsa
01-05-2012, 11:11 AM
just do like Sweden. make it racist to sing it.

Care to explain as I do not get the reference? Du gamla, Du fria is the accepted anthem but it is not the official one, as there is no official anthem but more importantly, how do they make the lyrics "racist."

Cor Shan
01-05-2012, 04:13 PM
Our old anthem was pretty antagonistic to "half" our country, which is always fun.

Frenzy
01-05-2012, 09:44 PM
So beautiful, it makes me tear up a little.

PUN TAX!!!

DahLliA
01-06-2012, 02:33 AM
Care to explain as I do not get the reference? Du gamla, Du fria is the accepted anthem but it is not the official one, as there is no official anthem but more importantly, how do they make the lyrics "racist."

you take 1 part political correctness and add 1 part idealist.

not sure if they've actually made it illegal yet, but it's at least severely frowned upon to wear swedish flags or sing the national anthem in public because it can make minorities feel bad.

the greatest threat to western-european culture isn't muslims or <insert religion/culture of your choice>. it's dickless idealists who feel so bad about not being born in a shitty country they have to commit national cultural suicide just to sate their guilty consience.

this is more obvious in Sweden, but we're seeing the signs here in Norway too. any discussion about integration or the actual problems with immigration end up with one side shouting "racist" and the other side "traitor".

and as the politicians continue to refuse to touch the issue for fear of losing votes, people get more and more frustrated. and blame the immigrants. which then lead to more and more anti-racism. which leads to more frustration and actual racism. repeat a few times and you realize we've screwed ourselves and the immigrants over in the name of political correctness.

the point is that instead of trying to integrate people from other cultures into our own. we try our best to kill off our own culture just because someone else might get offended(which they most likely aren't). I've never met anyone from a different culture that is offended or even cares if I go waving around our flag/singing our anthem.

I've met loads of Norwegians that get offended though. and from my swedish gf/swedish friends I've learned that it's way worse there. hence the national anthem being labeled racists because actully being swedish seems to be a crime these days.

Terez
01-06-2012, 05:53 AM
I guess we don't have that problem here because being American is not a racial thing. If we were to wave Confederate battle flags and sing anthems about how great it is to be white, it would be totally different.

GonzoTheGreat
01-06-2012, 06:00 AM
I guess we don't have that problem here because being American is not a racial thing. If we were to wave Confederate battle flags and sing anthems about how great it is to be white, it would be totally different.
Good you never do that kind of thing, then.

Davian93
01-06-2012, 08:13 AM
I guess we don't have that problem here because being American is not a racial thing. If we were to wave Confederate battle flags and sing anthems about how great it is to be white, it would be totally different.

Well, alot of us consider just waving the Confederate flag to be pretty racist in itself. But we're shouted down because its about "Southern Pride" or some other BS excuse. Because being proud of treason is a good thing apparently.

Res_Ipsa
01-06-2012, 09:56 AM
you take 1 part political correctness and add 1 part idealist.

not sure if they've actually made it illegal yet, but it's at least severely frowned upon to wear swedish flags or sing the national anthem in public because it can make minorities feel bad.

the greatest threat to western-european culture isn't muslims or <insert religion/culture of your choice>. it's dickless idealists who feel so bad about not being born in a shitty country they have to commit national cultural suicide just to sate their guilty consience.

this is more obvious in Sweden, but we're seeing the signs here in Norway too. any discussion about integration or the actual problems with immigration end up with one side shouting "racist" and the other side "traitor".

and as the politicians continue to refuse to touch the issue for fear of losing votes, people get more and more frustrated. and blame the immigrants. which then lead to more and more anti-racism. which leads to more frustration and actual racism. repeat a few times and you realize we've screwed ourselves and the immigrants over in the name of political correctness.

the point is that instead of trying to integrate people from other cultures into our own. we try our best to kill off our own culture just because someone else might get offended(which they most likely aren't). I've never met anyone from a different culture that is offended or even cares if I go waving around our flag/singing our anthem.

I've met loads of Norwegians that get offended though. and from my swedish gf/swedish friends I've learned that it's way worse there. hence the national anthem being labeled racists because actully being swedish seems to be a crime these days.

Well said, and I agree w/ your point wholeheartedly. I think the best thing about the US is the fact that we take people from different countries and they become American in the process. I am not for political correctness in any form or apologizing for ones country.

Well, alot of us consider just waving the Confederate flag to be pretty racist in itself. But we're shouted down because its about "Southern Pride" or some other BS excuse. Because being proud of treason is a good thing apparently.

So wait, is it a racist or a treasonous flag? Or both?

GonzoTheGreat
01-06-2012, 10:01 AM
So wait, is it a racist or a treasonous flag? Or both?
Both, obviously. The treason was inspired by racism and greed, and the flag represented that.

Davian93
01-06-2012, 10:05 AM
So wait, is it a racist or a treasonous flag? Or both?

In my opinion, its both. It should be banned much like Nazi symbolism is banned in Germany. Freedom of speech doesnt apply to sedition.

GonzoTheGreat
01-06-2012, 10:16 AM
In my opinion, its both. It should be banned much like Nazi symbolism is banned in Germany.
I could actually agree with that, but then on the racism ground, not on the one you use.

Freedom of speech doesnt apply to sedition.
I do not think that wanting to have a nation of your own should be sufficient cause to restrict freedom of speech.

In the Soviet Union, sedition (wanting to break away) was not covered by whatever free speech they had. I think that was wrong.
In China, sedition (wanting Tibet to be independent) is not covered by their free speech rules. I think that is wrong.
Turkey uses the "no sedition" argument to ban the use of the Kurdish language. I think that is a wrong approach.
In the Netherlands, saying that you want Friesland (one of our provinces) to be an independent country is allowed. Some few people do seem to be serious about it, but they're getting nowhere, and because they are entirely free to say it, they have never radicalised as (for instance) happened with the ETA in Spain and the IRA in the UK.

Davian93
01-06-2012, 10:27 AM
Saying something and advocating/celebrating a past armed rebellion that killed 600K are two different things.

Tomp
01-06-2012, 10:34 AM
Care to explain as I do not get the reference? Du gamla, Du fria is the accepted anthem but it is not the official one, as there is no official anthem but more importantly, how do they make the lyrics "racist."

Actually a couple of years ago racist groups had it as a "rally" song. They made it a little iffy to sing it unless it was a special occasion like a sporting event or something. In the last couple of years the swedish public has more or less reclaimed the national anthem from such elements of our sociey.


By the way doesn't the english national anthem say something about crushing the rebellious scots. ;)

Tomp
01-06-2012, 10:39 AM
The countries that are most proud of their national anthem are usually the ones who have recently fought for independence or liberation from an occupying force. By recently I mean within 300 years or so.

Res_Ipsa
01-06-2012, 10:41 AM
In my opinion, its both. It should be banned much like Nazi symbolism is banned in Germany. Freedom of speech doesnt apply to sedition.

So you are for the McCarthyism? Communism was deemed a threat to the national order and therefore speech and acts supporting it were sedition? Even before that in WWI w/ Schenk and Debs and the Espionage Act or even before that w/ the Alien and Sedition Acts.

It seems to me the argument is moot because the north won and therefore claims the victors right to record history as they see it. By your statement I very much doubt you are interested in a merits argument about secession. Then again, I love a good secession argument. Whenever Quebec or Hawaii here at home start rattling the saber so to speak I am just glued to the news outlets. So when Texas started mumbling about it, I thought, interesting. Hell, I like it when politicians get into fights. Americans have been rather tame since Sumner got his ass kicked. Too bad he didn't do the beating, that would have made an excellent abolitionist period poster. Now the British, they know how to get into an argument and they really do call each other every name in the book but they too rarely resort to physical violence.

Davian93
01-06-2012, 10:45 AM
So you are for the McCarthyism? Communism was deemed a threat to the national order and therefore speech and acts supporting it were sedition? Even before that in WWI w/ Schenk and Debs and the Espionage Act or even before that w/ the Alien and Sedition Acts.

It seems to me the argument is moot because the north one and therefore claims the victors right to record history as they see it. By your statement I very much doubt you are interested in a merits argument about secession. Then again, I love a good secession argument. Whenever Quebec or Hawaii here at home start rattling the saber so to speak I am just glued to the news outlets. So when Texas started mumbling about it, I thought, interesting. Hell, I like it when politicians get into fights. Americans have been rather tame since Sumner got his ass kicked. Too bad he didn't do the beating, that would have made an excellent abolitionist period poster. Now the British, they know how to get into an argument and they really do call each other every name in the book but they too rarely resort to physical violence.

Secession is illegal...The Civil War determined that. Constitutionally, it was a very interesting discussion up until then and you could argue that any State that freely joined into the initial Union (like the original 13 plus places like Vermont and Texas that were independent Republics before becoming part of the US) could and should be allowed to withdraw from the Union but it never happened under peaceful terms so we'll never know.

However, the Confederate flag is a symbol and celebration of treason and racism.


EDIT, also to your first point, Communists never actively engaged in an armed rebellion against the federal government...that's the key difference.

GonzoTheGreat
01-06-2012, 10:45 AM
Now the British, they know how to get into an argument and they really do call each other every name in the book but they too rarely resort to physical violence.
That's because they were smart enough to actually take steps preventing that, centuries ago. There is a very good reason why the government party and the opposition party in Parliament are separated by a distance equal to two sword lengths, you know.

Res_Ipsa
01-06-2012, 10:49 AM
Actually a couple of years ago racist groups had it as a "rally" song. They made it a little iffy to sing it unless it was a special occasion like a sporting event or something. In the last couple of years the swedish public has more or less reclaimed the national anthem from such elements of our sociey.

Interesting, I am Swedish and German and fly Swedish and German flags but then I fly my American flag above those. I do however, have a good amt of pride in my heritage and was wondering why it was a "racist" song.

By the way doesn't the english national anthem say something about crushing the rebellious scots. ;)

Beats me, I know the English battle order was the Irish followed by the Scots and then the Welsh and finally the British.

In America all we do is play the first 8 lines of the song before sporting events.


Actually, I very much doubt if too many Americans know the full song. Sad.

Res_Ipsa
01-06-2012, 11:04 AM
Secession is illegal...The Civil War determined that. Constitutionally, it was a very interesting discussion up until then and you could argue that any State that freely joined into the initial Union (like the original 13 plus places like Vermont and Texas that were independent Republics before becoming part of the US) could and should be allowed to withdraw from the Union but it never happened under peaceful terms so we'll never know.

Lincoln wrote that he would not allow the south to secede peacefully and would preserve the union at any cost. Does that make him a warmonger? (Gonzo argument, you can ignore this part)

However, the Confederate flag is a symbol and celebration of treason and racism.

I have to disagree here that is was treason since it occurred before it was treason. Only the de facto occurrence of winning the war made it the wrong action. In the same way, say "they" make driving with cell phones illegal, they are not going to arrest you for prior occurrences of you breaking the new law. Then again, rebellion is written into our founding documents. I think of it as a amoral stance. There is only the reality of those opposing forces who feel strongly enough about issues to fight for them. Win or lose.





EDIT, also to your first point, Communists never actively engaged in an armed rebellion against the federal government...that's the key difference.

Well, in point of fact, McCarthy introduced evidence of actual subversive acts done by communists. Then it became a question of were those words and acts really action on their part to constitute sedition or treason. The answer to which depended on your point of view which leads me to my next point . . .

I agree with you (on this point), but that is precisely my criticism of your treason argument. It is a question of how attenuated the line gets. Personally, I am of the opinion we allow either everything or nothing in regards to speech. It cannot be one or the other. My own personal morals fall on the line of everything bc the alternative is far too dangerous.

Davian93
01-06-2012, 11:11 AM
Lincoln wrote that he would not allow the south to secede peacefully and would preserve the union at any cost. Does that make him a warmonger? (Gonzo argument, you can ignore this part)


He also suspended Habeas Corpus in MD (a clearly unconstituational act) to ensure their own Secession vote failed. However, had the South not attacked and seized Federal armories/property, he likely would have gone to the negotiating table to solve the question instead of engaging in a Civil War. Remember, 1861 was far from the first time that secession had been discussed. Just look at how A. Jackson handled Calhoun on how it could have happened peacefully.

Well, in point of fact, McCarthy introduced evidence of actual subversive acts done by communists. Then it became a question of were those words and acts really action on their part to constitute sedition or treason. The answer to which depended on your point of view which leads me to my next point . . .



You know as well as I that those alleged "subversive acts" had about as much validity as his infamous list of known communists.

I agree with you (on this point), but that is precisely my criticism of your treason argument. It is a question of how attenuated the line gets. Personally, I am of the opinion we allow either everything or nothing in regards to speech. It cannot be one or the other. My own personal morals fall on the line of everything bc the alternative is far too dangerous.

We both know and probably agree that there should be some limits on Freedom of Speech. For example, yelling "FIRE" in a movie theater is clearly illegal if there is no fire. The same argument is and should be used against hate speech that does nothing by incite violence. That is where the banning of things like the Confederate Flag would and should fall under.

Tomp
01-06-2012, 11:15 AM
Dahlia, did the land-slide effect you in Trondheim?

Didn't get the details.



For you who don't know what I'm talking about: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=18088

Davian93
01-06-2012, 11:17 AM
I wonder what its like when the Earl of your city routinely has to turn into a bear to protect the Guardian of the West....

DahLliA
01-06-2012, 11:33 AM
Dahlia, did the land-slide effect you in Trondheim?

Didn't get the details.



For you who don't know what I'm talking about: http://www.redicecreations.com/article.php?id=18088

nah. didn't get me. I live almost in the middle of the city so I'm hopefully safe :p

Figbiscuit
01-06-2012, 12:03 PM
By the way doesn't the english national anthem say something about crushing the rebellious scots. ;)

Could well do, but as we never sing more than the first verse it's not really an issue :rolleyes:

confused at birth
01-06-2012, 02:46 PM
It isnt official but we use it anyway

God save our gracious Queen,
Long live our noble Queen,
God save the Queen:
Send her victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us:
God save the Queen.

O Lord, our God, arise,
Scatter her enemies,
And make them fall.
Confound their politics,
Frustrate their knavish tricks,
On Thee our hopes we fix,
God save us all.

Thy choicest gifts in store,
On her be pleased to pour;
Long may she reign:
May she defend our laws,
And ever give us cause
To sing with heart and voice
God save the Queen.

as we never sing more than the first verse it's not really an issue

It was funny a couple of years ago they played the second verse at an England match and none of the players knew what to do

I wonder how many people will be caught out at the first game after it gets changed back to king in a few years

yks 6nnetu hing
01-06-2012, 03:24 PM
hah! The estonian anthem is with the same melody as the finnish anthem, just the words are different. Pretty depressing, really:

"should I die in another land, bury me home that Your earth may grow flowers of me"

There's more words, but that's the point anyways.

Tomp
01-06-2012, 03:34 PM
I have provided a translation of the national anthem for spain, San Marino, Kosovo and Bosnia/Herzegovina.

Mark the following rows to see the texts.























That's right, they are all instrumental. :p

confused at birth
01-06-2012, 03:39 PM
That's right, they are all instrumental.

So what didnt you learn to read music at school?

Do it again there are enough musicians here to judge if it is good or not.

Sukoto
01-06-2012, 07:33 PM
I grew up in Indiana. The state certainly has its fair share of morons. They all fail, eventually.

Sei'taer
01-11-2012, 01:48 PM
I was surfing youtube and this seemed relevant to the conversation. Just wanted to share.

Flower of Scotland (http://youtu.be/cvC4J-WyqvM)

One word might not be safe for work...