It looks as if we are back at the business of changing the lyrics of our national anthem, not only to reflect its original intentions, but who we are as Canadians today.
Nearly two years after Prime Minister Stephen Harper bowed to public pressure and went back on his promise to alter the lyrics of O Canada, a group of prominent Canadian women, including former prime minister Kim Campbell, author Margaret Atwood and Senator Nancy Ruth, is taking up the fight again. So what’s the big deal? Let’s do it.
As far as I can tell, their case is simple, and eminently reasonable: In the 1908 version of O Canada, the English lyrics contained the words “true patriot love thou dost in us command,” which in 1913, were changed to “in all thy sons command” for no discernible reason. One account has it that the words were masculinized to help recruit soldiers for the First World War, but I doubt anyone will argue that those brave young men who lined up to fight and die for their country, did so because the anthem was changed to reflect machismo.
Today, these Canadian women want the anthem restored to its original gender-neutral composition. As well, I imagine in the 100 years since someone decided to masculinize the anthem, our society has changed. We’ve gone through two world wars and at least five major regional wars. The world has seen men and women, including Canadian Roberta Bondar, go into space; we’ve landed on the moon and as a society, we’ve progressed beyond our wildest dreams in 1913. Women are rubbing shoulders with men in literature, technology and industry; they are serving their country in war, and dying in combat. Everywhere you turn, women are contributing to society in ways our brethren in 1913 would never have imagined. Today, women make up 50.4 per cent of the population, a slim majority that according to Statistics Canada, has held for more than three decades, and is projected to hold all the way to 2061. So what is it about us that insists the anthem should continue to reflect only the gender of half the population?
Let’s examine the key argument that has been advanced to keep O Canada as it is. The argument is that a national anthem is an institution, which is sacrosanct and should not be tampered with at a whim, or just because we want to be politically correct. This essentially is the view of opposition leader Thomas Mulcair, who called O Canada “extraordinary” and should be left alone. He said “tinkering” with such an institution is asking for trouble. O Canada is certainly extraordinary, but it is not exactly clear what trouble Mulcair is talking about, given we know that the anthem has been tinkered with in the past. Apart from the 1913 change, the anthem was amended in 1968 at the behest of parliamentarians, to add the lines “from far and wide,” and “God keep our land.” The sky did not fall then, and it will not fall if the anthem is restored to its original lyrics.
When Harper beat a hasty retreat from his promise, made in a Throne Speech, to fix the lyrics, the reason cited was public hostility. Once bitten, twice shy I guess. Proponents cannot count on Harper and given Mulcair’s stand, it is doubtful that any political leader will champion this cause. But imagine if the words in question had been “all thy daughters command.” Would there be opposition to make them gender-neutral? It would be a no-brainer, and I bet there would be a stampede to make the change.
And it is not as if Canada is the only country to do this. Two years ago, Austria changed the lyrics of its national anthem from “homeland of great sons” to “homeland of great daughters and sons.” The last I checked, the Alpine country is still standing, as proud and strong as ever. And it is not just countries.
Several American colleges, which have fierce school spirits and strong traditions that could rival countries, have started to make their school anthems gender-neutral. The list includes 267-year-old Princeton, which changed references to boys and sons its anthem Old Nassau, to include women, and the 244-year-old Dartmouth, whose song Men of Dartmouth was changed to Alma Mater, and the lyrics amended to reflect women. Rutgers University, which was founded in 1766, is the latest to change. Last month, the university changed the lyrics in its anthem from “my father sent me to old Rutgers and resolved that I should be a man,” to “from far and near we came to Rutgers and resolved to learn all that we can.” This is a school that is 247 years old but it realized that it cannot insist that about half the student population that is female, should sing about fathers sending their sons to college to be men. Rutgers, as other universities and countries, grew up. So can we.
As a country, we learn, we progress, we grow and we become better. There are a lot of things that happened in 1913, a lot of things we did at that time that we would never dream of doing now. There are things Canadians supported or believed in then that looking back, we’ll not be proud of. But we can be proud of changing the lyrics of our national anthem to reflect the country we are today. It really should not be difficult to do.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com
Author: Mohammed Adam
Nearly two years after Prime Minister Stephen Harper bowed to public pressure and went back on his promise to alter the lyrics of O Canada, a group of prominent Canadian women, including former prime minister Kim Campbell, author Margaret Atwood and Senator Nancy Ruth, is taking up the fight again. So what’s the big deal? Let’s do it.
As far as I can tell, their case is simple, and eminently reasonable: In the 1908 version of O Canada, the English lyrics contained the words “true patriot love thou dost in us command,” which in 1913, were changed to “in all thy sons command” for no discernible reason. One account has it that the words were masculinized to help recruit soldiers for the First World War, but I doubt anyone will argue that those brave young men who lined up to fight and die for their country, did so because the anthem was changed to reflect machismo.
Today, these Canadian women want the anthem restored to its original gender-neutral composition. As well, I imagine in the 100 years since someone decided to masculinize the anthem, our society has changed. We’ve gone through two world wars and at least five major regional wars. The world has seen men and women, including Canadian Roberta Bondar, go into space; we’ve landed on the moon and as a society, we’ve progressed beyond our wildest dreams in 1913. Women are rubbing shoulders with men in literature, technology and industry; they are serving their country in war, and dying in combat. Everywhere you turn, women are contributing to society in ways our brethren in 1913 would never have imagined. Today, women make up 50.4 per cent of the population, a slim majority that according to Statistics Canada, has held for more than three decades, and is projected to hold all the way to 2061. So what is it about us that insists the anthem should continue to reflect only the gender of half the population?
Let’s examine the key argument that has been advanced to keep O Canada as it is. The argument is that a national anthem is an institution, which is sacrosanct and should not be tampered with at a whim, or just because we want to be politically correct. This essentially is the view of opposition leader Thomas Mulcair, who called O Canada “extraordinary” and should be left alone. He said “tinkering” with such an institution is asking for trouble. O Canada is certainly extraordinary, but it is not exactly clear what trouble Mulcair is talking about, given we know that the anthem has been tinkered with in the past. Apart from the 1913 change, the anthem was amended in 1968 at the behest of parliamentarians, to add the lines “from far and wide,” and “God keep our land.” The sky did not fall then, and it will not fall if the anthem is restored to its original lyrics.
When Harper beat a hasty retreat from his promise, made in a Throne Speech, to fix the lyrics, the reason cited was public hostility. Once bitten, twice shy I guess. Proponents cannot count on Harper and given Mulcair’s stand, it is doubtful that any political leader will champion this cause. But imagine if the words in question had been “all thy daughters command.” Would there be opposition to make them gender-neutral? It would be a no-brainer, and I bet there would be a stampede to make the change.
And it is not as if Canada is the only country to do this. Two years ago, Austria changed the lyrics of its national anthem from “homeland of great sons” to “homeland of great daughters and sons.” The last I checked, the Alpine country is still standing, as proud and strong as ever. And it is not just countries.
Several American colleges, which have fierce school spirits and strong traditions that could rival countries, have started to make their school anthems gender-neutral. The list includes 267-year-old Princeton, which changed references to boys and sons its anthem Old Nassau, to include women, and the 244-year-old Dartmouth, whose song Men of Dartmouth was changed to Alma Mater, and the lyrics amended to reflect women. Rutgers University, which was founded in 1766, is the latest to change. Last month, the university changed the lyrics in its anthem from “my father sent me to old Rutgers and resolved that I should be a man,” to “from far and near we came to Rutgers and resolved to learn all that we can.” This is a school that is 247 years old but it realized that it cannot insist that about half the student population that is female, should sing about fathers sending their sons to college to be men. Rutgers, as other universities and countries, grew up. So can we.
As a country, we learn, we progress, we grow and we become better. There are a lot of things that happened in 1913, a lot of things we did at that time that we would never dream of doing now. There are things Canadians supported or believed in then that looking back, we’ll not be proud of. But we can be proud of changing the lyrics of our national anthem to reflect the country we are today. It really should not be difficult to do.
Original Article
Source: ottawacitizen.com
Author: Mohammed Adam
No comments:
Post a Comment