What I STILL don't understand from people defending the anthem so much.
1) Did people just suddenly forget about the historical context surrounding the anthem itself? The author of the anthem being a slave-owner, and having verses that pretty much echoes the same point being made today: that black people were inferior in about every way and any defense of their rights would be seen as negative. Particularly this verse that was wiped away that no one seems to remember:
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battles confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washd out their foul footsteps pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Just because it was wiped away, doesn't negate the issues of the anthem itself (in addition, I say this as someone who is anti-anthem because there is no relevance to today's times). The verse in question is tied to ideas about how Key was butthurt about slaves fleeing after the British offered a better situation for them in exchange for joining their cause, which resulted in the formation of the Colonel Marines. Amazing how much history repeats itself because Key thought it was appalling for Blacks to stand up for their rights, in the same way that people get so offended when black and marginalized people stand up for their rights. Having researched the anthem, I strongly feel that to defend the anthem would be akin to defending the statues that were torn down because of its roots in racism.
2) Why is there so much hyperidealization going on when it comes to the anthem as well as what it represents in the eyes of people? People conflate the meaning of the anthem as if it refers to American men who fought in WW1, and WW2 when its roots is actually in the War of 1812 (which was to fight off the British Empire, so notions of freedom doesn't really apply as well in this case). Not to mention the hypocrisy of silencing dissent when they fail to realize that if they argue freedom, then you must realize that you also have the freedom to voice your displeasure with the country as a whole. "Well if you don't like it then gtfo," misses the whole point unless you're intentionally obtuse and are the human representation that "ignorance is bliss." No country is without flaws and people should be working towards eliminating as many of these flaws as possible, not devolving and sticking to broken systems and formulas.
Additionally, I find it hypocritical to argue "disrespecting the flag"/"disrespecting the military" because it's being selective with history. No one mentions how marginalized groups like Natives and First Nations have become ostracized when the colonizers took over their land, so they pick "disrespecting the flag" as the hill to die on? All I'm saying is if you're going to make the argument that disrespecting the flag is a thing then: 1) recognize that the flag is a completely arbitrary creation of false and hyperidealized notions of what it means to be a good country, and 2) have the perspective to realize that the flag was and is not eternal, people were fucked over to get to this point in society.
/end rant
.