I understand the point of a national anthem. We need a song to make our athletes cry as they receive their gold medals at the Olympics.
Some would also argue it鈥檚 a symbol of national unity that people can rally behind, but that鈥檚 plainly a lie, since we are in the midst of some wholly unnecessary controversy surrounding the Canadian national anthem, stoked by people who don鈥檛 particularly want to foster any kind of unity but want to divide people based on something very minor.
That minor thing is the current government鈥檚 change to the lyrics, making the anthem gender neutral. As lyric changes go, it鈥檚 nothing. We aren鈥檛 dropping entire verses, and the lyrical change actually revises it to something closer to Robert Stanley Weir鈥檚 1908 original 鈥� 鈥淚n all thy sons command鈥� was a 1914 revision, the original lyric was 鈥渢hou dost in us command.鈥� That was not the only lyric revision over the years. Weir appeared to have had a Kanye West-esque desire to keep tinkering with the song.聽
The English version also has pretty much nothing to do with the French lyrics, which are much more aggressive, singing of swords and epic deeds. Frankly when I read a translation of the French I can鈥檛 help but be disappointed in the relatively safe English lyrics. That there are two anthems at all indicates that the anthem as a symbol of national unity is a lie anyway. If it was about unity we鈥檇 be singing the same song.
Still, the minor change is causing major controversy, because people want to be angry. That鈥檚 the only explanation, since there鈥檚 nothing you can really complain about otherwise. It鈥檚 hard to argue tradition when the song has been tinkered with constantly for its entire existence, the lyric change is going back to the original version and the song has only officially been the national anthem since 1980 anyway. It鈥檚 hard to argue that 鈥渋n all thy sons command鈥� is an especially amazing lyric that can鈥檛 be replaced, because it has been and the new lyric 鈥渋n all of us command鈥� is at least less passive. It鈥檚 still a bit bland, but O Canada has never been the most edgy national anthem. Not one line about soaking fields in blood (unlike La Marseillaise in France), not one reference to being ready to die (unlike Italy鈥檚 Il Canto degli Italiani).聽
No, it feels as though people are angry about the change for the sake of being angry. It gives them another reason to hate Justin Trudeau, it gives them another reason to rail against the evils of 鈥減olitical correctness,鈥� and the general concept of being nice to people.聽
They need to get over it. While there are plenty of reasons to dislike Trudeau, it would be nice if people picked ones that didn鈥檛 seem overly petty. There are plenty of policies to take issue with, some badly thought out vacations, and other mistakes in his book so far. The anthem change is ultimately minor and not something worth focusing on.
Political correctness is not an attack on free speech but instead an invitation to have empathy for others, especially those whose perspective you don鈥檛 share. Whether or not you agree that the anthem should be gender neutral, instead consider the viewpoint of someone who is bothered by it. You might not agree, but on the other hand, they鈥檝e got more of an argument than just shouting about tradition. Traditions are just excuses to avoid change and many should be dropped anyway.聽
If we can鈥檛 stop arguing about it, I propose a radical solution: No more national anthem. After all, if it鈥檚 supposed to be a song that a nation stands unified behind, it can鈥檛 be controversial and it can鈥檛 have people having temper tantrums about what the best way to sing it is. We can have an anthem again when everyone stops being petty children about it.聽
At the very least, if we鈥檙e going to fight over O Canada, we might as well drop it and pick a song that everyone can agree on. Perhaps 鈥淵ou鈥檙e The Best鈥� from the Karate Kid soundtrack. It鈥檚 not particularly Canadian but it really should be played at the Olympics.聽
