Feminism, Pop-Culture | Posted by Satah C on 03/8/2010
Language Matters: Canadian National Anthem Edition
In Canada recently, there was a movement to officially change one of the lines in the anthem from “in all thy sons command” to something more gender-neutral. When I heard the news, I quietly applauded it as a symbol of an immensely positive thing: it was tiny, but showed that thought was being put into the language we use and support. I then moved on with my life and kind of forgot about it.
I got concerned when I saw hordes of my facebook friends joining groups like SAVE OUR NATIONAL ANTHEM!! and NO TO CHANGING THE CANADIAN ANTHEM!!
I’ve just read multiple reports that the government has backed down, deciding not to change the line.
I repeat: they wanted to change a single line, in the name of gender-inclusiveness. They did not propose a complete overhaul of the song. The new lyrics were not going to read “OH CANADA / OUR HOME AND FEMALE-ONLY LAND / TRUE WOMEN’S LOVE / MEN ARE THE WORST WE DON’T WANT THEM ANYWAY!”
When i saw that it wasn’t going to go through, I was bewildered. I thought that the proposal was a systematic symbol of gender inclusiveness, right in the stubborn face of tradition. Is that something that people are honestly against, or are they just having a knee-jerk reaction to any change? Because either way, that is fucked up.
How are we supposed to make big changes in society if a tiny thing like this makes people clench their jaws and scream, “NO, NO THAT IS NOT HOW IT’S ALWAYS BEEN AND IT CANNOT BE THAT WAY NOW?” Of course, hilariously, they’re wrong– it was originally “in us thou dost command,” and was changed later.
At first, I tried to stay calm and merely expressed genuine curiosity in why so many people were against it, but the more I thought, the more a little bubble of rage started to swell in my chest. I’m sure people are going to tell me that I’m looking too deeply into this. They could be right.
Or, this could be just another tiny detail, a sign, an indicator— a canary in the coal mine— a frog near the lakeside— showing how we are not yet equal, and so much still needs to be cleaned up, but the masses are not ready to support it.
And, if i may repeat myself—
that is fucked up.
(8 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Read other posts about: Canada, Canadian national anthem, language and gender
Post Your Comment
A.Y. Siu @ at 2:23 pm, March 8th, 2010
There is a certain reasoning that goes along with resistance to this kind of change. It goes something like, “Well, that’s the way it’s always been. It’s not that big a deal. It’s understood to mean everyone.”
Unfortunately, it’s utter BS.
Most people who use that kind of reasoning would never create a song in which all thy daughters was intended to include men as well. So why should women have to identify with men when men refuse to identify with women?
Steph @ at 2:35 am, March 9th, 2010
Absolutely. This is, of course, yet another case of the Conservative government trying to appear like they give a shit about women. Iggy was right when he advised them to keep on with the anthem, but look towards actual change.
Fifteenth Carnival of Feminists « Shut Up, Sit Down @ at 9:55 am, March 17th, 2010
[...] at Fbomb, there’s a post titled Language Matters: Canadian National Anthem Edition about the recent idea of changing the Canadian national anthem to be more gender-inclusive and the [...]
Dominique @ at 12:46 pm, April 4th, 2010
This is true. The backlash was completely out of proportion to the change proposed. What’s worse, however, is that Harper being the one to suggest it was almost Machiavellian. Given his track record, that is. The only Tory initiative to appease women lately has been to ask Canadians if they would like a more gender-neutral national anthem. Canadians said no. The Tories shrugged and proceeded once again to do nothing, as if to say “See? We tried. Nobody else cares about your issues either.”