Discussion:
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
(too old to reply)
Dingbat
2017-07-24 15:28:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Dingbat
2017-07-24 15:29:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Peter T. Daniels
2017-07-24 16:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Could be useful for Citizenship classes. Though defining "ramparts" as 'embankments' might not be.

ObAUE:

That reminded me to look up the SSB's "fifth stanza," penned in 1861 by Oliver
Wendell Holmes, Sr., which was featured on NPR last July 4, which led me to
this curiously punctuated headline:

Why We Should Sing ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’s’ Obscure Fifth Verse

https://ww2.kqed.org/arts/2017/03/02/why-we-should-sing-the-star-spangled-banners-obscure-fifth-verse/

For the curious:

“When our land is illum’d with Liberty’s smile,
If a foe from within strike a blow at her glory,
Down, down, with the traitor that dares to defile
The flag of her stars and the page of her story!
By the millions unchain’d who our birthright have gained
We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained!
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
While the land of the free is the home of the brave.”
Garrett Wollman
2017-07-24 17:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
A pity they didn't say more about the actual grammar of the SSB,
concentrating instead on the less familiar lexical items.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can,
***@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is
Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-07-24 21:48:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Garrett Wollman
A pity they didn't say more about the actual grammar of the SSB,
concentrating instead on the less familiar lexical items.
In particular, in the line

Praise the power that hath made and perserved us a nation

it needs to be noted that "us" is not dative but accusative, following
up both "made" and "preserved". "Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: "What are you doing?" "Nothing." "You did that yesterday." :||
||: "I wasn't finished." :||
Neill Massello
2017-07-24 22:50:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
"Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
No: "preserved us as a nation." A nation is a people, not a place.
David Kleinecke
2017-07-25 00:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neill Massello
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
"Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
No: "preserved us as a nation." A nation is a people, not a place.
No (but debatable). A ordinary benefactive "us". "preserved
a nation for our benefit."
CDB
2017-07-25 02:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neill Massello
"Preserved us a nation", in ordinary colloquial usage, would have
to mean "preserved a nation for us."
No: "preserved us as a nation." A nation is a people, not a place.
No (but debatable). A ordinary benefactive "us". "preserved a nation
for our benefit."
"... may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!"

Presumably the use of "us" is the same for "made" as for "preserved".
It seems a bit less likely that Heaven made a nation for you than that
it made a nation of you.
Robert Bannister
2017-07-25 00:25:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neill Massello
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
"Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
No: "preserved us as a nation." A nation is a people, not a place.
If nation is in apposition to us, shouldn't there be a comma?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Jerry Friedman
2017-07-25 01:11:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Neill Massello
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
"Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
No: "preserved us as a nation." A nation is a people, not a place.
I think you agree with Joe. The lyrics are not ordinary colloquial usage.
--
Jerry Friedman
Jerry Friedman
2017-07-25 01:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Garrett Wollman
A pity they didn't say more about the actual grammar of the SSB,
concentrating instead on the less familiar lexical items.
In particular, in the line
Praise the power that hath made and perserved us a nation
it needs to be noted that "us" is not dative but accusative, following
up both "made" and "preserved". "Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
We could redo the question of what "we watched" in the fourth line.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2017-07-25 03:21:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Garrett Wollman
A pity they didn't say more about the actual grammar of the SSB,
concentrating instead on the less familiar lexical items.
In particular, in the line
Praise the power that hath made and perserved us a nation
it needs to be noted that "us" is not dative but accusative, following
up both "made" and "preserved". "Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
That line's not part of the National Anthem.

Unless the unknown verses are, despite all appearances, also part of the National Anthem.
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-07-25 18:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
In particular, in the line
Praise the power that hath made and perserved us a nation
it needs to be noted that "us" is not dative but accusative, following
up both "made" and "preserved". "Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
That line's not part of the National Anthem.
You had better look that up. (See the following post.)
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: The plural of anecdote is data. :||
Peter T. Daniels
2017-07-25 21:19:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
In particular, in the line
Praise the power that hath made and perserved us a nation
it needs to be noted that "us" is not dative but accusative, following
up both "made" and "preserved". "Preserved us a nation", in ordinary
colloquial usage, would have to mean "preserved a nation for us."
That line's not part of the National Anthem.
You had better look that up. (See the following post.)
You'd have done better to read the qualification that followed instead of
deleting it, apparently without reading it.
Lewis
2017-07-24 17:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
--
Marriages made in heaven are not exported.
s***@gmail.com
2017-07-24 18:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
Really! I must be insensitive to such hostilities.

/dps
Peter T. Daniels
2017-07-24 19:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
Really! I must be insensitive to such hostilities.
I didn't encounter any, either.
Katy Jennison
2017-07-24 20:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
Really! I must be insensitive to such hostilities.
I didn't encounter any, either.
I got various pop-ups. Irritating rather than actively hostile, IMO.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-07-24 22:08:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 21:24:49 +0100, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
Really! I must be insensitive to such hostilities.
I didn't encounter any, either.
I got various pop-ups. Irritating rather than actively hostile, IMO.
Ditto.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Lewis
2017-07-25 18:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
Really! I must be insensitive to such hostilities.
Well, it pushed the content down off screen to show an ad, and then
loaded a overlay that obscured the text when i scrolled down.

I closed the window at that point.
--
“Life is one damned kitten after another." Mehitabel the Alley Cat”
s***@gmail.com
2017-07-25 19:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
Really! I must be insensitive to such hostilities.
Well, it pushed the content down off screen to show an ad, and then
loaded a overlay that obscured the text when i scrolled down.
I closed the window at that point.
Ah. I was using Firefox with NoScript (v5.0.5)

Chrome doesn't seem friendly to an equivalent package,
but does some policing of ads that are obnoxious or overly obtrusive
as judged by some neural net.

/dps
Snidely
2017-07-26 07:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Lewis
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
Really! I must be insensitive to such hostilities.
Well, it pushed the content down off screen to show an ad, and then
loaded a overlay that obscured the text when i scrolled down.
I closed the window at that point.
Ah. I was using Firefox with NoScript (v5.0.5)
Chrome doesn't seem friendly to an equivalent package,
but does some policing of ads that are obnoxious or overly obtrusive
as judged by some neural net.
Perhaps the neural net excuses ads from the site-owner, as opposed to
third-party ads. But 2 clicks, and I could read the article without
further hassle.

/dps
--
Trust, but verify.
Peter Moylan
2017-07-25 04:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
I see what you mean. There are some really bad web site designers out
there, who don't seem to consider the question "How will this look to
the reader?"
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
David Kleinecke
2017-07-25 05:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
I see what you mean. There are some really bad web site designers out
there, who don't seem to consider the question "How will this look to
the reader?"
Seemed like a perfectly normal web site to me. Not that I
like that style but everybody is doing it.
Richard Yates
2017-07-25 13:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:59:15 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
I see what you mean. There are some really bad web site designers out
there, who don't seem to consider the question "How will this look to
the reader?"
It is the trend for thin-line, light-gray font on a white background
that mystifies me. It's as if they don't want the words to distract
from flashy graphics.
Cheryl
2017-07-25 13:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:59:15 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
I see what you mean. There are some really bad web site designers out
there, who don't seem to consider the question "How will this look to
the reader?"
It is the trend for thin-line, light-gray font on a white background
that mystifies me. It's as if they don't want the words to distract
from flashy graphics.
I've been surprised at how often lately they want me to enter
information into a box I can't really see. Initially, before I realized
it was the result of a design decision and started to look more
carefully, I thought that they'd simply left off the box, the idiots.
--
Cheryl
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2017-07-25 13:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:59:15 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well,
Post by Cheryl
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
I see what you mean. There are some really bad web site designers out
there, who don't seem to consider the question "How will this look to
the reader?"
It is the trend for thin-line, light-gray font on a white background
that mystifies me. It's as if they don't want the words to distract
from flashy graphics.
Of course. It's the flashy graphics that make you realize how clever
they are (or not, as the case may be).
Post by Cheryl
I've been surprised at how often lately they want me to enter
information into a box I can't really see. Initially, before I realized
it was the result of a design decision and started to look more
carefully, I thought that they'd simply left off the box, the idiots.
They might well have done that as well: there are plenty of idiots out
there who think they can design web sites.

The ones that annoy me the most are the ones that tell me that they
don't like the browser I'm using and that their sacred stuff is
optimized for viewing with some other browser of their choice. It's
none of their business to decide what software I should use. It's their
job to follow accepted standards so that it doesn't matter.
--
athel
Snidely
2017-07-26 08:02:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tuesday or thereabouts, Athel Cornish-Bowden declared ...
Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:59:15 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well,
Post by Richard Yates
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
I see what you mean. There are some really bad web site designers out
there, who don't seem to consider the question "How will this look to
the reader?"
It is the trend for thin-line, light-gray font on a white background
that mystifies me. It's as if they don't want the words to distract
from flashy graphics.
Of course. It's the flashy graphics that make you realize how clever they are
(or not, as the case may be).
In the case at hand, the page of interest did not seem to have much
flashy graphics. The slide-in ads, that's a little bit of CSS showoff,
but the page itself was fairly quiet and simple to me. The lettering
was gray or grey, not a saturated black, but dark enough to provide
adequate contrast; the size and spacing of the text was also
comfortable to me.
I've been surprised at how often lately they want me to enter information
into a box I can't really see. Initially, before I realized it was the
result of a design decision and started to look more carefully, I thought
that they'd simply left off the box, the idiots.
They might well have done that as well: there are plenty of idiots out there
who think they can design web sites.
I don't think I was very impressed with Andy Warhol back in the 60s and
70s, but he thought he could design prints.
The ones that annoy me the most are the ones that tell me that they don't
like the browser I'm using and that their sacred stuff is optimized for
viewing with some other browser of their choice.
Are there sites that still do that? I thought that was a problem of
the Oughts, not the Teens.
It's none of their business
to decide what software I should use. It's their job to follow accepted
standards so that it doesn't matter.
I disagree, though I think many sites have the problem of developers
with too narrow of view of what tools they can use. There are,
though, legitimate times for using a specific technology ... perhaps
one that is ahead of the standards. After all, HTML5 was only adopted
by W3 after OTHER parties pushed and pushed to develop it.

/dps
--
"I'm glad unicorns don't ever need upgrades."
"We are as up as it is possible to get graded!"
_Phoebe and Her Unicorn_, 2016.05.15
Peter Moylan
2017-07-26 03:10:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:59:15 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
I see what you mean. There are some really bad web site designers out
there, who don't seem to consider the question "How will this look to
the reader?"
It is the trend for thin-line, light-gray font on a white background
that mystifies me. It's as if they don't want the words to distract
from flashy graphics.
I've been surprised at how often lately they want me to enter
information into a box I can't really see. Initially, before I realized
it was the result of a design decision and started to look more
carefully, I thought that they'd simply left off the box, the idiots.
Yahoo mail is giving me a lot of trouble. The prompts like "To" and
"Subject" are slightly off-white on a white background, and because I
can't see them I have to guess where to put the cursor. That sometimes
gives embarrassing results.

It's not entirely Yahoo's fault, though. I have to use it on a Windows
10 computer. Windows 10 abandoned the idea of letting you control things
like "foreground colour", and instead uses "themes" that ensure that, if
you specify black-on-white text in one field, it will give you
black-on-black somewhere else. The only compromise I've found makes
everything look faded everywhere. I think Yahoo mail did work better in
earlier Windows versions.

What I don't understand is that some web sites, including the Yahoo one,
seem to use those themes rather than using their own styles. The desktop
colour/etc rules should have no effect at all on web browsers.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Tony Cooper
2017-07-26 03:29:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:10:43 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Cheryl
Post by Richard Yates
On Tue, 25 Jul 2017 14:59:15 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Lewis
Post by Dingbat
Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/understanding-the-american-national-anthem-for-english/
Well, I tried to read that page, but it is so user hostile I gave up very
quickly---in fact, before I had a chance to read a single word of the
actual post.
I see what you mean. There are some really bad web site designers out
there, who don't seem to consider the question "How will this look to
the reader?"
It is the trend for thin-line, light-gray font on a white background
that mystifies me. It's as if they don't want the words to distract
from flashy graphics.
I've been surprised at how often lately they want me to enter
information into a box I can't really see. Initially, before I realized
it was the result of a design decision and started to look more
carefully, I thought that they'd simply left off the box, the idiots.
Yahoo mail is giving me a lot of trouble. The prompts like "To" and
"Subject" are slightly off-white on a white background, and because I
can't see them I have to guess where to put the cursor. That sometimes
gives embarrassing results.
It's not entirely Yahoo's fault, though. I have to use it on a Windows
10 computer. Windows 10 abandoned the idea of letting you control things
like "foreground colour", and instead uses "themes" that ensure that, if
you specify black-on-white text in one field, it will give you
black-on-black somewhere else. The only compromise I've found makes
everything look faded everywhere. I think Yahoo mail did work better in
earlier Windows versions.
I have trouble understanding your problem. I use gmail on Windows 10,
and the screen is white. No problem at all seeing the To: and
Subject: area. I don't have a Yahoo account to try, but don't
understand how it could be Windows thing if another mail provider
doesn't have the same problem.

I used to have a Yahoo mail account, but the amount of spam it
attracted made it unusable. Very little gets through on gmail.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter Moylan
2017-07-26 04:59:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 26 Jul 2017 13:10:43 +1000, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Yahoo mail is giving me a lot of trouble. The prompts like "To" and
"Subject" are slightly off-white on a white background, and because I
can't see them I have to guess where to put the cursor. That sometimes
gives embarrassing results.
It's not entirely Yahoo's fault, though. I have to use it on a Windows
10 computer. Windows 10 abandoned the idea of letting you control things
like "foreground colour", and instead uses "themes" that ensure that, if
you specify black-on-white text in one field, it will give you
black-on-black somewhere else. The only compromise I've found makes
everything look faded everywhere. I think Yahoo mail did work better in
earlier Windows versions.
I have trouble understanding your problem. I use gmail on Windows 10,
and the screen is white. No problem at all seeing the To: and
Subject: area. I don't have a Yahoo account to try, but don't
understand how it could be Windows thing if another mail provider
doesn't have the same problem.
It could be coincidence. Yahoo mail went bad at the same time I got
Windows 10, but it's possible that that was at the time that Yahoo
"improved" its interface.
Post by Tony Cooper
I used to have a Yahoo mail account, but the amount of spam it
attracted made it unusable. Very little gets through on gmail.
I don't use it by choice. Someone chose it for our choir's e-mail,
before I was on the choir's executive committee. Every so often I point
out that we have a far superior mail system that came free with the
choir's web hosting, but one of the committee members is opposed to that
one because "it's not like Yahoo mail".

Personally, I wouldn't use any webmail application if it was possible to
use a real mail program, but Yahoo's does strike me as one of the worst
I've ever seen.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
y***@gmail.com
2017-07-24 17:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning English should be let in on the information that our country is all about war and bombs. I realize that it's no secret, but do we have to rub it in people's faces?
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-07-24 21:53:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
remaining three verses. The fourth is explicitly defensive:

O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

We were being invaded, after all.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: The dignity of labor is less certain than the indignity of :||
||: sloth. :||
Robert Bannister
2017-07-25 00:26:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
"Conquer we must" is defensive?
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-07-25 18:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
"Conquer we must" is defensive?
In the context of the first two lines, I think "conquer" has to be taken
in the weak sense of "be victorious".

Likewise, if you look at the rest of it, "Deutschland über alles" turns
out to be sentimental rather than imperialistic.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Television enables you to be entertained in your home by :||
||: people you wouldn't have in your home. :||
Robert Bannister
2017-07-26 00:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
"Conquer we must" is defensive?
In the context of the first two lines, I think "conquer" has to be taken
in the weak sense of "be victorious".
Likewise, if you look at the rest of it, "Deutschland über alles" turns
out to be sentimental rather than imperialistic.
All the same, that verse is now banned - not of course because of the
"über alles" but because of the following lines that define the limits
of Germany:
"from the Meuse (1) to the Memel (2), from the Etsch (3) up to the Belt
(4)" [von der Maas bis an die Memel, von der Etsch bis an den Belt].

1. the Meuse or Maas flows mainly through France and the Netherlands;
2. the Memel is either in Russia or one of the Baltic states;
3. the Etsch is in Switzerland;
4. the Belt is in Denmark.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
bill van
2017-07-26 03:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
"Conquer we must" is defensive?
In the context of the first two lines, I think "conquer" has to be taken
in the weak sense of "be victorious".
Likewise, if you look at the rest of it, "Deutschland ÃŒber alles" turns
out to be sentimental rather than imperialistic.
All the same, that verse is now banned - not of course because of the
"ÃŒber alles" but because of the following lines that define the limits
"from the Meuse (1) to the Memel (2), from the Etsch (3) up to the Belt
(4)" [von der Maas bis an die Memel, von der Etsch bis an den Belt].
1. the Meuse or Maas flows mainly through France and the Netherlands;
Well, it rises in France, but it couldn't reach the Netherlands
without flowing through Belgium.
--
bill
Whiskers
2017-07-30 14:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
Technically, you tried to invade the British empire (specifically,
Canada) and defeat Britain's Native American allies to the west of the
then USA, while Britain was heavily engaged fighting Napoleon, but your
President Madison misjudged both British power and American support for
his aggression, and the invasion of Canada was repulsed emphatically.
The western tribes of Native Americans faired badly though.

But national founding myths pay little attention to actual history.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Joseph C. Fineman
2017-07-30 22:16:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
Technically, you tried to invade the British empire (specifically,
Canada) and defeat Britain's Native American allies to the west of the
then USA, while Britain was heavily engaged fighting Napoleon, but your
President Madison misjudged both British power and American support for
his aggression, and the invasion of Canada was repulsed emphatically.
The western tribes of Native Americans faired badly though.
But national founding myths pay little attention to actual history.
I dare say. But the particular context of the song was defensive.
--
--- Joe Fineman ***@verizon.net

||: Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity. :||
Jerry Friedman
2017-07-31 02:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
Technically, you tried to invade the British empire (specifically,
Canada) and defeat Britain's Native American allies to the west of the
then USA, while Britain was heavily engaged fighting Napoleon, but your
President Madison misjudged both British power and American support for
his aggression, and the invasion of Canada was repulsed emphatically.
The western tribes of Native Americans faired badly though.
But national founding myths pay little attention to actual history.
True, but we’re often told that that war isn’t important to British
myths, so where did you get such a one–sided view? Maybe you’d like to
look at a Canadian book that says something about the grievances on both
sides and notes who was the first to invade.

https://books.google.com/books?id=EpnHAgAAQBAJ
--
Jerry Friedman
Whiskers
2017-07-31 09:20:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Whiskers
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
Technically, you tried to invade the British empire (specifically,
Canada) and defeat Britain's Native American allies to the west of the
then USA, while Britain was heavily engaged fighting Napoleon, but your
President Madison misjudged both British power and American support for
his aggression, and the invasion of Canada was repulsed emphatically.
The western tribes of Native Americans faired badly though.
But national founding myths pay little attention to actual history.
True, but we’re often told that that war isn’t important to British
myths, so where did you get such a one–sided view? Maybe you’d like to
look at a Canadian book that says something about the grievances on both
sides and notes who was the first to invade.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EpnHAgAAQBAJ
That war isn't involved in any British myths as far as I know. We do
know that it happened though, and that 'we' didn't start it. See for
example <http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812> for a fairly
balanced account.

The aftermath changed USA's internal politics and self image, so
it's very important 'over there'. 'Over here' it made no difference to
anything nationally significant, and sometimes isn't even seen as
distinct from the general 'Napoleonic' wars - which really were
significant for us.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Friedman
2017-07-31 19:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Whiskers
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
Technically, you tried to invade the British empire (specifically,
Canada) and defeat Britain's Native American allies to the west of the
then USA, while Britain was heavily engaged fighting Napoleon, but your
President Madison misjudged both British power and American support for
his aggression, and the invasion of Canada was repulsed emphatically.
The western tribes of Native Americans faired badly though.
But national founding myths pay little attention to actual history.
True, but we’re often told that that war isn’t important to British
myths, so where did you get such a one–sided view? Maybe you’d like to
look at a Canadian book that says something about the grievances on both
sides and notes who was the first to invade.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EpnHAgAAQBAJ
That war isn't involved in any British myths as far as I know. We do
know that it happened though, and that 'we' didn't start it.
"You" didn't declare it, but abducting thousands of a country's citizens
(see thread on relinquishing citizenship) and supporting armed raids on
the country might be considered starting a war.
Post by Whiskers
See for
example <http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812> for a fairly
balanced account.
...

Yes, that's much better.
--
Jerry Friedman
Whiskers
2017-07-31 23:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Whiskers
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Whiskers
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
Technically, you tried to invade the British empire (specifically,
Canada) and defeat Britain's Native American allies to the west of the
then USA, while Britain was heavily engaged fighting Napoleon, but your
President Madison misjudged both British power and American support for
his aggression, and the invasion of Canada was repulsed emphatically.
The western tribes of Native Americans faired badly though.
But national founding myths pay little attention to actual history.
True, but we’re often told that that war isn’t important to British
myths, so where did you get such a one–sided view? Maybe you’d like to
look at a Canadian book that says something about the grievances on both
sides and notes who was the first to invade.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EpnHAgAAQBAJ
That war isn't involved in any British myths as far as I know. We do
know that it happened though, and that 'we' didn't start it.
"You" didn't declare it, but abducting thousands of a country's citizens
(see thread on relinquishing citizenship) and supporting armed raids on
the country might be considered starting a war.
Post by Whiskers
See for
example <http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812> for a fairly
balanced account.
...
Yes, that's much better.
'Abducting thousands' calls for some evidence. Are you thinking of the
'impressing' of American sailors captured while trading with the enemy
(ie the French) despite the warnings? By 'armed raids on the country'
are you referring to the resistance by the Native American tribes to
'your' incursions into their territories and 'your' breaking of treaties
entered into with them?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Friedman
2017-08-02 02:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Whiskers
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Whiskers
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
Technically, you tried to invade the British empire (specifically,
Canada) and defeat Britain's Native American allies to the west of the
then USA, while Britain was heavily engaged fighting Napoleon, but your
President Madison misjudged both British power and American support for
his aggression, and the invasion of Canada was repulsed emphatically.
The western tribes of Native Americans faired badly though.
But national founding myths pay little attention to actual history.
True, but we’re often told that that war isn’t important to British
myths, so where did you get such a one–sided view? Maybe you’d like to
look at a Canadian book that says something about the grievances on both
sides and notes who was the first to invade.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EpnHAgAAQBAJ
That war isn't involved in any British myths as far as I know. We do
know that it happened though, and that 'we' didn't start it.
"You" didn't declare it, but abducting thousands of a country's citizens
(see thread on relinquishing citizenship) and supporting armed raids on
the country might be considered starting a war.
Post by Whiskers
See for
example <http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812> for a fairly
balanced account.
...
Yes, that's much better.
'Abducting thousands' calls for some evidence. Are you thinking of the
'impressing' of American sailors captured while trading with the enemy
(ie the French) despite the warnings?
To the ones impressed everywhere, the majority of them in sight of the
U.S. ports. The impressments were about manpower and reclaiming
supposed deserters, not a punishment for blockaderunning.

One history quotes a statement by Lord Grenville that American claims of
impressment of native–born Americans were exaggerated and the apparently
genuine ones led to the release of the impressees (if I may). (Everyone
seems to agree that many of the naturalization certificates presented by
sailors to be released from impressment were false.) However, he
clearly considered sailors born in Britain and Ireland to be British
subjects, regardless of whether they had become naturalized American
citizens. Also, the impressed American sailors couldn't be released
till their cases were heard and then the ships they were serving on came
off active duty.

It then says

"Grenville's statement may be contrasted with that of Captain H. Mowat,
Senior Officer of His Majesty's Navy, who in 1796 succeeded Admiral
Murray in command of British warships on the American station. In reply
to Laston's representations in behalf of impressed American seamen,
Mowat, after complaining that the American people invariably befriended
and aided deserting British seamen, stated that until the American
government effectually prevented such actions of its people 'all the
orders and Instructions that can be given by the Government of Great
Britain, never can heal the evil, that you so much recommend to be
avoided : because it is my duty to keep my Ship manned, and I will do so
wherever I find men, that speak the same language with me, and not a
small part of them British Subjects, and that too producing Certificates
as being American Citizens: at the same time I tell you, Sir, that I
have not got an American Subject on board, but I will not say how long
it will be so.' Mowat to Liston, from H. M. S. /Assistance/, Hampton
Roads, March 27, 1797, Admiralty, I, 494."

https://archive.org/stream/annualrepotrofth027201mbp/annualrepotrofth027201mbp_djvu.txt
Post by Whiskers
By 'armed raids on the country'
are you referring to the resistance by the Native American tribes to
'your' incursions into their territories and 'your' breaking of treaties
entered into with them?
Yes. I'm not defending the incursions or the treaty–breaking, a
shameful part of American history, and I hope you're not defending the
British support for raids in the U.S. and for the creation of a Native
state in U.S. territory (as the British had recognized by treaty) but
not in British territory. There's plenty of moral low ground to go around.
--
Jerry Friedman
Robert Bannister
2017-07-31 23:21:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Whiskers
Post by Joseph C. Fineman
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs.
"*All* about" is an exaggeration, partly due to the desuetude of the
O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand
Between their lov’d home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with vict’ry and peace may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the power that hath made and preserv’d us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto – “In God is our trust,”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
We were being invaded, after all.
Technically, you tried to invade the British empire (specifically,
Canada) and defeat Britain's Native American allies to the west of the
then USA, while Britain was heavily engaged fighting Napoleon, but your
President Madison misjudged both British power and American support for
his aggression, and the invasion of Canada was repulsed emphatically.
The western tribes of Native Americans faired badly though.
But national founding myths pay little attention to actual history.
True, but we’re often told that that war isn’t important to British
myths, so where did you get such a one–sided view? Maybe you’d like to
look at a Canadian book that says something about the grievances on both
sides and notes who was the first to invade.
https://books.google.com/books?id=EpnHAgAAQBAJ
That war isn't involved in any British myths as far as I know. We do
know that it happened though, and that 'we' didn't start it. See for
example <http://www.history.com/topics/war-of-1812> for a fairly
balanced account.
The aftermath changed USA's internal politics and self image, so
it's very important 'over there'. 'Over here' it made no difference to
anything nationally significant, and sometimes isn't even seen as
distinct from the general 'Napoleonic' wars - which really were
significant for us.
I don't remember anything of significance from 1812 apart from Napoleon
entering Moscow. I have vague memories of a Battle of Borodino, but
couldn't say who fought whom. The only battle in Canada that I sort of
remember from history was - I had to google the date - in 1759.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
y***@gmail.com
2017-07-24 17:19:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners
learning English should be let in on the information that
our country is all about war and bombs. I realize that it's
no secret, but do we have to rub it in people's faces?
Peter T. Daniels
2017-07-24 17:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners
learning English should be let in on the information that
our country is all about war and bombs. I realize that it's
no secret, but do we have to rub it in people's faces?
Have you ever read the text of the Marseillaise?

Every so often there's a movement to make "America the Beautiful" the national anthem instead
Mack A. Damia
2017-07-24 18:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:28:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners
learning English should be let in on the information that
our country is all about war and bombs. I realize that it's
no secret, but do we have to rub it in people's faces?
Have you ever read the text of the Marseillaise?
Every so often there's a movement to make "America the Beautiful" the national anthem instead
Lyrics by Katharine Lee Bates; music by Samuel A. Ward. I still
remember that Parade Magazine ran an article about it in the late
1950s. The movement never amounted to much.
David Kleinecke
2017-07-24 18:23:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:28:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners
learning English should be let in on the information that
our country is all about war and bombs. I realize that it's
no secret, but do we have to rub it in people's faces?
Have you ever read the text of the Marseillaise?
Every so often there's a movement to make "America the Beautiful" the national anthem instead
Lyrics by Katharine Lee Bates; music by Samuel A. Ward. I still
remember that Parade Magazine ran an article about it in the late
1950s. The movement never amounted to much.
The more recent campaign for "This Land is your Land"
was even less successful.
Whiskers
2017-07-30 15:30:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
On Mon, 24 Jul 2017 10:28:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by y***@gmail.com
As a patriotic American, I'm not so sure that foreigners learning
English should be let in on the information that our country is all
about war and bombs. I realize that it's no secret, but do we have
to rub it in people's faces?
Have you ever read the text of the Marseillaise?
Oh, so many words. Regrettable, violent, bad words, many of them. But
a jolly good tune.
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Every so often there's a movement to make "America the Beautiful" the
national anthem instead
Lyrics by Katharine Lee Bates; music by Samuel A. Ward. I still
remember that Parade Magazine ran an article about it in the late
1950s. The movement never amounted to much.
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.

"God Save the Queen" as usually sung (on those vanishingly few occasions
when it's sung at all) in the UK, is personal, which makes a certain
amount of sense if you happen to bear no malice for that person. I can
understand having strong feelings about people or a person. It's only a
'national' anthem in that a person might personify a group of people, a
nation - whatever that is. Some sub-set of the Psalm's 'All People that
on Earth do dwell', probably bigger than a 'family'?

It's sad that the worst words seem to attract the best tunes, and the
best words get stuck with dull or pompous music.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Moylan
2017-07-31 01:01:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely rejected it
now because the references to "another country" are more appropriate for
a colony than for an independent nation.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Whiskers
2017-07-31 09:00:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely rejected it
now because the references to "another country" are more appropriate for
a colony than for an independent nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not in this
world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter Moylan
2017-07-31 11:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely rejected it
now because the references to "another country" are more appropriate for
a colony than for an independent nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not in this
world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take some
time before I can understand the lines in the light of that interpretation.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
LFS
2017-07-31 12:02:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely rejected it
now because the references to "another country" are more appropriate for
a colony than for an independent nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not in this
world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take some
time before I can understand the lines in the light of that interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a real
country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang the hymn
at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd come across
such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Katy Jennison
2017-07-31 12:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely rejected it
now because the references to "another country" are more appropriate for
a colony than for an independent nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not in this
world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take some
time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a real
country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang the hymn
at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd come across
such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Moylan
2017-08-01 02:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
LFS
2017-08-01 05:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.

I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.

The Wikipedia entry leads to another perspective which seems to me to be
a more rational critique:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/aug/12/religion.world
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Peter Moylan
2017-08-01 11:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
Late adolescence, I think. It was probably one of those "Last Night at
the Proms" or similar broadcast, so it would have been after we got TV.

Someone else also called it a hymn. That's not something that would have
occurred to me. It doesn't sound like something that would be sung in a
church. Still, I can see that the "heaven" association would come more
readily to someone who classified it as a hymn.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
LFS
2017-08-01 11:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
Late adolescence, I think. It was probably one of those "Last Night at
the Proms" or similar broadcast, so it would have been after we got TV.
Someone else also called it a hymn. That's not something that would have
occurred to me. It doesn't sound like something that would be sung in a
church. Still, I can see that the "heaven" association would come more
readily to someone who classified it as a hymn.
I assumed it was a hymn as I first heard it in school assembly and the
words were in the hymn book.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Robert Bannister
2017-08-01 23:45:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
Late adolescence, I think. It was probably one of those "Last Night at
the Proms" or similar broadcast, so it would have been after we got TV.
Someone else also called it a hymn. That's not something that would have
occurred to me. It doesn't sound like something that would be sung in a
church. Still, I can see that the "heaven" association would come more
readily to someone who classified it as a hymn.
I assumed it was a hymn as I first heard it in school assembly and the
words were in the hymn book.
To the best of my recollection, I've never heard it sung, although I've
heard the music enough times. I always thought it was an Elgar number,
but I see it was Holst.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Whiskers
2017-08-01 11:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
The Wikipedia entry leads to another perspective which seems to me to be
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/aug/12/religion.world
'My country right or wrong' is certainly an attitude to be discouraged.

In 1918 it may have been in tune with public sentiment; the lyric seems
to justify and ennoble the vast death toll of the recent war, and so
perhaps gave some comfort to the bereaved, but logically it is part of
the problem, not a sane response to war. That defect is a very good
reason to reject the lyrics.

I have noticed before now that some people think the song is
specifically British or English. It isn't, of course, but the notion of
a 'patriotic hymn' that mentions no particular country or people is so
odd that those who haven't paid attention to the words might be forgiven
for making the mistake.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Cheryl
2017-08-01 11:24:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
The Wikipedia entry leads to another perspective which seems to me to be
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/aug/12/religion.world
'My country right or wrong' is certainly an attitude to be discouraged.
In 1918 it may have been in tune with public sentiment; the lyric seems
to justify and ennoble the vast death toll of the recent war, and so
perhaps gave some comfort to the bereaved, but logically it is part of
the problem, not a sane response to war. That defect is a very good
reason to reject the lyrics.
That's its original context, to be sure, and the focus of the first
verse. The second turns the idea around, and, rather than continuing the
idea that one's country is due "love that asks no question", points to a
greater power than one's country, and a greater duty than love of country.
Post by Whiskers
I have noticed before now that some people think the song is
specifically British or English. It isn't, of course, but the notion of
a 'patriotic hymn' that mentions no particular country or people is so
odd that those who haven't paid attention to the words might be forgiven
for making the mistake.
How is it not British? The words were written by a British diplomat, and
the music by a British composer. The fact that it's been sung in other
countries and that the words can be applied to any country hardly make
it not British. You might as well say any piece of writing or music that
achieves recognition outside the UK somehow loses its Britishness.
--
Cheryl
Whiskers
2017-08-02 11:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Whiskers
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
The Wikipedia entry leads to another perspective which seems to me to be
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/aug/12/religion.world
'My country right or wrong' is certainly an attitude to be discouraged.
In 1918 it may have been in tune with public sentiment; the lyric seems
to justify and ennoble the vast death toll of the recent war, and so
perhaps gave some comfort to the bereaved, but logically it is part of
the problem, not a sane response to war. That defect is a very good
reason to reject the lyrics.
That's its original context, to be sure, and the focus of the first
verse. The second turns the idea around, and, rather than continuing the
idea that one's country is due "love that asks no question", points to a
greater power than one's country, and a greater duty than love of country.
Post by Whiskers
I have noticed before now that some people think the song is
specifically British or English. It isn't, of course, but the notion of
a 'patriotic hymn' that mentions no particular country or people is so
odd that those who haven't paid attention to the words might be forgiven
for making the mistake.
How is it not British? The words were written by a British diplomat, and
the music by a British composer. The fact that it's been sung in other
countries and that the words can be applied to any country hardly make
it not British. You might as well say any piece of writing or music that
achieves recognition outside the UK somehow loses its Britishness.
I'm not denying its British origin, I'm saying that it isn't a
specifically British song. Just as Toyota cars can be used by anyone,
anywhere, not only by Japanese people on Japanese roads.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-01 13:06:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
<...>
In 1918 it may have been in tune with public sentiment; the lyric seems
to justify and ennoble the vast death toll of the recent war, and so
perhaps gave some comfort to the bereaved, but logically it is part of
the problem, not a sane response to war. That defect is a very good
reason to reject the lyrics.
I have noticed before now that some people think the song is
specifically British or English. It isn't, of course,
So far there's been no evidence that it's known in the US, but it is known in
Canada and Australia.
Post by Whiskers
but the notion of
a 'patriotic hymn' that mentions no particular country or people is so
odd that those who haven't paid attention to the words might be forgiven
for making the mistake.
Where does "America" ("My country, 'tis of thee") mention America?
Peter Moylan
2017-08-02 04:46:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
but the notion of
a 'patriotic hymn' that mentions no particular country or people is so
odd that those who haven't paid attention to the words might be forgiven
for making the mistake.
Where does "America" ("My country, 'tis of thee") mention America?
Good example. I can imagine that tune becoming popular in the UK.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Whiskers
2017-08-02 11:33:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
but the notion of
a 'patriotic hymn' that mentions no particular country or people is so
odd that those who haven't paid attention to the words might be forgiven
for making the mistake.
Where does "America" ("My country, 'tis of thee") mention America?
I had heard of the hymn but it certainly isn't familiar. Looking at the
words, I see there are heavy references to "land of liberty" and
"pilgrims' pride" which are very American allusions. Also calling it
"America" or "National Hymn of the United States" does somewhat limit
its use by other nations.
Post by Peter Moylan
Good example. I can imagine that tune becoming popular in the UK.
It hasn't yet; we know it and use it but "popular" isn't quite the right
description. "Tolerated" seems to fit better. We sometimes have public
debates about finding a better tune. "Rule Britannia" is the one that
gets people on their feet and joining in with gusto.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-02 13:22:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
but the notion of
a 'patriotic hymn' that mentions no particular country or people is so
odd that those who haven't paid attention to the words might be forgiven
for making the mistake.
Where does "America" ("My country, 'tis of thee") mention America?
Good example. I can imagine that tune becoming popular in the UK.
:-)
Janet
2017-08-01 13:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by

"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"

Janet
Cheryl
2017-08-01 13:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
With countless armies and an invisible king?? And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.

I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country". They might have supported the monarchy,
especially since it no longer interfered in local issues; they might
have opposed the new Canadian flag and flown the Union Jack on their
boat, but home was here and they didn't consider themselves English or
British. Of course porp

Clearly Peter's experience was different, and both of ours was probably
different from the experiences of all the expats who temporarily served
their mother country in far-flung areas of the Empire or Commonwealth.
--
Cheryl
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-08-01 16:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
With countless armies and an invisible king?? And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.
I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country".
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.

That sense of "home" faded over the decades.

The OED has this in the entry for "home, n.":

5. A person's own country or native land. Also: the country of one's
ancestors...
Formerly used with reference to Britain by inhabitants of (former)
British dependencies; cf. old home n. at old adj.

Selected quotations:

1837 Lett. fr. Madras (1843) 92 Home always means England;
nobody calls India home.

1842 N.Z. Govt. Gaz. Suppl. II. 40 In accordance with
instructions from home.

1942 A. L. Haskell Waltzing Matilda p. xxi England is
automatically referred to as Home, even in such a common paradox
as ‘I have never been Home’.

1988 M. MacMillan Women of Raj iii. 46 It was considered
extremely important to keep as much of Home alive as possible.

It is natural for Britain to have been referred to as "home" by Brits in
India. Most were there temporarily and the Brits in India were not
creating a colony of British and Irish people in the way that was done
in Australia and New Zealand.
Post by Cheryl
They might have supported the monarchy,
especially since it no longer interfered in local issues; they might
have opposed the new Canadian flag and flown the Union Jack on their
boat, but home was here and they didn't consider themselves English or
British. Of course porp
Clearly Peter's experience was different, and both of ours was probably
different from the experiences of all the expats who temporarily served
their mother country in far-flung areas of the Empire or Commonwealth.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Cheryl
2017-08-01 16:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
With countless armies and an invisible king?? And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.
I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country".
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.
If they weren't immigrants themselves to Australia, that represents a
very surprising cultural and linguistic difference between Australia and
Canada. It's natural that immigrants might think of their country of
birth as "home" even after decades in a different place.

I've read of such usage - generally in Harlequin (Mills and Boone)
novels when I was a teenager, but always put it down to an error on the
part of an English author who had never been to any of the countries in
question.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
That sense of "home" faded over the decades.
5. A person's own country or native land. Also: the country of one's
ancestors...
Formerly used with reference to Britain by inhabitants of (former)
British dependencies; cf. old home n. at old adj.
1837 Lett. fr. Madras (1843) 92 Home always means England;
nobody calls India home.
1842 N.Z. Govt. Gaz. Suppl. II. 40 In accordance with
instructions from home.
1942 A. L. Haskell Waltzing Matilda p. xxi England is
automatically referred to as Home, even in such a common paradox
as ‘I have never been Home’.
1988 M. MacMillan Women of Raj iii. 46 It was considered
extremely important to keep as much of Home alive as possible.
It is natural for Britain to have been referred to as "home" by Brits in
India. Most were there temporarily and the Brits in India were not
creating a colony of British and Irish people in the way that was done
in Australia and New Zealand.
"Home" is a natural usage of expats and even immigrants. Not, in my
experience, of the descendants of immigrants - but apparently the
situation was different in Australia and New Zealand.

I don't think even the various people who have tried to strengthen
Canada's identity as separate from the US tried calling the UK "home",
although I've read that they did try to insist on using some UK English
spellings. There's even a story that in some areas of Ontario they
brought in Scottish teachers so that the schoolchildren wouldn't become
too Americanized.
--
Cheryl
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2017-08-01 17:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
With countless armies and an invisible king?? And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.
I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country".
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.
If they weren't immigrants themselves to Australia, that represents a
very surprising cultural and linguistic difference between Australia and
Canada. It's natural that immigrants might think of their country of
birth as "home" even after decades in a different place.
My mother was born in London. As she put it "I went to Australia aged 3
taking my mother, brothers and sister with me". Her father had travelled
separately in advance (we think).

My father was born in Australia, as were his father and grandfather. His
great-grandfather had migrated from Scotland in the 1830s/40s.

Australia, as a European settlement, is noticeably younger than Canada.
The first settlement in Australia was in 1788, That compares with the
first colony in Canada, established by the French, in 1535.

So my great-great-grandfather had migrated to Australia approximately 50
years after the first settlement.
Post by Cheryl
I've read of such usage - generally in Harlequin (Mills and Boone)
novels when I was a teenager, but always put it down to an error on the
part of an English author who had never been to any of the countries in
question.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
That sense of "home" faded over the decades.
5. A person's own country or native land. Also: the country of one's
ancestors...
Formerly used with reference to Britain by inhabitants of (former)
British dependencies; cf. old home n. at old adj.
1837 Lett. fr. Madras (1843) 92 Home always means England;
nobody calls India home.
1842 N.Z. Govt. Gaz. Suppl. II. 40 In accordance with
instructions from home.
1942 A. L. Haskell Waltzing Matilda p. xxi England is
automatically referred to as Home, even in such a common paradox
as ‘I have never been Home’.
1988 M. MacMillan Women of Raj iii. 46 It was considered
extremely important to keep as much of Home alive as possible.
It is natural for Britain to have been referred to as "home" by Brits in
India. Most were there temporarily and the Brits in India were not
creating a colony of British and Irish people in the way that was done
in Australia and New Zealand.
"Home" is a natural usage of expats and even immigrants. Not, in my
experience, of the descendants of immigrants - but apparently the
situation was different in Australia and New Zealand.
I don't think even the various people who have tried to strengthen
Canada's identity as separate from the US tried calling the UK "home",
although I've read that they did try to insist on using some UK English
spellings. There's even a story that in some areas of Ontario they
brought in Scottish teachers so that the schoolchildren wouldn't become
too Americanized.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Cheryl
2017-08-01 21:53:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
With countless armies and an invisible king?? And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.
I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country".
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.
If they weren't immigrants themselves to Australia, that represents a
very surprising cultural and linguistic difference between Australia and
Canada. It's natural that immigrants might think of their country of
birth as "home" even after decades in a different place.
My mother was born in London. As she put it "I went to Australia aged 3
taking my mother, brothers and sister with me". Her father had travelled
separately in advance (we think).
My father was born in Australia, as were his father and grandfather. His
great-grandfather had migrated from Scotland in the 1830s/40s.
Australia, as a European settlement, is noticeably younger than Canada.
The first settlement in Australia was in 1788, That compares with the
first colony in Canada, established by the French, in 1535.
So my great-great-grandfather had migrated to Australia approximately 50
years after the first settlement.
My father was American; the earliest immigrant on his side of the family
arrived in the New World in 1631. My mother's family is far less well
documented. It's certain that my great-great grandmother, whom we
thought had come from England as a child with her father, was actually
born on what was then called the French Shore in 1854. The family story
about her father's job in St. John's doesn't appear to be true either.
Most likely, her father and mother moved up the shore from the Trinity
or Conception Bay area and came from families that had been established
there for a couple of generations, maybe more.

So my people have been in North America longer than yours was in
Australia, but I'm not sure that explains the difference in the usage of
"home". I don't think I've heard it used that way even by children of
immigrants, although it would be normal for expats, who are only
temporarily abroad, and possibly for immigrants.
--
Cheryl
David Kleinecke
2017-08-01 23:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
With countless armies and an invisible king?? And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.
I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country".
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.
If they weren't immigrants themselves to Australia, that represents a
very surprising cultural and linguistic difference between Australia and
Canada. It's natural that immigrants might think of their country of
birth as "home" even after decades in a different place.
My mother was born in London. As she put it "I went to Australia aged 3
taking my mother, brothers and sister with me". Her father had travelled
separately in advance (we think).
My father was born in Australia, as were his father and grandfather. His
great-grandfather had migrated from Scotland in the 1830s/40s.
Australia, as a European settlement, is noticeably younger than Canada.
The first settlement in Australia was in 1788, That compares with the
first colony in Canada, established by the French, in 1535.
So my great-great-grandfather had migrated to Australia approximately 50
years after the first settlement.
My father was American; the earliest immigrant on his side of the family
arrived in the New World in 1631. My mother's family is far less well
documented. It's certain that my great-great grandmother, whom we
thought had come from England as a child with her father, was actually
born on what was then called the French Shore in 1854. The family story
about her father's job in St. John's doesn't appear to be true either.
Most likely, her father and mother moved up the shore from the Trinity
or Conception Bay area and came from families that had been established
there for a couple of generations, maybe more.
So my people have been in North America longer than yours was in
Australia, but I'm not sure that explains the difference in the usage of
"home". I don't think I've heard it used that way even by children of
immigrants, although it would be normal for expats, who are only
temporarily abroad, and possibly for immigrants.
I have five Mayflower ancestors (not the first settlers in
what is now the USA but the gold standard) and dozens who
came over during the next decade. But that is no big deal -
anyone with ancestors in colonial New England could probably
match it (if they did the digging). I'm much prouder of the
woman who was hanged in Salem as a witch.
Cheryl
2017-08-02 00:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Cheryl
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
With countless armies and an invisible king?? And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.
I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country".
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.
If they weren't immigrants themselves to Australia, that represents a
very surprising cultural and linguistic difference between Australia and
Canada. It's natural that immigrants might think of their country of
birth as "home" even after decades in a different place.
My mother was born in London. As she put it "I went to Australia aged 3
taking my mother, brothers and sister with me". Her father had travelled
separately in advance (we think).
My father was born in Australia, as were his father and grandfather. His
great-grandfather had migrated from Scotland in the 1830s/40s.
Australia, as a European settlement, is noticeably younger than Canada.
The first settlement in Australia was in 1788, That compares with the
first colony in Canada, established by the French, in 1535.
So my great-great-grandfather had migrated to Australia approximately 50
years after the first settlement.
My father was American; the earliest immigrant on his side of the family
arrived in the New World in 1631. My mother's family is far less well
documented. It's certain that my great-great grandmother, whom we
thought had come from England as a child with her father, was actually
born on what was then called the French Shore in 1854. The family story
about her father's job in St. John's doesn't appear to be true either.
Most likely, her father and mother moved up the shore from the Trinity
or Conception Bay area and came from families that had been established
there for a couple of generations, maybe more.
So my people have been in North America longer than yours was in
Australia, but I'm not sure that explains the difference in the usage of
"home". I don't think I've heard it used that way even by children of
immigrants, although it would be normal for expats, who are only
temporarily abroad, and possibly for immigrants.
I have five Mayflower ancestors (not the first settlers in
what is now the USA but the gold standard) and dozens who
came over during the next decade. But that is no big deal -
anyone with ancestors in colonial New England could probably
match it (if they did the digging). I'm much prouder of the
woman who was hanged in Salem as a witch.
The two main reasons my American relatives are so well documented are
that there are so many of them - in the first couple of generations they
were really prolific - and so many of their descendants appear to have
been interested in genealogy, including my great-uncle and second cousin
(or is it first cousin once removed? I'm only a dabbler). And a third
reason - they happened to settle in a place with an organized government
and record-keeping from the beginning. With records on that many
ancestors, you can find almost anything somewhere along the line. There
was a witchcraft trial - one of my more disreputable ancestors (a
convicted thief) affirmed some testimony against a sort of aunt by
marriage who was hanged. He lived to a ripe old age, apparently
quarreling over land but not being convicted of any more thefts. I'm
surprised his testimony was believed. I'm also related to the Mary
Bradbury who was convicted of witchcraft but somehow avoided hanging.

The thing is, I don't think that in Canada you needed to trace your
ancestry back to the 17th century to drop the use of "home" for England.
I think it would take a generation at most. And yet, this doesn't seem
to have been the case in Australia or New Zealand. The same seems to
apply to children of more recent immigrants - only recently, the
Canadian-born daughter of Indian immigrants said she was going to India
for a family wedding. She didn't say she was going home. Home is in
southern Ontario, to hear her talk.

I'm wondering if there's a social component as well as a
temporary/permanent resident one - your average fisherman or farmer
didn't send children to England for their education or plan on retiring
there. But surely, from everything I've read, Australia and New Zealand
had their share of working-class immigrants who also didn't ship their
children back to the UK or otherwise maintain personal connections there.
--
Cheryl
Jack Campin
2017-08-02 00:23:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
The thing is, I don't think that in Canada you needed to trace your
ancestry back to the 17th century to drop the use of "home" for England.
I think it would take a generation at most. And yet, this doesn't seem
to have been the case in Australia or New Zealand.
I grew up in NZ in the 60s and calling England "home" was generally
seen as somewhere between stupid and insulting, and the sort of thing
only a very ignorant and self-centred recent immigrant would say.
Australians took an even dimmer view of it. I think it was well on
the way out in the Fifties.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07895 860 060 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Robert Bannister
2017-08-02 03:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Cheryl
The thing is, I don't think that in Canada you needed to trace your
ancestry back to the 17th century to drop the use of "home" for England.
I think it would take a generation at most. And yet, this doesn't seem
to have been the case in Australia or New Zealand.
I grew up in NZ in the 60s and calling England "home" was generally
seen as somewhere between stupid and insulting, and the sort of thing
only a very ignorant and self-centred recent immigrant would say.
Australians took an even dimmer view of it. I think it was well on
the way out in the Fifties.
That sounds right to me. By the time I got here, the only people who
said anything like that were the ones who were forever flitting back and
forth, never happy in either country. I did hear "the Old Country" a
bit, but that was back in the 70s. I still know a couple of people who
go to England or Scotland or Ireland, depending on their origins, almost
every year, but most people couldn't afford it even if they wanted to.
--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972
Peter Moylan
2017-08-02 04:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Bannister
Post by Jack Campin
Post by Cheryl
The thing is, I don't think that in Canada you needed to trace your
ancestry back to the 17th century to drop the use of "home" for England.
I think it would take a generation at most. And yet, this doesn't seem
to have been the case in Australia or New Zealand.
I grew up in NZ in the 60s and calling England "home" was generally
seen as somewhere between stupid and insulting, and the sort of thing
only a very ignorant and self-centred recent immigrant would say.
Australians took an even dimmer view of it. I think it was well on
the way out in the Fifties.
That sounds right to me. By the time I got here, the only people who
said anything like that were the ones who were forever flitting back and
forth, never happy in either country. I did hear "the Old Country" a
bit, but that was back in the 70s. I still know a couple of people who
go to England or Scotland or Ireland, depending on their origins, almost
every year, but most people couldn't afford it even if they wanted to.
I once heard a story about an English couple who decided to move to
Australia. Their children were less than impressed. "Australia? That's
where they sent the convicts."

A few years later the parents changed their minds and decided to go back
to England. Again the children were opposed to the move. "England?
That's where the convicts came from."
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Janet
2017-08-01 19:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@med.mun.ca
says...
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.
If they weren't immigrants themselves to Australia, that represents a
very surprising cultural and linguistic difference between Australia and
Canada. It's natural that immigrants might think of their country of
birth as "home" even after decades in a different place.
I've read of such usage - generally in Harlequin (Mills and Boone)
novels when I was a teenager, but always put it down to an error on the
part of an English author who had never been to any of the countries in
question.
[quoted text muted]
It is natural for Britain to have been referred to as "home" by Brits in
India. Most were there temporarily and the Brits in India were not
creating a colony of British and Irish people in the way that was done
in Australia and New Zealand.
"Home" is a natural usage of expats and even immigrants. Not, in my
experience, of the descendants of immigrants - but apparently the
situation was different in Australia and New Zealand.
Perhaps Canadians felt more at home because there are some
similarities to Europe (climate,landscape,botany).

Australia, New Zealand, India and Africa are so very different.

Janet
Cheryl
2017-08-01 22:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
says...
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.
If they weren't immigrants themselves to Australia, that represents a
very surprising cultural and linguistic difference between Australia and
Canada. It's natural that immigrants might think of their country of
birth as "home" even after decades in a different place.
I've read of such usage - generally in Harlequin (Mills and Boone)
novels when I was a teenager, but always put it down to an error on the
part of an English author who had never been to any of the countries in
question.
[quoted text muted]
It is natural for Britain to have been referred to as "home" by Brits in
India. Most were there temporarily and the Brits in India were not
creating a colony of British and Irish people in the way that was done
in Australia and New Zealand.
"Home" is a natural usage of expats and even immigrants. Not, in my
experience, of the descendants of immigrants - but apparently the
situation was different in Australia and New Zealand.
Perhaps Canadians felt more at home because there are some
similarities to Europe (climate,landscape,botany).
Australia, New Zealand, India and Africa are so very different.
English visitors don't seem to have the immediate idea that Newfoundland
is just like home, and the diaries and books of the earliest settlers in
what is now Ontario seem to focus on the exotic. Not as exotic as Africa
or Australia, of course.

I'd expect the difference in the using "home" to be whether or not the
person concerned had come to make or find a new home, or whether they
were just passing through, possibly as a colonial administrator. And
that's why I find the Australian and New Zealand usage so bizarre.
People went there to make a new home, like they came here. Some of
course came to get rich and then go home, but the ones who stayed and
their children and grandchildren - I can't see them talking about "home"
meaning anywhere other than where they live.

One of my uncles immigrated from England as a young man. I never heard
him call England home. Another was a child of UK immigrants - I think he
was either born in Canada or came here as a small child. Same thing for
him. Home was Canada.
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-01 21:09:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Both my parents were Australian. They told me that they and their
friends and family in Australia referred to Britain as "home". Obviously
the meaning of "home" would depend on context. That was in the early
1900s.
Seems odd, since their land had only just become a country (of sorts) of its own.

Took it quite a while to get around to issuing its own stamps, though.
Janet
2017-08-01 19:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In article <***@mid.individual.net>, ***@med.mun.ca
says...
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
[quoted text muted]
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
With countless armies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Colonial_Auxiliary_Forces
and an invisible king??
Before safe easy modern travel, royal visits to the colonies were rare.
Before TV, they were just a picture on a stamp.


And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.
I don't think that those serving in colonies in India or Africa
would agree (nor, their children born there). They were very much living
in a country; one that was not their own.


Janet
I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country". They might have supported the monarchy,
especially since it no longer interfered in local issues; they might
have opposed the new Canadian flag and flown the Union Jack on their
boat, but home was here and they didn't consider themselves English or
British. Of course porp
Clearly Peter's experience was different, and both of ours was probably
different from the experiences of all the expats who temporarily served
their mother country in far-flung areas of the Empire or Commonwealth.
--
Cheryl
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-01 21:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Cheryl
and an invisible king??
Before safe easy modern travel, royal visits to the colonies were rare.
Before TV, they were just a picture on a stamp.
On _every_ stamp. Seems pretty visible to me.
Peter Moylan
2017-08-02 02:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Cheryl
Post by Janet
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
That's exactly the impression I got. We didn't get to see the armies or
the monarch of that distant land, but Britain was still a presence in
the background of our consciousness.
Post by Cheryl
With countless armies and an invisible king?? And a claim greater than
that of one's own country? In a colonial setting, the colonists aren't
living in a country, they're living in a colony.
I admit I have never been to Australia, but I've been in another former
colony almost all my life, and the extremely few expats I knew didn't
talk that way, and certainly the local old-timers who were the most
loyal to the old British connections never talked of "the mother
country" or "the home country". They might have supported the monarchy,
especially since it no longer interfered in local issues; they might
have opposed the new Canadian flag and flown the Union Jack on their
boat, but home was here and they didn't consider themselves English or
British. Of course porp
Clearly Peter's experience was different, and both of ours was probably
different from the experiences of all the expats who temporarily served
their mother country in far-flung areas of the Empire or Commonwealth.
Up until about 1950 the vast majority of the Australian population were
descendants of people from the British Isles, and a great many of them
were first- or second-generation immigrants. (From 1901 to 1950, the
population went from under 4 million to over 8 million, mostly because
of new arrivals rather than rapid breeding.) For whatever reason the
Scots and Welsh, although present and visible, did not form distinctive
groups in terms of political tendency, so in political and social terms
there were two dominant groups:

1. Those of English descent who were, by and large, the "pillars of
society", many of them being relatively prosperous. Most of them were
Anglicans.

2. Those of Irish Catholic descent who were often poorer; the working class.

That second group had a traditional distrust of the English, didn't want
to fight in wars on the same side as the English, wanted Australian
citizenship but didn't want to swear allegiance to the Queen, and so on.
On the other hand the second group was likely to see their patriotic
loyalty as being primarily to the British Empire, and it was not unusual
for them to say "home" and mean England.

I was born near the end of that period. At that point the ethnic mix of
Australia began to change because of the big influx of war refugees, and
by now we have a rather different country. Nevertheless, that
traditional division still has a part to play when we're dealing with
topics like the monarchy, republicanism, the design of the flag, and so
on. We carry our history with us because it's not all that far in the past.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
LFS
2017-08-01 15:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
But Peter said that "we've largely rejected it" which suggests that his
interpretation is widespread among adults.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Cheryl
2017-08-01 15:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by LFS
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
But Peter said that "we've largely rejected it" which suggests that his
interpretation is widespread among adults.>
Maybe (thinking of the thread on the decline of religious affiliation in
Australia) more and more Australian adults are unfamiliar with religious
imagery? Although I don't know how else you'd interpret the invisible
King, the heart as a fortress, the souls (not bodies) continually, er,
immigrating, and so on.
--
Cheryl
Mack A. Damia
2017-08-01 17:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Subject: Re: Understanding the American national anthem for English learners
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
How old were you when you first encountered the hymn? As a child of six
or seven, I don't think I was sensitive to the political context but I
had heard of Heaven.
I have tried very hard to set aside my preconceptions and to view the
hymn from the perspective you seem to be proposing but I really can't.
In the heyday of the British Empire terma like " The old
country" "the home country" and "the mother country" all referring to
Britain, were familiar to expat Brits serving abroad and in the colonies
themselves. So it's not too hard to understand why a child in Australia
might think that's what was meant by
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
"Another Country" (1984)

"Another Country is a 1984 British romantic historical drama written
by Julian Mitchell, adapted from his play of the same name. Directed
by Marek Kanievska, the film stars Rupert Everett and Colin Firth.
Another Country is loosely based on the life of the spy and double
agent Guy Burgess, Guy Bennett in the film. It explores his
homosexuality and exposure to Marxism, while examining the hypocrisy
and snobbery of the English public school system."

"The title refers not only to Soviet Russia, which is the "other
country" Bennett turns to in the end, but it can be seen to take on a
number of different meanings and connotations. It could be a reference
to the first line of the second (or third, depending on the version)
stanza of the hymn *I Vow to Thee, My Country*, which is sung in both
the play and film, as well as referring to the fact that English
public school life in the 1930s was indeed very much like "another
country". In the hymn, the other country referred to is Heaven (or the
Kingdom of Heaven), although this allusion does not appear to relate
to the film in any way."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_Country_(film)
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-01 21:15:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Janet
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
"Another Country" (1984)
"Another Country is a 1984 British romantic historical drama written
by Julian Mitchell, adapted from his play of the same name.
Rather more importantly, it's a 1962 novel by James Baldwin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_Country_(novel)

OMG, the section "Race and nationalism" reads like a high school book report!
(Not even term paper.)
Mack A. Damia
2017-08-01 22:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 1 Aug 2017 14:15:12 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Mack A. Damia
Post by Janet
"And there's another country I've heard of long ago
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King"
"Another Country" (1984)
"Another Country is a 1984 British romantic historical drama written
by Julian Mitchell, adapted from his play of the same name.
Rather more importantly, it's a 1962 novel by James Baldwin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Another_Country_(novel)
OMG, the section "Race and nationalism" reads like a high school book report!
(Not even term paper.)
More importantly?

You seem to miss the point. The discussion was about the hymn, "I vow
to thee my country", and it touched on what country the reference in
the hymn of "another country" referred to.

# "And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,"

There could be some confusion as the song really doesn't explain it.

I posted the information about the film, "Another Country" because it
is thought by some that the title of the film might refer to the hymn.

"It could be a reference to the first line of the second (or third,
depending on the version) stanza of the hymn *I Vow to Thee, My
Country*, which is sung in both the play and film, as well as
referring to the fact that English public school life in the 1930s was
indeed very much like "another country"."

It has NOWT to do with Baldwin's novel.

There. Now aren't we glad we cleared that up?
Cheryl
2017-08-01 10:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by LFS
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not
naming any particular country. Although it does seem to
require one to die for it, which is just weird. 'Country'
here seems to mean a patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country"
are more appropriate for a colony than for an independent
nation.
<splutter> But the 'other country' in the song is clearly not
in this world; think 'heaven' or 'paradise'.
Interesting. That's the first time I've heard that. It might take
some time before I can understand the lines in the light of that
interpretation.
How very astonishing. How could it possibly be interpreted as a
real country? I remember working the meaning out when we first sang
the hymn at primary school: it was I think the first time that I'd
come across such an image and it impressed me very powerfully.
+1. Colour me gobsmacked.
In hindsight, it occurs to me that I might have interpreted the words
differently had I been living in England at the time. It had been
hundreds of years since anyone in England was nursing indignation over
imperialist domination. The political context does influence one's
mental state.
Well, I'm in Canada, a conglomeration of former colonies, and I don't
think we've been nursing indignation over imperialist domination since
1867 (or possibly 1855, which was the start of Responsible government in
Newfoundland). That is, if you don't count some people in Quebec, but I
doubt very much that the modern Quebec separatist has ever given much
thought to the words of "I vow to thee my country". Most of them
probably haven't heard them - it's a very traditional anglo patriotic
song/hymn.

And I can't remember when or where I first learned that the final verse
referred to heaven. It may have been something I asked about (as I often
did when I came across something obscure as a child) but it's the
opposite of obscure; it's a a very clear metaphor. It's far more likely
that I simply understood the metaphor when singing it or hearing it sung.
--
Cheryl
Cheryl
2017-07-31 10:13:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely rejected it
now because the references to "another country" are more appropriate for
a colony than for an independent nation.
"Another country" is a religious reference, not a reference to
colonialism. Of course, based on our discussion of religion in
Australia, that might just make it obscure, which could lead to the
confusion with colonialism.

I love the music.
--
Cheryl
Percival P. Cassidy
2017-07-31 14:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely rejected it
now because the references to "another country" are more appropriate for
a colony than for an independent nation.
I don't recall ever hearing it or seeing the text -- not in the UK (20+
years), nor in Oz (20 years), nor in the USA.

Perce
Peter T. Daniels
2017-07-31 15:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming any
particular country. Although it does seem to require one to die for it,
which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a patch of landscape
or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely rejected it
now because the references to "another country" are more appropriate for
a colony than for an independent nation.
I don't recall ever hearing it or seeing the text -- not in the UK (20+
years), nor in Oz (20 years), nor in the USA.
+1 (US only).

It's not in the Presbyterian hymnal (1932). Sadly my Hymnal 1940 (Episcopal) disappeared
many years ago.

Several of the Google hits label it a "patriotic hymn," written in 1921, with music
by Hplst. It looks like it could be sung to the tune of the Thanksgiving hymn
"We plow the fields and scatter / The good seed on the land" (referencing the
Parable of the Sower).

I don't see _how_ the "another country" of the last stanzas could possibly be taken
to refer to anything but Heaven.
Whiskers
2017-07-31 16:33:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming
any particular country. Although it does seem to require one to
die for it, which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a
patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country" are
more appropriate for a colony than for an independent nation.
I don't recall ever hearing it or seeing the text -- not in the UK
(20+ years), nor in Oz (20 years), nor in the USA.
+1 (US only).
It's not in the Presbyterian hymnal (1932). Sadly my Hymnal 1940
(Episcopal) disappeared many years ago.
Several of the Google hits label it a "patriotic hymn," written in
1921, with music by Hplst. It looks like it could be sung to the tune
of the Thanksgiving hymn "We plow the fields and scatter / The good
seed on the land" (referencing the Parable of the Sower).
I don't see _how_ the "another country" of the last stanzas could
possibly be taken to refer to anything but Heaven.
Perhaps there are Australians who think Great Britain is paradise.
There are certainly some Brits who think Australia is.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Janet
2017-08-01 13:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming
any particular country. Although it does seem to require one to
die for it, which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a
patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country" are
more appropriate for a colony than for an independent nation.
I don't recall ever hearing it or seeing the text -- not in the UK
(20+ years), nor in Oz (20 years), nor in the USA.
+1 (US only).
It's not in the Presbyterian hymnal (1932). Sadly my Hymnal 1940
(Episcopal) disappeared many years ago.
Several of the Google hits label it a "patriotic hymn," written in
1921, with music by Hplst. It looks like it could be sung to the tune
of the Thanksgiving hymn "We plow the fields and scatter / The good
seed on the land" (referencing the Parable of the Sower).
I don't see _how_ the "another country" of the last stanzas could
possibly be taken to refer to anything but Heaven.
Perhaps there are Australians who think Great Britain is paradise.
There are certainly some Brits who think Australia is.
I know ex-colonials of my generation who when sent "home" to school
were shocked to find their first experience of Britain so different from
the nirvana they'd been led to expect (by long-absent homesick family,
or servants who had never been there).

Janet.
Cheryl
2017-08-01 14:06:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Janet
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Percival P. Cassidy
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
"I vow to thee my country" at least has the merit of not naming
any particular country. Although it does seem to require one to
die for it, which is just weird. 'Country' here seems to mean a
patch of landscape or territory.
That song used to be popular in Australia, but we've largely
rejected it now because the references to "another country" are
more appropriate for a colony than for an independent nation.
I don't recall ever hearing it or seeing the text -- not in the UK
(20+ years), nor in Oz (20 years), nor in the USA.
+1 (US only).
It's not in the Presbyterian hymnal (1932). Sadly my Hymnal 1940
(Episcopal) disappeared many years ago.
Several of the Google hits label it a "patriotic hymn," written in
1921, with music by Hplst. It looks like it could be sung to the tune
of the Thanksgiving hymn "We plow the fields and scatter / The good
seed on the land" (referencing the Parable of the Sower).
I don't see _how_ the "another country" of the last stanzas could
possibly be taken to refer to anything but Heaven.
Perhaps there are Australians who think Great Britain is paradise.
There are certainly some Brits who think Australia is.
I know ex-colonials of my generation who when sent "home" to school
were shocked to find their first experience of Britain so different from
the nirvana they'd been led to expect (by long-absent homesick family,
or servants who had never been there).
I don't think we ever had that idea at all. But then, we didn't think of
ourselves as colonials, and of course, no one I knew had been alive when
my province was a colony (Commission of Government notwithstanding.) .
We (and our ancestors) had been here for generations. Maybe it's the
difference between people in a foreign country (or colony or ex-colony)
temporarily, or even as immigrants, and those whose immigrant ancestors
were so far back in the family tree no one can remember who they were or
where they came from, aside from, "Well, I think they came from
somewhere in England".

We learned about the Commonwealth and England in school. I developed
quite an interest in British history (our Canadian history text was a
dull compilation of historical events by comparison), but I never
thought about it as some kind of nirvana or long-lost home.
--
Cheryl
Peter Moylan
2017-08-02 02:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't see _how_ the "another country" of the last stanzas could
possibly be taken to refer to anything but Heaven.
Perhaps there are Australians who think Great Britain is paradise.
There are certainly some Brits who think Australia is.
The picture I had while growing up was that Britain was doing it tough,
but hanging on with stiff upper lips. The line in the song "her pride is
suffering" was, I assumed, a reference to the austerity of the WWII and
immediate post-war years. (At the time I didn't realise that the song
was older than that.)
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Whiskers
2017-08-02 12:01:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't see _how_ the "another country" of the last stanzas could
possibly be taken to refer to anything but Heaven.
Perhaps there are Australians who think Great Britain is paradise.
There are certainly some Brits who think Australia is.
The picture I had while growing up was that Britain was doing it tough,
but hanging on with stiff upper lips. The line in the song "her pride is
suffering" was, I assumed, a reference to the austerity of the WWII and
immediate post-war years. (At the time I didn't realise that the song
was older than that.)
But it's not about Britain; no country is named or suggested.

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

Those lines don't sound to me like a description of Britain at any time,
or of any other worldly place. I can see how a child might assume that
counting armies was a Top Secret thing and that the King might just be a
long way away (and TV hasn't arrived yet).

I can understand why Australians (and anyone else who can think for
themselves) would object to the first verse:

I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.

as that expresses exactly the mindset (in all the combatant nations)
that made the stupid ghastly waste of WWI possible (and many other wars
too). That it manages to express it without naming a country merely
makes the lunacy of the sentiment all the more obvious.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Peter T. Daniels
2017-08-02 13:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't see _how_ the "another country" of the last stanzas could
possibly be taken to refer to anything but Heaven.
Perhaps there are Australians who think Great Britain is paradise.
There are certainly some Brits who think Australia is.
The picture I had while growing up was that Britain was doing it tough,
but hanging on with stiff upper lips. The line in the song "her pride is
suffering" was, I assumed, a reference to the austerity of the WWII and
immediate post-war years. (At the time I didn't realise that the song
was older than that.)
But it's not about Britain; no country is named or suggested.
And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.
Those lines don't sound to me like a description of Britain at any time,
or of any other worldly place. I can see how a child might assume that
counting armies was a Top Secret thing and that the King might just be a
long way away (and TV hasn't arrived yet).
I can understand why Australians (and anyone else who can think for
I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Even that line shows that even the first stanza isn't about any earthly nation.
Post by Whiskers
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love;
The love that asks no question, the love that stands the test,
That lays upon the altar the dearest and the best;
The love that never falters, the love that pays the price,
The love that makes undaunted the final sacrifice.
as that expresses exactly the mindset (in all the combatant nations)
that made the stupid ghastly waste of WWI possible (and many other wars
too). That it manages to express it without naming a country merely
makes the lunacy of the sentiment all the more obvious.
It's the interpretation that is lunatical, not the words.
CDB
2017-08-02 14:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Whiskers
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I don't see _how_ the "another country" of the last stanzas
could possibly be taken to refer to anything but Heaven.
Perhaps there are Australians who think Great Britain is
paradise. There are certainly some Brits who think Australia
is.
The picture I had while growing up was that Britain was doing it
tough, but hanging on with stiff upper lips. The line in the song
"her pride is suffering" was, I assumed, a reference to the
austerity of the WWII and immediate post-war years. (At the time
I didn't realise that the song was older than that.)
But it's not about Britain; no country is named or suggested.
And there's another country, I've heard of long ago, Most dear to
them that love her, most great to them that know; We may not count
her armies, we may not see her King; Her fortress is a faithful
heart, her pride is suffering; And soul by soul and silently her
shining bounds increase, And her ways are ways of gentleness, and
all her paths are peace.
Those lines don't sound to me like a description of Britain at any
time, or of any other worldly place. I can see how a child might
assume that counting armies was a Top Secret thing and that the
King might just be a long way away (and TV hasn't arrived yet).
I can understand why Australians (and anyone else who can think
I vow to thee, my country, all earthly things above,
Even that line shows that even the first stanza isn't about any earthly nation.
I take "all earthly things above" to be an adverbial phrase modifying
"to thee", not an adjectival phrase modifying "country". You promise to
love your earthly country above all (other) earthly things.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Whiskers
Entire and whole and perfect, the service of my love; The love that
asks no question, the love that stands the test, That lays upon the
altar the dearest and the best; The love that never falters, the
love that pays the price, The love that makes undaunted the final
sacrifice.
as that expresses exactly the mindset (in all the combatant
nations) that made the stupid ghastly waste of WWI possible (and
many other wars too). That it manages to express it without naming
a country merely makes the lunacy of the sentiment all the more
obvious.
I agree with the rest, but it can only be true if the first stanza is
indeed about an earthly nation.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
It's the interpretation that is lunatical, not the words.
I think there are worse political arrangements than what we have, but
it's the land that I love: the rocks, the trees, the water, the other
animals.

Loading...