As far as I can tell, their case is simple, and eminently reasonable: In the 1908 version of O Canada, the English lyrics contained the words “true patriot love thou dost in us command,” which in 1913, were changed to “in all thy sons command” for no discernible reason. One account has it that the words were masculinized to help recruit soldiers for the First World War, but I doubt anyone will argue that those brave young men who lined up to fight and die for their country, did so because the anthem was changed to reflect machismo.
Today, these Canadian women want the anthem restored to its original gender-neutral composition. As well, I imagine in the 100 years since someone decided to masculinize the anthem, our society has changed. We’ve gone through two world wars and at least five major regional wars. The world has seen men and women, including Canadian Roberta Bondar, go into space; we’ve landed on the moon and as a society, we’ve progressed beyond our wildest dreams in 1913. Women are rubbing shoulders with men in literature, technology and industry; they are serving their country in war, and dying in combat. Everywhere you turn, women are contributing to society in ways our brethren in 1913 would never have imagined. Today, women make up 50.4 per cent of the population, a slim majority that according to Statistics Canada, has held for more than three decades, and is projected to hold all the way to 2061. So what is it about us that insists the anthem should continue to reflect only the gender of half the population?...What is it? Tradition. Euphoniousness ("Though dost in us command" does not fall trippingly off the tongue, to say the least). Revulsion for political correctness and those who would push it on us. Respect for the fact that so many of "our sons" fought and died to keep this country free.
Need I continue?
Update: The true history of O Canada
2 comments:
Usually agree with you, but not here. I have never been able to bring myself to say the words "in all thy sons command" (and I'm someone who stands for the national anthem in my living room before watching hockey on TV, even if I am alone). I find it enormously patriarchal. The national anthem was not created to honour the 'sons' who fought for Canada. It was created to foster allegiance, loyalty, and 'true patriot love'. And there were and are many women who fight, and who fought, for Canada http://www.warmuseum.ca/education/online-educational-resources/dispatches/the-canadian-womens-army-corps-1941-1946/. For every 'son' who sacrificed his life, there was the mother who sacrificed her son. Women took the reins in industry and business while men were away, keeping Canada churning despite the war, http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/feature/women/history/homefront and they nursed the wounded upon their return. The contribution women have made in building Canada should not be ignored for the sake of euphoniousness (good word, though), in the national anthem (there are many other options that roll off the tongue a little easier). And, needless to say, we have had, for the past 60+ years, a female head of state. Might make sense for an Afghani national anthem to ignore women and hide their contributions to their country, but not for Canada.
We agree on the big stuff, Simone. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.
Post a Comment