Wuilly Arteaga playing Venezuela’s national anthem at a protest in Caracas in May. I’ve stolen this from Luis Robayo and Agence France-Presse/Getty Images. It’s too shocking not to
There was a brilliant story in The New York Times recently about Venezuela’s ongoing anti-government protests and how they’ve embroiled the country’s classical musicians. It was focused on the death of a viola player, Armando Cañizales, who walked alone towards a line of soldiers:
“On a recent afternoon, [Armando’s friend] Wuilly Arteaga, 23, stood in the centre of a crowd of demonstrators, his violin on his shoulder. His case was strapped to his back, his helmet painted with the colours of the Venezuelan flag. He played the national anthem.
“Explosions of tear gas canisters erupted between the notes he played. Finally, other protesters grabbed him by a shoulder and dragged him back from the security forces.
“‘I remembered my friend Armando,’ Mr. Arteaga said afterward. ‘I have spent ages now playing and living on the streets, and I see that so many talented Venezuelans have had to eat from the trash.'”
“We may not be in our anthem, but we will still paint the Maple Leaf all over us!”
If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know that for almost four years, I’ve been writing about Canadian politicians’ attempts to change just two words of their national anthem so it includes women. A line about “in all our sons” was going to become “in all of us.”
The change was meant to finally be agreed in time for Canada’s 150th anniversary this month. But has it happened? Has it f**k!
According to this great article in The National Post: “Senators who disagree with the [bill to change the anthem] are not only moving amendments that have no hope of being approved, but are also moving sub-amendments and calling adjournment votes to delay proceedings.
“Last week, Conservative Senator Tobias Enverga moved an amendment to instead change the words in question to ‘in all of our command,’ on the dubious basis that this wording was grammatically superior to [the proposal], and that the word ‘us’ is divisive.
“Any amendments brought forward could essentially kill the legislation.”
This whole charade really is the perfect example of how much anthems stir up nationalist feelings, and how some people will never let traditions be changed – even by two words. It really does show both anthems’ importance and their absurdity.
Don’t expect the proposal to disappear, though. This is the tenth time Canadian politicians have tried to make the change since 1980. Another attempt will be along soon enough.
China will soon become the latest country to ban mocking of its national anthem. Well, that’s not entirely true. You will still be free to change the lyrics to make a satirical point, and you’ll also still be free to boo it – you’ll just have to deal with 15 days in prison afterwards!
Is this just a silly news story for everyone to laugh at for a couple of days, then quickly forget? Unfortunately not, as it will have an immediate impact, especially in Hong Kong where football fans have regularly booed the anthem at international matches. Would they dare do that now if they face 15 days in prison?
Changing anthem lyrics is also one of the easiest ways to make a political point – read my book, and you’ll find examples of it done everywhere from South Africa to Uruguay – and I guess that outlet will now disappear in the country. Sometimes a silly news story is actually a lot more important.
Some Russian Jehovah’s Witnesses – as bad as ISIS! Photo stolen from James Hill of the New York Times
I was reading an article recently about Russia potentially limiting Jehovah’s Witness activities this week. Apparently being a member is equivalent to being a member of ISIS, unless I’ve got this wrong.
One of the apparent reasons they’re disliked is they’re pacifists. Another is they refuse to take part in patriotic festivals. But there’s something else many Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to do that isn’t mentioned in the piece: sing national anthems.
Everywhere from Tanzania to India, Jehovah’s Witnesses have had to go to court to defend their right not to sing anthems. They see singing as worshipping a country, when you’re only meant to worship God. In 1940s America, members were literally lynched, tarred and feathered, and thrown out of schools, for their opposition to the anthem, flag and pledge of allegiance.
But that opposition has achieved one surprising thing: the passing of laws protecting freedom of speech and thought worldwide.
At this time of growing nationalism, do we actually need Jehovah’s Witnesses more than ever to prevent any pernicious anthem laws being passed? If so, that’s a weird thing to say given that group’s own scandals, which suggest it’s not too keen about freedom of speech in its own organisation. Its lawsuits are also entirely self-interested. They don’t care about anyone else’s right to sing an anthem or not.
Yes, my book came out ages ago, but no, that doesn’t mean it’s stopped being reviewed. This month, Nations & Nationalism – the world’s leading journal of nationalism studies – has featured it and, amazingly, they like it:
“An entertaining read that will aid nationalism scholars in considering how myths of everyday nationhood are received and felt of as significant”
Blimey! I thought academics would annihilate it, so the review’s incredibly pleasing to read. That’s only one line of the 800-word review, which also talks a lot about my “innovative research method” (talking to the composers and poets behind anthems), and situates my book in an more academic context making it sound incredibly intellectual!
Huge thanks to Eviane Leidig from Oslo University’s Centre for Research on Extremism for reviewing it.
If any academics read this and want me to come in and chat with their students, get in touch.