Options
Use of Jerusalem as English anthem at Commonwealth Games
Scratchy7929
Posts: 3,252
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Is it anti-semitic (both anti-islamic & anti-jewish using the true meaning of semitic) ?
Does it bring in to question the hope of forming a 'christian' Kingdom of Jerusalem within 'British' shores with the association with the Crusades & the controversies surrounding that.
Is it disrespectful of other British nations using it as specific anthem for the English ?
Early verses reference the formation of Celtic 'Brythonic' Church which hint at the British context the poem has, although England is used in the verses ambigiously (this is not an isolated case, quite common when historical reference is used by the English - English/British ambiguity).
Is it anti-English even ?
It is critical of England not achieving a panacea - a call of reform of England.It's not a glorification of England at all as many perceive it to be.
Does it bring in to question the hope of forming a 'christian' Kingdom of Jerusalem within 'British' shores with the association with the Crusades & the controversies surrounding that.
Is it disrespectful of other British nations using it as specific anthem for the English ?
Early verses reference the formation of Celtic 'Brythonic' Church which hint at the British context the poem has, although England is used in the verses ambigiously (this is not an isolated case, quite common when historical reference is used by the English - English/British ambiguity).
Is it anti-English even ?
It is critical of England not achieving a panacea - a call of reform of England.It's not a glorification of England at all as many perceive it to be.
0
Comments
It's not not a glorification of England - should read above
"Wider still, and wider, shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet! "
OK... so as a sop to those "offended" parties, we change our anthem to Jerusalem and we still can't keep everybody happy.
But hold on a minute.....
For donkey's years, the Scots used "Scotland the Brave" as their national anthem, but now choose the mocking, strongly anti-English (racist, even..?) "Flower of Scotland". It is mocking... taunting even, in its dismissal of the English as being inferior to Scots.
But of course, only the English can be racist. Scots racist..? Perish the thought.
So we've accommodated the complainers once. I say we stick with Jerusalem and they can like it or lump it.
I just wish we'd not stopped at using the first verseonly. I'd have loved to include the bit about "Bows of burning gold"..... "Arrows of desire"...... and of course, "Chariots of fire".
Marvellous stuff.
The Scots give it two verses of "Flower of Scotland", just so they can get the punchline in twice. We should have two verses of "Jerusalem" too.
It's not a anti-Scottish/English question though.What are your thoughts on the anti-semitic side of my arguement.There's no British context in that at all.When the poem was written think the Kingdom of Israel was under English.......uuuuhhhhmmmm.......British juristriction/protectorate.Think Blake was having a jibe at England in many ways with this poem.It's not a nationalistic poem, glorifying England at all.Blake was a non-conformist christian.Check out the history of non-conformism in England - very anti-establishment.Controversial within a nationistic context.
There's no British context in that at all.When the poem was written think the Kingdom of Israel was under English.......uuuuhhhhmmmm.......British juristriction/protectorate (under the Arabic Palastine name of course).Think Blake was having a jibe at England in many ways with this poem.
It's not a nationalistic poem, glorifying England at all.Blake was a non-conformist christian.Check out the history of non-conformism in England - very anti-establishment.Controversial within a nationalistic context
Imagine if Israel's national anthem was called Birmingham
Jerusalem is a metaphor, it's not about the actual city.
it might be called Birmingham who knows what their anthem is called and frankly no one probably cares about ours or theirs its about the rousing music after all
Its a fine poem by Blake with connections to ahistory of British imperialism dating back to,pre Second World War when we conquered Jerusalem in 1917 and then a symbol signature anthem of the Labour Party welfare introductions in 1945. I find it dull but then again I find our National Anthem dull too.
It is a lovely poem yeah... but it doesn't work as a national anthem at all! There is nothing rousing about it... it's all to WI
The poem (words) were dug up from obscurity around that time though.Blake would have been appalled by the poem being used to re-enforce an opposing view point to what he was trying to express, that of imperialistism.
Yes.It was a song / hymn brought to public consciousness to improve soldiers moral when it was at a low ebb during WW1.That is why the newly formed Labour party sang it quite often to reinforce it's reform agenda , especially with returning 'British' soldiers, too a large extent was a force behind them winning a landslide election victory.Think Blake may have approved of that to a certain extent.
As an adopted, all encompassing, English anthem it just doesn't work though.It has too many conflicting historical association's / meanings.