Use of Jerusalem as English anthem at Commonwealth Games

Scratchy7929Scratchy7929 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the poem has, although England is used in the verses ambigiously (this is not an isolated case, quite common when historical reference is used by the English - English/British ambiguity).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.

Comments

  • Scratchy7929Scratchy7929 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the poem has, although England is used in the verses ambigiously (this is not an isolated case, quite common when historical reference is used by the English - English/British ambiguity).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.

    It's not not a glorification of England - should read above
  • Corkhead.Corkhead. Posts: 445
    Forum Member
    I believe (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) that England changed their anthem to Jerusalem because previous use of Elgar's "Land of Hope and Glory" was criticised by some (including the Scots) of being too reminiscent of English superiority in the Empire. There have also been faint hints that it is, by nature, racist. Hmmmmm.... you can make your own mind up about that.


    "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.
  • Scratchy7929Scratchy7929 Posts: 3,252
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Corkhead. wrote: »
    I believe (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) that England changed their anthem to Jerusalem because previous use of Elgar's "Land of Hope and Glory" was criticised by some (including the Scots) of being too reminiscent of English superiority in the Empire. There have also been faint hints that it is, by nature, racist. Hmmmmm.... you can make your own mind up about that.


    "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.
  • Scratchy7929Scratchy7929 Posts: 3,252
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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 (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
  • Angels_babyAngels_baby Posts: 1,471
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I like just glad that the anthem for England is not God Save the Queen which should only be used when referring to British events.
  • pope_tartpope_tart Posts: 3,801
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Some interesting points from the OP there, but to me it just sounds silly having your national anthem named after a foreign city.

    Imagine if Israel's national anthem was called Birmingham :confused:
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 23,676
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    pope_tart wrote: »
    Some interesting points from the OP there, but to me it just sounds silly having your national anthem named after a foreign city.

    Imagine if Israel's national anthem was called Birmingham :confused:

    Jerusalem is a metaphor, it's not about the actual city.
  • IgnazioIgnazio Posts: 18,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    For heaven's sake - anything else with which we can bash the English!
  • kutoxkutox Posts: 16,368
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    never mind
  • CaminoCamino Posts: 13,029
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    pope_tart wrote: »
    Some interesting points from the OP there, but to me it just sounds silly having your national anthem named after a foreign city.

    Imagine if Israel's national anthem was called Birmingham :confused:

    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
  • blacksuit42blacksuit42 Posts: 820
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Camino wrote: »
    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
    What's rousing about Jerusalem? It's dull and boring, noone knows the words. I don't think I saw more than 3 athletes singing it
  • The NetThe Net Posts: 5,484
    Forum Member
    What's rousing about Jerusalem? It's dull and boring, noone knows the words. I don't think I saw more than 3 athletes singing it

    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.
  • blacksuit42blacksuit42 Posts: 820
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Net wrote: »
    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
  • IgnazioIgnazio Posts: 18,695
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The Net wrote: »
    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.
    Blake could hardly have been referring to the vanquish of Jerusalem in 1917 when he actually died in 1827!
  • Scratchy7929Scratchy7929 Posts: 3,252
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ignazio wrote: »
    Blake could hardly have been referring to the vanquish of Jerusalem in 1917 when he actually died in 1827!

    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.
  • Scratchy7929Scratchy7929 Posts: 3,252
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.