The BBC article is in the entertainment section.  Maybe they're not as stringently British there.

They make an interesting point about Jimi Hendrix and the national anthem at Woodstock.  I'm of course too young to remember that, but maybe Gwoo or Starlock can comment on how that was recieved.  Will people look back at this and roll their eyes as they rock out to this thing later in life... or is it gonna go the way of the Macarena?

[horrible]
They should really make a catchy dance to go with this.  Then it would've gone over much better.
[/horrible]

I've talked to people who found the Hendrix version to be highly offensive.

I'm sure, but those people are losers.

For the Hendrix version to be offensive, you have to put expectations of a traditionally ritualized format - not even "traditions," per se - above aesthetic quality, emotional power, and the embodiment of the values that the anthem is meant to embody.*  It's a reaction that goes in a box with those little yellow ribbons and hideous American flag and eagle t-shirts.

*I mean, consider:  Woodstock, height of all that chaos and counterculture and war opposition and societal twitching, and a black man with a guitar tears out the pure essence of the anthem at the most hippified gathering ever, expressing the pain of a divided, confused nation hemmoraging youths to suddenly-unglorified war and screaming that this is not what this fucking country is supposed to be, that this country is about freedom and justice and equality.  Whoa.

I never actualy burned a flag, why waste the money?

I understand symbolism fine, what I dont understand is why people get so caught up in these arbitrary symbols.  Our national bird was almost the turkey for crying out loud!  It's a SONG, it's a piece of FABRIC, it's lines in the DIRT, people!  Who says Mexico starts here, and America there?  Yes 'we'(as in, some people who used to live here hundreds of years ago) fought and died over those lines in the dirt, but that's still all they are.  Take a picture from a satellite, and without a political map overlay, you probably couldnt tell where one country began and the other left off.

I was the kid in school who refused to say the pledge, who wouldnt stand for the anthem, and who would FIGHT because I had a reason, and no it wasn't a phase.

I British drinking tune which is why it is so hard for men to hit the high notes.

All objects, words, symbols, etc. only have the meaning that we choose to give them.

Do you not have any pictures/jewelry/memorabilia/anything that you consider special?

Are you saying that you wouldn't care at all if I had the legal right to destroy those items and chose to exercise this right?

Never written a poem/song/card for someone?  Even though it was "just a poem" did it not have meaning for you and hopefully for them as well?

Never participated in imbibing such arbitrary symbols as brand logos, the bible, yin/yang symbol, peace sign, "the finger", etc. with meaning?

My point is, that you say you don't understand why people "get so caught up in arbitrary symbols".  I would counter that with, of course you understand, you do it every day, both consciously and unconsciously.

If you want to express your disagreement with this country then that's one thing.  But to not stand for the national anthem because it's "just a song" (yet in refusing to stand for the particular song imbibing it with the very symbolism you are refusing to acknowledge or participate in) smacks of the kind of nonsensical, "pay attention to me because I don't care what you think", fake-rebelliousness that usually makes me groan and roll my eyes. 

Not the same thing at all, though.

Suppose I have a signed poster of, shall we say, the 2005 European Cup winning Liverpool team. You also have such a poster - not the same one, but there are many such posters in the world.

You, however, support Chelsea and are pissed off about the result in the semi-final. As a result you ostentatiously burn your poster.

But: I. Don't. Give. A. Fuck. I still have my poster. You can do what the hell you like with yours. That's called property. Similarly, if I have a flag I may if I wish fly it to signal whatever it is that is associated with that particular flag. If you have a flag of the same design, then you may fly it if you wish to do so, or burn it, or use it as a dog blanket, or hang it on your wall, or perhaps use it as a towel... It's your flag, it's your choice.

As long as you don't burn a stolen flag, and as long as you burn it safely and do not pose a fire hazard to other people or their property, then go right ahead.

Jade, I agree wtih you that iconoclasty for its own sake is ridiculous, but it's not in anyway what Lady_M is doing. She has not written a new anthem, nor has she flown a flag sideways with a big green stripe over it, nor has she drawn a version of the Seal with a vulture holding the arrows and branches. She is speaking in favor of it being Biaggi's business (having as he does real goals in his work) to do what he wants with the anthem; that it is each person's choice to consider a symbol sacred or not and that they have no business attempting to make it sacred for others. This is essentially true, no matter how much I think that writing a new stanza with a spirit differing from the original is problematic.

I disagree. As long as the translation is faithful to the original, I consider it just as valid. Then again, my view is coloured by my citizenship in bilingual nation. Our national anthem was written originally in Swedish. It was later translated to Finnish and adopted by everyone.