Conflictions: Feelings About Manning, Snowden...Ellsberg…Myself

I find myself sad over Edward Snowden getting (temporary) asylum in Russia.  A large part of me wanted him extradited to the U.S. for trial.  It seems ironic he should be living now in Russia—a Russia which has turned increasingly authoritarian and non-democratic under Vladimir Putin; who has sent a member of the band Pussy Riot to prison, along with a leading opposition figure; and is now planning to enforce strict anti-gay legislation; not to mention Russian human rights abuse in Chechnya (I’ll deal with U.S. issues by and by).

Yet many people are happy that Russia has taken Snowden in (for now).  I ask myself where my own feelings come from.  I’ve always been a fairly “liberal” kind of guy, right?  I’m old enough to remember the Pentagon Papers case—the papers leaked by Daniel Ellsberg, published by the New York Times and later by Beacon Press (part of the Unitarian Universalist Association to which I now belong).  I was pleased when The Papers were published…wasn’t I?  In college I attended at least one anti-Vietnam War demonstration and worked on behalf of the election of George McGovern and the impeachment of Richard Nixon.

Perhaps, having since then been involved in running organizations, I understand how messy things get when people don’t “follow the rules”—and so I’ve perhaps become more understanding of organizations—governments included; more understanding than I used to be.  Or maybe I’ve simply become my father!

Yes and no.  I’m certainly not my father, although I do appreciate the resemblances more and more as time goes on; but I have a better relationship with my wife than my father had with my mother.  I do not feel the blind rage that my father felt:  Against Communists, against blacks—and perhaps against my mother.

Still, I grew up in a conflicted, contradictory environment:  During the sixteen years from the age of six to the age of twenty-two, I spent ten years living on U.S. military bases; another two living just outside of one, and another two spending my weekends and summers with my parents on one.  I spent five years living overseas.  Yet we were not a military family; my father merely worked for the American Red Cross in support of the military.

My mother was Lutheran; we attended a generic Protestant church service at military chapels.  These services were designed to exclude anything that might offend any specific Protestant denomination.

My father didn’t discuss religion.  I suspect he was either a Buddhist (perhaps becoming one while in Japan) or a Transcendentalist-sort of Pantheist—not the best means to reconcile him to my mother.

I grew up during the great Civil Rights Era of the late 1950s-early 1960s.  That’s probably how I became a liberal.  I eventually became an agnostic, yet I long held to my Protestant Christian base—and to the idea that America had saved the world in World War II and had been defending and promoting Freedom ever since.

So I’m conflicted about Manning (is it true that he may be transgender?) and Snowden.  But—don’t I care if the U. S. government committed war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq?  Don’t I care if the NSA has grossly violated the rights of U. S. Citizens?  Don’t I care if the United States has let down its own citizens and much of the world?

Yes.  I do.  But Manning’s and Snowden’s actions still bother me.  And maybe that’s right:  The government actions should bother me; but the actions of Manning and Snowden should too.

Anthems (5) – Russia (finale), Canada, and Israel

One last thing about the current Russian national anthem that I like very much—and which also bothers me, although it also challenges me.

 

The chorus ends with the phrase, “We are proud of you!”

Part of me says that this is the whole point:  To be proud of your country.  And how wonderful it is to have a country you can be proud of!

Still, another part of me asks whether this isn’t impossible.  Can anyone be proud of their country?  What does it mean, “to be proud,” anyway?  In what sense are you proud of a country that may have committed great crimes in the past, and may still be unjust—or at least imperfect?  Your country may have done great things, may be great, but—I’m just not sure.

That goes for all countries.  Can anyone be proud?  Still—If it is possible, how wonderful it would be:  To have a country you can be proud of, and to be proud of it!

Now, concerning national anthems, many people criticize the anthem of my own country, the United States, and wish we could have an anthem that is more beautiful, more singable, more like…one of those other countries; more like, say, Canada.

And “O Canada” is a lovely anthem—beautiful.  I’ve known the music for a long time; ever since I spent a month in Canada with my fiancée back around 1974 (her family was Canadian).  As far as the words, mostly I remembered “the cold north bold and free.”  Which turns out to be wrong.  It’s “the True North strong and free!”  I remember that “we stand on guard for thee.”

On the whole, I like the music (although I realize now that I think it sounds like an Anglican hymn); but to me the words seem only “adequate” (sorry!).  We love our country and guard her.  That makes sense, after all.  But….well…I…um…

And, curiously, the French version is rather different.  Roughly:  Ready to fight or be at peace, valor and faith will protect the land.

So I have fond memories of “O Canada,” but…I wish I felt more inspired.

As also with “HaTikvah,” the Zionist and Israeli anthem.  I found the music and words back when I was studying Biblical Hebrew in college.   The music may or may not be related to the main theme of Smetana’s “The Moldau” (“Vltava”)—the theme seems to be related to several different songs from several different countries.  Because I first heard this theme when I was nine or so, I’m biased in its favor.  Someone asked why I hadn’t included “HaTikvah” in my catalog of anthems.  Well—again—as with “O Canada”…I like the music, but I’m ambiguous about the words.  They speak of the two-thousand-year longing of Jews to return to the Land of Israel.  I’m not Jewish.  I can understand the longing intellectually—but I don’t feel it in my gut.  Perhaps you have to be Jewish.  Pretty—and haunting—the melody, though—a fine song.

Anthems (4) – Russia Again

I’ve been immersed in the Russian national anthem, which I find interesting and appealing for several reasons.  More than other anthems, it makes me think and reflect.  And I’ve been improving my Russian by trying to learn the lyrics.
 

The Russian anthem retains the music of the previous Soviet anthem.  Therefore the current anthem brings to mind the earlier anthem.  This was a point of controversy, but this links the present and the past—perhaps in a provocative way.  But modern Russia is linked to its Soviet past.

The 1944 Soviet anthem mentions Stalin as well as “Great Lenin.”  It alludes to the victory over the Nazi invaders.  It mentions the “will of the people,” and victories, and the people’s glory. 

Not surprisingly, the 1977 Soviet revision dropped the reference to Stalin.  But it also dropped references to the war.  Still, only now did we see overt references to Communism (unless my sources are wrong).  For example:

“The Party of Lenin, the strength of the people/Leads us to the triumph of Communism!”  And:  “In the victory of the immortal ideas of Communism/We see the future of our country.”

With this backdrop, we come to the current Russian anthem, beginning with references to “our sacred homeland” and “our beloved country.”  It goes on to mention “Age-old union of fraternal peoples/Ancestor-given wisdom of the people!”

Beautiful stuff!  It continues with references to the vast and varied geography of the country:  “From the southern seas to the polar lands/Spread are our forests and fields./You are unique in the world, one of a kind.”

Finally, it becomes more personal and human:  “Wide spaces for dreams and for living
Are opened for us by the coming years.”

So it has dropped the overt political propaganda of the 1977 Soviet anthem and instead combined patriotism, geography, and humanity.  Not bad for an anthem!  Almost ideal!

And yet—the first verse proclaims the Russian heritage will be “a mighty will, a great glory.”  I’m not convinced that this is ideal.  The second verse mentions “this sacred land protected by God.”  This, of course, was a bone of contention for the remaining atheist communists—and raises questions about the role of religion in modern Russia (but then, religion—meaning Orthodox Christianity—had always had a strong role in Russia).  The third verse proclaims:  “Our strength is derived through our loyalty to the Fatherland./Thus it was, thus it is and thus it always will be!”  That last phrasing is taken from religion; but—probably because I am an American—the idea that strength comes from loyalty to the country somehow bothers me.  American tend to distrust governments.  But then again governments are distinct from countries.

What is the purpose of a national anthem, after all?  And who is it written for?  The current Russian anthem is pretty remarkable.

Anthems (2) – The 1812 Overture and a Few Inaccuracies

Just finished listening to (about half, actually, of) Tchaikovsky’s “1812 Overture.”  I was listening to a version including cannons—not too unusual, that—but one that also included choirs to sing the prayers at the beginning and end, “God Save the Czar,” and the children’s song that occurs about halfway through—this is not so common.

At the end I was simply stunned.  Of course, I was also watching an accompanying slide show of paintings dealing with Napoleon and his invasion of Russia.  But I just sat there for about half a minute afterwards, recovering.

This is probably the first piece of classical music I ever heard.  I think I listened to it on 78 rpm vinyls, back when I was around five (ie. 1956).

One of the things about anthems is that they can transport you into a patriotic or religious space.  Tchaikovsky’s overture certainly has done that for me, over the years.  During the years I was growing up at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, every Fourth of July my family would drive the few miles to Fort Monroe for the Independence Day celebration, including the Overture and the cannon.  It was years before I understood that Tchaikovsky had incorporated national anthems into his music.

In time, while learning French, I also learned “The Marseillaise,” the French national anthem, alluded to several times by Tchaikovsky.  Much later, I discovered that one of the themes Tchaikovsky used at the climax of his overture was the Russian national anthem, “God Save the Czar.”  So the “1812 Overture” symbolically pits the French anthem against the Russian.  And how stirring it is!

But—Tchaikovsky is technically inaccurate in both cases.  “The Marseillaise,” after becoming France’s first national anthem during the French Revolution, was discarded by Napoleon.  During most of the 1800s it was actually not France’s anthem—and was actually banned some part of that time.  So it would not have been used by the French during their invasion of Russia.

Russia, meanwhile, did not yet have a national anthem in 1812.  “God Save the Czar” was chosen as the winner of a competition and became the anthem in 1833 – twenty-one years after the French invasion.

So anthems can stir us, can arouse us to great passion—but can also perhaps mislead us.  Not a bad thing to remember.