Rule Britannia or not?

plasmahal said:
Just read through this thread which has seem to gone massively off topic in the last few pages.

I can't seem to find any definitive reason as to why the lyrics of rule Britannia are offensive/racist and therefore why people are outraged.

I don't watch the proms so have nothing invested in it, so can some please explain to me what is offensive about the lyrics?

I assume these are the lyrics in question:

https://www.songandpraise.org/rule-brittania-lyrics.htm
Click to expand...

Probably because of Britians past or how people hate the UK but love sucking us dry.
 
plasmahal said:
Just read through this thread which has seem to gone massively off topic in the last few pages.

I can't seem to find any definitive reason as to why the lyrics of rule Britannia are offensive/racist and therefore why people are outraged.

I don't watch the proms so have nothing invested in it, so can some please explain to me what is offensive about the lyrics?

I assume these are the lyrics in question:

https://www.songandpraise.org/rule-brittania-lyrics.htm
Click to expand...
Were you able to find the people who were outraged?
 
koolpc said:
Probably because of Britians past or how people hate the UK but love sucking us dry.
Click to expand...

But that does not explain what is the issue with the song in relation to the proms and the current outrage from either side.

What in the song is so offensive?

It is usually associated with the Royal Navy and symbolises the naval power at the height of the British Empire.

I'd like to understand a rational reason why people might be offended.

garnett said:
Were you able to find the people who were outraged?
Click to expand...

It seems to be mostly people who don't want it changed in the proms.

I have found articles where people have said if should be removed or only played as an instrumental but not reason as to why they want that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
plasmahal said:
It seems to be mostly people who don't want it changed in the proms.

I have found articles where people have said if should be removed or only played as an instrumental but not reason as to why they want that.
Click to expand...
The story seems like a fabrication (or massive embellishment) by the Sunday Times, and then the Express, with first Brexiteer MP Michael Fabricant and then many other Brexiteer MPs joining on the band wagon and fanning the flames.

There doesn't appear to be anyone calling for a ban, but that of course hasn't stopped the story doing what was intended and triggering all the usual suspects who are now banging on about "White Countries" and being oppressed by adverts and railing against "people who hate the UK but love sucking us dry".
 
plasmahal said:
It seems to be mostly people who don't want it changed in the proms.

I have found articles where people have said if should be removed or only played as an instrumental but not reason as to why they want that.
Click to expand...
Not sure, but perhaps it’s something to do with the hypocritical defiance of ‘never being slaves’ whilst a lot of people historically benefitted from slaves. Sort of a “we’ll never be treated how we treat others” thing.

Not my argument, just an observable potential point of contention.
 
plasmahal said:
It seems to be mostly people who don't want it changed in the proms.

I have found articles where people have said if should be removed or only played as an instrumental but not reason as to why they want that.
Click to expand...

There seemed a few reports, e.g.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...g anthems,links with colonialism and slavery.

Chi-chi Nwanoku, the founder of Chineke!, an orchestra whose musicians are majority black, Asian and ethnically diverse, said she could not understand why the BBC had thought it was a good idea to reinstate songs that many found offensive.
She recently emailed BBC Proms chiefs urging them to drop Rule Britannia. “The lyrics are just so offensive, talking about the ‘haughty tyrants’ – people that we are invading on their land and calling them haughty tyrants – and Britons shall never be slaves, which implies that it’s OK for others to be slaves but not us,” Nwanoku told the Guardian. “It’s so irrelevant to today’s society. It’s been irrelevant for generations, and we seem to keep perpetuating it.”
Click to expand...

It also mentions the other aspect, the need to be permanently ashamed of these things:
Rule Britannia and Land of Hope of Glory were among the “crudely jingoistic texts” singled out for criticism by the classical music critic Richard Morrison in a column for BBC Music Magazine last month. He wrote that given the restrictions necessitated by the pandemic, “there will never be a better moment to drop that toe-curling, embarrassing, anachronistic farrago of nationalistic songs that concludes the Last Night of the Proms.”
Click to expand...

I personally don't mind too much, I don't agree with this crazy overreaction about being ashamed or embarassed about our past, I'd rather we celebrated it, I have found the UK to have plenty to be proud of when it comes to things like abolishing slavery (even if we did a load of it previously), and how inclusive and diverse (may this continue) we are..
 
Nitefly said:
Not sure, but perhaps it’s something to do with the hypocritical defiance of ‘never being slaves’ whilst a lot of people historically benefitted from slaves. Sort of a “we’ll never be treated how we treat others” thing.

Not my argument, just an observable potential point of contention.
Click to expand...

I don't even think those lyrics were to be taken literally, I view them as meaning we'll never be slaves to tyranny, not that the entire country won't be taken as actual slaves.
 
Roar87 said:
I don't even think those lyrics were to be taken literally, I view them as meaning we'll never be slaves to tyranny, not that the entire country won't be taken as actual slaves.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean but I’m not sure ‘never being slaves to tyranny’ is entirely mutually exclusive from ‘never being actual slaves’ - there’s at least a bit of overlap somewhere! Being an actual slave is to be subject to actual tyranny, no?

But yeah, I think it’s a pretty obvious criticism.
 
I am from an era where my teachers, at a very good school, instilled pride in pink. No, not being gay, the amount of pink on world maps, current and historic. A new generation of teachers in schools and universities have gone totally the other way, insinuating we should hang our heads in shame at our empire and history. I remain stoically proud of our past and achievements. Those that claim deep hurt and resentment about our history should consider putting their passports where their alleged morality lies.
 
garnett said:
What thoughts are private individuals not allowed to think?

(Also, this tweet is after the furore, so it can't be cited as its origin)
Click to expand...

Did I say she shouldnt think this? No, so stop making things up.

This is to show why people are against the song, there's loads of outrage and support in the twitter replies.
 
Nitefly said:
I missed this - wtf, as in, you don’t think it is acceptable to have exclusively black people in an advert? As in, it’s unacceptable?
Click to expand...

It's not unacceptable but to me it's just a bit weird, the amount of black people in the UK is around 4%, so to have an advert with all black people seems off. It makes me think there's some political motive there and they just want to show how progressive they are as a company. I don't imagine in Jamaica for example they make adverts targeted at local people where everyone in that advert is White, it would be bizarre.
 
Roar87 said:
It's not unacceptable but to me it's just a bit weird, the amount of black people in the UK is around 4%, so to have an advert with all black people seems off. It makes me think there's some political motive there and they just want to show how progressive they are as a company. I don't imagine in Jamaica for example they make adverts targeted at local people where everyone in that advert is White, it would be bizarre.
Click to expand...
I would agree that we have entered a slightly strange era of standards where we are falling over ourselves to be as ‘inclusive’ as possible, to the extent that it is noticeable and even slightly exhausting.

But the use of the word ‘acceptable’ was just odd to me. I don’t find any single instance of over-representation ‘unacceptable’ - the trend is a little tiring or trite at times, perhaps, at the very worst.

Edit - I actually think the erosion of sexual chemistry between males and females in film and TV has become the most tiring thing, rather than any race issues like this.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
I am from an era where my teachers, at a very good school, instilled pride in pink. No, not being gay, the amount of pink on world maps, current and historic. A new generation of teachers in schools and universities have gone totally the other way, insinuating we should hang our heads in shame at our empire and history. I remain stoically proud of our past and achievements. Those that claim deep hurt and resentment about our history should consider putting their passports where their alleged morality lies.
Click to expand...

You can be proud of the good stuff and ashamed of the bad stuff. Doesn't have to be black or white.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom