"For a long time, the oppressed Peruvian dragged the ominous chain."
:( |
The article talked about how other nations had also considered (and mostly rejected) changes to their national anthems, in an era marked by consciousness of "national branding".
The phrase struck me as quite strange, especially since it was casually thrown into the conversation as if it represented a part of daily global conversation.
When I think of national brands, I tend to think of actual brands. After traveling to China, for example, I realized that there is no better ambassador for a positive American image abroad than the clean, shining interior of a convenient and delicious McDonald's.
Oh hey there. |
I suppose, however, that anthems were originally intended to represent the country, at least to its own citizens. America's anthem calls to mind glory in war, honoring the flag, lovely fireworks arching over a twinkly star-filled sky...all clearly very "American" facets of our culture. So is this focus on national anthems, and the desire to change them to reflect changing times (such as the removal of God from Russia's national anthem, or expunging a cry to crush the 'rebel Scots' in Britain's), a relevant reflection of a national identity crisis? Since almost all of the countries features in the article voted overwhelmingly to keep their national anthems the same, I guess that might mean that national identity is as strong as ever. But if anthems are no longer heralds of national identity, then what, if anything, really makes up the "national brand"?
If such a thing exists.
You can find the original article here: