Not really, but I'll listen.
Understood.
Yes.
Some, yes. But many American slaves (and hirelings) fought on the American side as well.
That is an interpretation with problems. No one ever asked him. And he never told anyone about the meaning.
e.g. Was it about those "trying to escape"? Or was it simply about the entire British army (which were commonly called an army of "hirelings and slaves" because it was mostly true). They were the enemy after all.
As for the "gunning down..." Should they only fight with nerf pellets? Where does it refer to those in the act of escaping being "gunned down"? That's just creative excrement dressed up to look like liberal wokeness. Where is the proof that this is what was intended? Words mean something.
While that is interesting historical information (albeit biased and incomplete) that really doesn't change what I said.
1. If you take out the word "slave" from that line, is there ANY connection to that historical background that you're talking about? So, it is just "one word." Sure, you could make some argument for "hireling". But that actually refers to hirelings who were not black and not slaves equally. It really is a generic reference to all hirelings. In other words, it is raceless. So, how is that racist?
2. As it stands now, what is racist about the lyrics themselves? It apparently references accurate historical information. How is relating accurate historical information somehow racist?
3. It actually speaks positively about the slave as a thinking, moral person who has struggles and difficult choices to make. How is that racist? Is there anything derogatory about it? Is there some carelessness about it? Does it praise slavery as an institution? No, it is actually focusing on their plight. And you want to call it racist because of that?
4. There were slaves and hirelings on both sides. Which ones was he referring to? NO ONE KNOWS. No one asked. And he never told anyone. The phrase "hireling and slave" was a common epithet leveled at the ENTIRE British army. That they were only fighting because they were hired or bought to do that job. Whereas (the intent of the song) the American armies had a much nobler cause of defending their homes and families. But we don't know which he meant.
IN THE END, given the broader context of the song and the history surrounding it, the complaint is only about the use of a single word. There is no offense in using the word. It was actually very inclusive to show that they were part of the battle.
I'd like to point out the contradiction here. One major complaint from liberals is that we have a cultural denial regarding slavery -- we want to forget slavery ever happened. We try to brush it under the rug. But then you want to remove the national anthem because "gasp" we dare mention slavery in our national anthem? I thought the idea was that we were supposed to be open and honest about our slavery past.
So, are we supposed to admit it happened in proper historical context? Or are we supposed to erase all memory of it?
SPECIAL NOTE:
Scott, I'd ask you to consider the rest of my OP. You can point to this one sentence and debate that all you want. But the grander point I'm making is that the US is about to fall to a rebellion and destroy the Contitution to replace it with a government very similar to what the Russians have right now. Do you really want that? I know you said that you don't believe in toppling statues, etc. But to ignore the rest of my post just so you can argue about a single word (which is what I was originally rolling my eyes at) is missing the forest for the trees.
Don't be so blinded by partisanship as to buy into the idea that the US is done and it is time for a new empire. Voting for your candidate of choice is one thing. But to decide to destroy the system altogether?
The nation is at a tipping point, and you're arguing about the background of a single word being "offensive". If it meant getting rid of any and all "protected classes of people" in the law, to preserve the Constitution, would you accept that?