Francis Scott Key observes the bombardment and the U.S. flag over Fort McHenry.

Francis Scott Key observes the battery and the U.S. flag over Fort McHenry.

Image: Bettmann Annal/Getty Images

From 24-hour interval one, the U.s.a. has always struggled to walk its talk. In 1776, equally the U.South. alleged itself independent from Cracking United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, the framers of said annunciation noted that "all men are created equal." Merely Thomas Jefferson, the pb writer of the Declaration of Independence, owned men. In his "Notes on the State of Virginia," he compared Africans to apes. He had sex with an enslaved woman and kept her children in chains.

This is not just me looking back 242 years and imposing my present-day worldview onto a different era — the hypocrisy was seen and known in real-time.

"How is information technology that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?'' English language author Samuel Johnson wrote in 1775. A twelvemonth later, English language abolitionist Thomas Day wrote, "If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature it is an American patriot signing resolutions of independency with the ane hand and with the other brandishing a whip over his abashed slaves."

We are expected to judge this nation's early leaders on their words and non their deeds.

In other words, nosotros are expected to approximate this nation'due south early leaders on their words and non their deeds. When it comes to the past, we're supposed to basically do the opposite of what Martin Luther King Jr. said nosotros should practise in his "I Have a Dream" speech: actually overlook the content of someone's character.

Here's the thing, though: It appears that that's easier for some people to do than others. I'grand stuck. I am simply incapable of respecting someone who bought, sold, traded, bred, and forced man beings into a brutal life of slavery. It's a disqualifier for me. And my guess is that, the less your ancestors were affected by such a practice, the less of a disqualifier information technology is for yous. Simply some of us value black lives so much that we find information technology pretty hard to be wooed by someone's otherwise bright words when they owned black people. Kind of like how information technology's hard to curiosity over the poesy of Nazis or the photographic skills of 9/xi hijackers. At some point your graphic symbol, or lack thereof, gets in the way of your contributions.

Francis Scott Key, the writer of what is now known every bit our national anthem, admittedly needs to be on the listing of folks drummed out of polite company for their transgressions. He was a genuinely horrible man. He was an open up, flagrant bigot. He was not a silent bigot; he put his bigotry into words and deportment.

Key said that African-Americans were "a distinct and inferior race of people." Of form he thought that: He came from a long line of slaveowners. His family got wealthy off buying, selling, trading, breeding, and working human beings to death. He continued the practice himself and endemic homo beings for most of his life. Not only that, but as the commune attorney of Washington, D.C., Key fought against the rights and human dignity of black people every run a risk he got. In example after case, he fought against the rights of abolitionists and sought whatever means available to silence them.

All the way back in 1833, Primal was defending heinous incidents of police brutality confronting African-Americans. The man fought to protect slavery until the solar day he died. He was no timid beneficiary — Key fought molar and boom to protect it.

I have a problem with Francis Scott Key. I don't care how great his poetry may or may not accept been — I come across him as evil.

All of that results in me having a problem with Francis Scott Central. I don't care how great his poetry may or may not take been — I see him equally evil. I see slavery as an evil establishment. Participating in it, for Cardinal, was not a one-time option, but a gross daily decision to do good from and defend at all costs.

When he wrote a poem based on his bystander account of the War of 1812, it makes perfect sense that his accented loathing of complimentary black people constitute itself into "The Star-Spangled Banner." There, Central gleefully wrote about the murder of enslaved Africans that had been enlisted in the fighting. Their deaths were a highlight for him. The verse form says:

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the habitation of the brave.

This poem bothers me. Again, this is non me viewing the 19th century through a 21st century lens. Information technology bothered abolitionists of the day. They, too, were irked by how easily the deaths of enslaved Africans could be celebrated in the same stanza in which this country was hailed every bit "the state of the free." Abolitionists even created other songs to the tune of "The Star-Spangled Banner" that spoke of the true hurting and costs of slavery and how desperately freedom was desired.

There's a reason why this history is so important. Sometime NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick started his sit-in during the national anthem to protestation the repetitive cycle of systemic injustice and police brutality in this nation. It did not feel right to him to stand up to a vocal full of empty promises.

Kaepernick is non alone in the annals of sports. Jackie Robinson, in the final years of his life, in 1972, reflected dorsum on injustice in this nation and said, "I cannot stand and sing the anthem. I cannot salute the flag." And he was a veteran who gave years of his life in the military. It all ringed so hollow to him.

And it does to me as well. I am a man. I have a encephalon. I take a heart and soul. My fight in this state is against injustice. The same is true of Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid then many other NFL players who've taken a human knee. But something weird has happened where information technology's now seemingly politically incorrect to say that anybody is protesting the anthem.

So let me say it: I am protesting the anthem.

I am protesting its deeply narrow-minded author — who owned human beings for convenience and profit.

And I am protesting injustice in this nation on behalf of so many families that proceed to experience systematic racism, law brutality, and inequality — all while others expect us to get upwards and sing with a heart full of happiness.

I'll take a pass.