Two perspectives on O Canada

As a Translator

One of the first things we learned in translation school is that the single best resource for translations is previous translations. Why re-do work that has already been done? You are being derelict in your duties if you don't search for previous translations when it is reasonable to expect their might be one. However, the very next thing we learned in translation school is not to perpetuate bad translations. If there are flaws in the previous translation and it's not being explicitly quoted in the target language, you are obligated to correct the flaws. The previous translator was fallible, just like you are. You are being even more derelict in your duties by letting a sub-optimal translation stand without improving it.

Another thing we learned in translation school is that when you cannot capture the precise connotation necessary, you should always err on the side of not making people look worse than they are in the source text. A profanity can't be translated by a stronger profanity. A slur can't be translated by a more hateful slur. Something that will cause the audience to react negatively can't be translated by something that will cause the audience to react more negatively. Clients have trust us to as their very voice, and taking their carefully-chosen words and turning them into something less tactful is unforgivable.

O Canada is a translation. It was originally written in French. The English version isn't a particularly close translation of the French, because the purpose of the text is to be a song, and it is more important that it serve that purpose (rhythm, rhyme, message) than that it capture every single nuance of the French meaning.

However, even given the latitude of literary translation, there are two lines in the English version that are problematic: "in all thy sons command" and "God keep our land glorious and free".

Both of these lines are exclusionary, and nothing similarly exclusionary appears in the original French. (There is "...il sait porter la croix", but that's not as strong as "God keep our land".) Therefore, the translation elicits a stronger negative reaction in the audience than the original. This is doubly unforgivable, because the audience in whom the text elicits the negative reaction are also the people in whose mouths these words are being put. We sing the anthem on our own behalf, so this suboptimal translation is forcing us to represent ourselves before the world with exclusionary sentiments. To do this simply because it has been done before is to perpetuate a flawed translation, and given the context and the importance of the text, to do so would be beyond the pale. If this crossed my desk and I let it stand, I'm quite certain I would be promptly relieved of all responsibilities where I have the final say on any text, because my employer could no longer trust my judgment.

As a Conspiracy Theorist

When I first heard they were considering making O Canada gender neutral, I assumed they were changing it to "in all of us command". It turns out they actually wanted to change it to "Thou dost in us command," which is unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce. Then they cancel the change because it's unnatural and physically difficult to pronounce.

This isn't the first time I've heard people choose the most awkward gender-neutral construction possible, then complain that "politically correct" language is awkward. "Firemen, er, and um firewomen? Firepeople?" Um, how about "firefighters"? "All of mankind! I mean, um, personkind?" How about "humanity"? I do find myself wondering if they do this on purpose.

When I point this out, people often tell me that it isn't malicious, it's just that other people aren't as good at thinking of words as I am. I find this difficult to believe (who hasn't played dumb every once in a while?) But if it actually is difficult and you seriously can't think of a suitable, neutral, non-awkward word, ask a professional like me, or look it up in Termium.