Understood and granted. That's what I meant, I guess, by "an easy change." If it's just terribly awkward, leave it be. And I'm really not familiar enough with "O Canada" to know the degree to which it would affect the poetry. It doesn't seem like much on paper. I could be wrong. (Although, personally, I think that inclusivity matters more with regards to a national anthem than it would in most other songs. So, I tilt preference there to inclusiveness over poetry. Unless it's just horrible sounding.)Though I agree with you, star, I find it frustrating when these things are changed with no thought to the poetry. The change to O Canada wouldn't be terrible, but it does disrupt the flow of the song.
There is a line in one of the hymns we sing at church "God in man made manifest" that the music director changed to "God in flesh made manifest". It's terrible. The man/manifest is a beautiful play on words, to change it to flesh is brutal.
"God in man made manifest" makes perfect sense without changing it. The song is referring to Jesus who, by all accounts, was a man. That isn't referring to a collective "you," it's referring to a particular person, so the change -- besides being bad poetry -- doesn't really make much sense.
Also, in "Hark the Herald Angels Sing," I really do much prefer the sound of "Born to raise each child of earth" to "Born to raise the sons of earth." Not just for reasons of inclusivity, but because I just like the image and feel of it better.
Nothing with that level of agreement among population can be good.
