Color Enforcement

[dukealien]

Color Enforcement


Some find it odd
that American high-churchers
recoil from resettling
refugees who flee a hellish
state where they are dispossessed
and persecuted unto death
by reason of their race.

But why surprise?

True, they’re not illegal
thus lack that sweet frisson
of the thief on the cross–

but in truth it’s just enforcing
tight Apartheid rules
and Old South statutory increments:
if these Afrikaners would admit
or even falsely claim
one-eighth or so “black” ancestry...

they could impersonate
a kind of inverse octoroons
and be admitted to that victim-space
where the morally superior
permit their inferiors
except when barred by color.

[busker]

The poem is a long rant.
S1 is a run on sentence. The argument is also bogus to anyone who’s been to South Africa. The description “hellish state” is from Fox News, not experience.

S2…Sn are all prose with line breaks.

The central thesis is also untenable - are there any black refugees that the US is taking in BECAUSE they are black? The American right has always argued against Syrian refugees, many of whom are whiter than the Boers after 400 years of life in Africa and getting mixed ancestry in that period.


There is good racist poetry. Kipling did it well. This one doesn’t.

[dukealien]

The poem is a long rant.
S1 is a run on sentence. The argument is also bogus to anyone who’s been to South Africa. The description “hellish state” is from Fox News, not experience.

S2…Sn are all prose with line breaks.

The central thesis is also untenable - are there any black refugees that the US is taking in BECAUSE they are black? The American right has always argued against Syrian refugees, many of whom are whiter than the Boers after 400 years of life in Africa and getting mixed ancestry in that period.


There is good racist poetry. Kipling did it well. This one doesn’t.

So, in Basic, you object to the run-on sentences.  That's fair.  Any other suggestions for improvement?

[busker]

So, in Basic, you object to the run-on sentences.  That's fair.  Any other suggestions for improvement?

aka 'How do you make a tired old racist whinge interesting to readers of a dissimilar persuasion'?
Kipling provides the template. The same techniques can be used to write interesting little poems about how the potato famine was Ireland's fault, the good Nazi, and so forth.

In this instance, the knowledgeable reader can't empathise with the plight of the poor Boer who after all has more wealth per capita than the coloreds, blacks, or Indians. And who benefited from colonisation, apartheid, and the umbrella of the British empire thanks to the good fortune of having a Cape Town colony. 
It would be as ludicrous as writing a poem about a poor white southerner who lost his only slave.

To make it work, you have to write about the particular circumstances of ONE Boer. That may make it ambiguous rather than racist, but it will still do the job.
The reader has to care about the subject.
That's why Kim is readable, despite Kipling's overt racism.

An alternative is to resort to humour and song, funny little rhymes and a lot of rhythm.
With a hint of being more than merely racist.
That's Gunga Din. Those would be the Jungle Books.

Another alternative is to make everything grand, like Leni Reifenstahl. But that's difficult to do in poetry in a more cynical age.

In short, it's difficult but not impossible to write good racist poetry.

[dukealien]

So, in Basic, you object to the run-on sentences.  That's fair.  Any other suggestions for improvement?

aka 'How do you make a tired old racist whinge interesting to readers of a dissimilar persuasion'?
Kipling provides the template. The same techniques can be used to write interesting little poems about how the potato famine was Ireland's fault, the good Nazi, and so forth.

In this instance, the knowledgeable reader can't empathise with the plight of the poor Boer who after all has more wealth per capita than the coloreds, blacks, or Indians. And who benefited from colonisation, apartheid, and the umbrella of the British empire thanks to the good fortune of having a Cape Town colony. 
It would be as ludicrous as writing a poem about a poor white southerner who lost his only slave.

To make it work, you have to write about the particular circumstances of ONE Boer. That may make it ambiguous rather than racist, but it will still do the job.
The reader has to care about the subject.
That's why Kim is readable, despite Kipling's overt racism.

An alternative is to resort to humour and song, funny little rhymes and a lot of rhythm.
With a hint of being more than merely racist.
That's Gunga Din. Those would be the Jungle Books.

Another alternative is to make everything grand, like Leni Reifenstahl. But that's difficult to do in poetry in a more cynical age.

In short, it's difficult but not impossible to write good racist poetry.

Interesting:  tracking with closeups, as it were.  Would the same advice apply to writing anti-racist poetry (which, spoiler, was the intent here)?

[busker]

Interesting:  tracking with closeups, as it were.  Would the same advice apply to writing anti-racist poetry (which, spoiler, was the intent here)?

Many white South Africans today feel disenfranchised by the affirmative action policies that are meant to redress the historical imbalance in wealth between the races. In the long run, those policies will lead to a more equitable society, and are for the greater good. But the collateral damage from that today are the little people, the grist for the mill, the fodder for the cannon of progress. 

And so there is enough material here to write poetry empathetic to the Boer (who after all, have been living in Africa for 400 years as a 'white tribe' and have no surviving ties to Europe) and arguing for them to be admitted into America. That could be anti racist poetry. And I suppose it’s more easily done by focusing on one person’s tale of woe.


But saying that 'Boers could get in here more easily if they were black' is ridiculous, because we know that America doesn't have a bleeding heart for black and brown and yellow refugees like it did for their white equivalents a hundred and fifty years ago. That can't make for anti-racist poetry because the central premise is delusional. It could make for good racist poetry, if done right. So take it whichever way you will.

To broach a broader topic: poetry is about showing because it appeals to our emotions. An argument, consisting of a proposition and its defence, appeals to the head. Arguments don’t make for good poetry. They may find place in an essay. But you know that.

[dukealien]

Interesting:  tracking with closeups, as it were.  Would the same advice apply to writing anti-racist poetry (which, spoiler, was the intent here)?

Many white South Africans today feel disenfranchised by the affirmative action policies that are meant to redress the historical imbalance in wealth between the races. In the long run, those policies will lead to a more equitable society, and are for the greater good. But the collateral damage from that today are the little people, the grist for the mill, the fodder for the cannon of progress. 

The problem with this line of thinking is that it isn't easily disentangled from envy (emotional desire to see someone who has a desirable asset deprived of it and humbled)  and actual racism (hatred and feelings of inferiority/superiority toward others on account of their race).  The basis of "affirmative action" is an intellectualized gloss for these feelings - sometimes at one remove, "What A and B decide C must do for D."

And so there is enough material here to write poetry empathetic to the Boer (who after all, have been living in Africa for 400 years as a 'white tribe' and have no surviving ties to Europe) and arguing for them to be admitted into America. That could be anti racist poetry. And I suppose it’s more easily done by focusing on one person’s tale of woe.

That's my impression of what you were suggesting.  Certainly worth pursuing.

But saying that 'Boers could get in here more easily if they were black' is ridiculous, because we know that America doesn't have a bleeding heart for black and brown and yellow refugees like it did for their white equivalents a hundred and fifty years ago. That can't make for anti-racist poetry because the central premise is delusional. It could make for good racist poetry, if done right. So take it whichever way you will.

That "Boers" could get here more easily is amply demonstrated:  the Episcopalians (British:  C of E) refuse to settle them even though they were more than happy to settle other refugees of all races and colors (including illegal immigrants).  They quit handling *all* refugees just to avoid handling the Afrikaners.  This is the factual basis of the poem (which I don't defend, as a poem, but facts are facts).

To broach a broader topic: poetry is about showing because it appeals to our emotions. An argument, consisting of a proposition and its defence, appeals to the head. Arguments don’t make for good poetry. They may find place in an essay. But you know that.

The broader topic is certainly worthy of discussion.  Can poetry make sense, or must it limit itself to expressing/manipulating emotions?  I think good poetry *can* engage emotions; on the other hand, I think it can make unwelcome sense and still be good.  This is the problem with racism versus authenticity:  my (or your) authentic dislike of some (class of) people on account of their race (or race-like culture/ethnicity/history) is *my* racism but *your* justifiable and authentic emotion - your justice, as it were.  But from my standpoint, the inverse is true.  Being civilized people, we both *try* to treat and think of individuals as persons rather than group members, but this is a cold, logical application of the definition of racism (and anti-racism) which we are both tempted to mangle in pursuit of self-justification... for example, by adding a codicil like, "but past victims of racism, and those still suffering lingering effects of it, cannot, of course, be racist" and "hatred of people who look like past oppressors, or inherit property from them, is justified and cannot be racism; dispossessing them and placing them at a  disadvantage, is merely affirmative action."

Logically, anti-racism can't partake of racism... or envy, or spite, or rage against members of another race, or an entire race, or its living relicts.  It is a rather Christian thing, perhaps.   Though not, apparently, Episcopalian (C of E).

[RiverNotch]

Part of the essence of poetry is its unison of style and substance. Stylistically, there's nothing that stands out from this per se, but like the most objectionable verses of Kipling or Eliot, the substance is
shite. The critique here is that a church is being racist because it objects to a state's blatantly racist actions in accepting white "refugees" (South Africa, as far as I know, is not in such a state of crisis as Palestine or much of South America, not least with its Afrikaner citizens), as opposed to refugees of color elsewhere? There may be some systemic hypocrisy behind it---for all I know, that particular church may be in day-to-day operations quite hostile to dark skinned folk---but this poem does not address it, not at all. Instead, it works with a warped, fundamentally broken logic, like critiquing antifascists for violence when the entire premise of fascism is to monopolize violence, one that will only be acceptable to a delusional audience that is not nearly as numerous as the speaker thinks they are. An audience that I know will eventually diminish further, leaving this poem a black stain in the author's reputation---again, like Eliot and Kipling or Pound or Wagner, for all their sublimity, are seen as monsters now. To be even more Christian, sublimity is a worse virtue than justice, or than salvation.

---

And to turn to the source Himself, He said it's good to listen to what the hypocrites say, not what they do, and if such high-churchers are being hypocritical now, they're certainly not saying anything false.

[dukealien]

Part of the essence of poetry is its unison of style and substance. Stylistically, there's nothing that stands out from this per se, but like the most objectionable verses of Kipling or Eliot, the substance is
shite. The critique here is that a church is being racist because it objects to a state's blatantly racist actions in accepting white "refugees" (South Africa, as far as I know, is not in such a state of crisis as Palestine or much of South America, not least with its Afrikaner citizens), as opposed to refugees of color elsewhere? There may be some systemic hypocrisy behind it---for all I know, that particular church may be in day-to-day operations quite hostile to dark skinned folk---but this poem does not address it, not at all. Instead, it works with a warped, fundamentally broken logic, like critiquing antifascists for violence when the entire premise of fascism is to monopolize violence, one that will only be acceptable to a delusional audience that is not nearly as numerous as the speaker thinks they are. An audience that I know will eventually diminish further, leaving this poem a black stain in the author's reputation---again, like Eliot and Kipling or Pound or Wagner, for all their sublimity, are seen as monsters now. To be even more Christian, sublimity is a worse virtue than justice, or than salvation.

---

And to turn to the source Himself, He said it's good to listen to what the hypocrites say, not what they do, and if such high-churchers are being hypocritical now, they're certainly not saying anything false.

Thanks for the critique.  I take from it that, while the style is undistinguished at best, the content really got your goat (as the saying is).  Combining this with @busker's, it seems I need more poetic flashes, and to personalize the people concerned (an American Episcopalian and an Afrikaner refugee, perhaps) by asking the reader - fruitlessly in some cases - to alternately see the situation through their eyes.  Perhaps even to sympathize:  each will take some work on the part of readers who are not initially sympathetic, so there have to be little prizes for the reader getting over himself.

More discursively,

I find it significant that both critics (fellow seekers after truth) find it appropriate to downgrade and demean the Afrikaners' perilous situation - as if they come up short in the victim league table.  I agree there are more hellish places than most of today's South Africa - Haiti, to choose an easy example, where those living in Port-au-Prince are in worse straits even than Soweto.  Instead of a corrupt government, they have none - aside from criminal gangs.  Instead of intermittent services, they have cholera and no services because the gangs make it too dangerous for anyone to provide them.

With that in mind, it could be argued that the Haitians are more deserving than the Afrikaners.  But in that case, why doesn't the Dominican Republic - which is right there on Hispaniola with them - help?  Answer:  because the problem is too big and too knotted for anything but an Alexandrian sword.  That is, go in militarily for ten years and set the place to rights.  That is, colonialism.  Short of that, Haiti is insoluble.  So, probably, is South Africa.  Mandela's peace and reconciliation didn't take, in the end it only produced a regime change and a reshuffling of the racial pecking order.

So, some problems are too big (and sometimes the obvious solution, like sending the Marines into Haiti or a democratically elected government in South Africa, have been tried and have failed).  By comparison, accepting refugee Afrikaners a few score at a time is within American capabilities and competence.  There's a danger that they might form unassimilated communities as (for example) Somalis seem to have done, but their language ability and - let's be honest - appearance will ease assimilation.  At least one American black woman has threatened them with violence, but the police can deal with that... it doesn't take the Secret Service.

So, yes, the Episcopalians are hypcrites.  They don't live up to their own standards, or they amend them to fit their racial politics.  Are they good people otherwise?  A question worth asking.  Are the Afrikaners good people aside from being embarrassingly white?  Maybe so.  Do they deserve the hate?  Not without knowing them, and probably not then.

The US government accepting Afrikaners as refugees - real refugees, not economic migrants who claim they felt unsafe in their native lands that have been accepted by the thousand - is not racist.  Which has become nothing but a swear-word, anyway, among Americans of a certain political disposition.  There may be other reasons for feeling unpleasantly challenged by the plight of South African whites, to the point of denial:  the US did, after all, use a lot of force and influence to help produce a failed Mandelan, now ANC-corrupt situation of which the whites are some of the victims (there are plenty of black victims, too).  If there is guilt to be assuaged, there's a real fountain of it there - and hating its, that is our, victims is a shrewd way of denying it.  Shrewd, but not necessarily successful.

[busker]

Getting the empathy is part of it.
But if it’s a sincere poem (ie not one where the poet is trying to manipulate the reader a la Patricia Highsmith), then the premise also has to resonate.

If this church or whatever sees Boers as unfit for qualifying for refugee status then they’re on solid ground. The bar for claiming asylum is high.

Malaysia has affirmative action policies biased towards ethnic Malays at the expense its Chinese and Indian minorities

The problems that afflict Boers also affect other non black minorities in the country

But they are nowhere near bad enough to claim refugee status. For the most part, these groups are relatively wealthy, and where not wealthy, still quite comfortably off.

So why the special treatment for the Boers? Because the myth of white genocide  in South Africa has been circulating in right wing circles since 1994. And Trump is merely pandering to his base again. Opposing a racist policy doesn’t make you racist.

So you can write a poem from the pov of a Boer, but you’ll need to have a believable point

[dukealien]

Getting the empathy is part of it.
But if it’s a sincere poem (ie not one where the poet is trying to manipulate the reader a la Patricia Highsmith), then the premise also has to resonate.

If this church or whatever sees Boers as unfit for qualifying for refugee status then they’re on solid ground. The bar for claiming asylum is high.

Malaysia has affirmative action policies biased towards ethnic Malays at the expense its Chinese and Indian minorities

The problems that afflict Boers also affect other non black minorities in the country

But they are nowhere near bad enough to claim refugee status. For the most part, these groups are relatively wealthy, and where not wealthy, still quite comfortably off.

So why the special treatment for the Boers? Because the myth of white genocide  in South Africa has been circulating in right wing circles since 1994. And Trump is merely pandering to his base again. Opposing a racist policy doesn’t make you racist.

So you can write a poem from the pov of a Boer, but you’ll need to have a believable point

Thanks for that advice.  Discarding the objection that "Boers" aren't badly-enough off to qualify as victims (again), I had some ideas on how to express this using some of the critique material.  In a way.  Sort of.  It will be a considerably different poem, so it will need a new thread.  Some will still find it objectionable, but will need to find different rationalizations reasons for their dislike.

Update:  the new poem is here.