London is a city on the river

[blp]

The English are smaller than their continental cousins with more recessed foreheads. They live in little cream coloured mud houses in fear of colour, big birds and other large carnivores. They live in mud houses and have large hands and feet. They clothe themselves in industrial textile production waste in fear of colour and are carnivores. They hunt with spears and rude clubs. Their myths are of tedious duties and custard.

Saprophytes are organisms that eat the dead.
The English are evolved from mushrooms. Their hands and feet are rude clubs. Fingers are stubs. They grow from sausage fat spores deposited under the bridge in clusters. They decorate cream objects with little flowers. Their culture comes from across water.

Their dominant myth is a sausage in the inflorescence of a strip of bacon.
On the plate beside cooked mushrooms in slimy brown quarters
beans

A body is an engorged thing that feels.

Subtle plants are motile
Not all bodies are motile
A mushroom is not a plant
A mushroom is not motile

The English are gorgeous. They are prokaryotes with large noses, omnivores, like algae with non-fibrous cell walls, pond scum, bugs in cages. They have active salivary glands and can strip a cassowary carcass in ten seconds. Their national colours are brown and cream. Their myths are of living without bodies and moving without life.

The gorgeous can be ordinary
The things you do to your body
A body is an obstacle for
another body

A person is an obstacle

The English are ordinary. They live on an obstacle course of water with recessed foreheads. They are carnivores. They decorate themselves with little flowers.

They can strip a Hottentot’s carcass in seconds. Their myths are of living without bodies and moving without life. Their culture comes from acts of war.

[white camellia]

The subject matter is great, about a people with distinctive traits relating to a grand history, who does not seem alive and amiable(invasive) though you write it in a lively way, and ironic(or just very objective) and precise, the imageries seriously piquant...
Now my impression falls away just on three words:
carnivores myths mushrooms
There are two of my favorite from this piece of writing:


The English are evolved from mushrooms. Their hands and feet are rude clubs. Fingers are stubs. They grow from sausage fat spores deposited under the bridge in clusters. They decorate cream objects with little flowers. Their culture comes from across water.

Their myths are of living without bodies and moving without life. (especially this one)

blp, you don't like the English, do you? :p

[blp]

:p Well I certainly wasn't in a good mood with them when I wrote this. Technically I'm English myself now having recently acquired citizenship, but the best thing about this is it means I can think about moving away for a while without losing my residence rights. Not sure I could explain my antipathy rationally, which is why I wrote this.

Not sure I understand what you mean when you say your impression falls away. Do you mean you don't like the use of those particular words?

I agree with you about your favourite bits of this. I think they're strongest too.

[white camellia]

Not sure I understand what you mean when you say your impression falls away. Do you mean you don't like the use of those particular words?
;) I meant that these three words together could keep me thinking of this writing...
And those particular words are actually a part of the reason why I like this!

[blp]

Ah good. ;)

[Virgil]

:p Well I certainly wasn't in a good mood with them when I wrote this. Technically I'm English myself now having recently acquired citizenship, but the best thing about this is it means I can think about moving away for a while without losing my residence rights. Not sure I could explain my antipathy rationally, which is why I wrote this.

Not sure I understand what you mean when you say your impression falls away. Do you mean you don't like the use of those particular words?

I agree with you about your favourite bits of this. I think they're strongest too.

If you weren't happy with the English, why acquire citizenship? If you're disgruntled, why not move on to something that will make you happier? I'm sure the English won't mind losing you, especially since you degrade them so. If you're unhappy and you stay in an unhappy situation, who's to blame?

[blp]

Aw, have a heart, Virgil. I said I was in a bad mood, not that I hate hate hate the English. Explaining all this would require a fairly detailed recounting of my life history, which I don't mind doing somewhere, but this is a thread on a poem, so here, I'll stick to remarking on that. As I said above, I wrote it as a poem precisely because I didn't feel in any position to mount a sustained rational attack on Englishness. It's not a political essay, it's an expression of emotion.

[Virgil]

It's not a political essay, it's an expression of emotion.
Perhaps you meant it to be an expression of emotion, but all I see is an ad hominem attack. Not even a criticisim. I'm sorry if I attacked you, but such expressions are not very becoming. It strikes me as racist.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Racist!!?

Come on Virgil. I'm English and I found equal parts of things to agree with, things to disagree with and things to be confused about in this poem. Which is the purpose of poetry in my book.

There are a lot of wankers in England (a word that means a lot over here but not enough in the US to get asterisked (if there is such a word as "asterisked" - if not, there is now)) and a lot of things to get in a bad mood about.

The important thing is, it's well written and holds the interest. When will people read the poem as a poem first, rather than looking for non-PC references?

More power to your elbow blp.

[Scheherazade]

I agree that I cannot see anything I would call 'racist' in this poem and it is no doubt one of blp's more interesting and passionate works (I find him mostly worried about style and technique rather than true expression of his thoughts and feelings... which makes his poems 'too well-structered' in my eyes).

I quite enjoyed reading this and chuckled to myself at times.

[Virgil]

Replace english with blacks or jews and you will read the poem as completely racist. There was a theory in the early 20th century about jews and foreheads and the shapes of peoples heads and how that fit with certain races. It doesn't matter whether one is ridiculing minorities or the majority. I stand by it, the poem is racist.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Replace english with blacks or jews and you will read the poem as completely racist. There was a theory in the early 20th century about jews and foreheads and the shapes of peoples heads and how that fit with certain races. It doesn't matter whether one is ridiculing minorities or the majority. I stand by it, the poem is racist.

At the risk of criticising a minority group, it looks like you're the only one that thinks so. Perhaps the rest of us lack your sensitivity, insight and intelligence. Obviously I do, being English!

Besides, he said "The English are gorgeous" - which I can't argue with.

He also said "A person is an obstacle" - which brings someone to mind - can't think who though...

[mike-eustace]

Replace english with blacks or jews and you will read the poem as completely racist. There was a theory in the early 20th century about jews and foreheads and the shapes of peoples heads and how that fit with certain races. It doesn't matter whether one is ridiculing minorities or the majority. I stand by it, the poem is racist.


i agree comletly vigil . just because a race is not one that you would generally describe as 'discriminated against' (if you know what i mean) doesn't mean that they are fair game. i took offence at several descriptions in this poem - particularly being likened to "pond scum" and after reading it several times i couldn't understand the point of it whatsoever. it was certainly written in an interesting style but other than that was nothing other than vitrolic ranting o no basis more solid than the fact you couldn't handle whatever had happened to you that day!!!!!
:rage: :rage: :rage: :rage: :mad: :rage: :mad: :mad:

[Virgil]

Thank you Mike. There was a time prior to world war II when that sort of thing was tolerated, no matter how well written. You can find racist passages in Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Ernest Hemmingway, and others I'm sure. During the middle ages, we can find all sorts of slurs against muslims. We can sort of tolerate the past, rationalizing that these authors were a product of their times. I think we have to live that; we can push blatent slurs further from the forefront, and appreciate the rest. But there is no excuse for any work, no matter how well written, after the halocaust to have blatent racism in it. It should not be tolerated. If a writer indulges in it, that work should be discarded for the garbage it is. If that writer makes a pattern of it, he (and I don't know if blp makes a pattern of it, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) should be ostracized. Those that tolerate are almost as bad. They are of weak character.

[mike-eustace]

Dear BLP. i don't want you to get the wrong idea about me. i really don't like the work you posted and would expect to be criticised just as strongly if i were to post something similar. i do enjoy your style of writing and would read more of your posts...on a differet topic ;-) you're obviously an intelligent person - it comes across in this prose and i have to admit that through the indignation i couldn't help but smile a wee bit!

[Logos]

blp is a `known' poster here and not given to causing trouble here or fomenting hatred among members or specific types of people.

You have a point in saying if you replace some words with some other words, it could be deemed as racist by some.

But this is merely blp's subjective poem, and could be interpreted many different ways.

As such, if you don't like something, tell us why, or leave it be :)

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Thank you Mike. There was a time prior to world war II when that sort of thing was tolerated, no matter how well written. You can find racist passages in Ezra Pound, T.S. Eliot, Ernest Hemmingway, and others I'm sure. During the middle ages, we can find all sorts of slurs against muslims. We can sort of tolerate the past, rationalizing that these authors were a product of their times. I think we have to live that; we can push blatent slurs further from the forefront, and appreciate the rest. But there is no excuse for any work, no matter how well written, after the halocaust to have blatent racism in it. It should not be tolerated. If a writer indulges in it, that work should be discarded for the garbage it is. If that writer makes a pattern of it, he (and I don't know if blp makes a pattern of it, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) should be ostracized. Those that tolerate are almost as bad. They are of weak character.

...and then we start burning books.

As Voltaire once famously said (excuse the split infinitive) "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend unto death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

"Anyone that would set themselves up as worthy to judge what should or should not be banned, should be the first to be banned"
- I said that

[Scheherazade]

"Anyone that would set themselves up as worthy to judge what should or should not be banned, should be the first to be banned"
- I said that*refuses to be banned!

:p

[Virgil]

...and then we start burning books.

As Voltaire once famously said (excuse the split infinitive) "I may disagree with everything you say, but will defend unto death your right to say it."
- Voltaire

"Anyone that would set themselves up as worthy to judge what should or should not be banned, should be the first to be banned"
- I said that
I didn't say ban. Everyone has got a right, at least in my country, to say whatever they want. No one, however, has to listen, publish, or pay attention to him. If that person wants to spew filth, feel free to do so. But I will not be a part of it. I'll say it again, anyone that tolerates racism is of weak character.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Personally, I think that anyone that sees racism in something as innocuous as blp's poem has character weaknesses of their own.

And to describe it as spewed filth? My flabber is well and truly gastered!


No one, however, has to listen, publish, or pay attention to him.
I don't see anyone in the forum paying more attention to him than you - "Physician, heal thyself!"

The moderators in this forum have made it quite clear that they see nothing wrong with the poem. Kindly stop ranting.

[Virgil]

And to describe it as spewed filth? My flabber is well and truly gastered!


I don't see anyone in the forum paying more attention to him than you - "Physician, heal thyself!"

The moderators in this forum have made it quite clear that they see nothing wrong with the poem. Kindly stop ranting.
I was going to let it go until you accused me of banning people. So you don't see what's wrong? Here are some quotes:


The English are smaller than their continental cousins with more recessed foreheads.

They live in mud houses and have large hands and feet.

The English are evolved from mushrooms.

They are prokaryotes with large noses, omnivores, like algae with non-fibrous cell walls, pond scum, bugs in cages.

They have active salivary glands and can strip a cassowary carcass in ten seconds.

[Scheherazade]

Please carry on your discussions without resorting to personal attacks.

[Vedrana]

Hmmm...and here I was thinking it was a satire! It sort of reminded me of Bruce Dawe, if any of you know him, (Australian poet), and I just thought it was meant to be funny. It never struck me while I was reading it that people actually would take it seriously as a slur against the English. For goodness' sake, calm down people!

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I rather like the idea of having evolved from a mushroom and, while my hands and feet are relatively small, (compared to my continental cousins) you really should see me tackle a cassowary carcass!

I repeat, I am English and find absolutely NOTHING to be offended by in this amusing poem. I do not need my delicate racial sensibilities protecting by ANYONE.

I apologise if anything I said was too personal. Please don't continue to insist that I am being persecuted and maligned when I repeatedly state that I am not. I believe that I am intelligent enough to realise when racist slurs are being directed at me.

[blp]

Well, as they say here in Blighty - blimey. You turn your back for five minutes and suddenly you're the subject of an impassioned political debate. Well, it's nice to be noticed.

There's an episode of Seinfeld where Jerrry suspects that his dentist has only become Jewish in order to make Jewish jokes. Lest anyone think something similar's going on with me, I've essentially been at least half English all my life - my mother's English and I've lived here since I was twelve, but because of an outdated and rather sexist statute, I wasn't actually entitled to citizenship until recently.

I said on another forum that I'd started this piece as an attempt at a reasoned attack against certain aspects of Englishness, then found it more effective to start saying things that were blatantly untrue. An anglophile from America, who wasn't offended at all, said, nonsense, it all struck him as very true. Which is fair and funny enough up to a point - but does anyone seriously think I'm trying to argue that the English have more recessed foreheads than they're continental cousins? Let me put your mind, recessed or not, at rest - I'm not. And if you want to derive a rational point from all of this, try putting that line together with the last ones - 'they can strip a hottentol carcas in [however many] minutes and their culture comes from acts of war'. These, because of England's decidedly scurrilous, often genocidal colonial past, are, sadly, closer to the truth than a lot else in the poem - and it's under colonialism that we see this kind of pseudo-scientific racial characterisation going on. In other words, to apply it to the English, after they've applied similar to numerous Africans and Asians, seems fair in a tit for tat way, even if all it really does is point up the absurdity of this kind of description in general.

Thanks to all who've defended me. You won't be surprised to learn I agree with everything you say. Virgil, it's funny that you should be the one crying 'racism' here after all the fuss on the 'language as control' thread. Perhaps the point that all texts are ideological is finally getting through!

[The Unnamable]

I was teaching ‘Romeo and Juliet’ to a class of fourteen year olds a few years ago. We came to quite a famous few lines in Act 1 scene v:

“O, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!
It seems she hangs upon the cheek of night
Like a rich jewel in an Ethiope's ear;
Beauty too rich for use, for earth too dear!”

After having explained what an ‘Ethiope’ is, I saw one student put up her hand.
“That’s racist, that is,” she said.
“Why?” I asked.
“It’s going on about black people. Why didn’t he pick a white person?”

I’m not saying that this is like you, Virgil, but I do think that the racial sensitivity seismograph is currently set ridiculously high in western society. I see and hear a lot of negative racist assumptions out here but these also include some Thais telling me how much they dislike black people, whom they consider to have oversized noses.

PS blp, I liked the poem.

[blp]

PS blp, I liked the poem.

Much obliged.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

wb blp,

I was wondering when you were going to comment. Congratulations on raising more replies for a poem post than anything else in this section. It must warm the cockles to know that the PC brigade have been raising it's profile in your absence. Keep up the good work.

[blp]

Thanks for the encouragement, Xamonas. Yes, excluding my own, more than 20 replies, I think. It's truly great to be the subject of a row, for some reason.

[emily655321]

:eek: :goof: I thought this poem a hilarious, wonderously written piece of absurdist satire. blp, it might please you to know that I did pick up on the referencing of colonial pseudo-scientific racial characterizations. :p Good job! Also, being a visual thinker, I hope this is understandable, but it reminded me an awful lot of one of my drawings, for some reason. I do black-and-white surrealist dot-drawings, and I think I might make one of this poem.

Also, I might point out (and as a person who has been accused of being "the PC police" of the forum several times in the past month), that even if the rest of it were meant to be serious, the English are not a race. They're a country. Therefore, even if the piece were meant to be offensive, it would still fail to be racist.

[emily655321]

P.S. I laughed out loud on several occasions, but my favorite lines are

Their myths are of tedious duties and custard.

The English are evolved from mushrooms.and

Their dominant myth is a sausage in the inflorescence of a strip of bacon.
Also, I love that "beans" has a line unto itself. Anyone who has lived in Britain will understand. :D


blp, I wish that if you ever get very angry at the United States, that you would do one of us. I would hang it on my wall.

[Virgil]

:eek: :goof: I thought this poem a hilarious, wonderously written piece of absurdist satire. blp, it might please you to know that I did pick up on the referencing of colonial pseudo-scientific racial characterizations. :p Good job! Also, being a visual thinker, I hope this is understandable, but it reminded me an awful lot of one of my drawings, for some reason. I do black-and-white surrealist dot-drawings, and I think I might make one of this poem.

Also, I might point out (and as a person who has been accused of being "the PC police" of the forum several times in the past month), that even if the rest of it were meant to be serious, the English are not a race. They're a country. Therefore, even if the piece were meant to be offensive, it would still fail to be racist.

I really ought to let this go, but it continues to strike a chord. First of all, satire from M-W:

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

There was no vice or folly suggested. Just catagorical sentences desparging ad hominem a group of people, loosely a race. This was not satire.

Well if the english are not a race, Hitler certainly thought national groups were races. Jews aren't even identified through national association. Yet they were considered a race to be extinguished. I'm of Italian-American ethnicity. So what does that mean if someone calls me a guinea or a wop, I shouldn't be offended. It's not a race they're desparging. There was a time when Italians were refered to as garlic smelling. That's a sentence that could fit very easily in blp's "poem".

[emily655321]

There was no vice or folly suggested. Just catagorical sentences desparging ad hominem a group of people, loosely a race. This was not satire.I took it to be a satire of, among other things, racism.

Well if the english are not a race, Hitler certainly thought national groups were races.Do you consider Hitler to be the deciding authority on race relations?

EDIT: I wish I could find the link; someone wrote a webpage a few years ago detailing "[Someone]'s Law" or "[Someone]'s Rule," which states that when Hitler is mentioned out of context (i.e. in a discussion not about WWII) on a message board, the thread is over, because experience has proven that no vestige of constructive debate can survive long thereafter, and it is a sign that the discussion has deteriorated past salvation. It's a sort of unofficial law of the internet. I wish I could find that link.

[emily655321]

Found it! It's Godwin's Law, which states, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." Common practice is to end the discussion at that point.

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Usernet FAQ: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

[blp]

And on it rages, much to my surprise. Emily, thanks so much for your interest and lovely comments. An American on another forum asked me what I thought Americans might be descended from. I said, surely it was plastic forks and paper plates. I'll let you know if I have any more developed thoughts on a US piece.

You're so right about the beans, though it occurs to me that anyone not familiar with the curious, quasi-viscera of baked beans in tomatoe sauce will miss the sense - as well as an oddly comforting culinary experience.

I'm from a visual background myself, being an artschool grad and still making video work. The sometimes tricky relationship between image and text continues to be a preoccupation so yes I'd love to see what kind of picture you made of this.

That Hitler rule is spot on.

Virgil, I'm paying attention, but I wonder if you're reciprocating. You never seem to respond to my responses, just go on making points I've taken pains to refute. More of a discussion, less a barrage of accusation would be good. Failing that, at least allow me to feel that my defense is being heard by directing your accusations at it rather than ignoring it completely.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

Virgil, I'm paying attention, but I wonder if you're reciprocating. You never seem to respond to my responses, just go on making points I've taken pains to refute. More of a discussion, less a barrage of accusation would be good. Failing that, at least allow me to feel that my defense is being heard by directing your accusations at it rather than ignoring it completely.

Thank you blp. I have raised the same critique of Virgil's discussion style on the 'Language as Control' thread in Reading/Philosophical Literature. I was beginning to think I was a voice in the wilderness. The worst of it was, in that thread, I wasn't really disagreeing with his point of view, merely trying to qualify it.

Virgil, please don't take that as personal. You make many valid points, probably as many as you do invalid ones, in my opinion. I just wish you would be more thoughtful in your answers. Otherwise it's like arguing with a kid that says, "Yes, I know that but why can't I have a beer?" after every explanation. Progress in a discussion comes through a reasoned, back-and-forth exchange of opinions, with both sides learning where they agree and where and why they disagree.

Plus, anyone that like Thelonious Monk can't be all bad!

[Virgil]

I said on another forum that I'd started this piece as an attempt at a reasoned attack against certain aspects of Englishness, then found it more effective to start saying things that were blatantly untrue. An anglophile from America, who wasn't offended at all, said, nonsense, it all struck him as very true. Which is fair and funny enough up to a point - but does anyone seriously think I'm trying to argue that the English have more recessed foreheads than they're continental cousins?
Sorry. I should have responded to this. I somehow missed it.
If this was all a joke, it's not very funny. I understood that humor was the intent. But if people were to go around saying certain groups of people have have certain disgusting features, that's still racism. You said it in catagorical sentences. I'm sorry I just don't find it funny.


These, because of England's decidedly scurrilous, often genocidal colonial past, are, sadly, closer to the truth than a lot else in the poem

So even if you're saying that everyone during colonialism had a hand in genocide (which is taring with a pretty large brush, don't you think?), how does that apply today? The sins of the fathers are not endowed on the children. Really, you should start thinking of people as individuals, not groups.


Virgil, it's funny that you should be the one crying 'racism' here after all the fuss on the 'language as control' thread.
How does that follow? All I'm saying is language does not control people. Human nature is way more complex than to be programmed by a few words. All the examples everyone has offerred are a bunch of trivial nothings. But, I've never said that racism never occurred. What's really funny is that you and those that defended you find racism in every corner of language and yet you write racist dribble. You and the others are phonies. You're today's racists.

[Virgil]

I have raised the same critique of Virgil's discussion style on the 'Language as Control' thread in Reading/Philosophical Literature. I was beginning to think I was a voice in the wilderness.
I can't respond to all posts. I'm sorry, I just don't have that kind of time.


The worst of it was, in that thread, I wasn't really disagreeing with his point of view, merely trying to qualify it.
I'm sorry if I missed it. Some of those posts were very thick stuff. I may have not caught on. I admit I was skimming at times.


Virgil, please don't take that as personal.
If I get emotional, it's only for the moment. I don't hold grudges over differences of opinion. Besides, if I didn't hold a grudge over you saying I was crass and arrogant, why would I do so now?


Progress in a discussion comes through a reasoned, back-and-forth exchange of opinions, with both sides learning where they agree and where and why they disagree.

For the most part, I think we were doing that in the "Language is Control Thread". I tried to avoid repeating, so if something had been said once and I responded, I didn't ususally follow up again. BTW, I haven't finished making my points on that thread. Perhaps tomorrow.

[blp]

Sorry. I should have responded to this. I somehow missed it.
If this was all a joke, it's not very funny. I understood that humor was the intent. But if people were to go around saying certain groups of people have have certain disgusting features, that's still racism. You said it in catagorical sentences. I'm sorry I just don't find it funny.

Well - you didn't find it funny. Other people did.

If it was simply a case of me saying, 'Ha ha, look at the funny limeys/gollywogs/frogs [delete as appropriate]' and other people laughing along with genuine malice, then it wouldn't matter that they found it funny, it would still be racist. The question of whether it's funny or not is irrelevant. But it's clear within the poem that what's being said can't be true. Racists believe that what they say is true, whether it's 'Jews are tight with money' or 'Germans are robotically efficient'. But the things this poem says, categorical sentences or not, are patently ridiculous and therefore something else is going on in it.



So even if you're saying that everyone during colonialism had a hand in genocide (which is taring with a pretty large brush, don't you think?), how does that apply today? The sins of the fathers are not endowed on the children. Really, you should start thinking of people as individuals, not groups.


If the children can't be blamed for the sins of the fathers, can they take credit for their achievements? A lot of brits are still ridiculously proud of their former imperial dominance, as well as other nationalistic triumphs like 'defeating Jerry' in the last war. There's also still a lot of jingoism and contempt for other nations and people's - enough to force the governments hand on issues like immigration in ways that don't make sense. This 'individuals not groups' thing is a valid criticism of racism, but racists also see themselves as a group and thereby lay themselves open to the same unfair, generalising criticisms. You say, change 'The English' to 'the blacks' or 'the Jews' and you'd see that the poem was racist, but that's part of the point - the subject has, in a sense, already been changed so that it is not a group that has traditionally been denigrated, but one that has traditionally held a position of dominance in the world - one that it has often misused.

Your criticisms would all be valid if my piece was an academic essay, but it's a piece of art - good or bad. I'm not saying that's an automatic ethical get out jail free card, but it means it doesn't even begin with any claim to objectivity, truth or academic rigour.



How does that follow? All I'm saying is language does not control people. Human nature is way more complex than to be programmed by a few words. All the examples everyone has offerred are a bunch of trivial nothings. But, I've never said that racism never occurred. What's really funny is that you and those that defended you find racism in every corner of language and yet you write racist dribble. You and the others are phonies. You're today's racists.Who's generalising now? One piece that you consider racist and suddenly we're all writing racist 'dribble' and, just for good measure, we're all racists. As for all the people who defended me going round find racism 'in every corner of language', this appears to be nothing but a bilious fantasy. I've never seen any of them do that on this forum - I mean, specifically, just so we're clear, the ones who defended me here: Emily, Xamonas, Scher, the Unnamable.
My only point here is that, after you spent much time in the 'language as control' thread arguing against the reader imposing ideology on a text, you came over and did exactly that here. To address your point about whether language controls people, if it didn't, what would be the problem with a racist text? To say it would have no control over people is to say it would have no effect. Therefore it wouldn't inspire hatred or offense. 'A few words' you say, as if that's nothing. What, precisely, is your interest in literature at all if you feel like that? And why all the fuss about a few allegedly racist words directed at the English?

[Riesa]

travesty

I found this relevant to your discussion here. That is how I perceived your piece, blp. As a satire, that is. But then I'm just "imposing reader ideology on this text."



n 1: a comedy characterized by broad satire and improbable situations [syn: farce, farce comedy]

One can deliver a satire with telling force through the insidious medium of a travesty, if he is careful not to overwhelm the satire with the extraneous interest of the travesty.
- "A Couple of Sad Experiences," Mark Twain, Galaxy Magazine, June 1870

[Virgil]

blp
Look at how this thread evolved. You posted the poem. Then White Camillia reads it as racist and revels in it:

The subject matter is great, about a people with distinctive traits relating to a grand history, who does not seem alive and amiable(invasive) though you write it in a lively way, and ironic(or just very objective) and precise, the imageries seriously piquant...
You in your back in forth with her actually acknowledge it.
My first impression was, what a little punk. He lives in someone else's country, he gets an education there, he works there, he could leave if he's unhappy, and then he has the audacity to slur them. Frankly ingratitude is unbecoming to me. OK, we went back and forth, and then I bring the subject up for the first time:

It strikes me as racist.
"Strikes me as racist" is probably more accurate than my subsequent posts where I outright call it racism. Frankly it's close, but upon reflection I'll admit that the elements of humor somewhat offset it.

One of the quotes of history that I live by is the following:
"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never. Never. Never give in, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense." -Sir Winston Churchill

Honor is on my side here. However, given Riesa's definition above of travesty, good sense requires me to step back and go to my original statement that it just strikes me as racism. I withdraw my previous allegation of racism (but not of phoniness) to you and those that supported you. I apologise if any of you were offended. Let's end the issue.

A thank you is owed to Riesa for bridging the matter. Thank you, Riesa.

[blp]

OK, I don't mind letting it drop. Thanks Riesa, that's very apt and it's gone a long way to settling the matter.

Honor is on both our sides, I'm sure.

You're right about one thing, Virgil. I am a little punk.

[Xamonas Chegwe]

I'm sorry if I missed it. Some of those posts were very thick stuff. I may have not caught on. I admit I was skimming at times.

Personally, I would never think of arguing with a post that I had only 'skimmed'. I feel that it would be disrespectful towards the author and that it would run a very great risk of being (or at least appearing) ill-informed and irrelevant. Some of my replies may give that impression anyway but this is down to my replies actually being ill-informed and irrelevant - never due to wont of making the effort to read the post thoroughly and attempt to understand it. In fact, before replying to a post, especially arguing with it's point of view, I reread it at least once and usually more than that just to make sure that I haven't gotten the wrong end of the stick.

I you don't have time to read the posts, you really should think twice before making the time to argue against them.


'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Before you dive in, that doesn't mean that I think you a fool!

And I don't bear grudges either - shake? :thumbs_up

[Virgil]

OK, I don't mind letting it drop. Thanks Riesa, that's very apt and it's gone a long way to settling the matter.

Honor is on both our sides, I'm sure.

You're right about one thing, Virgil. I am a little punk.
I'll accept that. I was once a punk myself. Actually this brought back a memory of once in my youth/young man I wrote a poem that was intentioanlly provacative (nothing to do with race, but tweaked some other sensitivity in a callus way) that was pointed out to me. Over time and age I have come to regret that.

[Scheherazade]

Shall we go back to discussing the poem, please?

If you would like to address certain personal issues with other members, please feel free to do so in your PMs.

Otherwise, please do not personalise your comments by singling out other members; it is the opinions/ideas that we discuss, not the individuals.

Thank you!