Pondering Upon a Poem

By: Victoria G. Smith

 

I cannot ponder upon your poem,
for you speak too much the language
of the mind and I, the heart.
I cannot ponder upon your poem,
for you fly to heights of abstraction
and hide behind clouds of obscurity,
and then you lose me.
I cannot ponder upon your poem,
for you rant and rave, shout and break
the silence necessary to understanding.
Above all, I cannot ponder upon your poem
because the breadth and depth of your love
isn’t wide enough, nor deep enough
to embrace both your self and me.
Look at me with the eyes of your soul
and tell me: Do you see me at all?
Can you tell we are bound
to each other, as flesh is to dust?
That my experience isn’t less special
because it isn’t earth-shaking as yours?
That my way of life isn’t marginal as
you think it might be and therefore
no less worthy to explore?
That I am no less human because
you don’t see a tear in my eye?
And because I don’t rant and rave,
nor shout and scream,
nor throw and break,
nor stomp and hit,
nor fight and take flight
to a world where you seek
to be understood,
yet refuse to understand
that you and I:
we are ultimately,
hopelessly—
One?

 

States. We are poised to elect the next president of what could now truly be the most powerful and richest country on earth, yet many of the candidates for this singularly exalted position have made a sport of baseness and boorishness in their campaigns. Then, again, one might argue that the candidates are merely pandering to their base (no pun intended)—which isn’t less concerning, on account of what this says of the majority of the politically active electorate who are allegedly fuelling the opinion polls and candidacy of certain demagogues.

I believe we could be witnessing the clearest manifestation in contemporary political history of what some of the Founding Fathers feared: the threat of a mobocracy in a democracy. Mobocracy, also known as ochlocracy, is government or rule by the mob. This mob could be seen as the destructive faction described and detested by James Madison in his essay, Federalist Paper No. 10, that is, a group of citizens, whether a minority or majority, that is primarily, if not exclusively motivated by selfinterests that are contrary to the individual rights of other citizens and the interests of the community as a whole. The faction’s interests clash with community interests when such faction does not see how pursuance of its perceived (and misperceived) self-interests is ultimately destructive to the whole body politic, thus eventually resulting in its own demise. It is reasonable to assume that such a faction is not likely to foresee or understand this if it is uninformed, misinformed, or poorly educated. It isn’t surprising therefore why candidate Donald Trump declares his great love for the poorly educated voter. There are echoes here of Thomas Jefferson’s admonition that an insufficiently educated electorate is a grave danger to democracy and liberty. me of the most powerful poems are political poetry. And because the most compelling expositions of the human condition can be delivered best through art, I think artists— writers, particularly—are also to blame for the extreme factionalism and polarization we find in present-day United States. When an artist’s depiction of the human condition is myopic, prejudiced, or a deliberate half-truth, it works no less as misinformation and propaganda.

The poem above was inspired by my varied experiences in poetry slams and readings in the United States. What I’m sensitive about in these conferences, among others, is the potency of political poetry to influence not only the tone and direction of social and political discourse and the political movements that could arise from such discourse. While I can appreciate each poem’s focus and dedication to one or more specific social or political issue, what does not make sense to me is the attitude or mentality that exists even among artists that promotes projecting one people’s suffering and oppression as greater than another’s, and thus more worthy of attention, coverage, or advocacy versus another’s. It’s the same irony that exists where even slaves establish and maintain a hierarchy among themselves that likewise provides opportunities for abuse and oppression by and against themselves. Just watch Downton Abbey to see what I mean. Doesn’t it make you laugh when you see the petty jealousies and protocols that exist between a butler and valet, first footman and second footman, or a chambermaid and scullery maid? But that’s all past now in this day and age, you might say. Or is it?

A more recent example of what I mean is portrayed in the 2014 movie, Pride. This film tells the story of how the gay and lesbian movement in 1980’s United Kingdom supported and allied itself with the interests of striking coal miners. “Wait— what?” you exclaim. “But what does the G & L community have in common with coal miners?” This points exactly to the problem I’m describing, which also explains why the miners initially rejected the support offered them by the G & L community. They failed to see that whatever forces were working to oppress them in society were exactly the same forces that were oppressing the G & L community. Indeed, some of them were themselves guilty of prejudice and discrimination against the G & L community. Fortunately, the leadership of the G & L movement had the vision to see how all oppressed groups shared a common cause—the need to fight against ALL prejudice and oppression, and the fortitude to persist and persevere in helping the coal miners realize and understand the same. Accepting the premise of division and distinction between themselves only served to keep them weak. It was only when the G & L and miners’ groups got together to support each other’s interests did they make real headway in their respective advocacies toward achieving revolutionary socio-political change that benefited them all.

By the same token, it’s unproductive for artists and writers to perpetuate the notion of a hierarchy of human suffering. Suffering is suffering— period. When a human being is experiencing the pain of injustice, that pain is very real and equal to other human pain— whether he is poor or rich, black or white. Or brown. Or yellow. Or red. Thus, one reason why the Latino-led immigration reform movement may not succeed in its goals sooner is because it has failed to get greater support from other immigrant and refugee groups, especially among Asian communities. And one reason why the Black Lives Matter movement may not be more effective in ending racism, prejudice and discrimination against its people is that it has promoted itself largely as a stand-alone movement, distinct and independent of other minority groups likewise experiencing and fighting racism, prejudice, and discrimination. Its very name is telling, and to some, divisive. This is not an attribution of fault or blame to anyone or any group—only an observation.

Division and exclusivity work to achieve themselves exactly, and more: to divide, exclude, and soon enough, discriminate— in whatever platform they are allowed to operate. That’s why “divide and conquer” is an effective strategy for an oppressive or dominant class. Imagine what could happen when all oppressed groups realize and accept they are fighting the same fight, and work together to support and advocate for each other’s interests like the G & L and coal miners’ groups did in the U.K. (All rights reserved. Copyright © 2016 by Victoria G. Smith. For updates on her author events & publications, go to VictoriaGSmith.com. “Like” her on Facebook at Author Victoria G. Smith. “Follow” her on Twitter @AuthorVGSmith)