To accuse someone of being racist and then request that no-one leave messages is profoundly undemocratic. Does this count as a message or am I ok because this is a discussion thread?
Elvis's poem is clearly anti-racist in its tone. The whole piece is suffused with ironic intention which inverts every statement of the poem. The poem, in effect, critiques itself, in that it is written in an assumed voice, an unreliable narrator, if you will (It even states this clearly in its introduction). This poem attacks middle-American insularity and monocultural aggression. It is a work whose spirit should be applauded by all who oppose racism. To take its statements at face value is to completely misread its intention. It is a satire, and there is a long poetic tradition of such verse. Swift did not want us to eat babies, Pope did not weep over a lady's lock of hair. They were joking, and so is Elvis, but in order to make a serious point.

It isn't my kind of work really. I'm not keen on rants, either to read or to listen to. The targets are 'worthy' but obvious, and a cliche is a cliche, even dressed up as a pun. Having said that, I haven't seen Elvis perform and I should imagine this work performs well.

Despite my issues about its quality however, the removal of the work for a misunderstanding of its message would constitute a grave curtailing of our right to...yes...'free speech'. I would never be part of a website that did not permit irony.

Sorry Julian, but the horns of a dilemma seem to be pointing at you this morning. Have a good breakfast and make your choice.

I second that Siren.
Well said.

What Siren said.

It's clearly ironic, poking fun and highlighting a distorted point of view of those in the US who think/act this way.

As to its quality as a poem, it's subjective and obviously more of a performance piece, being what Elvis is known for.


I wish we didn't have to choose a daft face to actually post a comment as they don't do justice and none seem to fit...

Difficult to discuss with Nabilya if she closes the door.
I was surprised to read the way she has interpreted what is clearly an ironic rant/poem.

One thing for sure the last thing WOL is racist. It never has been or never will be. Its pretty damned balanced if you ask me, if anything it can be over politically correct, never mind racist.

the fact that this poem of Elvis has been flagged by Nabilya as racist just gets the discussion going again, much better to understand it for what it is (which Siren explains far more fluently than I could)

no one had mentioned (and most likely) never even let the word 'R' cross their mind when reading the poem, until now.

Ok so all my poems are sexist, all another's are ageist, poet XYZ poems are racist ageist and elitist

rubbish.
its called common sense.
and common sense tells me Elvis is not racist.
I dont wish that to appear an insult but I have to say that by flagging this up it has achieved a sinister and sublime purpose, that of perpetuating the fear of free speech.

It is provocative to the extreme! Judging by the comments on the poem itself, you can see clearly how it is interpreted. I know this much, the writer of the poem is in fact an ignorant shit. If i still had my weapons on me (or perhaps dig one up from the areas of conflict i served). i would shoot the fucker. I have enjoyed this site, and although not many appear to agree with some of the views i Air, i am not going to write anymore for this site. With veiled fist some people write topics that are clearly predudiced. And some, as in the rant of poem of the month, are clearly racist, and not, as some seem to excuse, being ironic. Paul, Julian, you can take your site, and shove it up your arse. There are some poets in here that are really talented, Daniel Bresnahan, Nabila and Pete to name a few, i just hope they find a site soon that is worth sticking around for. For me, this one's done.

Resorting to personal insult and judgement of a writer before perhaps asking for the reason behind the lines within the piece does not do justice to people who purport to be peace lovers.

It would appear to me that there are ''some'' lines which have been pounced on and taken personally.
Perhaps a little imbalanced thought or inward thinking is responsible for this, either way the poem does reflect much in the real world and we do have the option to read or not just as we have the option to post, write and comment or not.

If the poem touches the conscience of just one racist it has been worthwhile.
I don't know the poet at all so would not presume his racial tendencies. It might be an observation which produced sufficient motivation for writing the piece for performance. It certainly speaks to the reader whatever you perceive its meaning to be.

As someone who has already signposted my strong dislike of July's "poem" of the month by Elvis McGonagall (with a comment left on it), I don't think the piece is "racist" but I do find it unpleasantly anti-American.

In terms of the sentiments it expresses, it reminds me the calculated but simplistic ranting of those sneering and predictably liberal-left stand-up comedians who indulge audiences that are collectively (a) aged 29 (b) pissed (c) a bit thick and (d) hysterical.

I don't like McGonagall's piece at all, but nor do I think he should be denied a platform.

Some people stay addicted to immature political ranting all through their lives. Some of us grow up.

Hmm, in that case Steve i think i must be in category ''c''
but grown up. :-)

I've read it a few times and stand by my own interpretation behind the reason for writing it.
Only the poet knows for sure so i await a response from Elvis Mcgonegal if he so chooses to contribute his comment to this thread or in the poems comment box.

I read this poem three times, and thought: Oh, Lord, Oh, Lord! This is an insideout-upsidedown poem that is going to rip WOL readers right down the middle because they won't know which way to jump. It's an 'Alice In Wonderland' approach: what is really being said? Is it violently 'racist' or sublimely 'anti-racist'? Plus the other million stereotypical issues raised.

My original comment below the poem still stands. I think the man is brilliant.

In these sessions, I still never say what I would say if I were part of an informal, interacting group discussing situations face-to-face. I delete far more than I send. Siren's comments were excellent.

Is it my imagination, or has one comment from this discussion strand been edited out already? Heavens, aren't some people touchy? If you're a poet, you opine. So expect people to opine back at you, about you even!

As far as I'm concerned, if someone opines back that the poet is an eedjit, or whatever, I think we should let that stand. Let's not by mard-arses about this, as they might say in Wigan.

Let the barbs through, even if they are a bit waspish ... for the sake of free speech, to let off steam, and because they are often funny!

Anyone who is so sensitive he or she can't take a bit of name-calling isn't really tough enough to be a poet.

Brickbats are for receiving as well as giving. The alterative is terminal blandless.

PS, also, at a slam, why can't we boo as well as cheer? If it was good enough for Shakespearan theatre it ought to be good enough for us.

And I feel sure there will, at every slam event, even in Manchester tonight, be some offering or other that will be so pisspoor it deserves to be booed.

satire – noun

1.the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3.a literary genre comprising such compositions.

irony – noun

1.the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.
2.Literature -
a.a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.
b.(esp. in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., esp. as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.

sarcasm – noun

1.harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2.a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

racism – noun

1.a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Bloody hell, Anthony's turned into a walking dictionary! That's clever, especially as some poets displaying on this site can barely spell let alone use grammar correctly!

Just cut and paste Steve - I'm not that smart! I just thought the definitions might be useful in the debate. Sadly it looks like I was very wrong.

Cayne, you've gone all reasonable now that you're off the booze.

When I met you in Hebden Bridge you'd had that much wine you were beahving like the Emperor Tiberius during his years of turpitide in Capri. We Wirral suburbanites were scandalised.

Anthony, I know, it's gone all febrile and unbalanced. And I've come over all unnecessary... "Nurse!!"

Thank you, Mr. Emmerson, for your time and effort to provide academic definitions. I was beginning to think that many of us are completely unaware of standard literary devices.

This on-going, overwrought palaver is bolstered by the level of inanity now prevalent as 'political correctness'. The finest, most fundamental, all-embracing human idea gone mad.

Well said, Cynthia!

PS My approval has been officially sanctioned by the UK's Liberal-Fascist-New-Labour junta, and signed off by Harriet Harperson Herself.

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/005.htm

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
as amended by Protocol No. 11

Rome, 4.XI.1950

excepts -

Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

For info only.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2006/ukpga_20060001_en_1

Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006
2006 CHAPTER 1


Acts intended to stir up religious hatred

29B Use of words or behaviour or display of written material

(1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.
(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(4) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.
(5) This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme service.

29C Publishing or distributing written material

(1) A person who publishes or distributes written material which is threatening is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
(2) References in this Part to the publication or distribution of written material are to its publication or distribution to the public or a section of the public.

29J Protection of freedom of expression

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

Again, for info only.

Just thought I'd register my opinions on this subject. I was totally gob smacked to read this discussion thread - if it can be called that - more vitriolic outpouring, dictionary definitions and the odd balanced opinion.
When I read that poem - I suspected it might cause anger amongst our American site members. Although I like the rant, I do feel that it has a historical flavour and wonder how long ago it was that Elvis wrote it. The Iraqi invasion is old history, we now have an intelligent black president and there is, I hope, a mood for change within America. Had I been American, I might have been a bit ticked off by the stereotyping within the poem. Never in a million years would I have read it as racist but quite the reverse.
I am sorry that we seem to be losing 2 valued site members over something that could so easily have been resolved outside of the public eye. The lesson for me from all this is - never post a comment in anger. I have done so in the past and always lived to regret it. I also think that irony is something that just not all people get. I remember being not altogether pleased when one of my comments was removed by admin staff, for just that reason. I hope that once all the dust has settled Mike and Nabila will put these disagreements behind them. This is a great site to post and to appreciate the work of others also. I really do not think that it is racist at all.

It is blindingly obvious that this poem is not racist and it is not anti American either. It is a very well crafted send up of redneck, creationist, white supremacist attitudes of quite a lot of Americans who drew comfort from the behaviour of the Bush administration.

The hope that the USA will evolve into a more responsible nation with a law abiding approach to international problems and a more rational policy on domestic issues does not date the poem. It merely serves to reinforce an important memory.

I had initially left a comment on the poem of the month by
Elvis McGonagall, but have since taken it down.

I don't like to be involved in controversy or offend anyone, but I feel that perhaps my feelings about this could help others to understand.

When I first read the rant - I totally understood where the author was coming from, and in no way was I offended or thought of it as racist. I embrace all people and cultures.
I am a dual National so I have had to live with these sorts
of stereotypes my entire life - from both ends. I am American/French, born and raised in Columbus Ohio, live in Florida, lived in France, etc... There is so much that I can relate to in his rant because I have experienced it...

Elvis is so blatant in his comments that it is an obvious exaggeration of what many believe to be true. Unfortunately many people from the US and other countries do think and believe what he wrote as the absolute truth.

It all comes down to perspective and how you choose to see it... I always choose to see the good, and this rant for me points out how terrible it is to be prejudiced...

I am deeply saddened by all of the hurt that this poem has caused to some.

Personally I can see that this might not have been written as a racist piece but with that said I just don't see the poem as being anything more than...well if you really want to know read my comments on the poem..

Its a very clever poem, to be sure. However its also full of cliche and stereo typing.Its very easy to poke fun at others, when its hardest to look at ones self.I'm not sure that I would have picked this poem as poem of the month, but I never get asked my opinion.There are so many talented poets on this site, that produce poems weekly and give feed back to others on their work.It is they that should be given POM.I don't pick up on racism in this poem at all. I do pick up, from the writers own words a distaste for God and religion, and possibly apple pie.Its easy for those that don't live here to pick out what they wish and parade it to the world as fact. When in truth, they don't know dirt!Seems this poem is an attack on every little trip of trash that has been spilled on media, to boost ratings, as they have nothing of value to say that day.If you watch the news, you must understand the garbage you are spoon feed, and ask yourself, whats going on that's real, that they are not telling us all? I find it amazing that so many, that don't live here, have put a man that they don't know, on a kings chair, as some sort of Godsend that shall save the world.?Are y'all bloody crazy?Until this country goes through a revolution, there is no unelected trash to be trusted.Its so childish that some think that due to the color of a mans skin, that some how he is above law breaking, and just sooo good.America is teetering on socialism with a wicked fascist twist to it.The media tells you what you want to hear. Its time to ask what they are not telling you.Don't any of you ever wonder why things don't change, when the people ask for change?Don't any of you ever wonder, why elected NEVER keep their words to the citizens?Why they don't read legislation before they vote for it? ITS BECAUSE THEY DON'T RUN THINGS. good night and have a pleasant day.

I would just like to pick up on a few comments made. Malpoet, though you may not see this as an anti American poem - what is Amercia? A hard one to define I think - but forgetting geography for a moment, I would define it as its collective majority - the one that voted in George W (some time ago) and supported him so enthusiastically in office.
Clarissa - I think your comments about presidents not actually being the ones to wield the power is an insightful one. Is Obama just a puppet figure being used to dupe those wanting change - time will tell - the fact that the American public want change has to be a good sign. For us over here Obama comes across as a more intelligent, articulate leader and we all need some hope... Maybe I am naive.

socialism with a wicked fascist twist

i bet that would go down a storm if it was a vodka brand...

and I thought - in what part of the 'Building Bridges Act' can I find this sentiment?

sounds about right Darren.

perhaps we should all just stick to writing poems about ourselves then no one can complain.

(again , please can we get rid of the silly faces for posting , preview and post buttons would be much better)

I am reminded of a Chinese story.
An old man is sitting on a bridge over a little river at the edge of the town, when he sees a stranger approach.
The stranger asks the old man, "I am moving in to this town for the first time and I was wondering, what are the neighbours like here?".
"What were the neighbours like in your old town?" asks the old man.
"They were really good," the newcomer replied.
"I think you will find they are much the same here," said the old man.
The stranger thanked him and went on into the town.
A little while later another stranger approached and said that he, too, was moving into the town and asked what the neighbours were like.
"What were the neighbours like in your old town?" asked the old man.
"Awful," the newcomer replied.
"I think you will find they are much the same here," said the old man.

"Master?"

"Think about it, Grasshopper."

We agree about the faces, by the way. As soon as we get new illustrations - any volunteers? - and our technical volunteer team gets chance, we shall address it.
They were originally drawn as a favour by my daughter-in-law, who illustrated my book for teenage mums. That was way back when we had no idea whether the site would take off or how many folks would use it.
The lack of apparent ethnic faces is intriguing as Claudia herself is Mexican, and clearly of indian descent. So much so that when my Grandson was born - olive skin but otherwise European-looking - they kept him in hospital thinking he had jaundice. He didn't. It isn't just a black--and-white issue, is it?

Hi Julian

i'd have a go at this replacing the face thing if you like?

removed my message.

'socialism with a wicked fascist twist

i bet that would go down a storm if it was a vodka brand...'

- a funny comment from, Mr Garside, no problem there.

But the underlining problem of 'modern' liberalism and socialism turning into fascistic thought-control systems, is a very serious one facing the West.

State bureaucracries in law enforcement, justice, education, health and all levels of government already penalise and discriminate against those who challenge the new, State-defined orthodoxies, on multiculturalism and sexuality, for instance.

It is a small step for states to take, to go from encouraging all people to all think the same, to INSISTING that all people think the same.

Fortunately, the will to have freedom of thought and expression is deeply imbedded in the hearts of humans (because it was gifted to men and women by God, some would argue).

So the fightback against the new liberal fascism has already begun. It's time choose which side you are on.

I will always choose FREEDOM!

And I'lll always defend the right of such poems as the current poem of the month to have their platforms.

Please don't re-issue that quote any more: it exemplifies only a feeling of hurt and outrage so deeply struck that the poet erupted into a form of violence using the weapons best suited to his/her defence. It does not define the person.

Thank God for Atheism! :-)

Hi Cynthia,
Yes I see what you mean, suppose it didnt help me quoting it.
Its a chain reaction though, and where you mention pain/outrage/anger and using the words as weapons, this infection spread to me, hence the quote. Flaming, flames, fire spreads, and yes re quoting fans the flame.

I felt quite outraged too.
I suppose in these situations its best to walk away from it, I hovered over the keyboard 'post' button, in the end emotional response got the better of logic and I posted.

Stand by what I said but perhaps as yu say, shoul have left the quote out, I actually quoted Darren Thomas though.
I hope it does not define me as a person too
one rule for one applies to all lets hope.

The danger, for people who don't believe in God, is that they could end up believing in anything.

do you really believe in a god ? i mean you actually believe that there is a supernatural being that has plans and powers that you cant harness and acts over and above the scientific forces in the universe ?

( no suitable face, so for ever now i am going to use the first grey smiling face no matter what the comment )

Julian is NOT a racist.

Not sure I understand that last comment Steve. Religion is not a prerequistite for common human decency - it just often goes hand in hand with it. One of the kindest most decent people I have ever known lived and died an atheist. I would agree that the 'quote' was horrendous for a person of any faith or lack of faith. Its only excuse lies in the anger and haste that it must have been posted, which Pete also admits to. We are all guilty of that sometimes - though thankfully not with such dire consequences.
To get back to the poem - I fear I may have come over a bit negative towards it and that wasn't my intention overly. I thought it was clever and enjoyed it - I just thought it might upset a few Americans. Many of us believe that America and the U.K. made grave errors of judgement with Iraq but not all would agree and of those who do - how many changed their opinion along the way? Hindsight is a great thing.

I believe in energy and if you want to call that a god then that is mine.
An energy force, reaching out, exploring, expanding.

In my world there is certainly no one all important being, all superior.
Makes no logic to me.
I laugh at the ridiculous rituals attached with these religions.
How they cause so much hurt.
How you so sparsely hear of the positive things they create.And they do create good. They do have purpose. They do good on the whole. But no better than what you can without either. Its all down to the person.All down to the woman, the man. You instinctively know what is right. Don't make me feel guilty. Its bad for the health.
Seems they like to point at those that break the rules
"you, yes you! STAND STILL LADDIE! " , "Who me?, what did I do wrong?" Wrong cut of meat? Wrong Calve, wrong pig? wrong leave on private part in which to place my strategic fig leaves?" Adam and eve believe in the pure that's fine but personally not so sure, but rest assured anyone's right to believe is fine with me, just don't rub my face or shake the shaky tree of it all else newton will get an apple to fall from Adams tree and Darwin should eat French fancy batten burgs.that's how ridiculous. as ridiculous as my squabble.
How people are ready to snap at an instant about contraception/burkas/beards/the almighty/the fanatics/the lunatic/the crusaders/the infighting rabbis/the hypocritical/the hijackers/arranged marriage/stone to death/the balaclava messiahs/ mecca/pearly gates/pornographic guilt/purity/nonsense/satonfence/nonsense...

just common sense when it comes to living side by side.
freedom.respect.liberty.dignity.choice.

Funny thing!? Kevin Bates performed a song at last nights slam about Christian Rappers. Some Christians came over to him after the gig and confessed it was hard for them not to laugh at the irony his song espoused.

It is an old jibe, but an empty one that those who believe in nothing may come to believe in anything.

I am an atheist because the evidence that I have seen throughout my life contradicts the stories on which all modern religions are based. These stories were mostly written thousands of years ago by people who did not have as much knowledge and information about the history and development of the natural world as we do now. They filled the gaps in their knowledge by imaginings of greater powers and then constructed rituals in the hope that these might please these deities and protect them from enemies or natural events.

Not believing in a deity does not make me gullible. Rather the contrary.

The thing that I like about religion is the sense of 'community' that it can give, if delivered nicely. Who can't think back to 'walking days' without a smile - I think they still happen round here - though churches band together cos they just don't have the numbers - but that is even better in my books. It is a difficult one - religion should break down barriers but it also creates them... What a minefield. A society with no sense of belief in anything else but the here and the now, for me, would be a scary one. That being said, I don't much like the extreme bible bashing belief of any religion.

Good point Isobel.

I too like a sense of community, however this could take many forms .

Religion does not have the exclusiveness on communities.

A walking group, poetry group, swingers group, singer/songwriter group, even extreme groups like the militia ones, they all create a sense of community. Some saucy groups create even closer bonds im sure :-) (whilst breaking many of the rules of the religious groups!) but does that make them any less of a community, any less functional or .......
it always goes back to the question of mutual respect.
A respect for Identity, culture, religion, individualism, expressionism, freedom of speech, freedom from those who oppress. Many communities achieve this.
The trick is to get all these communities religious or non, to get along side by side, with their own space perhaps, or integrated, whatever culturally seems to work most successfully and most mutually acceptable. There are answers for everyone. A place for all of us. Its all our world to share. Just look after, love respect one another, no need for the holier than thou insults we saw earlier in this thread.

Quote from Lousie

"Funny thing!? Kevin Bates performed a song at last nights slam about Christian Rappers. Some Christians came over to him after the gig and confessed it was hard for them not to laugh at the irony his song espoused."

yes I enjoyed his songs. Superb.
and do you know I'm not sure but suspect that if he had referenced other religions there would have been extremist reactions. Christianity seems most durable when it comes to humorous fun.
Shame that other religions don't always follow suit in the 'lets have a laugh' department!

cartoons anyone?

'A society with no sense of belief in anything else but the here and the now'
isobel i love the challenge of being in the here and now , no reward , no punishment , how i act with each person in the here and now is my strongest incentive in life . get each moment as good as you can eh ? :)

Strange how this debate has shifted from whether a certain poem is racist (I thought it was quite clearly anti-racist incidentally) to religious belief. For me the key is in the word "belief" or "faith" if you like. Whilst I like to think that everyone is entitled to believe in whatever gives them comfort, isn't it also the case that if questioned (even if they were purported adherents to the same faith) no two people would give exactly the same account of what their beliefs mean to them? What I'm trying to say is that belief/faith is a very personal thing - as evidenced by the difference between various sects within each religion - fundamentalist and armchair Christians etc. Whatever a person's belief/faith, it is simply just that, a belief, and there is a world of difference between belief and knowledge/certainty. Religions have evolved over many centuries, I guess from the first time that our cave-dwelling ancestors looked up at the stars and wondered what they were and struggled to find answers. Unfortunately they have also evolved into the kind of playground "My Dad's bigger than your Dad" scenario, provoking conflict, war and the suppression of free thought. Perhaps, for most people these days, religions are a kind of spiritual insurance policy - if we have some sort of belief then there's the chance of an afterlife - and, if there isn't we have lost nothing. I would be interested to know how people felt about Richard Dawkins and his book "The God Delusion." I read it and found it very compelling, but then to others it's simply blasphemy. It seems to me that there are as many religions/faiths as there are people in this world; and let's face it, they can't all be right! So if these Gods are so almighty powerful, why haven't they fixed it? I always admired the comedian Dave Allen and his sign-off catchphrase, "May YOUR God go with you."

Pete - your previous comment "I actually quoted Darren Thomas though" implies that I made the original offending retort, which, of course, I did NOT.
My post quoted what NABILA said, AND , or so it would seem, what Nabila is happy to allow people TO quote. I would like to think that I would never make such statements on a forum such as this (or anywhere else for that matter). Comments that are both direct and indirect in their construction and in their meaning.

What REALLY 'eats my crisps' at this point, is that the person who led us down this path is choosing to remain silent. Having already stated that they no longer wish to be associated with this site, yet they choose to maintain a profile with a message that has an implication that EVERY person on this site is racist. That is nonsense.

She doesn't want to be associated with THIS site but it would appear that she wants to damage the reputation of this site with the methods that she is using.

There appears to be something sinister going on here - something that I am not entirely happy with.
There is a pattern emerging with someone's behaviour here - and to be perfectly frank - it disturbs me.


If I were Julian & Co, then I'm sure by now the thought " Is maintaining this site really worth it" would have crossed my mind. Well, of course it is.

The irony is, that a person who purports to want to 'build bridges' and utters other meaningless academic rhetoric appears to create the most damage with her ideals and logic.

Anyway, this 'poet' has had enough.









***dilemma****
Send? Delete? Send? Delete? Send? Delete? Send.

Oh Lordy, what have I started?

Isobel reckons “religion is not a prerequistite for common human decency”. Actually, without the moral precepts laid down by the great religions, there would be precious little “common human decency” around.

Pete C reckons “you instinctively know what is right” and “its just common sense when it comes to living side by side. freedom.respect.liberty.dignity.choice.”

Shoeless reckons “how i act with each person in the here and now is my strongest incentive in life”.

OK, fine, my friends, but good sentiments never buttered any parsnips. Good people like Pete, Isobel and Shoeless only really “know what’s right” because of the values passed down to their ancestors and humanity in general by the great faiths.

Where, otherwise, do we think our morals and values came from? Do we think they just floated down the river on a punnet of strawberries?

And we definitely all need moral guidance to be set down in laws. Otherwise we’d all be living according the “principle” set out by the Satanist Aleister Crowley: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.” That way lies madness and barbarism.

Come to think, so many people already live the “do what thou wilt” way. Which is why humanity is in such a terrible mess.

Where, otherwise, do we think our morals and values came from? Do we think they just floated down the river on a punnet of strawberries?
quotes steve

well as i dont believe in a god , i think they came from man and his desire to create a safe and sucessful community .

I, am Spartacus.

Sorry Darren, yes the Quote Was NOT from Darren
it was the pre text I meant to quote.
yikes

Steve -Good people like Pete, Isobel and Shoeless only really “know what’s right” because of the values passed down to their ancestors and humanity in general by the great faiths.

Great faiths?? Plural?

Wasn't it the great faith (singular) that had a beef with the other faith ( singular) or for that matter other great faiths (plural) resulting in one or all continuing to knock the sugar and shit out of each other in the name of their respective great faith.

Intellect enables us to question, and fathom.
It really doesn't take that long to work out, yes love thy fellowman is the simple answer, as the late great Lennon said 'All you need is Love, however we are Man.. Human...and as such will go to the opening of an envelope to argue and then fight to the death... all in the name of a great faith.

When I saw the title of this thread 'Racist Poetry' I was worried... Then when I read the title of the said Poem, 'This Land is not your Land.' I was even more worried...

... then I read it.

Huh?

Didn't see the racism myself... well no more that the sexism or homophobia which was in the poem but I put down as ironic... but that's just me I suppose.

When I saw the title of this thread 'Racist Poetry' I was worried... Then when I read the title of the said Poem, 'This Land is not your Land.' I was even more worried...

... then I read it.

Huh?

Didn't see the racism myself... well no more that the sexism or homophobia which was in the poem but I put down as ironic... but that's just me I suppose.

I didn't get my moral values from a murdering god who killed Lot's wife for looking over her shoulder or a racist god who gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people.

I didn't get my moral values from a church that tortured and burned its opponents down through history or a religion that even now condemns the love between gay people.

My moral values are the product of the human thought which recognises that treating people with decency and valuing the differences between us is as important to a just society as the protection of citizen safety and the prevention of crime.

Religious teachings contain some things of worth as well as a lot of nonsense, but morality has no need whatever for god or any religion.

Steve,
you're okay, but your gibberings are so unsupported and brainless it's both rubbish and comical in one go. Mostly rubbish though, it has to be said.

Firstly, saying that most of our morals came from religion (as an advocacy for making up gods) ignores two things. 1. morals as discrete packets of ethical thought are crap - get rid of them, they're deontological and timelocked, have nothing do with being nice to people because they assume that what is considered to be reasonable by the primitive gets who first stated them will still be considered reasonable when better information comes to light and morals persist with people who think of them as a good thing even when those self same eegits can see that those morals are wrong, and it would be far better if they used teleological ethics (thinking about how whether they are being as nice as they can to other people) instead of stone tablet rules. You can quote Kannt to me on this and I will show you with very clear logic how he was exactly what his name suggests - a thick Kannt.

2. Your assumption is that those self same people would not have reached comparable conclusions over their morality had they not been religious. Certainly there would have been differences eg. non-religious people would not have decreed that everyone should keep "holy" (made up meaningless word) the sabbath day (but I expect they would have had an equivalent gibberish in its place - most people are at least that stupid). What you have done here is looked at the history of morality, attributed a homogeneity to that of religious people (one that clearly isn't now (and never has been) evident or existant) and said that it would have been radically different had people not been religious. You have no evidence that this is the case, and before judaism, christianity and islam there were religions that appear to have been nearly equally as barbarous but more tolerant and less judgemental.

More ridiculously, you said something to the effect that people who didn't believe in god were in danger of believing anything. I assume that you are a semite partly because of your job and also because I have heard it said that you are christian, therefore you believe in a god described in these three faiths as omniscient. This is a logical impossibility given that if you _could_ automatically know everything you would and therefore you would not be able to think or question (you would automatically already know what you were about to think/ automatically know the answer to your question therefore you could not ascertain that it was a known fact rather than just conjecture (and if you introduce the idea that a god magically could, this would be no more than him/her being overconfident)). I personally test most things that I hear/think up for truthfulness and have a sliding scale of truth conditions that have to be satisfied for absolute truth and quite likeliness. The two candidates for absolute truths are cogito ergo sum (ex-Descartes) and the impossibility of omiscience (ex-me) since they are not refutable by any means I can discover. After that, I strongly feel that the world probably looks the way my brain processes the electrical signals from my eyes (when imaged at that resolution). Beyond that I think a lot of the more established scientific theories are good models for reality (but not necessarily truths). The point here being that we atheists (generally) have to have good reason to believe things and have levels of belief. Clearly we are less likely to believe anything than the average religious person - who demonstrably only has to be told that a giant magic fairy (like all the other ones you can barely move for round our way) did it and they'll believe it. What I'm getting at there is the idea that unbelievers are less likely to believe than believers. Sorry if I'm stating the blindingly obvious in that last statement, but you had it the opposite way round. If I told (say) one of the people who joined the heaven's gate cult that they could get into heaven by killing themselves and told the same thing to someone who believed that if gods were possible we'd have harnessed that technology by now, then ten to one the heaven's gate guy is going to adopt the stock "I'm a twat - i'll by that" stance (as religious people do) more realdily than the unbeliever. Your argument is arse on this one, Steve.

People are so ultra sensitive to the label of racist these days. But why not look it up and see what the word means. Then no argument.The words "races of man" and what its meanings are and where did the "races of man" come from, amazing stuff really. Why not look it up? No matter what religion/non religion you are, there is really no way to argue your way out of it. Genetics are just that, genetics. You don't like it, who really cares?Go and float away with some cloud god and be happy with self.
This is so interesting, I'm amazed .
I had read everyones posts, agreed with many, thought many were childish and funny. had a long message written out checked for spelling. Then realized, it did not matter. No one really reads. They see and hear what they want to.
For Isobel
Obama is a fake.The electoral collage elects the president, its not fair, and no they dont have to vote with popular vote of the citzens. Look up first 90 days and see what he has done and will try and do.Wars have been funded and men on ground increased.Im a real American, Im not a brain dead fat lump, with boots on, that loved Bush.Im in touch everyday with real Americans that work and pay taxes and watch them buzzards in Washington.If you ever want to know more just email me.Ill tell you whats going on, and it wount be full of sugar and spice, like the media gives it.

Thanks for that insight Clarissa - you are right - it is very easy to come to conclusions with no real knowledge or experience of a country - just based on media rhetoric. I remember liking Clinton also but I think he ended up having to back down on many of the promises. A pretty dismal outlook for us all then.

On the religious front, I am amazed at how scornful many of you are - particularly you Darren. You seemed to have gone for Steve's jugular well and truly and I don't think there was anything offensive about what he said.
I agree Malpoet that there is a lot of crap in the bible and early religion was quite pagan. However most modern Christians read the bible in context and sift out the bits for them which are relevant - the codes of conduct, the hope for a different more just future, accountability for our actions on earth. By this I don't mean the vision of others roasting in hell or necessarily that of oneself living in Paradise. It would be good to just know that somehow our actions are important and we are not just some horrible freeky cosmic accident floating around until we make ourselves extinct. Until someone explains adequately to me why we are all here - and what predated evolution (which I accept)and the big bang, I don't think anyone can say they are right and others are wrong.
I would agree with Steve that a good chunck of our ethics have been passed down to us sometimes unknowingly from parents who absorbed the religious message. My children attend a catholic school where the behaviour is exemplary. Ask any teacher where they would most choose to teach and they will say a catholic school. Probably cos many of the children have had a good dose of discipline and moral guidance breast fed to them. I imagine the same would be said for Jewish/Muslim schools.
One of my favourite reads ever was Yan Martell's 'The Life of Pie' which in a nutshell summed up the religious issue for me. Take away God and you have a very scary, hopeless sad world and that idea, I would not like to pass on to my children. Does that make me a passive believer? Is God my insurance policy or just a black cat (Graham Greene's analogy)? I have my doubts like anyone else. The important thing is not to rubbish others overly for their beliefs.

Yes Isobel it is important not to rubbish others for their beliefs and also important not to rubbish the values of those who have no beliefs.

I recognise and respect the importance religious belief has for many people. Religion is a private matter. It has no place in law making, seting standards for public life or determining the moral values underpinning society.

Schools which have an ethos and understand clearly what they are trying to achieve are much more likely to be well organised places that achieve good outcomes. Such schools may be religious ones, but not necessarily so. The bureaucratic mess that is state education simply drifts from one set of bureaucratic diktats to another. Students tend to be lost as individuals and turned into units of exam passing or standard reaching.

The problem with religious institutions is that the secrecy, insularity and closed rules/rituals creates an environment in which abuse can flourish and be covered up for many years if not generations. Some of this is beginning to be uncovered, but we have a very long way to go before it is completely worked through and eradicated.

I don't agree that our current societal values owe anything to religion. To the contrary, most of our recent progress towards greater tolerance has been in the face of dogged opposition from entrenched attitudes of religious pressure groups.

Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs and values, but all of us who make claims should expect to justify or explain them.

Clarissa, yes some people are ultra sensitive to the label of racist these days but there are also people who are too eager to shout ''racist'' in anger, which in this instance is Nabila.
This is not the first time and as far as i'm aware on both occasions she has not fully ''enlightened'' us as to why she finds the poem racist. I've chatted with a few people on here who feel she has taken a dislike to a couple of lines within the piece and attacked. She failed to stand back and look at it from a writers perspective and as far as we are aware has made no attempt to speak to the author before issuing accusations at everyone on this website.

Isobel, i'm sorry to pick you up on your post but i think you're accusing the wrong person. If you check you will find the religious post is DG. ( Dermott Glennon.)
Unless i'm missing some unknown to me meaning about Spartacus?

As for our moral values being handed down by our religious ancestors. Mine were taught to me by my parents well before i went to school. Thankyou Mum and Dad!!

Profuse apologies to Darren - I did most certainly mean Dermot Glennon - there are too many D's on this site (me being one of them)! I found Dermot's tone incredibly scornful and derisive - unless I am misreading irony - totally out of proportion to Steve's comment. Thank you for setting me straight Janet.
Yes I realise that very many people get their moral code from parents, not schools or religious bodies. The point Steve and I to some extent are making, is that very often our parents have been affected by those teachings. Are your parents atheists Janet and were your grand parents atheists? I totally agree with Malpoet and Pete and very many others that lack of belief should be respected as much as belief. If you choose to believe that religion has had no impact on your parents or your own moral values, well then fine - it is a matter of personal opinion.

Hi Isobel,
i was raised in the Church of England faith but my parents never forced me to go to church. I went because i enjoyed going for many years. Many of my neighbours were Catholics and we were and still are friends. Religion never got in the way of our friendship. Small minded and jealous people did.
We all visited each others church events and were always made welcome.

My own religious views altered as i grew older and now i live in no particular religious genre.
I cannot say i'm an aetheist because of my own very personal experiences with universal force energy which probably because of my faith i perceive as ''God.''
It's just another word meaning energy. ''Good'' or positive energy. Sounds better than ''it''. I certainly do not think of it as a he or a she ruling us from the heavens. Good forbid :-)

I respect all people whether they have a religious faith or not.

Religious faiths are mysteries. Therefore, it is as silly as it is pointless trying to prove by debate and rational argument the existence or otherwise God.

Nor is there anything to be gained by posting prolix rants containing personal insults against me or anyone else.

Thanks to Isobel for coming to my defence! However, I'm thick-skinned and can look after myself ... as well as being one mean, bad-ass Catholic dissident.

This subject is all beyond debate to me.

I'll run the race to the finish, come what may.

Quod Bonum Est Tenete.

Love and Peace,

Stephen Regan.

What a catalyst this poem has been, to allow us to know each other better. And genuine erudition is pouring forth (Oh Horrors!) as individuals strive to explain and discuss their sources of common human decency. ... not a bad result at all. SOMETHING is moving in mysterious ways.

No, I am Spartacus

Nothing is moving at all. This type of literature fuels more wars. It is antiquated philosophy that exists within the minds of dinosaurs. It is negligent of paul and julian to allow this type of provocative racially motivated poetry in open access to a public arena as this. The evidence is there in how the poem is commented on, and how it is interpreted. There is no need for it. the hard work that has been done, and the genuine work by credible poets who want to progress has been rubbished by bass level literature. We all have opinions and thoughts, and we dont agree with one another, but to openly promote a poem as this and term it poem of the month sends a strong message to other readers of this kind of literature. and for those who hide behind the veil of irony. it is clear by its content and the end in religious overtones who it is aimed at and its intentions. the real irony is that a credible site like this that has had some good input, has been reduced to nothing more than comic propoganda. it is so sad to see. I am with Nabila one hundred percent, and for those who smirk and hide behind very poor ethos, you should be ashamed of yourselves. I for one, and my suggestion is that this is what some would want, will not be posting any more work in here. It is so sad, that those whom i trusted, allow this type of literarture. Nabila has nothing to apologise for. If anything, the apology should be made by those that run the site for not vetting the content of poem of the month. this fuels racial tension.

Nabila, thank you for withdrawing your suggestion that we are racist for publishing a poem that you interpret as racist. As I have explained to you, I consider accusations of racism as extremely serious, and your withdrawal is timely.
This is a public arena, and all those who post to this site need to be aware that ill-considered accusations can have litigious consequences.
I do not consider that the poem is racist or that anyone could possibly be offended by it; except for someone who had had an irony by-pass.
There is a great tradition of allegorical and ironic poetry, not just in Western poetry, and my analysis is that Elvis's poem is clearly within that tradition.
The accusation is unfortunate in that it has soured what, in my view, has often been an outstanding example of public discussion. The quality of discourse of some of the posts has been superb.
Thank (whom- or whatever your God is) that we live in a state where we are reasonably free to articulate our views in open discourse.
Shall we move on to another subject now? How about Michael Owen joining United?
Thank you to all for your support.

i think fergy is a fox (not a real one - more the footballing Hughes variety)

the king is dead all hail the king

julian, you can do better than that. That comment is flowery, terse, glib saturated in bulshit and clearly patronising. i have six questions to ask you:
1. Of what value to the fiield of literature does the poem add
2. of what value to public concience does the poem add
3. What is the message of the poem
4. Can you seriously defend the poem as irony and if so, in whose mind?
5. What would a young reader who stumbles across the site make of the poem
6. Finally, in the current climate, how would you justify this poem as credible and valid within a multi-cultural society?

Nothing to say

Once glimpsed; hate's
Guise encircles the soul.
This insidious sentinel
Strikes its camp
Until mercenary thoughts
Like shadows come.

And what deeds are yet
To be done when man
Parades understanding
while the leopard senses
the antelope?

So I have nothing to say
about hatred, as my words
are but a distant murmur -
like a whispered request
for more guns.

It seems to me that there are a great many poems on this site and this one which has been chosen as poem of the month has been around for at least two years, so it is a bit hard on Elvis to suggest he sparked off this big discussion. It appears the discussion was begun by Nabila who claimed that the site posts racist poetry. You did not justify this with
any interpretation or discussion of the poems contents, Nabila. You just asserted it. No evidence. No justification.
Naturally this kind of loose accusation on such a sensitive topic stirs up a lot of strong feelings. How interesting that the
discussion then moved on to religion, and accusations fly about the hopelessness of life if the stories we are taught as
children are not true, and how all our moral values come from several books which include huge amounts of instructions to kill people.
I think this website does a brilliant job of bringing people together to argue and rant and know they are alive. Roll on
freedom of speech. But when someone chooses your poem as poem of the month watch out! A lot of people may pounce on it and you!
Freda

..................drums fingers.................

looking back to two years ago there wasnt a cross section of society in here to make any valid comment. The validity is in 'cross section.' A representation of society as it currently stands.

How do you know there is a 'cross section' now?
well some very cross sections, clearly.

Hi Nabila/Mike

please could you post which lines are racist and or inferent within the POM and say why - folk new to this site - irrespective of age/understanding - may well be guided as appropriate (as well as others who may not be able to understand may understand)

thanks

steve x

I would steve, but tbh, dont wanna give the verse any more time than i already have. I know one thing though, it wont be up there with keats, or agard, zephanaiyu or indeed ben okri. But nice to know who your mixing with eh? Stay well all.

Gone

i understand Mike

though this does not help those who don't get 'it'

steve x

While we are on the theme of scandalous accusations, I did not personally insult Steve or his beliefs. I certainly mocked his views on atheist beliefs because they were very ill-conceived and I always think it's fine to mock people who create a straw man about such things and then attack their own straw (and Janet if you're not a theist then yes you are atheist because that is what the word means from a- (Gk, pref) meaning not or implicit of an absence of and -theist meaning specifically believing in a god and acting accordingly - you may also be agnostic but this would still make you atheist). I began my post with the words Steve, you're okay. It was not a personal attack, it was a smackdown of the rubbish that he had said, which should be a wake-up call to him to raise his game. After all, if he is going to take a pop at people who are not theists, he should first find out about them and try to understand them so that he has an understanding of what he is criticising. That way, he may eventually form arguments with less easily-demonstrable stupidity than the ones he advanced.

Let love rule and freedom ring : )

Have you learned lessons only of
Those who admired you, and
Were tender with you, and
Stood aside for you?

Have you not learned Great
Lessons from those who
Braced themselves against you
And disputed the
Passage with you?

Walt Whitman 1860

There are the pascal wagerists (the fence sitters), the monotheistic, theyists, oligarchs and..........and........feuds of the feudalist. The feudalist being one of the most antiquated forms of society and............beliefs. It seems there are those who care not for others with different belief structures, and those who care not for the advancing society we could be. It seems some, as in the days before theism or, perhaps multiculturalism, refuse to let go of the past. Clinging like lost forgotten sheep to a mountain side where no shepherd dwells. They refuse to stray out, and venture for their own mind, for their own sake, and embrace that which they do not know without the guidance of some 'other' being. Like sheep, they will make the most of what scattered nourishment there is until, until the foliage is gone and they starve to death. All this, because they will not embrace, or have courage, to see new horizons, with new pastures, where thought, is not tethered by familiar pastures, to the past, a past barren with conflict in elements that shed no protection. Nabila, and many have courage to venture out, and embrace others, while others, continue the feud, choosing instead the familiar battle cries and bloodletting, after all, the loss of loved ones is comforting to the conceited. I have more respect for what Nabila has just done, than the throng who will round on her for her efforts to OPEN Eyes AND, hearts to new possibilities, new horizons. I go, knowing Nabila will tend new pastures, and let you fight over the remains of this one. Poetic eh! Perhaps not as poetic as poem of the month. At least, according to some of you. Will leave you to feast upon the mountain, then each other, then yourselves.

Well done David Morgan for those words - they speak volumes. What we need in this world is not sycophantic yes men that praise and flatter our egos - but rational friends that discuss and sometimes disagree as well as agree. No one but no-one gets it right all the time and sometimes it takes a good friend to tell you that.
Mike and Nabila - you keep saying you are going but don't. My suggestion would be - do. Unless of course you are both prepared to justify your horrendous allegations with quotes from the 'offending' poem and explain - which clearly neither of you are.

Dermot - I should just let your comments go - cos quite frankly what is the point? But, I've had too much to drink, and quite frankly, you are getting on my tits.
You think that just because you prefaced your original comments with 'You're Okay' it is ok to go on in a very condescending, pompous diatribe. 'Your gibberings are so unsupported and brainless it's both rubbish and comical in one go. Mostly rubbish though' How could you possibly think this is an appropriate response to Steve's discussion thread, which though you may not have agreed with, was never personally insulting. I am aware that Steve is a big boy and can well defend himself but I personally do not like seeing that kind of commentary on here - I think 'you' should raise the game a little.
Whilst you are at it - might I suggest that you consider using one word for the every ten you use at the moment - it might make it a lot easier for all us thickos to follow your intelligent chain of thought - note the use of irony.

I find it very sad and somewhat disturbing that supposedly intelligent people are not prepared to enter into reasoned debate about their stance on a subject which they obviously feel strongly about. If there is something that we should remember it is that most conflicts of opinion can be resolved, or at least, alleviated, by open and frank discussion. This issue and its ensuing debate has, for the most part, been conducted with restraint, dignity, tolerance and good humour. Intelligent and informed opinions have been expressed and responded to. There have however, been exceptions to this, where unnecessary and extreme insults, accusations and even threats of violence have been made.

This is the saddest part of all. Those who have indulged in this behaviour need to take a long and honest look in the mirror and ask theirselves exactly what they might hope to achieve by this, and how it sits with claims of understanding and pacifism.

For fucks sake people.
I've just re-read this thread and it seems that Admin are getting too much flack. Especially Julian.
They have given you a discussion forum on which to air your views, which you use to abuse them when people air their views!
You tell them their site is shit, then air your views. Hypocrites.
The bar is open. Lets get pissed and discuss it then. It'll be reet in an hour or so.
And.... I like the faces. I always put a smiley one up. x

speaking of intelligence and insults, you expect us to take you seriously when your picture be a blatant insult. you think maybe we like looking at someone spreading his sphincta in our direction eh anthony. yep, so much hypocrisy. But then were digressing from the point that maybe some havent got the bollox to acknowledge, maybe we dress it up with a lil humour and candour. Play it down a lil and just let the passage of time wait for the next steven lawrence. Yeah i get ya psychology bro. Yea man i really dig it living in a civilized society we say, then you tut and look away while the next racist murder is being carried out. And still, you wont acknowledge the racist rant that is poem of the month.

In truth, the content is racist! And for everyone of you who does not raise this with Julian or Paul, there be someone complicit in every racially motivated attack. And for every one of you who is as complicit as those that swing the hammer, or pull the trigger, or taunt in any way shape or form a fellow human being just because of the colour of their skin, or because of the diety they believe in, their lies a monster just as guilty, and deceitful as the murderers themselves. You who say nothing, are just as complicit, and this, you will teach your children until that is, until the abuse is hurled at your own family. What is really fekkin toe curling, is that many of you who are complicit, claim to be educated and civilised when in actual fact, i bet none of you have ever spent some real time in the countries of these peoples origins, and seen at first hand, how peaceful they were, or are, before the white europeans intervention. It is offensive, no matter how you try and justify it.

'This Land's Not Your Land: A Republican Party Protest Song By A Global Village Idiot Called Backwoodsy Guthrie'

He is mocking the attitudes and beliefs of extreme right wing American Republicans!

It is anti everything stated...

I think we all believe in love, respect, tolerance and freedom...

I understand full well what the intentions of the entry are! I asked six questions in here before, julian could not answer. If you feel that it is a credible entry and deserved poem of the month, maybe you could answer the six questions. feel free to, any takers?

Speaking for myself here - I love to see a good sphincter spread in my direction - particularly when it is male, well toned and done in the best possible taste. Quite what that has to do with the issue though - I have no idea.

If you want to get a better viewpoint, you climb the ladder, head for the high ground. With each rung or step you ascend, you get a different perspective of the object you are looking at, the angle changes, as does perception, it alters, pink becomes the new black, going out is the new staying in, going down is to go up etc etc etc. There are those in society that manipulate in various guises all of these factors in the hope of obscuring thier true intentions. yet if you get close and meet the topic of attention, you can see past the illusion created by the differing levels the ladder presents and see it for what it is. Too many people hide thier true intentions and meanings this way by presenting things, objects, beings in different ways, this is one of those examples whereby this entry confuses, provokes and sublimely courts reaction in many ways. But no matter what level you are on, you can tell even within yourself that this entry was meant to provoke. That in itself, is a form of racism, let alone without the content of the poem. I ask this once again, if you were young and you came across this poem, what would you think?

If you were young and came across this poem you would have to understand the context in which it was written...
As with anything, certain things need to be age appropriate.

Ok yall are just nuts, to make such a big deal about a poem thats just stupid. Here goes, My take as an American, conservative, christian, on this poem.



This land's not your land, this land is our land
(attack on the forfathers of this country for the treatment of
indians, of witch Im part, lets not forget the british
that taught them how to scalp and cut fingers off, to keep track of kills)

From Columbus, Ohio to the Florida swampland
(talks about land, who cares)

From the corporate jungle to the redneck ranchland
(attack on business owners, and under educated people
who work the land)

This land was made by Fox TV
(attack on fox tv, I dont like them, they pushed Obama)

It's bible bashin' Disneyland
(attack on gays as they work at disneyland)

It's yippee-ai eye for an eye
(play on words, eye for an eye, could be against
religions, but not many do that stuff anymore)

It's faith, family and flag
(attack against religion, family, and love of country)

God, guns and apple pie
(attack on God, guns and the simple apple pie, seems stupid to me)

This land belongs to cowboys
(attack on cowboys, you know how many races have been cowboys? Yeah stupid all of them)

In Stetsons, spurs 'n' suits
(attack on stetson, a hat company, spurs, used on working horses, and suits?) crazy shit here?

We're the Wall Street, Wal-Mart-Waltons
(attack on a family run business, that made an ass load of money and still does.So having cash and lots of it is bad?)

John-Boy, Jim-Bob, Jack-Boots
(attack on movie characters and Im not sure)

In the Burger Kingdom of the Stupid
( attack on burger king, a busniess from florida that did well and made some cold hard cash)

Stupid is as Stupid does
( attack of words from forest gump movie)

Forrest Gump is President
(attack on movie character, that had mental problems, but over all was a nice person, so an attack on handicaped people)

Yee-haw! He's one of us!
(attack on TV show of contry people, that sing and dance)

We're Starbuckin' bronco Marlboro' men
(attack on 2 companys that made yet again an ass load of cold hard cash)

We're big chief swingin' dicks
(attack on men with large cocks)

It's John Wayne's world in Washington
(attack on john Wayne, and washington the city)
(or could he be saying that washington is all white? hahahahah, thats funny, go there dude)

We're the Capitol Hillbilly hicks
( attack on the capitol and trying to say hillbillys and hicks took over, even more funny, guess he dont know any hillbillys or hicks huh huh huuh)

We don't read books, we do action
(attack on the undereducated, and those into physical fittness)

All-American wham bam ma'am!
(attack on men that like to have sex, and then leave?)

Schwarzenegger Uber Alles!
(attack on the terminator, yet another TV character)

Gimme five! Jean Claude Van Damme!
(attack on another actor)

Rambo is not a poet
(attack on actor)

The French is arty-farty funks
(attack on french, that like art?)

We hate cheese surrender chimpanzees
(attack on cheese, and monkeys)

We hate perverts, pansies, punks
( attack on those that dislike perverts, flowers, and punks)

'Cos them flip-flop pinko girly boys
(attack on made in china flip flops, gays)

Don't walk The American Way
( attack on the way people walk in America)

The Dixie Chicks are Communists
(attack on people who disliked, what the dixie chicks said about the war)

SpongeBob SquarePants is gay
(attack on a cartoon, and gays)

Hollywood is Satan's whorehouse
(attack on hollywood, proclaiming it as Satans whorehouse)

It's the Sodom 'n' Gomorrah Motel
(attack on any type of differesnt type of sexual behavior, mostly gay, from what I have read)

Route 666 to Tinseltown
( attack on the numbers 666 and tinseltown)

Is the road to burnin' hell
(attack on roads that go to hell)

We ride the hosanna highway
( attack on highways that God may use)

Saddle up our SUV
(attack on SUV)

We got a two-ton tank 'n' a ten-gallon hat
(attack on large cars and tanks and hats again)

O-I-L spells victory
(attack on oil)

We're Team USA cheerleaders
(attack on USA and cheerleaders)

Go! Go! Go! The Pentagon!
( attack on the pentagon)

Shakin' 9/11 pompoms 24/7
(attack on media for the never ending 911 shit)

Armageddon? Bring it on!
( attack on a war that has not happened yet)

We're the evangelical vandals
( attack on evangelicals)

Shit-kick, kick, kickin' down Mecca's door
(attack on a place called mecca)

Rainin' baptist bombs on Babylon
(attack on baptists, bombs and babylon)

Behold their Shock 'n' Awe!

We're pumpin'out Mohammed's diesel
(attack on deals made for fighting their war for them, and the name of a religions founder)

Fillin' up Christ's limousine
( attack on christ and big cars, and gas)

Hallelujah Halliburton!
(attack on a scum bag company)

Glory! Glory! Gasoline!
( he must not ever drive?)

We got no time for risin' oceans,
( he believes in global warming, but did not read the latest)

Ozone layers or polar bears
( believes in the unseen, and needs to let polar bears move in with him)

Kyoto - is that a Japanese car?
( Needs to sign Kyoto, himself, and must think that only one country should sign it, and we will just let China and India keep cranking out polution, must believe in green house gasses)

It's gettin' hot in here - who cares?
( Its not any hotter today then it was 40 years ago, its getting cooler) So chill out!

We export Nike swoosh democracy
(attack on nike, and democracy, or is this an attack on civil rights and human rights, in labor camps in 3rd world countrys, guess hes a NWO boy and thinks we should police the world)

Handmade with Asian sweat
(ah yes, but then, do we go fight a war to free poor asians from their own countrys laws and values?)

And golden arches of McFreedom
(play on words attack on the concept of freedom of choice)

Built on African debt
(attack I hope on the world bank and the IMF)

That Chuck Darwin was a monkey boy
( attack on darwin, for his mis guided thoughts, get a life hes dead, and theory is not fact. attack on monkeys)

His science fiction's over
( bummer, he dont like science fiction)

The Almighty made us, that's a fact
( attack on those that believe in creation)

Way to go Jehovah!
( hum no attack, not stupid enough)

The American Dream is born again
( attack on those that wish to be comfortable in the middle and work hard)

It's a big name brand New Deal
(attack on new deals?)

It's a holy roller Coca-Cola
( attack on coca-cola, pss hope hes talking about the diet type, its really bad for you)

Prozac Happy Meal
(attack on prozac, and childrens meals)

It's Britney Spears 'n' Bud Lite beers
(attack on actress and lite beer)

It's Super-Size 'n' Super Bowl
( attack on food size and football )

It's Dunkin' Donuts on your mind
(attack on food)

It's botox for your soul
(attack on botox)

We don't spare no cash for trailer trash
( attack on people that live in trailers, name calling)

You gotta help yourself Jose
( attack on men named jose)

We wipe our ass with dollar-bills
( attack on those that treat the dollar like trash,and those that like to be clean)

Da-doo Enron-ron have a nice day
(attack on those that are corrupt and take others money)

We're the bullet-head neo-conmen
( attack on the neo cons, thats interesting, being that they are in power)

We're the mob that franchise fear
( attack on people that spread fear)

Cat Stevens is an evil terrorist
( attack on cat stevens for changing his religion)

Folk with beards ain't welcome here
( attack on people with beards, I guess no hillbillys are allowed, or orthodox jews or hippys, or guys that just dont take to shavin the face)

We zip 'em up like chocolate oranges
( attack on , hell I give up, whats a zipped up orange with chocolate? Is it food, sounds kinda yummy!

Shackle, cage, interrogate
( An attack I agree with, but only for special people)

We protect Wild West values
( attack on the wild west, come on boy, lets see how long you last over here)

Strip, abuse, humiliate
( bullet to the head, decapitation, starvation,gas a few villages)

We don't murder unborn babies
(attack against those that get abortions)

We're pro-life NRA
( attack against the NRA and the pro life people)

We Kentucky fry deathrow deadbeats
( attack on the death sentance)

We're electric chairmen KKK
(attack on the KKK)

We're the Saxon sons of Uncle Sam
( attack on the saxons and a cartoon person)

Our blood's red, white 'n' blue
( no attack, just colors listed)

There ain't no black in the Stars 'n' Stripes
( attack on flag designer)

It don't fly for Apache or Sioux
( attack on government and indian relationships, from long ago)

We have loosed the fateful lightning
( no attack)

Of our terrible swift sword
( no attack)

We're the Pentecostal patriots
(attack on pentacostals and patriots)

Kick-butt and praise The Lord!
( no attack)

This land's not your land, this land is our land
( copy right infringment)

From the buffalo Badlands to the cotton-pickin' Dixieland
( no attack,just play on words, about animals and places)

From the Dust Bowl wasteland to the Presley Graceland
(Attack on famin and poor Elvis and his home)

This land is Jesusland! Amen!
(no attack, just words)



© Elvis McGonagall

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

Ok, I had to post it, and take it line for line. I dont really see the problem.Sure its not great work, but who cares. I still dont see the racist parts?Unless the word racist now lumps religions and gays,and actors and businesses and all kinda stuff, then its lost its meaning for me, and I cant protect others from true racism.
There are but 4 races of humans, if one bases it on color alone.Racism has been with us from the begining of time.
There are other forms of abuse.
As a person that grew up in the south in the 60s, this misses the mark all the way, for me.This poems alot of things and racist it is not.

I think your conclusion is a great one Clarissa - this poem is not about racism. However, your in depth analysis is a personal take that will only confuse the 2 people who disagree since you also use irony. 'Shit kick kickin at Mecca's door' is not an attack on Mecca - though I read your irony. It is an attack on the heavy handed, booted way that America went into the middle east. ''Cat Stevens is an evil terrorist, Folks with beards aint welcome here' is not an attack on the fact that Cat Stevens changed his religion. It is a send up of the narrow minded American that would fear and ridicule him for doing that. Of course that is just the opinion of the poet and can be agreed or disagreed with.
I have had enough of this discussion. There are none so blind as those who do not want to see and we will never change their views. Public forums are not good places to do that because it involves too much loss of face.
I also think that certain people feed off attention, anger, stress, argument. The best thing for all of us now would be to give Mike and Nabila space - end this discussion thread and respond no further to their ludicrous allegations.

Is Elvis dead then?

I have a different interpretation of many of the lines than that made by Clarissa, but I agree with her conclusion. The poem is a well worked satire. As satirists often do he creates a caricature to illustrate a point. The caricature is not the USA or Americans, it is those who would recognise the caricature as having close similarities to themselves.

This thread is now only a continuation of the irrational presence of those who have left. I think Isobel is right and it is better to stop now.

Janet-

No ...He's just left the building

To have heart and passion and a clear sense of justice, as many writers on this site have, both floats and rocks my boat.

But to use the site for show-offy, clever-dicky purposes while being personally insulting to other writers, as a few do, makes both my metaphorical boat and my heart sink. I for one would never stoop to responding in kind to personal insults.

There is a nasty, unpoetic coldness to the writing some contributors post in the blog and (as you can tell from reading this particular thread) discussion sections of WOL.

But I would always defend freedom of thought and expression ... right up to the limits of what is legal.

Isobel, I do hope you come to our next Bards session, at the Magazine pub, New Brighton CH45 1HP, on Monday, 13 July, starting at 8pm. Ditto any others among you who live sufficiently close to make the journey to the tip of the Wirral peninsula.

The Bards is always a lovely, eccentric, unpretentious 'open-mic' night, and we welcome visitors.

Anthony Emmerson, I feel you would enjoy the Bards, though don't you live way out in the Westcountry somewhere? I think you should change the ident pic you use on this site, by the way.

Dave, 'Only Fond' is marvellous. A classic. Wish I'd written it. Can't remember where you live, but I'm betting you are a Bards sort of guy too...

Gus, I know you are interested in coming. And quite often there are poets from Wigan and Southport there too. Come all ye writers of goodwill.

Come down to the magic realism resort of New Brighton.

Let's leave all this embittered soapbox grandstanding behind, and have some fun.

Steve - not sure if I should be posting my response on this discussion thread - but hey ho. I will make it to the Bards of New Brighton on the 13th if I have to arm myself with weapons of mass destruction and blast the police out of the way on the damned M58. So look forward to seeing you there - might even buy you a drink - hope to see you in the meantime at the Tudor.
Peace be with you hon.
Isobel x

Hey! Maybe Elvis is with Michael Jackson.
They can merge together and haunt Grace-land and Never-never land for evermore and no-one will be any the wiser.

Can't really see why either you would see my comments as a personal attack on Steve. They were an attack on the opinions he was stating and they were a very clear and logical refutal of them. Had Steve thought for some time and formulated those opinions calling them idiotic might seem insulting, but it was quite obvious that they were glib, rattled off and I demonstrated their stupidity by just stating blindingly obvious reality. The comments Steve had come out with were (in my opinions) insulting to all atheists (people who are not theists, including buddhists) and also polytheists (a type of plastic). I inferred from Steve's comment about people who don't believe in god (with a capital g and in the singular) being in danger of believing anything that he meant we were either gullible or prone to infidelity or both. Not only did I infer that, it would take an extremely well crafted argument delivered with incredible rhetorical skills to convince me that Steve didn't imply it in his remark; I'm sure other readers of this thread will feel that he surely did, indeed, imply both. Now, I consider that to be an attack on the character of all atheists rather than an attack on our views. It's also pretty damned absurd coming from someone who a) thinks saying proving the non-existence of an omnipotent by reasoning being is pointless because I (Steve) am not reasonable and instead have faith (despite the fact that the logical impossibility remains QED and therefore you are claiming to have faith in something that cannot possibly exist), and b) subscribes to a religion that quotes "happy are those who have not seen and yet believe" as a good way of deciding what to believe - if that's not an advocacy for gullibility then may I be struck down by lightning!

So in short, stating that Steve's stated opinions were stupid is not an attack on Steve, and they oh-so-clearly were. I tend to laugh at religious beliefs when I find them daft, and I don't mind people doing the same regarding any daft ideas that I have. But anyone making a straw man (such as Steve's idea that we atheists have the beliefs that we have because we'll believe anything) will have that pointed out to them and must be prepared to have such non-arguments lampooned to the extreme. That's why I say it is partly a statement that if he wants to take a pop at atheist beliefs, he needs to raise his game above mocking things that are more readily attributed to believers in the paranormal.

You have obviously taken nothing on board from what I said before Dermot, so there is little point in me continuing this discussion. Your commentary is long winded, pompous and crass. If you really can't see that - try looking at the comments of Peter Crompton, Malpoet and Janet. They are of the same opinion as you, but manage to say it with more simplicity and respect. Don't bother coming back to me on this, we will not agree and our disagreement does not belong on a thread about racism.

I know this subject needs to go away. I did this poem a few years back. It seems so apt that, after great hesitation, I've decided to share it. I hope I'm not into overkill.


Perspective

They
Think I am on the outside
Looking in,
Beguiled by questions …
Scholarship … intellectualism …
Erecting barriers against the sleeping spirit.
But I say: what a strange thought.

I live to learn,
And learn to live
With understanding
In the constancy of Spirit:
‘Is … was … and shall be …’
There is no sleeping!
And I wonder why they peer at me
With murky eyes
As ‘through a glass darkly’.

But who is boastful?
Humility is essential
To Truth and Love.
It is hard to eschew
A sense of superiority …
Easily the greatest Lie
Of all Lies.

Cynthia Buell Thomas np

Isobel, you are doing a Nabila here - I have already addressed all of your points and have even reread my first post to Steve and can verify that it savages the cheap shots he made at atheists rather than offending his own beliefs. I did disprove one of his beliefs but that is valid. He also then helped savage his own comment by saying that he would believe something regardless of it being proved untrue and that reason meant nothing to him (hence there was EVERY point to me disproving the logical possibility of omniscience - it put into accurate unfavourable context the comment Steve had made about atheists being in danger of believing anything. That disproof is a philosophic argument and requires very careful explanation and rigor so no, I can't use fewer words and less eloquent vocabulary (this is a writers' site after all). Your second Nabila is to continue to suggest that what I said is crass - the explanation I gave that my original post was not offending Steve personally or his beliefs was very detailed and comprehensive (his comments were stupid and I pointed that out - doesn't mean I am saying Steve is stupid) - your claim that what I am saying is crass is not backed up with ANY explanation. As to pompous, no, I am used to writing academic texts and dealing with high level academic concepts on a daily basis and this is my regular speech register and that of most of the people I deal with in my job and I am not going to change that and talk down to you or anyone - especially when detailing a philosophy because if I explained it in simpler and less economical language it would go on for many scroll lengths.

If I am doing a Nabila, then I will eat my own arse Dermot but I have to say the analogy is a pretty cheap shot. I simply don't like seeing others talked down to as much as I hate being talked down to myself. I am quite simply not going to get into any more argument with you cos it clearly isn't worth it. You obviously have a very high opinion of your own academic and mental prowess and yes - perhaps we are on very different wave lengths. I respect your talent as a poet Dermot and think you also make a wonderful compere - I will just have to try to dodge your discussions and commentary. The matter for me is now closed.

I hate to lose face but, by popular request, we have lost them all. Is this better?

Is Michael Owen only there as a token Brit, so Fergie can buy more foreign players? Is that racist? please post your replies to The Poetry Society website - anywhere other than here.

Peace and tolerance to you all.

Cheers, Baz.

Can I just say that Elvis McGonnegal is the most charming and least racist person & poet you could wish to meet and his controversial poetry is indeed railing against racism and other injustices via cutting IRONY?

I hope this clarifies the issue for anyone in doubt.

But don't take my word for it, go see him perform. Or listen to his next appearance on R4's Saturday Live.

Elvis (aka Richard Smith) is indeed a veritable warrior against injustice (of every kind and hue), so it is quite ironic that he has been misconstrued like this. Perhaps some of his poems just work best as performance pieces than page poems so his acting skills can be seen in full flow to accompany the words.

Nabila, yes we all mistakes.
I think you will be pleased to know that for the most part, the community is also very forgiving of our mistakes.
We all lose it sometimes but when someone is big enough and adult enough to admit it, people do forgive.
You have work to do on here if you so wish to do it for those who need a little of your education for the benefit of their own work.
Obviously it is entirely up to yourself which way to go or stay.

We all have opinions and yours is no less valuable than anyone elses. Unfortunately some debates become overheated and turn into personal insult. We can all learn something from each and every occasion or thread this has happened in if we care to.

I for one hope you will stay, it seems to me you don't really want to go anyway so why wait. Post a poem or two, see what happens.

Blinky neck...who started this?

I'd say that poetry, anything / any one is racist
if the desire is to hurt / insult an individual or a group
on racial grounds.

If I unwittingly write something (concerning race) which is percieved by someone to be insulting,

and then I am subsequently made aware of the offence I have caused,

I will, (if I have an ounce of decency about me) not deliberately repeat the offence.

To whom it may concern -

Definition. CORNERSTONE - A stone at the corner of a building (or bridge) uniting two intersecting walls; a quoin.

Win

three quoins on a mountain
each one seeking happyness............

isn't that the vegetarian stuff?

Notice how I avoided going for the cheap laugh of ...."each one seeking a penis" a la General de Gaulle.

And here's me thinking that a quoin was an Australian transexual . . . well, you learn something new every day.

I was (I suspect like many) hoping this debate had run its course and degenerated into nothing more than the usual silliness. However, please tell me that I'm not the only one hoping that certain people will return to comment on a certain recent posting on the blog? I for one, would be truly and honestly interested to hear their take on it.
Regards,
A.E.

p.s. Please don't let it be POTM.

Sorry Anthony - I am not commenting on any more 'racist themed' poetry - I've had enough of it. I'm sure that people from minority groups must suffer dreadfully and the occasional poem that explores this suffering is insightful for those in the majority culture. I think it is a great pity when talented poets channel all their energies into one theme though - they are so much more than the colour of their skin or their religion - there is a bigger picture. On this site, I also feel that they are preaching to the converted. As artistic poets, we are more open minded and accepting of all minorities - some of us are minorities - in our own particular way that we don't always shout about. I keep hoping this thread will disappear but it never does - I suppose I am not helping by adding to it...

I think we should just get to know the author a bit better before going into a whinging fit. Of course, we could be flummoxed by deliberate cuteness; but it isn't likely. Lay back and let's see what develops. What if the 'racial slurs' were really unintentional as written?

Oh, I am so BORED with all these poems about racism. I think we all agree that (a) racism still exists and (b) it is scummy and hateful.

But most of the racism-themed "poems" I've seen are way too earnest. They make me want to barf.

In other "poems" on the theme of racism, the attempt at satire is so inept and the quality of writing so poor, that the pieces are so often misinterpreted as being ... racist. Doh!!

Look, it's obvious. You don't shed any poetical light on racism by replicating common phrases of hatred in a piece of writing ... or by monstering any particular group.

For my money, the only writer to contribute anything of worth to the racism issue in the past two years is Julie Burchill. She asserted that the use of the word "chavs" to describe white, working class, poorly educated people, was itself a racist term.

After thinking over La Burchill's point, I agree with her.The fact that these compatriots of mine are poor, badly educated in basics skills and lacking in moral training, well, it's hardly their fault.

They should not be racially abused as "chavs". It is hypocritical to do that in a culture that rightly abhors racism.

Steve Regan (Irish Blood, English Heart, Lover of all things HUMAN).

Just so I understand your point... Chavs are a race?

I imagine that is what you are getting at, if using that term is racist.

ps. fell alseep halfway through reading your post.

OMG, I thought that this horse died last week?Why does it still go on?I feel like Im one of 5 white students stuck in the school on the poor side of town, and at a disadvantage. Getting my ass kicked everyday because Im white.Will this ever end? Racisim is wrong, we all know it. It still happens, its not just one sided.
Why dont you all get worried about Monsanto, and how they are killing you with food?Oh and they "Monsanto dont care what color or faith you are, they just want you dead!

Wouldn't that leave them a bit short of customers Clarissa?

Hi Malcom,
Just look it up. Millions against Monsanto, on the net. Thats not the only place that you can find out what they do to seeds and crops.I agree, with you, that killing us off is stupid, but, Im not sure they really see it that way.

Under its general heading this subject is not going to 'go away', nor should it. Perhaps someone could rephrase the general idea and start a new thread. New WOL people will want to be part of this vital discussion, and yet will be overwhelmed by the material already posted. And the prior 'postee's' have drained out of progressive points and patience.