BLOODSHED
OUR LOVE OF IT
MOST GREAT MEN DID IT
NAME A WARRIOR
WHITE OR BLACK
ARAB OR ASIAN
HE IS GUILTY OF IT
IS IT BAD?
IS IT GOOD?
NATIONS ARE GREAT THROUGH IT
BLOODSHED
WHO IS ALLOWED TO ENGAGE IN IT?
TODAY'S FRUITS OF PLEASURE WAS DIRECTLY FROM THE BLOOD OF OTHERS
GREAT NATIONS AND NOT SO GREAT NATIONS
WHO IS INNOCENT OF IT?
NOT RELIGIOUS FOLKS
AND NOT SECULAR FOLKS
WE ARE ALL GUILTY
DO YOU DENY THAT?
TELL ME WHY YOU THINK YOU ARE DIFFERENT?
DO YOU LOVE BLOOD BEING SHED?
I HEAR YOU SAY NO
BUT I THINK OTHERWISE
WHERE DO YOU LIVE?
THE WEST OR SOUTH?
EAST, MIDDLE OR NORTH?
BLOOD IS BEING SHED EVERY WHERE
HUMAN BLOOD
FOR MONEY OR OTHER THINGS
APPARENT OR HIDDEN
BLOOD IS CHEAP
HUMAN BLOOD
WHO IS GUILTY?
UNRULY YOUTHS, FANATICS OF ALL SHAPES AND FORMS
RELIGIOUS OR RACIALIST
POWER HUNGRY OR CONTROL FRIGS
BLOODSHED
HERE I STOP, AND OVER TO YOU
BLOODSHED, A DAILY OCCURRENCE
MEN ARE GREAT BECAUSE OF IT.
I have to first of all thank you for writing this thought-provoking poem. This is a beautiful poem, although its form seems to defy conventional classification. The lay out of the lines and the stanzas (9 lines in first stanza, 16 lines in the second, 8 lines in the third, and 3 in the fourth and last stanza)is quite appealing. Considering the length of the poem, i would probably formatt it as free verse or even consider a sonnet (Shakespearean sonnet probably).
ReplyDeleteI have seen some amount of despair in the tone of this poem in that the author, although frustrated about war and the amount of bloodshed in the world seems to acknowledge we are all complacent because of the benefits of war by making individuals and nations great. There seems to be a irony here. War is supposed to be bad, yet we love it (the poem opens with the line "Our love of it"), and the poet in this case did not help us resolve this irony. Instead he left us with the questions "Is it bad?", "Is it good?". This seems to be a deliberate challenge for the reader to decide on the question of war in our societies and in the world.
The style of the poem, especially by looking at the bold letters the author uses as well as the kind of questions posed, it appears safe to say that the poet is really screaming for answers as to why we love war, why we are ready to go to war at the click of a hand (hence "blood is cheap").
The subject of this poem is obvious in its title, it is war and bloodshed everywhere, in "the west or south...east, middle, or north...
As far as the author's philosophy is concerned, it is pretty hard to tell. However, this poem appears to be a socio-political rant characteristic of Santafara. I think the total effect of the poem is to leave the reader with questions to ponder about (as the opening of the last stanza stated "Here I stop, and over to you").
I particularly like some of the devices used here. The aliterations, such as the repeated use of 'it'(and e sounds) and 'folks', as well as the rhyming used in lines 7 to 10 of the second stanza are somewhat impressive.
I think the author has succeeded in creating the kind of imagery he has set out to impress upon the readers.
Apart from the stylistic aspect of the poem, I am tempted to examine some of the issues raised in the poem. The poem opens with the assertion that we love war because it makes people and nations great, and further went on to ask whether war is bad or good. If we go by Pope John Paul's statement that "every war is a defeat for humanity" then one might be inclined to conclude that all wars are bad. However, a more pragmatic view might indicate that the goodness or badness of any war rests in its rationale and outcome. If there is a good reason to go to war, and if the aftermath of the war result in a new and a better peace, then that war might be considered a good war. However, if the reason to go war is a bad one, and if the outcome of the war result in further instability, then that war might be considered a bad war. Based on this criteria, WW II that stops Hitler as well as the liberation and independent wars that ended colonialism in the 1960s particularly might all be considered good wars. Since both WWI and WWII resulted in the creation of the League of Nations and the United nations respectively, they resulted in the creation of a new world order that is more peaceful than before. I believe history will also judge whether the current war on terror is a good or a bad one. In deed Fareed Zakaria of NewsWeek has argued in his recently published book, 'The Post-American World', that even though we tend to perceived that there is more violence in the world today, the evidence indicates that actually we are experiencing the lowest level of violence in history. I think the author also suggested this in line two of the second stanza by stating that "Todays fruits of pleasure was directly from the blood of others".
War unfortunately, as bad as it may be, is part of human history; and may be also a part of human nature. From the first human beings, people and groups have killed one another over food, mates and land. There is sufficient anthropolgical and archaelogical evidence of pre-historic massacres.
I think there might be a spelling error in these two words of the last two lines of the third stanza: racialist (should be racist) and frigs (should be freaks).
Thank you so much for sharing your writings with me.
Kayjatta.
thanks kay for your valuable opinion.
ReplyDelete