Poetry Forum

Lies, lies, and yet more lies,
pedantically, unctuously spoken;
it’s so difficult actively to hate the English
when you meet them in their island home,
when you understand their bluff and shallow reasoning.
Promises and agreements are routinely broken
until violence brings forth counter-violence,
but they train for violence, they seem to like it,
they have the best little army in the world;
they only tend to give in when you won’t give up
after a few thousand (unnecessary) deaths
and then they compare it to rugby or cricket.
Divide and Rule: it worked, but it won’t go away:
India/ Pakistan
Israel/ Palestine
Ireland/ Northern Ireland
Cyprus and Ceylon.
That’s just the way they are, the neighbours,
and it would help such an awful hell of a lot
if they didn’t live next door.

The British Empire......Been along time since I herd that , I will be up on my soap box in a minute and go reeling of in a rant, so will just say we used to have such a proud country. And a day of for Empire day, I believe. Even up to the early 70s things where o.k. its been down hill since then....ummmm wonder why. Anyway loved your poem, found it very thought provoking. thanks for that x

Bren, as much as I agree with your sentiments, this adds up to little more than a xenophobic rant, and is certainly not a poem.

Well below what you're capable of.

B.

~

Two subjects that I find the hardest to write/convince people are politics and religion. In most to all cases, people have already a definite view on both issues. As best, you have to make the writing personal; otherwise people will automatically tune the message out. For this particular piece, is there an incident that may best illustrate this un-neighborly behavior without the waging of finger? It's even better if it's a historical event. I hate to say it but Jesus Christ got it right; he taught with parables, not with the holier than thou I say so. And I say this as an agnostic.

Dear brianedwards and LeMinh 88,

Yes, I know, I know. But I love a jolly rant from time to time and it took only five minutes. Now I've added Cyprus and Sri Lanka to the partial list ... how they simply adored splitting up other people's countries! ... and I'm considering Kuwait and (Trans)Jordan, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State! Baden-Powell, Kipling, Cecil Rhodes, Scouting for Boys, the Daily Mail, G. A. Henty, the P & O Lines, the Army & Navy Stores, Milner, the elder Chamberlain, Lord Salisbury, Winnie the Pug Churchill, Carson, Rothermere, Edward the Caresser, and dear old Vicky who was never amused. Incidents? Try Amritsar in 1919, the Dublin executions of, 1916, the transportations to Australia, the Indian 'Mutiny', the Charge of the Light Brigade, Omdurman, the first day on the Somme, the bombing of Dresden, Suez in 1956, the Paras in Belfast, the SAS in Sierra Leone, Prince bloody Harry in Afghanistan, the last night of the Proms with everyone bellowing out 'Land of Hope and Glory'. High times, high times, indeed.

D.

dedalus wrote:Dear brianedwards and LeMinh 88,

Yes, I know, I know. But I love a jolly rant from time to time and it took only five minutes. Now I've added Cyprus and Sri Lanka to the partial list ... how they simply adored splitting up other people's countries! ... and I'm considering Kuwait and (Trans)Jordan, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State! Baden-Powell, Kipling, Cecil Rhodes, Scouting for Boys, the Daily Mail, G. A. Henty, the P & O Lines, the Army & Navy Stores, Milner, the elder Chamberlain, Lord Salisbury, Winnie the Pug Churchill, Carson, Rothermere, Edward the Caresser, and dear old Vicky who was never amused. Incidents? Try Amritsar in 1919, the Dublin executions of, 1916, the transportations to Australia, the Indian 'Mutiny', the Charge of the Light Brigade, Omdurman, the first day on the Somme, the bombing of Dresden, Suez in 1956, the Paras in Belfast, the SAS in Sierra Leone, Prince bloody Harry in Afghanistan, the last night of the Proms with everyone bellowing out 'Land of Hope and Glory'. High times, high times, indeed.

D.

Regardless of how many bugbears your anglophobia can reel off, Brian is right. It's a swivel-eyed screed, not a poem. I generally enjoy your stuff but this is dross - I'm sure it will play well elsewhere on the internet though.

Hi Dedalus,
I think the poetical merit of a poem can – and should - be isolated from any political (or other) views it contains, so I tried hard to separate the two here. But, even if the political sentiments expressed in the piece have validity, and I’m tempted to agree that they do, I confess I’m struggling to see the poetry. There seems to be little attempt to use imagery or metaphor of any kind to make your point – you just say it straight out. To me, I’m afraid it’s just prose with unusual line breaks.

Hope you’re not offended – I’m sure your other work is great. I’m looking forward to reading it (I’m quite new here).
regards
peter

Nobody has a good word to say for this poem, like some poor little orphan driven into a heartless world … or else it’s just an awfully bad poem and a heartless reception is all it should expect! Be that as it may, this is indeed a poem and not prose chopped into line lengths, as several of the crits above directly or indirectly imply: although it may not rhyme it has its very own cadences and rhythms and attention to balance. Perhaps it is the subject matter rather than the presentation that really offends. I don’t consider the views expressed as being outrageously OTT and these views and opinions, even if delivered with a possible tongue-in-cheek, represent a quite rationally sustainable alternative view (an outside view, as stated in the title) of a coercive corporate and military institution that imposed itself on an exceedingly large number of countries and territories, several of whom, including my own country, neither welcomed nor wanted it and had to resort to sustained political and even armed resistance to get rid of it.

As long as criticism doesn't descend into personal abuse and name-calling (I'm afraid we've all seen a bit of that in our time!) I can't say a few hard knocks particularly bothers or offends me. I dare say I deserve them from time to time ... but I'm not going to roll up into a squishy ball if I think there's a case to answer!

dedalus

Well I have no problem at all with the content Bren. I just think it's well below what you're capable of. I am certain you can express this far more effectively through the use of images, metaphor, allusion, etc, etc, I need not continue.
This just reads as too direct, for me, relying on too many abstracts and emotive language, and not enough poetic technique. Not talking rhyme and meter here either old chap.

"Even in prose, always be a poet" - - - Charles Baudelaire

Best wishes.

B.

~

Point taken, Brian. Perhaps it's time to illustrate things with a story. Where to start, though? Ahh, I think I know ! ... a little something called " a misunderstanding"

Bren

k-j ...

Sorry you don't like the poem, etc., etc., ... but that's not what this is about. I absolutely loved that term you used: not the "dross' bit (rather harsh and unequivocal) but the "swivel-eyed screed". The words have a resonant ring to them in spite of their negative intent. Can I use them as a title some time? Of course, if you want to use them yourself ....

Cheers,
D

dedalus wrote:k-j ...

Sorry you don't like the poem, etc., etc., ... but that's not what this is about. I absolutely loved that term you used: not the "dross' bit (rather harsh and unequivocal) but the "swivel-eyed screed". The words have a resonant ring to them in spite of their negative intent. Can I use them as a title some time? Of course, if you want to use them yourself ....

Cheers,
D

By all means, although I can't guarantee I won't use it again myself someday!

Okay, here goes mate.

Oh, some of the rhythm's fine, it's not all badly-formed. It being mildly "prosaic" does not bother me all to much. But it's a weak structure for a poem, and I'm afraid the content is pure unfiltered xenophobia. It's actually quite funny, in an Al Murray self-knowing way.

But God, couldn't we all write a similar story about every group of humans ever. I'm sorry the Brits did it better than anyone else (I'm sorry with a grandma of Sligo origin, a grandad who lost an eye as a barrow boy in London and still went off to fight Rommel and a grandpa from Wales, the forgotten oppressed minority). But only SO sorry. Before the Normans turned up in Ireland and started the rape of the Isle, the Norse had done it on a small scale but never really been able to assert their authority over a bunch of Gaelic psychopaths who went around kidnapping each other's daughters and raping them whilst carrying St Pat's banner. As a partisan of Palestine's, you'll find I agree that the Balfour Dec was real slimey shitty realpolitik, but the clichés are true: for most of the Middle East's humanm history, from pre-Biblical times up until the Mamluks were consumed by the Ottomans at least, it's been a bunch of homo sapiens knocking each other over the head.

And I mean, as a species, we know how to win wars and be proud of it. Poor fucking Neanderthals.

The Brits did best what humans do generally. And at least they wore top hats and had a bit of style, unlike the fucking Americans.

very close to home - was born post-independence - but the legacy is all around - larger than life & the stories! they were here for 200 years! drove the mughals out!

any ruler would divide & rule & it wasnt all bluff & shallow reasoning - they were damn shrewd & their small island ruled almost all the world! from east to west..north to etc..!

but i don't agree with all that you've said here - but it is difficult to hate them - there i agree!

in all the countries it was not just violence & counter violence - in our case there was cunning & greed both! all those wily missioneries trying their damnest to convert the pagan!

there was also a lot of constructive rulership - that's why its so difficult to hate them!

& the english language! their greatest legacy!

love them or hate them - they were everywhere!

as for the americans - the class is missing!

it is a very outside view!

It wasn't that great as a poem ... I'll admit that cheerfully ... but it's rousing a few more recent replies that move away from mere (mere!) disapproval of my essentially blithe and sweeping generalisations to examine the reasons why the views expressed should not be taken seriously. This is leading to a bit of "on the one hand, on the other hand" equivocations ... which I rather thought it would once the initial storm blew over. Ireland comes under the hammer (of course ... thanks Owen!) but now rushme seems to be bringing in the view from the Indian subcontinent, once the "Jewel in the Crown" of empire. Citizens of the white dominions haven't got much to say since Britain quickly recovered from its mistakes with the American colonists and was careful never to allow any future confrontation ... with the exception of South Africa, of course, but that could be seen as a war against the independent Boer republics. Diamonds had nothing to do with that, just as oil had nothing to do with Iraq.

If I appear hostile to the Brits, it's because I don't like the attitudes and arrogance that inevitably follow the exercise of control over other cultures and peoples. That applies just as much to the ancient empires of Babylon, Persia and Rome as it does to the more recent colonial empires of the Portuguese, Spanish, French, British and Dutch ... and now, in all but name, the Americans.

I look forward to some other views. If you have better things to do, fine. Could be interesting, though.

dedalus

Hello chaps, and, if there are any among us on this thread, chapesses.

Yes, it sure has prompted an exchange of views. But you'll notice that these exchanges, the later ones, have been - almost completely - about the politics, not the poetry.

How about inching it back in that direction? For example: is The British Empire a poem in the first place? Bren says it is, fair enough. Some of us have reservations.

I guess the starting point is to define a poem. When we're agreed on that, we can judge. So: anyone want to start us off?

Bren? Brian? k-j? (I can't help, I haven't a clue).

To me, this reads like rant, not a poem. In my book, "preaching" is a no-go in contemporary poetry. I recommend the how-to book In the Palm of Your Hand - The Poet's Portable Workshop by Steve Kowit, which would teach you more than anything else I know how to pull it off with such themes. In the section "the body politic", there are several poems that will also show you how it can be done.

Could you write a narrative that shows your message without the need to spell it out? Is there an (extended) metaphor which could do the trick? A metonomy or a synecdoche? Or even, perhaps, the revival of a cliche such as "the sun never sets on the British Empire", with an allusion to the creation of day and night? I think that latter one has got interesting possibility. Honestly, I don't think you've got a keeper here, and I'd rewrite it from scratch.

I hope this helps.

Yes, well, obviously it has to be re-written from scratch.

I've been getting a fair amount of grief over this poem. I'm not particularly upset over that (anyone who feels the urge to write poetry should just go ahead and do it; never sit around and wait for reactions and opinions ... just make sure you keep your outside job!) ... but just sorry that I didn't or couldn't express myself more incisively. I was trying to put forward a general proposition re the empire in general (and not just its inroads into Ireland) but I can see quite clearly that the central idea didn't get across. I'm being set aside as a moaner and a whiner. Deary me. The poem has been getting a bit of an airing on different lists and you'll be pleased to hear I'm getting a pounding from them as well.

Fair enough.

Here is my reply to one of my more cogent critics, unfortunately not on this list. It will serve for all.

This kind of review was not unexpected. Somewhere out there somebody was going to say Whoa! ... this is subjective, opinionated stuff: in fact, I'm not even sure it's true! So along comes you and says just that.

It's not a very good poem (I know that!) but it questions any unexamined belief in the blundering benevolence of the British Empire. Sure, in the later stages they built railroads, roads, schools, colleges and hospitals but the infrastructure was built for their own convenience and to train the natives for low-level administrative jobs. From start to finish they were out to make money and provide overseas relief for their own growing population. It was a selfish proposition from the beginning and any benefit to the locals was little more than spillover.

The purpose of the poem was not to relive the particular grievances of Ireland but to point out that imperial attitudes were more or less general across the empire, that there was a pattern involved. The profit motive came first -- land usurpation/ one-sided trade monopolies/ taxes and preferential tariffs/ political and military coercion to maintain the positions thus acquired. From Galway to Bombay, Singapore to Sierra Leone, you can trace similar methods being employed. The people at home were bamboozled by pageants, fancy uniforms, and the cult of the Queen-Empress ... Rule, Britannia and all that crap.

The British, historically, used the principle of divide and stop ruling - they divided countries when they walked away from problems not as a tool to enable them to rule more ably. T'was the Romans that used the concept of divide and rule more vigorously.

This is quite true, as far as it goes. However you need to ask yourself why the countries involved had to be divided when the British decided to leave. Why were these countries not divided when the British arrived? It would appear that the British favoured certain ethnic or religious groups, such as the Muslims in India who formed a very important part of their local army and had remained loyal during the (predominantly Hindu) Indian Mutiny/ Rebellion of 1857-58. So did the Sikhs, but that's another story. The British either brought in settlers to displace locals whose loyalty was suspect, as they did in Northern Ireland from the early 1600s ("The Plantation of Ulster"), or else they brought in indentured labour or slaves ethnically different from the original population, as they did in the Caribbean, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Fiji (Indians), Singapore and Sri Lanka (Tamil workers in both latter cases). Not to mention Palestine, where the Balfour Declaration of 1917 recognized Zionism and cleared the way for increased Jewish immigration from Europe. Not surprisingly, it had become rather difficult to balance the political aspirations of these disparate groups when the British decided to pull out. In many cases de facto if not de jure partition became the quick-fix result.

I don't think I was trying to be "fashionable" or just another drunken Paddy in the Pub having a go at the Brits, although I can understand how you might have seen it that way. I was more interested in the Big Picture (i.e. the empire as a whole) and was using the Irish experience as a springboard to slam the whole enterprise from soup to nuts, from start to finish, on behalf of any piece of land anywhere on the planet where the locals bemusedly had to watch a Union Jack being run up the flagpole. Of course you can't do all that in a 19-line poem, although maybe somebody else could have done it and it was just me the fella that couldn't. Admittedly, it took all of ten minutes to write which might be construed as a personal failing or idiosyncracy. Poems come to me in bursts and I write them down fast ... hot and fresh off the pan. Maybe I should let them cool down. Actually, I do know how to revise since I spent 19 years on one poem. I think it's OK now. I haven't tried any further revisions on that one recently.

If poets need to tell the truth - and they surely do - then the first person they need to tell the truth to is themselves. You accuse the Brits of shallow reasoning, yet yours is surely just as shallow. So, I have problems with this.

This is fair comment. Please understand I didn't set out to be shallow (who does?) but that I wasn't able to say what I wanted to say in the space and format I chose. In this sense I readily own up to the fact that this was a "Failed Poem" but it was a poem for all that, and not simply chopped-up prose or "dross" or a silly rather embarrassing rant better soon forgotten. I knew what I wanted to say. My crime (poetically speaking, of course, it is a crime) was that I was unable to convey my meaning. I have been suitably chastised and hauled over the coals because of it ... it's so necessary not to be too sensitive; a hide like an elephant has its uses ... but strange little things are starting to happen. After initial (rather predictable) reactions of shock and horror I am beginning to get tentative rather guarded remarks about the possibility of a certain degree of accuracy in some of the things mentioned in the poem. The inheritors of the Old Empire kick in. If some sort of dialogue (a multi-logue) ensues then maybe the poem has not failed entirely.

I apologise for the length of this message and congratulate you if you have reached this far. In a sense I am using you as a proxy for all my other critics so that they might also read this and understand what was behind the writing of this poem. I chose to respond to you rather than any other critic because I felt your remarks were the most cogent, and because (to be honest) they hurt the most.

Best wishes,
Brendan

To reiterate, because I don't find (thematically) your response to your best and brightest critic really reassures me: your poem's content is not untrue because it is a poorly reasoned critique of Empire, it's because it's approaching the critique of empire (as virtually all such critiques, even the best, do) as a sort of exercise in deconstruction and remembrance of the oppressed. Those are important things to remember to do, but that's not the end of the road for any critique of Empire.

No, it's that Empire, whoever's Empire it might be, is humanity, is all animalia, is Darwin and all life. That's how we work, at some basic level.

Yes, yes, Owen ... I do intend to answer you

for it is you indeed, thou faultless knight,
whose words like arrows speeding on
seek out my bruised but warring heart

but there is only so much explanation I can put up with.
I couldn't give a fuck about the British Empire.
They were brutes and they were put down, partly by their own shame and misgivings.
Hurrah!
But now we have the bleedin Yanks
(not noted for shame and misgivings).

According to you (I could be wrong)
if Amoeba A bullies B and C
it all begins again.

Now I need to do a few human things
involving love and money, transportation, work, conversation,
the purchase and preparation of food,
bodily evacuations, 14-digit telephone numbers,
and absence from all computers.

Caoine,
Bren

Don't even get me started on the Romulans.

So that's clear, then. It is a poem after all.

Or it isn't.

Help. I'm lost.

i think it is a poem & a damn good one!

to my mind the content is more important than the packaging.

a discussion on just the packaging is quite boring - not half as meaningful & exciting as the value of the content.

& the more strongly opinionated - the more its appeal to excite discussion!

the strong vibrant tone of the poem reminds me of Dylan Thomas - he could very well have written this.

i don't think there are any rules in poetry - apart from the very basic ones - well known poets have broken all the rules!

but apart from the exciting content (very opinionated) & i think the poet makes it quite clear - (an outside view) - which intellectualy means his own strong personal views - there are no rules to say it should be otherwise - seen from the point of view of an outsider.

i could very well have an outside view of what's happening in iraq - it would be very strong - no question on that.

so if the poet is deriding war & all that goes with it - i think he could rave & rant - roll on the ground & howl or any or all of these.

besides the content - the poem pretty much stands on its own legs - never wobbling.

there are some excellent lines here:

it’s so difficult actively to hate the English

i think that's brilliant & very universal. & it's a very keen observation.

'they have the best little army in the world' - very true!

they only tend to give in when you don't give up - another good line

it could be tightened of course - but for me its a very dylanesque poem - bob or thomas - one can sing it - the other recite - from the poets' grave!

Interesting thesis, Rushme. Not sure I fully understand it, though.

Surely, if poetry is about content, and not about packaging, as you claim, then poetry is undifferentiated from prose. No? After all, you can make pecisely the points in terms of content (that is, the purely semantic message value), whether it's presented as prose or "poetry".

It seems to me that it's the packaging, as you put it, that separates the two forms. I'm not entirely sure what you/I mean by "packaging" - let's say it includes things such as form on the page, use of images, allegory, metaphor, lyricism, assonance etc. - but it's this which makes a poem poetic. Otherwise, what's the point? Just use prose. To me, The British Empire is indistinguishable from prose, except for some odd line breaks. I see no "packaging": nothing to make me feel that it has "poetry" about it.

To say there's "no rules"....surely that debases the very idea of poetry having any merit whatever - indeed any art form (as the principle presumably applies across them all).

Still, yours is an interesting view.

Have to say, I think you've read a different Dylan Thomas to me - can't see any parallels at all, I'm afraid.

all the best
peter