Color Enforcement

[dukealien]

Interesting:  tracking with closeups, as it were.  Would the same advice apply to writing anti-racist poetry (which, spoiler, was the intent here)?

Many white South Africans today feel disenfranchised by the affirmative action policies that are meant to redress the historical imbalance in wealth between the races. In the long run, those policies will lead to a more equitable society, and are for the greater good. But the collateral damage from that today are the little people, the grist for the mill, the fodder for the cannon of progress. 

The problem with this line of thinking is that it isn't easily disentangled from envy (emotional desire to see someone who has a desirable asset deprived of it and humbled)  and actual racism (hatred and feelings of inferiority/superiority toward others on account of their race).  The basis of "affirmative action" is an intellectualized gloss for these feelings - sometimes at one remove, "What A and B decide C must do for D."

And so there is enough material here to write poetry empathetic to the Boer (who after all, have been living in Africa for 400 years as a 'white tribe' and have no surviving ties to Europe) and arguing for them to be admitted into America. That could be anti racist poetry. And I suppose it’s more easily done by focusing on one person’s tale of woe.

That's my impression of what you were suggesting.  Certainly worth pursuing.

But saying that 'Boers could get in here more easily if they were black' is ridiculous, because we know that America doesn't have a bleeding heart for black and brown and yellow refugees like it did for their white equivalents a hundred and fifty years ago. That can't make for anti-racist poetry because the central premise is delusional. It could make for good racist poetry, if done right. So take it whichever way you will.

That "Boers" could get here more easily is amply demonstrated:  the Episcopalians (British:  C of E) refuse to settle them even though they were more than happy to settle other refugees of all races and colors (including illegal immigrants).  They quit handling *all* refugees just to avoid handling the Afrikaners.  This is the factual basis of the poem (which I don't defend, as a poem, but facts are facts).

To broach a broader topic: poetry is about showing because it appeals to our emotions. An argument, consisting of a proposition and its defence, appeals to the head. Arguments don’t make for good poetry. They may find place in an essay. But you know that.

The broader topic is certainly worthy of discussion.  Can poetry make sense, or must it limit itself to expressing/manipulating emotions?  I think good poetry *can* engage emotions; on the other hand, I think it can make unwelcome sense and still be good.  This is the problem with racism versus authenticity:  my (or your) authentic dislike of some (class of) people on account of their race (or race-like culture/ethnicity/history) is *my* racism but *your* justifiable and authentic emotion - your justice, as it were.  But from my standpoint, the inverse is true.  Being civilized people, we both *try* to treat and think of individuals as persons rather than group members, but this is a cold, logical application of the definition of racism (and anti-racism) which we are both tempted to mangle in pursuit of self-justification... for example, by adding a codicil like, "but past victims of racism, and those still suffering lingering effects of it, cannot, of course, be racist" and "hatred of people who look like past oppressors, or inherit property from them, is justified and cannot be racism; dispossessing them and placing them at a  disadvantage, is merely affirmative action."

Logically, anti-racism can't partake of racism... or envy, or spite, or rage against members of another race, or an entire race, or its living relicts.  It is a rather Christian thing, perhaps.   Though not, apparently, Episcopalian (C of E).