Join the Neopoet online poetry workshop and community to improve as a writer, meet fellow poets, and showcase your work. Sign up, submit your poetry, and get started.

Pander Bare:

Mission Occident
Capital shifting intent
Illegal torment

Style / type: 
Structured: Eastern
Review Request (Intensity): 
I want the raw truth, feel free to knock me on my back
Editing stage: 

Comments

I had to look up "Occident". I somehow never new there was a western counterpart to the word "Orient". You've said a lot in a little space. Reminds me of the new Netflix adaption of Marvel's The Punisher. It's a good show and is less about the comic book world and more about war and what western civilization will do to its citizens when those citizens become soldiers. It's tough stuff to bare.

Thanks for sharing,
Kelsey

Advocates Coordinator

Critique, don't comment. Neopoet is a workshop and is designed to share your poetry, receive and make critique of the work posted, and most importantly, for you to evolve as a poet.

www.kelsey-burroughs.weebly.com

As a person who thinks Mahatma Gandhi was the greatest leader bar none, it is comical to see political pygmies strutting about the world stage claiming to be leaders when all they are dong is being pawns who foment war on behalf of special interests and the military-industrial complex. Unfortunately almost no region in the world is spared from this violence brought on both by mindless militants and governing gangs who believe in tackling violence by being more ruthless and violent. Sadly, this infectious ideology has been imported into South Asia, that had once embraced Mahatma Gandhi's peaceful resistance at a time when the world was surrendering to the madness of World War II. It is up to the South Asian public to pressure their governments into tackling real problems afflicting the people on a daily basis like poverty, lack of sanitation,lack of infrastructure, corruption, nepotism, internecine conflicts, criminal nexus and so on. The political parrots will only ape their external masters by mindlessly mouthing the T word as the source of all the problems in the world today. Hopefully, the 2019 elections will see an end to the hype and hypocrisy.

author comment

is without flaws, sadly. There is a great deal of debate surrounding the issue, but many people are starting to realize that Gandhi was an extreme racist and misogynist. So much for touting peace if you hate women and black people. Yes he did pave the way for India's independence from Britain, but he also believed in racial purity and supremacy, including the caste system in India.

Not necessarily the messiah people claim him to be. There are tons of articles on it if you are interested in seeing the debate. I do agree that peace is the answer and that our systems today are totally corrupt, but Gandhi definitely didn't have it all figured out.

Kelsey

Advocates Coordinator

Critique, don't comment. Neopoet is a workshop and is designed to share your poetry, receive and make critique of the work posted, and most importantly, for you to evolve as a poet.

www.kelsey-burroughs.weebly.com

Not fully on board with your track of reasoning. It's easy to define someone in black and white but there are always flaws to good persons and good sides to much maligned persons. Gandhi was the greatest leader, not because of some unfortunate remarks he made (a minuscule amount in his vast repertoire of wisdom), but due to his powerful Non-violence and Peaceful resistance policies that saved the lives of millions of people who would have otherwise died.

A man held up as a Paragon of Western leadership, Winston Churchill was responsible through his direct policies in the death of millions of Indians through starvation. Winston Churchill should be in the same league as Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Pol Pot but maybe because the lives lost were Indian lives, his atrocious record and memory has been airbrushed and he is portrayed as a champion of democracy.

author comment

But there have been plenty of leaders throughout the decades who were proponents of nonviolence who did not treat others the way Gandhi did. Martin Luther King Jr, the organizers of the Tienanmen Square Protest in China in the late 80s, and so many more. Time and again those people were violently killed for what they believed in, just like Gandhi. But he is the only one I can think of that is unquestionably praised to the point of being deified when we doesn't deserve to be. He saved countless lives, but not without his flawed perspectives about others coming along with him. They don't teach that part in schools because it doesn't fit the image everyone wants of him, just like Churchill.

All I'm saying is no one is perfect. Peaceful resistance is the right way, in my opinion, but idolizing one human person (flawed like we all are) as the ultimate leader like that just serves to start the process of corruption over again. That is a prominent theory based on Marxist criticism. Check out Raymond Williams' "Base and Superstructure":

http://dtllc.fflch.usp.br/sites/dtllc.fflch.usp.br/files/Williams%20-%20...

Advocates Coordinator

Critique, don't comment. Neopoet is a workshop and is designed to share your poetry, receive and make critique of the work posted, and most importantly, for you to evolve as a poet.

www.kelsey-burroughs.weebly.com

Sorry to disagree with you. Putting Churchill on a par with Gandhi is an erroneous comparison. Churchill was responsible for the deaths of millions of Indians and other natives world wide in all the far flung corners of the British Empire. Gandhi was responsible for saving millions upon millions of Indian lives through his policy of non-violence and peace. Gandhi influenced millions of others around the world through his policies of peace. To take a few unfortunate remarks made when he was a young man, way before he matured into the moral giant and philosopher, and to tarnish Mahatma's legacy is plain wrong. We need to have perspective - there has been too much of Demonizing happening not only in Gandhi's case but in countless others and tarring them and their legacies because of words. Let us distinguish between mere words and in what context they were said and actual actions that resulted in the deaths of millions of persons. Churchill ordered a ship carrying wheat supplies ( that had docked in Calcutta during the great famine when millions of Indians were dropping like flies on the streets of Calcutta due to colonial British policies of taxing them to death ) to be diverted to England so that British soldiers would have backup stockpiles in case of war breaking out. When even the British colonial administrators who were shocked at the sight of so much death wrote to Churchill of the millions dying, Churchill commented on the side of the letter "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" Look it up - it is in the British archives. Churchill was on par with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Pol Pot in the number of victims who died. Gandhi was the greatest leader because he introduced a revolutionary concept of Peace when the world was descending into the madness of war.

author comment

I mean that they are similar in the way that most people only saw part of both men (good or bad or neutral) and that putting either man on such high pedestals is unrealistic. Gandhi wasn't the only proponent of peace at that time, and not the only person making a difference, he was just one of the few voices that stood out and lasted the test of time.

Gandhi's behavior also went beyond immature comments at a young age. In his biographies he admits to having engaged in really weird and inappropriate behavior with women and underage girls as well, in adulthood, like in preparation for peaceful protests. He was so strict about his beliefs that he let his wife die because he didn't want foreign medicine to adulterate her body, but turned hypocritical when malaria threatened his life and accepted medicine. The list goes on, from his own words too. His mission of peace saved many countless lives in India, but he was a proponent of violence against others (black Africans). He also told the English they should have relented to the Nazis to stop the violence of WWII. It wouldn't have caused peace, though. It would have caused many more deaths than the millions that did occur from the war and the Holocaust because the Nazi's didn't want peace or just to control other countries. They wanted the Final Solution, but not many people knew about it while the war was ongoing.

I'm totally fine to agree to disagree on this one. I don't think we've had a single leader in the history of the world who has proven to be anywhere near as good as they have been made out to be.

Kelsey

Advocates Coordinator

Critique, don't comment. Neopoet is a workshop and is designed to share your poetry, receive and make critique of the work posted, and most importantly, for you to evolve as a poet.

www.kelsey-burroughs.weebly.com

Sorry Kelsey, Gandhi never ever advocated violence against Africans - please refrain from reducing the sublime philosophy of a great leader by your limited understanding.

"Over one million Indian troops served overseas, of whom 62,000 died and another 67,000 were wounded. In total at least 74,187 Indian soldiers died during the war. In World War I the Indian Army fought against the German Empire in German East Africa and on the Western Front. Over 87,000 Indian soldiers (including those from modern day Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh) died in World War II. Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army from 1942 asserted the British "couldn't have come through both wars [World War I and II] if they hadn't had the Indian Army.""

You are supposedly here to defuse conflict - do not prolong this erroneous view on your part due to lack of knowledge of what happened in other parts of the world besides Europe. History of the World is not Europe and West alone. Either discuss with full knowledge of what happened in other countries and with full understanding of the leaders psyches or else refrain from sweeping generalizations.

The lives of people in Asia, South America, Arabia, Africa, Caribbean, and natives of Middle East and Australia, New Zealand are just as important as residents of Europe and America. Their lives also matter and injustices perpetrated against them during colonial or present days cannot be swept under the carpet. Churchill was a war criminal just as Hitler was for crimes against different groups of people. The lives of all groups of people are as equally important and to continually dwell on on the suffering of one group while being dismissive of the war crimes and deaths and suffering perpetrated by colonial and neo-colonial gangs of leaders is plain wrong. Let us put this discussion to rest.

author comment

Sorry Kelsey, Gandhi never ever advocated violence against Africans - please refrain from reducing the sublime philosophy of a great leader by your limited understanding.

"Over one million Indian troops served overseas, of whom 62,000 died and another 67,000 were wounded. In total at least 74,187 Indian soldiers died during the war. In World War I the Indian Army fought against the German Empire in German East Africa and on the Western Front. Over 87,000 Indian soldiers (including those from modern day Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh) died in World War II. Field Marshal Sir Claude Auchinleck, Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army from 1942 asserted the British "couldn't have come through both wars [World War I and II] if they hadn't had the Indian Army.""

You are supposedly here to defuse conflict - do not prolong this erroneous view on your part due to lack of knowledge of what happened in other parts of the world besides Europe. History of the World is not Europe and West alone. Either discuss with full knowledge of what happened in other countries and with full understanding of the leaders psyches or else refrain from sweeping generalizations.

The lives of people in Asia, South America, Arabia, Africa, Caribbean, and natives of Middle East and Australia, New Zealand are just as important as residents of Europe and America. Their lives also matter and injustices perpetrated against them during colonial or present days cannot be swept under the carpet. Churchill was a war criminal just as Hitler was for crimes against different groups of people. The lives of all groups of people are as equally important and to continually dwell on the suffering of one group while being dismissive of the war crimes and deaths and suffering perpetrated by colonial and neo-colonial gangs of leaders is plain wrong. Let us put this discussion to rest.

author comment

The madness of war continues to this day when hypocritical double standards are resulting in unnecessary and disastrous policies that resulted in illegal invasions, serial war criminal bombings of defenseless civilians in strips of land and the value of lives of persons in some nations having much more value and meaning than natives in their own land. Colonialism was a continuous and colossal war criminal policy and neo-colonialism proves that "repeating the same action again and expecting different results is insanity".

author comment
(c) Neopoet.com. No copyright is claimed by Neopoet to original member content.