Fox the Poet

Thursday, November 24, 2011

"Star Wars vs Star Trek" by Faldwin J. Bard and Christopher Fox Graham

The Shonare Vhekadla clan of the Manadalorian Mercs surprise
Faldwin J. Bardand Christopher Fox Graham at Bookmans

Here it is, nerds of the world. The duo poem Faldwin J. Bard and I wrote together for our Sunday, Nov. 20, poetry feature at Sundara in Flagstaff.

Writing with Faldwin was a lot of fun. We wrote the poem at Bookmans in Flagstaff, which coincidentally was visited that day by the Shonare Vhekadla clan of the Manadalorian Mercs.

Of course, I had my lightsabers in the truck and I was wearing my vintage Star Wars T-shirt, so, well perfect.


Beneath this handsome exterior
	beats the heart of a nerd
and not your typical
	“I’ve read the novelizations of the Harry Potter movies”
nerd	nerd
or “I Wikipediaed ‘Twilight’ to sleep with the girl at Bookman’s”
nerd	nerd
	No
we’re NERDS	we’re NERDS
Spend six months working on a costume for a three-day convention
NERDS	NERDS
	Memorize the inner workings of interstellar starships
NERDS	NERDS
Spend more money on an authentic prop than I do on my girlfriend
NERDS	NERDS
	Become fluent in a fictional language I’ll never be able to put on my resume
NERDS	NERDS
we devote our life to the greatest space epic of all time	we devote our life to the greatest space epic of all time
filled with alien races from exotic worlds
	interstellar travel with impressive special effects
grand galactic space battles
	exploding torpedoes
Of, course we’re talking about
Star	Star
Wars Trek	Trek
Star Trek?	Star Wars?
Pointy-eared Vulcans and color-coded pajamas?
	Wrinkly green gnomes and shit-colored bathrobes?
How is Star Trek better than Star Wars?
	One word: Klingons
Original Series or after they became space bikers with wrinkly foreheads?
	Holodecks
You mean wet dream machines for filler episodes?
	Pon Farr
Yeah ’cause nerds need to point out we only get laid once every seven years
	So what’s so great about Star Wars?
Jedi Knights with Lightsabers
	Grown men dancing around with flashlights?
The Force
	Yeah, it was totally cool when Matilda did it
Mandalorians
	Midi-chlorians. ‘Nuff said.
	At least my technology makes sense
	Give me some dilithium crystals and a forcefield and I can build you a warpdrive
	because I have the specs for that memorized
	I doubt you can build a lightsaber
Whatever, I prefer my space epic focus on the characters not “Treknobabble”
You fix a busted hyperdrive the same way you fix a busted TV
You hit it with Wookie
Geordi La Forge just “reverses the polarity” or
“Calibrates the vertarium cortenide power grid with compressed personnel transporters”
	Why would you use vertarium cortenide for personnel transports?
	The molecular structure isn’t complex enough to handle organic lifeforms
Stop! It’s not about technology, it’s about characters
	Star Trek has a sentient android who performs Shakespeare, writes poetry, is anatomically correct and a programmed for a broad variety of pleasuring
	C3PO is just a rusty servant with a shitty British accent
Jean-Luc Picard is a Frenchman played by a Scotsman with a worse British accent
	Did you just insult the silky smooth baritone of Capt. Jean-Luc Picard
	the Barry White of the Milky Way?
	at least he doesn’t sound like he’s been smoking two packs a day for 800 years
	“emphysema, I have”
Don’t insult the last Jedi Master!
who trained Obi-Wan Kenobi,	“tumor causing, teeth staining,
Ki-Adi-Mundi and Oppo Rancisis	smelly, puking habit”
Star Wars is a modern retelling of ancient Greek heroic epics:
a boy becomes a man
finds his father
Rescues him from himself
and saves the galaxy
	or he’s a whiny brat with daddy issues who kisses his own sister
But with the Force
Star Wars is better (said while doing the Jedi Mind Trick)
	Seriously?
	Don’t use your Jedi Mind Trick on me
	I will mindmeld your ass
	faster than you can say Pon Farr
Wait, what’s the difference between a Vulcan and a Romulan again?
	I’d explain, but we don’t have all night
	Isn’t an Ewok a dwarf Wookie?
Lightsabers!
	Holodecks!
The Force!
	Mindmelds!
Mandalorians!
	Klingons!
Gorram-it!	Gorram-it!
	Wait, did you just say “gorram-it”?
Yeah
	Shiny. You like “Firefly”?
Of course. Cowboys in space. What’s not to like?
	And Nathan Fillion
Morena Baccarin
So hot	So hot
	It’s so messed up that it got canceled
Yeah, what the hell was Fox thinking?
(exit stage together)	(exit stage together)

Azami with the Shonare Vhekadla clan of the
Manadalorian Mercs at Bookmans

Azami sent the Mandalorians over to our table. Which is one reason why she's awesome.

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Triple Poetry Feature

Faldwin J. Bard,

Frank O'Brien and

Christopher Fox Graham

Sunday, Nov. 20, 6 to 8 p.m. at

Sundara Boutique & Gallery
22 East Route 66, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

These three poets won the high stakes slam 2 weeks ago, for the right to perform in their own show.
This is that show.
For just $2 you can't NOT show up to hear some of Flagstaff and Northern Arizona's best voices, doing their best work.

Faldwin J. Bard

Faldwin J. Bard is a 21-year-old student who does poetry about everything from garden gnomes, to the trials and joys of being queer.
There are probably other interesting things about Faldwin, but you'll have to talk to him to find out. Or go to this show. Preferably both.

Christopher Fox Graham

Christopher Fox Graham is a Montana-born boy raised in Arizona. A slam poet since 2001 and newspaper editor since 2004, he currently hosts the Sedona Poetry Slam and Sedona Poetry open mic.
A member of the first FlagSlam poetry team in 2001, he toured the United States for three months in 2002, won the 2004 Northern Arizona Poetry Grand Slam, the 2005 Arizona All-Star Poetry Slam, and was a member of the 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2010 Flagstaff National Poetry Slam Teams, which competed around the Southwest and at Nationals. He was also a National Poetry Slam bout manager in 2003 and a venue manager in 2011. He has performed for MTV, on The Travel Channel, published four books of poetry, appeared in 10 spoken word anthologies and on 3 DVDs.
Graham also runs FoxThePoet, a poetry blog.

Frank O'Brien

Frank O'Brien discovered slam poetry in Flagstaff in 2007, and has been a member of the ever growing FlagSlam family since.
He represented the town at the 2008, 2009 and 2010 National Poetry Slams, and even remembers most of what happened.
His favorite pastimes are epic fantasy novels, video games, playing with blind dogs and discussing the intricate workings of the universe with his nemesis, Ryan Brown.

America's First, and Best, Slam Poem: A Poetical Analysis of Abraham Lincoln’s "Gettysburg Address"

America's First, and Best, Slam Poem:

An Analysis of the Abraham Lincoln’s Poem "The Gettysburg Address"

Overview

President Abraham Lincoln wrote and delivered
the Gettysburg address on Nov. 19, 1863.

The Gettysburg Address was delivered by President Abraham Lincoln at the dedication of the Soldiers’ National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Penn., on the afternoon of Thursday, Nov. 19, 1863, during the American Civil War, four and a half months after the Union armies defeated the Confederacy at the Battle of Gettysburg.

What made the speech immediately notable was its brevity — 10 sentences and 271 words — Lincoln spoke for fewer than three minutes. Coincidentally, the Gettysburg Address could qualify as a slam poem.

The address is rich with allusions to the Bible and the Declaration of Independence and filled with poetic and rhetorical constructs so that it is more of a poem than a political speech. While the address contains a political aim, mainly that of preserving the Union, it served as a stirring and moving speech that could metaphorically speak for all the dead soldiers in the war.

The war served as a brutal purification, an inevitable struggle to rectify the major error made by the Founding Fathers: in a nation where all men are created equal, how can one man be another man’s slave?

For 87 years, slavery divided the nation politically until the civil war divided it militarily. The war purged the nation of this crime, allowing it to be reborn at Gettysburg.

Background

Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee

The American Civil War began in 1861 with South Carolina rebellious forces firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. By 1863, the war was stumbling forward without many gains in the east, although Union forces in the west fared better.

After the Union announced an official blockade of Southern ports, foreign powers began to recognize the Confederacy as a "belligerent" in the Civil War, the British Empire on May 13, 1861, the Spanish Empire on June 17 and the ethnically Portuguese Dom Pedro II of the Empire of Brazil on Aug. 1.

Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and his Army of Northern Virginia invaded Pennsylvania in 1863 to seize a major city, Harrisburg, or even Philadelphia to bring Lincoln and the North to the negotiating table. Had the gambit succeeded, politicians in Great Britain and France may have recognized the South as a sovereign power in North America rather than as a belligerent power or an internal rebellion.

However, Union Gen. Gordon Meade and his Army of the Potomac defeated Lee at the Battle Gettysburg (July 1-3, 1863), which marked the turning point of the war and the beginning of the slow demise of Lee’s forces and the South with it.

Union Gen. George Gordon Meade

Although the war dragged on until 1865, the battle and Gen. George Pickett’s failed infantry charge on the third day of Gettysburg marked the psychological end of the Confederacy.

What made Lincoln’s speech culturally significant in terms of the war itself was that there were no specific mentions of the battle itself, nor its location, nor the commanders. The “generic” nature of the speech could honestly have been spoken over any battlefield at any time during the war without having to change a word.

The fact that the address was spoken after the most significant battle of the war — a fact no one at the time could have known until after the war’s conclusion — coincidentally adds to its political importance in American history.

The schedule of the day
The official schedule of events on that date included:
Music, by Birgfield’s Band
Prayer, by the Rev. T.H. Stockton
Music, by the United States Marine Corps Band
Oration, by Edward Everett (Former Massachusetts Whig party representative [1825-35] governor [1836-1840] secretary of state under president Millard Fillmore [1852-53], U.S. senator [1853-54], and educator). By many scholars at the time, Everett was considered the nation's greatest orator.
Music, Hymn composed by B.B. French
Dedicatory Remarks, by U.S. President Abraham Lincoln
Dirge, sung by a choir selected for the occasion
Benediction, by Rev. H.L. Baugher, D.D

Edward Everett
In the 1850s and 1860s, American oratory was at its modern peak. Everett was invited to give the main speech at the dedication at the cemetery on Sept. 23, 1863. Everett reportedly told the organizing committee that he would be unable to prepare an appropriate speech in such a short period of time, and requested a postponement. The committee agreed and the dedication was postponed until Nov.19.

David Wills, the president of the committee, asked Lincoln to make a "few appropriate remarks," almost as an afterthought.

The 1860 presidential election was divisive. Everett ran as vice presidential candidate against Lincoln.

Republican Abraham Lincoln, from Illinois, ran with Hannibal Hamlin, taking 180 electoral votes, 18 states and 1,865,908 (39.8%) votes.

Lincoln defeated three other tickets: Northern Democratic candidate Stephen A. Douglas, of Illinois, of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, running with Herschel Vespasian Johnson, with 12 electoral votes and 1,380,202 (29.5%) votes, the Southern Democratic candidate John C. Breckinridge, from Kentucky, running with Joseph Lane, who won 72 electoral votes, 11 states, and 848,019 (18.1%) voters; and the Constitutional Union candidate John Bell, of Tennessee, running with Edward Everett, who won 39 electoral votes, 12 states, 590,901 (12.6%) votes.

Still a Northerner, Everett was a political contemporary who carried as much weight as a political figure on the national scene as Lincoln did. His Constitutional Union Party had a simple platform based on compromise over slavery or its expansion into the territories, valuing union over potential succession if an anti-slavery ticket was elected.

Everett spoke for two hours. Contemporary reports praised his oration, which was peppered with classical references and interrupted by applause.

Lincoln's two-minute follow-up speech, however, become one of the most famous speeches in the history of the United States.

Lincoln invoked the principles of human equality espoused by the Declaration of Independence and redefined the Civil War as a struggle not merely for the Union of the American states, but as “a new birth of freedom” that would bring true equality.

Everett’s speech was the day’s planned “Gettysburg address.” His 13,607-word oration began:

Standing beneath this serene sky, overlooking these broad fields now reposing from the labors of the waning year, the mighty Alleghenies dimly towering before us, the graves of our brethren beneath our feet, it is with hesitation that I raise my poor voice to break the eloquent silence of God and Nature. But the duty to which you have called me must be performed; — grant me, I pray you, your indulgence and your sympathy.

And ended with:

But they, I am sure, will join us in saying, as we bid farewell to the dust of these martyr-heroes, that wheresoever throughout the civilized world the accounts of this great warfare are read, and down to the latest period of recorded time, in the glorious annals of our common country, there will be no brighter page than that which relates the Battles of Gettysburg.

Although deemed brilliant by those in the crowd and contemporary journalists, Everett’s speech is now rarely read in favor by Lincoln’s shorter and more poetic speech.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

Thematic analysis
Lincoln employed many rhetorical devices in his artistry with words, but his mature speeches are especially characterized by:
· grammatical parallelism
· antithesis
· alliteration
· repetition
He would use all four strategies in his Nov. 19 address.
Notably, the voice in the Gettysburg Address is not a first-person singular individual. The address is full of first-person references, but everyone is plural. Ten times Lincoln uses the plural “we,” and three times “us.” The “speaker” is, in effect, Americans and Unionists, not the president.

Without naming the South or the Confederates, the speech makes no reference of the rebels as enemies. Their dead are not omitted from the speech, as though Southerns could look back after the abolition of slavery on the Battle of Gettysburg, the Civil War and the address as a dedication to their dead as well, the cost in blood had to be paid to remake a free nation.

The sheer coincidence of the battle's cost — estimated at just over 23,000 on each side — seemingly suggests both sides paid almost equally, rather than a rout like Fredericksburg the first and second battles of Bull Run, or the bloodbaths Union Gen. Ulysses S Grant would use to win battles of attrition toward the end of the war.

First Paragraph
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Sets time and place to establish the scene and directly references the Declaration of Independence, considered a sacred document to both the Unionists of the North and Secessionists of the South. Confederates referred to the Civil War as the second war of independence.

“Four score and seven” was not a simple way to say 87. Lincoln was asking his audience to calculate backward to discover that the nation’s starting point was not the Constitution in 1787 nor the election of Gen. George Washington in 1789 as the first president, but the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and its sine qua non declaration of equality:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The main overt reference is the “all men are created equal” line in both.

Scores, i.e., 20 years, are also a shorthand way of measuring generations. While stating 87 years would have been felt an a long time to people whose life expectancy was an average of around 60 years, Lincoln’s reference shows that only a short time in human terms had passed; assuming that most people in the 1860s became parents in their late teens or early 20s, a 40-year-old listener or reader could have a grandparent who lived at the time of the county’s birth, a relatively short time, in which to create a new nation based on a social experiment in liberty and equality. The shortness of time also pointed to the fragility of the nation.

Poetically, the cadence began with two rhyming words: “four score.” The line also contains a rhythm of alliteration, “fathers … forth” and “new nation.”

The Hebrew cadence, rendered in Elizabethan English, would have been stated slowly: “Four . . . score.” The biblical ring of his opening words was rooted in Psalm 90: "The days of our years are threescore years and ten; And if by reason of strength they be fourscore years."

Lincoln never named verse or quoted directly from the Bible in his speeches, although he did do so in his Second Inaugural Address, when his speech included allusions to Matthew 18:7, Luke 17:1 and Psalm 19:9. Lincoln’s whole address was suffused with both biblical content and cadence.

Lincoln built the Gettysburg Address upon a structure of past, present, and future. The three parts of the speech, broken into their composite parts, relate a brief summation of history, a reflection on the current struggle and how the choices of the present dictate the future course.

Thematically, Lincoln started in the past by placing the battlefield at Gettysburg and the “insignificance” of the dedication in the context of American history. His opening words highlighted historical continuity. His biblical allusion accented permanence — keep in mind that the Bible was a not merely seen as an unassailable document, but the wisdom of God and God’s chosen people passed on to believers, a concept most Americans accepted without question — while noting that the continuity of the United States had surpassed the biblical time frame of life and death, in turn making the United States and its constitution a sacred document ordained by God as part of a divine plan for both Americans specifically and humanity in general.

In speaking of “our fathers,” Lincoln invoked the common heritage of the Founding Fathers for both Northerners and Southerners. At the same time identified himself, not with the “leaders of the American people,” but with his audience as children of their great experiment.
The trajectory of the crucial, first sentence underscored the timeless American truth that “all men are created equal,” which, although had been controversial among the landed leaders of the republic in 1776, had been accepted as common fact by the 1860s.

Whether a man — women and blacks still had no voting rights in most electorates — owned thousands of acres or merely worked a farm as a hired hand, in the American social landscape, they were equal both before the law as they were before God. All white men had been given the right to vote regardless of property ownership beginning in 1820 and by 1850, this right was almost universal. Free blacks in the North also had sufferage. When Lincoln reaffirmed this truth he asserted that the war was about both liberty and union.

Lincoln began by invoking the Declaration of Independence, but his use of the word “proposition” — theory — spoke to a different certainty than Thomas Jefferson’s “truths,” which were “self-evident.” Through the address, Lincoln emphasized at Gettysburg that the United States was not a completed entity at the time of the Declaration, but still an experiment still in process. He implied through “proposition” that Jefferson’s language had to be proved as fact through the country’s minor and major struggles. The Civil War and Gettysburg specifically were tests of that proposition, tests which had to be overcome to prove them as true as Jefferson had “theorized” with the Declaration. Because of the war, Lincoln had understood the fragility of the Union and sought to expose them through the architecture of his speech.

“Proposition” was the turning point of the speech wherein Lincoln shifted his from past ideas to present realities.

Second paragraph
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.

The first line of the second paragraph establishes the moment of the speech in its precise political context. At the beginning of the body of his address he used two perfect parallels: “that nation so conceived” and “any nation so dedicated.”

Lincoln directly references the aforementioned “proposition” as being tested by “a great civil war.” Its success or failure, i.e., reunification or division after the war, will prove or disprove Jefferson's proposal.

As Lincoln spoke about the dimensions of the past, he constructed the content of his political purposes by repeating key words: “great civil war,” “great battlefield,” “so dedicated,” and “come to dedicate.” Lincoln’s use of repetition allowed him to underscore his rhetorical purpose.

We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.

The funerary oration has longstanding tradition. Funerary orations date back to ancient Greece, one of the best known is Pericles’ Funeral Oration spoken in 410 B.C.E. during the Peloponnesian War and recorded in Thucydides’ (460-395 B.C.E.) “History of the Peloponnesian War.

Pericles's speech acknowledges Athens’ predecessors: "I shall begin with our ancestors: it is both just and proper that they should have the honor of the first mention on an occasion like the present"; then praises Athens’ commitment to democracy: "If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences"; honors the dead and their sacrifices, "Thus choosing to die resisting, rather than to live submitting, they fled only from dishonor, but met danger face to face"; and turns to the living to continue the struggle: "You, their survivors, must determine to have as unfaltering a resolution in the field, though you may pray that it may have a happier issue."

Later accounts of Lincoln’s life strongly suggest that he had not read that part of Thucydides’ history. Battlefield dedications have been visited by leaders throughout history. Lincoln's statement that he, as the nation’s leader, should perform this duty was more of an accepted fact among the political leaders of the time. The unusual nature of this specific dedication was that it was happening during active wartime and the battle had happened so recently.
Another point was that Everett, as a classicist, not Lincoln, would have been more likely to impart Pericles’ sentiments. Lincoln’s references lean toward Biblical ones, as his speeches often drew on scripture for allusions.

It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

The line establishes the justification for the audience to be at the event, while the following sentence immediately contradicts the importance by shifting the emphasis on the dead.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground.

His words, “But in a larger sense,” were his clue to the audience that he was about to expand the parameters of his intentions. He was announcing his purpose to speak to a “larger” subject.

Stating the negative “but” served to first prepare the audience to agree with his evocation of what each person in the audience could do, both following the speech, in the larger scope of the war, and in the larger sense of America’s history years and decades after the war became just a memory. These three parallel clauses focused on the present space: “this ground.”

The importance of “hallow”

"... We can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow ..."

What is most notable in a poetic sense is the use of two Latinate root words, — “consecrate” and “dedicate” — contained in parallel with a distinctly English root, “hallow.”

Most native English speakers invariably attribute more weight to words with inherent “Englishness” to them, be they original words, imported word with an “English sound” or more recent portmanteaus. The structure of the English language was slowly re-ordered and restructured after the Norman invasion of 1066 by using a Latinate languages, specifically French, but the lexicon of English remained based with the roots of Old English.

As a linguistic aside, for instance, veal, beef, venison and poultry are the common names for prepared dishes, names imported from the Norman French, whose French-speaking lords dined on meat from animals tended to by Old English-speaking farmers who used the words calves, cows, deer, ducks, chickens and turkeys. Playwrights and poets, such William Shakespeare and his contemporaries, often used this fact to make characters seem “lower” on the social strata by having them speak more “English” words while kings and nobles spoke with more Latinate-root words.

Lincoln used this linguistic abnormality as a parallel. While “consecrate” and “dedicate” are synonyms, “hallow” carries more weight because it is more “English” and more “emotionally sincere” for the mood. The structure of the sentence itself subtly suggests that Lincoln is perhaps searching for the “right” word for the moment. “Consecrate” and “dedicate” are not sufficient, but as he hits on the third word, it seems as though he has found the exact word for the moment, one that “consecrate” and “dedicate” are too formal, too lofty, too unemotional to properly express the emotional mood. It also seems as though Lincoln is actively thinking of synonyms to properly express his emotional connection to his duty, a scratching out “consecrate” and “dedicate” before committing to “hallow.”

The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.

Note that the audience of the speech is at the event to consecrate the battlefield, but trivialized by the actions of those who died on the field. Coincidentally, this is also the theme of Pericles’ funeral oration, which draws the comparison.

At this point, Lincoln employed a dramatic antithesis. He contrasted “the brave men” with “our poor power.” He simultaneously framed “living and dead” at the beginning of the sentence, and “add or detract” at the end of the sentence, in another parallelism.

The Final Paragraph
In the last three sentences of the address, Lincoln shifted the focus a final time. In the architecture of his address, Lincoln had recalled the past and what the nation did at its beginning, recited what the soldiers did in the near present, and now prepared to open out the future and speak to the responsibility of the listeners.

The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

The line trivializes his own importance while again adding to the emphasis of the dead.
Lincoln pointed away from words to deeds. He contrasts “what we say here” with “what they did here” in another antithesis. Lincoln also speaks in the plural, which places his identity among the audience, not as the leaders of the nation or speakers at the event.

"The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here ...."
The irony is that Gettysburg Address is engraved in stone on the
south wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

Of course the irony is that Gettysburg Address is engraved in stone on the south wall of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.

The initial words of the sentence achieved energy from contrasts: “It is for us the living,” contrasted with “those who gave their lives here”; “the unfinished work which they who fought here,” was an invitation to finish the work.

The line continues to empowers the audience to take inspiration from the deeds of the dead and continue the struggle for union.
Although the “work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced,” Lincoln’s subtle point is that the dead gave all they had but can go no further. The emphasis shifts from what they did to the audience to continue to struggle with all they have — that is the true way, Lincoln argues, to honor their sacrifice, not simply in winning the war, but in rebuilding the nation in the Declaration of Independence's proposed vision afterward.

Last line
Lincoln’s closing sentience, in a speech ironically known for its brevity, is a long, complex sentence of 82 words.

It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion —

This part of the sentence emphasizes the passion of the dead to have fought and died for a mere cause. Lincoln continued repetition: “to be dedicated we take increased devotion,” and “to be here dedicated the last full measure of devotion.” His repetition rhetorically reiterated the accountability of the audience.

“Dedicate” and “devotion” are both religious words which conjured the call to commitment in the revival services of the Second Great Awakening and in the churches Lincoln attended in Washington during the war.

“The last full measure of devotion” is far more poetic than simply “death,”as it immediately, eloquently and metaphorically postulates that the dead died for a purpose, struggling toward a goal which they failed to reach but which we must continue to pursue. Lincoln seems to suggest that the died knew their purpose was not to take a hill or prevent a charge, but to reunite the nation and remake the country as it should have been, almost as though the soldiers had heard the Gettysburg Address before the battle and knew the costs they would have to pay.

that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom —

Note the use of “in vain” which in the context of “under God” has Biblical implications. The line “under God” is only found in three of the five original manuscripts, but in neither of the two first drafts. Lincoln most likely used the second draft at the speech itself. The other three manuscripts were written later at the request of contemporary historians and “under God” may have been added even though it was not spoken at Gettysburg.

Regardless of the reference, poetically, “under God” continues the theme of past and future.
Lincoln felt the United States and its special place as the birth of democracy had both religious and political parents. He consistently invoked God in most of his major speeches as president.

“Under God” also aims at the future in “shall have a new birth of freedom.” Without the twin guidance of God and the liberty and unity of the nation, Lincoln argues that freedom isn’t possible. In the first years of the Civil War, Lincoln found himself wrestling in new ways with the purposes of God in history. The death of so many soldiers brought him face to face with the meaning of life.

“A new birth of freedom” was layered with political and religious definitions.

The metaphor first contrasts with the old. The “new birth” which emerged in the context of the war and Lincoln’s leadership meant at Gettysburg he was no longer defending an old Union, like he did in his First Inaugural Address in 1861, but proclaiming a new Union. The old Union tried to deal with the hypocrisy of slavery and the ideal that “all men are created equal” by ignoring slavery in the interest of national unity and survival. Now with the country at war, maintaining that duality was politically pointless and metaphorically dead as it hadn’t keep the country together peacefully, but driven it to civil war. Lincoln was declaring that the new Union would fulfill the Jefferson’s promise of liberty for all, the crucial step the founders were too afraid to take in 1776.

The “new birth” in Christianity and evangelical movements was a spiritual birth made by the choice of the believer. In essence, through the horrors of war the United States is “born again” as it should have been. In this context, the cost to make an America a nation of liberty and equality was paid at Gettysburg in 1863 not Lexington and Concord in 1776 nor at Yorktown in 1781.

The “new birth” was a paradox in both politics and religion. Lincoln and scholars since had come to see the Civil War as a ritual of purification. The old Union had to die just as the old man had to die. In death there was preparation for a new Union and a new humanity.

and that government
of the people,
by the people,
for the people,
shall not perish from the earth.

“Government of the people, by the people, for the people,” is a perfectly parallel structure that essentially sums up the American democracy in 10 words. These 10 words have been used by Americans and American politicians ever since as the justification for the United States’ existence and the moral rightness in its cause — the inherent "rightness" of representative democracy.

It also forms an if-then summary conclusion for the entire address: If we honor the dead here by fighting to preserve the union at all costs, like they did, and if we ensure liberty for all, our experiment — then democracy — will be born again — in the way it should have been, without slavery — and never die.

While it inspires certain inevitability in victory and immortality in the United States as a nation, the use of a negative in the last line demonstrates the threat of annihilation if they fail. Lincoln was putting fate of the war in his listeners’ hands. They weren’t putting down a small rebellion that could have been won or lost with little consequence — they were fighting for their very survival. The grand experiment of representative democracy, universal liberty and the nation’s existence were on the line.

In peacetime, Lincoln could said “will live forever,” or “flourish for all time,” but the struggle of the Civil War put the importance on victory. If the Union failed to defeat the Confederacy, the United States could have Balkanized and broken up over time, so the use of “shall not perish” implied that the nation was potentially on its deathbed.

Lincoln’s opposition to slavery was not overtly stated in the address. In his 1860 presidential campaign, he was willing to accept slavery for the sake of union. However, as the Civil War became less of a issue of a state’s right to secede and more about liberty and freedom of all the country’s citizens, Lincoln turned his attention toward emancipation, in as much as its morality as its ability to hurt a rebellious South. In 1862, after the Battle of Antietam, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which went into effect in January 1863.
In turning the war against an political contention and into a issue of morality, he galvanized the North and drummed up support for the effort on moral grounds, even as the war was stalled.

Although the wording of “Government of the people, by the people, for the people,” was Lincoln’s, the sentiment was not.

Lincoln’s law partner William Herndon had given him sermons of abolitionist minister Theodore Parker, who had written in “The Effect of Slavery on the American People:” “Democracy is direct self-government, over all the people, for all the people, by all the people,” a line which Parker later wrote Lincoln had especially liked. Lincoln pared the wording down to its constituent words into a more succinct and poetic rendition.

In the immediate aftermath of the speech, Lincoln was uncertain about how it was received. He reportedly turned to another person on the platform and commented, in effect, that the speech fell on its face. Journalists were mixed, some complaining the the speech was too short, so short they had thought the address was only an opening remark before a larger and more political speech. Other journalists commented on its poetry, eloquence and brilliance. The address has become one of the best known, most repeated, and beloved speeches in American history, so the latter group eventually won out.

As proof, Everett, the great orator, wrote a note to Lincoln the next day: "I should be glad, if I could flatter myself that I came as near the central idea of the occasion in two hours, as you did in two minutes."

Through the address, Lincoln created the idea of a unified nation in which states’ rights were subject to the rights of the nation as a whole. The issue of states' rights valued over national common good had were a determent to military capacity in the war.

The South, which placed the value of individual states over the central government of the Confederacy stayed true to this cause and often refused to allow their brigades and regiments to be commanded by colonels and generals from other states, which contributed to inefficiency in movement and on the battlefield, and the occasional military blunder.

The North, which valued union over all, didn't suffer from this single-mindedness. The North's blunders were due to the general incompetence of some of it's leaders alone.

After the war ended, the idea of national unity expressed in the address also contributed to a dramatic shift from provincial to national political identity.

No longer would citizens refer to themselves as a "Virginian in America" or a "New Yorker in America" but "an American from Virginia" or "an American from New York." Before the American Civil War and the Gettysburg Address, we were A united states of America, but afterward, we were The United States of America.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

"Wake Up Call" by Dre Johnson and Patrick Ohslund

"Wake Up Call"

Co-written by Jackhammer Serenade, the spoken word duet composed of Dre "Duke Bossman" Johnson and Patrick Ohslund

When the student is asked for his homework,
he laughs like I must be joking.
This school is in East Palo Alto
but this substitute teacher has seen these walls
before in Oakland, Detroit,
anywhere else forgotten about by real estate booms.

The student laughs because
he sees desperation leaking out of walls
built in the seventies lit by dim blinking fluorescence.
He laughs because his eyes are open,
This young boy is no fool
He knows that this desperation
is a learned behavior.

His spine cheers with a shiver
that causes a sun to rise that only he can see.
His personal path of illumination
rises from his rib cage like a hot air balloon,
Fueled by words a teacher told him,
"your mind is a tool
sharpen it on books like they were wet stones,
to cut chords and hover above
desperate patterns to think for yourself."

This student is awake, won't sit down,
shut up, or listen blankly anymore.
But we are seeding our youth
With vines designed to choke out life,

Cafeterias in prison and school train gut as mind to
turn off and swallow the blandness
provided by Sysco Systems.
Blueprints for school buildings
fall from the same architects that churn out prisons.

Both structures clenched around the necks of their inhabitants
Strangling enthusiasm that would grow outside the bricks
Lining student prisoners in cell or desk
accustomed to jumping at the sound of a bell
Off to the next detention center.

IT IS TIME FOR A WAKE UP CALL!
But we are seeding our youth
with vines designed to choke out life.
And are surprised that babies drop out
of teenagers as teenagers drop out of high school.

Surprised at students with numb noses and punctured veins
to punctuate the "I don’t give a fuck" attitude
that drains into classrooms from
Governator’s budget cuts.
Trimming a little future out of our lives.

Education being cut down to the cold efficiency of
a mechanized factory has been an American theme since the days of
Francis Bellamy winding up a sales pitch
In the form of the flag salute, a wholesale
conditioning of government school kids.

American school children performing the original "Bellamy salute"
during the Pledge of Allegiance

I pledge allegiance to the flag

In 1888 Francis Bellamy worked both as a producer and salesman of American flags.

To the United States of America

He was obsessed with the efficiency of military and wanted school along with everything else to mirror this cold precision.

And to the republic for which it stands

His mission was to use the flag salute to ingrain blind obedience into students.

One nation, under god

In 1888 there was one slight difference in the flag salute,

With liberty and justice for all

students arms were raised to honor the republic, straight from the shoulder.

Francis Bellamy,
the programmed pirate infamous flag dealer
left his mark like the lynch letter,
slangin' the image of the red white and confused.

Francis Bellamy,
sold nationalism to government schools
to create armies of industrial militant minded
Pavlov's lap dogs instead of what should be students.
who are force fed falsified information
while they sit entranced,
It is time for a wake up call.

Instead of a pledge to empire
how about a pledge to what moves us
Freedom from history books bound by chapters
That speak only of Eurocentric beginnings.

I pledge Allegiance to the light of knowledge
So that it may bounce off people like they were mirrors
transforming any classroom into this one.

One to create a new political slam poem is to examine the background behind a political action or activity, in this case the commercial and political history of the Pledge of Allegiance.

The Bellamy salute was, and in some places still is, the way students were instructed to salute the flag beginning in 1892.

The pledge became compulsory for students in 1940 after Minersville School District v. Gobitis, opposed by Jehovah's Witnesses. That ruling was overturned in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, citing issues of free speech under the First Amendment.

The Bellamy salute was later used by the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, or Nazi party, and fell out of favor during World War II, although it is still commonly used in the United States.

From "Face the Flag: The surprising history of the Pledge of Allegiance":

Francis Bellamy

The Pledge’s genesis had a strong commercial component of its own. [Francis] Bellamy worked for a magazine, Youth’s Companion, that had boosted its circulation by offering American flags as premiums to schoolchildren peddling subscriptions. One hundred sales equaled one flag, and over the course  of a few years, the magazine’s Flag Over the Schoolhouse Program put the Old Glory in tens of thousands of public schools around the country.
To expand on such efforts, Bellamy’s boss in the Premiums Department at Youth’s Companion, James B. Upham, concocted the idea of partnering with the World’s Columbian Exposition, a.k.a. the Chicago World’s Fair, to promote a nationwide celebration of the 400th anniversary of Columbus Day (which wasn’t yet an official national holiday). The proposed ceremonies would take place in schoolrooms and feature lots of flags. It would honor the spirit of enlightenment and progress Columbus embodied, and acknowledge the public school system as an uplifting, democratizing force in American life. “Our public school system is what makes this Nation superior to all other Nations—not the Army or the Navy system,” Congressman Sherman Hoar (D-Mass.) insisted when discussing the coming celebration with Bellamy. “Military display…does not belong here.”
To lend gravitas to the occasion, Bellamy felt a more dignified salute to the flag than those that already existed at the time was in order. As The Pledge recounts, Bellamy penned the Pledge “at a time when anxieties over the impact of mass immigration coexisted with expansive optimism about the nation’s future.” The entire Columbus Day celebration was calculated, as Theodore Roosevelt approvingly observed, to inculcate a “fervent loyalty to the flag,” and Bellamy himself viewed his Pledge as an “inoculation” that would protect immigrants and native-born but insufficiently patriotic Americans from the “virus” of radicalism and subversion. A few years after writing the Pledge, The Pledge recounts, Bellamy would eventually write a less inspiring ode to indivisibility: “A democracy like ours cannot afford to throw itself open to the world where every man is a lawmaker, every dull-witted or fanatical immigrant admitted to our citizenship is a bane to the commonwealth; where all classes of society merge insensibly into one another.”

Dre Johnson, right, and Patrick Ohslund

Dre Johnson and Patrick Ohslund are the co-founders of the 501(c)(3) non profit, Voice of a Generation presents: Digital Storytellers.

This organization serves to provide spoken word workshops, hands on education in the production of poetry based documentary films and to forge connections between students and Community-Based Organizations.

Voice of a Generation Presents:

The Digital Storytelling Project

Our mission is to engage a new generation of informed, skilled and creative leaders capable of harnessing the power of media to preserve their community’s voice, share heritage and culture through the development of spoken word based documentaries.


Dre "Duke Bossman" Johnson, longtime Oakland, Calif., poet. Photo by Big Poppa E.

This is a call for financial support to provide in-class spoken word workshops and hands on education for the production of digital documentaries at Sky Line Public High School in Oakland, Calif. The end results will be youth poetry and film projects used in the media of community based organizations, a culminating spoken word performance and satisfaction of senior project graduation requirements.

Digital Storytellers has 501(c)(3) nonprofit status through fiscal sponsorship by the Community Life Network. Donations are tax-deductible. We currently have a philanthropic organization providing a 50% match of funds, you can contribute through our Kick Starter fundraising campaign.
In this campaign we will secure funding to run a customized pilot program at Sky Line Public High School. Our goal is to reach $8,000.

These funds will pay for workshop facilitators, grant writers, film and editing equipment, as well as our quarterly performance.
For more information check out our website: Digitalstorytellers.org

Digital Storytellers is a participatory media program that trains young people to become fluent in the arts of spoken word poetry and digital documentation. Through these art forms youth improve their ability to articulate thus creating personally empowered voices that are infused into digital media thereby creating a means to engage in public dialog. We are building a reputation as innovators of service-learning and media technology education by facilitating in-class writing workshops where we also provide hands on instruction in the production of community strengthening and poetry themed documentary films.
Our goals are to produce demonstrable results in the following capacities:
    * Youth written spoken word poems
    * Student produced spoken word based documentaries
    * Inclusion of youth poetry and film within the literature and media of
      community based organizations
    * Students becoming involved with CBO's
    * Satisfaction of community service and senior project High School graduation requirements through student interview, documentation and involvement with CBO's
    * Increased abilities of articulation
    * A quarterly Multi-Generational Spoken Word Showcase where students and
      professional performers will share the stage with leaders of CBO's

For more information, contact Patrick Ohslund, Workshop Coordinator, at patrick@digitalstorytellers.org, (949) 285-9086.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

New York City poet Jahnilli Akbar features at Sedona Poetry Slam on Dec. 3

Sedona’s Studio Live hosts a poetry slam Saturday, Dec. 3, starting at 7:30 p.m. featuring New York City poet Jahnilli Akbar.

All poets are welcome to compete for the $75 grand prize.

The slam will the first of the 2011-12 season, expected to be more moving, more energetic and more intense because this year, poets will be competing for a slot in Sedona’s first National Poetry Slam Team.

After four years of collaborating with the Flagstaff and Phoenix metro area poetry slam scenes, the Sedona scene has developed the reputation and strength to muster its own team to send to the 2012 National Poetry Slam in Charlotte, N.C., in August. The eventual four-poet team will share the stage with 300 of the top poets in the United States, Canada and Europe, pouring out their words in a weeklong explosion of expression.

Sedona’s Studio Live hosts a poetry slam Saturday, Dec. 3,
starting at 7:30 p.m. featuring New York City poet Jahnilli Akbar.

Jahnilli Akbar

Jahnilli Akbar is a 22-year-old poet and activist, born in Chicago and raised in northern Mississippi. Currently he splits his time between Harlem and Brooklyn, N.Y.

Akbar’s poetry is best defined as an artistic mesh of alternative black, Semitic and queer life in America.

Akbar won the 2010 Rookie of the Year award at the Wade-Lewis Invitational, the second largest colligate slam in the country with more than 100 participants, held at the State University of New York at New Paltz.

Akbar is also the recipient of the 2011 Fresh Fruit Festival Queer Poet of the Year Award. He is a known face on the underground New York City art scene, as part of a movement called the Bushwick Renaissance, and as a member of Ground- Floor Collective, a leftist, African diaspora-based, predominately lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer group of artists. The Ground-Floor Collective, the Brecht Forum & Malcolm X Grassroots Movement curates the annual Black August art show, a fundraiser for political prisoners abroad.

Many stages, venues and spaces have hosted Akbar’s poetry, including Nuyorican Poets’ Café, Bowery Poetry Club, Louder Arts, NYC Intangible Poetry Slam, SUNY New Paltz and the Brooklyn Museum, all in New York, the Seattle Poetry Slam, Chicago’s Mental Graffiti Slam and Wordplay Chicago.

In early November, Akbar published his first book, “Chronicles of a Contemporary Alternative American Negro,” and headed out on tour.

To compete in the slam, poets need at least three original poems, each three minutes long or shorter. No props, costumes or musical accompaniment are permitted. All types of poetry are welcome.

Photo by Harley Deuce

The Dec. 3 slam will be hosted by Sedona poet Christopher Fox
Graham, who represented Northern Arizona on the Flagstaff
team at five National Poetry Slams between 2001 and 2010.

The Dec. 3 slam will be hosted by Sedona poet Christopher Fox Graham, who represented Northern Arizona on the Flagstaff team at five National Poetry Slams between 2001 and 2010.

Sedona National Poetry Slam Team

Competing poets earn points with each Sedona Poetry Slam performance between Dec. 3 and Saturday, May 5. Future slams will take place on Saturdays, Jan. 7, Feb. 18, March 10, April 7 and May 5. Every poet earns 1 point for performing or hosting and 1/2 point for calibrating. First place earns 3 additional points, second place earns 2 and third place earns 1.

Based on points, the top 12 poets in May are eligible to compete for the four slots on the Sedona Poetry Slam Team, which will represent the community and Studio Live at the 2012 National Poetry Slam in Charlotte, N.C.

What is Poetry Slam?

Founded in Chicago in 1984, poetry slam is a competitive artistic sport. Poetry slams are judged by five randomly chosen members of the audience who assign numerical value to individual poets’ contents and performances.

Poetry slam has become an international artistic sport, with more than 100 major poetry slams in the United States, Canada, Australia and Western Europe.

Tickets are $7 in advance and $12 the day of the event, available at Golden Word Books and Music, 3150 W. SR 89A, and online at studiolivesedona.com.

Studio Live is located at 215 Coffee Pot Drive, West Sedona.
For more information, call (928) 282-2688 or visit http://studiolivesedona.com.