|
you broke the ocean in
half to be here. only to meet nothing that wants you. –immigrant With the current political climate, I felt that this poem of Waheed’s is more topical than ever. It is from her collection, salt., which was published in the September of 2013. Despite years of encouragement and pleads from Americans, world leaders, foreign countries, and from the voices of the disenfranchised themselves, immigration rights in America have seemed to regress. “Populus” ideas have taken precedent over the welfare of others, replacing a vital life-or-death standpoint with a talking point used to distract and detract from the issues of real people who are striving for not only their own life and safety, and the safety and promise of security for their children, but for their aspirations, dreams, and goals. This is the point that Waheed is making in “immigrant.” They “broke the ocean in / half to be here.” They worked and tried and fought for basic human rights–what are now seemingly antiquated American values of life, liberty and happiness–”only to meet nothing that wants [them].” Waheed is not afraid to get political. A lot of poets are not afraid to do so, but poetry is still often seen as a medium to express sentiments regarding life and love, lust and loss. Not current events or topical issues in policy. However, throughout Waheed’s entire collection of poems from salt., it becomes evident that her writing is a platform for advocating for the rights and concerns of the underrepresented. Waheed offers a platform for these marginalized groups to speak their opinions, not have some white male politician appoint them. She discusses hypermasculinity and the abnegations or celebrations of femininity (relying on context), sexism and misogyny, ignorance and prejudices, homophobia and heteronormativity, Islamophobia and racism, radicalism and liberalism (some of which are not comparable). Here Waheed specifically addresses the widespread antipathy and apathy surrounding immigrants in America. Her uses of punctuation and structure do not vary much from poem to poem; her style is very consistent, keeping with the “agenda” of her work to highlight the message protruding from the poem. She does not like to create uncertainty in her work; the reason being (I imagine) that it would distract from the real issue being addressed, since she is so often political. The punctuation in “immigrant” is different from that of her other poems, however; there are no comma splices, no cut-off sentences, no run-ons. It is only three lines, two sentences, so perhaps her relatively “conservative” use of punctuation is due to the severity of the issue being addressed. The syntax of the first two lines suggests bleakness and urgency. Splitting the sentence after “in,” and leaving that particular half of the sentence, “half to be here,” places emphasis on the somberness and desolation of the subject. They broke the ocean in half to be here, and the land tore them in half. They are half knowing that this, despite the subjective racism and xenophobia accompanied with Americans, is the better choice for their well-being and the promise of life and prosperity, and half yearning to go back to their homeland, where they are not maliciously attacked and judged. The title of the poem clarifies the subject of the piece; if it is not glaringly obvious that this is referring to immigrants in the US, then it can now be understood that “immigrant” is an insight into the situation of a massive group of people.
5 Comments
Eng
4/1/2017 08:13:49 am
Wow, that's a powerful poem in few words. Why do you think she chooses the word "nothing" instead of "nobody"?
Reply
Mahri Grant
4/5/2017 06:23:13 am
Josie, I really liked how you related this to the current political climate, and were able to analyze such a short poem, and find the deeper meaning. You broke apart the poem and could understand what the poet meant, even if he didn't explicitly say it.
Reply
Alex Culver
4/5/2017 08:03:57 am
What I find to be the most potent piece of this poem is its innate universality. You interpreted this from an American perspective, as did I. But truthfully, it could be applied to anywhere. It could be read from the point of view of the desperate immigrant, from the reluctant and ambivalent harborer, or from the distressed witness. It could apply to any place at any time, because the poem is simply so human. It is of human nature, an idea that stands the test of time, regardless of how we think we may change. That is why I love the insightful implicitness of this poem, as you pointed out.
Reply
I adore how short, yet impactful this poem is. With just a few lines, it has amazing clarity. You can feel the struggle of these immigrants, how they fought to get here or wherever they're going and how they are turned away. It even seems to me that not only are other people turning them away but the nation as a whole, inanimate beings included reject these immigrants. Take that as a symbol or functioning body (like our government) but its powerful and shows we need to change.
Reply
Hannah Mullen-Fox
4/16/2017 05:32:03 pm
I enjoyed this poem because although, as you said, it has two clear sentences, it descriptively depicts a political topic that is extremely evident in today's world. With only two sentences, you really can feel the struggle of the immigrants and how much of an impact their rejection leaves. I enjoyed your analysis and ability to thoroughly explain such a short poem.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorJosie Kremer Archives
January 2017
Categories |