02-24-2016, 07:38 AM
Oh well, this is the first time that I've ever bumped a thread anywhere and I really wish I didn't have to because I usually think 'bumping' is cheeky as fuck... But anyway this poem has troubled me somewhat ever since I put it in. I'm not bumping it because it got no comments, I can deal with that, it's happened before. I'm bumping it because it got no comments combined with its content which worry me that it may have been misunderstood as blatantly offensive. That wouldn't normally bother me either usually unless it is this subject, it is important for me that I clarify.
I also understand that the word 'spacca/spacka' may not be in other cultures or if it is it has an entirely different meaning that is not offensive. In Britain it is highly offensive, some would possibly consider it the most offensive term possible, according to some list I found it is allegedly the second most offensive term behind 'retard'. I know that in America the word 'spaz' is perceived very differently from how it is perceived in Britain. It is a derivative of 'spacca' which itself is a derivative of 'spastic' which is a technically correct term and at one time was used as the medical description of a condition and 'The Spastics Society' was the name of the charity that raised money for said people. Now 'spastic' is considered an offensive insult. In America 'spaz' is considered to mean a clumsy person or clumsiness in general and has not connotations of people with disabilities. Tiger Woods once used it to describe his golf playing at a particular tournament and it was once used in Friends by Rachel. Both times Britain (British Press) went into apoplectic rage.
The poem,
children
laughing -
at the "spacca"
I can understand how the people who are familiar with the word 'spacca' in it's British sense may have read this and thought 'ignorant offensive bastard/twat' and many other words in between. I showed it to one of my friends and his initial reaction was extreme shock and disbelief. I then made the mistake of explaining my thinking behind the poem instead of waiting to see whether he was willing to give it a chance and see what else was in there. The same mistake that I am about to do again here, although it's different this time. In basic terms I wanted the beautifully innocent and happy image of children laughing absolutely obliterated and turned on its head by the contrast with what they are laughing at, a person with cerebral palsy. The beautiful image was to become extremely pitiful and sad and also 'shocking'. I toyed for ages over whether I should use speech marks, more in the hope that they would tell the reader it wasn't the author who was referring to a disabled person as a 'spacca'. Because of this I also toyed with the idea having 'children laughing and shouting - at the "spacca" to give justification for the use of speech marks, 'children laughing' doesn't seem to give this justification. Ultimately 'shouting' had too much of aggressive connection that messed up the pure innocence image I was wanting to find.
It shocks me when I read it and I wrote the bloody thing, in some ways I hate it, although I do think it is very good, it achieves what I wanted it to achieve and it has the potential to be far more powerful than anything I've ever wrote simply because of the subject. It's normal for poems to be misunderstood sometimes, but the consequences of this one being misunderstood led to a conclusion that I was not happy with. If there had been comments I would of had the space to say my bit. I never considered the possibility that it would sail gradually into the distance leaving me with not the slightest clue as to how it was perceived. With any other poem I've wrote that would be fine, but this one is different.
This whole thread should be shifted elsewhere to a discussion forum or anywhere appropriate, I don't mind. It would be interesting to hear if I'm right about my perception about American culture and its usage of the connected word, or any other cultures that may have yet again another view. Most of my info was gathered from the net for the American perception so it may be partly correct but probably not totally.
What makes a word offensive, empowering? I know how Britain managed to turn 'spastic' into an extremely offensive word. After one children's factual television show in the early 80's that featured a man with cerebral palsy called 'Joey' which is also classed as an offensive term when used in certain context. From that one show, schoolchildren and school playgrounds seem to have done the rest of the work to spread the word. My era and my peers, we did it. Children can be horribly cruel. When I was younger and my Dad was alive he had cerebral palsy and it was very obvious physically in a pronounced way and everywhere he went he was called the most horrible names by all types of people but especially kids.
All part of the reason of why it was important for me to sort this poem out today, been wanting to do it for weeks.
If you managed to get this far, (I know it is a lot to read), thank you.
Mark
I also understand that the word 'spacca/spacka' may not be in other cultures or if it is it has an entirely different meaning that is not offensive. In Britain it is highly offensive, some would possibly consider it the most offensive term possible, according to some list I found it is allegedly the second most offensive term behind 'retard'. I know that in America the word 'spaz' is perceived very differently from how it is perceived in Britain. It is a derivative of 'spacca' which itself is a derivative of 'spastic' which is a technically correct term and at one time was used as the medical description of a condition and 'The Spastics Society' was the name of the charity that raised money for said people. Now 'spastic' is considered an offensive insult. In America 'spaz' is considered to mean a clumsy person or clumsiness in general and has not connotations of people with disabilities. Tiger Woods once used it to describe his golf playing at a particular tournament and it was once used in Friends by Rachel. Both times Britain (British Press) went into apoplectic rage.
The poem,
children
laughing -
at the "spacca"
I can understand how the people who are familiar with the word 'spacca' in it's British sense may have read this and thought 'ignorant offensive bastard/twat' and many other words in between. I showed it to one of my friends and his initial reaction was extreme shock and disbelief. I then made the mistake of explaining my thinking behind the poem instead of waiting to see whether he was willing to give it a chance and see what else was in there. The same mistake that I am about to do again here, although it's different this time. In basic terms I wanted the beautifully innocent and happy image of children laughing absolutely obliterated and turned on its head by the contrast with what they are laughing at, a person with cerebral palsy. The beautiful image was to become extremely pitiful and sad and also 'shocking'. I toyed for ages over whether I should use speech marks, more in the hope that they would tell the reader it wasn't the author who was referring to a disabled person as a 'spacca'. Because of this I also toyed with the idea having 'children laughing and shouting - at the "spacca" to give justification for the use of speech marks, 'children laughing' doesn't seem to give this justification. Ultimately 'shouting' had too much of aggressive connection that messed up the pure innocence image I was wanting to find.
It shocks me when I read it and I wrote the bloody thing, in some ways I hate it, although I do think it is very good, it achieves what I wanted it to achieve and it has the potential to be far more powerful than anything I've ever wrote simply because of the subject. It's normal for poems to be misunderstood sometimes, but the consequences of this one being misunderstood led to a conclusion that I was not happy with. If there had been comments I would of had the space to say my bit. I never considered the possibility that it would sail gradually into the distance leaving me with not the slightest clue as to how it was perceived. With any other poem I've wrote that would be fine, but this one is different.
This whole thread should be shifted elsewhere to a discussion forum or anywhere appropriate, I don't mind. It would be interesting to hear if I'm right about my perception about American culture and its usage of the connected word, or any other cultures that may have yet again another view. Most of my info was gathered from the net for the American perception so it may be partly correct but probably not totally.
What makes a word offensive, empowering? I know how Britain managed to turn 'spastic' into an extremely offensive word. After one children's factual television show in the early 80's that featured a man with cerebral palsy called 'Joey' which is also classed as an offensive term when used in certain context. From that one show, schoolchildren and school playgrounds seem to have done the rest of the work to spread the word. My era and my peers, we did it. Children can be horribly cruel. When I was younger and my Dad was alive he had cerebral palsy and it was very obvious physically in a pronounced way and everywhere he went he was called the most horrible names by all types of people but especially kids.
All part of the reason of why it was important for me to sort this poem out today, been wanting to do it for weeks.
If you managed to get this far, (I know it is a lot to read), thank you.
Mark
wae aye man ye radgie