if you have darker skin
than I do,
I consider this,
society's intelligence test.
how dumb of me
to question the answer.
but then
who is writing these questions?
the accepted answer is bogus.
but the question remains.
so I ask.
what is an answer,
when it is privately composed
of a symbolic representation,
that is otherwise emotionally prejudicial?
what is the ritualistic nature of the question,
but to render bias,
as adequate representation,
either for the internally unresolved,
or muted pridefulness,
or a demeaning form of one-ups-man-ship,
or the rebuke of connectedness on display,
as all otherwise emotional unresolvable upheaval,
that seeks blame as an appropriate retort?
what a burden to carry,
as if every moment is an unseen labor,
as if another person is essentially at your self-cause.
yes, we all dance our movie alive.
some scenes cross correlate ongoingly.
and loss of one's directorship,
seems righteous to claim.
like control is a grand notion of freedom?
when control is only a subset of a self stance?
why we didn't go for color of eyes
or length of fingers and toes?
no, these badges of rejection
that we go for are commonly displayed.
and humans made this up unto them selves,
as reasons for or against is?
skin color,
followed by nationality or religious means,
as reasonable overtones,
for much the same.
as a species,
we feature ourselves as drama-queens at large.
we have that species entitlement gene
and we constantly stage life as relevant,
by our interpretative sense of means.
we question reality,
when reality itself is the question.
prejudice is the result of humans taking shortcuts,
where as, a means to an end.
it does not include embrace
but more so, engenders cut-throat efforts,
makes the self-predicament as operational
and so begets the substance of prejudicial as belief.
if belief was of real substance,
we would all be way overweight.
and just as a simple reminder,
as of now,
we don't have a real diet for that . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment