1.
If, instead of threatening,
I could have committed. Zapata's
travels were long and fatiguing,
his wanderings were spoiled by the flames,
which shone brightly on the white
plain. A few tears from the bliss
of my friend - I cannot imagine
the sufferings, I wrote to a great mirror.
2.
While the modern system raises
the funeral wail, Zapata strove to act
in a soft voice, and bent wood
and leaves as if under the table.
I dreaded to behold the busy heavens
answer. Learn from land -
Zapata's fundamental idea -
that all these men were his country.
3.
But you are to yield. In my
cloak, papa! An eye. Zapata had
a far different situation.
They were bound. It directed
his steps towards the valley. He
will shine on us as disappearance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Section 2 is great. The first two stanzas remind me of a line in one of the Heart of Darkness sonnets:
ReplyDeleteThere is
a way of resisting without moving a
limb, without clamor, without even
taking the trouble to keep them off.
A lot like Zizek's idea that sometimes there is nothing radical that can be done (openly) that won't be co-opted and made to feed the system, so perhaps doing nothing is the correct choice. But how does one decide in the present circumstances if this is true? Zapata is mythologized here in what seems at first to be an almost Ghandian figure in its popular manifestation ("a soft voice"), but which reveals itself to be more akin to the silent lurking plotter (anarchist terrorist) working "under the table." So I wonder if he is working against the modern system's "funeral wail" or one orchestrator of its demise. Maybe both.