‘Fishing for Rare Fish’ by Fauzia Rafique

Art by Ed Kuris

In anticipation of the Poetry Month coming up, i began to look for some non-political poems. My quest soon became similar to fishing for a rare fish in the ocean of plastics and indigestible sea creatures. Based on what i found, here, still a bit fuzzy, is the inventory of my fishing expedition. You are welcome to check it out, and add to it if you like.

Poetry is the most practiced form of writing across cultures. It can be said that in a gathering of ten authors, eight-and-a-half may be poets where one can be a fiction writer and the remaining ‘half’ could be the writers of non-fiction. I write poems too, and I just love the way this form of writing morphs into song, spoken word, slam, rap and drama. Reading, more so hearing, poetry is one of the luxuries I often enjoy. So, barring all my favorite poets, here’s what i found.

A number of poets write what my colleague Sana Janjua calls Tourism Poetry where the beauty of a place, often ‘foreign’ and ‘exotic’ to the poet, is expressed in detail without including the people of that place. This is how we are taught to look at the world, as a tourist attraction where local, often under-privileged, people are themselves a part of that attraction or a distraction or just irrelevant to the purpose of travel or creating a poem about nature. If i’m not mistaken, it is a political standpoint; in fact, a colonial political standpoint.

Then we have The Ethnic Flagship poetry that explores, in case of South Asia for example, myths of spirituality and mysticism of the ‘East’, and in doing so affirms the Western readers’ historical/generational experience of colonization of that east, and in most instances, the poet stands with their historic/generational colonizers by looking at and presenting their own culture of origin in the ways the colonizers did, and they still do.

The Sufi Sphinx poems take this a step further by offering tons of usable mysticism with solutions such as ‘self-correction’ and/or ‘self-annihilation’ to decidedly take the reader’s and the poet’s attention away from actual problems and their possible solutions. This saves both from stumbling into uncomfortable territories, for example, into the possibility of systemic in-equity as one of the causes of human dis-content.

A large proportion of diasporic poets are Homeland Wailers writing poem after poem on the pain of separation from their homeland while saying nothing much about the conditions of the society they live in or the one they wail about. It appears as if the main issue is the pain of migration or of the time passed (especially their youth where many, mostly male, poets get fixated), not why it occurred or how situation in the present may be less than desirable in both the ‘home’ and ‘abroad’ countries.

There are ample Lego Party poems where each poem is a puzzle or a puzzling game created by the Settler poet or poets as a delightful exploration into the art and craft of poetry that does not require or encourage critical thinking, positioning poetry as a worthy distraction from personal and societal burdens of the past and the present.

Promptesque, the thriving domain of Lego Party poets, provides training for emerging writers to be able to write a poem on a given word/words or terms, songs or paintings, within a given amount of time. The emphasis on craft continues at the expense of theme/content as the fetish of government-funded prompt-poetry grows.

Dutiful includes poetry prompted by catastrophic events or by certain violations of human rights such as violence against women, that is devoid of any deeper understanding of the issue, and so, it rhymes a dogmatic sermon in support of the ‘official’, often incorrect and misleading, version of the tragic event. As well, such poems appear to have been written to provide evidence that the writer is ‘with it’, aware, and a sensitive human being.

Then, we have a whole range of Kithartica where this art form is used to loadshed some of the poet’s emotional baggage, and employed as a tool for the healing of the self.

I am not against any of it. In fact, we all use all these forms as we continue to work with our favored ways of saying different things. My problem is with stopping short, not acknowledging the politics of it, and then, misrepresenting it as ‘non-political’ art.

Stopping short where one minor ‘fact’ or outcome is taken and presented as the whole; and where the ‘whole’ is hidden by a tiny, often irrelevant, detail. Example: ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ is sometimes presented as the cause for the failure of a relationship. Yes, in certain cases, it may be part of the mix, but it never can be the reason. Relationships fail because two people may have diverse perspectives or different goals in life, they may not have synergy, they may come from diverse cultural backgrounds or from different class/privilege spectrum, they may have varying sexual orientation or sexuality, there could be emotional/psychological/sexual/physical abuse, some control issues perhaps, or any other combination but it’s definitely not because ‘familiarity breeds contempt’. This method of creating and spreading Nonsense-Wisdom, like many other such constructions, not only stops short of the actual issue but it also leads to depressive, even oppressive, outlook. In this case, for example, it means that all our relationships are doomed to breed contempt just because they would require for us to become familiar with each other. So then, stopping short is not an innocent act of personal choice, it’s a conscious standpoint obliterating reality to safeguard the value systems that serve interests of certain people or groups of people.

In a similar way, the discussion to determine if someone’s art is political or not is a misleading detail manufactured to hide the truth of the entrenched politicalness of pro-system art; to validate the lie that there is some art or literature that is not ‘political’ that there is ‘non-political’ art. Among other things, this helps to avoid answering some important questions such as ‘since we all write political stuff so is this the politics I want to perpetuate’ or ‘what is the politics of my poems?’ It is such a taboo that poets may be willing to meet to discuss the poetics of their poetry but never its politics.

Art is created from the experience we as individuals receive from all direct or indirect interaction with our environment. It is the re-emergence of parts of this continuing experience where all our interactions, passive or active, conscious or unconscious, past or present, manifest the culture and politics that we practice in order to live our lives; it is inside us and it surrounds us yet it remains unacknowledged by most of us. Perhaps this is, in part, because we relate to politics or we are ‘taught’ to relate to politics as something that stands outside of our personal lives; something that isn’t an intrinsic part of our public/private selves but perhaps a tool to organize, arrange and safeguard the larger ‘worldly’ things around and outside of us. In reality, art is born out of a symbiotic embrace with politics; inescapable. Even when we think that a poem, novel, song, video, film, painting is not ‘political’, it may be highly so.

Take for example, any of the stock romance novels, a form of literature we believe is a non-political escape/entertainment/comfort reading- or we think that because it is escape/entertainment/comfort reading so it is non-political, and add to it the fact that a large portion of art created in the world is a ‘copy/paste’ operation that continues to reproduce itself in novels, films, paintings, music and drama. This ‘mainstream’, ‘entertainment’, ‘commercial’ art, the so-called ‘non-political’ art is political inside and out. In it, everything systemic including current myths about race, class, caste, religion, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, ability not only abound but are affirmed; problems are viewed from one of the few peepholes provided by the prevalent political value systems; and, the proposed solutions perpetuate and protect the existing unfair/unequal political, economic and social structures. This is not non-political art but the art of bountiful ignorance.

The writers and artists who do not readily accept the myths projected by systems and their mouthpiece multinational media and arts organizations as truths, and the ones who do not acknowledge their prize-winners and scholars as icons and experts, may see images of our societies different from the ones offered; this when expressed in art is than classified as ‘political’. Another myth, a half truth, created to hide the political nature of pro-system art and literature.

So why are we so naive as to be misled by such tactics? Perhaps because we are part of the interest groups who need to distort this issue. Salvation Army founder William Booth once said: “a philanthropic body cannot afford to alienate the class which supports it”. Booth was humble when he limited his thoughts to just ‘philanthropic’ bodies. He could have easily lodged it as a universal truth that it is, that a ‘body’ cannot afford to alienate the class that supports it or ‘nobody’ can afford to alienate the class that supports it or ‘only nobody’ can afford to alienate the class that supports it.

I see that ‘nobody’ is a cool space for me.
..

‘Those Nutritious Contraceptive Pills’ by Fauzia Rafique

The above image was being safe-kept in a folder named ‘ImagesForArticles’ with over twenty others, and that folder was not to be opened till perhaps 2020- yet here it is.

Last year, i copied this image from Facebook where it was being shared by my friends from around the world as a positive intervention in favor of a woman’s right to use contraceptives, the need for women to be enlightened, and as a way to resolve poverty. I again encountered it last week, this time it was the first item in a video collection of images about ‘today’s modern society’. In that context and if taken as irony it could work but no guarantees, so I stopped and made a comment:
Me: Pertinent, except for the first item that’s racist, classist and affirms colonial perspectives.
Friend: Are you saying that those issues don’t exist today?

There, let’s have another look at this image. We see two women with their children, two moms, one is younger, appears ‘smart’, well-dressed, seems ‘educated’, and she has her one baby in a pushchair representing a neat, emancipated and successful life; the other is older, ‘appears’ uninformed, tattered wardrobe, seems ‘illiterate’, she has one, two, three, four children, a baby, and, she’s begging along side them modelling a messy, exploited and failed existence. ‘Please help me’, she says. The ‘smart’ woman opens her purse, brings out a packet of contraceptive pills, and drops them in the hands of– someone who appears to be a destitute woman accompanied by hungry and under-clothed children.
Incredible!

I’m glad that at least the Recipient of the pills appears shocked if not the people who can not stop forwarding this construction as a positive message to the World.

Like many propaganda items carrying system-sponsored myths about poverty and how to resolve it, this image also supports the notion that under-privileged people are ignorant / illiterate / stupid, and that they are the cause of society’s ills including their own miserable state. Let’s view some of the messages this particular image is giving out, for example. It says that:
The responsibility of being poor is on poor people themselves;
People are poor because of their own ignorance, stupidity and lack of education/information;
The cause of poverty is over-population;
Poverty can be resolved, and emancipation of women can be achieved, through population control.

All of these are loaded and dangerous lies hidden, for our delusional benefit, in a small truth. It is true that less children cost less, and fewer children may allow women better lives, BUT that does not mean that the number of children causes poverty or affluence neither does it mean that it is the cause or the resolution of women’s exploitation. The causes and resolutions of both reside elsewhere.

In a world where the top 1% own half the wealth and the poorest half own just 1% or to put it another way, where the richest 1% now has as much wealth as the rest of the world combined, where one in nine people on the planet will go to bed hungry tonight, a small handful of billionaires have so much wealth they would need several lifetimes to spend it, where just eight individuals, all men, own as much wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population, and you continue to believe that economic and gender based exploitation is caused by too many people having too many children whose own fault it is to stay poor or that poverty and misogyny can be resolved by using contraceptives, it’s your choice, but please do consider the unreason of it.

The concept of the world exploding with a growing population, and the absolute urgency to stop it in order to save the planet, surfaced in the 1950s and rapidly took hold of the world through international influencing agencies such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the Western governments. During the next two decades, the White Saviors again descended on the poorest of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America with contraceptive technologies and superiority entitlements and went trampling over the rights and lives of millions of under-privileged people. This sustained assault was established through legislation dictating how many children someone could have, mass-forced and/or un-informed sterilization campaigns, and marketing of new technologies harmful to women’s bodies. It was another historic example of extreme exploitation of women, another campaign of extreme violence against innocent people, carried out by the richest of the World: The colonial and colonized governments, and global pharmaceutical/health/finance/IT/Media industries.

As to the riddle of who may be responsible for poverty, consider this.
‘In 2012, the last year of recorded data, developing countries received a total of $1.3tn, including all aid, investment, and income from abroad. But that same year some $3.3tn flowed out of them. In other words, developing countries sent $2tn more to the rest of the world than they received. If we look at all years since 1980, these net outflows add up to an eye-popping total of $16.3tn-‘ theguardian.com

On top of hiding the actual causes of poverty such as colonization, corporate greed, inequal/unfair distribution of wealth/resources, this image shifts the responsibility of causing poverty to over-population. As well, it projects class-based biases through the pompous condescension of the ‘enlightened’ woman, and it conveys strong racial overtones where the ‘featured model’ appears ‘Western’ while the other ‘seems’ to be hailing from the Middle East, re-enforcing the popular colonial myth of White Superiority.

To me, this image defines d&d: ‘distasteful & dangerous’.

Photo from: onsizzle.com/i/please-help-me-contraceptive-pill-3665055
..

All in favor of the Burqa Ban party

fanon-themilligazatte

Those in favor of Merkel’s call for a Burqa Ban not only include the extreme right, right and center of the political spectrum but they also include a large section of white and brown feminists, leftists, atheists, and other shades of ‘progressives’. That’s a lot of my organic community coming out in support of, or not opposing, the legislated removal of burqa being implemented by various conservative governments.

I am not in favor of burqa/purdah, but i’m dead against governments who are legislating or calling for a ban on it in Europe, America, Canada, Australia, and in the similar etcetras because all the burqa ban moves in these places are used to fan the ‘national security’ hysteria to take people’s attention away from the real issues of disparity and prejudice they face, and allows these governments to continue their brutal aggression and interference in various Asian and African countries. The burqa bans further stigmatize Muslim women and Islam, and, validate the undercurrent notion that the legislated removal of burqa in the ‘democratic’ societies would or could lead to the liberation of Muslim women. This is sick, and sickening.

The colonizer mindset continues to present colonization to be ‘enlightening’, ‘liberating’, and ‘civilizing’ for the colonized, and many people believe this because that’s what all the media outlets are giving out 24/7- the world view of the colonizer as the Civilized Saviour or the Saviour of Civilization. The ban on burqa is just one entry in the long list of ‘gentrification’ policies carried out against stigmatized populations, for example, Indigenous children were taken away and families were torn apart in the name of education, and their headdresses, dresses and ceremonies banned in the name of civilization.

This colonial mindset is easier to market when wrapped in a burqa because of the fact that burqa/purdah indeed IS something that is used by the male Muslim culture as one of the tools to control women’s lives. Now, here is an interesting thing about it: Vocal against the opposition to Merkel’s burqa ban, are some of those privileged White and Brown women who are neither threatened with the violence that comes with such racist and misogynist legislation nor are they forced to wear burqa in their immediate environments. Fanon’s quotation about the colonizer was ‘frustrating’ to them also(!) because it happens to find something ‘positive’ in the assigned total negativity of burqa, a woman. A mysterious and romanticized woman perhaps, but a woman, a person, nonetheless. While the gaze thrown on burqa and burqa-wearing woman by the ‘frustrated’ progressive individuals is a gaze full of assumptions and prejudices. Just like the colonizer, this group believes that a woman wearing burqa is a backward and uncivilized low-life who has no opinion, no voice and no unique personality. If this assumption was true, we could say that all bikini-wearing women were forward-looking, educated and civilized, but we know it’s not true either. Burqa frustrates the colonizers because it’s a control mechanism the colonizers cannot use, if they move to break it, it’s not to liberate the controlled population, it is to control that population with their own tools of sexism, racism, hatred and violence.

I can understand the passion that can bubble up from a woman living for example in Pakistan, at the mention or sight of burqa as we have all confronted that barrier in our lives and we may still confront it, but it’s better to not confuse that passion against burqa with the politics of Western burqa bans. If a government in a Muslim majority country such as Pakistan called for a burqa ban or went on to legislate one, i would support it with all my heart because it would mean that women in Pakistan have gained enough power to outlaw one of the major tools and symbols of male hegemony. I would support it because it would be a step taken by Muslim women themselves (All power to Muslim women living in Muslim majority countries).

But the same policy of legislating a burqa ban changes shape when implemented in a country and continent where Muslim men and women are a minority, the country is not ruled by Muslim legal or cultural systems, it was/is part of historic oppressors of people in Muslim majority areas, and the time is after 9/11 when Muslims face stigma, racism, hatred and violence in these parts of the world. In this environment, a government places a burqa ban on Muslim women- you think it’s going to liberate us?

If anyone was interested in supporting the ‘liberation’ of burqa-wearing Muslim women in Western countries, they would show some respect and make way or at least get out of the way to allow women their own process to arrive at a stage where they choose to not wear it.

Opposing West’s burqa ban does not mean support for burqa/purdah or the use of it; it means these governments must stop dictating to Muslim women, stop stigmatizing and endangering an already vulnerable population, and, to stop marketing their colonial perspectives about Muslim women and women’s liberation through burqa bans.

Supporting or not supporting such hate-filled policies must need more than a tantrum against burqa.
..

‘Being Ditched’

fr-1980s

..

Being ditched, and ditching, are common experiences for all of us. During the course of each day, we process many people through our ditching filters as we get processed by theirs. Most bring decisive results at first sight or few words at best, and the top ditching ground remains to be the class.

I have been ditched for class, race, accent, un-brandnamed clothing, City of Surrey, Pakistan, godlessness, and of course for many aspects of more personal nature. Most times i know the exact cause of ditching or being ditched, sometimes i don’t. To me, in non-abusive interactions, ditching is a right that cannot be held against the ditching party, but let me tell you, the last time i got ditched was too much: imagine being ditched by a woman friend for refusing to accept her fake plastic penis?

Now, that i have your full attention, allow me to discuss another side of ditching. When we can’t find the heart to ditch someone, we try to induce it. There’s this sweet person i know for over three decades, she’s dear to me like a younger sister but what began happening when she moved closer was that she would take hours each day either over phone or in person to deliver a monologue that went somewhat like this: ‘early morning, i fell from the balcony on concrete floor’, description of calamity for 30 minutes including all the steps she or anyone in her family had taken to save her, and then ‘I thought I’ll never breathe again BUT my God saved me’; and, she would go on and on citing tens of daily miracles from being able to make tasty biryani to finding matching shoes to getting kids to school on time, and, it was all being done- against all odds- by her God. Then toward the end, the monologue would change themes, and she would share her sadness at not having an intimate partner to enjoy sexual pleasures with. One day at the end of the monologue when she stopped and looked at me for answers, i said, ‘Since God is doing everything for you why not ask him to do this too?’ Her eyes went out of focus, and then she got up and left. Needless to say it was, and continues to be, a successful ditch-inducing strategy.

Some encounters occur in less defined or more non-traditional territories, the ditchings that ensue are not as clear or expected, and they create different ripples than the usual ones; Sometimes even pleasant. Yes, it is about the fake penis. A dear friend visited after a few years, and over wine, offered her fake plastic penis to me. It was an unexpected but generous thought, and as a single het woman i did appreciate it but appreciation did not make me accept the unusual gift because i don’t like to use fake things, penis or not. But my friend had pity in her eyes at all the other-dimension fun i was missing, and i knew it had happened; i had been ditched.

Even though it isn’t recommended by any decent human, still i am tempted to reach across the traditional after-ditch boundaries to ask my friend this one vital question:
‘What color was it?’
And then:
‘Circumcised or no?’

To welcome into this world my second novel, The Adventures of SahebaN: Biography of a Relentless Warrior (Libros Libertad, Nov 2016), stories of a heroic woman who was forever curious about a similar object called ‘Pee-nuts’.

Fauzia Rafique
..

‘Familial Promises – The ‘Honour’ Killer’s Code’

qandeel

.

If ever you
set foot
outside this house
Smack you, I will

.

If ever you
cook anything
I don’t like
Bash you, I will

.

If ever you
give birth to
a female child
Rap you, I will

.

If ever you
marry a man
of your choice
Smash you, I will

.

If ever you
ask for your
property rights
Whack you, I will

Fauzia Rafique
..

Photo from Aljazeera
Poem from Fauzia’s chapbook ‘Holier Than Life’.

..

‘Candle Light Vigiler’

photobyroshnichanda-1

I’m a Candle
Light Vigiler
vigiling over
murders of masses
of people burning
dollar store candles
every other week
in a safe little corner
of an unsafe city

sometimes i use look-alike blinking fake little candles, still, the tears are real like the blood that is spilled of the innocent unarmed civilians childrens

but my vigils
get slurped by the party politicos
solidaritos seeming progressivos
who speak without questioning authoritos
without threatening ideologeos
of the very systemos
that breed the demandos
and create the supplyos
for the (designated) MURDERERS
and the (appointed) KILLERS
of the (compulsive) COLONIZERS

a gimmick named ISIS, for example, is a US-NATO toy created to achieve certain corporate goals for the war pharmaceutical religion construction finance industry

candle light vigiling
has made me a hostage to
the onslaught of
violence carried out to
make more profit for
a few bankers officers
and priests
a hostage to
the sorrow of
innocent deaths
a prisoner to the powers
that need to feed
the oceans of
their greed
with the rivers of fresh
red- warm
blood

‘pray for baghdad’-‘islam is a violent religion’-‘all muslims are not terrorists’-‘good morning’-‘brexit the refugees’-‘kill colored migrants’- ‘Black Lives Matter, No?’ -‘send more weapons to middle east’-‘eid mubarik’- but i never auditioned for this role and i never invested in your goal

The hostage the prisoner
the sorrowful individual
must break
her cage before
the oceans of greed
usurp all blood before
vigiling extinguishes
all dollar store candles
in a safe little corner
of an unsafe city

Fauzia Rafique
.

Photo from Roshni Chanda
..

Canadian MPs! Swear Allegiance to the People of Canada!

Parliament-by-aurorahighschoolPhoto from Aurora High School

On October 19th Canadian people exercised their will and they ditched Harper’s fascistic politics in favor of a more open, more democratic agenda. This was happiness in itself, but then our new Prime Minister responded by revealing a 50% gender-equal cabinet (who else has it?) with some people-of-color representation. Watching the Oath Ceremony was a treat- (youtube.com) till I began to actually watch it. Person after bright-modern-day-well-educated person was, more or less, saying this:

‘I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.’

After listening to half the cabinet, a question, actually this exact question, came to mind: Who’s Queen Elizabeth the Second, and why our elected representatives are swearing allegiance to her? Our elected representatives are hired and paid by us, and they should swear allegiance to the People of Canada NOT the Queen of England (parl.gc.ca).

Elizabeth the Second is the queen of England because that’s the only place her ancestors did not colonize for her and her ‘heirs and successors’ in the way that they had colonized most of the rest of the world including the areas now called Canada and Pakistan. She’s the queen of her native land, and so if the UK parliamentarians continue to swear allegiance to her, it’s their decision. But Canada is not England, and this is 2015.

In Canada, most people think that swearing allegiance to the Queen at citizenship and parliamentary oath ceremonies is just a ceremonial thing that has nothing much to do with their lives. This view is half true. Yes, the Queen has nothing to do with every day life of Canadian people, so much so that when people try to get her to do something, she doesn’t respond. The latest was in 2013 when Native Canadian leaders, after being refused by Harper, had turned to Queen Elizabeth the Second for a meeting, she never responded even when some of the leaders were on a hunger strike, and for me, that became a point of contention (gandholi.wordpress.com). The untruth is that what is projected as ‘just’ ceremonial, is actually a deep-seated foundational aspect of this system. It is as entrenched as the word ‘Islamic’ in ‘The Republic of Pakistan’ that you can not ask to be removed until you are willing to risk your life. For us in Canada to keep bowing to a colonial entity with such a bloody history against our own people, can’t just be a habit we acquired. It means, the interests of the Canadian ruling elites are tied to the British monarchy in similar ways that Pakistani ruling elites’ interests are tied to an ‘Islamic’ republic.

In the Canadian/American context, the UK Queen represents slavery of black people, the genocide of Indigenous Peoples, extreme exploitation of colored migrants, residential schools in the name of education, and a system of governance based on racial prejudice and privilege. If we want to move forward in a positive direction, we may need to sever ties with British monarchy, and it’s time, because as long as we don’t take this one small(!) step, we will not be able to take the big steps we want to take towards equality and harmonious existence of all peoples of Canada. To go forward in a positive direction, the Canadian Government must find lasting and honorable solutions with Indigenous peoples, so instead of continuing to keep the Canadian state as an agency of a harsh colonial entity, it’ll be an immense help to begin by severing ties with the British monarchy who began, protected and perpetuated such unfair relationships with Canadian peoples.

If by now, you are thinking, who (the hell) is she to talk like this, then allow me to introduce myself. I am a common Canadian citizen, a first generation migrant from a country that was part of the British Empire from 1757 to 1858 (East India Company) and from 1858 to 1947 (British Crown), where once in the span of a few weeks, 15 Million people were uprooted, 1-2 Million people were killed, 75,000 women were raped, just because of the manner in which the British monarchy chose to surrender it’s direct colonial rule in India. This is just a glimpse of the tail end of the painful history of our colonization so that you know that my association with British monarchy is 300 years old, and I have bone-felt reasons to not revere it or any other such formation.

If you are a Canadian, and you do revere Queen Elizabeth the Second and her ancestors, heirs and successors, I urge you to re-think your position. It is a loaded bloody history of world domination where local populations and cultures in Africa, Americas, Australia, Asia, were disrupted, exploited, killed and looted (one small example of loot: A diamond). Supporting and taking pride in such histories of global exploitation may stunt our own progress as individuals and it may place debilitating limits on the quality of our contributions to our lives and to our countries.

At this time, from over fifty Commonwealth states, only Sixteen ‘voluntarily continue to share the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, as their head of state’ (Wikipedia). I suggest, we do take this ‘voluntarism’ to task and become free of the bloodied colonial chains of our past.

There’s so much hunger, poverty, inequality and destitution in this World, i wonder, why do we need Saudi Kings and British Queens. The actual place they belong to is in (scary) fairy tales. As well, we don’t need the cultural ambassadorial Pop Queens towing lines of colonial warlords, charity-throwing filthy rich Humanity Queens posing with starving third world children, and Vaginal Feminism Queens bringing emancipation to the poor ignorant women of the third world.

The only queens we need are drag queens, the only kings we need are hikings, and the only monarchs we need are these (now bouncing back):
butterfliesgif

Fauzia Rafique
frafique@gmail.com

Britain deals with its colonial past
‘Violence, victors and victims: how to look at the art of the British empire’ by William Dalrymple
Another petition for the return of Koh-i-Noor diamond Dror Bar-Natan renounces allegiance to Queen, spurs Monarchy debate
New Victoria Mayor, Lisa Helps, Declines To Pledge Allegiance To The Queen
Supreme Court won’t hear citizenship oath to Queen challenge
THE MOLD RIOTS: THE SUMMER OF ‘69
(Links updated Dec 6/15)
..