“must be”
It’s strange why “must be” was not there.
Didn’t they believe in “must be?”
Didn’t they ever believe in “can be?”
These words are so understandable
in the minds of many,
from the very start,
when spliced within a later
“separate but equal.”
But where to do that?
If it is “separate must be, but equal”,
that stumbles down to a fall and gives us what we got.
Curl the words around.
If it is “separate, but equal must be”,
that curiously fails,
as seeming to be some sort of far future.
So, they fit as “separate but must be equal.”
That would make sense.
But could never be.
Because then something would need to be done.
Like sharpen the will or give point to a resolve.
So, “must be” was orphaned.
Easy to do.
Same thing happens with “whole.”
Of course, “whole” is just as easy to be abandoned.
It is only a single word with a
dying sting as it dwindles down within.
To tell the “whole” truth.
Whole truth
—above scattered truth
—above picked-over truth.
That’s the task.
That’s the ticket.
This country is star-crossed
within the protruding sheaves of slavery.