1.7 - pot
Context
Social and historical context
- The poem addresses the legacy of colonialism, where cultural artefacts were often taken from their countries of origin and displayed in Western museums.
- These objects are often presented without their original history, silencing the stories of the cultures they came from.
- Khan's poem gives a voice to one such silenced object, challenging the narratives presented by museums.
Literary and biographical context
- Shamshad Khan is a British poet of Pakistani heritage. Her work frequently explores themes of identity, belonging, and cultural displacement.
- The poem uses apostrophe [addressing an object directly], a technique that personifies the pot and allows the speaker to form an emotional connection with it.
- This reflects the experience of diaspora [people scattered from their homeland], where individuals seek connection to a heritage that feels distant or fragmented.
Cultural context
- The poem critiques how Western institutions often display cultural objects without acknowledging the frequently violent or exploitative methods of their acquisition.
- It highlights the deep, personal connection between people and the objects they create and use in their daily lives.
- Khan contrasts this intimate, human connection with the cold, impersonal setting of a museum display case.
Overview
Pot in a nutshell
- What literally happens in the poem: The speaker observes a pot in a museum, speculating on how it was taken from its homeland and brought to England. The speaker feels a deep connection to the pot, seeing it as a symbol of displaced cultural identity, and desperately tries to communicate with it.
- Context and significance: Khan, a British poet of Pakistani heritage, explores themes of colonialism, cultural loss, and diaspora. The pot becomes a powerful metaphor for the silenced histories of colonised peoples and the fragmented identity of those disconnected from their heritage.
- Key techniques and approach: The poem uses apostrophe to create an intimate, one-sided conversation with the pot, whilst free verse and repetition reflect the speaker's emotional and desperate state of mind.
Lines 1-6
"so big - they said you shouldn't really be moved
so fragile you might break
you could be from anywhere pot
styles have travelled just like terracotta
you could almost be an english pot
but I know you're not."
Translation
The speaker describes a large, fragile pot. She notes that its style is not specific, and it could almost pass as an English pot, but she is certain of its true, non-English origins.
Khan's intention
- Khan immediately establishes the poem's central conflict between the pot's assumed identity in England and its true, hidden heritage.
- The direct address "you" begins an intimate conversation, giving the pot a sense of presence and personality from the very first line.
- The emphatic final line, "but I know you're not," creates a sense of a secret, personal connection between the speaker and the pot, setting them apart from other observers.
Lines 7-24
"I know half of the story pot
of where you come from
of how you got here
but I need you to tell me the rest pot
tell me
did they say you were bought pot
a looters' deal done
the whole lot
sold to the gentleman in the grey hat
or
did they say you were lost pot
finders are keepers you know pot
or
did they say they didn't notice you pot
must have slipped onto the white sailing yacht
bound for england."
Translation
The speaker admits her knowledge of the pot's history is incomplete. She asks the pot to reveal how it came to be in England, offering three possible scenarios: it was "bought" in a dishonest deal, it was "lost" and then kept, or it was stolen secretly.
Khan's intention
- Khan uses a tricolon [a series of three] of rhetorical questions to challenge the official, sanitised histories often given by museums.
- The phrase "a looters' deal done" uses language associated with crime and colonialism to suggest violence and theft are the real stories behind the pot's acquisition.
- The three scenarios, all implying a lack of consent, systematically undermine any legitimate claim the museum has to the pot.
Lines 25-40
"Someone
somewhere
will have missed you pot
gone out looking for you pot
because
someone
somewhere
made you
finger nails
pressed
snake patterned you pot
washed you pot
used you pot
loved you pot
if I could shatter this glass
I would take you back myself pot."
Translation
The speaker shifts her focus to the anonymous people who originally created and cared for the pot. She imagines their sense of loss and expresses a powerful urge to break the museum's glass case and return the pot to its home.
Khan's intention
- Khan humanises the pot by creating a semantic field [group of related words] of care and intimacy with verbs like "made," "washed," "used," and "loved."
- This loving creation is contrasted with the cold, impersonal display of the museum, highlighting what has been lost.
- The desire to "shatter this glass" is a metaphor for breaking through the barriers of history and the institutional silence that separates the pot from its past.
Lines 41-56
"you think they wouldn't recognise you pot
say diaspora
you left now
you're not really one of us.
pot I've been back to where my family's from
they were happy
to see me
laughed a lot
said I was more asian than the asian's pot
I was pot
imagine.
the hot sun on your back
feel flies settle on your skin
warm grain poured inside
empty pot
growl if you hear me
pot?
pot?"
Translation
The speaker considers the pot's fear of not being accepted if it returned home, a common anxiety for those in the diaspora. She contrasts this with her own positive experience of returning to her family's homeland. The poem ends with a desperate, unanswered plea for the silent, "empty pot" to make any sound.
Khan's intention
- Khan explicitly links the pot's displacement to the human experience of diaspora, solidifying the parallel between their journeys.
- The final lines are fragmented, with the single-word questions "pot?" emphasising the speaker's isolation and the pot's complete silence.
- The demand for a "growl" shows the speaker's desperation for any sign of life, even a primal, angry one. The lack of response confirms the tragic and permanent nature of the cultural loss.
Writer's methods
Analysing form, structure, and language together reveals how Khan constructs meaning. These elements work in unison to convey the poem's central themes of loss, identity, and the silenced histories of cultural artefacts.
Form
The poem is written in free verse, which gives it a natural, conversational feel, as if we are listening to the speaker's inner thoughts.
| Theme | Evidence | Poet's intention |
|---|---|---|
| Identity and belonging | The poem is written in free verse, with no regular rhythm or rhyme scheme. | To mirror the fragmented journey of the pot and the speaker's non-linear search for identity and connection. The form reflects the natural, emotional flow of memory and thought. |
| Cultural heritage and loss | The entire poem is an apostrophe (a direct address to an object), speaking to the pot as "you". | To personify the pot, elevating it from a simple object to a character with a soul and a history. This creates an intimate but one-sided conversation that powerfully illustrates its forced silence. |
| Power and conflict | The poem uses short, fragmented, often single-word lines such as "tell me" and "or". | To break the rhythm and force the reader to pause, reflecting the disruption of the pot's history. The stark lines create a sense of emptiness and highlight the gaps in the story. |
Structure
The poem's structure follows the speaker's developing train of thought, moving from observation to questioning, and finally to a desperate emotional plea.
| Theme | Evidence | Poet's intention |
|---|---|---|
| Memory and storytelling | The poem shifts from an initial physical observation ("so big") to direct, challenging questions ("did they say you were bought pot"). | To mirror the process of uncovering a hidden truth. The structure takes the reader on a journey from what is visible on the surface to the painful, unspoken history beneath. |
| Identity and belonging | There is persistent repetition of the word "pot" at the end of many lines. | To create a pleading refrain that emphasises the speaker's intense focus on the object. The repetition grounds the speaker's abstract feelings of loss in a concrete, tangible symbol. |
| Cultural heritage and loss | The ending consists of fragmented, unanswered questions ("pot? / pot?"). | To provide no resolution, reflecting the idea that the pot's story is incomplete and its connection to its past is permanently broken. The silence highlights the tragedy of cultural loss. |
Language
Khan's language choices contrast the violent, transactional world of colonialism with the gentle, human world of creation and care.
| Theme | Evidence | Poet's intention |
|---|---|---|
| Power and conflict | The phrase "a looters' deal done" uses a semantic field of crime and colonialism. | To expose the brutal reality behind the acquisition of museum artefacts. The word "looters" directly contradicts the polite idea of the pot being "bought" and suggests theft and violence. |
| Cultural heritage and loss | A list of gentle verbs describes the pot's origins: "made you... washed you pot / used you pot / loved you pot". | To create a vivid picture of the pot's original life as a cherished part of a community. This semantic field of creation and care contrasts sharply with its current status as a sterile exhibit. |
| Identity and belonging | The speaker projects a common fear of the diaspora onto the pot: "you left now / you're not really one of us." | To explicitly name the shared condition of being displaced from a homeland. This language cements the pot as a symbol for the human experience of feeling like an outsider in multiple cultures. |
What to compare it to
Effective comparison involves connecting poems through their shared themes and ideas, but also analysing how the poets' methods create different effects. Focus on how the poets' choices in form, structure, and language shape the reader's understanding of these ideas.
Suggested comparisons
- Pot and A Portable Paradise - Both poems explore how individuals from the diaspora maintain their identity and heritage whilst disconnected from their homeland.
- Pot and On an Afternoon Train from Purley to Victoria, 1955 - Both poems address experiences of identity and prejudice in Britain from the perspective of people of colour, but through very different encounters.
- Pot and Homing - Both poems explore a powerful longing to reclaim a lost or suppressed part of one's heritage.
Pot and A Portable Paradise
Comparison in a nutshell
Both poems explore strategies for preserving heritage and identity when separated from a homeland. However, Pot focuses on the trauma of a stolen physical object, whilst A Portable Paradise focuses on the comfort of an internal, imagined sanctuary.
Similarities
Point
Both poets explore the idea of heritage as something precious that must be protected from a hostile or indifferent outside world.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | A Portable Paradise |
|---|---|
| In Pot, the speaker wishes to "shatter this glass" to free the pot from its museum case. The glass symbolises the barrier preventing the pot from returning home, showing its heritage is physically trapped. | Similarly, in A Portable Paradise, the grandmother advises the speaker to carry paradise "concealed, so / no one else would know but me." This suggests heritage is an internal treasure that must be hidden to prevent it being stolen. |
| The speaker in Pot feels a deep, personal connection to an object that represents a wider cultural history, suggesting heritage is a collective experience embodied in physical artefacts. | Likewise, the speaker in A Portable Paradise is told to "trace its ridges in your pocket," treating the memory of paradise like a physical object. Both poems link heritage to tangible sensations. |
Differences
Point
Whilst both poems address diasporic identity, Khan presents heritage as a source of unresolved grief and anger, whereas Robinson presents it as a source of personal comfort and resilience.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | A Portable Paradise |
|---|---|
| Khan uses apostrophe to address an external, silent object. The one-sided conversation creates a feeling of frustration and permanent loss, as the pot cannot respond. The final plea, "growl if you hear me," is met with silence. | In contrast, Robinson uses an extended metaphor of an internal, "portable paradise." The speaker can access this sanctuary at will, giving them agency and hope. The instruction to "shine the lamp on it" suggests this heritage is a source of light and comfort. |
Endings comparison
Point
The ending of Pot suggests that historical trauma creates an unbreakable silence, whilst the ending of A Portable Paradise offers a strategy for personal survival and hope.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | A Portable Paradise |
|---|---|
| Pot ends with fragmented, unanswered questions ("pot?"). This lack of resolution signifies a permanent disconnection and the impossibility of recovering the lost story, leaving the reader with a sense of grief. | Conversely, A Portable Paradise ends with a clear instruction: "keep staring at it till you sleep." This offers a peaceful resolution and a practical way to find solace, leaving the reader with a sense of calm and resilience. |
Pot and On an Afternoon Train from Purley to Victoria, 1955
Comparison in a nutshell
Both poems explore experiences of identity and prejudice in Britain. Khan's poem is an internal, reflective monologue about historical injustice, whilst Berry's poem dramatises a direct, public encounter with contemporary ignorance.
Similarities
Point
Both poems highlight a sense of alienation and being misunderstood within British society due to heritage and race.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | On an Afternoon Train from Purley to Victoria, 1955 |
|---|---|
| The speaker in Pot feels a connection to the pot that others do not see, noting, "you could almost be an english pot / but I know you're not." This implies a hidden, misunderstood identity that separates her from the mainstream view. | Similarly, the speaker in On an Afternoon Train... is asked, "What part of Africa is Jamaica?". This question reveals the woman's ignorance and stereotypes, showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the speaker's identity and geography. |
Differences
Point
Khan's speaker confronts the legacy of historical, institutional power, whereas Berry's speaker confronts casual, interpersonal prejudice.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | On an Afternoon Train from Purley to Victoria, 1955 |
|---|---|
| Pot is set in a museum, a symbol of institutional power. The poem's conflict is with the silent, historical violence of colonialism, expressed through the speaker's internal monologue and questions directed at the pot. | In contrast, On an Afternoon Train... is set on a public train. The conflict is an external one, presented through direct dialogue between the speaker and the Quaker woman, highlighting everyday microaggressions. |
| The tone of Pot is mournful and angry, focusing on the irretrievable loss of the past. The speaker's desire to "shatter this glass" is a violent, desperate image born of frustration. | However, the tone of On an Afternoon Train... is more ironic and restrained. The speaker responds to ignorance with a clever, sarcastic remark ("Where Ireland is near Lapland"), using wit as a form of resistance rather than direct anger. |
Endings comparison
Point
The ending of Pot reinforces a sense of isolation and unresolved conflict, whilst the ending of On an Afternoon Train... shows the speaker maintaining composure and dignity despite the encounter.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | On an Afternoon Train from Purley to Victoria, 1955 |
|---|---|
| Pot ends with the speaker alone with her thoughts, desperately seeking a response from a silent object. The final questions ("pot?") hang in the air, emphasising her isolation and the lack of resolution. | In contrast, the speaker in On an Afternoon Train... is not isolated at the end. He notes that the woman was "sincere she was beautiful / as people sat down around us," placing the awkward encounter within a wider social context and moving on from it. |
Pot and Homing
Comparison in a nutshell
Both poems explore a deep longing to reclaim a lost or suppressed part of one's heritage. Khan focuses on reclaiming a tangible, historical artefact, whilst Berry focuses on reclaiming an intangible, personal quality - a regional accent.
Similarities
Point
Both poems portray heritage as something that has been lost or forcibly removed, leading to a profound desire for reclamation and return.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | Homing |
|---|---|
| In Pot, the speaker laments the pot's removal from its home, imagining it was part of "a looters' deal done." She expresses a direct wish to physically return it: "I would take you back myself pot." | Similarly, the speaker in Homing describes how her mother's accent was suppressed, "the lock rusted shut by hours of elocution." The speaker expresses a powerful desire to reclaim it, wanting to "let years of lost words spill out." |
Differences
Point
Khan's poem suggests that some historical losses are permanent and cannot be recovered, whereas Berry's poem ends with a sense of hope that personal heritage can be reclaimed and reborn.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | Homing |
|---|---|
| Pot deals with the displacement of a physical object. Because the pot is inanimate and silent, the speaker's connection is one-sided, and the poem ends in frustration and the sad reality of permanent loss. | In contrast, Homing deals with a living heritage - language. The speaker's desire is active and creative; she wants to "forge your voice / in my mouth," suggesting that the lost accent can be brought back to life through her own actions. |
| The conflict in Pot is with the vast, impersonal forces of colonial history. The speaker is powerless against the institution of the museum and the passage of time. | However, the conflict in Homing is more personal and internal. It relates to assimilation and class mobility within Britain. The speaker's act of reclamation feels achievable and is a personal choice. |
Endings comparison
Point
The ending of Pot is defined by silence and failure, whilst the ending of Homing is filled with sound, action, and the promise of a triumphant return.
Evidence and explanation
| Pot | Homing |
|---|---|
| Pot concludes with the speaker's unanswered questions, emphasising emptiness and the pot's silence. The final image is one of stasis and unresolved grief. | Conversely, Homing ends with powerful, active imagery of voice and sound. The speaker wants to "shout it from the roofs" and "send your words, like pigeons, / fluttering for home," creating a final image of hope, freedom, and successful reclamation. |