Borepatch features a story about the BBC TV show Top Gear in Alabama, going out of their way to stereotype and provoke the locals there.
Mission accomplished, guys.
And you wonder why some of us refer to you as Eurotrash?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
I'm guessing this is not an ironic post, right? You probably don't see "eurotrash" as stereotyping, do you? You're funny, Bob.
I guess there's no point in asking you if you liked 'Borat', huh?
@wally: I hate the hypocrisy of it, Wally. These gentlemen went looking to bash the only group in the US that can be stereotyped and disparaged with impunity: white southerners, the very group I belong to. They're all such brave and morally superior people, aren't they?
As an artist, you're no doubt aware of other artists who create outrage by doing "works" in which Christian symbols are defaced and/or desecrated; yet these same artists would never dream of doing the same with the symbols of Islam or any other Eastern religion; why not? In the case of Islam, they fear that they will be killed for doing so. They know they're safe bashing Christians, because Christians don't extract revenge in the same manner than Muslims do.
Bush-bashing was similar. You were all so brave speaking truth to power to Chimpy McHitlerburton, weren't you? Cowards, the lot of you, since you knew that Bush turns the other cheek when attacked and never retaliated against those attacks, and never has to this date.
I haven't seen Borat, Wally, because, as I've told you in the past, I don't support the work of actors whose politics offend me. Sascha Baron Cohen is in this same category of brave souls who bash Christians but not Muslims.
I distinguish between those Europeans who are open-minded enough to see that the US, and even the South, are not monolithically a bunch or racist, homophobic yahoos, and those who aren't. I'm very reflexive about insults, Wally, as I've explained in the past: if you disparage me or my group, you'll get it back, in spades. I'm not Christian and I don't turn the other cheek, although I'll avoid violence except in self-defense.
Were it up to me I'd jerk every one of our bases out of every foreign country in the world, bring them home, set them to fortifying the southern US border to stop Central and South America from solving their poverty problems by sending them to the US, and go in for a long term of good old isolationism.
And when those morally superior Europeans start yet another world war and are crying out to be saved yet again, my reaction would be to just let them work it out on their own, since obviously they don't welcome the interference and imperialism of the evil US.
Wow, Robert. I seem to have struck a nerve. The paragraph that interests me most, of course, is the one where you accuse me of cowardice. The idea that I engaged in Bush-bashing because I knew he would turn the other cheek is ludicrous. What kind of "retaliation" could I expect from a president less inclined to turn the other cheek? What about Obama? He doesn't seem particularly vindictive. Is the tea party crowd a bunch of cowards? For someone "reflexive about insults", I would hesitate to label a friend "coward".
Let's see, what else? Without in any way defending the content of the artworks in question, I would state that artists generally comment on their own cultures. Ours is, for better or worse, a largely Christian one. Ipso facto. Oh, that's right, you don't believe in ipso facto.
(By the way, when Serrano's "Piss Christ" was created, many years ago, Islam was not yet seen as a jihadist threat. Facts, Robert. Facts will set you free.)
@wally: That retaliation by US Presidents against critics exists is not really open for debate Wally, although you're welcome to try. Read up on Woodrow Wilson's jailing of political opponents during WWI, and Richard Nixon's "enemies list" and misuse of the IRS during his tenure. More recently, the Clintons kept FBI files on enemies, and women who made sexual allegations against Bill Clinton (Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick) were subject to intimidation and IRS audits). So your apparent surprise that a president would retaliate against a political enemy seems rather disingenuous. As for Obama, did he not single out Rush Limbaugh for opprobrium, and lead a boycott against Fox News Channel? Do those not fall under the category of official retaliation, if only in a mild form?
I was aware of Serrano when I wrote my reply, but didn't mention him because it was so long ago. More examples have surfaced since then; the treatment of Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh and the Danish cartoonists have shown artists worldwide the dangers of offending against Islam, so most won't dare do it. Film director Roland Emmerich in his movie 2012 is a recent example of an artist (if you class film directors as artists) who made a conscious decision to avoid offending Islam because of the possibility of a fatwa against him.
As for the charge of cowardice, it was a collective charge and not made specifically against you, Walt, as well you know. Rather similar to the collective charge of yahooism made against the residents of Alabama in the video clip of Top Gear, when you think about it.
Come on, Robert. If I identified white Tarheels and said "morons, the lot of you," would you not be justified in thinking that I just called you a moron? This sort of dissembling is not conducive to a frank discussion.
My point about presidential criticism is not that certain presidents haven't singled out a handful of "enemies" for attention, but that such practices are not common or wholesale enough to cause opponents to run away, cowards all. All you have to do is examine history (those pesky facts, again): despite his enemies' list, Nixon was bashed much more vigorously by the left than Bush ever was. I know; I was there.
Finally, on the topic of the courage of artists, my response had nothing to do whether it's cowardice or common sense not to bait lunatics; you completely ignored my point. Experience with these dialogues tells me that means I must be right.
Completely off topic of your argument, but this part of the show is about two years old.
Why the outrage now?
@KurtP: Borepatch, who originally linked the story, was told the same thing, and I'll simply give his reply: it's new to me. Thanks for pointing it out, though.
#wally: well, Wally, at the time it certainly seemed that the lefty bloggers were giving the impression of standing bravely against the threat of imprisonment and persecution that Bush, Cheney and John Ashcroft represented with their "trampling of the Constitution." Glad to hear that it was all just a pose.
"Oh, that's right, you don't believe in ipso facto."
Weren't you the one chiding me at one time on your blog for using Latin concepts such as argumentum ad hominem?
"Finally, on the topic of the courage of artists, my response had nothing to do whether it's cowardice or common sense not to bait lunatics; you completely ignored my point. Experience with these dialogues tells me that means I must be right."
Point? What was your point, Walt? That artists comment on their own cultures? Rushdie certainly did, and got a death fatwa against him. Theo van Gogh certainly did, and was murdered for it. What other point were you trying to make than this? Presume I'm a simpleton and explain it in one-syllable words, if possible.
Jeez, Bob. Okay, point by point.
1. I don't generally read political blogs, left or right, so I'm not aware that lefties were posturing as bravely standing up to the threat of imprisonment. Please point me to an example of this.
(You'll be pleased to know that yours is the only politically-oriented blog that I read.)
2. I wasn't chiding you on the use of Latin phrases, I was chiding you on the misuse of Latin phrases. Go back to our original conversation and refresh your memory.
3. I'm not sure I can state the artists' positions more simply. Rushdie's cultural milieu included an Islamic presence. Serrano's didn't. Artists, real artists, create what they're compelled to create, regardless of the risks. The response to Serrano's work was hugely negative, sometimes violently so--he received many death threats. If he had been a card-carrying coward, he could have photographed a bowl of fruit and saved himself a lot of aggravation. By the way, do you know who Sister Wendy is? Among her trenchant artistic commentaries is one on Piss Christ. You should look it up on YouTube. I think it would open your eyes.
@wally: re: your point #1:
http://www.blackcommentator.com/18_commentary_1.html
Thanks, Bob. Point taken. However, it begs the question: If we believed this shit, then doesn't that undermine the argument that we, the lot of us, were cowards who thought we could beat up on poor turning-the-other-cheek W with impunity? As you are so fond of reminding me, you can't have it both ways.
@wally: there were probably various groups and outlooks, Wally, so perhaps I was wrong to lump all of you together. How's that for an admission of error? Some probably believed that they were in danger, yet were ignorant of Bush's basic decency and disinclination to oppress them; others might have believed themselves in danger but realized that Bush wouldn't come after them; still another group may have viewed it simply as an opportunity to grandstand.
I think we're on common ground here. Especially if you concede that those same behavior patterns might show up in the Obama opposition.
@wally: certainly.
Post a Comment