-
Website
http://blog.cambiareproductions.com/ -
Original page
http://frawst.blogspot.com/2007/08/each-of-you-is-god-special-little.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Actually, I believe I stated Scott didn't know what he was speaking about due to his specious arguments . . .
Nor do I think it's disengenuis to live in one place and write about a place one once lived . . . Naomi Wallace lives in the UK, has since the early nineties, and still writes quite specifically about Kentucky, where she was born and bred . . .
There are great things about Iowa, and the Iowa Writers program is fantastic, as is the Playwrighting program . . . I was lucky to meet and know many people from both . . . It's a great place to study writing . . .
...and my being a theatre professor. With benefits, no less. I suspect that the possession of health care does make me ineligible to comment on things theatrical. Because, you know, I "don't speak the language." You know, that unique language spoken only by those without health care.
That was indeed your argument, which I never understood - Scott arguing poorly means that he's arguing poorly, not that he doesn't have any idea what he's talking about.
And I'm sorry for choosing brevity over clarity. "Repping your hood... etc." is about everyone all of a sudden claiming their childhood hometown over their self-selected home when it's convenient, not about your writing. I think it's VERY appropriate to write about where you've come from, especially after you've left and have some perspective.
And I've seen no one attacking Iowa, or claiming that YOU have. Certainly I haven't. [I'm pretty sure this argument stems from Scott trying to DEFEND Iowa] Your appreciation for Iowa and the opportunities and benefits you gained from your background there in no way changes the fact that media stereotypes exist, and as artists we have a responsibility to be aware of that fact and to avoid it in our own work.
I have no idea where your feud with Scott stems from but it's causing you to take this more personally than an outside perspective can understand.
And hypocritical, as both Mac and Freeman have pointed out repeatedly . . .
That's what has galled me more than the personal attacks, I guess . . . an intellectually dishonest proposition from a professor, taken to personal extremes to the point that a majority of the people involved find that cannot reason with him, any longer . . .
Now the fact that there are cultural divides, a city / country culture clash, I wouldn't have an argument with that at all . . . but in no way is that akin to racism, as Isaac so eloquently pointed out.
Scott has firstly accused New Yorkers of enforcing a racist cultural hegemony via the media and arts, that was his initial claim.
He hasn't backed up his claim, only altered it as this thing has rolled onward . . . and also claimed he hasn't altered his stance, only that we've not understood him.
Mac pointed this out very well in his MAINTENANCE post.
Now then . . . as an example, we agree that racism is bad, right? And that it happens, right?
Okay, you and I agree on that. Now if someone came along and said, racism happens because New Yorkers are putting something in the water that causes all this hatred . . . that person would need to provide proof of that accusation, right?
We don't need proof that racism is bad, we don't need proof that stereotypes are perpetuated in the media, we need proof of his initial claim.
Instead, he dodges by saying, "don't you see, racism exists, how dare you say it doesn't!" when that was NEVER the argument.
It's akin to those pundits claiming that everything bad that happens to our country is because of the moral decay of San Francisco . . .
We KNOW San Francisco has a different idea of morals than, say . . . Corpus Criste, Texas, right? No one is saying they're the same. But you can't claim that drug use in Corpus Criste happens because of morals in San Fransisco without backing it up with verifiable fact.
We know people claim that anyway, and that's specious reasoning.
That's what upsets me, this whole dishonest, shifting argument of his, where everything is everyone else's fault and if we misunderstood him, it's our fault because his reasoning is clear.
So there you have it.
Oh, BTW.
I wasn't defending Iowa, per se, from an attack, but clarifying that not all New Yorkers believe everyone west of the Hudson are uneducated hicks, which was the intitial post that got this whole ball rolling.
I of course crack jokes and complain about Iowa, from time to time, as does my brother who still lives there. He loves Iowa more than I do, but I wouldn't ever say that I didn't have some valuable cultural experiences there, never.
I am a writer simply because of who I met at U of I, and I honor that in my bio and everywhere else.
But thanks for responding clearly, Travis, I appreciate it.
Scott, my comment about your position is that you encourage others to risk their professional and artistic lives while not risking anything of your own . . .
That's an interesting argument. I believe you've commented quite a bit on what politicians should do -- why haven't you run for office?
And I keep saying that MAC has clearly shown where you accuse us of only liking THE COLOR PURPLE because it reinforces our own prejudices . . .
So with all due respect, racism is a terrible thing and I quite frankly don't like whatever problems the arts industry has, and it does have them, being laid at the feet of New Yorkers and compared to racism, and irregardless of whether I like it or not, it's also ridiculous for reasons that many, many patient people have trie to explain to you and you haven't responded.
Now about the politician thing . . . politicians are paid to represent my interests - part of the democratic process is just that, give and take between representatives and their constitients.
For the same reason, if you had a post where you discussed, critically what you thought of theatre you saw (like playgoer) as a critic, I wouldn't have issue with you . . . I'd probably disagree with you, but a critic's job is to respond as an audience member.
You are not doing that. You are not responding to my work, or Mac's work, or anyone's work that you've seen.
You're writing to tell us what theatre should be, in a sense, without risking anything of your own ass in the process, without reviewing any of the work being done in New York by New York artists, nor are you really interested in the work we do here . . . you're basically interested in your role as a guru in theatre without having to really EARN it, that's what it seems like to me.
In other words, you seem to think I WORK for you . . . I don't. I work for me and the community I belong to and the audience that follows me.
You belong to none of the above group.
That's the frackin' difference.
The fact you "meant" it in the most "broad" way possible to describe intolerance is not my fault . . . the word has a huge history, one that it not proud.
Choose your words better or stop complaining when people take issue with your poor choice of words . . . and yeah, it's not a personal thing between you and I, if it were, Mark wouldn't be challenging you on this on that very thread on Laura's site . . . Mac wouldn't have challenged you on it, a host of people challenged you on it because you insulted a host of people with it.
You can make this about you and me, but really, what I think of you matters little . . . it's really about what you've said and done since this whole ball got rolling.
It's this ridiculous proposition you put forward that has been disclaimed that you refuse to admit you messed up.
And now, what do you do?
You say, "I never called anyone a bigot, Travis, can you research and find out where I wrote that!"
And when I POINT it out, not only do you conveniently "forget" yous said you DIDN'T say it, NOW you have the utter gall to claim to me that, even though you said it, it's somehow MY fault because I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD BIGOT MEANS!
I know what the fracking word means, I don't need to look it up . . . I can certainly understand why you might, but I'd suggest you should have looked it up awhile ago . . .
It's not my fault you used a shitty analogy regarding that you can't back up with verifiable fact, that's on you, Jack.
You wanted to know where you called us bigots - I told you and showed the damn link.
Now you're saying "But I meant it in the broadest sense possible, so you can't say I insulted you . . ."
Bullshit. You did.
And you know what?
I don't really care that you did . . . it matters little, in the end . . . it's your fracking dishonesty about it that really rubs my rhubarb wrong . . .
Mark nailed it in his comment on your site . . . you spend most of your time saying you didn't say what we all know you said, when it's right there in black and white, and when confronted you say, "but I didn't mean it like that, you took the wrong meaning of the word, you didn't understand it, it's beyond you, it's YOUR fault. It's not me, it's just these guys with a GRUDGE, it's never me!"
Scott . . . your words, your responsibility.
Man up and accept you said what you said, for crying out loud.
Don't sit here and try and convince me I didn't read what I read, and that you used ONE word wrong which got everyone confused, but you're still right, here's a quote from a book to demostrate it, blah blah blah.
It's just dishonest, and it's why now many bloggers won't communicate with you . . . because your responses usually breaks down to a Pee-Wee Herman retort as follows: "Takes one to know one" or "I know you are but what am I" or any of that . . .
Really, since you're a professor, I hope you do better than that. I don't mind if we disagree, hell, I expect it. But be a man about it, accept responsibilty for what you've said and done and be honest about it.
And don't ever lecture me on the meaning of the word "bigot". I know FULL well what that word means.
I got a word for you, Scott.
You: "Scott has firstly accused New Yorkers of enforcing a racist cultural hegemony via the media and arts..."
Me: I didn't call anybody a racist. I said no such thing.
You: Do you deny that you called us bigots?
Me: The word bigot is not exclusively reserved for racism, but rather for intolerance of all kinds.
You: Don't tell me what bigot means! You called me a racist.
And as Lou Abbott once said: third base.
The fact that there may or may not be personal emnity between us doesn't recuse you from your own actions, exhaustively outlined by me above, on my site, by Mac on his and by Mark on yours, among others.
That's it.
I don't really have anything to say to you other than what I said, at this point . . . but you never know . . .
You are an extremely dishonest, hypocritical person, as far as I'm concerned . . .
Travis, thanks for hosting . . .