tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post3399052487463190292..comments2024-01-07T06:59:04.212-05:00Comments on The Playgoer: CUNY Will ReconsiderPlaygoerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02994724588504353485noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post-15543405969360951152011-05-24T04:01:48.531-04:002011-05-24T04:01:48.531-04:00agreed with alisaagreed with alisasaminahttp://buysquarecoffeetable.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post-11068145758165621762011-05-09T11:03:15.405-04:002011-05-09T11:03:15.405-04:00As I said, the record must be corrected -- no argu...As I said, the record must be corrected -- no argument there. But one has to be careful how one does it so as not to fall into a trap, which is part of the deliberate strategy of the distortions in the first place. One needs to point out the dishonesty AND assert the principle at one and the same time to avoid helping to reinforce a boundary simply by insisting that Kushner falls inside of it.Alisanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post-58108658781514461352011-05-09T10:28:43.453-04:002011-05-09T10:28:43.453-04:00Points taken, Alisa. Indeed, in denying a charge o...Points taken, Alisa. Indeed, in denying a charge of extremism one has to be careful not to unwittingly validate the assumption that said statements are extreme or anathema in the first place.<br /><br />I guess I just can't get around the fact of how willfully Kushner's views were distorted in this case. And I do think the specifics of any censored work of art or artist matters. I just hate it when a work is mischaracterized and then the lie gets reported as the truth. Like: "Corpus Christi is a play about Jesus of Nazareth sodomizing his disciples." No, it isn't. "Chris Ofili's Virgin Mary painting smears shit across the face of a catholic icon." No, it doesn't.<br /><br />Now I am willing to defend the right of someone to deface a catholic icon or to write a gay-porn version of Passion of the Christ... But I'll wait till that happens. <br /><br />It's just so corrosive for clueless media and politicians to endlessly debate a work of art that doesn't exist. To return to Corpus Cristi--Bill Donohue called it as bad as if someone produced a play called "Shylock and Sambo." And then everyone debated the right to stage "Shylock and Sambo"--even thought that had NOTHING to do with Corpus Christi.<br /><br />So what does this have to do with Kushner? Maybe I'm wandering off, ok. But I guess what I'm saying is I'd rather defend Kushner's ACTUAL views in this case since that would win the argument in this case. Most sensible people (even most Jews) would not find his Israel views offensive. I don't think this is the occasion to have the "Boycott" debate because that's a much harder debate to win. A debate worth having, yes, and one we need to fight for having the right to have. But, thankfully, it's not the debate we need in order to win THIS fight.<br /><br />I know that sounds really "incrementalist" of me and compromising, but I see these individual battles as that crucial now, and we can't afford to lose any of them over fabrications, when we have the facts on our side.Playgoerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02994724588504353485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post-13911197564605207022011-05-07T01:31:32.048-04:002011-05-07T01:31:32.048-04:00But the whole point of the "utter and deliber...But the whole point of the "utter and deliberate distortion" of Kushner's views is to put him/his supporters on the defensive and in the posture of saying, "no, no, those aren't really his views," and thus participating in the act of drawing a line at "unacceptable" utterance -- so while the record has to be corrected, it must be done very carefully. It does no good --to Tony or any of us -- to say, for instance, "oh, no, Tony would never support boycott" in such a way as to place debate about boycott beyond the pale of permissible discourse. If we allow the framing question of this debate to be, is Tony Kushner kosher enough, we have already lost. (This is an old ploy. See: NEA4. "No, Holly Hughes didn't really do THAT on stage...") We must reframe the story with a different question: How can one ideologue be allowed to dictate the boundaries of the discourse? (not to mention the question of why university boards of trustees are filled with people who are there only because they are rich.)Alisanoreply@blogger.com