Thursday open thread: Citrus edition

I have been saving this for you for weeks and weeks.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO93C5VH8Fg[/youtube]

Bonus: The installation of a couple of the pieces in the Richard Serra retrospective at MoMA. It closes next Monday; if you haven’t seen it, it’s worth making an effort. I recommend the free audio guide — Serra is unusually lucid about his work.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=l1sBpsyRNfM[/youtube]

24 responses to “Thursday open thread: Citrus edition”

  1. Dave says:

    Yeah, nothing kills discussion like a YouTube post.

    Here’s one for a freshman-level philosophy class: Is the first video a documentation of child abuse?

    Have you parents ever done that to your kids?

  2. Stephanie Wells says:

    Actually, we used to do it to our dog with limes because the response was so funny. Unfortunately, she’s wised up now and won’t take the bait anymore.

  3. Tim Wager says:

    Babies making funny faces! Some of them enjoyed the experience, clearly, and some seemed curious and then dismayed. It could be seen as abusive, but also educational. Maybe they’ll learn not just to put random things in their mouths. Maybe they won’t eat poo. Oh wait, never mind, that hasn’t worked for Chimpy.

    Loved the video of the Serra installation, and the music to it is really great, too. Great band name: I Am Robot and Proud.

  4. Scotty says:

    Now that the subjects of freshman-level philosophy class and dogs have been broached: last night, I got into a debate with a fellow student about the virtues of dog fighting. He suggested to me that I don’t understand the culture because I’m not a person of color.

    Thoughts?

  5. Julie the ping pong queen says:

    as a white girl i have to ask…virtues? could you share his point of view?

  6. Trixie Honeycups says:

    when our son was a little squirt we used to go to this vietnamese place for dinner all the time and one of the only things that would keep him quiet was allowing him to chew on a slice of lime that came with my pho.
    he would eat the entire thing, including the rind, and get a red rash on his face, then reach for more.

    scott, kudos to you for even getting that far into that conversation. i don’t think i would have been able to even really listen to whatever his point of view was very well.

  7. Rachel says:

    What? No playlist?

  8. Dave says:

    Rachel, you need to sign up to make a playlist if you want to have playlists. That goes for everyone! Email me.

  9. ks says:

    Dang, I have a link I’d like to post relating to the Vick/dogfighting discussion but it seems I have no idea how to do it. Anyway, after much thought I have concluded that the pressure among African American musicians and athletes to maintain their street cred is a real and growing problem, and it is costing too many of them their careers, their reputations, and sometimes even their lives. While I could never condone animal abuse under any circumstances (or the mysogyny of song lyrics, or bragging about siring as many illigitimate children as possible), I have to think about this in broader terms. What to do with the whole gangsta culture, of which dog fighting is a part? How do we understand this phenomenon? In the shortest, lamest explanation I can offer, it seems (to me) to boil down to disillusionment over exclusion from mainstream culture, lack of access to the benefits of freedom, and frustration with the incompleteness of a very long, protracted struggle for equal rights among African Americans. In the whole race/class/gender rubric, I have to think that black masculinity is in a real state of crisis of which dog fighting is but one symptom. Nailing Vick fixes almost nothing; understanding why he was participating, on the other hand, is a step in the right direction. He lost a 130 million-dollar contract over this. What happened? Here’s what one sports columnist from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote about the matter (astutely, I think):

    Michael Vick chose his friends poorly, surrounding himself with men who used their lifelong bond as a twisted obligation and guilt trip to persuade Vick to bankroll their criminal aspirations. Vick, who played the ultimate position of leadership in American male society — starting quarterback in the National Football League — failed to lead those so-called friends in the right direction, and instead followed them down the wrong path.
    –Bryan Burwell, 8/22/07
    How to get at the root of the problem, and then help guide people down a different path? Now that’s a toughy.

    Oh, and CUTE swishy-faced babies; my vote is for “not abusive,” just harmless amusement for the parents.

  10. Tim Wager says:

    Liberal humanism, which helps to label some behaviors “human” and others “barbaric,” has gotten a big ol’ smackdown post-WW II for being at the root of colonialism, world policing, and generalized oppression. “These people practice the most awful rites and rituals! We better humanize them by invading their country!”

    The critique of liberal humanism has developed into a fairly easy way to defend some cultural practices that seem awful to Westerners. “You can’t say that cliterdectomy is wrong and bad! You just don’t understand the cultures that practice it.” Or, in this case, “You can’t say dog fighting is wrong because you are white and aren’t part of the culture.”

    It is a very easy defense to make, and one that is very difficult, if not impossible, to counter. I understand the value of making the defense, because liberal humanist thought is at least partially responsible for some really bad shit, even to the point of saying things like, “Well human life doesn’t have the same value to the Vietnamese, so when we kill them it’s not as big a deal as it is when they kill us.”

    On the other hand, I do happen to believe that cliterdectomy and dog fighting are cruel and should not be practiced. It’s somewhat hypocritical maybe, but justifying physical abuse of other living creatures to fulfill a cultural mandate or to entertain just seems plain wrong.

    Moreover, I am suspicious of this critique, because it’s so easily twisted around. E.g., “You can’t say that slavery is bad! You just don’t understand the culture.”

    As my nephew might say, “What to do?”

  11. Stephanie Wells says:

    Your comment, Tim, reminds me of a really interesting paper that Scott once wrote about this very problem, the intersection of feminism and cultural tolerance, with regards to female genital mutilation (clitoridectomy), specifically in the context of Sharia (SP?) rule (which decrees that women who are “adulterers”–including rape victims–be stoned to death). I hope that he will edit it into a post–hint, hint–cause it’s definitely relevant. Well, not to feeding babies lemons and dogs limes for your own amusement–that’s just funny.

  12. Dave says:

    How to make a link. Just remember that if your comment contains more than one link, it goes into moderation as possible spam, which means it won’t appear until I approve it, which sometimes takes a while.

  13. lisa t. says:

    feeding little kids lemons: funny and not abusive.

    bettng on a death fight between dogs: not funny and absolutely abusive.

    these videos made me feel good. thanks, dave.

    p.s.– currently working on a playlist for some future thursday.

  14. Hart says:

    I think dogfighting should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, just like abortion. Its a personal choice. Where some see only brutality, others see a benefit. Genital mutilation, well a lot of people view the routine circumcision of boys as genital mutilation, so there again, you’re back to personal interpretation. When the door of tolerance opens, you can’t start picking and choosing or you’re back to intolerance.

    Okay, just playing devil’s advocate for a moment. But that is what my aggravating colleague would say (and does say every day). So far, I haven’t come up with a line of reasoning that refutes his points. He always brings it back to the idea that liberals have no mandate to condemn ANYTHING as wrong, as long as they uphold abortion as a personal choice rather than flat-out baby killing. If you can tolerate killing babies as a personal choice, why can’t everything and anything go under that umbrella? HELP!

  15. Scotty says:

    …after much thought I have concluded that the pressure among African American musicians and athletes to maintain their street cred is a real and growing problem, and it is costing too many of them their careers, their reputations, and sometimes even their lives.

    I think you have a problem here with the confusion of “street cred” and culture. Are we to expect that because someone earns a million dollar contract, they should automatically adhere to mainstream white culture?

    Street cred has much more to do with actions that deeply held beliefs. For example, to prove that I’m worthy of a certain gang’s acceptance, I may beat up an innocent passerby; this is street cred. To believe that fellow gang-members are my true family; this is culture.

    When someone like Vick continues to surround himself with people he’s always been surrounded by, we may say that he’s honorable for not selling out, or for staying faithful to his friends and family. When these people happen to be cruel or criminal, we feel justified in saying that Vick should have known better.

    Exactly when is the education supposed to have taken place for someone like Vick? Is it simply the money that should have opened his eyes to the cruel reality of dog fighting?

    The truth is that young men who live in rough neighborhoods get arrested for dog fighting (and for far crueler infractions). As a society, we expect this, and are happy to divert our gaze when they are stuck in the unjust prison system, only to be even further enculturated and returned to their segregated lives.

    Some things are wrong. I believe that dog fighting falls into this category, but the problem is bigger than collectively folding our arms, furrowing our brows, and saying someone has to pay for this.

  16. Dave says:

    Some things are wrong. I believe that dog fighting falls into this category, but the problem is bigger than collectively folding our arms, furrowing our brows, and saying someone has to pay for this.

    This is quite wise.

    I have no patience for people like Hart’s colleague. But it’s obvious that in the past, imposition of one culture’s morality on another has often been more about colonialism and control than about actually ensuring that people do the right thing. And if we can see this patter in the past (because we have distance), we’re likely doing the same thing now but blindly.

    The key is to seek a critical understanding of the situation, including our own motivations and interests, before making a judgment. Not to refrain from making a judgment.

  17. Kate The Great says:

    Just think: if you didn’t give your baby a lemon now, he’ll be really embarrassed in the fourth grade when he’s at a party with some friends and there’s lemon water served. He picks up a lemon and asks, “What’s this?” and eats it. And his friends make fun of him for forever because of that surprise/dismay that follows.

    As for dogfighting, I bring religion into the mix. All animals were put on the earth for our use and entertainment. People can have dogfights if they want, but I wonder about those people who think it’s entertainment.

  18. Miller says:

    I think I saw one of Serra’s installations in L.A. quite a few years ago, perhaps at LACMA or MOCA? It’s all a bit hazy but I remember being amazed that the pieces held up because of the sharp angles they make with the ground. Did any of you East Coasters make it to the exhibit?

  19. ks says:

    Re: #I 15: I”m feeling at least as misunderstood as you probably did yesterday when you read my comment about your post. I would elaborate but I’m not sure this is the right forum to do so based on the fact that I responded to the pandora’s box you opened in a comment not particularly related to the vids posted by Dave B, and then thought I perhaps shouldn’t have. IF your comment about “folding our arms, furrowing our brows, and saying someone has to pay for this” is in response to what I wrote, I’m confused because that is not at all what I meant. Honestly, I don’t understand why you don’t see us as being on the same team about this issue. I’m not interested in blaming or apologizing–just understanding as a basis for examining how to shift standpoint. Perhaps I did not accurately express my feelings on the matter.

    Cheers to Kate the Great for attempting to lighten up the convo.

  20. Kate The Great says:

    Aww. Thanks.

  21. Scotty says:

    Hey Ks, I’m sorry if I came off as sounding bitchy in my response to your comment. After further review, I see why you feel misunderstood.

    Isn’t it a bummer when a comments string becomes an “I’m sorry” string?

    To all Whatsitzers: I apologize for the tedium.

  22. trixie says:

    scotty-
    suck my balls.
    trixie

  23. Scotty says:

    Trix, by the hour, you seem to become more obsessed in your fictional testicles.

  24. lisa t. says:

    scotty, i can relate! you gotta be careful with what you say around here.