[Callers] Politically Correct?

[Jen Morgan]

Hello folks

I'd just like to second what Ron said.  We keep hearing about how
organisers would like to "get Young People in", but then express disdain
for the things we care about, such as avoiding offensive language.

The idea that we should be allowed to say whatever we want when calling as
long as we don't intend any disrespect seems naive at best.  For example, I
might want to say something like "This is so f---ing cool!" when I'm
calling, and intend no disrespect by it.  But I still wouldn't say it,
because some people *would* feel disrespected by my using that language
over the microphone, even if that's not my intention, and I care about
them.  To say that only your intentions matter is to say that you either
don't recognise, or don't care, that other people may have different
feelings about certain words or turns of phrase than you do.  And some
words have a history which cannot be ignored and remains relevant no matter
what your intentions.  (unless you are Humpty-Dumpty)

"Political correctness" is what people call it when they have to treat
others with respect, and they don't want to.  A good trick is to go through
and mentally replace the words "political correctness" with "treating
people with respect".  It helps make it clear what people are really
saying.

I would second Ron's comments about the use of the n-word on this thread.
It's just a word that should never be used by white people, at all, ever,
no matter what the context.  Here's a quick explanation of why
<https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/9/16627900/ta-nehisi-coates-n-word>.
(https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/11/9/16627900/ta-nehisi-coates-n-word
)

And as to your actual point Colin, I disagree.  Our inner thoughts and
feelings towards groups of people matter, like you say.  Our outward
behaviour matters.  And our choice of language matters.  Words absolutely
can cause significant pain.  And the fact is that just because a word may
not start off poisoned by racism (or some other form of contempt) doesn't
mean that it can ever become unpoisoned again.  Say a glass of water is
fine to start with and then someone defecates in it.  You can't just scoop
the turd out and call the water clean again.  Sure, changing our choice of
words is treating the symptom not the cause.  But if I was suffering from a
painful illness where the cause couldn't be dealt with straightaway, I
would definitely want the symptoms to be treated in the meantime!

I notice that a lot of people express resentment about being asked to
change their choice of words for others.  If those people find out that
they can get away without making a change, they are positively gleeful, as
though they have won a victory.  Expressing resentment at being asked to
change your choice of words, glee when you can get away without doing so --
there is no surer way to express your contempt for the feelings and
opinions of others.  When you are in the position of being an old white
male, with good standing in the community -- and in this community some
callers are positively revered to the point where many act as though they
can do no wrong -- it must be easy to believe that no one but yourself
matters.  Consider, though, whether this attitude is really good for a
community long term.

Jen


On 28 March 2018 at 07:45, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> "Living Tradition"
>
> Preserving tradition and being appropriate to our day and age are not
> mutually exclusive.
>
> I actually love rich traditions that we keep alive. We talk about "living"
> traditions, so what do we mean by this phrase?
>
> For something to be alive, it changes. It adapts. What it doesn't do is
> stay stagnant and unchanging. The whole reason contra dancing is still
> alive today is because it's alive and changing.
>
> By insisting on holding onto traditions verbatim, we are actually doing
> more to kill them than save them. Sure, we'll preserve them this way - as
> one does a taxidermied animal: perfectly preserved, sitting on a shelf,
> dead.
>
> I'd prefer my traditions alive. I'd like to keep sharing them with younger
> generations. That means that people like Rich are asking the right
> questions. That means we need to consider that language changes and that we
> need to speak in a language that reaches an audience not merely just our
> own.
>
> Hey, isn't that the whole point of being a dance caller? Being heard by
> your audience?
>
> In dance, again,
> Ron Blechner
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018, 1:33 AM Ron Blechner <contraron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to echo the words of Alex D-L and Dave Casserly.
>>
>> I'm also appalled at the casual use of the n-word on this thread without
>> anyone whatsoever calling it out. This is really giving me pause. :(
>>
>> Contra's attendance is dwindling - I hear it from every organizer I talk
>> to, with a couple exceptions. I also hear about the desire to "get the
>> young people to dance". Hmmm.
>>
>> Ron Blechner
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018, 11:39 AM Dave Casserly via Callers <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Rich,
>>>
>>> I don't think your situation here is exactly what Colin describes--
>>> you're not worried about any of the particular words, as many of us are
>>> regarding the word "gypsy," for instance.  The question here is whether the
>>> phrase has an offensive *meaning* of "women are things," and if so, is
>>> that a good reason not to use it.  Personally, I'd probably alter it or do
>>> a different singing square.  I don't subscribe to the extreme position that
>>> you should never sing lyrics to a folk song unless you agree with those
>>> lyrics; that would make singing folk songs very difficult to do at all.
>>> That said, there are some times where the meanings of lyrics are offensive
>>> enough, without any redeeming qualities, that I leave a verse out or alter
>>> a few words in the singing sessions that I lead.  There is nothing
>>> sacrosanct about a particular set of lyrics to a folk song; people have
>>> been changing them for whatever reason for generations, and will continue
>>> to do so.  If future singers don't like my revisions, they can sing a
>>> different version, just like I sometimes prefer to ignore Victorian-era
>>> revisions to bawdier songs.
>>>
>>> Here, I'd lean toward not using the lyrics for three reasons: 1) they
>>> imply that women are objects; 2) there's nothing redeeming or valuable
>>> about them, as they're the only things sung, with no context; and 3)
>>> similarly, they don't represent the meaning of the song, and when repeated
>>> on their own, sort of pervert that meaning (at least going by the lyrics
>>> Yoyo posted).
>>>
>>> I also think there are good reasons to err on the side of inclusive
>>> language, particularly in our community.  Contra dancing is overwhelmingly
>>> white, and for a long time, contra dance calling was dominated by men.  The
>>> loudest voices on this forum are those of older white men.  Contra dancers
>>> and particularly organizers are disproportionately white baby boomers.
>>> We're seeing the effects of that now; dance attendance has been dwindling
>>> as older dancers stop attending and aren't replaced by younger dancers.  If
>>> we want our dance form to continue to thrive, when there's a question on
>>> which there's a generational divide (as you, in my view correctly, note
>>> here), I would err toward using the language less likely to turn off our
>>> younger generations, which are also our most diverse generations.  This
>>> isn't an issue where changing the lyrics is going to bother people-- very
>>> few would know the original lyrics well enough to notice-- and certainly
>>> nobody would know if you selected a different singing square instead.
>>>
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>> --
>>> David Casserly
>>> (cell) 781 258-2761 <(781)%20258-2761>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> List Name:  Callers mailing list
>>> List Address:  Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> List Name:  Callers mailing list
> List Address:  Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives:  https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20180328/33fa43ef/attachment.html>