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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:
https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
_______________________________________________
List Name: Callers mailing list
List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
Archives:
https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/