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/
>
>
"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
>> _______________________________________________
>> List Name: Callers mailing list
>> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
>> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>>
>
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
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Callers mailing list
> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
An important thing to remember is that sometimes *you just can't
please everyone* no matter what you do. That applies not only
to issues that some would characterize as being about "political
correctness" (singing call lyrics; the "g-word"; gendered vs.
gender-free names for dance roles), but to many, many other
decisions about dance calling, dance organization, and life in
general.
Some of our recent discussion have made me recall an old fable of
which I offer here one version (from the March 29, 1753, number
of the British weekly, _The World_, as quoted at
https://books.google.com/books?id=L3YPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA78
):
An old man and a little boy were driving an ass to the next
market to sell. What a fool is this fellow (says a man upon
the road) to be trudging it on foot with his son, that his
ass may go light! The old man, hearing this, sat his boy
upon the ass, and went whistling by the side of him. Why,
sirrah! (cries a second man to the boy) is it fit for you to
be riding, while your poor old father is walking on foot?
The father, upon this rebuke, took down his boy from the ass,
and mounted himself. Do you see (says a third) how the lazy
old knave rides along, upon his beast, while his poor little
boy is almost crippled with walking? The old man no sooner
heard this, than he took up his son behind him. Pray, honest
friend (says a fourth) is that ass your own? Yes, says the
old man. One would not have thought so, replied the other,
by your loading him so unmercifully. You and your son are
better able to carry the poor beast than he you. Any thing
to please, says the owner; and alighting with his son, they
tied the legs of the ass together, and by the help of a pole
endeavoured to carry him upon their shoulders over the bridge
that led to the town. This was so entertaining a sight that
the people ran in crowds to laugh at it; till the ass,
conceiving a dislike to the over-complaisance of his master,
burst asunder the cords that tied him, slipt from the pole,
and tumbled into the river. The poor old man made the best
of his way home, ashamed and vexed that, by endeavouring to
please everybody, he had pleased nobody, and lost his ass
into the bargain.
Regarding Rich's question about "Billy Boy", Frannie wrote:
> I learned it as a child as "She's a young girl." That would at least get rid of the people are things issue.
I might go further and change tag line to something like
She is young and she cannot leave her mother
lest someone object to the word "girl." Drawing an analogy to
the fable above, I think this sort of change is in the realm
of deciding who should walk and who, if anyone, should ride.
Your own modern sensibilities may suggest a departure from past
practice. Or if you think there's more than one reasonable
course of action (though perhaps no perfect one), then you might
feel little inconvenience in acceding to the most common (or the
most loudly asserted) preference of others, even it's not your
own first choice.
But now what if somebody objects to the word "young" because
it implies the protagonist in the song is courting an underage
child? Or what if someone knows the ending of the original
song (where the woman sung of turns out to be far from young)
and complains that it is ageist? Or what if someone finds the
gendered pronouns "she" and "her" to be unacceptable in any
context? There comes a point--and obviously not everyone will
agree where that point is--when either you can go looking for
a length of cord and a pole or you can decide that it's time
to say No.
--Jim
I am an example of someone who gradually left a dance community partly because of what I saw as offensive lyrics in singing calls….. When my wife and I were dancing modern western squares in the late 1980s, in Ohio, many callers were using contemporary pop and country songs for their singing calls. Maybe they still do. One of the reasons we left MWSD after a few years was their choice of country songs for their singing calls (which were about half the dances called in a typical evening). I particularly remember cringing at use of Hank Williams Junior’s song “If the South Woulda Won the War”, which argues that if that had happened we wouldn’t have the social problems we have now (or had in the late ‘80s). Not to belittle the concerns that others have brought up, but there are (or were) a lot more offensive songs available — at least offensive to me — than have been mentioned here. And I am at least half a southerner myself….
I'd make my Supreme Court down in Texas,
And we wouldn't have no killers gettin'off free.
If they were proven guilty, then they would swing quickly,
Instead of writin' books and smilin' on T.V.
We'd all learn Cajun cookin in Louisiana,
And I'd put that capitol back in Alabama.
We'd put Florida on the right track 'cause, we'd take Miami back,
And throw all them pushers in the slammer.
Read more: Hank Williams Jr. - If The South Woulda Won Lyrics | MetroLyrics <http://www.metrolyrics.com/if-the-south-woulda-won-lyrics-hank-williams-jr.…>
Richard Hopkins
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Richard Hopkins
850-544-7614
hopkinsrs(a)comcast.net
I learned it as a child as "She's a young girl." That would at least get
rid of the people are things issue.
On Sat, Mar 24, 2018, 10:12 PM Rich Sbardella via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I have been calling singing squares for years, and there is one I love by
> Dick Leger titled Billy Boy. The tag line that is sung during the
> Promenade is "She's a young thing, that cannot leave her mother."
>
> Here is a link to a version of the full song, not within a square.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKRJuLHU3Qo
>
> My question is, is this song appropriate for the contra dance crowd with
> the tag line above? (The tag line is the only line that is sung.)
>
> Any Thoughts?
>
> Rich
> Stafford, CT
> _______________________________________________
> List Name: Callers mailing list
> List Address: Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
> Archives: https://www.mail-archive.com/callers@lists.sharedweight.net/
>
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
I'm the designated caller but my favorite partner-in-crime Laurie Indenbaum
just got freed up to play fiddle and I'd rather make harmonies with her
while one of *you* calls.
The East Putney Dance has been going since forever, is on a dirt road
nobody can find, but people seem to show up any way, has a two-holer
outhouse -- *with padded seats! -- *and a loyal regular crowd big enough to
make two sets, and pays dozens -- dozens, I tell you! -- of dollars.
It's an All-Comers Night which means a bunch of extra musicians will be
sitting in on accordion and harmonica and of course more fiddles, but Carol
Compton keeps them well in line from the piano, and rumor has it a busload
of Putney School teenagers may show up with their exuberance and, um,
creativity.
The dancers will dance ANYthing, contras or circles or singing squares, and
they'll even do dances with clapping and arches without sneering.
If all this sounds impossible to resist, email me directly?
We actually do pay traveling callers somewhat reasonably...
Cheers,
Amy
Hey Rich:
Several replies are of the "it's OK in context" or "that's how things were
back then" variety.
Perhaps.
To use that as the sole argument, however, leads me to a cute little rhyme
my friends and I would sing out when we were about 5 years old and playing
in the yard out on the west coast. It began, "Eenie, meenie, minie, moe..."
I hope no one would suggest that the rhyme in question is fine in this day,
"if only it is put in context."
Granted, your example is a little tamer (in my eyes, but others may find it
equally offensive to the rhyme mentioned; I don't know).
Maybe there are other arguments for retaining the original that stand up
better to true scrutiny. It would be a shame to retain, in common usage
(thereby prolonging the insult), cultural relics that would be unacceptable
in civilized society today.
It would also be a shame to lose past cultural joys.
What about those pop songs that get altered to remove a "derogatory term
for a homosexual" here (Dire Straits) or a "medication usually prescribed
by a physician" there (Meatloaf)?
Where does one draw the line?
Adapt to current mores or die, Relic!
Good luck with that, Rich!
:)
Ken Panton
ps. We have just recently had pass in parliament a change to our national
anthem, to make it gender-neutral, from "in all our sons command" to "in
all of us command". Wasn't THAT a challenge!
Then some smart guy pointed out:
"FYI: The original lyric to the 1908 version of “O Canada” was “Thou dost
in us command.” Was changed to “All Thy Sons” in 1914. So for you
traditionalists, Robert Stanley Weir’s original lyric was, in fact,
gender-neutral."
And here lies the minefield, a caller is never sure who in the audience will object, or what they will object to. And organizers rarely give a clear indication of what their vision is...so the callers take the heat.
As callers we're d@mned if we do and d@mned if we don't
Call a square (or other dance formation) or don't
say gypsy or don't
say men, women, he or she... or don't
Social media is a very powerful tool and can be used for good and evil depending on which side you are on. It can be used to impact elections of major countries and impact our views of contra dancing terms.
When I started dancing in the 80's it was the height of the Nicaraguan war and the Contras were the right wing rebels (supported and funded by the USA) fighting against the left wing socialist government.
When I told people I contra danced I often got unusual looks and had to explain what it was. I wonder if there had been FB at the time would there have been a movement to change the name?
The pendulum sways...
In the 80's when I started dancing, Contra dancers used to Norwegian polka to the sound check, then dance DI contras, squares (2), circle mixers, , hambo/schottische, waltz and occasionally DI proper/triplet/triple minor dances, and a few callers were starting to use "Men and Women" rather than "Gents and Ladies" reflective of the feminist movement. (And yes, I personally enjoyed the DI contras the best)
Fast forward to 2018 and most callers are using "Gents and Ladies" again (many dancers cringe at "Men and Women" and some are advocating for gender-free terms), most dance communities stopped doing a circle mixer and many stopped doing squares. AND most dancers can't dance a hambo or schottische and have no idea what a triplet or triple minor dance is unless they go to NEFFA or other large inclusive festival or dance ECD.
Singing and patter squares are caught in this as the lyrics/patter are reflective of the words/lyrics used in the 40's, 50's (and sometimes you just use a word that rhymes). As Rich found out the 70-80 year olds love the lyrics (from their youth) and the millennials do not.
I find that folks these days are very intolerant if things don't go their way...whichever way that is. And our dance traditions (and callers) are caught in the middle.
BTW: I MWS in an LGBTQ group and we use "boys and girls" and no one cares and almost everyone switches...such a delight!
Donna Hunt
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Sbardella via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
To: Bob Hofkin <bhofkin(a)middlej.com>
Cc: Caller's discussion list <callers(a)sharedweight.net>
Sent: Sun, Mar 25, 2018 11:15 am
Subject: Re: [Callers] Politically Correct?
Yes Bob,
You are correct, but the tag line for each verse remains the same. I would have to find a word to replace -young "thing".
I think perhaps it is a generational thing. I have been calling this song to my seniors who are about 75% women in their 70's and 80s and they sing along. No objections. In fact many remember it as a child. There are certainly some contra venues where I would expect a similar response, but others that would cringe.
"Such a sweet young thing" used to be a term of endearment for Ladies and Gents, but times change.
In MWSD, boys and girls are the default role terms, and I called MWSD for 25 years. However, I remember accidentally using the term girls in a square for a contra community a few years back, and immediately after the square, I had a dancer approach me and voice her concerns.
This is one of the reasons I posed the original question.
Peace,
Rich
