Yes. But is it the person on the left does a 'right hand chain' using R hand to cross, or v.v.?I can see a possible confusion (like when a caller says 'cast right' meaning follow your right shoulder, but some people expect to be moving to the right)----- Original Message -----Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 9:17 PMSubject: Re: [trad-dance-callers] Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ...
I agree with Roger, Left hand or Right hand chain makes a lot of sense. It conveys more information to the dancers and eliminates an unnecessary gender reference.Jim Hemphill
From: "Roger Diggle diggle@contrawise.net [trad-dance-callers]" <trad-dance-callers@yahoogroups.com >
To: trad-dance-callers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2017 4:34 PM
Subject: [trad-dance-callers] Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ...
Designating who does what in the figure: "????? Chain" ...
This is a subject that probably deserves its own thread - so
I'll start it.
The immediate spur to discuss this arises from the message
quoted farther below.
But I've been ruminating about the issue for 30+ years ...
30+ years ago, in Chicago, the figure "people's chain" was used
occasionally. It was accepted as dancing the same action as
"ladies chain", but from a proper set (all the gents on one
side, all the ladies on the other). It was used [blasphemously,
thought some] with some of the Chestnuts in place of "proper-set
R&L thru," to add a bit of spice.
About 30 years ago, I attended a dance weekend - in Kentucky, I
think, (maybe Camp Levi Jackson?) - at which we had the unusual
(for dance camps) situation of more men than women on the dance
floor. (In fact, having an all-guy square evened things up
pretty nicely.)
It's safe to say that among all the above dancers, "gents chain"
was already accepted as the gents doing a mirror image of the
"ladies chain," starting from the lady's left.
At the dance camp, Gene Hubert test-drove a new contra (can't
remember the name, unfortunately - sorry) in which the gents
were to the right of their partners on the sides of the set -
and Gene wanted the gents to chain across. In the walk-through,
Gene explained that he would call, "gents do a ladies chain." A
perfectly good solution for the moment. But to me, it seemed a
bit lacking for the long-haul.
Gene and I had a discussion that evening about how this
situation might be handled more generally. I suggested that we
might, in this situation, say, "gents do a right-hand chain."
Or, even better, just say, "chain by the right" or "right-hand
chain" ... when it occurred to me that, if it weren't for the
'pesky problem' of tradition, "right-hand chain" and "left-hand
chain" could handle all circumstances. And I opined that, just
perhaps, we might even consider changing the traditional names
of the figures this way to accommodate any other situations that
might (and probably would) arise in the future. Gene took the
side of the traditional skeptic in the discussion, incompletely
convinced of the idea's usefulness.
So - I'm here to pose the same question again: Might we,
perhaps, consider changing the names of these figures to
"right-hand chain" and "left-hand chain? Or at least, begin
using these names side-by-side with the traditional names?
Among other things, it accommodates something that never crossed
my mind until a few years ago: gender neutrality.
It would also make for a very interesting, entangling addition
to the old square, "The Route".
Roger Diggle
On 3/20/17 at 10:27 PM, trad-dance-callers@yahoogroups.com
(Michael Barraclough michael@michaelbarraclough.com
[trad-dance-callers]) wrote:
>On Monday, March 20, 2017 9:46:43 PM MST Dale wrote:
>>The move at the beginning of B2 is usually called a "men's
>>chain" -- at least here in Saint Louis. It's not a common
>>move, but it's not unheard of.
>
>I deliberately didn't call it a "men's chain", which it of
>course is :) because I see that term used ambiguously as to
>whether the chainee starts on the left or on the right of the
>chainer; which hands the chainees take to start the chain; and
>also who backs up in the courtesy turn.
>
>Michael Barraclough
>www.michaelbarraclough.com
>
>
>
I first discussed it about 30 years ago with Gene Hubert -
--There are only two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors.