Amanda (was Aziyade)
Well-known member
In regard to American culture, I do think there are some areas (maybe some ethnicities, during certain times?) who prefer to identify with THAT ethnicity first. It's a way of holding their group identity together -- and it's protection, to a degree. It wasn't that long ago that you saw signs like "No Irish served here" in restaurants. I really didn't believe that part of our history for a long time until I saw photos. eep. Maybe the Italian-Americans DO self-identify as Italian first. And maybe the Swedes don't. ??? Germans around here don't speak German anymore, and don't really think of themselves as German in anything other than last name, but we've been a German town for 300 years, so maybe it got old.
The American Jewish culture --at least as I have experienced it -- is very much representative of this identity hierarchy. You are a Jew first. Then an American. This really makes total sense to me, post WWII.
I also think the idea of a "big cultural umbrella under which we all can live" is BS. We don't have that in America of course, but if you talk to ANYONE from any other country, they don't have a single unifying "culture" of their own. Spain is fragmented six ways to Sunday. Egypt is divided almost by the streets. Indians recognize HUGE differences between people in different states or regions. China has several hundred different languages and ethnic backgrounds, but they attempted to unite them all under one "Chinese" government umbrella and that has proved devastating to a lot of smaller ethnic groups.
Regarding my comment about structure and rules and lists -- I know it doesn't apply to everybody LOL! But in my classes, that is the overwhelming thing I've noticed, both in my own personal classes and the ones I teach. Americans grow up with a graded syllabus -- literally! We call it school. And we tend to think of most things in terms of "beginner, intermediate, and advanced."
Yes, there are students who don't "play by those rules." They just want to move, and they don't want the structure of technique or "rules" to hold them back. I respect that. I see it a lot with self-taught individuals. Some successfully grow and some don't. Reminds me of people who learn to play an instrument by ear, and then go on to be very successful musicians, despite a lack of early training.
I also wonder if structure isn't something that was imposed more recently on how we teach this dance (here in the US.) I was told back in the day the teacher would just get up and dance and you would just follow them. You learned to move by watching your teacher, and if she broke something down it was merely to say "it's the left hip" or something equally vague.
If you learn like this, it's more of a process of self-discovery, and you wouldn't maybe feel the need for the same kind of structure. BUT I heard SOOOOO many complaints when DeeDee started bringing Egyptians here -- people said "but all she did was dance. She didn't TEACH anything." Follow the bouncing butt doesn't seem like a viable method for learning these days. Or maybe students just can't adjust to learning that way, more visual than intellectual? It took me a LONG time, and I still struggle with it.
The American Jewish culture --at least as I have experienced it -- is very much representative of this identity hierarchy. You are a Jew first. Then an American. This really makes total sense to me, post WWII.
I also think the idea of a "big cultural umbrella under which we all can live" is BS. We don't have that in America of course, but if you talk to ANYONE from any other country, they don't have a single unifying "culture" of their own. Spain is fragmented six ways to Sunday. Egypt is divided almost by the streets. Indians recognize HUGE differences between people in different states or regions. China has several hundred different languages and ethnic backgrounds, but they attempted to unite them all under one "Chinese" government umbrella and that has proved devastating to a lot of smaller ethnic groups.
Regarding my comment about structure and rules and lists -- I know it doesn't apply to everybody LOL! But in my classes, that is the overwhelming thing I've noticed, both in my own personal classes and the ones I teach. Americans grow up with a graded syllabus -- literally! We call it school. And we tend to think of most things in terms of "beginner, intermediate, and advanced."
Yes, there are students who don't "play by those rules." They just want to move, and they don't want the structure of technique or "rules" to hold them back. I respect that. I see it a lot with self-taught individuals. Some successfully grow and some don't. Reminds me of people who learn to play an instrument by ear, and then go on to be very successful musicians, despite a lack of early training.
I also wonder if structure isn't something that was imposed more recently on how we teach this dance (here in the US.) I was told back in the day the teacher would just get up and dance and you would just follow them. You learned to move by watching your teacher, and if she broke something down it was merely to say "it's the left hip" or something equally vague.
If you learn like this, it's more of a process of self-discovery, and you wouldn't maybe feel the need for the same kind of structure. BUT I heard SOOOOO many complaints when DeeDee started bringing Egyptians here -- people said "but all she did was dance. She didn't TEACH anything." Follow the bouncing butt doesn't seem like a viable method for learning these days. Or maybe students just can't adjust to learning that way, more visual than intellectual? It took me a LONG time, and I still struggle with it.
