Your first class,as a male, what was it like ?

[Tarik Sultan]

Dear Khanjar and Caroline: This post should address both your questions.

Hi Tarik,
a couple of questions here. Why do think it was an assumption?

The assumption was on the part of European travelers. Because it was the tradition in Europe to wear pants they assumed all men did. As you can see some of the skirts are pretty colorful, so to their eye it looked like a very feminine skirt. They either didn't realize or didn't want to realize that this was simply a costume and nothing more. It was worn for dramatic effect. The same reason why the dervishes wear the big skirt, (which is really a very wide robe). I asked the dervishes in Turkey why they started wearing them, because I saw from miniature paintings they didn't always and he said they did it because it looked beautiful. They want to look like a flower when they spin.

were skirts part of mens daily dress like trousers were part of womens?

There is a type of skirt called a fustanila that was worn by men in the military. The Greek evsons wear a shorter version of it. In Orientalist paintings you'll see the Albanian mercenaries wearing them. They usually reached to mid calf. Most men wore robes but under that they wore some sort of tight pants, or what we call harem pants. If you look at the second video again, the guys who are not in the skirts are wearing pretty much what they would have worn back then underneath their robes.

MEn of the middle class often wore the baggy pants, shirt and vest that some people call the "ALADIN LOOK".

What does Turkish history say about this. I, by the way, know sweet FA about Turkish dancing.

About dress specifically, I don't know. What we do have though is a very rich tradition of Turkish miniatures that show a wide variety of scenes from daily life. You can also see how the fashion changed over the centuries. Judging from the miniatures, it seems that the costume with the skirt began to be worn in the 1500's. Before that they wore the same thing that all men wore in daily life. They had no costume specific for dance.

It could be that they adopted it because of contact with some of the Central Asian countries. In Persia and Uzbekistan the male dancers wore a similar outfit. In Rajestan and Tibet the men dance in colorful skirts that reminds one of the tanura skirts, except that they don't manipulate theirs.

OK, I do know that trousers were worn by traditionally all over Asia for practical modest reasons. Why is that do you think?

Don't know. Just one of those cultural things I suppose. I guess maybe because its a lot harder to take pants down than it is to lift up a skirt, so perhaps they saw it as a deterrent to naughty behavior?:think:


: Ankara style

: Kastamanu style. North central Turkey, near the Black Sea. Notice what the women wear.

[/QUOTE]

Where is the information source about this issue of men wearing skirts til the turn of the century? are there photos, written accounts or anything else documented about this?

Like I said, this wasn't everyday wear. This was a costume accessory they wore over their normal clothes. When they performed, they took off the robes and wore the skirts over their regular clothes. There are miniatures of kochecks doing acrobatics like walking on their hands where you can see they are wearing pants under the skirts. Morocco has a copy of a picture book from the 1893 World's Fair in Chicago. In it there is a picture of a male dancer from Syria named Mohamed. He is wearing a tight fitted vest over a wide sleeved shirt with an Arab head scarf and the rope. The double kind like King Faisal of Saudi Arabia use to wear. On the bottom he's wearing a skirt that reaches to the floor. This is the same type of outfit that Lane in his MAnners and Customs of Modern Egyptians describes the male dancers wearing, but more on that later. And of course, in Tunisia, till today the male dancers wear a similar outfit.




The most detailed information I found about the costumes male dancers comes from a book written by Turkish dance scholar Metin And called a pictorial History of Turkish Dance.

To be honest, I have never come across this other than the mention and documentation of travel writers in reference to female impersonators.

And this is my point. The issue of "female impersonation", has been greatly exaggerated. Its based on the assumption that movements of the hips and torso are female movements and that if a man does it, he must be imitating a woman. Which brings us back to Lane. HE was so convinced that the dance itself was lewd that he couldn't believe the natives when they said there was nothing wrong with it. HE then goes on to describe with shock that MEN are also hired to dance in the exact same way as the Ghawazee. To him this was evidence of the sexually perverted nature of the Egyptians. He states that according to the "unnatural" nature of their profession their outfit is half male and half female. The top consisting of a shirt and vest and the bottom half consisting of a petticoat. This as I've demonstrated was nothing more than a costume and if he had condescended to ask the performers who they were and what their perspective was, he would have been told so. Instead, he focuses exclusively on the Khawals, (who were effeminate homosexuals) going into detail about how they wear long braids, henna their hands and even wear the veil when not dancing. He fails to realize that because of their sexual orientation, they had no place in society or access to any sort of income other than entertainment. You find the same situation with the Hidjras in India. So it would be like saying all male dancers and entertainers in India are Hidjras, rather than realizing that some entertainers are hidjras. Like wise, in Egypt some male dancers were khawals, but not all khawals were dancers and not all male dancers were khawals.

In Turkey and elsewhere in the East, there is a tradition of female impersonation. Its theatre. In many cases its done as comedy and can still be seen in Turkey today.


However, to the colonialist mindset, it was much more expedient to give a very simplistic image of Middle Easterners as being backwards, immoral, sexually deviant savages in need of their civilizing, ( and the management of their resources). Unfortunately, this sort of deliberate ignorance continues to overshadow the history of male dancing in the Middle East and is the main reason why Egyptians and other Arabs are so reactionary when it comes to the issue of male dancing. They know how it was used to slander their image in Europe and so they steer clear of anything that could be taken out of context to make their societies look like homosexual Disney Lands in the eyes of the West.

 

[Tarik Sultan]

Ok, was able to watch all 3. I liked the Kastamanu style the best - love LOVE those triple tiered skirts! Although the cameraman on the Ankara style as well as the editor of the Kastamanu style clips should be shot, they were better than most YouTube clips. The third one, which I did indeed love the colors and spins, was obviously filmed by a monkey and edited by a bumblebee.

The subject of men in skirts is, no surprise, of considerable interest to me. The Scots kilt is the worst looking skirt ever devised by man, but the Greek/Albanian Foustanella is very beautiful - and came in longer lengths and many other colors historically than what is seen today. Men have worn skirts in many/most of the world at one time or another, they're far more comfortable than "crotch crushers" and are a blast to dance in.

As Arthur C. Clarke said "Trousers are a western absurdity".

Actually they are an Asiatic invention. If you look at Greek art you can always tell the persians because they are wearing pants. Don't know how or when it was adopted in the West. I would imagine some time in the Renaissance judging from art work. Still have no idea as to why though. I'm just glad the cod piece went out of fashion!

 

[Zorba]

Still have no idea as to why though. I'm just glad the cod piece went out of fashion!

Its my understanding that it had to do with the industrial revolution, the French revolution, as well as horsemanship.

The industrial revolution is obvious, see what "Rosie the Riveter" did for women's wearing of pants during WWII. The French revolution killed the concept of masculine beauty in its anti-nobility crusade (why didn't they throw out the necktie at the same time, THAT barbarity was made popular by a French king!). The horsemanship angle may be urban legend - as there certainly are skirted horsemen!

Some of this is covered in Boulton's "Men in Skirts".

 

[Caroline_afifi]

Dear Khanjar and Caroline: This post should address both your questions.

There is a type of skirt called a fustanila that was worn by men in the military. The Greek evsons wear a shorter version of it. In Orientalist paintings you'll see the Albanian mercenaries wearing them. They usually reached to mid calf. Most men wore robes but under that they wore some sort of tight pants, or what we call harem pants. If you look at the second video again, the guys who are not in the skirts are wearing pretty much what they would have worn back then underneath their robes.

MEn of the middle class often wore the baggy pants, shirt and vest that some people call the "ALADIN LOOK".



About dress specifically, I don't know. What we do have though is a very rich tradition of Turkish miniatures that show a wide variety of scenes from daily life. You can also see how the fashion changed over the centuries. Judging from the miniatures, it seems that the costume with the skirt began to be worn in the 1500's. Before that they wore the same thing that all men wore in daily life. They had no costume specific for dance.

It could be that they adopted it because of contact with some of the Central Asian countries. In Persia and Uzbekistan the male dancers wore a similar outfit. In Rajestan and Tibet the men dance in colorful skirts that reminds one of the tanura skirts, except that they don't manipulate theirs.



Don't know. Just one of those cultural things I suppose. I guess maybe because its a lot harder to take pants down than it is to lift up a skirt, so perhaps they saw it as a deterrent to naughty behavior?:think:


: Ankara style

: Kastamanu style. North central Turkey, near the Black Sea. Notice what the women wear.

I know the Kurds had heavy skirts and I was told the Yemeni skirt was for coolness in the summer and like a blanket wrap in winter. Yemeni's do dance in their skirt (not called a skirt by the way). They also wear it with a formal tewwd stlye siuy jacket and formal shirt and black socks and shoes. It is an unusual combination really. I have never really ventured into the Turkish side of music and dance. I dont know why really, it just doesnt grab my attention in the same way.

And this is my point. The issue of "female impersonation", has been greatly exaggerated. Its based on the assumption that movements of the hips and torso are female movements and that if a man does it, he must be imitating a woman. Which brings us back to Lane. HE was so convinced that the dance itself was lewd that he couldn't believe the natives when they said there was nothing wrong with it. HE then goes on to describe with shock that MEN are also hired to dance in the exact same way as the Ghawazee. To him this was evidence of the sexually perverted nature of the Egyptians. He states that according to the "unnatural" nature of their profession their outfit is half male and half female. The top consisting of a shirt and vest and the bottom half consisting of a petticoat. This as I've demonstrated was nothing more than a costume and if he had condescended to ask the performers who they were and what their perspective was, he would have been told so. Instead, he focuses exclusively on the Khawals, (who were effeminate homosexuals) going into detail about how they wear long braids, henna their hands and even wear the veil when not dancing. He fails to realize that because of their sexual orientation, they had no place in society or access to any sort of income other than entertainment. You find the same situation with the Hidjras in India. So it would be like saying all male dancers and entertainers in India are Hidjras, rather than realizing that some entertainers are hidjras. Like wise, in Egypt some male dancers were khawals, but not all khawals were dancers and not all male dancers were khawals.

Yes, I can get all this, but what was the Egyptian/MED attitude towards this? we can say the travellers did this and that but what about the natives?
The Koran played a huge part in the lives of people back then and there are Surah and passages in the Hadith which discuss issues around dressing.
Even though it is not mentioned in the Koran, the wearing of Gold by men is viewed as Haram, it is considered to be a 'female' metal.
There were codes in relation to dress that may not have been so obvious to the Western eye and mind.
Galabiyas for men and women dresses may appear the same but they are not.
The wearing of silk is also considered Haram for the same reasons.

However, to the colonialist mindset, it was much more expedient to give a very simplistic image of Middle Easterners as being backwards, immoral, sexually deviant savages in need of their civilizing, ( and the management of their resources). Unfortunately, this sort of deliberate ignorance continues to overshadow the history of male dancing in the Middle East and is the main reason why Egyptians and other Arabs are so reactionary when it comes to the issue of male dancing. They know how it was used to slander their image in Europe and so they steer clear of anything that could be taken out of context to make their societies look like homosexual Disney Lands in the eyes of the West.

[/QUOTE]

What makes you think they know it was used to 'slander' their image?
Do you think Middle Eastern people would deliberately stay clear of anything which might confuse or offend the West? I am not convinced.
If this was the case, everyone would have worn trousers all of the time for fear of being called a girl and the menb would have stopped holding hands in the street etc.
Men have always danced in the West so why this in particular? There may have been no money in it for male performers but even back then probably one in ten of the armed forces were Gay (current statistics).
This may have been the problem.
We have always had male entertainers and gay men in the West.. I just dont get this theory.

I think it may have been tolerated in their society but not accepted. I dont think things have changed that much to be honest.
My Husbands Granny is 88. I will see her next week and ask what she can remember about attitudes back then (in her day).
It will only be one point of view but for me it will be an interesting one and I never thouight of asking her before.

 

[Tarik Sultan]

=
Yes, I can get all this, but what was the Egyptian/MED attitude towards this? we can say the travellers did this and that but what about the natives?
The Koran played a huge part in the lives of people back then and there are Surah and passages in the Hadith which discuss issues around dressing.
Even though it is not mentioned in the Koran, the wearing of Gold by men is viewed as Haram, it is considered to be a 'female' metal.
There were codes in relation to dress that may not have been so obvious to the Western eye and mind.
Galabiyas for men and women dresses may appear the same but they are not.
The wearing of silk is also considered Haram for the same reasons.

I'm not sure what you mean. Like I said, what the male dancers wore was not clothes, it was costume, so there's nothing about it that violates Islam. Now with regards to those who were female impersonators??? Well the ones who were doing it as part of a comedy routine or dance, or a dramatic scene, (like in Shakespear's time), i don't think this was a problem because its was like play. It wasn't serious.

As for khawals? I'm not sure. In today's understanding, man of these people would be what we consider transgendered. They did exist quite openly at a time when Sharia was the only law, but then again prostitution also existed in the open as well. I guess the official sentiment was that it was wrong, but they also realized that these were people who had no other way of supporting themselves. In Oman there are three sexes recognized, male, female and zanith, who have male bodies, but female minds. They are seen as an in between sex. They are allowed to socialize with both men and women, but they can't wear women's clothing. They wear men's clothes but in pastel colors. Each culture rationalizes these things differently. I can't really speak about it. The only way we could have known is if someone had asked a cleric back then about it. But so far as I know, no European ever did. They very rarely asked people to give their perspective. More often than not what we have is their perspective of the culture and nothing else.

What makes you think they know it was used to 'slander' their image?

Because they weren't isolated from the world any more than they are now. When Lane's book came out, don't you think there were people who read it? There were Egyptians who traveled to Europe for a variety of reasons. Just like now, people traveled to England America and other parts of Europe for education, so of course they heard all sorts of things. The attention the Ghawazee got at the 1893 World's Fair did not sit well with Egyptians back home or living in America at the time. As I said, Morocco has a copy of the picture book and the captions are so incredibly racist as not to be believed. This was the age of colonialism when White Supremacy was at its height and they made no attempts to hide it. Even in Egypt they segregated themselves from the population. Believe me, they knew EXACTLY what the British and other Europeans thought of them from their own lips, just as the Indians, and other Africans as well as the West Indians did. They told us to our faces as well as in our class rooms where they were the teachers. Colonialism was a BITCH!

Do you think Middle Eastern people would deliberately stay clear of anything which might confuse or offend the West? I am not convinced.
If this was the case, everyone would have worn trousers all of the time for fear of being called a girl and the menb would have stopped holding hands in the street etc.
[/QUITE]

Why do you think that around the turn of the century the elite and upper middle classes of Egypt began wearing western attire? Even to this day, no matter how rich you may be, no one would dare show up to the office in a gallabeya. Try going to a 5 star night club in a gallabeya. Hoiw many collage students do you see wearing traditional dress, unless they are religious fundamentalists? As for holding hands, they may still do this in Egypt, but they all know when they come to America all that touchy feely stuff is a BIG no, no.

Men have always danced in the West so why this in particular? There may have been no money in it for male performers but even back then probably one in ten of the armed forces were Gay (current statistics).
This may have been the problem.
We have always had male entertainers and gay men in the West.. I just dont get this theory.

You don't get it because you are thinking logically. Racism is NOT based on truth, fairness or logic. At the very same time Europeans were spreading rumors of the lascivious Turks and the sodomite Arabs, they were castrating boys to preserve a soprano voice so they could dress them up as women to sing in the operas of Europe. There was also male prostitution in all the major cities of Europe and we'll say nothing of the fact that the Upper classes traditionally sent their boys to boarding schools. So.... a boy reaches his sexual peak in his teen years.... and this is the same period of time when they're locked up in same sex schools totally cut off from the world....... Who do you think all those English lords had their first sexual experiences with?:think:

However, like I said, truth and fairness had nothing to do with anything. When your aim is to dominate and subjugate a people you must first demonize them to justify your actions. Africans become uncivilized savage, the Irish are morons little more than animals, The Arabs are immoral, violent, overly emotional sexual deviants etc. This is the propaganda that's created so that colonialism seems like a good idea. "We have to save these people from themselves". The white man's burden. It was used in all across africa, in India, China and we've seen the same demonstrated in Iraq. Same shit different day.

I think it may have been tolerated in their society but not accepted. I dont think things have changed that much to be honest.
My Husbands Granny is 88. I will see her next week and ask what she can remember about attitudes back then (in her day).
It will only be one point of view but for me it will be an interesting one and I never thouight of asking her before.

People weren't stupid. They knew all these things existed. They didn't approve. No one wanted their kids to grow up this way, but they were understanding and so allowed a space for them in society, even though it may not have been the most desired position in society. Besides, they always held the hope that a person may repent. The concepts of fixed sexuality that we have, gay, straight, bisexual, didn't exist anywhere in the world before the turn of the century when psychologists figured if they made homosexual activity an illness, they could charge people for treatment. Prior to this time in the Western world as well as the East, people recognized that people, (men) could have a variety of sexual experiences. However, once they reached a certain age, they were expected to get married and father children. All a guy had to do was prove that he could perform the man's role in the bed room and he was "normal'. If people knew about his past, they would just assume that all of that was behind him now, (no pun intended). It was just a phase and he grew out of it. For example, in Oman, all a zanith had to do to become a man is get married and assume the male sexual role. So I assume people held out the hope that he would come to his senses one day.

 

[Pirika Repun]

People weren't stupid. They knew all these things existed. They didn't approve. No one wanted their kids to grow up this way, but they were understanding and so allowed a space for them in society, even though it may not have been the most desired position in society. Besides, they always held the hope that a person may repent. The concepts of fixed sexuality that we have, gay, straight, bisexual, didn't exist anywhere in the world before the turn of the century when psychologists figured if they made homosexual activity an illness, they could charge people for treatment. Prior to this time in the Western world as well as the East, people recognized that people, (men) could have a variety of sexual experiences. However, once they reached a certain age, they were expected to get married and father children. All a guy had to do was prove that he could perform the man's role in the bed room and he was "normal'. If people knew about his past, they would just assume that all of that was behind him now, (no pun intended). It was just a phase and he grew out of it. For example, in Oman, all a zanith had to do to become a man is get married and assume the male sexual role. So I assume people held out the hope that he would come to his senses one day.

NJ's former governor resigned because he came out from the closet. He was married with WOMAN and had child, but he still slept with MAN. So if you married to opposite sex means nothing. They still be homosexual or bisexual.

I have a friend who has a baby but he is not with baby's mother anymore, because one day he found out baby's mother was lesbian. She cheated on him with other WOMAN. So, not only men, but women as well married and have children but still love with other woman.

About racism, no offense to anybody, but if you are white, you never really understand what its like....

 

[Caroline_afifi]

[
The point I was making was whilst the mens dress may have looked more 'feminine' to Westerners, it probably wasnt perceieved that way to locals (scots dont think of Kilts as asexual or feminine).

They would have had clear differences as to what was worn by men and women.
Quite often I see things written by people that somehow gives the impression that MED culture and dance is great as it does not have the same gender boundaries. i.e. You can wear a skirt (perceived in the West as Female) and you can move like this and that (which is not so accepted in the West), but there are other gender boundaries that we dont have...like silk and Gold. Does this make sense yet?

As for khawals? I'm not sure. In today's understanding, man of these people would be what we consider transgendered. They did exist quite openly at a time when Sharia was the only law, but then again prostitution also existed in the open as well. I guess the official sentiment was that it was wrong, but they also realized that these were people who had no other way of supporting themselves[/QUOTE].

And I think this is one of the points I was making, I dont think it was just the Westerners who looked down their noses and I dont think things changed just because Westerners did not like it because all of those things you mentioned still exsist and more, so why would certain things have disapeared?

In Oman there are three sexes recognized, male, female and zanith, who have male bodies, but female minds. They are seen as an in between sex. They are allowed to socialize with both men and women, but they can't wear women's clothing. They wear men's clothes but in pastel colors. Each culture rationalizes these things differently. I can't really speak about it. The only way we could have known is if someone had asked a cleric back then about it. But so far as I know, no European ever did. They very rarely asked people to give their perspective. More often than not what we have is their perspective of the culture and nothing else.
[/B]

Funny you should mention Oman, the Sultan Kabuse bin Saeed is well known as being Gay. He is also widely known for a for his fondness of young boys.
It is not nessesarily an accpted part of the culture but he owns everyone so who can challenge it?
I am talking about the difference between what goes on and what is accpeted in the minds of the general public. Men also kiss on the lips in certain states in the Gulf but again it is not considered Gay. I think we just need to be careful that we dont confuse the culturally accepted with the culturally unaccepted and that we understand things correctly, or thay maybe applied incorrectly.
I am struggling to explain this one... We need to be careful not to over generalise I think.


[

B] As I said, Morocco has a copy of the picture book and the captions are so incredibly racist as not to be believed. This was the age of colonialism when White Supremacy was at its height and they made no attempts to hide it. Even in Egypt they segregated themselves from the population. Believe me, they knew EXACTLY what the British and other Europeans thought of them from their own lips, just as the Indians, and other Africans as well as the West Indians did. They told us to our faces as well as in our class rooms where they were the teachers. Colonialism was a BITCH!

[/B]

For sure.
I have just outlined above some of the points in relation to this. I am not sure that everything that is observed and frowned upon in a society is always the accepted norm of a society.
Tourists go to Thailand for sex holidays from the UK and see all the woman as experts with ping pong balls, they also go to Holland for the same thing and talk about it as if it was the Norm. Do you think these societies are proud of this aspect of their culture? no of course not. Niether is it a full reflection of the norms of the culture. It is an aspect which exsists and it is about the haves and have nots.

[/QUITE]

[B

]Why do you think that around the turn of the century the elite and upper middle classes of Egypt began wearing western attire? Even to this day, no matter how rich you may be, no one would dare show up to the office in a gallabeya. Try going to a 5 star night club in a gallabeya. Hoiw many collage students do you see wearing traditional dress, unless they are religious fundamentalists? As for holding hands, they may still do this in Egypt, but they all know when they come to America all that touchy feely stuff is a BIG no, no.
[/B]

Yes, I agree but even Middle and High class families have a love and respect for the Abbaya and many women wear very fancy galabiyas. It is not just fundamentalists who wear it. In Egypt is is less so but not in other Arab countries they are still worn with pride.

Yes, Egyptians dont hold hands outside of Egypt and yes they know how this is perceived in other countries.

You don't get it because you are thinking logically. Racism is NOT based on truth, fairness or logic. At the very same time Europeans were spreading rumors of the lascivious Turks and the sodomite Arabs, they were castrating boys to preserve a soprano voice so they could dress them up as women to sing in the operas of Europe. There was also male prostitution in all the major cities of Europe and we'll say nothing of the fact that the Upper classes traditionally sent their boys to boarding schools. So.... a boy reaches his sexual peak in his teen years.... and this is the same period of time when they're locked up in same sex schools totally cut off from the world....... Who do you think all those English lords had their first sexual experiences with?:think:

What dont I get? never in my life would I believe Racism was built on logic.
I maybe able to expalin myself better.

I know all the other stuff above about male prostitution. I also studied prostitution wolrdwide for my thesis when I did my degree in Social Policy.

However, like I said, truth and fairness had nothing to do with anything. When your aim is to dominate and subjugate a people you must first demonize them to justify your actions. Africans become uncivilized savage, the Irish are morons little more than animals, The Arabs are immoral, violent, overly emotional sexual deviants etc. This is the propaganda that's created so that colonialism seems like a good idea. "We have to save these people from themselves". The white man's burden. It was used in all across africa, in India, China and we've seen the same demonstrated in Iraq. Same shit different day.

'Dehumanised' I think is the word.

[

B]People weren't stupid. They knew all these things existed. They didn't approve. No one wanted their kids to grow up this way, but they were understanding and so allowed a space for them in society, even though it may not have been the most desired position in society. Besides, they always held the hope that a person may repent. The concepts of fixed sexuality that we have, gay, straight, bisexual, didn't exist anywhere in the world before the turn of the century when psychologists figured if they made homosexual activity an illness, they could charge people for treatment. Prior to this time in the Western world as well as the East, people recognized that people, (men) could have a variety of sexual experiences. However, once they reached a certain age, they were expected to get married and father children. All a guy had to do was prove that he could perform the man's role in the bed room and he was "normal'. If people knew about his past, they would just assume that all of that was behind him now, (no pun intended). It was just a phase and he grew out of it. For example, in Oman, all a zanith had to do to become a man is get married and assume the male sexual role. So I assume people held out the hope that he would come to his senses one day.[/B]

No people were not stupid at all. It is only in the last century that Lesbianism was even recognised as a sexuality. Women did not have sexualities, it was all based around men and their needs, whether it was for men, women or both.

The same is still assumed about gay men today. They just need the love of a good women to fix them..

This is more of what I was suggesting. I was just expoloring this concept. Like I said, I see people attach Western meaning to ME culture without any real understanding of how it is or was percieved within its own culture.


PS I am not paticularly disagreeing, I am really interested so it is more about 'chewing the cud' and exercising the brain on this issue.
I have heard many new things from you about this so want to expolre it.

 

[khanjar]

It seems the world we live in today is so messed up because of the past. All these misunderstandings we make about everything, a product of those from the past, people who sought to dominate another and steal their wealth. Colonials just doing what the Roman church taught them, I left the Roman church because their past I could not live with, like I am not proud to be British for what the 'British' minority did to other countries, British Empire, Holy Roman Empire, hmmm, same thing, just oppression and rape of other countries.

I observe what Victorian era people have written about other parts of the world, but see what they wrote as an idea of what they saw, not their absolute explanation, as though great the Victorian period was in terms of engineering and such, as a society, it really sucked, a society wrapped up in elitism, sleaze and prejudice.

I see with Victorian writers, given what I know of the people, their writings I take with a pinch of salt, they are good for the pictures, illustrations and objective descriptions, but I will not take their oppinions, as their frame of reference was warped and sick in some ways.

 

[Caroline_afifi]

It seems the world we live in today is so messed up because of the past. All these misunderstandings we make about everything, a product of those from the past, people who sought to dominate another and steal their wealth. Colonials just doing what the Roman church taught them, I left the Roman church because their past I could not live with, like I am not proud to be British for what the 'British' minority did to other countries, British Empire, Holy Roman Empire, hmmm, same thing, just oppression and rape of other countries.

I observe what Victorian era people have written about other parts of the world, but see what they wrote as an idea of what they saw, not their absolute explanation, as though great the Victorian period was in terms of engineering and such, as a society, it really sucked, a society wrapped up in elitism, sleaze and prejudice.

I see with Victorian writers, given what I know of the people, their writings I take with a pinch of salt, they are good for the pictures, illustrations and objective descriptions, but I will not take their oppinions, as their frame of reference was warped and sick in some ways.

Absoltutely, and do not forget that the Britrish society we have today is not the same one we had a century ago... thank goodness.
However the politics is another issue.

 

[khanjar]

It is also interesting to know that in terms of the current misunderstanding between the west and the Islamic world, it was the Roman Catholics that started the whole mess, in Moorish Cordova in Spain, year 850 ad by a monk called Perfectus. he went to the Suq in Cordova and openly and purposefully insulted Islam. This was the first time this had happened, as before Christian and Moslem lived comfortably side by side in peace, a model for the future. It is also interesting to note the Arab authorities at the time did not want to elicit the full action of the law for insulting The Prophet, they showed leniency and tolerance, they did not want to create a martyr cult. The time in years to come what the west knew of the Arabs was propaganda dished out by a Christian church trying to define itself by projecting all it's own 'skeletons' on the Arabs, everything that was known about the Arabs, was in fact the sleaze of themselves. Something that is very apparent with the later Victorian colonials.

 

[Caroline_afifi]

It is also interesting to know that in terms of the current misunderstanding between the west and the Islamic world, it was the Roman Catholics that started the whole mess, in Moorish Cordova in Spain, year 850 ad by a monk called Perfectus. he went to the Suq in Cordova and openly and purposefully insulted Islam. This was the first time this had happened, as before Christian and Moslem lived comfortably side by side in peace, a model for the future. It is also interesting to note the Arab authorities at the time did not want to elicit the full action of the law for insulting The Prophet, they showed leniency and tolerance, they did not want to create a martyr cult. The time in years to come what the west knew of the Arabs was propaganda dished out by a Christian church trying to define itself by projecting all it's own 'skeletons' on the Arabs, everything that was known about the Arabs, was in fact the sleaze of themselves. Something that is very apparent with the later Victorian colonials.

Did you know the Protestants joined forces with the Muslims in the fight against Catholic Spain?

 

[jeremiah]

Heh Heh Hello!

what an interesting thread. I'll just share quickly about my first class...
it was Sept. '02. The class was taught by Lydia Fortner in fresno. i emailed lydia a few days before to make sure boys were allowed, and she said that it was fine. lydia had been off for some months during her pregnancy. i got to take the first class she taught, after her son was born. there was thee of us(me and two girls), and we all were absolute beginners. i think bellydance is challenging enough, that the majority of new students will know whether or not that theyre gonna stick with it(by the end of that first class)... During(myfirst) class I thought to myself, "this is f*ing hard, i love it"! By the end of the lesson, i knew what my new hobby was.

 

[Shanazel]

Are you from Fresno, or were you just commuting to BD lessons there?

 

[jeremiah]

At the time, was living there... im from san jose

 

[Tera-Byte]

removed

 

[lizaj]

Tera-Byte..you can rest assured that there are plenty of women who feel and look awkward in their first few belly dance lessons. And sadly there are women who never "get it"!
There are men and women who will never achieve in Ballroom Ballet and the Hokey-Kokey.
And what was your teacher doing allowing badly behaved spectators..what was s/he doing allowing any?
When you have seen dancers like Khaled and Ozgen and Shafeek who dance here in the UK, you will see they are only to be admired. Having said that there are still still women in our community here who think it appropriate to giggle,poke fun and whistle and scream as if those dancers were male strippers at a hen night for drunken laddettes. The sad fact is there are stupid people in every walk of life.
There are some women who in all seriousness do not believe this is a dance for men but they do not take the p$$$...they'll express their opinion in a suitable forum and I think you/we have to accept they have a right to their opinion.
We do not have to accept the behaviour of the ignorant prats of this world and teachers should not tolerate them.

 

[Tera-Byte]

removed

 

[lizaj]

I took a few more classes from that teacher and eventually I did see a posted paper on the wall asking people to watch from the outside, behind the window. So the director must have been notified or maybe there was a similar incident.

Students should not have to put up with the distraction of observers at all. That's a disgrace. How can you relax and concentrate when there are people watching you!?

 

[Tera-Byte]

removed

 

[Pleasant dancer]

I don't think it's right to teach serious classes whilst in a goldfish bowl situation. A community taster session, perhaps, as long as folk know it's just a fun try-out and go into the situation knowing they are being looked at. I've done this a couple of times with no problems, although no men joined in on those occasions so can't say more than this.

In regular classes, if people ask to watch a class it's usually because they are unsure about the dancing and joining, and I always ask the permission of the class first and would not allow just anyone to watch. In fact, I usually insist they have a go (how can you tell till you try?)! :dance: When people are actually taking part it's less easy to concentrate on other folk's movements ....