5034 la dulce vita
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:09:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Trini y Sean (PATangoS)" <patangos@yahoo.com>
Subject: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
Hi Dani,
Italy is not like the rest of the world. (Like you didn't
already know that.) Even many of the traveling Porteno
teachers agree that the Italians are among the best tango
dancers in the world. Maybe this is because Italian men are
so competative with each other. Maybe Italian women prefer
good dancers. Whatever the reason, what works in Italy
doesn't work in the rest of the world.
American men don't compete to be the best dancers. They
compete to have the biggest SUV. Maybe because American
women prefer la viva rica to la dulce vita. OK, that
stereotype might not be fair to the tiny minority of tango
dancers. But it may be fairly applied to most of our
population. And at some level those cultural values still
influence our tango dancers.
In a culture that values surplus quantity, teachers must
work very hard to inspire their students to strive for
quality. On the other hand, teachers who are out to sell a
step a week can make an easy profit in the short run, at
the cost of destroying our dance environment.
Sean
P.S. Don't put too much stock in Keith's "world class"
ideal. Budwiser beer and Armani suits are both world class
products. But I'm not ready to abandon Guiness or Zegna. I
suppose I am one of those rare people who prefer quality
over brand names.
--- Club~Tango*La Dolce Vita~ <dani@tango-la-dolce-vita.eu>
wrote:
> Club ~Tango*La Dolce Vita~
> ~ Dani Iannarelli ~
>
> Dear HongKong Keith and all othet List Tangueros,
>
> >Yes Sean, we read a lot on Tango-L about all the new,
> modern methods you Americans have
> >devised to teach Tango. Strange though that, so far, it
> hasn't produced a single world class Tango dancer. Keith
> HK
>
> Nice one, Keith...! Great stuff!
> But... methinks there will now be a litany of flaming
> coming your way... good luck!
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:16:53 -0600
From: Nina Pesochinsky <nina@earthnet.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
To: "Trini y Sean (PATangoS)" <patangos@yahoo.com>, Tango-L
Great points, Sean!
I have observed that American men, in general (with exceptions, of
course) seem to prefer to appear casual and "down-to-earth" instead
of dashing and debonaire. It shows in tango. Why do you think this
is? Is it the historical heritage of the country? Is it the pop culture?
This is disappointing...I really like dashing and debonaire dandies,
in life and in tango.
Argentine culture is so much more formal than the American culture...
Now I am getting all teary-eyed and sentimental...
[back to reality]
About the world-class dancers - neither America, not any other
country other than Argentina seems to have managed to produce one
yet. If you are not Argentine, you cannot be a world-class tango
dancer and might as well forget about it because the world of tango,
with all the "classy" dancing, begins and ends in Argentina.:) This
is an absolute. But it helps all the other people in the world to be
free just to dance.
Best,
Nina
At 04:09 PM 7/16/2007, Trini y Sean (PATangoS) wrote:
>Hi Dani,
>
>Italy is not like the rest of the world. (Like you didn't
>already know that.) Even many of the traveling Porteno
>teachers agree that the Italians are among the best tango
>dancers in the world. Maybe this is because Italian men are
>so competative with each other. Maybe Italian women prefer
>good dancers. Whatever the reason, what works in Italy
>doesn't work in the rest of the world.
>
>American men don't compete to be the best dancers. They
>compete to have the biggest SUV. Maybe because American
>women prefer la viva rica to la dulce vita. OK, that
>stereotype might not be fair to the tiny minority of tango
>dancers. But it may be fairly applied to most of our
>population. And at some level those cultural values still
>influence our tango dancers.
>
>In a culture that values surplus quantity, teachers must
>work very hard to inspire their students to strive for
>quality. On the other hand, teachers who are out to sell a
>step a week can make an easy profit in the short run, at
>the cost of destroying our dance environment.
>
>Sean
>
>P.S. Don't put too much stock in Keith's "world class"
>ideal. Budwiser beer and Armani suits are both world class
>products. But I'm not ready to abandon Guiness or Zegna. I
>suppose I am one of those rare people who prefer quality
>over brand names.
>
>
>
>--- Club~Tango*La Dolce Vita~ <dani@tango-la-dolce-vita.eu>
>wrote:
>
> > Club ~Tango*La Dolce Vita~
> > ~ Dani Iannarelli ~
> >
> > Dear HongKong Keith and all othet List Tangueros,
> >
> > >Yes Sean, we read a lot on Tango-L about all the new,
> > modern methods you Americans have
> > >devised to teach Tango. Strange though that, so far, it
> > hasn't produced a single world class Tango dancer. Keith
> > HK
> >
> > Nice one, Keith...! Great stuff!
> > But... methinks there will now be a litany of flaming
> > coming your way... good luck!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s
>user panel and lay it on us.
>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:31 PM
To: Trini y Sean (PATangoS); Tango-L
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
Great points, Sean!
I have observed that American men, in general (with exceptions, of
course) seem to prefer to appear casual and "down-to-earth" instead
of dashing and debonaire. It shows in tango. Why do you think this
is? Is it the historical heritage of the country? Is it the pop culture?
This is disappointing...I really like dashing and debonaire dandies,
in life and in tango.
Argentine culture is so much more formal than the American culture...
Now I am getting all teary-eyed and sentimental...
[back to reality]
About the world-class dancers - neither America, not any other
country other than Argentina seems to have managed to produce one
yet. If you are not Argentine, you cannot be a world-class tango
dancer and might as well forget about it because the world of tango,
with all the "classy" dancing, begins and ends in Argentina.:) This
is an absolute. But it helps all the other people in the world to be
free just to dance.
Best,
Nina
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:34:55 -0400
From: Keith <keith@tangohk.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
It's completely off-topic, but I just couldn't let it go unpassed.
Sean, you have your beers the wrong way round. Guiness is the world-class product.
Budweiser is ... well, is it even beer? I doubt you're even a beer drinker since you can't
even spell Budweiser and no serious beer-drinker in the world [at least outside the US]
would ever compare Budweiser favourably with Guiness.
As for ... "I suppose I am one of those rare people who prefer quality over brand names".
Jesus, Sean, just how sanctemonious and pretentious can you get? Sorry, Aron, am I
being too aggressive again. Some people just know how to push my buttons.
Keith, HK
On Tue Jul 17 6:09 , "Trini y Sean (PATangoS)" sent:
>
>P.S. Don't put too much stock in Keith's "world class"
>ideal. Budwiser beer and Armani suits are both world class
>products. But I'm not ready to abandon Guiness or Zegna. I
>suppose I am one of those rare people who prefer quality
>over brand names.
>
>
Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 10:31 PM
To: Trini y Sean (PATangoS); Tango-L
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
Great points, Sean!
I have observed that American men, in general (with exceptions, of
course) seem to prefer to appear casual and "down-to-earth" instead
of dashing and debonaire. It shows in tango. Why do you think this
is? Is it the historical heritage of the country? Is it the pop culture?
This is disappointing...I really like dashing and debonaire dandies,
in life and in tango.
Argentine culture is so much more formal than the American culture...
Now I am getting all teary-eyed and sentimental...
[back to reality]
About the world-class dancers - neither America, not any other
country other than Argentina seems to have managed to produce one
yet. If you are not Argentine, you cannot be a world-class tango
dancer and might as well forget about it because the world of tango,
with all the "classy" dancing, begins and ends in Argentina.:) This
is an absolute. But it helps all the other people in the world to be
free just to dance.
Best,
Nina
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:42 +0100 (BST)
From: "Chris, UK" <tl2@chrisjj.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
Cc: tl2@chrisjj.com
Keith wrote to Sean and all:
> I doubt you're even a beer drinker since you can't even spell Budweiser
> and no serious beer-drinker in the world [at least outside the US]
> would ever compare Budweiser favourably with Guiness.
The correct spelling, Keith, is "Guinness".
--
Chris
-------- Original Message --------
*Subject:* Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
*From:* Keith <keith@tangohk.com>
*Date:* Tue, 17 Jul 2007 02:34:55 -0400
It's completely off-topic, but I just couldn't let it go unpassed.
Sean, you have your beers the wrong way round. Guiness is the world-class product.
Budweiser is ... well, is it even beer? I doubt you're even a beer drinker since you can't
even spell Budweiser and no serious beer-drinker in the world [at least outside the US]
would ever compare Budweiser favourably with Guiness.
As for ... "I suppose I am one of those rare people who prefer quality over brand names".
Jesus, Sean, just how sanctemonious and pretentious can you get? Sorry, Aron, am I
being too aggressive again. Some people just know how to push my buttons.
Keith, HK
On Tue Jul 17 6:09 , "Trini y Sean (PATangoS)" sent:
>
>P.S. Don't put too much stock in Keith's "world class"
>ideal. Budwiser beer and Armani suits are both world class
>products. But I'm not ready to abandon Guiness or Zegna. I
>suppose I am one of those rare people who prefer quality
>over brand names.
>
>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 05:24:00 -0400
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Trini y Sean (PATangoS) wrote:
> And at some level those cultural values still influence our tango
> dancers.
>
The ones who brag about preferring Zegna, anyway.
> In a culture that values surplus quantity, teachers must
> work very hard to inspire their students to strive for
> quality. On the other hand, teachers who are out to sell a
> step a week can make an easy profit in the short run, at
> the cost of destroying our dance environment.
>
Besides being facile as "cultural analysis," the isn't remotely true of
tango teachers. I've seen purveyors of "quality" who are pure crap, and
step-centric teachers who get dancers striving for real quality simply
by moving with it themselves. Don't assume that everyone buys the
advertising, especially in this country.
> Budwiser beer and Armani suits are both world class products.
Huddling these two under the same umbrella makes "world class" rather a
meaningless term now, doesn't it?
> But I'm not ready to abandon Guiness or Zegna. I
> suppose I am one of those rare people who prefer quality
> over brand names.
>
Last time I checked, Guinness and Zegna were brand names.
Jake
DC
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:05:53 -0400
From: Keith <keith@tangohk.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
Oops. OK, that's egg on my face. Hope none of my drinking buddies see this :-).
Keith, HK
On Tue Jul 17 16:42 , "Chris, UK" sent:
>Keith wrote to Sean and all:
>
>> I doubt you're even a beer drinker since you can't even spell Budweiser
>> and no serious beer-drinker in the world [at least outside the US]
>> would ever compare Budweiser favourably with Guiness.
>
>The correct spelling, Keith, is "Guinness".
>
>--
>Chris
>
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 04:52:30 -0400
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Jeff Gaynor wrote:
> Historically the emphasis in the US has been on the common folk and democracy here is a reflection of that.
For straight right-handed white people who are Christian-- sure, why not.
> A strong strain of American thinking that goes back to the Revolutionary War is against such dandies and nobility.
A good 50% of our country's populace supported England during that war,
Jeff. You're quoting our propaganda, often passed off as "history" to
people too young to know the difference between fact and assertion, and
too preoccupied with other things to care.
Not even Army manuals (which I've edited) are this lame. Damn shame our
textbooks are.
> Elitism was frowned upon until recently although now it is becoming much more fashionable.
Two words for you, baby--
Fred Astaire.
(A Midwesterner, by the way.)
> For instance, no longer do the liberals in this country make even a pretense of liking the working classes, which is a huge change from a few decades ago.
Hardly.
People's politics here have always been full of posturing and hypocrisy.
Read Richard Wright or Wyndham Lewis for numerous examples from that era
("a few decades ago") in particular.
> [...] equality brings with it anonymity -- if we are truly equal then there is really no distinction between us, is there?
This point has been made by those critical of democracy (i.e.,
egalitarianism) as a _cultural_ value (and likewise of statistics,
averages, etc.) for about two centuries now. Largely by artists.
The linchpin of free democracy (i.e., majority rule), of course, is
individual and minority rights, which many people conveniently forget
when they're making reductive generalizations about "egalitarianism."
There have been quite impressive intellects (Leopardi, De Toqueville,
etc.) who have criticized democracy as an institution of mediocrity--
and not without reason, except insofar as they overlook this rather
important raison d'etre.
Which raison was, naturally, the privilege of the aristocratic ethos.
Which itself spilled over into common life, until every common ass saw
himself a "gentleman." See Lewis for more eloquent statements of this.
> Women want to be treated as the unique people they are. Men want a women that makes the world stop for them. So, in tango I agree that the normal American egalitarian ideas tend to go against the grain.
Your "America" is too much Norman Rockwell & Garrison Keillor, and not
enough Emerson/Whitman/Thoreau, my man. The rugged individualism and
self-reliance of our culture, like its (conflicted) Puritan aspect, are
easily more definitive than these courtroom cartoons, which our history
has ground underfoot repeatedly anyway.
Furthermore, a substantial (and shallow) part of American culture,
especially among the bourgeoisie, consists of affectation and
anti-populist gestures, and always will. Hence the propensity of rich
kids to take (status) French courses in high school, while poor kids
enroll in (practical) Spanish courses. (I'm now 30: this is COMMON
knowledge in my generation.) Thus also the prevalence of Oscar Wilde
quotes among us, and the relative neglect of his infinitely superior
contemporary Mark Twain (whom Europeans appear to appreciate more than
we do, nowadays, and whom we often consider a bigger redneck than he
was, simply by identifying him with his more famous subject matter).
(But this is the reader's chief fallacy with any author.)
Short version: Your portrait of America could use a few more postcards.
You're talking about the country of Dickinson, Barnum, Edison, Welles,
Groucho, Elvis, Jimi... The America you invoke, if only to discard,
barely exists in the first place, except as a scarecrow in bad editorials.
Jake Spatz
DC
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 02:37:06 -0400
From: Keith <keith@tangohk.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Jake,
How is any of this long spiel even remotely related to Tango? I know you can tell me to hit the delete button, but I'd wasted a
few minutes before I realised what I was reading.
Keith, HK
On Mon Jul 23 16:52 , "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" sent:
>Jeff Gaynor wrote:
>> Historically the emphasis in the US has been on the common folk and democracy here is a reflection of that.
>For straight right-handed white people who are Christian-- sure, why not.
>> A strong strain of American thinking that goes back to the Revolutionary War is against such dandies and nobility.
>A good 50% of our country's populace supported England during that war,
>Jeff. You're quoting our propaganda, often passed off as "history" to
>people too young to know the difference between fact and assertion, and
>too preoccupied with other things to care.
>
>Not even Army manuals (which I've edited) are this lame. Damn shame our
>textbooks are.
>> Elitism was frowned upon until recently although now it is becoming much more fashionable.
>Two words for you, baby--
>
>Fred Astaire.
>
>(A Midwesterner, by the way.)
>> For instance, no longer do the liberals in this country make even a pretense of liking the working classes, which is a huge change from a few decades ago.
>Hardly.
>
>People's politics here have always been full of posturing and hypocrisy.
>Read Richard Wright or Wyndham Lewis for numerous examples from that era
>("a few decades ago") in particular.
>> [...] equality brings with it anonymity -- if we are truly equal then there is really no distinction between us, is there?
>This point has been made by those critical of democracy (i.e.,
>egalitarianism) as a _cultural_ value (and likewise of statistics,
>averages, etc.) for about two centuries now. Largely by artists.
>
>The linchpin of free democracy (i.e., majority rule), of course, is
>individual and minority rights, which many people conveniently forget
>when they're making reductive generalizations about "egalitarianism."
>There have been quite impressive intellects (Leopardi, De Toqueville,
>etc.) who have criticized democracy as an institution of mediocrity--
>and not without reason, except insofar as they overlook this rather
>important raison d'etre.
>
>Which raison was, naturally, the privilege of the aristocratic ethos.
>Which itself spilled over into common life, until every common ass saw
>himself a "gentleman." See Lewis for more eloquent statements of this.
>> Women want to be treated as the unique people they are. Men want a women that makes the world stop for them. So, in tango I agree that the normal American egalitarian ideas tend to go against the grain.
>Your "America" is too much Norman Rockwell & Garrison Keillor, and not
>enough Emerson/Whitman/Thoreau, my man. The rugged individualism and
>self-reliance of our culture, like its (conflicted) Puritan aspect, are
>easily more definitive than these courtroom cartoons, which our history
>has ground underfoot repeatedly anyway.
>
>Furthermore, a substantial (and shallow) part of American culture,
>especially among the bourgeoisie, consists of affectation and
>anti-populist gestures, and always will. Hence the propensity of rich
>kids to take (status) French courses in high school, while poor kids
>enroll in (practical) Spanish courses. (I'm now 30: this is COMMON
>knowledge in my generation.) Thus also the prevalence of Oscar Wilde
>quotes among us, and the relative neglect of his infinitely superior
>contemporary Mark Twain (whom Europeans appear to appreciate more than
>we do, nowadays, and whom we often consider a bigger redneck than he
>was, simply by identifying him with his more famous subject matter).
>(But this is the reader's chief fallacy with any author.)
>
>Short version: Your portrait of America could use a few more postcards.
>You're talking about the country of Dickinson, Barnum, Edison, Welles,
>Groucho, Elvis, Jimi... The America you invoke, if only to discard,
>barely exists in the first place, except as a scarecrow in bad editorials.
>
>Jake Spatz
>DC
>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:25:46 -0400
From: "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
To: tango-L@mit.edu
Keith,
It's admittedly peripheral to tango, but I thought Jeff's post needed a
reply just for the record, this being an international forum. Point
being: If we're going to talk about cultures, let's at least not be so
lame about it.
Apologies for wasting your time.
Jake
Keith wrote:
> Jake,
>
> How is any of this long spiel even remotely related to Tango? I know you can tell me to hit the delete button, but I'd wasted a
> few minutes before I realised what I was reading.
>
> Keith, HK
>
>
> On Mon Jul 23 16:52 , "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" sent:
>
>
>> Jeff Gaynor wrote:
>>
>>> Historically the emphasis in the US has been on the common folk and democracy here is a reflection of that.
>>>
>> For straight right-handed white people who are Christian-- sure, why not.
>>
>>> A strong strain of American thinking that goes back to the Revolutionary War is against such dandies and nobility.
>>>
>> A good 50% of our country's populace supported England during that war,
>> Jeff. You're quoting our propaganda, often passed off as "history" to
>> people too young to know the difference between fact and assertion, and
>> too preoccupied with other things to care.
>>
>> Not even Army manuals (which I've edited) are this lame. Damn shame our
>> textbooks are.
>>
>>> Elitism was frowned upon until recently although now it is becoming much more fashionable.
>>>
>> Two words for you, baby--
>>
>> Fred Astaire.
>>
>> (A Midwesterner, by the way.)
>>
>>> For instance, no longer do the liberals in this country make even a pretense of liking the working classes, which is a huge change from a few decades ago.
>>>
>> Hardly.
>>
>> People's politics here have always been full of posturing and hypocrisy.
>> Read Richard Wright or Wyndham Lewis for numerous examples from that era
>> ("a few decades ago") in particular.
>>
>>> [...] equality brings with it anonymity -- if we are truly equal then there is really no distinction between us, is there?
>>>
>> This point has been made by those critical of democracy (i.e.,
>> egalitarianism) as a _cultural_ value (and likewise of statistics,
>> averages, etc.) for about two centuries now. Largely by artists.
>>
>> The linchpin of free democracy (i.e., majority rule), of course, is
>> individual and minority rights, which many people conveniently forget
>> when they're making reductive generalizations about "egalitarianism."
>> There have been quite impressive intellects (Leopardi, De Toqueville,
>> etc.) who have criticized democracy as an institution of mediocrity--
>> and not without reason, except insofar as they overlook this rather
>> important raison d'etre.
>>
>> Which raison was, naturally, the privilege of the aristocratic ethos.
>> Which itself spilled over into common life, until every common ass saw
>> himself a "gentleman." See Lewis for more eloquent statements of this.
>>
>>> Women want to be treated as the unique people they are. Men want a women that makes the world stop for them. So, in tango I agree that the normal American egalitarian ideas tend to go against the grain.
>>>
>> Your "America" is too much Norman Rockwell & Garrison Keillor, and not
>> enough Emerson/Whitman/Thoreau, my man. The rugged individualism and
>> self-reliance of our culture, like its (conflicted) Puritan aspect, are
>> easily more definitive than these courtroom cartoons, which our history
>> has ground underfoot repeatedly anyway.
>>
>> Furthermore, a substantial (and shallow) part of American culture,
>> especially among the bourgeoisie, consists of affectation and
>> anti-populist gestures, and always will. Hence the propensity of rich
>> kids to take (status) French courses in high school, while poor kids
>> enroll in (practical) Spanish courses. (I'm now 30: this is COMMON
>> knowledge in my generation.) Thus also the prevalence of Oscar Wilde
>> quotes among us, and the relative neglect of his infinitely superior
>> contemporary Mark Twain (whom Europeans appear to appreciate more than
>> we do, nowadays, and whom we often consider a bigger redneck than he
>> was, simply by identifying him with his more famous subject matter).
>> (But this is the reader's chief fallacy with any author.)
>>
>> Short version: Your portrait of America could use a few more postcards.
>> You're talking about the country of Dickinson, Barnum, Edison, Welles,
>> Groucho, Elvis, Jimi... The America you invoke, if only to discard,
>> barely exists in the first place, except as a scarecrow in bad editorials.
>>
>> Jake Spatz
>> DC
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 10:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Trini y Sean (PATangoS)" <patangos@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] Women's technique: obliques/La dulce vita
To: tango-L@mit.edu
--- "Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com)" <spatz@tangoDC.com> wrote:
> Hi Trini,
>
> Trini y Sean (PATangoS) wrote:
> > (Out of curiosity, Jake, what do you do when a man
> > visits a milonga to see what tango is like? How do you
> > encourage him to try it?)
> >
> I don't. Why?
>
> Jake
Hi Jake,
First, because I honestly don't know what other teachers do
because I'm too busy to pay close attention (and around
here, folks usually send newbies to me for their first trip
onto the dance floor). Some teachers I can see teaching
away from the pisa and then letting the newbies out. I'm
sure other women do the same thing I do.
And I also wanted to gauge where your experiences are
regarding people. Since I believe you were tango-raised in
established commmunities (NYC, right?), the things you
focus on will naturally be different from mine. It helps
me put your commments into perspective, which sometimes
seem more "bookish" to me than "real-life".
Speaking of which, I have to agree with Jeff's comments
about the common man & democracy. Regardless of whether
American history books are just propaganda, it's still what
the average person believes.
But I also believe that such thinking lies in the "American
Dream", the belief that with hard work you can become
anything you want. Why my parents left the dictatorship
and poverty (in their area) of the Phillipines to raise a
family in the States.
And even a kid from a drug-ridden neighborhood, can escape
the ghetto, become a rap star, and make millions.
Trini de Pittsburgh
Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 13:59:58 -0400
From: Jeff Gaynor <jjg@jqhome.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] la dulce vita
To: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu>
Before I get down to a detailed response to Jake let me say that this
strays quite far off the tango list. Skip it at this point if you like.
I will say that this is the last I will post about this to the list. I'm
more than happy to chat about it off-list but since this might get to be
very active it just won't be fair to the listeras/listeros.
There are two issues to address here. One is why I wrote the initial
post and the second is the direct response to Jakes commentary.
===== Why I wrote it
This has to do with how we Americans talk about ourselves. It has been
my experience that Americans don't have that much exposure to foreign
cultures and consequently assume many behaviors that are culturally
dependent are just natural. Part of our character is to be modest and
somewhat self-deprecating. Other countries would never do that and don't
view it the same way at all and I've more than once seen the situation
abroad where the American is being polite (his/her estimate) with a
small self-putdown and everyone else hops on the bandwagon to put them
down too. They never put each other down but since the American started
it.... Because of this it can be hard to get us to talk about ourselves
(my psychologist friends can go on about this at length and make a
comfortable living because of it). When asked about ourselves we are far
more likely to skip explaining what we are doing and start a critique of
it. This is quite a good thing in many ways because if we have a
disagreement you beat me to the punch so I never have to publicly
criticize you plus I get to tell you have fair & honest you are. Other
cultures would never admit to making a mistake publicly. This leaves us
sounding at best disingenuous or at worse dishonest to them. Case in
point is the recent and troubling example of the strong criticism from
the Islamicist: They ask us why our system is so great and we just can't
seem to tell them. That means either we are lying and it's no good (so
we're dishonest which feeds their paranoia), or it works great and they
can't be part of it (so we're racists or anti-Muslim). Mix that in with
a strongly honor-based culture which seems oddly quaint to us but is a
matter of life and death for them and, well, things just get to be a
complete mess in short order. So again, my initial aim was for giving
our view for people who have no context for it and aren't likely to get
it from us.
Jake, you slipped into this exact mode, by the way...
=====The response.
Jake Spatz (TangoDC.com) wrote:
>Jeff Gaynor wrote:
>
>
>>Historically the emphasis in the US has been on the common folk and democracy here is a reflection of that.
>>
>>
>For straight right-handed white people who are Christian-- sure, why not.
>
>
Sorry Jake, but sticking words in my mouth then telling me I'm wrong
does not cut it. The issue is *how* American attitudes toward commoners
have influenced our approach to democracy, in turn our behaviors to each
other and how we look at the whole thing.
>>A strong strain of American thinking that goes back to the Revolutionary War is against such dandies and nobility.
>>
>>
>A good 50% of our country's populace supported England during that war,
>
>
WOW! You mean you actually have valid statistics from this time period?
Do you have any idea how many historians would kill for that? In point
of fact you made up that number. If you didn't then give me cites.
>Jeff. You're quoting our propaganda, often passed off as "history" to
>people too young to know the difference between fact and assertion, and
>too preoccupied with other things to care.
>
>
>
No I'm not. The Colonies at the time had largely been forgotten about up
until the earlier 1700's (since no more Aztec gold was to be found) when
England tried to forceably re-assert control over them and pull them
squarely into the (very evil) mercantile system. This caused very
widespread antagonism especially in New England. The push was initially
for representation in Parliament which was flatly vetoed. At best a
Virginia planter who was managing an estate 10 times the size of someone
in the House of Lords would be referred to as a "country squire" and
treated that way. One famous example was Benjamin Franklin who had done
good basic research in electricity and held a couple of honorary
doctorates. He went to England in the early 1770's and could barely even
get an audience with anyone plus was routinely insulted to his face. He
went home and wrote famously & causticly about British excesses. Ever
been to Vandalia Ohio? This was another typical if large-scale example.
A huge tract of land was set up in that area to re-establish the feudal
system in North America. Yes, you read that right. The English gentry
was genuinely bewildered that the Americans didn't give up their farms
and flock to the new manors and the whole thing was stillborn.
>Not even Army manuals (which I've edited) are this lame. Damn shame our
>textbooks are.
>
>
So you used to write Army manuals which are, of course, paradigms of
balanced & dispassionate writing. C'mon Jake...
>>Elitism was frowned upon until recently although now it is becoming much more fashionable.
>>
>>
>Two words for you, baby--
>
>Fred Astaire.
>
>
>
Fred Astaire was *not* an elite in the sense I'm talking about. Most
plots had Fred in some ill-defined but boring career. The point was that
Fred wasn't otherwise special but man oh man could he dance, so we
could aspire to be like him. This is still very much in line with
American ideas and this occurs over and over again in popular
entertainment. How do you think the American public would have reacted
if he were a sniffy English Lord? How about a draconian German Baron?
>(A Midwesterner, by the way.)
>
>
>>For instance, no longer do the liberals in this country make even a pretense of liking the working classes, which is a huge change from a few decades ago.
>>
>>
>Hardly.
>
>
really? Jimmy Carter was a peanut farmer and was about the last major
democratic candidate to profess such a background. Now we have
techno-dweebs like Al Gore. Can you imagine him talking to a bunch of
truckers? There is no way he could convince them he has similar
experiences to them. The shift that happened starting back in the Reagan
era was that the Republicans became the party for the commoners. Up
until that time they were seen as being chiefly the party of the super
rich. One reason I am distressed by this personally is that many of my
supposed liberal college professor sorts are appalled at your average
Joe and have made strongly anti-democratic statements. It is un-nerving
to hear someone like that talk about how we have to bring democracy
everywhere as a panacea in one breadth and in the next seriously talk
about taking voting rights away from large parts of their own
population. This is not good.
>People's politics here have always been full of posturing and hypocrisy.
>Read Richard Wright or Wyndham Lewis for numerous examples from that era
>("a few decades ago") in particular.
>
>
>>[...] equality brings with it anonymity -- if we are truly equal then there is really no distinction between us, is there?
>>
>>
>This point has been made by those critical of democracy (i.e.,
>egalitarianism) as a _cultural_ value (and likewise of statistics,
>averages, etc.) for about two centuries now. Largely by artists.
>
>
>
Again, a fine dismissal that doesn't apply. True I am a musician, but I
started out on a farm and am very comfortable with the working class.
Probably more so than with many professional colleagues. Americans
generally feel very uncomfortable being special and tend to try and
shrug it off. This is very different from, say, my Japanese friends who
simply assume that there are differences and have no trouble flatly
stating them. Most Americans find them weirdly polite and cruel at the
same time.
>The linchpin of free democracy (i.e., majority rule), of course, is
>individual and minority rights,
>
*NO* Democracy can work just fine with no such rights. These are a
peculiarly American approach to __preserving__ the individual in a mass
society -- which presupposes there is something about individual rights
that is worth preserving.. Keep these ideas separate since one
fashionable way to discredit democracy (e.g. in Japan & China) is to
point to the American emphasis on "crass individualism" as being
intrinsic to it.
>which many people conveniently forget
>when they're making reductive generalizations about "egalitarianism."
>There have been quite impressive intellects (Leopardi, De Toqueville,
>etc.) who have criticized democracy as an institution of mediocrity--
>and not without reason, except insofar as they overlook this rather
>important raison d'etre.
>
>
?! See above
>Which raison
>
Don't sound like a snooty patoot. :o> Use English.
>was, naturally, the privilege of the aristocratic ethos.
>Which itself spilled over into common life, until every common ass saw
>himself a "gentleman." See Lewis for more eloquent statements of this.
>
>
Which is a common theme not just in the US but in most Western European
countries too. Look at 18th century Spaniards bemoaning that every one
was styling himself as a gentleman ("senior"). This is more an outgrowth
of the Enlightenment rather than an specifically American thing. The
idea was that one should extend to rights of the aristocracy to all.
Contrast this with a Soviet-style revolution where everyone gets to be a
peasant. Or a Nazi-type one where almost everyone ends up a slave.
>>Women want to be treated as the unique people they are. Men want a women that makes the world stop for them. So, in tango I agree that the normal American egalitarian ideas tend to go against the grain.
>>
>>
>Your "America" is too much Norman Rockwell & Garrison Keillor,
>
No it's not. You have no clue what my experiences are and I'll bet you a
dollar they have very little to do with either of those gents. Again,
you make a patently unsupported statement then take me to task on that.
tsk-tsk
>and not
>enough Emerson/Whitman/Thoreau, my man.
>
You think those guys are edgy? Thoughtful? Insightful? Profound? I'm not
seeing any of it. They are very much beloved with various literati but
that's about it.
>The rugged individualism and
>self-reliance of our culture, like its (conflicted) Puritan aspect, are
>easily more definitive than these courtroom cartoons, which our history
>has ground underfoot repeatedly anyway.
>
>Furthermore, a substantial (and shallow) part of American culture,
>especially among the bourgeoisie, consists of affectation and
>anti-populist gestures, and always will.
>
Now you're starting to make some sense. Yes, part of American culture on
the one hand is to have a strongly romanticized notion of commoners
while marginally differentiate oneself as above it all. This has been
around almost since the first settlements. Most recently it is seen in
"multi-culturalism" (see R. Jacoby's brilliant analysis) where we are to
allow lip-service of differences for barely indistinguishable social
groups. This is still better than European-style multiculturalism which
is just a really fancy word for segregation. [I lived in Germany for 11
years and got shoved into a few ghettos too, so I know whereof I speak.]
>Hence the propensity of rich
>kids to take (status) French courses in high school, while poor kids
>enroll in (practical) Spanish courses.
>
I don't think so. It *sounds* more practical to take Spanish courses but
unless there are speakers at hand the effect is again to have the mere
rudiments of a foreign language as a conversation piece. Sure there are
places where you can learn it, but where I live (small Midwest college
town, few Spanish speakers) there is hardly much difference in which
language they take. Spanish just has some more bragging rights with it.
>(I'm now 30: this is COMMON
>knowledge in my generation.) Thus also the prevalence of Oscar Wilde
>quotes among us, and the relative neglect of his infinitely superior
>contemporary Mark Twain (whom Europeans appear to appreciate more than
>we do, nowadays, and whom we often consider a bigger redneck than he
>was, simply by identifying him with his more famous subject matter).
>(But this is the reader's chief fallacy with any author.)
>
>Short version: Your portrait of America could use a few more postcards.
>You're talking about the country of Dickinson, Barnum, Edison, Welles,
>Groucho, Elvis, Jimi... The America you invoke, if only to discard,
>barely exists in the first place, except as a scarecrow in bad editorials.
>
>
>
Such as your current example? I'll cheerily admit to glossing over some
of the harder points, but the reason for the post was to try and give
foreigners a view from our perspective and to support the independent
observation that Americans seem to have a hard time with certain aspects
of a foreign culture.
Cheers,
Jeff G
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:20:58 -0400
From: Carol Shepherd <arborlaw@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [Tango-L] OT la dulce vita
To: Tango-L <tango-l@mit.edu>
I am going to make a request that off topic posts like this contain OT
somewhere in the subject line...that is what netiquette dictates.
Thanks,
Jeff Gaynor wrote:
> Before I get down to a detailed response to Jake let me say that this
> strays quite far off the tango list. Skip it at this point if you like.
> I will say that this is the last I will post about this to the list. I'm
> more than happy to chat about it off-list but since this might get to be
> very active it just won't be fair to the listeras/listeros.
...
--
Carol Ruth Shepherd
Arborlaw PLC
Ann Arbor MI USA
734 668 4646 v 734 786 1241 f
https://arborlaw.com
"legal solutions for 21st century businesses"
