[Tango-L] Social Tango: A Cultural Perspective

[Alexis Cousein]

Ron Weigel wrote:
> Stop talking about all the
> fantasia dancers who respect the line of dance.
> They are few and far between.


It depends on how you define "fantasia". First you're
lumping *everyone* not using a chest-to-chest, common axis
embrace in the "fantasia" category. In doing so, that category of
"fantasia" becomes as broad as to make that second statement
demonstrably false.

And what about couples who modify the embrace while they dance?
Are they unclassifiable heretics, to be stoned at True Milongas
of the Close Embrace? What about people who dance an open embrace
(with both partners on heir own axis) but are close to each
other and take small steps?

I suppose people using a close embrace but Daring to Step Backwards
(Even After Having Turned to Adjust That Step to the Line of Dance)
are next in line for stoning.

> More likely to be encountered are dancers with limited skills
> who cannot navigate well and are a collision danger to other dancers.

No argument from me. But blame their teachers, not their embrace or
dancing style.

> I believe one important thing North Americans fail
> to understand is that one of the unique features of social tango that
> makes it such a powerful experience that we become addicted to it is
> that there is connection primarily through the tactile and auditory
> sensory modalities, not the visual.

What *you* fail to understand is that Your True Way is not the only
True Way, and that people dancing differently from you aren't
necessarily unconnected. Nor are they necessarily dangerous
(nay, Evil) flailers of members and navigational hazards.

I've had my dose of binary (black-and-white) thinking for the day,
thank you very much.

> Our inability to understand other cultures is one of the reasons
> we are considered arrogant and have so much conflict with other 
> cultures all around the world.

I don't share your culture, but I shall still suggest you to replace
"our"/"we" with "my"/"I", and "culture" with "dancing style", and to
reread what you just wrote. *Even* though you quite evidently meant
"we" to exclude yourself.

If you want conflict, one fire sure way of getting that is to describe
people who've made different choices from those you've made as people
who have "failed to understand". It comes over as incredibly arrogant,
and if you want to "encounter resistance to your ideas", you're
well on your way to instant success.


-- 
Alexis Cousein                                al at sgi.com
Solutions Architect/Senior Systems Engineer   SGI
--
Bad grammar makes me [sic].