Originally Posted by Shanazel

Americans are the result of a huge blending of cultures from every part of the world. No history? No depth of culture? How very insulting, and how very inaccurate. It is also insulting to present the native peoples as just having been massacred and run over- insulting to them, not to the colonists. They held their own and got in some pretty good licks against a better armed opposition before they went down in defeat.

The poor treatment of militarily weaker populations at the hands of stronger populations is the story of the world, and not just America. A good number of the European folks shoving on the Indians in the 17th and 18th centuries were there shoving because they'd been shoved out of somewhere else. The eastern tribes were organized, smart, and capable, and not stereotypical Disney Indians singing about the colors of the wind. They were not treated well in defeat- and they did not treat the people they defeated any better.

After defeat, the tribes that survived didn't all meekly retire to reservations to become Generic Indians and weave baskets for tourists- they moved west and shoved on someone else.

It all sucks and peaceful co-existance worldwide would have been vastly superior, I agree, but to gain any real understanding of history one has to study all of it and not just the parts that are considered politically correct at any given time.

By the way, the field of Indian law is incredibly complicated and conflicted, on the reservations and off. Two or three years ago, my attorney and I were part of the first civil litigation ever in a reservation court in which neither party to the case was Native American. Questions involving the legality of this are slowly working their way toward the Supreme Court. Very complicated, and I won't bore anyone with the details- you can find them in Lexis Nexis or on one of the legal research sites if you so desire.

Originally Posted by cathy

Of course we have our own very diverse, complex, satisfying, home-grown music and dance traditions. Just wondering if it means anything that we sometimes reach out to other, arguably older traditions. Maybe it's all idle speculation and I should delete it all.

Originally Posted by cathy

Here's a new perspective on the issue. Would you say that Oriental dance is seen as more "exotic" than other dance forms imported from other cultures to the West, and if so, why? Does "exotic" imply anything more than foreign? Does it exciting in its very foreign-ness or can it imply sexual? Well, "exotic spices" doesn't sound sexual, but it does mean different from what you are used to, and perhaps a kind of flight of fancy. We all know what "exotic dancer" means.

A'isha writes- I use the word "exotic" in the marketing for my dance company. Our name is "Baharat", or Spices. It can be read at our site (Barharat!!). Exotic implies both sensual and intriguing and a bit mysterious, and yes because sexual at its best is all of those things, it can imply sexual. There is nothing wrong with that. There IS something wrong with thinking that just because something is sexual, it is also for sale. I consider belly dance to be an exotic dance, but not a dance in which the dancer promises the audience anything further than the display of that exoticness.

Two nights ago I went to a big party. I ran into a friend whom I see only maybe once a month. She also studies this dance, but a different style and teacher. After we discussed her upcoming wedding, she asked me how dance was going. Another person, a guy I had just met, was listening in. He says, "What kind of dance do you DO?" I replied Middle Eastern dance. He says, "You mean you BELLY DANCE? Because I have fetishized belly dancers for the longest time!" I start to feel a wee bit concerned at this word "fetishize." He goes on to say, "Do you do this in like nightclubs? With guys stuffing money in your bra?!" I explained I perform in student shows and had never been tipped, body or otherwise. "Oh," [he seemed a bit disappointed] "because I just don't know if I could do that.....I mean act like so frankly sexual a being in public, for money."

A'isha writes- I once heard something very accurate on a television show. "You can close your eyes, open the Sears catalog to any page and put your finger on any time on that page, and somebody, somewhere will want to have sex with it." Fetishism usually implies the OTHER person's issue, not mine or yours. You would feel just as weird if he had that same strange interest in your shoes, I can say from experience.

It bugged me.

A'isha writes- Yeah, it really did, and I can see why in context of fetishes made public always being just a little... creepy.

There's a lot to unpack about this. First of all, professional dancers of every kind get paid--that in and of itself does not explain its being fetish-izable. Second, no doubt there are people who "fetishize" dancers from all other traditions including ballet. I am not sure what exactly gets him excited. For all I know he also "fetishizes" XXX dancers, strippers, lap dancers, etc., who all presumably get body tipped, but I wonder whether it's the fact that "belly dancers" AREN'T blatantly XXX, strippers, or lap dancers, the whole good girl/bad girl thing, that creates the excitement.

A'isha writes- And why would it bother you if this INDIVIDUAL gets excited about it in that context? He is not really representing the general public. And if that IS what creates the excitement on a general basis, are you willing to still do the dance? YOU can make the choice not to do this particular dance because it is too hard for you to deal with people like him, and do something in which you feel that other's sensibilities will be on the same page as your own. Or, you can do your best by the dance and learn to accept that not everyone sees it the way you do. Latent and blatant are equally exciting on a sexual level, but for different people. Sex is one of the most complicated of human functions and the psychology is so very different from human to human. It happens, I believe, about 90% in our heads and 10% in our bodies. And, yeah, its usually rather murky in there!!

He didn't use the word "exotic" but sometimes I wonder whether it isn't used as a cover for something. Maybe permission for fantasy (as opposed to truth.) Hope this makes sense. The fact that it is foreign doesn't quite explain it. I doubt this guy fetishizes people who do Irish jig or Kathak.

A'isha writes- I think exotic is an honest word, implying what I wrote in the beginning paragraph. And this particular guy might not fantasize about people who do Irish jig, but some others do!! I am also not sure that people ask permission for fantasy. It is one area of our lives where we have complete control over the outcome, and we all do it without asking what anyone else thinks. Some people just give themselves permission to be out front with their fantasies.

P .S. I think the way my original question ties together with this new point is the question as to whether we use the foreign-ness as a vehicle for our own ideas/fantasies about ourselves and others instead of seeing the form for what it is. I other words, I am wondering whether when we call or think of something as "exotic" we are giving ourselves permission (consciously or otherwise) to use rose-colored glasses.

A'isha writes- I agree that people often use foreign things to be a vehicle for their own fantasies. We see this constantly in the dance when people insist they are doing something they are not. I constantly talk about this with belly dance and Sharon Moore points it out with Tribal. However, I am not sure that calling something "exotic" is a key in the process of doing what we like with other people's stuff.

Regards,
A'isha

Cathy