Word Choices

I was reading Rikud (Israeli Dance Listserve, where we are for the umpteenth time debating what makes an Israeli Dance Israeli/authentic/genuine), and came across a post in which someone was suggesting that we get a dance expert in the position of "rabbi" to certify dances kosher, and people who cared could just stick to those dances, and others that were "treif" could still be available to the dancing public: it would be a matter of personal choice. (In which "kosher" dances are ones that are by whatever standards unquestionably Israeli, "treif" ones would have anything from a Non-Israeli choreographer to music composed elsewhere to lyrics in another language or a combination of such elements. Myself, I could see that leading to kosher and treif sessions, and of course, at least 10 [the Israeli Dance world is smaller than the actual Jewish population] different dance "hechshers"- my goodness, the world does Not need that concept acted on.) However, the interesting part wasn't so much the kashrut analogy- that's a concept that has been played with before, if without the analogy. The interesting bit was that at the end, the writer put limits on her own idea, which was suggested, I believe, rather tongue-in-cheek (the Committee To Teach Maya Sarcasm is having some slow bits of success), saying that if session leaders couldnt choose to play treif dances, it would be "Dance sharia". Sharia law isn't so different, especially in concept from halakha- so why did she change her analogy when she wanted to be disparaging and call it over-controlling? She could have stuck inside the system she was working and made reference to ultra-orthodoxy/the haredi world. My thought is that we're supposed to respect that, even if we don't agree with it: they're "our own people". Sharia' is Islamic, therefore it's ok to use as a derogatory term: even when there are as many variations of how it's followed as there are of halakha. But well, navelofwine I thought this might play in interestingly with your blog.

Word Choices

I was reading Rikud (Israeli Dance Listserve, where we are for the umpteenth time debating what makes an Israeli Dance Israeli/authentic/genuine), and came across a post in which someone was suggesting that we get a dance expert in the position of "rabbi" to certify dances kosher, and people who cared could just stick to those dances, and others that were "treif" could still be available to the dancing public: it would be a matter of personal choice. (In which "kosher" dances are ones that are by whatever standards unquestionably Israeli, "treif" ones would have anything from a Non-Israeli choreographer to music composed elsewhere to lyrics in another language or a combination of such elements. Myself, I could see that leading to kosher and treif sessions, and of course, at least 10 [the Israeli Dance world is smaller than the actual Jewish population] different dance "hechshers"- my goodness, the world does Not need that concept acted on.) However, the interesting part wasn't so much the kashrut analogy- that's a concept that has been played with before, if without the analogy. The interesting bit was that at the end, the writer put limits on her own idea, which was suggested, I believe, rather tongue-in-cheek (the Committee To Teach Maya Sarcasm is having some slow bits of success), saying that if session leaders couldnt choose to play treif dances, it would be "Dance sharia". Sharia law isn't so different, especially in concept from halakha- so why did she change her analogy when she wanted to be disparaging and call it over-controlling? She could have stuck inside the system she was working and made reference to ultra-orthodoxy/the haredi world. My thought is that we're supposed to respect that, even if we don't agree with it: they're "our own people". Sharia' is Islamic, therefore it's ok to use as a derogatory term: even when there are as many variations of how it's followed as there are of halakha. But well, navelofwine I thought this might play in interestingly with your blog.