-
Bhangra discussion is still going strong. Join us in our Facebook group!
New user registration has been closed (as it was entirely spam). We encourage you to post in our Facebook group, even if it's a followup to an existing thread. BTF will continue to be archived and hosted here - Saleem
Purity of Bhangra Dancing
- Thread starter dodobird
- Start date
Jasmeet said:
Yeah don't worry I can group you with the 95% of persons commenting here who've thought the thread to be a "only Punjabis should do bhangra" assertion. You and they have missed the point entirely. Disappointing, I thought more people would understand the subtleties than the few who have. I guess it's just a reflection of hypersensitivity on this topic. Read what I've written; I'd actually feel pretty embarrassed if I responded in the way you did.
Bagmi, you make some very pertinent remarks and I will be responding soon, appreciate the post.
zagreus
Active Member
- Messages
- 1,473
dodobird said:
Awww, thanks bro! Appreciate the subtle jab. Felt good.
I read through some of this and what you said, I don't agree with it, and I don't care to talk about it. Feel free to enlighten the world, I guess I'm quite embarrassed now that you mention it. I'll continue to comment the way I do. I remain dismissive of this, since there will be no agreement, and it will end with nothing understood, or gained. But thanks!
sonehdataweet
New Member
- Messages
- 773
<33 Jasmeet!Jasmeet said:
Jasmeet said:
How astute of you to describe your two posts in this thread. Nice little self-fulfilling prophecy you've set up.
bagmi said:
Actually, I would say you deprived them, to a degree, of a display of Punjabi culture. They may be the greatest bhangra dancer in the world, the aesthetic quality of the dance may be amazing; but they are not bastions of Punjabi culture. It's not inherent to them. It's not woven into their fabric. What you are presenting is a modern variant of bhangra where the cultural component shrinks. The people are the culture. I can appreciate a non-Punjabi on stage; I will laud their efforts and give them due credit as a dancer, but I won't be appreciating their effort as an exhibition of Punjabi culture.
bagmi said:
Because if you lose the people you lose the culture. Agreed, culture is not set in stone. But it is something we trace back to identifiable commonality. What is this commonality? It is the people. If the people themselves change, culture fades because those at the forefront of advocating it are no longer those who caused it to be considered culture in the first place. It just becomes a social amalgamation.
Let's take an example of the Shaolin monks. If mixed martial arts enthusiasts were to adopt, train, and practise in the former's Kung Fu arts and I were to see them, yes I would be amazed by their physical endurance and abilities, just as much as I would be were I to regard a traditional Shaolin monk. No, I would not regard them as espousing Shaolin culture. This is not and will never be inherent to them.
All my arguments hinge around a fine line: genuine exhibitions of culture and imitations. My problem is the blank association of dancing by non-Punjabis with the former.
Unfortunately, most responses do not appear to have comprehended this distinction which is why they are laced with knee-jerk reactions labeling my views as ignorant, out-of-date and bigoted. This explains the multitude of completely irrelevant analogies presented to me such as gender bias in medicine, the ethnicity of US president-elects and even marriage.
Fighting a losing battle comes to mind and I know when to call it quits, but I do appreciate the posts that were at point.
@Dodobird, while your explanations help show that you're not a racist bigot, they don't help untangle your ossified understandings of Punjab, Punjabi culture, Punjabi history, the history of bhangra, and the history of Sikhs. Granted you might very well understand these things, and happen to take solace in lay understandings of them.
"which necessarily entangled Sikhs - although my caveat is that I would say it has come to be closely regarded as associated with them."
Ok, fair. Bhangra has come to be attached to Sikhs by processes of mass consumption, and diasporic identity politics (most bhangra dancers are Sikh, all of the "folk ustaads are Sikh, most of the new teams in emergent Punjabi diasporas are Sikh) but that still doesn't qualify bhangra as a "Sikh" dance. Drinking has also been mapped onto Sikhs, and so has aggression...if you think that stereotypes are fair markers of inherent characteristics or indicators of culture, then you're making sense and I just happen to disagree with you.
"My conception of traditional bhangra is an exhibition of culture. It is a dance which showcases culture, illustrating the livelihood of the folk music and the agrarian origins of Punjabis. The most pure exhibition as such will be displayed, in my opinion, when members of said culture are the ones who are dancing."
Ok there is a lot to be said here and I havent had my morning coffee so apologies if it is just a string of fragmented thoughts.
For you "traditional" bhangra is an exhibition of culture. Lets be clear, there is no historical (pre 1940s) record of folk dance as spectacle in Punjab. Especially since pre-partition, you didn't have a large cannon of moves, its hard to legitimate that idea, of bhangra as exhibition of "culture" simply because up until post-partition bhangra really didn't exist.
Let's have a short history lesson. I happen to have a copy Ballantine's summarization of Dhillon's "Folk Dances of the Punjab"printed in 1998 in Chandigarh (I also happen to know Gibb who knows more about bhangra than all of us put together). Some summarizations/quotes (I can provide you references):
-Bhangra folk dances were principally associated with Sialkot, Shekhupura, Gujrat, Gijranwala, and Gurdaspur. Its mostly from what is now Pakistan.
-In the wake of partition, bhangra assumed new importance as the projection of "Punjabiyat" and the regional government's attempt to construct a coherent state culture that transcended deep divisions...within this context bhangra became a ubiquitous feature of the provinces culture within independent India
-Bhangra's transformation into an icon of Punjab and Punjabiness was carefully cultivated by the regional government
-Refugee camps were a crucial site where a new team-based form of bhangra emerged
-in April 1948 a team lead by Chaman Lal Rana (NOT SINGH) entertained Nehru at a refugee camp
-The first instance of bhangra as organized spectacle was for the Republic Day Parade in Delhi 1955.
-The algoza, and chimta are new to bhangra and only emerged after 1955
Now, with that said, how can we think of bhangra as exhibiting any sort of "pure" Punjabi, let alone Sikh culture? Its part of an imaginary that was an antidote to the traumatic losses suffered after partition both culturally and corporeally, and became a state-sponsored version of Punjabiyat. If you're ok with that, then its fine, but I'm not. Partition itself was a colonial construction, caste divisions and religious divisions were propagated by the British Raj. Thus, to think of bhangra in the way that you do legitimates a vast and lingering colonial gaze. As Prasad wrote, there is something incredibly sad about celebrating a nation (for us, a culture/region) and its officially constructed glorious past. This is why I laugh so hard at the OMGGGGFOLKKKKFUCKMODERNBHANGRA kids, because they're reproducing an imaginary that's anything but properly folk, and instead is mostly make-believe; often propagated by bhangra "ustaads" who don't seem to know the history themselves. Now, to say that the history of bhangra is arbitrary vis-a-vis its current form doesn't mean that it hasn't had very real implications in the lives and moods of people, but to claim any cultural purity is a bit absurd in my book.
Also most of the kids who dance bhangra today can't write their parents' names in punjabi, let alone transcribe a full boli. Get over it.
"which necessarily entangled Sikhs - although my caveat is that I would say it has come to be closely regarded as associated with them."
Ok, fair. Bhangra has come to be attached to Sikhs by processes of mass consumption, and diasporic identity politics (most bhangra dancers are Sikh, all of the "folk ustaads are Sikh, most of the new teams in emergent Punjabi diasporas are Sikh) but that still doesn't qualify bhangra as a "Sikh" dance. Drinking has also been mapped onto Sikhs, and so has aggression...if you think that stereotypes are fair markers of inherent characteristics or indicators of culture, then you're making sense and I just happen to disagree with you.
"My conception of traditional bhangra is an exhibition of culture. It is a dance which showcases culture, illustrating the livelihood of the folk music and the agrarian origins of Punjabis. The most pure exhibition as such will be displayed, in my opinion, when members of said culture are the ones who are dancing."
Ok there is a lot to be said here and I havent had my morning coffee so apologies if it is just a string of fragmented thoughts.
For you "traditional" bhangra is an exhibition of culture. Lets be clear, there is no historical (pre 1940s) record of folk dance as spectacle in Punjab. Especially since pre-partition, you didn't have a large cannon of moves, its hard to legitimate that idea, of bhangra as exhibition of "culture" simply because up until post-partition bhangra really didn't exist.
Let's have a short history lesson. I happen to have a copy Ballantine's summarization of Dhillon's "Folk Dances of the Punjab"printed in 1998 in Chandigarh (I also happen to know Gibb who knows more about bhangra than all of us put together). Some summarizations/quotes (I can provide you references):
-Bhangra folk dances were principally associated with Sialkot, Shekhupura, Gujrat, Gijranwala, and Gurdaspur. Its mostly from what is now Pakistan.
-In the wake of partition, bhangra assumed new importance as the projection of "Punjabiyat" and the regional government's attempt to construct a coherent state culture that transcended deep divisions...within this context bhangra became a ubiquitous feature of the provinces culture within independent India
-Bhangra's transformation into an icon of Punjab and Punjabiness was carefully cultivated by the regional government
-Refugee camps were a crucial site where a new team-based form of bhangra emerged
-in April 1948 a team lead by Chaman Lal Rana (NOT SINGH) entertained Nehru at a refugee camp
-The first instance of bhangra as organized spectacle was for the Republic Day Parade in Delhi 1955.
-The algoza, and chimta are new to bhangra and only emerged after 1955
Now, with that said, how can we think of bhangra as exhibiting any sort of "pure" Punjabi, let alone Sikh culture? Its part of an imaginary that was an antidote to the traumatic losses suffered after partition both culturally and corporeally, and became a state-sponsored version of Punjabiyat. If you're ok with that, then its fine, but I'm not. Partition itself was a colonial construction, caste divisions and religious divisions were propagated by the British Raj. Thus, to think of bhangra in the way that you do legitimates a vast and lingering colonial gaze. As Prasad wrote, there is something incredibly sad about celebrating a nation (for us, a culture/region) and its officially constructed glorious past. This is why I laugh so hard at the OMGGGGFOLKKKKFUCKMODERNBHANGRA kids, because they're reproducing an imaginary that's anything but properly folk, and instead is mostly make-believe; often propagated by bhangra "ustaads" who don't seem to know the history themselves. Now, to say that the history of bhangra is arbitrary vis-a-vis its current form doesn't mean that it hasn't had very real implications in the lives and moods of people, but to claim any cultural purity is a bit absurd in my book.
Also most of the kids who dance bhangra today can't write their parents' names in punjabi, let alone transcribe a full boli. Get over it.
I don't see how bhangra folk dance predominantly originating from what is now Pakistan detracts from anything. As far as Sialkot, Shekhupur and Gujranwala are concerned, they are cities in Pakistan-Punjab all of which was once Punjab. It's not surprising that a lot of Indian Punjabis I know get along very well with Pakistani Punjabis; there are physical and linguistic similarities and, after all, if you look at ancestral lines their families may have lived in neighbouring villages. There may have been disunited origins as far as the root form of bhangra is concerned but Punjab was still a thread weaving it together in a loose framework that just had not been tangibly embodied in a form we can recognise as culture.
If you take a culture today and trace its origin to the extreme, you are never going to arrive at a neat, tangible inception. Culture emerges. It does not spontaneously burst into existence at a singular point in time. It might begin as a fragmented, eclectic mix incapable of precise articulation. Eventually, despite this uncertainty, culture crystallises. This is what I argue has occurred in relation to bhangra and its association with Punjab. I can't say when in time this occurred; I don't think anybody can. Irrespective of whether "mass consumption and diasporic identity politics" have catalysed this, it has happened. There came a point where it had come to be associated with the livelihood, the traditional agrarian lifestyle of Punjabis. It does not matter that in its base form this is not wholly what it was; this is simply how the culture has emerged and crystallised.
Prasad may have lamented the celebrating of a nation and its officially constructed glorious past. Of course I agree to the extent that the past has been glorified and more importantly is a construct. I think you're putting the matter too highly if what you're saying is that bhangra in the sense I envisage as an exhibition of Punjabi culture is a construct of the body politic during partition. It may have sought to shape or influence it as thus, and indeed this may have been in the interests of a divided society - but its final form will always be a reflection of what those partaking in it at the time made it and how others have come to perceive this. I don't believe that what I consider to be bhangra was a "state-sponsored version of Punjabiyat" borne out of an iron-clad framework wrought by the regional government. It is what the people made it. It is what people have come to perceive of it as. Because of this, I don't think my conception has anything to do with the legitimisation of colonial undertones, I think that's extending the point beyond its logical limits.
Look at it from a more common sense point of view. You've said that the origins of bhangra are not neatly encapsulated into a Punjabi Pind Pride ideal. In an exhibition of culture, even if said culture cannot be concretely discerned, do you think you're going to get any closer to the mark by the involvement of non-Punjabis?. There may not be any 'pure' bhangra. But there are salient features which we can have reference to. This ties back with what is my core argument; that non-Punjabis involved in the dancing is nice, it's fun, but it's not an exhibition of the culture, and terming it as such is inaccurate. To accommodate your view - even if the whole conception of the folkloric culture is flawed, imaginary or idealistic, it is still out of line with what 'culture' has emerged in what has been perceived by the populace.
You seem to be saying that relying on this conception of culture is flawed because there are no defined roots of bhangra in the way I envisage. Whether or not this is the case, these roots have been grown. They may have been prodded, poked and nurtured in the context of partition, the political directive of ruling bodies and the like, but they are there. We acknowledge that they are there. There is a culture here that has emerged and crystallised despite its uncertain nucleus.
I'm not sure why you're telling me to get over the fact that kids who dance bhangra today can't write in punjabi. This has nothing to do with bhangra as an exhibition of culture and has no relevance to my views in this thread.
If you take a culture today and trace its origin to the extreme, you are never going to arrive at a neat, tangible inception. Culture emerges. It does not spontaneously burst into existence at a singular point in time. It might begin as a fragmented, eclectic mix incapable of precise articulation. Eventually, despite this uncertainty, culture crystallises. This is what I argue has occurred in relation to bhangra and its association with Punjab. I can't say when in time this occurred; I don't think anybody can. Irrespective of whether "mass consumption and diasporic identity politics" have catalysed this, it has happened. There came a point where it had come to be associated with the livelihood, the traditional agrarian lifestyle of Punjabis. It does not matter that in its base form this is not wholly what it was; this is simply how the culture has emerged and crystallised.
Prasad may have lamented the celebrating of a nation and its officially constructed glorious past. Of course I agree to the extent that the past has been glorified and more importantly is a construct. I think you're putting the matter too highly if what you're saying is that bhangra in the sense I envisage as an exhibition of Punjabi culture is a construct of the body politic during partition. It may have sought to shape or influence it as thus, and indeed this may have been in the interests of a divided society - but its final form will always be a reflection of what those partaking in it at the time made it and how others have come to perceive this. I don't believe that what I consider to be bhangra was a "state-sponsored version of Punjabiyat" borne out of an iron-clad framework wrought by the regional government. It is what the people made it. It is what people have come to perceive of it as. Because of this, I don't think my conception has anything to do with the legitimisation of colonial undertones, I think that's extending the point beyond its logical limits.
Look at it from a more common sense point of view. You've said that the origins of bhangra are not neatly encapsulated into a Punjabi Pind Pride ideal. In an exhibition of culture, even if said culture cannot be concretely discerned, do you think you're going to get any closer to the mark by the involvement of non-Punjabis?. There may not be any 'pure' bhangra. But there are salient features which we can have reference to. This ties back with what is my core argument; that non-Punjabis involved in the dancing is nice, it's fun, but it's not an exhibition of the culture, and terming it as such is inaccurate. To accommodate your view - even if the whole conception of the folkloric culture is flawed, imaginary or idealistic, it is still out of line with what 'culture' has emerged in what has been perceived by the populace.
You seem to be saying that relying on this conception of culture is flawed because there are no defined roots of bhangra in the way I envisage. Whether or not this is the case, these roots have been grown. They may have been prodded, poked and nurtured in the context of partition, the political directive of ruling bodies and the like, but they are there. We acknowledge that they are there. There is a culture here that has emerged and crystallised despite its uncertain nucleus.
I'm not sure why you're telling me to get over the fact that kids who dance bhangra today can't write in punjabi. This has nothing to do with bhangra as an exhibition of culture and has no relevance to my views in this thread.
We're clearly not going to be able to agree, perhaps because I am being stubborn or am ill-informed.
"I don't see how bhangra folk dance predominantly originating from what is now Pakistan detracts from anything. As far as Sialkot, Shekhupur and Gujranwala are concerned, they are cities in Pakistan-Punjab all of which was once Punjab. It's not surprising that a lot of Indian Punjabis I know get along very well with Pakistani Punjabis; there are physical and linguistic similarities and, after all, if you look at ancestral lines their families may have lived in neighbouring villages. There may have been disunited origins as far as the root form of bhangra is concerned but Punjab was still a thread weaving it together in a loose framework that just had not been tangibly embodied in a form we can recognise as culture."
I wrote the regional bit to show how clearly it is rooted in the conditions of a post-partition India. Its not "organic" to Eastern Punjab at all. On the notion of physical and linguistic similarities...before the nation states came along the language was the same. It was Punjabi. The ancestral families didn't live in neighboring villages, they lived next door to one another. There likely were tangible regional "cultures" that mixed individuals of different religions. Your inclusion of bhangra at the end doesn't make sense to me.
"If you take a culture today and trace its origin to the extreme, you are never going to arrive at a neat, tangible inception. Culture emerges. It does not spontaneously burst into existence at a singular point in time. It might begin as a fragmented, eclectic mix incapable of precise articulation. Eventually, despite this uncertainty, culture crystallises. This is what I argue has occurred in relation to bhangra and its association with Punjab. I can't say when in time this occurred; I don't think anybody can. Irrespective of whether "mass consumption and diasporic identity politics" have catalysed this, it has happened. There came a point where it had come to be associated with the livelihood, the traditional agrarian lifestyle of Punjabis. It does not matter that in its base form this is not wholly what it was; this is simply how the culture has emerged and crystallised."
Culture emerges? It might begin as a fragmented, eclectic mix incapable of precise articulation? What? I'm not thinking about Neanderthals, but after a certain point in human development, culture is always already there, just like it was in 1469 in Punjab, and like it is today. Perhaps its difficult to grapple with because it doesn't fit a fixed view that we're familiar with. My comments are directed towards the notion that culture is being exhibited or presented. Culture "crystallizes" perhaps after a huge event (post 9/11, post-partition, post-segregation) but it is always already there too. I can tell you when bhangra became associated with the Punjab. It started in 1954, probably reaching its epoch transnationally with the advent of British Bhangra groups in the 70's/80s. Those are the diasporic politics. The mass consumption emerges through the film genre in Hindi films like Jagte Raho (1956). C'mon homeboy, you dont know your history. I dont know if I made up your Sikh argument or not, but not all Sikhs are farmers, either, and most stopped being them by the 1990s. So culture has always been there, but the imaginary of it has crystallized into the imagined Punjabi culture that bhangra promotes. I just hope you know its imagined.
"Prasad may have lamented the celebrating of a nation and its officially constructed glorious past. Of course I agree to the extent that the past has been glorified and more importantly is a construct. I think you're putting the matter too highly if what you're saying is that bhangra in the sense I envisage as an exhibition of Punjabi culture is a construct of the body politic during partition. It may have sought to shape or influence it as thus, and indeed this may have been in the interests of a divided society - but its final form will always be a reflection of what those partaking in it at the time made it and how others have come to perceive this. I don't believe that what I consider to be bhangra was a "state-sponsored version of Punjabiyat" borne out of an iron-clad framework wrought by the regional government. It is what the people made it. It is what people have come to perceive of it as. Because of this, I don't think my conception has anything to do with the legitimisation of colonial undertones, I think that's extending the point beyond its logical limits."
The post-partition state-sponsored construction of bhangra was a project in culture-making. That is my point. The academy has gone way beyond the lay view of culture as a trip to the zoo..."Eh kids look, there are the Punjabis...and over look over there, the Gujratis." That is/was the project of the colonial enterprise, and India was made in the colonists image (in its totalizing form, its called Orientalism). I know it might seem abstract, but its simply what happened because of the conditions of possibility forced upon the newly-formed Indian nation. Collapsing regional differences into a neatly-packaged cultural form is a violent form of identity-making, but its done its job, hasn't it? You might not believe that what "what what I consider to be bhangra was a 'state-sponsored version of Punjabiyat' borne out of an iron-clad framework wrought by the regional government"...it might not have been iron-clad state intervention, but that's the history of the dance. It was very seriously subsidized and promoted by various government institutions to create a happy homogenized Punjabi cultural form. That's not very folk. And the individuals involved at that time, in making it what it was, were non-Sikh. Most were low caste Hindus.
"Look at it from a more common sense point of view. You've said that the origins of bhangra are not neatly encapsulated into a Punjabi Pind Pride ideal. In an exhibition of culture, even if said culture cannot be concretely discerned, do you think you're going to get any closer to the mark by the involvement of non-Punjabis?. There may not be any 'pure' bhangra. But there are salient features which we can have reference to. This ties back with what is my core argument; that non-Punjabis involved in the dancing is nice, it's fun, but it's not an exhibition of the culture, and terming it as such is inaccurate. To accommodate your view - even if the whole conception of the folkloric culture is flawed, imaginary or idealistic, it is still out of line with what 'culture' has emerged in what has been perceived by the populace."
There is no "mark" to get close to, which is the point. There is no 'pure bhangra.' I don't know what you're really getting at...the culture that bhangra venerates is either dead or imaginary, so whats the point of saying that only individuals of that ethnicity are able to puppeteer the fossilized culture? There are salient features sure: luddi, dhamaal, certain bolis, certain instruments, but I dont know how a particular shade of skin color adds to a performance. And on your last sentence, again I'm losing you. The folkloric culture is flawed, and also out of line? I think you mean to say that the "fake folk" is still what people imagine. Which relates back to my point that: "Now, to say that the history of bhangra is arbitrary vis-a-vis its current form doesn't mean that it hasn't had very real implications in the lives and moods of people, but to claim any cultural purity is a bit absurd in my book."
"You seem to be saying that relying on this conception of culture is flawed because there are no defined roots of bhangra in the way I envisage. Whether or not this is the case, these roots have been grown. They may have been prodded, poked and nurtured in the context of partition, the political directive of ruling bodies and the like, but they are there. We acknowledge that they are there. There is a culture here that has emerged and crystallised despite its uncertain nucleus."
The roots have been grown...to what? What is bhangra channeling? What roots? Partition in 47. Then 3 decades before the Punjab goes to shit. And the green revolution happened in between, completely eroding traditional agricultural lifeways. The making of bhangra always referenced a "before" which was, "before" partition. What was crystallized? What roots? The imaginary, sure.
"I'm not sure why you're telling me to get over the fact that kids who dance bhangra today can't write in punjabi. This has nothing to do with bhangra as an exhibition of culture and has no relevance to my views in this thread."
The point is of masquerading. If these youth have never been to Punjab, don't really know the language or culture (real or imagined), how are they better candidates for exhibiting culture? Is it because of their race and some metaphysical connection to the Punjab? Is it in their blood? You seem more intelligent than it, but that's called racism.
"I don't see how bhangra folk dance predominantly originating from what is now Pakistan detracts from anything. As far as Sialkot, Shekhupur and Gujranwala are concerned, they are cities in Pakistan-Punjab all of which was once Punjab. It's not surprising that a lot of Indian Punjabis I know get along very well with Pakistani Punjabis; there are physical and linguistic similarities and, after all, if you look at ancestral lines their families may have lived in neighbouring villages. There may have been disunited origins as far as the root form of bhangra is concerned but Punjab was still a thread weaving it together in a loose framework that just had not been tangibly embodied in a form we can recognise as culture."
I wrote the regional bit to show how clearly it is rooted in the conditions of a post-partition India. Its not "organic" to Eastern Punjab at all. On the notion of physical and linguistic similarities...before the nation states came along the language was the same. It was Punjabi. The ancestral families didn't live in neighboring villages, they lived next door to one another. There likely were tangible regional "cultures" that mixed individuals of different religions. Your inclusion of bhangra at the end doesn't make sense to me.
"If you take a culture today and trace its origin to the extreme, you are never going to arrive at a neat, tangible inception. Culture emerges. It does not spontaneously burst into existence at a singular point in time. It might begin as a fragmented, eclectic mix incapable of precise articulation. Eventually, despite this uncertainty, culture crystallises. This is what I argue has occurred in relation to bhangra and its association with Punjab. I can't say when in time this occurred; I don't think anybody can. Irrespective of whether "mass consumption and diasporic identity politics" have catalysed this, it has happened. There came a point where it had come to be associated with the livelihood, the traditional agrarian lifestyle of Punjabis. It does not matter that in its base form this is not wholly what it was; this is simply how the culture has emerged and crystallised."
Culture emerges? It might begin as a fragmented, eclectic mix incapable of precise articulation? What? I'm not thinking about Neanderthals, but after a certain point in human development, culture is always already there, just like it was in 1469 in Punjab, and like it is today. Perhaps its difficult to grapple with because it doesn't fit a fixed view that we're familiar with. My comments are directed towards the notion that culture is being exhibited or presented. Culture "crystallizes" perhaps after a huge event (post 9/11, post-partition, post-segregation) but it is always already there too. I can tell you when bhangra became associated with the Punjab. It started in 1954, probably reaching its epoch transnationally with the advent of British Bhangra groups in the 70's/80s. Those are the diasporic politics. The mass consumption emerges through the film genre in Hindi films like Jagte Raho (1956). C'mon homeboy, you dont know your history. I dont know if I made up your Sikh argument or not, but not all Sikhs are farmers, either, and most stopped being them by the 1990s. So culture has always been there, but the imaginary of it has crystallized into the imagined Punjabi culture that bhangra promotes. I just hope you know its imagined.
"Prasad may have lamented the celebrating of a nation and its officially constructed glorious past. Of course I agree to the extent that the past has been glorified and more importantly is a construct. I think you're putting the matter too highly if what you're saying is that bhangra in the sense I envisage as an exhibition of Punjabi culture is a construct of the body politic during partition. It may have sought to shape or influence it as thus, and indeed this may have been in the interests of a divided society - but its final form will always be a reflection of what those partaking in it at the time made it and how others have come to perceive this. I don't believe that what I consider to be bhangra was a "state-sponsored version of Punjabiyat" borne out of an iron-clad framework wrought by the regional government. It is what the people made it. It is what people have come to perceive of it as. Because of this, I don't think my conception has anything to do with the legitimisation of colonial undertones, I think that's extending the point beyond its logical limits."
The post-partition state-sponsored construction of bhangra was a project in culture-making. That is my point. The academy has gone way beyond the lay view of culture as a trip to the zoo..."Eh kids look, there are the Punjabis...and over look over there, the Gujratis." That is/was the project of the colonial enterprise, and India was made in the colonists image (in its totalizing form, its called Orientalism). I know it might seem abstract, but its simply what happened because of the conditions of possibility forced upon the newly-formed Indian nation. Collapsing regional differences into a neatly-packaged cultural form is a violent form of identity-making, but its done its job, hasn't it? You might not believe that what "what what I consider to be bhangra was a 'state-sponsored version of Punjabiyat' borne out of an iron-clad framework wrought by the regional government"...it might not have been iron-clad state intervention, but that's the history of the dance. It was very seriously subsidized and promoted by various government institutions to create a happy homogenized Punjabi cultural form. That's not very folk. And the individuals involved at that time, in making it what it was, were non-Sikh. Most were low caste Hindus.
"Look at it from a more common sense point of view. You've said that the origins of bhangra are not neatly encapsulated into a Punjabi Pind Pride ideal. In an exhibition of culture, even if said culture cannot be concretely discerned, do you think you're going to get any closer to the mark by the involvement of non-Punjabis?. There may not be any 'pure' bhangra. But there are salient features which we can have reference to. This ties back with what is my core argument; that non-Punjabis involved in the dancing is nice, it's fun, but it's not an exhibition of the culture, and terming it as such is inaccurate. To accommodate your view - even if the whole conception of the folkloric culture is flawed, imaginary or idealistic, it is still out of line with what 'culture' has emerged in what has been perceived by the populace."
There is no "mark" to get close to, which is the point. There is no 'pure bhangra.' I don't know what you're really getting at...the culture that bhangra venerates is either dead or imaginary, so whats the point of saying that only individuals of that ethnicity are able to puppeteer the fossilized culture? There are salient features sure: luddi, dhamaal, certain bolis, certain instruments, but I dont know how a particular shade of skin color adds to a performance. And on your last sentence, again I'm losing you. The folkloric culture is flawed, and also out of line? I think you mean to say that the "fake folk" is still what people imagine. Which relates back to my point that: "Now, to say that the history of bhangra is arbitrary vis-a-vis its current form doesn't mean that it hasn't had very real implications in the lives and moods of people, but to claim any cultural purity is a bit absurd in my book."
"You seem to be saying that relying on this conception of culture is flawed because there are no defined roots of bhangra in the way I envisage. Whether or not this is the case, these roots have been grown. They may have been prodded, poked and nurtured in the context of partition, the political directive of ruling bodies and the like, but they are there. We acknowledge that they are there. There is a culture here that has emerged and crystallised despite its uncertain nucleus."
The roots have been grown...to what? What is bhangra channeling? What roots? Partition in 47. Then 3 decades before the Punjab goes to shit. And the green revolution happened in between, completely eroding traditional agricultural lifeways. The making of bhangra always referenced a "before" which was, "before" partition. What was crystallized? What roots? The imaginary, sure.
"I'm not sure why you're telling me to get over the fact that kids who dance bhangra today can't write in punjabi. This has nothing to do with bhangra as an exhibition of culture and has no relevance to my views in this thread."
The point is of masquerading. If these youth have never been to Punjab, don't really know the language or culture (real or imagined), how are they better candidates for exhibiting culture? Is it because of their race and some metaphysical connection to the Punjab? Is it in their blood? You seem more intelligent than it, but that's called racism.
Mojo
WE GO HARD.
- Messages
- 83
dodobird said:
Dodobird, I have read all of your posts and frankly, I think you've cleared up a lot of the initial misunderstandings, but like Ashveer said before me, I think you're typing too much and in essence tangling things up further. I get that you don't think bhangra should be exclusively limited to Jatt Sikh Punjabi men, but that when people outside the culture perform, it's not really an expression of culture. I can respect your opinion while not agreeing with it. I sincerely apologize if I came of as belligerent, it wasn't my intention. I think I took a little more offense than some of the other people on here because, as a non-indian bhangra dancer, your argument felt a little more personal.
When I dance, I try my very best to honor the culture I'm representing. I can never claim it for myself, because ultimately, I'm not Punjabi, but that doesn't make me feel that what I'm doing is any less pure or worthy of admiration. Frankly, I don't think the purity of a performance is measured by the providence of the dancers, but by the emotion an audience can see coming from the performers. If you love what you're doing, it will show. I've seen impeccable performances by all male, all indian teams that are just lacking in spirit. I've also seen performances from teams that aren't exclusively male or Indian absolutely rip the stage with great execution and spirit. My point is that, while I respect your opinion, I think there is a lot more to consider when determining the purity of a performance than the origins of the performers.
campy614
New Member
- Messages
- 666
Oh Navi Sandhu, why must we disagree on everything lol.
Dodobird, I don't want you to think that I misunderstood your statements. I get you (for the most part), and I'm not judging you. I just don't agree with you-and it wasn't with your initial statement, it was with what came afterward.
Here's my problem. I have a huge issue with this statement: 'There is a difference between appreciation and appropriation; if persons of a disparate culture profess this art, then its status as a cultural norm becomes eroded. This is why I refer to it as modern "bhangra."' In regards to "appropriation," I'm not quite clear if you actually mean the definition of appropriation in terms of art/music, or if you mean "appropriate" as an adjective (as in non-Punjabis dancing bhangra is not appropriate)... and you've never really made that clear.
For starters, you-like a lot of people- separate modern bhangra from traditional. Ok, fine. But then you have this perception that modern bhangra isn't real bhangra. I disagree with you there, because IMO modern or traditional it's all real. That is something that I will always disagree with you on (and many people I guess) but I'm not gunna go there...
Next, I still don't agree on this watered down/eroded bhangra thing. Lemme give another example. The Italian non-profit I work for has a restaurant in it, and-like all restaurants- is headed by a General Manager/Executive Chef. Problem, the Executive Chef isn't Italian (or Roman Catholic for that matter). But, he has spent a VERY large amount of time studying Italian food. In fact, he's been to various regions in Italy (Italian food is VERY regional) and has mastered many regional variations of Italian cooking-which is amazing, because most Italian chefs (I mean that term in both "Italian born in Italy" as well as chefs specializing in Italian food) only know 1, 2 max. So is his cooking any less authentic because he's French-American? I assure you that his cooking is AMAZING, and it's better than some Italian (born in Italy) CELEBRITY chefs. If it looks and smells like Italian food, it's probably Italian food-and it's not less authetic because of the chef. If a non-punjabi does bhangra, it's not "bhangra" because of the dancer's ethnicity.
Furthermore the art of Italian cooking hasn't become eroded because of the wide variety of people of other ethnicities who participated in it. It never lost it's cultural identity. Neither has Jazz, and Jazz dancing-a distinctly American music genre and dance that has reached a much broader audience than bhangra. Non-American jazz musicians/singers/dancers, like non-Punjabi bhangra dancers, are forced to study jazz in its sound and its context to understand where the sound and the movements all come from. Jazz has reached billions of people, hundreds of countries worldwide, and has brought life into new genres of music (as well as accenting other genres-both American and non-American)... yet the cultural identity of Jazz still remains intact. Jazz's roots lay in the US's African American community-you had to have lived under a rock for the past 90 years not to know that. But is Kenny G's version of jazz any less authentic than Ella Fitzgerald? If all of this already happened to jazz-like MANY MANY music/dance forms, what exactly makes you think that 20 years down the line people won't know where bhangra's roots lay (Kinnell-143, but I have to disagree with you on this)!
Furthermore, I don't think you understand what non-Punjabi dancers have to do to keep bhangra's identity present in their performances. That's a lot of extra work that we have to perform to make sure we're as stage ready and put together (background-knowledge wise and dance-presentation wise). So however many years after I've started, and after however many performances that I've done, and however many goals I've helped my team achieve, am I not even doing the real dance? What have I been learning this whole time, tap dancing? I must have been doing it wrong all along. Gurbir and Faizan-if you're reading this-I'm really sorry for wasting your time.
Cultural norm is defined as "behavior patterns that are typical of specific groups." The problem with this statement in relation to bhangra is that the concept of bhangra as a Punjabi cultural norm flew out the window the very second a Punjabi-American, or a Punjabi-Canadian, or a Punjabi-(insert country here) decided to take bhangra outside of Punjab. It no longer was a pattern specific to THAT group because while said person's ethnic roots lie within the specific region, (s)he was not even a member of that said group. (S)he may be of Punjabi decent, but she's not pure Punjabi herself. But maybe bhangra no longer being a cultural norm is such a bad thing. Jazz, by definition, stopped being a cultural norm the second someone outside of the US African-American community decided to give it a shot. But if 20 years down the road people will be able to understand that this dance came from Punjab and was performed by a certain group, and now it expanded however many lines-what difference does it make? Have we not forgotten that the dance was created to be something... I don't know... fun? How could you watch a performance and say to yourself "oh there's non-Punjabis on that team. They're eroding bhangra as a cultural norm. That's my pet peeve (let's not forget where this topic was initially brought up)."
I don't know why I felt like typing that whole thing-especially after bhangra retirement (I've done my share of eroding the concept of bhangra as a cultural norm for you). We'll never reach any sort of agreement and neither of us will be enlightened by what the other has to say because we're both stubborn.
Dodobird, I don't want you to think that I misunderstood your statements. I get you (for the most part), and I'm not judging you. I just don't agree with you-and it wasn't with your initial statement, it was with what came afterward.
Here's my problem. I have a huge issue with this statement: 'There is a difference between appreciation and appropriation; if persons of a disparate culture profess this art, then its status as a cultural norm becomes eroded. This is why I refer to it as modern "bhangra."' In regards to "appropriation," I'm not quite clear if you actually mean the definition of appropriation in terms of art/music, or if you mean "appropriate" as an adjective (as in non-Punjabis dancing bhangra is not appropriate)... and you've never really made that clear.
For starters, you-like a lot of people- separate modern bhangra from traditional. Ok, fine. But then you have this perception that modern bhangra isn't real bhangra. I disagree with you there, because IMO modern or traditional it's all real. That is something that I will always disagree with you on (and many people I guess) but I'm not gunna go there...
Next, I still don't agree on this watered down/eroded bhangra thing. Lemme give another example. The Italian non-profit I work for has a restaurant in it, and-like all restaurants- is headed by a General Manager/Executive Chef. Problem, the Executive Chef isn't Italian (or Roman Catholic for that matter). But, he has spent a VERY large amount of time studying Italian food. In fact, he's been to various regions in Italy (Italian food is VERY regional) and has mastered many regional variations of Italian cooking-which is amazing, because most Italian chefs (I mean that term in both "Italian born in Italy" as well as chefs specializing in Italian food) only know 1, 2 max. So is his cooking any less authentic because he's French-American? I assure you that his cooking is AMAZING, and it's better than some Italian (born in Italy) CELEBRITY chefs. If it looks and smells like Italian food, it's probably Italian food-and it's not less authetic because of the chef. If a non-punjabi does bhangra, it's not "bhangra" because of the dancer's ethnicity.
Furthermore the art of Italian cooking hasn't become eroded because of the wide variety of people of other ethnicities who participated in it. It never lost it's cultural identity. Neither has Jazz, and Jazz dancing-a distinctly American music genre and dance that has reached a much broader audience than bhangra. Non-American jazz musicians/singers/dancers, like non-Punjabi bhangra dancers, are forced to study jazz in its sound and its context to understand where the sound and the movements all come from. Jazz has reached billions of people, hundreds of countries worldwide, and has brought life into new genres of music (as well as accenting other genres-both American and non-American)... yet the cultural identity of Jazz still remains intact. Jazz's roots lay in the US's African American community-you had to have lived under a rock for the past 90 years not to know that. But is Kenny G's version of jazz any less authentic than Ella Fitzgerald? If all of this already happened to jazz-like MANY MANY music/dance forms, what exactly makes you think that 20 years down the line people won't know where bhangra's roots lay (Kinnell-143, but I have to disagree with you on this)!
Furthermore, I don't think you understand what non-Punjabi dancers have to do to keep bhangra's identity present in their performances. That's a lot of extra work that we have to perform to make sure we're as stage ready and put together (background-knowledge wise and dance-presentation wise). So however many years after I've started, and after however many performances that I've done, and however many goals I've helped my team achieve, am I not even doing the real dance? What have I been learning this whole time, tap dancing? I must have been doing it wrong all along. Gurbir and Faizan-if you're reading this-I'm really sorry for wasting your time.
Cultural norm is defined as "behavior patterns that are typical of specific groups." The problem with this statement in relation to bhangra is that the concept of bhangra as a Punjabi cultural norm flew out the window the very second a Punjabi-American, or a Punjabi-Canadian, or a Punjabi-(insert country here) decided to take bhangra outside of Punjab. It no longer was a pattern specific to THAT group because while said person's ethnic roots lie within the specific region, (s)he was not even a member of that said group. (S)he may be of Punjabi decent, but she's not pure Punjabi herself. But maybe bhangra no longer being a cultural norm is such a bad thing. Jazz, by definition, stopped being a cultural norm the second someone outside of the US African-American community decided to give it a shot. But if 20 years down the road people will be able to understand that this dance came from Punjab and was performed by a certain group, and now it expanded however many lines-what difference does it make? Have we not forgotten that the dance was created to be something... I don't know... fun? How could you watch a performance and say to yourself "oh there's non-Punjabis on that team. They're eroding bhangra as a cultural norm. That's my pet peeve (let's not forget where this topic was initially brought up)."
I don't know why I felt like typing that whole thing-especially after bhangra retirement (I've done my share of eroding the concept of bhangra as a cultural norm for you). We'll never reach any sort of agreement and neither of us will be enlightened by what the other has to say because we're both stubborn.
Saab
Today is a gift
- Messages
- 991
I think, in relation to a previous post where you said the host community must perform the dance for it to remain a cultural entity, I go on a tangent.
For something like bharatanatyam, which is a tamilian folk dance, many people who view the cultural dance see it on an experience level, rather in terms of the culture of the individual who has performed it. There are non-tamil bharatanatyam dancers who have done it for 15 years, and their execution of the dance, steps, and intricacies are better than tamil people have been doing it for the same time, because the experience they have gained and usage of the tools given to them put them at what is considered the "proper way" of doing bharatanatyam. It is almost a rule of thumb that people who do it longer pick up nuances and techniques that make them better. 99% of the time someone who is doing it 15 years is better than doing it 7.
The reason I bring this up is because I feel a lot of people correlate the ties of culture into experience. Like you get an extra-benefit of the whole "bhangra in your blood" thing and it attaches experience. I dont feel like that is a correct assumption. It might make it easier( its easier for a tamil to do bharatanatyam because the resources for them are conceivably easier to come by) but that doesnt mean they are the best dancers. It usually takes a good teacher and a lot of hard work to get into any discipline.
Why do many bhangra teams have different names for steps? Why are there different styles of bhangra?
It is not a uniform composition, so therefore trying to trace it back is just going up to a different tree.
The thing is bharatanatyam and bhangra were both founded on the principle of enjoyment. Not a specific culture, not a specific type of people performing it, but rather as an expression of joy. Sure you can say its an art form, but by doing so would be to agree that it evolved(from my knowledge) farmers doing it for fun to a more "refined art"(which is evolution/degradation depending on who you look at it). Restricting movement of individuals through the process of barriers defeats the basic tenet, which defeats the basic purpose of the dance, and that kind of defeats the purpose of the dance and means you are doing a "Modern" version of it.
Bhangra has been applied a punjabi culture(through language) and sikhism(paggan) but that does not denote that the dance(which is dance moves) is strictly punjabi. Yes it was founded by punjabi people, but when you dance to a straight dhol(no lyrics) and practice(without a pagg), it becomes more of a dance than a cultural phenomenon. We do it to lyrics that are punjabi and wear the paggs for the competition, but if you dance to a rap instrumental for jugni with no punjabi lyrics at a practice(with no pagg), what are you doing? A dance, or this STRICTLY punjabi cultural bonanza.
Also, if you are wondering why we are wowed at India teams, please reflect the hours put into a bhangra performance in india and the factors that go into practice vs here.
India
-people dig it
-source of pride
-college teams everywhere
-organized competition system
-Source of the foundation of the dance
US
- dollar dollar bills yall
- we have lives outside of bhangra(well some) that prevent extreme hour usage
- Individual competitions
- Not all schools compete
- Advent of independent teams
And you can keep going. This is not for dodobird, but for everyone else, and I think this is going to round out the topic.
For something like bharatanatyam, which is a tamilian folk dance, many people who view the cultural dance see it on an experience level, rather in terms of the culture of the individual who has performed it. There are non-tamil bharatanatyam dancers who have done it for 15 years, and their execution of the dance, steps, and intricacies are better than tamil people have been doing it for the same time, because the experience they have gained and usage of the tools given to them put them at what is considered the "proper way" of doing bharatanatyam. It is almost a rule of thumb that people who do it longer pick up nuances and techniques that make them better. 99% of the time someone who is doing it 15 years is better than doing it 7.
The reason I bring this up is because I feel a lot of people correlate the ties of culture into experience. Like you get an extra-benefit of the whole "bhangra in your blood" thing and it attaches experience. I dont feel like that is a correct assumption. It might make it easier( its easier for a tamil to do bharatanatyam because the resources for them are conceivably easier to come by) but that doesnt mean they are the best dancers. It usually takes a good teacher and a lot of hard work to get into any discipline.
Why do many bhangra teams have different names for steps? Why are there different styles of bhangra?
It is not a uniform composition, so therefore trying to trace it back is just going up to a different tree.
The thing is bharatanatyam and bhangra were both founded on the principle of enjoyment. Not a specific culture, not a specific type of people performing it, but rather as an expression of joy. Sure you can say its an art form, but by doing so would be to agree that it evolved(from my knowledge) farmers doing it for fun to a more "refined art"(which is evolution/degradation depending on who you look at it). Restricting movement of individuals through the process of barriers defeats the basic tenet, which defeats the basic purpose of the dance, and that kind of defeats the purpose of the dance and means you are doing a "Modern" version of it.
Bhangra has been applied a punjabi culture(through language) and sikhism(paggan) but that does not denote that the dance(which is dance moves) is strictly punjabi. Yes it was founded by punjabi people, but when you dance to a straight dhol(no lyrics) and practice(without a pagg), it becomes more of a dance than a cultural phenomenon. We do it to lyrics that are punjabi and wear the paggs for the competition, but if you dance to a rap instrumental for jugni with no punjabi lyrics at a practice(with no pagg), what are you doing? A dance, or this STRICTLY punjabi cultural bonanza.
Also, if you are wondering why we are wowed at India teams, please reflect the hours put into a bhangra performance in india and the factors that go into practice vs here.
India
-people dig it
-source of pride
-college teams everywhere
-organized competition system
-Source of the foundation of the dance
US
- dollar dollar bills yall
- we have lives outside of bhangra(well some) that prevent extreme hour usage
- Individual competitions
- Not all schools compete
- Advent of independent teams
And you can keep going. This is not for dodobird, but for everyone else, and I think this is going to round out the topic.
Kush
Active Member
- Messages
- 1,401
Rather than post another verbose response exclaiming my view points, which have all pretty much been mentioned throughout this entire thread, i just have to ask. Is it just me or does this really come down to a matter of opinion? It is just another perspective, much like our never ending "folk" vs "modern" arguments which, too, are a matter of perspective. I understand now that some of the posters are simply discussing their individual feelings on the matter at hand, but if anyone is really trying to CONVINCE the other party otherwise, i dont see a right or wrong answer.
I also think alot (not all) of the debate became moot upon clarification of the OP's first statements which were miscontrued/did not accurately convey his sentiment.
My opinion, in short? While i do think bhangra boils down to a particular cultural source, i think the recent expanse has provided the opportunity for it to be accurately expressed and visualized across a diversity of backgrounds, therein not limiting it to only being a representation of the original source when it is done by people FROM that culture. I appreciate correct execution, moves, grace, form, and expression of the dance as the best representation of the culture much more than i appreciate the skin color or face of the person doing said dance, regardless of whether we're talking about bhangra, river dancing, or a tribal rain dance.
I also think alot (not all) of the debate became moot upon clarification of the OP's first statements which were miscontrued/did not accurately convey his sentiment.
My opinion, in short? While i do think bhangra boils down to a particular cultural source, i think the recent expanse has provided the opportunity for it to be accurately expressed and visualized across a diversity of backgrounds, therein not limiting it to only being a representation of the original source when it is done by people FROM that culture. I appreciate correct execution, moves, grace, form, and expression of the dance as the best representation of the culture much more than i appreciate the skin color or face of the person doing said dance, regardless of whether we're talking about bhangra, river dancing, or a tribal rain dance.
singhvarunjit
New Member
- Messages
- 37
Nice thoughts buddy.. I agree to almost all of the points that you have stated. I would just like to add something. Bhangra has risen from just being a folk dance of Punjab. It now enjoys an International reputation. But, the truth is that if we let the foundations loose, the building will surely fall.Saab said:
That is what most of the Bhangra Lovers (at least, here in Punjab) are worried about. They do want and like newer things introduced to Bhangra (and this anybody can clearly see.. the difference between Bhangra performed in the 1990s and the Bhangra performed today), but what they fear is that the essence and the real touch of Bhangra should not be lost. Like I have seen many videos of foreign teams performing on stage even without Pagg. That is something quite not acceptable. "Pagg" is an integral part of the dance when showcased in public. When we are performing Bhangra "on stage", we are not just performing it to have fun, we are also showing our culture to audience. With the moves, Dhol and the much discussed topic on BTF, "Marhak", we are giving an essence to the audience of what we (as a community) are.
If we are able to give goose bumps to the public, only then we think that yes, we really performed. This is the difference between people dancing to the tunes of Bhangra anywhere and the people who actually perform on stage. If we say that we are"Bhangra Dancers", its our duty to know and exhibit what "actually" Bhangra is.
I thank dodobird, despite his/her non-popular opinions, for inciting such an intellectual response on all levels from the BTF community. There are many issues at hand, but the arguments have been a mind blast to read.
The purpose of debate is not to have a winner or rather conclude with an agreement, but, rather, it is about education. It is not necessarily about how it will end, but rather the journey and what we have learned on the way. I like turtles. I might be on the process questioning my own beliefs on the matter after reading certain responses, but that's only because I, along with other posters including dodobird, approached this topic with an open mind rather than being dismissive/ignorant about what use it has. I feel that is more criminal than having an unpopular opinion, not that the latter is criminal at all. (Side question: If one is open-minded, does that mean they are by definition, logical?)
In my opinion, one of the best threads ever.
The purpose of debate is not to have a winner or rather conclude with an agreement, but, rather, it is about education. It is not necessarily about how it will end, but rather the journey and what we have learned on the way. I like turtles. I might be on the process questioning my own beliefs on the matter after reading certain responses, but that's only because I, along with other posters including dodobird, approached this topic with an open mind rather than being dismissive/ignorant about what use it has. I feel that is more criminal than having an unpopular opinion, not that the latter is criminal at all. (Side question: If one is open-minded, does that mean they are by definition, logical?)
In my opinion, one of the best threads ever.
