[Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

Tue Oct 27 10:14:42 PDT 2015

Martha, thanks for this investigative work -- I'll be interested to hear
their response! But as Andrea mentions, my question doesn't pertain to
whether it's offensive to the Roma people (I think the original email
suggests that, on the surface, it most definitely is), but rather whether
drawing the connection directly to the Roma people is an appropriate leap
to make in the first place AND whether that should factor into its use or
disuse. Yes, the word is identical in its sound and spelling to a likely
offensive term, but could it just be a case of "convergent evolution"? If
so, it would be different from terms like "Indian file" that John mentions
in that it might not actually be invoking a link to the Roma people. Right
now, much of the conversation has revolved around the extent of offense and
mulling over alternatives -- but what if the term comes from a
bastardization of "hip," "grip," or "sees" - or some other linguistic
oddity. Is establishing a link from contra usage to the Roma a necessary
first step? Maybe genuine offense is all we need, but I think that's worth
articulating the jumps we make before we eliminate the word on that basis.

And not to inject too many questions into this discussion, but it occurs to
me now that as callers our responsibility is to elicit specific reactions
out of our dancers in few words, while minimizing confusing or distracting
language. On the one hand, this suggests we should stray toward 100%
positive language and thus eliminate the word. On the other, suddenly using
a new word for a common figure would cause avoidable confusion in the vast
majority of dancers, all to account for what could be a red herring. I
really find this issue fascinatingly complex and without a clear right or
wrong yet.

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Martha Wild via Callers <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Since we are all operating on assumptions here about what might or might
> not be offensive to the Roma people, I have sent a question to "Voice of
> Roma" (www.*voiceofroma*.com/) asking for their opinion as to whether our
> using the word gypsy for the past century plus as a name for a dance move
> where two people walk around each other while facing would be considered by
> them to be offensive or not. If they do feel it is offensive, we can
> discuss alternates. If they respond that they do not find it offensive,
> then I think we can continue to call the movement a gypsy. I am hoping that
> someone from the site will be able to answer my question.
> Martha
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 9:15 AM, John W Gintell via Callers wrote:
>
> I imagine there are some Romani organizations.  A thought that I had was
> to contact them - explaining the background of these dance forms, the use
> of the gypsy term, and the current discussion and see what they say. It
> might be help decide how important it is to seek new terminology.
>
>
> John
>
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> I've been reading all the historical origins discussion.  It's seems to me
> we are far from concluding that the term 'gypsy' is associated with Romani
> people.  We have that Cecil Sharp probably heard Morris Dancers using whole
> and half gip, and appropriated the movement and term for broader use in
> country dance, apparently without investigating origin.  And we have a
> possible association between an Elizabethan? theater production called the
> Spanish Gypsy, with a dance of similar name with movement that may or may
> not be what we now call gypsy, but was not so named in said dance.  We are
> all assuming that at some point, someone was referring to the Roma, to
> their hands free dance, to their gaze, or something, but we don't know.
> That said, the trouble comes on situations like that Amy Wimmer
> encountered.  People from outside come in, and THEY make the assumption and
> association.  And some feel it is not politically correct, and take
> offense.  We haven't heard of a case of Romani people taking offense,
> presumably because we haven't had any attend a contra? That doesn't make
> using the term ok, it just means we have no usable specific data.  Sargon's
> question therefore remains unanswered.  What are the criteria for removing
> a term from our vocabulary?  What level of provable offense constitutes
> reason for removal?  Even if the answer is none, it's worth asking
> ourselves.
> Andrea
>
> Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask
>
> On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
> Since "gypsy" as a contra/ECD term almost certainly refers to Romani, it
> differs from say, geological terms or whatnot. The swastika is a sad thing,
> because the Nazis basically ruined it, even though they use a reverse
> direction version.
>
> That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy"
> move, just stating that there are some clear differences.
> On Oct 27, 2015 11:20 AM, "Sargon de Jesus via Callers" <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> This has been a fascinating and edifying conversation regarding how and
>> when to use the term. At the risk of getting too deep in the philosophical
>> questions regarding use of the word "gypsy," I have a sincere and seriously
>> non-loaded question about what conditions must be met in order to justify
>> removing it from our calling vocabulary. Of course I acknowledge that when
>> use of a pointed term meant to represent a certain group of people is
>> deemed by that group of people to be offensive, then care should be taken
>> to eliminate use of such a word (the Washington, D.C. football team comes
>> to mind). There is no alternate etymology to that term other than the
>> reference to Native Americans (well, unless their helmets had always
>> featured red-skinned potatoes, of course). But now, in playing devil's
>> advocate I ask: doesn't context and origin matter for "gypsy"? Isn't the
>> etymology of the term's use in contra dancing relevant to whether it can
>> rightfully be cast aside for being an offensive term?
>>
>> To those who say it doesn't, then how do we reconcile that with offensive
>> terms or displays that have similar outputs that arose completely
>> independently? For example:
>> - The four-pointed star common in Jainism is frequently mistaken for a
>> swastika.
>> - The garb of the "Nazarenos" in Spain look identical to the KKK.
>> - Geologists liberally use the term "dike/dyke" for a relatively common
>> rock formation.
>> - Cracks or fissures in/on surfaces are commonly called "chinks."
>> - The term "fob" is widely used for certain types of rings on key chains.
>>
>> If we agree that all of these displays and uses are legitimate and
>> appropriate for continued use, then doesn't the history of "gypsy" in
>> contra dancing matter? Or does the surficial cause of offense warrant
>> elimination? Not trying to weasel out of the situation here, but rather
>> genuinely trying to refine the precise reasoning behind decisions in contra
>> vocabulary. Curious about any/all perspectives on this -- thanks!
>> Sargon
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Winston, Alan P. via Callers <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies for putting words in your mouth.  I misunderstood what you
>>> were saying.
>>>
>>> -- Alan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/26/2015 3:51 PM, Colin Hume via Callers wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I didn't know morris dancers used "gypsy" rather than "gyp", as you
>>>>> say on the web page.
>>>>>
>>>> Alan -
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe I say that.  I say that Sharp's handwritten notes use
>>>> the word "gipsies", and I give links to prove it.  I agree that morris
>>>> dancers use "gyp".
>>>>
>>>> Colin Hume
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Callers mailing list
>>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Callers mailing list
>>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20151027/b3f8b80a/attachment.htm>