[Callers] Offensive terms and cultural norms

Aahz Maruch via Callers callers at lists.sharedweight.net
Thu Oct 29 06:39:51 PDT 2015


On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, Sargon de Jesus via Callers 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?

Maybe.  But given that there isn't any clear etymology for "gypsy" as a
dance figure and given that "dance gypsy" *is* a clear reference to the
common meaning of gypsy, I think that the burden of proof falls on those
defending the use of "gypsy" as a figure -- but only if it turns out that
Romani find it offensive.

> 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!

All these examples refer to larger cultural/linguistic conflicts than
"gypsy" as a dance move.  I'll point out that "gay" got killed (at least
for now) despite its centuries of existence, and "queer" is still very
much up in the air.  IMO, those two examples demonstrate that there's
likely to be more pushback on everyday use of terms that are also
offensive when their everyday use is already emotion-laden.

And given that "gypsy" as a dance figure has some emotional force in the
contra community, I think it's more likely to get replaced if it turns
out that it's offensive.
-- 
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6                        http://rule6.info/
                      <*>           <*>           <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html


More information about the Callers mailing list