[Callers] Callers Digest, Vol 24, Issue 2

[tavi merrill via Callers]

>
> "While I am sensitive to cultural issues, until someone comes up with a
> term
> that captures not only the physics of the move, but also the flirtatious
> nature of it, I will probably grimace any time someone uses a different
> term. ...It is more than a figure, it is a figure with an attitude. "
>

THIS. This is why i personally can no longer use the term as the name of a
move. Because doing so  the name of an ethnic group to mean "make sultry
eye contact."

Mr. Fuerst's suggestion that the direction of a term's evolution should be
the deciding factor is an interesting one. However, the term's use to refer
to a carefree or nomadic individual is distinct from the associations it
conjures with regard to the dance move. As so many quickly point out,
Romani voices lack consensus on whether the term is offensive. It's not our
community's term to appropriate, until there's a Roma consensus that it
ISN'T offensive we should discontinue it, and why can't we just call the
move something that indicates what it involves. Er, indicates what it
involves without obliquely referencing stereotypes that were well ingrained
in western Europe by Victor Hugo's day and age.

Naivete is forgivable. Trying to shut others down from making a positive
change is not. If you want to keep using the G-word yourself, be my guest.
But don't presume to educate me on the term's meaning IN THE CONTEXT OF OUR
DANCE and how it relates to well-documented stereotypes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20160404/cdec8ea4/attachment.htm>