[Callers] That g word

Fri Jan 22 09:22:27 PST 2016

But even the Roma cannot agree on whether the word is offensive.  There are
some who do find it offensive and others who proudly embrace it.

Regarding the question yesterday about Flowers of Edinburgh, I cannot find
the reference again, maybe I was imagining things, or associating the
Scottish fiddle tune with the dance in Cecil Sharp's books.  But I was
certain that I read that it was a Scottish handkerchief dance.  Cuckolds
All Awry is most definitely from the 1500s and has the gipsy move in it,
though it is uncertain whether it was actually called that at the time.
 (Cuckold All Awry is called Hey Boys, Up We Go in Cecil Sharp's 1909 book
for unknown reasons, but possibly because Cuckolds was considered a
demeaning term, or possibly because he misunderstood and thought the two
titles were interchangeabble, even though Hey Boys, Up We Go is a very
different dance in Playford's Dancing Master.  I will keep researching as
time permits, but I have other things to do (though less today since my
dance weekend was cancelled due to the blizzard :( ).

I will also summarize what I heard from Carol, though I thought we were
having a conversation but did not hear back from her.

Someone mentioned that Eden from Notorious is a Roma, has anyone asked her
opinion?  I don't talk to her, so I haven't asked her.  I suppose I could
though.

Janet

On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
> relevant.
>
> I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
> it a double entendre. Etc.
>
> And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
> up to that group.
> On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>
>> My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body
>> parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
>> for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
>> acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
>> your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
>> that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
>> We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
>> meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
>> everyone.
>> Martha
>>
>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargondj at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. If it is fair to condemn a word despite widespread ignorance
>> of its racist etymology (such as the very real problem with the verb
>> "gyp"), then the inverse must be true: it is fair to exonerate a word
>> despite widespread ignorance of its non-racist etymology (e.g., niggardly).
>> That a word falsely gets attributed to a category in which it doesn't
>> belong is irrelevant. If two separate meanings/derivations converge to an
>> identically spelled modern word, I don't believe the innocent word (when
>> used in its original context) deserves to be written off. Let us truly
>> abide by what you claim to support: its current use *is* relevant.
>>
>>
>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 13:25, Ron Blechner via Callers <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>> Martha,
>>
>> Regardless of whether it was derived from Welsh hundreds of years ago,
>> would you say more than 0.1% of dancers know that? Or, do you think 99.9%+
>> of dancers associate "gypsy" the dance move with the slang for wandering
>> people?
>>
>> Regardless of its origin, its current use is relevant.
>>
>> Ron
>> On Jan 21, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>
>>> As mentioned, there are many words we use that are even considered
>>> impolite but only depending on context. The nickname for Richard, for
>>> example. Lots of men proudly use that as their name, but it’s also a really
>>> offensive term. The name Randy has other contexts, yet we use it without
>>> any problem in the context of someone with that as their name. (Note the
>>> use of the plural for the generic singular pronoun, which I’ve done for
>>> years, unhappy with he/him for that term and that just sort of started
>>> happening). If our word actually came down from Welsh, and has no
>>> relationship to the Romani whatsoever, then it would seem even more reason
>>> to recognize that it is context dependent and completely divorced from the
>>> pejorative use of the unfortunately similar word in other countries.
>>> Martha
>>>
>>> On Jan 21, 2016, at 5:56 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <
>>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have contacted Carol and have begun a discussion.  I still have
>>> several unanswered questions but one thing I did learn is that the Romani
>>> have claimed the word and deemed it offensive and feel it should not be
>>> used, in any context, in any language.  More about why she herself uses the
>>> word later. One thing I asked her was about her insistence on the use of a
>>> capital G.  To me, this would indicate that Gypsy would refer to the
>>> ethnicity, while gypsy would have a possibly completely different meaning.
>>>
>>> We know that gipsy/gip was being used in country dances at least in 1909
>>> when Cecil Sharp wrote them down.  Two of the three dances in the 1909 book
>>> originated in the 1500s, one ECD and one Morris Dance from Scotland.  We do
>>> not know if they originally used the terms gip/gipsy in the 1500s, but we
>>> do know that gip, at least, has another meaning in Welsh (a celtic
>>> language) - gaze or glance.
>>>
>>> So, my conversation with Carol is ongoing, and unresolved.  But if you
>>> feel that a group can claim a word and then claim that it is a slur, there
>>> are a lot of other words you should stop using as well.
>>>
>>> Janet
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Erik Hoffman via Callers <
>>> callers at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What's in a word? As this list points out, it gets confusing.
>>>>
>>>> Like Martha, I stopped using "Ladies," and "Gents," or "Gentlemen,"
>>>> because they are words steeped in class-ism. And after years of being told
>>>> we live in a classless society, the lie of that became clear.
>>>>
>>>> But, more recently I was approached by a man who felt "Ladies," and
>>>> "Gents" were roles anyone could play whereas "Men" and "Women" really did
>>>> refer to what was between our legs, and made it more uncomfortable to
>>>> switch roles. Also, even though we live in a severely class society, the
>>>> words "Ladies" and "Gents" don't seem to carry that weight any more.
>>>>
>>>> Then again, in Berkeley we've switched to "gender free," and use
>>>> "Ravens" and "Larks" now.
>>>>
>>>> This is all to say, those who come to the dance have many differing
>>>> associations with words. And sometimes it is important that we listen.
>>>>
>>>> Take "He" and "She." We all know that "He" has been the generic pronoun
>>>> where "She" refers only to women. Since we live in a society dominated by
>>>> the patriarchal Christian religion, it's clear that using "He" and "Him"
>>>> generically supports this concept. Many of us, in the sixties and seventies
>>>> counteracted this male dominance by using "She" and "Her" as the generic
>>>> pronoun. It was startling how different it feels to switch to those. There
>>>> are now corners pushing to just use "They" and "Them" for everyone, like we
>>>> use "you" for both plural and singular. Maybe it will take hold...
>>>>
>>>> But all this is to say, these little words do have an affect on how we
>>>> think about things.
>>>>
>>>> So now we are thinking about "gypsy." Or, better with capitalization,
>>>> "Gypsy." Is it derogatory?  To some, not all. Is that reason enough to
>>>> change? Perhaps for some. I've started using "Right Shoulder Turn," and
>>>> "Left Shoulder Turn." It doesn't slide off the tongue, an isn't as
>>>> colorful, but it is more descriptive. At Contra Carnivale, Susan Michaels
>>>> said someone had come up with "Roma-around," or "Romaround.."
>>>>
>>>> So we're all dealing with it, and considering this as:
>>>>
>>>> Some of us are attached to our words, and don't want to loose it. Some
>>>> of us are vociferous about keeping it. And some of us are searching for a
>>>> substitute that might work better. Seems about right.
>>>>
>>>> Mostly, I want to suggest, as we struggle with this, consider how our
>>>> language and word choice does affect others, whether we mean it to or not.
>>>> As callers, we are in the public eye--granted a small pond of the
>>>> public--but our words do go out there and cause others to think, too.
>>>>
>>>> What's in a word? A lot.
>>>>
>>>> ~erik hoffman
>>>>     oakland, ca
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20160122/bab8f5fd/attachment.htm>