[Callers] That g word

Fri Jan 22 09:26:11 PST 2016

If half of a group of people say it's a slur, and half say it's not, do we
ignore the half that say it's a slur? No.

Regardless, this discussion has been had before. International Roma bodies
view it as a slur.

But also, the two are not mutually exclusive. People might use "redneck" as
a term of pride, but it may be a slur coming from a city dweller. Or the
n-word.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:22 PM, "Janet Bertog" <clidastes at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20160122/0142898b/attachment.htm>