<div dir="ltr"><div>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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Martha Wild via Callers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">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" (<span style="color:rgb(0,102,33);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:16px;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:nowrap;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline!important;float:none">www.</span><b style="color:rgb(0,102,33);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:16px;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:nowrap;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">voiceofroma</b><span style="color:rgb(0,102,33);font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:16px;text-align:left;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:nowrap;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);display:inline!important;float:none">.com/) </span>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. <div>Martha</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Oct 27, 2015, at 9:15 AM, John W Gintell via Callers wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">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.<div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap"> </span>John<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On Oct 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <<a href="mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div dir="auto"><div>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. </div><div>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.</div><div>Andrea<br><br>Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask</div><div><br>On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <<a href="mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><p dir="ltr">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.</p><p dir="ltr">That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy" move, just stating that there are some clear differences.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 27, 2015 11:20 AM, "Sargon de Jesus via Callers" <<a href="mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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? <div><br></div><div>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:</div><div>- The four-pointed star common in Jainism is frequently mistaken for a swastika.</div><div>- The garb of the "Nazarenos" in Spain look identical to the KKK.</div><div>- Geologists liberally use the term "dike/dyke" for a relatively common rock formation.</div><div>- Cracks or fissures in/on surfaces are commonly called "chinks."</div><div>- The term "fob" is widely used for certain types of rings on key chains.</div><div><br></div><div>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!</div><div>Sargon</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Winston, Alan P. via Callers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Apologies for putting words in your mouth. I misunderstood what you were saying.<br>
<br>
-- Alan<div><div><br>
<br>
On 10/26/2015 3:51 PM, Colin Hume via Callers wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I didn't know morris dancers used "gypsy" rather than "gyp", as you<br>
say on the web page.<br>
</blockquote>
Alan -<br>
<br>
I don't believe I say that. I say that Sharp's handwritten notes use<br>
the word "gipsies", and I give links to prove it. I agree that morris<br>
dancers use "gyp".<br>
<br>
Colin Hume<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Callers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">Callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net</a><br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Callers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">Callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Callers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">Callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Callers mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">Callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a></span><br><span><a href="http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net" target="_blank">http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div>_______________________________________________<br>Callers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">Callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net" target="_blank">http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>Callers mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net" target="_blank">Callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a><br><a href="http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net" target="_blank">http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Callers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net">Callers@lists.sharedweight.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>