Re: [Callers] That g word

On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:01, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote: Sargon, You and I don't get to decide what millions of people think a word means. it's the nature of language. Logic often has no bearing on it. In the same way "negro" is derived from Latin for "black", and aptly may describe a color, it's still inappropriate and offensive in most human contexts nowadays. When a word stereotypes a group of people, the only ones who get to decide the proper use of that word is... that group of people. ... As for contra communities, until there's more groundswell of support for changing "gypsy", it's an uphill battle. I think perhaps the smart thing for those of us concerned with not using the word is to educate. At the same time, I fully respect callers choosing to use their own replacements. Ron Blechner > On Jan 22, 2016 11:50 AM, <sargondj(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Callers mailing list >>>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Callers mailing list >>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net