Prelude: This post is tangential to the gypsy discussion and likely
controversial. If you are not interested, delete now. Moderators, if you
feel it is not an appropriate topic for this list tell me and I will cease
any future posts on the matter.
So, let's pretend for a moment that gypsy has been proven to originate from
the term used to refer to the Roma (we all know that I do not believe
this), or that it doesn't matter what it's origin is, the fact that it does
have one meaning that refers to the Roma people is all that matters (we all
know that I also do not believe this). Let us also pretend for a minute
that it doesn't matter that in American English the term has come to mean a
free-spirited traveler. We are going to pretend that gypsy only is a
racial slur against Romani.
First I will point out that Romani (Roma, I have seen both used, not sure
which is "most correct"), and Romani advocates, who feel that the word
Gypsy is a slur, always capitalize the word to enforce that it is a
reference to the ethnicity. So, first of all, if it not capitalized, does
that not mean that it does not refer to the ethnicity (I asked Carol this,
she did not respond). But that is not really what this post is about.
So, this discussion about removing gypsy from our dance lexicon is due to
the fact that the Roma are holding on to their heritage and the use of the
word as a slur against them (yes, I recognize that in some places, the Roma
are still persecuted today). When I have asked Roma or Romani advocates
about the word, the response I usually get is something along the lines of
"well, what if the move was called the jew instead"? Well, I'm not jew, so
I don't really relate to that either. In fact, I one of the least racially
persecuted groups in existence it would seem, although I am female and
blond. But, I digress. Among the discussions, I have been informed that
Gypsy refers to the ethnicity, not the lifestyle and that the practice of
the Romani people to travel was forced upon them. However, I have read
that, in fact, many of the persecutions were just the opposite - forcing
them to settle (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Persecutions).
Conversely, the ethnic term can be used as a slur. For example:
jew - someone who is stingy
polish - a stupid person
So, every single person in North America is an immigrant (yes, even the
"Native Americans, although much earlier than others). Every single
person's ancestor who moved to America came to America for a reason. Some
were forced (such as slaves) but many came here to escape what they were
leaving behind and to hopefully provide a better life for their families
and themselves. So, why is it then that so many racial groups who move to
America to escape their history, choose to also hold on to their history?
This is not just Roma, and it is, oddly enough, not all races. Very few
Germans or English in America refer to themselves as Germans or English (in
Cincinnati we have an Oktoberfest every year, owing to the large number of
people of German descent, but for 360 days of the year, these people are
American). If these people moved to America, why are they not just
Americans? Why are they holding on to an ethnic past? When I ask a Roma
why they use the word Gypsy to refer to themselves, the most common answer
I get is "people know the word Gypsy, but do not know what a Roma is". So,
if people do not even know what a Roma is, how can they be persecuting
them? If people who move to America want to be American, why do they hold
on to their ethnicity and continue to be offended by words that refer to
that ethnicity (this is a genuine question, I cannot at all relate to this
and so it makes no sense to me). This is not just the Roma, any group of
people who come to America and yet hold on to their ethnic traditions do
not make a lot of sense to me, especially if they are 2nd, 3rd, 4th or
more generation Americans who have never even been to the place of origin
for their ethnicity.
According to the US Census, for the first time in 2000 a significant number
of people responded to the question about ancestry by stating that they
were American jumped from 12.4 million in 1990 to 20.2 million in 2000 (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity). In the most recent
census report on the census page (
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtm…)
the top groups of identified ancestry in the United States was:
American 20 million
German 15 million (slurs include boche due to the stereotype of germans
being hard-headed, Fritz, Huns meaning savage and ruthless, Jerry, Kraut
from saurkraut, squarehead from the stereotype of the shape of their heads)
English 9 million (slurs include Gringo, Pom, Pommie, etc)
Irish 9 million (bog irish refrerring to a low class Irish, Dogan possibly
from Dugan - an Irish surname, Mick, Paddy - which has been embraced by
Irish even though it was meant to be derogatory, Pikey - an irish travel
like gypsy, tinker - an irish traveler like a gypsy, wigger - also used to
refer to people who might be called "white trash" or "rednecks")
Italian 7 million (slurs include dago, eyetie, greaseball, Guido - an
American Italian, Guinea - referring to the color of their skin, Swamp
Guinea)
European 3 million
Polish 3 million (slurs include Polak, and in fact referring to someone as
polish is often a slur in itself)
Subsaharan African 2.4 million (lots, most of you know)
West Indian 2 million (this is a lot of different nations, so it is hard to
look up)
Scottish 1.7 million (jock - most of us do not consider jocks derogatory,
Sawny or Sandy, Teuchter, and Tinker is also used in Scotland)
Norwegian 1.5 million (surprisingly none were listed)
Scotch-Irish 1.4 million (this is a mixed ancestry, so slurs of both
Scottish and Irish origin could refer to them)
Dutch 1 million (cheesehead, frog - as a stereotype of being marsh
dwellers, Yankee originally referred to Dutch settlers in America,
Russian 1 million (katsap, Moskal, russian pig)
Swedish almost 1 million
(reference for ethnic slurs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_slurs). It is true that most
of these words are not used in the English language, but who is going to
stop have kraut on their sausage because it is an ethnic slur?)
Romani are not reported,
likely grouped as "other", but other sources indicate there are
approximately 1 million Romani in America today. I provide this list to
point out that, with one exception, almost no one on this list is offended
by people calling them by their ethnicity, or terms referring to their
ethnicity and, in fact, more and more people are leaving their ancestry in
the past and accepting that they are just American.
So, why should Roma people be allowed to claim the word gypsy and declare
it a slur against them, when it is very clear that, especially in America,
it is rarely intended to be a slur, since most people just think Roma are
Americans and do not use the word to refer to the Roma people?
And in regards to "how would you feel if ...", if a move was called a blond
because you walked around in a silly, disoriented fashion, I would laugh
and wonder why we have such a chaotic dance move in contra dance - oh
right, those are mixers. If I ever called mixers, I would start saying
"blond with your partner around the room and find another couple", but I
don't, because I hate mixers).
Janet
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Lindsay Morris via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
I'm about to leave this list because I'm so appalled at the amount of time
spent on this discussion. So many smart, good people: surely we all have
something better to do?
On Friday, January 22, 2016, via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net>
wrote:
Honestly, it will be next December when I sing
Christmas carols again :-)
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via
Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers 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.
Let me know the next time you use "gay" to mean something roughly
similar
to "happy" or "joyful", but
for which there is no direct substitute.
Despite my support for queer rights (given that two of my partners are
bisexual, among other reasons), that's the one real loss I still feel.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6
http://rule6.info/
<*>
<*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person:
http://rule6.info/hearing.html
_______________________________________________
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
--
--------------------
Lindsay Morris
CEO, TSMworks
Tel. 1-859-539-9900
lindsay(a)tsmworks.com
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net