29 Oct
2015
29 Oct
'15
9:39 a.m.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015, Sargon de Jesus via Callers wrote:
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?
Maybe. But given that there isn't any clear etymology for "gypsy" as a
dance figure and given that "dance gypsy" *is* a clear reference to the
common meaning of gypsy, I think that the burden of proof falls on those
defending the use of "gypsy" as a figure -- but only if it turns out that
Romani find it offensive.
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:
- The four-pointed star common in Jainism is frequently mistaken for a
swastika.
- The garb of the "Nazarenos" in Spain look identical to the KKK.
- Geologists liberally use the term "dike/dyke" for a relatively common
rock formation.
- Cracks or fissures in/on surfaces are commonly called "chinks."
- The term "fob" is widely used for certain types of rings on key chains.
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!
All these examples refer to larger cultural/linguistic conflicts than
"gypsy" as a dance move. I'll point out that "gay" got killed (at
least
for now) despite its centuries of existence, and "queer" is still very
much up in the air. IMO, those two examples demonstrate that there's
likely to be more pushback on everyday use of terms that are also
offensive when their everyday use is already emotion-laden.
And given that "gypsy" as a dance figure has some emotional force in the
contra community, I think it's more likely to get replaced if it turns
out that it's offensive.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html