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.
That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy" move, just stating that there are some clear differences.
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?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!SargonOn Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Winston, Alan P. via Callers <callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:Apologies for putting words in your mouth. I misunderstood what you were saying.
-- Alan
On 10/26/2015 3:51 PM, Colin Hume via Callers wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
I didn't know morris dancers used "gypsy" rather than "gyp", as youAlan -
say on the web page.
I don't believe I say that. I say that Sharp's handwritten notes use
the word "gipsies", and I give links to prove it. I agree that morris
dancers use "gyp".
Colin Hume
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers@lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net