22 Jan
2016
22 Jan
'16
11:50 a.m.
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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 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
22 Jan
22 Jan
12:01 p.m.
New subject: That g word
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:
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
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
_______________________________________________
12:04 p.m.
New subject: That g word
It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:
"Gay" meaning happy.
"Cock" meaning rooster.
"Pussy" meaning cat.
"Douche" meaning to shower.
This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended,
but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature
here. I hope.
Ron
On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "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
>
>
12:15 p.m.
New subject: That g word
And I don’t ban those words from my conversation if they are appropriate and in context.
My daughter raises chickens. We talk about the cocks and the hens. In the lab the carboys
have stopcocks on them. I have friends called Dick and I use their right name. Context is
important, though if I were in the presence of an English language learner I might be
careful assuming my listeners were not as familiar with different words. But that is also
context.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Ron Blechner
<contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:
"Gay" meaning happy.
"Cock" meaning rooster.
"Pussy" meaning cat.
"Douche" meaning to shower.
This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended, but I use
slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature here. I hope.
Ron
On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner" <contraron(a)gmail.com
<mailto:contraron@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 <mailto:sargondj@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
<mailto:callers@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 <mailto:callers@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 <mailto:callers@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 <mailto:callers@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 <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
12:17 p.m.
New subject: That g word
"Dick" is a preferred name of your friend.
"Gypsy" is a slur to the Roma.
Do you get the difference?
On Jan 22, 2016 12:15 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
And I don’t ban those words from my conversation if
they are appropriate
and in context. My daughter raises chickens. We talk about the cocks and
the hens. In the lab the carboys have stopcocks on them. I have friends
called Dick and I use their right name. Context is important, though if I
were in the presence of an English language learner I might be careful
assuming my listeners were not as familiar with different words. But that
is also context.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:
"Gay" meaning happy.
"Cock" meaning rooster.
"Pussy" meaning cat.
"Douche" meaning to shower.
This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any offended,
but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and we're all mature
here. I hope.
Ron
On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
12:44 p.m.
New subject: That g word
Reminds me of a mediation I was sort of part of, where a pure-breed
female dog was unsuccessfully inseminated by another of that breed.
"Bitch" and "Stud" were used liberally, and, of course, accurately...
(It was a small claims court, we mediated, and the resulting
decision--validated by the small claims judge--was: the person who owned
the bitch got the pick of a litter from a bitch owned by the person with
the stud. A result that would never have occurred had it gone to a
judge. Both parties were satisfied with the result, if not exactly happy.)
~erik hoffman
oakland, ca
On 1/22/2016 9:15 AM, Martha Wild via Callers wrote:
And I don’t ban those words from my conversation if
they are
appropriate and in context. My daughter raises chickens. We talk about
the cocks and the hens. In the lab the carboys have stopcocks on them.
I have friends called Dick and I use their right name. Context is
important, though if I were in the presence of an English language
learner I might be careful assuming my listeners were not as familiar
with different words. But that is also context.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 9:04 AM, Ron Blechner
<contraron(a)gmail.com
<mailto:contraron@gmail.com>> wrote:
It also means that I refrain from the following word uses:
"Gay" meaning happy.
"Cock" meaning rooster.
"Pussy" meaning cat.
"Douche" meaning to shower.
This, as an aside, was a funny email to write. Apologies for any
offended, but I use slang/swear words to make a serious point, and
we're all mature here. I hope.
Ron
On Jan 22, 2016 12:01 PM, "Ron Blechner" <contraron(a)gmail.com
<mailto:contraron@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
<mailto:sargondj@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
<mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 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
<mailto:callers@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
<mailto:callers@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
<mailto:callers@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
<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
<mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
12:17 p.m.
New subject: That g word
I agree with you completely that marginalized communities are indeed the gatekeepers of
the language used to describe themselves. But that right ends at the limits of words that
do not involve their community. Should a term like gypsy originate, evolve, and operate in
a linguistic universe wholly separate from anything to do with Romani people (as the Welsh
hypothetical suggests), then it is a legitimate usage. Its connection becomes unfairly
imposed, not inherent to the word. Negro is not analogous because it means nothing in
English other than its usage to describe a race of people, and at a time when that
community was treated horribly. As I alluded to in a previous email, it would be
unreasonable to say we should avoid using the phrase "chink in the armor" simply
because an identically spelled, identically sounding word has been used pejoratively. Your
reasoning suggests I should stop using that word too. If not, explain how it's
different. If you think I should stop using that word simply because of incidental
similarity, then I believe we are at an impasse.
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
12:08 p.m.
New subject: That g word
My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body parts that people
use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not for use in polite society. And
yet, many of those words are perfectly acceptable words if you say them in a different
context - when talking to your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch
of others that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant. We
don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent meanings just
because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend everyone.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 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
<mailto:callers@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 <mailto:callers@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 <mailto:callers@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 <mailto:callers@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 <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Callers mailing list
>> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:Callers@lists.sharedweight.net>
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
<http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net>
12:12 p.m.
New subject: That g word
My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not*
relevant.
I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
it a double entendre. Etc.
And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
up to that group.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot
of words for body
parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
everyone.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 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:
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
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
_______________________________________________
12:22 p.m.
New subject: That g word
But even the Roma cannot agree on whether the word is offensive. There are
some who do find it offensive and others who proudly embrace it.
Regarding the question yesterday about Flowers of Edinburgh, I cannot find
the reference again, maybe I was imagining things, or associating the
Scottish fiddle tune with the dance in Cecil Sharp's books. But I was
certain that I read that it was a Scottish handkerchief dance. Cuckolds
All Awry is most definitely from the 1500s and has the gipsy move in it,
though it is uncertain whether it was actually called that at the time.
(Cuckold All Awry is called Hey Boys, Up We Go in Cecil Sharp's 1909 book
for unknown reasons, but possibly because Cuckolds was considered a
demeaning term, or possibly because he misunderstood and thought the two
titles were interchangeabble, even though Hey Boys, Up We Go is a very
different dance in Playford's Dancing Master. I will keep researching as
time permits, but I have other things to do (though less today since my
dance weekend was cancelled due to the blizzard :( ).
I will also summarize what I heard from Carol, though I thought we were
having a conversation but did not hear back from her.
Someone mentioned that Eden from Notorious is a Roma, has anyone asked her
opinion? I don't talk to her, so I haven't asked her. I suppose I could
though.
Janet
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
My point was that some words are offensive enough
where context is *not*
relevant.
I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
it a double entendre. Etc.
And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
up to that group.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a
lot of words for body
parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
everyone.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
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:
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
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
_______________________________________________
12:26 p.m.
New subject: That g word
If half of a group of people say it's a slur, and half say it's not, do we
ignore the half that say it's a slur? No.
Regardless, this discussion has been had before. International Roma bodies
view it as a slur.
But also, the two are not mutually exclusive. People might use "redneck" as
a term of pride, but it may be a slur coming from a city dweller. Or the
n-word.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:22 PM, "Janet Bertog" <clidastes(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But even the Roma cannot agree on whether the word is
offensive. There
are some who do find it offensive and others who proudly embrace it.
Regarding the question yesterday about Flowers of Edinburgh, I cannot find
the reference again, maybe I was imagining things, or associating the
Scottish fiddle tune with the dance in Cecil Sharp's books. But I was
certain that I read that it was a Scottish handkerchief dance. Cuckolds
All Awry is most definitely from the 1500s and has the gipsy move in it,
though it is uncertain whether it was actually called that at the time.
(Cuckold All Awry is called Hey Boys, Up We Go in Cecil Sharp's 1909 book
for unknown reasons, but possibly because Cuckolds was considered a
demeaning term, or possibly because he misunderstood and thought the two
titles were interchangeabble, even though Hey Boys, Up We Go is a very
different dance in Playford's Dancing Master. I will keep researching as
time permits, but I have other things to do (though less today since my
dance weekend was cancelled due to the blizzard :( ).
I will also summarize what I heard from Carol, though I thought we were
having a conversation but did not hear back from her.
Someone mentioned that Eden from Notorious is a Roma, has anyone asked her
opinion? I don't talk to her, so I haven't asked her. I suppose I could
though.
Janet
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
My point was that some words are offensive enough
where context is *not*
relevant.
I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make
it a double entendre. Etc.
And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is
up to that group.
On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a
lot of words for body
parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not
for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly
acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to
your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others
that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant.
We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent
meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend
everyone.
Martha
On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
12:34 p.m.
New subject: That g word
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
12:45 p.m.
New subject: That g word
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
12:49 p.m.
New subject: That g word
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 :-)
http://rule6.info/
--
--------------------
Lindsay Morris
CEO, TSMworks
Tel. 1-859-539-9900
lindsay(a)tsmworks.com
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via
Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <javascript:;>> 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 <*>
<*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <javascript:;>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <javascript:;>
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
9:10 p.m.
New subject: That g word
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, Lindsay Morris via Callers 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?
Sounds like you're policing what other people choose to spend their time
on. Oddly enough, I've seen comments like yours countless times when the
subject lands on sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on. What I find
especially interesting is that these types of comments are louder when
it's a subject that isn't "generally recognized" to be hurtful. In my
own lifetime, I've watched the discussion shift significantly when the
subject is homophobia, and I currently watch appalled as fatphobia is
still considered acceptable (with constant deprecatory comments similar
to yours).
People whose lives are adversely affected by prejudice don't have the
luxury of walking away from the discussion.
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
9:28 p.m.
New subject: That g word
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Aahz Maruch via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Sounds like you're policing what other people
choose to spend their time
on. Oddly enough, I've seen comments like yours countless times when the
subject lands on sexism, racism, homophobia, and so on. What I find
especially interesting is that these types of comments are louder when
it's a subject that isn't "generally recognized" to be hurtful. In my
own lifetime, I've watched the discussion shift significantly when the
subject is homophobia, and I currently watch appalled as fatphobia is
still considered acceptable (with constant deprecatory comments similar
to yours).
Or we're just tired of hearing the same arguments back and forth. Does one
person's sixth email on the same topic really help?
(See also long conversations from October 2015, November 2015, and hundreds
of Facebook posts.)
There's times when you reach a point where you won't convince each other
for now. Meanwhile it drowns out a once productive list into raw noise.
I'm now skimming the archives back from a few years ago, and miss the days
when there was more discussion of various topics. The list was originally
created to well, to do this:
http://www.sharedweight.net/index.php?pagestate=about
Curmudgeonly,
-Chris Page
San Diego, CA
9:20 p.m.
New subject: That g word
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, sargondj(a)gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 22, 2016, at 12:34, Aahz Maruch via Callers
<callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
That's quoting, no different from watching an old movie. (And watching
_Victor/Victoria_ is especially interesting in this regard.) I meant
you, personally, using the word in conversation. I'll bet you've pretty
much wiped it out of your everyday vocabulary. The fact that you've
admitted it will be almost a year from now indicates that you understand
the point I'm making. ;-)
--
Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/
<*> <*> <*>
"If you want a picture of the future of Usenet, imagine a foot stuck in
a human mouth -- forever." --Avram Grumer
On Fri, Jan 22, 2016, via Callers wrote:
Honestly, it will be next December when I sing Christmas carols again :-)
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.
3227
days inactive
3228
days old
contracallers@lists.sharedweight.net
16 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Aahz Maruch via Callers -
Chris Page via Callers
-
Erik Hoffman via Callers
-
Janet Bertog via Callers
-
Lindsay Morris via Callers
-
Martha Wild via Callers
-
Ron Blechner via Callers
-
via Callers