Import1 January 2016

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
59 discussions

by Winston, Alan P. via Callers

I don't have anything administratively to do with the sharedweight lists, but I do run other lists, so one of my pet peeves is people sending their administrative requests to the whole list, which may or may not do anything and just makes work for the administrators. (Some software catches admin requests in subject lines of posts and sends them to the administrators, but since this went to the whole list I think not.) To unsubscribe, go to the link at the bottom of every single message that comes from the list: http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net Follow fairly-obvious links to unsubscribe. If you don't remember your list password (sent to you every single month) you may need to ask for a password reminder. -- Alan On 1/22/2016 6:42 PM, Lindsay Morris via Callers wrote: > > > On Friday, January 22, 2016, Aahz Maruch via Callers > <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <javascript:;> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > > > > -- > -------------------- > Lindsay Morris > CEO, TSMworks > Tel. 1-859-539-9900 > lindsay(a)tsmworks.com <mailto:lindsay@tsmworks.com> > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 2 months

[Callers] Unsubscribe

by Lindsay Morris via Callers

On Friday, January 22, 2016, Aahz Maruch via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <javascript:;> > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > -- -------------------- Lindsay Morris CEO, TSMworks Tel. 1-859-539-9900 lindsay(a)tsmworks.com

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by Aahz Maruch via Callers

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

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by via Callers

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

8 years, 2 months

[Callers] Thoughts on ethnicity, was That g word

by Janet Bertog via Callers

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

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Run its course?

by James Saxe via Callers

As a couple of you have kindly pointed out, I unintentionally sent my last message to the entire list. Ooops. I hop I didn't say anything that will get me too much flak. As most of you know, in order to avoid bad interactions with anti-spoofing policies of so service providers, including AOL and Yahoo http://www.pcworld.com/article/2141120/yahoo-email-antispoofing-policy-brea… this list is set up to change senders' addresses from something like John Smith <jsmith@...> to John Smith via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> I remembered to make sure I used Seth's actual address in my "To" line, but slipped up and left Neal as Neal Schlein via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> Sorry if I've added noise to the discussion. --Jim

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Choreography and Copyright

by Janet Bertog via Callers

> Under what circumstances do we have the moral and/or legal right to: > 1) Call a dance written by someone else? This is part of the folk process and the best way to get dances in circulation. If people only called their own dances or had to pay royalties to call other people's dances, a lot of dances would never get called. > 2) Publish a dance written by someone else? No. The choreographer should publish their dances, unless they ask someone else to do it. I know some choreographers don't want their dances published, for some reason. > 3) Modify, or borrow from, a dance written by someone else? If you modify a dance in a very minor way, my policy is to say it is a variation of that dance and credit the original choreographer. If you borrow a move or sequence from a dance, I personally believe you should credit the origin of the move or sequence in a foot note when you publish it. Janet

8 years, 2 months

[Callers] Run its course?

by Seth Seeger via Callers

Dear callers, Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “has this gypsy discussion run its course?” Are any more replies truly adding to the conversation? I imagine that at this point, no one’s mind is going to be changed… Thank you for considering! Seth https://xkcd.com/386/ <https://xkcd.com/386/>

8 years, 2 months

[Callers] Choreography and Copyright

by Jeremy Child via Callers

The folk community is generally very open on sharing ideas and choreography. I suspect few of us would think twice about calling a dance that we found when someone else called it at an event. As for publishing it on the internet, we'd probably be more reticent, especially if the author has not published it, or has done so in booklets that are sold. This is generally the opposite of what happens in other dance communities, where the creation is jealously guarded. This made me wonder whether we are too lax in assuming that a choreographer is happy for us to make full use of their work. So my question on the subject of copyright of choreography is: Under what circumstances do we have the moral and/or legal right to: 1) Call a dance written by someone else? 2) Publish a dance written by someone else? 3) Modify, or borrow from, a dance written by someone else? Jeremy

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] Compensating for SharedWeight's Limitation re: Threads

by Don Veino via Callers

Jerome makes a great point here about the "Mute" capability, that's the easiest solution for a given thread within GMail. This might get you poking about and noticing there is also a "Block" option for a sender - I urge caution with that one. Because SharedWeight rewrites the sender address to the list's address when it forwards on posts, you may end up blocking *all* list posts with that function even though it appears you are blocking just one sender (e.g.: Don Veino via Callers). You can screen out a particular sender through Gmail's filter settings, but it is more complicated and requires manual editing of the filter. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Jerome Grisanti via Callers < callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > In addition to filtering, for those who use Gmail, there is a More button > above your mail, which contains the choice "Mute." When you mute a > conversation, new messages in the thread bypass your inbox unless your name > is added specifically as a recipient. > > https://support.google.com/mail/answer/47787?hl=en > > > > Jerome Grisanti > 660-528-0858 > http://www.jeromegrisanti.com > > "Whatever you do, or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius and > power and magic in it." --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:52 PM, Karin Neils via Callers < > callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> "There is not way to peace. Peace is the way." >> thanks Don >> Karin >> >> >> On 1/22/2016 1:09 PM, Don Veino via Callers wrote: >> >> I'm sad to see several postings recently of folks considering leaving the >> Shared Weight list over issues regarding the volume or tone of postings on >> particular topics. I realize the following is a workaround for something >> others might want to fix culturally, but I hope it may assist someone on >> the cusp of leaving to find a means to stay with us. >> >> Shared Weight is an email-based forum, and as such we don't have at our >> immediate use an "unfollow" function like those present in a website >> "forum" site. On those sites, typically one can designate easily a topic >> thread they wish to no longer receive notifications of but otherwise >> continue to enjoy the full participation of the resource. >> >> In case you are contemplating ditching Shared Weight due to this issue, >> you may wish to consider using your email client's filter capability. For >> instance, with GMail, one can click on the "More -> Filter messages like >> these" option to keep out messages you no longer wish to see in your inbox. >> You can filter on single items like sender, subject line content or a >> combination. >> >> -Don >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing listCallers@lists.sharedweight.nethttp://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> >> >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> This >> email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. >> www.avast.com >> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campai…> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >

8 years, 2 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 January 2016