Import1 January 2016

import1@lists2.sharedweight.net

1 participants
59 discussions

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

by Don Veino via Callers

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

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by Martha Wild via Callers

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>

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by Ron Blechner via Callers

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: >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> >> >

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by Janet Bertog via Callers

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: >> >>> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by via Callers

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

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by Ron Blechner via Callers

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 >> >>

8 years, 2 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by Read Weaver via Callers

I expect at the time you made the change from "ladies" to "women," very few men would have considered dancing with another man, and those who did would have faced confusion at best, and hostility from some--I speak from my own experience. As that has changed, so has the language. Sorry if you think that's something to sigh about. Read Weaver Jamaica Plain, MA http://lcfd.org > On Jan 21, 2016, at 2:19 AM, Martha Wild via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > Actually, one of the reasons I started using men and women instead of ladies and gents for the different roles years ago is because I’m from the hippie generation - and we fought so hard not to be considered “ladies” any more. “”Lady' is a four letter word” was the expression at the time. I did have women on the floor come up to me and complain about my using the term when I first started calling, and I myself was uncomfortable with the nomenclature. So at that point I switched to calling the roles “men” and “women”. So it came as a surprise to me that now some people object to that as well. Sigh. > Martha > >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 5:40 PM, Lindsay Morris via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: >> >> As somebody said: this is political correctness run amuck. >> >> <irony> >> I myself am deeply offended by the term "gentleman". I find it controlling and violent in its supposition that I must behave in certain ways. >> I hereby request - no, demand! - that all callers remove it from their vocabulary immediately. >> </irony> >> >> -------------------- >> Lindsay Morris >> CEO, TSMworks >> Tel. 1-859-539-9900 >> lindsay(a)tsmworks.com <mailto:lindsay@tsmworks.com> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Harris Lapiroff via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: >> Do you all know that we literally received a letter from the woman in question on this very mailing list a few months back requesting that we not use this word? It's in an email from Martha Wild on 11/3/15 with the subject line "[Callers] Fwd: Use of the word "gypsy" in various folk dances - Response from Voice of Roma", but I'll paste it back in here to remind you: >> >> From: Carol Silverman <csilverm(a)uoregon.edu <mailto:csilverm@uoregon.edu>> >> Subject: Re: Use of the word "gypsy" in various folk dances >> Date: November 3, 2015 7:28:00 PM PST >> To: Martha Wild <mawild(a)sbcglobal.net <mailto:mawild@sbcglobal.net>>, Voice of Roma <voiceofroma(a)gmail.com <mailto:voiceofroma@gmail.com>> >> Cc: Petra Gelbart <petragelbart(a)gmail.com <mailto:petragelbart@gmail.com>> >> >> Dear Martha, >> Sani Rifati, President of Voice of Roma forwarded you message to me. Although I am not Romani, I am on the Board of VOR and we do care deeply about the terms used for the people we represent. >> A large number of Roma (but not all) are offended by the term Gypsy, especially with a small g. To “gyp" someone means to steal and swindle; plus the word connotes a false history— it a short for Egyptian whereas Roma are from India. Roma have faced centuries of discrimination, and today are subject to deportations and racial profiling; this would be an opportunity to teach your community a little about their history. >> >> So whatever the history of the dance step, I know that names can be changed by sensitive callers like you. I would urge you to change the names and seize and educational moment! >> Sincerely, Carol Silverman >> PS Check the VOR webs page fro my information: http://www.voiceofroma.com/culture/gyp_vs_rom.html <http://www.voiceofroma.com/culture/gyp_vs_rom.html> >> >> I assume she uses it on her website and in her writings either because her views have evolved since writing them or because she is referring to categories that others have ascribed to music, arts, and people, not because she endorses its usage (since, obviously, she does not). >> >> I don't understand why this is still an issue up for debate when we've received such definitive information, nor do I understand why some of you care so much about defending a term that you have been told is offensive. >> >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 8:08 PM, Michael Fuerst via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: >> Here is the web page about the speaker, Carol Silverman >> http://anthropology.uoregon.edu/profile/csilverm/ <http://anthropology.uoregon.edu/profile/csilverm/> >> Note how freely "gypsy" appears throughout Professor Silverman's page. The word is obvious not at all heinous. >> One doubts the talk will deal with quixotic squawking about the evil of the word "gypsy" on this and other contra dance forums >> >> Michael Fuerst 802 N Broadway Urbana IL 61801 217 239 5844 <tel:217%20239%205844> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 20, 2016 5:19 PM, Linda Leslie via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: >> >> >> Yes, it does! If you should be there, please take some notes and share with this list. Thanks for telling us about it! >> Linda >> >> On Jan 20, 2016, at 5:12 PM, Roger Hayes via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: >> >>> A talk that will be given as part of the Madison Folk Ball next weekend: >>> >>> "Global Gypsy: Balkan Romani Music, Appropriation & Representation" >>> Carol Silverman, Prof. of Cultural Anthropology & Folklore, Univ. of Oregon >>> Friday Jan 29, Noon - 1:00pm in Room 1335 of Sterling Hall >>> 475 N. Charter Street, Madison WI 53706 >>> >>> Sounds interesting, yes? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 3 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by Delia Clark via Callers

Whew, it’s been a while since the earlier iteration of this conversation and my mind is fuzzy. Does that mean that in the midwest you’ll be calling “gyre” as in “With your partner, gyre and swing”? Or actually “gyrate”? Or…? I tried using gyre at a dance in December, saying that it was a great new name for my personal favorite dance move, gypsy. There were groans on the floor, but… whatever! > On Jan 21, 2016, at 7:35 PM, Janet Bertog via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > I'm not ignoring you guys (well, most of you anyway), I just got busy and I was a bad student again and didn't write down my reference so I will have to find it again. Right now I have glue in my eye, so it will have to wait. > > I also did not hear any more back from Carol, so I will report on what I did get from her and her colleague later this evening. > > Not that any of it matters, people have already made up their mind and, in the midwest at least, it sounds like we are going to have people gyrating all over the floor. > > Janet > > > On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 6:52 PM, James Saxe <jim.saxe(a)gmail.com <mailto:jim.saxe@gmail.com>> wrote: > Alan Winston asked (replying to Janet Bertog): > > > Where did you find a dance description for Flowers of Edinburgh in the 1500s? > > I, too, am curious. I suspect that Alan is asking this question, > as I am, more from an interest in the history of dancing and dance > terminology than for the purpose of deciding what terminology to > use in the future. (To be clear, I believe that both topics--the > history and what to do now--are entirely appropriate for this > list.) Please supply a reference if you have one. > > Speaking as someone who claims no formal training or other > qualification as a dance historian, but who is nonetheless an > interested dabbler in dance history, I think that a genuine > 16th-century source using "gip" (or "gyp"/"gipsy"/"gypsy"/ > "jib"/,,,) as the name of a dance figure would be quite an > interesting find, especially if the source also included some > clue about what the term actually meant at that time. On the > other hand, a 20th-century description of a dance with a "gip" > (or "half gip/gyp/gipsy/..." or "whole gip/...") together with > a vague allusion to a dance of the same title having existed > in the 16th century wouldn't be so exciting. > > With a little searching, I turned up various descriptions of > Bampton morris dancing that list half gip[/gyp/...] and whole > gip as common figures and "Flowers of Edinburgh" as one of the > specific dances. Here's just one example: > > http://www.tvmm.org.uk/Notes/Bampton.htm <http://www.tvmm.org.uk/Notes/Bampton.htm> > > And here's a video: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC2QtfnKrB8 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC2QtfnKrB8> > > Note the whole gips starting about 1:37. > > My searching also turned up many references to an RSCDS-style > Scottish dance titled "Flowers of Edinburgh." This site > > http://www.scottish-country-dancing-dictionary.com/video/flowers-of-edinbur… <http://www.scottish-country-dancing-dictionary.com/video/flowers-of-edinbur…> > > has half a dozen videos of the dance being done by different > groups, plus an animation and a link to dance instructions. > As you can see, this "Flowers of Edinburgh" includes no > "gypsy" figure and bears practically no resemblance to the > morris dance of the same name except that both are done in > some kind of longways set. > > I also turned English Country Dance versions, including these: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48y_4FU9EFU <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48y_4FU9EFU> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMID3ExAas <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMID3ExAas> > > The first one lightly resembles the RSCDS version in that it > has a sort of "swing and change" in B2 where the RSCDS version > has a poussette. The one version in the second video is > yet different. > > In the absence of further evidence, a 16th-century dance > called "Flowers of Edinburgh", if such existed, might, for > all I knew, have been wildly different from all the versions > I've cited above. > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > > > The equivalent of the Welsh word gip is glance or gaze. > > That does suggest a tempting etymology for the dance figure. > But, as we know, tempting etymologies sometimes turn out to > lack support (as, for example, in the case of "a la main" > for "allemande"). So, again, if you know of sources from > even as late as the 19th century connecting the Welsh "gip", > meaning glance/gaze with the similarly named morris dance > figure or with "gypsy" as used in ECD and (more recently) > contra dancing, please share the details. > > Again, I'm asking out of historical interest, not making > any claim about how the history should or shouldn't affect > callers' choices about terminology today. > > Thanks. > > --Jim > > > On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Alan Winston via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 1/21/16 10:48 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers wrote: > >> This was my original suggestion (see discussion in November). Then I found gip in Welsh, which seems to fit better except foe one thing. The earliest dance I can find with a gip/gypsy is Flowers of Edinburg from Scotland in the 1500s (note the date precedes the use of the word Gypsy by the English). It doesn't matter though. To many, the word is a slur in one context to some people and so should not be used, no matter what the origin. > >> > > Where did you find a dance description for Flowers of Edinburgh in the 1500s? > > > > -- Alan > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net <>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<> Delia Clark PO Box 45 Taftsville, VT 05073 Office/mobile: 802-457-2075 deliaclark8(a)gmail.com

8 years, 3 months

Re: [Callers] That g word

by James Saxe via Callers

Alan Winston asked (replying to Janet Bertog): > Where did you find a dance description for Flowers of Edinburgh in the 1500s? I, too, am curious. I suspect that Alan is asking this question, as I am, more from an interest in the history of dancing and dance terminology than for the purpose of deciding what terminology to use in the future. (To be clear, I believe that both topics--the history and what to do now--are entirely appropriate for this list.) Please supply a reference if you have one. Speaking as someone who claims no formal training or other qualification as a dance historian, but who is nonetheless an interested dabbler in dance history, I think that a genuine 16th-century source using "gip" (or "gyp"/"gipsy"/"gypsy"/ "jib"/,,,) as the name of a dance figure would be quite an interesting find, especially if the source also included some clue about what the term actually meant at that time. On the other hand, a 20th-century description of a dance with a "gip" (or "half gip/gyp/gipsy/..." or "whole gip/...") together with a vague allusion to a dance of the same title having existed in the 16th century wouldn't be so exciting. With a little searching, I turned up various descriptions of Bampton morris dancing that list half gip[/gyp/...] and whole gip as common figures and "Flowers of Edinburgh" as one of the specific dances. Here's just one example: http://www.tvmm.org.uk/Notes/Bampton.htm And here's a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC2QtfnKrB8 Note the whole gips starting about 1:37. My searching also turned up many references to an RSCDS-style Scottish dance titled "Flowers of Edinburgh." This site http://www.scottish-country-dancing-dictionary.com/video/flowers-of-edinbur… has half a dozen videos of the dance being done by different groups, plus an animation and a link to dance instructions. As you can see, this "Flowers of Edinburgh" includes no "gypsy" figure and bears practically no resemblance to the morris dance of the same name except that both are done in some kind of longways set. I also turned English Country Dance versions, including these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48y_4FU9EFU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWMID3ExAas The first one lightly resembles the RSCDS version in that it has a sort of "swing and change" in B2 where the RSCDS version has a poussette. The one version in the second video is yet different. In the absence of further evidence, a 16th-century dance called "Flowers of Edinburgh", if such existed, might, for all I knew, have been wildly different from all the versions I've cited above. On Jan 21, 2016, at 10:53 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > The equivalent of the Welsh word gip is glance or gaze. That does suggest a tempting etymology for the dance figure. But, as we know, tempting etymologies sometimes turn out to lack support (as, for example, in the case of "a la main" for "allemande"). So, again, if you know of sources from even as late as the 19th century connecting the Welsh "gip", meaning glance/gaze with the similarly named morris dance figure or with "gypsy" as used in ECD and (more recently) contra dancing, please share the details. Again, I'm asking out of historical interest, not making any claim about how the history should or shouldn't affect callers' choices about terminology today. Thanks. --Jim > On Jan 21, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Alan Winston via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > > > > On 1/21/16 10:48 AM, Janet Bertog via Callers wrote: >> This was my original suggestion (see discussion in November). Then I found gip in Welsh, which seems to fit better except foe one thing. The earliest dance I can find with a gip/gypsy is Flowers of Edinburg from Scotland in the 1500s (note the date precedes the use of the word Gypsy by the English). It doesn't matter though. To many, the word is a slur in one context to some people and so should not be used, no matter what the origin. >> > Where did you find a dance description for Flowers of Edinburgh in the 1500s? > > -- Alan > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net

8 years, 3 months

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

Import1 January 2016