Re: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"

On Oct 27, 2015, at 13:50, Ron Blechner <contraron(a)gmail.com> wrote: This should be open and shut. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=gypsy The term, whether with a y or i vowel (remember, this is before Webster invented the dictionary with standard spellings) is ~400 years old. The burden of proof is thus on those who would say there's some other root of the word where the Morris dancers got it. > On Oct 27, 2015 12:02 PM, "Andrea Nettleton" <twirly-girl(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > I've been reading all the historical origins discussion. It's seems to me we are far from concluding that the term 'gypsy' is associated with Romani people. We have that Cecil Sharp probably heard Morris Dancers using whole and half gip, and appropriated the movement and term for broader use in country dance, apparently without investigating origin. And we have a possible association between an Elizabethan? theater production called the Spanish Gypsy, with a dance of similar name with movement that may or may not be what we now call gypsy, but was not so named in said dance. We are all assuming that at some point, someone was referring to the Roma, to their hands free dance, to their gaze, or something, but we don't know. > That said, the trouble comes on situations like that Amy Wimmer encountered. People from outside come in, and THEY make the assumption and association. And some feel it is not politically correct, and take offense. We haven't heard of a case of Romani people taking offense, presumably because we haven't had any attend a contra? That doesn't make using the term ok, it just means we have no usable specific data. Sargon's question therefore remains unanswered. What are the criteria for removing a term from our vocabulary? What level of provable offense constitutes reason for removal? Even if the answer is none, it's worth asking ourselves. > Andrea > > Sent from my iOnlypretendtomultitask > >> On Oct 27, 2015, at 11:41 AM, Ron Blechner via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >> Since "gypsy" as a contra/ECD term almost certainly refers to Romani, it differs from say, geological terms or whatnot. The swastika is a sad thing, because the Nazis basically ruined it, even though they use a reverse direction version. >> >> That said, I'm not endorsing or not endorsing the change to the "gypsy" move, just stating that there are some clear differences. >> >>> On Oct 27, 2015 11:20 AM, "Sargon de Jesus via Callers" <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>> This has been a fascinating and edifying conversation regarding how and when to use the term. At the risk of getting too deep in the philosophical questions regarding use of the word "gypsy," I have a sincere and seriously non-loaded question about what conditions must be met in order to justify removing it from our calling vocabulary. Of course I acknowledge that when use of a pointed term meant to represent a certain group of people is deemed by that group of people to be offensive, then care should be taken to eliminate use of such a word (the Washington, D.C. football team comes to mind). There is no alternate etymology to that term other than the reference to Native Americans (well, unless their helmets had always featured red-skinned potatoes, of course). But now, in playing devil's advocate I ask: doesn't context and origin matter for "gypsy"? Isn't the etymology of the term's use in contra dancing relevant to whether it can rightfully be cast aside for being an offensive term? >>> >>> To those who say it doesn't, then how do we reconcile that with offensive terms or displays that have similar outputs that arose completely independently? For example: >>> - The four-pointed star common in Jainism is frequently mistaken for a swastika. >>> - The garb of the "Nazarenos" in Spain look identical to the KKK. >>> - Geologists liberally use the term "dike/dyke" for a relatively common rock formation. >>> - Cracks or fissures in/on surfaces are commonly called "chinks." >>> - The term "fob" is widely used for certain types of rings on key chains. >>> >>> If we agree that all of these displays and uses are legitimate and appropriate for continued use, then doesn't the history of "gypsy" in contra dancing matter? Or does the surficial cause of offense warrant elimination? Not trying to weasel out of the situation here, but rather genuinely trying to refine the precise reasoning behind decisions in contra vocabulary. Curious about any/all perspectives on this -- thanks! >>> Sargon >>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Winston, Alan P. via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >>>> Apologies for putting words in your mouth. I misunderstood what you were saying. >>>> >>>> -- Alan >>>> >>>> >>>>> On 10/26/2015 3:51 PM, Colin Hume via Callers wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote: >>>>>> I didn't know morris dancers used "gypsy" rather than "gyp", as you >>>>>> say on the web page. >>>>> Alan - >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe I say that. I say that Sharp's handwritten notes use >>>>> the word "gipsies", and I give links to prove it. I agree that morris >>>>> dancers use "gyp". >>>>> >>>>> Colin Hume >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Callers mailing list >>>>> Callers(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