27 Oct
2015
27 Oct
'15
12:02 p.m.
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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 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
27 Oct
27 Oct
12:15 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"
I imagine there are some Romani organizations. A thought that I had was to contact them -
explaining the background of these dance forms, the use of the gypsy term, and the current
discussion and see what they say. It might be help decide how important it is to seek new
terminology.
John
On Oct 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Andrea Nettleton via
Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.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
<mailto:callers@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 <mailto:callers@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 <mailto:callers@lists.sharedweight.net>>
wrote:
Apologies for putting words in your mouth. I misunderstood what you were saying.
-- Alan
On 10/26/2015 3:51 PM, Colin Hume via Callers wrote:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:48:00 -0700, Alan Winston via Callers wrote:
I didn't know morris dancers used "gypsy" rather than "gyp", as
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 <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
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
12:32 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"
Since we are all operating on assumptions here about what might or might not be offensive
to the Roma people, I have sent a question to "Voice of Roma"
(www.voiceofroma.com/) asking for their opinion as to whether our using the word gypsy for
the past century plus as a name for a dance move where two people walk around each other
while facing would be considered by them to be offensive or not. If they do feel it is
offensive, we can discuss alternates. If they respond that they do not find it offensive,
then I think we can continue to call the movement a gypsy. I am hoping that someone from
the site will be able to answer my question.
Martha
On Oct 27, 2015, at 9:15 AM, John W Gintell via Callers wrote:
I imagine there are some Romani organizations. A
thought that I had was to contact them - explaining the background of these dance forms,
the use of the gypsy term, and the current discussion and see what they say. It might be
help decide how important it is to seek new terminology.
John
On Oct 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Andrea Nettleton
via Callers <callers(a)lists.sharedweight.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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net 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
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
1:14 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"
Martha, thanks for this investigative work -- I'll be interested to hear
their response! But as Andrea mentions, my question doesn't pertain to
whether it's offensive to the Roma people (I think the original email
suggests that, on the surface, it most definitely is), but rather whether
drawing the connection directly to the Roma people is an appropriate leap
to make in the first place AND whether that should factor into its use or
disuse. Yes, the word is identical in its sound and spelling to a likely
offensive term, but could it just be a case of "convergent evolution"? If
so, it would be different from terms like "Indian file" that John mentions
in that it might not actually be invoking a link to the Roma people. Right
now, much of the conversation has revolved around the extent of offense and
mulling over alternatives -- but what if the term comes from a
bastardization of "hip," "grip," or "sees" - or some other
linguistic
oddity. Is establishing a link from contra usage to the Roma a necessary
first step? Maybe genuine offense is all we need, but I think that's worth
articulating the jumps we make before we eliminate the word on that basis.
And not to inject too many questions into this discussion, but it occurs to
me now that as callers our responsibility is to elicit specific reactions
out of our dancers in few words, while minimizing confusing or distracting
language. On the one hand, this suggests we should stray toward 100%
positive language and thus eliminate the word. On the other, suddenly using
a new word for a common figure would cause avoidable confusion in the vast
majority of dancers, all to account for what could be a red herring. I
really find this issue fascinatingly complex and without a clear right or
wrong yet.
On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Martha Wild via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:
Since we are all operating on assumptions here about
what might or might
not be offensive to the Roma people, I have sent a question to "Voice of
Roma" (www.*voiceofroma*.com/) asking for their opinion as to whether our
using the word gypsy for the past century plus as a name for a dance move
where two people walk around each other while facing would be considered by
them to be offensive or not. If they do feel it is offensive, we can
discuss alternates. If they respond that they do not find it offensive,
then I think we can continue to call the movement a gypsy. I am hoping that
someone from the site will be able to answer my question.
Martha
On Oct 27, 2015, at 9:15 AM, John W Gintell via Callers wrote:
I imagine there are some Romani organizations. A thought that I had was
to contact them - explaining the background of these dance forms, the use
of the gypsy term, and the current discussion and see what they say. It
might be help decide how important it is to seek new terminology.
John
On Oct 27, 2015, at 12:02 PM, Andrea Nettleton via Callers <
callers(a)lists.sharedweight.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:
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
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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________ 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
1:50 p.m.
New subject: [Callers] Advice about "gypsy"
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:
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
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:
_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers(a)lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net
_______________________________________________ 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
3349
days inactive
3349
days old
import1@lists2.sharedweight.net
4 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Andrea Nettleton via Callers -
John W Gintell via Callers
-
Martha Wild via Callers
-
Ron Blechner via Callers
-
Sargon de Jesus via Callers