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" < [email protected]> 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 < > [email protected]> 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 >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Callers mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Callers mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net > >
