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 >> <[email protected]> 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 >> <[email protected]> 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" >>> <[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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
