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