If half of a group of people say it's a slur, and half say it's not, do we ignore the half that say it's a slur? No.
Regardless, this discussion has been had before. International Roma bodies view it as a slur. But also, the two are not mutually exclusive. People might use "redneck" as a term of pride, but it may be a slur coming from a city dweller. Or the n-word. On Jan 22, 2016 12:22 PM, "Janet Bertog" <clidas...@gmail.com> wrote: > But even the Roma cannot agree on whether the word is offensive. There > are some who do find it offensive and others who proudly embrace it. > > Regarding the question yesterday about Flowers of Edinburgh, I cannot find > the reference again, maybe I was imagining things, or associating the > Scottish fiddle tune with the dance in Cecil Sharp's books. But I was > certain that I read that it was a Scottish handkerchief dance. Cuckolds > All Awry is most definitely from the 1500s and has the gipsy move in it, > though it is uncertain whether it was actually called that at the time. > (Cuckold All Awry is called Hey Boys, Up We Go in Cecil Sharp's 1909 book > for unknown reasons, but possibly because Cuckolds was considered a > demeaning term, or possibly because he misunderstood and thought the two > titles were interchangeabble, even though Hey Boys, Up We Go is a very > different dance in Playford's Dancing Master. I will keep researching as > time permits, but I have other things to do (though less today since my > dance weekend was cancelled due to the blizzard :( ). > > I will also summarize what I heard from Carol, though I thought we were > having a conversation but did not hear back from her. > > Someone mentioned that Eden from Notorious is a Roma, has anyone asked her > opinion? I don't talk to her, so I haven't asked her. I suppose I could > though. > > > Janet > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 12:12 PM, Ron Blechner via Callers < > callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: > >> My point was that some words are offensive enough where context is *not* >> relevant. >> >> I don't use the word "cock" to mean rooster, unless I really want to make >> it a double entendre. Etc. >> >> And whether that word is offensive when it describes a group of people is >> up to that group. >> On Jan 22, 2016 12:08 PM, "Martha Wild via Callers" < >> callers@lists.sharedweight.net> wrote: >> >>> My point exactly. Context IS relevant. We have a lot of words for body >>> parts that people use in slang that are considered highly offensive and not >>> for use in polite society. And yet, many of those words are perfectly >>> acceptable words if you say them in a different context - when talking to >>> your cat, for example, or your good friend Richard, and a bunch of others >>> that I won’t put in here but know about. So context is extremely relevant. >>> We don’t ban those words from our usual conversation with their innocent >>> meanings just because they can also be used in nasty contexts and offend >>> everyone. >>> Martha >>> >>> On Jan 22, 2016, at 8:50 AM, sargo...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >