I’m not really sure how co-opting a term coined to describe an ethnic group to describe a “lifestyle” makes the term less racist. “I’m going to quit my job and go live like a Jew,” is pretty clearly inappropriate, even if it’s only “barely” derogatory, and even if there aren’t a lot of Jewish people where you live.
I don’t really understand the pushback here. Sure, in the U.S. “gypsy” may not have the impact it has in Europe. but, as Dopers like to boast, this IS an international board.
If the very best defense people can muster about the term is that on this side of the Atlantic it’s a comic stereotype that really doesn’t refer to anyone in particular, there are a whole lot of Europeans who can revive minstrel shows.
I’m guessing the difference would lie in white Americans’ reaction to a whole community of immigrants versus one or two persons. Or, because I have always moved in liberal and progressive circles and don’t hang out with racists when I can avoid it, so I’m in a bubble.
Sometimes basic etiquette is a good way to navigate issues like this. If you are addressing someone who asks that you not address them with a certain word, you should generally respect that. If a Roma person doesn’t want you calling them a gypsy, you shouldn’t. If a word is a clearly established racial slur, it should not really be used at all. Gypsy isn’t quite that, but it’s close, and is probably best avoided. Although using a term like “gypsy cab” in NYC is probably not really linked to Roma people at all in any real sense. At the same time, usage of the term isn’t really serving any larger purpose.
Now it’s a different matter when someone is trying to claim a word with no offensive history, that has no rational association with them, and that you are not using in direct address, is off limits. This is the classic “Niggardly” controversy as seen when a UW student objected to a professor teaching Chaucer using the word niggardly. In that case it was the (African American) student that was being unreasonable. The professor was not using the term in direct address to the student, and there is absolutely zero historical, etymological association between that word and its phonetically similar racial slur.
I don’t think you’re a Klansman if you’ve used gypsy to refer to Roma people in the past, but I also see no reason to continue to use the term in the present after Roma people have requested it no longer be used, particularly in direct address.
Intent matters. Yet somehow we now live in a world where blanket proclamations of what can and cannot be said are able to suddenly render a group of people as backwards ass racists irregardless of what they actually think and feel. Heaven forbid one of those folks get caught on mike before they get the memo.
We’re not talking about intent, we’re talking about terms.
Let me help you.
But I think you were smart enough to piece that together on your own.
This may shock you, but some of us are capable of finding these new rules of civility utterly absurd, yet still able and willing to follow them simply to make life easier. I swear, all the woke folks in these threads treat everyone on the other side of the argument like they are mouth breathing morons who spend every waking moment trying to find new and creative ways to use the offending words out of sheer contrariness.
I am well aware that people frown on the use of the word. I think they are wasting their energy by being so bent about it, but whatever, no skin off my ass. When an ostensibly academic discussion on the topic comes up, I figure I can speak my mind. Inevitably it devolves into name calling, so I’m not sure why I bother.
Lame.
Edit: That word is probably next on the banned words list…maybe I should get ahead of it and start the thread myself.
I don’t really see anyone putting you on a cross over use of the word gypsy, I just see some people saying it should probably not be used casually and by many Roma is seen as an offensive term.
To me it’s more that if you have a word that isn’t commonly used (for example I probably have gone years at a time without uttering the word “gypsy”), but is seen as a slur by a group of people, it is a little ridiculous to act like some massive victim because people suggest that it shouldn’t be used. Especially when those suggestions are fairly tame and don’t seem to be taking on any kind of persecutorial tone.
So, civility is just too hard for you?
I mean, I literally just said that’s how I live my life.
So I suppose this thread should just be 100 post of people saying, hell yeah, that’s shit’s racist! Cool beans.
And yeah, when the response to my saying that the term was never used to refer to Roma in my community is a diatribe about the massive injustice that my ignorance has caused and I’m somehow participating in a genocide, I’d say the crosses are being stood up.
And yet, you waste your own energy getting bent over this, which has nothing to do with you - you don’t use the word, don’t feel a need to use the word, you aren’t Roma and aren’t impacted by the word use, but its worth your time to spend here sharing your opinion - but are willing to judge others for spending their energy over something that DOES impact them.
Wasn’t “lame” kind of seen a bit outmoded and mildly offensive for at least a couple decades now or did I dream it? It’s a word I know I avoid (like “retard” and “retarded”) and I could swear shying away from that word goes back to at least the late 90s with me.
Well, I suppose you should ask a mod to revise the thread title to Gypsy / Romani discussion (racists and Roma only please). You know, since my thoughts are apparently invalid and those are the voices you care to hear.
Hey, I’m not going to get bent over you wasting your energy here. Its your energy.
Where did that happen, exactly?
It’s on the Brandeis University list, so there’s already a thread for it.
“Call people what they want to be called” isn’t a new rule of civility. It’s a very, very old rule of civility. All that’s new about it is that people are finally starting to take it seriously for all people, not just their own in-groups.
Oh good, the inaccurate title on that thread has done its work.
(The “list” is not the work of Brandeis University, which is not enacting any sort of ban on certain words, but hey.)
Please point out to me where in this thread I, or anyone else. is advocating for calling Roma gypsies (except for the couple citations of articles stating that this is what Roma organizations have identified themselves as.)
If I’m advocating for anything, I think a careful reading will show I don’t really, it’s that calling some fictional mysterious fortune teller character of indeterminant race a gypsy should be copasetic.
So what point are you making exactly? What grievous ancient rule of civility have I run afoul of? Please quote so I can find it.