Why is there so much confusion over the distinction between Rom and gypsies?

Here are a few examples that will provide you with a glimpse of the unending controversy associated with the word gypsy.

Roma Community And Advocacy
CentreToronto, Ontario, Canada
Source Article Site

“The word ‘Gypsy’ comes from the Middle Ages.  This darker group of people was mistakenly thought to have come from Egypt, probably because some Roma previously lived in an area called "Little Egypt." At first, they were called Egyptians, then Gyptians, which eventually became Gypsies.

Like other minorities, the Roma wish to be called by a name of their own, and not one forced on them by the dominant culture.  The Roma see the word "Gypsy" as a derogatory description.  It connotes a stereotypical, mythological creature created by authors of fiction as a vehicle of escapism rather than a member of a genuine ethnic community.  Today, it also carries allusions to a potentially criminal lifestyle because crimes committed by a wide variety of itinerant ethnic groups are collectively lumped under "gypsy crime" or "gypsy-type crime" by law enforcement agencies throughout North America.  It is never capitalized, as it should be if it refers to a legitimate ethnic and cultural minority.  The Roma, who left Northern India a thousand years ago, are a genuine ethnic group with their own language, history, and culture and are no more criminal than any other ethnic group.

In Europe, the term gypsy has been replaced by Roma. We hope that Canadians will also stop calling us Gypsies, and instead start to use the singular Rom, the plural Roma, and the proper adjective Romani.”

COMMENT: The author of this piece, Ronald Lee, a Canadian Rom who wrote a book titled Goddam Gypsy, chides others for using the word gypsy, because of its derogatory and mythical nature.  He simultaneously believes the word also refers to a legitimate ethnic and cultural minority and should therefore be capitalized.  (Refer to article by Dr. Dowling on proper usage.)

No one can dispute Mr. Lee’s opinion because this is what he believes.  Or is it?  Here are two more excepts from Mr. Lee’s book:

Regarding Gypsy Beliefs:  “Socially, Gypsies remain totally aloof from the world around them.  They use what is useful in it---telephones, refrigerators, automobiles and tape recorders---but they reject what does not suit them; nationalism, politics, religion, racism, status symbols.  They take no part in political movements, citizens’ organizations, or protest groups.  They change their names as often as their houses.”

Regarding non-Gypsy law, “They are obeyed but they are not complied with.  Gypsies never fight against constituted authority; they simply agree to do what they are told to do, pretend to accept the assumptions of the stronger party and then, in their time-honored way, they keep on doing what they have always done. And it is this talent that enabled my people to survive in the face of adversity for so many millennia…We are simply Rom and Romni and we continue to have shave, or children, whom we bring up to follow our law, or Romania, a strict code of edicts laid down by the patriarchs and enforced by the kris-Romani, the council of Romany elders…[W] e are the world’s oldest living non-conformists. Are we also the world’s last?”  (Lee, Ronald, Goddam Gypsy, Bobbs-Merrill Co, Inc., New York, 1972)

COMMENT:

Aside for the many contradictions in Mr. Lee’s writings, he also (like other critics) uses the word gypsy when referring to anything that might be viewed as antisocial behavior.  When referencing the law-abiding segment of Romani society he automatically changes his terminology in favor of the words Rom, or Romni.  As you link to the many Romani web sites I have listed, keep this point in mind because you will encounter it on a regular basis.

Mr. Lee also notes that the derogatory name, gypsy, was forced on them by the dominant culture. Absent any such force in today’s society, we must ask why any law-abiding Rom would insist on using this designation.  This is especially puzzling when you consider that throughout the course of their travels, the Romani both called themselves and were known by more than 102 different names.  Here’s a link to a site that lists some of those names. The list is still growing, but you will get some idea of the complexities associated with any attempts to study this particular ethnic group.  Romani Names site

Here is another view on the use of the word gypsy from a Romani leader named Ian Hancock:

The Struggle for the Control of Identity
Ian Hancock from the RPP Reporter, Vol. 1, No. 1, May 1998
Source Article 

“When it comes to the question of ‘what is a Gypsy, ‘ the Romani understanding is as vague as that of the non-roma.  And because unity and cooperation outwardly, i.e., with the larger society, cannot possibly become a reality until it has been achieved inwardly, i.e., among ourselves, this fact must be resolved both outwardly and inwardly before we can move ahead.”

“In order for things to change, the Gypsy Image must be deconstructed, and a more accurate one put in its place - in the bureaucratic structures as well as in the textbooks.“

Comment:  In this revealing statement, Mr. Hancock provided some insight into what many of the Romani activist groups are now attempting to accomplish.  By deconstructing the gypsy Image, a euphemism for rewriting history, it becomes easier to ignore the uncomfortable topic of crime.  If not for crime, and the term gypsy is so offensive, so mythical, and to be avoided at all costs, then why the need to rewrite history?  As my coauthor, Dr. John Dowling, a tenured cultural anthropologist, stated in our book, “Having a family tree rooted in crookedness that subsequently grows straight is certainly nothing to regret.  It is a past shared by many, Romani and non-Romani alike.” 
(License To Steal, Traveling Con Artists, Their Games, Their Rules --- Your Money ) 

Although history is never pure, and is processed through the mind of the historian, along with their biases, prejudices, and interpretations, it nevertheless gives us a glimpse what has gone before us.  Another way to look at is to consider that all knowledge is cumulative.  If it were not, we would have to relearn everything that our ancestors have already discovered.  We would have to repeat their mistakes, invest years to research, and in the end, we shall have gained nothing towards the advancement of civilization. 

With respect to the history of the Romani people, some of whom we are told have been at war with every society they have come into contact with since 1000 A.D., it appears possible that something within their history could hold the key for solving the problems they continue to experience.  Some shall insist that the history itself is at fault, and once corrected life will be better.  We can only hope that they do a bit of comparison between the past and the present before gambling with the lives of the people they claim to represent. 

Here is a brief summary of the present situation: 

Some Romani insist that they have a right to call themselves anything they wish, including Gypsies. 

Other Rom insist that the word gypsy is derogatory, offensive, and should not be used by anyone, including other Rom.  An excellent example of this can be found at  the following link:  TEXAS UNIVERSITY It comes from Professor Ian Hancock.  (Note: Hancock is on record for saying that the word Gypsy is both a pejorative and a valid term.  This bifurcated usage apparently depends on what point he is attempting to make and on what group he is addressing.)

Many groups, supportive of the Romani, use the words gypsy and Romani to mean the same thing.   Some Romani believe that people are Rom only if they choose to declare themselves as such.

Those Rom who detest the term gypsy claim that the Romani people are persecuted and the victims of unfair stereotyping.  When providing examples of such atrocities, they consistently use the word gypsy, rather than Rom or Romani. 

There are many organized criminal groups in America, whose members are all Rom, and who refer to themselves as gypsies. 

In America, some law enforcement agencies use the word gypsy to describe the criminal lifestyle of all itinerant or transient thieves who use a similar modus operandi.

The word gypsy has been redefined by some Rom and academicians in Europe to include other ethnic groups such as the Irish and Scottish Travelers.

Irish and Scottish Travelers do not consider themselves gypsies and make no use of the word. In Europe, the term Travelers is used to mean gypsies, and Irish and Scottish Travelers.

The unwritten rule of usage is that if anyone has something good to say about gypsies, or use it to describe the atrocities suffered by their ancestors, then it is an acceptable classification, and no one will protest.  On the contrary, using the word gypsy to report or comment on any negative aspects whatsoever, immediately renders such person a racist.  Those who do not appear racist (because they are not) are deemed unintentional racists, but racists nevertheless.

Should you ever notice anyone being chastised for misusing the word gypsy, you might want to review this list before passing final judgment on them. For those who need more examples of the many and often contradictory definitions of the 5-letter word
G Y P S Y [click here]

How can anyone view the terms gypsy crime or gypsy criminal groups as anything other than racist stereotyping?

In keeping with the previous discussion on the use of the word gypsy, here’s an example of how resistant those who hold this view are to facts and differing opinions.  In 2001, National Geographic magazine published an article on gypsies.  An open forum was established on their web site to discuss the article.  Although there was a lot of input, both negative and positive, the forum soon evolved into an exercise in ad hominem attacks.  The following example comes from a Rom who responded to my explanation of why law enforcement used the term gypsy criminal groups.  As was evident, he is of the opinion that all who use such terms are blatant racists.

Name:Nicholas Csergo
Date/Time: April 11, 2001

In the expressions:“Russian/Sicilian MAFIA, Japanese YAKUZA, Chinese TRIADS[...]", you have two components: 1)The name of the recognized criminal group i.e.:’ MAFIA' and 2)The national or geographic(!) origin of said group.

The phrase "gypsy crime" has its equivalent in "Japanese crime,” "Russian crime,” "Chinese crime,” "Italian crime" or, more illustratively: "Jewish penny-pinching", "Oriental cruelty,” "Black crime"

If you wish NOT to imply the criminality of an entire ethnic group, as you appear to insist on doing, either intentionally or unintentionally, you HAVEN'T found a way around it by separating in your parlance the "Gypsy [=criminals?] from the "Romani" [=others?

Is it necessary to categorize 'crimes' by the ethnic origin of those who commit them?  If so what is it in aid of?          

Something it is in detriment of, as you should know, is that "Gypsy crime" fits so neatly with the Romani equivalent to the "Jewish penny-pinching" racist myth.

Even if such a myth didn't already precede your distinguished work ethnically labeling crime, the latter alone would by damaging enough, in my contention.  Full of contradictions?  Or did I get through?

HERE ARE EXCERPTS FROM MY REPLY:

You noted that in the expressions, Japanese Yakuza, Chinese Triads, etc., that each is comprised of two distinct components.  One denotes the particular name the criminal group uses to identify themselves, and the other references their national or geographic origin.  I agree.

Your next point seems to suggest that one would not be guilty of ethnic labeling if they simply used the group identification by itself, that is, Yakuza, Mafia, Triads, and so on. If so, I agree.  Although I see your point when listing Jewish penny-pinching, black crime, etc., I also feel you have now injected a third component.           

Your examples no longer reference criminal groups, but stereotypical character traits of an entire ethnic group.  In other words, if one were to say Japanese Yakuza, I really doubt that many people would automatically assume that the term included all Japanese.  In contrast, if one said Japanese thieves, it would be difficult not to believe that this was not a stereotypical label.        

You ask if it is necessary to categorize crimes by the ethnic origin of those who commit them, and if so, then to what does it benefit.

One could logically argue that the best approach would be to call the gypsy criminal groups something different and thereby avoid the risk of offending anyone.  Despite the appeal of such an approach, it has already been tried and failed.           

To answer your question, yes, there are benefits associated with the proper identification of crimes committed by various organized criminal groups.  Common sense alone dictates that not knowing how a group operates makes it nearly impossible for law enforcement to effectively control that group’s criminal activities.

Contrary to what you and others might believe, this identification process is focused on the group’s modus operandi, and not necessarily on their ethnic makeup.  This does not mean to suggest that ethnic origin is not important or ignored.  To the contrary, if groups like the Yakuza, Mafia, White Supremacists, Triads, or Gypsies exclude anyone not of their particular race, then this becomes an important factor when studying their method of operation.  Any differences you believe exist are entirely of your own making.  When those within your ranks demand that law enforcement treat members of the gypsy/Rom community, who engage in criminal acts, no differently than we do other individuals or criminal groups, then I submit to you that this is already being done. Unfortunately, this is the very treatment that you and others now consider racist.

As for your apparent anger over my “insisting on labeling good people Romani, and bad people gypsies, you need to have a second look at what was actually said.  Please be assured that neither I, nor my fellow officers have any influence over what our world’s organized criminal groups choose to call themselves.  If we did, you can be sure that we would immediately ask all of them to conform to the dictates of political correctness, and in so doing choose a group name that would not offend anyone.  Although I understand your frustration, perhaps you should focus your attention and efforts on the criminal groups who cause these problems.

No response was received from Mr. Csergo.