Would you support a Romani Gypsy nation being created in India?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Certainly, but what about the gypsy communities of the Netherlands?

Exactly, the gypsies that moved into rich areas in Western Europe aren't necessary rich themselves, in fact I'd say they are about as poor as any other gypsy living somewhere else. So yes, I'd call their communities even in Netherlands as poverty-stricken places.
 
So...is the Gypsy's idea of a job, stealing?

Is that like their way of life?
Of course not. The Romani never steal, not from real people, the people who count, i.e. each other. The rest of us, well we're "gaje", we don't really count. We're the enemy against which all Romani stick together.

It's a pretty common pattern for minorities living within larger societies they are in conflict with. It's what has made them so damn hard to get to grips with. Their entire tradition and society is based on opposition to us the majority, and our society, for which they have no real regard, certainly not for made up nonsense like our laws. Historically it's not that hard to figure, since in many parts of Europe it was legal to kill them on sight for large stretches of our common history.

Think of them as the "Mon'an'Pop-shop" equivalent of Biker Gangs, but with a millenium long history and better music. In some places they have become as much outlaw counter-culture as you can get. In others, they fit in rather well.

It's in Central an Eastern Europe there is a problem. There are something like 300.000 of them in the Czech Republic and Slovakia combined, 500.000 in Hungary, 350.000 in Bulgaria and 400.000 in Romania, and you get to hear about them as this big problem.

Then there are 90.000 of them in the UK, 300.000 in France, 350.000 in Germany, and maybe as many as 700.000 in Spain (and up to 2 million in Turkey), but in no way do you get an earful of what nuisence they are there, like you do in Central Europe.

What you get on the Spanish Gypsies rather tends to be admination over stuff like the killer Flamenco those guys dance. (That's actually a stereotype as well, but it's a positive one.) And the proportion of Gypsies in Spain relative to the general population is roughly the same as that of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania, but without the level of complaints.
 
Certainly, but what about the gypsy communities of the Netherlands?
They travel. I'm fairly sure the Dutch Gypsies go free of charge here. Those from the Czech Republic, Romania etc. tour Europe instead.
 
I think they first need to learn how to follow laws, pick up the trash and behave nicely. I am not amazed the Gypsies put themselves at risk. There are even terms "Gypsy Switch" and "Gypsy Sling" for criminal methods named after this people. I cannot see they got the capacity to form any nation, as they are incapable of forming that kind of organization. The Zionists were at least educated and organized, a more professional approach.

If they ever managed to get some place in India and that area, they would probably fit in in North Waziristan, where even Al Quaida, Taliban and the tribal warriors would have problems in dealing with them.

They seriously need to change their culture, as this is 2007.
 
Now now, if we are going to make comparisons with Israel, we should remember the hebrew wasn't much of a language not too long ago.


Revival of Hebrew language
That's very true!

Norwegian was also kind of an odd beast made up of unregulated more or less weird and incomprehensible local dialects until the 19th c. A Better Sort of People in Norway spoke Danish, sort of...

And Finnish didn't get its first literary novel published until the 1880's. The Finnish Upper Crust all spoke Swedish and understood next to nothing of that weird lingo all those honest pesants with mud on their shoes were warbling in, until they in one of the more amazing collective decisions of the 19th c. decided to all learn Finnish. (It's still a bit of an embarassment that this most Finnish of great composers, Jean Sibelius, inverately stuck to Swedish and spoke at best very poor Finnish.)

Actually a lot of these "wild" dialects are still around. Sweden has technically been a unified kingdom with a standardised language (the Bible in Swedish) since the 16th c. Still my girlfriend from the high, high north had to actively learn Swedish in first grade in school because her local "dialect" is just incomprehensible. It's definately Scandinavian, but calling it a "Swedish dialect" is a form of courtesy based on simple geography.

Now, considering that the Sinti and Roma have never had a centralised political authority to try to push through a linguistic standardisation, and in light of how spread out they are, this kind of Babel is a pretty foregone conclusion. That's how unregulated human languages tend to develop.

To reverse the process would require some astonishing form of voluntary association on their part.
 
I think they first need to learn how to follow laws, pick up the trash and behave nicely.
You don't get it. They already do. Their own. What you are asking is that they decide to follow ours as well.

It tends to work when they regard themselves as Gypsy AND British/Spanish/French/Swedish/whatever. When they stick to simply being Gypsies, against the French, British, Swedish, whatever, that's when there's trouble.
 
How many Romani Gypsy Noble Prize Winners? Oh that's right - NONE. Civilized world tends to reward those who contribute to it, instead of destroying it...
 
How many Romani Gypsy Noble Prize Winners? Oh that's right - NONE. Civilized world tends to reward those who contribute to it, instead of destroying it...

So now a race/ethnicity is only ok if they have produced a Nobel Prize Winner?

Wow, that eliminates a crapload of people all over the world. I wonder if they realize how useless they truly are?
 
How many Romani Gypsy Noble Prize Winners? Oh that's right - NONE. Civilized world tends to reward those who contribute to it, instead of destroying it...

This has what to do with the topic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_laureates_by_country

By that standard, Myanmar is a part of the civilized world (though their winner is in custody by the junta) and Luxembourg isn't.

You'd also be calling winners such as Kofi Annan and Yasser Arafat as part of the civilized world, yet I have my doubts that you would agree with that assessment.
 
I just found on out on allmighty wiki that Brazil has more than twice the ammount of gypsies than the Czech Republic (we have 700,000 of them), yet I have only seen a handful of gypsies in my life, or at least people I recognised as gypsies.

Over here they travel from town to town and some run itinerant business such circuses or fortune reading. And they are indeed sometimes accused of crimes such as horse theft, but they are not at all a trouble minority. But than again 700,000 in a country of 200 millions can easily go without notice.
 
I just found on out on allmighty wiki that Brazil has more than twice the ammount of gypsies than the Czech Republic (we have 700,000 of them), yet I have only seen a handful of gypsies in my life, or at least people I recognised as gypsies.

Over here they travel from town to town and some run itinerant business such circuses or fortune reading. And they are indeed sometimes accused of crimes such as horse theft, but they are not at all a trouble minority. But than again 700,000 in a country of 200 millions can easily go without notice.
Horse-wrangling and horse-trading was one of the things the Gypsies did in a big way in Europe for centuries, so it's not really surprising if they keep it up in Brazil.
 
Yes. I posted about it already.

Some do, some don't. But it doesn't really matter for the sake of our discussion opened by the OP, which supposes that they do.

Again, some do, some don't. It depends where you go in the world and whom you talk to. But again, it doesn't really matter for the sake of our discussion, which supposes that they do. See below for what this thread is about.
I indeed learned some cool stuff on this thread about the gypsies, and did some research of my own and learned some more.

I did not know that some gypsies have a sense of nationhood, but I think I was correct in my initial intuition that their sense of nationhood is nowhere near as strong as that of the pre-Israel Jews, or the Kurds for that matter.

You won't be surprised to learn that there aren't any cookies for realising that the OP alludes to the creation of the Israeli nation. However, that is not the only matter the OP seeks to raise for discussion. As I intended it, the thread is also about:

1) Nationalism and the Nation state.

2) The fate of marginalised people and the task/role of the state in 'co-opting' them. And also how a marginalised people can attain acceptance / justice within a national framework.

3) The plight of the Romani peoples in particular and their history (or lack of it, which is just as revealing) and how their host nations are to include them in a satisfactory manner for all.

This is very relevant in today's world which, in many ways, sees: a) a decreasing sense of national identity caused by b) increased immigration owing to globalisation and heightened flows of labour that come with it. So far, only Verbose has picked up on these and is dealing with them.

4) The justification for the creation of the nation of Israel. If it was acceptable or at least do-able then, is doing such a thing now? Why, or why not is this so?

5) The right that others, 'the powers that be' or 'the rulers of the world order' if you like, have to decide the fate of third parties.
:goodjob:
This thread turned out more interesting than a mere debate on Israel, indeed there is far more to it than covered by my first response.

Great, but did you notice how your post focuses solely on the Jewish desire and planning for a homeland nation? 'I want doesn't get'. What about other parties that may be affected? What about the rights of people who don't or can't organise themselves as the Zionist Movement did?
Good point, of course. But usually the people who do get nations are those that manage to organize themselves. It would be very odd, not to mention hard, for foreign countries to organize a people and give a nation of their own if they don't have a strong organization of their own and profound philosophical backing.

Pointing out how it isn't a perfect analogy hardly justifies the displacement, imprisonment and economic strangulation of the Palestinians and the occupation of what is now Israel (with its ever shifting boundaries). You mention legal purchase of land, but you fail to mention the Jewish terrorism, British Imperialism and arrogance that allowed this to happen, and how America's role in the world today may (or may not) be different. You fail to mention how the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee was simply ignored on the matter, again echoing what goes on today, resulting in violent responses. I could go on. But I think you get the point by now.
I do. But as you know it was hardly a matter of the Jews moving in and terrorising the peaceful arabs. The jewish terrorism (which in fact existed and cannot be justified) was actually a response to the hostile environment and to the lack of action by british authorities. I am convinced that the UN was not wrong to "create" Israel in 1948, because by that time there was already a large jewish presence there and they were not going anywhere. It would have been better if the arabs had found then a way to accept that fact.
 
Gypsies, nomad people traveling around in a world of not their own... Wait! Uighurs, are exactly the type of Gypsies in China.

Uighurs are nomads and merchants in Xinjiang area in China, they are Muslims , who traveled around the Silk Road, seeking oasis and bazaars.

In ordinary Chinese mind, Uighurs who moves to Eastern Chinese cities are stereotyped as street vendors of fancy goods and BBQ muttons, who make their extra income by stealing and other illegal activity. (I have no statistics but I heard that they are over-represented comparing to their numbers in petty crimes) The image of Uighurs hit another low when the authority propaganda portrays how bad those "independence seekers", "religious fanatics","terrorists" are. Also, Han nationalists and anti-Islam (Han centrism) step further and accuse ALL Uighurs, even including those urbanized and sinicized Uighurs in Urumqi or other cities, as the enemy of Han people.

However, Uighurs participate in the mainstream of Chinese society more than Gypsies in Eastern Europe. The government promotes lots of pro-Beijing Uighur politician, Mullah and professionals to act as bridges between Han and Uighurs, "collaborator" in religious and ethnic conflicts, and in PR shows to the outside world.

The Uighurs in Northern Xinjiang, where Han people's number is at par with Uighurs, are more sinicized. One of them even participate as one of the leaders and "Head of PR body" (Directly negotiated with PM of PRC) in 1989 Tiananmen Incident, who later fled to US.
 
300.000 gypsies in CR?

Perhaps the gypsy nation should be created there then :lol:

That's the highest estimate. Most probably, it is something between 200 and 250 thousand.

Nobody knows the exact number.

As for their own state - you have plenty of islands, what about giving one to them? :)
 
If those disenfranchised people is allowed to have their own statehood, might as well let those hill-billy inbred in the Appalachia have one as their own. Hell, might as well let people in inner-city Gheto have their own crack-dealin President!:mischief:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom