A Roma by any other name
- samuel stringer
- Aug 7, 2020
- 3 min read
Updated: Aug 20, 2020
I care so much I’m going to get upset if you don’t do what I say.
the DuPont Nemours Estate, Delaware.
A group of visitors from America wanted to see the village. As we were talking over things one of the people asked what we call them. One of the men immediately said "Roma", with his face down a little which reminded me of people crossing the street with their face down so oncoming cars will know it's their fault if they don't stop. Wanting to be polite, I said that yes, that's the term politically active groups here use, but the people don't use that so much: the term they use for themselves is Țigan (see-gahn) and their language is țiganești (see-gahn-esht). I also said, just to let everyone know I'm reading between the lines of that question, that it is not rude to use the word gypsy. The people know it and it is not considered pejorative. The man repeated, "It's Roma", a bit louder, still with his face angled down a bit. (It's your fault if you hit me.)
I changed the subject. We all talked a while longer and then went on our walkabout in the village.
The discussion bothered me. It bothered me because I was asked a question that people ask only if they have never worked in a village, because I don't use any of those terms. I know them. I call them Lavinia or Narcisa or David or Florin, or domnul (mr) Hendre or doamna (mrs) Lătătuș, or domnul (señor) or doamna (señora) or domnișoară (señorita), or dragă (my dear), or sweetie, or baby. I don't call them Roma or gypsy or Țigan. They're not a class: they're my friends.
Words that are not personal are impersonal. I know the people so I use personal words. I would never use an impersonal word for people I know. I have two children. I don't call them Americans or Caucasians.
This man, who had never met any of them (or me), wanted to make sure no one insulted them by using the word gypsy. He didn't know them so he couldn't use personal words, but he wanted to make sure we didn't demean them so his solution was to use the correct impersonal word. It was not important to him that he was depersonalizing them by using the word Roma, nor did it cross his mind that treating their village like a tourist attraction was a definite step down from impersonal. And yet, he wanted to make it clear that I was not to use the word gypsy. Because he cared so much.
There is a scale to words: If personal is a 3 then affectionate is a 2 and my family is a 1. If impersonal is a 4 then tourist attraction is a 5. Below that (but not by much) is derogatory: maybe 6. Below that is hate: off the scale.
When you're at a 4, it is not wise to preach. When you're about to become a 5, you should maybe take a step back.
Here's a secret: I have, a couple times, used the word gypsy. There have been times in emails, when I am talking to people who don't know the names of the villagers and don't know what Țigan means and think Roma is a city in Italy (it is) that I have used the word gypsy because then people know what I'm talking about without going into the long explanation I just made above. I have, for instance, said that when I die I want to be buried in the gypsy cemetery next to the village. It's important for people to understand what I'm talking about, because saying I want to be buried in the Roma cemetery is too risky: I might end up in Italy. Sometimes it's better to just say gypsy.
He left. He left no food or clothes for them but he did leave an impression: this man who cared so much that I had to his word, because he wanted to make sure I was a 4.
Comments