Vojtěch Lavička: I am not and do not want to be a "gypsy". I am a Romani man and I am justifiably proud of that!

However, if you believe the answer to that question is clear to all Romani people (or to all “gypsies”?), then you are mistaken. Several days ago we published part of an interview conducted by news server iDNES.tv with Patrik Banga which revolved around these issues and others to the Facebook page of the ROMEA organization.

In my opinion, Patrik explained in an absolutely clear, comprehensible manner why we are not “gypsies”, but Roma. Beneath his brilliant interview appeared a carousel of posts (more than 1,000) arguing why we are “gypsies” and not Roma.

One post was just bizarre, as it alleged the term “gypsies” is a translation of the Romanes language word “Roma” or “Romale“. According to that post, the Roma do not exist and this word is an invention.

Surprisingly, a big group of Romani Facebook users could be found who agree with this absurdity. Facebook ultimately deleted the video, allegedly for hate speech, although the reasons for that remain unclear to us.

In any event, the word “gypsies” (cikáni) is an exonym, i.e., a name for a nation, person, place or territory that is attributed by outsiders. The opposite of an exonym is an endonym, which expresses what a nation calls itself in its own language.

Simply put, it is the majority society who calls us “gypsies” and most of the time it has a pejorative (abusive) subtext. Yes, it is true that the phrase “gypsy music” (cikánská muzika) does not have an abusive subtext, but that is the exception that proves the rule.

I genuinely do not understand how any Romani person who speaks Romanes can reject the name “Roma” and allege that we are actually “gypsies”. That is the same as if African Americans or Black people were to respect the word “n**ger”, a designation that has been used with an abusive meaning and is associated with black skin color.

For white Americans, a “n**ger” was not just a Black person, but also somebody uneducated, a slave or the descendant of slaves, a criminal. Today, nobody who is not a member of that group would allow themselves to use that term.

A “Gypsy”, to many non-Romani people, means somebody who cannot be brought up or educated, who lives on welfare, is anti-social, and steals. We cannot respect this.

We are Roma, a nation with a long history, a rich culture, a beautiful language and ancient customs…To do so would be like the Inuit denying their own ethnicity and insisting they are “Eskimoes”.

That exonym for them literally means “those who eat raw meat” and the Inuit consider it insulting. It would never occur to Americans or Canadians today to use the word “Eskimo” to refer to the Inuit.

There is no doubt about where the truth lies. Especially today, when the correctness of designating different groups in the population is generally respected and considered important, Romani people who deny their own existence are, to put it mildly, “out of it”.

I have been thinking about what could have caused this. Is it because Romani people are uneducated?

Is it because they are not interested? After all, in this day of the total accessibility of information there is the opportunity to learn about anything by “Googling” for one minute.

Today you don’t have to run to an actual library like you used to if you wanted to learn more about something. Apparently this is because these people are not interested, then.

That lack of interest doesn’t just end with how their own nation is named. The same applies to interest in the history of Romani people, or in the Romanes language.

Paradoxically, such ignorance of the facts of history just confirms to the majority society that the designation of these people as “gypsies” is appropriate. In other words, they are a group who are living on the outskirts of society, closed in on themselves, without any ambitions or pride in belonging to the Romani nation.

I do not want to be a “gypsy”. I am not a “gypsy”.

I am a Romani man. I am justifiably proud of that.