Europe without Roma
- Thread starter HueyLong
- Start date
Kang Seung Jae
Banned
There would be no major European Power, only an African one colonizing Europe.
HueyLong said:
Now THAT would make an interesting AH challenge. How does one make the Gypsies so pivotal to European development that without them, no major European power develops and instead, the Europe is colonized by Africa?
HueyLong
Banned
Now THAT would make an interesting AH challenge. How does one make the Gypsies so pivotal to European development that without them, no major European power develops and instead, the Europe is colonized by Africa?
Backwards AH challenge: Make it to where a WI in the challenge TL would result in this?
Thats really complicated.....
Kang Seung Jae
Banned
All, if you consider the Italians as part of Roma, and Carthage as an African power, then you should get my meaning.Now THAT would make an interesting AH challenge. How does one make the Gypsies so pivotal to European development that without them, no major European power develops and instead, the Europe is colonized by Africa?
HueyLong
Banned
Okay, read the posts and the thread itself.
The Roma are the people popularly known as Gypsies. They are a Central and Eastern European minority (with branches in Western European and North Africa) that have generally lived semi-nomadic lives apart from the rest of society.
They have nothing to do with the city known as Roma. They have nothing Romans, or Rome or Ramen. Ok?
This has nothing to do with that other thread.
Oh wait, maybe I'm on ignore because of the "Suk" thread. Eh. Someone else explicitly state what I'm trying to say.
The Roma are the people popularly known as Gypsies. They are a Central and Eastern European minority (with branches in Western European and North Africa) that have generally lived semi-nomadic lives apart from the rest of society.
They have nothing to do with the city known as Roma. They have nothing Romans, or Rome or Ramen. Ok?
This has nothing to do with that other thread.
Oh wait, maybe I'm on ignore because of the "Suk" thread. Eh. Someone else explicitly state what I'm trying to say.
Kang Seung Jae
Banned
So in other words, the Italinas have not much to do with the Roma that we're talking about?
Understood, if that's the case.
Aozhouhuaren
Banned
I think you're confused, yes the city of Rome is named Roma by the Italians but usually the ancient power goes by the name of Rome because the seat of the Roman Empire was in Rome (Roma). I see where you're coming from but the discussion is nothing about Rome or it's Empire.
The Roma the other guys are mentioning are a nomadic ethnic minority group who have settled in Europe in the last few hundred years after roaming through Central Asia.
For one, I agree with Leo, a lot of musical heritage would be lost, especially if the Roma never travelled to the Iberian peninsula, a lot of the flair and vibrancy in Flamenco would disappear. Also to my knowledge, the Roma and other Gypsies had quite a lot of linguistic influence and influence on cuisine due to their semi-nomadic lifestyle.
a few years back I was involved in a museum project in Surrey working with the 'traveller' community (another name). It got a bit confusing because some said they were 'roma', some said they were 'travellers', some said they were 'gypsies' and some said they weren't any but refused to give a name to their identity other than 'us'.
Hendryk
Banned
But are most "travellers" in Britain Gypsies to begin with? I was under the impression that it was a post-hippie lifestyle with no ethnic connotations. Or perhaps I listened to one Levellers song too many.
In France a similar euphemism has taken roots lately, "Gens du voyage".
It's a bit of a difficult one as there does seem to be a bit of a division, if my experience is anything to go by. Those that define themselves as 'Roma' distance themselves from 'Travellers' and do seem to be 'pure' (in a non-negative way), the same for 'Gypsies'. 'Travellers' did seem much more diverse and did include many who are as you say but in addition there were quite a few who called themselves 'travellers' who had parents, brothers, sisters who called themselves, and were considered by everyone, to be 'Roma'. Interestingly we found some who called themselves 'travellers' with 'Roma' children.
Each definition seemed flexible and involved a certain degree of what an individual thought they were and whether others who identified themselves in that way also saw them as the same. The biggest difference we noticed (and I hope this bit doesn't offend anyone) was that 'Roma' seemed to get on well with the settled communities whereas those who did not get on with settled communities identified themselves as 'travellers'
Each definition seemed flexible and involved a certain degree of what an individual thought they were and whether others who identified themselves in that way also saw them as the same. The biggest difference we noticed (and I hope this bit doesn't offend anyone) was that 'Roma' seemed to get on well with the settled communities whereas those who did not get on with settled communities identified themselves as 'travellers'
Bright day
AFAIK one of the Gypsy tribes is called that. And Romania have nothing to complain about! They have the largest absolute Gypsy population in Europe. (Largest relative population has Slovakia)
Well Czechs will be poorer for a qutie distinctive dictionary including, in addition to others, such etrnal hits as: kunda (vulgar for vagina), čokl (vulgar for dog) and čórnout (vulgar for to steal).
Maybe Gypsies had/ve many things that they could share with Europeans, but they never were given the opportunity to participate.