AHC: A Home State/Nation for the Romani People

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people

Not sure if its entirely possible with a post 1900 start, but as much as possible, create a state (even if its an autonomous region) or nation for the Roma people.

The nation can really be located anywhere (but realistically somewhere between the subcontinent and europe would probably make the most sense). If you have a location in mind, state where and why.
 
Last edited:

BigBlueBox

Banned
Romani are nomads. All attempts to get them to adopt a sedentary lifestyle failed, and to this day, in every country in Europe where they can be found they are economically dependent on the majority population. A Romani state makes as much sense as a Bedouin state - in other words, not at all.
 
Romani are nomads. All attempts to get them to adopt a sedentary lifestyle failed, and to this day, in every country in Europe where they can be found they are economically dependent on the majority population. A Romani state makes as much sense as a Bedouin state - in other words, not at all.

There are Bedouin states, though: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE for sure, Bahrain, and Kuwait a little more controversially.

You could argue that they've "lost their Bedouin-ness" since Bedouins are perhaps defined by being nomadic, but I think most would disagree.
 
Romani are nomads. All attempts to get them to adopt a sedentary lifestyle failed, and to this day, in every country in Europe where they can be found they are economically dependent on the majority population. A Romani state makes as much sense as a Bedouin state - in other words, not at all.

It is not so much that the attempts failed, but more that Romani voluntarily adopting sedentary lifestyle simply stopped being Romani - first of all in the eyes of their own fellow Romani, and then (generation or two later) in the eyes of their sedentary neighbours. The Romani culture defines itself through nomadic lifestyle far more than the Bedouin culture. The reason for that is that Romani people were/are living a nomadic lifestyle in a densely populated area, where they automatically compete with the sedentary people for resources (imagined or real) and also need (as a group) to protect themselves culturally against their members simply leaving the nomadic lifestyle for the more secure sedentary one, while nomadic Bedouins who live in an extremely resource-scarce, harsh desert surroundings which are their main opponents do not need such cultural insulation - the young Bedouin people rebelling against their elders are not leaving to marry a sand dune (at least not voluntarily), while a Roma girl falling in love with a sedentary local guy (or the other way around) and dropping out of the group is a realistic scenario, and one that would weaken the nomadic group if it happens too often.
 
There are Bedouin states, though: Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE for sure, Bahrain, and Kuwait a little more controversially.

You could argue that they've "lost their Bedouin-ness" since Bedouins are perhaps defined by being nomadic, but I think most would disagree.

Thing is the Bedouin who have remained nomadic pretty much ignore those countries borders* and move around the whole area (seriously I've met them as far up as Syria). So while yeah OK there's more to being Bedouin than being Nomadic (and more to being Rom than being nomadic, so neither automatically lose their cultural identity completely if they stop moving) it doesn't matter what they're called it's the behaviour that matters and they have to became sedentary to form a static country around themselves.

The other way to go is to have a county that's large enough to encompass their movements, but frankly that kind of space tends to only really be available in central Asia (and even then there is nomadic trans-border movement)



*the proposed canal between KSA and Qatar is a big thing in this context.
 
Last edited:
Thing is the Bedouin who have remained nomadic pretty much ignore those countries borders* and move around the whole area (seriously I've met them as far up as Syria). So while yeah OK there's more to being Bedouin than being Nomadic (and more to being Rom than being nomadic, so neither lose their cultural identity completely if they stop moving) it doesn't mater what they're called it's the behaviour that matters and they have to became sedentary to form a static country around themselves.

The other way to go is to have a county that large enough to encompass their movements, but frankly that kind of space tends to only really be available in central asia (and even then there is nomadic trans-border movement)

The only realistic alternative is the Sami solution in Scandinavia (who are basically semi-nomadic: they have their solid winter quarters and live nomadically half the year), who have their own cultural autonomy without a territorial autonomy; they can build their own school system, elect their own parliament which then represents them with the Finnish, Swedish and (IIRC) Norwegian government, etc. They are freely ranging across the borders (here, too, the increasingly more fortified Russian-Finnish border is a big thing). But they, too, suffer massive population drain into a more secure sedentary lifestyle.
The thing is that - the whole concept of a modern state, with all cultural and physical infrastructure, is antithetical to nomadic lifestyle. Not only do the nomads in a populated area compete with the sedentaries for resources, but the sedentary society competes with the nomadic society as a lifestyle decision. There are very good reasons why sedentary lifestyle nearly always wins out, it fulfills the material needs of people better than nomadic one. Caravan romantics are only attractive if you have full stomach and know where you will sleep safely this evening. And most nomads understand this very well.
 
I don't think they have to want it for it to be plausible. I don't see why there couldn't have been a forced homeland, sort of like an Indian reservation. Maybe whatever country snaps first and rounds them up would have a colony to send them to.
 
I don't think they have to want it for it to be plausible. I don't see why there couldn't have been a forced homeland, sort of like an Indian reservation. Maybe whatever country snaps first and rounds them up would have a colony to send them to.

Well given you are talking about a group of people who are pretty transnational you are talking about an international effort to forcibly round them up and exile then to some open prison. Why would this happen?
 
Last edited:
I thought of India, particularly in Rajasthan-Gujarat in area. However, one of the problems was, alongside their lifestyle and lack of leadership that unite them all, was the cultural distance between the Romanis and the Indians
 
Well given you are talking about a group of people who are pretty transnational you are talking about an international effort to forcibly round them up and exile then to some open prison. Why would this happen?
I'm not saying all the roma have to be there, just that all the people in that place are roma.
 
Top