Card name change suggestion

Malachy wrote:

But having a card named "Gypsies" created in the ninties, when people were expected to use brain cells to figure out it is not racist to depict an ethnical group without the slightest derogatory sense. Who... in their right mind... could find that card offensive???

I personally do not find the card name offensive and also do not think it needs changing. However, what is considered racist does indeed change over time, for various, sometimes sociopolitical, reasons (this is the case in the US; I do not know about other countries). For example, there is a baseball team from Cleveland, Ohio, called the Indians. Since 1948, that team had logo depicting a cartoonish Native American with deep red skin and a goofy smile. For years and years, this logo was used without regard to whether it was racist or not; there was really no public outcry. But, over the past couple of years, people have petitioned for the team to remove the logo, including indigenous Native American groups, who believed the logo to depict Native Americans in a negative, racist way. Because of these recent petitions, the team decided to stop using the logo starting next season. Read about it here:

www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/sports/baseball/cleveland-indians-chief-wahoo-logo.html

So, coming back to the card in question and use of Gypsies: this situation is different because the backlash of use of the word "gypsy" largely does not appear to be coming from Roma groups petitioning that the word is racist, but rather from other ethnic groups claiming that the word is racist. Why is this happening? One theory is that, because Gypsy is an exonym that attributes the geographic origin of the Roma as Egypt instead of India, there is now a movement to correct the wrongful attribution. In other words, the reason behind why "gypsy" is racist is that the term "gypsy" was given to the Roma people by white people, who were calling them Egyptians and not Indians, because all people with dark skin look the same (that's the theory, not my opinion).

Much like the case with the Cleveland Indians logo, there has only been recent public outcry over the term "gypsy" being racist. What I don't know, and what I'd like to know, is how the Roma people consider the word "gypsy". Is it actually offensive to them? Or have they adopted the term and don't find it offensive? I've read many conflicting reports on this subject.

Few I know we're not offended by word Cygan which is i believe directly translated as gypsy. My info might be outdated, as it was like 10-15 years ago.

TwoRazorReign wrote:

What I don't know, and what I'd like to know, is how the Roma people consider the word "gypsy". Is it actually offensive to them? Or have they adopted the term and don't find it offensive? I've read many conflicting reports on this subject.

I think in this thread most offensive for them is an assumption that words, used by ganjos in their stupid card game, can some how mean a shit to proper romani.

elotar wrote:

TwoRazorReign wrote:

What I don't know, and what I'd like to know, is how the Roma people consider the word "gypsy". Is it actually offensive to them? Or have they adopted the term and don't find it offensive? I've read many conflicting reports on this subject.

I think in this thread most offensive for them is an assumption that words, used by ganjos in their stupid card game, can some how mean a shit to proper romani.

No need to speculate. Google "is gypsy racist". The top results are all Romani people saying that the word "gypsy" is an ethnic slur.

elotar wrote:

ReverendRevolver wrote:

No matter what, we are based on source material. Said source material is incredibly ...

Said source material is incredibly stupid and contradictial. And everybody understands that - nobody is complaining, for example, that there was no Walter Nash in Chicago by Night.

So, obviously, if we need to have vampire who kicks ass it's better to use Theo Bell, then invent something, but if we want South American princes and there are no in official WoD, nothng should stop us to invent one.

And, actually, there are 5 South American princes in VTM

I cannot dispute the self conflicting source material, I can only be confused like the rest of us. Serious retcons occur in V20 BH and Becketts Jyhad Diaries. Incidentally, the BH is put up as more optional. But doesn't do anything but allude to an invasion of enoch in shadow lands leaving damage here or there. Anyway:

Becketts jyhad diaries:
P370, while waiting on something far more important to happen (which ends up using or name dropping like 5 vtes salubri and a few tremere, seriously using only ppl on cards instead of nameless extras) Beckett and Rebekah(the iconnu monitor, formerly of chicago) are discussing Chicago politics. Beckett badgers her (and she plainly gives no shits about politics) Into her guess who will be prince if one is chosen. She says her money is on Maxwell, but Jackson and Dusable are both likely. She says she also put Capone and "Sir Walter" as also-runs. Then says some reason against Capone, and says the kindred of Chicago "Detest Nash"
I feel like much of that book is life imitating art, where the source material looks to be drawing from VTES. Hilarious.

Elator, yourself and Lech have recently provided quite constructive disagreements with what I post from source materials, and while we plainly do not agree, I wouldn't change a thing, as they have been the least "E-Troll" occurrences in ages. Thank you, gentlemen.
Please, continue. My secret end goal is to keep going until whatever we argue about becomes a whole set next year