[panglott]

Because the American speakers who use it don't have a history of discriminating and abusing Roma people? There are barely any Roma people in America to abuse. Certainly in much of Europe Roma people have been treated very badly.

It's certainly true that many portrayals of black people in continental Europe often look very odd or offensive to American eyes.

[e12e]

I'm not sure that makes much sense. By that logic I should be fine using "indian" rather than Native American or First Nation, because it's been a thousand years since Norwegian Vikings first killed Native Americans? (Which makes doubly no sense, as there were a number of Norwegians in the early settlements of the west, and I'm sure there are a few tales of horrors to be told about some of their exploits).

As for Roma in the USA, it appears that their invisibility is more the result of an almost complete eradication of their culture, more than anything else: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/22/american-gy...

There's plenty of racism in Europe - that doesn't mean it's ok or should be accepted.

[panglott]

To clarify, I didn't mean that the discrimination/abuse of the Roma happened a long time ago. I meant that most discrimination/abuse of the Roma has happened in Europe, not in the US. Anti-Roma racism in Europe is obvious, ugly, and contemporary. In Europe, Roma people are a coherent social group of millions of people; in the US, without mass immigration, they are a scattered minority so small that the only thing most Americans "know" about them comes from "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". With nothing to refer to, the word has been bleached of reference to Roma people in American use.