Slav and slave have different pronunciation, not just different spelling (and actually, 'slav' in the meaning of slavic people was also spelled 'slave' - not sure if that was with a silent 'e' on the end or not). It's also as I understand it a name given to the slavic people by themselves: "Slav \Slav\ (sl[aum]v or sl[a^]v), n.; pl. {Slavs}. [A word originally meaning, intelligible, and used to contrast the people so called with foreigners who spoke languages unintelligible to the Slavs; akin to OSlav. slovo a word, slava fame, Skr. [,c]ru to hear. Cf. {Loud}.] (Ethnol.) One of a race of people occupying a large part of Eastern and Northern Europe, including the Russians, Bulgarians, Roumanians, Servo-Croats, Slovenes, Poles, Czechs, Wends or Sorbs, Slovaks, etc. [Written also {Slave}, and {Sclav}.] [1913 Webster]"

I'm reminded of a quote about what if the German army named their machines of war after the people they tried to exterminate, like the Apache helicopter etc.

I'm not saying we should "prohibit" words, I'm just saying I don't quite see how one could make much of a case for "gypping" being a word that isn't steeped in history of abuse of and discrimination against the Roma people. As recent as the 70s and 80s (and even to this day) for most of Europe. Eg, to quote song "Magnificent Seven" by the Clash: "What Do We Have For Entertainment? / Cops Kickin' Gypsies On The Pavement". (I never interpreted the song any other way than as a critique of systematic abuse by the police, and callousness of mass media - not as a slur by the Clash against "gypsies").

Just because "nigger" is derived from "negro" and means "black" doesn't automatically mean we can choose to pretend black people hasn't been and still are victim of racism, and decide that "nigger is now ok to use".

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.

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.

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.