Are you suggesting that the term "gypped" may've been racist? Presumably because its etymology may be a reference to a stereotypical behavior attributed to gypsies, which some might regard as a racial-slur for [Romani people](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people)?

That passage doesn't give me that vibe -- it seems to be trying to suggest that the relevant behavior, "gypping", isn't culturally unique, but rather could be found back in the United States, too.

Concerns about terminology etymologically-based on cultural stereotypes aside, it doesn't read like the author was expressing a racist perspective, but rather trying to speak to such preexisting-perspectives as to dispel them.

Would probably want to do some checking on this first, though I'd suspect that "gypsy" wasn't widely regarded as offensive back then, either, much like "Negro" literally just meant "Black". Seems like sometimes terms are retro-historically recast as racial-slurs, apparently in an attempt to create a gap between historical-texts which use such terms and later-texts which don't. Kinda like depreciating an API in favor of a clone as a mode of depreciating the corresponding ecosystem.

Gypped isn't offensive just because they prefer to be called Romani. It equates Romani with swindlers. Saying some French and some Americans swindle too isn't the same.

It's better to understand what people are trying to say than to misattribute false interpretations.

For example, in this case the speaker clearly wasn't trying to equate Romani to swindlers. Any logic arriving at such a faulty conclusion would seem fallacious, presumably due to over-simplification.

I attributed no intent.

It's hard to guess what point you're trying to make.

My best guess might be that you're trying to represent a belief that words have context-free meaning, and then you're very short in your own communication in part due to that same belief.

However I disagree with jumping to conclusions about stuff. For example, while I might try to guess that you're arguing that words ought to be held as context-free, such an argument would seem quite naive, such that I'd prefer not attribute it to another on the basis of speculation alone.

In short, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Calling something inappropriate implies nothing about intent. It's what people say to children who don't know better for example. And explaining why it's inappropriate doesn't either. My communication was long enough to identify your false implication.

While I might try to guess that you're arguing that readers' contexts ought to be held as irrelevant, such an argument would seem quite naive, such that I'd prefer not attribute it to another on the basis of speculation alone.