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.
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.
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.
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.