Can a Roma nation exist even though there is no Roma land?

  • I believe that the Roma people can still exist as a nation, especially in an increasingly globalized world.

    The necessary elements of creating a nation are centered more around community, connection, and shared interests, rather than the actual physical manifestation of land or geography. As long as there is a governing organization that accepts responsibility for its people, it is possible to create a nation that extends beyond borders. This nation will have to compromise and work with other governments in order to make sure that laws and principles of host countries are not broken or infringed upon.

    Posted by: GutturalRobbie96
  • Yes, I think that Roma would be considered a nation, based on its culture and people, even without land.

    For thousands of years, nomadic tribes, with no ties to a land or region, would have their own cultural codes of conduct and laws, just as established nations with land as their foundation do. Such tribes have been considered nations, since the Babylonian and Sumerian empires occupied the early nomadic Hebrew and Kurd tribes of the Middle East, thousands of years ago. Many indigenous nations existed in the western hemisphere, prior to European colonization, that were not rooted to the land. Before colonization and the reservation system, many tribes moved freely about the North American continent. A nation can exist without land, but it cannot without intelligent living beings working in cooperation. Sometimes, the word "nation", which does not require land, gets confused with that of "empire", which is land-based in its establishment of permanent occupation.

    Posted by: ChillyColumbus36
  • Even though there is no Roma country or land, there is clearly a Roma nation, as they are a distinct and independent people.

    The Roma are without a land or country but they still constitute a nation. A nation is usually defined as a 'people who share a common language, descent, history' and this is clearly the case with the Roma. Furthermore, there are other cases in history and today of nations without countries. For example, historically the Jews were considered a nation even though they had no country. Today the Afrikaner people in southern Africa are considered a nation even though there is no Afrikaner country.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • Yes, I agree a Roma nation can exist without Roma land, because the people are still around to practice the culture, and they don't need the land.

    Land is a mighty thing when it comes to tribes, religions, and cultures. But it is not required to have a nation. People from different cultures move all the time and bring their beliefs, way of living, food, language and celebrations with them. These "nations" can be almost anywhere and still take place outside of their original region. I see no reason that there can't be a Roma nation with no Roma land.

    Posted by: I33Iess
  • If this "Roma" nation can manage to get itself recognized by other nations, then it can exist without land.

    While making a nation without any land would be a difficult, near impossible task, it could be done. The main way in which a nation becomes such is by being recognized by other nations as a nation. The United States became a nation when it declared itself independent from the United Kingdom, and managed to get other nations to accept that declaration. Of course the United States had land on which it existed, so its plight was much simpler, but the concept is the same nonetheless. If you can manage to be recognized as a nation by other nations, then you can exist as a nation without any land.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • I agree a Roma nation can exist without Roma land because a nation is people, not land.

    When we talk about being a great nation, we're really talking about the people and the government. Therefore a Roma nation can exist regardless if they have land to claim as their own. It's all about people, not geography.

    Posted by: N3vinFace
  • No, because with the distinctive and vital Roma culture notwithstanding, the term "nation" has an implication of geographic specificity.

    The Roma may be able to retain access to their distinctive modes of living amidst the forces of globalization; and, one may say, more power to those of them who hew to the many wonderful traditions in their heritage. But to call them a nation, rather than an ethnicity, may be inappropriate. The term "nation" is commonly understood to refer to a community that not only accepts a shared set of political arrangements, but that exercises control over a designated range of territory. In making this distinction, there is no necessary implication that nationhood is superior to itinerant modes of living, but the distinction seems important for conceptual clarity.

    Posted by: M4I4cFeIine
  • A Roma nation can exist without land because a Roma nation is made up of people.

    Even though there is no Roma land, there is a Roma nation. This nation exists because it is a nation of people with a common heritage, cultural and social history, language, and reason for existence. To deny the existence of this nation would be to ignore the meaning of an entire societal group that has been among us for generations as a clear and distinct society.

    Posted by: KIemeP3nguin
  • A Roma nation can exist without a Roma land, and it the truth is, it already does.

    A nation is defined as a group of people sharing the same ethnic background or the same ideals or the same beliefs. Just because the Roma people are spread out all across Europe, does not mean that they aren't a nation. It will, however, be very difficult for a Roma state to exist. A state, of course, being an internationally recognized sovereign country with an autonomous government. The nation will last as long as the people do, but a state will be hard to come by.

    Posted by: Fr4Giga
  • The Roma of Gypsies are widely dispersed but still in need of leadership who can help them.

    Although the Roma have no lands of their own, their history as a nomadic people meant they didn't have lands that they called their own. They still need leadership that can help them in the many problems they face all over the world. If they have no leaders and no voice, then the problems can't be solved. They are at the mercy of many governments and people who are deeply prejudiced against them and need representation somewhere.

    Posted by: 54IInferno
  • No, a nation is its land.

    No, a Roma nation cannot exist without Roma land, because there cannot be two different governing units in one space. A nation is defined by its land. Without room to call its own, a group of people cannot call themselves a nation, just like the Jewish people were not a nation until they were given the land of Israel.

  • A nation cannot exist without owning land. A nation is not a concept.

    A nation is not an idea, but a physical parcel of land occupied by a government. Without land, a nation cannot have a body of citizens and without citizens there is no one to govern with a government. A nation cannot exist just in the minds of a few people.

    Posted by: NoisyAlva89
  • Though the Roma culture certainly exists, a Roma "nation" does not, since the concept of a "nation" entails a specific encompassed geographic locale.

    The gypsies, like the Jews, are an ancient culture, scattered worldwide. The Jews acquired a nation, a piece of geographic real estate, Israel, in the twentieth century, but could not have been designated a "nation" before that time. The Roma people, still lacking any formally delineated piece of land, cannot accurately be called a "nation".

    Posted by: TangyKen
  • I disagree because there are four components or pillars in the making of a nation or a state and that four are i)Land, ii) Population iii) Soverignity and iv) Government

    All the four components are equally important in the making of a nation or a state so much so that even the lack of one component (as given in this debate question) i.e. the lack of Roma Land would make the possibility of a state as just Null and Void. As there are four pillars in the making of a building and if one pillar is gone, the building can't survive, similarly, without the existence of land, it is impossible that a nation or state can come into being.

    Posted by: babyphatgurl
  • A nation is defined by a set of rules and guidelines the citizens adhere to, in return for various services provided by its government; without a land there can be no coherent government, and hence no services.

    The concept of a Roma nation is an appealing one but ultimately one that cannot exist. The problem is that a nation by definition must be a contract between a group of people that will then form a governmental body which in turn rules and provides services to its people. These services range from police and fire services to public works and a military. None of these are possible without a designated land. It's also not possible for there to be a government without a capitol for it to meet in, which once again requires some Roma land.

    Posted by: P3rEver
  • I do not believe a Roma nation can exist even though there is no Roma land.

    The concept of a nation implies that a group of people have sovereign authority over a specific area. If the Roma do not have their own land, they don't have sovereign authority over their own affairs. Thus they do not have a nation.

    Posted by: 5c0Ieak

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.