Bono, my bro,
What matters is not how you use it, but how most of teh people in one society use it
The boths sides could be right since it depends on the social integration of the person. No one can be blamed on how far he is integrated into it. While saying this, I am hurring to state that I am in now way isolated. I am just the normal exception of the rule. And the society is made out of individuals, its not sth that exist just by its own. So, the individual's opinion counts as well.
The fact that there isnt any united susytem about whats correct 'negro' or 'black', since in Bg its insulting to call smo black and not nigro, the very same fact leaves open doors in principle about how one would interpretate the symbolic meaning.
Well, let me ask you - for example - in XT, where there are not only americans or europeans, what is more correct to do for a bulgarian - to say nigro or to say black - If I say black instead of negro, then maybe the anglo-saxons would be satisfied with it, but I for one wont be united with my inner self and would have moral issues. So, what counts here more?
Then, I propose to invite some philolog or linguist to explain exatly the origin of the word 'gypsie' respectively 'ciganin' and 'roma' (btw, do you think that the citizens of the capital 'Rome' have sth against it?) so we can finally understand what it is so insulting in this word.
And in future to avoid any controversies, why do we not call them 'indians' ? At the end, to me it seeems the most proper and natural thing among the others.