Question

The striving of countries in Central Europe to enter the European Union may offer an unprecedented chance to the continent’s Gypsies (or Roman) to be recognized as a nation, albeit one without a defined territory. And if they were to achieve that they might even seek some kind of formal place—at least a total population outnumbers that of many of the Union’s present and future countries. Some experts put the figure at 4m-plus; some proponents of Gypsy rights go as high as 15m.

Unlike Jews, Gypsies have had no known ancestral land to hark back to. Though their language is related to Hindi, their territorial origins are misty. Romanian peasants held them to be born on the moon. Other Europeans (wrongly) thought them migrant Egyptians, hence the derivative Gypsy. Most probably they were itinerant metal workers and entertainers who drifted west from India in the 7th century.

However, since communism in Central Europe collapsed a decade ago, the notion of Romanestan as a landless nation founded on Gypsy culture has gained ground. The International Romany Union, which says it stands for 10m Gypsies in more than 30 countries, is fostering the idea of “self-rallying”. It is trying to promote a standard and written form of the language; it waves a Gypsy flag (green with a wheel) when it lobbies in such places as the United Bations; and in July it held a congress in Prague, The Czech capital. Where President Vaclav Havel said that Gypsies in his own country and elsewhere should have a better deal.

At the congress a Slovak-born lawyer, Emil Scuka, was elected president of the International Tomany Union. Later this month a group of elected Gypsy politicians, including members of parliament, mayors and local councilors from all over Europe (OSCE), to discuss how to persuade more Gypsies to get involved in politics.

The International Romany Union is probably the most representative of the outfits that speak for Gypsies, but that is not saying a lot. Of the several hundred delegates who gathered at its congress, few were democratically elected; oddly, none came from Hungary, whose Gypsies are perhaps the world’s best organized, with some 450 Gypsy bodies advising local councils there. The union did, however, announce its ambition to set up a parliament, but how it would actually be elected was left undecided.

So far, the European Commission is wary of encouraging Gypsies to present themselves as a nation. The might, it is feared, open a Pandora’s box already containing Basques, Corsicans and other awkward peoples. Besides, acknowledging Gypsies as a nation might backfire, just when several countries, particularly Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, are beginning to treat them better, in order to qualify for EU membership. “The EU’s whole premise is to overcome differences, not to highlight them,” says a nervous Eurocrat.

But the idea that the Gypsies should win some kind of special recognition as Europe’s largest continent wide minority, and one with a terrible history of persecution, is catching on . Gypsies have suffered many pogroms over the centuries. In Romania, the country that still has the largest number of them (more than 1m), in the 19th century they were actually enslaved. Hitler tried to wipe them out, along with the Jews.

“Gypsies deserve some space within European structures,” says Jan Marinus Wiersma, a Dutchman in the European Parliament who suggests that one of the current commissioners should be responsible for Gypsy affairs. Some prominent Gypsies say they should be more directly represented, perhaps with a quota in the European Parliament. That, they argue, might give them a boost. There are moves afoot to help them to get money for, among other things, a Gypsy university.

One big snag is that Europe’s Gypsies are, in fact, extremely heterogeneous. They belong to many different, and often antagonistic, clans and tribes, with no common language or religion, Their self-proclaimed leaders have often proved quarrelsome and corrupt. Still, says, Dimitrina Petrova, head of the European Roma Rights Center in Budapest, Gypsies’ shared experience of suffering entitles them to talk of one nation; their potential unity, she says, stems from “being regarded as sub-human by most majorities in Europe.”

And they have begun to be a bit more pragmatic. In Slovakia and Bulgaria, for instance, Gypsy political parties are trying to form electoral blocks that could win seats in parliament. In Macedonia, a Gypsy party already has some—and even runs a municipality. Nicholas Gheorge, an expert on Gypsy affairs at the OSCE, reckons that, spread over Central Europe, there are now about 20 Gypsy MPS and mayors, 400-odd local councilors, and a growing number of businessmen and intellectuals.

That is far from saying that they have the people or the cash to forge a nation. But, with the Gypsy question on the EU’s agenda in Central Europe, they are making ground.

1.    The Best Title of this passage is

[A]. Gypsies Want to Form a Nation.         [B]. Are They a Nation.

[C]. EU Is Afraid of Their Growth.           [C]. They Are a Tribe

2.    Where are the most probable Gypsy territory origins?

[A]. Most probably they drifted west from India in the 7th century.

[B]. They are scattered everywhere in the world.

[C]. Probably, they stemmed from Central Europe.

[D]. They probably came from the International Romany Union.

3.    What does the International Romany lobby for?

[A]. It lobbies for a demand to be accepted by such international organizations as EU and UN.

[B]. It lobbies for a post in any international Romany Union.

[C]. It lobbies for the right as a nation.

[D]. It lobbies for a place in such international organizations as the EU or UN.

4.    Why is the Europe Commission wary of encouraging Gypsies to present themselves as a nation?

[A]. It may open a Pandora’s Box.

[B]. Encouragement may lead to some unexpected results.

[C]. It fears that the Basgnes, Corsicans and other nations seeking separation may raise the same demand.

[D]. Gyspsies’ demand may highlight the difference in the EU.

5.    The big problem lies in the fact that

[A]. Gypsies belong to different and antagonistic clans and tribes without a common language or religion.

[B]. Their leaders prove corrupt.

[C]. Their potential unity stems from “being regarded as sub-human”.

[D]. They are a bit more pragmatic.

Answer 1

【小題1】B

【小題2】A

【小題3】D

【小題4】C

【小題5】A

解析:

【小題1】他們是一個民族/國家嗎？整篇文章環境這一點而寫，文章一開始就提出中歐入歐盟的國家會給大陸吉普塞人一個機會，承認他們是一個民族——國家，雖然沒有界定的領土（作為國家，應有領土）。吉普塞人的領袖人物也指出其人數超過歐盟中許多現在有的和將來要入盟的國家。他們至少要在歐盟中有一席之地。第二段提出，吉普塞和猶太人不同，他們沒有可回歸的祖居地。他們的語言屬印歐語系。英國人認為他們來自埃及及移民。最可能的是七世紀時一些流浪的手工業工人和藝人從印度向西方流移。第三段涉及一種思想——以吉普塞文化為基礎的無疆土的吉普塞民族應有個說話的地方—越來越為人接受。國際吉普塞人聯盟聲稱代表30多個國家的吉普塞人，做了幾件事：展開自我聯合，提出語言標準和書面形式，在聯合國進行游說活動時揮動吉普塞國旗，在布魯塞爾設立辦事處，六月在捷克首都布拉格召開會議。第四段集中講到會上選出了聯盟主席。一群選出吉普塞的政治家——國會議員，市長，地方政務委員再次在布拉格開會，會議由歐洲安全合作條約組織召集，來討論如何動員更多的吉普塞人參政。第五段涉及聯盟雄心勃勃的宣布要建立國會，但如何實際操作還未落實。后面主要是外界對吉普塞的態度。第六段描述歐盟委員會在吉普塞作為最大的大陸少數民族，歷史上遭到殘酷的迫害，應贏得特別承認。19世紀他們橫遭奴役，希特勒企圖把它們和猶太人一起消滅。第八段講了歐洲會議中有人提出吉普塞在歐洲機構中應有一席之地，還提議一個常務委員負責吉普塞事務。還有行動籌建建立一所吉普塞大學。后面兩段講的是困難，第九段點出。最后一段指出，現在說他們有人有錢可以組成（國家）為時還早，可是吉普塞是歐盟中日程表上的一個問題，他們日益接近解決。從內部，外部情況分析都說明吉普塞是一個組成國家的民族。全文都是環繞它是不是，該不該承認為民族/國家而寫，所以B項他們是不是民族是最佳標題。

A. 吉普塞要想組成一個國家（民族）。這只是文章涉及到的部分內容，中歐國家想加入歐盟一事可能產生的結果。      C. 歐盟害怕它們成長。      D. 他們是一個部落。

【小題2】A. 最可能是在7世紀從印度流浪到西方。見第1題第二注釋。

B. 他們分散在世界各地。        C. 可能他們源于中歐。      D. 他們可能來自國際吉普塞人聯盟。

【小題3】D. 它們在這些國際組織，如歐盟，聯合國中進行活動游說要取得一席之地。見第1題第一段，三段注釋。

A. 它們游說活動歐盟和聯合國接受他們的要求。太抽象。       B. 它們活動游說在國際機構取得職位。           C. 他們游說作為民族的權利。

【小題4】C. 它害怕巴斯克人，科西嘉人和其它要求分裂的民族會提出同樣的要求。見難句譯注11。

A. 它可能會打開潘多拉盒子。此盒子在文章中只是比喻。     B. 鼓勵可能會導致某些意想不到的結果。           D. 吉普塞的要求會加深歐盟分歧。     B,D兩項不夠明確。

【小題5】     A. 吉普塞人屬于不同的，而且常常是對抗的民族的部落，還沒有共同的語言和宗教信仰。

B. 他們領袖很腐敗。      C. 他們潛在的團結來自被人看作是低于人類（次等人）。    D. 他們有點太講究實效， B,C, D 三項不是主要問題。主要問題是A. 項。