Aidan McGarry-Who Speaks for Roma__ Political Representation of a Transnational Minority...

8/10/2019 Aidan McGarry-Who Speaks for Roma__ Political Representation of a Transnational Minority Community-Continuum (2010)

1/217


2/217

Who Speaks for Roma?


3/217

This page intentionally left blank


4/217

Who Speaks for Roma?

Political Representation of a TransnationalMinority Community

Aidan McGarry


5/217

2010

Te Continuum International Publishing Group Inc

80 Maiden Lane, New York, NY 10038

Te Continuum International Publishing Group LtdTe ower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX

www.continuumbooks.com

Copyright 2010 by Aidan McGarry

All rights reserved. No part o this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted, in any orm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,recording, or otherwise, without the written permission o the publishers.

ISBN: HB: 978-0-8264-2880-6

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataMcGarry, Aidan.Who speaks or Roma? : political representation o a transnational minority community /

by Aidan McGarry. p. cm. Includes bibliographical reerences and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-8264-2880-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-8264-2880-0 (hardcover : alk. paper)

1. RomaniesEurope, EasternSocial conditions. 2. RomaniesEurope,EasternPolitics and government. 3. RomaniesEurope, EasternEthnic identity.4. Political participationEurope, Eastern. 5. Europe, EasternEthnic relations.6. Europe, EasternPolitics and government. I. itle.

DX210.M34 2010 323.119149704dc22 2009051367

ypeset by Newgen Imaging Systems Pvt Ltd, Chennai, IndiaPrinted in the United States o America
http://www.continuumbooks.com/http://www.continuumbooks.com/


6/217

For Rowan


7/217



8/217

vii

Contents

List o Figures and ables xAcknowledgements xiList o Acronyms xii

INRODUCION 1

CHAPER 1 HISORICAL OVERVIEW OF ROMA IN EUROPE 7A Passage rom India 7

Arrival in Europe 10Roma and ravellers 12Persecution and Romanticism 15O Baro Porrajmos: Te Holocaust 20Roma under Communism 24Post-communism: Romani Awakening 28

CHAPER 2 POLIICAL PARICIPAION AND

REPRESENAION OF ROMA 33Objectives, Assumptions and Rationale 35

Teoretical Basis 36Methodological Approach 38

Mobilization, Political Participation and Representation 41Minorities, the Democratic State and International Law 47Te Roma Social Movement 49Determining Legitimacy 52

CHAPER 3 AMBIVALEN DISCOURSE: RIGHS-BASEDHEORIES ON MINORIIES 59

Introduction 59Rights-based Approaches to Minority Issues 59


9/217

viii CONTENTS

Minority Rights: Analytical and Cultural Presuppositives 61A Rights versus Justice Conception o Minority Protection 63

Citizenship Rights and Roma 66Political Rights and the Pursuit o Representation 70Representing People and Representing Interests 72Rights versus Interests 75Key Concepts 79

CHAPER 4 WHO SPEAKS FOR ROMA? ORGANIZINGSRUCURES OF REPRESENAION

IN ROMANIA 83Introduction 83Interests o Roma in Romania 84lite Representation o Roma 89Monopolizing Roma Representation 93LocalizedLegitimacy through Civil Society 97Conclusion 101

Ethnic Mobilization 101Political Participation 102Interest Articulation 103Legitimate Representation 104Hypotheses 105

CHAPER 5 SELF-GOVERNMEN AND INERESREPRESENAION IN HUNGARY: A WRONG

SEP IN HE RIGH DIRECION? 109Introduction 109Shared Interests o Roma in Hungary 110Te Minority Sel-Government System: Political Participation

in a Cultural Institution 114Te Needle in the Haystack: lite Romani Representatives 118Te Absence o Ethnopolitics: Let Sleeping Dogs Lie 120Plugging the Hole: Romani Civil Society Organizations 122

Conclusion 125Ethnic Mobilization 125Political Participation 126Interest Articulation 127Legitimate Representation 128Hypotheses 129

Hungary and Romania Compared 130


10/217

Contents ix

CHAPER 6 ROMA REPRESENAION IN HERANSNAIONAL POLIICAL CONEX 136

Introduction 136A European Minority 137Te ransnational Roma Social Movement 140ransnational Roma Interests 142

International Romani Union (IRU) 143Roma National Congress (RNC) 143European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) 145Open Society Institute-Roma Participation Programme

(OSI-RPP) 145European Roma and raveller Forum (ERF) 146Notes on Legitimacy o ransnational Organizing Structures o

Representation 147Te European Unions Policy on Roma 148European Roma Inormation Offi ce (ERIO) 152Conclusion 157

Ethnic Mobilization 157Political Participation 158Interest Articulation 158Legitimate Representation 159

CONCLUSION 163Assessing the Hypotheses 165

H1: Political decentralization increases the legitimacy o Roma

representation 165H2: Due to inadequate organizing structures o representationin the domestic political context, transnational Romaniactivity increases 168

Contested Ethnic Group Identity and Shared Interests 170

Glossary 176Reerences 178

Index 195


11/217

x

List of Figures and Tables

Figure 2.1 Hypothesis 1: Decentralization increases thelegitimacy o representation structures 40

Figure 2.2 Te political participation o Roma in thedomestic political context 46

able 4.1 Key eatures o organizing structures orepresentation in Romania 100

able 5.1 Key eatures o organizing structures orepresentation in Hungary 124


12/217

xi

Acknowledgements

Tis book has benefited rom critical and constructive engagement rom a

number o riends and colleagues. My sincere thanks go to my mentor,Antje Wiener, whose vigorous critique was matched by valuable insightsand encouragement. My thanks also to David Phinnemore or providingexpertise, particularly on Romania, as well as practical suggestions. Temanuscript in whole or in part has profited rom the input rom severalriends and colleagues during its gestation including Laura Cashman,Margaret Hagan, Erhan Iener, Jennier Jackson-Preece, Tomas Pfister,

Cathal McCall, Guido Schwellnus and Diana Schmidt-Pfister.I am grateul to all support staff within the School o Politics andInternational Studies and the library staff at Queens University, Belast orall their help. My research has been financially supported by a Departmento Education and Learning Grant, the British International Studies Asso-ciation Founders Fund Award, the William and Betty MacQuitty Fellowshipand the Romanian Embassy in the UK Language Scholarship.

I am indebted to the many Roma representatives, activists, and advo-

cates who I interviewed over the course o this research. Teir insights andknowledge was generously shared and their hospitality warmly remembered.A word o thanks too to those academics working on Roma, particularlythe political scientists, sociologists and anthropologists whose research haslaid the oundation or this book.

Special thanks also to Marie-Claire Antoine at Continuum who recog-nized the value o the book and provided indispensable advice throughout.

Finally, my thanks go to my amily or their unwavering support, inparticular my parents, James and Philomena, and to my partner Rowan.

Aidan McGarryBrighton, 2009


13/217

xii

List of Acronyms

CEDIME-SE Centre or Documentation and Inormation onMinorities in Europe South-Eastern Europe

CEEC Central and Eastern European CountryCoE Council o EuropeDG Directorate GeneralDRI Department or Inter-Ethnic RelationsECRI European Commission against Racism and IntoleranceENAR European Network Against Racism

ERIO European Roma Inormation Offi ceERPC European Roma Policy CoalitionERRC European Roma Rights CentreERF European Roma and raveller ForumEU European UnionEUMC European Monitoring Centre on Racism and

XenophobiaFCNM Framework Convention or the Protection o National

MinoritiesG-ROMS Working Party on RomaH1 Hypothesis 1H2 Hypothesis 2HRW Human Rights WatchICCPR International Convention on Civil and Political RightsIRU International Romani UnionMG-S-ROM Group o Specialists on Roma/GypsiesMSG Minority Sel-GovernmentMSzP Hungarian Socialist PartyNAR National Agency or RomaNCCD National Council or Combating DiscriminationNGO Non-Governmental Organization


14/217

List of Acronyms xiii

OSCE Organization or Security and Cooperation in EuropeOSCE-ODIHR Organization or Security and Cooperation in Europe

Offi ce or Democratic Institutions and Human RightsOSI Open Society InstituteOSI-RPP Open Society Institute-Roma Participation

ProgrammePER Project on Ethnic RelationsRM Resource MobilizationRNC Roma National CongressRPPE Roma Party Pro-Europe

RSM Roma Social MovementSDP Social Democratic PartyAN ransnational Advocacy NetworkUK United KingdomUN United NationsUNICEF United Nations Childrens FundUSA United States o America


15/217



16/217

1

Introduction

No other minority community generates such a polarized response asRoma. On the one hand, Roma signiy an intriguing object o ascination

with a unique history and culture, while on the other hand, Roma areexcluded and persecuted wherever they live. While Roma are widely dis-persed across the world, they are a European minority, ound in everystate on the continent, though located principally in Central and EasternEurope. It is estimated that the population o Roma in Europe is between1012 million, comparable to Greece. Roma are not indigenous and arethought to have originated rom India where they lef approximately onethousand years ago, though their origin and migratory route are contested

due to the lack o written evidence documenting their existence prior totheir arrival in Europe in the thirteenth century. It must be rememberedthat Roma are not one homogenous block, they are extremely heterogene-ous but they do share one commonality everywhere they reside they areaced with discrimination and marginalization.

I have always been ascinated by minority communities probably becauseo my own experience growing up as a minority that is, in a non-dominantposition in Northern Ireland. For this reason, issues o justice and equal-ity have inormed both my research and activism and I became interestedin how minority communities fit into societies, particularly how theydefine their needs and articulate their interests. I first became aware o theplight o Roma in the 1990s when the international political spotlight fixedon issues o ethnicity in Eastern Europe and the more I learned aboutRoma, the more complex their situation revealed itsel. Tey are experienc-ing explicit discrimination and racism resulting in extreme socio-economic

deprivation and suppression o cultural identity. Exclusion and persecutioncharacterize the lives o many Roma, much o which is based on stereo-types which construct them as thieves and beggars who are not to betrusted. I wanted to understand why Roma are treated so badly by variousstate agencies as well as by mainstream society but unortunately to ullyexplain this phenomenon was beyond the scope o this book citing their


17/217

2 WHO SPEAKS FOR ROMA?

perceived difference is too simplistic. For this reason, I ocused on oneaspect which at once both explained their situation and offered a means to

rectiy it: their political representation, and lack thereo. I am not Romani,thereore my perspectives and insights are those o an outsiders looking inbut I hope to contribute to the debate through research which is robust,honest and useul. It is my intention to shed some light on who Roma arein terms o the political space they occupy because it is through politicalstructures that the voice o Roma is heard.

Tere have been various attempts to explain and understand the situa-tion o Roma but these have ofen ailed to ully take account o the

particular heterogeneous quality o this ethnic minority group. Roma areunlike other ethnic minority groups as they are a transnational minoritywithout a kin state. Additionally, they are not united along linguistic, reli-gious, amilial, occupational and class lines and they are not territoriallyconcentrated. As ethnicity and ethno-nationalism were embraced byminority actors across Central and Eastern Europe in the 1990s, Romawere increasingly ignored by the state. Most research on minorities hasocused on ethnic conflict and resolution but because Roma have neverrisen up or used violence, they have been neglected in academic and poli-tical discourse.

Issues surrounding minority representation and participation continueto prompt questions about accommodating diversity in democratic systems.No state in Europe is ethnically homogeneous despite claims to the con-trary and this book argues that acknowledging the value and contributiono the Romani community creates a rich and textured society. International

organizations, states and societies have had to address those minoritygroups, who, due to their ethnic identity and cultural affi liations remainmarginalized in public lie. Such issues demand greater attention by policy-makers which invariably centre on recognition, justice and access to rights.Representation o Roma has been given increasing credence by states andinternational organizations particularly since the collapse o communismhowever this attention has thus ar ailed to capture the subtle dynamicso this unique minority group. Crucially this raises questions about how

the Romani community has attempted to seize control o their situationby creating organizing structures o representation in domestic and tran-snational political contexts. For this reason, I inflate the role o the Romasocial movement in order to capture processes o ethnic mobilization andinterest articulation.

Most analyses o Roma have examined their relationship with the state,discussing various approaches and divergent expectations and usually


18/217

Introduction 3

involve prescriptive analysis and attempts to solve the Roma issue.According to this problem-solving view minority groups must balance

competing preerences: the desire to be integrated and enjoy equal rightswith other citizens is balanced by the desire to enjoy their ethno-culturalgroup characteristics without ear o persecution. In seeking a more justand equitable society it is thereore necessary to allow certain provisionsor minority groups to access citizenship rights and human rights. Froman academic point o view, Roma all through the cracks o conventionaltheories on minorities which have so ar ailed to account or this diversecommunity; thereore, I attempt to shed light on the political lie o Roma

and borrow insights rom social movement, citizenship and social construc-tivist literatures. In order to gain a hold on the domestic and transnationalempirical case studies I employ the key concepts o ethnic mobilization,political participation, interest articulation and legitimate representation.Tese concepts act as a prism through which to gain a uller understandingo the situation o Roma in domestic and transnational political contexts.

Te main puzzle starts rom the question: Who speaks or Roma? Giventhat they are a dispersed and heterogeneous minority group, we may askhowdo Roma organize themselves in public lie? It is posited that any organ-izing structure o representation remains hollow unless it is vested withlegitimacy, and this legitimacy must come rom the Romani community.However, legitimacy cannot be attained or measured in a positivist sensethus this book attempts to evaluate the legitimacy claims o domesticand transnational organizing structures o representation by contextualiz-ing socio-political interactions. Tis necessitates a broad understanding o

representation and legitimacy because a variety o organizing structureso representation are created by the Roma social movement includinglite, ethnic political parties, non-governmental organizations (NGOs),advocacy networks and other political ora. In this sense representationconstitutes more than ormal state structures such as parliamentary repre-sentation and means I must examine organizing structures o representationwhich Roma create. Tese structures are considered as organizing as theterm purposively captures a continuous (in the sense o never conclusively

completed) process involving mutually constitutive interactions betweenagency and structure. Legitimacy is thus not conceptualized as an outputcategory, or something which is earned through political status, but isconerred by the Romani community itsel onto organizing structures orepresentation.

Tis book inquires whether a common ethnic identity is a prerequisiteor legitimate representation. Te role o the state, international organizations


19/217


andgaje (non-Roma) lite is acknowledged but ultimately downplayed asthe empirical ocus centres on how (not why) Roma organize themselves

politically through stalagmite mobilization, that is, societal processes rombelow. Roma cannot depend on the benevolent will o majorities whichrequently suppress minority interests thereore they create their ownorganizing structures o representation. Tese organizing structures orepresentation are created with reerence to the ethnic group identity oRoma and provide a platorm through which Roma can articulate theirshared interests communicating to policy-makers the most pertinentsocio-economic and political interests o the group. In this respect, I exam-

ine how the Romani community engages in thegaje-constructed politicalworld.

I assess the domestic as well as transnational political contexts becausecollectively Roma are a transnational minority yet individually they arecitizens o nation states. Only by analysing both domestic and transna-tional contexts is it possible to ully understand the situation o Roma. Teday-to-day existence o Roma is shaped by relations with the state andmainstream society and or the most part these encounters are negativethus it is the responsibility o government to implement effective legisla-tion and policy which improves the lives o Roma. However, particularlysince the 1990s there has been increasing advocacy by Romani lite ininternational organizations such as the European Union (EU), the Councilo Europe (CoE), the United Nations (UN) and the Organization or Secu-rity and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which set standards on minorityprotection. Te international political context has proved a vital space or

Roma to gain leverage over domestic opposition, articulate their interests,and improve their socio-economic and political situation. Yet despitenoticeable successes and the creation o transnational organizing structureso representation, Roma continue to be marginalized in their respectivehome states.

Chapter 1 provides a historical overview o Roma in Europe includingwhen they arrived and the persecution which they aced.Tis chapter relieson existing research conducted by historians and anthropologists and

traces the migration o Roma rom India approximately one thousandyears ago. Necessarily this overview is highly selective but it is intended toprovide the reader with a oundational understanding o key developmentsor the Romani community including: the Holocaust; their situation undercommunism; and their experience post-1989. It is argued that a rise inpolitical consciousness and collective action emerged due to the persecu-tion and marginalization suffered by Roma ollowing the collapse o


20/217

Introduction 5

communism in Central and Eastern Europe. Chapter 2 introduces therationale o the book by highlighting the importance o political participa-

tion or Roma including how Roma establish organizing structures orepresentation to articulate their interests. Processes o ethnic mobilizationand participation are situated in a broader theoretical discussion o minor-ities in Europe and how the situation o Roma is unique in that theyconstitute a nation without a territory. Political participation is presentedas crucial i Roma are to have a voice in society and ensure that theirinterests are taken into account by policy-makers to redress their diresocio-economic situation. Chapter 3argues that the academic literature

on minorities ocuses on rights, that is, the rights and duties o minoritycommunities. However, the discussion ends at state policy and legislationwhich means that the importance o an interest-based approach is ofenignored. By locating the debate on interests, I examine political processesand minority community representation. Tus this book asks: what is itthat Roma want, in terms o interests, and how do they express these inter-ests? Tis requires an analysis o political participation and representationwhich the minority rights literature overlooks. Additionally, it is inquiredwhether there is a difference between representing people and representinginterests in the case o Roma.

Chapters 4, 5 and 6 comprise the empirical content with Chapter 4exploring the situation o Roma in Romania. It examines how Romaniahas attempted to integrate the interests o minorities, including Roma,through constitutional provisions and legislation. Trough interviews anddocument analysis the interests o Roma in Romania are outlined and

evaluated. Te chapter details three organizing structures o representationin Romania in turn: lite; political parties; and civil society organizationswhich claim to speak on behal o Roma, and each organizing structureo representation is assessed in terms o its activities and legitimacy. Tischapter evaluates the political participation and ethnic mobilization oRoma in Romania as well as the capacity o organizing structures o repre-sentation to articulate interests. Chapter 5 ocuses on Hungary and beginsby assessing the minority sel-government system in Hungary which is one

o the most progressive minority regimes in Europe. However, the minoritysel-government system avours cultural interests, such as language andeducation, which are not as relevant or Roma whose interests are prima-rily socio-economic and political. Te interests o Roma are determinedthrough an analysis o policy documents and interviews. Te chapter thenocuses on three organizing structures o representation: lite; politicalparties; and civil society organizations and the claims o these structures


21/217


to be legitimate representatives o Roma are assessed in turn. It is askedwhether a common ethnic identity is enough to determine legitimate rep-

resentation and assesses the phenomenon o ethnopolitics. Commonthemes and issues with regard to the ethnic mobilization, political partici-pation and interest articulation o Roma in Romania and Hungary arehighlighted and assessed.Chapter 6provides the final empirical case-study.It is argued that Roma are a transnational minority and thereore requirean effective voice at the transnational level. Indeed, the transnationalpolitical context has acted as a receptive environment in which Roma canadvance their claims. Tis chapter begins with a historical analysis o the

development o Romani activism in the transnational political context andhighlights the role and impact o international NGOs and transnationaladvocacy networks. Te impact o the EU as an ally o Roma is examinedby ocusing on policy developments as well as Romani activism and mobi-lization based in Brussels; in particular, the role o the European RomaInormation Offi ce. Te conclusion is presented in the final chapter. It isargued that the ethnic group identity o Roma is contested which hindersthe creation and development o legitimate organizing structures o repre-sentation. Te question o Who speaks or Roma? is answered within aocused discussion on the political representation o minorities and it isargued that organizing structures o representation in the transnationalpolitical context are less legitimate than domestic representation structureshowever they carry more influence and normative power.


22/217

7

1Historical Overview of Roma in Europe

A Passage from India

Roma are ofen described as a people without a history but the truth is thatthe story o Roma is a journey which has not been written down, and orthat reason there exists room or speculation and myth. It is now widelyacknowledged that India, specifically North India, ormed the cradle o the

Gypsy nation (Kenrick and Puxon 1972, 13) though some commentatorsdissent rom this view (Okely 1983; Mayall 2004). However, the Indian sup-position is one o the least controversial acets o Romani history becausecompeting theories have been put orward to explain who they were inIndia, why they lef, when they lef and when they arrived in Europe.Because no documented account o their migration westward exists withwhich we can trace and scrutinize it leaves us postulating various hypo-theses based on conjecture and little more until they arrived in Europe and

the settled Europeans recorded the presence o these strange and exoticpeople rom the east. Te real danger is that academics, due to the absenceo primary evidence, treat fiction as act which in turn becomes the deacto truth due to publication and citation (Matras 2009). Te perspectiveoffered here is based on a careul reading o existing theories and ideasormulated by academics principally historians and linguists. In thisrespect I present a potted account o Romani history over 1,000 years, aperiod which is characterized by nomadism, persecution, assimilation andmarginalization. Condensing a millennias history into one chapter is a taskraught with hazards and has resulted in a highly selective account centringon key events and developments.

Indian society, then as now, was dominated by the caste system. It hasbeen argued that Roma probably existed as a loose amalgamation o


23/217


nomadic tribes and thereore remained outside o the rigid caste system(Kenrick and Puxon 1972, 13). Vesey-Fitzgerald (1973, 1) supports this

nomadic identifier: Tey are, and they always have been, wanderers. Sucha view suggests that Roma were nomadic beoretheir stay in India but noinsights are proffered into where they might have migrated rom and when.I steer clear o such an idea primarily due to the clear correlation betweenwords in Romani and the ancient Indian language o Sanskrit which indi-cates that Roma were in India or an extensive period, and could well beindigenous. Language has proven an effective tool when attempting touncover Romani history. Indeed it was language which made the initial

link between Roma and India in the eighteenth century displacing thecommonly held view, cultivated and nurtured by Roma themselves thatRoma hailed rom Egypt. Te idea that language could be used as a tool totrace the migratory route o Roma was popularized by Sampson (1923)and continues today (Hancock 2002). Linguistic evidence suggests thatRoma lef India approximately 1,000 years ago and spent a relatively shorttime in the Middle East. It has also been suggested that Roma did not movein one solid mass rom east to west; rather, they pursued different trajecto-ries over the years and not all o these ended in Europe.

Media and literature have consistently portrayed these migrations asexpressing inherent nomadism rather than as being historically motivated(Lemon 2000, 9) particularly since the dramatic rise o interest in, andcorresponding romanticism o, Roma in nineteenth-century literature. Animage was constructed o Roma as wild and ree who had descended romuntouchable castes o entertainers. o support such claims historians and

Gypsiologists have sometimes allen into the trap o accepting any possibleshred o evidence as the objective truth without subjecting such data to therigour o intellectual inquiry. One such piece o evidence indicates thatRoma lef India long beore AD 1000. Te Persian poet Firdausi and theArab writer Hamza, both writing in the tenth century, reer to the monarchBahrm who imported 12,000 musicians into Persia o both sexes romIndia about AD 420, and some historians have drawn the causal arrowrom these musicians to Roma. Others have dismissed the assertion that

these musicians are Roma and instead argue that they constitute the Domcommunity ound today in the Middle East (Hancock 1987).

In terms o migratory patterns it has been suggested that three migra-tory routes were taken: or Roma (the European Gypsy); or Lom (theArmenian Gypsy); and Dom (the Syrian and Persian Gypsy). Sampson(1923) argues that each nomenclature corresponds with the Sanskrit doma


24/217

Historical Overview of Roma in Europe 9

and the modern Indian domwhich reers to a man o low caste who makeshis living singing and dancing. Furthermore, he argues that Roma lef

India as one group in the tenth century but separated afer passing throughPersia. According to this hypothesis, the first group (Dom) remained in theNear East, the second group (Lom) migrated towards Armenia and thethird group (Rom) continued towards Europe through Anatolia (present-day urkey). However, this theory is ounded on the assumption that eachgroups language derives rom one common stem but Ian Hancock, a promi-nent Romani academic, disagrees. Hancock (2002, 6) argues that thesegroups did not leave India en masseas Sampson suggests but actually lef at

different times and under different circumstances with lexicon commonali-ties between Romani and Domari highlighted to corroborate this assertion.

Historical evidence testifies to a series o military invasions in India inthe eleventh century. Between 1000 and 1027, India endured a successiono Aghani and urk attacks led by Mahmud o Ghazni, who was attempt-ing to spread Islam. Te same area was also conquered by the Seljuk urkswho could have taken Roma as prisoners o war and brought them back tothe north coast o urkey. It is possible that Roma joined the conqueringarmies though probably not as soldiers because armies were ofen accom-panied by a large number o ollowers who erected tents, cleared thebattlefield and cooked and entertained the soldiers. Hancock states (2002,11) that these ollowers, did not belong to the Kshatriya (warrior) caste,but together with the Rajputs, whether as prisoners o war or with victorsrouting the enemy, they lef India. Roma then moved westwards alongthe silk-road afer these military invasions towards Persia and Armenia.

As noted previously, Roma did not move in a solid block and pursued anumber o trajectories, some went west while others went north to Russia,others still continued south afer Persia. Linguistic evidence is instructiveat this point Roma probably did not remain in Persia too long due to thenegligible impact o Persian on their language. However, some authorswarn against relying on language to trace the history o Roma because it isbased on speculation and teleological thinking (Lucassen et al. 1998).

Despite the different paths taken by Roma groups, it is certain that most

Roma ound their way to Byzantium and would later cross the Bosphorusinto Europe in the late thirteenth century. Tey likely remained in Byzan-tium or several centuries which can be witnessed in the perceptibleincidence o Greek words ound in Romani; indeed, it is estimated that 250Romani words find their origins rom Greek and there is also evidence oGreek grammar impacting on Romani. When Roma did move again into


25/217


Europe such movement was probably due to military conquest again, thistime by the Ottoman urks. As Hancock (2002, 8) argues:

Just as Islam had spread eastwards into India, initiating the move oour ancestors out o that part o the world, Muslim expansion towardsthe West, particularly initiated by the Seljuk urks, was also the pri-mary reason why they moved into Europe.

From 1071 onwards, the Byzantine Empire began to be encroached byMuslim invaders and in 1453 Mohammed II deeated Emperor Constantine

and the city o Byzantium (Istanbul) ell to the Ottoman urks. Tere isevidence o a Romani presence in Europe rom 1283 in a document romConstantine reerring to taxes collected rom the so-called Egyptians andsigani which is the earliest offi cial recording o Roma in Europe. It isalmost certain that Roma were conscripted into the urkish army andmany entered Europe that way and by the ourteenth century there wereRomani settlements in southern Greece. Te idea that Roma came toEurope because o accidental wanderings seems highly implausible Romacame to Europe because they had to.

Arrival in Europe

Roma arrived in Europe rom a number o directions but by the end o theourteenth century a large proportion o Roma in Eastern Europe had set-tled. A significant number o Roma would have crossed the Bosphorus into

the Balkans, while others came rom Greece, ollowing the pilgrims routeacross Crete and records attest to a Roma presence in Crete in 1322. SomeRoma even came via North Arica and settled on the Iberian peninsula.Troughout their history Roma have demonstrated malleability, constantlyadapting to their surroundings and this durability is because o occupa-tions which allowed them to negotiate diffi cult terrain prior to their arrivalin Europe. Te key economic niche o Roma has traditionally been metalwork o various orms as well as crafwork and musicianship with other

occupations, such as bear-training and palmistry, playing a much lessimportant role. Despite this, the ortune-telling Gypsy has proven a diffi -cult image to shake and has led to mistrust and suspicion on the part othe settled European society. Te Greeks reerred to them as the hereticalsect Astingani and rom this derived other exonyms including Zigeuner(Germany), Ciganyok (Hungary), sigani (Bulgaria), igani (Romania),Zingari(Italy), Zingaliand Gitanos(Spain) and Ciganos (Portugal). It should


26/217


be noted that the English word Gypsy stems rom Egyptian, the monikerwhich many Roma were known as across Europe rom the Middle Ages.

Roma settled in south-eastern Europe rom the late thirteenth centuryand remained or many years in the Balkans as well as in Moldavia andWallachia (present-day Romania) and they did not begin to move acrossEurope until the fifeenth century. From 1417 onwards written documentsand municipal accounts allow us to trace their journey. Roma began tomove into Central and Eastern Europe because their provinces had beeninvaded or were directly threatened by the rapidly advancing OttomanEmpire. Tey spread across Europe in waves with the first group number-

ing only a ew hundred which Vesey-Fitzgerald (1973, 12) suggests was areconnaissance party charged with the duty o spying out the land.

Te ability o Roma to adapt to their surroundings is one o the keyreasons or their demographical success and presence across the world.One aspect has been their willingness, and canniness, to practise the domi-nant religion wherever they ound themselves. In early Medieval EuropeChristianity was the dominant religion and the Church, along with mon-archs, were key actors who controlled all aspects o social and economiclie. When Roma arrived in Europe they soon became Christians andadopted names which affi rmed this status. When they migrated acrossEurope in the early fifeenth century they presented themselves as pilgrimswho were banished rom their homeland and had been instructed topenance or their sins. Claiming Egyptian origins, the pilgrims explainedthat they were lapsed Christians who reverted to Islam but had now oundtheir way back onto the Christian path. Tis band o pilgrims had support-

ing letters o recommendation rom the emperor o Sigismund, and lateron the pope, which confirmed their status meaning that various dukesand counts as well as mainstream society welcomed these pilgrims andprovided them with ood. Teir position as pilgrims ensured that they wereprovided a sae conduct in spite o their appearance.

Europeans in the ourteenth century would not have seen anything quitelike a Rom beore. Teir dark skin and hair, along with colourul clothesand jewellery would have stood out, but their standing as pilgrims ensured

that, initially at least, they were treated as a harmless curiosity. Tese Romasoon traversed German lands and headed towards Italy. In 1414 they werein Basle, in 1416 in Meissen and in 1418 in Saxony. By 1422 they were inBologna and Rome. Tere is a strong suggestion that Roma secured anaudience with Pope Martin V (although Vatican archives have no recordo it) because later in the year they were back again in Switzerland andthey had with them papal, as well as imperial, sae-conducts. Te prospect


27/217


that this document, like the previous letters o recommendation, was a or-gery is not beyond the realms o possibility though it would have required

an extraordinary amount o skill. When they arrived in Paris in 1427 theybrought with them their story o pilgrimage and penitence and explainedthat the Pope had instructed them to roam or seven years ollowing aboutthe world, without sleeping in a bed in order to atone or their sins (citedin Clbert 1963, 35). However the warm welcome they received did not lastlong and a veil o suspicion soon inormed their treatment by authoritiesand society.

Te first wave o Roma had travelled across Europe in relatively small

numbers ollowed by more wandering bands which meandered across thecontinent in the intervening years but by 1438 thousands o Roma rapidlyspread across Europe and in particular Germany, Italy and France. By 1447they were in Spain, by 1501 in Poland, the Baltics and Russia, and by 1512,in Sweden. It is important to note that these dates signiy the offi cial datewhich the presence o Roma appeared in recorded documents and doesnot mean that Roma were not present beore these dates. In what wouldcome to typiy the Romani experience in Europe, repressive legislation andpersecution soon ollowed. Across Europe Roma were not permitted toconduct business with shopkeepers and soon turned to petty thef to eedtheir amilies. Additionally, the practice o ortune-telling meant that theywere accused o sorcery and eared by those who they came into contactwith. It is possible that they exploited certain proessions such as ortune-telling which was consistent with their construction as a magical ethnicother rom Egypt. Tis negative construction substantiated other accusa-

tions levelled at Roma that they were dirty and impure: orbidden to usetown pumps or wells, denied water by earul householders, uncleanlinessbecame a part o the stereotype (Hancock 1991, 5) the importance ocleansing rituals or Romaniyawas not common knowledge togaje. Romawere at this point a sizeable presence in Europe and migrated northwardsto the United Kingdom where they encountered a similar nomadic com-munity called ravellers.

Roma and Travellers

Tere is much debate as to the relationship between Roma and ravellers do they share the same heritage or are they distinct ethnicities? Te truthis somewhere in between. Te first offi cial record o Roma was in Scotlandin 1505 among the accounts o the Lord High reasurer: 1505, Apr. 22.Item to the Egyptians be the Kinges command vii lib., while the first


28/217


authenticated record o their presence in England was in Lambeth in 1514(Kenrick and Clark 1995, 24). It is likely that this group o Egyptians were

part o the pilgrimage which had traversed Europe in the previous century,and thereore are Roma in that they retain an Indic origin. ravellersare ound on the islands o the United Kingdom and retain one o a selec-tion o pronouns: English; Irish; Scottish; and Welsh. Some ravellerslef the United Kingdom and are nowadays ound in Canada, the USAand Australia, but many remain. Te reason why comparisons are drawnbetween the two is quite clear. ravellers are nomadic (in spring andsummer usually) and experience persecution rom mainstream society.

Vesey-Fitzgerald (1973, 20) accepts the inconclusive evidence pertainingto the origins o ravellers that is, i ravellers are indigenous or i theyare Roma: we do not know how long beore nor do we know or certain iwe had gypsies in these islands beore the great invasion swept acrossEurope. Arguments persist that Roma and ravellers are the same, thatis, they possess the same Indian genealogy thus any cultural differencesbetween Roma and ravellers is explained by identity corruption andassimilation, and strategies or cultural survival. Anthropologist JudithOkely (1983) argues that we should be sceptical o the construction oa common homeland in India but acknowledges the importance o such aconstruction, particularly in building international solidarity among Roma.Te reasons or her scepticism are based on the dangers o such a linkage,that it has led to divisions in Britain between the true blooded Romanyand the rest, including the countereit or drop-out, hal-blood or mereraveller (Okely 1983, 13). One o the leading British Gypsiologists,

Vesey-Fitzgerald (1973, 33) draws a distinct line between Roma, or as hecalls them gypsies and Irish ravellers, the latter he reers to as tinkers:Te wandering olk o Ireland are tinkers and they are quite distinct romgypsies. Te term tinker is used to reer to the itinerant smiths and tin-meno the British Isles who live in similar conditions to those o Roma (Clbert1963, 82). Mayall (1988, 45) notes that any differences between ravellersand Roma were marginal in the eyes o the settled society and the com-monalities were more important, united by a common lie-style which

revolved around nomadism and sel-employment, and by a shared day-to-day existence and the experience o marginality vis--vis settled society.Tough when Roma arrived in the United Kingdom they would haveencountered nomadic amilies travelling the roads, practising traditionaloccupations.

Gypsies has been the exonym traditionally invoked to describe all Romaand ravellers. According to the majority society there was no distinction


29/217


to be made: they were dirty thieves who stole children, cast spells andwere not to be trusted. raveller is an endonym which is now used due to

extensive advocacy and lobbying by raveller organizations in the UnitedKingdom and Ireland; however, neither nomenclature captures the hetero-geneity o these communities in the United Kingdom. Tere is a schoolo thought which argues that Irish and Scottish ravellers are indigenousto the United Kingdom (known as Minceir) while English and Welshravellers are thought to originate rom India (known as Romanichals).A sceptical Okely (1983, 18) explains:

Te English and especially the Welsh Gypsies are given the exoticIndian or Romany origin, while it is said that the Irish and Scottishravellers or inkers are merely descendants o vagrants and victimso the Great amine or the Highland clearances.

o be a raveller reers to a nomadic identity and those Irish and Scottishravellers tend not to adopt the exonym Gypsy as it is loaded with negativeassociations. Ofen they are described as inkers which springs rom theirtraditional economic work with metal and they have their own Cant, orlanguage, including Shelta and Gammon. O course, we must be careul notto conflate ethnicity with language or race because no group can be reifiedso easily. Irish ravellers have been constructed as an indigenous minoritywith discussions o racial signifiers such as colour, genes or blood, largelyabsent rom raveller-related discussions (Helleiner 2000, 8). Tere are twodominant narratives which persist to account or the presence o ravellers

in Ireland. First, they are portrayed as descendants o peasants orced intoitinerancy by evictions and amines which the Irish endured under Britishrule. Te second narrative maintains that ravellers have been presentor much longer (Joyce and Farmar 1985, 1) as records reer to wanderingpeople in pre-colonial Ireland. Notably, there were close ties between Irishand Scottish ravellers as there was constant traffi c across the Irish Sea.

Te resilience and endurance o Roma is one o the most remarkableaspects o their history. oday Roma are present all over the world includ-

ing North and South America, Arica, Australia and parts o Asia. In herseminal study o Roma in the USA, Anne Sutherland argues that there areapproximately one million Roma scattered across the country, the largestgroup being the Vlax-speaking Roma which constitute around 500,000and who tend to reside in large cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles(Sutherland 1986, xv; see also Lockwood and Salo 1994). Additionally, thereare pockets o other sub-groups including Romanichals, Irish and Scottish


30/217


ravellers, Hungarian-Slovak, Ludar, Boyash, Lovara and Sinti. Many Romain the southern states o the USA are descended rom ravellers who lef

Ireland during the potato amine in the mid-nineteenth century (Helleiner2000, 33). Given that vagabonds and itinerants were a target group or theDraconian transportation law o the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century England (Lee 1997, 73), there is a good chance that Roma wereaboard the first fleet o convicts which arrived in Australia in 1788. Afer1945, migratory streams flowed towards Australia and New Zealand andmany Roma appeared within this migration stream but they are now rela-tively integrated into society. Smaller groups o Roma are to be ound in

Arica including in Sudan and Egypt, as well as in South and East Aricawhile in Asia their presence is modest and scattered. Finally here, SouthAmerica houses several Romani communities which are ound mainly inBrazil, Peru and Chile.

Tere is a risk that such geographic diffusion uels the imposed ascrip-tion o Roma as wanderers who cannot help but stay on the road, thatsomehow this wanderlust is part o their nature, in the blood. Te truth isthat once they arrived in Europe, Roma were beore long met with resist-ance and persecution. And the imperial powers o the age, in particularEngland, France, Spain and Portugal ensured that these undesirable ele-ments were sent off to the ar-flung outposts o the empire. Even whenRoma did migrate by choice it was an attempt to escape, hoping that thenext land offered a better lie. Yet, once those Roma arrived they invariablyaced opposition and many responded by attempting to integrate in orderto escape persecution.

Persecution and Romanticism

Te initial arrival o Roma in Europe was characterized by tentative accept-ance and curiosity on the part o settled Europeans. Soon however, themood shifed and Roma ound themselves targeted by repressive measuresdescribed as sustained genocidal persecution and enslavement (Gheorgheand Acton 1995, 31), which began in earnest rom the early sixteenth cen-

tury. Deportation was one way which authorities attempted to purge theRoma pest but there were other courses o action too. At one point oranother, Roma have been banished rom almost every European state:Germany did so in 1497, Spain in 1499, France in 1504, England in 1531,Denmark in 1536, Moravia in 1538, Scotland in 1541, Poland in 1557, Venicein 1549, 1558 and 1588, and so on (Vesey-Fitzgerald 1963, 31). Tese meas-ures treated Roma as a social category o vagabonds and beggars and not


31/217


as a distinct ethnic group, though that status would change under the Naziregime with devastating consequences. Te cloak o Christianity offered

temporary protection but without it Roma were exposed to persecutionwith banishment and reusal o sae passage becoming the norm by the endo the sixteenth century across Europe the veneer o tolerance could notbe sustained by the settled Europeans.

Te situation o Roma became more perilous in the sixteenth centuryand lasted to the flowering o romanticism and Gypsiology in the nine-teenth century. In their historical analysis, Kenrick and Puxon (1972) ignorepolitical rontiers and thereore do not ollow national trends in anti-Roma

thought and action, arguing instead that it is a European phenomenon.While I agree with this to an extent I think it is useul to have an overviewo the historical persecution in European states. Tere was no systematicco-ordinated effort on the part o European rulers to repress their respec-tive Romani populations but it is striking how many European statesenacted hostile legislation and how quickly societies turned against Roma.Te ollowing overview is based on the work o Clbert whose attention todetail and offi cial discourse provides an authoritative account o Romaacross Europe. As we shall see, Roma were aced with a choice betweenexpulsion or death. Several states enacted legislation which imposed deathsimply or being Roma: English law imposed death or being Romani in1554 while in Prussia, all Romani men and women over 18 aced death.Other state responses were cruel and brutal including in eighteenth-century Holland where the state organized nationwide hunts to expel Romaand nineteenth-century Denmark which hunted Roma like oxes (Kenrick

and Puxon 1972, 46).Te Balkans offered a relatively sae haven where Roma were able tomove without much intererence due to the act that the native inhabitantso the region were also o Asiatic origin as a result o the Ottoman invasion.Moving north we find the situation o Roma more restrictive than in theBalkans. In Moldavia and Wallachia landowners who encountered Romawould turn them into slaves which began in the sixteenth century, evidencesuggesting that it could have been an early as 1541. Some slaves belonged

to the State and others to the Church though both ates were equally dire.Teir duties included gold-washing and bear-training while many toiledthe land. Slavery in Moldavia and Wallachia persisted well into the nine-teenth century and in 1818 new edicts were incorporated into the WallachianPenal Code which stated that Gypsies are born slaves. It was externalevents which finally saw the abolition o slavery in 1855, with completelegal reedom secured in 1864. Te Industrial Revolution was impacting on


32/217


agricultural practices and was matched by changing social values, thusslavery was increasingly regarded as cruel and outdated. Roma were also

slaves in England, Russia, Hungary, Portugal and Spain but such measureswere usually temporary and ad hoc, based on the whims o incumbentleaders.

Te situation o Roma in Hungary was marginally better given thatslavery was not as prevalent; however, Roma were still subject to barbarouspunishments or crimes the abduction o children, rape, cannibalism which were never proven. An aggressive assimilationist policy was pursuedby Maria Teresa rom 1761 as she attempted to suppress Romani culture.

Tis included prohibiting Roma rom sleeping in tents, speaking theirlanguage and engaging in traditional occupations such as horse-dealing.Forced sedentarization was a core tenet o the new state policy: Reormerssaw nomadism as the core reason or Gypsy backwardness and sought torestrict their movement through legislation and the police (Crowe 1995,236). Empress Maria Teresa banned the word Gypsy as she ound itinsulting and Roma were re-branded Neo-Hungarians. Children weremade to go to school and many Romani children were taken rom theiramilies to be reared by Hungarian amilies who would socialize the young-sters. Such a policy is premised on the idea that civility can be learned andbeing Roma can be orgotten. Tis well-intentioned policy was continuedby Maria Teresas son and successor, Joseph II but assimilation demon-strates a complete lack o understanding o the interests o Roma. Aferthe death o Joseph II in 1790, Roma quickly returned to their traditionalliestyle. All in all, assimilation did not completely eradicate Romani cul-

ture, mainly because o its short tenure, but ensured it remained dormant.In Germany, the tide o good will towards the pilgrims soon subsided:Te halo did not stand up or long against the sensational number o thefs,acts o scrounging and deceit, and swindles o every kind which markedthe passage o these pilgrims (Clbert 1963, 75). Te local population beganto ear Roma and soon the authorities, with the backing o the Church,began to pass hostile laws which severely restricted the ability o Roma toroam or make a living. Te Age o the Enlightenment did not extend to

the treatment o Roma who were banned rom various Germanic landsand some were put to death. In sixteenth-century Poland various Dietsattempted to banish Roma but this changed by the end o the eighteenthcentury thus Roma were able to prosper and integrate to some extent.Moreover, such was the presence o Roma in the second hal o the seven-teenth century that the Polish Crown appointed a King o the Gypsies.In the Baltic states rom the sixteenth century onwards repressive decrees


33/217


were repealed resulting in the flourishing o Romani communities. Teharsh terrain and climate o Scandinavia did not deter Roma rom migrat-

ing northwards but some Romani amilies attempting to enter Finland inthe sixteenth century were driven back (Kenrick and Puxon 1972, 44).In contrast, Roma arrived in Russia rom 1500 in small numbers andenjoyed a relatively peaceul existence and while Catherine the Great madeRoma slaves o the Crown, she did not persecute them.

From 1514 Roma were banned rom Swiss lands, and in 1701 Austriaoutlawed Roma completely. Despite their early connection with the pope,by 1568 Pope Pius V drove them out o the domains o the Church and

ordered that all male Roma were to be sent to the gallows. In France theirarrival in Paris was greeted almost immediately with repressive targetedlegislation and the first act o the Bishop in 1427 was to excommunicatethem and drive them out. Tere are several reasons why Roma were perse-cuted: they were blamed or thefs, exactions and dupery. Tey wereaccused o engaging in black magic, o living by their wits, but above allwith being oreigners (Clbert 1963, 59). In France, this cocktail o chargeslevelled at Roma translated into widespread ear and enmity, which culmi-nated in renewed arrest and expulsion orders against Roma issued byHenry IV in 1607.

At the same time, a sizeable population o Roma are to be ound in Spainand Portugal. Roma arrived on the Iberian peninsula rom two directions:one group arrived rom the north which was recorded in Barcelona in 1447and certainly denotes the group which carried the papal papers. Te sec-ond group (Gitanos) arrived rom North Arica and signiy a group which

separated rom the European Roma in the Middle East many centuriesprior. Interestingly, these Roma had actually come via Egypt but it is notknown when they crossed the straits o Gibraltar though it is likely thatthey were present in Spain beore 1447. Furthermore, it is unclear whenand where the two groups first encountered one another. In terms o dis-tinctions, Gitanosare Roma yet there are significant differences betweenthe two groups (Gay y Blasco 1999); or example, the dialects are so differ-ent they are mutually unintelligible. Te earliest mention o Roma in

Portugal is 1571. Te Iberian peninsula was not immune rom the pan-demic o hostile legislation which had trailed Roma in their wake. In 1528vagabond Roma were threatened and in 1692 Charles II orbade Romarom living in towns with less than 1,000 hearths. A more liberal policy oassimilation was born in 1783 under Charles III which was ashioned laMaria Teresa and Roma were re-branded as neo-Castilians.


34/217


One o the most remarkable twists in the history o Roma was theirapparent, and very unexpected, redemption. Tough relatively short lived

it recast them as heroes rather than villains although Bancrof (2005, 40)notes that romanticization o Roma co-exists with the demonization o thispariah out-group. An accidental linguistic discovery in the eighteenth cen-tury at the University o Leiden dramatically changed the ortunes o Roma.A Hungarian linguist noticed that a significant number o Romani wordswere identical to words rom the ancient Indian language o Sanskrit but itwas not until 1783 when Heinrich Grellman published his thesis that thelink to India became more widely accepted. Academics argued that Romani

was actually an Indo-Aryan language and that Roma were originally romIndia, not Egypt. As debate raged about who Roma were and where theycome rom, literary images were constructed which announced Roma asa bon sauvage. A rising tide o sentiment towards Roma was principallywitnessed in the arts i not in state legislation and popular attitudes. Tere-ore, rom the nineteenth century onwards alongside the stereotype dirty,dishonest, child-stealing villain we have the dark, handsome violin-playinglover Gypsy (Kenrick and Puxon 1972, 41). Neither is accurate howeverand both constructions have been hard to shake off, persisting to this day.

Renewed interest in Roma came in the second hal o the nineteenthcentury as a wave o Roma rom the Balkans and Hungary entered CentralEurope attracted by economic opportunity (Lewy 2000, 4). Notably, theGypsy Lore Society was ounded in 1888 with the purpose o preservingthe decaying language and culture including songs and ballads. It was notconcerned with advocating on behal o this persecuted and marginalized

community nor did it waste too much ink on the disputed origins o Roma.Instead it was a reaction against the perceived erosion o Romani cultureand thus attempted to detail Romani culture rom the central idea thatRoma were a specific race. Mayall (1988, 78) argues that because Romawere constructed as a separate race, defined by hereditary and culturalcharacteristics, they were distanced rom the settled population as wellas rom other wandering groups. Te creation o the Gypsy Lore Societywas an important development because Romani culture was oral, it was

not written down. Gypsiologists were preoccupied with occupation anddistinctions between the various groups as well as by linguistic issues.Te elevation o Roma as romanticized protagonists was confirmed withthe publication o work by George Burrow, D. H. Lawrence and CharlesDickens. Such a caricature centres on extravagant dress with vivid coloursthat metaphorically mirror the wild untamed spirit o Roma. Despite such


35/217


developments, widespread societal prejudice towards Roma persisted butthe twentieth century would witness the single most devastating event in

Romani history.

O Baro Porrajmos: The Holocaust

It is estimated that between 250,000 and 1.5 million Roma perished inO Baro Porrajmos, which literally translates as the great devouring. Remark-ably, despite the evidence, Roma are constantly fighting to prove that Nazipolicy towards them constitutes genocide and not merely a crime against

humanity. Roma were exterminated because o their ethnicity, perceptiono racial origin and purity, not because they were different or asocial.Roma are orgotten victims o the Holocaust with Jews commanding moreattention due to the sheer numbers o Jews murdered by the Nazi regime aswell as a strong transnational intelligentsia to lobby and advocate on behalo the Jewish community. Te Nazi policy towards Roma was inormedby ideas o racial purity and a hierarchy with Aryans at the top and Jews

and Roma at the bottom. Te Nazis intended to construct a new Germanythat was ethnically pure; thus it was necessary to expunge any undesirableelements. Policy towards Roma was gradually ormulated until the deci-sion was made in early 1942 to exterminate all Roma in Germany andannexed territories. Tis section will examine the key events o O BaroPorrajmosarguing that Roma were treated as a racial group, not as a socialgroup, and this distinction is crucial as it has implications or issues oremembrance and inclusion post-1945.

Te previous section highlighted issues o persecution and marginali-zation acing Roma in Europe the upshot being when the Nazis came topower in 1933 there already existed an extensive catalogue o anti-Romalegislation in Germany, as elsewhere. Nazi ideology was inormed by affi r-mations o racial hierarchy with Aryan Germans at the top o the heap butthey never recognized Roma as true Aryans even though Romani is anAryan language. Most importantly, such a link did not prevent Roma beingsent to concentration camps (Willems 1997). Kenrick and Puxon (1972, 60)

argue that Roma were treated as a distinct, and undesirable, race in NaziGermany evidenced in the act that they wore brown triangles in somecamps and the letter Z (or Zigeuner) was emblazoned on their armbands.It has been suggested that Roma were treated as anti-socials rather thanas a distinct race but such a conception is inaccurate and harmul as weshall see.


36/217


37/217


was Romani and who was not. Te hunting o Roma was motivated byRitter who regarded Roma as primitive and mentally backward (Fraser

1992, 260). In act, his definition o who was Roma was stricter that thano who was Jewish: two Romani great-great-grandparents while or Jews itwas one great-great-grandparent. It seems that Ritter wanted to catch allRoma including those who had integrated there would be no escape.

A paradox emerges in terms o how Roma were classified, and by exten-sion how they were treated. Heinrich Himmler, head o the Gestapo andthe Waffen-SS suggested that distinctions need to be made between pureRoma and those who were tainted by oreign blood in the years beore they

arrived in Germany. On the one hand, the Lalleri (German Roma becauseo their long residence in the country) and the racially pure Sinti whocomprised approximately 10 per cent o all Roma in the Reich were to bedeclared Aryan, and thus would enjoy preerential treatment (at leastthis was the idea at the outset). On the other hand, Roma who had arrivedmore recently rom the Balkans were considered to be stained with racialimpurities having inter-married with non-Aryans beore they arrived inGermany. On the surace at least, this policy was diametrically opposed toprevailing racial policy and ideas o purity because i Sinti were consideredAryans who had originated in India and had not inter-married, then theywere considered racially pure and ought to be ranked alongside GermanAryans. However such distinctions were quickly abandoned when theopportunity to purge Germany o the Roma menace presented itsel inearly 1942. At the Wannsee Conerence in January 1942 the offi cial deci-sion was taken to implement the Final Solution o racial undesirables

including Jews and in December 1942, Himmler ordered that all Romawere to be sent to camps with most being sent to Auschwitz-Birkenau.From 1939, offi cial policy towards Roma was ormulated on advice romthe Offi ce o Racial Hygiene with Johannes Behrendt declaring that allGypsies should be treated as hereditarily sick; the only solution is extermi-nation (Hancock 1991, 18). Te offi cial decision to exterminate Roma isthought to have resulted rom pressure rom the lower ranks o the Naziparty who considered the War an ideal opportunity to rid Germany and

conquered territories o Roma. At the upper echelons o Nazi power struc-tures Hitler remained relatively silent on Roma: Mein Kamp makes noreerence to Roma and in the 12 years as German ruler he mentions Romaonly twice, in relation to Roma serving in the military (Lewy 2000, 38).

It seems as though events had been building to such a climax. Teincreasingly repressive legislation, the collecting o data on blood lines andthe detention o Roma and placing them in concentration camps provided


38/217


the opportunity or the Tird Reich to deal with Roma, once and or all, asit was dealing with Jews. Roma were regarded as dangerous because o their

contaminated blood and assumptions o criminality, consequently therewas no place or them in the Reich. Furthermore, Germany would expandacross Europe meaning deportation was not an option either. Te researchat the Racial Hygiene and Population Biology Unit had created the convic-tion that Roma were inerior due to race, that is, because they were Romani.As a result, Roma could not be helped. Tey were biologically pollutingsocial parasites who had to exterminated, and all subsequent governmentpolicy was inormed by this conviction.

While Roma were detained and deported prior to 1939, the outbreak oWWII heralded an intensification o Nazi policy on Roma. State agencieshounded Roma across German territories and deported them to variousassembly points including Berlin, Prague and Munich, while those notdeported were held in Mauthausen. It was this concentration camp whichwitnessed the largest number o Roma deaths though many Roma perishedin reblinka and Auschwitz-Birkenau as the latter housed the largestnumber o Roma. On the night o 31 July1 August 1944, the bulk o Romaat Auschwitz were gassed in what has come to be known as the Zigeunernacht(the Night o the Gypsies). Te exact number o Roma who were murderedin the Holocaust can only be estimated though the figure ranges rom aconservative low o 250,000 (Gilbert 1985, 824) to 500,000 (Yoors 1967, 7;Huttenbach 1991, 45; Kenrick and Puxon 2009, 153) while others put thefigure much higher closer to 1.5 million (Heine cited in Hancock, 2002).In annexed territories Roma met a similar ate with thousands o Roma

dying in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Serbia, Croatia, Greece, Holland, Poland,Latvia, Estonia and Belarus.Te genocide o Roma by the Nazis received almost no attention ollow-

ing the deeat o Germany in 1945. Te Nuremberg rials were silent asregards the ate o Roma due to the lack o written evidence compared withdocumentation on the Final Solution o Jews. Te deaths suffered by Romawere not denied per se but were treated as a crime against humanity by theAllied Powers and it was not until the 1962 Eichmann rial in Jerusalem

that the first charge against any Nazi was brought (Huttenbach 1991, 48).Te term genocide continues to be reserved or Jews and while there is noquestion that the Jews suffered genocide at the hands o Nazi Germany, thesame ate was extended to Roma. Roma were targeted and identifiedthrough genealogical records compiled by Nazis, they were persecutedthrough legislation including prohibiting inter-marriage with pure Germans,endured orced sterilizations and medical experiments, and finally, they


39/217


were murdered because o their perceived racial impurity. Tus the system-atic extermination o Roma was intended to rid Europe o its Gypsies

and the guiding ideology o racial purity meant that Roma suffered geno-cide during WWII.In 1945 a shell-shocked Europe slowly came to terms with the Nazis

policy on Jews and to a lesser extent, in terms o sheer numbers, on Roma,homosexuals and the disabled. Despite this, not one Rom was ever called totestiy at the Nuremberg rials. It must also be remembered that duringWWII most European Roma had been murdered up to 70 per cent oEuropean Roma were killed. Villages had been wiped out and amilies

scattered across the continent; thereore, all social and cultural organiza-tion had disappeared. Not surprisingly, Roma ound themselves lackingagency with which to voice their concerns and as a result ound themselvesexcluded rom the pursuit o justice. In order or justice to be served itwas necessary to make a clear link between Nazi policy on Roma and race,that is, that Roma were exterminated because they were ethnically Romaand thus an inerior race. However, reparations are resisted because it isargued that Roma were not targeted because o racial identification butrather because o their perceived criminality. Put simply, Roma would notbe treated the same as Jews because they were singled out or the same ate(extermination) but or different reasons. Tis ignores the act that by 1939being Romani meant incarceration and certain deportation to a concentra-tion camp. Moreover, Nazi ideology contributed an increased emphasison the hereditary character o crime (Lewy 2000, 25), which meant thatcriminality and racial origin were conflated in the case o Roma. Romani

activists have had to fight to establish any sort o parity in terms o offi cialrecognition. Indeed, the US Holocaust Memorial Council was establishedin Washington in 1980 with 65 members though not one o these wasRomani. oday O Baro Porrajmos is remembered in ceremonies acrossthe world but the UN excluded Romani participants rom the HolocaustRemembrance Day ceremony on 27 January 2009, exacerbating eelings ounworthiness.

Roma under Communism

As one unortunate chapter closed on Roma history, another one opened.Tis section concentrates on the treatment o Roma in Central and EasternEuropean countries (CEECs) under communist regimes. Following the endo WWII, the Allied Powers conspired to split the continent in two withWestern Europe pursuing the ideal o liberal democracy and capitalism


40/217


while Eastern Europe came under the influence o the Soviet Union withcommunism acting as the central guiding principle or social, economic

and political lie. Afer the end o the War most surviving Roma werelocated in Central and Eastern Europe and with restrictions placed oncross-border movement, they remained there. As with previous authorities,both well-meaning and malevolent, the newly installed communist author-ities soon attempted to deal with Roma according to their own Marxistvision o equality and utility. ong (1995, 251) accurately notes that, peopleat all points in the political spectrum have wanted to change the Gypsiesand communist regimes were no different, convinced as they were that

social engineering could rescue Roma through assimilation.From the beginning Roma did not fit the mould o what a good socialist

citizen should be because some spoke their own language, they dresseddistinctively and maintained their own economic niche through sel-employment. Stewart (1997a, 87) explains that, the very existence oautonomous Gypsy communities apparently quite beyond the influenceo state organs was construed as a threat to political stability and ideologi-cal hegemony, a carnivalesque incitement to disorder. Conronted withsuch a threat within their borders communist leaders across Central andEastern Europe attempted to assimilate Roma. Integration was regarded asweak and not appropriate thereore assimilation became the organizingprinciple or the socialist states treatment o Roma. Roma were culturallyand economically different, thereore, the agenda o socialism included thegradual suppression o cultural identity and orced-work programmes.While communist authorities did not seek to eradicate whole scale Roma

populations as the Nazis succeeded in doing, they did attempt a more sub-tle policy which severely impacted on the cultural identity and way o lieor many Roma. Te idea here was that i Roma could be put to work andtheir children sent to school, then their inherent socio-cultural particulari-ties would cease to exist and they would become another cog in the statemachine, no different rom every other citizen. As Stewart (1997b, 5) suc-cinctly explains, repression and discrimination could not have been urtherrom the thoughts o early Communist reormers. But the desired end was

surprisingly close to the ascist dream: Te Gypsies were to disappear.While such a pursuit remained in place until the collapse o communismin 1989, many Roma resisted and continued to speak their language, prac-tice cultural traditions and engage in ad hoc sel-employment.

Communist regimes in Central and Eastern Europe acknowledged theimportance in assisting under-developed groups. However, policies andprogrammes were shaped by administrations with little knowledge o


41/217


the needs and no insights into the aspirations o Romani people (Puxon1973, 13). Te lack o recognition as a national minority impeded the pro-

tection o Romani identity because offi cial status as a national minoritywould have been accompanied by certain rights. It was argued that becauseRoma lacked one or more o Stalins criteria or national status, whichincluded common language, territory, economy and culture, they oreitedall claims to recognition other than as a social problem (Puxon 1973, 13).In 1961, the Hungarian Communist Party Congress passed a resolutionstating that Roma lacked a common language, culture and belies, territoryand economy, and thereore did not constitute a separate nationality. Tis

implies that the lack o a specific culture meant that Roma were part o thehomogeneous Hungarian nation and could be assimilated. Te same assim-ilation policy was initiated across CEECs to varying degrees. Roma did notfit into communist ideas on cultural and social organization and their exist-ence posed a major challenge to the communist project; thereore, orcedsedentarization became the norm. Socialist authorities responded byembarking on a policy o social engineering (Stewart 1997b, 2) whichattempted to assimilate millions o Roma across CEECs. Tere was notransnational decision-making body guiding communist policy on Roma;rather, state activities were inormed by a commitment to Marxist ideologywhich regarded the presence o Roma as a threat. Instead o expellingRoma communities, successive communist authorities across CEECsviewed them as an opportunity to instigate wide-ranging reorm and socialtransormation.

At this point in their journey, Roma were on the lowest rung on the

ladder o social hierarchy. Tey had been hunted during WWII and so wererightully distrustul o the so-called benevolent policies o communistauthorities which promised to alleviate their socio-economic positioning.Many Roma did not have jobs and their children did not tend to go toschool. As a general rule, opportunities or social mobility did not existdue to the lack o ormal education completed by Romani children andto compound matters, Roma were discriminated against and marginalizedby mainstream society, continuing a practice maintained or centuries.

Communist authorities avowed to combat this discrimination by guaran-teeing jobs or Roma as well as a home and education or their children.Tis development kept the wolves rom the door and ensured a noticeableimprovement in the living conditions o many Roma communities acrossCEECs. It was hoped that the discipline and collective spirit o the state-sponsored work in the actory or on the field would galvanize Roma toparticipate equally in social lie as Roma shed their cultural identity and


42/217


traditions, mainstream society would accept Roma as part o the commu-nist ideal.

Work was the bedrock o the communist ideal. Suffi ce to say, the typeo work traditionally conducted by Roma was regarded as backward andsel-serving and did not fit with the proletarian vision. Stewart (1997b, 123)argues that the act that Roma regarded themselves as sons o the marketmeant that they were seen as traders and middlemen out to turn a profit,and such entrepreneurial pursuits were soon quashed thus, viable lie-styles,developed over many decades and based on sel-suffi ciency and prizedskills, were destroyed (Brearley 1996, 11). For the most part, communist

authorities created jobs or Roma (and the rest o society) in actories andarms which meant that Roma would work alongside other Hungarians/Romanians/Poles doing mundane and repetitive tasks or a fixed wage.Ultimately however, the rewards were minimal and the hours worked werelong and tough; so, naturally many sought to find sel-employment such ashorse-trading and metal work whenever opportunities presented them-selves. Work served several complementary unctions: it would uel thestate economy which was controlled completely by the communist author-ities; it would instil a sense o ownership and belonging to Roma; and itwould breakdown previously held negative stereotypes o Roma as work-shy wanderers. In the end though, it resulted in Roma becoming moredependent on the state to provide goods and services whereas in the pastRoma had been relatively sel-reliant.

Political representation o Roma was, as one might imagine, negligibleunder communist regimes. It was possible or Roma to rise through the

party ranks but only i cultural identifiers such as language were hidden.In order to advance in social and political lie some Roma realized thenecessity o shedding their cultural baggage with this practice remainingprominent today. Despite the prevalence o assimilation national con-gresses were established in Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, the latter beingone o the most hospitable socialist regimes or Roma. Across CEECs, asmall number o Roma ound their way onto coalitions o political parties,government agencies and voluntary bodies and seats on governmental

committees dealing with Romani issues (Puxon 1973, 14). A flowering oRomani advocacy in Western Europe emerged at this time and led to thecreation o the World Romani Congress (now called the InternationalRomani Union) in London in 1971. Tis was the first transnational institu-tion which used nationalism as a tool to mobilize Roma across Europe.It was created by Roma to secure a measure o control over their own des-tiny and provide a platorm to articulate their interests. A Paris-based


43/217


Secretariat, Comit International Rom, ounded in 1967 linked Romaniorganizations across Europe however meetings and advocacy remained

the preserve o Western Romani organizations, such as the Roma NationalCongress, established in Hamburg in 1982 to articulate the interests oGerman Sinti. Tese developments ensured that Roma had a voice: becauseo their lack o political power much o the violence and inhuman oppres-sion they encounter is lef unreported (Yoors 1967, 7).

Under communism, Roma were, offi cially at least, not discriminatedagainst and did not suffer targeted violence because open antagonismtoward Roma was not tolerated. Prejudice towards Roma did not disappear

o course. Such embedded negative ascriptions o Romani identity andculture cannot be broken down in a generation or two, but ollowing thecollapse o communism in 1989 Roma increasingly ound themselvesthe victims o targeted racist attacks and violence. Tus, Roma were castin the amiliar role o scapegoats as blame was laid at their door or socio-economic ills caused by the tumultuous transition to democracy. Roma,lacking effective agency and a voice to deend themselves, were subject toill-treatment, murder and pogroms by mainstream society as well as theauthorities, in particular the police. Without doubt, the collapse o com-munism also offered hope and opportunity which was seized upon by thethin stratum o Romani intellectuals.

Post-communism: Romani Awakening

Te collapse o communism brought new opportunities to all but also

witnessed the emergence o hostility and violence directed at Roma. MoreRoma were murdered in racist attacks and had their houses burned downin the immediate ree years afer 1989 than in all the time that had passedrom the end o WWII. Te transition to democracy was mired with diffi -culties but o all the communities it was Roma who suffered most. It wasRoma who ound themselves increasingly isolated, no longer afforded theprotection o a paternalist state which resulted in high unemployment,sub-standard accommodation and inadequate sanitation and health care.

Moreover, with a low education level and lacking basic skills to compete inthe emerging ree market economy the situation o many Roma actuallydeteriorated throughout the 1990s. Because o the high levels o unemploy-ment o Roma and their resulting dependence on state welare in the early1990s, mainstream society treated Roma as an unwanted and unnecessaryappendage. Tis was made worse when Roma were orced into beggingand flocked to urban areas where resentment towards them intensified


44/217


(Ligeois and Gheorghe 1995). At the same time, across CEECs, main-stream politicians promulgated right-wing discourse espousing nationalist

rhetoric which inflamed the virulence directed at Roma and led to caseso violence, pogroms and murder: the collapse o totalitarianism in theeast brought a resurgence o eelings which had been held in check sincethe war (Fraser 1992, 289). Instances o violence towards Roma occurredacross CEECs thus many Roma responded by migrating to Western Europebut again they were met with discrimination and marginalization. Te situ-ation required a clear response and that came rom within the Romanicommunity as well as rom sympatheticgaje.

Roma organizations began to flourish afer 1989 and some Roma stoodor election in the first ree elections across CEECs. Te emergence oprominent lite and intellectuals who embraced their Romani identityand advocated on behal o Romani communities marked a significantdeparture rom the past. Tese Romani lite were a legacy o compulsoryeducation in communist regimes and they filled the political space vacatedby the socialist state. In order to mobilize the Romani community, liteattempted to oster a collective identity by highlighting common issuesacing many communities. Such endeavours were, and continue to be,impeded by the heterogeneity o Roma and complex issues o ethnicity andbelonging. Te interests o the Romani community are diverse but a co-ordinated strategy has been elaborated across CEECs:

[]he Romani movement, consisting o numerous nongovernmentalorganizations in post-communist countries and in Western Europe,

attempted a re-evaluation o its cultural heritage and past, a redefini-tion and construction o its own minority identity, and a rejectiono its imposed and stigmatized name, as well as the emancipation othe Romani masses. (Mirga and Gheorghe 1997, 10)

International organizations and NGOs shone a spotlight onto the direliving conditions o Roma, particularly in CEECs, and the violence whichwas being directed at them. Ringold et al. (2005, xvi) explain that, Roma

issues have gained increasing attention over the past decade because oemerging evidence o human rights violations and seriously deterioratingsocio-economic conditions within many Roma communities. Internationalorganizations and advocacy networks began to rame their activities interms o human rights violations which were supported by internationallaw. Gaje-unded projects were established across CEECs and in someinstances legislation was enacted which ensured protection o minorities,

Aidan McGarry-Who Speaks for Roma__ Political Representation of a Transnational Minority...

Documents

Transcript of Aidan McGarry-Who Speaks for Roma__ Political Representation of a Transnational Minority...