2012. június 13., szerda

Coerced Sterilisation of Romani Women


Coerced Sterilisation of Romani Women
I wanted to have lots of children, I’m
young, I’m 23. When I was 19 they sterilised
me without my knowing it. (Ms Helena F.)

SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND DISCRIMINATION OF ROMANI WOMEN
Roma are the most marginalised ethnic group in Europe. They are affected by widespread
poverty, segregation in the areas of housing and education, lower school attainment levels,
high unemployment rates and limited access to health care as compared to the majority
population, often the result of discrimination. Due to the multiple discrimination they face
because of their gender and their ethnicity, the situation of Romani women is even worse
than that of Romani men. Romani women are often not given adequate information by
health care workers about their medical conditions. They are often excluded from the
decision-making process concerning their treatment. As regards their reproductive rights,
Romani women in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary have been sterilised without
their informed choice.
COERCIVE STERILISATION AS A VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS
Reproductive rights are incorporated in basic international human rights principles,
such as the right to life; the right to health; the right to bodily integrity; the right not
to be subjected to torture; the right to liberty and security of the person; the right to
private and family life; the right to decide freely on the number and spacing of children;
the right to freedom of expression; the right to receive and impart information; the
right to marry and found a family; the right to be free from discrimination; and the
right to education, all of which are guaranteed by the Convention Against Torture and
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; the International Covenant
of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The infringement of reproductive
rights is a grave violation of fundamental human rights.
CZECH REPUBLIC
In 1983 I visited a counselling centre for expectant mothers while I was pregnant. They
suggested to me there that I should go for sterilisation. My social worker was also trying
to convince me to be sterilised. She claimed that if I didn’t undergo the sterilisation
they would take away the child I was about to have. They also threatened that if I
didn’t undergo sterilisation I would have to pay for all of my medical treatment for
the pregnancy. Since I didn’t agree, they called my mother to come to the counselling
centre and explained to her that I should undergo sterilisation. At the time I was 22
years old, I had reached majority, but for them the consent of my mother was enough. I
myself never signed anything. (Věra M.)
From the 1970s until 1990, the Czechoslovak government sterilised Romani women
programmatically, as part of policies aimed at reducing the “high, unhealthy” birth
rate of Romani women. This policy was decried by the Czechoslovak dissident initiative
Charter 77, and documented extensively in the late 1980s. Criminal complaints filed on
behalf of victims were dismissed by Czech and Slovak prosecutors in 1992 and in 1993.

During 2003 and 2004, the ERRC and partner organisations in the Czech Republic
conducted field missions which concluded that Romani women had been subjected to
coercive sterilisation even after 1990. The cases documented include: Ø Cases in which consent was not provided at all prior to sterilisation; Ø Cases in which “consent” to sterilisation was secured during advanced stages of labour, including shortly before delivery; Ø Cases in which consent was provided absent explanations of the risks, consequences, and possible side effects of sterilisation, and absent adequate information on alternative methods of contraception; Ø Cases in which officials put pressure on Romani women to undergo sterilisation either through the use of financial incentives or threats to withhold social benefits (before 1990); and Ø Cases in which explicit racial motive played a role during doctor-patient consultations.

Complaints to the Ombudsman
In the Czech Republic, the Ombudsman investigated complaints of sterilisations
performed on women without their informed choice (87 women submitted complaints)
and issued his Final Statement on the matter in December 2005, recommending
the government apologise and establish a compensation programme for those coercively sterilised as part of the state’s official promotion of sterilisation, which ended in the early 1990s. The Ombudsman recommended that victims sterilised more recently turn to the courts. He also sent all of the allegations to the criminal justice authorities. (See: http://www.ochrance.cz/dokumenty/document.php?back=/cinnost/index.php&doc=400).
Shadow reporting to UN human rights bodies During 2006 and 2007, the Ombudsman’s Final Statement was submitted to various UN human rights treaty oversight bodies as part of the shadow reporting process during the regular review of the Czech Republic’s human rights performance.
The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Human Rights Committee all urged the Czech government to immediately implement the Ombudsman’s recommendations. As of mid-2008, the government has failed to act. 

Something was always missing at home after that. I even had to explain to the children
why they would not have another sibling. I was constantly reminded of that unpleasant
moment after I gave birth and learned I had been sterilised, which was very painful for me.
I felt this psychological discomfort for a very long time, I feel it even today. […] My husband
and I very much wanted a little girl, we wanted one very much even though we are glad we
have two healthy sons. (Ms Elena G.)

Litigation
While there are some promising lower court verdicts in civil cases, the vast majority of
victims will be unable to achieve redress through the Czech criminal system due to the
statute of limitation. Renata K., for example, filed a criminal complaint against her illegal
sterilisation in Most in 2003; however it was dismissed without any effective criminal
proceedings. The police shelved most of the criminal complaints submitted to them by
the Ombudsman, although some are still under investigation.
In the civil suit of Ms Helena F. vs. Vitkovice Hospital, the court found the hospital had
violated Ms F.’s right to privacy by sterilising her without her informed choice and ordered
it to send a letter of apology, which it has done. Ms F.’s claim regarding compensation is
pending before the Supreme Court due to statute of limitations concerns.
In the civil suit of Ms Iveta Č. vs. City Hospital, in October 2007 the court ordered the
hospital to pay half a million Czech crowns (about 20,000 EUR) for sterilising Ms Č. without
her informed choice in 1997. The court cited precedents for waiving the statute of
limitations, but the hospital has appealed.
Since this verdict, the Czech Supreme Court has indicated that it will uphold the three-year
statute of limitations for those seeking compensation in civil court for rights violations, of
personality rights, meaning that Czech courts effectively provide no avenue for victims to seek
compensation for their suffering.

The Group of Women Harmed by Coerced Sterilisation
Since 2004, the Group of Women Harmed by Coerced Sterilisation, a group of Romani
women from Ostrava, has been working together in seeking reparations for having been
sterilised without their informed choice. The group has worked to raise public awareness of
the illegal sterilisation of women in the Czech Republic. Members of the group have testified
to the UN CEDAW Committee (2006) and the Council of Europe (2007), demonstrated in
front of one of the hospitals concerned, and exhibited photographs (some included here)
by their members around the country, from the Czech Parliament to a meeting with their
fellow coercive sterilisation survivors in the city of Most. In July 2008, members of the Group
distributed postcards demanding an apology and compensation for these violations to
members of the community, which were sent to members of the Czech government.

SLOVAKIA
In 2002, the European Roma Rights Centre, the Centre for Reproductive Rights and the
Centre for Civil and Human Rights carried out fact-finding missions on this issue in Slovakia.
For most of the approximately 200 women interviewed by the ERRC, the authenticity of
the consent they had given to their sterilisations was extremely questionable, and in some
cases the consent to sterilisation had obviously not been based on informed choice.
UN human rights bodies In 2003 and 2004 the UN Human Rights Committee and the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination urged the Slovak government to investigate the coerced sterilisation alleged and to provide effective remedies, including compensation
and an apology to the victims.

Litigation
There are a number of lawsuits on behalf of coercively sterilised Romani women pending
before Slovak courts which were brought by the ERRC and other organisations. Cases
before the European Court of Human Rights have been filed by the Centre for Civil and
Human Rights. A number of these lawsuits had to address basic issues raising serious
concerns about the state of the rule of law in Slovakia. For example, numerous cases were
filed to Slovak courts on the refusal by hospitals to provide and/or allow access to medical
files. In other instances, police reportedly conducted interviews with alleged victims of statutory rape.
HUNGARY
During research conducted in 2003, the ERRC documented cases of the sterilisation of
Romani women being performed absent informed consent in Hungary. Many Romani
women also reported being placed in separate, Roma-only maternity wards, often with
the justification of accommodating “lifestyle differences”.

A.S. v. Hungary
What bothers me is that even if I would like to, I cannot. I cannot even try. The doctor said
that my life would be at stake. But I would try nevertheless. I would even risk my life for the
sake of being able to deliver again. (Ms A.S.)

Ms A.S. was sterilised during a caesarean section operation following a miscarriage at
a public hospital in 2001. On the operating table, in a state of shock due to the loss of
her child, she was asked to give signed consent to the caesarean section, to which the
doctor added the following handwritten statement: “Having knowledge of the death of
the foetus inside my womb I firmly request ‘my sterilisation’. I do not intend to give birth
again, nor do I wish to become pregnant.” Ms A.S. signed the form and the sterilisation
was performed. Only 17 minutes passed between the ambulance arriving at the hospital and the completion of both operations. Ms A.S. did not know the meaning of the word
“sterilisation”; she was given no information about the nature of sterilisation, its risks and
consequences, or about other forms of contraception. Ms A.S. only learned she would not
be able to give birth after she asked the doctor when she could try to have another baby.

After Hungarian courts failed to provide remedy, Ms A.S. filed a complaint to the CEDAW
Committee. In August 2006, the Committee concluded that Hungary violated the
Convention because of the illegal sterilisation of Ms A.S. The Committee stated that the
applicant “has a right […] to specific information on sterilisation and alternative procedures
for family planning in order to guard against such an intervention being carried out without
her having made a fully informed choice.” In connection with the sterilisation surgery
performed without informed consent, the Committee reiterated that according to Article 12
of the Convention, State parties shall “ensure to women appropriate services in connection
with pregnancy, confinement, and the post-natal period.” The Committee found that the
sterilisation surgery was performed on Ms A.S. “without her full and informed consent and
must be considered to have permanently deprived her of her natural reproductive capacity”.
In conclusion, the Committee recommended that the Hungarian government:
Ø Provide appropriate compensation to Ms A.S., commensurate with the gravity of the
violation of her rights;
Ø Review domestic legislation on the principle of informed consent in cases of sterilisation
and ensure its conformity with international human rights and medical standards;
Monitor public and private health centres, including hospitals and clinics that
perform sterilisation procedures, to ensure that fully informed consent is given
before any sterilisation procedure is carried out.

WE SEEK
1. Effective investigation by the states concerned (independent, thorough, and capable
of ascertaining responsibility) of all allegations of sterilisation without informed
consent/choice.
2. Public acknowledgement and compensation by the states concerned of the reported
violations.
3. The establishment and strengthening of mechanisms to enable all women to give
their free and informed consent to sterilisation, by reviewing domestic legal orders to
ensure compliance with international standards and undertaking regular monitoring
of medical facilities.
Support the victims of coerced sterilisation in Czech Republic
and Hungary by sending our postcard to these governments
calling for apologies and compensation for the victims ORGANISATIONS INVOLVED/A KAMPÁNYBAN RÉSZTVEVŐ SZERVEZETEK:
Kényszersterilizáció Áldozataivá Vált Nők Csoportja (Group of Women Harmed by
Coerced Sterilisation): A Vzajemné soužití címén.
Európai Roma Jogok Központja (European Roma Rights Centre): www.errc.org
Peacework Development Fund: www.peacework.org
Vzajemné soužití (Élet Együtt): http://www.vzajemnesouziti.cz/en
Köszönetünket fejezzük ki a Nyílt Társadalom Intézet, a Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung és a
PRAMENÍ, o.p.s. szervezeteknek támogatásukért. Az angol eredetit fordította: Pacziga
Mónika. A fordítást ellenőrizte: Kiss Julianna, Udvari Márton és Horváth Éva.
We are grateful for support from the Open Society Institute, the Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung
and PRAMENÍ, o.p.s. The original English text was translated into Hungarian by Mónika
Pacziga, Julianna Kiss, Márton Udvari and Éva Horváth.

A Roma nők kényszer sterilizálása -Hun


A roma nők kényszersterilizációja

„Szerettem volna, ha több gyermekem születik.
Még fiatal vagyok – 23 éves. 19 éves voltam,
amikor műtéti úton meddővé tettek anélkül,
hogy tudtam volna róla.” (Helena F.)


A ROMA NŐK ELLENI DISZKRIMINÁCIÓ ÉS A ROMA NŐK TÁRSADALMI KIREKESZTÉSE
A romák Európa leginkább marginalizált etnikai csoportja. Tömeges elszegényedés,
a lakhatás és az oktatás területén jelentkező szegregáció, alacsony iskolai végzettség,
magas munkanélküliség, és az egészségügyi szolgáltatásokhoz való korlátozott hozzáférés
sújtja a roma lakosságot, amely jelenségek gyakran a romák ellen irányuló diszkrimináció
következményei. Az etnikai és nemi hovatartozásukból adódó többszörös diszkrimináció
eredményeképpen a roma nők a roma férfiaknál is rosszabb helyzetben vannak. A roma
nőket gyakran nem tájékoztatják megfelelően egészségi állapotukról. Gyakran nélkülük
hoznak döntéseket a kezelésükre vonatkozóan. A reproduktív jogokat illetően, roma nőket
tájékozott döntésük nélkül sterilizálták Csehországban, Szlovákiában és Magyarországon.

A KÉNYSZERSTERILIZÁCIÓ AZ ALAPVETŐ EMBERI JOGOK MEGSÉRTÉSE
A reproduktív jogok számos alapvető nemzetközi emberi jogi alapelvnek részét képezik,
úgy mint az élethez való jog; az egészséghez való jog; a testi integritáshoz való jog; a
kínzás tilalma, a szabadsághoz és a személyi biztonsághoz való jog; a magánélethez és
a családi élethez való jog; a jog, hogy a nő szabadon dönthessen gyermekei számáról
és a gyermekszülések közé eső időközről; a szabad véleménynyilvánításhoz való jog; az
információhoz való hozzáférés és az információ közlésének joga; a házasságkötéshez és a
családalapításhoz való jog; az egyenlő bánásmódhoz való jog; az oktatáshoz való jog, amely
jogokat a következő nemzetközi egyezmények biztosítják: Egyezmény a kínzás és más
kegyetlen, embertelen vagy megalázó bánásmód vagy büntetés ellen; a Nőkkel szembeni
a Gazdasági, szociális és kulturális jogok nemzetközi egyezségokmánya; a Polgári és
politikai jogok nemzetközi egyezségokmánya; Egyezmény a gyermek jogairól; és a Faji
megkülönböztetés minden formájának felszámolásáról szóló nemzetközi egyezmény. A
reproduktív jogok megsértése az alapvető emberi jogok súlyos megsértése.

CSEHORSZÁG
1983-ban, amikor terhes voltam, felkerestem egy kismamák részére működtetett tanácsadó
központot. Ott azt tanácsolták, hogy sterilizáltassam magam. A szociális munkás, aki
velem foglalkozott, szintén ezt javasolta. Azt mondta, hogyha nem köttetem el magam,
akkor elveszik tőlem a gyermekemet, akivel akkor terhes voltam. Azzal is fenyegettek,
hogyha nem köttetem el magam, akkor minden költséget a terhességgel és a szüléssel
kapcsolatban nekem kell majd állnom. Mivel nem egyeztem bele a műtétbe, behívták
a tanácsadó központba az anyámat és elmagyarázták neki is, hogy sterilizáltatnom
kéne magam. 22 éves voltam, tehát nagykorú, de nekik elég volt annyi, hogy az anyám
beleegyezett a műtétbe. Én soha semmit nem írtam alá ezzel kapcsolatban. (Věra M.)
Az 1970-es évektől 1990-ig a csehszlovák kormány programszerűen sterilizálta a roma nőket
egy olyan politika részeként, mely a romák „magas számú és egészségtelen” születését akarta
korlátozni. A csehszlovák ellenállási csoport, a Charta ’77 mélyen elítélte e politikát és az
1980-as években kiterjedten dokumentálta azt. Az áldozatok nevében indított büntetőjogi
panaszokat a cseh és szlovák ügyészek 1992-ben és 1993-ban elutasították.

2003-ban és 2004-ben az ERRC és csehországi partner szervezetek terepkutatást végeztek,
amely alapján azt a következtetést vonták le, hogy a roma nők 1990 után is áldozatául estek
kényszersterilizációs műtéteknek. A dokumentált esetek a következő típusokba estek:
Ø Esetek, amelyekben semmiféle hozzájárulást a sterilizációs műtéthez nem adott
az áldozat;
Ø Esetek, amelyekben a sterilizációs műtéthez való „beleegyezést” a szülési folyamat
előrehaladott szakaszában adta, esetenként közvetlenül a születés előtt;
Ø Esetek, amelyekben az áldozat úgy adta beleegyezését a műtéthez, hogy nem
tájékoztatták őt a műtét veszélyeiről, kockázatairól, következményeiről, az esetleges
mellék- ill. utóhatásokról, valamint a fogamzásgátlás egyéb lehetséges módozatairól;
Ø Esetek, amelyekben hivatalos személyek nyomást gyakoroltak roma nőkre, hogy
sterilizáltassák magukat, pl. pénzügyi juttatást ígérve a sterilizációért vagy a meglévő
juttatások megvonásával zsarolva meg őket, amennyiben nem járulnak hozzá a
műtéthez (1990 előtt);
Ø Esetek, melyekben egyértelmű és nyílt rasszista motivációk voltak jelen az orvosbeteg
konzultációk folyamán.
Panaszok az Ombudsmanhoz
Csehországban az Ombudsman mintegy 87 panaszt vizsgált ki, amelyben nőket sterilizáltak
tájékozott döntésük nélkül. Az Ombudsman 2005 decemberében adta közzé Végső jelentését az esetekkel kapcsolatban, amelyben azt ajánlotta, hogy a kormány kérjen bocsánatot és hozzon létre kompenzációs programot azon nők számára, akiket kényszersterilizáltak a kormány sterilizációs programjának keretében, amely az 1990-es években befejeződött. Az Ombudsman azt javasolta, hogy az utóbbi időben sterilizált áldozatok forduljanak bírósághoz. Továbbá minden panaszt továbbított a büntetőjogi hatóságokhoz (Lásd a jelentést angolul: http://www.ochrance.cz/dokumenty/document.php?back=/cinnost/index.php&doc=400).

Azután mindig valami hiányzott otthonról. Még a gyerekeknek is el kellett agyaráznom,
hogy miért nem lehet kistestvérük. Mindig arra a szörnyű pillanatra gondoltam a szülés
után, amikor megtudtam, hogy meddővé tettek, az szörnyen fájdalmas érzés volt... Nagyon
sokáig rosszul éreztem magam pszichésen. Még most is úgy érzem magam. [...] A férjem
és én nagyon szerettünk volna egy kislányt, nagyon vágytunk rá. Persze örülünk annak is,
hogy két egészséges fiúnk van. (Elena G.)


Árnyékjelentések az ENSZ emberi jogi bizottságaihoz
2006 és 2007 folyamán az Ombudsman Végső jelentése eljutott különféle ENSZ emberi jogi
bizottságokhoz, amikor Csehország emberi jogi teljesítményét vizsgálták e bizottságok. Az
ENSZ a Nőkkel szembeni megkülönböztetés felszámolásával foglalkozó bizottsága (CEDAW
Bizottság), az ENSZ a Faji megkülönböztetés felszámolásával foglalkozó bizottsága és az
ENSZ Emberi Jogi Bizottsága mind arra szólították fel Csehországot, hogy hajtsa végre
az Ombudsman ajánlásait. 2008 szeptemberéig, amikor e sorok íródtak, a cseh kormány
semmilyen lépést nem tett ezügyben.

Peres ügyek
Mindamellett, hogy van néhány ígéretes polgári peres ítélet elsőfokú bíróságok előtt,
az áldozatok nagy többsége nem lesz képes jogorvoslathoz jutni az elévülési idő
miatt. Renata K. például 2003-ban büntetőjogi panaszt nyújtott be a mosti bírósághoz
törvénytelen sterilizációja ügyében, azonban ezt elutasították mindenféle érdemi
vizsgálat nélkül. A rendőrség az Ombudsmantól érkezett feljelentések alapján indított
nyomozásokat többségükben felfüggesztette, bár néhányat még mindig vizsgálnak.
A Helena F. kontra Vitkovice Kórház polgári peres ügyben a bíróság úgy találta, hogy a
kórház megsértette F. magánélethez való jogát azáltal, hogy tájékozott döntése nélkül
sterilizálták és arra szólította fel a kórházat, hogy levélben kérjen bocsánatot a felperestől.
Ezt a kórház teljesítette. F. kártérítés iránti keresete a Legfelsőbb Bíróság előtt függőben
van az elévülési idővel kapcsolatos aggályok miatt.
2007 októberében az Iveta Č. kontra Vitkovice Kórház polgári peres ügyben a bíróság fél
millió korona (azaz 20 000 Euró) összegű kártérítés megfizetésére kötelezte a kórházat,
amiért 1997-ben Č.-t tájékozott döntése nélkül sterilizálta. A bíróság utalt olyan korábbi
esetekre, ahol az elévülési időtől eltekintettek, azonban a kórház fellebbezett.
Ez utóbbi ítélet óta a cseh Legfelsőbb Bíróság jelezte, hogy a három éves elévülési időt
fenntartja a személyiségi jogok megsértésével kapcsolatos polgári peres ügyekben, így
a cseh bíróságok gyakorlatilag nem nyújtanak lehetőséget az áldozatoknak arra, hogy
szenvedéseikért kártérítést kapjanak.

A Kényszersterilizáció Áldozataivá Vált Nők Csoportja
2004 óta a Kényszersterilizáció Áldozataivá Vált Nők Csoportja, amelynek tagjai osztravai
roma nők, azon dolgozik, hogy az áldozatok jóvátételt kapjanak, amiért informált
döntésüket mellőzve kényszersterilizálták őket. A Csoport tevékenységének célja az is,
hogy a nyilvánosság tudomására hozza a törvénytelen sterilizációkat Csehországban.
A Csoport tagjai 2006-ban vallomást tettek az ENSZ nőjogi bizottságánál, 2007-ben
pedig az Európa Tanácsnál, egy alkalommal pedig demonstrációt szerveztek az egyik
értintett kórház előtt. A Csoport a tagok által készített fotókból (néhány fotó e füzetben
is látható) kiállítást rendezett Csehország több pontján, például a Cseh Parlamentben és
Most városában, ahol a Csoport tagjai olyan nőkkel találkoztak, akiket szintén akaratuk
ellenére vagy tudtukon kívül sterilizáltak. 2008 júliusában a Csoport tagjai jóvátételt és
bocsánatkérést követelő képeslapokat osztogattak Osztravában aláírásra, amelyeket cseh
kormánytagoknak küldtek el.


SZLOVÁKIA
2002-ben az Európai Roma Jogok Központja (European Roma Rights Centre, ERRC), a
Reproduktív Jogok Központja (Reproductive Rights Centre), valamint a Polgári és Emberi
Jogok Központja (Poradňa pre občianske a ľudské práva) tényfeltáró kutatást végzett
e témában Szlovákiában. Mintegy 200 kényszersterilizált roma nővel készített az ERRC
interjút és a legtöbb esetben a sterilizációhoz adott beleegyezés hitelessége erősen
megkérdőjelezhető volt, illetve bizonyos esetekben a sterilizációhoz adott hozzájárulás
egyértelműen nem informált döntésen alapult.

ENSZ Bizottságok
2003-ban és 2004-ben az ENSZ Emberi Jogi Bizottsága és a Faji megkülönböztetés
felszámolásával foglalkozó bizottság felszólította a szlovák kormányt, hogy vizsgálják ki
az állítólagos kényszersterilizációs eseteket és nyújtsanak hatékony jogorvoslatot, mely
magában foglalja a jóvátételt és a bocsánatkérést.

Peres ügyek
Számos peres ügy van folyamatban a szlovák bíróságok előtt, amelyeket a
kényszersterilizált roma nők nevében az ERRC és más szervezetek indítottak. Az Emberi
Jogok Európai Bírósága előtt lévő ügyeket a Polgári és Emberi Jogok Központja indította.
Számos ügy alapvető problémákra világított rá, amelyek komoly aggodalmakat
vetettek fel a Szlovákiában uralkodó törvényes renddel kapcsolatban. Például több esetben azért kellett a bírósághoz fordulni, mert kórházak megtagadták az orvosi
aktákhoz való hozzáférést. Más esetekben, beszámolók szerint, a rendőrség feltételezett
kényszersterilizált áldozatokat hallgatott ki és megfenyegette őket, hogy partnerük ellen
eljárást indítanak kiskorú ellen elkövetett nemi erőszak ügyében.

MAGYARORSZÁG
Egy 2003-ban végzett kutatás során az ERRC olyan eseteket dokumentált, amelyekben roma
nőket tájékozott beleegyezésük nélkül sterilizáltak Magyarországon. Sok roma nő arról is
beszámolt, hogy elkülönített, csak roma nőknek fenntartott kórtermekbe helyezték őket,
gyakran olyan indoklással, hogy az „eltérő életstílushoz” alkalmazkodik a kórház ezáltal.
Az fáj, hogy ha még akarnám is, akkor sem lehet. Meg sem próbáhatom. Az orvos azt
mondta, hogy az életemet kockáztatnám, de én mégis megpróbálnám. Az életemet is
kockára tenném azért, hogy újból szülhessek. (Sz. A.)
Sz.A.-t egy állami fenntartású kórházban 2001-ben sterilizálták, méhen belüli magzatelhalás
következtében szükségessé váló császármetszéssel járó műtét során. Gyermeke elvesztése
miatt sokkos állapotban feküdt a műtőasztalon, amikor kérték, hogy írja alá a műtéthez
való beleegyező nyilatkozatot, amelynek aljára kézzel volt írva a következő: „A méhen
belüli magzati elhalás tudatában is határozottan kérem sterilizálásom, szülni már nem
akarok, terhes sem kívánok lenni.” Sz.A. aláírta a nyilatkozatot és a sterilizációt elvégezték.
A kórházba való megérkezés és a két műtét elvégzése között mindössze 17 perc telt el.

Sz.A. nem tudta a „sterilizáció” szó jelentését, tájékoztatást nem kapott arról, hogy mivel
jár a sterilizáció, az azzal járó kockázatokról és annak következményeiről, illetve más
fogamzásgátlási módokról nem kapott felvilágosítást. Sz.A. csak akkor tudta meg, hogy
a sterilizáció következtében nem lehet gyermeke, miután megkérdezte az orvost, hogy
mikor próbálkozhatnak férjével újból gyermekvállalással.
Miután a magyar bíróságok nem nyújtottak megfelelő jogorvoslatot számára, Sz.A. panaszt
nyújtott be az ENSZ nőjogi bizottságához (CEDAW Bizottság). 2006 augusztusában a Bizottság
megállapította, hogy Sz.A. törvénytelen sterilizációja kapcsán Magyarország megsértette a
Nőkkel szembeni hátrányos megkülönböztetés minden formájának felszámolásáról szóló
egyezményt. A Bizottság kijelentette, hogy a kérelmezőnek „joga van ahhoz, hogy a sterilizációval
és a családtervezés egyéb alternatív módszereivel kapcsolatban részletes információkkal
rendelkezzen annak érdekében, hogy védve legyen attól, hogy ilyen beavatkozást rajta a teljes
körű tájékoztatáson alapuló döntése nélkül végrehajtsanak”. A tájékozott döntés nélkül elvégzett
sterilizációs műtéttel kapcsolatban a Bizottság megerősítette, hogy az Egyezmény 12. cikkeje
szerint a Részes államok “kötelesek a nők számára megfelelő szolgáltatásokról gondoskodni a
terhesség, a szülés és a szülés utáni időszak idejére”. A Bizottság megállapította hogy az Sz.A.-
n elvégzett sterilizációs műtétet Sz.A. „teljes körű és tájékozott beleegyezése nélkül hajtották
végre és úgy kell tekinteni, hogy ez a beavatkozás végérvényesen megfosztotta őt természetes
reproduktív képességétől”. Befejezésül a Bizottság javasolta, hogy a magyar állam:
Ø Megfelelő kártérítést nyújtson Sz.A.-nak, amely arányban áll a jogsértés súlyosságával;

Ø Vizsgálja át a magyar sterilizációval kapcsolatos törvényeket a tájékozott beleegyezés elve
szerint és biztosítsa, hogy azok igazodnak a nemzetközi emberi jogi és orvosi normákhoz;
Ø Kísérjék figyelemmel a sterilizációs műtétet végrehajtó állami és magánkézben lévő
kórházakat és klinikákat és biztosítsák, hogy minden sterilizációs műtétet teljes
körűen tájékozott döntés előz meg.

CÉLJAINK:
1. Az illetékes államok hatékonyan (független, alapos, felelősség megállapítására
alkalmas módon) vizsgáljanak ki minden olyan sterilizációs esetet, amelyet
állítólagosan tájékozott döntés és beleegyezés nélkül végeztek el.
2. Az illetékes államok nyilvánosan ismerjék el a kényszersterilizációs jogsérelmeket és
nyújtsanak kártérítést azokért.
3. Hozzanak létre olyan mechanizmusokat, amelyek lehetővé teszik, hogy minden nő
szabadon és tájékozottan dönthessen a sterilizációs műtétről illetve erősítsék meg
a már meglévőket. E célból vizsgálják felül a hazai törvényeket és rendeleteket, és
biztosítsák, hogy azok igazodnak a nemzetközi normákhoz valamint rendszeresen
ellenőrzzék a sterilizációs műtétet végrehajtó kórházakat és klinikákat.
Támogassa a kényszersterilizáció áldozatait Csehországban és Magyarországon
egy képeslap elküldésével, amelyben felszólítja az illetékes kormányokat, hogy
kérjenek bocsánatot és adjanak jóvátételt az áldozatoknak!


2012. május 31., csütörtök

CIARA LEEMING

CIARA LEEMING
UNIT 2.4

Ciara Leeming- Photographer (PDF + photos)
Are there differences between how Gadjo photographers have represented Romani people and how
Roma photographers have represented them, and if so what are they?


Context
Romanies have long been cast as the archetypical ʻotherʼ by western society – mysterious outsiders,
different from us and not to be trusted. Even today they remain, as the Palestinian writer Edward Said put it, the only group about which anything can be said “without challenge or demurral” (Economist, 1999).
Saidʼs book Orientalism deconstructed historic western attitudes towards the Islamic world, but many of his ideas extend comfortably to these ʻstrangers withinʼ. Just like Saidʼs Arab, the Roma have been reduced to stereotypes. Historically, Gadjo (non-Roma) artists have always spoken for them, arguably reducing them to role players within their own narrative (Saul and Tebbutt, 2004: 1). This paper considers how far this dynamic extends to photography, through first-hand interviews.
Terminology In this paper, except in quotes from other sources, the word Gypsy is not used. Although many English Romanies have reclaimed the term and use it freely, it was created by outsiders and has negative connotations in many countries. The Romani word Gadjo – non-Roma person (plural: Gadje) – is not pejorative.

Stereotypes
“The mental age of the average adult Gypsy is thought to be about that of a child of ten. Gypsies have never accomplished anything of great significance in writing, painting, music, science or social
organisation. Quarrelsome, quick to anger or laughter, they are unthinkingly but not deliberately cruel.
They are ostentatious and boastful, but lack bravery.”
The above quote is taken from the 1954 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica (Bowers, 2010) but 55 years later, stereotypes of Romanies are still informing – and being reinforced by – their representation in the arts and media.
First there is the image of the ʻtrueʼ Romani, frequently depicted in “in quaint rural settings, typically engaged in peg-making or basketry, with a bow-topped caravan in the background” (Taylor, 2008). Horsemanship, musicianship and other traditional occupations could be added to this list of clichés, as can the concepts of nomadism and freedom. Arguably, the highly aestheticised work by Magnum photographer Josef Koudelka often plays up to these kind of romantic stereotypes.
A romantic view of a Roma man and his horse, Romania, 1968:
© Josef Koudelka (Taken from Lardinois, 2007: 293)
While this simplistic but relatively benign view of the Roma persists to some extent, the prevailing
stereotypes are arguably far more damaging. When most people think of Romanies today, the image which springs to mind is more likely to feature poverty and backwardness, the pestering beggar on the street, the petty criminal or – more recently, in western Europe – unauthorised encampments, conflict with the police and benefits scroungers. I would argue that news photography in particular is partly to blame for this.
On the margins – criminality and unauthorised encampments:
An eviction from Kalderasha camp, Italy. © UNIRSI Archive, unnamed photographer (Taken from Orta, 2010: 33)

Search
If one accepts that Gadjo photography has played a part in stereotyping Romanies then it makes sense to explore whether ʻinsiderʼ photographers would create different images. This is easier said than done.
There are thought to be about 10 million Roma worldwide, but the majority remain socially and educationally marginalised, with limited opportunities to self-represent. Extensive research and enquiries through advocacy groups such as the European Roma Rights Centre and activist networks on Twitter proved that there are few working photographers who openly identify as Romanies, who are known within the advocacy community and who are active online.
Eventually I did, however, find two Hungarian Roma photographers, who I questioned by email, along with a Scottish photojournalist who has documented Romanian Roma.
The outsider Scottish photographer Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert started photographing a community of Roma he chanced upon in Sintesti, Romania, in 1990 and visited them once or twice a year until 1997, staying several weeks at a time and taking prints back to the families. He returned in 2004 and 2006 to see what had changed.
Sintesti portraits. © Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert
Papusha Mihai bathes her daughter Garoafa, in the one room that is home for the family. Sintesti, 1994. ©
Jeremy Sutton-Hibbert
“I was fortunate to begin the project when Romania was just opening up after the revolution of 1989. The Roma were as curious about me – and about someone from the West – as I was about them. I was a novelty to them,” he says (Sutton-Hibbert to Leeming, 2011).
“It took a couple of visits before I became more accepted, but even to the end there were still some people who did not accept me or want me to be there and whom would not let me photograph them, their homes or families.”
He would spend his time at the camp hanging out. One family became his adopted family and he would rest, drink coffee and sleep on their couch in their one-room, basic home. He photographed their ceremonies, their baptisms, weddings, Orthodox Easter celebrations, documenting their changing lifestyle.
“The prints became almost like a currency, helping me bargain access into peopleʼs homes and lives. They were happy, I was happy, and in time they regarded me as their private photographer, postponing weddings until I arrived, requesting photo favours for driving licences and tombstones” (Sutton-Hibbert, 2006: 38).
Sutton-Hibbert is certain the only way an outsider could to gain the kind of intimacy he did is through investment of time but even then there are limitations.
“If you were an outsider and visited only once, then you would not get the access or be able to have any depth to your work,” he says (Sutton-Hibbert to Leeming, 2011).
“The majority of photographs of Roma by non-Roma do not tell us much, and present only stereotypes. I feel with the cooperation of the Sintesti Roma, and the access they gave me, that my work goes a little further.
“But even then there were things which I was not privy to, that I was not allowed to photograph, or didn't get to see, because I was not one of them, I was an outsider.”
The insiders Andrea Annamária Duka (This is, I am :) )and Angelika Biro are less experienced than Sutton-Hibbert and neither works fulltime as a photographer, but their perspectives as Roma women are valuable. Both young women have supplied images to the media and NGOs, arguing that their cultural awareness is an advantage when it comes to gaining access and photographing Romani communities.
©Angelika Biro
Biro says: “Letʼs take a wedding, where only friends and family are. Itʼs not enough that a Gadjo is there and doesnʼt even know anybody. This is in contrast with me, who – even if I donʼt know them or they me – knows their dance, their music, their customs, and therefore fit better into their company. They behave naturally in front of me.

“Unfortunately, this is why there is so much bad feeling towards us: because if we are looking at photos of a [Romani] settlement, these are a non-Roma photographerʼs photos. These show only the negatives, like how much poverty there is. Therefore, non-Roma viewers of these photos only get this limited view of Roma life.
While I personally donʼt want to gloss over these elements of Roma life, I do want to show the truth. But the true reality also includes children playing or people studying with or reading to their children or theyʼre sewing, washing, cleaning, dancing, singing, etc.
“In other words, it is important to photograph from all angles, taking all these facets of life into consideration. When I am in the position, this is how I try to photograph” (Biro to Leeming, 2011).

© Andrea Annamária Duka
© Andrea Annamária Duka
Duka says she finds subjects open up more quickly to her if she presents herself as Roma. Once inside a home she deliberately avoids stereotypical images.
“I first and foremost try to capture relationships – the mother-child relationship, for example, and sibling relationships. Symbols that seem to be in every household are given foreground – for example horses or hooves, as well as faith images. Indeed, images of Mary or Jesus or the crucifix are practically ubiquitous,” she says.
“Since poverty is an interesting topic, I like to photograph the street from the inside the house to make the worlds inside and outside of the house juxtapose. I do not photograph dirtiness because I am personally not interested in it, though sometimes it is unavoidable and can sometimes appear here and there” (Duka to Leeming, 2011).

The politics of engagement One striking difference between these photographers is how they found their subject.
Whereas Sutton-Hibbertʼs project began after he chanced upon the Sintesti community while driving through the Romanian countryside, found it interesting and returned the following day with his camera, the two Hungarians had a different starting point.
Biro in particular recalls that although she loved all photography while growing up, it was images of
Romanies that attracted her most. “I saw myriads of amazing photos, but something was still missing from them. I couldnʼt put my finger on what was missing, and I saw many photos that seemed really affected or artificial. Knowing our own culture and customs, I know that we donʼt behave or pose like this. I donʼt want to type-cast myself into one topic but I feel that itʼs my duty to also deal with Roma things, and I like it” (Biro to Leeming, 2011).
For Duka too, her love of image making dovetailed with a desire to do something worthwhile. “While I was snapping away, I kept thinking that I could be doing something meaningful with the camera in my hand. The Roma settlements interested me greatly,” she says (Duka to Leeming, 2011).
Romani eyes?
While seductive, the assumption that Romanies are automatically best placed to photograph their own communities – or will produce different images – is naïve. It is important, too, not to fall into the trap of judging all Gadjo images to be inadequate.
Authenticity, too, can be a sticky concept. While those with Romani heritage are often regarded as having embodied knowledge and validity, those who become ʻtoo educatedʼ or modern risk being seen by some as “too far from the grass roots to be representative” (Saul and Tebbutt, 2004: 99).
Interestingly, Biro and Duka identify with both Roma and Gadjo culture – Biroʼs mother is ethnic Hungarian, although she was raised predominantly in the Roma tradition.
While Duka uses her Roma identity to gain access, the background of the photographer matters less to her than the images themselves – and could even be a problem.
“I personally do not think it is vitally important that more Roma photographers should be the ones to
photograph their ʼown peopleʼ. It is uncertain whether they can be objective enough to stay honest in their photos,” she says.

“It works for me because I identify myself as bi-cultural. I am as much Gadjo as I am Roma. I also think this dual identity is important from different standpoints, as well. A person who identifies only with the Roma culture will start a battle with his or her photos or will create photos that donʼt really say anything. “I think itʼs important that thinking should be parallel: what does the majority society prioritise, and what does the Roma culture find important? It is imperative that these two elements should be forged together, otherwise the photo will have no point” (Duka to Leeming, 2011).
Hungarian-German artist André J Raatzsch, who also has Boyash-Romani background, is behind Rewritable Pictures, a project which aims to create dialogue about these issues of representation. He feels that a heightened awareness of visual representation cannot fit with a genuinely Roma point of view.
“I know photographers with Romani background but not with Romani eyes,” he says. “Romani people who live in slums donʼt deal with the problem of visual representation. Why would they? They donʼt need to, because they donʼt have that problem there.
“Those who left the slum and return as Roma photographers donʼt fit there anymore. They are in some sort of schizophrenic state, because they are no longer able to stand with the people who they are taking pictures of, because they moved to the other side” (Raatzsch to Leeming, 2011).
Control “Like any set of durable ideas, Orientalist notions influenced the people who were called Orientals as well as those called Occidental, European or Western; in short, Orientalism is better grasped as a set of constraints upon and limitations of thought than it is simply as a positive doctrine” (Said 1978, 42).
While it may be tempting to assume that Roma photographed by Gadjo have no say in their representation, this is not necessarily the case. In some cases subjects have absorbed the stereotypes to the point that they try to replicate them.
This was the experience of Swiss photographer Yves Leresche, whose images of Roma from across eastern Europe were shot over 18 years.
“The poorest ones are ashamed of their destitution; the integrated ones do not want to be recognised as Roma; and the businessmen only barter their image for a reward. This experience also confirmed to me that they would rather be portrayed from their favourable traditional side, or even by the romantic clichés that are appreciated by the majority,” he writes.
“As a result, I had to work with restraints on all levels: from the reactions of the Roma refusing to be
photographed or wanting to control their image, to the filters set by Roma activists and donors in the choice of images…” (Leresche 2009: 176).
This chimes with the experience of Sutton-Hibbert. Early on the women – who wore colourful skirts and gold coins in their hair – would admonish him for shooting black and white. And he learned that while the Roma liked to be photographed having a good time, they were less keen to be documented in the winter mud and rain “when their situation looked miserable” (Sutton-Hibbert, 2006).
By the time he returned to Sintesti in 2004 and 2006, the community were more worldly-wise.
He recalls: “They were making a lot of money from their scrap metal businesses, some had travelled abroad. And, one young boy had managed to access the internet and found my images online. Some families took exception to this, they didn't like the old images of themselves being seen, the old black and white images I'd taken in the early years were deemed by them to be ʻpoor lookingʼ.
“Now they wished to be seen in colour, to show off how rich and wealthy they'd become. The Roma were more worldly wise, and more conscious perhaps of what it meant to be photographed” (Sutton-Hibbert to Leeming, 2011).

Conclusion
The idea that insiders would represent Romani communities differently from Gadjo photographers is overly simplistic. For me, the most striking difference is not the images produced but initial motivation. Whereas the Roma photographers I interviewed seem ideologically driven to cover these stories, Gadje may find this subject by chance and be initially drawn to it by aesthetics. Politics may of course follow later.
In terms of work created, I would avoid judging on a purely aesthetic basis since there is a danger that high artistic values can reinforce stereotypes. It is clear to me that the ethnic or cultural background of the photographer matters less than their photographic eye, their thought process and the quality of their engagement with the community they are documenting.
Whereas photographers who parachute into a story without much real understanding of its context or
connection to the individuals are likely to fall back on stereotype, Gadje who invest enough time can create more authentic, nuanced representations – as in the case of Sutton-Hibbert. While he was not allowed to see or photograph everything in Sintesti, there is no reason to think a Romani photographer would have been given greater access.
Arguably, by picking up a camera with the intention to document, a Roma person may become an outsider to some degree – and they may no longer see their surroundings with truly Romani eyes, to quote Raatzsch. In any case, no matter who is wielding the camera, they are likely to face challenges to their photographic vision from their Roma subjects, who wish to control how they are represented in todayʼs media savvy world.

Bibliography
Biro, A. (2011) Email Leveled, 24 February 2011. Personal email to C. Leeming (info@ciaraleeming.co.uk)
from A. Biro (angelikabiro@freemail.hu), translated by Toth. A (aniko.singer@rocketmail.com).

Bowers, J. (2010) Gypsies and Travellers: Their lifestyle, history and culture
www.travellerstimes.org.uk/.../lifestyle_history_and_culture_24052010111520.pdf

Duka, A. (2011) Email Hungarian Roma photographers, 10 February 2011. Personal email to C. Leeming (info@ciaraleeming.co.uk) from A. Duka (anyesz21@citromail.hu), translated by Toth. A
(aniko.singer@rocketmail.com).

Hancock, I. (2002). We are the Romani people, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press
Lardinois, B. (ed.) (2007) Magnum Magnum, London: Thames & Hudson
Leresche, Y. (2009) Roma Realities 2005-2015, World Bank and Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation
www.sdc.admin.ch/en/Dossiers/ressources/resource_en_182321.pdf
Orta, L. (ed.) (2010) Mapping the invisible: EU-Roma Gypsies, London: Black Dog Publishing
Raatzsch, A. (2011) Email Re: Roma & photography, 13 February 2011. Personal email to C. Leeming (info@ciaraleeming.co.uk) from A. Raatzsch (raatzsch.a@googlemail.com)
Rewritable Pictures: On the way to a photographic Roma archive http://www.cultureanddevelopment.org/
index-14.html
Said, E. (1978) Orientalism, London: Penguin Books
Saul, N. and Tebbutt, S. (ed) (2004) The Role of the Romanies, Liverpool: Liverpool University Press
Sutton-Hibbert, J. (2011) Email Re: Roma photography/Paul Lowe, 8 February 2011. Personal email to C.
Leeming (info@ciaraleeming.co.uk) from J. Sutton-Hibbert (jsh@jeremysuttonhibbert.com)
Sutton-Hibbert, J. (2006, March) Return to Sintesti, Black and White Magazine, p36-41.
Taylor, R. (2008) Stereotypes and the state: Britainʼs travellers past and present
http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-74.html
The Economist (1999) A Gypsy Awakening, http://www.economist.com/node/238503

Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies Images of Gypsies, a German Case: Gilad Margalit.

Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 51

Images of Gypsies, a German Case: Gilad Margalit (PDF file)

Images of Gypsies, a German Case: Gilad Margalit.

By Habiba Hadziavdic
Sinti and Roma have lived for over six centuries in Europe and, numbering well
over eight million people, constitute its largest ethnic minority. It is somewhat hard to
estimate the exact numbers of German Sinti and Roma since Germany’s Basic Law
prohibits the collection of ethnic data. Nonetheless, a 1999 report submitted by the
German Government to the “Advisory Committee on Implementation of the Framework
Convention of National Minorities” estimated there to be 70,000 German Sinti and
Roma. Many Romani leaders put the number between 150,00 and 200,000, mindful that
their estimates include all Sinti and Roma living in Germany independent of their
citizenship status1. As a reference year for the first chronicle citation of Sinti and Roma in
Germany, authors2 point to the year 1417 and to Sebastian Münster’s Cosmographia as
the first detailed account. Münster was acquainted with Sinti and Roma from Heidelberg,
observing and documenting their customs, which is why his chronicle became the most
colorful, personal, and creditable account. Historically, German Sinti and Roma have
been depicted as nomads and itinerant showmen. Often, the description of Sinti and
Roma as non-sedentary or as people having only atypical occupations allows for further
discrimination against this ethnic group. Portrayed as different from the rest of the
Germans, both in their alleged essence (nomads) and means of livelihood (entertainers,
door-to-door salesmen, or small circus performers), Sinti and Roma continue to be
considered foreign or Fremde, although they have lived in Germany for more than six
centuries. Sinti and Roma are generally characterized as the eternal Gypsy wanderers
who stand outside of the conventional norms.
Although the nomadic lifestyle might be desirable for some Sinti and Roma, as
may also be the case for individuals of various other ethnicities, the argument that all
Sinti and Roma are intrinsically nomadic is reductive and even at times racially
prejudiced. Moreover, the issue of nomadism in relation to Sinti and Roma remains a
1 Source: “State FCNM Report”. http://www.coe.int
2 See Ebhardt, Wilhelm. “Die Zigeuner in der hochdeutschen Literatur bis zu Goethes ‘Götz von
Berlichingen’”. Diss. Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen, 1928. p. 17.
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 52
multifaceted issue that requires a well-balanced approach, even if some Sinti and Roma
do assert their nomadic lifestyle. Accordingly, this paper challenges the antiziganistic
hegemony that essentializes and others Sinti and Roma, forcing an entire group to morph
into a homogenous entity. Particular lifestyles (nomadism or sedentary), types of
occupations, and behavioral characteristics are not tied to a single identity of a group as a
whole, but rather individually determined. Lastly, it is not one of the goals of German
Sinti and Roma to create an artificial so-called “nation state” in which all Sinti and Roma
would be granted citizenship based on their ethnicity. Rather, Germany is the nation state
of German Sinti and Roma3.
As much as the historical data imparts that German Sinti and Roma have lived in
Europe for centuries, the taxonomical description of their culture makes the debate about
their nationality and the nature of their cultural production animated and continuous. In
the spirit of the Enlightenment, research on Roma continues to be based on observation,
collection, classification, and description whereby the researcher’s objectivity frequently
remains unquestioned. Often, the authority of the researcher is established by an
addendum of charts, tables, and other statistical data as an empirical support of their
claims. In his book Time and the Other, postcolonial scholar Johannes Fabian addresses
the issue of the de-temporization of the Other in anthropological writing. In his account,
the Other is the object of a researcher’s study, ontologically and culturally presumed to
be different. Additionally, Fabian maintains that the researcher is allowed to disregard
temporal relations when studying a presumably unchanging, primitive culture. The terms
civilization, evolution, development, acculturation, and modernization are all terms
“whose conceptual content derives from evolutionary time4” (17, footnote added).
3 Romani Rose, the Chairman of the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma and one of the
most prominent political figures in the Sinti and Roma discourse in Germany, asserts that “…the
reality is that the German Sinti and Roma are Germans and Germany is their own home country.
[…]Like the Danes, Sorbians and Frieslanders in Germany, the 70,000 Sinti und Roma in
Germany form a historically developed national minority. Rose, Romani. “Sinti and Roma as
National Minorities in the Countries of Europe”. The Patrin Web Journal. Sept. 3, 1999.
http://www.geocities.com
4 Here, Fabian refers to the notion that non-Europeans were exemplars of the stages of human
development that civilized Europeans had presumably passed through long ago. Allegedly,
Europeans were far apart (far ahead of) in their propensity for development from their non-
European counterparts. Fabian, Johannes. Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its
Object. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983.
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 53
Persistently referring to the time of the Other as not belonging to the contemporary time,
the researcher marginalizes the Other and permanently signifies it as primitive and “notthe-
same.” Partially borrowing from Levi-Strauss, Fabian argues that the taxonomical
description of culture becomes ontological when “it maintains that culture is created by
selection and classification.” The consequent concept of culture is “devoid of a theory,
creativity or production because in a radically taxonomic frame it makes no sense to raise
the question of production. By extension we never appreciate the primitive as producer”
(62). In cultural texts, the examples of portraying Sinti and Roma as primitive, as
gatherers rather than producers, as people completely incapable of relating to modern
society and its economically highly structured system, and as borrowers, if not thieves,
are myriad.
Moreover, the perpetual discrimination against Sinti and Roma is facilitated by
the rhetoric of Gypsies as nationless people, who are first and foremost perceived as not
German (or broader “not European”). As there might be individuals or groups of Sinti
and Roma who indeed would associate with nationless, my emphasis in this critique will
be on the general argument of the inherent nationless of Sinti and Roma as eternal
wanderers incapable of relating to conventional lifestyle. It is the homogenizing feature
of the discourse about Sinti and Roma that makes it antiziganistic. Similarly, some Sinti
and Roma might adhere to the nomadic lifestyle, as do individuals of various other
ethnicities across the world, but the contention that all Sinti and Roma are inherently
nomadic is racially prejudiced. Additionally, due to the historical circumstances
associated with nomadism and Gypsies, such as the anti-Gypsy laws explicitly targeting
Sinti and Roma’s alleged itinerant way of life and trades, the issue of nomadism in
relation to Gypsies remains a multifaceted issue that has not yet been studied in all its
dimensions.
In his 1996 article “Antigypsyism in the Political Culture of the Federal Republic
of Germany: A Parallel with Antisemitism?”5 and his 2002 book Germany and Its
Gypsies
6
historian Gilad Margalit characterizes and exploits the cultural construct
5 Margalit, Gilad. “Antigypsyism in the Political Culture of the Federal Republic of Germany: A
Parallel with Antisemitism?”. The Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism. No. 9, 1996.
6 Margalit, Gilad. Germany and Its Gypsies. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2002.
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 54
“Gypsy” (he is only one of many authors who manipulates the construct7). By critically
engaging with this construct, I will illustrate here8 some of the characteristics of the
persistent nature of the contemporary discourse about Sinti and Roma that continues to
study “Gypsies” as unchanging and primitive (“disregards temporal relations”). The
critique of Margalit’s marginalization of the persecution of Sinti and Roma, both prior to
and in the Holocaust, as well as in post-war Germany, allows me to delineate some of the
general misconceptions still circulating within the Romany discourse (both in German
and American scholarship9). He portrays Gypsies (his term for Sinti and Roma) as
stateless, apolitical, and criminal nomads, and in doing so creates fertile ground for
continuous discrimination against Sinti and Roma. His characterization of Gypsies
parallels historical, narrative, and ethnographic texts, which in similar fashion typify Sinti
and Roma as uncivilized and uncultured Gypsies (outside of terms “derived from
evolutionary time”, e.g. “civilization, evolution, development, acculturation,
modernization…”)10.
7 On the topic of “political unconsciousness” and “wandering (stateless)” Gypsies, see Brearley,
Margaret. “The Roma/Gypsies of Europe: a persecuted people”. In: Research Report for: Institute
for Jewish Policy Research. No. 3, 1996.; an ethnographic account of Gypsies, see Fonseca,
Isabel. Bury Me Standing: The Gypsies and Their Journey. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.; the
“Gypsy occupations” and “otherness”, see Hermann, Arnold. Das Fahrende Volk.
Neustadt/Weinstraße: Pfälzische Verlagsanstalt, 1980.; the Gypsy records and research in the
Third Reich, see Justin, Eva. “Lebensschicksale artfremd erzogener Zigeunerkinder und ihrer
Nachkommen.” Diss. Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1943.; For the constructs “Gypsy
musician” and “Gypsy being”, see: Block, Martin. Zigeuner, ihr Leben und ihre Seele: dargestellt
auf Grund eigener Reisen und Forschungen. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institute, a.g., 1936.; on
Gypsy police records and persecution, see Dillmann, Alfred. Das Zigeuner-Buch. München: Dr.
Wild’sche Buchdruckerei, 1905.
8 I will concentrate primarily on Margalit’s article; most of his chief ideas from the article were
later elaborated in his 2002 book.
9 Margalit is an Israeli historian and lecturer in the Department of General History at the
University of Haifa, Israel. Some of his scholarship has been published in America (e.g.
University of Wisconsin Press); however, the majority of his writing is specific to Germany, is
distributed in Germany, and the majority of secondary literature is German (e.g. Peter Widmann;
see footnote 7).
10 See: Widmann, Peter. “Germany and Its Gypsies: A Post-Auschwitz Ordeal”. Journal of Social
History. Summer, 2005. Widmann, in his review of Margalit’s book Germany and Its Gypsies,
critiques Margalit’s “socio-psychological speculations” (“the author relies less on analysis
supported by research sources than on […] speculations”) behind the supposedly questionable
motivations of Sinti and Roma activists, their supporters, and in general, the political work of the
Sinti Civil Rights Movement.
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 55
One of Gilad Margalit’s central claims is that “racist antigypsyism began in
Germany only in the late decades of the nineteenth century and existed on the margins of
racist antisemitism.”11 In the article, he characterizes the contemporary as well as
centuries-old antigypsism as “superficial”, “less dramatic in character”, lacking
“demonizing characteristics” and “the element of ‘conspiracy’ that was dominant in
nineteenth-century antisemitism.” He asserts that the Gypsy within German culture could
be categorized as the “known other”, for Sinti and Roma’s coexistence in Europe is six
centuries old. “For generations, the Sinti […] wandered in specific regions and
consequently mastered the local dialects. […] Their fortune-telling skills left its
impression in German (and non-German) literature and folklore” (2). Lastly, Margalit
contends that antigypsism “was never a political issue in Germany previous to the Third
Reich” and that “…the ‘Gypsy Question’ was a marginal issue on the Nazi agenda; it was
part of the so called ‘Social Question’—the problem of the lower and poorer strata from
which many criminals supposedly came, and on which most of the public welfare
expenditure was spent” (2). He concludes that, “Due to these factors the Romanies and
their bitter fate in the Third Reich did not become a central subject in post-1945 German
political culture until the 1980s” (3). Although Margalit includes the alarming findings of
the 1994 Emnid public opinion poll, according to which “68 percent of the Germans
agreed they would not like to have Romanies as their neighbors”, he fails to make an
analytical assessment of antiziganism that would satisfactorily explain the continuing
sweeping prejudice against Sinti and Roma. The same poll reveals the disproportionate
hatred towards Sinti and Roma in comparison to other ethnic groups, such as Arabs,
Poles, Africans, Turks, and Jews12.
In order to show that “…hostility toward the Romanies lacked a religious temper
and demonizing characteristics” Margalit evokes so-called “romantic” images of Gypsies
evident in “centuries of coexistence.” “The romantic aspect of the Gypsy image became a
11 “Antigypsyism in the Political Culture of the Federal Republic of Germany: A Parallel with
Antisemitism?”. p. 1. From his writing, it is not explicitly clear why Margalit chooses to compare
and contrast antiziganism with antisemitism, apart from the manifest prejudice and racism
inherent in both. Unlike Margalit, in my analysis of the construct “Gypsy”, I only occasionally
draw comparisons between antiziganism and antisemitism, for my primary study centers around
the “Gypsy”. As such, his assessment of antisemitism is not a focus of this work.
12 Arabs, 47%; Poles, 39%; Africans, 37%; Turks, 36%; and Jews, 22%, (Margalit, 4).
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 56
symbol for freedom as early as the seventeenth century. [...] ...depiction of the Romani
lifestyle as true, natural, and passionate influenced generations in Germany and
elsewhere...” (2). Similarly, Margalit sentimentalizes Gypsies’ ”fortune-telling skills”
that “left its impression in German (and non-German) literature and folklore.” The same
literature generally typified Gypsies (especially women) as deceitful, unscrupulous, and
dangerous vagabonds13. The antigypsy laws highlight the authorities’ particular disdain
for Gypsy fortune-tellers14. Lastly, Margalit’s assertions that “antigypsyism was never a
political issue in Germany previous to the Third Reich” and that “…the ‘Gypsy Question’
was a marginal issue on the Nazi agenda…” are erroneous15. While evoking alleged
romantic16 images of free-roaming Gypsies that might lead to the conclusion that
antigypsism is “superficial”, “less demonizing”, and “not political”17 Margalit fails to
scrutinize any antigypsy decrees and edicts passed by the German authorities targeting
and limiting the movement, settlement, and coexistence of Sinti and Roma since their
13 See: Ebhardt, Wilhelm. “Die Zigeuner in der hochdeutschen Literatur bis zu Goethes ‘Götz von
Berlichingen’”. Diss. Georg-August-Universität zu Göttingen, 1928.
14 See: Dilmman, Alfred. Das Zigeuner-Buch. München: Dr. Wild’sche Buchdruckerei, 1905.
15 On March 17, 1982 then Chancellor of Germany, Helmut Schmidt, in front of the special
delegation of Sinti and Roma under the leadership of Romani Rose, publicly acknowledged that
Sinti and Roma were persecuted on the basis of “race” in the Holocaust (“Bundeskanzler Helmut
Schmidt…anerkannte den Völkermord an den Sinti und Roma aus Gründen der sogennaten
“Rasse”; Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma. Home Page. 12 June 2006.
http://zentralrat.sintiundroma.de More recently, on May 29, 2006, by the invitation of the Prime
Minister of Poland, Kazimierz Marcinkewicz, Rose became a member of the International
Auschwitz Committee (“Mitglied des Internationalen Auschwitz-Rats”).
16 Although there is no exact equivalent to philosemitism within the Romany discourse per se, it
could be argued that the exaggerated positive statements (since overt ziganism tends to be
socially unacceptable) about Gypsies are manifestly philoziganism.
17 See: “Germany and its Gypsies: A Post-Auschwitz Ordeal”, book review at RomNews Network
Community, March 26, 2003. http://www.romnews.com/de According to book reviewer,
“Margalit’s aim [in this book] […] is less to provoke sympathy for the continued suffering of
Romanies, and more to dispute their claims to have been equal victims to the Jews in the
Holocaust. Presented as a study of German attitudes towards Romanies, this book is actually a
contribution to the disheartening literature of ethnic competition for victimhood status”. The
reviewer points to Margalit’s unfounded claim that “despite everything, Gypsies, in contrast to
Jews, were perceived by Himmler…to be part of the German fatherland and not its foe”, p. 53 of
Margalit’s book. Reviewer concludes that regrettably “Margalit’s aim here [from Margalit’s
claim that since Roma “had no contact with the German population, it seems unlikely that the
extermination of the Roma constituted part of the German attempt to protect the racial purity of
the German population”, Margalit p. 48] is to establish a clear difference between the Nazi
treatment of the Romanies, on one hand, and the Jews on the other, making it plain that it was the
latter who were the true victims of Nazis”.
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 57
arrival to Germany. The abundance and evident forcefulness of these laws elucidate the
politically, racially, and culturally motivated exclusion of Gypsies from the rest of
German society and Margalit’s emphasis on romantic imagery obscures this fact.
In his book Zigeunerverfolgung in Deutschland mit besonderer Berücksichtigung
der Zeit zwischen 1918-1945 (The Persecution of Gypsies: 1918-1945), historian
Mohammad Gharaati outlines the persecution of Sinti and Roma in Germany. According
to Gharaati, between the years 1500 and 180018 the German authorities passed 148
antigypsy edicts preventing Sinti and Roma from acquiring permanent residency and
employment (32). Decades before the rise of the Third Reich, German police and various
government ministries enacted laws according to which all Sinti and Roma residing in
Germany were required to register with the police and unemployment agencies in each
district, be fingerprinted and photographed, and have their genealogical data recorded19.
From April to December of 1907, a few years after the establishment of the special
“Gypsy Affairs Agency” (“Nachrichtendienst in Bezug auf die Zigeuner”, 1899) in
Munich under the directorship of the criminal investigator Alfred Dillmann, there were
289 criminal cases filed against Gypsies, the majority of which were for such trivial
offenses as camping or driving a defective car (59). The antiziganistic vehemence
inherent in such laws, as explained in Gharaati’s work, coupled with the general literary
18 In addition to the earliest antigypsy edicts (from 1500 to 1800), the late eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries reveal intense, politically motivated assimilation policies in both the Austro-
Hungarian Empire and the German lands. Thousands of Gypsy children were forcefully taken
from their parents’ homes and placed into orphanages or non-Gypsy families for the purposes of
reeducation and assimilation. Often the parents were sent to Arbeitshäuser, places of forced labor.
It is not difficult to foresee the devastating consequences of such actions on Romany families and
the generations of unnaturally orphaned Sinti and Roma children. Similarly to the Romany
historian Ian Hancock, a professor of Romany Studies at the University of Texas, Austin, I argue
that such policies were often attempts to destroy Romany language and Sinti and Roma culture.
See: Hancock, Ian. “Chronology”. The Romani Archives and Documentation Center.
http://www.radoc.net Hancock cites the efforts of such assimilation policies in the example of the
Nordhausen authorities (from 1830) asserting that such projects had a goal to “eradicate the
Romani population by removing the children for permanent placement with non-Romani
families”.
19 Despite the terms of Article 108 of the National Constitution of the Weimar Republic (ratified
in 1919 and 1921), which guaranteed Sinti and Roma full and equal citizenship rights,
antiziganism throughout the German-speaking lands was widespread and on the rise in the
beginning of the twentieth century. The similar registration of Jews in Germany was mandatory
during the Third Reich. As non-Sinti and Roma citizens were also required (and still are) to
register upon living and acquiring a new address (Anmeldung and Abmeldung), they were not
fingerprinted, photographed, and their genealogies were not recorded.
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 58
descriptions of Gypsies as Tatars, Turkish spies, Egyptians, carriers of the plague, traitors
to Christendom, and invaders in general, speak against Sinti and Roma as the “known
other(s).”20 Gypsies are indeed perceived by the political authorities as “the element(s) of
‘conspiracy’” within German society, notwithstanding that their history in Germany is
over six centuries long. By considering the historical data that Gharaati presents, we see
how Margalit fails to reveal the mendacity inherent in the romanticization of “wandering”
Gypsies.
Based on extensive research of the anti-Gypsy laws21, the persevering
antiziganistic attitudes, and the contemporary literature of the Sinti and Roma political
activists, it is my contention (contrary to Margalit) that most Sinti and Roma “traveled”
in order to comply with the law and out of necessity to find employment. For example, in
his book Geschichte der Zigeunerverfolgung in Deutschland
22
(The History of
Persecution of Gypsies in Germany), Joachim Hohmann highlights the immensity of anti-
Gypsy laws since Sinti and Roma’s arrival to Germany. These ordinances targeted the
movement and prohibited the settlement of Gypsies. Hohmann concludes that based on
his analysis of the anti-Gypsy laws the image of a free-roaming Gypsy is merely a
20 For the chronology of the depiction of the literary figure “Gypsy”, see Ebhardt Wilhelm’s
dissertation (cited in footnote 10).
21 On February 17th 1906, the Prussian Minister of the Interior (Prussian Law) issued a directive
entitled “Combating the Gypsy Nuisance” (“Die Bekämpfung des Zigeunerunwesens”)
guaranteeing the expulsion of Sinti and Roma from not only Prussia but the surrounding countries
as well. Prussia introduced “Gypsy licenses”, requirements for all Gypsies that would allow them
to stay in the region, but not to settle permanently. On July 16th, 1926, the Bavarian “Law for
Combating Gypsies, Vagabonds and Idlers” (“Gesetz zur Bekämpfung von Zigeunern,
Landfahrern und Arbeitsscheuen”) proposed a year earlier at the 1925 conference, was passed.
Firstly, the law reiterated that Gypsies are a different race, secondly that they are by nature
opposed to all work, and thirdly that they should be subjected to forced labor. Pre-Holocaust
Germany targeted Gypsies by law, classifying them as so-called non-Aryans and those seen as
unworthy of living. “The Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring” was passed
in 1933, making forceful sterilization legal and ordering sterilization of Gypsies, Jews, Germans
of black color, disabled, and alleged asocials. On September 17, 1933, “The National Citizenship
Law” relegated Gypsies and Jews to the status of second-class citizens, and deprived them of
their civil rights. In the same year under the second Nuremberg “Law for Prevention of Blood and
Honor” intermarriage or sexual relationships between Aryans and non-Aryans, including the
Gypsies, was outlawed. The subsequent internment in the concentration camps and Heinrich
Himmler’s signing of the Auschwitz decree on December 16, 1942 authorizing elimination of
Gypsies, resulted in murder of 500,000 Sinti and Roma.
22 Hohmann, Joachim, S. Geschichte der Zigeunerverfolgung in Deutschland. Frankfurt/New
York: Campus Verlag, 1988.
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 59
cultural construct. “Under these circumstances, that there could have existed an
unrestrained, free-roaming nomadic way of life is out of question” (80)23. While some
Sinti and Roma choose to lead a nomadic lifestyle (as do individuals of other ethnicities
throughout the world), the contention that all Sinti and Roma are inherently nomadic is at
best reductive and at worst racially prejudiced.
The extermination of Sinti and Roma resulting in deaths of more than 500,000
Sinti and Roma could hardly be summarized as “marginal” and “not politically
motivated.”24 It certainly was not due to the lack of antiziganism that the persecution of
Sinti and Roma before and during the Holocaust “did not become a central subject in
post-1945 German political culture until the 1980s.” Contrary to Margalit (and an array
of similar authors), I argue that post-war attitudes towards Sinti and Roma, exemplified
by the absence of a single Sinti and Roma witness at the Nuremberg trial, the fact that no
reparation monies were paid, or the denial, well into the 1980s, of their genocide in the
Holocaust, are centered around the construct “Gypsy”. By supporting the unchanging and
unchallenged nature of this construct, Margalit’s writing furthers this particular
discrimination of Sinti and Roma. Surely, the approach of non-Gypsies towards Gypsies
was adjusted to the spirit of the era, but the belief in the Gypsy essence, and the
prejudiced vision inherent in such a viewpoint, remained the same.
In his analysis of the history of madness, Madness and Civilization
25, Michel
Foucault reminds readers that in order to understand the relationship between the sane
and insane in any given epoch one must begin to examine the silence, what has not been
said about the changing treatment of those labeled as the insane. The belief in a particular
and anomalous essence of the insane, which makes them ontologically different than
those categorized as the sane, supports the further belief in a permanent essence of being,
and in this case, radically different and possibly dangerous. The idea that there could be
23 “Von einem ungebundenen, freien Wanderleben konnte unter diesen Bedingungen keine Rede
sein…” (80).
24 “Antigypsyism in the Political Culture of the Federal Republic of Germany: A Parallel with
Antisemitism?”, p. 2 (“Racist antigypsyism began in Germany only in the late decades of the
nineteenth century and existed on the margins of racist antisemitism. In contrast to the latter,
however, racist antigypsism had no political character. Furthermore, the racist preoccupation with
the Romanies in Germany, as in England, was not solely negative”; emphasis added).
25 Foucault, Michel. Madness and Civilization. trans. Richard Howard. New York: Pantheon,
1965. p. 3-37 (especially 6 and 7), 66-7, 211 (fear of madness).
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 60
an irredeemable Gypsy essence, or what Slavoj Žižek terms the “real kernel”26, that could
be qualitatively assessed, led to Sinti and Roma’s extermination in the Holocaust.
In summary, as only some Sinti and Roma identify with “mobility” and non-wage
labor, it is antiziganistic to characterize an entire group as inherently and uniformly
nomadic and communal, particularly due to the generalized, culturally assigned anti-
Gypsy connotations that such descriptions generate. The celebrated Gypsy innocence and
worry-free lifestyle are presumably what makes them Gypsies. They all dance, sing, play
music, and have strong communal relations. The persistence of the belief that all Gypsies
create and remain in close-knit communities has had certain detrimental effects, one
example of which is the common belief in high rates of incest among Gypsies. Certainly
it is not Sinti and Roma’s alleged racial inferiority or general inability that pigeonholes
them in the role of wedding musicians and traveling salesmen. Instead, a revision and
careful evaluation of the autonomy of expression and the necessity of the space for such
exhibition is needed. Often forced to be on the move, Sinti and Roma frequently did not
have access to education or public life in the past. The children of those Sinti and Roma
who would permanently settle in an area faced continued persecution in schools and
communities, and the adult Sinti and Roma were often performing menial services for
those in power and with prominent positions. Pointing to the paradigm and the
predicament of subaltern women, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, in her article “Can the
Subaltern Speak?”27, asserts that at the crux of the problem is not merely speaking,
having nothing to say or that no accounts of the subject-consciousness of women exist,
but that she is allocated no position of utterance. Appropriating Spivak’s gender-centered
critique, it could be said that by ignoring the efforts and achievements of hundreds of
organizations and people working for the rights of Sinti and Roma, such as European
Roma Rights Center, Roma National Congress, Helsinki Citizen’s Assembly, Roma
Section, Union Romani, Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma, Dokumentations-und
Kulturzentrum Deutscher Sinti und Roma, Romani Rose, Wilhelm Spindler, Anton
Franz, William Duna, and Ian Hancock, to name a few, authors curtail the impact the
26 Žižek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object of Ideology. London and New York: Verso, 1989.
27 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Can the Subaltern Speak?”. Cary Nelson and Lawrence
Grossberg, eds. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana and Chicago: University of
Illinois Press, 1988. p. 294-297.
Nebula3.4, December 2006
Hadziavdic: Images of Gypsies… 61
Roma advocates have had in exposing biased trends and practices towards Sinti and
Roma.

Historical and Ethnographic Backgraund: Gypsies, Roma, Sinti


Historical and Ethnographic Backgraund: Gypsies, Roma, Sinti (PDF file)

Marushiakova, E., Popov, V. "Historical and Ethnographic Backgraund. Gypsies,
Roma, Sinti." - In: Guy, W. (Ed.) Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and
Eastern Europe. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001, 33-53. [Updated]

Historical and Ethnographic Backgraund:
Gypsies, Roma, Sinti


The region of Central and Eastern Europe, as described there, includes the countries
from the former socialist block - the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary,
Rumania, Bulgaria, Albania, as well as the new states which have emerged from
former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, Slovenia), and the Soviet Union (the European part – Russiaan Federation,
the Ukraine, Moldova, Belorussia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia).
Before the changes in 1989-1990, the name "Roma" was used as an endonyme
(an internal community self-appellation) in the countries of Central and Eastern
Europe (except for former Yugoslavia). This name was not widely popular and did
not have an official status. In order to be faithful to the historical principle we use the
word Roma only for the period after 1989. In all other instances we use the term
"Gypsies".
We think that "Gypsies" is wider in scope than "Roma" and we also use it to
include the Gypsy communities who are not Roma or who are considered to be
“Gypsies” by the surrounding population but they do not wish to be considered as
such and preferred various others identities.
The Number of Gypsies in the Central and Eastern Europe
Nobody knows exactly how many Gypsies are living in the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe. There are no reliable statistical and demographic data about the
distribution of the Gypsies and their respective internal subdivisions in each Central
and Eastern Europe country. There is only a significant amount of imprecise and
fluctuating data. So far no model has been created for possible data verification, it is
only possible to combine data from different censes with personal observation and
subject them to critical analysis, but the results of this approach are only approximate.
The problem is a complex one and touches upon the problems of preferred
ethnic awareness (the deliberate or genuine show of another, non-Roma identity) of
many Gypsy groups in these countries who do not want to be considered as Roma,
others do not wish to declare their ethnic identity for fear of repressions, still others
often cannot understand the questionnaires, and often the censes are performed by
people who consciously or unconsciously change the information obtained.
We would say that the official statistical censuses reflect about one-third of the
real number of Gypsies in each country. In some instances the discrepancies can be
even more drastic. We can give a number of relevant examples, such as the fact that
during the census in the Czech Republic in 1991 32 903 people declared themselves
as Roma, while experts estimate that their number is about 10 times higher.
According to data of the National Institute of Statistics of Slovakia the number of
Roma in 1999 is 83 988 while experts estimate that it is about 500 000. In the 1992
census in Romania 401 087 people declared themselves as Gypsies while different
estimates give their number as varying between 800 000 and 1 500 000, and some
think that it can even be 2 500 000. In the 1992 census in Bulgaria 313 396 people
declared themselves as Gypsies while according to the unofficial census of the
Internal Ministry their number is between 500 and 600 thousand, according to expert
estimations the number is 700-800 000, and according to the statements of Roma
leaders it exceeds one million. In the 1981 census in Yugoslavia 1471 people declared
themselves as Gypsies in the Republic of Montenegro while in the 1991 census no
one declared himself as a Gypsy.
Similar examples can be cited for other East and Central European countries
as well, but even without them it is clear that numbers cannot be precise and allinclusive.
There are different expert estimations on the number of Gypsies in each
country and the region as a whole. For the whole region the minimal number obtained
from national censuses is 1 500 000. The maximum number from different
estimations (including estimation of Roma leaders) is about 6 300 000.
On the whole was can only summarise the fact that the Gypsy population in
each country of the region is different in numbers - in some of them (Bulgaria,
Rumania, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic) they are 5-10 % while in others
(the countries of the former Soviet Union) they are less than 1 %.
In order to understand the historical destiny, the ethno-social structure and
ethno-cultural features and contemporary problems of the Gypsies in the Central and
Eastern Europe countries, we have to consider the following two circumstances:
1. Gypsies are a specific ethnic community, an "intergroup ethnic community"
which has no analogue in the other nations of Europe. The Gypsy community is
divided into a number of separate (and sometimes even opposed to one another)
groups, subgroups and metagroup units with their own ethnic and cultural features,
and often their problems are completely different in nature and thus not susceptible to
generalizations.
2. The past centuries of cultural and historical context of Gypsy life as well as
the contemporary social, economic and political situation in the different countries are
extremely important. The region has a complex historical destiny and the present day
situation differs from one country to another, all of them reflecting powerfully on
contemporary Gypsy life. Therefore all analysis of the Gypsy situation must always
be differentiated according to the specifics of each country (or group of countries).
For lack of space we will present only briefly the scheme of the overall picture
of Central and East European Roma. Since the Sinti in this region are too few in
number, only a few families in certain countries (Russia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia), we will speak mostly about the Roma without the need
of making a special distinction between them and other Gypsies.
Here we will try to explain both the complex subdivisions of Roma and also
their historical experience which has played such an important part not only in
moulding group perceptions of their own identity but also in determining of their fate.
Gypsies in the history of the region and their internal structure
The Gypsies constitute a specific ethnic community within South Eastern Europe. The
first evidence of the presence of Gypsies in Europe is on the territory of the Byzantine
Empire. The large-scale settlement of Gypsies in Balkan lands can be traced back
approximately to the period of 11th - 13th c., some earlier contacts are also possible
(some authors are inclined to think that Gypsy presence in these lands began in the
9th century). Numerous historical sources have recorded the Gypsy presence in
Byzantium, their entry into Serbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia and Moldova. In the 14th and
15th c. Gypsies gradually penetrated the other countries of Europe and in the 16th and
17th centuries quite a large number of Gypsies were settled permanently in Central
and Eastern Europe and feeling the impact of the surrounding social and political
environment.
The picture of Gypsy presence in Central and Eastern Europe changed with
each change in state borders followed by an exchange of Gypsy groups from
neighbouring countries. This situation was also influenced by the mass Gypsy
migrations during the different periods of history. The most important historical
migrations in modern times are:
- The end of slavery in Wallachia and Moldova and the following scattering of
Gypsies all over the world, known as the "great Kelderara invasion" (the second half
of 19th to the first half of 20th c.);
- The open borders of former Tito Yugoslavia, which led to the "Yugoslavian
wave" of Gypsy migrations of the 60's and 70's of 20th c.;
- The end of the so called socialist period in the countries of Central and
Eastern Europe and the subsequent changes leading to the "third wave" of Gypsy
migrations from the beginning of the 90's, also including Roma refugees from former
Yugoslavia in recent years (at first mainly from Bosnia and Herzegovina, and now
from Kosovo as well).
The internal migrations within countries are another influential factor. For
example, after W.W. II Gypsies from Eastern Poland moved to the newly added
Western territories in large numbers, at the same time Gypsies from Eastern Slovakia
were moving to the Czech territories which have been vacated by the German
population, and later (including during the separation of the Czech Republic and
Slovakia) they moved to the industrial areas. Within Yugoslavia Kosovo Gypsies
settled in the richer regions of Serbia, Croatia and Slovenia as early as the 60’s and
70’s,and this process has become more active with the disintegration of Yugoslavia.
Gypsies community (or communities) in Central and Eastern Europe can be
classified on the basis of various criteria such as their language, lifestyle, boundaries
of endogamy, professional specialization, time of settlement in the respective country,
etc. All these criteria reflect on Roma self-consciousness and identity, and give the
complete picture of the present state of Roma community. This is by no means a static
picture, it used to be different and will yet be different in other periods of history.
Gypsies have been settled for centuries on the Balkans (in our case specifically
in the countries of former Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania). The Gypsy
communities who speak the Romani dialects of the Balkan dialect group are the oldest
Gypsy settlers on the Balkans, and the Gypsies speaking the dialects of the Old Vlax
(or South Vlax) dialect group are the descendants of a big wave of migration from
Wallachia and Moldova, who scattered in mass all over the Balkan Peninsula in the
17th and 18th centuries. The Balkans have a relatively well-preserved variety of the
different groups and metagroup communities who practice Islam or Christianity.
Some of them converted from one religion to the other in different periods of history.
The most general distinction between these communities is the distinction between
Muslims (Xoraxane Roma) and Christians (Dasikane Roma), who are divided into
more or less autonomous groups within each community. The groups are
differentiated at various hierarchical levels (i.e. the lead in Roma identity structure
can be on the level of the two major subdivisions or on the level of separate
subdivisions).
Examples for such subdivisions differentiated on various levels according to
various features are:
Among Balkan dialect group - the Arlia, Kovači, Tamari, Slovenska Roma,
Dolenska Roma, etc. in the countries of former Yugoslavia, Erlia, Burgudži, Futadži,
Fičiri, Drindari, Kalajdži, Košničari, etc. in Bulgaria, Arlia, Mečkara, etc. in Albania.
Among South Vlax – the Gurbeti, Džambazi, Bugurdži, Crnogorska Čergarja,
Bosnenska Čergarja, Kaloperi, etc. in the countries of former Yugoslavia; Džambazi,
‘Thracian’ Kalajdži, Vlaxorja (Vlaxički, Laxo), etc. in Bulgaria; Kaburdži, Kurtofi,
Čergara, etc. in Albania.
A relatively smaller number of Gypsies belong to groups who penetrate these
lands primarily at the time of the Great Kelderara invasion and who speak the
Romanes of the New Vlax (or North Vlax) dialect group. Today they live primarily in
Bulgaria and Serbia. This community is most often generalised as Kardaraša/
Kaldaraša, in some places also as Laješa or Katunari [i.e. Nomads]. A very popular
self-appellation is Rrom Ciganjaka (meaning “true Gypsies”). There are in-group /
subgroup subdivisions within this group (such are for example Zlatari, Tasmanari,
Žapleš, Dodolania, Lajneš, Njamcoria in Bulgaria), and their family and kinship
subdivisions.
The numerous community of Rudara/Ludara or Baňjaši/Bajaši inhabits the
whole Balkan Peninsula. They are also called Kopanari [cradle-makers], Koritari
[trough-makers], Vlasi [Wallachians], Karavlasi [black Wallachians], etc. by the
surrounding population. The Rudari in Bulgaria have preserved a certain extent of
intergroup subdivisions based on professional features, (such as Lingurari [spoonmakers],
Ursari or Mečkari [bear-trainers], and on regional features (e.g. Monteni,
Istreni, Thracieni, etc.). Instead of Romanes they speak their own dialect of
Rumanian.
The Rudara belong to that part of Gypsies on the Balkans, who have forgotten
their mother tongue and some other ethnic and cultural characteristics and tend to
change their ethnic identity - they are bearers of the phenomenon of "preferred ethnic
awareness". The Rudara often present themselves as true Vlaxs, old Rumanians.
Some of them are undergoing a process of searching for their own (non-Rumanian
and non-Roma) identity.
Other numerous Muslim Gypsy communities are also undergoing processes of
identity change. Most of them speak Turkish or are bilingual (using both Turkish and
Romanes) and pretend to be Turks - mostly in Bulgaria and in Eastern Macedonia. In
other instances the preferred community is the Albanian one in Kosovo and Western
Macedonia. With preferred Albanian identity are also part of the Albanian speaking
Aškali in ex-Yugoslavia. Similar in content though with different manifestations are
the processes of accepting the identity of the surrounding population, such as in the
groups of the so-called Džorevci [mules] in Bulgaria or Gjorgjovci in Serbia.
The processes of searching for and demonstrating of a different, non-Roma
identity acquire qualitatively new shapes for the Egjupti in Kosovo, Macedonia and
Serbia, as well as the Jevgi in Albania, who tend to present themselves as Egyptians
and insist to be recognised as an Egyptian minority. Recently similar processes of
search of the new, own, non-Gypsy identity could be observed among Aškalia in
Kosovo as well.
In Rumania the mosaic of Gypsy groups is also rather diverse and has not been
studied completely yet.
To a great extent this mosaic is determined by the division of the Gypsies in
different categories during their period of slavery in the Danubian principalities
(Wallachia and Moldova). With time the ancestors of the Vatraši category (from
“vatra” - fireplace, i.e. settled, domestic slaves), called also “kherutno” (i.e. those who
lives in houses) have lost their group distinctions and have become the big metagroup
community with partially preserved regional or professional specifics. Most of them
are only Rumanian speaking and many of them demonstrate preferred Rumanian
identity. Only small part of them speak Romanes as well.
Relatively preserved are the other groups, most of whom are descendants of
the Lejaša category. They used to be nomads and paid an annual tax to their hosts (the
prince, boyars, or monasteries). Such relatively well-preserved groups and subgroups
in Rumania (Wallachia, Moldova and the later on annexed territories of Transylvania,
Banat, Maramuresh, Dobrudzha) are Kăldărari, Zlatari, Čurari, Gabori, Kazandžii,
Aržentari, Korbeni, Modorani, Tismanari, etc. belongin to the North Vlax Dialect
group and Ursari, Spoitori, who are linguistically classified to the Balkan dialect
group) and others. The Rumanian speaking Rudari (or Aurari) also are a large
community who also used to have a special status at the time of slavery, and only
small part of them have preserved their own language (speak Romanes as well). In
Dobrudzha there are Turkish or Tatar speaking Muslim Gypsies with the respective
preferred identity. Transylvania is the home of a significant number of Romani
speaking Rumungri (Roma Ungrika) who are internally differentiated according to the
regions and speak Carpathian ir Central Dialekt of Romanes, and Hungarian speaking
Rumungri with preferred Hungarian identity.
In Central Europe the variety of Gypsy groups is relatively smaller than the
one on the Balkans and in Rumania. In Slovakia more than two-thirds of the Gypsy
population have been settled for centuries, mostly Slovenska (Slovak) Roma (divided
into Servika Roma and Bergitka Roma), speaking Carpathian dialects of Romanes and
Ungrika Roma or Rumungri, most of whom speak only Hungarian, and some of
whom have a preferred Hungarian identity. This is also the home of Vlašika or Olah
(Wallachian) Roma (their number there is less) from different subdivisions - Lovara,
Bougešti, Drizdari and others. The Vlašika Roma are former nomads, representatives
of a wave of Kelderara invasion, who have preserved their north-Vlax dialects of
Romanes, related to Kalderara/Kalderaša on the Balkans. Small communities of
Rumanian speaking Bajaši or Koritari, who are related to Rudara on the Balkans and
Bojaš in Hungary, are settled in Eastern Slovakia.
The situation in the Czech Republic mirrors the situation in Slovakia because
during the Second World War the local Czech and Moravian Roma and Sinti were
almost entirely annihilated in Nazi concentration camps. Only a few families of Czech
and Moravian Gypsies have survived the Holocaust. Most of them have lost the
language and most elements of their ethnic culture. After W.W. II the country was
repopulated by Gypsies who came from Slovakia (primarily from the region of
Eastern Slovakia).
In Hungary predominant are the settled Rumungri who have forgotten their
mother tongue and a considerable part of their ethnic and cultural characteristics. One
may also encounter Romani speaking groups of Rumungri, though they are less
numerous (mostly in Eastern Hungary), as well as an insignificant presence of
Slovenska Roma. Lesser in number are the Vlašika Roma or Olah Gypsies with
internal subdivisions into Lovari, Kelderari, Čurari, Drizari, Posotari, Kherara,
Čerhara, Khangliari, Colari, Mašari, Bugara and others. The community of
Rumanian speaking Bojaša (the analogue of the Rudara on the Balkans) also live in
Hungary. Their subdivisions are Ardelan, Muntian, Titian, etc.. Among some of them
there is an on-going process of development of Roma identity.
Poland is a country with a relatively smaller number of Gypsy population. In
the regions which used to be parts of the former Russian Empire live the Polska
(Polish) Roma, former nomads who are now scattered all over Poland. Their
community includes also the so called Xaladitka (or Ruska) Roma bordering the
former Soviet Union, as well as their relatives Sasitka (German) Roma near the border
with former Prussia. Bergitka Roma, who have been sedentary for centuries, live
along the Polish-Slovak border, and the groups related to them live on the other side
of the border. Some Kelderara and Lovara are scattered throughout the country. In
Poland in recent years there are a lot of Rumanian Roma (who have come mostly
from Transylvania) who are now more numerous than the local Roma.
Related Gypsy communities are predominant in the European countries of the
former Soviet Union. Their distinction is not particularly strict and it is often
determined by their historical destiny. The biggest among them is the community of
the Orthodox Xaladitka or Ruska (Russian) Roma with their territorial subgroup
subdivisions such as Vešitka, Smoljaki, Piterska Roma, Bobri, Uralci, Toboljaki etc.
Closely related to them are the Polska Roma (also called Xaladitka Roma) in
Lithuania, and Litovska [Lithuanian] Roma in Lithuania and Belarus (with various
subdivisions - Beni, Fandari, Lipenci, Pinčuki and others), most of whom are
Catholics. They are also related to the Lotfika (Latvian) Roma (called sometimes also
Čuxni, i.e. Finns) living in Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia and having their territorial
subdivisions such as Kurzemnjeki, Vidzemnjeki and Laloro (Estonian Gypsies), who
are Lutherans.
Next in numbers is the Gypsy community of the so-called Ukrainian Roma
with self-appellation Servi/Servuria, whose dialects are defined by some linguists as
proto-Vlax. They settled in Eastern Ukraine and the Southern parts of Russia as early
as the middle of the 16th century migrating from Wallachia and Moldova. Now they
are scattered all over Russia.
Relatively numerous are the Gypsy communities who are representatives of
the Balkan dialect groups who migrated from the Balkan peninsula in the 18th c.
These are the Ursara in Moldova and South Ukraine. Related to them linguistically
are the Kırımıtika/Kırımlıtka Roma or Krimurja (Crimean Gypsies), living in the
Crimea, South Ukraine, South Russia and Northern Caucases. They have a number of
subgroup and clan subdivisions - Čornomorludes, Kubanludes, Gezlevludes,
Barginja, Ariki, etc. The Community of Dajfa/Tajfa in Crimea, who are today
Tatarian speaking, come to these territories probably also from Balkans or Asia Minor
in times of Ottoman empire.
A considerable number of representatives of the north-Vlax dialect groups live
in those lands too, such as Vlaxi/Vlaxuria, smaller communities of Kišinjovcuria or
Kišinjovci live in Ukraine and Russia too and Čokenaria and Katunaria in Moldova.
The communities of Kelderara (with preserved internal subdivisions, such as Vungri,
Serbiaja, Bugari, Moldovaja, Dobrožaja, Grekuria, etc.) and Lovara (with subgroup
subdivisions Ungri, Prajzura and others), who arrived in Russia mainly through the
territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, are scattered in small family and kinship
groups throughout the former Soviet Union.
The Servika Roma and Rumungri settled in the Transcarpathian Ukraine long
time ago. Some of Rumungri are Hungarian speaking. Rumanian speaking Gypsies
(Besarabci, Lingurara, Vlaxija and others) are also living in Moldova, the Ukraine
and Russia.
Besides the Sinti (from the subdivisions of Prajzi, Pojaki and Esterxaria) other
non-Roma Gypsies are also living in the countries of the former Soviet Union.
Armenian speaking Boša as well as individual families of Asian Gypsies Karači from
Azerbaidjan can be seen today mainly in the bigger cities of the former Union. In
recent time a mass labour migration towards Russian cities of Gypsy-like groups
called Ljuli, self-appelation Muġat, from Central Asia is observed.
The internal subdivision of the Gypsies can explain the seemingly
contradictory facts. Some of these subdivisions, such as the Rumungri in Central
Europe, have lost their language and their ethnic culture and Roma identity to a great
extent and many among them are socially marginalised, while other subdivisions have
preserved their language and traditional ethnic culture quite well, including the
internal self-government institutions (such as Kris of Olah Gypsies in Central Europe,
Mešariava of Kardaraša in Bulgaria, Davija of the Krimurja in Crimea,
Sendo/Sjondo/Sudo of the Ruska/Polska Roma). These differences inevitably reflect
on the way of life. For example, the Roma in Southern Poland live in separate villages
and have acute social and economic problems, while in the rest of the country Roma
are scattered among the surrounding population, they are considered wealthy and their
problems are of an entirely different nature; why we observe the existence of "Gypsy
ghettos" in some Bulgarian cities where people live on the brink of human existence,
while only a few kilometers away, in some Bulgarian villages and small towns, the
biggest house belongs to a Roma family who are the richest people.
The internal subdivision of the Gypsies reflects in their group, subgroup and
preferred identity. Parallel with this the most of the Gypsies in Central and Eastern
Europe have established a qualitatively different new level in the complex structure of
their community identity. This is the feeling of belonging to the nations in each
respective country (variants of this feeling are the examples of adherence to the ideas
of Yugoslavism, Czechoslovakism or the united nations of the Soviet Union, the socalled
Soviet Nation). The presence of such a level in the structure of their identity as
a result of attaining of a certain level in the development of their civic awareness
seems somewhat paradoxical as compared to the Gypsies in Western Europe and the
US. However, this fact becomes easily accounted for in the light of the turns of their
historical destiny and their belonging in the social life of the countries and regions
where they have been settled for a long time and have felt the impact of different
types of policies. This reflects on their relations with the surrounding population and
the internal development of their ethnic community.
The models of the policy towards Gypsies
The ethnic and cultural specifics of the Gypsy communities, as well as the models of
attitude towards them by the authorities and the surrounding population, were formed
within state formations where the Gypsies lived after their arrival in Europe - in the
Byzantine Empire at first and then in its heir, the Ottoman Empire for those Gypsies
who remained on the Balkan peninsula. The Austro-Hungarian Empire and the
Russian Empire became the homes of those Gypsies who continued their migration.
The situation of the Gypsies who remained in the principalities of Wallachia and
Moldova (relatively autonomous ones, though with a nominally vassal status in
respect of the Ottoman Empire) is more specific. The situation of the Gypsies in these
historical state and political formations throws some light on the origin of their
inequalities and their different status in the Central and Eastern Europe states which
later emerged on their basis.
There is a wealth of historical information about Gypsy presence in Balkan
lands during the period of the Ottoman Empire. A great number of Gypsies came to
the Balkans together with the Ottomans (14th c.) either as participants (serving the
army) or as accompanying population. The issue of the civil status of Gypsies in the
Ottoman Empire is a rather complicated one as Gypsies had a special place in the
overall social and administrative organization of the Empire. Despite the populational
division into two main categories (the faithful vs. gentiles), Gypsies had their own,
rather specific dual status outside these two categories. Gypsies were differentiated
according to the ethnic principle (something quite unusual for the Ottoman Empire)
with no sharp distinction between Muslim and Christian Gypsies (for tax and social
status purposes). As a whole Gypsies were actually closer to the subordinated local
population, with the exception of some minor privileges for Muslim Gypsies (Gypsies
who worked for the army were more privileged). Nevertheless, Gypsies were able to
preserve a number of ethnic and cultural characteristics such as nomadic lifestyle,
some traditional occupations, etc. Processes of their sedentarization in towns and
villages were active. As early as the 15th c. there were settled Gypsies on the Balkans
who did agricultural work in the villages and unqualified work and services in the
towns. A new type of semi-nomadic lifestyle emerged as well (Gypsies with a winter
residence and an active nomadic season within regional boundaries). Most certainly,
these processes did not include all Gypsies, nevertheless they were very active. A
large part of the Gypsies on the Balkans live predominantly in ethnic neighbourhoods,
which originated as a pattern of settlements in as early as the days of the Ottoman
Empire and created a specific Balkan Roma ethnic culture.
The Gypsy groups on the territory of the Austro-Hungarian Empire felt the
powerful influence of the period of Enlightenment when the attempts to integrate
them in the macrosociety started. The main aim of the state policy at the time was to
transform Gypsies from predominantly nomadic people with no civil status into
settled, tax-paying, equal subjects of the Empire. We have to note the importance of
the decrees of Empress Marie-Therese from 1761 and 1767 and the decree of
Emperor Joseph II from 1783, which were the beginning of the so-called "new policy"
towards Gypsies. The purpose of this policy was to make Gypsies (the very name
"Gypsies" was forbidden and replaced with "new peasants", and "new Hungarians" on
Hungarian territory) abandon their nomadic way of life for a permanently settled
agricultural one; they were no longer allowed to speak their language and were
obliged to dress like the surrounding population; Gypsies received new non-Gypsy
names, they were granted rights and the respective responsibilities before the law,
including the responsibility to pay taxes; state and religious education were made
compulsory for Gypsy children, they had to be separated from their parents at the age
of four, no longer to maintain any relations with their parents, to be brought up in
peasant families, and after the age of 10 to be enrolled in state schools to learn trades,
etc. The ultimate goal of the logical sequence of measures was the annihilation of the
Gypsy community as such and the complete assimilation of the Gypsies. The final
results of this policy, however, were considerably different from the outlined goals
and their consequences are now manifest in the countries which emerged from the
Empire - the formation of separate Gypsy settlements outside populated areas (called
kolonia in Hungary, osada in Slovakia and Poland, tabor in Transcarpathean
Ukraine), loss of mother tongue and basic ethnic and cultural characteristics of most
Gypsies in Hungary and the Slovak Republic.
The situation of the Gypsies in the Russian Empire is quite different. There
they usually were not the targets of special attention and stayed out of the reach of
state politics, except for some inconsistent attempts in the 18th and 19th c. to apply
Austrian-Hungarian legislature to Gypsies (ban on nomadic life, compulsory
sedentarisation in the villages, denied access to the big cities, etc.). However, these
attempts failed, such as the failure to build special Gypsy villages in Bessarabia; the
ban on nomadic life turned out to be inapplicable in the vast territories of the Russian
Empire, and others. After a short time the authorities themselves ceased any Gypsyoriented
activities. The lack of a consistent Gypsy oriented policy and the relatively
small number of Gypsies as compared to the total population of the empire to a great
extent were the reasons for the preservation of their community identity and ethnic
culture. Until the end of the Russian Empire most Gypsies lived as nomads or seminomads,
scattered all over the vast territory of the empire, except the Gypsy musicians
in the big towns or the settled Gypsies in certain regions (such as the Crimea and
Bessarabia).
Gypsies were given slave status soon after settling in the Danubian
principalities of Wallachia and Moldova. There they were divided into several
categories: slaves of the crown, of the monasteries and of the boyars, as well as the
already mentioned distinction into Vatraši or domestic slaves (mostly of boyars or
monasteries), and Lajaši (mostly slaves of the crown). The latter were nomads who
were relieved of compulsory settlement after paying an annual ransom and allowed to
be nomads and exercise their traditional occupations. Gypsy groups belonging to this
category preserved their active or latent nomadic attitudes and thus became a source
of migration waves until modern times. Many Gypsies from the principalities
emigrated to the Ottoman Empire as early as the 17th and 18th c. The so-called "big
Kelderara invasion" began as a result of social and economical changes in modern
times and it peak was after the abolition of Gypsy slavery in Wallachia and Moldova
in the wake of the Crimean war. It led to new waves of Gypsy groups coming to
Europe in the second half of the 19th c. which changed the inter-ethnic stratification
of the Gypsy community in Central and Eastern Europe.
The above description outlines the historical formation of the basic patterns of
development of the Gypsy community and the attitudes of the macrosociety, including
the special politics of state institutions in Central and Eastern Europe towards it. Here
we can distinguish several basic patterns - the pattern of the Austro-Hungarian Empire
(in countries of the contemporary Czech republic, Slovakia, Hungary, parts of
Rumania and Poland), the pattern of the Ottoman Empire (Bulgaria, Macedonia,
Albania, Serbia and Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina), of the Russian Empire
(Russia, the Ukraine, Belorussia, the Baltic countries, parts of Poland) and the unique
specifics of Wallachia and Moldova (a result of the specific slavery of the Gypsies).
These cultural and historical patterns are extremely resilient in the present day
conditions.
These patterns can be characterized in the following manner:
1. Ottoman Empire pattern: preserved civil status of the Gypsies, which,
however, is lower than that of the surrounding population. The ultimate goal of the
pattern is status quo, with open possibilities for voluntary assimilation.
2. Austro-Hungarian pattern: patronage, strong state interference in Gypsy life,
purposeful policy of the so-called "civilizing attitude" and others. The ultimate goal of
the pattern is complete forceful assimilation.
3. Russian Empire pattern: non-interference in the internal life of Gypsies and
lack of any consistent policy for their integration.
Certainly, these patterns are not absolutely pure in themselves, they occur in
different variants which are specific for each and every country in Central and Eastern
Europe, for some countries in particular (such as Croatia) or regions (such as
Transcarpathian Ukraine), which, due to changes in state borders, were included in
different cultural and historical regions in the different historical periods. Rumania,
whose present day territory includes the former principalities of Wallachia and
Moldova and parts of all the three big empires (Transylvania, Dobrudzha, Bukovina),
is another specific case.
These basic patterns had a considerable influence on the state policy of the
new ethnic and national states in Central and Eastern Europe, which emerged in the
19th and 20th c. There they were viewed through the lens of new state nationalism of
the Central and Eastern Europe countries and Gypsies in general were considered to
be a relatively less important problem compared to the implementation of the major
"national ideals", i.e. the governments of these countries did not regard having a
special "Gypsy policy" as their priority and this policy was always subordinate to the
major national ideas and priorities (for example, the Gypsy policy in Bulgaria has
always been determined by the predominant attitude towards the Turks; in Slovakia
by the attitude towards the Hungarian minority; in Hungary the determining factor is
the attitude towards the Hungarian minorities outside of Hungary, etc.).
In the region of Central and Eastern Europe we can distinguish two basic
patterns of the relations of the surrounding population and its institution (the
corresponding states) towards Roma:
- "Traditional" pattern, typical for the preindustrial age. This pattern has
diverse manifestations in particular cultural and historical regions. There the Gypsies,
though "alien" as a category and according to their detached status, determined by
ruling world-perception schemes of the period, are an inseparable part of the society
and the common cultural environment, with their own place in it. The Gypsies are not
perceived as an integral (let alone equal) part of the macrosociety and they do not
have any particular problems, since “they know their place” and do not aspire to
change it. This explains to a great extent why the Gypsies today constitute a relatively
high percentage of the population of a number of countries or regions, especially on
the Balkans (including Wallachia and Moldova) where the social structures and preindustrial
patterns are more or less preserved, unlike the destiny of their brothers and
sisters in Western Europe.
- "National" pattern, appeared in the beginning of the Enlightenment and
gradually became dominant in the era of modern national states (including the socalled
◊socialist era”). The attitudes towards the Gypsies in this era are subordinated
to the idea of the ethno-national state, they are considered a threat a priori (most often
a potential one). This is the source of the general attitude towards them as humans of
a second rate category, whose only perspective is to be "integrated", i.e. annihilated as
a distinctive community and finally - assimilated completely (or in specific historical
periods of time physical annihilated). The Gypsies living in these conditions are
influenced by the processes of change in the macrosociety and are trying to change
their social status, to seek ways for their total emancipation as a community within the
respective ethnic nation. This Gypsy reaction encounters the counteraction (in various
forms) of the society and the state institutions. These processes are still active today,
especially in some countries or regions of Central and Eastern Europe, where the
processes of national (and respectively state) development are far from being
completed.
The development of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and their
"Gypsy policy" was influenced by the political order, which existed in the near past,
more specifically the "socialist era". The politics of the socialist countries regarding
the Gypsies were to a great extent similar and coordinated. The best example is the
forced sedentarisation - in 1956 the Soviet Union issued a sedentarisation decree, in
1958-9 it was repeated in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Poland (where the
process of sedentarisation was prolonged and a new special law for mandatory
residence was passed in 1964). In Rumania, Yugoslavia and Albania the processes of
mandatory sedentarisation took place a little later, in the 60's and 70's, due to the
specifics of their history. The implementation of the decree in each country followed a
different route - for example in Czechoslovakia the authorities made the nomads stop
traveling in the place they were when the decree was issued and the authorities
determined where and how they were to settle, while in Bulgaria the Gypsies were
moving from one place to another in search of more comfortable villages until the end
of the 70's.
Roma in the socialist countries did not have a status equal to that of the other
minorities. On the basis of Marx's and Lenin's definition of the hierarchical
development of human societies - tribe, nationality, nation - the "Gypsies" were
thought to be a community still below the level of required development which could
not be considered as a nationality, even less a nation. And since they had no country,
they were only regarded as an ethnic group and thus were deprived of the rights of
some minorities who were recognized as nationalities.
There is a short initial period of encouraging the development of Gypsy ethnic
community and culture in all socialist countries, followed by prohibitions and
restrictions which were more thorough in some countries (Rumania, Bulgaria), while
in others (the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Hungary) the ostentatious presentation of
selected cultural elements still remained (mostly music and dances). Some socialist
countries occasionally encouraged the creation of "Gypsy cultural and educational
organizations" which were later dissolved and their active members often persecuted.
A resistance to the ethnic and cultural specifics of the Gypsies, which were then
proclaimed a capitalist relic, was gradually becoming universal in the region. Because
of the considerable number of Gypsies in most countries (except Russia and Poland),
they were regarded as a demographic threat, a population with high birthrate who
could destroy the ethnic balance of the surrounding population.
A general trend was the attempt to make Gypsies equal citizens of their
countries and if successful, the attempt was expected to bring about the desired
complete assimilation in the future. In each country of the region this attempt had
specific forms of realization. The traditions inherited from earlier periods determined
the subtle nuances in the policy of "enforced assimilation" in each region and its
consequences for the present day status of Roma in these countries. In the countries of
former Austro-Hungary "Gypsies" were regarded as a social problem first and
foremost and the policy regarding Roma was mostly one of patronage, while in the
other countries the "Gypsy" related problems were of primarily ethnic character, with
a touch of religion on the Balkans.
After the changes in Central and Eastern Europe the specialised Gypsy state
policy (including the lack or imitation of one) remained mostly within the parameters
of the specific cultural and historical region. The changes in the ideological
foundations of this policy (for example the recent exchange of the concept of socialist
internationalism with the concept of civil society) did not bring any tangible changes
in the attitude of the macrosociety towards the Gypsies and in the main emphasis of
the state Gypsy policy. In this respect the centuries old historical patterns of attitude
towards Gypsies (both of the society and the state) turned out to be quite resilient in
Central and Eastern Europe without any particular hope for change in the foreseeable
future.
Trends in the development of the Roma community
The Roma in Central and Eastern Europe, however, should not be perceived only as a
passive object of experiments of social engineering throughout the different periods of
history. The numerous and diverse influences (economic, political, ideological and
others) of the macrosociety where the Roma live, did have an imprint on the
development of their community. This development is uneven, multi-directional,
sometimes even contradictory, but it has three main trends, which are related to each
other and influence one another.
1) Internal development of the community. This is an inherent trend in
community development. The Roma community, like any other community, is not a
static formation - either in terms of its ethno-social structure or in terms of its ethnosocial
features. Its internal evolution leads to ongoing major changes in its overall
structure - subgroup subdivisions are established from which new Roma groups arise;
at the same time there are active processes of obliteration of internal group distinction
and emergence of metagroup unity of different hierarchical ranges. This
contemporary development of the Roma community, after the fall of the old empires
and the emergence of new states in Central and Eastern Europe in 19th and 20th c., is
to a great extent limited within their own boundaries which leads to the emergence of
the above mentioned new level of Romani identity (within the respective nation).
2) Development of the community as part of the respective nation. This is a
relatively new process typical of the new era. It was first manifested in the end of the
19th c. and the first half of the 20th c. These processes were particularly influenced by
the so called socialist era, and it would not be far-fetched to say that this period was a
key factor for the development of the Roma community. The state policy in the
countries of Central and Eastern Europe, which stimulated and supported the
development of the Romanies as a community, was in most cases rather limited in
duration and contradictory when applied in practice. It rapidly gave way to the
established national patterns of attitudes towards the Gypsies. Nevertheless, thanks to
this policy and its combination with the overall social and political context, created
and guaranteed the existence of a number of opportunities for relatively equal Roma
participation in social life and the development of their civil awareness. The end
results of these processes for the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe are quite
different compared to the destiny of their brothers and sisters all over the world. Here
we can encounter many thousands of Romanies with relatively good education, and
quite a few with prestigious jobs - teachers, medical doctors, lawyers, military
officers, journalists, artists, scientists... Thus a new type of Roma elite was created
with new dimensions and values, which is very different from the traditional Roma
elite. The both types of elite exist parallel to one another. The members of the new
type of Roma elite (including their children), despite a number of weaknesses, now
are an important factor in the overall community development, though they should not
be considered the only and leading representatives of the community.
3. Development within global Roma nationalism. This is the relatively latest
trend of development of the Roma community, born in our century. Since the birth
and the first steps of the organised Romani movement, the representatives of the
community from Central and Eastern Europe (or immigrants from this region) have
been its main moving and leading force. This trend in community development
gradually constructs its new national ideology with a strong emphasis on certain ideas
- such as the use of the general name of Roma for all Gypsy subdivisions, an
aspiration to all-Roma union and denial of the right of existence of Roma with
preferred or new, non-Roma identity, new dimensions in the dichotomy Roma -
Gadzhe with an emphasis or imitation of confrontation between the two sides, a new
view of Roma history and a powerful emphasis on the Holocaust; the standardisation
of Romanes (the Gypsy language); and others. A very thin layer of the so-called
“international Roma” or “professional Roma” has come in existence. Some of these
people are now in the process of rediscovering their forgotten Romani ancestors (who
in some cases could even be imaginary ones). They are not bound to a specific
country, but to an international institution or non-governmental organisation and have
carried their work to a global level (often without the support of the Romanies in their
own country).
The development of this third major trend in Central and Eastern Europe at
present is rather contradictory. It is influenced by many factors, such as the infiltration
of new ideas after the collapse of old regimes, the crisis of the period of transition in
the countries of the region, the crisis in inter-ethnic relations, All-European
integration, favouring of Roma from human rights movement and its strong lobby
within international institution, rapidly developing “Gypsy industry” of the nongovernmental
sector and others. Because of the complexity of these processes, we
cannot predict the development of this trend, but there is no doubt that its relative
place in the overall development of the community will keep growing in the near or
distant future. Moreover, the very development of Roma nationalism will hardly be
possible without the active presence of the Roma from Central and Eastern Europe,
who are a decisive factor for its success (in terms of their numbers and qualities).
* * *
The described three main tendencies in the developing of the Roma community
constantly cross themselves, they move from one to other and like this they enriches
by themselves. Formatted during the “Socialist epoch” new Roma elite in Eastern
Europe fed the developing of the global Roma nationalism and promoted significantly
it’s level (this was also clearly seen on the last congress of the International Romani
Union in Prague, where the Eastern Europe Roma dominated). And the developing of
the Roma nationalism in global measures and it’s international and human rights
lobby gave self-confidence and affirmed the ambitions for independent participation it
the political life of Romanies in many countries in Eastern Europe (this tendency was
clearly shown during the last years). The representatives of the “traditional” elite of
the Roma community (mainly the Kalderaša and other relative to them groups) are
becoming more and more active in the Roma movement (on national, and
international level). The processes are also influenced by many “outer” factors,
connected to the given situation in the different countries in Eastern and Central
Europe, and by the common processes of European integration and world
globalization as well, and on this stage it is quite hard to foresee what particular
dimensions will they have in closer or in more distant future.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bartosz, A. Nie bój sie cygana. [Have no fear from the Gypsy]. Zglobice:
Asterias, 1994.
Bari, K. Gypsy folklor. Hungary * Romania. I - X. Budapest: VTCD, 1999.
[CD colections].
Bodi, Zs. (ed.) Studies in Roma (Gypsy) Ethnography 6. Studies about Boyash
Gypsies in Hungary. Budapest: Magyar Neprajzi Tarsasag, 1997
Chelcea, I. Ţigani din Romania. Monografia Etnograficà. [Gypsies in
Rumania] Bucureşti: Editura Institului Central de Statistica, 1944.
Cherenkov, L. N. "Nekotorie problemi etnograficheskogo izuchenia tsigan
SSSR." [Some problems of the Ethnographical Survey of Gypsies in the USSR]. - In
Malie i dispersnie etnicheskie grupi v Evropeyskoy chasti SSSR. Moscow: Nauka,
1986, 5-15.
Crowe, D. A History of the Gypsies in Eastern Europe and Russia. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1995.
Crowe, D. & Kolsti, J. (Eds.) The Gypsies of Eastern Europe. New
York/London: M.E. Sharpe,1991.
Davidová, E. Romano Drom. Cesty Romu. 1945-1990. [The Romani Roads]
Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 1995.
Demeter, N. "Etnonimia tsigan Evropeiskoi chasti SSSR." [System of
Ethnonyms of Gypsies in European Part of the USSR] - In: Etnicheskaia onomastika,
Moskva: Nauka, 1984, 28-35.
Demeter, N. Tsygane - mifi i realnosti. [The Gypsies - Myths and Reality]
Moskva: RAN, 1996.
Druts, E. & Gessler, A. Tsigane: Ocherki. [The Gypsies. Essays] Moskva:
Sovetskij pisatel, 1990
Durić, R. Seoba Roma. Krugovi pakla i venac sreče. [Circle of Hell and
Wreath of Luck]. Beograd: Biblioteka Publicistika, 1983.
Erdös, K. “A Classification of Gypsies in Hungary.“ - Acta Ethnographica,
Tom VI, 1958, 449-457.
Ficowski, J. Cyganie na polskich drogach. [Gypsies on Polish Roads].
Kraków-Wroclaw: Wydawnictwo Literackie, 1986.
Fraser, A. The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell, 1992.
Gjorgjević, T. R. Die Zigeuner in Serbien. Ethnologischen Forschungen. Teil
I-II. Budapest, 1903-1906.
Gheorghe, N. and all. The Situation of the Roma and Sinti in Central and
Eastern Europe -A Study for the European Commission, 1997 [unpublished] .
Hancock, I. The Pariah Syndrome: An Account of Gypsy Slavery and
Persecution. Michigan: Caroma, 1987.
Hancock, I. A Grammar of Vlax Romani. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 1995.
Horváthová, E. Cigáni na Slovensku. [The Gypsies in Slovakia]. Bratislava:
SAV, 1964.
Hübschmannová, M. Saj pes dovakeras. Muzeme se domulvit. [We can Come
to an Agreement]. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 1993.
Jurová, A. Vyvoj rómskej problematiky na Slovenski po roku 1945. Goldpress
Publishers, 1993. Spolocenskovedny ustav SAV v Kosiciach
Kalinin, V. Peculiarities in the functioning of the Baltic Romani Dialects
under the conditions of biligualism and monolingualism in Eastern Europe. Paper
presented at 5th Romani lingusitic conference, Bankya, 2000.
Kogalnitchan, M. de Skizze einer Geschichte der Zigeuner ihrer Sitten und
ihrer Sprache nebst einem kleinem Wörterbuche dieser Sprache, von Michael von
Kogalnitchan. Aus dem französischen übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen und Zusatzen
begleitet von Fr. Casca. Stuttgart, 1840.
Kovats, M. The good, the bad and the ugly: three faces of “dialogue” - the
development of Roma politics in Hungary. - Contemporary Politics, Vol. 3, No. 1,
1977, 55-71
Liegeois, J.-P. Roma, Gypsies, Travellers. Strasbourgh: Council of Europe,
1994.
Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria. Frankfurt am
Main - Berlin - Bern - New York - Paris - Wien: Peter Lang Verlag, 1997.
Marushiakova, E. & Popov, V. Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire. Hatfield:
University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001.
Miklosich, F. Über Mundarten und die Wanderungen der Zigeuner Europas.
Tom I-XII, Wien, 1872-1880.
Mirga, A. & Mróz, L. Cyganie. Odmienosc i nietolerancia. [Gypsies.
Difference and Intolerance]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, 1994.
Mirga, A. & George, N. The Roma in the Twenty-First Century: A Policy
Paper. Princeton: Project on Ethnic Relations, 1997
Popp-Serboianu, C. J. Les Tsiganes. Histoire - Ethnographie - Linguistique -
Grammaire - Dictionnaire. Paris: Payot, 1930.
Potra, Gh. Contributioni la istoricul Tiganilor din Romania. [A Contribution
to the History of Gypsies in Rumania] Bucurehti, 1939.
Remmel, F. Die Roma Rumäniens.Volk ohne Hinterland. Wien: Picus, 1993
Szabo, G. Die Roma in Ungarn. Ein Betrag zur Sozialgeschichte einer
Minderheit in Ost- und Mitteleuropa. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang Verlag, 1991.
Soulis, G. C. "The Gypsies in the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans in the
late Middle Age." - Dumbarton Oaks Papers 15 (1961): 143-165.
Šturkelj, P. Romi na Slovenskem. [Roma in Slovenia] Ljubljana: Cankareva
založba, 1980.
Vukanović, T. Romi (Cigani) Jugoslavii. [Roma (Gypsies) in Yugoslavia].
Vranja: Nova Jugoslavia, 1983.
Zemon, R. (ed.). Zbornik na trudovi za etnogenezata na egiptanite vo
Makedonia. [Collection of Works on Ethnogenesis of the Egyptians in Macedonia]
Skopje: Logos-í, 1996.