The European ethnic closet – failing the Roma

 

I argue in this paper that by ignoring, accepting or encouraging anti-Gypsyism European societies managed to create and maintain an ethnic closet[1] for its majority of Roma citizens. The social stigmata and exclusion resulted stimulate radical nationalism within both the majority population and the Roma movement.

 

Hiding or denying Romani identity

 

One of the many dimensions of Anti-Gypsyism is reflected in the form of false consciousness on the part of the Roma themselves. A significant number of Roma deny their roots in an attempt to escape the social stigma associated with Roma identity. Most of them, especially the professionally successful Roma, manage to hide their parentage and eventually lose their ethnic identity and assimilate to the majority that normally rejects Roma. This is usually not possible for other groups facing racism and could be held as an argument that anti-Roma feelings are not based on race or ethnicity, but on stereotypes and historical prejudices against Roma. This is well-reflected in the discrepancies between the estimated number of Roma and the much lower results of official censuses as reflected by the documents of the Council of Europe.[2]

 

These discrepancies prove that social stigma of being a Roma leads not only to the already well acknowledged discrimination and social exclusion of Roma but also to a very significant denial of the Romani roots of a large majority of Roma living in Europe .

 

Long before biological theories of race surfaced in Europe , Roma faced persecution. Banned from living in several European countries, enslaved in what was then Romanian territory, accused of playing a role in the killing of Jesus and often identified with criminals, Roma have been continuously rejected by the majority populations.

 

Nowadays the situation didn’t change much as it is not just the many radical politicians and extremist parties that openly promote Anti-Gypsyism[3] but also mainstream parties on both sides of the political scene that have started to deploy theories partially justifying racism and promoting Anti-Gypsyism.

 

I consider the example of the oldest European Democracy, the UK , to be relevant.

 

In 1998, Great Britain re-imposed visa restrictions on Slovakia in order to prevent Romani asylum seekers from having their case heard in the UK . In summer 2001, the UK government established a “pre-clearance” of air passengers at the Prague airport, which served to single out Romani passengers and prevent them from boarding airplanes destined to the UK(BBC[4]).

 

In April 2001, the UK government adopted a “special” border policy, singling out persons belonging to seven named groups: Kurds, Roma, Albanians, Tamils, Pontic Greeks, Somalis and Afghans, for “special” measures. Of these groups, Roma and Kurds do not hold passports stating their ethnicity (Roche[5] ).

 

European Roma are not a homogenous group. Roma can range in appearance from faired-skinned and blue-eyed to very dark-skinned and black-eyed, with the two extremes often seen in the same community or even family. Roma share many physical features with Arabs, Turks, Indians, as well as Europeans. Roma in Europe follow a number of different religions: Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant), Islam (both Shia and Sunni), Judaism, as well as atheism. Many Roma are unable to speak Romani. Even those who speak Romani may have difficulties understanding each other as the various dialects are quite different across Europe . Therefore, this measure, which was in place until 2004 in the UK , demonstrated a form of state sponsored discrimination against Roma that somehow operated despite the fact that there is no sure way to identify Roma. The policy cannot be logically based on any known criteria of racial discrimination: appearance, skin colour, religion, or language. The experience of the Czech reporters who proved that the Czech Roma with a darker skin colour was stopped while his whiter colleague was granted the permission to leave for the UK in 2001 suggests that this was in fact a case of imagined biological differences between Roma and others.

 

Anti-Gypsyism in the UK is not demonstrated only in state policy, but also through official and popular sentiment. Jack Straw, in charge of British diplomacy until May 2006, is known for derogatory comments[6] targeting “travellers,” who he saw as good for nothing but defecating at people’s doors

 

“Should we let Gypsies invade England ?” was the title of a poll in January 2004. Around 20,000 people paid to call in and tell readers of the Daily Express that they were not going to put up with the “gyppos.” The poll was part of a larger media campaign in the British press led by tabloids which lasted for several months. The government reacted by starting talks about measures to restrict access for Roma to the UK .

 

UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said in the following days in the House of Commons: “It is important that we recognise that there is a potential risk from the accession countries of people coming in.” One day later, accordingly, the Daily Express echoed Blair, with banner headlines “Gypsies: you can’t come in.”

 

The ideas of Arthur de Gobineau the father of biological racism are still widespread in Europe and salient when it comes to Roma. The fear of degeneration coming from mixing of majority “races” with Roma is held by a majority. According to a 1999 poll, less than 1% of non-Roma Bulgarians can imagine marrying a person of Romani origin. In 2003, a Gallup poll in Romania discovered that 93% of Romanians would refuse to accept Roma in their families. In a poll conducted by Focus Institute in 1999 in Slovakia , 80% of the interviewees said that they would never allow their children to marry a Roma . In an opinion poll conducted among Slovenian secondary school students in 1993, 60.1% said they would avoid any contact with Roma. In a survey conducted in 1986 and 1988 at Spanish schools, 70% of the teachers said they would be upset if their child married a Roma.

 

Considering the above the existence of the very small group of successful and integrated Roma that are not afraid to affirm their identity is remarkable.

 

The domination of moderate or extreme nationalist feelings in Europe pushes the mixed Roma in choosing one identity, and obviously in a large proportion this choice goes against the Romani one. Another significant part of European citizens have Roma roots but the pregnant social stigma associated to Romani identity make them hide or disregard their roots.

 

Focus on “Frankenstein” Roma – drawbacks

 

I believe that the European focus when it came to Roma was wrong and it is a main reason for the almost complete lack of significant progress in the lives of Roma. I also argue that this focus lead to an increase of the social stigmata related to Roma as stereotypical Roma were brought even more in the mass media attention. Another drawback is the visible radicalization of Romani movement on the same model as the extremist nationalistic movement.

 

For the last two decades the European Institutions equated Roma with uneducated, unskilled, unemployed, poor and often criminal Roma mainly from ghettos and traditional Romani communities. This part of Roma population (that I call Frankenstein Roma) fits the negative stereotypes of the majority populations and was the main focus for European initiatives targeting the social inclusion of Roma.

 

The selection of much needed highly educated Roma human resources is seriously hindered by the existing target group and leads to low quality leadership and representation which further pushes away the existing Roma intellectual elites.

 

Accordingly the increase in the number of Roma declaring their ethnic identity is minimal and the number of those Roma who prefer to hide their ethnicity is still between 3 to 10 times bigger. The positive role models are largely missing and the social stigmata continues to be perpetrated by the existing leadership.

 

No European awareness campaigns ever targeted either the successfully integrated Roma or the even larger group of ethnically mixed Roma.

 

Radicalization of the Romani movement

 

Dr. Tobias Portschy, Area Commander in Styria, in his memorandum to Hitler’s Chancellery wrote “Gypsies place the purity of the blood of German peasantry in peril.” During the Nazi genocide, if two of an individual’s eight great-grandparents were even part-Romani, that individual had too much “Gypsy blood” to be allowed to live.

 

Many Roma leaders nowadays seem to be ironically obsessed by the blood purity of those joining in and with skills to threaten and reform what is often a decrepit and highly autocratic system. It is not just the old traditional leaders, but even the very few intellectual elites that are often radical in their approach to the purity of those who may threaten their positions. The movement tends to radicalise and become exclusionary. Today the vast majority of those killed during the Holocaust in Germany would probably be considered not “Roma” enough to be part of the movement.

 

This is of serious and immediate concern--and which could have catastrophic consequences if not properly addressed. Most people discriminated against and “accused” of being Roma do not have a pure bloodline and are not “traditional” Roma. In fact, the impure, “mischlinge”(mixed) Roma were the main target of the Nazi extermination as the pure Roma were more or less not targeted.

 

Most of the leading Roma will talk with pride about the more or less invented Romani origins of Bill Clinton, Charlie Chaplin, Madonna or famous soccer players as Eric Cantona or Ilie Dumitrescu who never assumed their ethnic identity. This is ironical as long as some of the same leaders seem to be extremely concerned about the identity of people who do affirm their Romani identity, are dedicated and work hard to improve the situation of Roma and, in the process, push for reform or threaten the leaders’ positions in one way or another.

 

Numerous people, despite working hard and arguably very efficiently in the Roma field for a number of years, are often attacked for not being “true Roma.” Most of them were accepted until they were in the position to compete for the same jobs with the adepts of a pure Roma bloodline. Then, they started encountering serious rejection from the “pure Roma” leaders. This is, unfortunately, but undoubtedly, a typical case of the same discrimination the Roma movement is supposed to fight against. The harsh situation of Romani women, the strong rejection of sexual minorities and the reported abuses of those with disabilities within traditional Roma communities are often ignored or hidden.

 

In general, the Romani movement and, in particular, its international part is almost a closed system. The ingression of new people is extremely limited and upward or downward mobility is reserved for practically the same people. The closed system results in very low or unrealistic expectations, as the pool of ideas is very small. As in any closed system, criticism is discouraged, leading to limited and often bad ideas and practices are carried forward.

 

Autocratic leadership encourages isolation, as isolation avoids exposure of often-serious flaws or lapses in education or judgment. Progress is often received as an attack to tradition and culture. Change is not just feared, but also opposed and the traditional leaders are often fast to downplay any new expertise. People in closed systems tend to adopt a common view and react defensively to changes.

 

Unfortunately up to this moment none of the above seemed to be of concern for those who design programmes targeting Roma.

 

The number of assimilated and, therefore, “invisible” or mixed Roma is much higher than the number of Roma ready to accept their ethnic identity. The Roma movement needs to move away from small community or family interests to principles. The movement needs to adopt principles able to attract people and avoid exclusionary principles based on blood purity.

 

A substantial number of non-Roma are willing to help the movement, but are discouraged by the existing exclusionist approach. An immediate need exists to build bridges with other ethnic minority movements and create a strong ethnic minority rights movement able to influence and mainstream ethnic minority rights within the general framework of the human rights movement.

 

Solution(s)

 

The scope of the EU actions needs to be enlarged and include the “hidden” and mixed Roma. Roma are present in practically all European “hot spots” (Kosovo, Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) and potential risk zones for ethnic conflict (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Turkey). Mixed Roma are to be found in both the majority groups and the minority ethnic groups between which tensions exist (Serbian-Albanian, Macedonian-Albanian, Romanian-Hungarian, Slovak-Hungarian, Czech-Slovak, Turkish-Kurd, Bulgarian-Turkish). Significant groups of Muslim, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and other religions exist among the mixed and “hidden” European Roma. Targeting this segment could lead to significant progress not only in the European social inclusion process but also in promoting the principles of diversity and unity of the EU. The 2008 Year of Multicultural Dialogue could and should have a significant component targeting these rather ignored groups.

 

In general focus on mixed Europeans should become a priority for the European Commission as a way to promote its ideals. Up to this point the European Institutions in general have done not much to counterbalance the extremist nationalist tendencies of its member states. 2008 could be a start.