Bulgarian Gypsies (Counter Argument)!

by darin
Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 02:45:03 PM EST

First off, I would like to congratulate hitchhiker on an excellent diary entry. I see it provoked enough interest to be put on the front page, which is excellent!

But as a student majoring in journalism I must criticize his entry for addressing mostly the position of the gypsies in the Bulgarian society and not properly presenting the side of the majority of the Bulgarians (even if the gypsies are a minority in Bulgaria, the position of the majority matters just as much). I will try to provide a counter argument to hitchhiker’s diary.


Just like him, I am also a Bulgarian, but my point of view is that of criticizing the gypsy minority.

In short, Bulgaria has two minorities: Turks (living in Bulgaria since the Ottoman yoke and even before that) and gypsies. The Turkish population is represented in the Bulgarian parliament by MFR, The Movement for Freedoms and Rights, which is widely regarded as the Turkish party (although according to article 11 of the Bulgarian constitution, an ethnically based political party can not legally exist). Part of the MFR votes come from the gypsy population, assuring that they will be represented in parliament as well. Currently there is TV news in Turkish as well.

Even though the Turks are still regarded as our former enemies (the Ottoman yoke), Bulgarians accept them much better than gypsies. The cultural gap between Bulgarians and Turks is not small, but both Bulgarians and Turks barely relate to the culture of the gypsies.

There is a reason why gypsies are hated and the reason is their specific cultural heritage and the recent history of Bulgaria. During the communist regime, which lasted for about 45 years and ended in 1989, the gypsy community was strongly oppressed by the Todor Jivkov government. A good example of the time would be the city of Burgas, situated on the Black Sea coast. Gypsies were forced to live in ghettos located near the skirts of the cities and were used for low qualified jobs. At a certain point, gypsies were "encouraged" by the police (then “Milicia”) not to leave their ghetto and enter the city as rarely as possible. Every morning several trucks would transport the gypsies in town, before anyone was awake, so they can clean the city, and then transport them back before they could disturb anyone. The Milicia were not very fond of gypsies either – any situation would be dealt with by starting with the individuals with the darkest complexion. It is important to note, that during those years, as well as today, all Bulgarian citizens (everyone with a Bulgarian residence – Bulgarians, Turks and gypsies) were legally required to go to grade school.

Then the communist regime fell and oppressed gypsies, whose jobs were assured by the communist government, were left unemployed and uneducated. The quickest way to earn some cash was by stealing – pick pocketing, braking into apartments (have in mind that during communist time the crime levels were really low and people usually never locked their doors; today most houses and apartments have metal doors with several locks), and most benefited, as well as today actually, from social welfare (they are unemployed and receive money for their increasingly large families). The cultural gap quickly widened, because of the gypsies’ trying to earn money the alternative way. Most of the gypsies stopped going to school, as they were quickly employed in their “family business”.

Here is an excerpt from a short article, named “Bulgarian Roma: The Multiplication of Misery”, written by Worldpress correspondent Plamen Petrov.


The Bulgarian government estimates that there are 313,000 Roma in the country today. But the official figures, based on old census information, do not take into account the speed of the growth of the Roma population, or that many Roma identify themselves as either Bulgarians or Turks, depending on their religion or social status. Roma advocates put the population at 800,000-900,000—a significant figure against Bulgaria’s fewer than 8 million inhabitants.

Aid workers estimate that 90-95 percent of Roma in Bulgaria are chronically unemployed, hampered by illiteracy and prejudice, and the overall economic slump. There are some Roma “barons,” flashy dressers in shining luxury sedans, scorned by their kin for their aloofness. And about 117 Roma non-governmental organizations distribute international aid, often to little effect. Nor are Roma political leaders setting a good example, engaged as they are in ego-polishing and personal wars.

I will follow hitchhiker’s lead and give you several examples from my personal experience with gypsies, during the last 15 years. I believe the stories will serve the purpose of describing the current situation.

As a 10-year-old kid, I was stopped on the street by a gypsy, who asked me how far I live. I never expected to be attacked by someone on the street (see what happens when communism leaves you by surprise?) and idiotically told him I live quite far away. Then he demanded my cash – I refused him and ran to the closest building and pressed all the ring bell buttons. He came to me, hit me in the stomach and left running. I never forgot that lesson.

Several years later, we managed to make enough money to open a shop in my home city of Burgas. The shop was robbed on a daily basis by gypsies (and clients were pick pocketed), but Bulgarians adapted fast to the situation and as soon as someone saw a gypsy running down the street with clothes in his hands – he would stop him with a fast kick. It was like a mini-war, which lasted for seven or eight years during the nineties.

Our shop was robbed three times in the period of two years. They would use small gypsies to get into an opening they cut in the shop’s side, and then throw out everything that would fit through the hole. At some point the police managed to get two of the gypsies, while they were robbing our shop for the forth time (we weren’t the only ones robbed, all the shops in the center of the city were hit at different moments in time). On the next day they asked for my mother to go there, so she can confirm the stolen goods were ours. Because of the systematic robbing of our shops, she couldn’t stand gypsies, but when she came back her story shocked me horribly. They asked her to go to the interrogation room – the two gypsies were there already, one of them wearing a pullover from our shop (they usually try to put as many clothes on and as fast as possible, so they don’t seem as if they are stolen). One of the policemen would ask a question, and then hit the gypsy, no matter whether he was lying or admitting to the crime. After the first several times my mother asked them to stop (she just wanted the goods back), but they went on for twenty minutes – at the end one of the policemen took off the blood-soaked pullover from the gypsy and gave it to my mother, whom they forced to stay there for the whole time. Even though she despised gypsies, she was even angrier at the policemen.

My conclusion would be that as long as gypsies are unwilling to educate and prefer to earn money the easy way, Bulgarians will treat them as they do right now. I have already met a couple of gypsies that are graduating from a university, and I have to say thar I am extremely impressed with their desire to work as part of the system, not against it. Although there will always be Bulgarians and Turks that will occasionally say “Oh, no, we are educating the criminals now!”

Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
You're saying things that not many people would dare share openly, and you deserve all due respect for that! Thumbs up for this diary!

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 03:15:25 PM EST
Thanks, Little L! :) I have a lot of stories about gypsies, some in their favor, some criticizing their culture and actions, but my idea was to show a contrary position to that of hitchhiker - I think both diaries complement each other quite well in describing the reality.

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 04:47:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No Little L, there is no great dare involved in criticizing the Gypsy minority without any Gypsy present to counter it.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 06:35:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, actually there are offended sides here, that's why I wanted their comments on the issue.

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 04:51:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is not great dare, but for me it is a sign of frankness of spirit to be able to share one's personal views and experience by constructing, at least for me, a good argument, which I don't necessarily agree with. Even though that I believe the author knew before posting his diary that the comments will be critical or controversial.

And I would also prefer to have a Gypsy actually commenting on this.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde

by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 08:53:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I did expect to get a lot of controversial comments, but didn't expect to be flamed and called a racist. I wanted to discuss the cultural problem, without turning the topic into a racist discussion.

Thanks for the honest comment, Little L.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 10:29:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Dear Darin, I am glad you are representing the other side of the problem. Although my diary focuses on the suffering of the Roma population, my view is not that restricted, so I certainly agree with most of the points you make.

As I recently replied to a comment, there are Roma and Roma. Some of them are dirty, illiterate, do not want to find jobs, steal, beg or even curse when you refuse to give them money. Actually, they start blessing you while you pass by them, but if you do not give them money, they begin cursing. So, I would surely not tolerate such behaviour and I cannot pity them. But, there are really nice Roma who are civilized enough, well-clad, educated and willing to come to friendly terms with the Bulgarians. But, the Bulgarians do not accept them. What I do not approve is our intolerance and lack of morality. Not all Bulgarians are perfect - some of them steal as well, do not study and are not more civilized than the Roma. But still.... I guess no Bulgarian would ever be asked to leave a shop just because he/she has a fair complexion, right? Correct me if I am wrong!

I do not make any generalizations. As I already said, not all Roma are good and I approve neither their way of living, not their basic understanding of how they should make a living. I just say that probably part of the problem is rooted in our discriminatory behaviour and attitude towards them. At least it has started that way, and now it is a vicious circle, as I have stated in my diary.
by hitchhiker on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 04:27:38 PM EST
You are right, I can't stand gypsies that make a living out of stealing, but then again, we have Bulgarians and Turks doing the same things.

I can remember, several years ago, I was in a restaurant with friends and there was a gypsy family sitting at the table next to us - they were all properly dressed, talking to each other (not sure whether in Bulgarian or not, doesn't matter as long as they are behaving properly). I was pleasantly surprised I didn't actually despise them - at this point I realized I am not a racist, but just mad at most of the gypsies, and their image.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 05:04:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Just one correction: "I guess no Bulgarian would ever be asked to leave a shop as long as he/she has a fair complexion, right?"
by hitchhiker on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 04:32:55 PM EST
One of my closest personal friends in Finland is a gypsy, Last Tuesday we were doing a 16 hr day installing some artwork on a cruise ship 'Freedom of the Seas' (the irony!). I took a photo of him using a powerdrill - since, in our interpersonal mythology,  this was significant.

But that hard day was very happy. We had fun doing the work. My friend is very old fashioned. If I eat at his house, I am expected to prepare for food properly - washing my hands etc . And then his 'lady'¨serves us, but does not sit at the table with us.  I accept this. I do  not moderate my talk, but I accept the sítuation. And obey the rules of my friend when I am in his house.

When he is in my house. some different rules apply, but I see no reason to force him into my rules. I buy some non-alcoholic beer, and we all sit together to eat. I respect that.

Maybe he did work as a torpedo for Mossad in Sweden in the Eighties. Maybe all those scars on his left forearm are not knife cuts. Or the bullet entry scars. Everyone fears him, but I don't.

This is the best salesman I know. Street smart.  Fun to be with. Old-fashioned.  Reliable.

Business between us is not according to the rules I know. It is highly moral, but based upon a simple reality - exchange of value. There is no value added tax in this system. It's about alpha, beta and other males finding accommodation in the everyday.,

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 05:17:17 PM EST
Exactly! That's what I am trying to convey here - that gypsies in Bulgaria (in fact the Balkan region) have a predominantly bad reputation. But gypsies are people just like us and if they behave as what the society percieves as "normal" are in no way different than us (or undeprivilleged).

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 05:50:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
For my friend, according to his culture, I am a weirdo.

But maybe what we havei n common is being 'Outsiders'

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 06:02:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I didn't understand whom did you refer to when talking about being "Outsiders", but I suppose you meant what different cultures perceive as "normal".

You are right, but as you said in your previous post, when you go to your friend's hourse, you play by his rules. That's why I believe the majority defines what is "normal" and the others have to abide by their laws.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 06:18:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't regard 'playing by the house rules' as submission,  It's tactical.

You can't be me, I'm taken
by Sven Triloqvist on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 06:21:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then we both agree on that point :)

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 07:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I believe the majority defines what is "normal" and the others have to abide by their laws.

Well then, if the police goes to a Gypsy quarter, they should obey the local rules.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 06:38:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well then, if the police goes to a Gypsy quarter, they should obey the local rules.

Your statement is absurd. Do black people in America live by their rules or that of the American government?

This is not the Czech Republic, where gypsies don't have a Czech citizenship.

The Roma population hold Bulgarian citizenship and should obey the laws of Bulgaria, just as Bulgarians and Turks. Or maybe Turks should follow the Turkish laws, even though if you are in Bulgaria.

DoDo, I am extending an official invitation to you. Please be my guest in Bulgaria and me and you will take a walk through the gypsy ghettos of the major cities in the country. But I will first take you to talk about this idea with my American professors, who've been in Bulgaria long enough to understand the dangers of such a trip.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 06:51:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Your statement is absurd.

Hell yeah: it's called a tongue-in-cheek. It was meant to crown the exchange between you and Sven.

DoDo, I am extending an official invitation to you. Please be my guest in Bulgaria and me and you will take a walk through the gypsy ghettos of the major cities in the country.

Hm, that would be just something for my cultural anthropologist brother,  maybe I shall convince him to come in a joint visit.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Mon Apr 17th, 2006 at 05:53:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is not the Czech Republic, where gypsies don't have a Czech citizenship.

The Roma population hold Bulgarian citizenship and should obey the laws of Bulgaria, just as Bulgarians and Turks. Or maybe Turks should follow the Turkish laws, even though if you are in Bulgaria.

Since when does not having citizenship release people from following the law of the land? And you accuse others of making absurd statements?

Also, what do you mean when you say that gypsies in the Czech republic don't have citizenship? That all gypsies in Czechia are actually Slovak?

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 17th, 2006 at 08:00:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Since they don't have a Czech passport, they are not even treated equally as other Czech citizens. They are basically guests of the country and have less rights, for what I've read (and no, they are not Slovaks either :)).

Actually to be allowed to hold a Czech citizenship, a person must have a clean criminal record in the last five years, and must have lived on the territory of the Czech Republic for same duration. Since most gypsies were OK only with the second requirement, they were never allowed to become Czech citizens. But nobody told them, that the Czech government changed the requirements recently and now only requires a person to have lived on the territory of the country for the last five years.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Tue Apr 18th, 2006 at 04:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Now this again shows you don't know much about what you are talking about. So I have to present the real Czech situation.

During WWII, the Nazis exterminated most Czech Gypsies. Most Czech Gypsies of today were moved there (most of them forcibly, and often on the place of deported Sudeten Germans) from Slovakia. Many of them lived in workers' housings at factories, which later didn't count as permanent residence, or in special settlements where they weren't registered. Children given to foster parents or foster homes were without permanent residence permits, too.

After the break-up of Czechoslovakia, the new citizenship law was designed (consciously, see in this article) to disenfranchise Gypsies (and prevent further immigration from Slovakia) by exploiting the previous circumstances and more, all the while speaking about "Slovakians". Applicants had to have proof of residence, the five-year crime-free record, and renouncement of Slovakian citizenship (which many of them didn't have in the first place, having been born to "Slovakian" Gypsy parents in the Czech Republic).

Worsening the problem were practical issues like the legal inexperience and lack of counsel of most Gypsies, and local courts who interpreted laws their own even worse way (a worst example: one "Slovakian" Czech Gypsy was forced to go to Slovakia to bear her child; but also examples of rewoking citizenship).

As a result of these combined reasons, in 1993, about 100,000, that is half of Czech Gypsies became stateless.

Now this was not the end of the story. Major amendments were forced on the law: in 1996, by when about 20,000 stateless Czech Gypsies remained, the crazy 5-year-no-crime-record rule (which was valid irrespective of seriousness of the crime - stealing a bread four years ago was a valid reason for exclusion, being sentenced for murder six years ago was not) was eased to a case-by-case basis. In 2000, by when about 10,000 stateless Roma remained thanks to increased NGO activity, the law was finally changed big-time by allowing declaration of pre-1991 residence. Only those who moved away since or sought asylum elsewhere remain excluded.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Tue Apr 18th, 2006 at 08:07:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So, in effect, there are still gypsies within the Czech state, without citizenship, right?

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Tue Apr 18th, 2006 at 12:27:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Read my last sentence again.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Tue Apr 18th, 2006 at 02:53:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Can you provide numbers on how many are left in the Czech state without citizenship and how many have citizenship?

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Wed Apr 19th, 2006 at 06:13:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a quick reply, don't have time for more now.

As explained, almost none were "left" in the Czech Republic after 2000. However, many of those excluded because they moved into other countries in the meantime (most of them to Slovakia) moved back. For those moving away, I found figures of 20,000-25,000, or 10% of the total; for total Roma immigrants from Slovakia (Czech Romas moving back + Slovakian Romas newly moving) I saw similar numbers. What I'm not clear about and would have to look up (as can also be seen from the termination of my account in 2000) is whether further changes have been made to the law around the time of the Czech Republic's joining of the EU.

BTW, last time I forgot to note two further nasty hurdles in the original law designed to hit poor Gypsies: the hefty legal prices involved ($300 per person) and the requirement of dual parental approval for children's applications (hitting both children of divorced and children in orphanages).

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Wed Apr 19th, 2006 at 12:59:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That was really useful, thanks. And the laws you mentioned - really looks like gypsies will be hurt mostly. Do you think the laws were passed as they provide good anti-Roma policy or maybe they just weren't well designed?

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Wed Apr 19th, 2006 at 01:11:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In the first post, I put in a link to an article on the issue which includes actual quotes pointing to conscious intent. On the other hand, some lawmakers might have more thought about immigration of Roma from Slovakia than resident Romas, and the fate of the children in orphanages might well have been due to bad design. (This was remedied in the 1996 amendments.) Then again, the behaviour of the local courts that applied the lawwas most consciously racist.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Wed Apr 19th, 2006 at 01:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I should add: the circumstance that various NGOs and Gypsy organizations and international monitoring organisations pointed out the problems and demanded the repeal or radical change of the law from day one (e.g. from 1993), but change came slowly, implies that even if some effects weren't intended, they were welcomed by lawmakers. (Current President Klaus's party even voted against the 2000 amendments.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Thu Apr 20th, 2006 at 05:43:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's why I believe the majority defines what is "normal" and the others have to abide by their laws.
True, but civilized majorities respect minorities.

Here is the all-time best discussion of majority rule, by Piet Hein.

MAJORITY RULE

His party was the Brotherhood of Brothers,
and there were more of them than of the others.
That is, they constituted that minority
which formed the greater part of the majority.
Within the party, he was of the faction
that was supported by the greater fraction.
And in each group, within each group, he sought
the group that could command the most support.
The final group had finally elected
a triumvirate whom they all respected.
Now, of these three, two had final word,
because the two could overrule the third.
One of these two was relatively weak,
so one alone stood at the final peak.
He was: THE GREATER NUMBER of the pair
which formed the most part of the three that were
elected by the most of those whose boast
it was to represent the most of the most
of most of most of the entire state --
or of the most of it at any rate.
He never gave himself a moment's slumber
but sought the welfare of the greater number.
And all people, everywhere they went,
knew to their cost exactly what it meant
to be dictated to by the majority.
But that meant nothing, -- they were the minority.



A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Apr 17th, 2006 at 08:03:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru, that was an excellent addition, couldn't take off the smile off my face while reading it. Thanks! :)

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Tue Apr 18th, 2006 at 05:29:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It wasn't really meant seriously... or maybe it was. I misunderstimate my own intentions sometimes.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Apr 19th, 2006 at 06:33:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I find this diary disturbing, and probably not for the reasons the diarist intended.

I understand that you have had some negative experiences with Roma, but this diary seems to me to be using the same kind of rhetoric that is used to justify discrimination of minority groups the world over, saying that if Roma are discriminated against, it's because they deserve it?  Tell me if I'm wrong, because I'd like to be.

So let's see, we've got a veritable grab bag of stereotypes:  dirty, illiterate thieves who breed like rabbits and steal because they're too lazy to go to school and work real jobs like we do.  Did I miss anything?

My conclusion would be that as long as gypsies are unwilling to educate and prefer to earn money the easy way, Bulgarians will treat them as they do right now.

Yep, that pretty much seems to be placing the blame squarely on the Roma for the way Bulgarians treat them.  If they weren't so awful, we wouldn't be so awful to them.

That conclusion ignores the fact that there is a vicious cycle at work here -- poverty and marginalization breed crime, which begets discrimination, which begets more poverty and more marginalization.  Do the Roma have the same educational opportunities as other Bulgarians?  Are employers willing to hire Roma who are educated and "clean and respectable-looking"?  Is there a way out of the cycle, or does society reinforce it?  I suspect the latter.

If you think maybe I'm wrong, read this.  Actually, if you think I'm right, read it anyway.

The diarist addresses some 60 years of oppression and forced ghettoization under the Communist government of Bulgaria.  I've gone in search of some older history here of Roma in Europe.  Some examples:

c.1300. The Romani Aresajipe; the arrival of Roma in Europe.

Romani groups begin to be enslaved in southeast Europe.

1385. The first recorded transaction of Roma slaves in Romania.
1445. Prince Vlad Dracul of Wallachia transports some 12,000 persons "who looked like Egyptians" from Bulgaria for slave labour.
1496-1498. The Reichstag (parliament) in Landau and Freiburg declares Roma traitors to the Christian countries, spies in the pay of the Turks, and carriers of the plague.
1554. In the reign of Philip and Mary, an Act is passed which decrees that that the death penalty shall be imposed for being a Gypsy, or anyone who "shall become of the fellowship or company of Egyptians."
1637. The first anti-Gypsy law in Sweden is enacted. All Roma should be expelled from the country within one year. If any Roma are found in Sweden after that date the men will be hanged and the women and children will be driven out from the country.
1650s. Last known execution for being Gypsies, in Suffolk, England. Others are banished to America.
1661. Johann Georg II, elector of Saxony, imposes the death penalty to any Roma caught in his territory.
1710. In Prague, Joseph I issues an edict that all adult Roma men will be hanged without trial and that boys and women be mutilated. In Bohemia, the left ear is to be cut off. In Moravia the right ear is to be cut off. Lodging or otherwise aiding Roma is punishable by up to six months forced labour.

Prince Adolf Frederick of Mecklenburg-Strelitz issues orders that all Roma can be flogged, branded, expelled, or executed if they return. Children under ten are to be removed and raised by Christian families.

1749. The year of the "Great Gypsy Round-up" in Spain. Gitanos are separated from "the bad and the good" through inquiries and witnesses reports. For the "bad," punishment is forced public works. Escapees are hanged. Motherless girls are sent to poor houses or into service for "honest" people. Older girls and wives of sentenced men with children under seven are "educated in Christian doctrine and the holy fear of God" and sent to factories.
1773. In December, Maria Theresa, Empress of Hungary, orders all Romani children over five in the Palatinate of Pressburg and at Fahlendorf to be taken from their parents. They are transported to distant villages and assigned to peasants to bring them up for a stipend of 12-18 florins a year. Most of the children run away to rejoin their families, who take refuge in the mountains or disappear in the plains.
1842. The hospodar of Moldavia, Mihail Sturdza, emancipates all state slaves; however, in Wallachia and Moldavia private ownership of Romani slaves is still legally permitted.

1844. The Moldavian Church liberates its Romani slaves.

1847. The Wallachian Church liberates its Romani slaves.

1885. Roma are excluded by United States immigration policy; many are returned to Europe.
1899. An Information Agency, the Central Office for Fighting the Gypsy Nuisance (Nachrichtendienst in Bezug auf die Zigeuner), is established in Munich under the direction of Alfred Dillmann to collate reports on Roma movement throughout German lands, and a register of all Gypsies over the age of six is begun. This includes obtaining photographs, fingerprints and other genealogical data, and particularly information relating to "criminality." This leads to two initiatives: Dillmann's Zigeuner-Buch (1905), and the December 1911 conference. This agency does not officially close down until 1970.
1905. Alfred Dillmann's Zigeuner-Buch appears in Germany. This consists of three parts; an introduction which presents the arguments for controlling Roma, a register, 310 pages long, of over 5,000 Roma, including name, date and place of birth, genealogy and kinship, criminal record and so on, and lastly a collection of photographs of Roma and Sinti from various police files. The introduction maintains that the German people are "suffering" from a "plague" of Roma, that they are "a pest against which society must unflaggingly defend itself," and that they "must be controlled by the police most severely," being "ruthlessly punished" when necessary. The notion of the particular dangers of mixed Romani and white individuals, whom Dillmann considers to constitute almost the entire Roma population, resurfaces in the Nuremburg Laws in 1935. These racially-motivated statements also support the Zigeuner-Buch's emphasis on the Romani genetic tendency toward criminal behavior.
1934. Sweden passes a law on sterilization, which becomes harsher in 194l. Anyone, including Roma, seen as leading "a socially undesirable life" are to be sterilised. Allthough the law does not explicitly say so, it suggests that Gypsies and "Tattare" (Norwegian "Wanderer") are not socially desirable and thus must be sterilised to keep the Swedish race clean.

From January onwards, Roma in Germany are selected for transfer to camps for processing, which includes sterilization by injection or castration. Over the next three years, these camps will be established at Dachau, Dieselstrasse, Sachsenhausen, Marzahn and Vennhausen.

1944. Zigeunernacht, literally, Gypsy Night. On August 2, four thousand Roma are gassed and cremated in a single action at Auschwitz-Birkenau.

In Slovakia, Roma join the fight of partisans in the Slovak National Uprising.

1969. In Bulgaria, segregated schools are set up for Roma.

etc.

Most stereotypes are based on some ugly reality, but it is a reality taken out of context and pushed to extremes.  So some Roma steal; the answer to the problem of crime is not to be found in scapegoating an entire people, it is in addressing the underlying reasons for crime, which include poverty and discrimination.

I do not feel it is acceptable to say that an entire people can expect to be discriminated against until every last one of them is no longer poor, no longer poorly educated, and no longer on the fringes of society.  Because there is no society that has eliminated those things, and no people who deserve marginalization.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Thu Apr 13th, 2006 at 07:16:58 PM EST
Great comment!

There's nothing I can add, you've covered it all.

I can only add that my personal experience makes me very wary of those who defend a stereotype like this.

Since I'm of mixed race I have the (mis)fortune of having been mistaken for various ethnic identities when I've travelled. It's no fun looking like you belong to the wrong group in a society and things only get better when people let go of the stereotypes enough.                                                                            

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 04:26:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And lest it seems I'm picking on the nation that the diary writer comes from. Most places have a varying degree of racial tension. It is unfortunately a hard to avoid product of how our societies have evolved.

What matters, in my experience, however, is the way that progressive people try to engage with the problem.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 04:28:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Answering your previous two replies, take a look at comment I made to stormy present, just below. I would really like to have your comment, because you have personal experience on the issue.

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 04:58:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent argument, I like it that my diary entry provoked such a response. I will try to go point by point here.


I find this diary disturbing, and probably not for the reasons the diarist intended.

I understand that you have had some negative experiences with Roma, but this diary seems to me to be using the same kind of rhetoric that is used to justify discrimination of minority groups the world over, saying that if Roma are discriminated against, it's because they deserve it?  Tell me if I'm wrong, because I'd like to be.

You are not wrong at all. Discrimination, especially in this form is indeed, as you say, employed all around the world and used to oppress minority groups. But my analysis of the post-communist situation actually explains why the gypsies were forced into their state of being - I don't label them "evil"; I also try to explain there reasons for the gypsy stereotype, which you depicted quite well:


So let's see, we've got a veritable grab bag of stereotypes:  dirty, illiterate thieves who breed like rabbits and steal because they're too lazy to go to school and work real jobs like we do.  Did I miss anything?

This is indeed the general perception of gypsies on the Balkans, something I tried to explain in my diary; what I also tried to convey to the reader, through the use of examples of personal experience, is that I had contact with educated, well-dressed and well behaved gypsies, and I accept their presence happily. In fact I have a couple of friends from Syria, and as dark as their complexion can be, I always enjoy their company - so this is not a discussion on racial differences, but on cultural differences.


Yep, that pretty much seems to be placing the blame squarely on the Roma for the way Bulgarians treat them.  If they weren't so awful, we wouldn't be so awful to them.

That conclusion ignores the fact that there is a vicious cycle at work here -- poverty and marginalization breed crime, which begets discrimination, which begets more poverty and more marginalization.  Do the Roma have the same educational opportunities as other Bulgarians?  Are employers willing to hire Roma who are educated and "clean and respectable-looking"?  Is there a way out of the cycle, or does society reinforce it?  I suspect the latter.

The vicious circle exists for sure, but is given too much credit in justifying the gypsies' attitude and actions, especially in the transition years. Yes, Roma have the same constitutional rights like Bulgarians and Turks (a difference from the Czech Republic, for example), but most importantly, they have the same constitutional obligations - one of them is that they are obliged to go to grade school (I already discussed that in my diary entry), but they simply refuse to do so. This widens the cultural gap even more. And if you are talking about the incredibly high prices of education - no such thing exist in Bulgaria. Grade school is free, in high-school you have to buy textbooks (the price of a textbook in Bulgaria is about 5-15 Euro), the state universities charge about 100 Euro per semester. The average salary in Bulgaria is about 175 Euro. But gypsies don't even go to grade school, because their parents use them for the "family business" (read the diary I linked in the beginning, as well as the Worldpress article, for some statistical information).

About the quotes you posted - can you see a trend here? Every major European country oppresses the gypsies. Have you heard of any other ethnicity being so oppressed? Bulgaria entered the history books for protecting "its" Jews, but yet we see such a strong response to the gypsies - you comment on it very well here:


Most stereotypes are based on some ugly reality, but it is a reality taken out of context and pushed to extremes.  So some Roma steal; the answer to the problem of crime is not to be found in scapegoating an entire people, it is in addressing the underlying reasons for crime, which include poverty and discrimination.

You are right! But can you define it, so we can discuss on it? What makes the gypsies to be hated so much throughout Europe? And don't give me the vicious circle again, we are talking about all European and Balkan countries.


I do not feel it is acceptable to say that an entire people can expect to be discriminated against until every last one of them is no longer poor, no longer poorly educated, and no longer on the fringes of society.  Because there is no society that has eliminated those things, and no people who deserve marginalization.

There are poor Bulgarians and Turks, but no one discriminates them. I still insists that the reason is the big cultural difference, combined with the economic situation after the end of the communism.


Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 04:55:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll let the stormy present answer the specific points you raise with her comment.

I'd instead like to suggest that if you have the time you explore the issues around the Australian aborigines.

It may be that seeing the "cultural vs. racial" discrimination issue in a context that (I presume) is not so close to home there might be something to be learned that applies to this discussion.

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 09:41:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll try to read about the Austrialian aborigines, I tend to like their native music quite a lot actually, so it will be nice to read about their culture and any conflicts.

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 09:46:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Darin let me push you a bit to clarify your position. Are you arguing that because "gypsies are hated so much throughout Europe" that hatred is justified? Furthermore, is there really such hated in all of Europe? I've experienced it very strongly in the Czech republic were it seems hard to have a reasonable conversation on the topic (on that note I want to seriously thank you for engaging in a reasonable discussion). On the other hand I've also witnessed, in France (the other European country I'm most familiar with), fascination and admiration for Roma music and culture. As for the "big cultural differences" what are they? Can one really talk of Roma as one monolithic group?

This talk of "them" as "the other", as it refers to any group, always triggers warning signs for me, especially if it's tied to negative descriptions of "the other". It reminds me of historical descriptions of Blacks in the USA and all the "cultural" reasons that were given to justify segregation or deny the right to vote or even justify slavery (I'm thinking more in historical terms here but there would be plenty to say about contemporary discrimination as well). It also reminds me of the othering of Jews and the horrors of pogroms and WWII as well as the othering of the whole African continent. The romantic notion of the "noble savage" (wiki), the paternalistic notion of Africans as children that needed protection, or the notion of the threatening "savage" with immoral behavior and vise or "the primitive" both probably in need of missionary intervention.

I'm glad you happily accept the presence or "educated, well-dressed and well behaved gypsies" but doesn't that description sound terribly condescending as well?

by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 10:03:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This link may have already been referred to in previous discussion on the other diary but in case it hasn't I'm including it here since it seems to contains information relevant to what we're discussing:

 A web report by the European Roma Rights Center titled "Roma Rights 1/2006: Exclusion from Employment"

by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 11:50:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
First off, thank you for an excellent comment, Alexandra!


Darin let me push you a bit to clarify your position. Are you arguing that because "gypsies are hated so much throughout Europe" that hatred is justified?

I was discussing the quotes from one of the previous comments. The author claimed that gypsies were oppressed, and horribly, through the years and throughout Europe. I accept that, I even mentioned the horrible attitude toward gypsies during the communist government. What I am trying to get at is, why are gypsies so widely hated? I understand the notion of pure racism and why some people would simply hate them for their looks, but as I said, I am not a racist (I have different friends from around the world, some asians, others arabs, etc.). So if not their looks, what's left? I can only think of the cultural differences and the economic hardship of the last 15 years in Bulgaria. But then again, not all European countries are as poor as Bulgaria, so why are gypsies hated there? I raised this discussion in hope to get to the point with your help.


This talk of "them" as "the other", as it refers to any group, always triggers warning signs for me, especially if it's tied to negative descriptions of "the other". It reminds me of historical descriptions of Blacks in the USA...

In Bulgaria they are always "the others" because they don't fit in the society. Bulgarians are mad, because they pay their taxes and can't raise their kids properly, while at the same time gypsies live off social welfare, because they have a lot of kids and don't pay taxes, as they are unemployed. They don't even pay for their electricity and government officials  or representatives are afraid to go in their ghettos, because they are usually attacked for trying to cut off  their electricity.

Last month a police car went in one of the ghettos, investigating a group of gypsies, who attacked someone (don't remember whether Bulgarian or gypsy). The people started throwing rocks at them and a couple of the gypsies attacked the police car with axes, I actually saw the photos, quite scary. So how can you expect people not to draw a line between the gypsies and themselves?

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 01:32:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I understand the notion of pure racism and why some people would simply hate them for their looks, but as I said, I am not a racist (I have different friends from around the world, some asians, others arabs, etc.). So if not their looks, what's left?

Why do you look for a justifiable reason for racism? Jews, too, were hated universally. Many Christians believed that Jews sacrifice children, with zero basis in reality.

Alexandra spoke about a vicious cicle. That long history of the repression was also a long history of again and again reinforced and refined negative stereotypes about the Roma.

Have you read hitchhiker's link in the other thread? About the systematic media mis-representation of the Roma in Bulgaria, exemplified by that 1997 event when all the papers wrote in great detail about how a Roma family walking across a road caused a bus crash, yet police declared ten days later that no one at all walked across or along the road?

Racism needs no proof. They can make it up anytime.

In Bulgaria they are always "the others" because they don't fit in the society.

You just said you aren't racist. So why this blanket statement?

Do "well-clad, clean and behaving" Romas not fit into society (ones that shopkeeper thought hitchhiker is)?

And what is this society you speak about? Since they were born in Bulgaria and grew up there, they are just as much part of 'society' as you are. Either that, or we could speak of parallel societies. At any rate, they don't deserve you anything. (It's more like the majority deserves inclusion to the minority, due to their greater dependence.)

As for the rest of the rant (of blanket statements again), haven't the others just discussed the origins of this situation, and the lack of real attempts to change it?

By the way, have you read my accounts of how police and judges deal with Roma in the other thread?

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 06:32:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Racism needs no proof. They can make it up anytime.

Lemme refine this. Racism can also operate with proof - by turning the particular into the general. "some X did Y" becomes "X do Y". And unless members of X are 100% innocents, racism will always find examples to reinforce the theory.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 06:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Lemme refine this. Racism can also operate with proof - by turning the particular into the general. "some X did Y" becomes "X do Y". And unless members of X are 100% innocents, racism will always find examples to reinforce the theory.

You are talking about generalizing here, "if one is bad, all are bad". We have statistics to prove whether that is right or wrong.

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 07:10:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
None of your sweeping generalising statements I flagged were based in statistics. And statistics is irrelevant, at least if you try to equate "more of X do Y than of Z" with "all/most X do Y", as you do with crime statistics below.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Mon Apr 17th, 2006 at 05:18:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In fact I've provided statistics (I've linked to Worldpress article) and commented that they are important.

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Tue Apr 18th, 2006 at 04:08:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not for what I flagged as sweeping statements, I repeat.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Tue Apr 18th, 2006 at 06:40:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Provide a couple of the most shocking for you and I will try to provide links (or/and will translate).

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Tue Apr 18th, 2006 at 12:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Hi, DoDo, nice to have you commenting on my diary entry!


Why do you look for a justifiable reason for racism? Jews, too, were hated universally. Many Christians believed that Jews sacrifice children, with zero basis in reality.

True. But when you see a gypsy send his kid to steal a high-voltage cable with the words, adressed to the cameraman, "I've got more kids, even if something happens to this one. It's tough living in Bulgaria", then you know something is wrong.


n Bulgaria they are always "the others" because they don't fit in the society.

You just said you aren't racist. So why this blanket statement?

Do "well-clad, clean and behaving" Romas not fit into society (ones that shopkeeper thought hitchhiker is)?

And what is this society you speak about? Since they were born in Bulgaria and grew up there, they are just as much part of 'society' as you are.


A well grounded statement, but I see that you have either not been to Bulgaria (or Balkan countries) or are talking about the ideal situation, when all the gypsies, Bulgarians and Turks live happily.

I will try to explain again. Most gypsies live in "katuns", i.e. they live with their families and neighboring families. Others, "institutionalized" gypsies, live in aparatment buildings, just like the Bulgarians and Turks, and they usually don't cause any trouble, because they want to be friendly with their neighbors. Since even policemen don't wander in the katuns unless something really gruesome happens (and even then they might get attacked), the gypsies there have a bigger freedom to do as they will (Bulgarian law or not).


Either that, or we could speak of parallel societies. At any rate, they don't deserve you anything. (It's more like the majority deserves inclusion to the minority, due to their greater dependence.)

Parallel societies within the legal boundaries of a country? If you go to another country, don't you willfully agree to be legally bound to the system in power?

What do you mean they don't deserve us anything? If they are within the legal boundaries of the state of Bulgaria (and mind you, a state that constitutionally inhibits ethnic conflicts and provides equal rights to everyone with a Bulgarian citizenship), they are obliged to follow the law, or face the consequences. In other words, they should pay their taxes just as we do, or they are breaking the law. Are you trying to give gypsies more rights than to Bulgarians or Turks?

We are seeing an interesting phenomenom - gypsies with Bulgarian citizenship can't even speak the official language of the country, and in fact, they really don't need to - they can understand each other perfectly in the katun.


By the way, have you read my accounts of how police and judges deal with Roma in the other thread?

Must of skipped it, will read it right away, though I can imagine. I will comment on that on the other thread!

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 05:34:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
BTW, I once trekked in Slovakia with a friend, who had this idea that Gypsy quarters are no-go zones for "whites". But our road from the train station to the woods led through a Gypsy quarter. I told him "So what?" and he had to follow... On the way back to the station in the evening, he was unconcerned.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
by DoDo on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 07:08:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

BTW, I once trekked in Slovakia with a friend, who had this idea that Gypsy quarters are no-go zones for "whites". But our road from the train station to the woods led through a Gypsy quarter. I told him "So what?" and he had to follow... On the way back to the station in the evening, he was unconcerned

Something I would never do, after being robbed and attacked by gypsies.

Actually the Bulgarian government had your vision of ghettos being safe, so they built a metal docking station (the ghetto is near the port of Burgas). Gypsies managed to disassemble it for about half an year, including the big crane, which was used for work. Metal is expensive, so near the ghetto there are no road signs or grates on the ground, just big holes, than can cause driving accidents.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 05:41:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are so many things to criticise in the above short piece that I just refrained from it, but now that pavlovska's contributions and your efforts to listen made a change for the better in the discourse, I take the occasion for some extra input.

I take you weren't attacked in the ghetto, nor have been into many ghettos (I suspect you have been to none), so your position is not too logical. Even if near, the docking site is outside the ghetto, and scrap metal thievery is not the same as robbery, so again two illogical links, and I again get the sense of a sweeping statement about something that all/most Gypsies do. And question regarding the docking station is, of course, proper guarding.

Now, scrap metal thievery is another separate problem usually linked to Gypsy perpetrators, one I as someone working for a railway is familiar with, so this shall be the main part of my reply. This is also to inform the Westerners here about something they may not know much about.

A number of nomadic Gypsy clans used to be specialised in collecting nicked or broken metalware from peasants, and either repairing and re-selling it, or bringing it to scrap metal handlers. After the 'communist' dictatures crushed nomadic lifestyles and the 1989/90 changes brought joblessness and a throwaway economy, some members of these clans switched to thievery of public property, including metal in disused state factories, railroad catenary, signal cables, even rails.

The first thing I note is, obviously, that metal thieves aren't necessarily active only near their dwelling places. They are even active beyond borders. When catenary is stolen along a strech of 30 km, that's long already. One spectacular case was the tearing-up of railway tracks leading to a prison near Munich in Germany. In Hungary, I once read of a gang from Romania being caught.

The second thing to note is that while Gypsies are usually assumed as perpetrators hereabouts, it can't be taken for certain that Gypsies constituted the thieves. A counterexample: I once participated (in a very small part) in a project to re-live a narrow-gauge railway, where a difficulty was that most of the rails were torn up and stolen - reportedly by local villagers who came with carts and lorries. There are no Gypsy quarters in villages of that region (but there is poverty). Meanwhile, in Northern Germany, metal theft is usually blamed on Polish organized crime (and there are very few Gypsies in Poland).

The third, and most important, thing to note is that every form of theft not for own consumption is a supply/demand problem, which is best solved on the demand side, and so far we only looked at the supply side.

The demand side problem is crooked scrap metal handlers who don't look at the origins of what they buy (and reap most of the profit from the theft, I note) - some of them even designate targets to the thieves -, and controllers who are either corrupt or have insufficient means/time for the job. (My railway sometimes sent out scouts on its own, and then scrap metal handlers shrugged when asked how they could buy two tons of cables with a railway emblem two days after the media were full of the news of a hit on a railway line.)

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Thu Apr 20th, 2006 at 06:57:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree on all your points, thanks for a very nice addition to the discussion.

The father of a friend of mine usually operates rather big train composition; he used to handle the train going to Sofia. He was once rewarded with a medal for stopping just in time, some 20-30 meters before a large cut section on the railway tracks. He saw the gypsies using anglecutters from afar, for what I remember, so he was able to stop the train from derailing just in time.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Thu Apr 20th, 2006 at 02:02:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I added my reply in a separate comment below: http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/4/13/14453/5466#54
by Alexandra in WMass (alexandra_wmass[a|t]yahoo[d|o|t]fr) on Mon Apr 17th, 2006 at 12:27:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm not quite sure where to start in reply to your comment.  I still think the basic problem is in saying that it's their fault that they're discriminated against.

I think you severely underestimate a few things, including the difficulty of overcoming discrimination by sheer force of will, and the cumulutive effects of hundreds of years of systematic oppression.

You have here a people who have been enslaved, executed, excluded and forcibly sterilized.  Their children have been taken from them "for their own good."  They have at some times been banned from churches and at other times forced to attend them.  It seems that there is not a country in Europe that has not persecuted them, with America doing its share of that as well.

After centuries of that kind of treatment, you can't just snap your fingers and tell people that they can trust "mainstream" society now.  You know how long memories are in the Balkans; 1389 was just yesterday, right?

And it is clear from your diary and hitchhiker's that they can still count on being discriminated against, whether they fit the stereotype or not.

There is a name for blaming and punishing an entire group for the actions of some of its members.  It's called collective punishment, and it was specifically outlawed under the Genevea Conventions, specifically in the Fourth Convention, article 33, and the Second Protocol.

Those particular chunks of international law refer to armed conflict, not peaceful democracies, but I would argue that collective punishment is even less justifiable in the absence of war.

As you point out, there continues to be widespread discrimination against Roma in many countries in Europe, some of it still quite systematic.  The first thing that needs happen is that those countries with discriminatory laws on their books need to change them.  

Let us take your specific example of education.  Assuming that you are correct about Roma "refusing" to send their children to school (and you do say that you know some educated Roma, so it can't be 100 percent true), the solution lies not in berating the Roma for doing this, but in finding out why they place so little value on education and doing something to address those factors.

My guess is that if this is true of some families, it is because they see no benefit in education.

This is a major issue in many developing countries, especially in rural/agricultural communities, and especially when it comes to the education of girls.  When education of a child will do nothing to benefit the family or the community, but will deprive the family and community of the work of a productive member, what's the incentive to let the child go to school?

Are people willing to hire educated Roma?  I asked this question before, and it's important.  If an educated Rom is not significantly more likely to find work than a non-educated Rom, what's the incentive to get an education?  Why make the effort, if potential employers will turn you away as a "dirty gypsy" and shopkeepers kick you out of their stores before you can spend your money?

Rather than just berate the Roma for intrasigence and "refusal to change," a more productive approach would be addressing the root causes of their marginalization.  And taking a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination against them is a good place to start.

If the cycle is to be broken, it must start somewhere.  You seem to be expecting the victims of discrimination to stop others from discriminating against them.  I would argue that the people doing the discriminating are the only ones who can do that.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 05:43:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I still think the basic problem is in saying that it's their fault that they're discriminated against.

They are discriminated against, because of the general notion against gypsies, you are right. But it is not like they suddenly changed their ways, so they stopped stealing and are extremely eager to integrate into the society, but we don't allow them to, right?


You have here a people who have been enslaved, executed, excluded and forcibly sterilized.  Their children have been taken from them "for their own good."

There was an uproar from the media about big numbers of gypsies going to Greece to give birth and sell their kids. They were OK with it, but some started reporting to the Bulgarian police, that they have been cheated, and received less money than expected. Gypsies didn't even know that human trafficking was against the law.

This proves another point. People in western societies wouldn't mind having a gypsy for a kid, while people from the Balkans put gypsies without parents in foster homes and leave them there growing up without any love from anyone close to them. The only good side is that receive some basic education there (though this is far from comforting).


It seems that there is not a country in Europe that has not persecuted them, with America doing its share of that as well.

Last night I read that Sweden gave more gypsies than Jews to the Nazis. You are right here.


After centuries of that kind of treatment, you can't just snap your fingers and tell people that they can trust "mainstream" society now.  You know how long memories are in the Balkans; 1389 was just yesterday, right?

Not really. Bulgarians live along with Turks and though they enslaved us for 500 years, only a hundred years were enough to accept them as equals and not to point at them, when they cross the street. Gypsies were here even before the Turkish yoke, and we still feel them distant.


And it is clear from your diary and hitchhiker's that they can still count on being discriminated against, whether they fit the stereotype or not.

I mentioned we have a shop and had a lot of gypsies create troubles for us in the past. Yet we never refused a gypsy to enter the shop and buy goods. In fact we used to trade with some of them, trying to have a business of their own. But if a gypsy enters the shop, all eyes will be on him, watching his every move - you can't forget how gypsies used to steal clothes or pick pocketed the customers.


There is a name for blaming and punishing an entire group for the actions of some of its members.  It's called collective punishment, and it was specifically outlawed under the Genevea Conventions, specifically in the Fourth Convention, article 33, and the Second Protocol.

Those particular chunks of international law refer to armed conflict, not peaceful democracies, but I would argue that collective punishment is even less justifiable in the absence of war.


And yet Bulgaria is expected to enter the European Union in 2007 or 2008. Are other European countries OK with this treatment of gypsies?


Let us take your specific example of education.  Assuming that you are correct about Roma "refusing" to send their children to school (and you do say that you know some educated Roma, so it can't be 100 percent true), the solution lies not in berating the Roma for doing this, but in finding out why they place so little value on education and doing something to address those factors.

My guess is that if this is true of some families, it is because they see no benefit in education.

This is a major issue in many developing countries, especially in rural/agricultural communities, and especially when it comes to the education of girls.  When education of a child will do nothing to benefit the family or the community, but will deprive the family and community of the work of a productive member, what's the incentive to let the child go to school?

A deep bow for that. You managed to put your finger on the issue. Gypsies have big families, because that means high income (the Chinese "syndrome").


Are people willing to hire educated Roma?  I asked this question before, and it's important.  If an educated Rom is not significantly more likely to find work than a non-educated Rom, what's the incentive to get an education?  Why make the effort, if potential employers will turn you away as a "dirty gypsy" and shopkeepers kick you out of their stores before you can spend your money?

Excellent argument. There are well educated Roma, but you don't see them working face to face with people - the "gypsy look" creates a feeling of distrust and you don't want to hire a gypsy to handle your clients, do you? Ironically, educated Roma end up either doing technical work in warehouses ("behind the curtains") or as representatives in Parliament.

If you are a black person, though, you wouldn't meet such disrespect; there were a lot of African students in Bulgaria during the communist time (some Asian as well). So we are still facing a general distrust in gypsies.


Rather than just berate the Roma for intrasigence and "refusal to change," a more productive approach would be addressing the root causes of their marginalization.  And taking a zero-tolerance approach to discrimination against them is a good place to start.

If the cycle is to be broken, it must start somewhere.  You seem to be expecting the victims of discrimination to stop others from discriminating against them.  I would argue that the people doing the discriminating are the only ones who can do that.


It's impossible to make granny and grandpa to be OK with accepting gypsies as equals - as well a lot of stubborn people. Since, for certain, not all gypsies are engaged in illegal activities - how about they try to reform from within? They show a distrust in the system, so why don't they help themselves? Then the easiest thing would be to show the new statistics that more Bulgarians steal than gypsies - this will be a shock to Bulgarians, trust me on that!

Be careful! Is it classified?
by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 06:27:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I am finished with this diary now.  It's clear that you don't understand what I'm trying to say.  I thought at first that perhaps you were blind to your own bias, but you're not; you are embracing it.  And I see no point in debating with someone who thinks it's OK to be racist.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 07:19:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Stormy, I am trying to show you the context from within which Bulgarians act - it is a challenge, I am trying to find alternative solutions. Quitting on the problem is not a good idea.

In fact this is the first time someone called me a racist, and I felt horrible after you wrote that. Not one of my international friends ever called me that, even though we discussed such issues several times. You could label me stubborn, but why racist?

Actually I expected to discuss the cultural side of the conflict, but of course, the conversation quickly jumped into a racist discussion, which I wanted to avoid from the very beginning.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 07:34:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Darin, I think you need to go back and read your own comments again several times.

This diary and your comments on it are full of sweeping generalizations and negative stereotypes about an oppressed minority.  It sounds to me, and apparently to several other people who have commented on this thread, that you are arguing that discrimination against an entire ethnic group is justified because some members of that group do things you don't like.

If that is not what you mean, perhaps you need to clarify your statements a bit further.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 08:13:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Ok, I admit that I wasn't clear enough, but I was indeed trying to be, that's why I keep posting, to get my point through.

I just had a discussion with my friends about this thread, who comforted me, saying that it is always hard to explain the problem with gypsies to a foreigner; over lunch they asked me to illustrate to you (and the readers) the situation with a specific example, which they reminded me of.

Have you seen Dave Chapell's show, he's a black American comedian, who likes discussing just such issues. He says, "Now, there are niggers and black people. I can't stand the average nigger that tries to get away with crimes, because that gives black people a bad image."

Do you now understand how Bulgarians perceive the Roma? We can't stand those who steal, but we accept the ones that don't. The average Bulgarian is not a racist, but an extreme patriot, something typical for the Balkan nations.

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 10:26:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And what I am trying to say to you is that no matter what, it is not OK to demonize an entire people.

If I am robbed by someone with blue eyes, it does not make it OK for me to despise all people with blue eyes.  If I see my fellow citizens discriminating against innocent blue-eyed people, it is my responsibility to say something.

Do you now understand how Bulgarians perceive the Roma?

I never had a problem understanding that.  What I don't understand is why you would defend it, instead of trying to change it.

We can't stand those who steal, but we accept the ones that don't.

It doesn't sound to me like that is true.

by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 11:14:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

And what I am trying to say to you is that no matter what, it is not OK to demonize an entire people.

Never meant otherwise, that's why I created this discussion. If I didn't care for the attitude towards Roma, I wouldn't discuss it. Now I am concerned that international viewers of the discussion automatically took the side of the minority, which is extremely disturbing.


I never had a problem understanding that.  What I don't understand is why you would defend it, instead of trying to change it.

I want to change the way Bulgarians threat people who look like Roma. Some don't have a problem with that - most Bulgarins engage in helping Roma children in foster homes and really like it (and there are mostly Roma children there). But I would never acquit anyone who resides in Bulgaria and doesn't play by the rules, which all the others have to follow (not breaking the law, paying taxes, etc.). If the Roma want Bulgarian citizenship, then they are expected to follow the law, just as the rest of us.


We can't stand those who steal, but we accept the ones that don't.

It doesn't sound to me like that is true.

As I said in my replies, we own a shop and trade with Roma, because some of them travel outside Bulgaria and act as dstributors. Additionally, there are famous Roma orchestra, which are great. There are small Roma firms as well. But you won't see big Roma bosses (except the so called "barons", basically Roma mafia bosses) or Roma salesman. I am surprised that even international companies refuse to hire Roma, even though they don't have a long history in Bulgaria (and hence be culturally biased).

Be careful! Is it classified?

by darin (dkaloyanov[at]gmail.com) on Sat Apr 15th, 2006 at 12:17:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
tsm, thanks for this. I refrained from commenting in this thread because I felt an instant urge for flaming, but that doesn't solve anything. The views expressed are rather wide-spread hereabouts even among supposedly progressive intellectuals.

To tell you another horror story, half a year before Hungary joined the EU, I was staying for the night after a project with a lot of youths. One of them somehow started talking of Gypsies, and the end of it was him declaring that we would much sooner get into the EU if we deported Gypsies. This utter idiocy was met with loud approval.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.

by DoDo on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 06:13:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I actually held off on responding for a while, thinking that you or someone else (one of the usual suspects?) would do a better job of it, but when nobody else said anything... I just couldn't let it go un-commented-on.  (Which is a vice of mine.)
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Fri Apr 14th, 2006 at 06:54:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Vice? Valour! And you don't shoot over the top like me.

*Traitor*, n.
A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.