Well it seems that every few months I’ve got to post a new article on Gypsies so here we go with another bit of clarification. Certainly you can find all of my previous posts on the subject by clicking here or reading all of my posts under the relevant category (articles on the main page are grouped by category).
Since I’ve met so many foreigners and visitors here over the years and been asked so many times about Gypsies, I’ve developed a kind of short-hand to simplify things. I tell people that despite outward appearances, skin color, style of dress or anything else, there are really only two kinds of gypsies: Black Gypsies and Blue Gypsies.
These two colors don’t refer to clothing or skin tone or anything else but are a reference to the Smurfs, known in French (the original language of the comic) as Le Schtroumpf, in Dutch as Die Schlumpfe, in Romanian as Strumfii and in Italian as I Puffi (my personal favorite).
I expect everyone knows that “regular “Smurfs have blue skin but only hardcore fans of the series know that there were also Black Smurfs in a few episodes. From Wikipedia:
One day, one of [the Blue Smurfs] gets stung by a black fly that turns his skin jet black, reduces his vocabulary to the single word “gnap!”, and causes him to go berserk. He bounces around and bites other Smurfs on their tail, which turns them into black Smurfs as well. Soon, almost everyone in the village has become a black Smurf.
In more modern editions, the Black Smurfs have been changed to purple in order not to offend anyone but at least now you know where the colors “black” and “blue” come from (I’ve been fascinated by the Smurfs for many, many years).
Using my shorthand, Blue Gypsies are people who are ethnically and culturally gypsies but are integrated into the larger society (in this case, Romania). A less sensitive way to say it would be “good” Gypsies – the respected musicians, craftsmen and artisans (as well as a few teachers, engineers, etc) who function just fine in the wider society.
Black Gypsies on the other hand (and again, this is a reference to the Smurfs, not some kind of racial slur) are the gypsies who aren’t integrated into society, the ones who lead lives that are sometimes criminal and sometimes just anti-social in general.
If you’re a person like me and you enjoy reading lengthy government documents from the European Union, you may be interested in this paper (PDF), which is the Romanian government’s official plan on how to integrate Gypsies (called “Roma” throughout). Once again, as with almost everything produced by the Romanian government in English, the writing is shoddy and poorly done and downright non-sensical in places.
The long and short of it though is that the Romanian government has promised the European Union that they’re going to “integrate” Gypsies into the wider Romanian society or, in my terminology, convert all the Black Gypsies into Blue Gypsies. I think that just about everybody reading this knows that there is almost no chance whatsoever of this happening.
But why? Obviously there are some quite hateful prejudices held by a lot of people, which is a barrier to some rather essential things and needs to be eradicated, but there is a much bigger problem which no one, not pro-Gypsy advocacy groups, not NGOs, not the Romanian government and not even the European Union and its attendant organizations ever want to address.
The problem is that integration is in and of itself a racist goal.
I’ve written that in bold just to emphasize it because it’s a radical statement yet one that I believe is true. There are several reasons why “integrating” Gypsies into the wider Romanian (or other European countries’) society is actually racist.
1) Respect for identity
Imagine if it were the other way around, where Romanian (and Hungarian) citizens were the minority and (somehow) Gypsies were the majority here in this country.
Would Romanians want their children to go to school for two or three years, study in the Gypsy language, then have their children drop out to work in the fields, take care of younger siblings, learn how to beg, sell flowers on the street corner, get married at age 12 and in other ways emulate the Gypsy lifestyle? Of course not. So why is it presumed to be “good” for Gypsies to adopt a Romanian lifestyle but something “bad” if a Romanian were to live or act like a Gypsy?
The only way it can be “good” for a Gypsy to stay in school, get a diploma, get a job, pay taxes and buy a house (aka live like a Romanian or Hungarian or German, etc) and “bad” for Gypsies to be illiterate, uneducated and of no fixed abode is if one culture is deemed to be better than another one.
And believing that one culture is inherently “better” or “superior” to another one is the very definition of racism!
2) Defining Culture
It’s easy enough for people to tap their feet and smile with appreciation when listening to Gypsy music and applaud Gypsies for their unique cultural musicology but what other things define Gypsy culture? Yeah, we got it that they have a rich musical heritage but what else defines Gypsy culture?
In other words, if we can agree that their music is a fine and respectable part of their culture, what can we say about their semi-nomadic lifestyle? Is that part of their culture? Is sending their kids for just a couple of years of schooling and then ending their academic studies around 8 years old part of their culture? Is learning how to beg or pickpocket part of their culture? Is running unlicensed “businesses” on street corners (like selling flowers) and not paying taxes part of their culture?
You can’t really have it both ways. You can’t say some parts (music, artisanal craftsmanship, etc) of their culture are valid and to be respected and other parts (lack of extensive formal education, begging, etc) are not. Gypsy culture is hundreds of years old and you can’t just go around summarily dismissing parts of their culture without careful consideration.
In fact, it seems pretty damned racist to me for a non-Gypsy to just summarily decide what is and what isn’t a “valid” part of Gypsy culture. This is why I divide Gypsies into “Black” and “Blue” categories because the Gypsies doing “Blue” activities (singing, dancing, etc) are doing things which the larger society deems as valid and respectable and the “Black” activities are things which the larger society deems are not valid and respectable.
To the outsiders, there’s a clear sense of what is “okay” and “permissible” (or “good”) and what “isn’t good” or what is “wrong” but what’s important to understand is that for the Gypsies themselves all of these activities (“Blue” or “Black”) are equally okay and fine. After all, their culture is their culture and all of it, both the “good” and “bad” parts, are fine with them.
3) Disrespecting Authority
Every Gypsy I know and every Gypsy I’ve ever heard about functions in a sort of semi-tribal hierarchy where local chiefs and “kings” exercise some kind of authority over the Gypsies under their purview.
There are entire villages and town which are populated entirely (or almost entirely) by Gypsies and there are dozens if not hundreds of local Gypsy leaders, chiefs, mayors and “kings” that make administrative decisions. Yet where are these leaders in either Romania’s national strategy or even in the European Union’s activities? Where is the input and the collaboration and the consultation with the Gypsy leaders? What are the Gypsy leaders’ thoughts on all of this “integration” stuff?
If a European country went to another land populated by indigenous peoples and then the Europeans installed their own governor or king and had him rule over the indigenous peoples without consulting them, that would be called colonization.
Yet somehow it’s okay for non-Gypsy leaders on all levels (up to the European Union itself) to make all kinds of decisions about Gypsies for the Gypsies with little to no consultation with Gypsy leaders or representatives.
I may be wrong but I’ve never heard one Romanian Gypsy leader or tribal king ever give a statement ever that they felt that more integration into Romanian society was a priority. In fact, I’ve never heard a Romanian Gypsy leader ever say that integration was something that Gypsies even wanted at all whatsoever!
If one race of people deciding what’s best for another race of people without consulting them isn’t the very definition of racism then I don’t know what is.
4) Hitler and Stalin
I’m treading on some mighty thin ice with Godwin’s Law here but a fundamental guiding principle of the European Union towards peace and harmony (and tolerance) is as a direct result of World War 2 and the chaos, murder and mayhem it caused. And so the EU (and its member states) should be mighty careful when deciding to pursue paths that mirror what Hitler and Stalin felt were right for their vision of society.
It’s a well-known fact that both Hitler and Stalin tried to eliminate and forcefully “integrate” the Gypsies in their societies into the wider society as a whole. I realize that the EU isn’t running death camps or gulags but both the EU and fascist/totalitarian leaders are essentially wanting the same end goal: to eliminate all “Black” Gypsy activities.
Again, the “Black” Gypsy cultural aspects are ones which fundamentally are at odds with the larger society as a whole. Logically speaking, there isn’t much difference between gassing a Gypsy and forcing his children into 12 plus years of mandatory education because the end result is the same: the eradication of all “Black” Gypsy identification. Don’t believe me? Then ask a few members of the Stolen Generations of Australian aborigines.
Yes, I do realize there’s a hell of a difference between gassing someone in a death camp and the more “beneficent” EU approach of forced education but those two things aren’t quite as different as you might think at first glance.
So… what to do?
I know firsthand that many Gypsies suffer from some very real problems. I’ve filmed 50+ hours of footage with homeless Gypsies and Gypsies who live in trash dumps (UK: rubbish tips) and who were quite often ill and/or hungry and/or suffering from tremendous pain. I’ve filled out paperwork for illiterate Gypsies and helped them get access to basic services from the local government.
I’m certainly not indifferent to the suffering and misery that a lot of Gypsies endure. What I am saying however is that I do not think that integration, or converting Gypsies into little Romanian clones, is the answer. I don’t think Romanian’s poorly written National Strategy is the answer (even if it were properly funded, which of course it isn’t), nor more NGOs and volunteer organizations doling out books and toothbrushes or anything else most people have in mind.
I’ll get into some more of my ideas of what would be workable in another post (this one is long enough) already but I’ll summarize it below:
- Consultation with Gypsy leaders and representatives – It’s not just racist but strategically unsound to make grand plans for an entire race of people without asking them what is it they would like, not just what you would like for them.
- Respect without Approval – You and I don’t have to like all aspects of Gypsy culture but at least respect the fact that it is their culture. I don’t like to see child beggars any more than you do but I at least am broadminded enough to realize that these kinds of activities have a place and a sense of purpose for them even if it doesn’t for me.
- Not all the statistics are as bad as you think – Yes, illiteracy rates amongst Gypsies are far higher than they are for Romanians. But as I wrote about in The Ghost of Simonides, that’s not necessarily a “bad” thing in and unto itself.
- Respect Romania for what it’s done right – It seems unremarkable because it’s been a fact for decades but under the law all Gypsies in Romania are full citizens and thus have the same legal rights and standing as any other person born here. Meanwhile in other European Union countries such as Latvia, over 10% of their citizens are not citizens at all – they can’t vote, study in their own language or have full access to the same legal rights as full citizens.Romania could’ve taken the Latvian route and declared Gypsies to be “non-citizen residents” and prevented them from voting or obtaining passports but no, they gave all Gypsies full legal rights and Romania really deserves a lot of credit for this.
- Be a little more human – It’s very easy and quite satisfying for EU and other politicians (including many in Romania) to wring their hands and cry “woe to the poor Gypsies” because it’s an easy way to get sympathy. But Gypsies are more than just statistics on a piece of paper, “driving down the numbers” and fucking up quotas about employment levels. They’re actually human beings with dreams and aspirations and stories to tell. Try talking to them some time and not just talking about them.
And those are my thoughts on the subject for now although of course we all know it’s going to get revisited in the future as none of these issues are going to get addressed in any kind of satisfactory way any time soon :)
All Things Romania 
Off-topic
If you can read Romanian and you have some free time, read the books written by Nicolae Iorga, our great historian. If you can not find them in store, you will find them online or in pdf format.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if this post is a troll or not. Anyway.
There is a thing that affects all cultures on this planet, and it is called “progress”. It is natural for cultures and traditions to evolve, just like anything in this universe does. A wise philosopher in the ancient Greece, Heraclitus, realized this 2.5 years ago and said “The only thing that is constant is change”.
You know, scientists discovered that the matter that forms us and our planet is third generation. That means that the atoms were created in a star that exploded resulting in these atoms being scattered around and creating another star systems, which also ended their life cycle with in explosions that provided the matter for our Solar system. So there were 2 generations of worlds that died in order to create our world. WOW. Nothing is meant to last forever. And certainly not any “traditions”.
You think you’re broadminded? Broadminded means to accept change. I am more broadminded than you are. PWNED!
PS. How is promoting human misery in the name of tradition a “human” thing to do??? I’m sure if you were to ask gypsy kids what is it that they want to become when they grow up, maybe they’d answer doctor or teacher or footballer, and not beggar or thief?
In regards with marriage at 12 yo, I recently saw a documentary from India, which is the place where gypsies got this tradition from. There was a young couple who had been married by their families when they were 7-8 yo (they started living together when they were older though). They said they were happy with their marriage, but they will not do the same thing with their children. So the children prefer the change over the tradition.
Just because things went so terrible with Australia we are supposed to go to the other extreme and grant parents full rights of life and death over their children? Really?
What gives you the right to decide that another person should live their life in misery? Broadmindness?
tl;dr vesion:
people > traditions
LikeLike
dear Sam,
you forgot, (as the gypsies and others do), that being a citizen of any country doesn’t come just with rights, but with obligations as well. and one of the key obligations to keep a society going is to follow the legislation (even when you don’t like it).
and this is the point in which the romanian state, and not only, is failing miserably. and let me explain you.
* is begging illegal? yes, it is. Those who do it should be treated as the law requires.
* is stealing illegal? yes, it is. Those who do it should be treated as per law requirements.
* is child marriage illegal? yes, it is. Those who do it should be treated as per law requirements.
* is black (untaxed) economy illegal? yes, it is. Those who do it should be treated as per law requirements.
I’m sorry to say, but your affirmation that theft and begging should be tolerated, just because is tradition, is ridiculous. cannibalism was a tradition for thousands of years, and it was, until very recently still found. immolation in India the same.
should we go with that, because is “tradition”. how would you feel as a “long pig”, in front of the table on which you will be the main course? I mean, it’s their tradition, you should respect it, no?
that’s exactly how I feel when I’m subject to such “traditions” as stealing and (aggressive) begging.
yes, their leaders should be consulted.
but first of all, the law must be enforced. for everybody, gypsy, romanian or hungarian.
LikeLike
i read with interes your nice artcles
congrats
LikeLike
I don’t know much about the integration program, and they might very well aim to do to also some sort of aggressive cultural integration. Still, I think there are some parts of their way of life that, even though it might be cultural, is not acceptable. If your culture involves marrying at 12 and not going to school, fine by me. If your culture involves stealing from me or beating me up, then you will have to practice it someplace else or in jail. I think the simple principle of “don’t fuck with my life and I won’t fuck with yours” applies here as well.
LikeLike
Schlumpfe is actually German, the Dutch word is Smurfen. Originally (before the comics) it meant something like ‘thingamajig’. I don’t agree with your assimilation/integration argument, and with cultural relativism (neither with the critique on it that Vargas Llosa ousted last week: not all cultures are equal), but you’re doing great work. Just don’t generalize as well. As the joke goes: You can divide women into two groups, but I wouldn’t do that if I were you…
LikeLike
I agreed with a lot of what you had to say. I am coming from a different perspective though in the fact that I have adopted a Roma daughter from Romania. What I learned while I was there and since then has been very disheartening. Although Romania has done a lot – regarding housing, assistance, and other programs to first keep them from traveling and also to integrate them more into society, in the long run, the progress has not been as beneficiary as they would have hoped. I do believe that not all the Romanian government was pro-integration by some of my own experiences. I have friends who run a program for runaway youth and they have seen the worst in what the Roma have gone through. They take these kids in, teach them life skills, life trades, how to start their own businesses, go to school/college, learn how to read and write and most importantly be proud of their ethnicity. Several girls graduated from the program and even college and were trying to get an apartment since they wouldn’t be living in the program anymore. They were turned away by the owner of the apartment even though they could read, write, speak well, and took good care of themselves. Within that same hour, their Romanian friend went to the apartment to see if it was still available and the owner offered it to them right on the spot. Why? Because they weren’t Gypsy! That friend then turned around and confronted the owner about what they did, introduced and vouched for them that they were good citizens and pay their bills. He got an education that day! And the two girls now live there. Another issue is adoption. After I adopted my second daughter from Romania (by the way, my oldest is Romanian and my youngest is Gypsy), Romania closed its doors for anyone to adopt the thousands of orphans there. And what is more sad, 80% of the orphans are Roma Gypsies. I saw first hand how my daughter was treated in her orphanage. She was covered in sores, malnourished and her siblings later on who were not orphaned were given schooling by the government programs in which the teachers came to the house, brought the books, smoked their cigarettes and didn’t teach a thing to the kids. But they don’t have a problem in accepting the money they are paid for to teach those children. So, am I proud of Romania? I can’t really say yes, when all I have seen thus far is what they choose to do – take advantage of government paid positions at the cost of children who are lost in the orphanages and system. Can I say that I am proud of the Roma’s for who they are and what they do? I’m not happy with them either. My daughter has gone through some really difficult identity issues and abandonment issues because first she was abandoned by her birthparents, then rejected again by the country she was born in. Then to further the injury, because she left her clan like most children do when they end up in an orphanage in Romania, they will never be allowed back into their clan, and so rejected again. BUT I am thankful and proud of my friends who are bridging that gap by the example they are setting and seeing the Roma’s prosper, become respectful towards others and helping by changing one Romanian and one Gypsy at a time.
LikeLike
San, I dislike your classification as blue and black gypsies ( I’d prefer integrated/non-integrated gypsies) but I strongly agree with you.
Integration involves two parties. Both need to agree on it. As long as gypsies don’t want to be integrated, any integration strategy will ultimately fail. The communist regime tried to integrate them by force and failed. Romania is under pressure to “integrate” gypsies, an obligation that other countries don’t have. The UK has a large population of their own gypsies called “Irish Travellers” but I haven’t heard of any EU request to integrate them. Nobody think that Her Majesty’s government or anyone else in Britain has the duty to integrate them.Romania must make it clear that the country cannot be expected to integrate gypsies if themselves don’t want this integration. But to go there, Romania must initiate a consultation with all stakeholders of the process: the Romanian society, NGOs, gypsies representative’s, etc.
Romania must also reject the idea that Romanians have duties towards gypsies have no duties towards the Romanian state and society. Equal rights mean also equal obligations. A chart of gypsies duties towards the Romanian state ands society is a must.
Romania must also dispel the myth, frequent in Western Europe, that she has received a lot of money from the EU for the integration of the gypsies, money that was misappropriated and squandered. A clear accountability of how much Romania has received from the EU and how much was spent would a first step.
Finally, Romania must fight against all those Amnesty International reports that depict the country as racist but close the eyes to the deportations and persecutions of which gypsies from Romania are subject in UK, France, Italy, to name only a few.
LikeLike
I know this sound awfully insensitive, intolerant and far-right, but I still have to espouse the old-fashioned idea that whenever one’s lifestyle (whether part of a venerable tradition or not) runs counter to the law, to human rights and to civil rights and obligations, the latter should be given preeminence :). “Cultural rights” are not the summum of human rights. For instance, as far as I am concerned, cultural rights include the right to receive an education in one’s mother tongue, but they definitely do not include the right to deny one’s children any education other than the skills needed to be streetwise and to live off other people’s mercy and/or momentary lack of vigilance :). Race, ethnicity or group culture/traditions shouldn’t provide any shelter from the law and from law enforcement. And, by the way, I don’t think that it is appropriate to refer to Gipsies as a distinct “race”; typical Icelanders and Sicilians differ significantly in terms of complexion, hair color, etc. but I hardly believe that they are regarded as different “races” (apart from the ill-reputed “Nordic race”, of course):).
LikeLike
I agree with you on some of your ideas (discrimination preventing better integration, lack of funding for serious projects – not only for writing reports and studies and going to conferences, respect of the language and towards the people themselves). But I do think you’re wrong on the fact that all that gypsies do is a cultural thing and that we cannot have a separation between what is cultural and what is not. Most of the activities of gypsies that are looked down upon are a product of their economical situation and of the under development of their society.
Would you agree for example with Sharia courts in England just because ‘it’s the culture’ of some islamic groups? Would you say that it was ok for people in the middle ages to have arranged marriages – was it cultural? Is it ok for people to be exploited by others because it is cultural?
Even the fact is that they’re nomadic is partly due to them not having been given land as compensation when slavery was abolished, while Romanian peasants were. Is this a cultural thing? Actually most gypsies are not nomadic (80%), having been given housing under the communists or having bought land before the war or after 89.
I think it’s ok to have a definition of what is culture, and like religion it should be composed of things that do not conflict with the values of a modern state – things like criminality (stealing), child abuse (forced marriages), child exploitation (forcing children to beg – albeit not a very common thing, being done mostly by organized crime gangs). For the softer things: not going to school (it’s an obligation), not paying taxes and not respecting the authority of the state (parallel justice), i’m not saying they should be imposed tomorrow by force, but should be something to work towards.
I would be fine with teaching in the Romani language, having gypsy festivals (singing and dancing to manele for days on end), with a nomadic lifestyle (though I doubt there would be many gypsies interested in pursuing one), with 3 gypsy story palaces (as long as it’s not in protected architectural areas). I’d be fine with having the state compensate in some way gypsies for treating them like shit thru-out the ages (actually part of it should come from the church which was the largest slave owner at that time).
Also, nice to know that about Latvia, Romania used to do the same thing (with jews) in the 30’s – good times (and we still have people who are unrepentant about all that mess that came next).
LikeLike