ANTH 4020/5020
Roma communities today
Historical background, culture and
current issues
-Week 13 Class 1: Svinia: Case study/
-Gitanos case study
Today‘s outline
1. Scheffel Ch. One: A fragmented
community
2. Scheffel Ch. Two: Inside the osada
3. Gay y Blasco: We don‘t know our
descent
David Scheffel (2005)
“Svinia in black and white”
Chapter One:
A fragmented community
Case study of Svinia - Intro
“Despite its central European location, it
resembles a third-world slum marked by
unemployment, internal exploitation, violence,
substance abuse, and resignation. Wedged into
a village inhabited by ethnic Slovaks whose
views of the Roma are openly racist, the darkskinned squatters on the margins of Svinia are
segregated from the surrounding society by
physical and social barriers entrenched in local
ideology and enforced by rules and conventions
reminiscent of apartheid.” (p. 11)
Case study of Svinia - Intro
•
•
•
•
Svinia is located at eastern periphery of European
Union
Hundreds of similar settlements inhabited by
Slovak Roma exist
Case of Svinia offers insights into topics of global
significance:
- questions of inter-ethnic tolerance
- social exclusion of minorities
- political & cultural conditions allowing
modernization
Investigation of social, cultural and historical
context in order to understand “what went wrong”
Segregation of village and “ghetto”
“But the peace, order and affluence of the village
are not extended to all of its residents. Tucked
away on Svinia’s northern margin, and barely
visible to an unwitting visitor, the Romani ghetto
conveys a much less serene impression. More
than seven hundred noisy and dirty cigani – as
they are called locally – make their living here
amidst heaps of garbage, confined to an
assortment of slum-like dwellings in which no
ethnic Slovak would ever live. Marked by race,
poverty, and powerlessness, the residents of the
ghetto constitute a profoundly segregated and in
many respects oppressed enclave” (p. 18)
Segregation of village and “ghetto”
•
•
•
•
Segregation of two population groups is expressed
in the locally used terms “blacks” and “whites”
Officially two settlements belong to one municipality
 all inhabitants have same rights and privileges
 services related to education, health, social
security, housing, pastoral care.
But: statistics on municipal, regional or state level
say nothing about the existing division
 1991 national census: 1080 residents (no Roma)
Just some examples of segregation:
- no Roma in municipal daycare
- elementary school divided among ethnic lines
- Roma kids excluded from cafeteria & school club
The setting
“Osada (…) best translated as “settlement”, it
refers to communities more durable than a camp
but less rooted than a village. A cluster of
summer cottages becomes an osada, as does an
isolated hamlet stuck in the middle of nowhere.
Unlike a proper village, a Romani settlement
lacks genuine foundations. Its history remains
obscure, and its boundaries are subject to
periodic shifts in response to demands of the
villagers” (p. 20)
The setting
•
•
•
•
700 Roma on 2 hectares of swampy land
650 Slovak villagers on 50 hectares of residential
land plus forests, fields, meadows …
Built environment is also racialized:
Roma are only tolerated to use the main street (not
the side streets)
Roma can use the post office, medical clinic and
mayor’s office
but not the community center, and not the bar in
the former castle …
The people – “whites"
“(…) the main obstacle in my quest for
accomodation was the prospect that we might
invite Roma to visit us in our rented premises. At
long last, we found someone willing to rent us
an unused cottage in the back yard, but the
demand that I sign an undertaking promising not
to allow any Roma to enter our premises seemed
so bizarre that we abandoned the frustrating
mission (…)” (p. 22).
The people
•
•
•
Locals always had little sympathy for any stranger
 1940 chronicle mentions “The first Jew in 15 yrs”
 1942 chronicle entry “the Jew … had left our
community
Slovaks are well known for their hospitality
But: in Svinia hospitality is reserved for one’s own
kin
 Scheffel & family was only briefly greeted, never
invited, and never received any garden produce as
gift …
The people – “blacks"
“ It is hard to imagine a greater contrast to the
meticulous, measured, and taciturn residents of
“white” Svinia than the Roma who inhabit its less
glamorous periphery. Unlike the stodgy village, the
osada pulsates with life. As one approaches it along
a narrow road that branches off from the main street,
one runs into men and women pushing antiquated
prams loaded with supplies purchased in the village.
Loud, unkempt, and often only partially clad, these
people smoke, scream, laugh, and argue with
groups of children that accompany them. They are
communicative with strangers, and be the time the
visitor reaches the settlement, he or she is likely to
be surrounded by a lively cluster of curious
companions.” (p. 25)
More facts about Svinia
•
•
•
•
•
Numbers: 661 (49%) ethnic Slovaks vs. 685 (51%)
Roma (census of 2001): birth ration 38:8!
Increasing xenophobia of villagers, due to
explosive growth of Romani population
 sink into a “siege mentality”
Dominant view is that Roma are inherently unable
to live up to basic standards of civilized behavior
 “Negative culture”
Some acknowledge that relationships were better
during Communism
System of “residence permits”: every resident
must be registered in a municipality
 access to municipal and national elections,
health care etc.
David Scheffel (2005)
“Svinia in black and white”
Chapter Two:
Inside the osada
The people and their environment (I)
•
•
•
•
•
According to oral accounts of local Roma there was
ONE ancestral couple: Juraj & Hania Kaleja, who
got married in the local church
But: according to municipal records another Kaleja
couple arrived simultaneously (Janos and Barbara)
According to the records there was a lot of
(im)migration in the first 10 years of Romani
presence in Svinia – the reason remains unknown
After WW1 2 Kids of the “original couple” set up an
own colony near the original settlement
 bifurcated community in 2 settlements:
 “creek people” (traditionally oriented)
vs. “hill people” (closer to “whites”)
Contrast between the two settlements has endured
The people and their environment (II)
Housing conditions:
• Explosive population increase  dependency on
primitive huts as only housing option
• Over-crowded huts house several generations
• Adolescents stay with parents until they have their
own first baby
 ongoing construction of new huts & expansion of
villages.
• 2 types of huts: made of bricks (of soil, straw &
water) or of log and soil/straw/water-mixture.
• Huts lack hygienic facilities, illegal hook ups for
electricity, rusty stove for heating & cooking
• Apartments also marked by low standard of living:
often only consisting of single bed and stove
The people and their environment (III)
General environment:
• Amount of litter strewn around the settlement
• Human excrement
• Discharged objects
• People do not seem to perceive the litter as a
problem
• Only water supply for the entire settlement is one
shallow spring and a couple of wells
• Careless & even destructive attitude observable in
adults and children
“The living environment that local
Roma have created for themselves
reflects a community that attaches
little value to the construction and
maintenance of good order as
defined by the majority society”
(p. 55).
Making a living (I)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traditional dependency on the surrounding
majority population for livelihood
The “old gypsies were good gypsies”, they went
around begging but didn’t steel. But nowadays …
From manual work during socialism to 100% within
2 years after collapse of socialism in 1989
Income of the Roma of Svinia (almost) exclusively
based on social assistance payments:
- welfare, mother’s allowance (3y.), baby bonus
(keeps rising with age of child)
Crucial: Ability to navigate a maze of contradictory
rules and not actual family conditions
The Roma do not have children to make a living,
but the financial benefits influence their decisions
Making a living (II)
Feast-and-famine consumption pattern:
• Social assistance payments are distributed once a
month
• Distribution date is usually the benchmark for
financially demanding activities
• Large share of payments spent right away
 grocery shopping
 alcohol (local pub)
 gambling machine
• “Feast” portion of monthly cycle is over after a
couple of days
• Towards the end of the month the Roma “stay
indoors, watch television or sleep excessively, and
avoid company of others”
Making a living (III)
Supplemental activities:
• Heavy manual work (young Roma have good
reputation as workers)
• Help Gadje with disposal of old furniture, TV asf.,
and foods that Gadje don’t eat (intestines)
 nothing for free, Gadje charge for all
• Collecting carcasses
Roma buy deceased animals which otherwise
would have to be burned
 skin is sold
 meat is distributed among kin
• Kids search trash bins daily
• Larger garbage dumps
• Few loan-sharks local “Elite”
Discussion question:
• How can the feast-and-famine
consumption pattern be explained?
• How can the expensive consumption
habits be explained?
Relations with the outside world (I)
• Encapsulated community, yet has multiple links
to the outside world.
• Certain knowledge about the world through:
TV, radio, shopping, contacts with relatives,
prison terms, talking to white neighbors & officials
• Cognitive isolation:
- map reading skills absent
- knowledge about Czech lands larger than about
Slovakia (due to work visits in Socialist era)
- No idea of distances and distanced countries
like Canada (or even the capital of Slovakia,
Bratislava) – distances measured in hours
needed to reach the place by foot or bus
Relations with the outside world (II)
Relations within Roma community:
• Contacts only with a dozen of the totally 250
similar settlements
 dense web of kinship
 informal (professional) partnerships (dog sellers,
loan-sharks, violin makers, asf.)
• Almost NO contacts with all other settlements
• Deep mistrust regarding Roma from other places:
“rape girls”, “eat dogs”, “kill babies with hare lip.
 others are often degeše: dirty & untouchable
• Svinian’s in reverse regarded as ignorants,
bumpkins
“The patchwork of xenophobia, prejudice,
stereotypes, and fears upholding the
boundaries between neighbouring settlements
rest on a bedrock of genuine idiosyncracies (=
pecularities) that lend each community its
individual flavour and identity”
(p. 133)
But: in spite of the (real or imagined) differences
between the settlements the communities in the
region are conceptualized as one people
 Share similar language, history, habits
Relations with the outside world (III)
Relations with Gadje:
• The Gadje are conceptualised as a the (culturally)
most distanced people.
• Behavioral differences are often seen as rooted in
biology: Romani blood is “fiery, hot” while white
blood is “cool and thin”
 Gadje represent a separate category of people
• Gadje disliked because of their arrogance,
hostility, aggressiveness, cruelty, shrewdness
• Still: Whites are the reference group, there is
manifest admiration of the dominant culture
• Younger Roma more critical: experienced
segregated school system and racist attacks
Discussion questions
• How do you explain the ambiguity of
the Romani relationship or attitude
towards the Gadje?
• Summarize why the “world beyond
the settlement tends to be feared” (p.
136)
Intro: Roma in Spain (I)
• Gitanos live throughout Spain, in urban & rural areas
•Same confusion and myths about their descent as
everywhere else
• Speak the language of the majority: Spanish
• As (most) Roma everywhere else: elaborate on
contrast between themselves and Non-Roma
• 2 main groups of Roma in Spain:
Kalderash (known as Hungaros by Roma and as
Cingaros by Gadze) came from Eastern Europe in
19th cent., are the „trues“ Gitanos because migrant
and Romanes-speaking
Gitanos, divided into several sub-units
Intro: Roma in Spain (II)
• Represent a minority of „local origin“, yet their
Spanishness is questioned by other Spaniards
• Undisputed role in Spanish communal imagination as
embodiment of all evil and wrong
 physical difference (dark skin & black, greasy hair)
 different („wrong“) customs, values, language &
lifestyle
• But: outside of Spain the Gitanos symbolize
Spanishness: Flamenco, the black-eyed Gitana
 Spanishness = Gypsyness : irrationality, passion,
mistery, honour
P. Gay y Blasco’s fieldsite
• Fieldwork started in 1992
• Jarana (pseudonym) in the Villaverde Alto district in
Madrid, with large Gypsy population
• Housing estate built by local authorities in 1989 to
fulfill the ‚special needs‘ of particularly marginalized‘ or
‚backward‘ Gitanos
• Gitanos came to Villaverde mostly in 1950s with
massive Spanish rural-urban exodus (after WW II)
 (became) settled in most marginal urban areas,
• Built a shanty town, often of cardboard, which was
replaced in 1960s and again in late 1980s
• One of them is Jarana: 4 rows of terraced houses
along 3 streets, clearly separated from the main body
of Villaverde Alto  a Ghetto!
Gay y Blasco, Paloma. 2001.
‘We don’t know our descent’: How the Gitanos of
Jarana manage the past
short presentation by Kylie
Vengo
A film by
Tony Gatlif (2000)
Essay Topic No. 2 – Romani Culture &
Organization
Given what you have learned about
Romanipen,
• How do the Roma manage to maintain
seperateness from the gadze and preserve
their culture?
• What makes it difficult for the Roma to get
successfully (politically) organized?