3.2 commentary 1.pdf

Trandafoiu R GBER Vol. 3 No. 2. pp 6 - 12

6

Racism and Symbolic Geography in Romania: The Ghettoisation of the Gypsies Ruxandra Trandafoiu Edge Hill College of Higher Education, Lancashire, UK.* Two geographies overlap in Eastern Europe: natural geography and symbolic geography. Symbolic geography does not rely on physical or political reality; it is rather a collective projection of unfulfilled dreams, frustrations and aspirations. The Balkans have traditionally been the hot bed of territorial disputes, where states and minorities construct competing visions of geography. The Eastern part of the continent is under the rule of a triadic nexus with three main players: the state, the minority and the minoritys external homeland (Brubaker 1996: 55-69). There is a field of forces and tensions between these three elements of the nexus. This accelerates the states nationalising nationalism (Brubaker in Hall 1998: 277). The state, for example Romania, reclaimed the territory of Transylvania at the end of the Second World War (part of Romania after 1918 until 1940 when its north western part was re-occupied by Hungary), an achievement seen as setting right past historic injustices. The nationalising nationalism of the Romanian state attempts to create a homogeneous nation, re-establish a strong identity, modernise and re-affirm the nation at a European level. Often this happens at the expense of the minoritys rights (e.g. Hungarians) and therefore conflicts between the state and the minority or the minoritys homeland are likely. In the negotiation process between the three elements of the nexus a symbolic geography is superimposed over political geography, as nations are imagined (Anderson 1991) across fluctuating borders. As a result of border changes Eastern European nations stretch over more than one state forming consistent national minorities in the host countries. The link between minority and territory, with all its emotional investment means that such national minorities are concentrated into a certain geographical area of the state. Hence the majority can imagine the other within (the minority) as confined to or synonymous to one geographical area (e.g. the Transylvanian counties of Harghita and Covasna for the Hungarian minority in Romania). With one notable exception: the Gypsies or the Roma, as they are sometimes called. Romania hosts the largest Gypsy population in Europe. Uncertainty reigns with regard to their actual numbers. The census says there are 409,000 Roma, but non-governmental organisations say there are 2.5 million (Adevrul 27/01/01 p.9). The higher number appears to be closer to the truth, as most Gypsies would rather identify themselves as Romanian or Hungarian either due to a weak national identity or to the fear of repression and discrimination. The debate over numbers is essential for the majority,which is unable to count the other and therefore experiences anxiety and uncertainty. The Gypsies are also diffused over the whole territory, in both rural and urban areas and are organised in myriads of clans and families, with a social structure very different from that of the majority. Because they cannot be separated geographically, the division becomes social. There is nevertheless _________________________________ *Lecturer in Journalism, Media & Communication Department, Edge Hill College of Higher Education, Lancashire, UK. Email: [email protected]


7

the tendency to achieve a physical separation as well. The discrimination of Gypsies in Romania and generally all over Europe has a longstanding tradition partly because they are not organised politically and lack a public voice.

In the early 1990s there have been more than thirty-five serious attacks on settlements in Romania alone, mainly in the remote rural areas, and mostly in the form of burnings and beatings, although some Gypsies have been murdered and children have been maimed (Fonseca 1996: 140).

This is a clear indication that the majority resorts to drastic measures in order to uproot and expel them from a certain area. Villages are the primary targets because of the closely-knit community living in a relatively small space.

Gypsies would not only be the last in the queue for jobs and position and schooling; the burnings seemed to suggest that they shouldnt be allowed houses at all (Ibid. 167).

A similar discourse of expulsion runs in the cities, with the majority moving out or staying away from the areas where Gypsies congregate. This tendency is encouraged by the local authorities, which unwittingly but actively promote a policy of segregation. Because the Gypsies lack national and political identity, their story is one of simple survival by numbers. Yet they play quite an active role in the national imagining conducted by the majority. The majority is aware of their presence within, a presence that is more threatening if the other is not isolated, confined and under constant surveillance. Different strategies are used in order to isolate them into symbolical ghettos. Some of these strategies are fervently employed by the national press that sees itself as the voice of the people, hence the majority, and is thoroughly embedded in the national rather than the multinational or multicultural paradigm. The discourse of the press is a discourse of power and ultimately control. The press resorts to the usual myths of discrimination: the threat of large uncontrolled numbers, the fear of being swamped or penetrated and the loss of purity at the hands of the Gypsies who are constructed as uncivilised, dirty, undermining the social and legal order. It is clear that the Romanian national press talks about Gypsies in the language of racism and that press discrimination is replicated not only at a social level, but also at the level of state policies. The Romanian government often describe the Roma as a problem.

The concept of race cuts across nation-state boundaries; however, discrimination, classification and the organization of social relations between races takes place within nation-states that have the power to enforce particular policies containing ways to include and exclude individuals, allocate power and resources to selected groups and decide who is and who is not entitled to become a citizen (Guibernau 1996: 86).

The discourse of separation is trivial, but poignant. It helps construct a symbolic geography that locates and isolates the other at the lowest level of an artificially constructed hierarchy. The following part of this article brings examples from Romanian national papers that illustrate such strategies of symbolic exclusion. The balaclavas [special anti-terrorist troupes] evacuated 100 gypsies from an unfinished tower block in Calea Vitan (title in Adevrul 22/02/01 p.3). The article calls their children puradei (Gypsy children, derogatory word in Romanian), their belongings are calabalc (Turkish word meaning crowded, which in Romanian has come to mean untidy bundle of


8

possessions. As in the case of many Turkish words borrowed into Romanian, the meaning is slightly pejorative) and their illegal abode is described as follows:

The tower block looked as if bombarded, no windows, the walls blackened by the smoke from the improvised clay stoves. Inside, the heavy stench of urine and faeces is enough to churn the stomach, the rubbish piles rising to the windows (Adevrul 22/02/01 p.3).

The image here is one of dereliction and destruction and attempts to shock and horrify the reader, while indirectly constructing a stark comparison with the normal.

Several Gypsy families who were abusively occupying two tower blocks in the Ilfov village of 1st December were evacuated yesterday morning by the local authorities, and the tower blocks in which they made their abode were pulled down. () Ilie Stan, the villages deputy mayor says that the Gypsies terrorised the inhabitants of the area, stole and provoked scandals, they turned the centre of the village into a source of infectious diseases because of the rubbish dumped next to the tower blocks (Ziua 26/04/01 p.16).

These descriptions confirm two main myths about the Gypsies: dirty and destructive. The details are lavish in order to achieve a powerful effect. It is important to note that the Gypsies do not have a voice. The right to speak is reserved by the Romanian authorities. Such discourses encourage the creation of symbolic ghettos, in which these people are labelled and boxed, in order to be kept apart from the majority. Even apparently positive titles turn into the same story of exclusion. After destroying their tower blocks in Drmneti district, the Gypsies will live in a district equipped according to European standards (title in Adevrul 11/10/01). The intention is to contrast Europeanism and barbarity. This is another racist assumption, in which implied Latinity and Europeanism characteristic to Romanians is contrasted to the Indian, non-European origin of the Gypsies. The implication is that Gypsies do not fit in modernity and should be further alienated. Again the voice of the Romanian officials is the only one.

If EU wants us together with the Roma they should give us money to build modern districts for them in town centres, I for one would have nothing against the idea said the mayor of Piatra Neam. () By November 15, 28 Roma families (about 240 people) and 170 Romanian families are to move into Hope district. Next spring other 56 Roma families will be moved from the tower blocks they devastated (D2 and D3) in Drmneti district (Adevrul 11/10/01).

The source of the problem is an uninformed EU, which pushes for peaceful coexistence, rather than allowing Roma to retreat to ghettos, but does not give out the necessary funding and rather expects the Romanians to solve the problem themselves. This is an imposition from the outside, yet the Romanian solution is to keep the segregation going. The Romanian official source is quoted directly and the text is published in bold to draw attention and emphasise the usual stereotypes about Gypsies:

One studio for a Roma family will be rented at a cost of 100 dollars and will not have special amenities. The Roma will not have laminate flooring, tiles, bathtub, furniture or central gas heating, but stoves. Because they destroy! They will pay 10 dollars months rent and will have to work for Publiserv, a public amenities service. If they pay from their own pockets, they will not destroy! The area is now surrounded with barb wire fence because materials are being stolen, but this does not mean it is a ghetto () The Roma will have to maintain


9

quiet and public order and will be supervised by the community police, says mayor Ion Rotaru. Other families will pay 200 in the beginning, but will have the whole range of amenities, for them the monthly rent being 15 dollars (Adevrul 11/10/01).

The Gypsies are destroyers, thieves trouble makers and do not deserve the minimal amenities which are promised, instead, to the Romanian population. The discourse portrays the superiority of Romanians over a population which is seen as little more than animal and needs to be put to work, constantly supervised and punished by authorities. The image of the ghetto is confirmed by the source who is eager to anticipate any criticism, but in fact the barb wire image is so powerful, that it confirms his strategy of denial. The Gypsies are fenced off with any occasion. The municipality tries to curtail Gypsy illegal residents in Cluj-Napoca (Adevrul de Cluj 13/12/01). Gypsy enclaves in Oltenia (half page feature and photos under the banner Investigations in Adevrul 24/11/2000 p.11):

The place where the Gypsies heaven and hell meet In Trgu Jiu, the capital of the enclave the Gypsies form a strong community. Their districts came to be renowned for hundreds of palaces and limousines encountered everywhere, but also for the bricklayers families who survive in dilapidated huts, eating corpses found in rubbish bins. () One Gypsy pulls us into a house where a child is sleeping on the bare earth. Lying in the miserable bed, a woman and other three children are covered by a rotten duvet, black with dirt. All there is, an iron bed and an old wardrobe, on it the empty carcase of a TV set. On the table the Gypsy places a sheeps corpse. () Two feet away from the hut without amenities, water or electricity, a villa, all marble and crystal. In the yard of the palace two jeeps with Ukrainian number plates. Here, in about 19 rooms, four people live.

The discourse becomes more polarised, separating the Gypsies into two types: the sub-humans, and the illegally rich. Both threaten the normality of the majority. By implication, the minority is everything the majority is not. The illegally rich are even more threatening, and therefore the tone is more aggressively ironic, because it contradicts the usual Gypsy stereotypes and implies a superiority over normal Romanians. The tone is again descriptive, rather than investigative, filled with nouns and modifiers, most of them chosen to shock. The place is clearly labelled as an enclave, imaginary barriers being constructed though a negative, exclusionary discourse.

In the Gypsy enclave the Romanians are accustomed already with Romas shelters and palaces. Here nobody says anything. Those who live in the vicinity of Gypsy districts have ready-made answers: We do not have any problems with themthey are good peoplewe get along just fine. The words are uttered through the teeth, with scared glances all around. In the enclave to speak about the Gypsies is an act of great courage (Adevrul 24/11/2000 p.11).

The reality depicted is one of threatening ghettos, which are feared and marginalised by Romanians. The others are troublemakers and deviating from the norm. The quotations used are immediately contradicted and placed in a different context that negates their denotation, adding different connotations. The stress and fear of the Romanians living nearby is clearly emphasised. In Clrai, movie-like fight among Gypsies who sell aluminium and copper (Evenimentul Zilei 18/01/01 p.3, with large title on p.1). The article depicts the fight


10

between two Gypsy gangs: Over 20 Gypsies squeezed into three cars armed with ninja type swords, knives and truncheons. Seven Gypsies from Ovidiu devastate a bar and beat the police up (Ziua 7/04/01 p.3). The Gypsy mafia has information networks among lawyers, judges and police officers (Adevrul 6/04/01 p.1) Due to Adevruls intervention, Cuza Vod village saved by the terror of cldrar Gypsies (title in Adevrul 4/05/01 p.14).

Gypsies from Strehaia walk about with machine-guns hanging on their chest and they hired 100 Romanian bodyguards. They want to be protected from the bandits looking for gold coins. The police found no gun registrations or hunting permits (Adevrul 3/05/01 p.1 in the centre of the page with a photo of several Gypsies, but no guns to be seen).

This is the illegally rich quarter, in which Gypsies can afford to hire Romanians. Vivid descriptions come in abundance to emphasise their deviation from norm and from the acceptable.

Mercedes vehicles patrol among the three story castles of the nomads, and a few brunettes are watching all cars in front of big towered houses that pose as metal trading companies. () A clan leader in suit, with several kilos of gold around his neck and hands is ordering guards through his mobile (Adevrul 3/05/01 p.1).

The use of brunette is highly racist, identifying Gypsies as coloured. They are also depicted as nomads, a nonsense when they are described as owning towered houses, but the word highlights the original difference between the two populations, one stable the other migratory. Racism makes an appearance, with the usual descriptive stereotypes that make the minority look physically deviant and immediately identifiable. Gypsies abroad tarnish Romanias external image:

In Berlin, Paris or London the European media picture Gypsies from Romania holding children and begging or stealing, either on Champs Elysees or Oxford Street. For the West they are Romanian citizens. () Romania will never be able to tackle the problems of this minority on its own. It should be considered a European problem to be solved by a special budget for education and socialisation, for integration in the European way of life and removing the members of this community from the nomadic life style that can lead to delinquency. Somebody has to put these points to Europe with courage and patience, but who and to whom, when nobody seems to listen? (opinion in Adevrul 30/10/00 p.1).

The article recycles the old theme of the shame the Gypsies bestow on Romanians by their behaviour abroad. They are described once more as nomadic, a problem, and delinquents. The responsibility is assigned again to Europe, who does not listen. The rhetorical question suggests unfairness, the fact that Romanians should be regarded as victims, for having to deal with such a minority. Overall, the Romanian newspapers display the same strategies of exclusion and segregation with alarming consistency. This is an indication that the opinion of the majority is consistent and there is a general and common understanding over the place of this minority in society. A survey by the research Institute of Studies and Surveys, ESOP OMEGA from Bucharest, taken on a representative sample of Romanians found out that Romanians display an array of stereotypes which are polarised: positive auto stereotypes and negative hetero stereotypes. In the case of the Roma population, the negative hetero stereotypes are: uneducated, law


11

breaking, deceitful, although they are also considered to be resourceful, good at making money, self-confident (Popescu in Culic 1999: 48-9). The polarised stereotyping helps keep a social distance from the very much different other. The long-standing and resilient racialized imagining, results in material impoverishment, vilification and scapegoating and continued ostracism (Rorke 2000-01). It is a process that is reproduced regularly and builds an inescapable cycle.

The research also found out that: The acceptance of contact with members of Roma ethnic group is

limited to institutional, highly formalized contexts. () The member of the majority group seems to feel safer within an environment in which he can control the behaviour of the minority by means of explicit norms (Popescu in Culic 1999: 52-3).

This seems to be confirmed by the discourse of the press, which keeps the Gypsies at a distance, where they are controlled by officials who design policies to enclose them in ghettos that are often physically real. Surveys also show that the majority of Romanians consider that the Roma are not the subject of discrimination (Mungiu-Pippidi 2002: 187). They also show that not only the Romanian population, but equally other minorities, perceive the Roma as a separate entity and an inferior group (Ibid: 193). Cultural differences and an unfamiliar way of life and social organization make them an easy target (Fonseca 1996). In the absence of a homeland, a written history and a national consciousness, this population is ideal for scapegoating and suffering at the hands of the majoritys superiority complexes. What the discourse of the Romanian press achieves, with its discriminatory and stereotyped attitude towards minorities in general and especially the Gypsies, is work with the us versus other dichotomy in order to cultivate a perpetual state of conflict. It is a reminder to Romanians that in spite being a majority, they are the victims of internal enemies who can disrupt the status quo. There is therefore a perpetual need for nationalizing in order to fend off dangers and marginalize enemies, by labeling them, looking for physical and cultural differences, creating real and imaginary ghettos and ultimately excluding them from normality. The symbolic geography of the majority is based on an imaginary staircase. The Romanians are constructed as superior, in historic achievements, culture, blood and origin, and therefore ethnicity is structured hierarchically, with Romanians at the top, Hungarians following and the Gypsies at the bottom of the hierarchy. They are a voiceless group, with just marginal interventions on their behalf by the EU. Their coverage in the press is unanimously aggressive and racist. The set of stereotypes circulated by them acts as a prop in imagining the other and in boosting complexes of superiority and pride for the majority. References Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. London: Verso. Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in the New Europe. Cambridge University Press. Culic, I./Horvth, I./Stan, C. (eds.) 1999. Reflections on Differences. Focus on Romania. Cluj: Limes. Fonseca, Isabel. 1996. Bury Me Standing. The Gypsies and Their Journey. London: Vintage.


12

Guibernau, Montserrat. 1996. Nationalisms. The Nation-State and Nationalism in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Polity Press. Hall, John A. (ed.). 1998. The State of the Nation. Ernest Gellner and the Theory of Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mungiu-Pippidi, Alina. 2002. Politica dup comunism. Bucureti: Humanitas. Rorke, Bernard. The Roma: Rights and Recognition. CDS Bulletin, Volume 8, No.1, Winter 2000-2001.

3.2 commentary 1.pdf

Documents