Coord. Carmen Ionela Ban]a
MINORITIES IN OLTENIA CULTURAL STUDIES
Coord. Carmen Ionela Ban]a
MINORITIES IN OLTENIA CULTURAL STUDIES
Bibliotheca Publishing House T@rgovi[te 2 0 1 5 Coordonator: Carmen Ionela Ban]a Authors: Nicolae Panea, Irineu Ion Popa, Dumitru Otovescu, Alexandrina Mihaela Popescu, R#zvan Nicolae Stan, George G\rle[teanu, Emil }\rcomnicu, Floren]a Simion, Cornel B#losu, Gabriela Rusu, Gunnar Heiene, Solvor M. Latzen
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Na]ionale a Rom@niei Minorities in Oltenia : cultural studies / Nicolae Panea, Irineu Ion Popa, Dumitru Otovescu, ..; coord.: Carmen Ionela Banţa. – T@rgovişte Bibliotheca, 2015 ISBN 978-606-772-078-5
I. Panea, Nicolae II. Popa, Irineu Ion III. Otovescu, Dumitru II. Banţa, Carmen (coord.)
323.1(498.2) FOREWORD
This volume comprises a complex collection of studies that analyse the minorities in Oltenia from a multidisciplinary point of view, at both the macro- and micro- levels. This research was done within the project „Revitalisation and promotion of the Oltenia minorities cultural heritage in the context of cultural diversity”, financed by means of a grant offered by Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and the Romanian Government. We have tried to make a relevant analysis of several ethnic groups in Oltenia in the context of cultural pluralism and to cover a wide area of interdisciplinary research. Intended to resemble a „puzzle”, the volume attempts to encompass most of the social and cultural domains (law, religion, ethnology, ethnography, cultural anthropology) presented in a coherent succession. Thus, in his research on The Legal System and the Minorities, George Gîrleşteanu states that his aim is to outline „the coordinates and the normative consequences of the non- legal concept of minority within the legal system, from the point of view of the rights guaranteed and of the legal protection offered to members of a minority group”. The reader is to gain a legal „understanding” of the cultural, religious and linguistic identity of the national minorities. In order to have a general perception of The Promotion of the Human Person and of His Inestimable Value in the Context of Cultural Diversity – Theological Principles, His Eminence Irineu Ion Popa states that „considering the theological principles which substantiate Christian anthropology in general and the Christian-Orthodox anthropology in particular, it has been established that, irrespective of the social status, ethnicity or other social, cultural or other differences, each human person has an inestimable value and therefore has to be respected accordingly. Responsibility towards our fellow creatures is crucial, and our own redemption depends on how it is fulfilled and realised”. All these can occur within the current multicultural, globalising context, characterised by ethnic diversity, migration and other realities that have various influences on the social environment and on our living conditions. The lengthy, thorough and very well documented study Historical and Ethnological Aspects of the Oltenia Minorities: Beliefs, Customs and Traditions offers relevant and nuanced information on the diachronic history of the settlement, continuity and socio-cultural activities of the Oltenia minorities. In order to have the clearest and most relevant research, the two authors (Emil Tîrcomnicu şi Florenţa Simion) mention ab inition the ethnic minorities of the province, stating how compact, how numerous or how scattered they have been. In fact, this data stands proof of the socio-cultural and political relations established between the majority and the minorities. Thus, there follows a thorough presentation of the Greek, Albanian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, Jewish, Italian, German, Roma and Gipsy woodworker communities. In the same context, the authors analyse eloquent and harmonious aspects related to religion, mentalities, as well as to the psycho-social type of ethnic cohabitation and communication. The research also includes rich, well-balanced ethno-folkloric data, which proves the thorough, professional field research of the two specialists, as well as their objective documentation. The next survey included in the volume is Cornel Bălosu’s An Ethnographic Outline of the Oltenia Minorities – Types of Dwellings, Activities, Architecture, Household Space Management, Folk Costume. The research aims to reinterpret several rural communities of ethnic minorities (or majorities – see Eibenthal and Sviniţa) by means of an objective,
5 nonprejudiced point of view, out of a constant wish to present reality in an open-minded and objective manner. First and foremost, this „reality” concerns the identitary representation of the other, starting from the traditional way of organising the household, moving on to activities and ending with the spiritual values of the community. Field notes gathered during the visits to the ethnic communities of the Serbians in Sviniţa and of the Czechs in Eibenthal make up a lengthy analysis. The authors of the interdisciplinary research The Socio-cultural Profile of the Oltenia Minorities (Dumitru Otovescu, Alexandrina Mihaela Popescu şi Răzvan Nicolae Stan) use an exemplary methodology, which has engendered equally valuable scientific results. The pre-eminent aim of their endeavour is the identification of the system of values specific to these minorities and their promotion within the cultural space of Oltenia by various means of public communication. By making use of an honest scientific approach and methodology, the researchers analyse relevant data which certify the important aspects (social, cultural, religious and political) in the life of the minorities and their coexistence with the majority. The scientific observations refer to aspects related to demography, activities, types of education, various situations of material and spiritual life, means of subsistence, the challenge of facing society, psychosocial convergence, traditional cultures and their importance to the group, group mentalities, social factors revealed by the rituals of passage, by wedding traditions, by other rites and social order mentalities, the observation and reception of the idea of tradition by all age groups, etc. The volume is synthetically prefigured in Nicolae Panea’s Anthropological Outline, where the suggested themes are essentialised. In his turn, the author makes use of multidisciplinary research, which is understandably accompanied by field work. This study is the one that, by means of an academic approach, may scientifically cover the entire theoretical and practical context demanded by this project. Research, claims the author, „can be considered a diagnosis” that not only relates to ”a minority’s condition within the national context”, but also implies a comparison with other European spaces that decided to solve the problem of minorities a long time ago and to this purpose designed „integration grids” and implicitly grids „of formation and of coexistence” in an administrative unit such as a Euroregion. Case studies round the scientific segment of the volume. Thus, towards the end, there are several personal stories of some representatives of the Oltenia minorities, presented by Gabriela Rusu, who outlines them in a literary manner, this way increasing the emotional perception of certain events and ontological experiences. The survey of the Norwegian partners (Gunnar Heiene şi Solvor M. Lauritzen) nuances the information on national minorities (especially the Roma population), in an attempt to make a diachronic presentation of their presence in Norway, as well as „an X-ray” of their status, different from the one in Romania. In conclusion, we can say that the main idea of the volume is related to the wish to rediscover, reunite with, reconsider and reintegrate THE OTHER, the one next to us, who is similar to us, but at the same time different. Thus, the image of the other and the way in which we see him are essential in a socio-cultural, existential and political relation. The coexistence between the ethnic communities and the majority has triggered limits and changes, feelings and resentment, acceptance and refusal, identification and nonidentification, communication and lack of communication, violence or tolerance, intra muros or extra muros. We should also mention the fact that the outcomes of this project financed by Norwegian funds include, besides this socio-cultural identity volume „The Oltenia Minorities.
6 Cultural Studies”, a consistent and hopefully valuable museum product – the multiethnic exhibition hosted by the University of Craiova. We wanted to create within the project a collection of museum artefacts aimed to reanalyse the cultural history of the ethnic minorities in Oltenia, as a result of a museal „narrative” that does not wish to imprison objects (patrimonial or not), but to open new doors to cultural and scientific interpretation and to the acknowledgement of the history of communities. It is, de facto, a display including instruments, significant objects, social and political experiences, other written documents, images and museological adjuvants. Therefore, for now, at least, the exhibition of the University of Craiova expresses, reveals and gathers the characteristics and the cultural and mentalitary identity of those that are next to us... whether Bulgarian, Roma, Albanian, Greek, Jewish, Czech, Serbian or of any other ethnicity. Unfortunately, instead of being fully illuminated, as it was supposed to, the 20th century proved to be marked by tremendous ethnic grimness and „massacres”. In this context, any project of this type is beneficial, not only as a remember, but also as a nuanced configuration of a normal world that does not blatantly misuse the concepts of human and humanity.
CARMEN IONELA BANŢA, PhD
Project manager, reader, Faculty of Letters, University of Craiova, Romania.
7 5 THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND MINORITIES
GEORGE GÎRLEŞTEANU, PhD.
Abstract
The national or international legal system does not perceive minorities in a direct manner, i.e. by attaching specific rights, but in an indirect manner, i.e. by guaranteeing certain specific rights to persons belonging to a minority, in relation to the sociological criterion for defining the latter concept. The present study endeavors to delineate the normative coordinates and consequences of the non-legal concept of ‘minority’ in the field of law in the light of guaranteed rights and the legal protection provided to persons belonging to minorities.
I. The Concept of ‘Minority’ The concept of ‘minority’1 is not specific to the legal system and is thus materialised by means of appealing to sociological criteria such as race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex etc. that become the fundament for determining a minority. Confronted with the necessity to regulate aspects related to the concept of ‘minority’, the legal system does not offer a normative definition of ‘minority’, i.e. a legal definition, in spite of previous attempts in this direction, especially at public international law level.
A. The United Nations System These attempts, often put forth by international organisations such as The United Nations, have the merit of drawing attention on certain elements that are a prerequisite for a possible legal definition of the concept of ‘minority’. Thus, as early as 1950 the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, United Nations, delineated the first coordinates of the concept as part of a defining project, according to which the notion of ‘minority’ “includes only those non- dominant groups of the population who possess and wish to preserve stable ethnic, religious or linguistic traditions or characteristics, obviously different from those of the rest of the population. Such minorities must correspondingly include a sufficient number of persons in order to develop such characteristics. Members of such minorities must be loyal to the State whose citizens they are” 2. In a subsequent study carried out by Francesco Capotorti in 1979 within the frame of the same Sub-Commission, ‘minority’ is defined as A group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State, in a non-dominant position, whose members—being nationals of the State—possess ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language3. Moreover, in view of the same international body and on the conceptual basis of Capotorti’s definition, two further attempts to define the concept can be drawn, the first in
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Craiova, Romania 1 For further details with regard to the concept of minority please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, Drept constituţional şi instituţii politice. Vol. I. Teoria generală, C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2007. 2 Marius Bălan, Statutul minorităţilor naţionale, Ed. Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, Iaşi, 2013, p. 29; Bianca Selejan-Guţan, Comentariul art. 6 din Constituţia României, in Constituţia României. Co- mentariu pe articole, coord. Ioan Muraru, Elena Simina Tănăsescu, C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2008, p. 64. 3 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., p. 348; Bianca Selejan-Guţan, op.cit., p. 64.
9 1985, signed by Jules Deschênes according to whom a ‘minority’ is: ‘[a] group of citizens of a State, constituting a numerical minority and in a non-dominant position in that state, endowed with ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics which differ from those of the majority of the population, having a sense of solidarity with one another, motivated, if only implicitly, by a collective will to survive and whose aim is to achieve equality with the majority in fact and law’, and the second in 1993, elaborated by Asbjørn Eide who considers that ‘[a] minority is any group of persons resident within a sovereign State which constitutes less than half of the population of the national society and whose members share common characteristics of an ethnic, religious or linguistic nature that distinguish them from the rest of the population’4. Nonetheless, such definitions of minority5 do not acquire normative character in the international public law and are based on objective, numerical and sociological criteria, Jules Deschênes alone having commendably accentuated a subjective facet of the concept, i.e. the sense of solidarity with one another and the collective will to survive, as well as the minority’s aim [...] to achieve equality with the majority in fact and law.
B. The European System and the National System At EU institution level there have also been attempts to provide the concept of ‘minority’ with a normative definition. Thus, Recommendation 1133 (1990) adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, a non-legal act, brings forth the concept of ‘national minorities’ defined as ‘separate or distinct groups, well defined and established on the territory of a state, the members of which are nationals of that state and have certain religious, linguistic, cultural or other characteristics which distinguish them from the majority of the population’6. The definition provided in the Recommendation has importance at the level of the Romanian legal system, by taking view of its referencing in Decision 2 (2011) of the Constitutional Court7, alongside Francesco Capotorti’s definition. Additionally, the Court notes that the subjective and objective elements which characterize the notion of ‘minority’ represent prerequisites for the State’s obligation – all the more with regard to persons belonging to national minorities – to respect and guarantee their right to identity. It hence results that the State has both a negative obligation, of abstention, so as not to undermine, through adopted measures the identity of persons belonging to minorities, as well as a positive obligation, to support the maintenance and development of their identity, as part of the universal cultural patrimony8. The most significant act in the European system that endeavors to determine the coordinates of the concept of ‘minority’ is, however, Recommendation 1201 (1993) of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, act by means of which an additional protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights was expected9. Article 1 of the Recommendation proposed a normative definition of the concept, as follows: […]‘national minority’ refers to a group of persons in a state who: a. reside on the territory of that state and are citizens thereof; b. maintain longstanding, firm and lasting ties with that state;
4 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., p. 350. 5 Please also see Cristian Jura, Drepturile omului. Drepturile minorităţilor naţionale, C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2006. 6 Marius Bălan, op.cit., p. 31. 7 Published in the Official Gazette no 136 (February 23rd 2011). 8 Tudorel Toader, Constituţia României reflectată în jurisprudenţa constituţională, Hamangiu, Bucharest, 2011, p. 10. 9 Gabriel Andreescu, Naţiuni şi minorităţi, Polirom, Iaşi, 2004, p. 102.
10 c. display distinctive ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics; d. are sufficiently representative, although smaller in number than the rest of the population of that state or of a region of that state; e. are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common identity, including their culture, their traditions, their religion or their language10. Although the additional protocol to the Convention has not been concluded, Recommendation 1201 presents paramount importance in the legal field in the light of references made to it in some international law legal acts. In this way, the definition present at Recommendation level may acquire normative character. In the Romanian legal system, following the previously exposed mode, the definition given to the concept of ‘national minority’ in Recommendation 1201 has acquired legal character by referring to it in two international Treaties concluded with Romania, i.e. the Treaty of Understanding, Cooperation and Good Neighborliness with Hungary – Article 15 corroborated with p. 3 of the Annex – and the Treaty of Understanding and Good Neighborliness with Hungary – Article 13(1). Similarly, in case of both Treaties, the parts have nonetheless convened that Recommendation 1201 does not refer to collective rights and does not impose them the obligation to provide the mentioned persons with the right to a special statute of territorial autonomy founded on ethnic criteria11. Taking view of the fact that Article 11(2) of the Romanian Constitution of 1991 provides that ‘Treaties ratified by the Parliament are, according to law, part of the internal law’, it hereby results that the ratification of the two Treaties led to the introduction into the internal law of the definition given to ‘minority’, the coordinates enunciated at its level thus becoming normative.
II. The Principle of Unity of the People and the Right to Identity of Persons Belonging to National Minorities
A. The Principle of Unity of the People The Romanian legal system, where according to Article 4(1) of the Constitution of Romania the principle of unity of the people12 constitutes the fundament of the State – ‘The State foundation is laid on the unity of the Romanian people and the solidarity of its citizens’ –, excludes the possibility to attribute to minorities legal personality. In the context of the indivisibility of the unitary Romanian State consecrated by Article 1(1) of the fundamental law, corroborated with the principle of equality of rights provided by Article 16 of the Constitution, the principle of unity of the people has as main legal consequence the interdiction of any differentiation between citizens on account of such criteria as those exemplified in Article 4(2), i.e. race, nationality, ethnic origin, language, religion, sex, opinion, political adherence, property or social origin13. Thus, this main legal consequence prohibits legal division of the people in relation to the criteria enunciated by Article 4(2), the people being legally constituted only of citizens, concepts such as that of ‘national, linguistic, cultural etc minority’ thus having but a purely sociological value and being able to entail no legal consequence.
10http://www.dri.gov.ro/recomandarea-nr-1201-cu-referire-la-un-protocol-aditional-la-conventia- europeana-a-drepturilor-omului-privind-drepturile-persoanelor-apartinand-minoritatilor-nationale/. 11 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, Constituţia României comentată. Titlul I. Principii generale, Universul Juridic, Bucharest, 2009, p. 218; Gabriel Andreescu, op.cit., pp. 209-216. 12 For further details please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2007, p. 352. 13 For further details please see Nicolae Pavel, Egalitatea în drepturi şi nediscriminarea, Universul Juridic, Bucharest, 2010.
11 It hence results that the indivisibility of the people prohibits the existence of some minority rights, regardless of the establishment criterion of these minorities, whilst also allowing the existence of some rights of persons belonging to minorities, in the context of the guarantee of the right to identity, as laid down in Article 6 of the Constitution. Only natural or legal persons can have rights which are recognized and guaranteed by the legal system, while minorities, who are not legal entities and are consequently inexistent from a legal point of view, cannot enjoy their own rights, i.e. collective rights in domains such as those enunciated by Article 4(2) of the fundamental law. The legal system does not establish rights which a collective body of persons could benefit of, regardless of the setting up criteria of the collective body, but only rights belonging to a subject of law constituted of a collective body of persons. Rights always belong to an individually determined subject, even if it is constituted through the association of several subjects of law. Minorities are not recognized by the legal systems as legal entities, thus having the capacity of being conferred upon their own rights, due to the fact that ‘in order for individual rights to become the rights of a national minority constituted as collective body with its own legal personality, distinct from that of the individuals who make it up, it would be necessary, through internal or international rules of law, to establish the procedural conditions for their establishment and organization, the majority required to this end and the activities that they are authorized to undertake in order to exercise their eventually recognized rights’14. The legal system does not create this necessary legal frame, it can, however, ensure legal protection of the structures that facilitate the exercise in the collective body of a minority person’s right.
B. The Right to Identity of Persons Belonging to National Minorities Article 6 of the Constitution of Romania lays down the right to identity of persons belonging to national minorities, as follows: (1) The State recognizes and guarantees the right of persons belonging to national minorities to the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity. (2) The protection measures taken by the Romanian State for the preservation, development and expression of identity of the persons belonging to national minorities shall conform to the principle of equality and non-discrimination in relation to the other Romanian citizens. As it can be observed, the Constitution, in accordance with the individualist fundamental principles of legal order (unity of the people, equality in rights and indivisibility of sovereignty), lays down a right to identity that affirms as holder not the collective body of persons, but the person belonging to the national minority.
1. The Holder of the Right to Identity: The Person Belonging to the National Minority The constitutional disposition employs the term ‘person’, without making a distinction between the natural person belonging to a national minority and the legal persons made up of individuals belonging to a national minority. Therefore, an important legal issue lies in determining whether legal persons belonging to national minorities can be holders of the right to identity guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution and thus enjoy the legal protection attached to it. If we consider the Romanian constitutional context that guarantees only individual, not collective rights, but also the fact that certain individual rights encompass a collective
14 Tudor Drăganu, Câteva consideraţii privind problema « drepturilor colective » ale minorităţilor naţionale, Revista română de drepturile omului no 18/2000, p. 41.
12 exercise, the answer cannot be but affirmative, alongside a circumstantiated sense nonetheless. Thus, legal persons constituted by natural persons belonging to a national minority are holder of the right to identity guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution, if they ensure the frame of common exercise of their members’ individual rights. Hence, legal protection of the right to identity of a natural person belonging to a national minority attains greater efficiency by guaranteeing the legal protection of the same right to a legal person whose member is the first. This fact is also confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, Application no. 45701/9915) who affirms that effectivity of the freedom of religion can only be achieved if ‘the right of believers to freedom of religion, which includes the right to manifest one’s religion in community with others, encompasses the expectation that believers will be allowed to associate freely, without arbitrary State intervention,’ so that this fact implies persons not be constrained to place themselves without their consent into a sole legal person representing a religious belief, the State thus infringing Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights by depriving the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia of legal personality16. Thus, the term ‘person’ used in Article 6 of the Constitution makes reference both to the natural, as well as to the legal person belonging to a national minority. It must, however, be underlined, that this premise does not create the possibility of recognition for some collective rights, but only for some individual rights belonging to a subject of law who can require an individual or collective exercise. At the same time, the constitutional disposition does not institute a simple enumeration of the valences of law to identity guaranteed to persons belonging to a minority (ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious), but encompasses the main criteria for the establishment of a minority whose members benefit from the protected right to identity. The enumeration must necessarily be interpreted extensively, due to the fact that these criteria of minority establishment do not have to be achieved cumulatively on the one hand, and because they are not the only ones possible at normative level on the other hand, the State guaranteeing the right to identity to persons belonging to minorities also on the basis of other criteria, such as opinion, political adherence, sexual orientation etc.17 A person’s belonging to a minority may be determined either objectively, through the existence of one of the above mentioned criteria, or subjectively, through the expression of the person’s individual will to constitute him or herself as component of a certain minority. The Constitution of Romania brings forth the subjective option, ‘due to the fact that adherence to a minority must be the same as the adherence to the nation: subjectively determined’18. The fundamental law prohibits discriminating legal treatment or persons’ legal privileges in relation to their sociological adherence to a minority and guarantees their right to identity without mandatorily, but rather voluntarily, assigning them to a minority. Hence, determining a person’s adherence to a minority cannot be achieved but voluntarily, the State and other subjects of law thereby having interdiction to assign a person to a minority on the basis of objective criteria.
15 Please see the full text of the Decision at http://host.uniroma3.it/progetti/cedir/cedir/Giur_doc/Corte_Stras/C_Metr_Bess_Moldova2001.pdf. 16 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, p. 221. 17 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, pp. 222-223. 18 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, p. 224.
13 2. The Object of the Right to Identity: The Identity Sphere Article 6 of the Constitution of Romania lays down a right to identity whose object is determined as having regard to the ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of a person belonging to a national minority. Thus, understanding the normative content of the right to identity presupposes comprehending its four prescribed normative valences.
2.1. Ethnic Identity The notion of ‘ethnicity’ is legally fluid and bivalent. The objective vision on ethnicity is founded on the group’s objective traits, ethnic groups being those ‘communities which, within a particular geographic area, speak mutually comprehensible languages and display essentially similar forms of economic adaptation’19 or groups ‘which possess a common territory and coordinately use force against others.’ The subjective vision on ethnicity targets members’ subjective attitude towards adherence to the collective body, ethnicity thus being regarded as a ‘social group whose members share sentiment of common origin, reclaim a common and distinctive history and destiny and feel a particular direction of the collective originality and solidarity’20. Thus, the fluidity of the concept of ‘ethnicity’ becomes problematic in as far as the determination of the legal contour of ethnic identity is concerned21. Nevertheless, a series of clarifications are required. Firstly, we must take into account the fact that ethnic traits appear conjuncturally and evolutionarily via construction through opposition, rather than by means of identifying certain common unchanged group characteristics. Thus, a direct normative consequence is the prohibition imposed to the constitutional law-maker or judge with regard to the enactment of a general definition given to the concept that would limit it to certain particular characteristics22. Furthermore, the protection constitutionally granted to the right to ethnic identity creates normative consequences in the case of relation between different ethnic groups on the State’s territory, in the sense of prohibiting their hierarchy. Additionally, legal protection granted to the ethnic identity of persons belonging to a minority also guarantees access to the economic resources necessary for the preservation of this identity by group members, and ensures the specific economic behavior manner of these minority members23.
2.2 Cultural Identity Just like the first aspect of identity, as presented in Article 6, cultural identity24 is difficult to define, considering the integration of the general notion of ‘culture’, as well as the impossibility to use certain specific elements of this identity, i.e. language or religion, due to their benchmarking as distinct valences of the protected identity. Professor Patrice Meyer Bisch, Université de Fribourg, had a significant contribution as member in the Fribourg group responsible for drafting the Declaration on cultural rights to throwing light on the key concept of ‘culture’ which ‘covers those values, beliefs, convictions, languages, knowledge and the arts, traditions, institutions and ways of life through which a person or a group expresses their humanity and the meaning they give to their existence and to
19 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, pp. 177-178. 20 Ibid. 21 Please see Cristian Ionescu, Conceptul de identitate etnică. O perspectivă constituţională, Revista de Drept Public no 3/2015, pp. 25-33. 22 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, pp. 177-178. 23 For a detailed analysis of the concept and its normative consequences please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, pp. 225-228. 24 For a detailed analysis on this aspect and on the position of cultural rights in the legal system please see Laura-Maria Crăciunean, Protecţia drepturilor culturale în dreptul internaţional, C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2011.
14 their development’ (Article 2(a)) 25 and on the concept of ‘cultural identity’ as ‘the sum of all cultural references through which a person, alone or in community with others, defines or constitutes oneself, communicates and wishes to be recognized in one's dignity’ (Article 2(b)) 26. Although the definition is quite expansive, we consider that it should be taken into consideration from the perspective of Article 6 of the Constitution of Romania. Laying down the concept of ‘cultural identity’ has as corollary the legal protection of the generic category of persons’ cultural rights at constitutional level, even if the constituent has not expressly provided them in the fundamental law. The content of cultural identity encompasses a conjunctural definition in relation to the actions and inactions which may affect it27, so that this type of identity presupposes that ‘no one can pretend to define somebody’s cultural identity in their place, nor deny them access to the necessary means to achieve it’28. Thus, cultural rights, as means of achieving a person’s cultural identity, seem in turn to lack concrete content and to be negatively defined, in the light of generic limitations imposed to the other subjects of law so as not to affect them: on the one hand, the generic interdiction imposed to all people to define a person’s guaranteed cultural identity in their place, and on the other hand the generic interdiction imposed to all subjects of law to adversely affect or restrict a person’s access, whose cultural identity is guaranteed, to the means through they can build their own cultural identity29. This negative manner of shaping the legal physiognomy of the right to cultural identity of persons belonging to national minorities grants the holder of the right legal protection, inclusively against the minority collective body they are part of, the person being alone entitled to constructing this identity.
2.3. Religious Identity A person’s religious identity is constitutionally guaranteed by dispositions laid down by Article 29 – Freedom of conscience, as follows (1) Freedom of thought, opinion and religious beliefs shall not be restricted in any form whatsoever. No one shall be compelled to embrace an opinion or religion contrary to his own convictions. (2) Freedom of conscience is guaranteed; it must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. (3) All religions shall be free and organized in accordance with their own statutes, under the terms laid down by law. (4) Any forms, means, acts or actions of religious enmity shall be prohibited in the relationships among the cults. (5) Religious cults shall be autonomous from the State and shall enjoy support from it, including the facilitation of religious assistance in the army, in hospitals, prisons, homes and orphanages. (6) Parents or legal tutors have the right to ensure, in accordance with their own convictions, the education of the minor children whose responsibility devolves on them.
25 Maria Moldoveanu, Respectarea drepturilor culturale I, Revista Caiete Critice no 10 (300)/2010, pp. 77-78 at http://caietecritice.fnsa.ro/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/CC-10-2012.pdf 26 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, p. 228. 27 Ibid. 28 Patrice Meyer Bisch, Quatre dialectiques pour une identité, Revue de philosophie et sciences sociales no 1/2000, p. 282 apud Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, p. 229. 29 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, p. 229.
15 Ensuring the identity of persons belonging to national minorities, as presented in Article 6 of the Constitution has as consequence the principle of the State’s secularity, state power being neither religious, anti-religious, nor areligious or neutral. Thus, the State’s secularisation presupposes the reunification of three conditions: the secularisation of political power, the State’s neutrality in relation to churches and the ensuring of the freedom of conscience and cults30. The secularisation of political power involves the inexistence of a influence of churches on the State and its public services and the elimination of the political role of a dominant church from public life. The principle therefore ensures the religious identity of persons belonging to national minorities, by guaranteeing that a dominant church will not influence political power to disfavor minority religions. The State’s neutrality in relation to churches presupposes that the State refrains from recognizing any cult. This, however, does not imply that the State does not admit cults, but rather that practicing religion is no longer a public phenomenon. The State thus enters into an obligation of neutrality from a religious stand. Neutrality can be negative which presupposes the lack of any publically affirmed religious preference by the State, as well as the interdiction to introduce any discrimination among persons on the basis of religious criteria. State neutrality is also positive, the State hence intervening as arbitrator in the field of religious cults, in the sense of granting all persons the possibility to exercise any religion, according to their own preferences31.
2.4. Linguistic Identity Linguistic identity guaranteed by Article 6 of the Constitution presupposes a right of persons belonging to national minorities and not a means of protecting minority languages. The exercise of this right to linguistic identity can only take view of a person’s private space, and not of the public space, such as we will see next. Similarly, as in the case of religious freedom, the State has an obligation to refrain itself in as far as the free use of minority languages in a person’s private space is concerned32.
III. The Official Language, Minority Languages and Public Space The constitutional establishment of a language as official language brings about in the legal sphere a series of important normative consequences that are mandatorily imposed to public power and that determine a certain structuring of the relationships among participants to the public space. The principle of pluralism, as condition and guarantee of constitutional democracy, as well as supreme and universal value of social organization, imposes nonetheless the coexistence in the State of several languages specific to the diverse group that make up the people. In the democratic state, minority languages are generally recognized by positive law, and the possibility to use them is guaranteed by the State. It must thus be seen how these two institutions correlate and accommodate each other in democracy: the official language on the one hand, and minority languages on the other hand. Essentially, the concrete mode of coexistence of these two language categories shall be reduced to the meaning assigned to the demos: the people as a large part expressed by the principle of limited majority33. This meaning given to the demos mandatorily determines a
30 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, p. 237. 31 Ibid, p. 238. 32 For an in depth analysis please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, pp. 234-236. 33 For further details with regard to the meanings of the term ‘demos’ as people please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2007, pp. 82-83.
16 certain degree of accommodation regarding the institutions called into question – the official language, as direct expression of the majority has priority at the general level of State organization, but the principle relativises through the very existence of a minority linguistically characterized by the use of some minority languages. The Romanian Constitution of 1991 consecrates the principle of the official language in Article 13, stating: ‘In Romania, the official language is the Romanian language.’ Thus, the principle of the limited majority, specific to the sense assigned to the demos, finds expression through the consecration of the Romanian language as official language of the State, hence as official language of the public space. At the same time, Article 6 of the Constitution consecrates the right to linguistic identity of persons belonging to national minorities, as follows: ‘The State recognizes and guarantees the right of persons belonging to national minorities to the preservation, development and expression of their ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity.’ Minority languages, expression of the minority function in democracy, are thus consecrated and guaranteed by the Romanian fundamental law, and may be freely used in the private space. The two constitutional dispositions are complementary in the clarification they bring on the meaning of people, previously taken into consideration in democracy. Public administration, as organ of the State, plays via its institutions an important role in public space. The organs of public administration interact either within the system itself through established and ongoing inter-institutional relations, or in the exterior, by coming into direct contact with the civil society (citizens, associative structures, pressure groups etc.). The concrete manner of interaction among public administration organs in the public space, through their own activity conducted as direct means of public power exercise, thus appears to be clustered within the limits imposed by the principle of the official language. The entire activity undertaken by the organs, first and foremost in relation to individuals, must comply with the normative consequences which result from declaring a language official.
A. The Official Language
1. The Normative Character of the Principle and the Position of the Romanian Constitutional Court 34 As any constitutional principle, the principle of the official language must be understood as having normative, and not declarative, intrinsic value. Elevating Romanian language as official language to the status of constitutional principle is not merely a simple statement from the Romanian constituent. Thus, the normative character implies that such a disposition must not bear derogations. These derogations can appear either in the form of declaring a language other than Romanian as the official language, or in the form of certain dispositions that would violate either one of the normative consequences which can be inferred from the character of a language as official language. Nonetheless, from analyzing the jurisprudence of the Romanian Constitutional Court it hereby results that Article 13 has for the Court but a simple declarative character, and as such does not produce any legal consequence and cannot be therefore breached but through a contrary declaration that would establish a language other than Romanian as official language. Thus, through Decision 113 (July 20th 1995)35, the Court concludes that, since the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages states that ‘the protection and encouragement of regional or minority languages should not be to the detriment of the official languages and the need to learn them’ and that the possibility to take measures in those areas
34 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, op.cit., 2009, pp. 350-351. 35 Published in the Official Gazette no 362 (July 29th 1999).
17 where regional or minority languages are used must be made ‘without prejudice to the the official language(s) of the State’, this normative act does not encompass dispositions contrary to Article 13 of the Constitution and is thus perfectly constitutional. Such manner of interpretation betrays a lack of analysis on the effects of controlled dispositions, due to the a priori declaration of the fact that the controlled act is without prejudice to the official character of the Romanian language. The same odd manner of interpretation is applied by the Court in Decision 114 (July 20th 1999) 36 as well. Thus, since the law ‘does not provide that multicultural universities are authorised to use an “official language” other than Romanian’, there can be no question of a breach of Article 13 of the Constitution in the present case. Similarly, through Decision 112 (April 19th 2001) 37, the Court maintains its prior position and transforms Article 13 into a declarative disposition, devoid of any intrinsic concrete consequences. The dispositions subjected to the control of constitutionality con- ducted by the Court were part of Law 215 (2001) of local public administration and allowed the use of minority persons’ mother tongue in their relations with and in the administration, a fact which implied an evident derogation from Article 13 of the fundamental act. It must be mentioned that if presently, as a result of the 2003 review, the possibility for persons belonging to minorities to use their mother tongue in the relations with the administration is laid down by dispositions of Article 120(2) of the Constitution providing that ‘in the territorial-administrative units where citizens belonging to a national minority have a significant weight, provision shall be made for the oral and written use of that national minority’s language in the relations with the local public administration authorities and the decentralized public services, under the terms stipulated by the organic law,’ at the moment of the adoption of the Decision quoted by the Court, i.e. 2001, this constitutional provision was absent. Without analyzing the legal dispositions in relation to the normative consequences of Article 13 of the Constitution, ‘the Court states that neither one of the mentioned legal texts declares the language of any national minority as official language. On the contrary, Article 43(3) takes up the constitutional disposition laid down by Article 13 and provides that Romanian is the official language of the State. On the other hand, from the criticized legal texts expressly results that, when the proportion of the population belonging to a national minority is significant and exceeds 20% of the total of the population in territorial- administrative unit, provision shall be made for the use of the mother tongue of the citizens belonging to the respective minority as well in relations with public administration authorities and in the publicly made acts, without infringing the statute of official language of the Romanian language.’ The Court’s precarious analysis can be summed up as follows: the controlled legal dispositions do not infringe Article 13 of the Constitution since they reaffirm it therein. Therefore, any legal disposition by means of which the statute of the Romanian language as official language would be simply reaffirmed is not at odds with Article 13 and is thus perfectly constitutional. Such an interpretation is insufficient and resolves the issue of constitutionality but tangentially, due to the fact that it does not stand for a substantial analysis of the conformity with the normative consequences of Article 13, but constitutes instead a transformation of the constitutional disposition into a mere constitutional declaration that could only be infringed by a contrary declaration.
36 Published in the Official Gazette no 362 370 (August 3rd 1999). 37 Published in the Official Gazette no 362 280 (May 3rd 2001).
18 2. The Position of the Constitutional Council (France) Unlike our Constitutional Court38, the French Constitutional Council, by Decision 99- 412 (June 15th 1999)39, controlling the constitutionality of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and taking up previous jurisprudence resulting from Decision 94-345 (July 29th 1994)40, undergoes an analysis on the compatibility of its dispositions with the normative content of the constitutional affirmation with regard to the official character of the French language. The Constitutional Council, in considering Article 2 of the French Constitution of 1958 which declared French as official language of the Republic, states that ‘the use of French could be imposed only on public-law corporations and private-law entities supplying a public service, individuals cannot avail themselves, in their relations with the administrations and public services, of a right to use a language other than French, nor be constrained to such a use’ (recital 8) and that ‘no specific rights [can be conferred] to “groups” of speakers of regional or minority languages, on the “territories” where these languages are practised’ (recital 10), so that these languages can be freely used in ‘private life’, but not in ‘public life’ (recital 11). On the basis of this substantial argumentation, the French Constitutional Court concluded in the afore mentioned Decision that the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages encompasses dispositions contrary to the French Constitution, being thus declared unconstitutional41.
3. The Normative Consequences of Declaring Romanian Language as the Official Language As it can be observed, the two interpretations of the two constitutional courts, i.e. the Romanian and the French, with regard to the official language, are radically different, if not even opposed. If the Romanian Court’s interpretation practically excludes the normative character of the constitutional disposition, the interpretation offered by the Constitutional Council attaches the following legal consequences to the normative character of declaring a language as official language42: - The obligation to know the official language; - The official language is the only one that can be used by the organs of the State and the other public-law corporations and private-law entities supplying a public service; - Only the official language can be used in public life; - The regulation of the use of minority languages must not transform individual law into collective law, nor can it bind the exercise of some fundamental rights or freedoms to the citizens’ position on the territory;
38 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, 2009, op.cit., p. 331. 39 http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/depuis- 1958/decisions-par-date/1999/99-412-dc/decision-n-99-412-dc-du-15-juin-1999.11825.html. 40 http://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/conseil-constitutionnel/francais/les-decisions/depuis- 1958/decisions-par-date/1994/94-345-dc/decision-n-94-345-dc-du-29-juillet-1994.10568.html. 41 For more details regarding the public debate in the hexagon on the signing and ratification of the European Charter for Minority or Regional Languages, as well as the evolution of the Constitutional Council jurisprudence concerning the constitutional principle of the official language, please see Michel De Villiers, Thierry S. Renoux, Code Constitutionnel, comentté et adnotté, Litec, Paris, 2001, pp. 281- 282; Alain Fenet, Geneviève Koubi, Isabelle Schulte-Tenckhoff, Le droit et les minorités, Ed. Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2000, pp. 324-335. 42 For more details with regard to the normative consequences imposed as a result of the declaration of Romanian as official language according to Article 13 of the Constitution please see Dan Claudiu Dănişor, 2009, op.cit., pp. 332-338.
19 - The use of a language other than the official language in public life, even if permitted by the Constitution, must not create restrictive consequences with regard to freedom for the other citizens.
B. Minority Languages Qualifying a language as minority or regional language imposes itself as an expression of the State’s will. The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, ratified by the Romanian State by Law 282 (October 24th 2007)43, defines in Article 1(a) the expression ‘minority or regional languages’ through two cumulative criteria: ‘“regional or minority languages” means languages that are: i. traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population; and ii. different from the official language(s) of that State.’ The Romanian legislator, through the ratification law, in virtue of the national character of the Romanian State laid down in Article 1(1) of the Constitution, defines in Article 3 national minority or regional languages by attaching a limitative list of these languages. The Romanian constituent, by laying down in Article 6 the right to linguistic identity of persons belonging to national minorities confers indirect protection to minority or regional languages. It must be underlined that Article 6 protects persons, not languages, but through the sphere of protection thus laid down by law there is also an indirect protection of the languages employed by them.
C. The Official Language and Minority Languages in Conflict? All normative consequences resulting from constitutionally declaring a language as official language are imposed to the use of minority or regional languages, hence all normative consequences of Article 13 of the Constitution which establish Romanian as the State’s official language shall be correlated with those resulting from laying down the right to linguistic identity by Article 6. Article 13 of the Constitution imposes unilingualism at public space level by qualifying Romanian as official language, so that the exercise of the right to linguistic identity by using minority and regional languages cannot take place but within persons’ private spheres. These general normative consequences drawn from the two constitutional dispositions automatically impose on the State an obligation with dual valences: a negative obligation of statist non-intervention in the use of languages in private space, and a positive obligation of active intervention in their promotion and protection44. The two institutions are clustered in principle in two different spheres, with no possibility of interference: the official language in the public sphere, and the minority languages in the private sphere. The 2003 constitutional review introduces through Article 120(2) a potential conflict in the public administration field: citizens belonging to a national minority may use their own language in written and oral communication in relations with local public administration authorities. If until then the use of regional or minority languages in public space had been prohibited by law, the new constitutional regulation apparently opens up the possibility to exceed the classic frame of language use, via its expansion from private to public life and its consequent transformation into a potential conflict theme. ‘This polarization of our constitutional system between official monolingualism and the recognition of the right to linguistic identity turns into potential conflict themes all
43 Published in the Official Gazette no 752 (November 6th 2007). 44 Dan Claudiu Dănişor, 2009, op.cit., pp. 234-235.
20 constitutional dispositions with regard to the use of minority languages in relations with local administrations and the State’s decentralized services or in the area of justice’45. The attitude of the Romanian Constitutional Court in this respect, as previously observed and presented, is passive, although it obviously remarks the potential conflict. Instead of acting a real arbitrator in managing the consequences resulting from such an additional regulation, the Court makes ‘no choice between official monolingualism and the right to linguistic identity, and prefers to coexist them without drawing the necessary conclusions from either one the constitutional dispositions’46. The lack of a clear course of action in handling the issues brought about by the two constitutional dispositions, as well as their mismatch with the point of confluence and divergence which came about through the 2003 review has resulted into an avoidance of a potential conflict, the Romanian court evidently denying the possibility of its emergence. Unlike our Constitutional Court, the French Constitutional Council has clearly blocked any tentative emergence of a potential conflict in relation to the possibility of minority language use in public space. Minority languages cannot be used but exclusively in the private sphere of individuals, the French Court’s argument being founded on the constitutional principles of the indivisibility of the Republic, unity of the French people and national sovereignty which imply the interdiction of collective rights47: ‘these fundamental principles oppose to the recognition of the collective rights of any group, defined by a community of origin, culture, language or faith.’
D. Public Administration in Romania and the Use of Minority Languages in Public Life As we have previously seen, in the field of public administration in Romania, the point of convergence and an equally potential conflict with regard to the use of the State’s official language and that of minority languages, is represented by dispositions of Article 120(2): ‘in the territorial-administrative units where citizens belonging to a national minority have a significant weight, provision shall be made for the oral and written use of that national minority’s language in the relations with the local public administration authorities and the decentralized public services, under the terms stipulated by the organic law.’ Such a constitutional provision results in a relative openness of public life to the use of minority languages and in the exceeding of their classic frame, i.e. the private sphere. Undoubtedly, such a provision contradicts the logic of the principle drawn from the correlated interpretation of Article 13 dispositions with Article 6: the official language corresponds to the public space, minority languages to the private sphere. Nonetheless, such a derogation is possible on the one hand, by taking view of the fact that it reflects in principle the will of the constituent thereby expressed through the 2003 review and on the other hand, due to the fact that there is no hierarchy among the constitutional norms, perhaps only with the exceptions of those norms which are constituted within the limits of the review. All things considered, we must underline the following aspect: the achievement of a real control of constitutionality with regard to the review project proposed in 2003 should have led the Romanian Court to the conclusion that such a disposition submitted for introduction is not in accordance with the normative consequences of Article 4 which lays down the unity of the people, thus prohibiting collective rights, and those of Article 13, concerning the consecration of the Romanian language as the official language. Actually, the
45 Ibidem, p. 235. 46 Ibid. 47 Alain Fenet, Geneviève Koubi, Isabelle Schulte-Tenckhoff, Le droit et les minorités, Bruylant, Bruxelles, 2000, p. 330.
21 two constitutional principles infringed by the content of Article 120(2), as established by law, are additionally limits to any constitutional review according to Article 152(1)48. Understanding the normative consequences of the new constitutional regulation in the field of public administration in Romania must nevertheless be mandatorily correlated with dispositions of Article 13 from the fundamental law, so that public administration institutions (legal persons under public law) may not use a language other than the official language in the undertaken activity and so that any limitation on the exercise of a citizens’ right or fundamental freedom within public administration as a result of using a different language in relations with its organs is prohibited.
1. The General Obligation of Public Administration Institutions to Use the State’s Official Language Public administration institutions cannot use but the Romanian language and the official acts must be drafted in the State’s official language. Thus, Article 76(5) from Law 215(2001) of local public administration clearly lays down the above mentioned aspect when it comes to acts adopted by local public administration institutions: ‘Official acts shall be mandatorily drafted in the Romanian language.’ It firstly results that, in those cases where an administrative act is issued by these organs in a language other than the official one, that act cannot constitute but a translation of the official act, mandatorily drafted in Romanian. Any contradiction between the two forms in such a situation will be resolved through the prevalence of the option in the State’s official language. Thus, the legal regulations of the organization and functioning of public administration shall not be able to impose on public administration institutions the obligation to use a language other than the official one, but, at most, to use translations annexed to the act in the Romanian language49. In this respect, dispositions of Article 42(2) of Law 215(2001) establish that in local councils where local council people belonging to a national minority represent at least a fifth of the total number may use their mother tongue during council meetings, in such cases provision being made by the mayor for translation into Romanian. Such dispositions50 must not be interpreted in the sense of using a language other than the official language in the activity conducted by public administration because this aspect targets only the facilitation of dialogue for the majority group in the council, in such cases the translation of this dialogue into Romanian for the minority group being ensured. Moreover, the previously regarded assertion results and is consolidated both by the initial part of the Article establishing that ‘meetings will be held in Romanian’, as well as by its final part through the stipulation of the fact that ‘in all cases’ the documents of the council meetings shall be drafted in Romanian. Likewise, further dispositions in local public administration law that consecrate the constitutional disposition of Article 120(2) can be evoked and interpreted as such. Thus, Article 39(7) establishes that in those communes or cities where citizens belonging to a national minority are above 20% from the number of the population the agenda
48 Mădălina Nica, Timpul sau timpii liberei administrări - drept fundamental à la roumanie? in the volume „Democraţia participativă locală şi informarea cetăţenilor”, Universul Juridic, Bucharest, 2011, pp. 71-72. 49 This is also the position that the Constitutional Council (France) assumes and who by Decision 99-412 (June 15th 1999) affirms that Article 2 of the French Constitution of 1958 does not prohibit the use of translations of official acts. 50 Please see with regard these legal dispositions Ştefan Deaconu, Comentariul art. 13 din Constituţia României, in Constituţia României. Comentariu pe articole, coord. Ioan Muraru, Elena Simina Tănăsescu, C.H. Beck, Bucharest, 2008, p. 132.
22 of the local Council is to be made public also in the mother tongue of the citizens belonging to the respective minority (correlatively the disposition is taken up by Article 94(8) with regard to the County Council as well). The official act of making the agenda of the Councils public is hence drafted in the State’s official language, with the possibility, in some cases, for its translation and posting in the language of a certain minority language as well. Likewise, with regard to normative acts of public administration institutions, Article 50 from the quoted law establishes that in those territorial-administrative units where citizens belonging to a national minority are above 20% from the number of the population normative Decisions of local Councils are made public also in the mother tongue of citizens belonging to the respective minority, and those Decisions of individual scope are communicated on demand in the mother tongue as well. Therefore, both in view of provided normative Decisions, as well as in view of acts of individual scope, the obligation instituted by the legislator is in the sense of ensuring a translation of the official act drafted in Romanian into the minority language as well, in the first case this obligation resting on its own, and in the second case only on demand. With concern to the inscription of the names of localities and public institutions, Article 76(4) of the law establishes an obligation for local public administration authorities to implement this in the mother tongue of citizens belonging to the respective minority as well, under the circumstances of a 20% share of the total of the population in the respective community. Nevertheless, inscriptions in the minority language have but the value of a translation of the official name from Romanian. Secondly, the general obligation which rests on public administration takes view of the fact that only the official language can be used in activities undertaken by public services. The possibility created by the constituent to use a different language in the relations among the public service beneficiary and that service is not however equivalent to the use of a procedure in that language and, consequently, does not constitute a prerequisite for demanding the conduct of the procedure in that language. From this perspective, there can develop at most an obligation to ensure the translation of the service beneficiary’s allegations or acts, due to the fact that there can be no imposition on the public service representative to know or use a language other than the official language (in such a situation the result would be the creation of prohibited limitations with regard to the right to work, as laid down by Articles 16 and 4 of the Constitution). Due to the fact that the constituent introduces the possibility to use in the public space a language other than the official language, the direct results lies in that such a possibility refers solely to citizens, and not to State organs, which continue to be bound by the general obligation to use the official language. Article 63(2) of the Law 215(2001) lays down as mayor’s attribution, in their quality as State representative, the fulfilment of the position as public registrar. Thus, the entire solemn procedure conducted in this case by the mayor as State representative must be mandatorily carried out in Romanian, so that the use of a different language at the time of the openly made free consent of the prospective spouses constitutes a violation of the procedure and hereby attracts its nullity.
2. Interdiction of Limitations on Freedom in Public Administration as a Result of the Use of Language other than the Official Language Any Constitution created authorization to use a language other than the official language in the sphere of public administration has as limit the impossibility to create restrictive consequences with regard to freedom for the other Romanian citizens. Thus, the right conferred to persons belonging to national minorities to use in certain situations their mother tongue in relations with public administration must not restrain the fundamental right to work of persons who wish to exercise this right in the public
23 administration system on account of knowledge/ lack of knowledge of the minority language51. As previously mentioned, public administration organs can be bound by law to ensure at most the translation of minorities’ acts drafted in the mother tongue, but they cannot be obliged to use themselves that language in considering their quality as legal persons under public law whom the State’s official language is imposed. Article 76(2) provides that in those territorial-administrative units where citizens belonging to a national minority are above 20% of the total number of the population, they may also address orally or in writing in their mother tongue in their relations with local public administration authorities, with the specialized organs and the bodies subordinated to the local Council and they shall receive replies both in Romanian, as well as in their mother tongue. Paragraph 3 states that public relations position will also be filled by people who know the mother tongue of the citizens belonging to the respective minority. The interpretation of this legal disposition must be made in the sense of the interdiction to create restrictive consequences with regard to the right to work for the Romanian citizens who only master the official language. The obligation imposed on public administration to supply in such situations an answer in a different language than the official language does not amount to the obligation on civil servants to know that language. Likewise, in fulfilling its obligation, the administration cannot impose as condition for the notice of vacancy in case of public servants knowledge of a language other than the official language. The establishment by law of the fact that public relations position will also be filled by people who know the mother tongue of citizens belonging to a minority must be interpreted in the sense that public administration ought to proceed to the creation of institutional structures with a role in the relation with the public exclusively intended for the respective minority language speakers. These structures shall function alongside the other structures that maintain relations with the State’s official language speaking public.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Andreescu, Gabriel, 2004, Naţiuni şi minorităţi, Iaşi, Polirom Publishing House 2. Bălan, Marius, 2013, Statutul minorităţilor naţionale, Iaşi, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University Press. 3. Crăciunean, Laura-Maria, 2011, Protecţia drepturilor culturale în dreptul internaţional, Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing House. 4. Dănişor, Claudiu Dan, 2007, Drept constitutional şi instituţii politice. Vol. I. Teoria generală, Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing House. 5. Dănişor, Claudiu, Dan, 2009, Constituţia României comentată. Titlul I. Principii generale, Bucharest, Universul Juriridic Publishing House. 6. Drăgan, Tudor, 2000, Câteva consideraţii privind problema «drepturilor colective» ale minorităţilor naţionale, in Revista română de drepturile omului, no. 18. 7. Fenet, Alain, Koubi, Geneviève, Schulte-Tenckhoff, Isabelle, 2000, Le droit et les minorités, Bruxelles, Editeur Bruylant. 8. Ionescu, Cristian, 2015, Conceptul de identitate etnică. O perspectivă constituţională, in Revista de Drept Public, no. 3. 9. Jura, Cristian, 2006, Drepturile omului. Drepturile minorităţilor naţionale, Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing House.
51 Any limitation on a fundamental right or freedom cannot be made but within the frame instituted by Article 53 of the Constitution, due to its determination by the existence of certain specific and limitative causes and the compliance with certain general imposed conditions.
24 10. Mezer-Bisch, Patrice, 2000, Quatre dialectiques pour une identité, in Revue de philosophie et sciences sociales, no. 1. 11. Moldoveanu, Maria, 2010, Respectarea drepturilor culturale I, in Revista Caiete Critice, no. 10 (300). 12. Muraru, Ioan, Tănăsescu, Simina, Elena (coord.), 2008, Constituţia României. Comentariu pe articole, Bucharest, C.H. Beck Publishing House. 13. Nica, Mădălina, 2012, Egalitatea de şanse, Bucharest, Universul Juridic Publishing House. 14. Nica, Mădălina, 2011, Timpul sau timpii liberei administrări - drept fundamental à la roumanie?, in Democraţia participativă locală şi informarea cetăţenilor, Bucharest, Universul Juridic Publishing House. 15. Pavel Nicolae, 2011, Egalitatea în drepturi şi nediscriminarea, Bucharest, Universul Juridic Publishing House. 16. Toader, Tudorel, Constituţia României reflectată în jurisprudenţa constituţională, Bucharest, Hamangiu Publishing House. 17. Villiers De, Michel, Renoux, Thierry S., 2001, Code Constitutionnel, comentté et adnotté, Paris, Editeur Litec.
25 PROMOTING THE HUMAN BEING AND ITS PRICELESS VALUE IN THE CONTEXT OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY – THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES
His Eminence University Professor PhD IRINEU ION POPA
1. Introduction The human being in its entirety: ontological content; potential of manifestation and relationships; capacity of self-determination and definition; social, cultural, geographical and economic characteristics; religious identity and confessional affiliation; particularities of the structure of inherited human intimacy (gender, nationality, social status, etc.), as well as other essential elements that help define and express the anthropological complex, they all represent central themes of Orthodox theology. Theological anthropology has an extremely important place in the doctrine and practises of the Orthodox Church and it has its full attention. Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae states, in this sense, that man and God are the two fundamental dogmas of the Church, the essential realities between which the entire theological endeavour operates and takes place: „God and man are the two fundamental realities defined by the dogma. And the second being linked to the first, it constitutes together with it one single dogma. God and man are defined as fundamental dogmas because they are the fundamental beings, manifest and unfathomable at the same time. Manifest, because nothing makes sense without them, and full of mystery, because they are inexhaustible”.52 The doctrine about God and that about man represent the two poles of the dogmatic construction of the Church. The other dogmas consider and define precisely the way in which God and man meet, they come together in grace, our Saviour Jesus Christ being God- the Man who fully united – unmingled, unchanged, undivided and not separated (according to the formula of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, in 451)53 – the human nature with the divine nature in His own Divine being, showing the priceless value humanity received from God. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, bringing into discussion the classification of theological themes as per the importance of their clarification and contribution they have to the present time, states that for the 21st century, from the perspective of Orthodox theology, anthropology represents the central subject of the entire approach. In his opinion, this finding is based on four important arguments: 1. Present-day social and political realities oriented towards a continuous promotion and development of an ever-more complex urbanization and globalization; 2. Complex technological developments that tend to shift contemporary man’s preoccupations from their relation skills with others to their one-sided attention to machines; 3. The revolutionary discoveries of genetic engineering and contemporary man’s challenges regarding sexual behaviour and referencing to the psycho-somatic structure of his own being and that of the others, and the implications all these tendencies know and generate from a
Archbishop of Craiova, Metropolitan of Oltenia and Dean of the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Craiova. 52 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 1, Second Edition, IBMBOR, Publishing House Bucharest, 1996, p. 67. 53 See: His Eminence University Professor PhD IRINEU POPA, Archbishop of Craiova, Metropolitan of Oltenia, Iisus Hristos este Acelaşi, ieri şi azi şi în veac, Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House, Craiova, 2010, pp. 275-283.
26 moral point of view; 4. The ecology crisis born, cultivated and made permanent by modern man’s exacerbated selfishness and greed.54 The reasons enumerated above by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, as well as a series of other tendencies, situations and anthropological concepts that appear much more rapidly and diversified in our time, represent even more proof that the issue pointed out by anthropology remains always open and requires permanent approach. It is sufficient to consider the realities to which the entire humanity was witness this year, 2015, through the migration of a considerable number of people from the Near East and North Africa toward Western Europe in order to become aware of the incredible importance and inherent contemporaneousness of the subject of anthropology. Considering all these ideas mentioned above, the present study intends to theologically establish and analyze the fundamental principles that support the promotion of ethnic minorities and their cultural patrimony in the context of the great European and international diversity.
2. One God and Father of all: the Uniqueness of the Creator and the Harmony of Creation Based on the Holy Scripture and the whole Divine revelation, the Orthodox Church confesses that the basis of the entire universe and the entire humanity is the creating action of God. He said and it was made (Genesis 1:3,6,9,11,14,20,24,26), Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being (Genesis 2:7). Thus, everything that exists in this universe, both what can be seen and perceived, as well as what cannot be seen and remains imperceptible, exists due to the sole life-giving work of God: „For He said and it was made, He ordered and it was created” (Psalm 32:9); „For in His hand are all the ends of the earth: and the heights of the mountains are His. For the sea is His, and He made it; and His hands formed the dry land” (Psalm 94:4-5); „Child, I beseech thee, lift thine eyes to heaven and earth, look at all that is therein, and know that God did not make them out of the things that existed. So is the race of men created” (Second Maccabees 7:28); „All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3); „For by Him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through Him and for Him” (Colossians 1:16); „Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honour and power, for You created all things, and by Your will they existed and were created” (Apocalypse 4:11) etc. God is the only one whose existence is through Himself, in the sense that He exists through Himself and by Himself. No one and nothing brings about or conditions His existence, Him being, in fact, the Only One that brings about and conditions the existence of the whole creation: „God wants that the life or the good that He is in existence and unlimitedly to extend also to an existence limited by its being, but of course also with His help”.55 In this sense, it is clear that creating the world out of nothingness by God expresses kindness, love and His constant caring for what He brings into being. In other words, all people, regardless of the humna classification criteria, are the work of the same God, the one Full of Love and giving, and are called to the joy of life: „The Christian concept about existence is different from the pantheist, emanationist or evolutionist concepts. It is a concept that knows, apart from the free and merciful God, a world in which the freedom of conscious angel and human
54 METROPOLITAN KALLISTOS WARE, Orthodox Theology in the Twenty-First Century, WCC Publications, Geneva, 2012, pp. 25-27. 55 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Sfânta Treime sau La început a fost Iubirea, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, p. 22.
27 beings is important, without them causing total disorder in the material or spiritual order, in which these conscious beings are made to function”.56 The world created by God is good: „And God saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31). It is good because it is thought, created and constantly kept into being by the God full of love: „How amazing are the deeds of the Lord!/ All who delight in Him should ponder them./ Everything He does reveals His glory and majesty./ His righteousness never fails.” (Psalm 110:2-4). Everything that He creates receives His love and nourishing gifts: „For everything created by God is good and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (First Timothy 4:4). In this sense, Orthodox theology speaks about a rationality of creation, about the fact that everything that exists in the universe, both man and all the other elements of creation are allowed to exist with a tendency to search and relate to the other. Nothing of all that exists is random. Nothing of what is materialized as being is the product of hazard or chaos, but all the elements of creation, from a cellular level to the highest rational form represented by man, are to be found in the same unity of life as gift and means of communication, communion and shared accomplishment: „Analytical reason sees the world and every element of it somewhat separately. But it is accompanied, in the person that fully lives his existence, by an understanding that senses, through the progress of analytical logic, the higher and higher levels of things and their supreme purpose. In our Christian conception, the logic progresses in knowing the things and the logical links between them, as it is driven by reason or by the understanding that senses their higher and higher levels and the supreme purpose of existence. The analytical reason can be convinced even by its results on each stept that is hasn’t reached the final and complete explanation of reality, and intuitive reason, or the understanding that senses on each step higher and higher purposes, urges it to new research and at the same time it gives it the knowledge that the supreme or complete purpose of any researched unit is a mystery linked to the mystery of the entire reality and of the supreme reality, which it will never fully know”.57 The harmony and unity of creation show and certify, at the same time, the uniqueness of each element of creation, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem. According to this fundamental understanding, no human being can ever be considered of having lesser or higher value than another human being or than a group of people. All people are equally important and together with the entire creation they are seen as a harmonious whole, which is driven by the same reasoning and enjoys the same attention and love from God: „The creation was brought to existence as a harmonious whole, thus supported by a unitary reasoning which reunites the consciousness of all its components. The whole is seen in each one of its components, but all these entireties are united in a universal whole. The whole of each part and of all of the parts of the universe is so efficient and decisive for the particularity of the parts and to support the universe, that it can be admitted that not only it is made up of its components, but that it also collects them and holds them together, imprinting them its particularities. This whole also shows its might in the fact that the individuals of the species can adapt to the different shifting external circumstances, receiving amendments, but they cannot be pulled out of their species”.58
56 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Sfânta Treime sau La început a fost Iubirea, p. 23. 57 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 1, p. 240. 58 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House, Craiova, 1987, p. 253.
28 3. Unity of humanity In close connection with the uniqueness of God who created the seen and the unseen world, there is the unity of humanity. God did not create several human kins, several human races or species; he created one kin, humanity. For this reason, from the perspective of Orthodox theology, one can never speak of, or accept, any theory that intends to classify people based on their race, gender, nationality, etc. In this context it is clear that all people are equal and they enjoy the same value before God, because they all have the same nature, origin and ontology. Regarding these aspects, the Holy Scripture tells us that God created people of the same nature: „God, who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth… and he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place” (Acts of the Apostles 17:24, 26). A totally unique position, of extreme importance to our subject, is expressed by St. Gregory of Nyssa. Commenting on the Scripture text in the Book of Genesis 1:27 – „So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”, – he states that the term „man”, used in this quote, refers to the entire humanity, to the fact that, by the creation of Adam, God created all men, meaning that the spirit of the primordial man comprised the human nature of all the people that will be born, or better said, will be brought to life by God by their birth from parents of flesh, over time: „When the Scripture says: «So God created man» (Genesis 1:27), it generally expresses, without particularizing, the entire humanity. For speaking here about the creature He created, its name is not given, as it is in the next story, but this creature is unnamed for now, it’s just man in general. Thus, once the general indication of human beings is made, we can assume that in this initial creation the Divine action and power acted upon the whole humanity. Because we must understand that God left nothing unfinished when regarding the origin of beings, but each one of them was given by the Creator a determined limit and measure. As each man has a body a certain size and is destined to live his life within that size, which fully corresponds to the surface of his body, in the same way I believe in God’s pre-science, which takes care of everything, there is the whole humanity as a single organism”.59 The first book of the Holy Scripture, the Genesis, tells us that the first man, Adam, was directly created by God: „Then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature” (Genesis 2:7). Also in this book we learn that the second human being history knows, Eve, was also created by God, but not from dust, as Adam had been created, but from the already-existing Adam: „So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man” (Genesis 2:21-22). Precisely for this reason, when Adam sees Eve he recognizes in her the human nature he himself possesses; he does not see her as a new species, but as a new person that individualizes in a new and unique way their joint humanity: „Then the man said: «This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh»” (Genesis 2:23-24).
59 ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Despre facerea omului, 16, Writings, Second Part, PSB 30, translated by Father Professor PhD Teodor Bodogae, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 1998, pp. 50-51.
29 Symeon the New Theologian says that Eve was created as coexisting in Adam60, in the sense that the human nature in Adam and Eve, as in all humanity, is one and the same. In this context, it is very important to underline the aspect of Eve’s creation from Adam. Eve is not created from dust again, as Adam had initially been created, but was created from Adam, from his human nature, precisely to maintain the unity of being of all humans. She is created from Adam to show that she has the same being. She is not different from Adam, she doesn’t represent a new human species with different value from Adam’s, but she is a new person with the same characteristics as the first person created by God, namely Adam: „Eve is not created by God from dust, but from Adam; so also from an act of «creation», rather than birth. In the creation of the woman from the man it also results that the man virtually comprises the woman and the woman virtually comprises the man, and that in the word of God «by which all were made», as in their model, there is the face of both kinds of humans. That is why in the act of creating the woman there is no requirement for awareness from Adam, so there is no passionate pleasure in the act of her creation. This is shown by the fact that she is created from Adam when he is asleep. This shows her quality as partner of turning human nature into reality”.61 These aspects help us understand that all human beings that exist, existed or will ever exist in this world share the same origin and one and the same human nature. For this reason, it is clear that the differences by which people identify and define themselves don’t affect in any way the unity of the being, but accentuates even further the variety and richness of possibilities under which it is left by God to express and present itself. In other words, the minority never has lesser importance, but it has and must be recognized the same value, because it has the same human nature. Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae speaks in this sense about the ontological link that exists between all human beings. All people are linked between them by the same human nature, and each one of them individualizes and particularizes it in a unique way. But this does not appear as fragmentation or shrinking of the being, but on the contrary, as capitalization and enrichment of the being for all the persons that hold it: „We could materialize the continuity of human nature, tangibly existing in several hypostases, as a thread on which they appear one after the other as knots. Among them there is no complete void, but a thinning of the nature that appears thickened in them, or in the objectification of all its virtualities. Without the continuity between humans, through the thinned out thread of nature, there would be no understanding or upholding of its different materializations in people. But one cannot say that first there exists the thread, and then the knots appear. Or that the thinned out thread between them is not jointly shared by them. One cannot say that the knots determine the thread between them, either. But that both the thread and the knots, or at least some of them, exist simultaneously. The knots communicate through the thread and they bring one another to being. They can become more and more interior one to the other. In a sense, each human hypostasis bears all the nature in the hypostasis knots and the thread that links them. One cannot talk about human individuals per se, as completely isolated materialziations of the human nature. Each hypostasis is ontologically linked to the others and this is apparent with their need to be related. By this they have a human character and their true development lies in their development as humans, by their ever closer communication... That is how one can explain in the human order created (as in the order of the other genuses and species) tha paradox of unity in plurality”.62
60 ST. SYMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIAN, Cartea discursurilor etice, I, 1, in: ST. SYMEON THE NEW THEOLOGIAN, Discursuri teologice şi etice, Writings I, Second edition, translated by Deacon. Ioan I. Ică jr, Deisis Publishing House, Sibiu, 2001, p. 104. 61 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 169. 62 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 1, pp. 201-202.
30 4. The dignity of man as being created to the likeness of God Speaking about the special way in which God created man, the Holy Scripture says that man was created to the likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 5:1-3; 9:5-6; Romans 5:14; I Corinthians 11:7; II Corinthians 4:4; Colossians 1:13-15; Jacob 3:8-9). The classical text that best showcases this teaching is the one in the Genesis 1:26-27 – „Then God said: «Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth!». So God created man in his own image, in the image of God He created him; make and female he created them”. It is worth mentioning that this feature of being created to the likeness of God applies only to man. It is a unique quality no one else in this universe benefits from, neither of the seen, tangible creation, nor the unseen one, the spiritual: „It was not the heaven that was made in the likeness of God, nor the moon, not the sun, or the beauty of the stars, nothing of what is seen in creation; only you were made in the likeness of the being that is superior to any mind, likeness to the pure beauty, proof of real Divinity, grail of joyful life, image of true light, towards which, when looking, you become what He is, imitating the One that shines in you, through the shining that comes from your cleanliness. Nothing of what exists can be measured with your measure. The whole heaven is contained in the palm of God. The earth and the sea are hidden in the fist of His hand. But the One that is such and so great, that holds in His hand the entire creation, can be contained within you and lives inside of you; and is not stranded within you, the one that said: «I shall live and walk within them» (Lev. 26, 2)”.63 Following the anthropological thinking of Gregory of Nyssa, we observe that the notion of „image” refers to the entire ontology man receives from God through His creation. The image refers to those Divine characteristics which the man is bestowed upon by his Creator: „The man, who was created to enjoy the gifts of God, had to have seeded in him a natural kinship with the One he shares with... life, reason, wisdom and all the gifts only the Divine being has, so that each one of them awaken in him the longing for God, with whom man knows he is related... eternity... in the idea of His image we comprise everything that characterises God”.64 In this context, it is clear that man’s value is a very special one. It is not a value he makes for himself, or to which he has any contribution, but it is a special honour and a unique type of dignity that God bestowes to humanity. Not only the primordial man, not only the saints, not only the people referred to in the Holy Scripture, etc., wear the mark of the dignity of the „image”, but all the people that will share in communion or will do so in time: „There is no difference between the man that was brought into the world during the creation phase and the one that will live at the end of the world: they all share the same Divine likeness”.65 Thus, both the majoritarian and the minoritarian, the believer and the non-believer, share in their being the mark of the same Divine characteristics offered by the creation „to the likeness”, and all enjoy the same attention, caring and love from God. Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae, speaking about the great importance of the idea of „likeness” to anthropological theology, says that by this feature of being created „in the likeness of God”, man is lifted to the great dignity of partner of God, of personal and immortal being capable of dialogue, communion and love with God and with the other humans: „God created us for this dialogue of ours with ourselves, making us His images. Being God’s image
63 ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Tâlcuire amănunţită la Cântarea Cântărilor, II, Writings, First Part, PSB 29, translated by Father Professor. Dumitru Stăniloae and Father Ioan Buga, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 1982, PSB 29, p. 143. 64 ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Marele cuvânt catehetic sau Despre învăţământul religios, 5, PSB 30, p. 294. 65 ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, Despre facerea omului, 16, PSB 30, p. 51.
31 and remaining God’s image and developing as such, means being God’s dialogue partner. And man, being made dialogue partner communicating with God, is made for eternal existence. God’s love cannot forget the one it once was in dialogue with, so it cannot allow that it stops existing. God holds this dialogue with us through His Word. That is why even when we loosen the tie with Him as dialogue partners, he creates us through it, He makes Himself man, but also remains God, so that through the directness of the link to us, He can make us feel the direct relation in which He has returned with us, as dialogue partner”.66 The image of God gives man the dignity of his uniqueness and personality, it makes man unparalleled and unrepeatable and doesn’t allow that he loses himself in the shapeless mass of nameless individuals. As being created after the image of God, any man is a person with their own, unmistakeable identity: „Man is not only and individual of nature, belonging to the generic reference of human nature with a God, creator of the whole universe, but he is – especially – a person that cannot be reduced to the joint attributes (or individualized) of the nature with which he is gifted together with other human beings. The condition of human being belongs to every being due to a singular and unique relation with God that created man „to his likeness”. This personal moment in anthropology, discovered by Christian thought, does not indicate a participation report; even more so, a συγγένεια, «related» to God, btu rather an analogy: like the personal God, after whose image he is created, man is not only «nature». This offers him freedom from himself, as he is a natural individual. Not being presented in the patristic anthropology, this new category of person or human hypostasis is not always less supposed. What we must understand today, talking about the theology of the image applied to man, it will refer to the human being to the extent in which he is a manfestation of God”.67 Every man, regardless of the time and space he lives in, and also regardless of any human principle of analysis is, according to Orthodox theology, made in the likeness of God. Every man is an icon of God and, consequently, must be honoured as such. We know that in Orthodoxy not honouring the icon is sacrilege, thus not honouring the human being may be considered sacrilege against God, who created man. Precisely for that reason, from an Orthodox point of view, redemption also means attending to, caring for and making correct reference to other men: „We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death” (First John 3:14); „We love God because He first loved us. If anyone says << I love God>> and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother who he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from Him: whoever loves God must also love his brother” (First John 4:19-21).
5. Eternity of the human being Man was created by God as immortal. God gave man life for eternity. He does not offer something that expires, that diminishes or becomes lost in time, but He offers something that remains, that has the power to grow and become permanent. Thus, in the case of man, he is created immortal, as eternal partner of the dialogue with God: „God created man to be innocent, righteous, virtuous, not knowing sadness or care, enlightened with all virtue, all gifts bestowed upon him, like a second world, a microcosmos within the macrocosmos, another dedicate angel, complex, observer of the seen world, initiated in the spiritual world, emperor of the ones on the earth, driven by above, earthy and heavenly, ephemeral and eternal, seen and spiritual, in the middle between greatness and humility, the same both as spirit and flesh;
66 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 16. 67 VLADIMIR LOSSSKY, După chipul şi asemănarea lui Dumnezeu, translated by Anca Manolache, Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest, 2006, p. 139.
32 spirit due to the grace and flesh because of pride; spirit, to keep on living and give grace to the Benevolent, flesh, to suffer and through suffering to remember and educate himself when he is proud of his greatness. Animal driven here, in the present life, but moved somewhere else, in the future redemption time; and the final term of the mystery is his Divinity by his dialogue with God. He becomes divine by participating in the Divine enlightenment, and not through his transformation in the Divine being”.68 The death that exists in the world and that we encounter everywhere is not the creation of God, and is not part of man’s final purpose. It appeared as an accident, as a creation of the man that distanced himself from God, from true Life. But this death is not permanent, it is an Easter event through which we complete the passing from the time of fleeting existence, full of conditioning, limitations and shortcomings, to the time of eternal, happy existence. In this sense, it is clear that man has an eternal existence, which doesn’t stop when the body is laid to rest in the grave, and which will continue forever. In 1987, during the communist regime that strongly supported and promoted evolutionism and materialism, with the purpose of completely denying the theological dimension and the reality of the eternity of the human being, Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae – by the care and perseverence of our forerunner in the chair of Metropolitan of Oltenia, the worthy of praise Metropolitan PhD Nestor Vornicescu – published at the publishing house of the Metropolitan Church of Oltenia, an extremely important work called, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu (in translation, The Eternal Image of God), that clearly shows that once brought into existence, man enjoys eternity. He is an immortal image of God, a personal existence that permanently enjoys his existence. Thus, the central idea of this book is that man is immortal, because God creats him to keep Himself eternal in their relation: „Only God is unlimited as subject to be known, because He is a subject that makes Himself known, always new, through His love toward the one that finds in this new resources to to love Him. And only because God is like that, the man can also be like that, to a certain extent, as His image, feeling the need of the everlasting relation with Him, to know Him in his knowable and communicational infinity. For this, eternity is a gift from God. The man is immortal through his link with God and was created in such a way by God, that this link can make him immortal”.69 Once created, the man doesn’t disappear, he doesn’t go back to non-existence, because God never canceles any one of the images He created:70 „The unique selves, being able to enrich themselves and others forever by the particular and affectionate novelty they communicate to each other, shows not only their value for themselves, but also for one another. For that reason we cannot consider that God would cancel any one of them through final death, as He cannot cancel any living proof of His creating imagination and of the proof for a link between them, of a love that endlessly enriches and brings them joy”.71 He gives life and he maintains it forever. The mere fact that no man cannot come to terms with or accept the idea of death, does not wish to really die, shows that the final destination of mankind is not nothingness, death, but immortality, the eternal life.72 Very often, Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae stresses on the idea of the eternal value of the human being. Any person is unique and eternal, and that is why he will never be
68 ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS, Dogmatica, II, 12, translated by Father Professor Dumitru Fecioru, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 2005, p. 83. 69 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 10. 70 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, pp. 10-11. 71 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 65. 72 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 12.
33 forgotten by God, or by his fellow men: „A person cannot be forgotten either by the human being who communicated with them. And even less by the Word, its creator”.73 The man is eternal, thus he has the duty to act in consequence. In all his peers he must see the eternal images of God with whom he lives and communicates not only in this life, but also in the eternal one. Thus, there is the profound responsibility toward the social context in which we live, but also toward every fellow person and the entire nation we live in, regardless of ethnicity. This is a sacred responsibility both toward the minority and the majority, that permanent concern for the needs and requirements of the others: „In the Apocalypse there is persisten reference to the joy the nations as such will receive, in the Kingdom of God (20:24- 25; 22:22). This means that someone belonging to a nation bears responsibility for that nation in front of God, so that he himself reaches that happiness bestowed by God, but that man will also enjoy said happiness within his nation. He must take care that his nation be prepared for the kingdom of heavens, for by this he takes care of so many people close to him, that, together with himself, make up his nation; and because on the environment created within his nation, to which he also has a role, the redemption or the loss of so many fellow men and of himself depend. Thus, I cannot lose interest in my nation. But only God ensures the eternity of its members. The very responsibility in front of God imposes my care for Him. If man wouldn’t belong to a nation, he would have no language in which he listens from an early age the word of God which he then communicates to others, out of care for them. And if he has no responsibility for his nation in front of God, he doesn’t believe in the eternity of his members and doesn’t care for that nation”.74
6. The singular, priceless and eternal value humanity receives through Jesus Christ, our Saviour Through His incarnation, meaning by his descent in time and space and by his assumption of the entire humanity in his own Divine Being, the Son of God shows great care and unlimited love for the whole of mankind. He comes for all people and for the whole creation, so that everything God created would not disappear, but rather enjoy life, and have eternal life as well. „And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us” (John 1:14), so that he would lift us, men, to the glory of the Divinity. It is interesting to underline the fact that the Incarnation of the Son of God as human does not mean the union of God with a human being, with a specific person, on the contrary, it refers to the way in which He, the true God, descends into the womb of the Virgin Mary, his True Mother, and there, like in a new universe, creates from our humanity His own human being; so that the human nature of Jesus Christ our Saviour is found in the nature of the whole humanity. All people enjoy the presence of God among them, and the fact that God the Son creates His own humanity from the humanity of us all. Through this human nature, Jesus Christ speaks to man with human words, expresses Himself and lives like a man, he is humble
73 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 24. „The eternal importance of every person in their uniqueness, but also in the specific communication they bring to the others and by the others to them, is shown by the fact that each person known ones becomes unforgettable to us; especially in reference to the communication we have had with that person. If all persons were the same, they wouldn’t become unforgettable. Each one places a live mark on the spiritual life of the person they communicated with. In this it is present the eternal value imprinted in each person by God. We do not forget them because their existence is alive, it is singular, and has entered us through unique communication, as the plants and animals are not unique and do not spiritually enter us, but as species without conscience, not as singular persons” (Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 48). 74 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, p. 72.
34 and he descends at the level of all human aspects, transmitting, at the same time, with all his gestures and human deeds the blessing, the peace and His Divine work. Considering all these aspects, it is clear that, anthropologically, the Incarnation of the Son of God as human being has a series of consequences and implications whose priceless value cannot be equaled by anything else. All these shades, realities and perspectives are very beautifully described by Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae in the following words: „The hypostasis of God’s Word was not united with another, human, hypostasis, but He transformed by incarnation a human being, assumed and comprised in His Eternal Hypostasis, and in this way the Hypostasis of human nature was also made. The first conclusion that results is that the Son of God Himself came together with humanity to the maximum, or He came closest to us. Now He no longer remains as person in other level but the human one; He is no longer satisfied to make His presence and efficiency known, as person that supports the rational human being existing independently from Him as His image and that of the logic of things as different images of His reasons, as He would do before the incarnation and in a more emphasized and obvious way in the Revelation of the Old Testament. He no longer dialogues with human beings as a partner on another level; His reality as a person doesn’t remain as a mysterious fact on another level, noticed through an exceptional experience only by some humans, based on a special Revelation. Now the Divine Person of the Son of God or of the Word enters the level of common experience of those who believe in Him, like a person from the multitude of persons, who at the same time gives them the ability to perceive Him as a Divine person. Before the incarnation, the two beings were «separated», according to Nicolae Cabasila (διίσταντο), «for God was only Himself, and the human nature was only as such» (Despre viaţa în Hristos, P.G., 150, 572A). Now we know for certain that God the Word is a Person, or an existence similar to our personal existence, for He can make Himself a human being without stopping to be a Divine Person as well. This way He guarantees the maximum value of the human beings and their eternity. But this also shows that human nature was created able to receive God the Word as Hypostasis”.75 The Son of God became human so that the entire humanity would have plenty of life. He doesn’t do anything for Himself, but for us, the people. As it is shown in Simbolul de credinţă (in English: Symbol of Faith), the epitome of the entire doctrine of the Orthodox Church, all the activity and work of Christ our Saviour, is focused on man and his redemption, in the sense that He fulfilled everything „for us the people and for our redemption”. St. Justin Martyr shows, in this sense, that the Incarnation, the Sacrifice, The Resurrection and the Assumption, the essential acts of the entire redeeming work of Christ, were done precisely for the life of the whole world: „He did not accept to be Born and Crucified like someone that needed this, but he did all this for mankind, whom since Adam had fallen under death and under the wanderings of the snake, each one in turn committing evil, also through personal mistakes”.76 It is important to underline the fact that Christ our Saviour, through everything He does, is not focusing on one single nation, He embraces mankind as a whole, because all people are His creation, and they all enjoy His divine undivided love and attention. The words uttered by Christ the Saviour Himself – „For God so loved the world, that he gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not parish but have eternal life” (John 3:16) – are extremely powerful and telling in this perspective.
75 Father Professor PhD DUMITRU STĂNILOAE, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 2, Second Edition, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 1997, pp. 26-27. 76 ST. JUSTIN MARTYR, Dialogul cu iudeul Tryfon, LXXXVIII, in: Apologeţi de limbă greacă, PSB 2, translation by Father Professor T. Bodogae, Father Professor Olimp Căciulă, Father Professor D. Fecioru, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest, 1980, p. 198.
35 For Christ our Saviour all nations, all peoples and all persons are unique and invaluable. He does not select people considering ethnic criteria, but shows that all people are the creation of God and enjoy the same love from Him. Even though he is born in the middle of the Judean people, through his very nativity Christ our Saviour holds within Him all the peoples of the earth. The worship of the three Biblical Magi is solid proof that all the ethnicities and peoples of the earth are attracted by Him to enjoy together the good He has brought. Thus, Christ our Saviour speaks to the Samaritan woman (John 4:7-26), heals the servent of the Roman centurion (Matthew 8:5-13), He raises Jairus’ daughter (Mark 5:22-43; Luke 8:41-56), the cleansing of the Samaritan leper (Luke 17:16) etc, proving that no nation is more important than other, that the human being shouldn’t be respected based on its ethnicity, but must be honoured because it is the creation of God. He does not divide people in majority and minority, but shows that they all have the same value, regardless of the social classification criteria. Every person is unique and invaluable, and must be honoured as such. This is what Christ our Saviour teaches and shows us and the Parable of the Good Samaritan is extremely eloquent in this respect (Luke 10:25-37).
7. Conclusions In the present context of multiculturalism, globalization, ethnic diversity, the phenomenon of migration, and other realities that influence one way or another the social environment and life conditions, anthropology has the task of repurposing its own content in order to create an ever more ample image of what the human being represents. The way in which this is perceived and defined influences the entire spectre of life conditions and relations. For this very reason, it is our duty, based on the truths uncovered by God, to try and observed what each person represents and is about. In this sense, considering the main theological principles on which Christian anthropology in general is based, and especially the Christian-Orthodox one, it was determined that every single human being, regardless of social status, ethnicity or other social, cultural or other difference, is invaluable, and must be respected as such. Responsibility towards one’s fellow humans is crucial, and one’s own redemption is dependent on the way in which it is carried out and accomplished. Each individual, regardless of their ethnic community, is our brother. He is one of us, equal to us and from the same blood and the same human nature as ours. For this reason, the language, culture, tradition differences, or of any other nature, should not be seen as barriers, but as bridges toward intercommunion and as possibilities to discover the other in the uniqueness of the gift of their personal existence received from God. Thus, the unity in diversity and interpersonal communion constitute two essential components of the paradigm that theological anthropology proposes in order to promote the human being and its invaluable character in the context of present-day cultural diversity.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. St. GREGORY OF Nyssa, 1982, Tâlcuire amănunţită la Cântarea Cântărilor, Writings, First Part, PSB 29, translated by Father Professor Dumitru Stăniloae and Father Ioan Buga, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest. 2. St. GREGORY OF Nyssa, 1998, Despre facerea omului; Marele cuvânt catehetic sau Despre învăţământul religios, Writings, Second Part, PSB 30, translated by Father Professor PhD Teodor Bodogae, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest. 3. ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS, 2005, Dogmatica, translated by Father Professor Dumitru Fecioru, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest.
36 4. St. Justin MartYr, 1980, Dialogul cu iudeul Tryfon, in: Apologeţi de limbă greacă, PSB 2, translated by Father Professor T. Bodogae, Father Professor Olimp Căciulă, Father Professor D. Fecioru, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest. 5. Losssky, Vladimir, 2006, După chipul şi asemănarea lui Dumnezeu, translated by Anca Manolache, Humanitas Publishing House, Bucharest. 6. Popa, University Professor PhD His Eminence Irineu, Archbishop of Craiova and Metropolitan of Oltenia, 2010, Iisus Hristos este Acelaşi, ieri şi azi şi în veac, Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House, Craiova. 7. ST. SYmeon the new theologian, 2001, Discursuri teologice şi etice, Writings I, Second Edition, translation by Deacon Ioan I. Ică jr, Deisis Publishing House, Sibiu. 8. Stăniloae, Father Professor PhD Dumitru, 1996, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 1, Second edition, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest. 9. Stăniloae, Father Professor PhD Dumitru, 1997, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă, vol. 2, Second Edition, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest. 10. Stăniloae, Father Professor PhD Dumitru, 1987, Chipul nemuritor al lui Dumnezeu, Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House, Craiova. 11. Stăniloae, Father Professor PhD Dumitru, 2005, Sfânta Treime sau La început a fost Iubirea, IBMBOR Publishing House, Bucharest. 12. Ware, Metropolitan Kallistos, 2012, Orthodox Theology in the Twenty-First Century, WCC Publications, Geneva.
37 HISTORICAL AND ETHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE MINORITIES PRESENT IN OLTENIA BELIEFS, CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS
EMIL ŢÎRCOMNICU PhD FLORENŢA SIMION PhD
According to the population Census conducted in 201177, Romania’s population was of 20.121.641 inhabitants, of which 16.792.868 were Romanians and 2.091.963 constituted the minorities (the others not declaring their ethnical affiliation). The main ethnicities in Romania are: Hungarians (1.227.623), Roma people (621.573), Ukrainians (50.920), Germans (36.042), Turks (27.698), Lipovan Russians (23.487), Tatars (20.282), Serbs (18.076), Bulgarians (7.336), Croatians (5.408), Greeks (3.668), Italians (3.203), Jews (3.271), Czechs (2.477), Polish (2.543), Chinese (2.017), Armenians (1.361), Csangos (1.536), Macedonians/ Slavic Macedonians (1.264). The number of Slavic Macedonians, of 1.264, is surprising. In fact, Aromanians (Macedo-Romanians or Balkan Romanians displaced to Romanian after 1925), also called in Romanian „machidon”, some of them stating that they are Macedonians, were wrongly registered under the Slavic Macedonian minority. In Constanţa County there are 503 Macedonians, 63 of them in M. Kogălniceanu locality; in Tulcea County there are 59 Macedonians; in Voluntari Ilfov County, there are 41 Macedonians; in Slobozia – Ialomiţa County, 21. In these counties and localities live Romanian Macedonians/ Aromanians. In Oltenia the main ethnicities in relation to the Romanian majority, as per the 2011 census, are as follows:
Oltenia Dolj Gorj Mehedinţi Olt Vâlcea Total 2075642 660544 341594 265390 436400 371714 Romanians 1900970 554481 321686 236908 400089 347806 Hungarians 752 192 134 153 66 207 Roma 63899 29839 6698 10919 9504 6939 Germans 307 60 22 151 11 63 Turks 166 46 11 40 27 42 Serbs 1124 99 17 996 6 6 Bulgarians 80 65 - 6 5 4 Greeks 129 91 8 21 - 9 Italians 160 68 28 16 19 29 Jews 79 60 - 11 - 8 Czechs 566 - 10 466 - - Macedonians 141 134 - - 4 3
Ethnologist, scientific researcher qualification levels I, ”Constantin Brăiloiu” Institute of Ethnography and Folklore of the Romanian Academy. Folklorist, scientific researcher qualification levels III, ”Constantin Brăiloiu” Institute of Ethnography and Folklore of the Romanian Academy. 77http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2/, tabel sR_Tab_8.
38 The following can be observed: in Oltenia, the Romanians represent more than 91% of the population, and the minorities represent less than 9%. The most important minority is the Roma one, with a number of 63.899 (declared) individuals. At the same time, there are persons who are part of mixed families, with foreign ancestry, and who, for various reasons, be them historical, cultural, etc., declare themselves as Romanians or as pertaining to other nationalities. There are a few rural localities where larger compact groups are present, pertaining to certain ethnicities: Urzicuţa-Dj (108 Macedonians), Sviniţa-Mh (835 Serbs), Dubova-Mh (Czechs), Eşelniţa-Mh (Czechs) – only the Serbs in Sviniţa being a majority in relation to the Romanian population (the three communes inhabited by Serbs and Czechs are part of the historical Banat, and administratively are part of the Mehedinţi County). The number of Hungarians dropped considerably between 1930 and 2011. There is also a small number of Turkish ethnics. Representatives of Balkan populations settled on the territory of the Romanian principalities during the Middle Ages, especially after the Ottoman conquest of the Balkan Peninsula. Thus, Greeks, Albanians, Bulgarians, Macedonians, Serbs, Bosnians, found shelter in Romanian towns and small commercial settlements, where they could carry out different economic activities. The Roma people are located both in the urban, as well as in the rural areas: in Dolj there are 10.733 (urban) and 19.106 (rural); in Gorj there are 3.850 (urban) and 2.848 (rural); in Mehedinţi there are 2.503 (urban) and 8.416 (rural); in Olt there are 6.206 (urban) and 3.298 (rural); in Vâlcea there are 3.944 (urban) and 2.995 (rural). The Roma represent important percentages in many rural localities, however they are not majoritarian in any of them. It is fairly difficult to make an ethnic- cultural presentation of the minorities in Oltenia, because all, except for the Roma population, are numerically small. Even though the number of minorities has always been small, there have been historical times when, due to economic and political circumstances, the number of certain ethnicities was higher, their representatives then naturally integrating within the majority (by constituting mixed families for two-four generations) or emigrating but leaving „cultural” traces within Oltenia. In our approach we will try to highlight this cultural patrimony, legacy of Romanians’ coexistence with the other nationalities.
GREEKS
The history of Greek settlement in the Romanian space is very old, since Antiquity the Greeks founded fortresses in Dobruja, at the Black Sea. Then, during the Middle Ages and later, between the 18th and 20th centuries, Greek communities were also established in Romanian cities, primarily being merchants and craftsmen. An important wave of Greek people came from Asia Minor after the defeat of Greece by Turkey in 1923. The Greeks stem from all Greek provinces, sometimes whole families, such as the case of the Epirus Greeks from Papingo, settled in Turnu Severin78. They were more numerous in the Dobruja localities, but also in Brăila, Galaţi, etc. The number of Greeks in Romania dropped in the 20th century, being counted at 3.940 in 1992 and 6.513 in 2002. However, we mustn’t confuse the Romanian citizens of Greek origin, whose families settled hundreds of years before on Romania’s territory, with the new
78 According to Paula Scalcău, in Doru Dumitrescu; Carol Căpiţă; Mihai Manea; Laura Căpiţă; Mihai Stamatescu (coordinator) History of National Minorities in Romania, Bucharest, Didactic and Pedagogic PH R.A, 2008, p. 20.
39 wave of Greeks from the 20th century, settler in Romania after 1921, or with the children brought as refugees after 1948. There are also those who came here for studies or business and formed mixed families in Romania. Many of them repatriated. During the 2011 census, in Dolj county 91 persons declared they were Greeks. „The Greek Community in Craiova is part of the Greek Union in Romania, which has its main office in Bucharest. We are 22 communities in the country. Dragoş Zisopol is our deputy, he is a university professor. The Craiova branch was set up in 1992, after the Revolution. The bases of the Greek Union in Romania were laid by the formed president, who sadly passed away and is regretted by everybody, Mr. Sotiris Fotopolos. He was a geologist.”79 By talking to Ion Florin Pâşcoveanu80, the president of the Greek forum in Craiova, we find out important data about the Greeks in Oltenia. The history of the Greek community in Craiova. „There are two branches of Greeks in Craiova, unlike other cities and communities. The ones coming until 1945, coinciding with the Greeks being forced out of Asia Minor ... [There was probably an earlier community of merchants and craftsmen, and then came the ones after 1923, after losing the war against the Turks and after the peace treaty signed in Lausanne – our note]. Yes. Then came children aged a maximum of 14-15 years old, because of the civil war in Greece, and they settled here as well. These children were well integrated in Craiova, they were given jobs, schooling... let’s say they were the children of communists or communist sympathizers. Theu were climbed into cars and taken to Russia, Yugoslavia... Thus, in Craiova there were two distinct communities that did not get along, since part of them sustained the previous regime, the ones who had owned shops, and some of these Greeks were imprisoned and had a lot to suffer. However, the suffering was two-sided, because those children, brothers, hopped on a truck and left for Russia, one left fro Yugoslavia, another one came to Romania. And they saw each other again maybe after 15-20 years. Since a young age they lived alone. It was painful for them, as well as for those who had settled here previously and had to see their parents, for example children, whose father was jailed for having owned a small pie shop or who knows what, a small business, a hotel... Everything was seized from them, there was no difference between Romanian and Greek merchants. The other group was subsidized by the state, by the communists, whereas the other children had no rights [special rights, c.n.81], same as the Romanians and others alike… Even after these 25 years there still is a [problem, c.n.], but it’s been toned down. After 1990 the community tried to tone down these differences; however the older ones left with this suffering.... it cannot be suppressed... The revolutionary Greeks had a headquarter, they got together, had an orchestra, it was right in front of Oltenia restaurant.” In turn, the president of the Greek Community in Romania82, related to us the following information on Greek emigration after the war: „the Greeks that had come in 1948-1950, settled in the municipality of Craiova, and who started to organize themselves, around 400 of them, had the Greek club next to Oltenia restaurant. It was 400 paying members who paid for their membership, it was a legally constituted association. The respective space was given by
79 Ion Vasoyanis was born in Craiova in 1947, in a mixed Roman- Greek family. He completed electrotechnics engineering studies, and is the President of the Greek Community in Craiova since 2003. At the association headquarters also participated in the interview Vasilica Preda, née Sărseludi in 1942, came in Romania in 1950, completed highschool studies and the courses of a technical school, and Elena Dobre, born Akrivăţ in 1954. Her parents came to Romania in 1948, she graduated from college, then worked at the Electroputere plant (inteview from the 1th of August, 2015). 80 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu, born in Craiova in 1957, graduated from the Art and Music Highschool in Craiova. The interview took place on the 26th of March, 2015, in Craiova. 81 Between square brackets there are the interventions of the authors, marked c.n., our addition. 82 Ion Vasoyanis.
40 the municipal authorities. The place was known as the Greek club, where artistic activities were taking place. There had [previously] been Greek merchants [in Craiova]. Around 2.000 children arrived. There was a civil war in Greece, they came without parents. They were also distributed to Câmpina, Slatina, Braşov, Tulcea, Oradea, Ştefăneşti, Piteşti. Do you know how respectfully they speak of the conditions created by the Romanian state? They were schooled, given a qualification; schools were set up ... I believe now there are about 70 people with Greek origins in Craiova. The association was created in 1950 by Greek refugees. The Romanian state took very good care of them. The association existed until 1989, when it was dissolved, since many of them had left, about 60%. Mixed families were then formed, many of them went back.” The situation of the Greek community in Oltenia after 1990. Today there are two Greek associations in Oltenia: The Craiova Greek Forum, represented by Ion Florin Pâşcoveanu, and the Greek Community in Craiova, represented by Ion Vasoyanis. „In 1990 we were set up in Craiova, around end of the year. The first great assembly took place in 1991 at the Lyrical Theatre, when we celebrated March 25 [the Greek national day]. We tried to bring everyone together...it was rough, but we tried to make something good, I’d say, during the respective period, close to 1997, 1998, even 2000. Up until then, the state didn’t really subsidize communities. When it started to properly subsidize communities, these issues [within the communities] started. Greece was also very supportive, as far as I know it is the only country that has such a well-organized Diaspora. There is a Diaspora Greek council, they also have a ministry for the Greeks living abroad, our children were able to go on camps subsidized by the Greeks, the elders could also go on special camps there. Not to a great extent, but we also have children that went to Greece to study. Without exaggeration, I believe [in Craiova] their number is less than 200, 150-200. Statistically, there are more Greeks in Calafat, but I know from when they set up their community that they were never that many, and the town is small, too. There was also a financial interest in declaring oneself Greek.” The Greek language is spoken in mixed families. „Nowadays very few people also write in Greek, but there are more to speak the language, both the revolutionaries, as well as the older ones. Since there is no Greek school here, the revolutionaries held courses with the children at their club... the others didn’t have access and lost touch... they also know how to speak the language, but there’s also a problem here: many of the elders speak an older language, not archaic, it’s similar to the Romanian language at the turn of the 20th century. There are also younger people with relatives in Greece so they went there more often, they changed the i’s, since that’s an issue, and so on.... and they speak a clean language, like the Greeks living there.” Greek families were preserved as such until close to 1990. However, many mixed families were formed: „up to 1990 there were families of very old Greeks. There are many children from Greek families that were born in Romania. If both the mother and the father came in 1921, the child was born here, a Romanian citizen. [Then] they became mixed families. The revolutionaries’ children kept to themselves for as long as they could, but children were born in Romania and they went to school with Romanian children, they became friends at the university, at work, and [they got married]. The parents weren’t very particular, it was not like with the Jews, a caste... they were more open. In the case of this community that was set up they began with dancing, with music, a few hours of Greek language. It was two, three generations of children... The children of those who danced in 1990 were the ones dancing in this troop. We would meet up, cut vasilopita, as whoever said vasilopita originated from other nations, should know it is of Greek origin.”83
83 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu.
41 Greek students who have come to Craiova. „In the 1990s, up to 1995-1997, many Greeks studied medicine, and not only that. The local community shared a rather close relation with those students. With part of them we still exchange emails. And they supported us. We held these celebrations, 25 [March] and 28 [October] together, as they were closer like that as well. I can say that they were probably the only student community that had an organization; it was hundreds of them, at times even 400 students. They left, since they came here to receive a diploma and in order to be able to hold a position there. They generally came to study medicine, but they were also enrolled in law school or natural sciences. I cannot say it was the largest Greek student organization in Romania, since there were more in Iaşi or in Bucharest. But they were very well organized, and if the governing power was the New Democracy, the president of the organization here was a member of the respective party. The vice-president was a PASOK member, but there were never any [internal] conflicts. For a long time they came due to the low cost of education, unlike in other countries. During Ceauşescu’s dictatorship there were also many of them here, they were even more united. When they were allowed to buy homes wherever they wanted, everything started to fall apart, less and less of them came...”84 The Greek Community in Craiova, together with the Greek Union in Romania, is organizing a series of cultural activities, Ion Vasoyanis mentioning the following: „We now have an amazing artistic troop. These children are wonderful. The „Irini” troop, once you see them you cannot forget them! The Union organizes competitions of the neo-Greek language; in 2007 it was held in Craiova. Each year we organize the Youth Festival, on October 18, where all communities participate. Each year on March 25 we celebrate in Drăgăşani Greece’s national day. Since 2010 the neo-Greek language is officially taught in a school environment. The classes are held every Saturday at the «Fraţii Buzeşti» National College. The teacher is one of our members, he has academic studies. All children are given diplomas. In Romania there are several teachers from Greece who organize classes in a high-school environment, specifically at Hristo Botev, in Bucharest.” The Greek Union in Romania publishes Speranţa [Hope] magazine. Traditions and customs. There are a few reference points regarding religious and community celebrations of the Greek community in Romania. Being Orthodox, the Greeks and the Romanians celebrated together the religious holidays. There are, however, a few elements particular to the Greek community, which the Greek people in Craiova highlighted within their associations: „Vasilopita is St. Basil’s bread. This aghios Vasilis was Greek. He was supposed to pay tribute to the Turks and he said: «We don’t have money, the city, each one of us should contribute!». «We don’t have anything!». «You, give a piece of jewellery! You, a ring, you a bracelet, you a golden earring!». And so on. He eventually managed not to pay the respective tribute to the Turks and found himself with a mass of gold jewellery and he had no idea who each one belonged to. And how to call everybody? He made some little breads and in each one of them he put a gold object and he shared the breads and said: «Each one with their own luck!» Thus, for January 1st a bread is made, it is said the seven spices are used in it, as gradually it was not a pita bread, a simple bread. The seven spices are now added, such as pistachios, peanuts... and the eldest or the most important person in the family cuts it. The first piece is said to be for Christ, the second for St. Basil, the third one is for the house and then, in order of age, from grandfather, grandmother, to the youngest child. It is said that the person who finds in their piece of bread this coin – as there is a coin hidden in it – will be lucky. We made this every year, the tradition is also kept by the community, since it is a good opportunity to get together. Even though we make this bread on January 1st at home, at the community meeting we make it on the
84 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu.
42 4th, the 5th, or maybe the following Saturday. This, together with the days of March 25 and October 28, we definitely celebrate.”85 „After January 1st we celebrate the vasilopita, which is one of the most important customs of the Greeks. There is a pie made in honour of St. Basil, a coin is inserted in this cake, we cut it, and whoever finds the coin will be rich. It is a sweet bread made with cinnamon and other spices, whatever one wants. We meet up here, serve the pie and eat it...”86
Flag of the „Irini” Traditional costume The Vasoyanis Greek folklore ensemble family, and their children
National Day. „In the Drăgăşani cemetery there is a monument of the Greek people, the fighting children that had come with the sacred battalion in 1821, fallen in the battle of Drăgăşani against the Turks, c.n.]. Many of the elder [Greeks, c.n.] say, even though the children lost some of this information, that whoever failed to see all this, was not… On March 25 we go and deposit wreaths, people from the Embassy also come to the monument. Mostly it’s us that go, the ones we are closer, from Bucharest, Piteşti, Craiova, Calafat.”87
The Greek monument in It was built in 1885 and It is dedicated to the the cemetery of Drăgăşani refurbished in 1975 memory of the battles of the Filiki Eteria fighters (the sacred battalion) with the Turks in 1821
The Great No/Ohi (October 28) „is the second national holiday of the Greeks. The Greeks were first occupied by the Italians. Until the Germans came, they could not be conquered. In the Parliament also there was a proclamation and it was said: «Well now, what
85 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu. 86 Ion Vasoyanis, Vasilica Preda and Elena Dobre (inteviewed on 11th of August 2015). 87 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu.
43 are we going to do? We either let ourselves trampled by the Germans, or we fight!». And the Greeks said: «No! Ohi! We fight, we will not let ourselves be trampled!». And of course eventually the Germans, being more numerous, more... they conquered them. [Today] it’s like a national day [in Greece], with parades, with the presence of the army.”88 „The Day of the Great No (Ohi), October 28, is the day when the Greeks said no to the invading power. It was a moment of the insurrection.”89 Christian holidays. „St. Mary is a huge holiday. St. George and St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki. Craiova has the same patron saint as Thessaloniki (St. Demetrius). The Saint’s mosaic in Thessaloniki has the same features as the one in the church here. Certain links always existed, with the Greek’s school existence here, Tudor Vladimirescu..., Michael the Brave was of Greek descent, his mother was Greek. New Year Tradition: On New Year’s day we throw a pomegranate over the house and depending on how it breaks” [that’s how abundant it will be like, c.n.]. Aghios Vasilis: There is no Santa Claus, there is only St. Basil, aghios Vasili, he brings gifts to the children. Except for those about Jesus Christ, all carols are about aghios Vasilis. Baptism is completely different. Here the godfather is not the important one, but the godmother. Regarding the name, the girl must receive not the godmother’s first name, but the grandmother’s. However, the tradition is not kept as it was. Mourning. If the husband died, the wife would wear black until her own death. She was continuously in mourning, until old age. For a long time, when these children arrived from Greece, they were taught to wear black, as recognition to their country of origin. Greek people are very patriotic. Funeral wheat porridge. The funeral porridge is made in a completely different manner, because of the heat. It’s made of wheat also, but it is not boiled. It also [has] some added spices.”90 Ties with the church. There was never a church [of the Greeks in Craiova]. We tried to come together, but it was difficult as they were not used [to go to a certain church]. Craiova being a larger city, each one of us went to the church where we lived, being of the same religion [as the Romanians]. During Ceauşescu’s regime you were not really allowed to say it, the children of the revolutionaries didn’t really attend church, they were being taught differently and that’s how the connection with the church was lost. Unfortunately, many of these children died without really making peace with the church. In Calafat there is a church subordinated to the Metropolitan Church of Oltenia, but in which the priest that refurbished it even during Ceauşescu’s dictatorship, kept the paintings and the Greek writings, including the church’s painter, a Greek, is mentioned there, on the wall.”91
88 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu. 89 Ion Vasoyanis. 90 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu. 91 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu.
44 Ion Vasoyanis, President Ion Florin Pâşcoveanu, Folklore Ensemble of of the Greek Community President of the Greek Greeks in Romania in Craiova Forum in Craiova
Case study – the Vasoyanis family. „I had my grandparents who came to Craiova in 1912. They were initially in Brăila, from Brăila to Bucharest, then in Craiova. In Bucharest, in Calea Rahovei, they had a little shop, I went myself to see the place where it was. I found descendants of my grandfather’s associate, his name was Taşula. They were merchants, they had a shop, they came for business and the Communist Party took it away from them, took everything away from them, it destroyed them. They were already considered to be a part of the small bourgeoisie. Both the Jews and the Greeks faced the same troubles. That’s what it was like back then. When you were considered to be a kulak or bourgeois, they took [your property]. After that they lived from one day to the other, poor souls. They had four children. From my mother’s side they are Romanians, a mixed family.”92 Case study – the Pâşcoveanu family. „There are very few people named Pâşcoveanu. There is a village here, Pâşcoveni, there was a rather powerful boyar from the Brâncoveanu family, who, as far as I know, around 1820, before the arrival of T. Vladimirescu, proposed to one of them, Ştefan Pâşcoveanu, to become ruler, but he refused… The Pâşcoveni boyars are linked also to the Obedeanu church, with donations… My origin is also from that side, from the name, but also from another side. My paternal grandmother was Greek and my grandfather was Romanian. A native of Asia Minor, she was stolen by my grandfather, here, he was a merchant in Caracal. He was doing business with the Greeks, with this family, he liked her and he stole her. My father was orphaned when he was nine, he was a judge. Being orphan, he declared himself always an orphan, because of the files, you know what it was like, the autobiography, what is your mother, how about your father... My grandparents’ shop in Caracal was taken over [by the communists], whatever happened, happened, he registered himself as orphan because since he was nine that’s exactly what he was. This thing with the Greeks, I don’t even know what to say about it, no one talked about it at home, one couldn’t leave, we don’t know our family there, especially for being orphaned. And the information he had was what you’d expect for a nine-year old to know. My wife’s grandfather [Romanian] had a furrier’s shop here, and he had brothers in Greece. He left because he couldn’t get along, financially Greece was weak at the time. He left the fur business and opened a pie shop. His brothers in Greece presented him this girl, they liked each other, they adjusted to one another, they remained together. The Greeks live a long life, my wife’s grandmother lived until she was 93-94.”93
92Ion Vasoyanis. 93Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu.
45 ALBANIANS
The Albanians in Romania are documented at the end of the 16th century, in 1595 Michael the Brave allowing a number of 15.000 Albanians to settle in the Principality of Wallachia94. The reason was clearly the entrance of the Balkan territories in the composition of the Ottoman Empire, the Christian princes successively losing the wars against the Turks. Later, the Albanians came as merchants and craftsmen, as well as fighters in the ruler’s guide (Albanian mercenaries). The Albanians’ cultural link with the Romanians is strong, in Romania taking shelter, as in the case of the Bulgarians, part of the Albanian national cultural elite, which activated toward the formation of the independent Albanian state. We mention here the Drita (Lumina) society, which functioned between 1884 and 1914. The ruler Vasile Lupu was of Albanian origin, and in the cultural area we mention Elena Ghica (Dora d’Istria) and Naum PanajotVeqilhaergi (author of the first Albanian spelling book mid-nineteenth century). The writer Victor Eftimiu, born in a village in the Southern part of Albania, Boboştiţa, settled and worked in Romania. In Romania (Homeland of Freedom – Vatan i lirimevet, as it was called by Albanian patriots) several Albanian newspapers and magazines were edited at the end of the 19th century- beginning of the 20th: Drita (starting with 1887), Shqiperia, Shqiptari, PërlindjaShqiptare, Jetashqiptaro-rumune, Atdheu, Shqiperia e re95. After 1878, in Bucharest there were several Albanian cultural associations, among which Bashkimi/ Union (set up in 1906). The hymn of the association, Ciprian Porumbescu’s composition, Pe-al nostru steag e scris unire (On our flag stands written union), became, in November of 1912, the national anthem Himni i Flamurit on the occasion of Albania’s independence. Many Albanian intellectuals repatriated after 1912. Permanently, however, there were Albanian families that settled in Romania. Thus, the Gendarme Inspectorate in Craiova, as per the order no. 36779 of 1943 of the General Gendarme Inspectorate handed out a table with the names of 11 Albanians settled in Dolj County96. „The Albanians were always devoted to their adoptive country, contributing as per their possibilities to its prosperity, being workers, merchants, doctors and teachers, engineers and architects, writers and actors, etc.”97 During the 2002 census, the Albanians in Romania were 520 in number. In Oltenia, the number of Albanians is quite small, in Craiova existing a branch of the League of Albanians in Romania. The Albanians Union in Romania was set up in 1990, and then, on June 30 of 1999, the League of Albanians in Romania was set up, presided nowadays by deputy Oana Manolescu. The association has a diverse activity, being involved in cultural projects to promote the Albanian language and culture, publishing books, as well as The Albanian magazine.
94 Marius and Maria Dobrescu, in Istoria minorităţilor naţionale din România, p. 33. 95 See also Nicolae Djamo, Gelcu Maksutovici, „About the Albanians in Romania”, in GelcuVesedin Matsukovici (coordinator), Istoria comunităţii albaneze din România, Bucharest, Cultural Union of Albanians in Romania, 2000, vol. 1, p. 28-31. 96Nicolae Ciachir, „Original details about the Albanians Foreign Citizens settled in Romania in 1943”,in Istoria comunităţii albaneze din România, volume 1, Bucharest, 2000, p. 339. 97N. Djamo, G. Maksutovici, quoted work, p. 30.
46 Deputy Oana Manolescu, Young Albanians in „Sf. Nicolae Dintr-o zi” President of the Albanian traditional costumes Church – „Albanian League Association in people’s church” Romania (Academy Rd., Bucharest)
The „Sf. Nicolae Dintr-o zi” Church on Academy Rd. in Bucharest is considered the „Albanian church” because, as shown on the memorial plaque: „Between 1911-1945, this church served as place of prayer to the Albanian Orthodox community in Bucharest. Here served in the Albanian language Fan S. Noli (1882-1965), remarkable personality of the Albanian literature and culture, Albanian prime-minister between June and December of 1924.” „The Albanian community in Oltenia is rather small. There are many Albanian and Romanian names that hide Albanian people. This community only lives in urban areas.”, according to the deputy of the Albanian minority, Oana Manolescu, during the workshop organized in Craiova on the 2nd of July of 2015. Having come from the Christian- Orthodox southern area of Albania, the orthodox Albanians integrated in time within the Romanian Orthodox community in Oltenia. Like this, the holidays and traditions are similar to the ones of the Romanians living in the area. A family of Muslim Albanians, the Memish family, settled in Slatina at the end the 18th century, when many Balkan people migrated to Wallachia, at the turn of the 20th century, opened a confectionery shop, „By the Albanian Athlete”, which has functioned ever since, without interruption, being one of the very few private ventures during the communist regime. Hashim Memish (born in 1939), the person running this confectionery shop that sells oriental sweets, ice-cream and millet beer, was named honorary citizen in 2008, Because of the media, the shop is known nation-wide, many occasional tourists having tasted their products through time.
BULGARIANS
There are two Bulgarian communities in Romania: one in Banat, which is a Catholic one, and the other scattered across all the other provinces, this one being Orthodox. Orthodox Bulgarians in the Southern part of Romania, in Oltenia and Muntenia, were naturally assimilated by the Romanian population during the last two centuries. An important group of the Bulgarian population was found in the two counties of North Dobruja, namely Tulcea and Constanţa. By applying the provisions of the Treaty of Craiova from September 1940, there
47 was a change of population between Romanian asylum seekers of Bulgarian origin from North Dobruja, and Romanian asylum seekers of Romanian origin from South Dobruja. In this way, with the loss of the two Southern counties in Dobruja came the loss of an important Bulgarian community in the Northern part of Dobruja, transferred to the South. In Craiova, the presence of Bulgarians is very old. „There was also a Bulgarian suburb, at Sfântul Spiridon [church] there were a lot of Bulgarians. I know the Gheciu [family], Petre and Tănase Gheciu. It was an entire suburb of gardeners, their street pertained to the Mântuleasa church, as well as the St. Demetrios church. It was a swampy area which allowed the practice of gardening. They had the gardeners’ guild. They were assimilated to the main population, their offspring are known. I met some of them myself, they had Bulgarian particularities. I met some who had fought in the Bulgarian army in 1913. They were in Băileşti, coming [here] to the South. We have an issue with the fact that we call the people from South of the Danube Serbs and one cannot differentiate between Bulgarians and Serbs”, according to Mr. Toma Râdulescu, a historian based in Craiova (interview from the 27th of March, 2015). We thus reach an important issue: in the region of Oltenia, under the denomination of Serbs we must include the ones from the South of the Danube – Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians, Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians – who appeared as merchants through oriental companies and as craftsmen. In this sense, the Serbs’ suburb in Craiova, which no one really recalls where it was situated exactly, somewhere behind a church with St. John as patron, was in fact made up of Macedonian-Romanian (Aromanian) merchants from the Wallachia- Clisura, that had come at the end of the a7th century and beginning of the 18th. During the interwar dispute regarding the location of the Serb suburb, another historian considers the year 1825 as the moment starting with which we can consider the arrival of the Aromanians from Wallachia-Clisura in Craiova.98 „It is historically undisputed that, starting with the 17th century, many Macedonian families [Macedonian- Romanian] crossed into Ardeal and Oltenia to settle here and do business. From the beginning of the 18th century an important number of these families also settled in Craiova, and they are still present here through their offspring. Having come from Macedonia, be it from Wallachia- Clisura or Meglena or from other Romanian villages, for a while they were completely foreign to the inhabitants of Craiova; and their name and national costume, very similar to the one of the Serbs, rightfully determined the population of Craiova to consider these Aromanians (Aromanians from Macedonia, Macedonians) as Serbs and to also name the part of the city where they lived y the name of the Serbs’ suburb, comprising namely of that part of town close to St. John church, where back then and in newer times these numerous Macedonian families in Craiova used to live. This historical mention does not mean that the new denomination of the Popa Anghel or Chiţărănoaia suburb, until it was changed into the suburb of St. John, as it is called now, would have been removed by the passing and short-lived denomination of the Serbs’ suburb, as it was very often the case with other suburb names in our city.”99
98 Gigi Orman, „From Craiova’s past: Clisurean Neighbourhood”, in the Archives of Oltenia, March- April. 1928, year VII, p. 110. 99 George Mil.-Demetrescu, „From Craiova’s past. Serbs’ Ghetto (suburb) (St. John Suburb)”, in the Archives of Oltenia, january- February 1928, year VII, p. 11-12.
48 MACEDONIANS
The Macedonians (Macedonian-Slavs, population from the Macedonian space), came in important waves between 1564 and 1565, because of a series of defeated peasant uprisings throughout Macedonia’s territory, in the Mariopo-Prilep region. Another emigration moment is the year 1595, during the rule of Michael the Brave. Also, during the revolution of Tudor Vladimirescu Macedonian people came, and they joined the revolutionary army. The peasant uprisings of the 19th century produced other emigrations toward the Romanian space, settling in rural localities in the Southern part of Oltenia. Coming from the Balkan space through Serbia and Bulgaria, the Romanians called them Bulgarians, Serbs, „pecialbar” people, Macedonians100. The historic territory of Macedonia, after the Balkan wars of 1912-1913 and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was divided between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece. In diplomatic circles there was this idea of Macedonia for Macedonian people, meaning of the populations that inhabit it, mainly Macedonian Slavs, Macedonian Romanians (Aromanians) and Albanians. The Macedonian area that became part of the Serbian-Croatian-Greek Kingdom, and later of the Yugoslav Kingdom and the Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia, was autonomous starting with 1963 and from the 8th of September of 1991 it became independent, under the name of the Republic of Macedonia, which led to a diplomatic conflict with Greece. Greece challenged the name of the new state, in diplomatic circles the denomination of FYROM – Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia being used. In Dolj county, Urzicuţa village, there is a community of Macedonian people (Slavs) of Orthodox religion, only recently admitted to, after the emergence of the Macedonian state, a community of 108 people (3,45% of the total of 3.128 inhabitants). During the 2011 census 134 people in Dolj county declared themselves Macedonian, 133 of them settled in Urzicuţa. They set up a branch of the Association of Macedonians in Romania, the community obtaining a deputy place in the Romanian Parliament (now occupied by Ionel Stancu). The Association of Macedonians in Romania was set up in 2000, the Macedonians being recognized as national minority in Romania that same year. Starting with 2001, the Association became a member of the Council of National Minorities, together with the other ethnicitiees recognized in Romania. The Association tried to find its own identity, publishing every year books and magazines dedicated to the Macedonian customs and traditions, their traditional gastronomy, etc.101 The confusion between the Macedonian Slavic/ Macedonian and Macedonian- Romanian/ Aromanian in Romania is recognized by the Association of Macedonians in Romania, according to the 2013 statement of Emilian Mircea, its cultural counsellor: „There is a very strong Macedonian community in the Southern area of Romania. We speak about Slavic Macedonians, they ones that are a majority in Macedonia, over 60% of the entire population. There is a major confusion between them and the Aromanian community.”102
100 Liana Dumitrescu, Laura Rogobete, Marijan Mihailov, in the Istoria minorităţilor naţionale din România, p. 28-29. 101 Pease check the website http://www.asociatia-macedonenilor.ro/reviste.php?revista=7 (19th of August 2015) 102Asineta Gâscan, „Macedonian Day, celebrated in Craiova”, in Ediţie specială, 9th of September 2013, interview with Emilian Mirea, please check: http://www.editie.ro/articole/actualitate/ziua- macedonenilor-celebrata-la-craiova.html.
49 JEWS
The Jewish community in Oltenia is divided into the two main branches: Sephardic (Jews from Spain and the Mediterranean basin – Greece, Turkey, Serbia) and Ashkenazi (from Central and Eastern Europe, mainly from Galicia and the Western areas of the Russian Empire). The two communities came in waves, the first that arrived being the Sephardic Jews. They started settling in Europe and Northern Africa after the Alhambre Decree of 1492, issued by the Spanish kings, which imposed the forced conversion of Jews, followed by the de facto expulsion from Spain. The Sephardic Jews represented a community that had settled in Spain ever since the Roman times and had lived mainly among the Arabs that had established the Al-Andalus Caliphate, thus in time starting to be differentiated by language (Judaeo-Spanish, commonly referred to as Ladino, a Spanish dialect) and certain aspects of their traditions and customs from the Jews that had settled in regions of the Roman Empire that became Christian (Jews that created their own language, Yiddish, a dialect created based on medieval German) After the Alhambra Decree, Sephardic Jews left the country either towards the South (especially Morocco and Tunisia), or to the East (Greece, Servia, Turkey, Bulgaria). During the 16th and 17th centuries the latter ones entered the Romanian Principalities and, if we refer to Oltenia alone, they represented the first wave of Jews settled in this province. Their first documentation seems to be in the case of Michael the Brave’s army103, and they are later mentioned in documents of Craiova.104 „In 1647, the Patriarch baptised a young Jew at the Brâncoveni monastery, and another one, also converted by Athanasius the Gatekeeper in Craiova, these being the first references of Jews in the Banate of Craiova.”105 Regarding the Ashkenazi Jews (the majority of them coming to the Romanian principalities from Galicia), after the 19th century pogroms, their origin being different. They are present in Central Europe ever since the first millennium of existence of the Holy Roman Empire. Their name originates from a Biblical denomination, initially used, apparently, for the region of Armenia and/ or Khazaria and subsequently applied to German territories in general. Thus, as Sephardic Jews are the Jews from Spain (Sepharad), the same goes for Ashkenazi Jews who are Jews from Germany (Ashkenaz). Moreover, in Judaic sources, including crusaders from the Holy Roman Empire are called Ashkenazi (meaning Germans). Regardless of their origin, be it from the Sephardic or the Ashkenazi branch, in the Romanian territories, especially in Muntenia, administratively the Jews were divided into two types: the Sudit people (meaning residents), who lived in the respective countries but were foreign subjects (usually Austrians) and were under the care of the consulates of their countries of origin; and the Hrisovelit/Hrisovoli people who possessed a tax payer document, thus being subjects of the Romanian principalities in which they lived. The majority of Sephardic Jews in Oltenia belonged to the latter category, while the majority of Ashkenazi
103 According to the Craiova-based historian Toma Rădulescu (interview from 27.03.2015), in the army of Michael the Brave there were soldiers called Sabetay, name of clear Sephardic Jewish origin. Also, the documents mention Michael the Brave’s Jewish creditors, who were not Wallach nationals, but people from the Ottoman Empire or from Central Europe. 104 This study not being a historical one, we will only mention the fact that, even though sporadically, the presence of people of most likely Jewish origin, part of the Roman legions (especially the 5th Legion Macedonica, moved from Palestine), stationed in Dacia after the conquest (according to Sabina Ispas, „The Old Testament in Popular Romanian Traditions”, in the Yearbook of C. Brailoiu Ethnography and Folklore Institute, new series, volume 6/1995, Bucharest, Academy PH, pp.147-154, and Lya Benjamin, „In Roman Dacia”, in the collective volume Romanian Jews Contribution to Culture and Civilization, Bucharest, Hasefer PH, 2004, p. 34.) 105 Constantin Rezachievici, „In the Romanian Principalities. The Middle Ages”, in the collective volume Romanian Jews Contribution to Culture and Civilization, Bucharest, Hasefer PH, 2004, p. 52.
50 (who had come, as mentioned above, after the pogroms in the Russian Empire) were Sudit people. In time, this led to issues concerning the granting of citizenship. The data concerning the numeric evolution of the Jewish population in the region of Oltenia are available in an article by Ion Dongorozi, Jewish Settlements in Oltenia – after the war (1920-1929)106. Thus, in the census made by the Austrians in Oltenia between the years 1734 and 1735, there are 4 family heads, 16 Jews respectively. In 1786, in Craiova there were 10 families of Jews of approximately 40 people, and in 1792 a document by Constantin Vodă Şutzu confirmed the existence of a Jewish community in Craiova. From the Statute of the Jewish community of Spanish rite107 we know that in 1970 this community was established as „public institution of worship, instruction and entombment”, which was made up of all the Jews of Spanish rite. The house of prayer in Craiova was built between 1829 and 1832, with money from the Jewish community, at the initiative of Tsevi Eskenasi, and restaured in 1887 by architect Birkental, when it was transformed into the Coral Temple108. It is situated at no. 15 Horezului Rd., in downtown Craiova.
The synagogue (15 Inside the synagogue Inside the synagogue Horezului Rd.)
With the number of Jewish people rising in time, the building of the synagogue became necessary, as shown by the data of the 1831 census, when there is a number of 328 in Craiova, and a total of 340 in Oltenia. The 1838 census indicates 495 Jews in Craiova, and 735 in Oltenia; the 1899 census indicates 4.577 Jews in Oltenia (Vâlcea – 294, Gorj – 69, Mehedinţi – 825, Romanaţi – 323, Dolj – 3.266), settled especially in towns like: Râmnicu Vâlcea (244), Craiova (2.891), Turnu Severin (815), Calafat (263), Caracal (211), Corabia (103) etc. The 1912 census indicated 5.052 Jews in Oltenia, 4.818 of which in urban areas and 234 in rural areas. The Jewish cemetery in Craiova is situated on Bucovăţ Rd. and is over 200 years old. From a document signed by ruler Constantin Alexandru Ipsilanti it results that in 1806 in Craiova there was a „Jewish synagogue”, and also a Jewish cemetery in 1800109.
106Ion Dongorozi, „Jewish settlements in Oltenia – after the war (1920-1929)”, in the Archives of Oltenia, Craiova, year IX, May - August 1930, pp. 157-175. 107 Published in Craiova, Ramuri graphic Arts Institute 1927. 108 Sefarzii otomani la Craiova, http://www.idee.ro/jewish_heritage_4/index.php?language=ro&pagina=craiova, consulted on 27.09.2015. 109 Ion Dongorozi, quoted work, p. 158.
51 The gate of the Jewish Image from the Jewish Iosif and Ralian Samitca cemetery in Craiova, cemetery funerary monument, Bucovăţ Rd. famous typographers
After WWI, the 1920 census indicates a number of 1.335.628 Romanians and 3.496 Jews (steady inhabitants), 150 Jews respectively (residents), as well as their dissemination per counties: Mehedinţi (rural Romanians 245.492, rural Jews 0, urban Romanians 35.725, urban Jews 813); Gorj (rural Romanians 174.270, rural Jews 3, urban Romanians 14.404, urban Jews 35); Vâlcea (rural Romanians 196.144, rural Jews 40, urban Romanians 22.101, urban Jews 134); Romanaţi (rural Romanians 209.850, rural Jews 3, urban Romanians 24.884, urban Jews 146); Dolj (rural Romanians 339.000, rural Jews 15, urban Romanians 74.658, urban Jews 2.457). The 1929 census indicates a number of 1.549.676 Romanians and 3.790 Jews (steady inhabitants), 249 Jews, respectively (residents), as well as their dissemination per counties: Mehedinţi (rural Romanians 278.084, rural Jews 0, urban Romanians 40.607, urban Jews 604); Gorj (rural Romanians 199.098, rural Jews 1, urban Romanians 14.628, urban Jews 39); Vâlcea (rural Romanians 219.805, rural Jews 106, urban Romanians 25.805, urban Jews 225); Romanaţi (rural Romanians 241.968, rural Jews 10, urban Romanians 29.344, urban Jews 187); Dolj (rural Romanians 396.152, rural Jews 23, urban Romanians 104.185, urban Jews 2.844). In 1865 a Jewish school called Lumina (in translation: The Light) is attested, this school later being transformed into a high school, and during the first part of the 20th century it had over 100 students. The high school functioned until 1941. Of the personalities of the Oltenian Jews we mention Herman Mendel, Iosif Samitca (1806-1882), Ignat Samitca (1857-1925) – famous typographers, Albert Zimbler, Corneliu Sabetay (the current president of the community). The Jews were merchants, clerks, freelance craftsmen. In Craiova there are several houses that were owned by prominent Jewish merchants, today regarded as historical monuments: The Englishman’s House, The Eskenozy House, The Zwillinger House, etc.
Englishman’s House Eskenozy House Zwillinger House (80 Unirii Rd.) (42 Unirii Rd.) (88 Unirii Rd.)
In Caracal also there was an important Jewish community, proof of this being the synagogue (no. 2 Ion Grigore Rd.) built in 1902, as well as the Jewish cultural heritage. In
52 Caracal, in 1838 there are mentioned 27 Jewish merchants, and in 1912 the community reached 234 people. In 2012 only 3 Jews still lived in Caracal110. Also in Turnu Severin there was a Sephardic synagogue, at no. 3 Mareşal Ion Averescu Rd. (transformed into a notary office, the building being registered on the List of Historic monuments), built in 1881, in the city having existed in the past the two branches of Jewish people: the Ashkenazi and the Sephardic Jews. In 2009 in the city there were only 3 Jews. During the 2011 census 60 people in Dolj County declared themselves to be Jews, the majority of which being part of mixed families. Apart from these people, in Craiova there is also a small group of students from Israel (not all of them being Jews, though, some are Arabs), especially studying at the Faculty of Medicine or Dental Medicine. But since they are not a part of the community, and only having sporadic links with the synagogue, they were not included in the target group of this study.
Memorial plaque in the Synagogue interior Synagogue interior Craiova synagogue, with Jewish soldiers who fell during WWI
Customs and traditions. Since among the minorities present in Oltenia the Jews are the only ones whose religion is not Christianity, we consider it necessary to make a more thorough presentation of their customs and traditions. The differences between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews are not that great when it comes to religion and traditions. The order of certain prayers is changed, as well as there being certain differences regarding the interdictions surrounding the Pesakh respect rules. Thus, the Ashkenazis don’t eat starchy foods (peas, beans) during Pesakh, while the Sephardic ones abstain from eating rice during the same period. However, apart from these differences insignificant to the Jewish faith and identity, the traditional ritual practices are generally unitarian. For this reason we shall present the Jewish traditions in general, without taking into consideration these differences. As a preliminary specification, we remind the fact that all Jewish celebrations start at sundown, the day previous to the actual holiday. The first holiday is the Sabbath (Saturday), considered sacred because on the Genesis it is said that’s when God rested after making the world. The Sabbath was celebrated through a
110 See project 92108: Creation of a modern multimedia system for the inventory and informatization of the cultural heritage of the Jewish community in Romania, in the European context of multiethnicity and patrimonial diversity (http://www.jewish-romania.ro/u/media/patrimoniu/patrimoniu-studiu-caracal.pdf).
53 ritual dinner, on Friday evening, followed by the lighting of the candles and the drinking of wine from a special, holy cup. Nowadays, because of the steep fall in the number of Jews left in the community, the Sabbath is no longer held at the synagogue, but people do hold the traditional dinner on Friday evening. „In Craiova there are women who light the candles, if they are Jews.”111 The Judaic religious calendar begins with Rosh Hashanah, the celebration of the New Year, which takes place at the beginning of the Tishrei month (approximately September- October, the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar). Rosh Hashanah (the beginning, starting point of the year) lasts for two days, and during this time the shofar is blown (the twisted ram horn) and it is traditional to ear, among other things, apples dipped in honey, as a wish for the sweetness and freshness of the year that is about to begin. Francisc Abraham says that during the frist night (the Rosh Hashanah) the synagogue is full. On Rosh Hashanah day there are about 10-12 people at the synagogue and the ministrant holds the religious service. „On the second day we don’t organize anything, since no one comes.”112 After Rosh Hashanah there is YomKippur (Atonement Day, when the Jews ask for forgiveness for the sins committed in front of God and their fellow men, hoping to appear in the book of life for the following year as well ), one of the two Jewish fasting days. On the previous evening, the people go to the synagogue for the religious service and start fasting from dusk until the following sunset: „one day, from when the first star appears until the following day, when it appears again”.113 „For YomKippur, before the cutting, [the father] said a prayer, would through the birds behind over his head (makes a gesture as if rotating a bird over the head) and then would bring them to be slaughtered.”114 The fasting is preceded and followed by rich meals. Jewish families have kept this fasting tradition. „While we were in Romania, we always fasted. Ever since I left to Israel, we don’t fast anymore.”115 Sukkot(The Holiday of Tents or Tabernacles, commemorating the 40 years spent by the Jewish people in the desert, after leaving Egypt)- it starts four days after YomKippur and it lasts for seven days, during which time the families live in huts (suka) made out of specific vegetable materials, prepared beforehand, partying and visiting friends and family. It was a celebration of joy. Now the suka part is no longer celebrated, it’s just a party. On ShminiAtzeret (the last day of the holiday) „we perform the masses, during the very last day”. 116 Hanukkah (the Celebration of Lights) – This minor celebration that takes place during the first month of winter lasts for eight days. During this celebration we light candles in 9-arm candlestick, one of them being used to light the others. For Hanukkah the children received presents and they played dice. Presently, since there are no children in the Jewish community in Craiova, this celebration is no longer held. Purim (The Carnival) – It was an important celebration, marking hte beginning of spring, and one of the main characteristics of the Jewish culture in the Romanian towns from past times. The custom that everyone should wear a costume is very similar to what happens during carnivals in Western countires. In the aging communities that exist now in Craiova, the Purim is only celebrated during a short service at the synagogue.
111 Interview with Francisc Abraham, born in 1938, dental technician, married to a Christian, now secretary of the Jewish Community in Oltenia. Interview from 26.03.2015. 112 Francisc Abraham. 113 Francisc Abraham. 114 Francisc Abraham. 115 Interview with AnyFischman, born in 1946, lab technician, from Craiova; left to Israel in 1964. Interview from 19.08.2015. 116 Francisc Abraham.
54 Pesach (Passover, the 15th of the Nisan month, March-April) – the most important of all Jewish holidays, marked by very severe rituals of house purification. Francisc Abraham remembers what his parents did for Pesach: „on the morning before Pesach, my father would say a prayer and my mother would gather the leavened bread from everywhere around the house. „On Easter Eve everything was cleaned. For the cleaning, goose or turkey feathers were used, which were then placed in a parcel and burnt. The leavened bread is not burnt, it is thrown away. Other dishes are used, especially for the Passover. During this holiday the Jews won’t eat leavened bread for seven days, but only flat unleavened bread (Matzo). Abraham makes a comparison with Israel, where leavened bread is also eaten. „In Craiova we only eat unleavened bread. I can’t believe that during these seven days there are any shops in Israel that sell bread. I simply can’t believe it.” It’s worth mentioning that, because of the drastic shrinking of the community, the factory where the Matzo was made, which, according to our interlocutor, was situated right next to the synagogue, has been long closed, and now the Matzo is imported from Israel by the FCER (in English, The Federation of Jewish Communities in Romania) and is sent from Bucharest, being sold to the persons who wish to buy it.117 Next to the Matzo, for the Pesach table, called seder (order), which is prepared on the evening of the holiday, as all Jewish ritual tables, it is customary to have six ritual foods: baked lamb shoulder – sometimes replaced by baked beetroot – as a reminder of the lamb sacrificed on the night prior to the flight of the Jewish people from Egypt („We prepare baked lamb shoulder, haggis, for Easter”, according to F. Abraham, who lives in a mixed family); bitter herbs, usually horseradish, as a symbol of the bitterness of slavery in Egypt; a salad made with apples, walnuts, wine and cinnamon, a reminder of the mortar used by Jewish slaves to make bricks; greens, usually parsley, the symbol of spring; an over boiled egg, which is not to be eaten and which symbolises renewal. Also, there is the custom of placing on the table salt water (the symbol of the tears and sweat of slavery, but also a symbol of purity, of spring and of the sea), in which the participants dip the greens. Before the beginning of the seder dinner each person eats a hard-boiled egg – not the over boiled egg! – dipped in the salt water bowl, and during dinner everyone must drink four glasses of wine. Being a ritual dinner, during the seder there are also readings from the Book of Exodus, and especially singing songs from a hymnbook called the Haggadah, which refers to the freedom from slavery, as well as the principles specific to the Judaic religion, which were transmitted, in that form, to the children, whose presence to this dinner was compulsory. Shavuot(The Celebration of the Weeks, of the first harvest, which takes place 50 days after the Pesach) – is an agrarian celebration, marked by the offering of the first harvests of the year. The tradition is that mainly dairy be consumed, which most likely links it to certain pastoral traditions. Tisha B’Av – fasting to commemorate the destruction of the First and of the Second Temple, on the 9th day of the month of Av (July- August). „We do not fast on Tisha B’Av.”118 Life-related customs. Organization of the household: the distinctive sign of a Jewish house is the Mezuzah (doorpost, literally), a piece of parchment inscribed with a particular fragment from the Book of Deuteronomy and is placed in a narrow rectangular casing, with the name of the Lord (Shaddai) written in it, which is placed on the right side of the doorpost of the house, at eyesight level, diagonally; when they leave or reach the house, the people living in the respective household touch or even kiss the Mezuzah for blessing. The Brit milah – On the eighth day since birth all male newborns are circumcised; usually by a Rabbi, and a good one too; in Craiova, the person performing this service is Prof. Corneliu Sabetay, who is a paediatrician and the president of the Jewish community in
117 Francisc Abraham. 118 Francisc Abraham.
55 Oltenia. „Here, in Oltenia, the priest [for brit milah, c.n.] is the Professor [Corneliu Sabetay]. He was called to perform the ritual in Bucharest as well.” Apart from the person performing the circumcision, an important part is played by the baby’s godfather, who is usually an older man from the baby’s family and who holds the baby during the ceremony: „- Who holds the baby for the performance of the brit? – The godfather.”119 For girls there was no particular ceremony, except for the fact that they were given a name. Should the parents wish to, both boys and girls receive a modern name, as well as a Jewish name, related to the Judaic religion. Children born in mixed marriages are considered non-Jewish if the mother herself is not Jewish. Bar mitzvah – the ceremony by which a boy who has reached the age of 13 (traditionally considered the age of maturity in Judaism) takes on the responsibilities of an adult, the most important being that of reading the Torah (comprising the first five books of the Old Testament) in the synagogue. Nowadays in the Oltenia community the Bar Mitzvah is very rare, since there are hardly any children left. The wedding (hatuna) – Since there are hardly any young people left in the community, the number of weddings is drastically small. The matchmaker institution was very important in Jewish communities; the parents would give their consent; there is a marriage contract (ketubah), which is handed to the bride on the wedding day, when the bride and groom are under the canopy (hupah). The wedding would take place at the synagogue: „in our community the weddings have always been performed at the synagogue”.120 During the wedding ceremony, the groom breaks a glass, smashing it under his foot; this signifies luck, it signifies the right direction towards which the new family is heading, as well as remembrance of the kiss of Jerusalem. „In our community and faith cousins do marry each other.”121 He mentions that this union is allowed from the second or third grade, not for the first. However, F. Abraham doesn’t really know what the weddings are like. He attended one in Israel, he liked it very much, and he also attended the wedding of Corneliu Sabetay’s son, which was held at the synagogue. Nowadays, the couples are mostly mixed. The funeral (kevura) – For a religion that celebrates life, such as the Judaism, the death of a person is considered a source of impurity. For this reason those who are considered to be from priestly kin (Cohen) cannot enter a cemetery, not even for the funeral of their relatives. Also for purification, the dead person’s body is cleaned very well, in all openings, after which it is washed, before it is wrapped in the funeral cloth and laid in the coffin. Traditionally, the Jews had to bury a dead person before nightfall, without coffin or clothes, wrapped in only 14 meters (or 10 pieces) of cloths. De facto, accepting the traditions of the place and obeying by the law, „there must be a 48-hour waiting time”, and the dead are laid in coffins. The funeral is taken care of by a group of people from the community, especially chosen, called the Hevra Kadisha (The Holy Society). In Craiova, the dead „are placed in coffins”. „Maybe in Bucharest they lay them to rest wrapped in cloth.”122 (The answer of our interlocutor to the question whether the custom of wrapping the dead in cloth is still performed). „In the Jewish cemetery in Craiova there are also Christian people buried, from mixed families, but they are not side by side. There is a separate place for ... [Christian spouses]”123. This can be considered both a proof in time of mixed marriages, as well as their partial acceptance by the Jewish community. In the cemetery there are monuments for the fallen heroes.
119 Francisc Abraham. 120AnyFishman. 121 Francisc Abraham. 122 Francisc Abraham. 123 Francisc Abraham.
56 During the week of celebrations (for Pesach) nobody enters the cemetery. After a funeral there is no food offering. Shiva (the custom according to which the persons in mourning from the respective household should only sit on the floor for seven days after the funeral whenever they received visits of condolences) was made, and they indeed only sat on the floor for seven days after the funeral, however the custom seems to have disappeared. [Lately] „I don’t know if anyone has sat in Craiova.” But in Israel everyone sits on the floor for seven days. „Here I don’t know if anyone has stayed on the floor [lately].” There is a blessing held at the cemetery: „The Rabbi – or the officiant, since now we have officiants, for lack of Rabbis. There are only two Rabbis left in Romania. [Timişoara and Bucharest] „For lack of a Rabbi, there are officiants who hold the services who train each year in Cristian, Braşov.”124 Case study – Francisc Abraham, Ashkenazi, born in Craiova in 1938. He studied his first years at the synagogue. „My parents were fanatical. We are from Cluj, in Ardeal. In ’38, I don’t know why my father came here, in Oltenia. If he remained there, his parents, his sisters, brothers, they were all taken and never returned. Only four brothers made it back. Two of them even worked at the ovens in … [Auschwitz; he cannot say the name; the wife finishes the sentence for him, also with difficulty].” The parents were religious, they held all the customs and traditions. „We slaughter the birds at the… Hakham. We came here [at the synagogue], because the slaughter-house was there, in the back. For every holiday we brought the poultry: hens, stuffed geese. My mom stuffed a whole lot of geese. Poor thing, I can see her even now, her hands were full of pinches. We would also bring lambs and the Hakham would slaughter them. There is one Hakham in the country. There is one in Bacău that slaughters beef...” „The majority of us here are mongrels… These people in Oltenia have no idea. Many of them are old. Many have died, or went to Israel. We are all at least 70 years old. The youngsters are mixed, from mixed families. The mothers are generally Orthodox.” [Asked if there were issues when he married a non-Jewish woman, the wife also being from a mixed family, Orthodox Albanian with Muslim Bosnian): „There were issues when I got married. [with a shikse? – a term in Yiddish, very pejorative, designating a non-Jewish woman]: „This word...there is a family here in Craiova which gave way to a huge scandal with that word. And with the word goy [non-Jewish] there was a scandal between two families… the term was used as an insult.” „My parents died in Israel.” [About Rabbis]: „There are two Rabbis in Romania: one in Timişoara and one in Bucharest, the rest are officiants. There was a young Rabbi, but wasn’t recognized here because his mother was not Jewish, and he left for Canada. But he had a Rabbi certificate issued in the USA.” „For prayers, we keep in mind the ten people that come for prayer. If they are ten... That’s why I liked him, he was modern this Rabbi from Bucharest. I asked him: what happens if they aren’t ten? You do your work, you hold the service. And I also asked: what if he knows neither Modern Hebrew, nor Yiddish? We hold it in Romanian as well.[…] If no one knows… I don’t think anyone knows Yiddish in Craiova.” [Among the ten adults required by tradition to fulfil the Minyan – the minimum number to hold a prayer at the synagogue or for a funeral – must they all be men?]: „Only men. We completed with Orthodox, because.. you cannot take a person, especially since they came with the kipa on the head [the round cap Jews wear in the place of worship and not only there], and take them by the hand: please stand back Sir. Especially since they are married to Jewish wives and they help us very much around here. They come to service… But generally we are always ten.”
124 Francisc Abraham.
57 „The Sephardi Jews had a very beautiful synagogue, close by. But it fell when the earthquake struck. They later made residential buildings there.”125
ITALIANS
The Italian community in Oltenia was formed starting in the 19th century, when, because of the economic crisis in the Italian territories, families of Italian peasants and merchants from the regions of Friuli, Venice, Giulia, etc., for economic and political reasons (the agrarian crisis), came for seasonal work. Later on the workers settled in different localities in Oltenia, bringing their families with them. According to the data found by Rodica Mixich126 in the Archive of Dolj County Prefecture(file 180/1898, f. 13, 33, 116, 117), in 1839 there is a mention of the first agricultural workers in Oltenia. Oftentimes, they brought the entire family in Romania, differing from the majority by their Catholic faith. During the next generations mixed families would be formed, Italian- Romanian. Rodica Mixich divides the Italian migration to Romania into three categories: „Italians come to work beginning with 1883; Italians settled in Oltenia until 1940 – the so-called colonists; Italians that remained in Oltenia after 1950”. The author specifies that, during the two world wars, Italian reservists had to return to Italy, being called to join the Italian army. After WWII the immigration process of the Italians to Romania was over, the community formed being of approximately 8.000 persons. „The number of Italian families that immigrated to Oltenia, initially, is greater than expected. The first official lists which mention Italians drawn up by town halls were found in the 1898 archive. According to declarations mentioned in these lists, the Italians settled in various localities starting with 1883. We assume that during this period they settled on a temporary- seasonal basis, they came back every season, they established relations and eventually they brought their families. Staring in 1883, in the parish registries there is almost an invasion of Italian families that, however, cease to appear during the following years, which leads to the supposition that they ceased coming for the following season. Also, there are numerous emigrant families originating from the same locality: Arsie (Belluno) – the Fauro, Bettini, Bethini, Strapazone, Polli, Tenale, Mores, Menegars, Cescatto families (The Craiova Roman-Catholic Parish, Parish registry 1884-1892); Belluno – the Debiasi, Casagrande, Mariotti, Fantini, Vizentin, Biazi, Bellegante, Reviani, Dinale (idem) families; Cormons (Udine) – the Nardin, Vizintin, Muzina, Sgubin (idem) families; Udine –the Philippi, Dellaschiava, Franciscus Dellfrate, Cividino, David Rosa, Ioanes Venturi, Chiavelli families (The Piteşti Roman-Catholic Parish, Parish registry 1884-1892); Ospitale (Belluno) – the Olivotto, Riccobon (idem) families; Goritia (Aielo) – the Mozochini, Carmilotto, Ustulin families (The Craiova Roman-Catholic Parish, Parish registry 1884-1892)”127. „The arrival of the first Italians from Friuli in the Craiova area, at first only during the summer, and after 1860 permanently, is linked to the name of Pera Opran, the owner of the Işalniţa estate near Craiova… The migrating flux continued uninterruptedly until the 30s of the past century, when the Friuli community reached considerable dimension” – according to
125 All quotes in this case study belong to Francisc Abraham. 126 Rodica Mixich, Italienii din Craiova, published on 9.11.2013 on the website: http://www.culturaromena.it/Rom%C3%A2n%C4%83/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/825/Italienii -din-Craiova.aspx 127 Rodica Mixich, quoted work.
58 Elena Pîrvu128. Thus, the Italian community in Craiova during 1930-1935, was made up of approximately 5.000 people, many repatriated after the beginning of the communist regime in Romania. Due to the better salaries paid in Romania at the end of the 19th century, hundreds of Italian workers are hired for public works (roads, bridges) in several counties in Romania, including in Gorj and Vâlcea.129 The Italieni (Italians) village, situated near Craiova, was set up about a century ago by the Italians looking for work, with different occupations: masons, confectioners, farmers. In the 80s there were 150 families in the village, many of which were mixed. The village, however, was destroyed during the village systematization plan.130 On the road to Işalniţa, in the Izvorul Rece village, where 25 mixed Italian-Romanian families live, these inhabitants constructed in 1999 a new church, with Ascension of the Holy Cross patron. Another locality with descendants of mixed families, Romanian- Italian, is Brezoi in Vâlcea, for the 2011 census only three people declaring their ethnicity as Italian. 68 people declared they are Italians in Dolj County. The Italian church Santissimo Redentore (Blessed Saviour) in Bucharest, situated on Nicolae Bălcescu Avenue, was built 100 years ago (1915-1916), following the plans of two Italian architects, Mario Stoppa and Giuseppe Tiraboschi, at the initiative of the Italian community in Bucharest, on a piece of land donated by the Romanian state. The church serves as place of worship for several nationalities, the mass being held in Romanian, Italian, Polish and German. The Italian community in Bucharest kept close relations with the Italian community in Oltenia, and also with the other ethnical minorities of Catholic confession in Romania. Today, the Italian community is represented by the Italian Association in Romania, founded in 1993 in Suceava and which gained legal personality in 1996131.
The Blessed Saviour Italian The Ascension of the Holy Plaque on the church in church – Bucharest Cross Roman-Catholic Izvorul Rece village church in Izvoru Rece village, Dolj County
Case study – Scubini Elena132. „The Italians „were brought here, I believe it’s happened more than 150 years ago, an Italian colony, because they were very poor there, they
128 Elena Pîrvu, „For a history of the Friuli ethnics in Romania. The Community of Craiova”, n Orizonturi culturale italo-române, no. 4, year V, April 2015, p. 1-2. 129 Sabin Drăgulin, „The migrating phenomenon in Romania. Case study: the Italians (1868-2010)”, in Sfera politicii, no. 158, 2015, p. 5. 130 Toma Rădulescu, „Italians cast away from Dolj in the 80s”, in Adevărul, 5th of December 2009. 131 According to the associtaion website: http://roasit.ro/site/despre-noi/asociatia-ro/. 132 Elena Scubini, born in 1941 in Drăgăşani, Romanian married to Scubini Giovani, 7 classes, housewife, settled in Izvoru Rece village, Dolj County.
59 came with their families brought by a prominent landlady, her manor was in Işalniţa, she owned all this land. They came from Udine, [the village of] Cormons. She created proper conditions for all of them, then she had houses built for them, for example this little house was made by this rich lady, we modified it in time, though. Later they started to live better, and made their own houses. They were farmers and builders. Their children learnt this profession, of builders. Being with their families, they had children, these children grew up, they got married, some with people from their own religion, Catholics, others married Orthodox people... In time, even if they got married... for example my husband was Catholic, his grandmother came with her family, my parents were three years old, they kept their religion.” „The Romanians and Italians lived well together, without any discussions regarding the differences between them.” In the case of marriages, the ethnic origin or religious confession did not matter. „I was so young, what did I know about the difference? I didn’t care about it.” The children „bore their parents’ name, their fathers’ names. They all kept their names. For example, I have two boys: Carleti and Toni. It also depends on the spiritual parents the couple had at their wedding.” Surnames: Scubini, Stumină, Dinale, Del Negro, Giusepe, etc. The Ascension of the Holy Cross church was built by priest Ionel Râtan. „He fought a lot for a church to be made for us. He died [on the 16th of December, 2013]. He was [a priest] at the St. Anthony for 35 years and he wanted very much to build a Catholic church in this village. He walked around the village and we offered our land, the church is raised in my husband’s garden. We gave up the land and the father rewarded us. There are about 20 years since he bought the land, 15 from when he built it... Our grandparents are buried in the Catholic cemetery, but the rest of the family is here, in the village cemetery, mingled with the Orthodox.” „I am Orthodox, while he is Catholic. They kept their religion and customs. I followed my husband’s religion; the difference is not that important, many celebrations are the same as the Orthodox ones. There is only one God everywhere! Many people don’t understand this; they believe there is a difference so they separate between the two. I was married in the Catholic faith, my children are baptized. In the case of children that receive communion or are offered the Eucharist, there is a great difference between Catholic and Orthodox children. For example, in the case of Orthodox children, we are taken from a very early age to church, especially for Easter, to take the Eucharist bread. For Catholics, when the children are seven, eight years old and have learnt to read and write, the Catholic priest starts to teach them about religion and they receive communion. It is called the First Holy Communion. It’s very curious: the girls wear white dresses, veil on the head, and the boys wear white shirts and pants, either short or long.” Regarding the habits of remembrance of the dead, many families in Izvoru Rece being mixed, also kept their Orthodox traditions. Thus, although "Catholics don’t really have give- aways" women give alms in memory of deceased family. „People give alms on the day the person die, on the burial day, especially with the family or at a restaurant. There are no towels or handkerchiefs given, and definitely not as many give-aways. [At 40 days] we also give alms, but the same, within the family circle. But not how we, the Orthodox, do things, because here [the Romanians] prepare meals, and so many other things... However, I did all this like my mother before me. And sometimes you think about the shame, you don’t want people to start talking. The priest tells me that if you are to do something, you should do it wholeheartedly, and give alms to poor people. At six months I invited people over, we made a barbeque, my son lives here, next to the church, so we also invited the priest and the girl who helps out in the church. At nine months, whoever wants cooks at home and then gives the good away, to neighbours and especially to poor people, which is even better. At one year it’s on Christmas, and according to tradition
60 everyone gives something away, so I will do the same. No one does this in the city, only here, in this village, we still keep the tradition.” „There is another special holiday on the 2nd of November, it’s the celebration of all the Catholic dead. The priest comes to the cemetery and he reads out prayers in front of every tomb. Whoever wants to also gives alms at home. Or, for example, in the city, I used to go to the city and give alms, everyone would make a small package, saw people who were poor and gave it to them.” „We hold requiems; we pay a tax at church. When you schedule it, be it on a special moment, a holiday, the family, the neighbours, relatives, we all go to church.” „For Epiphany, called tamoşe, on the eve of the feast we make a fire. We used to make it with stalks... the younger children would bring the stalks. Now we use car tyres. At a crossing [it’s where the fire is made]. Elder Italians would go and spray the place with holy water, that was traditional. This custom is held to this day, people gather, they talk, tell jokes.” Regarding certain aspects that have lingered in the gastronomy of Italian families, the following can be said: „When they slaughtered their pigs at Christmas, older Italians had a more special ritual of preparation. They used the leaner cuts of meat, muscles and a bit of fat, to make some sort of Italian salami. They also made a sausage called the marcundela, for which they used mixed meat and liver. In time Orthodox people started to make the same specialities. They also made dandelion salad for which they collected the green leaves, washed them very well, then mixed them with oil and a bit of salt. This was their favourite salad.”
GERMANS
The Germans came to Craiova in the 19th century. Among the important people of the community we mention Gheorghe Simonis (a Transylvanian Saxon, born in Rupea, Braşov), who came in 1944 to Craiova and founded the city’s Philharmonic. There is a branch of the Democratic Forum of Germans in Romania, founded in Craiova in 1990 by Josif Görner, under the patronage of the Roman-Catholic Church, obtaining legal personality in 1993, between 1992 and 2000 being presided over by Johann Oberding. Nowadays the management is ensured by Prof. Adelheit Dăneţ. The members of the association get involved in different social and cultural actions, promotion of the German language, organization of classes, celebration of holidays such as Easter, St. Nicholas and Christmas, as well as German Ethnics’ Day (5th of October), etc.133 About the history, customs and traditions of the German we talked with the history teacher Cristinel Prodescu134. The relations between Lutheran and Catholic Germans: „There are very few Catholics in Craiova, the Catholic church across the street is usually attended by Italians and Polish people, as well as Germans, about one in ten. If during the two world wars there were one thousand Lutherans, then there were one hundred Catholics.” Deportation of Germans after the war: „Within the family, even if it is a mixed one, German is also spoken. My family actually spoke the Transylvanian Saxon dialect, being their native tongue. Simply out of habit. My mother-in-law, for example, didn’t even speak Romanian very well. But things have changed because grandfather, my mother-in-law’s father, was deported for five years in Siberia simply because his name was Koner. This led to a sort of reluctance, a revolution even; for example, I know that my wife’s baptism
133 According to: http://www.fdgr-re.ro/ro/filiale/forumul-democrat-al-germanilor-din-craiova.html 134 Cristinel Prodescu, History teacher in Craiova, born in 1959, married to Marlene Koner Prodescu, German ethnic of Evangelical Lutheran religion, in 1978; interviewed on 11th of August 2015.
61 godmother’s family, whose surname was Bertogen, changed it to Berthier in order to escape deportation, pretending to be of French origin. They only returned after the 90s, but they didn’t change the name back, they remained Berthier, however they returned to the church. During the communist regime, because of these impressive deportations, tens of thousands of Transylvanian Saxons were taken to the Soviet Union in 1945-1950. And later they emigrated. The grandfather was always taken to the Securitate offices, and it was his own fault, because he would always listen to Deutsche Welle.” Family and calendar traditions and customs are presented by Prof. Cristinel Prodescu: „In church there is a service once a month, as well as Christmas and Oster Sontag/ Easter. It’s when people attend church, but the number is less than 25 people, years ago the church would be packed, over 100 people. Unfortunately, in the 80s, when Ceauşescu allowed them [to leave], he practically sold the Transylvanian Saxons and the Germans, they emigrated. During the October service we would always have a harvest celebration. Before Christmas the parishioners receive communion. German people don’t fast, there are no memorial services for funerals. Is the so-called TränenBrot, it’s nothing but a meal, the community attending. Each family, as per their possibilities, offers one, two dishes, one, two glasses of wine, plum brandy, drinks, a piece of cake. In Cristian, in Sibiu, the entire community takes part, and during the communist regime this meal was held at the Cultural House, and now at the largest restaurant, the most important in the area, in the community. And that’s where all Germans come together, supporting the grieving family, including financially. After the funeral we hold the so-called TränenBrot. The last funeral was that of my mother-in-law, who died in 2008; the priest came from Sibiu especially for this and he held the funeral service. [The service] was held at home, at my mother-in-law’s house, and it was written down in official documents. We don’t go to church, there is no service there. The dead person is kept at home, the priest comes, holds the service, then we all go to the cemetery. My mother-in-law died at home, she was taken to the cemetery, accompanied by the relatives, a service was held for her there, in front of the chapel, only in German, and the she was buried. On her cross it is written: geboren – born, and gestorben – deceased. There is usually no mourning, black is no longer worn, the humble and sorrowful attitude is held for a maximum of one week. If there is any baptism or wedding, the community also comes together. They wear nice clothes, form a line and partake in the celebration, in the congratulations, meal and dance. But that is all, this community was dedicated to work and time was scarce. The last baptism took place about 15 years ago. They lived in this very courtyard, but they emigrated in the 80s. Also, the children who left then got married and wanted to come from Germany, from Stuttgart, to baptize their child in the church, in the courtyard where they spent their childhood. Children are baptized when they are small, but they are confirmed when they are 14. The baptism is different from the Orthodox one, they are only sprinkled with water. But then, at 14, the confirmation takes place, they take a German language test, the priest asks them questions, as well as the members of the community. It is accepted, but also the Lutheran confession must be earned, it has to be deserved.” „Our daughter was confirmed at 14 and she decided she wanted to be Lutheran. My wife, my in-laws and my mother-in-law’s brother were Lutherans, and we all lived together here, in the parish house and in the courtyard of the Lutheran church. I was a minority, I was the only Romanian, and Orthodox. My daughter has a name specific to the region of Oltenia, her name is Anica, and Prodescu, and she actually kept her surname of Prodescu after marriage as well, however she is of Evangelical religion, she is Lutheran.” Holiday customs: „For Easter we made a special Easter cake. It was made at home by my mother-in-law, and especially my wife’s grandmother, oma, made it. They always had
62 alcohol, my mother-in-law’s brother and grandfather called it medicine. They boiled, made the plum brandy, always boiled it twice, and the first drops, the forehead, as we call it here, in Oltenia, they would put aside and write on it medicine. And they always drank it moderately during the holidays, be it Easter or Christmas.” Slaughtering of the pig: „For Christmas they would slaughter a pig, observing the regulations of the EU! Being from Oltenia, I was surprised when I came to my in-laws’ house to notice that things were done differently, instead of tricking the pig into coming to you by using some corn...no, everything was very peaceful, the pig didn’t even feel that it was dying. It had to be done in a way that prevented the animal from suffering. Whereas here in Oltenia we would take the pig, throw it to the ground, slaughter it.” Traditional songs: „For celebrations or weddings the Polka was danced, which is an Austrian dance. There are also the famous Christmas songs, Elvis Presley ennobled them with his amazing voice, especially since Silent Night is always sung during Christmas time, but this song dates from 1818 and it’s a Franz Gruber song, StilleNacht, as seen in the Evangelische Gesangbuch. Also O du Frӧhliche and the rest are Lutheran songs.” Receiving communion before the Christmas holiday: „There is always a communion service before Christmas and people receive communion, the priest brings the cup of wine and the piece of bread, which every parishioner receives from the priest’s hand.” The harvest holiday: „During the October celebration, for harvest holiday, we place on the table from corn cobs to plums, apples, all the crop of the earth, and the priest gives thanks to the Divinity for all these.”
ROMAN-CATHOLIC CHURCH IN CRAIOVA
The „All Saints- St. Anthony” Roman- Catholic church in Craiova was built in 1844 and is situated at no. 10 Michael the Brave Rd., being a historical monument. The Roman- Catholic community was founded as early as 1827. According to historian Toma Rădulescu, there existed an ancient Catholic community in Oltenia, which also contained Catholic Bulgarians, who were assimilated in time, and they also had a Catholic bishop. The descendants of these Italians, Polish and Germans come to church, many of them being part of mixed families, of Catholic and Orthodox confession. Inside the religious complex there is also the branch of the Democratic Forum of Germans in Craiova. There are three educational institutions supported by the Roman-Catholic Church, where the Italian and German languages are studied: The Catholic Kindergarten in Craiova, The Catholic Primary School in Craiova and The „St. Joseph” Catholic After-High school in Craiova135.
135 Cf. Prof. Monica Wojcicki, in the Record of the session of talks on ,,Intercultural Education” from the 25th of March 2010, Craiova, România.
63 The „All Saints” – The Cross of Aquilea, Italian community ”St. Anthony” Church plaque indicating the monument set up in 2002, (no. 10 Michael the Brave existence of the German on which it is written: „A Rd., Craiova) Kindergarten and Austrian TUTTI GLI ITALIANI memorial plaque (in honour CHE IN QUESTA TERRA of Johann Oberding) HANNO TROVATO LA SECUNDA PATRIA”
Remembrance of the dead: „once a year the Catholics hold a requiem, the dead person is remembered there. For example, my parents passed away more than 30 years ago, I held a requiem for them for seven years. When the year has passed, it’s done yearly. On Monday evening we held a requiem, on Tuesday, both in the morning and in the evening, on Wednesday- in the morning we held a requiem, tomorrow evening the same. At 5 thirty the service begins, and it lasts for half an hour. Us Catholics hold the Day of the Dead on the 1st and 2nd of November, and it’s a celebration of all the dead. There is no give-away of alms, there is no gathering, no give-away in the streets. On the 1st and 2nd of November, that’s when it’s held all over the world, the priest goes to the cemetery, all tombs are visited, and in church he holds a service for all the deceased.”136
CATHOLIC CEMETERY
The Catholic and Evangelical cemetery in Craiova is situated at no. 98, Bucovăţ Rd. and it is under the patronage of the Roman-Catholic Archdiocese. These cemeteries are mixed, from a confessional point of view, being entombed here not only Catholics, but also Evangelical parishioners and Orthodox ones. The entering of Romanians into mixed Italian, Polish, German, Austrian families, is noticed on their tombstones. Since these communities are numerically small, even if these people had distinct religions, starting with the interwar period many families of foreign origin become mixed through the marriage of their descendants with Romanians. „In 1829, after the Russian-Turkish War, the skulls of the soldiers from the Southern part of the region were gathered and were laid to rest there. It was [the estate] of a general [Eismund], he gave away about 50 hectares, the entire cemetery as it is now, he donated the land. The mausoleum in the middle was built then, with that iron crucifix, it was raised then. [Then] the land was donated to the Roman-Catholic Church, which has been in Craiova for 200 years now.”137
136 Lucian Dorovschişi Ludovic Dorovschi(cemetery administrator), interviewed on 24th of March 2015. 137 Lucian Dorovschi, born in 1948. „My father, a Polish officer, could live in the Romanaţi District only if he adopted a child. And that’s how they adopted me from Sadova, from the nursery. He gave me a Catholic education, he gave me everything, I have been playing the organ for 56 years at the Catholic church. I did 7 classes in school plus 3 of vocational training.”. He administered the Catholic cemetery in Craiova.
64 Monument for Russian Russian cross with a Inscription on the ossuary soldiers in the war between crescent moon in the lower 1828-1829 part
At the entrance in the cemetery, on the right-hand side, there is the statue of the Italian constructor Giovanni Battista Peressutti (1880-1953). Born in Pintano al Tagliamento (Friuli- Venice Giulia province), with a diploma in Construction Engineering, was a friend of architect Petre Antonescu, with whom he cooperated for the building of a series of very important constructions. Settling in 1908 in Craiova, is the architect behind important buildings in Craiova, such as the Prefecture, the Administrative Palace, the City Hall, the Faculty of Agriculture, etc. A street in Craiova bears its name.
The Statue of the Italian Funeral monument of Dr. Photography of Dr. constructor Giovanni Charles Laugier Charles Laugier Battista Peressutti
On the left side there is the tomb of the Laugier family, that had come here from Marseille. Its most important member was Charles Laugier (1875-1930). Born in the locality of Cernele, Dolj County, he obtained a diploma in medicine in 1898, becoming a primary doctor of Dolj County and sanitary inspector for the Oltenia region. He had a massive contribution to the fight against some epidemics, to the setting up of several medical
65 institutions, to the sanitary education in general, as well as the Romanian medical ethnography. He managed the Oltenia Archives. The sanitary high school (sanitary school) in Craiova bears his name.
Funerary monument – Funerary monument - Funerary monument – Feruglio Italian family Makovetz Hungarian family Volf Czech family
Other nationalities (Italians, Austrians, Germans, Hungarians, Czech, recently Roma) are signalled in the Craiova area, over time, through funeral monuments. Memory of the Polish refugees. On the 7th of October, 2014, the Polish Embassy held a ceremony that marked 75 years from the start of WWII, Romania accepting Polish refugees on its territory. In the cemetery there is a piece of land where some tens of Polish refugees are buried, in which place the Polish Embassy set up a funeral stele. As related by Mr. Lucia n Dorovschi as well, the memory of the Polish refugees, together with the former president, settled in Craiova at the end of 1939, is marked by a plaque installed in the left side of the Art Museum in Craiova, between the first two windows – the Jean Mihail Palace. „The Polish, mostly aviators and officers, I believe they are 45 in total, were found on the front, after WWII, and they were buried [in a separate piece of land] and the Polish tombs were made. A plaque was raised now, by the Polish Embassy. There are a lot of Polish people buried in the cemetery, who didn’t go to fight in the army and who adopted children and settled in Craiova or in Oltenia. Such is my father’s case, and many others. They were enemies, but they became friends. On the 16th of April we held a manifestation, a short one, similar to a requiem, traditional in our Catholic faith, at the Polish funeral monument, the priest said a prayer. And we held this ceremony also at the plaque at the Art Museum, which is situated in the left-hand side of the entrance. That’s where the Polish [civil] government worked.”138
138 Lucian Dorovschi.
66 Funeral monument in the The funeral stele placed by the The Art Museum in Craiova, plot of the Polish Polish Embassy in the memory where the memorial plaque refugees of the refugees (2014): can be seen: „POLSKIM UCHODŽCOM Z „W TIM DOMU LAT II WOJNY PRZEBYWAA JAKO ŚWIATOWEJ UCHODŹCA OD 5.XI. DO SPOCZYWᾼCYM NA 24.XII.1939 IGNACY CMENTARZU PRZYJAZNEJ MOŚCICKI PREZYDENT ZIEMI RUMUŃSKIEJ RZECZYPOSPOLITEJ OJCZYZNA” – „TO THE POLSKIEJ W LATACH POLISH REFUGEES FROM 1926-1939” – „IN THIS THE SECOND WORLD PALACE LIVED AS WAR WHO REST IN REFUGEE FROM FRIENDLY ROMANIAN NOVEMBER 5 TO LAND” DECEMBER 24, 1939, IGNACY MOŚCICKI PRESIDENT OF THE POLISH REPUBLIC BETWEEN 1926-1939”
LUTHERAN EVANGELICAL CHURCH
On the 19th of May, 1839, the superintendent Sükei, who had been a reformed pastor in the Wallachia principality for 25 years, requests from ruler Alexandru Dimitrie Ghica the approval for the construction of a Protestant chapel in Craiova, also presenting a list of 250 names of people of Evangelical confession139.
Evangelical Lutheran Church bell Detail from the church Church façade
139 T.G. Bulat, „From the history of Protestantism in Wallachia”, in Arhivele Olteniei, year VI, no. 29-30, 1927, p. 40, 59-60.
67 The Evangelical Lutheran Church, situated next to the Jean Mihail Palace (The Art Museum), at no. 13, Calea Unirii Rd., was built between 1870 and 1872, being considered today to be an architectural monument. The history of the German Lutheran community, told by the history teacher Cristinel Prodescu from Craiova: „The Lutheran community in Craiova settled here during Austrian occupation, after the 1714-1718 war, which ended with the Passarowitz peace. Thus, the Germans started coming here. They were simple people, mostly craftsmen, particularly masons. And they formed a community that allowed them in 1839 to found the Lutheran Church (Evangelische Kirche), church of Augustan confession. They received this plot in downtown Craiova, where they built a prayer house which from 1872 became this Lutheran church. It knew great developments especially during the interwar period, there were approximately 1000 Lutherans, with a German school, a German kindergarten, a library, all in the present settlement. There was a house across the street, but after the earthquake in 1977 the communists took advantage of the situation, they demolished it and dispossessed us. [The school and the kindergarten functioned] the whole time, from 1872 until 1948 when the communists took over the building as well. For a short period of time it continued to function as kindergarten, but without the school. The Church [functioned] from 1839 until the present day. The building is from 1872. [Nowadays] the priest comes from Sibiu or even from Germany or the consistory in Sebeş – Alba, from Petroşani or Braşov, once a month, usually during the first Sunday of the month. [Here came] only Germans and Transylvanian Saxons. The community is slowly dissolving. In papers we are 22, but this is a lie, I am not afraid to say this, because we also consider ourselves Transylvanian Saxons, me included, although I am Romanian and Orthodox, but since my wife is a Transylvanian Saxon and my wife and daughter are Lutheran. We are mixed families and write ourselves down in church documents to have at least 20 members, so that the priest would come. Even my daughter, who settled in Bucharest 20 years ago, but is part of our community. Like this we have at least 20 people on paper, but they have been in Germany for a very long time, but appear to still belong to the community. Practically, there are never more than 15 people at service. [I go to church], yes. EineÜbungfür Deutsche sprache – an excellent German language exercise! It is due to my family [that I go]. I am Orthodox and I will die Orthodox! There is tolerance, there is indulgence, transculturality, plurality and everything else. There are also two other husbands of German ladies, like myself.”
„Einfefte Burg ist Organ from 1872 Evidence registry – 20th unferGott”/ century – beginning of the „A happy fortress is our 21st century Lord”
Church organ: „The organ has been here since the church was opened, in 1872. It is from Transylvania, it’s been functional for a century and a half now. Always during service it is played, because the customary songs are played at the organ, we sing by the book, the organ
68 next to the priest. We also have a new organ, and there is a lady teacher at the Art High school, a colleague of mine, and I ask her to come because no one in the community [plays the organ]. The lady is a Romanian Orthodox, but she enjoys playing very much, especially since she is an organ teacher, she studied this instrument at the Conservatory.”
EVANGELICAL CEMETERY
The Evangelical cemetery is situated next to the German heroes cemetery and the Catholic cemetery, initially being part of the same plot of land. And the same as the German heroes cemetery, the Evangelical cemetery is also under the administration of the Lutheran Church. The first tombs are dates approximately 1825, according to the funeral inscriptions. „The Burkhardt family is the one that founded the cemetery. Here is the old side, to the left from the [central] alley. They are from 1824, and behind from 1926, so the entire family. Here there’s also a very old cross, from 1868.”140 Also, you can see on the crosses how after the interwar period Romanian families entered through marriage into the Evangelical ones, the different confession not being an impediment. „They split up, a part o the Germans remained Catholic and the Lutherans turned Evangelical. The confessional difference arose. We are subordinated to the Evangelical church in Sibiu. For the German heroes we also cooperated with the Black Church in Braşov, when we restaured the German heroes with the Romanian army and with the army from Germany. The cemetery kept most of its identity. Since in time the German parishoners slowly disappeared, or they married into families from Romania and from Craiova (mixed families), the cemetery also became mixed. Considering this aspect, whether the family has relatives [buried] here and requests a place, then we serve them, as they are paying parishoners and have a right to receive a place in this cemetery. We don’t say no to any Romanian belonging to the respective family.”141
Burkhardt family funeral monuments 1868 cross
„The cemetery is mixed [Lutheran and Orthodox] also because of the fact that we must exist as well. They emigrated to Germany, there are very few [Germans]. Those 20 lei
140 Mirela Leu, born in 1963, administrator of the Evangelical cemetery in Craiova, interview from 2nd of July 2015. 141 Mirela Leu, interviewed on the 2nd of July, 2015.
69 per year, 2 lei per month, it’s the only income for the cemetery. The church’s interest, is the light functional– it must be paid, the water must be paid, the gravedigger must be paid… And since it’s only 20 lei per grave, and because the Germans emigrated and left it, the Orthodox were also admitted.”142
Funeral monument: Ana Imposing funeral monument Visible on the monuments: Moga, née Roth (1883- (belonging to a count), the entrance of Romanians 1914), and Dumitru Moga entrance in the Evangelical into German families (1874-1936) cemetery through marriage Between the Catholic and the Evangelical cemetery lies the plot dedicated to the German heroes. Even though the Germans and the Romanians fought against each other during WWI, the memory of the German soldiers is kept alive on that piece of land in the Evangelical cemetery. „During WWI the bones of the members were gathered, to the left there is the German cemetery. Ironically, next to the Germans there is also a Romanian, as well as several Italians.”143 „There are also soldiers from WWI, Germans and Hungarians. The front reached this region and it incorporated citizens of all nationalities, however the majority here is made up of Hungarians. They buried here the ones from WWI, they identified them and each one received a cross. A monument was also erased, as a symbol. The land was donated by Craiova’s City Hall, it does not belong to any church, but it was ceded in the patrimony of the churches to manage, and since there were also parishoners of Polish, Italian and German origin, they said yes.”144
Entry to the German Funeral monument of WWI Crosses of Germand and heroes cemetery heroes Hungarian heroes
142 Cristinel Prodescu. 143 Lucian Dorovschi. 144 Mirela Leu.
70 The remains of 160 German heroes fallen during WWII, buried in the front of the cemetery, were exhumed in May of this year by the representatives of the German Popular Union for the Maintenance of War Monuments foundation (VDK). They were transported to the Eternity cemetery in Iaşi, to be re-buried in a special location.
ROMA POPULATION
A lot was written about the origin and the formation of the Roma population within a historical territory, the most reliable historical- linguistic hypotheses is that they left from India. Their migration took place about one thousand years ago. Some theories present them as slaves of the Byzantines, others as slaves of the Tatar. Their emergence in the Romanian area is quite late, starting with the 14th century. In a PhD thesis sustained by Mihaela Daniela Preda at the Faculty of Geography in Bucharest and published in 2010, The Roma Ethnicity in Oltenia between Tradition and Modernity. Human Geography (University of Bucharest Publishing House), the author concludes regarding the emergence of the Roma people in the Romanian space: „their propagation was possible due to the waves of migrations, direct consequence of a nomadic lifestyle, which never had a pre-determined direction and purpose, being strongly influenced by social, political and economic factors of the time, in the present being difficult to determine the causes of its precise onset.”145 In old documents it is mentioned that the slave settlements were alienated together with the estates they belonged to. The institution of slavery is prior to thr arrival of the Roma people, the Tatars being documented as slaves in the Romanian principalities. At the same time, the Romas appear as slaves in other Balkanic regions as well, but it cannot be said whether they reached the Byzantine Empire as slaves or as a nomadic population. Slavery must be seen as exploitation of the workforce, the Roma people being used for different crafts, such as wood and metal processing, as well as agriculture. Up to the medieval era, the nomadic lifestyle represented a characteristic of some groups of Roma people, who moved around to find better places to live. There is also a negative side to nomadism, in that the Roma people were seen as foreigners, which led to them being rejected by the sedentary communities. In the 17th and 18th centuries in Transylvania and Banat there were laws that faught against nomadism, registering the settlement of some nomadic populations, as well as a lesser number of people in these Roma communities, because of them leaving these territories.146 The large number of Roma people in Moldavia and Wallachia can lead also to the idea that in these territories the Roma people could have favourable and relatively safe lives, so that they could perform their specific occupations and crafts, being less opressed. This is also brought into discussion by Ion Chelcea: „Among the curious aspects that the gipsies bring about in contact with the Romanian people is that of their adherence to the Romanian social environment. Of course this adherence can be viewed as a gain obtained in time. One of the oldest ethnical entities in our country is the gipsy population. Perhaps that is also a reason for which the attachment of the gipsy to the Romanian living environment is exceptional.”147
145 Mihaela Daniela Preda, Etnia rromă din Oltenia între tradiţie şi modernitate. Geografie umană, Bucharest University Publishing House, 2010, p. 15. 146 Mihaela Daniela Preda, quoted work, p. 17-18. 147 Ion Chelcea, Ţiganii din România, Publishing House (PH) of the Central Statistics Institute in Bucharest, 1944, p. 17.
71 In Moldavia and in Wallachia, Mihail Kogălniceanu and Ion Câmpineanu militated for the disestablishment of slavery, the first laws appearing in 1843-1844148. The manumission of the Roma people was, however, a process that span across the entire 19th century. The Roma population, declared during the official census in the regio of Oltenia, was as follows: 26.094 persons (1930), 4.631 (1956), 3.899 (1966), so that in 1977, 1992, 2002149 to register an abrupt increase, reaching 63.899 persons in 2011. In the years after WWII, until the 8th decade, the Roma population, for various reasons, avoided affirming their ethnic affiliation (there are probably cases of Roma people being regiastered with the majoritarian population). After 1990, and especially after 2007, the migration factor of the Roma population towards the EU countries also appears to be important. The denominations of Roma peoples are in accordance with their occupations: blascksmith, copper-smith, brick workers, bear tamers, „lăutari” etc. There are other denominations as well, such as „tismănari”, „vătraşi”, „cocalari”, „lăieţi” etc. „At the basis of the emergence of the ‚kin” term within the Roma population was always the performance of the traditional occupation, the manifestation of different crafts with direct repercussion the organization in „kin”. The situation is not singular, this type of guild or class organization being quite common throughout history, and being specific to closed or semi-open social groups, and these, the same as with the kins, being characterised according to their common origin, the performance of their profession or the privileges manifested only in the case of the members.”150 The division of the Roma population is also made from the point of view of their sedentary life or of their nomadism. There are categories of Roma people whose occupation determined them to settle in certain localities, becoming sedentary. Among them, throughout the centuries, in the context of mixed marriages, the Roma became closer to the Romanians regarding the concept of life and social inclusion, such being the example of the „tismănari” gipsies – monastery or settled gipsies (in the past, belonging to the monasteries or to the boyars), being called „vătraşi” because „they own a hearth, by this indicating their character as permanent settlement”151. In time, also the boyar, the sedentary gipsies, who depended judicially on a boyar, settled down, gaining properties. Since in many situations they do not accept to be called gipsies, there is one legitimate question: to what percent are they gipsies or Romanians, how do they identify themselves, and into what ethnic group can they be included? Is there enough legitimacy to include them legally and/ or ethnografically into the gipsy group? The gipsies in Romania are represented in the Romanian Parliament by deputy Nicolae Păun, from the Party of the Roma „Pro-Europe” Association. About the past and present situation of the gipsies in Oltenia, especially in Craiova, as well as about their customs and traditions, we spoke with Romeo Tiberiade, councillor for the Roma population at Craiova City Hall, the president of the Party of the Roma Association – Craiova branch, born in 1965 in Craiova, graduate of the Faculty of Law and Public Administration. The associative framework of gipsies in Craiova: „In Craiova there are non- governmental associations that were founded 12-13 years ago, there is an institution of the Government Secretariat called the National Agency for Roma People, which has a branch in Craiova as well as the Party of the Roma Association. Some of the non-governmental organizations became involved in educational projects. Unfortunately, such an organization
148 Mihaela Daniela Preda, quoted work, p. 19. 149 Mihaela Daniela Preda, quoted work, p. 26. 150 Mihaela Daniela Preda, quoted work., p. 94. 151 Ion Chelcea, quoted work p. 24.
72 never won any nationally important projects, such as strategic projects, because of something I cannot define, I cannot understand why they are never awarded such projects. But, in order to be able to complete such projects, we managed to establish partnerships with stronger, Romanian organizations, thus becoming involved in several projects of interest. From my point of view it would be wonderful and highly beneficial if the Roma communities, especially the traditional ones, such as the tinmen, bear tamers, copper-smiths, who keep their way of dressing, their customs, traditions and language, would be able to keep these customs and unwritten laws, such as the „judgement”, with the condition of there being more education in said communities. Unfortunately, the lack of education is at an extremely high level in the Roma communities. However, with the help of some non-governmental organizations we managed to do more on the educational side: an «afterschool» project, one for second chances. Regarding the «afterschool», if you go in the Roma communities and tell them exactly what it means, it’s better. You shouldn’t just talk to them about the «afterschool», because it can be translated as tutoring, school after school, and with the gipsies it is better to use more familiar words, and not enter a discussion where you use mechanical, scientific terms. Out of respect they listen to you, but they will understand nothing.” The use of the denominations of Roma/ gipsy is not seen as opposing or blamable (in the case of using the term gipsy), unless the latter has a pejorative character. During the past years within the gipsy communities the term „Roma” was adopted, however the „gipsy” one being widely used as well. „I would be proud to be called gipsy, but it depends on the tone of voice or the accent used by my interlocutor. I don’t like it to be called a gipsy in a pejorative, negative sense of the word. I am a gipsy and I am proud of it, since I never hurt anybody, I learnt and I went to school, and my children also went to school, I am proud to be a member of the Roma community. I never said I was anything else but Romanian before being a gipsy, because we were born in Romania for many generations now, so if we were born here, we are Romanians of Roma ethnicity. The context is important [for the use of the word gipsy]. If you call someone: «Hey, gipsy!», this is bothersome, I would also be upset to be called out like that; or when negative words are used when addressing someone of Roma ethnicity, such as: «Stinking gipsy!», «You disgusting gipsy!», «Painted crow!» and so many insulting words. I don’t know if there is a matter of discrimination when it comes to the authorities. I think the Romanians have been making such pejorative remarks regarding discrimination because that’s human nature, not necessarily because they have something against us, there is a small number of people who, I believe, is sick. If you are Romanian and you have something against me because I’m a gipsy it means one of two things happened: Either myself or someone else in the Roma community, or the community itself, have done something wrong to you, however I tend to believe this is not true, or simply out of the blue you hate me.” Classification of Roma groups: „The gipsies in Oltenia… from my research and that of my colleagues, it results that there are several „kin”. There is one Roma ethnicity and it is several kin, such as: copper-smiths, settled gipsies, bear tamers, tinmen, woodworkers, the lăutari, florists, the tismănari and many others. All these kin, guilds, if you want, to make it understandable to everyone, differ from one another by their dress, customs and accent. The language is the same and we all speak it, wether it’s a Spanish, Italian or American gipsy, the language is the same. The tinmen can be recognized by their traditional clothing, the women of this group wear small coins in their braided hair. The copper-smiths make cast iron buckets and other vessels, hence their name. This is also a traditional group, and their women wear colourful skirts.
73 The settled gipsies (in Romanian: „de vatră”) are those gipsies that made a hearth, a fire. Their gipsy home center is the hearth, meaning they found a place and settled there, their families developed in that area and they are settled gipsies. The case of the bear tamers is rather controversial, because several sociologists and historians, professors, contradicted me in what I told them. But some years after our initial discussion on the matter they discovered I was right and they came to me to tell me this. This group, before being called bear tamers, were called „cocalari”. You saw many times that in the negative sense of the word the Romanians use: «”Cocalarule”!» The bear tamer got this name more than one hundred years ago. They were the group that would tame animals.They succedeed in taming bears, and this was their means of gaining their existence, as they developed games with the bear, and the bear would walk over a person, and that person would mount the bear to heal, or for whatever sins. Then they transformed all this, being also shamans, or so they said, and they turned into circus people, or tiger tamers, and they made the poor bears roll over, and they gained their existence by staging these small performances. Before being bear tamers they were „cocalari”, or bone carvers. What does cocalar mean? This words derives from the gipsy word cocal, which means «bone», and if you use the plural, more bones means „cocalari”, bone carvers. The „cocalari”, before being ursari, before taming the bear, were the ones that identified animal remains, and the bones that had dried with the passing of time. With the respective bones they made different ornaments, combs, buttons, they worked in bone. So this term translated into Romanian is the equivalent of „cocalar”. About 150 years ago they tamed the bear and they became ursari. Nowadays, many of them are lăutari, bear taming lăutari. There are two types of lăutari: the ones originating from the tismănari group and the bear taming lăutari. The lăutari from the tismănari group are people who integrated themselves the majority losing their language, and are easily recognizable through their music and virtuosity. They don’t only play a musical instrument, but also sing with their voice. Nowadays, after many years, the lăutari transformed into musicians, some very important too. From my point of view, corroborated with the study I made, there are more than 20-30% of Roma people in the Romanian philharmonics. The Tismănar gipsies represent part of a group that comes from the Monastery of Tismana. The ones that were many years ago, I don’t know exactly, gipsies and Romanians who were in the church fortresses, meaning they were governed by the church. They [were governed] by Tismana. This group of the tismănari only exists in the area of Oltenia. The florists are a group of people that are special because of the way they know how to keep the flower without it withering, for many dies, so that they can sell it. A large part of the florists lost their language, very few of them still keep it. The blacksmiths are the ones that, using different types of metal, make gates, banisters, horseshoes, chairs, tables. The brick makers are the ones that make bricks out of a special clay; they are the only ones who know how to choose the best area. Throughout hundreds of years they made exceptionally good bricks. The woodworkers, are those people who make all kinds of ornaments and handmade wood things; they are the ones that make spoons, tables, they are wood carvers. These are the groups present in Oltenia. Nationally, there are 28 such groups. The ones who collect waste, plastic recipients, they are part of the “tismănari” group. No traditional gipsy will ever do that These gipsies are not traditional gipsies. The traditional gipsies are the ones that keep their tradition – the language, they way they dress, as well as their customs. Whereas the “lăutar”, except for his music, is no different from the Romanian.
74 Unfortunately, the majority of “lăutari” doesn’t acknowledge the affiliation to the Roma ethnicity.” About migration: „The migration of the Roma population is very important in Oltenia. There are many gipsies abroad, from all the communities. The difference between them and the Romanians is that if a Romanian goes abroad and has a job which way better paid than in Romania, I believe 95% of them won’t come back. They are married, they go there, or they get married there. Wehereas the gipsies work, make money, then they come back home. They spend the money in Romania.” Discrimination of the Roma people: „In this respect the gipsies have a major setback, because of their skin colour they are easy to spot, and if some of them have committed any crime, or some are beggars, they are easier to notice, and the one that was correct is assimilated with the one that has committed an illegal act. The fact that they wear the same kind of coat and skirt puts them in the same situation. Allow me to give you an example: my woman, my wife, wears the long, traditional, skirt, because also in our group, the one of settled gipsies, it is worn. We receive many insults from the Romanians. Personally, even though I represent a public institution, I am a city hall councillor, I was denied, together with my wife, access in restaurants, bars, or pools. First of all because we are gipsies also by our clothing.” Regarding clothing: „There is a seamstress that makes these clothes for the community, usually she is also of Roma ethinicity, but I noticed that more recently the Romanian seamstresses have also learnt how to make these skirts and started making them for the Roma communities. But before all this the gipsy women made their own clothes, they sew them.” A „social-judicial” custom of the gipsies is the Stabor (the Gipsy Judgment) or the gipsy council: „the gipsy judgment is a process by which we try the elimination of any conflicts among us. This organism comprises between five to ten judges, chosen with the approval of both parties, depending on the gravity of the deed. Of course, regardless of its decisions, the respective organism cannot situate iteself outside the legal provisions”152, declared one of the leaders of the Roma population in Craiova to a journalist, in 2008. Romeo Tiberiade also explains this tradition to us: „During a discussion I had with [Professor] Otovescu, who is an amazing person, and whose experience in ethnography issues is very vast, even though he is a sociologist, he said, and he was about 80% right, too, that this gipsy judgement is more a council of the elders: it analyses, it researches and it draws its conclusions, then it gives its verdict. He called it mediation. And it is one, up to a point. Because the mediator or the mediation is just that, nothing more. Whereas this trial, which I say is a council of the elders, also delivers a verdict. Thus, if it also gives a verdict, it means it’s a sort of judgement. Just that we don’t judge anybody, we only analyse whether the person is guilty or not, and present the solution to the Roma people, in order to avoid the situation from happening again. The panel of jurors or of elders does not have an even or uneven number of representatives. It is formed of a minimum of three people and can reach up to 15 people, depending on the severity of the deed which is analysed. There is one beneficial aspect for the Roma communities: throughout hundreds of years this unwritten law of the gipsy judgment has been kept alive. This judgment is based on logic, on the talks held and on testimonies, after which the judges go to a secret place, a room, where they analyse everything and they make a reconstruction of the discussion. They reach a conclusion on which they all say what they have to say. The conclusion they reach must be beneficial to them, as well as to
152 Dumitru Tatian, interviewed by Constantin Preda, 19th of February 2008, in Expresul de Sud. According to him, in Dolj County there were 70.000 gipsies, of which approximately 40.000 in Craiova; in the Faţa Luncii neighbourhood, Bucovăţ, Drumul Jiului, Strungari, Hanul Roşu, Stânjeneilor, Căluşari Roads, etc. There were 2.500 gipsies.
75 the community. There are cases when a couple is on the verge of divorce, or a scandal is about to start between two clans or two families, because one of them beat up someone from clan X; then the gipsy judgment comes, it analyses the situation and it reaches a conclusion that is meant to bring peace to the community. Gipsy community to me means community and it is used in the positive sense of the word. To us this is a sacred word, and when I tell someone: «I am gipsy from the Gipsy community», then this is something of value, it’s like saying «I am Romanian and I am from Romania», when you meet a foreigner. That is the same for us. For example, in the case of a divorce, which lasts between three hours and three days, together with the final and irrevocable decision, it depends on the gravity, on family, fortune. If the woman did something wrong, she had an affair with X, then the judgment, the community, takes away all her rights. The same second the verdict was given, she has lost everything, house, fortune, including her children. So she is left with nothing. Now the decision belongs to the husband: if he accepts her still, despite her mistake, the verdict is no longer upheld and the couple moves forward with their life. But the family is no longer as easily accepted by the community. For this reason the trials are very important in the Roma communities!”
Lucian Cherata presenting Romeo Tiberiade, councillor Young Roma dancers a paper on Roma for The Roma population at ethnology he Craiova City Hall
Religion of the Gipsies in Oltenia. „Religion is dependant on the geographic area. In Oltenia the majority is Orthodox. After the Revolution some people turned their attention to other confessions as well. Some became Jehovah’s witnesses, Pentecostals, Adventists, but generally they are Orthodox. In other areas of the countries they are also Catholics, [for example] in Ardeal.” About the gipsy „king”: „On the 8th of September, for St. Mary’s date, all the copper- smiths in Romania gather near Sibiu. It is not a holiday that is observed, rather a habit of populating the respective area. Many years ago the Cioabă family arrived there with their carts. This family had three kings. They made a crown, and the first king was Ion Cioabă, who proclaimed himself king on St. Mary’s day, when all these gipsies came together and [they] said: «All these people came here for me!». It was a lie. He took advantage of the opportunity of this large number of gipsies, he put a crown on his head and remained with the king title. After his death his child took over, and then he died too… they start to make a reenactment, where he went, what he wished for. «Look, we are with daddy, with grandpa…». Until about seven, eight years ago they were from a family only, now [they go] from all families”. Organisation of the nomads: „The gipsy tribe („şatra”) is represented by several carts, with all the family members. A “şatra” has a minimum of three carts. The „bulibaşa” is the leader of the tribe.” Family prosperity – the image of the family’s power and prosperity: „The power of a family lies in its children. Whoever has more children is seen as a force and if we have children, it means that we are strong. In traditional Roma communities it doesn’t mean that if you have money, you hold the power. If you have many children, and they in turn have more children, then this is the family’s power and strength.” Or: „Each family that takes part in a
76 religious ceremony or a wedding, their power is represented by the gold they wear on them. The women must wear necklaces, as well as the men. I no longer do that, I look at my gold, at the silly rings I used to wear, and I laugh at them. It was a primitive thing, it’s lack of education.” Customs at birth: „When a child is born, if it is a male, it is a reason of great joy and respect, a celebration is held. It really does matter whether it is a boy. More than 30 years ago we still lived in small gipsy tribes, I lived in a cart and we travelled like that; when a boy was born there, in the fields, the wife of the leader, of the gipsy leader, and another three or four women, assisted the birth. The carts were placed in a circle to keep shade, and there was a fire in the middle. We, the men, left from the site, as we were not allowed to watch the birth. The women stood there, took out the baby, cut the chord with a pocket knife, the old woman would cut it. In our small tribes we always had a melted candle, incense, ashes, and we used all these and some plants to make some kind of medicine which was placed in a small cloth, like in a handkerchief, and it was placed on the navel. I believe the salt must have had an extraordinary effect, isolating the area and closing the wound. When it fell, the chord was kept in a piece of cloth. When a little boy was born, it was cried out immediately. One of the young members of the community, a 15-18 year-old, would mount a horse, go to the nearest village and bring plum brandy. He would buy several ţoi. And they would stay there for three days and nights, they wouldn’t leave the şatra, which was not to be placed next to an abandoned fântână or at a cros- sroads, as it was bad luck. When the woman was close to giving birth they would hurry the horses in order to reach the poalele muntelui, or the edge of the forest. There are no more şatre now.” Godparentship: „In our culture the child doesn’t have to have the same name as the godfather, it’s not a rule. The godfather is chosen freely and the parents must consider that in the future the godfather should be able to sit with them at the table, celebrate and help the family grow, and the godfather is a respected figure.” The name of the baby: „Usually the name of the child is given after someone important in the family. Generally, in many cases, for example my eldest son named his first child after me [so the grandfather’s name]. This name thing is odd sometimes [to give them exotic names], they have so many unusual names, scientific, from the movies, names of actors. Some would like to name their children Schwarzenegger, but in their birth certificates it’s written in a different manner and they do not use the correct name. A person is called Admirator, from the verb «to admire», and we call him Acmirator, with a «c», in the community, because we were a primitive group back then and we didn’t know what the correct form was. Another person is called Senofon, but I think this word doesn’t exist, rather Xilophone or Xenophon. He has a brother whose name is Filozof (Philosopher), and the majority of gipsies, because they lack the education and don’t know how to properly read and write, call him Filofob instead of Filozof.” Wedding customs. Choosing the spouses by the parents: „In the communities of traditional Roma the customs are still kept. Some are very good, with others I do not agree, such as early marriage. For the Roma people, the marriage is proposed by the parents. In the case of the copper-smiths the marriage is done at an early age, they can be as young as 10 or 11 years old. From my point of view, I believe this is neither al right, nor healthy or correct. The parents’ decision is kept in very high regard, even if the young boy or girl does not approve. They have no choice, they are bound to accept, as you have to go to work every day and sign for presence. The same with marriage, [she] has to accept, there is no other way, you cry, you fight, but you get married and in time, as life follows its course, you fall in love with the respective person, the one you live with, and the other way around, they fall in love and they have children, [they] live their life and respect each other.” Stealing the girl: „There is another type of marriage in the Roma communities, when the girl is literally stolen. This happens when they are certain the girl’s parents will not accept if they
77 go to woo her, with a plosca or bottle of wine. If the girl’s parents won’t accept, and in order to avoid public shaming, they steal the girl. In such cases the elders’ judgment is called in, as well as the unwritten laws of the community, and no one can woo the girl anymore, even if her family, at that time, does not give its consent. It can be a month, two, three, maybe even a year until they do. Even if the girl no longer wishes to marry the one that stole her, no one else will accept her and then she is forced by the situation, by this tradition, to marry the respective boy.” Wooing (or Courtship). „First we go without the bottle, without cortege, without music. Only the husband and the wife go, directly to the person from whom they have to ask for the girl’s hand, and they say: «You are the ones we accept, we love and we respect you! Our child wants to marry your daughter! Please give us your conditions! How much do you want to ask from us? We will give it to you, we will make a golden bridge for you and we will give you the sun and the moon and anything you might want!» This is the initial talk. And the girl’s family says: «We decline!» or «Give us some time to think!» or «Yes, we accept!» If in the respective community it is heard that myself and my wife went to woo a certain girl, no one else has the right to go after us, otherwise I will consider that the respective person has something against me. Even if the parents accept or not, no one else is allowed to go after me, unless I withdraw.” Funerary traditions: „The gipsies have a sensitive side, they become very scared when the near their death. They won’t admit the fact that they are about to die and they are even afraid to believe it, so they don’t talk about it and just bear this fear in silence.” Mourning: „It is held for a longer period of time, it is the same as for the Romanians. Our elderly women in the countryside are in mourning for years, through their clothing. They are no longer allowed to watch TV, they can no longer experience any kind of happiness, no more dancing, no more joking... They cut themselves off from the community and take it upon themselves to stop doing certain things.”
Roma Burial Vaults in the Roma burial vault in the „Reader, beware! Catholic cemetery in Catholic cemetery. Tell your friend what you Craiova. On the left there is a marble ate, don’t tell him your In this cemetery the burial plaque on which a life lesson trouble or your pain vaults are rare (three-four) is written down, as we can otherwise you will regret it, for the representatives of see in the photography on sooner or later. You are my the other ethnicities the right good friend as long as you don’t surpass me. Take care, as everything ends” Religious holidays. Easter customs: „Someone considered lucky in the family, the eldest son or the second son or the mother, or the grandfather, whoever is luckier and brings bounty into the house, that is the person who must bring the Eucharist bread from the church. And at home he or she gives it to everyone in the morning, not in the evening or during the night. The majority of Roma people in Oltenia has a ritual: when you eat the Eucharist bread, with your foor you cut out a piece of clay with grass and put it in the courtyard, place your right foot on top of it, toast with eggs, you give the family a bit of wine to taste, give them to eat the holy bread, or the paştele, and we start with the first child until we reach the youngest.”
78 New Year customs: „The most important moment is New Year’s Eve, because that’s when the year changes and we pass into a new year, which is when we must all be present in the house. However, as an unwritten rule, 12 o’clock should never find us in the house, but outside, so that’s where we go. It is said that it isn’t good to be inside when the clock strikes 12. On New Year’s Eve one must wear new clothes and look nice, and most importantly be clean.” St. Basil: „[The child is made the well-wishings] yes, these are folklore customs and we observed them because we lived alongside Romanians and we learnt from them.” The Mărţişor: „In our case, this is a Romanian custom, we don’t usually hang a mărţişor on our clothes, we wear a white and red şnur on the wrist.” Other beliefs and customs: Fortunetelling: [Fortunetelling is what] „traditional gipsies, settled gipsies, the copper- smiths and bear tamer do. As far as I could see for the past twenty-something years, thirty years, this gift of fortunetelling, of foretelling, is a legacy. We must admit there are many impostors as well, but I have personally seen old gipsies that would tell you what your future was and I became scared. They would tell me things I had seen myself. There are people that have this gift.” Disenchantment: „The disenchantment is something real, and it is still done today. I myself try to avoid being given the evil eye. The person that has the evil eye doesn’t know that he or she has done this, that they have this negative power. There are many people that can give the evil eye and a sort of disease falls on you, and it manifests in several ways: falling asleep, headache, stomach ache, there are numerous types of pains and illnesses. This can only be solved by an old gipsy woman, and she starts to sing, to talk, I don’t know what she says. There is no distinct sign of the people who have the evil eye. It is said that people with blue eyes have the evil eye. That’s why we spit on a child, a beautiful car, a horse: «May it be shielded from the evil eye!» [Against this we put] a little red bow, to anyone. The same for animals that were touched by the evil eye, our elders would throw water on their horses, the gipsies didn’t really have other animals.” Community hospitality and solidarity: „The hospitality of the Roma people, and especially of the traditional gipsies, the tinmen, bear tamers, copper-smiths, settled gipsies … they are very hospitable, they are very receptive when you are in their community and they would do anything to show their respect, especially when you are not part of their ethnic group. They want to show you the greatest respect. If you take part in a baptism, celebration or wedding they organized, they try to place you in the best possible light, they take upon thelselves that the person that has come to their celebration is respected by all the attendees. If you happen to arrive in the community, you are lost, you ask for help, you will be attended and respected, and a solution will be found for you. It isn’t true that you will be bitten, or things will be stolen from you, or that something will happen to you. This is incorrect, it’s something invented by the journalists. If a traditional gipsy accepted you by his side no one is allowed to touch you, come police or anyone else, the gipsy will protect you. If they see you in a difficult situation, no matter where they are, if they see someone, be it Romanian, Italian, it doesn’t matter, if they see them beaten, abused by someone, the gipsies will intervene. They are not afraid of fire, of the police, in such situations. If a house catches fire, all the gipsies come together to help, there is solidarity among them. I now live in a Romanian neighbourhood, and for example a neighbour’s house caught fire, and another neighbour said: «Oh, poor man, his house is on fire! What will he do now?» We don’t accept that, we jump into the flames, we go, we risk our lives, we don’t know what’s going on but we go in to save the person or the house. When someone dies, when there is a death in the community, also out of solidarity and friendship with the respective family, even between two families there is an
79 arguement, whether it turned violent, beatings had taken place, but it happened that a death occurred in the community, these two families leave aside their dispute, any kind of hatred, and attend the wake together. Once the ceremony is over it’s again each with its own, but I want to point out that after the funeral they will stay close to the family in mourning, in order to not leave them alone. Also, they secretly try to find out whether the respective family has enough money, funds for the funeral. If they don’t have enough, then a collection will take place or one of the gipsies lends them money and helps out. Money is not given with interest, with usury, in any situation involving hospitals, funerals or jail.”
WOODWORKERS
The woodworkers’ ethnogenesis represents yet another enigma, their inclusion within the Roma population being an abuse153. Nicolăescu-Plopşor disputes the affiliation of the Woodworker people to the gipsy ethnicity, stating that: „However, in our research we encountered from the beginning a clear distinction between gipsies and woodworkers. Among which a sacrifice mentioned [the „curban”] is not present in any one of the gipsy communities. Then, the woodworkers don’t speak the Romani language; they speak Romanian; I heard some of them came from Serbia so they also know the Serbian language. This shouldn’t be overlooked, because of all the gipsies only the vatră, settled after their slavery among Romanians, started to forget the language; but the nomadic gipsies and those employed by the estates, the sălaş gipsies (gipsy dwellers, translator’s note), haven’t forgotten it. If the woodworkers had been gipsies, considering the way they work in isolated groups, with their huts made within the forests, it would have been virtually impossible to lose their language. The woodworkers don’t have the organization or the judicial customs as the gipsies, each dwelling having a bailiff – formerly known as voivode, judge or leader – that leads the group and judges the situations arisen between them, this organization being documented in papers as old as the time when they came to our country. Their wedding customs aren’t similar, like for example the buying of the girl; they don’t use the cloth house – the tent – they don’t work with iron, they aren’t musical, and so many other aspects. They only work with wood and we cannot know for certain why they stopped extracting gold, as is written in the above-mentioned authors’ works. The ones that work with wood are mentioned in documents and other works as spoon makers. Asked whether they are gipsies, they ask no. And the curious part is that they say they are „Old Romanians”, with a general tradition that they are descendants of the Dacians. Some Romanians think they are gipsies, but they make great difference between themselves and the others. Others say they are wookworkers, not gipsies. The gipsies say about them that they are not gipsies, but „Romanians”. One of them even told me a story about the origin of the gipsies, which is interesting only to the extent to which it denies the gipsy origin of the woodworker population. That their ancestors were bondmen no one remembers, the gipsy type is rarely encountered, and that happens in the case of woodworkers mixed with gipsies. The similar lifestyle of both groups led to this situation, and there can be no doubt that they are mixed with the gipsies.”154
153 During the 2011 census the woodworkers were affiliated to the Roma group. 154 C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, „Gurbanele”, in Arhivele Olteniei, year I, no. 1, 1922, p. 37-38. Also, the respondents in our researches on the woodworkers in the Varna (Bulgaria) region, in DolniCiflik and StaroOriahovo, in the summer of 2011, said they were Romanian woodworkers, refusing to be associated
80 Also, commenting on the affirmations of Th. Filipescu about the caravlah people from Serbia, according to which they kept the Romanian characters, being „moved to tears” when they are called gipsies, Ion Chelcea presented the following reasons: „The research of the woodworkers in the Olt Country led me to the same conclusions. They don’t know any other language but the Romanian and are different in many respects from the other gipsies. Because of their isolated lifestyle- always close to forests – they have a very particular character. Kind, hard-working, honest, in comparison with the other gipsies, they represent a mystery among the gipsies in our country. That’s why some scholars even refuse to include them in the gipsy group.”155 „The skin colour – wrote Th. Filipescu – is not the only sign by which we can deduct the origin of a population.”156Referring to the same caravlah population, Ilie Gherghel, who is later acknowledged also by Ion Chelcea, states: „with all my desire to meet in them pure Romanians and not only a population that speaks the Romanian language, we must admit that the caravlah people look more like mixed gipsies than Romanians.”157 The idea of the blend between Romanians and gipsies is also mentioned by C.S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, who notes as well that they refuse to be identified as gipsies, affirming their descendants from the old Dacians. In more recent studies, like the one made by Ion Calotă158, the woodworkers are assimilated to the Roma/ gipsy population. „Gipsies in their ethnical origin, the woodworkers have, of course, spoken the Roma language before adopting the Romanian language. The abandonment of their own language took place in the area of the Apuseni Mountains, where this category of gipsies, the woodworkers, was forced to work as bondmen. This is where the Romanization of the woodworker gipsies happened, with the help of the Romanian goldsmith, from whom they learnt both the trade, as well as the Romanian language, as it was spoken in this part of the country at the time.” In the conclusions of a study, Angela Costescu159 considers that: „the importance given to a biological feature, namely the skin colour, is a first element that justifies the tendency to identify the woodworkers with the Roma people. This tendency generates an entire discrimination process, reflected in the Romanian’s preoccupation to maintain a social distance from the woodworkers. Because of the circulation of some well-known clichés (their skin is dark, so they must be gipsies, if they are gipsies they must be avoided), the chances for social mobility within this community of woodworkers are slim.” Case study – Grigore Andriţoiu160, woodworker from Argetoaia, seller of wooden products in the Central Market in Craiova: „The woodworkers are a nation... there’s a difference between them and the gipsies, they are not gipsies, they are a nation between with the Roma ethnicity, some of them declaring they were of Romanian ethny during the Bulgarian census. (see Emil Ţîrcomnicu (coord.), Rudarii românofoni din Bulgaria. Volumul III, Regiunea Varna, Bucharest, Ethnological Publishing House, 2012, p. 14-15). 155 Ion Chelcea, quoted work, p. 42. 156 Th. Filipescu, Coloniile Române din Bosnia, C. Göbl, Bucharest, 1906,p. 239. 157 Ilie Gherghel, Prin câmpii şi plaiuri străbune, second edition, Bucharest, 1930, p. 14, apud Ion Chelcea, quoted work, p. 46 Ilie Gherghel, Prin câmpii şi plaiuri străbune, second edition, Bucureşti, 1930, p. 14, apud Ion Chelcea, quoted work, p. 46 158 Ion Calotă, „South-Danubian Elements in the Language of Woodworkers in Oltenia”, in Dacoromania, 1996-1997, Cluj-Napoca, p. 47. 159 Angela Costescu, „Social Marginalisation of a Woodworkers’ Community in Gorj County, Romania”,in Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis, no. 5, 2013, p. 547-559. 160 Grigore Andriţoiu, born in1966, woodworker from Argetoaia, 10 classes, occupation – wood working, interviewed on the 11th of August, 2015.
81 Romanians... so also Romanians, but more of a mix, so to speak. There are many [in Argetoaia], the woodworkers community there is large, possibly more than 600 people. It is a very close community. Some of us are also of Pentecostal confession, and also Orthodox161. I am Orthodox. We are surrounded by forests, our village is literally situated in a wooded area. There are also in the region of Calafat, towards Bechet… We came here when we were displaced from Bulgaria, as far as I understood, that’s our origin, in the Southern Dobruja area, as I heard from my grandparents [possible confusion, referring to a migration from the South of the Danube, centuries ago, or a migration from Southern Dobruja in 1940, which is highly unlikely]. [Everyone consider themselves to be] Woodworkers, we don’t know the gipsy language, we speak Romanian, but a little less correctly [than the Romanians]. We don’t consider ourselves that [gipsies], because we don’t know the language.” [They are actually upset to be called gipsies, as per our interlocutor]. „The elders used to keep our traditions alive. Now everything in this respect is lost, you don’t know whether the person is from the woodworkers population or is Romanian. Our ethnicity is no longer taken into consideration. [Our observation is that they consider the woodworkers to be a separate population]. [We saw that during the census the woodworkers were positioned in the same category as the gipsies. Isn’t that wrong?]. It is very wrong! It is an ethnicity without the Roma people, without the others, like the tinmen, like the copper- smiths, like several other ethnicities. [Is there a story that the woodworkers are descendants of the Dacians?]. I heard that story, from Thracians. I heard of that too.” Also, discussing further the subject of the affiliation of the woodworkers to the Roma population with Mr. Romeo Tiberiade, representative of the gipsies in the Party of the Roma and councillor at the Craiova City hall, he made the following remarks: „The woodworkers will definitely not confirm themselves as gipsies. As a personal opinion, and after research made by my colleagues at our organization, with the risk of upsetting many Romanians now, we have also underlined the fact that, according to this research, were Romanians, hundreds of years ago, but they were the ugliest part of the Romanians, so the general population rejected them and affiliated them to the gipsies. They viewed them on the other side of the ugly part, that of the gipsy. Thus they are no longer Romanians; however, they are not gipsies either. But because they were affiliated to our population, they are now considered woodworker gipsies. From my point of view they are not gipsies! And precisely because not one of them knows the gipsy language! Whereas with the “lăutari”, for example, some speak the Romani language, some don’t. The woodworkers have never spoken it. According to the explanations of the elders we spoke with, from around the country, there was never any account of anyone’s great-great-grandparents ever speaking the Romani language.”162 Occupations: „[We work with] wood. This tradition will be slowly lost, firstly because our children don’t work, they don’t even want to hear about it. It’s not paid well! In order to bring the merchandise here, to the market, we need... We make chairs, small tables, spoons, chopping boards, everything that can be worked in wood. We don’t make much, after tax I’m probably left with... ten million [1 000 lei per month]. We buy the wood. The spoon is made out of cork, willow, beech, linden tree, plum-tree, but the plum tree is very rare now. My wife makes them also, our parents are long gone, the children won’t get involved. There’s no financial gain! We go to fairs, open markets, everywhere. [We make] long-stick spoons, skimmers – used for jams, or to sieve shortening or broth – spoons, forks, eggplant knives, mortars and pestles, stirring sticks for polenta, spigots for barrels and flutes, paddles for
161 During the 2011 census in Argetoaia there were 4..903 inhabitants, of which 98,38% Romanians, and confessionally 93,61% Orthodox and 4,75% Pentecostals. 162 Romeo Tiberiade, interviewd on the 11th of August of 2015.
82 stirring, laddles, sifters, distaffs – like the ones used when the wool was spun, [it’s bought] more for decor now.”
Grigore Andriţoiu, Wooden spoons Craft objects made of wood woodworker from Argetoaia, at his booth in the Central Market
We will present some customs described by Grigore Andriţoiu: The tradition of the “curban”: „This tradition is not found at any other ethnicity. We place the lamb on the spit and we party with all the family, with friends. Whatever is left from the lamb is buried, for health. This is done at a celebration, for St. George, for example, or whenever we want to, for health. First of all one mustn’t... with your wife... for three days you have to be clean. You washed yourself, [you are] clean... We place the lamb on the spit, we prepare it, we celebrate with family and friends. We say: «May God give us health!», as you would say a prayer. The majority makes the “curban” on the same day, each with their own family. But this tradition is no longer kept. We made this two years ago. We don’t give alms. We party with the family, the friends and guests that we have.” Winter holiday traditions: „We went[carolling], more from our community there would be separate groups, but we went to everyone’s houses, regardless [of ethnicity], doesn’t matter, with the Pluguşor, the Sorcova, the Steaua, all these being traditional carols…”. „[On Christmas Eve] my wife still does this, people would go on the street, would find a twig, a straw, then they would sit in front of the stove and would pray for the prosperity of the house, for health.” „We mind [who comes first at home on Christmas morning], so that we may all have health.” „[On Christmas night] we kept the fire going, we wouldn’t let it burn out.” Wedding traditions. Wooing and godparentship: „[In my case] the parents made the agreement. They got along also due to the well-being of the families, wealth and reputation. I agreed, I was seventeen, and she was sixteen. There was a courtship, I went with my parents, of course! [During the wooing phase] we say [what we want] directly, because they have to agree. A meal would be offered, we’re all hospitable people! [Was the girl supposed to have dowry?] Yes. The girls were also bought, but one wouldn’t say that. The wedding followed, directly, to be auspicious to both families. We made the wedding four months after the courtship. At home [we made it]. The family, friends [were present]... [Are there differences between woodworkers weddings and Romanians’ weddings?] No, since they are the same... We go to church, we offer meals, people give something in return, so everything is the same, everything... You choose the godparents. Before, you would keep the godparents; that was the tradition. Now also the children keep their godparents, they follow the tradition. Family ties are considered, relatives, the third kin...”.
83 DOLJ INTERETHNIC FORUM AN ATTEMPT AT ASSOCIATIVE COOPERATION
In Craiova there existed a form of association of the organization representing ethnic minorities. This form of associative cooperation lasted for a decade. Ion Pâşcoveanu163 gave us the following details about the activity of the Dolj Interethnic Forum: „After 1990 we were the only county where we formed a forum, unfortunately it only lasted until 2000 and something, the Dolj Interethnic Forum, where we had gathered all the ethnic communities, it was so well-organized that we had on board both Romanians as well as representatives of the County Council and the Municipal Council who were in charge with the [department of] culture. We weren’t able to register it in court, for which reason the project fell apart. The County Council helps out on different occasions, such as December 18th – minorities day, providing a hall for our exhibitions... However, the City Hall hasn’t given us a space where we can register this organization. The president would be a representative of each ethnicity, and if there were two such members, as it was our case [the Greeks], for the next round the leadership would be taken by the other person. The soul of this idea was represented by two people who, unfortunately, are no longer among us: Mr. [Albert] Zimbler, from the Jewish community, and Mr. [Alexandru Firescu], who was Romanian, but was a good journalist, pensioner, writer, with a rich activity. He has a published book, as well, Craiova, monamour [written together with Constantin Gheorghiu, published by the Scrisul Românesc Publishing House in 2009], that appeared one year before he left for Sibiu where, unfortunately, he passed away two years after. I told him: «Professor, you are from Craiova, you are tearing yourself away from the community! ». «No, I’m going to live with my daughter!» and, unfortunately, this love for Craiova most likely slowly killed him… I’m just saying. He knew a great deal of things about Craiova and about the minorities; we published a newspaper called Excelsior, where every two-three months there was an edition where there would be information about one identity or another. He died; I tried to keep the organization together, myself and my colleague in Băileşti... The Roma community supported us financially for a while, but Dacian passed away... The Roma were also divided in several groups. We couldn’t register it in court and this idea slowly died. I was Executive Director of this federation for a long time, which is why I know the activity so well.” The meetings of the Dolj Interethnic Forum were periodically held at the Dolj County Inspectorate for Culture, which was to become in 2001 the County Directorate for Culture, Religious Affairs and National Cultural Heritage (the local representative body of the corresponding ministry).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Bulat, T.G. 1927, Din istoricul protestantismului în Ţara Românească, in Arhivele Olteniei, year VI, no. 29-30, pp. 40, 59-60. 2. Cajal, Nicolae, KULLER . H.(coord.), 2004, Contribuţia evreilor din România la cultură şi civilizaţie, Bucharest, Hasefer Publishing House. 3. Calotă, Ion, 1996-1997, Elemente sud-dunărene în graiul rudarilor din Oltenia, in Dacoromania, Cluj-Napoca. 4. Chelcea, Ion, 1944, Ţiganii din România, Bucharest, Central Institute of Statistics Publishing House.
163 Ion Florin Pârşcoveanu, interviewed on the 26th of March of 2015.
84 5. Costescu, Angela, 2013, Marginalizare socială în cazul unei comunităţi de rudari din judeţul Gorj, România, in Terra Sebus. Acta Musei Sabesiensis, no. 5, pp. 547-559. 6. Demetrescu Mil., George, 1928, Din trecutul Craiovei. Mahalaua Sârbilor (Mahalaua Sf. Ion), in Arhivele Olteniei, Jan.-Feb., year VII, pp. 10-12. 7. Dongorozi, Ion, 1930, Aşezările evreieşti din Oltenia – după război (1920-1929), in Arhivele Olteniei, Craiova, year IX, May-August, pp. 157-175. 8. Drăgulin, Sabin, 2015, Fenomenul migrator în România. Studiu de caz: italienii (1868-2010)”, in Sfera politicii, no. 158, p. 5. 9. Dumitrescu, Doru, Căpiţă, Carol, Manea, Mihai, Căpiţă, Laura, Stamatescu, Mihai (coord.), 2008, Istoria minorităţilor naţionale din România, Bucharest, Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică R.A. 10. Filipescu, Th., 1906, Coloniile Române din Bosnia, Bucharest, C. Göbl. 11. Gâscan, Asineta, 2013, Ziua Macedonenilor, celebrată la Craiova, in Ediţie specială, 9 September. 12. Gherghel, Ilie, 1930, Prin câmpii şi plaiuri străbune, 2nd edition, Bucharest. 13. Ispas, Sabina, 1995, Vechiul Testament în tradiţiile populare româneşti, in Anuarul Institutului de Etnografie şi Folclor C. Brăiloiu, new series, vol. 6/, Bucharest, the Publishing House of the Academy, pp.147-154. 14. Matsukovici, Gelcu (coord.), 2000, Istoria comunităţii albaneze din România, Bucharest, The Cultural Confederation of the Albanians in Romania, vol. 1. 15. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, C.S. , 1922, Gurbanele, in Arhivele Olteniei, year I, no. 1, pp. 35-40. 16. Orman, Gigi, 1928, Din trecutul Craiovei: Cartierul Clisurean, in Arhivele Olteniei, Mart-April., year VII, pp. 414-416. 17. Pîrvu, Elena, 2015, Pentru o istorie a friulanilor în România. Comunitatea din Craiova, in Orizonturi culturale italo-române, no. 4, year V, Aprili, pp. 1-2. 18. Preda, Daniela Mihaela, 2010, Etnia rromă din Oltenia între tradiţie şi modernitate. Geografie umană, Bucharest, bUcharest University Press. 19. Rădulescu, Toma, 2009, Italieni alungaţi din Dolj în anii ‘80, in Adevărul, 5 December. 20. Ţîrcomnicu, Emil (coord.), 2012, Rudarii românofoni din Bulgaria. Volume III, Regiunea Varna, Bucharest, the Ethnological Publishing House.
Sites: http://www.asociatia-macedonenilor.ro/reviste.php?revista=7 http://www.recensamantromania.ro/rezultate-2/, tabel sR_Tab_8. http://www.idee.ro/jewish_heritage_4/index.php?language=ro&pagina=craiova http://www.jewish-romania.ro/u/media/patrimoniu/patrimoniu-studiu-caracal.pdf http://www.culturaromena.it/Rom%C3%A2n%C4%83/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/ar ticleId/825/Italienii-din-Craiova.aspx http://roasit.ro/site/despre-noi/asociatia-ro/. http://www.fdgr-re.ro/ro/filiale/forumul-democrat-al-germanilor-din-craiova.html
85 ETHNOGRAPHICAL LAYOUT OF MINORITIES IN OLTENIA- SETTLEMENST, OCCUPATIONS, ARCHITECTURE, MANAGEMENT OF THE DWELLING PLACES, TRADITIONAL COSTUME
CORNEL BĂLOSU, PhD
I. Ethnic communities in Oltenia (spatial location) Oltenia was and is a crossroads territory. Therefore, ethnic successions were frequent. The Danube could not stop "exchanges", population crossings on either sides, or any other type of transmissions; we are referring to the cultural ones, of course. However, the movements across the Danube in Oltenia (two-way), were hard to capture and register; according to historical accounts, they begin to be recorded sporadically since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A more rigorous control of these "wanderings" makes temporal reference to the early nineteenth century. In this context, any map of emigration and immigration and the ethnicity of the "transients" is a random one. We do not fully believe even in recent official statistics, because they require concrete re ... research. But our approach is not particularly interested in this situation, but especially in the establishment and surveying certain communities (more or less compact) of cohabiting ethnics in Oltenia in the present. From these considerations, without claiming totality, we will name the places (especially rural) which had and still have ethnic minority communities (compact or at least in large numbers, dissipated). In Dolj County Community of Friulan Italians in Cernele (former Italieni village, now Izvor); Community of Bulgarian and Macedonians in Băileşti; Community of Roma people in Sadova, Piscu Vechi, Sălcuţa, Tencănău, Cerăt, Murgaşi, Rojiştea, Craiova, Filiaşi; There are Greek families living in Craiova, as well as Bulgarian, Serbian, Albanian, Armenian, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, German, Turkish, Macedonian; In Vâlcea County Woodworkers communities in Vaideeni, Băbeni, Bujoreni; they used to deal with wood processing, and they still do; gipsies in Brezoi that worked in the wood industry. In Brezoi, during the interwar period, there were tens of Italian families working in the wood industry. There are no information that they remained in the locality (please check the book by Petre, Bardaşu, Brezoi, 100 de ani de la exploatarea forestieră; 1873-1973, Rm. Vâlcea, f. an.) In Rm. Valcea there are families of ethnic Slavs and Italians, German, Hungarian, Hebrew and Roma (of different types). The wood workers also had communities in Ţara Loviştei, Valea lui Stan and Brezoi; lately their numbers dropped due to lack of essential material of their work: willow, poplar, linden.
Curator, the Ethnography Department of the Oltenia Museum, Craiova.
86 In Gorj County There are wood workers in the following localities: Brădiceni (Buduhala village), Godineşti (Pârâu village), Borăscu (spoons and spindles factory). Copper-smith Roma people in Budieni, Obreja and the „Meteor” neighbourhood in Târgu-Jiu (N.B. during the last 20 years they changed professions). The „lăieţi” gipsies are documented and still live in Cărbuneşti and around that town. In the city of Targu-Jiu, there live families of ethnic Greeks, Turks, Germans, Serbs, Hungarians, Italians, Turks, Roma. Mehedinţi County Community of Serbs in Sviniţa (commune with a population of about 90% Serbs); The communities of Czechs in Eibenthal, Sfânta Elena, Bigar, Gârnic, Ravenska, Sfânta Elisabeta etc; The Roma communities in Strehaia; In Turnu Severin there also live families of Czechs, Hebrews, Italians, Turks, Germans, Roma people, Hungarians.
Olt (Romanaţi) County Community of copper-smith gipsies in Drăgăneşti-Olt; In Slatina there are families of Roma people, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Italians, Hebrews, and Macedonians. We wish to underline the fact that, apart from the Roma ethnicity that has tight-knit communities in all counties, Oltenia does not have majority ethnic settlements; with two exceptions: the Eibenthal village (Dubova commune – Mehedinţi) with approximately 280 Czech inhabitants, and Sviniţa with about 900 inhabitants of Serbian ethnicity.
II. Charles Laugier and "Health in Dolj" (Scope and certain clarification on the Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian, Albanian etc. ethnicities) Charles Laugier was born on 21 January 1875 in Cernele village near Craiova. He was an active specialist, certainly supported by a great team of professionals, without which he would not have been able to undertake and finalize a work such as "Health in Dolj". The Dolj County Folklore Centre made a modest effort (apparently), but essential to revive a comprehensive and relevant work on a cultural, social, ethnographic, folk etc. rift in an area of stability, but also of interference with the... the Balkan world!, and not only with them. The book is a schematic one and too methodical for modern taste. But once read, you understand its scientific value and especially the socio-cultural one. The doctor is thorough and rigorous ... as a German person, but sometimes the clerks forget to fill in certain fields or refuse to do it. However, the information that we can use from this paper are of interest because, based on them, we can make comparisons and draw conclusions. In general, the items of surveys prepared for municipalities (communes of Dolj), include historical, social, ethnographic, demographic, etc questions. Enough to figure out the "situation" in Dolj villages in the early nineteenth century (the book was published in 1910). And thus we learn that in Bechet, in 1909, "in addition to the local ethnic element, there are many Bulgarians or mixed." And we find out that this "Bulgarians" and the "mixed" had been given lands as "producing peasants with 7 acres and 19 poles and one square to 498 square stânjen to build a house"; working peasants "with 4 acres and 15 poles each, and one 498 square stânjen to build a house " (Laugier, 2010, p. 163).
87 The law based on which this apportionment of property was being made was given in 1879 and it also coincided with the interest of the immigrants for Romania, and especially for Oltenia. Also in Almăj, commune close to Işalniţa, there are mentions of Bulgarians and Serbians. Their number is not specified, but we learn that here machines are used for quality agricultural land; residents worked about 5-6 acres, raising pigs, work cattle, poultry, but ... they would also grow vegetables, crops in which, we know, the Bulgarians or Romanians returning from Bulgaria or in general from the Balkans were professionals. It is clear that the world, at least ethnically, was mixed. In Băileşti, according to doctor Laugier, one of his clerks, or from the town hall, declared the following: „The population of the commune of Băileşti is made up of two elements, Romanians and the so-called Serbs (of Bulgarian origin) (sic!) These two elements form two separate suburbs: the actual inhabitants (Romanians) and the Serbs suburb, which populate mostly the Northern side of the commune. These elements remained separated for a long time, by family ties, and it’s been only in recent years that these ties were established between them. The Serb element (Bulgarian) was originally brought here for agricultural purposes” (p. 154) (we kept the text’s original orthography, as did the editors that published the book; author’s note). The quoted text is important to understand the confusions that existed and that still exist between...being Serb and...being Bulgarian. These confusions, picked up also by historians, are easy to clear. However, it is possible that after 1910, during WWI and after, in Băileşti there were immigrants of other ethnicities, too. Breasta commune in the early nineteenth century also had "a small number of foreigners: Germans, Hungarians, Italians, Serbs, Bulgarians and Turks (p. 191); immigrants generally settled either in Craiova, or in neighbouring areas. It is clear that these settlements were based on the occupations of those who came in Oltenia, their qualifications and specializations. Confusions and ambiguities related to ethnic typology can be found in Caraula as well: „The predominant element is the Dacia-Roman one, there are also Slavs (Serbs) settled here in the past. The mixed population is however so frequent that there is hardly any distinction”. (p. 201) Let us note that we are at the beginning of the century (between 1905 and 1910) and already the phenomenon of assimilation was as clear and as natural as possible. At the time, villagers in Caraula, either Bulgarian (or Romanians returned from Timočka Krajina) all worked the land; they had no other source of sustenance. They cultivated 2 to 3 hectares of arable land, particularly wheat and maize. In 1900 in Caraula there were 600 houses of which "150 houses of brick and 450 houses clay" (201). We do not know for certain how many house of Romanians and how many of Bulgarians, Serbs or Macedonians there were... . The situation is similar in Călăraşi as well. Regarding the ethnic type, except for the indigenous population, or except the Dacia-Romanian, as Ch. Laugier calls Romanians, in the locality there are, „like on the entire bank of the Danube, for that matter, both as customs and as skull conformation, an influence of the Bulgarian and Serbian element” (p.12). The main occupations, including for the co inhabiting ethnicities, were land cultivation, then viticulture, fruit-growing and raising cattle. It seems that the Bulgarians and Serbs were also handymen, especially masons and house painters (p. 212). In Cârcea, there are only a few ethnic types of Slavic origin. In Cernăteşti as well, doctor Laugier makes an anthropological description of the inhabitants: ...„medium size. Head under dolichocephalic, strong lower molar and jaw bone, even teeth...high and rounded
88 forehead... etc” (p. 128), but he refrains from writing what the ethnic origin of the inhabitants was. Here there is room for other comments as well; but it is not the case. Regarding Cernele, Laugier mentions that here the inhabitants partially work in agriculture, but they also have other crafts and professions such as „masonry, smithy, carpentry, furrier’s trade, shoemaking etc.”, which makes us believe these professionals were in fact of Italian origin living on the land of Miss Eliza Opran, who had brought the Italians from Friuli to her lands (we will return to this subject). In Ciutura, Ch. Laugier makes a few observations we find very interesting: the doctor writes that the population of the commune is „a mix...Bulgarians who, in time, became Romanized, losing both their language and their customs and mixing with Romanian peasants” (p. 243). This assimilation process is particular to the Northern part of the Danube; it is observed in the majority of communes in the Danube Valley, where Slavic ethnics (Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians) did not have large, compact communities. The inhabitants of Desa, Ch. Laugier continues, by their language and customs are of Dacia-Roman origin, but...they suffered the influence of the neighbouring Bulgarian element”. Unfortunately the doctor does not mention what these influences were, the acculturations etc. (p. 201). In Dobridor the situation changes, being mentioned that here there are numerous foreign elements... „Bulgarians, but especially Serbs” (p. 267). During the 1908 census, in Filiaş there were „3021 souls”, the majority of them Romanians, but also... „foreigners of different nationalities”, according to the brief comment of the author, and in Hunia the Slavic influence is present. Also in Işalniţa, among its 2705 inhabitants, there are also Serbs, Bulgarians, Germans and Italians. In Malu Mare, Murgaşi, Pieleşti, Pleşoiu, there are also...”Slav elements” and even Hungarian-Mongols (!!!) The first remarks about gipsies are in Rojiştea; the doctor writes: „the majority of the population in Rojiştea is made up of gipsies, former slaves on the land of Lady Steward Maria Coţofeanca. Fiddler gipsies can also be found in Rudari, but they...”live separately”. However, we found it very odd that in the book there is no mention if the Roma community in Sadova, neither that of the Macedonians in Urzicuţa. In Tunari, thought, things are clear: „...on one side of the village the inhabitants are of Slavic origin, and the rest are Latin. Part of the Serbs, especially the old ones, speak Serbian even today” (p. 467). (Was it Serbian, Bulgarian, or Macedonian?!!!- our note) Yes, Charles Laugier’s book offers us plenty and diverse information from an ethnographic perspective. However, we must underline the fact that not all these details are unforgettably certain and precise. We must consider the fact that maybe not all the surveys were filled in by the eminent doctor. Undeniably, though, the documented transmissions in monograph are of maximum importance and they cannot be neglected, especially since we do not have that many documents and ethnographical accounts from the beginning of the century in Oltenia.
The Czech communities in Eibenthal and in Mehedinţi County The Czechs in Eibenthal set up their settlement in 1827 brought by the Austro- Hungarians to keep watch at the border. Now it is difficult to reach the village, where 300 Czech ethnics live. The village, administratively under the commune of Dubova, is isolated; three times a week the „pemi” population in Eibenthal receives bread from its Serb neighbours in Sviniţa, which is about 20 km away. The geography of the village is unbelievably beautiful, but at the same time you wonder who these people lived and survived here, in such isolation. The answers came initially from the representatives of the „pemi” in Eibenthal that came to Craiova to introduce themselves and to communicate directly, naturally, modestly, their identity and their ways. Then we met with Augustina Postpisil, whom we visited and on this occasion we saw also the village museum, made up with love and respect for everything that
89 belongs to the tradition of the community and ethnical particularity, both materially and spiritually. At the beginning of the 19th century, when they crossed the Danube on rafts, the „pemi” who had come from Bohemia (hence their name), cleared the forest and started building wood houses. Then, after a fire, they went down toward the Danube where they still live. Their agricultural land is on the right, and the ones for housing are in the upper part of the village. They never had a lot of land; 1 to 3 hectares which they cultivated with potatoes (especially), with corn and cereal, wheat and barley, mostly. For a long time men were mining at Baia Nouă. They pulled out anthracite of superior quality. The mine was closed in 2006 and, after that, many inhabitants left for the Czech Republic, especially the young ones. Even now in Eibenthal people practice subsistence agriculture, as they did before; potatoes for their own use, then corn and the other cereals for the animals (pigs, cattle) and poultry. In the village there are several Romanian families, and some mixed. Eibenthal Romanians came here to work in the anthracite mine. But, says Augustina, "mixed marriages have always been accepted and there have been no problems. It depended, of course, on the families, as the rich do not really wish to be in-laws with the poor". In general, in Eibenthal mining was the main occupation. Women took care of the household, farming and raising children. The village was not too rich. There are some photos from the interwar period where we can see that almost all children went to school barefoot. In fact, the first school here had only one classroom. Later, a school with several classes was built. If the “pem” man went mining, and his wife was involved in agriculture and took care of household, their children, even at an early age (7-8 years old) took the cattle out to graze and took care of their younger siblings. We do not know and we could not find out from our informants, either, what the first village at Eibenthal looked like; we believe there must have been wood housed, with 1-2 rooms and the animal shelters. When the village was burnt down, all this settlement plan changed also. Now the village is linear, on the side of the road, between the mountain base and the creek. Even so, we find out that the traditional Eibenthal-type house was built of stone bound with clay and lime mortar and sand. The museum is housed in such a dwelling with a roof with two slopes and two rooms and a larder: the first room where the parents slept was also the kitchen. The second, more spacious, was the children's room. In the kitchen, the heating and cooking were provided by a stove hob; in the other room there was a brick stove. We could say that the settlement and village architecture does not refer to the Serbian Banat, typologically speaking, as we can certainly see in Sviniţa. It is true that in the last 30-40 years many traditional houses have been replaced with new ones. That was the case in the other Czech communities in St. Helena, Gârnic, Bigar, Ravensca, St. Elizabeth). The traditional household in Eibenthal also comprises of the traditional animals stable and the hay shelter, the chicken coop and the pigsty. But the “pemi” had to be parsimonious with space all the time. They used sparingly and with intelligence every square meter. All houses had cellar and also a place where they stored the higher household objects and crafts; we are referring to the “stopa”, a kind of wood fulling mill, then the cabbage barrels, wooden containers (from a single tree trunk – “buduroaie” - in Romanian) “maselniţa”, ie churn in Romanian, the “holovrat” (spinning machine), the rolls (churns cheese) etc. In their household, order was essential; it couldn’t have been otherwise, given that the space was hardly sufficient.
90 Augustina Postpisil also told us that during her childhood she loved going to the wooden refrigerator in their cellar, where they kept their food supplies. That’s also where all the house appliances were stored. The traditional costume was made of bought cloth. Girls’ costumes were no different from that of married women. The Eibenthal costume was made up of petticoat, apron, blouse and vest. The inhabitants of Eibenthal say that the traditional costumes of the Czechs in St. Helena, Gârnic, Bigar, Ravensca are more beautiful than those of Eibenthal. Said communes remained original and kept their costume, as well as their language, which they speak; it is true it is a language that was spoken 100 years ago, though, a language that...stood still. At the same time, there are two kinds of costume: a common one, in different colours, predominantly blue and white in combination with deep red, lilac combined with a white, light-blue apron, with polka dots or flowers. This costume was sacred, for celebrations, and it was worn on Sunday, at church, when meeting other Czechs, mainly during festive moments, for dances, or for other manifestations of the community. The other costume is used mostly by young girls at the dance, for parties, at weddings, and by the recently married women. During mass and after, girls and women use a sombre costume, buttoned up, and also wear specific head knots. Of the components we remind the white silk blouse with lace-end sleeves, with buttons, the skirt with white lace over which the main skirt was placed, which could be flowery and starched. On their feet they would wear sandals and shoes. Men had a simple costume made up of black pants (made of broadcloth), white shirt, tie and cockade hats; on their feet they wore shoes, boots; the girls wore shoes. There was a time, in the 70s and 80s, when the Czech traditional costumes were forbidden in Eibenthal, as well as the Czech language. And that’s how a mixture, a hybrid of a Czech-Romanian costume appeared, especially for children. Woven fabrics of Czech homes from Eibenthal were typically Romanian, rugs, layouts, carpets and in the traditional Mehedinti style. Typically, the Czechs use white embroidered bed sheets and pillows also embroidered. It seems that the grandmothers still wear cloth shirts called "guardian angel", more to protect the body. It seems also that the kids at school were wearing some kind of hybrid Czech-Romanian costumes (interesting!). Regarding the rites of passage there were a few rules: there would be no marriage within the family up to cousins third removed. Is this decision more in line with a self- sufficient community? There is no wailing at funerals; the family relations of the „pemi” population go up to the fifth generation. There are no alms, but the liturgy is paid for; as many as possible: 2, 3,5,10. In our ritual, says Augustina Postpisil, the people of Eibenthal speak the Czech language that was spoken 100-120 years ago; its level is archaic and regional. All the Czech communities in Mehedinţi speak this old form of the language, without any innovation: Sf. Elena, Sf. Elisabeta, Gârnic, Ravensca, Eibenthal, Şomiţa. The greatest political problems were in the communist era when children at school were forbidden to speak Czech and the costumes of the folk ensemble were ... mixed, they looked more Romanian. The humanized, civilized area was that of the village, the following limits were the borders of agricultural plots and pastures. The forest then becomes the unsafe space, foggy, sometimes aggressive, although people from the mountain, the “pemi” perceived the forest as a space of mutual benefit. From here they took their firewood and building materials. Their adaptation to the environment was exemplary. It could not be otherwise. Apparently the village of Eibenthal is the village where there is no stealing; they don’t lock the doors and they
91 hang their bread bags in the door and ... with money in them. The bread comes from Sviniţa, brought by Ioan Giurşa. The driver takes the money and leaves the bread ...; that’s the proper way to do things.
The Serb community in Sviniţa This settlement is one of the places where I'd go back every time. Especially since the route from the Danube bank to climb the hill where the village is situated is one of pure and wild beauty, mysterious and hidden but also with many signs of history and civilization. As is known Sviniţa was moved to the current place in 1970. I can understand the tribulations and spiritual sorrows of this transmutation. What a man can feel when he sees his home, sentimental place for some their whole life, mystery and travail, all the travail, when the waters flooded it. And not just any water, but precisely the Danube, which the inhabitants of these places hold so dear. In 1970, with the construction of the dam, the waters went up 17 meters "and flooded the old village almost entirely"; so recount in a dry, resolute manner the authors of the monograph "The phenomenon Sviniţa", Ilie Sălceanu, professor and archaeologist, as well as the current mayor of the commune, Master in Economics, Nicolae Curici. The village church which was on a pretty high location ... was dynamited. Of all Sviniţa there are only a few houses left, and ... the cemetery. At least ancestors were not disturbed from their eternal sleep. In the old village there was preserved, fortunately, the parental home of Professor Alexandru Curici. The house was built in the old style of the inhabitants, in stone. Otherwise, the village now under water had the traditional architectural appearance specific to the Serbian Banat. But even now the new settlement has kept the same look and still makes reference to the old nostalgic and wonderful village. We are told by mayor Nicolae Curici that, in fact, the old village kept also the authenticity of Banat, but had systematically been influenced by the Austrian rigor. Now the settlement is a concentrated village, but the mountain farmhouses, the dwellings, are also very interesting. Time did not permit us to descend and climb the mountain to see these types of housing and humanization of the mountain. In a cartogram made by Dumitru Chiriac there appear six shelters on high terraces and very few on the mountain terrace. They are found in the Ieleşeva and Livadiţa areas. On another Austrian-Hungarian map from 1910 there appear 63 such dwellings, which means that the civilization and the existence in Sviniţa were and still are complex and with various levels of understanding. Nowadays too, the households of the Sviniţa dwellings „are made up of agricultural plots situated in deforested areas, mostly gardens where people grow plants compatible with the altitude, some cereals and even vegetables. These households also have orchards with fruit-bearing trees, pastures, hay-yielding plots, vineyards and beehives. The inhabitants had access to water mills. Even nowadays they raise sheep, goats, cows and work cattle there” (Sălceanu, Curici, 2014, p.36). It is very clear that there is a stable and deep relationship between man and space, especially since this Serb community (Slavic) descended here in the thirteenth century, perhaps even earlier; historians say that during the eleventh and twelfth centuries there were continuous migrations in this area, of the Bogomils from Vardar Valley, and that in fact these mountains have been continuously inhabited. The inhabitants of Sviniţa say they're talking about the oldest, archaic Serbian language. The occupations of the residents of this settlement were the most diverse and all in agreement and consonance with the environment. The style of life was a closed, autarchic one. But the community could or knew how to settle and resolve all needs, from housing to the
92 sacred. Being autarchic, they kept their faith in the old style. Their calendar until now has been the Julian one, like the Serbs on the other side of the Danube. The residents of Sviniţa are determined and tenacious people, firm in what they say and what they do. They leave no meter of land uncultivated and everything is done in order. When the village was lower, near the Danube, they would also go fishing, then they continued their lives working the land, raising cows, cattle, pigs, poultry, and planting and tending vines, orchards, and now they make the most of the mild climate of the valley and grow figs. The fig plantations total nearly "6,000 shrubs and are extended on the areas situated along the Danube, where the climate is milder ... Next to the fig preserve, people also prepare fig jam, fig brandy and wine" (Sălceanu, Curici, p. 253). These people have always known, as already stated, to use the environment in beneficial ways. Always in the village there have been skilled craftsmen: carpenters, masons, wheelwrights, lime burners (one can still see the marks), then some of the best blacksmiths, farriers, bakers, confectioners and.. especially householders. After all... household management is also a profession. And if you do it well, you have everything you need; even if you are on a mountain top. And because the world is beginning to change, the inhabitants of Sviniţa have rediscovered tourism. It wasn’t even hard, because the land they inhabit is magical. In Sviniţa over 90% of the population is of Serb ethnicity. And the ethnicity makes endeavours to preserve their identity. And it has succeeded so far. They kept their calendar, that archaic language, old style habits. Moreover, they set up an ethnographic museum worthy of praise, but also a folk ensemble, DUNAV, made up of young people. How pretty! It is normal that the world should see the Serbian folk costumes, their specific songs and dances. Coming back to the traditional folk costume, we can state that the traditional clothing of the Serbs in the Clisura Dunării area is very well kept, reminding us of its old forms through cut and decorations. The costume is made up of a blouse (oplecak) made of cotton or floss silk, a skirt (sucnja) of wool spun in the weaving loom, decorated with flowers or geometrical features of green colour, hues of red, brown or black. The female costume also contains the shirt front (grundjac) decorated with silk thread, the shirt that is worn during winter over the blouse, the apron worn over the skirt, the petticoat – girdle, peasant sandals (opante) and socks (ciarape). In general, the house of these residents belongs to the Balkan area. Naturally. The traditional house had two or three rooms. The dwellings were high with roofs in two or four waters. In general, the interiors were simple with fleece and cotton cloths, “chilimuri” (carpets) decorated with the most diverse patterns. The favourite colours were the strong, intense ones. The Orthodox icon was always visible in the house, as well as bronze, sometimes silver objects (candlesticks). The most beloved and celebrated saints are still Nicholas, John, George. Sviniţa Serbs also practice the alms “hora” dance, similar patterns to the Romanian ones in the Danube Valley, in Oltenia (Poiana Mare, Desa, Ciuperceni, Salcia etc.). Let us not forget that the alms “hora” dance is practiced in almost all Banat.
Roma people between diversity and mystery It is very difficult to identify a pattern of Roma identity using immutable types and other considerations. An attempt of this kind would be, however, a failure. If you do not pay attention to nuances and do not correlate them, or you do not pay attention to socio-cultural adjacent conjunctures, you also risk making a mistake, or losing the essence; i.e. instead of a picture you end up with a pointless, worthless blank. We have the feeling sometimes that we all know the Roma, we sat next to them, talked to them, we bought something from them, a bucket of brass, a stool with three legs or a sieve,
93 a silver ring, or ... a cauldron for brandy. They, the Roma, were part of our lives and will continue to be so. When I was a kid, my best friend was Virgil who was Roma. His father was a fiddler; people called him Neagu. Virgil and all his family live on the outskirts of the village in an adobe house. One summer my father hired him to guard our watermelon plantation, together with me, of course. And we got along very well; but when my mother came with the food basket, Virgil was the first; he would eat like a horse and save only some leftovers for me. I was having fun because the melons were already ripe and I could eat them. I was saying to Virgil Medearu: Dear boy, I am ingesting vitamins ... you stuff yourself with soup and cabbage...! You cannot write about Roma without understanding them; without understanding their nature, their social difficulties, the way they are being perceived by the world throughout history, everything they have suffered and paid with their lives and with a lot of suffering. But I believe we should refer to concrete ethnographic matters. The Roma had the most diverse professions. Very few Romanians worked as blacksmiths in the villages of Oltenia. And without a blacksmith in the village you were bound hand and foot. Whom to shoe your horse or ox, who to change your wagon trails, who to fix your cart if not Tandin, Budescu, Păpănău and his family, who to make you a sickle or a scythe if not Barabulea and his family…!? But maybe I exaggerated a little with a longish introduction, which actually wanted, de facto, to confirm my initial statement; that in Oltenia there was no village without a Gypsy blacksmith, at least in the Plains of Oltenia, maybe even toward the mountains. More than that, older documents from Oltenia and Muntenia confirm, indeed, that „in every village throughout the country there frequently worked a blacksmith and a farrier...” Sources of the same nature impose the finding that the blacksmiths and farriers from kings’ courts, on boyars’ lands and those of the monasteries...”were in their majority, gypsy slaves and that the inventory of their smithies were made up, in general, of bellows (sheets), anvils, hammers and tongs” (Iordache, 1996, p. 334). But the inventory of a smithy contains numerous other tools, like the following: hand hammer, sound hammer, chisel hammer, nail head hammer, drill hammer, bolt hammer...slice bar, parrot-nose wrench pliers, bolt cutter, shoe chisel, different holders, augers, bits, hack saws, files etc. The products of the gypsy blacksmiths were also of great diversity and functionality: domestic and household items, locks, latches, bolts, keys, hinges, door handles, locks, links, grills and pans, embers tong, fireplace tongs, dustpans, lamps, flints, fire irons, needles, hooks, axes, spades ... etc. But the blacksmiths weren’t the only ones creating things, but also the copper-smiths, the candle makers, the gipsies that made objects out of bone; (also called „cocalari”); the copper-smiths were also called „kikavani”. Let us not forget the brick makers, the tinmen, the bear leaders, silversmiths etc. Lately there appeared some important works about Roma life, occupations, attitude about the Roma language or languages, their habits and spirituality in general etc. All these statements deserve separate chapters. Space does not permit. Let's not forget the Roma musicians who have kept for a good while our folklore and made... more musical our weddings, baptisms and parties. Also, let us not forget all the wood workers in Oltenia, whom for centuries made and offered us the entire domestic inventory: troughs, wash tubs, wooden bowls, spoons, mangers, ladles, spindles, shuttles, salt cellars etc.
94 A family of woodcutters from Băbeni, Vâlcea Craftsman Iordan Lepădatu in Băbeni learned the craft of carving wood within his family, from his father, who in turn had learnt also within his family. He was a child when he began to learn the craft. Also, he had plenty of persons to learn from, his father, his grandfather and the other craftsmen. That's because during the 60s Băbeni was the most important centre where wood had been worked by dozens, maybe a hundred years. Iordan started to work seriously when he was about 14 years old. In Valea Mare village there were about fifty families of wood workers. They mostly made troughs, spoons, spindles, but also larger pieces, like wash tubs. They sold their products around Ardeal, in Sibiu, or in the Valley of Olt River. Sometimes they walked for tens of kilometres from village to village. Iordan remembers that his father left the village by train to Câineni, and from there he would walk from village to village, until he would reach Sibiu. Viţa Lepădatu, Iordan’s wife, has also worked with wood ever since she was a little girl. She remembers that her parents would go to the markets and to the annual large fairs in Roşiori, Turnu Măgurele, Bolintin, Alexandria. The craftsmen woodworkers especially travelled to sell their products in Teleorman and Ilfov. They bartered. They gave wash tubs, troughs, ladles and received mostly flour and grains. They would take the road of Bărăgan, via Vişina. They would prepare their wagons, they made them „orliţă” (they covered them). The wagons being rather small, they would not fit more than ten wash tubs. So they prolonged the cart-ladders with poles and make a cover from blankets. They would arrange the sleeping place also in the wagon. Toward the celebration of St. Demetrius of Thessaloniki they would go to larger fairs and sell their products in exchange for cereals and other products necessary during winter time. Viţa Lepădatu tells us that the barters would also be for alcohol, plum brandy and wine. They would also take eggs and poultry, or even little pigs. Viţa remembers a memorable trip she made from Olăneşti, to a village near Bucharest.
Secrets of the trade Iordan Lepădatu works with all his family, meaning his wife, their two children, George and Constantine, and their daughters-in-law. In this team each person is specialized on something, but they all know the principles of the entire „production” operation. And even if George has formal training as sculptor, the accepted leader and craftsman of the team is Iordan. The making of the object itself begins with the selection and cutting of the poplar, willow or linden log. The piece of wood is specially prepared for adzing, operation that is made with a crescent-shaped tool. After adzing the wood is shaped with the hatchet – the back of the object is shaped as much as possible. After using the hatchet, the wood is trimmed with the knife; then it is finished. After these operations, the object should be left to dry in the shade, not in the sun. The wood is best worked when it is green, but must be left to dry, compulsorily, between the work phases, at least twice. After the wood has dried, which is determined through touch, it is carved with the interior carver. After carving, the piece must be left to dry again, after which it is defined again with the knife to achieve the final form. Finally, the piece is finished with the 120, 150 or 170 sand paper, depending on the granulation. The final operation is decoration. In the Lepădatu family the ones in charge with decorating are Iordan’s two spoiled sons, Cristi and Gigi. The decoration is done with a knife with a V-shaped point. All the tools used by the wood workers in Băbeni are made by blacksmith Ion Boţogan. We mean the axe, hatchet, adz, knife, carving tool, scalpel.
95 Typology of the traditional bowl worked in Băbeni Great wash tub Pig’s through Wine through Baby’s wash tub Swinging tub Bread through Sieving through Salad bowl Roast bowl Garlic smashing bowl Bowl for nettles and other vegetables Eating bowl The eating through, the sheepfold through – was carved inside, with an opening of 50- 60 cm. At one end it had a small carving in which the salt was placed. Inside the through the food bowl would be placed. It functioned as a sort of tray. The food spoon made of field maple, plum or willow wood – very beautifully decorated Ladle to pour food from the pot or cast-iron kettle Water ladle Spindles coloured in natural colours (dwarf elder leaves and seeds, walnut-tree leaves, dandelion root, etc) Shuttle Salt cellars During the last 20 years the craftsmen especially make less functional and more aesthetic objects.
Bulgarian community in Băileşti In Băileşti, the Bulgarians settled on a narrow street, which was called of the Serbs, who in fact were...Bulgarians who populated the Northern part of the locality. Doctor Charles Laugier adds that the Romanians and Bulgarians in the locality (the so-called Serbs), „were separated by their family ties and it’s been only a few years that these family and alliance ties could be established between them”. Then Laugier adds: „The Serb element (of Bulgarian origin) was brought for agricultural purposes” (p. 154). In fact, for what kind of agriculture in an agrarian country?!!! I believe it is gardening and cultivation of vegetables and even flowers. It seems that, indeed, at the beginning of the twentieth century in Băileşti there lived approximately 60-70 Bulgarian families. However, Constantin Câşlaru, historian, researcher and museograph from Brăila, who wrote systematically about Danube histories, between the continuous crossings between the two banks, who published important monograph of the settlements in the Northern part of the Danube corresponding to Oltenia, maintains also that we must be more attentive regarding the origin of the places of riverside Oltenia. Professor Câşlaru, in the monograph of Urzicuţa also publishes the census of the locality in 1831. It is very clear that there are many Slavs, Bulgarians and Serbs. The Macedonians are not mentioned because they were under a different rule.
The Macedonian communities in Urzicuţa and the Macedonians in Oltenia In Urzicuţa, Dolj, there live over 100 declared Macedonians that are part of the Association of Macedonians in Romania. It is certain that in the mentioned locality, ever since the middle of the 19th century, people would hear around them Slavic languages as well; but
96 not only Macedonian. It is very difficult to make a statement in this respect, since people no longer speak their language on a daily basis. But the Macedonians were meticulous; they wrote and cured books that would prove their identity. They wrote about customs and traditions, about their traditional foods, about the folk costume and they transcribed documents certifying their origin. Thus, in 1902, entered through Calafat, with all necessary approvals, 20 agricultural workers from Macedonia, to work as farmers on Scarlat Ferechive’s estate, which was located in Caraula, Dolj. But the documents also tell us that these workers were actually seasonal (see E. Mirea, 2013, p.26). Countless documents confirm continuous crossings of the Danube by the Macedonians and their settlement in riverside Oltenia or even towards the centre. Macedonians came mainly from the Ottoman Empire. The vast majority of the letters submitted by the Macedonians to Romanian institutions are demands of the refugees to settle permanently in villages and settlements in Oltenia, where they actually already lived and coexisted peacefully with the locals long before requesting formal settlement. At one point in the late nineteenth century, they have to avoid certain misunderstandings and diplomatic differences. Old Europe was troubled by innumerable conflicts, claims and restoration of borders after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The diplomats were on alert but ... in continuous lack of coverage. There are tens of cases of Macedonians who want to settle in Oltenia. Some have Slavic names, others have genuine Romanian names. For example Gabril Blagi who had lived for a long time in Mierea Birnici (the village where Maria Tănase’s father was born) sends the prefect of Dol-Jiu, on the 14th of September 1900, a written petition to have his situation clarified and be given the rights of „devout” Romanian, legally settled and married to a Romanian. It is worth mentioning that Gavril Blagi already had, come 1900, a 16-year old boy and a girl aged 8, for which reason the mayor, N. Mihai, (also) considers him as „Romanian subject, voter of the commune and a good father to his family” (see E. Mirea, work in manuscript, p. 60) All these archive documents are in fact pages of life, of the desire of a minority to settle in a place and to work and start families. The Macedonians in Oltenia were mainly...bakers, potters and masons, confectioners, carpenters, farmers etc.
The Italians form Italieni (Atârnaţi) The history is not sufficient to understand an emigration. It is an attempt to understand and to scientifically subject a time with all its beauty and ugliness. Emigration means life, empathy, revolt, all at the same time. The Italians that came to Southern Oltenia, especially to Craiova and the surroundings, were Friulan. Their first descent was mid-nineteenth century. But the important migrations happened after 1880. Near Craiova, in Atârnaţi, the „talians” settled on the estate of Miss Eliza Opran. We saw Miss. Eliza in several paintings carefully kept by the Zgubin family in Işalniţa. From Atârnaţi the village (toponimically) became „Italieni”. Here there lived about 40 families that worked on the Opran estate. Some time later, the men understood that they were craftsmen, especially good and hard-working masons. They slowly gave up farming and started building houses in Craiova as well as the surrounding areas, especially in Cernele, Işalniţa, Şimnic, Almăj, Bucovăţ, Breasta. The women remained to farming, but they planted orchards, vine yards and small vegetable gardens.
97 In Işalniţa there are still descendants of the Zgubin, Rizzi and Nardin families. They are Orthodox. In Atârnaţi there remained several families so that they manage to build a church. They were and they remained Catholic. We met Tolo and his son Berto, the ones that built my parents’ house in the 60s- 1965. I was a child, but as it is known, childhood memories are the best kept ones. Tolo was tall, bony, fiery and self-sufficient at a first glance. But he was a good professional, a master. And as I was already saying, Tolo and Berto erected tens of houses in Işalniţa also, and in all the villages around Craiova.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Achim, Venera, ACHIM Viorel (coord.), 2010, Minorităţile etnice în România în secolul al XIX. Romanian Academy Publishing, Bucharest. 2. Achim, Viorel, 1998, Ţiganii în istoria României, Enciclopedica Publishing, Bucharest. 3. Berciu-Drăghicescu, Adina, 2004, Aromânii în publicaţiile culturale 1880-1940, Sigma Publishing, Bucharest. 4. Carabas, Dumitru, 2010, Aromânii din România. Nume de persoane, Universitaria Publishing, Bucharest. 5. Câşlaru, Constantin, 2011, Urzicuţa, străveche şi actuală vatră românească, Scrisul Românesc Publishing, Craiova 6. Câşlaru, Constantin, 2013, Amintiri despre Băileşti, vol. III, Sitech Publishing, Craiova. 7. Gaivoronschi, Vlad, 2002, Matricile spaţiului tradiţional, Paideia Publishing, Bucharest. 8. Geraud, Marie-Odile, LESERVOISIER, Olivier, POTTIER, Richard, 2001, Noţiunile cheie ale etnologiei, Polirom Publishing, Iaşi. 9. Gidó Attila, Horvath Istvan, PAL Judith, 2010, 140 de ani de legislaţie minoritară în Europa Centrală şi de Est, ISPMN Publishing & Kriterion, Cluj-Napoca. 10. Gido, Attila (ed.), 2012, Cronologia minorităţilor naţionale din România. Vol. I Albanezi, armeni, bulgari, croaţi, eleni, evrei şi germani, ISPMN Publishing, Cluj –Napoca. 11. Gido, Attila (ed.), 2013, Cronologia minorităţilor naţionale din România. Vol. II Macedoneni, polonezi, ruşi lipoveni, ruteni, sârbi, tătari şi turci, ISPMN Publishing, Cluj- Napoca. 12. Horvath István, Nastasă Lucian (ed.), 2012, Rom sau ţigan. Dilemele unui etnonim în spaţiul românesc, IPMN Publishing, Cluj-Napoca. 13. Iordache, Gheorghe, 1985, Ocupaţii tradiţionale pe teritoriul României, Scrisul Românesc Publishing, Craiova. 14. Laugier, H. Charles, 2010, Sănătatea în Dolj, Craiova. 15. Milcu, Petre, STANCIU, Eliza, Laura, 2013, Monografia comunei Işalniţa, Agora Publishing, Craiova. 16. Mirea, Emilian, 2013, Macedonia şi comunitatea macedoneană din România, Macedoneanul Publishing, Bucharest. 17. Nicolau, Irina, 2007, Haide, bre! Incursiune subiectivă în lumea aromânilor, Ars Docendi Publishing, Bucharest. 18. Papacostea-Danielopoulu Cornelia, 1996, Comunităţile greceşti din România în secolul al XIX-lea, Omonia Publishing, Bucharest. 19. Scalcău, Paula, 2005, Grecii din România, Omonia Publishing, Bucharest.
98 20. Stan, Dorinel, 2012, Societăţile cultural artistice româneşti din Voivodina (1945- 1962), University Press, Cluj-Napoca. 21. Stewart, Michael, 2014, Vremea romilor, ISPMN Publishing, Cluj-Napoca. 22. Tătulea, Viorica,1989, Mobilierul ţărănesc din Oltenia, Sport-Turism Publishing, Bucharest, 1989. 23. Zsolt Jakab Albert, LEHEL Peti (eds.), 2009, Minorităţi în zonele de contact interetnic. Cehii şi slovacii în România şi Ungaria, ISPMN Publishing & Kriterion, Cluj- Napoca.
99 INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY: SOCIOCULTURAL PROFILE OF MINORITIES IN OLTENIA
DUMITRU OTOVESCU, PhD ALEXANDRINA MIHAELA POPESCU, PhD RĂZVAN NICOLAE STAN, PhD
1. Content and structure of the interdisciplinary research plan
1.1. General methodology to elaborate the study 1.Study title: Sociocultural profile of minorities in Oltenia. 2.Purpose of the study: Identification of the system of values characteristic to minorities and their promotion in the cultural space in Oltenia through various means of public communication. 3.Investigated population: ethnic minorities on the territory of the five counties in the Oltenia Region: Dolj, Gorj, Vîlcea, Olt, Mehedinţi. A special attention will be given to knowing the Roma community, because it is the most numerous and it is spread in all mentioned counties. 4.Planned research units: members and leaders of ethnic communities and people aged 18 and above, of both genders, of the respective minority groups, with a relevant role for the research theme. 5.Size of the sample: about 390 Roma people, 25 Greeks and … Hungarians (residing both in the urban and rural area). 6.Selected research methods: a) Statistic analysis method; b) Opinion survey based on questionnaire method (administered and self- administered); c) Comparative method; d) Typological method; e) Hisorical method. f) Observation method 7.Data-collection techniques (used selectively, depending on the concrete circumstances of information collections): - Statistic tables and statistic data correlations; - Sociological questionnaire; - Semi-structured interview
1.2. General and characteristical objectives of quantitative research General objectives: They derive from the fundamental objectives of the project and they are in accordance with the purposes of the field research: 1.Identifying ethnic minorities in Oltenia and determining their territorial distribution, based on officiall statistics data;
Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Craiova, Romania Reader, the Educational Staff Training Department, University of Craiova, Romania Reader, Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Craiova, Romania
100 2.Knowing the social and cultural profile of ethnic minorities in Oltenia, based on collected field data. Characteristical objectives As characteristical objectives, we wish to accomplish the following: 1.To disclose the percentage of ethnic minorities in reference to the total population, on social environments (urban-rural), on age groups etc.; 2.To differentiate the degree of social integration of minority groups in the ensemble of the population in a territorial community or another; 3.To appreciate the capacity of self-reproduction and demographic evolution of minority groups; 4.To evaluate the living conditions of the minority populations.
1.3. Hypotheses of quantitative research 1.The majority of the population in ethic communities is concentrated in urban areas; 2.The larger the number of those marrying partners of the same ethnicity, the greater the self-reproduction capacity of the respective community; 3.Using one’s maternal tongue within the family life and in the relation with those of the same ethnicity represents a determining factor for the continuation of the minority conscience; 4.If the ethnic traditions and other spiritual values are observed by the majority of members in a communit, then the safekeeping of the sociocultural identity of each ethnic group is ensured; 5.The higher the literacy and education level of people, the more accented is their openness toward the national society and culture.
1.4. Elaboration of the research instrument – sociological questionnaire It comprises of the following categories of questions, both free and with formulated answers: - Questions referring to the sociodemographical structure of the evaluated population (age, gender, civil status, number of children, profession, occupation, level of studies, etc.); - Questions regarding the individual’s link to their own ethnicity (computation of the number of members, age categories, friendship relations and communication with the other members of the community etc.); - Questions regarding life in the same community (on the occasion of shared holidays, manifestation of group solidarity by offering help when needed, entering into endogamous marriages, etc.); - Questions relevant to determine the sociocultural identity of ethnic minorities (using one’s mother tongue within the family and social life, the consciousness of ethnic belonging and evaluation of one’s own identity, observation of traditions, invoking cultural values characteristic to the ethnicity, acknowledgement and affirmation of traits characteristic to the ethnicity etc.); - Questions regarding the quality of life (compared to the previous year and in reference to the future, compared to the residents of the same locality, income categories, etc.); - Questions regarding social values (work, money etc.); - Questions regarding the roles in family life (of the husband, of the wife, of the children etc.); - Questions regarding the nature of relations with the Romanians in the locality (evaluation, discrimination etc.)
101 1.5. Research sampling file (structured on the region of Oltenia) We used a multilayer probabilistic sampling considering the percentage of the population of each county in the ensemble of the inhabitants of the Region of Oltenia and the ethnical structure of the residents. This was a quantitative research. Next, we present the structure of the sample and the distribution of questionnaires per countyper locality and social environment (urban/rural). Multilayer probabilistic sampling Margin of error =/-1,9% for an interval of trust of 95% (p=0,05) Total number of questionnaires 390 Questionnaires distribution:
County Number of questionnaires Locality Total Urban Rural Urban Rural Dolj 152 55 97 Craiova Sadova Gorj 53 30 23 Tg Jiu Scoarţa Mehedinţi 71 17 54 Tr. Tâmna Severin Olt 64 42 22 Slatina Stoeneşti Vâlcea 50 28 22 Rm Câineni Vâlcea Total 390 172 218
As any direct research tool to access the social environment involves a prior check of instruments and data collection techniques, we resorted to the completion of 40 questionnaires. This operation was indispensable in the process of finalizing the questions (with free and pre-formulated answers) of the questionnaire. Filling in of the questionnaires was made through direct contact with the interviewed subjects, at their homes. Thus, there were 20 questionnaires for the Roma people in Balş (Olt County), 10 questionnaires in Craiova and 10 questionnaires in Novaci, Gorj County. After recording the observations and proposals arising from the pre-testing period, the following month we passed to analyze them and to finalize all the questions in the managed questionnaire.
2. The Statistical Perspective of Studying Ethnic Minorities
2.1. Introductory notes Interdisciplinary field research is supported by a series of official statistical data that give us a summary and overview of minorities in Oltenia, as well as in Romania. The statistics below were correlated and calculated based on the objectives and purpose of the research. These data are the result of analyses based on representative indicators for the knowledge of minority groups in the historically, geographically and culturally examined area. The registration of the information presented below was made following the Population and Housing Census conducted by the National Institute of Statistics, in 2011, but released in 2014. After the Romanians, the largest ethnic community in Oltenia is represented by the Roma, which is why a detailed statistical analysis of the territorial spread of the minority
102 members (especially fpr each county and on the social urban / rural environment) was conducted. Although apparently the Oltenia region would fall within the scope of regions in Romania with reduced ethnic diverse (as is believed, for instance, about Moldova), in reality on this geographical, historical and cultural territory there have been found inhabitants belonging to 17 ethnic minorities, 13 of which are of more than 10 people, and 4 were less than 10 people (the Slovaks, Tatars, Poles and Croats). The largest ethnic group is the Roma (63,899 members), followed by the Serbs (1,124), and the Hungarians (752), the Czechs (476) and the Germans (307). The diversity of the ethnic population in Oltenia does not correlate, however, with a high proportion of minority populations, which constitute less than 10% of the inhabitants of this region, where the local demographic factor has a numerically preponderant role.
2.2. Ethnical composition of the population of Romania and of the Oltenia region
Table no. 1. The ethnic composition at national, regional and county level (în absolute and percentage data) Referential Romania Oltenia Dolj Gorj Mehedinţi Olt Vâlcea area
Ethnic composition Total 20121641 2075642 660544 341594 265390 436400 371714
Romanians 16792868 1901330 594841 321686 236908 400089 347806
Percentage 83.46 91.60 90.05 94.17 89.27 91.68 93.57 of Romanians from total population (%) Roma 621573 63899 29839 6698 10919 9504 6939
Percentage 3.09 3.08 4.52 1.96 4.11 2.18 1.87 of Roma from total population (%) Hungarians 1227623 752 192 134 153 66 207
Percentage 6.10 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.02 0.06 of Hungarians from total population (%) Ukrainians 50920 72 17 24 13 5 13
103 Referential Romania Oltenia Dolj Gorj Mehedinţi Olt Vâlcea area
Ethnic composition Germans 36042 307 60 22 151 11 63
Turks 27698 166 46 11 40 27 42
Lipovan 23487 47 11 11 10 7 8 Russians Serbs 18076 1124 99 17 996 6 6
Bulgarians 7336 80 65 0 6 5 0
Greeks 3668 129 91 8 21 0 9
Italians 3203 160 68 28 16 19 29
Hebrews 3271 79 60 0 11 0 8
Czechs 2477 476 0 10 466 0 0
Macedonians 1264 141 134 0 0 4 3
Others 18524 433 243 48 29 53 60
Undeclared 1236810 106341 34747 12879 15624 26588 16503
Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing Note: In Oltenia there are other ethnicities also, but with very few members, such as Tatars, Slovaks, Croats, Poles, Chinese, Armenian, Csango (that is why there was no recording of the number of those ethnicities, which each have less than 10 members).
2.3. Ethnical composition of the population of the region of Oltenia and territorial distribution of ethnicities per counties
Table no. 2: Number and percentage of foreign ethnics in Oltenia Current Total per Percentage in no. Ethnic category region the region’s total population 1. Romanians 1901330 2. Roma 63899 3,36 3. Hungarians 752 0,039 4. Ukrainians 72 0,003 5. Germans 307 0,016
104 6. Turks 166 0.008 7. Lipovan Russians 47 0,002 8. Serbs 1124 0,059 9. Bulgarians 80 0,004 10. Greeks 129 0,006 11. Italians 160 0,008 12. Hebrews 79 0,004 13. Czechs 476 0,025 14. Macedonians 141 0,007 15. Others 433 0,022 16. Undeclared 106341 5,59 17. TOTAL 2.075.642 100,00 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing According to official statistics, the first two numerically significant ethnic communities are: - Roma, in Dolj (29839 members) and Mehedinţi (10919) - Serbs, in Mehedinţi (996 members) and Dolj (99) - Hungarians, in Vâlcea (207 members) and Dolj (192) - Czechs, in Mehedinţi (466 members) and in Gorj (10) - Germans, in Mehedinţi (151 members) and Vâlcea (63) - Turks, in Dolj (46 members) and Vâlcea (42) - Italians, in Dolj (68 members) and Vâlcea (29) - Macedonians, in Dolj (134 members) - Greeks, in Dolj (91 members) and Mehedinţi (21) - Bulgarians, in Dolj (65 members) - Hebrews, in Dolj (60 members) and Mehedinţi (11) - Ukrainians, in Gorj (24 members) and Dolj (17) - Lipovan Russians, in Dolj (11 members) and Gorj (11) The map of the territorial spread of ethnic minorities from the 5 counties of Oltenia involved major difficulties in the composition of the sample, the more so as we are dealing with a total of 13 ethnic groups and not all of them have members concentrated in certain localities to be easily traced and therefore interviewed. Therefore, only the Roma community, which benefits from a recording of its members on urban and rural localities, allowed for the carrying out of rigorous calculations, based on which the sampling chart could be designed, according to all the requirements of achieving a sociological field research. We make note that neither the Roma community is sufficiently homogeneous, being divided in many occupational structures and sociocultural identities, such as the following: fiddlers, florists, tinsmiths, spoon makers, goldsmiths, Hungarian gypsies, copper-smiths, bear handlers, wood workers, brick makers, settled gypsies, blacksmiths etc.
Table no. 3: Ethnic distribution in the counties in Oltenia Current Ethnic Counties in Oltenia General no. category total Dolj Gorj Mehe- Olt Vâlcea dinţi 1. Romanians 594.841 321.686 236.908 400.089 347.806 1.901.33. 2. Roma 29.839 6.698 10.919 9.504 6.939 63.899 3. Serbs 99 17 996 6 6 1.124
105 4. Hungarians 192 134 153 66 207 752 5. Czechs 0 10 466 0 0 476 6. Germans 60 22 151 11 63 307 7. Turks 46 11 40 27 42 166 8. Italians 68 28 16 19 29 160 9. Macedonians 134 0 0 4 3 141 10. Greeks 91 8 21 0 9 129 11. Bulgarians 65 0 6 5 0 80 12. Hebrews 60 0 11 0 8 79 13. Ukrainians 17 24 13 5 13 72 14. Lipovan 11 11 10 7 8 47 Russians 15. Others 243 48 29 53 60 433 16. Undeclared 34.747 12.879 15.624 26.588 16.503 106.341 17. Total 660.544 341.594 265.390 436.400 371.714 2.075.642 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
4. Distribution of the Roma population in Romania per counties 4.1. At national level
Table no. 4: Distribution of the Roma population in Romania per counties COUNTY PERMANENT Current POPULATION ROMA PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGE No. OF TOTAL OF ROMA TOTAL COUNTRY TOTAL POPULATION ROMANIA 20121641 621573 3.09
1. ALBA 342376 14292 4.17 2.30 2. ARAD 430629 16475 3.83 2.65 3. ARGEŞ 612431 16476 2.69 2.65 4. BACĂU 616168 15284 2.48 2.46 5. BIHOR 575398 34640 6.02 5.57 6. BISTRIŢA-NĂSAUD 286225 11937 4.17 1.92 7. BOTOŞANI 412626 4155 1.01 0.67 8. BRAŞOV 549217 18519 3.37 2.98 9. BRĂILA 321212 8555 2.66 1.38 10. BUZĂU 451069 20376 4.52 3.28 11. CARAŞ-SEVERIN 295579 7272 2.46 1.17 12. CALĂRAŞI 306691 22939 7.48 3.69 13. CLUJ 691106 22531 3.26 3.62 14. CONSTANŢA 684082 8554 1.25 1.38 15. COVASNA 210177 8267 3.93 1.33 16. DAMBOVIŢA 518745 27355 5.27 4.40
106 17. DOLJ 660544 29839 4.52 4.80 18. GALAŢI 536167 16990 3.17 2.73 19. GIURGIU 281422 15223 5.41 2.45 20. GORJ 341594 6698 1.96 1.08 21. HARGHITA 310867 5326 1.71 0.86 22. HUNEDOARA 418565 7475 1.79 1.20 23. IALOMIŢA 274148 14278 5.21 2.30 24. IAŞI 772348 11288 1.46 1.82 25. ILFOV 388738 15634 4.02 2.52 26. MARAMUREŞ 478659 12211 2.55 1.96 27. MEHEDINŢI 265390 10919 4.11 1.76 28. MUREŞ 550846 46947 8.52 7.55 29. NEAMŢ 470766 6398 1.36 1.03 30. OLT 436400 9504 2.18 1.53 31. PRAHOVA 762886 17763 2.33 2.86 32. SATU MARE 344360 17388 5.05 2.80 33. SĂLAJ 224384 15004 6.69 2.41 34. SIBIU 397322 17946 4.52 2.89 35. SUCEAVA 634810 12178 1.92 1.96 36. TELEORMAN 380123 8198 2.16 1.32 37. TIMIŞ 683540 14525 2.12 2.34 38. TULCEA 213083 3423 1.61 0.55 39. VASLUI 395499 5913 1.50 0.95 40. VÂLCEA 371714 6939 1.87 1.12 41. VRANCEA 340310 11966 3.52 1.93 42. MUNICIPIUL BUCUREŞTI 1883425 23973 1.27 3.86 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
4.2. In the Oltenia Region a) Distribution of the Roma population in Dolj county per social environments (rural/urban) Current I. URBAN PERMANENT no. POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE TOTAL OF TOTAL POPULATION 1. ROMANIA 20121641 621573 3.09 2. DOLJ 660544 29839 4.52 3. URBAN 344037 10733 3.12 4. CRAIOVA MUNICIPALITY 269506 5291 1.96 5. BĂILEŞTI MUNICIPALITY 17437 1629 9.34 6. CALAFAT MUNICIPALITY 17336 887 5.12 7. BECHET 3657 1193 32.62 8. DĂBULENI 12182 158 1.30
107 9. FILIAŞI 16900 759 4.49 10. SEGARCEA 7019 816 11.63 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 1. COMMUNES 316507 19106 6.04 2. AFUMAŢI 2633 69 2.62 3. ALMĂJ 1974 0 0 4. AMARĂŞTII DE JOS 5520 1223 22.16 5. AMARĂŞTII DE SUS 1703 152 8.93 6. APELE VII 2112 8 0.38 7. ARGETOAIA 4382 0 0 8. BIRCA 3689 754 20.44 9. BISTREŢ 4356 701 16.09 10. BOTOŞEŞTI-PAIA 809 3 0.37 11. BRABOVA 1550 0 0 12. BRĂDEŞTI 4431 23 0.52 13. BRALOŞTIŢA 3684 0 0 14. BRATOVOIEŞTI 3313 4 0.12 15. BREASTA 3906 269 6.89 16. BUCOVĂŢ 4213 0 0 17. BULZEŞTI 1590 0 0 18. CALARAŞI 5977 0 0 19. CALOPĂR 3723 680 18.26 20. CARAULA 2423 738 30.46 21. CÂRCEA 3424 67 1.96 22. CÂRNA 1363 171 12.55 23. CARPEN 2375 0 0 24. CASTRANOVA 3394 48 1.41 25. CATANE 1832 803 43.83 26. CELARU 4593 71 1.55 27. CERĂT 4226 1440 34.07 28. CERNATEŞTI 1929 0 0 29. CETATE 5368 918 17.10 30. CIOROIAŞI 1595 5 0.31 31. CIUPERCENII NOI 5274 24 0.46 32. COŞOVENI 3237 469 14.49 33. COŢOFENII DIN DOS 2337 7 0.30 34. COŢOFENII DIN FAŢĂ 1904 529 27.78 35. DANEŢI 6257 0 0
108 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 36. DESA 4740 21 0.44 37. DIOŞTI 3054 27 0.88 38. DOBREŞTI 2443 7 0.29 39. DOBROTEŞTI 1733 0 0 40. DRAGOTEŞTI 2174 3 0.14 41. DRĂNIC 2738 20 0.73 42. FARCAŞ 1951 193 9.89 43. GALICEA MARE 4268 4 0.09 44. GALICIUICA 1512 18 1.19 45. GHERCEŞTI 1690 0 0 46. GHIDICI 2408 0 0 47. GHINDENI 1936 0 0 48. GIGHERA 3131 250 7.98 49. GÎNGIOVA 2478 251 10.13 50. GIUBEGA 2036 0 0 51. GIURGIŢA 2883 222 7.70 52. GOGOŞU 723 0 0 53. GOICEA 2760 0 0 54. GOIEŞTI 3113 20 0.64 55. GRECEŞTI 1706 0 0 56. ÎNTORSURA 1508 8 0.53 57. IŞALNITA 3770 76 2.02 58. IZVOARE 1643 0 0 59. LEU 4824 7 0.15 60. LIPOVU 3313 1120 33.81 61. MACEŞU DE JOS 1338 4 0.30 62. MACEŞU DE SUS 1348 71 5.27 63. MAGLAVIT 4875 342 7.02 64. MALU MARE 3780 359 9.50 65. MÎRŞANI 4745 63 1.33 66. MELINEŞTI 3890 62 1.59 67. MISCHII 1760 4 0.23 68. MOŢĂŢEI 6935 0 0 69. MURGAŞI 2508 0 0 70. NEGOI 2235 911 40.76 71. ORODEL 2731 5 0.18 72. OSTROVENI 5062 168 3.32 73. PERIŞOR 1746 6 0.34 74. PIELEŞTI 3609 26 0.72
109 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 75. PISCU VECHI 2499 143 5.72 76. PLENIŢA 4686 198 4.23 77. PLEŞOI 1395 0 0 78. PODARI 6909 639 9.25 79. POIANA MARE 10740 356 3.31 80. PREDEŞTI 1905 22 1.15 81. RADOVAN 1432 166 11.59 82. RAST 3343 278 8.32 83. ROBĂNEŞTI 2395 0 0 84. ROJIŞTE 2421 0 0 85. SADOVA 7976 1400 17.55 86. SĂLCUŢA 2319 827 35.66 87. SCĂESTI 2139 0 0 88. SEACA DE CÂMP 1965 10 0.51 89. SEACA DE PĂDURE 1042 0 0 90. SECU 1140 0 0 91. SILIŞTEA CRUCII 1609 146 9.07 92. ŞIMNICU DE SUS 4627 12 0.26 93. ŞOPOT 1836 0 0 94. TALPAŞ 1262 8 0.63 95. TEASC 3253 0 0 96. TERPEZIŢA 1673 8 0.48 97. TESLUI 2432 58 2.38 98. ŢUGLUI 2834 14 0.49 99. UNIREA 3814 38 1.00 100. URZICUŢA 3128 692 22.12 101. VALEA STANCIULUI 5642 178 3.15 102. VÂRTOP 1658 456 27.50 103. VÂRVORU DE JOS 2955 6 0.20 104. VELA 1943 0 0 105. VERBIŢA 1342 0 0 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
110 b) Distribution of the Roma population in Gorj county per social environments (rural/urban)
Current I. URBAN PERMANENT no. POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE TOTAL OF TOTAL POPULATION 1. GORJ 341594 6698 1.96 2. A. MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNS 154514 3850 2.49 3. TÂRGU JIU MUNICIPALITY 82504 2650 3.21 4. MOTRU MUNICIPALITY 19079 77 0.40 5. BUMBEŞTI-JIU 8932 325 3.64 6. NOVACI 5431 50 0.92 7. ROVINARI 11816 53 0.45 8. TÎRGU CARBUNEŞTI 8034 558 6.95 9. ŢICLENI 4414 53 1.20 10. TISMANA 7035 81 1.15 11. TURCENI 7269 3 0.04 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 1. B. COMMUNE 187080 2848 1.52 2. ALBENI 2587 3 0.12 3. ALIMPEŞTI 1854 0 0 4. ANINOASA 3914 46 1.18 5. ARCANI 1346 0 0 6. BAIA DE FIER 3984 0 0 7. BALĂNESTI 2117 0 0 8. BĂLESTI 7404 238 3.21 9. BÂLTENI 7126 180 2.53 10. BĂRBĂTEŞTI 1674 8 0.48 11. BENGEŞTI-CIOCADIA 3116 330 10.59 12. BERLEŞTI 2149 0 0 13. BOLBOŞI 3126 0 0 14. BORASCU 3492 39 1.12 15. BRANEŞTI 2426 0 0 16. BUMBEŞTI-PITIC 2105 0 0 17. BUSTUCHIN 3376 38 1.13 18. CÂLNIC 2145 6 0.28 19. CĂPRENI 2174 0 0
111 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 20. CĂTUNELE 2551 0 0 21. CIUPERCENI 1596 0 0 22. CRASNA 5133 3 0.06 23. CRUŞEŢ 3357 10 0.30 24. DĂNCIULESTI 2269 3 0.13 25. DĂNEŞTI 3875 7 0.18 26. DRĂGOTEŞTI 2505 0 0 27. DRAGUŢEŞTI 4996 0 0 28. FARCAŞESTI 3289 0 0 29. GLOGOVA 1889 0 0 30. GODINEŞTI 2061 27 1.31 31. HUREZANI 1613 0 0 32. IONEŞTI 2252 0 0 33. JUPÂNEŞTI 2072 3 0.14 34. LELEŞTI 1854 0 0 35. LICURICI 2272 0 0 36. LOGREŞTI 2731 0 0 37. MĂTĂSARI 5027 3 0.06 38. MUŞETEŞTI 1985 0 0 39. NEGOMIR 3555 0 0 40. PADEŞ 4800 6 0.13 41. PEŞTIŞANI 3732 45 1.21 42. PLOPŞORU 6234 0 0 43. POLOVRAGI 2820 404 14.33 44. PRIGORIA 3124 0 0 45. ROŞIA DE AMARADIA 3132 136 4.34 46. RUNCU 5311 4 0.08 47. SĂCELU 1542 0 0 48. SĂMĂRINEŞTI 1739 0 0 49. SĂULEŞTI 2110 0 0 50. SCHELA 1674 11 0.66 51. SCOARŢA 4844 647 13.36 52. SLIVILEŞTI 3227 0 0 53. STĂNEŞTI 2310 0 0 54. STEJARI 2585 0 0 55. STOINA 2376 0 0 56. ŢÂNŢĂRENI 5289 487 9.21 57. TELEŞTI 2473 156 6.31 58. TURBUREA 4076 0 0
112 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 59. TURCINEŞTI 2226 0 0 60. URDARI 3024 0 0 61. VAGIULEŞTI 2642 0 0 62. VLADIMIR 2793 0 0 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
c) Distribution of the Roma population in Mehedinţi county per social environments (rural/urban) Current I. URBAN PERMANENT no. POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE TOTAL OF TOTAL POPULATION MEHEDINTI 265390 10919 4.11 A. MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNS 124224 2503 2.01 1. DROBETA-TURNU SEVERIN MUNICIPALITY 92617 549 0.59 2. ORŞOVA MUNICIPALITY 10441 114 1.09 3. BAIA DE ARAMĂ 5349 534 9.98 4. STREHAIA 10506 1171 11.15 5. VANJU MARE 5311 135 2.54 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION B. COMMUNES 141166 8416 5.96 1. BÂCLEŞ 2070 0 0 2. BALA 3963 32 0.81 3. BĂLĂCIŢA 2830 208 7.35 4. BALTA 1120 0 0 5. BALVANEŞTI 995 0 0 6. BRANIŞTEA 1827 0 0 7. BREZNIŢA-MOTRU 1520 0 0 8. BREZNIŢA-OCOL 3859 40 1.04 9. BROŞTENI 2865 57 1.99 10. BURILA MARE 2239 22 0.98 11. BUTOIEŞTI 3344 139 4.16 12. CĂZĂNEŞTI 2303 0 0 13. CIREŞU 572 4 0.70
113 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 14. CORCOVA 5431 262 4.82 15. CORLĂŢEL 1366 209 15.30 16. CUJMIR 3221 44 1.37 17. DARVARI 2490 76 3.05 18. DEVESEL 3287 285 8.67 19. DUBOVA 785 22 2.80 20. DUMBRAVA 1574 0 0 21. EŞELNIŢA 2565 572 22.30 22. FLOREŞTI 2603 0 0 23. GÂRLA MARE 3382 1061 31.37 24. GODEANU 632 0 0 25. GOGOŞU 3799 461 12.13 26. GRECI 1292 0 0 27. GROZEŞTI 1990 5 0.25 28. GRUIA 3030 975 32.18 29. HINOVA 2849 0 0 30. HUŞNICIOARA 1393 0 0 31. ILOVAŢ 1291 0 0 32. ILOVIŢA 1316 0 0 33. ISVERNA 2145 8 0.37 34. IZVORU BARZII 2703 0 0 35. JIANA 4695 836 17.81 36. LIVEZILE 1678 0 0 37. MALOVĂŢ 2780 22 0.79 38. OBÂRŞIA DE CÂMP 1780 0 0 39. OBÂRŞIA-CLOŞANI 953 0 0 40. OPRIŞOR 2315 0 0 41. PADINA 1469 0 0 42. PĂTULELE 3636 12 0.33 43. PODENI 854 0 0 44. PONOARELE 2425 5 0.21 45. POROINA MARE 1048 0 0 46. PRISTOL 1457 0 0 47. PRUNIŞOR 2029 0 0 48. PUNGHINA 2936 748 25.48 49. ROGOVA 1359 9 0.66 50. SALCIA 2794 0 0 51. ŞIMIAN 9650 708 7.34 52. ŞIŞEŞTI 2959 0 0
114 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 53. SOVARNA 1270 0 0 54. STANGACEAUA 1367 0 0 55. SVINITA 925 8 0.86 56. TÂMNA 3260 551 16.90 57. VÂNĂTORI 1964 24 1.22 58. VÂNJULEŢ 1884 356 18.90 59. VLĂDAIA 1735 292 16.83 60. VOLOIAC 1694 0 0 61. VRATA 1599 361 22.58 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
d) Distribution of the Roma population in Olt county per social environments (rural/urban) Current I. URBAN PERMANENT no. POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE TOTAL OF TOTAL POPULATION OLT 436400 9504 2.18 1. A. MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNS 170554 6206 3.64 2. SLATINA MUNICIPALITY 70293 1739 2.47 3. CARACAL MUNICIPALITY 30954 1229 3.97 4. BALŞ 18164 609 3.35 5. CORABIA 16441 1046 6.36 6. DRAGĂNEŞTI-OLT 10894 744 6.83 7. PIATRA-OLT 6299 424 6.73 8. POTCOAVA 5743 415 7.23 9. SCORNICEŞTI 11766 0 0 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION B. COMMUNES 265846 3298 1.24 1. BĂBICIU 2084 7 0.34 2. BALDOVINEŞTI 1089 0 0 3. BÂLTENI 1694 0 0 4. BĂRĂŞTI 1793 0 0
115 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 5. BARZA 2532 70 2.76 6. BOBICEŞTI 3314 4 0.12 7. BRÂNCOVENI 2730 0 0 8. BRASTAVĂŢU 4830 70 1.45 9. BREBENI 3016 238 7.89 10. BUCINIŞU 2145 8 0.37 11. CĂLUI 1519 0 0 12. CÂRLOGANI 2329 0 0 13. CEZIENI 1830 0 0 14. CILIENI 3244 0 0 15. COLONEŞTI 2072 0 0 16. CORBU 2458 318 12.94 17. COTEANA 2435 28 1.15 18. CRÂMPOIA 3651 0 0 19. CUNGREA 2178 0 0 20. CURTIŞOARA 4192 38 0.91 21. DĂNEASA 3827 86 2.25 22. DEVESELU 3157 4 0.13 23. DOBREŢU 1227 0 0 24. DOBROSLOVENI 3736 51 1.37 25. DOBROTEASA 1831 0 0 26. DOBRUN 1546 0 0 27. DRĂGHICENI 1828 0 0 28. FAGEŢELU 1219 0 0 29. FĂLCOIU 4004 91 2.27 30. FARCAŞELE 4683 55 1.17 31. GĂNEASA 3775 5 0.13 32. GÂRCOV 2303 0 0 33. GAVĂNEŞTI 2050 0 0 34. GHIMPEŢENI 1530 7 0.46 35. GIUVARĂŞTI 2381 0 0 36. GOSTAVĂŢU 2919 85 2.91 37. GRĂDINARI 2370 564 23.80 38. GRĂDINILE 1507 4 0.27 39. GROJDIBODU 2857 10 0.35 40. GURA PADINII 1693 4 0.24 41. IANCA 3560 69 1.94 42. IANCU JIANU 4118 126 3.06 43. ICOANA 1917 0 0
116 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 44. IPOTEŞTI 1441 101 7.01 45. IZBICENI 4807 134 2.79 46. IZVOARELE 3485 0 0 47. LELEASCA 1640 0 0 48. MARUNŢEI 4163 18 0.43 49. MIHĂIESTI 1678 0 0 50. MILCOV 1546 8 0.52 51. MORUNGLAV 2545 3 0.12 52. MOVILENI 3443 4 0.12 53. NICOLAE TITULESCU 1271 0 0 54. OBÂRŞIA 2902 49 1.69 55. OBOGA 1777 0 0 56. OPORELU 1250 0 0 57. OPTAŞI-MĂGURA 1247 0 0 58. ORLEA 2331 9 0.39 59. OSICA DE JOS 1567 43 2.74 60. OSICA DE SUS 5215 123 2.36 61. PARŞCOVENI 3062 0 0 62. PERIEŢI 2215 0 0 63. PLEŞOIU 3105 0 0 64. POBORU 2034 0 0 65. PRISEACA 1580 0 0 66. RADOMIREŞTI 3402 5 0.15 67. REDEA 3006 11 0.37 68. ROTUNDA 2841 5 0.18 69. RUSĂNEŞTI 4434 37 0.83 70. SAMBUREŞTI 1209 3 0.25 71. SÂRBII - MĂGURA 2053 0 0 72. SCĂRIŞOARA 3002 130 4.33 73. SCHITU 2660 0 0 74. SEACA 2061 4 0.19 75. ŞERBĂNEŞTI 2902 5 0.17 76. SLĂTIOARA 2585 25 0.97 77. ŞOPÂRLIŢA 1279 8 0.63 78. SPINENI 2069 18 0.87 79. SPRÂNCENATA 2694 32 1.19 80. ŞTEFAN CEL MARE 1808 22 1.22 81. STOENEŞTI 2422 265 10.94 82. STOICĂNEŞTI 2638 11 0.42
117 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 83. STREJEŞTI 3237 25 0.77 84. STUDINA 2985 0 0 85. TĂTULEŞTI 1088 0 0 86. TESLUI 2737 3 0.11 87. TIA MARE 4496 0 0 88. TOPANA 991 0 0 89. TRAIAN 3264 3 0.09 90. TUFENI 3038 0 0 91. URZICA 2283 0 0 92. VĂDASTRA 1449 5 0.35 93. VĂDASTRIŢA 3437 0 0 94. VÂLCELE 2526 0 0 95. VALEA MARE 3829 92 2.40 96. VĂLENI 2826 43 1.52 97. VERGULEASA 3139 55 1.75 98. VIŞINA 2930 0 0 99. VIŞINA NOUA 1767 17 0.96 100. VITOMIREŞTI 2282 0 0 101. VLĂDILA 1925 3 0.16 102. VOINEASA 2229 32 1.44 103. VULPENI 2255 0 0 104. VULTUREŞTI 2591 0 0 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
e) Distribution of the Roma population in Vîlcea county per social environments (rural/urban) Current I. URBAN PERMANENT no. POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE TOTAL OF TOTAL POPULATION VÂLCEA 371714 6939 1.87 A. MUNICIPALITIES AND TOWNS 164649 3944 2.40 1. RÂMNICU VÂLCEA MUNICIPALITY 98776 1298 1.31 2. DRĂGAŞANI MUNICIPALITY 17871 1041 5.83 3. BĂBENI 8451 343 4.06 4. BĂILE GOVORA 2449 22 0.90 5. BAILE OLĂNEŞTI 4186 51 1.22 6. BĂLCEŞTI 4864 101 2.08 7. BERBEŞTI 4836 36 0.74
118 8. BREZOI 6022 529 8.78 9. CĂLIMĂNEŞTI 7622 430 5.64 10. HOREZU 6263 79 1.26 11. OCNELE MARI 3309 14 0.42 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION B. COMMUNES 207065 2995 1.45 1. ALUNU 4109 157 3.82 2. AMĂRĂŞTI 1826 0 0 3. BĂRBĂTEŞTI 3318 0 0 4. BERISLĂVEŞTI 2769 0 0 5. BOIŞOARA 1313 0 0 6. BUDEŞTI 5694 54 0.95 7. BUJORENI 4410 151 3.42 8. BUNEŞTI 2639 182 6.90 9. CÂINENI 2500 187 7.48 10. CERNIŞOARA 3782 0 0 11. COPĂCENI 2603 0 0 12. COSTEŞTI 3244 7 0.22 13. CREŢENI 2151 25 1.16 14. DĂEŞTI 2899 260 8.97 15. DĂNICEI 2041 0 0 16. DICULEŞTI 1981 0 0 17. DRĂGOEŞTI 1980 0 0 18. FÂRTĂTEŞTI 3976 0 0 19. FAUREŞTI 1559 0 0 20. FRÂNCEŞTI 4988 471 9.44 21. GALICEA 3748 0 0 22. GHIOROIU 1822 0 0 23. GLĂVILE 2027 0 0 24. GOLEŞTI 2540 0 0 25. GRĂDIŞTEA 2622 68 2.59 26. GUŞOENI 1535 0 0 27. IONEŞTI 4130 7 0.17 28. LĂCUSTENI 1477 0 0 29. LĂDEŞTI 2036 0 0 30. LALOŞU 2478 391 15.78 31. LĂPUŞATA 2154 0 0 32. LIVEZI 2301 0 0
119 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 33. LUNGEŞTI 3045 213 7.00 34. MĂCIUCA 1797 0 0 35. MĂDULARI 1459 0 0 36. MĂLAIA 1703 0 0 37. MĂLDAREŞTI 1809 0 0 38. MATEEŞTI 3096 0 0 39. MIHĂEŞTI 6443 30 0.47 40. MILCOIU 1265 0 0 41. MITROFANI 945 0 0 42. MUEREASCA 2467 31 1.26 43. NICOLAE BĂLCESCU 3462 0 0 44. OLANU 2890 0 0 45. ORLEŞTI 3198 0 0 46. OTEŞANI 2641 15 0.57 47. PAUŞEŞTI 2717 0 0 48. PAUŞEŞTI-MAGLAŞI 3992 169 4.23 49. PERIŞANI 2326 0 0 50. PESCEANA 1692 0 0 51. PIETRARI 2881 0 0 52. POPEŞTI 2972 0 0 53. PRUNDENI 3990 15 0.38 54. RACOVIŢA 1822 144 7.90 55. ROEŞTI 2105 0 0 56. ROŞIILE 2759 0 0 57. RUNCU 980 5 0.51 58. SALATRUCEL 1983 10 0.50 59. SCUNDU 1861 0 0 60. SINEŞTI 2297 0 0 61. SIRINEASA 2404 8 0.33 62. SLĂTIOARA 3293 0 0 63. STĂNEŞTI 1270 0 0 64. ŞTEFANEŞTI 3248 0 0 65. STOENEŞTI 3409 0 0 66. STOILEŞTI 3747 0 0 67. STROEŞTI 2809 0 0 68. ŞUŞANI 3291 4 0.12 69. ŞUTEŞTI 2031 6 0.30 70. TETOIU 2683 0 0 71. TITESTI 898 6 0.67
120 PERMANENT Current II. RURAL POPULATION Roma PERCENTAGE no. OF TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION 72. TOMŞANI 3729 18 0.48 73. VAIDEENI 3946 228 5.78 74. VALEA MARE 2610 0 0 75. VLĂDEŞTI 2883 76 2.64 76. VOICEŞTI 1612 52 3.23 77. VOINEASA 1455 0 0 78. ZĂTRENI 2498 0 0 Source: TEMPO ON line database (visible at: http://statistici.insse.ro/shop/)- we own the data processing
3. Sociological Perspective of Studying Ethnic Minorities
3.1. Quantitative field research. Questionnaire-based field research. Results of the research in the Roma communities 3.1.1. Demographical structure of the investigated population The characterization of the population studied was achieved through some indicators on age, gender, marital status, profession, occupation, level of education and ethnicity. The resulting data is shown in the following tables and graphically illustrated. 1.Age: 1. 18-25 2. 26-33 3. 34-41 4. 42-50 5. 51-60 6. 61 si peste Age % 1. 34-41 years old 22,4 2. 18-25 years old 17,4 3. 26-33 years old 17,4 4. 42-50 years old 17,1 5. 61 years old and above 13,0 6. 51-60 years old 12,7 Total 100,0
2.Gender 1. Male 2. Female Gender % 1. Female 51,6 2. Male 48,4 Total 100,0
3.Marital status: 1.Married 2. Married with children 3. Unmarried 4.Other (which?...) Marital status % 1. Married, with children 59,8
121 2. Unmarried 19,0 3. Married 17,1 4. OTHER 3,8 5. Will not respond 0,3 Total 100,0
4.Present occupation ………………...... Occupation % 1. Stay-at-home/ No occupation 37,4 2. Worker 22,9 3. Will not respond 13,4 4. Pensioner 7,7 5. Unemployed 4,9 6. Pupil/ Student 4,6 7. Freelance 4,2 8. Doctor, enfineer, teacher 2,8 9. Seller, merchant, sales agent, distributor 0,7 10. Technician, Foreman, Public Clerk 0,7 11. Educator, Teacher, non-commissioned officer, Medical 0,7 nurse Total 100,0
5.Level of education 1.Unschooled 2. Primary 3. Secondary 4. High-school 5.Superior Level of education % 1. Primary 33,6 2. Secondary 27,2 3. Unschooled 18,0 4. High-school 15,2 5. Superior 5,7 6. After high-school 0,3 Total 100,0
After applying the questionnaire to 390 Roma, who were part of the representative sample for this ethnic group from the territory of the five counties of Oltenia were completed and a total of 25 questionnaires within the population of Greek origin and a total of 25 questionnaires in the Hungarian ethnic group. Thus, the sample originally designed was numerically supplemented, leading ultimately to a total of 440 subjects who were interviewed by specialized operators. We wish to stress on that, overall, the broader sample based on which the opinion survey was made comprised of 91.8% Roma, 7.9% Greeks and 0.3% Hungarians. In absolute data, the Roma people make up a community of 63,899 people in the Oltenia region, 129
122 Greeks and 752 Hungarians. Naturally, the Romanian ethnic composition is predominant: of the 2,075,642 residents of the counties of Oltenia, 1,901,330 are Romanian, i.e. around 92%. The Roma account for 3.9% of the total Romanian population and 3.08% of the total population of Oltenia, almost half of them is being domiciled in Dolj County (29, 838 from 63,899 Roma people in Oltenia). Therefore, numerically they are a minority that can be analyzed from several different perspectives: histo rical, legal, political, sociological, and anthropological."In a very broad understanding, minority groups are social, political, ethnic, racial, linguistic, religious, cultural, etc. which exists in a society and have a number of members lower than that of the community they belong to (the community representing the majority). Nowadays, minorities are present in almost all countries, the number and volume of the component members varying from one country to another"1. The concept of minority has "multiple meanings" and "its operational definition implies the existence of criteria against which a group of people can be considered a minority: race, ethnicity, language, political power, age, religion, gender.Therefore we can speak of a certain type of minority”164. Although it is often stated that a minority of people is becomes study material only when its legitimate interests and rights are not respected, its own aspirations, actually researching a social minority can be justified by the requirement of knowing its sociocultural profile in order to promote its specific values in a regional and national context, as assumed by us in the current work. The collection of information about the age groups of the examined population (Roma, Greek and Hungarian minorities) indicate a high percentage of people between the ages of 34 and 41, and a reduced percentage of those over 50. More than 57% of the interviewed subjects belong to the younger age groups, between 18 and 41, while 25,7% of them are aged 51 and above. It is clear that we are dealing with a predominantly young population that has enough biological resources to self- reproduce, as well as a high work potential that can be used in the economic and social activities in their communitites of residence throughout Oltenia. The Hungarian ethnics considered they are part of a predominantly old community, 66,9% of the Roma ethnics considered they are part of communities with mostly middle-aged persons (however, 23,4% of the stated they are part of communities made up mainly of young persons), and the Greek ethnics perceived and evaluated their community as being made up mostly of middle-aged persons. Thus, there are different perceptions of the age of one ethnicity or another, according to the real situation and personal evaluation capability. Regarding gender, the field research resulted in the fact that the female population represents 51,6%, and the male one 48,4%, this report being also valid at a national level. Almost 60% of the Roma community (as well as the Greek and Hungarian) are married and have children, 17% are married without children, and 19% are not married. Therefore, more than three quarters of the interviewed ethnics are married people, this indicating a major characteristic of the respective cultural ethnicity in Oltenia, which correlates with the preponderance of the young age groups. The professions of the Roma people, especially, are mainly linked to their condition as workers (22,9%). Other 13,4% could not indicate any occupational affiliation, and another important percentage (37,4%) is part of the „stay-at-home/ no occupation” category. Very low percentages have the professions that imply a superior level of professional qualification – doctor/ engineer/ teacher, characterizing only 2,8% of the total of the respondents. Also, the group of the pupils and students, so people currently involved in the process of high-school and superior education, does not exceed 4,6%, which is a worrisome percentage. The pensioners as well are not a majority group, their percentage being of 7.7%, which can be explained by the low number of qualified people and by doing certain activities without a
164Ibidem, p.472
123 work contract (based on which the right to a pension is obtained). In fact, only 32% of the members of the Roma community have useful social occupations (workers, freelancers, doctors/ engineers/teachers, commercial workers, foremen, technicians, public clerks, educators, schoolmasters, medical nurses, non-commissioned officers). The indicator ”level of education” justifies the above-mentioned situation, since of the Roma ethnics especially, only 15,2% have high-school studies and 5,7% have higher education studies (without them necessarily being occupied based on their qualification level). The majority of them have primary (33,6%) and secondary (27,2%) studies, which are usually associated with occasional work and the lack of occupation hereof, or a decreased level of professional qualification. Also, draws attention the 18% of those „without formal education”, them having the most reduced chances to access jobs on the work market, fueling illegal work, the illiteracy phenomenon in the present-day Romanian socitety, evaluated at about 250,000 people) and eliminating any hope to ever benefit the right to obtain a pension when they reach the appropriate age. When a community such as the Roma is constantly concerned with ensuring the material conditions of existence (in the absence of steady income) it develops a culture centered on subsistence values and defense against the risk of social exclusion.
3.2. Perception of social relations in the community of origin Any ethnic community is characterized by certain dimensions (large, medium and small), through a category that comprises of different age categories (young, middle-aged people, old people), by the relations between the members of the respective ethny (permanent, occasional, accidental), by family and friendship links, by cultural values that make the members of a ethny come together especially during the holidays. The existence of different social relations between the members of an ethnic community and between the human groups that belong to the respective community ensure its internal social cohesion, a continuation of its internal structures. ”Any minority with a normal lifestyle is concerned about its social status, about increasing its prestige within the society. In the case of subordination by the majority, the need for social recognition of the minority, of respecting its specificity and valuating its own needs by the entire society appears as a dominant psychological and moral need (at an individual and group level)”165. As long as there is a continuous communication between the component units of the ethny, there also appears a social interaction of individuals, groups, institutions, which develops the consciousness of "we", the sense of ethnicity. The sociological literature considers that social interaction can be both spontaneous, natural (e.g. between relatives, friends, colleagues) and organized, directed by statuses and occupational and professional roles people have in society at a given time. The fact that a child is born into a family indicates its kinship relations and the position of its role in this family, which in turn belongs to a certain ethnic group. It enters a natural interaction with parents, brothers, sisters, grandparents and other relatives; he inherits certain relationships arising from the position in the family group, which he forwards. When an adult is engaged in a workcollective, his relations are preponderantly official and directed by their status and the role they hold in the group, being determined to cooperate with colleagues and superiors, professionally, in an organized frame governed by laws, statutes, etc.Therefore, social interaction is organized and formal (based on norms, values, etc.). The stronger the social interaction in and ethnic community and it is being held through a process of permanent education, the more consistent the solidarity of that ethnic
165Ibidem, p.475
124 community. A strong solidarity generates strong group self-awareness and therefore a lively awareness of belonging of each member. "Therefore, the feeling of solidarity of the members of small groups is usually more intense and it is checked especially when entering tense and conflict relations with other groups (the Roma solidarity is widely recognized compared to the Romanians in a situation of potential or real danger)”.166 We will try to characterize some ethnic minorities through the opinions and evaluations of their members, so that in the end we can evaluate what is the degree of cohesion of the respective communities: Roma, Greek and Hungarian.
6. Ethnic affiliation:
Ethnic affiliation % 1. Roma 91,8 2. Greek 7,9 3. Hungarian 0,3 Total 100,0
7. The ethnic community you are part of…? 1.Small 2. Medium 3. Large 4. Does not know/NR Size of the ethnic community % 1. Medium 51,5 2. Large 28,5 3. Doesn not know/ Refuses to answer 12,7 4. Small 7,3 Total 100,0
8. From what you know, the majority of its members is formed of…? 1. Young 2. Middle-aged 3. Old From what youknow, this is formed of... % 1. Middle age 68,4 2. Young 21,8 3. Old 9,5 4. Refuses to answer 0,3 Total 100,0
9.Do you have relations with the other members of the community? 1. No 2. Yes, permanently 3. Occasionally 4. Very rarely Do you have relations with other members of the community? % 1. Yes, permanently 74,6 2. Occasionally 15,9 3. Very rarely 5,4
166Ibidem, p,473
125 4. No 4,1 Total 100,0
10. Where are the most of your friends? 1. Among those of my ethnicity 2. Among Romanians 3. I have none Where are the most of your friends? % 1. Among those of my ethnicity 75,9 2. Among Romanians 22,8 3. I have none 1,3 Total 100,0
11. What are the celebrations or occasions when the majority of the members of your ethny come together? 1...... 2...... 3...... 4 Doesn’t know What are the celebrations or occasions when the majority of the % members of your ethny come together? 1. Easter 31,7 2. Christmas 25,3 3. Refuses to respond 19,0 4. Other 17,7 5. National Day 3,8 6. St. Mary 2,5 Total 100,0
12.What is your ethny’s greatest celebration? 1...... 2. Doesn’t know 12. What is your ethny’s greatest celebration? % 1. Easter 32,6 2. Refuses to respond 25,9 3. National Day 11,7 4. St. Mary 10,8 5. Other 10,8 6. Christmas 8,2 Total 100,0
After processing the responses received it resulted that 51.5% of respondents consider they are part of an ethnic community of medium size, while 28.5% rated it as large - an opinion supported especially by those of Roma ethny, which correspond to reality, as shown by the arguments of statistical nature. From a psychosociological point of view, the size of the social group appears as an indicator of safety, which any individual has and defines by reference to a community they belong to. The link with the minority does not, as a rule, offer a state of psychological confort,
126 while the awareness of belonging to a majority generates self-confidence and the hope of acquiring help when needed. Other theoretical sociological interpretations require us "to specify that the sense of social inferiority derives not necessarily from the size of the group, but from the inequality produced in the distribution of power (
127 Correlations
1. Evaluation of the friendship level based on age Table no.1 Do you have relations with the other community Total members? No Yes, Occasion Very permanently ally rarely Age 18-25 3,6% 70,9% 23,6% 1,8% 100,0% 26-33 81,8% 10,9% 7,3% 100,0% 34-41 9,9% 73,2% 11,3% 5,6% 100,0% 42-50 1,9% 79,2% 15,1% 3,8% 100,0% 51-60 7,5% 72,5% 20,0% 100,0% 61 and over 68,3% 17,1% 14,6% 100,0%
2.Type of friends in reference with the level of education Table no.2 Where do you have most of your friends? Total Among my Among I don’t have ethny Romanians any Level of No 93,0% 5,3% 1,8% 100,0% Education schooling Primary 87,7% 9,4% 2,8% 100,0% Secondary 74,4% 25,6% 100,0% High- 52,1% 47,9% 100,0% school Higher 27,8% 72,2% 100,0% education After high 100,0% 100,0% school
3. Participation at occasions/ celebrations in reference to age Table no.3 What are the holidays or occasions when most of your Total ethnicity meet? Not Christmas Easter St. National Other respon Mary Day ding Not 13,2% 2,6% 31,6% 52,6% 100,0% Occupa- responding tion Worker 16,9% 15,4% 38,5% 29,2% 100,0% Freelance 8,3% 8,3% 33,3% 50,0% 100,0% Seller, 100,0% 100,0% merchant, sales agent, distributor Technician, 100,0% 100,0% Foreman, Public Clerk
128 Educator, 100,0% 100,0% School- master, non- commission officer, Medical Nurse Doctor, 50,0% 25,0% 25,0% 100,0% engineer, teacher Pupil/ 7,7% 61,5% 7,7% 23,1% 100,0% Student Pensioner 22,7% 18,2% 27,3% 27,3% 4,5% 100,0% Unemployed 7,1% 78,6% 14,3% 100,0% Stay-at- 21,7% 43,4% 22,6% 5,7% 0,9% 5,7% 100,0% home/ No occupation
4.Main age group of the population in relation to ethnic group Table no.4 Main age group of the population in relation to ethnic group As far as you know, the majority of its Total members are ... No Young Middle-aged Old Response Ethnic group Roma 0,3% 23,4% 66,9% 9,3% 100,0% Hun- 100,0% 100,0% garian Greek 4,0% 88,0% 8,0% 100,0%
5. Relations with community members in relation to ethnic group Tabelul nr.5 Relations with community members in relation to ethnic group Do you have relations with the other members Total of the community? No Yes, perma- Occasio Very nently nally rarely Ethnic group Roma 4,2% 74,7% 15,2% 5,9% 100,0% Hunga- 100,0% 100,0% rian Greek 76,0% 24,0% 100,0%
129 6.Importance of the holidays in relation to the ethnic group Table no. 6 Importance of the holidays in relation to the ethnic group What is the most important celebration of your ethnic Total group? No Christ- Easter St. Mary National Other res- mas Day ponse Ethnic Roma 28,3% 8,6% 35,5% 11,7% 4,1% 11,7% 100,0% group Hunga- 100,0% 100,0% rian Greek 100,0% 100,0%
3.3. Evaluation of the conservation factors of one’s own ethnic community The main social factors perpetuating an ethnic group are, in our opinion, the endogamous marriage, everyday speaking of their language and individuals’ organic solidarity. Of course, there are other factors of identity support, such as common customs and traditions, clothing, types of food, certain spiritual values, some moral rules and to manage the collective justice, but their role is not always sufficiently relevant to macrogrupal level.
13. How is marriage usually done in your ethny? 1. Only among its members 2. Mostly with Romanian nationals 3. No rules apply (each person marries whoever they like) How is marriage usually done in your ethny? % 1. There is no rule 50,9 2. Only among its members 42,8 3. Mostly with Romanian nationals 6,3 Total 100,0
14.What is the language you frequently use at home? 1. Romanian 2.Other (which?....) What is the language you frequently use at home? % 1. Romanians 55,1 2. Other 44,9 Total 100,0
15. How about with persons from the same ethny? 1. Romanian 2. Other (which?...... ) 3. Both What is the language you speak with persons of the same ethny? % 1. Both 55,7 2. Romanian 27,5 3. Other 16,5 4. No response 0,3 Total 100,0
130 16. Do your ethny members generally help each other? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Cannot tell Do your ethny members generally help each other? % 1. Yes 80,1 2. Cannot tell 15.2 3. No 4,7 Total 100,0
Although more than half of the respondents (50,9%) responded that there is no rule when selecting one’s life partner for marriage, approximately 43% of them indicated that marriage is usually contracted between the members of the same ethnic community, and a reduced percentage of 6,3% said it i done „mostly with Romanians”. The continuation of ethnic communities through endogamous marriages is a social reality, which can be easily seen especially in the Roma communities, where young people marry when still teenagers, under the influence of the parents (who ”negotiate” the choice of the life partner) and the customs or traditions that permitted the realization of such a social practice. Adopted due to tradition and continued by the authority of the adults, this unwritten law is imposed even at an age when future spouses have not ended their childhood, which leads to the conservation of the Roma ethnic groups. The marriages contracted only between the members of the same ethnicity is admited to and supported by 46,7% males and by 53,3% females. The lower the marriage age, the lower the chances that the respective person keeps attending school, and in the case of those that bear children as well, these chances nearly disappear. That’s one explanation for the reason why the Roma ethnicity is characetrized by such a high number of dropouts and perpetuation of illiteracy among the young population. Another factor that helps maintain the living universe of ethnic minorities is ensured by the permanent use of their own language. Field researched showed that 45% of the Roma, Greek and Hungarian ethnicities frequently use their mother tongue within the family, and 55% of them use Romanian most often. Of course, Romanian is the official language, being used in the relations with institutions, with the other persons – in the street, at work, in the broader social environment, but the act that it is used also within the family proves that there is a strong social interaction between ethnic groups and the society as such, which has an overwhelming integration role, especially at educational and professional levels. Field research data emphasize the obvious correlation between the level of education and the language commonly spoken in the family. Thus, the lower the level of education, the more extensive the use of their own language is. Over 66% of those without school and over 63% of those with primary school testified that within the family they speak their own language, specific to their ethnic group. Of course, these are people who belong to the Roma minority and contribute greatly to the preservation of ethnic identity, knowing that the Greek and Hungarian minorities are not characterized by a low level of school education. The higher the level of education, the higher the frequency of Romanian being spoken in the families of those composing the ethnic minorities. From the information collected through personal opinion inquest, it resulted that 85% of high-school graduates and all those that graduated from after high-school and different forms of higher education speak Romanian most often in their family lives, in a higher proportion than the language of their ethnicity. In the relations with persons of the same ethny the communication is realized in both languages by the majority of respondents (55,7%), however there are other categories of people that make use only of the Romanian language (27,5%) or only their mother tongue (17,5%).
131 Theoretically, we know that minority groups do not have a more pronounced solidarity sense than the majority ones, where the members are rarely in the situation of coming face to face with one another. Physical contact generates interaction and emotional contacts. Constant social relations favour the internal cohesion of ethnic groups to a larger extent than reports mediated by certain official norms and statute regulations. Starting from this sociocultural assertion, we wished to check how credible this statement is in the case of the groups invesigated in Oltenia. Let us first remind that sociologists define human groups considering three characteristic processes: member cooperation and communication, solidarity or cohesion and conflict. The cohesion expresses „the degree to which the members feel themselves tied to the others (...). The closer a group is, the greater the possibility for stability and that the members will comply with its rules. Closely knit groups solve issues better. Generally, cohesion seems to be more important to groups.”167 Solidarity is understood as a form of social cohesion and is manifested as mechanic solidarity (”similarity of the qualities and activities of the individuals”) and as organic solidarity (”society is linked through mutual support and interdependence of its members”)168. A detailed analysis in this respect is made by the French sociologist Emile Durkheim, who makes the distinction between societies based on mechanic solidarity (usually characteristic to underdeveloped ones) and the societies where organic solidarity is predominant (usually characteristic for societies with a strong social work division). In the present context we tried to find out how the solidarity of the people of the same ethnicity is perceived, compared to the general social environment. The opinion of those of the same ethnic community was obtained through the following question: Generally, are the members of your ethnicity solidary, do they help each other when needed? We obtained three types of answers that reflect the valuation capacity, as well as the social life experience of the respondents, as follows: - 80,1% mentioned that solidarity is characteristic to ethnies; - 15,2% said ”they could not tell precisely”; - 4,7% rejected the idea that those of the same ethnicity were solidary, helping each other when needed. We wish to stress on the fact that the positive answers came from over 77% of the subjects of every age group, starting with the 18-25 up to the 51-60, which proves that solidarity is indeed a characteristic of ethnic groups, as well as a social sustainable relation that ensures the strong cohesion and their continuity in the cultural space of Oltenia.
Correlations 1. Language spoken in the family in relation to the level of education Table no.1 What language do you frequently speak Total in your family? Romanian Other Education Unschooled 33,3% 66,7% 100,0% level Primary 36,8% 63,2% 100,0% Secondary 66,7% 33,3% 100,0% High-school 84,8% 15,2% 100,0% Higher 100,0% - 100,0% After high-school 100,0% - 100,0%
167Norman Goodman, Introducere în sociologie, Lider Publishing, Bucharest, 1998, p.96 168Ibidem, p.486
132 2. Solidarity of ethny members in reference to their age Table no.2 Generally, the members of your ethnicity are solidary, Total they help each other out when needed? No Yes No Cannot tell Response Age 18-25 83,6% 9,1% 7,3% 100,0 % 26-33 1,8% 81,8% 7,3% 9,1% 100,0 % 34-41 - 80,3% 5,6% 14,1% 100,0 % 42-50 - 77,8% 3,7% 18,5% 100,0 % 51-60 - 85,0% - 15,0% 100,0 % 61 and 2,4% 70,7% - 26,8% 100,0 above %
3. Fulfilment of marriage depending on gender Table no.3 Gender Total Male Female 13. How is marriage Only between members 46,7% 53,3% 100,0% done in your ethnicity? Mostly with Romanians 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% There is no rule 49,7% 50,3% 100,0%
4. Marriage options based on ethnic affiliation Table no. 4 Marriage options based on ethnic affiliation How is marriage done in your ethnicity? Total Only Mostly with There is no between its Romanians rule members Ethnic group Roma 46,6% 5,9% 47,6% 100,0% Hungarian - - 100,0% 100,0% Greek - 12,0% 88,0% 100,0%
5. Language used within the family in relation to ethnicity Table no. 5 Language used within the family in relation to ethnicity What language do you frequently Total speak within your family? Romanian Other Ethnic group Roma 51,0% 49,0% 100,0% Hungarian 100,0% - 100,0% Greek 100,0% - 100,0%
133 6. Language used with same ethnicity persons in report to the ethnic group Table no. 6 Language used with same ethnicity persons in report to the ethnic group What language do you use with persons of the same Total ethnicity? No Romanian Other Both Response Ethnic Roma 0,3% 25,2% 17,2% 57,2% 100,0% group Hungarian - 100,0% - - 100,0% Greek - 52,0% 8,0% 40,0% 100,0%
7. Solidarity in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no. 7 Solidarity in relation to ethnic affiliation Generally, the members of your ethny are solidary, Total do they help each other? No Yes No Cannot tell response Roma 0,3% 78,6% 5,2% 15,9% 100,0% Ethnic Hungarian - 100,0% - - 100,0% group Greek 4,0% 96,0% - - 100,0%
3.4. Representative values and characteristic elements of the sociocultural patrimony (conscience of ethnical identity) The members of the ethnic group differ from other members of society by certain cultural characteristics: language, religion, history, literature, specific material civilization. All these features converge to the sense of identity as members of a specific group. The research results showed that more than half of the respondents (57,9%) consider that there are specific characteristics of the ethny they are part of, while for 13,3% of them these characteristics, that give identity to their ethnic group, don’t actually exist, 28,8% having no opinion in this respect. The ones that answered positively to this indicator showed that they are different from the other ethnies through specific cultural traits expresses in: mother tongue (44,5%), traditional costume (22,7%), music (14,3%), religion (6,8%), the difference to 100% being given by the way they prepare food and something else. When an individual identifies with a particular ethnic group, it means that he is defined by its features, emulating the values, rules, symbols of the group, accepting and internalizing in his own behavior and self-awareness. Eduard Sapir said that „the language is the mirror of a culture, and if there is anything important for a culture, the language will undoubtedly reflect that something”.169 In the context of ethnic affiliation and the selection of the mother tongue as a distinctive element of the ethnicity they belong to, a significant percentage of Roma (76.6%) mention that they do not read books or publications in their mother tongue, more than three quarters of the ethnic Greek do read, but rarely, and the Hungarians do not. Certainly, the language is a feature of the Roma in general, but certain categories of this ethnic group in Romania are in an advanced stage of linguistic assimilation.
169 Panea Nicolae, Antropologia culturală şi socială – vademecum, Omniscop Publishing, Craiova, 2000, p.32
134 Regarding relations with relatives or other persons from the country of origin, 100% of the Hungarians keep these family ties, and 88% of the Greeks do that as well. Also, the results of the research pointed out that more than half of the respondents (55,9%) mostly observe their traditions, 39,3% to a lesser extent, and 4,4% don’t follow the traditions of the ethnic group they are part of. Another dimension of awareness of self-identity is the cultural identity, regarded as an inclusive dimension; almost all other sizes can be placed under its umbrella. Cultural identity is the "sense of self" derived from an individual's membership in the group to which he belongs and which communicates knowledge, attitudes, values, traditions and ways of life. Compared with social identity, which is built by reference to a certain time, cultural identity is a component of individual identity that involves transfer of information from one generation to another. Referring to the identification of the cultural values characteristic for an ethnic group, which distinguishes it from other ethnic groups, the majority of subjects (85%) did not respond, only 15% think diligence, hospitality, artistic spirit and respect to be values that differentiate them from others. When referring to the Roma minority, we must consider the low cultural level caused by the high level of illiteracy, which does not allow them to make relevant assessments from a cultural perspective, both towards their minority, or towards other minorities. The subjects were asked to name a few very well-known Romanian writers. Almost half of the interviewed mentioned classic writers: Ion Creangă (21,4%), Mihai Eminescu (13,1%), Mihail Sadoveanu (8,8%), Ion Luca Caragiale (3,3%), Liviu Rebreanu (1,6%). The number of those who did not answer this question is correlated with the level of education (the lower the level, the higher the level of those who do not respond). The individual is born with his ethnicity; it is not acquired during one’s life. The birth certificate is a document that can hold an identity, it is abstract, and the real one is the one that the individual acquires through socialization with other group members, which transmit the language, traditions and customs. The element that makes the distinction between national and ethnic identity is that of option. National identity is an option, the individual has a right to opt for it, but it does not stem from ethnic identity. The research emphasized that 60,9% of respondents consider themselves to be more Roma/ Greek/ Hungarians than Romanians, and only 37,8% consider themlseves more Romanian than Roma/ Greek/ Hungarians, according to case. At the same time, the feeling of belonging to an ethny makes 56,4% of the respondents proud, and 3,5 % feel “ashamed” to be part of an ethnic group. We must underline the significant percentage (40,1%) of those who did not answer this indicator, not having a clear opinion in this respect. The research data showed that the veiry young consider themselves more Romanian than the identity given by the affiliation to an ethnic group, whereas those aged between 26 and 60 and over have a clearer sense of the feeling of identity affiliation to the ethnic group they are part of. Another characteristic of ethnic identity is religion. The respondents said they are believers, 95,2% of them. Of this total, 83,6% declared themselves to be Orthodox, 11,1% Pentecostals, 3,3% Baptists, 0,5% Catholics, 0,5% Jehova’s Witnesses. For a better illustration of the values and specific elements of the sociocultural patrimony of the minorities in this research, we shall disclose additional data illustrated with the help of tables.
135 17. Do you consider there are specific characteristics of your ethny? 1. Yes 2. No 3. Doesn’t know Do you consider there are specific characteristics of your ethny? % 1. Yes 57,9 2. Doesn’t know 28,8 3. No 13,3 Total 100,0
18. If yes, how do you believe it is different from others? 1. Mother tongue 2. Music 3. Traditional costume 4. Religion 5.Food preparation 6. Other If yes, how do you believe it is different from others? % 1. Mother tongue 44,5 2. Traditional costume 22,7 3. Music 14,3 4. No Response 8,8 5. Religion 6,8 6. Something else 1,9 7. Food preparation 1,0 Total 100,0
19. Do you read books or other publications in your mother tongue? 1. Yes, daily 2. Yes, monthly 3.Yes, but seldom 4. Not at all Do you read books or other publications in your mother tongue? % 1. Not at all 68,8 2. Yes, but seldom 22,9 3. Yes, daily 5,7 4. Yes, monthly 2,2 5. No Response 0,4 Total 100,0
20. Do you have relations with relatives or people from your country of origin? (not addressed to the Roma people) 1. Yes 2. No Do you have relations with relatives or people from your country of % origin? 1. Yes 74,2 2. No 24,1 3. No Response 1,7 Total 100,0
136 21.Do the people in your ethny respect their own traditions? 1. Yes, mostly 2. Yes, to a lesser extent 3. Not at all Do the people in your ethny respect their own traditions? % 1. Yes, mostly 55,9 2. Yes, to a lesser extent 39,3 3. Not at all 4,4 4. No response 0,4 Total 100,0
22.What do you think are the cultural values specific to your ethny, that make you stand out from other ethnic groups? 1...... 2...... 3...... 4. Doesn’t know What are the cultural values specific to your ethny? % 1. No Response 85,0 2. Artistic spirit 5,0 3. Diligence 3,1 4. Respect 2,6 5. Talent 2,6 6. Others 1,3 7. Hospitality 0,4 Total 100,0
23. Can you name a few very well known Romanian writers? (1) 1.Doesn’t know 2...... 3...... Can you name a few very well known Romanian writers? % 1. No Response 68,3 2. Mihai Eminescu 19,0 3. Ion Creanga 6,6 4. Mihail Sadoveanu 2,2 5. Other 2,2 6. Ion Luca Caragiale 1,3 7. Liviu Rebreanu 0,4 Total 100,0
24.How do you consider yourself to be? 1. More Romanian than...... 2. More ...... than Romanian How do you consider yourself to be? % 1. More roma/ hungarian/greek than Romanian 60,9 2. More Romanian than roma/ hungarian/greek 37,8 3. No Response 1,3 Total 100,0
137 25. What feeling does your ethnic affiliation give you? 1.Pride 2. Shame 3. No Response What feeling does your ethnic affiliation give you? % 1. Pride 56,4 2. No Response 40,1 3. Shame 3,5 Total 100,0
Other detailed information can be accessed in the tables and illustrations below.
Correlations Specific features of the ethny in relation to the level of education Table no.1 Do you consider there are specific features of your Total ethny? Yes No Doesn’t know Educa- No 50,9% 17,5% 31,6% 100,0% tion schooling level Primary 56,6% 15,1% 28,3% 100,0% Secondary 54,7% 11,6% 33,7% 100,0% High- 60,4% 10,4% 29,2% 100,0% school Higher ed. 94,4% 5,6% - 100,0% After high- 100,0% - -- 100,0% school Total 57,9% 13,3% 28,8% 100,0%
Differences from other ethnies in relation to the education level Table no. 2 If yes, how do you feel it is different from other ethnies? Total No Mother Music Tradi- Reli- Food Other Resp. tongue tional gion prepara- cos- tion tume Educa- No 7,1% 44,6% 10,7% 28,6% 5,4% 3,6% - 100,0% tion schooling level Primary 9,4% 46,2% 8,5% 27,4% 6,6% 0,9% ,9% 100,0% Secondary 9,9% 42,0% 14,8% 18,5% 9,9% - 4,9% 100,0% High- 10,9 47,8% 19,6% 17,4% 4,3% - - 100,0% school % Higher ed. 33,3% 44,4% 11,1% 5,6% - 5,6% 100,0% After high- 100,0% - - - - - 100,0% school
138 Reading books/ publications in the mother toungue in relation to the level of education Table no.3 Do you read books or other publications in your Total mother tongue? No Resp. Yes, Yes, Yes, but Not at all daily monthly seldom Education No schooling - - - - 100,0% 100,0% level Primary 1,2% 1,2% 1,2% 14,8% 81,5% 100,0% Secondary - 5,4% 25,0% 69,6% 100,0% High-school - 19,2% 7,7% 42,3% 30,8% 100,0% Higher ed. - 6,3% 12,5% 75,0% 6,3% 100,0% After high- - - - 100,0% - 100,0% school
Cultural values of the ethny in relation to the level of education Table no. 4 What cultural values are characteristic to your ethny? Total No Dili- Hospita- Artistic Respect Talent Others Resp. gence lity spirit Educa- No 91,5% - - 2,1% 2,1% 2,1% 2,1% 100,0% tion level schooling Primary 87,7% 3,7% 1,2% 1,2% 2,5% 2,5% 1,2% 100,0% Secondary 85,7% 3,6% - 1,8% 3,6% 3,6% 1,8% 100,0% High- 73,1% 3,8% - 15,4% 3,8% 3,8% - 100,0% school Higher ed. 68,8% 6,3% - 25,0% - - - 100,0% After 100,0 - - - - 100,0% high- % school
Mentioning Romanian writers in relation to the level of education Table no.5 Can you name a few very well known Romanian writers? Total No Mihai Ion Mihail Liviu Ion Other Resp. Emi- Creangă Sado- Rebrea- Luca nescu veanu nu Cara- giale Education No 91,5% 6,4% 2,1% 100,0% level schoo- ling Primary 81,5% 11,1% 4,9% 2,5% 100,0% Secon- 64,3% 19,6% 12,5% 1,8% 1,8% 100,0% dary High- 19,2% 50,0% 11,5% 7,7% 3,8% 7,7% 100,0% school Hi- 31,3% 43,8% 6,3% 6,3% 12,5% 100,0% gher ed.
139 After 100,0% 100,0% high- school
Relations to relatives/ other persons in the country of origin in relation to age Table no. 6 Do you have relations with relatives/ Total other people in your country of origin? No Resp. Yes No Age 18-25 70,6% 29,4% 100,0% 26-33 14,3% 71,4% 14,3% 100,0% 34-41 68,8% 31,3% 100,0% 42-50 66,7% 33,3% 100,0% 51-60 85,7% 14,3% 100,0% 61 and above 87,5% 12,5% 100,0%
Opinion about ethny affiliation in relation to age Table no. 7 How do you consider yourself? Total No More More ....than Response Romanian Romanian than …. Age 18-25 54,8% 45,2% 100,0% 26-33 26,3% 73,7% 100,0% 34-41 43,4% 56,6% 100,0% 42-50 24,2% 75,8% 100,0% 51-60 3,4% 34,5% 62,1% 100,0% 61 and above 6,7% 36,7% 56,7% 100,0%
Religion in relation to age Table no. 8 Are you a religious person? Total No YES NO Response Age 18-25 93,0% 7,0% 100,0% 26-33 97,4% 2,6% 100,0% 34-41 98,1% 1,9% 100,0% 42-50 93,9% 6,1% 100,0% 51-60 100,0% 100,0% 61 and above 3,3% 86,7% 10,0% 100,0%
140 Ethny affiliation in relation to occupation Table no. 9 What feeling does belonging Total to an ethny give you? No Pride Shame Resp. No Response 76,9% 23,1% 100,0% Occu- Worker 45,5% 54,5% 100,0% pation Freelancer 20,0% 80,0% 100,0% Seller, merchant, sales agent, 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% distributor Technician, Foreman, Public 100,0% 100,0% Clerk Doctor, engineer, teacher 100,0% 100,0% Pupil/Student 23,1% 69,2% 7,7% 100,0% Pensioner 29,4% 64,7% 5,9% 100,0% Unemployed 66,7% 33,3% 100,0% Stay-at-home/without 46,5% 51,5% 2,0% 100,0% occupation
Grounds of ethnic specificity in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no. 10 Grounds of ethnic specificity in relation to ethnic affiliation Do you believe there are specific Total characteristics of your ethny? Yes No Doesn’t know Ethnic affiliation Roma 54,5% 14,1% 31,4% 100,0% Hungari 100,0% 100,0% an Greek 96,0% 4,0% 100,0%
Defining characteristics in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no. 11 Defining characteristics in relation to ethnic affiliation If yes, how do you believe it is different from other Total ethnies? No Mother Music Tradi- Reli- Food Other Resp. tongue tional gion prepa- costume ration Ethnic Roma 9,6% 45,4% 11,3% 23,4% 7,1% 1,1% 2,1% 100,0% affiliation Hun- 100,0% 100,0% garian Greek 36,0% 48,0% 12,0% 4,0% 100,0%
141 Mother tongue readings in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no. 12 Mother tongue readings in relation to ethnic affiliation Do you read books or other publications in your Total mother tongue? No Res- Yes, daily Yes, Yes, but Not at all ponse monthly seldom Ethnic Roma 0,5% 5,5% 1,0% 16,4% 76,6% 100,0% affiliation Hun- 100,0% 100,0% garian Greek 8,0% 12,0% 76,0% 4,0% 100,0%
Family relations with persons in the country of origin in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no. 13 Family relations with persons in the country of origin in relation to ethnic affiliation Do you have relations to relatives or people Total in your country of origin? No Response Yes No Ethnic affiliation Hunga- 100,0% 100,0% rian Greek 4,0% 88,0% 8,0% 100,0%
Observing traditions in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no. 14 Observing traditions in relation to ethnic affiliation Do people in your ethny usually observe traditions? Total No Response Yes, mostly Yes, to a Not at all lesser extent Ethnic Roma 0,5% 50,2% 44,3% 5,0% 100,0% affiliation Hunga- 100,0% 100,0% rian Greek 100,0% 100,0%
Cultural values in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no. 15 Cultural values in relation to ethnic affiliation What are the cultural values specific to your ethny? Total No Dili- Hospi- Artistic Respect Ta- Other Resp gence tality spirit lent Ethnic Roma 87,6% 2,5% 0,5% 2,0% 3,0% 3,0% 1,5% 100,0% affilia- Hun- 100,0 100,0% tion garian % Greek 64,0% 8,0% 28,0% 100,0%
142 Grounds for ethnic affiliation in relation to self-evaluation Table no. 16 Grounds for ethnic affiliation in relation to self-evaluation How do you consider yourself? Total No More More ....than Response Romanian Romanian than… Ethnic affiliation Roma 35,7% 64,3% 100,0% Hungarian 100,0% 100,0% Greek 12,0% 56,0% 32,0% 100,0%
Grounds for the feeling of belonging Table no.17 Grounds for the feeling of belonging in relation to ethnic affiliation What feeling do you have toward the Total affiliation to your ethny? No Resp. Pride Shame Ethnic affiliation Roma 45,3% 51,2% 3,5% 100,0% Hungarian 100,0% 100,0% Greek 96,0% 4,0% 100,0%
3.5. Concept about family and living standard, about work and other social values. Plans for the future Family life is an important component of the ethnic profile of minorities in Oltenia. It is one of the distinctive elements of the minority population in relation to the majority population. The main elements that characterize family life, identified at the minorities in Oltenia are revealing about the state of dissatisfaction illustrating the present situation compared to last year. More than half (55.9%) of respondents considers family life, compared to 2014, to be harder, and only 35.7% notice an improvement in family life, while 8.4% cannot appreciate this. Those who believe that family life is tougher than last year were aged 26-33 years (65.8%), between 42-50 years (58.6%) between 61 and over (66.7%). The analysis of data provided by the research revealed that there is, among those interviewed, hope that they will be better off (53.8%). A lack of hope for the future emerged among the 26.4% of respondents who do not believe that in the future they will be better off, while 19.8% do not know what their future holds. Hopelessness occurs predominantly among those married (57.4%) and those married with children (57%). Also, the research shows a great deficit of income compared to the needs, 70.9% of respondents consider the income to be lower than the needs, 27% have incomes to match their needs and only 2.1% can afford to save money as well. The percentage of those who signal the insufficiency of income is mostly made up of workers (71%), doctors/ engineers/ teachers (87.5%), pensioners (64.7%), unemployed (66.7%), of the ones who stay at home/ have no occupation (84.8%). The ones that stated that their incomes match their needs are among the freelancers (60%), of sellers/ merchants/ sales agents (100%) and, paradoxically, students/ pupils (69.2%). The technicians/ foremen/ public clerks are the ones that can make economies as well (50%). Of all the respondents, 61,1% have someone in their family that works or worked abroad and only 30.9% said that no one in their families works or has worked abroad. The
143 possibility that someone in the family work abroad represents and option for 32.6% of the subjects, 65.2% does not consider this option, and 2.2% will not answer. Ensuring one’s living is made through work, according to 69.4% of the participants, and 21.5% expect to receive state aid, while 7% consider they must do something else than the options given in the questionnaire. The others consider stealing (0.5%), conning (0.3%) and begging (0.3%), while 0.6% won’t answer. The sociological research showed the roles of the husband, of the wife and of the children within the family, as follows: - The husband must work (47.1%), bring in the money (24.4%) and take care of his family (8.2%); - The wife must look after the family (29.2%), work (23.5%), take care of the children’s education (22.5%), cook (3.2%) and bring money into the household (1.6%); - Children must study well (54%), help with the chores (5.8%), work (5.3%) and play (2.7%). It’s worth mentioning that more than a quarter of the respondents could not identify the roles of the members of a family. This research resulted in the opinion that the optimum age for marriage of Roma boys is between 18 and 21 (38.3%), for Hungarian ethnic boys 22-25 years old (100%), and for Greek ethny boys 26-30 (56%). The best age for marriage for the girls, compared to the boys, is lowered in the Roma ethny – 15-18 years old (53.7%) and in the Greek one, 22-25 years of age (76%). Detailed information, based on answers to questions addressed, also results from the tables presented as follows
30. How do you consider your family life, compared with last year? 1. Better 2. Worse 3. Doesn’t know How do you consider your family life compared with last year? % 1. Worse 55,9 2. Better 35,7 3. Doesn’t know 8,4 Total 100,0 31.Do you think things will improve in the future? 1.Yes 2. No 3. Doesn’t know Do you think things will improve in the future? % 1. Yes 53,8 2. No 26,4 3. Doesn’t know 19,8 Total 100,0 32. How is your family income? 1. Less than the needs 2. Meets the needs 3. Allows for economy What is the income of your family? % 1. Less than the needs 70,9 2. Meets the needs 27,0 3. Allows for economy 2,1 Total 100,0
144 33. Is there anyone in your family that worked or works abroad? 1. Yes 2.No Is there anyone in your family that worked or works abroad? % 1. Yes 61,1 2. No 38,9 Total 100,0
34. What do you think it’s best we do in life to survive? 1. Work 2. Receive state aid 3. Steal 4. Con 5.Beg 6. Other
What do you think it’s best we do in life to survive? % 1. Work 69,4 2. Recieve state aid 21,5 3. Other 7,0 4. Steal 0,9 5. No Response 0,6 6. Con 0,3 7. Beg 0,3 Total 100,0 35. What do you think the following members do in a family: 1. Husband...... 0.Doesn’t know 2. Wife...... 0. Doesn’t know 3. Children...... 0. Doesn’t know
What do you think the husband must do in a family? % 1. Work 47,1 2. Bring money in the household 24,4 3. No Response 20,3 4. Take care of the family 8,2 Total 100,0
What do you think the wife should do in a family? % 1. Take care of the family 29,2 2. Work 23,5 3. Watch after the children’s education 22,5 4. No Response 20,0 5. Cook 3,2 6. Bring money in the household 1,6 Total 100,0
145 What do you think the children must do in a family? % 1. Study well 54,0 2. No Response 32,2 3. Help with the house chores 5,8 4. Work 5,3 5. Play 2,7 Total 100,0
Correlations 1. Family life in relation to age Table no.1
How do you evaluate your family life, Total compared to last year? Better Harder Doesn’t know Age 18-25 44,2% 41,9% 14,0% 100,0% 26-33 23,7% 65,8% 10,5% 100,0% 34-41 40,7% 48,1% 11,1% 100,0% 42-50 36,4% 63,6% 100,0% 51-60 34,5% 58,6% 6,9% 100,0% 61 and above 30,0% 66,7% 3,3% 100,0%
2. Hope for a better future in relation to marital status Table no.2
Do you hope to have a better life in the Total future? No Yes No Response Marrital No Response 100,0% 100,0% status Married 25,1% 57,4% 17,0% 100,0% Married with 15,7% 57,0% 27,3% 100,0% children Not married 24,9% 43,8% 31,3% 100,0% OTHER 20,0% 40,0% 40,0% 100,0%
146 3. Family income in relation to occupation Table no.3
How is your family income? Total Lower Matches Allows for than the needs economy needed Occu- No Response 60,0% 40,0% 100,0% pation Worker 71,4% 20,0% 8,6% 100,0% Freelancer 40,0% 60,0% 100,0% Seller, merchant, sales 100,0% 100,0% agent, distributor Technician, Foreman, 50,0% 50,0% 100,0% Public Clerk Doctor, engineer, teacher 87,5% 12,5% 100,0% Pupil/Student 30,8% 69,2% 100,0% Pensioner 64,7% 35,3% 100,0% Unemployed 66,7% 33,3% 100,0% Stay-at-home/ No 84,8% 15,2% 100,0% occupation
4. Opinions regarding ways of living in relation to occupation Table no.4
What do you believe it’s best to do in life to live? Total
No Work Receive Stea Con Beg Other Resp state aid l Occupa- No Response 2,6% 39,5% 26,3% 31,6% 100,0 tion % Worker 87,7% 7,7% 4,6% 100,0 % Freelancer 25,0% 33,3% 41,7% 100,0 % Seller, 100,0% 100,0 merchant, % sales agent, distributor Technician, 100,0% 100,0 Foreman, % Public Clerk Doctor, 100,0% 100,0 engineer, % teacher Pupil/Student 100,0% 100,0 % Pensioner 7,7% 92,3% 100,0
147 % Unemployed 100,0% 100,0 % Stay-at-home/ 100,0% 100,0 No % occupation Total 53,8% 39,6% 2,8 ,9% ,9% 1,9% 100,0 % %
5. Perspective of working abroad in relation to age Table no. 5 Is there anyone in your family that works or has worked abroad? If not, has anyone in your family Total considered working abroad? No Yes Not yet Response Age 18-25 5,0% 15,0% 80,0% 100,0% 26-33 9,1% 36,4% 54,5% 100,0% 34-41 41,2% 58,8% 100,0% 42-50 22,2% 77,8% 100,0% 51-60 40,0% 60,0% 100,0% 61 and above 41,2% 58,8% 100,0%
6. Opinions regarding the work possibilities in relation to age Table no.6
What do you think it’s best we do in life to be able to live? Total
No Work Receive state Steal Con Beg Other Resp aid
Age 18-25 3,6% 74,5% 14,5% 7,3% 100,0 % 26-33 72,7% 18,2% 1,8% 7,3% 100,0 % 34-41 67,6% 21,1% 1,4% 1,4% 8,5% 100,0 % 42-50 66,7% 25,9% 7,4% 100,0 % 51-60 65,0% 25,0% 2,5% 2,5% 5,0% 100,0 % 61 and 68,3% 26,8% 4,9% 100,0 above %
148 7. The husband’s role in the family, in relation to age Table no.7
What do you think the husband must do in a Total family..... No Work Bring Take care Res- money in of the ponse the family household Age 18-25 25,5% 40,0% 27,3% 7,3% 100,0% 26-33 21,8% 45,5% 32,7% 100,0% 34-41 14,1% 64,8% 16,9% 4,2% 100,0% 42-50 22,2% 46,3% 13,0% 18,5% 100,0% 51-60 12,5% 42,5% 27,5% 17,5% 100,0% 61 and 26,8% 34,1% 34,1% 4,9% 100,0% above
8. Wife’s role in the family in relation to the ages of the respondents Table no.8
35.What do you think the wife should do in a family? Total No Work Bring Take care Take care of Cook Respo money in of the the children’s nse the family education household Age 18-25 20,0% 16,4% 1,8% 27,3% 30,9% 3,6% 100,0% 26-33 21,8% 18,2% 27,3% 30,9% 1,8% 100,0% 34-41 15,7% 44,3% 1,4% 21,4% 11,4% 5,7% 100,0% 42-50 22,2% 7,4% 35,2% 35,2% 100,0% 51-60 12,5% 27,5% 2,5% 37,5% 15,0% 5,0% 100,0% 61 and 29,3% 22,0% 4,9% 31,7% 9,8% 2,4% 100,0% above
9. Children’s role in the family in relation to the ages of the respondents Table no. 9
What do you think children must do? Total No Res- Help with Learn well Work Play ponse the household chores Age 18-25 34,9% 2,3% 58,1% 4,7% 100,0% 26-33 31,6% 57,9% 10,5% 100,0%
149 34-41 28,3% 5,7% 60,4% 5,7% 100,0% 42-50 36,4% 12,1% 48,5% 3,0% 100,0% 51-60 31,0% 10,3% 51,7% 6,9% 100,0% 61 and 33,3% 6,7% 40,0% 20,0% 100,0% above
10. Opinions about the marriage-appropriate age of boys, in relation to the ages of the respondents Table no. 10
What is, in your opinion, boys’ appropriate age for Total marriage No 15-18 18-21 22-25 26-30 Resp Age 18-25 2,3% 18,6% 39,5% 34,9% 4,7% 100,0% 26-33 39,5% 34,2% 18,4% 7,9% 100,0% 34-41 5,6% 29,6% 31,5% 27,8% 5,6% 100,0% 42-50 15,2% 30,3% 54,5% 100,0% 51-60 3,4% 10,3% 34,5% 34,5% 17,2% 100,0% 61 and 3,3% 10,0% 33,3% 30,0% 23,3% 100,0% above
11. Opinions about the marriage-appropriate age of girls, in relation to the ages of the respondents Tabelul nr.11
What is, in your opinion, girls’ appropriate age for Total marriage No 15-18 18-21 22-25 26-30 Resp Age 18-25 2,3% 41,9% 16,3% 34,9% 4,7% 100,0% 26-33 2,6% 60,5% 23,7% 13,2% 100,0% 34-41 5,6% 59,3% 22,2% 11,1% 1,9% 100,0% 42-50 36,4% 57,6% 6,1% 100,0% 51-60 3,4% 41,4% 31,0% 17,2% 6,9% 100,0% 61 and 3,3% 36,7% 36,7% 20,0% 3,3% 100,0% above
12. Considerations on the living conditions in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no.12 Considerations on the living conditions in relation to ethnic affiliation What do you consider we can do in life in order to be able to Total live? No Work Receive Steal Con Beg Other Resp state aid
Ethnic Roma 0,3% 66,9% 23,4% 1,0% 0,3% 0,3% 7,6% 100,0 affiliation %
150 Hunga- 100,0% 100,0 rian % Greek 4,0% 96,0% 100,0 %
13. The husband’s role in the family, in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no.13 Considerations of the husband’s role in relation to ethnic affiliation What do you think the husband must do in a Total family? No Work Bring Take care Res- money in of the ponse the family houselhold Ethnic Roma 19,3% 48,3% 24,5% 7,9% 100,0% affiliation Hunga- 100,0% 100,0% rian Greek 32,0% 36,0% 20,0% 12,0% 100,0%
14. The wife’s role in the family, in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no.14
Considerations of the wife role in relation to ethnic affiliation What do you think the wife must do in a family? Total No Work Bring Take care Take care Cook Res- money in of the of the ponse the family children’s household education Ethnic Roma 19,0% 22,8% ,3% 30,4% 23,9% 3,5% 100,0% affilia- Hunga- 100,0% 100,0% tion rian Greek 32,0% 32,0% 16,0% 12,0% 8,0% 100,0% 15. Considerations of the children’s role in relation to ethnic affiliation etnica Tabelul nr.15
Considerations of the children’s role in relation to ethnic affiliation What do you think the children must do in a family? Total No Res- Help with Learn well Work Play ponse the household chores Ethnic Roma 35,5% 6,5% 49,0% 6,0% 3,0% 100,0% affilia- Hunga- 100,0% 100,0% tion rian Greek 8,0% 92,0% 100,0%
151 16. Marriage-appropriate age of boys, in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no.16 Marriage-appropriate age of boys, in relation to ethnic affiliation Boy’s age Total No 15-18 18-21 22-25 26-30 Resp. Ethnic Roma 1,5% 24,9% 38,3% 32,3% 3,0% 100,0 affiliation % Hunga- 100,0% 100,0 rian % Greek 12,0% 32,0% 56,0% 100,0 %
17. Marriage-appropriate age of girls, in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no.17
Marriage-appropriate age of girls, in relation to ethnic affiliation Girls age Total No 15-18 18-21 22-25 26-30 Resp Ethnic Roma 2,0% 53,7% 33,3% 9,5% 1,5% 100,0 affiliation % Hunga- 100,0% 100,0 rian % Greek 12,0% 76,0% 12,0% 100,0 %
3.6. Opinions and evaluations regarding the relations between minority and majority (cooperation/discrimination) The types of relations between the majoritarian population and the minorities are very important, because a good coexistence is based on mutual appreciation and respect. The types of relations existing between the majority and the ethnic populations in Oltenia are identified with the help of the question: „How do you evaluate the relations between your ethny and Romanians, in general?”. The respondents were asked to evaluate the inter-ethnic relations by reporting to five variants of answers, which identify with the type of relation or cooperation, respectively (46,3%), friendship (37%), indifference (11,9%), hatred (2,2%), other type of relation (2,6%). These data point out the fact that the subjective perception of the majority of participants in the study regarding inter-ethnic relations is that between the majority and the ethnies in Oltenia there is a majority of cooperation and friendship relations. In the case of relations of indifference, the respondents’ subjective perspective is different depending on ethny, the lowest percentage being with the relations of the Greeks/ Hungarians and Romanians, and the highest in the Roma/ Romanian relations. The issue of discrimination and confrontation with unfavourable situations because of ethny was measured by the question: „Has it ever happen to you that a right of yours was infringed just because you are….?”. More than half of the respondents (54.6%) declared they have not been involved in situations where a person had to suffer because they belonged to a certain ethny, 39.2% cannot evaluate certain situations of this kind, and 6.2% signaled they do not know anything about the infringement of any rights.
152 40. How do you evaluate the relations between members of your ethny and Romanians, in general? 1. Cooperation 2. Friendship 3. Indifference 4 Hatred 5 Other type (which?...) How do you evaluate the relations between your ethny and Romanians? % 1. Cooperation 46,3 2. Friendship 37,0 3. Indifference 11,9 4. Other type 2,6 5. Hatred 2,2 Total 100,0 %
41. Was ever a right infringed in your case just because you are...... ? 1. Yes (which right?...... ) 2. No 3. I cannot evaluate Was ever a right infringed in your case just because you are …… ? % 1. No 54,6 2. I cannot evaluate 39,2 3. Yes 6,2 Total 100,0 %
Correlations Relations between ethny members and Romanians, in relation to age Table no.1 How do you evaluate the relations between your ethny Total and Romanians, in general? Coope- Friendship Indif- Hatred Other type ration ference of relations Age 18-25 37,2% 48,8% 7,0% - 7,0% 100,0% 26-33 31,6% 42,1% 26,3% - - 100,0% 34-41 50,0% 25,9% 11,1% 7,4% 5,6% 100,0% 42-50 63,6% 27,3% 6,1% 3,0% - 100,0% 51-60 51,7% 37,9% 10,3% - - 100,0% 61 and 46,7% 43,3% 10,0% - - 100,0% above
153 Relations between ethny and Romanians in relation to gender Gender Total Male Female 37.How do you Cooperation 50,5% 49,5% 100,0% evaluate the Friendship 45,2% 54,8% 100,0% relations Indifference 18,5% 81,5% 100,0% between your Hatred 20,0% 80,0% 100,0% ethny and Other type of 33,3% 66,7% 100,0% Romanians, in relations general?
Opinions regarding the infringement of ethny rights in relation to the occupation of the respondents Table no.3 Was any of your rights infringed just Total because you are...... ? No Resp. Yes No Cannot tell Occu- No Response 38,5% 7,7% 30,8% 23,1% 100,0% pation Worker - 9,1% 39,4% 51,5% 100,0% Freelancer - - 100,0% 100,0% Seller, merchant, sales - - 100,0% - 100,0% agent, distributor Technician, Foreman, - - 100,0% - 100,0% Public Clerk Doctor, engineer, - 12,5% 87,5% - 100,0% teacher Pupil/Student - - 100,0% - 100,0% Pensioner 5,9% 5,9% 58,8% 29,4% 100,0% Unemployed - - 66,7% 33,3% 100,0% Stay-at-home/ No - 7,1% 59,6% 33,3% 100,0% occupation
Evaluation of relations between ethnics and Romanians in relation to ethnic affiliation Table no.4 Evaluation of relations between ethnics and Romanians in relation to ethnic affiliation How do you evaluate the relations between your community Total and Romanians? Cooperation Friendship Indifference Hatred Other type of relations Ethnic Roma 49,3% 31,8% 13,4% 2,5% 3,0% 100,0% affilia- Hunga- 100,0% - - - 100,0% tion rian Greek 20,0% 80,0% - - - 100,0%
154 Opinions regarding the infringement of civ il rights in relation to the ethnic affiliation of the respondents Table no.5 ÎInfringement of rights because of ethny affiliation in relation to it Was any of your rights infringed just because Total you are...... ?
No Yes No Cannot be Response evaluated
Ethnic Roma 2,5% 6,0% 50,2% 41,3% 100,0% affiliation Hungarian - - 100,0% - 100,0% Greek 4,0% 8,0% 88,0% - 100,0%
4. Conclusions and evaluations The population of the 5 counties of Oltenia is of 2, 045, 642 inhabitants, of which 91.60% Romanians, and the rest of 8.40% pertain to a number of 17 ethnic minorities. Of all these, the most significant in size are the Roma community (63,899 persons or 3.08% of the population), Serbs (1124 or 0.059%), Hungarians (752 or 0.04%), Czechs (476 or 0.025%) and Germans (307 or 0.016%). The Roma can be found in all 5 counties of Oltenia region, but their number is preponderant in Dolj (29 839 people) and Mehedinti (10,919 people). They have the widest territorial coverage, their presence being signaled in both the rural and urban areas. For example, in the towns and cities of Dolj County there are 10733 Roma, representing 3.12% of the total population. In communes and surrounding villages of this district live 19 106 Roma people, which means that the Roma population in rural areas is almost double that of urban areas. Ethnic minorities in Oltenia are the Roma, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Germans, Turks, Lippovan Russians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Italians, Hebrews, Czechs, Macedonians, with a variable number of people: from a minimum of 47 (in the case of Russian Lippovans ) to a maximum of 63 899 people (the Roma). Also included are other minorities that each are made up of fewer than 10 people, such as the Tatars, Slovaks, Croats, Poles, Chinese, Armenian, Csango etc. The ethnic diversity of the population in Oltenia are not correlated, in the case of the existing minorities, with a large number of appertaining people in the cases of Roma, Serbs, Hungarians, Czechs and Germans, who each have demographic resources of self-reproduction and perpetuating. Otherwise, the population of the other minorities is sensitively aging, and thus decreasing numerically, in time reaching extinction. The Roma community is not homogeneous, being fragmented in numerous occupational structures and sociocultural identities. Thus, we meet fiddlers, florists, tinmen, spoon makers, goldsmiths, Hungarian gypsies, copper-smiths, wood workers, brick makers, blacksmiths, etc. The data of the field research, made on a mixed sample (91.8% Roma, 7.9% Greeks and 0,3% Hungarians), revealed that more than half (57%) of the respondents are of the younger age groups, between 18 and 41, while 25.7% are aged 51 and above. Thus, we can understand that the Roma ethny especially disposes of a vigurous work potential, which is not completely capitalized, since the degree of professionalism or qualification is low, such young energies not being utilized in economic-social activities of local communities.
155 From a gender point of view, the examined minorities are made up of 51.6% females and 48.4% males, these percentages being similar to the ones that characterize the general population in Romania. Also, it was noted that defining for the Roma, particularly, are the worker occupations (22.9%) and freelancers (4.2%), while a significant part of them have no occupation or stay at home (37.4%). On the date of the research only 2.8% of the total of the respondents maintained that they perform activities based on higher education qualifications (doctors, teachers, engineers). For that matter, the percentage of Roma involved in the high-school and higher education levels is of only 4.6% of the total of respondents, which explains the low level of employment in qualified positions of the members of this community and their possibility to access usually only seasonal, occasional work. The collected data show that 33.6% went to primary school, 27.2% finished the secondary schoo and 18% have attended no school at all. On the ensemble of the sample there are 15.2% who graduated from high-school, 5.7% attended higher education studies, and 0.3% who graduated from an after high-school form of education. Consequently, unskilled people are forced to carry out and perform occasional jobs without employment contract. Therefore they do not qualify for a pension, either for sickness or old age, and have no health insurance. Field research revealed that over 60% of the Roma community members have either family, household occupations, or are workers or are outside of socially useful occupations. Therefore, it is necessary that the authorities of local communities understand that they have a duty to mobilize Roma families to send their children to school in order not only to obtain general training, but for the acquisition of professional qualifications, which would allow them to occupy a job and actively integrate into society. A successful solution might be leading young Roma toward vocational schools because there is a shortage of manpower in the practice of building trades (welding, blacksmith-labourer, locksmith, mechanic, etc.), services (plumbers, drivers etc.) etc. The lack of stable monthly income and of other material sources of existence determines the Roma community to be preoccupied permanently by the procurement of subsitence goods and values, instead of cultural activities and of intellectual efforts. The various material needs are more visible for the Roma families living in rural areas, as they don’t even have civilized living conditions (running water, restroom, etc.). Any ethnic minority is keen to be recognized its status in society, to enjoy a certain social prestige, respect of its rights and traditions. Therefore, the social interaction of individuals and component groups of some minorities is much higher than in the case of a majority. The stronger the social interactions in ethnic communities and happen as part of a process of continuing education, the more prominent is the solidarity in the respective ethny. Some psycho-sociological interpretations associate the size of the minority group with the feeling of psychological discomfort, while awareness of belonging to a majority group provides self-confidence and hope that individual / family needs can be resolved more easily than in the case of the minority group. More than half (51.5%) of respondents perceived their community as of medium size, and another 28.5% rated it as large - an opinion supported especially by those of Roma ethnicity. This is true, as is shown by the statistics presented in Chapter II, which shows that there is a diversity of ethnic groups in terms of component members. Note that each interviewed member reported himself to the local community, to which it belongs rather than to the general one, existing on the five counties of Oltenia. Thus, the fact that 80% of Roma people felt they belong to large and medium Roma ethnic communities gives them a tonic moral support and a mental state of confidence that, if necessary, they have where to turn; this all the more as their families are numerous and kinship relations usually function very well.
156 Solidarity is a defining mark of the members of Roma community. About 75% of those polled confessed that they are in regular contact with each other, which indicates a strong social fabric throughout this race. Field research also revealed that 70% are in friendship relations with those from the same ethnic group, and 22.8% had friends among the Romanians. With increasing level of education comes increased number of those who have friends among Romanians, which can be explained by the fact that the communication relations of Roma people are extending, primarily those in the same job. Throughout the sample we noticed that over 80% of the subjects polled revealed that „they are solidary, they help each other when needed”. This answer characterizes 78.6% of the Roma, 96% of the Greeks and 100% the Hungarians ethnics. The holidays in which the members of the studied ethnies generally take part in are Christian ones – Easter, Christmas and St. Mary, indicated by 67.8% of those polled, and other secular ones (such as the National Day of Romania, indicated by 11.7% of the respondents, who were Roma and Greeks), so that we cannot talk about celebrations specific to one minority or another (of the ones examined by us). For the duration of the respective celebrations there is an accented collectiv spirit which does not allow minority or ethnic differences to be visible. An argument is that over 83% of respondents considered their relations with the Romanians to be of „cooperation” or „friendship”. In consequence, especially on the occasion of major religious celebrations, which have a more popular character, but also in the case of secular ones, there is an framework for social assimilation and integration of the members of the ethnic groups into the larger territorial collectivities (towns, villages), which determines us to recommend a systematic cultivation of religious education as main way to harmonize inter-ethnic relations. We mention that in Oltenia there have not yet been major tense of conflict relations between the existing ethnic groups. The social factors which ensure the perpetuation of ethnic groups are mainly endogamous marriage, mother tongue and organic solidarity relations between the members of each ethnic community. "In Romania there are many sociological and anthropological researches on the Roma population, the Hungarians, the German ethnic groups, Turks etc. < 170 Adrian Otovescu, Conservarea identităţi culturale în mediile de imigranţi români din Europa, Publishing House of the National Museum of Romanian Literature, Bucharest, 2013 171 Ibidem, p.76 157 it to be important to first understand the social identityt172 of the ethnic minorities, that being fundamental in the process of exploration and understanding of cultural identity. The assertion we started from, fundamented by empirical observations, is that members of the same ethny tend to marry between themselves, this practice being very popular among the Roma population. Although over 50% of the polled denied the existence of this custom, saying that „it is not a rule” regarding choosing one’s life partner through marriage, however 43% admitted that, in fact, marriage only happens „between the members” of the ethnic community (statement supported in a larger percentage by women – 53.3%, than men – 46.7%). In consequence, endomagous marriage and families constitute on this type of social relation a significant role in the conservation of the ethnic identity, noting that 46.6% of the Roma sustained the existence of the endogamous marriage, while no one of the Greeks or Hungarians even indicated this answer option, their options being that „it is not a rule” or that those in their community mostly marry „Romanians”. The language frequently spoken within the family in the case of researched minorities (Roma, Greeks, and Hungarians) is both the mother tongue, as well as Romanian, 55% of the total of the sample mostly using the latter, and 45% mostly the one of their own ethny. The lower is the level of studies of the ethnics, the smaller the percentage of those who speak Romanian. The research data proved that over 66% of those with no formal education and over 63% of those with primary school education use their mother tongue to communicate within their families (this situation, of course, applies to the Roma ethny). The use of the Romanian language at home is more present for those with high-school (a percentage of 85), after high-school (100%) and higher education studies (100%). Linking data about the frequently spoken language in the family and ethnicity reveals that 51% of Roma use Romanian and 49% Romani and the Greeks and Hungarians speak, in their totality, Romanian. In relations with people of the same ethnicity both the mother tongue and Romanian are used for communication, a fact supported by 56% of respondents, while 17.5% only uses their mother tongue. Nearly 79% of Roma, 96% of Greeks and 100% of Hungarians felt that the solidarity among the members of different ethnic groups is a real social fact, helping each other when needed. Solidarity is based on the awareness of common belonging and on a sense of relief. Research has shown that they possess an awareness of the existence of specific features of their ethnicity, supported by 58% of the interviewed subjects The main cultural features by which and ethny is different from the others were considered by the respondents to be the following: mother tongue (chosen by 44.5% of the total of the sample); traditional costume (22.7%); music (14.3%), religion (6.8%), food preparation (1%). The information was obtained with the help of questions with pre- formulated answers. The written culture of the Greek and Hungarian ethnies is less accessed by its members from Oltenia, since only about 31% of them stated that they still read books or other publications in their mother tongue (rarely 22.9%, daily 5.7%, and monthly 2.2%). In turn, the relations with people in their country of origin are maintained by 74.2% of Hungarian and Greek ethnics, the first ones in a greater measure than the latter (the smaller distance to Hungary being, probably, a helping factor). Observing traditions characterizes over 95% of the members of the Roma, Hungarian and Greek communityies in Oltenia, only 4.4% saying that those in their ethny do not respect their „own traditions” at all. 172 It is valued base don certain markers regarding marriage relations and family situations, the level of studies, social environment (urban/rural), occupation/profession, class affiliation, social prestige (Ibidem pp. 109-110) 158 Although there is awareness of ethnic specificity, when the subjects were requested to name the cultural values that help identify their ethnic group only 15% were able to offer an answer, while the vast majority (85%) could not make any comment. Thus, 5% of the respondents indicated the „artistic spirit”, 3.1% „diligence”, 2.6% „respect”, 2.6% „talent”, 0,4% „hospitality”. Also, in order to understand to what extent some of the cultural values of the Romanian people are known, a free question was formulated, referring to literary values, knowing they are well-known and being study matter in school as well. In this case also there is a majority of non-answers (68.3%), and of those who were able to indicate an answer, 19% mentioned the name of Mihai Eminescu, 6,6% that of Ion Creangă, 2,2% that of Mihail Sadoveanu, 1,3% that of I.L.Caragiale. It is clear that the lack of schooling (18%) and the primary level of education (33,6%), which characterize 51% of the sample subjects, who are Roma, made a mark on the capacity and availability of the polled to offer conclusive answers. Over 60% of the subjects identified themselves with the ethnies they are affiliated with and 37.8% stated that they consider themselves more Romanian than Roma/ Greeks/ Hungarians. The ethnic affiliation is linked with a feeling of pride for 56.4%, while 3.5% feel shame (only acknowledged to by the Roma and the Greeks), while 40.1% could offer no answer. The undesirable character of certain people influences the self-esteem of those of the same ethny, and the confessed negative opinion (shame) is based on a healthy critical perception of those who become involuntary victims, being forced to stand the consequences of certain group social labelings. The majority of families (55,9%) of the three ethnic groups researched in the area of Oltenia underlined the fact that their life in the present is more difficult than last year and only 35.7% registered an improvement. Over 70% of them have incomes smaller than the ones needed to cover their own needs. However, the general state of mind is optimistic, since 53.8% believe they will have a better life in the future. A significant role in this optimistic state is most likely given also by the perspective of leaving the country to go and work abroad. Let us not forget that in the case of 61.1% of the families of ethnic minoritiesin Oltenia there exists at least one person that has worked or is currently working abroad. More than 69% of the interviewed ethnics considered work to be a moral and social value, considering it the main way to make a living. Other 21.5% are waiting to receive „state aid”, being subject to long-gone prejudices, and 1.2% don’t exclude resorting to criminal actions (theft, begging, conning people), these being indicated by some members of the Roma community. Characteristic for the studied ethnies is the traditional type of family, in which the husband must work (47.1%) and bring money in the household (24.4%), while the wife has several roles: to take care of the family (29.2%), to work (23.5%), to take care of the children’s education (22.5%), etc. This pattern of family roles is, in fact, characteristic to the living universe of the Roma people, who have the highest percentage within the sample studied by the sociological inquest method. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Frăsie, Maria-Cristina, 2010, Minorităţile naţionale şi drepturile omului, în vol. Tratat de sociologie generală (coord. D. Otovescu), Beladi Publishing, Craiova. 2. Norman, Goodman, 1998, Introducere în sociologie, Lider Publishing, Bucharest. 3. Otovescu, Adrian, 2013, Conservarea identităţi culturale în mediile de imigranţi români din Europa, Publishing House of the National Mueum of Romanian Literature, Bucharest. 4. Panea, Nicolae, 2000, Antropologia culturală şi socială – vademecum, Omniscop Publishing, Craiova. 159 OLTENIA, AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL SKETCH NICOLAE PANEA PhD Desperate with the accumulation of emergencies, with the feeling that the entire Romanian ethnology is under the sign of recovering the time lost because of political, financial, institutional, epistemic blocks, desperate with the dephasing between schools tendencies, currents, themes, bibliographies around the world, overwhelmed by the lack of inadequateness of university programmes, by the discreet voice of the national school, by the rift between society and school, society that treats ethnology like an intellectual curiosity, tolerating the bunch of scholars like a sort of scientific adventurers or not so praise-worthy derivatives of philosophy, sociology, philology, the ethnologist discovered the notion of project. He suddenly entered an equation of the modern world, which both challenges and obligates him to think his own activity within new coordinates, I would say even improper to his profession: the ones of the arbitrariness of competition and of the temporary- accounting constraints. Regardless of how scientifically generous a project may be, it must be won, implemented, the steps must be made in order, reported systematically, the accounting aspect observed stricter than scientific opinions, activities that shape a new dimension of our ethnology, applied or adaptation bureaucracy. This is a kind of very pressing misalliance, between science and the institutional interface of society, between the responsibility toward the subject of the research and the legislative- bureaucratic architecture of the state. The result is the creation of a multiple personality ethnologist. In his eyes and those of his fellow ethnologists, he is a scholar. For them, the concept, the work, the finalized inquest, the published text, are important. For the sponsor he is a project manager, a neutral personality, with no concrete identity, a contractor. The text represents only an investment and what really matters is the balance sheet. This modern-day Janus must adapt to an overwhelming bureaucracy and, at the same time, adapt it to the needs of his science. Most of the times the results are impressive; however, in some cases they remain in an anonymity that equals failure. This adapting bureaucracy of scientific project also has an impressive shaping power. The competition imposes inventiveness and constraints; it shapes scientific behaviours, depending on the time of the project, the amounts available to it, the particularities of the team. It builds up a new fashion. The themes proposed can be adapted to general contexts, rural development, tourism development, regional identity, etc., insinuating with logical flexibility in allogenous rhetoric, always attentive to terms, amounts, finality, and feasibility. The settled, multi-annual, sometimes life-long research, with huge, self-imposed themes, validated by the scientific councils of institutions in this area of research is challenged by annual or biannual restraining research, validated by anonymous commissions of some ministries. The ethnologist must adapt along the way to the new conditions, because the scientific exactness of results, their utility and relevance depend on his capacity to adapt. Professor, Faculty of Letters, University of Craiova, Romania . 160 The change Romania underwent post-revolution allowed Romanian ethnology to rediscover Romanian-speaking communities that live outside the borders of the country, and, at the same time, the consciousness that the time gone determined substantial changes within these communities, changes remained unstudied. Since almost all these communities live in aggressive contexts, with states that don’t recognize their Romanian origins or simply the cultural otherness and, implicitly, the rights stemming from it, with dramatic denationalising pressure, a true current of recuperation emerged, a major theme of our ethnology, where the scientific responsibility intertwines with patriotic passion. From the very beginning it was noted that an independent research was nearly impossible, that no matter how important the impersonal relations, they could not make up for the opaqueness and even aversion of the authorities. We lived ourselves such an unpleasant experience when, during the mid-ninties, after the success of a research on the Bulgarian part of the Timočka Krajina, part of the team, (N. Panea, M. Fifor) tried to extend, for obvious reasons, this inquest toward the West of Timočka Krajina, to the Serbian side. The failure of said attempt convinced us that any descent in such areas must have the maximum scientific, institutional, administrative- political coverage, and this can be achieved only through specific projects. The emergence of cross-border development strategies, initially with Bulgaria and Hungary, and then with Serbia as well, eased the development of some projects, with remarkable results. The involvement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, through its Department of ”Policies for the relation with Romanians everywhere” ensured the fluency and, at the same time, an increase in the number of research teams present in the Romanian communities across the border. Even more so, every important university situated close to the border focused its research in the adjoining cross-border areas, which allowed for a rhythmic, sustained, profound and diverse research, even though, and this needed to be subject to the regulations, especially the financial ones, of the saving institution, which is called Project and which we learned to adore. Sometimes, the limitations are the dysfunctions imposed by the development of a project, and no matter how annoying and frustrating they may seem, they sometimes (not always!) produce happy solutions. One of them would be the mirror discovery of the interest for the minorities „next to you”, those minorities that, together with the majority, make up the cultural profile of a region, in our case Oltenia. 1.Oltenia, space of multiculturalism Oltenia, area of interference, has shaped in time a particular culture, determined by the wealth of other’s alluvium. „In Dolj County Community of Italians from Friuli in Cernele (former village Italieni, now Izvor); Community of Bulgarians and Macedonians in Băileşti; Community of Romani people in Sadova, Piscu Vechi, Sălcuţa, Tencănău, Cerăt, Murgaşi, Rojiştea, Craiova, Filiaşi; In Craiova there are families of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Armenians, Jews, Hungarians, Italians, Germans, Turks, Macedonians; In Vâlcea County Communities of wood workers in Vaideeni, Băbeni, Bujoreni; they worked in wood, as they still do; Romani people in Brezoi, who worked in the wood industry. 161 In Brezoi, during the interwar period, tens of Italian families worked in the wood industry. There is no information according to which they remained there (see the book of Petre, Bardaşu, Brezoi, 100 de ani de la exploatarea forestieră; 1873-1973, Rm. Vâlcea, f. an.) In Rm. Vâlcea there are families of Slavic ethnics, as well as Italians, Germans, Hungarians, Jews and Romani (of different typologies). The wood workers also had communities in Loviştei Country, Valea lui Stan and Brezoi; lately, their number was reduced because of the lack of the material vital to their work: willow, poplar and linden. In Gorj County There are wood workers in the following localities: Brădiceni (Buduhala village), Godineşti (Pârâu village), Borăscu (spoons and spindles factory). Copper-smith Romani people (gipsies) in Budieni, Obreja and „Meteor” neighbourhood in Târgu-Jiu (N.B. during the last 20 years they changed professions). The „lăieţi” gipsies are documented and still live in Cărbuneşti and around that town. In Târgu-Jiu there are families of Greeks, Turks, Germans, Serbs, Hungarians, Italians, Romani people. Mehedinţi County Community of Serbs in Sviniţa (commune with a population of about 90% Serbs); The communities of Czechs in Eibenthal, Sfânta Elena, Bigar, Gârnic, Ravenska, Sfânta Elisabeta etc; The Romani communities in Strehaia; In Turnu Severin there also live families of Czechs, Jews, Italians, Turks, Germans, Romani people, Hungarians. Olt County (Romanaţi) Community of copper-smith gipsies in Drăgăneşti-Olt; In Slatina there are families of Romani, Hungarians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Italians, Jews, and Macedonians. We wish to underline the fact that, apart from the Romani ethnicity that has tight-knit communities in all counties, Oltenia does not have majority ethnic settlements; with two exceptions: the Eibenthal village (Dubova commune – Mehedinţi) with approximately 280 Czech inhabitants, and Sviniţa with about 900 inhabitants of Serbian ethnicity (according to Associate Professor Cornel Bălosu) However, the minorities that contributed to the imposition of a regional cultural identity were never globally researched, were never brought together, they were never the subject of a transversal, unitary, homogeneous radiography. This was the purpose of our project and, regardless of what it will be viewed as, it has a series of undeniable qualities. Firstly, it is an example of emergency ethnology, focused on an unusual subject, the minorities in their regional ensemble. Secondly, the approach is coherent and unitary in its transdisciplinarity. Thirdly, the theoretical approach is an academic one; all the members of the research teams being part of reputed research institutions, themselves with experience in the study of minorities. In the fourth place, the field research was systematic, based on an important documentation work. In the fifth place, the present research may be considered a diagnosis. It not only notes the state of a minority in the national Romanian context, it can also draw comparisons with the state of Romanian minorities existing in neighbouring countries, political behaviours, 162 integration strategies, etc., especially since we talk about everyone’s coexistence in an administrative unit such as an Euro-region. The analysis pointed out a staggering diversity of contexts. Oltenia gathered an impressively large number of minorities, which proves the existence of a permeable cultural climate and a high level if not of tolerance, at least of acceptance of coexistence. However, not all of them played a first-hand role in shaping the cultural profile of the area. Some can be named historic, their coming on Romanian soil being very old (the Serbs), others very recent (the Polish in the 40s of the past century, the Greeks, in a last wave, during the military dictatorship), the majority settling here between the 18th and the 19th centuries. Others have imprecise dates to their arrival here (Romani, Jews, Bulgarians). The context of the arrival of some of them is very clear, constructions, commerce and the development of the towns in the area, especially Craiova (Italians, Jews, Greeks, Germans), border guarding and forestry or the politics of neighbouring empires (the Czechs), of others, obscure (the Macedonians, Albanians). Some minorities coagulated close groups, keeping their communities and language( the Romani, the Czechs, the Serbs), others integrated losing their language and customs, but keeping the space where they lived well-determined (Bulgarians, rural Italians) and others face being dissolved within the majority community (Macedonians, Albanians, Greeks). Some minorities are well-represented numerically (Serbs, Romani), others are discreet (Italians, Jews, Greeks), and others are in a marked dissolution process (the Polish, the Germans). Some are very well organized, benefiting from education in their own languages (state- owned or private), religious service and places of worship, public libraries with books in their own languages (Serbs, Czech, Italians), or cultural organizations, own administration (Serbs, Czechs), others have only ethnic or cultural organizations in activity and modest representativeness (the Bulgarians, the Macedonians and the Albanians). Some are known as such by the majority, others are received with uncertainty, ambiguously (the Bulgarians in Băileşti are mistaken for and called Serbs, the Macedonians are mistaken for Bulgarians or Bosnians, depending on the route they took to come to Romania or, simply, they are denied the exo-ethnicity by the fact that they are completely assimilated and numerically without real representativeness. Some minorities belong to Oltenia only administratively (the Serbs and Czechs at the border with Mehedinţi County), customs borrowed from Romanians, the typologies of living proving that they are more from Banat, other are credited to Oltenia in their entirety. All minorities researched are bilingual, using their maternal language for interpersonal communication, intracommunitary, except for the closed communities (Serbs and Czechs), who use their language also in administration, at school and in church. The majority have close relations with their countries of origin. They, in return, provide publications, teachers (the Czechs), stipends for children, cultural exchanges. Some minorities have known intense repatriation (Greeks, Italians, Germans, Polish), others seasonal (the Czechs), thus contributing to the process of dissolution of their own communities. All of them are interested to keep and prove their identity, almost as an obsession, for which reason we encountered everywhere either exhibitions, or museum collections. We decided to collect all of them in a museum of the minorities. 163 2.Anthropological constants. The approach from the perspective of cultural anthropology is, in fact, a synthesis of diverse information, present in the studies of the members of the research team. Their synthetisation was made from the perspective of the four identity coagulant nuclei that define a culture: language, kinship, concept about space and forms of understanding time. From a linguistic point of view, the minority panorama of the region is a true challenge. And when we make this statement we consider the double pole, the one of linguistic nature and the one of linguistic practice, of structure and of competence. We may state that the principle of compatibility is not relevant. But the Italians speak a language (Romance) related to the Romanian and this reality can be considered one of the reasons of their rapid and radical integration. Apart from that, we have Slavonic languages (Bulgarians, Serbs, Macedonians, Polish, Czechs), Albanian, Greek (unique linguistic branches, of the Eastern group of the Indo- European language in the case of Albanian, and the Southern branch in the case of the Greek language) and the Romani language. In the majority of the cases, the mother tongues are used as means of communication, with the exception of the Macedonian community in the Southern part of Dolj County (Giurgiţa and Băileşti), where there is no fluent speaker anymore. The performance of communication is different and it covers a very wide range from rudimentary to remarkable abilities. Young speakers either approximately know the mother tongue, or they don’t know it at all, or they learn it through courses organized by their ethnic cultural organizations, in some cases (Romani, Serbs, Czechs), in state schools, in other situations (Italians), in confessional schools. The majority of mother tongues are, in fact, dialects (the Italians speak the Friulan dialect, the Czechs the Bohemian dialect), with an obvious archaic aspect to them. The literary dimension was attained exclusively in school, radio and TV broadcasts, the media or literature. Sometimes, the spoken language determined their appellative in the regional space (from Bohemians, the Czechs are called „pimi” in Romanian). Other times, as in the case of the Serbs in Sviniţa, the language creates identity dilemmas. They noticed they get along a lot easier with current speakers from former Yugoslav Macedonia than they do with their very close neighbours, the Serbs. Only in the two compact communities (the Serbs in Sviniţa and the Czechs in Eibenthal), the mother tongues are also official, administrative languages. For all minority languages there are state or community forms of education, local and/ or national. The Romani, Serb and Bulgarian minorities have educational structures up to university level (Romani and Serbs), sometimes, with places reserved for them (Romani). For the large majority of minority communities the religious service is in their maternal language (except for the Romani, Bulgarian, Macedonian and Greek minorities). All minority communities are practically bilingual. From the point of view of kinship, the situation of these communities is ambiguous. In the past, preponderantly endogamic, the parental panorama became relaxed and permitted exogamy, but in different measures, from one ethnicity to another. The most conservative are the representatives of the Romani community, who also have the most interesting family formula. In general, all minority communities are characterized through a nuclear type of family; mixed, lately. The Romani minority maintains, at least structurally, the formula of patriarchal family, with a quasi functional role of the patriarch (the gipsy leader), of which the juridical ones prevail. This type of family constitutes the basis of integrated social organization, typical for this ethnicity, family, kin, and clan. It is a known structure and preserved by the state. 164 From the point of view of the concept about space, we will tackle to aspects, regarding settlement and living. When we refer to structured, unitary communities, we must say that the cultural dimension of spatiality is characterized by marginality. Either it’s about urban Romani settlements (Meteor in Tg. Jiu, Faţa Luncii in Craiova or Tg. Cărbuneşti), or we talk about the rural settlements (Sadova, Piscu Vechi, Vaideeni, Băbeni), where the Romanian area is clearly delimitated from the Romani one, or if we talk about settlements of Bulgarians or Macedonians in Băileşti, the Italians in Talieni, they all have in common the peripheral situation in reference to the majority community. This reality has a historic character and it persists: „The population of the commune of Băileşti is composed of two elements, of Romanians and of so-called Serbs (of Bulgarian origin) (sic!) These two elements form two distinct neighbourhoods: the actual inhabitants of Băileşti (Romanians) and the Serb neighbourhood which populates mostly the Northern part of the commune. These elements have long been separated through their family ties and only since a few years these family and alliance ties were established between them. The Serb element (Bulgarian) in origin was brought for agriculture” (according to Charles Laugier) To this assumed marginality we add another type of marginality, imposed, as in the case of the Czech community in Eibenthal. Deported here by the Austrian administration, for multiple reasons, rather supposed than documented, among which that of protecting the delicate border that divided two Romanian-speaking populations that never considered themselves to be divided, is the most important, to which there is added an economic one, the „pemi” (as they are called in Romanian) live in the truest sense of marginality. Their isolation is impressive even today. Regarding living, each community initially had a living model that kept the features of their area of origin. In time, this model suffered cultural syncretism that led to the adoption of allogenous models. There are, however, particular situations. The case of the Czechs in Eibenthal is again relevant. Field research convinced us of the following aspects, which I quote from Cornel Bălosu’s report: ”Even like this, we can learn that the traditional living space of the Eibenthal type was built from stone tied with clay and lime mortar and sand. The museum of the place if housed by such a dwelling with a two-way roof, with two rooms and a storage room: the first room in which the parents slept was also the kitchen. The second room, more spacious, was the children’s room. In the kitchen the heating and cooking were done on a hotplate stove; in the other room there was a brick stove. We could say that the layout and architecture of the village make no reference to the Serbian Banat...” The comparison to the community of Serbs is imposed because both settlements have suffered displacements due to exceptional events, a fire that devastated the settlement of the Czech community and the construction of the Porţile de Fier dam that led to the flooding of the old Sviniţa. If in the case of the Serb community the new dwelling pattern is the one from Banat and, by extension, the one particular to the Austrian- Hungarian space, the Czech settlement does not respect the same pattern. The old architecture in Sviniţa is poorly represented by dwellings built very high, probably outside the traditional centre of the village, and that proves the existence of a Balkan architectural pattern. Another example referring to exceptional cases regarding dwelling is that of the Romani minority. The last decades brought about the imposition of an architecture particular to the Romani minority, ostentatious above all. The constitution of an architectural style is legitimizing identity. It does not target functionality, because in the most cases the buildings are designed with no utilitarian function. 165 Huge hallways, monumental staircases prevail, and they are imposed by the owners instead of real living space, and this considering that these palaces are inhabited, in most cases they are built only out of social vanity, an emphasis of role, statute and social position. Generally built without approval, sometimes even without a project, these palaces are of a rather rhetorical function, not utilitarian, that of impressing and proving the welfare of the owner. Paradoxically, the effect is also one of marginalization, even denial, rejection. The lack of taste and sense, the pointless hyper dimensioning, lead to a stylistic and social marginalization. We can even talk about a ratification of the marginal, as central effect of the new dwelling form chosen by the members of the Romani community. From the point of view of the concept of time, the report between profane and celebratory times functions perfectly and the celebration is the one that coagulates temporal identities, be it secular or religious. We must specify that we are dealing with three types of calendars, according to the confessions of the existing minorities, the Orthodox, the Old Calendar Orthodox and the Catholic or Protestant. From the point of view of secular celebrations, the minorities kept a series of identity- related festive nuclei, but they have also adopted Romanian celebrations. From a religious point of view, however, there is a distinct configuration. If the Romani have an important celebration on St. Mary’s day, the Serbs honour St. Sava as well as Saints Nicholas and George. Each family chooses a patron saint. St. Mary’s cult is present in all Catholic minorities (Polish, Czech), together with the very popular miracle saint, St. Anthony. Our conclusions converge toward outlining a predictable scheme regarding the minorities statute in European context. Oltenia has a very large number of minorities. Not all, numerically speaking, are the same, some are well defined, other more discreet. Obviously, their contribution to the cultural profile of the area is different. They are all in a real process of acculturation, parallel to the presence of a visible effort of identity preservation, however made chaotically and rather spectacularly. With little exception, the administrative communities, their majority, are in a visible assimilation or dissolution process. There is no minority solidarity on a regional scale, and, implicitly, common politics, common solutions to problems, their assuming a cultural contribution to the realization of regional identity. The majority has a relatively tolerant behaviour toward minorities, neutral in the worst case. There are no known efforts to support minority communities, with the quasi-general exception case of the Romani people. There is no real consciousness of multiculturalism in the area, as a result of the poor knowledge and understanding of these minorities. 166 LIVE STORIES GABRIELA RUSU, PhD (pen name Gabriela Rusu-Păsărin) 1.Prospects of approach and interpretation Psichological introspection and direct observation are the most utilized means for the configuration of life stories, narrative structures that bring out the personality of an important actor for the minority community (in the case of our studies) and/ or for the public space in which the actor of the story performed. The autobiographical narrative is an aspect of the life story, the subjective targets are evident, the ultimate dominant note being that of self- appeciation of the reference environment. There are parametres that can be analyzed to draw up the profile of the actor of the story at a certain moment. The reading grid of the storyteller may be shaped by direct approach to obtain all relevant details, which will be linked with the information already obtained and will eventually contextualise everything within the analysis frameworks, or by asking for the participation of an intermediary in the family or community environment, who will offer a perspective of the life story, agian under the spectre of subjective approach. The interview, the most common method of data collection in quality studies, was used in the case of the three stories selected for analysis, in different forms: radio interview (with spontaneous questions and answers), conversation based on a previously given theme, and written interview with questions offered for reflection and answering. The three perspectives generated the idea of combining the forms of recomposition of the life story and a bifocal perspective was obtained, esentially based on a phenomenological approach. Reading and interpretation from this latter perspective allow for the completion of the story with subsequently obtained details, without affecting the overall image (image barometre) of the actor of the story. 1.1. Forms of the life stories The three protagonists are perceived in the public space as representing personalities of a certain minority or of a certain area of expertise. Lucian Zatti was a Romanian writer and journalist of Italian origin. Oana Manolescu is a writer and a deputy of the Romanian Parliament, as well as the President of the Association Cultural League of Albanians in Romania. Anina Ciuciu is gipsy, the first Romanian student of Romani ethnicity who is a MA student at Sorbonne, co-author (together with Frédéric Veille) of an autobiographical prose volume titled Mândră de a fi rromă: de la Faţa Luncii la Sorbona: un destin de excepţie (Pandora publishing, Bucharest, 2014). The challenge of relating these life stories was centred on the interview linked with the content analysis of the literary creation. I invited Anina Ciuciu during the broadcast”Longing for Romania – radio magazine of Romanians everywhere” at Radio România Oltenia Craiova (public regional station of the Romanian Radio Broadcasting Company), then I participated to the release of her volume at the University of Craiova. Oana Manolescu is a well-known Romanian MP, writer, chief editor of the magazine of the Association Cultural League of Albanians in Romania. The three perspectives from which I obtained the content categories of the story were completed with a written interview with questions and answers sent and Reader, Faculty of Letters, University of Craiova, Romania 167 obtained remotely. Lucian Zatti’s life story was put together after a combined process of accounts about his life, account given through open items, in which his wife Ana Zatti also took part, and content analysis of some of the confessions made in his literary creations. To this we added the dialogues that took place between the months of January and September of 2015, for the duration of the project. By summarising all the above, we obtain: - Anina: radio interview+analysis of the content categories in her autobiographical prose - Oana: written interview with open items + analysis of the content categories of her press articles + similarities to her literary work; - Lucian: family member’s account (wife) using a subject structured on themes that generated exposure from a phenomenological perspective (diachronic route) + the analysis of confessions made in short proses (cavatinas). The purpose of our endeavour was to explore the personality of the actor of the story and to obtain an „open story”, in which the elements of relevance of the culture and environment of the minority community to which the character belongs. An interpretation perspective might be considered also the analysis of the way in which each character wrote/ told their own life story. The common element of this analysis is the challenge of telling the story (directly or indirectly) and liniking it to the content categories also visible in the literary works that have an autobiographical feel to them. We obtain polyphonic versions of the subjective constructions or of self-represen- tations used in certain contexts, significant for the profile of the story actor. 1.2. Assumed or induced autobiographical narrative The content of the autobiographical narrative is material for the analysis of the story offered by the actor linked with the elements given by the culture to which the minority person belongs to. We obtain a life story on the perspective on life and world, the interpretation grid being imposed by the culture of the character’s minority. The productive semantic field of self-reference will generate the premises of the process of recreation of a story out of the story of their life. It is the „story within a story” to which every reader of the story will contribute and will outline a new story, which will stand up only through the elements of relevance common to all the stories of circles circumscribed to the central nucleus: autobiographical narrative. In the case of the three selected stories, the immediate impact was: - A confession under the emotion of a radio recording (Anina); - A confession guided by the known questions of the interview sent via email (Oana); - A reenactment of the life itinerary from direct information or information intermediated by the family (Lucian). The elements of relevance from the autobiographical narrative become truly relevant only through the confrontation of their validation by the public space. We retained only these ones in order to observe the principle of verification through the correlation of the reflected image with the induced image. 2.Life stories – dialogue and polyphonic fields 2.1. Polysemantism of dialogue sequences Through the exploration of the life stories there appears an intepretation field of the actor’s interior world. By the stories offered by the protagonists themselves we perceive a new life story, being known that every individual tells what they consider to be important, the selection of events being subjective, the emotional impact being different by direct experience and by re-living the experience when resuming the narrative sequence. Sometimes it is a 168 different story than the one known in the public space (there is an actual confrontation between the projected image, desired image, and constructed image (the case of migrating Romani people, implicitly the story of Anina’s destiny. The catalyst of the storytelling is equally important: the public space imposes the telling of the story (the release of Anina’s autobiographical volume), the continuation of the projection of the image in the public space after their disappearence (Lucian Zatti’s case, a man of high „visibility” through his activity of over 50 years at the Romanian public radio), or the ordinary activity of a politician to explain her biographical and career-related reference points in a public context. De facto, these stories reconstruct their life and, by the repetition of such processes of reconstruction of self-images, they fuel even further a new story by which they connect even further with the culture they represent. Sometimes the life story is passed over in silence (Lucian’s case), because during his lifetime it would have been a hindrance in finding his family in Italy, after his disappearance the details are insignifiant for the community, the projected image being that of the Romanian writer, and not the Italian. But the converse is also true: people create life stories with the purpose to bind them to the culture in which they were born or they created. The signification fields of the story are developed through dialogue action in different circumstances, thus generating the polyphonic, overview field. In our analysis we used: - Stories told directly – analysis made under the spectre of the subjectivity of storytelling (Anina’s case); - Stories told indirectly – analysis under the spectre of rebuilding rather than restauration of the life story (Lucian’s case); - Stories deducted from the synthesis of information in the interview and the content analysis of published articles (Oana’s case). 2.2. Criteria to assess and validate the life stories Of the multitude of criteria offered by the specific literature we will invoke in this context those formulated by W.M.C. Runyan (Life histories and psychobiography: Explorations in theory and method, Oxford University Press, New York, 1984, p. 152), because they fold well on the individual case study (rather than the group one), and the stories we selected are individual cases, with elements of relevance to the community they represent. W.M.C. Runyan formulates seven assessment criteria of individual study cases, with express reference to narrative studies. We will mention and explain them on the cases we analyse: 1. to provide an exact perception on the person, thus clarifying defining aspects of their life, aspects that had not been contextualized previously, and hadn’t been understood well enough as value for the community: -”the most devout of Oltenia’s inhabitants among Italians, and the most Italian among Oltenia’s inhabitants” – a definition (D. R. Popescu) of Lucian Zatti’s personality; - The young gipsy, Anina Ciuciu, is the proof that Romani people can integrate in a community and they can excel; - Oana Manolescu is a voice of the Albanian minority as well as a voice of the Romanian Parliament, both attributes being identifiable in her journalistic and poetic creation. 2. To provide and impression of the respective person, to transmit the experience of having directly interacting with that person: - I met Anina Ciuciu personally at the release of her autobiographical volume, on which occasion I invited her to the radio show ”Longing for Romania”, at Radio Romania Oltenia Craiova; in this way her life story became known by the radio public in the region of Oltenia, and her image in the public space was received also through the press; 169 - I met Lucian Zatti personally, but not enough to even sketch his life story. However, I have known his wife for 20 years and I learnt the story reconstructed in various moments (I created the „Lucian Zatti” Short Narrative National Competition, I initiated the denomination of the radio’s grand editing suite with his name, I promoted his postumous volumes and I wrote their forewords or afterwords); - The collaboration with MP Oana Manolescu has started over 20 years ago. The complex personality gained shape in time, during the events I particopated in and that I exposed on the radio. The writer quality, however, is the most prolifc and it presents the most persuasive and the most relevant. 3. Help understand the interior or subjective world of that persone: - Anina Ciuciu’s world contains several points of reference: Faţa Luncii area, the refugee camp in Italy, the new cultural environment – France. They are all cultural spaces that influenced the interior universe of the protagonist; - being the public voice of the minority you represent is a difficult task, which implies immediate responsibility and taking on some remote effects. It is the statute of MP Oana Manolescu, the representative of the Albanian minority in the Romanian Parliament; - Lucian Zatti is an Italian born in Romania. The trips on Italian soil to find and make whole his family represent an enterprise that had major effect on his sensitivity, apparent in his literary and journalistic writings. 4. To raise our simpathy or empathy towards the respective person: - placing them in the forefront through the impact of the events is a way of attracting attention toward a person that brings an element of novelty and of public interest. 5. to describe the social and historical world in which the person lives: the confessions generated by the questions in the radio interview, or the written one, or the support themes for storytelling recompose the life story inscribed on the backdrop of an era with its social dynamics (war in Lucian’s case, emigration in Anina’s case, or multiculturalism, like in Oana’s case): 6. To make light regarding the causes (and meanings) of relevant events, of the experiences and life conditions: - Anina’s personal experience, the life in the Romani camp in Italy and the means to adjust to a new cultural space are as many life experiences that bring light to an era and a world in transition; - The rigour imposed by a society on the verge of a new political system in the post- war period will elucidate the professional and life options of the Italian refugees’ son (Lucian’s case); - keeping the cultural identity of the Albanians in a world of diversity is a process explained also by the endeavours made by a representative of this minority in the Romanian Parliament (Oana’s case). 7. to be alive, to be evocative, to be emotionally demanding and to drive people to read: - There are two interpretative lines: the story told through autobiographical narratives and telling the story in frames that draw upon the emotional background of the reader of the respective individual case study. Both of them are submitted to reading in this context. In the end we will formulate the validation criteria. We will invoke the ones formulated by M.Hammersley (What 's wrong with etnography? Methological exploration, Routledge & Kegal Paul, Londra,1992): validity, which refers to the degree of truth, of plausible and of credibility of the story thus told, and relevance, meaning how much importance the public opinion will credit this story with. It is a validation in time, an initial decanting taking place before the case is brought to the attention of the reader: Lucian Zatti is a name in the Romanian radiophony, however few people know the origins of his family (the 170 story will be accepted through the notoriety of the positivity associated with his name), Anina Ciuciu is an example of life brought back to human dignity and public recognition, her name may not be remembered but her destiny remains an exemplary one, and the public and political life will remember the name of MP Oana Manolescu because for the past two decades she has been one of the voices in the Romanian Parliament advocating for good coexistence and equal opportunities for spiritual affirmation of all minorities in the Romanian space. And now, the life stories told in the information collection frameworks (combined modules). Lucian Zatti – recovering”roots” 1.Emigration to Romania The disastruous effects of WWI on the economies of all participating countries determined some people to emigrate in search of a workplace. Some chose the USA, Brasil, others...Romania. An example is the Zatti family, from Florence, Italy. We were going to learn their story from pieces of confessions made by Mrs. Ana Zatti, the Romanian who became close to this Italian family and will contribute to its reunion after more than half a century. The brothers Carlo and Umberto Zatti were married, each one being father to three boys. When an opportunity to work at a wood factory in Romania became apparent, the brothers decided to leave sunny Italy, which had been shadowed by the effects of war. They decided to go in turns, to become familiar with the living and work conditions. Carlo remains in Florence, after learning about the harsh living conditions in Romania. In the mountain locality Brezoi, in Vâlcea County, the „Carpatina” Italian company started its activity, where the Italians were in charge with the organization of the work front, with assembling the then-modern equipments, specialized in deforestation and wood processing. The three brothers, Luigi, Domenico and Mario Zatti, together with their father, were employed at the sorting station and then the funicular loading station. Working and living alongside Romanian workers, the Italians started learning the Romanian language and integrate in the new community. One of the boys, Luigi, will later marry an Italian emigrant named Catarina Molinaro. A son will result from their marriage, Luciano, born on the 6th of February of 1927, an Italian baby born on Romanian soil. The child will learn Italian at home and Romanian in the community of Brezoi. It is known that, in order to adapt to the new political conditions in Romania after 1944-1945, some emigrants will change their names, thus hiding the origins of their families. Born in Romania, Luciano will change his name into Lucian and the family will declare him as Romanian. This is one of the many minority assimilation processes, based on political decisions. The young Luciano will even publish in the media under the pseudonym L. Talaz or L. Severineanu, to mislead everyone from his Italian origin. Mario went back to Italy to perform his military service. The family is divided and it will be reunited after 40 years. 2. A life halt: Turnu – Severin In 1933 the Zatti family moves to Turnu-Severin, setting up a construction site for buildings and roads. They buy a house on Calomfirescu Road and the child Luciano is registered at the primary Roman-Catholic school, where he has a hard time adjusting to the strict discipline, a direct opposite of the freedom he had enjoyed in Brezoi, where he lived in an enticing mountain area that he will later evoke in his writings. Four years later the child is registered at the Vocational High-school – sculpture department, from which he is forced to 171 pull out after only four classes. Because of the war, between 1940 and 1944 the family takes refuge in the mountains, in Bumbeşti-Jiu and Lainici, the father working for the Edititatea Enterprise, which had work sites at the construction of the Valea Jiului railway line and the Bumbeşti-Livezeni main road. Luciano is registered at the Industrial Technical School for Boys in Vădeni-Gorj. During the holidays he works on the site alongside his father, coming into contact with the harsh life of the people that worked outdoors. But he views nature with the eyes of the child destined to write memorable descriptions of places which he will assimilate as his own. As radio editor he will write reports, stories, and later, as writer, sketches and short stories, cavatinas and novels. In 1945 the family returns to Tr. Severin, they buy a piece of land at no. 39, Tabla Buti Rd., where they build a home. Then a troubled, post-war period starts, with major changes in the social order. The family had already been through this drama in Italy during WWI. Luigi Zatti had no more news of his brother in Italy, communicating abroad being nearly impossible. Several emigrants were forced to declare that they had no family abroad and ask for Romanian citizenship in order to have the right to keep working in Romania. The only one that kept his Italian passport was Luciano, otherwise he would have been taken in the army. It was only after he turned 30 that he applied for Romanian citizenship, keeping his Italian nationality. They had no information regarding their family in Italy; all they had was a photograph where a happy family event had reunited them all. In Tr.Severin Luciano does not return to the high-school studies he had been forced to interrupt. Having a literary talent (certified by the cultural circles he frequented) he starts to write poems, short stories, which he presents in one of these literary cirlces. That’s how we explain his literary debut at only a little under 17: on December 1st, 1944, at 17, he published in the "Severinul liber" newspaper his first reports. He then becomes the correspondent of several central newspapers. Between 1945 and 1946 he is employed by the "Înainte" newspaper in Craiova, being valued for the spontaneity with which he wrote his reports and travel notes. On January lst, 1947, he returns to Tr. Severin, where he takes over the position of editor in charge of the "Severinul liber" newspaper, holding the respective position until the newspaper is reorganized and renamed "Drumul socialismului". From this date onwards he is named Editor-in-chief and he becomes a permanent correspondent to "Agerpres", "România liberă", "Flacăra", "Scînteia tineretului", where he publishes under different pen names. In September of 1950 he marries Ana, a 17-year old girl who is still studying at the girls’ high-school in Tr. Severin, with whom he will remain for the rest of his life, sharing the joys and sadness of life, the greatest sadness of all being that they had no children, and the name of Zatti being destined to oblivion on Romanian soil. 3. Craiova – from forced domicile to a home forever On the 1st of July of 1951, the Zatti family, like many other „foreigners”, was ordered to leave Tr.Severin in a matter of hours, being assigned a forced domicile in Tg. Jiu. The decision was taken because of Iosip Broz Tito’s „betrayal”, the town bordering Yugoslavia. However, Lucian Zatti obtains a derogation from the authorities, changing his forced domicile to Craiova, where he was wanted by the editorial office of the "Înainte" newspaper. He is thus employed, together with his wife, by the newspaper, and they receive a living space consisting of a rented furnished room. In January of 1953 he takes a test and he obtains an editor’s position at the Committee of the Romanian Broadcasting Station in Bucharest, cultural department, where he will work alongside Pop Simion, Dionisie Şincan and Dinu Săraru. This moment is decisive for his journalistic career, but it was cut short. One October morning he was expected at the gate of the Broadcasting Station by two military men who brought him under arrest in Craiova, at the Foreign Office, because since he had forced domicile, he was not allowed to leave it. The 172 management in Bucharest was notified, and in order to solve the case he was offered a 6- months dispatch. His duty was to transmit registered reports about Oltenia and to organize a local editorial office for a regional broadcasting station. The new editorial office will start operating officially in May of 1954, initially with a smaller number of hours of transmission. His name will be associated with the first-ever broadcast of the Craiova broadcasting station; he was 27 years old. The application for Romanian citizenship will be made after he turns 30. With his forced domicile in Craiova, Lucian Zatti will remain an employee of the Oltenia-Craiova Broadcasting Committee, until the station is suddenly closed in 1985, after which he will resort to an early retirement. During these years his father, Luigi Zatti, worked for a while at the Craiova Chemical Plant, where he was involved in various design works, and then at the "Porţile de Fier” work site. He retired and remained in Tr. Severin. His mother, Catarina, died in 1967. 4. Searching for the family in Italy During all this time they had no news from their family in Italy. The only hope was for Lucian to find a way to search for them. In 1968 the situation being calmer in Romania, Lucian Zatti, who had previously obtained Romanian citizenship, applied for a tourist visa for Italy, for documentation as journalist and writer. As a member of the International Federation of Journalists and of the Writers’ Union of Romania, he received the recommendations of said institutions to travel in order to write several travel reports. In June of 1968 Lucian and Ana Zatti were traveling by train on the route Craiova- Florence and return, with an insignificant amount of money allocated as foreign currency and only a photograph of a family they were searching for in order to become acquainted with it. In a phonebook they found the names of the three sons of Carlo Zatti, their first cousins. They randomly chose Valerio, who had a confectionery shop in Florence, and the meeting was downright emotional. They were seeing and hugging each other for the first time. In the evening the entire family came together. Only Carlo was missing, as he had passed away two years before. They told their life stories, they looked at family photos. They had found each other. Renewing their family ties, more visits from their side to Romania followed. Lucian and Ana Zatti will return to Italy in the years 1971, 1976,1979,1981,1987 and they met other members of their Italian family. There were circumstances that would have favoured their remaining in Italy during the communist dictatorship in Romania. However, Lucian was happier to return to his native country, „home” as he called it. Here, in Romania, his parents, uncles, cousins, died without realizing their dream to see Italy again. Their adoptive country, Romania, offered them the much-needed life conditions during tough historic times. They remained forever in the Catholic cemetery in Drobeta Tr. Severin. In 1993 Lucian Zatti found a place near them, him being the one that will carry with him and through personal history the story of a family reunited on either side of a totalitarian system, belonging by birth to Romania, and by „roots” to Italy. 5. Lucian Zatti- the destiny of a Romanian Italian and of an Italian Romanian Lucian Zatti wrote novels, literary reports and short stories (which he called cavatinas), spread in literary magazines and radio broadcasts. "This profession fascinated me; I’ve always wanted to be a frantic journalist. I have a predisposition for short prose, which, I believe, owns the future"- he would say. "Lucian Zatti remains one of the most valuable reporters and writers Oltenia ever had" – according to critic Ovidiu Ghidirmic. 173 "His work is extensive and wonderful. He was generous, wasteful with his talents offered to others, a man and a writer who fascinated us and keeps doing so. This was the reporter and prose writer Lucian Zatti. For him we will always find yet unwept tears”, Ilie Purcaru would say. The words of writer Dumitru Radu Popescu remain iconic for the definition of Lucian Zatti’s destiny: "For Lucian Zatti his true homeland remains Romania. The writer found himself profoundly bound to the land of Oltenia and the values of Romanian spirituality. Lucian Zatti was the most Italian of the inhabitants of Oltenia and the most representative of Oltenian inhabitants among Italians". The information given by Ana Zatti, Lucian Zatti’s wife, helped us diacronically retrace the existential path of the writer of Italian origin. The literary history and the history of the radio in Romania will retain his contribution to the patrimony of Romanian values. The echoes of his family history are of too little relevance to discover information regarding the Italian community in Romania. The years he spent in the Italian community in Brezoi are not evoked on this tone, after his forced domicile in Craiova he will no longer mention his Italian origins, and after the “ideological thaw” this will no longer be relevant. Lucian Zatti will look for his family, he will essentially contribute to its reunion on Italian soil, however he will only seldomly have ties with the members of the Italian community in Romania and only as family friendships (for example, with the Amzolini family in Craiova). He remains isolated from the Italian community; however he has an Italian surname which he imposes in the history of Romanian literature. Conclusions: From this holistic approach of the content of the story told by Lucian Zatti’s wife, Ana Zatti, we obtain too little details about the social world of the Italian community in Oltenia, but we can outline a life story defining to the adaptation to a new cultural and geographical space, a process of identification with the foster country. The actor of the stories is important in the economy of life stories through the temptation to recover their origins. Declaring one’s origins will not change in any way the personal destiny, they will add to the expressions of the solar spirit, of the Southern temperament, of the jollity with which he approached canzonets, to then write cavatinas. From our field research it resulted that Lucian Zatti was an eminent personality in the fields in which he worked, the writer the media managers of the time needed to prove their supportive attitude toward human values. It was a story- interface for a system that tried to save itself from censorship through writers that favoured metaphors, “colourful” radio stories, and real salvation from the daily grey. Oana Manolescu – Albania and Romania, two countries of a creative spirit If the first life story, that of Italian Lucian Zatti, is based on the progression of the narrative, with episodes that support the progressive trajectory of the plot, in a circular story started in Italy and recovered as motivational sequence in Italy, but manifested in Romania, the second story, that of Oana Manolescu, is that of a public „voice”, relevant on two reference levels: the personal one, and that of representativeness in the public space. We will follow the two levels applying two different methods. The first one is the open-item interview sent by email, important detail to allow the reception of the questions and allowing for a reflection time. It is a process of subjective decanting and settling in a hierarchy of values prioritary for the definition of the role in the concretion of the Albanian community in 174 Romania. The second will be the analysis of theme content – categorial (in oversimplified lines), based on the categories of content that underline the activity in the public space in the service of the minority she represents. I. Questions for a possible portret 1.You are a Romanian politician of Albanian origin. What is you belonging to the Albanian community? My ancestors came to Mehedinţi from South-Western Macedonia, area which 200 years ago (as nowadays) was inhabited mostly by Albanians and Aromanians, along with the Macedonian population. In fact, my ancestor led a rebellion against the Turks and the family – mixed – Aromanians and Orthodox Albanians – was forced to flee. They reached Baia de Aramă and they settled in the area. (The story is much more consistent and very beautiful). This was the family on my mother’s side. 2.You are the representative of the Albanian minority in the Romanian Parliament. What were your initiatives in order to support the cultural identity of the minority you represent? A deputy works for the legislation of their whole country, regardless of their ethnicity. Since 2012 I have only been part of 19 legislation initiatives. Supporting the cultural identity of an ethnicity is stipulated by law in Romania. But at present I am working at the amendment of the law regarding obtaining the Romanian citizenship, which would also benefit young Albanians settled in Romania. 3.The Association League of Albanians in Romania has a history of its own. Since when have you identified with it and what were the most important moments of the Albanian community in which you have been involved? The Association League of Albanians of Romania was set up in 1999. I have been its president ever since. For us, all cultural events to promote ethnical identity that we organize are important! The first of them is the celebration of the National Day of the Republic of Albania. 4.You are the director of the magazine Prietenul Albanezului (in English, Albanian’s Friend magazine). What are the editorial directions of the magazine to reflect the particularity of the Albanian culture and civilization? In this magazine we have set sections: history, literature, culture, etnography, spirituality, community, Albanian language notions, and not only that (the feature article, kaleidoscope, etc.). Thus, a constant reader of the magazine receives monthly information on the culture of the Albanians, wherever they may live. 5.You have published novels, poems, short stories, essays. The image of the natal places is strongly outlined (the novel Munţii noştri (translated Our Mountains)). Have you also depicted episodes of life of the Albanians in Romania? Please offer us a few excerpts! The historical novel Strigătul oprit, in two volumes, still a manuscript since 1995, portrays life moments of the Albanians. But after 1990, since you have made me the honour of calling me a poet, I wrote theme poems, such as: Iliria, La mulţi ani Albania, Port în suflet, Veni-va lumina and many others written on the shores of Lake Ohër (Ohrid in Macedonian). One cannot command poetic inspiration anything, anywhere; however, I have been inspired by the Albanian landscape... 175 6.As a poet you created the lyrics for the Romanian versions of Albanian songs, published in the book "Serenade korceare". What were your feelings, thinking in two languages (the native one, which is the Romanian, and the Albanian language, which is the language claimed through your bloodline)? The expression, the Albanian order of words is different from the one in Romanian, and the translation was subject to several proofreadings... But the challenge was to keep the idea, to come as close as possible to the text with the rhymes, but especially with the rhythm of the song... It is very, very difficult, there are 70 songs, so I „made up” 70 poems, the Romanian versions. 7.What volumes in the Albanian language were published by the League of Albanians of Romania, and what was the basis of selection for the theme? Through its publishing house ”Privirea” (in Romanian, „The Look”), the Association published the bilingual books: Pacea din noi volumes I and II, Manual de limba albaneza, volumes I and II, Serenade korceare şi alte cântece albaneze, Ghid de conversaţie român- albanez, Frazeologie comună româno-albaneză, Nori reci (poems), Coloniile albaneze din România, Oglinzi literare, Prin Bucureştiul albanez, Timp de viaţă, timp de moarte, Ne va uni iubirea (poems) - approximately 30% of what we’ve published. The criterion was to learn the Albanian language, to learn poems and the communication of the history of Albanians in Romania both towards the Romanian citizens, as well as towards the Albanian ones. 8.You were a member in the parliamentary groups of fellowship with Albania, Sweden, and Holland. What were the events organized to support the cultural identity of Albanians in Romania within these organizations? On the occasion of official bilateral meetings, there are also meetings of the members of the parliamentary groups of fellowship and there are exchanges of information regarding the legislations of the two countries. 9.In Oltenia, in Craiova, what are the Albanian identity reference points? During the census only a few tens of Albanians have been declared in Oltenia, but the surnames are much more numerous, proof that of all ethnicities, the Romanians, and especially the inhebitants of Oltenia, got along best with the Albanians. 10. How would you define yourself, including your affiliation to the Albanian ethnicity? I am an ordinary person and, regardless of ethnicity and with the help of God I try to fulfil the duty I have toward the people that trusted me spiritually and socially. I graduated from the Faculty of Chemistry of the University of Bucharest. I studied the poano for 10 years. I was part of the basketball team of the University of Bucharest. I have two achievements in chemistry: 1. the separation of Thorium from other elements through ionic exchange, and 2. the laboratory achievement (Craiova Chemical Plant) of the composition of a catalyst in the industry of ammonia that replaced imports from West Germany. I can „handle” myself well in about 5 foreign languages. I wrote 8 books and 2 brochures, each one in several editions. I have 3 more books in manuscript form. I worked for 4 years as a researcher and for 27 years in education (chemistry) at the Electroputere Industrial High-school in Craiova. I organized and I manage the Serenada artistic ensemble of song and dance of the Association. In high-school I did the radio broadcast of the school for three years. I prepared and won with the students of the Electroputere school group places 1, 2 and 3 for three years at the National Chemistry Olympics. I take the Serenada ensemble yearly to Albania for shows in different cities. 176 Oana Manolescu is a poet, prose writer, essayist, known in literary circles as being the beared of a culture she represents: that of the Albanian minority in Romania. An analysis of her public appearances, of contexts with personalities that claim her as notable presence, of her taking the floor in the Romanian Parliament would prove the prevalence of this image before her personal image. She is a vector of information and bearer of meanings for the environment of expression of the Albanian minority in Romania. It is in a bidirectional “representation” report: from the minority community to personal experience and from personal experience to the Albanian minority community. For the configuration of the life story from the perspective of thematic content analysis- categorical, we refer to the relation between context and presentation. J.-C. Abric ( ”Les représentations sociales: aspects théoriques”, în J.-C. Abric (ed.), Pratiques sociales et representations, PUF, Paris, pp.10-36, 1994) and J.-C. Abric and C. Guimelli ( ” Les représentations sociales et effets de context”, în Connexions, 72, pp.23-37, 1998) consider social representation as a “contextualized” system, subject to the influence of factors and contextual changes. They consider the context to be of two types: discoursive context (situational) generated by conditions and social context generated by the values the individual adheres to, and the place occupied in society, in the group they belong to. The situational context is explicit: Oana Manolescu represents the Albanians in Romania, and the social representations generated by her public speeches address both the minorities, as well as the majority, with the purpose of presenting the particularity of the Albanian culture and promoting it in the Romanian space. The social context is more complex: it reunites the values to which the deputy and intellectual Oana Manolescu makes reference, and the place she holds in society. In this latter perspective Oana Manolescu has a sum of public attributions and positions: deputy, President of the League of Albanians of Romania, director of the”Prietenul albanezului” Magazine, she is the initiator and conductor of the Serenada vocal group of the League. These social positions will allow the public to obtain relevant information about Albanians in Romania in three ways: - Through media information sources (the magazine, the publishing house, the CDs made by the Association) (context: media contact); - Through experience determined by discussions with others (national and international politics-related appearences) (context: contact mediated by others’ experience); - Through personal experience (context: direct contact with the events organized and managed in the public space by Oana Manolescu). Two of the many volumes published by Oana Manolescu offer the narrative material to support the three types of context: - The volume Pacea din noi (Privirea Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009) reunites the featured articles which she signed in ”Prietenul albanezului” magazine, since the emergence of the magazine (November 2001) until December 2009. We find themes (categories) widely represented: The significance of the word Union (spiritual union of the Albanian and Aromanian pupils, students, MA and PhD students that learn in Romania) (p.15); ”Religion. Culture. Tolerance”: ”The right to non-discrimination is the logical extension of the concept regarding constitutional, civil and political rights” (p.39); ”the good understanding with the other ethnicities and the majoritary population” (p.57); National Day of Albania (28th of November) and Romania’s National Day (1st of December), three days of celebration (p.146); Albanian cultural values celebrated in Romania (Ismail Kadare) (p.170-171) 177 - The volume Amestec şi combinaţie (Privirea Publishing House, Bucharest, 2009) reunites studies, speeches, articles, as well as short stories, translations, in which we find the same themes (categories): ”National minorities in Romania” (p.119), ”Romanian-Albanian interferences in literature” (p112), ”the Albanians were received like brothers in Romania” (p. 131) etc These volumes, like the”Prietenul albanezului” magazine, support the first type of context (through media contact). The second context, of her presence in national and international political level (context: contact mediated by others’ experience) is broadly represented by the speeches held in this type of contexts, speeches published in the mentioned volumes. A few examples: speech in the Chamber of Deputies with the occasion of the National Day of Albania, 28th of November 2002, speech during the festive Session held on the occasion of the “Days of Craiova”, 2003, speech during the Solemn Session of the Romanian Parliament with the occasion of 140 years from the constitution of the Senate, 2004, etc. The third context, through personal experience (direct contact with events organized and managed in the public space by Oana Manolescu) is the most prolific. By setting up and supporting a magazine, a publishing house, of a vocal group, Oana Manolescu will take part in national cultural events of this type (book fairs, Festival of the Minorities, anniversary or theme shows in the public space). These are opportunities for the public manifestation of the va.lues of the Albanian community in Romania, association she represents nationally and internationally. There is, however, another meaning of the personal experience that influences the social context: Oana Manolescu is a well-known poet. Her verses in Romanian, as well as verses adapted into Romanian of the songs in the repertoire of the “Serenada”vocal group are Oana Manolescu’s creations, the deputy of the Albanian minority in Romania. Conclusion: This is a life story that feeds itself from the consequences of an activity progressing through a life-long career, a story fueling the story of an ethnic community in Romania, the Albanian community, a beneficial image transfer that generates credibility and notoriety. Anina Ciuciu – ”an exceptional destiny” The following life story is base don the radio broadcast transcript of the radio interview with Anina Ciuciu. The repetitions, pauses (without real emotional value) were eliminated, as well as the sequences that anticipated the musical moments. The full transcript of the broadcast helps revisit the confessions made in an emotional context generated by the recording place, the editing suite of Radio Romania Oltenia Craiova (the “Lucian Zatti” editing suite). In a portrait broadcast (with only one interlocutor, the character of the show), the editor can make the censure and self-censure feeling become blurry, through radio techniques and persuasive language. He or she will induce the impression of a friendly dialogue, without witnesses. When the broadcast has at least two guests, live or on the phone, this feeling of confession disappears, self-censorship intervenes, and we obtain a speech directed by the guest’s intention regarding the radio portrait. In Anina Ciuciu’s case we opted for the complex form of registering the life story: three interlocutors, each with a narrative task to reflect a perception angle of the guest’s personality. Because Anina Ciuciu now lives in France and has adapted to the French cultural environment, we invited in the broadcast the French lector at the University of Craiova, himself a character whose genealogy claims several cultural influences (French and Polish). We obtained the emotional support of this life story 178 with the help of a phone interview with one of Anina’s family members. The presence next to her would have diminished the emotional impact (and would have lowered the radio impact as well). In this complex formula we completed the portrait- interview about a life story nothing short of “exceptional”. What was exceptional about this destiny was about to become clear from the progression of the broadcast. Anina’s story presents several perspectives for analysis: - A phenomenological perspective, a diachronic itinerary of a Romani family that leaves Romania in 1997 and manages to integrate in the French envirnment, after dramatic episodes in Italy; - A psychological perspective of the Young gipsy, who surpasses the obstacles generated by the projection in the public space of an undesirable image about Romani emigrants; - A comparative psychological introspection perspective of two reference texts: autobiographical narrative, narrative material for the volume”Mândră să fiu rromă. De la Faţa Luncii la Sorbona. Un destin de excepţie” and the transcript of the radio broadcast ”Longing for Romania – radio magazine for Romanians everywhere” (transmitted on the 6th of July, between 21.30-22.00) The auto-narrativity and personal identity are to be confronted in the hiden space of interior reality. Anina’s life story thus obtained through confronting radio confessions and the autobiographical narrative is different from the other life stories. The verification key was to immediately overlay chronological elements, narrated elements, and words of symbolic value. D.P.Spence wrote about the”narrative thruth” (Narrative truth and historical truth: Meaning and interpretation in psychoanalysis, Norton, New York, 1982); however, we plead for the configuration of personal identity elements in this narrative truth, important guidelines for the vision on life and on integration in the community. The autobiographical narrative is a stance of the life story, it can modify according to the circumstances or in time. Born in Romania in 1990, Anina emigrates at 7 years old. She becomes the first MA Romani student of Romanian origin at the University of Sorbonne in 2012. The title of her book is symbolic and declarative:”Mândră să fiu rromă” (in translation, “Proud to be Roma”). At page 17 of her autobiographical volumen she writes:”My name is Anina, I am twenty years old, my country is France (s.n.), but my origins are somewhere more than two thousand kilometers from Paris. I was born in Craiova, in the Romanian cold of January, 1990.” There is an apparent sadness to her writing: “Despite this path, which some consider exceptional, with all proof of perfect integration, I haven’t received French nationality.” (p. 150). She has a French resident permit until 2020. The autobiographical narrative is written with a stated purpose:”I dared to unveil the darkest moments of my life so far, the ones I desire to forget and erase forever from my mind, because I want to change something in the way people see us.” (p.155). It is the therapeutic function of subjective narrative. 1. Transcript of the radio broadcast Anina Ciuciu is a native of Craiova. We start this incursion in the essential reference points of a destiny from the recent volume published by Anina Ciuciu ”Mândră să fiu rromă. De la Faţa Luncii la Sorbona. Un destin de excepţie”. In order to shape this destiny we have two guests, the actually protagonist, Anina Ciuciu. She is the PM’s councillor on issues of the Romani people. The second guest is the French lector at the University of Craiova, Mr. Gauillaume Dujardin. Welcome, Anina! - Thank you ! Good afternoon. - You have come from Paris ? - Yes ! I have been here in Romania for a week now, in Craiova. - That means this is a reunion with your birthplace, your family, your childhood... 179 - Yes ! I am very happy to see those close to me, my family, my friends, because I have been unable to come to Craiova for a long time, even though I was in Romania to publish my book in Romanian, and now I am very happy to be here. - Welcome, Gauillaume! - Good afternoon! - Do you speak Romanian ? - Yes, I already do ! - Was meeting Anina beneficial to you ? - It was highly beneficial, indeed. - We will learn how the two cultures come together, the Romanian and the French culture, in an exceptional destiny like Anina’s. - Anina, we must confess that when we speak about Romani people we remember the Mailat case in Italy; it is still in the public eye, because it was extremely troublesome. The media was the catalyst of this subject. When it was found out that Mailat was not as guilty as he had been portrayed it was already too late. It was known that a Romani Romanian had killed a woman. And now we have you and your exceptional destiny. What is the exception in this case, apart from the fact that you are the only young Romani of Romanian origin ever admitted at the University of Sorbonne? What is the exception in your life, apart from a childhood marred by adversity? - I am afraid I will make an exception now, as there is nothing exceptional in my path, or in my destiny. - It is the destiny of all Romani people, with their desire to leave abroad, with large periods of time spent in Romani camps, with the unsanitary life they have there, with their personal dramas in the search of stability... - You spoke about desire, it is not desire, and unfortunately it is a necessity. Many Romani people, maybe the majority, are forced to leave their country, abandon their family, their homeland, seeking a more dignified life and better living conditions. This was also our case. When we left Romania in 1997 of course we face many obstacles... We knew that this search for a dignified life, for Eldorado, as it was portrayed in our minds, will be difficult and marked by obstacles, which we managed to surpass with a lot of willpower and with the help of someone in France; I believe this is the exceptional part. It is exceptional that we have to leave our country for the sole reason that we belong to a community, an ethnicity, we cannot have access to all the rights, all the facilities the other citizens have. That is exceptional! The violence with which Romani people are treated all over Europe, because it is real violence we are talking about, has been going on for centuries, with different intensity. We know it was at its worst in 1944 during the Romani genocide, but today also this desire is real, it exists, and the case proves it, the case you mentioned, in Italy, as well as the recent situation in France, because I was very impressed by it and I want to bring it into discussion. It is the case of a young man, Darius, who was severly beaten and is now in a coma, because he was suspected of theft, simply because of his Romani ethnicity. It is the case that proves that there is violence, and it is criminal. There is nothing exceptional in my path. I am a young person, yes, I am a young person that made it to Sorbonne, but there may have been others before me who did the same thing without actually mentioning they were Romani. So there is nothing exceptional! - This is another idea I picked up in your book, Anina, the idea of hiding that you are of Romani ethnicity to protect yourself from humiliation in a civilized world. When you read a book, and I read yours over only a few hours, at the end of the reading process a few images remain. The first image is that of a car leaving toward Europe from Romania in 1997 and in the trunk of the car there are ten children. That is a terrifying image. 180 - Yes ! And our road to France, to Europe, was horrible, incredibly difficult, in harsh conditions... We were a lot of people in that car, the trip took a very long time... There were many incidents as well because we passed through very dangerous places, like Kossovo, so there were many adventures. We left with our hopes high, and that was important for us, especially for us, the children who were in that car, children with eyes full of dreams... According to what was said at the time, we believed that the West was a wonderful world, far more beautiful than anything we knew. - Reading Aninei Ciuciu’s book Mândră să fiu rromă. De la Faţa Luncii la Sorbona. Un destin de excepţie I remembered a broadcast I did with Ana- Maria Beligan, daughter of the great actor Radu Beligan, who left accompanied by her mother in Australia and had to spend some time in a camp in Germany where, as their most basic necessities were being ensured by the social services, the same as in the Romani camps, at five in the afternoon on the hallways through which the Romanian refugees could leave their rooms, tea was being placed and this ritual would take place in a cultural context. So all people there would participate in a cultural moment. Gauillaume, it is extraordinary to want to adapt and to have the power to do so. What do you think about Anina? How did she make it on French soil? You being French... - It is a very good question, because I hold an Erasmus preparatory course for Romanian students that go to France for one year to study. And it is true, when we go to a foreign country we have to think that we are foreigners there, as me here, and that we have to adapt to that country. There are different types of adaptation, we read a book or we listen to the radio, we wathc TV... - Has Anian successfully adapted to the French environment, the French cultural environment, the civilization one? - I believe it was easier for her because she left when she was a child, and I believe that helps a lot in school, because when we are children we are in a group, whereas as adults we are alone, on our own. - The family is the representative environment. In Anina Ciuciu’s volume we find many details about family, about the wedding ceremony with its fundamental elements, about values Romani families strictly respect. There, as Anina would write, you must keep your spiritual and physical purity, that is the law, and it is something that cannot be overlooked regardless of the Western influences. I want to surprise Anina and we will go online via phone with one of her family members. Good afternoon, Dana. - Good afternoon. - I am together with Anina and Gauillaume, French lector at the University of Craiova, and my great joy is to know that Anina has managed this performance of having an exceptional destiny. How are you related with Anina? - Anina is my cousin, but we consider ourselves sisters. She is like a sister to me. - You remained in Romania ? - Yes ! - Is it a reason of pride for your family, an example to follow, the fact that she succeeded in having an exceptional destiny in France? - For us, for our family in particular, and for the entire Romani community in general, and I believe for the Romanian people as well, I can definitely say that Anina Ciuciu is a reason of pride; she makes us proud to be Romani. She is Romani and we have to admit the fact that very few people reach the level she is at right now. - If you were to send Anina a message, what would you say to her ? - With all the power of the soul, she must carry on in the same way in which she has carried on so far, make all the members of our community feel proud, in order to prove that 181 we also have the strength, the intelligence necessary to be equal with all the other people, I won’t say Romanians, as I do not want to discriminate. - Dana, from your speech I understand that you are a learned person. - I am a modest person. I want to transmit a message to all Romani people, I won’t say gipsies, although I would like to point out the fact that I am proud to be gipsy, despite the fact that we are being judged the way that we are... - You are Romanian citizens. - Yes! We are Romanian citizens, but I can proudly say, at the same time, that I am gipsy. Now twice as much, because we have Anina Ciuciu as example, a precious, priceless diamond. - That’s how Dana defined you! Now it is Anina’s turn to send you a message. - She already knows my message, as I had the chance to say it, but I have to say that I am proud not only to be Romani, but because I had the support, the encouragement and the love of my family, which made a huge difference for me, because without that courage and love I wouldn’t have made it. To me, the members of my family are like protecting angels. - Exchange of feelings, if you will, via the radio waves, Dana... We thank you for your presence and for your kind thoughts to Anina. Dana – Anina, a radio dialogue with deep feelings, with emotion, with tears in the corners fo the eyes, that’s what it means to love one’s family, to respect its values, to be a Romanian citizen of Romani ethnnicity and to honour both your community, as well as your homeland. Thank you, Dana, have a wonderful day, and all the luck in the world! - Have a good day, and good bye to all of you. - Anina, the genesis of this book, according to the statement made by Frederic Veille was your presence at a radio station in France; you spoke about Romani people’s statute in France. Here we are at the microphone of the public Romanian radio station pleading for the same idea: the Romani people must be shown the same respect as the other European citizens. What was your experience in France, from the perspective of the way in which you were perceived? We know that you had no friends in kindergarten, because „they already had”, as you would put it, but the reality was that they did not want your friendship. In school, when the line was formed, no one would hold your hand to walk into the classroom. For the same reason. All this is behind you. How were you perceived in France? - My sisters and I, and many other Romani people, suffered these prejudices, this discrimination in all areas of our lives. In Romania it started when I was a little girl in kindergatren, even though we tried very hard to be perceived as good Romanians, we spoke Romanian, because we were taught the language from a very early age... We made all the efforts, we dressed nicely, but unfortunately that didn’t work out for long as it was discovered I was gipsy and I was set aside, and the same thing happened in France. When I arrived in France there was an additional barrier as well, because int he beginning I didn’t speak French. I learnt the language very quickly, in six months I was able to have a conversation. I learnt the French language very quickly, but even though I crossed this important language barrier, I still endured the prejudice, because of the image foreigners have about us, especially us Romani people, so we were set aside in the same way, I was alone in school, without friends. In time we managed to surpass these obstacles and to make friends, who were a little bit smarter and knew to overlook this image foreigners have about Romani people and who accepted to know me, so we struck up new friendships. It was, however, several years until we started to really integrate and make friends. It was a little bit difficult, but we willpower and patience we passed this obstacle too. - I will ask Gauillaume, how do you, the French, regard Romanian citizens of Romani ethnicity? They are Romanians. 182 - Yes ! Firstly, it is important to know that France has always received foreigners. I am half foreigner myself. - What is your foreign half? - From Poland. I am from the North. The name Dujardin is owed to the fact that my father is a true Frenchman. Now, regarding the events that are ever-so-present at the radio and on TV, I believe we can also talk about manipulation... - Definitely the manipulation of affections, of emotions... - Yes ! Exactly ! - So you are being somehow emotionally manipulated through the events that you are presented. - Anina, from your book to a recent event! Young Darius is now in a coma, in France, precisely for being suspected (not proven that as a fact though) to have stolen. What do you think about that, Anina? - I have always tried to keep an objective perspective maybe also because I have an objective in sight at the end of my journey, that of being a magistrate, and a magistrate must be independent and impartial. And all arguements I give in favour to this cause, let’s say, in favour of the recognition and emancipation of the Romani community, are arguments I consider to be objective and a person outside of the Romani community could also support them. Objectively, what happened to Darius is simply intolerable. In a democratic country, in a country in which the fundamental rights of the people are observed, the country of the human rights, because France continues to be portrayed that way, it cannot be tolerated that a person suffers such violence only because they belong to a certain ethny. They may be Romani, they may be of a different ethny, this simply cannot be tolerated. And these events do happen, unfortunately, because of this context all over Europe, and also in France, as Gauillaume said. It is manioulation from the media and from the political area. In political speeches there are many rasist aspects, xenophobic, that make the Romani community look like a huge problem for France, that continue to spread such prejudice, so damaging to our community and that allow for such behaviour to happen. So, when a person at the highest level of a government says that Romani people cannot adapt in France and that they must, at all costs, return to their native countries of Romania or Bulgaria, because this person believes that there are Romanian or Bulgarian gipsies, it is logical that other citizens will allow themselves to perform acts of violence against this person. - Anina, I was telling our listeners that I was marked by several images, that remained stuck in my mind after I read your volume Mândră să fiu rromă. De la Faţa Luncii la Sorbona. Un destin de excepţie. You lived ten kilometres from The Vatican, in a completely unsanitary environment, where disease and especially humiliation marked your life and you went begging for the first time. This event also happened in your life and that of your family. What was the feeling? - It is a very brutal feeling, the humiliation is huge, but he were forced to do this, and society also forced us into begging, as I told you, when you are forced to leave your home and your country and your family because you cannot live in dignified conditions, it is also the society’s responsibility, not only ours, because my parents simply lost their jobs for being gipsies, I simply don’t know why... for no objective reason and this was the main reason why we left Romania. It is something difficult for me to talk about, but because the Romani people image is very close to this image of complete humiliation, I would like to say that the Romani people are not born beggars, it’s simply that they do not have a choice and that society pushes them towards this situation and that any one of us, any one of you who are not Romani, may fall into this situation of extreme humiliation to which society and necessity exposes us. This is really all I would like to say on this subject. 183 - Nothing more. I would however like to add that your parents never did anything anti- social in that environment that pushed people toward such attitudes. All of your sisters, not only you, managed to be part of an institutionalized environment, you graduated, Romani people of extraordinary dignity. And that’s what the exceptional destiny is all about. Anina, please share with us your message at the end of today’s broadcast! - I read somewhere that the Romani people, who have always been cast away, was a people always on the go. If that’s the situation, I can easily say that my parents crossed the last barrier. I hope with all my heart that they will not have to return, that they can settle their luggage in this El Dorado-like place, at the end of an obstacle-filled road. For them, for the Romani people so little known, but about which so many things are written, I wanted to share my story, so that everyone understands that deep within our heart there is love and hope, that we do not want to be rejected or shown pitty, we only want to be understood. - A message transmitted by Anina Ciuciu, the young girl with an exceptional destiny, who left Romania in 1997 together with her family and now she is a future French magistrate. Anina Ciuciu is a honorary councilor to the Prime Minister on Romani-related issues. We had with us Gauillaume Dujardin, French lector at the University of Craiova and we confronted two cultures and two means of adaptation in a world that tends towards globalization. 2. The life story – the story of a family The portrait broadcast was drawn up as a means to present the essential details of an „exceptional” destiny. This communication target, however, developed a much more visible image than the one intended: the image of a family with all the characteristics of a subsystem (Morgan, D.H.J., The family, politics and social theory, Routledge and Kegan Paul, Londra, 1985, p.134): - A family’s elements are inter-relational, in the case of the gipsies, the feeling of belonging to the family is visible, and Anina offers an image of this inter-dependence: the houses are glued one to the other, the house has a central room where the family members come together, the home is where the family is; - An element of the family cannot be understood independently; Anina’s destiny stands out only in the context of presenting the family’s contribution, of its moral support; - The organization of the family is essential in understanding the behaviour of its members (Anina begged together with her mother, and this is the image that most humiliated her, but not one of the members of her family ever committed any anti-social acts, on the contrary, they made use of the power to adapt to a foreign environment and the ease with which they learn foreign languages, Anina now speaks 5 foreign languages); - ”the family’s transactional patterns shape the behaviour of its members” (they can be found in Anina’s autobiographical work and in her radio confessions). Conclusion Thriugh this life story told by the protagonist in two different ways (autobiographical narrative and radio confessions) we can shape the elements of individual identity and the systems of values, the culture and the social world of the narrator Anina Ciuciu. Epilogue The life stories are a synthesis with different degrees of credibility between elements stemming from the history of the personal life and from the cultures with which the main characters come into contact. These stories shape their lives, in time they become projected images of interior stories, which are permanently checked through the reference to the indexes of reality subject to social dynamics. The effect of these life stories target the understanding of personal identity, of the culture and the environment in which the protagonists live. The content categories of the 184 stories will later be reflection themes for other stories of the same protagonists. The open question remains: how much do the protagonists find themselves in the identification parametres of the communities to which they belong, how much is the community reflected in the universe of values and in the behaviour of the ones claiming the destiny of the community they represent at a certain point in time? 185 NATIONAL MINORITIES IN NORWAY – OVERVIEW AND EXPERIENCES GUNNAR HEIENE, PhD SOLVOR M. LAURITZEN, PhD 1. Introduction During the last years, there has been an increased awareness of the national minorities that have existed in Norway for hundreds of years. This is partly due to the international discussion on national minorities. In 1999, Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities was ratified by Norway. Five minority groups are considered to be national minorities: Jews, Kvens/Norwegian Finns, Roma (Gypsies), Romani people/Tater and Forest Finns. These groups are very different in many respects, but they have all obtained a specific cultural protection, and they receive economic incentives to protect their cultural heritage. In this article, we will give a brief historical overview of the national minorities in Norway, and then concentrate on two groups: Romani people/Tater and Roma (Gypsies). During the last years, these two groups have been in the focus of the public discussion, and different attitudes to integration and protection of minority groups have become visible in the debate. 2. Historical overview Historically, the Norwegian society has been characterized by farming as a main characteristic for a long period, at least until the last part of the 19th century. Compared with other countries, the farms in Norway have been scattered, due to topographical reasons, and Norwegian farmers were mostly quite poor. Still, some immigrant groups found their way to Norway as settlers from the 17th century on: The Forest Finns settled in the border areas between Norway and Sweden, and the Kvens, also coming from Finland, or from the Finnish speaking part of Sweden, settled in the Northern part of Norway (the counties of Finnmark and Troms). The Kvens were welcomed because of their agricultural competence, but both groups were also seen as a threat to Norwegian security, being minorities in border areas.173 During the 17th century, a few Jews, mainly merchants, settled in Norway, and they were probably tolerated because Norway needed economic capital. But in the Norwegian Constitution from 1814, paragraph 2 explicitly stated, ”Jews are still excluded from the country”. In 1851, the first Jews were allowed to settle in Norway, most of them as merchants. Between 1880 and 1920, Jewish immigration increased, and in April 1940, when Norway became invaded by Germany, about 2100 Jews were living in Norway. During the war, almost 800 Jews were deported to Germany, where most of them were executed by the National Socialist regime, and the remaining part of the Jewish population fled to Sweden and stayed abroad until the war had ended. Today, about 1500 Jews live in Norway. Roma and Gypsies are the most common words used to describe a group of minority people with some common characteristics, although they have a varied background, with different languages, distinguished from the Norwegian majority both in language and lifestyle. Professor, the Norwegian Institute of Theology, Oslo, Norway. Researcher, the Norwegian Institute of Theology, Oslo, Norway.. 173 Anne Bonnevie Lund & Bente Bolme Moen (eds.), Nasjonale minoriteter i det flerkulturelle Norge. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk forlag. 2010. 186 The group named “Roma” is only a small part of a group of people living in different Western countries, especially in Europe. In Norwegian research, Roma people are described as a “transnational minority with extended family networks characterized by regular contact”.174 During the last years, words like “Roma” or “Roma people” have replaced the earlier use of “Gipsy”, but there is no agreement among those who belong to these groups about terminology. Their culture is still oral, and therefore, it is necessary to trace their history by language research, and by looking into external sources and official documents. Their language seems to be related to Indian languages, and the linguistic term “vlax romanés” refers to the language that was developed by the Roma population living in the area which today is a part of Romania, based on the language that they had brought with them, with influences from the Romanian language. Group of gypsies have been travelling in Scandinavia since the 16th century, and probably, they have been integrated in the other minority group Romani people/Tater. But the group of Norwegian Roma who are still speaking the romanes language, have another origin, belonging to the group called Vlach-rom, leaving Valakia (the southern part of Romania) about 1850. It seems as if this group has preserved their language and traditions to a larger extent than gypsies from other countries. Also after 1850, Roma and Gypsies have been persecuted and discriminated, especially during the Second World War. The Norwegian Roma people are descendants from the Romanian Roma people who left Romania and travelled through different European countries, also to Norway to find work. In 1860, a new law allowed people to come into Norway without passports, and therefore, there were no longer any formal hindrances for travelling people wanting to go to Norway. In 1922, however, the Ministry of Justice gave orders to the police offices to expel all Roma people who could not prove their affiliation to Norway. As a response to the official restrictions, some Roma families emigrated to France and Belgium. In the 1930’s Norwegian policy became even more restrictive, and even Roma people with Norwegian passports were returned. During the Second World War, only a few members of the families with Norwegian affiliation survived, and at least 60 Norwegian Roma people lost their lives in Auschwitz.175 Romani people/Tater is a minority group that has existed in Norway since early 16th century, and it should be distinguished from the Roma people (Gypsies) as a distinct national minority with a specific culture and language. Today, Norwegian Taters speak different Norwegian dialects, and many of them have little knowledge about the traditional language romani, where more than 60 % of the words have their origin in Indo-Aryan languages. The Romani people have been traditionally been travelling around in the country, and therefore the term “travelers” has also been used to characterize this group. In their first period in Norway, many of them had to do work that was considered to be unclean or dishonest, working as executers, butchers or cleaners. For this group, horses have been important, both symbolically and practically, and in the 17th and 18th centuries, many Romani men were registered as horse castrators. They were involved in many activities concerning equipment for horses and making objects both for practical use and for decoration. From the last part of the 19th century, many worked as tinsmiths or in junk shops, and selling or repairing watches became an important source of income. Selling and buying was important for Romani people, and the whole family was involved in activities to get money for the family. The women were especially important in sales activities. But such activities could not be limited to a small local community, and this is one important reason for the lifestyle as travelers. Through travelling, they could reach new 174 Lund & Moen, eds. (2010), pp. 87-96. 175 Jahn Otto Johansen (1989), Sigøynernes holocaust. Oslo: Cappelen. 187 markets and earn money both through selling and through working, especially through work that was important in the old farmer’s society.176 During the early immigration period, Romani people were – to a certain extent - tolerated by the authorities, due to the pilgrimage tradition within the Roman Catholic Church. But this soon changed after the Lutheran reformation in Denmark and Norway (1536), when the Danish king declared the Romani people to be outlaws. In 1589, the king gave order to capture all taters and kill them without mercy. In the 18th and 19th century, begging and travelling on the roads was punished, and many taters were arrested. Local authorities tried to keep taters outside their districts, and there are examples of organized “tater hunting”. 3. Norwegian policy towards Romani people/tater during the last century From the last part of the 19th century, the official Norwegian policy towards Romani people has been characterized as “Norwegianization”, a policy aiming at assimilation of the minority into the Norwegian society by destroying their specific culture and lifestyle. Legislation as tools for assimilation As part of this strategy, different laws were changed or established in order to speed up the assimilation process. In 1896, the Norwegian Parliament passed a law that made it possible for public authorities to intervene into families, and remove children from their parents to prevent neglect. A few years later (1900), a new law against vagrancy intended to exclude beggars, drunkards and other marginalized groups from public aid, and according to one of the paragraphs, “travelling people” (i.e. Romani people) without legal work, could become object of forced settlement. Another law aimed at preventing Romani people from selling goods during their travelling, and in 1935 the Government even tried to prevent Romani people from using horses on their travels, but in the Parliament a small majority voted against the proposal. But later, in 1951, an amendment to the Law on Animal Protection made it illegal for “travelers” to use horses in their work as salesmen. In 1934, a law on sterilization opened up the possibility of forced sterilization to prevent “defect” individuals from having children. Before the law was passed, influential voices within the medical profession had argued that also Romani women should be included in the law, but that did not happen. During the Second World War, however, the National Socialist government proposed an amendment to the law, where Romani people were included, but this law did not come into effect. The old law from 1934 lasted until 1978, and although the “travelers” were not explicitly mentioned in the law, recent research has shown that relatively many women with Romani/tater background were affected by the law. 125 women with Romani/tater background were sterilized in the period 1934-1977, most of them according to the paragraphs in the 1934 law. In practice, there are many examples of different practices against Romani/tater in the way they were treated by local police officers and other authorities. In some areas, the police tried to prevent travelers from staying within their district, while others put little emphasis on this, obviously because Romani/tater were seen as well integrated in the local community. The law that most directly hit this group was the law against use of horses. On the one hand, later research has not documented that this law was much used in practice, although there are stories about local police officers shooting horses belonging to Roma/tater people. But the law in itself has been interpreted as perhaps the most striking example of the discrimination that hit this particular minority group. 176 Anne-Mari Larsen, Vi er fargerike bare vi tør. Taternes fortellinger. Oslo: Tapir Akademisk Forlag, 2010, p.83ff. 188 Discrimination and stigmatization During the 20th century, different practices against Romani people could be characterized as discriminatory. Recent research has documented different aspects of discrimination against individuals belonging to this minority group, within fields like school and education, and in specific areas as refusal to use public campsites.177 The negative attitudes and stereotypes regarding Romani people were quite common in the Norwegian majority population. Even in the Parliament, some representatives spoke about Romani/tater as a social “outgrowth” that ought to be cut off. Such negative attitudes among politicians and in newspapers created a public climate that justified the harsh policy of assimilation. These attitudes were particularly negative in the years between the two World Wars, because of the tendency to use biology as a framework of interpretation also for politics, culture, history and society. In this period, there was a tendency to stigmatize particular human beings and social groups as “less valuable” than the “sound”, “good” and “normal” people. Especially in the press, there was I tendency to characterize Romani/tater as an inferior group, which should not be allowed to reproduce itself. Newspapers described travelers as “criminals”, and negative characteristics of this group were quite common in the media. “The Norwegian Mission for Homeless People” From 1897 to 1986, the state allowed a private organization, “Norwegian Mission among homeless”, to take the responsibility for the work with Romani/tater. All state support and aid for Romani people was channeled through this organization, through an extensive cooperation between public and private actors. A lot of children were removed from their biological families and grew up in orphan homes or in ordinary Norwegian homes through foster care. In the middle of the 19th century, an important Norwegian sociologist, Eilert Sundt, had published important research on this group. He concluded that Romani people/tater should be considered as a minority group with distinctive identity, language and work traditions. But when the plans for a “mission” organization among this people were made in the end of the 1890’s, this perspective was not included. Instead, the plan focused on the “un-Christian” way of life among the “travelers” and the problem of poverty that had to be overcome through cooperation between private actors and the public authorities. The “Plan for the work among Travelers” which was published in 1896, claimed the private part of this cooperation should represent “mildness”, while the public authorities were supposed to represent “strictness”. These two attitudes should be combined in the new Mission organization. From 1897, this organization for the “homeless” played a very important role as the most important tool for the government in the attempts to assimilate the Romani people into the mainstream Norwegian culture and society. Resent research on the history of the Mission has concluded that in practice, the “strictness” became the main characteristics of the work performed, and that the signs of “mildness” are not always visible in the history of the organization. The Mission for the Homeless gained power and influence through the close cooperation with public authorities, especially through economic support and specific agreements with the state. The organization was led by ministers of the Church of Norway, and besides, key persons from the state department on Social issues were members of the Board of the Mission. In this way, the new organization became a part both of the political and the religious power structure of Norway. 177 Assimilering og motstand. Norsk politikk overfor taterne/romanifolket fra 1850 til i dag. Norges offentlige utredninger 2015:7. Arnfinn H. Midtbøen & Hilde Lidén, Diskriminering av samer, nasjonale minoriteter og innvandrere i Norge. En kunnskapsgjennomgang. Institutt for samfunnsforskning – Rapport 2015:01 189 In its work, the Mission was given a large degree of freedom. The activities of the organization was very much in line with the mainstream negative view of Romani/tater, and at the same time, this view justified and legitimized the work of the Mission. An important part of the Mission’s work was the attempt to settle the “travelers”. In 1907, a new law on “tramps” laid the fundament for the state policy in this field. As an alternative to being put into forced work, travelers could be sent to “working colonies” according to this new law, and the state regarded the cooperation with the Mission as a necessary condition for effective results. Travelers should be forced to stay for a period in one of the colonies established by the Mission. The Ministry of Church Affairs supported this view, and even proposed that the Mission should take the main responsibility for the settlement project on behalf of the state. The government then declared that the Mission should take the main responsibility for the settlement project for the travelers. An important part of the Mission’s work in this settlement project was the work on child care. The task of giving the children a new home, where the children could be brought up, could only be successful if the parents were removed from the roads. The Mission wanted to force the families to live in a home, and often the parents were told that they had to settle if they wanted to keep their children. Otherwise, the Mission would take over the care for the children, they were told, in spite of the fact that this practice could not be justify by existing laws. The most important institution in this work, “Svanviken Working Colony”, was the most important part of the settling work of the Mission. Living in this colony was supposed to contribute to the permanent settlement of the “traveling families”, so that they could become “useful citizens” through work training, including house work, regular school education and a life within a “fixed framework”. According to the rules, the families living in the colony should consider themselves as living at home, in order to prepare for a natural family life. During the last decades, the work of the Mission, both at Svanviken and in other institutions for children from Romani/tater families, has been heavily criticized. In recent research, many examples of care neglect and serious violations have been documented, and often, the children lost contact with their family and their group. The official policy towards this minority group was to destroy family ties and to overcome the “traveling” lifestyle and culture. Registration was another attempt to control the Romani/tater group. The state considered registration and counting of the members of this group as an important, and the Mission supported this view and even worked for a more accurate registration. In the years between 1921 and 1978, the Mission received copies of documents from the police with very sensitive information about Roma citizens (and also some citizens from other minority groups, Gypsies and Kvens) who were punished. This is another example of the extensive cooperation between a private organization and public institutions, and during the last decades this cooperation has been criticized. The Mission also supported sterilization as a necessary tool to solve the “traveling problem”. In the public discussion on the law on sterilization that was discussed in the early 1930’s, the General Secretary of the Mission in 1933 advised the Minister of Justice to intensify the work with the new law. And in the years after 1934, the leader of the Mission actively engaged in the issue of sterilization for Romani/tater, even during the Second World War, when he tried to convince the National Socialist government that sterilization should be used more extensively in this group. Research has shown that at 125 women with Romani/tater background were sterilized in the period 1934-1977, most of them according to the paragraphs in the 1934 law. From the late 1920’s the Mission initiated an intelligence test for children living in the Mission’s homes for children. 71 children were tested by a medical student, and when the 190 results were published in 1931, the study concluded that 61 of the children were more or less below the normal intelligence level. Both the leader of the Mission and some politicians used this as an argument for sterilization, and later the results were used to argue for a stronger emphasis on classification and segregation of children from Roma/tater families. During the 1930’s, a lot of children from the Mission’s children homes were transferred to institutions for mentally retarded children. Later, the Mission also took the initiative to regular psychiatric testing of the children in the Mission’s homes, in order to send retarded children to special institutions. The Mission’s homes should only concentrate on children with “basically normal capabilities”. This practice became efficient in the early 1950’s, and could be interpreted as a means to destroy the links between children and their biological parents. Through intelligence testing, the Mission intended to sort out children below an acceptable intelligence level. Children who passed the test could be assimilated, but those who did not pass, should be segregated. During the Second World War, the National Socialist regime continued the assimilation work that had been the dominating principle for the last decades. The aim was the same, but the NS regime used more extreme means and measures to reach it. All adult members of the group were supposed to live in “work camp”, in order to force families to give up their mobile lifestyle. At the same time, the NS regime wanted to reduce the influence of the Mission. But in practice, it is not easy to see how the policy during the war differed from the years before and after the war. The Norwegian war experiences do not seem to have modified the official policy towards this group during the first years after 1945. The ideal of a community where everybody should contribute to the common good through work that could lead to economic growth for the whole society, did not open up for a more tolerant attitude towards people who represented an alternative lifestyle that was characterized as unproductive, criminal and parasitic. The leaders of the Mission often spoke about the need to change the travelers into “clever and positive human beings in the society” who could contribute to the growth of the national fellowship. Change of attitudes and criticism of earlier policy against Roma/tater From the 1970’s, the attitude towards Roma/tater gradually started to change within the Norwegian society. In April 1975, a member of the Parliament posed critical question about the traditional policy against this minority group in a question to the Minister of Social affairs. As a result of the debate in the Parliament, a public commission in 1979 was asked to present a report on the topic. The commission finished their report in 1982, and in one of their recommendation they proposed a change in the economic system, integrating the economy in ordinary structure within the local municipalities instead of treating the minorities in as a particular group outside the society. As the Parliament changed their policy in 1986, the Minister of Justice said: “It is important that the specific tradition and history of the “tater” people is recognized and treated as a valuable part of our society. We should also formulate an acceptation towards those who are not living in a specific place and/or are not integrated. We have to accept that people do not want to be like all others. This can only be achieved by increased knowledge.”178 During the following years, the local municipalities became more professional in their contacts with the travelers, and their economic resources were improved, so that they could give better and more adequate help. As a result of the changes in the economic system, some of the old paragraphs in the laws that had contributed to discrimination, were removed. 178 Assimilering og motstand, p. 69. 191 In the same years, the Mission changed its name, organization and profile. In 1983 the phrase “work for travelers” was removed from § 1. Instead the aim of the Mission was described with these words: “to realize the diaconal mission of the church by giving children, youth and adult people in a difficult situation possibilities for fellowship and personal growth in home, church and society”. Three years later, the name was changed to “The Social Service of the Church”, and the old Mission organization was replaced by a foundation. From the 1970’s the old policy of assimilation gradually had met increased criticism. At the same time, the lifestyle of the Romani/tater people had changed during the last years, since many lived in permanent houses most of the year, reducing the traveling lifestyle to shorter periods. Still, many people feared the authorities because of the negative experiences from earlier times, and the process of integration took its time. If we compare the situation at the end of the 20th century with the conditions 100 years earlier, it is obvious that the situation for the group had changed a lot, from a strict policy of assimilation to a recognizing policy towards minorities. But the process towards had been very slow, and the issue of human rights did not play a role as a critical force against discrimination. Recent developments and changes From early 1990’s, Romani/tater people founded interest organizations in order to engage in public debates. An important issue was the need to map the policy in earlier periods in order to show the need for excuse and rehabilitation. In newspapers and television programs, individuals and families from this group told their stories about harassment and violations. The pressure for an official excuse from the side of the political authorities became stronger. During the last 20 years, the Norwegian government has tried to answer these claims in different ways, both through public excuses and individual programs for compensation. In 1996, a specific research program was established within the Norwegian Research Council, with the aim of mapping the history of the Romani/tater people and the official policy towards this group. The inclusion of the group as a national minority from 1999 is another example of the change in attitudes and policy. But the Norwegian ratification of the Framework Convention of the European Council of 1 February 1995 for the Protection of National Minorities, was criticized by a majority of the spokespersons from the Romani/tater organizations. One of the argument used, was that Romani people in Norway should be seen as Norwegian citizens with the same rights and duties as all other citizens, and therefore they should not isolate themselves from the rest of the society. On the other hand, they also warned against being defined as a particular group. One of the organizations said that the status as a minority, national or ethnic, should not “follow us as a stamp”. Another organization warned against a split within the group between those who would prefer to belong to this minority and those who would refuse this or would keep neutral. Only one of the Romani organizations preferred a new status as a minority, claiming that the convention would give a robust recognition of earlier violations, and a duty to ensure that the groups should be considered as an equal participant on all levels in the Norwegian society. Spokespersons from the Romani/tater people have also demanded a critical evaluation of the work of the Norwegian Mission of the Homeless. When the five different groups were recognized as national minorities, the authorities in many cases gave excuses for earlier violations and racist attitudes against the minorities. The different tater organizations demanded both excuses from the authorities and compensations for violations and losses during the years of discrimination and violations. 192 In 1998, the Norwegian government gave a public excuse to the Romani/tater people, and two years later the Stoltenberg government repeated this excuse in an official paper to the Parliament: This policy was supported and sanctioned positively by official authorities (The Parliament, the government, central and local administration), and to a large extent realized by the organization Norwegian Mission among the homeless. … The government strongly abominates the violations against the Romani people, and asks for forgiveness for the injustice that has taken place. Something similar must never happen again.179 Also from Church of Norway there were excuses, given by the General Assembly both in 1998 and 2000. The first excuse was not accepted by some of the representatives from the Romani/tater people, since the church mainly criticized the state, without focusing on the violations coming from the Church, especially the Mission. Therefore, a new statement with a stronger excuse, without reservations, was given two years later. Also within the organization that replaced the Mission from 1986, an internal process has been started to evaluate the history of the Mission. This work is still in progress. In 2015, an official commission presented a large report on the Norwegian policy towards Romani/tater people from 1850 to the present situation, summing up the history and important research on the topic. In this report, the Mission has been heavily criticized for its attitudes and acts against Romani people, but criticism has also been launched against political authorities, both on state level and on the regional and local level. The situation has changed a lot during the last decades, and the integration of this national minority group has reached a new level during this last period. 4. Norwegian policy towards Roma (Gypsies) Roma people in Norway after the Second World War As we have seen in the historical overview, Norwegian authorities tried to keep Roma people (Gypsies) outside Norway’s national borders before the Second World War. This policy must be understood against a specific ideological background. Among Norwegians, there was a general distrust against Roma, and people belonging to this group were denied access to Norway even when they brought Norwegian passports and valid papers. After the war, the same attitudes dominated the official Norwegian attitude towards the group, when Roma people returning to Norway applied for a renewal of their citizenship.180 The family members who had survived the war, were stateless, and they lived in Belgium with a temporarily citizenship. In 1953 the first family tried to get permission to travel to Norway, but they were denied access, although the head of the family brought papers showing that he was born in Norway. On the other hand, survivors from another family with the same links to Norway, were given Norwegian citizenship at the end of the 1950’s.181 In 1962, the Ministry of Social Issues established a Commission for Contact with Gypsies. In addition to representatives from the ministry, the police and schools in Oslo, the Roman Catholic Church and the Norwegian Mission among the Homeless were represented in the commission. This could be interpreted as a policy trying to isolate the problem with the Roma/Gypsies as a specific challenge, distinct from the old problem with the Romani/tater people. At this time, there were about 60 members of the group of Vlach-rom with Norwegian attachment, some of them living abroad for periods. When members of this group traveled to Oslo or other parts of Norway, the public opinion showed signs of worry. 179 Assimilering og motstand, p. 85. 180 Johansen 2010. 181 Lund & Moen, eds., p.93f.. 193 In order to come into closer contact with the group, spokesmen for the Roma people were appointed, on the basis of a private or a professional knowledge to the group. This made it easier for the group of Roma to present their wishes through spokesmen outside of the group. The Roma people themselves normally did not participate in the public debate. The spokespersons tried to influence the work on Roma within the Ministry, and they also used the press to try to change the attitudes to the Gypsies among the majority population.182 The work within the Commission for Gypsies resulted in a public proposal on measures for the gypsies, and an official document about this was presented for the Parliament in 1972/73. This document can be seen as the first example of a new policy against the group of Roma/Gypsies, compared with the earlier policy of assimilation. The main idea was integration into the Norwegian society and working life, but at the same time the document supported the Roma people’s wish to keep their cultural uniqueness. The proposal underlined settlement, education and work as important parts of a strategy for integration, and underlined the need for the gypsies to play an active part in the evaluation of the different measures. For example, there a class on the language romanes was established for Roma children, and the authorities in the city of Oslo established a specific department for Gypsy matters, covering both ordinary social issues and housing policy. In 1978, a Kindergarten for all Roma children and a Youth Club was established. In 1988, the social matters for Roma people were transferred from the department for Gypsy matters to the ordinary offices in the different areas. This can be seen as a new policy, with the aim of “normalizing” the relationship between the group of Roma and the society as a whole. The specific measures towards the group were phased out in order to integrate the Roma population into a system where welfare assistance was given on an individual basis, not a group basis. The present discussion on Roma people in Norway Norway’s ratification of Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 1999, where the Norwegian Roma (Gypsies) were given status as a national minority because of their historical background in the country, could be interpreted as compensation for the long history of assimilation, violations and discrimination towards this group. During the last years, Roma people are also coming from other geographic areas, for example as asylum seekers from Eastern European countries. The Schengen agreement and the extensions of the EU have led to an increased freedom of movement across national borders, and this has led to new discussions about Roma people in Norway. Most Roma people coming from abroad lack education and professional skills, and therefore a lot of them end up as beggers. Often, they get into conflict with the authorities. In the sumner of 2012, a newspaper reported the following about the situation in Oslo: Around 200 migrants from south-eastern Europe, who claim to be looking for work in Oslo but mostly resort to begging, have landed in yet another conflict after settling in a privately owned gravel pit over the weekend. (…) The migrants, most of them Roma people from Romania and Bulgaria, were ordered to leave the grounds around Sofienberg Church in Oslo where they’d settled last week. After months of camping out under bridges and in city parks, repeatedly violating city sanitation lws in doing wo, the migrants banded together and set up camp outside the church in Oslo’s trendy Grünerløkka neighbourhood to seek refuge from what they claimed was police harassment. (…) Both city and church officials, the latter 182 Ted Hanisch, Om sigøynerspørsmålet. En undersøkelse av bakgrunnen for sosial konfrontasjon. Oslo: Institutt for samfunnsforskning, 1976. 194 suspecting they were being used as pawns in the conflict, ordered the church camp disbanded.”183 Recent research on the new group of Roma people coming to Norway, from Romania and other Eastern European countries, has shown that the most typical pattern is married couples in the 40’s and 50’s. Some bring adult children with them, while others travel in large family groups without children.184 They travel in different ways, by train, minibuses, tourist buses or own cars to Norway (and other European countries). In Norway, begging on the streets is the most visible activity among these people, but they are also performing other activities, collecting bottles, clothes and other objects from trash containers, in order to earn money from selling. Some of them are musicians, playing on the street. A Norwegian report from 2012 suggested that begging and other kinds of street work demands effective work on a collective basis to be profitable. In that case, it is possible to send a considerable amount of money back to the home country.185 The beggars belonging to Roma people, is both considered to be a victim and a violator, but first and foremost as exotic and strange. Not only in Norway, but in most European countries, the authorities consider these people as the most difficult group to integrate, because they refuse to accept the framework they have to be a part of. Therefore, both Norway and many other European countries have started projects, programs and activities to integrate gypsies, often based on the idea that the marginalization of this group is caused by social poverty. On the other hand, researchers have claimed that we also should see the other side, and that gypsies and Roma are a very varied population with different social and economic status, and that we have to distinguish between the myths and realities when we describe this group.186 In the Norwegian public debate, there have been many examples of media reports that paint a very negative picture of “bands of beggars” with a criminal background, crating disturbance in the public sphere, both in Oslo and some other cities. Some politicians have claimed that the Roma beggars should be expelled from the country, both because of links to criminality and because of their unsound way of living, producing garbage at the street. On the other hand, politicians have warned against focusing too much on this group, since it has been difficult to verify the accusations about links to organized criminality. But still, this discussion is quite strong in Norway today, and both from politicians and church representatives, there is a considerable uncertainty about the best strategy towards this group of Roma (Gypsies) that have become so visible, especially in Oslo. Conclusion Different national minorities have a long history in Norway, especially during the last 4-500 hundred years. The way these minorities have been treated by Norwegian political authorities have differed a lot, and the social acceptance among the majority population has gradually changed from a hostile to a more positive attitude. The main tendency has been a change from hostility and discrimination, through a period of assimilation policy, to a more inclusive attitude during the last decades, aiming at integration and full participation in the Norwegian society. The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities has 183 Quoted from Kjetil Fretheim, «Majority church and migration: A Norwegian case study», CULTA Religion and Multiculturality, 2013. 184 Ada I. Engebretsen. Tiggerbander og kriminelle bakmenn eller fattige EU-borgere? Myter og realiteter om utenlandske tiggere i Oslo: NOVA 2012. 185 Engebretsen 2012, p. 33. 186 Engebretsen 2012, p. 41. 195 played an important role during the last 15 years, but already before Norway signed the Convention, the movement towards integration and inclusion had started. Still, there are problems to be solved, especially with regard to the last years’ situation for the new group of Roma people coming to Norway as beggars. Still, Norwegian politicians have not been able to find a common strategy in this issue, and the attitudes within the population is quite divided when it comes to what measures should be preferred. So there are still challenges for Norwegian policy towards the national minorities. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Assimilering og motstand. Norsk politikk overfor taterne/romanifolket fra 1850 til i dag. Norges offentlige utredninger 2015:7. 2. Engebretsen, Ada J., 2012, Tiggerbander og kriminelle bakmenn eller fattige EU- borgere? Myter og realiteter om utenlandske tiggere i Oslo. Oslo: NOVA – Norsk institutt for forskning om oppvekst, velferd og aldring, (Notat Nr. 2/12). 3. Fretheim, Kjetil, «Majority church and migration: A Norwegian case study», CULTA Religion and Multiculturality: Educational Pathways for Local Church Leaders – National Researches. 4. Hanisch, Ted, 1976, Om sigøynerspørsmålet. En undersøkelse av bakgrunnen for sosial konfrontasjon. Oslo: Institutt for samfunnsforskning. http://www.cultaproject.eu/index.php/en/research-products/research-from-mf-norway 5. Johansen, Jahn Otto, 1989, Sigøynernes holocaust. Oslo: Cappelen. 6. Johansen, Jahn Otto, 2010, Romafolket (sigøynerne) - utstøtt og forfulgt. Drøbak: Kultur og utenriks. 7. Larsen, Anne-Mari, 2010, Vi er fargerike bare vi tør. Taternes fortellinger. Oslo: Tapir Akademisk Forlag. 8. Lund, Anne Bonnevie & Bente Bolme MOEN (eds.), 2010, Nasjonale minoriteter i det flerkulturelle Norge. Trondheim: Tapir Akademisk forlag. 9. Midtboen, Arnfinn H. & Hilde Liden, 2015, Diskriminering av samer, nasjonale minoriteter og innvandrere i Norge. En kunnskapsgjennomgang. Institutt for samfunnsforskning – Rapport :01 . 196 TABLE OF CONTENT FOREWORD...... 5 Carmen Ionela Banţa, PhD THE LEGAL SYSTEM AND MINORITIES ...... 9 George Gîrleşteanu, PhD. PROMOTING THE HUMAN BEING AND ITS PRICELESS VALUE IN THE CONTEXT OF CULTURAL DIVERSITY – THEOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES ...... 26 His Eminence University Professor PhD Irineu Ion Popa HISTORICAL AND ETHNOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF THE MINORITIES PRESENT IN OLTENIA. BELIEFS, CUSTOMS AND TRADITIONS ...... 38 Emil Ţîrcomnicu PhD Florenţa Simion PhD ETHNOGRAPHICAL LAYOUT OF MINORITIES IN OLTENIA-SETTLEMENST, OCCUPATIONS, ARCHITECTURE, MANAGEMENT OF THE DWELLING PLACES, TRADITIONAL COSTUME ...... 86 Cornel Bălosu, PhD INTERDISCIPLINARY STUDY: SOCIOCULTURAL PROFILE OF MINORITIES IN OLTENIA ...... 100 Dumitru Otovescu, PhD Alexandrina Mihaela Popescu, PhD Răzvan Nicolae Stan, PhD OLTENIA, AN ANTHROPOLOGICAL SKETCH ...... 160 Nicolae Panea PhD LIVE STORIES...... 167 Gabriela Rusu, PhD NATIONAL MINORITIES IN NORWAY – OVERVIEW AND EXPERIENCES ...... 186 Gunnar Heiene, PhD Solvor M. Lauritzen, PhD 197 Printed at ALMA DCMI Tel./Fax: 0251.587.300 e-mail: [email protected] Baza industrial# ALMA CONS Calea Severinului, Nr. 44 A 200610 - Craiova Rom@nia