Identifying of European Roma-Gypsy Groups with the Term „Roma”
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ondřej Klípa Identifying of European Roma-Gypsy groups with the term „Roma”. Towards consensus? e issue of Roma-Gypsy 1 ethnonym is a popular topic among so called „Gyp- siologists”. In various studies, arguments are o en proposed for using the term „Gypsy” instead of „Roma” or vice versa are o en discussed. e „terminological war”, i.e. the argument between the ethnonyms „Roma” and „Gypsy” has also occasionally intensi& ed within public and political discourse as well. 2 Although I will sum up the arguments of both sides of divided academia, the main aim of my article is somewhat di erent. Firstly, I will examine this discus- sion from a more diachronic perspective, i.e. which changes have occurred in re- cent decades in terms using an exonym (a name imposed from the outside, espe- cially by the majority population) for the groups in concern, as well as what kind of tendencies we can observe from this. Secondly, I will analyze the tendencies also in the context of changes of Roma-Gypsy endonym (the self-appellation used by the particular community itself). In other words, I shall examine the tenden- cies in Roma-Gypsy naming from the point of view of both majority popu la tion and the Roma-Gypsy groups themselves 3. I will pay particular attention to the fact 1 Since the main topic of this article is precisely the use of the ethnonyms Roma and Gypsies, I will employ this somewhat arti& cial combination in order to distinguish it from my argu- mentation when speaking about either the Roma or Gypsy ethnonyms. However, I & nd it important to admit at the beginning of the text that I personally usually use the appellation „Roma„ and am inclined to the argumentation connected to this term (see below). 2 Some comments to the latest outbreak of this debate linked to the increasing „anti-politically correct” rhetoric of some populist political movements in the Czech Republic can be found in my article: O. Klípa, Rom vs. Cikán. Račte si vybrat , „Lidové noviny”, 18 VI 2016, p. 23. 3 I agree with Marushiakova and Popov that in the case of Roma it is not possible to distinguish strictly between endonym and exonym, as they o en play interchangeable roles. Many Roma- -Gypsy endonyms were adopted by the majority societies, along with exonmys such as Gyp- sies, Gitanos, Cyganie etc. are also used as endonyms by Roma-Gypsy groups, especially when their language does not di er from the majority one. See: E. Marushiakova, V. Popov, ‘Gypsy’ groups in Eastern Europe: Ethnonyms vs. professionyms , „Romani Studies” 2013, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 61–82, p. 63. 204 Ondřej Klípa that for almost half a century the appellation Roma has been pursued by Roma intellectuals, along with growing acceptance of the term in various & elds. Does this in fact mean that the acceptance of the appellation Roma has spread equally among both majority populations (including academia) and the Roma-Gypsies themselves? My main argument is that despite increased use of the term „Roma”, serious obstacles remain which prevent consensual adoption of the term both as an endonym and exonym. In the & rst part, dealing with attitude of the majority population, I will present the reasons why the term Roma is opposed by part of the academic community. In the second part, I will compare selected cases of Roma- -Gypsies who are opposed to calling themselves Roma or who use the ethnonym in a rather hybrid and „creolized” way, subverting thinking about the unity of the nation and its name in the majority discourse of „older” European nations. Do Roma evict Gypsies? It is a long time since the name „Roma„ was oÉ cially proclaimed at the & rst World Romani Congress in 1971 as the sole preferred ethnonym for the Ro- ma-Gypsy groups. at was meant to apply not only to those Roma mostly from Balkans and Eastern Europe who traditionally call themselves in this way. Even the organization then in charge of the congress – the Comité International Tsi- gane – was itself later renamed as the International Rom Committee and then as the International Romani Union/ Romani Union. Although one may question the mandate of the „representatives” who participated at the congress, the fact remains that there has not been any other similar assembly where a counter-state- ment could be proclaimed. On the contrary, the International Romani Union as well as other Roma organizations (e.g. World Roma Organization Rroman- ipen) has gained some recognition, from international organizations in particu- lar. eir own proclamations have gone even further, resulting inter alia in the oÉ cial announcement of the Roma being a „non-territorial nation” at the Fi h World Romani Congress in 2000 in Prague. e European Union and its bod- ies such the Fundamental Rights Agency, as well as organizations established in recent decades such as European Roma Rights Centre in Budapest (1996) have gradually adopted the ethnonym Roma as the most preferred usage. Even the oldest scholarly organization dealing with Roma-Gypsy issues e Gypsy Lore Society (founded in 1888 in Great Britain, now residing in the USA) renamed in 2000 its journal from Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society into Romani Studies. e case of the Council of Europe, o en called an unoÉ cial „Roma advocate”, provides an overview of its own terminology development „since 1969, the date of the & rst text relating to the Roma communities: „Gypsies and other travellers”, „Nomads” (1975 and 1983), „populations of nomadic origin” (1981), „Gypsies” Identifying of European Roma-Gypsy groups with the term „Roma” 205 (1993), „Roma (Gypsies)” (1995), „Roma” (1997, 2002), „Roma/Gypsies” (1995, 1998, 2000), „Roma/Gypsies and Travellers” (2001), „Roma and Travellers” (be- tween 2004 and 2010), and „Roma” since 2010”. 4 Some scholars in the & eld of Roma studies con& rm the growing occurrence of the ethnonym Roma too. 5 For instance, Dimitrina Petrova wrote in 2003: „In the last years, however, the term „Roma,” which is the ethnocultural self-appellation of many of those perceived by outsiders as ‘Gypsies’, has come to dominate the oÉ cial political discourse, at least in Europe, and has acquired the legitimacy of political correctness”. 6 Nevertheless, the spread of the name Roma in international (political) and hu- man-rights organizations and to some extent academic institutions did not pene- trate borders of certain academic domains and especially of individual in{ uential scholars. According to Petrova, „Gypsy and Tsigane [are] terms still preferred in much of the historical, anthropological, and ethnographic literature” 7. Based on my own personal observation, I would say that the borderline is o en accompanied by the related attitude of these scholars towards the Roma national movement. With- out exaggerating the & ndings and drawing overly general conclusions, it is not unusual to & nd signs of respect and solidarity for Roma nation-building among authors using the ethnonym „Roma”. On the other hand, one can feel a slight disre- spect for or at least dissociation from the Roma nation-building movement among those preferring the term „Gypsy” (and its variations in other European languages). For instance, Marushiakova and Popov write that „the replacement of ‘Gypsy’ by newly coined terms ( Rómovia, Rómové, Romi, Romowie, Роми , Ромалы, etc.) in the national languages of Eastern Europe is currently being promoted (or at least attempts at promotion are being made) in the public sphere.” In the follow- ing sentence they comment it as „speculative and politically correct schemes”. 8 To look at the other side, the Belgian political scientist Peter Vermeersch, who has 4 Council of Europe Descriptive Glossary of terms relating to Roma issues , p. 3, http://a.cs.coe.int/ team20/cahrom/documents/Glossary%20Roma%20EN%20version%2018%20May%202012. pdf (10 XII 2016). 5 However, the growing acceptance of the term Roma at the international level does not neces- sarily mean that it is the result of the Roma national movement. Nevertheless, it could be an indirect result of it. Raising the issue of the Roma social exclusion and anti-Gypsyism high on the agenda of states and international organizations surely contributed to wider acceptance to this ethnonym. Using the term Roma could have been the sign of solidarity and respect, i.e. adopting the oÉ cially preferred ethnonym of the marginalized and discriminated group as a certain „aÉ rmative action”, like in the case of pursuing ethnonym Inuit instead of Eskimos, Native (or First) Americans instead of Indians, San people instead of Bushmen etc. 6 D. Petrova, ' e Roma: Between a myth and the future , „Social Research” 2003, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 111-161, p. 111 7 Ibidem , p. 111. 8 E. Marushiakova, V. Popov, op.cit ., p. 63. 206 Ondřej Klípa been concentrating on minority rights for a long time, uses the term Roma in his academic works without hesitation. When he de& nes the Roma in one of his texts (co-authored by Melanie H. Ram) he resolves the Roma vs. Gypsy dispute very simply saying that „they were formerly called ‘Gypsies’ but now many consider this term pejorative”. 9 However, there are other reasons which are – at least openly – presented as stronger arguments for the rejection of the term Roma in academic discourse. e „classical” arguments could be found in the book „ e Gypsies” by the Brit- ish historian Angus Fraser, which was & rst published in 1992. In his de& nition of „Gypsies” he rejects the purely socio-economic de& nition as it covers much wider population (any vagrant group) 10 . He also refused „racial” identi& cation, as he was aware of the inevitably high inter-ethnic mixing that makes any search for a common ancestry impossible.