UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)
The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of transnational governmentality van Baar, H.J.M.
Publication date 2011
Link to publication
Citation for published version (APA): van Baar, H. J. M. (2011). The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of transnational governmentality.
General rights It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Disclaimer/Complaints regulations If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible.
UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)
Download date:28 Sep 2021 ȱ Chapterȱ8ȱ TheȱEuropeanȱMemoryȱProblemȱRevisited:ȱ RomaniȱMemoryȱbeyondȱAmnesiaȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ ȱ MaȱBisteren!ȱLet’sȱnotȱforget!ȱ1ȱ ȱ Weȱhaveȱbeenȱtaughtȱthatȱitȱisȱourȱdutyȱtoȱremember.ȱThatȱisȱcertainlyȱaȱpositiveȱdeȬ velopment.ȱYetȱtheȱdoctrineȱthatȱurgesȱusȱnotȱtoȱforgetȱtheȱcrimesȱagainstȱmankindȱisȱ accompaniedȱbyȱtheȱhopeȱthatȱthisȱmemoryȱwillȱpreventȱusȱfromȱrepeatingȱtheȱatrocȬ itiesȱofȱtheȱpast.ȱButȱwithoutȱtheȱdutyȱtoȱthink,ȱtheȱdutyȱtoȱrememberȱwillȱbeȱmeaningȬ less.ȱ(ClaudeȱLefortȱcitedȱProbstȱ2003:ȱ58)ȱ ȱ InȱherȱbestȬsellingȱtravelȱstoryȱBuryȱmeȱStanding:ȱTheȱGypsiesȱandȱtheirȱJourneyȱ(1995)ȱIsabelȱ Fonsecaȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ Romaȱ doȱ notȱ collectivelyȱ rememberȱ andȱ thatȱ theyȱ forgetȱ toȱ surviveȱasȱaȱpeople.ȱInȱcontrast,ȱKatieȱTrumpenerȱ(1992)ȱstatesȱthatȱRomaniȱminorities,ȱ theirȱcultures,ȱhistories,ȱandȱmemoriesȱhaveȱpersistentlyȱbeenȱdeniedȱaȱplaceȱinȱmodernȱ Europeȱand,ȱthus,ȱthatȱtheirȱmemorialȱculturesȱtendȱtoȱbeȱdisplaced.ȱSheȱarguesȱthatȱthisȱ displacementȱisȱinherentlyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱdenialȱofȱ‘theȱtimeȱofȱtheȱGypsies.’ȱAccordingȱtoȱ her,ȱ theȱ immobilizingȱ ofȱ theirȱ timeȱ andȱ theirȱ relegationȱ toȱ theȱ domainȱ ofȱ preȬmodern,ȱ traditional,ȱandȱ‘historyȬless’ȱculturesȱhaveȱbeenȱamongȱtheȱnecessaryȱconditionsȱofȱposȬ sibilityȱtoȱdevelopȱmodernȱEuropeanȱhistories,ȱcharacterizedȱbyȱtheirȱsupposedȱabilityȱtoȱ beȱproductive,ȱinnovative,ȱandȱprogressiveȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime.ȱTrumpenerȱconsidersȱthisȱ phenomenon,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱEuropeanȱhistoryȱandȱhistoricityȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱconstructȬ edȱandȱarticulatedȱasȱproductiveȱbyȱreducingȱpeoplesȱsuchȱasȱ‘theȱGypsies’ȱtoȱthoseȱwithȬ outȱhistory,ȱasȱtheȱmainȱcharacteristicȱofȱwhatȱsheȱcallsȱtheȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱproblem.ȱ Fonseca’sȱandȱTrumpener’sȱclaimsȱareȱatȱoddsȱwithȱtheȱrecentȱproliferationȱofȱRomaniȱ memorialȱ practices.ȱ Particularlyȱ sinceȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ communism,ȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ aȱ rapidȱ increaseȱofȱsuchȱpracticesȱthroughoutȱEurope,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱincreasedȱRomaniȱinvolveȬ mentȱ inȱ developingȱ artisticȱ andȱ intellectualȱ movements,ȱ includingȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ
1ȱ Inȱ Romanes,ȱ ‘maȱ bisteren’ȱ meansȱ ‘let’sȱ notȱ forget!’ȱ Maȱ Bisteren!ȱ wasȱ alsoȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ aȱ Slovakȱ projectȱ whichȱaimedȱtoȱremindȱtheȱpublicȱofȱtheȱsufferingȱofȱtheȱRomaȱduringȱtheȱSecondȱWorldȱWar.ȱInȱ2005Ȭ06,ȱ theȱRomaniȱNGOȱInȱMinoritaȱandȱtheȱSlovakȱNationalȱ Museumȱ organizedȱthisȱprojectȱ(interviewȱ2005p;ȱ RNLȱ2005;ȱHušovaȱ2006).ȱ 272ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ historiographies.2ȱ Particularlyȱ regardingȱ Holocaustȱ remembrance,ȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ haveȱ increased.ȱ Romaȱ haveȱ developedȱ newȱ memorialsȱ atȱ variousȱ sitesȱ ofȱ memoriesȱ thatȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ theirȱ warȱ histories.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ midȱ 1980s,ȱ suchȱ memorialsȱ haveȱ beenȱ builtȱ atȱ theȱ sitesȱ ofȱ formerȱ Naziȱ concentrationȱ campsȱ inȱ butȱ alsoȱ outsideȱ Germany,ȱinȱcountriesȱsuchȱasȱAustria,ȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱHungary,ȱtheȱNetherlands,ȱ Poland,ȱandȱSlovakia.ȱInȱsomeȱtowns,ȱsuchȱasȱinȱTarnówȱinȱPolandȱandȱinȱBrnoȱinȱtheȱ Czechȱ Republic,ȱ Romaniȱ museumsȱ haveȱ beenȱ established,ȱ atȱ whichȱ newȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ andȱ historiographiesȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ developed.3ȱ Elsewhere,ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ AuschwitzȱmuseumȱinȱPolandȱandȱtheȱnewȱHolocaustȱmuseumȱinȱBudapest,ȱRomaȱhaveȱ developedȱexhibitionsȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱaddressȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱSintiȱandȱRoma.4ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ engageȱ inȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ historiesȱ andȱ memoriesȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Europe.ȱ Howȱ areȱ weȱ toȱ assessȱ theȱ currentȱ proliferationȱ ofȱ RomaniȱmemorialȱpracticesȱvisȬàȬvisȱclaims,ȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱofȱFonsecaȱandȱTrumpener?ȱInȱ theȱfirstȱpartȱofȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthatȱweȱcanȱmaintainȱneitherȱtheȱthesisȱthatȱtheȱ Romaȱcollectivelyȱneglectȱtheirȱpastȱinȱorderȱtoȱsurvive,ȱnorȱtheȱthesisȱthatȱRomaniȱhisȬ toriesȱandȱmemoriesȱareȱpersistentlyȱdeniedȱaȱplaceȱinȱEuropeanȱsocietiesȱandȱcultures.ȱ Diverseȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ areȱ mobilizingȱ memoryȱ asȱ aȱ strategyȱ toȱ inscribeȱ Romaniȱ hisȬ toriesȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱmemorialȱlandscapesȱandȱtoȱclaimȱaȱplaceȱinȱnationalȱandȱEuroȬ peanȱhistoriesȱandȱmemories.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ chapter’sȱ secondȱ part,ȱ Iȱ willȱ explainȱ whyȱ weȱ canȱ neverthelessȱ maintainȱ Trumpener’sȱ ideaȱ thatȱ we,ȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Europe,ȱ areȱ facingȱ aȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problem.ȱYet,ȱthisȱproblemȱisȱnoȱlongerȱtheȱoneȱthatȱsheȱaddressed.ȱToȱshowȱhowȱthisȱ problemȱ hasȱ transformed,ȱ Iȱ willȱ reflectȱ onȱ how,ȱ inȱ EUȱculturalȱ policy,ȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ whatȱ Iȱ callȱ theȱ governmentalizationȱ ofȱ Holocaustȱ remembrance.ȱ Thisȱ governmentalizationȱhasȱengenderedȱnovelȱnarrativesȱofȱEuropeanȱbelongingȱthatȱtendȱ toȱinclude,ȱratherȱthanȱexclude,ȱtheȱhistoriesȱandȱmemoriesȱofȱminorityȱgroupsȱsuchȱasȱ theȱRomani.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱtrendȱtoȱgovernmentalizeȱHolocaustȱrememȬ branceȱalsoȱrisksȱtoȱturnȱitȱintoȱaȱquestionableȱHolocaustȱpedagogy.ȱ Thisȱ chapterȱ proceedsȱ asȱ follows.ȱ First,ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Trumpenerȱ introducedȱtheȱnotionȱofȱ aȱ Europeanȱmemoryȱ problemȱinȱ theȱearlyȱ 1990s.ȱ Afterȱ that,ȱ Iȱ willȱconfrontȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱsheȱconceivedȱthisȱproblemȱwithȱmyȱfirstȱcaseȱstudy,ȱinȱ whichȱ Iȱ discussȱ theȱ heated,ȱ stillȱ ongoingȱ debateȱ aboutȱ twoȱ formerȱ Naziȱ concentrationȱ campsȱ forȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republic.ȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ that,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ Romaniȱ memoryȱ tendsȱ toȱ beȱ displacedȱ inȱ theseȱ cases,ȱ theȱ involvedȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ andȱ theirȱ advocatesȱ haveȱ developedȱ strategiesȱ toȱ politicizeȱ theseȱ exclusionȱ practicesȱ andȱ renderȱ themȱ public.ȱ Iȱ willȱ explainȱ howȱ theseȱ strategiesȱ relateȱ toȱ travelingȱ activismȱ atȱ theȱ Europeanȱ levelȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ currentȱ trendȱ toȱ governmentalizeȱ Holocaustȱ remembrance.ȱ TheȱtrendȱtoȱgovernmentalizeȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱatȱtheȱEUȱlevelȱforȱaims,ȱsuchȱasȱ socialȱ inclusion,ȱ citizenȱ participation,ȱ humanȱ rightsȱ education,ȱ andȱ Europeanȱ identityȱ formationȱ hasȱ alsoȱ changedȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memoriesȱ inȱ theȱ newȱ narrativesȱ onȱ
2ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱKapralskiȱ(1997;ȱ2004;ȱ2008;ȱ2011),ȱLemonȱ(2000),ȱKenrickȱ(2006),ȱZimmermannȱ(2007a),ȱ FischerȱvonȱWeikersthalȱetȱalȱ(2008),ȱandȱVermeerschȱ(2008).ȱSeeȱalsoȱseveralȱofȱmyȱownȱcontributionsȱtoȱ thisȱdebateȱ(vanȱBaarȱ2005a;ȱ2008b;ȱ2010b;ȱ2010c;ȱ2010d;ȱ2011a).ȱ 3ȱSeeȱLázni²kováȱ(1999),ȱBartoszȱ(2003).ȱSeeȱalsoȱsomeȱofȱmyȱinterviewsȱ(2002a;ȱ2003c;ȱ2003b;ȱ2003f;ȱ2008b).ȱ 4ȱSeeȱRȱRoseȱ(2003;ȱseeȱalsoȱmyȱinterviewsȱ2003d;ȱ2004a;ȱ2006c).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ273ȱ
Europe’sȱpastȱinstigatedȱbyȱtheȱEU.ȱInȱmyȱsecondȱcaseȱstudy,ȱinȱwhichȱIȱfocusȱonȱRomaniȱ memoryȱstrategiesȱthatȱhaveȱbeenȱdevelopedȱinȱpostwarȱGermany,ȱIȱwillȱfurtherȱexamineȱ whatȱ novelȱ Holocaustȱ discoursesȱ tendȱ toȱ makeȱ possibleȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memory.ȱ Yet,ȱIȱalsoȱexplainȱthatȱtheȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱproblemȱrisksȱreappearingȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱ Holocaustȱ pedagogyȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ sufficientlyȱ reflectȱ onȱ howȱ Europe’sȱ darkȱ pastȱ stillȱ affectsȱ theȱ EU’sȱ currentȱ functioning.ȱ Inȱ theȱ concludingȱ section,ȱ Iȱ showȱ howȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱstrategiesȱcontestȱthisȱEUȱpoliticsȱofȱ‘reȬmembering.’ȱ ȱ ȱ TEMPORALITYȱANDȱTHEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱ ȱ Inȱhisȱreflectionȱuponȱtheȱincreasedȱattentionȱpaidȱtoȱmemoryȱandȱitsȱvariousȱinstancesȱ sinceȱtheȱ1980s,ȱtheȱAmericanȱscholarȱAndreasȱHuyssenȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱrecentȱ‘obsesȬ sion’ȱwithȱmemoryȱcouldȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱ“aȱsignȱofȱtheȱcrisisȱofȱthatȱstructureȱofȱtempoȬ ralityȱ thatȱ markedȱ theȱ ageȱ ofȱ modernityȱ withȱ itsȱ celebrationȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ asȱ utopian,ȱ asȱ radicallyȱandȱirreduciblyȱother”ȱ(Huyssenȱ1995:ȱ6,ȱmyȱitalics).ȱInȱtheȱlightȱofȱthisȱcrisisȱweȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ observeȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ scholarlyȱ analysesȱ ofȱ howȱ theȱ pastȱ hasȱ beenȱ articulatedȱinȱtheȱpresent.ȱThisȱshiftȱcouldȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱoneȱfromȱhistoryȱtoȱmemory.ȱ Accordingȱtoȱ Huyssen,ȱ thisȱ changeȱ representsȱ “aȱ welcomeȱ critiqueȱofȱ compromisedȱ teleoȬ logicalȱnotionsȱofȱhistoryȱratherȱthanȱbeingȱsimplyȱantiȬhistorical,ȱrelativistic,ȱorȱsubjective”ȱ (ibid,ȱmyȱitalics).ȱThisȱchangeȱgoesȱtogetherȱwithȱacknowledgingȱtheȱcrucialȱimportanceȱ ofȱtheȱarticulationȱofȱmemoryȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱotherȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱweȱcanȱarticulateȱ theȱ pastȱ inȱ theȱ present.ȱ Huyssen’sȱ observationȱ isȱ relevantȱ toȱ howȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ practicesȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱcritiquesȱofȱestablishedȱhistoriographiesȱofȱnationȱstatesȱ andȱ Europe,ȱ andȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ inȱ particular.ȱ Toȱ explainȱ theȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ thisȱ arguȬ ment,ȱIȱwillȱengageȱinȱaȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱroleȱofȱRomaniȱmemoriesȱinȱnarrativesȱofȱEuroȬ peanȱidentity,ȱtemporality,ȱandȱmodernity.ȱȱ ȱ Beyondȱtheȱartȱofȱforgettingȱ TheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱRomaȱwouldȱorȱwouldȱnotȱrememberȱandȱhowȱtheyȱhaveȱorȱhaveȱ notȱ beenȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ writingȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ historiesȱ hasȱ repeatedlyȱ beenȱ discussedȱ amongȱscholars.ȱSomeȱhaveȱsuggestedȱthatȱRomaniȱculturesȱcouldȱbeȱcharacterizedȱbyȱanȱ ‘artȱofȱforgetting.’ȱInȱtheȱ1970s,ȱforȱinstance,ȱitȱwasȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱRoma’sȱallegedȱlackȱofȱ interestȱ inȱ theirȱ pastȱ wasȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ theirȱ temperamentȱ asȱ aȱ peopleȱ (Quintanaȱ andȱ Floydȱ1972).ȱMoreȱrecently,ȱIsabelȱFonseca,ȱinȱherȱBuryȱmeȱStanding:ȱtheȱGypsiesȱandȱtheirȱ Journey,ȱ hasȱ suggestedȱ somethingȱ similarȱ when,ȱ inȱ aȱ chapterȱ onȱ theȱ Holocaust,ȱ sheȱ remarksȱthatȱ“theȱJewsȱhaveȱrespondedȱtoȱpersecutionȱandȱdispersalȱwithȱaȱmonumentalȱ industryȱofȱremembrance.ȱTheȱGypsies—withȱtheirȱpeculiarȱmixtureȱofȱfatalismȱandȱtheȱ spirit,ȱ orȱ wit,ȱ toȱ seizeȱ theȱ day—haveȱ madeȱ anȱ artȱ ofȱ forgetting”ȱ (1995:ȱ 276).ȱ Fonseca’sȱ theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ ‘artȱ ofȱ forgetting’ȱ hasȱ beenȱ reworkedȱ moreȱ formallyȱ byȱ Ingeȱ Clendinnen,ȱwho,ȱinȱherȱstudyȱReadingȱtheȱHolocaust,ȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱEuropeanȱRomaȱareȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ aȱ peopleȱ whoȱ haveȱ chosenȱ “notȱ toȱ botherȱ withȱ historyȱ atȱ all”ȱ andȱ whoȱ “seekȱnoȱmeaningsȱbeyondȱthoseȱrelevantȱtoȱimmediateȱsurvival”ȱ(1999:ȱ8).ȱ Aȱ similar,ȱ thoughȱ subtlerȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ returnsȱ inȱ theȱ worksȱ ofȱ theȱ anthropologistsȱ MichaelȱStewartȱandȱPalomaȱGayȱyȱBlasco.ȱTheȱlatter,ȱforȱinstance,ȱclaimsȱthatȱ“allȱGypȬ 274ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ siesȱ…ȱelaborateȱonȱtheȱcontrastȱbetweenȱthemselvesȱandȱtheȱnonȬGypsiesȱandȱalsoȱshareȱ …ȱ aȱ lackȱ ofȱ anȱ elaborateȱ socialȱ memory”ȱ (Gayȱ yȱ Blascoȱ 1999:ȱ 4).ȱ Inȱ herȱ researchȱ onȱ Spanishȱ Gitanos,ȱ sheȱ suggestsȱ that,ȱ “unlikeȱ manyȱ otherȱ minorities,ȱ theȱ Gitanosȱ doȱ notȱ lookȱ toȱ aȱ historicalȱ orȱ mythicalȱ pastȱ forȱ explanationsȱ ofȱ theirȱ wayȱ ofȱ lifeȱ orȱ ofȱ theirȱ differenceȱfromȱtheȱdominantȱmajority”ȱ(ibidȱ14).ȱBothȱStewartȱandȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱrelateȱ thisȱlackȱofȱanȱelaborateȱsocialȱmemoryȱtoȱaȱpreoccupationȱwithȱtemporalityȱthatȱwouldȱ beȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱRoma.ȱTheȱformer,ȱforȱinstance,ȱconcludesȱhisȱstudyȱTheȱTimeȱofȱ theȱGypsiesȱwithȱtheȱremarkȱthatȱ“theyȱliveȱwithȱtheirȱgazeȱfixedȱonȱaȱpermanentȱpresentȱ thatȱisȱalwaysȱbecoming,ȱaȱtimelessȱnowȱinȱwhichȱtheirȱcontinuedȱexistenceȱasȱRomȱisȱallȱ thatȱcounts”ȱ(Stewartȱ1997:ȱ246).ȱSimilarly,ȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱGitanosȱ“lackȱanȱ elaborateȱsocialȱmemoryȱandȱhaveȱnoȱmythsȱofȱoriginȱinȱwhichȱtheirȱcommonȱidentityȱ couldȱ findȱ itsȱ roots:ȱ theyȱ areȱ intentȱ onȱ separatingȱ theȱ pastȱ fromȱ theȱ present,ȱ andȱ onȱ denyingȱthatȱtheȱ‘before’ȱ…ȱmayȱholdȱtheȱblueprintȱforȱtheȱ‘now’”ȱ(1999:ȱ174).ȱTheȱwayȱinȱ whichȱtheȱGitanosȱwouldȱdealȱwithȱtemporalityȱleadsȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheyȱ “seemȱtoȱbeȱpermanentlyȱengagedȱinȱtheȱ‘celebrationȱofȱimpermanence’”ȱ(ibidȱ173).ȱThisȱ impliesȱthatȱ“theȱidentityȱofȱtheȱgroupȱisȱnotȱobjectifiedȱoutsideȱtheȱgroupȱitself”ȱ(ibidȱ174,ȱmyȱ emphasis),ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ memorials.ȱ Aȱ similarȱ pointȱ returnsȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ Stewart’sȱarticles,ȱinȱwhichȱheȱstatesȱthatȱtheȱvastȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱRomaȱdoesȱ remember,ȱbutȱisȱnotȱinvolved,ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱtheȱcommemorationȱofȱtheȱNaziȱgenocide.ȱ TheirȱHolocaustȱmemoriesȱwouldȱusuallyȱremainȱ‘implicit,’ȱbutȱnotȱgetȱobjectifiedȱinȱtheȱ formȱofȱcommemorations,ȱmonuments,ȱorȱmemorialsȱmoreȱgenerallyȱ(Stewartȱ2004;ȱforȱaȱ similarȱview,ȱseeȱalsoȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱ2001).ȱ ȱ ThoughȱmostȱofȱtheȱmentionedȱauthorsȱimplicitlyȱorȱexplicitlyȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱRoma’sȱ enduranceȱasȱaȱpeopleȱrelatesȱtoȱhowȱothersȱhaveȱtreatedȱthemȱthroughoutȱEuropeanȱhisȬ tory,ȱtheyȱneverthelessȱtendȱtoȱreifyȱRomaniȱculturesȱandȱtheirȱexternalȱboundaries.ȱTheirȱ culturesȱ areȱ representedȱ asȱ havingȱ ‘timeless’ȱ characteristics,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ relationshipsȱwithȱothersȱandȱamongȱthemselvesȱmayȱchangeȱinȱdueȱcourse.ȱThisȱreificaȬ tionȱmanifestsȱitselfȱmostȱclearlyȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱStewart’sȱandȱGayȱyȱBlasco’sȱrepresentaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱasȱthoseȱwhoȱliveȱinȱaȱ‘permanentȱpresent’ȱorȱ‘timelessȱnow.’ȱTheseȱ kindsȱ ofȱ reificationsȱ tendȱ toȱ obscureȱ howȱ theseȱ Romaȱ representationsȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ dyȬ namicȱinterrelationshipsȱbetweenȱRomaȱandȱothers,ȱtoȱinternalȱvariationsȱacrossȱ(ethnic)ȱ differenceȱandȱspace,ȱandȱtoȱhowȱparticularȱsocioȬculturalȱmechanismsȱ‘majoritize’ȱsomeȱ groupsȱwhileȱtheyȱ‘minoritize’ȱothersȱ(chapterȱ3).ȱ ȱ Moreȱrecently,ȱtheȱAmericanȱanthropologistȱJamesȱScottȱhasȱalsoȱattributedȱ‘anȱartȱofȱ forgetting’ȱtoȱtheȱRoma.ȱHeȱpresentsȱtheȱlackȱofȱaȱwrittenȱhistoryȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱstrateȬ giesȱofȱwhatȱheȱcalls,ȱmoreȱgenerally,ȱ“theȱartȱofȱnotȱbeingȱgoverned”ȱ(2009).ȱRelativelyȱ powerlessȱ peoples,ȱ heȱ argues,ȱ “mayȱ wellȱ findȱ itȱ toȱ theirȱ advantageȱ toȱ avoidȱ writtenȱ traditionsȱandȱfixedȱtexts,ȱorȱevenȱtoȱabandonȱthemȱaltogether,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱmaximizeȱtheirȱ roomȱforȱculturalȱmaneuver”ȱ(ibidȱ235).ȱSimilarȱtoȱhowȱStewartȱandȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱpresentȱ suchȱ strategies,ȱ Scottȱ attributesȱ agentialȱ potentialȱ toȱ suchȱ peoples:ȱ “theȱ shorterȱ theirȱ genealogiesȱandȱhistoriesȱtheȱlessȱtheyȱhaveȱtoȱexplainȱandȱtheȱmoreȱtheyȱcanȱinventȱonȱ theȱspot”ȱ(ibid).ȱThisȱobservationȱalsoȱleadsȱhimȱtoȱbrieflyȱdiscussȱtheȱRomaniȱcase:ȱ ȱ InȱEurope,ȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱmayȱbeȱinstructive.ȱWidelyȱpersecuted,ȱtheyȱhaveȱ noȱ fixedȱ writtenȱ languageȱ butȱ aȱ richȱ oralȱ traditionȱ inȱ whichȱ storytellersȱ areȱ highlyȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ275ȱ
revered.ȱTheyȱhaveȱnoȱfixedȱhistory.ȱTheyȱhaveȱnoȱstoryȱtheyȱtellȱaboutȱtheirȱoriginsȱorȱ aboutȱaȱpromisedȱlandȱtowardȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱheaded.ȱTheyȱhaveȱnoȱshrines,ȱnoȱanȬ thems,ȱnoȱruins,ȱnoȱmonuments.ȱIfȱthereȱwereȱeverȱaȱpeopleȱwhoȱneededȱtoȱbeȱcageyȱ aboutȱwhoȱtheyȱareȱandȱwhereȱtheyȱcameȱfrom,ȱitȱisȱtheȱGypsies.ȱShuttlingȱbetweenȱ manyȱcountriesȱandȱscourgedȱinȱmost,ȱtheȱGypsiesȱhaveȱconstantlyȱhadȱtoȱadjustȱtheirȱ historiesȱandȱidentitiesȱtoȱtheȱinterestȱofȱsurvival.ȱTheyȱareȱtheȱultimateȱbobbingȱandȱ weavingȱpeople.ȱ(Scottȱ2009:ȱ235)ȱ ȱ InȱlineȱwithȱStewart’sȱandȱGayȱyȱBlasco’sȱviews,ȱScottȱalsoȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱRomaȱdoȱreȬ member,ȱ butȱ doȱ generallyȱ notȱ objectifyȱ theirȱ remembranceȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ shrines,ȱ anȬ thems,ȱruins,ȱwrittenȱstoriesȱaboutȱtheirȱorigins,ȱorȱmonuments.ȱYet,ȱunlikeȱStewartȱandȱ GayȱyȱBlasco,ȱScottȱhighlightsȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱwrittenȱandȱoralȱ traditionsȱ regardingȱ howȱ culturesȱ areȱ represented.ȱ Heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ privilegingȱ ofȱ writtenȱtraditionsȱinȱwesternȱorȱmajoritarianȱcultures,ȱandȱtheȱrelatedȱattributionȱofȱhisȬ toricityȱtoȱ‘civilizedȱcultures’ȱhaveȱhistoricallyȱresultedȱinȱtheȱstigmatizationȱofȱstatelessȱ peoplesȱ andȱ peoplesȱ characterizedȱ byȱ oralȱ culturesȱ asȱ “peoplesȱ withoutȱ history”ȱ (ibidȱ 237).ȱScottȱcombinesȱthisȱinsightȱwithȱhisȱemphasisȱonȱtheseȱpeoples’ȱagencyȱtoȱconcludeȱ thatȱ“howȱmuchȱhistoryȱaȱpeopleȱhaveȱ…ȱisȱalwaysȱanȱactiveȱchoice,ȱoneȱthatȱpositionsȱ themȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheirȱpowerfulȱtextȬbasedȱneighbors”ȱ(ibid).ȱScott’sȱview,ȱthus,ȱtakesȱintoȱ accountȱ howȱ correlatedȱ processesȱ ofȱ majoritizationȱ andȱ minoritizationȱ areȱ involvedȱ inȱ representationsȱofȱpeoplesȱorȱminoritiesȱasȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱnoȱhistoryȱandȱliveȱinȱaȱtimeȬ lessȱhereȱandȱnow.ȱHeȱaddsȱaȱcrucialȱelementȱtoȱtheȱreadingsȱofȱtheȱhithertoȱdiscussedȱ authors.ȱUnlikeȱthem,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱrepresentȱtheseȱpeoples’ȱattitudesȱtowardȱtemporalityȱ asȱ aȱ somewhatȱ aȬhistoricȱ feature,ȱ but,ȱ rather,ȱ asȱ aȱ governmentalȱ survivalȱ strategy.ȱ Consequently,ȱhisȱviewȱmakesȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱunderstandȱmajorityȬminorityȱrelationsȱasȱinȱ constantȱfluxȱandȱtoȱhistoricizeȱminoritarianȱstrategiesȱasȱhistoricallyȱsituatedȱattemptsȱ byȱminoritiesȱtoȱ(avoid)ȱbeingȱgovernedȱinȱparticularȱways,ȱbyȱothersȱorȱevenȱbyȱthemȬ selves.ȱ ȱ Scott’sȱreflectionȱisȱprimarilyȱbasedȱonȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱoralȱandȱwrittenȱformsȱ ofȱ history,ȱ theȱ majority’sȱ attitudeȱ toȱ privilegeȱ theȱ latter,ȱ andȱ theȱ strategicȱ andȱ ‘activeȱ choice’ȱofȱ‘peoplesȱwithoutȱhistory’ȱtoȱhaveȱnoȱwrittenȱone.ȱIfȱweȱfollowȱScott’sȱanalysis,ȱ theȱstigmatizedȱrepresentationȱofȱtheseȱpeoplesȱisȱprimarilyȱtheȱresultȱofȱtheȱmajoritarianȱ privilegingȱofȱhistoricity.ȱYet,ȱheȱtakesȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱtheȱdistinctionȱandȱtheȱboundȬ ariesȱbetweenȱoralityȱandȱtextualityȱlargelyȱforȱgranted.ȱByȱsoȱdoing,ȱheȱindirectlyȱcontriȬ butesȱtoȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱaȱmoreȱorȱlessȱhomogeneousȱGypsyȱpeopleȱwithȱaȱcommonȱ culture,ȱoralȱtradition,ȱandȱaȱcommonȱstrategyȱtoȱendureȱasȱaȱpeople.ȱEvenȱthoughȱScottȱ acknowledgesȱthatȱthisȱstrategyȱmayȱchangeȱoverȱtimeȱandȱthatȱoralȱtraditionsȱmayȱmoveȱ towardȱliteracyȱandȱwritingȱtoȱadaptȱtoȱnewȱcircumstances,ȱtheirȱhomogeneityȱremainsȱ inȱplace.ȱThisȱviewȱleadsȱbackȱtoȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱchaptersȱ3ȱandȱ4,ȱwhereȱIȱarguedȱthatȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ historicityȱ itselfȱ neededȱ toȱ beȱ embeddedȱ inȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ historicallyȱ changingȱgovernmentalitiesȱtowardȱminoritiesȱsuchȱasȱtheȱRomani.5ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱtheȱwayȱ
5ȱ Atȱ anotherȱ theoreticalȱ level,ȱ Stewart’s,ȱ Gayȱ yȱ Blasco’s,ȱ andȱ Scott’sȱ discussionȱ ofȱ memoryȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ distinctionȱbetweenȱelitesȱwhoȱwouldȱcommemorateȱandȱordinaryȱpeopleȱwhoȱwouldȱrememberȱwithoutȱ 276ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ peoplesȱ ‘withoutȱ history’ȱ andȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ thoseȱ ‘withȱ history’ȱ areȱ relationallyȱ constructedȱ and,ȱ possibly,ȱ contestedȱ isȱ leftȱ aside.6ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ analyzeȱ howȱ structuresȱofȱtemporalityȱareȱconstructed,ȱitȱisȱnotȱyetȱenoughȱtoȱjuxtapose,ȱasȱStewart,ȱ GayȱyȱBlasco,ȱandȱScottȱdo,ȱtheȱimpermanenceȱofȱoralȱtraditionsȱtoȱtheȱpermanenceȱofȱmonȬ umentsȱandȱwrittenȱtextsȱ(GayȱyȱBlascoȱ1999:ȱ173;ȱ2001:ȱ642;ȱStewartȱ2004:ȱ566;ȱScottȱ2009:ȱ 227).7ȱWeȱalsoȱneedȱtoȱinterrogateȱhowȱtheȱstabilityȱandȱpermanenceȱofȱmemorialsȱandȱ writtenȱtextsȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱpossibleȱbyȱhowȱtheyȱ‘absorb’ȱtheȱtimeȱofȱthoseȱregardedȱasȱ historyȬlessȱpeople.ȱPreciselyȱthisȱrelationshipȱisȱcentralȱtoȱTrumpener’sȱanalysis.ȱ ȱ BetweenȱtimeȬbanditsȱandȱtheȱsilencedȱproducersȱofȱmodernȱtemporalityȱ Inȱherȱessayȱ“TheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱGypsies:ȱaȱ‘peopleȱwithoutȱhistory’ȱinȱtheȱnarrativesȱofȱtheȱ West,”ȱTrumpenerȱarguesȱthatȱinȱtheȱpast—andȱinȱtheȱagesȱofȱEnlightenment,ȱRomantiȬ cism,ȱandȱliteraryȱmodernismȱinȱparticular—chroniclers,ȱscholars,ȱandȱvariousȱkindsȱofȱ artistsȱprimarilyȱconsideredȱ‘theȱGypsies’ȱasȱaȱpeopleȱorȱgroupȱofȱwanderingȱclansȱwhoȱ wereȱ atȱ oddsȱ withȱ theȱ modernȱ structuresȱ ofȱ temporality,ȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ paradigmsȱ ofȱ modernityȱmoreȱgenerally.ȱTheyȱwereȱoftenȱseenȱasȱaȱpeopleȱthatȱstoodȱoutsideȱmodernȱ life,ȱandȱtheȱformationȱofȱtheȱnationȱ(state)ȱinȱparticular.ȱThisȱpeopleȱwasȱconsequentlyȱ relegatedȱ toȱ theȱ domainȱ ofȱ preȬmodern,ȱ traditional,ȱ natural,ȱ andȱ historyȬlessȱ societies.ȱ Particularlyȱsinceȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱTrumpenerȱargues,ȱtheȱGypsiesȱalsoȱ startedȱtoȱfunctionȱasȱaȱtropeȱofȱvariousȱkindsȱofȱescapeȱroutes,ȱwhichȱledȱawayȱfromȱtheȱ modernȱ socioȬeconomic,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ orderȱ towardȱ aȱ mythicalȱ orȱ mysticalȱ realmȱofȱfreedomȱandȱdissipation.ȱFromȱJohannȱWolfgangȱGoethe’sȱGötzȱvonȱBerlichingenȱ (1773)ȱ toȱ Heinrichȱ vonȱ Kleist’sȱ Michaelȱ Kohlhaasȱ (1808),ȱ fromȱ Alexanderȱ Pushkin’sȱ Theȱ Gypsiesȱ(1824)ȱtoȱCharlotteȱBrontë’sȱJaneȱEyreȱ(1847)ȱandȱEmilyȱBrontë’sȱWutheringȱHeightsȱ (1847),ȱfromȱProsperȱMérimée’sȱandȱGeorgesȱBizet’sȱCarmenȱ(1845/75)ȱtoȱFranzȱLiszt’sȱTheȱ GypsiesȱandȱTheirȱMusicȱinȱHungaryȱ(1859),ȱfromȱEzraȱPound’sȱ“TheȱGipsy”ȱ(1912)ȱtoȱLeošȱ Janá²ek’sȱTheȱDiaryȱofȱtheȱOneȱwhoȱDisappearedȱ(1926),ȱandȱfromȱVirginiaȱWoolf’sȱOrlandoȱ (1928)ȱ toȱ herȱ storyȱ “Gypsy,ȱ theȱ Mongrel”ȱ (1939)—toȱ mentionȱ butȱ aȱ fewȱ examplesȱ ofȱ aȱ longȱ historyȱ ofȱ GypsyȬrelatedȱ narratives—Gypsiesȱ wereȱ generallyȱ portrayedȱ asȱ repreȬ sentingȱeitherȱanȱescapeȱfromȱtheȱorderȱofȱmodernityȱandȱitsȱtroublesȱorȱaȱseriousȱthreatȱ toȱ itsȱ maintenanceȱ andȱ furtherȱ development.8ȱ Inȱ Vonȱ Kleist’sȱ Michaelȱ Kohlhaas,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ aȱ Gypsyȱ fortuneȬtellerȱ appearsȱ asȱ aȱ figureȱ thatȱ livesȱ outsideȱ ofȱ historyȱ toȱ introduceȱ “magicalȱ timelessness”ȱ (ibidȱ 869)ȱ intoȱ theȱ mainȱ narrative.ȱ Andȱ inȱ Woolf’sȱ beingȱ involvedȱ inȱ commemorationsȱ alsoȱ leadsȱ backȱ toȱ myȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ elite/grassrootsȱ binaryȱ inȱ theȱ politicsȱofȱrepresentationȱdiscussedȱinȱchapterȱ7.ȱ 6ȱSpaceȱprecludesȱextensivelyȱdiscussingȱtheȱcentralȱproblemȱwithȱhowȱScottȱtakesȱupȱtheȱRomaniȱcase.ȱHeȱ modelsȱhisȱanalysisȱofȱthisȱcaseȱonȱhisȱmoreȱgeneralȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱhillȱandȱvalleyȱ peoplesȱ inȱ Southeastȱ Asia.ȱ Yet,ȱ apparentlyȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ adequatelyȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ howȱ hisȱ somewhatȱ reifiedȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱhillȱandȱvalleyȱpeoplesȱ(Scottȱ2009)ȱreproducesȱsomeȱofȱtheȱproblemsȱwithȱhowȱ heȱhasȱearlierȱintroducedȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱlegibilityȱandȱlocalȱknowledgeȱorȱm¾tisȱ(Scottȱ1998).ȱForȱ anȱimportantȱcritiqueȱofȱtheseȱrelationships,ȱseeȱLiȱ(2001;ȱ2005).ȱ 7ȱStewartȱandȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱalsoȱdiscussȱRoma/nonȬRomaȱrelationshipsȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheirȱrelationality.ȱYet,ȱ theyȱtendȱtoȱrelyȱonȱratherȱstaticȱapproachesȱtoȱRomaniȱidentityȱ(seeȱalsoȱTremlettȱ2009;ȱKapralskiȱ2011).ȱ 8ȱVariousȱauthorsȱhaveȱreflectedȱonȱhowȱtheȱGypsiesȱwereȱrepresentedȱinȱartworksȱduringȱtheȱnineteenthȱ andȱearlyȱtwentiethȱcenturyȱprocessesȱofȱnationȬstateȱformationȱinȱEastȱCentralȱEuropeȱ(SolmsȱandȱStraussȱ 1995;ȱFrigyesiȱ1998;ȱTrumpenerȱ2000;ȱCooperȱ2001;ȱLajosiȱ2008;ȱSokolovaȱ2008).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ277ȱ novelȱOrlandoȱGypsyȱmenȱandȱwomenȱappearȱasȱindistinguishable,ȱ‘genderless’ȱpeopleȱ duringȱOrlando’sȱgenderȱtransitionȱfromȱmanȱintoȱwomanȱandȱliberationȱfromȱaȱpatriȬ archalȱ worldȱ (Bardiȱ 2006).ȱ Inȱ bothȱ theseȱ narratives,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ inȱ manyȱ otherȱ ones,ȱ Trumpenerȱargues,ȱ“theȱGypsiesȱareȱ…ȱreducedȱtoȱaȱtextualȱeffect”ȱ(1992:ȱ869).ȱEveryȬ whereȱtheyȱappearȱinȱtheseȱnarratives,ȱtheyȱseeminglyȱ“beginȱtoȱholdȱupȱordinaryȱlife,ȱ inducingȱlocalȱamnesiasȱorȱretrievalsȱofȱculturalȱmemory,ȱandȱcausingȱblackoutsȱorȱflashȬ backsȱinȱtextual,ȱhistorical,ȱandȱgenreȱmemoryȱasȱwell”ȱ(ibid).ȱTrumpenerȱsuggestsȱthatȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ appearȱ notȱ onlyȱ alongȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ timelessȱ escapeȱ routesȱ fromȱ theȱ orderȱ ofȱ modernity,ȱbutȱalsoȱasȱmagicalȱfiguresȱwhoȱambivalentlyȱdisruptȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtempoȬ ralityȱofȱthisȱmodernȱorderȱitself,ȱasȱthoseȱwhoseȱmainȱdiscursiveȱjobȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱwhatȱ sheȱcallsȱ“timeȬbanditry”ȱ(ibid).9ȱ TheȱreductionȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱtoȱtextualȱeffectsȱisȱnotȱlimitedȱtoȱpreȬSecondȱWorldȱWarȱ narratives,ȱ asȱ theȱ selectedȱ listȱ ofȱ worksȱ aboveȱ mayȱ suggest.ȱ Asȱ variousȱ authorsȱ haveȱ analyzed,ȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱtheȱGypsiesȱhaveȱcontinuedȱtoȱplayȱthisȱroleȱinȱvariousȱpostwarȱ andȱcontemporaryȱworks,ȱincludingȱfilm,ȱexhibitions,ȱandȱpopularȱculture.10ȱInȱpostwarȱ policyȱdocuments,ȱtheȱGypsiesȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱusuallyȱassociatedȱwithȱthemȱalsoȱpopȱ upȱasȱaȱpeopleȱthatȱhasȱanotherȱsenseȱofȱtimeȱandȱplaceȱandȱthatȱapparentlyȱbelongsȱtoȱ anotherȱ socialȱ orderȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ majorities.ȱ Aȱ 1984ȱ documentȱ ofȱ theȱ EuropeanȱParliamentȱonȱ‘educationȱforȱchildrenȱwithȱparentsȱwhoȱhaveȱnoȱfixedȱabode,’ȱ forȱinstance,ȱrepresentsȱcaravanȱdwellersȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱ [They]ȱ haveȱ aȱ relativelyȱ casualȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ spaceȱ andȱ time.ȱ Theyȱ liveȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ andȱ giveȱ littleȱ orȱ noȱ thoughtȱ toȱ theȱ future.ȱ Theyȱ doȱ notȱ liveȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ fixedȱ schemeȱ ofȱ hours,ȱ daysȱ andȱ weeks,ȱ etc.ȱ Workȱ isȱ integratedȱ intoȱ theȱ normalȱ rhythmȱofȱtheȱdayȱsoȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱworkȱandȱleisureȱasȱsuch.ȱ(EPȱ 1984ȱcitedȱSimhandlȱ2006:ȱ106)ȱ ȱ Backȱinȱ1984,ȱtheȱEuropeanȱParliamentȱsuggestedȱthatȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱGypsiesȱliveȱ“inȱ theȱpresentȱandȱgiveȱlittleȱorȱnoȱthoughtȱtoȱtheȱfuture”ȱresultedȱinȱtheirȱsufferingȱfromȱ “educationalȱbackwardness”ȱ(citedȱDanbakliȱ2001:ȱ30).ȱLivingȱinȱanȱeternalȱhereȱandȱnowȱ andȱmakingȱnoȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱworkȱandȱleisureȱhadȱapparentlyȱledȱtoȱaȱsituationȱinȱ whichȱtheirȱchildrenȱwereȱnotȱ“integratedȱinȱnormalȱeducation”ȱ(ibid).ȱ TheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱtimelessnessȱhasȱbeenȱrepeatedlyȱprojectedȱontoȱtheȱGypsiesȱhasȱ ledȱTrumpenerȱtoȱaȱgeneralȱcontemplationȱonȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱcontinuousȱ WesternȱfascinationȱwithȱtheȱGypsiesȱandȱtheȱformativeȱmomentsȱofȱculturalȱtraditionsȱ themselves:ȱ ȱ
9ȱOtherȱscholars,ȱwhoȱhaveȱtakenȱupȱTrumpener’sȱargumentsȱandȱcriticallyȱdevelopedȱthemȱfurther,ȱsuggestȱ thatȱGypsiesȱhaveȱoftenȱandȱvitallyȱfunctionedȱasȱtropesȱinȱWesternȱculturalȱtraditionsȱandȱthat,ȱwhereverȱ theyȱappearȱinȱnarratives,ȱtheyȱtendȱtoȱbeȱrepresentedȱasȱthreatsȱtoȱexistingȱpowerȱrelationships,ȱsuchȱasȱ thoseȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ nation,ȱ gender,ȱ race,ȱ andȱ theȱ institutionȱ ofȱ theȱ familyȱ (seeȱ Bardiȱ 2006;ȱ Dearingȱ 2010;ȱ Matthewsȱ2010).ȱ 10ȱ See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Tebbuttȱ (1998),ȱ Saulȱ andȱ Tebbuttȱ (2004),ȱ vanȱ deȱ Portȱ (1998),ȱ Goci°ȱ (2001),ȱ Iordanovaȱ (2001),ȱWinckelȱ(2002),ȱMalvinniȱ(2004),ȱImreȱ(2006),ȱDobrevaȱ(2007),ȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱandȱIordanovaȱ(2008),ȱ GlajarȱandȱRadulescuȱ(2008),ȱandȱEndȱetȱalȱ(2009).ȱ 278ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
Ifȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ becameȱ increasinglyȱ stylized,ȱ exoticized,ȱ‘generic’ȱfiguresȱofȱmystery,ȱadventure,ȱandȱromance,ȱtheyȱalsoȱbecameȱinȬ timatelyȱidentified,ȱonȱseveralȱdifferentȱlevels,ȱwithȱtheȱformationȱofȱliteraryȱtraditionȱ itself,ȱ actingȱ asȱ figurativeȱ keysȱ toȱ anȱ arrayȱ ofȱ literaryȱ genresȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ themȱ …ȱ Ifȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ century,ȱ apparentlyȱ disparateȱ branchesȱofȱliteraryȱproductionȱareȱthusȱpeculiarlyȱconnectedȱbyȱtheirȱcommonȱfasciȬ nationȱ withȱ Gypsies’ȱ ‘primitiveȱmagic,’ȱ theȱ longerȱ listȱofȱ authorsȱandȱ literaryȱ formsȱ preoccupiedȱwithȱGypsyȱlifeȱisȱ…ȱvirtuallyȱsynonymousȱwithȱtheȱmodernȱEuropeanȱ literaryȱcanon—andȱisȱsynonymousȱasȱwell,ȱifȱtheȱmanyȱthousandsȱofȱpopularȱnovels,ȱ poems,ȱsongs,ȱoperettas,ȱpaintings,ȱandȱfilmsȱfeaturingȱGypsiesȱareȱaddedȱtoȱit,ȱwithȱ EuropeanȱandȱAmericanȱculturalȱliteracyȱmoreȱgenerally.ȱOverȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱhundredȱ years,ȱ Europeanȱ literaryȱ andȱ culturalȱ mythologyȱ hasȱ repeatedlyȱ posedȱ theȱ Gypsyȱ questionȱasȱtheȱkeyȱtoȱtheȱorigin,ȱtheȱnature,ȱtheȱstrengthȱofȱculturalȱtraditionȱitself.ȱItȱ couldȱbeȱargued,ȱindeed,ȱthatȱasȱtheȱGypsiesȱbecomeȱbearers,ȱparȱexcellence,ȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱ memoryȱproblemȱinȱitsȱmanyȱmanifestations,ȱtheyȱsimultaneouslyȱbecomeȱaȱmajorȱepistemoloȬ gicalȱtestingȱgroundȱforȱtheȱEuropeanȱimaginary,ȱblackȱbox,ȱorȱlimitȱcaseȱforȱsuccessiveȱliteraryȱ styles,ȱgenres,ȱandȱintellectualȱmovements.ȱ(Trumpenerȱ1992:ȱ873Ȭ74,ȱmyȱemphasis)ȱ ȱ Thus,ȱTrumpenerȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱveryȱformationȱandȱcelebrationȱofȱsuccessiveȱWesternȱ artisticȱ traditionsȱ andȱ intellectualȱ movementsȱ asȱ innovative,ȱ progressive,ȱ andȱ radicallyȱ andȱirreduciblyȱotherȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱpossibleȱbyȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱasȱtheȱ ultimateȱandȱuniversalȱrepresentativesȱofȱaȱpreȬmodern,ȱtraditional,ȱnatural,ȱandȱtimelessȱ order.ȱThus,ȱtheȱteleologicalȱtimeȱofȱmodern,ȱ‘civilized’ȱhistoryȱcouldȱonlyȱhaveȱbeenȱsetȱ inȱmotionȱbyȱimmobilizingȱandȱbringingȱtoȱaȱstopȱ‘theȱtimeȱofȱtheȱGypsies’ȱandȱbyȱcontinȬ uallyȱinstrumentalizingȱrelatedȱstereotypicalȱrepresentations.11ȱAccordingȱtoȱTrumpener,ȱ theȱculturalȱusesȱofȱsuchȱGypsy/RomaȱrepresentationsȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱaȱcrucialȱconȬ ditionȱofȱpossibilityȱofȱtheȱtemporalȱstructuresȱofȱmodernity.ȱSheȱfollowsȱthisȱargumentȱ andȱtheȱtendencyȱinȱWesternȱthoughtȱtoȱorientalizeȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱandȱdepriveȱthemȱ ofȱaȱtimeȱandȱplaceȱinȱmodernityȱ(Willemsȱ1997;ȱsee,ȱmoreȱgenerally,ȱSaidȱ1978;ȱFabianȱ 1983).ȱ Thisȱ leadsȱ herȱ toȱ inherentlyȱ relateȱ theȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problemȱ toȱ theȱ silentȱ erasureȱofȱRomaniȱmemoryȱfromȱwesternȱcanonsȱandȱtheȱimpossibilityȱforȱtheȱRomaȱtoȱ effectivelyȱ claimȱ aȱ representativeȱ spaceȱ forȱ theirȱ ownȱ memoriesȱ andȱ histories.ȱ Finally,ȱ thisȱledȱherȱtoȱpessimisticallyȱconcludeȱthatȱ“thoseȱpeoplesȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱclaimȱaȱhistory,ȱ areȱrelegatedȱtoȱnature,ȱwithoutȱaȱvoiceȱinȱanyȱpoliticalȱprocess,ȱrepresentedȱonlyȱinȱtheȱ glassȱcaseȱofȱtheȱdiorama,ȱtheȱdehumanizingȱlegendȱofȱtheȱphotograph,ȱtheȱtableauxȱofȱ theȱopenȬairȱmuseum”ȱ(Trumpenerȱ1992:ȱ884).ȱ Trumpener’sȱanalysisȱprominentlyȱcontributesȱtoȱaȱbetterȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱcrucialȱ relationalityȱ ofȱ theȱ structuresȱ ofȱ temporalityȱ thatȱ haveȱ historicallyȱ beenȱ attributedȱ toȱ allegedȱpeoplesȱwithȱandȱwithoutȱhistories.ȱHerȱmostȱimportantȱachievementȱisȱtoȱhaveȱ illuminatedȱwhatȱtheseȱrelationalȱhistoriesȱandȱtemporalitiesȱtendȱtoȱmakeȱimpossibleȱinȱ termsȱofȱRomaniȱagencyȱandȱmemory.ȱSheȱhasȱshownȱhowȱRomaȱorientalizationȱandȱtheȱ
11ȱHere,ȱweȱseeȱanotherȱfundamentalȱexampleȱofȱhowȱRomaniȱorȱGypsyȱidentitiesȱandȱmobilities—inȱthisȱ caseȱ‘theirȱtime’—areȱrepresentedȱasȱirregular,ȱratherȱthanȱregularȱ(seeȱmyȱdiscussionȱofȱsuchȱstrategiesȱofȱ ‘irregularization’ȱinȱchapterȱ6,ȱseeȱalsoȱSquireȱ2010).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ279ȱ displacementȱ ofȱ theirȱ historiesȱ andȱ memoriesȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ parallelȱ developmentȱ ofȱ modernȱnarrativesȱthatȱrelyȱonȱteleological,ȱprogressiveȱnotionsȱofȱtime.ȱYet,ȱTrumpenerȱ wroteȱ herȱ articleȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1990s,ȱ atȱ theȱ momentȱ whenȱ communismȱ fellȱ andȱ whenȱ RomaniȱgroupsȱallȱoverȱEuropeȱbeganȱtoȱincreasinglyȱchallengeȱtheirȱneglectȱandȱinvisiȬ bilityȱinȱlocal,ȱnational,ȱandȱEuropeanȱhistoriesȱandȱmemories.ȱTwentyȱyearsȱlater,ȱitȱisȱ highȱtimeȱtoȱseeȱwhetherȱweȱshouldȱmaintainȱTrumpener’sȱthesisȱandȱherȱbleakȱimageȱofȱ theȱRoma’sȱpositionȱinȱEuropeanȱhistory,ȱculture,ȱandȱthought.ȱIȱwantȱtoȱposeȱtheȱquesȬ tionȱ ofȱ howȱ exactlyȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ reviseȱ herȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problemȱ inȱ respectȱofȱnewlyȱemergedȱRomaniȱmemorialȱpractices.12ȱWhatȱhappensȱnowȱthatȱatȱleastȱ someȱRomaȱ“claimȱaȱhistory”ȱ(Trumpenerȱ1992:ȱ884)?ȱHaveȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱtheseȱpracȬ ticesȱ andȱ theȱ makingȱ ofȱ suchȱ claimsȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ fadingȱ awayȱ ofȱ whatȱ sheȱ considersȱ theȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problemȱ or,ȱ instead,ȱ toȱ itsȱ rearticulationȱ andȱ reinforcementȱ underȱ newȱconditions?ȱCouldȱweȱunderstandȱtheseȱclaimsȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱcitizenshipȱ asȱparticipationȱ(chapterȱ7)?ȱCouldȱwe,ȱakinȱtoȱScott’sȱlineȱofȱreasoning,ȱunderstandȱtheȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theseȱ newȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ asȱ activeȱ andȱ strategicȱ Romaniȱ adaptaȬ tionsȱtoȱnewȱcircumstancesȱinȱcontemporaryȱEuropeȱandȱasȱaȱmoveȱtowardȱinscriptionȱ intoȱ currentlyȱ prevailingȱ discourses,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ itsȱ rememȬ brance?ȱWhatȱpossiblyȱnovelȱkindȱofȱmemoryȱproblemȱaccompaniesȱtheseȱinscriptions?ȱ Howȱ doȱ theyȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ EUȱ hasȱ triedȱ toȱ developȱ newȱ foundingȱ narrativesȱtoȱuniteȱtheȱEuropeanȱcontinentȱtransnationally?ȱIȱwillȱaddressȱtheseȱissuesȱbyȱ analyzingȱdiverseȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱseveralȱRomaniȱgroupsȱandȱorganizationsȱhaveȱrecentlyȱ developedȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ andȱ strategiesȱ toȱ claimȱ aȱ placeȱ inȱ nationalȱandȱEuropeanȱhistories.ȱ ȱ ȱ
THEȱWAYȱOUTȱOFȱAMNESIAȱȱ ȱȱ LetyȱnearȱPísekȱandȱHodonínȱnearȱKunštátȱareȱtwoȱvillagesȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic.ȱSinceȱ theȱmidȱ1990s,ȱanȱindustrialȱpigȱfarmȱinȱLetyȱandȱaȱholidayȱresortȱinȱHodonínȱhaveȱinȬ creasinglyȱbecomeȱtangibleȱsymbolsȱofȱtheȱpoorȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱinȱ theȱCzechȱRepublicȱand,ȱbyȱextension,ȱinȱEurope.ȱHodonínȱandȱLetyȱareȱtheȱneglectedȱ sitesȱofȱtwoȱformerȱNaziȱconcentrationȱcampsȱonȱCzechȱterritoryȱthatȱwereȱusedȱforȱtheȱ imprisonmentȱandȱpersecutionȱofȱRoma.ȱTheȱNazisȱmurderedȱaboutȱ6,000ȱCzechȱRoma,ȱ thatȱis,ȱ90%ȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱpopulation.ȱAȱsubstantialȱnumberȱofȱthemȱwereȱdeportedȱtoȱ Auschwitzȱ andȱ otherȱ exterminationȱ sitesȱ viaȱ theȱ campsȱ inȱ Letyȱ andȱ Hodonín,ȱ whichȱ wereȱentirelyȱadministeredȱbyȱCzechȱgendarmesȱ(Papeȱ1997;ȱNe²asȱ1999b).ȱAsȱinȱseveralȱ otherȱconcentrationȱcampsȱestablishedȱduringȱtheȱSecondȱWorldȱWar,ȱmanyȱRoma,ȱwhoȱ wereȱ imprisonedȱ inȱ theseȱ camps,ȱ includingȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ children,ȱ diedȱ dueȱ toȱ harassment,ȱ exhaustion,ȱmalnutrition,ȱforcedȱlabor,ȱandȱtheȱoutbreakȱofȱvariousȱillnesses.13ȱ
12ȱElsewhereȱ(vanȱBaarȱ2010b),ȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱthereȱisȱalsoȱanȱimportantȱmethodologicalȱproblemȱwithȱ howȱ Trumpenerȱ interpretsȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ literaryȱ andȱ intellectualȱ historiesȱ andȱ claimsȱ aȱ persistent,ȱ diachronicȱdisplacementȱofȱRomaniȱmemoryȱandȱhistoryȱthroughoutȱEuropeanȱmodernity.ȱ 13ȱSee,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱRoseȱandȱWeissȱ(1993),ȱZimmermannȱ(1996a),ȱLewyȱ(2000),ȱFischerȱvonȱWeikersthalȱetȱ alȱ(2008),ȱandȱWeissȬWendtȱ(2011).ȱ 280ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
Sinceȱ theȱ 1970s,ȱ theȱ siteȱ ofȱ theȱ formerȱ campȱ inȱ Letyȱ hasȱ beenȱ occupiedȱ byȱ aȱ pigȱ farm,ȱ privatizedȱandȱmodernizedȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1990sȱ(seeȱfigureȱ8.1).ȱTheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱcampȱ inȱHodonínȱisȱtakenȱupȱbyȱaȱprivatelyȱownedȱholidayȱresort,ȱwhichȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱpopuȬ larȱholidayȱdestinationȱsinceȱ1989ȱ(seeȱfiguresȱ8.2,ȱ8.3,ȱ8.4).ȱForȱmanyȱyearsȱnow,ȱtheȱsitesȱ ofȱ theseȱ twoȱ formerȱ concentrationȱ campsȱ haveȱ beenȱ atȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ heatedȱ debatesȱwithinȱand,ȱincreasingly,ȱoutsideȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic.ȱCzechȱandȱotherȱRomaniȱ groups,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theirȱ advocates,ȱ wantȱ toȱ removeȱ bothȱ businessesȱ toȱ buildȱ decentȱ memorialsȱforȱwhatȱtheyȱconsiderȱasȱanȱadequateȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaust.ȱ However,ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ strugglingȱ forȱ recognitionȱ andȱ theȱ removalȱ ofȱ thoseȱ businesses,ȱ otherȱ actors,ȱ rangingȱ fromȱ nationalistsȱ andȱ extremistsȱ toȱ mainstreamȱ politicians,ȱhaveȱdisturbedȱtheirȱattempts.ȱDueȱtoȱtheseȱoppositions,ȱforȱaȱlongȱtimeȱtheȱ involvedȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ wereȱ unsuccessfulȱ atȱ removingȱ theȱ businesses.14ȱ Yet,ȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱofȱtheȱyearsȱofȱmyȱresearch,ȱthisȱsituationȱhasȱgraduallyȱchanged,ȱmostȱnotablyȱinȱ Hodonín.ȱInȱ2009,ȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱboughtȱtheȱholidayȱresortȱwithȱtheȱintentionȱtoȱ buildȱ aȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ educationalȱ andȱ documentationȱ center,ȱ includingȱ aȱ newȱ memorial,ȱ atȱ theȱ siteȱ ofȱ theȱ formerȱ campȱ (+TKȱ 2009a;ȱ Romeaȱ 2009e;ȱ 2011d).ȱ Inȱ whatȱ follows,ȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱtheȱRomaniȱstrugglesȱandȱhowȱweȱcouldȱunderstandȱthisȱchange.ȱIȱ willȱdescribeȱseveralȱstrategiesȱthatȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱdevelopedȱ toȱ practiceȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memory,ȱ toȱ protestȱ againstȱ exclusionȱ practices,ȱ andȱ toȱ initiateȱ publicȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ theseȱ issues.ȱ Iȱ willȱ clarifyȱ howȱ transnationalȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ travelingȱactivismȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱplayedȱaȱcrucialȱroleȱtoȱgetȱandȱkeepȱtheȱsituationȱinȱ LetyȱandȱHodonínȱonȱtheȱpoliticalȱagendaȱinȱandȱbeyondȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.1ȱȱTheȱindustrialȱpigȱfarm,ȱownedȱbyȱAGPI,ȱinȱLetyȱnearȱPísekȱonȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱNaziȱ concentrationȱcampȱforȱRoma.ȱPhoto:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
14ȱSeeȱAlbertȱ(2006)ȱandȱvanȱBaarȱ(2008b;ȱ2011a;ȱinterviewȱ2003a;ȱ2003f;ȱ2008b).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ281ȱ
ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.2ȱȱPostcardȱforȱsaleȱatȱtheȱholidayȱresortȱŽalovȱonȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱNaziȱconcentrationȱ campȱforȱRomaȱinȱHodonínȱnearȱKunštátȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ FIGURESȱ8.3ȱ–ȱ8.4ȱȱTheȱZigeunerlagerȱ(‘GypsyȱCamp’)ȱinȱHodonínȱinȱ1942ȱ(left)ȱandȱtheȱlastȱremainingȱ barrackȱ(right),ȱusedȱasȱaȱdepository,ȱinȱtheȱholidayȱresortȱŽalov.ȱPhotoȱ(left):ȱarchiveȱofȱtheȱ MuseumȱofȱRomaniȱCulture,ȱBrno,ȱCzechȱRepublic.ȱPhotoȱ(right):ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ
ȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ FIGURESȱ8.5ȱ–ȱ8.6ȱȱTheȱmonumentȱestablishedȱbyȱtheȱHavelȱgovernmentȱinȱLetyȱinȱ1995ȱ(left)ȱandȱtheȱ memorialȱplaqueȱmadeȱinȱ1998ȱbyȱtheȱRomaniȱartistȱBoženaȱVavrekováȬPìikrylováȱ atȱtheȱcemeteryȱinȱ+ernoviceȱnearȱHodonínȱ(right).ȱPhotos:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ ȱ 282ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ FIGURESȱ8.7ȱ–ȱ8.8ȱȱSymbolicȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱRomaniȱnationȱthatȱareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱRomaniȱ monumentsȱatȱtheȱcemeteryȱbyȱLetyȱinȱMiroviceȱ(left)ȱandȱinȱHodonínȱ(right)ȱ Photos:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.9ȱȱTheȱ10thȱofficialȱcommemorationȱceremonyȱinȱLetyȱ(13ȱMayȱ2005)ȱ Photo:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2005ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ283ȱ
InscribingȱRomaniȱmemoryȱ TheȱdemandȱforȱmemorialsȱinȱplacesȱsuchȱasȱLetyȱandȱHodonínȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱanȱ attemptȱbyȱRomaniȱactivistsȱtoȱresistȱexclusionȱfromȱsocietyȱandȱhistory.ȱTheyȱhaveȱusedȱ theȱmemoryȱofȱpersecutionȱandȱexterminationȱtoȱchallengeȱexclusionaryȱpracticesȱtowardȱ theȱRoma,ȱbutȱalsoȱandȱevenȱasȱimportantlyȱtoȱdevelopȱtheirȱownȱmemorialȱculturesȱandȱ practices.ȱIȱconsiderȱtheȱinscriptionȱofȱRomaniȱmemoriesȱintoȱpublicȱspaceȱaȱfirstȱstrategyȱ thatȱRomaȱhaveȱmobilizedȱtoȱrenderȱtheseȱmemoriesȱpublicȱandȱclaimȱaȱplaceȱforȱRomaniȱ historiesȱ andȱ memoriesȱ inȱ publicȱ culture.ȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ years,ȱ differentȱ groupsȱ ofȱ Czechȱ Romaȱ haveȱ contributedȱ toȱ aȱ diversificationȱ ofȱ theȱ domesticȱ and,ȱ byȱ extension,ȱ Europeanȱmemorialȱlandscapes.ȱInȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱaȱgroupȱofȱRoma,ȱwhoȱwereȱalreadyȱ activeȱduringȱcommunism,ȱestablishedȱtheȱMuseumȱofȱRomaniȱCultureȱ(Muzeumȱromskéȱ kultury)ȱinȱanȱabandonedȱandȱdamagedȱbuildingȱinȱtheȱCzechȱcityȱofȱBrno.ȱWithȱtheȱhelpȱ ofȱvariousȱdonors,ȱtheȱinvolvedȱRomaȱhaveȱentirelyȱrebuiltȱitȱand,ȱinȱtheȱcourseȱofȱtheȱ years,ȱestablishedȱaȱpermanentȱexhibition,ȱaȱresearchȱcenter,ȱandȱvariousȱeducationalȱandȱ socialȱactivities.ȱCurrently,ȱtheȱmuseum’sȱpermanentȱexhibitionȱalsoȱincludesȱaȱRomaniȱ Holocaustȱmemorial.15ȱSinceȱtheȱmidȱ1990s,ȱtheȱRomaȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱmuseumȱhaveȱ dedicatedȱaȱsignificantȱpartȱofȱtheirȱworkȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱformerȱNaziȱconcentraȬ tionȱcampsȱinȱLetyȱandȱHodonín.ȱSupportedȱbyȱtheȱthenȱCzechȱPresidentȱVáclavȱHavel,ȱ onȱ theȱ initiativeȱ ofȱ theȱ museumȱ aȱ monumentȱ wasȱ builtȱ inȱ theȱ vicinityȱ ofȱ theȱ pigȱ farmȱ (figureȱ8.5).16ȱTheȱunveilingȱofȱtheȱmemorialȱinȱ1995ȱwouldȱalsoȱbecomeȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱ aȱlongȱandȱdifficultȱstruggleȱforȱtheȱremovalȱofȱtheȱbusinesses.ȱForȱtheȱRoma,ȱtheȱestabȬ lishmentȱofȱthisȱmonumentȱisȱnotȱenough.ȱTheyȱwantȱtoȱgetȱridȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱandȱtheȱ holidayȱpark.ȱTheyȱconsiderȱtheirȱpresenceȱsocioȬhistoricallyȱunjust.ȱThoughȱtheyȱhaveȱ facedȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ oppositionȱ againstȱ theirȱ endeavorsȱ (vanȱ Baarȱ 2008b,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ below),ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheyȱhaveȱsucceededȱinȱextendingȱtheȱRomaniȱmemoryscape.ȱInȱ theȱmidȱ 1990s,ȱ+en»kȱRþži²ka,ȱ whoseȱ relativesȱ wereȱ deportedȱtoȱ Letyȱandȱ Auschwitz,ȱ foundedȱtheȱCommitteeȱforȱtheȱCompensationȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱ(VPORH).ȱSinceȱ then,ȱVPORHȱandȱtheȱmuseumȱinȱBrnoȱhaveȱestablishedȱaȱnumberȱofȱmemorials,ȱsuchȱasȱ thoseȱinȱtheȱvicinityȱofȱtheȱholidayȱparkȱinȱHodonínȱandȱthoseȱatȱcemeteriesȱnearȱLetyȱ andȱHodonínȱ(figuresȱ8.6,ȱ8.7,ȱ8.8).17ȱTheȱCzechȱRomaȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱusedȱtheȱ annualȱcommemorationsȱinȱLetyȱ(May)ȱandȱHodonínȱ(August)ȱtoȱcommemorateȱtheȱNaziȱ genocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRoma,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱprotestȱagainstȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱbusinessesȱ
15ȱAȱsculpture,ȱwhichȱisȱincludedȱinȱthisȱmemorial,ȱhasȱbeenȱmadeȱbyȱIvanȱBerkyȬDušík,ȱaȱRomaniȱartistȱ fromȱtheȱSlovakianȱtownȱofȱZvolenskáȱSlatinaȱ(interviewȱ2005o).ȱ 16ȱSeeȱHavelȱ(1995)ȱandȱFrištenskáȱetȱalȱ(1995).ȱ 17ȱ Inȱ 1997,ȱ inȱ theȱ vicinityȱ ofȱ theȱ holidayȱ parkȱ inȱ Hodonín,ȱ theȱ museumȱ builtȱ aȱ monument,ȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ RomaniȱartistȱEduardȱOlah.ȱThereȱareȱalsoȱRomaniȱmemorialsȱinȱtheȱCzechȱtownsȱofȱBrno,ȱBohusoudov,ȱ +ernovice,ȱandȱUher²ice.ȱInȱBrno,ȱtheȱMuseumȱofȱRomaniȱCultureȱhasȱputȱaȱmemorialȱplaqueȱatȱtheȱplaceȱinȱ Masnáȱ Streetȱ fromȱ whereȱ theȱ firstȱ Moravianȱ Romaȱ wereȱ deportedȱ toȱ Auschwitzȱ inȱ Marchȱ 1943ȱ (Ne²asȱ 1999b:ȱ 97Ȭ98,ȱ 170;ȱ 2005:ȱ 295).ȱ Inȱ 1985,ȱ aȱ Romaniȱ familyȱ builtȱ aȱ monumentȱ inȱ Bohusoudovȱ (inȱ theȱ Jihlavaȱ district),ȱfromȱwhereȱtheȱRomaȱwereȱdeportedȱinȱ1943ȱ(Ne²asȱ2005:ȱ262).ȱYetȱanotherȱRomaniȱmonumentȱ hasȱbeenȱbuiltȱinȱUher²iceȱinȱtheȱBìeclavȱdistrict,ȱfromȱwhereȱtheȱRomaȱwereȱdeportedȱinȱtheȱsameȱyearȱ (ibidȱ158).ȱAtȱtheȱcemeteryȱofȱ+ernoviceȱnearȱHodonínȱandȱatȱtheȱcemeteryȱofȱMiroviceȱnearȱLety—graveȬ yardsȱwhereȱmanyȱofȱtheȱRomaȱwhoȱdiedȱinȱtheȱtwoȱcampsȱwereȱburied—thereȱareȱalsoȱsomeȱmemorialȱ plaques,ȱmostȱofȱthemȱestablishedȱinȱtheȱ1990s,ȱbutȱoneȱoriginatesȱfromȱ1960ȱ(Papeȱ1997:ȱ190Ȭ91;ȱ2008:ȱ88;ȱ Ne²asȱ1999b:ȱ97Ȭ98;ȱ2005:ȱ281Ȭ85).ȱ 284ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ atȱ theseȱ sitesȱ (figureȱ 8.9).ȱ Bothȱ VPORHȱ andȱ theȱ museumȱ inȱ Brnoȱ haveȱ alsoȱ developedȱ detailedȱplansȱofȱtheȱmemorialsȱthatȱneedȱtoȱbeȱcreatedȱatȱtheȱsitesȱofȱtheȱformerȱcampsȱ onceȱtheȱbusinessesȱareȱremovedȱ(interviewȱ2003a;ȱ2008b).ȱ Despiteȱtheȱdisplacementȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱmemorials—theyȱareȱallȱlocatedȱatȱaȱrelativelyȱ largeȱ distanceȱ forȱ theȱ formerȱ camps—theȱ visualȱ languageȱ ofȱ theseȱ memorialsȱ clearlyȱ appealsȱtoȱtheȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱsocialȱandȱcivilȱmovementȱ(chapterȱ7).ȱTheȱmonumentsȱ atȱtheȱcemeteriesȱnearȱLetyȱandȱHodonínȱincludeȱunambiguousȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱsymbolȬ ismȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱmonumentsȱintegratesȱaȱbrokenȱwheelȱandȱanȬ otherȱaȱwheelȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱhorseȱhalterȱfastenedȱtoȱtheȱtopȱofȱaȱcrossȱ(figuresȱ8.7,ȱ8.8).ȱ Internationalȱ Romaniȱ organizationsȱ andȱ someȱ ofȱ theirȱ nationalȱ representativesȱ haveȱ chosenȱ theȱ caravanȱ wheelȱ asȱ theȱ symbolȱ unitingȱ disparateȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ globallyȱ byȱ referenceȱtoȱaȱcommonȱhistoryȱofȱtraveling,ȱmigration,ȱandȱsocioeconomicȱandȱculturalȱ displacement.ȱTheȱdevelopmentȱofȱRomaniȱmemorialȱculturesȱwouldȱnotȱremainȱlimitedȱ toȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱtheȱmuseum,ȱVPORH,ȱandȱtheȱmemorials.ȱWithȱtheȱsupportȱofȱ someȱofȱtheirȱadvocates,ȱtheȱmemoriesȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱsurvivorsȱofȱtheȱLetyȱandȱ Hodonínȱ campsȱ haveȱ beenȱ recordedȱ andȱ writtenȱ downȱ (Papeȱ 1997;ȱ Polanskyȱ 1998b;ȱ Danielováȱetȱalȱ2001).ȱTheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱRomaniȱsurvivorsȱhaveȱbeenȱgivenȱaȱvoiceȱ alsoȱrelatesȱtoȱaȱsecondȱstrategyȱthatȱtheȱRomaȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱdevelopedȱtoȱ initiateȱ aȱ publicȱ debateȱ aboutȱ pastȱ andȱ contemporaryȱ exclusionȱ mechanismsȱ thatȱ haveȱ affectedȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRoma.ȱ ȱ ReȬnarratingȱandȱcontestingȱtheȱnationȱ TheȱgradualȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱCzechȱRomaniȱmemorialȱculturesȱtookȱplaceȱatȱtheȱsameȱ timeȱ asȱ twoȱ booksȱ wereȱ publishedȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ memoriesȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ survivorsȱ ofȱ theȱ Letyȱcampȱwereȱmobilizedȱtoȱunleashȱaȱpublicȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱsituationȱatȱtheȱsitesȱofȱ theȱ formerȱ campsȱ andȱ aboutȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Czechȱ collaborationȱ duringȱ theȱ Secondȱ Worldȱ War.ȱThoughȱthisȱdebateȱtookȱprimarilyȱplaceȱatȱtheȱnationalȱlevel,ȱIȱwillȱshowȱhowȱitȱ wouldȱfinallyȱalsoȱgetȱaȱEuropeanȱdimension.ȱ Inȱ1994,ȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱwasȱembarrassedȱbyȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱPolansky,ȱ anȱAmericanȱactivistȱandȱpoet,ȱdrewȱtheȱCzechȱgovernment’sȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱ theȱ formerȱ campȱ inȱ Letyȱ (Papeȱ 2008).ȱ Heȱ hadȱ startedȱ anȱ individualȱ inquiryȱ intoȱ whatȱ happenedȱatȱLety.ȱHeȱresearchedȱsomeȱlocalȱCzechȱstateȱarchivesȱandȱspokeȱwithȱseveralȱ RomaniȱsurvivorsȱofȱLety.ȱHeȱpublishedȱaȱbookȱinȱCzechȱinȱwhichȱheȱbroughtȱhisȱfindȬ ingsȱ togetherȱ andȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ Letyȱ hadȱ beenȱ anȱ exterminationȱ camp,ȱ whichȱwasȱentirelyȱrunȱbyȱCzechs.ȱInȱhisȱbook,ȱPolanskyȱalsoȱstronglyȱlinkedȱtheȱwarȬ timeȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱRomaȱwithȱtheirȱpostȬcommunistȱsituationȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublicȱ (Polanskyȱ1998b).ȱInȱtheȱsameȱperiodȱofȱtime,ȱtheȱCzechȬGermanȱjournalistȱMarkusȱPapeȱ preparedȱ yetȱ anotherȱ bookȱ onȱ Letyȱ inȱ whichȱ he,ȱ likeȱ Polansky,ȱ drewȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ ambivalentȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechȱ policeȱ inȱ theȱ managementȱ ofȱ theȱ Letyȱ camp,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ genocideȱofȱCzechȱRomaȱmoreȱgenerallyȱ(Papeȱ1997;ȱinterviewȱ2003e;ȱ2008a).ȱ Inȱtheirȱbooks,ȱPolanskyȱandȱPapeȱfollowȱaȱsimilarȱstrategy,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱrelatedȱtoȱ theȱwayȱinȱwhichȱHuyssenȱdiscussesȱemergentȱmemorialȱpracticesȱinȱtermsȱofȱaȱ‘shift’ȱ fromȱ historyȱ toȱ memoryȱ (seeȱ above).ȱ Bothȱ authorsȱ followȱ theȱ trendȱ inȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ genocideȱstudiesȱtoȱbringȱhistoricalȱanalysesȱandȱindividualȱtestimoniesȱanalyticallyȱandȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ285ȱ methodologicallyȱ together.18ȱ Polanskyȱ andȱ Papeȱ combineȱ historicalȱ researchȱ withȱ Romaniȱmemoriesȱandȱtestimoniesȱtoȱquestionȱhow,ȱinȱCzechȱdebatesȱaboutȱtheȱSecondȱ WorldȱWar,ȱtheȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱCzechȱRomaȱtendsȱtoȱbeȱexternalizedȱasȱsolelyȱaȱNaziȬ Germanȱissue,ȱwithȱimportantȱconsequencesȱregardingȱissuesȱsuchȱasȱresponsibilityȱandȱ justice.ȱPolanskyȱandȱPapeȱsuggestȱthatȱthisȱexternalizationȱimpedesȱanȱopen,ȱfairȱdebateȱ aboutȱtheȱroleȱthatȱCzechsȱthemselvesȱplayedȱinȱtheȱwartimeȱpersecutionȱofȱtheȱRoma.ȱ Theyȱfollowȱthisȱlineȱofȱreasoningȱtoȱlinkȱwhatȱhappenedȱduringȱtheȱwarȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱ socialȬhistoricalȱjusticeȱthat,ȱtheyȱargue,ȱstillȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱdoneȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱCzechȱRomaniȱ Holocaustȱvictimsȱandȱtheirȱchildren.19ȱSinceȱtheȱmidȱ1990s,ȱparticularlyȱPapeȱhasȱcloselyȱ collaboratedȱ withȱ Rþži²ka’sȱ VPROH.ȱ Papeȱ andȱ VPROHȱ haveȱ jointlyȱ organizedȱ annualȱ commemorationsȱinȱLetyȱandȱstruggledȱforȱaȱmoreȱadequateȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱ HolocaustȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱparticularlyȱbyȱdisputingȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱ andȱorganizingȱotherȱeventsȱthatȱcouldȱhelpȱtoȱfurtherȱtheirȱissue.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱ booksȱbyȱPolanskyȱandȱPapeȱunleashedȱaȱheated,ȱyetȱinitiallyȱlargelyȱacademicȱdebateȱ aboutȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱformerȱLetyȱcamp.ȱ ȱ Theȱpublicationȱofȱtheirȱbooksȱwasȱfollowedȱbyȱthatȱofȱaȱbookȱ(HÚȱ1999)ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ CzechȱhistoriansȱCtiborȱNe²asȱandȱJaroslavȱValentaȱdiscussȱtheȱLetyȱcaseȱandȱtheȱstatusȱ ofȱ theȱ camp.ȱ Theyȱ wantedȱ toȱ revealȱ “objectiveȱ truths”ȱandȱ “verifyȱ theȱ historicalȱ facts”ȱ aboutȱ Letyȱ (Valentaȱ 1999:ȱ 9).ȱ Aȱ numberȱ ofȱ originalȱ historicalȱ documentsȱ onȱ theȱ Letyȱ campȱ wereȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ bookȱ toȱ supportȱ theirȱ arguments.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ book,ȱ Ne²asȱ andȱ Valentaȱ questionȱ howȱ Polanskyȱ andȱ Papeȱ wouldȱ haveȱ usedȱ historicalȱ documentsȱ andȱ Romaniȱ testimoniesȱ toȱ makeȱ politicalȱ claims.20ȱ Yet,ȱ theyȱ themselvesȱ clingȱ toȱ historicalȱ documentsȱtoȱdoȱsomethingȱambivalent.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱargueȱthatȱtheȱgenocideȱofȱRomaȱdidȱ notȱtakeȱplaceȱonȱCzechȱterritoryȱandȱthatȱCzechsȱwereȱnotȱtoȱblameȱforȱwhatȱhappenedȱ withȱ theȱ Romaȱ duringȱ theȱ war,ȱ theseȱ historiansȱ ambiguouslyȱ mobilizeȱ originalȱ Naziȱ documentsȱ andȱ rhetoric.ȱ Ne²as,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ originalȱ Naziȱ purposeȱ forȱ imprisoningȱ theȱ Romaȱ andȱ “settingȱ themȱ toȱ work”ȱ wasȱ merelyȱ “toȱ reeducate”ȱ themȱ (pìevýchovaȱv»zÜþȱkȱpráci)ȱ(Ne²asȱ1999a:ȱ28).ȱHeȱalsoȱremarks:ȱ
18ȱIllustrationsȱofȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱthisȱnewȱinterdisciplinaryȱscholarlyȱdevelopmentȱare,ȱforȱinstance,ȱtheȱ appearanceȱofȱoralȱhistoryȱasȱanȱincreasinglyȱindependentȱdiscipline,ȱtheȱGermanȱhistoryȬworkshopȱmoveȬ ment,ȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ Erinneringsgeschichteȱ (‘memoryȱ history’,ȱ eg,ȱ Dinerȱ 2003a)ȱ andȱ theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ variousȱnewȱjournalsȱ(suchȱasȱWerkstattȱGeschichte,ȱHistoryȱandȱMemory,ȱandȱMemoryȱStudies),ȱandȱacademicȱ studiesȱthatȱexplicitlyȱcombineȱ‘history’ȱandȱ‘memory’ȱ(SaulȱFriedländerȱhasȱbeenȱoneȱofȱtheȱpioneersȱinȱthisȱ development,ȱsee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱhisȱintroductionȱtoȱNaziȱGermanyȱandȱtheȱJews,ȱseeȱFriedländerȱ1999:ȱ1Ȭ6;ȱseeȱ alsoȱYoungȱ1997).ȱ 19ȱInȱoneȱofȱhisȱotherȱbooks,ȱPolanskyȱpublishedȱaȱlongȱseriesȱofȱpoemsȱinȱwhichȱheȱreflectsȱonȱLety,ȱitsȱpoorȱ recognition,ȱandȱtheȱconsequenceȱthisȱpoorȱrecognitionȱwouldȱhaveȱhadȱforȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱ contemporaryȱCzechȱsocietyȱ(Polanskyȱ1998a).ȱ 20ȱ Polansky,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ wouldȱ haveȱ takenȱ theȱ Romaniȱ testimoniesȱ atȱ faceȱ value.ȱ Heȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ seriouslyȱverifiedȱtheseȱtestimoniesȱandȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱLetyȱwasȱanȱexterminationȱcampȱ(Polanskyȱ1998b;ȱseeȱ alsoȱ+an»kȱ2003).ȱAfterȱ1999,ȱPolanskyȱdidȱnoȱlongerȱactivelyȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱdebate.ȱInȱ1999,ȱheȱleftȱtheȱ CzechȱRepublicȱforȱKosovo,ȱwhereȱheȱwouldȱalsoȱmobilizeȱHolocaustȱdiscourse.ȱInȱKosovo,ȱheȱblamedȱtheȱ existenceȱ ofȱ UNHCRȬinitiatedȱ Romaȱ refugeeȱ campsȱ onȱ leadȬpollutedȱ ground.ȱ Onȱ theȱ coverȱ ofȱ aȱ bookletȱ meantȱ toȱ addressȱ thatȱ Romaniȱ childrenȱ inȱ theȱ refugeeȱ campsȱ setȱ upȱ afterȱ theȱ NATOȱ interventionȱ wereȱ dyingȱdueȱtoȱtheȱleadȱpollution,ȱheȱincludedȱaȱphotoshoppedȱimageȱofȱtheȱentranceȱofȱtheȱAuschwitzȱcamp.ȱ KosovanȱRomaniȱchildrenȱareȱinȱfrontȱ ofȱ theȱcampȱentranceȱandȱtheȱ notoriousȱArbeitȱmachtȱfreiȱ hasȱbeenȱ changedȱintoȱBleiȱ[Lead]ȱmachtȱfreiȱ(Polanskyȱ2005).ȱ 286ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
Theȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechȱ Romaȱ tookȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ forcedȱ campȱ concenȬ tration:ȱ thoughȱ itȱ wasȱ initiatedȱ inȱ theȱ Gypsyȱ campsȱ ofȱ theȱ Protectorate,21ȱ itȱ wasȱ inȱ actualȱfactȱrealizedȱinȱtheȱBȬIIȬeȱcampȱofȱtheȱAuschwitzȱcampȱcomplex.ȱ(Ne²asȱ1999a:ȱ 18,ȱmyȱtranslation)ȱ ȱ Valenta’sȱ usesȱ thisȱ argumentȱ toȱ externalizeȱ theȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma.ȱ Heȱ statesȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ Czechȱ Landsȱ wereȱ occupiedȱ byȱ Naziȱ Germany,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ makeȱ senseȱ toȱ accuseȱCzechsȱofȱtheirȱcollaborationȱinȱtheȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱCzechȱRoma.ȱTheseȱCzechsȱ wouldȱonlyȱhaveȱobeyedȱNaziȱinstructionsȱmeantȱforȱwhatȱtheȱNazisȱcalledȱtheȱProtecȬ torateȱ ofȱ Bohemiaȱ andȱ Moravia.ȱ Suggestingȱ thatȱ theȱ termsȱ ‘Czech’ȱ andȱ ‘Protectorate’ȱ contradictȱ eachȱ other,ȱ heȱ concludesȱ thatȱ “everyȱ authorȱ whoȱ wantsȱ toȱ beȱ historicallyȱ objective,ȱ needsȱ toȱ consequentlyȱ speakȱ andȱ writeȱ aboutȱ aȱ Protectorateȱ campȱ inȱ Lety”ȱ (Valentaȱ1999:ȱ12,ȱhisȱemphasis,ȱmyȱtranslation).22ȱ TheȱinterventionsȱofȱPolanskyȱandȱPape,ȱasȱwellȱasȱofȱtheȱCzechȱhistoriansȱNe²asȱandȱ Valenta,ȱ clarifyȱ thatȱ theȱ debateȱ aboutȱ Romaniȱ memoryȱ isȱ aboutȱ muchȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaust.ȱ Theȱ debateȱ isȱ alsoȱ aboutȱ Czechȱ collaboration,ȱ aboutȱ socialȬhistoricalȱ justiceȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theȱ Czechȱ Roma,ȱ aboutȱ theȱ currentȱ positionȱ ofȱ Romaȱ inȱ Czechȱ society,ȱ andȱ aboutȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republicȱ inȱ itsȱ ownȱ andȱ Europeanȱ history.ȱ Theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ twoȱ historiansȱ inȱ theȱ debateȱ haveȱ mobilizedȱ periodizationsȱofȱCzechȱhistory,ȱincludingȱreferencesȱtoȱoriginalȱNaziȱdocuments,ȱtoȱdisȬ tinguishȱtheȱ‘beforeȱandȱafter’ȱofȱoccupation,ȱconcentration,ȱdeportation,ȱandȱgenocide,ȱ illustratesȱ theȱ roleȱ thatȱ theȱ framingȱ ofȱ historicalȱ timeȱ playsȱ inȱ theȱ debate.ȱ Whereasȱ PolanskyȱandȱPapeȱtryȱtoȱextendȱtheȱdebateȱbyȱincludingȱRomaniȱmemoriesȱandȱtestimoȬ nies,ȱtheȱtwoȱhistoriansȱlimitȱtheȱdiscussionȱtoȱtheȱhistoricalȱtimeȱofȱtheȱnation,ȱandȱtoȱ pastȱpolicyȱdocumentsȱandȱtheȱ“objectiveȱtruths”ȱtheyȱwouldȱrevealȱinȱparticular.ȱInȱtheȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ years,ȱ theseȱ claimsȱ ofȱ objectivityȱ andȱ theȱ particularȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ historiansȱnarrateȱtheȱ(timeȱofȱthe)ȱnationȱhaveȱbegunȱtoȱinterfereȱwithȱotherȱpoliticizaȬ tionsȱofȱtheȱLetyȱcaseȱinȱtheȱCzechȱpublicȱdebate.ȱThisȱwillȱbecomeȱclearȱwhenȱweȱlookȱatȱ theȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱthisȱdebateȱwouldȱgetȱaȱEuropeanȱdimensionȱandȱwouldȱpartiallyȱbeȱ hijackedȱbyȱCzechȱnationalistsȱandȱpopulists.ȱ ȱ GoingȱEuropeanȱ Theȱ debatesȱ onȱ theȱ removalȱ ofȱ theȱ businessesȱ inȱ Letyȱ andȱ Hodonínȱ haveȱ alsoȱ ledȱ toȱ outburstsȱofȱantiȬRomaȱsentimentsȱandȱevenȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱdenial.ȱInȱtheȱlateȱ1990s,ȱ forȱinstance,ȱaȱrepresentativeȱofȱtheȱfarȬrightȱCzechȱRepublicanȱPartyȱ(SPRȬRS+)ȱdeclaredȱ thatȱbuildingȱmonumentsȱtoȱtheȱRomaȱwouldȱbeȱ“simplyȱrudenessȱandȱanȱinsultȱtoȱallȱ whiteȱcitizensȱofȱthisȱstate”ȱ(JosefȱKresjaȱcitedȱFawnȱ2001:ȱ1201).ȱThisȱstatementȱwasȱpartȱ ofȱtheȱRepublicans’ȱnationalȱelectionȱcampaign,ȱwhichȱwasȱextremelyȱdismissiveȱofȱtheȱ RomaȱandȱinitiativesȱtoȱimproveȱtheirȱsocioȬeconomicȱsituation.ȱTheyȱputȱupȱhugeȱbillȬ
21ȱTheȱProtectorateȱofȱBohemiaȱandȱMoraviaȱwasȱtheȱnameȱtheȱNazisȱgaveȱtoȱtheȱoccupiedȱCzechȱLands.ȱ 22ȱTheȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱformerȱconcentrationȱcampsȱcontinuedȱonȱtheȱground,ȱwhenȱdisputesȱ aroseȱaboutȱhowȱtheȱcampȱinȱLetyȱhadȱtoȱbeȱqualifiedȱonȱanȱexplanatoryȱsignȱinstalledȱinȱtheȱvicinityȱofȱtheȱ memorialȱ(seeȱKundraȱ2000;ȱMalotaȱ2000).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ287ȱ boardsȱthroughoutȱtheȱcountry,ȱwhichȱread:ȱ“TheȱRepublicansȱrejectȱaȱprivilegedȱtreatȬ mentȱofȱtheȱgypsies”ȱ(Republikániȱodmítajíȱzvýhodnovaníȱcikánþ)ȱ(Raichováȱ2001:ȱ260).ȱ ȱ Atȱaboutȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱinvolvedȱCzechȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱ startedȱtoȱdevelopȱyetȱanotherȱstrategyȱtoȱgetȱpaidȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱinȱLetyȱandȱ Hodonín,ȱandȱtheȱpoorȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱmoreȱgenerally.ȱSinceȱtheȱ lateȱ1990s,ȱtheyȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱmobilizedȱconnectionsȱabroadȱtoȱputȱpressureȱonȱtheȱ Czechȱgovernment.23ȱTheyȱhaveȱgotȱsupportȱfromȱvariousȱorganizationsȱandȱpoliticians,ȱ includingȱMembersȱofȱEuropeanȱParliament.ȱInȱ2005,ȱtheyȱsucceededȱinȱgettingȱtheȱentireȱ EuropeanȱParliamentȱinvolved.ȱTheȱCzechȱRomaniȱactivistsȱhaveȱstartedȱtoȱcollaborateȱ withȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ otherȱ partnerȱ Romaniȱ organizations,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ ofȱ GermanȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱinȱHeidelberg,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱstrongȱWesternȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱselfȬ organizationsȱtoȱwhichȱIȱwillȱpayȱattentionȱinȱtheȱlastȱpartȱofȱthisȱchapter.ȱInȱAprilȱ2005,ȱ VPROHȱ andȱ Papeȱ (2005;ȱ 2008)ȱ organizedȱ anȱ exhibitionȱonȱ theȱ formerȱ campȱ inȱ Letyȱinȱ oneȱofȱtheȱmainȱhallsȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱParliamentȱinȱBrussels.ȱTheyȱinvitedȱmembersȱofȱ theȱ Parliamentȱ toȱ visitȱ theȱ exhibition’sȱ opening.ȱ Withȱ theȱ helpȱ ofȱ severalȱ parliamentȱ membersȱwhoȱwereȱalreadyȱbackingȱthem,ȱtheyȱbuiltȱaȱstrongȱcoalitionȱtoȱgetȱattentionȱ paidȱtoȱtheȱLetyȱcaseȱinȱaȱparliament’sȱresolutionȱthatȱwasȱinȱpreparationȱthatȱspring.24ȱ Finally,ȱtheseȱeffortsȱandȱthoseȱofȱseveralȱothersȱresultedȱinȱtheȱadoptionȱofȱtheȱresolutionȱ byȱtheȱEuropeanȱParliament,ȱwhichȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱParliament’sȱresolutionȱthatȱaddressedȱ theȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱUnionȱandȱalsoȱcalledȱforȱtheȱrecognitionȱofȱ theȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱthroughoutȱtheȱUnion.ȱInȱthisȱresolution,ȱtheȱParliamentȱcallsȱonȱ theȱEUȱmemberȱstatesȱtoȱfullyȱrecognizeȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaust.ȱTheȱCzechȱRepublicȱinȱ particularȱisȱurgedȱ“toȱtakeȱallȱnecessaryȱstepsȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱfromȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱ formerȱconcentrationȱcampȱatȱLetyȱ…ȱandȱtoȱcreateȱaȱsuitableȱmemorial”ȱ(EPȱ2005b:ȱ§G,ȱmyȱ italics).ȱ Theȱ‘European’ȱsuccessȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱwouldȱunleashȱanȱ extremelyȱpolarizedȱdebateȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱinȱwhichȱvariousȱechoesȱofȱtheȱdebateȱ betweenȱtheȱhistoriansȱandȱPapeȱandȱPolanskyȱalsoȱbecameȱaudible.ȱImmediatelyȱafterȱ theȱresolution’sȱadoption,ȱtheȱCzechȱPresidentȱVáclavȱKlausȱstronglyȱcondemnedȱtheȱcallȱ asȱanȱinterferenceȱinȱCzechȱdomesticȱaffairs.ȱHeȱdeclaredȱthatȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱnotȱtheȱ EU,ȱdecidesȱonȱwhatȱwillȱeventuallyȱhappenȱtoȱtheȱfarmȱinȱLetyȱ(+TKȱ2005b).ȱMiloslavȱ Ransdorf,ȱ aȱ Czechȱ Memberȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ claimedȱ thatȱ “thereȱ hasȱ neverȱ beenȱanyȱgenuineȱconcentrationȱcampȱthere”ȱ(citedȱ+TKȱ2005b,ȱmyȱitalics).ȱThereȱwasȱalsoȱ strongȱoppositionȱagainstȱtheȱviewsȱofȱpoliticians,ȱsuchȱasȱKlausȱandȱRansdorf.ȱPetrȱUhl,ȱ aȱformerȱCzechȱombudsmanȱforȱhumanȱrights,ȱaccusedȱtheȱlatterȱofȱcontributingȱtoȱ“theȱ
23ȱInȱ1998,ȱforȱinstance,ȱCzechȱRomaniȱactivistsȱpresentedȱanȱopenȱletterȱtoȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱaskingȱforȱ theȱremovalȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarm.ȱTheȱletterȱwasȱsignedȱbyȱaȱnumberȱofȱinternationallyȱwellȬknownȱfigures,ȱsuchȱ asȱGünterȱGrassȱandȱSimonȱWiesenthalȱ(Trojanȱ1999).ȱInȱ1999,ȱtheȱRomaȱNationalȱCongressȱ(RNC),ȱoneȱofȱ theȱinternationalȱRomaniȱassociations,ȱtriedȱtoȱputȱpressureȱonȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱfarmȱ byȱcallingȱforȱaȱboycottȱofȱCzechȱproductsȱ(RNCȱ1999).ȱ 24ȱ Milanȱ Hora²ek,ȱ aȱ Memberȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ forȱ theȱ Greens,ȱ activelyȱ helpedȱ toȱ organizeȱ theȱ exhibitionȱandȱsupportedȱtheȱcallȱforȱaȱmoreȱadequateȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaust.ȱOnȱtheȱsameȱ dayȱ theȱ exhibitionȱ opened,ȱ aȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ hearingȱ onȱ theȱ Letyȱ caseȱ wasȱ organized,ȱ atȱ whichȱ Romaniȱ Rose,ȱ theȱ chairmanȱ ofȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Germanȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Roma,ȱ inȱ noȱ uncertainȱ termsȱ rejectedȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarm.ȱHeȱcalledȱitsȱpresenceȱ“scandalous”ȱ(interviewȱ2005a).ȱ 288ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ soȬcalledȱ‘AuschwitzȱLie’”ȱ(UhlȱcitedȱBalážováȱ2005).ȱUhlȱputȱforwardȱthatȱRansdorfȱhadȱ “usedȱ hisȱ positionȱ toȱ denyȱ factsȱ aboutȱ fascismȱ andȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ …ȱ Ourȱ predecessorsȱallowedȱthisȱcampȱtoȱbeȱerected,ȱworkedȱhereȱasȱguards;ȱit’sȱupȱtoȱusȱtoȱtryȱ toȱmakeȱamends!ȱNotȱevenȱAuschwitzȱwasȱoriginallyȱdenotedȱasȱaȱconcentrationȱcamp,ȱ andȱweȱknowȱwhatȱhappenedȱthereȱ…ȱWeȱcan’tȱallowȱanyoneȱtoȱdenyȱtheȱgenocideȱofȱaȱ nationȱorȱgroupȱofȱpeople”ȱ(ibid).25ȱHowever,ȱinȱanȱinterviewȱwithȱoneȱofȱtheȱmainȱCzechȱ dailyȱnewspapers,ȱPresidentȱKlausȱalsoȱjoinedȱthoseȱwhoȱhadȱquestionedȱwhetherȱLetyȱ wasȱreallyȱaȱconcentrationȱcamp.ȱHeȱdeclared:ȱ ȱ [Lety]ȱwasȱoriginallyȱaȱlaborȱcampȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱrefusedȱtoȱwork,ȱandȱnotȱonlyȱforȱ Romaniȱ people.ȱ Itȱ isȱ reallyȱ notȱ aȱ concentrationȱ campȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ allȱ subconsciouslyȱunderstandȱtheȱwordsȱ‘concentrationȱcamp’ȱandȱenvisionȱAuschwitz,ȱ Buchenwaldȱandȱallȱthatȱwentȱwithȱthem.ȱOfȱcourseȱmanyȱtragicȱthingsȱhappenedȱ[inȱ Lety].ȱButȱweȱunderstandȱthatȱtheȱvictimsȱofȱthisȱcampȱprimarilyȱsuccumbedȱtoȱanȱ epidemicȱofȱspottedȱtyphus,ȱnotȱdueȱtoȱwhatȱisȱtraditionallyȱunderstoodȱasȱtheȱfateȱofȱ aȱconcentrationȱcampȱvictim—atȱleastȱaccordingȱtoȱwhatȱeveryȱchildȱlearnsȱinȱschool.ȱ (KlausȱcitedȱKoláìȱ2005:ȱ11;ȱseeȱalsoȱDrchalȱandȱKoláìȱ2005)ȱ ȱ Onȱtheȱeveȱofȱtheȱnationalȱelectionsȱofȱ2006,ȱCzechȱPrimeȱMinisterȱJiìíȱParoubekȱfurtherȱ politicizedȱtheȱRomaȱcase.ȱTraditionally,ȱhisȱSocialȱDemocraticȱPartyȱ(+SSD)ȱoftenȱcomȬ petesȱwithȱKlaus’sȱCivicȱDemocraticȱPartyȱ(ODS).ȱContraryȱtoȱKlaus,ȱParoubekȱrepeatedȬ lyȱdeclaredȱthatȱheȱwasȱwillingȱtoȱthinkȱaboutȱtheȱremovalȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱ(+TKȱ2005e;ȱ 2005d).ȱHeȱevenȱwantedȱtoȱ“solveȱtheȱissue”ȱbeforeȱtheȱ2006ȱelectionsȱbyȱpurchasingȱtheȱ farmȱfromȱtheȱownerȱandȱremovingȱitȱafterwardsȱ(+TKȱ2005a;ȱ2006h).ȱDespiteȱaȱnumberȱ ofȱRomaȬfriendlyȱactions,ȱhowever,ȱParoubekȱgraduallyȱpostponedȱandȱfinallyȱcancelledȱ hisȱpromiseȱ(+TKȱ2005f;ȱ2005c).ȱ BothȱtheȱPresident’sȱandȱtheȱPremier’sȱstatementsȱonȱLetyȱhaveȱpartlyȱfacilitatedȱlessȱ moderateȱandȱmainstreamȱpoliticalȱpartiesȱandȱextremistȱgroupsȱtoȱradicalizeȱtheȱdebate.ȱ TheȱformerȱCzechȱPresidentȱVáclavȱHavelȱcondemnedȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱKlausȱhadȱgivenȱ spaceȱ toȱ extremistsȱ toȱ radicallyȱ politicizeȱ theȱ Letyȱ case:ȱ “Václavȱ Klausȱ hasȱ openedȱ theȱ doorȱtoȱtheȱcurrentȱeventsȱaroundȱLetyȱasȱheȱsaidȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱaȱconcentrationȱcampȱinȱ theȱproperȱsenseȱofȱtheȱword”ȱ(Havelȱcitedȱ+TKȱ2006a).ȱTheȱ‘currentȱevents’ȱinȱtheȱquoteȱ referȱtoȱwhatȱhappenedȱinȱ2006,ȱeightȱmonthsȱafterȱKlaus’sȱstatementȱonȱLety.ȱThen,ȱtheȱ Czechȱ extremeȬrightȱ Nationalȱ Partyȱ (NS)ȱ organizedȱ anȱ aggressiveȱ electionȱ campaignȱ againstȱtheȱRomaniȱcallȱforȱadequateȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱ(Aldaȱ2006;ȱ +TKȱ 2006e).ȱ Asȱ partȱ ofȱ theirȱ campaign,ȱ NSȱ unveiledȱ aȱ soȬcalledȱ ‘counterȬmonument’ȱ closeȱtoȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱ(+TKȱ2006d).ȱThisȱcounterȬmonumentȱwouldȱhaveȱreclassifiedȱLetyȱ asȱonlyȱaȱ‘laborȱcamp,’ȱnotȱaȱconcentrationȱcamp.ȱThoughȱtheȱmonumentȱwasȱremovedȱ soonȱ afterȱ itsȱ turbulentȱ unveiling—partlyȱ dueȱ toȱ immediateȱ Romaniȱ protestsȱ andȱ oppositionȱ byȱ severalȱ politicians—theȱ discussionȱ aboutȱ Romaniȱ memoryȱ wasȱ omniȬ presentȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱ mediaȱ forȱ aȱ fewȱ weeksȱ (+TKȱ 2006g;ȱ 2006c;ȱ Romeaȱ 2006).ȱ Theȱ Romaniȱ victimsȱ didȱ notȱ fightȱ forȱ theȱ Czechȱ liberation,ȱ theȱ NS’sȱ chairwomanȱ Petraȱ
25ȱSvatoplukȱKarasek,ȱthenȱaȱCzechȱgovernmentȱhumanȱrightsȱcommissioner,ȱmadeȱsomeȱsimilarȱstatementsȱ (+TKȱ2006g).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ289ȱ
Edelmannováȱsaid.ȱ“Theyȱwereȱdeportedȱtoȱtheȱcamp,ȱbecauseȱtheyȱwereȱunwillingȱtoȱ work.”ȱSheȱtoldȱtheȱCzechȱpressȱthatȱtheȱNazisȱhadȱ“also”ȱinternedȱ“antisocialȱelements”ȱ inȱtheȱcamp.ȱSheȱaddedȱthatȱtheȱRomaȱthemselvesȱwereȱtoȱblameȱforȱtheirȱdeathsȱ“sinceȱ theyȱdidȱnotȱobserveȱsanitaryȱrules.”ȱSheȱstatedȱthat,ȱ“ifȱoneȱisȱnotȱaccustomedȱtoȱobserveȱ hygieneȱandȱspreadsȱinfectiousȱdiseases,ȱitȱisȱhimȱorȱherȱwhoȱisȱmoreȱorȱlessȱatȱfault.”ȱSheȱ claimedȱthatȱ“suchȱpeopleȱareȱnotȱworthyȱofȱmonuments;ȱweȱbuildȱmemorialsȱtoȱthoseȱ whoȱmanagedȱtoȱachieveȱsomething”ȱ(Edelmannováȱcitedȱ+TKȱ2006f;ȱ2006i).ȱTheȱclaimsȱ madeȱbyȱtheȱtwoȱhistoriansȱalsoȱturnedȱoutȱtoȱbeȱcheapȱfuelȱforȱtheȱextremistȱpropagandaȱ machineȱagainstȱtheȱRoma.ȱInȱtheȱheatȱofȱtheȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱNS’sȱattemptȱtoȱestablishȱ itsȱ counterȬmonument,ȱ Edelmannováȱ claimed:ȱ “Weȱ knowȱ fromȱ historicalȱ sourcesȱ thatȱ theȱ campȱ wasȱ justȱ aȱ laborȱ camp”ȱ (Aldaȱ 2006).ȱ Whenȱ theȱ counterȬmonumentȱ wasȱ reȬ moved,ȱ sheȱ added:ȱ “It’sȱ aȱ sadȱ dayȱ whenȱ theȱ wordȱ ofȱ Gypsyȱ provocateursȱ hasȱ moreȱ weightȱthanȱtheȱwordsȱofȱhistorians”ȱ(ibid).26ȱ ȱ Retrospectively,ȱ weȱ canȱ sayȱ thatȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ andȱ theirȱ advocatesȱhaveȱ‘Europeanized’ȱtheȱLetyȱcaseȱhasȱhadȱtwoȱambivalent,ȱlargelyȱunforeseenȱ effects.ȱFirstly,ȱthisȱEuropeanizationȱresultedȱintoȱaȱkindȱofȱ“backdoorȱnationalism”ȱ(Foxȱ andȱ Vermeerschȱ 2010)ȱ inȱ whichȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ Czechȱ politicalȱ actors,ȱ rangingȱ fromȱ mainstreamȱpoliticians,ȱsuchȱasȱKlaus,ȱtoȱextremistȱsplinterȱgroups,ȱhaveȱmobilizedȱtheȱ Roma’sȱsupposedȱEuropeannessȱtoȱreinforceȱpopulistȱorȱnationalistȱrhetoricȱandȱpropaȬ gateȱ Romaphobia.ȱ Yet,ȱ despiteȱ theȱ extremists’ȱ attemptsȱ atȱ disputingȱ theȱ strugglesȱ forȱ RomaniȱHolocaustȱrecognition,ȱtheyȱhaveȱnotȱsucceededȱinȱhijackingȱtheȱentireȱdebate.ȱ Partly,ȱthisȱrelatesȱtoȱtheȱsecondȱeffectȱofȱtheȱEuropeanizationȱofȱtheȱLetyȱcase.ȱForȱtheȱ firstȱtimeȱsinceȱtheȱ1990s,ȱtheȱofficialȱgovernmentalȱdiscourseȱonȱtheȱtwoȱformerȱcampsȱ hasȱstartedȱtoȱchange.ȱDespiteȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱisȱstillȱthere,ȱsinceȱ2005,ȱaȱseriesȱ ofȱCzechȱpoliticians,ȱincludingȱrepresentativesȱofȱtheȱrulingȱgovernments,ȱhaveȱsuggestȬ
26ȱTheȱattemptȱtoȱestablishȱaȱcounterȬmonumentȱwasȱnoȱincident,ȱbutȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱaȱseriesȱofȱendeavorsȱ toȱdisturbȱtheȱRomaniȱcallsȱforȱaȱmoreȱadequateȱHolocaustȱrecognition.ȱInȱ2007,ȱseveralȱNSȱmembersȱdisȬ turbedȱ theȱ annualȱ commemorationȱ atȱ Letyȱ andȱ showedȱ bannersȱ withȱ slogans,ȱ suchȱ asȱ “Germanȱ laborȱ facilityȱ–ȱGermanȱresponsibility,”ȱ“Czechȱpolicemenȱ–ȱvictimsȱofȱtyphoidȱepidemicȱinȱtheȱlaborȱcamp,”ȱandȱ “300,000ȱ Czechȱ victimsȱ onȱ Nazismȱ oftenȱ withoutȱ singleȱ memorial”ȱ (citedȱ+TKȱ 2007b).ȱ Inȱ 2008,ȱ NSȱ triedȱ somethingȱelse.ȱInȱfrontȱofȱtheȱHouseȱofȱEthnicȱMinoritiesȱinȱPragueȱandȱonȱtheȱInternationalȱDayȱforȱtheȱ Eliminationȱ ofȱ Racialȱ Discrimination,ȱ theyȱ wantedȱ toȱ holdȱ “aȱ commemorativeȱ meetingȱ againstȱ positiveȱ discrimination.”ȱAtȱitsȱwebsite,ȱNSȱsaidȱthatȱitȱwantedȱtoȱrecallȱ“discriminationȱagainstȱtheȱwhiteȱmajorityȱ byȱpseudoȬhumanistȱassociationsȱandȱactivists”ȱ(citedȱRomeaȱ2008e).ȱInȱ2009,ȱNSȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱRomaȱandȱ theȱLetyȱcaseȱagain.ȱNSȱorganizedȱaȱmeetingȱwhereȱpartyȱmemberȱJiìíȱGaudinȱpresentedȱhisȱbookȱTheȱFinalȱ SolutionȱofȱtheȱGypsyȱQuestionȱinȱtheȱCzechȱLands.ȱInȱoneȱofȱhisȱchapters,ȱheȱfocusesȱonȱwhatȱheȱcalls,ȱinȱtheȱ chapter’sȱtitle,ȱ“theȱinfluenceȱofȱtheȱgypsiesȱonȱtheȱstateȱbudgetȱandȱeconomyȱofȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic.”ȱHisȱ lastȱchapterȱfocusesȱonȱwhatȱheȱcalled,ȱinȱhisȱbookȱtitle,ȱ“theȱfinalȱsolutionȱofȱtheȱGypsyȱQuestion.”ȱInȱanȱ interview,ȱGaudinȱsaidȱthatȱ“ourȱshortȬtermȱsolutionȱisȱtoȱcutȱdownȱonȱwelfareȱtoȱdiscourageȱpeopleȱfromȱ avoidingȱworkȱandȱlivingȱoffȱwelfare.ȱIfȱyouȱdon’tȱwork,ȱyouȱdon’tȱeat”ȱ(GaudinȱcitedȱBorufkaȱ2009).ȱTheȱ moneyȱsavedȱbyȱtheȱreductionȱofȱwelfareȱpayments,ȱheȱsuggested,ȱcouldȱthenȱbeȱusedȱforȱ‘repatriation’ȱtoȱ India.ȱTheȱbookȱpresentationȱwasȱalsoȱusedȱtoȱtakeȱupȱtheȱLetyȱcase.ȱSomeȱmembersȱofȱtheȱNationalȱPartyȱ installedȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ provocativeȱ signs.ȱ Oneȱ wasȱ aȱ makeshiftȱ roadȱ signȱ pointingȱ toȱ ‘Gypsies’ȱ inȱ oneȱ directionȱandȱ‘pigs’ȱinȱanother,ȱaȱclearȱallusionȱtoȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱinȱLetyȱandȱtoȱtheȱNaziȱseparationȱofȱ‘fit’ȱandȱ ‘unfit’ȱ people.ȱ Gaudinȱ explainedȱ thatȱ theȱ signsȱ wereȱ installedȱ dueȱ toȱ Romaniȱ complaintsȱ thatȱ theirȱ memorialsȱwereȱdifficultȱtoȱfind.ȱHeȱadded:ȱ“theyȱaskedȱ…ȱforȱ10ȱmillionȱCzechȱcrownsȱforȱtheȱsigns,ȱwhichȱ isȱtheȱgypsyȱmentality,ȱtoȱalwaysȱaskȱforȱhelp,ȱsoȱweȱdecidedȱtoȱhelpȱout”ȱ(GaudinȱcitedȱBorufkaȱ2009).ȱ 290ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ edȱ thatȱ theȱ pigȱ farmȱ shouldȱ indeedȱ beȱ removed.27ȱ Whenȱ Klausȱ andȱ otherȱ mainstreamȱ politiciansȱ disputedȱ theȱ statusȱ ofȱ Lety,ȱ someȱ otherȱ Czechȱ politiciansȱ alsoȱ immediatelyȱ opposedȱagainstȱthisȱnarrative.ȱWhatȱisȱmore,ȱtheȱsituationȱinȱHodonínȱhasȱchanged.ȱInȱ 2009,ȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱboughtȱoutȱtheȱownersȱofȱtheȱholidayȱresortȱ(Romeaȱ2008d;ȱ 2008c).ȱTheȱgovernmentȱintendsȱtoȱbuildȱaȱnewȱmemorialȱatȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱcampȱ (Romeaȱ2009e;ȱ2011b).ȱTheseȱchangesȱhaveȱalsoȱgoneȱhandȱinȱhandȱwithȱambivalentȱgovȬ ernmentalȱmoves.ȱInȱtheȱLetyȱcase,ȱtheȱgovernmentȱhasȱproposedȱtoȱimproveȱtheȱmemoȬ rial,ȱ butȱ stillȱ maintainȱ theȱ pigȱ farm.ȱ Moreover,ȱ strategiesȱ toȱ marginalizeȱ theȱ Romaniȱ actorsȱhaveȱbeenȱdeveloped.ȱForȱinstance,ȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱhasȱrecentlyȱtransferredȱ theȱ administrationȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ sitesȱ toȱ stateȬownedȱ institutions.28ȱ Theȱ Romaniȱactorsȱwhoȱhaveȱinterminablyȱstruggledȱforȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheseȱmemorialȱ sites,ȱandȱhaveȱactuallyȱextensiveȱplansȱtoȱdoȱso,29ȱhaveȱbeenȱpassedȱoverȱbyȱtheȱCzechȱ authoritiesȱ(Romeaȱ2011c).ȱ Despiteȱ theseȱ developments,ȱ weȱ canȱ neverthelessȱ interpretȱ theȱ graduallyȱ changingȱ parametersȱofȱtheȱCzechȱdebateȱasȱpartȱofȱtheȱ“memorialȬmakingȱprocess”ȱ(Youngȱ1993:ȱ 12Ȭ13),ȱ ambivalentȱ asȱ itȱ stillȱ is.ȱ Ifȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ memorialsȱ areȱ notȱ justȱ aboutȱ “theȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ peopleȱ andȱ theirȱ monuments,ȱ butȱ [alsoȱ about]ȱ theȱ consequencesȱ ofȱ theseȱrelationsȱinȱhistoricalȱtime”ȱ(ibidȱ13),ȱweȱcanȱalsoȱsayȱthatȱtheȱdebateȱisȱincreasinglyȱ moreȱ aboutȱ questioningȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱ Romaȱ haveȱ beenȱ excludedȱ fromȱ Czechȱ nationalȱhistoryȱandȱcollectiveȱmemory.ȱTheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱtheirȱ advocatesȱ haveȱ developedȱ variousȱ strategiesȱ toȱ openȱ upȱ theȱ publicȱ debateȱ andȱ crossȬ fertilizeȱhistoryȱandȱmemoryȱ“movesȱawayȱfromȱaȱstateȱsupportedȱ(andȱstateȱsupporting)ȱ nationalȱ history”ȱ (Levyȱ 2004:ȱ 182).ȱ Theirȱ actsȱ forȱ recognitionȱ questionȱ theȱ teleologicalȱ temporalȱsequenceȱthatȱperiodizesȱCzechȱnationalȱhistoryȱinȱorderȱtoȱmaintainȱnationalȱ victimhoodȱandȱexternalizeȱcomplicity.ȱOfȱcourse,ȱasȱtheȱdebateȱshows,ȱtheȱCzechȱstateȱ continuesȱtoȱplayȱaȱcrucialȱroleȱinȱhowȱitsȱhistoryȱisȱremembered.ȱHowever,ȱtheȱstateȱnowȱ needsȱ toȱ shareȱ theȱ fieldȱ ofȱ meaningȱ makingȱ withȱ aȱ rangeȱ ofȱ otherȱ actors,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ EuropeanȱParliament,ȱscholars,ȱnationalists,ȱjournalists,ȱand,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱtheȱRomaniȱ activistsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱ(cfȱLevyȱ2004).ȱIfȱ“theȱrealȱmonumentȱisȱnotȱtheȱstoneȱobjectȱ butȱtheȱdebateȱitself”ȱ(Carrierȱ2005:ȱ228)ȱandȱifȱweȱtakeȱintoȱaccountȱthatȱtheȱdebateȱisȱ increasinglyȱ moreȱ aboutȱ CzechȬRomaȱ relationships,ȱ Romaniȱ memories,ȱ theirȱ placeȱ inȱ Europeanȱhistory,ȱandȱissuesȱofȱsocioȬhistoricalȱjustice,ȱweȱcanȱalsoȱsayȱthatȱtheȱspaceȱforȱ representingȱRomaniȱhistoriesȱandȱmemoriesȱisȱgraduallyȱwidening.ȱ ȱ TheȱCzechȱcaseȱillustratesȱthatȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱdevelopedȱ theirȱownȱstrategiesȱtoȱmobilizeȱtheȱRoma’sȱEuropeanizationȱtoȱclaimȱaȱplaceȱinȱnationalȱ andȱEuropeanȱhistoriesȱandȱmemories.ȱWeȱneedȱtoȱinterpretȱtheseȱstrategies,ȱwhichȱcanȱ largeȱbeenȱconsideredȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱtravelingȱactivismȱandȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱcitizenshipȱ asȱ participationȱ (chapterȱ 7),ȱ beyondȱ theȱ EUȬmemberȱ stateȱ binary.ȱ Indeed,ȱ asȱ Iȱ haveȱ
27ȱ See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ variousȱ statementsȱ madeȱ byȱ Czechȱ politiciansȱ onȱ theȱ removalȱ ofȱ theȱ pigȱ farmȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱmediaȱ(+TKȱ2005a;ȱ2006h;ȱ2006k;ȱ2007a;ȱ2009b;ȱRomeaȱ2008b;ȱ2008a;ȱ2009c;ȱ2009d;ȱ2009b;ȱ2011a).ȱ 28ȱ Theȱ administrationȱ ofȱ theȱ inȱ Letyȱ memorialȱ hasȱ beenȱ transferredȱ toȱ theȱ Lidiceȱ Memorialȱ (+TKȱ 2009b),ȱ whileȱ theȱ Czechȱ governmentȱ hasȱ decidedȱ toȱ makeȱ theȱ Komenskýȱ Pedagogicalȱ Museumȱ inȱ Pragueȱ responsibleȱforȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱaȱnewȱmemorialȱatȱtheȱsiteȱinȱHodonínȱ(Romeaȱ2011d).ȱ 29ȱInȱtheȱLetyȱcase,ȱVPROHȱhasȱdevelopedȱsuchȱplansȱ(interviewȱ2003a),ȱwhereas,ȱinȱtheȱHodonínȱcase,ȱtheȱ MuseumȱforȱRomaniȱCultureȱinȱBrnoȱhasȱdoneȱsomethingȱsimilarȱ(interviewȱ2008b).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ291ȱ shown,ȱ Romaniȱ activistȱ andȱ advocacyȱ networksȱ haveȱ developedȱ theirȱ ownȱ politicsȱ ofȱ scalingȱ(chapterȱ5)ȱtoȱchallengeȱexclusionȱmechanismsȱthatȱaffectȱtheȱRoma.ȱAttemptsȱbyȱ politicalȱ analystsȱ toȱ explainȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ andȱ CzechȱattitudesȱagainstȱtheȱRomaȱhaveȱsometimesȱfocusedȱonȱdomesticȱaffairsȱandȱEUȱ pressuresȱonȱsuccessiveȱCzechȱgovernments.ȱWhileȱsuchȱanalysesȱhelpȱtoȱgainȱaȱbetterȱ insightȱ inȱ theȱ situation,ȱ theyȱ canȱ alsoȱ leadȱ toȱ theȱ ambiguousȱ suggestionȱ thatȱ (some)ȱ CzechsȱareȱRomaphobicȱandȱthatȱtheȱEUȱmostlyȱrepresentsȱliberalȱandȱhumanȱideals.ȱOnȱ theȱ basisȱ ofȱ thisȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ EU,ȱ theȱ Unionȱ isȱ understoodȱ asȱ aȱ uniformȱ andȱ unisonȱ socioȬpoliticalȱ agentȱ thatȱ couldȱ morallyȱ andȱ logisticallyȱ resolveȱ theȱ amnesiaȱ concerningȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ EUȱ memberȱ states,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republic.ȱ However,ȱ differentȱEUȱpolicyȱpracticesȱregardingȱLetyȱeasilyȱcontestȱtheȱuniformityȱofȱEUȱpolicies.ȱ Forȱinstance,ȱwhileȱtheȱEuropeanȱParliamentȱhasȱcalledȱforȱtheȱremovalȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarm,ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ EU’sȱ socialȱ fundsȱ hasȱ financiallyȱ supportedȱ theȱ companyȱ thatȱ ownsȱ theȱ farmȱ (figureȱ 8.10).ȱ Insteadȱ ofȱ startingȱ byȱ juxtaposingȱ Czechȱ andȱ EUȱ interestsȱandȱscalingȱtheȱEUȱlevelȱmorallyȱorȱotherwiseȱaboveȱtheȱCzechȱnationalȱorȱlocalȱ one,ȱweȱneedȱtoȱextendȱtheȱscopeȱofȱtheȱanalysisȱtoȱtheȱwiderȱcontextȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȬ izationȱ ofȱ Romaȱ representationȱ (chapterȱ 5),ȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ integration,ȱ theȱ globalizationȱofȱHolocaustȱdiscourses,ȱandȱpostȬ1989ȱEUȱattemptsȱtoȱreconsiderȱitsȱownȱ ColdȱWarȱ‘foundingȱnarratives.’ȱAsȱIȱwillȱargueȱbelow,ȱtheȱfoundingȱnarrativesȱofȱtheȱEUȱ haveȱ alteredȱ andȱ theȱ Unionȱ hasȱ recentlyȱ changedȱ itsȱ culturalȱ policies,ȱ whichȱ hasȱ alsoȱ impactedȱonȱhowȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱisȱtakenȱintoȱaccount.ȱAbove,ȱIȱhaveȱshownȱ thatȱweȱcannotȱmaintainȱTrumpener’sȱthesis,ȱforȱtheȱRomaȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱandȱactivelyȱ enteredȱ currentȱ ‘memorialȬmakingȱ processes’ȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Below,ȱ Iȱ willȱ explainȱ howȱ newlyȱemergedȱEUȱnarrativesȱaboutȱEurope’sȱpastȱneverthelessȱtendȱtoȱconfrontȱusȱwithȱ aȱnewȱkindȱofȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱproblem.ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.10ȱȱSignȱatȱtheȱfenceȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱinȱLetyȱwithȱtheȱinscription:ȱ‘Thisȱprojectȱwasȱ coȬfundedȱbyȱtheȱEuropeanȱUnionȱȬȱEuropeanȱAgriculturalȱGuidanceȱ andȱGuaranteeȱFundȱ(EAGGF)’ȱȱȱPhoto:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2008ȱ 292ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
THEȱGOVERNMENTALIZATIONȱOFȱHOLOCAUSTȱREMEMBRANCEȱINȱEUROPEȱ ȱ InȱpostȬwarȱWesternȱEurope,ȱantiȬNazismȱandȱantiȬcommunismȱwereȱcentralȱdiscursiveȱ andȱstrategicȱframesȱforȱtheȱEuropeanȱCommunity’sȱsearchȱforȱpeaceȱandȱstability.ȱAtȱtheȱ sameȱ time,ȱ inȱ socialistȱ Centralȱ andȱ Easternȱ Europe,ȱ theȱ discourseȱ ofȱ antiȬfascismȱ proȬ foundlyȱshapedȱtheȱantiȬWesternȱandȱantiȬcapitalistȱattitude.30ȱTheȱmemorialȱlandscapesȱ ofȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ wereȱ forcefullyȱ Sovietizedȱ andȱ inscribedȱ withinȱ theȱ rhetoricȱ ofȱ antiȬ fascismȱandȱcommunistȱmartyrdom.ȱInȱmostȱsocialistȱwarȱmemorialsȱtheȱrepresentationȱ ofȱtheȱwarȱhistoriesȱofȱtheȱJewsȱandȱtheȱRomaȱwasȱdownplayedȱorȱpurposelyȱneglected.ȱ Instead,ȱmostȱofȱtheȱmemorialsȱcelebratedȱdeȬethnicized,ȱ‘communist’ȱresistanceȱgroupsȱ andȱsoldiersȱofȱtheȱRedȱArmyȱasȱthoseȱwhoȱhadȱbeatenȱtheȱ‘fascistȱtyranny’ȱandȱfinallyȱ broughtȱpeaceȱandȱstabilityȱtoȱtheȱsocialistȱstates.ȱCommunismȱwasȱconsequentlyȱunderȬ stoodȱasȱtheȱtrueȱforceȱbehindȱtheȱcollapseȱofȱNazismȱandȱasȱtheȱsoleȱsourceȱofȱpostwarȱ peace.ȱSimultaneously,ȱtheȱcommunistsȱtriedȱtoȱuniversalizeȱandȱexternalizeȱfascismȱasȱ somethingȱ thatȱ wasȱ alwaysȱ latentȱ inȱ theȱ capitalistȱ worldȱ orderȱ ofȱ theȱ West,ȱ notȱ onlyȱ beforeȱandȱduringȱtheȱSecondȱWorldȱWar,ȱbutȱalsoȱafterward.ȱTheȱCzechoslovakȱSocialistȱ Republicȱ(1948Ȭ89)ȱwasȱnoȱexceptionȱtoȱthisȱrule.ȱAfterȱtheȱwar,ȱspeakingȱpubliclyȱofȱtheȱ RomaniȱHolocaustȱbecameȱtabooȱandȱtheȱsitesȱofȱtheȱformerȱcampsȱinȱLetyȱandȱHodonínȱ wereȱignored.31ȱ However,ȱwhenȱtheȱEuropeanȱCommunityȱreachedȱrelativeȱstabilityȱatȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ 1980sȱandȱcommunismȱfell,ȱneitherȱtheȱsymbolismȱofȱEastȱEuropeanȱantiȬfascismȱnorȱthatȱ ofȱWestȬEuropeanȱantiȬcommunismȱcouldȱfunctionȱasȱaȱfoundingȱtransnationalȱnarrativeȱ ofȱEuropeanȱintegration.ȱItȱhasȱbeenȱarguedȱthatȱnewȱfoundingȱnarrativesȱwereȱandȱareȱ stillȱneededȱtoȱfoster,ȱrevitalize,ȱandȱcontinueȱtheȱprojectȱofȱEuropeanȱintegrationȱ(Probstȱ 2003).ȱSinceȱtheseȱnarrativesȱhaveȱanȱimportantȱfunctionȱinȱcreatingȱunityȱandȱstabilityȱinȱ theȱexpandingȱEU,ȱnowȱtheȱsymbolicȱscopeȱofȱthoseȱnarrativesȱalsoȱneedsȱtoȱencompassȱ CentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeanȱaudiences,ȱhistories,ȱandȱmemories:ȱ ȱ TheȱcommemorationȱofȱtheȱHolocaustȱisȱincreasinglyȱbecomingȱtheȱcoreȱofȱaȱunifyingȱ Europeanȱ memory,ȱ thusȱ givingȱ constitutionȱ buildingȱ inȱ Europeȱ theȱ necessaryȱ symȬ bolicȱfoundationȱ…ȱTheȱcommemorationȱofȱtheȱHolocaustȱ…ȱisȱnotȱonlyȱaȱsourceȱofȱ symbolicȱ legitimacyȱ butȱ alsoȱ ofȱ politicalȱ actionȱ andȱ values,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ rejectionȱ ofȱ racism,ȱantiȬSemitism,ȱandȱxenophobia.ȱ(Dinerȱ2000ȱcitedȱProbstȱ2003:ȱ53,ȱtheȱquoteȱisȱ reproducedȱverbatimȱfromȱProbst)ȱ ȱ TheȱcommemorationȱofȱtheȱHolocaust,ȱDinerȱargues,ȱhasȱbecomeȱtheȱsymbolicȱcenterȱofȱaȱ “unifyingȱEuropeanȱmemory”ȱandȱaȱkindȱofȱ“negative”ȱfoundingȱactȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱEuroȬ peanȱUnionȱ(Dinerȱ2003b:ȱ43Ȭ44).ȱInȱparticular,ȱtheȱissueȱofȱhowȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱ couldȱbeȱaȱsourceȱofȱpoliticalȱactionȱhasȱrecentlyȱbecomeȱrelevantȱinȱtheȱEU’sȱapproachȱ towardȱcultureȱandȱculturalȱpolicy.ȱOverȱtheȱlastȱdecade,ȱweȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱobserveȱaȱ
30ȱ Thoughȱ theȱ narrativesȱ ofȱ antiȬNazismȱ andȱ antiȬfascismȱ hadȱ alsoȱ someȱ featuresȱ inȱ common,ȱ theseȱ disȬ coursesȱwereȱactivelyȱmobilizedȱagainstȱeachȱotherȱafterȱtheȱSecondȱWorldȱWarȱ(Kosharȱ2000;ȱMüllerȱ2000).ȱ 31ȱOnlyȱinȱ1969,ȱatȱtheȱtimesȱofȱtheȱPragueȱspring,ȱsomeȱhistoriansȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱwroteȱaȱmoderateȱhistoryȱ ofȱtheȱcamps.ȱSinceȱtheȱearlyȱ1970sȱandȱprimarilyȱthroughȱNe²as’sȱworks,ȱmoreȱscholarlyȱattentionȱhadȱbeenȱ paidȱtoȱLetyȱandȱHodonínȱ(Ne²asȱ1981;ȱ1987;ȱseeȱalsoȱRþži²kaȱ2004;ȱPapeȱ2008).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ293ȱ gradualȱ shiftȱ inȱ theȱ EU’sȱ dealingȱ withȱ culturalȱ affairsȱ fromȱ conceptualizingȱ cultureȱ primarilyȱinȱsymbolicȱtermsȱtoȱinstrumentalizingȱitȱinȱgovernmentalȱtermsȱ(Barnettȱ2001).ȱ Thisȱ governmentalȱ approachȱ isȱ basedȱ onȱ “theȱ beliefȱ thatȱ waysȱ ofȱ lifeȱ canȱ beȱ actedȱ onȱ throughȱtheȱgovernmentalȱdeploymentȱofȱartisticȱandȱculturalȱresources”ȱ(Bennettȱ2000:ȱ 1420).ȱ Culturalȱ practicesȱ areȱ consideredȱ asȱ instrumentsȱ toȱ achievingȱ specificȱ aimsȱ andȱ targets,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Europeanȱ integrationȱ andȱ theȱ increaseȱ ofȱ theȱ EU’sȱ globalȱ competitiveȬ ness.ȱInȱparticular,ȱEUȱinstitutionsȱtryȱtoȱmobilizeȱandȱutilizeȱvariousȱculturalȱpracticesȱ andȱ programsȱ toȱ helpȱ individualsȱ toȱ transformȱ intoȱ activelyȱ participatingȱ Europeanȱ citizens.ȱTheȱmobilizationȱofȱcultureȱinȱtheȱEUȱimpliesȱaȱdeploymentȱofȱsuchȱpracticesȱforȱ theȱ moreȱ effectiveȱmanagementȱ andȱ integrationȱ ofȱ (partsȱof)ȱtheȱ Europeanȱ population,ȱ includingȱ Europe’sȱ minorities.ȱ Thisȱ tendencyȱ isȱ wellȱ illustratedȱ inȱ theȱ EU’sȱ ‘cultural’ȱ approachȱtoȱemployment:ȱ ȱ Toȱ participateȱ moreȱ fullyȱ inȱ societyȱ andȱ theȱ worldȱ ofȱ work,ȱ peopleȱ areȱ requiredȱ toȱ developȱ professionalȱ qualitiesȱ basedȱ onȱ moreȱ specificȱ individualȱ skills,ȱ suchȱ asȱ creativity,ȱinitiative,ȱflexibilityȱandȱhumanȱrelationsȱskills.ȱIncreasinglyȱemployeesȱareȱ seekingȱtheȱpotentialȱforȱpersonalȱdevelopmentȱandȱgrowthȱwhichȱculturalȱpracticesȱ (exhibitions,ȱperformingȱarts,ȱfineȱarts,ȱetc.)ȱmayȱhelpȱtoȱshapeȱ…ȱTrainingȱandȱparticiȬ pationȱinȱaȱvarietyȱofȱculturalȱactivitiesȱareȱincreasinglyȱemergingȱasȱaȱsignificantȱtoolȱofȱsocialȱ integrationȱwherebyȱpeopleȱcanȱacquireȱnewȱorȱimprovedȱskillsȱandȱqualifications.ȱ(ECȱ1998ȱ citedȱBarnettȱ2001:ȱ419,ȱmyȱitalics)ȱ ȱ Initially,ȱinȱtheȱmidȱ1990s,ȱEUȱprogramsȱandȱpoliciesȱonȱEuropeanȱintegrationȱprimarilyȱ linkedȱissuesȱofȱemploymentȱandȱcompetitivenessȱtoȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱtraining,ȱeducaȬ tion,ȱandȱwhatȱwasȱincreasinglyȱcalledȱ‘lifelongȱlearning’ȱ(ECȱ1995,ȱseeȱalsoȱchapterȱ5).ȱ Alreadyȱ inȱ theseȱ earlyȱ programsȱ ofȱ theȱ midȱ 1990s,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ EU’sȱ Whiteȱ Paperȱ onȱ EducationȱandȱTrainingȱinȱparticular,ȱtheseȱrelationshipȱwereȱclearlyȱframedȱinȱtermsȱofȱ theȱvitalȱimportanceȱofȱEurope’sȱculturalȱheritageȱandȱtheȱremembranceȱofȱitsȱdarkȱpast:ȱ ȱ Theȱ essentialȱ aimȱ ofȱ educationȱ andȱ trainingȱ hasȱ alwaysȱ beenȱ personalȱ developmentȱ andȱ theȱ successfulȱ integrationȱ ofȱ Europeansȱ intoȱ societyȱ throughȱ theȱ sharingȱ ofȱ commonȱ values,ȱ theȱ passingȱ onȱ ofȱ culturalȱ heritageȱ andȱ theȱ teachingȱ ofȱ selfȬrelianceȱ …ȱ Recallingȱ andȱ underȬ standingȱtheȱpastȱisȱessentialȱinȱorderȱtoȱjudgeȱtheȱpresent.ȱKnowledgeȱofȱhistoryȱ…ȱ hasȱaȱdualȱfunctionȱasȱaȱguideȱinȱtimeȱandȱspaceȱwhichȱisȱessentialȱtoȱeveryoneȱifȱtheyȱ areȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱtheirȱroots,ȱdevelopȱaȱsenseȱofȱbelongingȱandȱtoȱunderstandȱ others.ȱItȱisȱsmallȱwonderȱthatȱtheȱhallmarkȱofȱauthoritarianȱregimesȱandȱdictatorshipsȱ hasȱbeenȱtheȱunderminingȱandȱfalsifyingȱofȱtheȱteachingȱofȱhistory.ȱTheȱpenaltyȱsocietyȱ paysȱforȱforgettingȱtheȱpastȱisȱtoȱloseȱaȱcommonȱheritageȱofȱbearingsȱandȱreferenceȱpoints.ȱ(ECȱ 1995:ȱ3,ȱ12,ȱemphasisȱinȱoriginal)ȱ ȱ Sinceȱ aboutȱ theȱ turnȱ ofȱ theȱ millennium,ȱ weȱ haveȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ observeȱ aȱ clearȱ governȬ mentalizationȱ ofȱ culturalȱ practicesȱ inȱ EUȱ culturalȱ policy,ȱ particularlyȱ visȬàȬvisȱ issuesȱ ofȱ socioȬeconomicȱ integrationȱ andȱ theȱ EU’sȱ globalȱ competitiveness,ȱ andȱ particularlyȱ throughȱdealingȱwithȱculturalȱpracticesȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheirȱinclusionȱinȱprogramsȱofȱwhatȱ hasȱ beenȱ calledȱ ‘activeȱ Europeanȱ citizenship.’ȱ Sinceȱ aȱ fewȱ years,ȱ theȱ trendȱ toȱ governȬ 294ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ mentalizeȱcultureȱhasȱbeenȱextendedȱtoȱ“governmentalizingȱtheȱpast”ȱ(Bennettȱ1998)ȱatȱ theȱ EUȱ level.ȱ Theȱ EUȱ hasȱ envisionedȱ itsȱ futureȱ inȱ theȱ longȬtermȱ Europeȱ forȱ Citizensȱ Programmeȱ 2007Ȭ2013,ȱ whichȱ isȱ centrallyȱ basedȱ onȱ “theȱ conceptȱ ofȱ Activeȱ Europeanȱ Citizenship”ȱ(ECȱ2009:ȱ6).ȱApartȱfromȱclearȱinitiativesȱatȱtheȱEUȱlevelȱtoȱgovernmentalizeȱ civilȱsocietyȱthroughȱarticulating,ȱdeveloping,ȱandȱlogisticallyȱandȱfinanciallyȱsupportingȱ projectsȱthatȱaimȱatȱactiveȱcitizenship,ȱtheȱEUȱhasȱnowȱexplicitlyȱincludedȱaȱgovernmentȬ alȱactionȱcalledȱ“activeȱEuropeanȱremembrance”ȱ(ECȱ2009:ȱ89Ȭ93),ȱwhichȱitȱdelineatesȱasȱ follows:ȱ ȱ TheȱEuropeanȱUnionȱisȱbuiltȱonȱfundamentalȱvaluesȱsuchȱasȱfreedom,ȱdemocracy,ȱandȱ respectȱforȱhumanȱrights.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱfullyȱappreciateȱtheirȱmeaning,ȱitȱisȱnecessaryȱtoȱ rememberȱtheȱbreachesȱofȱthoseȱprinciplesȱcausedȱbyȱNazismȱandȱStalinismȱinȱEurope.ȱ Byȱcommemoratingȱtheȱvictims,ȱbyȱpreservingȱtheȱsitesȱandȱarchivesȱassociatedȱwithȱdeportaȬ tions,ȱ Europeansȱ willȱ preserveȱ theȱ memoryȱ ofȱ theȱ past,ȱ includingȱ itsȱ darkȱ sidesȱ …ȱ [C]itizensȱ willȱ engageȱ inȱ aȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Union,ȱ fiftyȱ yearsȱ ago,ȱonȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱEuropeanȱintegration,ȱwhichȱpreservedȱpeaceȱamongȱitsȱmembers,ȱ andȱ finallyȱ onȱ today’sȱ Europe,ȱ therebyȱ movingȱ beyondȱ theȱ pastȱ andȱ buildingȱ theȱ future.ȱThisȱactionȱthereforeȱwillȱplayȱanȱimportantȱroleȱinȱnourishingȱtheȱbroadȱreflecȬ tionȱonȱtheȱfutureȱofȱEuropeȱandȱinȱpromotingȱactiveȱEuropeanȱcitizenship.ȱ(ECȱ2009:ȱ89,ȱmyȱ italics)ȱ ȱ TheȱcentralȱaimsȱofȱthisȱparticularȱinitiativeȱonȱactiveȱEuropeanȱremembrance,ȱtheȱcallȱforȱ projectsȱstates,ȱcorrespondȱtoȱtheȱgeneralȱobjectivesȱofȱtheȱEuropeȱforȱCitizensȱProgramme.ȱ Thisȱinitiativeȱisȱ“fosteringȱaction,ȱdebate,ȱandȱreflectionȱrelatedȱtoȱEuropeanȱcitizenshipȱ andȱ democracy,ȱ sharedȱ values,ȱ commonȱ history,ȱ andȱ culture”ȱ andȱ “bringingȱ Europeȱ closerȱtoȱitsȱcitizensȱbyȱpromotingȱEurope’sȱvaluesȱandȱachievements,ȱwhileȱpreservingȱ theȱmemoryȱofȱitsȱpast”ȱ(ECȱ2009:ȱ89).32ȱȱ Thisȱ trendȱ alsoȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ andȱ Holocaustȱ remembrance.ȱ Theȱ 2005ȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ (EP)ȱ resolutionȱ onȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ theȱ EU,ȱ whichȱcallsȱforȱtheȱremovalȱofȱtheȱfarmȱinȱLety,ȱrefersȱtoȱanotherȱEuropeanȱParliamentȱ resolution,ȱadoptedȱearlierȱtheȱsameȱyear:ȱ ȱ [Theȱ EP]ȱ paysȱ homageȱ toȱ allȱ theȱ victimsȱ ofȱ theȱ Nazisȱ andȱ isȱ convincedȱ thatȱ lastingȱ peaceȱinȱEuropeȱmustȱbeȱbasedȱonȱremembranceȱofȱitsȱhistory;ȱrejectsȱandȱcondemnsȱ revisionistȱviewsȱandȱdenialȱofȱtheȱHolocaustȱasȱshamefulȱandȱcontraryȱtoȱhistoricalȱ truthȱ…ȱ[TheȱEP]ȱurgesȱtheȱCouncilȱandȱtheȱCommission,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱvariousȱlevelsȱ ofȱlocal,ȱregional,ȱandȱnationalȱgovernmentȱinȱtheȱMemberȱStates,ȱtoȱcoordinateȱtheirȱ measuresȱ toȱ combatȱ …ȱ attacksȱ onȱ minorityȱ groupsȱ includingȱ Romaȱ …ȱ inȱ orderȱ toȱ upholdȱ theȱ principlesȱ ofȱ toleranceȱ andȱ nonȬdiscriminationȱ andȱ toȱ promoteȱ social,ȱ economicȱandȱpoliticalȱintegration.ȱ(EPȱ2005a:ȱ§1,ȱ§3,ȱitalicsȱadded)ȱ
32ȱSimilarȱtoȱhowȱIȱinterpretȱtheȱgovernmentalizationȱofȱcivilȱsociety,ȱtheȱgovernmentalizationȱofȱtheȱpastȱatȱ theȱ EUȱ levelȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ theȱ promotionȱ andȱ articulationȱ ofȱ technologiesȱ ofȱ proximityȱ (chapterȱ7).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ295ȱ
ThisȱresolutionȱlinksȱtheȱremembranceȱofȱtheȱHolocaustȱtoȱtheȱpromotionȱofȱsocial,ȱecoȬ nomic,ȱandȱpoliticalȱintegrationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtheȱEU.ȱInȱotherȱwords,ȱtheȱUnionȱgovȬ ernmentalizesȱtheȱremembranceȱofȱtheȱHolocaustȱinȱorderȱtoȱachieveȱitsȱaimȱofȱEuropeanȱ integration.ȱ Theȱ EUȱ considersȱ remembrance,ȱ Holocaustȱ education,ȱ andȱ promotingȱ dialogueȱamongȱdiverseȱcommunitiesȱasȱvitalȱinstrumentsȱtoȱ“makeȱintolerance,ȱdiscriȬ mination,ȱandȱracismȱaȱthingȱofȱtheȱpast”ȱ(EPȱ2005a:ȱ§5).ȱTheȱUnionȱalsoȱencouragesȱitsȱ membersȱtoȱcreateȱaȱ“EuropeanȱHolocaustȱMemorialȱDay,”ȱtoȱuseȱHolocaustȱmemorialȱ institutions,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Auschwitzȱ museum,ȱ toȱ reinforceȱ Holocaustȱ educationȱ andȱ toȱ makeȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ humanȱ rightsȱ educationȱ andȱ “Europeanȱ citizenship”ȱ standardȱ elementsȱinȱschoolȱcurriculaȱthroughoutȱtheȱEUȱ(ibid,ȱseeȱalsoȱOSCEȱ2006a;ȱFRAȱ2010a;ȱ 2010b).ȱ Theȱ meansȱ ofȱ remembrance,ȱ education,ȱ andȱ interculturalȱ dialogue,ȱ whichȱ areȱ assembledȱ inȱ theȱ EPȱ resolutions,ȱ needȱ toȱ beȱ introducedȱ intoȱ theȱ curriculaȱ ofȱ schools,ȱ museums,ȱ culturalȱ venues,ȱ commemorationsȱ andȱ theȱ like.ȱ Theȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ areȱ understoodȱ hereȱ asȱ “embodiedȱ mediumsȱ forȱ changingȱ theȱ conductȱ ofȱ individualsȱ andȱ socialȱgroups,ȱandȱtherebyȱasȱmeansȱofȱaddressingȱproblemsȱofȱdiscriminationȱandȱsocialȱ exclusion”ȱ(Barnettȱ2001:ȱ419Ȭ20).ȱ ȱ Theȱ EU’sȱ governmentalizationȱ ofȱ Holocaustȱ remembranceȱ inȱ Europeȱ bringsȱ theȱ Holocaust,ȱ andȱ Nazismȱ andȱ Stalinism,ȱ inȱ alignmentȱ withȱ theȱ ‘negative’ȱ foundingȱ moȬ mentȱofȱEuropeanȱunificationȱandȱintegration.33ȱThisȱlinkageȱisȱclearlyȱexpressedȱwhenȱ theȱEuropeȱforȱCitizensȱProgrammeȱstates,ȱforȱinstance,ȱthatȱactiveȱEuropeanȱremembranceȱ willȱ enableȱ Europeanȱ citizensȱ toȱ “engageȱ inȱ aȱ reflectionȱ onȱ theȱ originsȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Unionȱ [and]ȱ onȱ theȱ historyȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ integration”ȱ (ECȱ 2009:ȱ 89,ȱ myȱ italics).ȱ Here,ȱ theȱ programȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ lessonsȱ learnedȱ fromȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ haveȱ notȱ onlyȱ givenȱ Europeanȱintegrationȱaȱcrucialȱstart.ȱTheyȱalsoȱlegitimateȱpoliticalȱactionsȱaimedȱatȱtheȱ strengtheningȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ integrationȱ programsȱ andȱ theirȱ extensionȱ toȱ otherȱ policyȱ domains,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱonesȱofȱsocialȱandȱculturalȱpolicy.ȱTheȱdiscursiveȱrepresentationȱofȱ theȱ EUȱ asȱ “builtȱ onȱ fundamentalȱ valuesȱ suchȱ asȱ freedom,ȱ democracy,ȱ andȱ respectȱ forȱ humanȱ rights”ȱ (ibid)ȱ and,ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ asȱ itselfȱ aȱ significantȱ defenderȱ ofȱ suchȱ universalizedȱnormsȱisȱmobilizedȱtoȱ‘normalize’ȱEuropeanȱintegrationȱprogramsȱacrossȱ severalȱ policyȱ domains,ȱ includingȱ thoseȱ ofȱ education,ȱ employment,ȱ andȱ culture.ȱ Theȱ normȱ ofȱ thisȱ normalizationȱ processȱ doesȱ notȱ justȱ referȱ toȱ legalȱ normsȱ setȱ byȱ juridicalȱ standardsȱorȱtoȱethicalȱnormsȱsetȱbyȱhistoricalȱknowledgeȱofȱtheȱHolocaust.ȱRather,ȱthisȱ normȱ refersȱ toȱ theȱ Foucauldianȱ notionȱ ofȱ aȱ normalizingȱ power—nowȱ atȱ theȱ Europeanȱ level.ȱThisȱnormȱisȱrelatedȱ“toȱaȱpositiveȱtechniqueȱofȱinterventionȱandȱtransformation”ȱ (Foucaultȱ2003:ȱ50)ȱandȱtoȱtheȱlegitimatizationȱofȱitsȱdevelopmentȱandȱexerciseȱ(chapterȱ 1).ȱThisȱnarrativeȱenablesȱEUȱauthoritiesȱtoȱsetȱoutȱpedagogiesȱofȱparticipationȱinȱwhichȱ Europeanȱ citizensȱ needȱ toȱ “comeȱ toȱ termsȱ withȱ theirȱ roots”ȱ andȱ “developȱ aȱ senseȱ ofȱ belonging”ȱ (ECȱ 1995:ȱ 12).ȱ Theȱ linkȱ betweenȱ awarenessȱ raisingȱ ofȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ theȱ HolocaustȱandȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱEUȱpresentsȱitselfȱasȱaȱprotectorȱofȱhumanȱrightsȱhasȱ increasinglyȱ becomeȱ centralȱ toȱ thisȱ narrativeȱ andȱ theȱ pedagogiesȱ itȱ hasȱ inaugurated.ȱ RecentȱreportsȱbyȱtheȱEUȱAgencyȱforȱFundamentalȱRightsȱ(FRA),ȱforȱinstance,ȱdiscussȱtheȱ
33ȱTheȱinclusionȱofȱStalinismȱinȱtheȱcallȱforȱActiveȱEuropeanȱRemembranceȱisȱapparentlyȱyetȱanotherȱattemptȱ toȱenableȱtheȱ‘foundingȱnarrative’ȱtoȱincludeȱtheȱentireȱEU,ȱincludingȱitsȱnewȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEuropeanȱ members.ȱ 296ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ linkȱbetweenȱHolocaustȱandȱhumanȱrightsȱeducationȱinȱtermsȱofȱ“discoveringȱtheȱpastȱ forȱtheȱfuture”ȱ(FRAȱ2010a)ȱandȱperceiveȱofȱtheseȱnovelȱpedagogiesȱasȱ“teachingȱforȱtheȱ future”ȱ (FRAȱ 2010b).ȱ Whatȱ areȱ theȱ implicationsȱ ofȱ theseȱ pedagogiesȱ inȱ whichȱ activeȱ EuropeanȱremembranceȱandȱactiveȱEuropeanȱcitizenshipȱareȱlooselyȱlinkedȱtoȱpromoteȱ “Europe’sȱvaluesȱandȱachievements,ȱwhileȱpreservingȱtheȱmemoryȱofȱitsȱpast”ȱ(ECȱ2009:ȱ 89)?ȱHowȱcouldȱweȱrelateȱtheseȱnewȱdevelopmentsȱtoȱtheȱendeavorsȱofȱvariousȱRomaniȱ actorsȱtoȱchallengeȱtheȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱRomaniȱhistoriesȱandȱmemoriesȱareȱexcludedȱfromȱ Europeanȱones?ȱThisȱquestionȱbringsȱmeȱbackȱtoȱTrumpener’sȱthesis.ȱ ȱ Theȱ EUȱ narrativeȱ aboutȱ remembranceȱ canȱ beȱ seenȱ fromȱ theȱ angleȱ ofȱ theȱ trendȱ toȱ Europeanizeȱ theȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma.ȱ Thisȱ narrativeȱ fits,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ withȱ theȱ callsȱofȱEuropeanȱinstitutionsȱforȱrecognizingȱtheȱRomaȱasȱaȱEuropeanȱminorityȱ(chapterȱ 5).ȱThisȱEUȱnarrativeȱalsoȱallowsȱRomaniȱhistoriesȱandȱmemoriesȱtoȱbeȱpartȱofȱEuropeanȱ ones.ȱInȱcontrastȱtoȱhowȱTrumpenerȱanalyzesȱEuropeanȱmodernityȱasȱconditionalȱuponȱ representingȱ theȱ Romaȱ asȱ withoutȱ histories,ȱ theȱ currentȱ EUȱ discourseȱ importantlyȱ deȬ partsȱ fromȱ thisȱ exclusionȱ model.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ arguedȱ above,ȱ Trumpenerȱ focusesȱ onȱ theȱ questionȱofȱwhatȱtheȱrelationalityȱofȱtheȱmodernȱstructuresȱofȱtemporalityȱtendsȱtoȱmakeȱ impossible.ȱ Nowȱ thatȱ theȱ newlyȱ emergedȱ EUȱ narrativeȱ presentsȱ Europe’sȱ structureȱ ofȱ temporalityȱ asȱ primarilyȱ basedȱ onȱ including,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ excluding,ȱ Romaniȱ historiesȱ andȱmemories,ȱtheȱquestionȱtoȱposeȱchangesȱintoȱwhatȱthisȱrelationalityȱmakesȱpossible.ȱInȱ orderȱtoȱseeȱwhatȱthisȱrelationalityȱenablesȱandȱwhetherȱandȱhowȱtheȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱ problemȱ hasȱ subsequentlyȱ changed,ȱ inȱ thisȱ chapter’sȱ finalȱ partȱ Iȱ willȱ analyzeȱ twoȱ different,ȱcloselyȱrelatedȱRomaniȱmemorialȱstrategies.ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthat,ȱtakenȱtogether,ȱ theseȱstrategiesȱhaveȱcriticalȱsignificanceȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱEUȱisȱcurrentlyȱ governmentalizingȱHolocaustȱremembrance.ȱ ȱ ȱ ROMANIȱMEMORIALȱSTRATEGIESȱANDȱTHEȱMEMORYȱDEFICITȱOFȱEUȱPOLITICALȱACTIONȱ ȱ Theȱ firstȱ memorialȱ strategyȱ thatȱ Iȱ willȱ analyzeȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ musealȱ representationȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ historiesȱ inȱ theȱ permanentȱ exhibitionȱ onȱ theȱ Naziȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ RomaȱinȱtheȱPolishȱStateȱMuseumȱofȱAuschwitzȬBirkenau.ȱAtȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱ1990s,ȱtheȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Germanȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Romaȱ (Zentralratȱ Deutscherȱ Sintiȱ undȱ Roma)ȱ inȱ Heidelbergȱinitiatedȱthisȱexhibitionȱ(interviewȱ2003d;ȱ2006c).34ȱParticularlyȱregardingȱtheȱ struggleȱforȱtheȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱinȱGermanyȱand—increasingly— beyond,ȱtheȱCentralȱCouncilȱcanȱbeȱseenȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱmostȱinfluentialȱRomaniȱorganizaȬ tionsȱinȱEurope.ȱTogetherȱwithȱtheȱestablishmentȱofȱtheȱMemorialȱtoȱtheȱMurderedȱSintiȱ andȱ Romaȱ ofȱ Europeȱ inȱ Germany’sȱ postȬ1989ȱ capitalȱ Berlin,35ȱ theȱ newȱ exhibitionȱ inȱ Oïwi¿cimȱ belongsȱ toȱ theȱ mostȱ recentȱ achievementsȱ ofȱ theȱ endeavorsȱ ofȱ theȱ Germanȱ
34ȱHereafter,ȱIȱwillȱreferȱtoȱthisȱorganizationȱasȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil.ȱ 35ȱTheȱbuildingȱofȱtheȱMemorialȱtoȱtheȱMurderedȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱofȱEuropeȱinȱfrontȱofȱtheȱReichstagȱinȱBerlinȱ hasȱnotȱyetȱfinishedȱ(fallȱ2011),ȱdueȱtoȱseveralȱdisputes.ȱTheȱdevelopmentȱandȱbuildingȱofȱthisȱmemorialȱ haveȱformedȱpartȱofȱaȱlongȱandȱheatedȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱbuildingȱofȱaȱmemorialȱtoȱtheȱvictimsȱofȱtheȱNazisȱ thatȱstartedȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1980sȱ(Roseȱ1989a;ȱRȱRoseȱ2000;ȱYoungȱ1993;ȱWiedmerȱ1999;ȱJäckelȱ2000;ȱCarrierȱ 2005;ȱ Leggewieȱ andȱ Meyerȱ 2005;ȱ Tillȱ 2005)ȱ andȱ continuedȱ afterȱ theȱ buildingȱ ofȱ theȱ Memorialȱ toȱ theȱ MurderedȱJewsȱofȱEuropeȱ(Zimmermannȱ2007a).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ297ȱ
Councilȱ toȱ getȱ recognizedȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ toȱ articulateȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ memoryȱ inȱ publicȱ spaceȱ andȱ debate.36ȱ Theȱ Romaniȱ exhibitionȱ inȱ Oïwi¿cimȱ wasȱ coȬ financedȱbyȱtheȱEU.ȱItȱhasȱbecomeȱanȱintegralȱpartȱofȱtheȱAuschwitzȱmuseum,ȱitsȱeduȬ cationalȱprograms,ȱitsȱguides,ȱandȱinternationalȱtourismȱtoȱtheȱsite.ȱInȱmanyȱways,ȱtheȱ exhibitionȱ couldȱ beȱ seenȱ asȱ expressingȱ theȱ pedagogicȱ aimsȱ asȱ theyȱareȱ reflectedȱ inȱ theȱ EU’sȱrecentȱfocusȱonȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱandȱeducation.ȱThisȱcongruencyȱdoesȱnotȱ implyȱthatȱtheȱgovernmentalizationȱofȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱisȱreflectedȱinȱtheȱexhiȬ bition.ȱThereȱisȱnoȱeasyȱoneȬtoȬoneȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱtheȱtwo,ȱbut,ȱnevertheless,ȱtheyȱ share,ȱIȱwillȱshow,ȱaȱclearȱfocusȱonȱtheȱpedagogicalȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱHolocaustȱforȱtheȱ presentȱandȱfuture.ȱ Theȱ secondȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ strategyȱ thatȱ Iȱ willȱ investigateȱ isȱ theȱ cinematicȱ oneȱ expressedȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ documentariesȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ GermanȬSintiȱ filmmakerȱ Melanieȱ SpittaȱandȱherȱGermanȱcolleagueȱKatrinȱSeybold.ȱThisȱdocumentaryȱhasȱnotȱplayedȱtheȱ profoundȱ roleȱ thatȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ activitiesȱ initiatedȱ byȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ haveȱ inȱ theȱ postwarȱdebate.ȱNevertheless,ȱaȱreflectionȱonȱwhatȱIȱinterpretȱasȱitsȱmainȱstrategyȱwillȱ shedȱ lightȱ onȱ theȱ currentȱ reemergenceȱ ofȱ aȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problem,ȱ thoughȱ inȱ aȱ differentȱformȱthanȱintroducedȱbyȱTrumpener.ȱIȱwillȱshowȱhowȱSpittaȱandȱSeybold’sȱmeȬ morialȱstrategyȱbringsȱtoȱtheȱforeȱaȱfundamentalȱproblemȱthatȱgoesȱwithȱnewlyȱemergedȱ HolocaustȬrelatedȱ pedagogies.ȱ Atȱ theȱ sameȱ time,ȱ Iȱ willȱ notȱ discussȱ bothȱ memorialȱ strategiesȱtoȱmerelyȱcontrastȱthem—evenȱinȱspiteȱofȱtheirȱobviousȱdissimilarities.ȱTheseȱ strategiesȱcarveȱoutȱtwoȱroutesȱinȱaȱnewlyȱemergedȱdiverseȱRomaniȱmemorialȱlandscapeȱ thatȱ increasinglyȱ overlapsȱ andȱ interactsȱ withȱ otherȱ memoryscapes.ȱ Takenȱ together,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ inȱ isolation,ȱ theseȱ strategiesȱ encourageȱ usȱ toȱ rethinkȱ howȱ pastȱ butȱ alsoȱ presentȱEuropeanȱgovernmentalitiesȱhaveȱimpactedȱnotȱonlyȱonȱtheȱsituationȱofȱRomaniȱ minorities,ȱbutȱalsoȱonȱinfluentialȱdeficienciesȱinȱcurrentȱEUȱnarrativesȱonȱEurope’sȱpast.ȱ ȱ Theȱlong,ȱbumpyȱroadȱtowardȱtheȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱ Sinceȱ theȱ midȱ 1950s,ȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ andȱ severalȱ ofȱ itsȱ forerunnersȱ haveȱ playedȱ aȱ prominentȱandȱinȱmanyȱrespectsȱcrucialȱroleȱinȱtheȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱGermanȱRomaniȱ andȱSintiȱcivilȱrightsȱmovementȱ(Roseȱ1987;ȱMatrasȱ1998).37ȱSinceȱtheȱfoundingȱofȱtheȱfirstȱ postȬwarȱSintiȱorganizationȱinȱ1956,ȱattemptsȱatȱgettingȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱSintiȱandȱ RomaȱrecognizedȱatȱvariousȱlevelsȱinȱandȱlaterȱalsoȱbeyondȱGermanyȱhaveȱbeenȱessentialȱ toȱtheȱGermanȱSintiȱandȱRomaniȱidentityȱandȱmemoryȱpoliticsȱ(Margalitȱ2002;ȱMargalitȱ andȱ Matrasȱ 2007).ȱ Theȱ postwarȱ ‘recognition’ȱ historyȱ canȱ roughlyȱ beȱ dividedȱ intoȱ twoȱ
36ȱ Oïwi¿cimȱ isȱ theȱ Polishȱ nameȱ ofȱ theȱ townȱ whereȱ theȱ Polishȱ Stateȱ Museumȱ AuschwitzȬBirkenauȱ wasȱ establishedȱinȱ1947.ȱAsȱpartȱofȱtheȱNaziȱmythologyȱofȱtheȱthousandȬyearsȱoldȱGermanȱEmpire,ȱandȱintegralȱ toȱtheȱNaziȱGermanȱpopulationȱpoliciesȱofȱtheȱ1930s,ȱtheȱNazisȱchangedȱtheȱPolishȱnameȱintoȱAuschwitz,ȱ theȱnameȱthatȱSilesianȱknightsȱwouldȱhaveȱgivenȱtoȱtheȱtownȱwhenȱtheyȱfoundedȱitȱ‘asȱaȱGermanȱcity’ȱinȱtheȱ thirteenthȱcenturyȱ(vanȱPeltȱandȱDworkȱ1996:ȱchapterȱ1;ȱAlyȱandȱHeimȱ2003:ȱ101Ȭ12).ȱ 37ȱTheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱforerunnersȱwereȱ(Roseȱ1987):ȱtheȱAssociationȱandȱInterestsȱCommunityȱofȱRaciallyȱ PersecutedȱGermanȱCitizensȱofȱNonȬJewishȱFaithȱ(VerbandȱundȱInteressengemeinschaftȱrassischȱVerfolgterȱnichtȬ jüdischenȱGlaubensȱdeutscherȱStaatsbürgerȱe.V.),ȱestablishedȱinȱ1956;ȱtheȱCentralȱCommitteeȱofȱtheȱSintiȱofȱWestȱ Germanyȱ(ZentralkomiteeȱderȱSintiȱWestdeutschlands)ȱestablishedȱinȱ1971;ȱtheȱAssociationȱofȱSintiȱofȱGermanyȱ (VerbandȱderȱSintiȱDeutschlands),ȱestablishedȱinȱ1972;ȱandȱtheȱAssociationȱofȱGermanȱSintiȱ(VerbandȱDeutscherȱ Sinti)ȱestablishedȱinȱ1979.ȱInȱ1982,ȱthisȱorganizationȱchangedȱitsȱnameȱintoȱtheȱCentralȱCouncilȱofȱGermanȱ SintiȱandȱRomaȱ(ZentralratȱDeutscherȱSintiȱundȱRoma).ȱ 298ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ overlappingȱ periods.ȱ Duringȱ theȱ firstȱ periodȱ (1945Ȭ1985)ȱ theȱ effortsȱ toȱ getȱ officiallyȱ recognizedȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱinȱGermanyȱwouldȱincreasinglyȱbeȱ centralȱ toȱ theȱ activists’ȱ endeavors.38ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1980s,ȱ theirȱ strugglesȱ wouldȱ inȬ creasinglyȱgetȱaȱmoreȱEuropeanȱdimension,ȱwhichȱmarksȱtheȱstartȱofȱtheȱsecondȱperiod.ȱȱ Duringȱ theȱ firstȱ fourȱ postwarȱ decades,ȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ andȱ itsȱ forerunners,ȱ inȱ closeȱ collaborationȱ withȱ otherȱ Romaniȱ organizations,39ȱ wereȱ involvedȱ inȱ aȱ longȱ andȱ heavyȱ battleȱ forȱ gettingȱ recognizedȱ theȱ Sintiȱandȱ Romaȱ asȱ victimsȱofȱ theȱNazisȱ andȱ asȱ centralȱtargetsȱofȱNaziȱgenocidalȱpolicies.40ȱAtȱleastȱuntilȱtheȱearlyȱ1960s,ȱtheȱfirstȱpostwarȱ activistsȱ hadȱ toȱ fightȱ againstȱ theȱ completeȱ denialȱ ofȱ theȱ Naziȱ genocideȱ byȱ theȱ officialȱ authoritiesȱandȱevenȱagainstȱtheȱcontinuationȱofȱtheirȱpersecution.ȱInȱtheȱearlyȱ1950s,ȱforȱ instance,ȱsoȬcalledȱCentralȱPoliceȱRegistersȱofȱVagrantsȱ(Landfahrerzentralen),ȱwhichȱhadȱ theirȱ prewarȱ antecedents,ȱ wereȱ reinstatedȱ inȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ Germanȱ townsȱ toȱ dealȱ withȱ ‘antisocial’ȱandȱ‘criminal’ȱelementsȱinȱGermanyȱsociety.ȱTheȱtrendȱtoȱcontinueȱtoȱcrimiȬ nalizeȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱwasȱalsoȱreflectedȱinȱcourtȱcasesȱaboutȱwarȱreparation.ȱInȱtheȱmidȱ 1950s,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ aȱ Germanȱ Federalȱ Courtȱ characterizedȱ theȱ Naziȱ persecutionȱ ofȱ theȱ SintiȱandȱRomaȱasȱ“measuresȱaimedȱatȱtheȱpreventionȱofȱcriminality”ȱ(Bundesgerichtshofȱ KoblenzȱcitedȱMatrasȱ1998:ȱ52).ȱTheȱdenialȱofȱgenocideȱandȱtheȱactualȱpostwarȱcontinuaȬ tionȱofȱpersecutionȱledȱtoȱtheȱcategoricalȱrejectionȱofȱseveralȱreparationȱclaimsȱandȱtoȱtheȱ impossibilityȱtoȱbringȱtheȱperpetratorsȱtoȱcourtȱ(Spittaȱ1989;ȱMatrasȱ1998).ȱAfterȱtheȱwar,ȱ manyȱofȱtheȱperpetratorsȱcouldȱcontinueȱtheirȱ‘scientific’ȱworkȱandȱlocateȱtheirȱZigeunerȬ forschungȱ(researchȱonȱtheȱGypsies)ȱinȱtheȱfieldȱofȱcriminologyȱandȱsocialȱpathologyȱandȱ pedagogy.ȱ Someȱ ofȱ themȱ evenȱ contributedȱ toȱ decisionsȱ thatȱ deniedȱ compensationȱ toȱ GermanȱSintiȱandȱRomaniȱvictims.ȱBothȱGermanȱandȱAustrianȱcourtsȱandȱgovernmentalȱ departmentsȱmadeȱuseȱofȱtheȱ‘expertise’ȱofȱscholars,ȱpoliceȱofficers,ȱdoctors,ȱandȱbureauȬ craticȱofficials,ȱwhoȱhadȱbeenȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱNaziȱpersecutionȱofȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱtoȱdenyȱ warȱreparationsȱandȱpensionsȱtoȱthem.41ȱSinceȱtheȱ1960s,ȱthisȱpoliticsȱofȱdenialȱslowlyȱbutȱ difficultlyȱ changedȱ intoȱ aȱ recognitionȱ thatȱtheȱ Sintiȱ andȱRomaȱhadȱbeenȱ victimsȱ ofȱ theȱ Nazis.ȱ Particularlyȱ dueȱ toȱ theȱ effortsȱ ofȱ theȱ ‘1968ȱ generation’ȱ ofȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Romaniȱ activists,ȱandȱtoȱtheȱendeavorsȱofȱsomeȱotherȱinvolvedȱadvocacyȱgroups,ȱtheȱstruggleȱforȱ recognitionȱwouldȱgainȱmomentum.ȱ
38ȱThisȱperiodȱcanȱbeȱdividedȱintoȱvariousȱotherȱstagesȱ(see,ȱforȱinstance,ȱRoseȱ1987;ȱMatrasȱ1998).ȱ 39ȱThroughoutȱtheseȱdecades,ȱtheȱGermanȱSintiȱcollaboratedȱwithȱseveralȱRomaniȱorganizationsȱinȱGermany,ȱ suchȱasȱtheȱCentralȱCommitteeȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱ(ZentralȱKomiteeȱderȱZigeuner),ȱfoundedȱbyȱWalterȱStraussȱandȱ Wilhelmȱ Weissȱ inȱ 1960,ȱ andȱ theȱ Romaniȱ andȱ Sintiȱ Unionȱ (Romȱ undȱ Cintiȱ Union),ȱ establishedȱ byȱ Rudkoȱ KawczynskiȱinȱHamburgȱinȱ1980.ȱUntilȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱseveralȱdisputesȱbetweenȱandȱamongȱtheȱSintiȱandȱ Romaniȱ organizationsȱ aboutȱ theȱ mainȱ directionȱ ofȱ theȱ movementȱ inȱ theȱ midȱ andȱ lateȱ 1980s,ȱ theyȱ collabȬ oratedȱrelativelyȱsmoothlyȱ(Seyboldȱ1989;ȱSeyboldȱandȱSpittaȱ1989;ȱRoseȱ1989b;ȱZimmermannȱ1989;ȱMatrasȱ 1998;ȱMargalitȱandȱMatrasȱ2007).ȱ 40ȱThoughȱtheȱNaziȱpersecutionȱofȱtheȱRomaȱwasȱgenerallyȱneglectedȱduringȱtheȱNurembergȱtrials,ȱitȱisȱnotȱ true,ȱasȱhasȱoftenȱbeenȱclaimed,ȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱentirelyȱneglected.ȱSomeȱRomaniȱtestimoniesȱwereȱeffectivelyȱ includedȱ inȱ someȱ ofȱ theȱ trials,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Medicalȱ Trial.ȱ Whatȱ isȱ more,ȱ asȱ Marciaȱ Rookerȱ argues,ȱ “theȱ prosecutorsȱdidȱnotȱdoubtȱtheȱgenocideȱattemptȱonȱRomanyȱpeople.”ȱYet,ȱ“theȱjudgmentȱreferredȱtoȱitȱonlyȱ implicitlyȱ…ȱProofȱofȱthisȱgenocideȱwasȱnotȱnecessaryȱtoȱconvictȱtheȱdefendants”ȱ(Rookerȱ2002:ȱ50,ȱchapterȱ 2).ȱ 41ȱSeeȱSpittaȱandȱSeyboldȱ(1987),ȱMargalitȱ(2002),ȱTegelȱ(2006),ȱandȱThurnerȱ(2007).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ299ȱ
Germanȱsitesȱofȱmemoryȱplayedȱaȱcrucialȱroleȱinȱtheȱrecognitionȱstruggle.ȱThere,ȱtheȱSintiȱ andȱRomaniȱactivistsȱorganizedȱseveralȱprotests.ȱInȱ1979,ȱforȱinstance,ȱtheyȱorganizedȱaȱ protestȱrallyȱatȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱconcentrationȱcampȱinȱBergenȬBelsenȱand,ȱaȱyearȱ later,ȱ someȱ Sintiȱ heldȱ aȱ hungerȱ strikeȱ inȱ theȱ formerȱ Dachauȱ concentrationȱ campȱ (Roseȱ 1987;ȱMargalitȱ2002).ȱAnotherȱimportantȱprotestȱactȱwasȱtheȱoccupationȱofȱtheȱuniversityȱ archiveȱofȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱTübingenȱinȱ1981.ȱMoreȱthanȱtwentyȱthousandȱNaziȱfiles— mostlyȱdocumentsȱofȱindividualȱGermanȱSintiȱandȱRoma,ȱincludingȱtheirȱphotographs,ȱ genealogies,ȱ fingerprints,ȱ informationȱ onȱ theirȱ medicalȱ treatmentsȱ andȱ persecutionȱ trajectories—wereȱ archivedȱ inȱ Tübingen,ȱ butȱ madeȱ inaccessibleȱ forȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Roma.ȱ Theseȱ documentsȱ couldȱ haveȱ beenȱ usedȱ toȱ proveȱ theirȱ Naziȱ persecution.ȱ Theȱ activistsȱ wereȱsuspiciousȱthatȱtheyȱwereȱkeptȱbackȱtoȱhamperȱlegalȱactionȱagainstȱtheȱperpetrators.ȱ TheȱSintiȱandȱRomaniȱidentityȱpoliticsȱofȱtheseȱyearsȱmobilizedȱtheȱhistoryȱandȱmemoryȱ ofȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱtoȱaddressȱtheȱpermanenceȱofȱdiscriminationȱ againstȱthem,ȱtheȱcontinuityȱofȱtheȱdenialȱofȱtheirȱpersecutionȱbyȱtheȱNazis,ȱtheȱfailureȱofȱ theȱ governmentȱ toȱ prosecuteȱ thoseȱ whoȱ wereȱ responsible,ȱ and,ȱ consequently,ȱ toȱ chalȬ lengeȱ “theȱ selfȬimageȱ ofȱ theȱ Federalȱ Republicȱ asȱ aȱ stateȱ andȱ societyȱ whichȱ claimedȱ toȱ haveȱbrokenȱwithȱitsȱNaziȱpast”ȱ(Matrasȱ1998:ȱ55).ȱInȱtheȱend,ȱtheseȱprotestsȱwouldȱpayȱ rewards.42ȱFinally,ȱinȱ1985,ȱtheȱeffortsȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱandȱSintiȱactivistsȱculminatedȱinȱtheȱ officialȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱbyȱtheȱpoliticalȱestablishmentsȱofȱbothȱtheȱ FederalȱRepublicȱofȱGermanyȱandȱtheȱGermanȱDemocraticȱRepublic,ȱexpressedȱduringȱaȱ commemorativeȱeventȱheldȱatȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱNaziȱconcentrationȱcampȱforȱSintiȱ andȱ Romaȱ inȱ BerlinȬMarzahn,ȱ whereȱtheȱ Federalȱ Republicȱ hadȱerectedȱ theȱ firstȱ officialȱ RomaniȱandȱSintiȱmemorialȱinȱGermanyȱinȱtheȱsameȱyearȱ(Margalitȱ2002:ȱ202Ȭ05).43ȱ ȱ WhereasȱtheȱofficialȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱwasȱunȬ deniablyȱaȱmajorȱachievementȱofȱtheȱCentralȱCouncilȱandȱothersȱwhoȱhadȱbeenȱinvolvedȱ inȱtheȱpostwarȱrecognitionȱstruggle,ȱafterȱ1985ȱitȱwouldȱactuallyȱenterȱaȱnewȱandȱagainȱ difficultȱphaseȱofȱtheȱstruggle.ȱSinceȱthen,ȱitȱhasȱbeenȱturnedȱintoȱaȱstruggleȱforȱwhatȱIȱ wantȱtoȱcallȱtheȱpublicȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱgenocide.ȱAsȱGiladȱMargalitȱremarks,ȱ“placingȱ Gypsiesȱ onȱ theȱ listȱ ofȱ victimsȱ leftȱ aȱ lotȱ toȱ beȱ desired”ȱ (Margalitȱ 2002:ȱ 205).ȱ Indeed,ȱ “placingȱGypsiesȱwithȱtheȱhomosexualsȱ[inȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱtheȱ‘otherȱvictims’]ȱleftȱthemȱ
42ȱTheȱprotestsȱresultedȱinȱheatedȱdebatesȱbetweenȱWesternȱGermany’sȱmainȱpoliticiansȱaboutȱhowȱtheȱpastȱ andȱcurrentȱsituationȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱhadȱtoȱbeȱaddressed.ȱAȱgovernmentalȱworkgroupȱonȱSintiȱandȱ Romaȱ wasȱ established.ȱ Anȱ importantȱ outcomeȱ ofȱ theȱ protestsȱ inȱ Tübingenȱ wasȱ thatȱ theȱ filesȱ wereȱ transȬ ferredȱtoȱtheȱFederalȱarchivesȱinȱKoblenz,ȱwhereȱtheyȱwouldȱbecomeȱaccessibleȱforȱtheȱpersecutedȱSintiȱandȱ Roma.ȱMoreover,ȱGermanȱnewspapersȱpubliclyȱintroducedȱtheȱtermsȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱandȱmostlyȱstoppedȱ usingȱtheȱtermȱZigeuner.ȱInȱ1982,ȱbothȱGermany’sȱChancellorȱHelmutȱSchmidtȱandȱtheȱoppositionȱleaderȱofȱ theȱChristianȱdemocrats,ȱHelmutȱKohl,ȱmetȱwithȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱchairmanȱRomaniȱRoseȱtoȱexpressȱ sympathyȱwithȱhisȱworkȱand,ȱinȱSchmidt’sȱcase,ȱexpressȱtheȱwishȱtoȱcorrectȱtheȱwrongȱdoneȱtoȱtheȱSintiȱandȱ RomaȱbyȱtheȱNazis,ȱwho,ȱheȱexplicitlyȱrecognized,ȱhadȱpersecutedȱthemȱonȱracialȱgrounds.ȱSinceȱ1983,ȱtheȱ CentralȱCouncilȱhasȱgotȱfinancialȱsupportȱfromȱtheȱGermanȱfederalȱgovernment.ȱInȱ1990,ȱtheȱdocumentationȱ andȱculturalȱcenterȱofȱtheȱCentralȱCouncilȱwasȱbuiltȱinȱHeidelbergȱ(Roseȱ1987;ȱ2003;ȱMargalitȱ2002).ȱ 43ȱReparationȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱstartedȱextremelyȱlateȱinȱEurope.ȱAustria,ȱforȱ instance,ȱ beganȱ toȱ compensateȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Romaȱ whoȱ wereȱ stillȱ aliveȱ inȱ 1988ȱ (Riegerȱ 2003;ȱ Thurnerȱ 2007),ȱ whileȱtheȱNetherlandsȱfollowedȱasȱlateȱasȱ2000ȱ(ÖfnerȱandȱRookerȱ2001).ȱInȱCentralȱandȱEasternȱEurope,ȱtheȱ compensationȱdebateȱhasȱonlyȱstartedȱatȱtheȱturnȱofȱtheȱmillennium.ȱWithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱGermanȱauthorities,ȱ theȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱforȱinstance,ȱstartedȱtoȱcompensateȱinȱ2001ȱ(interviewȱ2003a;ȱHübschmannováȱ2006),ȱ whileȱSlovakiaȱcompensatedȱaȱRomaniȱwarȱvictimȱforȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱ2002ȱ(Pisárováȱ2002).ȱ 300ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ inȱtheȱsameȱcategoryȱtheyȱoccupiedȱinȱtheȱ1950s,ȱvictimsȱwhomȱwideȱcirclesȱofȱGermansȱ perceivedȱasȱnotȱentirelyȱinnocent,ȱifȱnotȱquestionedȱtheirȱveryȱvictimization”ȱ(ibid).44ȱForȱ variousȱdifferentȱreasons,ȱofȱwhichȱtheȱanalysisȱreachesȱbeyondȱtheȱscopeȱofȱthisȱstudy,ȱ theȱearlyȱ1980sȱalsoȱmarkȱaȱkindȱofȱturningȱpointȱinȱhowȱtheȱwarȱisȱremembered.ȱThisȱ hadȱtoȱdo—as,ȱforȱinstance,ȱMargalitȱemphasizes—withȱtheȱchangesȱinsideȱGermanyȱthatȱ wouldȱ finallyȱ alsoȱ leadȱ toȱ Germany’sȱ reunificationȱ andȱ aȱ renewed,ȱ intensifiedȱ debateȱ aboutȱGermany’sȱsharedȱpast—aȱdebateȱthatȱwould,ȱamongȱotherȱthings,ȱleadȱtoȱaȱheatedȱ debateȱaboutȱtheȱbuildingȱofȱaȱmemorialȱtoȱtheȱvictimsȱofȱtheȱNazis,ȱincludingȱtheȱSintiȱ andȱ Roma,ȱ inȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ Berlinȱ (Youngȱ 1993;ȱ Carrierȱ 2005;ȱ Leggewieȱ andȱ Meyerȱ 2005).45ȱ Evenȱmoreȱimportantly,ȱtheȱshiftingȱfocusȱofȱpracticesȱofȱremembranceȱhasȱhadȱtoȱdoȱ withȱwhatȱHuyssenȱcallsȱ“theȱglobalizationȱofȱHolocaustȱdiscourse”ȱandȱwithȱwhatȱheȱ considersȱasȱtheȱincreasedȱtendencyȱtoȱuseȱtheȱHolocaustȱasȱ“aȱuniversalȱtropeȱforȱhisȬ toricalȱtrauma”ȱ(Huyssenȱ2000:ȱ23).ȱSinceȱtheȱearlyȱ1980s,ȱweȱhaveȱbeenȱableȱtoȱobserveȱ theȱ increasedȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ aȱ combinedȱ universalizationȱ andȱ deȬterritorializationȱ ofȱ Holocaustȱ discoursesȱ (Levyȱ andȱ Sznaiderȱ 2001;ȱ 2002;ȱ Dinerȱ 2003b).ȱ Increasingly,ȱ theseȱ discoursesȱhaveȱbeenȱuntiedȱfromȱtheirȱstrictȱlinkȱwithȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱJews,ȱasȱ wellȱ asȱ fromȱ theirȱ particularȱ referenceȱ toȱ genocidalȱ eventsȱ inȱ theȱhistoricalȱtimeȱ ofȱ theȱ SecondȱWorldȱWarȱandȱinȱtheȱterritorialȱcontextȱofȱEurope.ȱBothȱearlierȱandȱlaterȱgenoȬ cidalȱ eventsȱ inȱ andȱ outsideȱ Europe—suchȱ asȱ theȱ massȱ murderȱ ofȱ theȱ Hereroȱ byȱ theȱ Germansȱ inȱ Namibiaȱ inȱ 1905,ȱ theȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ Armeniansȱ byȱ theȱ Turksȱ inȱ 1915Ȭ16,ȱ andȱ recentȱ ethnicȱ cleansingsȱ inȱ exȬYugoslavia,ȱ Rwanda,ȱ andȱ theȱ Sudaneseȱ provinceȱ ofȱ Darfur—areȱ nowȱ referredȱ toȱ asȱ holocaustsȱ asȱ well.ȱ Thoughȱ inȱ manyȱ respectsȱ theȱ Naziȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Jewsȱ hasȱ remainedȱ aȱ keyȱ referenceȱ pointȱ ofȱ Holocaustȱ discourses,ȱ theȱ globalizationȱ ofȱ Holocaustȱ discoursesȱ hasȱ resultedȱ intoȱ profoundȱ changesȱ withinȱ contemporaryȱHolocaustȱmemorialȱculturesȱandȱregardingȱtheȱidentityȱstrategiesȱofȱtheȱ groupsȱinvolved.ȱThisȱshiftȱhasȱgoneȱtogetherȱwithȱtheȱnecessityȱforȱvictimȱandȱactivistȱ groupsȱ toȱ developȱ newȱ memorialȱ strategiesȱ toȱ effectivelyȱ achieveȱ publicȱ attentionȱ andȱ recognition.46ȱInȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱRoma,ȱthereȱisȱaȱsomewhatȱparadoxicalȱsituation.ȱWhileȱ theirȱ sufferingsȱ duringȱ theȱ warȱ wereȱ largelyȱ spatioȬtemporallyȱ conflatedȱ withȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ Jews,ȱ thoughȱ radicallyȱ neglectedȱ forȱ decades,ȱ bothȱtheȱ spreadȱofȱ knowledgeȱ aboutȱ theȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱRomaȱandȱtheȱpublicȱidentityȱderivedȱfromȱitȱhaveȱnowȱbecomeȱ
44ȱTheȱ‘otherȱvictims’ȱnarrativeȱalsoȱstillȱappears,ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱtheȱrecentȱFRAȱreports:ȱ“HolocaustȱeduȬ cationȱisȱunderstoodȱasȱeducationȱthatȱtakesȱtheȱdiscrimination,ȱpersecution,ȱandȱexterminationȱofȱtheȱJewsȱ byȱtheȱNationalȱSocialistȱregimeȱasȱitsȱfocus,ȱbutȱalsoȱincludesȱNaziȱcrimesȱagainstȱotherȱvictimȱgroups,ȱbothȱ forȱ theȱ purposeȱ ofȱ deeperȱ understandingȱ andȱ contextualizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ outȱ ofȱ aȱ desireȱ toȱ acknowledgeȱ andȱ commemorateȱ theȱ sufferingȱ ofȱ numerousȱ nonȬJewishȱ victimsȱ ofȱ theȱ Naziȱ era”ȱ (FRAȱ 2010b:ȱ18).ȱ 45ȱYetȱanotherȱimportantȱdevelopmentȱthatȱindirectlyȱcontributedȱtoȱtheȱtransformationȱofȱmemorialȱpracȬ ticesȱandȱtheȱdebateȱonȱtheȱvictimȱstatusȱofȱtheȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱwasȱtheȱincreasedȱmigrationȱofȱCentralȱandȱ EasternȱEuropeansȱtoȱGermany.ȱTheȱarrivalȱofȱRomaniȱmigrantsȱalsoȱcausedȱaȱdisputeȱbetweenȱtheȱCentralȱ Councilȱ andȱ Romaniȱ organizationsȱ inȱ Germany,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Rudkoȱ Kawczynski’sȱ Romaȱ Nationalȱ Congressȱ (Matrasȱ1998;ȱMargalitȱandȱMatrasȱ2007).ȱ 46ȱAmongȱtheseȱstrategiesȱareȱthoseȱthatȱclaimȱorȱargueȱthatȱtheȱJewishȱHolocaustȱorȱShoahȱisȱuniqueȱandȱ cannotȱbeȱcomparedȱtoȱanyȱotherȱgenocidalȱeventȱinȱmodernȱhistoryȱ(forȱaȱdebateȱaboutȱtheseȱstrategies,ȱsee,ȱ forȱinstance,ȱLinenthalȱ1995;ȱRosenbaumȱ1996;ȱFinkelsteinȱ2000).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ301ȱ dependentȱonȱaȱglobalizedȱdiscourseȱinȱwhichȱdisjunctiveȱholocaustsȱareȱpresentedȱasȱ‘ofȱ theȱsameȱkind.’ȱThisȱsituationȱhasȱgoneȱtogetherȱwithȱdiverseȱattempts,ȱdevelopedȱbyȱdifȬ ferentȱkindsȱofȱRomaniȱactors,ȱtoȱarticulateȱRomaniȱmemoriesȱandȱrepresentȱtheirȱpasts.47ȱ Theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ andȱ otherȱ Romaniȱ actorsȱ inȱ Europeȱ haveȱ activelyȱ becomeȱ inȬ volvedȱinȱarticulatingȱandȱrearticulatingȱRomaniȱmemoriesȱandȱmemorialȱstrategiesȱvisȬ àȬvisȱ theȱ phenomenonȱ ofȱ theȱ globalizationȱ ofȱ Holocaustȱ discourses.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ discussedȱ inȱ chapterȱ3,ȱsinceȱtheȱmidȱ1980s,ȱforȱinstance,ȱIanȱHancockȱhasȱbeenȱoneȱofȱtheȱprominentȱ RomaniȱintellectualsȱwhoȱhasȱleftȱhisȱmarkȱonȱaȱspecificȱnationalȱandȱessentialistȱarticulaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱRoma,ȱtracingȱtheirȱpersecution,ȱmilitancy,ȱandȱnationȱbackȱtoȱ eleventhȬcenturyȱIndia.ȱInȱtheȱparticularȱcontextȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaust,ȱheȱhasȱplayedȱ aȱ vitalȱ roleȱ inȱ developingȱ strategiesȱ toȱ emphasizeȱ itsȱ specificityȱ andȱ toȱ tryȱ toȱ getȱ ‘theȱ Roma’ȱoutȱofȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱtheȱotherȱvictims.48ȱHisȱattemptsȱatȱcreatingȱanȱownȱhistorioȬ graphyȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱhasȱledȱhimȱtoȱdevelopȱaȱspecificȱRomaniȱtermȱforȱtheȱ sufferingȱofȱtheȱRomaȱduringȱtheȱNaziȱtimes.ȱSimilarȱtoȱhowȱsome,ȱsinceȱtheȱmidȱ1980s,ȱ startedȱtoȱreferȱtoȱtheȱShoahȱasȱaȱparticularȱHebrewȱtranslationȱandȱJewishȱarticulationȱofȱ theȱtermȱHolocaust,ȱHancockȱ(1989;ȱ1996;ȱ2002)ȱintroducedȱtheȱtermȱPorajmosȱorȱ“greatȱ devouring”ȱtoȱrecentlyȱemergedȱHolocaustȱnarratives.ȱOtherȱRomaniȱactorsȱhaveȱintroȬ ductionȱdifferentȱRomaȬspecificȱtranslationsȱofȱHolocaust,ȱsuchȱasȱMurdaripenȱ(HorváthȬ ováȱ2003)ȱandȱPharrajimosȱ(BársonyȱandȱDarócziȱ2008).ȱSomeȱscholarsȱtakeȱtheseȱconceptsȱ atȱfaceȱvalueȱandȱdoȱnotȱreflectȱonȱhowȱandȱwhyȱtheyȱhaveȱonlyȱrecentlyȱbecomeȱintegralȱ partȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ strategiesȱ andȱ identityȱ andȱ memoryȱ politics.49ȱ Yet,ȱ inȱ theseȱ casesȱweȱdealȱneitherȱwithȱtheȱdisclosureȱofȱoriginalȱmeaningsȱofȱhowȱRomaniȱvictimsȱ andȱsurvivorsȱreferredȱtoȱtheȱsufferingȱduringȱtheȱwar,ȱnorȱwithȱmerelyȱlinguisticȱtransȬ lationsȱ ofȱ theȱ termȱ Holocaustȱ orȱ someȱ ofȱ itsȱ equivalentsȱ intoȱ Romanes.ȱ Rather,ȱ theseȱ initiativesȱ canȱ beȱ regardedȱ asȱ politicalȱ translationsȱ inȱ whichȱ Romaniȱ identities,ȱ memoȬ ries,ȱ andȱ contestableȱ Roma/nonȬRomaȱ relationshipsȱ areȱ strategicallyȱ rearticulatedȱ (seeȱ alsoȱ Fischerȱ vonȱ Weikersthalȱ etȱ alȱ 2008).50ȱ Theyȱ representȱ aȱ politicsȱ ofȱ citizenshipȱ asȱ participationȱ(chapterȱ7)ȱthatȱaddressesȱparticularȱaims,ȱsuchȱasȱsocioȬhistoricalȱjustice,ȱ recognition,ȱreparation,ȱorȱreconciliation.ȱTheȱtwoȱmemorialȱstrategiesȱthatȱIȱwillȱdiscussȱ belowȱ canȱ alsoȱ beȱ seenȱ inȱ lightȱ ofȱ suchȱ contemporaryȱ attemptsȱ atȱ articulatingȱ Romaniȱ memoriesȱandȱhistories.ȱ ȱ
47ȱElsewhere,ȱIȱhaveȱextensivelyȱdiscussedȱtheȱstagesȱofȱwhatȱcouldȱbeȱcalledȱtheȱglobalizationȱofȱHolocaustȱ discoursesȱandȱreflectedȱonȱhowȱweȱneedȱtoȱinterpretȱvariousȱcontemporaryȱHolocaustȱreferencesȱfromȱtheȱ angleȱofȱthisȱglobalizationȱ(vanȱBaarȱ2010d).ȱ 48ȱ Hancockȱ hasȱ placedȱ anȱ importantȱ roleȱ inȱ addressingȱ theȱ lackȱ ofȱ attentionȱ paidȱ toȱ theȱ Romaȱ andȱ challengingȱtheȱmemoryȱpoliticsȱthatȱtendedȱtoȱexcludeȱthemȱinȱtheȱdevelopmentȱandȱestablishmentȱofȱtheȱ UnitedȱStatesȱHolocaustȱMemorialȱMuseumȱinȱWashingtonȱ(Linenthalȱ1995).ȱ 49ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱHuttenbachȱ(1991),ȱBaranyȱ(2002),ȱBodolaiȱetȱalȱ(2010),ȱandȱMcGarryȱ(2010).ȱ 50ȱSimilarȱprocessesȱofȱRomaniȱpoliticalȱtranslationsȱhaveȱrecentlyȱbeenȱdiscussedȱinȱtheȱfieldsȱofȱliterature,ȱ film,ȱopera,ȱmusic,ȱandȱpopularȱcultureȱ(see,ȱforȱinstance,ȱToninatoȱ2004;ȱ2012;ȱImreȱ2008;ȱvonȱHagenȱ2009;ȱ Kovalcsikȱ2010;ȱBlandfortȱandȱHertrampfȱ2011).ȱ 302ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
Periodizingȱhistoryȱandȱcultivatingȱvictimhoodȱ Aȱ visitorȱ toȱ theȱ AuschwitzȬBirkenauȱ Stateȱ Museumȱ inȱ Polandȱ whoȱ followsȱ theȱ officialȱ routeȱsuggestedȱinȱtheȱmuseum’sȱguidebookȱwillȱendȱherȱorȱhisȱtourȱwithȱaȱvisitȱtoȱtheȱ permanentȱexhibitionȱonȱtheȱexterminationȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱRoma.51ȱEstablishedȱinȱ2001,ȱ theȱexhibitionȱonȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱconstitutesȱaȱuniqueȱpartȱofȱ theȱmuseum’sȱmultipleȱexhibitions.ȱForȱtheȱfirstȱtimeȱinȱitsȱhistory,ȱanȱexhibitionȱhasȱbeenȱ dedicatedȱtoȱtheȱsufferingȱofȱtheȱRoma.ȱSinceȱitȱwasȱrealizedȱbyȱaȱnumberȱofȱSintiȱandȱ Romaniȱorganizations,52ȱtheȱexhibitionȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱfirstȱopportunitiesȱ forȱ Romaniȱ selfȬrepresentationȱ atȱ suchȱ anȱ internationallyȱ importantȱ siteȱ ofȱ memoriesȱ (PeritoreȱandȱReuterȱ2006;ȱvanȱBaarȱ2010d).53ȱTheȱexhibitionȱhasȱbeenȱmadeȱwithȱgreatȱ careȱ andȱ conveysȱ theȱ sufferingȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Romaȱ inȱ anȱ impressiveȱ manner.ȱ Yet,ȱ someȱ aspectsȱ ofȱ theȱ exhibitionȱ inviteȱ usȱ toȱ rethinkȱ itsȱ representationȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaust.ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ theseȱ aspectsȱ byȱ focusingȱ onȱ theȱ exhibition’sȱ selectiveȱ useȱ ofȱ materialsȱandȱitsȱperiodizationȱofȱhistory,ȱandȱitsȱtechnicalȱdesign.54ȱ TheȱcontentȱofȱtheȱexhibitionȱcoversȱtheȱRoma’sȱimmediateȱprewarȱhistoriesȱinȱindiȬ vidualȱ Europeanȱ countries,ȱ theirȱ wartimeȱ persecution,ȱ andȱ theirȱ deportationȱ fromȱ variousȱplacesȱtoȱconcentrationȱandȱexterminationȱcamps.ȱAȱsubstantialȱpartȱofȱtheȱexhiȬ bitionȱisȱdedicatedȱtoȱtheȱhistoryȱofȱtheȱRoma’sȱpersecution,ȱresistance,ȱandȱexterminaȬ tionȱ inȱ Auschwitz.ȱ Theȱ exhibitionȱ isȱ roughlyȱ dividedȱ intoȱ twoȱ parts,ȱ aȱ designȱ thatȱ theȱ exhibition’sȱcatalogueȱexplainsȱasȱfollows:ȱ ȱ Theȱcentralȱroom,ȱwhichȱstandsȱforȱtheȱpersecutedȱpeople,ȱdoesȱnotȱblendȱinȱwellȱwithȱ theȱexistingȱarchitectureȱandȱalsoȱstandsȱinȱcontradictionȱtoȱtheȱoriginalȱroomȱinȱeveryȱ respect:ȱtheȱaxesȱofȱbothȱroomsȱareȱnotȱidentical,ȱhereȱpleasant,ȱsafeȱforms,ȱthereȱhardȱ andȱ severeȱ forms,ȱ hereȱ warm,ȱ earthyȱ colors,ȱ thereȱ coldȱ blueȬwhite,ȱ hereȱ facesȱ ofȱ people,ȱ laughterȱ andȱ familyȱ life,ȱ thereȱ typewrittenȱ documentsȱ ofȱ theȱ captors.ȱ Theȱ
51ȱThisȱexhibitionȱisȱlocatedȱinȱoneȱofȱtheȱbarracksȱofȱtheȱformerȱAuschwitzȱIȱexterminationȱcamp,ȱtheȱsoȬ calledȱ Stammlager,ȱ that,ȱ togetherȱ withȱ theȱ formerȱ Auschwitzȱ IIȱ campȱ inȱ Birkenau,ȱ makesȱ upȱ theȱ conȬ temporaryȱmuseum.ȱTheȱbarrackȱisȱtheȱlastȱoneȱonȱtheȱrecommendedȱrouteȱalongȱtheȱfifteenȱcampȱbarracksȱ thatȱtogetherȱmakeȱupȱtheȱmuseum’sȱexhibitionȱ(SmoleÚȱ2003:ȱ1).ȱApartȱfromȱtheȱRomaniȱexhibitionȱandȱtheȱ exhibitionȱStruggleȱandȱMartyrdomȱofȱtheȱJews,ȱtheȱmuseumȱexhibitionsȱareȱorganizedȱalongȱtheȱlinesȱofȱtheȱ nationȱ state.ȱ Elsewhere,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ reflectedȱ onȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ newȱ Romaniȱ exhibitionȱ relatesȱ toȱ theȱ generalȱ structureȱ andȱ communistȱ andȱ postȬ1947ȱ transformationsȱ ofȱ theȱ Auschwitzȱ museumȱ (vanȱ Baarȱ 2005a;ȱ2010d;ȱ2010c).ȱ 52ȱTheȱCentralȱCouncilȱcollaboratedȱwithȱRomaniȱandȱSintiȱorganizationsȱfromȱPoland,ȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱ Hungary,ȱSerbia,ȱUkraine,ȱandȱtheȱNetherlandsȱ(Roseȱ2003:ȱ323).ȱ 53ȱTheȱmonumentȱestablishedȱinȱ1974ȱinȱtheȱformerȱ‘Gypsyȱcamp’ȱ(Zigeunerlager)ȱinȱBirkenauȱcanȱactuallyȱbeȱ consideredȱasȱtheȱfirstȱopportunityȱforȱRomaniȱselfȬrepresentationȱinȱtheȱmuseum.ȱThisȱmonumentȱwasȱanȱ initiativeȱofȱtheȱAssociationȱofȱSintiȱinȱGermanyȱ(VerbandȱderȱSintiȱDeutschlands),ȱoneȱofȱtheȱforerunnersȱofȱ theȱcurrentȱCentralȱCouncilȱofȱGermanȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱandȱwasȱestablishedȱatȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱ28thȱ barrackȱinȱtheȱBIIeȱsectionȱofȱtheȱformerȱBirkenauȱcampȱ(Roseȱ1987:ȱ89Ȭ90).ȱYet,ȱneverȱbeforeȱanȱentireȱperȬ manentȱexhibitionȱhasȱ beenȱdedicatedȱtoȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱinȱEurope.ȱCurrently,ȱ variousȱnationalȱexhibitionsȱthatȱwereȱrenewedȱorȱestablishedȱafterȱ1989ȱalsoȱpayȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱfateȱofȱ theirȱ nationalȱ Romaniȱ populationsȱ duringȱ theȱ Secondȱ Worldȱ Warȱ (mostȱ notablyȱ inȱ theȱ exhibitionsȱ ofȱ Austria,ȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱSlovakia,ȱHungary,ȱandȱtheȱNetherlands).ȱ 54ȱ Theȱ exhibitionȱ wasȱ designedȱ byȱ Wielandȱ Schmid’sȱ Atelierȱ fürȱ Gestaltungȱ inȱ Mannheim,ȱ whichȱ alsoȱ designedȱtheȱexhibitionȱonȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱinȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱDocumentationȱ andȱCulturalȱCenterȱinȱHeidelbergȱ(RȱRoseȱ1999;ȱRoseȱ2003).ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ303ȱ
wedgeȬshapedȱsteelȱelementsȱasȱsymbolsȱofȱpersecutionȱandȱviolenceȱdissectȱtheȱcenȬ tralȱroom,ȱglidingȱmoreȱorȱlessȱonȱtheȱinvisibleȱaxesȱofȱtheȱoriginalȱroomȱandȱfinallyȱ breakȱitȱupȱcompletelyȱ(Roseȱ2003:ȱ317,ȱseeȱalsoȱfigureȱ8.11).ȱ ȱ Theȱprewarȱpastȱdisplayedȱinȱtheȱexhibition’sȱcentralȱroomȱisȱalmostȱexclusivelyȱrepreȬ sentedȱ byȱ portraitsȱ andȱ groupȱ photographs,ȱ forȱ example,ȱ ofȱ families,ȱ schoolȱ classes,ȱ sportsȱ clubs,ȱ bands,ȱ andȱ smallȱ orchestras.ȱ Fewȱ imagesȱ showȱ workingȱ Roma,ȱ andȱ onlyȱ veryȱfewȱshotsȱareȱfromȱRomaniȱvillagesȱorȱcaravanȱdwellers.ȱSinceȱtheȱdisplayedȱphotoȬ graphsȱ areȱ mainlyȱ snapshotsȱ ofȱ membersȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ elitesȱ onȱ theirȱ feastȱ days,ȱ theȱ exhibitionȱshowsȱpeacefullyȱlivingȱindividualsȱandȱgroupsȱallȱoverȱtheȱEuropeanȱcounȬ triesȱmostȱofȱtheȱtimeȱ(figuresȱ8.12).ȱHence,ȱtheȱvisitorȱpassesȱbyȱimagesȱfromȱtheȱprewarȱ periodȱinȱwhichȱpoverty,ȱhardȱtimes,ȱregionalȱdifferences,ȱandȱnationalȱformsȱofȱmargiȬ nalizationȱ andȱ persecutionȱ (apartȱ fromȱ thoseȱ instigatedȱ byȱ Nazism)ȱ areȱ practicallyȱ excluded.55ȱTheȱlackȱofȱtheseȱnationalȱformsȱofȱprewarȱmarginalizationȱandȱpersecutionȱ createsȱ aȱ radicalȱ contrastȱ betweenȱ theȱ prewarȱ andȱ theȱ wartimeȱ period.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ exhibitionȱdoesȱnotȱshowȱhowȱtheseȱprewarȱmeasuresȱandȱtheirȱlocalȱandȱnationalȱbackȬ grounds,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱvaryingȱwartimeȱcollaborationsȱwithȱNaziȱGermanyȱthroughoutȱ Europe,ȱresultedȱinȱdifferentlyȱarticulatedȱformsȱofȱRomaȱpersecution.56ȱ
55ȱThisȱrepresentationȱofȱtheȱRomaȱasȱaȱsociallyȱandȱculturallyȱwellȱintegratedȱandȱpeacefullyȱlivingȱgroupȱisȱ inȱlineȱwithȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱattemptȱatȱrepresentingȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱasȱanȱintegralȱandȱintegratedȱpartȱ ofȱGermanȱorȱevenȱEuropeanȱculturesȱandȱsocietiesȱ(MargalitȱandȱMatrasȱ2007).ȱFromȱtheȱinterviewsȱthatȱIȱ conductedȱwithȱrepresentativesȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱpartnerȱRomaniȱorganizationsȱthatȱcontriȬ butedȱtoȱtheȱexhibition,ȱIȱhaveȱgotȱtheȱstrongȱimpressionȱthatȱthisȱRomaȱrepresentationȱisȱnotȱaccidental.ȱ RepresentativesȱofȱRomaniȱorganizationsȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱHungary,ȱandȱtheȱNetherlandsȱ(interviewȱ 2003f;ȱ2004b;ȱ2004c)ȱtoldȱmeȱthatȱthey,ȱonȱtheȱrequestȱofȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil,ȱdidȱsomeȱresearchȱonȱtheȱfateȱ ofȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtheirȱcountriesȱand,ȱasȱpartȱofȱthisȱactivity,ȱtheyȱalsoȱcollectedȱpicturesȱofȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱinȱ theȱ prewarȱ period.ȱ However,ȱ whenȱ theyȱ metȱ withȱ theȱ representativesȱ ofȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ again,ȱ theȱ latterȱdidȱnotȱwantȱtoȱmakeȱuseȱofȱpicturesȱonȱwhichȱRomaȱandȱSintiȱwereȱnotȱdressedȱwellȱorȱwhereȱtheyȱ clearlyȱsufferedȱfromȱpoverty.ȱWhen,ȱaȱfewȱyearsȱlater,ȱIȱinterviewedȱRomaniȱRose,ȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱ chairman,ȱandȱaskedȱhimȱwhetherȱheȱcouldȱtellȱmeȱsomethingȱaboutȱtheȱprocessesȱofȱselectingȱmaterialsȱforȱ theȱ Auschwitzȱ exhibition,ȱ heȱ toldȱ meȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ noȱ discussionsȱ amongȱ theȱ collaboratingȱ Romaniȱ organizationsȱaboutȱhowȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱshouldȱbeȱrepresentedȱinȱtheȱexhibitionȱorȱaboutȱtheȱselectionȱ ofȱresearchedȱmaterialsȱ(interviewȱ2006c).ȱ 56ȱ Variousȱ studiesȱ haveȱ addressedȱ theȱ differentȱ waysȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ persecutionȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ wasȱ (systematicallyȱorȱhaphazardly)ȱarticulatedȱinȱcountriesȱthatȱwereȱoccupiedȱbyȱtheȱNazisȱorȱthatȱcollaboȬ ratedȱwithȱthem.ȱManyȱofȱtheseȱstudiesȱclarifyȱthatȱweȱcannotȱassumeȱthatȱtheȱpracticesȱofȱRomaȱpersecuȬ tionȱoutsideȱNaziȱGermanyȱwereȱdirectlyȱinformedȱbyȱtheȱNaziȱpersecutionȱpracticesȱandȱtheirȱdefinitionsȱ ofȱtheȱGypsies.ȱInȱmanyȱcases,ȱdiverseȱhistoriesȱofȱmarginalizationȱandȱdifferentȱlocal,ȱregional,ȱandȱnationalȱ conceptionsȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱwereȱinfluentialȱonȱhowȱtheȱNaziȱoccupationȱorȱcollaborationȱwithȱtheȱNazisȱledȱ toȱformsȱofȱRomaȱmaltreatmentȱthatȱpartlyȱorȱevenȱsubstantiallyȱdifferedȱfromȱthoseȱinȱNaziȱGermanyȱ(forȱ theȱAustrianȱcase,ȱseeȱThurnerȱ1983;ȱBaumgartnerȱandȱFreundȱ2007;ȱforȱtheȱDutchȱcase,ȱseeȱLucassenȱ1990;ȱ 2007;ȱforȱtheȱFrenchȱcase,ȱseeȱHubertȱ1999;ȱPeschanskiȱ2007;ȱforȱtheȱItalianȱcase,ȱseeȱBoursierȱ1999;ȱforȱtheȱ Swissȱcase,ȱseeȱLudiȱ2006;ȱMeierȱ2007;ȱforȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱformerȱSovietȱUnionȱincludingȱtheȱBalticȱStates,ȱseeȱ Zimmermannȱ1996b;ȱ1999;ȱWeissȬWendtȱ2003;ȱforȱtheȱcaseȱofȱSerbiaȱandȱCroatia,ȱseeȱTrubetaȱ2003;ȱDuli°ȱ 2006;ȱZimmermannȱ2008;ȱforȱtheȱRomanianȱcase,ȱseeȱMihokȱ2001;ȱAchimȱ2004;ȱ2007;ȱforȱtheȱBulgarianȱcase,ȱ seeȱ Marushiakovaȱ andȱ Popovȱ 1999;ȱ 2007;ȱ forȱ theȱ Czechȱ case,ȱ seeȱ Ne²asȱ 1999b;ȱ forȱ theȱ Slovakȱ case,ȱ seeȱ Hübschmannováȱ 2005;ȱ 2006;ȱ forȱ theȱ Hungarianȱ case,ȱ seeȱ Bernáthȱ 2001;ȱ Katzȱ 2006;ȱ 2007;ȱ Bársonyȱ andȱ Darócziȱ2008).ȱ 304ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
ȱ
ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.11ȱȱOverviewȱofȱtheȱcentralȱroomȱofȱtheȱpermanentȱexhibitionȱonȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱ SintiȱandȱRomaȱinȱtheȱAuschwitzȱMuseum.ȱPhoto:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ ȱ ȱ
ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.12ȱȱImagesȱofȱpreȬwartimeȱRomaȱinȱtheȱformerȱCzechoslovakia.ȱPhoto:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ305ȱ
Inȱfact,ȱmanyȱEuropeanȱcountriesȱtookȱrestrictiveȱmeasuresȱwithȱregardȱtoȱtheirȱRomaniȱ populations,ȱinȱparticularȱinȱtheȱinterwarȱperiod.ȱAȱCzechoslovakianȱlawȱfromȱ1927,ȱforȱ instance,ȱ“condemnedȱtheȱRomaȱasȱasocialȱcitizens,ȱlimitedȱtheirȱpersonalȱliberty,ȱintroȬ ducedȱ Gypsyȱ identityȱ cards,ȱ andȱ decreedȱ thatȱ Romaniȱ childrenȱ underȱ 18ȱ beȱ placedȱ inȱ specialȱ institutions”ȱ (Baranyȱ 2002:ȱ 99).ȱ Aȱ Hungarianȱ lawȱ fromȱ 1928ȱ “ordainedȱ semiȬ annualȱGypsyȱpoliceȱraidsȱinȱorderȱtoȱweedȱoutȱtheȱcriminalȱandȱparasiticȱelementsȱfromȱ theȱRomaniȱcommunities”ȱ(ibidȱ100).ȱAsȱinȱtheȱCzechoslovakȱcase,ȱ“specialȱregulationsȱ requiredȱtheȱfingerprintingȱandȱregistrationȱofȱallȱRoma”ȱ(ibid).ȱFromȱtheȱ1920sȱonward,ȱ AnteȱPaveli°’sȱCroatianȱUstašeȱmovementȱincreasinglyȱendangeredȱtheȱpositionȱofȱRomaȱ andȱJewsȱinȱtheȱformerȱYugoslavia.ȱDuringȱtheȱSecondȱWorldȱWar,ȱtheȱproȬNaziȱUstašeȱ regimeȱwasȱresponsibleȱforȱtheȱexterminationȱofȱaboutȱ25,000ȱRomaȱ(Ackovi°ȱ1995;ȱDuli°ȱ 2006;ȱReinhartzȱ2006).ȱManyȱWesternȱEuropeanȱcountriesȱalreadyȱtookȱrestrictiveȱmeaȬ suresȱ againstȱ Romaȱ duringȱ theȱ migrationȱ wavesȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ andȱ theȱ beginningȱ ofȱ theȱ twentiethȱ centuryȱ (Lucassenȱ 1990;ȱ Gotovitchȱ 1998;ȱ Hubertȱ 1999).ȱ Theȱ underȬrepresentationȱ ofȱ theseȱ andȱ otherȱ nationalȱ differencesȱ andȱ ofȱ localȱ antiȬRomaȱ measuresȱinȱtheȱexhibitionȱcreatesȱtheȱimpressionȱofȱaȱhomogeneousȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱ people,ȱwhichȱbeganȱtoȱsufferȱasȱsoonȱas,ȱbutȱnotȱearlierȱthan,ȱtheȱNaziȱterrorȱpenetratedȱ theȱ occupiedȱ countries.ȱ Thisȱ impressionȱ isȱ intensifiedȱ byȱ theȱ wedgeȬshapedȱ steelȱ eleȬ mentsȱ thatȱ spearȱ theȱ centralȱ roomȱ asȱ ifȱ theȱ aggressionȱ againstȱ theȱ Romaȱ cameȱ merelyȱ fromȱtheȱoutsideȱ(figureȱ8.11).ȱInȱthisȱconceptionȱofȱvictimhood,ȱpossibleȱaggressiveȱeleȬ mentsȱ againstȱ theȱ Romaȱ areȱ excludedȱ fromȱ theȱ nonȬGermanȱ nationalȱ territoryȱ andȱ history,ȱandȱprojectedȱabroad.ȱTheȱgoodȱandȱpeacefulȱnationsȱonȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱandȱtheȱ evilȱandȱforeignȱaggressorȱonȱtheȱotherȱareȱlargelyȱpolarized.ȱAȱmoralȱlogicȱthatȱmobilȬ izesȱaȱgoodȱvs.ȱevilȱbinaryȱappears.ȱ ȱ Theȱchancesȱandȱlimitsȱofȱrelationalȱstrategiesȱofȱrepresentationȱ Whatȱ doȱ suchȱ aȱ moralȱ logicȱ andȱ periodizationȱ makeȱ possible?ȱ Disappointedȱ byȱ theȱ scarceȱattentionȱpaidȱtoȱtheȱRomaȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱHolocaustȱMemorialȱMuseumȱinȱ Washington,57ȱ Hancockȱ onceȱ expressedȱ theȱ hopeȱ thatȱ theȱ Romaȱ “willȱ eventuallyȱ beȱ movedȱoutȱofȱtheȱcategoryȱofȱ‘otherȱvictims’ȱandȱfullyȱrecognizedȱasȱtheȱonlyȱpopulation,ȱ togetherȱwithȱtheȱJews,ȱthatȱwasȱslatedȱforȱeradicationȱfromȱtheȱfaceȱofȱtheȱearth”ȱ(1996:ȱ 59).ȱTheȱRomaniȱexhibitionȱinȱtheȱAuschwitzȱmuseumȱseemsȱtoȱcontributeȱtoȱgettingȱtheȱ Romaȱ outȱ ofȱ thisȱ category.ȱ Moreover,ȱ theȱ moralȱ logicȱ thatȱ resultsȱ fromȱ theȱ specificȱ periodizationȱandȱvictimizationȱseemsȱtoȱmakeȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱlinkingȱtheȱpastȱatrocitiesȱ withȱcontemporaryȱviolationsȱofȱhumanȱrightsȱregardingȱtheȱRoma.ȱHancockȱhasȱbeenȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ whoȱ hasȱ stronglyȱ suggestedȱ suchȱ asȱ link.ȱ Referringȱ toȱ antiȬRomaȱ violenceȱthatȱemergedȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱheȱremarked:ȱ ȱ Today,ȱtheȱRomaniȱpopulationȱfacesȱitsȱseverestȱcrisisȱsinceȱtheȱHolocaust;ȱneoȬNaziȱ raceȱ crimesȱ againstȱ Gypsiesȱ haveȱ seenȱ rapes,ȱ beatings,ȱ andȱ murdersȱ inȱ Germany,ȱ Hungary,ȱ andȱ Slovakia;ȱ antiȬGypsyȱ pogromsȱ inȱ Romaniaȱ andȱ Bulgaria,ȱ includingȱ lynchingsȱandȱhomeȱburnings,ȱareȱincreasing.ȱForȱmyȱpeople,ȱtheȱHolocaustȱisȱnotȱyetȱ over.ȱ(Hancockȱ1996:ȱ55)ȱ
57ȱThisȱmuseumȱwasȱopenedȱinȱ1993ȱ(Linenthalȱ1995).ȱ 306ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
Byȱ makingȱ aȱ directȱ linkȱ withȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ byȱ usingȱ wordsȱ suchȱ asȱ ‘pogroms,’ȱ Hancockȱ alsoȱ mobilizesȱ theȱ goodȱ vs.ȱ evilȱ logicȱ whichȱ isȱ oftenȱ centralȱ toȱ globalizingȱ Holocaustȱ discoursesȱ andȱ toȱ usingȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ asȱ “aȱ universalȱ tropeȱ forȱ historicalȱ trauma”ȱ (Huyssenȱ 2000:ȱ 23).ȱ Danielȱ Levyȱ andȱ Nathanȱ Sznaiderȱ suggestȱ that,ȱ nowȱ thatȱ Holocaustȱ discoursesȱ haveȱ beenȱ globalized,ȱ victimȱ andȱ activistȱ strategiesȱ areȱ oftenȱ bringingȱvictimhoodȱandȱmoralityȱstrategicallyȱtogether:ȱ ȱ [InȱcontemporaryȱHolocaustȱreferences]ȱtheȱoppressedȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱ‘guiltless,’ȱandȱthoseȱ whoȱviolateȱhumanȱrights,ȱhaveȱtoȱbeȱ‘evil.’ȱNazisȱandȱJewsȱformȱtheȱconstituentsȱofȱ thisȱnewȱglobalȱreligion.ȱConsequently,ȱthoseȱwhoȱclaimȱthatȱtheirȱhumanȱrightsȱareȱ violated,ȱhaveȱtoȱrelateȱtheirȱsufferingȱtoȱtheȱoneȱofȱtheȱJews,ȱandȱhaveȱtoȱbringȱtheȱ perpetratorsȱ symbolicallyȱ atȱ theȱ levelȱ ofȱ theȱ Nazisȱ …ȱ Theȱ Holocaustȱ hasȱ becomeȱ aȱ universalȱ‘container’ȱofȱmemoriesȱofȱindistinguishableȱvictims.ȱItȱhasȱresultedȱinȱ‘theȱ globalizationȱofȱevil.’ȱ(LevyȱandȱSznaiderȱ2001:ȱ222Ȭ23,ȱmyȱtranslation)ȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ Centralȱ Council’sȱ approachȱ toȱ memory,ȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Romaniȱ communitiesȱ andȱ theirȱhistoriesȱareȱstrategicallyȱrepresentedȱasȱstronglyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱJewishȱcommunitiesȱ andȱtheirȱHolocaustȱhistoriesȱ(vanȱBaarȱ2010d).ȱSinceȱtheȱearlyȱ1980s,ȱrelationalȱstrategiesȱ ofȱ Romaȱ representation—inȱ relationȱ toȱ theȱ Jewishȱ situationȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ toȱ otherȱ GerȬ mans—haveȱbeenȱintegralȱtoȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱidentityȱpolitics.ȱItsȱchairmanȱRomaniȱ RoseȱusuallyȱpresentsȱtheȱSintiȱasȱimportantȱcarriersȱofȱtheȱGermanȱculturalȱheritage:ȱ ȱ Sintiȱ areȱ amongȱ theȱ foremostȱ peopleȱ toȱ ensureȱ thatȱ oldȱ culturalȱ possessionsȱ (Kulturgut)ȱwouldȱremainȱpreserved.ȱTheyȱwentȱtoȱtheȱvillagesȱandȱboughtȱorȱsecuredȱ theirȱantiqueȱthings,ȱthingsȱthatȱotherȱpeopleȱwouldȱjustȱhaveȱtossedȱintoȱtheȱgarbageȱ …ȱSomeȱGermanȱcitizensȱwhoȱtodayȱpossessȱaȱBaroqueȱchestȱofȱdrawersȱdoȱnotȱknowȱ thatȱ theyȱ oweȱ itȱ toȱ theȱ Sinti.ȱ (Roseȱ 1982:ȱ 89,ȱ Englishȱ translationȱ citedȱ Margalitȱ andȱ Matrasȱ2007:ȱ113)ȱ ȱ Duringȱ theȱ recognitionȱ struggleȱ ofȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1980s,ȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ usedȱ largeȱ bannersȱwithȱtheȱheadingȱ“SintiȱandȱRomaȱ–ȱForȱ600ȱyearsȱinȱGermany!”ȱ(SintiȱundȱRomaȱ –ȱSeitȱ600ȱJahrenȱinȱDeutschland!)ȱtoȱstressȱtheȱRoma’sȱandȱSinti’sȱbelongingȱtoȱGermanȱ societyȱ andȱ cultureȱ (Roseȱ 1987:ȱ 108,ȱ 110,ȱ 172).ȱ Similarly,ȱ oneȱ ofȱ theȱ Centralȱ Council’sȱ publicationsȱonȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱstates:ȱ ȱ SintiȱandȱRomaȱhaveȱbeenȱlivingȱasȱcitizensȱofȱGermanȬspeakingȱcountries,ȱasȱinȱotherȱ partsȱofȱEurope,ȱforȱmoreȱthanȱ600ȱyears.ȱContraryȱtoȱtheȱpropagandisticȱclichésȱofȱtheȱ Nazis,ȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱwere,ȱuntilȱtheȱ‘seizureȱofȱpower,’ȱintegratedȱasȱGermanȱcitizensȱtoȱ theȱ sameȱ extentȱ asȱ theȱ Jews.ȱ Theyȱ livedȱ inȱ theirȱ hometownsȱ asȱ workers,ȱ clerks,ȱ civilȱ servants,ȱcraftsmen,ȱartists,ȱorȱshopkeepers,ȱinȱmanyȱcasesȱforȱgenerations.ȱManyȱofȱ themȱhadȱfoughtȱforȱGermanyȱinȱtheȱFirstȱWorldȱWarȱasȱconvincedȱpatriotsȱand,ȱlikeȱ theȱGermanȱJews,ȱbeenȱhighlyȱdecorated.ȱTheȱdiscriminationȱandȱdeprivationȱofȱrightsȱ beganȱwithȱNaziȱruleȱputȱanȱendȱtoȱtheȱpreviouslyȱunremarkedȱexistenceȱofȱSintiȱandȱ RomaȱasȱGermanȱcitizens.ȱ(Roseȱ1995:ȱ9,ȱmyȱitalics)ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ307ȱ
TheȱstrategyȱofȱrepresentingȱRomaniȱhistoriesȱandȱtheirȱmemoriesȱrelationallyȱisȱalsoȱaȱ centralȱelementȱofȱhowȱtheȱAuschwitzȱexhibitionȱhasȱbeenȱdesigned.ȱWhenȱaȱvisitorȱenȬ tersȱtheȱformerȱcampȱbarrackȱandȱgoesȱthroughȱtheȱcorridorȱthatȱleadsȱtoȱtheȱexhibition,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ veryȱ firstȱ panelȱ sheȱ seesȱ displaysȱ aȱ statementȱ ofȱ theȱ formerȱ Federalȱ PresidentȱofȱGermany,ȱRomanȱHerzog:ȱ ȱ Theȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Romaȱ wasȱ carriedȱ outȱ fromȱ theȱ sameȱ motiveȱ ofȱ racialȱ mania,ȱ withȱ theȱ sameȱ premeditation,ȱ withȱ theȱ sameȱ wishȱ forȱ theȱ systematicȱ andȱ totalȱ exterminationȱasȱtheȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱJews.ȱCompleteȱfamiliesȱfromȱtheȱveryȱyoungȱtoȱtheȱ veryȱ oldȱ wereȱ systematicallyȱ murderedȱ withinȱ theȱ entireȱ sphereȱ ofȱ influenceȱ ofȱ theȱ NationalȱSocialists.ȱ(RomanȱHerzogȱcitedȱRoseȱ2003:ȱ4,ȱmyȱitalics)ȱ58ȱ ȱ Theȱexclusionȱofȱprewarȱphotosȱdisplayingȱpovertyȱ(seeȱnoteȱ55)ȱorȱotherȱformsȱofȱmargiȬ nalizationȱfromȱtheȱexhibitionȱcouldȱalsoȱbeȱinterpretedȱalongȱtheȱlinesȱofȱthisȱrelationalȱ strategyȱ ofȱ representation.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ suggested,ȱ suchȱ aȱ strategyȱ canȱ helpȱ toȱ gainȱ bothȱ officialȱandȱpublicȱrecognition:ȱ ȱ [R]elationalȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ representationȱ canȱ …ȱ openȱ theȱ wayȱ forȱ marginalizedȱ communitiesȱ toȱ engageȱ inȱ collectiveȱ articulationsȱ andȱ assertionsȱ ofȱ identityȱ acrossȱ spaceȱandȱtimeȱ…ȱSuchȱcollectiveȱarticulationsȱmayȱbeȱmoreȱreadilyȱintelligible,ȱcarryȱ moreȱ weight,ȱ andȱ thusȱ beȱ moreȱ effectiveȱ inȱ furtheringȱ theȱ aimȱ ofȱ representation,ȱ namelyȱtoȱgainȱrecognitionȱforȱone’sȱcommunityȱandȱhistory.ȱ(HoffmannȱandȱPeerenȱ 2010:ȱ19)ȱ ȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ years,ȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ hasȱ madeȱ anȱ enormousȱ effortȱ toȱ developȱ aȱ narrativeȱofȱSintiȱandȱRomaniȱminorityȱbelongingȱandȱsocioȬculturalȱmembership,ȱthereȬ byȱmakingȱstrategicȱuseȱofȱwritingȱRomaniȱhistoriesȱrelationally.ȱOnȱtheȱoneȱhand,ȱtheȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ hasȱ mobilizedȱ aȱ justifiableȱ singularizationȱ ofȱ theȱ Sinti’sȱ andȱ Roma’sȱ genocidalȱpersecutionȱasȱaȱuniqueȱhistoricalȱevent.ȱOnȱtheȱotherȱhand,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱwayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ Centralȱ Council,ȱ inȱ theȱ Auschwitzȱ exhibition,ȱ periodizesȱ modernȱ historyȱ andȱmobilizesȱaȱgoodȱvs.ȱevilȱmoralȱlogicȱtoȱsustainȱitsȱpedagogicalȱaimȱofȱcorroboratingȱ SintiȱandȱRomaniȱminorityȱbelongingȱultimatelyȱseemsȱtoȱplayȱtricksȱonȱtheȱRoma’sȱandȱ Sinti’sȱ case.ȱ Thisȱ representationȱ andȱ moralȱ logicȱ riskȱ elidingȱ significantȱ differencesȱ betweenȱtheȱRomaniȱandȱtheȱJewishȱcasesȱand,ȱthus,ȱleadingȱtoȱaȱnonȬarticulationȱofȱtheȱ specificityȱofȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRoma,ȱincluding,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱitsȱpreȬ warȱ andȱ postwarȱ histories.ȱ Theseȱ differencesȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ significantlyȱ differentȱ prewarȱandȱwartimeȱtrajectoriesȱthatȱledȱtoȱtheseȱgenocidalȱeventsȱandȱtoȱtheirȱcruciallyȱ differentȱpostwarȱsettlementsȱ(Zimmermannȱ2006;ȱ2007b;ȱStewartȱ2010).ȱItȱisȱhere,ȱinȱtheȱ contextȱofȱtheȱpostwarȱpoliticsȱofȱdenialȱtypicalȱofȱnotȱonlyȱGermany’sȱpostwarȱhistoryȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Roma,ȱ butȱ alsoȱ ofȱ Europeanȱ postwarȱ historiesȱ moreȱ generally,ȱ
58ȱThisȱstatementȱmadeȱbyȱHerzogȱduringȱtheȱopeningȱofȱtheȱexhibitionȱonȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱ andȱRomaȱinȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱdocumentationȱandȱculturalȱcenterȱinȱHeidelbergȱinȱ1997ȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱ centralȱ toolȱ inȱ theȱ Council’sȱ memoryȱ politics.ȱ Theȱ Councilȱ alsoȱ wantedȱ toȱ inscribeȱ thisȱ statementȱ inȱ theȱ MemorialȱtoȱtheȱMurderedȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱofȱEuropeȱinȱtheȱcenterȱofȱBerlin,ȱaȱproposalȱthatȱbecameȱpartȱofȱ theȱdisputeȱaboutȱthisȱMemorial’sȱestablishmentȱ(Zimmermannȱ2007a).ȱ 308ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ whereȱIȱwantȱtoȱrelateȱtoȱtheȱgovernmentalizationȱofȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱinȱEuropeȱ again.ȱ Iȱ haveȱ shownȱ howȱ theȱ EUȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ activeȱ Europeanȱ remembranceȱ takesȱ theȱ breachesȱofȱfundamentalȱvaluesȱcausedȱbyȱNazismȱandȱStalinismȱasȱitsȱstartingȱpoints.ȱ Theȱ narrativeȱ alsoȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ EUȱ itselfȱ isȱ builtȱ onȱ fundamentalȱ values,ȱ suchȱ asȱ freedom,ȱ democracy,ȱ andȱ respectȱ forȱ humanȱ rights.ȱ Governmentalizingȱ Holocaustȱ remembranceȱandȱconsideringȱtheȱHolocaustȱasȱcentralȱtoȱaȱunifyingȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱ areȱ“partȱofȱtheȱincreasingȱeffortsȱtoȱcreateȱaȱnewȱoverarchingȱandȱsignificantȱfoundingȱ myth,ȱwhichȱcanȱfillȱtheȱgapȱofȱpoliticalȱidentityȱinȱtheȱprocessȱofȱEuropeanȱintegrationȱ andȱconstitutionȱbuilding”ȱ(Probstȱ2003:ȱ56).ȱYet,ȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱ“thisȱfoundingȱ[myth]ȱ isȱ connectedȱ withȱ pedagogyȱ andȱ politicalȱ functionalizationȱ makesȱ theȱ wholeȱ ventureȱ problematic”ȱ(Jeismannȱ2001,ȱEnglishȱtranslationȱcitedȱProbstȱ2003:ȱ56).ȱButȱwhatȱexactlyȱ isȱtheȱproblematicȱcharacterȱofȱthisȱventure?ȱLotharȱProbstȱgivesȱtheȱfollowingȱanswer:ȱ ȱ Toȱenforceȱandȱtoȱlegitimizeȱpoliticalȱactionȱwithȱreferenceȱtoȱaȱhistoricalȱeventȱthatȱforȱ politicalȱ reasonsȱ hasȱ beenȱ givenȱ suprahistoricalȱ meaning,ȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ problematicȱ becauseȱ itȱ heavilyȱ burdensȱ theȱ politicalȱ spaceȱ inȱ moralȱ terms.ȱ Theȱ subordinationȱ ofȱ politicsȱ toȱ suchȱ moralȱ judgmentȱ could,ȱ atȱ veryȱ least,ȱ giveȱ riseȱ toȱ aȱ questionableȱ politicalȱinstrumentalizationȱ…ȱTheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱHolocaustȱhappenedȱgivesȱevidenceȱ toȱtheȱfactȱthatȱinȱpoliticsȱweȱareȱneverȱactingȱonȱstableȱgroundsȱandȱthatȱdemocracyȱ andȱ theȱ valuesȱ ofȱ humanȱ civilizationȱ areȱ alwaysȱ threatenedȱ byȱ unforeseeableȱ hisȬ toricalȱdevelopments.ȱToȱtheȱcontrary,ȱtotalitarianismȱisȱtoȱaȱcertainȱextentȱinherentȱinȱ theȱ structuresȱ ofȱ modernity,ȱ andȱ eachȱ attemptȱ toȱ banȱ theȱ totalitarianȱ temptationȱ byȱ moralȱimperativesȱorȱverdictsȱwillȱprobablyȱfail.ȱ(Probstȱ2003:ȱ56,ȱ57)ȱ ȱ IȱagreeȱwithȱProbst,ȱbut,ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱconsiderȱhisȱanswerȱsomewhatȱgeneralȱandȱ lessȱspecificȱwhenȱitȱcomesȱtoȱclarifyingȱwhereȱexactlyȱweȱcanȱobserveȱtheȱrisksȱtoȱwhichȱ heȱisȱpointing.ȱAccordingȱtoȱme,ȱtheȱmainȱissueȱisȱthatȱtheȱEUȱdiscourseȱonȱHolocaustȱ remembranceȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ EUȱ guaranteesȱ inclusionȱ andȱ membershipȱ forȱ allȱ itsȱ citizens,ȱnoȱmatterȱwhatȱtheirȱbackgroundȱis.ȱSeenȱfromȱthisȱangle,ȱtheȱEUȱasȱtheȱallegedȱ protectorȱ ofȱ fundamentalȱ valuesȱ andȱ rightsȱ indeedȱ guaranteesȱ theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ itsȱ Romaniȱ minorities.ȱ Butȱ thisȱ EUȱ narrativeȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱ muchȱ lessȱ ableȱ toȱ reflectȱ onȱ whetherȱsomeȱofȱitsȱownȱgovernanceȱmechanismsȱcouldȱdirectlyȱorȱindirectlyȱendangerȱ theȱformsȱofȱmembershipȱitȱpromisesȱtoȱguarantee.ȱThoughȱtheȱEUȱdiscourseȱonȱEuroȬ peanȱremembranceȱincludesȱreflectionȱonȱtheȱcausesȱandȱconsequencesȱofȱNazism,ȱthisȱ narrativeȱ doesȱ notȱ adequatelyȱ includeȱ theȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ theȱ EUȱ asȱ aȱ communityȱ ofȱ fundamentalȱvaluesȱstillȱneedsȱtoȱcomeȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱaȱpastȱthatȱendangersȱitsȱfoundaȬ tion.ȱAnȱadequateȱreflectionȱonȱhowȱthisȱpastȱstillȱaffectsȱtheȱEU’sȱpresentȱfunctioning,ȱ however,ȱisȱparticularlyȱimportantȱwhenȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱstartsȱtoȱbeȱmobilizedȱ forȱpoliticalȱreasonȱofȱparticipation,ȱinclusion,ȱcompetitiveness,ȱandȱgreaterȱcohesionȱandȱ unityȱwithinȱandȱthroughoutȱtheȱEU.ȱThisȱissueȱisȱallȱtheȱmoreȱurgentȱnowȱthatȱRomaniȱ minoritiesȱ throughoutȱ Europeȱ areȱ generallyȱ approachedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ activation,ȱ socialȱ inclusion,ȱ andȱ activeȱ citizenshipȱ withoutȱ sufficientlyȱ reflectingȱ onȱ theȱ historicalȱ conȬ ditionsȱunderȱwhichȱtheirȱmarginalizationȱcouldȱhaveȱoccurredȱatȱallȱ(chaptersȱ6,ȱ7).ȱInȱitsȱ turn,ȱ theȱ Centralȱ Council’sȱ memoryȱ politicsȱ andȱ relationalȱ strategyȱ ofȱ representationȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ309ȱ seemȱ toȱ beȱ ableȱ toȱ complyȱ withȱ theȱ EU’sȱ allȬinclusiveȱ narrativeȱ ofȱ activeȱ Europeanȱ citizenshipȱandȱitsȱdesireȱtoȱencourageȱitsȱcitizensȱtoȱbecomeȱactivelyȱinvolvedȱinȱcrossȬ Europeanȱremembrance.ȱYet,ȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱmemorialȱstrategyȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱmuchȱ lessȱableȱtoȱreflectȱonȱtheȱmemoryȱdeficitȱofȱtheȱEU’sȱownȱactiveȱEuropeanȱremembranceȱ discourseȱ andȱ itsȱ consequencesȱ forȱ howȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ contextsȱ canȱ beȱ takenȱ intoȱ account.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱpresentȱaȱpossibleȱwayȱinȱwhichȱreflectionȱonȱthisȱnew,ȱtransformedȱ Europeanȱmemoryȱproblemȱcouldȱtakeȱplace,ȱIȱwillȱfinallyȱdiscussȱtheȱmemorialȱstrategyȱ ofȱtheȱfilmmakersȱSeyboldȱandȱSpitta.ȱ ȱ ȱ INȱLIEUȱOFȱAȱCONCLUSION:ȱTHEȱLIMITSȱOFȱTHEȱPOLITICSȱOFȱREȬMEMBERINGȱ ȱ Forȱmyȱpeople,ȱtheȱHolocaustȱisȱnotȱyetȱover.ȱ(IanȱHancockȱ1996:ȱ55)ȱ That’sȱaȱridiculousȱremark.ȱ(RomaniȱRoseȱduringȱanȱinterviewȱ[2006c])ȱ ȱ Inȱ theȱ 1980s,ȱ theȱ Germanȱ filmmakerȱ Katrinȱ Seyboldȱ andȱ herȱ Sintiȱ colleagueȱ Melanieȱ Spittaȱ (1946Ȭ2005)ȱ madeȱ fourȱ documentaries.ȱ Theyȱ focusedȱ onȱ howȱ theȱ denialȱ ofȱ theȱ RomaniȱHolocaustȱhadȱdramaticallyȱandȱupȱtillȱthenȱaffectedȱtheȱlivesȱofȱGermanȱSintiȱ andȱRomaniȱcommunitiesȱandȱtheirȱpositionȱinȱGermanȱsocietyȱ(SpittaȱandȱSeyboldȱ1980;ȱ 1981;ȱ 1982;ȱ 1987).ȱ Inȱ theȱ 1980s,ȱ someȱ ofȱ theseȱ documentariesȱ wereȱ broadcastedȱ onȱ Germanȱpublicȱtelevision.ȱThoughȱSpittaȱandȱSeybold’sȱjointȱworksȱbelongȱtoȱtheȱintelȬ lectualȱ andȱ cinematicȱ archivesȱ thatȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ strugglesȱ ofȱ theȱ 1980s,ȱ theirȱ documentariesȱdoȱnotȱbelongȱtoȱaȱdistantȱpast.ȱTheirȱworksȱcanȱbeȱregardedȱaudiovisualȱ sitesȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memory,ȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ diverseȱ andȱ heterogeneousȱ contemporaryȱ memoryscapesȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaust.ȱForȱinstance,ȱtheirȱdocumentariesȱhaveȱ beenȱ includedȱ inȱ theȱ archivesȱ ofȱ severalȱ importantȱ Holocaustȱ memorials.ȱ Theirȱ worksȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ screenedȱ atȱ importantȱinternationalȱ filmȱ festivalsȱ andȱ discussedȱ atȱ acaȬ demicȱconferences.59ȱ Spittaȱ andȱ Seybold’sȱ worksȱ contestȱ theȱ ideaȱ thatȱ thereȱ wereȱ strict,ȱ unambiguousȱ bordersȱbetweenȱtheȱRomaȱrepresentationsȱofȱtheȱwartimeȱandȱtheȱpostwarȱperiod.ȱTheȱ centralȱaimȱofȱtheirȱjointȱworkȱbearȱstrongȱresemblanceȱtoȱthatȱofȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil,ȱforȱ instance,ȱ toȱ getȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ recognizedȱ moreȱ adequatelyȱ andȱ toȱ getȱ moreȱ publicityȱforȱhowȱitȱhasȱstronglyȱaffectedȱpostwarȱSintiȱandȱRomaniȱlives.ȱNevertheless,ȱ SpittaȱandȱSeybold’sȱcentralȱstrategyȱdiffersȱinȱanȱimportantȱwayȱfromȱthatȱofȱtheȱCentralȱ Council.ȱIȱwillȱillustrateȱthisȱdifferenceȱbyȱaȱbriefȱdiscussionȱofȱtheirȱmostȱpowerfulȱfilmȱ “TheȱLie:ȱ‘Compensation’ȱforȱGypsiesȱ(Sinti)ȱinȱGermany?”ȱ(DasȱfalscheȱWort:ȱDieȱ‘WiederȬ gutmachung’ȱanȱZigeunernȱ(Sinte)ȱinȱDeutschland?).ȱ
59ȱTheirȱdocumentariesȱareȱarchived,ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱtheȱAuschwitzȱMuseum,ȱtheȱYadȱVashemȱMemorialȱinȱ Jerusalem,ȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱHolocaustȱMemorialȱMuseumȱinȱWashington,ȱandȱinȱaȱnumberȱofȱimportantȱ Germanȱmemorialsȱ(eg,ȱKZȱDachau,ȱKZȱRavensbrück,ȱKZȱBergenȬBelsen,ȱKZȱNeuengamme,ȱtheȱWannseeȱ Conferenceȱ House,ȱ andȱ theȱ Topographyȱ ofȱ Terrorȱ inȱ Berlin).ȱ Theirȱ worksȱ haveȱ beenȱ shownȱ atȱ variousȱ festivals,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱinternationalȱfilmȱfestivalsȱinȱRotterdamȱ(2004)ȱandȱLondonȱ(2006).ȱTheyȱhaveȱbeenȱ discussedȱ atȱ scholarlyȱ conferences,ȱ suchȱ asȱ Representationȱ andȱ Effect:ȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ Politics,ȱ theȱ Artȱ andȱ theȱ Academy,ȱheldȱatȱtheȱUniversityȱofȱSt.ȱAndrewsȱinȱScotlandȱinȱ2007.ȱ 310ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ
DasȱfalscheȱWortȱwasȱreleasedȱinȱ1987,ȱshortlyȱafterȱtheȱCentralȱCouncilȱhadȱreachedȱitsȱ mainȱmilestones.ȱLargelyȱdueȱtoȱtheȱCouncil’sȱefforts,ȱtheȱfederalȱauthoritiesȱhadȱofficialȬ lyȱ recognizedȱ theȱ Romaȱ andȱ Sintiȱ asȱ victimsȱ ofȱ theȱ Naziȱ genocide,ȱ theȱ wordȱ Zigeunerȱ (Gypsy)ȱhadȱbeenȱbannedȱfromȱmostȱGermanȱmedia,ȱand,ȱsinceȱ1983,ȱtheȱGermanȱgovernȬ mentȱhadȱfinanciallyȱsupportedȱtheirȱassociationȱinȱHeidelberg.ȱYet,ȱwhile,ȱsinceȱtheȱmidȱ 1980s,ȱtheȱCentralȱCouncilȱbeganȱtoȱbuildȱonȱitsȱachievementsȱandȱtoȱstrengthenȱitsȱreȬ lationalȱmemorialȱstrategyȱofȱrepresentation,ȱSpittaȱandȱSeyboldȱmadeȱaȱkindȱofȱoppositeȱ move.ȱInȱDasȱfalscheȱWortȱtheyȱgiveȱanȱextremelyȱsinisterȱimageȱofȱtheȱpostwarȱrealitiesȱofȱ theȱ Germanȱ Sintiȱ thatȱ survivedȱ theȱ war.ȱ Theirȱ documentaryȱ buildsȱ onȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ elementsȱthatȱIȱhaveȱbroughtȱupȱwhileȱdiscussingȱtheȱfirstȱfourȱpostwarȱdecades.ȱTheirȱ filmȱshowsȱthatȱnoneȱofȱtheȱresearchers,ȱwhoȱwereȱinvolvedȱinȱtheȱRacialȱHygieneȱandȱ Demographicȱ BiologyȱResearchȱ UnitȱofȱtheȱNaziȱMinistryȱofȱHealth—theȱ instituteȱ thatȱ wasȱ largelyȱ responsibleȱ forȱ markingȱ theȱ ‘unfitness’ȱ ofȱ manyȱ Romaȱ andȱ Sintiȱ andȱ theȱ decisionȱtoȱdeportȱthem—wereȱeverȱpersecutedȱforȱtheirȱcrimes.ȱAsȱIȱhaveȱmentioned,ȱ afterȱ1945ȱtheseȱresearchersȱwereȱevenȱcontractedȱbyȱjuridicalȱandȱgovernmentalȱteamsȱtoȱ ‘scientifically’ȱdecideȱuponȱwhetherȱtheȱsurvivingȱRomaniȱvictims—manyȱofȱwhomȱhadȱ beenȱforciblyȱsterilized—couldȱbeȱrestituted.ȱInȱaȱpowerfulȱvisualȱlanguage,ȱDasȱfalscheȱ Wortȱ showsȱ thatȱ those,ȱ whoȱ hadȱ decidedȱ uponȱ theȱ destructionȱ ofȱ manyȱ Romaniȱ livesȱ duringȱtheȱwar,ȱcontinuedȱtoȱdecideȱuponȱtheȱdirectionȱofȱmostȱofȱtheȱsurvivors’ȱlivesȱ afterȱ1945.ȱ DasȱfalscheȱWortȱbringsȱtogetherȱvariousȱnarratives,ȱsuchȱasȱtheȱlifeȱstoriesȱthatȱGermanȱ Sintiȱwomenȱandȱmenȱtellȱaboutȱtheirȱpersecutionȱandȱtheȱlackȱofȱpostwarȱreparationsȱtoȱ them,ȱandȱtheȱvisualȱlanguageȱofȱnumerousȱfilmedȱNaziȱdocumentsȱandȱportraitsȱofȱSintiȱ andȱ theirȱ families.ȱ Theseȱ differentȱ narrativesȱ areȱ cinematicallyȱ wovenȱ togetherȱ byȱ Spitta’sȱ ownȱ personalȱ storyȱ andȱ herȱ searchȱ forȱ whatȱ hadȱ exactlyȱ happenedȱ toȱ theȱ 60ȱ membersȱofȱherȱownȱfamily,ȱofȱwhomȱherȱmotherȱwasȱoneȱofȱtheȱfewȱsurvivors.ȱOneȱofȱ theȱmainȱpoliticalȱissuesȱthatȱtheȱfilmȱtriesȱtoȱaddressȱisȱtoȱclarifyȱwhyȱWiedergutmachungȱ isȱtheȱfalseȱwordȱandȱwhyȱitȱwronglyȱsuggestsȱthatȱRoma/nonȬRomaȱrelationshipsȱhaveȱ beenȱ substantiallyȱ normalizedȱ byȱ theȱ postwarȱ reparationȱ politics.ȱ Inȱ theȱ documentary,ȱ Spitta’sȱstoryȱoftenȱfunctionsȱasȱaȱvoiceoverȱandȱhasȱaȱmoralȱundertone.ȱSheȱmobilizesȱanȱ usȬandȬthemȱnarrativeȱtoȱunderlineȱtheȱblatantȱinconsistenciesȱofȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱWiederȬ gutmachung—literallyȱ“makingȱgoodȱagain”—aimedȱatȱcomingȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱGermany’sȱ Naziȱpast.ȱSheȱexplicitlyȱusesȱtheȱwordȱGypsiesȱ(Zigeuner)ȱwhenȱsheȱmakesȱaȱdistinctionȱ betweenȱ“weȱGypsies”ȱ(wirȱZigeuner)ȱandȱ“youȱGermans”ȱ(ihrȱDeutsche).ȱThisȱnarrativeȱ strategicallyȱconnectsȱSpitta’sȱandȱotherȱSintiȱfamilyȱlifeȱstoriesȱtoȱtheȱunwillingnessȱofȱ ordinaryȱ Germansȱ toȱ reallyȱ recognizeȱ theȱ wrongȱ doneȱ toȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Romaȱ andȱ theȱ crucialȱroleȱofȱtheȱcollaboratorsȱandȱperpetratorsȱwhoȱcouldȱhideȱthemselvesȱbehindȱtheȱ postwarȱpoliticsȱofȱcompensation.ȱSomewhereȱinȱtheȱdocumentary,ȱSpittaȱsays:ȱ ȱ Toȱsaveȱherȱlife,ȱmyȱmotherȱandȱherȱfamilyȱfledȱtoȱBelgium.ȱVainȱhope,ȱbecauseȱonlyȱ fewȱ haveȱ survivedȱ Auschwitz.ȱ Myȱ brotherȱ andȱ allȱ ofȱ ourȱ family’sȱ childrenȱ wereȱ brutallyȱmurdered.ȱYouȱGermansȱhadȱtheȱcourageȱtoȱdoȱso.ȱButȱmostȱofȱyouȱdidȱnotȱ haveȱtheȱheartȱtoȱaskȱhowȱtheseȱmurdersȱcouldȱtakeȱplaceȱandȱwhyȱtheyȱwereȱallowedȱ …ȱWhereas,ȱinȱyourȱcase,ȱsoȱmanyȱwearersȱofȱswastika’sȱ[Hakenkreuzler]ȱhaveȱbeenȱleftȱ overȱwhoȱknewȱhowȱtoȱobstructȱwarȱreparationȱtoȱus,ȱourȱstruggleȱhasȱbeenȱinȱvainȱ…ȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ311ȱ
Youȱhaveȱbeheadedȱusȱandȱspeakȱofȱ‘compensation.’ȱ‘Compensation’ȱisȱtheȱfalseȱword,ȱ becauseȱ youȱ haveȱ forgottenȱ yourȱ feelingȱ ofȱ regretȱ andȱ sin.ȱ (Dasȱ falscheȱ Wortȱ citedȱ Seyboldȱ2005:ȱ200Ȭ01,ȱmyȱtranslation)ȱ ȱ Centralȱpartȱofȱthisȱstrategyȱisȱtoȱemphasize,ȱasȱSpittaȱalsoȱsaysȱinȱtheȱfilm,ȱthatȱ“theyȱ believedȱthem,ȱnotȱus”ȱor,ȱputȱdifferently,ȱthatȱthoseȱgovernmentalȱandȱjudicialȱofficialsȱ whoȱhadȱtoȱdecideȱonȱtheȱwarȱreparationsȱreliedȱonȱtheȱstatementsȱandȱfindingsȱofȱtheȱ nonȬpersecutedȱ perpetrators,ȱ ratherȱ thanȱ onȱ theȱ testimoniesȱ ofȱ theȱ victimsȱ andȱ onȱ theȱ Naziȱdocumentsȱthatȱcouldȱhaveȱclearlyȱpleadedȱagainstȱtheȱperpetrators.60ȱ Theȱ differenceȱ betweenȱ Spittaȱ andȱ Seybold’sȱ memorialȱ strategyȱ andȱ theȱ Centralȱ Council’sȱhasȱtoȱdoȱwithȱhowȱbothȱpartiesȱapproachȱtheȱissueȱofȱcompensationȱand,ȱmostȱ ofȱall,ȱ‘comingȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱtheȱpast.’ȱToȱbeȱsure,ȱDasȱfalscheȱWortȱdoesȱnotȱsuggestȱthatȱ financialȱ compensationȱ forȱ whatȱ happenedȱ toȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Romaȱ duringȱ theȱ Secondȱ WorldȱWarȱwouldȱorȱdidȱnotȱimplyȱaȱwelcomeȱnecessaryȱandȱgesture.ȱButȱSeyboldȱandȱ Spitta’sȱ approachȱ doesȱ notȱ inȱ theȱ firstȱ placeȱ dealȱ withȱ theȱ achievedȱ compensationȱ andȱ officialȱrecognition.ȱRather,ȱtheyȱaddressȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱGermanȱwarȱreparationȱandȱhowȱ itȱradicallyȱhamperedȱbothȱmoralȱcompensationȱandȱtheȱpersecutionȱofȱtheȱperpetrators.ȱ Dasȱ falscheȱ Wortȱ dealsȱ withȱ theȱ moralȱ questionȱ ofȱ whetherȱ andȱ howȱ somethingȱ likeȱ ‘comingȱtoȱterms’ȱwithȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱisȱpossibleȱatȱall.ȱTheȱtimingȱ ofȱDasȱfalscheȱWortȱwasȱcrucial:ȱitȱwasȱreleasedȱaȱfewȱyearsȱafterȱtheȱofficialȱrecognitionȱofȱ theȱ Naziȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Roma.ȱ Spittaȱ andȱ Seyboldȱ challengeȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ compensationȱatȱtheȱsameȱtimeȱasȱwasȱsuggestedȱthatȱWiedergutmachungȱhadȱtakenȱplace.ȱ Dasȱ falscheȱ Wortȱ contestsȱ ‘comingȱ toȱ termsȱ withȱ theȱ past’ȱ atȱ theȱ momentȱ thisȱ politicalȱ gestureȱbecomesȱpartȱofȱaȱnarrativeȱinȱwhichȱnotionsȱsuchȱasȱrecognition,ȱequality,ȱandȱ citizenshipȱareȱturnedȱintoȱaȱkindȱofȱpedagogy.ȱSeyboldȱandȱSpittaȱcontestȱtheȱselfȬimageȱ ofȱ Germanyȱ thatȱ hadȱ longȱ prevailedȱ inȱ theȱ postwarȱ era,ȱ and,ȱ whenȱ itȱ comesȱ toȱ theȱ situationȱofȱSintiȱandȱRoma,ȱstillȱprevailsȱinȱmanyȱways.ȱTheirȱjointȱworkȱreflectsȱonȱtheȱ postȬ1945ȱacceptanceȱandȱrecognitionȱofȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱasȱequalȱcitizensȱandȱchallengesȱ theȱ promisesȱ ofȱ theȱ enactedȱ policyȱ ofȱ reparation.ȱ Contestingȱ theȱ politicsȱ ofȱ WiedergutȬ
60ȱTheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱchairmanȱRoseȱstronglyȱprotestedȱagainstȱSeyboldȱandȱSpitta’sȱDasȱfalscheȱWort.ȱHeȱ consideredȱtheȱreleaseȱofȱtheirȱworkȱasȱaȱconcreteȱdangerȱtoȱmanyȱofȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱachievements.ȱInȱ hisȱprotestsȱagainstȱtheȱscreeningȱofȱDasȱfalscheȱWortȱonȱGermanȱpublicȱtelevisionȱinȱtheȱspringȱofȱ1989,ȱRoseȱ tookȱ Seyboldȱ andȱ Spitta’sȱ filmȱ atȱ faceȱ value.ȱ Inȱ aȱ telexedȱ letterȱ toȱ theȱ responsibleȱ programȱ director,ȱ heȱ bringsȱ upȱ severalȱ argumentsȱ againstȱ theȱ broadcastingȱ (Roseȱ 1989b).ȱ Heȱ considersȱ Dasȱ falscheȱ Wortȱ aȱ historicallyȱinadequateȱrepresentationȱforȱtheȱdocumentaryȱwouldȱincorrectlyȱsuggest,ȱforȱinstance,ȱthatȱtheȱ genocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱwasȱnotȱplannedȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱtheȱNaziȱgovernmentȱandȱtheȱSSȱdirection,ȱ butȱonlyȱatȱtheȱlevelȱofȱlocalȱpoliceȱauthorities.ȱSeyboldȱandȱSpittaȱwouldȱalsoȱincorrectlyȱsuggestȱthatȱSintiȱ andȱRomaȱhadȱlivedȱaȱnomadicȱlifeȱbeforeȱtheȱwarȱandȱthatȱ‘only’ȱtheȱNazisȱhadȱforcedȱthemȱtoȱsettle.ȱMoreȱ generally,ȱRoseȱaccusesȱSeyboldȱandȱSpittaȱofȱunderȬrepresentingȱtheȱconceptȱofȱgenocideȱ(Völkermord)ȱinȱ theirȱworkȱandȱneglectingȱtheȱparallelȱwithȱtheȱfateȱofȱtheȱJews.ȱHowever,ȱRoseȱobjectsȱmostȱseverelyȱtoȱtheȱ useȱofȱtheȱusȬandȬthemȱnarrative,ȱwhichȱwouldȱcreateȱtheȱcounterproductiveȱimageȱofȱaȱGermanȱcollectiveȱ guiltȱ(unsinnigeȱKollektivschuld),ȱandȱtheȱportrayalȱofȱcompensationȱforȱtheȱSintiȱwithoutȱanyȱkindȱofȱfutureȱ perspectiveȱ (Perspektivlosigkeitȱ bezüglichȱ derȱ Entschädigung).ȱ Roseȱ alsoȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ theȱ screeningȱ wouldȱ hamperȱsomeȱofȱtheȱCentralȱCouncil’sȱplannedȱactivitiesȱforȱtheȱspringȱofȱ1989.ȱInȱtheȱend,ȱthisȱargumentȱ turnedȱoutȱtoȱbeȱtheȱonlyȱoneȱthatȱtheȱZDFȱprogramȱdirectorȱtookȱseriously.ȱTheȱZDFȱbroadcastedȱSeyboldȱ andȱ Spitta’sȱ documentary,ȱ butȱ postponedȱ theȱ broadcastȱ untilȱ afterȱ theseȱ Centralȱ Council’sȱ activitiesȱ (Hauschildȱ1989;ȱSeyboldȱ1989).ȱ 312ȱȱȱȱȱȱCHAPTERȱEIGHTȱ machung,ȱSpittaȱandȱSeyboldȱshowȱthatȱtheȱattemptsȱatȱcompensationȱhaveȱnotȱatȱallȱbeenȱ basedȱ onȱ consideringȱ theȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Romaȱ asȱ equalȱ membersȱ ofȱ theȱ Germanȱ stateȱ andȱ society.ȱDasȱfalscheȱWortȱclarifiesȱwhyȱcompensationȱwillȱneverȱbeȱpossibleȱforȱsomeȱSintiȱ andȱRomaȱandȱwhyȱitȱhadȱneverȱreallyȱtakenȱplaceȱforȱothers.ȱ“Weȱareȱfinishedȱwithȱtheȱ world”ȱ(WirȱsindȱfertigȱmitȱderȱWelt)ȱsaysȱoneȱofȱtheȱSintiȱsurvivorsȱinȱtheȱdocumentary.ȱ Sheȱ expressesȱ whyȱ compensationȱ hasȱ beenȱ theȱ falseȱ word.ȱ Theȱ radicalȱ denialȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ theȱ antiȬRomaniȱ attitudesȱ thatȱ motivatedȱ thisȱ neglectȱ haveȱ resultedȱinȱaȱfeeling,ȱsharedȱbyȱmanyȱSintiȱvictims,ȱthatȱWiedergutmachungȱhasȱcomeȱ“tooȱ lateȱ forȱ allȱ ofȱ them”ȱ (Einȱ fürȱ allemalȱ zuȱ spät)(FAZȱ 1989).ȱ Dasȱ falscheȱ Wortȱ powerfullyȱ illustratesȱthatȱitȱdidȱnotȱinȱtheȱfirstȱplaceȱcomeȱtooȱlateȱbecauseȱmanyȱofȱthoseȱwhoȱhadȱ theȱrightȱtoȱgetȱcompensatedȱhadȱalreadyȱdiedȱorȱwereȱinȱtheȱlastȱphaseȱofȱtheirȱlives.ȱ Rather,ȱitȱhasȱcomeȱtooȱlate,ȱSpittaȱandȱSeyboldȱshow,ȱbecauseȱitȱhasȱbeenȱbasedȱneitherȱ onȱequalityȱnorȱhasȱitȱledȱtoȱtreatingȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱonȱequalȱgrounds.ȱTheȱcontestationȱ ofȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱWiedergutmachungȱhasȱrevealedȱitsȱfailureȱtoȱreallyȱrememberȱtheȱSintiȱ andȱRomaȱinȱtheȱdoubleȱmeaningȱofȱbothȱcomingȱtoȱtermsȱwithȱtheȱNaziȱpastȱandȱguarȬ anteeingȱsocietalȱparticipationȱonȱequalȱgrounds.ȱ ȱ Howȱ couldȱ Dasȱ falscheȱ Wortȱ beȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ governmentalizationȱ ofȱ Holocaustȱ reȬ membranceȱ inȱ theȱ EUȱ narrative?ȱ Transposedȱ toȱ theȱ Europeanȱ level,ȱ theȱ impactȱ ofȱ thisȱ documentaryȱrevealsȱtheȱcontoursȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱproblem.ȱDasȱfalscheȱ Wortȱconfrontsȱusȱwithȱtheȱconsequencesȱofȱturningȱtheȱremembranceȱofȱaȱpastȱthatȱstillȱ radicallyȱintersectsȱwithȱtheȱpresentȱandȱcurrentȱformsȱofȱminorityȱgovernanceȱtooȱeasilyȱ intoȱ pedagogicalȱ discoursesȱ andȱ theȱ justificationȱ ofȱ determiningȱ politicalȱ action.ȱ Asȱ Iȱ haveȱ emphasized,ȱ theȱ narrativeȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ EUȱ presentsȱ itselfȱ asȱ theȱ protectorȱ ofȱ fundamentalȱ valuesȱ seemsȱ toȱ beȱmuchȱ lessȱableȱ toȱ reflectȱ onȱ whetherȱ someȱofȱ itsȱownȱ governanceȱmechanismsȱcouldȱendangerȱtheȱformsȱofȱmembershipȱitȱpromisesȱtoȱguarȬ antee.ȱ Throughoutȱ thisȱ study,ȱ Iȱ haveȱ shownȱ howȱ Europeanȱ governmentalitiesȱ andȱ theȱ possiblyȱnegativeȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱimpactȱonȱtheȱlivesȱofȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱareȱlargelyȱ dependentȱ onȱ howȱ governmentalȱ rationalitiesȱ andȱ technologiesȱ areȱ articulatedȱ onȱ theȱ ground.ȱIȱhaveȱshownȱthatȱtheȱambiguitiesȱthatȱgoȱhandȱinȱhandȱwithȱtheseȱarticulationsȱ cannotȱbeȱunderstoodȱasȱdiscrepanciesȱbetweenȱ‘sound’ȱpoliciesȱorȱdiscoursesȱdevelopedȱ atȱ theȱ Europeanȱ levelȱ andȱ ‘bad’ȱ orȱ ‘inadequate’ȱ implementationsȱ atȱ theȱ localȱ level.ȱ Rather,ȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱitȱisȱtheȱcomplexȱdynamicȱbetweenȱthem,ȱbetweenȱdisparateȱ elementsȱtoȱbeȱassembled,ȱandȱbetweenȱthisȱinterplayȱandȱlegaciesȱofȱtheȱpastȱthat,ȱoftenȱ unforeseen,ȱresultsȱinȱambiguousȱsettlements.ȱIfȱcontemporaryȱpoliticalȱactionȱandȱactiveȱ Europeanȱremembranceȱpoliciesȱareȱtoȱbeȱbasedȱonȱdevelopingȱstructuresȱofȱtemporalityȱ inȱwhichȱNazismȱandȱStalinismȱareȱrepresentedȱasȱtheȱnegativeȱfoundingȱmythȱofȱEuropeȱ andȱtheȱEUȱasȱtheȱprotectorȱofȱtheȱvaluesȱthatȱtotalitarianȱregimesȱviolate,ȱtheȱEUȱrisksȱtoȱ overlookȱtheȱexclusionȱmechanismsȱinherentȱtoȱitsȱownȱdailyȱfunctioning.ȱTheȱstructuresȱ ofȱ temporalityȱ thatȱ theȱ EU’sȱ activeȱ Europeanȱ remembranceȱ narrativeȱ tendsȱ toȱ createȱ couldȱnominallyȱbeȱfocusedȱonȱtheȱinclusionȱofȱminoritiesȱsuchȱasȱtheȱRomani.ȱYet,ȱtheseȱ structuresȱ tendȱ toȱ assumeȱ aȱ postȬtotalitarian,ȱ Europeanȱ time,ȱ refrainedȱ fromȱ illiberalȱ formsȱofȱgovernance.ȱReplacingȱstructuresȱofȱtemporalityȱbasedȱonȱnarrativesȱofȱpeopleȱ withȱorȱwithoutȱhistoryȱbyȱstructuresȱofȱtemporalityȱthatȱrelyȱonȱreorderingȱtimeȱitselfȱ throughȱperiodizingȱEurope’sȱhistoryȱinȱaȱbeforeȱandȱafterȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱtheȱEUȱrisksȱ THEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱREVISITEDȱȱȱȱȱȱ313ȱ toȱforgetȱhowȱEUȱpoliticalȱtimeȱisȱsaturatedȱbyȱitsȱownȱmomentsȱofȱdenialȱandȱilliberalȱ rule.ȱ SpittaȱandȱSeybold’sȱDasȱfalscheȱWortȱillustratesȱthat,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱkeepȱmemoryȱalive,ȱ weȱneedȱtoȱincludeȱinȱourȱmemorialȱactsȱaȱreflectionȱonȱhowȱtheȱdenial,ȱneglect,ȱandȱforȬ gettingȱofȱsomeȱpastsȱtendȱtoȱcontinueȱtoȱambiguouslyȱaffectȱpresentȱpoliticalȱaction.ȱTheȱ mainȱ issueȱ isȱ thatȱ theȱ EUȱ discourseȱ onȱ Holocaustȱ remembranceȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ EUȱ guaranteesȱ inclusionȱ andȱ membershipȱ forȱ allȱ itsȱ citizens,ȱ noȱ matterȱ whatȱ theirȱ backȬ groundȱis.ȱSeenȱfromȱthisȱangle,ȱtheȱEUȱasȱtheȱallegedȱprotectorȱofȱfundamentalȱvaluesȱ andȱ rightsȱ indeedȱ guaranteesȱ theȱ inclusionȱ ofȱ itsȱ Romaniȱ minorities.ȱ Butȱ thisȱ EUȱ narrativeȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱmuchȱlessȱableȱtoȱreflectȱonȱwhetherȱsomeȱofȱitsȱownȱgovernanceȱ mechanismsȱcouldȱdirectlyȱorȱindirectlyȱendangerȱtheȱformsȱofȱmembershipȱitȱpromisesȱ toȱguarantee.ȱThoughȱtheȱEUȱdiscourseȱonȱEuropeanȱremembranceȱincludesȱreflectionȱonȱ theȱcausesȱandȱconsequencesȱofȱNazism,ȱthisȱnarrativeȱdoesȱnotȱadequatelyȱincludeȱtheȱ possibilityȱ thatȱ theȱ EUȱ asȱ aȱ communityȱ ofȱ fundamentalȱ valuesȱ stillȱ needsȱ toȱ comeȱ toȱ termsȱwithȱaȱpastȱthatȱendangersȱitsȱfoundation.ȱAnȱadequateȱreflectionȱonȱhowȱthisȱpastȱ stillȱaffectsȱtheȱEU’sȱpresentȱfunctioning,ȱhowever,ȱisȱparticularlyȱimportantȱwhenȱHoloȬ caustȱremembranceȱstartsȱtoȱbeȱmobilizedȱforȱpoliticalȱreasonȱofȱparticipation,ȱinclusion,ȱ competitiveness,ȱ andȱ greaterȱ cohesionȱ andȱ unityȱ withinȱ andȱ throughoutȱ theȱ EU.ȱ Thisȱ issueȱisȱallȱtheȱmoreȱurgentȱnowȱthatȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱthroughoutȱEuropeȱareȱgenerallyȱ approachedȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ activation,ȱ socialȱ inclusion,ȱandȱactiveȱ citizenshipȱ withoutȱ sufȬ ficientlyȱreflectingȱonȱtheȱhistoricalȱconditionsȱunderȱwhichȱtheirȱmarginalizationȱcouldȱ haveȱoccurredȱatȱall.ȱ ȱ ȱ