Romanies, Gypsies, Travellers or
nomads - what's in a name?
Colin Clark. Lecturer, Department of Social
Policy, University of Newcastle upon Tyne and Alan Dearling, Research
Fellow, Department of Applied Social Studies, University of Luton
Redrafted / Edited Article for 'Criminal
Justice Matters'
December 1999 - article 1,743 words
approx.
Introduction
‘Now the first thing we have to say is that
people have got to stop being sentimental about so-called travellers.
There are relatively few Romany Gypsies left, who seem to be to
able to mind their own business and don't cause trouble to other
people, and then there are a lot more people who masquerade as
travellers or Gypsies, who trade on the sentiment of people, but
who seem to think because they label themselves as travellers
that therefore they've got a licence to commit crimes and act
in an unlawful way that other people don't have....In the past
there has been rather too much toleration of travellers and we
want to see the police and local authorities cracking down on
them...Many of these so-called travellers seem to think that it's
perfectly OK for them to cause mayhem in an area, to go burgling,
thieving, breaking into vehicles, causing all kinds of other trouble
including defecating in the doorways of firms and so on, and getting
away with it, then their behaviour degenerates.’
(Jack Straw, Home Secretary, in an interview with
Annie Oathen on Radio West Midlands, 22/7/99)
In the wake of the furore surrounding Jack Straw's comments,
the Traveller organisation, Friends and Families of Travellers
(FFT) made a formal complaint under Part III of the Public Order
Act 1986, contending that the above statements constituted grounds
for 'incitement to racial hatred'. Some reports dismissed the
Home Secretary’s remarks as ‘stereotypical tripe’
(Clark, 1999:14) whilst others congratulated him for taking a
‘bold stance’ (Ann Widdecombe, BBC Radio 4, 19 August
1999). Yet, what Straw said is indicative of the 'problem' which
Gypsies and Travellers are seen to pose in relation to racial/ethnic
tolerance and basic human and civil rights throughout Europe as
we move into the new millennium. The Travelling community, as
well as those working with them in the ‘voluntary’
sector and those academics working in the Romani/Traveller Studies
field, have long been grappling with the pros and cons of defining
the scope, nature and composition of the Gypsy and Traveller communities.
Who exactly are they? How do they differ, in terms of culture
and economy? The reality is that throughout this century, all
Travellers, whatever their birthright, have been labelled as 'criminals',
‘deviants’ and ‘vagabonds’. Their nomadism
renders them as inherently ‘anti-social’; in other
words, they are not ‘house-dwellers’.
Since 1989, Romanies from Central and Eastern Europe have been
a source of much fascination and discussion in Western European
newspapers. Usually this has focussed on the reasons for their
emigration from their former homelands, which in Britain peaked
during October 1997 when groups of Romanies arrived in Dover seeking
refugee status and political asylum (Clark, 30/10/97:8). Some
of the worst examples of the economic, political and social disenfranchisement
of Romanies during 1997 occurred in Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
For example, the Slovak government introduced tough welfare reforms
(The Times, 20/10/97: 5) and certain local authorities (such as
the authority controlling the town of Usti nad Labem) in the Czech
Republic were building walls in order to keep Gypsies separate
from the ‘white’ Czech population. Fortunately, by
late November 1999 the Usti wall had come down. The Czech central
government, who had been internationally embarrassed enough by
the ‘Gypsy Wall’, insisted it was an ‘inappropriate’
measure (The Guardian, 24/11/99:19).
The flow of asylum seekers to the UK has just been the tip of
the iceberg of course; approximately 6,000, out of an estimated
population of 4-5 million Romanies in Central and Eastern Europe.
Harassment from neo-Nazi gangs exacerbated the problems faced
by Romanies and Sinti in Germany, which received groups of Romanies
from Romania in 1992. Despite this media attention and public
interest, academia and other ‘concerned parties’ have
been rather slow to respond and take up the challenge against
the blatant racism and hostility that has been evident during
this period. Why? - because they are ‘just Gypsies’?
Partly, we think, it is concerned with the acceptability of racist
anti-Gypsy sentiment in Europe, but this only takes us so far.
We contend other important factors are at play.
Accommodating nomadism
For a progressive future we need to, as McVeigh (1997: 24) powerfully
puts it, ‘begin to think creatively about ways in which
the continued difference between sedentary and nomad can be rendered
less antagonistic.’ It is now important to facilitate
a serious discussion between those parties who seem to be either
‘for’ ethnicity and those who are ‘for’
nomadism. In doing so we need to recognise the fact that Gypsies
in most Western European countries, whether travelling or settled,
are ‘nomads’. This is not just a ‘state of mind’,
but often their economic status and social identity is defined
and mapped-out by their traditional nomadic life-style and culture,
even when, out of choice or through paternalist policies of social
inclusion and normalisation, they are permanently or temporarily
sedentarised. For this reason, it is perhaps through their predisposition
towards nomadism, rather than (or as well as) their ethnic identity,
that they are perceived as a threat by states and governments.
During communism in Central and Eastern Europe, it was the wheels
of the bow-topped wagons that the authorities removed; nomadism
was a powerful symbol and metaphor of movement and independence
from the state.
In terms of acceptance as an ethnic grouping by the governments
of the world, Gypsies and Romanies have had their own internal
‘signifiers’ of identity. Are they one ethnic group,
Romani, or many?: Tsiganes in France; Zigeuner
in Germany; Ciganyok in Turkey; Gitanos in Spain;
Ejiftos in Greece; Farao Nepek in Hungary; Woonwagenbewoners
in Holland, Minceir in Ireland - then there are the Sinti,
the Manouches, the Jenishe - it is a long and
complex list that is defined by both Romanies and outsiders. The
central question is whether ethnicity in terms of racial groupings
is the most helpful and inclusive way in which Europe's (and indeed
the world's) travelling population should identify itself.
Moving on
As Year 2000 arrives, all groups who travel are under both physical
and legislative attack. It is an appropriate time to rethink narrow
and ethnically exclusive definitions of who is a ‘Traveller’
and who is ‘Romani’. So often, these subtle ‘ethnic’
differences, in the eyes of the law, have rendered one group as
‘pure’ and the others as ‘half-castes’,
unworthy of legislative protection (Kenrick and Clark, 1999:90-91).
At the very least it appears to be divisive and perhaps even flawed;
by behaviour, dress, language and social codes, Travellers are
already a culturally and socially diverse grouping. So, it seems
reasonable to call into question the efficacy of the Romani and
Traveller community trying to adopt measures of ‘true’
ethnicity rather than taking nomadism (perhaps as well as ethnicity?)
as the basis for a combined campaign for human rights. It may
be prudent, instead, to argue for the ‘Right to travel
- right to stop - the right to a place to stay without constant
fear of persecution because of their lifestyle’ (FFT
mission statement). This places questions about human rights and
social justice at the heart of the matter.
This is, of course, not to make light of the idea of ‘ethnic
difference’ and the perceptions/actuality that individuals
and groups have of their common ethnic identity. Likewise, we
acknowledge that ‘ethnic nomads’, such as Gypsies,
do not necessarily escape racism by moving into a house. Racist
graffiti can still be daubed on walls. However, in an age when
European legislation makes little distinction between the travelling
‘ethnic nomad’ and ‘nomad’ we argue that
the immediate priority is to challenge ideas around private/public
space and the notion that, somehow, ‘true ethnic’
nomads are more deserving of civil and human rights than the ‘undeserving’
gaujo (non-Gypsy) nomads.
For example, the new Travellers of the UK have themselves now
spread out across Europe with particular congregations in Spain,
France and Portugal. (Dearling, 1998). They only have a 'history'
of some thirty years having evolved out of the festival scene,
squatting, and environmental protest. As with Gypsies in the year
2000, they have a range of customs and lifestyles and they are
adapting to the societies they live in. It may be that the new
Travellers living in benders, tipis, vans and permaculture plots
throughout Europe, are yet another section of the community that
non-Travellers need to demonise; it is their nomadism that is
the ‘problem’.
Nomadism as the uniting ‘identity’?
At a personal level, we frequently find ourselves caught in the
middle; between the campaigning organisations working within the
different Traveller and Gypsy communities, and the academic worlds
of Traveller/Romani studies. We in no way wish to discredit the
significance of Romani/Gypsy identity, its history or its culture,
- far from it - but at the same time we hope that Gypsy activists
and leaders and indeed those involved within the Traveller/Romani
community will see value in an 'inclusive' approach towards all
those who wish to lead a travelling life, or indeed, all people
who choose to develop a range of positive cultural identities
and lifestyles. Gypsies and Travellers need to be supported in
their assertion of human rights, rather than resorting to potentially
destructive divisions within the Travelling communities based
on notions of ‘pure’ racial identity and ethnicity
(but, crucially, not at the expense of retaining ‘difference’).
The rationale for Gypsy/Romani groups obtaining recognition as
'national ethnic minorities' in countries like Slovakia, Romania
and Hungary has been based on the belief that this will give the
minority population a higher ethnic ‘rung on the ladder’
towards acceptance and status within those nations. As a strategy,
this could be flawed and naive, and might further stigmatise Gypsy
identity. It would still leave the Roma as second or third class
citizens in many European states, facing discrimination reinforced
by their separate identity; their 'otherness'. One argument is
that the Roma should adopt a strategy for inclusion as a 'transnational'
community. This seems a more likely way to combat social exclusion,
persecution and harassment. Indeed, it would be preferable if
all Travellers are regarded as equal members of the human species
vis-à-vis house-dwellers. This would redefine the dominant
arguments which are based primarily on ‘race’ and
ethnicity and re-conceptualise the debate in terms of nomadism
as well. At present, this division is driving apart those
who should be fighting on the same side, but are not, because
of bitter ‘ethnic’ splits and arguments. Let us put
our heads together and try to start a new debate focussing on
nomadism, as well as ethnicity.
Note: A fuller version of the issues raised in this article is
expected to appear in the journal Social Work in Europe,
Vol 7, No 1, April 2000.
References
Chaliand, G and Rageau, J-P, 1997, The Penguin Atlas of Diasporas,
London: Penguin.
Clark, C, 1997, ‘No Sanctuary for Romanies’, The
Newcastle Journal Newspaper, 30 October, p8.
Clark, C, 1999, ‘Why I believe... Jack Straw’s Comments
About Gypsies are ‘Stereotypical Tripe’’, The
Times Higher Educational Supplement, 27 August, p14.
Dearling, A, 1998, No Boundaries: Britain's new Travellers on
the road outside of England, Lyme Regis: Enabler Publications.
Kenrick, D. and Clark, C, 1999, Moving On: The Gypsies and Travellers
of Britain, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.
McVeigh, R, 1997, ‘Theorising Sedentarism: the roots of
anti-nomadism’ in Acton, T (ed), Gypsy politics and Traveller
identity, Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press.
|