Persecuting the Socially Excluded

1 | P a g e

Persecuting the Socially Excluded: Europe’s

Gypsy Populations

By Dimitar Panchev1

1 © 2015 Dimitar Panchev, e-mail : [email protected]

Terms and Conditions for the use of this article: This article may be

used for research and private study purposes. Any considerable or

methodical reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is definitively

prohibited.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any

representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up-to-

date. The accuracy of any information should be independently verified

with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,

actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever

or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or

arising out of the use of this material.

2 | P a g e

CONTENTS

Page

Abstract

3

Chapter 1. Introduction and Methodology

4

Chapter 2. The Gypsies: a History of their Migration

to Europe

7

Chapter 3. Theorising Social Exclusion – Social

Darwinism, Eugenics and the ‘Criminal Other’

10

Chapter 4. Early Social Exclusion: The Nazi

Holocaust

12

Chapter 5. Eroding Identities – Gypsies during

Communist Regimes

Chapter 6. The Multifaceted Nature of Gypsy Social

Exclusion: Post-soviet and Late Modern Times

Chapter 7. Conclusion

17

21

25

Bibliography 26

Word count: 9970

3 | P a g e

Persecuting the Socially Excluded: Europe’s Gypsy Populations

Abstract

The following dissertation will provide a historical perspective of the persecution of

Europe’s largest ethnic minority group – the Gypsies. Ever since their first migrations

from India towards the European continent, their history is ‘a story of relentless

persecution. From the Middle Ages to the present day, they have been target of racial

discrimination and outright genocide (Puxon, 1987: 1). Adopting a method of

systematic literature review, the following project builds upon on prior work that has

been conducted with regards to the treatment of the Roma populations throughout the

continent and places this in a variety of historical contexts. In addition, the

dissertation attempts to bridge the gap between the transition of the neo-liberal state

towards late modernity and the impact this has on the treatment of the minority

groups, aspects of persecution which thus far seem to have attracted little academic

interest.

4 | P a g e

Chapter 1. Introduction and Methodology

The aim of this dissertation is to address the problem of the gypsy persecution in a Europe-

wide context. Adopting a historical perspective and using the systematic literature review2 as

its main analytical tool, this work will prove a time-line for this phenomenon. This

introductory chapter will set the context by looking at the cultural distinctiveness of the

Romani groups and the mechanisms that they use to distinguish themselves from the host

populations of the countries in which they reside.

It should be noted that similarly to other minority groups, the Gypsy groups possess an ethnic

identity formed on the basis of discourses of ‘inclusion’. Its emphasis falls on interaction

mutuality, unity and removal of inter-group boundaries, and the discourses of ‘exclusion’, in

which the aim is to distinguish and draw boundaries between participants identified as

members of the group, on one hand, and on the other, basic anxieties about survival and

safety (Elchinova, 2001). Often considered to be ‘outsiders’, two main conceptions have been

identified and applied to the study of the Gypsies (Sibley, 1981). The first, called imperialist,

is associated with the nineteenth-century traditions of colonial imperialist anthropology,

wherein the tribal societies were described in exotic terms, with particular emphasis being

placed on the aspects of their physical and cultural differentiation. This process in effect

dehumanized them and presented them as deviant in the eyes of the mainstream society. By

contrast, the second, Marxist argument looks at the process of domination and integration in

advanced capitalist societies, which are represented as subordinating forces, and the

peripheral status of a given group is seen as a transitional condition between cultural

autonomy and full incorporation into the class system, resulting in cultural annihilation.

While the second argument certainly appears appealing as far the defence of the State is

concerned, the problematic relationship between the dominant society and the marginalized

groups (in this case the Gypsies) is far more complex, as the latter do practice a certain level

of independence, despite the mechanisms of social control that have been employed to

suppress this. The Gypsies throughout the centuries have rejected the activities, relationships

and objects of the dominant society as ‘Mochadi’ or ‘Merime’ (meaning ‘unclean’) and

instead have celebrated their own culture, which, it has been argued, is essential for their

integrity. In other words, they ‘constitute a clear case of a culture that is within but outside

the dominant system (Sibley, 1981: 15).

The Gypsy identity is re-inforced in everyday contexts by strict adherence to cultural values,

with the principle of descent providing a method for both incorporation and exclusion (Okely,

1983). Their beliefs are attributed to normal daily and common practices – eating, washing,

and use of space and spatial arrangement of objects3 are all mobilised so as to separate the

Gypsy way of life from that of the non-Gypsies. Studies by Miller (1975) and Sutherland

2 During the write-up of this thesis no fieldwork was conducted. The technique adopted by author appeared to be the most suitable for the topic chosen, as it allowed to identify ‘knowledge gaps’ in the current literature and thus provide a new perspective in the debate around the Gypsy minorities in Europe. 3 See Okely (1983)

5 | P a g e

(1975) have indicated the role that pollution taboos play in the maintenance of ethnic

boundaries. Gypsies make a clear distinction something being dirty and ritually unclean.

Whereas the former is often considered as harmless (‘chikli’), the latter, ‘mochadi’ is

considered to be a serious breach of Romani norms and rituals (Acton, 1971). By definition,

non-Gypsies are considered to be ‘mochadi’ due to their inability to recognise that is

considered as ‘polluted’4. Also, the ‘Gaujes’ failure to make a distinction between the inner

and the outer body is not perceived as merely accidental but rather as a means of drawing

positive ethnic boundaries (Okely, 1983).

In addition to their distinctive culture, the Romani populations are also characterized by a

unique traveller economy (Adams et al., 1975), which is based on the provision of goods and

services. This often takes place in insecure economic environments, thus the Gypsies create

their own economic niches within the dominant economy, a strategy on which their survival

is dependant. Most of the activities they engage in are recognized as parts of the dominant

economy, but whereas the ‘Gauje’ (non-Gypsies) will tend to occupy the same role and

position for life, the travellers will try to find new niches as the mode of operation in the

settled society changes. Their mobility allows them to enter in economic relationships with

the ‘Gaujes’ on their own terms, preserve their high-valued independence and even exploit

the settled communities for their own benefit (Sibley, 1981). Their position on the margins of

the economy and society has led to the application of certain stigma – being part of a

widespread ‘culture of poverty’ (Kornblum and Lichter, 1972) and victims of cultural

disintegration. Trigg (1967, in Okely, 1983) notes that such isolations are caused partly by

what is seen to be the need for protection on one side, and partly out of desire to preserve

cultural integrity on the other. This attempt for cultural preservation often leads to the

Gypsies being regarded as ‘underdeveloped marginals’: ‘their contact with ‘modern sectors’

has been largely through coercive and formal institutions like the police and school (Goulet

and Walshok, 1971: 456).

Such an isolated social model, however, fails to recognise the fragile dependence of the

Gypsies’ economy on the larger economy and rather presents this as desperate measures for

adjustment (Okely, 1983). Rather, it should be acknowledged that the Gypsies can only

survive as a group within the context of a larger economy and society, to ‘fill in’ economic

niches which become available (ibid.). In this sense, they should not be looked upon as

outsiders who are self-contained because the nature of their survival is proportionately

dependant on the tolerance which the host society and its economy exhibit towards them. The

tension created by the conflict between willingness for independence and dependency on

wider social structures, along with the Gypsies’ general refusal to become an integral part of

the wage-labour market have intensified a crisis that has spread throughout their

communities. Coupled with the lack of appreciation for the problems that they experience and

the failure to comprehend their cultural diversity, have resulted in inconsistent social policies

which do not result in better integration. On the contrary, the crisis has deepened further, as

the tools used for their ‘integration’ are more reminiscent to the forcible assimilation policies

4 The pollution taboos are extensively discussed in Okely (1983)

6 | P a g e

developed in the Eastern Block in the second half of the twentieth century, and have

jeopardised any supportive packages of interventions that should characterize a democratic

society. Having outlined the distinctiveness of the Gypsies’ culture, the following chapter

will trace how this difference was used so as to justify their early persecution.

7 | P a g e

Chapter 2. The Gypsies: a History of their Migration to Europe

The following chapter will trace the early migrations of the Gypsy tribes to the European

continent and the extent of their persecution by the hostile regimes during the Middle Ages

and the Renaissance period.

The origins of the Gypsies can be traced back to northern India. Although the reasons for

their migration to Europe cannot be established with certainty, they began around the 5th

century AD (Panayi, 1999). At some point between the ninth and eleventh centuries, they

reached Byzantium via Persia, and probably driven by the Turkish Invasion on the Balkan

peninsular, gradually migrated to the western parts of the Old Continent (ibid.). Some of the

earliest reference to the presence of Gypsy tribes includes Bulgaria and Romania. The

existence of Gypsy villages has been documented in an edict from 1378 issued by the

Bulgarian king Ivan Shishman, wherein he gave over to the Rila Monastery some villages

that were partially inhabited by sedentary Roma (Kenrick and Puxon, 1972). In Romania, the

first documentation of the Gypsies was in Moldavia and Transylvania during the fourteenth

century, where they were subject to slavery – a subordinate status that did not change until

the late nineteenth century (Hancock, 1987).

Although by the end of the fourteenth century the majority of the Gypsy groups throughout

Eastern Europe had become sedentary5, those in Western Europe still preserved their

distinctive nomadic way of living (Kenrick and Puxon, 1972). At first being well received

and accepted in the western empires, their nomadism, pilgrimage and life of penance were

soon called into question. These attracted a certain amount of stigma and eventually

facilitated the development of a variety of stereotypes – charges of sorcery, witchcraft, child

stealing, cannibalism, spying were the most common accusations, followed by the

reinforcement of an image of ‘otherness’ – being dirty, noisy, immortal, deceitful and asocial

(Lewy, 2000). With the spread of the Reformation, the pilgrims were stripped off from their

lofty status and ‘begging’ came under attack. The sedentary populations were suspicious of

the Gypsies and questioned their way of living: ‘On the whole [settled people] do not trust

nomads; and in a European society where the majority were pressed into a life of pity,

serfdom and drudgery; Gypsies represented a black negative of all the essential values and

premises on which the dominant morality was based’ (Fraser, 1995: 126). The stereotypes

developed during the Middle Ages were reinforced by the three institutions of power in

medieval Europe – the State, the church and the trade guilds (Kenrick and Puxon, 1972). The

exercise of power led to the accumulation of anti-gypsy legislations and the prohibition to

practice the occupations on which their survival was based. Being deprived of their main

means of support, the majority of the gypsies resorted to petty crime and theft. The ultimate

sanctions that were used by the monarchical states included expulsions, which took place in

5 Although such a division between sedentary (settled) and nomadic (moving and constantly migrating) populations was characteristic during the Middle Ages and up to the first part of the twentieth century, this is less common in contemporary times due to the State’s attempts to exercise control upon its Gypsy minority groups.

8 | P a g e

numerous European locations during the fifteenth, sixteenth and seventeenth century (Panayi,

1999).

In 1530 in England Henry VIII made the status of being a Gypsy a capital offence. A further

Act from 1554 imposed a death penalty for ‘being a Gypsy’ and this extended to those

considered to be sympathetic of them (Kenrick and Puxon, 1972). Similar legislation in

Portugal from 1538 justified their use for slave labour of the galleys and in Holland, the

Dutch government organised nation-wide hunts in order to expel the Gypsies from the

country, and in Austria branding was used as means of punishment (ibid.). In Spain, a law of

1745 declared for the hunting down of Gypsies with swords and fire, in addition to several

attempts of deportation that had taken place between the fifteenth and seventeenth century.

Acts passed between the sixteenth and eighteenth century forbade Gypsies from travelling

and until 1783, Gypsies could be imprisoned just for being their own kind (Panayi, 1999).

Similar trends were observed in the various German empire-states: in Saxony, George the I in

1652 declared Gypsies as outlaws. This was followed by an edict of 1711 which justified the

branding of first-time Gypsies offenders and the imposition of a death penalty for a second

appearance before the courts of justice. In 1714 the Archbishop of Mainz decreed that

Gypsies and other thievish vagrants were to be executed without trial for practising an

itinerant way of life, while the women and the children were to be placed for life in work

houses. In 1725 King Frederick William I of Prussia ordered that Gypsies over eighteen, both

male and female, should be hanged without trial. Similar measures were taken in 1766 by the

Count Palatine of Rhine, Carl Theodor, who proclaimed that Gypsies and other vagrants

found of the territories of the county should be arrested and punished, and alternatively, for

second time offenders, should be hanged without trial (Lewy, 2000). Thus, a certain pattern

can be observed, wherein legislation aimed at tackling the gypsy menace ‘was copied from

one country to another without regard to the consequences’ (Kenrick and Puxon, 1972: 26).

As soon as the expulsions and massive persecutions against the Gypsies were found to be

inefficient and impracticable, another policy was developed – that of forcible assimilation

and erosion of ethnic and cultural identity, with the ultimate aim of merging the ‘asocials’

into the anonymous and homogenized populations of the empires . Such a shift was adopted

in the Habsburg Empire by Maria Theresa and her son Joseph II, the politics of whom

prohibited the use of gypsy language, banned nomadism and the forcible removal of children

from their parents (Panayi, 1999).

Although the treatment of the Gypsies amounted to a ‘slow policy of outright genocide’

(Kenrick and Puxon, 1972: 46), it should also be seen in a broader context, that is as a

measure to control the unwanted mobility of the lower classes, the increased industrialisation

of the states and the proletarianization of the masses (Lucassen, 2008). Any form of social

movement both within and outside the developing states was to be discouraged, as it was

perceived as a threat to new era of industry. As vagrancy and beggary were perceived to be

cornerstones of this ‘threat’ (activities considered at that time to be inseparable from Gypsy

culture and way of living), this can be used as explanation for disproportionate level of

persecution to which the Romani populations were exposed. Other explanations were sought

in the evolution of the concept of the ‘national-state’ during the nineteenth century. Arguing

9 | P a g e

for a homogenous society with clearly defined and established boundaries which a given

nation should occupy, the Gypsies and their counter-culture of freedom, independence and

lack of subordination were to be targeted for their distinctive ‘otherness’. Soon, their

‘alienation’ was to be placed in a more scientific context – the development of the Eugenics

movement and the rise of Social Darwinism, both consequences from the modernist-

intellectual project, further intensified the polarisation between the different segments of the

European nationalistic populations.

10 | P a g e

Chapter 3. Theorising Social Exclusion – Social Darwinism,

Eugenics and the ‘Criminal Other’

The following chapter will provide an overview of the ‘Social Darwinism’ movement, the

Eugenics programme and how they were used to justify the persecution of the Gypsy

populations in the late 19th and first half of the 20th century.

As well as the introduction of the ‘nation-state’ ideology, the second half of the 19th century

brought with itself a new scientific revolution in terms of perceiving the origins of

humankind and how it should be organised. The works of Charles Darwin ‘The Origin of

Species’ (1859, 1982) and ‘The Descendent of Man’, Vol.2 (1874) influenced the

development of eugenics (the programme for the improvement of human race) by Francis

Galton. This all served as the foundations for the rise of ‘Social Darwinism’, a new set of

ideas, that was to gather momentum in a matter of decades and reach its apogee during the

Nazi Holocaust.

However, even before Darwin’s thesis on human evolution was widely accepted, the

superiority of certain races and populations was celebrated in the work of the French Count

Charles Gobineau (1853-1855) - ‘Essai sur l’inegalite obs races humaines’ (Lewy, 2000).

There, Gobineau distinguished the ‘Aryan race’ from all other races and considered the

inferiority of all persons of mixed ancestry (Mischlinge), including the Gypsies. The

inferiority of these groups was further justified, as they were also considered to be

representative of the ‘criminal classes’: ‘the physical peculiarities of criminals are very easily

explained by their low living, their associating in a community forming as it were but an

enlarged family circle, and almost entire isolation from the higher classes of civilised beings.

The same family likeness and occasional degeneration belong to the gipsy tribes…’’

(Thompson, 1870, in Rafter, 2009: 97).

The pre-existing stereotypes of the Roma and their racial origins were acknowledged by the

Italian criminologist Cesare Lombroso, whose works ‘L’uomo delinquente’ (1876, 2006) and

‘Die Ursachen und Bekampfung des Verbrechens’ (1902, 1968) considered the Gypsies’

racial makeup to be the most influential factor in explaining their predisposition to

criminality. Similar ideas were presented by the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain in

his book ‘Die Grundlagen des Neuzehnten Jahrhundrets’, published in Germany in 1899

(2010) and by Alfred Ploetz’s ‘Grundlinien einer Rassenhygiene’ (1895), which together,

building on the foundations already laid by Gobineau, argued for the beginning of a ‘racial

hygiene’ process in Germany. It was asserted that the superior ‘Aryan race’ should be

preserved and those of inferior hereditary composition should be prevented from breeding –

justifying the survival of the fittest segments of society (Social Darwinism) and ultimately

jeopardising the presence of any other ethnic/racial groups, including the Gypsies (Lewy,

2000).

11 | P a g e

The maintenance of racial purity and superiority justified the use of any measures in order to

prevent the reproduction and spreading of the ‘genetic’ defects. Incapacitation and

institutionalisation were followed by sterilisation laws. By 1940, such laws had been passed

by thirty American States, three Canadian provinces, a Swiss canton, Germany, Estonia, all

Scandinavian countries, most of Eastern Europe, Cuba, Turkey and Japan (Paul, 2003).

Despite this, the link between the Darwinist project and the systematic extermination of all

inferior groups is not as straightforward as it seems. Darwin himself argued that natural

selection itself resulted in the constant improvement of organic beings. When applied to

humans, however, the struggle for existence would prove harmful (Darwin, 1859, 1982).

Thus, the theory of evolution itself was not problematic, until it was used as a resource to

serve particular interests. In the case of Germany, the popularity of Darwinism was due to its

multi-group appeal – socialists, free-market and collectivist-oriented liberals, Fascists and

eugenics, until its association with more positive and progressive causes, such as anti-

militarism was considered to be a treat to the ideology of the Nazi regime (Paul, 2003).

Although, the popularity of the movement declined after the end of WWII, largely due to the

atrocities committed by the Nazis, a recent revival of eugenic and social-Darwinist ideas has

been noted. The Bell Curve (1994) and its authors warn against the dangers which the

breeding of an ‘underclass’ could pose to modern societies. Placing forward a thesis that

social failure is a consequence of low intelligence, which is hereditary determined, Murray

and Herrnstein seemed to revive old fears, which occupied the darkest corners of human

imagination, and re-igniting a moral panic for the persecution of all ‘undesirable’ elements

that do not seem to fit in the mainstream. This profile, unfortunately, included the Gypsy

populations, which seemed to fit quite ‘nicely’, as they are considered to be representative an

established ‘underclass’.

In conclusion, the rise of Darwinist thinking and eugenics, while in theory did not target any

minority groups, in effect led to yet another layer of persecution and injustice for the already

marginalized Romani groups, thereby reinforcing their social exclusion, a process which was

to reach its most bizarre period in Nazi Germany (Weikart, 2004).

12 | P a g e

Chapter 5. Early Social Exclusion: The Nazi Holocaust

The following chapter will take over from the development of the eugenics movement and

how it ultimately led to the social exclusion of the Sinti tribes in Germany during the Nazi

regime, a process that reached its climax in the years of the Holocaust.

The period after the early migrations of the Gypsy populations and their subsequent arrival at

the territories of the Holy Roman Empire was initially characterised by a certain level of

tolerance and curiosity. Soon, however, they both were to be replaced by accusations for

espionage on behalf of the Ottoman Empire, and ultimately this resulted in a ban in 1500

issued by the Reichstag aimed at the expulsion of the Sinti tribes from the territories of the

empire. Breaches of the order attracted severe punishments such as branding and death

without a right for a trial. Their situation worsened from the 1660s onwards, as the negative

attitudes towards them hardened and the conflicts with the local authorities escalated,

resulting in an enhancement of the level of persecution and the amount of outlaws produced

among the members of the Gypsy populations (Lucassen, 2008). Explanations of this

phenomenon have been based on Foucauldian interpretations, which stress the disciplinary

role of the early modern states as a response to fighting poverty and the regulation of the

labour market (Lucassen, 1999, in Lucassen & Lucassen, 1999).

As the various German States adopted a system of direct rule, they followed the pattern of

other countries on the Old Continent. By contrast to England, however, all vagabonds and

vagrants, including the various Gypsy tribes, were seen from a criminological perspective -

looked upon with suspicion and considered to be dangerous and potential criminals. At that

time, the central authorities were responsible for tackling the problem of vagrancy, which

was closely linked to the changes in the Poor Laws of 1842 (Steinmetz, 1993). The new

changes facilitated the migrations in the industrialization era, contributing to the flexibility of

the labour market and encouraging workers to move and stabilize the workforce by

preventing the local authorities from sending poor people back to their origin (ibid.) This

created the necessity for a much more stringent control and supervision of the population in

order to differentiate between those who belonged to the community and those did not (Beck,

1995). Although this system was applicable to the entire population, in fact it had more

severe consequences for some groups than others, and in particular – the poor vagrants,

including the Gypsies. The difficulties that the police often encountered when trying to

ascertain their identity facilitated the establishment a standardised system for registration of

the mobile populations, based on physiognomy (Becker, 2001, in Caplan & Torpey, 2001).

This was followed by the creation of police journals from 1820 onwards, the target of which

again were the vagrants and the vagabonds, who were feared of hiding their real identities in

order to commit crime. Further attempts to control and monitor the mobile populations led to

the introduction of passports and wandering permits for those considered to be legitimate

itinerants (Lucassen, 2008).

After the unification of the German Reich in 1870 by Bismarck, this initially led to a decrease

in the labelling of the Gypsies who were living on the territories of the Reich, as attention

13 | P a g e

was diverted to the Romani groups migrating from Eastern Europe (Fraser, 1995). After it

became clear that the Gypsies were of indigenous origin, the magnifying glass was again

placed on the internal populations and this was reinforced by a broadening of powers of the

police, which now stretched to tackling anti-social behaviour, resulting in an unprecedented

level of harassment towards the Sinti populations. This resulted in their stigmatization and

targeting for various registration initiatives (many of them facilitated by the Central for

Tackling the Gypsy Nuisance in Munich, which from 1912 onwards started taking their

fingerprints and photographs) (Lucassen, 2008). Although this control apparatus was not

specific only to Germany, as a similar system was developed in France (Fogg, 2008), this

legacy of provisions and negative stereotypes was used as the core, around which the Nazi

policy of persecution was built after Adolph Hitler and his National-Socialist party came to

power in 1933.

By contrast to the 19th century and early 20th century Germany, when the tackling of the

Gypsy question fell primarily on the police, the solution was ineffective and amounted to

moving the various Sinti groups from one municipality to another, after 1933 the police and

the ministerial bureaucracy of the Third Reich adopted a policy that alternated between

‘settlement’ and ‘expulsion’ (Zimmermann, 2001). This policy was also inconsistent and

characterised by high rents for the settlement places, substandard living conditions,

destruction of camping areas and harassing police checks in the settlement areas. Overall,

significant efforts were made to restrict the Gypsies from living in open sites and their

segregation in designated local camps (ibid.). In order to control the problematic populations,

the Nazi regime relied on the provisions that had been adopted in the early years of the Reich,

which in essence was an eugenic programme with strong crime prevention grounds, that

advocated for the control of the indigenous populations and the ‘asocials’ by the sterilization

of vagabonds, the deportation of ‘undesirable elements’ and the transfer of criminals to

concentration camps, the first of which was established in Dachau, near Munich in 1933. The

pressure on the ‘asocials’ was to increase in the following years: an order from December

1937, in which the Reich Minister of The Interior Wilhelm Frick argued for a ‘preventive

crime control by the police’ and recommended the transfer to concentration camps as the

main remedy for dealing with the problems that they posed (Fraser, 1995). As criminal

behaviour was explained in terms of genetic factors, it was argued that only the inferior races

were prone to criminality. This justified the perception of them as a threat to the purity of the

Aryan race (Pogany, 2004). The Sinti groups, in particular, were considered to be ‘a strictly

marginal element’ in German society (Lewy, 2000). Their marginal status was reinforced by

several legal acts: The Nuremberg Race Laws Act of 1935, Law to Prevent Genetically

Deficient Offspring, decree on Combating the Gypsy Nuisance of 1938.

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 set out a framework governing eligibility of full citizenship

and this resulted in the perception of the Jews and the Gypsies as dangerous ‘Fremdrasse’

whose blood was a treat to German racial purity (Fraser, 1995). Also known as ‘Laws for the

Protection of the German Blood’, they contained the provisions for the marriages between

Germans, prohibited mixed marriages between Aryans and non-Aryans. Although initially

they did not contain any clauses that specifically addressed marriages between Gypsies, later

14 | P a g e

the marriages between Zigeunermischlinge were outlawed and punished by deportation to a

concentration camp – the same applied to couples who practiced cohabitation when their

marriage faced legal obstacles (Lewy, 2000). A special research Centre for Racial Hygiene

and Population Biology was established, which was responsible for the identification and

classification of the Gypsies. The director of the institute, Robert Ritter and his team devoted

much effort to determine not only the degree of racial admixture of the Gypsy population, but

also to categorise them via the use of trough genealogies, the obtaining of fingerprints and

anthropometric measurements. The rules for the categorisation and the evaluation of the

Gypsies were further elaborated by a decree in August 1941, which also contributed to the

distinguishing of the different tribes that were present in Germany – Sinti (German Gypsies),

Rom, (Hungarian Gypsies), Lowari, Gelderari (different branches of the Rom), Lalleri

(descendants of tribes which had migrated from the Austro-Hungarian empire around 1900)

and Balkan Gypsies (Fraser, 1995).

Linked to the categorisation of the Gypsies, the decree for Combating the Gypsy Nuisance

postulated the need for differential treatment of the racially pure Gypsies, who were

considered to be belonging to the Aryan race and those of mixed blood (Mischlinge) who

were responsible for the majority of the criminal offences attributed to the Gypsies. In

addition, it contained provision for the registration of all sedentary and non-sedentary and

Gypsy-like itinerants and affected all individuals above the age of six. Their personal details

were reported to the Reich Centre for Combating the Gypsy Nuisance at the RKPA in Berlin,

followed by their examination and issuing of special passports - brown for Gypsies, who

were considered to be racially pure, brown striped with blue for those of mixed blood, and

grey for non-Gypsy itinerants (Lewy, 2000). Thus, the solution to the Gypsy question was

based on the inner characteristics of the race (Zimmermann, 2001). After the implementation

of the various acts and decrees, the treatment of Gypsy population became even harsher after

the beginning of WWII following Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, with the

criminal police favouring the forcible settlement of the Gypsies (Zimmermann, 1996). Their

exclusion was further enhanced by the creation of collection camps (Zigeunersammellager),

such as Lackenbach in Austrian Burgenland (opened in November 1940), which was created

for the deportation of 6000 Gypsies from Austria after the Anschluss in March 1938

(Zimmermann, 2001).

After the German invasion of the USSR in June 1941 and the adoption of the ‘Final Solution’

(Endlosung) regarding the ‘Jewish question’, Reinhard Heydrich, who was responsible for its

operation, extended it so that it would also include the Romani populations. A result of this

was the gassing of 5,000 Gypsies at the Chelmno death camp in December 1941. On the

eastern front, Gypsies in the newly conquered territories of the Baltic republic and White

Russia were subject to extermination by the Einsatzgruppen and suffered from the imposed

German civilian rule (Zimmermann, 1996). Although they were perceived as racially inferior

and spies for the ‘Jewish enemy’, they were not subject to the same extent of annihilation as

the Jews because of their role of mere auxiliaries, according to the Nazis’ point of view

(Zimmermann, 2001). Another turn in the policy came after December 1942, when Himmler

ordered that all Mischlinge in the Reich should be deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau, a shift

15 | P a g e

that was shortly extended to all occupied territories (Fraser, 1995). A special Gypsy family

camp was created at the concentration camp, which existed for 17 months. Of the 23,000

Gypsies that were transported to the camp, 20,078 died, the rest were transferred to other

camps. Certain categories of Rom and part-Gypsies were excluded from the provisions of

Himmler’s decree, but they were forced in ‘voluntary sterilisation’ (ibid.)

Outside the territory of the German Reich, the fate of the Gypsies varied from country to

country, with the biggest number of losses in Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, the USSR and

Hungary (Kenrick and Puxon, 1973). In the occupied territories, the Nazis’ policy was to

incapacitate the Gypsies in internment camps, transport them to Germany and Poland and

either use them as slave labour or simply to exterminate them in the concentration camps. A

striking example is the capitulation of France, as both in the territories occupied by Germany

and in Vichy France, the number of the internment camps increased with approximately

30,000 detainees overall, who were eventually deported to Buchenwald, Dachau and

Ravensbruck (Fraser, 1995).

In the German Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia of 8,000 Gypsies only about 600

survived. In Yugoslavia, the largest number of Gypsies perished, as its territory was divided

among four Axis and pro-Axis powers – Germany, Italy, Hungary and Bulgaria (ibid.). In

occupied Serbia, Gypsies were often used as hostages and were exterminated by firing squads

at the rate of 100 for every German killed and 50 for each German wounded, and this was in

addition to those who were dispatched by mobile gassing vans in the internment camps

(Lewy, 2000). Gypsies were also used as hostages in occupied Greece, but their deportation

to Auschwitz was prevented by the intervention of the Greek Prime minister and the

Archbishop of Athens (Fraser, 1995). In Albania, the government paid little attention to the

‘Gypsy problem’ and in Hungary the persecution of the Jews and the Gypsies was restricted

while the country was independent. After the German occupation, within a few months,

around 30,000 Gypsies were deported, with only a tenth of them surviving after the end of the

war (ibid.). In the pro-Axis camp, Romania succeeded in expelling 90,000 Gypsies in the

newly formed province of Transnistria (a part of Ukraine seized from the Soviet Union), with

a third of them dying from exposure, malnutrition and typhus (Remmel, 1993). Bulgaria was

an exception in the pro-Axis camp, as it managed to save its Bulgarian-born Jews and its

Gypsies from deportation, though those who joined the partisans in Macedonia were treated

as harshly as the Gypsies on the territory of the Reich (Fraser, 1995).

In summary, the Nazi policy was extremely controversial in its approach towards the Romani

groups, and though certain parallels can be drawn between their treatment and that of the

main scapegoat – the Jews, the treatment of the former was characterised by the absence of a

consistent policy for their total annihilation. As Lewy (1999) has argued, in the places where

killings occurred, they were largely a local level initiative, rather than a segment of a national

extermination programme. Perceived as a minor irritant, the escalation in the level of their

persecution in the last three years of the war was a result from pressure by the lower ranks of

the Nazi movement, but also was the apogee of the criminal police in their efforts solve the

‘Gypsy question’ through deportation, incarceration and sterilization (ibid.) Furthermore,

unlike the Jews and other victims of the Auschwitz death camp, the incoming Gypsies were

16 | P a g e

not subjected to any selection as there were no divisions between those sent to the gassing

chambers and those going to slave labour; rather they were sent to the ‘Gypsy family camp’

(many of their twin children were used as subjects in Joseph Mengele’s experiments and

studies) (Lewy, 2000). In Yehuda Bauer’s (1994: 451) words: ‘That the Germans kept the

Gypsies alive in family groups for almost a year and a half without separating men from

women indicates that no decision as to their fate had been made when they were sent to the

camp. If there had been a plan to murder them, it would not have taken the SS that long to do

so.’ In Rassenutopie und Genozid, Michael Zimmermann (1996: 383) argues that it is

impossible to demonstrate the existence of a programme that aimed to destroy the Gypsies,

though he considers their persecution as an example of a genocide that was ‘methodically

realized though not planned in advance’.

Whatever viewpoint one adopts and whether they consider the Gypsy persecution as a sub-

programme of the Holocaust and mass annihilation that was inflicted on the Jewish

populations or a completely separate phenomenon, one thing must be kept in mind – it was

part of a tragedy that was born and executed in modernity, by a civilization that was at the

height of its achievements. Therefore it was not a failure but rather a product of its own time

(Bauman, 1989). Still, the problems of the Gypsies did not end with the fall of the Nazi

regime and the end of WWII. What was to follow amounted to another dimension of

genocide policy – one of forcible cultural assimilation and integration in the emerging Soviet

regimes.

17 | P a g e

Chapter 5. Eroding Identities – Gypsies during Communist

Regimes

The following chapter will focus its attention to the treatment of the gypsy populations

immediately after the end of WWII and the Nazi Holocaust in Eastern Europe and the shift

towards forcible cultural assimilation of minority ethnic groups in the Soviet Block.

The end of WWII brought with itself a division that was to separate the Continent until the

late 1980s – the building of the Berlin Wall and the establishment of the Soviet Block in the

eastern part of the continent. With a well-established goal for a single soviet social

community, the USSR made every effort to attract all communist republics within its scope,

aiming at their eventual fusion into a single soviet nationality. Such a project was to be

completed in two stages – a first stage, characterized by participation in a common polity and

economy, and followed by the republics’ gradual merging in a single community (Bromley,

1979). The cultural diversity was to be resolved by the use of syncretic amalgamation (Cohen

and Warwic, 1983:11): ‘an attempt to eradicate existing cultural identities through the

creation of completely new bonds or cases of collective solidarity.’ In other words, it was an

attempt to erode the pre- existing group loyalties with entirely new bonds stemming from

class consciousness – thus, hypothetically, making the new loyalties subordinate to the

communist ideology. Although this was the cornerstone on which the cultural assimilation

programmes were to be based, state-specific factors also played a vital role in this process.

In the case of Bulgaria, the programme for forcible assimilation and integration was

complemented by ‘a strong dose of romantic Bulgarian nationalism’ (Eminov, 1990: 8), that

facilitated and image of the nation as ‘a basic and natural subdivision of humanity, a political

unit’ (Lunt, 1986: 729). The same author (ibid.: 729-730) goes on to observe that’ Bulgarian

ideologies have taken for granted that nation=language=territory, whereby the term nation

and language are absolutely equal and primary, while nation=language ordinarily equals

territory, and finally nation=territory ought to correspond to state’. For this reason, the

cultural assimilation was deemed necessary and the restructuring of identities was to

encompass all minority groups. The need for integration was developed as an official policy

and was backed up by a well-developed propaganda apparatus in which: ‘the process of

development of the socialist nation will expand further and citizens of our country of

different national origins will come even closer together’ (Rabotnichesko Delo, 1971),

reaching its apogee in 1979 when: ‘the national question has been solved definitively and

categorically by the population itself … Bulgaria has no internal problems with the

nationality question’ (Rabotnichesko Delo, 1979).

With regards to the Gypsies and their ethnic and cultural reformation, the policy of the

Bulgarian Communist Republic was controversial and largely followed on the developments

in the Soviet Union. Immediately after WWII, the international outcry for human rights and

equality, the Bulgarian state provided a range of opportunities for its minority populations

18 | P a g e

and serious efforts were made in order to improve their living conditions. The share of Roma

who were employed in the agricultural cooperatives increased, a certain level of freedom of

expression was tolerated – in March 1945 ‘The joint Roma organization for fight against

fascism and racial and cultural development of the Roma minority was established, followed

by the formation of the professional Roma Gypsy theatre in 1947. However, under the

pressure exercised from the Soviet Union, from the early 1950s, the policy of tolerance

radically changed into one of systematic repression and cultural assimilation. Several decrees

were issued that aimed for the regulation of their settlements and employment – Decree no.

685 of 1956, no.1216 of 1957 and no. 258 of 1958 (Helsinki Rights Watch, 1991a). In effect,

they banned all pre-existing Gypsy organisations, beggary, prohibited all forms of migration

and provided for the allocation of funds for building new homes for the settled Roma. The

ultimate goal was to prevent the segregations of these ‘marginalized populations’ in isolated

neighbourhoods and to eradicate the existing ones by mixing the Bulgarian and Roma

populations in the newly-constructed suburbs (ibid.)

A further decree from 1962 (A101) obliged the Muslim Roma to change their names into

Christian ones and to form a Bulgarian self-identity. Special measures were taken to prevent

Bulgarian Muslims and Muslim Roma from sending their children to schools were Turkish

language was taught (Crowe, 2007). The ultimate result was an increased tendency among

the Roma to identify themselves as non-Roma, but as Bulgarians – a form of self-denial of

cultural identity and the celebration of one that was forcefully imposed on them. Still, within

the mainstream population, their new identity and belonging were denied. Although

significant efforts were made for the integration of the Gypsy groups and their cultural

assimilation, most of the goals that were set by the regime were not achieved. According to

data from a survey in 1980, 49% of the urban Roma population still inhabited isolated

neighbourhood, which were falling short of even minimum standard living conditions. The

displacement that occurred, followed later by the dissolution of the Soviet Union depraved

the Gypsies from the sense of economic security that was developed during the Zhivkov

regime in the country, heightened the ethnic tensions, leading to yet another shift in the

treatment of the minority groups – one of completely social isolation and exclusion from the

labour market.

Similar tendencies were observed in Czechoslovakia, where, after the communists power in

February 1948, they pursued a policy for the destruction of the Roma identity through social

integration (Crowe, 2007). All migrations and nomadism were prohibited and attracted a

penalty of up to thirty-six months of imprisonment. The Romani way of life was described as

‘an undesirable combination of nomadism, tribalism … and blood feuds’ and their Romani

language – ‘unworthy of preservation’ (Sus, 1963, in Barany, 2002). This legitimized the use

of any kind of repression against them and from the mid 1970s, many Roma women were

sterilized. Contrary to Bulgaria, the unemployment in the Gypsy communities remained high,

with many families dependant on the welfare benefits given out by the State. Many families

were forcibly moved to new settlements near border areas or mines, with the local authorities

often being unable to provide adequate housing and employment, despite being required to do

so by law (Crowe, 2007). The marginalization of the communities was further intensified, as

19 | P a g e

many children with ‘negative criminal tendencies’ were forcibly placed in government

children’s homes – a government report from 1986 showed that one-third of all Roma

children under the age of five were in children’s homes and fifty-seven percent of all children

in Slovak homes and borstals were also Gypsies.

In Albania, the regime of Enver Hoxha also tried to develop a strict assimilationist policy in

order to produce a homogenous Albanian society. All minority rights were denied and this

was based on the false assertion that discrimination in the country did not exist (ERRC,

1997). All religious practices and expression of cultural pluralism were banned (ibid.) and

although the regime did not produce any anti-Gypsy legislation (Rougheri, 1999), the

prohibition of travelling out of the country in fact affected them disproportionately.

In line with the developments in the Soviet Union, a strong emphasis on national identity was

placed in Romania as well (Starr, 1982). Almost immediately after the communists gained

control in 1946, a program was developed to forcibly settle all Gypsies who were nomadic. In

1951, the ministry of the interior began to disperse compact groups of Gypsies so that they

could be more easily monitored by the police and some were settled on the fringes of existing

villages. With the intensification of the Romanian nationalism programme, Roma language

and culture were suppressed and their existence was simply denied until the early seventies

(Helsinki Human Rights Watch, 1991b). Nevertheless, the RCP (Romanian Communist

Party) was well aware of the problems that it had with its Roma minority – in 1977 a decree

was issued arguing for additional efforts to be made for their integration. This was reflected

in Ceauscescu’s ‘systematization programme’, which called for the destruction of whole

districts populated by Gypsies. Ironically, it had little positive effect and frequently the

results from it had a devastating effect on the communities concerned, as the majority of the

Gypsy population was now concentrated in urban ghettos, reinforcing their social exclusion

and contributing to the deterioration of their social life (Gilberg, 1974).

Even though the Ceausescu regime itself did not actually have any anti-gypsy orientation, the

model of the state and its collectivised economy in essence were blocking all legitimate

pathways for the production of capital. Gypsies who had worked in traditional trades had no

authorization to sell, as it was made illegal. In the area of employment they were affected

disproportionately due to the state restrictions on private property and self-employment – key

aspects of the Gypsy culture (Deletant, 1999). With unemployment being considered as a

form of ‘parasitism’, again it affected the Gypsies disproportionately. In Communist

Romania two separate Decrees were produced to tackle the problem of unemployment –

No.25/1969 and No.153 (Helsinki Human Rights Watch, 1991b). Whereas the former

guaranteed a safety-net, as the State was obliged to provide a job for the unemployed, the

latter was often applied abusively, as it attracted a penalty of imprisonment of up to six

months. Even though neither of them applied specifically to the Gypsies, in effect, it was

Decree no.153 that was exclusively applied to them. Their unemployment also led to an

intensification of their conflict with the police, as in every local police district there was a

special department responsible for the surveillance of the Roma. This led to increased police

brutality, random searches of Gypsy quarters, harassment and further polarisation of the

ethnic separations and distinctions. According to Beck (1985) the increase in expression of

20 | P a g e

prejudice was due to three main factors – the increased visibility of the Roma in the

settlements, the prohibition of nomadism and the Gypsies’ participation in the lowest level of

the economy.

However, the treatment of Roma during the Communist era in Eastern Europe should not be

confined only to these States. Although Greece did not experience communism, the policy

adopted there did not depart much from that in the communist states. The presence of the

Roma on Greek soil can be traced back to the period between 11th-12th century. Yet, until the

mid-1970s the Roma were perceived as ‘aliens of gypsy descent’ (Dousas, 1997) and had

special identification documents that had to be renewed every two years (Zeginis, 1994). This

failure for their recognition (although Greece ratified the 1954 UN Resolution on the

Naturalization of the Roma) prevented the Gypsies’ integration into the mainstream society

and in effect predetermined their future marginal position within the state and exclusion from

all aspects of social, political and economic life (Rougheri, 1999).

To summarize, despite the initial principles of equality that communism promoted, the Soviet

republic in fact adopted an aggressive policy of forcible assimilation with the aim to erode

the natural Gypsy identity and replace it with one of a docile, homogenous and

indistinguishable socialist community. In some cases this led to a slight improvement in the

lifestyle of the Roma (Barany, 2002; Crowe, 2007). However, the disbanding of the Soviet

Union and the transition from a State to a market economy left many of these States

unprepared and many of the groups living on the margins of society were again

disproportionately affected (Fawn, 2001; Erjavec, 2001; Crowe, 2008). This and the impact

of the transitions towards a neo-liberal form of governance will be the focus of the following

chapter.

21 | P a g e

Chapter 6. The Multifaceted Nature of Gypsy Social Exclusion:

Post-soviet and Late Modern Times

This chapter will attempt to evaluate the effect that the transition to neo-liberalism and the

fall of the Soviet Union have had on the situation of the Roma populations both in

Western(England, Spain and Italy) and Eastern Europe (Romania, Bulgaria).

The last decades of the 20th century have witnessed a transition in the form of governance in

many western countries, shifts in the ‘art of government’ (Foucault, 1991) - the previous

form of crime-solution policy in the form of control, pacification and neutralization of the

lower ‘criminogenic’ classes further reinforced their social exclusion (Foucault, 1978;

Garland, 1985; Goffman, 1961) this was to be intensified even further in the late-modern neo-

liberal state (characterized by and aggressive market-driven economy and the decline of

welfare provisions) and its transition to a policy of governance (from State to private crime

control) (Garland, 1996; 2001; Crawford, 1997; Braithwaite, 2000), together accompanied by

an deterioration of the pre-existing social relationships and the fragmentation of the

communities (Bauman, 1994, 2000 and 2001). Supplemented by an increasing sense of risk

and insecurity (Beck, 1992, 1998 and 2000; Giddens, 1990) these transitions in effect

increased the marginalization of the inhabitants of the lower segments of the social strata

(Young, 1999; 2002; 2007). In the light of these transformations, this chapter will present

examples so as to support the argument for the increased persecution and of the Romani

groups throughout the European continent.

In the UK, the contemporary neo-liberal system of governmentality resulted in a shift of how

the Traveller communities were perceived. Whereas in the 1960s their problematization

revolved around the issues of allocation of space for appropriate stopping/camping places

(Travellers Act 1967), in the 1990s this changed to the scapegoating of the Traveller

communities themselves (Colan and Lomax, 2003). Although limited evidence exists to

associate the Gypsies will criminal activities, they were constructed as a group upon which

the use of public order policing methods was justified (Hester, 1999). From the early 1990s

onwards, the tendency to crackdown on illegal camping increased, with the Conservative

party making propositions for the forced settlement of the Travellers and their remoralisation

– a tactic for dealing with these ‘problematic populations’ which amounted to ethnic

cleansing (Hawes and Perez, 1996).

In the case of Spain, the Gypsies (Gitanos) have been the subject to a triangulation of social

persecution, racism and legal discrimination (Poveda and Marcos 2005; O’Toole 1994;

Teasley 2005; Jover and Reyero 2000) across all levels of social organisation (Rodríguez et

al. 2009). The current position of the Gitanos (Gypsies) and their marginalization can be

attributed to a complex mixture of social, economic and cultural changes that have occurred

throughout the country (Gay y Blasco, 1999) – the fall of the Francoist Regime, the

incorporation into the European Community, followed by the economic crisis in the 1980s,

22 | P a g e

the economic recovery of the 1990s. The long-term impact of them was a total transformation

of national and personal identity (Thuren, 1988) and rise of anti-Gitana violent protests, as

well as attempts for their institutionalization through an expansion of the social services they

have been brought – forcible resettlement and compulsory re-education schemes encouraging

them to adopt a Payo (non-Gitano) type of lifestyle (Gay y Blasco, 1999).

Whereas in the 1950s and early 1960s the Gitanos were occupying the most marginal urban

areas of the country and living in ‘cardboard neighbourhoods’, the introduction of the ‘Plan

de Erradicacion del Chabolismo’ (Plan for the Eradication of shack-dwelling) and their

forcible resettlement, often accompanied by physical violence, did little to better the situation

of the Gypsies. In the newly formed ghettos, the Gitanos were presented with the same

problems they had previous faced – marginalization, isolation (San Roman, 1986, in Gay y

Blasco, 1999) and scapegoating of behalf of a government that was looking for opportunities

to ‘demonstrate its strength in the face of growing public dissent’ (EEPG, 1991: 25, in Gay y

Blasco, 1999). Facing these difficulties and exclusion from the mainstream labour market as

many lacked the necessary ‘cultural capital’ (Bourdieu, 1999) to participate in an increasingly

regularized economy that discouraged self-employment and entrepreneurship, some of the

Gitanos turned into trafficking hard and soft drugs – dealing that generates high earnings,

does not need a specialised labour force, and has a very easy exit into the (black) market so

that between 50% and 80% of the money generated is gross profit (Anta Felez, 1994, in Gay

y Blasco, 1999). This led to the formation of negative stereotypes (Jalon and Rivera, 2000, in

Briggs, 2010; Sanchez and Gamella, 1999, in Briggs, 2010), ultimately leading to a state,

where they are neither politically included, nor integrated into the mainstream (Briggs, 2010),

but rather socially excluded and placed in a vacuum-like condition with little chance for

improvement.

The transition from a welfare-state to a neo-liberal state in some Western countries also

witnessed the resurrection of extreme nationalism and right-wing extremism (Merkl and

Weinberg, 1997; Merkl and Weinberg, 2003) and support for right-wing parties due to

increased feelings of social insecurity and relative deprivation (Betz, 1999). Many violent

campaigns that broke up targeted minority groups, with Italy being a striking example, where

the contemporary persecutions are based on gendered stereotypes, as gender plays a vital role

for the function of racial stereotypes, together used for the mobilization of anti-Romani

violent campaigns and mob attacks on Roma camps (Woodcock, 2010). The simultaneous

gendering of racialized groups: the hyper-masculine image of the Roma men and the stress on

Italian women’s vulnerability have been used as justifications for the involvement of the

military and the rise of vigilant activism in the form of community security patrols (ibid.).

Similarly to Spain, the Italian Gypsies are excluded from the mainstream, with the majority

of them living in suburban camps, which lack basics such as water, electricity and sanitation

(Loewenberg, 2010).

Similar tendencies have been observed in some of the post-communist republics, such as

Romania and Bulgaria (Human Rights Watch, 1991a; Human Rights Watch, 1991b; ERRC,

1996). In the case of Romania, it has been suggested that local law enforcement officials

often have been participants in mob attacks directed against the Roma, either by offering

23 | P a g e

encouragement or by failing to investigate and prosecute them, indicating for the subtle

presence of ethnic and racial considerations when it comes to the application of the rule of

law (Human Rights Watch, 1994).

The transition of state to market economies, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union left

many of the minority populations in the post-communist state in a worse position that they

previously were, as many of the republics were de-industrialised, gradually moving towards

the provisions of services, thus removing the sense of economic security and ‘job-for-life’

guarantee. This was to have a devastating effect on the Roma communities in particular. The

absence of minority-targeted programmes led to the Roma’s further marginalization from the

mainstream Bulgarian population (Tomova, 1998), with large numbers forced into long-term

unemployment, many families losing their social benefits and forced to uptake opportunities

provided by the informal sector (Tomova, 1995). With the pre-existing prejudice which could

be freely expressed without any fear of reprisal, this lead to the practical isolation of the

Roma from the economic and social structures of the Bulgarian society. This resulted in an

unprecedented deterioration of their communities and multi-faceted self-destruction within

them (Tomova, 1998).

In addition, the problems of school segregation, low educational attainment of the Roma

children and the tendency to drop out from educational institutions presented yet another

layer to the crisis (Gantcheva and Kolev, 2001; ‘Denied A Future?’ Report, 2001). As a

result, the Gypsy communities in Bulgaria were destabilised and, it has been argued, have

become an equivalent of the Western ‘underclasses’ (Murray, 1984; W. Wilson,1987;

Glasgow, 1981; Gordon, 1965; R. Aponte, 1990; M. Stewart, 2002; Massey, 1990; Myrdal,

1944, 1996). Itself containing negative connotations, ‘the underclass’ term is generally used

with reference to people who have fallen into the trap of continuous unemployment, lacking

the education and qualifications, where poverty is characterized as endemic. In the American

context, it was associated with residents of segregated big urban black ghettoes, in former

industrial centres and with social immobility, exclusion and literally a non-existent chance for

escaping the trap of poverty.

A study, carried out by Tomova et al. (2000) suggests that this is precisely the case with

Bulgaria, where the concentration of the Roma in ghettoes during the previous decade,

combined with the continuous unemployment and the deterioration of the social organization

of their neighbourhoods have led to the ‘successful’ formation of the nation’s underclass. A

report from the UN Development programme has built upon these finding: ‘…thus, people

from the ghetto, whom we call underclass, have fallen into a double social isolation or rather

rejection: first, by the Bulgarian society and the social assistance networks as a whole, and

second - by their own group’ (Situation of Roma in Bulgaria Report). Left on their own, this

has resulted in a widespread rejection of the values of the macro-society and the formation of

a new psychology arguing for the preservation and demonstration (sometimes by aggressive

behaviour) of the distinctive Romani culture as a response to the neglect and social exclusion

they are suffering from (ibid.).

24 | P a g e

In addition, the Roma have been identified as the main poverty risk group in most of the

countries of Central and Eastern Europe, with their poverty rates being ten times that of non-

Roma (Ringold 2000; Revenga et al. 2002; and Ringold et al. 2005). Following this, analyses

of UNDP (Ivanov et al., 2003; Ivanov et al., 2006) have indicated that together with poverty,

both social distances and spatial segregation can be significant predictors for risk of social

exclusion and marginality, the current state of the Roma in Bulgaria (Pamporov, 2007) and

one which the existing economic system seems unable to amend (Bogdanov and Angelov,

2007).

25 | P a g e

Chapter 7. Conclusion

The thesis builds up on prior publications that have dealt with the persecution of the Gypsy

populations in Europe (Brearley, 1996, 2001) and in line with previous works it suggests that

by far ‘ ... The history of the Romani people is a story of relentless persecution’ (Puxon,

1987: 1). During the process of the reviewing the existing literature, it became evident that no

prior analysis exists which could define the problems of the Romani populations as an

example of social exclusion and the impact that the transition into late modernity has on these

ethnic communities. The case-studies throughout the chapters have provided some insight

into the mechanisms which have been used to reinforce the marginalization and

stigmatisation of the Roma, as well to demonstrate that their problems have not been

resolved, and that a solution for these probably will not be found in the short-term (Human

Rights Watch, 1999; UNHCR, 2009; BGNES, 2012; Hammarberg, 2006; Rat, 2005). The

transition from state-controlled to market economies in the post-communist states has had no

other effect than to influence their migration to the western parts of the continent. Although

the process of migration per se is not problematic, or at least not for those who possess the

necessary cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1999), it certainly becomes one as far the movement of

the Gypsies is concerned (Bangieva, 2007). In the case of Italy, the Roma and the Sinti

continue to suffer from high levels of victimization, poverty and deplorable living conditions

(Human Rights Watch, 2011). Although it has been considered (Barany, 1994) that

marginality has dual nature, characterised by structural exclusion and freedom for cultural

expression, the practising of the latter has in fact further deteriorated their circumstances and

increased their vulnerability, though there appears to be a rising appeal to human rights and

promotion of equality (Koulish, 2005).

In conclusion, if the healthiness of a society is to judged by the way it treats its most

vulnerable members, those occupying the lowest levels of the social strata, then, it can be

argued, the large European Community is in the need of a life-saving intervention. The

treatment of the Roma seems to have formed a full circle, as the contemporary policy of ‘soft

genocide’ reminds of that used in the Middle Ages. What about the future? Well, if a decade

ago the Roma of Europe faced a bleak future (Brearley, 2001: 597), now it seems to be even

more obscure and uncertain.

26 | P a g e

Bibliography

Adams, B., Okely, J., Morgan, D., and Smith, D. (1975) Gypsies and Government Policy in

England. London: Heinemann.

Acton, T. 1971. The functions of the Avoidance of Moxadi Kovels. J.G.L.S., third series,

Vol.1(3-4): 108-36.

Anta Felez, J.L. (1994). ‘Donde la Pobreza es Marginacio: un Analisis Entre Gitanos.

Barcelona. Editorial Humanidades’, in Gay y Blasco, P. (1999) Gypsies in Madrid: Sex,

Gender and the Performance of Identity. Oxford: Berg.

Aponte, R. (1990) Definitions of the Underclass: A critical Analysis. Available at:

http://www.adatbank.transindex.ro/html/cim_pdf399.pdf (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Bangieva, B. (2007) Italy with special law against Gypsies from Bulgaria. Available at:

http://international.ibox.bg/news/id_692666547 (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Barany, Z. (1994) Living on the edge: The East European Roma in Postcommunist politics

and Societies. Slavic Review, Vol. 53(2): 321-344.

Barany, Z. (2002). The East European Gypsies – Regime change, marginality, and

ethnopolitics. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bauer, Y. (1994) ‘Gypsies’ (pp. 441-53). In Gutman, Y. & Berenbaum, M. (eds.) Anatomy of

the Auschwitz Death Camp. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press.

Bauman, Z. (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust. Cornell University Press.

Bauman, Z. (1994) Alone Again: Ethics After Uncertainty. London: Demos.

27 | P a g e

Bauman, Z. (2000) Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity

Bauman, Z. (2001) Individualized Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beck, H. (1995) The Origins of the Authoritarian Welfare State in Prussia. Conservatives,

Bureaucracy and the Social Question, 1815–70. University of Michigan Press

Beck, S.(1985) The Romanian Gypsy Problem. Papers from the 4th and 5th Annual Meeting,

Gypsy Lore Society, in Helsinki Human Rights Watch Report (1991b) Destroying Ethnic

Identity: The Persecution of Gypsies in Romania.

Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society. London: Sage.

Beck, U. (1998) Politics of Risk Society, in Franklin, J. (ed.) The Politics of Risk Society.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Beck, U. (2000) World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Becker, P. (2001) ‘The standardized gaze: the standardization of the search warrant in

nineteenth-century Germany’. In Caplan, J. and Torpey, J. (eds.) Documenting Individual

Identity. The Development of State Practices in the Modern World. Oxfordshire: Princeton

University Press.

Betz, H.G. (1999) Contemporary right-wing radicalism in Europe. Contemporary European

History , Vol. 8(2): 299-316.

BGNES (2012) UN Report: Bulgaria Severely Lags in Roma Integration, 14th Feb 2012.

Available at: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=136663 (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Bogdanov, L. and Angelov, G. (2007) Roma integration in Bulgaria: Necessary Reforms and

Economic Effects. Available at:

28 | P a g e

http://www.osf.bg/cyeds/downloads/Roma%20inclusion%20-%2011%20April%202007-

EN.pdf (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Bourdieu, P. (1999) The Weight of the World: Social Suffering in Contemporary Society.

Cambridge: Polity Press.

Braithwaite, J. (2000) ‘Republican Theory, The Good Society and Crime Control’, in

Karstedt, S. And Bussman, K.D. (eds.) Social Dynamics of Crime and Control: New Theories

for a World of Transition. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Brearley, M. (1996) The Roma/ Gypsies of Europe: A persecuted people. London: Institute

for Jewish Policy Research.

Brearley, M. (2001) The Persecution of Gypsies. The American Behavioural Scientist, Vol.

45(4): 588-599

Briggs, D. (2010) ‘Los Gitanos (Gypsies) in La Coruña, Spain: Neither socially included nor

integrated?’. International Journal of Iberian Studies, Vol. 23(2): 111–122

Bromley, J.V. (1979) Towards typology of ethnic processes. British Journal of Sociology,

Vol. 30(3): 341-348.

Chamberlain, H.S. (1899, 2010) Die Grundlagen des Neuzehnten Jahrhundrets (Foundations

of the Nineteenth Century). Kessinger Publishing.

Cohen, L. and Paul Warwick, P. (1983) Political Cohesion in a Fragile Mosaic: The

Yugoslav Experience. Boulder: Westview Press.

Colan, D. and Lomax, D. (2003) Policing Unauthorised camping. Journal of Law and

Society, Vol. 30(2): 283-308.

29 | P a g e

Crawford, A. (1997) The Local Governance of Crime: Appeals to Community and

Partnership. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Crowe, D. (2007) A history of the gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia (2nd ed.).

Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Crowe, D. (2008) The Roma in Post-Communist Eastern Europe: Questions of Ethnic

Conflict and Ethnic Peace. Nationalities Papers, Vol. 36(3): 521-552.

Darwin, C. (1859, 1982) The origin of species by means of natural selection, or, The

preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Darwin, C. (1874) The Descendent of Men, and Selection in Relation to Sex, Vol.2. London:

John Murray.

Deletant, D. (1999) Romania under communist rule. Center for Romanian Studies in

cooperation with the Civic Academy Foundation.

Dousas, D. (1997) Rom and Racial Discriminations. In History, Society, Culture, Education,

and in Human Rights. Athens: Gutemberg.

EEPG (Equipo de Estudios Presencia Gitana) (1991) ‘Los Gitanos Ante la Ley y la

Administracion. Madrid. Presencia Gitana’, in Gay y Blasco, P. (1999) Gypsies in Madrid:

Sex, Gender and the Performance of Identity. Oxford: Berg.

Elchinova, M. (2001) Ethnic Discourse and Group Presentation in Modern Bulgarian Society.

Development and Society, Vol.30(1): 51-78.

Eminov, A. (1990) Nationality Policy in the USSR and in Bulgaria: Some Observations. The

Anthropology of East Europe Review, Vol. 9(2): 3-17.

30 | P a g e

Erjavec, K. (2001). Media representations of the discrimination against the Roma in Eastern

Europe: the case of Slovenia. Discourse & Society, 12, 699-723.

ERRC (1996) Sudden Rage at dawn. Violence Against Roma in Romania. European Roma

Rights Center.

ERRC (1997) No Record of the Case. Roma in Albania. Available at:

http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/media/00/13/m00000013.pdf (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Fawn, R. (2001) Czech attitudes towards the Roma: 'Expecting more of Havel's country'?

Europe-Asia Studies, 53, 8, 1193-1219.

Fogg, S. (2008) ‘They Are Undesirables’: Local and National Responses to Gypsies during

World War II. French Historical Studies, Vol. 31(2), pp. 327-358.

Foucault, M. (1978) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage

Books.

Foucault, M. (1991) ‘Governmentality’, in Burchell, G., Gordon, C. and Miller, P. (eds.) The

Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fraser, A. (1995) The Gypsies. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Gantcheva, R., and Kolev, A. (2001) Children in Bulgaria: Growing Impoverishment and

Unequal Opportunities. Innocenti Working Paper No. 84: Unicef.

Garland, D. (1985) Punishment and Welfare. Aldershot: Gower.

Garland, D. (1996) The Limits of the Sovereign State. British Journal of Criminology, Vol.

36(4): 445-471

31 | P a g e

Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gay y Blasco, P. (1999) Gypsies in Madrid: Sex, Gender and the Performance of Identity.

Oxford: Berg.

Giddens, A. (1990) The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity

Gilberg, T.(1974) Ethnic Minorities in Romania Under Socialism," East European

Quarterly, Vol.7(4): 435-58.

Glasgow, D.G. (1981) The Black Underclass: Poverty, Unemployment, and Entrapment of

Ghetto Youth. Vintage Books.

Gobineau, C. (1853-1855) ‘Essai sur l’inegalite obs races humaines’, in Lewy, G. (2000) The

Nazi persecution of the gypsies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goffman, E. (1961) Asylums. England: Penguin Books.

Gordon, J. (1965) The Poor of Harlem: Social Functioning in the Underclass. New York:

The Center.

Goulet, D. and Walshok, M. 1971. Values among Underdeveloped Marginals: The case of

Spanish Gypsies. Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.13(4): 451-72.

Hammarberg, T. (2006) The situation of Roma in Greece. Council of Europe. Available at:

https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1100661&BackColorInternet=FEC65B&BackColorIntra

net=FEC65B&BackColorLogged=FFC679 (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Hancock, I. (1987) The Pariah Syndrome: An account of gypsy slavery and persecution. Ann

Arbor: Karoma Publishers.

32 | P a g e

Hawes, D. and Perez, B. (1996) The Gypsy and the State: the Ethnic Cleansing of British

Society. Policy Press

Helsinki Human Rights Watch Report (1991a) Destroying Ethnic Identity: The gypsies of

Bulgaria. Available at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/BULGARIA916.PDF

(Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Helsinki Human Rights Watch Report (1991b) Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Persecution

of Gypsies in Romania. Available at:

www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/ROMANIA919.PDF (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Helsinki Human Rights Watch (1994) Lynch Law: Violence Against Roma in Romania.

Helsinki Human Rights Watch.

Herrnstein, R.J. and Murray, C. (1994) The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in

American Life. London: Free Press.

Hester, R. (1999) ‘Policing New Age Travellers: Conflict and Control in the Countryside?’,

in Dingwall, R. and Moody, S. (eds.) Crime and Conflict in the Countryside. Wales:

University of Wales Press.

Human Rights Watch (1999) World Report. Available at:

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/worldreport99/europe/bulgaria.html (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Human Rights Watch (2011) World Report. Available at:

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2011.pdf (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Ivanov, A. et al. (2003) Avoiding the Dependency Trap. UNDP BRC.

Ivanov, A. et al. (2006) At Risk: Roma and the Displaced in Southeast Europe. UNDP BRC.

33 | P a g e

Jalon, F. and Rivera, A. (2000), ‘Salud y comunidad gitana. Análisis de propuestas para la

actuación’. Madrid: Asociación Secretariado General Gitano, in Briggs, D. (2010) ‘Los

Gitanos (Gypsies) in La Coruña, Spain: Neither socially included nor integrated?’.

International Journal of Iberian Studies, Vol. 23(2): 111–122.

Jover, G. and Reyero, D. (2000), ‘Images of the other in childhood: Researching the limits of

cultural diversity in education from the standpoint of new anthropological methodologies’,

Encounters on Education, Vol.1(1): 1–28, in Briggs, D. (2010) ‘Los Gitanos (Gypsies) in La

Coruña, Spain: Neither socially included nor integrated?’. International Journal of Iberian

Studies, Vol. 23(2): 111–122.

Kenrick, D. & Puxon, G. (1972) The destiny of Europe’s Gypsies. London: Heinemann

Educational For Sussex University Press.

Kornblum, W., and Lichter, P. (1972) ‘Urban gypsies and the culture of poverty’. Urban Life

and Culture, Spring, 239-52.

Koulish, R. (2005) Hungarian Roma Attitudes on Minority Rights: The Symbolic Violence of

Ethnic Identification. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 57(2): 311-326.

Lewy, G. (1999) Gypsies and Jews under the Nazis. Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol.

13(3), pp. 383-404.

Lewy, G. (2000) The Nazi persecution of the gypsies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Loewenberg, S. (2010) Plight of Roma worsens in Italy. The Lancet, Vol. 375, Jan. 2

Lombroso, C. (translated by Gibson, M. And Rafter, N.) (1876, 2006) Criminal Man (L’uomo

delinquent). US: Duke University Press.

34 | P a g e

Lombroso, C. (1902, 1968) Die Ursachen und Bekampfung des Verbrechens (Crime, its

Causes and Remedies). Patterson Smith.

Lucassen, L. (1999) ‘Eternal vagrants? State formation, migration, and travelling groups in

Western Europe, 1350–1914’. In Lucassen, J. & Lucassen, L. (eds.) Migration, migration

history, history: old paradigms and new perspectives. New York: P. Lang.

Lucassen, L. (2008) Between Hobbes and Locke. Gypsies and the limits of the modernization

paradigm. Social History, Vol. 33(4), pp. 423-441.

Lunt, H. G. (1986) On Macedonian nationality. Slavic Review, Vol. 45(4): 729-730.

Massey, D.S. (1990) American Apartheid: segregation and the making of the underclass. The

American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 96(2): 329-357.

Merkl, P.H., and Weinberg, L. (eds.) (1997) The revival of right-wing extremism in the

nineties. London: Frank Cass.

Merkl, P.H., and Weinberg, L. (eds.) (2003) Right-wing extremism in the Twenty-first

Century. London: Frank Cass.

Miller, C. (1975) American Rom and the Ideology of Defilement. In Rehfisch, F. (ed.)

Gypsies, Tinkers and other Travellers. London: Academic.

Myrdal, G. (1944, 1996) An American Dilemma: the Negro Problem and Modern

Democracy. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Okely, J. (1983) The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

O’Toole, F. (1994), ‘Tackling travellers issue key test for coalition’, The Irish Times, 23

December 1994, pp. 12.

35 | P a g e

Pamporov, A. (2007) Social Exclusion of Roma in Bulgaria. Presented on the ‘Social

Exclusion and the Changing Demographic Portrait of Europe’ Conference, 6-8 Sept.,

Budapest.

Panayi, P. (1999) Outsiders: a history of European minorities. London: Hambledon Press.

Paul, D.B. (2003) ‘Darwin, social Darwinism and eugenics’, in Hodge, J. and Radick, G.

(eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Darwin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ploetz, A. (1895) Grundlinien einer Rassenhygiene (Principles of Eugenics), in Lewy, G.

(2000) The Nazi persecution of the gypsies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pogany, I. (2004) The Roma Cafe: human rights and the plight of the Romani people.

London: Sterling.

Poveda D. and Marcos, T. (2005), ‘The social organisation of a stone fight: Gitano childrens’

interpretive reproduction of ethnic conflict’, Childhood, 12: 3, pp. 327–49.

Puxon, G. (1987) Roma: Europe’s Gypsies. London: Minority Rights Group.

Rabotnichesko Delo. 1971 April 29, in Eminov, A. (1990) Nationality Policy in the USSR

and in Bulgaria: Some Observations. The Anthropology of East Europe Review, Vol. 9(2): 3-

17.

Rabotnichesko Delo. 1979 April 29, in Eminov, A. (1990) Nationality Policy in the USSR

and in Bulgaria: Some Observations. The Anthropology of East Europe Review, Vol. 9(2): 3-

17.

Rat, C. (2005) Romanian Roma, State Transfers, and Poverty: A study of Relative

Disadvantage. International Journal of Sociology, Vol. 35(3): 85-116.

36 | P a g e

Revenga, A., Ringold, D. and Tracy, W.M. (2002) Poverty and Ethnicity: A Cross-Country

Study of Roma Poverty in Central Europe. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Ringold, D. (2000) Roma and the Transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Washington:

World Bank.

Ringold, D. M. Orenstein, E. Wilkens (2005). Roma in an expanding Europe : breaking the

poverty cycle. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Rougheri, C. (1999) Theory and Practice: Roma in Southern Balkans. MA thesis for the

central European University.

Sánchez, P. and Gamella, J. (1999) ‘Viejos y nuevos estereotipos sobre los gitanos en los

discursos de los escolares andaluces’, Revista Demofilo, 30, pp. 133–58, in Briggs, D. (2010),

‘Los Gitanos (Gypsies) in La Coruña, Spain: Neither socially included nor integrated?’.

International Journal of Iberian Studies, Vol. 23(2): 111–122

San Roman, T. (1986) ‘Reflexiones Sobre Marginacion y Racismo’, in Gay y Blasco, P.

(1999) Gypsies in Madrid: Sex, Gender and the Performance of Identity. Oxford: Berg.

Save the Children (2001) Denied a Future? The right to education of Roma/ Gypsy &

Traveller Children in Europe. Available at:

http://www.ungei.org/resources/files/SaveTheChildren_dafvol1.pdf (Accessed on 25/04/2012)

Sibley, D. (1981) Outsiders in Urban Societies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher Ltd.

Situation of Roma in Bulgaria Report. Available at:

http://miris.eurac.edu/mugs2/do/blob.pdf?type=pdf&serial=1075736047886 (Accessed on

25/04/2012)

37 | P a g e

Starr, R.F. (1982) Communist Regimes in Eastern Europe (4th ed.). Hoover Institution Press.

Steinmetz, G. (1993) Regulating the Social. The Welfare State and Local Politics in Imperial

Germany. Princeton University Press

Stewart, M. (2002) ‘Deprivation, the Roma and ‘the Underclass’, in Hann, C. (ed.)

Postsocialism. London: Routledge.

Sus, J. (1963) Cikanska otazka v CSSR. Prague: SNPL, in Barany, Z. (2002) The East

European Gypsies: Regime Change, Marginality and Ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Sutherland, A. (1975) Gypsies: the Hidden Americans. London: Tavistock.

Teasley, C. (2005) Ambiguous legacy: Instituting student diversity at a Spanish secondary

school. Cultural Studies and Critical Methodologies, Vol. 5(2): 206–29.

Thomson, J.B. (1870) The psychology of criminals, pp.94-100, in Rafter, N. (2009) The

Origins of Criminology. New York: Routledge.

Thuren, B.M. (1988) Left Hand Left behind: the Changing Gender System of a Barrio in

Valencia, Spain. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press.

Tomova, I. (1995) The Gypsies in the transition period. ICMSIR, S.

Tomova, I. (1998) Ethnic Dimensions of Poverty in Bulgaria. Washington: World Bank.

Tomova, I., Vandova, I. and Tomov, V. (2000) Poverty and Ethnicity. International Centre

for Minority Studies and Intercultural Relations (IMIR).

38 | P a g e

Trigg, E.B. (1967) Magic and Religion among the Gypsies of Great Britain. Unpublished D.

Phil. Thesis, in Okely, J. (1983) The Traveller-Gypsies. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

UNHCR (2009) Bulgaria: Situation of Roma, including treatment by society and government

authorities. Available at:

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,BGR,,4b20f040c,0.html (Accessed on

25/04/2012)

Weikart, R. (2004) From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in

Germany. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wilson, W.J. (1987) The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass, and public

policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Woodcock, S. (2010) Gender as catalyst for violence against Roma in contemporary Italy.

Patterns of Prejudice, Vol. 44(5): 469-488.

Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society. London: Sage.

Young, J. (2002) ‘Crime and Social Exclusion’, in M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner

(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Young, J. (2007) The Vertigo of Late Modernity. London: Sage.

Zeginis, E. (1994) The Muslim Roma of Thrace. Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies.

Zimmermann, M. (1996) Rassenutopie und Genozid. Christians

39 | P a g e

Zimmermann, M. (2001) The National Socialist ‘Solution of the Gypsy Question’: Central

Decisions, Local Initiatives, and Their Interrelation. Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol.

15(3), pp. 412-427.