Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3.2 Commentary 1 PDF
3.2 Commentary 1 PDF
Trandafoiu R
Trandafoiu R
possessions. As in the case of many Turkish words borrowed into Romanian, the meaning is
slightly pejorative) and their illegal abode is described as follows:
The tower block looked as if bombarded, no windows, the walls
blackened by the smoke from the improvised clay stoves. Inside, the heavy
stench of urine and faeces is enough to churn the stomach, the rubbish piles
rising to the windows (Adevrul 22/02/01 p.3).
The image here is one of dereliction and destruction and attempts to shock and horrify the
reader, while indirectly constructing a stark comparison with the normal.
Several Gypsy families who were abusively occupying two tower
blocks in the Ilfov village of 1st December were evacuated yesterday morning
by the local authorities, and the tower blocks in which they made their abode
were pulled down. () Ilie Stan, the villages deputy mayor says that the
Gypsies terrorised the inhabitants of the area, stole and provoked scandals,
they turned the centre of the village into a source of infectious diseases
because of the rubbish dumped next to the tower blocks (Ziua 26/04/01 p.16).
These descriptions confirm two main myths about the Gypsies: dirty and destructive. The
details are lavish in order to achieve a powerful effect. It is important to note that the Gypsies
do not have a voice. The right to speak is reserved by the Romanian authorities. Such
discourses encourage the creation of symbolic ghettos, in which these people are labelled and
boxed, in order to be kept apart from the majority.
Even apparently positive titles turn into the same story of exclusion. After destroying their
tower blocks in Drmneti district, the Gypsies will live in a district equipped according to
European standards (title in Adevrul 11/10/01). The intention is to contrast Europeanism
and barbarity. This is another racist assumption, in which implied Latinity and Europeanism
characteristic to Romanians is contrasted to the Indian, non-European origin of the Gypsies.
The implication is that Gypsies do not fit in modernity and should be further alienated. Again
the voice of the Romanian officials is the only one.
If EU wants us together with the Roma they should give us money to
build modern districts for them in town centres, I for one would have nothing
against the idea said the mayor of Piatra Neam. () By November 15, 28
Roma families (about 240 people) and 170 Romanian families are to move
into Hope district. Next spring other 56 Roma families will be moved from the
tower blocks they devastated (D2 and D3) in Drmneti district (Adevrul
11/10/01).
The source of the problem is an uninformed EU, which pushes for peaceful coexistence,
rather than allowing Roma to retreat to ghettos, but does not give out the necessary funding
and rather expects the Romanians to solve the problem themselves. This is an imposition
from the outside, yet the Romanian solution is to keep the segregation going. The Romanian
official source is quoted directly and the text is published in bold to draw attention and
emphasise the usual stereotypes about Gypsies:
One studio for a Roma family will be rented at a cost of 100
dollars and will not have special amenities. The Roma will not have
laminate flooring, tiles, bathtub, furniture or central gas heating, but
stoves. Because they destroy! They will pay 10 dollars months rent and
will have to work for Publiserv, a public amenities service. If they pay
from their own pockets, they will not destroy! The area is now
surrounded with barb wire fence because materials are being stolen, but
this does not mean it is a ghetto () The Roma will have to maintain
Trandafoiu R
quiet and public order and will be supervised by the community police,
says mayor Ion Rotaru. Other families will pay 200 in the beginning, but will
have the whole range of amenities, for them the monthly rent being 15 dollars
(Adevrul 11/10/01).
The Gypsies are destroyers, thieves trouble makers and do not deserve the minimal
amenities which are promised, instead, to the Romanian population. The discourse portrays
the superiority of Romanians over a population which is seen as little more than animal and
needs to be put to work, constantly supervised and punished by authorities. The image of the
ghetto is confirmed by the source who is eager to anticipate any criticism, but in fact the
barb wire image is so powerful, that it confirms his strategy of denial.
The Gypsies are fenced off with any occasion. The municipality tries to curtail Gypsy illegal
residents in Cluj-Napoca (Adevrul de Cluj 13/12/01). Gypsy enclaves in Oltenia (half
page feature and photos under the banner Investigations in Adevrul 24/11/2000 p.11):
The place where the Gypsies heaven and hell meet In Trgu Jiu, the
capital of the enclave the Gypsies form a strong community. Their districts
came to be renowned for hundreds of palaces and limousines encountered
everywhere, but also for the bricklayers families who survive in dilapidated
huts, eating corpses found in rubbish bins. () One Gypsy pulls us into a
house where a child is sleeping on the bare earth. Lying in the miserable bed,
a woman and other three children are covered by a rotten duvet, black with
dirt. All there is, an iron bed and an old wardrobe, on it the empty carcase of a
TV set. On the table the Gypsy places a sheeps corpse. () Two feet away
from the hut without amenities, water or electricity, a villa, all marble and
crystal. In the yard of the palace two jeeps with Ukrainian number plates.
Here, in about 19 rooms, four people live.
The discourse becomes more polarised, separating the Gypsies into two types: the subhumans, and the illegally rich. Both threaten the normality of the majority. By implication,
the minority is everything the majority is not. The illegally rich are even more threatening,
and therefore the tone is more aggressively ironic, because it contradicts the usual Gypsy
stereotypes and implies a superiority over normal Romanians. The tone is again descriptive,
rather than investigative, filled with nouns and modifiers, most of them chosen to shock. The
place is clearly labelled as an enclave, imaginary barriers being constructed though a
negative, exclusionary discourse.
In the Gypsy enclave the Romanians are accustomed already with
Romas shelters and palaces. Here nobody says anything. Those who live in
the vicinity of Gypsy districts have ready-made answers: We do not have any
problems with themthey are good peoplewe get along just fine. The
words are uttered through the teeth, with scared glances all around. In the
enclave to speak about the Gypsies is an act of great courage (Adevrul
24/11/2000 p.11).
The reality depicted is one of threatening ghettos, which are feared and marginalised by
Romanians. The others are troublemakers and deviating from the norm. The quotations
used are immediately contradicted and placed in a different context that negates their
denotation, adding different connotations. The stress and fear of the Romanians living nearby
is clearly emphasised. In Clrai, movie-like fight among Gypsies who sell aluminium and
copper (Evenimentul Zilei 18/01/01 p.3, with large title on p.1). The article depicts the fight
Trandafoiu R
between two Gypsy gangs: Over 20 Gypsies squeezed into three cars armed with ninja type
swords, knives and truncheons. Seven Gypsies from Ovidiu devastate a bar and beat the
police up (Ziua 7/04/01 p.3). The Gypsy mafia has information networks among lawyers,
judges and police officers (Adevrul 6/04/01 p.1) Due to Adevruls intervention, Cuza
Vod village saved by the terror of cldrar Gypsies (title in Adevrul 4/05/01 p.14).
Gypsies from Strehaia walk about with machine-guns hanging on
their chest and they hired 100 Romanian bodyguards. They want to be
protected from the bandits looking for gold coins. The police found no gun
registrations or hunting permits (Adevrul 3/05/01 p.1 in the centre of the
page with a photo of several Gypsies, but no guns to be seen).
This is the illegally rich quarter, in which Gypsies can afford to hire Romanians. Vivid
descriptions come in abundance to emphasise their deviation from norm and from the
acceptable.
Mercedes vehicles patrol among the three story castles of the
nomads, and a few brunettes are watching all cars in front of big towered
houses that pose as metal trading companies. () A clan leader in suit, with
several kilos of gold around his neck and hands is ordering guards through his
mobile (Adevrul 3/05/01 p.1).
The use of brunette is highly racist, identifying Gypsies as coloured. They are also
depicted as nomads, a nonsense when they are described as owning towered houses, but
the word highlights the original difference between the two populations, one stable the other
migratory. Racism makes an appearance, with the usual descriptive stereotypes that make the
minority look physically deviant and immediately identifiable.
Gypsies abroad tarnish Romanias external image:
In Berlin, Paris or London the European media picture Gypsies from
Romania holding children and begging or stealing, either on Champs Elysees
or Oxford Street. For the West they are Romanian citizens. () Romania
will never be able to tackle the problems of this minority on its own. It should
be considered a European problem to be solved by a special budget for
education and socialisation, for integration in the European way of life and
removing the members of this community from the nomadic life style that can
lead to delinquency. Somebody has to put these points to Europe with courage
and patience, but who and to whom, when nobody seems to listen? (opinion
in Adevrul 30/10/00 p.1).
The article recycles the old theme of the shame the Gypsies bestow on Romanians by their
behaviour abroad. They are described once more as nomadic, a problem, and
delinquents. The responsibility is assigned again to Europe, who does not listen. The
rhetorical question suggests unfairness, the fact that Romanians should be regarded as
victims, for having to deal with such a minority.
Overall, the Romanian newspapers display the same strategies of exclusion and segregation
with alarming consistency. This is an indication that the opinion of the majority is consistent
and there is a general and common understanding over the place of this minority in society. A
survey by the research Institute of Studies and Surveys, ESOP OMEGA from Bucharest,
taken on a representative sample of Romanians found out that Romanians display an array of
stereotypes which are polarised: positive auto stereotypes and negative hetero stereotypes. In
the case of the Roma population, the negative hetero stereotypes are: uneducated, law
10
Trandafoiu R
breaking, deceitful, although they are also considered to be resourceful, good at making
money, self-confident (Popescu in Culic 1999: 48-9). The polarised stereotyping helps keep
a social distance from the very much different other.
The long-standing and resilient racialized imagining, results in material impoverishment,
vilification and scapegoating and continued ostracism (Rorke 2000-01). It is a process that
is reproduced regularly and builds an inescapable cycle.
The research also found out that:
The acceptance of contact with members of Roma ethnic group is
limited to institutional, highly formalized contexts. () The member of the
majority group seems to feel safer within an environment in which he can
control the behaviour of the minority by means of explicit norms (Popescu in
Culic 1999: 52-3).
This seems to be confirmed by the discourse of the press, which keeps the Gypsies at a
distance, where they are controlled by officials who design policies to enclose them in
ghettos that are often physically real. Surveys also show that the majority of Romanians
consider that the Roma are not the subject of discrimination (Mungiu-Pippidi 2002: 187).
They also show that not only the Romanian population, but equally other minorities, perceive
the Roma as a separate entity and an inferior group (Ibid: 193).
Cultural differences and an unfamiliar way of life and social organization make them an easy
target (Fonseca 1996). In the absence of a homeland, a written history and a national
consciousness, this population is ideal for scapegoating and suffering at the hands of the
majoritys superiority complexes.
What the discourse of the Romanian press achieves, with its discriminatory and stereotyped
attitude towards minorities in general and especially the Gypsies, is work with the us versus
other dichotomy in order to cultivate a perpetual state of conflict. It is a reminder to
Romanians that in spite being a majority, they are the victims of internal enemies who can
disrupt the status quo. There is therefore a perpetual need for nationalizing in order to fend
off dangers and marginalize enemies, by labeling them, looking for physical and cultural
differences, creating real and imaginary ghettos and ultimately excluding them from
normality.
The symbolic geography of the majority is based on an imaginary staircase. The Romanians
are constructed as superior, in historic achievements, culture, blood and origin, and therefore
ethnicity is structured hierarchically, with Romanians at the top, Hungarians following and
the Gypsies at the bottom of the hierarchy. They are a voiceless group, with just marginal
interventions on their behalf by the EU. Their coverage in the press is unanimously
aggressive and racist. The set of stereotypes circulated by them acts as a prop in imagining
the other and in boosting complexes of superiority and pride for the majority.
References
Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.
Brubaker, Rogers. 1996. Nationalism Reframed. Nationhood and the National Question in
the New Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Culic, I./Horvth, I./Stan, C. (eds.) 1999. Reflections on Differences. Focus on Romania.
Cluj: Limes.
Fonseca, Isabel. 1996. Bury Me Standing. The Gypsies and Their Journey. London: Vintage.
11
Trandafoiu R
12