|
|
LGI / Resources / Ethnic relationsDenial & Recovery: Legal Policies Perpetrated Against the Roma in the Habsburg Monarchy Elliot H. GlassmanIntroductionRomani history has always been characterized by prejudice on part of the majority society within which they have lived [1]. Although this analysis will focus on the period of the Habsburg monarchy in those lands they ruled, one must consider that most of the laws aimed at the Roma would be duplicated from one country to the next, not just within the monarchy’s realm, nor necessarily beginning with the monarchy’s legislation. This paper investigates the overall trends of the Empire’s laws directed at the Roma through several centuries, how local authorities implemented these regulations, and their subsequent results. Moreover, it is the contention of this author that the dilemmas the Roma endure today in former Habsburg lands can be traced back directly to the negative approaches applied by the Habsburg monarchy throughout its entire reign. I will also attempt to integrate notions of Romani culture wherever possible in order to illustrate how the problems faced today link to this time period. The Habsburg monarchy, furthermore, could not come to grips with a population that lived a culture so distinct from that of the rest of its people. It is beyond the scope of this analysis to explore the conditions of prejudice, albeit the main foundation of these laws, yet prejudice itself takes on a new development with forced assimilation attempted by the monarchy. This forced assimilation and its concurrent failures shall be explained in the analysis of how the monarchy dealt with the perceived "Gypsy Problem." Fascination and Peculiarity One can begin to look at the laws affecting Roma by first examining their perceived stereotypes. Their clothes, wandering, work habits, and mysterious origin all served to accentuate the prejudice, but also to define Romani identity. It is these specifics which the laws aimed against. When the Roma came to Europe, their cultural identity had been described by various onlookers. Within one hundred years, their fascination transformed into scorn. From the depths of the enmity, laws from the supreme level were promulgated to assimilate the perceived outsiders, thus destroying Romani culture. For their ways had not been interpreted as culture, but merely ‘strange habits and hoodlum-like behavior.’
Settlement vs. Wandering Throughout the entire period from their arrival onwards, settlement became a key theme. In Spain, King Charles I, later Emperor Charles V, renewed the Pragmatic Sanction of Medina del Campo of March 4, 1499 which ordered the Roma to settle with masters, or after 60 days, be cast out. He actually renewed this a number of times. Charles added a provision that if a Rom had been caught roaming, then he or she could be captured and enslaved for life. Roma who did not settle or leave the country, if between the ages of 20 and 50, would be sent to the galleys for six years [2]. In 1695, Charles II, the last Habsburg on the Spanish throne [3], also placed limits on their movement by requiring permission for travel. Yet his definition of a Rom involved a behavioral-cultural way of living rather than settling on an ethnic one:
In Spain at this time, such a definition could have a deleterious effect upon the population at large. Many innocent souls, that is those without the ethnic criteria, certainly were effected by this decree. In the seventeenth century, due to the populations’ prejudice, sometimes the government had to compel the locals to allow the Roma to settle. György Thurzó, imperial governor of Hungary in 1616, ordered authorities to let the Roma reside, place up tents, and carry out their smithery. The authorities also had to ensure their safety due to widespread prejudice and the local will to remove the Roma from their environs. Due to the havoc of the Thirty Years War, and the ensuing famine and epidemics, many Roma attempted to relocate to upper Hungary (today’s Slovakia). This caused new restrictive laws in this region, usually applied only to foreign wanderers, but in effect against all Roma. Not only did this legitimize the badgering of Roma from towns and villages, but it also compelled the Roma to live in "a nomadic life and in isolated cases to make a living by parasitism…[described as] fortune telling, magical healing, and theft." [5] Crowe explains that although these laws meant to halt nomadism, "conditions for settlement and earning an honest living" would not have been possible under these same regulations. Such conditions existed throughout the seventeenth and into the eighteenth century. In 1758, Maria Theresa initiated legislation that required the Roma to serve a master on a noble estate, meaning that they would need to settle within seven years. One example suffices to show evidence of how imperial dictates filtered down to the localities in regards to settlement. In 1768, the Magistrate of Eger prohibited Romani nomadism and the moving to and from markets without written authorization. Twenty actually had been arrested at a marketplace and flogged 24 times each before being expelled [6]. The assimilatory nature can best be described in an order dated December 1782 from this same office which forbade Romani wandering. The idea was to confine the Roma to the land "like other serfs are set to bonded labor." [7] On an imperial level a few years earlier, in order to deter Romani drifting, Maria Theresa demanded that they only employ horses for farming, although local officials rather wanted them to use oxen [8]. Thus, by taking away their means of travel, the government had hoped that the Roma would choose settlement. Following his mother’s approach, Joseph II also forbade wanderings of the Roma in a decree issued in 1783 that extended the provision to Transylvania. Although much of the assimilation plans did not succeed, surveys in the nineteenth century indicated that most Roma (approximately 90%) found permanent and semi-permanent homes, albeit on the outskirts of many towns and villages [9]. Researcher Koos André Postma suggests that the reason for halting the wandering of the Roma relied more on the Habsburg will to achieve uniformity throughout the empire. Thus, wandering Roma could not be acceptable in this process [10]. However, the imperial desires and practical aspects of society could not come to terms. By wandering from place to place, the Roma performed tasks for society, for example metal working, where villages could not employ their own full-time blacksmiths. Yet, I consider this occupation secondary. The real reason for the wandering lies more deeply within the prejudice of medieval society. This is why, when they could settle, they were socially marginalized and segregated to the outside environs of village life. That is, the Roma could only reside outside of the town or village. They could never enter households of the majority citizens as guests, but only for purposes like fortune telling, albeit the opposite may be true in limited circumstances. In fact, for purposes of fortune telling, most of the majority citizens came to them in public places, not in private homes. On the other hand, Romani culture spoke of the impurities of gadjo, or non-Roma, thus they rarely socialized with the majority citizens. The same close-knit community which had been waged as an argument against the Jews also served as a prejudice against this community.
Expulsions The mere presence of the Roma had life and death implications throughout the Habsburg monarchy. For example, Charles V forbade their entrance and even their right to remain in the Northern Netherlands. Such edicts took effect in 1524, 1537, 1538, 1544, 1548, 1553, and 1560 [11]. The 1537 law had been promulgated in Brussels by Charles V and gave the Roma only four days to vacate the country or face the loss of life and property. During the following year, they had to leave Moravia, the first expulsion for them in this territory. In 1541, the fires of Prague had been blamed on them, whereby Ferdinand I ordered their removal from the land. They were again told to leave in 1549 [12]. In 1544, the area of Guelders gave the Roma only two days to depart [13]. In 1697 and then again in 1701, Leopold I considered the Roma to be outlaws. Their property and life would be in jeopardy if they had attempted to reenter the country. The idea of death upon return became a very necessary deterrent in that many of the laws had to be initiated again and again because of non-compliance. Moreover, the nobility and local administration did not always follow the rules for reasons which shall be come clear below. The majority simply segregated itself, thereby protecting itself, from the Roma as well as other groups. Expulsion could be used as the main tool for separation. It had been more readily used in Western Europe, than in the East where more distinct groups populated the lands. In regards to the Roma, legislation would repeatedly call for their removal up through the twentieth century, and even today in more politically correct maneuvers [14].
Murder and Bodily Defacement When laws were not taken seriously, new stringent decrees became the norm. In 1710, Emperor Joseph I ordered all adult male Roma to be hanged foregoing any trial, and at the same time, women and young men were to be whipped and banished forever. Their right ear would summarily be sliced off, but in Moravia, this would be inflicted on a Rom’s left ear [15]. In different parts of Austria, the Romani women and boys would be branded in a shape depicted as gallows. Such bodily defacement allowed the authorities to identify the Roma had they been arrested for a second time [16]. Laws were also enacted to place pictorial signs up along all roads and secret paths that the Roma readily used, in order to warn them of the consequences of their mere presence in areas they were unwanted. One description follows:
Romanologist [18] David Crowe explains how the laws of Joseph I would instruct local officials to hunt down the Roma, while those that did not would be fined 100 Reichsthaler. This indicates that laws intending to coerce the majority population had been promulgated due to the ineffectiveness of previous imperial decrees. Thus, the government thought that punishing the majority for not carrying out its orders would result in better compliance. Anyone caught helping the Roma would be penalized with up to a half year forced labor. It resulted in mass murders of the Roma with entire groups of them "shot, hanged, and drowned." Like the pictorial signs, a more vivid impression had been applied, this time with their bodies hung along roads in order to inform them of the consequences of their entrance – a very visual warning. Joseph I had also ordered all Romani women and children who returned to Bohemia to be executed. [19] On October 26, 1717, Charles VI forbade the Roma from entering his domains and had warning signs placed up at the Bohemian and Selesian borders. The Emperor also called for the murder of all Roma in 1721 [20]. Again, evidence also shows how these laws were to some extent utilized in local decrees. In both 1727 and 1733, the town council of Harangos, a Hungarian market town, called for the expulsion of Roma from its environs and beatings for repeat offenders. Throughout the country, such orders could be seen [21]. In 1740, all Roma entering Bohemia were ordered to be executed [22]. On December 1, 1749, Maria Theresa commanded the expulsion of Roma, vagrants, and foreign beggars. Although settled Roma were not effected, many of whom included musicians, the authorities still imprisoned the local ones due to everyday prejudice. It was difficult to distinguish between foreign and domestic Roma. Nevertheless, when the imperial orders stipulated anything regarding the Roma, the local bodies had a difficult time discerning why laws should be implemented only against foreign Roma in comparison to their own hated brethren.
Assimilation During the period of expulsions and after, assimilation became a key practice in solving the Gypsy problem. Part of this mind-set came about at the time of the Enlightenment, yet evidence also shows pre-Enlightenment attempts to forcibly assimilate the Roma to the majority populations. The Enlightenment itself did not usher in new practices in dealing with this community, but rather more of the same at a quicker, robust, and intense pace based on the new idea that education and not birth would form human nature [23]. Beforehand, it had been thought that the Roma had some type of sickness or defectiveness – the reason for acting the way they did, perpetually known as a deviance in society. For example, when in 1721, Joseph I allowed for the murder of adult female Roma, he placed Romani children in hospitals for their education [24]. Yet the illness belief emerged during the late seventeenth to early eighteenth century, not earlier. To illustrate, Philip IV’s Pragmatic Sanction of 1633 called the Romani way of life, an adoptive behavior, rather than specifically ethnic.
Hence, they became synonymous with "false Christians, thieves, diviners, visionaries, poisoners of cattle, spies and traitors." [26] This provides confirmation that ideas of assimilation also permeated the early seventeenth century, yet not to such a degree as during the Enlightenment. Philip IV’s Pragmatic Sanction demanded that the Roma not assemble (a means to ensure that they would be spread out among the population), not dress differently than the majority, [27] not speak their own language, nor live in Romani ghettos (a means of assembling). Even the term Gitano (their Spanish name) had been ruled illegal. Anyone not following this general law would face six years in the galleys. Charles II in 1695 and 1698, the last Spanish Habsburg monarch, ordered that Roma could only live in areas with more than 200 residents, not stick together in Romani quarters, not attend fairs and markets, nor keep horses, and were mandated to become peasants. [28] Anyone caught helping a Rom would be either sent to the galley or fined 6,000 ducats. [29] In comparison to these earlier imperial decrees, one can look at Maria Theresa’s laws. In 1749, her government ordered the Roma to dress like all other Hungarians. [30] They would no longer be able to own horses and wagons. If the Roma wished to leave their villages, they would require special permission. Roma would have to build permanent homes. Yet, due to local prejudice, the Roma neither had the materials nor the finances to build dwellings in these villages. Seed and cattle were distributed to the Roma, in expectance that they would become serfs. [31] In 1761, Maria Theresa replaced the term Cigány with the more politically correct and assimilatory name form of új magyar (New Hungarian) or új lakosok (New Citizen) as well as other forms such as New Settlers or New Peasants (Neubauern). [32] What was done for the Roma in Spain with prohibiting the name Gitano over 150 years before was applied in the same manner in Hungary during the Enlightenment, the area still where most Roma lived. In-shape youths of age 16 and older would be drafted, while those from ages 12 to 16 would be taught a profession. However, local resistance ensued. For example, army officers would not accept Romani soldiers, even though centuries before, they had been admired for their ferocity in battle. Craftsmen were also hesitant in taking on Romani apprentices. The Empress’ decree of 1767 removed the voivodes jurisdiction over them, thus placing their legality within the normal judicial system effecting everyone. She wanted them to be treated like everyone else, without distinctions – the goal of assimilation. [33] One could see how the Roma were prohibited from dressing in the Romani way, speaking their language, and being employed in their traditional professions, all means attempted before, but now with such adamant notions of Enlightenment ideals. Finally, Maria Theresa’s laws required each village to take a census of the Roma. [34] This had been promulgated in 1769.
Previous censuses had been demanded in prior years, but with much less success. Charles II of Spain had done this in 1695 as did Emperor Charles VI in 1722 for Hungary. Charles II had required their number, their occupations, weapons, and animals in his census for Spain. Of course, the notion of the census had an ulterior motive, that of taxation. For example, specific taxes would be collected on moveable possessions under Charles VI’s census rules. Any Rom wishing to obtain a job and choose to settle, his or her name, age, and description had to be recorded. In addition, county officers had to write reports to the "royal governor council" explaining the changes that the Roma underwent. The governors then sent the reports to the emperor regarding the Roma in their areas. Such rules intending to inform the entire population would also be fixed on placards. In 1737, officials in one area ordered taxation for all Roma owning tents with a wagon and horses, twice that of those Roma without these nomadic means, implying the positive effects of settlement. According to Romanologist Michael Stewart, Maria Theresa was the first to make the Gypsy problem an imperial concern. [36] Yet another specialist, Willy Guy considers this move one more aimed at landlord rights rather than the Roma themselves. [37] In essence, the monarchy had been trying to clamp down on landlords’ rights. Thus, the relinquishing of these rights to offer ‘tax-free’ employment to nomadic Roma played into the monarchy’s plan against the nobility. It had been the nobles who used the cheap labor of the Roma, thus providing them with a certain amount of protection and freedom. This is the reason why so many of the laws were continuously renewed. The Romani expertise in smithery, music, and even military ability became vital for the nobility in their own amassing of power. Crowe believes that the imperial policies changed due to the Treaty of Szatmár on April 29, 1711 when the Hungarian nobility accepted the Habsburgs as their hereditary kings in return for freedom to run their local affairs. [38] The Roma were also affected by these new provisions. Thus, the monarchy dropped its assimilatory concerns in favor of attaining recognition from the Hungarian nobility. One could therefore state that when Maria Theresa took the Roma back within the imperial jurisdiction, a continuation of the policies that had taken place up until 1711 would then be in effect again. Even the Hungarian-appointed government took different stances toward this population. For example, György Thurzó, the imperial governor of Hungary in 1616, presented the Roma with a safe-passage permit. Four years earlier, he had taken a stance against the Roma. Yet in this decree, he noted the voivode Franciscus [39] and his followers as ‘performing military services.’ It asked for a concern for the Romani condition:
If the Roma had refused to become assimilated, why did they do the work they were employed to do and not simply move on? The answer can be found in two separate approaches. Laws did not work in forcing the Roma to become employed, but rather the economy structure and the cogent need for cheap labor were the main causes. [41] Yet, if you look at the jobs the Roma did take, one sees that these include employment that required only a very limited amount of interaction with the non-Romani population. As stated earlier, within Romani society, there is a belief that the non-Roma are unclean. Therefore, Roma have tended to have as little to do with the non-Roma as possible. Their status amongst themselves would be dependent upon adherence to these cleanliness ideas for some tribes, so that the more a family or larger community followed these rules (thus staying as far away from the non-Roma as possible), the higher their status. Blacksmiths, artisans, basket weavers, etc. do not demand complete interaction, but that only of necessity. Various governments that did not understand this complexity attempted to exclude these professions from the Roma. Prohibition of Romani metalwork is an interesting case in that the Guild of Locksmiths in Miskolc, Hungary had persuaded the government to enact a law in 1740 to limit the Romani professionals to an area within their tents. [42] In turn, the Roma could then only work on small piecemeal projects. Considering this situation, like elsewhere in Europe, the Guild wanted to preserve their monopoly against the cheap labor of the Roma. Romanologists Donald Kenrick and Grattan Puxon as well as Ian Hancock consider the treatment of the Roma as almost indentured servitude (complete enslavement for Hancock). To cite an instance, in Transylvania in 1736, after the recapture of a Rom when one had failed to escape from indentured servitude, a master wrote in his diary the following:
In the late eighteenth century, the Exchequer of the Habsburg Empire ruled that the masters of the Roma could strike them if they worked poorly. Moreover, the Roma’s new masters were told that their servants should waste no time on music, thus another means to make them serfs. [44] Maria Theresa’s rules allowed the Roma to "amuse themselves with music, or other things, only when there is no field work for them to do." [45] Maria Theresa’s assimilatory milieu of laws permeated all religious and political thought in regards to the Gypsy question. On July 14, 1772, Bishop Eszterházy of the Harangos area signed an order denouncing the expulsion of Roma from towns and thrusting them into villages. Instead he offered the following solution:
This serves as another example of how these rules filtered down to local officials. The most severe assimilatory measures effected Romani family life. In the sixteenth century, the Spanish Cortes, its parliament, during the time of Philip II had planned to separate Romani men and women, permitting them to marry peasants while kidnapping Romani children and placing them within orphanages until the age of 10. At this age, the boys would then be placed in an apprenticeship and the girls would become domestic servants. However, this plan never did commence at that time. In the eighteenth century, Maria Theresa initiated something quite similar. According to her decree of 1773/4, marriages between Roma could no longer take place unless the couple declared their nationality, whereby Romani could not be considered. This meant that the Romani couple would have to state that they were Hungarian for example – another assimilatory means. [47] Yet in authorizing this law, the Habsburgs did not realize the ramifications of marriages within Romani culture. For the Roma, marriage meant that the new husband and wife would become complete and rich members of society. Her decree, if actually enforced, thus became detrimental to Romani culture. According to her laws, if a Romani woman wished to marry a non-Rom, she had to prove her hard-working household duty and demonstrate an understanding of Catholic laws. [48] Yet, in Romani tradition, such a mixed marriage would be considered polluted because Romani women were seen as maintaining the continuation of the community. In such cases of mixed marriages, the children would only be considered Romani if the father was Rom. If a Romani male wanted to marry a non-Rom, he had to substantiate his ability to financially provide for a wife and children. [49] Again, Romani tradition differed, in that his non-Romani wife would be eventually accepted as a part of the Romani community if she adopted their way of life. Romani traditions and the laws of Maria Theresa, completely opposed each other, impeding any type of cohesion and success. Moreover, her decree ordered children over the age of five to be removed from their homes and raised by non-Romani families in a Christian manner. [50] Raids were held twice a night to kidnap the children and allocate them among the peasants, sort of like distributing cattle. [51] An intelligent lady traveling through the region at this time wrote about the kidnapping in her Voyage en Hongrie:
In 1780, the government placed 9,463 Romani children in these so-called foster homes and another 8,388 in schools where they became "wards of the state." [53] As per Romani culture, children were thought to have ensured the future and respect for the family. In raising the child, the entire household had a communal duty. Therefore, when the children were kidnapped in the time of Maria Theresa and Joseph II at a somewhat later age, they would at once experience a culture quite distinct to the one they had been raised in. Likewise, the Roma have always been afraid of the corruption of non-Romani society (gajikane). This fear had been for their children in that contact with non-Roma would destroy the conventional solid family and communal bonds, leading to the belief that the children would become juvenile offenders. On the other hand, the clannish family relationship had always served as a bulwark against the perceived unclean nature of the non-Roma (gadjo). In 1783, Emperor Joseph II extended his mother’s policies to Transylvania and added new rules. These included the following: prohibiting name changing; numbering of homes; implementing monthly reports of Romani life; banning nomadism; allowing settled Roma to visit fairs only in extraordinary situations; forbidding metalwork unless certified by the authorities; limiting the number or Romani musicians; disallowing begging; and having the Roma serve others rather than settling for themselves. [54] Additionally, Romani slums had to be demolished and Romani couples had to sleep apart. They also were not allowed to wear multicolored clothing nor speak their own language. [55] The background to these attempted restrictions can be found in the intention to have these perceived idlers serve society. In regards to children, Romani youths aged four and up were to be handed out to neighboring areas every two years. [56] Some localities saw outright revolt causing Joseph II to soften his policies, although with the same agenda. [57] Other Roma just left the country for different areas of Europe. [58] Yet Joseph II also showed some compassion in his Enlightenment training. In 1782, officials of upper Hungary (today’s Hont County, Slovakia in the towns of Esabrag, Frauenmark, and Kamesa) charged almost two-hundred Roma of "roasting and eating several dozen Hungarian peasants." After torturing the entire group accused of this crime, 41 were then executed. [59] Another 150 were awaiting their punishment when the Emperor sent a special investigation team to review the case and decide upon those Roma still alive. The team discovered that the only crime these Roma had been found guilty of was that of stealing for which they already suffered a thrashing. Moreover, the people they had supposedly eaten were still alive. [60] The idea of cannibalism, which could be best related to blood libel perpetuated mostly against the Jews, would again emerge during the twentieth century. [61]
Failed Assimilation Policies The Enlightenment reforms failed to assimilate or destroy Romani identity. The reasons for nonsuccess can be enumerated within the study of Romani culture and how it vehemently resisted any laws aimed to obliterate it. [62] Hancock criticizes the entire process: "No regard was paid at all to Romani values or culture, and the forced assimilation was seen by the Gypsies themselves as an effort to exterminate them as a distinct people." [63] Their only rescuers from assimilation turned out to be the landlords who provided them with safety in exchange for low-cost labor, even during the Enlightenment period. When Joseph II prohibited the Roma from moving onto landlords’ estates, the reason must have been due to the nobility resisting the Habsburg court orders: "Diets deliberately falsified their reports in the safe knowledge that the Imperial Council had no way of independently evaluating their work." [64] Thus, if the Roma completely fell within the auspices of the nobility, a certain amount of power would thereby be preserved for the nobility in their constant struggle against the encroaching monarchy. Especially, this becomes of great importance at the time of Joseph II, who would not take possession of the Hungarian crown and the obligations that came with such an acceptance. Stewart suggests that the Roma themselves would not tolerate a severe setting in which they would be placed as new peasants. In analyzing the results of a census from 1782 and then one from 1893, Stewart concludes that the reform failed by focusing on the same basic and overwhelming professions held by the Roma in each case that had been significantly different from the majority population. [65] At that time, the majority population had worked as peasants. In the 1782 census, of the 44,000 Roma, almost 6,000 household heads listed their occupation as smith, the largest single employment. "Gunpowder and musket-ball preparation, and bell-casting also were significant areas…[whereby] 1,600 people were listed as musicians." [66] In comparison, of the 275,000 Roma listed in 1893, smiths accounted for 28.88% (along with mud-brick-makers and others involved in building work). However, the larger amount here listed 36.7% as daily wage earners not involved in agriculture. Housework and musicians also rounded off the job structure. [67] Hence, not much had changed through the industrialized period for Romani employment. The problem with all these imposed rules is that not many towns and counties followed them. The greatest impact had been felt in the Burgenland, yet in other areas only general pressure to settle remained a constant. Roma who chose to settle did so in makeshift homes. Kidnapped children often ran away back to their original parents. As for marriage ceremonies, these took place for the state. In Romani marriage customs, all that was needed was a bride price and an agreement. The ceremony itself would only satisfy the church and state authorities. In regards to mixed marriages, the prejudice apparent in the population did not open the door too widely to this option, even if economic awards were offered. [68] Crowe notes that as a result of these policies, however, the number of Roma in 1780 dropped considerably during the next three years from 43,609 to 30,241. This number did not recuperate until the middle of the nineteenth century. [69] Many Roma simply left the country in search of areas with less assimilatory measures. Still others had been killed. [70] Nevertheless, due to many not wanting to identify themselves as Roma as a consequence of the prejudice meted out to them, the census figures here and in further censuses may have been incorrect. Some gains had been recorded after the 1848-49 revolution, but were quickly squashed at the inception of the Ausgleich that led to the attempted Magyarization of all nationalities when Hungary could run its own domestic affairs within the Dual Monarchy. As late as 1909, a policy convention in Hungary called for animals and carts to be confiscated as well as the branding of all Roma to enable the authorities to easily identify them. Yet, nothing came out of these proposals. [71] However, in 1916, a law had been promulgated to settle the Roma, yet like in previous eras, the responsibility was passed on from one government body to another, resulting in the inapplicability of the law. [72]
Conclusion: At the beginning of this paper, I mentioned that the goal was to look at the overall trends of the Empire’s laws directed at the Roma through several centuries, how these regulations translated down to the local authorities, and the results of these legal codes. The evidence provided shows an intricate yet poorly enforced plan on the part of each time period and monarch to at first expel the Roma from the land and then the later attempt to assimilate them. We find that local authorities sometimes followed the monarchy’s rules, and at other times did not, especially in the case of rebelling nobility. The poor results of these policies, evident in the job structure listings within different censuses can still be felt today. In the 1990’s, the Roma still overwhelmingly work manually and are the poorest in society throughout the lands of the former Habsburg monarchy. Today, still social and economic cleavages are continuously created by widespread discrimination against the Roma. Poverty, unemployment, health problems, low education, and social marginalization still plague the Roma. Their wandering has been replaced by migration from rural areas to the big city. As the poorest element in the former Habsburg lands, they still form the unskilled labor who do the dirtiest and worst paid jobs for whom the majority citizens would not do. At the same time, they are chastised repeatedly for not assimilating to the majority. In essence, integration has never been applied. How could it? After all, prejudice prohibits integration, and the Roma embody this marginalized community.
REFERENCES Breznay, Imre. Eger a XVIII, Eger, 1932 . Clébert, Jean-Paul. The Gypsies, London: Vista Books, 1963. Crowe, David. A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia, London: I. B. Taurus Publishers, 1995. Crowe, David. "The Roma (Gypsies) in Hungary Through the Kadar Era." Nationalities Papers, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Winter 1991): 297-311. "Die Zigeuner," in Die Österreichisch – Ungarische Monarchie in Wort und Bild (The Austrian Hungarian Monarchy in Words and Pictures), XIII (Ungarn), Part VI (Wien: Druck und Verlag der Kaiserlich – Königlichen Hof – und Staatdruckevei, 1902). Fraser, Angus. The Gypsies, Oxford: Blackwell, 1992. Ficowski, Jerzy. The Gypsies in Poland: History and Customs, Warsaw: Interpress, 1991. Guy, Willy. "Essay on Gypsies in Czechoslovakia." In Gypsies, edited by Josef Koudelka. Millerton: Aperture, Inc., 1975. Hancock, Ian. The Pariah Syndrome, Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers Inc., 1987. Hancock, Ian "Chronology." In The Gypsies of Eastern Europe, edited by David Crowe and John Kolsti. New York: M. E. Sharpe, 1991. Kenrick, Donald and Puxon, Grattan. The Destiny of Europe’s Gypsies, Chatto: Sussex University Press, 1972. Kozák Istvánné "A cigányok a társadalmi munkamegosztásban" in László SzegĹ . Cigányok honnet jöttek – merre tartanak? Budapest: Kozmosz, 1983 Liégeois, Jean-Pierre. The Gypsies, London: Al Saqi Books, 1986. Marchbin, Andrew Arjeh. unpublished doctoral dissertation, A Critical History of the Origin and Migration of the Gypsies (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh, 1939) cited in Crowe (1991). Postma, Koos André. Changing Prejudice in Hungary (unpublished thesis at Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, 1996). Stewart, Michael. Brothers in Song: The Persistence of (Vlach) Gypsy Identity and Communist in Socialist Hungary, Budapest: Max Weber Foundation, 1994.
LGI / Resources / Ethnic relations |