Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:28:39.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development and Institutionalization of Romani Representation and Administration. Part 2: Beginnings of Modern Institutionalization (Nineteenth Century—World War II)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Ilona Klímová-Alexander
Ilona Klímová-Alexander*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge, UK, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is the second in this series, following “Part 1: The Legacy of Early Institutionalism: From Gypsy Fiefs to Gypsy Kings”, which covered the period from the arrival of Gypsies to Europe until the mid-nineteenth century and was published in Volume 32, Number 3 of Nationalities Papers. Part 2 describes the birth of the first modern forms of ethnically-based political and social organizations established by Romani elites from the nineteenth century up until the Second World War (WWII). The main pattern of the development of Romani representation and administration until the mid-nineteenth century—as described in Part 1—distinguished between institutionalization from within and without. In the time period described here, the pattern changes because the majority of organizations and institutions established in order to represent and administer Roma are started upon the initiative of Romani leaders. Some are, however, created under the umbrella or patronage of non-Romani authorities or organizations and their activities are controlled by these patrons; others are created in (various degrees of) cooperation with non-Romani authorities or organizations and a few are created and operate independently. In addition, during this period the first few non-Romani non-governmental organizations start to take interest in the plight of Roma, and some organizations are specifically created to address their plight and lobby “on their behalf.” The other pattern of the development that emerges in this period is the gradual ascent of the institutionalization to higher levels. While until the nineteenth century most of the Gypsies organized themselves locally and regionally (with the exception of the Polish Office of the Gypsy Kings and the Chief Voivods in Transylvania and Hungary), in this period we see the first attempts by Roma themselves to expand the institutionalization countrywide and even internationally. These patterns are again explored in the conclusion (and summarized in Table 1), while the main body deals with the various arrangements in a more or less chronological and geographical order.

Type
Articles
Information
Nationalities Papers , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 155 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Association for the Study of Nationalities of Eastern Europe 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

* Many thanks to Michael Stewart for providing me with his copies of the cited documents from the Archive of the Romanian Ministry of Interior and to Carmen Kettley for help with the translation of Romanian sources.Google Scholar

1. With the exception of Lithuania, where this phenomena had in fact already started in the eighteenth century (see Part 1).Google Scholar

2. Marushiakova, Elena and Popov, Vesselin, “Bulgaria: Ethnic Diversity—a Common Struggle for Equality,” in Guy, Will, ed., Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001), p. 374; Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria (New York: Peter Lang Verlag, 1997), p. 29; Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov, Gypsies in the Ottoman Empire (Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001), pp. 76–79.Google Scholar

3. “Gipsy Parliament,” Times, 27 January 1872, p. 5.Google Scholar

4. Hancock incorrectly states that the article reported that this conference took place in 1871, as opposed to announcing an event for the next month—February 1872; Hancock, Ian, We Are the Romani People: Ame sam e Rromane dzene (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2002), p. 113.Google Scholar

5. This is the name used in the Times article. For an unknown reason, other authors, despite reportedly citing this article, use different names such as: Darmstadt (Hancock, Ian, “The East European Roots of Romani Nationalism,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. XIX, No. 3, 1991, p. 257), Cannstadt (Hancock, We Are the Romani People, p. 113), Cannstardt (Puxon, Grattan, Road of the Rom (Skopje: Suto Orizari, 1975), manuscript held in the Romani Archives and Documentation Center, University of Texas at Austin, p. 4).Google Scholar

6. “Gipsy Parliament,” p. 5.Google Scholar

7. “Gipsy Congress,” Times, 29 September 1897, p. 7. Hancock actually reports this event as a pan-European Romani conference, however, nothing in the Times article suggests international participation (see Hancock, , We Are the Romani People, p. 114).Google Scholar

8. Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 257.Google Scholar

9. Hancock, , We Are the Romani People , p. 114. However, Hancock neither gives nor remembers the exact source of this information.Google Scholar

10. It is unclear where this information comes from as the Times article does not mention it and Puxon (or any other author) does not cite another source. Puxon himself no longer remembers the source of this information.Google Scholar

11. This “fact”—that Gypsies made an appeal for a state—as far as I am aware, is mentioned only in one source in a footnote, giving no details. See D. P. Singhal, India and World Civilization (London: 1973), p. 406, footnote 10. Singhal adds that Roma then voiced this demand in subsequent congresses, which would seem to imply that the first demand in 1875 was also mentioned at a congress. No records of a congress dating in 1875 have, however, been made public so far.Google Scholar

12. Puxon, , Road of the Rom , p. 4.Google Scholar

13. Hancock, Ian, The Pariah Syndrome: An Account of Gypsy Slavery and Persecution , accessed 25 February 2000, available from the Patrin Web Journal, http://www.geocities.com/Paris/5121/pariah-contents.htm, Chapters 4, 5.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., Chapter 5, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

15. Acton, Thomas, Gypsy Politics and Social Change: The Development of Ethnic Ideology and Pressure Politics among British Gypsies from Victorian Reforms to Romany Nationalism (London: Routledge, 1974), p. 101.Google Scholar

16. This law required all “nomads” to register and carry special identity cards ( carnet anthropometrique ), which were frequently checked by the authorities (Puxon, , Road of the Rom, pp. 59–60).Google Scholar

17. Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change, pp. 113–116; Mayall, David, Gypsy-Travellers in Nineteenth-Century Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 142; Myers, John, “Lazzy Smith in Egglestone's Notebook,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol. XVI, No. 1/2 (Third Series 1937), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar

18. Fraser, Angus, The Gypsies (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), p. 255.Google Scholar

19. Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change , p. 125.Google Scholar

20. Myers, , “Lazzy Smith in Egglestone's Notebook,” p. 4.Google Scholar

21. Personal communication, November 2001.Google Scholar

22. Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change , pp. 113–116; Mayall, , Gypsy-Travellers in Nineteenth-Century Society, p. 142; Myers, , “Lazzy Smith in Egglestone's Notebook,” pp. 4–5. For detailed accounts of all the Moveable Dwellings Bill campaigns see, e.g. Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change, Chapter 10; Mayall, , Gypsy-Travellers in Nineteenth-Century Society, Chapter 6.Google Scholar

23. For details see Mayall, , Gypsy-Travellers in Nineteenth-Century Society , p. 142.Google Scholar

24. See Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change , pp. 113–114. Cites the Pall Mall Gazette of 9 May 1891.Google Scholar

25. Mayall, , Gypsy-Travellers in Nineteenth-Century Society , p. 176.Google Scholar

26. Crowe, David M., A History of the Gypsies of Eastern Europe and Russia (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1996), p. 13; Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 257; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria , pp. 29–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27. Marushiakova and Popov, personal communication, October 2001.Google Scholar

28. Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria , pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

29. Marushiakova and Popov, personal communication, October 2001.Google Scholar

30. See, for example, Morning Leader , 7 March 1908. Cited in Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria, pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

31. Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 257.Google Scholar

32. For details of the anti-Romani laws and attitudes in the US see Hancock, The Pariah Syndrome , Chapter 14.Google Scholar

33. For details of the imperial assimilation programmes for Gypsies in Central and Eastern Europe see Crowe, A History of the Gypsies , pp. 38–40, pp. 73–78, 201.Google Scholar

34. Kenrick, Donald and Puxon, Grattan, The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies (London: Sussex University Press, 1972), p. 28.Google Scholar

35. For details see Panayi, Panikos, Ethnic Minorities in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Germany: Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Turks and others (Harlow: Longman, 2000), pp. 51, 96.Google Scholar

36. Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change , Chapter 10; Kenrick and Puxon, The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 28; Mayall, , Gypsy-Travellers in Nineteenth-Century Society, Chapter 5.Google Scholar

37. It is a Christian organisation which provides social and child welfare services and runs a children's home and two foster homes. It cooperates with Evangelical Lutheran parishes to organise Romani summer camps and church services in Romani and publishes its own magazine five times a year, mainly in Finnish but containing some material in Romani. Its main goal until the 1970s was to assimilate Roma into the dominant society; Finland's Romani People (Helsinki: Ministry of Social Affairs and Health Brochures 2, 1994).Google Scholar

38. Renamed to Romani Studies in the late 1990s.Google Scholar

39. Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change , Chapter 10; Mayall, , Gypsy-Travellers in Nineteenth-Century Society, pp. 4–5. For details about the involvement of religious organisations with Gypsies in the UK see Elwood B. Trigg, “Magic and Religion among the Gypsies of Great Britain” (D. Phil. thesis, Oxford University, 1967). For details about the early work of the GLS see Angus Fraser, “A Rum Lot,” in Matt T. Salo, ed., 100 Years of Gypsy Studies (Cheverly, MD: The Gypsy Lore Society, 1990).Google Scholar

40. Fraser, , The Gypsies , p. 316. However, as many other events in Romani history, the earliest attempts at forming organisations might have passed unrecorded.Google Scholar

41. For details see Jackson-Preece, Jennifer, National Minorities and the European Nation-States System (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), Chapter 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. For details see Ibid.Google Scholar

43. As mentioned earlier, Singhal does actually claim that the Gypsies first demanded their own state in 1875 (Singhal, India and World Civilization , p. 406, footnote 10). He however gives no details and no other source that I know of mentions this early date in relation to demands for Romani state.Google Scholar

44. Puxon, , Road of the Rom , p. 13.Google Scholar

45. Liegeois puts the date back to 1927: see Jean-Pierre Liegeois, Roma, Gypsies, Travellers (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1994), p. 250. He also says that PRGU was caught between “achieving recognition for the Gypsy minority and promoting its interests once recognised, and encouraging people to settle down and integrate on the grounds that Gypsies' chances of surviving as Gypsies were poor, given their environment.” However, part of this statement does not make sense as it implies that PRGU existed before Gypsies were granted nationality status, yet, according to other sources (see below), the establishment of PRGU coincided with the granting of the status: see Liegeois, Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, p. 251.Google Scholar

46. Lemon, Alaina, “Russia: Politics of Performance,” in Guy, Will, ed., Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001), p. 228; Puxon, , Road of the Rom, pp. 13–17.Google Scholar

47. Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , p. 175; Kenrick and Puxon, The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies, p. 204; Lemon, , “Russia: Politics of Performance,” p. 228.Google Scholar

48. The official press lauded the successes of these industrial and agricultural collectives, although the reality was different. For details see Lemon, , “Russia: Politics of Performance,” pp. 228, 232.Google Scholar

49. Ibid., p. 228; Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies, pp. 176–177; Liegeois, , Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, p. 251; Puxon, , Road of the Rom, p. 20.Google Scholar

50. The national Gypsy minority status was eventually withdrawn in 1936: see Stewart, Michael, “Communist Roma Policy 1945–1989 as Seen Through the Hungarian Case,” in Guy, Will, ed., Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001), p. 74.Google Scholar

51. Lemon, Alaina, Between Two Fires: Gypsy Performance and Romani Memory from Pushkin to Postsocialism (London: Duke University Press, 2000), pp. 104, 133; Lemon, , “Russia: Politics of Performance,” p. 228; Liegeois, , Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, p. 251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Lemon, , “Russia: Politics of Performance,” p. 231.Google Scholar

53. Lemon, , Between Two Fires , pp. 131–133; Lemon, Alaina, “Roma (Gypsies) in the Soviet Union and the Moscow Teatr ‘Romen’,” Nationalities Papers, Vol. XIX, No. 3, 1991, p. 360; Lemon, , “Russia: Politics of Performance,” pp. 231–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

54. Lemon, , “Roma (Gypsies) in the Soviet Union,” p. 363.Google Scholar

55. Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , pp. 176–177; Lemon, , “Roma (Gypsies) in the Soviet Union,” p. 363; Lemon, “Russia: Politics of Performance,” pp. 231–232.Google Scholar

56. For details see Jackson-Preece, National Minorities , Chapter 5.Google Scholar

57. Barany, Zoltan, The East European Gypsies: Regime Change, Marginality, and Ethnopolitics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 99; Kalvoda, Josef, “The Gypsies of Czechoslovakia,” in David M. Crowe and John Kolsti, eds, The Gypsies of Eastern Europe (Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, 1991), p. 95; Koudelka, Josef, Gypsies (New York: Aperture, 1975), foreword by Will Guy. All these authors base this fact on the interpretation offered by Czechoslovak analysts of Romani issues.Google Scholar

58. CBC Corporate, Gypsies in Canada: The Promised Land? , accessed 20 October 2002, available from News in Review, http://www.cbc.ca/insidecbc/newsinreview/dec97/gypsies/roma.html; Virtual Archive of East European History, Constitution of Czechoslovakia 1920, accessed 20 October 2002, available from http://www2.tltc.ttu.edu/kelly/Archive/czslconst1920.html#5.Google Scholar

59. Czech Statistical Office, Personal Communication, November 2001.Google Scholar

60. Historie scitani (History of censuses) , accessed 20 October 2002, available from the web site of the Czech Statistical Office, http://www.czso.cz/. Available only in the Czech version of the homepage.Google Scholar

61. Virtual Archive of East European History .Google Scholar

62. Barany, , The East European Gypsies , p. 99.Google Scholar

63. Novacek, J., Cikani vcera, dnes a zitra (Prague: Socialisticka akademie, 1968), p. 27.Google Scholar

64. Kaminski, Ignacy-Marek, The State of Ambiguity: Studies of Gypsy Refugees (Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg, 1980), p. 162.Google Scholar

65. The first one was opened in Uzhorod, Ruthenia, in 1927.Google Scholar

66. These regions all belonged to Czechoslovakia at that time.Google Scholar

67. Except the few who were from financially better-off families with higher social standing.Google Scholar

68. Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies, pp. 46–47; Davidova, Eva, “Puvod a historicky vyvoj cikanu v Ceskoslovensku,” Demografie, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1969, pp. 200–201; Emilia Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku (Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo Slovenskej Akademie Vied, 1964), p. 168; Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, pp. 162–163.Google Scholar

69. Barany, , The East European Gypsies, p. 100; Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies, pp. 86–87; Kovats, Martin, “Hungary: Politics, Difference and Equality,” in Guy, Will, ed., Between Past and Future: the Roma of Central and Eastern Europe (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 2001), p. 336; S. S. Shashi, Roma - The Gypsy World (Delhi: Sundeep Prakashan, 1990), pp. 102–103; Stewart, p. 76.Google Scholar

70. However, some organisations were outlawed even earlier—in 1925—by the Supplements to the Law for the Protection of the State: see Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria , p. 30.Google Scholar

71. Barany, , The East European Gypsies , p. 100; Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies, pp. 16–17; Horvathova, , Cigani na Slovensku, p. 94, footnote 83; Marushiakova and Popov, “Bulgaria: Ethnic Diversity,” p. 374; Marushiakova and Popov, Gypsies (Roma) in Bulgaria, pp. 30–31, 127.Google Scholar

72. Barany, , The East European Gypsies , p. 100; Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies, p. 218.Google Scholar

73. This name is used by an interwar source from Serbia—Alexander Petrovic, “Contribution to the Study of the Serbian Gypsies No. 10,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol. XVI, 1937. Bibi is a cult figure. Petrovic concludes that Bibi is in fact personification of cholera, while Rishi describes her as a legendary lady who is said to have protected Roma in difficult times or another form of St. Sarah, the Romani Goddess of Fortune: see Weer Rajendra Rishi, “Amongst Roma,” Roma, Vol. 9, No. 1, 1985, p. 13.Google Scholar

74. This name is used by contemporary sources such as Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , pp. 217–218; Rishi, , “Amongst Roma,” p. 13.Google Scholar

75. Petrovic, , “Contribution to the Study of the Serbian Gypsies No. 10,” pp. 115–129. Similar feasts would be celebrated independently also by other Gypsy communities in the area between Belgrade and Krusevac (some 180 km south of Belgrade, Petrovic, “Contribution to the Study of the Serbian Gypsies No. 10,” p. 127).Google Scholar

76. After WWII there was no claimant for the land and property and it was therefore nationalised and taken over by the Yugoslav Government: see Rishi, , “Amongst Roma,” p. 13. Drushtva Rom was revived in 1969 (see later parts of this series).Google Scholar

77. As a matter of fact the author of the previously cited article about the Bibi Society, Alexander Petrovic.Google Scholar

78. Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , pp. 217–218.Google Scholar

79. Unless some of the earlier reported congresses actually happened and were pan-Romani as well, which remains to be proven.Google Scholar

80. Crowe incorrectly says that it was the General Association of the Gypsies of Romania which was established in 1926 and which later organised the congresses (Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , p. 129). According to the police files, the founding date of the Society of New Peasant Brotherhood at Calbor was 18 June 1935 (Police Report on the Meeting of Society of New Peasant Brotherhood in Calbor, 24 June 1935, SRI-Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00133, No. 22145/1935, Dosar 34/1922). However, this date may refer to rejuvenation of the organisation after an intermission.Google Scholar

81. The other possible translation of this archaic Romanian word neamul is nation. Liegeois, Hancock and Crowe translate the name of the journal as the Gypsy Family, which is incorrect (Carmen Kettley, Personal communication, December 2001). Barany, , The East European Gypsies, p. 101; Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies, pp. 129–130; Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 257; Jean-Pierre Liegeois, Gypsies: An Illustrated History (London: Al Saqi Books, 1986), p. 145.Google Scholar

82. Achim, Viorel, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei (Bucharest: Editura Enciclopedica, 1998), Chapter 4.2.Google Scholar

83. Although some put the date incorrectly to 1934, see, e.g . Barany, The East European Gypsies, p. 102.Google Scholar

84. According to correspondence between the Permanent Rapporter of the Commission Internationale de Police Criminelle (CIPC) in Vienna and Vice-Directeur de la Surete Publique, Vice-President de la C.I.P.C. in Bucharest, newspaper Neues Wiener Tagblatt discussed the suggestion recently made to the League of Nations to gather nomadic Roma in Europe and establish a territory for them in one of the colonies. According to the newspaper, the Association was created as a response to this suggestion. Serboianu wanted to gather Romanian Roma and improve their intellectual level to stop such breaches of liberty. The letter from Vienna to Bucharest required confirmation of this information. However, the reply did not address the connection of the Romanian mobilisation to the plans being considered at the international level (Letter from the Permanent Rapporter of the Internationale Kriminalpolizeiliche Kommission in Vienna to Eugene Bianu, Vice-Directeur de la Surete Publique, Vice-President de la C.I.P.C. and the Reply, 22 September 1933, SRI-Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, I.K.K. 140/33, Dosar 34/1922). The suggestion these letters refer to came from the Oberwart District Prefect who maintained that Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia should agree to ask the League of Nations to investigate the possibility of establishing a colony for the resettlement of European Gypsies on an uninhabited (e.g. Polynesian) island. For more see quotes from the Observer of 30 April 1933 in Shoemaker, Henry W., “Banishment to Polynesia,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol. 12, No. 3 (Third Series 1933).Google Scholar

85. The statutes of the Union published in Haley say that the Union was founded only on 16 November 1933: see Haley, John, “The Gypsy Conference at Bucharest,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society , Vol. XVIII, No. 4, 1934, p. 186. This is perhaps the official date when it held its first executive meeting and applied for registration, however, de facto Lazurica took it upon himself already in September 1933 to act as its leader for the purposes of organising the October 1933 congress. This congress apparently formally agreed to establish the Union. Puxon claims in addition that the Union came into being de facto already in 1926 although “formally the date of its foundation was to coincide with the [1933] international congress” (Puxon, Road of the Rom, p. 45). But such information does not appear in any other consulted sources.Google Scholar

86. Some argue that both Serboianu and Lazurica were of Romani origin (Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , p. 129; Haley, , “The Gypsy Conference at Bucharest”), while others maintain that Lazurica was a non-Romani journalist (Hancock, “The East European Roots,” p. 257; Liegeois, Gypsies: An Illustrated History, p. 144).Google Scholar

87. The police report “Asociatia Generala a Tiganilor din Romania” claims that Lazurica decided to split from Serboianu because Serboianu intended to convert all Roma to the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church—Biserica Unita (Police Report “Asociatia Generala a Tiganilor din Romania”, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, No. 00116-00126, Dosar 34/1922). However, an earlier police report from a meeting of a local branch of the Union in Caracal in February 1935 states that it was alleged in this meeting that not only Serboianu, but Serboianu together with Lazurica wrote to the Pope suggesting conversion of all Roma to Catholicism (Police Report from a February 1935 Meeting of a Local Branch of the Union in Caracal, 16 February 1935, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00109-00110, No. 019804, Dosar 34/1922). Later on, after Serboianu's Association disappeared and Lazurica was ousted from the Union, Glasul Romilor prepared an article (which was however censored) about the two of them. It mentioned a letter written to the Pope by Lazurica on 6 October 1937 on behalf of the Citizens Association of Roma, which Lazurica established, asking him for 10,000 lei per month for supporting propaganda needed to convert Romanian Roma into Catholics. Lazurica allegedly offered to publish such propaganda in his newspaper Tara Noastra and he asked to be given powers of missionary. In relation to Serboianu the article reproduced his statement that he converted to Catholicism in Paris in 1929 and that he has no longer connection with the Orthodox Church. The article invited readers to voice their opinions (Report by the Detectives Division of Police 00198, 17 April 1938, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00198, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

88. Police Report 00046 , 7 October 1933, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00046, Dosar 34/1922; Police Report “Asociatia Generala a Tiganilor din Romania.” Google Scholar

89. “Congresul Tiganilor are loc peste o luna la Bucuresti,” Tempo, No. 45, 27 August 1933; Police Report 00048, 9 October 1933, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00048, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

90. Haley, , “The Gypsy Conference at Bucharest,” p. 188.Google Scholar

91. Ibid., pp. 186–187. According to Haley, the Romanian authorities have actually paid significant attention to all the recommendations of the congress (p. 183). However, he does not elaborate on this point.Google Scholar

92. Haley, , “The Gypsy Conference at Bucharest,” p. 188. Hancock and Crowe report that it was the current national Romani flag (without the red wheel—chokra—which was added later), consisting of two horizontal bars, the lower green and the upper blue, that was adopted (Crowe, A History of the Gypsies, p. 129; Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 258). This is, however, not confirmed by the statutes or any other source. Besides the Union's flag, regional branches would also have their own flags. At a congress of the regional branch in Sibiu on 9 September 1934 as many as 36 flags of various delegates were blessed (Police Report of a Congress of the Regional Branch of the Union in Sibiu on 9 September 1934, 16 September 1934, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00082-0084, No. 20034/1934, Cluj, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

93. Some, although not many, women were in fact involved in various posts of the Union. For example, the regional branch in Sibiu had a female honorary vice-president ( Police Report of a Congress of the Regional Branch of the Union in Sibiu on 9 September 1934 ).Google Scholar

94. Members of the central committee have often explained in their speeches at assemblies of the local branches the reasons for using the term “Roma.” its meaning and advantages. The following explanations, for example, have been used: the transition from Gypsies to Roma is through organisation. If we organise ourselves, we will no longer be called Gypsies (Police Report on an Assembly in Diciosanmartin on 5 May 1938, 24 May 1938, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00199, No. 14475/938, Cluj and 00200, Dosar 34/1922). The term “Roma” comes from the term “liberty” and means to be good and honest (Police Report of a Meeting of the Ploiesti Branch of the Union, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00127-00129, No. 046988, 16 April 1935 and Telegrama Raport No. 12139, 12 April 1935, Dosar 34/1922). The word Tigan (Gypsy) comes from Greek and means untouchable. People unjustly call Roma Gypsies. People called Gypsies do not exist and never existed anywhere (Police Report of a Conference in Iasi, 27 February 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00164, No. 4905, Dosar 34/1922). The term “Roma” means free (Police Report on a Meeting of the Union's local branch in Buzau, 30 January 1938, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00192, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

95. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, Chapter 4.2; Haley, , “The Gypsy Conference at Bucharest,” pp. 186–190; Police Report “Asociatia Generala a Tiganilor din Romania “. This was the general trend: that in order to be allowed to exist, Romani organisations and their leaders must be apolitical. However, the Union did not always stick to its declaration. According to a police report of 4 December 1933, the Union had just held two meetings in Bucharest at which Lazurica asked Roma to vote for the Liberal Party. He explained that the Party has confidence of the King, good and established history and that it is the only one that can lay foundations for Romania's flourishing future. The participants reportedly expressed at the meetings warm support for Prime Minister Duca, leader of the Liberal Party and the party itself. It was decided that a delegation from the Union will go to Duca and declare their support for him and ask for a response to a manifesto that the Union sent him earlier (Police Report 00068, 4 December 1933, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00068, Dosar 34/1922). In addition, between 1933–1934 there was a case in Oltenia that two Romani leaders joined the National Liberal Party (because the Party wanted some Roma in its ranks) and they published an article in their newspaper called Timpul asking Roma to vote for the Liberal Party. Similarly, in 1937 the Christian Party had support of some Romani leaders and published a weekly issue aimed specifically at Roma. These acts were, however, condemned by the Union (Achim, Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, Chapter 4.2). For example, in November 1937, the central committee of the Union requested the prefect of Dolj district to prohibit a congress of Oltenian Roma to take place because this branch violated the Statutes of the Union, which forbade association with political parties. The prefect fulfilled the request (Police Report 00189 and 00190, 6 November 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00189 and 00190, No. 115191, Nota telefonica Nr. 7833, Dosar 34/1922). But it is possible that the central committee used association with political parties of the Oltenian branch as a pretext to crack down on this branch, which had been revolting against it for a while.Google Scholar

96. Reprinted in Haley, , “The Gypsy Conference at Bucharest,” pp. 186–190.Google Scholar

97. Glasul Romilor , Vol. I, No. 1, 1934; Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, Chapter 4.2; Police Report “Asociatia Generala a Tiganilor din Romania.” Google Scholar

98. Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” pp. 257–258; Liegeois, , Gypsies: An Illustrated History , p. 146.Google Scholar

99. The mix of tradition and modernity is nicely illustrated in an appeal written by Serboianu which invites Roma to become socially active by coming to the congress and threatens them with the traditional Romani curse of mulo if they do not come. See Apel Catre Toti Tigani din Romania (Poster), SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00030, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

100. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , Chapter 4.2.Google Scholar

101. Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , p. 129.Google Scholar

102. Shashi, , Roma, p. 143.Google Scholar

103. For example, 200 Romani couples were married by the representatives of the state at a Romani celebration in Mehedinti in July 1937 ( Police Report of a Celebration in Mehedinti , 16 July 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00185, 5253, No. 071626, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

104. According to Achim and police reports from the Union's branch meetings in Trocadero on 30 April 1936 and in Timisoara on 17 August 1936 (Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, Chapter 4.2; Police Reports from the Union's Branch Meeting in Timisoara on 17 August 1936, 18 and 22 August 1936, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00158, No. 13990 (082904) and 00159, No. 3973, Dosar 34/1922; Police Reports from the Union's Branch Meeting in Trocadero on 30 April 1936, 2 and 6 May 1936, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00155, No. 7515 (049853) and 00156, No. 0716, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

105. For a poster announcing the meeting and a letter from the Union of 5 October 1936 informing that the meeting was postponed see SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00161, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

106. Liegeois, , Roma, Gypsies, Travellers , p. 251.Google Scholar

107. Both Serboianu and Lazurica were members of the GLS (see earlier in this article) and were in touch with intellectuals interested in Romani affairs worldwide through its network. Serboianu had in fact planned in early 1933 a meeting for the GLS in Bucharest but reportedly did not receive permission ( Letter from the Permanent Rapporter of the Internationale Kriminalpolizeiliche Kommission in Vienna to Eugene Bianu, Police Report 00046) . No reports of the congress, however, mention any connection with GLS.Google Scholar

108. Some authors put this date to October 1933 (see Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 62; Hancock, , We Are the Romani People , p. 257). Others quote 1934 (see Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change, p. 101; Liegeois, Gypsies: An Illustrated History, p. 146).Google Scholar

109. Puxon, Road of the Rom , p. 45. Haley cites the Rheinisch-Westfaelische Zeitung of Essen (November 15, 1933) as reporting attendance of Roma from all the Balkan states, Central Europe and England (Haley, , “The Gypsy Conference at Bucharest,” p. 182). Fraser, however, calls the reports of international participation dubious (Fraser, The Gypsies, p. 316).Google Scholar

110. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , Chapter 4.2; Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies, pp. 129–130; Fraser, , The Gypsies, p. 316; Puxon, , Road of the Rom, Chapter 4.Google Scholar

111. See, e.g. Remmel, Franz, Die Roma Rumaeniens: Volk ohne Hinterland (Vienna: Picus Verlag, 1993), p. 131.Google Scholar

112. Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , pp. 129–130; Puxon, , Road of the Rom, Chapter 4.Google Scholar

113. Fraser, , The Gypsies , p. 316.Google Scholar

114. Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change , p. 101.Google Scholar

115. Puxon, , Road of the Rom , pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

116. Haley, , “The Gypsy Conference at Bucharest,” pp. 186–190.Google Scholar

117. Police report 0063 states as one of the reasons why the Association experienced difficulties with registration the allegation that Serboianu had intentions to convert Roma to the Romanian Greek-Catholic Church—Biserica Unita (Police Report 00063, 5 November 1933, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00063, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

118. “Acte doveditoare care vor Ramane in istoria Romilor,” Glasul Romilor , Vol. I, No. 1, 1934, p. 2.Google Scholar

119. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , Chapter 4.2.Google Scholar

120. Majority of members of the Association did join the Union due to Lazurica's propaganda against Serboainu (Police Report “Asociatia Generala a Tiganilor din Romania”).Google Scholar

121. For details of the fight between Lazurica and Serboianu see Police Reports 00044 and 00055, which describe Serboianu accusing Lazurica of using the Romani movement just for his political ambitions and Lazurica accusing Serboainu of attempting to change the religious affiliation of Roma (Police Report 00044, 30 September 1933, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00044, Dosar 34/1922; Police Report 00055, 9 October 1933, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00055, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

122. For example, some of the local, especially Transylvanian branches had felt that the leadership of the Union is too centralised and that the central committee in Bucharest did not care for the interests of the local branches ( Police Report of a Meeting of the Union's Local Branch in Sibiu , 5 February 1935, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00108, No. 014579, Dosar 34/1922). The Transylvanian branches eventually made a united stance against the central committee and some of them withdrew membership (Police Report “Asociatia Generala a Tiganilor din Romania”).Google Scholar

123. The police report of a meeting of the Union's branch in Sigishoara states that Lazurica was criticised at the meeting because he was a Jew and a fraud and recently cheated a veterinary doctor (Police Report of a Meeting of the Union's branch in Sigishoara on 23 September 1934, 26 September 1934, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00089, No. 20988, Dosar 34/1922). A police report from a meeting of a local branch in Caracal in February 1935 states that Roma were instructed no longer listen to the ex-Voivod Lazurica who was a fraud and had by now been excluded from all of the Union's arrangements (Police Report from a February 1935 Meeting of a Local Branch of the Union in Caracal).Google Scholar

124. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei, Chapter 4.2; Reports by the Detectives Division of Police 00203-4 and 00205-6, 10 April 1939, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00203-4 and 00205-6, No. 6047, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

125. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , Chapter 4.2.Google Scholar

126. Some authors claim it only stayed active until 1938 or 1939 (Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , p. 130; Liegeois, , Gypsies: An Illustrated History, p. 146).Google Scholar

127. Achim, Chapter 4.2. At the end of 1938 the Ministry of Interior asked its branches to investigate the Union. The conclusion was that the Union did not do anything which threatened the security of the state and that all they did was legal ( Police Report 00201 , 16 December 1938, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00201, 02841A (13393), Dosar 34/1922; Reports by the Detectives Division of Police 00203-4 and 00205-6). Nevertheless, its activities were reportedly restricted.Google Scholar

128. For detailed reports of these meetings see The Archive of the Romanian Ministry of Interior , SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

129. Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies , p. 130. Hancock mistakenly writes that it was the 1933 conference that announced these plans and puts the date of the annual holiday to 23 December (Hancock, “The East European Roots,” p. 258).Google Scholar

130. I was, however, not able to find any proof of it except the personal communication cited below.Google Scholar

131. Ian Hancock, personal communication, October 2001.Google Scholar

132. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , Chapter 4.2; Crowe, , A History of the Gypsies, p. 130. Liegeois incorrectly says that these periodicals were published by the Association (Liegeois, , Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, p. 145).Google Scholar

133. See “Glasul Romilor,” Vol. I, No. 1; Report by the Detectives Division of Police 00198 .Google Scholar

134. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , Chapter 4.2.Google Scholar

135. Letter from the Regional Police Inspectorate in Craiova about a Meeting of 6 September 1933 in Corabia , SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00035, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

136. See the following letters and reports of the Ministry of Interior: 00167 in which the Ministry of Interior requests to make an inquiry by the Ministry officials about the society; 00168 in which the Ministry of Labour informs the Ministry of Interior about the society; 00169 Report of the police about the society; and 00173 in which the Ministry of Interior says that the people running the society are well-behaved (Letter from the Ministry of Interior 00167, 29 March 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00167, 19285 S, Dosar 34/1922; Ministry of Labour Letter 00168, 18 March 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00168, No. 149951 (028466), Dosar 34/1922; Police Report about Redemption of the Roma men and women in Romania, 17 April 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00169, Dosar 34/1922; Report from the Ministry of Interior 00173, 11 May 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00173, 29135 S, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

137. See the police report on a local assembly in Calarasi-Ialomita and on a Craiova local assembly (Police Report on a Craiova Local Assembly on 2 February 1938, 4 February 1938, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00193-4, No. 714 (011891), Dosar 34/1922; Police Report on a Local Assembly in Calarasi-Ialomita on 3 October 1937, 5 October 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00188, No. 36982 (101465), Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

138. Police Report 00178 , 2 April 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00178, No. 00803 (034854), Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

139. See Police Reports on a Meeting of the Union's Local Branch in Tg. Frumos on 2 March 1937, 28 March–17 May 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00176, No. 7695 (033643); 00177; 00182, No. 12153 (051550); 00183, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

140. Letter from President and the Secretary-General of the Union the to the Romanian Ministry of Interior , 10 March 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00165, No. 2665 (52)—hand-written original; 00166 transcribed copy, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

141. Police Report “Asociatia Generala a Tiganilor din Romania.” Google Scholar

142. Ibid.Google Scholar

143. Police Report on a Tg. Mures Branch Meeting on 30 November 1937, 7 April 1938, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00197, Cluj, No. 9697/938 (038166), Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

144. Barany, , The East European Gypsies , p. 102.Google Scholar

145. For example the Romani periodical Romano Lil in Yugoslavia (see earlier in this article), which as a policy would only print positive information about Roma.Google Scholar

146. See Police Reports from the Union's Branch Meeting in Timisoara on 17 August 1936; Police Reports on a Local Branch Meeting in Resica on 10 May 1936 , 11 May 1936, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, No. 7975 (058132) and No. 7946, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

147. See Police Report on 23 August 1936 Meeting of a Local branch in T. Severin , 27 August 1936, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, No. 5974, Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

148. However, according to police report from a meeting of a local Romani branch, by 1935 Serboianu had been allegedly fired by the Romanian Patriarch ( Police Report 00109–00110 , 16 February 1935, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00109-00110, No. 019804, Dosar 34/1922).Google Scholar

149. See “Glasul Romilor,” Vol. I, No. 1; Police Report of a Congress of the Regional Branch of the Union in Sibiu on 9 September 1934; Police Report on Union's Local Assembly in Tg. Frumos on 11 April 1937 , 28 April 1937, SRI–Directiunea Politei si Siguranta Generala, Minister de Intern, 00181, No. 10891 (044347), Dosar 34/1922.Google Scholar

150. Shashi, , Roma, p. 143.Google Scholar

151. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , Chapter 4.2.Google Scholar

152. Puxon, , Road of the Rom , pp. 42–43.Google Scholar

153. Achim, , Tigani din Istoria Romaniei , Chapter 4.2.Google Scholar

154. Or re-emergence, provided that the two first Kings of Gypsies in Poland in the seventeenth century were actually Gypsies. Otherwise the medieval Office of the King of Gypsies (held mostly if not entirely by non-Gypsy Polish gentry) was a quite different institution from the one Polish Gypsy leaders established in the 1920s (see Part 1 of this series).Google Scholar

155. Meaning by non-Gypsy authorities. However, this is not to say that some of the Kings were not endorsed by some Gypsy groups or individuals.Google Scholar

156. Ficowski, Jerzy, The Gypsies in Poland: History and Customs (Warsaw: Interpress, 1991), p. 35.Google Scholar

157. Ibid., pp. 35–36.Google Scholar

158. Ibid., p. 38.Google Scholar

159. Although there were reports of Polish Gypsy Kings abroad earlier—for example in a British journal in March 1910 (see ibid., pp. 33–34).Google Scholar

160. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , p. 172.Google Scholar

161. They had been living there since the 1860s.Google Scholar

162. Court of Justice in which the 12 established (1860s generation) Kalderash groups of Poland made decisions affecting all of their members (for details see Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , pp. 170–171).Google Scholar

163. Ibid., p. 173.Google Scholar

164. Ibid.Google Scholar

165. Ficowski, , The Gypsies in Poland , p. 36; Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity, pp. 172–174.Google Scholar

166. Kaminski states that Gregory declared himself King in 1918 while Puxon claims it was 1883 (Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity , p. 172; Puxon, Road of the Rom, p. 27). The earlier date would make sense in the light of the age argument (retiring 10 years after declaration because of advanced age seems a bit too early); however, official news does not mention Gregory until 1918. It is also possible that Gregory in fact declared himself a King in 1883 but only gained recognition in the media in 1918.Google Scholar

167. Kaminski states that the President himself actually attended, however; a source written only one year after the event by Thompson presents the version included in this article (Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity , p. 174; T. W. Thompson, “A Contemporary Polish Gypsy ‘King’,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol. IX, No. 3, 1930, p. 147.Google Scholar

168. Liegeois, Jean-Pierre, Mutation tsiganes (Paris: PUF, 1976), p. 128; Puxon, , Road of the Rom, pp. 28–29.Google Scholar

169. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , pp. 174–175; Liegeois, , Mutation tsiganes, p. 128.Google Scholar

170. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , pp. 174–176; Liegeois, , Mutation tsiganes, p. 128.Google Scholar

171. Except a few intellectuals and those who were blackmailed into supporting the Kings by their spies (Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , p. 176).Google Scholar

172. Ibid., pp. 176–177; Liegeois, , Mutation tsiganes, p. 128.Google Scholar

173. Liegeois, , Mutation tsiganes , p. 128.Google Scholar

174. The itinerary of the travel comes from an article in the Evening Standard (1 October 1932), quoted in Puxon, Road of the Rom, p. 30. Given the unreliability of journalistic sources about Gypsies, it might not be accurate. Polish specialists Ficowski and Kaminski do not mention such a tour in their accounts at all.Google Scholar

175. Ficowski, , The Gypsies in Poland , p. 36. Horvathova puts this date, incorrectly, at 1939 (Horvathova, Cigani na Slovensku, p. 66). Unless there is a confusion of dates again, the date would imply that Michal II did not participate in the 1933 international congress in Bucharest (provided such congress happened) but only in one of the national congresses. This would make sense, unless Michal II was in Romania twice, both in 1933 and 1934. His 1934 visit to Bessarabia was reported in an enquiry by the Romanian police from 11 December 1934 (11 December 1934, S.3-a.-).Google Scholar

176. Horvathova, , Cigani na Slovensku , p. 66; Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity, p. 177.Google Scholar

177. This information comes from an enquiry by the Romanian police about an article in the newspaper Tempo, which allegedly published this news (11 December 1934, S.3-a.-).Google Scholar

178. Ficowski, Jerzy, Cyganie na polskich drogach (Cracow: Wydownictwo Literackie, 1985), p. 86; Ficowski, , The Gypsies in Poland, p. 36. Acton claims by mistake—or a misreading of Ficowski's Polish original—that this speech was made by Janusz Kwiek (Acton, Gypsy Politics and Social Change, p. 102).Google Scholar

179. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , pp. 177–178; Thompson, , “A Contemporary Polish Gypsy ‘King’,” p. 148.Google Scholar

180. Ficowski, , Cyganie, p. 86; Ficowski, , The Gypsies in Poland, p. 36; Liegeois, , Mutation tsiganes, pp. 128–129.Google Scholar

181. Ficowski, , The Gypsies in Poland , p. 36; Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity, p. 178; Puxon, , Road of the Rom, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

182. A move which he previously advised to Vasil who had initially done so but shortly reverted his decision (see Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , p. 176).Google Scholar

183. Ibid., 178.Google Scholar

184. A Polish commentator states in a journal article from that time that Mathias was shot in a family feud (Soller, Ignacy, “Coronation of a Polish Gypsy King,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society , Vol. XXVII, No. 2, 1938, p. 71.Google Scholar

185. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , pp. 178–179; Liegeois, , Mutation tsiganes, p. 129.Google Scholar

186. Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 259; Liegeois, , Gypsies: An Illustrated History , p. 144.Google Scholar

187. Liegeois, , Roma, Gypsies, Travellers , p. 250.Google Scholar

188. Ficowski, , The Gypsies in Poland , p. 37.Google Scholar

189. According to a contemporary Polish commentator attending the coronation, neither Joseph nor Vasil were final candidates at the ceremony. These, according to Soller, were four Kwieks: Jerzy, Rudolf, Janusz and Serge, and a Hungarian cousin of the dead Mathias, Anton Cicerski (Soller, “Coronation,” p. 71).Google Scholar

190. Puxon, , Road of the Rom , p. 30.Google Scholar

191. Not the Catholic Archbishop of Warsaw as some sources state (for example Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change ; Kenrick and Puxon, The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies; Puxon, , Road of the Rom). This is interesting as the Orthodox Church in Poland is quite marginal. Kaminski hypothesis that perhaps the powerful Catholic Church refused participation or the Orthodox clergy was purposefully chosen as being more “exotic” and “colourful” than its Roman Catholic counterpart (Kaminski, The State of Ambiguity, pp. 371–372, footnote 25). The answer could, however, lay simply in the Romanian (most likely Orthodox) origin of the Kwiek dynasty.Google Scholar

192. Acton, , Gypsy Politics and Social Change , p. 101; Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity, pp. 179–180; Soller, , “Coronation,” pp. 71–72.Google Scholar

193. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , p. 179.Google Scholar

194. Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 259; Puxon, , Road of the Rom , Chapter 3.Google Scholar

195. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , p. 179.Google Scholar

196. According to NS Landpost for 19 March 1937, Janusz made this request for land in an area between Somalia and Abyssinia before the coronation (Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 259).Google Scholar

197. Ibid.; Puxon, , Road of the Rom, Chapter 3; Soller, “Coronation,” p. 72.Google Scholar

198. I attended this event as an observer.Google Scholar

199. For example, a group of Czechoslovak Gypsies reportedly sent a petition to various newspapers announcing that they rejected the rule of “any Polish Tinker” (Puxon, Road of the Rom , p. 35). The widow of Matthias also lodged a complaint at a police station few months after Janusz's election, accusing Janusz of wanting to assassinate her because she told the journalists that Janusz was an usurper who convinced, either through brining or death threats, those who were going to vote for other candidates to give their votes to him (Liegeois, Mutation tsiganes, p. 131).Google Scholar

200. Ficowski, , The Gypsies in Poland , p. 37; Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity, p. 180.Google Scholar

201. Poland excluding the areas incorporated into Germany.Google Scholar

202. This author's summary from the full letter published in Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , pp. 180–182.Google Scholar

203. Horvathova, , Cigani na Slovensku , p. 66.Google Scholar

204. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , p. 184.Google Scholar

205. In the progressive list that follows only Koscielniak appears out of place as he was not the third but the seventh king. His placement is in any case unsure, as we do not have enough information about him.Google Scholar

206. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , p. 187.Google Scholar

207. Michal I, by not sharing the economic benefits of his new position with members of other groups outside his own and by creating the “Gypsy Tribunal,” a direct competing structure to the Kris; Mathias, by giving up the autonomy which was the raison d'etre of the institution of the Gypsy King (ordering his subjects to directly cooperate with non-Gypsy authorities) and by creating a network of Gypsy agents of the non-Gypsy secret police; how Vasil alienated the Kris is unknown but it is probably related to his cooperation with the Polish secret police (ibid., p. 188).Google Scholar

208. Officially sanctioned by the Polish President.Google Scholar

209. Closely cooperating with the secret police.Google Scholar

210. Even more closely cooperating with the secret police, and declaring his people direct subjects to the Polish Government.Google Scholar

211. Note that Kaminski does not place Koscielniak and Janusz Kwiek. The latter would probably fall into category 3 as he was officially recognised by non-Gypsy structures even if he did not cooperate much.Google Scholar

212. Kaminski, , The State of Ambiguity , p. 189.Google Scholar

213. Ibid., pp. 187–191.Google Scholar

214. See Hancock, Ian, “What is the International Romani Union,” Informaciaqo Lil e Rromane Uniaqoro , No. 1/2, 1991.Google Scholar

215. Note that Gropper uses the name Red Hat Association (Gropper, Rena C., “Urban Nomads—the Gypsies of New York City,” in Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II (New York: New York Academy of Sciences, June 1967), p. 1053).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

216. Parry, Albert, “Children of Romany in New York,” Travel, Vol. 76, No. 4, 1941, p. 20; Weybright, Victor, “A Nomad Coppersmith in New York,” Journal of the Gypsy Lore Society, Vol. 24, No. 1/2, 1945, p. 5.Google Scholar

217. Parry, , “Children of Romany in New York,” p. 22.Google Scholar

218. Ibid., pp. 21–22, 40; Puxon, , Road of the Rom, p. 6; Weybright, , “A Nomad Coppersmith in New York,” pp. 3–6.Google Scholar

219. Puxon, , Road of the Rom, p . 7; Weybright, , “A Nomad Coppersmith in New York,” p. 6.Google Scholar

220. Interview with Larry Ottway and George Kaslov, New York, 18 April 1999.Google Scholar

221. Or more precisely, dictated letters, as he was illiterate (Weybright, “A Nomad Coppersmith in New York,” p. 4).Google Scholar

222. Eleanor actually visited Kaslov in his smithery in early 1940s (as the First Lady) and watched him working while they talked about the need for Gypsy children to get an education, which Kaslov emphasised (Parry, “Children of Romany in New York,” p. 18).Google Scholar

223. Hancock, , “The East European Roots,” p. 257; George Kaslov and Larry Ottway, The Struggle for Rom Nations in the US (New York: 1999); Leaflet of Baxtalo: The Children of the Red Dress Society and Lawyer's Committee for Rom Rights and Recognition; Weybright, “A Nomad Coppersmith in New York,” pp. 4, 7.Google Scholar

224. WPA stands for “Work Progress Administration”, a welfare program initiated in 1935 by Franklin D. Roosevelt (personal communication from Rena C. Gropper, 11 February 2002).Google Scholar

225. Parry, , “Children of Romany in New York,” p. 23; Puxon, , Road of the Rom , p. 7; Weybright, “A Nomad Coppersmith in New York,” pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

226. Weybright, , “A Nomad Coppersmith in New York,” p. 8.Google Scholar

227. For details see Gropper, , “Urban Nomads”, pp. 1053–1055.Google Scholar

228. Kaslov and Ottway, The Struggle for Rom Nations in the US .Google Scholar

229. In Kaslov's case, it was only all Russian Gypsies in the US (Weybright, “A Nomad Coppersmith in New York,” p. 8).Google Scholar

230. Ibid., 5.Google Scholar

231. Liegeois mentions two different dates in two of his publications—1936 and 1939, respectively (Liegeois, Gypsies: An Illustrated History , p. 146; Liegeois, Roma, Gypsies, Travellers, p. 251).Google Scholar

232. Interview with Grattan Puxon, Colchester, 28 March 2001.Google Scholar

233. See http://www.coe.fr/youth/english/Trainingcourses/TCRom99/06.htm.Google Scholar

234. Kenrick and Puxon, The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies , pp. 204–205.Google Scholar

235. For details see Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Patron Saint of the Rom and Sinti , accessed 16 January 2002, available from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/migrants/documents/rc_pc_migrants_doc_20000601_noma_santi_en.html.Google Scholar

236. Donald Kenrick, email to Patrin chat list, 1 February 2002, under the subject “Denmark during WW2”.Google Scholar

237. See “‘Romano’—Denmark's Oldest Gipsy Association” , accessed 27 March 2005, available from http://www.stottrup.dk/page53.html.Google Scholar

238. Interview with Grattan Puxon, Colchester, 28 March 2001.Google Scholar

239. For details see Donald Kenrick and Grattan Puxon, Gypsies under the Swastika (Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press, 1995), pp. 40–44, 54.Google Scholar

240. Ibid., pp. 78–80.Google Scholar

241. Kenrick and Puxon, The Destiny of Europe's Gypsies , pp. 142–143. Some shadow was, however, cast on the efforts of Kochanowski during the 2000 Romani Studies Greenwich conference, which I attended, where Valdemar Kalinin, a Lithuanian Romani writer, accused him of collaboration with the Nazis.Google Scholar

242. Kenrick and Puxon, Gypsies under the Swastika , pp. 114–115.Google Scholar

243. For details see ibid., pp. 78–79, 95, 100, 108, 122.Google Scholar

244. Ibid., p. 78.Google Scholar

245. Cited in Barany, , The East European Gypsies , p. 108.Google Scholar

246. Personal communication with Donald Kenrick, September 2001.Google Scholar

247. For some examples of these estimates see Barany, The East European Gypsies , p. 109.Google Scholar

248. Personal communication with Donald Kenrick, September 2001.Google Scholar

249. As described earlier in this article there were many problems with the functioning of this organisation and its countrywide influence was also somewhat questionable; however, here we measure its success relative to Romani organisations elsewhere.Google Scholar