The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of transnational governmentality - 8: The European memory problem revisited: Romani memory beyond amnesia

(1)

UvA-DARE is a service provided by the library of the University of Amsterdam (https://dare.uva.nl)

UvA-DARE (Digital Academic Repository)

The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the limits of

transnational governmentality

van Baar, H.J.M.

Publication date

2011

Link to publication

Citation for published version (APA):

van Baar, H. J. M. (2011). The European Roma: minority representation, memory, and the

limits of transnational governmentality.

General rights

It is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s)

and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open

content license (like Creative Commons).

Disclaimer/Complaints regulations

If you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please

let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material

inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: https://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter

to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You

will be contacted as soon as possible.

(2)

Chapterȱ8ȱ

TheȱEuropeanȱMemoryȱProblemȱRevisited:ȱ

RomaniȱMemoryȱbeyondȱAmnesiaȱ

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ INTRODUCTIONȱ ȱ MaȱBisteren!ȱLet’sȱnotȱforget!ȱ1_ȱ ȱ Weȱhaveȱbeenȱtaughtȱthatȱitȱisȱourȱdutyȱtoȱremember.ȱThatȱisȱcertainlyȱaȱpositiveȱdeȬ velopment.ȱYetȱtheȱdoctrineȱthatȱurgesȱusȱnotȱtoȱforgetȱtheȱcrimesȱagainstȱmankindȱisȱ accompaniedȱbyȱtheȱhopeȱthatȱthisȱmemoryȱwillȱpreventȱusȱfromȱrepeatingȱtheȱatrocȬ itiesȱofȱtheȱpast.ȱButȱwithoutȱtheȱdutyȱtoȱthink,ȱtheȱdutyȱtoȱrememberȱwillȱbeȱmeaningȬ less.ȱ(ClaudeȱLefortȱcitedȱProbstȱ2003:ȱ58)ȱ ȱ InȱherȱbestȬsellingȱtravelȱstoryȱBuryȱmeȱStanding:ȱTheȱGypsiesȱandȱtheirȱJourneyȱ(1995)ȱIsabelȱ Fonsecaȱ suggestsȱ thatȱ theȱ Romaȱ doȱ notȱ collectivelyȱ rememberȱ andȱ thatȱ theyȱ forgetȱ toȱ surviveȱ asȱ aȱ people.ȱ Inȱ contrast,ȱKatieȱ Trumpenerȱ (1992)ȱ statesȱ thatȱ Romaniȱ minorities,ȱ theirȱcultures,ȱhistories,ȱandȱmemoriesȱhaveȱpersistentlyȱbeenȱdeniedȱaȱplaceȱinȱmodernȱ Europeȱand,ȱthus,ȱthatȱtheirȱmemorialȱculturesȱtendȱtoȱbeȱdisplaced.ȱSheȱarguesȱthatȱthisȱ displacementȱisȱinherentlyȱrelatedȱtoȱtheȱdenialȱofȱ‘theȱtimeȱofȱtheȱGypsies.’ȱAccordingȱtoȱ her,ȱ theȱ immobilizingȱ ofȱ theirȱ timeȱ andȱ theirȱ relegationȱ toȱ theȱ domainȱ ofȱ preȬmodern,ȱ traditional,ȱandȱ‘historyȬless’ȱculturesȱhaveȱbeenȱamongȱtheȱnecessaryȱconditionsȱofȱposȬ sibilityȱtoȱdevelopȱmodernȱEuropeanȱhistories,ȱcharacterizedȱbyȱtheirȱsupposedȱabilityȱtoȱ beȱ productive,ȱ innovative,ȱ andȱ progressiveȱ atȱtheȱ sameȱtime.ȱTrumpenerȱ considersȱ thisȱ phenomenon,ȱaccordingȱtoȱwhichȱEuropeanȱhistoryȱandȱhistoricityȱcanȱonlyȱbeȱconstructȬ edȱandȱarticulatedȱasȱproductiveȱbyȱreducingȱpeoplesȱsuchȱasȱ‘theȱGypsies’ȱtoȱthoseȱwithȬ outȱhistory,ȱasȱtheȱmainȱcharacteristicȱofȱwhatȱsheȱcallsȱtheȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱproblem.ȱ

Fonseca’sȱandȱTrumpener’sȱclaimsȱareȱatȱoddsȱwithȱtheȱrecentȱproliferationȱofȱRomaniȱ memorialȱ practices.ȱ Particularlyȱ sinceȱ theȱ fallȱ ofȱ communism,ȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ aȱ rapidȱ increaseȱofȱsuchȱpracticesȱthroughoutȱEurope,ȱasȱwellȱasȱtheȱincreasedȱRomaniȱinvolveȬ mentȱ inȱ developingȱ artisticȱ andȱ intellectualȱ movements,ȱ includingȱ theȱ formationȱ ofȱ

1_{ȱ Inȱ Romanes,ȱ ‘maȱ bisteren’ȱ meansȱ ‘let’sȱ notȱ forget!’ȱ Maȱ Bisteren!ȱ wasȱ alsoȱ theȱ nameȱ ofȱ aȱ Slovakȱ projectȱ} whichȱaimedȱtoȱremindȱtheȱpublicȱofȱtheȱsufferingȱofȱtheȱRomaȱduringȱtheȱSecondȱWorldȱWar.ȱInȱ2005Ȭ06,ȱ theȱ Romaniȱ NGOȱ Inȱ Minoritaȱ andȱ theȱ Slovakȱ Nationalȱ Museumȱ organizedȱ thisȱ projectȱ (interviewȱ 2005p;ȱ RNLȱ2005;ȱHušovaȱ2006).ȱ

(3)

historiographies.2_{ȱ Particularlyȱ regardingȱ Holocaustȱ remembrance,ȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ}

practicesȱ haveȱ increased.ȱ Romaȱ haveȱ developedȱ newȱ memorialsȱ atȱ variousȱ sitesȱ ofȱ memoriesȱ thatȱ areȱ relatedȱ toȱ theirȱ warȱ histories.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ midȱ 1980s,ȱ suchȱ memorialsȱ haveȱ beenȱ builtȱ atȱ theȱ sitesȱ ofȱ formerȱ Naziȱ concentrationȱ campsȱ inȱ butȱ alsoȱ outsideȱ Germany,ȱinȱcountriesȱsuchȱasȱAustria,ȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱHungary,ȱtheȱNetherlands,ȱ Poland,ȱ andȱ Slovakia.ȱ Inȱ someȱ towns,ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ Tarnówȱ inȱ Polandȱ andȱ inȱ Brnoȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republic,ȱ Romaniȱ museumsȱ haveȱ beenȱ established,ȱ atȱ whichȱ newȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ andȱ historiographiesȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ developed.3_{ȱ Elsewhere,ȱ suchȱ asȱ inȱ theȱ}

AuschwitzȱmuseumȱinȱPolandȱandȱtheȱnewȱHolocaustȱmuseumȱinȱBudapest,ȱRomaȱhaveȱ developedȱexhibitionsȱinȱwhichȱtheyȱaddressȱtheȱNaziȱgenocideȱofȱSintiȱandȱRoma.4_ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ chapter,ȱ Iȱ willȱ engageȱ inȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ historiesȱ andȱ memoriesȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Europe.ȱ Howȱ areȱ weȱ toȱ assessȱ theȱ currentȱ proliferationȱ ofȱ RomaniȱmemorialȱpracticesȱvisȬàȬvisȱclaims,ȱsuchȱasȱthoseȱofȱFonsecaȱandȱTrumpener?ȱInȱ theȱfirstȱpartȱofȱthisȱchapter,ȱIȱwillȱargueȱthatȱweȱcanȱmaintainȱneitherȱtheȱthesisȱthatȱtheȱ Romaȱcollectivelyȱneglectȱtheirȱpastȱinȱorderȱtoȱsurvive,ȱnorȱtheȱthesisȱthatȱRomaniȱhisȬ toriesȱandȱmemoriesȱareȱpersistentlyȱdeniedȱaȱplaceȱinȱEuropeanȱsocietiesȱandȱcultures.ȱ Diverseȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ areȱ mobilizingȱ memoryȱ asȱ aȱ strategyȱ toȱ inscribeȱ Romaniȱ hisȬ toriesȱinȱtheȱEuropeanȱmemorialȱlandscapesȱandȱtoȱclaimȱaȱplaceȱinȱnationalȱandȱEuroȬ peanȱhistoriesȱandȱmemories.ȱ

Inȱ thisȱ chapter’sȱ secondȱ part,ȱ Iȱ willȱ explainȱ whyȱ weȱ canȱ neverthelessȱ maintainȱ Trumpener’sȱ ideaȱ thatȱ we,ȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Europe,ȱ areȱ facingȱ aȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problem.ȱ Yet,ȱ thisȱ problemȱ isȱ noȱ longerȱ theȱ oneȱ thatȱ sheȱ addressed.ȱ Toȱ showȱ howȱ thisȱ problemȱ hasȱ transformed,ȱ Iȱ willȱ reflectȱ onȱ how,ȱ inȱ EUȱ culturalȱ policy,ȱ weȱ haveȱ seenȱ aȱ tendencyȱ toȱ whatȱ Iȱ callȱ theȱ governmentalizationȱ ofȱ Holocaustȱ remembrance.ȱ Thisȱ governmentalizationȱhasȱ engenderedȱ novelȱnarrativesȱ ofȱ Europeanȱbelongingȱthatȱ tendȱ toȱ include,ȱratherȱ thanȱ exclude,ȱtheȱ historiesȱandȱ memoriesȱ ofȱminorityȱ groupsȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱRomani.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱhowever,ȱtheȱtrendȱtoȱgovernmentalizeȱHolocaustȱrememȬ branceȱalsoȱrisksȱtoȱturnȱitȱintoȱaȱquestionableȱHolocaustȱpedagogy.ȱ

Thisȱ chapterȱ proceedsȱ asȱ follows.ȱ First,ȱ Iȱ willȱ discussȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Trumpenerȱ introducedȱ theȱ notionȱ ofȱ aȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problemȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1990s.ȱ Afterȱ that,ȱ Iȱ willȱconfrontȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱsheȱconceivedȱthisȱproblemȱwithȱmyȱfirstȱcaseȱstudy,ȱinȱ whichȱ Iȱ discussȱ theȱ heated,ȱ stillȱ ongoingȱ debateȱ aboutȱ twoȱ formerȱ Naziȱ concentrationȱ campsȱ forȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republic.ȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ that,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ Romaniȱ memoryȱ tendsȱ toȱ beȱ displacedȱ inȱ theseȱ cases,ȱ theȱ involvedȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ andȱ theirȱ advocatesȱ haveȱ developedȱ strategiesȱ toȱ politicizeȱ theseȱ exclusionȱ practicesȱ andȱ renderȱ themȱ public.ȱ Iȱ willȱ explainȱ howȱ theseȱ strategiesȱ relateȱ toȱ travelingȱ activismȱ atȱ theȱ Europeanȱ levelȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ currentȱ trendȱ toȱ governmentalizeȱ Holocaustȱ remembrance.ȱ TheȱtrendȱtoȱgovernmentalizeȱHolocaustȱremembranceȱatȱtheȱEUȱlevelȱforȱaims,ȱsuchȱasȱ socialȱ inclusion,ȱ citizenȱ participation,ȱ humanȱ rightsȱ education,ȱ andȱ Europeanȱ identityȱ formationȱ hasȱ alsoȱ changedȱ theȱ placeȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memoriesȱ inȱ theȱ newȱ narrativesȱ onȱ

2_{ȱSee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱKapralskiȱ(1997;ȱ2004;ȱ2008;ȱ2011),ȱLemonȱ(2000),ȱKenrickȱ(2006),ȱZimmermannȱ(2007a),ȱ}

Fischerȱ vonȱ Weikersthalȱ etȱ alȱ (2008),ȱ andȱ Vermeerschȱ (2008).ȱ Seeȱ alsoȱ severalȱ ofȱ myȱ ownȱ contributionsȱ toȱ thisȱdebateȱ(vanȱBaarȱ2005a;ȱ2008b;ȱ2010b;ȱ2010c;ȱ2010d;ȱ2011a).ȱ

3_{ȱSeeȱLázni²kováȱ(1999),ȱBartoszȱ(2003).ȱSeeȱalsoȱsomeȱofȱmyȱinterviewsȱ(2002a;ȱ2003c;ȱ2003b;ȱ2003f;ȱ2008b).ȱ}

(4)

Europe’sȱpastȱinstigatedȱbyȱtheȱEU.ȱInȱmyȱsecondȱcaseȱstudy,ȱinȱwhichȱIȱfocusȱonȱRomaniȱ memoryȱstrategiesȱthatȱhaveȱbeenȱdevelopedȱinȱpostwarȱGermany,ȱIȱwillȱfurtherȱexamineȱ whatȱ novelȱ Holocaustȱ discoursesȱ tendȱ toȱ makeȱ possibleȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memory.ȱ Yet,ȱIȱalsoȱexplainȱthatȱtheȱEuropeanȱmemoryȱproblemȱrisksȱreappearingȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱ Holocaustȱ pedagogyȱ thatȱ doesȱ notȱ sufficientlyȱ reflectȱ onȱ howȱ Europe’sȱ darkȱ pastȱ stillȱ affectsȱ theȱ EU’sȱ currentȱ functioning.ȱ Inȱ theȱ concludingȱ section,ȱ Iȱ showȱ howȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱstrategiesȱcontestȱthisȱEUȱpoliticsȱofȱ‘reȬmembering.’ȱ ȱ ȱ TEMPORALITYȱANDȱTHEȱEUROPEANȱMEMORYȱPROBLEMȱ ȱ Inȱhisȱreflectionȱuponȱtheȱincreasedȱattentionȱpaidȱtoȱmemoryȱandȱitsȱvariousȱinstancesȱ sinceȱtheȱ1980s,ȱtheȱAmericanȱscholarȱAndreasȱHuyssenȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱrecentȱ‘obsesȬ sion’ȱwithȱmemoryȱcouldȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱ“aȱsignȱofȱtheȱcrisisȱofȱthatȱstructureȱofȱtempoȬ

ralityȱ thatȱ markedȱ theȱ ageȱ ofȱ modernityȱ withȱ itsȱ celebrationȱ ofȱ theȱ newȱ asȱ utopian,ȱ asȱ

radicallyȱandȱirreduciblyȱother”ȱ(Huyssenȱ1995:ȱ6,ȱmyȱitalics).ȱInȱtheȱlightȱofȱthisȱcrisisȱweȱ haveȱ alsoȱ beenȱ ableȱ toȱ observeȱ aȱ shiftȱ inȱ scholarlyȱ analysesȱ ofȱ howȱ theȱ pastȱ hasȱ beenȱ articulatedȱinȱtheȱpresent.ȱThisȱshiftȱcouldȱbeȱdescribedȱasȱoneȱfromȱhistoryȱtoȱmemory.ȱ Accordingȱ toȱ Huyssen,ȱ thisȱ changeȱ representsȱ “aȱ welcomeȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ compromisedȱ teleoȬ

logicalȱnotionsȱofȱhistoryȱratherȱthanȱbeingȱsimplyȱantiȬhistorical,ȱrelativistic,ȱorȱsubjective”ȱ

(ibid,ȱmyȱitalics).ȱThisȱchangeȱgoesȱtogetherȱwithȱacknowledgingȱtheȱcrucialȱimportanceȱ ofȱtheȱarticulationȱofȱmemoryȱinȱconjunctionȱwithȱotherȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱweȱcanȱarticulateȱ theȱ pastȱ inȱ theȱ present.ȱ Huyssen’sȱ observationȱ isȱ relevantȱ toȱ howȱ Romaniȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ canȱ beȱ consideredȱ asȱ critiquesȱ ofȱ establishedȱ historiographiesȱ ofȱ nationȱ statesȱ andȱ Europe,ȱ andȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ inȱ particular.ȱ Toȱ explainȱ theȱ backgroundȱ ofȱ thisȱ arguȬ ment,ȱIȱwillȱengageȱinȱaȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱroleȱofȱRomaniȱmemoriesȱinȱnarrativesȱofȱEuroȬ peanȱidentity,ȱtemporality,ȱandȱmodernity.ȱȱ

ȱ

Beyondȱtheȱartȱofȱforgettingȱ

TheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱRomaȱwouldȱorȱwouldȱnotȱrememberȱandȱhowȱtheyȱhaveȱorȱhaveȱ notȱ beenȱ involvedȱ inȱ theȱ writingȱ ofȱ theirȱ ownȱ historiesȱ hasȱ repeatedlyȱ beenȱ discussedȱ amongȱscholars.ȱSomeȱhaveȱsuggestedȱthatȱRomaniȱculturesȱcouldȱbeȱcharacterizedȱbyȱanȱ ‘artȱofȱforgetting.’ȱInȱtheȱ1970s,ȱforȱinstance,ȱitȱwasȱarguedȱthatȱtheȱRoma’sȱallegedȱlackȱofȱ interestȱ inȱ theirȱ pastȱ wasȱ theȱ resultȱ ofȱ theirȱ temperamentȱ asȱ aȱ peopleȱ (Quintanaȱ andȱ Floydȱ1972).ȱMoreȱrecently,ȱIsabelȱFonseca,ȱinȱherȱBuryȱmeȱStanding:ȱtheȱGypsiesȱandȱtheirȱ

Journey,ȱ hasȱ suggestedȱ somethingȱ similarȱ when,ȱ inȱ aȱ chapterȱ onȱ theȱ Holocaust,ȱ sheȱ

remarksȱthatȱ“theȱJewsȱhaveȱrespondedȱtoȱpersecutionȱandȱdispersalȱwithȱaȱmonumentalȱ industryȱofȱremembrance.ȱTheȱGypsies—withȱtheirȱpeculiarȱmixtureȱofȱfatalismȱandȱtheȱ spirit,ȱ orȱ wit,ȱ toȱ seizeȱ theȱ day—haveȱ madeȱ anȱ artȱ ofȱ forgetting”ȱ (1995:ȱ 276).ȱ Fonseca’sȱ theoryȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ ‘artȱ ofȱ forgetting’ȱ hasȱ beenȱ reworkedȱ moreȱ formallyȱ byȱ Ingeȱ Clendinnen,ȱwho,ȱinȱherȱstudyȱReadingȱtheȱHolocaust,ȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱEuropeanȱRomaȱareȱ anȱ exampleȱ ofȱ aȱ peopleȱ whoȱ haveȱ chosenȱ “notȱ toȱ botherȱ withȱ historyȱ atȱ all”ȱ andȱ whoȱ “seekȱnoȱmeaningsȱbeyondȱthoseȱrelevantȱtoȱimmediateȱsurvival”ȱ(1999:ȱ8).ȱ

Aȱ similar,ȱ thoughȱ subtlerȱ pointȱ ofȱ viewȱ returnsȱ inȱ theȱ worksȱ ofȱ theȱ anthropologistsȱ MichaelȱStewartȱandȱPalomaȱGayȱyȱBlasco.ȱTheȱlatter,ȱforȱinstance,ȱclaimsȱthatȱ“allȱGypȬ

(5)

siesȱ…ȱelaborateȱonȱtheȱcontrastȱbetweenȱthemselvesȱandȱtheȱnonȬGypsiesȱandȱalsoȱshareȱ …ȱ aȱ lackȱ ofȱ anȱ elaborateȱ socialȱ memory”ȱ (Gayȱ yȱ Blascoȱ 1999:ȱ 4).ȱ Inȱ herȱ researchȱ onȱ Spanishȱ Gitanos,ȱ sheȱ suggestsȱ that,ȱ “unlikeȱ manyȱ otherȱ minorities,ȱ theȱ Gitanosȱ doȱ notȱ lookȱ toȱ aȱ historicalȱ orȱ mythicalȱ pastȱ forȱ explanationsȱ ofȱ theirȱ wayȱ ofȱ lifeȱ orȱ ofȱ theirȱ differenceȱfromȱtheȱdominantȱmajority”ȱ(ibidȱ14).ȱBothȱStewartȱandȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱrelateȱ thisȱlackȱofȱanȱelaborateȱsocialȱmemoryȱtoȱaȱpreoccupationȱwithȱtemporalityȱthatȱwouldȱ beȱcharacteristicȱofȱtheȱRoma.ȱTheȱformer,ȱforȱinstance,ȱconcludesȱhisȱstudyȱTheȱTimeȱofȱ theȱGypsiesȱwithȱtheȱremarkȱthatȱ“theyȱliveȱwithȱtheirȱgazeȱfixedȱonȱaȱpermanentȱpresentȱ thatȱisȱalwaysȱbecoming,ȱaȱtimelessȱnowȱinȱwhichȱtheirȱcontinuedȱexistenceȱasȱRomȱisȱallȱ thatȱcounts”ȱ(Stewartȱ1997:ȱ246).ȱSimilarly,ȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱGitanosȱ“lackȱanȱ elaborateȱ socialȱ memoryȱ andȱ haveȱ noȱ mythsȱ ofȱ originȱ inȱ whichȱ theirȱ commonȱ identityȱ couldȱ findȱ itsȱ roots:ȱ theyȱ areȱ intentȱ onȱ separatingȱ theȱ pastȱ fromȱ theȱ present,ȱ andȱ onȱ denyingȱthatȱtheȱ‘before’ȱ…ȱmayȱholdȱtheȱblueprintȱforȱtheȱ‘now’”ȱ(1999:ȱ174).ȱTheȱwayȱinȱ whichȱtheȱGitanosȱwouldȱdealȱwithȱtemporalityȱleadsȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱtoȱconcludeȱthatȱtheyȱ “seemȱtoȱbeȱpermanentlyȱengagedȱinȱtheȱ‘celebrationȱofȱimpermanence’”ȱ(ibidȱ173).ȱThisȱ impliesȱthatȱ“theȱidentityȱofȱtheȱgroupȱisȱnotȱobjectifiedȱoutsideȱtheȱgroupȱitself”ȱ(ibidȱ174,ȱmyȱ emphasis),ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ memorials.ȱ Aȱ similarȱ pointȱ returnsȱ inȱ oneȱ ofȱ Stewart’sȱarticles,ȱinȱwhichȱheȱstatesȱthatȱtheȱvastȱmajorityȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱRomaȱdoesȱ remember,ȱbutȱisȱnotȱinvolved,ȱforȱinstance,ȱinȱtheȱcommemorationȱofȱtheȱNaziȱgenocide.ȱ TheirȱHolocaustȱmemoriesȱwouldȱusuallyȱremainȱ‘implicit,’ȱbutȱnotȱgetȱobjectifiedȱinȱtheȱ formȱofȱcommemorations,ȱmonuments,ȱorȱmemorialsȱmoreȱgenerallyȱ(Stewartȱ2004;ȱforȱaȱ similarȱview,ȱseeȱalsoȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱ2001).ȱ ȱ ThoughȱmostȱofȱtheȱmentionedȱauthorsȱimplicitlyȱorȱexplicitlyȱsuggestȱthatȱtheȱRoma’sȱ enduranceȱasȱaȱpeopleȱrelatesȱtoȱhowȱothersȱhaveȱtreatedȱthemȱthroughoutȱEuropeanȱhisȬ tory,ȱtheyȱneverthelessȱtendȱtoȱreifyȱRomaniȱculturesȱandȱtheirȱexternalȱboundaries.ȱTheirȱ culturesȱ areȱ representedȱ asȱ havingȱ ‘timeless’ȱ characteristics,ȱ evenȱ thoughȱ theȱ Roma’sȱ relationshipsȱwithȱothersȱandȱamongȱthemselvesȱmayȱchangeȱinȱdueȱcourse.ȱThisȱreificaȬ tionȱmanifestsȱitselfȱmostȱclearlyȱinȱtheȱcaseȱofȱStewart’sȱandȱGayȱyȱBlasco’sȱrepresentaȬ tionȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱasȱthoseȱwhoȱliveȱinȱaȱ‘permanentȱpresent’ȱorȱ‘timelessȱnow.’ȱTheseȱ kindsȱ ofȱ reificationsȱ tendȱ toȱ obscureȱ howȱ theseȱ Romaȱ representationsȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ dyȬ namicȱinterrelationshipsȱbetweenȱRomaȱandȱothers,ȱtoȱinternalȱvariationsȱacrossȱ(ethnic)ȱ differenceȱandȱspace,ȱandȱtoȱhowȱparticularȱsocioȬculturalȱmechanismsȱ‘majoritize’ȱsomeȱ groupsȱwhileȱtheyȱ‘minoritize’ȱothersȱ(chapterȱ3).ȱ ȱ Moreȱrecently,ȱtheȱAmericanȱanthropologistȱJamesȱScottȱhasȱalsoȱattributedȱ‘anȱartȱofȱ forgetting’ȱtoȱtheȱRoma.ȱHeȱpresentsȱtheȱlackȱofȱaȱwrittenȱhistoryȱinȱtheȱcontextȱofȱstrateȬ giesȱofȱwhatȱheȱcalls,ȱmoreȱgenerally,ȱ“theȱartȱofȱnotȱbeingȱgoverned”ȱ(2009).ȱRelativelyȱ powerlessȱ peoples,ȱ heȱ argues,ȱ “mayȱ wellȱ findȱ itȱ toȱ theirȱ advantageȱ toȱ avoidȱ writtenȱ traditionsȱandȱfixedȱtexts,ȱorȱevenȱtoȱabandonȱthemȱaltogether,ȱinȱorderȱtoȱmaximizeȱtheirȱ roomȱforȱculturalȱmaneuver”ȱ(ibidȱ235).ȱSimilarȱtoȱhowȱStewartȱandȱGayȱyȱBlascoȱpresentȱ suchȱ strategies,ȱ Scottȱ attributesȱ agentialȱ potentialȱ toȱ suchȱ peoples:ȱ “theȱ shorterȱ theirȱ genealogiesȱandȱhistoriesȱtheȱlessȱtheyȱhaveȱtoȱexplainȱandȱtheȱmoreȱtheyȱcanȱinventȱonȱ theȱspot”ȱ(ibid).ȱThisȱobservationȱalsoȱleadsȱhimȱtoȱbrieflyȱdiscussȱtheȱRomaniȱcase:ȱ ȱ

InȱEurope,ȱtheȱcaseȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱmayȱbeȱinstructive.ȱWidelyȱpersecuted,ȱtheyȱhaveȱ noȱ fixedȱ writtenȱ languageȱ butȱ aȱ richȱ oralȱ traditionȱ inȱ whichȱ storytellersȱ areȱ highlyȱ

(6)

revered.ȱTheyȱhaveȱnoȱfixedȱhistory.ȱTheyȱhaveȱnoȱstoryȱtheyȱtellȱaboutȱtheirȱoriginsȱorȱ aboutȱaȱpromisedȱlandȱtowardȱwhichȱtheyȱareȱheaded.ȱTheyȱhaveȱnoȱshrines,ȱnoȱanȬ thems,ȱnoȱruins,ȱnoȱmonuments.ȱIfȱthereȱwereȱeverȱaȱpeopleȱwhoȱneededȱtoȱbeȱcageyȱ aboutȱ whoȱtheyȱ areȱ andȱ whereȱ theyȱ cameȱ from,ȱ itȱ isȱtheȱGypsies.ȱShuttlingȱ betweenȱ manyȱcountriesȱandȱscourgedȱinȱmost,ȱtheȱGypsiesȱhaveȱconstantlyȱhadȱtoȱadjustȱtheirȱ historiesȱandȱidentitiesȱtoȱtheȱinterestȱofȱsurvival.ȱTheyȱareȱtheȱultimateȱbobbingȱandȱ weavingȱpeople.ȱ(Scottȱ2009:ȱ235)ȱ

ȱ

InȱlineȱwithȱStewart’sȱandȱGayȱyȱBlasco’sȱviews,ȱScottȱalsoȱsuggestsȱthatȱtheȱRomaȱdoȱreȬ member,ȱ butȱ doȱ generallyȱ notȱ objectifyȱ theirȱ remembranceȱ inȱ theȱ formȱ ofȱ shrines,ȱ anȬ thems,ȱruins,ȱwrittenȱstoriesȱaboutȱtheirȱorigins,ȱorȱmonuments.ȱYet,ȱunlikeȱStewartȱandȱ GayȱyȱBlasco,ȱScottȱhighlightsȱtheȱimportanceȱofȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱwrittenȱandȱoralȱ traditionsȱ regardingȱ howȱ culturesȱ areȱ represented.ȱ Heȱ arguesȱ thatȱ theȱ privilegingȱ ofȱ writtenȱtraditionsȱinȱwesternȱorȱmajoritarianȱcultures,ȱandȱtheȱrelatedȱattributionȱofȱhisȬ toricityȱtoȱ‘civilizedȱcultures’ȱhaveȱhistoricallyȱresultedȱinȱtheȱstigmatizationȱofȱstatelessȱ peoplesȱ andȱ peoplesȱ characterizedȱ byȱ oralȱ culturesȱ asȱ “peoplesȱ withoutȱ history”ȱ (ibidȱ 237).ȱScottȱcombinesȱthisȱinsightȱwithȱhisȱemphasisȱonȱtheseȱpeoples’ȱagencyȱtoȱconcludeȱ thatȱ“howȱmuchȱhistoryȱaȱpeopleȱhaveȱ…ȱisȱalwaysȱanȱactiveȱchoice,ȱoneȱthatȱpositionsȱ themȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theirȱ powerfulȱ textȬbasedȱ neighbors”ȱ (ibid).ȱ Scott’sȱ view,ȱ thus,ȱ takesȱ intoȱ accountȱ howȱ correlatedȱ processesȱ ofȱ majoritizationȱ andȱ minoritizationȱ areȱ involvedȱ inȱ representationsȱofȱpeoplesȱorȱminoritiesȱasȱthoseȱwhoȱhaveȱnoȱhistoryȱandȱliveȱinȱaȱtimeȬ lessȱ hereȱ andȱ now.ȱHeȱ addsȱ aȱ crucialȱ elementȱ toȱ theȱ readingsȱ ofȱtheȱ hithertoȱdiscussedȱ authors.ȱUnlikeȱthem,ȱheȱdoesȱnotȱrepresentȱtheseȱpeoples’ȱattitudesȱtowardȱtemporalityȱ asȱ aȱ somewhatȱ aȬhistoricȱ feature,ȱ but,ȱ rather,ȱ asȱ aȱ governmentalȱ survivalȱ strategy.ȱ Consequently,ȱhisȱviewȱmakesȱitȱpossibleȱtoȱunderstandȱmajorityȬminorityȱrelationsȱasȱinȱ constantȱ fluxȱ andȱ toȱ historicizeȱ minoritarianȱ strategiesȱ asȱ historicallyȱ situatedȱ attemptsȱ byȱminoritiesȱtoȱ(avoid)ȱbeingȱgovernedȱinȱparticularȱways,ȱbyȱothersȱorȱevenȱbyȱthemȬ selves.ȱ

ȱ Scott’sȱreflectionȱisȱprimarilyȱbasedȱonȱtheȱdistinctionȱbetweenȱoralȱandȱwrittenȱformsȱ ofȱ history,ȱ theȱ majority’sȱ attitudeȱ toȱ privilegeȱ theȱ latter,ȱ andȱ theȱ strategicȱ andȱ ‘activeȱ choice’ȱofȱ‘peoplesȱwithoutȱhistory’ȱtoȱhaveȱnoȱwrittenȱone.ȱIfȱweȱfollowȱScott’sȱanalysis,ȱ theȱstigmatizedȱrepresentationȱofȱtheseȱpeoplesȱisȱprimarilyȱtheȱresultȱofȱtheȱmajoritarianȱ privilegingȱofȱhistoricity.ȱYet,ȱheȱtakesȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱtheȱdistinctionȱandȱtheȱboundȬ ariesȱbetweenȱoralityȱandȱtextualityȱlargelyȱforȱgranted.ȱByȱsoȱdoing,ȱheȱindirectlyȱcontriȬ butesȱtoȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱaȱmoreȱorȱlessȱhomogeneousȱGypsyȱpeopleȱwithȱaȱcommonȱ culture,ȱoralȱtradition,ȱandȱaȱcommonȱstrategyȱtoȱendureȱasȱaȱpeople.ȱEvenȱthoughȱScottȱ acknowledgesȱthatȱthisȱstrategyȱmayȱchangeȱoverȱtimeȱandȱthatȱoralȱtraditionsȱmayȱmoveȱ towardȱliteracyȱandȱwritingȱtoȱadaptȱtoȱnewȱcircumstances,ȱtheirȱhomogeneityȱremainsȱ inȱplace.ȱThisȱviewȱleadsȱbackȱtoȱtheȱdiscussionȱofȱchaptersȱ3ȱandȱ4,ȱwhereȱIȱarguedȱthatȱ theȱ issueȱ ofȱ historicityȱ itselfȱ neededȱ toȱ beȱ embeddedȱ inȱ anȱ analysisȱ ofȱ historicallyȱ changingȱgovernmentalitiesȱtowardȱminoritiesȱsuchȱasȱtheȱRomani.5_{ȱAsȱaȱresult,ȱtheȱwayȱ}

5_{ȱ Atȱ anotherȱ theoreticalȱ level,ȱ Stewart’s,ȱ Gayȱ yȱ Blasco’s,ȱ andȱ Scott’sȱ discussionȱ ofȱ memoryȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ} distinctionȱ betweenȱ elitesȱ whoȱ wouldȱ commemorateȱ andȱ ordinaryȱ peopleȱ whoȱ wouldȱ rememberȱ withoutȱ

(7)

inȱ whichȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ peoplesȱ ‘withoutȱ history’ȱ andȱ theȱ timeȱ ofȱ thoseȱ ‘withȱ history’ȱ areȱ

relationallyȱ constructedȱ and,ȱ possibly,ȱ contestedȱ isȱ leftȱ aside.6_{ȱ Inȱ orderȱ toȱ analyzeȱ howȱ}

structuresȱ ofȱ temporalityȱ areȱ constructed,ȱ itȱ isȱ notȱ yetȱ enoughȱ toȱ juxtapose,ȱ asȱ Stewart,ȱ GayȱyȱBlasco,ȱandȱScottȱdo,ȱtheȱimpermanenceȱofȱoralȱtraditionsȱtoȱtheȱpermanenceȱofȱmonȬ umentsȱandȱwrittenȱtextsȱ(GayȱyȱBlascoȱ1999:ȱ173;ȱ2001:ȱ642;ȱStewartȱ2004:ȱ566;ȱScottȱ2009:ȱ 227).7_{ȱ Weȱ alsoȱ needȱ toȱinterrogateȱ howȱ theȱ stabilityȱ andȱ permanenceȱofȱ memorialsȱ andȱ}

writtenȱtextsȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱpossibleȱbyȱhowȱtheyȱ‘absorb’ȱtheȱtimeȱofȱthoseȱregardedȱasȱ historyȬlessȱpeople.ȱPreciselyȱthisȱrelationshipȱisȱcentralȱtoȱTrumpener’sȱanalysis.ȱ ȱ BetweenȱtimeȬbanditsȱandȱtheȱsilencedȱproducersȱofȱmodernȱtemporalityȱ Inȱherȱessayȱ“TheȱtimeȱofȱtheȱGypsies:ȱaȱ‘peopleȱwithoutȱhistory’ȱinȱtheȱnarrativesȱofȱtheȱ West,”ȱTrumpenerȱarguesȱthatȱinȱtheȱpast—andȱinȱtheȱagesȱofȱEnlightenment,ȱRomantiȬ cism,ȱ andȱ literaryȱ modernismȱ inȱ particular—chroniclers,ȱscholars,ȱ andȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ artistsȱprimarilyȱconsideredȱ‘theȱGypsies’ȱasȱaȱpeopleȱorȱgroupȱofȱwanderingȱclansȱwhoȱ wereȱ atȱ oddsȱ withȱ theȱ modernȱ structuresȱ ofȱ temporality,ȱ andȱ withȱ theȱ paradigmsȱ ofȱ modernityȱmoreȱgenerally.ȱTheyȱwereȱoftenȱseenȱasȱaȱpeopleȱthatȱstoodȱoutsideȱmodernȱ life,ȱandȱtheȱformationȱofȱtheȱnationȱ(state)ȱinȱparticular.ȱThisȱpeopleȱwasȱconsequentlyȱ relegatedȱ toȱ theȱ domainȱ ofȱ preȬmodern,ȱ traditional,ȱ natural,ȱ andȱ historyȬlessȱ societies.ȱ Particularlyȱsinceȱtheȱendȱofȱtheȱeighteenthȱcentury,ȱTrumpenerȱargues,ȱtheȱGypsiesȱalsoȱ startedȱtoȱfunctionȱasȱaȱtropeȱofȱvariousȱkindsȱofȱescapeȱroutes,ȱwhichȱledȱawayȱfromȱtheȱ modernȱ socioȬeconomic,ȱ political,ȱ andȱ culturalȱ orderȱ towardȱ aȱ mythicalȱ orȱ mysticalȱ realmȱofȱfreedomȱandȱdissipation.ȱFromȱJohannȱWolfgangȱGoethe’sȱGötzȱvonȱBerlichingenȱ (1773)ȱ toȱ Heinrichȱ vonȱ Kleist’sȱ Michaelȱ Kohlhaasȱ (1808),ȱ fromȱ Alexanderȱ Pushkin’sȱ Theȱ

Gypsiesȱ(1824)ȱtoȱCharlotteȱBrontë’sȱJaneȱEyreȱ(1847)ȱandȱEmilyȱBrontë’sȱWutheringȱHeightsȱ

(1847),ȱfromȱProsperȱMérimée’sȱandȱGeorgesȱBizet’sȱCarmenȱ(1845/75)ȱtoȱFranzȱLiszt’sȱTheȱ

GypsiesȱandȱTheirȱMusicȱinȱHungaryȱ(1859),ȱfromȱEzraȱPound’sȱ“TheȱGipsy”ȱ(1912)ȱtoȱLeošȱ

Janá²ek’sȱTheȱDiaryȱofȱtheȱOneȱwhoȱDisappearedȱ(1926),ȱandȱfromȱVirginiaȱWoolf’sȱOrlandoȱ (1928)ȱ toȱ herȱ storyȱ “Gypsy,ȱ theȱ Mongrel”ȱ (1939)—toȱ mentionȱ butȱ aȱ fewȱ examplesȱ ofȱ aȱ longȱ historyȱ ofȱ GypsyȬrelatedȱ narratives—Gypsiesȱ wereȱ generallyȱ portrayedȱ asȱ repreȬ sentingȱeitherȱanȱescapeȱfromȱtheȱorderȱofȱmodernityȱandȱitsȱtroublesȱorȱaȱseriousȱthreatȱ toȱ itsȱ maintenanceȱ andȱ furtherȱ development.8_{ȱ Inȱ Vonȱ Kleist’sȱ Michaelȱ Kohlhaas,ȱ forȱ}

instance,ȱ aȱ Gypsyȱ fortuneȬtellerȱ appearsȱ asȱ aȱ figureȱ thatȱ livesȱ outsideȱ ofȱ historyȱ toȱ introduceȱ “magicalȱ timelessness”ȱ (ibidȱ 869)ȱ intoȱ theȱ mainȱ narrative.ȱ Andȱ inȱ Woolf’sȱ

beingȱ involvedȱ inȱ commemorationsȱ alsoȱ leadsȱ backȱ toȱ myȱ critiqueȱ ofȱ theȱ elite/grassrootsȱ binaryȱ inȱ theȱ politicsȱofȱrepresentationȱdiscussedȱinȱchapterȱ7.ȱ

6_{ȱSpaceȱprecludesȱextensivelyȱdiscussingȱtheȱcentralȱproblemȱwithȱhowȱScottȱtakesȱupȱtheȱRomaniȱcase.ȱHeȱ}

modelsȱhisȱanalysisȱofȱthisȱcaseȱonȱhisȱmoreȱgeneralȱexaminationȱofȱtheȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱhillȱandȱvalleyȱ peoplesȱ inȱ Southeastȱ Asia.ȱ Yet,ȱ apparentlyȱ heȱ doesȱ notȱ adequatelyȱ takeȱ intoȱ accountȱ howȱ hisȱ somewhatȱ reifiedȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱhillȱandȱvalleyȱpeoplesȱ(Scottȱ2009)ȱreproducesȱsomeȱofȱtheȱproblemsȱwithȱhowȱ heȱhasȱearlierȱintroducedȱtheȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱlegibilityȱandȱlocalȱknowledgeȱorȱm¾tisȱ(Scottȱ1998).ȱForȱ anȱimportantȱcritiqueȱofȱtheseȱrelationships,ȱseeȱLiȱ(2001;ȱ2005).ȱ

7_{ȱStewartȱandȱ GayȱyȱBlascoȱ alsoȱdiscussȱRoma/nonȬRomaȱrelationshipsȱinȱtermsȱofȱtheirȱrelationality.ȱYet,ȱ}

theyȱtendȱtoȱrelyȱonȱratherȱstaticȱapproachesȱtoȱRomaniȱidentityȱ(seeȱalsoȱTremlettȱ2009;ȱKapralskiȱ2011).ȱ

8_{ȱVariousȱauthorsȱhaveȱreflectedȱonȱhowȱtheȱGypsiesȱwereȱrepresentedȱinȱartworksȱduringȱtheȱnineteenthȱ}

andȱearlyȱtwentiethȱcenturyȱprocessesȱofȱnationȬstateȱformationȱinȱEastȱCentralȱEuropeȱ(SolmsȱandȱStraussȱ 1995;ȱFrigyesiȱ1998;ȱTrumpenerȱ2000;ȱCooperȱ2001;ȱLajosiȱ2008;ȱSokolovaȱ2008).ȱ

(8)

novelȱ Orlandoȱ Gypsyȱmenȱ andȱ womenȱ appearȱ asȱindistinguishable,ȱ ‘genderless’ȱ peopleȱ duringȱ Orlando’sȱ genderȱ transitionȱ fromȱ manȱ intoȱ womanȱ andȱ liberationȱ fromȱ aȱ patriȬ archalȱ worldȱ (Bardiȱ 2006).ȱ Inȱ bothȱ theseȱ narratives,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ inȱ manyȱ otherȱ ones,ȱ Trumpenerȱ argues,ȱ “theȱ Gypsiesȱ areȱ …ȱ reducedȱ toȱ aȱ textualȱ effect”ȱ (1992:ȱ 869).ȱ EveryȬ whereȱ theyȱ appearȱ inȱ theseȱ narratives,ȱ theyȱ seeminglyȱ “beginȱ toȱ holdȱ upȱ ordinaryȱ life,ȱ inducingȱlocalȱamnesiasȱorȱretrievalsȱofȱculturalȱmemory,ȱandȱcausingȱblackoutsȱorȱflashȬ backsȱinȱtextual,ȱhistorical,ȱandȱgenreȱmemoryȱasȱwell”ȱ(ibid).ȱTrumpenerȱsuggestsȱthatȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ appearȱ notȱ onlyȱ alongȱ aȱ kindȱ ofȱ timelessȱ escapeȱ routesȱ fromȱ theȱ orderȱ ofȱ modernity,ȱbutȱalsoȱasȱmagicalȱfiguresȱwhoȱambivalentlyȱdisruptȱtheȱstructureȱofȱtempoȬ ralityȱofȱthisȱmodernȱorderȱitself,ȱasȱthoseȱwhoseȱmainȱdiscursiveȱjobȱseemsȱtoȱbeȱwhatȱ sheȱcallsȱ“timeȬbanditry”ȱ(ibid).9ȱ

TheȱreductionȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱtoȱtextualȱeffectsȱisȱnotȱlimitedȱtoȱpreȬSecondȱWorldȱWarȱ narratives,ȱ asȱ theȱ selectedȱ listȱ ofȱ worksȱ aboveȱ mayȱ suggest.ȱ Asȱ variousȱ authorsȱ haveȱ analyzed,ȱinȱmanyȱwaysȱtheȱGypsiesȱhaveȱcontinuedȱtoȱplayȱthisȱroleȱinȱvariousȱpostwarȱ andȱcontemporaryȱworks,ȱincludingȱfilm,ȱexhibitions,ȱandȱpopularȱculture.10_{ȱInȱpostwarȱ}

policyȱdocuments,ȱtheȱGypsiesȱandȱthoseȱwhoȱareȱusuallyȱassociatedȱwithȱthemȱalsoȱpopȱ upȱasȱaȱpeopleȱthatȱhasȱanotherȱsenseȱofȱtimeȱandȱplaceȱandȱthatȱapparentlyȱbelongsȱtoȱ anotherȱ socialȱ orderȱ thanȱ thatȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ majorities.ȱ Aȱ 1984ȱ documentȱ ofȱ theȱ EuropeanȱParliamentȱonȱ‘educationȱforȱchildrenȱwithȱparentsȱwhoȱhaveȱnoȱfixedȱabode,’ȱ forȱinstance,ȱrepresentsȱcaravanȱdwellersȱasȱfollows:ȱ

ȱ

[They]ȱ haveȱ aȱ relativelyȱ casualȱ attitudeȱ towardsȱ spaceȱ andȱ time.ȱ Theyȱ liveȱ inȱ theȱ presentȱ andȱ giveȱ littleȱ orȱ noȱ thoughtȱ toȱ theȱ future.ȱ Theyȱ doȱ notȱ liveȱ accordingȱ toȱ aȱ fixedȱ schemeȱ ofȱ hours,ȱ daysȱ andȱ weeks,ȱ etc.ȱ Workȱ isȱ integratedȱ intoȱ theȱ normalȱ rhythmȱofȱtheȱdayȱsoȱthatȱthereȱisȱnoȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱworkȱandȱleisureȱasȱsuch.ȱ(EPȱ 1984ȱcitedȱSimhandlȱ2006:ȱ106)ȱ

ȱ

Backȱinȱ1984,ȱtheȱEuropeanȱParliamentȱsuggestedȱthatȱtheȱfactȱthatȱtheȱGypsiesȱliveȱ“inȱ theȱ presentȱ andȱ giveȱ littleȱ orȱ noȱ thoughtȱ toȱ theȱ future”ȱ resultedȱ inȱ theirȱ sufferingȱ fromȱ “educationalȱbackwardness”ȱ(citedȱDanbakliȱ2001:ȱ30).ȱLivingȱinȱanȱeternalȱhereȱandȱnowȱ andȱmakingȱnoȱdifferenceȱbetweenȱworkȱandȱleisureȱhadȱapparentlyȱledȱtoȱaȱsituationȱinȱ whichȱtheirȱchildrenȱwereȱnotȱ“integratedȱinȱnormalȱeducation”ȱ(ibid).ȱ

Theȱwaysȱinȱ whichȱtimelessnessȱ hasȱ beenȱ repeatedlyȱ projectedȱ ontoȱ theȱGypsiesȱ hasȱ ledȱ Trumpenerȱ toȱ aȱ generalȱ contemplationȱ onȱ theȱ relationshipȱ betweenȱ theȱ continuousȱ WesternȱfascinationȱwithȱtheȱGypsiesȱandȱtheȱformativeȱmomentsȱofȱculturalȱtraditionsȱ themselves:ȱ

ȱ

9_{ȱOtherȱscholars,ȱwhoȱhaveȱtakenȱupȱTrumpener’sȱargumentsȱandȱcriticallyȱdevelopedȱthemȱfurther,ȱsuggestȱ}

thatȱGypsiesȱhaveȱoftenȱandȱvitallyȱfunctionedȱasȱtropesȱinȱWesternȱculturalȱtraditionsȱandȱthat,ȱwhereverȱ theyȱ appearȱ inȱ narratives,ȱ theyȱ tendȱ toȱ beȱ representedȱ asȱ threatsȱ toȱ existingȱ powerȱ relationships,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ relatedȱ toȱ theȱ nation,ȱ gender,ȱ race,ȱ andȱ theȱ institutionȱ ofȱ theȱ familyȱ (seeȱ Bardiȱ 2006;ȱ Dearingȱ 2010;ȱ Matthewsȱ2010).ȱ

10_{ȱ See,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ Tebbuttȱ (1998),ȱ Saulȱ andȱ Tebbuttȱ (2004),ȱ vanȱ deȱ Portȱ (1998),ȱ Goci°ȱ (2001),ȱ Iordanovaȱ} (2001),ȱ Winckelȱ (2002),ȱ Malvinniȱ (2004),ȱ Imreȱ (2006),ȱ Dobrevaȱ (2007),ȱ Gayȱ yȱ Blascoȱ andȱ Iordanovaȱ (2008),ȱ GlajarȱandȱRadulescuȱ(2008),ȱandȱEndȱetȱalȱ(2009).ȱ

(9)

Ifȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ centuryȱ theȱ Gypsiesȱ becameȱ increasinglyȱ stylized,ȱ exoticized,ȱ‘generic’ȱfiguresȱofȱmystery,ȱadventure,ȱandȱromance,ȱtheyȱalsoȱbecameȱinȬ timatelyȱidentified,ȱonȱseveralȱdifferentȱlevels,ȱwithȱtheȱformationȱofȱliteraryȱtraditionȱ itself,ȱ actingȱ asȱ figurativeȱ keysȱ toȱ anȱ arrayȱ ofȱ literaryȱ genresȱ andȱ toȱ theȱ relationsȱ betweenȱ themȱ …ȱ Ifȱ atȱ theȱ endȱ ofȱ theȱ nineteenthȱ century,ȱ apparentlyȱ disparateȱ branchesȱofȱliteraryȱproductionȱareȱthusȱpeculiarlyȱconnectedȱbyȱtheirȱcommonȱfasciȬ nationȱ withȱ Gypsies’ȱ ‘primitiveȱ magic,’ȱ theȱ longerȱ listȱ ofȱ authorsȱ andȱ literaryȱ formsȱ preoccupiedȱ withȱGypsyȱ lifeȱ isȱ …ȱ virtuallyȱ synonymousȱ withȱtheȱmodernȱ Europeanȱ literaryȱcanon—andȱisȱsynonymousȱasȱwell,ȱifȱtheȱmanyȱthousandsȱofȱpopularȱnovels,ȱ poems,ȱsongs,ȱoperettas,ȱpaintings,ȱandȱfilmsȱfeaturingȱGypsiesȱareȱaddedȱtoȱit,ȱwithȱ EuropeanȱandȱAmericanȱculturalȱliteracyȱmoreȱgenerally.ȱOverȱtheȱlastȱtwoȱhundredȱ years,ȱ Europeanȱ literaryȱ andȱ culturalȱ mythologyȱ hasȱ repeatedlyȱ posedȱ theȱ Gypsyȱ questionȱasȱtheȱkeyȱtoȱtheȱorigin,ȱtheȱnature,ȱtheȱstrengthȱofȱculturalȱtraditionȱitself.ȱItȱ couldȱbeȱargued,ȱindeed,ȱthatȱasȱtheȱGypsiesȱbecomeȱbearers,ȱparȱexcellence,ȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱ memoryȱproblemȱinȱitsȱmanyȱmanifestations,ȱtheyȱsimultaneouslyȱbecomeȱaȱmajorȱepistemoloȬ gicalȱtestingȱgroundȱforȱtheȱEuropeanȱimaginary,ȱblackȱbox,ȱorȱlimitȱcaseȱforȱsuccessiveȱliteraryȱ styles,ȱgenres,ȱandȱintellectualȱmovements.ȱ(Trumpenerȱ1992:ȱ873Ȭ74,ȱmyȱemphasis)ȱ ȱ Thus,ȱTrumpenerȱarguesȱthatȱtheȱveryȱformationȱandȱcelebrationȱofȱsuccessiveȱWesternȱ artisticȱ traditionsȱ andȱ intellectualȱ movementsȱ asȱ innovative,ȱ progressive,ȱ andȱ radicallyȱ andȱirreduciblyȱotherȱhaveȱbeenȱmadeȱpossibleȱbyȱtheȱconstructionȱofȱtheȱGypsiesȱasȱtheȱ ultimateȱandȱuniversalȱrepresentativesȱofȱaȱpreȬmodern,ȱtraditional,ȱnatural,ȱandȱtimelessȱ order.ȱThus,ȱtheȱteleologicalȱtimeȱofȱmodern,ȱ‘civilized’ȱhistoryȱcouldȱonlyȱhaveȱbeenȱsetȱ inȱmotionȱbyȱimmobilizingȱandȱbringingȱtoȱaȱstopȱ‘theȱtimeȱofȱtheȱGypsies’ȱandȱbyȱcontinȬ uallyȱinstrumentalizingȱrelatedȱstereotypicalȱrepresentations.11_{ȱAccordingȱtoȱTrumpener,ȱ} theȱculturalȱusesȱofȱsuchȱGypsy/RomaȱrepresentationsȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱaȱcrucialȱconȬ ditionȱofȱpossibilityȱofȱtheȱtemporalȱstructuresȱofȱmodernity.ȱSheȱfollowsȱthisȱargumentȱ andȱtheȱtendencyȱinȱWesternȱthoughtȱtoȱorientalizeȱRomaniȱminoritiesȱandȱdepriveȱthemȱ ofȱaȱtimeȱandȱplaceȱinȱmodernityȱ(Willemsȱ1997;ȱsee,ȱmoreȱgenerally,ȱSaidȱ1978;ȱFabianȱ 1983).ȱ Thisȱ leadsȱ herȱ toȱ inherentlyȱ relateȱ theȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problemȱ toȱ theȱ silentȱ erasureȱofȱRomaniȱmemoryȱfromȱwesternȱcanonsȱandȱtheȱimpossibilityȱforȱtheȱRomaȱtoȱ effectivelyȱ claimȱ aȱ representativeȱ spaceȱ forȱ theirȱ ownȱ memoriesȱ andȱ histories.ȱ Finally,ȱ thisȱledȱherȱtoȱpessimisticallyȱconcludeȱthatȱ“thoseȱpeoplesȱwhoȱdoȱnotȱclaimȱaȱhistory,ȱ areȱrelegatedȱtoȱnature,ȱwithoutȱaȱvoiceȱinȱanyȱpoliticalȱprocess,ȱrepresentedȱonlyȱinȱtheȱ glassȱcaseȱofȱtheȱdiorama,ȱtheȱdehumanizingȱlegendȱofȱtheȱphotograph,ȱtheȱtableauxȱofȱ theȱopenȬairȱmuseum”ȱ(Trumpenerȱ1992:ȱ884).ȱ

Trumpener’sȱanalysisȱprominentlyȱcontributesȱtoȱaȱbetterȱunderstandingȱofȱtheȱcrucialȱ

relationalityȱ ofȱ theȱ structuresȱ ofȱ temporalityȱ thatȱ haveȱ historicallyȱ beenȱ attributedȱ toȱ

allegedȱpeoplesȱwithȱandȱwithoutȱhistories.ȱHerȱmostȱimportantȱachievementȱisȱtoȱhaveȱ illuminatedȱ whatȱ theseȱ relationalȱhistoriesȱ andȱ temporalitiesȱ tendȱ toȱ makeȱ impossibleȱ inȱ termsȱofȱRomaniȱagencyȱandȱmemory.ȱSheȱhasȱshownȱhowȱRomaȱorientalizationȱandȱtheȱ

11_{ȱ Here,ȱ weȱ seeȱ anotherȱ fundamentalȱ exampleȱ ofȱ howȱ Romaniȱ orȱ Gypsyȱ identitiesȱ andȱ mobilities—inȱ thisȱ}

caseȱ‘theirȱtime’—areȱrepresentedȱasȱirregular,ȱratherȱthanȱregularȱ(seeȱmyȱdiscussionȱofȱsuchȱstrategiesȱofȱ ‘irregularization’ȱinȱchapterȱ6,ȱseeȱalsoȱSquireȱ2010).ȱ

(10)

displacementȱ ofȱ theirȱ historiesȱ andȱ memoriesȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ parallelȱ developmentȱ ofȱ modernȱnarrativesȱthatȱrelyȱonȱteleological,ȱprogressiveȱnotionsȱofȱtime.ȱYet,ȱTrumpenerȱ wroteȱ herȱ articleȱ inȱ theȱ earlyȱ 1990s,ȱ atȱ theȱ momentȱ whenȱ communismȱ fellȱ andȱ whenȱ RomaniȱgroupsȱallȱoverȱEuropeȱbeganȱtoȱincreasinglyȱchallengeȱtheirȱneglectȱandȱinvisiȬ bilityȱ inȱ local,ȱ national,ȱ andȱ Europeanȱ historiesȱ andȱ memories.ȱ Twentyȱ yearsȱ later,ȱ itȱ isȱ highȱtimeȱtoȱseeȱwhetherȱweȱshouldȱmaintainȱTrumpener’sȱthesisȱandȱherȱbleakȱimageȱofȱ theȱRoma’sȱpositionȱinȱEuropeanȱhistory,ȱculture,ȱandȱthought.ȱIȱwantȱtoȱposeȱtheȱquesȬ tionȱ ofȱ howȱ exactlyȱ weȱ needȱ toȱ reviseȱ herȱ viewȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problemȱ inȱ respectȱofȱnewlyȱemergedȱRomaniȱmemorialȱpractices.12_{ȱWhatȱhappensȱnowȱthatȱatȱleastȱ}

someȱRomaȱ“claimȱaȱhistory”ȱ(Trumpenerȱ1992:ȱ884)?ȱHaveȱtheȱemergenceȱofȱtheseȱpracȬ ticesȱ andȱ theȱ makingȱ ofȱ suchȱ claimsȱ ledȱ toȱ theȱ fadingȱ awayȱ ofȱ whatȱ sheȱ considersȱ theȱ Europeanȱ memoryȱ problemȱ or,ȱ instead,ȱ toȱ itsȱ rearticulationȱ andȱ reinforcementȱ underȱ newȱconditions?ȱCouldȱweȱunderstandȱtheseȱclaimsȱinȱlightȱofȱtheȱpoliticsȱofȱcitizenshipȱ asȱparticipationȱ(chapterȱ7)?ȱCouldȱwe,ȱakinȱtoȱScott’sȱlineȱofȱreasoning,ȱunderstandȱtheȱ developmentȱ ofȱ theseȱ newȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ asȱ activeȱ andȱ strategicȱ Romaniȱ adaptaȬ tionsȱ toȱ newȱ circumstancesȱ inȱ contemporaryȱ Europeȱ andȱ asȱ aȱ moveȱ towardȱ inscriptionȱ intoȱ currentlyȱ prevailingȱ discourses,ȱ suchȱ asȱ thoseȱ ofȱ theȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ itsȱ rememȬ brance?ȱWhatȱpossiblyȱnovelȱkindȱofȱmemoryȱproblemȱaccompaniesȱtheseȱinscriptions?ȱ Howȱ doȱ theyȱ relateȱ toȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ EUȱ hasȱ triedȱ toȱ developȱ newȱ foundingȱ narrativesȱtoȱuniteȱtheȱEuropeanȱcontinentȱtransnationally?ȱIȱwillȱaddressȱtheseȱissuesȱbyȱ analyzingȱdiverseȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱseveralȱRomaniȱgroupsȱandȱorganizationsȱhaveȱrecentlyȱ developedȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ andȱ strategiesȱ toȱ claimȱ aȱ placeȱ inȱ nationalȱandȱEuropeanȱhistories.ȱ ȱ ȱ THEȱWAYȱOUTȱOFȱAMNESIAȱȱ ȱȱ LetyȱnearȱPísekȱandȱHodonínȱnearȱKunštátȱareȱtwoȱvillagesȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic.ȱSinceȱ theȱmidȱ1990s,ȱanȱindustrialȱpigȱfarmȱinȱLetyȱandȱaȱholidayȱresortȱinȱHodonínȱhaveȱinȬ creasinglyȱbecomeȱtangibleȱsymbolsȱofȱtheȱpoorȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱinȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republicȱ and,ȱ byȱ extension,ȱ inȱ Europe.ȱ Hodonínȱ andȱ Letyȱ areȱ theȱ neglectedȱ sitesȱofȱtwoȱformerȱNaziȱconcentrationȱcampsȱonȱCzechȱterritoryȱthatȱwereȱusedȱforȱtheȱ imprisonmentȱandȱpersecutionȱofȱRoma.ȱTheȱNazisȱmurderedȱaboutȱ6,000ȱCzechȱRoma,ȱ thatȱis,ȱ90%ȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱpopulation.ȱAȱsubstantialȱnumberȱofȱthemȱwereȱdeportedȱtoȱ Auschwitzȱ andȱ otherȱ exterminationȱ sitesȱ viaȱ theȱ campsȱ inȱ Letyȱ andȱ Hodonín,ȱ whichȱ wereȱentirelyȱadministeredȱbyȱCzechȱgendarmesȱ(Papeȱ1997;ȱNe²asȱ1999b).ȱAsȱinȱseveralȱ otherȱconcentrationȱcampsȱestablishedȱduringȱtheȱSecondȱWorldȱWar,ȱmanyȱRoma,ȱwhoȱ wereȱ imprisonedȱ inȱ theseȱ camps,ȱ includingȱ aȱ lotȱ ofȱ children,ȱ diedȱ dueȱ toȱ harassment,ȱ exhaustion,ȱmalnutrition,ȱforcedȱlabor,ȱandȱtheȱoutbreakȱofȱvariousȱillnesses.13_ȱ

12_{ȱElsewhereȱ(vanȱBaarȱ2010b),ȱIȱhaveȱarguedȱthatȱthereȱisȱalsoȱanȱimportantȱmethodologicalȱproblemȱwithȱ}

howȱ Trumpenerȱ interpretsȱ modernȱ Europeanȱ literaryȱ andȱ intellectualȱ historiesȱ andȱ claimsȱ aȱ persistent,ȱ diachronicȱdisplacementȱofȱRomaniȱmemoryȱandȱhistoryȱthroughoutȱEuropeanȱmodernity.ȱ

13_{ȱSee,ȱmostȱnotably,ȱRoseȱandȱWeissȱ(1993),ȱZimmermannȱ(1996a),ȱLewyȱ(2000),ȱFischerȱvonȱWeikersthalȱetȱ}

(11)

Sinceȱ theȱ 1970s,ȱ theȱ siteȱ ofȱ theȱ formerȱ campȱ inȱ Letyȱ hasȱ beenȱ occupiedȱ byȱ aȱ pigȱ farm,ȱ privatizedȱandȱmodernizedȱinȱtheȱearlyȱ1990sȱ(seeȱfigureȱ8.1).ȱTheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱcampȱ inȱHodonínȱisȱtakenȱupȱbyȱaȱprivatelyȱownedȱholidayȱresort,ȱwhichȱhasȱbecomeȱaȱpopuȬ larȱholidayȱdestinationȱsinceȱ1989ȱ(seeȱfiguresȱ8.2,ȱ8.3,ȱ8.4).ȱForȱmanyȱyearsȱnow,ȱtheȱsitesȱ ofȱ theseȱ twoȱ formerȱ concentrationȱ campsȱ haveȱ beenȱ atȱ theȱ centerȱ ofȱ aȱ seriesȱ ofȱ heatedȱ debatesȱwithinȱand,ȱincreasingly,ȱoutsideȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic.ȱCzechȱandȱotherȱRomaniȱ groups,ȱ asȱ wellȱ asȱ theirȱ advocates,ȱ wantȱ toȱ removeȱ bothȱ businessesȱ toȱ buildȱ decentȱ memorialsȱforȱwhatȱtheyȱconsiderȱasȱanȱadequateȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaust.ȱ However,ȱ atȱ theȱ sameȱ timeȱ asȱ theyȱ areȱ strugglingȱ forȱ recognitionȱ andȱ theȱ removalȱ ofȱ thoseȱ businesses,ȱ otherȱ actors,ȱ rangingȱ fromȱ nationalistsȱ andȱ extremistsȱ toȱ mainstreamȱ politicians,ȱhaveȱdisturbedȱtheirȱattempts.ȱDueȱtoȱtheseȱoppositions,ȱforȱaȱlongȱtimeȱtheȱ involvedȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ wereȱ unsuccessfulȱ atȱ removingȱ theȱ businesses.14_{ȱ Yet,ȱ inȱ theȱ}

courseȱofȱtheȱyearsȱofȱmyȱresearch,ȱthisȱsituationȱhasȱgraduallyȱchanged,ȱmostȱnotablyȱinȱ Hodonín.ȱInȱ2009,ȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱboughtȱtheȱholidayȱresortȱwithȱtheȱintentionȱtoȱ buildȱ aȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ educationalȱ andȱ documentationȱ center,ȱ includingȱ aȱ newȱ memorial,ȱ atȱ theȱ siteȱ ofȱ theȱ formerȱ campȱ (+TKȱ 2009a;ȱ Romeaȱ 2009e;ȱ 2011d).ȱ Inȱ whatȱ follows,ȱIȱwillȱanalyzeȱtheȱRomaniȱstrugglesȱandȱhowȱweȱcouldȱunderstandȱthisȱchange.ȱIȱ willȱdescribeȱseveralȱstrategiesȱthatȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱdevelopedȱ toȱ practiceȱ formsȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ memory,ȱ toȱ protestȱ againstȱ exclusionȱ practices,ȱ andȱ toȱ initiateȱ publicȱ debatesȱ aboutȱ theseȱ issues.ȱ Iȱ willȱ clarifyȱ howȱ transnationalȱ strategiesȱ ofȱ travelingȱactivismȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱplayedȱaȱcrucialȱroleȱtoȱgetȱandȱkeepȱtheȱsituationȱinȱ LetyȱandȱHodonínȱonȱtheȱpoliticalȱagendaȱinȱandȱbeyondȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic.ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.1ȱȱTheȱindustrialȱpigȱfarm,ȱownedȱbyȱAGPI,ȱinȱLetyȱnearȱPísekȱonȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱNaziȱ concentrationȱcampȱforȱRoma.ȱPhoto:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ 14_{ȱSeeȱAlbertȱ(2006)ȱandȱvanȱBaarȱ(2008b;ȱ2011a;ȱinterviewȱ2003a;ȱ2003f;ȱ2008b).ȱ}

(12)

ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.2ȱȱPostcardȱforȱsaleȱatȱtheȱholidayȱresortȱŽalovȱonȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱformerȱNaziȱconcentrationȱ campȱforȱRomaȱinȱHodonínȱnearȱKunštátȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ FIGURESȱ8.3ȱ–ȱ8.4ȱȱTheȱZigeunerlagerȱ(‘GypsyȱCamp’)ȱinȱHodonínȱinȱ1942ȱ(left)ȱandȱtheȱlastȱremainingȱ barrackȱ(right),ȱusedȱasȱaȱdepository,ȱinȱtheȱholidayȱresortȱŽalov.ȱPhotoȱ(left):ȱarchiveȱofȱtheȱ MuseumȱofȱRomaniȱCulture,ȱBrno,ȱCzechȱRepublic.ȱPhotoȱ(right):ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ FIGURESȱ8.5ȱ–ȱ8.6ȱȱTheȱmonumentȱestablishedȱbyȱtheȱHavelȱgovernmentȱinȱLetyȱinȱ1995ȱ(left)ȱandȱtheȱ memorialȱplaqueȱmadeȱinȱ1998ȱbyȱtheȱRomaniȱartistȱBoženaȱVavrekováȬPìikrylováȱ atȱtheȱcemeteryȱinȱ+ernoviceȱnearȱHodonínȱ(right).ȱPhotos:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ ȱ

(13)

ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ ȱ FIGURESȱ8.7ȱ–ȱ8.8ȱȱSymbolicȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱRomaniȱnationȱthatȱareȱincludedȱinȱtheȱRomaniȱ monumentsȱatȱtheȱcemeteryȱbyȱLetyȱinȱMiroviceȱ(left)ȱandȱinȱHodonínȱ(right)ȱ Photos:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2003ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ FIGUREȱ8.9ȱȱTheȱ10thȱofficialȱcommemorationȱceremonyȱinȱLetyȱ(13ȱMayȱ2005)ȱ Photo:ȱHuubȱvanȱBaar,ȱ2005ȱ

(14)

InscribingȱRomaniȱmemoryȱ TheȱdemandȱforȱmemorialsȱinȱplacesȱsuchȱasȱLetyȱandȱHodonínȱcanȱbeȱconsideredȱasȱanȱ attemptȱbyȱRomaniȱactivistsȱtoȱresistȱexclusionȱfromȱsocietyȱandȱhistory.ȱTheyȱhaveȱusedȱ theȱmemoryȱofȱpersecutionȱandȱexterminationȱtoȱchallengeȱexclusionaryȱpracticesȱtowardȱ theȱRoma,ȱbutȱalsoȱandȱevenȱasȱimportantlyȱtoȱdevelopȱtheirȱownȱmemorialȱculturesȱandȱ practices.ȱIȱconsiderȱtheȱinscriptionȱofȱRomaniȱmemoriesȱintoȱpublicȱspaceȱaȱfirstȱstrategyȱ thatȱRomaȱhaveȱmobilizedȱtoȱrenderȱtheseȱmemoriesȱpublicȱandȱclaimȱaȱplaceȱforȱRomaniȱ historiesȱ andȱ memoriesȱ inȱ publicȱ culture.ȱ Throughoutȱ theȱ years,ȱ differentȱ groupsȱ ofȱ Czechȱ Romaȱ haveȱ contributedȱ toȱ aȱ diversificationȱ ofȱ theȱ domesticȱ and,ȱ byȱ extension,ȱ Europeanȱmemorialȱlandscapes.ȱInȱtheȱearlyȱ1990s,ȱaȱgroupȱofȱRoma,ȱwhoȱwereȱalreadyȱ activeȱduringȱcommunism,ȱestablishedȱtheȱMuseumȱofȱRomaniȱCultureȱ(Muzeumȱromskéȱ

kultury)ȱinȱanȱabandonedȱandȱdamagedȱbuildingȱinȱtheȱCzechȱcityȱofȱBrno.ȱWithȱtheȱhelpȱ

ofȱ variousȱ donors,ȱ theȱ involvedȱ Romaȱ haveȱ entirelyȱ rebuiltȱ itȱ and,ȱ inȱ theȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ years,ȱestablishedȱaȱpermanentȱexhibition,ȱaȱresearchȱcenter,ȱandȱvariousȱeducationalȱandȱ socialȱactivities.ȱCurrently,ȱtheȱmuseum’sȱpermanentȱexhibitionȱalsoȱincludesȱaȱRomaniȱ Holocaustȱmemorial.15_{ȱSinceȱtheȱmidȱ1990s,ȱtheȱRomaȱassociatedȱwithȱtheȱmuseumȱhaveȱ}

dedicatedȱaȱsignificantȱpartȱofȱtheirȱworkȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱformerȱNaziȱconcentraȬ tionȱcampsȱinȱLetyȱandȱHodonín.ȱSupportedȱbyȱtheȱthenȱCzechȱPresidentȱVáclavȱHavel,ȱ onȱ theȱ initiativeȱ ofȱ theȱ museumȱ aȱ monumentȱ wasȱ builtȱ inȱ theȱ vicinityȱ ofȱ theȱ pigȱ farmȱ (figureȱ8.5).16_{ȱTheȱunveilingȱofȱtheȱmemorialȱinȱ1995ȱwouldȱalsoȱbecomeȱtheȱbeginningȱofȱ}

aȱlongȱandȱdifficultȱstruggleȱforȱtheȱremovalȱofȱtheȱbusinesses.ȱForȱtheȱRoma,ȱtheȱestabȬ lishmentȱofȱthisȱmonumentȱisȱnotȱenough.ȱTheyȱwantȱtoȱgetȱridȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱandȱtheȱ holidayȱ park.ȱ Theyȱ considerȱ theirȱ presenceȱ socioȬhistoricallyȱ unjust.ȱ Thoughȱ theyȱ haveȱ facedȱ variousȱ kindsȱ ofȱ oppositionȱ againstȱ theirȱ endeavorsȱ (vanȱ Baarȱ 2008b,ȱ seeȱ alsoȱ below),ȱatȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheyȱhaveȱsucceededȱinȱextendingȱtheȱRomaniȱmemoryscape.ȱInȱ theȱ midȱ 1990s,ȱ +en»kȱ Rþži²ka,ȱ whoseȱ relativesȱ wereȱ deportedȱ toȱ Letyȱ andȱ Auschwitz,ȱ foundedȱtheȱCommitteeȱforȱtheȱCompensationȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱ(VPORH).ȱSinceȱ then,ȱVPORHȱandȱtheȱmuseumȱinȱBrnoȱhaveȱestablishedȱaȱnumberȱofȱmemorials,ȱsuchȱasȱ thoseȱ inȱ theȱ vicinityȱ ofȱ theȱ holidayȱ parkȱ inȱ Hodonínȱ andȱ thoseȱ atȱ cemeteriesȱ nearȱ Letyȱ andȱHodonínȱ(figuresȱ8.6,ȱ8.7,ȱ8.8).17_{ȱTheȱCzechȱRomaȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱusedȱtheȱ}

annualȱcommemorationsȱinȱLetyȱ(May)ȱandȱHodonínȱ(August)ȱtoȱcommemorateȱtheȱNaziȱ genocideȱofȱtheȱSintiȱandȱRoma,ȱbutȱalsoȱtoȱprotestȱagainstȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱbusinessesȱ

15_{ȱ Aȱ sculpture,ȱ whichȱ isȱ includedȱ inȱ thisȱ memorial,ȱ hasȱ beenȱ madeȱ byȱ Ivanȱ BerkyȬDušík,ȱ aȱ Romaniȱ artistȱ} fromȱtheȱSlovakianȱtownȱofȱZvolenskáȱSlatinaȱ(interviewȱ2005o).ȱ

16_{ȱSeeȱHavelȱ(1995)ȱandȱFrištenskáȱetȱalȱ(1995).ȱ}

17_{ȱ Inȱ 1997,ȱ inȱ theȱ vicinityȱ ofȱ theȱ holidayȱ parkȱ inȱ Hodonín,ȱ theȱ museumȱ builtȱ aȱ monument,ȱ madeȱ byȱ theȱ} Romaniȱ artistȱ Eduardȱ Olah.ȱ Thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ Romaniȱ memorialsȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱ townsȱ ofȱ Brno,ȱ Bohusoudov,ȱ +ernovice,ȱandȱUher²ice.ȱInȱBrno,ȱtheȱMuseumȱofȱRomaniȱCultureȱhasȱputȱaȱmemorialȱplaqueȱatȱtheȱplaceȱinȱ Masnáȱ Streetȱ fromȱ whereȱ theȱ firstȱ Moravianȱ Romaȱ wereȱ deportedȱ toȱ Auschwitzȱ inȱ Marchȱ 1943ȱ (Ne²asȱ 1999b:ȱ 97Ȭ98,ȱ 170;ȱ 2005:ȱ 295).ȱ Inȱ 1985,ȱ aȱ Romaniȱ familyȱ builtȱ aȱ monumentȱ inȱ Bohusoudovȱ (inȱ theȱ Jihlavaȱ district),ȱ fromȱ whereȱ theȱ Romaȱ wereȱ deportedȱ inȱ 1943ȱ (Ne²asȱ 2005:ȱ 262).ȱ Yetȱ anotherȱ Romaniȱ monumentȱ hasȱ beenȱ builtȱ inȱ Uher²iceȱ inȱ theȱ Bìeclavȱ district,ȱ fromȱ whereȱ theȱ Romaȱ wereȱ deportedȱ inȱ theȱ sameȱ yearȱ (ibidȱ158).ȱAtȱtheȱcemeteryȱofȱ+ernoviceȱnearȱHodonínȱandȱatȱtheȱcemeteryȱofȱMiroviceȱnearȱLety—graveȬ yardsȱ whereȱ manyȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ whoȱ diedȱ inȱ theȱ twoȱ campsȱ wereȱ buried—thereȱ areȱ alsoȱ someȱ memorialȱ plaques,ȱmostȱofȱthemȱestablishedȱinȱtheȱ1990s,ȱbutȱoneȱoriginatesȱfromȱ1960ȱ(Papeȱ1997:ȱ190Ȭ91;ȱ2008:ȱ88;ȱ Ne²asȱ1999b:ȱ97Ȭ98;ȱ2005:ȱ281Ȭ85).ȱ

(15)

atȱ theseȱ sitesȱ (figureȱ 8.9).ȱ Bothȱ VPORHȱ andȱ theȱ museumȱ inȱ Brnoȱ haveȱ alsoȱ developedȱ detailedȱplansȱofȱtheȱmemorialsȱthatȱneedȱtoȱbeȱcreatedȱatȱtheȱsitesȱofȱtheȱformerȱcampsȱ onceȱtheȱbusinessesȱareȱremovedȱ(interviewȱ2003a;ȱ2008b).ȱ

Despiteȱtheȱdisplacementȱofȱtheȱcurrentȱmemorials—theyȱareȱallȱlocatedȱatȱaȱrelativelyȱ largeȱ distanceȱ forȱ theȱ formerȱ camps—theȱ visualȱ languageȱ ofȱ theseȱ memorialsȱ clearlyȱ appealsȱtoȱtheȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱsocialȱandȱcivilȱmovementȱ(chapterȱ7).ȱTheȱmonumentsȱ atȱtheȱcemeteriesȱnearȱLetyȱandȱHodonínȱincludeȱunambiguousȱreferencesȱtoȱtheȱsymbolȬ ismȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱmovement.ȱOneȱofȱtheȱmonumentsȱintegratesȱaȱbrokenȱwheelȱandȱanȬ otherȱaȱwheelȱinȱtheȱformȱofȱaȱhorseȱhalterȱfastenedȱtoȱtheȱtopȱofȱaȱcrossȱ(figuresȱ8.7,ȱ8.8).ȱ Internationalȱ Romaniȱ organizationsȱ andȱ someȱ ofȱ theirȱ nationalȱ representativesȱ haveȱ chosenȱ theȱ caravanȱ wheelȱ asȱ theȱ symbolȱ unitingȱ disparateȱ Romaniȱ groupsȱ globallyȱ byȱ referenceȱ toȱ aȱ commonȱ historyȱ ofȱ traveling,ȱ migration,ȱ andȱ socioeconomicȱ andȱ culturalȱ displacement.ȱTheȱdevelopmentȱofȱRomaniȱmemorialȱculturesȱwouldȱnotȱremainȱlimitedȱ toȱ theȱ establishmentȱ ofȱ theȱ museum,ȱ VPORH,ȱ andȱ theȱ memorials.ȱ Withȱ theȱ supportȱ ofȱ someȱofȱtheirȱadvocates,ȱtheȱmemoriesȱofȱsomeȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱsurvivorsȱofȱtheȱLetyȱandȱ Hodonínȱ campsȱ haveȱ beenȱ recordedȱ andȱ writtenȱ downȱ (Papeȱ 1997;ȱ Polanskyȱ 1998b;ȱ Danielováȱetȱalȱ2001).ȱTheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱtheȱRomaniȱsurvivorsȱhaveȱbeenȱgivenȱaȱvoiceȱ alsoȱ relatesȱ toȱ aȱ secondȱ strategyȱ thatȱ theȱ Romaȱ andȱ theirȱ advocatesȱ haveȱ developedȱ toȱ initiateȱ aȱ publicȱ debateȱ aboutȱ pastȱ andȱ contemporaryȱ exclusionȱ mechanismsȱ thatȱ haveȱ affectedȱtheȱsituationȱofȱtheȱRoma.ȱ

ȱ

ReȬnarratingȱandȱcontestingȱtheȱnationȱ

TheȱgradualȱdevelopmentȱofȱtheȱCzechȱRomaniȱmemorialȱculturesȱtookȱplaceȱatȱtheȱsameȱ timeȱ asȱ twoȱ booksȱ wereȱ publishedȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ memoriesȱ ofȱ Romaniȱ survivorsȱ ofȱ theȱ Letyȱcampȱwereȱmobilizedȱtoȱunleashȱaȱpublicȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱsituationȱatȱtheȱsitesȱofȱ theȱ formerȱ campsȱ andȱ aboutȱ theȱ roleȱ ofȱ Czechȱ collaborationȱ duringȱ theȱ Secondȱ Worldȱ War.ȱ Thoughȱ thisȱ debateȱ tookȱ primarilyȱ placeȱ atȱ theȱ nationalȱ level,ȱ Iȱ willȱ showȱ howȱ itȱ wouldȱfinallyȱalsoȱgetȱaȱEuropeanȱdimension.ȱ

Inȱ1994,ȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱwasȱembarrassedȱbyȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱPaulȱPolansky,ȱ anȱAmericanȱactivistȱandȱpoet,ȱdrewȱtheȱCzechȱgovernment’sȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱexistenceȱofȱ theȱ formerȱ campȱ inȱ Letyȱ (Papeȱ 2008).ȱ Heȱ hadȱ startedȱ anȱ individualȱ inquiryȱ intoȱ whatȱ happenedȱatȱLety.ȱHeȱresearchedȱsomeȱlocalȱCzechȱstateȱarchivesȱandȱspokeȱwithȱseveralȱ RomaniȱsurvivorsȱofȱLety.ȱHeȱpublishedȱaȱbookȱinȱCzechȱinȱwhichȱheȱbroughtȱhisȱfindȬ ingsȱ togetherȱ andȱ inȱ whichȱ heȱ suggestedȱ thatȱ Letyȱ hadȱ beenȱ anȱ exterminationȱ camp,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ entirelyȱ runȱ byȱ Czechs.ȱ Inȱ hisȱ book,ȱ Polanskyȱ alsoȱ stronglyȱ linkedȱ theȱ warȬ timeȱtreatmentȱofȱtheȱRomaȱwithȱtheirȱpostȬcommunistȱsituationȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublicȱ (Polanskyȱ1998b).ȱInȱtheȱsameȱperiodȱofȱtime,ȱtheȱCzechȬGermanȱjournalistȱMarkusȱPapeȱ preparedȱ yetȱ anotherȱ bookȱ onȱ Letyȱ inȱ whichȱ he,ȱ likeȱ Polansky,ȱ drewȱ attentionȱ toȱ theȱ ambivalentȱ roleȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechȱ policeȱ inȱ theȱ managementȱ ofȱ theȱ Letyȱ camp,ȱ andȱ inȱ theȱ genocideȱofȱCzechȱRomaȱmoreȱgenerallyȱ(Papeȱ1997;ȱinterviewȱ2003e;ȱ2008a).ȱ

Inȱtheirȱbooks,ȱPolanskyȱandȱPapeȱfollowȱaȱsimilarȱstrategy,ȱwhichȱcanȱbeȱrelatedȱtoȱ theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ Huyssenȱ discussesȱ emergentȱ memorialȱ practicesȱ inȱ termsȱ ofȱ aȱ ‘shift’ȱ fromȱ historyȱ toȱ memoryȱ (seeȱ above).ȱ Bothȱ authorsȱ followȱ theȱ trendȱ inȱ Holocaustȱ andȱ genocideȱstudiesȱtoȱbringȱhistoricalȱanalysesȱandȱindividualȱtestimoniesȱanalyticallyȱandȱ

(16)

methodologicallyȱ together.18_{ȱ Polanskyȱ andȱ Papeȱ combineȱ historicalȱ researchȱ withȱ}

Romaniȱmemoriesȱandȱtestimoniesȱtoȱquestionȱhow,ȱinȱCzechȱdebatesȱaboutȱtheȱSecondȱ WorldȱWar,ȱtheȱgenocideȱofȱtheȱCzechȱRomaȱtendsȱtoȱbeȱexternalizedȱasȱsolelyȱaȱNaziȬ Germanȱissue,ȱwithȱimportantȱconsequencesȱregardingȱissuesȱsuchȱasȱresponsibilityȱandȱ justice.ȱPolanskyȱandȱPapeȱsuggestȱthatȱthisȱexternalizationȱimpedesȱanȱopen,ȱfairȱdebateȱ aboutȱ theȱ roleȱ thatȱ Czechsȱ themselvesȱ playedȱ inȱ theȱ wartimeȱ persecutionȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma.ȱ Theyȱfollowȱthisȱlineȱofȱreasoningȱtoȱlinkȱwhatȱhappenedȱduringȱtheȱwarȱtoȱtheȱissueȱofȱ socialȬhistoricalȱjusticeȱthat,ȱtheyȱargue,ȱstillȱneedsȱtoȱbeȱdoneȱvisȬàȬvisȱtheȱCzechȱRomaniȱ Holocaustȱvictimsȱandȱtheirȱchildren.19_{ȱSinceȱtheȱmidȱ1990s,ȱparticularlyȱPapeȱhasȱcloselyȱ}

collaboratedȱ withȱ Rþži²ka’sȱ VPROH.ȱ Papeȱ andȱ VPROHȱ haveȱ jointlyȱ organizedȱ annualȱ commemorationsȱinȱLetyȱandȱstruggledȱforȱaȱmoreȱadequateȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱ HolocaustȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱparticularlyȱbyȱdisputingȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱ andȱorganizingȱotherȱeventsȱthatȱcouldȱhelpȱtoȱfurtherȱtheirȱissue.ȱAtȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱ booksȱ byȱ Polanskyȱ andȱ Papeȱ unleashedȱ aȱ heated,ȱ yetȱ initiallyȱ largelyȱ academicȱ debateȱ aboutȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱformerȱLetyȱcamp.ȱ

ȱ Theȱpublicationȱofȱtheirȱbooksȱwasȱfollowedȱbyȱthatȱofȱaȱbookȱ(HÚȱ1999)ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱ CzechȱhistoriansȱCtiborȱNe²asȱandȱJaroslavȱValentaȱdiscussȱtheȱLetyȱcaseȱandȱtheȱstatusȱ ofȱ theȱ camp.ȱ Theyȱ wantedȱ toȱ revealȱ “objectiveȱ truths”ȱ andȱ “verifyȱ theȱ historicalȱ facts”ȱ aboutȱ Letyȱ (Valentaȱ 1999:ȱ 9).ȱ Aȱ numberȱ ofȱ originalȱ historicalȱ documentsȱ onȱ theȱ Letyȱ campȱ wereȱ addedȱ toȱ theȱ bookȱ toȱ supportȱ theirȱ arguments.ȱ Inȱ thisȱ book,ȱ Ne²asȱ andȱ Valentaȱ questionȱ howȱ Polanskyȱ andȱ Papeȱ wouldȱ haveȱ usedȱ historicalȱ documentsȱ andȱ Romaniȱ testimoniesȱ toȱ makeȱ politicalȱ claims.20_{ȱ Yet,ȱ theyȱ themselvesȱ clingȱ toȱ historicalȱ}

documentsȱtoȱdoȱsomethingȱambivalent.ȱInȱorderȱtoȱargueȱthatȱtheȱgenocideȱofȱRomaȱdidȱ notȱtakeȱplaceȱonȱCzechȱterritoryȱandȱthatȱCzechsȱwereȱnotȱtoȱblameȱforȱwhatȱhappenedȱ withȱ theȱ Romaȱ duringȱ theȱ war,ȱ theseȱ historiansȱ ambiguouslyȱ mobilizeȱ originalȱ Naziȱ documentsȱ andȱ rhetoric.ȱ Ne²as,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ claimsȱ thatȱ theȱ originalȱ Naziȱ purposeȱ forȱ imprisoningȱ theȱ Romaȱ andȱ “settingȱ themȱ toȱ work”ȱ wasȱ merelyȱ “toȱ reeducate”ȱ themȱ (pìevýchovaȱv»zÜþȱkȱpráci)ȱ(Ne²asȱ1999a:ȱ28).ȱHeȱalsoȱremarks:ȱ

18_{ȱ Illustrationsȱ ofȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ thisȱ newȱ interdisciplinaryȱ scholarlyȱ developmentȱ are,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ theȱ} appearanceȱofȱoralȱhistoryȱasȱanȱincreasinglyȱindependentȱdiscipline,ȱtheȱGermanȱhistoryȬworkshopȱmoveȬ ment,ȱ theȱ emergenceȱ ofȱ Erinneringsgeschichteȱ (‘memoryȱ history’,ȱ eg,ȱ Dinerȱ 2003a)ȱ andȱ theȱ appearanceȱ ofȱ variousȱnewȱjournalsȱ(suchȱasȱWerkstattȱGeschichte,ȱHistoryȱandȱMemory,ȱandȱMemoryȱStudies),ȱandȱacademicȱ studiesȱthatȱexplicitlyȱcombineȱ‘history’ȱandȱ‘memory’ȱ(SaulȱFriedländerȱhasȱbeenȱoneȱofȱtheȱpioneersȱinȱthisȱ development,ȱsee,ȱforȱinstance,ȱhisȱintroductionȱtoȱNaziȱGermanyȱandȱtheȱJews,ȱseeȱFriedländerȱ1999:ȱ1Ȭ6;ȱseeȱ alsoȱYoungȱ1997).ȱ

19_{ȱInȱoneȱofȱhisȱotherȱbooks,ȱPolanskyȱpublishedȱaȱlongȱseriesȱofȱpoemsȱinȱwhichȱheȱreflectsȱonȱLety,ȱitsȱpoorȱ}

recognition,ȱ andȱ theȱ consequenceȱ thisȱ poorȱ recognitionȱ wouldȱ haveȱ hadȱ forȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱ inȱ contemporaryȱCzechȱsocietyȱ(Polanskyȱ1998a).ȱ

20_{ȱ Polansky,ȱ forȱ instance,ȱ wouldȱ haveȱ takenȱ theȱ Romaniȱ testimoniesȱ atȱ faceȱ value.ȱ Heȱ wouldȱ notȱ haveȱ}

seriouslyȱverifiedȱtheseȱtestimoniesȱandȱhisȱclaimȱthatȱLetyȱwasȱanȱexterminationȱcampȱ(Polanskyȱ1998b;ȱseeȱ alsoȱ+an»kȱ2003).ȱAfterȱ1999,ȱPolanskyȱdidȱnoȱlongerȱactivelyȱparticipateȱinȱtheȱdebate.ȱInȱ1999,ȱheȱleftȱtheȱ CzechȱRepublicȱforȱKosovo,ȱwhereȱheȱwouldȱalsoȱmobilizeȱHolocaustȱdiscourse.ȱInȱKosovo,ȱheȱblamedȱtheȱ existenceȱ ofȱ UNHCRȬinitiatedȱ Romaȱ refugeeȱ campsȱ onȱ leadȬpollutedȱ ground.ȱ Onȱ theȱ coverȱ ofȱ aȱ bookletȱ meantȱ toȱ addressȱ thatȱ Romaniȱ childrenȱ inȱ theȱ refugeeȱ campsȱ setȱ upȱ afterȱ theȱ NATOȱ interventionȱ wereȱ dyingȱdueȱtoȱtheȱleadȱpollution,ȱheȱincludedȱaȱphotoshoppedȱimageȱofȱtheȱentranceȱofȱtheȱAuschwitzȱcamp.ȱ Kosovanȱ Romaniȱ childrenȱ areȱ inȱ frontȱ ofȱ theȱ campȱ entranceȱ andȱ theȱ notoriousȱ Arbeitȱ machtȱ freiȱ hasȱ beenȱ changedȱintoȱBleiȱ[Lead]ȱmachtȱfreiȱ(Polanskyȱ2005).ȱ

(17)

Theȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechȱ Romaȱ tookȱ placeȱ inȱ theȱ contextȱ ofȱ forcedȱ campȱ concenȬ tration:ȱ thoughȱ itȱ wasȱ initiatedȱ inȱ theȱ Gypsyȱ campsȱ ofȱ theȱ Protectorate,21_{ȱ itȱ wasȱ inȱ}

actualȱfactȱrealizedȱinȱtheȱBȬIIȬeȱcampȱofȱtheȱAuschwitzȱcampȱcomplex.ȱ(Ne²asȱ1999a:ȱ 18,ȱmyȱtranslation)ȱ

ȱ

Valenta’sȱ usesȱ thisȱ argumentȱ toȱ externalizeȱ theȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Roma.ȱ Heȱ statesȱ that,ȱ becauseȱ theȱ Czechȱ Landsȱ wereȱ occupiedȱ byȱ Naziȱ Germany,ȱ itȱ doesȱ notȱ makeȱ senseȱ toȱ accuseȱ Czechsȱ ofȱ theirȱ collaborationȱ inȱ theȱ genocideȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechȱ Roma.ȱ Theseȱ Czechsȱ wouldȱonlyȱhaveȱobeyedȱNaziȱinstructionsȱmeantȱforȱwhatȱtheȱNazisȱcalledȱtheȱProtecȬ torateȱ ofȱ Bohemiaȱ andȱ Moravia.ȱ Suggestingȱ thatȱ theȱ termsȱ ‘Czech’ȱ andȱ ‘Protectorate’ȱ contradictȱ eachȱ other,ȱ heȱ concludesȱ thatȱ “everyȱ authorȱ whoȱ wantsȱ toȱ beȱ historicallyȱ objective,ȱ needsȱ toȱ consequentlyȱ speakȱ andȱ writeȱ aboutȱ aȱ Protectorateȱ campȱ inȱ Lety”ȱ (Valentaȱ1999:ȱ12,ȱhisȱemphasis,ȱmyȱtranslation).22_ȱ

TheȱinterventionsȱofȱPolanskyȱandȱPape,ȱasȱwellȱasȱofȱtheȱCzechȱhistoriansȱNe²asȱandȱ Valenta,ȱ clarifyȱ thatȱ theȱ debateȱ aboutȱ Romaniȱ memoryȱ isȱ aboutȱ muchȱ moreȱ thanȱ theȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaust.ȱ Theȱ debateȱ isȱ alsoȱ aboutȱ Czechȱ collaboration,ȱ aboutȱ socialȬhistoricalȱ justiceȱ visȬàȬvisȱ theȱ Czechȱ Roma,ȱ aboutȱ theȱ currentȱ positionȱ ofȱ Romaȱ inȱ Czechȱ society,ȱ andȱ aboutȱ theȱ positionȱ ofȱ theȱ Czechȱ Republicȱ inȱ itsȱ ownȱ andȱ Europeanȱ history.ȱ Theȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theȱ twoȱ historiansȱ inȱ theȱ debateȱ haveȱ mobilizedȱ periodizationsȱofȱCzechȱhistory,ȱincludingȱreferencesȱtoȱoriginalȱNaziȱdocuments,ȱtoȱdisȬ tinguishȱ theȱ ‘beforeȱ andȱ after’ȱ ofȱ occupation,ȱ concentration,ȱ deportation,ȱ andȱ genocide,ȱ illustratesȱ theȱ roleȱ thatȱ theȱ framingȱ ofȱ historicalȱ timeȱ playsȱ inȱ theȱ debate.ȱ Whereasȱ PolanskyȱandȱPapeȱtryȱtoȱextendȱtheȱdebateȱbyȱincludingȱRomaniȱmemoriesȱandȱtestimoȬ nies,ȱ theȱ twoȱ historiansȱ limitȱ theȱ discussionȱ toȱ theȱ historicalȱ timeȱ ofȱ theȱ nation,ȱ andȱ toȱ pastȱpolicyȱdocumentsȱandȱtheȱ“objectiveȱtruths”ȱtheyȱwouldȱrevealȱinȱparticular.ȱInȱtheȱ courseȱ ofȱ theȱ years,ȱ theseȱ claimsȱ ofȱ objectivityȱ andȱ theȱ particularȱ wayȱ inȱ whichȱ theseȱ historiansȱnarrateȱtheȱ(timeȱofȱthe)ȱnationȱhaveȱbegunȱtoȱinterfereȱwithȱotherȱpoliticizaȬ tionsȱofȱtheȱLetyȱcaseȱinȱtheȱCzechȱpublicȱdebate.ȱThisȱwillȱbecomeȱclearȱwhenȱweȱlookȱatȱ theȱwaysȱinȱwhichȱthisȱdebateȱwouldȱgetȱaȱEuropeanȱdimensionȱandȱwouldȱpartiallyȱbeȱ hijackedȱbyȱCzechȱnationalistsȱandȱpopulists.ȱ ȱ GoingȱEuropeanȱ

Theȱ debatesȱ onȱ theȱ removalȱ ofȱ theȱ businessesȱ inȱ Letyȱ andȱ Hodonínȱ haveȱ alsoȱ ledȱ toȱ outburstsȱofȱantiȬRomaȱsentimentsȱandȱevenȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱdenial.ȱInȱtheȱlateȱ1990s,ȱ forȱinstance,ȱaȱrepresentativeȱofȱtheȱfarȬrightȱCzechȱRepublicanȱPartyȱ(SPRȬRS+)ȱdeclaredȱ thatȱ buildingȱ monumentsȱ toȱ theȱ Romaȱ wouldȱ beȱ “simplyȱ rudenessȱ andȱ anȱ insultȱ toȱ allȱ whiteȱcitizensȱofȱthisȱstate”ȱ(JosefȱKresjaȱcitedȱFawnȱ2001:ȱ1201).ȱThisȱstatementȱwasȱpartȱ ofȱ theȱ Republicans’ȱ nationalȱ electionȱ campaign,ȱ whichȱ wasȱ extremelyȱ dismissiveȱ ofȱ theȱ RomaȱandȱinitiativesȱtoȱimproveȱtheirȱsocioȬeconomicȱsituation.ȱTheyȱputȱupȱhugeȱbillȬ

21_{ȱTheȱProtectorateȱofȱBohemiaȱandȱMoraviaȱwasȱtheȱnameȱtheȱNazisȱgaveȱtoȱtheȱoccupiedȱCzechȱLands.ȱ}

22_{ȱTheȱdebateȱaboutȱtheȱstatusȱofȱtheȱformerȱconcentrationȱcampsȱcontinuedȱonȱtheȱground,ȱwhenȱdisputesȱ}

aroseȱaboutȱhowȱtheȱcampȱinȱLetyȱhadȱtoȱbeȱqualifiedȱonȱanȱexplanatoryȱsignȱinstalledȱinȱtheȱvicinityȱofȱtheȱ memorialȱ(seeȱKundraȱ2000;ȱMalotaȱ2000).ȱ

(18)

boardsȱ throughoutȱ theȱcountry,ȱ whichȱ read:ȱ“Theȱ Republicansȱ rejectȱ aȱ privilegedȱ treatȬ mentȱofȱtheȱgypsies”ȱ(Republikániȱodmítajíȱzvýhodnovaníȱcikánþ)ȱ(Raichováȱ2001:ȱ260).ȱ

ȱ Atȱaboutȱtheȱsameȱtime,ȱtheȱinvolvedȱCzechȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱhaveȱ startedȱtoȱdevelopȱyetȱanotherȱstrategyȱtoȱgetȱpaidȱattentionȱtoȱtheȱsituationȱinȱLetyȱandȱ Hodonín,ȱ andȱ theȱ poorȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ moreȱ generally.ȱ Sinceȱ theȱ lateȱ1990s,ȱtheyȱhaveȱincreasinglyȱmobilizedȱconnectionsȱabroadȱtoȱputȱpressureȱonȱtheȱ Czechȱgovernment.23_{ȱTheyȱhaveȱgotȱsupportȱfromȱvariousȱorganizationsȱandȱpoliticians,ȱ}

includingȱMembersȱofȱEuropeanȱParliament.ȱInȱ2005,ȱtheyȱsucceededȱinȱgettingȱtheȱentireȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ involved.ȱ Theȱ Czechȱ Romaniȱ activistsȱ haveȱ startedȱ toȱ collaborateȱ withȱ aȱ numberȱ ofȱ otherȱ partnerȱ Romaniȱ organizations,ȱ suchȱ asȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ ofȱ GermanȱSintiȱandȱRomaȱinȱHeidelberg,ȱoneȱofȱtheȱstrongȱWesternȱEuropeanȱRomaniȱselfȬ organizationsȱtoȱwhichȱIȱwillȱpayȱattentionȱinȱtheȱlastȱpartȱofȱthisȱchapter.ȱInȱAprilȱ2005,ȱ VPROHȱ andȱ Papeȱ (2005;ȱ 2008)ȱ organizedȱ anȱ exhibitionȱ onȱ theȱ formerȱ campȱ inȱ Letyȱ inȱ oneȱofȱtheȱmainȱhallsȱofȱtheȱEuropeanȱParliamentȱinȱBrussels.ȱTheyȱinvitedȱmembersȱofȱ theȱ Parliamentȱ toȱ visitȱ theȱ exhibition’sȱ opening.ȱ Withȱ theȱ helpȱ ofȱ severalȱ parliamentȱ membersȱwhoȱwereȱalreadyȱbackingȱthem,ȱtheyȱbuiltȱaȱstrongȱcoalitionȱtoȱgetȱattentionȱ paidȱtoȱtheȱLetyȱcaseȱinȱaȱparliament’sȱresolutionȱthatȱwasȱinȱpreparationȱthatȱspring.24_ȱ

Finally,ȱtheseȱeffortsȱandȱthoseȱofȱseveralȱothersȱresultedȱinȱtheȱadoptionȱofȱtheȱresolutionȱ byȱtheȱEuropeanȱParliament,ȱwhichȱwasȱtheȱfirstȱParliament’sȱresolutionȱthatȱaddressedȱ theȱ situationȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaȱinȱtheȱ Europeanȱ Unionȱ andȱ alsoȱ calledȱ forȱ theȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ theȱRomaniȱHolocaustȱthroughoutȱtheȱUnion.ȱInȱthisȱresolution,ȱtheȱParliamentȱcallsȱonȱ theȱEUȱmemberȱstatesȱtoȱfullyȱrecognizeȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaust.ȱTheȱCzechȱRepublicȱinȱ particularȱisȱurgedȱ“toȱtakeȱallȱnecessaryȱstepsȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱfromȱtheȱsiteȱofȱtheȱ formerȱconcentrationȱcampȱatȱLetyȱ…ȱandȱtoȱcreateȱaȱsuitableȱmemorial”ȱ(EPȱ2005b:ȱ§G,ȱmyȱ italics).ȱ Theȱ‘European’ȱsuccessȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱactivistsȱandȱtheirȱadvocatesȱwouldȱunleashȱanȱ extremelyȱpolarizedȱdebateȱinȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱinȱwhichȱvariousȱechoesȱofȱtheȱdebateȱ betweenȱ theȱ historiansȱ andȱ Papeȱ andȱ Polanskyȱ alsoȱ becameȱ audible.ȱ Immediatelyȱ afterȱ theȱresolution’sȱadoption,ȱtheȱCzechȱPresidentȱVáclavȱKlausȱstronglyȱcondemnedȱtheȱcallȱ asȱanȱinterferenceȱinȱCzechȱdomesticȱaffairs.ȱHeȱdeclaredȱthatȱtheȱCzechȱRepublic,ȱnotȱtheȱ EU,ȱdecidesȱonȱwhatȱwillȱeventuallyȱhappenȱtoȱtheȱfarmȱinȱLetyȱ(+TKȱ2005b).ȱMiloslavȱ Ransdorf,ȱ aȱ Czechȱ Memberȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ claimedȱ thatȱ “thereȱ hasȱ neverȱ beenȱanyȱgenuineȱconcentrationȱcampȱthere”ȱ(citedȱ+TKȱ2005b,ȱmyȱitalics).ȱThereȱwasȱalsoȱ strongȱoppositionȱagainstȱtheȱviewsȱofȱpoliticians,ȱsuchȱasȱKlausȱandȱRansdorf.ȱPetrȱUhl,ȱ aȱformerȱCzechȱombudsmanȱforȱhumanȱrights,ȱaccusedȱtheȱlatterȱofȱcontributingȱtoȱ“theȱ 23_{ȱInȱ1998,ȱforȱinstance,ȱCzechȱRomaniȱactivistsȱpresentedȱanȱopenȱletterȱtoȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱaskingȱforȱ} theȱremovalȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarm.ȱTheȱletterȱwasȱsignedȱbyȱaȱnumberȱofȱinternationallyȱwellȬknownȱfigures,ȱsuchȱ asȱGünterȱGrassȱandȱSimonȱWiesenthalȱ(Trojanȱ1999).ȱInȱ1999,ȱtheȱRomaȱNationalȱCongressȱ(RNC),ȱoneȱofȱ theȱinternationalȱRomaniȱassociations,ȱtriedȱtoȱputȱpressureȱonȱtheȱCzechȱgovernmentȱtoȱremoveȱtheȱfarmȱ byȱcallingȱforȱaȱboycottȱofȱCzechȱproductsȱ(RNCȱ1999).ȱ

24_{ȱ Milanȱ Hora²ek,ȱ aȱ Memberȱ ofȱ theȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ forȱ theȱ Greens,ȱ activelyȱ helpedȱ toȱ organizeȱ theȱ} exhibitionȱandȱsupportedȱtheȱcallȱforȱaȱmoreȱadequateȱrecognitionȱofȱtheȱRomaniȱHolocaust.ȱOnȱtheȱsameȱ dayȱ theȱ exhibitionȱ opened,ȱ aȱ Europeanȱ Parliamentȱ hearingȱ onȱ theȱ Letyȱ caseȱ wasȱ organized,ȱ atȱ whichȱ Romaniȱ Rose,ȱ theȱ chairmanȱ ofȱ theȱ Centralȱ Councilȱ ofȱ Germanȱ Sintiȱ andȱ Roma,ȱ inȱ noȱ uncertainȱ termsȱ rejectedȱtheȱpresenceȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarm.ȱHeȱcalledȱitsȱpresenceȱ“scandalous”ȱ(interviewȱ2005a).ȱ

(19)

soȬcalledȱ‘AuschwitzȱLie’”ȱ(UhlȱcitedȱBalážováȱ2005).ȱUhlȱputȱforwardȱthatȱRansdorfȱhadȱ “usedȱ hisȱ positionȱ toȱ denyȱ factsȱ aboutȱ fascismȱ andȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ …ȱ Ourȱ predecessorsȱallowedȱthisȱcampȱtoȱbeȱerected,ȱworkedȱhereȱasȱguards;ȱit’sȱupȱtoȱusȱtoȱtryȱ toȱmakeȱamends!ȱNotȱevenȱAuschwitzȱwasȱoriginallyȱdenotedȱasȱaȱconcentrationȱcamp,ȱ andȱweȱknowȱwhatȱhappenedȱthereȱ…ȱWeȱcan’tȱallowȱanyoneȱtoȱdenyȱtheȱgenocideȱofȱaȱ nationȱorȱgroupȱofȱpeople”ȱ(ibid).25_{ȱHowever,ȱinȱanȱinterviewȱwithȱoneȱofȱtheȱmainȱCzechȱ} dailyȱnewspapers,ȱPresidentȱKlausȱalsoȱjoinedȱthoseȱwhoȱhadȱquestionedȱwhetherȱLetyȱ wasȱreallyȱaȱconcentrationȱcamp.ȱHeȱdeclared:ȱ ȱ [Lety]ȱwasȱoriginallyȱaȱlaborȱcampȱforȱthoseȱwhoȱrefusedȱtoȱwork,ȱandȱnotȱonlyȱforȱ Romaniȱ people.ȱ Itȱ isȱ reallyȱ notȱ aȱ concentrationȱ campȱ inȱ theȱ senseȱ inȱ whichȱ weȱ allȱ subconsciouslyȱunderstandȱtheȱwordsȱ‘concentrationȱcamp’ȱandȱenvisionȱAuschwitz,ȱ Buchenwaldȱandȱallȱthatȱwentȱwithȱthem.ȱOfȱcourseȱmanyȱtragicȱthingsȱhappenedȱ[inȱ Lety].ȱ Butȱ weȱ understandȱ thatȱ theȱ victimsȱ ofȱ thisȱ campȱ primarilyȱ succumbedȱ toȱ anȱ epidemicȱofȱspottedȱtyphus,ȱnotȱdueȱtoȱwhatȱisȱtraditionallyȱunderstoodȱasȱtheȱfateȱofȱ aȱconcentrationȱcampȱvictim—atȱleastȱaccordingȱtoȱwhatȱeveryȱchildȱlearnsȱinȱschool.ȱ (KlausȱcitedȱKoláìȱ2005:ȱ11;ȱseeȱalsoȱDrchalȱandȱKoláìȱ2005)ȱ ȱ Onȱtheȱeveȱofȱtheȱnationalȱelectionsȱofȱ2006,ȱCzechȱPrimeȱMinisterȱJiìíȱParoubekȱfurtherȱ politicizedȱtheȱRomaȱcase.ȱTraditionally,ȱhisȱSocialȱDemocraticȱPartyȱ(+SSD)ȱoftenȱcomȬ petesȱwithȱKlaus’sȱCivicȱDemocraticȱPartyȱ(ODS).ȱContraryȱtoȱKlaus,ȱParoubekȱrepeatedȬ lyȱdeclaredȱthatȱheȱwasȱwillingȱtoȱthinkȱaboutȱtheȱremovalȱofȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱ(+TKȱ2005e;ȱ 2005d).ȱHeȱevenȱwantedȱtoȱ“solveȱtheȱissue”ȱbeforeȱtheȱ2006ȱelectionsȱbyȱpurchasingȱtheȱ farmȱfromȱtheȱownerȱandȱremovingȱitȱafterwardsȱ(+TKȱ2005a;ȱ2006h).ȱDespiteȱaȱnumberȱ ofȱRomaȬfriendlyȱactions,ȱhowever,ȱParoubekȱgraduallyȱpostponedȱandȱfinallyȱcancelledȱ hisȱpromiseȱ(+TKȱ2005f;ȱ2005c).ȱ BothȱtheȱPresident’sȱandȱtheȱPremier’sȱstatementsȱonȱLetyȱhaveȱpartlyȱfacilitatedȱlessȱ moderateȱandȱmainstreamȱpoliticalȱpartiesȱandȱextremistȱgroupsȱtoȱradicalizeȱtheȱdebate.ȱ TheȱformerȱCzechȱPresidentȱVáclavȱHavelȱcondemnedȱtheȱwayȱinȱwhichȱKlausȱhadȱgivenȱ spaceȱ toȱ extremistsȱ toȱ radicallyȱ politicizeȱ theȱ Letyȱ case:ȱ “Václavȱ Klausȱ hasȱ openedȱ theȱ doorȱtoȱtheȱcurrentȱeventsȱaroundȱLetyȱasȱheȱsaidȱthatȱitȱwasȱnotȱaȱconcentrationȱcampȱinȱ theȱproperȱsenseȱofȱtheȱword”ȱ(Havelȱcitedȱ+TKȱ2006a).ȱTheȱ‘currentȱevents’ȱinȱtheȱquoteȱ referȱtoȱwhatȱhappenedȱinȱ2006,ȱeightȱmonthsȱafterȱKlaus’sȱstatementȱonȱLety.ȱThen,ȱtheȱ Czechȱ extremeȬrightȱ Nationalȱ Partyȱ (NS)ȱ organizedȱ anȱ aggressiveȱ electionȱ campaignȱ againstȱ theȱ Romaniȱ callȱ forȱ adequateȱ recognitionȱ ofȱ theȱ Romaniȱ Holocaustȱ (Aldaȱ 2006;ȱ +TKȱ 2006e).ȱ Asȱ partȱ ofȱ theirȱ campaign,ȱ NSȱ unveiledȱ aȱ soȬcalledȱ ‘counterȬmonument’ȱ closeȱtoȱtheȱpigȱfarmȱ(+TKȱ2006d).ȱThisȱcounterȬmonumentȱwouldȱhaveȱreclassifiedȱLetyȱ asȱonlyȱaȱ‘laborȱcamp,’ȱnotȱaȱconcentrationȱcamp.ȱThoughȱtheȱmonumentȱwasȱremovedȱ soonȱ afterȱ itsȱ turbulentȱ unveiling—partlyȱ dueȱ toȱ immediateȱ Romaniȱ protestsȱ andȱ oppositionȱ byȱ severalȱ politicians—theȱ discussionȱ aboutȱ Romaniȱ memoryȱ wasȱ omniȬ presentȱ inȱ theȱ Czechȱ mediaȱ forȱ aȱ fewȱ weeksȱ (+TKȱ 2006g;ȱ 2006c;ȱ Romeaȱ 2006).ȱ Theȱ Romaniȱ victimsȱ didȱ notȱ fightȱ forȱ theȱ Czechȱ liberation,ȱ theȱ NS’sȱ chairwomanȱ Petraȱ

25_{ȱSvatoplukȱKarasek,ȱthenȱaȱCzechȱgovernmentȱhumanȱrightsȱcommissioner,ȱmadeȱsomeȱsimilarȱstatementsȱ}