Being Isolated in Togetherness. The Coexistence of Roma and the Majority of Society Living in Slovakia during the 1930s and 1940s
Abstract
47
Full text
Being Isolated in Togetherness. The Coexistence of Roma and the Majority of Society Living in Slovakia during the 1930s and 1940s Monika Stachová KEY WORDS: Alterity— Roma— Coexistence— Gypsy Camps— Czechoslovakia— World War II INTRODUCTION The Roma were often depicted by Slovak society as an extraneous element which did not correspond to accepted notions of the Czechoslovak, or in this case, the Slovak nation.1 The common perception of what it meant to be aGypsy was simply not compatible with current ideas of adecent and loyal citizen in interwar Czechoslovakia. 2 Indeed, being “aGypsy” was frequently linked to Hungarian culture, and this may have caused an ambivalent approach towards the Roma community. Since Roma musicians performed at Hungarian patrimonial courts, Hungarian culture was to some extent influenced by Roma culture.3 Moreover, Roma occupied arather indifferent interspace between the majority population and other minorities, for example Germans, Hungarians etc. They had acompetitive position in relation to Slovak workmen, for example, as they represented acheaper alternative for potential customers— many of them found employment as trash collectors and many other typical professions and characteristics could be listed.4 Which role did the Roma play in Slovak society? How did the approach of the state and local authorities towards Roma changed over the period considered? How and on what grounds did the majority of the population create categories to classify Gypsies? 1 The grant-aided research for this article, and in the wider context for my master thesis, could be realized mainly due to financial support provided by Grant Agency of the Charles University in Prague (Grantová agentura UK). Specifically, it was called “Romové ve 30.a40.letech 20.století na Slovensku “ [Slovak Gypsies in the 1930s and the 1940s] and was researched during the year 2017 under the No.574217 at the Faculty of Arts. 2 The term Gypsy will be used just as ahistorical category in the historical context. “Roma” is employed as an umbrella term comprising various Romani groups living in Slovakia. 3 See Emília Horváthová, Cigáni na Slovensku: historicko-etnografický náčrt, Bratislava 1964, pp.98–99. This was mainly the case of Southern Slovakia. 4 E. g. blacksmiths, horse traders etc. OPEN ACCESS
48 WISOHIM/ESHP 29 Iwould like to concentrate in this brief article mainly on the relations between the Roma and Slovak society, considering their coexistence in different places in Slovakia, situational distinctions and their social dynamics. In the various subchapters, Iwould like to highlight selected issues and elements, which in my opinion played acrucial role in that period. One of the key aspects involved in this conceptualization is the term alterity used by Emmanuel Levinas. This philosopher wasn’t the only theoretician who tried to define and explain this term. Such attempts to conceptually grasp and define alterity can also be observed among various sociologists, historians, etc.5 Employing preserved archival materials and the available testimonies of living witnesses from the studied period, the research is de facto highly dependent on the so-called image of the other produced by the wider society. It represented asummary of certain characteristics, attributed to aperson, who was classified as “aGypsy” by society. In respect to that, aquestion could be posed about the specificity of the ascribed features. Were those typical exclusively for the population of Slovak Roma or can this framework be applied to contemporary society in general? 6 For my attempts to answer this question, Iemployed the theory of Levinas, because he endeavored to describe precisely the process of forming asubject through alterity. Abeing7 would relate to the existing8 and the I-subject possesses control over the existing, because it objectifies and renders with this step from being something. This means that Ican describe and perceive such elements due to this process of objectivization.9 In this case, an individual from the wider society can become aware of the existence of acertain minority. The moment of discerning the other appears retrospectively as abreaking point; more precisely it is always perceived by the subject ex post. The subject needs otherness to realize its own identity and in that way he or she is able to grasp the otherness of the individual. Simultaneously, the alterity approach enables an attempt for an alternative interpretation of the historical narrative and its reconstruction, because it symbolizes another perspective. Through these actions the Roma are discursively visualized and partly reconstructed as an agent due to passively formulated documents by local and state officials in the cases where no other evidence has been preserved. 5 See Lucie Storchová et al., Koncepty adějiny, Prague 2014, p.242. Works of Quasthoff, Bausinger, Spivak could be mentioned in that context. Alterity concept is often used as acomplementary to identity, as adefinition of otherness necessary for forming its own identity. 6 See Judith M.Okely, The Traveller-Gypsies, Cambridge 2002, pp.66–67. 7 Icould be defined as mental perception of self. 8 It is the physical existence of the subject. 9 See Emmanuel Levinas, Ethik und Unendliches. Gespräche mit Phillipe Nero, Graz-Wien 1996, pp.37–39. OPEN ACCESS
MOnIka STacHOVá 49 CHOSEN PLACES The Roma inhabited various places10 in the wider society according to spatial theories.11 It could be seen as aspecial type of social geography or social topology which determined the location of Roma dwellings. The Roma population usually lived in the same types of places, which included the outskirts of villages, on river banks, on special streets in the towns which were designed exclusively for the Roma, in Romany camps situated outside the village, etc. This social construction meant an imaginary framework of separated places where Roma were expected to live and if they chose to live elsewhere that could have been interpreted as apotential cause for social conflict. Those separated places were imaginary solely in the sense that they were not naturally given, but defined by the wider society as hidden spots which may have been far removed from the village or as precisely defined places in the village or town where the Roma lived. It doesn’t mean that these notions existed only in peoples’ minds; they were, in fact, realized in social practice. According to that sort of vague conception, local inhabitants could either move the Roma population out or allow them to stay. Such tensions are illustrated by the example of the town Lučenec from the prewar 1930s where two different approaches to the Roma occurred. On the one hand, there was astreet called Hudobná [Musical], where many local Roma musicians lived and enjoyed various privileges, on the other hand, there is the example and image of poor Roma living at the outskirts of the town, where anew public swimming pool was to be built. Those Roma were often described by officials as filthy and dangerous for the wider society. It was argued they should be kept away from such places as the spa in Piešťany or Bardejov, where they might contaminate water in which others swam, such as the baths and pools in Piešťany and Bardejov and the proposed pool in Lučenec.12 10 This element is pointed out e.g. in the article by David Scheffel, a professor at Thompson Rivers University. See David Scheffel, Belonging and domesticated ethnicity in Veľký Šariš, Slovakia, Romani Studies 25, no.2, pp.115–149. Further David Scheffel, Svinia in black &white: Slovak Roma and their neighbours, Peterborough 2005. Or recently in the master thesis by Jan Ort called Mobilita Romů vkontextu lokálních vztahů. Případová studie zokresu Svidník na východním Slovensku, which is acase study based on relations between Roma and Non-Roma inhabitants. Jan Ort. „Mobilita Romů vkontextu lokálních vztahů. Případová studie zokresu Svidník na východním Slovensku.» Accessed November 16, 2018. https://is.cuni.cz/webapps/zzp/detail/184564. 11 Theories connected with the spatial turn occurred during the second half of the 20th century and emphasized the social construction of space. Iemployed mainly the conceptualization of Henri Lefebvre and his three spatial categories— spatial practice, representations of space and representational spaces, mainly the first two of them— realization of spatial imaginations and technocratic views and planning by the authorities. See Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space, Oxford 1991, pp.38–39. 12 Pozvanie Ct.členov mestskej rady, 10th July 1933, Box IX, Folder 2, Item Number 1, Mestský úrad vLučenci I.Fonds, State Archive in Banská Bystrica, Lučenec. OPEN ACCESS
50 WISOHIM/ESHP 29 MOVING AS FAR AS POSSIBLE AWAY The forced relocation of Romany camps symbolized aphenomenon which appeared during the entire studied period and continued even during the Second World War.13 Local officials even in interwar Czechoslovakia attempted at all costs to prevent the Roma’s return.14 This fact can be demonstrated with an example of the village Vtáčkovce not far from Košice, where even now, aRomany camp is located, just as it was nine decades ago. Andrej G.,15 alocal resident, decided to leave his sheep enclosure, which stayed untouched where it was, because G. refused to destroy it himself, as he intended to one day return. In this case, the holders of demolished houses obtained arefund for destroyed housing.16 It frequently happened that municipalities refused or did not ensure to repay the damage caused. Generally, it was mandated that local and municipal authorities would build new dwellings for free.17 Some of them did not obtain sufficient funding, others strove to save up money and turned to local administrative offices to acquire subsidies or which required Roma to co-finance their newly-built houses and this way, partly got rid of the financial burden.18 Roma were then moved elsewhere,19 where awater well was built as one of the first and most important items. This demonstrative and practical act emphasized the hygienic aspect of the new housing. At the same time and more frequently during the 1940s, new Romany camps were often separated from the wider society because Roma were depicted as something undesirable and associated with lack of hygiene and the potential danger of disease. However, such accusations emerged also in cases when Roma lived in houses similar to the dwellings of Slovak inhabitants. Allegedly unsanitary conditions were frequently used as apretax to move Roma out of villages or towns. It depended mostly on the subjective perception of local officials and Slovak society if the house was 13 Helena Sadílková also depicts arelocation of Romany camp. See Sadílková, Helena, Resettling the settlement: recent history of aRomani settlement in south-east Slovakia. In: K.Kozhanov, M.Oslon, H.Dieter, Das amen godi pala Lev Čerenkov: Romani historija, čhib taj kultura, Graz 2017. pp.339–351. 14 Obec Ptáčkovce— premiestnenie cigánov, 17th August 1933, Box 246, Folder 10 628/1933, Item Number 66, OÚ vKošiciach Fonds (1923–1939), State Archive in Košice, Košice. 15 In all cases, Idecided to use just first name and initial to balance both— at least partly anonymization the social actors and avoidance of dehumanizing them, i. e. that they would be just some indifferent members of agroup. Anonymization of persons was also arequirement in some archives to do my research. State officials can be easily identified on the ground of their position. 16 Ibid., Item Number 65. 17 Ibid., Item Number 50. 18 This occured e.g. in the village Klčovany, Cigáni vKlčovanoch, sťažnost— šetrenie, 19th December 1942, Box 386, Folder 16-1097-1, Item Number 2, MV (1939–1945), the Slovak National Archive, Bratislava. 19 Obec Ptáčkovce— premiestnenie cigánov, 17th August 1933, Box 246, Folder 10 628/1933, Item Number 53, OÚ vKošiciach Fonds (1923–1939), State Archive in Košice, Košice. OPEN ACCESS
MOnIka STacHOVá 51 classified as typically „Gypsy-looking” or not.20 According to that, the strategies in the social realm differed as well. Within the meaning of Article 2 of the draft order No.163/1941 Úr. n.,21 the municipalities were obliged to move the Roma out of villages or towns and set up Romany camps isolated from other houses. Some municipal authorities, however, tried to keep their families living there, arguing that the Roma had resided in the same place for almost one hundred years or that they helped regularly with agricultural work.22 The attempts of municipalities to remove Romany camps from their towns can be interpreted as the enforcement of modern administrative universalism. Those state institutions tried to eliminate any alternative types of self-government and to hegemonize the administration. Such steps enabled the authorities to exert social control and discipline over the Roma minority. The existence of an alternative may have undermined the legitimacy of state power and opened up space for resistance. The above-mentioned ideas appeared, for example, in the works of Victor Smith and were further developed by the Indian political scientist Partha Chatterjee.23 ALTRUISTIC BEHAVIOR TOWARDS ROMA Relations between members of Slovak society and the Roma differed, as mentioned above, depending on various features and regional considerations. Relations were not marked only by oppression; the record also shows some positive incidents. These demonstrate occasions of cooperation of the wider society and the Roma population during the studied period. Such characteristics could be illustrated by the example of the Roma living in the region of Krupina, located in the southern part of central Slovakia. Jan and Julius B. had lived in asmall village called Patkoš until they were suddenly affected by unexpected and horrendous flooding in 1931. Local authorities who learned of their plight offered them residence in avillage two kilometers far away.24 Their original house was destroyed when the Štiavnička flooded and washed it into the river. Jan and his wife Margita received permission to accept charity which would enable them to build anew home. As parents of five children, it was imperative they have aplace to live as soon as possible, which local authorities understood and aided. 20 This could be illustrated with the example of Banská Štiavnica’s region, where gendarmes judged according to unspecified criteria the “Gypsiness” or “Non-Gypsiness” of the housing. See Cigáni— vykonávanie §-u2.vyhl. čísl. 163/41 Úr.n., 10th August 1944, Box 476, Folder 2108/44, Item Number 4, Okresný úrad vBanské Štiavnici (1923–1945) Fonds, State Archive in Banská Bystrica, Banská Štiavnica. 21 Ibid., Item Number 11. 22 Ibid, Item Number 5. 23 „The Colonial State by Partha Chatterjee— ASummary.“ Clueless Political Scientist. October 14, 2017. Accessed January 26, 2018. https://cluelesspoliticalscientist.wordpress. com/2017/03/30/the-colonial-state-by-partha-chatterjee-a-summary/. 24 Okresnímu úřadu vDolních Teranech, 14th May 1931, Box 244, Folder 5745/31, Item Number 2, Okresný úrad vKrupine (1923–1945) Fonds, State Archive in Banská Bystrica, Zvolen. OPEN ACCESS
52 WISOHIM/ESHP 29 As Jan had been ill for many years, the family would not have been not able to make enough money on their own had it not been for this permission. Another instance of social solidarity which was partially initiated by the majority of the population is also worth mentioning. An elderly woman from the Zvolen region was given permission to beg due to her indigence and the fact that she was too old to work.25 Her begging was forgiven by her polite behavior while asking for small change. Another positive example of the majority populations’ treatment of amember of the Roma minority is illustrated by what happened to Daniel S.During astorm, his house was struck by lightning and he was paralyzed. During the storm, he had been sleeping next to amirror which was hit by the lightning. Slovak members of the community rallied to his assistance and came to help him put the fire out. Local officials used such examples to support their claims that the Roma’s flimsy housing may represent athreat for the wider society— in other words that these houses, which were so easily destroyed, could have led to the destruction of larger parts of the town. For instance, the houses mentioned in the first example were just two meters from the river bank, therefore they were prone to simply collapse and fall into the river. This subchapter demonstrates that relations between the Slovak and Roma populations were not black and white and can not be placed into abinary system of two maxims called conflicts and peaceful cohabitation. Some local authorities even defended their Roma citizens during the Second World War to prevent their deportation to alabor camp, others tried intensively to expel them from the municipality. Rather, they were very complex and varied, determined by arange of circumstances and situations. CASTING IN THE SPECIAL SOCIAL ROLE Special social roles were given to the Roma community according to their qualifications or skills. For instance, they were commonly viewed as acompetitive element for Slovak tradesmen. Their commercial activities did not only symbolize an additional economic aspect, they also performed work which was beneficial for the society. Because of the itinerant nature of some professions, they also represented apossibility for the poorest in outlying regions to obtain almost equivalent products available to those who were richer and lived in more populated areas.26 Furthermore, some of the Roma were closely linked to musical activities and playing various musical instruments. As was mentioned above, musicians were often treated differently than other Roma. For example, they were allowed to live in the center of towns, as in the case of Lučenec with its special street Hudobná for Roma musicians. Additionally, they could apply for financial support, which was restricted 25 Vd. G.Mária, Bzovik, čís. 100, žiadost opovolenie na sbieranie milodarov, 16th May 1931, Box 244, Folder 5834/31, Item Number 2, Okresný úrad vKrupine (1923–1945) Fonds, State Archive in Banská Bystrica, Zvolen. 26 Cigánská žebrota apodpora, Box 289, Folder 24078/34, Item Number 3, OÚ vKošiciach Fonds (1923–1939), State Archive in Košice, Košice. OPEN ACCESS
MOnIka STacHOVá 53 during the profitable periods for musicians, e.g. at Christmas or carnival.27 Assigning Roma aspecific social role could have been aconcomitant feature of various expectations Slovak society had of the Roma. BETWEEN DICHOTOMIES This subchapter addresses various dichotomic categories which appear in the discourse connected with the Roma population living in Slovakia during this time period. Among these classifications occur categories such as the division line, which separates the settled from the nomadic Roma. Other dichotomies include those based on nationality— for example our Roma population contrasted with foreign Roma, etc. In addition to these categories, the classification of Roma according to their attitude to work played one of the crucial roles in labeling an individual as antisocial. Such dichotomies and various categories can be viewed as efforts of the Slovak society to construct and comprehend the image of the Roma and to place it into the narrative of the wider society. Settled Roma were situated partly in aschizophrenic position in the society. They balanced on the division line between the wider society and the rest of the Roma population. Even though they may have lived asettled life in wooden or brick houses, this fact did not always shield them from the hatred of Slovaks which persisted in some villages. Although they fulfilled some of the conditions created by the wider society, they remained identified as Roma. Homi K.Bhabha demonstrated the aspect called mimicry in his book The Location of Culture, where he described the position of colonized people facing acceptance and the refusal of the majority society at the same time. Asimilar dynamic was also described by Frantz Fanon, who wrote about the everyday stories of colonized people. They often realized, due to frequent travels on public transportation that they were perceived as “the other” despite their attempts to fit in with the wider society. “One with his fellows, the other with the white man. ANegro behaves differently with awhite man and with another Negro.”28 As Fanon described, colonized peoples were trying to maintain two dimensions of behavior to varied groups and thus, they were partly stuck in aschizophrenic impasse. DIRTY PLACES The Roma population had been frequently described as apublic health menace that should be separated from the rest of society.29 We can observe this in the case of the 27 Zápisnice opojednávání sociálnej komisii města Lučenca, 18th February 1935, Box IX, Folder 2, Item Number 1, Mestský úrad vLučenci I.Fonds, State Archive in Banská Bystrica, Lučenec. 28 See Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, London 2008, p.8. 29 Báčkovík— Cigáni, premiestnenie, Box 300, Folder 1359/35, Item Number 2, OÚ vKošiciach Fonds (1923–1939), State Archive in Košice, Košice. OPEN ACCESS
54 WISOHIM/ESHP 29 village Báčkovik from 1935, near the city of Košice. Roma inhabitants there created, according to the words of local authorities, moral indignation on the part of the majority culture and theoretically abad example for the wider society. According to some accounts, many Roma lived in poverty, mired in human feces, thus in conditions possibly constituting aserious health risk and athreat to the morality of residents in the neighborhood, as they could have easily infected the rest of the inhabitants. Roma were depicted as destroyers of the social system. “(…) they are therefore dangerous both concerning the health and veterinary issues, and so it is in the interest of the municipality desirable to provide them another isolated place.”30 The living conditions of Roma were assessed differently than the living conditions of those in the majority culture, which can be seen from the example of the village Klčovany in the next subchapter. The notion of Roma regarding hygienic conditions could have been conceptualized in adifferent way than how it was by contemporary Slovak society. As Michael Stewart mentioned in the example of Hungary, the Roma distinguished between the inner and outer body and according this perception, they used different bowls while washing their hands and washing the dishes. Nevertheless, they were usually seen as “dirty Gypsies”.31 It is interesting to note, however, that they thought the very same about the majority of the society. The Roma could not understand how non-Roma could live with pets at their homes, behavior they considered disgusting and filthy. HARD TIMES OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR The war period brought an increasing intensity of violence and persecution towards the Roma. During the 1940s, proposals were made for anetwork of labor camps or even aspecialized Roma camp were suggested. One of them was, for example, aseparated and self— sufficient Roma town. The Slovak society tried to cast the Roma out of the society and spatially out of towns or villages, because they symbolized apotential harm to the wider society. In some villages, the inhabitants sought to move them out as fast as possible and welcomed the idea of building camps for the Roma. The Roma were classified as an antisocial element in the society. But what did being antisocial mean exactly? Which characteristics were regarded as antisocial? Who was classified as an antisocial person? Were all the Roma in the Slovak society seen as “antisocial persons abominating work”? All of these questions could have been related to the notions of Roma and the plan concerning their future in labor camps. The antisocial behavior, however, was viewed differently by the local and state authorities. It depended on their occupation, their living standards, the number of Roma and various other features. The approach of municipalities played asubstantial role, as they had the power to move or to keep Roma in the village. 30 Ibid. 31 See Michael Stewart, Time of the Gypsies. Oxford 2004, p.206. OPEN ACCESS
MOnIka STacHOVá 55 The above-mentioned characteristics can be demonstrated by the example of the village Klčovany32, located in the western part of Slovakia. Members of Hlinkova garda33 decided in 1942 to draw up aletter accusing six Roma families of beggary, producing dirt, etc. This line of argumentation can be associated with discourse regarding the aestheticization of the space and concern for the shared body of the Slovak nation, which was, in the opinion of those members, endangered by the mere presence of the Roma.34 They presented the Roma as an element of decay which might have partly functioned as away of scapegoating the Roma for other troubles within the society. Moreover, the Roma were accused of hurting the interests of municipalities in promoting tourism, due to the fact that they regularly begged and allegedly gnawed on bones in public. The absence of toilets for approximately 71 persons was named as being the source of an acrid smell which spread throughout the entire village and prompted outrage.35 In response to this, members of Hlinka Guard called for employing the same solution for the “Gypsy problem” as was used for the Slovak Jews. The local police investigated allegations against the Roma living in the village of Klčovany and concluded that most of the complaints were unsubstantiated. According to their final report, the Roma were actually doing rather well financially, making their livelihood primarily in the construction business.36 The incentive for authors to write insulting letters about the Roma is unclear and multifaceted. They may have been trying to expel the Roma because they held agrudge against them which was motivated by nationalist tensions. Or they might have hoped they would be able to appropriate Roma property, as happened in other Slovak villages at that time.37 Those possible explanations are mere speculation and comprise only afew of several possible motivations. THOSE WHO ARE NOT BUILDING SOCIALISM AGAINST US ARE BUILDING WITH US Soon after the Second World War, the Roma were depicted in the nascent and slowly forming socialist society as people who did not care about the welfare of society as awhole; they were portrayed as being individualists. According to this line of 32 See apopularizing article Monika Stachová, Pronásledovaní, Kulturní týdeník A2 12, 2017, no.1, p.29. 33 This organization could be defined as aparallel structure of security forces during the Second World War in Slovakia. 34 Odstranenie Cigánov, 10th October 1942 Box 386, Folder 16-1097-1, Item Number 3, MV (1939–1945), the Slovak National Archive, Bratislava. 35 Ibid. 36 Cigáni vKlčovanoch, sťažnost— šetrenie, 19th December 1942, Box 386, Folder 16-1097-1, Item Number 2, MV (1939–1945), the Slovak National Archive, Bratislava. 37 Zápisnica napísaná na obecnom úradě vPopudinách, 9th August 1944 Box 538, Folder D 1050, Item Number 30, Okresný úrad ve Skalici (1923–1945), State Archive in Trnava, Skalica. OPEN ACCESS