Fifty years researching Roma: Interview with Will Guy

Fi y yea s esea ching Roma: In e iew wi h Will Guy Ma ek Jakoubek— Lenka J.Budilo á WILL GUY — Ma ek Jakoubek — Lenka J.Budilo á Will Guy, B.A. PhD (b. 29.11.1940 in London) is aResea ch Fellow in he School o So- ciology, Poli ics and In e na ional S udies (SPAIS) and pa o he Cen e o he S udy o E hnici y and Ci izenship a he Uni e si y o B is ol, UK, whe e he augh in he ields o esea ch me hods, social an h opology, di e si y and ci izenship in Eu ope and o Roma. A e li ing and wo king in Czechoslo akia du ing he la e hal o he 1960s he comple ed aPhD in he 1970s on he Communis egime’s a emp o assim- ila e Czechoslo akia’s Roma mino i y. This in ol ed analysis o go e nmen policy documen s as well as ex ensi e ield wo k, li ing in seg ega ed Romani se lemen s in Slo akia and also among Roma mig an s in he ci ies o he Czech lands. A his ime he was wo king oge he wi h he Gypsy-Rom Associa ion in he Czech Lands and accompanied hei delega ion as in e p e e o he i s Wo ld Romani Cong ess, held nea London in 1971. Since hen he has con inued o make egula esea ch ips o Eas -Cen al Eu ope and he Balkans and has published widely, mainly on Roma, edi ing in 2001 acom- p ehensi e olume on he si ua ion o Roma in hese egions and co-edi ing in 2004 as udy o Roma mig a ion o he E hnological Ins i u e o he Czech Academy o Sci- ences. As well as academic esea ch he has ca ied ou Roma- ela ed in es iga ions o a ious in e na ional NGOs and also o he Eu opean Commission, e alua ing EU- unded Roma p og ammes in he Czech Republic, Slo akia, Hunga y, Bulga ia, Spain and C oa ia. He is amembe o he edi o ial boa d o he E hnici ies jou nal and o he edi o ial boa d o Český lid. How did you come o be in Czechoslo akia in he 1960s? My a i al in Czechoslo akia in ea ly 1966 a he age o wen y- i e had no hing o do wi h Roma. A ha ime he Czechoslo ak go e nmen was seeking o mode nise he economy and had ecen ly bough some compu e s om he UK. The B i ish manu- ac u e , o which Iwas wo king as asys ems analys , p oposed o send me a sho no ice o he No h Mo a ian ci y o Os a a as on-si e suppo . Iwas gi en he week- end o make adecision and impulsi ely accep ed he o e . The e was no ime o do any esea ch in hose p e-Google days, so Iwen o he Czechoslo ak a el agency (Čedok) in London and asked i hey had any ou is b o- chu es o Os a a. The young man behind he desk paused o a ew momen s, hen summoned his colleagues om he back o ice o join him be o e asking me o epea OPEN ACCESS 148 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 my ques ion. When Idid, hey all bu s ou laughing. Ila e lea n ha his hea y indus ial cen e, wi h i s s eelwo ks, coal mines, chemical wo ks and slag heaps, was he mos pollu ed ci y in Czechoslo akia— ha dly a ou is des ina ion. My ole he e would be o gi e ad ice o wo o he la ges s eelwo ks in Eu ope— he No á hu ’ Klemen a Go walda and he Ví ko ické železá ny. Why did you decide o ca y ou esea ch in Czechoslo akia in he 1970s? How did you cope wi h he Czech language? E en ually Ispen h ee and ahal yea s a my compu e job in Os a a, P ague and hen B no, wo king wi h Czechs and g adually lea ning hei language. My i s Czech boss had alsely assu ed my company ha he unde s ood English bu he e- used o use any o his subo dina es as in e p e e s. This made e ec i e communica- ion be ween us almos impossible bu o una ely some o he s spoke F ench, Ge - man o English. In he mean ime Is udied my poli ically app o ed Czech g amma book and deligh ed my wo kma es by declaiming examples om i , such as: ‘Čes p áce, soud uzi! Ten o měsíc musíme přek oči ý obní no my’ (Hail wo k, com- ades! This mon h we mus exceed he p oduc ion no ms’). Taking my cue om his, Ibough aMao Tse-Tung sui and, equipped wi h he li le ed book o his quo a ions and wea ing abadge om he Chinese es au an in P ague, appoin ed mysel poli i- cal commissa o ou depa men . These we e he umul uous yea s o g adual libe alisa ion, he P ague Sp ing and he Wa saw Pac in asion, ollowed by he s ifling a e ma h o ‘no malisa ion’. Du - ing his pe iod Isha ed my Czech iends’ deep emo ions o exhila a ion, pain and subsequen disillusion. My deepening in ol emen wi h hese e en s led me o gi e up my well-paid compu e job and use my sa ings o s udy o aPhD, d awing on my expe ience in Czechoslo akia o a hesis. My ini ial idea was p omp ed by he oc- casion when an Os a a mine iend had asked me o in e p e o a isi ing g oup o Sco ish mine s. The Sco s— om he hen s aunchly Communis a ea o Fi e— belie ed hey we e coming o asocialis p omised land, while he Czechs, o he con- a y, we e eage o hea o li e in aconsume pa adise. These o ally con adic o y pe cep ions did no make my in e p e e ’s ole an easy one. Soon a e wa ds, Icame ac oss Clébe ’s s udy The Gypsies whe e I ead: ‘Czecho- slo akia seems in ac o be he i s coun y o sol e his delica e p oblem o [Gypsy] in eg a ion in acco dance wi h humane s anda ds’.1 I hen ecalled he da k-skinned labou e s Ihad seen in Os a a and aCzech colleague’s sa cas ic e m o hem— ‘uzení Slo áci’ (smoked Slo aks). This immedia ely sugges ed an en i ely di e en esea ch opic. When you we e ca ying ou you esea ch in Czechoslo akia, did you ge in o con ac wi h any Czech schola s in ol ed in s udying Roma? Who we e hey and how did you coope a e wi h hem? Du ing my las six mon hs as asys ems analys Is ole as much ime as Icould away om wo k o sea ch in bookshops o any books abou Roma. One o he mos im- 1 Clébe , J.-P. (1967) The Gypsies, Ha mondswo h: Penguin, 255. OPEN ACCESS WILL GUY — MAREK JAKOUBEK — LENKA J.BUDILO Á 149 po an was E a Da ido á’s Bez kolíb ašia o . Meanwhile E a had hea d o as ange Englishman seeking in o ma ion on he own opic. When we e en ually me we had so much in common ha we en husias ically ag eed o collabo a e. Wi h he encou - agemen , an an h opology p o esso p o ided ale e legi ima ing my esea ch ha enabled me o ob ain as udy isa. Now wo king wi h E a, his allowed us access o he Minis y o Labou and Social A ai s whe e she and Iwe e in i ed o help ou sel es om heaps o documen s abou Roma policy. Unde s andably I el e y app ehensi e walking pas he a med gua d a he doo o he minis y building wi h abag ul o documen s, some o which we e s amped ‘jen p o úřední po řebu’ ( o o icial use only) o ‘přísnĕ ajné’ (s ic ly sec e ). Du ing he pe iod o my PhD esea ch Ime wi h he inspi ing Milena Hüb- schmanno á and a ellow pos -g adua e s uden Tomáš Haišman, who hen wen on o be a esea che a he E hnog aphic Ins i u e in P ague be o e becoming an o i- cial in he Minis y o he In e io . Also, be o e s a ing my s udies in 1969, Ibecame iendly wi h Ka el Holomek, la e P esiden o he Mo a ian Roma Associa ion. Bu in he ea ly yea s my main con ac s we e o icials in ol ed wi h Roma policy a he han academics. Much la e Ime many Czech and Slo ak academics, especially Zdeněk Uhe ek and Rena a Weine o á wi h whom Iedi ed abook on Roma mig a- ion, as well as Jiřina Šiklo á, Anna Ju o á and o he s. Did Czechoslo ak au ho i ies limi you esea ch o publica ion ac i i ies in any way? Did hey ollow you ac i i ies o con ac s? F om 1958 onwa ds he o icial policy goal had been o assimila e Roma on he g ounds ha hey we e insu icien ly de eloped o o m ana ionali y. Unlike Czechs and Slo- aks, Roma we e deemed no o possess any cul u e wo h p ese ing. A1959 go e n- men handbook o local au ho i ies a gued ha ‘all measu es which e i e gypsy na- ional [sic] consciousness … p ese e he p esen isola ion and sepa a ion o gypsies … and help conse e he old, p imi i e gypsy way o li e wi h all i s bad habi s’.2 The plan was he e o e o dispe se he Roma popula ion bu his was us a ed by he mi- g a ion o many Roma om Slo akia o o m new concen a ions in Czech indus ial a eas and ci ies. Like mig an wo ke s elsewhe e, hei aim was simply o ob ain be - e paid wo k han was a ailable in hei u al home a eas. F om he documen s we had ob ained om he minis y, E a and Ilea n ha Czech local au ho i ies had inc easingly denied esidence pe mi s o hese Roma newcome s, making hem illegal squa e s. Howe e , as a1967 o icial epo poin ed ou , he illegali y was on he pa o local au ho i ies since hei e usal o egis e Roma was aclea b each o ci izens’ cons i u ional igh s. Ye , in ac ing in his way, local au ho i ies we e only ollowing go e nmen guidelines. Iwas soon made awa e o he p oblem o ying o publish such sensi i e ma e- ial. In he mean ime Ihad me he head o he Na ional S a is ical O ice ha was p oducing epo s on he Roma popula ion. He in i ed me o w i e agues a icle o 2 Czechoslo ak Go e nmen (1959) P áce mezi cikánským oby a els em (Wo k among he gypsy popula ion), Edice časopisu Ná odní ýbo y (Handbook o local au ho i ies), P ague: Úřad předsednic a lády, 28. OPEN ACCESS 150 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 hei jou nal Demog a ie bu e u ned my con ibu ion, eg e ully in o ming me ha i was comple ely unpublishable due o my o h igh c i icism o go e nmen policy. A he ime E a was wo king on a echnical epo abou Roma mig a ion o Os a a o he Resea ch Ins i u e o Cons uc ion and A chi ec u e. This 300-page documen was o be duplica ed on poo quali y pape and seemed o us asui able, low-p o ile ou le . The e o e Iw o e ac i ical sec ion, bu ied nea he end. The nex s age was mo e isky when E a was in i ed o w i e an a icle o he UK jou nal Race Today. We w o e his oge he ci ing E a’s Os a a epo as he al eady published sou ce bu also men ioning he ele an go e nmen documen s. In an a emp o mask ou c i icism we en i led he a icle Czechoslo akia Sol es i s Gypsy P oblem and he ambiguous conclusion was ‘Czechoslo akia’s … expe ience can se e as an ex- ample o o he s a es’. To ou elie hese publica ions did no esul in any e ibu ion om he au ho i- ies, al hough ou o he ac i i ies did a ac hei a en ion. The ailu e o he dispe sal p og amme coincided wi h he poli ical libe alisa ion o he P ague Sp ing, allowing he 1958 assimila ion campaign o be eassessed. In a e e sal o p e ious policy, Roma ac i is s we e allowed o o m hei own social and economic o ganisa ions and in 1971 adelega ion was pe mi ed o a el o he i s Wo ld Roma Cong ess nea London. E a wen as a ounde membe o he Czech Roma associa ion and Iaccompanied hem o assis wi h in e p e ing. A ew mon hs la e Iwas su p ised o be in i ed o he Czechoslo ak Embassy o he annual celeb a ion o he ounding o he epublic bu his was ollowed by amo e wo ying in i a ion o ape sonal mee ing wi h an embassy o icial. E iden ly he Roma delega es mus ha e p aised my help and epo ed me as a‘ iend o he epublic’. Puzzlingly, Iwas no asked any ques ions abou my Roma esea ch bu only abou my posi ion a he Uni e si y o B is ol and my con ac s he e. App e- hensi e ha Iwas being e ed as apo en ial ‘sleepe ’, I ied o minimise my im- po ance while appea ing coope a i e. Imus ha e succeeded because al hough we pa ed wi h mu ual assu ances o keeping in ouch, o my elie Iwas no con ac ed again— no in i ed o u he embassy celeb a ions. Much la e Ilea n ha he embassy had indeed been engaged in ec ui ing UK uni e si y s a as po en ial ‘ el- low a elle s’. Howe e , su eillance was no en i ely one-sided. Yea s la e Iwas old by a iend ha , in his in e iew o p omo ion o ahighe UK minis y ank, he was asked ques- ions abou me. F om E a’s Os a a s udy we lea n ha almos 57 pe cen o he cu en Roma inhabi an s had been bo n in Eas e n Slo akia and, o hese, o e a hi d came om he dis ic o Spišská No á Ves. Following a ip o check on po en ial ieldwo k loca- ions, we e en ually chose wo adjacen illages and booked ooms in anea by cheap ho el. The manage ess was e y iendly and a e a ew weeks con ided ha , much o he annoyance, asec e policeman was pe iodically sea ching ou ooms. Ihad wi h me acopy o Lenin’s The Righ o Na ions o Sel -De e mina ion and le his on my bedside able. Howe e , he coun yside is asmall wo ld and he manage ess no only knew he policeman’s amily bu also ha he was a aid o his domina ing mo he . A h ea o epo o he his i i a ing isi s was enough o b ing hem o an end. OPEN ACCESS WILL GUY — MAREK JAKOUBEK — LENKA J.BUDILO Á 151 O e ayea la e we lea n o u he su eillance. We had been in i ed o aRoma wedding in aneighbou ing illage and he bus d i e who had con eyed ou pa y o he dance hall became ipsy and complained ang ily o us ha he and his ellow d i - e s we e ed up a ha ing o eco d all ou bus jou neys. I was aho summe ’s nigh and all he gues s we e in shi slee es o ligh d esses. A his poin amys e ious Slo- ak, d essed incong uously in adouble-b eas ed, bel ed aincoa , walked b iskly up o us and asked my opinion o he a ac ions o he Slo ak coun yside. Sho ly be- o e, some o he Roma had nodded in his di ec ion and apped he side o hei noses o indica e he was some o m o spy. He ce ainly looked like an a che ypal cha ac e om aB-mo ie. E en ually someone managed o d ag away he ineb ia ed bus d i e . Sho ly a e wa ds Iwas summoned o he dis ic police headqua e s, os ensibly because Ihad ailed o egis e my s ay in hei a ea. Iexplained Ihad done his in P ague and hough his was su icien . A e aco ee and ye ano he con e sa ion abou he beau i ul landscape o he egion, he o ice d opped he gua d and ep- imanded me, saying i had been ‘inapp op ia e’ (ne hodný) o me o ha e bo owed asui om aGypsy o a end he wedding. Imain ained his was necessa y since Idid no possess asui bu ha , in any case, as a ep esen a i e o socialis Czechoslo a- kia, she should be p oud ha Gypsies in he coun y had a ained such high li ing s anda ds ha hey we e in aposi ion o lend ine sui s o isi o s om he capi alis Wes . The young woman ga e me ale el, cold look and he subjec was d opped. Al hough hese inciden s appea ed comical— and we ea ed hem as such— hey we e also unse ling as we we e awa e ha in Communis Czechoslo akia poli ical joking ca ied isks, as Milan Kunde a’s 1967 no el Že (The Joke) made all oo clea . In 1969 an English colleague om my compu e company was a es ed and expelled as an agen p o oca eu o igno ing aba ie a ap o es demons a ion in B no. He had claimed ace iously ha he could no unde s and i s wa ning no ice in Czech. Social science in Czechoslo akia had been la gely isola ed om he de elopmen s in he Wes o se e al decades. Some disciplines, e.g. social an h opology, we e comple ely absen . How did his a ec Czech (Slo ak) Roma s udies? 1969 was agood ime o s a esea ch on Roma. Se e al impo an books had ap- pea ed sho ly be o e, including Clébe ’s 1967 s udy The Gypsies. Al hough social an- h opology— as adis inc discipline— was no ecognised in Czechoslo akia a ha ime, a ew yea s ea lie Emilie Ho á ho á had published he comp ehensi e his o - ical s udy Cigáni na Slo ensku3 and o he his o ical s udies included Zdenka Jamnická- Šme glo á’s Dĕjiny našich cikánů.4 Mo eo e , o he esea che s based hei w i ings on e hnog aphic ieldwo k, such as E a Da ido á’s 1965 Bez kolíb ašia o 5 and a - ious publica ions o Milena Hübschmanno á. Howe e , al hough an h opological- ype co e age o Roma in Czechoslo akia was e y limi ed, much he same was ue o he B i ish Isles whe e he oman icised iews o olklo is s we e p e alen . 3 Ho á ho á, E. (1964) Cigáni na Slo ensku, B a isla a: Vyda a eľs o Slo enskej akadémie ied. 4 Jamnická-Šme glo á, Z. (1955) Dĕjiny našich cikánů, P aha: O bis. 5 Da ido á, E. (1965) Bez kolíb ašia o , Košice: Východoslo enské yda a eľs o. OPEN ACCESS 152 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 In he 1960s he e was asu ge o in e es in esea ching Gypsies and T a elle s. In England and Wales he go e nmen commissioned a esea ch s udy o T a elle s o p o ide mo e insigh o imp o e policy in he a e ma h o he i s na ional census o his popula ion in 19656 and he subsequen 1968 Ca a an Si es Ac . This e en ually led o abook in 19757 and a ew yea s la e ano he by he p incipal esea che , he an h opologis Judi h Okely.8 This was based on he ex ensi e ield wo k. In Sco land asimila policy s udy was led by Hugh Gen leman9 and he i s Sco ish local au ho - i y ca a an si e was es ablished in 1975. Meanwhile, in 1959 he I ish go e nmen had es ablished aCommission on I ine ancy, which epo ed in 1963.10 This based i s policy ecommenda ions on p ac ice in he Ne he lands, which was o assimila e T a elle s by se ling hem in ixed dwellings. The p ac ice o o icials deciding wha was in he T a elle s’ bes in e es s was e en ually eplaced by he T a elling People Re iew Body (1981–83). This body included T a elle membe s and ad oca ed in eg a- ion a he han assimila ion, wi h p o ision o se iced hal ing si es.11 A he same ime Geo ge and Sha on Gmelch we e ca ying ou an h opological ield esea ch wi h I ish T a elle s12. Judi h Okely asse s ha i was you who in oduced he o F ed ik Ba h’s ‘E hnic G oups and Bounda ies’. Wha was he impac o his publica ion on he s udy o Roma? In 1971 Thomas Ac on con ened acon e ence a Ox o d o in e na ional schola s ca - ying ou esea ch on Roma, Gypsies and T a elle s in a ious coun ies. He had been wo king wi h he (English) Gypsy Council since 1967.13 Ap incipal issue was whe he we we e s udying he same people since he cul u es o di e en g oups bea ing hese and o he ela ed names appea ed qui e di e en . In pa icula , he p edominan pa - e n in Wes e n Eu opean coun ies was o hese people o pu sue anomadic way o li e, while in Eas e n Eu ope he as majo i y had long been se led. This dicho omy aised ques ions abou whe he he e we e any de ining cha ac e is ics o Gypsies. Some Wes e n Eu opean w i e s p oclaimed he ‘ ue Gypsy’ as nomadic, whe eas se led Gypsies we e seen as debased. In spi e o acknowledging he di e ences in 6 Minis y o Housing and Local Go e nmen /Welsh O ice (1967) Gypsies and O he T a el- le s, London: HMSO. 7 Adams, B., Okely, J., Mo gan, D. and Smi h, D. (1975) Gypsies and Go e nmen Policy in Eng- land: AS udy o he T a elle s’ Way o Li e in Rela ion o he Policies and P ac ices o Cen al and Local Go e nmen , London: Heinemann. 8 Okely, J. (1983) The T a elle -Gypsies, Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess. 9 Gen leman, H. and Swi , S. (1971) Sco land’s T a elling People: P oblems and Solu ions, Ed- inbu gh: Sco ish O ice. 10 Commission on I ine ancy (1963) Repo , O icial publica ions P .7272, Dublin: S a ione y O ice <h p://opac.oi each as.ie/AWDa a/Lib a y3/Lib a y2/DL013441.pd >. 11 T a elling people e iew body (1983) Repo , O icial publica ions Pl.1520, Dublin: S a io- ne y O ice <h p://opac.oi each as.ie/AWDa a/Lib a y3/Lib a y2/DL035416.pd >. 12 Gmelch, G. (1977) The I ish Tinke s: The U baniza ion o an I ine an People, Menlo Pa k: Cum- mings Pub. Co.; Gmelch, S. (1975) Tinke s and T a elle s: I eland’s Nomads, Dublin: O’B ien P ess. 13 See: Ac on, T. (1974) Gypsy Poli ics and Social Change, London: Rou ledge and Kegan Paul. OPEN ACCESS WILL GUY — MAREK JAKOUBEK — LENKA J.BUDILO Á 153 appea ance, occupa ions and cus oms, Clébe had decla ed: ‘The Gypsy is p ima ily and abo e all else anomad. … The seden a y Gypsies a e gene ally ‘excluded’ people … who ha e been banned om he clans o made ma ime, ha is, ‘unclean’, because o se ious iola ions o he T adi ion’.14 This disquali ied mos Roma inhabi an s li ing in Eas e n Eu ope and Spain om legi ima e claims o be ‘ ue Gypsies’. In his con ex , he app oach in F ed ik Ba h’s 1970 book was a e ela ion o i add essed he p oblem o e hnic communi ies ha unde go adical cul u al change and ye main ain hei iden i y. Ba h a gued ha his appa en di icul y could be a oided i , ins ead o adop ing he con en ional iew ha e hnic g oups ha e dis- inc cul u es ha dis inguish hem om o he s, ‘ he c i ical ocus o in es iga ion … becomes he e hnic bounda y ha de ines ag oup, no he cul u al s u i en- closes’.15 In his way he ole o cul u al ea u es is he eby ans e ed om pas- si e o ac i e, whe e hey become capable o manipula ion by g oup membe s and by hose wi h whom hese mino i ies in e ac . The e o e, he c i ical ea u e o an e hnic communi y is ha i possesses ‘amembe ship which iden i ies i sel , and is iden i ied by o he s, as cons i u ing aca ego y dis inguishable om o he ca ego ies o he same o de ’. Consequen ly, ‘ he sha ing o acommon cul u e is … an implica- ion o esul , a he han ap ima y and de ini ional cha ac e is ic o e hnic g oup o ganisa ion’.16 You coope a ed wi h aCzech pho og aphe Jose Koudelka, and w o e an in oduc ion o his book Gypsies.17 Wha was i like o coope a e wi h his pho og aphe , who was al eady in- e na ionally well-known as amembe o he p es igious pho og aphic coope a i e Magnum since 1971? How did you mee him? Iam no su e how Jose i s hea d o me bu he had sough poli ical asylum in B i - ain in 1970 ollowing he anonymous publica ion o his s unning images o he 1968 Wa saw Pac in asion o Czechoslo akia. Mos p obably, he hen chai o he Gypsy Council, G a an Puxon, had old him abou my esea ch on Roma in Czechoslo akia leading o ou mee ing in he ea ly 1970s. Jose had b ough wi h him nega i es o Roma whom he had pho og aphed be- ween 1962 and 1968 in Czechoslo akia and Romania and wan ed a ex o his p o- posed book ha would be qui e di e en o oman ic musing abou ‘mys e ious ye ca e ee Gypsies’. Ins ead, his model was he commen a y accompanying Do o hea Lange’s pho og aphs o he in e nmen o US Japanese Ame ican ci izens du ing he Second Wo ld Wa . This ga e an objec i e accoun o he en o ced eloca ion o hese amilies o emo e camps— e en hough in some cases hei men olk we e se ing wi h US o ces igh ing agains Japan. Appa en ly he publishe s we e unhappy abou his d y, ac ual app oach bu Jose insis ed ha his was how i had o be. Jose usually le s his images speak o hemsel es, es ic ing his cap ions o jus place names and he da e on which he pic u es we e aken. Bu in his case he wan ed 14 Clébe (op. ci .), 246. 15 Ba h, F. (1970) E hnic G oups and Bounda ies, London: Geo ge Allen and Unwin, 15. 16 Ibid. 11. 17 Koudelka, J. (1975) Koudelka Gypsies ( ex by W.Guy), London: Thames and Hudson. OPEN ACCESS 154 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 ahis o ical accoun a he end, no a he beginning, and in e oga ed me on he p e- cise meaning o my ex . This was p oblema ic as ou wo king language was Czech since a ha ime his English was limi ed. We wo ked e y in ensi ely o pe haps aweek o wo in he London fla o aMagnum colleague, only b eaking o simple wo king lunches o his a ou i e boiled po a oes wi h ca away seeds and sou c eam. In spi e o Jose ’s clea ideas abou he layou o he i s e sion o he book, i was no p oduced o his sa is ac ion and so he was de e mined ha he new edi- ion18 would be en i ely as he had o iginally in ended. This ime we communica ed by phone bu once mo e Jose had p ecise que ies— his ime in English— abou wha Ihad w i en. By now, he Communis egime had long collapsed and Iwas able o include he sca hing 1979 e dic on Communis Czechoslo akia’s Gypsy policy by he Cha e 77 mo emen 19— led by he u u e Czech p esiden Václa Ha el. Sadly he successo pos -Communis go e nmen s did no sha e Ha el’s humanism. By ac uel i ony he ad en o libe al democ acy made he si ua ion o Roma e en wo se in many ways, d i ing many o hem o emig a e o Wes e n Eu opean coun ies and some o Canada. No has he in e en ion o he Eu opean Commission— o which Iwo ked as an ad iso o o e adecade— been e ec i e in u he ing he in eg a ion o Roma. Be ween 2000 and 2010 you wo ked o he Eu opean Commission.20 How do you hink aca- demic discou se abou Roma di e s om poli ical discou se abou hem? In you opinion, do hese sphe es coope a e o con lic ? In wha ways? My aim— in p oducing epo s o he Eu opean Commission on he Czech Repub- lic, Slo akia, Hunga y, Bulga ia, C oa ia, Spain and G eece— was o e iew exis ing policy owa ds Roma, o e alua e he ex en o which his was leading o g ea e in- eg a ion o indigenous Roma popula ions and o make ecommenda ions. This was a a ime when he o me Communis coun ies we e applying o join he Eu opean Union and we e app ehensi e ha he mul iply disad an aged si ua ion o Roma i- ola ed he en y c i e ion ha candida e coun ies should ha e es ablished ins i u- ions ‘gua an eeing democ acy, he ule o law, human igh s and espec o and p o- ec ion o democ acy’.21 In he case o he Czech Republic and Slo akia Iwas able o supplemen docu- men a y esea ch, isi s o speci ic loca ions and in e iews wi h key pe sonnel wi h my ea lie pa icipan obse a ion ieldwo k. Simila ly wi h my esea ch on Sco ish T a elle s in he mid-1970s, as well as con ibu ing o go e nmen epo s and help- ing o es ablish he i s local au ho i y campsi e o T a elle s in 1975, Ili ed among 18 Koudelka, J. (2011) Koudelka Gypsies, ( ex by W.Guy), London: Thames and Hudson. 19 Cha a 77 (1979) ‘Dokumen 23 osi uaci Cikánů Českoslo ensku’, Lis y 2, 47, P ague: Cha a 77. (English ansla ion by Jackson, M. (1979) Labou Focus, Ma ch/Ap il and May/ June). 20 E.g. Guy, W., Liebich, A. and Ma ushiako a, E. (2010) Imp o ing he Tools o he Social In- clusion and Non-Disc imina ion o Roma in he EU, Luxembou g: Eu opean Commission. 21 Eu opean Commission (1999) Enla gemen B ie ing: EU suppo o Roma communi ies in cen- al and eas e n Eu ope, B ussels: Eu opean Commission, Decembe , 4. OPEN ACCESS WILL GUY — MAREK JAKOUBEK — LENKA J.BUDILO Á 155 hem, wo ked wi h hem a ui picking and po a o li ing and a elled wi h hem be ween win e and summe camping g ounds. Ap oblem wi h poli ical discou se abou Roma is ha heo e ical a gumen s a e some imes no su icien ly g ounded in he di e se eali ies o Roma expe ience. Unsu p isingly, hose adop ing poli ical science o policy ela ed pe spec i es can igno e empi ical e idence incon enien o hei o e simpli ied models. Acase in poin is he common assump ion ha nomadism is an in insic cul u al cha ac e - is ic o all Roma. This can ha e se ious consequences, as when aCouncil o Eu ope spokespe son was misled in o cha ac e ising he mig a ion o Roma om o me Communis coun ies o Wes e n Eu ope in he 1990s as ‘me ely a e u n o he no - mal mobili y o Gypsies’ a he han fligh om moun ing acis a acks.22 Such an analysis nega ed he legi ima e claims o hese Roma o poli ical asylum. Aco ec- i e iewpoin emphasised ha ‘ he ex ao dina y ea u e o Romani mig a ion is ha so many [Cen al and Eas Eu opean] Roma a e p epa ed o ake he isks o mig a ing despi e hei lack o nomadic adi ions’.23 Academic discou se abou Roma is ex emely di e se bu much is na owly o- cused on deba es wi hin he discipline. While his can be ele an o poli ical deba es and policy issues— as in he example o nomadism— i o en seems as hough he e is li le o e lap be ween disciplines, which inhabi hei own sepa a e wo lds. Many schola s/in ellec uals see auni e sal emedy o he ‘Roma issue’ in he Roma na ional emancipa ion. Don’ you hink ha in his way many ai s would be los o he adi ional Roma cul u e, o which he mode n p inciple o na ionali y is alien? Is i no ue ha many Roma would be le in he posi ion o double ma ginali y— ma ginal o bo h he majo i y socie y and o he Roma na ional socie y? Toge he wi h E a Da ido á, Iwas p esen a he i s Wo ld Romani Cong ess in 1971 whe e Roma delega es om ou een coun ies p oclaimed hei sha ed iden i y and ma ked his by adop ing aflag and he an hem Geľem, geľem (We a elled on). This landma k e en led o he ounda ion o he In e na ional Romani Union.24 In 2000 Ialso a ended he i h Wo ld Romani Cong ess in P ague, whe e E a was adelega e. Sho ly a e wa ds he IRU P esiden , he Czech Roma Emil Ščuka, issued his Decla a- ion o aNa ion. This documen called o all Roma o be ecognised as anon- e i o ial na ion, ha is a‘[n]a ion which does no wan o become as a e’.25 In pa his demand was adelayed eac ion o he widesp ead, bu no uni e sal, o icial policy du ing much o he Communis e a o a emp ing o e adica e Romani 22 Ve spage , G. (1995) The Si ua ion o Gypsies (Roma and Sin i) in Eu ope, S asbou g: Council o Eu ope, 13. 23 Ma as, Y. (2000) ‘Roma mig a ions in he pos -Communis e a: Thei his o ical and po- li ical signi icance’, Camb idge Re iew o In e na ional A ai s, ol.13, no.2, 32, emphasis in o iginal. 24 Ac on, T. and Klímo á, I. (2001) ‘The In e na ional Romani Union: An Eas Eu opean an- swe o Wes Eu opean ques ions’, in W.Guy (ed.) Be ween Pas and Fu u e: he Roma o Cen- al & Eas e n Eu ope, Ha ield: Uni e si y o He o dshi e P ess, 58. 25 Ibid: 216–7. OPEN ACCESS 162 STUDIA ETHNOLOGICA PRAGENSIA 1/2018 WILL GUY’S PUBLICATIONS ON ROMA-RELATED ISSUES Guy, W. (1975) ‘Ways o looking a Roma: he case o Czechoslo akia’, in F.Reh isch (ed.) Gypsies, Tinke s and O he T a elle s, London: Academic P ess. Guy, W. (1975) His o ical ex in J.Koudelka Gypsies, London, Pa is, New Yo k: Ape u e Inc. (un i led and no pagina ion) Guy, W. (1977) The A emp o Socialis Czechoslo akia o Assimila e i s Gypsy Popula ion. Ph.D. Thesis, Uni e si y o B is ol. Guy, W. (1998) ‘A e wo d 1996: Ab a e new wo ld’, in D.Tong (ed.). Gypsies: ABook o In e disciplina y Readings, New Yo k: Ga land Publishing Inc., pp.48–68. Guy, W. (1998) Ways o looking a Roma: he case o Czechoslo akia, in: D.Tong (ed.) Gypsies: ABook o In e disciplina y Readings. Ga land, pp.13–48; [a ep in o Guy 1975]. Guy, W. (ed.) (2001) Be ween Pas and Fu u e: The Roma o Cen al and Eas e n Eu ope, Ha ield: Uni e si y o He o dshi e P ess. Guy, W. (2001) ‘Romani iden i y and pos - Communis policy’, in Guy, W. (ed.) (2001) Be ween Pas and Fu u e: The Roma o Cen al and Eas e n Eu ope, Ha ield: Uni e si y o He o dshi e P ess, pp.3–32. Guy, W, (2001) ‘[The Roma o ] he Czech lands and Slo akia: Ano he alse dawn?’ in: Guy, W. (ed.) Be ween Pas and Fu u e: The Roma o Cen al and Eas e n Eu ope. Ha ield: Uni e si y o He o dshi e P ess, pp.285–323. Guy, W. (2002) ‘La e a i als a he na ionalis games: Romani mobilisa ion in he Czech lands and Slo akia’, in S.Fen on and S.May (eds.) E hnona ional Iden i ies, London: Macmillan, pp.48–83. Guy, W. (2003) ‘“No so ouch”: Romani mig a ion o he UK a he u n o he 21s cen u y’, Na ionali ies Pape s, Vol.31, no.1, Ma ch, pp. pp.63–79. Guy, W. (2003) Ši ší kon ex edukácie Rómo o ýchodnej as ednej Eu ópe, in V.Fabiano á. and S.Ma ulay. (eds) Empi ické pozna ky zedukácie omských de í ply odiny a ola ma ky o ýcho e a zdelá aní omských de í, Spišská No á Ves: Uni e zi a Konš an ína Filozo a Ni e, pp.170–186. Guy, W., Uhe ek, Z. and Weine o á, R. (eds.) (2004) Roma Mig a ion in Eu ope: Case S udies, Ins i u e o E hnology o he Academy o Sciences o he Czech Republic (P ague), Müns e : Li Ve lag/New B unswick & London: T ansac ion Publishe s. Guy, W. (2004) ‘Recen Roma Mig a ion o he Uni ed Kingdom’ (Asylum in pe spec i e: Roma mig a ion o he UK), in: W.Guy, Z.Uhe ek and R.Weine o á (eds.) Roma Mig a ion in Eu ope: Case S udies. Li -Ve lag, pp.165–210. Hyde, A. and Guy, W. (2004) F om P e-accession o Accession: Re iew o he Eu opean Union Pha e Assis ance o Roma Mino i ies (1999–2003), Thema ic E alua ion Repo ZZ/MIN/03082, B ussels: Eu opean Moni o ing Se ice (EMS)/EC Di ec o a e-Gene al Enla gemen , Decembe . <h p://ec.eu opa.eu/enla gemen / pd / inancial_assis ance/pha e/ e ised_ mino i ies_ hema ic_ aw_161204_en.pd > Guy, W. (2006) ‘Cul u al Policy and Cul u al Di e si y: The Roma o Cen al and Eas e n Eu ope’, in Robins, K. (ed.) The Challenge o T anscul u al Di e si ies: Cul u al Policy and Cul u al Di e si y, S asbou g: Council o Eu ope Publishing. Guy, W. and Ko a s, M. (2006) EU- unded Roma P og ammes: Lessons om Hunga y, Slo akia and he Czech Republic, London: Mino i y Righ s G oup In e na ional. Guy, W. (2006) Coun y Repo : Czech Republic, London: Mino i y Righ s G oup In e na ional. Guy, W. (2006) Coun y Repo : Slo ak Republic, London: Mino i y Righ s G oup In e na ional. Guy, W. (2006) Discussion Pape o EC pee e iew o Spanish Roma p ojec : ‘The e adica ion o shan y owns in A ilés’, o EC Di ec o a e-Gene al Employmen , Social A ai s and Social Inclusion, Vienna: ÖSB Consul ing, Oc obe . Guy, W. & F esno, J.M. (2006) Syn hesis Repo o EC pee e iew o Spanish Roma p ojec : ‘The e adica ion o shan y owns in A ilés’, o EC Di ec o a e-Gene al Employmen , Social A ai s and Social Inclusion, Vienna: ÖSB Consul ing, Decembe . OPEN ACCESS WILL GUY — MAREK JAKOUBEK — LENKA J.BUDILO Á 163 Guy, W. (2007) ‘Roma economic con ibu ions: Pas and u u e’, keyno e speech a Roma Employmen Wo kshop— Decade o Roma Inclusion, So ia: Bulga ian Minis y o Labou & Social Policy. Guy, W. (2009) ‘Li ing condi ions, social pe cep ion and s a e policy in he mac o- egion o “Eas e n Eu ope” be o e and a e 1989’, Südos eu opa Mi eilungen, 49 (2): 54–65. Guy, W. (2009) Discussion Pape o EC pee e iew o In eg a ed P og amme o Social Inclusion o G eek Roma, o EC Di ec o a e- Gene al Employmen , Social A ai s and Social Inclusion, Vienna: ÖSB Consul ing, May. Guy, W. (2009) Syn hesis Repo o EC pee e iew o In eg a ed P og amme o Social Inclusion o G eek Roma, o EC Di ec o a e- Gene al Employmen , Social A ai s and Social Inclusion, Vienna: ÖSB Consul ing, May <ec.eu opa.eu/social/BlobSe le ?docId=8325 &langId=en> Guy, W. (2009) Význam odinných azeb p o mig aci českých aslo enských Romů, in: Jakoubek, M. and Budilo á. L. (eds.) Cikánské skupiny ajejich sociální o ganizace, B no: Cen um p o s adium demok acie akul u y, pp.267–285. Guy, W., Liebich, A. and Ma ushiako a, E. (2010) Imp o ing he Tools o he Social Inclusion and Non-Disc imina ion o Roma in he EU, Luxembou g: Eu opean Commission. Guy, W. (2010) ‘EU ini ia i es on Roma: Limi a ions and ways o wa d’, in N.T ehan and N.Sigona (eds.) Romani Poli ics in Con empo a y Eu ope: Po e y, E hnic Mobilisa ion, and he Neo-libe al O de , Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan, pp.23–50. Guy, W. (2011) His o ical ex in J.Koudelka Koudelka Gypsies, new edi ion, London, Thames and Hudson (un i led and no pagina ion). Guy, W. (2011) in: Koudelka, J.Cikáni. P aha: To s (un i led and no pagina ion). Guy, W. (2011) ‘Roma inclusion a he c oss oads: Can he lessons om PHARE be lea ned?’ Roma Righ s 2011: Funding Roma Righ s: Challenges and P ospec s, Budapes : ERRC, Decembe . Guy, W. (W. Guy & I.Gabal eds.) (2012) The Si ua ion o he Roma Mino i y in Selec ed New Membe S a es o he Eu opean Union, B ussels: Eu opean Libe al Fo um. Guy, W. (ed.) (2013) F om Vic imhood o Ci izenship: The Pa h o Roma In eg a ion, Budapes : Paki Eu opean Roma Fund/ Kossu h Publishing Co po a ion. Guy, W. (2014) ‘Residen ial seg ega ion’— asel - explana o y e m?’, Gypsy Lo e Socie y Websi e, <h ps://docs.google.com/a/b is ol.ac.uk/ ile/ d/0BwF qsBgQJK1WW5jS0ZQOExzZ1N Mkd 2anJ RkF5eVBMc3Nn/edi ?pli=1> Guy, W. (ed.) (2015) The Challenge o An i-Roma Poli ics, Open Socie y Founda ions, New Yo k, B ussels & Ams e dam: IDEBATE P ess. Guy, W. (2015) In oduc ion: The Challenge o An i- Roma Poli ics, in W.Guy (ed.), pp.1–21. Guy, W. (2015) ‘Why Roma Mig a e’, Beyond T a icking and Sla e y, openDemoc acy, 30June <h ps://www.opendemoc acy.ne / beyondsla e y/will-guy/why- oma-mig a e> Guy, W. (2017) ‘An i-Roma Violence, Ha e Speech and Disc imina ion in he New Eu ope: Czech Republic, Slo akia and Hunga y’, in Bhabha,J., Mi ga, A. & Ma ache, M. (eds.) Realizing Roma Righ s, Philadelphia: Uni e si y o Pennsyl ania P ess. OPEN ACCESS