The Roma as Agents of the "G*psy Question"

Cover Jan Ort The Roma as Agents of the “G*psy Question” Belonging, Mobility and the Resettlement Policy in Socialist Czechoslovakia KAROLINUM The story of Romani people in communist Czechoslovakia has long been framed by a discriminatory policy of assimilation, and thus by fatal interventions into Romani family ties and their broader socio-cultural systems. Paradoxically, such a narrative failed to satisfactorily integrate the perspective of the Roma themselves, who often associated the same period with an unprecedented experience of social inclusion and material security. In his book, Jan Ort examines the state policy that in the mid-1960s aimed at the defi nitive elimination of “G*psy backwardness” through the placement of thousands of Roma families in non-Roma society, thus becoming a symbol of the social engineering interventions of the communist regime in the lives of Czechoslovak Roma. In contrast to the predominant focus on the perspective of state authorities, the author seeks to map the practice of this policy in specifi c places, with an emphasis on the experiences and agency of the Roma themselves, especially those who had their homes in eastern Slovakia. In the empirical richness of a microhistorical approach, the book uncovers the diverse stories of ordinary Roma who were able to incorporate various aspects of state policy into their own life strategies without necessarily giving up their distinctive cultural identity. Jan Ort | The Roma as Agents of the “G*psy Question” roma as agents_mont.indd 1roma as agents_mont.indd 1 27.01.2025 15:4127.01.2025 15:41 The Roma as Agents of the “G*psy Question” Belonging, Mobility and the Resettlement Policy in Socialist Czechoslovakia Jan Ort KAROLINUM PRESS Karolinum Press is a publishing department of Charles University Ovocný trh 560/5, 116 36 Prague 1, Czech Republic www.karolinum.cz © Faculty of Arts, Charles University, 2024 Translation © Phil Jones, 2024 Cover photograph © Courtesy of State Archive Košice Copyediting by Martin Janeček Set by Karolinum Press Layout by Jan Šerých First edition Research for this book was financed by Grant no. 19-26638X, “Genocide, Postwar Migration and Social Mobility: Entangled Experiences of Roma and Jews”, funded by the Czech Science Foundation, carried out at Faculty of Arts, Charles University, 2024. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. ISBN 978-80-246-6052-3 ISBN 978-80-246-6053-0 (pdf) ISBN 978-80-246-6054-7 (epub) https://doi.org/10.14712/9788024660530 The original manuscript was reviewed by Celia Donert (University of Cambridge), and Elena Marushiakova (University of St Andrews & Institute of Ethnology and Social Anthropology SAS, Bratislava). Charles University Karolinum Press www.karolinum.cz [email protected] Contents Acknowledgments 9 Introduction 11 0.1 The Roma of Kapišová 13 0.1.1 Agency, continuity, discontinuity 15 0.2 The Roma in Czechoslovakia and Policies towards G*psies 16 0.2.1 Resettlement policy 19 0.3 Reflections on the Resettlement Policy and Practice 23 0.3.1 Post-revolutionary reflections in Czech and Slovak historiography 24 0.3.2 Localised studies 27 0.3.3 The resettlement policy in the new narrative of Romani history 31 0.4 Roma as an Integral Part of Society 32 0.4.1 Regional and sub-ethnic outline of research interest 33 0.4.2 Terminology 35 0.4.3 Structure of the book 37 1. CHAPTER ONE Romani Agency, Anthropology and History 42 1.1 Ways of Studying Agency 45 1.1.1 Margins as a starting point for analysis 45 1.1.2 Dominance and resistance 47 1.1.3 Negotiating marginalisation 50 1.1.4 The social position and identity of the Roma in Central Europe 52 1.1.5 Anthropology, history and studies of agency 55 1.1.6 The question of representativeness 58 1.2 Methods 60 1.2.1 Oral history 61 1.2.2 Research into the practice of the resettlement policy 63 1.2.3 Oral history and collaborative research 65 1.3 The Ethical Dimension of Research 71 2. CHAPTER TWO Who Counts as a G*psy? 73 2.1 Discourse of G*psyness 75 2.1.1 Official categorisation 75 2.1.2 Racism as an obstacle to re-education 79 2.1.3 “In the interests of all” 84 2.1.4 “Let the councillors house them in their own home” 88 2.1.5 Disrupting the homogenous image of G*psyness? 92 2.1.6 The figure of the “respectable G*psy” 95 2.1.7 Reflections upon the limits of social acceptance 98 2.2 Roma and G*psies in Brekov 101 2.2.1 The story of the exceptional Roma of Brekov 101 2.2.2 Attitudes of the Brekov Roma in documents of the time 104 2.2.3 The social position of the Roma in Brekov 109 2.2.4 “Local” and “foreign G*psies” 111 2.2.5 Displacement of a foreign G*psy 115 2.2.6 Eviction as a resolution of local conflicts 119 2.3 Conclusion 126 3. CHAPTER THREE The Settlements: Between Marginalisation and Autonomy 130 3.1 Central and Regional Policies towards the Settlements 133 3.2 Discourse of the G*psy Settlements 135 3.2.1 The logic of “liquidation” 135 3.2.2 The settlements as a locus of Romani culture? 137 3.2.3 Marginalisation, stigmatisation, belonging 139 3.3 Disposal of the Settlements in the Former District of Humenné 142 3.3.1 The position of the local authorities 145 3.3.2 “Successful liquidation”: the settlement in Ľubiša 147 3.3.3 Disposal of the settlement in the village of Papín 151 3.4 Podskalka: Between Marginalisation and Autonomy 156 3.4.1 Relocate, build or liquidate? 157 3.4.2 Self-governing Podskalka? 161 3.4.3 The position of the Roma 163 3.4.4 Buying up the shacks 166 3.4.5 Elemír T.: From Podskalka to the town 167 3.4.6 František B: A shack to be liquidated? 170 3.4.7 Who benefitted from the “G*psy policy”? 173 3.4.8 The reproduction of territorialisation 174 3.5 Conclusion 176 4. CHAPTER FOUR Resettlement, Migration, Dispersion: Movement Control and Agentive Strategies 180 4.1 Genesis of the Resettlement Policy 183 4.2 The Discourse of “Dispersion” 187 4.2.1 Complaints regarding restrictions on movement 188 4.2.2 Criticism of resettlement at the time 190 4.3 Resettlement from Humenné 194 4.4 The Post-War Migration of the Roma to the Borderlands 197 4.4.1 From Papín to North Bohemia 200 4.4.2 Immigrants in the borderlands 204 4.4.3 Policy toward the Roma in the borderlands 205 4.4.4 The Act on the Permanent Settlement of Nomadic Persons 207 4.4.5 Continuity of dispersion in the border region 209 4.5 The Resettlement of the Roma in the Jičín Region 212 4.5.1 Initial conditions of resettlement 216 4.5.2 Regional policies in Šemetkovce 218 4.5.3 The partner district of Jičín 220 4.5.4 Categorisation of resettled families 221 4.5.5 Attitudes of the Roma from a gender perspective 225 4.5.6 Resettlement and the production of movement 229 4.5.7 Nostalgia for Slovakia and cross-border socio-economic networks 233 4.5.8 The transformation of relationships from a gender perspective 235 4.6 Conclusion 241 Conclusion 245 References 252 List of abbrevations 262 Register 263 9 This book is published with the support of the Grant Academy of the Czech Republic as part of the project entitled Genocide, Post-war Migration, and Social Mobility: The Entangled Experiences of Roma and Jews. It is based on a thesis that in the original Czech version was entitled Romové jako aktéři cikánské otázky. Náležení, mobilita apřesidlovací politika vČeskoslovensku 60. let, which was defended at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Prague. The research itself could not have been conducted without the willingness of its participants, especially the Romani interviewees. I am hugely grateful for my meetings with Elena Cinová, Peter Kudráč and the sisters Monika H and Marcela S. I would like to thank all of these for their willingness to read my final text (or parts of it). I would also like to thank the staff of all of the archives and libraries referred to. I owe a debt of gratitude to Helena Sadílková, who undertook the role of my supervisor with great commitment and was more than happy to discuss the various stages of my research and offer me her honest opinion of the text as it was being written. Much of what I formulate and emphasise in the book is the outcome of numerous discussions with her. I would also like to thank all of my colleagues at the Seminar of Romani Studies at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University, who have inspired me since my undergraduate studies with their sensitivity to research and writing about the Roma and their rigour when enquiring into the lived experience of the Roma and their actorial perspective. Equally, the insights of people from other disciplines, especially history and social anthropology, have been crucial. Here I would like to thank Yasar Abu Ghosh, Pavel Baloun, Martin Fotta, Jan Grill and Matěj Acknowledgments 16 locally and historically contingent contexts and, as aresult, prefigures the diversity of experience and agency of the Roma. In addition, however, the study highlights the need for amore subtle differentiation of the positions of “non-Romani” actors, including individual state bodies. It thus sketches the contours of abroader field of manoeuvre, in which the practice of the central policy targeting G*psies is negotiated within networks of actors and relations, of which the Roma are an integral part. The story of the Kapišová Roma thus allows for areframing of policies towards G*psies that can be seen not only as the history of efforts to control and manage the lives of socially non-conforming populations, but, through the example of specific practices, can also be understood through the continuity of Romani strategies of sociability. Although registered as “nomads” (kočovníci) and therefore targeted for legal resettlement, the Roma of Kapišová continued to migrate for work, sometimes with the blessing of several non-Romani agents such as employers and authorities in Czechia. At the same time, they maintained the continuity of belonging and presence of the Roma in avillage in Slovakia, even though, classified as G*psies, they should have been resettled and their settlement definitively removed. Here again, they managed this with the acquiescence of non-Romani agents, in this case their neighbours and the local authority. In summary, the introductory story adumbrates well the space within which this book is situated, in which the sharp dichotomy is blurred between the state on the one hand, and the Roma as the “eternal outsiders” and victims of its coercive and socially engineering policies on the other. Aspace in which the position of individual actors is not given in advance, but forms the subject of negotiation, anegotiation that includes the by no means automatically assumed application of adominantly defined classification of the populace. At the same time, the study foreshadows the way in which Iwill trace these relations and processes, i.e.by means of amicrohistorical approach that emphasises aspects of localism and temporality and combines different types of historical sources, especially archival materials and oral-history interviews. 0.2 The Roma in Czechoslovakia and Policies towards G*psies In the 1970s, the British sociologist Will Guy offered several reasons as to why Czechoslovakia was important in respect of the study of Romani 17 history. One reason was the fact that there had been two large-scale, systematic attempts to assimilate the Roma in this country. The first took place in the second half of the 18th century under the reign of the Habsburg monarchs Maria Theresa and Joseph II. The second was under the communist regime through apolicy that Guy dates back to 1958 (Guy 1998 [1975], 16–17), which culminated in an organised resettlement programme in the wake of agovernment resolution of October 1965. In order to understand the context of the genesis and realisation of the communist assimilation policy in general, and the resettlement programme in particular, it is worth recalling another aspect that attracted Guy’sattention to the history of the Roma in Czechoslovakia, namely, the divergent development of the situation of the Roma in Czechia and Slovakia. Guy reminds the reader that developments in Czechia were more similar to the situation of the Roma in the countries of western Europe, which was characterised by harsh anti-Roma measures leading to yet more mobility. In Slovakia, which had previously been part of the Kingdom of Hungary, the Roma became an integral part of the local socio-economic systems while contributing to their transformation.3 Likewise, their situation during the Second World War was also different. In the Slovak Republic (1939–1945), the Roma faced various forms of persecution (at the end of the 1930s there were around 80,000 living there in total), which resulted in considerable loss of life. However, in general, they avoided the fate of the Roma in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, where many perished in concentration camps and only afew hundred survived the war (Nečas 1999; for amore detailed comparison of the fate of the Roma in both regions, see Sadílková 2020). The post-war Romani population in Czechia was overwhelmingly made up of immigrants from Slovakia, whose migration must be seen as part of broader population movements after the Second World War. Like other inhabitants of mainly rural areas of Slovakia, the Roma arrived as aworkforce in emerging industrial towns and cities, often as 3 There is, understandably, adegree of generalisation taking place, something that Guy himself admits. The situation of the Roma may have differed significantly within the two regions under discussion. As regards the situation prior to the Second World War, in Czechia we can basically distinguish between the situation of (semi-)itinerant “Bohemian” Roma and “Moravian” Roma, who were settled in specific villages and also displayed ahigh level of integration in locally formed socio-economic structures (see, for example, Horváthová 2005). In Slovakia, on the other hand, we might distinguish between the situation of the settled “Slovak” Roma and the (semi-)itinerant “Vlax” Roma (also referred to as Lovara) with their different migratory trajectories and, to some extent, different language and cultural system (see, for example, Hajská 2024, 15–24). 18 aresult of organised recruitment drives. However, they were also part of the repopulation of the Bohemian borderlands, from which nearly three million Germans had been forcibly removed after the war (see, for example, Gerlach 2010). As the situation in Kapišová illustrates well, when tracing the post-war movement of the Roma (see Ort 2022b), one must not overlook the asymmetrical social belonging in which, despite aconsiderable degree of integration into local socio-economic systems, they found themselves because of astrong association with the racialised category of G*psyness. For many of them, the Second World War had underscored the experience of paternalism and racism and the fatal disruption of relations with their immediate non-Romani neighbours (see Sadílková 2020). And so for many of the Roma, post-war migration also meant an escape from these historically entrenched, highly power-inequitable relational structures. At the same time, the large-scale migratory movement of the Roma that began in the very first post-war years gave rise not only to new populations of Romani immigrants and individual communities in specific locations, but also to transnational networks between Slovakia and Czechia that ensured the movement of people, goods and various forms of capital for decades to come, in many cases right up to the present day. It was in this context that the post-war policy towards the Roma– or rather towards citizens who were categorised as G*psies and later as “citizens of G*psy origin” (občané c*kánského původu)– was formed. The existing socio-economic marginalisation of the Roma, which was noticeable especially in the segregated settlements of mainly eastern Slovakia, but also visible in towns and cities in Czechia, where newly arrived Romani families often lived in substandard conditions, was interpreted by the central authorities as asign of their allegedly entrenched “cultural backwardness” (kulturní zaostalost). In this respect, the prevailing view of the Roma represented akind of continuity even after the communist coup d’état in 1948. However, in the official approach to the Roma, which had been taking shape in communist Czechoslovakia since the early 1950s, this backwardness was blamed mainly on the previous bourgeois and Nazi regimes and their anti-Roma policies. In this respect, the policy towards the Roma was accompanied by abelief that, with the appropriate care, they would emerge from their “cultural backwardness” to become fully-fledged members of the society of communist Czechoslovakia. Looked at from the other side, as far as the newly established communist regime was concerned, the figure of the “G*psy labourer” (c*kánský dělník) became one of the key performance indicators of the 19 formation of the new socialist society and its legitimacy (see Donert 2017, Spurný 2011). In the 1950s, in an effort to “re-educate” (převychovat) the G*psies, the central authorities combined various approaches, including the forced removal of children from the “unhealthy environment of G*psy families” (nezdravé prostředí c*kánských rodin). They also considered the possibility of enshrining in law the cultural rights of the Roma in line with the Stalinist approach to national minorities and through the ideological training of representatives of the Roma, who themselves were formulating their own ideas regarding the societal position of the Roma as agroup (Donert 2008). However, as far as the local authorities and non-Romani population were concerned, anti-Roma feelings persisted, and these gave rise to growing demands for the adoption of specific restrictive measures. It was voices from the provinces that provided an important context for the approval of Act 74/1958 on the Permanent Settlement of Nomadic Persons, which basically proceeded to criminalise the Roma and was thus intended to consolidate the legitimacy of the communist dictatorship as it passed through its first significant crisis (Spurný2011,282–285). The definitive move towards apolicy of assimilation and thus arefusal to grant specific cultural rights to the Roma was formulated in the same year in agovernment resolution on Work amongst the G*psy Population. The resolution defined G*psies as asocial group that was to be freed from their “backward way of life” (zaostalý způsob života), primarily through full inclusion in the labour force (Jurová 2008, 688). It was to this formulation of the communist regime’sapproach to the Roma that Guy made reference when he spoke of the second systematic attempt to assimilate the Roma in Czechoslovakia. 0.2.1 Resettlement policy There were three main goals in the policy drawn up in 1958, the fulfilment of which was intended to lead to the complete assimilation of the Roma in the society of that time. The first was their full inclusion in the labour force. The second, backed up by Act 74/1958, placed restrictions on two-way migration between Slovakia and Czechia. And the third was the “liquidation of G*psy concentrations” (likvidace c*kánských koncentrací), especially the eastern Slovak “G*psy settlements” (c*kánské osady; Guy 1977, 177–181). Over the course of the following years, however, these objectives were not met. Guy identifies the main reason as being 20 the sluggish approach taken by the Municipal National Committees (MNVs), which were largely responsible for implementation of the policy. This is evident in internal documents from the central authorities, which referred to areluctance on the part of the local authorities to overcome entrenched anti-Roma prejudices that were proving an obstacle, especially when dealing with the housing situation (Jurová 2008). Guy adds, however, that there was also an economic dimension. The responsibility of Municipal National Committees was not backed by the provision of adequate funding, the result being that local authorities had to raise their own funds in order to enact the measures referred to above. In addition, it was becoming apparent that in eastern Slovakia itself, where the housing and employment situation was most acute, there were not enough job opportunities for the Roma living there. Guy concludes that inasmuch as there was any success, it was in the sphere of employment, though adds that this was paradoxically thanks to ongoing migration, which, despite centralised efforts to limit it, was tolerated by the authorities in Slovakia and employers in Czechia (Guy 1977, 309–318). Guy also notes that ongoing evaluations of the ineffectiveness of the assimilation policy did not conclude that it should be rejected or revamped, but on the contrary intensified and its underlying principles maintained. It was against this backdrop that demands for the creation of anew and more effective administrative structure increased. The Slovak authorities in particular began to stress the need for an organised transfer (přesun) of alarger number of Roma from its eastern regions to Czechia, and voices were heard pushing for the introduction of quotas applying to G*psies in individual towns and districts (ibid., 315). These tendencies culminated in the adoption of Government Resolution No.502, approved on 13 October 1965. While continuing to pursue the overall goal of the “permanent employment of adolescent and adult G*psy citizens and raising their standard of living and cultural standards”, the Resolution’sdrafters sought to overcome earlier problems in its implementation. The resolution created an interdepartmental Government Committee on G*psy Population Issues, an independent coordinating and advisory body that took over the role that had formerly been performed by the Ministry of Education and Culture (ibid.,253). In this new administrative structure asimilar committee was also set up under the Slovak National Council, along with special commissions answering to the National Committees at the level of regions, districts and towns. The new structure was allocated special funding from the state budget to cover the implementation of specific measures. 21 As in the case of the 1958 Act, strictly speaking this resolution cannot be seen as acentrally drafted totalitarian top-down policy, but, at least to some extent, as aresponse to pressures applied by regional actors (see Lucassen 2008). For along time, the Roma in Czechoslovakia were most concentrated in eastern Slovakia, aregion also characterised by ahigh number of socio-economically marginalised and racially segregated settlements. As far as the local (but also central) authorities were concerned, these settlements represented asignificant security and hygiene risk (Donert 2017, 113–116). Going back to the early 1960s, if not earlier, the Regional National Committee (KNV) had argued that the predicament of the east Slovak Roma could not be resolved on apurely regional basis (see, for example, Haišman 1999). And so inasmuch as the government resolution instructed the newly appointed Government Committee to draw up atimetable for the “liquidation of G*psy concentrations” (Jurová 2008, 1003–1006), this was to some extent aresponse to these demands from the Regional National Committee and, later, from the Communist Party in Slovakia (Donert 2017, 159). Demands for more systematic and top-down instruments of control over the lives of the Roma continued to be voiced even in those regions in Czechia that were the frequent destinations of post-war Romani migrants from Slovakia (see Chapter Four). At its first meeting on 18 December 1965, the Government Committee approved the document “Principles for the organisation of the dispersal and transfer of the G*psy population for the purpose of liquidating undesirable G*psy concentrations in accordance with Party and government resolutions”, in which it instructed the state authorities to “draw up atimetable for the long-term liquidation of G*psy streets and neighbourhoods inCzechia and G*psy settlements in Slovakia” (Jurová 2008, 1031).4 Two basic tasks were to be borne in mind when drawing up the timetable: I. the creation of aplan for the dispersal of the G*psy population within the borders of regions and districts II. the creation of aplan for the transfer of part of the G*psy population from Slovakia to Czechia 4 Priority was to be given to the “liquidation of G*psy settlements” in areas popular with tourists (the region of the High Tatras in Slovakia, as well as the Romani settlement in Velká Ida near Košice “in the interest of the health of the workers of the East Slovak Ironworks” (Jurová 2008, 1031). 22 To these was added athird point, which unpicked the assumptions behind the concepts of “dispersal” and “transfer”. It stated that dispersal and transfer were to be organised “on the basis of voluntary consent”and with the prior “provision of accommodation and employment” for the resettled families and individuals. At the same time, it was necessary to keep “precise records of the families concerned and to provide them with further care in their new living conditions so that the process of their re-education can be further monitored.” In light of their previous experience with anti-Roma prejudice in society, the National Committees were instructed to create “the conditions for the necessity of understanding the dispersal and transfer among the rest of the population [i.e.non-Roma: author’snote]”, for which purpose amedia campaign was to be created (see Chapter Two). For the purpose of the transfer between Slovakia and Czechia, partnered regions were designated, which were then to stipulate the districts from which families could be sent from Slovakia to Czechia. The “organised” character of resettlement was contrasted with “undesirable unrestrained migration” (nežádoucí živelná migrace), which is how the ongoing two-way movement of the Roma between Slovakia and Czechia was perceived. The authorities were to stamp down on the latter type of migration, and in such cases the Roma “were to be returned to their original place of residence”. Although the removal of Romani settlements and the resettlement of their inhabitants was to have been carried out as early as 1966 (and in fact was already being carried out to some extent even prior to the 1965 resolution coming into force), the relevant timetable was not drawn up by the appointed Government Committee until 1967–1970. According to this plan, atotal of 380 families were originally to be relocated in Czechia and 5,984 families in Slovakia (the timetable was gradually modified, in part in response to its failed implementation). Atotal of 2,177families were then to be relocated from Slovakia to Czechia. Another 8,500families were to be relocated after 1970 (Guy 1977, 274– 276; see also Pavelčíková 2004, 91–92). The implementation of these measures was to be based on the newly introduced classification of the G*psy population into three groups depending on the degree to which they were deemed to be assimilated into the dominant society. The first category was to include almost assimilated G*psies with only the last remnants of an “undesirable way of life” (nežádoucí způsob života), while the third comprised what were defined as pathological cases with no prospect of “re-education” (převýchova). In the middle was the second category, i.e.individuals and families determined to break free of the 23 “unhealthy environment” (nezdravé prostředí) of “G*psy concentrations” (see Chapter Two especially). Although the latter were to be the primary targets of resettlement policy, restrictions on freedom of movement were to apply to all G*psies regardless of their categorisation. 0.3 Reflections on the Resettlement Policy and Practice It was the restrictions on freedom of movement that were at the heart of criticisms of the government resolution. As well as politically engaged Roma, ordinary folk affected by the new rules pointed to its discriminatory nature. However, as Ishow in Chapter Four, the criticism from the Roma in most cases did not target the underlying logic of the resolution, but rather its failure in practice. Thus Milena Hübschmannová, aqualified Indologist with along-standing, fierce interest in Romani culture in the broadest sense of the word, can be considered the most strident public critic of the basic precepts of the assimilation policy at that time. For example, in a1968 essay on the social position of the Roma intended for anon-specialist readership (Hübschmannová 1968), she pointed to the unconstitutionality of restrictions on freedom of movement. In 1967, she published areport in the revueLiterární noviny in which she used the example of aparticular family to highlight the desperate plight ofthe Roma in the eastern Slovak settlement of Veľká Ida caused by the terms of the resolution (Hübschmannová 1967). She drew attention to the discriminatory basis of the government resolution in amore scholarly text published in Sociologický časopis in 1970 as part of awider critique of the official concept of the “G*psy question” (c*kánská otázka; Hübschmannová 1970). In the same year, acriticism of the unconstitutional character of the government resolution appeared in the Memorandum of the Union of Gypsies-Roma (the formulation of which Hübschmannová was in part responsible for; Memorandum SCR 1970), and the same criticism appeared in the section of Charter 77 devoted to the situation of the Roma in Czechoslovakia (Prečan 1990). The assimilation policy also received bad press abroad. Its development was summarised by the Czech lawyer and exiled writer Otto Ulč (1969), and of particular interest is the large dissertation written by Guy, based on field research carried out in eastern Slovakia in the early 1970s (Guy 1977). This is akey study that, for its detailed presentation of the genesis and practice of assimilationist policy towards the Roma in post-war Czechoslovakia, 24 remains unsurpassed. Idraw on it in various ways during the course of this book. 0.3.1 Post-revolutionary reflections in Czech and Slovak historiography After the Velvet Revolution of 1989, the resettlement policy in particular, and the assimilationist policy of communist Czechoslovakia in general, was the target of open hostility, above all in respect of its alleged fatal impact on the lives of Romani people living here. This broader-based criticism viewed the policy pursued by the communist regime towards the Roma as highly paternalistic and disrespectful of the interests of the Roma themselves. However, the highly evaluative language used is not backed by an adequate analysis of the impact of the policy. The Romani interests are present implicitly rather than explicitly and are to some extent replaced by agenerally formulated interest in preserving Romani culture, understood here as akind of coherent value system. In his text on the genesis of institutional interest in the Romani population in post-war Czechoslovakia, for example, Haišman has the following to say regarding the resettlement programme: Beginning somewhere in the deliberations of deluded or uneducated party experimenters in eastern Slovakia, reshaped by the party secretariats, including those at the top, Czechoslovakia, with its government programme of “measures aimed at resolving the issues of the G*psy population”, entered aphase of undisguised criminal ethnocide, which in the normal world (and in relation to other ethnicities) would be condemned by international forums, including the UN. (Haišman 1999, 182, emphasis J. O.) In his text, Haišman relies almost exclusively on apublished collection of archival documents compiled by historian Anna Jurová– herself the author of one of the most important post-revolutionary works on the post-war history of the Roma in the region under examination– focusing on the “development of the Romani issue in Slovakia after 1945” (Jurová 1993). Jurová also examines the creation and implementation of the resettlement programme, though even she does not address the opinions and experiences of the Roma themselves. Moreover, she adopts certain stereotypical ideas of the distinct “psyche” (psychika) and “social habits” (společenské návyky) of the Roma, with the result that in many 25 instances she fails to maintain acritical distance from the official discourse she is critiquing. Such problems can be encountered in the work of historian Nina Pavelčíková, who charts the development of the postwar situation in Czechia in asimilar way. She, too, relies exclusively on archival materials presenting the perspective of the authorities, and in aseparate chapter on the “general characteristics of the Romani ethnic group” she is guilty of the orientalisation and exoticisation of the group thus described, rather than providing greater insight into the experiences and agential positions of the Roma in society at that time. Following this logic, she concludes in another text that the outcome of the government resolution was “merely another fateful intervention into the traditional way of life of the settled Romani communities, breaking up family and kinship relations” (Pavelčíková 2010, 84). Nevertheless, the fact is that for along time the two works referred to above were the only comprehensive publications for Czech and Slovak readers that summarised the post-war policies towards the Roma, offered an overview of the official documents, and thus became an important starting point for further interrogation of the problem. In the post-revolutionary period, an evaluation of the resettlement policy was returned to by two of its contemporary actors, or rather participants in the debate surrounding it at the time: the ethnographer Eva Davidová, and the specialist in Romani studies Milena Hübschmannová. At the time the government resolution took effect, both women were in contact with specific Romani families affected by the central policy. However, even they restricted their post-revolutionary texts to general appraisals without any in-depth analysis or case studies. In her text for the anthology Černobílý život (Life in Black and White), for instance, Davidová asserts that the programme “was not only ill-conceived but completely misguided, since the so-called voluntary nature of the dispersal meant in practice that Romani families were obliged to move to aselected district regardless of their family ties and other circumstances of family life in their original home” (Davidová 2000, 74). As Iwill discuss below, Davidová published amonograph in 1965 in which she endorsed the assimilation policy of the time and spoke approvingly of the concept of “resolving the G*psy question” (řešení c*kánské otázky). However, although as an employee of the East Slovak Regional National Committee she participated in the accompanying media campaign (see Chapter Two), she was quick to condemn the actual outcomes of the programme in aletter to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (ÚV KSČ), citing as an example the situation of the 32 sterilisation that just afew years later would impact mainly Romani women (see Sadílková 2019). Viewed from this angle, the central concept of “resolving the G*psy question” ensuing from the 1965 resolution was also an attempt at the systematic management of the quality of life of the Romani population and the elimination of their “backward lifestyle”. In addition to summarising the known factors of its failure, in which she references Guy, Donert emphasises the logical contradiction at its heart. She points out that in focusing on quality of life it was the way of life of G*psies that was naturally understood in terms of “social inadaptability” and “parasitism” in official discourse. The Roma, who according to the official logic had attained adegree of assimilation, were no longer viewed as G*psies, and so the endeavour to eliminate the “backward way of life of the G*psies” naturally led to its reproduction as asocial problem regardless of the degree to which specific aspects of central policy had been implemented (see Chapter Two). 0.4 Roma as an Integral Part of Society It is clear from this brief overview of the literature that the overriding focus on the perspective of the state leaves very little room for the perspective and experience of the Roma themselves and consequently provides very limited opportunities to trace the nature of their agency. It is precisely these two basic objectives that Ipursue in this book. Iexamine how the centralised policy of the Czechoslovak socialist state toward what it called G*psies played out in practice, since up till now no one has described its impact on the lives of the Roma themselves. Iam not interested in overturning the evaluative significance that has been assigned to the assimilation policy as awhole in Romani studies and within broader reflections on socialist policies in respect of the Roma. Instead, Iwish to examine the nature of Romani agency in relation to the practice of state policies targeting them (either implicitly or explicitly), that is to say, the relationship between the Roma and the state and the position of the Roma in the society of socialist Czechoslovakia as well as other countries. In reconstructing the “diversity of Romani experience” (Guy 1998 , 14–15) and attempting to answer these questions, Ihave run up against an ongoing ambivalence. In many places my work points to astrong sense of social belonging and participation amongst the Roma, while at the same time evidencing their historically entrenched exclusion and the racial discrimination and segregation they faced. It follows the agential strategies of 33 the Roma themselves, but operates in the space of the coercive policies of the state and its individual authorities. It points to both the diversity but also the often contradictory attitudes, interests and actions of individual actors, both on the part of the state and amongst the Roma themselves. At the same time, it subverts the clear dichotomy between the state on the one hand and the Roma on the other. However, Iwould like to point to important emphases that both ensue from what Iwrite in the four main chapters and also intersect more broadly with the overall understanding of the position of the Roma in non-Roma societies. Firstly, Ido not view the Roma as apriori alien in the sense of being an externally positioned group seeking social integration, but as an integral part of society, however much they may be excluded under particular circumstances (see also Ort 2022b). Such areversal of perspective on the one hand removes the Roma from the essentialised position of “eternal outsiders” (ibid.), while making it possible to confirm the anchoring of Romani history– or perhaps that should be “Romani histories” (see Prague Forum for Romani Histories)– within broader historical processes. According to this logic, Ido not think of the Roma as aclearly defined population group, since Iunderstand the implementation of the state’spolicies towards G*psies and their effects on specific people as the subject of an ambiguous negotiation between the individual actors involved. 0.4.1 Regional and sub-ethnic outline of research interest As well as indicating how the situation in Czechia and Slovakia was different, the localised studies contained in the individual chapters (see Chapter Two and Three) reveal the significant diversity not onlyof Roma/non-Roma relationships in individual municipalities, but also ofthe positionalities and strategies of sociability of individuals and families. Instead of reiterating an infinite diversity, Iwould now like to explain the regional scope of selected studies and thus of the entire book, and point out the specific elements and limits it entails. In doing so, Ianticipate in part the discussion surrounding the representativeness of microhistorical studies that Iwill elaborate on in Chapter One. Ichose as the starting point of my research the situation in the district of Humenné in eastern Slovakia in its expanded form after the re-structuring of the districts in the early 1960s, when it included what are now the border regions of Snina andMedzilaborce. My choice was guided by the fact that the District National Committees were intended 34 to be responsible for the successful implementation of the resettlement programme, and the district archives contained alarge part of its documentation. However, the discovery of several unique sources prompted me to look at two other locations, both in what was then the district of Bardejov (now the district of Svidník). This involves the introductory study of the village of Kapišová and the final study of the nearby village of Šemetkovce (see Chapter Four). Although the inclusion of Bardejov allows for apartial comparison and highlights some differences as to how the resettlement policy was applied at the district level, overall these are regions with very similar characteristics. The two neighbouring border regions formed the northern part of the easternmost point of Slovakia and thus belonged to along-standing economically marginalised area characterised by linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity, as well as by high rates of local population emigration over the long term. This is also an area that was viewed in orientalising and racialising terms as backward and the subject of internal colonising policies during the creation and consolidation of the society of the interwar Czechoslovakia (Holubec 2014; Baloun 2022). Similarly, in the 1960s, eastern Slovakia found itself at the centre of interest of state policy towards the Roma due to the high concentration of Romani settlements associated with a“backward way of life”, whose inhabitants were selected for relocation and dispersal throughout Czechoslovakia. The choice of this region as the starting point for monitoring the practice of the resettlement programme is in this respect logical, though it was not the only candidate. My research project and, indeed, this book, would have looked quite different if Ihad focused on aregion in Czechia. Ihave attempted to deal in part with this asymmetry in Chapter Four, where Ifollow the stories of resettled/ migrating Romani families within the context of corresponding regions in Czechia. Even so, Iwas in the end guided by the logic of the ties these families had to their place of origin in Slovakia. At the same time, Ifeel it incumbent upon me to acknowledge the essentially exclusive focus of this book on those Roma who were long settled in specific locations in Slovakia and in most cases only arrived in Czechia after the Second World War. The demarcation of this population group, which in percentage terms dominated the Romani population in post-war Czechoslovakia, might appear somewhat artificial, since it includes arelatively wide range of ways of socialising in non-Romani society. However, it makes sense in relation to other, numerically underrepresented groups of Roma (e.g. the original Bohemian and Moravian Roma and the Sinti, alarge number of whom perished in concentration 35 camps during the Second World War, or the Vlax Roma), due to the deeper internal differentiation wrought by adifferent historical experience as well as by language (see, for example, Elšík 2003). Although this aspect of my work is important, since the population group thus defined was the one most impacted by the policy under consideration, the omission of the experience of those Roma with different sub-ethnic self-identification and historical experience cannot be viewed as self-evident and must not be overlooked. In the context of this book, for instance, the question arises as to why resettlement policies did not affect concentrations of Vlax Roma in Czechia and Slovakia, which to an extent arose as aconsequence of the 1958 Act on the Permanent Settlement of Nomadic Persons (see Hajská 2020, 2024). 0.4.2 Terminology On the whole Iuse the umbrella term “resettlement policy” to refer to the programme enshrined in Government Resolution No. 502/1965. This simplifies matters considerably, since it does not cover all aspects of this policy, which also specified more complex tasks in the sphere of housing, employment, education, public enlightenment and sociological research. On the other hand, the term encapsulates the core of the resolution, which will form the focus of this book, namely, resettlement as akey tool for re-education, social inclusion and “resolving the G*psy question”. In the literature this policy is often spoken of as a“policy of dispersal” (rozptylová politika)or “dispersion campaign” (kampaň rozptylu). Ihave chosen to emphasise “resettlement” as an umbrella term encompassing various types of controlled population movement, be this dispersal within individual districts or the transfer from Slovakia to Czechia. Iretain the term “dispersal” in order to represent the enforced logic of designated population movement, according to which the “concentration of G*psy populations” was to be avoided (see Chapter Four). In connection with the attempt to eliminate existing “G*psy concentrations”, Iuse the official term “liquidation” (likvidace) given my focus on eastern Slovakia, above all in relation to what were known as “G*psy settlements” (see Chapter Three). Iuse the term “G*psy Commission” or sometimes just “Commission” to refer to the interdepartmental bodies established at the level of regions, districts, cities and larger municipalities under the central Government Committee on G*psy Population Issues (with its counterpart 36 at the Slovak National Council). This is an unofficial term used by several parties, and at the same time an umbrella term for the names of commissions that varied from document to document (“Commission for the Resolution of G*psy Questions”, “Commission for the Resolution of Questions Pertaining to Citizens of G*psy Origin”, “Commission for the Resolution of Questions Pertaining to G*psy Populations/the G*psy Population”, etc., including their Slovak variants). Iuse the term “Roma” as acategory of ethnic self-identification with regard for the word Roma (pl.) in the Romani language. Ido so knowing that not all of the people Irefer to in this way were speakers of Romani at the time the government resolution was enacted, and that many of them in certain contexts thought of themselves as G*psies, while others distanced themselves from such adesignation. In the textual references to “G*psies”, Iuse an asterisk, apractice common in the anthropological and historical literature on the Roma. Although Iconsider it important to distinguish analytically between the terms “Roma” and “G*psies”, given the often negative and offensive connotations of the latter term, Ido not want to reproduce it in full. Iwill write the term with acapital “G”. However much G*psies were defined primarily as asocial group in the official policies of the time, the category was never fully free of associations with ethno-racial characteristics. Nevertheless, as regards language Iwas still faced with adilemma: how to remain faithful to the terms used at the time while not allowing the text to become tainted with the often dehumanising language used in relation to the Roma, especially given that my primary concern is to capture the perspectives and experiences of these people. Similarly, how not to overwhelm the text with references to G*psies, the “solution to theG*psy question”, the “dispersal of the G*psies”, and the “liquidation of G*psy concentrations”, while nonetheless conveying the flavour of the language used during the period under examination that chronicles attitudes towards the Roma, and not slipping into ahistoricism? Moreover, one should not forget that the dominant discourse was inscribed in the language of the texts (complaints, requests, etc.) of the Roma themselves, afeature Ianalyse as representing both the instrumentalisation and sharing of this discourse. The use of quotation marks is only apartial solution, and the reader (especially the Romani reader) may sometimes feel overwhelmed in certain passages by the dominant language of the time. This is another reason Ihave tried to be sparing with such language. For example, in many places Iwrite about the policy towards the Roma, thus defusing the tension between the official category of G*psy 37 and the term denoting ethnic self-identification. However, Ido this not when Iam analysing discourse but simply making reference to apolicy aimed acertain group of the population, with full awareness of the fact that, despite the ambivalence of the official category of G*psyness, it was the Roma being targeted by policies aimed at G*psies. On the other hand, Ideliberately use contemporary terms when analysing the discourses surrounding them, whether this involved G*psies (see Chapter Two above all), or the “liquidation of G*psy concentrations” (see Chapter Three), or “dispersal” (see Chapter Four). The boundaries of such designations are not entirely clear, and in many cases Iapproach the choice of terms somewhat intuitively. Though it is impossible to resolve the dilemma outlined above completely, Ibelieve that it needs to be addressed not only in relation to the readability and historical empirical precision of the text of this book, but also to broader considerations regarding the writing of Romani histories. Irefer to the places discussed by their real names. When writing of people Isometimes use their full names and sometimes their Christian name followed by surname initial. Iuse full names in the case of people who were public figures and whose position as full actors in the period debates and equal partners in the sociological analysis of specific situations Iseek to acknowledge. Atypical example of this would be Koloman Gunár fromBrekov, who himself wrote abook about the Roma in his village. In contrast, as regards most of the individual actors Iopt for the partially anonymised format for the sake of personal data protection and the sensitivity of some of the information being discussed. The same applies to the interviews conducted with many of the contemporary witnesses, with whom Iagreed on said practice. 0.4.3 Structure of the book Prior to the empirically based chapters, there is achapter devoted to my own theoretical and methodological background. Here Isituate resettlement policies within adiscussion of the work of James C. Scott, both his conception of state power in the application of state engineering policies (Scott 1998), and his understanding of resistance as amode of response to these policies by marginalised populations (e.g. Scott 1985). Ishall follow these contributions to the related anthropological discussion, which seek to make afiner distinction between different actors and to break down the sharp boundaries between state and society and 38 between domination and marginalisation. Here Ishall draw on the mode of anthropological thinking “from the margins” (Tsing 1994), developed for the anthropology of the state (Das and Poole 2004). In attempting to articulate amore complex relationship between marginalised populations and adominant state, Iwill draw on the work of Holly High, who has studied the resettlement of poor farmers in Laos (High 2005, 2008). High emphasises that it is impossible to ignore the expectations and aspirations that the farmers themselves projected onto the state resettlement policies. And when the implementation of resettlement in practice often led to the deepening of their pauperisation and precarisation, the farmers did not blame the policy itself but rather the dysfunctional state as awhole. At the same time, referencing the anthropologist Leo Howe (1998) Ishall show that not even the relationship between domination and marginalisation is fixed, and that there is aconstant struggle going on between people as to who will be on the side of the dominant and who will bear the stigma of marginalisation. Such adistribution of positions also affects who is actually impacted by state policies. In the first chapter Iargue that while policy toward the G*psies was targeted on arelatively unambiguously defined group of people, it cannot be narrowly thought of in relation to the Roma alone, but rather as apolicy that entered into local socio-economic systems that oversaw the specific form in which it was materialised and had the potential to transform it. Connecting anthropological issues to the historical themes of this book then led me quite naturally to already existing historical approaches that are acknowledged to have been inspired by anthropology, be this the concept of microhistory or the “history of everyday life” (Alltagsgeschichte). Among other things, Iopen up adiscussion on the representativeness of studies that purposefully reduce the scale of research and track the everyday actions of “ordinary” actor-individuals. Iam at this point lending my voice to those who argue that historians thus oriented, similarly to anthropologists, do not study “villages” as such, but investigate broader social phenomenon as they are played out “in villages” (Geertz 1973,22). However, reflections upon the methods of archival research and oral history eventually led me to consider the “villages” themselves, above all with regard to the expectations and interests of the research participants, i.e. the people Iinterviewed. In Chapter Two, Ilook at the negotiations involved in deciding to whom the centrally formulated policy was to apply. Iask the key question as to who actually is a“G*psy” (C*kán), by tracing both the different ways in which this category was defined, and the negotiation of 39 its association with specific people during implementation of the resettlement policy. Anew categorisation ensued from Government Resolution No. 502/1965. The G*psies were now divided into three groups depending on the degree of social assimilation versus the extent of their “backwardness”. The policy of resettlement was to apply to those of categoryII, who, though living in the “unhealthy” environment of “G*psy concentrations”, would, it was assumed, extricate themselves from such abackground if offered assistance. However, the understanding of G*psyness as akind of social deviation coexisted alongside other social discourses according to which G*psies were identified and judged on the basis of ethno-racial characteristics. As aresult, while some of the Roma were denied the opportunity to participate in the resettlement programme because they did not meet the official criteria of G*psyness, the freedom of movement of any and all Romani people could be restricted on the basis of ethno-racial criteria. In presenting the discourses surrounding the concept of G*psyness at that time, Iam primarily interested in the backdrop against which it was negotiated in everyday relations. Ishall focus on the village of Brekov, where the local Roma managed to achieve ahigh degree of acceptance in local relations and the validity of the category of “problematic” and “backward G*psies” was reserved for Roma beyond the boundaries of their home village. Within the framework of the resettlement policy, however, the label G*psies stuck to asingle family in the village. This family then disrupted the overall image of the integration of the local Roma and, as socially non-conforming, eventually became part of the official resettlement to Czechia. Based on this example, Iargue that G*psyness as acategory potentially applicable to the Roma based on racial criteria also played an important role in structuring relations between the Roma themselves. In Chapter Three Iwill focus on one of the key pillars of the resettlement policy, namely, the effort to “liquidate undesirable G*psy concentrations”, above all the (east) Slovak settlements. In addition to specific features of the implementation of liquidation, Iwill seek to shed light on its broader premises, i.e. the way in which individual agents related to settlements as distinct social, cultural and physical spaces. In this respect, the official discourse regarding the settlements that spoke of them as athreat to security and sanitation was underpinned by apredominant expert discourse in which they were defined as the habitats of a“culturally backward way of life”. In turn, critical voices that viewed the assimilation policy as causing the disruption of the socio-cultural systems of the Roma had atendency to view the settlements as the natural 40 environment for the realisation of adistinctive Romani culture. Other authors, when tracing the territorialisation of the Roma in settlements, emphasise the crucial role of the local authorities and non-Romani villagers as guardians of non-Romani territorial hegemony. Focusing on the agency of the Roma themselves, Ishall attempt to reconcile these opposing views by showing that all of these aspects played arole in how the settlements were understood by their inhabitants. In many documented cases, the inhabitants shared aview of the settlement as being not aplace characterised by materially inadequate living conditions, but also as the site of cultural “backwardness” and socio-economic stagnation. In this respect, the Roma’seconomic and social strategies to some extent met with centralised efforts to eradicate such places. Inasmuch as the implementation of central policy was negotiated within the context of broader, locally anchored, socio-economic relations, this did not mean simply the disruption of socio-cultural ties among the Roma themselves (as discussed by critics of the policy), but also the potential to disrupt racially motivated segregation. Iargue, however, that this aspect of resettlement policy was more an opportunity for individual families situated in acertain way rather than an opportunity for an overall reframing of local relations. Using the example of the Podskalka settlement near Humenné, Ishow that despite the long existing spatial mobility outside the settlement, usually into Humenné itself, the Roma were not always in full agreement with the official discourse, but regarded the settlement as adistinct social and cultural space with ambitions for administrative autonomy. This was not aspace separated from the surrounding world, but aplace within and by means of which the Roma were able to realise broader social participation (e.g. through their own school, football team, fire brigade, associations and activities). The emphasis on the removal of settlements was naturally bound up with the relocation of their inhabitants in accordance with the logic of dispersal. Ifocus on this aspect in Chapter Four, in which Ilook at the resettlement of the Roma from Slovakia to Czechia, which took place against the backdrop not only of the post-war migration of Roma between the two regions of what was then Czechoslovakia, but also the longer-term effort to control the movement of G*psies as “nomads” (kočovníci) and “fluctuants” (fluktuanti). In this chapter, Iseek to undermine afixed understanding of migrating/resettled Roma in terms of their uprooting from established socio-economic and cultural ties, which was inherent not only in the critique of assimilationist policies, but in the overall view of the post-war movement of the Romani population 41 and the transformation of its socio-economic ties. Iwill show that, unlikethenon-Romani population, who saw the planned relocation as athreat to non-Romani territorial hegemony, the Roma themselves saw it as an opportunity for social inclusion. In this respect, they criticised the dysfunctionality of centralised policy and the anti-Roma attitudes of specific authorities, or pointed to the discriminatory nature of restrictions on freedom of movement. However, Inote here the ineffectiveness of the enforced control of movement itself, since most Roma maintained the continuity of their own migratory trajectories even against the backdrop of the implementation of the policy under consideration, and the “organised movement” to designated places affected only individuals from the whole of the Humenné district. When tracing the prevailing experience of migration, Iwill show that the official emphasis on “dispersal” may have met with the specific migratory strategies of individual Romani families. These families, however, in their efforts to achieve acertain spatial and socio-economic autonomy, relied on maintaining earlier ties, not only with other families in Czechia, but, in acertain “transnational” social field, with those living in Slovakia. Finally, in order to capture more comprehensively the actual process of resettlement, Iwill focus on the situation of families resettled from Šemetkovce in Slovakia to Jičín inCzechia. Unique material in the form of interviews conducted by Hübschmannová with various actors of the resettlement programme carried out in the late 1970s, allows me to differentiate more subtly the agential positions and experiences of the Roma themselves and to highlight the hitherto neglected gender perspective. The discussion of the situation in regions of Czechia is at least apartial counterbalance to the primary focus of this book on the region of eastern Slovakia. At the same time, it will allow me to show that, however much resettlement and migration offered many of the Roma an opportunity to escape the historically entrenched racial hierarchies of the eastern Slovak countryside, in Czechia, too, the category of G*psyness may have clung to them, along with its local and historically conditioned meaning and the policies ensuing therefrom. 48 they studied (2004). The anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod, who warns of the danger of romanticisation, seeks amore sensitive approach to resistant praxis (1990). Inspired by Foucault (1978, 1982), she analyses resistance not as an act that stands outside of power structures, but one which is an intrinsic part of them. She sees ethnographic observation of resistance as away of diagnosing complex power relations. Using the example of Bedouin women, Abu-Lughod shows that within such intersectionally understood structures, partial practices of resistance can operate in contradictory ways. At the same time she shows that resistance to certain forms of power can reproduce and reaffirm other forms of oppression. This more subtle situating of resistance within complex structures of power relations allows for ashift in emphasis from the resistance of ordinary Romani villagers to the resistance of local authorities and non-Romani populations who held out against the disruption of the territorialisation of the Roma and their absorption into “non-Romani” developments in particular locations. It was approaches such as these that Guy then identified as one of the key factors in the failure of the communist regime’sassimilation policies in general and resettlement policies in particular. Abu-Lughod’semphasis thus allows for amore complex understanding of the practice of these policies, which, though they might target primarily the Roma as G*psies, ultimately enter into broader, locally anchored socio-economic relations in specific ways. In these relations, the resistance of some may reproduce the racial oppression of others. At the same time, this emphasis supports the claim that resistance as aconcept is very limited when it comes to capturing diverse forms of agency. Inasmuch as Abu-Lughod says that resistance is usually accompanied by an attachment to other forms of power, the question remains as to how to analyse these attachments. The domination–resistance dichotomy postulated by Scott for understanding relations between the state and society is interrogated by anthropologist High (2008) in her research. In adiscussion about the internal resettlement projects in Laos, and in line with the emphases referred to above, High primarily follows the expectations, aspirations and life strategies of the resettled villagers themselves. Even though she shows that the expectations of the villagers were unrealistic and that many of them might end up suffering even greater poverty as aconsequence, their aspirations and initial willingness to participate in state-defined policies cannot be ignored. In the end, she writes, the disappointed resettled villagers did not take issue with the resettlement programme itself, but the way it was being implemented, the blame for which they 49 attributed to dysfunctional state institutions. In contrast, High argues that resettlement programmes were to some extent in line with an understanding of spatial mobility as tightly bound up with social mobility (see Grill 2012). In contrast to the limiting opposition of resistance to state domination, High offers the concept of “experimental consent”, in which villagers, while acquiescing to state policies, continuously reinterpreted them in the light of newly emerging conditions and the continuity of their own socio-economic strategies. In asimilar fashion, Ishow that in criticising the resettlement policy, Romani people themselves have often not targeted its fundamental objectives, but rather its dysfunctionality (see Chapter Four). The concept of “experimental consent” also resonates with the approaches taken by other authors, who in ethnographically informed approaches articulated the relationship of the Roma to the Czechoslovak state during the communist period. Drawing on his own field research, anthropologist Jan Grill offered historical insight into the development of the economic strategies of the Roma in aspecific village, concluding that the local Roma were able to selectively exploit several aspects of socialist policies towards the G*psies without succumbing to the pressure for cultural assimilation (2015a,b; see also Sadílková 2017). In their polemic with High, acollective of authors engaged in the debate on resettlement policies in Laos has pointed out that, by drawing on Scott’sdistinction between “public” and “hidden transcripts” (1985, 1990), the attachment to state policies can be read precisely as aproduct of asymmetric power structures in which the socio-economically less advantaged cannot afford to express overt, i.e. public, criticism (Braid et al. 2009). When High responded that it is not possible to position oneself simply as the arbiter of social reality who determines what utterances express the “authentic” opinions of their speakers and which are the product of existing power inequities (2009), she was following up on amore detailed critique formulated with Scott’sthesis in mind bythe linguist and anthropologist Susan Gal (1995). In areview essay on Scott’sbook (1990), Gal rejects the postulated distinction in which public displays of power on the part of subordinate actors represent the suppression of akind of authentic self. Drawing on her own socio-linguistic research in abilingual community in Hungary, she points out that asingle person can express different, often self-contradictory, views, including those that demonstrate resistance to official languages and ideologies. Gal concludes that “these contrasting stances cannot be classified as posed versus genuine”, but that they are “evidence of the coexistence 50 of deeply felt yet contested discourses” (ibid., 413; see also Gal 1993). What Gal andHigh are driving at is the perception of two different faces of the state described above, in which both emotions, or perhaps frames of mind, have equal quality and validity (see Das and Poole 2004). 1.1.3 Negotiating marginalisation In addition to asimplistic conception of resistance and its romanticisation (Gal 1995, 420), Gal accuses Scott of flattening the “great range of power relations evident in the diverse social formations of the historical and ethnographic record into asingle opposition between dominant and subordinate” (ibid., 414–415). Gal argues that the assumption that the dominant and subordinate are always “clearly definable, unified, and separable groups, unambiguously opposed to each other” is highly problematic (ibid., 417). Citing Caroline Humphrey, she identifies state socialism in particular as atypical example of “nested hierarchies”, in which individual inhabitants can undergo both the experience of dominance and the experience of subordination (ibid., 416; see Humphrey 1994). The anthropologist Leo Howe (1998) has described the dichotomy between domination and marginalisation postulated by Scott as excessively static. Scott, he argues, fixes poor farmers too much in their marginalised position by not including in his analysis the constant struggle over who will escape from the subordinate position and join the side of domination. Howe bases this emphasis on his own ethnographic research among the unemployed residents of Belfast, Northern Ireland, who aspired to the status of the deserving unemployed, while casting dominantly understood notions of “scrounger” and “beggarman” into adifferently defined faction of the unemployed. Through Howe’sview of the position of the marginalised, which is no longer automatic but acquires aspecific situational-relational character, it is possible to further undermine the homogenisation of the position and experience of the Roma in non-Romani societies. At the same time, such an approach resonates with how some authors have already described the negotiation of the social position of the Roma, specifically in the Central European region. In these cases, however, it was not the category of (un)deserving unemployed that participated in the formation of an understanding of dominance and marginalisation, but the heavily racialised category of G*psyness, with the diverse social attributes historically linked to it and associated with it in broader societal discourse. 51 The anthropologist Yasar Abu Ghosh, writing of asmall town in the south of the Czech Republic, described how some of the Roma living there were successful in their strategy of “escaping G*psyness” by casting this category onto adifferently defined faction of the local Romani population (Abu Ghosh 2008). Asimilar dynamic has been described by the anthropologists Cecilia Kovai andKata Horváth in avillage in Hungary, where some of the local Roma sought to “silence G*psyness” in their everyday interactions with the non-Romani world, while accusing other local Roma of displaying it in exaggerated fashion (Kovai 2012, Horváth 2012). What is important in respect of this book is that such aprinciple of Roma relating to their non-Romani surroundings and to the formation of internal relations between the Roma themselves has also been described for the rural areas of eastern Slovakia. In this case, Idraw mainly on my own long-term field research in asmall village in north-eastern Slovakia, where G*psyness was not only aquestion of ethnic stereotypes, but was inscribed within the structure of local relations. Association with this category meant partial exclusion from the local community and so, as in the Hungarian village in question, it was through astrategy of concealing the characteristics of G*psyness that the local Roma sought to affirm their local belonging and thus reinforce their own social status (Ort 2021, 2022b; see also Grill 2015b; Hrustič 2015a,b). As difficult as it is to reconstruct such relations historically, Iwill show that asimilar logic applied to the internal differentiation of the Roma was in operation in the municipalities where Iobserved the outcome of the resettlement policies (see especially Chapter Two). As Horváth andKovai point out, it was the content of socialist policies that played apart in creating this logic of relations. The socialist state understood G*psyness as acategory of cultural backwardness and social deviation, and held out to the Roma themselves the false promise that if they consistently “silenced their G*psyness”, they would be fully included alongside their non-Romani neighbours (Horváth 2012). Similarly, Sokolová pointed out that within the context of socialist Czechoslovakia, the person “who counted as a‘G*psy’ in the eyes of the state had very little to do with supposedly ‘real’ ethnicity, since it was more acase of being situated within officially sanctioned categories of the proper and improper, the normal and deviant, and integrated and non-integrated” (Sokolová 2008, 43). The illusion of the promise held out of full belonging to non-Romani society to which Kovai andHorváth refer rested on ahistorically anchored racial discourse that persisted in society and that cast the Roma in an inferior position regardless of their socio-economic 52 status and dominantly understood degree of inclusion in socialist society. While the central authorities spoke of an ethnically and racially neutral policy and associated the category of G*psyness with cultural backwardness and social deviance, racial assumptions about G*psies continued to enter into the way that central policies were formulated on the one hand, while playing their part in who was ultimately labelled aG*psy in the way they were implemented on the other. In asimilar fashion, the ambiguous delineation of the target group of such policies provided relatively generous room for manoeuvre for individual actors at the local level. The negotiation of the category of G*psyness among the Roma themselves, and its reflection on the part ofthe local authorities, is of particular interest to the present study because it may have co-determined in individual cases not only who would be affected and in what way, but also, perhaps, who would be in aposition to benefit and who would not. For this reason, too, it would be highly misleading to look at resettlement policies in particular, but also at policies directed towards the G*psy population in general, exclusively in relation to aseparate narrative of “Romani history”, or, from the other side, “policies toward the Roma”. In order to capture the dynamic of the negotiation of the positions of individual actors and their relations (i.e. the relations of dominance and marginalisation), it is far more accurate and useful to think of resettlement policy as acentral measure that was the outcome of certain historically contingent (and even regionally embedded) processes, ameasure that did not necessarily affect only the Roma in its implementation, but entered into locally negotiated relations in aspecific way, where its more ambiguous practice (i.e. the more ambiguous delineation of the target group) was decided, and where it had the potential for the comprehensive transformation of entire local socio-economic systems. 1.1.4 The social position and identity of the Roma in Central Europe In his classic ethnography of the Roma in socialist Hungary, the anthropologist Michael Stewart shows that the Roma in the village he studied benefited from socialist policies as employees of the local factory. They also “laundered” the money earned through gadje work by means of the economic practice of “Romani” work (Romani butji), which was part of the symbolic formation of Romani cultural identity face-to-face with 53 adominant non-Romani world (Stewart 1997). However, this mode of existence in the non-Romani world that Stewart described for the cultural conservative group of “Lovara” (i.e. Vlax Roma) cannot be smoothly transferred to the majority Romani population in eastern Slovakia, where the cultural boundaries between the Roma and their non-Romani neighbours were not nearly as sharp, and where the Roma emphasised their own belonging to the region and participation in the local way of life (see Ort 2022b).8 In order to support aposition from which it is not necessary to understand the attachment to the dominant orders exclusively as their camouflaged subversion, Iwill discuss the understanding of identity and the social position of the Roma in central Europe in more detail. As Ihave argued elsewhere (Ort 2022a), in this respect the work of the Romani studies scholars Elena Marushiakova and Vesselin Popov is fundamental. These authors view Romani identity in general through the concepts of community and society, as two interrelated dimensions of social position. In addition to attributing adistinct ethnic identity to the Roma, Marushiakova andPopov argue that the Roma in central and eastern Europe have formed an “integral part of the relevant civic nations with their related national identities” (2020, 42). This dual nature of Romani identity has been examined in greater detail by the Greek anthropologist Aspasia Theodosiou with regard to the role of the category of place in the (self-)identification of the Roma (2004). Theodosiou argues that the category of place is usually overlooked in ethnographic texts on Romani sociability, on the one hand because of an assumed Romani nomadism, and on the other with an emphasis on the locally independent “imagined communities” (Anderson 1983). When anthropologists moved away from explaining distinctive Romani culture through adifferent place of origin and shifted the emphasis to everyday interaction with the non-Romani world (see Stewart 2013), Theodosiou claims they paradoxically turned place into amere backdrop for these interactions and an “invisible category of analysis” (2004). Drawing on her research on the Greek-Albanian border, Theodosiou shows that place played akey role 8 In this respect, the differences cannot be understood regionally, but rather in terms of the internal cultural differentiation of the Roma themselves. As Ihave already mentioned, avery similar dynamic of relations to that Iobserved among the Roma in eastern Slovakia has been described for the Hungarian community by Horváth andKovai (Horváth 2012; Kovai 2012). Apropos the controversy surrounding the different conception of “G*psy labour” among the Roma in Hungary, see Horváth (2005). Regarding the Vlax Roma in eastern Slovakia and their economic strategies, see Hajská (2015, 2017, 2024). 54 in the self-identification of the local Roma, who were at the same time understood to be an integral part thereof. Theodosiou regards the village being studied as a“doubly occupied place” (Stewart 1996), of which the relationship between the Roma and non-Roma (or Yifty and “Greeks”) was an inherent part and in which difference was not something that came necessarily from outside, but which also grows within (Theodosiou 2004,38). Theodosiou acknowledges that the position of the Roma was asymmetrical in this respect given their association with the exclusionary category of G*psyness discussed above. And so according to her, the Roma were perceived as “local, but not indigenous” (ibid.). Ihave already developed in detail this complex view of Romani identity, in which the Roma are understood as anatural part of the local socio-economic systems (see also Olivera 2012), in respect of the situation of the Roma in asmall village in northeastern Slovakia (Ort 2022b), but Ishall work with it in this book. Ibelieve that it is this approach, which takes into account the various forms and levels of the social belonging of the Roma, that allows us to leave behind ideas of the Roma as aclearly circumscribed marginalised group of social outsiders. An understanding of Romani identity as firmly anchored in local systems seems all the more relevant here since this book focuses on the period of socialism. According to Marushiakova andPopov, it is precisely this period of socio-economic development that is akey factor in the degree to which the Roma are integrated into the societies of central and eastern Europe (Marushiakova and Popov 2020). As Ishowed in my research in eastern Slovakia, it was the Roma themselves who tended to view the period of socialism as the high point of their own social participation and upward social mobility: the arrival of capitalism, on the contrary, was associated with adecline in their socio-economic status (for similar recollections see Kramářová et al. 2005; Sidiropolu Janků 2015). However, Iam not trying to create an impression of total compliance with socialist policies on the part of the Roma or ignore specific areas of resistance and subversion. Instead, Iwish to move beyond the binary oppositions referred to above and open up awider field within which dynamic forms of Romani agency can be traced that can also, perhaps, be understood as “experimental consent” as described by High (2008, but also 2005), into which the Roma projected their hopes and expectations, and whose policies they attempted to incorporate into their own economic strategies and broader strategies of sociability. At the same time, just as High did not resort to defending resettlement programmes in Laos, so it is not my aim to offer areassessment of the Czechoslovak 55 state’sresettlement policy, which is regarded by the dominant historical narrative as one of the symbols of the communist regime’sviolence against the Roma. In fact, my aim is not to evaluate this policy at all, but, on the contrary, to disentangle it from the necessity of evaluative positions that are usually attached to the study of socialist policy towards the Roma in general, as recently remarked upon by Marushiakova and Popov (2020). 1.1.5 Anthropology, history and studies of agency The authors mentioned so far are united by the fact that all were anchored to some extent in the discipline of anthropology, and some of them have cited ethnographic research as akey to grasping the complexity of the relations under consideration and the agential creativity of specific people (see Abu-Lughod 1990; Brazzabeni et al. 2015; Das and Poole 2004). In the case of historical research, it is easy to draw on precisely those historical trends inspired by anthropology. It is no coincidence that representatives of these very tendencies have placed individuals as important historical agents at the core of their interest. This “return of the actor to history” (Horský 2014) represented aresponse to developments in historical research since the early twentieth century that were moving away from the “great man theory of history” (van Dülmen 2000) in favour of tracking social structures that implied collective actors defined by shared socio-economic status. The problem with such an approach, which established itself under the title “history of mentalities”, resided in the homogenisation of the actors thus defined and the false autonomy of the collective mentalities under consideration (Burke 1997). In the newly conceived emphasis on the individual, abalanced view of the relationship between actor and structure was to ensue simultaneously in the wake of the anthropological and sociological discussion in which this false opposition had been reconciled, most notably by Anthony Giddens (1979) and Pierre Bourdieu (e.g. 1977, 1990). For these authors, while the individual’sagency was to some extent conditioned by structure, it was each individual actor who co-created such astructure and, moreover, possessed the capacity to reshape it. One of the important authors who moved away from determining collective mentalities and emphasised diversity of experience, attitude and action among individual actors was the Italian historian Carlo Ginzburg, who back in the mid-1960s had already applied such an approach to the 56 study of Italian popular culture (1983 [1965]). He went still further in his classic text The Cheese and the Worms, in which he reconstructed the thought world of the heretical miller in 16th-century Italy (1980 [1976]). Ginzburg’smicrohistorical approach (see below) was taken up by representatives of the German school of historical anthropology, as exemplified in the classic text by Hans Medick (1987) entitled “‘Missionaries in the Rowboat’? Ethnological Ways of Knowing as aChallenge to Social History”. Medick reiterates that in light of the prevailing preoccupation with structure, attention needs to be turned to the actions of specific actors and the role of culture needs to be taken into account, not as an isolated autonomous entity, but in its dynamic relational form. It is here that Medick sees the advantage of historians being inspired by the discipline of anthropology, which, he argues, cultivates asensitivity to peripheral themes and to alterity in general. Afocus on the position of individuals from marginalised social groups has, according to Medick, been noticeably absent from histories of European modernisation and industrialisation. However, he also points out that it is not possible to slip into understanding these individuals as victims, but as actors in their own right, cultivating their own creative forms of resistance. This emphasis can also be found in the approach that has in German scholarship become known as Alltagsgeschichte or the history of everyday life. Its adherents originally focused on the period of the German Third Reich. They shifted their attention away from the Nazi leaders to ordinary people, whose everyday actions they saw as key to understanding the acquisition and exercise of Nazi power (Lüdtke 1995). They, too, focused on the lives of those who have “remained largely anonymous in history” (ibid., 4). However, they did not look at their actions and experiences in isolation, but regarded them as being inseparable from the context of their emergence and impact (ibid.). Methodologically, these historiographic trends converge in the microhistorical approach, which can be characterised to some extent by areduction in the scale of enquiry in order to discover otherwise hidden aspects of social relations. And so the primary object of research in the microhistorical approach may be the individual (as in the case of Ginzburg’smiller Minocchio), family or, typically, the village. Returning to the initial discussion of research into Romani agency in socialist Czechoslovakia, it is not surprising that the historical studies thus defined (i.e.of specific villages or families), have led to the depiction of complex forms of Romani agency, even though their authors do not necessarily openly subscribe to microhistory or do not reflect upon its approach 57 more closely (see Grill 2015a,b; Hajská 2020, 2022, 2024; Sadílková 2017, 2020). At the same time, however, the microhistorical approach suggests that the objects of study so defined cannot be seen as fixed, but understood as changing over time and space within the context of broader social and cultural developments (Levi 2001). Advocates of microhistory and the history of the everyday have faced questions concerning the explanatory value of such scaled-down studies. Is not afocus on the everyday aromanticising view of history, an approach that clings to detail and is unable to contribute to an understanding of overarching historical processes (see Lüdtke 1995)? As regards my book, which also relies primarily on studies of specific Romani families and locations, the answer to such questions can be summarised as follows (see also Levi 2001): it is by means of amicrohistorical approach and engagement with the discipline of anthropology that it becomes possible to trace various forms of Romani agency that are otherwise either homogenised or completely overlooked. In this respect, the emphasis on Romani agency is not merely adiscursive game aimed at combating the stereotypical image of the Roma as historical victims or passive recipients of state policies. Just as Medick argues that if we fail to include the experience of members of marginalised groups, the image of industrialisation and modernisation is incomplete (see above), so it can be argued that without including the experience and agency of the Roma as adistinct and highly marginalised minority, the image of the functioning of socialist society as awhole remains incomplete. At the same time, as Giovanni Levi argues in his advocacy of microhistory (2001), the reduction of scale in the microhistorical approach does not imply aclear delineation of an isolated research area, but rather the establishment of astarting point of analysis from which to trace specific social phenomena, which is itself an inseparable part of the broader socio-economic and political contexts. In this respect, proponents of the microhistorical approach agree with the American anthropologist Clifford Geertz and his assertion that “anthropologists do not study villages, they study in villages” (Geertz 1973, 22; italics original). Thus, by focusing on the village (individual, family, etc.), according to Levi the microhistorical approach does not ignore the complexity of the networks of actors and relations of which the “village” is apart. On the contrary, the reduction of scale makes it possible to trace the contradictoriness of these relations and to capture better the possibilities and limits of the autonomous actions of individuals (Levi 2001). 64 course of finalising the project, Ihad already spent some time in eastern Slovakia, where Iconducted my ethnographic research (see Ort 2022b). We decided to take advantage of this and pursue additional research in those villages from which the families of those interviewed came to Prague after the war. And so in the spring of 2015, Ivisited Ľubiša and Dlhé nad Cirochou, two villages in the district of Humenné, where Irecorded interviews with both Romani and non-Romani residents and perused the local municipal chronicle. In addition, Ivisited the district archive in Humenné, which was my first experience visiting an institutional archive. As Islogged through the archives, finding only fragments of the minutes taken during meetings of the Municipal National Committees (MNV) or school reports, the director of the Archive came to ask if Iwould be interested in boxes containing materials pertaining to the “liquidation of G*psy shacks” (likvidácia c*gánskych chatrčí) in the fonds of the District National Committee (ONV) in Humenné. There was atotal of three boxes containing detailed documentation of the purchase and demolition of individual dwellings, including how new housing was provided, either within the region or by relocating the families concerned to Czechia. Though it initially looked like Iwould spend barely aday in the archive, subsequent to this find Ireturned for afull week in order to photograph the materials in their entirety. The documents had not yet been properly organised and indexed and were provided to me on the personal initiative of the archive director. When Irequested the same materials six years later in order to verify the content of some poorly photographed pages, Iwas denied access by another member of the staff on the grounds that the materials were still being processed. Although the temporal contingency of collected data is usually associated with the oral history method (see Portelli 1991), my experience has taught me that archival research also has an important temporal dimension, not to speak of the haphazard and unpredictable ways in which written sources are or are not archived and preserved (Dirks 2002). This was by no means an isolated experience during the course of my research. When Iattempted to track down archival materials relating to the functioning of the G*psy Commission at the District National Committee (ONV) in Přerov, where according to the official schedule, Roma from the village of Kapišová (see Introduction) were to be resettled, Iwas informed by amember of staff that the materials in question had been completely destroyed in the floods of 1997. However, the overriding problem of the temporal contingency of the data obtained became apparent when Iattempted to record interviews with contemporary witnesses more systematically. 65 In my original research project, Iset out to record interviews with both the Roma and their then non-Romani neighbours in the villages in question. Ideally, Iwanted to record the narratives of state officials or local councillors, who had been important actors in the implementation of the centrally formulated policy. Isoon discovered that there were very few witnesses who would have been of amore advanced age in the mid1960s and might therefore have taken an active role in shaping individual or family life strategies. Those who might have held office in state institutions were untraceable. This is one of the reasons why Ihad to rely more heavily than Ihad originally planned on archival research or on interviews with witnesses who were often still children during the period under study or who had only apassing knowledge of family histories from the period in question. On the other hand, Isaw with my own eyes that the Roma also created many written sources (Marushiakova and Popov 2021; Sadílkováetal. 2018, 2024). These sources, which included various types of requests and applications, represent an important insight into the life trajectories and attitudes of individual Roma and Romani families, even though they remain within the confines of official communications and thus represent only acertain segment of Romani agency. Both in terms of expanding the source base and understanding the relationship of the Roma to their own past and ethnic identity, it was hugely enriching for me to meet local Roma who themselves were actively and systematically seeking to enshrine the history of the Roma within their own community. This was how Icame into contact with Koloman Gunár, who has written astudy of the history of the Roma in village of Brekov based on interviews with contemporary witnesses (see Chapter Two). His daughter, Elena Cinová, continued his work with more ethnographic interviews (Cinová et al. 2024). She also collaborated closely with Peter Kudráč, who mapped the history of the Roma in the Podskalka settlement near the town of Humenné (see Chapter Three). Kudráč also recorded interviews with contemporary witnesses, and in addition had previously collected several archival documents from local Roma, especially photographs, using which he and Cinová created apublic exhibition at the cultural centre in Podskalka. 1.2.3 Oral history and collaborative research Brekov and Podskalka were two of the locations where the implementation of the resettlement programme and migration to Czechia in general 66 involved only some Romani families and where asignificant number of Roma were still living when Iwas conducting my research (Podskalka remained an exclusively Romani housing estate administered by the Humenné municipal authorities). However, there were no longer any Roma living in some of the other villages, precisely as aconsequence of their relocation to Czechia. In these cases Ifocused on archival research for the Slovak segment of my work, recording several interviews with non-Romani witnesses from the villages in question. Ithen supplemented this work with research in the relevant districts and municipalities in Czechia, where, in addition to visiting archives, Itried to track down surviving witnesses of the resettlement policy. Among other things, Itracked down Romani witnesses from Papín, avillage in Slovakia, from which the entire Romani population decamped at the end of the 1960s (see Chapter Four). In autumn 2021 Irecorded the stories of two sisters, Monika H (born 1971) and Marcela S(born 1977),10 whose father grew up in Papín, as well as an interview with Pavlína B (1948),11 who well remembered leaving her native Papín. Before meeting these three women, Ihad been attempting to reconstruct the story of the Roma of Papín by searching in regional archives in Slovakia, which personally Ifound to be quite exciting detective work. Iinterviewed an elderly non-Romani villager Ján Ž (born 1946) in Papín itself,12 who provided me with valuable information and insights into local relations. However, his narrative irritated me with its overly paternalistic, at times even dehumanising retrospective view of the Roma of Papín, along with occasional racist remarks regarding Romani people in general. Despite being aware of the importance of oral history, having previously immersed myself in archival materials, Iwas more than ever struck by how the interviews with the Romani women opened up awhole new perspective, not only with regard to this particular case study, but in relation to my research as awhole. The interviews were replete with ambiguities and internal contradictions, and in some places the accounts given were at odds with what Ihad learned from other sources. Above all, however, my witnesses managed to convey to me the “freshness and 10 Interviews with Romani women Monika H (b. 1971) and Marcela S(b. 1977), recorded by the author in September 2021 and February 2022 inHorní Podluží in Czech (recordings in possession of the author). 11 Interview with Romani woman Pavlína B (b. 1948), recorded by the author in September 2021 in Březno in Romani and Czech (recording in possession of the author). 12 Interview with non-Romani man Ján Ž (b. 1946), recorded by the author in July 2021 in Papín in Slovak (recording in possession of the author). 67 richness of detail” of everyday life (Prins 2001, 139) as it related to life in Slovakia and later in Czechia. The strong contrast with my previous reading of archive materials concerning the village reinforced feelings Iexperienced during interviews with other Romani (and non-Romani) people both before and after, namely, that the radical dimension of oral history resides in the historian’sinvolvement in the whole story and their participation in the actual production of data (Portelli 1991). Iwas acutely aware of this during interviews in which Romani witnesses agreed to go on record in Romani.13 Papín is agood starting point for illustrating how Iworked with different types of sources. Even during my interview with anon-Romani villager, and during later interviews with female witnesses from amongst the original Roma of Papín, Ialready had relatively detailed archival materials at my disposal relating, inter alia, to the history of the relocation of the Romani settlement within the territory of the village itself, as well as the later resettlement of its inhabitants to Czechia. To begin with Idid not interrupt their narratives except to pose questions. Gradually Irevealed information Ihad previously acquired, both in order to stimulate further recollections, as well as to initiate adiscussion regarding certain contradictions opening up between archival sources and their own memories. For example, Ján Ž, anon-Romani villager born in 1946, had no idea that up until Second World War, Romani people had lived in the very heart of the built-up parts of Papín, before being evicted about two kilometres from the village– to what Ján himself had always considered the natural location of the Romani settlement– under the terms of a1941 decree (see Jurová 2002, 27). And according to archival materials, in the 1950s and early 1960s, there was still communication taking place between the ONV inHumenné, which was pressing for the relocation of the Roma back to the village, and the MNV inPapín, which steadfastly resisted such amove (see Chapter Three). In my opinion this example illustrates some of the specific features and benefits of oral history, rather than its limits. This interview, during which Ján Ž was able to provide afairly detailed description of specific Roma who 13 This was an option Ioffered to everyone, though many were no longer active speakers of Romani or did not feel comfortable. It is via this oft overlooked linguistic level that Inail my colours to the mast of the Prague school of Romani studies, since it was the founder, Hübschmannová, who placed afundamental emphasis on aknowledge of Romani in her research among the Roma and who, in her oral history interviews, monitored acertain linguistic level, i.e. how specific historical events and processes were understood and named by the Roma themselves (see, for example, Hübschmannová 1993, 1995, 1999a). 68 lived in Papín, suggests that the notion of aRomani presence in the village before the Second World War had essentially disappeared from local memory altogether. Remaining in Papín, two differing descriptions of the Romani settlement at that time serve as an example of the need to take into account the context of the sources studied and the differing perspectives of witness accounts. Ján Ž described the settlement as follows: The Roma used to live here, in little huts nailed together, as they live everywhere [in eastern Slovakia]. They lived between Nižná Jablonka and Papín. That’savillage about five kilometres away. About halfway along there’san inlet by the river that runs through, and that’swhere they used to live, in those huts. But how many of them, Ican’t say. Twenty maybe, but there were just six or seven of those huts. But as Isay, they were just little huts nailed together.14 His austere description of the settlement, with its “little huts nailed together”, contrasts strongly with the colourful recollections and descriptions of his contemporary Pavlína B: There was abeautiful river. I’m forever telling them [her children] that I’d love to see that river, seriously. Young boys, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, used to go swimming there. There was akind of waterfall, fish used to jump out of the water and they went swimming there. The girls, for instance, used to go in dresses, they had these flimsy dresses, and the boys had red boxer shorts [laughs], so they went swimming. They used to have campfires in the summer, Iremember that as though it were yesterday. It was like ameadow, there were shacks in rows on both sides.15 In the second part of the interview, Ishowed Pavlína B aphotograph of adilapidated building from the Papín settlement taken from the ONV archive inHumenné. It turned out to be the house in which Pavlína B grew up, which in turn encouraged her to reminisce further. They [the Slovaks] treated my mum very differently. And we had areally nice house. She [mum] kept chickens, geese and sheep. Ioften wondered why she had sheep, and then it occurred to me that aguy, aSlovak, used to come and 14 Interview withJán Ž (b. 1946), op. cit. 15 Interview with Pavlína B (b. 1948), op. cit. 69 shear the sheep and pay my mum money. […] We had alarge garden atthe back. On the other side we had agarden too, we had cherry trees and by thewell my mother grew vegetables, carrots and parsley. It was always Mehur [anon-Romani villager?] who came scrumping. But my mum said “I’ll give you some” and then we used to visit him for stories.16 The difference between these two accounts, which is not only amatter of how the settlement is described but also the wealth of detail offered and the narrator’sinvolvement, is largely due to the fact that while Pavlína B grew up in the settlement as aRomani woman, Ján Ž approached it as an outsider who had grown up in the village itself. However, the context in which both statements were made cannot be discounted. While Ján Ž drew on astereotypical image of Romani life in the settlements of eastern Slovakia (“little huts nailed together, as they live everywhere”), Pavlína B made no effort to conceal the nostalgia she felt for her childhood in the settlement (and in Slovakia more generally), and repeatedly expressed adesire to pay the place avisit (see Sadílková 2016, 153–160). Her recollections were enhanced by aphotograph of the very house she had grown up in, agood example of how some archival materials can prompt further recollections in interviews with contemporary witnesses. If an emphasis is to be laid on the context of the sources under consideration, then an important framework for the oral history interviews is the way the Roma relate to the period of communism, an era remembered with fondness by those Ispoke to. Having examined this dimension within the context of the relationship between the Roma and the state (see above), here Iwould like to focus on its relevance to the oral history method. These positive memories of the communist period are interesting in this respect, especially when set against the long dominant historical narrative in which the communist regime is associated above all with the dire effects of the assimilation policy on Romani identity and socio-cultural structures. Sadílková (2016, e.g. 99) has previously drawn attention to this contradiction. This might be agood point to introduce at least two further aspects relating to broader discussions pertaining to the utilisation of oral history. Oral history sometimes faces similar criticisms to the entire microhistorical approach, namely, that in its focus on detail and the lived experience of the individual it is unable to contribute to an understanding of broader historical processes (see 16 Ibid. 70 Prins 2001). Interviews with Romani witnesses show that without oral history the image evoked of such processes can be very incomplete or one-sided. As Sadílková points out, oral history can be used not only as asource for “mapping the local history of acertain (minority) group and capturing their view of their own past, but as apossible source for the local (re)contextualisation of dominant historical interpretative narratives” (Sadílková 2016, 99). In this respect, the oral history method corresponds well to the “from the margins” approach already discussed. The second aspect to be looked at concerns how such testimony should be approached. In the discussion referred to above regarding the resettlement of villagers in Laos, critics of High pointed out that, just because the villagers said that they were ok with the state policy did not mean it was true: they may have been saying it within the context of research and in light of the asymmetrical power relationship between the state and its poor citizens (see above). In the case of oral history, this kind of discussion then raises questions regarding the selectivity of human memory and its tendency to idealise the past. Is it then appropriate to read similar accounts by the Roma relating to the communist period as idealised nostalgia?17 Like the anthropologist Berdahl, who analysed (n)ostalgic recollections of the communist period in East Germany (Berdahl 1999), Ibelieve that such accounts must not be trivialised (see also High’sresponse; 2009), but must be taken seriously as reflections of lived experience. This is experience of both the period of time being recalled and the period during which it is recalled. Indeed, in the interviews Iconducted, the Roma themselves often contrast life under communism with the deterioration of their socio-economic position and the decline in social security in the post-revolutionary period (see Ort 2022b). Agood example from the studies discussed below would be the situation of the Roma in the Podskalka settlement near Humenné (see Chapter Three). One witness, Elemír T (born 1940), told me how, thanks to the resettlement policy, he, like many other Roma, was able to acquire amuch coveted apartment in the town of Humenné.18 However, after the Velvet Revolution, the apartments were gradually privatised and many Roma, including Elemír T, were evicted for rent default and forced to 17 Matěj Spurný poses asimilar question in the introduction to his book. However, he does not elaborate on the oral history method, which he uses sparingly, and not at all in the chapter on the Roma (Spurný 2011; see also Sadílková 2013). 18 Interview with Romani man Elemír T (b. 1940), recorded by the author in May 2019 in Podskalka in Romani (recording in the possession of the author). 71 move back to the settlement. Again, my aim here is not to offer an evaluation of communist policy towards the Roma, but merely to point out certain important dimensions to the understanding of oral history narratives and their context. 1.3 The Ethical Dimension of Research Ihave argued, with reference to Portelli, that the radicalism of oral history resides in the way it draws the researcher into the process of shaping the data. However, this is not apurely methodological question, but also an ethical one. In oral history interviews, the researcher enters into aparticular situation in which the relationship between interviewer and interviewee is “replaced by the conviction that two people, each bringing adifferent kind of knowledge to the interview, share equally in a process of discovery” (Yow 1995, 53). Both interested parties enter into such arelationship with different hopes and expectations, which do not end when the interview comes to aclose (Halbmayr 2009). In the case of interviews with Romani witnesses, which is my main concern here, the personal investment of the narrators was often evident as they set about tracking the history of their families or locally defined Romani communities. Ifelt this intensely during meetings in Slovakia with Koloman Gunár, and later with his daughter Elena Cinová, as well as with Peter Kudráč, all of whom had already been working on similar local histories themselves. Upon meeting up, we shared the materials we had collected thus far and compared our findings. For instance, Ireceived from them recordings and transcripts of interviews with people who were no longer alive at the time of my research or did not feel up to another interview. However, Ifelt asimilar personal involvement in many of my interviews with contemporary witnesses in Czechia who had lost ties to their native villages in Slovakia. The sisters Monika H and Marcela S, who themselves had previously been involved in tracking down the obscure history of their family, were very keen to meet. Our first interview lasted all of five hours, during which time, after their introductory words, we perused archive materials and attempted to identify the names of the Roma originally from Papín and the relationships that pertained between them. During our meeting, the sisters would call other living relatives to ask about some of the names and to clear up the nature of relationships and events. They then brainstormed alist of suitable people with whom Icould conduct more interviews. Perhaps even more powerful was an 72 experience Ihad during my interview with Pavlína B, who was born in Papín but had not seen Slovakia since the late 1960s. Igot in touch with her via her granddaughter, who attended regular reunions of Romani high school students where she happened to mention that her family came originally from Papín. She quickly arranged ameeting with her grandmother and passed on requests from the family that Ibring the materials Ihad tracked down thus far. When Pavlína B discovered that Ihad already gathered alot of information and that Ihad indeed several times visited her native village in Slovakia, during the course of our conversation she often switched to the role of interviewer in an effort to find out how things were in Papín. Slightly confused by the entire situation, she even on occasion turned some of my questions regarding life in the village on me, perhaps under the impression that Iwas more qualified to answer them. Above all, she repeatedly expressed awish to revisit her native village. There are at least two things Ifind important about the atmosphere of such encounters. One is the interest of the Roma, already mentioned, in their own locally embedded history. This challenges both the popular stereotype of the Roma as living purely in the present, as well as ethnographically anchored anthropological concepts according to which Romani identity is formed above all in day-to-day relationships without reference to shared history or specific place (see Gay Y Blasco 1999, 2001; Stewart 1997). Above all, however, these encounters led me to rethink the entire focus of this book. The interest displayed by certain Roma in charting the history of their families and the places they came from led me to reassess the claim made by Geertz. My feeling is that in this book Iam not merely observing certain phenomena “in villages”, but, together with the participants and partners in my research, Iam studying the “villages” themselves (cf. Geertz 1973, 22). Such aconclusion is apartial response to the dilemma Imentioned above between amore interpretive observation of social phenomena and amore descriptive mapping of the still little known history of the Romani people as ahistory of their experiences, agency, life trajectories and places. My hope is that Ihave managed both. 73 2. CHAPTER TWO Who Counts as a G*psy? The archive fonds of the Financial Department of the Humenné District National Committee (ONV) pertaining to the removal of the shacks in Romani settlements, the discovery of which sparked my interest in the resettlement policy, consists of nearly one hundred and fifty files, each containing documentation on one house and the family that lived in it. This usually includes avaluation of the property and information regarding the family’soccupation and living conditions in their new residence, be this in Slovakia or Czechia. The municipality of Brekov, which is located just afew kilometres from the county seat of Humenné, is dealt with in just one file held on the clearance of Regina D’shouse.19The story of Regina’sfamily as told in this chapter will help in answering the question of who ultimately was affected by the resettlement policy, which in the official language targeted “G*psies” (C*káni). In Brekov Irecorded an interview with local Rom Koloman Gunár (born 1948), in which Iasked him about the practice of the resettlement programme in the district. He replied that the Roma in Brekov had not been affected. According to him, the circumstances surrounding the case of Regina D were exceptional: One family left the village. They had abrick house. The lady raised all the children herself. Her husband was in gaol for shooting aman. They had afight in the pub and he had an illegal gun at home. He returned home, got the 19 ŠOkA Humenné, f. Finanční odbor ONV Humenné, kart. 15, sp. 47, “D. Regina, Brekov” [unprocessed]. 80 the resettlement programme (even though the publication is based on his doctoral thesis, which he defended in 1964, i.e. ayear before the central approval of the resettlement policy; see Donert 2017, 169). Nováček contends that the difference, i.e. the “backwardness”, of the G*psies must be seen as the outcome of their long-term isolation, a“distinctive development accompanied by constant oppression and persecution” (1968, 5). However, according to him, these developments had led not only to a“backward way of life”, but also to the maintenance of distinctive anthropological (i.e. physical) features and an idiosyncratic “G*psy psychology” (c*kánská psychologie; ibid., 35–36). At the same time, when referring to the historical persecution of the G*psies, Nováček indirectly answers Jamnická-Šmerglová’squestion when he expresses his conviction that the G*psy is now “ahuman being for the first time” (ibid., 30). Nováček pays lip service to official policy when he says that the “dispersal of the G*psy population” (rozptyl c*kánského obyvatelstva) was the logical response to this historically conditioned isolation, which serves to reproduce the “G*psy way of life” (c*kánský způsob života; ibid., 4). However, he perceives adouble obstacle in such aprocess of assimilation. Firstly, there is the relationship of the G*psies to the “White” (bílí) population, as well as the attitudes of “others” to the G*psies (ibid., 37–38). On the one hand, Nováček puts adistance between himself and the racialising opinions rife in society, according to which “G*psies cannot be re-educated” and their “past and present way of life reflects their ‘G*psy nature’ [c*kánská přirozenost]” (ibid.,5). For this reason, in “resolving the G*psy question” he lays emphasis on the “re-education of the rest of the population in order to overcome their prejudices againstthe G*psies” (ibid., 6). However, he himself substitutes “G*psy nature” with ahistorically formed “G*psy psychology”, which, he argues, makes building trust in the surrounding “White” population along and fraught process:25 If aG*psy is disappointed in aperson he trusted, he can hate him with all “G*psy sincerity”, which is considerable. G*psies are, as arule, atemperamental people, not infrequently impulsive, and very sensitive to possible injustice. They can rejoice boundlessly, and many of them are ready to turn their hand to askirmish. This trait is, when all is said and done, not peculiar 25 In the end, asimilar emphasis can be found in the texts by Tomáš and Miroslav Holomek (see Chapter Four). 81 to the G*psies alone, but to all collectivities at alower level of development. (ibid., 38) Nováček’stext thus underscores the ambivalence of the concept of G*psyness discussed above. While elsewhere he puts adistance between himself and idea of a“G*psy race” [c*kánská rasa] or “G*psy nature” and interprets the “G*psy way of life” on the basis of social isolation and pathology, he nonetheless presents ageneralised, highly racialising description of the collective “G*psy temperament” [c*kánský temperament]. He thus finds himself caught in avicious circle (see ibid., 38): On the one hand, he speaks of “criminal and freeloading activities” as acharacteristic of G*psyness (ibid., 37–38); while on the other, he wishes to put adistance between himself and the attitudes of asociety in which “the G*psies are […] indiscriminately regarded as athieving, parasitic mass” (ibid., 22). In an attempt to break down this “mass”, Nováček offers adifferentiation between G*psies that essentially divides them into “settled [usedlí], semi-nomadic [polokočovní] and nomadic [kočovní]” (ibid., 32–35). The way he uses this differentiation, however, approximates to the newly established administrative classification based on adaptability. Nováček suggests that nomadism is an inherent feature of the “backward G*psy way of life”, and this in turn creates ascale of assimilation. According to this logic, “settled G*psies” are former nomads who have adapted to the dominant way of life. When accentuating the social character of G*psyness, Nováček stresses that the measures aimed at “resolving the G*psy question” do not apply to these “settled G*psies” and that, on the contrary, it would be an “unforgiveable error to organise educational work with aspecial focus just because they differ from the rest of the population by virtue of the colour of their skin and because their G*psy origin is evident from their physiognomy” (ibid., 32). The social distinction Nováček postulates is, he believes, inscribed in the relationships between the G*psies themselves. According to him, many of them attempt to be “more like the ‘Whites’” (ibid., 38), which leads to conflict “between G*psies involved in the labour force and the fluctuating and non-working G*psies” (ibid., 39). Though it is not entirely clear upon what data he is basing these claims, his thesis is interesting for at least two reasons. Firstly, for the author himself, it serves to confirm the relevance of the social definition of G*psyness and the way that the significance of shared ethnic traits has been overlooked. At the same time, however, it points to the potential power of ahistorically shaped 82 dominant discourse that addresses the way that relations between the G*psies themselves are defined. Though Nováček does not elaborate on this further, in his work G*psies become active agents in the formation of this discourse. This is anot entirely self-evident emphasis that Ialso adhere to from avery different perspective, not only in this chapter, but throughout this book. The ethnographer Eva Davidová, at that time working for the KNV in Košice, promotes avery similar discourse in her texts. This discourse was articulated most clearly in her monograph entitled Bez kolíb ašiatrov (Without Huts and Tents, 1965), as well as in undated “study material for workers of educational establishments” entitled “Cigánsky problém ajeho riešenie vo východoslovenskom kraji” (The G*psy Problem and its Resolution in the Region of East Slovakia), which she wrote in collaboration with Špiner, mentioned above, the secretary of the G*psy Commission at the same KNV.26 Davidová had been researching the Roma in eastern Slovakia since the 1950s, focusing on themes typical of ethnography as it was then understood: livelihood, housing culture, folk religion, folklore, etc. In her monograph, she frames her somewhat complex explanation of these themes with claims of a“backward” and “anachronistic way of life”, which had to be overcome. Like Nováček, she defines the G*psies as an ethnic group. However, she soon emphasises that the “G*psy question” (c*kánská otázka) must be resolved not as anational, but as a“social problem”, “in the form of the gradual assimilation of the G*psies into the rest of the population” (ibid., 10). At this point, Davidová notes that there are “many G*psy citizens– families and individuals– whose way of life does not differ from that of the rest of the population as awhole”, and expresses her conviction that the numbers of such people will continue to rise (1965, 11). At the same time, however, she no longer counts such assimilated individuals among the G*psies. On the one hand, Davidová reproduces the social pathologisation of G*psyness, while on the other, like Nováček, she attributes to it specific anthropological features that distinguish G*psies from the society surrounding them (ibid., 11). Davidová, too, depicts the history of the G*psies primarily as the story of their persecution, with an equal status only being achieved after 26 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 9, sp. 44. “Cigánsky problém ajeho riešenie vo východoslovenskom kraji”, undated. Turčínová-Davidová was responsible for the chapter entitled “The G*psy Problem from aHistorical, Ethnographic and Sociological Perspective”. 83 1945. It was only then, according to Davidová, that suitable conditions were created for the “resolution of the G*psy question”, which she herself defined as the “totality of the problems ensuing from the differences of the backward forms of the G*psies’ way of life and culture, which must be eliminated on the basis of achange in their economic status during the process of socialist education” (ibid., 35). She describes the 1950s as aperiod of an “elemental solution” (živelné řešení), which only took on aunified form after 1958, when it was decided to put an end to the nomadic way of life as a“serious hangover from the past” (ibid., 42). Another key task in the assimilation of the G*psies, to which the very title of the monograph Bez kolíb ašiatrov refers, is, as Davidová says, the removal of the settlements as unhealthy environments that reproduce a“backward way of life” (ibid., 87–88). Davidová identifies similar obstacles as Nováček to the process of assimilation. The sought-after inclusion of the Roma in the regular work force is hindered by ”ingrained attitudes towards work, which previously the G*psies regarded purely as anecessary evil”, as well as certain “character traits” (povahové rysy), the list of which is highly reminiscent ofNováček’s“G*psy psychology”: “instability and alack of stamina; alack of responsibility towards work and the collective; unhealthy manifestations of temperament; and afeeling of inferiority and the hypersensitivity resulting therefrom” (ibid., 89). Davidová emphasises that there is aneed to “combat not only the surviving misconceptions of many G*psies, but also the lack of understanding and aversion of the rest of the population” (ibid., 44). But though she believes it is necessary to “eliminate feelings of superiority towards G*psies”, she also warns against “inconsistent” and “superficial” solutions to the “G*psy question”, which she says leads to “some G*psies [...] craftily abusing the advantages that our society provides them”. In this context she also warns against the adoption of only “external forms of anew life” without a“genuine” internal transformation on the part of the G*psies (ibid., 122–125). Davidová’sunderstanding of G*psyness possesses the same internal tension as Nováček’s. On the one hand, she inveighs against racial prejudice. However, she does so in the name of the need to eliminate the characteristics of a“G*psy way of life” (namely parasitism and nomadism) and transform the “unhealthy thinking of G*psies”, which is manifest in aparticular mentality. This stance is outlined more explicitly in the study material referred to above, where she states directly that racial prejudice is a“serious impediment to agenuine transformation of the life and thinking of the G*psies” and has the effect of “provoking incorrect 84 reactions in the G*psies themselves and making assimilation more difficult”. She admits that such “antipathy is provoked by the G*psies themselves”, which, she says, causes “upstanding G*psies to suffer needlessly”. In addition to seeing racism primarily as an obstacle to the successful “re-education of the G*psies”, Davidová ultimately describes it as alargely natural reaction to the behaviour of the G*psies themselves. In doing so she postulates acategory of “upstanding (respectable) G*psies” (pořádný C*kán) which, as Ishall show below, became ingrained in popular discourse, even amongst the Roma themselves. However, with the earlier definition of the G*psy as inherently “slovenly”, i.e. “parasitical and backward”, Davidová continues to blur the boundary between the socially pathological and the ethnic category, just as she obfuscates the answer to the question of who actually counts as aG*psy and who no longer. 2.1.3 “In the interests of all” The representatives of the newly established Government Committee were also aware of the need to influence the wider “non-G*psy” public. They called out “anti-G*psy attitudes” in society as one of the main reasons for the failure of the existing policies and referred to earlier documents that evaluated the implementation of the government resolution of 1958 (see Jurová 2008, 996–999). In contrast to this resolution, the implementation of the resettlement policy was to be accompanied by amedia campaign stressing the importance of the programme for the whole of society. To this end, athree-part television programme was broadcast, appropriately entitled Vzáujme všetkých (In the Interest of All). Right at the beginning of the first episode, broadcast on 26 October1966, the voice-over implied the shared responsibility of viewers for the plight of the G*psies, so turning passive observers into important agents of the desired change: What have you done to address the G*psy question? Why did you refuse to sell your house to G*psies? Would you marry aG*psy girl? Would you invite aG*psy into your social group? Every fifth child in eastern Slovakia is aG*psy. Each has ahome, but few have abed and toys. Few are taken out into the sun in apram. The six-year-olds will be ready for school but will not attend. They will live in poor conditions. [footage from poor eastern Slovak settlements]. They will grow up and receive an ID card with Slovak or Czech 85 nationality What will they do without education and qualifications? The boy will enter the army, where he will be taught skills and perhaps receive aqualification. The girl will give birth to children she won’t care for.27 This introduction serves as aprelude to all three parts, which look at different stages of life and various aspects of the everyday life of the G*psies, i.e. those who represent the “G*psy way of life” as outlined in the introduction. But it also reveals the broader shift taking place in how social rights were understood in socialist Czechoslovakia. As Donert shows in more detail, during the 1960s there was amove away from providing paid work for everyone to issues revolving around care, family and everyday life, which inevitably included agender dimension (Donert 2017, 143–153). This is clear not only from the introduction to the programme, but also in the texts discussed above. In several places, Davidová herself reminds her readers that given the traditional gender roles of the Roma, it is the “G*psy woman” who is the primary obstacle to the assimilation of G*psies due to ahigher degree of social isolation (Davidová 1965,80 and 159; Turčínová-Davidová [undated], 33;28 see Donert 2017, 152). With an increasing emphasis on private life and, more generally, on its quality, attention turned to the high birth rate of the sexualised G*psy woman, who, according to the dominant logic, reproduced adeviant way of life. This theme regularly surfaces throughout the whole of the three-part TV series. “She became amother. […] AG*psy woman was born to bear children. She became awife and mother when she was still achild herself,” intones the voice-over introducing the segment entitled “Mother” in the first episode.29 In addition to the possibility of birth control for G*psy women and the removal of G*psy children, subsequent episodes focus on hygiene, health, and the overall elimination of the “unhealthy” environment in which these children are socialised. “The environment shapes aperson. Any of us would have aproblem if we had been born in adilapidated shack or grown up in the darkness of illiteracy and binding traditions. It’shard to break away and live differently,” the voice-over persuades the viewer. Immediately afterwards, atelevision reporter visits “Mrs Marienka” in order to see for himself the facilities of her recently built house in one of the villages of 27 Archive of RTVS, Bratislava, idec: 766-7260-9000-0051, “Vzáujme všetkých 1.”, 1966. 28 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 9, sp. 44. “Cigánsky problém ajeho riešenie vo východoslovenskom kraji”, undated. 29 Ibid. 86 eastern Slovakia. Mrs Marienka’shusband is awelder and is at work. The camera takes in aflowerpot, alarge wall clock and adouble bass leaning against the wall in acorner. “Dirt and disorder are not an inevitable side effect of poverty,” says the editor, pointing to the transformation in the living conditions and habits of the G*psies, proof that the systematic “liquidation of G*psy settlements” was the right path.30 The insistent message to the viewer that such changes are “in the interests of all” is part of agrowing emphasis within central policy on the quality of the entire population. The “G*psy way of life” presented in the TV programme was not only asubversive element, but, given the high birth rate, posed asignificant threat to the population even in the future. This securitising narrative, which accentuated the threat of asignificant population increase of the G*psies as adeviant group, is characteristic of the entire discourse of that time, and culminated in the practice of sterilisation in Czechoslovakia, primarily on the basis of race (Sadílková 2019). This view of societal interest was formulated by Davidová herself, who co-authored the script of the first episode of the TV programme, in which she also appeared as an expert on the “G*psy question”. She had warned against the direction social developments were taking in the study material cited above, writing that “the gap between the surviving G*psy way of life and that of the average citizen of our socialist society […] will widen, just as the relative number of G*psies in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic will increase” (Turčínová-Davidová [undated], 36).31 Inasmuch as the primary motivation for eliminating racial prejudice was to allow for the re-education of the G*psies, the process of re-education itself was largely motivated by the desire to prevent any increase in the “G*psy problem”. And inasmuch as the securitisation narrative was present, albeit implicitly, in official discourse and in nationwide television coverage, this concern was articulated explicitly in contemporary newspaper articles, which often warned of an “explosion in the G*psy population”.32 The text “Smer: Morava aČechy” (Direction: Moravia and Bohemia, 16 May 1967), published in the Bratislava Communist Party newspaper 30 Ibid. 31 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 9, sp. 44. “Cigánsky problém ajeho riešenie vo východoslovenskom kraji”, undated. 32 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 20, “Výstrižky ztlače ocigánskej problematike”, 1962–1968. 87 Ľud (The People), opens with data on the number of G*psies, including their classification in accordance with the official categories. Referring to the second and third categories, the journalist wrote: “[w]e have to deal with both groups, not least because given alarge population of G*psies they would quickly outnumber us. After all, by 1970 there will be at least aquarter of amillion gypsies in the Republic!”33 Atext from the same newspaper simply entitled “Cigánska otázka” (The G*psy Question, 27September1967), which summarises the outcomes of ajoint meeting of the Health Committee of the National Assembly and the National Council of the Slovak Republic’sHealth Commission, warns of a“population explosion” (populačná explózia). Dr.Ervín Mikula published an indignant article in the same newspaper (30 September 1967), claiming that it was “undeniable that we have managed to create aspecial caste, aprivileged class, which knows only of rights and nothing of duties, out of the population of G*psy origin (lest we be accused of racism)”. In explaining the higher birth rate of G*psy women, he repeats the widespread belief that this was primarily asource of livelihood thanks to the payment of child allowances: “It is almost inconceivable that aG*psy woman would use contraceptives. It would threaten the financial stability of the unit we consider afamily”. He also writes of a“population explosion” that can “unequivocally be declared poor quality [i.e. giving rise to a‘poor quality population’]”. “What is this explosion costing us?” he writes, only to recall the 11 million Czechoslovak crowns paid in 1966 for the education of G*psy children and the fact that one third of adult G*psies in Slovakia were in receipt of disability benefits.34 Similarly, in atext entitled “Cigánské nokturná” (G*psy Nocturne), Adam Gajdoš illustrates the legitimacy of fears of the threat of an increase in the numbers of G*psies, citing aconversation he claims to have had with a“twenty-five-year old G*psy beauty” in an eastern Slovak settlement: “You have ten children. Would like to have more?”– “Of course. Ten more... so that my partner receives money!”. In another text Gajdoš writes that “the G*psies are springing up like mushrooms after the rain [spreading like wildfire]”.35 Though he declared himself to be against “compulsory sterilisation”, Špiner, the secretary of the regional G*psy Commission, spoke about the need for “controlled parenthood and population reduction” in alengthy 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 88 interview for Obrana lidu (Defence of the People) entitled “Ocigánoch sporozumením, ale nie sentimentálne” (On the G*psies with Understanding but not Sentimentality). “After all, what is more humane: to allow psychically handicapped people give birth to degenerate offspring without feeling or love? Or to prevent it?” he asks, referring to the third official category of G*psy.36 2.1.4 “Let the councillors house them in their own home” According to the prevalent narrative, the “population explosion” that threatened was contingent on the one hand upon the distinct sexuality of the G*psies, more specifically G*psy women, and on the other by ageneral pro-family welfare system that facilitated profiteering on the part of the G*psies as “work-shy freeloaders”. This narrative can be seen in the broader popular discourse at that time. In my analysis of it here, Iwill draw on the response of viewers to the television programme discussed above, “In the Interests of All”, more than ahundred of whom set forth their feelings in letters addressed to the television studios.37 Notwithstanding the large number of responses received, this in itself cannot be seen as arepresentative sample of public opinion, since it involved only the voices of those viewers who felt the need to comment. Nevertheless, it is arelatively unique source from which to trace the complexity of the popular discourse surrounding G*psies at that time. Adhering to the narrative described above, one of the viewers linked up ideas of deviant G*psy sexuality and criticism of the state family policy thus: It is true that all G*psies have children irresponsibly. However, the government indulges them in this respect by paying them family allowances, and generous ones at that. It is completely unacceptable that children have sex with other children without being punished, and that these children give birth to more children.38 36 Ibid. 37 NA Prague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, f. KSČ– Ústřední výbor 1945–1989, Praha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, sv.37, č. j. 299. 38 Ibid. 89 Another warns that “with the continuing birth rate [of G*psies] there will soon be anational crisis”.39 The criticism of the state voiced in these letters relates not only to its welfare policy, but also to the assimilation policy as awhole, as presented in the television programme. Some viewers expressed aconviction that “nothing will change their [i.e. the G*psies’] minds”, astatement they backed up by referencing the duration of their residence in “our” country: “They have been living here– in our and neighbouring regions– for centuries. They have seen our orderly way of life and have no desire to live like Whites.”40 In the shorter term, several of the letter writers cited as proof of the entrenchment of adifferent (i.e. “backward”) way of life the twenty-year period of equal conditions under socialism: “Imean, they’ve had equal opportunities for twenty years and still live the same way,” wrote one viewer.41 These assumptions form the basis for the prevailing opposition to the dispersional logic of the resettlement policy itself. Such attitudes are well illustrated by the letter signed by representatives of state-owned property in Železiovce in south-western Slovakia, who argued that the relocation of “[of G*psies] among ordinary working people […] has ahighly detrimental effect on the morale of the rest of the population and in several cases makes life more miserable.” According to the letter writers, “those people who say: ‘Listen, just tell me why Ishould have aG*psy family with multiple children as neighbours, who would make my life miserable every day, both by their way of life and by the way they destroy everything they see’– have apoint […] If senior public and political figures are so keen to re-educate the G*psies, why don’t they have G*psy families as neighbours?”42 The disconnect of central politics and politicians from the everyday lives of “ordinary” folks also featured in the comments sent in by residents of the housing estate in Nejdek in west Bohemia: Comrades, no matter to whom we lodge our complaints, most of the replies run as follows: ‘They need to be re-educated’. For heaven’ssake! Do any of the people who come out with this crap about re-education have to live in the same building as them? No, not one.43 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 96 of G*psyness when it no longer even deems “integrated” G*psies to be G*psies (see Davidová 1965; Nováček 1968). In her book, Donert demonstrates how the Romani elite, which in the latter half of the 1960s came together in the newly created Svaz CikánůRomů/ Zväzu Cigánov-Rómov (Union of Gypsies-Roma), also participated in the reproduction of the image of poor “backward G*psies” (locating them primarily in eastern Slovakia). Donert (2017, 193) illustrates the attitudes of some of the organisation’srepresentatives by aletter from amusician fromKošice, who declares that as a“citizen of G*psy origin” who speaks “G*psy”, he knows the life of “our G*psies almost all over Slovakia”. He goes on to divide the Roma into three categories: “musicians” (barikane, i.e.“conceited” [namyslení; his own translation from Romani]), “workers” (munkáša) and “ne’er-do-wells“ (degeš or “degenerates”). The last category he characterises as comprising people who “cause severe problems” and suggests the application of restrictive measures, such as placing older people in retirement homes (so that no one else has access to their pensions), and in the case of women various forms of birth control including sterilisation.58 Of the more than 100 letters received from viewers, just under aquarter were from correspondents introducing themselves as a“G*psy citizen/citizen of G*psy origin” (c*kánský občan/občan c*kánského původu). None of these writers ranked themselves among an “elite class” (however defined), and some of them were themselves from poor backgrounds in eastern Slovakia. Even so, like the musician from Košice, they put adistance between themselves and the “problematic G*psies” and expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the latter were the people representing the Roma in the media and broader societal discourse. The letter writers objected to the tone of the TV show itself (as opposed to several of the non-Romani viewers, who were unhappy with the emphasis placed on positive examples, see above), and self-identified as G*psies living “respectable” and “orderly” lives. Thus they, too, reproduced the dominant logic of G*psyness, and in addition they expressed gratitude “to the Czechoslovak government and Party, which had managed to turn the G*psies into semi-respectable people”, as one of them put it.59 The image of G*psies who remained trapped in their “backward” 58 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 18, sp. 50, letter of Július F., 18 March 1968. 59 NA Prague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, f. KSČ– Ústřední výbor 1945–1989, Praha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, sv.37, č. j. 299. 97 ways despite the new “egalitarian” conditions was confirmed by the same correspondent: Ihave five children, and when these children of mine watched your show, Iwas embarrassed in front of them. Because they asked me if we lived like that, and Itold them that we didn’t, but that my parents did because they hadn’t had the opportunities back then that they have today.60 The restrictive measures proposed to deal with the “backward G*psies” were based on this logic. Some of the letter writers were emphatic that the socialist state should not be “so generous to the G*psies”, and voices were heard advocating limits on family benefits as well as well as sterilisation and internment in labour camps. It would be oversimplifying matters to view these opinions as merely examples of the internalisation of the dominant discourse on G*psies. Although the arguments given reproduce its logic, in my opinion they must be seen as the expression of aparticular lived experience and position in socialist society, not least experience of the anti-Roma measures introduced during the Second World War.61 This is clear in aletter written by awoman who frames her surprise at “the fact that they [the Roma] can still live in such abackward way” within the context of her own wartime experience. She had been imprisoned in Auschwitz, where the Nazis killed her four children, her parents, her siblings and her first husband. Her belief that “everyone today has the opportunity to live like adecent citizen” she illustrates by the fact that from 1945 onwards she held down two jobs.62 While this emphasis on inclusion on the labour market is tied up with the official discourse of social legitimacy and implicitly places adistance between it and “scroungers”, it would be cynical to see this as simply the internalisation of the dominant logic of G*psyness. Even within the context of the tragic wartime fate of the woman’sentire family, her letter must be read as the expression of alived and fairly unique experience of social acceptance. 60 Ibid. 61 On the basis of long-term anthropological research, Ihave previously looked at the narrative of “harmonious existence” in aparticular eastern Slovak village, which also reproduced the figure of the “problematic G*psy” while also testifying to the self-identification of the local Roma, their mode of belonging to alocally anchored community, making reference to acertain social practice and ultimately reflecting critically upon it (Ort 2022b). 62 NA Prague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, f. KSČ– Ústřední výbor 1945–1989, Praha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, sv.37, č. j. 299. 98 In discerning the dominant logic behind the shared figure of the “respectable G*psy”, we must therefore tease out the social contexts in which this concept is embedded. In their letters, the Romani viewers used said logic to express their lived experience of social belonging, whether on asocietal or local level, but also of social mobility more broadly understood, defining different types of axes of differentiation. Sometimes this involved an intergenerational relationship, as in the case of the viewer who acknowledged what he called the “backward way of life” of his grandparents. Furthermore, there was ageographical element in play, such alifestyle usually being associated with the region of eastern Slovakia (which could also be related to the sub-ethnic labelling by Bohemian Moravian Roma of post-war immigrants from Slovakia, see also Slačka 2015). However, the Roma from eastern Slovakia themselves also spoke out against the homogenisation of the way of life of the Roma in this region. 2.1.7 Reflections upon the limits of social acceptance However, when observing the lived experience articulated by the Romani viewers, what emerges is less the expression of adegree of social belonging than the articulation of its limits. Inasmuch as Davidová andNováček, in line with official discourse, viewed racism primarily as an obstacle to the “re-education of the G*psies”, downplayed and inverted in the broader popular discourse by means of an image of G*psies as a“privileged race” (privilegovaná rasa), the Roma themselves were more inclined to reflect upon its everyday manifestations. In addition to frequent allusions to specific examples of discrimination on the part of the authorities, often when trying to obtain accommodation, several viewers also articulated the humiliation and helplessness they felt in everyday relationships. For example, one of the letter writers called for the greater involvement of the Roma on the level of the local councils, since they needed and deserved representation when communicating with the authorities: For example, I’d be willing to get involved in sorting out G*psy issues, disputes between the G*psies and the Municipal Committees. We would all like to help in some way […] but they don’t offer us the opportunity. And that’swhy the G*psy goes under, that’swhy he thinks the way he does. No one ever believes us. He [the G*psy] gets nervous. And being sometimes illiterate, he can’t help himself. And when he asks his friends, they laugh at him. So far they have ridiculed the fact that G*psies have come to Holland, to the Sudetenland, that 99 they would be exterminated. And now they mock us saying we will be sent to Siberia. […] They should stop with the mockery. […] I’ve been working for five years at Váhostav. The construction foreman makes fun of me for going to the Netherlands and calls me aJew. […] The other workers also make fun of me.63 This passage reveals the psychological powerlessness experienced in the face of everyday displays of racism, apowerlessness reinforced by amarginalised social status with limited social and educational capital. The very taunts aimed at the Roma indicate adegree of normativity and continuity of ideas regarding what forms their resettlement might take, which, in turn, policies at that time built on, consolidated and then reproduced.64 Another viewer refers in the introduction to his letter to the social demand for “respectability”, but then turns his attention away from the natural “backwardness of the deplorables” to their material conditions and existing structural barriers: “I’d also like to live arespectable life like everyone else but Ican’t get my hands on either an apartment or ajob.”65 He described the reality of his life alternating between Czechia, where he travelled for work, and his home village in eastern Slovakia, as follows: I’m young, 24 years old. […] I’m aCzechoslovak citizen and Ican’t find ajob or buy ahouse, though Iwas good enough for military service. Iwas only 18 years old and Iserved 26 months without any payment. And Icame home from military service and didn’t have asingle pair of trousers. […] Since Icame back from the army, Istill go to work at the State Assets and receive 800–900 crowns amonth and have to take care of my wife and child and take care of myself so that Idon’t die of hunger. And I’ve been married for two years now, but when my wife and Ihad the chance to spend just six months together, it seemed like along time. So what’sin it for me?66 63 Ibid. 64 The taunts referencing the resettlement of Roma to Holland apparently stemmed from an article published in the press at that time, which reported on the plans of the “G*psy King” to establish aRomani state to which Romani people from all over the world would move. The newspaper’seditors subsequently released astatement distancing themselves from the taunts. They conceded that the article had exacerbated matters and, pointing to the wartime internment and deportation of Roma, condemned the taunts as inappropriate. See ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 20, “Výstrižky ztlače ocigánskej problematike”, 1962–1968. 65 NA Prague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, f. KSČ– Ústřední výbor 1945–1989, Praha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, sv. 37, č. j. 299. 66 Ibid. 100 Both the letters quoted above describe the reality of the marginalisation of Roma in terms of discrimination by the authorities, various forms of humiliation in everyday relationships, the general unavailability of decent housing and work, and even the input deficit in respect of various forms of capital (economic, social and educational) ensuing from the marginalised environment itself. However, they are not merely simple descriptions of each writer’splight, but in terms of the sense of helplessness expressed and the absence of any support, they represent acall for help from outside. It is clear that the television programmes depicting the situation of specific families triggered not only aneed for the letter writers to distance themselves from the “backward G*psies”, but also the hope that they would be able to solve their own problems. For example, the writer of the two quotations above ended his letter with adescription of his application for the allocation of abuilding plot. After recording the rejection of both the municipal and district National Committees, he added ironically: “We could turn to the lord God”.67 At the very end of the letter, using official language, he appended apersonal wish: “Iwould like you to come and see me and solve the issue Ihave [vyriešiť aj moju otázku].”68 The television viewer from eastern Slovakia, in turn, stated in his short letter that in 1965, in the settlement, they “installed power points for eight homes but have not yet connected them up”, and asked that they “send someone so that they would know whether they were going to be connected or not”.69 Perhaps it is an awareness of the limits of social belonging that gives rise to another point often made in the letters of Romani viewers, apoint that marks asharp delineation between them and non-Romani viewers and that is specifically related to the “dispersive” logic of the resettlement policy. While suggestions from non-Romani viewers for the relocation of Roma appeared in isolated (and, as Ihave shown, relatively specific) cases and, on the contrary, an emphasis on their territorialisation or complete displacement prevailed, the Romani viewers consistently welcomed the logic of “dispersal”. This applied to both those Roma who declared arelatively higher status and proposed distribution among the non-Romani population as asolution to the problem of “backward G*psies”, and to those who were themselves part of amarginalised environment 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 101 and saw dispersal as an external source of assistance in overcoming existing barriers to social mobility (see Chapter Four). From the brief analysis above of the position of the Roma as agents in the co-creation of the period discourse around G*psyness, it is clear that this involved complex feelings that, in line with what Ihave written in the previous chapter regarding the ambivalent social position of the Roma during the period of socialism, cannot be explained either by the internalisation of the dominant discourse, or by its pragmatic instrumentalisation in order to achieve one’sown interests, or by resistance to it. Although the Roma did to some extent confirm the dominant understanding of G*psyness through their own logic of social mobility and their depiction of relations to other Roma, they also left themselves space for formulating their own specific experiences and requesting the satisfaction of their own interests. 2.2 Roma and G*psies in Brekov 2.2.1 The story of the exceptional Roma of Brekov During my first visit to Brekov in May 2019, Ireceived from the municipal authorities both acomprehensive monograph on the history of the village (Molnár 2017) and arecommendation to meet with Mr Koloman Gunár, who took akeen interest in the history of the local Roma, of which he himself was one. As we sat down to talk in his house, his wife Agáta urged him to show me abook he had written about the history of the Roma of Brekov based on the stories of older Romani men and women. His text, which he had had bound in four copies, was all the more valuable because at the time of my visit the people he had spoken with were not longer alive. The text appealed to me above all for its detailed treatment of the genealogies of individual families, supplemented by everyday stories of specific individuals, as well as descriptions of traditional Romani customs and crafts. What really caught my attention was the strong anchoring of the Roma of Brekov in the local community and the significant degree of social mobility, represented not only by the emphasis placed on continuity of employment, but also by the list of Roma who had successfully graduated from university or completed secondary school. Mr Gunár had himself received auniversity education. He had been politically active since the early 1990s, both as afounder and member of one of the newly established Romani political parties 102 and as an activist who openly advocated for the rights of the Roma as agroup (see Gunár 2020). He strongly emphasised the successful social integration of the Brekov Roma throughout our conversation. This was further underlined by the fact that Gunár spoke only Slovak, not Romani, the language of everyday communication in Romani families in many of the surrounding villages. At the very start of our conversation, Mr Gunár pointed out that not even the oldest generation of Roma in Brekov, which included his good self, spoke Romani. The narrative of integration can best be illustrated by quoting from the preface to his book: Neither in the past, nor in the present day, do the Roma of Brekov hold out their hands in supplication to the state. Instead, following the example of their fathers and forefathers, they face life head-on, determined to be apart of majority society. In their everyday dealings, they have come to terms with the life led by the majority population of the village. In the previous regime, the Municipal National Committee (MNV) did not register members of the G*psy ethnic group in the village in its statistics (Gunár 2010, 2) The “registration of G*psies” did in fact take place at the level of the Municipal National Committees at various stages during the communist regime, and it is not entirely clear to which period and context Mr Gunár was referring in his book. Unfortunately Idid not have the opportunity to ask him myself, since he died about ayear after our meeting. However, as regards the discourses around G*psyness being discussed, the very fact that the framing of the social mobility and local belonging of the Roma of Brekov resonates with the dominant logic at that time, according to which mobility depended on aperson adopting the characteristics of the “majority” way of life and “integrated G*psies” were no longer understood as G*psies as such, is significant. During my ongoing archival research, though Idid not come across specific “records of G*psies” in Brekov (apart from alist of “nomadic persons”, to which Iwill return below and the wider context of which Iwill discuss in Chapter Four), many documents from the 1950s and 1960s make mention of G*psies in Brekov. Although Mr Gunár did not himself work with archival materials, these documents largely support his retrospectively applied narrative. As far back as 1958, the “Report on the Resolution of the G*psy Question in the District” included the claim that the settlement in Brekov “should be deemed aclosed case in accordance with the Resolution 103 of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia”.70 The report contains adescription of the situation of the G*psies in Brekov that already bears astriking resemblance to Mr Gunár’snarrative: The settlement [in Brekov] is closely connected to the village to the west. All of the houses are properly built with resilient building material. The inhabitants are acclimatised with the local population. The dress, behaviour and housing culture often exceeds that of even the local population. The young generation no longer speak G*psy [the Romani language]. The citizens are duly integrated into party and public life and are members of the MNV. Illiteracy is not aproblem amongst the adults.71 However, other documents refer to ongoing problems with “housing culture”. The section of the report on the regional survey of Romani settlements of June 1956 on Brekov notes the “unsatisfactory” condition of ten of the nineteen local dwellings.72 In February 1961, asurvey of the settlement in the presence of arepresentative of the district sanitary station observed, inter alia, that “[t]he residential buildings on the outskirts of the village comprise aG*psy quarter: they are clustered together and consequently they lag behind in respect of the general development of social order.” Meanwhile, further construction was intended to “allow citizens of G*psy origin to be dispersed amongst other residents”, something the survey claimed was ademand made by the “citizens of G*psy origin” themselves, who, in other respects, were found to enjoy a“sufficient standard of living” (with areference to school attendance and employment).73 The same findings are to be found in areport based on a“tour of the settlement” with the regional activist (an official function at the ONV) Štefan Fabián that took place in July of that year, according to which its residents live an “orderly life” (usporiadaný život) and the 70 ŠOkA Humenné, f. Odbor vnutorných vecí ONV Humenné, kart. 22, sp. 122, “Zápis prevedený dňa 14. Októbra při prieskumu osády vBrekove”, 14 October 1958. The document authors (members of the “survey commission”) are referring to the resolution on Work amongst the G*psy Population from April of that year, in which the assimilation programme is formulated more comprehensively for the first time (Jurová 2008, 688). 71 ŠOkA Humenné, f. Odbor vnutorných vecí ONV Humenné, kart. 23, sp. 134, “Zpráva oriešení otázky občanov cigánského pôvodu vokrese”, 20 December 1958. 72 ŠAPO Nižná Šebastová, f. Odbor vnutorných vecí KNV Prešov, kart. 219, inv. č. 53, “Zpráva zo služobnej cesty konanej vdňoch od 8 do 12 júna 1956”, 1956. 73 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 160, “Zápis na základe prieskumu obyvateľov cigánskeho pôvodu”, 12 February 1961. 104 “housing culture” is “quite good” since “almost all of them have their own detached houses”.74 The documents of that time, therefore, describe the position of the Roma in Brekov as somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, they speak of ahigh standard of living that, in implicit comparison with the dominant figure of the “backward G*psy”, is evidenced primarily by employment figures and school attendance, but also by the abandonment of the Romani language as a“deficient” linguistic code from the dominant perspective (see Davidová 1965; Nováček 1968). However, references to alagging “cultural level” also emerge from these descriptions, mainly in reference to the housing and sanitary situation in the settlement and the (sometimes explicit) comparison with the situation in the village as awhole (even though according to one optimistic description, the standard of living of the Roma was at times even “superior” to that of the “majority” population). 2.2.2 Attitudes of the Brekov Roma in documents of the time The period documents do not only include an external description of the situation in the Brekov settlement, but also capture the specific attitudes and agency of its inhabitants. Particularly noteworthy are those texts written by the Roma themselves. Most of them concern the housing situation and its development at the turn of the 1950s and 1960s. For instance, adocument dated November 1960 notes that in 1956, one of the Roma purchased aplot of land in the village (i.e. outside the settlement) from anon-Romani villager and built adetached house on it in the same year, where he and his family have lived ever since.75 However, the housing situation was to change in the settlement itself, when in 1959 and 1961, building permits were granted for the conversion of one detached house and the construction of another.76 According to areport by the Municipal National Committee (MNV), in 1962, Bartoloměj Ssought to build adetached house for his family in 74 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 161, “Zápis za prítomnosti krajského aktivistu pre otázky občanov cigánskeho pôvodu.” 3 July 1961. 75 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 157, “Kupnopredajná zmluva”, 17 November 1960. 76 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 157, Building permit, 3 June 1959; ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp.157, Building permit, 28 January 1959; ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 160, Building permit, 29 February 1961. 105 the “developed part of the village” (due to the unsatisfactory housing in the settlement),77 and in the same year Štefan D applied for the allocation of aspecific building plot in the village and was advised by the MNV to arrange the sale himself with the landowners.78 In neither case do the archive materials provide information on further developments. However, the archived application of Štefan D is itself important authentication of how the Roma themselves viewed their own social position, even in relation to aspecific location. In the application dated 24 March 1962 and addressed to the MNV in Brekov, Štefan D states the following: Iwould like to request the allocation of building plot no. [xy], part of [xy] and [xy]. This land is located in the developed part of the municipality of Brekov […]. My reasons are as follows: Iam the father of six dependent children with whom Ilive in aG*psy colony. My children travel to aschool that is located quite far from my family home. In order for my children to learn to live and work more culturally, they need to socialise with more mature and thus more cultured peers. It is for this reason that our [Communist] Party and government is taking great care of people of G*psy origin. This is apriority issue and Itherefore believe that the officials of the MNV and ONV will take this matter into consideration. This is why Iam requesting that you allocate to me the building plot Ihave specified above. Itrust that this matter will be taken into consideration and that Iwill not encounter any difficulties with the officials of the MNV inBrekov or the ONV. For my part, Iwill do my best not to disappoint the faith placed in me by officials and will continue to be receptive.79 The language of the entire application is strongly in synch with the contemporary discourse of G*psyness, as Ianalysed it in the first part of this chapter. The writer accepts the dominant demand for amore “cultured life for G*psies” and cleaves to the official view of the “G*psy settlement” as aspace of “cultural backwardness”. He also reproduces the discourse according to which it is above all the new political regime under which the “Party and government” made possible the all-inclusive 77 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 161, “Zápisnica při príležitosti vyhliadnuti stavebného pozemku”, 27 January1962. 78 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 161, “Žiadosť opremiestnenie zcigánskej kolónie– oznámenie”, 17 April1962. 79 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 161, “Žiadosť opremiestnenie zcigánskej kolónie”, 24 March 1962. 112 the census was conducted reveals the ability of the local authority to distinguish between Romani families and to attribute to them and reflect different degrees of embeddedness in local socio-economic relations. While conducting my research amongst the Roma in the vicinity of Humenné and attempting to contact surviving witnesses from the period under consideration, Iobserved several ways in which the Roma defined themselves according to the logic of local (self-)identification at the level of individual villages. This was particularly noticeable in the relationship between the Roma from Brekov and those from the Podskalka settlement in Humenné (see Chapter Three), especially given the geographical proximity of the two locations (Brekov is only afew kilometres from Humenné). The Brekov Roma pointed to the high level of social integration they enjoyed and in certain contexts referred to the Podskalka Roma as “backward”. The latter claimed the Brekov Roma displayed arrogance towards other Roma, above all through their ignorance of the Romani language, which in Podskalka was the living language of everyday communication. The differences between the two locations were also reflected in what the regional authorities had to say of them at the time. In contrast to what were described as the “civilised G*psies” of Brekov, during the 1950s Podskalka was already cited as being the largest “G*psy concentration” in the district, with apopulation of around five hundred (as opposed to fewer than two hundred Roma in Brekov; see Chapter Three). Gunár, too, recalled conflicts with the Roma from Podskalka in an interview with me, stating that they took place while he was ayouth, perhaps around the time of the resettlement policy (he was born in 1948): They knew we were from Brekov, we [knew] that [they] were from Podskalka, so we didn’t speak to each other because they spoke Romani. We didn’t understand Romani and they beat us up. […] We boys, maybe 14 or 15 years old, used to go see amovie on Sunday. […] We would get there and then they would arrive from Podskalka, they lived in Humenné too, and they started to speak to us in Romani. We told them that we didn’t understand and that they should speak Slovak. And so we’re being snooty, like people today say conceited, how do you know that we’re Roma, G*psies, and why can’t you speak Romani? And we replied that we don’t speak it, neither do our fathers or our grandfathers, so neither do we. So they set upon us and we had to run to the train station. We never became friendly with them.92 92 Interview withKoloman Gunár (b. 1948), op. cit. 113 Elsewhere, Gunár extends this definition of the Brekov Roma in relation to other “G*psies” to the entire region: Well, you know, our Roma, our grandfathers and great-grandfathers, at the time when they were of productive age, they didn’t even want to talk to other G*psies. There were G*psies who were on the lowest level, then higher and higher, until the highest level. […] That was the village of Brekov, and the rest were so much weaker.93 This description, which in the main continues to copy and reproduce the dominant logic of G*psyness, cannot be understood purely on adiscursive level, but as part of aset of specific strategies for shaping one’sown social position. Gunár himself described the special status of the Brekov Roma as the result of historically continuous social control, which, he maintained, was also in part institutionalised: Our fathers and grandfathers had the final say. So that when, for example, someone [aRom from the surrounding area] took agirl from Brekov as his wife and wanted to live here, they had to give their consent to the mayor. If they said no, we don’t want him here, the mayor wouldn’t register him. And that used to happen? It did indeed. And that was agood thing too. These days everything is so free and easy that anyone can come here and take awife and live here and cause us shame because they don’t know how to behave. […] Iapproved of it, Iwanted it reintroduced. But voices were heard saying it was abad thing, why shouldn’t his daughter live here with her husband. Well, because we didn’t want that man here, that’swhy.94 Although Gunár dated such an agreement with the local authorities to the pre-war period, other Romani witnesses fromBrekov, KolomanS(born 1946) and Cyril D (born 1956), felt that this had in fact been afeature for the entire duration of the communist regime.95 All of the witnesses Iinterviewed in Brekov (including Olga O, born 1938 in 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid. 95 Interview with Romani manKoloman S(b. 1946) and Romani man Cyril D (b. 1956), recorded by the author in June 2022 inBrekov in Slovak (recording in the possession of the author). 114 Brekov), at the same time as assuring me that “the G*psies of Brekov were always the best in the district” (or “the best in Czechoslovakia” according to Cyril D), expressed disappointment at the fact that “today” (i.e. when the interviews were being conducted) there was no control or selection of newly arriving Roma and that “problematic” (problémoví) and “filthy” (špinaví) Roma were moving into the village and blemishing the historically formed good name of the Brekov Roma as “respectable G*psies”. At the time of my research, the narrative of their own exceptionalism persisted amongst the Roma of Brekov (who identified with the original Brekov Romani families), who distanced themselves not only from the dominantly understood category of G*psyness, but also from those who were associated with it in the surrounding villages and from some of the newcoming families in Brekov. However, the Roma in Brekov never formed acompletely isolated community in relation to other Roma in the surrounding area. Despite their strong embeddedness in local relations described above, inter-ethnic marriages within Brekov were rare, and the local Roma usually chose Romani partners from other villages in the region. Although my interviewees named specific villages in which the Roma were said to have lived on acertain “level” (úroveň), even back then they also stated that pressure (direct or indirect) was exerted on the Roma who moved to Brekov to adopt aproper “way of life”, for example, by relinquishing Romani as their everyday means of communication (see Hajská 2012, 2015). Given the prevailing practice of virilocal post-marital residence, it was usually women who moved to Brekov and the Romani women of Brekov who were expected to move to be with their husbands, possibly outside of their home village. Thus, the image of the “local Roma” was being reshaped on an ongoing basis and was to alarge extent gendered (see Ort 2022b). Although Ihave not been able to discover any more detailed information regarding the alleged agreement between the Brekov Roma and the mayor regarding the (non-)acceptance of newly arriving Roma, the archive of the MNV in Brekov does contain one document that suggests similar pattern. According to the minutes of ameeting of members of the Brekov MNV in 1953 regarding the “admission of outsiders of G*psy origin to our village”,96 one non-Romani villager (awidow) had decided to sell her building plot to “people who are not members of our village, 96 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Brekov, kart. 14, sp. 152, “Prijatie cudzích príslušníkov do našej obci, cigánskeho pôvodu”, 1953. 115 of G*psy origin, who want to move to our village and build houses here”. The MNV committee and its members, as well as other individuals, were against this move. They requested that “the ONV inHumenné vote against the relocation of three foreign families into our village andthat these families remain where they are at present.” They pointed out that“if the person in question is obliged to sell this land, then let them sell it to someone from our village and not to someone with whom the village is not satisfied.” “[W]hy should these families move into our village and create havoc?“, the minutes say, and conclude by stating that “[t]heir ancestors have never lived in our village and we are therefore against them being amongst us“. There is nothing in the minutes of the meeting of the MNV to indicate that this objection was raised (or supported) by the Roma living in Brekov. Similarly, the wording of the minutes does not explicitly state that the would-be buyers are to be prevented from moving to the village primarily on the basis of their ascribed G*psyness. However, as Ihave shown elsewhere, the categories of “foreign” and G*psy for the most part intersected and reinforced each other (Ort 2022b). The identification of these citizens as G*psies lent support to their being seen as foreign, and the way of life ensuing therefrom, which would supposedly cause “havoc in the village”, resonates strongly with popular characterisations of “inadaptable G*psies”. In the broader context, there is also an unspoken distinction between “local/our G*psies”, who are in part excluded from the more general category of “problematic G*psies” (see Grill 2015b, Kobes 2012, Ort 2022b), and“foreign G*psies”, who are included in said category (see also Hübschmannová 1998). The archival materials are silent regarding the outcome of this particular case. However, the attitudes of the MNV towards the family of “foreign G*psies” fit snugly into the way that the Brekov Roma viewed their own situation. 2.2.5 Displacement of a foreign G*psy These mechanisms in the formation of the social position of the Roma in Brekov come together to create an important context for understanding the implementation of the resettlement programme in the village. This involved the eviction of Regina D’sfamily, which occurred after her husband Rudolf returned from prison, where he had spent over ten years for the murder of anon-Romani villager. When two of my interviewees, Koloman Sand Cyril D, recalled Rudolf D and the circumstances around 116 which his wife Regina sold her house and the couple and their children moved out of Brekov, they attributed to him characteristics featuring strong associations with the figure of the “inadaptable G*psy”. They emphasised that “he was not aBrekovian”. As Cyril D explained, the different “mentality” was the result of adifferent origin: There was adifferent mentality where he came from. Not like ours. Where they lived they still had no relationship with the Whites. They fought and stole and everything you can think of. And then he came here and thought that things would be the same as they had been there. And they weren’t. Because we and our fathers used to visit the pub together, as one family. And he arrived and he wanted something more.97 In light of this testimony, the resettlement of the family of Rudolf and Regina D fits well into the narrative of the history of the Brekov Roma as “respectable G*psies”, who were able to assert themselves within the local structure of socio-economic relations, and, with the cooperation of their non-Romani neighbours and the local authorities, were able not only to define themselves in opposition to “problematic G*psies”, but to separate those who belonged to this category from the local community. Rudolf D conformed to such an image, firstly by marrying into Brekov from avillage where the Roma were deemed perfect examples of “backwardness”, and above all by confirming his position as a“criminal” by shooting dead one of the local non-Roma. From this perspective, Rudolf D did not meet the tacit requirement to “adapt” to the local way of life and, as Koloman Sand Cyril D pointed out, the local Roma never really accepted him into their community. According to the recollections of my interviewees, Rudolf D’sfamily was forced to leave the village mainly under pressure from the family of the murdered villa ger, afamily, moreover, that lived in astreet inhabited mainly by Romani people (referred to in the documents as the settlement) only some two hundred metres from Regina and Rudolf D’shouse.98 In light of the above, however, the family’sdeparture could also make sense in terms of how the status of the local Roma themselves was shaped and maintained. Such aframing of the practice of the resettlement policy in Brekov, which helped resolve aparticular conflict and reproduce the relatively 97 Interview withKoloman S(b. 1946) and Cyril D (b. 1956), op. cit. 98 Ibid. 117 higher status of the Brekov Roma, has aclear legitimacy and demonstrates how the state policy was connected to locally specific and historically created contexts. Nonetheless, one must not fall into the trap of over-simplifying matters. Reading the testimony given by Cyril D, backed up by that ofKoloman S, it should not be forgotten that the former was born in the same year that Rudolf D was convicted of murder, while the latter was only ten years old. Icertainly have no desire to question the reliability of their testimony. My point is rather that both witnesses, whom Iended up interviewing together (something Ihad not planned– Cyril D joined the conversation Iwas having with Koloman Sin the garden of his house), also set the event being discussed within acertain narratival framework. It was within the prevailing emphasis on the exceptionalism of the Brekov Roma that the description of convicted murderer Rudolf D as “foreign” made sense. However, other interviewees throw doubt on an unambiguous association of Rudolf D with the category of “foreign” and “inadaptable”. Olga O, sister of Regina D, in particular, recalled that Rudolf D had been a“warm, gentlemanly and reasonable person”, who, in amoment of weakness, had reacted badly to being humiliated by one of the non-Roma and had himself been the victim of “great misfortune”.99 In his book, Gunár described Rudolf D as follows (no doubt drawing on the stories of some of the older Roma): Rudolf D […] killed agadjo and was sentenced to twelve years in prison. He ended up serving about seven or eight years for good behaviour. Rudo D was amusician and played the bass. He was amember of Gustáv O’sband, but was also an avid chess player. He was amember of the Humenné Chess Club. […] In 1956, one evening in aBrekov pub Rudolf D shot […] Andrej D [who] lived in the locality of Hušták [i.e. in aRomani street] in Brekov. [Andrej D] [h]ated the Roma and treated them badly. Rudolf D […] was not physically equal to Andrej D. He became very angry and could not bear the humiliation he suffered at the hands of the gadjo Andrej D. (Gunár 2010, 49) And further on he writes: [Rudolf D] [p]layed chess and cards in high society. He knew how to present himself, and Regina adored him for it. He could not bear insults and 99 Interview with Romani woman Olga G (b. 1938), recorded by the author in June 2022 in Brekov in Slovak (recording in possession of the author). 118 humiliation, and so, provoked by anger and physical weakness, he committed murder. (Gunár 2010, 105) Though these descriptions do not contradict the “different mentality” ascribed to someone from adifferent village, as Cyril D put it, it is clear that the image of an “avid” and “reasonable” chess player and musician is not fully compatible with a“culturally backward G*psy”, while RudolfD’smembership of alocal Romani band throws doubt on the idea of his non-acceptance among the Roma in Brekov and indicates adegreeof embeddedness in local relations. According to the detailed genealogy in Gunár’sbook, Rudolf D must have lived with Regina, anative of Brekov, since at least 1944, when their first son was born (probably in Brekov). This is backed up by the recollections of another of Rudolf and Regina’ssons, Aladár (born 1950),100 who stressed that his father enjoyed good relations with the other “G*psies” (Aladár refused to call himself Rom, see the previous footnotes), something borne out, as in the case of Koloman G, by the fact he played in alocal Romani band. However, Aladár referred to wider social participation over and above relations with the Roma of Brekov, and said that his father Rudolf was a“highly intelligent person” who had founded the Limeworks Physical Education Club with alocal teacher. Aladár also recalled that when young they used to play with the children of the murdered man Andrej D and that the tragic conflict of their respective fathers to some extent passed them by. It is clear that Rudolf D had an ambivalent status in the locally defined community. He was connected to the village by familial relations (through his relationship with the family of Brekov native Regina), socio-economic factors (being amember of the local band) and cultural ties (as amember of the chess club in Humenné and co-founder of the sports club). These bonds were also gendered. As aman he participated in the social life of apatriarchal village community, whether as amember of atraditional 100 Aladár D (b. 1950) remained in Czechia and no longer maintains contact with the Roma in Brekov. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, he conducted one online interview via Skype, but later refused my request for another interview, saying that he had no desire to talk about the Roma or Brekov. He had fond memories of Brekov and said that he had not wanted to move away, but that he had now begun anew life for himself in Czechia. In terms of the focus of this chapter, it is interesting that right from the start of our conversation, he refused to call himself Romani, going so far as to claim that the Roma had never lived in Brekov. He was prepared to use the term “citizens of G*psy origin” and thus draw on the dominant logic, outlined above, of G*psyness as asocio-cultural and not an ethnic category (Interview withAladár D [b. 1950], recorded by the author in September 2021 online in Czech [recording in the author’spossession]). 119 Romani band or, for instance, through meeting other men in the local pub. However, there were circumstances that had the potential to exclude him from the local community. His origins in adifferent region of eastern Slovakia distinguished him from the local Roma and he could therefore be singled out and deemed to be “foreign”. However, along with other Brekov Roma, he might have been relegated to an inferior status through his association with the racialised category of G*psyness. This level of relations is accentuated by Gunár, who recounts the story of amusician who played “chess and cards in high society”, and who “murdered out of great anger and physical weakness”, when he could no longer endure the humiliation provoked by agadjo who “hated the Roma”. This is therefore apowerful account of one man’sexperience of anti-Roma racism and its affective level. In the mid-1960s, the category of G*psyness comes into play once again in connection withRudolf D and his family, this time within the context of the centralised resettlement policy. Her association with this category allowed Rudolf’swife Regina D, owner of ahouse in Brekov, to sell her property as part of the “liquidation of G*psy shacks”, and to move to Czechia, given that it was now impossible to remain in the village following Rudolf’sreturn from prison. 2.2.6 Eviction as a resolution of local conflicts In order to understand the dynamics of the negotiation of the category of G*psyness and to try and make sense of the fact that the incident in Brekov resulted in the relocation of an individual family, Iwould like to place the entire case within the context of similar conflicts being played out at that time in other villages in eastern Slovakia for which there is evidence. These examples include the village of Vlachovo in the district of Rožňava, where anon-Romani villager was killed in February 1966, and the village of Hostovice in the district of Snina (then Humenné), where anon-Romani villager ended up in hospital with injuries sustained in afight around the same time. It must be stressed that bringing these events together must not and cannot justify the period discourse of the criminalisation and securitisation of the Roma. Indeed, one might say that the opposite is true. Ipresent these examples here partly in order to show how the dominant discourse of the securitisation of Roma outlined above was co-constructed, but also to reveal the different forms it took in individual locations, partly in relation to the resettlement policy with which all the cases intersected at some point. 120 The case of the killing in the village of Vlachovo is interesting, not least because in addition to the record in the Security Services Archive (see Zapletal 2012, 61), there exist several sources of Romani provenance that deal with it. These include acomplaint addressed to the KNV inKošice, in which aRomani family from Vlachovo demanded they be allowed to return from Czechia to their home district;101 asimilarly phrased viewer’sreaction to the television programme discussed above;102 an archived transcript of an interview that Hübschmannová conducted with aRomani woman from Vlachovo then living in Czechia;103 and one of my own interviews, recorded by chance with arelative of the Roma from Vlachovo during my research in Humenné.104 An excerpt from the first example cited, the complaint, will suffice as asummary of the entire event: We are originally residents from Vlachovo in the district of Rožňava, where in February of 1966, citizens of G*psy origin rioted during the annual meeting of the JRD [Jednotné zemědělské družstvo or United Agricultural Cooperative]. This resulted in afight, during which one member of the JRD was stabbed with aknife. He died, and the citizens of Vlachovo, in retaliation, demolished the houses of many citizens of G*psy origin, as aresult of which we were forced to relocate to Olomouc [Moravia].105 The incident in Vlachovo involved the actions of an individual. Adocument from the Security Services Archive describes the murder of JRD member Jozef Oby the “G*psy” Martin G (Zapletal 2012, 61). In his reaction to the television broadcast, Karol C, himself aRom fromVlachovo, writes that “three G*psies fought with the whites and killed one of them”.106 The difference between this case and the one discussed above is clear. In Brekov, the killing of anon-Romani villager was framed as 101 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 19, sp. 100, Complaint– Ondrej G., 14 November 1968. 102 NA Prague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, f. KSČ– Ústřední výbor 1945–1989, Praha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, sv. 37, č. j. 299. 103 Archive of MRK, Brno, f. Pozůstalost Mileny Hübschmannové, kart. 11_ET, sp.Transkripty77-83_MH, č. 11. 104 Interview with Romani man Dušan K(b. 1965), recorded by the author in May 2019 in Snina in Slovak (recording in the author’spossession). 105 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 19, sp. 100, Complaint– Ondrej G., 14 November 1968. 106 NA Prague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, f. KSČ– Ústřední výbor 1945–1989, Praha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, sv.37, č. j. 299. 121 the act of an individual and the sanctions extended “only” to his nuclear family, one reason perhaps being that Rudolf D could be separated from the category of embedded Brekov Roma given his origins in another village. In Vlachovo, on the other hand, the principle of collective guilt was applied, whereby the category of criminalised and securitised G*psies was used to cover all local Roma in accordance with ethno-racial criteria. As Karol C’sletter continues: “they drove us all out of the village and we had to leave our region and travel to Czechia, which made us all sad because our houses were worth 50 thousand and we had to leave them behind because of three evil G*psies”.107 In an interview with me, acontemporary witness named Dušan Ktestified that the collective guilt was indirectly extended to all the Roma in the area, against whom anti-Roma racism and manifestations thereof had become noticeably more pronounced. At the same time, he said that such attitudes still persisted in Vlachovo at the time our interview was conducted (spring 2019), that the local authorities and the residents themselves were doing their best to ensure that no more Roma moved into the village, and that Romani people themselves sought to give the village awide berth.108 In this context, however, it is worth nothing that the dominant logic according to which the murder of aJRD member in Vlachovo was framed as acollective act involving all the (local) Roma was also adopted by the parties submitting the complaint, in which they used the plural “citizens of G*psy origin […] stabbed amember of the JRD with aknife”.109 Mrs G reached for asimilar formulation in her interview with Hübschmanová. When asked “Why did you come to Olomouc?”, she replied “Because the Roma killed agadjo in Vlachovo”, though she added in passing that “we all had to come here, all of us, all because of one person”.110 One cannot draw broader conclusions from these two testimonies, nor am Iinterested in “accusing” the Vlachovo Roma of internalising acriminalising view of the Roma as G*psies. In contrast to the strictly individualised description of the murder in Brekov, these 107 Ibid. 108 Interview withDušan K(b. 1965), op. cit. Similar conclusions were drawn by fellow linguist Viktor Elšík on the basis of his field research in the region focusing on the dialectology of Romani. Iwould like to take this opportunity to thank him for sharing these unpublished findings with me. 109 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 19, sp. 100, Complaint– Ondrej G., 14. 11. 1968. 110 Archive of MRK, Brno, f. Pozůstalost Mileny Hübschmannové, kart. 11_ET, sp.Transkripty77-83_MH, č. 11. 128 of acentrally defined politics in which G*psyness was understood as acategory of social deviance, but also with abroader popular discourse in which the acknowledgement and recognition of acategory of “respectable G*psy”, free from “backwardness” and “parasitism”, legitimised an otherwise highly racialising understanding of G*psyness. By identifying with this category, the Roma of Brekov (and elsewhere, for that matter) sought to reframe relations of domination and marginalisation (see the previous chapter) and to break out of the position of G*psies, to whom an inferior social status was automatically accorded. The category of G*psyness here functioned as a“sticky” category (see Ahmed 2014), which adhered to certain bodies, and the Roma attempted to keep it from sticking to them. The attribution of G*psyness was decided by their surroundings, which, by the selfsame logic, participated in its silencing. And so, depending on various criteria, the Roma in individual villages were either included in or, on the contrary, excluded from the framing of local conflicts and, consequently, from the practice of resettlement. On the other hand, within the context of the resettlement policy, an association with the category of G*psyness was away of monetising one’sproperty, an opportunity taken up by Regina D and other Roma (see Chapter Three). Thus the official categorisation of G*psyness come up against its ethno-racial definition on an unclear border during the period under consideration and entered in various ways into the structuring of social relations and the socio-economic strategies of the Roma themselves. However, the story of the Brekov Roma should not lead us to imagine that the Romani people, through their choice of language and the configuration of their understanding of their own social status, uncritically reproduced the logic of centrally formulated assimilationist policies. In fact, however much the Brekov Roma pointed to the absence in themselves of the key characteristics of the dominantly understood G*psyness, including language, one cannot speak in this context of an effort to reject outright adistinctive cultural identity and to blend into non-Romani society. Afew moments are worthy of emphasis. Firstly, when Gunár reconstructed the “history of the settlement of the Roma in Brekov”, he treated it as the story of adistinct group, notwithstanding its strong embeddedness in local socio-economic relations. Secondly, at the start of the 1970s, the Roma in Brekov were active members of the local branch of Zväz Cigánov-Rómov (Union of Gypsies-Roma; see Donert 2017, 189–193), in which they again formulated not their individual interests but the interests of the Brekov Roma as agroup. Finally, 129 while some officials, in line with the dominant narrative, viewed the integration of the Roma in Brekov as the outcome of the agency of the local authorities (or of “the Party and government”) in particular, the Roma themselves were more prone to emphasise their own merits, especially as regards employment. It is possible to observe, especially in the reactions of viewers to the television programmes referred to above, that it was from these positions that the Roma defined the limits of what was claimed to be an egalitarian society, and this is also perhaps the source of some of the disparate demands made of the centrally formulated policy, specifically, in respect of its “dispersive” logic. Iwill speak more about this last aspect in the next two chapters. 130 3. CHAPTER THREE The Settlements: Between Marginalisation and Autonomy In the archive materials pertaining to the “G*psy settlements” in the Humenné district (however its borders changed in the post-war period), the Podskalka settlement crops up again and again. It attracted special attention for several reasons. From the 1950s onwards, in the reports of what was then the KNV in Prešov, it was referred to as both the largest settlement in the region and as alocation with highly unsatisfactory standard of living, above all with regard to housing conditions. As such, it was one of the settlements the “liquidation” (likvidace) of which was deemed apriority. Podskalka was regularly mentioned in reference to children’seducation, since an independent Romani school had been opened during the First Republic and then, after aperiod during which operations were suspended, had been reopened at the end of the Second World War. Many cultural and social activities were linked to some degree or other with the school. In addition to its own football team, the settlement had afire brigade and the “Anglal” (“forward” in Romani) folk dance group. All of these characteristics converged from multiple directions on an image of Podskalka as ahighly distinctive place. The archival materials related to the situation at the Podskalka settlement also include some of Romani provenance. Mr Tokár, by this time already aresident of Ostrava, reacted to the fact that his native Podskalka had appeared in the 1966 television programme (see Chapter Two): Iwas very surprised that you filmed our village for television. You gave examples of both the good and the bad. It’sgood to come here, take photos and leave. But to live among them, to help them, that’sbeyond you. […] There are people who are paid for the G*psy question. They arrive once ayear and 131 then leave again. It’snot enough simply to arrive by car, look around and leave again. […] Irealise that we are the ones who are mostly to blame for not understanding that we have opportunities and that our children could aim high. […] But Ithink that if assistance remains at the level it has been up till now, it will be along time before we arrive at ahigher level. Without your help we couldn’t have managed anything.117 Bearing in mind the findings laid out in the previous chapter, it is interesting that Mr Tokár includes the “G*psies” themselves when apportioning blame for the less than desirable living conditions. However, he believes they need help from outside and he acknowledges that the assistance received so far has been inadequate. Apart from this criticism, the most interesting thing about the whole letter is Mr Tokár’sown life story, which includes his housing situation. Below are afew excerpts that connect up his lived experience with the regional and centralised housing policy as it related to Romani settlements. In 1958, Ihad alot of bother with my family when it came to the development of our village [Podskalka]. So only afew houses were built, and only by those with family contacts to the district authorities. Those who had poor houses remained. […] After Igot married, it wasn’t easy to begin with. Iwas working as abuilding labourer and earning 700 to 800 crowns. Iwas part of the best crew, and we worked up to 250 hours amonth, sometimes more. Then winter began, the frost came, and the foreman told us to take unpaid leave for amonth or two. So how were we supposed to survive? Isaw Iwasn’t earning much and that my wife was struggling to make ends meet, so Idecided to go to Ostrava. Ibegan working at the VŽKG [Vítkovické železárny Klementa Gottwalda– Klement Gottwald Vítkovice Ironworks]. […] Istill work here and now have athree-room apartment. […] Ihave my own little house at home [in Podskalka]. When Iheard that our houses were going to be demolished, Iwent to the district authorities to have my house valued. They offered me aprice of 12,000 crowns. Iwent to where they were buying off the buildings and submitted an application. The person on duty was really rude. He told me they’d have to look over the house and there was no saying what they’d find. And that Ishould return for asecond visit. Itold him Iwas from Ostrava and 117 NA Prague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, f. KSČ– Ústřední výbor 1945–1989, Praha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, sv. 37, č. j. 299. 132 wrote down my address. But Igot no reply. That’show they treat us all over Slovakia, Moravia and Bohemia. He no doubt saw that Iwas standing in front of him with papers and he was sitting behind adesk and that Iwas aG*psy. No answer anywhere. That was in July and now it’sNovember.118 Mr Tokár’sletter raises several important points as regards the experience of the Roma in relation to the policy pertaining to the settlements. Firstly, the centralised attempt to eradicate settlements as part of the resettlement programme represented the continuation of earlier policies, whether formulated on the central, regional, district or municipal level. In the case of Podskalka, this involved mainly the construction of detached houses in 1958 mentioned above, aproject that later found itself in conflict with the logic of liquidation since it preserved the segregation. This tension between the cultivation and eradication of the settlement will be discussed in more detail below. It is significant that Mr Tokár refers in his letter to the “municipality”, when he is more likely referring to Podskalka itself as part of the municipality of Humenné. Although many of the Roma, like Mr Tokár, left Podskalka because of its dismal living conditions, they also participated in its formation as adistinct space, thus acknowledging their belonging to the location in question. This ambivalent relationship between belonging to the settlement as alocation in its own right on the one hand, and, on the other, escaping from the settlement in light of its unsatisfactory living conditions, and viewing it as a“bad address”, is one of the key motifs of this chapter. Podskalka offers aunique opportunity to observe this unclear relationship, not least because it was regularly the target of such contradictory approaches. Iwill first compare the situation in Podskalka with that in other settlements in the district at that time, while simultaneously contextualising it within the dominant academic discourse of that time and later. Mr Tokár’scomplaint that only those families with connections were able to receive new housing in Podskalka again reveals that any possibility of benefiting from the policy towards the settlements depended on acertain status in the local hierarchy of socio-economic relations. In this case, positionality was not formulated in terms of G*psyness (see Chapter Two), but in respect of acertain social capital (in this instance kinship ties to specific officials). At the same time, it was the presence of 118 Ibid. 133 certain Romani people in local political structures, and not only those in charge of policy toward the Roma, that further disrupted the clearly dichotomous relationship between the state and the Roma as its significantly marginalised inhabitants (see Chapter One). Mr Tokár’stestimony also speaks volumes as to the actual business of purchasing houses within the context of the resettlement programme. As is evident from other documents and has been described to an extent in the literature, this process was fraught with administrative difficulties and left significant room for the agency (including the laxity) of specific officials. As regards the debate surrounding the plurality of Romani agency, Mr Tokár’sletter reminds us that the liquidation of the settlements under the government resolution of 1965, including the subsequent “transfer” and “dispersal” of the G*psy population”, was intertwined with the migration of Romani people (here primarily from Slovakia to Czechia) as an independent strategy of social and economic mobility. Though Iwill look at this aspect in Chapter Four, it is impossible to encapsulate it within the confines of asingle chapter and not consider it as an important context here too. 3.1 Central and Regional Policies towards the Settlements In the territory of post-war Czechoslovakia, the highest percentage of Romani people was in the easternmost part of the country, i.e. in eastern Slovakia. Although there were Roma living in towns (often wealthier, relatively high status musicians), asignificant number lived in villages, often in enclaves spatially and symbolically separated from the rest of the community, segregated to varying degrees and socio-economically marginalised. These places, whether in the local context or the broader popular or official discourse, were dubbed “settlements”, depending on local dialects, including Romani itself (Slovak/Rusyn e.g. osada, kolónia, vatra, vatrisko, tábor; Romani e.g. osada, vatra, taboris). And it was mainly to these eastern Slovak settlements that the terms “undesirable G*psy concentrations” were used in central documents to refer to the resettlement policy, even though such settlements were not only to be found in eastern Slovakia and said policy was to affect all the regions of what was then Czechoslovakia in various ways. The historian Donert shows that the attempt to “liquidate” these settlements under the terms of agovernment resolution of 1965 was not 134 apurely top-down policy. It was instead areaction to voices from the provinces, specifically from the region of eastern Slovakia, appealing to the central authorities to recognise that this pressing issue could not be resolved on apurely regional basis. According to Donert, it was representatives of the Central Committee of the Slovak Communist Party who convinced officials in Prague that the issue of the settlements must be addressed systematically on the central level, even resorting to photographs of the highly unsatisfactory living conditions (Donert 2017, 159–160). It should be added that this was not the first time that the eastern Slovak settlements had aroused the interest of the central authorities. Efforts to eradicate them had been one of the important points of the 1958 resolution on Work amongst the G*psy Population. However, in later documents reflecting upon the implementation of this resolution, failure on this point was noted and attributed mainly to the unsystematic organisation and laxity of the local authorities (Jurová 2008, 996–999). This was to change with anew resolution of 1965. Atimetable was to be drawn up for the “liquidation of the settlements” in each district, and in adeparture from previous practice, special funds were set aside (e.g.Haišman 1999). While previous efforts had been formulated as appeals addressed to the regional and local authorities, the 1965 government resolution allocated money from the state budget to be used both for the purchase and demolition of the “G*psy shacks” and for the provision of new housing for the families affected. Donert points out that in the context of post-war state-building, these settlements were sidelined, since the ethnic, religious and linguistically heterogeneous and long-standing socio-economically marginalised region of eastern Slovakia, which also formed ahistorically unstable state border, constituted an opaque space and potential security risk as awhole to the central authorities (Donert 2017, 85–89). It is here that we see the centralised acceptance of responsibility for what had been up till then more aregional problem, the solution to which had been formulated in resolutions drawn up by the Regional National Committee (then in Prešov) during the 1950s.119 Such a policy towards settlements sat well with the modern state’smore general attempts to control its inhabitants and the framing of disorderly locations as athreat to security (Scott 1998). If what Scott describes vis-à-vis the functioning of the modern state is not merely the careful arrangement of space, but, in effect, the homogenisation of its 119 ŠAPO Nižná Šebastová, f. Odbor vnútorných vecí KNV, kart. 219 and 220, inv. č. 53. 135 own inhabitants for the purpose of exerting control, then in the case of the settlements, too, the priority became eliminating the deviant way of life associated with them. 3.2 Discourse of the G*psy Settlements 3.2.1 The logic of “liquidation” For amore detailed insight into this logic, it is worth revisiting Davidová’smonograph (1965), in which the social significance of the removal of the settlements is akey theme and the discourse of which is fully in line with the logic of the government resolution from October of the same year. According to Davidová, the settlements are characterised by aparticular way of life that differs from that of the rest of the population (ibid.,87). In line with official ideology, Davidová understands this difference hierarchically, i.e. in terms of “backwardness”. For Davidová, then, the settlements were not only an opaque space with inadequate living conditions, especially in the sphere of housing and hygiene, but also, overall, aspace embodying akind of social deviance. She understands this, inter alia, in terms of “parasitism” (příživnictví), where this “typical way of life” resists due inclusion in the labour process, something she sees as akey instrument of social assimilation and the main criterion of the legitimacy of belonging to asocialist society. In addition, Davidová understands the settlements (as well as the “G*psy way of life” associated with them) as aproduct and symbol of the racist approach taken towards the Roma on the part of previous political regimes. From this perspective, the legitimacy of the new social order is dependent on the successful disposal of the settlements. And so Davidová sees “liquidation” as right and proper, since it affects not only the material sphere, but involves the “overall transformation of the human being” (ibid., 96). In this context, she believes the construction of new housing for Romani families on the land of the old settlements is misguided and will lead, notwithstanding the transformation of material conditions, to the preservation of alocally anchored way of life. When offering an example of such bad practice, Davidová refers, among other things, to the construction of detached houses in Podskalka in 1958 mentioned above. However, Davidová also believed it would be wrong to rush headlong into the wholesale removal of settlements and that the project needed to be approached systematically, taking into account the specific 136 circumstances in each location. In line with the later timetable ensuing from government resolution 502/1965, Davidová states that it is not possible to remove all settlements by 1970, but only the “worst” ones. In other cases, hygiene had to be improved, typically by increasing the availability of drinking water by means of the construction of wells. If the entire process is rushed, there is arisk of the way of life not being completely transformed and only “superficial changes” (povrchné zmeny) being adopted by the original inhabitants of the settlements. Davidová illustrates this with aspecific example in which, though the Roma were provided with new housing outside the settlement, they ended up sleeping in one room on the floor, which Davidová sees as asymbol of their reversion to the old way of life in the settlement (ibid., 95). As an example of “successful liquidation”, Davidová cites the relocation of all one hundred inhabitants from the Miklušovce settlement near the village of Hôrka in the district of Poprad to eight other villages inthe same district in 1961. This is agood example of what Davidová terms the “total transformation of the human being”. It also offers an insight into how she understands the association of the Roma with settlements as locations featuring “adifferent way of life”. According to Davidová, Miklušovce was “the most backward settlement in the entire region, perhaps the whole country, with an incredibly low standard of living for its inhabitants”, which made it all the more essential that its removal be planned in detail (1965, 104). Liquidation was to include the “delousing” (odvšivenie) and “bathing” (vykúpanie) of all the Roma, including athorough medical examination and vaccination of the children. After being “clothed and fed” (ošatení aobčerstvení), the Roma were taken by bus to their new homes, where representatives of the MNV and local population of each village waited for them in “neat apartments with basic fittings and furnishing”, in order “to welcome them and in some places to help them overcome initial difficulties”. Davidová also speaks of the natural tendency of the Roma to return to their original environment, i.e. to their original way of life: The old G*psy settlement was immediately set on fire after the departure of its inhabitants and its remains were razed to the ground in order to prevent some of the Miklušovce G*psies from returning. (Nevertheless, one of them, old Pompa, would come here in the evening and sleep on the ground, on the location of his former dwelling, all night. He was drawn to the old place, but eventually caught on.) And in ashort time the whole place, with all the remnants of the miserable life of the “outcast” G*psies, grew over with grass 137 and its former inhabitants began to get used to adifferent life in their new homes. (ibid.,104) The old way of life, which was to be removed as part of the comprehensive “transformation of the person”, was seen by Davidová as involving an overall physical cleansing in line with an understanding of the settlements as ahygienic problem and the associated way of life as being on afundamentally physical level. Of particular importance to this chapter, however, is the way that Davidová perceives the relationship between the way of life and the settlement as aspecific location. She regards the settlement as the outcome of the historical isolation of the Roma as aconsequence of racist policies and the attitudes of the non-Romani society, and sees one of the obstacles to the successful disposal of settlements in the anti-Roma attitudes of particular authorities and local inhabitants (ibid., e.g. 101). What is clear from the quotation above is not only the natural association of away of life with aparticular place, but also the strength of the emotional attachments Davidová attributes to the Roma in relation to such aplace. This attachment had to be overcome if successful liquidation was to take place. 3.2.2 The settlements as a locus of Romani culture? Hübschmannová, as another agent in the debate taking place at that time, does not offer as comprehensive an overview of Romani settlements and the policies being applied to them as Davidová. This must be inferred from her individual claims and her overall conceptualisation of adistinctive Romani culture, as well as from later texts. Though Hübschmannová, like Davidová, recognises the inadequate level of housing and overall living conditions, she does not associate it with the “backward way of life of the G*psies”, but rather with the dynamics of broader social development. Hübschmannová speaks of Romani “settlement communities” that were originally defined by kinship on the one hand, and profession on the other. Though visibly poorer than the non-Romani part of avillage, the communities were nevertheless part of local socio-economic structures (structures that Hübschmannová conceptualises through the lens of acaste system, see also Hübschmannová 1999b). She conceives of traditional settlements as functioning units in themselves, featuring both internal mechanisms of social control (e.g. Hübschmannová 1999a, 33) and the regulation of population size. Representatives of anew 144 in the individual settlements.127 However, more fundamental problems appeared that are described in the literature as significant obstacles to the successful implementation of the resettlement programme in other places in Slovakia and Czechia too. This included the indecisiveness or dismissive attitudes of Municipal National Committees with regard to the sale of houses and the allocation of building plots to the Roma from the settlements, as well as poor cooperation with partner districts in Czechia, specifically Opava and Bruntál, which reported insufficient capacity to accept newly arriving Romani families (see Chapter Four). Given the difficulty involved in obtaining new housing in what was then Czechoslovakia, which for the Roma of eastern Slovakia was exacerbated by historically entrenched anti-Roma prejudice (Guy 1977,308), most families eventually secured accommodation through recourse to their own existing connections, whether thanks to their own experience of migration to specific locations in Czechia or within the confines of Humenné itself (see Chapter Four). Despite the ostensible continuity of post-war efforts to dispose ofthe settlements, afundamental change took place to this policy with theadoption of the government resolution under consideration, namely,the allocation of specific funds from the state budget in order to ensure its comprehensive, systematic implementation. According to the policy, every shack identified for redevelopment was first to be valued and only after confirmation of new suitable housing for the family living there was it purchased by the District National Committee from the funds set aside. The relevant Municipal National Committee was then responsible for its demolition. In the event of these funds being insufficient to secure new housing (which was so in the majority of cases), the financial department of the ONV approved adispensation, the purpose of which was to provide new housing (including the purchase of building materials), fittings and furniture. Under the government resolution, not only the compulsory purchase of the shacks, but the entire resettlement programme, was to be carried out on avoluntary basis, though an educational campaign was to be conducted aimed at persuading even the most recalcitrant Roma of the importance of this issue. In many cases, however, it did not seem that the reluctance of the Roma was the main obstacle to the successful implementation of the entire project. Regarding the district of Spišská 127 Ibid. 145 Nová Ves, Guy describes how there was enormous interest in resettlement from the Romani settlements to Czechia, and that during the first stage, the District National Committee was overwhelmed by applications from Romani people hoping to be included in the resettlement project (Guy 1977, 278). As regards the district of Humenné, in many cases it was amatter of granting consent to the sale of shacks in Slovakia by people who were already living on avirtually permanent basis in various locations spread around Czechia, where they were either attempting to obtain new accommodation or had already secured long-term housing. For them, the sale of ashack (and the financial dispensation referred to above) meant both the possibility of achieving such housing and even, perhaps, asignificant lump-sum payment. This is clear in the letter quoted at the start of this chapter from Mr Tokár of Podskalka, who sought payment for abuilding he had had valued at atime when he was already living in Ostrava. However, his letter shows that one could not take for granted that payment would be forthcoming for ashack that had been valued. Moreover, the life story set forth above, in which Mr Tokár recounted how he had moved to Ostrava in response to the unsatisfactory conditions in his home village, clearly demonstrates that migration in and of itself was the result of certain structural conditions which, even taking into account the historical development of the position of the Roma in specific locations, problematises the idea of the voluntary character of such relocations. 3.3.1 The position of the local authorities On 13 June 1968, the husband and wife team Michal and Anna D fromČertižné (the district of Humenné) wrote aletter addressed to the Commission for the People’sControl at the District National Committee in Humenné complaining about the demolition of their home. The letter is so eloquent, Iam reproducing it in full: In the village of Čertižné we owned awooden building that was plastered inside and had floors in all the rooms. The building was built over water and during rainy weather we were in danger of being flooded. We therefore asked the chairman of the MNV inČertižné to assign us another building plot in the village so that we could build anew detached house. We made this request several times, but the chairman of the MNV informed us that, though he had no building plot he could give us, he would offer us acertificate allowing us 146 to travel to Czechia and live there. In the end, we agreed to this and for about three years we lived and worked in Beroun [Czechia]. Since my husband could not work in Czechia for health reasons, we had to move back to the village [Čertižné]. However, upon our return, we discovered that our home had already been demolished. Now we find out at the ONV that our house was valued at 12,800 crowns. We are not satisfied with this valuation, since it was carried out in our absence and without the chairman of the MNV telling us that he intended to buy our house and demolish it for being ashack. Iwould point out that our house should not have been classified as ashack, since, as Iwrote above, it was plastered inside and was built in about 1959. Furthermore, the house of my mother, Anna G, which was valued at 8,000crowns, was burnt down and Ihave impression that this was done by the MNV in Čertižné. We request that our complaint be investigated and the valuation of the house we bought be increased.128 Other documents show that the writers of the above letter eventually gave way, perhaps under pressure from the Čertižné local authorities (or perhaps even the ONV inHumenné). On 15 June 1968, two days afterthe letter was written, asale and purchase agreement was drawn up for the building in question, in which Michal D signed over the house at the price specified of 12,836 crowns.129 The contents of the complaint point to important broader interrelated aspects of the practice of the central policy. Isuggested above that the Roma may have to some extent shared the idea of the settlements as culturally backward places and adopted parts of the language used to refer to such locations in the dominant discourse: the complaint above throws doubt on such aclaim. Although Mr and Mrs D cite the inconvenient location of their house, which has led them to apply for amore suitable building plot, they resent its being called ashack and being included in the campaign to remove all such buildings. In other words, the demand for dignified living conditions was not necessarily made in the grip of adominant logic that viewed living in shacks as anatural feature of the “G*psy way of life”. 128 ŠOkA Humenné, f. Finanční odbor ONV Humenné, kart. 16, sp. 102, “D. Michal, Čertižné” [unprocessed]. 129 Ibid. 147 The entire letter, however, throws into doubt the voluntary basis of participation in the resettlement project on at least two levels. Firstly, it implies that, at least in the case of the redevelopment of the shacks, preparations could go ahead behind the backs of the owners themselves. The letter writers even suggest that the actual extent of the damage done to specific buildings may have been the result of actions taken by the local authorities, as in the case of the fire that razed to the ground the house of the mother of one of the complainants (it is not entirely clear whether this involved the mother of Michal D or his wife Anna). However, in addition to the agency of the local authorities, which in other cases might have taken the less blatant form of coercion and persuasion, the complaint under discussion, like the letter from Mr Tokár fromPodskalka, points to abroader structural problem that calls voluntary participation into question. It is clear that post-war migration to Czechia was not only the result of the socio-economic marginalisation of the badly war-torn region of eastern Slovakia as awhole, but in the case of the Roma was also the outcome of their marginalised position. In this respect, migration may not have been the preferred option. Moreover, as the complainants’ own description of their situation makes clear, even Romani migrants who remained in Czechia could often count on maintaining their ties with their home village in Slovakia, which could thus to some extent function as asafe space for them, for example in the event of poor health. Such migration dynamics have been used to describe not only the situation of the Roma in socialist Czechoslovakia (see Guy 1977, 486), but also the post-Velvet Revolution migration of the Roma to Czechia (Ort 2022b, 186–187) or even to the West (Ort and Dobruská 2023). Seen from this perspective, the consent of Romani migrants to the sale and subsequent redevelopment of their homes in their original village in Slovakia may have been arational economic decision, but was also the result of their complexly shaped long-term marginalisation and inferior position in the socio-economic hierarchy of the village in question, something that was often manifest in the sphere of housing (whether this involved the quality of construction or abuilding’spositionality within the layout of the village). 3.3.2 “Successful liquidation”: the settlement in Ľubiša From this perspective, one can read not only the complaint cited above, but the situation in those settlements reported in the ONV materials as 148 “successfully liquidated”. Acloser look at relations in specific villages– not least because of the nature of the archival materials– tends above all to encourage an examination of the agency of the Municipal National Committees, local policies towards Romani settlements and certain (dis)continuities of the territorialisation of the Roma. However, Iconsider adescription of these matters to form an important context for tracing the positions, experiences and agency of the Roma themselves. After the adoption of the government resolution, the settlement in Ľubiša was one of the first in which all the buildings were valued and purchased for the purpose of demolition during the course of 1966. However, according to the individual files of the Financial Department archive, the families of all of the building owners had already found housing for themselves in Prague. The Roma of Ľubiša departed for Prague immediately after the war: according to the MNV, as early as 1946.130 This was confirmed by the testimony of contemporary female witnesses from the ranks of the original Roma of Ľubiša, who spoke of the Roma having become embedded in Prague by the 1960s, both in terms of housing and employment, and their relationships with people in the area, including other Roma who had come to Prague from the district of Humenné (Hudousková et al. [unpublished]). According to the records of the individual valuations in the Ľubiša settlement, these were buildings that had lain unoccupied for along time and in many cases were no longer habitable.131 In 1966, the building owners approved their sale for the purpose of demolition, and the ONV in Humenné was able to quickly tick the boxes of the “liquidated settlement” quite easily. However, the situation as described was preceded by asomewhat ambiguous development. For along time, Romani people regularly returned from Prague to Ľubiša, afact evidenced not only by the recollections of contemporary female witnesses, but also by entries in the school chronicle, in which the attendance of children from these families was always recorded for only part of the year, before the footnote “left for Czechia” appeared.132 One of the non-Romani villagers in Ľubiša recalled in an interview with me that the Roma always returned to their home village for the summer with great pomp thanks to the newly 130 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Ľubiša, kart. 1, sp. 27, “Cigáni vĽubiši”, 1953. 131 ŠOkA Humenné, f. finanční odbor ONV Humenné, kart. 15, sp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 31, 32, 36, 40, 87 [unprocessed]. 132 ŠOkA Humenné, “Školní kronika Ľubiša”. 149 acquired socio-economic capital they had won, especially as musicians.133 This was confirmed in the testimony of the Romani women themselves, according to whom the men from these families were able to successfully apply their musicianship in Prague, where they began earning money by playing in wine bars (ibid.). Although in this case the migration of the Roma should certainly be seen as an agentive strategy leading to significant social mobility and social participation in the new environment (see ibid.), Iwill show that an important context that should not be forgotten was the continuity of the anti-Roma attitudes of the local authorities inĽubiša, which were manifest in the sphere of housing and politics of space, and which, moreover, replicated the same (and explicitly framed) attitudes of other non-Romani villagers inĽubiša. In this respect, the demolition of the Ľubiša settlement can also be seen as the outcome of an ongoing endeavour by the local authorities to territorialise the Roma or evict them entirely. During asurvey of “G*psy settlements” in 1956 in what was then the region of eastern Slovakia, with its headquarters in Prešov, eight buildings were recorded in the Ľubiša settlement, four of them uninhabitable and the rest inhabited by atotal of 32 people. The authors of the report concluded that new construction work should take place in Ľubiša, with the aim of creating detached family houses and afully functioning well.134 However, the municipal authorities had already made their position very clear regarding the possibility of individual building projects overseen by inhabitants of the settlement in the previous year, when in July 1955 it dealt with arequest submitted by Ján F to build ahouse bordering the state highway. The chairman of the council observed that “all of the citizens of Ľubiša are against this and do not want to allow him to build aresidential building, because as aG*psy he will pollute the surrounding area”.135 The same argument was used by the Council of the MNV, which was asked to take avote. In addition to observing that the applicant “as aG*psy will pollute the surroundings”, the council noted that “[in] the village there is an entire G*psy settlement where they have suitable land for building houses, and so this Ján F can also build alittle house for himself there, where he has 133 Interview with non-Romani villager Ján Š (b. 1933), conducted by the author in April 2015 inĽubiša in Slovak (unrecorded). 134 ŠAPO Nižná Šebastová, f. Odbor vnutorných vecí KNVPrešov, kat. 219, inv. č. 53, “Zpráva zo služobnej cesty konanej vdňoch od 8 do 12 júna 1956” 1956 135 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Ľubiša, kart. 2, sp. 39, “Zápisnica”, 21 July 1955. 150 been living in an old house up till now”.136 As individual departments of the state apparat would later note, adismissive approach on the part of Municipal National Committees when dealing with the allocation of building plots for Roma was par for the course (see Guy 1977, 278). In this case, however, it is worth noting the overtly anti-Roma, inherently racist motive, which was elsewhere present either implicitly or carefully concealed (see Ort 2021; 2022b, 90). The MNV in Ľubiša drew on similarly blatant anti-Roma arguments when attempting the relocation of the entire settlement back in August 1945: There is no one responsible for health and policing in the present location of the G*psy settlement, since the enclave is located almost in the centre of the village. Its surroundings are polluted by sewage and disease-inducing garbage, astate of affairs caused purely by the G*psies living in the encampment, the result being that public interest demands that the situation be remedied without delay. The land on which the cottages are located is owned by the municipality of Ľubiša. The new site, according to the attached plan, is adequate to such purposes in all respects. (Jurová 2008, 92–95) The plan referred to and the argument used to back it up were affirmed in the same month by the District National Committee in Humenné, which added that “the municipality has aduty to build cottages for the G*psies that meet health and fire safety regulations”, that it must “provide the G*psies with adequate shelter without security after the relocation period” and that “the G*psies relocated by the municipality are obliged to help the municipality with such work as may be necessary” (ibid.). The representatives of the settlement themselves quickly filed an appeal (in September 1945) against the decision to relocate the settlement with the Slovak National Council for Internal Affairsin Bratislava. They pointed out that the new location would discourage their children from attending school given its distance from the village. Should the appeal be rejected, they expressed their concern that “in our People’sDemocratic Republic, the lowest class of the people is still being pushed away from the public”. The Roma demanded acommission be set up tasked with selecting anew construction site for the “G*psy encampment”, insisting: 136 Ibid. 151 that until anew G*psy colony is created, our existing houses must not be destroyed, since winter is approaching and there is at present adifficulty in obtaining building materials. It is clear that acolony cannot be built by winter and if our existing houses are destroyed, we and our families would be forced to live without aroof over our heads. (ibid.) The response from theMinistry of the Interior, addressed to the District National Council in Humenné, only arrived in May 1946. In addition to asking that details of the planned resettlement be provided (its cost and the distance of the new encampment from the centre of the village of Ľubiša), it also questioned the wisdom of the entire project in light of the “considerable interference in the most basic civil rights of the socially weakest segment of the population” (ibid.). Although Ifound no evidence of any further communication between the parties, it is clear that the entire project was brought to an end by the departure of the residents of the settlement to Czechia, which was supposed to have taken place in 1946.137 It has been suggested that the initial departure of the Roma from Ľubiša was influenced not only by the unsatisfactory living conditions in the existing settlement (even the Romani representatives envisaged the construction of anew encampment in their appeal), and the generally unstable post-war situation in eastern Slovakia, but also by the way the local authorities treated the Roma, especially since they relied on the opinion of the other villagers, something they themselves point out. 3.3.3 Disposal of the settlement in the village of Papín In 1945, much to the dismay of the MNV and local residents, the Ľubiša settlement was still situated in the centre of the village. The situation was different in other villages, where the settlements tended to be relocated further away from the centre due to anti-Roma measures dating back to the period of the Slovak State (see Jurová 2002). This in turn became afactor in determining not only the post-war position of the Roma in the hierarchy of local relationships and their migration to Czechia (see Sadílková 2020), but also impacted on the follow-up policies pursued by the regional authorities. In the district of Humenné there is evidence 137 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Ľubiša, kart. 1, sp. 27, “Cigáni vĽubiši”, 1953. 152 of the war-time relocation of settlements from Jabloň, Slovenská Volová (see also Fedič 2001) and Papín. The initial relocation of the settlements forged an important context for the post-war efforts to remove them altogether. It was the settlements in Papín and Slovenská Volová that, along with Podskalka, had been the focus of attention of the regional authorities since at least the late 1950s. In its plans, the District National Committee in Humenné had, since 1958 at the latest, been repeatedly underlining the necessity of moving both settlements to their original location in the village. For example, a1958 resolution sent by the Department of Construction and Water Management to the Department for Internal Affairs (both at the ONV inHumenné) spoke of the necessity of relocating “ citizens of G*psy origin from the settlements near Papín andSlovenská Volová to the built-up area of the village”. It was apparently approved by the respective councils of the Local National Committees.138 Despite the agreement reached by the ONV inHumenné and the MNVs, the subsequent fate of the two settlements and their inhabitants took radically different directions. In the case of Slovenská Volová, the relocation of the residents of the settlement to the built-up area of the village was accomplished as early as May 1959, when the first family signed asale and purchase agreement for aplot of land in the village.139 The settlement in Slovenská Volová was listed as completely liquidated in astatement referring to Humenné in 1962,140 though it figured yet again amongst the liquidated settlements in 1966 (perhaps more as an attempt on the part of the ONV to juke the stats after the new government resolution 502/1965 took effect).141 The settlement in Papín was also demolished, though its fate was far closer to that of Ľubiša (see Chapter One for adescription of the Papín settlement). The Roma from the Papín settlement regularly travelled to Czechia in search of work and the centralised settlement liquidation policy did not lead to their being resituated in the village, but to their being definitively evicted from it. The differences between Slovenská Volová andPapín were made clear to me during my visit to the villages in 2021. 138 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Humenné, kart. 23, sp. 12, “Premiestnenie cigánskych osád”, 30December 1958. 139 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Humenné, kart. 23, sp. 26, Rada MNV vSlov. Volovej, 28 May 1958. 140 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 1, sp. 21, “Zpráva na úseku riešenia otázok občanov cigánskeho povodu vokrese Humenné”, 22 May 1962. 141 ŠAKE Košice, f. Komisia Vsl. KNV pre cigánske obyvatelstvo, kart. 11, sp. 120, “Hodnotenie výsledkov za I. Polrok”, undated. 153 An employee of the municipal authorities in Papín told me with adegree of pride and perhaps even relief that “no G*psies live in our village”, whereas in Slovenská Volová several Romani families lived in the village itself (albeit in some cases on its outskirts). As in Ľubiša, akey role was played inPapín by what were basically the explicitly anti-Roma attitudes not only of the local residents, but more importantly of representatives of the Municipal National Committee, who opposed the presence of Roma in the village. Such attitudes rose to the surface all the more since Papín was at the time designated an administrative centre to which building restrictions did not apply, arelatively common argument resorted to by the local authorities in other “non-administrative” villages when refusing to allocate land toRoma from the settlement (see Guy 1977, 454). Moreover, as well as the Romabeing refused planning permission, there is evidence that building permits were allocated to non-Romani villagers in the case of Papín during the period under consideration.142 The issue of the relocation of the settlement was addressed by the municipality as early as 1956, when it initially granted its consent to the district’sattempts to move it back to the built-up area of the village. On 16 June of that year, the MNV issued aresolution according to which “citizens of G*psy origin will be moved from their present location to the original place where they lived during the First Czechoslovak Republic and whence they were evicted during the period of the Slovak State.”143 The situation remained the same for the next two years, with the MNV repeating its positive stance regarding the relocation of the settlement in 1958144 and 1959.145 In 1960, according to the records of the MNV, twelve families were living in the settlement under unsatisfactory hygienic conditions, of which eight families were at that time working in Czechia. Bearing this in mind, the construction of new housing was envisaged for only the four remaining families.146 However, in 1962, representatives of the G*psy Commission at the ONV, in their report to the meeting of the presidium of the District Committee of the Communist Party of Slovakia, 142 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Papín, kart. 12. 143 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Papín, kart. 1, sp. 2, “Zápisnica”, 16 July 1956. 144 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Humenné, kart. 23, sp. 12, “Presťahovanie cigánov”, 16 October 1958. 145 ŠOkA Humenné, f. MNV Humenné, kart. 23, sp. 12, “Sťahovanie cigánov vobci Papín”, 14May 1959. 146 ŠAPO Nižná Šebastová, f. KNV Prešov, odbor pre vnútornéveci, kart. 222, inv. č. 53, “Úradný záznam zpriležitosti riešenia likvidácií cigánskej osady”, 24 March 1960. 256 vmajoritnej spoločnosti na Slovensku, ed. T. Podolinská and T. Hrustič, 346–373. Bratislava: Veda. Hajská, M. 2012. “Ame sam Vlašika, haj vorbinas vlašika!” (My jsme Olaši a mluvíme olašsky!). Nástin jazykové situace olašských Romů zvýchodního Slovenska vetnicky smíšené komunitě. Romano džaniben 19 (2): 35–53. Hajská, M. et al. 2013. Situační analýza Rumburk a Staré Křečany: ASZ. Praha: Multikulturní centrum Praha. Halbmayr, B. 2009. The Ethics of Oral History? Expectations, Responsibilities, and Dissociations. In Oral History: The Challenges of Dialogue, ed. M. Kurkowska-Budzan and K.Zamorski, 195–203. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hamplová, D. 2006. Women and the Labor Market in the Czech Republic: Transition from aSocialist to a Social-Democratic Regime? In Globalization, Uncertainty and Women’s Careers, ed. H. Blossfeld and H. Hofmeister, 224–246. Higgs, E. 2004. The Information State in England: The Central Collection of Information on Citizens Since 1500. London: Macmillan Education UK. High, H. 2009. Complicities and Complexities: Provocations from the Study of Resettlement in Laos. Critical Asian Studies 41 (4): 615–620. High, H. 2008. The Implications of Aspirations: Reconsidering Resettlement in Laos. Critical Asian Studies 40 (4): 531–550. High, H. 2005. Village in Laos: An Ethnographic Account of Poverty and Policy among the Mekong’s Flows. PhD thesis. Australian National University, Canberra. Hlaváčová, V. 2016. Migrace slovenských Romů do Karlových Varů po roce 1945 (případová studie– usídlování rodu Bílých a Sivákových vKarlových Varech vletech 1945–1952). Bachelor’s thesis. Charles University, Prague. Holomek, M. 1969. Současné problémy Cikánů vČSSR a jejich řešení. Demografie 11 (3): 203–209. Holomek, T. 1969. Problematika Cikánů ve světle zákonné úpravy. Demografie 11 (3): 210–213. Holubec, S. 2014. ‘We Bring Order, Discipline, Western European democracy, and Culture to this Land of Former Oriental Chaos and Disorder: Czech Perceptions of Sub-Carpathian Rus and its Modernization on the 1920’. In Mastery and Lost Illusions: Space and Time in the Modernization of Eastern and Central Europe, ed. W. Borodziej et al., 223–250. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftverlag. Horváth, K. 2012. Silencing and Naming the Difference. In The Gypsy “Menace”. Populism and the New Anti-Gypsy Politics, ed. M. Stewart, 117–136. London: C. Hurst & Co. Horváth, K. 2005. Gypsy Work – Gadjo work. Romani Studies 15 (1): 31–49. Horský, J. 2014. Historický aktér. In Koncepty a dějiny. Proměny pojmů vsoučasné historické vědě, ed. L. Storchová, 95–101. Praha: Scriptorium. Horváthová, J. 2005. Meziválečné zastavení mezi Romy včeských zemích (aneb tušení souvislostí). Romano džaniben 12 (3): 63–84. Horváthová, J. 1994. Možnosti integrace na příkladu moravských Romů. Romano džaniben. 1 (1): 8–19. Horváthová, E. 1964. Cigáni na Slovensku: historicko-etnografický náčrt. Bratislava: Vydavateľstvo Slovenskej akadémie vied. Houdek, L. 2008. Romové ve Stříbře. Případová studie – historie a sociolingvistická situace rodu Absolonů. Bachelor’s thesis. Charles University, Prague. Howe, L. 1998. Scrounger, Worker, Beggarman, Cheat: The Dynamics of Unemployment and The Politics of Resistance in Belfast. The Journal of the Royal AnthropologicL Institute4(3): 531–550. 257 Hrustič, T. 2015a. Emické vnímanie úžery vsegregovaných rómskych osadách na východním Slovensku. In Čierno-biele svety. Rómovia v majoritnej spoločnosti na Slovensku, ed. T. Podolinská and T. Hrustič, 208–223. Bratislava: Veda. Hrustič, T. 2015b. Usury among the Slovak Roma: Notes on Relations between Lenders and Borrowers in a Segregated Taboris. In Gypsy Economy: Romani Livelihoods and Notions of Worth in the 21st Century, ed. M. Brazzabeni et al., 31–48. New York, Oxford: Berghahn. Hudousková, R., Ort, J., Sadílková, H. [unpublished]. Romové vPraze. (Texty khistorii Romů vPraze po roce 1945). Humphrey, C. 1994. Remembering an ‘Enemy’: The Bogd Khann in Twentieth-Century Mongolia. In Memory, History, and Opposition under State Socialism. ed. R. S. Watson, 21–44. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Hübschmannová, M. [forthcoming]. Po Židoch cigáni. Vol II. Prague: Triáda. Hübschmannová, M. 2005. Po Židoch cigáni. (1939–srpen 1944): svědectví Romů ze Slovenska 1939–1945. Vol I. Prague: Triáda. Hübschmannová, M. 2000a. Slovesnost a literatura vromské kultuře. In Černobílý život, 123–148. Prague: Gallery. Hübschmannová, M. 2000b. Vztahy mezi Romy a Židy na východním Slovensku před druhou světovou válkou. Romano džaniben 7 (1): 17–23. Hübschmannová, M. 1999a. Několik poznámek khodnotám Romů. In Romové vČeské republice 1945-89, 16–66. Praha: Socioklub. Hübschmannová, M. 1999b. Od etnické kasty ke strukturovanému společenství. In Romové vČeské republice 1945–1998, 115–136. Praha: Socioklub. Hübschmannová, M. 1998. Economic Stratification and Interaction (Roma, an Ethnic Jati in East Slovakia). In Gypsies: An Interdisciplinary Reader, ed. D. Tong, 233–270. New York: Garland Publishing. Hübschmannová, M. 1995. Historeo znamená pátrám. Romano džaniben 2 (1-2): 61–66. Hübschmannová, M. 1993. Šaj pes dovakeras – Můžeme se domluvit. Olomouc: Vydavatelství Univerzity Palackého. Hübschmannová, M. 1970. Co je tzv. cikánská otázka? Sociologický Časopis / Czech Sociological Review 6 (2): 105–120. Hübschmannová, M. 1968. cikáni = Cikáni? Reportérova ročenka 1968 Hübschmannová, M. 1967. Veľká Ida. Literární noviny, 8 July 1967, 2–3. Hübschmannová, M.; Lacková, E. 2010. Narodila jsem se pod šťastnou hvězdou. Prague: Triáda. Jamnická-Šmerglová, Z. 1955. Dějiny našich cikánů. Praha: Orbis. Jandáková, L.; Habrovcová, J. 2022. Tak jak to bylo. In Den byl pro mě krátkej. Paměti hrdé Romky, O. Fečová, 177–183. Prague: Paseka, Kher. Jurová, A. 2002. Historický vývoj rómskych osád na Slovensku a problematika vlastníckych vzťahov kpôde (“nelegálne osady”). Človek a spoločnosť 5 (4): 13–43. Jurová, A. 1993. Vývoj rómskej problematiky na Slovensku po roku 1945. Bratislava: Společenskovedný ústav Slovenskej akadémie vied vKošiciach, Goldpress. Kandert, J. 2004. Každodenní život vesničanů středního Slovenska všedesátých až osmdesýtých letech 20. století. Prague: Karolinum Press. Kobes, T. 2012. “Naši Romové” – difrakční vzorce odlišnosti východoslovenského venkova. Romano džaniben 19 (2): 9–34. Kobes, T. 2009. Tu zme šicke jedna rodzina, tu zme šicke jedna fajta: příbuzenství východoslovenského venkova. Prešov: Centrum antropologických výskumov. Kovai, C. 2012. Hidden Potentials in “Naming the Gypsy”: The Transformation of the Gypsy-Hungarian Distinction. In The Gypsy “Menace”: Populism and the New Anti-Gypsy Politics, ed. M. Stewart, 281–294. London: C. Hurst & Co. 258 Kramářová, J. et al. 2005. (Ne)bolí: vzpomínky Romů na válku a život po válce. Prague: Člověk vtísni. Kurej, A. 1996. Čar, veša, phuv – oda miri bacht / Tráva, lesy, země – to je moje štěstí. Romano džaniben 3 (1): 109–113. Levi, G. 2001. On Microhistory. In New Perspectives on Historical Writing, ed. P. Burke, 96–119. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Lhotka, P., Schuster, M., Závodská, M. 2009. Svaz Cikánů–Romů (1969–1973). Doprovodná publikace kvýstavě Muzea romské kultury “Svaz Cikánů–Romů (1969–1973). Zhistorie první romské organizace včeských zemích.” Brno: Muzeum romské kultury. Lucassen, L. 2008. Between Hobbes and Locke. Gypsies and the Limits of the Modernization Paradigm. Social History 33 (4): 423–441. Lužica, R. 2021. Zväz Cigánov/Rómov a štátna moc na Slovensku vrokoch 1968–1989. Nitra: Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa vNitre, Fakulta sociálnych vied a zdravotníctva. Lüdtke, A. (ed.) 1995. The History of Everyday Life: Reconstructing Historical Experiences and Ways of Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Magnússon, S. G. 2020. Emotional Experience and Microhistory: A Life Story of a Destitute Pauper Poet in the 19th Century. London: Routledge. Mann, A. B. 2018. Rómski kováči na Slovensku. Bratislava: Úľuv. Marushiakova, E.; Popov, V. (ed.). 2022. Roma Portraits in History: Roma Civic Emancipation Elite in Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe from the 19th Century until Wold War II. Paderborn: Brill. Marushiakova, E.; Popov V. 2021. Introduction. In Roma Voices in History: A Sourcebook, ed.E. Marushiakova and V. Popov, xviii–xxxvi. Paderborn: Brill. Marushiakova, E.; Popov, V. 2020. Roma Identities in Eastern Europe: Ethnicity vs. Nationality. In Ciganos. Olhares e perspectivas, ed. M. P. L. Goldfarb et al., 39–64. João Pessoa: Editura UFPB. Medick, H. 1987. “Missionaries in the Row Boat”? Ethnological Ways of Knowing as a Challenge to Social History. Comparative Studies in Society and History 29 (1): 76–98. Memorandum SCR kzákladním otázkám cikánské problematiky a vymezení společenského postavení Cikánů-Romů. 1970. Románo ľil, 2: 11–12. Miklušáková, M. 1999. Stručný nástin důsledků zákona č. 40/1993 Sb., O nabývání a pozbývání státního občanství ČR. In Romové vČeské republice (1945–1998), 267–270. Prague: Socioklub. Mišková, M. 2016. Miznúci svet V. Humenné: Retrospektíva. Mižigár, M. 2016. Romové vPísku: případová studie poválečného osídlení. Bachelor’s thesis. Charles University, Prague. Molnár, M (ed.) 2017. Brekov. Michaľovce: Jaroslav Mihaľko, Polygrafické práce. Mücke, P. 2013. Deset krátkých zastavení nad možnostmi a mezemi české orální historie. Dějiny – teorie – kritika 2: 296–301. Nečas, N. 1999. The Holocaust of Czech Roma. Prague: Prostor. Nováček, K. 1968. Cikáni včera, dnes a zítra. Prague: Socialistická akademie. Olivera, M. 2012. The Gypsies as Indigenous Groups: the Gabori Roma Case in Romania. Romani studies 5 (1): 19–33. Olivera, M., Poueyto, J. 2018. Gypsies and Anthropology: Legacies, Challenges, and Perspectives. Ethnologie Francaise 172 (4): 581–600. Ort, J. 2022a. Belonging, mobility, and the socialist policies in Kapišová, Slovakia. Romani studies 32 (1): 23–50. Ort, J. 2022b. Facets of a Harmony. Roma and Their Locatedness in Eastern Slovakia. Prague: Karolinum Press. 259 Ort, J. 2021. Romové jako místní obyvatelé? Přináležení, cikánství a politika prostoru ve vesnici na východním Slovensku. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 57 (5): 581–608. Ort, J., Dobruská, P. 2023. Continuities and Discontinuities in a Transnational Social Field. The Case of the Margovany Roma. Český lid 110 (2): 211–242. Pavelčíková, N. 2010. Několik poznámek kproměnám identity spojeným spříběhy českých a slovenských Romů ve 20. století. Romano džaniben 17 (2): 71–95. Pavelčíková, N. 2006. Milena Hübschmannová a historie Romů po 2. světové válce. Romano džaniben 13 (1): 191–207. Pavelčíková, N. 2004. Romové v českých zemích v letech 1945–1989. Prague: Úřad dokumentace a vyšetřování zločinů komunismu PČR. Pavelčíková, N. 1999. Romské obyvatelstvo na Ostravsku (1945–1975). Ostrava: Ostravská univerzita. Prins, G. 2001. Oral History. In New Perspectives on Historical Writing, ed. P. Burke, 120–156. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Portelli, A. 1991. The Death of Luigi Trastulli: Form and Meaning in Oral History. New York: State University of New York Press. Prečan, V. 1990. Charta 77 1977–1980. Od morální kdemokratické revoluci. Dokumentace. Bratislava: Schenfield. Pullmann, M. 2009. Diktatura, konsensus a společenská změna: Kvýkladu komunistické diktatury včeských akademických diskusích po roce 1989, In Paralely, průsečíky, mimoběžky: Teorie, koncepty a pojmy včeské a světové historiografii 20. století, ed. L. Storchová and J.Horský, 231–246. Ústí nad Labem: Albis International. Pullmann, M. 2012. Writing History in the Czech and Slovak Republics: An Interview with Michal Pullmann. Social History 37 (4): 384–401. Pullmann, M. 2011. Konec experimentu. Přestavba a pád komunismu vČeskoslovensku. Praha: Scriptorium. Roman, R. B., Zahova, S., Marinov, A. (ed.). 2021. Roma Writings: Romani Literature and Press in Central, South-Eastern and Eastern Europe from the 19th Century until World War II. Paderborn: Brill. Charta 77 – 3. část. Romano džaniben 6 (3–4): 4–7. Rabinach, A. 2006. Moments of Totalitarianism. Review Article. History and Theory, 45 (1): 72–100. Růžičková, A. 2012. Romská komunita ve Vsetíně. Bachelor’s thesis. Charles University, Prague. Sadílková, H. 2020. The Postwar Migration of Romani Families from Slovakia to the Bohemian Lands: a Complex Legacy of War and Genocide in Czechoslovakia. In Jewish and Romani Families in the Holocauts and Its Aftermath, ed. E. R. Adler and K. Čapková, 190–217. New Jersey, London: Rutgers University Press. Sadílková. H. 2019. Historie a historiografie nucených sterilizací romských žen vČeskoslovensku a jejich přesahu do současnosti. Úvod ktematickému číslu Romano džaniben. Romano džaniben 26 (2): 5–18. Sadílková, H. 2018. (Ne)chtění spoluobčané? Romové vpoválečném Československu. In “Nechtění” spoluobčané: Skupiny obyvatel perzekvovaných či marginalizovaných zpolitických, národnostních, náboženských i jiných důvodů vletech 1945–1989, ed. J. Pažout and K.Portmann, 98–115. Prague: ÚSTR. Sadílková, H. 2017. Resettling the Settlement: From Recent History of a Romani Settlement in South-Eastern Slovakia. In Festschrift for Lev Cherenkov, ed. K. Kozhanov and D. Halwachs, 339–351. Graz: Grazer Romani Publikationen. 260 Sadílková, H. 2016. Poválečná historie Romů ve vzpomínkách pamětníků: Možnosti rekonstrukce poválečné migrace vybrané skupiny Romů ze Slovenska do českých zemí. PhDthesis. Charles University, Prague. Sadílková, H. 2013. Čí jsou to dějiny? Dosavadní přístupy k interpretaci poválečných dějin Romů v ČS(S)R. Romano džaniben 20 (2): 69–86. Sadílková H. et al. 2024. Equality and Representation: Social and Political Engagement of Roma in Communist Czechoslovakia 1948–1968. Paderborn: Brill. Sadílková, H. et al. 2018. Aby bylo i s námi počítáno: Společensko-politická angažovanost Romů a snahy o založení romské organizace v poválečném Československu. Brno: Muzeum romské kultury. Sadílková, H., Závodská, M. 2021. Asserting a Presence in the Public Sphere: Autobiographies by two Romani Holocaust Survivors in Communist Czechoslovakia. In The Legacies of the Romani Genocide in Europe since 1945, ed. C. Donert, 183–213. Oxford, New York: Routledge. Scott, J. C. 2010. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, J. C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, J. C. 1990. Domination and the Arts of Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press. Scott, J. C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press. Serinek, J., Tesař, J., Ondra, J. 2016. Česká cikánská rapsodie. Prague: Triáda. Shmidt, V. 2022. The Rights of the Roma: The Struggle for Citizenship in Postwar Czechoslovakia by Celia Donert (review). Romani studies 32 (1): 140–144. Shmidt, V., and Jaworsky, B. N. 2020. Historicizing Roma in Central Europe: Between critical whitness and epistemic injustice. London: Routledge. Sidiropolu Janků, K. 2015. Nikdy jsem nebyl podceňovanej. Ze slovenských osad do českých měst za prací. Poválečné vzpomínky. Brno: Munipress. Skupnik, J. 2007. Světy se zrcadlem. Marginalizace a integrace zhlediska sociopsychologické dynamiky společnosti. Sociologický časopis /Czech Sociological Review 43 (1), 133–148. Slačálek, O. 2023. Toto není český Floyd. Romové a cesta postkoloniální teorie do střední Evropy. Romano džaniben 30 (1): 119–131. Slačka, D. 2015. “Cikánská otázka” na Hodonínsku vletech 1945–1973. Diplomová práce. Historický ústav, Filozofická fakulta, Masarykova univerzita vBrně. Sokolová, V. 2008. Cultural Politics of Ethnicity: Discourses on Roma in Communist Czechoslovakia. Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society, Vol. 82. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag. Sommer, V. et al. 2019. Řídit socialismus jako firmu: Technokratické vládnutí vČeskoslovensku 1956–1989. Prague: Nakladatelství Lidové noviny. Spurný, M. 2016. Most do budoucnosti. Laboratoř socialistické modernity na severu Čech. Prague: Karolinum Press. Spurný, M. 2011. Nejsou jako my: česká společnost a menšiny vpohraničí (1945-1960). Prague: Antikomplex. Stewart, K. 1996. A Space on the Side of the Road: Cultural Poetics in an “Other” America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stewart, M. 2013. Roma and Gypsy ‘Ethnicity’ as a Subject of Anthropological Inquiry. Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (1): 415–432. Stewart, M. 1997. The Time of the Gypsies. Boulder: Westview Press. Sus, J. 1961. Cikánská otázka vČSSR. Praha: SNPL. Sutre, A. 2014. They Give a History of Wandering over the World. A Romani Clan’s Transnational Movement in the early 20th Century. Quaderny storici 49, 146 (2): 471–498. 261 Szaló, C. 2007. Transnacioníální migrace. Proměny identit, hranic a vědění o nich. Brno: Centrum pro studium demokracie a kultury. Šebová, B. 2006. Migrace slovenských Romů do českých zemí po roce 1945 (případová studie – usídlování Romů vRokycanech mezi lety 1945–1952). Bachelor’s thesis. Charles University, Prague. Tauber, E., Trevisan, P. 2019. Archive and Ethnography – the Case of Europe’s Roma and Sinti (19th-20st Centuries): An Introduction. La Ricera Folklorica 74: 3–12. Theodosiou, A. 2004. ‘Be-longing’ in a ‘Doubly Occupied Place’: The Parakalamos Gypsy Musicians. Romani studies 14 (2): 25–58. Tilly, Ch. 1999. Power – Top Down and Bottom Up. Journal of Political Philosophy, 7 (3): 330–352. Tsing, A. L. 1994. From the Margins. Cultural Anthropology 9 (3): 279–297. Ulč, O. 1969. Communist National Minority Policy: The Case of the Gypsies in Czechoslovakia. Soviet Studies 20 (4): 421–443. Ústav pro veřejné mínění 1971. Mínění o Cikánech a o řešení cikánské otázky. Prague: Ústav pro výzkum veřejné mínění. Yow, V. 1995. Ethics and Interpersonal Relationships in Oral History Research. The Oral History Review. 22 (1): 51–66. Vansina, J. 1985. Oral Tradition as History. Melton: James Currey Publishers. Vaněk, M. 2022. Twenty Years in Shades of Grey? Everyday Life During Normalisation Based on Oral History Research. InCzechoslovakia and Eastern Europe in the Era of Normalisation, 1969–1989, ed. K. McDermott and M. Stibbe, 145–169. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Vaněk, M. 2019. Sto studentských evolucí: vysokoškolští studenti roku 1989: životopisná vyprávění v časosběrné perspektivě. [One Hundred Student Evolutions: University Students of 1989. Life- -stories in a Longitudinal Perspective.] Prague: Academia. Vaněk, M., Mücke, P. (ed.) 2016. Velvet Revolutions: An Oral History of the Czech Society. New York–Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wacquant, L. 2007. Territorial stigmatization in the age of advanced marginality. Thesis Eleven 91: 66–77. Wagnerová, A. 2017. Žena za socialismu: Československo 1945–1974 a reflexe vývoje před rokem 1989 a po něm. Prague: SLON. Zahra, T. 2016. The Great Departure: Mass Migration from Eastern Europe and the Making of the Free World. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Zapletal, T. 2012. Přístup totalitního státu a jeho bezpečnostních složek k romské menšině vČeskoslovensku (1945-1989). In Sborník archivu bezpečnostních složek. Vol. 10/2012, 13–83. Prague: Archiv bezpečnostních složek. 262 List of abbrevations JRD – Jednotné roľnícke družstvo (United Agricultural Cooperative, Slovakia) JZD – Jednotné zemědělské družstvo (United Agricultural Cooperative, Czechia) KNV – Krajský národní výbor / krajský národný výbor (Regional National Committee) MNV – Místní národní výbor / miestný národný výbor (Municipal National Committee) MsNV – Mestský národný výbor (Town National Committee) ONV – Okresní národní výbor / okresný národný výbor (District National Commitee) USSR – Union of Soviet Socialist Republics VŽKG – Vítkovické železárny Klementa Gottwalda (Klement Gottwald Vítkovice Ironworks) 263 Register Abu Lughod, Lila– 48, 55 Act no. 74/1958 (Zákon otrvalém usazení kočujících osob)– 14, 19, 21, 29, 35, 76, 81, 83, 102, 111, 163, 184–6, 192–3, 206–10, 218 Alltagsgeschichte (history of everyday life)– 38, 56 anti-G*psyism (see also anti-Roma racism)– 42, 48, 194, 246 anti-Roma racism (see also anti-G*psyism)– 12, 17–20, 22, 26–30, 41, 97, 119, 121, 137, 140, 144, 149–54, 174, 177–8, 181, 186, 212–3, 246, 250–1 assimilation– 17, 19–20, 22–6, 29–32, 39–40, 48–9, 69, 75–6, 79–85, 89–90, 92–3, 95, 103, 107, 125, 128, 135, 138–40, 162–3, 174–5, 181, 184–5, 193, 197, 199, 207, 241, 245–6, 249, 251 autonomy– 40–1, 55–57, 165, 169, 178, 203–4, 240, 248 ‘backwardness’ (adominant concept)– 18–9, 32, 34, 39–40, 51–2, 74–5, 79–84, 89, 92, 95–100, 104–6, 112, 116, 118, 127–8, 135–8, 140, 146, 165, 170, 176, 183–4, 187–9, 192, 223, 249 Bardejov– 34, 58–59, 180, 182, 197, 212, 219, 223–4, 228 belonging– 13, 16, 18, 32, 51–4, 75, 79, 97–102, 106, 109–10, 127, 132, 135, 139, 141–2, 170, 176, 198, 200, 228 Bohemian Roma (sub-ethnic group)– 17, 98 borderland– 13, 18, 33–4, 47, 91, 182, 184, 197–8, 201–11, 222, 224, 228, 241–4 Bruntál– 144, 167, 194, 211, 221 capital – economic– 18, 46, 93, 100, 149, 173, 178 – educational– 18, 93, 99–100 – social– 18, 46, 93, 99–100, 132, 139, 149, 173, 178 capitalism– 54, 106, 203, 206 categorisation (of the Roma; see also classification)– 23, 39, 75, 94, 126, 128, 174, 221 classification (of the Roma/populace, see also categorisation)– 16, 22, 76–8, 81, 87, 95, 111, 125–7, 184, 206, 223 collaborative research– 65 Communist Party– 21, 24–6, 86, 93, 96, 103, 105–6, 108, 122, 127, 129, 134, 153, 159–160, 173, 184–5, 189, 194 complaints (archival source)– 31, 36, 44, 76–7, 89, 108, 120–1, 123, 132 conflict (inter-ethnic, intra-ethnic)– 81, 112, 116–125, 128, 177, 217, 146–7, 158, 175, 188–90, 210, 219, 227 continuity (see also discontinuity)– 14–6, 18, 28, 41, 49, 62, 78, 99, 101, 139, 140–4, 148–149, 155, 178, 181–6, 190, 198, 200, 203, 205, 208–9, 211, 233, 248–9, 251 culture– 45, 56, 78–9, 83, 138, 142 – culturality– 103–6 – housing– 103–4, 107 264 – Romani– 12, 23–4, 26, 40, 52–3, 137–9, 246 Das, Veena– 38, 46–7, 50, 55, 249 Davidová, Eva– 25–7, 29, 82–6, 92–3, 96, 98, 104, 135–42, 156–7, 160, 163, 166, 184, 190, 193 deviance (social)– 39, 45, 47, 51–2, 60, 75, 78, 85–6, 88, 93, 95, 128, 135, 175–6, 249, 251 discontinuity (see also continuity)– 15, 28, 62, 148, 248 discourse– 26, 36–7, 39, 50–1, 62, 74–5, 86, 92, 101–2, 105–6, 108, 119, 126, 135, 176, 182–3, 186–7, 194 – academic– 132 – dominant– 36, 39, 74, 82, 93, 97, 101, 107, 119, 124, 146 – official– 25, 32, 39, 40, 79, 86, 90, 94, 97–8, 133, 186, 192, 194, 239 – popular– 12, 50, 84, 88, 96, 98, 128, 209, 218 – public– 95 – securitisation– 31 district partnership– 27, 139, 144, 155, 167, 171, 174, 177, 186, 194–5, 220–1 Donert, Celia– 19, 21, 31–2, 43–4, 47, 62, 75–80, 85, 92, 95–6, 128, 133–4, 163, 187, 191–3, 208, 211, 232, 251 ethics– 71–2 ethnography– 25, 140–1, 216, 246, 250 evictability (aconcept in anthropology)– 223, 243 eviction (see also expulsion)– 67, 70, 115, 119, 126–7, 149, 152–3, 174, 177–8, 180–1, 222, 249 experimental consent (aconcept in anthropology)– 49, 54, 249 expulsion (see also eviction)– 126, 204, 206, 209 Facuna, Anton– 192–3, 225 family (see kinship) G*psies – ‘civilised G*psies’– 95, 108, 248 – ‘decent G*psies’– 95, 108, 214, 248 – ‘integrated G*psies’– 96, 102, 188 – ‘foreign G*psies’– 27, 111, 115, 189–190 – ‘G*psy shacks’– 64, 119, 134, 170 – ‘local G*psies/Roma’– 115 – ‘our G*psies/Roma’– 115 – ‘respectable G*psies/Roma’– 74, 84, 95–6, 98, 114, 116, 128, 187–8, 192 gadje– 117, 119, 121, 140, 180, 216–7, 231, 234, 238, 240 Gal, Susan– 49–50, 235 Geertz, Clifford– 38, 57, 72 gender– 85, 114, 118, 182, 203, 213, 225–8, 235–7, 243 Germans– 18, 204, 209 Germany– 42, 56, 70, 202, 204 Ginzburg, Carlo– 56, 60 Gunár, Koloman– 37, 65, 71–4, 101–3, 109–13, 117–9, 128 Guy, Will– 16–23, 27–32, 42, 48, 76, 78, 126, 139–40, 142, 144–5, 147, 150, 153, 165, 169–70, 172, 178, 184–6, 193–4, 196, 230, 232, 239, 250 hierarchy (social)– 13, 41, 46, 50, 74, 78, 109, 132, 135, 140, 147, 151, 159, 173, 198, 205, 222, 234, 239, 242–3, 247, 250 High, Holly– 38, 46–50, 54, 58, 70, 249 history of anti-G*psyism / anti-Roma policies (in opposition to Romani history)– 12, 194, 246, 250 history of everyday life (see Alltagsgeschichte) Holomek, Miroslav– 25, 191 Holomek, Tomáš– 25, 191–3 Hübschmannová, Milena– 14, 23, 25–6, 41, 60–1, 67, 90, 92–3, 109, 115, 120–1, 127, 137–40, 163, 165–6, 176–85, 191, 193, 197, 199, 203, 205, 212–40, 243–4, 246 Hungary– 17, 28, 49, 51, 53, 91, 95 Jamnická-Šmerglová, Zdeňka– 79–80 Jičín– 180, 182, 212–6, 220–9, 231–2, 236, 238, 243 kinship– 25, 132, 137–8, 183, 197–8, 203, 208, 216, 228, 241 Kurej, Aladár– 166, 179 language– 17, 24, 35–6, 49, 73, 100, 102, 105–6, 127–8, 146, 177 – Romani language– 35–6, 102–4, 112, 199 Levi, Giovanni– 57–8 Lüdtke, Alf– 56–7 265 marginalisation– 12–4, 18, 21, 34, 37–8, 43, 46–7, 50, 52, 54, 56–7, 60–1, 99–100, 108, 128, 130, 133–4, 139, 141, 147, 156, 163–5, 186, 198, 200, 208, 211–2, 223, 242, 245–8, 251 margins (aconcept in anthropology)– 38, 45–7, 70, 182, 247 media– 22, 25, 54, 84–88, 93, 95–6, 173, 191 Medick, Hans– 56–7 memory– 67–70, 240, 245 microhistory– 16, 33, 38, 56–8, 60–1, 69, 140 Moravian Roma (sub-ethnic group)– 17, 34, 98, 191, 193 nomadism– 35, 40, 53, 76, 81, 83, 102, 111, 184–6, 192–3, 206–9, 218, 224, 244 Nováček, Karel– 79–83, 92–3, 96, 98, 104, 184–5, 207 oral history– 16, 38, 61–71, 142, 178–9, 248 outsiders – eternal 16, 33, 246 – social 54, 69, 114, 204 Opava– 144, 167, 171, 194–7, 211, 221 participation (of the Roma) – political– 19, 46, 95–6, 107, 151, 154, 156–8, 160, 163, 173–4, 193, 247 – social– 32, 40, 43, 46, 48, 53–54, 78, 95, 118, 149, 165, 239, 247 photographs (archival sources)– 64–5, 68–9, 134, 167 Poole, Deborah– 38, 46–7, 50, 55, 249 public opinion research– 88, 91–3, 99 race – racial segregation– 14, 18, 21, 32, 40, 91, 139 – racialisation– 12–3, 18, 30, 34, 41, 43, 46, 50, 78–81, 94–5, 119, 128, 142, 185, 198, 243, 247, 250 racism (see also anti-Roma racism)– 18, 44, 66, 78–9, 84, 87, 90–3, 95, 98–9, 108, 119, 121, 135, 137, 140, 150, 156, 245–6, 250–1 re-education– 19, 22, 35, 75, 79–80, 84, 86, 89, 91, 94–5, 98, 155, 187, 191–2, 206–7, 209, 215 representativeness– 38, 58 resistance– 37, 43–4, 47–50, 54, 56, 75, 101, 158, 195, 211, 221, 223 Romani history/histories (ahistorical approach)– 12, 28, 31, 33, 37, 52, 59, 62, 245–7 Sadílková, Helena– 12, 17–8, 26–9, 32, 43, 49, 57, 62–3, 65, 69–70, 86, 91, 93, 95, 140, 151, 170, 176, 181, 189–91, 193, 198, 200, 203, 212, 244–6 scale of research– 38, 56–7, 196 Scott, James C.– 37, 42–4, 46–50, 60, 134, 183 Second World War (World War II)– 11, 13, 17–8, 34–5, 62–3, 67–8, 97, 110, 130, 185, 198, 216 securitisation– 21, 31, 39, 86, 119, 121, 134, 205, 210 security (social)– 70, 139, 234, 243 segregation (see also race– racial segregation)– 14, 18, 21, 32, 40, 91, 108, 132–3, 139, 141, 176, 178, 199, 239 smithery– 109, 111, 203, 216 sociability– 16, 33, 44, 53–4, 127, 141, 182–3, 241 status (social)– 12, 15, 46–7, 50–2, 54, 55, 61, 82–3, 99–100, 110, 113, 116–9, 125, 127–8, 132–3, 139–40, 157, 162, 164, 177, 188, 193, 199–200, 204–5, 217, 220, 248, 251 Sokolová, Věra– 47, 51, 62, 75, 78–9, 185–6, 208, 251 solidarity– 91, 197, 203, 235 sources (methodology)– 16, 29, 34, 60–70, 88, 123, 157–8, 165–6, 178, 181–2, 195–6, 205, 215, 248 – oral– 61–3 – written– 60–5 – Romani provenance– 65, 120 Soviet Union– 91, 185 state (anthropological approaches)– 16, 29, 32–3, 37–8, 42–3, 46–50, 60, 70 sterilisation– 32, 43, 86–7, 91, 96–7 stickiness (aconcept in anthropology)– 128 stigmatisation (see also territorial stigmatisation)– 107, 139–41, 203, 240, 248 sub-ethnic groups– 33–5, 98, 192 Svidník– 11, 34, 58, 197, 212, 216, 219, 228 symbolic violence– 12, 141, 251