Hindu Origins Of Roma

[Guest]

Gypsies (Tsiganes, Zigeuner, Çingeneler …) or

“Roma” (“Sinti & Roma”)
Some Reflections about “Political Correctness”

with special reference to Germany





If I remember correctly, the name of this symposium initially had “Gypsies” in its title; later on this was changed to “Roman”. This “development” is actually the subject of my contribution today.

In many countries, especially western ones – and for the last few years in Turkey, too – efforts have been made over the past three decades to assert and push through a new “political correctness” by renaming “Gypsies”, “Tsiganes”, “Cigani”, “Zigeuner”, “Çingeneler” and so forth as “Roma” (“Romanies”) or “Sinti and Roma”, the specific usage “designed” for Germany and the German language. I want to discuss here the reasons for this “language reform”and its implications.

To make it clear at the very beginning: I belong to those, who think it more appropriate to keep the specific (outsider) terms of the majority populations for Gypsies, as they have been used for centuries.



The main points put forward when asking outsiders to use the designation “Roma” can be summarized as follows:

1. Reference is generally made to the First Romani World Congress in London in 1971 and its decision that from then on all the Gypsies of the world should be called “Roma”.

2. It is obviously perceived as a kind of “natural right”, that the specific term used by the group itself is postulated to be the only valid one.

3. Nearly all the foreign names for Gypsies are said to be pejorative, discriminating and tainted with prejudice.

4. Concerning the traditional German word for Gypsies (Zigeuner) it is argued that National-socialism brought the term into discredit, although, at the same time, it is stated that the term has always been pejorative.

5. Sometimes it is argued that the term “Roma” has already become so colloquial, that persons who do not behave according to what is thought to be politically correct, are labelled at least as backward, if not as racist (or in Germany as Nazi).

6. When confronted with the fact that many Gypsies themselves use the terms attached to them by their neighbours, it is put forward that it would be different when Gypsies themselves use these, from when outsiders do so.



Let’s now discuss these arguments one by one.

1. At the First Romani World Congress in 1971 only about two dozen “delegates”, apart from a few observers, are said to have taken the far-reaching decision for several millions of Gypsies worldwide, that they should thenceforth present themselves as “Roma”. Even when we take later Romani World Congresses with more participants into consideration, the legitimacy for such far-reaching decisions is rather weak.

Nearly all Gypsy groups, to my knowledge, lack a sense of larger trans-tribal units experienced in common, and solidarity beyond clans, tribes, local or regional units is largely absent. Although several organizations for Gypsies in different countries – which, by the way, often incorporate foreign terms in their names – have been founded during recent decades, they are not deeply rooted in the communities concerned. Trans-national or even world organizations enjoy even less support from local and regional groups. Rivalry between different persons or groups is still widespread.



2. There are many Gypsy groups (especially Oriental ones) who have never heard of the term “Roma” and many more who have their own different designations (like Lom or Dom in Turkey). There is no legitimacy or justification in attaching a “Roma” label to them. Besides, this would contradict attaching the recognition of insider names that is supposedly aimed at.

By the way, the “original” term for Gypsies seems to be “Dom”, rather than “Rom”.

Of course, a problem arises when one really speaks about Roma “proper” and not about Gypsies in general. Therefore one would always have to explain whether one is using the term “Roma” in a broader or narrower sense.

We are in need for a term covering all different Gypsy groups. And we have such terms in the specific languages.

If it were demanded, that henceforward only insider terms should be used worldwide, one can imagine what kind of confusion and uncertainty would arise. Such a procedure is certainly not in the interest of many ethnic groups and nations. For example: Germans are called Germans although they call themselves “Deutsche” and although they are not the only Germanic people. Although the Alemannen form just a small part (or tribe, if you like) of Germans, all Germans are called “Allemands/ Almanlar” by, for instance, French or Turks. Even “worse”, Germans are called “dumb” (Njemac, Nemci and so forth) in Slavonic languages. Despite all these strange foreign designations for Germans, I have not heard about any protest against them.

It is much more “natural” that ethnic groups or nations bear names different from those given to them by their neighbours. Insider terms are often almost unknown to neighbouring groups, and quite often the designations given by foreigners have some negative or at least incorrect aspects. In this way we come to the next argument.



3. Gypsies have had a negative image for centuries, regardless what they were called. Combatting discrimination cannot be done by just attaching a different label. Prejudices are then very likely to be transfered to the new name.

Alongside with negative associations when thinking about Gypsies, there were also positive, often romantic, associations connected with them. “Gypsy music” is generally highly esteemed and newspapers, which otherwise use the “political correct” term for Gypsies, still write about “Gypsy music” (Zigeunermusik), since it has already become a well-recognised label. In Germany several societies (generally connected with the carnival) have named themselves “Zigeuner”; they would certainly not have done so if the term had only a negative connotation.

Not only is nothing (positive) gained by renaming, but the moral pressure connected with this provides yet a further reason for rejecting Gypsies. The establishment of taboos often provokes counter- reactions.



4. It is certainly wrong to assert that the Nazis brought the term “Zigeuner” into discredit. The Nazis had attached far more negative aspects to the image of Jews than were associated with them before. Nobody, however, would therefore demand that the name “Jude” be dropped in German.

As some of you may know, the federal government of Germany plans to errect a memorial for the Gypsy victims of the Nazi terror in Berlin. Since the “Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma” (Central Council of German Sinti and Roma) is fighting fiercely against the term “Zigeuner” in the inscription of the memorial, an oppositional Sinti group is defending the term. In order to counter the argument that Nazis had discredited the name and as a compromise, the responsible state minister of cultural affairs proposed to have the inscription in English and then use the term “Gypsies”.

It is just folk-etymology to trace the word “Zigeuner” back to “Ziehgauner” (a strolling crook). To use that as an argument against the term is not simply ignorance: since similar terms (Cigan and so forth) like “Zigeuner” are used in Slavonic languages, the term could not possibly be derived from “Ziehgauner”.

By the way, the special German usage “Sinti & Roma” – in a global context itself an rather unusual designation for an ethnic group (x and y connected with an “and”) – reflects the fact, that Sinti don’t want to be lumped together with Roma and therefore don’t want to be called by the same name.



5. The term “Sinti & Roma” in Germany has not yet become so colloquial that the majority of the population could use the terms correctly in grammatical terms (singular-plural, masculine-feminine) or even know the difference between Sinti and Roma. Thus newspapers very often write quite incorrectly about “Sinti and Roma” when refering to some Gypsies or even to countries where hardly any Sinti live.

“Zigeuner” have their position in German folklore and culture as they certainly have in other countries, too. One cannot replace the term “Zigeuner” in proverbs, sayings, songs, geographic names etc. by “Sinti & Roma”. One would make Gypsies much more alien by calling them “new names” than they have been hitherto.

When in historical documents “Zigeuner” occur, one cannot declare them to be Sinti, Roma or Sinti and Roma. Sometimes the term “Zigeuner” is also used for Gypsy-like groups (for instance the Jenische).



6. Just to give Gypsies (and not Gadje) the right to call themselves by outsider names, would mean something like George Orwell’s “double-think”. Should “native speakers” who had “invented” the terms “Gypsies”, “Zigeuner” and so forth, not be allowed to use a word of their own language, while others should ? This is certainly not easy to explain to the average citizen.



The arguments discussed above were those generally brought forward in connection with the subject. But there are certainly other reasons which are not uttered openly. Perhaps the fighters for “political correctness”, both among Gypsies and Gadje are not even fully aware of them.

One of the reasons seems to be to gain or exercise power. An ethnic minority (Gypsies) and a political minority (persons with an anti-authoritarian ideology and a strong rejection of the “establishment”) try to apply moral pressure in a field, where a “victory” seems easily to be achieved. Besides the social-psychological explanations for such behaviour, a victory, in the case of Gypsy organizations, is thought to be a means of gathering more followers. A strengthened organization has a better chance, for example, to obtain financial resources.



I would like to finish my contribution with a quotation from a collection of essays by the German-Romanian writer Herta Müller („Der Staub ist blind – die Sonne ein Krüppel. Zur Situation der Zigeuner in Rumänien“, in: „Hunger und Seide“ (Reinbek bei Hamburg 1997, p.153, my own translation): „I went to Romania with the word „Roma“, used it at the beginning during conversations and encountered a lack of understanding everywhere. ‘The word is hypocritical’, I was told, ‘we are Gypsies, and the word is good, as far as we are treated well.’”



A struggle against discrimination needs much energy. One should not waste energy on a battle about or against words, especially when the arguments in favour are rather weak.

http://www.rbenninghaus.de/zigeuner-begriff.htm