What do you think?
Rate this book
Roma Voices in the German-Speaking World
The Roma are Europe's largest minority, and yet they remain one of the most misunderstood and underrepresented. Scholarship on the Roma in German-speaking countries has focused mostly on the portrayal of “Zigeuner/Gypsies” in literature by non-Roma and on persecution during the Nazi period. Rarely have scholars examined the actual voices of Roma to glean their perspectives on their social interactions and customs. Without such studies the Roma appear passive in the face of their long and troubled history. With a basis in theories of intersectionality, subalternity, and cultural hybridity, Roma Voices in the German-Speaking World rectifies this image of passivity by analyzing autobiographies, folktales, and novels by Roma, thereby promoting a better understanding of the multifaceted and multifarious cultures alive today in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. In documenting their voices, Roma writers unveil the large extent to which their personal lives, their social interactions with other Roma and non-Roma, and the images they project of their values and traditions are highly influenced by gender and ethnicity. Anthropological and historical studies have frequently portrayed Romani groups as displaying a patriarchal social structure with highly demarcated roles for men and women. In contrast, the significant parts that both men and women play in disseminating autobiographical, fictional, and historical narratives challenge this ubiquitous notion of largely patriarchal Romani cultures. The insights that both sexes provide on the relationship between gender and ethnicity in the context of cultural taboos, norms, and expectations unveil the complexities and diversities inherent in any minority group and its relationship to the dominant society.
290 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 21, 2015
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
December 31, 2018
This book is highly questionable in my mind.
And the end of the book, the author stated: One only has to listen to their voices.
Considering how much she ignored those voices who did not fit her assertions, I think this is quite hypocritical of her. This author straight up seems to ignore what doesn’t fit her assertions and in my mind is very much guilty of what she accuses others of.
It started early when she claimed that "Zigeunerspieß" would literally mean "skewered gypsy" instead of "gypsy pike". Take that with her statement that Sinti are Roma and hating on the terms "Sinti and Roma", despite what most Sinti state and why that term came to be and I suspected that this book would be a mixed bag and that she has an agenda.
And either this moron does not know that many Roma today are pale-skinned and light-haired or she is one of those idiots who consider anyone not 100 % racially pure white to be "of color." And if that wasn’t enough, she apparently drank the Zionist cool-aid when it comes to Jews and Israel. Pretty telling in regards to what came later in this book now that I think about it.
And boy did the alarm bells ring when she stated "people of color and other marginalized groups". So Japan, you know that powerful G 8 country, is full of marginalized people for this author? How come that this author considers "women of color" always marginalized? Are the women in those east Asian matriarchies marginalized?
At this early point in the book she had already contradicted herself a few times. And is this author aware that several of the groups she claims to be Roma never called themselves that and did not rely on others to give them names? At about a fifth into the book I was "For fucks sake, did it ever occur to her that she only speaks of how the nobility regarded "gypsies?" Plus, I am sure she missed several important books for her research." If not outright ignoring them as based on the bibliography she did know certain books that she seems to have ignored for this one.
And I wondered whether she ever read Jan Yoors first book. The people she described here fit the majority of gypsy stereotypes.
And is she sure that Romani was always understood among the groups? Because I know accounts saying the opposite. Accounts she probably ignored. And even though she argues against generalizations, that is what she often does.
And if this weren't enough I either have to doubt her historic credential, integrity or my own sources as she claimed that the trial against Ernst August König in 1988 was considered the first related to Nazi crimes against Roma. But how can that be? What about the Auschwitz trials decades earlier and the Nuremberg doctor's trial?
And though I do know that several Sinti men boxed before the Nazi era it was totally new to me that Romani men were famous for their boxing skills back then.
While she acknowledges that Their voices show awareness of ethnic identity as integral to a shared national past and present in their countries, she uses a group of Italian Sinti from the late 1990s for her further generalizing. The thing is that I already read the mentioned source and I wondered how much their life had in common with German Sinti of that time and later on as the descriptions of their lives seemed to differ significantly from those of the Sinti shown in the sources from the 1980s onwards in West- and East Germany.
Furthermore, in the story of Chinto Mari it was never stated that his mother claimed she had special powers, she stated that she had special knowledge from the Pope (as this book states itself). So her claiming that, reeks of stereotyping to me.
In fact, her tendency of applying gypsy stereotypes might explain her uncritical use of Jan Yoor’s books. Considering how you could take a list of gypsy stereotypes, read Yoors' first book on that Lovara group and check probably half of them I am not sure how reliable of a source he is. Then again, I wonder how reliable this book here is as a source.
Also neither the story of Chinto Mari nor any of Franz's gypsy fairy tales have this "equivocal proclamation" at the start or end and considered that of Franz's 16 tales she chose the one with the young seductive gypsy girl makes me wonder how much the author herself is actually influenced by gypsy stereotypes here. It sounds like the influence is significant, especially considering her generalizing tendencies.
When she finally mentions the Jenische again, it had taken her 2/3 of the book. And considered that they are allegedly Roma in her eyes, it is odd that so far no Jenisch person was even mentioned. She once again asserted that they are Roma and even suspected possible intermingling and Romani roots. Except, by that logic several European ethnicities, including mine, are Romani, as we have evidence of intermarriage already down to the 17th century. And did Roma and Jenisch really intermarry? Is there evidence or does she just claim they did? Because, considered how many gypsy stereotypes she herself seems to apply it would not surprise me.
Well, that and her hypocrisy. You see when this Mariella Mehr person refers to herself as a Roma even though she is a Jenisch, the author accepts that but in the start of the book she happily dismissed the wish of Sinti to not be called Roma. Interesting double standard. Also, it is true that Mehr published in Romani, but it was translated into Romani by someone else, unlike what this here suggests.
And while her generalizing is bad enough, her insertion of theorizing and psychology hits the roof and was really annoying.
And since when are bulls the protectorate of the goddess Diana? She is associated with oak groves, deer and hunting dogs, her Greek counterpart Artemis is the same. In fact, was any roman god, except maybe Jupiter, associated with bulls? There was this Mithras cult, but does that count? Does the author care?
At close to three-quarters of the book not only did I have to look at the title of the chapter to remember why on earth I should pay attention to all this talk about Mehr's books (it was a waste of time) but then the author was once again at the generalizing and I wondered whether she even considers that the alleged similarities between Jenish and Roma is due to social class and not ethnicity. She seems to gravitate towards the latter. That chapter was almost an entire waste of time and possibly dangerous. The only reason I can make out as to why she regards Jenisch as Roma is simply that she took the application of the term "gypsy" and regards it as derogatory but still synonymous with "Roma."
And for the author these three writers are "diverse", as one is a Sintezza, one a Rom and one Jenisch, they are only in one group because the author says so. And "younger" is true to a sense as one of them was born in the late 1940s so he is younger than the prior authors. I don't think the author bothered to do any research with younger "Roma", not at all.
Typical for this hypocritical writer, she has no problem criticizing the mainstream culture but Reinhardt's xenophobia and racism she excuses with past prejudice just like Reinhardt does. I think both should realize that Romani has already been written down and used on social media platforms. That train has left the station long time ago.
Shortly after this I came to the realization not to trust the author anymore. When she claims these Jenisch married Gadze, who knows whether the authors really stated that (not to mention that Sinti now say Chale instead of Gadze). She even claims that no Romani music was played but classical is a sign of generational and cultural shift. But how does she know that? These are Jenisch and not Roma. Plus, does she even know stuff like Sinti jazz? That stuff is still played constantly.
How can she be so sure that this Jenisch author portrayed actual cultural practices of Sinti? Because I never heard of smoking cigarettes to drive away mulo. In fact, among Sinti I only read of Mulo being death itself and not just spirits. And if this wasn’t everything, she wrote of Jenisch and Roma beliefs!!! But based on her own categorization in this book that would be like saying Mexican and Hispanic beliefs, at least when you apply the prior categorization of the author. After all, didn't she state that Jenisch are Roma? So why suddenly this split?
She also speaks of younger Roma, but how would she know what younger Roma think? Her youngest interviewee was in her 40s at this time. Also, I am really glad I skipped most of that particular chapter. This book had gone downhill very fast once the 2/3 mark was passed.
Of course it is the mainstream who is arrogant but never the Roma. And why does assimilation mean eradication to these people? Assimilation rarely works like that. Then again, these people here seem to assume that for women equality mostly means to be like men. BS. It means equality of choice and not for a woman to be a man but to be the one she is and wants to be.
I was so relieved when I was through with this book and could check the bibliography. There it was revealed that of course she quotes Fricke but not Opfermann, even though she does know one book from Opfermann and the Höllenrainer books… so she chose to ignore their content and Opfermann's 2012 book!
In retrospect, this book is dangerous in my mind. Too much generalizing, too many stereotypes, questionable categorizations, some things that are probably outright lies and so many omissions and questionable research.
Just skip this book, it is really not worth your time.
And the end of the book, the author stated: One only has to listen to their voices.
Considering how much she ignored those voices who did not fit her assertions, I think this is quite hypocritical of her. This author straight up seems to ignore what doesn’t fit her assertions and in my mind is very much guilty of what she accuses others of.
It started early when she claimed that "Zigeunerspieß" would literally mean "skewered gypsy" instead of "gypsy pike". Take that with her statement that Sinti are Roma and hating on the terms "Sinti and Roma", despite what most Sinti state and why that term came to be and I suspected that this book would be a mixed bag and that she has an agenda.
And either this moron does not know that many Roma today are pale-skinned and light-haired or she is one of those idiots who consider anyone not 100 % racially pure white to be "of color." And if that wasn’t enough, she apparently drank the Zionist cool-aid when it comes to Jews and Israel. Pretty telling in regards to what came later in this book now that I think about it.
And boy did the alarm bells ring when she stated "people of color and other marginalized groups". So Japan, you know that powerful G 8 country, is full of marginalized people for this author? How come that this author considers "women of color" always marginalized? Are the women in those east Asian matriarchies marginalized?
At this early point in the book she had already contradicted herself a few times. And is this author aware that several of the groups she claims to be Roma never called themselves that and did not rely on others to give them names? At about a fifth into the book I was "For fucks sake, did it ever occur to her that she only speaks of how the nobility regarded "gypsies?" Plus, I am sure she missed several important books for her research." If not outright ignoring them as based on the bibliography she did know certain books that she seems to have ignored for this one.
And I wondered whether she ever read Jan Yoors first book. The people she described here fit the majority of gypsy stereotypes.
And is she sure that Romani was always understood among the groups? Because I know accounts saying the opposite. Accounts she probably ignored. And even though she argues against generalizations, that is what she often does.
And if this weren't enough I either have to doubt her historic credential, integrity or my own sources as she claimed that the trial against Ernst August König in 1988 was considered the first related to Nazi crimes against Roma. But how can that be? What about the Auschwitz trials decades earlier and the Nuremberg doctor's trial?
And though I do know that several Sinti men boxed before the Nazi era it was totally new to me that Romani men were famous for their boxing skills back then.
While she acknowledges that Their voices show awareness of ethnic identity as integral to a shared national past and present in their countries, she uses a group of Italian Sinti from the late 1990s for her further generalizing. The thing is that I already read the mentioned source and I wondered how much their life had in common with German Sinti of that time and later on as the descriptions of their lives seemed to differ significantly from those of the Sinti shown in the sources from the 1980s onwards in West- and East Germany.
Furthermore, in the story of Chinto Mari it was never stated that his mother claimed she had special powers, she stated that she had special knowledge from the Pope (as this book states itself). So her claiming that, reeks of stereotyping to me.
In fact, her tendency of applying gypsy stereotypes might explain her uncritical use of Jan Yoor’s books. Considering how you could take a list of gypsy stereotypes, read Yoors' first book on that Lovara group and check probably half of them I am not sure how reliable of a source he is. Then again, I wonder how reliable this book here is as a source.
Also neither the story of Chinto Mari nor any of Franz's gypsy fairy tales have this "equivocal proclamation" at the start or end and considered that of Franz's 16 tales she chose the one with the young seductive gypsy girl makes me wonder how much the author herself is actually influenced by gypsy stereotypes here. It sounds like the influence is significant, especially considering her generalizing tendencies.
When she finally mentions the Jenische again, it had taken her 2/3 of the book. And considered that they are allegedly Roma in her eyes, it is odd that so far no Jenisch person was even mentioned. She once again asserted that they are Roma and even suspected possible intermingling and Romani roots. Except, by that logic several European ethnicities, including mine, are Romani, as we have evidence of intermarriage already down to the 17th century. And did Roma and Jenisch really intermarry? Is there evidence or does she just claim they did? Because, considered how many gypsy stereotypes she herself seems to apply it would not surprise me.
Well, that and her hypocrisy. You see when this Mariella Mehr person refers to herself as a Roma even though she is a Jenisch, the author accepts that but in the start of the book she happily dismissed the wish of Sinti to not be called Roma. Interesting double standard. Also, it is true that Mehr published in Romani, but it was translated into Romani by someone else, unlike what this here suggests.
And while her generalizing is bad enough, her insertion of theorizing and psychology hits the roof and was really annoying.
And since when are bulls the protectorate of the goddess Diana? She is associated with oak groves, deer and hunting dogs, her Greek counterpart Artemis is the same. In fact, was any roman god, except maybe Jupiter, associated with bulls? There was this Mithras cult, but does that count? Does the author care?
At close to three-quarters of the book not only did I have to look at the title of the chapter to remember why on earth I should pay attention to all this talk about Mehr's books (it was a waste of time) but then the author was once again at the generalizing and I wondered whether she even considers that the alleged similarities between Jenish and Roma is due to social class and not ethnicity. She seems to gravitate towards the latter. That chapter was almost an entire waste of time and possibly dangerous. The only reason I can make out as to why she regards Jenisch as Roma is simply that she took the application of the term "gypsy" and regards it as derogatory but still synonymous with "Roma."
And for the author these three writers are "diverse", as one is a Sintezza, one a Rom and one Jenisch, they are only in one group because the author says so. And "younger" is true to a sense as one of them was born in the late 1940s so he is younger than the prior authors. I don't think the author bothered to do any research with younger "Roma", not at all.
Typical for this hypocritical writer, she has no problem criticizing the mainstream culture but Reinhardt's xenophobia and racism she excuses with past prejudice just like Reinhardt does. I think both should realize that Romani has already been written down and used on social media platforms. That train has left the station long time ago.
Shortly after this I came to the realization not to trust the author anymore. When she claims these Jenisch married Gadze, who knows whether the authors really stated that (not to mention that Sinti now say Chale instead of Gadze). She even claims that no Romani music was played but classical is a sign of generational and cultural shift. But how does she know that? These are Jenisch and not Roma. Plus, does she even know stuff like Sinti jazz? That stuff is still played constantly.
How can she be so sure that this Jenisch author portrayed actual cultural practices of Sinti? Because I never heard of smoking cigarettes to drive away mulo. In fact, among Sinti I only read of Mulo being death itself and not just spirits. And if this wasn’t everything, she wrote of Jenisch and Roma beliefs!!! But based on her own categorization in this book that would be like saying Mexican and Hispanic beliefs, at least when you apply the prior categorization of the author. After all, didn't she state that Jenisch are Roma? So why suddenly this split?
She also speaks of younger Roma, but how would she know what younger Roma think? Her youngest interviewee was in her 40s at this time. Also, I am really glad I skipped most of that particular chapter. This book had gone downhill very fast once the 2/3 mark was passed.
Of course it is the mainstream who is arrogant but never the Roma. And why does assimilation mean eradication to these people? Assimilation rarely works like that. Then again, these people here seem to assume that for women equality mostly means to be like men. BS. It means equality of choice and not for a woman to be a man but to be the one she is and wants to be.
I was so relieved when I was through with this book and could check the bibliography. There it was revealed that of course she quotes Fricke but not Opfermann, even though she does know one book from Opfermann and the Höllenrainer books… so she chose to ignore their content and Opfermann's 2012 book!
In retrospect, this book is dangerous in my mind. Too much generalizing, too many stereotypes, questionable categorizations, some things that are probably outright lies and so many omissions and questionable research.
Just skip this book, it is really not worth your time.
Displaying 1 of 1 review