What do you think?
Rate this book
The Roma in Romanian History
One of the greatest challenges during the enlargement process of the European Union towards the east is how the issue of the Roma or Gypsies is tackled. This ethnic minority group represents a much higher share by numbers, too, in some regions going above 20% of the population. This enormous social and political problem cannot be solved without proper historical studies like this book, the most comprehensive history of Gypsies in Romania. It is based on academic research, synthesizing the entire historical Romanian and foreign literature concerning this topic, and using lot of information from the archives. The main focus is laid on the events of the greatest consequence. Special attention is devoted to aspects linked to the long history of the Gypsies, such as slavery, the process of integration and assimilation into the majority population, as well as the marginalization of Gypsies, which has historic roots. The process of emancipation of Gypsies in the mid-19th century receives due treatment. The deportation of Gypsies to Transnistria during the Antonescu regime, between 1942-1944, is reconstructed in a special chapter. The closing chapters elaborate on the policy toward Gypsies in the decades after the Second World War that explain for the latest developments and for the situation of this population in today's Romania.
237 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1998
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 18, 2015
A necessary book.
Yet a work of Romanian schooling. Meaning the book is important as the subject is barely discussed in Romanian history. But the quality of the work is execrable.
Viorel Achim can tell why a large group of people moved some hundreds of kilometers some five centuries ago like they are his long lost buddies and they have just talked over the phone. Based on some deeds selling some people like cattle, he can explain why and when those people moved from one kingdom to another.
Than there is the overuse of arguments that simply should not be there. Like "incontestable", "it is certain", or "there is no doubt".
The poor quality of the research leads to bigger issues like just because you have seen the "first" documentary proof does not mean there isn't anything before. Other times the man just forgets to source things. Is he making the story along the way? Is he unprepared for such a work?
Also the study of the existing documents is very shallow. He mentions that gypsy equates slave, but are all slaves considered gypsy? One can never find out because Viorel Achim never bothered to check.
The book has good points. Like proving the low quality of the god—emperor of History in Romania: Nicolae Iorga. Nicolae Iorga was a prolific extremist writer with a holy mission: to invent a nation out of scattered pieces and documents. On the issue of the Roma people he was wrong just like with the rest of his work. And Viorel Achim needed guts to take on Iorga's work.
Yet Viorel Achim is just another product of his generation. He is a true believer and not much of a researcher. So he conveniently forgets some parts. Other times he dilutes the message. Such as on page 31 "... categories: princely slaves, slaves belonging to a monastery..." How about church slaves as the naive and innocent orthodox church used to deal in humans quite often and it was quite upset for the abolition of slavery.
Also, for a work written and produced in the 20th century there are many objectionable remarks. "Gift of Gypsies by... princes... were made from this fund of princely slaves". Fund?
Like he was told in school, Viorel Achim parrots the nationalist propaganda: the owner did not have the right to kill the slave. Oh, really? There is no justice. Courts of law are something to be seen in the late 19th century and mostly for the well to do. Cruel punishments that lead to death are a common thing even when free people are involved. Yet, for Achim, the owner does not have the right to kill the slave. Also he would remark (page 42) the nice remarks of Metropolitan (church leader) as "Gypsies should not be shared as animals". Achim does not seem to remark the terribly racist opening remark "Gypsies are part of god's creation" which translates they are some sort of cattles and not humans. And Achim also does not seem to remark this is a gratuitous remark in favor of the slave dealer, because the speech was not intended to be law, but to show the limitless goodness of the god's dealer. Yet, when it serves him, Achim does put things in context. On the part of nationalism, on the same page he does not fail to mark that Transylvania *is* Romanian, although there was no Romania at the time or before that and not for a few centuries after.
The book is quite a quick read. But it could have been an even shorter read if not for the diarrhea of words. Instead of saying that the children of a free individual and a slave were free Viorel Achim wastes some two pages explaining every case. Lucky there was no gay marriage or he would have added some 10 extra pages.
The quality of the discourse is seriously lacking, reaching at times the level of a junior high essay. This way the Gypsies owned by the Bran Castle master "own the payment of a tax and certain services". Enlightening!
Viorel Achim is also very negligent in his research. Although in the first part he tells how even the Western Europe Gypsies are orthodox and not catholic is proof they have spent time in the Byzantine Empire, at page 44 he remarks lightly that in Transylvania the Gypsies were tolerated with their non christian beliefs. What? Transylvania is on the fault line between the catholics and the orthodox. The result of this confrontation is the greek catholic church, a hybrid of the two. Gypsies are tolerated for being orthodox, not pagan.
After the introduction the discourse turns to plain racism. Page 48 "Since the Gypsies had a natural predisposition for craftmanship." Page 49 "Gypsies were used for certain agricultural tasks that did not require any particular skill". Page 50 about the gold washer Gypsies "The occupation was undoubtly learned from the Romanians".
A needed, yet sorry piece of historical research.
Yet a work of Romanian schooling. Meaning the book is important as the subject is barely discussed in Romanian history. But the quality of the work is execrable.
Viorel Achim can tell why a large group of people moved some hundreds of kilometers some five centuries ago like they are his long lost buddies and they have just talked over the phone. Based on some deeds selling some people like cattle, he can explain why and when those people moved from one kingdom to another.
Than there is the overuse of arguments that simply should not be there. Like "incontestable", "it is certain", or "there is no doubt".
The poor quality of the research leads to bigger issues like just because you have seen the "first" documentary proof does not mean there isn't anything before. Other times the man just forgets to source things. Is he making the story along the way? Is he unprepared for such a work?
Also the study of the existing documents is very shallow. He mentions that gypsy equates slave, but are all slaves considered gypsy? One can never find out because Viorel Achim never bothered to check.
The book has good points. Like proving the low quality of the god—emperor of History in Romania: Nicolae Iorga. Nicolae Iorga was a prolific extremist writer with a holy mission: to invent a nation out of scattered pieces and documents. On the issue of the Roma people he was wrong just like with the rest of his work. And Viorel Achim needed guts to take on Iorga's work.
Yet Viorel Achim is just another product of his generation. He is a true believer and not much of a researcher. So he conveniently forgets some parts. Other times he dilutes the message. Such as on page 31 "... categories: princely slaves, slaves belonging to a monastery..." How about church slaves as the naive and innocent orthodox church used to deal in humans quite often and it was quite upset for the abolition of slavery.
Also, for a work written and produced in the 20th century there are many objectionable remarks. "Gift of Gypsies by... princes... were made from this fund of princely slaves". Fund?
Like he was told in school, Viorel Achim parrots the nationalist propaganda: the owner did not have the right to kill the slave. Oh, really? There is no justice. Courts of law are something to be seen in the late 19th century and mostly for the well to do. Cruel punishments that lead to death are a common thing even when free people are involved. Yet, for Achim, the owner does not have the right to kill the slave. Also he would remark (page 42) the nice remarks of Metropolitan (church leader) as "Gypsies should not be shared as animals". Achim does not seem to remark the terribly racist opening remark "Gypsies are part of god's creation" which translates they are some sort of cattles and not humans. And Achim also does not seem to remark this is a gratuitous remark in favor of the slave dealer, because the speech was not intended to be law, but to show the limitless goodness of the god's dealer. Yet, when it serves him, Achim does put things in context. On the part of nationalism, on the same page he does not fail to mark that Transylvania *is* Romanian, although there was no Romania at the time or before that and not for a few centuries after.
The book is quite a quick read. But it could have been an even shorter read if not for the diarrhea of words. Instead of saying that the children of a free individual and a slave were free Viorel Achim wastes some two pages explaining every case. Lucky there was no gay marriage or he would have added some 10 extra pages.
The quality of the discourse is seriously lacking, reaching at times the level of a junior high essay. This way the Gypsies owned by the Bran Castle master "own the payment of a tax and certain services". Enlightening!
Viorel Achim is also very negligent in his research. Although in the first part he tells how even the Western Europe Gypsies are orthodox and not catholic is proof they have spent time in the Byzantine Empire, at page 44 he remarks lightly that in Transylvania the Gypsies were tolerated with their non christian beliefs. What? Transylvania is on the fault line between the catholics and the orthodox. The result of this confrontation is the greek catholic church, a hybrid of the two. Gypsies are tolerated for being orthodox, not pagan.
After the introduction the discourse turns to plain racism. Page 48 "Since the Gypsies had a natural predisposition for craftmanship." Page 49 "Gypsies were used for certain agricultural tasks that did not require any particular skill". Page 50 about the gold washer Gypsies "The occupation was undoubtly learned from the Romanians".
A needed, yet sorry piece of historical research.
April 14, 2021
I was astonished to learn from this that the Roma, from their earliest attestation in Romania, were treated as slaves – right up to the nineteenth century. The entire Roma population was for centuries therefore treated as a subject race, with their freedom taken away by law. Knowing this helps to understand the contemporary prejudice against gypsies in Romania, which surely has roots in this historic subjection, with all the social and economic disadvantages which flow on from that.
And yet, it was a strange kind of slavery that permitted, in many cases, a surprising amount of freedom of movement. All most slave owners cared about was that on certain designated days throughout the year, the gypsies appeared and rendered up their “gypsy tax” to their masters. They were largely free to wander about and raise these funds for the rest of the year. This is a very peculiar form of slavery, and obviously very different, for example, to the situation of black slaves on the American plantations – but it was still an unjust system of bondage.
Much of Romania was historically part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and here gypsies were not slaves but were nevertheless discriminated against by law, especially in the 18th century. Measures included the forced abduction of children, banning gypsies from leaving their villages or from owning horses and carts, etc. Slavery was only abolished in Wallachia in 1856. Some churchmen were for emancipation, but others resisted it, because large numbers of gypsy slaves were owned by monasteries. A letter is quoted from an educated Romanian noting his shame that Bucharest newspapers carried advertisements about the sale of young gypsy girls. This would certainly have sent a frisson of horror through the Victorian sensibilities of other Europeans. The suggestion here is that what matters is that other Europeans will think Romania is backward and barbarous – real empathy for the plight of the slaves is lacking.
During World War Two, there was no direct persecution by the Germans of Romanian gypsies, but Antonescu forcibly removed perhaps a quarter of a million to conquered Bessarabia, where maybe half of them died of privation. This policy, though cruel and unjust, was not a genocide as such – when the Romanian army retreated back through these regions in 1944, they assisted surviving gypsies to return with them. At one point the text asserts that the families of soldiers serving in the Romanian army were not deported, and yet it also describes soldiers returning from leave to find their entire family had been forcibly removed. I don’t know how to reconcile this contradiction in the text – perhaps the families of serving soldiers were supposed to be exempt, but incompetent officials failed to separate them out from the rest? Antonescu’s deportation policy was not only criminally inhumane but also shows a shocking ingratitude to those who were literally fighting on his behalf.
A 1990’s study is referenced which suggests gypsies had higher levels of criminality because they were twice as likely to be in prison as other Romanians. But – although the text doesn’t say so – this may demonstrate the racism and injustice of the criminal justice system, rather than the inherent supposed criminality of the Roma.
The positive side of marginalisation – if one can speak of such a thing – is that modern Roma are, according to the author, more likely to be creative entrepreneurs. They are also more likely, he says, to be involved in organised crime. My experience of spending several weeks in the Banat in 2014 is that all institutions were utterly corrupt and it was essentially impossible to make an honest living doing anything. Maybe things have changed. I have also been robbed and cheated by Romanians, including officials, both then and since. On the other hand, I gave part time employment to a family of Roma from Romania living in England and found them incredibly hard working and totally honest and trustworthy. An independent report has just been published in the UK which says that the UK is not systemically racist. This family would agree, and they told me they have never encountered racism, discrimination or injustice from any UK officials or from any ethnic English people. Unfortunately, they have on occasion been exploited by other persons in the UK, and told me that this is a common experience for Roma living in the UK.
I have noted some of the puzzling contradictions in this book and I was left a little uncomfortable with some of the author’s opinions and expressions. But, on the whole, there was a lot of information here which I did not know, and which I was glad to learn.
And yet, it was a strange kind of slavery that permitted, in many cases, a surprising amount of freedom of movement. All most slave owners cared about was that on certain designated days throughout the year, the gypsies appeared and rendered up their “gypsy tax” to their masters. They were largely free to wander about and raise these funds for the rest of the year. This is a very peculiar form of slavery, and obviously very different, for example, to the situation of black slaves on the American plantations – but it was still an unjust system of bondage.
Much of Romania was historically part of the Austro-Hungarian empire and here gypsies were not slaves but were nevertheless discriminated against by law, especially in the 18th century. Measures included the forced abduction of children, banning gypsies from leaving their villages or from owning horses and carts, etc. Slavery was only abolished in Wallachia in 1856. Some churchmen were for emancipation, but others resisted it, because large numbers of gypsy slaves were owned by monasteries. A letter is quoted from an educated Romanian noting his shame that Bucharest newspapers carried advertisements about the sale of young gypsy girls. This would certainly have sent a frisson of horror through the Victorian sensibilities of other Europeans. The suggestion here is that what matters is that other Europeans will think Romania is backward and barbarous – real empathy for the plight of the slaves is lacking.
During World War Two, there was no direct persecution by the Germans of Romanian gypsies, but Antonescu forcibly removed perhaps a quarter of a million to conquered Bessarabia, where maybe half of them died of privation. This policy, though cruel and unjust, was not a genocide as such – when the Romanian army retreated back through these regions in 1944, they assisted surviving gypsies to return with them. At one point the text asserts that the families of soldiers serving in the Romanian army were not deported, and yet it also describes soldiers returning from leave to find their entire family had been forcibly removed. I don’t know how to reconcile this contradiction in the text – perhaps the families of serving soldiers were supposed to be exempt, but incompetent officials failed to separate them out from the rest? Antonescu’s deportation policy was not only criminally inhumane but also shows a shocking ingratitude to those who were literally fighting on his behalf.
A 1990’s study is referenced which suggests gypsies had higher levels of criminality because they were twice as likely to be in prison as other Romanians. But – although the text doesn’t say so – this may demonstrate the racism and injustice of the criminal justice system, rather than the inherent supposed criminality of the Roma.
The positive side of marginalisation – if one can speak of such a thing – is that modern Roma are, according to the author, more likely to be creative entrepreneurs. They are also more likely, he says, to be involved in organised crime. My experience of spending several weeks in the Banat in 2014 is that all institutions were utterly corrupt and it was essentially impossible to make an honest living doing anything. Maybe things have changed. I have also been robbed and cheated by Romanians, including officials, both then and since. On the other hand, I gave part time employment to a family of Roma from Romania living in England and found them incredibly hard working and totally honest and trustworthy. An independent report has just been published in the UK which says that the UK is not systemically racist. This family would agree, and they told me they have never encountered racism, discrimination or injustice from any UK officials or from any ethnic English people. Unfortunately, they have on occasion been exploited by other persons in the UK, and told me that this is a common experience for Roma living in the UK.
I have noted some of the puzzling contradictions in this book and I was left a little uncomfortable with some of the author’s opinions and expressions. But, on the whole, there was a lot of information here which I did not know, and which I was glad to learn.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews