The Development and Institutionalization of Romani Representation and Administration. Part 2: Beginnings of Modern Institutionalization (Nineteenth Century—World War II)

Abstract

This article is the second in this series, following “Part 1: The Legacy of Early Institutionalism: From Gypsy Fiefs to Gypsy Kings”, which covered the period from the arrival of Gypsies to Europe until the mid-nineteenth century and was published in Volume 32, Number 3 of Nationalities Papers. Part 2 describes the birth of the first modern forms of ethnically-based political and social organizations established by Romani elites from the nineteenth century up until the Second World War (WWII). The main pattern of the development of Romani representation and administration until the mid-nineteenth century—as described in Part 1—distinguished between institutionalization from within and without. In the time period described here, the pattern changes because the majority of organizations and institutions established in order to represent and administer Roma are started upon the initiative of Romani leaders. Some are, however, created under the umbrella or patronage of non-Romani authorities or organizations and their activities are controlled by these patrons; others are created in (various degrees of) cooperation with non-Romani authorities or organizations and a few are created and operate independently. In addition, during this period the first few non-Romani non-governmental organizations start to take interest in the plight of Roma, and some organizations are specifically created to address their plight and lobby “on their behalf.” The other pattern of the development that emerges in this period is the gradual ascent of the institutionalization to higher levels. While until the nineteenth century most of the Gypsies organized themselves locally and regionally (with the exception of the Polish Office of the Gypsy Kings and the Chief Voivods in Transylvania and Hungary), in this period we see the first attempts by Roma themselves to expand the institutionalization countrywide and even internationally. These patterns are again explored in the conclusion (and summarized in Table 1), while the main body deals with the various arrangements in a more or less chronological and geographical order.

Roma Portraits in History

“…Leimanis' activities fit well in the broader context of Eastern European Roma activism in the interwar period (Klímová-Alexander, 2005a;Marushiakova & Popov, 2015b; even if we lack evidence that he might have known about Roma activities in other countries. In a study on contemporary Roma activism in Central Europe, Peter Vermeersch pointed to a significant feature of Roma activism in general: Like many ethnic movements, the Romani movement […] is complex and diffuse.…”

«маленька» Трагедія На Узбіччі «великих Історій»: Геноцид Ромів На Волині (1941–1944 Рр.)

“…І. Лико відмовився, а наступного дня дізнався, що всю родину за наказом «Чорноти» таки було вбито [51, с. 214-215] 3 . Ще один епізод, який ілюструє логіку вбивств ромів службовцями СБ ОУН.…”

Helios Gómez: la invisibilidad de la revolución gitana

“…Por su parte, la España en la que vivió y murió Helios Gómez rizó el rizo cuando el aparato cultural del franquismo se dispuso a explotar el rédito nacionalista del tópico gitano: mientras que «lo gitano» estereotipado iba a ser elevado a representación de la identidad nacional (bien pasado por el almirez del flamenco y otros filtros), los gitanos reales seguirían siendo despreciados 56 La Rambla, 24-9-1934. 57 Klímová-Alexander (2005). 58 Fings et al (1997); Kenrick (1999Kenrick ( y 2006, y Lewy (2000).…”