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

Co e Jan O The Roma as Agen s o he “G*psy Ques ion” Belonging, Mobili y and he Rese lemen Policy in Socialis Czechoslo akia KAROLINUM The s o y o Romani people in communis Czechoslo akia has long been amed by a disc imina o y policy o assimila ion, and hus by a al in e en ions in o Romani amily ies and hei b oade socio-cul u al sys ems. Pa adoxically, such a na a i e ailed o sa is ac o ily in eg a e he pe spec i e o he Roma hemsel es, who o en associa ed he same pe iod wi h an unp eceden ed expe ience o social inclusion and ma e ial secu i y. In his book, Jan O examines he s a e policy ha in he mid-1960s aimed a he de i ni i e elimina ion o “G*psy backwa dness” h ough he placemen o housands o Roma amilies in non-Roma socie y, hus becoming a symbol o he social enginee ing in e en ions o he communis egime in he li es o Czechoslo ak Roma. In con as o he p edominan ocus on he pe spec i e o s a e au ho i ies, he au ho seeks o map he p ac ice o his policy in speci i c places, wi h an emphasis on he expe iences and agency o he Roma hemsel es, especially hose who had hei homes in eas e n Slo akia. In he empi ical ichness o a mic ohis o ical app oach, he book unco e s he di e se s o ies o o dina y Roma who we e able o inco po a e a ious aspec s o s a e policy in o hei own li e s a egies wi hou necessa ily gi ing up hei dis inc i e cul u al iden i y. Jan O | The Roma as Agen s o he “G*psy Ques ion” oma as agen s_mon .indd 1 oma as agen s_mon .indd 1 27.01.2025 15:4127.01.2025 15:41 The Roma as Agen s o he “G*psy Ques ion” Belonging, Mobili y and he Rese lemen Policy in Socialis Czechoslo akia Jan O KAROLINUM PRESS Ka olinum P ess is a publishing depa men o Cha les Uni e si y O ocný h 560/5, 116 36 P ague 1, Czech Republic www.ka olinum.cz © Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y, 2024 T ansla ion © Phil Jones, 2024 Co e pho og aph © Cou esy o S a e A chi e Košice Copyedi ing by Ma in Janeček Se by Ka olinum P ess Layou by Jan Še ých Fi s edi ion Resea ch o his book was inanced by G an no. 19-26638X, “Genocide, Pos wa Mig a ion and Social Mobili y: En angled Expe iences o Roma and Jews”, unded by he Czech Science Founda ion, ca ied ou a Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y, 2024. This wo k is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License (CC BY 4.0), which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e c edi ed. ISBN 978-80-246-6052-3 ISBN 978-80-246-6053-0 (pd ) ISBN 978-80-246-6054-7 (epub) h ps://doi.o g/10.14712/9788024660530 The o iginal manusc ip was e iewed by Celia Done (Uni e si y o Camb idge), and Elena Ma ushiako a (Uni e si y o S And ews & Ins i u e o E hnology and Social An h opology SAS, B a isla a). Cha les Uni e si y Ka olinum P ess www.ka olinum.cz [email p o ec ed] Con en s Acknowledgmen s 9 In oduc ion 11 0.1 The Roma o Kapišo á 13 0.1.1 Agency, con inui y, discon inui y 15 0.2 The Roma in Czechoslo akia and Policies owa ds G*psies 16 0.2.1 Rese lemen policy 19 0.3 Re lec ions on he Rese lemen Policy and P ac ice 23 0.3.1 Pos - e olu iona y e lec ions in Czech and Slo ak his o iog aphy 24 0.3.2 Localised s udies 27 0.3.3 The ese lemen policy in he new na a i e o Romani his o y 31 0.4 Roma as an In eg al Pa o Socie y 32 0.4.1 Regional and sub-e hnic ou line o esea ch in e es 33 0.4.2 Te minology 35 0.4.3 S uc u e o he book 37 1. CHAPTER ONE Romani Agency, An h opology and His o y 42 1.1 Ways o S udying Agency 45 1.1.1 Ma gins as a s a ing poin o analysis 45 1.1.2 Dominance and esis ance 47 1.1.3 Nego ia ing ma ginalisa ion 50 1.1.4 The social posi ion and iden i y o he Roma in Cen al Eu ope 52 1.1.5 An h opology, his o y and s udies o agency 55 1.1.6 The ques ion o ep esen a i eness 58 1.2 Me hods 60 1.2.1 O al his o y 61 1.2.2 Resea ch in o he p ac ice o he ese lemen policy 63 1.2.3 O al his o y and collabo a i e esea ch 65 1.3 The E hical Dimension o Resea ch 71 2. CHAPTER TWO Who Coun s as a G*psy? 73 2.1 Discou se o G*psyness 75 2.1.1 O icial ca ego isa ion 75 2.1.2 Racism as an obs acle o e-educa ion 79 2.1.3 “In he in e es s o all” 84 2.1.4 “Le he councillo s house hem in hei own home” 88 2.1.5 Dis up ing he homogenous image o G*psyness? 92 2.1.6 The igu e o he “ espec able G*psy” 95 2.1.7 Re lec ions upon he limi s o social accep ance 98 2.2 Roma and G*psies in B eko 101 2.2.1 The s o y o he excep ional Roma o B eko 101 2.2.2 A i udes o he B eko Roma in documen s o he ime 104 2.2.3 The social posi ion o he Roma in B eko 109 2.2.4 “Local” and “ o eign G*psies” 111 2.2.5 Displacemen o a o eign G*psy 115 2.2.6 E ic ion as a esolu ion o local con lic s 119 2.3 Conclusion 126 3. CHAPTER THREE The Se lemen s: Be ween Ma ginalisa ion and Au onomy 130 3.1 Cen al and Regional Policies owa ds he Se lemen s 133 3.2 Discou se o he G*psy Se lemen s 135 3.2.1 The logic o “liquida ion” 135 3.2.2 The se lemen s as a locus o Romani cul u e? 137 3.2.3 Ma ginalisa ion, s igma isa ion, belonging 139 3.3 Disposal o he Se lemen s in he Fo me Dis ic o Humenné 142 3.3.1 The posi ion o he local au ho i ies 145 3.3.2 “Success ul liquida ion”: he se lemen in Ľubiša 147 3.3.3 Disposal o he se lemen in he illage o Papín 151 3.4 Podskalka: Be ween Ma ginalisa ion and Au onomy 156 3.4.1 Reloca e, build o liquida e? 157 3.4.2 Sel -go e ning Podskalka? 161 3.4.3 The posi ion o he Roma 163 3.4.4 Buying up he shacks 166 3.4.5 Elemí T.: F om Podskalka o he own 167 3.4.6 F an išek B: A shack o be liquida ed? 170 3.4.7 Who bene i ed om he “G*psy policy”? 173 3.4.8 The ep oduc ion o e i o ialisa ion 174 3.5 Conclusion 176 4. CHAPTER FOUR Rese lemen , Mig a ion, Dispe sion: Mo emen Con ol and Agen i e S a egies 180 4.1 Genesis o he Rese lemen Policy 183 4.2 The Discou se o “Dispe sion” 187 4.2.1 Complain s ega ding es ic ions on mo emen 188 4.2.2 C i icism o ese lemen a he ime 190 4.3 Rese lemen om Humenné 194 4.4 The Pos -Wa Mig a ion o he Roma o he Bo de lands 197 4.4.1 F om Papín o No h Bohemia 200 4.4.2 Immig an s in he bo de lands 204 4.4.3 Policy owa d he Roma in he bo de lands 205 4.4.4 The Ac on he Pe manen Se lemen o Nomadic Pe sons 207 4.4.5 Con inui y o dispe sion in he bo de egion 209 4.5 The Rese lemen o he Roma in he Jičín Region 212 4.5.1 Ini ial condi ions o ese lemen 216 4.5.2 Regional policies in Šeme ko ce 218 4.5.3 The pa ne dis ic o Jičín 220 4.5.4 Ca ego isa ion o ese led amilies 221 4.5.5 A i udes o he Roma om a gende pe spec i e 225 4.5.6 Rese lemen and he p oduc ion o mo emen 229 4.5.7 Nos algia o Slo akia and c oss-bo de socio-economic ne wo ks 233 4.5.8 The ans o ma ion o ela ionships om a gende pe spec i e 235 4.6 Conclusion 241 Conclusion 245 Re e ences 252 Lis o abb e a ions 262 Regis e 263 9 This book is published wi h he suppo o he G an Academy o he Czech Republic as pa o he p ojec en i led Genocide, Pos -wa Mig- a ion, and Social Mobili y: The En angled Expe iences o Roma and Jews. I is based on a hesis ha in he o iginal Czech e sion was en i - led Romo é jako ak éři cikánské o ázky. Náležení, mobili a apřesidlo ací poli- ika Českoslo ensku 60. le , which was de ended a he Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y, P ague. The esea ch i sel could no ha e been conduc ed wi hou he will- ingness o i s pa icipan s, especially he Romani in e iewees. I am hugely g a e ul o my mee ings wi h Elena Cino á, Pe e Kud áč and he sis e s Monika H and Ma cela S. I would like o hank all o hese o hei willingness o ead my inal ex (o pa s o i ). I would also like o hank he s a o all o he a chi es and lib a ies e e ed o. I owe a deb o g a i ude o Helena Sadílko á, who unde ook he ole o my supe iso wi h g ea commi men and was mo e han happy o discuss he a ious s ages o my esea ch and o e me he hones opinion o he ex as i was being w i en. Much o wha I o mula e and emphasise in he book is he ou come o nume ous discussions wi h he . I would also like o hank all o my colleagues a he Semina o Romani S udies a he Facul y o A s, Cha les Uni e si y, who ha e inspi ed me since my unde g adua e s udies wi h hei sensi i i y o esea ch and w i ing abou he Roma and hei igou when enqui ing in o he li ed expe ience o he Roma and hei ac o ial pe spec i e. Equally, he insigh s o people om o he disciplines, especially his- o y and social an h opology, ha e been c ucial. He e I would like o hank Yasa Abu Ghosh, Pa el Baloun, Ma in Fo a, Jan G ill and Ma ěj Acknowledgmen s 16 locally and his o ically con ingen con ex s and, as a esul , p e igu es he di e si y o expe ience and agency o he Roma. In addi ion, howe e , he s udy highligh s he need o amo e sub le di e en ia ion o he posi ions o “non-Romani” ac o s, including indi- idual s a e bodies. I hus ske ches he con ou s o ab oade ield o manoeu e, in which he p ac ice o he cen al policy a ge ing G*psies is nego ia ed wi hin ne wo ks o ac o s and ela ions, o which he Roma a e an in eg al pa . The s o y o he Kapišo á Roma hus allows o a e aming o policies owa ds G*psies ha can be seen no only as he his o y o e o s o con ol and manage he li es o socially non-con- o ming popula ions, bu , h ough he example o speci ic p ac ices, can also be unde s ood h ough he con inui y o Romani s a egies o socia- bili y. Al hough egis e ed as “nomads” (kočo níci) and he e o e a ge - ed o legal ese lemen , he Roma o Kapišo á con inued o mig a e o wo k, some imes wi h he blessing o se e al non-Romani agen s such as employe s and au ho i ies in Czechia. A he same ime, hey main ained he con inui y o belonging and p esence o he Roma in a illage in Slo- akia, e en hough, classi ied as G*psies, hey should ha e been ese led and hei se lemen de ini i ely emo ed. He e again, hey managed his wi h he acquiescence o non-Romani agen s, in his case hei neigh- bou s and he local au ho i y. In summa y, he in oduc o y s o y adumb a es well he space wi hin which his book is si ua ed, in which he sha p dicho omy is blu ed be ween he s a e on he one hand, and he Roma as he “e e nal ou - side s” and ic ims o i s coe ci e and socially enginee ing policies on he o he . Aspace in which he posi ion o indi idual ac o s is no gi en in ad ance, bu o ms he subjec o nego ia ion, anego ia ion ha includes he by no means au oma ically assumed applica ion o adominan ly de ined classi ica ion o he populace. A he same ime, he s udy o eshadows he way in which Iwill ace hese ela ions and p ocesses, i.e.by means o amic ohis o ical app oach ha emphasises aspec s o localism and empo ali y and combines di e en ypes o his- o ical sou ces, especially a chi al ma e ials and o al-his o y in e iews. 0.2 The Roma in Czechoslo akia and Policies owa ds G*psies In he 1970s, he B i ish sociologis Will Guy o e ed se e al easons as o why Czechoslo akia was impo an in espec o he s udy o Romani 17 his o y. One eason was he ac ha he e had been wo la ge-scale, sys- ema ic a emp s o assimila e he Roma in his coun y. The i s ook place in he second hal o he 18 h cen u y unde he eign o he Habs- bu g mona chs Ma ia The esa and Joseph II. The second was unde he communis egime h ough apolicy ha Guy da es back o 1958 (Guy 1998 [1975], 16–17), which culmina ed in an o ganised ese lemen p o- g amme in he wake o ago e nmen esolu ion o Oc obe 1965. In o de o unde s and he con ex o he genesis and ealisa ion o he com- munis assimila ion policy in gene al, and he ese lemen p og amme in pa icula , i is wo h ecalling ano he aspec ha a ac ed Guy’sa en- ion o he his o y o he Roma in Czechoslo akia, namely, he di e gen de elopmen o he si ua ion o he Roma in Czechia and Slo akia. Guy eminds he eade ha de elopmen s in Czechia we e mo e simila o he si ua ion o he Roma in he coun ies o wes e n Eu ope, which was cha ac e ised by ha sh an i-Roma measu es leading o ye mo e mobili y. In Slo akia, which had p e iously been pa o he Kingdom o Hunga- y, he Roma became an in eg al pa o he local socio-economic sys ems while con ibu ing o hei ans o ma ion.3 Likewise, hei si ua ion du ing he Second Wo ld Wa was also di e en . In he Slo ak Republic (1939–1945), he Roma aced a ious o ms o pe secu ion (a he end o he 1930s he e we e a ound 80,000 li ing he e in o al), which esul ed in conside able loss o li e. Howe e , in gene al, hey a oided he a e o he Roma in he P o ec o a e o Bohemia and Mo a ia, whe e many pe ished in concen a ion camps and only a ew hund ed su i ed he wa (Nečas 1999; o amo e de ailed compa ison o he a e o he Roma in bo h egions, see Sadílko á 2020). The pos -wa Romani popula ion in Czechia was o e whelmingly made up o immig an s om Slo akia, whose mig a ion mus be seen as pa o b oade popula ion mo emen s a e he Second Wo ld Wa . Like o he inhabi an s o mainly u al a eas o Slo akia, he Roma a i ed as awo k o ce in eme ging indus ial owns and ci ies, o en as 3 The e is, unde s andably, adeg ee o gene alisa ion aking place, some hing ha Guy himsel admi s. The si ua ion o he Roma may ha e di e ed signi ican ly wi hin he wo egions unde discussion. As ega ds he si ua ion p io o he Second Wo ld Wa , in Czechia we can basically dis inguish be ween he si ua ion o (semi-)i ine an “Bohemian” Roma and “Mo a ian” Roma, who we e se led in speci ic illages and also displayed ahigh le el o in eg a ion in locally o med socio-economic s uc u es (see, o example, Ho á ho á 2005). In Slo akia, on he o he hand, we migh dis inguish be ween he si ua ion o he se led “Slo ak” Roma and he (semi-)i ine an “Vlax” Roma (also e e ed o as Lo a a) wi h hei di e en mig a o y ajec o ies and, o some ex en , di e en language and cul u al sys em (see, o example, Hajská 2024, 15–24). 18 a esul o o ganised ec ui men d i es. Howe e , hey we e also pa o he epopula ion o he Bohemian bo de lands, om which nea ly h ee million Ge mans had been o cibly emo ed a e he wa (see, o example, Ge lach 2010). As he si ua ion in Kapišo á illus a es well, when acing he pos -wa mo emen o he Roma (see O 2022b), one mus no o e look he asymme ical social belonging in which, despi e aconside able deg ee o in eg a ion in o local socio-economic sys ems, hey ound hemsel es because o as ong associa ion wi h he acialised ca ego y o G*psyness. Fo many o hem, he Second Wo ld Wa had unde sco ed he expe ience o pa e nalism and acism and he a al dis- up ion o ela ions wi h hei immedia e non-Romani neighbou s (see Sadílko á 2020). And so o many o he Roma, pos -wa mig a ion also mean an escape om hese his o ically en enched, highly powe -ineq- ui able ela ional s uc u es. A he same ime, he la ge-scale mig a o y mo emen o he Roma ha began in he e y i s pos -wa yea s ga e ise no only o new popula ions o Romani immig an s and indi idu- al communi ies in speci ic loca ions, bu also o ansna ional ne wo ks be ween Slo akia and Czechia ha ensu ed he mo emen o people, goods and a ious o ms o capi al o decades o come, in many cases igh up o he p esen day. I was in his con ex ha he pos -wa policy owa ds he Roma– o a he owa ds ci izens who we e ca ego ised as G*psies and la e as “ci izens o G*psy o igin” (občané c*kánského pů odu)– was o med. The exis ing socio-economic ma ginalisa ion o he Roma, which was no ice- able especially in he seg ega ed se lemen s o mainly eas e n Slo a- kia, bu also isible in owns and ci ies in Czechia, whe e newly a i ed Romani amilies o en li ed in subs anda d condi ions, was in e p e ed by he cen al au ho i ies as asign o hei allegedly en enched “cul u al backwa dness” (kul u ní zaos alos ). In his espec , he p e ailing iew o he Roma ep esen ed akind o con inui y e en a e he commu- nis coup d’é a in 1948. Howe e , in he o icial app oach o he Roma, which had been aking shape in communis Czechoslo akia since he ea ly 1950s, his backwa dness was blamed mainly on he p e ious bou - geois and Nazi egimes and hei an i-Roma policies. In his espec , he policy owa ds he Roma was accompanied by abelie ha , wi h he app op ia e ca e, hey would eme ge om hei “cul u al backwa dness” o become ully- ledged membe s o he socie y o communis Czecho- slo akia. Looked a om he o he side, as a as he newly es ablished communis egime was conce ned, he igu e o he “G*psy labou e ” (c*kánský dělník) became one o he key pe o mance indica o s o he 19 o ma ion o he new socialis socie y and i s legi imacy (see Done 2017, Spu ný 2011). In he 1950s, in an e o o “ e-educa e” (pře ycho a ) he G*psies, he cen al au ho i ies combined a ious app oaches, including he o ced emo al o child en om he “unheal hy en i onmen o G*psy amilies” (nezd a é p os ředí c*kánských odin). They also conside ed he possibili y o ensh ining in law he cul u al igh s o he Roma in line wi h he S alinis app oach o na ional mino i ies and h ough he ideological aining o ep esen a i es o he Roma, who hemsel es we e o mula - ing hei own ideas ega ding he socie al posi ion o he Roma as ag oup (Done 2008). Howe e , as a as he local au ho i ies and non-Romani popula ion we e conce ned, an i-Roma eelings pe sis ed, and hese ga e ise o g owing demands o he adop ion o speci ic es ic i e measu es. I was oices om he p o inces ha p o ided an impo an con ex o he app o al o Ac 74/1958 on he Pe manen Se lemen o Nomadic Pe sons, which basically p oceeded o c iminalise he Roma and was hus in ended o consolida e he legi imacy o he communis dic a o ship as i passed h ough i s i s signi ican c isis (Spu ný2011,282–285). The de ini i e mo e owa ds apolicy o assimila ion and hus a e usal o g an speci ic cul u al igh s o he Roma was o mula ed in he same yea in ago e nmen esolu ion on Wo k amongs he G*psy Popula- ion. The esolu ion de ined G*psies as asocial g oup ha was o be eed om hei “backwa d way o li e” (zaos alý způsob ži o a), p ima ily h ough ull inclusion in he labou o ce (Ju o á 2008, 688). I was o his o mula ion o he communis egime’sapp oach o he Roma ha Guy made e e ence when he spoke o he second sys ema ic a emp o assimila e he Roma in Czechoslo akia. 0.2.1 Rese lemen policy The e we e h ee main goals in he policy d awn up in 1958, he ul il- men o which was in ended o lead o he comple e assimila ion o he Roma in he socie y o ha ime. The i s was hei ull inclusion in he labou o ce. The second, backed up by Ac 74/1958, placed es ic ions on wo-way mig a ion be ween Slo akia and Czechia. And he hi d was he “liquida ion o G*psy concen a ions” (lik idace c*kánských koncen - ací), especially he eas e n Slo ak “G*psy se lemen s” (c*kánské osady; Guy 1977, 177–181). O e he cou se o he ollowing yea s, howe e , hese objec i es we e no me . Guy iden i ies he main eason as being 20 he sluggish app oach aken by he Municipal Na ional Commi ees (MNVs), which we e la gely esponsible o implemen a ion o he poli- cy. This is e iden in in e nal documen s om he cen al au ho i ies, which e e ed o a eluc ance on he pa o he local au ho i ies o o e - come en enched an i-Roma p ejudices ha we e p o ing an obs acle, especially when dealing wi h he housing si ua ion (Ju o á 2008). Guy adds, howe e , ha he e was also an economic dimension. The espon- sibili y o Municipal Na ional Commi ees was no backed by he p o i- sion o adequa e unding, he esul being ha local au ho i ies had o aise hei own unds in o de o enac he measu es e e ed o abo e. In addi ion, i was becoming appa en ha in eas e n Slo akia i sel , whe e he housing and employmen si ua ion was mos acu e, he e we e no enough job oppo uni ies o he Roma li ing he e. Guy concludes ha inasmuch as he e was any success, i was in he sphe e o employmen , hough adds ha his was pa adoxically hanks o ongoing mig a ion, which, despi e cen alised e o s o limi i , was ole a ed by he au ho i- ies in Slo akia and employe s in Czechia (Guy 1977, 309–318). Guy also no es ha ongoing e alua ions o he ine ec i eness o he assimila ion policy did no conclude ha i should be ejec ed o e amped, bu on he con a y in ensi ied and i s unde lying p inciples main ained. I was agains his backd op ha demands o he c ea ion o anew and mo e e ec i e adminis a i e s uc u e inc eased. The Slo- ak au ho i ies in pa icula began o s ess he need o an o ganised ans e (přesun) o ala ge numbe o Roma om i s eas e n egions o Czechia, and oices we e hea d pushing o he in oduc ion o quo- as applying o G*psies in indi idual owns and dis ic s (ibid., 315). These endencies culmina ed in he adop ion o Go e nmen Resolu- ion No.502, app o ed on 13 Oc obe 1965. While con inuing o pu sue he o e all goal o he “pe manen employmen o adolescen and adul G*psy ci izens and aising hei s anda d o li ing and cul u al s an- da ds”, he Resolu ion’sd a e s sough o o e come ea lie p oblems in i s implemen a ion. The esolu ion c ea ed an in e depa men al Go e n- men Commi ee on G*psy Popula ion Issues, an independen coo di- na ing and ad iso y body ha ook o e he ole ha had o me ly been pe o med by he Minis y o Educa ion and Cul u e (ibid.,253). In his new adminis a i e s uc u e asimila commi ee was also se up unde he Slo ak Na ional Council, along wi h special commissions answe ing o he Na ional Commi ees a he le el o egions, dis ic s and owns. The new s uc u e was alloca ed special unding om he s a e budge o co e he implemen a ion o speci ic measu es. 21 As in he case o he 1958 Ac , s ic ly speaking his esolu ion canno be seen as acen ally d a ed o ali a ian op-down policy, bu , a leas o some ex en , as a esponse o p essu es applied by egional ac o s (see Lucassen 2008). Fo along ime, he Roma in Czechoslo akia we e mos concen a ed in eas e n Slo akia, a egion also cha ac e ised by ahigh numbe o socio-economically ma ginalised and acially seg ega - ed se lemen s. As a as he local (bu also cen al) au ho i ies we e con- ce ned, hese se lemen s ep esen ed asigni ican secu i y and hygiene isk (Done 2017, 113–116). Going back o he ea ly 1960s, i no ea lie , he Regional Na ional Commi ee (KNV) had a gued ha he p edica- men o he eas Slo ak Roma could no be esol ed on apu ely egional basis (see, o example, Haišman 1999). And so inasmuch as he go e n- men esolu ion ins uc ed he newly appoin ed Go e nmen Commi ee o d aw up a ime able o he “liquida ion o G*psy concen a ions” (Ju o á 2008, 1003–1006), his was o some ex en a esponse o hese demands om he Regional Na ional Commi ee and, la e , om he Communis Pa y in Slo akia (Done 2017, 159). Demands o mo e sys- ema ic and op-down ins umen s o con ol o e he li es o he Roma con inued o be oiced e en in hose egions in Czechia ha we e he equen des ina ions o pos -wa Romani mig an s om Slo akia (see Chap e Fou ). A i s i s mee ing on 18 Decembe 1965, he Go e nmen Commi ee app o ed he documen “P inciples o he o ganisa ion o he dispe - sal and ans e o he G*psy popula ion o he pu pose o liquida ing undesi able G*psy concen a ions in acco dance wi h Pa y and go e n- men esolu ions”, in which i ins uc ed he s a e au ho i ies o “d aw up a ime able o he long- e m liquida ion o G*psy s ee s and neigh- bou hoods inCzechia and G*psy se lemen s in Slo akia” (Ju o á 2008, 1031).4 Two basic asks we e o be bo ne in mind when d awing up he ime able: I. he c ea ion o aplan o he dispe sal o he G*psy popula ion wi hin he bo de s o egions and dis ic s II. he c ea ion o aplan o he ans e o pa o he G*psy popula ion om Slo akia o Czechia 4 P io i y was o be gi en o he “liquida ion o G*psy se lemen s” in a eas popula wi h ou is s ( he egion o he High Ta as in Slo akia, as well as he Romani se lemen in Velká Ida nea Košice “in he in e es o he heal h o he wo ke s o he Eas Slo ak I onwo ks” (Ju o á 2008, 1031). 22 To hese was added a hi d poin , which unpicked he assump ions behind he concep s o “dispe sal” and “ ans e ”. I s a ed ha dispe sal and ans e we e o be o ganised “on he basis o olun a y consen ”and wi h he p io “p o ision o accommoda ion and employmen ” o he ese led amilies and indi iduals. A he same ime, i was necessa y o keep “p ecise eco ds o he amilies conce ned and o p o ide hem wi h u he ca e in hei new li ing condi ions so ha he p ocess o hei e-educa ion can be u he moni o ed.” In ligh o hei p e ious expe i- ence wi h an i-Roma p ejudice in socie y, he Na ional Commi ees we e ins uc ed o c ea e “ he condi ions o he necessi y o unde s anding he dispe sal and ans e among he es o he popula ion [i.e.non-Ro- ma: au ho ’sno e]”, o which pu pose amedia campaign was o be c e- a ed (see Chap e Two). Fo he pu pose o he ans e be ween Slo a- kia and Czechia, pa ne ed egions we e designa ed, which we e hen o s ipula e he dis ic s om which amilies could be sen om Slo akia o Czechia. The “o ganised” cha ac e o ese lemen was con as ed wi h “undesi able un es ained mig a ion” (nežádoucí ži elná mig ace), which is how he ongoing wo-way mo emen o he Roma be ween Slo akia and Czechia was pe cei ed. The au ho i ies we e o s amp down on he la e ype o mig a ion, and in such cases he Roma “we e o be e u ned o hei o iginal place o esidence”. Al hough he emo al o Romani se lemen s and he ese lemen o hei inhabi an s was o ha e been ca ied ou as ea ly as 1966 (and in ac was al eady being ca ied ou o some ex en e en p io o he 1965 esolu ion coming in o o ce), he ele an ime able was no d awn up by he appoin ed Go e nmen Commi ee un il 1967–1970. Acco d- ing o his plan, a o al o 380 amilies we e o iginally o be eloca ed in Czechia and 5,984 amilies in Slo akia ( he ime able was g adual- ly modi ied, in pa in esponse o i s ailed implemen a ion). A o al o 2,177 amilies we e hen o be eloca ed om Slo akia o Czechia. Ano he 8,500 amilies we e o be eloca ed a e 1970 (Guy 1977, 274– 276; see also Pa elčíko á 2004, 91–92). The implemen a ion o hese measu es was o be based on he newly in oduced classi ica ion o he G*psy popula ion in o h ee g oups depending on he deg ee o which hey we e deemed o be assimila ed in o he dominan socie y. The i s ca ego y was o include almos assimila ed G*psies wi h only he las emnan s o an “undesi able way o li e” (nežádoucí způsob ži o a), while he hi d comp ised wha we e de ined as pa hological cases wi h no p ospec o “ e-educa ion” (pře ýcho a). In he middle was he second ca ego y, i.e.indi iduals and amilies de e mined o b eak ee o he 23 “unheal hy en i onmen ” (nezd a é p os ředí) o “G*psy concen a ions” (see Chap e Two especially). Al hough he la e we e o be he p ima y a ge s o ese lemen policy, es ic ions on eedom o mo emen we e o apply o all G*psies ega dless o hei ca ego isa ion. 0.3 Re lec ions on he Rese lemen Policy and P ac ice I was he es ic ions on eedom o mo emen ha we e a he hea o c i icisms o he go e nmen esolu ion. As well as poli ically engaged Roma, o dina y olk a ec ed by he new ules poin ed o i s disc imina- o y na u e. Howe e , as Ishow in Chap e Fou , he c i icism om he Roma in mos cases did no a ge he unde lying logic o he esolu ion, bu a he i s ailu e in p ac ice. Thus Milena Hübschmanno á, aqua- li ied Indologis wi h along-s anding, ie ce in e es in Romani cul u e in he b oades sense o he wo d, can be conside ed he mos s iden public c i ic o he basic p ecep s o he assimila ion policy a ha ime. Fo example, in a1968 essay on he social posi ion o he Roma in ended o anon-specialis eade ship (Hübschmanno á 1968), she poin ed o he uncons i u ionali y o es ic ions on eedom o mo emen . In 1967, she published a epo in he e ueLi e á ní no iny in which she used he example o apa icula amily o highligh he despe a e pligh o  he Roma in he eas e n Slo ak se lemen o Veľká Ida caused by he e ms o he esolu ion (Hübschmanno á 1967). She d ew a en ion o he disc imina o y basis o he go e nmen esolu ion in amo e schola ly ex published in Sociologický časopis in 1970 as pa o awide c i ique o he o icial concep o he “G*psy ques ion” (c*kánská o ázka; Hüb- schmanno á 1970). In he same yea , ac i icism o he uncons i u ional cha ac e o he go e nmen esolu ion appea ed in he Memo andum o he Union o Gypsies-Roma ( he o mula ion o which Hübschmann- o á was in pa esponsible o ; Memo andum SCR 1970), and he same c i icism appea ed in he sec ion o Cha e 77 de o ed o he si ua ion o he Roma in Czechoslo akia (P ečan 1990). The assimila ion policy also ecei ed bad p ess ab oad. I s de elopmen was summa ised by he Czech lawye and exiled w i e O o Ulč (1969), and o pa icula in e es is he la ge disse a ion w i en by Guy, based on ield esea ch ca ied ou in eas e n Slo akia in he ea ly 1970s (Guy 1977). This is akey s udy ha , o i s de ailed p esen a ion o he genesis and p ac ice o assimila ionis policy owa ds he Roma in pos -wa Czechoslo akia, 24 emains unsu passed. Id aw on i in a ious ways du ing he cou se o his book. 0.3.1 Pos - e olu iona y e lec ions in Czech and Slo ak his o iog aphy A e he Vel e Re olu ion o 1989, he ese lemen policy in pa icula , and he assimila ionis policy o communis Czechoslo akia in gene al, was he a ge o open hos ili y, abo e all in espec o i s alleged a al impac on he li es o Romani people li ing he e. This b oade -based c i icism iewed he policy pu sued by he communis egime owa ds he Roma as highly pa e nalis ic and dis espec ul o he in e es s o he Roma hemsel es. Howe e , he highly e alua i e language used is no backed by an adequa e analysis o he impac o he policy. The Roma- ni in e es s a e p esen implici ly a he han explici ly and a e o some ex en eplaced by agene ally o mula ed in e es in p ese ing Roma- ni cul u e, unde s ood he e as akind o cohe en alue sys em. In his ex on he genesis o ins i u ional in e es in he Romani popula ion in pos -wa Czechoslo akia, o example, Haišman has he ollowing o say ega ding he ese lemen p og amme: Beginning somewhe e in he delibe a ions o deluded o uneduca ed pa y expe imen e s in eas e n Slo akia, eshaped by he pa y sec e a ia s, includ- ing hose a he op, Czechoslo akia, wi h i s go e nmen p og amme o “measu es aimed a esol ing he issues o he G*psy popula ion”, en e ed aphase o undisguised c iminal e hnocide, which in he no mal wo ld (and in ela ion o o he e hnici ies) would be condemned by in e na ional o ums, including he UN. (Haišman 1999, 182, emphasis J. O.) In his ex , Haišman elies almos exclusi ely on apublished collec- ion o a chi al documen s compiled by his o ian Anna Ju o á– he sel he au ho o one o he mos impo an pos - e olu iona y wo ks on he pos -wa his o y o he Roma in he egion unde examina ion– ocus- ing on he “de elopmen o he Romani issue in Slo akia a e 1945” (Ju o á 1993). Ju o á also examines he c ea ion and implemen a ion o he ese lemen p og amme, hough e en she does no add ess he opinions and expe iences o he Roma hemsel es. Mo eo e , she adop s ce ain s e eo ypical ideas o he dis inc “psyche” (psychika) and “social habi s” (společenské ná yky) o he Roma, wi h he esul ha in many 25 ins ances she ails o main ain ac i ical dis ance om he o icial dis- cou se she is c i iquing. Such p oblems can be encoun e ed in he wo k o his o ian Nina Pa elčíko á, who cha s he de elopmen o he pos - wa si ua ion in Czechia in asimila way. She, oo, elies exclusi ely on a chi al ma e ials p esen ing he pe spec i e o he au ho i ies, and in asepa a e chap e on he “gene al cha ac e is ics o he Romani e hnic g oup” she is guil y o he o ien alisa ion and exo icisa ion o he g oup hus desc ibed, a he han p o iding g ea e insigh in o he expe iences and agen ial posi ions o he Roma in socie y a ha ime. Following his logic, she concludes in ano he ex ha he ou come o he go e nmen esolu ion was “me ely ano he a e ul in e en ion in o he adi ional way o li e o he se led Romani communi ies, b eaking up amily and kinship ela ions” (Pa elčíko á 2010, 84). Ne e heless, he ac is ha o along ime he wo wo ks e e ed o abo e we e he only comp ehensi e publica ions o Czech and Slo ak eade s ha summa ised he pos -wa policies owa ds he Roma, o e ed an o e iew o he o icial documen s, and hus became an impo an s a ing poin o u he in e oga ion o he p oblem. In he pos - e olu iona y pe iod, an e alua ion o he ese lemen policy was e u ned o by wo o i s con empo a y ac o s, o a he pa - icipan s in he deba e su ounding i a he ime: he e hnog aphe E a Da ido á, and he specialis in Romani s udies Milena Hübschmanno á. A he ime he go e nmen esolu ion ook e ec , bo h women we e in con ac wi h speci ic Romani amilies a ec ed by he cen al policy. Howe e , e en hey es ic ed hei pos - e olu iona y ex s o gene al app aisals wi hou any in-dep h analysis o case s udies. In he ex o he an hology Če nobílý ži o (Li e in Black and Whi e), o ins ance, Da ido á asse s ha he p og amme “was no only ill-concei ed bu comple ely misguided, since he so-called olun a y na u e o he dis- pe sal mean in p ac ice ha Romani amilies we e obliged o mo e o aselec ed dis ic ega dless o hei amily ies and o he ci cums anc- es o amily li e in hei o iginal home” (Da ido á 2000, 74). As Iwill discuss below, Da ido á published amonog aph in 1965 in which she endo sed he assimila ion policy o he ime and spoke app o ingly o he concep o “ esol ing he G*psy ques ion” (řešení c*kánské o ázky). Howe e , al hough as an employee o he Eas Slo ak Regional Na ional Commi ee she pa icipa ed in he accompanying media campaign (see Chap e Two), she was quick o condemn he ac ual ou comes o he p og amme in ale e o he Cen al Commi ee o he Communis Pa y o Czechoslo akia (ÚV KSČ), ci ing as an example he si ua ion o he 32 s e ilisa ion ha jus a ew yea s la e would impac mainly Romani women (see Sadílko á 2019). Viewed om his angle, he cen al concep o “ esol ing he G*psy ques ion” ensuing om he 1965 esolu ion was also an a emp a he sys ema ic managemen o he quali y o li e o he Romani popula ion and he elimina ion o hei “backwa d li es yle”. In addi ion o summa ising he known ac o s o i s ailu e, in which she e e ences Guy, Done emphasises he logical con adic ion a i s hea . She poin s ou ha in ocusing on quali y o li e i was he way o li e o G*psies ha was na u ally unde s ood in e ms o “social inadap abili y” and “pa asi ism” in o icial discou se. The Roma, who acco ding o he o icial logic had a ained adeg ee o assimila ion, we e no longe iewed as G*psies, and so he endea ou o elimina e he “backwa d way o li e o he G*psies” na u ally led o i s ep oduc ion as asocial p oblem ega dless o he deg ee o which speci ic aspec s o cen al policy had been implemen ed (see Chap e Two). 0.4 Roma as an In eg al Pa o Socie y I is clea om his b ie o e iew o he li e a u e ha he o e iding ocus on he pe spec i e o he s a e lea es e y li le oom o he pe - spec i e and expe ience o he Roma hemsel es and consequen ly p o i- des e y limi ed oppo uni ies o ace he na u e o hei agency. I is p e- cisely hese wo basic objec i es ha Ipu sue in his book. Iexamine how he cen alised policy o he Czechoslo ak socialis s a e owa d wha i called G*psies played ou in p ac ice, since up ill now no one has desc i- bed i s impac on he li es o he Roma hemsel es. Iam no in e es ed in o e u ning he e alua i e signi icance ha has been assigned o he assi- mila ion policy as awhole in Romani s udies and wi hin b oade e lec i- ons on socialis policies in espec o he Roma. Ins ead, Iwish o exami- ne he na u e o Romani agency in ela ion o he p ac ice o s a e policies a ge ing hem (ei he implici ly o explici ly), ha is o say, he ela ion- ship be ween he Roma and he s a e and he posi ion o he Roma in he socie y o socialis Czechoslo akia as well as o he coun ies. In econ- s uc ing he “di e si y o Romani expe ience” (Guy 1998 , 14–15) and a emp ing o answe hese ques ions, Iha e un up agains an ongoing ambi alence. In many places my wo k poin s o as ong sense o social belonging and pa icipa ion amongs he Roma, while a he same ime e idencing hei his o ically en enched exclusion and he acial disc i- mina ion and seg ega ion hey aced. I ollows he agen ial s a egies o 33 he Roma hemsel es, bu ope a es in he space o he coe ci e policies o he s a e and i s indi idual au ho i ies. I poin s o bo h he di e si y bu also he o en con adic o y a i udes, in e es s and ac ions o indi idual ac o s, bo h on he pa o he s a e and amongs he Roma hemsel es. A he same ime, i sub e s he clea dicho omy be ween he s a e on he one hand and he Roma on he o he . Howe e , Iwould like o poin o impo an emphases ha bo h ensue om wha Iw i e in he ou main chap e s and also in e sec mo e b oadly wi h he o e all unde s anding o he posi ion o he Roma in non-Roma socie ies. Fi s ly, Ido no iew he Roma as ap io i alien in he sense o being an ex e nally posi io- ned g oup seeking social in eg a ion, bu as an in eg al pa o socie y, howe e much hey may be excluded unde pa icula ci cums ances (see also O 2022b). Such a e e sal o pe spec i e on he one hand emo es he Roma om he essen ialised posi ion o “e e nal ou side s” (ibid.), while making i possible o con i m he ancho ing o Romani his o y– o pe haps ha should be “Romani his o ies” (see P ague Fo um o Romani His o ies)– wi hin b oade his o ical p ocesses. Acco ding o his logic, Ido no hink o he Roma as aclea ly de ined popula ion g oup, since Iunde s and he implemen a ion o he s a e’spolicies owa ds G*psies and hei e ec s on speci ic people as he subjec o an ambiguous nego- ia ion be ween he indi idual ac o s in ol ed. 0.4.1 Regional and sub-e hnic ou line o esea ch in e es As well as indica ing how he si ua ion in Czechia and Slo akia was di - e en , he localised s udies con ained in he indi idual chap e s (see Chap e Two and Th ee) e eal he signi ican di e si y no onlyo Roma/non-Roma ela ionships in indi idual municipali ies, bu also o  he posi ionali ies and s a egies o sociabili y o indi iduals and amilies. Ins ead o ei e a ing an in ini e di e si y, Iwould now like o explain he egional scope o selec ed s udies and hus o he en i e book, and poin ou he speci ic elemen s and limi s i en ails. In doing so, Ian icipa e in pa he discussion su ounding he ep esen a i eness o mic ohis o ical s udies ha Iwill elabo a e on in Chap e One. Ichose as he s a ing poin o my esea ch he si ua ion in he dis- ic o Humenné in eas e n Slo akia in i s expanded o m a e he e-s uc u ing o he dis ic s in he ea ly 1960s, when i included wha a e now he bo de egions o Snina andMedzilabo ce. My choice was guided by he ac ha he Dis ic Na ional Commi ees we e in ended 34 o be esponsible o he success ul implemen a ion o he ese lemen p og amme, and he dis ic a chi es con ained ala ge pa o i s docu- men a ion. Howe e , he disco e y o se e al unique sou ces p omp ed me o look a wo o he loca ions, bo h in wha was hen he dis ic o Ba dejo (now he dis ic o S idník). This in ol es he in oduc o y s udy o he illage o Kapišo á and he inal s udy o he nea by illage o Šeme ko ce (see Chap e Fou ). Al hough he inclusion o Ba dejo allows o apa ial compa ison and highligh s some di e ences as o how he ese lemen policy was applied a he dis ic le el, o e all hese a e egions wi h e y simila cha ac e is ics. The wo neighbou ing bo de egions o med he no he n pa o he eas e nmos poin o Slo akia and hus belonged o along-s anding economically ma ginalised a ea cha ac e ised by linguis ic, e hnic and eligious di e si y, as well as by high a es o local popula ion emig a ion o e he long e m. This is also an a ea ha was iewed in o ien alising and acialising e ms as back- wa d and he subjec o in e nal colonising policies du ing he c ea ion and consolida ion o he socie y o he in e wa Czechoslo akia (Holu- bec 2014; Baloun 2022). Simila ly, in he 1960s, eas e n Slo akia ound i sel a he cen e o in e es o s a e policy owa ds he Roma due o he high concen a ion o Romani se lemen s associa ed wi h a“backwa d way o li e”, whose inhabi an s we e selec ed o eloca ion and dispe - sal h oughou Czechoslo akia. The choice o his egion as he s a ing poin o moni o ing he p ac ice o he ese lemen p og amme is in his espec logical, hough i was no he only candida e. My esea ch p ojec and, indeed, his book, would ha e looked qui e di e en i Ihad ocused on a egion in Czechia. Iha e a emp ed o deal in pa wi h his asymme y in Chap e Fou , whe e I ollow he s o ies o ese led/ mig a ing Romani amilies wi hin he con ex o co esponding egions in Czechia. E en so, Iwas in he end guided by he logic o he ies hese amilies had o hei place o o igin in Slo akia. A he same ime, I eel i incumben upon me o acknowledge he essen ially exclusi e ocus o his book on hose Roma who we e long se led in speci ic loca ions in Slo akia and in mos cases only a i ed in Czechia a e he Second Wo ld Wa . The dema ca ion o his popula ion g oup, which in pe cen age e ms domina ed he Romani popula ion in pos -wa Czechoslo akia, migh appea somewha a i icial, since i includes a ela i ely wide ange o ways o socialising in non-Romani socie y. Howe e , i makes sense in ela ion o o he , nume ically unde - ep esen ed g oups o Roma (e.g. he o iginal Bohemian and Mo a ian Roma and he Sin i, ala ge numbe o whom pe ished in concen a ion 35 camps du ing he Second Wo ld Wa , o he Vlax Roma), due o he deepe in e nal di e en ia ion w ough by adi e en his o ical expe i- ence as well as by language (see, o example, Elšík 2003). Al hough his aspec o my wo k is impo an , since he popula ion g oup hus de ined was he one mos impac ed by he policy unde conside a ion, he omis- sion o he expe ience o hose Roma wi h di e en sub-e hnic sel -iden- i ica ion and his o ical expe ience canno be iewed as sel -e iden and mus no be o e looked. In he con ex o his book, o ins ance, he ques ion a ises as o why ese lemen policies did no a ec concen a- ions o Vlax Roma in Czechia and Slo akia, which o an ex en a ose as aconsequence o he 1958 Ac on he Pe manen Se lemen o Nomadic Pe sons (see Hajská 2020, 2024). 0.4.2 Te minology On he whole Iuse he umb ella e m “ ese lemen policy” o e e o he p og amme ensh ined in Go e nmen Resolu ion No. 502/1965. This simpli ies ma e s conside ably, since i does no co e all aspec s o his policy, which also speci ied mo e complex asks in he sphe e o housing, employmen , educa ion, public enligh enmen and sociologi- cal esea ch. On he o he hand, he e m encapsula es he co e o he esolu ion, which will o m he ocus o his book, namely, ese lemen as akey ool o e-educa ion, social inclusion and “ esol ing he G*psy ques ion”. In he li e a u e his policy is o en spoken o as a“policy o dispe sal” ( ozp ylo á poli ika)o “dispe sion campaign” (kampaň oz- p ylu). Iha e chosen o emphasise “ ese lemen ” as an umb ella e m encompassing a ious ypes o con olled popula ion mo emen , be his dispe sal wi hin indi idual dis ic s o he ans e om Slo akia o Czechia. I e ain he e m “dispe sal” in o de o ep esen he en o ced logic o designa ed popula ion mo emen , acco ding o which he “con- cen a ion o G*psy popula ions” was o be a oided (see Chap e Fou ). In connec ion wi h he a emp o elimina e exis ing “G*psy concen a- ions”, Iuse he o icial e m “liquida ion” (lik idace) gi en my ocus on eas e n Slo akia, abo e all in ela ion o wha we e known as “G*psy se lemen s” (see Chap e Th ee). Iuse he e m “G*psy Commission” o some imes jus “Commis- sion” o e e o he in e depa men al bodies es ablished a he le el o egions, dis ic s, ci ies and la ge municipali ies unde he cen al Go - e nmen Commi ee on G*psy Popula ion Issues (wi h i s coun e pa 36 a he Slo ak Na ional Council). This is an uno icial e m used by se - e al pa ies, and a he same ime an umb ella e m o he names o commissions ha a ied om documen o documen (“Commission o he Resolu ion o G*psy Ques ions”, “Commission o he Resolu ion o Ques ions Pe aining o Ci izens o G*psy O igin”, “Commission o he Resolu ion o Ques ions Pe aining o G*psy Popula ions/ he G*psy Popula ion”, e c., including hei Slo ak a ian s). Iuse he e m “Roma” as aca ego y o e hnic sel -iden i ica ion wi h ega d o he wo d Roma (pl.) in he Romani language. Ido so knowing ha no all o he people I e e o in his way we e speake s o Romani a he ime he go e nmen esolu ion was enac ed, and ha many o hem in ce ain con ex s hough o hemsel es as G*psies, while o he s dis anced hemsel es om such adesigna ion. In he ex ual e e ences o “G*psies”, Iuse an as e isk, ap ac ice common in he an h opological and his o ical li e a u e on he Roma. Al hough Iconside i impo an o dis inguish analy ically be ween he e ms “Roma” and “G*psies”, gi - en he o en nega i e and o ensi e conno a ions o he la e e m, Ido no wan o ep oduce i in ull. Iwill w i e he e m wi h acapi al “G”. Howe e much G*psies we e de ined p ima ily as asocial g oup in he o icial policies o he ime, he ca ego y was ne e ully ee o associa- ions wi h e hno- acial cha ac e is ics. Ne e heless, as ega ds language Iwas s ill aced wi h adilemma: how o emain ai h ul o he e ms used a he ime while no allowing he ex o become ain ed wi h he o en dehumanising language used in ela ion o he Roma, especially gi en ha my p ima y conce n is o cap u e he pe spec i es and expe iences o hese people. Simila ly, how no o o e whelm he ex wi h e e ences o G*psies, he “solu ion o heG*psy ques ion”, he “dispe sal o he G*psies”, and he “liquida ion o G*psy concen a ions”, while none heless con eying he la ou o he language used du ing he pe iod unde examina ion ha ch onicles a i udes owa ds he Roma, and no slipping in o ahis o icism? Mo e- o e , one should no o ge ha he dominan discou se was insc ibed in he language o he ex s (complain s, eques s, e c.) o he Roma hem- sel es, a ea u e Ianalyse as ep esen ing bo h he ins umen alisa ion and sha ing o his discou se. The use o quo a ion ma ks is only apa ial solu ion, and he eade (especially he Romani eade ) may some imes eel o e whelmed in ce ain passages by he dominan language o he ime. This is ano he eason Iha e ied o be spa ing wi h such lan- guage. Fo example, in many places Iw i e abou he policy owa ds he Roma, hus de using he ension be ween he o icial ca ego y o G*psy 37 and he e m deno ing e hnic sel -iden i ica ion. Howe e , Ido his no when Iam analysing discou se bu simply making e e ence o apoli- cy aimed ace ain g oup o he popula ion, wi h ull awa eness o he ac ha , despi e he ambi alence o he o icial ca ego y o G*psyness, i was he Roma being a ge ed by policies aimed a G*psies. On he o he hand, Idelibe a ely use con empo a y e ms when analysing he discou ses su ounding hem, whe he his in ol ed G*psies (see Chap- e Two abo e all), o he “liquida ion o G*psy concen a ions” (see Chap e Th ee), o “dispe sal” (see Chap e Fou ). The bounda ies o such designa ions a e no en i ely clea , and in many cases Iapp oach he choice o e ms somewha in ui i ely. Though i is impossible o esol e he dilemma ou lined abo e comple ely, Ibelie e ha i needs o be add essed no only in ela ion o he eadabili y and his o ical empi ical p ecision o he ex o his book, bu also o b oade conside a ions ega ding he w i ing o Romani his o ies. I e e o he places discussed by hei eal names. When w i ing o people Isome imes use hei ull names and some imes hei Ch is ian name ollowed by su name ini ial. Iuse ull names in he case o people who we e public igu es and whose posi ion as ull ac o s in he pe iod deba es and equal pa ne s in he sociological analysis o speci ic si ua- ions Iseek o acknowledge. A ypical example o his would be Kolo- man Guná omB eko , who himsel w o e abook abou he Roma in his illage. In con as , as ega ds mos o he indi idual ac o s Iop o he pa ially anonymised o ma o he sake o pe sonal da a p o ec ion and he sensi i i y o some o he in o ma ion being discussed. The same applies o he in e iews conduc ed wi h many o he con empo a y wi - nesses, wi h whom Iag eed on said p ac ice. 0.4.3 S uc u e o he book P io o he empi ically based chap e s, he e is achap e de o ed o my own heo e ical and me hodological backg ound. He e Isi ua e ese le- men policies wi hin adiscussion o he wo k o James C. Sco , bo h his concep ion o s a e powe in he applica ion o s a e enginee ing policies (Sco 1998), and his unde s anding o esis ance as amode o esponse o hese policies by ma ginalised popula ions (e.g. Sco 1985). Ishall ollow hese con ibu ions o he ela ed an h opological discu- ssion, which seek o make a ine dis inc ion be ween di e en ac o s and o b eak down he sha p bounda ies be ween s a e and socie y and 38 be ween domina ion and ma ginalisa ion. He e Ishall d aw on he mode o an h opological hinking “ om he ma gins” (Tsing 1994), de eloped o he an h opology o he s a e (Das and Poole 2004). In a emp ing o a icula e amo e complex ela ionship be ween ma ginalised popula- ions and adominan s a e, Iwill d aw on he wo k o Holly High, who has s udied he ese lemen o poo a me s in Laos (High 2005, 2008). High emphasises ha i is impossible o igno e he expec a ions and aspi a ions ha he a me s hemsel es p ojec ed on o he s a e ese le- men policies. And when he implemen a ion o ese lemen in p ac i- ce o en led o he deepening o hei paupe isa ion and p eca isa ion, he a me s did no blame he policy i sel bu a he he dys unc ional s a e as awhole. A he same ime, e e encing he an h opologis Leo Howe (1998) Ishall show ha no e en he ela ionship be ween domi- na ion and ma ginalisa ion is ixed, and ha he e is acons an s uggle going on be ween people as o who will be on he side o he dominan and who will bea he s igma o ma ginalisa ion. Such adis ibu ion o posi ions also a ec s who is ac ually impac ed by s a e policies. In he i s chap e Ia gue ha while policy owa d he G*psies was a ge ed on a ela i ely unambiguously de ined g oup o people, i canno be na owly hough o in ela ion o he Roma alone, bu a he as apolicy ha en e ed in o local socio-economic sys ems ha o e saw he speci ic o m in which i was ma e ialised and had he po en ial o ans o m i . Connec ing an h opological issues o he his o ical hemes o his book hen led me qui e na u ally o al eady exis ing his o ical app oaches ha a e acknowledged o ha e been inspi ed by an h opology, be his he concep o mic ohis o y o he “his o y o e e yday li e” (All agsgeschich- e). Among o he hings, Iopen up adiscussion on he ep esen a i e- ness o s udies ha pu pose ully educe he scale o esea ch and ack he e e yday ac ions o “o dina y” ac o -indi iduals. Iam a his poin lending my oice o hose who a gue ha his o ians hus o ien ed, simi- la ly o an h opologis s, do no s udy “ illages” as such, bu in es iga e b oade social phenomenon as hey a e played ou “in illages” (Gee z 1973,22). Howe e , e lec ions upon he me hods o a chi al esea ch and o al his o y e en ually led me o conside he “ illages” hemsel es, abo e all wi h ega d o he expec a ions and in e es s o he esea ch pa icipan s, i.e. he people Iin e iewed. In Chap e Two, Ilook a he nego ia ions in ol ed in deciding o whom he cen ally o mula ed policy was o apply. Iask he key ques- ion as o who ac ually is a“G*psy” (C*kán), by acing bo h he di - e en ways in which his ca ego y was de ined, and he nego ia ion o 39 i s associa ion wi h speci ic people du ing implemen a ion o he ese - lemen policy. Anew ca ego isa ion ensued om Go e nmen Reso- lu ion No. 502/1965. The G*psies we e now di ided in o h ee g oups depending on he deg ee o social assimila ion e sus he ex en o hei “backwa dness”. The policy o ese lemen was o apply o hose o ca - ego yII, who, hough li ing in he “unheal hy” en i onmen o “G*psy concen a ions”, would, i was assumed, ex ica e hemsel es om such abackg ound i o e ed assis ance. Howe e , he unde s anding o G*psyness as akind o social de ia ion coexis ed alongside o he social discou ses acco ding o which G*psies we e iden i ied and judged on he basis o e hno- acial cha ac e is ics. As a esul , while some o he Roma we e denied he oppo uni y o pa icipa e in he ese lemen p o- g amme because hey did no mee he o icial c i e ia o G*psyness, he eedom o mo emen o any and all Romani people could be es ic ed on he basis o e hno- acial c i e ia. In p esen ing he discou ses su - ounding he concep o G*psyness a ha ime, Iam p ima ily in e es - ed in he backd op agains which i was nego ia ed in e e yday ela ions. Ishall ocus on he illage o B eko , whe e he local Roma managed o achie e ahigh deg ee o accep ance in local ela ions and he alidi y o he ca ego y o “p oblema ic” and “backwa d G*psies” was ese ed o Roma beyond he bounda ies o hei home illage. Wi hin he ame- wo k o he ese lemen policy, howe e , he label G*psies s uck o asin- gle amily in he illage. This amily hen dis up ed he o e all image o he in eg a ion o he local Roma and, as socially non-con o ming, e en ually became pa o he o icial ese lemen o Czechia. Based on his example, Ia gue ha G*psyness as aca ego y po en ially applica- ble o he Roma based on acial c i e ia also played an impo an ole in s uc u ing ela ions be ween he Roma hemsel es. In Chap e Th ee Iwill ocus on one o he key pilla s o he ese le- men policy, namely, he e o o “liquida e undesi able G*psy concen- a ions”, abo e all he (eas ) Slo ak se lemen s. In addi ion o speci ic ea u es o he implemen a ion o liquida ion, Iwill seek o shed ligh on i s b oade p emises, i.e. he way in which indi idual agen s ela - ed o se lemen s as dis inc social, cul u al and physical spaces. In his espec , he o icial discou se ega ding he se lemen s ha spoke o hem as a h ea o secu i y and sani a ion was unde pinned by ap e- dominan expe discou se in which hey we e de ined as he habi a s o a“cul u ally backwa d way o li e”. In u n, c i ical oices ha iewed he assimila ion policy as causing he dis up ion o he socio-cul u al sys- ems o he Roma had a endency o iew he se lemen s as he na u al 40 en i onmen o he ealisa ion o adis inc i e Romani cul u e. O he au ho s, when acing he e i o ialisa ion o he Roma in se lemen s, emphasise he c ucial ole o he local au ho i ies and non-Romani il- lage s as gua dians o non-Romani e i o ial hegemony. Focusing on he agency o he Roma hemsel es, Ishall a emp o econcile hese opposing iews by showing ha all o hese aspec s played a ole in how he se lemen s we e unde s ood by hei inhabi an s. In many docu- men ed cases, he inhabi an s sha ed a iew o he se lemen as being no aplace cha ac e ised by ma e ially inadequa e li ing condi ions, bu also as he si e o cul u al “backwa dness” and socio-economic s agna- ion. In his espec , he Roma’seconomic and social s a egies o some ex en me wi h cen alised e o s o e adica e such places. Inasmuch as he implemen a ion o cen al policy was nego ia ed wi hin he con ex o b oade , locally ancho ed, socio-economic ela ions, his did no mean simply he dis up ion o socio-cul u al ies among he Roma hemsel es (as discussed by c i ics o he policy), bu also he po en ial o dis up acially mo i a ed seg ega ion. Ia gue, howe e , ha his aspec o ese - lemen policy was mo e an oppo uni y o indi idual amilies si ua - ed in ace ain way a he han an oppo uni y o an o e all e aming o local ela ions. Using he example o he Podskalka se lemen nea Humenné, Ishow ha despi e he long exis ing spa ial mobili y ou side he se lemen , usually in o Humenné i sel , he Roma we e no always in ull ag eemen wi h he o icial discou se, bu ega ded he se lemen as adis inc social and cul u al space wi h ambi ions o adminis a i e au onomy. This was no aspace sepa a ed om he su ounding wo ld, bu aplace wi hin and by means o which he Roma we e able o eal- ise b oade social pa icipa ion (e.g. h ough hei own school, oo ball eam, i e b igade, associa ions and ac i i ies). The emphasis on he emo al o se lemen s was na u ally bound up wi h he eloca ion o hei inhabi an s in acco dance wi h he log- ic o dispe sal. I ocus on his aspec in Chap e Fou , in which Ilook a he ese lemen o he Roma om Slo akia o Czechia, which ook place agains he backd op no only o he pos -wa mig a ion o Roma be ween he wo egions o wha was hen Czechoslo akia, bu also he longe - e m e o o con ol he mo emen o G*psies as “nomads” (kočo níci) and “ luc uan s” ( luk uan i). In his chap e , Iseek o unde - mine a ixed unde s anding o mig a ing/ ese led Roma in e ms o hei up oo ing om es ablished socio-economic and cul u al ies, which was inhe en no only in he c i ique o assimila ionis policies, bu in he o e all iew o he pos -wa mo emen o he Romani popula ion 41 and he ans o ma ion o i s socio-economic ies. Iwill show ha , unlike henon-Romani popula ion, who saw he planned eloca ion as a h ea o non-Romani e i o ial hegemony, he Roma hemsel es saw i as an oppo uni y o social inclusion. In his espec , hey c i icised he dys unc ionali y o cen alised policy and he an i-Roma a i udes o speci ic au ho i ies, o poin ed o he disc imina o y na u e o es ic- ions on eedom o mo emen . Howe e , Ino e he e he ine ec i eness o he en o ced con ol o mo emen i sel , since mos Roma main ained he con inui y o hei own mig a o y ajec o ies e en agains he back- d op o he implemen a ion o he policy unde conside a ion, and he “o ganised mo emen ” o designa ed places a ec ed only indi iduals om he whole o he Humenné dis ic . When acing he p e ailing expe ience o mig a ion, Iwill show ha he o icial emphasis on “dis- pe sal” may ha e me wi h he speci ic mig a o y s a egies o indi idual Romani amilies. These amilies, howe e , in hei e o s o achie e ace - ain spa ial and socio-economic au onomy, elied on main aining ea lie ies, no only wi h o he amilies in Czechia, bu , in ace ain “ ans- na ional” social ield, wi h hose li ing in Slo akia. Finally, in o de o cap u e mo e comp ehensi ely he ac ual p ocess o ese lemen , Iwill ocus on he si ua ion o amilies ese led om Šeme ko ce in Slo akia o Jičín inCzechia. Unique ma e ial in he o m o in e iews conduc ed by Hübschmanno á wi h a ious ac o s o he ese lemen p og amme ca ied ou in he la e 1970s, allows me o di e en ia e mo e sub ly he agen ial posi ions and expe iences o he Roma hemsel es and o high- ligh he hi he o neglec ed gende pe spec i e. The discussion o he si ua ion in egions o Czechia is a leas apa ial coun e balance o he p ima y ocus o his book on he egion o eas e n Slo akia. A he same ime, i will allow me o show ha , howe e much ese lemen and mig a ion o e ed many o he Roma an oppo uni y o escape he his o - ically en enched acial hie a chies o he eas e n Slo ak coun yside, in Czechia, oo, he ca ego y o G*psyness may ha e clung o hem, along wi h i s local and his o ically condi ioned meaning and he policies ensu- ing he e om. 48 hey s udied (2004). The an h opologis Lila Abu-Lughod, who wa ns o he dange o oman icisa ion, seeks amo e sensi i e app oach o esis an p axis (1990). Inspi ed by Foucaul (1978, 1982), she analyses esis ance no as an ac ha s ands ou side o powe s uc u es, bu one which is an in insic pa o hem. She sees e hnog aphic obse a ion o esis ance as away o diagnosing complex powe ela ions. Using he example o Bedouin women, Abu-Lughod shows ha wi hin such in e sec ionally unde s ood s uc u es, pa ial p ac ices o esis ance can ope a e in con adic o y ways. A he same ime she shows ha esis- ance o ce ain o ms o powe can ep oduce and ea i m o he o ms o opp ession. This mo e sub le si ua ing o esis ance wi hin complex s uc u es o powe ela ions allows o ashi in emphasis om he esis- ance o o dina y Romani illage s o he esis ance o local au ho i ies and non-Romani popula ions who held ou agains he dis up ion o he e i o ialisa ion o he Roma and hei abso p ion in o “non-Ro- mani” de elopmen s in pa icula loca ions. I was app oaches such as hese ha Guy hen iden i ied as one o he key ac o s in he ailu e o he communis egime’sassimila ion policies in gene al and ese lemen policies in pa icula . Abu-Lughod’semphasis hus allows o amo e complex unde s anding o he p ac ice o hese policies, which, hough hey migh a ge p ima ily he Roma as G*psies, ul ima ely en e in o b oade , locally ancho ed socio-economic ela ions in speci ic ways. In hese ela ions, he esis ance o some may ep oduce he acial opp es- sion o o he s. A he same ime, his emphasis suppo s he claim ha esis ance as aconcep is e y limi ed when i comes o cap u ing di e se o ms o agency. Inasmuch as Abu-Lughod says ha esis ance is usually accompanied by an a achmen o o he o ms o powe , he ques ion emains as o how o analyse hese a achmen s. The domina ion– esis ance dicho omy pos ula ed by Sco o unde s anding ela ions be ween he s a e and socie y is in e oga ed by an h opologis High (2008) in he esea ch. In adiscussion abou he in e nal ese lemen p ojec s in Laos, and in line wi h he emphases e e ed o abo e, High p ima ily ollows he expec a ions, aspi a ions and li e s a egies o he ese led illage s hemsel es. E en hough she shows ha he expec a ions o he illage s we e un ealis ic and ha many o hem migh end up su e ing e en g ea e po e y as aconse- quence, hei aspi a ions and ini ial willingness o pa icipa e in s a e-de- ined policies canno be igno ed. In he end, she w i es, he disappoin ed ese led illage s did no ake issue wi h he ese lemen p og amme i sel , bu he way i was being implemen ed, he blame o which hey 49 a ibu ed o dys unc ional s a e ins i u ions. In con as , High a gues ha ese lemen p og ammes we e o some ex en in line wi h an unde - s anding o spa ial mobili y as igh ly bound up wi h social mobili y (see G ill 2012). In con as o he limi ing opposi ion o esis ance o s a e domina ion, High o e s he concep o “expe imen al consen ”, in which illage s, while acquiescing o s a e policies, con inuously ein e p e ed hem in he ligh o newly eme ging condi ions and he con inui y o hei own socio-economic s a egies. In asimila ashion, Ishow ha in c i icising he ese lemen poli- cy, Romani people hemsel es ha e o en no a ge ed i s undamen al objec i es, bu a he i s dys unc ionali y (see Chap e Fou ). The con- cep o “expe imen al consen ” also esona es wi h he app oaches aken by o he au ho s, who in e hnog aphically in o med app oaches a icu- la ed he ela ionship o he Roma o he Czechoslo ak s a e du ing he communis pe iod. D awing on his own ield esea ch, an h opologis Jan G ill o e ed his o ical insigh in o he de elopmen o he economic s a egies o he Roma in aspeci ic illage, concluding ha he local Roma we e able o selec i ely exploi se e al aspec s o socialis policies owa ds he G*psies wi hou succumbing o he p essu e o cul u al assimila ion (2015a,b; see also Sadílko á 2017). In hei polemic wi h High, acollec i e o au ho s engaged in he deba e on ese lemen policies in Laos has poin ed ou ha , by d aw- ing on Sco ’sdis inc ion be ween “public” and “hidden ansc ip s” (1985, 1990), he a achmen o s a e policies can be ead p ecisely as ap oduc o asymme ic powe s uc u es in which he socio-economi- cally less ad an aged canno a o d o exp ess o e , i.e. public, c i icism (B aid e al. 2009). When High esponded ha i is no possible o posi- ion onesel simply as he a bi e o social eali y who de e mines wha u e ances exp ess he “au hen ic” opinions o hei speake s and which a e he p oduc o exis ing powe inequi ies (2009), she was ollowing up on amo e de ailed c i ique o mula ed wi h Sco ’s hesis in mind by he linguis and an h opologis Susan Gal (1995). In a e iew essay on Sco ’sbook (1990), Gal ejec s he pos ula ed dis inc ion in which pub- lic displays o powe on he pa o subo dina e ac o s ep esen he sup- p ession o akind o au hen ic sel . D awing on he own socio-linguis ic esea ch in abilingual communi y in Hunga y, she poin s ou ha asin- gle pe son can exp ess di e en , o en sel -con adic o y, iews, includ- ing hose ha demons a e esis ance o o icial languages and ideolo- gies. Gal concludes ha “ hese con as ing s ances canno be classi ied as posed e sus genuine”, bu ha hey a e “e idence o he coexis ence 50 o deeply el ye con es ed discou ses” (ibid., 413; see also Gal 1993). Wha Gal andHigh a e d i ing a is he pe cep ion o wo di e en aces o he s a e desc ibed abo e, in which bo h emo ions, o pe haps ames o mind, ha e equal quali y and alidi y (see Das and Poole 2004). 1.1.3 Nego ia ing ma ginalisa ion In addi ion o asimplis ic concep ion o esis ance and i s oman icisa- ion (Gal 1995, 420), Gal accuses Sco o la ening he “g ea ange o powe ela ions e iden in he di e se social o ma ions o he his o i- cal and e hnog aphic eco d in o asingle opposi ion be ween dominan and subo dina e” (ibid., 414–415). Gal a gues ha he assump ion ha he dominan and subo dina e a e always “clea ly de inable, uni ied, and sepa able g oups, unambiguously opposed o each o he ” is highly p oblema ic (ibid., 417). Ci ing Ca oline Humph ey, she iden i ies s a e socialism in pa icula as a ypical example o “nes ed hie a chies”, in which indi idual inhabi an s can unde go bo h he expe ience o domi- nance and he expe ience o subo dina ion (ibid., 416; see Humph ey 1994). The an h opologis Leo Howe (1998) has desc ibed he dicho- omy be ween domina ion and ma ginalisa ion pos ula ed by Sco as excessi ely s a ic. Sco , he a gues, ixes poo a me s oo much in hei ma ginalised posi ion by no including in his analysis he cons an s u- ggle o e who will escape om he subo dina e posi ion and join he side o domina ion. Howe bases his emphasis on his own e hnog aphic esea ch among he unemployed esiden s o Bel as , No he n I eland, who aspi ed o he s a us o he dese ing unemployed, while cas ing dominan ly unde s ood no ions o “sc ounge ” and “begga man” in o adi e en ly de ined ac ion o he unemployed. Th ough Howe’s iew o he posi ion o he ma ginalised, which is no longe au oma ic bu acqui es aspeci ic si ua ional- ela ional cha ac- e , i is possible o u he unde mine he homogenisa ion o he posi- ion and expe ience o he Roma in non-Romani socie ies. A he same ime, such an app oach esona es wi h how some au ho s ha e al eady desc ibed he nego ia ion o he social posi ion o he Roma, speci ically in he Cen al Eu opean egion. In hese cases, howe e , i was no he ca ego y o (un)dese ing unemployed ha pa icipa ed in he o ma ion o an unde s anding o dominance and ma ginalisa ion, bu he hea ily acialised ca ego y o G*psyness, wi h he di e se social a ibu es his- o ically linked o i and associa ed wi h i in b oade socie al discou se. 51 The an h opologis Yasa Abu Ghosh, w i ing o asmall own in he sou h o he Czech Republic, desc ibed how some o he Roma li ing he e we e success ul in hei s a egy o “escaping G*psyness” by cas - ing his ca ego y on o adi e en ly de ined ac ion o he local Romani popula ion (Abu Ghosh 2008). Asimila dynamic has been desc ibed by he an h opologis s Cecilia Ko ai andKa a Ho á h in a illage in Hunga y, whe e some o he local Roma sough o “silence G*psyness” in hei e e yday in e ac ions wi h he non-Romani wo ld, while accusing o he local Roma o displaying i in exagge a ed ashion (Ko ai 2012, Ho á h 2012). Wha is impo an in espec o his book is ha such ap inciple o Roma ela ing o hei non-Romani su oundings and o he o ma ion o in e nal ela ions be ween he Roma hemsel es has also been desc ibed o he u al a eas o eas e n Slo akia. In his case, Id aw mainly on my own long- e m ield esea ch in asmall illage in no h-eas e n Slo akia, whe e G*psyness was no only aques ion o e hnic s e eo ypes, bu was insc ibed wi hin he s uc u e o local ela- ions. Associa ion wi h his ca ego y mean pa ial exclusion om he local communi y and so, as in he Hunga ian illage in ques ion, i was h ough as a egy o concealing he cha ac e is ics o G*psyness ha he local Roma sough o a i m hei local belonging and hus ein o ce hei own social s a us (O 2021, 2022b; see also G ill 2015b; H us ič 2015a,b). As di icul as i is o econs uc such ela ions his o ically, Iwill show ha asimila logic applied o he in e nal di e en ia ion o he Roma was in ope a ion in he municipali ies whe e Iobse ed he ou come o he ese lemen policies (see especially Chap e Two). As Ho á h andKo ai poin ou , i was he con en o socialis poli- cies ha played apa in c ea ing his logic o ela ions. The socialis s a e unde s ood G*psyness as aca ego y o cul u al backwa dness and social de ia ion, and held ou o he Roma hemsel es he alse p omise ha i hey consis en ly “silenced hei G*psyness”, hey would be ully includ- ed alongside hei non-Romani neighbou s (Ho á h 2012). Simila ly, Sokolo á poin ed ou ha wi hin he con ex o socialis Czechoslo a- kia, he pe son “who coun ed as a‘G*psy’ in he eyes o he s a e had e y li le o do wi h supposedly ‘ eal’ e hnici y, since i was mo e acase o being si ua ed wi hin o icially sanc ioned ca ego ies o he p ope and imp ope , he no mal and de ian , and in eg a ed and non-in eg a ed” (Sokolo á 2008, 43). The illusion o he p omise held ou o ull belong- ing o non-Romani socie y o which Ko ai andHo á h e e es ed on ahis o ically ancho ed acial discou se ha pe sis ed in socie y and ha cas he Roma in an in e io posi ion ega dless o hei socio-economic 52 s a us and dominan ly unde s ood deg ee o inclusion in socialis socie y. While he cen al au ho i ies spoke o an e hnically and acially neu al policy and associa ed he ca ego y o G*psyness wi h cul u al backwa d- ness and social de iance, acial assump ions abou G*psies con inued o en e in o he way ha cen al policies we e o mula ed on he one hand, while playing hei pa in who was ul ima ely labelled aG*psy in he way hey we e implemen ed on he o he . In asimila ashion, he ambiguous delinea ion o he a ge g oup o such policies p o ided ela i ely gene ous oom o manoeu e o indi idual ac o s a he local le el. The nego ia ion o he ca ego y o G*psyness among he Roma hemsel es, and i s e lec ion on he pa o  he local au ho i ies, is o pa icula in e es o he p esen s udy because i may ha e co-de e mined in indi idual cases no only who would be a ec ed and in wha way, bu also, pe haps, who would be in aposi ion o bene i and who would no . Fo his eason, oo, i would be highly misleading o look a ese lemen policies in pa icula , bu also a policies di ec ed owa ds he G*psy popula ion in gene al, exclusi ely in ela ion o asepa a e na a i e o “Romani his o y”, o , om he o he side, “policies owa d he Roma”. In o de o cap u e he dynamic o he nego ia ion o he posi ions o indi idual ac o s and hei ela ions (i.e. he ela ions o dominance and ma ginalisa ion), i is a mo e accu- a e and use ul o hink o ese lemen policy as acen al measu e ha was he ou come o ce ain his o ically con ingen (and e en egionally embedded) p ocesses, ameasu e ha did no necessa ily a ec only he Roma in i s implemen a ion, bu en e ed in o locally nego ia ed ela- ions in aspeci ic way, whe e i s mo e ambiguous p ac ice (i.e. he mo e ambiguous delinea ion o he a ge g oup) was decided, and whe e i had he po en ial o he comp ehensi e ans o ma ion o en i e local socio-economic sys ems. 1.1.4 The social posi ion and iden i y o he Roma in Cen al Eu ope In his classic e hnog aphy o he Roma in socialis Hunga y, he an h o- pologis Michael S ewa shows ha he Roma in he illage he s udied bene i ed om socialis policies as employees o he local ac o y. They also “launde ed” he money ea ned h ough gadje wo k by means o he economic p ac ice o “Romani” wo k (Romani bu ji), which was pa o he symbolic o ma ion o Romani cul u al iden i y ace- o- ace wi h 53 adominan non-Romani wo ld (S ewa 1997). Howe e , his mode o exis ence in he non-Romani wo ld ha S ewa desc ibed o he cul- u al conse a i e g oup o “Lo a a” (i.e. Vlax Roma) canno be smoo- hly ans e ed o he majo i y Romani popula ion in eas e n Slo akia, whe e he cul u al bounda ies be ween he Roma and hei non-Romani neighbou s we e no nea ly as sha p, and whe e he Roma emphasised hei own belonging o he egion and pa icipa ion in he local way o li e (see O 2022b).8 In o de o suppo aposi ion om which i is no necessa y o unde - s and he a achmen o he dominan o de s exclusi ely as hei camou- laged sub e sion, Iwill discuss he unde s anding o iden i y and he social posi ion o he Roma in cen al Eu ope in mo e de ail. As Iha e a gued elsewhe e (O 2022a), in his espec he wo k o he Romani s udies schola s Elena Ma ushiako a and Vesselin Popo is undamen- al. These au ho s iew Romani iden i y in gene al h ough he concep s o communi y and socie y, as wo in e ela ed dimensions o social posi- ion. In addi ion o a ibu ing adis inc e hnic iden i y o he Roma, Ma ushiako a andPopo a gue ha he Roma in cen al and eas e n Eu ope ha e o med an “in eg al pa o he ele an ci ic na ions wi h hei ela ed na ional iden i ies” (2020, 42). This dual na u e o Romani iden i y has been examined in g ea e de ail by he G eek an h opologis Aspasia Theodosiou wi h ega d o he ole o he ca ego y o place in he (sel -)iden i ica ion o he Roma (2004). Theodosiou a gues ha he ca ego y o place is usually o e looked in e hnog aphic ex s on Romani sociabili y, on he one hand because o an assumed Romani nomadism, and on he o he wi h an emphasis on he locally independen “imag- ined communi ies” (Ande son 1983). When an h opologis s mo ed away om explaining dis inc i e Romani cul u e h ough adi e en place o o igin and shi ed he emphasis o e e yday in e ac ion wi h he non-Romani wo ld (see S ewa 2013), Theodosiou claims hey pa adox- ically u ned place in o ame e backd op o hese in e ac ions and an “in isible ca ego y o analysis” (2004). D awing on he esea ch on he G eek-Albanian bo de , Theodosiou shows ha place played akey ole 8 In his espec , he di e ences canno be unde s ood egionally, bu a he in e ms o he in e nal cul u al di e en ia ion o he Roma hemsel es. As Iha e al eady men ioned, a e y simila dynamic o ela ions o ha Iobse ed among he Roma in eas e n Slo akia has been desc ibed o he Hunga ian communi y by Ho á h andKo ai (Ho á h 2012; Ko ai 2012). Ap opos he con o e sy su ounding he di e en concep ion o “G*psy labou ” among he Roma in Hunga y, see Ho á h (2005). Rega ding he Vlax Roma in eas e n Slo akia and hei economic s a egies, see Hajská (2015, 2017, 2024). 54 in he sel -iden i ica ion o he local Roma, who we e a he same ime unde s ood o be an in eg al pa he eo . Theodosiou ega ds he illage being s udied as a“doubly occupied place” (S ewa 1996), o which he ela ionship be ween he Roma and non-Roma (o Yi y and “G eeks”) was an inhe en pa and in which di e ence was no some hing ha came necessa ily om ou side, bu which also g ows wi hin (Theodosiou 2004,38). Theodosiou acknowledges ha he posi ion o he Roma was asymme ical in his espec gi en hei associa ion wi h he exclusion- a y ca ego y o G*psyness discussed abo e. And so acco ding o he , he Roma we e pe cei ed as “local, bu no indigenous” (ibid.). Iha e al eady de eloped in de ail his complex iew o Romani iden i y, in which he Roma a e unde s ood as ana u al pa o he local socio-eco- nomic sys ems (see also Oli e a 2012), in espec o he si ua ion o he Roma in asmall illage in no heas e n Slo akia (O 2022b), bu Ishall wo k wi h i in his book. Ibelie e ha i is his app oach, which akes in o accoun he a ious o ms and le els o he social belonging o he Roma, ha allows us o lea e behind ideas o he Roma as aclea ly ci - cumsc ibed ma ginalised g oup o social ou side s. An unde s anding o Romani iden i y as i mly ancho ed in local sys- ems seems all he mo e ele an he e since his book ocuses on he pe iod o socialism. Acco ding o Ma ushiako a andPopo , i is p e- cisely his pe iod o socio-economic de elopmen ha is akey ac o in he deg ee o which he Roma a e in eg a ed in o he socie ies o cen al and eas e n Eu ope (Ma ushiako a and Popo 2020). As Ishowed in my esea ch in eas e n Slo akia, i was he Roma hemsel es who ended o iew he pe iod o socialism as he high poin o hei own social pa - icipa ion and upwa d social mobili y: he a i al o capi alism, on he con a y, was associa ed wi h adecline in hei socio-economic s a us ( o simila ecollec ions see K amářo á e al. 2005; Sidi opolu Janků 2015). Howe e , Iam no ying o c ea e an imp ession o o al compliance wi h socialis policies on he pa o he Roma o igno e speci ic a eas o esis ance and sub e sion. Ins ead, Iwish o mo e beyond he bina y opposi ions e e ed o abo e and open up awide ield wi hin which dynamic o ms o Romani agency can be aced ha can also, pe haps, be unde s ood as “expe imen al consen ” as desc ibed by High (2008, bu also 2005), in o which he Roma p ojec ed hei hopes and expec a- ions, and whose policies hey a emp ed o inco po a e in o hei own economic s a egies and b oade s a egies o sociabili y. A he same ime, jus as High did no eso o de ending ese lemen p og ammes in Laos, so i is no my aim o o e a eassessmen o he Czechoslo ak 55 s a e’s ese lemen policy, which is ega ded by he dominan his o i- cal na a i e as one o he symbols o he communis egime’s iolence agains he Roma. In ac , my aim is no o e alua e his policy a all, bu , on he con a y, o disen angle i om he necessi y o e alua i e posi ions ha a e usually a ached o he s udy o socialis policy owa ds he Roma in gene al, as ecen ly ema ked upon by Ma ushiako a and Popo (2020). 1.1.5 An h opology, his o y and s udies o agency The au ho s men ioned so a a e uni ed by he ac ha all we e ancho- ed o some ex en in he discipline o an h opology, and some o hem ha e ci ed e hnog aphic esea ch as akey o g asping he complexi y o he ela ions unde conside a ion and he agen ial c ea i i y o speci ic people (see Abu-Lughod 1990; B azzabeni e al. 2015; Das and Poole 2004). In he case o his o ical esea ch, i is easy o d aw on p ecisely hose his o ical ends inspi ed by an h opology. I is no coincidence ha ep esen a i es o hese e y endencies ha e placed indi iduals as impo an his o ical agen s a he co e o hei in e es . This “ e u n o he ac o o his o y” (Ho ský 2014) ep esen ed a esponse o de elop- men s in his o ical esea ch since he ea ly wen ie h cen u y ha we e mo ing away om he “g ea man heo y o his o y” ( an Dülmen 2000) in a ou o acking social s uc u es ha implied collec i e ac o s de i- ned by sha ed socio-economic s a us. The p oblem wi h such an app- oach, which es ablished i sel unde he i le “his o y o men ali ies”, esided in he homogenisa ion o he ac o s hus de ined and he alse au onomy o he collec i e men ali ies unde conside a ion (Bu ke 1997). In he newly concei ed emphasis on he indi idual, abalanced iew o he ela ionship be ween ac o and s uc u e was o ensue simul aneously in he wake o he an h opological and sociological discussion in which his alse opposi ion had been econciled, mos no ably by An hony Gid- dens (1979) and Pie e Bou dieu (e.g. 1977, 1990). Fo hese au ho s, while he indi idual’sagency was o some ex en condi ioned by s uc u- e, i was each indi idual ac o who co-c ea ed such as uc u e and, mo eo e , possessed he capaci y o eshape i . One o he impo an au ho s who mo ed away om de e mining col- lec i e men ali ies and emphasised di e si y o expe ience, a i ude and ac ion among indi idual ac o s was he I alian his o ian Ca lo Ginzbu g, who back in he mid-1960s had al eady applied such an app oach o he 56 s udy o I alian popula cul u e (1983 [1965]). He wen s ill u he in his classic ex The Cheese and he Wo ms, in which he econs uc ed he hough wo ld o he he e ical mille in 16 h-cen u y I aly (1980 [1976]). Ginzbu g’smic ohis o ical app oach (see below) was aken up by ep e- sen a i es o he Ge man school o his o ical an h opology, as exempli- ied in he classic ex by Hans Medick (1987) en i led “‘Missiona ies in he Rowboa ’? E hnological Ways o Knowing as aChallenge o Social His o y”. Medick ei e a es ha in ligh o he p e ailing p eoccupa ion wi h s uc u e, a en ion needs o be u ned o he ac ions o speci ic ac o s and he ole o cul u e needs o be aken in o accoun , no as an isola ed au onomous en i y, bu in i s dynamic ela ional o m. I is he e ha Medick sees he ad an age o his o ians being inspi ed by he discipline o an h opology, which, he a gues, cul i a es asensi i i y o pe iphe al hemes and o al e i y in gene al. A ocus on he posi ion o indi iduals om ma ginalised social g oups has, acco ding o Medick, been no iceably absen om his o ies o Eu opean mode nisa ion and indus ialisa ion. Howe e , he also poin s ou ha i is no possible o slip in o unde s anding hese indi iduals as ic ims, bu as ac o s in hei own igh , cul i a ing hei own c ea i e o ms o esis ance. This emphasis can also be ound in he app oach ha has in Ge man schola - ship become known as All agsgeschich e o he his o y o e e yday li e. I s adhe en s o iginally ocused on he pe iod o he Ge man Thi d Reich. They shi ed hei a en ion away om he Nazi leade s o o dina y peo- ple, whose e e yday ac ions hey saw as key o unde s anding he acqui- si ion and exe cise o Nazi powe (Lüd ke 1995). They, oo, ocused on he li es o hose who ha e “ emained la gely anonymous in his o y” (ibid., 4). Howe e , hey did no look a hei ac ions and expe iences in isola ion, bu ega ded hem as being insepa able om he con ex o hei eme gence and impac (ibid.). Me hodologically, hese his o iog aphic ends con e ge in he mic ohis o ical app oach, which can be cha ac e ised o some ex en by a educ ion in he scale o enqui y in o de o disco e o he wise hidden aspec s o social ela ions. And so he p ima y objec o esea ch in he mic ohis o ical app oach may be he indi idual (as in he case o Ginz- bu g’smille Minocchio), amily o , ypically, he illage. Re u ning o he ini ial discussion o esea ch in o Romani agency in socialis Czecho- slo akia, i is no su p ising ha he his o ical s udies hus de ined (i.e.o speci ic illages o amilies), ha e led o he depic ion o complex o ms o Romani agency, e en hough hei au ho s do no necessa ily openly subsc ibe o mic ohis o y o do no e lec upon i s app oach 57 mo e closely (see G ill 2015a,b; Hajská 2020, 2022, 2024; Sadílko á 2017, 2020). A he same ime, howe e , he mic ohis o ical app oach sugges s ha he objec s o s udy so de ined canno be seen as ixed, bu unde - s ood as changing o e ime and space wi hin he con ex o b oade social and cul u al de elopmen s (Le i 2001). Ad oca es o mic ohis o y and he his o y o he e e yday ha e aced ques ions conce ning he explana o y alue o such scaled-down s udies. Is no a ocus on he e e yday a oman icising iew o his o- y, an app oach ha clings o de ail and is unable o con ibu e o an unde s anding o o e a ching his o ical p ocesses (see Lüd ke 1995)? As ega ds my book, which also elies p ima ily on s udies o speci ic Romani amilies and loca ions, he answe o such ques ions can be summa ised as ollows (see also Le i 2001): i is by means o amic o- his o ical app oach and engagemen wi h he discipline o an h opol- ogy ha i becomes possible o ace a ious o ms o Romani agency ha a e o he wise ei he homogenised o comple ely o e looked. In his espec , he emphasis on Romani agency is no me ely adiscu si e game aimed a comba ing he s e eo ypical image o he Roma as his o - ical ic ims o passi e ecipien s o s a e policies. Jus as Medick a gues ha i we ail o include he expe ience o membe s o ma ginalised g oups, he image o indus ialisa ion and mode nisa ion is incomple e (see abo e), so i can be a gued ha wi hou including he expe ience and agency o he Roma as adis inc and highly ma ginalised mino i- y, he image o he unc ioning o socialis socie y as awhole emains incomple e. A he same ime, as Gio anni Le i a gues in his ad oca- cy o mic ohis o y (2001), he educ ion o scale in he mic ohis o ical app oach does no imply aclea delinea ion o an isola ed esea ch a ea, bu a he he es ablishmen o as a ing poin o analysis om which o ace speci ic social phenomena, which is i sel an insepa able pa o he b oade socio-economic and poli ical con ex s. In his espec , p oponen s o he mic ohis o ical app oach ag ee wi h he Ame ican an h opologis Cli o d Gee z and his asse ion ha “an h opologis s do no s udy illages, hey s udy in illages” (Gee z 1973, 22; i alics o iginal). Thus, by ocusing on he illage (indi idual, amily, e c.), acco ding o Le i he mic ohis o ical app oach does no igno e he complexi y o he ne wo ks o ac o s and ela ions o which he “ il- lage” is apa . On he con a y, he educ ion o scale makes i possible o ace he con adic o iness o hese ela ions and o cap u e be e he possibili ies and limi s o he au onomous ac ions o indi iduals (Le i 2001). 64 cou se o inalising he p ojec , Ihad al eady spen some ime in eas e n Slo akia, whe e Iconduc ed my e hnog aphic esea ch (see O 2022b). We decided o ake ad an age o his and pu sue addi ional esea ch in hose illages om which he amilies o hose in e iewed came o P a- gue a e he wa . And so in he sp ing o 2015, I isi ed Ľubiša and Dlhé nad Ci ochou, wo illages in he dis ic o Humenné, whe e I eco ded in e iews wi h bo h Romani and non-Romani esiden s and pe used he local municipal ch onicle. In addi ion, I isi ed he dis ic a chi e in Humenné, which was my i s expe ience isi ing an ins i u ional a chi e. As Islogged h ough he a chi es, inding only agmen s o he minu es aken du ing mee ings o he Municipal Na ional Commi ees (MNV) o school epo s, he di ec o o he A chi e came o ask i Iwould be in e es ed in boxes con aining ma e ials pe aining o he “liquida ion o G*psy shacks” (lik idácia c*gánskych cha čí) in he onds o he Dis- ic Na ional Commi ee (ONV) in Humenné. The e was a o al o h ee boxes con aining de ailed documen a ion o he pu chase and demoli- ion o indi idual dwellings, including how new housing was p o ided, ei he wi hin he egion o by eloca ing he amilies conce ned o Cze- chia. Though i ini ially looked like Iwould spend ba ely aday in he a chi e, subsequen o his ind I e u ned o a ull week in o de o pho og aph he ma e ials in hei en i e y. The documen s had no ye been p ope ly o ganised and indexed and we e p o ided o me on he pe sonal ini ia i e o he a chi e di ec o . When I eques ed he same ma e ials six yea s la e in o de o e i y he con en o some poo ly pho og aphed pages, Iwas denied access by ano he membe o he s a on he g ounds ha he ma e ials we e s ill being p ocessed. Al hough he empo al con ingency o collec ed da a is usually associa ed wi h he o al his o y me hod (see Po elli 1991), my expe ience has augh me ha a chi al esea ch also has an impo an empo al dimension, no o speak o he haphaza d and unp edic able ways in which w i en sou ces a e o a e no a chi ed and p ese ed (Di ks 2002). This was by no means an isola ed expe ience du ing he cou se o my esea ch. When Ia emp ed o ack down a chi al ma e ials ela ing o he unc ioning o he G*psy Commission a he Dis ic Na ional Commi ee (ONV) in Pře o , whe e acco ding o he o icial schedule, Roma om he illage o Kapišo á (see In oduc ion) we e o be ese led, Iwas in o med by amembe o s a ha he ma e ials in ques ion had been comple ely des oyed in he loods o 1997. Howe e , he o e iding p oblem o he empo al con ingency o he da a ob ained became appa en when Ia emp ed o eco d in e iews wi h con empo a y wi nesses mo e sys ema ically. 65 In my o iginal esea ch p ojec , Ise ou o eco d in e iews wi h bo h he Roma and hei hen non-Romani neighbou s in he illages in ques- ion. Ideally, Iwan ed o eco d he na a i es o s a e o icials o local councillo s, who had been impo an ac o s in he implemen a ion o he cen ally o mula ed policy. Isoon disco e ed ha he e we e e y ew wi nesses who would ha e been o amo e ad anced age in he mid- 1960s and migh he e o e ha e aken an ac i e ole in shaping indi i- dual o amily li e s a egies. Those who migh ha e held o ice in s a e ins i u ions we e un aceable. This is one o he easons why Ihad o ely mo e hea ily han Ihad o iginally planned on a chi al esea ch o on in e iews wi h wi nesses who we e o en s ill child en du ing he pe iod unde s udy o who had only apassing knowledge o amily his o ies om he pe iod in ques ion. On he o he hand, Isaw wi h my own eyes ha he Roma also c ea ed many w i en sou ces (Ma ushiako a and Popo 2021; Sadílko áe al. 2018, 2024). These sou ces, which included a ious ypes o eques s and applica ions, ep esen an impo an insigh in o he li e ajec o ies and a i udes o indi idual Roma and Romani amilies, e en hough hey emain wi hin he con ines o o icial communica ions and hus ep esen only ace ain segmen o Romani agency. Bo h in e ms o expanding he sou ce base and unde s anding he ela ionship o he Roma o hei own pas and e hnic iden i y, i was hugely en iching o me o mee local Roma who hemsel es we e ac i ely and sys ema ically seeking o ensh ine he his o y o he Roma wi hin hei own communi y. This was how Icame in o con ac wi h Koloman Guná , who has w i en as udy o he his o y o he Roma in illage o B eko based on in e iews wi h con empo a y wi nesses (see Chap e Two). His daugh e , Elena Cino á, con inued his wo k wi h mo e e hnog aphic in e iews (Cino á e al. 2024). She also collabo a ed closely wi h Pe e Kud áč, who mapped he his o y o he Roma in he Podskalka se lemen nea he own o Humenné (see Chap- e Th ee). Kud áč also eco ded in e iews wi h con empo a y wi nesses, and in addi ion had p e iously collec ed se e al a chi al documen s om local Roma, especially pho og aphs, using which he and Cino á c ea ed apublic exhibi ion a he cul u al cen e in Podskalka. 1.2.3 O al his o y and collabo a i e esea ch B eko and Podskalka we e wo o he loca ions whe e he implemen a- ion o he ese lemen p og amme and mig a ion o Czechia in gene al 66 in ol ed only some Romani amilies and whe e asigni ican numbe o Roma we e s ill li ing when Iwas conduc ing my esea ch (Podskal- ka emained an exclusi ely Romani housing es a e adminis e ed by he Humenné municipal au ho i ies). Howe e , he e we e no longe any Roma li ing in some o he o he illages, p ecisely as aconsequence o hei eloca ion o Czechia. In hese cases I ocused on a chi al esea ch o he Slo ak segmen o my wo k, eco ding se e al in e iews wi h non-Romani wi nesses om he illages in ques ion. I hen supplemen- ed his wo k wi h esea ch in he ele an dis ic s and municipali ies in Czechia, whe e, in addi ion o isi ing a chi es, I ied o ack down su i ing wi nesses o he ese lemen policy. Among o he hings, I acked down Romani wi nesses om Papín, a illage in Slo akia, om which he en i e Romani popula ion decamped a he end o he 1960s (see Chap e Fou ). In au umn 2021 I eco ded he s o ies o wo sis e s, Monika H (bo n 1971) and Ma cela S(bo n 1977),10 whose a he g ew up in Papín, as well as an in e iew wi h Pa lína B (1948),11 who well emembe ed lea ing he na i e Papín. Be o e mee ing hese h ee women, Ihad been a emp ing o econ- s uc he s o y o he Roma o Papín by sea ching in egional a chi es in Slo akia, which pe sonally I ound o be qui e exci ing de ec i e wo k. Iin e iewed an elde ly non-Romani illage Ján Ž (bo n 1946) in Papín i sel ,12 who p o ided me wi h aluable in o ma ion and insigh s in o local ela ions. Howe e , his na a i e i i a ed me wi h i s o e ly pa e - nalis ic, a imes e en dehumanising e ospec i e iew o he Roma o Papín, along wi h occasional acis ema ks ega ding Romani people in gene al. Despi e being awa e o he impo ance o o al his o y, ha ing p e iously imme sed mysel in a chi al ma e ials, Iwas mo e han e e s uck by how he in e iews wi h he Romani women opened up awhole new pe spec i e, no only wi h ega d o his pa icula case s udy, bu in ela ion o my esea ch as awhole. The in e iews we e eple e wi h ambigui ies and in e nal con adic ions, and in some places he accoun s gi en we e a odds wi h wha Ihad lea ned om o he sou ces. Abo e all, howe e , my wi nesses managed o con ey o me he “ eshness and 10 In e iews wi h Romani women Monika H (b. 1971) and Ma cela S(b. 1977), eco ded by he au ho in Sep embe 2021 and Feb ua y 2022 inHo ní Podluží in Czech ( eco dings in possession o he au ho ). 11 In e iew wi h Romani woman Pa lína B (b. 1948), eco ded by he au ho in Sep embe 2021 in Březno in Romani and Czech ( eco ding in possession o he au ho ). 12 In e iew wi h non-Romani man Ján Ž (b. 1946), eco ded by he au ho in July 2021 in Papín in Slo ak ( eco ding in possession o he au ho ). 67 ichness o de ail” o e e yday li e (P ins 2001, 139) as i ela ed o li e in Slo akia and la e in Czechia. The s ong con as wi h my p e ious eading o a chi e ma e ials conce ning he illage ein o ced eelings Iexpe ienced du ing in e iews wi h o he Romani (and non-Romani) people bo h be o e and a e , namely, ha he adical dimension o o al his o y esides in he his o ian’sin ol emen in he whole s o y and hei pa icipa ion in he ac ual p oduc ion o da a (Po elli 1991). Iwas acu e- ly awa e o his du ing in e iews in which Romani wi nesses ag eed o go on eco d in Romani.13 Papín is agood s a ing poin o illus a ing how Iwo ked wi h di e en ypes o sou ces. E en du ing my in e iew wi h anon-Romani illage , and du ing la e in e iews wi h emale wi nesses om amongs he o iginal Roma o Papín, Ial eady had ela i ely de ailed a chi al ma e ials a my disposal ela ing, in e alia, o he his o y o he eloca- ion o he Romani se lemen wi hin he e i o y o he illage i sel , as well as he la e ese lemen o i s inhabi an s o Czechia. To begin wi h Idid no in e up hei na a i es excep o pose ques ions. G adually I e ealed in o ma ion Ihad p e iously acqui ed, bo h in o de o s im- ula e u he ecollec ions, as well as o ini ia e adiscussion ega ding ce ain con adic ions opening up be ween a chi al sou ces and hei own memo ies. Fo example, Ján Ž, anon-Romani illage bo n in 1946, had no idea ha up un il Second Wo ld Wa , Romani people had li ed in he e y hea o he buil -up pa s o Papín, be o e being e ic ed abou wo kilome es om he illage– o wha Ján himsel had always conside ed he na u al loca ion o he Romani se lemen – unde he e ms o a1941 dec ee (see Ju o á 2002, 27). And acco ding o a chi al ma e ials, in he 1950s and ea ly 1960s, he e was s ill communica ion aking place be ween he ONV inHumenné, which was p essing o he eloca ion o he Roma back o he illage, and he MNV inPapín, which s ead as ly esis ed such amo e (see Chap e Th ee). In my opin- ion his example illus a es some o he speci ic ea u es and bene i s o o al his o y, a he han i s limi s. This in e iew, du ing which Ján Ž was able o p o ide a ai ly de ailed desc ip ion o speci ic Roma who 13 This was an op ion Io e ed o e e yone, hough many we e no longe ac i e speake s o Romani o did no eel com o able. I is ia his o o e looked linguis ic le el ha Inail my colou s o he mas o he P ague school o Romani s udies, since i was he ounde , Hübschmanno á, who placed a undamen al emphasis on aknowledge o Romani in he esea ch among he Roma and who, in he o al his o y in e iews, moni o ed ace ain linguis ic le el, i.e. how speci ic his o ical e en s and p ocesses we e unde s ood and named by he Roma hemsel es (see, o example, Hübschmanno á 1993, 1995, 1999a). 68 li ed in Papín, sugges s ha he no ion o aRomani p esence in he illage be o e he Second Wo ld Wa had essen ially disappea ed om local memo y al oge he . Remaining in Papín, wo di e ing desc ip ions o he Romani se le- men a ha ime se e as an example o he need o ake in o accoun he con ex o he sou ces s udied and he di e ing pe spec i es o wi ness accoun s. Ján Ž desc ibed he se lemen as ollows: The Roma used o li e he e, in li le hu s nailed oge he , as hey li e e e y- whe e [in eas e n Slo akia]. They li ed be ween Nižná Jablonka and Papín. Tha ’sa illage abou i e kilome es away. Abou hal way along he e’san inle by he i e ha uns h ough, and ha ’swhe e hey used o li e, in hose hu s. Bu how many o hem, Ican’ say. Twen y maybe, bu he e we e jus six o se en o hose hu s. Bu as Isay, hey we e jus li le hu s nailed oge he .14 His aus e e desc ip ion o he se lemen , wi h i s “li le hu s nailed oge he ”, con as s s ongly wi h he colou ul ecollec ions and desc ip- ions o his con empo a y Pa lína B: The e was abeau i ul i e . I’m o e e elling hem [he child en] ha I’d lo e o see ha i e , se iously. Young boys, i een, six een, se en een, used o go swimming he e. The e was akind o wa e all, ish used o jump ou o he wa e and hey wen swimming he e. The gi ls, o ins ance, used o go in d esses, hey had hese limsy d esses, and he boys had ed boxe sho s [laughs], so hey wen swimming. They used o ha e camp i es in he summe , I emembe ha as hough i we e yes e day. I was like ameadow, he e we e shacks in ows on bo h sides.15 In he second pa o he in e iew, Ishowed Pa lína B apho og aph o adilapida ed building om he Papín se lemen aken om he ONV a chi e inHumenné. I u ned ou o be he house in which Pa lína B g ew up, which in u n encou aged he o eminisce u he . They [ he Slo aks] ea ed my mum e y di e en ly. And we had a eally nice house. She [mum] kep chickens, geese and sheep. Io en wonde ed why she had sheep, and hen i occu ed o me ha aguy, aSlo ak, used o come and 14 In e iew wi hJán Ž (b. 1946), op. ci . 15 In e iew wi h Pa lína B (b. 1948), op. ci . 69 shea he sheep and pay my mum money. […] We had ala ge ga den a  he back. On he o he side we had aga den oo, we had che y ees and by hewell my mo he g ew ege ables, ca o s and pa sley. I was always Mehu [anon-Romani illage ?] who came sc umping. Bu my mum said “I’ll gi e you some” and hen we used o isi him o s o ies.16 The di e ence be ween hese wo accoun s, which is no only ama e o how he se lemen is desc ibed bu also he weal h o de ail o e ed and he na a o ’sin ol emen , is la gely due o he ac ha while Pa lí- na B g ew up in he se lemen as aRomani woman, Ján Ž app oached i as an ou side who had g own up in he illage i sel . Howe e , he con- ex in which bo h s a emen s we e made canno be discoun ed. While Ján Ž d ew on as e eo ypical image o Romani li e in he se lemen s o eas e n Slo akia (“li le hu s nailed oge he , as hey li e e e ywhe e”), Pa lína B made no e o o conceal he nos algia she el o he child- hood in he se lemen (and in Slo akia mo e gene ally), and epea edly exp essed adesi e o pay he place a isi (see Sadílko á 2016, 153–160). He ecollec ions we e enhanced by apho og aph o he e y house she had g own up in, agood example o how some a chi al ma e ials can p omp u he ecollec ions in in e iews wi h con empo a y wi nesses. I an emphasis is o be laid on he con ex o he sou ces unde con- side a ion, hen an impo an amewo k o he o al his o y in e iews is he way he Roma ela e o he pe iod o communism, an e a emem- be ed wi h ondness by hose Ispoke o. Ha ing examined his dimen- sion wi hin he con ex o he ela ionship be ween he Roma and he s a e (see abo e), he e Iwould like o ocus on i s ele ance o he o al his o y me hod. These posi i e memo ies o he communis pe iod a e in e es ing in his espec , especially when se agains he long dominan his o ical na a i e in which he communis egime is associa ed abo e all wi h he di e e ec s o he assimila ion policy on Romani iden i y and socio-cul u al s uc u es. Sadílko á (2016, e.g. 99) has p e iously d awn a en ion o his con adic ion. This migh be agood poin o in oduce a leas wo u he aspec s ela ing o b oade discussions pe aining o he u ilisa ion o o al his o y. O al his o y some imes aces simila c i icisms o he en i e mic ohis o ical app oach, namely, ha in i s ocus on de ail and he li ed expe ience o he indi idual i is unable o con ibu e o an unde s anding o b oade his o ical p ocesses (see 16 Ibid. 70 P ins 2001). In e iews wi h Romani wi nesses show ha wi hou o al his o y he image e oked o such p ocesses can be e y incomple e o one-sided. As Sadílko á poin s ou , o al his o y can be used no only as asou ce o “mapping he local his o y o ace ain (mino i y) g oup and cap u ing hei iew o hei own pas , bu as apossible sou ce o he local ( e)con ex ualisa ion o dominan his o ical in e p e a i e na - a i es” (Sadílko á 2016, 99). In his espec , he o al his o y me hod co esponds well o he “ om he ma gins” app oach al eady discussed. The second aspec o be looked a conce ns how such es imony should be app oached. In he discussion e e ed o abo e ega ding he ese lemen o illage s in Laos, c i ics o High poin ed ou ha , jus because he illage s said ha hey we e ok wi h he s a e policy did no mean i was ue: hey may ha e been saying i wi hin he con ex o esea ch and in ligh o he asymme ical powe ela ionship be ween he s a e and i s poo ci izens (see abo e). In he case o o al his o y, his kind o discussion hen aises ques ions ega ding he selec i i y o human memo y and i s endency o idealise he pas . Is i hen app o- p ia e o ead simila accoun s by he Roma ela ing o he communis pe iod as idealised nos algia?17 Like he an h opologis Be dahl, who analysed (n)os algic ecollec ions o he communis pe iod in Eas Ge - many (Be dahl 1999), Ibelie e ha such accoun s mus no be i ialised (see also High’s esponse; 2009), bu mus be aken se iously as e lec- ions o li ed expe ience. This is expe ience o bo h he pe iod o ime being ecalled and he pe iod du ing which i is ecalled. Indeed, in he in e iews Iconduc ed, he Roma hemsel es o en con as li e unde communism wi h he de e io a ion o hei socio-economic posi ion and he decline in social secu i y in he pos - e olu iona y pe iod (see O 2022b). Agood example om he s udies discussed below would be he si ua ion o he Roma in he Podskalka se lemen nea Humenné (see Chap e Th ee). One wi ness, Elemí T (bo n 1940), old me how, hanks o he ese lemen policy, he, like many o he Roma, was able o acqui e amuch co e ed apa men in he own o Humenné.18 Howe e , a e he Vel e Re olu ion, he apa men s we e g adually p i a ised and many Roma, including Elemí T, we e e ic ed o en de aul and o ced o 17 Ma ěj Spu ný poses asimila ques ion in he in oduc ion o his book. Howe e , he does no elabo a e on he o al his o y me hod, which he uses spa ingly, and no a all in he chap e on he Roma (Spu ný 2011; see also Sadílko á 2013). 18 In e iew wi h Romani man Elemí T (b. 1940), eco ded by he au ho in May 2019 in Podskalka in Romani ( eco ding in he possession o he au ho ). 71 mo e back o he se lemen . Again, my aim he e is no o o e an e al- ua ion o communis policy owa ds he Roma, bu me ely o poin ou ce ain impo an dimensions o he unde s anding o o al his o y na - a i es and hei con ex . 1.3 The E hical Dimension o Resea ch Iha e a gued, wi h e e ence o Po elli, ha he adicalism o o al his- o y esides in he way i d aws he esea che in o he p ocess o shaping he da a. Howe e , his is no apu ely me hodological ques ion, bu also an e hical one. In o al his o y in e iews, he esea che en e s in o apa icula si ua ion in which he ela ionship be ween in e iewe and in e iewee is “ eplaced by he con ic ion ha wo people, each b inging adi e en kind o knowledge o he in e iew, sha e equally in a p ocess o disco e y” (Yow 1995, 53). Bo h in e es ed pa ies en e in o such a ela ionship wi h di e en hopes and expec a ions, which do no end when he in e iew comes o aclose (Halbmay 2009). In he case o in e iews wi h Romani wi nesses, which is my main conce n he e, he pe sonal in es men o he na a o s was o en e iden as hey se abou acking he his o y o hei amilies o locally de ined Romani commu- ni ies. I el his in ensely du ing mee ings in Slo akia wi h Koloman Guná , and la e wi h his daugh e Elena Cino á, as well as wi h Pe e Kud áč, all o whom had al eady been wo king on simila local his o ies hemsel es. Upon mee ing up, we sha ed he ma e ials we had collec ed hus a and compa ed ou indings. Fo ins ance, I ecei ed om hem eco dings and ansc ip s o in e iews wi h people who we e no longe ali e a he ime o my esea ch o did no eel up o ano he in e iew. Howe e , I el asimila pe sonal in ol emen in many o my in e iews wi h con empo a y wi nesses in Czechia who had los ies o hei na i e illages in Slo akia. The sis e s Monika H and Ma cela S, who hemsel- es had p e iously been in ol ed in acking down he obscu e his o y o hei amily, we e e y keen o mee . Ou i s in e iew las ed all o i e hou s, du ing which ime, a e hei in oduc o y wo ds, we pe u- sed a chi e ma e ials and a emp ed o iden i y he names o he Roma o iginally om Papín and he ela ionships ha pe ained be ween hem. Du ing ou mee ing, he sis e s would call o he li ing ela i es o ask abou some o he names and o clea up he na u e o ela ionships and e en s. They hen b ains o med alis o sui able people wi h whom Icould conduc mo e in e iews. Pe haps e en mo e powe ul was an 72 expe ience Ihad du ing my in e iew wi h Pa lína B, who was bo n in Papín bu had no seen Slo akia since he la e 1960s. Igo in ouch wi h he ia he g anddaugh e , who a ended egula eunions o Romani high school s uden s whe e she happened o men ion ha he amily came o iginally om Papín. She quickly a anged amee ing wi h he g andmo he and passed on eques s om he amily ha Ib ing he ma e ials Ihad acked down hus a . When Pa lína B disco e ed ha Ihad al eady ga he ed alo o in o ma ion and ha Ihad indeed se e al imes isi ed he na i e illage in Slo akia, du ing he cou se o ou con- e sa ion she o en swi ched o he ole o in e iewe in an e o o ind ou how hings we e in Papín. Sligh ly con used by he en i e si ua ion, she e en on occasion u ned some o my ques ions ega ding li e in he illage on me, pe haps unde he imp ession ha Iwas mo e quali ied o answe hem. Abo e all, she epea edly exp essed awish o e isi he na i e illage. The e a e a leas wo hings I ind impo an abou he a mosphe e o such encoun e s. One is he in e es o he Roma, al eady men ioned, in hei own locally embedded his o y. This challenges bo h he popula s e eo ype o he Roma as li ing pu ely in he p esen , as well as e h- nog aphically ancho ed an h opological concep s acco ding o which Romani iden i y is o med abo e all in day- o-day ela ionships wi hou e e ence o sha ed his o y o speci ic place (see Gay Y Blasco 1999, 2001; S ewa 1997). Abo e all, howe e , hese encoun e s led me o e hink he en i e ocus o his book. The in e es displayed by ce ain Roma in cha ing he his o y o hei amilies and he places hey came om led me o eassess he claim made by Gee z. My eeling is ha in his book Iam no me ely obse ing ce ain phenomena “in illages”, bu , oge h- e wi h he pa icipan s and pa ne s in my esea ch, Iam s udying he “ illages” hemsel es (c . Gee z 1973, 22). Such aconclusion is apa ial esponse o he dilemma Imen ioned abo e be ween amo e in e p e i e obse a ion o social phenomena and amo e desc ip i e mapping o he s ill li le known his o y o he Romani people as ahis o y o hei expe iences, agency, li e ajec o ies and places. My hope is ha Iha e managed bo h. 73 2. CHAPTER TWO Who Coun s as a G*psy? The a chi e onds o he Financial Depa men o he Humenné Dis ic Na ional Commi ee (ONV) pe aining o he emo al o he shacks in Romani se lemen s, he disco e y o which spa ked my in e es in he ese lemen policy, consis s o nea ly one hund ed and i y iles, each con aining documen a ion on one house and he amily ha li ed in i . This usually includes a alua ion o he p ope y and in o ma ion ega - ding he amily’soccupa ion and li ing condi ions in hei new esidence, be his in Slo akia o Czechia. The municipali y o B eko , which is loca- ed jus a ew kilome es om he coun y sea o Humenné, is deal wi h in jus one ile held on he clea ance o Regina D’shouse.19The s o y o Regina’s amily as old in his chap e will help in answe ing he ques ion o who ul ima ely was a ec ed by he ese lemen policy, which in he o icial language a ge ed “G*psies” (C*káni). In B eko I eco ded an in e iew wi h local Rom Koloman Guná (bo n 1948), in which Iasked him abou he p ac ice o he ese lemen p og amme in he dis ic . He eplied ha he Roma in B eko had no been a ec ed. Acco ding o him, he ci cums ances su ounding he case o Regina D we e excep ional: One amily le he illage. They had ab ick house. The lady aised all he chil- d en he sel . He husband was in gaol o shoo ing aman. They had a igh in he pub and he had an illegal gun a home. He e u ned home, go he 19 ŠOkA Humenné, . Finanční odbo ONV Humenné, ka . 15, sp. 47, “D. Regina, B eko ” [unp ocessed]. 80 he ese lemen p og amme (e en hough he publica ion is based on his doc o al hesis, which he de ended in 1964, i.e. ayea be o e he cen al app o al o he ese lemen policy; see Done 2017, 169). No áček con ends ha he di e ence, i.e. he “backwa dness”, o he G*psies mus be seen as he ou come o hei long- e m isola ion, a“dis inc i e de elopmen accompanied by cons an opp ession and pe secu ion” (1968, 5). Howe e , acco ding o him, hese de elopmen s had led no only o a“backwa d way o li e”, bu also o he main e- nance o dis inc i e an h opological (i.e. physical) ea u es and an idio- sync a ic “G*psy psychology” (c*kánská psychologie; ibid., 35–36). A he same ime, when e e ing o he his o ical pe secu ion o he G*psies, No áček indi ec ly answe s Jamnická-Šme glo á’sques ion when he exp esses his con ic ion ha he G*psy is now “ahuman being o he i s ime” (ibid., 30). No áček pays lip se ice o o icial policy when he says ha he “dispe sal o he G*psy popula ion” ( ozp yl c*kánského oby a els a) was he logical esponse o his his o ically condi ioned iso- la ion, which se es o ep oduce he “G*psy way o li e” (c*kánský způsob ži o a; ibid., 4). Howe e , he pe cei es adouble obs acle in such ap o- cess o assimila ion. Fi s ly, he e is he ela ionship o he G*psies o he “Whi e” (bílí) popula ion, as well as he a i udes o “o he s” o he G*p- sies (ibid., 37–38). On he one hand, No áček pu s adis ance be ween himsel and he acialising opinions i e in socie y, acco ding o which “G*psies canno be e-educa ed” and hei “pas and p esen way o li e e lec s hei ‘G*psy na u e’ [c*kánská při ozenos ]” (ibid.,5). Fo his ea- son, in “ esol ing he G*psy ques ion” he lays emphasis on he “ e-edu- ca ion o he es o he popula ion in o de o o e come hei p ejudices agains  he G*psies” (ibid., 6). Howe e , he himsel subs i u es “G*psy na u e” wi h ahis o ically o med “G*psy psychology”, which, he a gues, makes building us in he su ounding “Whi e” popula ion along and augh p ocess:25 I aG*psy is disappoin ed in ape son he us ed, he can ha e him wi h all “G*psy since i y”, which is conside able. G*psies a e, as a ule, a empe - amen al people, no in equen ly impulsi e, and e y sensi i e o possible injus ice. They can ejoice boundlessly, and many o hem a e eady o u n hei hand o aski mish. This ai is, when all is said and done, no peculia 25 In he end, asimila emphasis can be ound in he ex s by Tomáš and Mi osla Holomek (see Chap e Fou ). 81 o he G*psies alone, bu o all collec i i ies a alowe le el o de elopmen . (ibid., 38) No áček’s ex hus unde sco es he ambi alence o he concep o G*psyness discussed abo e. While elsewhe e he pu s adis ance be ween himsel and idea o a“G*psy ace” [c*kánská asa] o “G*psy na u e” and in e p e s he “G*psy way o li e” on he basis o social isola ion and pa hology, he none heless p esen s agene alised, highly acialising desc ip ion o he collec i e “G*psy empe amen ” [c*kánský empe a- men ]. He hus inds himsel caugh in a icious ci cle (see ibid., 38): On he one hand, he speaks o “c iminal and eeloading ac i i ies” as acha ac e is ic o G*psyness (ibid., 37–38); while on he o he , he wishes o pu adis ance be ween himsel and he a i udes o asocie y in which “ he G*psies a e […] indisc imina ely ega ded as a hie ing, pa asi ic mass” (ibid., 22). In an a emp o b eak down his “mass”, No áček o e s adi e en i- a ion be ween G*psies ha essen ially di ides hem in o “se led [usedlí], semi-nomadic [polokočo ní] and nomadic [kočo ní]” (ibid., 32–35). The way he uses his di e en ia ion, howe e , app oxima es o he newly es ablished adminis a i e classi ica ion based on adap abili y. No áček sugges s ha nomadism is an inhe en ea u e o he “backwa d G*psy way o li e”, and his in u n c ea es ascale o assimila ion. Acco ding o his logic, “se led G*psies” a e o me nomads who ha e adap ed o he dominan way o li e. When accen ua ing he social cha ac e o G*psyness, No áček s esses ha he measu es aimed a “ esol ing he G*psy ques ion” do no apply o hese “se led G*psies” and ha , on he con a y, i would be an “un o gi eable e o o o ganise educa ional wo k wi h aspecial ocus jus because hey di e om he es o he popula ion by i ue o he colou o hei skin and because hei G*psy o igin is e iden om hei physiognomy” (ibid., 32). The social dis inc ion No áček pos ula es is, he belie es, insc ibed in he ela ionships be ween he G*psies hemsel es. Acco ding o him, many o hem a emp o be “mo e like he ‘Whi es’” (ibid., 38), which leads o con lic “be ween G*psies in ol ed in he labou o ce and he luc ua ing and non-wo king G*psies” (ibid., 39). Though i is no en i e- ly clea upon wha da a he is basing hese claims, his hesis is in e es ing o a leas wo easons. Fi s ly, o he au ho himsel , i se es o con i m he ele ance o he social de ini ion o G*psyness and he way ha he signi icance o sha ed e hnic ai s has been o e looked. A he same ime, howe e , i poin s o he po en ial powe o ahis o ically shaped 82 dominan discou se ha add esses he way ha ela ions be ween he G*psies hemsel es a e de ined. Though No áček does no elabo a e on his u he , in his wo k G*psies become ac i e agen s in he o ma ion o his discou se. This is ano en i ely sel -e iden emphasis ha Ialso adhe e o om a e y di e en pe spec i e, no only in his chap e , bu h oughou his book. The e hnog aphe E a Da ido á, a ha ime wo king o he KNV in Košice, p omo es a e y simila discou se in he ex s. This discou se was a icula ed mos clea ly in he monog aph en i led Bez kolíb ašia o (Wi hou Hu s and Ten s, 1965), as well as in unda ed “s udy ma e ial o wo ke s o educa ional es ablishmen s” en i led “Cigánsky p oblém ajeho iešenie o ýchodoslo enskom k aji” (The G*psy P oblem and i s Resolu ion in he Region o Eas Slo akia), which she w o e in col- labo a ion wi h Špine , men ioned abo e, he sec e a y o he G*psy Commission a he same KNV.26 Da ido á had been esea ching he Roma in eas e n Slo akia since he 1950s, ocusing on hemes ypical o e hnog aphy as i was hen unde s ood: li elihood, housing cul u e, olk eligion, olklo e, e c. In he monog aph, she ames he somewha complex explana ion o hese hemes wi h claims o a“backwa d” and “anach onis ic way o li e”, which had o be o e come. Like No áček, she de ines he G*psies as an e hnic g oup. Howe e , she soon empha- sises ha he “G*psy ques ion” (c*kánská o ázka) mus be esol ed no as ana ional, bu as a“social p oblem”, “in he o m o he g adual assim- ila ion o he G*psies in o he es o he popula ion” (ibid., 10). A his poin , Da ido á no es ha he e a e “many G*psy ci izens– amilies and indi iduals– whose way o li e does no di e om ha o he es o he popula ion as awhole”, and exp esses he con ic ion ha he numbe s o such people will con inue o ise (1965, 11). A he same ime, howe e , she no longe coun s such assimila ed indi iduals among he G*psies. On he one hand, Da ido á ep oduces he social pa hologisa ion o G*psyness, while on he o he , like No áček, she a ibu es o i speci ic an h opological ea u es ha dis inguish G*psies om he socie y su - ounding hem (ibid., 11). Da ido á, oo, depic s he his o y o he G*psies p ima ily as he s o y o hei pe secu ion, wi h an equal s a us only being achie ed a e 26 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 9, sp. 44. “Cigánsky p oblém ajeho iešenie o ýchodoslo enskom k aji”, unda ed. Tu číno á-Da ido á was esponsible o he chap e en i led “The G*psy P oblem om aHis o ical, E hnog aphic and Sociological Pe spec i e”. 83 1945. I was only hen, acco ding o Da ido á, ha sui able condi ions we e c ea ed o he “ esolu ion o he G*psy ques ion”, which she he sel de ined as he “ o ali y o he p oblems ensuing om he di e ences o he backwa d o ms o he G*psies’ way o li e and cul u e, which mus be elimina ed on he basis o achange in hei economic s a us du ing he p ocess o socialis educa ion” (ibid., 35). She desc ibes he 1950s as ape iod o an “elemen al solu ion” (ži elné řešení), which only ook on auni ied o m a e 1958, when i was decided o pu an end o he nomadic way o li e as a“se ious hango e om he pas ” (ibid., 42). Ano he key ask in he assimila ion o he G*psies, o which he e y i le o he monog aph Bez kolíb ašia o e e s, is, as Da ido á says, he emo al o he se lemen s as unheal hy en i onmen s ha ep oduce a“backwa d way o li e” (ibid., 87–88). Da ido á iden i ies simila obs a- cles as No áček o he p ocess o assimila ion. The sough -a e inclusion o he Roma in he egula wo k o ce is hinde ed by ”ing ained a i udes owa ds wo k, which p e iously he G*psies ega ded pu ely as aneces- sa y e il”, as well as ce ain “cha ac e ai s” (po aho é ysy), he lis o which is highly eminiscen o No áček’s“G*psy psychology”: “ins a- bili y and alack o s amina; alack o esponsibili y owa ds wo k and he collec i e; unheal hy mani es a ions o empe amen ; and a eeling o in e io i y and he hype sensi i i y esul ing he e om” (ibid., 89). Da ido á emphasises ha he e is aneed o “comba no only he su - i ing misconcep ions o many G*psies, bu also he lack o unde s and- ing and a e sion o he es o he popula ion” (ibid., 44). Bu hough she belie es i is necessa y o “elimina e eelings o supe io i y owa ds G*psies”, she also wa ns agains “inconsis en ” and “supe icial” solu- ions o he “G*psy ques ion”, which she says leads o “some G*psies [...] c a ily abusing he ad an ages ha ou socie y p o ides hem”. In his con ex she also wa ns agains he adop ion o only “ex e nal o ms o anew li e” wi hou a“genuine” in e nal ans o ma ion on he pa o he G*psies (ibid., 122–125). Da ido á’sunde s anding o G*psyness possesses he same in e nal ension as No áček’s. On he one hand, she in eighs agains acial p ej- udice. Howe e , she does so in he name o he need o elimina e he cha ac e is ics o a“G*psy way o li e” (namely pa asi ism and nomad- ism) and ans o m he “unheal hy hinking o G*psies”, which is man- i es in apa icula men ali y. This s ance is ou lined mo e explici ly in he s udy ma e ial e e ed o abo e, whe e she s a es di ec ly ha acial p ejudice is a“se ious impedimen o agenuine ans o ma ion o he li e and hinking o he G*psies” and has he e ec o “p o oking inco ec 84 eac ions in he G*psies hemsel es and making assimila ion mo e di - icul ”. She admi s ha such “an ipa hy is p o oked by he G*psies hemsel es”, which, she says, causes “ups anding G*psies o su e need- lessly”. In addi ion o seeing acism p ima ily as an obs acle o he suc- cess ul “ e-educa ion o he G*psies”, Da ido á ul ima ely desc ibes i as ala gely na u al eac ion o he beha iou o he G*psies hemsel es. In doing so she pos ula es aca ego y o “ups anding ( espec able) G*psies” (pořádný C*kán) which, as Ishall show below, became ing ained in pop- ula discou se, e en amongs he Roma hemsel es. Howe e , wi h he ea lie de ini ion o he G*psy as inhe en ly “slo enly”, i.e. “pa asi ical and backwa d”, Da ido á con inues o blu he bounda y be ween he socially pa hological and he e hnic ca ego y, jus as she ob usca es he answe o he ques ion o who ac ually coun s as aG*psy and who no longe . 2.1.3 “In he in e es s o all” The ep esen a i es o he newly es ablished Go e nmen Commi ee we e also awa e o he need o in luence he wide “non-G*psy” public. They called ou “an i-G*psy a i udes” in socie y as one o he main ea- sons o he ailu e o he exis ing policies and e e ed o ea lie docu- men s ha e alua ed he implemen a ion o he go e nmen esolu ion o 1958 (see Ju o á 2008, 996–999). In con as o his esolu ion, he implemen a ion o he ese lemen policy was o be accompanied by amedia campaign s essing he impo ance o he p og amme o he whole o socie y. To his end, a h ee-pa ele ision p og amme was b oadcas , app op ia ely en i led Vzáujme še kých (In he In e es o All). Righ a he beginning o he i s episode, b oadcas on 26 Oc o- be 1966, he oice-o e implied he sha ed esponsibili y o iewe s o he pligh o he G*psies, so u ning passi e obse e s in o impo an agen s o he desi ed change: Wha ha e you done o add ess he G*psy ques ion? Why did you e use o sell you house o G*psies? Would you ma y aG*psy gi l? Would you in i e aG*psy in o you social g oup? E e y i h child in eas e n Slo akia is aG*psy. Each has ahome, bu ew ha e abed and oys. Few a e aken ou in o he sun in ap am. The six-yea -olds will be eady o school bu will no a end. They will li e in poo condi ions. [ oo age om poo eas e n Slo ak se lemen s]. They will g ow up and ecei e an ID ca d wi h Slo ak o Czech 85 na ionali y Wha will hey do wi hou educa ion and quali ica ions? The boy will en e he a my, whe e he will be augh skills and pe haps ecei e aqual- i ica ion. The gi l will gi e bi h o child en she won’ ca e o .27 This in oduc ion se es as ap elude o all h ee pa s, which look a di e en s ages o li e and a ious aspec s o he e e yday li e o he G*psies, i.e. hose who ep esen he “G*psy way o li e” as ou lined in he in oduc ion. Bu i also e eals he b oade shi aking place in how social igh s we e unde s ood in socialis Czechoslo akia. As Done shows in mo e de ail, du ing he 1960s he e was amo e away om p o iding paid wo k o e e yone o issues e ol ing a ound ca e, amily and e e yday li e, which ine i ably included agende dimension (Done 2017, 143–153). This is clea no only om he in oduc ion o he p og amme, bu also in he ex s discussed abo e. In se e al places, Da ido á he sel eminds he eade s ha gi en he adi ional gende oles o he Roma, i is he “G*psy woman” who is he p ima y obs acle o he assimila ion o G*psies due o ahighe deg ee o social isola ion (Da ido á 1965,80 and 159; Tu číno á-Da ido á [unda ed], 33;28 see Done 2017, 152). Wi h an inc easing emphasis on p i a e li e and, mo e gene ally, on i s quali y, a en ion u ned o he high bi h a e o he sexualised G*psy woman, who, acco ding o he dominan logic, ep o- duced ade ian way o li e. This heme egula ly su aces h oughou he whole o he h ee-pa TV se ies. “She became amo he . […] AG*p- sy woman was bo n o bea child en. She became awi e and mo he when she was s ill achild he sel ,” in ones he oice-o e in oducing he segmen en i led “Mo he ” in he i s episode.29 In addi ion o he possibili y o bi h con ol o G*psy women and he emo al o G*psy child en, subsequen episodes ocus on hygiene, heal h, and he o e all elimina ion o he “unheal hy” en i onmen in which hese child en a e socialised. “The en i onmen shapes ape son. Any o us would ha e ap oblem i we had been bo n in adilapida ed shack o g own up in he da kness o illi e acy and binding adi ions. I ’sha d o b eak away and li e di e en ly,” he oice-o e pe suades he iewe . Immedia ely a e wa ds, a ele ision epo e isi s “M s Ma ienka” in o de o see o himsel he acili ies o he ecen ly buil house in one o he illages o 27 A chi e o RTVS, B a isla a, idec: 766-7260-9000-0051, “Vzáujme še kých 1.”, 1966. 28 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 9, sp. 44. “Cigánsky p oblém ajeho iešenie o ýchodoslo enskom k aji”, unda ed. 29 Ibid. 86 eas e n Slo akia. M s Ma ienka’shusband is awelde and is a wo k. The came a akes in a lowe po , ala ge wall clock and adouble bass leaning agains he wall in aco ne . “Di and diso de a e no an ine i able side e ec o po e y,” says he edi o , poin ing o he ans o ma ion in he li ing condi ions and habi s o he G*psies, p oo ha he sys ema ic “liquida ion o G*psy se lemen s” was he igh pa h.30 The insis en message o he iewe ha such changes a e “in he in e es s o all” is pa o ag owing emphasis wi hin cen al policy on he quali y o he en i e popula ion. The “G*psy way o li e” p esen ed in he TV p og amme was no only asub e si e elemen , bu , gi en he high bi h a e, posed asigni ican h ea o he popula ion e en in he u u e. This secu i ising na a i e, which accen ua ed he h ea o asigni ican popula ion inc ease o he G*psies as ade ian g oup, is cha ac e is ic o he en i e discou se o ha ime, and culmina ed in he p ac ice o s e ilisa ion in Czechoslo akia, p ima ily on he basis o ace (Sadílko á 2019). This iew o socie al in e es was o mula ed by Da ido á he sel , who co-au ho ed he sc ip o he i s episode o he TV p og amme, in which she also appea ed as an expe on he “G*psy ques ion”. She had wa ned agains he di ec ion social de elop- men s we e aking in he s udy ma e ial ci ed abo e, w i ing ha “ he gap be ween he su i ing G*psy way o li e and ha o he a e age ci izen o ou socialis socie y […] will widen, jus as he ela i e num- be o G*psies in he Czechoslo ak Socialis Republic will inc ease” (Tu číno á-Da ido á [unda ed], 36).31 Inasmuch as he p ima y mo i a ion o elimina ing acial p ejudice was o allow o he e-educa ion o he G*psies, he p ocess o e-educa- ion i sel was la gely mo i a ed by he desi e o p e en any inc ease in he “G*psy p oblem”. And inasmuch as he secu i isa ion na a i e was p esen , albei implici ly, in o icial discou se and in na ionwide ele i- sion co e age, his conce n was a icula ed explici ly in con empo a y newspape a icles, which o en wa ned o an “explosion in he G*psy popula ion”.32 The ex “Sme : Mo a a aČechy” (Di ec ion: Mo a ia and Bohemia, 16 May 1967), published in he B a isla a Communis Pa y newspape 30 Ibid. 31 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 9, sp. 44. “Cigánsky p oblém ajeho iešenie o ýchodoslo enskom k aji”, unda ed. 32 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 20, “Výs ižky z lače ocigánskej p oblema ike”, 1962–1968. 87 Ľud (The People), opens wi h da a on he numbe o G*psies, including hei classi ica ion in acco dance wi h he o icial ca ego ies. Re e ing o he second and hi d ca ego ies, he jou nalis w o e: “[w]e ha e o deal wi h bo h g oups, no leas because gi en ala ge popula ion o G*psies hey would quickly ou numbe us. A e all, by 1970 he e will be a leas aqua e o amillion gypsies in he Republic!”33 A ex om he same newspape simply en i led “Cigánska o ázka” (The G*psy Ques ion, 27Sep embe 1967), which summa ises he ou comes o ajoin mee ing o he Heal h Commi ee o he Na ional Assembly and he Na ional Council o he Slo ak Republic’sHeal h Commission, wa ns o a“pop- ula ion explosion” (populačná explózia). D .E ín Mikula published an indignan a icle in he same newspape (30 Sep embe 1967), claiming ha i was “undeniable ha we ha e managed o c ea e aspecial cas e, ap i ileged class, which knows only o igh s and no hing o du ies, ou o he popula ion o G*psy o igin (les we be accused o acism)”. In explaining he highe bi h a e o G*psy women, he epea s he wide- sp ead belie ha his was p ima ily asou ce o li elihood hanks o he paymen o child allowances: “I is almos inconcei able ha aG*psy woman would use con acep i es. I would h ea en he inancial s a- bili y o he uni we conside a amily”. He also w i es o a“popula ion explosion” ha can “unequi ocally be decla ed poo quali y [i.e. gi ing ise o a‘poo quali y popula ion’]”. “Wha is his explosion cos ing us?” he w i es, only o ecall he 11 million Czechoslo ak c owns paid in 1966 o he educa ion o G*psy child en and he ac ha one hi d o adul G*psies in Slo akia we e in eceip o disabili y bene i s.34 Simila ly, in a ex en i led “Cigánské nok u ná” (G*psy Noc u ne), Adam Gajdoš illus a es he legi imacy o ea s o he h ea o an inc ease in he num- be s o G*psies, ci ing acon e sa ion he claims o ha e had wi h a“ wen- y- i e-yea old G*psy beau y” in an eas e n Slo ak se lemen : “You ha e en child en. Would like o ha e mo e?”– “O cou se. Ten mo e... so ha my pa ne ecei es money!”. In ano he ex Gajdoš w i es ha “ he G*psies a e sp inging up like mush ooms a e he ain [sp eading like wild i e]”.35 Though he decla ed himsel o be agains “compulso y s e ilisa ion”, Špine , he sec e a y o he egional G*psy Commission, spoke abou he need o “con olled pa en hood and popula ion educ ion” in aleng hy 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 88 in e iew o Ob ana lidu (De ence o he People) en i led “Ocigánoch spo ozumením, ale nie sen imen álne” (On he G*psies wi h Unde - s anding bu no Sen imen ali y). “A e all, wha is mo e humane: o allow psychically handicapped people gi e bi h o degene a e o sp ing wi hou eeling o lo e? O o p e en i ?” he asks, e e ing o he hi d o icial ca ego y o G*psy.36 2.1.4 “Le he councillo s house hem in hei own home” Acco ding o he p e alen na a i e, he “popula ion explosion” ha h ea ened was con ingen on he one hand upon he dis inc sexuali y o he G*psies, mo e speci ically G*psy women, and on he o he by agene- al p o- amily wel a e sys em ha acili a ed p o i ee ing on he pa o he G*psies as “wo k-shy eeloade s”. This na a i e can be seen in he b oade popula discou se a ha ime. In my analysis o i he e, Iwill d aw on he esponse o iewe s o he ele ision p og amme discussed abo e, “In he In e es s o All”, mo e han ahund ed o whom se o h hei eelings in le e s add essed o he ele ision s udios.37 No wi h- s anding he la ge numbe o esponses ecei ed, his in i sel canno be seen as a ep esen a i e sample o public opinion, since i in ol ed only he oices o hose iewe s who el he need o commen . Ne e heless, i is a ela i ely unique sou ce om which o ace he complexi y o he popula discou se su ounding G*psies a ha ime. Adhe ing o he na a i e desc ibed abo e, one o he iewe s linked up ideas o de ian G*psy sexuali y and c i icism o he s a e amily pol- icy hus: I is ue ha all G*psies ha e child en i esponsibly. Howe e , he go e n- men indulges hem in his espec by paying hem amily allowances, and gene ous ones a ha . I is comple ely unaccep able ha child en ha e sex wi h o he child en wi hou being punished, and ha hese child en gi e bi h o mo e child en.38 36 Ibid. 37 NA P ague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, . KSČ– Ús řední ýbo 1945–1989, P aha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, s .37, č. j. 299. 38 Ibid. 89 Ano he wa ns ha “wi h he con inuing bi h a e [o G*psies] he e will soon be ana ional c isis”.39 The c i icism o he s a e oiced in hese le e s ela es no only o i s wel a e policy, bu also o he assimila- ion policy as awhole, as p esen ed in he ele ision p og amme. Some iewe s exp essed acon ic ion ha “no hing will change hei [i.e. he G*psies’] minds”, as a emen hey backed up by e e encing he du a- ion o hei esidence in “ou ” coun y: “They ha e been li ing he e– in ou and neighbou ing egions– o cen u ies. They ha e seen ou o de ly way o li e and ha e no desi e o li e like Whi es.”40 In he sho e e m, se e al o he le e w i e s ci ed as p oo o he en enchmen o adi e en (i.e. “backwa d”) way o li e he wen y-yea pe iod o equal condi ions unde socialism: “Imean, hey’ e had equal oppo uni ies o wen y yea s and s ill li e he same way,” w o e one iewe .41 These assump ions o m he basis o he p e ailing opposi ion o he dispe sional logic o he ese lemen policy i sel . Such a i udes a e well illus a ed by he le e signed by ep esen a i es o s a e-owned p ope y in Železio ce in sou h-wes e n Slo akia, who a gued ha he eloca ion o “[o G*psies] among o dina y wo king people […] has ahighly de i- men al e ec on he mo ale o he es o he popula ion and in se e al cases makes li e mo e mise able.” Acco ding o he le e w i e s, “ hose people who say: ‘Lis en, jus ell me why Ishould ha e aG*psy amily wi h mul iple child en as neighbou s, who would make my li e mise able e e y day, bo h by hei way o li e and by he way hey des oy e e y- hing hey see’– ha e apoin […] I senio public and poli ical igu es a e so keen o e-educa e he G*psies, why don’ hey ha e G*psy amilies as neighbou s?”42 The disconnec o cen al poli ics and poli icians om he e e yday li es o “o dina y” olks also ea u ed in he commen s sen in by esiden s o he housing es a e in Nejdek in wes Bohemia: Com ades, no ma e o whom we lodge ou complain s, mos o he eplies un as ollows: ‘They need o be e-educa ed’. Fo hea en’ssake! Do any o he people who come ou wi h his c ap abou e-educa ion ha e o li e in he same building as hem? No, no one.43 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid. 96 o G*psyness when i no longe e en deems “in eg a ed” G*psies o be G*psies (see Da ido á 1965; No áček 1968). In he book, Done demons a es how he Romani eli e, which in he la e hal o he 1960s came oge he in he newly c ea ed S az Cikánů- Romů/ Z äzu Cigáno -Rómo (Union o Gypsies-Roma), also pa ic- ipa ed in he ep oduc ion o he image o poo “backwa d G*psies” (loca ing hem p ima ily in eas e n Slo akia). Done (2017, 193) illus- a es he a i udes o some o he o ganisa ion’s ep esen a i es by ale - e om amusician omKošice, who decla es ha as a“ci izen o G*psy o igin” who speaks “G*psy”, he knows he li e o “ou G*psies almos all o e Slo akia”. He goes on o di ide he Roma in o h ee ca ego- ies: “musicians” (ba ikane, i.e.“concei ed” [namyslení; his own ansla- ion om Romani]), “wo ke s” (munkáša) and “ne’e -do-wells“ (degeš o “degene a es”). The las ca ego y he cha ac e ises as comp ising people who “cause se e e p oblems” and sugges s he applica ion o es ic i e measu es, such as placing olde people in e i emen homes (so ha no one else has access o hei pensions), and in he case o women a ious o ms o bi h con ol including s e ilisa ion.58 O he mo e han 100 le e s ecei ed om iewe s, jus unde aqua - e we e om co esponden s in oducing hemsel es as a“G*psy ci i- zen/ci izen o G*psy o igin” (c*kánský občan/občan c*kánského pů odu). None o hese w i e s anked hemsel es among an “eli e class” (howe - e de ined), and some o hem we e hemsel es om poo backg ounds in eas e n Slo akia. E en so, like he musician om Košice, hey pu adis ance be ween hemsel es and he “p oblema ic G*psies” and exp essed dissa is ac ion wi h he ac ha he la e we e he people ep esen ing he Roma in he media and b oade socie al discou se. The le e w i e s objec ed o he one o he TV show i sel (as opposed o se e al o he non-Romani iewe s, who we e unhappy wi h he empha- sis placed on posi i e examples, see abo e), and sel -iden i ied as G*p- sies li ing “ espec able” and “o de ly” li es. Thus hey, oo, ep oduced he dominan logic o G*psyness, and in addi ion hey exp essed g a i- ude “ o he Czechoslo ak go e nmen and Pa y, which had managed o u n he G*psies in o semi- espec able people”, as one o hem pu i .59 The image o G*psies who emained apped in hei “backwa d” 58 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 18, sp. 50, le e o Július F., 18 Ma ch 1968. 59 NA P ague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, . KSČ– Ús řední ýbo 1945–1989, P aha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, s .37, č. j. 299. 97 ways despi e he new “egali a ian” condi ions was con i med by he same co esponden : Iha e i e child en, and when hese child en o mine wa ched you show, Iwas emba assed in on o hem. Because hey asked me i we li ed like ha , and I old hem ha we didn’ , bu ha my pa en s did because hey hadn’ had he oppo uni ies back hen ha hey ha e oday.60 The es ic i e measu es p oposed o deal wi h he “backwa d G*psies” we e based on his logic. Some o he le e w i e s we e empha - ic ha he socialis s a e should no be “so gene ous o he G*psies”, and oices we e hea d ad oca ing limi s on amily bene i s as well as well as s e ilisa ion and in e nmen in labou camps. I would be o e simpli ying ma e s o iew hese opinions as me ely examples o he in e nalisa ion o he dominan discou se on G*psies. Al hough he a gumen s gi en ep oduce i s logic, in my opinion hey mus be seen as he exp ession o apa icula li ed expe ience and posi- ion in socialis socie y, no leas expe ience o he an i-Roma measu es in oduced du ing he Second Wo ld Wa .61 This is clea in ale e w i - en by awoman who ames he su p ise a “ he ac ha hey [ he Roma] can s ill li e in such abackwa d way” wi hin he con ex o he own wa - ime expe ience. She had been imp isoned in Auschwi z, whe e he Nazis killed he ou child en, he pa en s, he siblings and he i s husband. He belie ha “e e yone oday has he oppo uni y o li e like adecen ci izen” she illus a es by he ac ha om 1945 onwa ds she held down wo jobs.62 While his emphasis on inclusion on he labou ma ke is ied up wi h he o icial discou se o social legi imacy and implici ly places adis ance be ween i and “sc ounge s”, i would be cynical o see his as simply he in e nalisa ion o he dominan logic o G*psyness. E en wi hin he con ex o he agic wa ime a e o he woman’sen i e am- ily, he le e mus be ead as he exp ession o ali ed and ai ly unique expe ience o social accep ance. 60 Ibid. 61 On he basis o long- e m an h opological esea ch, Iha e p e iously looked a he na a i e o “ha monious exis ence” in apa icula eas e n Slo ak illage, which also ep oduced he igu e o he “p oblema ic G*psy” while also es i ying o he sel -iden i ica ion o he local Roma, hei mode o belonging o alocally ancho ed communi y, making e e ence o ace ain social p ac ice and ul ima ely e lec ing c i ically upon i (O 2022b). 62 NA P ague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, . KSČ– Ús řední ýbo 1945–1989, P aha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, s .37, č. j. 299. 98 In disce ning he dominan logic behind he sha ed igu e o he “ espec able G*psy”, we mus he e o e ease ou he social con ex s in which his concep is embedded. In hei le e s, he Romani iewe s used said logic o exp ess hei li ed expe ience o social belonging, whe he on asocie al o local le el, bu also o social mobili y mo e b oadly unde - s ood, de ining di e en ypes o axes o di e en ia ion. Some imes his in ol ed an in e gene a ional ela ionship, as in he case o he iewe who acknowledged wha he called he “backwa d way o li e” o his g and- pa en s. Fu he mo e, he e was ageog aphical elemen in play, such ali e- s yle usually being associa ed wi h he egion o eas e n Slo akia (which could also be ela ed o he sub-e hnic labelling by Bohemian Mo a ian Roma o pos -wa immig an s om Slo akia, see also Slačka 2015). How- e e , he Roma om eas e n Slo akia hemsel es also spoke ou agains he homogenisa ion o he way o li e o he Roma in his egion. 2.1.7 Re lec ions upon he limi s o social accep ance Howe e , when obse ing he li ed expe ience a icula ed by he Roma- ni iewe s, wha eme ges is less he exp ession o adeg ee o social belon- ging han he a icula ion o i s limi s. Inasmuch as Da ido á andNo á- ček, in line wi h o icial discou se, iewed acism p ima ily as an obs acle o he “ e-educa ion o he G*psies”, downplayed and in e ed in he b oade popula discou se by means o an image o G*psies as a“p i i- leged ace” (p i ilego aná asa), he Roma hemsel es we e mo e inclined o e lec upon i s e e yday mani es a ions. In addi ion o equen allusi- ons o speci ic examples o disc imina ion on he pa o he au ho i ies, o en when ying o ob ain accommoda ion, se e al iewe s also a icu- la ed he humilia ion and helplessness hey el in e e yday ela ionships. Fo example, one o he le e w i e s called o he g ea e in ol emen o he Roma on he le el o he local councils, since hey needed and dese ed ep esen a ion when communica ing wi h he au ho i ies: Fo example, I’d be willing o ge in ol ed in so ing ou G*psy issues, dispu es be ween he G*psies and he Municipal Commi ees. We would all like o help in some way […] bu hey don’ o e us he oppo uni y. And ha ’swhy he G*psy goes unde , ha ’swhy he hinks he way he does. No one e e belie es us. He [ he G*psy] ge s ne ous. And being some imes illi e a e, he can’ help himsel . And when he asks his iends, hey laugh a him. So a hey ha e idiculed he ac ha G*psies ha e come o Holland, o he Sude enland, ha 99 hey would be ex e mina ed. And now hey mock us saying we will be sen o Sibe ia. […] They should s op wi h he mocke y. […] I’ e been wo king o i e yea s a Váhos a . The cons uc ion o eman makes un o me o going o he Ne he lands and calls me aJew. […] The o he wo ke s also make un o me.63 This passage e eals he psychological powe lessness expe ienced in he ace o e e yday displays o acism, apowe lessness ein o ced by ama ginalised social s a us wi h limi ed social and educa ional capi- al. The e y aun s aimed a he Roma indica e adeg ee o no ma i i y and con inui y o ideas ega ding wha o ms hei ese lemen migh ake, which, in u n, policies a ha ime buil on, consolida ed and hen ep oduced.64 Ano he iewe e e s in he in oduc ion o his le e o he social demand o “ espec abili y”, bu hen u ns his a en ion away om he na u al “backwa dness o he deplo ables” o hei ma e ial condi ions and exis ing s uc u al ba ie s: “I’d also like o li e a espec able li e like e e yone else bu Ican’ ge my hands on ei he an apa men o ajob.”65 He desc ibed he eali y o his li e al e na ing be ween Czechia, whe e he a elled o wo k, and his home illage in eas e n Slo akia, as ollows: I’m young, 24 yea s old. […] I’m aCzechoslo ak ci izen and Ican’ ind ajob o buy ahouse, hough Iwas good enough o mili a y se ice. Iwas only 18 yea s old and Ise ed 26 mon hs wi hou any paymen . And Icame home om mili a y se ice and didn’ ha e asingle pai o ouse s. […] Since Icame back om he a my, Is ill go o wo k a he S a e Asse s and ecei e 800–900 c owns amon h and ha e o ake ca e o my wi e and child and ake ca e o mysel so ha Idon’ die o hunge . And I’ e been ma ied o wo yea s now, bu when my wi e and Ihad he chance o spend jus six mon hs oge he , i seemed like along ime. So wha ’sin i o me?66 63 Ibid. 64 The aun s e e encing he ese lemen o Roma o Holland appa en ly s emmed om an a icle published in he p ess a ha ime, which epo ed on he plans o he “G*psy King” o es ablish aRomani s a e o which Romani people om all o e he wo ld would mo e. The newspape ’sedi o s subsequen ly eleased as a emen dis ancing hemsel es om he aun s. They conceded ha he a icle had exace ba ed ma e s and, poin ing o he wa ime in e nmen and depo a ion o Roma, condemned he aun s as inapp op ia e. See ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 20, “Výs ižky z lače ocigánskej p oblema ike”, 1962–1968. 65 NA P ague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, . KSČ– Ús řední ýbo 1945–1989, P aha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, s . 37, č. j. 299. 66 Ibid. 100 Bo h he le e s quo ed abo e desc ibe he eali y o he ma ginalisa- ion o Roma in e ms o disc imina ion by he au ho i ies, a ious o ms o humilia ion in e e yday ela ionships, he gene al una ailabili y o decen housing and wo k, and e en he inpu de ici in espec o a ious o ms o capi al (economic, social and educa ional) ensuing om he ma ginalised en i onmen i sel . Howe e , hey a e no me ely simple desc ip ions o each w i e ’spligh , bu in e ms o he sense o helpless- ness exp essed and he absence o any suppo , hey ep esen acall o help om ou side. I is clea ha he ele ision p og ammes depic ing he si ua ion o speci ic amilies igge ed no only aneed o he le e w i e s o dis ance hemsel es om he “backwa d G*psies”, bu also he hope ha hey would be able o sol e hei own p oblems. Fo example, he w i e o he wo quo a ions abo e ended his le e wi h adesc ip ion o his applica ion o he alloca ion o abuilding plo . A e eco ding he ejec ion o bo h he municipal and dis ic Na ional Commi ees, he added i onically: “We could u n o he lo d God”.67 A he e y end o he le e , using o icial language, he appended ape sonal wish: “Iwould like you o come and see me and sol e he issue Iha e [ y iešiť aj moju o ázku].”68 The ele ision iewe om eas e n Slo akia, in u n, s a ed in his sho le e ha in 1965, in he se lemen , hey “ins alled powe poin s o eigh homes bu ha e no ye connec ed hem up”, and asked ha hey “send someone so ha hey would know whe he hey we e going o be connec ed o no ”.69 Pe haps i is an awa eness o he limi s o social belonging ha gi es ise o ano he poin o en made in he le e s o Romani iewe s, apoin ha ma ks asha p delinea ion be ween hem and non-Romani iewe s and ha is speci ically ela ed o he “dispe si e” logic o he ese lemen policy. While sugges ions om non-Romani iewe s o he eloca ion o Roma appea ed in isola ed (and, as Iha e shown, ela i ely speci ic) cases and, on he con a y, an emphasis on hei e i o ialisa ion o com- ple e displacemen p e ailed, he Romani iewe s consis en ly welcomed he logic o “dispe sal”. This applied o bo h hose Roma who decla ed a ela i ely highe s a us and p oposed dis ibu ion among he non-Ro- mani popula ion as asolu ion o he p oblem o “backwa d G*psies”, and o hose who we e hemsel es pa o ama ginalised en i onmen 67 Ibid. 68 Ibid. 69 Ibid. 101 and saw dispe sal as an ex e nal sou ce o assis ance in o e coming exis - ing ba ie s o social mobili y (see Chap e Fou ). F om he b ie analysis abo e o he posi ion o he Roma as agen s in he co-c ea ion o he pe iod discou se a ound G*psyness, i is clea ha his in ol ed complex eelings ha , in line wi h wha Iha e w i - en in he p e ious chap e ega ding he ambi alen social posi ion o he Roma du ing he pe iod o socialism, canno be explained ei he by he in e nalisa ion o he dominan discou se, o by i s p agma ic ins umen alisa ion in o de o achie e one’sown in e es s, o by esis- ance o i . Al hough he Roma did o some ex en con i m he dominan unde s anding o G*psyness h ough hei own logic o social mobili y and hei depic ion o ela ions o o he Roma, hey also le hemsel es space o o mula ing hei own speci ic expe iences and eques ing he sa is ac ion o hei own in e es s. 2.2 Roma and G*psies in B eko 2.2.1 The s o y o he excep ional Roma o B eko Du ing my i s isi o B eko in May 2019, I ecei ed om he munici- pal au ho i ies bo h acomp ehensi e monog aph on he his o y o he illage (Molná 2017) and a ecommenda ion o mee wi h M Koloman Guná , who ook akeen in e es in he his o y o he local Roma, o which he himsel was one. As we sa down o alk in his house, his wi e Agá a u ged him o show me abook he had w i en abou he his o y o he Roma o B eko based on he s o ies o olde Romani men and women. His ex , which he had had bound in ou copies, was all he mo e aluable because a he ime o my isi he people he had spoken wi h we e no longe ali e. The ex appealed o me abo e all o i s de ailed ea men o he genealogies o indi idual amilies, supplemen- ed by e e yday s o ies o speci ic indi iduals, as well as desc ip ions o adi ional Romani cus oms and c a s. Wha eally caugh my a en ion was he s ong ancho ing o he Roma o B eko in he local communi y and he signi ican deg ee o social mobili y, ep esen ed no only by he emphasis placed on con inui y o employmen , bu also by he lis o Roma who had success ully g adua ed om uni e si y o comple ed seconda y school. M Guná had himsel ecei ed auni e si y educa ion. He had been poli ically ac i e since he ea ly 1990s, bo h as a ounde and membe o one o he newly es ablished Romani poli ical pa ies 102 and as an ac i is who openly ad oca ed o he igh s o he Roma as ag oup (see Guná 2020). He s ongly emphasised he success ul soci- al in eg a ion o he B eko Roma h oughou ou con e sa ion. This was u he unde lined by he ac ha Guná spoke only Slo ak, no Romani, he language o e e yday communica ion in Romani amilies in many o he su ounding illages. A he e y s a o ou con e sa ion, M Guná poin ed ou ha no e en he oldes gene a ion o Roma in B eko , which included his good sel , spoke Romani. The na a i e o in eg a ion can bes be illus a ed by quo ing om he p e ace o his book: Nei he in he pas , no in he p esen day, do he Roma o B eko hold ou hei hands in supplica ion o he s a e. Ins ead, ollowing he example o hei a he s and o e a he s, hey ace li e head-on, de e mined o be apa o majo i y socie y. In hei e e yday dealings, hey ha e come o e ms wi h he li e led by he majo i y popula ion o he illage. In he p e ious egime, he Municipal Na ional Commi ee (MNV) did no egis e membe s o he G*psy e hnic g oup in he illage in i s s a is ics (Guná 2010, 2) The “ egis a ion o G*psies” did in ac ake place a he le el o he Municipal Na ional Commi ees a a ious s ages du ing he communis egime, and i is no en i ely clea o which pe iod and con ex M Guná was e e ing in his book. Un o una ely Idid no ha e he oppo uni y o ask him mysel , since he died abou ayea a e ou mee ing. Howe e , as ega ds he discou ses a ound G*psyness being discussed, he e y ac ha he aming o he social mobili y and local belonging o he Roma o B eko esona es wi h he dominan logic a ha ime, acco d- ing o which mobili y depended on ape son adop ing he cha ac e is ics o he “majo i y” way o li e and “in eg a ed G*psies” we e no longe unde s ood as G*psies as such, is signi ican . Du ing my ongoing a chi al esea ch, hough Idid no come ac oss speci ic “ eco ds o G*psies” in B eko (apa om alis o “nomadic pe sons”, o which Iwill e u n below and he wide con ex o which Iwill discuss in Chap e Fou ), many documen s om he 1950s and 1960s make men ion o G*psies in B eko . Al hough M Guná did no himsel wo k wi h a chi al ma e ials, hese documen s la gely suppo his e ospec i ely applied na a i e. As a back as 1958, he “Repo on he Resolu ion o he G*psy Ques ion in he Dis ic ” included he claim ha he se lemen in B e- ko “should be deemed aclosed case in acco dance wi h he Resolu ion 103 o he Cen al Commi ee o he Communis Pa y o Czechoslo akia”.70 The epo con ains adesc ip ion o he si ua ion o he G*psies in B e- ko ha al eady bea s as iking esemblance o M Guná ’sna a i e: The se lemen [in B eko ] is closely connec ed o he illage o he wes . All o he houses a e p ope ly buil wi h esilien building ma e ial. The inhab- i an s a e acclima ised wi h he local popula ion. The d ess, beha iou and housing cul u e o en exceeds ha o e en he local popula ion. The young gene a ion no longe speak G*psy [ he Romani language]. The ci izens a e duly in eg a ed in o pa y and public li e and a e membe s o he MNV. Illi - e acy is no ap oblem amongs he adul s.71 Howe e , o he documen s e e o ongoing p oblems wi h “housing cul u e”. The sec ion o he epo on he egional su ey o Romani se lemen s o June 1956 on B eko no es he “unsa is ac o y” condi ion o en o he nine een local dwellings.72 In Feb ua y 1961, asu ey o he se lemen in he p esence o a ep esen a i e o he dis ic sani a y s a- ion obse ed, in e alia, ha “[ ]he esiden ial buildings on he ou ski s o he illage comp ise aG*psy qua e : hey a e clus e ed oge he and consequen ly hey lag behind in espec o he gene al de elopmen o social o de .” Meanwhile, u he cons uc ion was in ended o “allow ci izens o G*psy o igin o be dispe sed amongs o he esiden s”, some- hing he su ey claimed was ademand made by he “ci izens o G*psy o igin” hemsel es, who, in o he espec s, we e ound o enjoy a“su - icien s anda d o li ing” (wi h a e e ence o school a endance and employmen ).73 The same indings a e o be ound in a epo based on a“ ou o he se lemen ” wi h he egional ac i is (an o icial unc ion a he ONV) Š e an Fabián ha ook place in July o ha yea , acco ding o which i s esiden s li e an “o de ly li e” (uspo iadaný ži o ) and he 70 ŠOkA Humenné, . Odbo nu o ných ecí ONV Humenné, ka . 22, sp. 122, “Zápis p e edený dňa 14. Ok ób a při p ieskumu osády B eko e”, 14 Oc obe 1958. The documen au ho s (membe s o he “su ey commission”) a e e e ing o he esolu ion on Wo k amongs he G*psy Popula ion om Ap il o ha yea , in which he assimila ion p og amme is o mula ed mo e comp ehensi ely o he i s ime (Ju o á 2008, 688). 71 ŠOkA Humenné, . Odbo nu o ných ecí ONV Humenné, ka . 23, sp. 134, “Zp á a o iešení o ázky občano cigánského pô odu ok ese”, 20 Decembe 1958. 72 ŠAPO Nižná Šebas o á, . Odbo nu o ných ecí KNV P ešo , ka . 219, in . č. 53, “Zp á a zo služobnej ces y konanej dňoch od 8 do 12 júna 1956”, 1956. 73 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 160, “Zápis na základe p ieskumu oby a eľo cigánskeho pô odu”, 12 Feb ua y 1961. 104 “housing cul u e” is “qui e good” since “almos all o hem ha e hei own de ached houses”.74 The documen s o ha ime, he e o e, desc ibe he posi ion o he Roma in B eko as somewha ambiguous. On he one hand, hey speak o ahigh s anda d o li ing ha , in implici compa ison wi h he domi- nan igu e o he “backwa d G*psy”, is e idenced p ima ily by employ- men igu es and school a endance, bu also by he abandonmen o he Romani language as a“de icien ” linguis ic code om he dominan pe spec i e (see Da ido á 1965; No áček 1968). Howe e , e e ences o alagging “cul u al le el” also eme ge om hese desc ip ions, mainly in e e ence o he housing and sani a y si ua ion in he se lemen and he (some imes explici ) compa ison wi h he si ua ion in he illage as awhole (e en hough acco ding o one op imis ic desc ip ion, he s an- da d o li ing o he Roma was a imes e en “supe io ” o ha o he “majo i y” popula ion). 2.2.2 A i udes o he B eko Roma in documen s o he ime The pe iod documen s do no only include an ex e nal desc ip ion o he si ua ion in he B eko se lemen , bu also cap u e he speci ic a i udes and agency o i s inhabi an s. Pa icula ly no ewo hy a e hose ex s w i - en by he Roma hemsel es. Mos o hem conce n he housing si ua i- on and i s de elopmen a he u n o he 1950s and 1960s. Fo ins ance, adocumen da ed No embe 1960 no es ha in 1956, one o he Roma pu chased aplo o land in he illage (i.e. ou side he se lemen ) om anon-Romani illage and buil ade ached house on i in he same yea , whe e he and his amily ha e li ed e e since.75 Howe e , he housing si ua ion was o change in he se lemen i sel , when in 1959 and 1961, building pe mi s we e g an ed o he con e sion o one de ached house and he cons uc ion o ano he .76 Acco ding o a epo by he Municipal Na ional Commi ee (MNV), in 1962, Ba oloměj Ssough o build ade ached house o his amily in 74 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 161, “Zápis za p í omnos i k ajského ak i is u p e o ázky občano cigánskeho pô odu.” 3 July 1961. 75 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 157, “Kupnop edajná zmlu a”, 17 No embe 1960. 76 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 157, Building pe mi , 3 June 1959; ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp.157, Building pe mi , 28 Janua y 1959; ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 160, Building pe mi , 29 Feb ua y 1961. 105 he “de eloped pa o he illage” (due o he unsa is ac o y housing in he se lemen ),77 and in he same yea Š e an D applied o he allo- ca ion o aspeci ic building plo in he illage and was ad ised by he MNV o a ange he sale himsel wi h he landowne s.78 In nei he case do he a chi e ma e ials p o ide in o ma ion on u he de elopmen s. Howe e , he a chi ed applica ion o Š e an D is i sel impo an au hen- ica ion o how he Roma hemsel es iewed hei own social posi ion, e en in ela ion o aspeci ic loca ion. In he applica ion da ed 24 Ma ch 1962 and add essed o he MNV in B eko , Š e an D s a es he ollowing: Iwould like o eques he alloca ion o building plo no. [xy], pa o [xy] and [xy]. This land is loca ed in he de eloped pa o he municipali y o B eko […]. My easons a e as ollows: Iam he a he o six dependen chil- d en wi h whom Ili e in aG*psy colony. My child en a el o aschool ha is loca ed qui e a om my amily home. In o de o my child en o lea n o li e and wo k mo e cul u ally, hey need o socialise wi h mo e ma u e and hus mo e cul u ed pee s. I is o his eason ha ou [Communis ] Pa y and go e nmen is aking g ea ca e o people o G*psy o igin. This is ap io i y issue and I he e o e belie e ha he o icials o he MNV and ONV will ake his ma e in o conside a ion. This is why Iam eques ing ha you alloca e o me he building plo Iha e speci ied abo e. I us ha his ma e will be aken in o conside a ion and ha Iwill no encoun e any di icul ies wi h he o icials o he MNV inB eko o he ONV. Fo my pa , Iwill do my bes no o disappoin he ai h placed in me by o icials and will con inue o be ecep i e.79 The language o he en i e applica ion is s ongly in synch wi h he con empo a y discou se o G*psyness, as Ianalysed i in he i s pa o his chap e . The w i e accep s he dominan demand o amo e “cul u ed li e o G*psies” and clea es o he o icial iew o he “G*psy se lemen ” as aspace o “cul u al backwa dness”. He also ep oduces he discou se acco ding o which i is abo e all he new poli ical egime unde which he “Pa y and go e nmen ” made possible he all-inclusi e 77 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 161, “Zápisnica při p íleži os i yhliadnu i s a ebného pozemku”, 27 Janua y1962. 78 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 161, “Žiadosť op emies nenie zcigánskej kolónie– oznámenie”, 17 Ap il1962. 79 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 161, “Žiadosť op emies nenie zcigánskej kolónie”, 24 Ma ch 1962. 112 he census was conduc ed e eals he abili y o he local au ho i y o dis inguish be ween Romani amilies and o a ibu e o hem and e lec di e en deg ees o embeddedness in local socio-economic ela ions. While conduc ing my esea ch amongs he Roma in he icini y o Humenné and a emp ing o con ac su i ing wi nesses om he pe iod unde conside a ion, Iobse ed se e al ways in which he Roma de ined hemsel es acco ding o he logic o local (sel -)iden i ica ion a he le el o indi idual illages. This was pa icula ly no iceable in he ela ionship be ween he Roma om B eko and hose om he Podskalka se le- men in Humenné (see Chap e Th ee), especially gi en he geog aphical p oximi y o he wo loca ions (B eko is only a ew kilome es om Humenné). The B eko Roma poin ed o he high le el o social in e- g a ion hey enjoyed and in ce ain con ex s e e ed o he Podskalka Roma as “backwa d”. The la e claimed he B eko Roma displayed a ogance owa ds o he Roma, abo e all h ough hei igno ance o he Romani language, which in Podskalka was he li ing language o e e y- day communica ion. The di e ences be ween he wo loca ions we e also e lec ed in wha he egional au ho i ies had o say o hem a he ime. In con as o wha we e desc ibed as he “ci ilised G*psies” o B eko , du ing he 1950s Podskalka was al eady ci ed as being he la ges “G*psy concen a ion” in he dis ic , wi h apopula ion o a ound i e hund ed (as opposed o ewe han wo hund ed Roma in B eko ; see Chap e Th ee). Guná , oo, ecalled con lic s wi h he Roma om Podskalka in an in e iew wi h me, s a ing ha hey ook place while he was ayou h, pe haps a ound he ime o he ese lemen policy (he was bo n in 1948): They knew we we e om B eko , we [knew] ha [ hey] we e om Podskalka, so we didn’ speak o each o he because hey spoke Romani. We didn’ unde - s and Romani and hey bea us up. […] We boys, maybe 14 o 15 yea s old, used o go see amo ie on Sunday. […] We would ge he e and hen hey would a i e om Podskalka, hey li ed in Humenné oo, and hey s a ed o speak o us in Romani. We old hem ha we didn’ unde s and and ha hey should speak Slo ak. And so we’ e being snoo y, like people oday say concei ed, how do you know ha we’ e Roma, G*psies, and why can’ you speak Romani? And we eplied ha we don’ speak i , nei he do ou a he s o ou g and a he s, so nei he do we. So hey se upon us and we had o un o he ain s a ion. We ne e became iendly wi h hem.92 92 In e iew wi hKoloman Guná (b. 1948), op. ci . 113 Elsewhe e, Guná ex ends his de ini ion o he B eko Roma in ela- ion o o he “G*psies” o he en i e egion: Well, you know, ou Roma, ou g and a he s and g ea -g and a he s, a he ime when hey we e o p oduc i e age, hey didn’ e en wan o alk o o he G*psies. The e we e G*psies who we e on he lowes le el, hen highe and highe , un il he highes le el. […] Tha was he illage o B eko , and he es we e so much weake .93 This desc ip ion, which in he main con inues o copy and ep o- duce he dominan logic o G*psyness, canno be unde s ood pu ely on adiscu si e le el, bu as pa o ase o speci ic s a egies o shaping one’sown social posi ion. Guná himsel desc ibed he special s a us o he B eko Roma as he esul o his o ically con inuous social con ol, which, he main ained, was also in pa ins i u ionalised: Ou a he s and g and a he s had he inal say. So ha when, o example, someone [aRom om he su ounding a ea] ook agi l om B eko as his wi e and wan ed o li e he e, hey had o gi e hei consen o he mayo . I hey said no, we don’ wan him he e, he mayo wouldn’ egis e him. And ha used o happen? I did indeed. And ha was agood hing oo. These days e e y hing is so ee and easy ha anyone can come he e and ake awi e and li e he e and cause us shame because hey don’ know how o beha e. […] Iapp o ed o i , Iwan ed i ein oduced. Bu oices we e hea d saying i was abad hing, why shouldn’ his daugh e li e he e wi h he husband. Well, because we didn’ wan ha man he e, ha ’swhy.94 Al hough Guná da ed such an ag eemen wi h he local au ho i- ies o he p e-wa pe iod, o he Romani wi nesses omB eko , Kolo- manS(bo n 1946) and Cy il D (bo n 1956), el ha his had in ac been a ea u e o he en i e du a ion o he communis egime.95 All o he wi nesses Iin e iewed in B eko (including Olga O, bo n 1938 in 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid. 95 In e iew wi h Romani manKoloman S(b. 1946) and Romani man Cy il D (b. 1956), eco ded by he au ho in June 2022 inB eko in Slo ak ( eco ding in he possession o he au ho ). 114 B eko ), a he same ime as assu ing me ha “ he G*psies o B eko we e always he bes in he dis ic ” (o “ he bes in Czechoslo akia” acco ding o Cy il D), exp essed disappoin men a he ac ha “ oday” (i.e. when he in e iews we e being conduc ed) he e was no con ol o selec ion o newly a i ing Roma and ha “p oblema ic” (p oblémo í) and “ il hy” (špina í) Roma we e mo ing in o he illage and blemishing he his o ically o med good name o he B eko Roma as “ espec able G*psies”. A he ime o my esea ch, he na a i e o hei own excep- ionalism pe sis ed amongs he Roma o B eko (who iden i ied wi h he o iginal B eko Romani amilies), who dis anced hemsel es no only om he dominan ly unde s ood ca ego y o G*psyness, bu also om hose who we e associa ed wi h i in he su ounding illages and om some o he newcoming amilies in B eko . Howe e , he Roma in B eko ne e o med acomple ely isola ed communi y in ela ion o o he Roma in he su ounding a ea. Despi e hei s ong embeddedness in local ela ions desc ibed abo e, in e -e hnic ma iages wi hin B eko we e a e, and he local Roma usually chose Romani pa ne s om o he illages in he egion. Al hough my in e - iewees named speci ic illages in which he Roma we e said o ha e li ed on ace ain “le el” (ú o eň), e en back hen hey also s a ed ha p essu e (di ec o indi ec ) was exe ed on he Roma who mo ed o B eko o adop ap ope “way o li e”, o example, by elinquishing Romani as hei e e yday means o communica ion (see Hajská 2012, 2015). Gi en he p e ailing p ac ice o i ilocal pos -ma i al esidence, i was usually women who mo ed o B eko and he Romani women o B eko who we e expec ed o mo e o be wi h hei husbands, possibly ou side o hei home illage. Thus, he image o he “local Roma” was being eshaped on an ongoing basis and was o ala ge ex en gende ed (see O 2022b). Al hough Iha e no been able o disco e any mo e de ailed in o - ma ion ega ding he alleged ag eemen be ween he B eko Roma and he mayo ega ding he (non-)accep ance o newly a i ing Roma, he a chi e o he MNV in B eko does con ain one documen ha sugges s simila pa e n. Acco ding o he minu es o amee ing o membe s o he B eko MNV in 1953 ega ding he “admission o ou side s o G*psy o igin o ou illage”,96 one non-Romani illage (awidow) had decided o sell he building plo o “people who a e no membe s o ou illage, 96 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV B eko , ka . 14, sp. 152, “P ija ie cudzích p íslušníko do našej obci, cigánskeho pô odu”, 1953. 115 o G*psy o igin, who wan o mo e o ou illage and build houses he e”. The MNV commi ee and i s membe s, as well as o he indi id- uals, we e agains his mo e. They eques ed ha “ he ONV inHumen- né o e agains he eloca ion o h ee o eign amilies in o ou illage and ha hese amilies emain whe e hey a e a p esen .” They poin ed ou ha “i he pe son in ques ion is obliged o sell his land, hen le hem sell i o someone om ou illage and no o someone wi h whom he illage is no sa is ied.” “[W]hy should hese amilies mo e in o ou illage and c ea e ha oc?“, he minu es say, and conclude by s a ing ha “[ ]hei ances o s ha e ne e li ed in ou illage and we a e he e o e agains hem being amongs us“. The e is no hing in he minu es o he mee ing o he MNV o indi- ca e ha his objec ion was aised (o suppo ed) by he Roma li ing in B eko . Simila ly, he wo ding o he minu es does no explici ly s a e ha he would-be buye s a e o be p e en ed om mo ing o he illage p ima ily on he basis o hei asc ibed G*psyness. Howe e , as Iha e shown elsewhe e, he ca ego ies o “ o eign” and G*psy o he mos pa in e sec ed and ein o ced each o he (O 2022b). The iden i ica ion o hese ci izens as G*psies len suppo o hei being seen as o eign, and he way o li e ensuing he e om, which would supposedly cause “ha - oc in he illage”, esona es s ongly wi h popula cha ac e isa ions o “inadap able G*psies”. In he b oade con ex , he e is also an unspoken dis inc ion be ween “local/ou G*psies”, who a e in pa excluded om he mo e gene al ca ego y o “p oblema ic G*psies” (see G ill 2015b, Kobes 2012, O 2022b), and“ o eign G*psies”, who a e included in said ca ego y (see also Hübschmanno á 1998). The a chi al ma e ials a e silen ega ding he ou come o his pa icula case. Howe e , he a i udes o he MNV owa ds he amily o “ o eign G*psies” i snugly in o he way ha he B eko Roma iewed hei own si ua ion. 2.2.5 Displacemen o a o eign G*psy These mechanisms in he o ma ion o he social posi ion o he Roma in B eko come oge he o c ea e an impo an con ex o unde s an- ding he implemen a ion o he ese lemen p og amme in he illage. This in ol ed he e ic ion o Regina D’s amily, which occu ed a e he husband Rudol e u ned om p ison, whe e he had spen o e en yea s o he mu de o anon-Romani illage . When wo o my in e iewees, Koloman Sand Cy il D, ecalled Rudol D and he ci cums ances a ound 116 which his wi e Regina sold he house and he couple and hei child en mo ed ou o B eko , hey a ibu ed o him cha ac e is ics ea u ing s ong associa ions wi h he igu e o he “inadap able G*psy”. They emphasised ha “he was no aB eko ian”. As Cy il D explained, he di e en “men ali y” was he esul o adi e en o igin: The e was adi e en men ali y whe e he came om. No like ou s. Whe e hey li ed hey s ill had no ela ionship wi h he Whi es. They ough and s ole and e e y hing you can hink o . And hen he came he e and hough ha hings would be he same as hey had been he e. And hey we en’ . Because we and ou a he s used o isi he pub oge he , as one amily. And he a i ed and he wan ed some hing mo e.97 In ligh o his es imony, he ese lemen o he amily o Rudol and Regina D i s well in o he na a i e o he his o y o he B eko Roma as “ espec able G*psies”, who we e able o asse hemsel es wi hin he local s uc u e o socio-economic ela ions, and, wi h he coope a ion o hei non-Romani neighbou s and he local au ho i ies, we e able no only o de ine hemsel es in opposi ion o “p oblema ic G*psies”, bu o sepa a e hose who belonged o his ca ego y om he local communi y. Rudol D con o med o such an image, i s ly by ma ying in o B eko om a illage whe e he Roma we e deemed pe ec examples o “back- wa dness”, and abo e all by con i ming his posi ion as a“c iminal” by shoo ing dead one o he local non-Roma. F om his pe spec i e, Rudol D did no mee he aci equi emen o “adap ” o he local way o li e and, as Koloman Sand Cy il D poin ed ou , he local Roma ne e eally accep ed him in o hei communi y. Acco ding o he ecollec ions o my in e iewees, Rudol D’s amily was o ced o lea e he illage mainly unde p essu e om he amily o he mu de ed illa ge , a amily, mo e- o e , ha li ed in as ee inhabi ed mainly by Romani people ( e e ed o in he documen s as he se lemen ) only some wo hund ed me es om Regina and Rudol D’shouse.98 In ligh o he abo e, howe e , he amily’sdepa u e could also make sense in e ms o how he s a us o he local Roma hemsel es was shaped and main ained. Such a aming o he p ac ice o he ese lemen policy in B eko , which helped esol e apa icula con lic and ep oduce he ela i ely 97 In e iew wi hKoloman S(b. 1946) and Cy il D (b. 1956), op. ci . 98 Ibid. 117 highe s a us o he B eko Roma, has aclea legi imacy and demon- s a es how he s a e policy was connec ed o locally speci ic and his- o ically c ea ed con ex s. None heless, one mus no all in o he ap o o e -simpli ying ma e s. Reading he es imony gi en by Cy il D, backed up by ha o Koloman S, i should no be o go en ha he o me was bo n in he same yea ha Rudol D was con ic ed o mu - de , while he la e was only en yea s old. Ice ainly ha e no desi e o ques ion he eliabili y o hei es imony. My poin is a he ha bo h wi nesses, whom Iended up in e iewing oge he (some hing Ihad no planned– Cy il D joined he con e sa ion Iwas ha ing wi h Koloman Sin he ga den o his house), also se he e en being discussed wi hin ace ain na a i al amewo k. I was wi hin he p e ailing emphasis on he excep ionalism o he B eko Roma ha he desc ip ion o con ic ed mu de e Rudol D as “ o eign” made sense. Howe e , o he in e iew- ees h ow doub on an unambiguous associa ion o Rudol D wi h he ca ego y o “ o eign” and “inadap able”. Olga O, sis e o Regina D, in pa icula , ecalled ha Rudol D had been a“wa m, gen lemanly and easonable pe son”, who, in amomen o weakness, had eac ed badly o being humilia ed by one o he non-Roma and had himsel been he ic im o “g ea mis o une”.99 In his book, Guná desc ibed Rudol D as ollows (no doub d awing on he s o ies o some o he olde Roma): Rudol D […] killed agadjo and was sen enced o wel e yea s in p ison. He ended up se ing abou se en o eigh yea s o good beha iou . Rudo D was amusician and played he bass. He was amembe o Gus á O’sband, bu was also an a id chess playe . He was amembe o he Humenné Chess Club. […] In 1956, one e ening in aB eko pub Rudol D sho […] And ej D [who] li ed in he locali y o Huš ák [i.e. in aRomani s ee ] in B eko . [And ej D] [h]a ed he Roma and ea ed hem badly. Rudol D […] was no physically equal o And ej D. He became e y ang y and could no bea he humilia ion he su e ed a he hands o he gadjo And ej D. (Guná 2010, 49) And u he on he w i es: [Rudol D] [p]layed chess and ca ds in high socie y. He knew how o p es- en himsel , and Regina ado ed him o i . He could no bea insul s and 99 In e iew wi h Romani woman Olga G (b. 1938), eco ded by he au ho in June 2022 in B eko in Slo ak ( eco ding in possession o he au ho ). 118 humilia ion, and so, p o oked by ange and physical weakness, he commi ed mu de . (Guná 2010, 105) Though hese desc ip ions do no con adic he “di e en men ali- y” asc ibed o someone om adi e en illage, as Cy il D pu i , i is clea ha he image o an “a id” and “ easonable” chess playe and musi- cian is no ully compa ible wi h a“cul u ally backwa d G*psy”, while Rudol D’smembe ship o alocal Romani band h ows doub on he idea o his non-accep ance among he Roma in B eko and indica es adeg eeo embeddedness in local ela ions. Acco ding o he de ailed genealogy in Guná ’sbook, Rudol D mus ha e li ed wi h Regina, ana i e o B eko , since a leas 1944, when hei i s son was bo n (p obably in B eko ). This is backed up by he ecollec ions o ano he o Rudol and Regi- na’ssons, Aladá (bo n 1950),100 who s essed ha his a he enjoyed good ela ions wi h he o he “G*psies” (Aladá e used o call himsel Rom, see he p e ious oo no es), some hing bo ne ou , as in he case o Koloman G, by he ac he played in alocal Romani band. Howe e , Aladá e e ed o wide social pa icipa ion o e and abo e ela ions wi h he Roma o B eko , and said ha his a he Rudol was a“highly in elligen pe son” who had ounded he Limewo ks Physical Educa ion Club wi h alocal eache . Aladá also ecalled ha when young hey used o play wi h he child en o he mu de ed man And ej D and ha he agic con lic o hei espec i e a he s o some ex en passed hem by. I is clea ha Rudol D had an ambi alen s a us in he locally de ined communi y. He was connec ed o he illage by amilial ela ions ( h ough his ela ionship wi h he amily o B eko na i e Regina), socio-economic ac o s (being amembe o he local band) and cul u al ies (as amembe o he chess club in Humenné and co- ounde o he spo s club). These bonds we e also gende ed. As aman he pa icipa ed in he social li e o apa ia chal illage communi y, whe he as amembe o a adi ional 100 Aladá D (b. 1950) emained in Czechia and no longe main ains con ac wi h he Roma in B eko . Due o he Co id-19 pandemic, he conduc ed one online in e iew ia Skype, bu la e e used my eques o ano he in e iew, saying ha he had no desi e o alk abou he Roma o B eko . He had ond memo ies o B eko and said ha he had no wan ed o mo e away, bu ha he had now begun anew li e o himsel in Czechia. In e ms o he ocus o his chap e , i is in e es ing ha igh om he s a o ou con e sa ion, he e used o call himsel Romani, going so a as o claim ha he Roma had ne e li ed in B eko . He was p epa ed o use he e m “ci izens o G*psy o igin” and hus d aw on he dominan logic, ou lined abo e, o G*psyness as asocio-cul u al and no an e hnic ca ego y (In e iew wi hAladá D [b. 1950], eco ded by he au ho in Sep embe 2021 online in Czech [ eco ding in he au ho ’spossession]). 119 Romani band o , o ins ance, h ough mee ing o he men in he local pub. Howe e , he e we e ci cums ances ha had he po en ial o exclude him om he local communi y. His o igins in adi e en egion o eas e n Slo akia dis inguished him om he local Roma and he could he e o e be singled ou and deemed o be “ o eign”. Howe e , along wi h o he B eko Roma, he migh ha e been elega ed o an in e io s a us h ough his associa ion wi h he acialised ca ego y o G*psyness. This le el o ela ions is accen ua ed by Guná , who ecoun s he s o y o amusician who played “chess and ca ds in high socie y”, and who “mu de ed ou o g ea ange and physical weakness”, when he could no longe endu e he humilia ion p o oked by agadjo who “ha ed he Roma”. This is he e o e apowe ul accoun o one man’sexpe ience o an i-Roma acism and i s a ec i e le el. In he mid-1960s, he ca ego y o G*psyness comes in o play once again in connec ion wi hRudol D and his amily, his ime wi hin he con ex o he cen alised ese lemen policy. He associa ion wi h his ca ego y allowed Rudol ’swi e Regina D, owne o ahouse in B eko , o sell he p ope y as pa o he “liquida ion o G*psy shacks”, and o mo e o Czechia, gi en ha i was now impossible o emain in he illage ollowing Rudol ’s e u n om p ison. 2.2.6 E ic ion as a esolu ion o local con lic s In o de o unde s and he dynamics o he nego ia ion o he ca ego y o G*psyness and o y and make sense o he ac ha he inciden in B eko esul ed in he eloca ion o an indi idual amily, Iwould like o place he en i e case wi hin he con ex o simila con lic s being played ou a ha ime in o he illages in eas e n Slo akia o which he e is e idence. These examples include he illage o Vlacho o in he dis ic o Rožňa a, whe e anon-Romani illage was killed in Feb ua y 1966, and he illage o Hos o ice in he dis ic o Snina ( hen Humenné), whe e anon-Romani illage ended up in hospi al wi h inju ies sus ained in a igh a ound he same ime. I mus be s essed ha b inging hese e en s oge he mus no and canno jus i y he pe iod discou se o he c iminalisa ion and secu i isa ion o he Roma. Indeed, one migh say ha he opposi e is ue. Ip esen hese examples he e pa ly in o de o show how he dominan discou se o he secu i isa ion o Roma ou lined abo e was co-cons uc ed, bu also o e eal he di e en o ms i ook in indi idual loca ions, pa ly in ela ion o he ese lemen policy wi h which all he cases in e sec ed a some poin . 120 The case o he killing in he illage o Vlacho o is in e es ing, no leas because in addi ion o he eco d in he Secu i y Se ices A chi e (see Zaple al 2012, 61), he e exis se e al sou ces o Romani p o e- nance ha deal wi h i . These include acomplain add essed o he KNV inKošice, in which aRomani amily om Vlacho o demanded hey be allowed o e u n om Czechia o hei home dis ic ;101 asimila ly ph ased iewe ’s eac ion o he ele ision p og amme discussed abo e;102 an a chi ed ansc ip o an in e iew ha Hübschmanno á conduc ed wi h aRomani woman om Vlacho o hen li ing in Czechia;103 and one o my own in e iews, eco ded by chance wi h a ela i e o he Roma om Vlacho o du ing my esea ch in Humenné.104 An exce p om he i s example ci ed, he complain , will su ice as asumma y o he en i e e en : We a e o iginally esiden s om Vlacho o in he dis ic o Rožňa a, whe e in Feb ua y o 1966, ci izens o G*psy o igin io ed du ing he annual mee ing o he JRD [Jedno né zemědělské d užs o o Uni ed Ag icul u al Coope a i e]. This esul ed in a igh , du ing which one membe o he JRD was s abbed wi h akni e. He died, and he ci izens o Vlacho o, in e alia ion, demolished he houses o many ci izens o G*psy o igin, as a esul o which we we e o ced o eloca e o Olomouc [Mo a ia].105 The inciden in Vlacho o in ol ed he ac ions o an indi idual. Adoc- umen om he Secu i y Se ices A chi e desc ibes he mu de o JRD membe Joze Oby he “G*psy” Ma in G (Zaple al 2012, 61). In his eac ion o he ele ision b oadcas , Ka ol C, himsel aRom omVla- cho o, w i es ha “ h ee G*psies ough wi h he whi es and killed one o hem”.106 The di e ence be ween his case and he one discussed abo e is clea . In B eko , he killing o anon-Romani illage was amed as 101 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 19, sp. 100, Complain – Ond ej G., 14 No embe 1968. 102 NA P ague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, . KSČ– Ús řední ýbo 1945–1989, P aha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, s . 37, č. j. 299. 103 A chi e o MRK, B no, . Pozůs alos Mileny Hübschmanno é, ka . 11_ET, sp.T ansk ip y77-83_MH, č. 11. 104 In e iew wi h Romani man Dušan K(b. 1965), eco ded by he au ho in May 2019 in Snina in Slo ak ( eco ding in he au ho ’spossession). 105 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 19, sp. 100, Complain – Ond ej G., 14 No embe 1968. 106 NA P ague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, . KSČ– Ús řední ýbo 1945–1989, P aha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, s .37, č. j. 299. 121 he ac o an indi idual and he sanc ions ex ended “only” o his nuclea amily, one eason pe haps being ha Rudol D could be sepa a ed om he ca ego y o embedded B eko Roma gi en his o igins in ano he il- lage. In Vlacho o, on he o he hand, he p inciple o collec i e guil was applied, whe eby he ca ego y o c iminalised and secu i ised G*psies was used o co e all local Roma in acco dance wi h e hno- acial c i e ia. As Ka ol C’sle e con inues: “ hey d o e us all ou o he illage and we had o lea e ou egion and a el o Czechia, which made us all sad because ou houses we e wo h 50 housand and we had o lea e hem behind because o h ee e il G*psies”.107 In an in e iew wi h me, acon- empo a y wi ness named Dušan K es i ied ha he collec i e guil was indi ec ly ex ended o all he Roma in he a ea, agains whom an i-Ro- ma acism and mani es a ions he eo had become no iceably mo e p o- nounced. A he same ime, he said ha such a i udes s ill pe sis ed in Vlacho o a he ime ou in e iew was conduc ed (sp ing 2019), ha he local au ho i ies and he esiden s hemsel es we e doing hei bes o ensu e ha no mo e Roma mo ed in o he illage, and ha Romani people hemsel es sough o gi e he illage awide be h.108 In his con ex , howe e , i is wo h no hing ha he dominan log- ic acco ding o which he mu de o aJRD membe in Vlacho o was amed as acollec i e ac in ol ing all he (local) Roma was also adop ed by he pa ies submi ing he complain , in which hey used he plu- al “ci izens o G*psy o igin […] s abbed amembe o he JRD wi h akni e”.109 M s G eached o asimila o mula ion in he in e iew wi h Hübschmano á. When asked “Why did you come o Olomouc?”, she eplied “Because he Roma killed agadjo in Vlacho o”, hough she add- ed in passing ha “we all had o come he e, all o us, all because o one pe son”.110 One canno d aw b oade conclusions om hese wo es imonies, no am Iin e es ed in “accusing” he Vlacho o Roma o in e nalising ac iminalising iew o he Roma as G*psies. In con as o he s ic ly indi idualised desc ip ion o he mu de in B eko , hese 107 Ibid. 108 In e iew wi hDušan K(b. 1965), op. ci . Simila conclusions we e d awn by ellow linguis Vik o Elšík on he basis o his ield esea ch in he egion ocusing on he dialec ology o Romani. Iwould like o ake his oppo uni y o hank him o sha ing hese unpublished indings wi h me. 109 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 19, sp. 100, Complain – Ond ej G., 14. 11. 1968. 110 A chi e o MRK, B no, . Pozůs alos Mileny Hübschmanno é, ka . 11_ET, sp.T ansk ip y77-83_MH, č. 11. 128 o acen ally de ined poli ics in which G*psyness was unde s ood as aca ego y o social de iance, bu also wi h ab oade popula discou se in which he acknowledgemen and ecogni ion o aca ego y o “ espec - able G*psy”, ee om “backwa dness” and “pa asi ism”, legi imised an o he wise highly acialising unde s anding o G*psyness. By iden i ying wi h his ca ego y, he Roma o B eko (and elsewhe e, o ha ma e ) sough o e ame ela ions o domina ion and ma ginalisa ion (see he p e ious chap e ) and o b eak ou o he posi ion o G*psies, o whom an in e io social s a us was au oma ically acco ded. The ca ego y o G*psyness he e unc ioned as a“s icky” ca ego y (see Ahmed 2014), which adhe ed o ce ain bodies, and he Roma a emp ed o keep i om s icking o hem. The a ibu ion o G*psyness was decid- ed by hei su oundings, which, by he sel same logic, pa icipa ed in i s silencing. And so, depending on a ious c i e ia, he Roma in indi idual illages we e ei he included in o , on he con a y, excluded om he aming o local con lic s and, consequen ly, om he p ac ice o ese le- men . On he o he hand, wi hin he con ex o he ese lemen policy, an associa ion wi h he ca ego y o G*psyness was away o mone ising one’sp ope y, an oppo uni y aken up by Regina D and o he Roma (see Chap e Th ee). Thus he o icial ca ego isa ion o G*psyness come up agains i s e hno- acial de ini ion on an unclea bo de du ing he pe iod unde conside a ion and en e ed in a ious ways in o he s uc- u ing o social ela ions and he socio-economic s a egies o he Roma hemsel es. Howe e , he s o y o he B eko Roma should no lead us o imag- ine ha he Romani people, h ough hei choice o language and he con igu a ion o hei unde s anding o hei own social s a us, unc i - ically ep oduced he logic o cen ally o mula ed assimila ionis pol- icies. In ac , howe e much he B eko Roma poin ed o he absence in hemsel es o he key cha ac e is ics o he dominan ly unde s ood G*psyness, including language, one canno speak in his con ex o an e o o ejec ou igh adis inc i e cul u al iden i y and o blend in o non-Romani socie y. A ew momen s a e wo hy o emphasis. Fi s ly, when Guná econs uc ed he “his o y o he se lemen o he Roma in B eko ”, he ea ed i as he s o y o adis inc g oup, no wi hs and- ing i s s ong embeddedness in local socio-economic ela ions. Secondly, a he s a o he 1970s, he Roma in B eko we e ac i e membe s o he local b anch o Z äz Cigáno -Rómo (Union o Gypsies-Roma; see Done 2017, 189–193), in which hey again o mula ed no hei indi- idual in e es s bu he in e es s o he B eko Roma as ag oup. Finally, 129 while some o icials, in line wi h he dominan na a i e, iewed he in e- g a ion o he Roma in B eko as he ou come o he agency o he local au ho i ies (o o “ he Pa y and go e nmen ”) in pa icula , he Roma hemsel es we e mo e p one o emphasise hei own me i s, especially as ega ds employmen . I is possible o obse e, especially in he eac- ions o iewe s o he ele ision p og ammes e e ed o abo e, ha i was om hese posi ions ha he Roma de ined he limi s o wha was claimed o be an egali a ian socie y, and his is also pe haps he sou ce o some o he dispa a e demands made o he cen ally o mula ed policy, speci ically, in espec o i s “dispe si e” logic. Iwill speak mo e abou his las aspec in he nex wo chap e s. 130 3. CHAPTER THREE The Se lemen s: Be ween Ma ginalisa ion and Au onomy In he a chi e ma e ials pe aining o he “G*psy se lemen s” in he Humenné dis ic (howe e i s bo de s changed in he pos -wa pe iod), he Podskalka se lemen c ops up again and again. I a ac ed special a en ion o se e al easons. F om he 1950s onwa ds, in he epo s o wha was hen he KNV in P ešo , i was e e ed o as bo h he la - ges se lemen in he egion and as aloca ion wi h highly unsa is ac o- y s anda d o li ing, abo e all wi h ega d o housing condi ions. As such, i was one o he se lemen s he “liquida ion” (lik idace) o which was deemed ap io i y. Podskalka was egula ly men ioned in e e ence o child en’seduca ion, since an independen Romani school had been opened du ing he Fi s Republic and hen, a e ape iod du ing which ope a ions we e suspended, had been eopened a he end o he Second Wo ld Wa . Many cul u al and social ac i i ies we e linked o some deg ee o o he wi h he school. In addi ion o i s own oo ball eam, he se lemen had a i e b igade and he “Anglal” (“ o wa d” in Romani) olk dance g oup. All o hese cha ac e is ics con e ged om mul iple di ec ions on an image o Podskalka as ahighly dis inc i e place. The a chi al ma e ials ela ed o he si ua ion a he Podskalka se le- men also include some o Romani p o enance. M Toká , by his ime al eady a esiden o Os a a, eac ed o he ac ha his na i e Podskal- ka had appea ed in he 1966 ele ision p og amme (see Chap e Two): Iwas e y su p ised ha you ilmed ou illage o ele ision. You ga e exam- ples o bo h he good and he bad. I ’sgood o come he e, ake pho os and lea e. Bu o li e among hem, o help hem, ha ’sbeyond you. […] The e a e people who a e paid o he G*psy ques ion. They a i e once ayea and 131 hen lea e again. I ’sno enough simply o a i e by ca , look a ound and lea e again. […] I ealise ha we a e he ones who a e mos ly o blame o no unde s anding ha we ha e oppo uni ies and ha ou child en could aim high. […] Bu I hink ha i assis ance emains a he le el i has been up ill now, i will be along ime be o e we a i e a ahighe le el. Wi hou you help we couldn’ ha e managed any hing.117 Bea ing in mind he indings laid ou in he p e ious chap e , i is in e es ing ha M Toká includes he “G*psies” hemsel es when appo - ioning blame o he less han desi able li ing condi ions. Howe e , he belie es hey need help om ou side and he acknowledges ha he assis- ance ecei ed so a has been inadequa e. Apa om his c i icism, he mos in e es ing hing abou he whole le e is M Toká ’sown li e s o y, which includes his housing si ua ion. Below a e a ew exce p s ha con- nec up his li ed expe ience wi h he egional and cen alised housing policy as i ela ed o Romani se lemen s. In 1958, Ihad alo o bo he wi h my amily when i came o he de elopmen o ou illage [Podskalka]. So only a ew houses we e buil , and only by hose wi h amily con ac s o he dis ic au ho i ies. Those who had poo houses emained. […] A e Igo ma ied, i wasn’ easy o begin wi h. Iwas wo king as abuilding labou e and ea ning 700 o 800 c owns. Iwas pa o he bes c ew, and we wo ked up o 250 hou s amon h, some imes mo e. Then win e began, he os came, and he o eman old us o ake unpaid lea e o amon h o wo. So how we e we supposed o su i e? Isaw Iwasn’ ea ning much and ha my wi e was s uggling o make ends mee , so Idecided o go o Os a a. Ibegan wo king a he VŽKG [Ví ko ické železá ny Klemen a Go - walda– Klemen Go wald Ví ko ice I onwo ks]. […] Is ill wo k he e and now ha e a h ee- oom apa men . […] Iha e my own li le house a home [in Podskalka]. When Ihea d ha ou houses we e going o be demolished, Iwen o he dis ic au ho i ies o ha e my house alued. They o e ed me ap ice o 12,000 c owns. Iwen o whe e hey we e buying o he buildings and submi ed an applica ion. The pe son on du y was eally ude. He old me hey’d ha e o look o e he house and he e was no saying wha hey’d ind. And ha Ishould e u n o asecond isi . I old him Iwas om Os a a and 117 NA P ague, KSČ-ÚV-05/3, . KSČ– Ús řední ýbo 1945–1989, P aha– oddělení– oddělení ideologické, s . 37, č. j. 299. 132 w o e down my add ess. Bu Igo no eply. Tha ’show hey ea us all o e Slo akia, Mo a ia and Bohemia. He no doub saw ha Iwas s anding in on o him wi h pape s and he was si ing behind adesk and ha Iwas aG*psy. No answe anywhe e. Tha was in July and now i ’sNo embe .118 M Toká ’sle e aises se e al impo an poin s as ega ds he expe- ience o he Roma in ela ion o he policy pe aining o he se lemen s. Fi s ly, he cen alised a emp o e adica e se lemen s as pa o he ese lemen p og amme ep esen ed he con inua ion o ea lie policies, whe he o mula ed on he cen al, egional, dis ic o municipal le - el. In he case o Podskalka, his in ol ed mainly he cons uc ion o de ached houses in 1958 men ioned abo e, ap ojec ha la e ound i sel in con lic wi h he logic o liquida ion since i p ese ed he seg e- ga ion. This ension be ween he cul i a ion and e adica ion o he se - lemen will be discussed in mo e de ail below. I is signi ican ha M Toká e e s in his le e o he “municipali y”, when he is mo e likely e e ing o Podskalka i sel as pa o he municipali y o Humenné. Al hough many o he Roma, like M Toká , le Podskalka because o i s dismal li ing condi ions, hey also pa icipa ed in i s o ma ion as adis inc space, hus acknowledging hei belonging o he loca ion in ques ion. This ambi alen ela ionship be ween belonging o he se le- men as aloca ion in i s own igh on he one hand, and, on he o he , escaping om he se lemen in ligh o i s unsa is ac o y li ing condi- ions, and iewing i as a“bad add ess”, is one o he key mo i s o his chap e . Podskalka o e s aunique oppo uni y o obse e his unclea ela ionship, no leas because i was egula ly he a ge o such con a- dic o y app oaches. Iwill i s compa e he si ua ion in Podskalka wi h ha in o he se lemen s in he dis ic a ha ime, while simul aneously con ex ualising i wi hin he dominan academic discou se o ha ime and la e . M Toká ’scomplain ha only hose amilies wi h connec ions we e able o ecei e new housing in Podskalka again e eals ha any possi- bili y o bene i ing om he policy owa ds he se lemen s depended on ace ain s a us in he local hie a chy o socio-economic ela ions. In his case, posi ionali y was no o mula ed in e ms o G*psyness (see Chap e Two), bu in espec o ace ain social capi al (in his ins ance kinship ies o speci ic o icials). A he same ime, i was he p esence o 118 Ibid. 133 ce ain Romani people in local poli ical s uc u es, and no only hose in cha ge o policy owa d he Roma, ha u he dis up ed he clea ly dicho omous ela ionship be ween he s a e and he Roma as i s signi i- can ly ma ginalised inhabi an s (see Chap e One). M Toká ’s es imony also speaks olumes as o he ac ual business o pu chasing houses wi hin he con ex o he ese lemen p og amme. As is e iden om o he documen s and has been desc ibed o an ex en in he li e a u e, his p ocess was augh wi h adminis a i e di icul ies and le signi ican oom o he agency (including he laxi y) o speci ic o icials. As ega ds he deba e su ounding he plu ali y o Romani agency, M Toká ’sle e eminds us ha he liquida ion o he se lemen s unde he go e nmen esolu ion o 1965, including he subsequen “ ans e ” and “dispe sal” o he G*psy popula ion”, was in e wined wi h he mig a ion o Romani people (he e p ima ily om Slo akia o Czechia) as an independen s a egy o social and economic mobili y. Though Iwill look a his aspec in Chap e Fou , i is impossible o encapsula e i wi hin he con ines o asingle chap e and no conside i as an impo - an con ex he e oo. 3.1 Cen al and Regional Policies owa ds he Se lemen s In he e i o y o pos -wa Czechoslo akia, he highes pe cen age o Romani people was in he eas e nmos pa o he coun y, i.e. in eas e n Slo akia. Al hough he e we e Roma li ing in owns (o en weal hie , ela i ely high s a us musicians), asigni ican numbe li ed in illages, o en in encla es spa ially and symbolically sepa a ed om he es o he communi y, seg ega ed o a ying deg ees and socio-economically ma ginalised. These places, whe he in he local con ex o he b oade popula o o icial discou se, we e dubbed “se lemen s”, depending on local dialec s, including Romani i sel (Slo ak/Rusyn e.g. osada, kolónia, a a, a isko, ábo ; Romani e.g. osada, a a, abo is). And i was mainly o hese eas e n Slo ak se lemen s ha he e ms “undesi able G*psy concen a ions” we e used in cen al documen s o e e o he ese le- men policy, e en hough such se lemen s we e no only o be ound in eas e n Slo akia and said policy was o a ec all he egions o wha was hen Czechoslo akia in a ious ways. The his o ian Done shows ha he a emp o “liquida e” hese se - lemen s unde he e ms o ago e nmen esolu ion o 1965 was no 134 apu ely op-down policy. I was ins ead a eac ion o oices om he p o inces, speci ically om he egion o eas e n Slo akia, appealing o he cen al au ho i ies o ecognise ha his p essing issue could no be esol ed on apu ely egional basis. Acco ding o Done , i was ep- esen a i es o he Cen al Commi ee o he Slo ak Communis Pa y who con inced o icials in P ague ha he issue o he se lemen s mus be add essed sys ema ically on he cen al le el, e en eso ing o pho- og aphs o he highly unsa is ac o y li ing condi ions (Done 2017, 159–160). I should be added ha his was no he i s ime ha he eas e n Slo ak se lemen s had a oused he in e es o he cen al au ho - i ies. E o s o e adica e hem had been one o he impo an poin s o he 1958 esolu ion on Wo k amongs he G*psy Popula ion. Howe e , in la e documen s e lec ing upon he implemen a ion o his esolu- ion, ailu e on his poin was no ed and a ibu ed mainly o he unsys- ema ic o ganisa ion and laxi y o he local au ho i ies (Ju o á 2008, 996–999). This was o change wi h anew esolu ion o 1965. A ime able was o be d awn up o he “liquida ion o he se lemen s” in each dis- ic , and in adepa u e om p e ious p ac ice, special unds we e se aside (e.g.Haišman 1999). While p e ious e o s had been o mula ed as appeals add essed o he egional and local au ho i ies, he 1965 go - e nmen esolu ion alloca ed money om he s a e budge o be used bo h o he pu chase and demoli ion o he “G*psy shacks” and o he p o ision o new housing o he amilies a ec ed. Done poin s ou ha in he con ex o pos -wa s a e-building, hese se lemen s we e sidelined, since he e hnic, eligious and linguis ically he e ogeneous and long-s anding socio-economically ma ginalised egion o eas e n Slo a- kia, which also o med ahis o ically uns able s a e bo de , cons i u ed an opaque space and po en ial secu i y isk as awhole o he cen al au ho i- ies (Done 2017, 85–89). I is he e ha we see he cen alised accep ance o esponsibili y o wha had been up ill hen mo e a egional p oblem, he solu ion o which had been o mula ed in esolu ions d awn up by he Regional Na ional Commi ee ( hen in P ešo ) du ing he 1950s.119 Such a policy owa ds se lemen s sa well wi h he mode n s a e’smo e gene al a emp s o con ol i s inhabi an s and he aming o diso de ly loca ions as a h ea o secu i y (Sco 1998). I wha Sco desc ibes is-à- is he unc ioning o he mode n s a e is no me ely he ca e ul a angemen o space, bu , in e ec , he homogenisa ion o i s 119 ŠAPO Nižná Šebas o á, . Odbo nú o ných ecí KNV, ka . 219 and 220, in . č. 53. 135 own inhabi an s o he pu pose o exe ing con ol, hen in he case o he se lemen s, oo, he p io i y became elimina ing he de ian way o li e associa ed wi h hem. 3.2 Discou se o he G*psy Se lemen s 3.2.1 The logic o “liquida ion” Fo amo e de ailed insigh in o his logic, i is wo h e isi ing Da ido- á’smonog aph (1965), in which he social signi icance o he emo al o he se lemen s is akey heme and he discou se o which is ully in line wi h he logic o he go e nmen esolu ion om Oc obe o he same yea . Acco ding o Da ido á, he se lemen s a e cha ac e ised by apa icula way o li e ha di e s om ha o he es o he popula ion (ibid.,87). In line wi h o icial ideology, Da ido á unde s ands his di e- ence hie a chically, i.e. in e ms o “backwa dness”. Fo Da ido á, hen, he se lemen s we e no only an opaque space wi h inadequa e li ing condi ions, especially in he sphe e o housing and hygiene, bu also, o e all, aspace embodying akind o social de iance. She unde s ands his, in e alia, in e ms o “pa asi ism” (příži nic í), whe e his “ ypical way o li e” esis s due inclusion in he labou p ocess, some hing she sees as akey ins umen o social assimila ion and he main c i e ion o he legi imacy o belonging o asocialis socie y. In addi ion, Da ido á unde s ands he se lemen s (as well as he “G*psy way o li e” associa ed wi h hem) as ap oduc and symbol o he acis app oach aken owa ds he Roma on he pa o p e ious poli ical egimes. F om his pe spec i- e, he legi imacy o he new social o de is dependen on he success ul disposal o he se lemen s. And so Da ido á sees “liquida ion” as igh and p ope , since i a ec s no only he ma e ial sphe e, bu in ol es he “o e all ans o ma ion o he human being” (ibid., 96). In his con ex , she belie es he cons uc ion o new housing o Romani amilies on he land o he old se lemen s is misguided and will lead, no wi hs anding he ans o ma ion o ma e ial condi ions, o he p ese a ion o alocally ancho ed way o li e. When o e ing an example o such bad p ac ice, Da ido á e e s, among o he hings, o he cons uc ion o de ached houses in Podskalka in 1958 men ioned abo e. Howe e , Da ido á also belie ed i would be w ong o ush head- long in o he wholesale emo al o se lemen s and ha he p ojec needed o be app oached sys ema ically, aking in o accoun he speci ic 136 ci cums ances in each loca ion. In line wi h he la e ime able ensuing om go e nmen esolu ion 502/1965, Da ido á s a es ha i is no possible o emo e all se lemen s by 1970, bu only he “wo s ” ones. In o he cases, hygiene had o be imp o ed, ypically by inc easing he a ailabili y o d inking wa e by means o he cons uc ion o wells. I he en i e p ocess is ushed, he e is a isk o he way o li e no being comple ely ans o med and only “supe icial changes” (po chné zmeny) being adop ed by he o iginal inhabi an s o he se lemen s. Da ido á illus a es his wi h aspeci ic example in which, hough he Roma we e p o ided wi h new housing ou side he se lemen , hey ended up sleep- ing in one oom on he loo , which Da ido á sees as asymbol o hei e e sion o he old way o li e in he se lemen (ibid., 95). As an example o “success ul liquida ion”, Da ido á ci es he eloca- ion o all one hund ed inhabi an s om he Miklušo ce se lemen nea he illage o Hô ka in he dis ic o Pop ad o eigh o he illages in he same dis ic in 1961. This is agood example o wha Da ido á e ms he “ o al ans o ma ion o he human being”. I also o e s an insigh in o how she unde s ands he associa ion o he Roma wi h se lemen s as loca ions ea u ing “adi e en way o li e”. Acco ding o Da ido á, Miklušo ce was “ he mos backwa d se lemen in he en i e egion, pe - haps he whole coun y, wi h an inc edibly low s anda d o li ing o i s inhabi an s”, which made i all he mo e essen ial ha i s emo al be planned in de ail (1965, 104). Liquida ion was o include he “delousing” (od ši enie) and “ba hing” ( ykúpanie) o all he Roma, including a ho - ough medical examina ion and accina ion o he child en. A e being “clo hed and ed” (oša ení aobče s ení), he Roma we e aken by bus o hei new homes, whe e ep esen a i es o he MNV and local popula ion o each illage wai ed o hem in “nea apa men s wi h basic i ings and u nishing”, in o de “ o welcome hem and in some places o help hem o e come ini ial di icul ies”. Da ido á also speaks o he na u al endency o he Roma o e u n o hei o iginal en i onmen , i.e. o hei o iginal way o li e: The old G*psy se lemen was immedia ely se on i e a e he depa u e o i s inhabi an s and i s emains we e azed o he g ound in o de o p e en some o he Miklušo ce G*psies om e u ning. (Ne e heless, one o hem, old Pompa, would come he e in he e ening and sleep on he g ound, on he loca ion o his o me dwelling, all nigh . He was d awn o he old place, bu e en ually caugh on.) And in asho ime he whole place, wi h all he emnan s o he mise able li e o he “ou cas ” G*psies, g ew o e wi h g ass 137 and i s o me inhabi an s began o ge used o adi e en li e in hei new homes. (ibid.,104) The old way o li e, which was o be emo ed as pa o he comp e- hensi e “ ans o ma ion o he pe son”, was seen by Da ido á as in ol - ing an o e all physical cleansing in line wi h an unde s anding o he se - lemen s as ahygienic p oblem and he associa ed way o li e as being on a undamen ally physical le el. O pa icula impo ance o his chap e , howe e , is he way ha Da ido á pe cei es he ela ionship be ween he way o li e and he se lemen as aspeci ic loca ion. She ega ds he se - lemen as he ou come o he his o ical isola ion o he Roma as acon- sequence o acis policies and he a i udes o he non-Romani socie y, and sees one o he obs acles o he success ul disposal o se lemen s in he an i-Roma a i udes o pa icula au ho i ies and local inhabi an s (ibid., e.g. 101). Wha is clea om he quo a ion abo e is no only he na u al associa ion o away o li e wi h apa icula place, bu also he s eng h o he emo ional a achmen s Da ido á a ibu es o he Roma in ela ion o such aplace. This a achmen had o be o e come i suc- cess ul liquida ion was o ake place. 3.2.2 The se lemen s as a locus o Romani cul u e? Hübschmanno á, as ano he agen in he deba e aking place a ha ime, does no o e as comp ehensi e an o e iew o Romani se le- men s and he policies being applied o hem as Da ido á. This mus be in e ed om he indi idual claims and he o e all concep ualisa ion o adis inc i e Romani cul u e, as well as om la e ex s. Though Hüb- schmanno á, like Da ido á, ecognises he inadequa e le el o housing and o e all li ing condi ions, she does no associa e i wi h he “backwa d way o li e o he G*psies”, bu a he wi h he dynamics o b oade social de elopmen . Hübschmanno á speaks o Romani “se lemen commu- ni ies” ha we e o iginally de ined by kinship on he one hand, and p o- ession on he o he . Though isibly poo e han he non-Romani pa o a illage, he communi ies we e ne e heless pa o local socio-economic s uc u es (s uc u es ha Hübschmanno á concep ualises h ough he lens o acas e sys em, see also Hübschmanno á 1999b). She concei es o adi ional se lemen s as unc ioning uni s in hemsel es, ea u ing bo h in e nal mechanisms o social con ol (e.g. Hübschmanno á 1999a, 33) and he egula ion o popula ion size. Rep esen a i es o anew 144 in he indi idual se lemen s.127 Howe e , mo e undamen al p oblems appea ed ha a e desc ibed in he li e a u e as signi ican obs acles o he success ul implemen a ion o he ese lemen p og amme in o he places in Slo akia and Czechia oo. This included he indecisi eness o dismissi e a i udes o Municipal Na ional Commi ees wi h ega d o he sale o houses and he alloca ion o building plo s o he Roma om he se lemen s, as well as poo coope a ion wi h pa ne dis ic s in Czechia, speci ically Opa a and B un ál, which epo ed insu icien capaci y o accep newly a i ing Romani amilies (see Chap e Fou ). Gi en he di icul y in ol ed in ob aining new housing in wha was hen Czechoslo akia, which o he Roma o eas e n Slo akia was exace ba- ed by his o ically en enched an i-Roma p ejudice (Guy 1977,308), mos amilies e en ually secu ed accommoda ion h ough ecou se o hei own exis ing connec ions, whe he hanks o hei own expe ience o mig a ion o speci ic loca ions in Czechia o wi hin he con ines o Humenné i sel (see Chap e Fou ). Despi e he os ensible con inui y o pos -wa e o s o dispose o  he se lemen s, a undamen al change ook place o his policy wi h headop ion o he go e nmen esolu ion unde conside a ion, name- ly, he alloca ion o speci ic unds om he s a e budge in o de o ensu e i s comp ehensi e, sys ema ic implemen a ion. Acco ding o he policy, e e y shack iden i ied o ede elopmen was i s o be alued and only a e con i ma ion o new sui able housing o he amily li ing he e was i pu chased by he Dis ic Na ional Commi ee om he unds se aside. The ele an Municipal Na ional Commi ee was hen esponsible o i s demoli ion. In he e en o hese unds being insu icien o secu e new housing (which was so in he majo i y o cases), he inancial depa - men o he ONV app o ed adispensa ion, he pu pose o which was o p o ide new housing (including he pu chase o building ma e ials), i ings and u ni u e. Unde he go e nmen esolu ion, no only he compulso y pu - chase o he shacks, bu he en i e ese lemen p og amme, was o be ca ied ou on a olun a y basis, hough an educa ional campaign was o be conduc ed aimed a pe suading e en he mos ecalci an Roma o he impo ance o his issue. In many cases, howe e , i did no seem ha he eluc ance o he Roma was he main obs acle o he success ul implemen a ion o he en i e p ojec . Rega ding he dis ic o Spišská 127 Ibid. 145 No á Ves, Guy desc ibes how he e was eno mous in e es in ese le- men om he Romani se lemen s o Czechia, and ha du ing he i s s age, he Dis ic Na ional Commi ee was o e whelmed by applica ions om Romani people hoping o be included in he ese lemen p ojec (Guy 1977, 278). As ega ds he dis ic o Humenné, in many cases i was ama e o g an ing consen o he sale o shacks in Slo akia by people who we e al eady li ing on a i ually pe manen basis in a ious loca ions sp ead a ound Czechia, whe e hey we e ei he a emp ing o ob ain new accommoda ion o had al eady secu ed long- e m housing. Fo hem, he sale o ashack (and he inancial dispensa ion e e ed o abo e) mean bo h he possibili y o achie ing such housing and e en, pe haps, asigni ican lump-sum paymen . This is clea in he le e quo ed a he s a o his chap e om M Toká o Podskalka, who sough paymen o abuilding he had had alued a a ime when he was al eady li ing in Os a a. Howe e , his le e shows ha one could no ake o g an ed ha paymen would be o hcoming o ashack ha had been alued. Mo eo e , he li e s o y se o h abo e, in which M Toká ecoun ed how he had mo ed o Os a a in esponse o he unsa is ac- o y condi ions in his home illage, clea ly demons a es ha mig a ion in and o i sel was he esul o ce ain s uc u al condi ions which, e en aking in o accoun he his o ical de elopmen o he posi ion o he Roma in speci ic loca ions, p oblema ises he idea o he olun a y cha - ac e o such eloca ions. 3.3.1 The posi ion o he local au ho i ies On 13 June 1968, he husband and wi e eam Michal and Anna D omČe ižné ( he dis ic o Humenné) w o e ale e add essed o he Commission o he People’sCon ol a he Dis ic Na ional Commi ee in Humenné complaining abou he demoli ion o hei home. The le e is so eloquen , Iam ep oducing i in ull: In he illage o Če ižné we owned awooden building ha was plas e ed inside and had loo s in all he ooms. The building was buil o e wa e and du ing ainy wea he we we e in dange o being looded. We he e o e asked he chai man o he MNV inČe ižné o assign us ano he building plo in he illage so ha we could build anew de ached house. We made his eques se e al imes, bu he chai man o he MNV in o med us ha , hough he had no building plo he could gi e us, he would o e us ace i ica e allowing us 146 o a el o Czechia and li e he e. In he end, we ag eed o his and o abou h ee yea s we li ed and wo ked in Be oun [Czechia]. Since my husband could no wo k in Czechia o heal h easons, we had o mo e back o he illage [Če ižné]. Howe e , upon ou e u n, we disco e ed ha ou home had al eady been demolished. Now we ind ou a he ONV ha ou house was alued a 12,800 c owns. We a e no sa is ied wi h his alua ion, since i was ca ied ou in ou absence and wi hou he chai man o he MNV elling us ha he in ended o buy ou house and demolish i o being ashack. Iwould poin ou ha ou house should no ha e been classi ied as ashack, since, as Iw o e abo e, i was plas- e ed inside and was buil in abou 1959. Fu he mo e, he house o my mo he , Anna G, which was alued a 8,000c owns, was bu n down and Iha e imp ession ha his was done by he MNV in Če ižné. We eques ha ou complain be in es iga ed and he alua ion o he house we bough be inc eased.128 O he documen s show ha he w i e s o he abo e le e e en ually ga e way, pe haps unde p essu e om he Če ižné local au ho i ies (o pe haps e en he ONV inHumenné). On 15 June 1968, wo days a e  he le e was w i en, asale and pu chase ag eemen was d awn up o he building in ques ion, in which Michal D signed o e he house a he p ice speci ied o 12,836 c owns.129 The con en s o he complain poin o impo an b oade in e ela ed aspec s o he p ac ice o he cen al policy. Isugges ed abo e ha he Roma may ha e o some ex en sha ed he idea o he se lemen s as cul- u ally backwa d places and adop ed pa s o he language used o e e o such loca ions in he dominan discou se: he complain abo e h ows doub on such aclaim. Al hough M and M s D ci e he incon enien loca ion o hei house, which has led hem o apply o amo e sui able building plo , hey esen i s being called ashack and being included in he campaign o emo e all such buildings. In o he wo ds, he demand o digni ied li ing condi ions was no necessa ily made in he g ip o adominan logic ha iewed li ing in shacks as ana u al ea u e o he “G*psy way o li e”. 128 ŠOkA Humenné, . Finanční odbo ONV Humenné, ka . 16, sp. 102, “D. Michal, Če ižné” [unp ocessed]. 129 Ibid. 147 The en i e le e , howe e , h ows in o doub he olun a y basis o pa icipa ion in he ese lemen p ojec on a leas wo le els. Fi s ly, i implies ha , a leas in he case o he ede elopmen o he shacks, p epa a ions could go ahead behind he backs o he owne s hemsel es. The le e w i e s e en sugges ha he ac ual ex en o he damage done o speci ic buildings may ha e been he esul o ac ions aken by he local au ho i ies, as in he case o he i e ha azed o he g ound he house o he mo he o one o he complainan s (i is no en i ely clea whe he his in ol ed he mo he o Michal D o his wi e Anna). Howe e , in addi ion o he agency o he local au ho i ies, which in o he cases migh ha e aken he less bla an o m o coe cion and pe - suasion, he complain unde discussion, like he le e om M Toká omPodskalka, poin s o ab oade s uc u al p oblem ha calls ol- un a y pa icipa ion in o ques ion. I is clea ha pos -wa mig a ion o Czechia was no only he esul o he socio-economic ma ginalisa ion o he badly wa - o n egion o eas e n Slo akia as awhole, bu in he case o he Roma was also he ou come o hei ma ginalised posi ion. In his espec , mig a ion may no ha e been he p e e ed op ion. Mo eo e , as he complainan s’ own desc ip ion o hei si ua ion makes clea , e en Romani mig an s who emained in Czechia could o en coun on main- aining hei ies wi h hei home illage in Slo akia, which could hus o some ex en unc ion as asa e space o hem, o example in he e en o poo heal h. Such mig a ion dynamics ha e been used o desc ibe no only he si ua ion o he Roma in socialis Czechoslo akia (see Guy 1977, 486), bu also he pos -Vel e Re olu ion mig a ion o he Roma o Cze- chia (O 2022b, 186–187) o e en o he Wes (O and Dob uská 2023). Seen om his pe spec i e, he consen o Romani mig an s o he sale and subsequen ede elopmen o hei homes in hei o iginal illage in Slo akia may ha e been a a ional economic decision, bu was also he esul o hei complexly shaped long- e m ma ginalisa ion and in e i- o posi ion in he socio-economic hie a chy o he illage in ques ion, some hing ha was o en mani es in he sphe e o housing (whe he his in ol ed he quali y o cons uc ion o abuilding’sposi ionali y wi hin he layou o he illage). 3.3.2 “Success ul liquida ion”: he se lemen in Ľubiša F om his pe spec i e, one can ead no only he complain ci ed abo e, bu he si ua ion in hose se lemen s epo ed in he ONV ma e ials as 148 “success ully liquida ed”. Aclose look a ela ions in speci ic illages– no leas because o he na u e o he a chi al ma e ials– ends abo e all o encou age an examina ion o he agency o he Municipal Na io- nal Commi ees, local policies owa ds Romani se lemen s and ce ain (dis)con inui ies o he e i o ialisa ion o he Roma. Howe e , Icon- side adesc ip ion o hese ma e s o o m an impo an con ex o acing he posi ions, expe iences and agency o he Roma hemsel es. A e he adop ion o he go e nmen esolu ion, he se lemen in Ľubiša was one o he i s in which all he buildings we e alued and pu chased o he pu pose o demoli ion du ing he cou se o 1966. Howe e , acco ding o he indi idual iles o he Financial Depa men a chi e, he amilies o all o he building owne s had al eady ound housing o hemsel es in P ague. The Roma o Ľubiša depa ed o P ague immedia ely a e he wa : acco ding o he MNV, as ea ly as 1946.130 This was con i med by he es imony o con empo a y emale wi nesses om he anks o he o iginal Roma o Ľubiša, who spoke o he Roma ha ing become embedded in P ague by he 1960s, bo h in e ms o housing and employmen , and hei ela ionships wi h people in he a ea, including o he Roma who had come o P ague om he dis ic o Humenné (Hudousko á e al. [unpublished]). Acco ding o he eco ds o he indi idual alua ions in he Ľubiša se lemen , hese we e buildings ha had lain unoccupied o along ime and in many cases we e no longe habi able.131 In 1966, he building owne s app o ed hei sale o he pu pose o demoli ion, and he ONV in Humenné was able o quickly ick he boxes o he “liquida ed se le- men ” qui e easily. Howe e , he si ua ion as desc ibed was p eceded by asomewha ambiguous de elopmen . Fo along ime, Romani people egula ly e u ned om P ague o Ľubiša, a ac e idenced no only by he ec- ollec ions o con empo a y emale wi nesses, bu also by en ies in he school ch onicle, in which he a endance o child en om hese amilies was always eco ded o only pa o he yea , be o e he oo no e “le o Czechia” appea ed.132 One o he non-Romani illage s in Ľubiša ecalled in an in e iew wi h me ha he Roma always e u ned o hei home illage o he summe wi h g ea pomp hanks o he newly 130 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Ľubiša, ka . 1, sp. 27, “Cigáni Ľubiši”, 1953. 131 ŠOkA Humenné, . inanční odbo ONV Humenné, ka . 15, sp. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 31, 32, 36, 40, 87 [unp ocessed]. 132 ŠOkA Humenné, “Školní k onika Ľubiša”. 149 acqui ed socio-economic capi al hey had won, especially as musicians.133 This was con i med in he es imony o he Romani women hemsel es, acco ding o whom he men om hese amilies we e able o success ully apply hei musicianship in P ague, whe e hey began ea ning money by playing in wine ba s (ibid.). Al hough in his case he mig a ion o he Roma should ce ainly be seen as an agen i e s a egy leading o signi i- can social mobili y and social pa icipa ion in he new en i onmen (see ibid.), Iwill show ha an impo an con ex ha should no be o go en was he con inui y o he an i-Roma a i udes o he local au ho i ies inĽubiša, which we e mani es in he sphe e o housing and poli ics o space, and which, mo eo e , eplica ed he same (and explici ly amed) a i udes o o he non-Romani illage s inĽubiša. In his espec , he demoli ion o he Ľubiša se lemen can also be seen as he ou come o an ongoing endea ou by he local au ho i ies o e i o ialise he Roma o e ic hem en i ely. Du ing asu ey o “G*psy se lemen s” in 1956 in wha was hen he egion o eas e n Slo akia, wi h i s headqua e s in P ešo , eigh buildings we e eco ded in he Ľubiša se lemen , ou o hem unin- habi able and he es inhabi ed by a o al o 32 people. The au ho s o he epo concluded ha new cons uc ion wo k should ake place in Ľubiša, wi h he aim o c ea ing de ached amily houses and a ul- ly unc ioning well.134 Howe e , he municipal au ho i ies had al eady made hei posi ion e y clea ega ding he possibili y o indi idual building p ojec s o e seen by inhabi an s o he se lemen in he p e i- ous yea , when in July 1955 i deal wi h a eques submi ed by Ján F o build ahouse bo de ing he s a e highway. The chai man o he council obse ed ha “all o he ci izens o Ľubiša a e agains his and do no wan o allow him o build a esiden ial building, because as aG*psy he will pollu e he su ounding a ea”.135 The same a gumen was used by he Council o he MNV, which was asked o ake a o e. In addi ion o obse ing ha he applican “as aG*psy will pollu e he su ound- ings”, he council no ed ha “[in] he illage he e is an en i e G*psy se lemen whe e hey ha e sui able land o building houses, and so his Ján F can also build ali le house o himsel he e, whe e he has 133 In e iew wi h non-Romani illage Ján Š (b. 1933), conduc ed by he au ho in Ap il 2015 inĽubiša in Slo ak (un eco ded). 134 ŠAPO Nižná Šebas o á, . Odbo nu o ných ecí KNVP ešo , ka . 219, in . č. 53, “Zp á a zo služobnej ces y konanej dňoch od 8 do 12 júna 1956” 1956 135 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Ľubiša, ka . 2, sp. 39, “Zápisnica”, 21 July 1955. 150 been li ing in an old house up ill now”.136 As indi idual depa men s o he s a e appa a would la e no e, adismissi e app oach on he pa o Municipal Na ional Commi ees when dealing wi h he alloca ion o building plo s o Roma was pa o he cou se (see Guy 1977, 278). In his case, howe e , i is wo h no ing he o e ly an i-Roma, inhe en ly acis mo i e, which was elsewhe e p esen ei he implici ly o ca e ully concealed (see O 2021; 2022b, 90). The MNV in Ľubiša d ew on simila ly bla an an i-Roma a gumen s when a emp ing he eloca ion o he en i e se lemen back in Augus 1945: The e is no one esponsible o heal h and policing in he p esen loca ion o he G*psy se lemen , since he encla e is loca ed almos in he cen e o he illage. I s su oundings a e pollu ed by sewage and disease-inducing ga - bage, as a e o a ai s caused pu ely by he G*psies li ing in he encampmen , he esul being ha public in e es demands ha he si ua ion be emedied wi hou delay. The land on which he co ages a e loca ed is owned by he municipali y o Ľubiša. The new si e, acco ding o he a ached plan, is ade- qua e o such pu poses in all espec s. (Ju o á 2008, 92–95) The plan e e ed o and he a gumen used o back i up we e a i med in he same mon h by he Dis ic Na ional Commi ee in Humenné, which added ha “ he municipali y has adu y o build co ages o he G*psies ha mee heal h and i e sa e y egula ions”, ha i mus “p o ide he G*psies wi h adequa e shel e wi hou secu i y a e he eloca ion pe iod” and ha “ he G*psies eloca ed by he municipali y a e obliged o help he municipali y wi h such wo k as may be necessa y” (ibid.). The ep esen a i es o he se lemen hemsel es quickly iled an appeal (in Sep embe 1945) agains he decision o eloca e he se lemen wi h he Slo ak Na ional Council o In e nal A ai sin B a isla a. They poin ed ou ha he new loca ion would discou age hei child en om a ending school gi en i s dis ance om he illage. Should he appeal be ejec ed, hey exp essed hei conce n ha “in ou People’sDemoc a ic Republic, he lowes class o he people is s ill being pushed away om he public”. The Roma demanded acommission be se up asked wi h selec ing anew cons uc ion si e o he “G*psy encampmen ”, insis ing: 136 Ibid. 151 ha un il anew G*psy colony is c ea ed, ou exis ing houses mus no be des oyed, since win e is app oaching and he e is a p esen adi icul y in ob aining building ma e ials. I is clea ha acolony canno be buil by win- e and i ou exis ing houses a e des oyed, we and ou amilies would be o ced o li e wi hou a oo o e ou heads. (ibid.) The esponse om heMinis y o he In e io , add essed o he Dis- ic Na ional Council in Humenné, only a i ed in May 1946. In addi- ion o asking ha de ails o he planned ese lemen be p o ided (i s cos and he dis ance o he new encampmen om he cen e o he illage o Ľubiša), i also ques ioned he wisdom o he en i e p ojec in ligh o he “conside able in e e ence in he mos basic ci il igh s o he socially weakes segmen o he popula ion” (ibid.). Al hough I ound no e idence o any u he communica ion be ween he pa ies, i is clea ha he en i e p ojec was b ough o an end by he depa u e o he es- iden s o he se lemen o Czechia, which was supposed o ha e aken place in 1946.137 I has been sugges ed ha he ini ial depa u e o he Roma om Ľubiša was in luenced no only by he unsa is ac o y li ing condi ions in he exis ing se lemen (e en he Romani ep esen a i es en isaged he cons uc ion o anew encampmen in hei appeal), and he gene ally uns able pos -wa si ua ion in eas e n Slo akia, bu also by he way he local au ho i ies ea ed he Roma, especially since hey elied on he opinion o he o he illage s, some hing hey hemsel es poin ou . 3.3.3 Disposal o he se lemen in he illage o Papín In 1945, much o he dismay o he MNV and local esiden s, he Ľubiša se lemen was s ill si ua ed in he cen e o he illage. The si ua ion was di e en in o he illages, whe e he se lemen s ended o be eloca ed u he away om he cen e due o an i-Roma measu es da ing back o he pe iod o he Slo ak S a e (see Ju o á 2002). This in u n became a ac o in de e mining no only he pos -wa posi ion o he Roma in he hie a chy o local ela ionships and hei mig a ion o Czechia (see Sadílko á 2020), bu also impac ed on he ollow-up policies pu sued by he egional au ho i ies. In he dis ic o Humenné he e is e idence 137 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Ľubiša, ka . 1, sp. 27, “Cigáni Ľubiši”, 1953. 152 o he wa - ime eloca ion o se lemen s om Jabloň, Slo enská Volo á (see also Fedič 2001) and Papín. The ini ial eloca ion o he se lemen s o ged an impo an con ex o he pos -wa e o s o emo e hem al oge he . I was he se lemen s in Papín and Slo enská Volo á ha , along wi h Podskalka, had been he ocus o a en ion o he egional au ho i ies since a leas he la e 1950s. In i s plans, he Dis ic Na ional Commi ee in Humenné had, since 1958 a he la es , been epea edly unde lining he necessi y o mo ing bo h se lemen s o hei o iginal loca ion in he illage. Fo example, a1958 esolu ion sen by he Depa men o Con- s uc ion and Wa e Managemen o he Depa men o In e nal A ai s (bo h a he ONV inHumenné) spoke o he necessi y o eloca ing “ ci izens o G*psy o igin om he se lemen s nea Papín andSlo enská Volo á o he buil -up a ea o he illage”. I was appa en ly app o ed by he espec i e councils o he Local Na ional Commi ees.138 Despi e he ag eemen eached by he ONV inHumenné and he MNVs, he subsequen a e o he wo se lemen s and hei inhabi an s ook adically di e en di ec ions. In he case o Slo enská Volo á, he eloca ion o he esiden s o he se lemen o he buil -up a ea o he illage was accomplished as ea ly as May 1959, when he i s amily signed asale and pu chase ag eemen o aplo o land in he illage.139 The se lemen in Slo enská Volo á was lis ed as comple ely liquida ed in as a emen e e ing o Humenné in 1962,140 hough i igu ed ye again amongs he liquida ed se lemen s in 1966 (pe haps mo e as an a emp on he pa o he ONV o juke he s a s a e he new go e nmen eso- lu ion 502/1965 ook e ec ).141 The se lemen in Papín was also demolished, hough i s a e was a close o ha o Ľubiša (see Chap e One o adesc ip ion o he Papín se lemen ). The Roma om he Papín se lemen egula ly a elled o Czechia in sea ch o wo k and he cen alised se lemen liquida ion pol- icy did no lead o hei being esi ua ed in he illage, bu o hei being de ini i ely e ic ed om i . The di e ences be ween Slo enská Volo á andPapín we e made clea o me du ing my isi o he illages in 2021. 138 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Humenné, ka . 23, sp. 12, “P emies nenie cigánskych osád”, 30Decembe 1958. 139 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Humenné, ka . 23, sp. 26, Rada MNV Slo . Volo ej, 28 May 1958. 140 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 1, sp. 21, “Zp á a na úseku iešenia o ázok občano cigánskeho po odu ok ese Humenné”, 22 May 1962. 141 ŠAKE Košice, . Komisia Vsl. KNV p e cigánske oby a els o, ka . 11, sp. 120, “Hodno enie ýsledko za I. Pol ok”, unda ed. 153 An employee o he municipal au ho i ies in Papín old me wi h adeg ee o p ide and pe haps e en elie ha “no G*psies li e in ou illage”, whe eas in Slo enská Volo á se e al Romani amilies li ed in he illage i sel (albei in some cases on i s ou ski s). As in Ľubiša, akey ole was played inPapín by wha we e basically he explici ly an i-Roma a i udes no only o he local esiden s, bu mo e impo an ly o ep esen a i es o he Municipal Na ional Commi ee, who opposed he p esence o Roma in he illage. Such a i udes ose o he su ace all he mo e since Papín was a he ime designa ed an admin- is a i e cen e o which building es ic ions did no apply, a ela i ely common a gumen eso ed o by he local au ho i ies in o he “non-ad- minis a i e” illages when e using o alloca e land oRoma om he se lemen (see Guy 1977, 454). Mo eo e , as well as he Romabeing e used planning pe mission, he e is e idence ha building pe mi s we e alloca ed o non-Romani illage s in he case o Papín du ing he pe iod unde conside a ion.142 The issue o he eloca ion o he se lemen was add essed by he municipali y as ea ly as 1956, when i ini ially g an ed i s consen o he dis ic ’sa emp s o mo e i back o he buil -up a ea o he illage. On 16 June o ha yea , he MNV issued a esolu ion acco ding o which “ci izens o G*psy o igin will be mo ed om hei p esen loca ion o he o iginal place whe e hey li ed du ing he Fi s Czechoslo ak Republic and whence hey we e e ic ed du ing he pe iod o he Slo ak S a e.”143 The si ua ion emained he same o he nex wo yea s, wi h he MNV epea ing i s posi i e s ance ega ding he eloca ion o he se lemen in 1958144 and 1959.145 In 1960, acco ding o he eco ds o he MNV, wel e amilies we e li ing in he se lemen unde unsa is ac o y hygienic con- di ions, o which eigh amilies we e a ha ime wo king in Czechia. Bea ing his in mind, he cons uc ion o new housing was en isaged o only he ou emaining amilies.146 Howe e , in 1962, ep esen a i es o he G*psy Commission a he ONV, in hei epo o he mee ing o he p esidium o he Dis ic Commi ee o he Communis Pa y o Slo akia, 142 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Papín, ka . 12. 143 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Papín, ka . 1, sp. 2, “Zápisnica”, 16 July 1956. 144 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Humenné, ka . 23, sp. 12, “P esťaho anie cigáno ”, 16 Oc obe 1958. 145 ŠOkA Humenné, . MNV Humenné, ka . 23, sp. 12, “Sťaho anie cigáno obci Papín”, 14May 1959. 146 ŠAPO Nižná Šebas o á, . KNV P ešo , odbo p e nú o né eci, ka . 222, in . č. 53, “Ú adný záznam zp ileži os i iešenia lik idácií cigánskej osady”, 24 Ma ch 1960. 256 majo i nej spoločnos i na Slo ensku, ed. T. Podolinská and T. H us ič, 346–373. B a isla a: Veda. Hajská, M. 2012. “Ame sam Vlašika, haj o binas lašika!” (My jsme Olaši a mlu íme olaš- sky!). Nás in jazyko é si uace olašských Romů z ýchodního Slo enska e nicky smíšené komuni ě. Romano džaniben 19 (2): 35–53. Hajská, M. e al. 2013. Si uační analýza Rumbu k a S a é Křečany: ASZ. P aha: Mul ikul u ní cen um P aha. Halbmay , B. 2009. The E hics o O al His o y? Expec a ions, Responsibili ies, and Disso- cia ions. In O al His o y: The Challenges o Dialogue, ed. M. Ku kowska-Budzan and K.Zamo ski, 195–203. Ams e dam: John Benjamins. Hamplo á, D. 2006. Women and he Labo Ma ke in he Czech Republic: T ansi ion om aSocialis o a Social-Democ a ic Regime? In Globaliza ion, Unce ain y and Women’s Ca ee s, ed. H. Bloss eld and H. Ho meis e , 224–246. Higgs, E. 2004. The In o ma ion S a e in England: The Cen al Collec ion o In o ma ion on Ci izens Since 1500. London: Macmillan Educa ion UK. High, H. 2009. Complici ies and Complexi ies: P o oca ions om he S udy o Rese le- men in Laos. C i ical Asian S udies 41 (4): 615–620. High, H. 2008. The Implica ions o Aspi a ions: Reconside ing Rese lemen in Laos. C i ical Asian S udies 40 (4): 531–550. High, H. 2005. Village in Laos: An E hnog aphic Accoun o Po e y and Policy among he Mekong’s Flows. PhD hesis. Aus alian Na ional Uni e si y, Canbe a. Hla áčo á, V. 2016. Mig ace slo enských Romů do Ka lo ých Va ů po oce 1945 (případo á s udie– usídlo ání odu Bílých a Si áko ých Ka lo ých Va ech le ech 1945–1952). Bachelo ’s hesis. Cha les Uni e si y, P ague. Holomek, M. 1969. Současné p oblémy Cikánů ČSSR a jejich řešení. Demog a ie 11 (3): 203–209. Holomek, T. 1969. P oblema ika Cikánů e s ě le zákonné úp a y. Demog a ie 11 (3): 210–213. Holubec, S. 2014. ‘We B ing O de , Discipline, Wes e n Eu opean democ acy, and Cul u e o his Land o Fo me O ien al Chaos and Diso de : Czech Pe cep ions o Sub-Ca pa hi- an Rus and i s Mode niza ion on he 1920’. In Mas e y and Los Illusions: Space and Time in he Mode niza ion o Eas e n and Cen al Eu ope, ed. W. Bo odziej e al., 223–250. München: Oldenbou g Wissenscha e lag. Ho á h, K. 2012. Silencing and Naming he Di e ence. In The Gypsy “Menace”. Populism and he New An i-Gypsy Poli ics, ed. M. S ewa , 117–136. London: C. Hu s & Co. Ho á h, K. 2005. Gypsy Wo k – Gadjo wo k. Romani S udies 15 (1): 31–49. Ho ský, J. 2014. His o ický ak é . In Koncep y a dějiny. P oměny pojmů současné his o ické ědě, ed. L. S o cho á, 95–101. P aha: Sc ip o ium. Ho á ho á, J. 2005. Mezi álečné zas a ení mezi Romy českých zemích (aneb ušení sou- islos í). Romano džaniben 12 (3): 63–84. Ho á ho á, J. 1994. Možnos i in eg ace na příkladu mo a ských Romů. Romano džaniben. 1 (1): 8–19. Ho á ho á, E. 1964. Cigáni na Slo ensku: his o icko-e nog a ický náč . B a isla a: Vyda a- eľs o Slo enskej akadémie ied. Houdek, L. 2008. Romo é e S říbře. Případo á s udie – his o ie a socioling is ická si uace odu Absolonů. Bachelo ’s hesis. Cha les Uni e si y, P ague. Howe, L. 1998. Sc ounge , Wo ke , Begga man, Chea : The Dynamics o Unemploymen and The Poli ics o Resis ance in Bel as . The Jou nal o he Royal An h opologicL Ins i u- e4(3): 531–550. 257 H us ič, T. 2015a. Emické nímanie úže y seg ego aných ómskych osadách na ýchodním Slo ensku. In Čie no-biele s e y. Rómo ia majo i nej spoločnos i na Slo ensku, ed. T. Podo- linská and T. H us ič, 208–223. B a isla a: Veda. H us ič, T. 2015b. Usu y among he Slo ak Roma: No es on Rela ions be ween Lende s and Bo owe s in a Seg ega ed Tabo is. In Gypsy Economy: Romani Li elihoods and No ions o Wo h in he 21s Cen u y, ed. M. B azzabeni e al., 31–48. New Yo k, Ox o d: Be ghahn. Hudousko á, R., O , J., Sadílko á, H. [unpublished]. Romo é P aze. (Tex y khis o ii Romů P aze po oce 1945). Humph ey, C. 1994. Remembe ing an ‘Enemy’: The Bogd Khann in Twen ie h-Cen u y Mongolia. In Memo y, His o y, and Opposi ion unde S a e Socialism. ed. R. S. Wa son, 21–44. San a Fe: School o Ame ican Resea ch P ess. Hübschmanno á, M. [ o hcoming]. Po Židoch cigáni. Vol II. P ague: T iáda. Hübschmanno á, M. 2005. Po Židoch cigáni. (1939–s pen 1944): s ědec í Romů ze Slo enska 1939–1945. Vol I. P ague: T iáda. Hübschmanno á, M. 2000a. Slo esnos a li e a u a  omské kul uře. In Če nobílý ži o , 123–148. P ague: Galle y. Hübschmanno á, M. 2000b. Vz ahy mezi Romy a Židy na ýchodním Slo ensku před d u- hou s ě o ou álkou. Romano džaniben 7 (1): 17–23. Hübschmanno á, M. 1999a. Několik poznámek khodno ám Romů. In Romo é České epub- lice 1945-89, 16–66. P aha: Socioklub. Hübschmanno á, M. 1999b. Od e nické kas y ke s uk u o anému společens í. In Romo é České epublice 1945–1998, 115–136. P aha: Socioklub. Hübschmanno á, M. 1998. Economic S a i ica ion and In e ac ion (Roma, an E hnic Ja i in Eas Slo akia). In Gypsies: An In e disciplina y Reade , ed. D. Tong, 233–270. New Yo k: Ga land Publishing. Hübschmanno á, M. 1995. His o eo znamená pá ám. Romano džaniben 2 (1-2): 61–66. Hübschmanno á, M. 1993. Šaj pes do ake as – Můžeme se domlu i . Olomouc: Vyda a els í Uni e zi y Palackého. Hübschmanno á, M. 1970. Co je z . cikánská o ázka? Sociologický Časopis / Czech Sociological Re iew 6 (2): 105–120. Hübschmanno á, M. 1968. cikáni = Cikáni? Repo é o a očenka 1968 Hübschmanno á, M. 1967. Veľká Ida. Li e á ní no iny, 8 July 1967, 2–3. Hübschmanno á, M.; Lacko á, E. 2010. Na odila jsem se pod šťas nou h ězdou. P ague: T iáda. Jamnická-Šme glo á, Z. 1955. Dějiny našich cikánů. P aha: O bis. Jandáko á, L.; Hab o co á, J. 2022. Tak jak o bylo. In Den byl p o mě k á kej. Pamě i h dé Romky, O. Fečo á, 177–183. P ague: Paseka, Khe . Ju o á, A. 2002. His o ický ý oj ómskych osád na Slo ensku a p oblema ika las níckych zťaho kpôde (“nelegálne osady”). Člo ek a spoločnosť 5 (4): 13–43. Ju o á, A. 1993. Vý oj ómskej p oblema iky na Slo ensku po oku 1945. B a isla a: Společensko- edný ús a Slo enskej akadémie ied Košiciach, Goldp ess. Kande , J. 2004. Každodenní ži o esničanů s ředního Slo enska šedesá ých až osmdesý ých le ech 20. s ole í. P ague: Ka olinum P ess. Kobes, T. 2012. “Naši Romo é” – di akční zo ce odlišnos i ýchodoslo enského enko a. Romano džaniben 19 (2): 9–34. Kobes, T. 2009. Tu zme šicke jedna odzina, u zme šicke jedna aj a: příbuzens í ýchodoslo enské- ho enko a. P ešo : Cen um an opologických ýskumo . Ko ai, C. 2012. Hidden Po en ials in “Naming he Gypsy”: The T ans o ma ion o he Gypsy-Hunga ian Dis inc ion. In The Gypsy “Menace”: Populism and he New An i-Gypsy Poli ics, ed. M. S ewa , 281–294. London: C. Hu s & Co. 258 K amářo á, J. e al. 2005. (Ne)bolí: zpomínky Romů na álku a ži o po álce. P ague: Člo ěk  ísni. Ku ej, A. 1996. Ča , eša, phu – oda mi i bach / T á a, lesy, země – o je moje š ěs í. Romano džaniben 3 (1): 109–113. Le i, G. 2001. On Mic ohis o y. In New Pe spec i es on His o ical W i ing, ed. P. Bu ke, 96–119. Uni e si y Pa k: Pennsyl ania S a e Uni e si y P ess. Lho ka, P., Schus e , M., Zá odská, M. 2009. S az Cikánů–Romů (1969–1973). Dop o odná publikace k ýs a ě Muzea omské kul u y “S az Cikánů–Romů (1969–1973). Zhis o ie p ní omské o ganizace českých zemích.” B no: Muzeum omské kul u y. Lucassen, L. 2008. Be ween Hobbes and Locke. Gypsies and he Limi s o he Mode niza i- on Pa adigm. Social His o y 33 (4): 423–441. Lužica, R. 2021. Z äz Cigáno /Rómo a š á na moc na Slo ensku  okoch 1968–1989. Ni a: Uni e zi a Konš an ína Filozo a Ni e, Fakul a sociálnych ied a zd a o níc a. Lüd ke, A. (ed.) 1995. The His o y o E e yday Li e: Recons uc ing His o ical Expe iences and Ways o Li e. P ince on: P ince on Uni e si y P ess. Magnússon, S. G. 2020. Emo ional Expe ience and Mic ohis o y: A Li e S o y o a Des i u e Paupe Poe in he 19 h Cen u y. London: Rou ledge. Mann, A. B. 2018. Rómski ko áči na Slo ensku. B a isla a: Úľu . Ma ushiako a, E.; Popo , V. (ed.). 2022. Roma Po ai s in His o y: Roma Ci ic Emancipa ion Eli e in Cen al, Sou h-Eas e n and Eas e n Eu ope om he 19 h Cen u y un il Wold Wa II. Pade bo n: B ill. Ma ushiako a, E.; Popo V. 2021. In oduc ion. In Roma Voices in His o y: A Sou cebook, ed.E. Ma ushiako a and V. Popo , x iii–xxx i. Pade bo n: B ill. Ma ushiako a, E.; Popo , V. 2020. Roma Iden i ies in Eas e n Eu ope: E hnici y s. Na io- nali y. In Ciganos. Olha es e pe spec i as, ed. M. P. L. Gold a b e al., 39–64. João Pessoa: Edi u a UFPB. Medick, H. 1987. “Missiona ies in he Row Boa ”? E hnological Ways o Knowing as a Cha- llenge o Social His o y. Compa a i e S udies in Socie y and His o y 29 (1): 76–98. Memo andum SCR kzákladním o ázkám cikánské p oblema iky a ymezení společenského pos a ení Cikánů-Romů. 1970. Románo ľil, 2: 11–12. Miklušáko á, M. 1999. S učný nás in důsledků zákona č. 40/1993 Sb., O nabý ání a pozbý- ání s á ního občans í ČR. In Romo é České epublice (1945–1998), 267–270. P ague: Socioklub. Miško á, M. 2016. Miznúci s e V. Humenné: Re ospek í a. Mižigá , M. 2016. Romo é Písku: případo á s udie po álečného osídlení. Bachelo ’s hesis. Cha les Uni e si y, P ague. Molná , M (ed.) 2017. B eko . Michaľo ce: Ja osla Mihaľko, Polyg a ické p áce. Mücke, P. 2013. Dese k á kých zas a ení nad možnos mi a mezemi české o ální his o ie. Dějiny – eo ie – k i ika 2: 296–301. Nečas, N. 1999. The Holocaus o Czech Roma. P ague: P os o . No áček, K. 1968. Cikáni če a, dnes a zí a. P ague: Socialis ická akademie. Oli e a, M. 2012. The Gypsies as Indigenous G oups: he Gabo i Roma Case in Romania. Romani s udies 5 (1): 19–33. Oli e a, M., Pouey o, J. 2018. Gypsies and An h opology: Legacies, Challenges, and Pe - spec i es. E hnologie F ancaise 172 (4): 581–600. O , J. 2022a. Belonging, mobili y, and he socialis policies in Kapišo á, Slo akia. Romani s udies 32 (1): 23–50. O , J. 2022b. Face s o a Ha mony. Roma and Thei Loca edness in Eas e n Slo akia. P ague: Ka olinum P ess. 259 O , J. 2021. Romo é jako mís ní oby a elé? Přináležení, cikáns í a poli ika p os o u e esnici na ýchodním Slo ensku. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Re iew, 57 (5): 581–608. O , J., Dob uská, P. 2023. Con inui ies and Discon inui ies in a T ansna ional Social Field. The Case o he Ma go any Roma. Český lid 110 (2): 211–242. Pa elčíko á, N. 2010. Několik poznámek kp oměnám iden i y spojeným spříběhy českých a slo enských Romů e 20. s ole í. Romano džaniben 17 (2): 71–95. Pa elčíko á, N. 2006. Milena Hübschmanno á a his o ie Romů po 2. s ě o é álce. Romano džaniben 13 (1): 191–207. Pa elčíko á, N. 2004. Romo é českých zemích le ech 1945–1989. P ague: Úřad dokumen ace a yše řo ání zločinů komunismu PČR. Pa elčíko á, N. 1999. Romské oby a els o na Os a sku (1945–1975). Os a a: Os a ská uni e zi a. P ins, G. 2001. O al His o y. In New Pe spec i es on His o ical W i ing, ed. P. Bu ke, 120–156. Uni e si y Pa k: Pennsyl ania S a e Uni e si y P ess. Po elli, A. 1991. The Dea h o Luigi T as ulli: Fo m and Meaning in O al His o y. New Yo k: S a e Uni e si y o New Yo k P ess. P ečan, V. 1990. Cha a 77 1977–1980. Od mo ální kdemok a ické e oluci. Dokumen ace. B a- isla a: Schen ield. Pullmann, M. 2009. Dik a u a, konsensus a společenská změna: K ýkladu komunis ické dik a u y českých akademických diskusích po oce 1989, In Pa alely, p ůsečíky, mimo- běžky: Teo ie, koncep y a pojmy české a s ě o é his o iog a ii 20. s ole í, ed. L. S o cho á and J.Ho ský, 231–246. Ús í nad Labem: Albis In e na ional. Pullmann, M. 2012. W i ing His o y in he Czech and Slo ak Republics: An In e iew wi h Michal Pullmann. Social His o y 37 (4): 384–401. Pullmann, M. 2011. Konec expe imen u. Přes a ba a pád komunismu Českoslo ensku. P aha: Sc ip o ium. Roman, R. B., Zaho a, S., Ma ino , A. (ed.). 2021. Roma W i ings: Romani Li e a u e and P ess in Cen al, Sou h-Eas e n and Eas e n Eu ope om he 19 h Cen u y un il Wo ld Wa II. Pade bo n: B ill. Cha a 77 – 3. čás . Romano džaniben 6 (3–4): 4–7. Rabinach, A. 2006. Momen s o To ali a ianism. Re iew A icle. His o y and Theo y, 45 (1): 72–100. Růžičko á, A. 2012. Romská komuni a e Vse íně. Bachelo ’s hesis. Cha les Uni e si y, P ague. Sadílko á, H. 2020. The Pos wa Mig a ion o Romani Families om Slo akia o he Bohe- mian Lands: a Complex Legacy o Wa and Genocide in Czechoslo akia. In Jewish and Romani Families in he Holocau s and I s A e ma h, ed. E. R. Adle and K. Čapko á, 190–217. New Je sey, London: Ru ge s Uni e si y P ess. Sadílko á. H. 2019. His o ie a his o iog a ie nucených s e ilizací omských žen Českoslo- ensku a jejich přesahu do současnos i. Ú od k ema ickému číslu Romano džaniben. Romano džaniben 26 (2): 5–18. Sadílko á, H. 2018. (Ne)ch ění spoluobčané? Romo é po álečném Českoslo ensku. In “Nech ění” spoluobčané: Skupiny oby a el pe zek o aných či ma ginalizo aných zpoli ic- kých, ná odnos ních, náboženských i jiných dů odů le ech 1945–1989, ed. J. Pažou and K.Po mann, 98–115. P ague: ÚSTR. Sadílko á, H. 2017. Rese ling he Se lemen : F om Recen His o y o a Romani Se lemen in Sou h-Eas e n Slo akia. In Fes sch i o Le Che enko , ed. K. Kozhano and D. Hal- wachs, 339–351. G az: G aze Romani Publika ionen. 260 Sadílko á, H. 2016. Po álečná his o ie Romů e zpomínkách pamě níků: Možnos i ekons ukce po álečné mig ace yb ané skupiny Romů ze Slo enska do českých zemí. PhD hesis. Cha les Uni e si y, P ague. Sadílko á, H. 2013. Čí jsou o dějiny? Dosa adní přís upy k in e p e aci po álečných dějin Romů ČS(S)R. Romano džaniben 20 (2): 69–86. Sadílko á H. e al. 2024. Equali y and Rep esen a ion: Social and Poli ical Engagemen o Roma in Communis Czechoslo akia 1948–1968. Pade bo n: B ill. Sadílko á, H. e al. 2018. Aby bylo i s námi počí áno: Společensko-poli ická angažo anos Romů a snahy o založení omské o ganizace po álečném Českoslo ensku. B no: Muzeum omské kul u y. Sadílko á, H., Zá odská, M. 2021. Asse ing a P esence in he Public Sphe e: Au obiog a- phies by wo Romani Holocaus Su i o s in Communis Czechoslo akia. In The Legacies o he Romani Genocide in Eu ope since 1945, ed. C. Done , 183–213. Ox o d, New Yo k: Rou ledge. Sco , J. C. 2010. The A o No Being Go e ned: An Ana chis His o y o Upland Sou heas Asia. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess. Sco , J. C. 1998. Seeing Like a S a e: How Ce ain Schemes o Imp o e he Human Condi ion Ha e Failed. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess. Sco , J. C. 1990. Domina ion and he A s o Resis ance. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess. Sco , J. C. 1985. Weapons o he Weak: E e yday Fo ms o Resis ance. New Ha en: Yale Uni- e si y P ess. Se inek, J., Tesař, J., Ond a, J. 2016. Česká cikánská apsodie. P ague: T iáda. Shmid , V. 2022. The Righ s o he Roma: The S uggle o Ci izenship in Pos wa Czecho- slo akia by Celia Done ( e iew). Romani s udies 32 (1): 140–144. Shmid , V., and Jawo sky, B. N. 2020. His o icizing Roma in Cen al Eu ope: Be ween c i ical whi ness and epis emic injus ice. London: Rou ledge. Sidi opolu Janků, K. 2015. Nikdy jsem nebyl podceňo anej. Ze slo enských osad do českých měs za p ací. Po álečné zpomínky. B no: Munip ess. Skupnik, J. 2007. S ě y se z cadlem. Ma ginalizace a in eg ace zhlediska sociopsycholo- gické dynamiky společnos i. Sociologický časopis /Czech Sociological Re iew 43 (1), 133–148. Slačálek, O. 2023. To o není český Floyd. Romo é a ces a pos koloniální eo ie do s řední E opy. Romano džaniben 30 (1): 119–131. Slačka, D. 2015. “Cikánská o ázka” na Hodonínsku le ech 1945–1973. Diplomo á p áce. His- o ický ús a , Filozo ická akul a, Masa yko a uni e zi a B ně. Sokolo á, V. 2008. Cul u al Poli ics o E hnici y: Discou ses on Roma in Communis Czechoslo akia. So ie and Pos -So ie Poli ics and Socie y, Vol. 82. S u ga : Ibidem-Ve lag. Somme , V. e al. 2019. Řídi socialismus jako i mu: Technok a ické ládnu í Českoslo ensku 1956–1989. P ague: Naklada els í Lido é no iny. Spu ný, M. 2016. Mos do budoucnos i. Labo a oř socialis ické mode ni y na se e u Čech. P ague: Ka olinum P ess. Spu ný, M. 2011. Nejsou jako my: česká společnos a menšiny poh aničí (1945-1960). P ague: An ikomplex. S ewa , K. 1996. A Space on he Side o he Road: Cul u al Poe ics in an “O he ” Ame ica. P ince- on, NJ: P ince on Uni e si y P ess. S ewa , M. 2013. Roma and Gypsy ‘E hnici y’ as a Subjec o An h opological Inqui y. Annual Re iew o An h opology 42 (1): 415–432. S ewa , M. 1997. The Time o he Gypsies. Boulde : Wes iew P ess. Sus, J. 1961. Cikánská o ázka ČSSR. P aha: SNPL. Su e, A. 2014. They Gi e a His o y o Wande ing o e he Wo ld. A Romani Clan’s T ansna- ional Mo emen in he ea ly 20 h Cen u y. Quade ny s o ici 49, 146 (2): 471–498. 261 Szaló, C. 2007. T ansnacioníální mig ace. P oměny iden i , h anic a ědění o nich. B no: Cen um p o s udium demok acie a kul u y. Šebo á, B. 2006. Mig ace slo enských Romů do českých zemí po oce 1945 (případo á s udie – usídlo ání Romů Rokycanech mezi le y 1945–1952). Bachelo ’s hesis. Cha les Uni e si y, P ague. Taube , E., T e isan, P. 2019. A chi e and E hnog aphy – he Case o Eu ope’s Roma and Sin i (19 h-20s Cen u ies): An In oduc ion. La Rice a Folklo ica 74: 3–12. Theodosiou, A. 2004. ‘Be-longing’ in a ‘Doubly Occupied Place’: The Pa akalamos Gypsy Musicians. Romani s udies 14 (2): 25–58. Tilly, Ch. 1999. Powe – Top Down and Bo om Up. Jou nal o Poli ical Philosophy, 7 (3): 330–352. Tsing, A. L. 1994. F om he Ma gins. Cul u al An h opology 9 (3): 279–297. Ulč, O. 1969. Communis Na ional Mino i y Policy: The Case o he Gypsies in Czechoslo- akia. So ie S udies 20 (4): 421–443. Ús a p o eřejné mínění 1971. Mínění o Cikánech a o řešení cikánské o ázky. P ague: Ús a p o ýzkum eřejné mínění. Yow, V. 1995. E hics and In e pe sonal Rela ionships in O al His o y Resea ch. The O al His o y Re iew. 22 (1): 51–66. Vansina, J. 1985. O al T adi ion as His o y. Mel on: James Cu ey Publishe s. Vaněk, M. 2022. Twen y Yea s in Shades o G ey? E e yday Li e Du ing No malisa ion Based on O al His o y Resea ch. InCzechoslo akia and Eas e n Eu ope in he E a o No - malisa ion, 1969–1989, ed. K. McDe mo and M. S ibbe, 145–169. London: Palg a e Macmillan. Vaněk, M. 2019. S o s uden ských e olucí: ysokoškolš í s uden i oku 1989: ži o opisná yp á ění časosbě né pe spek i ě. [One Hund ed S uden E olu ions: Uni e si y S uden s o 1989. Li e- -s o ies in a Longi udinal Pe spec i e.] P ague: Academia. Vaněk, M., Mücke, P. (ed.) 2016. Vel e Re olu ions: An O al His o y o he Czech Soci- e y. New Yo k–Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Wacquan , L. 2007. Te i o ial s igma iza ion in he age o ad anced ma ginali y. Thesis Ele- en 91: 66–77. Wagne o á, A. 2017. Žena za socialismu: Českoslo ensko 1945–1974 a e lexe ý oje před okem 1989 a po něm. P ague: SLON. Zah a, T. 2016. The G ea Depa u e: Mass Mig a ion om Eas e n Eu ope and he Making o he F ee Wo ld. New Yo k: W. W. No on & Company. Zaple al, T. 2012. Přís up o ali ního s á u a jeho bezpečnos ních složek k omské menšině Českoslo ensku (1945-1989). In Sbo ník a chi u bezpečnos ních složek. Vol. 10/2012, 13–83. P ague: A chi bezpečnos ních složek. 262 Lis o abb e a ions JRD – Jedno né oľnícke d užs o (Uni ed Ag icul u al Coope a i e, Slo akia) JZD – Jedno né zemědělské d užs o (Uni ed Ag icul u al Coope a- i e, Czechia) KNV – K ajský ná odní ýbo / k ajský ná odný ýbo (Regional Na ional Commi ee) MNV – Mís ní ná odní ýbo / mies ný ná odný ýbo (Municipal Na ional Commi ee) MsNV – Mes ský ná odný ýbo (Town Na ional Commi ee) ONV – Ok esní ná odní ýbo / ok esný ná odný ýbo (Dis ic Na i- onal Commi ee) USSR – Union o So ie Socialis Republics VŽKG – Ví ko ické železá ny Klemen a Go walda (Klemen Go wald Ví ko ice I onwo ks) 263 Regis e Abu Lughod, Lila– 48, 55 Ac no. 74/1958 (Zákon o além usazení kočujících osob)– 14, 19, 21, 29, 35, 76, 81, 83, 102, 111, 163, 184–6, 192–3, 206–10, 218 All agsgeschich e (his o y o e e yday li e)– 38, 56 an i-G*psyism (see also an i-Roma acism)– 42, 48, 194, 246 an i-Roma acism (see also an i-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 assimila ion– 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 au onomy– 40–1, 55–57, 165, 169, 178, 203–4, 240, 248 ‘backwa dness’ (adominan concep )– 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 Ba dejo – 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-e hnic g oup)– 17, 98 bo de land– 13, 18, 33–4, 47, 91, 182, 184, 197–8, 201–11, 222, 224, 228, 241–4 B un ál– 144, 167, 194, 211, 221 capi al – economic– 18, 46, 93, 100, 149, 173, 178 – educa ional– 18, 93, 99–100 – social– 18, 46, 93, 99–100, 132, 139, 149, 173, 178 capi alism– 54, 106, 203, 206 ca ego isa ion (o he Roma; see also classi ica ion)– 23, 39, 75, 94, 126, 128, 174, 221 classi ica ion (o he Roma/populace, see also ca ego isa ion)– 16, 22, 76–8, 81, 87, 95, 111, 125–7, 184, 206, 223 collabo a i e esea ch– 65 Communis Pa y– 21, 24–6, 86, 93, 96, 103, 105–6, 108, 122, 127, 129, 134, 153, 159–160, 173, 184–5, 189, 194 complain s (a chi al sou ce)– 31, 36, 44, 76–7, 89, 108, 120–1, 123, 132 con lic (in e -e hnic, in a-e hnic)– 81, 112, 116–125, 128, 177, 217, 146–7, 158, 175, 188–90, 210, 219, 227 con inui y (see also discon inui y)– 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 cul u e– 45, 56, 78–9, 83, 138, 142 – cul u ali y– 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 Da ido á, E a– 25–7, 29, 82–6, 92–3, 96, 98, 104, 135–42, 156–7, 160, 163, 166, 184, 190, 193 de iance (social)– 39, 45, 47, 51–2, 60, 75, 78, 85–6, 88, 93, 95, 128, 135, 175–6, 249, 251 discon inui y (see also con inui y)– 15, 28, 62, 148, 248 discou se– 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 – dominan – 36, 39, 74, 82, 93, 97, 101, 107, 119, 124, 146 – o icial– 25, 32, 39, 40, 79, 86, 90, 94, 97–8, 133, 186, 192, 194, 239 – popula – 12, 50, 84, 88, 96, 98, 128, 209, 218 – public– 95 – secu i isa ion– 31 dis ic pa ne ship– 27, 139, 144, 155, 167, 171, 174, 177, 186, 194–5, 220–1 Done , 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 e hics– 71–2 e hnog aphy– 25, 140–1, 216, 246, 250 e ic abili y (aconcep in an h opology)– 223, 243 e ic ion (see also expulsion)– 67, 70, 115, 119, 126–7, 149, 152–3, 174, 177–8, 180–1, 222, 249 expe imen al consen (aconcep in an h o- pology)– 49, 54, 249 expulsion (see also e ic ion)– 126, 204, 206, 209 Facuna, An on– 192–3, 225 amily (see kinship) G*psies – ‘ci ilised G*psies’– 95, 108, 248 – ‘decen G*psies’– 95, 108, 214, 248 – ‘in eg a ed G*psies’– 96, 102, 188 – ‘ o eign G*psies’– 27, 111, 115, 189–190 – ‘G*psy shacks’– 64, 119, 134, 170 – ‘local G*psies/Roma’– 115 – ‘ou G*psies/Roma’– 115 – ‘ espec able 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 Gee z, Cli o d– 38, 57, 72 gende – 85, 114, 118, 182, 203, 213, 225–8, 235–7, 243 Ge mans– 18, 204, 209 Ge many– 42, 56, 70, 202, 204 Ginzbu g, Ca lo– 56, 60 Guná , 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 hie a chy (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 his o y o an i-G*psyism / an i-Roma poli- cies (in opposi ion o Romani his o y)– 12, 194, 246, 250 his o y o e e yday li e (see All agsgeschich e) Holomek, Mi osla – 25, 191 Holomek, Tomáš– 25, 191–3 Hübschmanno á, 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 Hunga y– 17, 28, 49, 51, 53, 91, 95 Jamnická-Šme glo á, 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 Ku ej, Aladá – 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 Le i, Gio anni– 57–8 Lüd ke, Al – 56–7 265 ma ginalisa ion– 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 ma gins (aconcep in an h opology)– 38, 45–7, 70, 182, 247 media– 22, 25, 54, 84–88, 93, 95–6, 173, 191 Medick, Hans– 56–7 memo y– 67–70, 240, 245 mic ohis o y– 16, 33, 38, 56–8, 60–1, 69, 140 Mo a ian Roma (sub-e hnic g oup)– 17, 34, 98, 191, 193 nomadism– 35, 40, 53, 76, 81, 83, 102, 111, 184–6, 192–3, 206–9, 218, 224, 244 No áček, Ka el– 79–83, 92–3, 96, 98, 104, 184–5, 207 o al his o y– 16, 38, 61–71, 142, 178–9, 248 ou side s – e e nal 16, 33, 246 – social 54, 69, 114, 204 Opa a– 144, 167, 171, 194–7, 211, 221 pa icipa ion (o he Roma) – poli ical– 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 pho og aphs (a chi al sou ces)– 64–5, 68–9, 134, 167 Poole, Debo ah– 38, 46–7, 50, 55, 249 public opinion esea ch– 88, 91–3, 99 ace – acial seg ega ion– 14, 18, 21, 32, 40, 91, 139 – acialisa ion– 12–3, 18, 30, 34, 41, 43, 46, 50, 78–81, 94–5, 119, 128, 142, 185, 198, 243, 247, 250 acism (see also an i-Roma acism)– 18, 44, 66, 78–9, 84, 87, 90–3, 95, 98–9, 108, 119, 121, 135, 137, 140, 150, 156, 245–6, 250–1 e-educa ion– 19, 22, 35, 75, 79–80, 84, 86, 89, 91, 94–5, 98, 155, 187, 191–2, 206–7, 209, 215 ep esen a i eness– 38, 58 esis ance– 37, 43–4, 47–50, 54, 56, 75, 101, 158, 195, 211, 221, 223 Romani his o y/his o ies (ahis o ical app oach)– 12, 28, 31, 33, 37, 52, 59, 62, 245–7 Sadílko á, 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 o esea ch– 38, 56–7, 196 Sco , James C.– 37, 42–4, 46–50, 60, 134, 183 Second Wo ld Wa (Wo ld Wa II)– 11, 13, 17–8, 34–5, 62–3, 67–8, 97, 110, 130, 185, 198, 216 secu i isa ion– 21, 31, 39, 86, 119, 121, 134, 205, 210 secu i y (social)– 70, 139, 234, 243 seg ega ion (see also ace– acial seg ega- ion)– 14, 18, 21, 32, 40, 91, 108, 132–3, 139, 141, 176, 178, 199, 239 smi he y– 109, 111, 203, 216 sociabili y– 16, 33, 44, 53–4, 127, 141, 182–3, 241 s a us (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 Sokolo á, Vě a– 47, 51, 62, 75, 78–9, 185–6, 208, 251 solida i y– 91, 197, 203, 235 sou ces (me hodology)– 16, 29, 34, 60–70, 88, 123, 157–8, 165–6, 178, 181–2, 195–6, 205, 215, 248 – o al– 61–3 – w i en– 60–5 – Romani p o enance– 65, 120 So ie Union– 91, 185 s a e (an h opological app oaches)– 16, 29, 32–3, 37–8, 42–3, 46–50, 60, 70 s e ilisa ion– 32, 43, 86–7, 91, 96–7 s ickiness (aconcep in an h opology)– 128 s igma isa ion (see also e i o ial s igma isa- ion)– 107, 139–41, 203, 240, 248 sub-e hnic g oups– 33–5, 98, 192 S idník– 11, 34, 58, 197, 212, 216, 219, 228 symbolic iolence– 12, 141, 251