Talk:Antiziganism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Discrimination
Disclogo1.svg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Romani people (Rated Start-Class, High-importance)
Roma flag.svg This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romani people, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Antiziganism. Any such messages will be deleted or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Antiziganism at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.

Contents


[edit] Legends backwards

The legends are backwards I think. The legend says the Roma stole one of the nails that was to be used for Crucifixion, so Jesus feet nailed together with one nail not two. The thief became blessed and became the father of the Roma. Legend here says opposite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Roma Ever (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

--The one that I heard just recently when I was in Harghita county, Romania, was the opposite of the one you describe (it's no longer on the article, so I can only surmise to what you are referring.) It portrayed the gypsy thief in a negative light. Kari marie 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolerance of Antiziganism

I think mention should be made of the 'acceptability' of anti-Gypsy prejudice in Western Europe. I myself live in England, a country that takes anti-discrimination against ethnic minorities very seriously, to the point of absurdity at times (e.g. witness the awkward spectacle of someone wandering which is the 'correct' term to use for group X). However, prejudice aginst Gyspies is in many places condoned, accepted even (as anyone who has seen the type of vitriol present in the right-wing gutter press can attest to). It is an hypocrisy that I feel extends across Western Europe, where Gypsies are less of a presence as in the East.Sdrawkcab 18:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)sdrawkcab

I'm half French, and it's the same thing there as you say it is in the U.K. I will say that there are certain agencies that do work hard to help Gypsies integrate into the community, and good on them for that. But for French society in general, antiziganism seems to still be a perfectly acceptable prejudice. (It never fails to amaze me how subjective bigotry can be. Hate the Jews, you're a fascist. Hate the Arab and African immigrants, you're a racist, but an acceptable one in quite a few circles. Hate the Gypsies, and you're pretty much a regular citizen).
American friends who studied abroad in Belgium told me the situation is also the same over there... and the further east into Europe you go, the worse it gets. I don't even want to imagine how they have to live in Russia or Belarus... 217.52.14.101 (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Updates; this http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/15/italy.gypsies.ap/index.html is a good thing. This http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/21/italy.drowning/index.html, somewhat less so. Though it illustrates your point. They're Gypsies, who cares, you know...? 213.181.226.21 (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hilary Duff?

What about the song gypsy woman which uses the adjective gypsy as an insult. Is that an example in pop culture. I have only seen it mentioned by gypsies on youtube complaining in the comments so far though, I have not seen it in the media. Enigmama 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)enigmama

[edit] Miscellaneous Meanderings

Interesting parallel with the Jews - small minority plus lack of assimilation = prejudice. But are there any counterexamples? However, it is not credible to fail to discuss Roma attitudes toward the gadja that may enable a criminal subculture. I know from visits to Romania and Italy that theft, badger and confidence games played by Roms are far from rare.

Apropos of nothing the "King" of the Gypsies - according to Peter Maas - is buried in my old home town of Union, New Jersey. According to Maas' book The King of the Gypsies, if the "King" wanted to eliminate a rival he would have someone accuse the rival of some fictitious crime and get a half dozen or so of his relatives to swear the guy into prison. Much safer than killing him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.148.156 (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure there are counter examples - For instance: small minority + almost complete assimilation = prejudice, in the case of Jews in Germany and Hungary in the 1930s. And no, Roma committing crime is not responsible for antiziganism. In Romania and Italy, men are likely responsible for a massive majority of the crime, especially violent crime, but they aren't man-hating cultures. Racism looks for excuses to make assumptions about a whole group of people - it isn't caused by the target. - TheMightyQuill 15:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to disagree:Misandry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.105.89 (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the article needs a lot of expansion on modern antitziganism, they are by far the most discriminated group, and the group with the biggest prejudices against them in the whole of Europe. It's not really just CE Europe, it's everywhere from Italy, to Spain to the UK to Romania etc.. and it's often at a very high level. While after WW2 anti-semitism has become a big tabu in european countries the similarly persecuted roma people, due to their lack of political power, have continued to be viewed much in the same way. I think the difference is really striking. And yeah, the guy above is a racist, i'm romanian too, do you know roma used to be slaves in our country until the 19th century, and they're also called "colored" or "crow" in slang ? Sounds familiar ? --Helixdq (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Source doesn't match text

> In July 2008, a high court in Italy ruled that antiziganism is an acceptable practice "on the grounds that [the Roma people] are thieves."

This line is extremely misleading. The defendant's position in this case was that Roma people are thieves. This line suggests that the court itself adopted that position. According to the article, the court ruled that the defendant's words demonstrated racial prejudice rather than racial superiority or racial hatred and therefore did not violate the law.

In other words, according to the court, "X people should all be killed" is illegal speech, but "X people are thieves" doesn't rise to the level of illegal speech.

The source article does not support the wikipedia rendering.

Haskellguy (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

CItations from the article:
  • Italy's highest appeal court has ruled that it is acceptable to discriminate against Roma on the grounds that they are thieves.
  • His dislike of them was "not therefore based on a notion of superiority or racial hatred, but on racial prejudice". Kenshin (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Kenshin, you're right, the article does use that language, but it's a very poor sentence structure that wikipedia shouldn't replicate.

One problem is this distinction:
"It is acceptable (to discriminate against Roma on the grounds that they are thieves)"
"It is acceptable (to discriminate against Roma) on the grounds that they are thieves."
The first rendering tolerates despicable behavior, while the second very nearly endorses it. There may be a language issue, if someone isn't a native English speaker this could be a subtle point.

Haskellguy (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, when we put the text "on the grounds that [the Roma people] are thieves." in quotations, who are we quoting? We are actually quoting the source article. But the wikipedia rendering would suggest that this language was actually in the official court ruling.

I'm not sure that the court ruling by itself even qualifies as notable material. I would suggest instead focus on the actions that lead to the charges being made.

Haskellguy (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the reason invoked by the court for the ruling is important. Kenshin (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. What exactly is the reason. by your reading? Haskellguy (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"not therefore based on a notion of superiority or racial hatred, but on racial prejudice". The court thinks that "racial prejudice" is OK. Kenshin (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the court thinks that racial prejudice is *legal*. Laws such as this one are typically targeted at hard right-wing hate groups, but this guy is merely a garden variety scumbag.

The law had to set a standard at which anti-racism concerns exceeded free-speech concerns. The court did nothing more AFAICS than make a judgment call as to whether the specific case rose to the standard described in the law. (In the United States, for better or for worse, such a law would have been blatantly unconstitutional. We allow KKK and neo-nazi marches here; no one thinks it's ok, just free speech.) Haskellguy (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the court thinks that racial prejudice is legal. You can put this form in the article if you want. But I don't see anything that indicates that the court put in balance hate-speech vs free-speech. By the way, what is the difference between "racial prejudice" and "racial superiority"? Kenshin (talk) 08:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The notion of a balance between hate-speech and free-speech is my own interpretation, I admit. How could there possibly not be a need for such a balance?

I will try to answer your question to the best of my understanding, in the hope that this will aid the discussion, and with the concern that the discussion should not wander too far off topic. But really we might need someone fluent in Italian law to break this down for us, since the original terms used would certainly have been Italian terms that might not only have different connotations in Italian, but that also might have an even more specific or quirky definition in italian law.

Racial prejudice is any belief, usually pejorative, about a person based only or mainly on that person's race. (This is hard to define because there is little biological boundary that captures people's intuitive notion of race, i.e., race is socially constructed). So if you tell me that person X belongs to race R, and I assume that they are ugly, or smell bad, or are less intelligent, or good at math (examples that I've encountered in my society), then those are racial prejudices.

Racial superiority is some kind of notion that "my" race belongs to a biologically or divinely superior class. "My" race is distinct and pure and needs to be protected from inbreeding with other races. Among these circles you'll hear arguments along the lines that other races were fathered by Satan, or have a thousands-year-old agenda to take over the world, or even that other races don't have the same internal organs or are somehow a different species. Typically the superiority of "my" race would be self-evident had it not been betrayed and weakened in some way by its leadership.

Haskellguy (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It is true that there is a difference between "racial prejudice" and "racial superiority" (a difference that is hard establish exactly). "Racial prejudice" does not necessarily mean "racial superiority", but usually it does! Besides, the present day racists have leaned how to promote racial hate without using explicit racist expressions.
The journalist might not interpreted perfectly the judge's words, but it is for us to do that? Kenshin (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not sure that you're really understanding my complaint. I feel that there was some reckless wording in the article that wasted my time by making me fact-check a claim that was outrageous even beyond the very considerable actual and legitimate outrage of the subject matter. I made an edit that completely addresses my concern. Do we still have a disagreement over that actual content of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haskellguy (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I have put the paragraph from the article. Now the source definitely matches text. Kenshin (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
That works. Haskellguy (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Citation of discredited academic Ward Churchill?

Dismissed UC Boulder professor Ward Churchill's description of the relative injury to the Romani in the Holocaust is needlessly provocative and there is reason to be skeptical of his research methods. See his Wikipedia entry:

"In 2005, University of Colorado at Boulder administrators ordered an investigation into seven allegations of research misconduct.[31] On May 16, 2006 the University released the findings of its Investigative Committee, which agreed unanimously that Churchill had engaged in "serious research misconduct", including falsification, fabrication and plagiarism. The committee was divided on the appropriate level of sanctions.[2]"[[1]]

Surely there is a more trustworthy academic source for citation purposes...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.219.183.170 (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


[edit] "Ţigancă împuţită"

President Traian Băsescu made the remark in a private chat with his whife, in their personal car. This chat was recorder with a mobile phone and then made public by the media trust controlled by one of Băsescu's political "enemy". Băsescu never had public discriminating remarks, by any nature (rasist, antisemit, antizigan etc). The picture will be deleted. Unuon, 22 july 2009

The image may or may not be deleted, but certainly not before discussion and consensus. In the meantime and in accordance with WP:CENSOR, the image should not be removed either from this article or from the project generally. RashersTierney (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But does it could be mentioned that the remark was made in a private environment, not public? And the remark itself, although it may appear to be rasist, a lot of native Romanian speaking persons wouldn't judge in this way. In Romanian language there are some words or expression that could be considered as antiziganists or rasists (especially when translated) but are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unuon (talk • contribs) 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the incident and remark were controversial, (thus the protest and accompanying photo). I added the BBC as a source as to how they interpreted what happened, which makes it clear that Basescu was irritated and thought he was 'off the record'. But it is important that what a public representative says or does 'in private' should not be excluded for that reason alone. In many ways how they behave when they think the camera is off is far more important than when they know they're on show. Perhaps a direct quote of the phrase in question and let people make up their own minds whether it was antiziganism or something else? However, the more you attempt to rationalise this issue in the article, the more likely the overall effect will be to draw further attention to it. RashersTierney (talk) 08:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the statement was made in a public conversation, in a private conversation, on the earth, or on the moon, it is a racist statement. The difference between the public and the private speech just shows the hypocrisy of our politicians, which makes it even worse. And, indeed many Romanians make this kind of remarks in every day life because there are many racist Romanians. Kenshin (talk) 07:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion in the Northern Ireland section

I think the incident referred to in the section on Northern Ireland is one of discrimination against Romanians (i.e. people from Romania) rather than Romani people (i.e. travelling people) - if I hear no objections I shall just remove the section, as I can't find a more suitable home for it in another article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.5.197 (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Antiziganism"