Scapegoated abroad and the victims of prejudice at home, eastern Europe’s Roma are the problem no politician wants to solve

Lots of leftist BS in this article but very little on why Roma just cant get a job!!!

Why do they steal and beg wherever they go?

The author of this "aricle" is just telling us about the stories of bad things happening to roma. But how about some statistics? How many crimes do they commit?

This article doesn't neglect to note that the problems Roma face is in part of their own making. And hate-crimes are unacceptable no matter the conditions. Fair enough.

I am an American who came to Slovakia in 1997 as a volunteer. I was placed in village on the side facing the Roma area. I came with the view that these were persecuted people, something America was now beyond. But I found that there was a major difference. Roma do not want to be part of mainstream culture.

This article makes the issue seem one sided and it isn't. I don't care to allocate blame, but we'll have no solution until we better understand the root cause.

Porajmos

You have simplified the issue somewhat, this is area much more than freedom of movement. Why should France do nothing all the while thousands of Roma pour into the streets and become a very visible nuisance. I bet you have never had to live next door to them. Playing the racism card does not detract from the facts

The Roma were failed in Central and Eastern Europe, even murdered in the streets, the continued failings have created a permanent underclass that exploits its most vulnerable in order to generate millions in ill gotten gains. They are now their own worst enemy.

A permanent EU wide solution must be realised, mandatory and strictly enforced education is the only way for them to escape the cycle of poverty and exploitation. In the meantime nobody should be forced to put up with stealing and begging of such a magnitude, EU freedom of movement or not.

This is a tough world for nomads. There it is no longer possible to simply move to some other vacant place whenever one feels like it. Every place belongs to someone, has boundaries, landowners, governments, and other constraints. There are a few zoo-like savage reserves in Brazil where the uncontacted savages are allowed to live their traditional lifestyles under the unseen but watchful eye of the government, but they're a rare exception, and even they have boundaries -- it's just that the savages don't know it yet.

In America, during my lifetime, I've seen "homeless person" become the politically correct term for an American nomad. We used to call them "hobos", which was always a fairly respectable term, or "bums", which was never respectable, but was still honest. Now we define them by what they don't have that polite society thinks they should have, namely, a permanent home. Living under a blue tarp in the blackberry bushes next to the freeway is not considered a "home" these days, although to that man's great-great-grandfather, living under buffalo skins in the cottonwood trees next to the river would have been a fine home.

People without fixed places of residence are automatically suspects in our geographically rigid society. With the Roma, you have an entire "homeless" culture, in many senses of the word, so the conflict with regular society is unavoidable. I don't know the solution. In a very real sense, the conflict goes back to the dawn of civilization. We see it in Cain and Abel, one a settled farmer, and one a hunter. Around the same time, the Epic of Gilgamesh follows the conflict between the king of a city and his wild-living brother. Tellingly, although the world was still large in Gilgamesh's time, and although Enkidu would gladly wander the forests and ignore the city, Gilgamesh could not tolerate the knowledge that his brother was living wild and vowed to trap him and force him to become civilized.

The city versus country dichotomy has been a basis for comedy forever as well. In Roman times, the stock comic characters were "Urbanus", the city man, and "Rusticus", the country man (along with "Milarius", the swaggering soldier, also familiar to us). Modern versions include the TV shows "Green Acres" and "The Beverely Hillbillies", along with all the jokes about "hicks" usually told by city people.

All in all, the conflict between city people and nomadic people has been going on as long as there have been cities, but it's come to a head in our age because for all practical purposes, the world has become one big city. There are no more "empty" places to go. Every place is owned and ruled by someone. Unless civilization as we know it collapses, the Roma culture, like that of the few other remaining nomadic peoples, must die.

@porajmos:

AFAIK, the gypsies targeted in France are from countries that are not yet part of Schengen. Meaning that this whole freedom of movement thing isn't as applicable as you think yet.

In any case: as long as the ROma themselves don't want to ameliorate their situation in a proper way no egging on by any state will matter.

I find it outrageous that the author of the article contextualized anti-Roma measures in France within an Eastern framework. By muddying the issue with a look at the East of the continent, you fail to indict France for clearly pursuing an EU freedom of movement restricted to Whites and Westerners. Not stating that in plain words is tantamount to aiding and abetting a policy informed by prejudice against both Roma and other people from the Balkans, which should have no place in contemporary politics outside of ravings of Le Pen or Nick Griffin. And further, if you want to contextualize it historically, why not mention the Holocaust against the Roma, initiated by Germany but plentifully assisted by Germany's satellites, France included?

The finger should be pointed at those countries that show negligent or nonexistent Roma population (look at the map!). Precisely those countries through instituted perpetual intolerance and ethnic cleansing repelled Romas from their lands. Romas migrated to Europe and not to any particular country. Now EU dares to chastise those countries with high Roma population for intolerance when in fact they accepted or inherited this nomadic visible minority in the first place.

"A permanent EU wide solution must be realised, mandatory and strictly enforced education is the only way for them to escape the cycle of poverty and exploitation."

Education is indeed the long-term way to do it; most examples of good practice go back to education in some form. But the solutions are not as uniform as it has been suggested. In some cases, results were achieved through school integration (these schools have both the qualified staff and funding to pull off the job; many others asked to do the same don't).

In others, as in the Gandhi boarding school of Pécs, Hungary, specialised education for the specific needs and problems of Gypsy students was involved. The school is a success, but strictly speaking, it is a segregated institution that also separates children from their old environment, and it also costs more than most schools can get in these austere times.

Finally, there are examples of Gypsy communities in Eastern Hungary (and likely in other countries) which are much better off economically, socially and morally than their surroundings because of active and involved community organisers, invariably coming from outside. Indeed, these often tend to be village priests (almost all Greek Catholics) who have instilled in their flock a sense of spiritual responsibility and work ethic - which some Gypsy groups, notably musicians or the strictly traditionalist Gábors of Transylvania have always possessed.

The moral is that there is no single solution; furthermore, not all of the potential solutions are going to be comfortable for the kind of secular liberals who tend to write well-intentioned but ultimately naive articles where the only role of Gypsies is that of noble victims, while the rest of local society - economically not much better off - is painted in the darkest shades of unfair condemnation.

"But most Roma leave their homelands in search not of work but of freedom from destitution and persecution."

Not at all, the gypsies wander about the world seeking a more exploitable welfare system. The notion of leaving their homeland implies that they have one, which is not true either. They just have been born somewhere, but they don't treat the place as home, some place you take care of, so that it can sustain you in the long term. There's plenty of minorities in each country, and most of them get on with each other, more or less. But the gypsies are a totally different species from a different planet. They abuse and destroy anything they touch. The shocking pictures of their poverty and living conditions are not a testament to their "mistreatment" by the majority population, rather it is a testament to their inability to take even the most elemental care of themselves.

Good luck for France that it could move the gypsies somewhere else. If only this could be applied on a large scale, maybe moving them all so some remote island and leave them either to learn to live and support themselves, or die.

It is clear to me that The Economist is slipping day by day into becoming a publication that is writing its articles from an office in London without having any touch with the realities on the ground.
The author of this article has numerous flaws in its article, written from a biased point of view and omits obvious questions that he had to answer before drawing the conclusion.

1. Has he spoken only with Roma representatives or did he also contact other people affected by the deeds of the Roma communities?
2. Does he know the kind of opportunities that exist in each of the Eastern Countries (and I can speak here definitely about Romania, the country with the biggest Roma population)? The Roma community has more opportunities to study and to integrate than what America provided for the black community back in the 60s & 70s or today.
3. Why is France, or Italy, or Spain or any other country for that matter return the Roma families back to their origin country ? Do you think it is because they do not like them staying on a tent outside the city? Most probably yes, but more, they know that they cannot be integrated into the society. Their whole model, the culture is different. Is like trying to convert a hardline Muslim to a Christian way of life, you don't have many chances. No comparison intended....

What these countries should do, before they actually accuse Central and Eastern European countries of failing to integrate the Roma in their society, is to try to integrate in their societes themselves and see the result in 50 years time. Then we can really talk about what can be done and what cannot be done.
Believe me, they are not at all opressed in Europe. It is their own choice where and how to live.

Author made quite significant mistake in his research before writing this article, in order to write about racist CentralEastern Europe author deliberately skipped key facts. As article wrongly describes : 'Six of the victims were a Roma family, killed inside their apartment' author apparently builds his arguments on WRONG statement!!! According to Slovak newspapers SME: Family was not predominately Roma-which is often mistaken, Roma were only friends of the members of the family (two men) who were at the time of the incident present at the building.

Most of the foreign journalists including The Economist (unfortunately)dont tell the whole truth and skip the 'details' in order to sell the story and build the news on a racially motivated murder, demonizing situation in CEE countries.

Do not believe everything, be sceptic, investigate!!!

Almost 21 years ago Western Europe was thrilled by the joy of freedom for the East Europeans. Beside the political issues, a new perspective was offered to the highly efficient economies of the West. More than 100 millions of new customers and fresh addition of highly educated workers to take over the positions left uncover by an aging local population. Over the years it proved even more profitable by shrewdly transforming them in slaves of the Western banks East European branches.
France, Germany, UK, they all have major economic benefits because of East Europeans. But there is a bill to be paid, and that is called Gypsy people. And Western countries don't want to pay this bill. They want to import just the benefits of East Europe but when it comes to difficulties they prefer to trow them back across the remains of the Iron Curtain.

That's the truth about the Roma people problem.

And, by the way, I wonder who the f@#k called them Roma People??? For centuries they have been known everyplace as gypsy people, suddenly, in the last 15 years or so they become Roma People. I am Romanian and i totally disagree with this cunning way of wrapping together two completely different populations, Romanians and Gypsyes.

I am shocked by the extent of prejudice, misunderstanding, and plain unwillingness of pretty much all commenters - as I am with other Roma bashers elsewhere, too.

Coming from one of the listed SE European countries I know all too well how Roma are seen and treated. Someone here said they are seen as foreigners. I find that too mild a term. Unwanted, hated, despised, bad, ugly, and dirty foreigners, always only up to no good would be a much better explanation.

Of course, the problem having been brewing (boiling over, really) for centuries now, it is all too easy to refuse to realise that any solution needs to cut very deep. There will not be a quick and simple way to integrate a people who have been systematically discriminated against for centuries. Yet, everyone seems to think it can be done overnight, be it with sending them back to wherever they are perceived to have come from, or by just telling them to "shape up".

How could it be easy to help people who, in my childhood, served as universal scarecrows for little kids: be good or a gypsy will take you away, you're no good and worthy only of a gypsy family, you're as dirty as a gypsy... to name just a few I heard before the age of five.

After such "education" how do we expect that anyone will take this issue seriously?

(Full disclosure: I am NOT myself Roma. I have NOT personally been told those horrible things as a kid. I have however witnessed how Roma were treated in my primary school. By the time I got to high school (let alone university) there were none to be seen any more. Apart from those who emptied the bins on Tuesdays - the only job, apart from sweeping the streets I ever heard one graduating to.)

One more thing, I despise the way Western Media portrays the issue. They Show a wall, or a poor ghetto, garbage and filth, and dirty kids (they always try to hit you over the head with pathos), as if "Look what the racist Eastern Europeans are doing!"

That just sickens me. I read one article (I think on CNN) which covered a wall built in a Slovak village separating the gypsies from the rest for "alleged crimes" as the author put it. I'd like to see if he'd dare call the crimes "alleged" after having to live next door to them. The article showed nice houses in which the whites live and wooden shacks where gypsies live, as if they were suggesting that the whole Slovak society plotted to put the gypsies into shacks and the rest into nice brick houses.

This is yellow(-bellied) reporting and primitive thinking.

@ greatmongo: Why not look at the Roma as a group of individuals rather than a monolithic race? I'm sure you would not like it if some foreigners imagined you were a criminal, or had some other undesirable trait, solely because of what ethnic group you belong to even though you are actually law-abiding and successful. Were the mentioned children who were murdered guilty and deserving of their fate?

@ Seven839: And Germany and Russia were once very tolerant to the Jews. So Jews fled to those countries from more intolerant ones. When the Jewish population concentration got too high for the indigenes' tastes, we witnessed pogroms and a Holocaust. So what if Eastern European countries were more tolerant toward Roma in the past than Western Europeans? Now that the Roma population concentration is high, many in those countries sure don't seem very tolerant today.

----
All this is not to say that crime rates and unemployment rates of Roma should be totally ignored. I definitely can't ignore that every single forum and comment section on a Roma topic I've seen bears some resemblance to this one--in other words defending actions against Roma and pointing out Roma failings, particularly crime. But can't they just be treated on an individual basis rather than a racial one? One reason why the comments here are so heated, I think, is because the posters believe the murders and persecution of Roma reflect badly on themselves (i.e. 'TE says Eastern European countries mistreat Roma and are bad; I'm from the dominant ethnicity of one of these countries, so TE is saying I'm bad.').* If that's correct, and posters' anger is justified, then so should be anger and a sense of injustice toward blanket opinions of the Roma.

*Either that, or some of the posters have mistreated Roma and/or are racist toward them, and are taking umbrage that they're being called on it.

@chirangu

Learn your facts! Romas never had any own country nor own government. They always lived within a larger society, both in India and Europe.

And their situation is mostly result of self-separation and keeping the lifestyle of nomadic traders and unskilled servicemen which is economically dead model for over 50 years. Not any outside discrimination.

Dialoss,

The report does not say anything about Spain (or at least I do not find it). But if you were really doing any research and not just trying to create smoking mirrors you would recognize that the situation of the Gypsy popularion in Spain is comparatively better. No and it does not make me feel good... I know it irritates you to read anything negative about Romania connected with Spain - being one of the 750000 Romanias that are currently living in Spain (and many Romanian Gypsies). But if you want to be a bit less irritated you should start giving some credit to the country that is feeding you. As far as I am concerned, Romania and to a lesser extent Bulgaria should have nor been granted membership in the EU so early, as they are just platforms for corruption, crime and worker and population dumping.

This article is very poorly researched. The Economist writes: "But most Roma leave their homelands in search not of work but of freedom from destitution and persecution."

This is simply not true. Most gypsies that went to France, Italy or UK are amassing large amounts of money and are used to build large properties in their home countries: Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Slovakia, etc. If they left to avoid persecution one would expect that they would not buy properties and build house in Bucharest or Sofia.

The reality is that they feel safer in their home countries, where the law is not always as firm as in Western Europe and especially not always applied.

Leftists are ideologically dead-locked here.

Roma could be helped by targeted integration projects, copying few succesful small-scale projects. Roma image would be improved by targeted police surveillance.

But they are themselves an anathema for leftists, because they would mean admitting that Roma are not like everybody else. So leftists prefer to wave hands, offer useless subsidies and get occasional money or sinecure coming with administration of Roma-wasted money.

I am really puzzled how the author reached to the estimations in the map.
The last census in Romania (2002) recorded 535,140 Roma ethnics from a total population of 21,680,974, i.e. 2.46% of the total. By comparison the largest minority in Romania are the Hungarians (1,431,807 - 6.6%). This makes the figure of around 1.8 mil Roma people really SF.
If the author does not make even basic research (such as publicly available statistics) about the subject I strongly doubt that he is able to offer valuable insights or opinions about it.