06-10-2010, 06:24 AM
Rom/Gypsy, the reality vs. the imageCreation of the Gypsy
Once out of the Indian subcontinent, the Roma lived among populations with different cultures and customs. They managed to preserve the identity, but, in most cases, that meant rejection and violence from the local populations. The latter equated these differences with the concepts of dangerousness, destabilization, they could not integrate the Romani people in their worldview. This consequence came despite the non-violence of the Roma, the peaceful arrival, the absence of any attempt to destabilize the local structures.
As the time passed, the non-Roma created and conveyed among them a different identity for the Roma, coagulated around the names they gave to the latter (in English, Gypsy). Born out of the rejection of the existence of the Romani culture and of the normality of the Romani people, this imaginary identity developed as malevolent caricature of the Roma, a useful support for the anti-Romani violence and attempts of annihilation. It constructed untrue reasons for the social exclusion, while in countries like Romania, it gave justifications for the economic exploitation.
To "prove" that the Roma are dangerous, the Gypsy is presented as prone to violence and perfidiousness. This image is obtained by the selection and the magnification of any negative behavior and the obliteration of the positive ones. Also, the Roma are blamed for any kind of mishaps in the life of the non-Roma, becoming scapegoats. Another recurrent theme defining the Gypsy is the laziness, that the Gypsies use to enjoy other people's work. The same means are used here too to create the image and convey it.
These themes appear also in the negative images that the populations from Europe created about the rest of the world; to wit they are brave and hardworking, while the others are violent and lazy. Such images pass from generation to generation, since the children grow up listening to exaggerations and untruths. Thus they create and believe in non-existent images, away from reality.
In Romanian, the language of the population that had the most extensive relations with the Roma, there appeared also some other type of popular sayings, surfacing their perceptions, like that one about the centuries-old habit of blaming Roma without any reason. The expression a arunca moartea-n à £igani ("throwing the death among Gypsies") is used to describe a situation when somebody blames innocent person(s) for personal mishaps. Another saying, învÃÆà £at ca à £iganul cu ciocanul ("accustomed as the Gypsy to the hammer"), describes a person that works hard and/or is skilled in a specific field, shedding light on the hardworking and skilled Romani craftsmen.
The Gypsy image tends to be focused on exaggerations, in order to construct a long-expected "out of the norm effect", to give easy explanations about a desired abnormality of the differences. In many cases, the exaggerations go in both directions and they coexist although they deny each other. The Gypsies are described as too traditionalistic but also as too cosmopolitan, as too poor but also as too rich, as too ugly but also as too beautiful. Sometimes, both extremes appear in the same discourse, each presented as the true one, without bothering the speaker/writer about the illogicality, since neither the listeners/readers care about it. It is just the creation of imaginary justifications for imposing personal views in the real world.
The unreal nature of the Gypsy made it also an easy support for developing unattainable or unacceptable fantasies. They are wrapped in an exotic appearance, presenting the Gypsy as a stranger free from any norms. The exoticism of the Gypsies is more prevalent in literature, mass-media and show-biz, than in real life's interethnic relations. Apparently, this is less harmful than the "dangerous, perfidious and lazy" Gypsy, since the fantasy's subject tends to develop a sympathetic stance. In fact, it has the same destructive social consequences, because it bars the integration of the Roma as some usual, normal people with similar rights and duties as the other citizens. Moreover, it is counterproductive in interethnic communication, since the belief in such fantasies (and the consequent failure to see the existence of the Romani culture that has its own norms) hinders the creation of a common ground for dialogue.
Living everywhere as minorities, ultimately the life of the Roma is affected by these prejudices gathered under the Gypsy umbrella. They have to face measures for the suppression of the Romani culture and recurrent attempts of physical annihilation, denial of the same economic rights, humiliations. They need to fight much harder than the non-Roma to obtain the same results. This produces lower life-standards, frustrations that develop a vicious circle, making possible for the non-Roma to spot new reasons to continue the injustices.
Gypsy films
The new means of communication offer new means for the expression and the development of the Gypsy complex. They may offer also the possibility of insights into the mechanism that creates the Gypsy and gives him a life of its own, away from reality. Among them, the Gypsy films, with their visual impact, are some of the most successful modern creations. Some of the best known names are: Time of the Gypsies (1988) and Black Cat, White Cat (1998), both directed by Emir Kusturica, Gadjo Dilo (1997, director: Tony Gatlif), Gypsy Magic (1997, director: Stole Popov). They use to delight the non-Romani viewers, being described as a picturesque image of what Gypsies are, movies that open a window, permit to see the world through Gypsies' eyes, true insights into their culture, films where Gypsies look and act like Gypsies.
Amid such praise for revealing "another world", a lucid observation cannot overlook that they enjoy success only among non-Roma, they are made to be interesting only for the non-Romani point of view. For the Romani public, besides the usual racist and derogatory message of such films, they do not offer anything interesting from the point of view of the Romani culture. At most, they mimic some of its externally visible features, but with a non-Romani interpretation. For example, the main plot in Black Cat, White Cat, dealing with an arranged marriage. It has nothing to do with the usual developments of this issue, that would have been interesting for a Romani viewer, but there is employed an abstract idea of an arranged marriage, brought into operation by a classical non-Romani plot. Moreover, the actors of true Romani ethnicity from the same movie obviously belong to more than one caste, fact visible in their behavior and acting. This is an important issue in the Romani socialization, but totally unexplored in the film.
Going further into analyzing the Romani discontent with these films, another salient feature is that most of the leading actors are non-Roma (eventually with some make-up, to look like the imaginary Gypsies), which, together with the rest of the mostly supporting actors of Romani ethnicity, all play Gypsy roles. This fact is unknown or overlooked by the non-Romani viewers, but from a Romani point of view there is an obvious cleavage between the acting of the two categories. The non-Romani actors are revealed as obviously non-Roma along the movie, they do not "hit" specific aspects of the Romani culture, but they are very comfortable playing Gypsy features. The Romani actors are just Roma who struggle to play Gypsy characters following the stage indications. This difference emerge among the non-Romani public only by stirring much more interest in the characters of the non-Romani actors, they are perceived as much more vivid and memorable. In fact, they are those considered and presented as true Gypsies.
Male characters like Ahmet (in Time of the Gypsies, played by Bora TodoroviÃâ¡), Taip (in Gypsy Magic, played by Miki ManojloviÃâ¡) or Dadan (in Black Cat, White Cat, played by Srdjan TodoroviÃâ¡) are revered among non-Roma as exemplary incarnations of the Gypsy lifestyle. They have in common an unethical life, beyond any social responsibilities, exploring and creating expressive details (for the non-Romani public) of the "dangerous, perfidious and lazy Gypsy". Their part has also a "moralizing" feature, as in the end they receive the punishment, many times by death. Perhan (from Time of the Gypsies, played by Davor DujmoviÃâ¡) is a variation of this pattern, he embarks on a journey from the "exotic" Gypsy to the "antisocial" Gypsy, a journey ending also in self-destruction.
The non-Romani Gypsy female characters, like Sabina (in Gadjo Dilo, played by Rona Hartner), Ida (in Black Cat, White Cat, played by Branka KatiÃâ¡) are much more salient in their non-Romani behavior. They do not need to construct and elaborate their part, since, from the beginning to the end of the film, they are just a loud statement of the imaginary Gypsy woman, an exotic object of man's desires, in an imaginary space without social norms and responsibilities. The directors and also the non-Romani viewers do not bother to explain the sharp difference between them and the female actors of Romani ethnicity, playing too non-Romani Gypsy roles, but with different approaches, never crossing some limits. In Sabina's case it appears the classical stereotype conveyed among White people, that only they know how to treat well the women. The film's plot develops this wishful thinking, showing how bad she live among Roma, without giving any explanation about her non-fitted in character, coming out of nowhere into that Romani group, about how the other women are different and have nothing to complain. Obviously, in the end, she is saved by a nice White guy. In reality, all is a lie, nothing happened between Roma and non-Roma, she has nothing in common with the Romani people, they are present only as supporting cast for the non-Romani woman projected amid Roma by the imagination of the non-Romani men.
Somehow, besides the fact that they do not present the reality of the field they say they describe, such movies show the contemporary prevalent non-Romani point of view of the relations between them and the Roma. They are an accurate description of the manner most of the non-Roma do not care about who really are the Roma and what are their opinions. They clarify the mechanism of planting among Roma unreal characters requested by the non-Romani imagination, characters that monopolize the leading parts of public image, live an imaginary life, afterwards being presented as the true Gypsies. Well, they may be true Gypsies, but they should not be confused with the Roma. These true Gypsies are a part of the folklore and imagination of the non-Roma and, as expressed by the sheer pleasure and sense of fulfillment of the non-Romani actors playing in a space without any social responsibilities, only a non-Rom can be a genuine, accomplished Gypsy. They know the best to live as Gypsies, but only in an imaginary space offered by these films, enjoyed and revered by non-Roma as religious enactments of creation myths.
The Gypsies belong to the non-Romani culture (especially among the populations of Europe or originating from there) and are a matter of belief: if someone belives in them, they exist, if not, they do not exist. To make justice to the real world and to be accurate, the faithful themselves should be named Gypsists or simply Gypsies.
For a Romani public, the plots of such movies look like a statement of the usual anti-Romani policy. Besides the control of the public image by planting non-Romani leading characters, it is striking also the violence and destruction the characters played by Romani actors suffer from the leading "Gypsies". Seeing how Taip from Gypsy Magic beats his wife and destroys the life of his children (Romani actors), one cannot stop to revive memories of the cyclic non-Romani violence and the question about why many non-Roma harbor such destructive thoughts about us.
Gypsification of the Roma
The Gypsy films remind how the Gypsy character conveyed among non-Roma is a product of imagination, an abnormal "other", created by maliciously caricaturizing the Romani people, played by non-Roma and taking the place of the real Roma from the public space. The state of the contemporary music from the Balkans, detailed below, exemplifies another mechanism of creating the Gypsy, namely by hindering and discriminating against the expressions of the Romani culture and their influence in the local societies. The actual cultural expressions of the Romani people circulating or being visible in the broad society do belong to the Romani culture, but, in most cases, they arrive to the others distorted by a Gypsy filter. Also, there is a mixed area where the cultural expressions are influenced from the very beginning when they are addressed to a mostly non-Romani public or when the Roma who create them internalized the 'Gypsiness". The minority status, the cultural differences about the self-expression are the main causes that permit the diversion in the broad society from Romani to Gypsy.
As the area inhabited by Roma includes territories of different local populations, this form of rejection of the Romani culture, by distorting the meanings of its expression, is moulded by the different local lifestyles and approaches, producing local variations. While the Gypsy character created and played by the non-Roma has a ubiquity and an out of time shape corresponding to its imaginary status, the Gypsification of the Romani cultural expressions is conditioned by the weight of the Romani local presence and the changes in the non-Romani worldviews.
Thus, the two areas most inhabited by the Romani people are also the most salient for this issue: Iberian Peninsula (mainly Andalusia) and Southeastern Europe. The local approaches in these two cases are directly influenced by the local notions of identity and their evolution. In this respect, the most important feature is that they happen to be two of the three areas in Europe that had extensive contacts with non-European and non-Christian populations (third being Russia), areas that had to define accordingly their identity in respect with the perceived pure French-German-English core of the European culture. This situation was created by the centuries-long Muslim occupation, the strong non-originally European influences in the local cultures (Arabic, Jewish, Romani in Iberian Peninsula, Romani and Turkish in Southeastern Europe, Tatar in Russia)(1) and the exclusivist approach of the European culture.
After becoming independent, all three areas renegotiated their European identity, producing three different results. The Iberians began earlier their renegotiation, which consequently had all the marks of the European pre-modern notion of identity, i.e. being considered tantamount to the personal religion. They sought a "purification", materialized in the expulsion of the Muslims and Jews after the conclusion of the Reconquista, the persecution of the New Christians (Muslims and Jews converted, mostly by force, to Christianity), the firm allegiance to the Catholicism during the Protestant Reform in the western Christendom. The Romani people, who did not display what would be considered as a religion from the Abrahamic point of view, assimilated elements of Catholicism and made a formal allegiance to it, were not considered for this purgatory. They suffered only the same levels of violence as in the rest of Western Europe.
Thus, the Iberian renegotiation was not concerned about cultural items that did not have religious meanings. Originally non-European elements, then parts of the local ethos, were included in the culture of Europe, they were not rejected as foreign. The real value of the Romani cultural features (for example, Flamenco) was appreciated and they had the possibility to be cultivated. It did not occur the Gypsification like in the rest of the world. However, the acknowledgement was restricted only to the cultural elements, the Romani people were, until very recently, under strong pressure to assimilate (2).
The other two renegotiations, Russian and Balkanic, occurred in the modern age and thus they were focused on the modern concept of identity. This one included too the religion as an identity mark, but it was mostly focused on determining which cultural feature belongs to the personal identity and which not (selection made according to the opinion of the nationalist ideology) (3). The moment coincided in time with the worldwide changes resulted from the modernization and the establishing of the highest status for the White populations living in Europe or originally from there. Consequently, the renegotiation of the European status was shaped by a strong modernization, perceived as a "Westernization", and a self-identification as White Europeans (in order to benefit from the status of those from Western Europe).
From the 19th century onwards, the Balkanites (mostly the elite and the ruling class) sought to recreate a pure European society, by separating what was originally European from what was not (mainly Romani and Turkish features of the local broad society), by encouraging and supporting the former and by hindering the latter. After gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire, the Balkan states' elite assigned highest status to the originally European features and lowest status to the Romani and Turkish features, which, all three, after centuries of living together, were all part of the Balkan society. This elite was mostly educated in the Western Europe (in those times, at its peak of power and prestige), they identified with it and considered that the differences between it and their homeland appeared because the latter was "corrupted" and "debilitated" by originally non-European elements. Their plan was to become the same as the Western Europe, to copy its society.
The rest of the Balkan population that under the new worldview was branded as European followed more or less this policy. As a result, after some generations, it became ingrained in the local outlook that everything coming from the West has an intrinsic value, while everything with local origin, if it does not come from an originally European source (and many didn't, they acquired at least some non-European details), is imperfect, it is the cause of all the problems in the Balkans. Obviously, it was a mistake to blame something only because of a biased association and it did not last long until the real problems appeared, because of the rejection of a part of the social fabric. Nowadays, the Balkans are one of the most striking results of the modern notion of associating the identity only with the external visible features. Trying to reconstruct a pure identity in this manner, the part of the Balkanites labeled as Europeans became a population denying their own self, in a continuous search of something that always remains as an ideal. Thus, the contemporary Balkans are one of the few places on Earth where the local population speak contemptuously about themselves, among themselves or together with non-Balkanites, associating the names Balkans, Balkanism, Balkanite, Balkanic with backwardness, abnormality, unforeseableness, dangerousness and other prejudices. For about two centuries their reference was not their own self, but the Western Europe. Even now, for a person living in Romania, it can't pass a day without hearing adaptarea la valorile europene ("the adaptation to the European values"), considered as the best thing a Balkanite can do in a lifespan. In the center of the towns there are guide posts with the number of kilometers to the localities representative for the Western Europe, showing the direction of their identity, never inquiring themselves if the Westerners do have such counterpart guide posts. They equalized, because of too much amazement, the Western Europe with the idea of Europe, forgetting that they are too a part of Europe, never thinking about claiming their self as a true European one.
The same as in other cases of misunderstanding the real identity, the belief in the initial theory caused real problems, afterwards presented as justifying the theory and strengthening its prejudices, thus creating a vicious circle. The misleading pursuit of a pure identity by selecting some of the external visible features determined at the political level an atomization, hard to realize in a multiethnic area without violence and destruction. At the social and personal level, it determined self-disdain, self-distrust, associated with an exacerbation of the Ego. The earlier Iberian renegotiation of the Europeanness, involving only the religious issue (not itself more correct than the nationalist one, but less self-censoring) made possible a real integration of the Iberians among Europeans. They remained Iberians, they were respected as Iberians by the other Europeans, they enriched the European culture and society, they did not need to copy the external features of the European core, to become others. According to the theory of the Europeanness of the renegotiationââ¬â¢s moment, the so-called European Balkanites tried to become others, they failed, thus neither they are respected by the other Europeans as Balkanites nor could they make their culture accepted and enriching the broad European culture. An important role had also the fact that, in the 15th-16th centuries, there was not a similar difference of power and prestige between the European core and the former Muslim rulers like that from the 19th century, difference that caused the Balkanic elite's unconditional amazement about the Western Europe.
The situation is unchanged until today, largely unresolved, unacknowledged and unstudied. It affected also the local Romani and Turkish populations, which suddenly, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Balkanic states, became the local scapegoats. The lot of the Turks was easier, their homeland was closer, and they had a spiritual support coming from the modernization of the Turkey's society, refuting the theory that they are one of the causes of the Balkans' problems.
On the other hand, the Roma were alone in this confrontation with the majority's theories, becoming much more affected by them. In the times of the Ottoman Empire, state conceived as a multiethnic one, they were the usual quiet Desi minority, without specific social problems (probably except the atypical, from the Abrahamic point of view, religious expression). In the neighboring area of the contemporary Romania, traditionally included too in the Balkans, serious problems were already present, as a result of the slavery system. The situation becomes equalized in all the modern Balkanic states, because of the mechanism of Balkanization described above. In the 20th-21st centuries, in all these states Roma are a sizeable part of the society, comprising between 5-12% of the local population. The ruling class and the part of the society branded as European considered the local Roma guilty of impurifying their Europeannes, of side-tracking them. Their centuries-long influence in the local society, precisely because it is non-European, is labeled as backward and destructive, without any serious proofs. It is supported and justified only with the concocted and imaginary features of the non-Romani character of Gypsy, which has nothing in common with the Romani population and its culture.
For about two centuries, the Romani contribution to the local society is demonized by non-Roma through Gypsification, fact intertwined with the lack of Romani participation in the nationalistic organization of the modern world. Thus, under the motto "we are not the same as the Westerners because the Gypsies held us back", the non-Romani majority of the society could unfold undisturbed the caricaturization of any Romani expression, inviting to derision and further caricaturization (4). The walls of the modern social prison that isolates the Roma worldwide are much more intricate and extended deep inside the broad society in a geographic area like the Balkans, where the local Roma, besides being officially Gypsies, are also charged with the historical "guilt" of contributing to the local society.
The contemporary Balkanic music
The purification of the Balkans produced also adverse reactions among "European" Balkanites, some of them involving the local Roma. Their common denominator is a disputant stance, lack of trust in anything non-local, all of them hazy, unorganized and not aspiring to change anything in the local society.
The contemporary Balkanic music is probably the most striking example of this kind and an important issue in the contemporary local relations between Roma and non-Roma. Initially, it suffered the purification process described above, through an official endorsement only of the initial or old European elements, repudiation of the other elements (mainly Romani and Turkish) and massive copying from the Western Europe. Then, it happened an interesting phenomenon, not predicted by the ideologists of Europeanization, namely that large parts of the so-called "European" Balkanites sought again to listed and enjoy the non-"European" repudiated elements. This was one of the expressions of a split that developed, as the time passed, between the elite, totally identifying with the Western Europe, and the usual people, which could not understand, follow and identify entirely with that Europeanization project. The elite uses to blame the man-in-the-street for the structural problems resulted from their insufficient assimilation, presenting them as the Balkanic backwards that do not want to become good Europeans. Unfortunately, this remained a very usual theme until nowadays, these discussions about "our backwards" among the elite or between the elite and the Westerners. The usual "European" folk could not come out with a reply to these accusations, they did not find cultural means to confront them (since all of them were monopolized by the elite), they could not find any support to give them legitimacy. They only internalized this derogatory opinion and adopted a hazy disputant stance, not aspiring to change anything.
Thus, their renewed interest in the other parts of the original Balkanic music did not evolve towards a recovery of the pre-purification music. It rather followed the internalized split between what is European and what is not. There appeared musical genres with mostly non-"European" elements, like Chalga in Bulgaria, Manele in Romania, Tallava in Albania, as a counter-balance to the local purified "European" music. Their beginnings were during the decades of the Communist regimes, as an underground music. Obviously, besides the immediate attacks from the elite, their manifestation was hindered also by the totalitarian and undemocratic nature of those regimes. After the Communism fell by the end of the 1980s - beginning of 1990s, this kind of music had the possibility to come to surface, remaining only the confrontation with the local elite (and with the state administrations, usually in the hands of that elite). Soon, its status changed from the music of the insular parts of the society to the most popular genre in the Balkans. It tends to be dominated by Romani musicians (except in former Yugoslavia), thus being labeled as Gypsy music. In its form for non-Romani public, it is strongly commercial, oriented to public success. The new political freedom permitted the assimilation of worldwide influences, mixing the older music with modern styles and ethnic music from across the world. The songs that prove to be successful in a country are freely borrowed in the others, with new lyrics in local languages. This is possible because usually the authorities are against this music, they would be the last to enforce the copyrights.
The conflict with the state authorities, now in the hands of the elite, but lacking the repressive means of the Communist totalitarian regime, was confined in the limits of the modern democracy. Informally, it made possible a certain denial of the rights of the groups not organized to defend them. Although forbidden by the local constitutions, the authorities enforced discriminatory laws for prohibiting the new music. For example, the ban on Manele, enforced in 1990s in Romania, before 10PM on TV and radio. Again, in Romania, in the summer of 2004, it was debated in the Parliament a law aiming at levying special taxes from profits resulted from performing Manele (it did not pass). The money would have been supposed to be used for promoting the "European" music (typical behavior of the Balkanic elite). Finally, such measures, combined with the derogatory and contemptuous attacks of the elite in mass-media and other social levers, only enforced the appeal of this music among large masses and strengthened the feeling that the vitality is not on the elite's side. Then, the post-Communist booming of the private media relaxed these measures, since it proved to be a lucrative business and the employers lobbied on its behalf. This, in turn, produced a separation between so-called clean and unclean media, the clean media obviously being those with express ban on the new music.
These bans seem to consider all the modern non-"European" music as an undivided block, but, in reality, there are some different layers. An important part of this music is only successful for the non-Romani public (which, because of the numerical prevalence, is the engine of the commercial success), while another part is enjoyed by both Roma and non-Roma (whether they understand the same thing or they ascribe different messages to the song). There is also a local modern Romani music aiming only at the Romani public. Many successful Romani singers and players master all those three layers. The music for the Romani public is the development of older styles. The base of the other two layers is also Romani, adjusted, when the non-Romani public is prevalent, by touching specific non-Romani Balkanic feelings, by adding Turkish elements (to meet their expectations of what means non-European) and disputant lyrics rejecting the model of life imagined by the local elite and expressing the vitality of the common folk. Many times, these lyrics mirror also the Ego exacerbation of the "European" folk resulted from the lack of ideas in countering their branding as backwards by the elite.
This kind of music (the layers for the non-"European" public) wouldn't be the only one in the contemporary world (just to remember the Rock, the Rap, among those better known), but the current social and political situation demonized it, transforming its public image into a scarecrow. It became a major issue in the local relations between Roma and non-Roma, creating an image of the Roma as corrupting the "pure Europeans", while they are only scapegoats for the structural problems caused by the application of the local elite's ideology. Moreover, the Romani musicians successful in adapting to the non-Romani public are a handful of people from the millions of local Roma, not necessarily representing the entire Romani population; they are just the most visible among non-Roma. Many of them are talented and they would certainly deserve more appreciation, respect and possibilities to cultivate their style. The bans, the adverse stand of the authorities and of the European elite minimize a necessary competition and decrease the possibilities of quality expressions, in order to churn out the talented. Since the talent does not pay, then the only outlet remains the public success, hence the very commercial nature of this music.
It should not be forgotten that behind the big business of the new folk music enjoyed by the "Europeans", it continues the evolution of the initial layer, the modern Romani music for the Romani public. This seems to be the only public prepared for a non-commercial music of this kind, many Romani musicians equalizing the music appealing to them to quality music. However, its importance is currently diminished, again because of the Roma's exclusion from the public sphere. The non-Romani singers who became active in this music genre do not even have this public to appreciate the quality. They can be only commercial (for example, the success of the beautiful non-Romani female singers in Bulgaria and Serbia). Moreover, in a twist of the struggle for the public use of the ethnic name Rom, instead of Gypsy, the non-Romani elite constructed a separation between the Romani music that sounds European and that sounding non-European. They tend to promote the former as the true Romani music, while the latter is put together with the other layers of the new folk music and branded as Gypsy and decadent (and has to confront the discriminations described above). In the so-called "true Romani music" there are included non-European elements only if they do not have contemporary appeal, if they are not considered as threatening. Thus, most of the contemporary Romani music in the Balkans is affected by the Gypsification process, process that alters its meaning in the public sphere by enforcing the local majority's opinion about the Roma. It determines an involvement in the local social and political issues, not as Roma, but as Gypsies, with all the negative consequences resulting from this status.
Greece, because is the single local state that did not become Communist and because of the deep wounds caused by the prolonged conflict with Turkey, has a longer history of a resurgent non-"European" music. Also, it has an established presence of "European" (i.e. ethnic Greek) musicians in this genre. The beginnings were after the defeat in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), which resulted in an influx of Greek refugees from Anatolia. They brought with them a different lifestyle (that soon gave them the label of "Turks") and Turkish influenced music like Rembétika, Sikyaladika or dances like Tsifteteli. Their rejection by the elite and the state authorities only added to their popularity among the common folk, which soon perceived them as the rebellious music of those not adapted to the new political and cultural projects. Especially, Rembétika was succesful and influential. In the 1950s and 1960s it appeared another "impure" genre, Laïkó, equally dismayed and branded as decadent by the elite, particularly in its IndoÃÂftika form, consisting in Bollywood filmi songs with Greek lyrics. Then, from the early 1990s onwards, it developed the Laïka music, meaning "popular", "folkish" in Greek (not to be confused with Laïkó), a much more commercial genre, with roots in the older Rembétika and Laïkó. It is part of the wave of very popular non-"European" music that became prevalent in the Balkans after the fall of the Communism in the other states. Similarly to the other local genres, Laïka is strongly oriented to public success, mixes the older music with modern styles, participates in the borrowing of songs across the Balkanic borders.
Another particular case is that of the former Yugoslavia, paralleling its particular political path. There too, in the early 1990s, after the changes occurred in the Balkans, it developed a local popular music, named Turbo-Folk. However, in the new Yugoslavia (consisting only of Serbia and Montenegro), resulted from the dissolution of the former state, the political power did not devolve upon the elite, like in the rest of the Balkans, but to the regime of Slobodan Miloà ¡eviÃâ¡. His regime capitalized and relied mostly on the general discontent of the Balkanic folk. Soon, it remained a prisoner of this Balkanic problem, sharing its lack of ideas and legitimacy and channeling the energies only towards a rebellious, reactionary attitude, then materialized in the Serbian nationalism. It supported the Turbo-Folk music, giving it freedom, social status and stronger possibilities of expression. Consequently, this genre evolved into a formula much closer to the original Balkanic pool, not following the schizophrenic separation between European and non-European, like in the other Balkanic states. It is also dominated by "European" musicians, thus it is very commercial. The "European" elite do not contribute to its cultivation and therefore, the musicians themselves do not have a specific public prepared for non-commercial music (as the Romani musicians have an important part of the Romani public). This music identified also with the military conflicts from former Yugoslavia, but in a sad and strange Balkanic manner. The people and the soldiers from all the combatant sides listened to the same songs, since they expressed the same feelings across the trenches of those fratricide wars.
Nearby, Turkey, one of the parties blamed for the impurification of the Balkans, has its own resurgent music style. It resulted from the radical reforms of the 1920s-1930s, perceived as an undesired Europeanization by a part of the society. In the 1960s it appeared the Arabesque music, inspired by Arabic Middle Eastern music and parts of the Turkish folk music, presented in a modern formula (cultural elements conjuring up what was suppressed by the reforms). It expressed the feelings of the non-elite classes, not very adapted to the new lifestyle, with the same reactionary stand without relieving ideas as in the Balkans. Its correspondent in Greece, with the same prevalence of Middle Eastern influence, is Sikyaladika. The Arabesque music did not gain the same prevalence and strength as the other resurgent genres from the Balkans, because of the differences in the results of modernization, i.e. the Turks were not accepted as Europeans by the European core.
In Israel it developed also a problem of this kind as a result of the Ashkenazi Jews (those closer to the European culture) and the Mizrahi Jews (those closer to other cultures) living together on the same land. The project of Israel being mostly an Ashkenazi one, this group concentrated most of the political power and created the elite of the new state. The cultural outlook of the Mizrahim was not included from the very beginning in this organization, thus they did not adapt with the same speed to this state's structures. Soon, they were branded as backwards, uneducated, violent, lagging behind the Israel. Their cultural expression, including the music, were labeled in the same manner by the Ashkenazim and dismissed as unworthy by the elite. Like in the other examples described above, the Mizrahim could not construct anything to confront the prejudices and to give them legitimacy, ending in a hazy disputant stand, which only enforced the prejudices. The Mizrahi music followed the same path, being considered as an anti-elite music. The mass-media participated in this construction of the abnormality, by selecting only striking, negative issues, like the presentation of the life and death of one of the most outstanding Mizrahi singers, Zohar Argov.
Usually, the contemporary status of the music from the Southeastern Europe is not questioned, is considered as something inherent. It is not remarked the overwhelming influence of the local identity issues that determine a derailment of the Romani cultural expressions, by the process of Gypsification. The same people who reject and distort the local Romani culture see no problem in enjoying the Romani Flamenco music, only because it comes from their model society, the Western Europe. One may wonder that, if the moments and conditions of the Europeanness renegotiation would have been reversed in the Iberian and Balkanic cases, then the statuses of the local Romani music would have been reversed too. That the Balkanic Romani music would have had the chance of a cultivation, reaching a quality similar to the contemporary Flamenco, acknowledged worldwide, while the latter would have became the base for music layers appealing to the Iberian "European" folk not accustomed to the elite's cultural purification.
As a comparison, the third European area that experienced a process of this kind, Russia, had another approach in these cultural issues, corresponding to the results of its renegotiation. The Russian authorities began it under the tsar Peter I (1672-1725), who moved the capital from Moscow to the newly built Sankt Petersburg (symbolizing a new beginning, but also being much closer to the Western Europe), imposed (many times forcibly) the Western dress, promoted the French as the language of the cultivated people, aligned the Russian calendar to the Western one and so on. However, the direction changed at the beginning of the 20th century, with the emergence of a new elite that sought an independent way (symbolically, moving back the capital to Moscow), inaugurating a series of political experiments, continuing until nowadays. This is probably because they enjoyed some centuries of independent life just as Russians (after defeating the Muslims) until undergoing the Westernization. Also, during this process and afterwards, they did not seek too much acknowledgement from the Westerners, since they continued to live in a strong independent political entity. They did not jump like the Balkanites from a non-"European" rule directly into political entities included in the Western framework. The identification as Europeans developed like an independent endeavor, which determined the appearance of some different results, because of the narrowness of identifying the European culture only with that from the Western area (5).
In this context, after the change from the beginning of the 20th century, they rather emphasized what is specific to Russia. A musical instrument like the balalaika, with originally non-European origin (Mongol-Central Asian), was promoted as a Soviet (i.e. Russian) instrument and its cultivation was heavily supported by the elite. If there would have been the conditions for an Iberian path, probably it would just have been accepted as such. If there would have been the conditions for a Balkanic path, probably the balalaika would have been rejected as "backward" by the elite and, since it happens to be one of the preferred instruments of the local Roma, it might have been played an important role in a local resurgent anti-elite music.
Once out of the Indian subcontinent, the Roma lived among populations with different cultures and customs. They managed to preserve the identity, but, in most cases, that meant rejection and violence from the local populations. The latter equated these differences with the concepts of dangerousness, destabilization, they could not integrate the Romani people in their worldview. This consequence came despite the non-violence of the Roma, the peaceful arrival, the absence of any attempt to destabilize the local structures.
As the time passed, the non-Roma created and conveyed among them a different identity for the Roma, coagulated around the names they gave to the latter (in English, Gypsy). Born out of the rejection of the existence of the Romani culture and of the normality of the Romani people, this imaginary identity developed as malevolent caricature of the Roma, a useful support for the anti-Romani violence and attempts of annihilation. It constructed untrue reasons for the social exclusion, while in countries like Romania, it gave justifications for the economic exploitation.
To "prove" that the Roma are dangerous, the Gypsy is presented as prone to violence and perfidiousness. This image is obtained by the selection and the magnification of any negative behavior and the obliteration of the positive ones. Also, the Roma are blamed for any kind of mishaps in the life of the non-Roma, becoming scapegoats. Another recurrent theme defining the Gypsy is the laziness, that the Gypsies use to enjoy other people's work. The same means are used here too to create the image and convey it.
These themes appear also in the negative images that the populations from Europe created about the rest of the world; to wit they are brave and hardworking, while the others are violent and lazy. Such images pass from generation to generation, since the children grow up listening to exaggerations and untruths. Thus they create and believe in non-existent images, away from reality.
In Romanian, the language of the population that had the most extensive relations with the Roma, there appeared also some other type of popular sayings, surfacing their perceptions, like that one about the centuries-old habit of blaming Roma without any reason. The expression a arunca moartea-n à £igani ("throwing the death among Gypsies") is used to describe a situation when somebody blames innocent person(s) for personal mishaps. Another saying, învÃÆà £at ca à £iganul cu ciocanul ("accustomed as the Gypsy to the hammer"), describes a person that works hard and/or is skilled in a specific field, shedding light on the hardworking and skilled Romani craftsmen.
The Gypsy image tends to be focused on exaggerations, in order to construct a long-expected "out of the norm effect", to give easy explanations about a desired abnormality of the differences. In many cases, the exaggerations go in both directions and they coexist although they deny each other. The Gypsies are described as too traditionalistic but also as too cosmopolitan, as too poor but also as too rich, as too ugly but also as too beautiful. Sometimes, both extremes appear in the same discourse, each presented as the true one, without bothering the speaker/writer about the illogicality, since neither the listeners/readers care about it. It is just the creation of imaginary justifications for imposing personal views in the real world.
The unreal nature of the Gypsy made it also an easy support for developing unattainable or unacceptable fantasies. They are wrapped in an exotic appearance, presenting the Gypsy as a stranger free from any norms. The exoticism of the Gypsies is more prevalent in literature, mass-media and show-biz, than in real life's interethnic relations. Apparently, this is less harmful than the "dangerous, perfidious and lazy" Gypsy, since the fantasy's subject tends to develop a sympathetic stance. In fact, it has the same destructive social consequences, because it bars the integration of the Roma as some usual, normal people with similar rights and duties as the other citizens. Moreover, it is counterproductive in interethnic communication, since the belief in such fantasies (and the consequent failure to see the existence of the Romani culture that has its own norms) hinders the creation of a common ground for dialogue.
Living everywhere as minorities, ultimately the life of the Roma is affected by these prejudices gathered under the Gypsy umbrella. They have to face measures for the suppression of the Romani culture and recurrent attempts of physical annihilation, denial of the same economic rights, humiliations. They need to fight much harder than the non-Roma to obtain the same results. This produces lower life-standards, frustrations that develop a vicious circle, making possible for the non-Roma to spot new reasons to continue the injustices.
Gypsy films
The new means of communication offer new means for the expression and the development of the Gypsy complex. They may offer also the possibility of insights into the mechanism that creates the Gypsy and gives him a life of its own, away from reality. Among them, the Gypsy films, with their visual impact, are some of the most successful modern creations. Some of the best known names are: Time of the Gypsies (1988) and Black Cat, White Cat (1998), both directed by Emir Kusturica, Gadjo Dilo (1997, director: Tony Gatlif), Gypsy Magic (1997, director: Stole Popov). They use to delight the non-Romani viewers, being described as a picturesque image of what Gypsies are, movies that open a window, permit to see the world through Gypsies' eyes, true insights into their culture, films where Gypsies look and act like Gypsies.
Amid such praise for revealing "another world", a lucid observation cannot overlook that they enjoy success only among non-Roma, they are made to be interesting only for the non-Romani point of view. For the Romani public, besides the usual racist and derogatory message of such films, they do not offer anything interesting from the point of view of the Romani culture. At most, they mimic some of its externally visible features, but with a non-Romani interpretation. For example, the main plot in Black Cat, White Cat, dealing with an arranged marriage. It has nothing to do with the usual developments of this issue, that would have been interesting for a Romani viewer, but there is employed an abstract idea of an arranged marriage, brought into operation by a classical non-Romani plot. Moreover, the actors of true Romani ethnicity from the same movie obviously belong to more than one caste, fact visible in their behavior and acting. This is an important issue in the Romani socialization, but totally unexplored in the film.
Going further into analyzing the Romani discontent with these films, another salient feature is that most of the leading actors are non-Roma (eventually with some make-up, to look like the imaginary Gypsies), which, together with the rest of the mostly supporting actors of Romani ethnicity, all play Gypsy roles. This fact is unknown or overlooked by the non-Romani viewers, but from a Romani point of view there is an obvious cleavage between the acting of the two categories. The non-Romani actors are revealed as obviously non-Roma along the movie, they do not "hit" specific aspects of the Romani culture, but they are very comfortable playing Gypsy features. The Romani actors are just Roma who struggle to play Gypsy characters following the stage indications. This difference emerge among the non-Romani public only by stirring much more interest in the characters of the non-Romani actors, they are perceived as much more vivid and memorable. In fact, they are those considered and presented as true Gypsies.
Male characters like Ahmet (in Time of the Gypsies, played by Bora TodoroviÃâ¡), Taip (in Gypsy Magic, played by Miki ManojloviÃâ¡) or Dadan (in Black Cat, White Cat, played by Srdjan TodoroviÃâ¡) are revered among non-Roma as exemplary incarnations of the Gypsy lifestyle. They have in common an unethical life, beyond any social responsibilities, exploring and creating expressive details (for the non-Romani public) of the "dangerous, perfidious and lazy Gypsy". Their part has also a "moralizing" feature, as in the end they receive the punishment, many times by death. Perhan (from Time of the Gypsies, played by Davor DujmoviÃâ¡) is a variation of this pattern, he embarks on a journey from the "exotic" Gypsy to the "antisocial" Gypsy, a journey ending also in self-destruction.
The non-Romani Gypsy female characters, like Sabina (in Gadjo Dilo, played by Rona Hartner), Ida (in Black Cat, White Cat, played by Branka KatiÃâ¡) are much more salient in their non-Romani behavior. They do not need to construct and elaborate their part, since, from the beginning to the end of the film, they are just a loud statement of the imaginary Gypsy woman, an exotic object of man's desires, in an imaginary space without social norms and responsibilities. The directors and also the non-Romani viewers do not bother to explain the sharp difference between them and the female actors of Romani ethnicity, playing too non-Romani Gypsy roles, but with different approaches, never crossing some limits. In Sabina's case it appears the classical stereotype conveyed among White people, that only they know how to treat well the women. The film's plot develops this wishful thinking, showing how bad she live among Roma, without giving any explanation about her non-fitted in character, coming out of nowhere into that Romani group, about how the other women are different and have nothing to complain. Obviously, in the end, she is saved by a nice White guy. In reality, all is a lie, nothing happened between Roma and non-Roma, she has nothing in common with the Romani people, they are present only as supporting cast for the non-Romani woman projected amid Roma by the imagination of the non-Romani men.
Somehow, besides the fact that they do not present the reality of the field they say they describe, such movies show the contemporary prevalent non-Romani point of view of the relations between them and the Roma. They are an accurate description of the manner most of the non-Roma do not care about who really are the Roma and what are their opinions. They clarify the mechanism of planting among Roma unreal characters requested by the non-Romani imagination, characters that monopolize the leading parts of public image, live an imaginary life, afterwards being presented as the true Gypsies. Well, they may be true Gypsies, but they should not be confused with the Roma. These true Gypsies are a part of the folklore and imagination of the non-Roma and, as expressed by the sheer pleasure and sense of fulfillment of the non-Romani actors playing in a space without any social responsibilities, only a non-Rom can be a genuine, accomplished Gypsy. They know the best to live as Gypsies, but only in an imaginary space offered by these films, enjoyed and revered by non-Roma as religious enactments of creation myths.
The Gypsies belong to the non-Romani culture (especially among the populations of Europe or originating from there) and are a matter of belief: if someone belives in them, they exist, if not, they do not exist. To make justice to the real world and to be accurate, the faithful themselves should be named Gypsists or simply Gypsies.
For a Romani public, the plots of such movies look like a statement of the usual anti-Romani policy. Besides the control of the public image by planting non-Romani leading characters, it is striking also the violence and destruction the characters played by Romani actors suffer from the leading "Gypsies". Seeing how Taip from Gypsy Magic beats his wife and destroys the life of his children (Romani actors), one cannot stop to revive memories of the cyclic non-Romani violence and the question about why many non-Roma harbor such destructive thoughts about us.
Gypsification of the Roma
The Gypsy films remind how the Gypsy character conveyed among non-Roma is a product of imagination, an abnormal "other", created by maliciously caricaturizing the Romani people, played by non-Roma and taking the place of the real Roma from the public space. The state of the contemporary music from the Balkans, detailed below, exemplifies another mechanism of creating the Gypsy, namely by hindering and discriminating against the expressions of the Romani culture and their influence in the local societies. The actual cultural expressions of the Romani people circulating or being visible in the broad society do belong to the Romani culture, but, in most cases, they arrive to the others distorted by a Gypsy filter. Also, there is a mixed area where the cultural expressions are influenced from the very beginning when they are addressed to a mostly non-Romani public or when the Roma who create them internalized the 'Gypsiness". The minority status, the cultural differences about the self-expression are the main causes that permit the diversion in the broad society from Romani to Gypsy.
As the area inhabited by Roma includes territories of different local populations, this form of rejection of the Romani culture, by distorting the meanings of its expression, is moulded by the different local lifestyles and approaches, producing local variations. While the Gypsy character created and played by the non-Roma has a ubiquity and an out of time shape corresponding to its imaginary status, the Gypsification of the Romani cultural expressions is conditioned by the weight of the Romani local presence and the changes in the non-Romani worldviews.
Thus, the two areas most inhabited by the Romani people are also the most salient for this issue: Iberian Peninsula (mainly Andalusia) and Southeastern Europe. The local approaches in these two cases are directly influenced by the local notions of identity and their evolution. In this respect, the most important feature is that they happen to be two of the three areas in Europe that had extensive contacts with non-European and non-Christian populations (third being Russia), areas that had to define accordingly their identity in respect with the perceived pure French-German-English core of the European culture. This situation was created by the centuries-long Muslim occupation, the strong non-originally European influences in the local cultures (Arabic, Jewish, Romani in Iberian Peninsula, Romani and Turkish in Southeastern Europe, Tatar in Russia)(1) and the exclusivist approach of the European culture.
After becoming independent, all three areas renegotiated their European identity, producing three different results. The Iberians began earlier their renegotiation, which consequently had all the marks of the European pre-modern notion of identity, i.e. being considered tantamount to the personal religion. They sought a "purification", materialized in the expulsion of the Muslims and Jews after the conclusion of the Reconquista, the persecution of the New Christians (Muslims and Jews converted, mostly by force, to Christianity), the firm allegiance to the Catholicism during the Protestant Reform in the western Christendom. The Romani people, who did not display what would be considered as a religion from the Abrahamic point of view, assimilated elements of Catholicism and made a formal allegiance to it, were not considered for this purgatory. They suffered only the same levels of violence as in the rest of Western Europe.
Thus, the Iberian renegotiation was not concerned about cultural items that did not have religious meanings. Originally non-European elements, then parts of the local ethos, were included in the culture of Europe, they were not rejected as foreign. The real value of the Romani cultural features (for example, Flamenco) was appreciated and they had the possibility to be cultivated. It did not occur the Gypsification like in the rest of the world. However, the acknowledgement was restricted only to the cultural elements, the Romani people were, until very recently, under strong pressure to assimilate (2).
The other two renegotiations, Russian and Balkanic, occurred in the modern age and thus they were focused on the modern concept of identity. This one included too the religion as an identity mark, but it was mostly focused on determining which cultural feature belongs to the personal identity and which not (selection made according to the opinion of the nationalist ideology) (3). The moment coincided in time with the worldwide changes resulted from the modernization and the establishing of the highest status for the White populations living in Europe or originally from there. Consequently, the renegotiation of the European status was shaped by a strong modernization, perceived as a "Westernization", and a self-identification as White Europeans (in order to benefit from the status of those from Western Europe).
From the 19th century onwards, the Balkanites (mostly the elite and the ruling class) sought to recreate a pure European society, by separating what was originally European from what was not (mainly Romani and Turkish features of the local broad society), by encouraging and supporting the former and by hindering the latter. After gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire, the Balkan states' elite assigned highest status to the originally European features and lowest status to the Romani and Turkish features, which, all three, after centuries of living together, were all part of the Balkan society. This elite was mostly educated in the Western Europe (in those times, at its peak of power and prestige), they identified with it and considered that the differences between it and their homeland appeared because the latter was "corrupted" and "debilitated" by originally non-European elements. Their plan was to become the same as the Western Europe, to copy its society.
The rest of the Balkan population that under the new worldview was branded as European followed more or less this policy. As a result, after some generations, it became ingrained in the local outlook that everything coming from the West has an intrinsic value, while everything with local origin, if it does not come from an originally European source (and many didn't, they acquired at least some non-European details), is imperfect, it is the cause of all the problems in the Balkans. Obviously, it was a mistake to blame something only because of a biased association and it did not last long until the real problems appeared, because of the rejection of a part of the social fabric. Nowadays, the Balkans are one of the most striking results of the modern notion of associating the identity only with the external visible features. Trying to reconstruct a pure identity in this manner, the part of the Balkanites labeled as Europeans became a population denying their own self, in a continuous search of something that always remains as an ideal. Thus, the contemporary Balkans are one of the few places on Earth where the local population speak contemptuously about themselves, among themselves or together with non-Balkanites, associating the names Balkans, Balkanism, Balkanite, Balkanic with backwardness, abnormality, unforeseableness, dangerousness and other prejudices. For about two centuries their reference was not their own self, but the Western Europe. Even now, for a person living in Romania, it can't pass a day without hearing adaptarea la valorile europene ("the adaptation to the European values"), considered as the best thing a Balkanite can do in a lifespan. In the center of the towns there are guide posts with the number of kilometers to the localities representative for the Western Europe, showing the direction of their identity, never inquiring themselves if the Westerners do have such counterpart guide posts. They equalized, because of too much amazement, the Western Europe with the idea of Europe, forgetting that they are too a part of Europe, never thinking about claiming their self as a true European one.
The same as in other cases of misunderstanding the real identity, the belief in the initial theory caused real problems, afterwards presented as justifying the theory and strengthening its prejudices, thus creating a vicious circle. The misleading pursuit of a pure identity by selecting some of the external visible features determined at the political level an atomization, hard to realize in a multiethnic area without violence and destruction. At the social and personal level, it determined self-disdain, self-distrust, associated with an exacerbation of the Ego. The earlier Iberian renegotiation of the Europeanness, involving only the religious issue (not itself more correct than the nationalist one, but less self-censoring) made possible a real integration of the Iberians among Europeans. They remained Iberians, they were respected as Iberians by the other Europeans, they enriched the European culture and society, they did not need to copy the external features of the European core, to become others. According to the theory of the Europeanness of the renegotiationââ¬â¢s moment, the so-called European Balkanites tried to become others, they failed, thus neither they are respected by the other Europeans as Balkanites nor could they make their culture accepted and enriching the broad European culture. An important role had also the fact that, in the 15th-16th centuries, there was not a similar difference of power and prestige between the European core and the former Muslim rulers like that from the 19th century, difference that caused the Balkanic elite's unconditional amazement about the Western Europe.
The situation is unchanged until today, largely unresolved, unacknowledged and unstudied. It affected also the local Romani and Turkish populations, which suddenly, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the creation of the modern Balkanic states, became the local scapegoats. The lot of the Turks was easier, their homeland was closer, and they had a spiritual support coming from the modernization of the Turkey's society, refuting the theory that they are one of the causes of the Balkans' problems.
On the other hand, the Roma were alone in this confrontation with the majority's theories, becoming much more affected by them. In the times of the Ottoman Empire, state conceived as a multiethnic one, they were the usual quiet Desi minority, without specific social problems (probably except the atypical, from the Abrahamic point of view, religious expression). In the neighboring area of the contemporary Romania, traditionally included too in the Balkans, serious problems were already present, as a result of the slavery system. The situation becomes equalized in all the modern Balkanic states, because of the mechanism of Balkanization described above. In the 20th-21st centuries, in all these states Roma are a sizeable part of the society, comprising between 5-12% of the local population. The ruling class and the part of the society branded as European considered the local Roma guilty of impurifying their Europeannes, of side-tracking them. Their centuries-long influence in the local society, precisely because it is non-European, is labeled as backward and destructive, without any serious proofs. It is supported and justified only with the concocted and imaginary features of the non-Romani character of Gypsy, which has nothing in common with the Romani population and its culture.
For about two centuries, the Romani contribution to the local society is demonized by non-Roma through Gypsification, fact intertwined with the lack of Romani participation in the nationalistic organization of the modern world. Thus, under the motto "we are not the same as the Westerners because the Gypsies held us back", the non-Romani majority of the society could unfold undisturbed the caricaturization of any Romani expression, inviting to derision and further caricaturization (4). The walls of the modern social prison that isolates the Roma worldwide are much more intricate and extended deep inside the broad society in a geographic area like the Balkans, where the local Roma, besides being officially Gypsies, are also charged with the historical "guilt" of contributing to the local society.
The contemporary Balkanic music
The purification of the Balkans produced also adverse reactions among "European" Balkanites, some of them involving the local Roma. Their common denominator is a disputant stance, lack of trust in anything non-local, all of them hazy, unorganized and not aspiring to change anything in the local society.
The contemporary Balkanic music is probably the most striking example of this kind and an important issue in the contemporary local relations between Roma and non-Roma. Initially, it suffered the purification process described above, through an official endorsement only of the initial or old European elements, repudiation of the other elements (mainly Romani and Turkish) and massive copying from the Western Europe. Then, it happened an interesting phenomenon, not predicted by the ideologists of Europeanization, namely that large parts of the so-called "European" Balkanites sought again to listed and enjoy the non-"European" repudiated elements. This was one of the expressions of a split that developed, as the time passed, between the elite, totally identifying with the Western Europe, and the usual people, which could not understand, follow and identify entirely with that Europeanization project. The elite uses to blame the man-in-the-street for the structural problems resulted from their insufficient assimilation, presenting them as the Balkanic backwards that do not want to become good Europeans. Unfortunately, this remained a very usual theme until nowadays, these discussions about "our backwards" among the elite or between the elite and the Westerners. The usual "European" folk could not come out with a reply to these accusations, they did not find cultural means to confront them (since all of them were monopolized by the elite), they could not find any support to give them legitimacy. They only internalized this derogatory opinion and adopted a hazy disputant stance, not aspiring to change anything.
Thus, their renewed interest in the other parts of the original Balkanic music did not evolve towards a recovery of the pre-purification music. It rather followed the internalized split between what is European and what is not. There appeared musical genres with mostly non-"European" elements, like Chalga in Bulgaria, Manele in Romania, Tallava in Albania, as a counter-balance to the local purified "European" music. Their beginnings were during the decades of the Communist regimes, as an underground music. Obviously, besides the immediate attacks from the elite, their manifestation was hindered also by the totalitarian and undemocratic nature of those regimes. After the Communism fell by the end of the 1980s - beginning of 1990s, this kind of music had the possibility to come to surface, remaining only the confrontation with the local elite (and with the state administrations, usually in the hands of that elite). Soon, its status changed from the music of the insular parts of the society to the most popular genre in the Balkans. It tends to be dominated by Romani musicians (except in former Yugoslavia), thus being labeled as Gypsy music. In its form for non-Romani public, it is strongly commercial, oriented to public success. The new political freedom permitted the assimilation of worldwide influences, mixing the older music with modern styles and ethnic music from across the world. The songs that prove to be successful in a country are freely borrowed in the others, with new lyrics in local languages. This is possible because usually the authorities are against this music, they would be the last to enforce the copyrights.
The conflict with the state authorities, now in the hands of the elite, but lacking the repressive means of the Communist totalitarian regime, was confined in the limits of the modern democracy. Informally, it made possible a certain denial of the rights of the groups not organized to defend them. Although forbidden by the local constitutions, the authorities enforced discriminatory laws for prohibiting the new music. For example, the ban on Manele, enforced in 1990s in Romania, before 10PM on TV and radio. Again, in Romania, in the summer of 2004, it was debated in the Parliament a law aiming at levying special taxes from profits resulted from performing Manele (it did not pass). The money would have been supposed to be used for promoting the "European" music (typical behavior of the Balkanic elite). Finally, such measures, combined with the derogatory and contemptuous attacks of the elite in mass-media and other social levers, only enforced the appeal of this music among large masses and strengthened the feeling that the vitality is not on the elite's side. Then, the post-Communist booming of the private media relaxed these measures, since it proved to be a lucrative business and the employers lobbied on its behalf. This, in turn, produced a separation between so-called clean and unclean media, the clean media obviously being those with express ban on the new music.
These bans seem to consider all the modern non-"European" music as an undivided block, but, in reality, there are some different layers. An important part of this music is only successful for the non-Romani public (which, because of the numerical prevalence, is the engine of the commercial success), while another part is enjoyed by both Roma and non-Roma (whether they understand the same thing or they ascribe different messages to the song). There is also a local modern Romani music aiming only at the Romani public. Many successful Romani singers and players master all those three layers. The music for the Romani public is the development of older styles. The base of the other two layers is also Romani, adjusted, when the non-Romani public is prevalent, by touching specific non-Romani Balkanic feelings, by adding Turkish elements (to meet their expectations of what means non-European) and disputant lyrics rejecting the model of life imagined by the local elite and expressing the vitality of the common folk. Many times, these lyrics mirror also the Ego exacerbation of the "European" folk resulted from the lack of ideas in countering their branding as backwards by the elite.
This kind of music (the layers for the non-"European" public) wouldn't be the only one in the contemporary world (just to remember the Rock, the Rap, among those better known), but the current social and political situation demonized it, transforming its public image into a scarecrow. It became a major issue in the local relations between Roma and non-Roma, creating an image of the Roma as corrupting the "pure Europeans", while they are only scapegoats for the structural problems caused by the application of the local elite's ideology. Moreover, the Romani musicians successful in adapting to the non-Romani public are a handful of people from the millions of local Roma, not necessarily representing the entire Romani population; they are just the most visible among non-Roma. Many of them are talented and they would certainly deserve more appreciation, respect and possibilities to cultivate their style. The bans, the adverse stand of the authorities and of the European elite minimize a necessary competition and decrease the possibilities of quality expressions, in order to churn out the talented. Since the talent does not pay, then the only outlet remains the public success, hence the very commercial nature of this music.
It should not be forgotten that behind the big business of the new folk music enjoyed by the "Europeans", it continues the evolution of the initial layer, the modern Romani music for the Romani public. This seems to be the only public prepared for a non-commercial music of this kind, many Romani musicians equalizing the music appealing to them to quality music. However, its importance is currently diminished, again because of the Roma's exclusion from the public sphere. The non-Romani singers who became active in this music genre do not even have this public to appreciate the quality. They can be only commercial (for example, the success of the beautiful non-Romani female singers in Bulgaria and Serbia). Moreover, in a twist of the struggle for the public use of the ethnic name Rom, instead of Gypsy, the non-Romani elite constructed a separation between the Romani music that sounds European and that sounding non-European. They tend to promote the former as the true Romani music, while the latter is put together with the other layers of the new folk music and branded as Gypsy and decadent (and has to confront the discriminations described above). In the so-called "true Romani music" there are included non-European elements only if they do not have contemporary appeal, if they are not considered as threatening. Thus, most of the contemporary Romani music in the Balkans is affected by the Gypsification process, process that alters its meaning in the public sphere by enforcing the local majority's opinion about the Roma. It determines an involvement in the local social and political issues, not as Roma, but as Gypsies, with all the negative consequences resulting from this status.
Greece, because is the single local state that did not become Communist and because of the deep wounds caused by the prolonged conflict with Turkey, has a longer history of a resurgent non-"European" music. Also, it has an established presence of "European" (i.e. ethnic Greek) musicians in this genre. The beginnings were after the defeat in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), which resulted in an influx of Greek refugees from Anatolia. They brought with them a different lifestyle (that soon gave them the label of "Turks") and Turkish influenced music like Rembétika, Sikyaladika or dances like Tsifteteli. Their rejection by the elite and the state authorities only added to their popularity among the common folk, which soon perceived them as the rebellious music of those not adapted to the new political and cultural projects. Especially, Rembétika was succesful and influential. In the 1950s and 1960s it appeared another "impure" genre, Laïkó, equally dismayed and branded as decadent by the elite, particularly in its IndoÃÂftika form, consisting in Bollywood filmi songs with Greek lyrics. Then, from the early 1990s onwards, it developed the Laïka music, meaning "popular", "folkish" in Greek (not to be confused with Laïkó), a much more commercial genre, with roots in the older Rembétika and Laïkó. It is part of the wave of very popular non-"European" music that became prevalent in the Balkans after the fall of the Communism in the other states. Similarly to the other local genres, Laïka is strongly oriented to public success, mixes the older music with modern styles, participates in the borrowing of songs across the Balkanic borders.
Another particular case is that of the former Yugoslavia, paralleling its particular political path. There too, in the early 1990s, after the changes occurred in the Balkans, it developed a local popular music, named Turbo-Folk. However, in the new Yugoslavia (consisting only of Serbia and Montenegro), resulted from the dissolution of the former state, the political power did not devolve upon the elite, like in the rest of the Balkans, but to the regime of Slobodan Miloà ¡eviÃâ¡. His regime capitalized and relied mostly on the general discontent of the Balkanic folk. Soon, it remained a prisoner of this Balkanic problem, sharing its lack of ideas and legitimacy and channeling the energies only towards a rebellious, reactionary attitude, then materialized in the Serbian nationalism. It supported the Turbo-Folk music, giving it freedom, social status and stronger possibilities of expression. Consequently, this genre evolved into a formula much closer to the original Balkanic pool, not following the schizophrenic separation between European and non-European, like in the other Balkanic states. It is also dominated by "European" musicians, thus it is very commercial. The "European" elite do not contribute to its cultivation and therefore, the musicians themselves do not have a specific public prepared for non-commercial music (as the Romani musicians have an important part of the Romani public). This music identified also with the military conflicts from former Yugoslavia, but in a sad and strange Balkanic manner. The people and the soldiers from all the combatant sides listened to the same songs, since they expressed the same feelings across the trenches of those fratricide wars.
Nearby, Turkey, one of the parties blamed for the impurification of the Balkans, has its own resurgent music style. It resulted from the radical reforms of the 1920s-1930s, perceived as an undesired Europeanization by a part of the society. In the 1960s it appeared the Arabesque music, inspired by Arabic Middle Eastern music and parts of the Turkish folk music, presented in a modern formula (cultural elements conjuring up what was suppressed by the reforms). It expressed the feelings of the non-elite classes, not very adapted to the new lifestyle, with the same reactionary stand without relieving ideas as in the Balkans. Its correspondent in Greece, with the same prevalence of Middle Eastern influence, is Sikyaladika. The Arabesque music did not gain the same prevalence and strength as the other resurgent genres from the Balkans, because of the differences in the results of modernization, i.e. the Turks were not accepted as Europeans by the European core.
In Israel it developed also a problem of this kind as a result of the Ashkenazi Jews (those closer to the European culture) and the Mizrahi Jews (those closer to other cultures) living together on the same land. The project of Israel being mostly an Ashkenazi one, this group concentrated most of the political power and created the elite of the new state. The cultural outlook of the Mizrahim was not included from the very beginning in this organization, thus they did not adapt with the same speed to this state's structures. Soon, they were branded as backwards, uneducated, violent, lagging behind the Israel. Their cultural expression, including the music, were labeled in the same manner by the Ashkenazim and dismissed as unworthy by the elite. Like in the other examples described above, the Mizrahim could not construct anything to confront the prejudices and to give them legitimacy, ending in a hazy disputant stand, which only enforced the prejudices. The Mizrahi music followed the same path, being considered as an anti-elite music. The mass-media participated in this construction of the abnormality, by selecting only striking, negative issues, like the presentation of the life and death of one of the most outstanding Mizrahi singers, Zohar Argov.
Usually, the contemporary status of the music from the Southeastern Europe is not questioned, is considered as something inherent. It is not remarked the overwhelming influence of the local identity issues that determine a derailment of the Romani cultural expressions, by the process of Gypsification. The same people who reject and distort the local Romani culture see no problem in enjoying the Romani Flamenco music, only because it comes from their model society, the Western Europe. One may wonder that, if the moments and conditions of the Europeanness renegotiation would have been reversed in the Iberian and Balkanic cases, then the statuses of the local Romani music would have been reversed too. That the Balkanic Romani music would have had the chance of a cultivation, reaching a quality similar to the contemporary Flamenco, acknowledged worldwide, while the latter would have became the base for music layers appealing to the Iberian "European" folk not accustomed to the elite's cultural purification.
As a comparison, the third European area that experienced a process of this kind, Russia, had another approach in these cultural issues, corresponding to the results of its renegotiation. The Russian authorities began it under the tsar Peter I (1672-1725), who moved the capital from Moscow to the newly built Sankt Petersburg (symbolizing a new beginning, but also being much closer to the Western Europe), imposed (many times forcibly) the Western dress, promoted the French as the language of the cultivated people, aligned the Russian calendar to the Western one and so on. However, the direction changed at the beginning of the 20th century, with the emergence of a new elite that sought an independent way (symbolically, moving back the capital to Moscow), inaugurating a series of political experiments, continuing until nowadays. This is probably because they enjoyed some centuries of independent life just as Russians (after defeating the Muslims) until undergoing the Westernization. Also, during this process and afterwards, they did not seek too much acknowledgement from the Westerners, since they continued to live in a strong independent political entity. They did not jump like the Balkanites from a non-"European" rule directly into political entities included in the Western framework. The identification as Europeans developed like an independent endeavor, which determined the appearance of some different results, because of the narrowness of identifying the European culture only with that from the Western area (5).
In this context, after the change from the beginning of the 20th century, they rather emphasized what is specific to Russia. A musical instrument like the balalaika, with originally non-European origin (Mongol-Central Asian), was promoted as a Soviet (i.e. Russian) instrument and its cultivation was heavily supported by the elite. If there would have been the conditions for an Iberian path, probably it would just have been accepted as such. If there would have been the conditions for a Balkanic path, probably the balalaika would have been rejected as "backward" by the elite and, since it happens to be one of the preferred instruments of the local Roma, it might have been played an important role in a local resurgent anti-elite music.