With all the news coverage recently of the 60th anniversary of the Allied liberation of Auschwitz there was, as predictable, pitifully little mention of the 500,000 Roma people (Gypsies) who were killed in the Holocaust– some 21,000 of whom were killed at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The Romani word for the genocide/Holocaust that their people suffered at the hands of the Nazis is porraimos, the “devouring”.
I’ve been re-reading Isabel Fonseca’s outstanding 1995 book, “Bury me standing: The Gypsies and their journey”. The whole of Chapter 7 is about the “devouring”.
Of Auschwitz-Birkenau she writes:
- The site of the Zigeunerlager, or Gypsy camp, is marked on the wall map in the arched entrance to the vast pitch of Birkenau. It was in the row of barracks farthest from the main gates, which meant that the Gypsies had a good view of both the gas chambers and the crematoria. Apart from a few crumbling brick chimneys, there is nothing left of the thirty-eight-barrack Gypsy camp. (p.254)
The whole chapter makes very, very tough reading. Josef Mengele was particularly interested in performing his vile experiments on Gypsies. The stories of Gypsy suffering in the camps– told mainly by Jewish or Polish survivors, for there were pitifully few among the Gypsies themselves–are all extremely upsetting.
- Mieczyslaw Janka, a Polish survivor, remembers the Gypsy family camp next to the hospital at Birkenau. “The Gypsy men would accompany our singing while their women danced. For this we would throw them bits of onion and cigarettes. One night the Gypsies were taken away and burned.” Outsiders’ recollections of the Zigeunerlager, cut off as always from other inmates, were often of sounds–we heard them (they would say), their singing, their playing, their crying, their moans and screams, and then, “one night,” their silence. That night was August 2, 1944. (p.266)
Fonseca, who is herself Jewish, soberly charts the many ways in which the suffering of the Roma has been ignored or minimalized in mainstream narratives of the Holocaust in the west. For example, she writes this about the 65-member U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, founded in 1979:
- It was only after the 1986 resignation of [Council] President Elie Wiesel, the survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner, who had opposed Gypsy representation, that one Gypsy was invited onto the council.(p.276)
She writes very interestingly about the very different attitude toward memory and commemoration that most Roma people seem to have, compared with Jewish people or others with whose stories westerners are more familiar:
- The Jews have responded to persecution and dispersal with a monumental industry of remembrance. The Gypsies–with their peculiar mixture of fatalism and the spirit, or wit, to seize the day–have made an art of forgetting.(p.276)
From what she writes elsewhere in the book, it seems it may be partly true that Gypsies have made an “art” of forgetting. To be precise, she writes that many of those whom she encountered throughout the course of her research in many different parts of Europe could not give the details of exactly what, for example, had happened to their community’s members during the “devouring”…
But it seems to me that their failure to hold their memories of that particular, terrifying time may also be linked to the fact that have suffered more or less continuous persecution in those countries ever since, as well. Plus, they suffered it in Europe and elsewhere even before the Nazis came to power.
So the particular horrors they suffered under the Nazis– the application of the Race Laws, the uprooting into concentration camps, the torturous medical experiments, the drudgery of the camps, and then the gas chambers– maybe didn’t stand out so terribly starkly from the mistreatment they’d been receiving all along, anyway?
Or perhaps, and maybe this is another aspect of the same thing, they just haven’t had the leisure and stability any time since 1945 to sit down and produce a strong narrative of what had happened to them.
Plus, the victorious Allied governments who in 1945 produced the “standard” written narrative of Nazi atrocities in the proceedings of the Nuremberg Tribunal, paid scant attention there to what the Roma had suffered.
Plus, even when reparations were made available to Gypsies by the German government, they were considerably more circumscribed than what the German government offered to the Jews…
And so it goes on. The marginalization of the Gypsies from the history of the west; and their continued economic and social marginalization. Long after most westerners have understood the dangers of engaging in stereotyping of just about every other marginal social group, it still seems terrifyingly easy for them (us) to engage in the most damaging kind of stereotyping against the Gypsies.
Which was what, for the Nazis, paved the way for the “devouring”.
Helena,
One question:
Does Isabel Fonseca mention why Elie Wiesel opposed Gypsy representation on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council? Or, have you any ideas?
(Thanks for your always insightful and important commentary and analysis. This website is a wonderful resource.)
Jacob,
Elie Wiesel was promoting the then common view that the goal of the “final solution” was only to eradicate Jews. Anti-semitism was supposed to be the core reason for the nazi genocide and the belief in the uniqueness of the Holocaust led many historians to disregard the fact that the nazis applied the same laws to gypsies and jews (and other groups too).
If you want to know more, here is a Historiography of the Roma and Sinti “Gypsies” and the Holocaust By Dr. Samuel D. Sinner: http://www.angelfire.com/moon/drsinner/2c.html
The Nazis believed that they were racially superior to Jews and Gypsies and others, who they believed were different races. A sort of “imaginary racism” where the racism was real but the races weren’t.
Jews were central to Nazi ideology, the Gypsies apparently less so, possibly just because there were fewer of them and they were less visible. Don’t try to make sense of Nazi ideas; there wasn’t any sense.
WW– I have many qualms about any use at all of theories of “race”. However, you should remember that the category of “race” is construed quite differently in Europe from the way it is understood in the US, where it has principally to do with skin color. (I wrote about that recently: here. )
Europeans have tended to use the term “race” where US citizens would nowadays use the term “ethnicity”. On that basis, the Roma almost certainly do qualify as one (or more) such human group, whether it is called an “ethnicity” (US, today), or a “race” (Europe, historically and until now).
Misunderstanding over what was actually meant by the category “race” underlay much of the US-European disagreement over the 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution. It’s not that one usage of the terms “race/racism” is “right” and the other “wrong”. They are just different. But people need to be clear what they’re talking about in any cross-cultural forum, including this one.
Jacob– no, Fonseca did not give any more details about Wiesel’s opposition to inclusion of the Roma.
Damien– thanks so very much for that link. Sinner’s piece looks extremely thoroughly researched and very fair-minded. Importantly, he draws attention to anti-Gypsy laws that were promulgated and/or kept on the books even in post-WW2 “West Germany”, and elsewhere in Europe since WW2. He also makes very clear some of the other points Fonseca made in her book, about the genocidal intentionality of the Nazis’ campaigns against the Roma and the Sinti (German Gypsies).
Here’s how he ends:
After surveying some of the most significant trajectories of historiography of the last two decades on the Gypsies and the Holocaust, some general directions of future historiography may perhaps be discernable. Scholarship on the topic will probably develop into two opposing camps. One group will continue to tenaciously deny that the Gypsy genocide should be labeled a Holocaust. The most extreme version will continue to argue that no other mass murder in history but the Jewish Holocaust should be defined as genocide, the Jewish Holocaust being utterly unique (Steven T. Katz being the foremost example of this opinion). Others, such as Yehuda Bauer, will continue to deny that Gypsies suffered a Holocaust, while simultaneously allowing the term to be used to describe the Armenian genocide. The other camp, composed especially of those belonging to the emerging field of comparative genocide studies, will increasingly argue that all genocides are unique in their own categories, and that any form of ethnocentrism leading to claims of uniqueness in a way that minimizes the suffering of other groups should be avoided.
I just wanted to say that you might be surprised by the statistics on how few readers ever click through on cut-tags. I am one of them — it’s common for me to read all the way through one of your posts until it gets to “continue reading…” and then go straight to the next one. It doesn’t make sense, but the behavior exists.
The Gypsies in Europe have always suffered discrimination mostly because of their nomadic way of live. Contrary to what Warren said, nomadism makes them highly visible in sedentarized Europe!
The other camp, composed especially of those belonging to the emerging field of comparative genocide studies, will increasingly argue that all genocides are unique in their own categories, and that any form of ethnocentrism leading to claims of uniqueness in a way that minimizes the suffering of other groups should be avoided.
I belong to this camp, but I think that the uniqueness of genocides “in their own categories” deserves as much emphasis as the common threads. Without analyzing the common threads, it’s impossible to learn the historical lessons of genocide, but each genocide impacts a particular people and is plays a role in their history different from its role in human history.
Thus, I don’t see why there shouldn’t be specific names for particular genocides. There’s already a generic term – “genocide” itself – that applies to all such incidents, so it’s neither necessary nor desirable to genericize “Holocaust.” The Holocaust was the genocide of the Jews, the porraimos (which is a word that should be publicized and taught) was the genocide of the Roma, etc. Both are words that can (and should) be understood by humanity as referring to a specific genocide, distinct from the generic concept. As genocides, their causes, methodology and aftereffects can be studied and compared; as the Holocaust and the Porraimos, they are unique in their impact on a particular target group.
BTW, does anyone know the words the Armenians, Herero and Rwandans use for their respective genocides?
I only read *Bury Me Standing* once, shortly after it came out, but remember being struck by the response of one young Gypsy to hearing about the Holocaust, apparently for the first time – something along the lines of: “Why would you want to remember somthing like THAT? It only risks giving other people ideas!”
Jonathan, I like your suggestion, in general. here is a great source on words for “genocide” in many languages. So in Kinyarwanda it’s Itsembabwoko.
here is a great source on words for “genocide” in many languages
Thanks – I see the term the Armenians use is the Metz Yeghern. So it’s “genocide” as a generic, but “Holocaust,” “Metz Yeghern,” “Itsembabwoko” etc. for specific instances.
In some of my personal contacts with Japanese students I also sensed a cultural preference towards forgetting rather remembering cataclismic events.
While the Jewish collective reaction might have been one of remeberance, that did not distract them individually from rebuilding their lives, and collectively focusing on the monumental enterprise of giving birth to and bootstraping the state of Israel.
On the subtle differences for the race definition across the Atlantic being behind the shameful “Zionism is Racism” UN resolution, I thought it was the Arab oil, the automatic majorities, and the SS in the closet Kurt Waldheim as secretary general, but who knows, maybe it was just a semantic flap that infected about 200 voting nations. The same way we remember the holocaust, I chose to remember that UN vote every time I hear about trusting the UN or the Europeans.
David
I also don’t think that different understandings of the term ‘race’ are behind the dispute over Resolution 3379. The real difference is that, no matter what definition of ‘race’ is used, the term ‘racism’ connotes an ideology of supremacy, exclusivity and/or oppression, and the United States rightly recognizes that Zionism qua Zionism is not such an ideology.
Jonathan, I am certainly prepared to grant you that Zionism qua Zionism is no more discriminatory than any other “national” or “national independence” movement (and all are, to however small a degree). Also, that like all national movements it is seen by the majority of its proponents as having a strong “liberationist” content. Also, that the “category confusion” issue was not the only at play over Res 3379… But I really believe it was significant for all that.
I’ll just tell you a little story. I’ve been married to Bill-the-spouse for, um, nearly 21 years now. He is the most decent, humane, adorable person you could imagine. We’ve always had some small areas of disagreement over various issues, but nothing at all major and it’s good that we’re not exactly the same person, right?
However, the disagreement we had over over the Z=R resolution for about the first five years of our marriage was persistent and SO perplexing… “But I don’t even see how you could ever imagine that Zionism is racism!” “I don’t see you could say that it isn’t!” etc etc.
Luckily, in the context of our continuing good relationship we got to the point where we finally figured it out: he was construing “race” as being entirely a category to do with skin color– on which grounds, Z is not R (and therefore, any assertion that Z=R must necessarily be politically motivated.) I was construing “race” as a political form of (roughly) national or ethnic identity assertion, on which grounds Z=R is a statement on a par with “French nationalism discriminates against non-French people”, which is at least an assertable proposition…
But we could arrive at that moment of shared discovery, in the context of our really good relationship and a willingness to probe the causes of differences– only after five or more years! I think the political problems engendered between Israel-the US and the rest of the world over this issue made the atmosphere so toxic that no-one ever really stepped back and said, well, yes, but this is what we actually mean by “racism”. Everyone assumed that they knew…
But I stress, we don’t all always mean the same thing by it.
Z=R is a statement on a par with “French nationalism discriminates against non-French people”, which is at least an assertable proposition
Well yes, but that merely begs the question: if, broadly construed, all nationalism is “racist,” why even bother assigning the label to Zionism (let alone singling it out for disapprobation)? On the other hand, it is also at least arguable that making Zionism alone an inadmissible form of nationalism is itself a form of racism.
Helena,
There are endless assertable propositions, but everybody knows why this one was tabled in front of the UN for condemnation, and of all people presided by an ex-Nazi oficer. The ultimate proof that it wasn’t a semantic disconnect is that the resolution was eventually repudiated. What changed? Semantics didn’t.
A shameful display of bias and strong arming at the UN replayed in so many UN working groups and NGOs.
David
I suppose that, if you’re willing to stretch a point enough, it’s arguable that all nationalism is racism. My Trotskyite brother-in-law certainly makes that argument. Personally, though, I think that such an argument devalues the term “racist.” If you argue that all French nationalism is racist, for instance, then haven’t you erased much of the moral distinction between Jospin and Le Pen? I prefer to reserve the term “racist” for supremacist or exclusivist ideologies rather than nationalism or even routine chauvinism – Kahanism is racist, but Zionism isn’t.
At any rate, I’m a Labor Zionist and proud of it, so I’ll acecept whatever implications might result from that. This discussion is also getting off-topic, so I’ll stop here.
Hello – I’m new to your interesting forum, so forgive me for bringing up something that may have already been delt with and put away.
I see race as a loaded, clumsy word. I see ethic identity as better, but also fuzzy. My own crude rule of thumb is, ethnic identity involves language, blood, culture and religion. I estimate the gap between groups using these four.
By blood I mean just that: an identity by shared blood. Thus Americans have a reletively larger blood gap between their fellow random American, than does a typical Japanese, Thai, or Swede with their national counterpart.
Nazi’s vs Roma: big gaps on three to four (with the blood left for debate)
Nazi’s vs European Jews:
small gap on language and culture;
debateable gap on blood (I won’t touch this one)
clear gap on religion
My two bits.