People might and do call for “assimilation” or “acculturation”….and then “bingo”, the problem simply becomes a different one. If the Turks in Germany are unemployed and don’t speak proper German, they are a burden on the welfare system and should better follow our German Leitkultur. If on the other hand they are successful, German-speaking careerists, they are accused of stealing away our jobs and anyways, they’re probably still going to force marriage upon an unwitting German girl fooled by their misleading appearance and then ship her back to some village. In the mid-19th century, Jews were granted emancipation on the German territories on the condition that they cease to regard themselves as a “national” community and limit the practice of their faith to the domain of the private. As you know, many embraced this enthusiastically, and tried to integrate into German society as well as they could: And what happened was that in Imperial Germany and also during the Weimar years, the focal point of much antisemitism were those Jews “who were not even recognisable anymore”. I’m sure with “antigypsyism” an element of old-school racism might enter into it as well. So my point is that it is not that Roma are so marginalised that the traditional instruments of upward mobility aren’t even accessible to them, but that even if they succeeded, their success would likely come at a cost. And that’s why stereotypes are such a bitch (excuse me). They tend to evolve, rather than disappear.

Yes yes yes! That familiar pattern! Not conforming appears to be dangerous. Great observation, not obvious to many but very true. Let me just have fun with this for a second: It reminds me very much of the work of Sander Gilman who is very much about examining “images” (sometimes even physical images) and projections. And indeed, perhaps there is such a projection at work here as well? Gilman, in one of his books, claims that part of Nazi antisemitism might have been the fear of the stereotypical Jew lurking in oneself. Perhaps part of the hatred of gypsies arises from the danger of secretly wishing to live “differently”, less concerned about work and discipline as well?
(Again, let me stress that I was just trying to make an unorthodox point. Though now I do wonder whether there is something to it actually…)

Yes, indeed – I agree completely. I think that is precisely the insight that we need if we are to tackle this problem in any meaningful way: That we, to use a wonderful German idiom, will all need to sweep under our own rugs Stereotypes are not just “of” someone or something, least of all facts, they are also always someone’S. There’s always two (or more) sides.

And, as a general note…I just went off on one. It doesn’t fit here, but nevermind:
While I cannot claim to know so much about this issue, I imagine that “antigypsyism” has a long, long tradition in Europe. I wonder to what extent its partly derived from Sinti and Roma (or rather what is
commonly understood by “gypsy lifestyle”) forming such an antithesis to one of the central values held dear by virtually all European nationalisms: Namely that of belonging to a clearly defined community (the nation) which resides on a clearly defined territory (the state). I wonder whether in this sense, antigypsyism perhaps shares this aspect of antisemitism: The fear of something foreign, of a people that is (supposedly) constantly in motion, a people that cannot really pinned down. A eople dangerous for its lack of clear allegiance, for its alleged rootlessness. And, indeed, I do wonder whether that might still be the case; whether antigypsyism is perhaps a very early, long-standing (and for that reason well-rehearsed) “Ausländerfeindlichkeit”… from long before there was as much moving about as there is there is these days…

And a web it is. Who said it was going to be easy – You’ve set yourself a great and complex objective and I must say that you’ve managed incredibly well so far… Your blog entries have always been insightful, engaging, interesting, diverse, treating different issues and people in their own right and within their own context, never pefunctorily… And not to mention the fact that they’re written in charming and endearing Christina-style (yes, it exists!). I’m happy that this issue isn’t being treated by an academic robot – it’s truly inspiring to see the topic of stereotyping explored and explained by someone so idiosyncratic, someone so human. I look forward to reading about more about your attempts at disentangling and tugging at the different streaks and strands that make up this very intricate and tight knot in Czech (and, well, our) society.

It’s also good to know that some things never change, re: the yogurt…

I’m glad to see you’re starting your blog with these words, because (in my humble opinion) that is precisely the point. Stereotyping perpetuates the problem, it only contributes to the isolation, the disenfranchising of a group already on the margins of society. The question is not – and should not be – whether stereotypes are founded or unfounded; the essential quality of stereotypes is not the truth or untruth contained in them. Their most important (and probably most virulent) feature is that they seek to apply totalising conceptions and ideas to individuals who are identified (passive!) as belonging to a certain community (again, defined by the observer). I think you would already have achieved a lot if through your blog and through your work in Prague you got only a handful of people to ask themselves this question instead: Why do I react like this, right now? And tied up with that: Am I right to judge an individual person in view of what I believe to be true about his or her supposed background? And how much do I really even know about this background? And even if I know a fair bit, isn’t there always more?

Then you MUST be doing something wrong. No, of course… It’s probably almost easier to move mountains than it is to change the ideas in people’s minds, not least when it comes to something that has an air of social acceptability. With regards to Germany, I suspect that the confrontation of “antigypsyism” at large has been very superficial, constiting essentially in the insistation that “gypsies” be referred to as “Sinti und Roma”. But what’s in a name? A “Zigeuner” by any other name must be a thief… I am also not in the least bit surprised to read that you got very mixed reactions when telling people about your fellowship.