The article is concerned with the persecution of Gypsies in Bohemia in the first third ofthe 18th century. As in other European countries, in cases where Gypsies had been already formally expelled from a land, Gypsy vagabondage was defined and punished as a capital crime. The article does not forget this normative aspect ofthe theme, but it nonetheless concentrates on the actual practice of persecution and above all on cases in which condemned Gypsies begged for mercy and their death penalty was in fact reduced to a more moderate punishment. The author also looks at the extensive powers of reprieve that the Prague Appellate Court (in the case ofGypsy vagabondage the tribunal offirst instance), was granted by the ruler in the 1720s. Condemned Gypsies were not explicitly mentioned in this context, but there is plenty of evidence that they were not excluded from this practice ofreprieve. The article criticises the view ofthe persecution ofGypsies that is based solely on the quantification ofincomplete data in the manuals of condemnation ofthe Appellate Court. These books not only fail to indicate when the condemned were later reprieved, but also do not allow us to reliably identify individuals condemned. There are examples of one person appearing several times in them, sometimes under different names. It is this misleading quantified evidence that has helped give rise to the idea that the persecution of Gypsies in the early modern period was the first stage of the Gypsy Holocaust in the 20th century. The article argues, on the contrary, that in relation to persecution the pre-modern differed from the modern state not only in terms of capacity, but fundamentally.
Prejudice against Roma – antipathy towards members of the Roma minority, is deeply rooted in Europe. Moreover, prejudice against the Roma is specifically compared to prejudice against other minorities in the Czech Republic, as it reflects the generally accepted norms of society regarding the acceptance of hostile attitudes towards the Roma. Reducing prejudice against the Roma is thus one of the most current topics not only in the Czech Republic but also in the European context. The Council of the European Union points out the significant discrimination against Roma and in this context calls for that promotion policies over the next decade to eliminate the inequalities of the Roma minority in the EU (The Council of the European Union, 2021). Despite its topicality, the issue of antigypsyism is relatively neglected in social psychology, as well as the topic of intergroup relations between Roma and non-Roma. In this literature review, the authors present the current knowledge on the possibilities for improving relations between Roma and non-Roma. First, the authors look at the psychological background of prejudice and theories about its origins and then devote the main section to the prejudices against the Roma and the ways in which these can be overcome. The study focuses primarily on the starting points of the theory of intergroup contact, the effectiveness of which has been confirmed by a large number of studies. As one of the other possibilities for improving intergroup relations between Roma and non-Roma, the authors present a normative approach that has long been neglected in the psychology of intergroup relations. The authors conclude the literature review focusing on the application potential of the theoretical approaches, i.e. how the findings of current research can be used in practical interventions.
CS
Předsudky vůči Romům, tedy antipatie vůči členům a členkám romské menšiny, jsou v Evropě hluboce zakořeněné. Předsudky vůči Romům jsou navíc oproti předsudkům vůči jiným menšinám v České republice specifické, neboť odráží společností obecně přijímané normy o akceptovatelnosti nepřátelských postojů k Romům. Snižování předsudků vůči Romům je tak jedním z nejaktuálnějších témat nejen v českém, ale v celoevropském kontextu. Rada Evropské unie například upozorňuje na značnou diskriminaci Romů a v souvislosti s tím tvrdí, že v průběhu příštího desetiletí je nutno prosazovat politická opatření k řešení nerovností, kterými trpí většina romské populace v EU (The Council of The European Union, 2021). Navzdory své aktuálnosti je téma antigypsismu v sociální psychologii poměrně zanedbáváno, stejně jako téma meziskupinových vztahů mezi Romy a Neromy. Tato přehledová studie přináší současné poznatky o možnostech zlepšení vztahů mezi Romy s Neromy. Nejprve se zabývá psychologickým pozadím předsudků a teoriemi jejich vzniku. Hlavní část je věnována předsudkům vůči Romům a možnostem jejich snižování. Zaměřuje se především na východiska teorie meziskupinového kontaktu, jejíž účinnost byla potvrzena velkým množstvím studií. Jako jedna z dalších možností ke zlepšování meziskupinových vztahů mezi Romy a Neromy je představen normativní přístup, který byl v psychologii meziskupinových vztahů dlouhou dobu opomíjen. Závěr přehledové studie je věnován aplikačnímu potenciálu teoretických přístupů, tedy jak poznatky současného výzkumu využít v praktických intervencích.
The contribution recapitulates and appraises the work of the Czech linguist Jiří Lípa (born December 12, 1928, Sušice, Czechoslovakia – died December 24, 2020, Broadview Heights, Ohio, USA). The first part is devoted to the beginnings of Lípa’s interest in the Romani language and his publications from the period before he emigrated to the USA, including the two key monographs written in Czech, Příručka cikánštiny (A Handbook of the Gypsy Language, 1963) and Cikánština v jazykovém prostředí slovenském a českém (The Gypsy Language in the Czech and Slovak Linguistic Environment, 1965). The second part describes Lípa’s work in the field of Roma studies in the USA, his participation in the activities of the Gyspy Lore Society and offers a commented review of his contributions written in English. Special attention is paid to two polemics triggered by Lípa’s works. First, in 1983, in the Newsletter of the Gypsy Lore Society, and the second, a decade later, in 1993 in the Nationalities Papers. The author explains Lípa’s stance in these polemics and shows that his position has been rather misunderstood and misinterpreted. The final section discusses why Lípa’s pioneering work in the field of Roma studies has been mostly forgotten in his motherland.
The subject of the article is the hitherto unexplored process of the creation and publication of the Charter 77 documents - documents that fundamentally presented the opinions and analyses of this most important dissident initiative in Czechoslovakia between 1977 and 1989. They covered the state of human and civil rights in the country, various other social and political issues, and the situation of dissent itself. The author refers to this process as a "workshop", which he understands figuratively as a thinking and creative environment in which ideas, proposals and suggestions are born and implemented. In order to analyse the functioning of the Chartist "workshop", he chooses six documents with different content, for the creation of which we have diverse historical sources. Using the examples of the basic document "Declaration of Charter 77" of 1 January 1977, the "Communication of Charter 77" (on the conclusions of the internal discussion on the further work of the Charter from September of the same year), and the position of the spokespersons of Charter 77 (on the discussions on the mission and activities of the Charter from October 1978), the author shows how appropriate ways of further activity were sought within this community and how the written "workshop" rules were enforced. Using a document on the situation of the Roma in Czechoslovakia from December 1978, a so-called "economic" document from May 1979 (known as "Theses on Consumption"), and an analysis of the state of Czechoslovak official historiograpghy from May 1984 (known as "The Right to History"), the author illustrates the Chartists' problems in adhering to the agreed "workshop" rules, their ability to overcome these problems, and the fact that they "produced" Charter documents in two ways. In the first case, the interested parties created an informal group to work on a topic, then incorporated - selectively - the received comments, and then submitted the text (by themselves or through intermediaries) to the speakers for their signature on behalf of the entire Chartist community. In the second case, the Charter spokespersons "produced" the document by signing their own text or a text they had received without consulting anyone. This was precisely the case with the document "The Right to History" (Právo na dějiny), which provoked widespread controversy among Czechoslovak dissenters.
Two concentration camps were established for Roma people in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia in 1942. Roma from Bohemia were deported to Lety and Roma from Moravia to the camp near Hodonín u Kunštátu, before most of them were murdered in the “Gypsy family camp” (Zigeunerlager) in Auschwitz II. Birkenau. The lists of prisoners are valuable not only for historians (they were published previously by the historian Ctibor Nečas), but also for onomastics, as they allow us to analyse the naming practise of Czech and Moravian Roma in the pre-war period. There are 325 unique surnames on these lists, with most of them being Czech or German, and they thus demonstrate the connection with the territory and its language(s). The study discusses the most common Roma surnames in Moravia (e.g. Daniel, Holomek, Burianský) and in Bohemia (e.g. Růžička, Janeček, Vrba) as well as the surnames of Sinti living in the Czech borderland regions (e.g. Winter). It is shown that the surnames of Roma from Bohemia and Moravia were different due to the historical and social reasons. They were mostly derived from personal names (e.g. Florián) and place names (e.g. Dubský), they were motivated by the occupation adopted (e.g. Kovář ‘smith’) or the character and appearance of the individual (e.g. Malík ‘small’). After the war, only 583 of the 4,870 Roma who had been imprisoned returned.
CS
Na území Protektorátu Čechy a Moravy byly v roce 1942 zřízeny dva tzv. cikánské koncentrační tábory. Romové z Čech byly deportováni do tábora v Letech, Romové z Moravy a Slezska do tábora nedaleko Hodonína u Kunštátu. Většina z nich poté byla zavražděna v “cikánském rodinném táboře” (Zigeunerlager) v Osvětimi II. Březince. Seznamy vězňů jsou velmi cenné nejen pro historiky (byly vydány historikem Ctiborem Nečasem), ale i pro onomastiky, neboť nám dovolují nahlédnout do pojmenovávacích zvyklostí českých a moravských Romů v předválečném období. Na těchto seznamech nacházíme 325 příjmení. Většina z nich je česká, popř. německá, a dokládají tak sepětí s tímto územím a jeho jazykem/jazyky. Studie analyzuje nejčastější příjmení na Moravě (např. Daniel, Holomek a Burianský) i v Čechách (např. Růžička, Vrba a Janeček), stejně jako příjmení Sintů žijících v oblasti Sudet (např. Winter, Bernhardt). Ukazuje se, že příjmení Romů v Čechách a na Moravě byla odlišná, což bylo dáno historickými a sociálními příčinami. Nejčastěji byla odvozena z osobních jmen (např. Florián) nebo toponym (např. Dubský), byla motivována povoláním (např. Kovář) nebo charakterem a vzhledem (např. Malík). Po válce se z 4 870 Romů vrátilo jen 583.
The article is based on a long-term field research in an Eastern Slovak Romani settlement and an English town, to which Roma migrated from the settlement. The paper attempts to disrupt a bipolar approach to the migration of Roma to England, and, at the same time, to point to the transnational interconnectedness of the Romani community and to the replication of inter-group boundaries patterns. Such a dynamic approach to migration allows the authors to consider a different phenomenon, namely religious conversion of Roma to Pentecostal churches. This leads to an observation of parallels in the narratives of conversion and migration, which are both based on a dichotomy of “new” and “old”, and inclusion of the religious conversion phenomenon into the analysis of migration, alongside highlighting transnational social networks, acquiring secondary social bonds and strengthening local inter-group boundaries.
CS
Článek je založen na dlouhodobém terénním výzkumu v romské osadě na východním Slovensku a v anglickém městě, do kterého Romové z této osady migrovali. Text se snaží o narušení bipolárního vnímání migrace Romů do Anglie, zároveň chce poukázat na transnacionální provázanost romské komunity a replikaci vzorců meziskupinových hranic. V takovémto dynamickém pojetí migrace autoři zohledňují jiný fenomén, a to konverzi Romů k letničním církvím. To vede ke sledování paralel konverzních a migračních narativů, které jsou založeny na dichotomii „starého“ a „nového“, zahrnutí fenoménu náboženské konverze do analýzy migrace a současně zvýraznění transnacionálních sociálních sítí, nabývání sekundárních sociálních vazeb a posilování lokálních skupinových hranic.
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.