As will be demonstrated throughout this work, there are many stereotypes of Roma in Canada, but perhaps the most persistent are those of “Gypsies” and as (bogus) refugees. However, reactions to, and the consequences of stereotypes are felt and understood differently by the agents involved and the context of the situation. For example, Robert, a Romani performer, noted he does not mind the term Gypsy at all, or even most of the stereotypes that come along with it. Indeed, as long as he is not being negatively targeted, he encourages people to call him Gypsy. In contrast, May, a Romani artist, rejects the term Gypsy for herself with disgust. On one occasion, as we discussed stereotypes of
Gypsy costumes, she described how her partner’s sister turned to her partner—not May— and asked “Why doesn’t [May] dress like that?”. Her partner replied, “Why would she?”, before laughing loudly. Following this story, May explained what it means for her to be Romani in this context, and how she sees labels for herself and others:
A friend said to me—in the same conversation, after I [mentioned being] involved in the Roma Community Center—she said “What’s that? Why are you involved?” “Well, my father’s Romani”, and she said, “Huh?”, and I had to explain it to her—because I do sometimes have to explain, “Well, it’s what you would call a Gypsy, but we don’t use that word”. And she said “Oh! That is so cool, all that sex by the campfire”. And I was sitting there going, “What the fuck?” Then she said, “Oh, they’re all pickpockets and thieves, aren’t they?” There you go, there’s the two sides of the coin right there. And so, generally speaking, now, if I happen to say [the word Gypsy], I just say it, I drop it, and people can do they want with it. But I generally don’t make a point of it, unless there is some particular urgent reason for me to say it. (Interview 2012)
Her friend’s reaction succinctly summed up two main Gypsy stereotypes, the “two sides of the coin”. On the one hand, it is “sex by the campfire” and romanticizations of nomadic lifestyles. On the other, “they’re all thieves and pickpockets”, illustrating the demonization and exaggeration of criminal lifestyles. Despite May’s assertion that people can “do what they want with it” as a term, I find she is quite vocal in insisting that
politicians, performers, and any others using the term Gypsy in lazy or derogatory ways are made aware of the baggage of the term.
It is not unusual for Roma, who, in their attempts to gain their voice and speak out against such stereotypes, to find themselves openly rebutted or dismissed by people who insist the term is theirs to use as they wish. This includes the makers and wearers of Gypsy Halloween costumes, but can also be seen by the many different stores and brands carrying Gypsy in their names. I am aware of dozens of examples where Roma contacted the owners of such places, only to be told that the name/label would stay the same and they did not care about what Roma had to say about it. One such example regarded the title of a fictional book, Gypped. The book contained no Romani characters, and Romani individuals contacted the author to explain how the term is actually an ethnic slur. The author did not see any problem keeping the title, and I also witnessed first-hand the
defensive posturing and justifications by bookstore owners who similarly saw no problem in continuing to promote this title43.
The act of stereotyping can be simply understood as ascribing certain attributes to a person or group: “This is the ‘stereotype’ game, the ‘what-goes-with-what’ game. The second what is the label, the assignment to a group—national, ethnic, religious, racial, social, professional or any other…through its ubiquity it contributes to one of our most intractable social problems” (Tajfel 1963:3). Tajfel notes that such labeling confers assumptions regarding the “sort of person” one may be when stereotyped in such a manner. Hilton and von Hippel explore the “how”, “when”, and “why” of such
stereotyping processes by first proposing that “stereotyping emerges in various contexts to serve particular functions necessitated by those contexts” (1996:238).
Stereotyping emerges as a way of simplifying the demands on the perceiver (Bodenhausen et al 1994a,b; Macrae et al 1994c). Stereotypes make information processing easier by allowing the perceiver to rely on previously stored knowledge in place of incoming information.
Stereotypes also emerge in response to environmental factors, such as different social roles (cf Eagly 1995), group conflicts (Robinson et al 1995), and differences in power (Fiske 1993). Other times stereotypes emerge as a way of justifying the status quo (Jost & Banaji 1994, Sidanius 1993), or in response to a need for social identity (Hogg & Abrams 1988). Thus, when it comes to the question of “why,” we think the answer can most often be found in the notion of context-dependent functionality. (Hilton and von Hippel 1996:238)
Much like identity processes, stereotyping processes are particularly salient in context of unequal power dynamics. Usually based on only a few ‘traits’, stereotypes are often stable through time, changing to some extent but generally solidified through their social, political, and/or economic contexts (Tajfel 1963:5). Stereotypes of particular groups also become more salient and hostile when there is conflict or social tensions, as well as
43
The bookstore owners did agree to have Romani information pamphlets/flyers available during the book signing, despite their frustration with some of the Romani advocates who negotiated with them. Similarly, the author of Gypped issued a statement to the effect apologizing if people were hurt, but since she asked around and found others who were unaware of the connection between “Gypsy” and “gypped”, saw no problem with the title remaining.
“learned early and used by children before the emergence of clear ideas defining the groups to which they apply” (Tajfel 1963:5). Although problematic regardless of hostility (e.g., “positive” stereotypes are still stereotypes), such stereotypes are extremely difficult to modify or otherwise challenge when tensions and conflicts are present (Tajfel 1963:5). In her work exploring how stereotypes are used in national identity processes in Brazil, Rezende describes how “stereotypes usually come into play, both as images deployed by the foreigner to understand the local society and as representations with which locals make sense of the foreign person” (2008:103). She also argues that “more than just generalised views produced by others, stereotypes can also be used by people themselves in the process of elaborating a sense of belonging associated with national identity” (Rezende 2008:104). This has parallels in Romani perspectives and experiences as well; we must also emphasize the processes of agency and choice—even when acknowledging the parameters that constrain, limit, or otherwise influence such choices—as stereotypes themselves need not be simply negative associations. Okely, for example, created a four- type categorization of Gypsy ethnic images that depend on the type of interaction: exoticised (+), concealed (o), degraded (–), and neutralized (+ –) (1996:51–58). In summary, Gypsies (Okeley’s term) often actively choose what kinds of image or identity they want to put forth, all with different pros and cons. For example, + identity
interactions include things like fortune-telling, which capitalize on their exoticism on outsiders. Okely specifically notes that Gypsies frequently do not believe in fortune- telling themselves, viewing it largely as a con, despite the belief that some members may actually have powers of prediction (1996:52-53). With concealed types of identities (o), Gypsies may avoid stating outright their ‘Gypsiness’, encouraging outsiders to assume the business action (as per Okley’s example) is being conducted by official organizations. Such examples include construction estimates given on official-looking notepaper, or wearing nice suits and dresses to appear “less a Gypsy” when selling second-hand items and/or antiques. When Gypsies choose a degraded image (–) (Okely giving the examples of a beggar, pauper, fool, or scavenger), the purpose can be to demonstrate the necessity of given resources. This is often accompanied by showing they would like to “settle down” or “have a better life”, “thus reassuring the gorgio of the superiority of his system” (1996:56). Finally, a neutralised (+ –) situation may be one where ethnic
identity either does not matter one way or the other, usually occurring when such a relationship has existed for some time with some matter of trust between the Gypsy and gorgio/non-Roma. Okely gives examples of regular patrons of Gypsy businesses, such as horse-dealers, who are aware that Gypsies will inevitably try to get the better of a deal through bargaining skills and extensive knowledge of the subject, but such methods are known, and actually highly respected. Sometimes they even also benefit from such arrangements (like a mechanic who receives a percentage from referred contracts). Thus, although stereotyping is frequently a negative experience for Roma who must consider the wide range of consequences for looking or acting in any particular Gypsy way, this does not negate the possibility of having agency and choice in appropriating or
challenging stereotypes to promote particular individual or collective interests.
Okely’s categories are relevant for Roma in Canada as well: some Roma purposefully play up exotic images like fortune-telling as business practices (+), go about their lives without explicitly identifying their ethnicity to others (o), purposefully play up how they wish to better their lives (-), and/or engage with non-Roma as equals while
simultaneously being openly/proudly Romani, such as in the creation of partnerships and advocacy networks (+ –). Although stereotypes certainly exist in Canada, Roma often find that they need not explicitly acknowledge their Romani identity to non-Roma (o and + –) in everyday life: this is in contrast to Europe, where racialized stereotypes often cannot be avoided (such as described by Elena in Section 1.2, where people “just know” she is Romani). Therefore, there is potential here to create Romani-positive interactions with others. However, Roma in Canada also must deal with another pervasive stereotype, that of the “bogus refugee”.
Stereotypes surrounding refugees, and specifically their correlations with fraud and bogusness, are often framed by misinformation. “Nonrecognition or misrecognition can inflict real harm through the imposition of deprecating images that confine people” to simplistic or reductionist stereotypes (Masquelier 2006:741). The term refugee was defined earlier as a specific legal status; today, this term is associated with negative stereotypical images that have little to do with legal requirements. Instead, a refugee is thought of as someone who should be “grateful”, part of “huddled masses”, and/or “boat
people” (these perceptions are discussed in Chapter 4). While discussing stereotypes and perceptions about refugees with Mike, a journalist, I asked him about this kind of
vocabulary:
I think the selection of words—you try your best to find the most neutral words. Like when I use influx, a more neutral—I mean it’s all relative, [but compare this to] using the word ‘arrival’. So yeah, I think the use of words in the media really frames things—the perception of an issue, the perspective of an issue, it’s very powerful. You wouldn’t believe how—an example is the word ‘fugitive’. We all know it means a bad person, a bad word, and if you neutralize it, it would be “someone wanted by police”. So there’s the spectrum, right? Even on a dichotomy…I think people just use different words to their advantage at different moments, depending on the issue…It’s the description of the refugee, more than the word itself. I think the word is somewhat neutral but I think a more appropriate word, or even the more positive word to use would be ‘asylum seeker’ because I think we all understand the word asylum: you face persecution, that’s why you need asylum. But usually I think people would associate the word asylum to political asylum, so political asylum means you’re fleeing from a dictator…We still need the stereotypes and assumptions that we have [in order] to make sense of the world, but, it’s important to always be mindful of the exceptions and look at people as individuals. (Interview 2012) As a journalist, Mike understands the potential impact that word choice has on public perceptions, as well as affecting individual and collective identities. Masquelier similarly notes, in her work examining the victims of hurricane Katrina as “refugees”, that this word “carries a heavy semantic load” (2006:736); peoples’ accompanying discomfort at the word was a result of a projected self-image of a nation and people confronted with the discordant reality, inequalities, and despair that people faced (2006:736). These same issues are raised when discussing refugees in Canada: official leaders and/or the general public refuse to believe that “third world” conditions exist within Canadian borders (for example, Canada’s reaction to UN reports on Indigenous conditions: Blanchfield 2013; Commisso 2013; Sharp and Arup 2009; UN 2011). Similarly, official leaders and the general public refuse to believe that European countries could produce refugees (e.g., any explanation regarding the DCO list). These are both examples of how the projected self- image of a nation can be conflicted with the realities and experiences of people.
In general, the stereotype of a racialized or victimized refugee homogenizes and
misleads. The concept of a refugee has morphed into such a detrimental stereotype that a former IRB Member explained:
Chris: The Board Members don’t really understand. And you know, people are, to a certain extent, stuck in this stereotype of a refugee. A refugee is somebody who is being politically active with the opposition party in a totalitarian regime: the police are arresting them, and put them in jail, they are tortured, through the bribe of a relative they get released, they swim across the river, and they arrive in Canada. And then they wrote home, and their uncle sent them all the evidence from their house. That is the conception [of a refugee], I think. And when the minister talks about bogus refugees, that real refugees are from Asia and Africa—
Julianna: Well, that’s been really effective, this notion of queue-jumpers. Any refugee claimant is now by their definition a queue-jumper.
Chris: Yes. And so and people don’t understand this—that in a
democracy, you can be persecuted by the state, or, you can be persecuted by a non-state agent and the state fails to protect you. Either one is okay. That’s [been established] through the Supreme Court of Canada already, many years ago, we’re finished. But he’s bringing back these pre-Ward44 notions of who is a refugee. You can’t be a refugee, basically, if you’re from a democracy; you can’t be a refugee if it’s not the state that’s
persecuting you. The same thing happened in Mexico, when women faced domestic violence and other people faced drug cartels, and those were the two main claims that we’re seeing from Mexico, and it’s the same issue— it’s not the government. Well, the government’s failing to do something… but still people have this idea that [trails off] I think that a lot of it is messaging from the Minister. Because it can’t be based on facts—any average person turns on CNN, sees Anderson Cooper standing in his bulletproof vest on the border, [laughs] reporting from an underground tunnel that was just discovered, it’s obvious what’s going on. So it’s the messaging, and of course in Mexico we’re dealing with free trade issues as well…People don’t understand refugee law, or Refugee 101. And I think that the media is, to an extent, at fault because the media doesn’t say, “Let’s think of the word bogus, what is bogus? Okay, what is a refugee,
44
An immigration case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1993 determining that a “well-founded fear of persecution” includes not only persecution directly from the state but also the inability of the state to protect its citizens from persecution.
what is an immigrant? There’s two different streams here, and let’s just go back to basics and explain the differences”. But they’re not. (Interview 2012, emphasis based on tone)
Through Chris’ explanation, the popular perceptions of refugees are reflections of media representations, public awareness campaigns, political agendas, and so on. The specific impacts of these processes for Roma include policies that target them based on a presumption of, and stereotyping regarding, their inherent non-refugeeness (being both Gypsies and from democratic countries). In closing, this section has intended to provide a foundation for understanding how and why the concepts and related processes of
authenticity and stereotypes are important for understanding how Romani individual and collective identities emerge and transform.