Jak Romowie pamiętają?

Abstract

(A polemics with Michael Stewart’s article Remembering without commemoration: the mnemonics and politics of Holocaust memories among European Roma, „Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute” nr 10, 2004) In the recent years the traditional approach to Roma as „people without history and memory” has been challenged, among others, by a new perspective that assumes that even if Roma do not consciously reflect upon their past, the past is „remembered” for them due to the fact that it is in a way „stored” or „embedded” in the nature of the relations between Roma and non-Roma. Such an „implicit memory” approach, represented by Michael Stewart, means a step forward since it has assumed a more sophisticated concept of social memory. Nevertheless, it shares with the older approach the essentialized concept of Roma identity. With a help of Lech Mroz’s conception of Romani „non-memory that does not mean forgetting”, I am developing my criticism of Stewart’s argument as (1) treating the Roma as a passive and static group formed by external determinants; (2) homogenizing the diversity of Romani life; (3) presenting a monolithic picture of the non-Roma world; (4) seeing a firm borderline between Roma and non-Roma while we should rather speak here of a liminal frontier zone; (5) neglecting the actual cases of active remembrance among Roma, supported by Romani commemorative ceremonies. In the end, I am suggesting that in contemporary „postmodern condition” the Romani practices of memory and identity do not radically differ from the non-Romani ones, especially those influenced by traumatic historical experience.

(Polemìka e Michael Stewartesqëre artikleça Remembering without commemoration: the mnemonics and politics of Holocaust memories among European Roma/ Te seres bi komemoraciaqëro: mnemonìka thaj politìka vaś-o Samudarien maśkar Evropaqëre Rromenθe, „Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute” nr 10, 2004) And-o palutne berśa, o purano gaŴikano dikhipen p-o Rroma sar „manuśa bi historiaqëro thaj bi seripnasqëro” arakhlǎs angla pesθe jekh nevi teòria, pala savǎθe so, madikh so o Rroma na rakiren resal pala penqëro nakhlipen, o nakhlipen naj lenqe bisterdo odolesqe, so si vareso so „andrećhuven” varesar and-i natùra lenqëre relacienqëri e gaŴençar. Gasavo „implicìto seripen”, sar prezentuil les o Stewart, si jekh pozitìvo padmad, odolesqe so sikavel jekh buteder sofistikuime koncèpcia e socialone memoriaqër/seripnasqëri. Mamuje, na Ŵal but dur e purane dikhipnasθar and-i pućhipen e Rromenqëre identitaqëro. Dindor godǐ pal-e Lech Mrozesqëri idèa so „biseripen naj bisteripen”, vàzdav krìtika mamuj-e Stewartesqëri argumentàcia, savi (1) dikhel e Rromen sar jekh pasìvo thaj bitragandi grùpa, kerdini avrutne faktorěnθar, (2) kerel jekh sa o ververa ćhanda aj fòrme e rromane Ŵivipnasqëre, (3) sikavel sar unifòrmo sa o gaŴikane kultùre, (4) kerel jekh granìca ćhindi ćhurǎça maśkar-o Rroma thaj o gaŴe – odoj kaj amen buteder dikhas jekh buxli granicaqëri zòna maśkar lenθe, (5) bistrel o sure, kana ćaćipnasθe o Rroma seren miśtes o nakhlipen thaj keren liparne ceremònie. Agore, si miri sugèstia so and-amaro „postmodèrno” sundal, o rromane praktìke memoriaqëre thaj identitetaqëre naj but dur e gaŴikaněnθar, buteder odolenθar save nakhle historikane travmatìzmǎ.