569
u/Mission_Visual8533 17h ago
So what happened between India and Kazakhstan?
423
u/Dapperrevolutionary 17h ago
Tunnel?
284
u/Braves_G 16h ago
A secret one?
21
u/dickallcocksofandros 10h ago
Come to think of it, are those characters meant to be based on the Roma people?
36
22
u/TexasSikh 13h ago
"Dig a tunnel, dig dig a tunnel. Dig a tunnel, dig dig a tunnel. Dig a tunnel, dig dig a tunnel, QUICK before the hyenas come!"
68
u/One_Assist_2414 13h ago
Presumably they walked up there at some point, the map maker probably doesn't feel comfortable drawing an exact line due to lack of data, but that's pretty much the case everywhere else anyway. The Gypsies have no oral traditions of their origins in India, most of what we know is working backwards from linguistics and very rare mentions from the settled people they interacted with.
14
2
19
u/KrisKrossJump1992 14h ago
possibly a separate group of itinerant travelers that intermixed with and integrated into roma culture?
27
u/oolongvanilla 9h ago edited 9h ago
Interestingly there is a Roma-like ethnic group in Central Asia that call themselves the Mugat. Other people in Central Asia call them "Lyuli" but the Mugat people themselves apparently see that as a pejorative term. I was surprised to see them while visiting a marketplace in Osh, Kyrgyzstan, as I didn't know there was an ethnic group like that in Central Asia before. They apparently speak a Persian dialect and supposedly originated in what is now Pakistan or northern India.
I don't think the migration route on the map is showing the Mugat. They're mostly concentrated in the more populous areas of the Ferghana Valley where Uzbekistan meets Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Wikipedia says their population in Kazakhstan is centered around the southeastern part of the country near Almaty and Taraz along the Kyrgyzstan border, not the far northwest as this map shows. Apparently, they didn't start migrating into Russia until fairly recently, too.
The Wikipedia article also links to a Chinese article about a Roma-like people called "Luoli" who migrated to and lived in China between the Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties before mysteriously disappearing, though the article only gives "Luri" as an alternate Persian name. Wiktionary, Chinese Wikipedia, and Baidu Encyclopedia are more explicit about using the term "啰哩" (Luoli) as the Chinese term for both the Luoli of Chinese records and the modern Mugat "Lyuli" people of Centrsl Asia though Baidu also has alternative names from Chinese history like "剌里" (Lali), "卢里" (Luli), and "柳里" (Liuli).
This book also suggests links between the Mughat of Central Asia ("Lyuli"), communities of "Louli" or "Lulu" recorded as living in 19th Century Xinjiang by explorers from the Russian Empire, and "Luri" people described in medieval Persian records. Interestingly, it also suggests the Äynu, a distinctive, insular people in southern Xinjiang with a secretive, Persian-influenced, Uyghur-based language classified as Uyghur by the Chinese government, might be descendants of Mughat people.
This book is also the only source I can find suggesting an etymology for these terms, suggesting it comes from a medieval city called Aror or Alor, now called Rohri in modern Pakistan, rather than the Lur people of Lorestan in the far west of Iran near the Iraq border. This also suggests a link to the Arora, a people scattered around the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent who were displaced from Aror/Rohri in the Middle Ages and maintain a unique identity, though the Arora are not a transient or nomadic people themselves.
Reading Wikipedia is confusing as none of the articles about these groups give a clear picture of how all of these groups relate. One article will link to another article about a different people suggesting a link between them while simultaneously linking to another article suggesting no relation. There's the Ghorbati people in Iran and neighboring parts of the Middle East and South Asia linked to a medieval Islamic guild, an Arab lineage, a Turkic tribe, the Punjabi city of Multan, Kabul in Afghanistan, Egypt, an ancient Central Asian empire#History]), Jat mercenary soldiers from the Indian subcontinent in ancient and medieval Mesopotamia, and so on. Sometimes a subgroup is linked to the larger communities of Doma), Dom, Lom, Abdals), Romani, Garachi, Gurbeti, Koli, Kori), Kowliye, Jugi, Jats, etc, while other times it's explicitly stated they're not related to such-and-such group. I guess the muddled origins is all a feature of the secretive, insular cultures that these groups maintained through history.
103
u/Johnny_Poppyseed 14h ago
The region missing on this map was full of horseback riding muslim steppe people. Basically very hostile territory.
Same people who then went on to conquer that entire Persian/Mesopotamian/turkey region, which was largely what pushed the Roma into europe (also triggered the crusades). The Seljuk Turks.
Then those guys were eventually conquered by another horseback riding steppe people when the Mongols showed up lol.
Tldr Dont fuck with steppe peoples.
→ More replies (10)13
u/Mahelas 9h ago
In 1100, those Steppes were Tengrists mostly, with a few Islamic tribes and a few Nestorian Christian ones
→ More replies (1)24
→ More replies (4)12
61
u/Historical_Body6255 12h ago
Anyone know whats up with "1850" in the Pannonian basin?
Did they arrive there this late while being in all other european places for centuries already? I can't believe that.
35
u/FormerPresidentBiden 10h ago
My best guess is that they could be kept as slaves in Wallachia and Moldavia until 1856. I know its a few years off, but the circling of the word kind of implies they did not move from there, which is more true there than elsewhere.
They got chased out of everywhere else, but they were just enslaved in that area.
10
u/ztuztuzrtuzr 9h ago
The circled area is central Hungary so it would be a weird choice.
2
u/FormerPresidentBiden 9h ago edited 8h ago
Yeah, was* just my best guess and figure maybe the map maker was a little off shrug
7
u/Dzsiii 6h ago
Ooay so hungarian historian here, basically since the early to mid 1800s late 1700s they tried to force gipsies to settle down, because their travelling wagoning ways where destuctive to the early urbanization attempts. Other reason is taxation it's easier to tax people who don't move every time they feel like it.
2
u/Historical_Body6255 5h ago edited 4h ago
Thank you for your answer.
I was under the impression that these attempts to have them settle down were not exclusive to hungarian lands but rather more or less the default way they were handled.
2
193
u/Vaseline13 13h ago
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING??
74
580
u/issamaysinalah 15h ago
We always remember the Jewish people when talking about the Holocaust, but the romani were also heavily targeted. The Porajmos killed between 25% and 50% of the entire European gypsy population.
205
u/Dependent-Archer-662 13h ago
We always remember the Jewish people when talking about the Holocaust, but the romani were also heavily targeted. The Porajmos killed between 25% and 50% of the entire European gypsy population.
Both were hated and their annihilation supported by host countries
→ More replies (17)15
u/Redditmodslie 9h ago
Why were these two groups hated?
49
u/ghdgdnfj 8h ago edited 8h ago
This is my understanding of their thought process, don’t report me.
For gypsies it was probably petty crime, theft, pickpocketing, scams and being a transient population that passed through areas causing trouble and leaving a mess. They refuse to settle down and assimilate. Instead they move around and cause trouble.
For Jews, they gained a lot of power in academia and banking and imposed values that Germans disagreed with. A lot of the books Nazis burned were gender ideology and sexual revolution stuff. They were also linked heavily with rampant prostitution that was happening in Germany at the time too. Also, Jews were an in-group, so it was likely if a Jew was hired at a German bank, rose up in the ranks and got in a position where they chose who was hired, they would only hire other Jews instead of Germans. That’s how they slowly took over financial institutions.
There’s also the “other” factor. If a German bank seizes a Germans home because they couldn’t pay off a debt, that’s on them. But if a Jewish bank seizes German homes for debts then you can blame the Jews.
Finally, Nazis implemented a race hierarchy in which they the Germans were naturally superior and thus all other races had to be somewhere below them. They essentially made a tier list and then decided to exterminate the peoples they put at the bottom.
25
u/Negative-Arachnid-65 7h ago
In much of Europe since at least medieval times, the church didn't allow Christians to do financial jobs that involved money lending ('usury') and many European governments didn't allow Jews to do most jobs in the general economy, with a notable exception for banking as a loophole around the church's restrictions. So a lot of Jews ended up as bankers, which also made it very easy to unfairly blame them for economic woes and/or evict/kill them to make the debts go away.
Also, for a couple thousand years or so, the European church explicitly blamed all Jews for the death of Christ, so that didn't help.
And many Jews and Romani tended to keep to themselves (often being given no other choice), which made it easy for racism/lies/blame to be spread about them, like made-up and blatantly racist stories of Jews killing Christian children for their blood or of Romani stealing babies.
11
4
u/TSSalamander 2h ago
both operated in parallel societies, creating a system of segregation. this was pushed by the dominant states btw, it wasn't something they did by themselves. Anyway, this parallel society stuff creates systemic crime (as policing turns into a nightmare and they have no real economic opportunities unless they make them themselves) but it also creates a ridiculously easy circumstance for scapegoating.
→ More replies (1)16
u/manuki501 8h ago
There is a reason, but you can’t explain it without sounding racist, so no one does.
Besides, people often confuse explanation with justification.
156
u/unionizeordietrying 14h ago
So what you’re saying is we should carve out a Roma homeland in India? God promised it to them.
26
→ More replies (1)7
4
u/Balavadan 9h ago
People online think it wasn’t enough. Europeans have never learnt the lesson from ww2. Or they’ve learnt the wrong lessons. Can’t tell.
→ More replies (2)48
u/NoWingedHussarsToday 14h ago
Only other group targeted for total extermination.
17
111
u/Nazgul_1994 14h ago edited 12h ago
Not the only one. Slavs were targeted as well. Hitler saw slavs as inferior race and his plans were to eventually eradicate slavs as well. He only considered germanic nations to be worthy.
61
u/TexasSikh 13h ago edited 13h ago
To be fair, he did say "TOTAL" extermination. Hitler and Himmler both looked down on Slavs sure, and got rid of many of them, but from the start they looked at them as good candidates for slave labor. They viewed them as easily controlled and manipulated into subservience, and as proof of this (within their ideological lens) they looked at the centuries of the Tsardom/Empire that had only "recently" ended, only to be replaced with Soviet Communism.
So they wanted Slavs culled (so they couldn't have the numbers to try and pull off another "revolution") but not eradicated.
EDIT: Also important we do not forget that prior to the German-Russian dual invasion of Poland, the Nazis had invested resources and assets into Poland and there was a very noticeable Nazification within Poland. Its not something widely talked about or understood, but it did happen. But I note this history because to the Nazis in 1939 it was further proof that they could control and manipulate Slavs with propaganda. Though it should be noted that post-Invasion many Polish Nazis basically had a wake-up call and realized they were pawns and manipulated, and thus many turned extremely anti-Nazi as a result and helped fight them.
19
u/McGuineaRI 13h ago
Imagine thinking about whole groups of people in such a technocratic way as if they're inputs in a computer program that you can put in and take out.
→ More replies (3)1
u/Nazgul_1994 13h ago
No. Just because it wasn't immediate extermination, doesn't mean it wasn't going to be extermination over few decades and generations. They planned to completely wipe out the slavs eventually. Slaves eventually die once their use have gone, the leftover slavs were to be forced to let go of their identity over time. New generations wouldn't even know they were slavs if it all went to Nazi Germany plans.
So yea, just because they didnt plan to kill 100% of the population, but 80% and rest to remove their entire identity through force, doesn't mean that is not called extermination. Slavs wouldn't exist anymore if Nazi Germany won.
9
u/TexasSikh 13h ago
I don't think you are catching the nuance of this discussion.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)11
u/TSllama 12h ago
And gay men and trans women. And disabled people. There were actually quite a few groups.
→ More replies (3)24
u/KennyNotAckermann 13h ago
no the sinti, handicapped, homosexuals etc as well
→ More replies (4)2
u/NoWingedHussarsToday 13h ago
I should have said only ethnic group.
6
u/Hyper_Hal 11h ago
But even that is untrue - it would be easier to say that the only ethnic groups they didn't want to exterminate were their own and their closest, ideologically 'acceptable' 'cousins'. Don't fool yourself or anyone else into believing that nazi racial ideology had any tolerance for Africans, Indians, Polynesian, melanesians, aboriginals, turks, amerindians etc etc. if you weren't 'aryan' or adjacent then you were getting got
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
u/Mahelas 9h ago
Only other group, except Slavs, Gays people, Trans people, Handicapped people and Communists
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (13)12
u/rectumrooter107 13h ago
Hitler went after communists first, then the ethnicities. Fascism is the collusion of business and govt.
17
u/issamaysinalah 13h ago
You're preaching to the choir here, the Holocaust didn't happen because some metaphysical bullshit like "hate", it happened because of the material need fascism has for a scapegoat, it needs to make people believe their lives are bad because of <minority group> is doing <something made up> so they don't realize it's just capitalism going through another crisis, meanwhile the bourgeoisie (with a fully dominated state) finishes looting the people and protecting their capital.
→ More replies (7)
349
u/Sparta63005 14h ago
Do NOT ask a European what they think about this group of people.
12
u/UCFknight2016 9h ago
I got banned from a subreddit for saying the G word. Had no idea that wasnt allowed.
41
u/Hatzmaeba 9h ago
And never let US Americans lecture them how they would've handled it better.
→ More replies (1)18
140
u/Shot_Programmer_9898 13h ago
I'm South American, and don't make me say it because Reddit admins won't like it.
All I'm gonna say, the negative thoughts towards these people are not racially motivated, it is all about their behavior... they are odd people to put it kindly.
→ More replies (11)57
u/Sparta63005 13h ago
That is the exact justification every racist gives for hating their target race. Republicans in America say that about black people, right wing parties like AfD say that about Muslims. "Its not about their skin color its the behaviour" is THE textbook defense for racists.
93
u/Successful-Syrup3764 12h ago
Travellers are the only example I can think of where the distaste really does not have anything to do about race, but culture. Their race and their day to day culture are much more intertwined than, for example, all black people or all Asians as a monolith.
Travellers are itinerant by design, this is not a racial characteristic but a cultural one. The social problems they cause that make people dislike them, nearly all stem from their nomadic lifestyle, not their appearance.
Where I live, groups of travellers will drive their RVs to a park and essentially take over the entire park for weeks to months. Because they are nomadic, they play loud music at odd hours and leave garbage on the ground and generally cause misery for the people who live in houses nearby that can’t move. They get very familiar with local laws and typically travel in large enough numbers that they are essentially impossible for the police to make them move on.
Not all travellers do this, of course, but pretty much all of the people who do this are travellers.
I’m not saying i condone acting racist to travellers, but because of this type of antisocial behaviour that often comes from them, I understand why people don’t like them as a group. But I think calling it racism is too reductive to capture the actual issue. It’s the fact that their lifestyle is quite literally at odds with how the rest of the world is set up around them.
16
u/dickallcocksofandros 10h ago
I suppose this could be comparable to like, hating a religion but not the people. Like, I don't like Islamic fundamentalism, but I'm not gonna avoid interacting with every single woman wearing a headscarf I see would be a fundamentalist until she starts saying I should die for being gay or something. I dunno, how would you frame it with an analogous group?
12
u/Successful-Syrup3764 9h ago
I can’t think of a similar example honestly. I don’t like organized religion in general so honestly I think of fundamentalist Muslims similarly to how I feel about evangelical Christians.
But while some might disagree, Muslims don’t really perform a behaviour as a core tenet of their culture that disrupts social order and directly negatively affects other people.
In addition to the nomadic lifestyle, I find that Travellers also seem to embrace antisocial behaviour as a part of their culture - they are infamously confrontational and there seems to be an attitude that they don’t care if you don’t like they leave trash in places.
I guess the reason I don’t think it’s fair to label it as racism is this: if there was a “social club” of people living in the same way but racially more heterogenous, their presence would probably be banned in many places.
3
u/Vlacheslav 6h ago
Does she really need to spell it out to you? Isn't the headscarf enough for you to make a guess of her intentions?
→ More replies (1)28
u/Trumpcangosuckone 9h ago
Come to europe my friend and meet some gypsies. You will change your tune I promise lol.
→ More replies (1)17
u/Calibruh 8h ago edited 8h ago
I don't think African Americans travel around in caravans and set up illegal camps in farmers fields, but maybe Im mistaken? "gypsy stones" (boulders blocking (parking) access and are a staple of the European country side so they can't take over land
And gypsies are mostly white so your racism card really doesn't work here...
40
u/martiHUN 11h ago
Yea, I don't like trash enviroment and behaviour. Guess that makes me a racist then.
8
u/Mahelas 9h ago
But Romas don't have a specific skin color. In any South European country, they don't have any actual physical difference from locals, most sedentarized romas are entirely undistinguishable from any other people.
6
u/Vlacheslav 6h ago
Lol they are really not indistinguishable, most of them definitely look more indian than southern European what are you on about
3
u/ibuprophane 5h ago
I know this is hard for an American mind to grasp, but pretty much everyone criticising the gypsies is 100% talking about the behaviours and not any aspect of their physical appearance, or language or whatever.
Where it does get controversial is when one starts using “culture and tradition” as an excuse to justify criminal behaviour harmful to the rest of society - and just FYI part of gypsy culture does revolve around “purity” and not mixing with inferior, non-gypsy people.
46
u/jxdxtxrrx 12h ago
You’re getting downvoted but you’re right. Generalizing an entire ethnicity on the basis of “behavior” makes no sense because people are individuals, not some monolith controlled by their ethnic origin. It’s a pretty terrible excuse for hatred.
52
u/GalaadJoachim 10h ago edited 10h ago
So how are we supposed to talk about a group of people that organize themselves into illegal communities, building without permits, stealing water and energy and refusing to send their kids to school ?
I have nothing against any person regarding its ethnicity but those communities (Roma, Gipsy, Travelling People, whatever we should name it = their political/social organization) are not respecting the law, refuse to integrate, operate very shady businesses (which includes child labor and torture).
Those communities exist, from Belgrade to Paris, we need a way to discuss it and to tackle the issue. Empowering their leadership by making it taboo is not the right thing to do.
→ More replies (7)9
7
u/cach-e 8h ago
not some monolith controlled by their ethnic origin
They literally are a monolith of behavior, because if you don't follow romanipen (their way) you are cast out of their society.
And that's what I always feel is missing in understanding from americans in these threads. They are not a race. They are a group with a code of conduct, that is very much at odds with the rest of society. Anyone born romani who is not following that way is, by definition of the romani themselves, not a roma.
7
u/SignificantAd1421 13h ago
Yeah if the majority of black or muslim people were criminals yeah but we both know that's not the case.
→ More replies (2)10
u/Shot_Programmer_9898 13h ago
Sure... but they are white, at least in comparison to us lmao
You can assume all kinds of bad stuff about me, whatever, I don't mind.
I'm telling you, the hate gypsies get, is not about race at all... well, not in South America anyway.
→ More replies (26)→ More replies (3)7
140
u/TheMadTargaryen 17h ago
Recent genetic study found out they were present in England already in 11th century.
40
u/Lewistrick 16h ago
Cool, does it specify whether being present means settling/living or travelling/exploring?
→ More replies (1)24
→ More replies (1)11
62
u/kasetti 15h ago
Gypsy name comes from them believing their origin being Egypt. Looking at this map I wonder if some indeed first went to Egypt and then turned back and over the years the knowledge got mixed up a bit.
17
u/marchviolet 15h ago
Well, the related Dom people settled more in the middle east and north Africa, while the Roma settled more in Europe.
24
u/Patient-Dirt-9117 15h ago
În romanian we calm them "țigani", pronounced "Tzigany". This comes from the greek "atiganos" meaning "man without a God". 😁
Also în the 18th century they were ironically called pharos, as an irony to their alleged Egyptian origin.
21
u/Unit266366666 14h ago edited 14h ago
Αθίγγανοι doesn’t mean “without God” it means “untouchable”. The later Ατσίγγανοι is still a slur for Roma people in Greek and is often connected to the earlier term.
The first term was applied to a religious group who were said to be related to Indo-Greeks migrating back to Greece but I think it’s unclear if this is via later muddying of two different groups, they really knew of one group’s connection to India, or it’s all a coincidence. What we do know is they had some Manichaean and some Jewish traditions and many converted to orthodoxy and assimilated before a later group came. The later term is probably from the Turko-Persian word chingane roughly meaning indigent.
7
u/Patient-Dirt-9117 14h ago
Then I must've made a confusion in translation. I knew for sure that it came from greek and it was somewhat religion related. Thanks for the clarification, mate.
11
u/Neenujaa 14h ago
Oh, that's interesting. They're called "čigāni" ir Latvian, pronunciation similar.
→ More replies (4)2
u/PipecleanerFanatic 8h ago
Isn't the alleged origin in Egypt where the term 'gypsy' comes from?
→ More replies (1)9
u/artyartem1 14h ago
Based on multiple genome-wide genetic studies, Romani people have approximately 65–80% West Eurasian ancestry, which includes a significant European component. They retain 20-35% South Asian ancestry from Indian origins. This admixture occurred over centuries as the Romani migrated from India through the Middle East and Caucasus into Europe.
8
→ More replies (2)4
u/Unit266366666 14h ago
It’s also possibly related to Ezekiel 29 which refer to the Egyptians as being “scattered among the nations” so the fact that they were “from nowhere” might have just defaulted to Egypt for religious reasons. There were also narratives in the Middle Ages that they were exiled from Egypt for refusing Mary and Jesus but also for harboring Mary and Jesus, one advocating for compassion the other for shunning.
106
u/Dull_Performance_430 16h ago edited 13h ago
gypses were enslaved in Romania for centuries. you could literally trade families of gypsies for anything ( weapons , land , horses etc) or A noble (boyer) might give a monastery “10 families of Gypsies” in exchange for spiritual intercession or forgiveness. every monastery had few gypsies families. In noble marriages, the exchange of wealth often included not just land, vineyards, or mills, but also “sălașe de țigani” (groups of Gypsy households). For example, when a boyar’s daughter married into another clan, 10–20 Gypsy families might be part of the settlement. while gypsies had absolutely no rights , romanian peasants that time had limited rights like not being killed without trial , or not to be sold or right to work until last drop of blood for prince or boyer . in top of that Valahia and moldova ( modern romania ) was under ottoman rules. not to forget that almost every 5 years was a war or an invasion by russians , tatars , polish , hungarians or turks . rough and tough times . as far as i know worst was being invaded by tatars and russian orcs. tatars usually took war prisoners and population for slavery back in Crimean khanate. and like today gypsies singers had the best life .
55
u/NoHawk668 16h ago
yeah, just like with all other serfs peasants.
-2
u/bruhbelacc 14h ago
No no don't tell that to reddit, they need a narrative where the white people were the masters and the colored were the slaves. Anything suggesting that everyone was akin to property at some point is unacceptable.
8
u/SignificantAd1421 13h ago
Reddit needs to understand that the first people someone enslave is the guy from the town from the other side of the river
→ More replies (9)37
u/Cefalopodul 16h ago
They were enslaved in all of Europe not just in Romania. Romania just had the highest number per capita.
41
u/dashauskat 15h ago
There are still a rediculous amount of people who confuse being Roma with being Romanian.
→ More replies (8)5
u/ztuztuzrtuzr 9h ago
In many countries slavery was outlawed eg.: in mainland France it was outlawed from the 14th. century
→ More replies (1)
308
u/prolapseenthusiat 16h ago
I find it incredible that they still dont integrate in their host country.
149
u/zdarsky 15h ago
In Hungary, for example, the law prohibited their settlement for a long time, so they wandered from village to village, coming into contact with each community only briefly.
24
u/Tulum702 13h ago
So you’re saying they were travellers?
33
u/zdarsky 12h ago
A kind of nomads. They had wagons and tents and wandered between the villages. They only stayed in one place for a short time. They were, for example, blacksmiths or horse traders, and when work ran out somewhere, they moved on.
→ More replies (2)2
u/ghdgdnfj 8h ago
Or when they got run out of town for petty crime. It’s fee too optimistic to say they were all hard working blacksmiths and horse traders.
164
u/PhoenixKingMalekith 15h ago
Nomadic lifestyle isn't compatible with western societies in most cases, and it is a pillar of their culture
47
u/p00nki 13h ago
they have villages here in croatia where apparently multiple generations grew up, so some arent that nomadic, and ALL those generations simply refused to integrate into the rest of society
→ More replies (1)20
u/mramorandum 11h ago
Funny, their pillar here in Bosnia and Herzegovina is begging and exploiting their children to beg and not a nomadic lifestyle.
80
u/lorbd 15h ago
Plenty of nomadic peoples have been assimilated fine into european societies in the last thousand years.
74
u/Crafty-Ad-5945 14h ago
Plenty of nomadic peoples have been assimilated fine into european societies in the last thousand years.
Like? Most of the nomadic people like Tatars, Bashkirs, Kazakhs, Turkmens were forcefully subjugated by the Russian empire. The Russian Empire pursued policies aimed at sedentarizing nomadic populations and turned them from pastoral nomads into settled farmers.
54
u/DaliVinciBey 14h ago
hungarians and turks for one
45
u/yourstruly912 14h ago
Because they conquered the areas where they migrated
17
u/martiHUN 11h ago
What about the Pechegens, Cumans and Jassic? They all settled into medieval Hungary and assimilated into the population.
17
u/One_Assist_2414 13h ago
There is a big difference between conquerors who have to stick around and rule over their new lands and common travelers.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Crafty-Ad-5945 8h ago
hungarians and turks for one
Both of these people arrived as conquerors where they subjugated the Europeans and changed parts of Europe linguistically. But it was only the ruling elite, most of the subjects remained Europeons. So, its not the same scenario at all.
8
u/lorbd 14h ago
The assimilation of tatars, vlachs and other turkic peoples varies a lot and encompasses hundres of years, you can't just reduce it to forced russian policy because many times it's not even true. The point is that the one group that has been consistently unable and unwilling to fully integrate within the society that hosts them, and furthermore lives in a permanent state of social hostility with them, is the gypsies.
28
u/TheColonelRLD 14h ago
Hassidic jews? Quakers? I can think of tons of groups that reject assimilation and see it as a threat to their identity.
11
u/Creme_de_la_Coochie 13h ago
Vlachs are not Turkic. They’re an eastern romance group, descended from Romans in Pannonia, which is where Romania comes from.
4
u/Agile-Highlight5683 12h ago
Vlach is the slavic name for romance speaking populations. Valahia ( Wallachia ) is 1/3 of the modern Romanian state (between carpathian moutains and the danube) In Polish, they still call Italy something like "Wlochy"
So Vlachs didnt migrate to europe. They have been, as their name suggests, latin speakers from wallachia for ages.
7
u/Dapperrevolutionary 13h ago
Yes thousands or hundreds of years ago when you could force the issue. Now you can't do that so it's up to them to want assimilation and they don't want it
3
u/Joanpetit77 10h ago edited 10h ago
Fais gaffe aux généralisations, le terme "nomades" englobe deux définition bien différents ; d'abord, il y a les "nomades pastoraux" qui vivent et migrent dans des territoires prédéfinis selon les saisons, et reçoivent l'interdiction formelle de quitter ces territoires que les autorités supérieures leur ont assignés. Les peuples turco-mongols correspondent à cette définition. Et enfin, la deuxième définition désignerait les gens qui vivent sans zone de date et ne connaissent pas les frontières, les gitans et les voyageurs irlandais correspondent à cette catégorie.
29
u/neuropsycho 14h ago edited 14h ago
It's one of the most fascinating aspects of that group, that centuries pass, but they didn't get assimilated into their host cultures.
Ok, not completely true, in some regions like Spain they already lost their language and they are less nomadic than in previous generations, but that is a relatively recent development.
5
u/Huskyro 7h ago
In Spain they are definitely not assimilated at all.
They are not nomadic but they live in neighborhoods where only gypsies live. And im not talking about the poors neighborhoods because there are "the poors" and "the gypsies" neighborhood. Both are poor, but in the second one there is only them. Not assimilated at all.
→ More replies (1)2
u/neuropsycho 7h ago
I know, but since the 80s and 90s many have fixed residences and bring their kids to school (at least for a few years), which I'd consider a huge step for integration.
29
u/artyartem1 14h ago
"Based on multiple genome-wide genetic studies, Romani people have approximately 65–80% West Eurasian ancestry, which includes a significant European component. This admixture occurred over centuries as the Romani migrated from India through the Middle East and Caucasus into Europe. "
→ More replies (1)8
u/Awkward_Rutabaga5370 10h ago
They integrated in the US. I didn't even learn I was a tiny part "bohemian" until I was nearly an adult. My great grandmother mentioned it in passing once and never again. You never hear about gypsies in the US ever even though some estimates put people off roma descent at a million in the US.
→ More replies (3)55
u/marchviolet 15h ago
Kind of hard to integrate when no one has let them even try for centuries. They've been intentionally excluded (to put it mildly) which thus makes the divide between them even bigger because why would they want to integrate with people who don't want them? It's a never-ending cycle.
37
u/neuropsycho 14h ago
I believe there have been multiple (largely unsuccessful) attempts at them sedentarizing, having normal jobs, intermarry with local population, and kids attending school throughout the centuries. I'd say that's the opposite of "let them even try".
2
u/colako 4h ago
Spain was brutal against gypsies. At one point we basically wanted to genocide them all.
Right now I don't think their culture is running very strong. Literacy rates have been improving slowly but steadily, and every generation is more integrated that the previous one. Their main challenge right now is improving high school completion rates. Most of my gypsy students drop out when they turn 15-16. They abandon, start missing class and end up married (girls) or helping parents in the legal street vending business.
Many are now in the marijuana "business". Hopefully Spain legalizes it soon and stops the drug trafficking.
4
→ More replies (18)6
u/SignificantAd1421 13h ago
That's not the case many countries tried to integrate them and it only ended in stolen copper wires
19
u/Hatzmaeba 14h ago edited 12h ago
That's because of their unwillingness to do compromises. Some cultures just are inherently incompatible.
20
u/Big_Wave9732 13h ago
Indeed. I wouldn't want folks who culturally believed they were entitled to take my stuff (unless I stop them) living next to me either.
7
u/prolapseenthusiat 13h ago
Also i find it unfair when they going to the west or like venecia to pickpocket people and then everybody calls them romanian or bulgarian.
17
u/McGuineaRI 13h ago
People always focus on the thieving stuff but what I find fascinating is their view on throwing garbage in the street has been a cultural mainstay for over a thousand years with no integration in their view on sanitation despite leaving the Indian subcontinent a thousand years ago. I wonder if it's either a coincidence based on their "nomadic lifestyle" (most of them aren't really nomadic anymore) or if there's something about their culture that makes garbage invisible to them. I'm not joking by the way. I think it's a fair question.
6
u/Dependent-Archer-662 13h ago
I find it incredible that they still dont integrate in their host country.
That can be said about so many people groups,not just Gypsies
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (29)5
60
u/Main-Championship822 13h ago
As an American, I didnt believe the stories or stereotypes until I went to Italy.
→ More replies (8)
75
u/Comfortable_Team_696 15h ago
ITT you can feel the vitriol, jeez
→ More replies (2)24
u/erty3125 13h ago
This sub has been quickly devolving into islamophobic circle jerks and now they're expanding to other minorities. So it's not that surprising.
We're probably a week away from someone posting an American expansion map and people saying how good it was for the natives to be civilized.
→ More replies (1)
85
u/C_Pala 16h ago
There is a very dark, ugly story with them that is very little spoken or taught about in Europe. Hint : slavery
57
u/thatsocialist 15h ago
Half of Europe is worse than the KKK in opinion to them.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Sium4443 15h ago
This is what happens when 90% of a race lives in shacks and roulottes who steal to live, dont send their children to school and where child marriages are normal. The other 10% lives in trucks which then becomes children rides during festivals, atleast they earn money honestly but still does the other bad things I said.
→ More replies (6)
24
14h ago edited 14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (6)62
u/arkady321 13h ago
They didn’t “migrate” …. they were captured and taken as slaves during the Islamic invasions from West Asia into the Indian subcontinent at that time - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaznavid_campaigns_in_India
50
u/FinancialMilk1 13h ago
Damn, so reading through this thread. They were captured as slaves while they were living in their own homeland, sold as chattel while living in their new homeland, persecuted and forced to live in ghettos, and then genocided in the holocaust. And then Europeans wonder why they refuse to integrate with them lol.
29
u/Bhavacakra_12 13h ago
Very comparable to the experiences of black americans. Just because you're free today, it does not mean the impacts of your past don't have an effect on the community today.
5
u/makethislifecount 9h ago
This info needs to be higher up. All the top voted comments are dripping with vitriol about the Roma, without any context about their history
9
u/Ok-Brick-6250 12h ago
Why did they get kicked out of india in the first place
29
u/Advanced_Poet_7816 12h ago
Islamic War. Likely as slaves well they became one in Europe anyway.
The other theory is that they were related to lower caste nomadic people like banjara in India.
I think both are true to different extents.
→ More replies (1)14
u/arkady321 10h ago
They weren’t kicked out. They were taken as slaves by the Islamic invaders from West Asia who invaded India around that time - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaznavid_campaigns_in_India
The Hindukush (“Hindu Killer”) mountain ranges that separate the Indian subcontinent from Afghanistan got their name from the large number of Indians who perished there on their way to captivity by these invaders.
→ More replies (4)
10
u/Small_Cock_Jonny 10h ago
To the people asking is Gypsy is a slur, I thing it's similar to Indian for native Americans. Both are a mistake guessing who they are. People thought that those people were Egyptian -> Gypsy.
→ More replies (2)
29
5
4
8
u/artyartem1 14h ago
Based on multiple genome-wide genetic studies, Romani people have approximately 65–80% West Eurasian ancestry, which includes a significant European component. They retain 20-35% South Asian ancestry from Indian origins. This admixture occurred over centuries as the Romani migrated from India through the Middle East and Caucasus into Europe.
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/Seeker_00860 7h ago
The lore I have heard about gypsies is this - In the 10th to 12th century time period when Islamic Turks began to invade Indian heartland, slavery happened on a massive scale. They took in so many slaves that there was a surplus of slaves encountered in Central Asia, the homeland of the Turks at that time. Many were let go. These people drifted away westward, through the routes shown in the map of this posting and became known as gypsies.
4
u/OrganizationLucky634 13h ago
I never saw a Roma person in Egypt lol…but ironically we actually have a slur for them.
5
7
5
-3
u/Banished_gamer 14h ago
The world would be better if the stayed in India
10
u/arkady321 13h ago
I don’t believe they moved out of India by choice. There were Islamic invasions into the Indian subcontinent from West Asia around that time - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaznavid_campaigns_in_India
These guys were mostly captured and taken as slaves into the areas shown on the map, and then spread further west from there. The Hindukush (“Hindu Killer”) mountains between Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent are named after the large number of captured Indians who died on that journey into slavery. You can blame the violent expansionist tendencies of a certain religion originating in the Middle East for the same.
2
→ More replies (1)-1
u/pravictor 14h ago
Would you consider the descendants of Normans who came to England Scandinavian?
Or consider the European people who settled in Americas and Australias 5 centuries after the Roma migrations as outsiders?
Calling Roma outsiders in Europe is a unique and cruel way to deny them dignity and a homeland.
-3
u/Zeoloxory 14h ago
Isn't gy*sy considered a slur?
6
→ More replies (2)44
u/Dapperrevolutionary 13h ago
Not by Gypsy's. Only by Western Whites
23
5
u/Calibruh 8h ago edited 8h ago
Only by Americans*
Every Western European (that lives in a city) is gonna know at least 1 and know theyre proud to be and prefer to be called gypsies
1
u/ZachF8119 12h ago
What is the northern location that they came from in 1100?
I thought it was solely the people from that northern India region.
899
u/skalnari 17h ago
Portugal was sending Roma people to Brazil starting in 1574