21.11.2014 Stereotype representation of Rroma in Hungary

On the occasion of the asylum application of 60 Hungarian Rroma in Switzerland, SRF-editor Marc Lehmann reports on the conditions in Hungary and Miskolc (Voegeli 2014). In doing so, the former Eastern Europe correspondent reproduces numerous prejudices and misinformation about Rroma that are not based on critical facts, but rather stem from stereotypical views. Lehmann claims: “Most [Rroma] are poorly educated and no longer meet the demands of today’s working environment. That’s why the unemployment rate in the Roma community is about 70, 80, maybe even 90 percent. Most live on welfare, which is indeed minimal: maybe about 150 francs per head. For children there is extra money. Therefore, many Roma families have many children. […] They are indeed not treated well in the current political climate. But one has to say that there have been many attempts to integrate them. However, Rroma cannot be easily integrated. They are certainly not entirely innocent of their situation, what also has to be said. Some like the support of the social system. In addition, the Roma are simply not well organised. They are not easily accessible for those who would actually like to help them. They are divided into clans, each clan is just looking for itself. A solidarity among the Roma cannot be detected.” Lehmann’s assertions that the Rroma do not want to integrate, and have many children to receive child benefits, are absurd. Likewise, is the statement that each Rroma group just looks for itself. While it is true that integration and social advancement also depend on the initiative of the Rroma themselves, that does not mean that Rroma are not exposed to massive discrimination in Hungary. Lehmann does not say a word about the Rroma-hostile policy and propaganda of the right-wing extremist Jobbik, the second largest party in Hungary, which is tolerated by and sometimes even supported by the other parties. He also negates the important fact that the Rroma he describes only constitute the marginalised, visible part of the minority. Most seriously is probably the fact that Lehman simply ignores the entire Rroma history, and the massive discrimination they suffered. Many Rroma are well educated and belong to the middle class or even the upper class, but are not perceived as Rroma and therefore do not appear in the statistics cited by Lehmann. Almost all Rroma want to integrate and have a better life, those who deniy this, overstate the importance of self-initiative and underestimate the power of mechanisms of social exclusion. In addition, he denies the 80,000 to 100,000 Rroma living in Switzerland their existence from, and instead equates Rroma in Switzerland with harvest workers, construction workers, beggars and prostitutes from abroad, which de-facto only constitute a minority of the minority: “Also in Switzerland, the fact is that there are Roma who work here as harvest workers, or in construction; young women, who are involved in prostitution. There are certainly beggars. And where compatriots are, it feels attractive to others.” That Lehmann does not succeed in conveying a differentiated notion of the Rroma, one can read in the comments section of the article. There, one rightwing-nationalist slogan follows the next. Furthermore, most of the houses in the Rroma district of Miskolc, which are now being demolished, were in good condition, and anything but a ghetto, as Lehmann falsely claims (compare Odehnal 2014).