Roma Gypsy Slavery in Romania

[Blondie]

Are they native hungarians or other gypsies? Those people should be punished with the full force of the law, BUT it is illegal, and a few cases (relative to all gypsies and all hungarians) i mean anecdotal not really representive of the gypsies or anything. But slavery of gypsies was legal, and a legal and common practice, all gypsies were slaves, read the article, they were born from generation to generation into slavery, it was by the empire/state and legal, do gypsies enslave legally and systematically all hungarians?

Im disappointed in you Blondie you blame gypsies again instead of even acknowledging that it happened and was bad. Not one word of condemnation or "aha i didnt know that even" came from you.

These modern slaves can be hungarians and gypsies, but it doeesnt change the fact the owners are almost all gypsies. Every kind of slavery is disgusting, but you cannot blame romanians what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago. Now Romania is a democratic state with minority rights this also applies for gypsies who dont respect laws and they keep slaves in the modern times.

[Mortimer]

These modern slaves can be hungarians and gypsies, but it doeesnt change the fact the owners are almost all gypsies. Every kind of slavery is disgusting, but you cannot blame romanians what their ancestors did hundreds of years ago. Now Romania is a democratic state with minority rights this also applies for gypsies who dont respect laws and they keep slaves in the modern times.

i think it would be a few gypsies only who are slave owners, a few criminals etc. they should be punished, you cannot at all speak of "the gypsies" at all. that is as rare as hungarians who fuck little children in thailand or practice sex slavery of some kind.

[cyrus]

Few know (I didnt even know myself, before reading about Roma Gypsy history either) that Gypsies were Slaves too.


https://www.europeana.eu/de/blog/rom...cnvRGbkk7l3jWI

Been there, done that:

"Herodotus wrote that the Thracians (which he considered to include the Getae) sold their children in slavery to traders. Polybius wrote that the Greeks brought slaves "of best quality" from the people living on the shores of the Black Sea.
During the late Roman Republic (roughly between 130 BC and 31 BC), large numbers of Roman denarii were imported into Dacia. There are over 25,000 such coins in Romanian collections, most of which were found in large hoards, a far higher number than anywhere outside the Roman Empire. An explanation for this large amount of imported Roman silver would be that the Dacians exported large numbers of slaves to Rome."

Nothing that gypsies suffered over the centuries was something new or unusual.

[dviz]

Few know (I didnt even know myself, before reading about Roma Gypsy history either) that Gypsies were Slaves too.


https://www.europeana.eu/de/blog/rom...cnvRGbkk7l3jWI

Some form of indebted servitude of the gypsies has happened in the former Romanian principalities. However, calling it slavery is wrong, no matter how hard the extreme left is pushing this label. During the worst of times, gypsies had more restrictions on freedom, but were subject to less compulsory work than the rest of the population.

Regardless, creating a victim identity for the gypsies is the last thing the gypsies would want if they still desire to integrate and reach an average social status. African Americans are a prime example of what happens when you go down this road. Until mid 1960s, African Americans were on a path of reaching economic parity with the rest of the population, then suddenly when the civil rights movement apparently reached its legal objectives that progress has suddenly stopped, and black Americans are lagging behind economically ever since. Now, they're just farmed for votes by the Democrats. I hope gypsies learn the proper lesson from this.

[dviz]

And to be clear, that article in the OP post is woke trash. Gypsies in the Danubian Principalities could be sold/donated only together with the land they lived on, like any other serf (except when donated to monasteries). However, during medieval times, there was very little to stand against the will of a warlord, and so the powerful of those times did sell serfs and gypsies, even without the land (against the law). There is another provision to this. When the serfs were liberated, the gypsies were not. Instead, their situation got worse (for about 50 years), when the protections for selling were mostly removed or ignored. Though even during this dark period, there were no slave markets in the Principalities, in contrast to the countries where slavery and slave trade was legal.

Btw, during the 500 years discussed in the OP article, Gypsies were fleeing the Ottoman empire, where they were supposedly free. Why were they coming to the Romanian principalities for centuries? Just to be enslaved? No, they came because the living conditions were better, despite the deprivations.

[Sacrificed Ram]

I think the serfdom condition of gypsies in Romania was similar with terrones in southern Italia.

[Sacrificed Ram]

So what? Now in 21. century gypsies are the only slave owners in Europe. There is 36000 slave only in Hungary, their owners are gypsies. Read this article:

https://24.hu/belfold/2015/12/19/csi...agyarorszagon/

Some say that Russia invaded Ukrayne because of similar case... But not thrustable source.