Defenses of any Underclass: None, From the System. Poverty, Their Fault?

No Consideration for Extenuating Circumstances.
Poverty as Defense to Crime - Little Recognized

Fault for Retrievals, Takings, Lie with the Individual, Not the System.
Parallels to American black history?

Roma, in Romania, retrieving in a dump

Roma at a dump in Romania. Issues of poverty for many. Take what is needed, retrieve what is owed. There is a line in 'Zoli', something like,

"From what is broken, I will make what is required."

Hunger, ingenuity, survivors; and then the other end of the scale - wealth, fine cars and clothes, Roma upper groups, enjoying the casino at Sibiu, Romania, getting out of the fine, big cars, in charge.

In many cultures, the reason for the theft, an extenuating circumstance, see ://www.answers.com/topic/extenuating-circumstances-1may mitigate a sentence. Where an economic imbalance has become part of a system, however, the system may refuse or be unable to see its role in the extenuation. It is easier to recognize a single set of circumstances as emergency, after which the person recovered balance. Not so with Gypsies, Roma. Is this true, that the fault is seen as theirs.

Compare incarceration of blacks in the United States with incarceration of Roma in Eastern Europe, other areas. Parallels. See The Black Commentator at ://www.blackcommentator.com/82/82_prisons.html/ The treatment is said to reflect implicit national policy, approval of disparate treatment. The Roma are not seen in many areas as legitimate citizens.

Like any other group, people divide into gradations, social stratification, even degradation in the status for some. Getting what is needed from a dump is not necessarily a degradation however; it is also a means to remaking, earning a living. One culture's view may not be another's. Is our dumpster-diving so different, any less needed.

In connection with poverty comes to mind another issue -we read, and lines in "Zoli" (pp____ coming) comment that Gypsies were expelled, caravans forced out of towns, and a reason is the accusations against them as to theft. It is said that they stole. Or cheated people. And there are examples of that happening in the book, especially at the close of the novel.

A start on figuring this out. Go to Studying War, at the section addressing roles people take or are assigned in their overall cultural setting. Then, look at how their interactions lead to conflict. within a group, and with others. See an analysis of conflict sliding into violence, other into national and international settings (forcing migrations out), at ://www.zef.de/441.0.html

Poverty also has been used as a defense to crime. See "Shifting the Blame:How Victimization Became a Criminal Defense," by Saundra D. Westervelt, Rutgers Univ. Press 1999. The issue is neither new nor simple. No conclusions here, just raising concerns here so far. Is criminality and theft too focused on the lower strata, where the crime do minimal "damage," but may be more personal --compared to the humungous economic thefts going on higher up, but where it is less personal. Less in the face. Is that so?

Fostering theft, the taking back, or the taking to get what is needed, or the taking in order to regain some self-respect, whatever reason. Including sheer greed and disregard. What behaviors do develop, and where may some kind of responsibility lie, when a group

• is set aside as a virtually permanent underclass,
• identifiable by physical characteristics or custom, and
  
• targeted easily by others who refuse them assimilation or even acceptance of difference (if the people did not seek assimilation, as the Gypsies did not seek assimilation) and
  
• are subject to continuing prejudice because the group still can be spotted by physical or cultural difference
  

Among the groupings* that may be useful to look at in the targeting process, are the relationship between:

a) a society's extractors - each seeking to get what he or chs can for self FN1 - those who victimize others, in the name of the right to self-seek.

b) a society's lifestylers, groups that seek to preserve their financial and social rank in the society - who may well fear others, fear loss, and seek to entrench; and

c) a society's fodder, groups that are defined out of consideration - lose out to others

What does Zoli say and do: Perspective. Look back at Zoli, I am looking for the page____, a Gypsy character notes, as I recall, that a Gypsy may steal a chicken or two out of need; but an outsider would take the whole henhouse and then burn down the place. This is not to romanticize any group. It is to say that fodder defends itself; and also that societies create a need for fodder - a foundation that does not move. Someone is always there. The poor always with us, and shrug, as though we should care.

Elsewhere forms: Allegations of "welfare fraud" The tax games, the exorbitant profits, economic abuse, all the rest - Gypsies - who have developed their own sense of purity against outsiders, in a sense justifying takings, in the same league as takings by higher economic groups and their dodginess. Extractors are in every group, as are all the other groupings. Is that so?

And should it make a difference. Ongoing thoughts. See also "Justifying Justice: Therapeutic Law and the Victimization Defense Strategy," J.L.Nolan and S.D.Westervelt, Sociological Forum Vol. 15, No. 4, Dec. 2000, pp.617-646, at
www.ingentaconnect.com/klu/sofo/2000/00000015/00000004/00229364.

Issue may be more the cycle of abuse. The abused then abuse others. That is recognized in other areas. Look up domestic violence. Apply it here. Also, go to RomNews Network Community@RomNews.com/de. URL at http://www.romnews.com/community/modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=41.

Buy a T-shirt there, a dignified black one with white letters, "Gypsy Power."
..................................................................................
FN 1 A society's extractors -- those in any economic or social bracket who get what they can whenever they can. Do they see their job as to look out for themselves, regardless, and they feel unfairly dealt with otherwise, as they look around. If it's there for the taking, including crop subsidies that are not financially needed, take it. Maybe.