Чешмеджиева Д. Media Presentations of Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the UK: The Metaphor of War in Articles on Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the UK. – В Journal of International Scientific Publications: Language, Individual & Society. Vol. 3. Info Invest: Bulgaria, 2009. 30-38
Media Representations of Roma and Gypsies:
The Metaphor of War in Newspaper MATERIALS on Roma in Bulgaria and Gypsies in the UK
Desislava S. Cheshmedzhieva
Department of English Studies, University of Shumen, Bulgaria
115 Universitetska Str., 9712 Shumen
Abstract:
Eversince the first half of the nineteenth century the press has been referred to as the Fourth Estate. Media texts represent a powerful weapon to influence and form public opinion. They employ various strategies to acquire their goal.
Metaphors are one of the most interesting and at the same time the most powerful devices that are used in the press. The usage of metaphors in media discourse also facilitates a more vivid presentation of the images that are being created and distributed.
The metaphor of War is one of the most widely used devices when media talk about interethnic relations. What media stress upon is the clash between different cultures, the animosity and constant conflict between the ethnic groups. The presentation of these phenomena through the metaphor of War as well as the ideas that are conveyed form the focus of the paper.
Key words: media discourse, ethnic groups, interethnic relations, metaphor,negativism
The media have an active role in the construction, reflection and popularization of public opinion. They mirror and at the same time influence the processes inherent in society. They create images of events and people that remain printed in people’s minds and very often determine people’s reactions and attitudes should they experiencesituation similar to the one presented. This is especially true for interethnic encounters. People keep the images of the ethnic Other as presented in the media and subconsciously react to them the way media have shown other people act.
Gypsies nowadays are one of the groups that are highly subjected to negativism which is often represented through acts of intolerance and discrimination. The usual stand, as Frazer has stated, is “that for the last century and longer, all Travellers, whatever their ethnic status, have been labelled as ‘criminals’, ‘deviants’, ‘vagabonds’ and ‘asocial’” (qtd. in Clark 2000). Gypsies are the “folk devils” (Cohen 2002) the society stands against.
One of the features that characterize media discourse in Bulgaria and the UK is high frequency of metaphor usage (see Fowler 1991). Metaphors,as figures of speech that connect two seemingly unrelated fields, are highly expressive and very provocative. Media achieve their influential character through the transfer of features from one more specific domain to another which is more abstract. The usage of metaphors in media discourse also facilitates a more vivid presentation of the images that are being created and distributed.
The corpus of the current paper is composed of three Bulgarian and three British newspapers[1]. The total number of analyzed materials is 1380 Bulgarian and 705 British texts. The metaphors allocated are around 300[2], which could be roughly subdivided into 3 major metaphors. The metaphor of War is the one that is most extensively used in Bulgarian and British newspapers when they talk about Gypsies and Travellers in the UK and Roma in Bulgaria[3]. Due to the different social conditions that characterize the two groups, the topics that the metaphor introduces are also different. The feeling that is being created though is the same: animosity and intolerance.The metaphor adds negative features to the image both groups have in their respective countries and thus widens the gap between Gypsies and non-Gypsies.
The goal of the paper is to study the linguistic means that activate the War metaphor and to analyze the feelings that the metaphor provokes.
Bulgarian media discourse introduces the metaphor directly in the headlines of 40 ofthe texts that present encounters between Roma and Bulgarians:
“Цигани хвърлят гранати в бой между кланове /h/[4] (St/ 07.08.02); Христо Змияра поведе опълчение срещу ромите.Българите се заключили в домовете си в нощта на битката” /h/ (St/ 08.06.05); Ромска вендета потроши 8 къщи /h/ (St/ 04.04.02)”. / “Gypsies throw grenades in a fight between clans /h/ (St/ 07.08.02); Hristo the Snake catcher led a rebellion against the Roma. The Bulgarians locked themselves up in their homes in the night of the battle /h/ (St/ 08.06.05); Roma vendetta demolished 8 houses /h/ (St/ 04.04.02)”[5].The examples show different agents. In one of them the initiators are the Roma, in another one a Bulgarian, while in the third – anaction that has been undertaken. Based on these examples it could be concluded that the metaphor of War is used to describe not only Roma actions but also the behavior of the Bulgarians towards the Roma. Looking at the whole corpus though, it is observed that the frequency of Roma agents in prominent position is much higher than that of Bulgarian agents.In the analyzed newspapers Roma appear as the agents in 71% of the headlines introducing the topic of crime.
The lexemes and phrases that activate the War metaphor in texts on interethnic relations are usually “fight”, “army of volunteers”, “grenades”, “rebellion”, “vendetta”, “rioting”, used directly in the headlines. All said lexemes bring negative associations and create stereotypes about the members of the community as violent and hostile towards the non-Roma.
Use of weapons in presented as the only possible measure to counteract the actions of the Roma and the results are obvious: „Частни охранители стрелят на месо” (“Private guards shoot to kill” /h/)(S/ 05.04.02).
Verbs such as „надигам се” (“rise”), „беснея” (“rage”),„чупя” (“break”), „паля” (“burn”), „заплашвам” (“threaten”), as well as nouns such as „барикади” (“barricades”), „протести” (“protests”), „поражение” (“defeat”), „война” (“war”) also appear in Bulgarian headlines:
“Роми вилнеят в Пловдив заради спрения ток /h/ (Dn/ 19.02.02); Роми окупираха съда във Видин /h/ (St/ 13.03.03); Професор загина при битка в София /h/ (St/ 04.08.05)”. / “Roma rage in Plovdiv because of electricity cut off /h/ (Dn/ 19.02.02); Roma occupied the court in Vidin /h/ (St/ 13.03.03); A professor died in battle in Sofia /h/ (St/ 04.08.05)”.The impression that is being created is that no one could effectively stand up against the Roma. The examples also instill the feeling of the impunity of Roma community, which adds to the distance between Bulgarians and Roma.
The texts on illegal Roma “ghettos” also use the metaphor of War to present the encounters between Roma and non-Roma:
“Колиби от тухли и картон никнат като гъби. София започна битка с ромските катуни /h/ (St/ 02.09.05); Ромски бунт във Варна, реституират Максуда /h/ (S/ 26.09.01); Фадроми срещу гетото /h/ (St/ 10.04.01)”. / “Brick and cardboard huts grow like mushrooms. Sofia started a battle with Roma camps /h/ (St/ 02.09.05); Roma rebellion in Varna […] /h/ (S/ 26.09.01); Loaders sent against the ghetto /h/ (St/ 10.04.01)”.The examples presented above suggest the repetition of the process of demolition and re-creation of illegal dwellings, as well as the intensity of the involvement of the two groups. The key words here are „битка” (“battle”), „бунт” (“rebellion”), „битка” (“fight”), and „фадрома” (“loader”) instead of а tank.
Another way to activate the metaphor of War is through the usage of verbs that show bodily harm, such as „бия” (“beat”), „убивам” (“kill”), „наранявам”(“hurt”), as well as verbs like „вилнея”(“rage”), „атакувам” (“attack”), „шурмувам” (“storm”), „окупирам” (“occupy”), „нахлувам” (“invade”), „беснея” (“rave”), „воювам” (“fight”), „бомбардирам” (“bombard”). The perpetrators in most of the cases are marked by an ethnonym followed by another qualifier such as „биячите” (“the strong-arms”), „убийците”(“the killers”), „бандитите” (“the bandits”), „крадците” (“the thieves”), „вандали” (“vandals”), as well as through a noun phrase composed by a modifier and ethnonym or another noun „озверяла тълпа”(“fierce mob”),„ударни бригади”(“hit brigades”), „побеснели роми/ цигани”(“Roma/ Gypsies gone mad”), „безчинстващи цигани” (“marauding Gypsies”). Usually when the texts include clashes between Roma and non-Roma the lexis which is chosen is again from the topic field of War and rebellion, while the clash itself is described as „погром” (“pogrom”), „кървавият екшън” (“bloody drama”), „битка” (“battle”), „война” (“war”),„бунт”(“rebellion”), „размирици” (“rioting”), „сблъсъци” (“clashes”), „меле” (“mix-up”), „убийството” (“the killing”), „жестокото убийство” (“the cruel murder”) or simply as „бой” (“fight”):
“Пътуването гратис във влаковете е друго любимо развлечение на ромите. […] На следващата гара в трена се качват трима полицаи и с риск да бъдат набити свалят гратисчиите на перона. След настоятелна покана мургавелците си купуват билети и влакът продължава с 55 мин закъснение. […] група от 100 цигани атакува пътнически влак, […] Отново цялата тайфа е без билети(St/ 15.09.05)”. / “Travellingfree of chargeisanother favourite activity of the Roma […] Three police officers got on the train at the next station and taking the risk of being beaten up put the free travelers down at the platform. After an insistent request the swarthy ones bought themselves tickets and the train continued on its way with 55 minutes delay […] a group of 100 Gypsies attacked a passenger train […] The whole mob was without tickets again (St/ 15.09.05)”.Thematerialsthatreport onRomaattacksontrainsdepicttheattackersas„агресивни” (“aggressive”)andtheperpetratorsthemselvesas„нагли крадци” (“impudentthieves”), „мургави крадци” (“swarthythieves”), „апаши” (“thugs”)andthe way they actispresentedas„нападения” (“attacks”), поставяне на „барикади” (“settingupbarricades”), „акция” (“campaign”).
“Преди дни нагли крадци задигнаха половин влак в движение [...] ромите решили да се снабдят с вторични суровини, [...] Мургавите крадци на релси и метални елементи от жп трасетата стават все по-нагли, коментираха железничари.[…] (St/ 09.04.05);Охранители и роми воюват от 3 г. […] Ударни групи от малцинството използват малката скорост, с която влаковете се движат в населените места, и ги нападат. [...] (St/ 06.04.05); Бомбардират с камъни пътническите вагони /з/ (St/ 15.11.04)”. / “Some days ago impudent thieves stole half a train while it was still moving […] the Roma had decided to procure scrap metal […] The swarthy thieves of tracks and metal parts from the railways are getting more and more impudent, was the comment of some railroad workers (St/ 09.04.05); Guards and Roma have been at war for 3 years […] Hit brigades from the minority avail from the low speed of the trains in the living areas and attack them (St/ 06.04.05); Passenger carriages have been bombarded with stones /h/ (St/ 15.11.04)”.The texts which present the clash between Roma and Bulgarian people usually talk about Roma armed with primitive weapons, such as stones, rods, tiles, bottles, metal objects, and knives which correlate with the impression created of Roma as being cruel and animal-like. Said weapons addnot only cruelty, but primitivism to the image of the Roma. Most of the encounters between the two communities end in a fatal way with victims who in most of the texts are Bulgarian:
“Двама цигани пребиха до смърт ексшефа на РВДР-Видин Вълчо Вълчев (St/ 24.12.05); Пребитият до смърт Вацов е безработен от зората на демокрацията (St/ 24.01.04); Пенсионерката починала, след като била пребита до смърт. (St/ 10.03.03)”. / “Two Gypsies beat to death the ex-boss of the Police Department in Vidin Vylcho Vylchev (St/ 24.12.05); Vatsov who had been beaten to death had been unemployed ever since the dawn of democracy (St/ 24.01.04); The pensioner died after having been beaten to death (St/ 10.03.03)”.The materials also stress on the meanness of the Roma who usually attack their victims in the rear:
“Бандитите обаче го причакали от засада и го ударили с тъп предмет в главата. 57-годишният мъж паднал на земята и починал на място (St/ 24.12.05); [154] На връщане обаче мургавите братя устроили нова засада на плевенчанина (St/ 08.01.05); [155] Когато униформените минавали през циганския квартал на Луковит, те попаднали на засада. Около 150 близки и приятели на бракониерите нападнали ченгетата с дъжд от камъни (St/ 18.03.03)”. / “The bandits ambushed him and hit him with a blunt object on the head. The 57 years-old man had fallen on the ground and died on the spot (St/ 24.12.05); On the way back the swarthy fellows set up a new ambush on the man from Pleven (St/ 08.01.05); Passing through the Gypsy neighbourhood in Lukovit the uniformed men were caught in an ambush. Around 150 relatives of the poachers pelted the cops with stones (St/ 18.03.03)”.Another feature of the texts onclashes between Bulgarians and Roma is the fact that in most of the cases it is the Roma who are presented as the initiators of the conflict. The lexemes and phrases used are„битка” (“battle”), „конфликтът избухна”(“the conflict broke out”), „пребивам до смърт” (“beat the life out of someone”), „атакувам”(“attack”), „въоръжени до зъби” (“armed to the teeth”), and „отмъщение”(“revenge”):
“Конфликтът избухна, след като собственикът на местната кръчма отказал на ромите бира, защото вътре празнували абитуриентски бал и заведението не работело с посетители (St/ 04.08.05); Роми смазаха от бой работници.Един посечен и четирима ранени, след като си поискали надницата от цигански барон /h/(St/ 03.08.05)”. / “The conflict broke out after the owner of the pub refused to serve beer to the Roma because the people inside were celebrating a prom and the establishment had been closed for visitors (St/ 04.08.05); Roma beat the life out of workers. One man slain and four wounded after they asked a Roma baron for their wage /h/ (St/ 03.08.05)”.At the same time the Bulgarians are presented as the victims of the willfulness of the Roma. In 8 of the texts the feeling of a suppressed majority has been achieved through the portrayal of the Bulgarians as helpless: they are usually described as good people who do not meddle in Roma’s affairs and who do not want to confront the Roma, but who suffer from Roma’s rage:
“Ядосаният клиент викнал 60 мургави братя и с камъни и метални колове нападнали празнуващите. Хората били напълно безпомощни и ги спасила само навременната намеса на полицията. (St/ 04.08.05); ‘Цяло село сме уплашени, живеем нащрек и спим на смени’, разплаква се 82-годишният Борис Христов от добруджанското село Карапелит. Завчера двама копанари нападнали стареца в мазето му заради медните тави, скътани там. ‘Цигани грабят и палят къщите ни, за да ни принудят да се изселим’, казаха събраните пред кметството петдесетина смелчаци от селото (St/ 05.07.02); ‘Трагедията ни е пълна и не знаем как ще се оправим’, това е общото мнение на гражданите от квартал ‘Красна поляна’. (St/ 29.04.03)”. / “The angry customer called 60 swarthy fellows who attacked the celebrating people with stones and metal rods. The people were totally helpless and it was only the timely intervention of the police that saved their lives (St/ 04.08.05); ‘People from the whole village are scared. We live on the alert and take shifts to sleep’, cries the 82-years-old Boris Hristov from the village Karapelit in Dobrudzha. Yesterday two Gypsies of the kopanari group attacked the old man in his basement because of the copper tins hidden there. ‘Gypsies loot and burn our houses so that they would make us leave’, said the 50 brave men who have gathered in front of the municipality (St/ 05.07.02); ‘Our tragedy is total we have no idea how we will handle it’, that’s the common opinion of the citizens from Krasna polyana neighbourhood (St/ 29.04.03)”.The reaction of the victims is conveyed by themselves. The generalization is apparent in both cases: all Bulgarians are afraid and feel helpless and all Roma oppress the Bulgarians. The feeling is strengthened by a gradation of the emotions conveyed by the Bulgarians, who define their situation as „страх” (“fear”), „трагедия” (“tragedy”) and „терор” (“terror”) while the Gypsies „атакуват” (“attack”), „грабят и палят” (“loot and burn”), „тероризират” (“terrorize”), „тормозят” (“molest”), „крадат” (“steal”), „обират” (“rob”), „тарашат” (“rummage”), „палят огньове”(“set up fires”), „застрашават близките къщи и блокове” (“threaten the blocks and houses nearby”).
There are 50 publications that speak of conflicts not only between Bulgarians and Roma but also of conflicts between the representatives of different Roma families or clans. These articles use the metaphor ofMafia, activated by lexemes included in different collocations such as „циганска мафия” (“Gypsy mafia”), „ромски кланове”(“Roma clans”), „ромски барони” (“Roma barons”). The ammunition that the Roma use in these cases is not the regular stones and wooden sticks as shown in the materials presenting interethnic conflicts, but guns, self-made rifles, grenades, “cocktails Molotov” and knives. Said metaphor is activated to the greatest extent in the texts presenting the Roma family Zrynkovy. These materials are 43 in number and they focus on the hostility felt towards Zrynkovy not only by the Bulgarians but by Roma representatives as well. The fact that Roma are presented at war not only with the Bulgarians but also with members of their own group adds further negativism to their image in the Bulgarian newspapers.
Immigration is another topic that uses the metaphor of War. In these materials it is mostly presented through the notion that the advent of the Roma is like an „нашествие” (“invasion”). These texts focus on the multitude of immigrants described as an „наплив” (“influx”)or on the problems they create:„размирици” (“rioting”).
“Русенските роми се стягат за нашествие към друга северноевропейска страна” […] (S/ 26.07.01); Ромите се готвят да атакуват Белгия и Кипър /з/ (Dn/ 15.08.01); Циганските нашествия в Европа бяха неизбежни /з/ (S/ 12.07.01)”. / “The Roma from the town of Ruse are getting ready for the invasion of another country from northern Europe (S/ 26.07.01); Roma are getting ready to attack Belgium and Cyprus /h/ (Dn/ 15.08.01); The Gypsy invasions in Europe were inevitable /h/ (S/ 12.07.01)”.The analyzed examples prove the wide spectrum of usage of said metaphor. The suggestions carried by the source field are highly negative which also influences the attitude of the majority towards the Roma in Bulgaria.The lexemes that are most frequently used are the verbs “attack”, “beat”, “kill”, the nouns “war”, “invasion”, and “attackers”, “thugs” to describe the Roma. The two major topics that the metaphor introduces in the analyzed Bulgarian newspapers are of interethnic encounters and immigration.
Many of the British headlines that discuss topics on Gypsies and Travellers use lexemes that activate the War metaphor as well:
“Traveller wins court ruling /h/ (DT/ 20.11.02); Travellers invade pop tycoon’s estate /h/ (DT/ 12.05.05); Travellers win right to challenge eviction /h/ (DT/ 09.11.04); Despair as travellers invade a rural idyll /h/ (DT/ 16.06.04)”.
The “battles” which the Gypsies in the UK lead are for the right to their own way of existence. The arrival of Gypsies at a site is very often presented through the metaphor of War. It defines the attitude between Gypsies and settled people which in most of the cases is of discrimination, nimbyism and racism. The metaphor is activated through the usage of verbs such as “win”,“invade”, “take over”,“come to rest”, as well as nouns like “battle” and “victory”. Only one of the used metaphors formed around the noun “battle” is with positive connotations and does not talk about hatred between the two groups but points out the possibility of dialogue and understanding when representatives of the two groups meet each other. The fact that the rest of the occurrences of the metaphor are negative strengthens the negativism between the two groups and provokes exhibitions of intolerance.
The War metaphor in the British newspapers is used quite extensively. The Gypsies and the settlers are presented as two opposing battle camps. The lexemes that are being used present the different components that the process of war includes, for example: declaration of war, setting up a perimeter, leading battles, attacks, exhibition of military skills, taking up of position, getting into an ambush, leaving casualties. All of these components are used in the metaphoric presentation of the relationship between Gypsies and settled people. In most of the cases the metaphors create a negative image of the Gypsies. As the examples show the Gypsies are the ones who invade, attack, and occupy territory that is not theirs.
The lexeme that marks highest frequency of occurrences for the description of the arrival of Gypsies at a territory is the verb “invade” and its derivatives.
“The land has been in Lord Gage’s family for 500 years, and this is the first time that travellers have invaded his East Sussex estate (DT/ 26.12.03); ‘The potential is there for 2,000 people to move in, a village within a village. An invasion? Well, yes, how else would you describe it?’ (DT/ 15.08.04); [I]n the past week [High Ham] has fallen victim to an unwelcome rural phenomenon - an invasion of Irish travellers (DT/ 16.06.04)”.
The metaphor is highly emotionally charged: the Gypsies are presented as the invaders who simply take any territory they set their foot on. The settled people on the other hand are presented as the victims who suffer the invasions. In order to enhance the feeling of doom and to add up to the intensity of the contrast between locals and “invaders”, the journalists use the picture of idyllic existence prior to the arrival of the Gypsies. The natural outcome is that the idyll is being destroyed by the “invaders”.