Jānis Leimanis and the Beginnings of Latvian Roma Activism
Introduction
In March 1932, the prominent Latvian newspaper
I would really like to unite all the Gypsies. Bind them together as a community. Help them find a way out. But it’s difficult. Gypsies themselves often do not wish for this; they shun culture. They often laugh at me: “You just want to be a Gypsy king, don’t you?” But I want nothing but to help them develop spiritually, help them create a language which could be a unifying tongue for all the Gypsies because they don’t have it yet. […] We just have to get this going. We must win Gypsy people’s confidence, and then the rest will go like clockwork. (
Сегодня Вечеромъ , 1932, p. 3).
Throughout the 1930s, Jānis Leimanis (1886–1950) was driven by the persistent urge to change the values and lifestyle of his fellow Roma. He wanted to unite them and to facilitate their inclusion into the mainstream society. He tried out several forms of activism: he founded the first Latvian Roma society, organised a choir and its performances, translated religious texts into Romani, was involved in missionary work, collected Roma folklore, and agitated for Roma engagement in regular work. At this time, the Roma were not yet active participants in social life of the mainstream society and were also not a part of the Latvian political agenda. Nor was Leimanis interested in political recognition and power – he was focused primarily on communication with Roma and tried to improve their living conditions.
Researchers of social movements have pointed to ‘uncertainty’ as a characteristic feature of all social movements (Ganz & McKenna, 2019, pp. 189–190). Uncertain settings emerge out of a series of different social and environmental contexts that can advance the rise of social movements – they can be “a new threat, a natural disaster, a critical dilemma, a consequential election, or a sudden opportunity” (Ibid.). Leimanis’ activism can be seen as an emergent ethnic movement in a situation when uncertainties appear both inside and outside the community. His activities were unusual for Roma at that time, and he needed to work hard to persuade and motivate Roma to become involved in his activities. The most active period of Leimanis’ public work corresponds to political changes in Latvian history, with the early 1930s marking a turn towards strict nationalist politics best expressed by the slogan “Latvia for Latvians!” (Butulis, 2017). The status of ethnic Latvians was strengthened in politics, economics and culture, and this trend reached its peak after 1934, when an authoritarian regime was established in the country. The weakened state of ethnic minorities was the political context in which Leimanis tried to establish and maintain his organisation and searched for alternative ways to change the situation of the Roma. He introduced among Roma the “preexisting organisational structures” (Morris & Staggenborg, 2004, p. 173) and “common themes and resources” (Olzak, 2004, p. 682) that had been approbated in the Latvian nationalist movement as well as in the well-networked activities of other ethnic minorities. Leimanis appropriated the cultural patterns that he saw around himself and presented the Roma as an integrated part of society. His imagined ideal were Roma who were not strangers to the society but instead equal citizens living similar lives – that is, Roma who went to school and work, served in the army, sang in choirs, participated in organisations, and went to church.
Leimanis’ activities fit well in the broader context of Eastern European Roma activism in the interwar period (Klímová-Alexander, 2005a; Marushiakova & Popov, 2015b; 2020b; 2021b) even if we lack evidence that he might have known about Roma activities in other countries. In a study on contemporary Roma activism in Central Europe, Peter Vermeersch pointed to a significant feature of Roma activism in general:
Like many ethnic movements, the Romani movement […] is complex and diffuse. It consists of both officially recognized and informal groupings, and it encloses organized as well as less organized associations. For this reason, the word “movement” has to be nuanced; it must not be understood as a clearly defined and bounded collection of officially recognized organizations, but as a conceptual term denoting the totality of activities carried out in the context of defending and cultivating a shared Romani identity. Moreover, the Romani movement is not monolithic but rather fragmented, and it is in constant flux. (Vermeersch, 2006, pp. 8–9).
The activism of Leimanis fully corresponds to this observation. His individual and informal activities were as important as his work in the first Latvian Roma organisation and his collaboration with non-Roma cultural, religious and economic institutions. All the facets of his activism served his goal of Roma civic inclusion in the dynamic Latvian society during the decade before the Second World War.
Jānis Leimanis – a Member of the Community
Jānis Leimanis originated from Courland, the western part of Latvia, where the majority of the Latvian Roma (Lotfitka Roma) lived. During Leimanis’ active years, the Roma formed 0.1 – 0.2 percent of the total population of Latvia. The official number of Roma registered by censuses grew from 1,942 persons in 1897 (more than half of them registered in Courland) to 3,839 persons in 1935. At the end of the 19th century most Latvian Roma lived in rural areas, but gradual sedentarisation and urbanisation took place in the first decades of the 20th century (Bērziņš, 2000, pp. 161–162; Greitjāne, 2003, p. 367). More than half of the Latvian Roma were involved in horse trading, with other common occupations being fortune-telling, begging, blacksmith and locksmith work, woodcarving, wickerwork, housekeeping, and farming (Leimanis 1939, pp. 9–12; Bērziņš, 2000, p. 163; Greitjāne, 2003, p. 367).
Leimanis was born on March 6, 1886, in Skrunda district. He was descended from the Korore Miķeļi (Blind Miķeļi) kinship group (Leimanis, 1939, p. 9). His nickname in the Roma community was Berņis. During his childhood, he lived a nomadic life. He received schooling as far as material means allowed, attending the Orthodox parish school in Kuldīga and the Aizpute district school (Latviešu konversācijas vārdnīca, 1935, p. 22846). In an interview, Leimanis explained:
I myself am a local, a native of Courland. Strictly speaking, I cannot call myself a nomad. I started living a sedentary life around the age of ten. I became drawn to studying and started going to school. Unfortunately, circumstances didn’t allow me to graduate. I read a lot, tried to replenish my knowledge, learn as much as possible about the history of my people. (
Сегодня Вечеромъ , 1932, p. 3).
This same interview and a dictionary entry published in 1935 provide some bits of information about events in Leimanis’ life in the early 20th century. During the First World War he organised the movement of Roma refugees:
I got my first chance to serve as an organizer and advocate of the Gypsy people’s needs during the war in 1915. They were being driven from the country due to military action – it was believed that spies might travel with nomadic Gypsies. They themselves were often accused of espionage. We petitioned to the governor, but without success. […] And yet, in a twist of fate, we ended up far away, in Novo-Nikolaevsk [contemporary Novosibirsk], along with the rest of the refugees. The Russians are hospitable people. We were fine. But we nevertheless missed our home, so we came back here. (
Сегодня Вечеромъ , 1932, p. 3).
It is unknown where Leimanis resided in the 1920s after his return to Latvia, but his main activity in this decade was translating religious texts into Romani. Several workplaces are mentioned in association with Leimanis: in 1929–1930 he worked as a temporary staff member at a post office, in 1931–32 he was a watchman at the Orthodox church in Edinburgh (contemporary Dzintari, a part of the resort town of Jūrmala not far from Riga), in 1933–1934 and 1938 he was a temporary staff member at the Archives of Latvian Folklore in Riga (Latviešu konversācijas vārdnīca, 1935, p. 22847; Vīksna, 2005, p. 16). His activism did not guarantee him extra income; on the contrary, it is mentioned in the media that he invested his personal resources towards the common good (Jaunākās Ziņas, 1932, p. 20; Aizkulises, 1933b, p. 7).
Leimanis and his family were Holocaust survivors. As far as is known, they resided in Courland during and after the Second World War. The murder of Roma had ceased after the horrors of late 1941 and the first half of 1942, but this could begin again at any moment (Garda-Rozenberga & Zellis, 2015, p. 71). Newspapers from the second half of 1942 reported that Leimanis strived to ensure favorable treatment for the Roma by the Nazis – he organised Roma meetings and work groups in several places in Courland and collected 500 Reichsmarks as a Latvian Roma donation to the Nazi army (Talsu Vārds, 1942a, p. 3; 1942b, p. 3; Tukuma Ziņas, 1942a, p. 4; 1942b, p. 4). After the war, Leimanis lived in Courland till his death on October 9, 1950.
Leimanis was married to Elizabete Gindra, a Latvian Roma woman from Courland. Her grandfather Ernests Didžis (nicknamed Cunnis) was the chief Rom (šēro rom) of the Kāle Pīre (Black Feet) kinship group in Courland. Leimanis and Gindra had at least two adopted sons – the elder son, Kārlis, was Gindra’s nephew, and the younger son, Juris, was Leimanis’ nephew (Vīksna, 2005, p. 12). Juris Leimanis (nicknamed Heinis, 1916–1973) succeeded Jānis Leimanis’ activism to some extent. He is known as the author of the docu-fiction book Čigāni Latvijas mežos, mājās un tirgos (Gypsies in Latvian Forests, Homes, and Markets, 1939, 2nd ed. 2005), and after the Second World War he moved from Riga to Courland and organised Roma ensembles in Kuldīga and Ventspils. Kārlis was less well known publicly. In his daughter’s description, “My father was a simple man, working all his life, the family was big, seven children, I think, it was not easy” (Facebook correspondence with Rasma Gindra on July 28, 2020).
The Rise and Decline of the Friend of Gypsies Society
After his first organisational experience during the First World War, the 1930s were the socially most active period in Leimanis’ life. He began uniting Roma and engaging them in civic activities with the foundation of the first Latvian Roma organisation, the Gypsy culture promotion Society Čigānu draugs (Friend of Gypsies). The collection of the Society’s official documents at the Latvian State Historical Archives is not big; it mainly covers the foundation of the Society and the long process of its liquidation. The documents provide information about the changing situation of ethnic minorities in Latvia in the 1930s as well as the ambivalent attitude of other Roma towards Leimanis’ activism.
The Friend of Gypsies Society was registered at the Riga regional court registration department on March 8, 1932. As defined in its statutes, the aim of the Society was “to promote the cultural activities of its members and folk, to raise spiritual development and to promote many-sided education” (LNA LVVA, 3724. f. 1. apr. 3748. lieta, 1. lp.). Of the diverse cultural activities envisioned in the statutes, the actual activities included the founding of the Society’s choir in the autumn of 1932 and the organisation of the choir’s performances in the spring and summer of 1933. Besides this main public activity, the Society had two general meetings – on August 21, 1932, and March 1, 1936 – and 18 board meetings between 1932 and 1936.
In regard to Leimanis’ wish to unite the Roma, it is important to determine how big the community was that he managed to bring together; that is, what was the numerical, geographical, and social scope of his first steps towards initiating an ethnic movement. The available sources lead us to believe that gathering the Roma together and maintaining their membership was not an easy task. Some signs of instability and even resistance can be observed.
When the Society was founded, the board consisted of Roma from Courland, mainly from the town of Saldus. Valdemārs Paladžs (Saldus) was a horse trader, “the only one of us [founders of the Society – author note] engaged in the age-old Gypsy trade” (
One document that shows resistance to Leimanis’ activities is a letter of request written by the Roma community in Ventspils (Courland) that was addressed to the Latvian Ministry of the Interior. It was written on March 12, 1936 and fits into the longer process of the liquidation of the Society that began that year. The letter states that a branch of the Society was founded in Ventspils in 1936 but the local members began to protest against Leimanis’ activities. The main reason for the protests was Leimanis’ failure to obtain land for the Ventspils Roma, by which he “has misused our trust and ignorance, and he has cheated us while asking for our money and effort towards an unattainable goal” (LNA LVVA, 3724. f. 1. apr. 3748. lieta, 15. lp.). Further in the letter, the Ventspils Roma stated that they did not want Leimanis to represent the Roma community in public and in government decisions. They doubted the need for a Roma organisation, Roma schools, and literature in Romani, which were supposedly all Leimanis’ initiatives, but the Ventspils Roma declared that the government could take care of the Roma community better than Leimanis. The letter was signed by 29 persons.
Taking sides – that of the government over Leimanis – seems tendentious and reflects the changed political situation of ethnic minorities in Latvia. The situation began to change already at the beginning of the 1930s. Politicians supporting the idea of a mono-ethnic state came to power after the government election in 1931, and this marked the beginning of the process to limit minority rights. When the authoritarian regime was established after the coup d’état on May 15, 1934, the political and economic power of ethnic minorities was diminished significantly, and many schools and other organisations of ethnic minorities were closed (Dribins, 2004, pp. 58–59; Apine, 2007, p. 21). This also included the order issued by the Ministry of the Interior to liquidate the Friend of Gypsies Society on January 8, 1937.
The years 1936 and 1937 show the struggle of Leimanis to maintain the Society. After the letter from the Ventspils Roma, the Riga Office of the Prosecutor prepared a report on the situation of the Society, which pointed to several shortcomings: the lack of the Society’s cultural activity since 1933, the fact that a group of members were not satisfied with the functioning of the Society (this could be a reference to the letter from the Ventspils Roma), the lack of proper accountancy, and the doubt that the Society could operate objectively with Leimanis’ own family members playing such a significant role on the board and audit committee. The report concluded that, even if the Society and its members were not engaged in any anti-government activities, “there is no point for the existence of the Friend of Gypsies Society, seeing as it has not successfully promoted culture among the Gypsies” (LNA LVVA, 3724. f. 1. apr. 3748. lieta, 11. lp.).
On January 8, 1937, the Ministry of the Interior issued an order to liquidate the Society within three months. The idealism and insistence of Leimanis can nevertheless be observed in this situation. He addressed a passionate appeal to the Minister of the Interior to revoke the order, pointing to the significance of the Society in the spiritual revival of the Roma community:
“Dear Minister, we are asking to cancel the liquidation of the Friend of Gypsies culture promotion Society because cultural work is like a ray of light for our ignorant and dark folk, and it will show immense value and benefit after some time. [..]
Dear Minister, we kindly ask to regard the above-mentioned and keep us out of the shadow of death that would destroy our only hope of light – the Friend of Gypsies culture promotion Society” (LNA LVVA, 3724. f. 1. apr. 3748. lieta, 28. lp.).
Despite Leimanis’ efforts, the Society ceased to exist. Yet more important is the fact that Leimanis’ activism did not diminish and continued in various other forms. Even his activism among the rebellious Ventspils Roma community resumed a few years after their act of resistance.
Choir and Folklore Collection – Appropriating Cultural Patterns of the Majority
The first stage in the development of Leimanis’ activism was characterised by his attempts to integrate the Roma in the majority society by imitating its most valued cultural activities, namely, choir singing and the collection of folklore. His attempts were encouraged and supported by the Latvian intelligentsia and cultural institutions, which were already quite experienced in building national identity and national cultural capital. These activities by Leimanis are of great historical significance – the founding of the choir marks the beginning of public appearances by Latvian Roma on the Latvian musical scene, and his folklore collection is still an important source of Roma traditions, narratives, language, and personalities in the first half of the 20th century.
The first news of the newly founded Roma choir appeared in the media in November 1932. An article in the prominent newspaper Jaunākās Ziņas (Latest News) stated that the choir consisted of some thirty persons, they rehearsed “in a supporter’s apartment in central Riga”, and they arrived there in a hired cart because it was too expensive for them to travel by bus. In addition to such practical challenges, the article explained that Leimanis also struggled with the popular ‘Gypsy music’ scene that rarely involved real Roma:
There have been many Gypsy choirs […] but there haven’t been any Gypsies in them, nor Gypsy songs. They are Russian songs with a few Gypsy words in between. We want to learn our own songs and dances, and then show you that we – like all other cultures – have a unique culture (Jaunākās Ziņas, 1932, p. 20).
Leimanis was referring to the ‘Gypsy music’ that was a part of the popular entertainment music scene at the time and often involved fake ‘Gypsy choirs’ or guest musicians from Russia. In the later 1920s and the 1930s, several such ‘Gypsy choirs’ performed in Latvia (Tihovska, 2013). They defined the idea of what ‘true Gypsy music’ is, and the choir formed by Leimanis had to face and fight this idea. An important factor was that unlike in countries such as Russia, Hungary, or Romania, public music-making was not a historical profession for Latvian Roma. The choir organised by Leimanis can be considered a debut for Latvian Roma musicians who hoped for a decent place and recognition in the ‘Gypsy music’ niche that had already been established by other musicians.
An important aspect of this debut was that Leimanis’ choir did not follow the established popular ‘Gypsy music’ style that was in such high demand at entertainment venues. Leimanis decided to adopt the a cappella choral singing style that was a prestigious part of Latvian national culture. To achieve this goal, two young Latvian composers – Jānis Kalniņš (1904–2000) and Ralfs Alunāns (1902–1978) – were involved in making four-part arrangements of Latvian Roma folksongs. Alunāns also took on the role of choir conductor, and the choir members re-learned their folksongs in these new arrangements. However, the temptation to take part in the popular ‘Gypsy music’ scene was still present – an article published in December 1932 reported that the Leimanis choir was endangered because a Latvian man in collaboration with a Roma woman had split off a part of the choir to organise separate performances at entertainment venues. Leimanis’ reaction was strong – performing at nightclubs “damages the morals of the Gypsies” and was not compatible with his goal of showing “true Gypsy art” (Lauku Darbs, 1932, p. 3).
The choir had its debut concert on April 29, 1933, at a prestigious venue – the Latvian Conservatory of Music. Six more concerts followed that spring and summer at the Estonian Society Hall, the Ethnographic Open-Air Museum of Latvia, and in several towns located not far from Riga (LNA LVVA, 3724. f. 1. apr. 3748. lieta, 10. lp.). Three reviews were published in the media after the debut concert. The most positive review was written by the well-known Latvian music critic, Ernests Brusubārda, who evaluated the acculturation of the Roma in the field of Latvian choral singing. He praised the concordant and confident performance and highlighted the most vivacious songs, which best corresponded to his idea about Gypsy music: “If the choir does not grow weary, over time it will present livelier, more flexible tempos that will more convincingly express the carefree feeling of Gypsy music” (Jaunākās Ziņas, 1933, p. 7).
The other two reviewers strongly doubted the authenticity of the performance because it did not correspond to what they were accustomed to recognising as ‘Gypsy music’. The songs were criticised as being too “Latvian-like” and the use of scores as not compatible with the freedom of Gypsy music (Aizkulises, 1933a, p. 4). The great contrast between the popular ‘Gypsy music’ style and that of the Leimanis choir was particularly pronounced in the review by the pianist and critic Vsevolod Pastuhov:
Perhaps the songs performed by the choir of the Friend of Gypsies Society […] are true Gypsy songs. To me, they seemed more like Latvian or Finnish folk songs. In any case, they were not like what I was used to thinking of as Gypsy music. […] This freedom of rhythm, increased emotionality, throaty sounds, a certain Gypsy charm. There is no such thing in the Gypsy choir that performed at the Conservatory. They sing just like any beginner amateur choir of music lovers, in good conscience and … somewhat frightened. For people who are used to hearing a completely different kind of Gypsy singing, it is very strange to listen to such ordinary choir singing from a choir dressed in Gypsy costumes and with Gypsy faces. (
Сегодня , 1933, p. 4).
It can be seen from the reviews that the local Roma turned out to be hostages to well-established ideas about what authentic Gypsy music is. If they wished for commercial success, a better strategy would have been to follow the tradition of the popular ‘Gypsy music’ style. But Leimanis chose integration in the Latvian art music scene, performing at concert venues instead of restaurants and thereby raising the status of the Roma in cultured mainstream society.
Soon after organising the choir, Leimanis was invited to be a temporary staff member at the Archives of Latvian Folklore. His work in 1933–1934 and 1938 resulted in a large folklore collection of 75 notebooks (LFK 1389). His collaboration with the archives can be viewed as the most sustainable part of his activities – the collection is now digitised and available online (Jāņa Leimaņa čigānu folkloras vākums, 1930s) and has already been used in research of the Latvian Roma by folklorist Māra Vīksna (Vīksna, 2005), ethnomusicologist Ieva Tihovska (Tihovska, 2017), and, currently, linguists Natalia Perkova, Anette Ross, and Kirill Kozhanov. In addition, four folktales have been published in a selection of European Roma folktales in Latvian (Brice, 1992). The collection consists of texts mainly in Romani with parallel translations into Latvian. Leimanis wrote down folklore partly from his own memory and partly from his Roma contemporaries, mostly Roma from Courland and Riga. The collection is a rich corpus of Latvian Roma folklore, language, traditions, and individual histories stretching back to the 1880s–90s and contains legends, folktales, song texts, proverbs, and customs as well as lists of Roma nicknames and endangered Romani vocabulary. This collection is Leimanis’ tribute to the values and traditions of the Roma community that he challenged to some extent in his other activities, which in turn encouraged changes in traditional Roma identity and lifestyle.
“The Pastor” – the Religious Activism of Leimanis
In trying to portray Leimanis, the main sources of information and interpretation have been archival documents and periodicals. Communication with the contemporary Roma community did not provide many new factual details, although it did provide one important clue about Leimanis’ character and social image, namely, that among his descendants he is known as “the pastor” or “the one respected by clergymen”. Other forms that Leimanis’ activism took seem to fade when considering the contemporary collective memory. And indeed, even if he began active missionary work only in 1934, after two years dedicated to the Society, the choir, and the collection of folklore, his religious interests had emerged much earlier. It is known that Leimanis was baptised in the Orthodox Church (Svētdienas Rīts, 1934, p. 343), attended an Orthodox school as a child, and was working as a watchman at an Orthodox church at the time he founded the Society. In the 1920s, after his return from Russia, he spent five years translating the Gospel of John and some prayers and other smaller religious texts into Romani. It is sometimes noted in periodicals that Leimanis translated the whole Bible, but there is no proof of this. Religious symbolism – an image of a cross – was also included in the seal of the Friend of Gypsies Society, which was otherwise not known for its religious activity. A significant turning point could be the year 1933, when Leimanis’ translation of the Gospel of John was published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, which was known also for its missionary work among the Bulgarian, Czechoslovakian, and other Roma (Klímová-Alexander, 2005a, p. 168; Marushiakova & Popov, 2021b, p. 598). This publication could have stimulated the popularisation of the book among the Roma. Another probable explanation of why Leimanis switched from cultural activism within the frame of the Society to religious activities in 1934 is the fact that the authoritarian regime limited the educational and other organisations of ethnic minorities but not their religious organisations (Dribins, 2004, p. 60).
Missionary work was a constant part of Leimanis’ life between 1934 and 1936. He collaborated with various religious leaders and organisations, seemingly taking every opportunity to address and enlighten his fellow Roma and to further the process of their inclusion in the Latvian society. Svētdienas Rīts (Sunday Morning), the newspaper of Latvia’s Evangelical Lutheran congregations, provided evidence that Leimanis had gathered together the Roma community in informal outdoor settings in 1934:
Leimanis is generally taking care of the spiritual development of his fellow Roma. He finds them in the forests, gathers them together under the open sky, and holds services in the Romani language. He even wishes to establish a separate Romani congregation. (Svētdienas Rīts, 1934, p. 343).
In this same year, Leimanis was also noticed as one of the “pastors” at a sectarian preaching event organised by an eccentric “accordion Pole” who “presents God’s words to the participants through effective speeches, music, and songs” (Pēdējā Brīdī, 1934, p. 5).
In 1935 Leimanis continued to evangelise in different churches in Riga. In February, a Roma choir “under the leadership of the Gypsy spiritual striver and translator of a Gospel J. Leimanis” participated in an event at the Temple of Salvation run by the English-American Mission Society (Angļu-Amerikas Misiones biedrība), an organisation that is connected to the history of the Latvian Baptist Church (Pēdējā Brīdī, 1935, p. 10). In April, without mention of a connection to a particular religious institution, Leimanis organised services for three days in a row. A newspaper referred to him as “a Gypsy spiritual worker” and wrote that “Gypsy songs will be sung and J. Leimanis will explain his religious awakening activities with light paintings [photos]” (Jaunākās Ziņas, 1935, p. 10).
In at least 1935 and 1936 Leimanis was also involved in the Gypsy section of the Internal Mission of the Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church. The Internal Mission evangelised and provided support to socially vulnerable groups and people who were unable to regularly attend church because of their personal circumstances or professional duties – orphans, blind and deaf people, persons with mental disorders, port and factory workers, people living on the outskirts of Riga, etc. In 1934 the Internal Mission opened a Gypsy mission as a separate branch of its activities. The Gypsy mission held baptisms, confirmations, marriage ceremonies, communions, and regular services in churches and Internal Mission church houses as well as in Roma homes. An employee of the Internal Mission named J. Hartmanis and the theology student V. Štelmahers visited the Roma daily at seven locations in Riga. Besides holding services, they taught religious songs and prayers as well as reading and writing and helped to settle legal matters such as registering children.
A newspaper article in 1935 stated that Leimanis encouraged and urged the Roma to take part in services organised by the Internal Mission (Svētdienas Rīts, 1935, p. 232). In 1936 the Internal Mission published Catechism Excerpts, Prayers, and Spiritual Songs in the Gypsy Language, translated by Leimanis. Several festive opening events followed. On February 22, an article titled A Big Event in the Gypsy Congregation was published in Jaunākās Ziņas (Latest News), one of Latvia’s most prominent newspapers. It contained a photograph showing a group of Roma sitting and holding the new publication in their hands and Leimanis standing in front of the group as a pastor (Jaunākās Ziņas, 1936, p. 20). We lack any other evidence proving the existence of an official Roma congregation. An overview of the activities of the Internal Mission published in 1939 stating that “the need to establish a special Gypsy congregation is ripe” (Freudenfelds, 1939, p. 57) also speaks against the existence of such a congregation.
Leimanis’ subsequent religious activities are unclear until 1939, when he evangelised again in collaboration with the Methodist church in Ventspils and Jelgava. After his active missionary work in 1934–1936, he shifted his focus again in 1937 by turning to the issues of Roma civic engagement, employment, and land ownership.
Land and Work for the Roma
The year 1937 marked a new turn in Leimanis’ thought and the course of his actions that was influenced by the dominant ideology of the authoritarian regime. The overall escalation of state power corresponded with his call for closer Roma cooperation with the state. After his unsuccessful struggle to save the Friend of Gypsies Society in the first part of 1937, he proceeded to organise meetings in a number of towns not only in his native Courland but also in the northeastern part of Latvia. At these meetings, he urged the Roma to become decent citizens and “to fulfill their obligations to the state more conscientiously” (Ventas Balss, 1937, p. 3), meaning first of all engaging in regular work but also education, not avoiding military service, and becoming involved in civic activities and organisations. One of his speeches was retold by the regional newspaper Malienas Ziņas (News from Maliena):
Gypsies should be decent people and should become like all the other citizens of the state. One only has to want it and strive for it; then it will be possible. Then Gypsies will not have to live as a mockery and burden to others, and they will be equally honorable citizens and decent men. […] Particular attention should be paid to the raising of Gypsy youth by promoting the spread of education among them. Young Gypsies need to be better and more decent towards their parents; they must be raised as community-oriented people. Especially regarding the instilling of politeness, so that the younger generation can live the decent life of a citizen. Gypsies are also human beings and can do any job, earn and save, and become wealthier over time. […] Gypsies need to become more organized and thereby integrate into the unity of the state. (Malienas Ziņas, 1937, p. 3).
One of Leimanis’ activities at these meetings was to distribute questionnaires to the Roma that inquired of each of them what they “would like to do in the future to start a better life” (Ventas Balss, 1937, p. 3). The results showed that most Roma would like to cultivate the land. There is evidence of Leimanis’ efforts to obtain land for the Roma in Riga and Ventspils, albeit apparently unsuccessfully. As mentioned in a previous section, the unsuccessful attempt to obtain land for the Roma of Ventspils in part led to their complaint written in 1936. The process resumed in 1939, when Leimanis visited the Ventspils Roma again and was delegated to inform the Latvian Ministry of Agriculture about their wish to own and cultivate land. After several months, Leimanis returned to Ventspils skeptical about the idea. There he told the Roma about his “bitter adventures in land affairs” in Riga (Ventas Balss, 1939, p. 3) – with the support of the Latvian president, around 100 hectares near Riga were allocated to the Roma for a small yearly payment, but as it turned out, no Roma family was ready to sign such a contract. Leimanis was especially ashamed about the fact that the only Rom who signed the contract changed his mind soon after and appealed to an authority with the request to “free him of the land” (Ibid.). That led Leimanis to think more realistically about the agricultural option – he pointed out that the Roma lacked the livestock and inventory needed for such work. The request of the Ventspils Roma was nevertheless submitted to the Ministry of Agriculture and the local land surveyor for further consideration, but the opinion of Leimanis was that “until then, Gypsies can engage in other jobs” (Ibid.).
Leimanis’ next activity took place in accordance with the government’s attempts to solve the lack of manpower in the countryside and deal with people who avoided engaging in regular work. A new institution, the Work Center, was established for this purpose in May 1939 (Stranga, 2017). Leimanis became a mediator between the Work Center and the Roma. The Center’s plan was to involve the Roma of Courland in agricultural, forestry, and land drainage work, and the task of Leimanis was to organise the Roma work groups. As announced by the media in the first part of 1940, the campaign was quite successful. Around 300 Roma from Courland were involved in forestry work; in Riga and larger towns they were employed by sawmills, smaller factories, and in the fuel procurement business, and Leimanis was planning to involve even more Roma in work groups in the coming months (Rīts, 1940a, p. 2; 1940b, p. 6).
Conclusion
For a long time, the study of social movements has been mainly focused on the structural aspects of those movements, and until recently the role of agency and leadership has been underestimated (Morris & Staggenborg, 2004, p. 171). The history of Latvian Roma activism in the 1930s confirms the crucial role that leadership plays in the emergence of an ethnic movement. In contrast to the vast research on large-scale movements, this case illuminates a small-scale process that initiates change in the self-image and social status of a minority group.
A key concept in the social movement theory is ‘struggle’, often paired with such issues as ethnic conflict, social inequality, and human rights, which presuppose the struggle of a suppressed group to acquire recognition and power in the mainstream society. Leimanis’ main struggle was not with the mainstream society and its prejudices. Instead, he primarily addressed his own community – other Roma – and his struggle was about challenging and adapting their ideas, values, identity, and lifestyle to the new social realities. The collection of Roma folklore confirms that he honored the values and traditions of his community yet also called for some changes so that Roma could become equal members of society. His activities and statements show him as an unselfish person; he was not interested in achieving higher status for himself in mainstream society or in his own community. He was an idealist and a visionary who followed his own faith in a better life for the Roma, which, in his opinion, meant integration in the civic society. Sometimes he succeeded and was followed by the members of his community; at other times he was doubted and criticised by them. The Second World War and the subsequent Soviet regime interrupted this emerging ethnic movement, which was revived only in the later 1980s, during the process of the restoration of Latvia’s independence. Even if Leimanis’ accomplishments lack historical continuity, the decade of his activism strongly contributed to the visibility of Latvian Roma in interwar Latvia.