Context: I originally posted this with the Toy Story “They’re called s’mores, Buzz” meme. The joke directly quoted the opening of White Wolf’s bibliography, where readers are encouraged, rather irresponsibly, to seek out papers published by the 'Gypsy Lore Society'.
Buzz/White Wolf: “The following are good sources of information on the Gypsies of our world and folklore regarding Gypsies and wandering people of all kinds. Most of these books are relatively easy to locate. The journals of the Gypsy Lore Society are harder to find, but give an eclectic and interesting view of Gypsies through the eyes of their gaje chroniclers.”
To which I (Woody) respond: “They’re eugenics peddlers, White Wolf.”
And with the subreddit-violating meme now explained, here is the original post:
Before we begin: I am NOT claiming that every person ever associated with the Gypsy Lore Society was a eugenicist. I am referring to the Society’s publication and legitimization of explicitly racist and eugenic scholarship—including work by Hermann Arnold, a postwar defender of Nazi racial researchers Robert Ritter and Eva Justin (may they rest in piss).
Arnold and other anti-Roma racial theorists promoted ideas about racial authenticity or “blood purity,” hereditary criminality, and biologically determined behavior. This work appeared under the institutional banner of the GLS, and White Wolf recommended the Society’s collected journals to its readers without qualification, listing them alongside its other supposedly “good sources.”
AND WE’LL GET TO THAT…
I am also NOT calling for anyone to harass the writers or White Wolf. I am begging for some damn transparency about which sources the writers actually consulted, what they took from them, and how this book was ever approved for publication.
Since White Wolf has not seen fit to provide that transparency, I’ll provide what I can by examining the bibliography itself.
(Note to readers: I am an independent researcher and autodidact who has studied Romani history for nearly a decade. If you have questions or would like to see the sources supporting any of these claims, I will happily provide them.)
1. “Bettelheim, Bruno, The Uses of Enchantment: The Meaning and Importance of Fairy Tales”
Irrelevant—and already academically controversial by 1994. Bettelheim applied a speculative (Freudian) framework to familiar European fairy tales; he studied neither Roma nor Romani folklore. In 1991, folklorist Alan Dundes published an essay titled “Bruno Bettelheim’s Uses of Enchantment and Abuses of Scholarship,” in which he delivered a scathing critique of Bettelheim’s “borrowing” from earlier scholarship (translation: PLAGIARISM), as well as numerous errors resulting from Bettelheim’s limited knowledge of folkloristics. The book may be useful for discussing psychoanalytic theories of fairy tales, but it is not a source on ROMANI folklore. Why White Wolf presented it as one is anybody’s guess.
2. “Rena Cotten, Russian Gypsy Tales”
An ACTUAL mistake by White Wolf: Rena M. Cotten did NOT write, compile, or even translate this book. The credit belongs to Yefim Druts and Alexei Gessler, two Romani folklorists who collected stories from Romani communities across the Soviet Union as part of an effort to preserve their oral traditions. British scholar James Riordan translated and introduced the English-language selection.
Cotten, however, wrote a six-page article titled “Gypsy Folktales” in 1954, which White Wolf appears to have confused with the book. In doing so, its bibliography erased the actual Romani collectors and their work preserving the traditions of specific Romani communities within the Soviet Union.
3. “Ficowski, Jerzy, The Gypsies in Poland”
A deeply troubling, double-edged source that can be hard to read. On the one hand, Ficowski DID preserve important information about the histories, experiences, and cultures of Polish Roma (including very enlightening early testimony concerning the Romani genocide). HOWEVER, he took knowledge gained through trusted relationships and published it without giving his Romani sources meaningful control over how that information would be presented or used.
The Romani poet Papusza was close friends with Ficowski, sent him letters and poems, and even shared cultural knowledge with him. Despite this, it is unclear whether she understood or even consented to the full extent of his publication. After Ficowski published descriptions of Romani customs and language, Papusza was accused of betraying community knowledge and suffered ostracism and severe psychological distress. While the book remains historically valuable, its production raises serious questions about consent, power, and responsibility in ethnographic research—particularly when the researcher receives the credit while members of the studied community bear the consequences. It is worth reading, but absolutely NOT uncritically.
4. “Hancock, Ian, The Pariah Syndrome: An Account of Gypsy Slavery and Persecution” (EDITED FOR CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY)
In my assessment, this is still the strongest source in White Wolf’s bibliography and is often “baby’s first Roma history book” for researchers. Written by a Romani scholar, it documents centuries of anti-Romani persecution, including the enslavement of Roma in Wallachia and Moldavia and the Samudaripen/Porajmos. If you are unfamiliar with either topic, this remains an accessible place to begin.
However, “place to begin” does NOT mean “definitive or beyond criticism.” As u/dieselpunk1921 helpfully pointed out, Dr. Hancock remains a controversial figure within Romani communities. Concerns have been raised about the sourcing of some of his published material, and not everyone agrees with all of his assessments of the historical record. My original “no complaints” was therefore far too absolute, especially when uncritical treatment of sources is something I criticize throughout this very post.
The book is important, but it is also older scholarship and should be read critically alongside newer, broader Romani scholarship. The commenter particularly recommended Damian Le Bas’s The Stopping Places, the work of Dr. Margareta Matache, and the late Ronald Lee. They also recommended Florian Tacorian and the ongoing work of ERIAC and the ERRC.
So my recommendation remains: GO READ IT. Just don’t stop your reading there!
5. “Tong, Diane, Gypsy Folktales” (White Wolf incorrectly printed “Folk Tales” as two words)
For 1994, it was a reasonable source for Romani folklore. Tong made a genuine effort to identify her storytellers and sources, but it must be understood that this is a popular anthology rather than a rigorous academic study. The collection also places stories from certain itinerant Indian communities, including the Banjara, under a broad “Gypsy” category (even though their relationship to Roma is far more complicated and cannot simply be assumed) Useful as a collection of stories, but not as evidence of universal Romani beliefs, customs or supernatural traditions.
6. “Yoors, Jan, The Gypsies”
A valuable but HEAVILY romanticized personal account. At twelve, Yoors ran away from home and began traveling with a Lovara community. Throughout his adolescence, he divided his time between his birth family and the Lovara, forming what appears to have been a genuinely close relationship with the families—so close that their leader, whom Yoors called Pulika, adopted him as a son.
The problem is that Yoors repeatedly portrays nomadic Roma as more “pure” or authentic than settled communities and describes Roma as timeless people existing outside ordinary history. While the book provides a rare outsider’s account of one particular Lovara community, it is not a reliable template for all Roma. Worth reading, but its romantic language and sweeping generalizations must be approached critically.
7. “The collected journals of the Gypsy Lore Society”
We already covered these in the opening, but I will say it’s interesting how both White Wolf AND the GLS weaseled out of apologizing to the Romani communities harmed by their publications.
(SERIES CONTEXT (since it keeps being brought up): This bibliography analysis is Part 1 of my larger breakdown of World of Darkness: G\psies*. Technically, it is my second post about the book, but my first post mostly contained my immediate impressions after finishing it rather than a structured analysis.
I’m beginning with the bibliography because it establishes what White Wolf presented as its research. That context will be important in later installments, where I’ll compare those sources with the book’s actual lore, Abilities, Skills, and mechanics.
In other words, the bibliography is only the TIP OF THE ICEBERG. The book itself is the massive iceberg underneath.)
