1. Introduction

1.1. Race, Racialisation, and Discrimination beyond Migration: The Case of Gitanos¹ in Spain

Spain is a significant country for the study of racism, racialisation, and “ethnoracial” (Ortiz, 2017) discrimination. While it is not strictly a society with a clear “racial divide,” such as the Black/White divide in the United States, Spain has a very strong legacy of colonialism, which has produced racial ideologies and social inequalities between different ethnoracial groups that continue to exist (Rodríguez-García, 2022). As early as the 15th century, Spain implemented the Estatutos de limpieza de sangre (Laws of Purity of Blood), in which the first official constructs of “race” and “Whiteness” appeared. These racial classifications, based on family lineage, were used for the purpose of distinguishing Christians (perceived as “racially pure”) from Muslims (“the Moors”) and Jews, two communities who, together with the Romani population, experienced brutal ethnic cleansing (Méchoulan, 1981). This racist ideology also reinforced and shaped Spain’s colonisation of the Americas (1492-1898) and of parts of Asia (e.g., the Philippines, 1565-1898) and Africa (e.g., Spanish Guinea, 1778-1968; Morocco, 1912-1956), affecting ethnoracial minorities within the colonies and in metropolises, with lasting effects (Rodríguez-García & Freedman, 2025).

In contemporary times, Spain shifted from predominantly being a country of emigration, primarily to the Americas and Northern Europe, to being a country of immigration. After decolonisation and following General Francisco Franco’s dictatorship (1939-1975), when the country underwent a transition to democracy in the mid-1970s, Spain’s population composition became remarkably transformed by large-scale immigration. The economic boom experienced in the 1980s served to create jobs and attract immigrants in an ongoing manner. In addition, Spain’s incorporation into the European Union (formerly the European Community) in 1986 greatly contributed to the country’s transition into an immigrant-receiving area, a shift that occurred more rapidly than anywhere else in Europe (Arango, 2000). Accordingly, Spain’s policies for managing immigration and diversity—almost non-existent until recent times—are nowadays fairly comprehensive and carefully thought-out, guided by principles of inclusion and non-discrimination (Rodríguez-García, 2010; Rodríguez-García & Freedman, 2025, pp. 292-293).

Regardless, anti-immigration sentiment, as well as the stigmatisation and structural discrimination of certain ethnic, cultural, racial, and religious groups, still persists in Spain, a reality that is greatly rooted in Spain’s colonial past and fuelled in modern times by right-wing populist ideologies that target immigrants and ethnic minorities as being the source of all of the country’s problems (CEDRE, 2025; Federación SOS Racismo, 2022; Rodríguez-García, 2022).

Notably, research on discrimination and racism in Spain has traditionally focused on immigrant groups. However, these realities also affect other ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities who are not immigrants and whose experiences have generally been disregarded, particularly Spanish Roma people, known in Spain as Gitanos (which literally translates to the English word “Gypsies”—see footnote 1).

Gitanos are the longest-established and largest national ethnic minority group in Spain²—as well as Europe’s largest ethnic minority (European Parliament, 2005)—and have been powerfully discriminated against through history. Thought to be a nomadic group of Indo-Aryan origin originating from the Punjab region (between India and Pakistan), Roma people first arrived in Spain in the 15th century and have historically been stigmatised, persecuted, marginalised, and subjected to a number of cruel, controlling Spanish laws and policies designed to assimilate or simply eliminate them as part of a process of state-building and sociocultural homogenisation (Rodríguez-García & Freedman, 2025). Notably, the first decrees of expulsion or forced assimilation of the Romani people in Spain largely coincided with those of the expulsion or forced religious conversion of Jews and Muslims issued in 1492 by the Catholic Monarchs. In 1499, the First Pragmatic Decree against Spanish Roma and their way of life was issued by the Catholic Monarchs, ordering the abandonment of nomadism and imposing harsh penalties for non-compliance, including corporal punishment and exile. This decree was followed in subsequent years and centuries by many more anti-Gitano laws and legislative measures, including the horrific Great Round-up of 1749. This raid organised by the Spanish Monarchy, the Spanish authorities, and the Catholic Church led to the mass imprisonment of up to 12,000 Romani people, separating families and clearly intending to destroy Roma cultural continuity. Later, during the period of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and Franco’s dictatorship (1939-1975), legal measures such as the 1933 Vagrancy Act—modified and enforced under Franco’s regime—criminalised Roma lifestyles and led to surveillance, arbitrary arrests, and economic exclusion (Cañete Quesada, 2020; Cortés, 2021; Garcés, 2016; Hellgren & Gabrielli, 2021; Martín Sánchez, 2018; San Román, 1986, 1997).

Even though Gitanos have lived in Spain for six hundred years and are not immigrants, antigypsyism—a specific form of discrimination and racialisation that is directed towards Roma populations—still persists in a variety of forms (Cortés & End, 2019). Roma people in Spain continue to be strongly perceived as “the other” (Cea d’Ancona & Valles Martínez, 2010, p. 40) and are associated with negative stereotypes and prejudices that portray them as primitive or uncivilised, antisocial, dysfunctional, lazy, dishonest, poor, and prone to stealing. Even today, Spanish Roma are the most stigmatised and structurally discriminated-against minority group in Spain, as evidenced in areas such as healthcare, education, access to employment (i.e., their perceived employability), and political participation (CEDRE, 2025; Damonti & Arza, 2014; Fernández et al., 2019; Fernández et al., 2023; Fundación Secretariado Gitano, 2022; Hernández Pedreño, 2019; Laparra, 2008), as well as in Europe overall (Cortés & End, 2019; European Parliament, 2005; Kóczé, 2020; Kóczé & Popa, 2009).

1.2. The “Test” of Mixedness

“Mixedness”—a term that encompasses the social phenomena of intermarriage, mixed-ancestry individuals, and the end products of these intercultural processes, that is, integration, assimilation, and evolving minority/majority relations—is a crucial test for evaluating the degree and nature of social divisions, prejudices, and stereotypes within a society (Merton, 1941; Rodríguez-García, 2015, 2025). Partnering, or creating families, across group boundaries (whether racial, ethnic, cultural, or religious), has historically been problematised (Rodríguez-García, 2021) for reasons of both perpetuating cultural and structural hegemony within the majority society and attempting to maintain cultural values, practices, and identity within a given ethnocultural group. For this same reason, intermarriage has traditionally been considered a key indicator of immigrants’ and ethnic minorities’ integration, or even assimilation, into mainstream society, as, on the one hand, increased rates of intermarriage among certain ethnic groups infer greater levels of intergroup interaction, including at the most intimate level. On the other hand, mixed unions themselves are thought to be an engine of social integration based on the assumption that they facilitate an immigrant partner’s settlement into the host society and improve their socioeconomic mobility, continue to diminish barriers to social interaction across groups, and lessen ethnoracial distinctions and prejudices in forthcoming generations (Gordon, 1964; Alba, 2020). Similarly, mixed-ancestry individuals—the descendants of intercultural couples—have been conceptualised as constituting a bridge between different groups: generating new hybrid identities and ethnocultural forms that transcend social categories and that erode prejudices and stereotypes (Alba, 2009; Ali, 2003; Varro, 2003).

Numerous studies, however, have shown that the relationship between mixing/mixedness and the actual social integration of minority groups is quite multifaceted. Paradoxically, increased intercultural interactions, higher rates of mixed-ethnicity families, and growing diversity in our societies can coexist with the persistent stigmatisation and discrimination of certain groups, who may have historically entrenched concepts of “otherness” projected onto them by the majority society (Lee & Bean, 2012; Song, 2017; Rodríguez-García, 2015). These types of complex realities and outcomes also seem to be the case in Spain, where, in parallel with the dramatic growth of immigration over the last few decades, and in keeping with global trends (Alba, 2020), there has been a significant increase in the number of mixed couples and multiethnic/multiracial individuals (i.e., the children of mixed couples), a phenomenon that pronouncedly affects Catalonia, one of the Spanish regions that has traditionally received the largest number/proportion of immigrants (Rodríguez-García et al., 2021a, 2021b, 2021c).³

Some recent comprehensive studies in Spain on mixed unions and mixed-ancestry populations, which have combined large-scale survey data analysis with ethnographic in-depth information-gathering, have endeavoured to move beyond a descriptive look at endogamy and exogamy trends in the country, instead revealing the complex realities, experiences, and social dynamics that are behind these numbers. Many of the findings from these studies are not aligned with the anticipated outcomes of classical assimilation theories, the latter of which equate mixedness with social harmony. For instance, Rodríguez-García et al. (2015) found that intermarriage can lead to greater integration for some immigrant or minority backgrounds but not for others, and may occur in some areas (e.g., legal or linguistic) but not in others (e.g., labour integration, sense of belonging to the country, or absence of discrimination); these differences depended on a variety of factors, including ancestry, ethnicity, race, gender, age, legal status, and social class. Furthermore, as shown in a separate study by Rodríguez-García et al. (2016), and in line with other studies (e.g., Herman & Campbell, 2012), intermarriages can reflect the existence of pervasive group divisions, as some mixed couples suffer rejection from their respective families and from society in general, stemming from stereotypes and negative prejudices about the origin, phenotype, or ethnocultural characteristics of the minority member of the couple.

Moreover, the complex realities of mixedness in Spain also apply to the descendants of intermarried couples (i.e., multiethnic and multiracial individuals). Using data from a large longitudinal survey to analyse several key aspects related to the integration and social mobility of descendants of native-immigrant mixed couples in Spain, Rodríguez-García et al. (2021b) found that in some aspects, such as academic expectations and aspirations, there were no reported differences between the descendants of intermarried couples and the descendants of endogamous immigrant couples (i.e., children with two foreign-born parents) or the descendants of two native Spaniards. In other aspects, however, such as academic achievement and experiences of discrimination, there were some significant differences between the “native” and immigrant-origin groups. Survey respondents who had one or both parents of Maghrebi or Black African descent similarly reported experiences that were much more negative in character—regardless of whether the respondent was of mixed heritage and had one ethnic Spaniard parent. This research finding indicated the persistence of prejudices and stereotypes associated with certain origins.

In a more in-depth ethnographic study that analysed the narratives of Spanish-born multiracial and multiethnic descendants talking about their mixed heritage, their identity/sense of belonging, and their experiences of discrimination, Rodríguez-García et al. (2021c) found significant differences between the experiences of, on the one hand, mixed individuals who could “pass for a native” or who possessed characteristics that were considered socially prestigious (these participants could navigate more freely between their multiple identities) and, on the other hand, mixed-descent individuals who were seen as being “different” from “native Spaniards” (see also Rodríguez-García & Freedman, 2025, p. 296). This perception was based on markers of difference that are not socially valued in the Spanish mainstream context, whether in terms of the parent’s country of origin (e.g., “developing” countries), phenotype (having a darker skin tone), name/surname or spoken language/accent (e.g., Arabic or Urdu), religious affiliation (specifically Islam), or ways of dressing (e.g., donning the hijab). Spanish-born multiracial and multiethnic people who were stigmatised and racialised because of their particular ancestry—especially people of Black African and Maghrebi Muslim heritage—experienced greater discrimination (e.g., in their access to social spaces and housing) and more constraints in their identity choices, as, despite being native Spaniards, they were often perceived as “not belonging” to Spanish society. These experiences of subtle or more pronounced exclusion can have an impact on these individuals’ everyday lives and well-being, such as by diminishing their sense of belonging or by causing them to experience an “identity mismatch” between their self-chosen identity as “mixed” or “native” and the identity socially ascribed to them as “immigrants” or “foreigners,” an experience that can lead to reactive ethnic identities.

But what is the contemporary experience of mixedness among minorities who are not of immigrant origin, but rather belong to national ethnic groups, such as Spanish Gitanos, who nevertheless have also been utterly stigmatised, racialised, and discriminated against throughout history? This question has not been comprehensively addressed in Spain, and only very minimally in international research, as studies on mixedness and social integration/sense of belonging have focused almost exclusively on the immigrant/native or Black/White equation (Rodríguez-García, 2015, 2025). This article aims to fill this research gap by providing first-hand accounts of “lived mixedness” among Spanish Roma and by investigating whether the distinct stigmatisation, racism, and discrimination that targets this particular national ethnic minority in Spain is equally directed at and experienced by the mixed Spanish Roma population, including mixed couples and their descendants. Particular attention is given to respondents’ experiences of racialisation and to a less explored dimension of racism—less visible but equally important—namely “micro-racism,” “everyday racism” (Essed, 1991), “tacit racism” (Rawls & Duck, 2020), or “microaggressions” (Sue, 2010): that is, everyday “small-scale” situations that racialised individuals confront, including being subjected to verbal slurs or insults, being stared at, or being regarded with suspicion and mistrust—all of which may have a significant impact on everyday life and identity affiliations.

2. Methodology

This article presents still-evolving information from an ongoing and pioneering five-year-long research project,⁴ of which the objective is to explore the impact that mixedness is currently having on the Spanish Roma community; what these changes in the Roma community may mean for Spanish society at large in terms of minority/majority relations; and what this phenomenon can tell us about the persistence of racial constructs, racism, and discrimination towards Gitanos in Spain, a specific form of discrimination that is known as antigypsyism.⁵

This study has asked research questions such as, How common is intermarriage among Spanish Gitanos? What factors limit or promote exogamy (i.e., marrying out)? Are there differences between different generations? How do intermarried Gitanos and individuals of mixed ancestry (i.e., the children of these intermarried couples) identify themselves ethnically? How do they negotiate their Roma identity (romanipen) within the family and community? What are their experiences of “othering,” racialisation, and discrimination? Are there differences in this respect according to family origin, gender, age, social class, or other factors?

In this study, a variety of qualitative research techniques have been used, which include document analysis (examining approximately 300 secondary documents, both physical and electronic, including articles and monographs, historical archives and statistics, and visual documents); ethnographic fieldwork (participatory and non-participatory observation, particularly of civic associations and the everyday activities of respondents, such as family gatherings and community celebrations); semi-structured interviews; discussion groups (in the form of roundtable dialogues with research participants and representatives of civic and administrative bodies); and Relief Maps (a qualitative technique that complements the interview and provides, from an intersectional perspective, a graphical representation of interviewee experiences of discrimination and relief/greater well-being).

Notably, the project that is discussed here embraces a participatory action research approach, with positive action measures having been taken for the purpose of both incorporating Roma perspectives into the research process and counteracting the traditional structural barriers faced by this national ethnic minority group, particularly by Roma women. One of the measures taken was hiring three Roma women (from diverse national, subethnic, and religious backgrounds) as part of the research team: a Spanish Calé woman (a Gitano person from the southern Spanish region of Andalusia) and two Eastern European Rrom women, one of whom is a mixed-ancestry Roma woman, and the other of whom is a Muslim Roma woman. Working hand in hand with Roma women has helped to make the research much more ethical, participatory, and shared in nature, as members of the subject group themselves have been involved in crucial theoretical and methodological discussions during the research process, a type of collaboration that is particularly important in work with marginalised groups and which has a positive effect on the production of knowledge (Pittaway et al., 2010). Taking action to promote the inclusion and visibilisation of Roma people in academia has also proven to be essential to facilitating access to potential participants: by creating a sense of closeness and developing an empathetic rapport—dynamics that are imperative considering the sensitiveness of the research topic.⁶

The primary data from the study consists of 81 in-depth interviews conducted in Catalonia, Spain, with Roma/non-Roma mixed couples (37), Spanish-born descendants of Roma/non-Roma mixed couples (33), and Roma representatives from government institutions and Roma civic associations (11). (See the Appendix.) Given the nature of the research subject, this qualitative sample is, in fact, unique, unusually large, diversified, and reliable.

Participants, all of whose names have been anonymised in this article, were of a wide range of ages; and all resided in Catalonia, with a majority of respondents living in major cities in metropolitan areas (mainly in the Barcelona metropolitan area) and a smaller number living in towns and villages. Respondents were selected using personal connections, advertisements, and contacts with different Roma associations; subsequently, quota sampling was used. A strong attempt was made to avoid the use of a snowball sampling method in order to minimise sampling bias. The selection of cases was continually evaluated to obtain as heterogeneous a sample as possible in terms of gender, age, place of residence, occupation, level of education, and origin. With respect to origin, the participants in the study included Roma people from different regions and nationalities; and in the case of mixed unions, the non-Roma partners included both ethnic Spaniards and immigrants or foreign nationals.

The interview guide incorporated a variety of interviewing techniques and was organised into two modules: first, a socio-demographic questionnaire, which collected information on the basic characteristics of each respondent (e.g., sex, age, nationality, place of residence, educational level, occupation, self-assigned ethnic group), as well as information on their partners and immediate family; and second, an in-depth semi-structured interview, divided into various thematic sections (e.g., family history, everyday life, customs, intergenerational dynamics, mixedness, identity, experiences of discrimination, future aspirations), designed to encourage open-ended conversations and a detailed exploration of the participant’s perspective.

The interviews lasted between one to two hours and usually took place either in the respondents’ homes or in public cafés, libraries, or university settings. The interviews were conducted in either Catalan or Spanish (both are official languages of Catalonia), depending on the preferences of the participants. In the case of intermarried or common-law couples, most interviews (21 out of 33) were conducted with only one partner (more commonly with the Roma partner), and 12 were conducted with both partners, usually as a joint interview.

An information sheet and a consent form to sign were given to each participant prior to conducting the interview. The interviews were recorded digitally and were fully transcribed by experienced members of the research team, including the Principal Investigator (PI), for subsequent analysis. The names of all participants have been changed in the materials and publications prepared by the researchers to ensure confidentiality.

The information provided in this article draws on ethnographic fieldwork, document analysis, and the descriptive-interpretative analysis of the interviews, which are still in the process of being coded (with a list of 79 codes) and further analysed using ATLAS.ti software.

3. Results

3.1. Roma Endogamy as a Strategic Response to Sustained Racism and Social Exclusion

Endogamy (i.e., marrying co-ethnics) has been the predominant marriage trend historically and worldwide (Rodríguez-García, 2025), and this preference is also the case among Roma people.⁷ The high levels of endogamy within Roma populations can be explained by both internal and external factors. On the one hand, endogamous practices are related to Roma cultural norms and values, such as patrilocal residence patterns, a strong sense of community solidarity, and the Gitano historical preference for marriage between cousins ​​to foster the alliance between families and lineages (Chiritoiu & Tesar, 2020; Gamella, 2020; Martín & Gamella, 2005; García, 2007; Guerrero Romera, 2019; Liégeois, 1987; Ramírez-Heredia, 2005; San Román, 1997; Vallés, 2017; Yoors, 2009). It is important to distinguish between the concept of lineage that is used in anthropological kinship theory (patrilineal/matrilineal lineage) and the term linaje as understood by Gitanos themselves, which generally refers to the social and moral status of the family—i.e., coming from “a good family” or coming from the same “social circle” by sharing the same family occupation (i.e., socioeconomic homogamy).

On the other hand, endogamy among Roma people can also largely be explained by external factors, which in turn have played a role in shaping cultural values and customs. That is, endogamy among Roma can be understood as a response to experiencing continued structural racism, marginalisation, and discrimination, which has generated high levels of intra-group solidarity as well as the reproduction of the institutions of society at large (including marriage and how it is practised) within the community, resulting in community self-sufficiency that is oriented towards ethnic and cultural survival. This type of social organisation within Roma communities is an example of what Breton (1964) has called “institutional completeness,” a pattern that can also be found among other historically marginalised groups, such as Jews and ethnic Chinese populations in the diaspora.

Significantly, according to various recent Spanish opinion surveys, Gitanos are the group in Spain (among all autochthonous and allochthonous groups) that the majority population expresses the strongest rejection towards interacting with, whether as neighbours, co-workers, friends, or marital/romantic partners; this degree of prejudice and exclusion towards Gitano/Roma people in Spain is even stronger than the entrenched mainstream rejection directed towards the Spanish Maghrebi Muslim population (Calvo Buezas, 1990 [chapter 2], 2000; CIS, 2017; Fernández et al., 2019). With respect to the research study discussed in this article, one Gitano respondent described the Spanish majority population’s rejection of intermarriage with Roma people as follows:

Certainly, this rejection or wariness of intermarriage is not unilateral. Many participants in the study explained that the pattern of ethnic endogamy and collective solidarity among Gitano/Roma people was a chosen “ethnic retreat” and a form of cultural preservation that has happened, in part, as an active response to external marginalisation:

3.2. Mixing on the Rise

Even though endogamy has been the prevailing marriage pattern, mixed unions have always existed within Roma populations, including Spanish Roma. Historical evidence demonstrates that mixed marriages among Roma in Spain have existed since at least the 16th century, particularly in the southern region of Andalusia. These unions were not isolated incidents, but rather were part of the broader patterns of sedentarisation and mixing that were promoted, if not forced, by the Spanish Crown, which fostered cultural osmosis and local integration, even in the face of concurrent legal restrictions and social stigmatisation (Gómez Alfaro, 1999).

Examining the scope of intermarriage among Spanish Roma in modern times through the use of demographic sources is challenging, if not impossible, because Spanish censuses do not provide information on ethnicity. For this reason, it is necessary to complement the relatively few scholarly studies on this topic with ethnographic fieldwork, opinion surveys, and information provided by Roma associations and civic entities. Research shows that in contemporary times, especially since the 1990s, there has been a sustained increase in mixed marriages between Roma and non-Roma, particularly in less segregated urban environments and especially among Roma women with higher educational attainment. This trend is closely linked to improved access to education, individual and group upward socioeconomic mobility, and diversification of social networks, as well as gradual distancing from the values and cultural practices of previous generations (Gamella & Álvarez-Roldán, 2023; Garriga, 2000; Guerrero Romera, 2019; Ramírez-Heredia, 2005). This trend among Roma has also been found in other European countries, such as Hungary (Komolafe & Dávid, 2024).

The research study discussed here confirms the aforementioned pattern that more Roma women than men are involved in interethnic unions with non-Roma partners: In the qualitative sample, out of 37 intermarried couples, 18 were comprised of Roma women and non-Roma men; and 14 were comprised of Roma men and non-Roma women. The remaining couples included at least one partner of mixed Roma ancestry. It is important to note that mixed unions among Roma populations in Spain are not limited to unions with non-Roma native Spaniards. Partners also include individuals from non-Roma immigrant populations, such as Latin Americans and Maghrebis.

The following interview narrative observes and summarises all of these patterns:

Nevertheless, and confirming the relationship between endogamy tendencies and racism from the majority society, interviewees often explained quite shocking experiences of persistent, normalised structural segregation that had the distinct effect of limiting intergroup interaction, even in the context of educational institutions:

3.3. Identity, Racialisation, Discrimination, and Belonging

The participants in this study revealed a myriad of ways in which Spanish Gitanos experience mixedness and “Gypsyness” or romanipen (the name for this concept in the Caló language). One respondent even used the term romanipens (in plural) to emphasise the plurality of ways of being Gitano. The expression “Gitano barometer” was also sometimes used by interviewees, as demonstrated in the following narrative, to criticise the belief that there is a clear way of evaluating whether or not someone is Gitano:

Some participants in this study, whether Roma people in mixed couples or Spanish-born multiethnic Roma/non-Roma individuals, asserted that they strongly identified as “Gitanos,” while others identified as “mixed.” (In one case, the interviewee additionally identified as a “world citizen.”) Importantly, and as a factor that might influence self-identifications, some respondents had experienced more racism and discrimination than others, which depended greatly on the respondent’s perceived ethnoracial visibility within the larger society. The findings from this study continually showed that individuals who are perceived as being Gitanos (“the other”)—often because of racialised visible traits, such as a darker phenotype or a particular physical feature, way of dressing, accent, or manner of speaking—experience more limitations in their identity choices and more discrimination in their everyday lives, whether at school, at work, or in public spaces. These experiences often include forms of “subtle” or “small-scale” racism, also known as “microaggressions” (e.g., hostile statements, insults, being stared at, being followed around, being regarded with suspicion and mistrust). The following interview narratives illustrate various experiences of interpersonal and systemic racism:

Interestingly, the terms Kalo or Calé, as many Roma people in Spain call themselves, mean “Black” or “dark” in Indo-Aryan languages. And the term “Roma” is thought to be connected to the Dom or Domba people of North India (with whom the Roma have genetic, cultural, and linguistic links) and implies being “dark-skinned.” But the reality, as expressed by many of the interviewees, is that there is great phenotypical variation among Gitanos, from very dark skin and hair to very light skin, blond hair, and blue eyes, which serves as proof that Roma populations have always mixed.

Within the context of the habitual racialisation of Gitanos/Roma, the narratives of several respondents indicated experiences of “de-racialisation” or “racial passing” (Kennedy, 2001), whether desired or not, in their interactions with others:

In summary, many of the interviewee narratives indicate the stigma that is associated with having Gitano/Roma ethnic heritage in Spain. Respondents’ accounts show that visible markers play an important role in their experiences of differential treatment, discrimination, and marginalisation within Spanish society.

Significantly, every single respondent of mixed ancestry self-identified as either Roma or “mixed Roma,” and never as non-Roma (see the Appendix). Several mixed-heritage interviewees expressed that they self-identify as only Gitanos as a form of resistance, in recognition of the continued discrimination against, and marginalisation of, the Gitano people and culture:

A significant number of other respondents expressed that they value their mixed ancestry positively and that they want to transmit their dual identity/ancestry to their children, who can be mixed yet fully claim both ethnic backgrounds. In this sense, Roma identity (romanipen) is clearly not diluted as a result of mixing, as the following interviewee articulates:

What’s more, non-Roma study participants who were in mixed couples with Roma people seemed to lean towards Roma self-identification:

In some cases, mixed-ancestry respondents described a process of reappropriation and recognition of their Roma ancestry after having experienced periods of stigmatisation and racism. The following narratives assert the interviewees’ agency in confronting discrimination and their sense of rediscovered ethnic pride:

Many of the interview respondents, particularly women, pointed out that education has been their main tool to combat racism and discrimination and has been a crucial source of empowerment and agency. As two respondents expressed,

Another significant finding from this research is that race and racialisation need to be analysed through the lens of intersectionality, as variables such as ethnicity, race, gender, social class, age, and location cannot be understood in isolation. This study has provided evidence both of gender-based inequalities that specifically affect Roma women, which heighten or complicate the antigypsyism that is generally experienced by Roma communities, and of genderised racialisation—shown previously in this article in some of the interviews with mixed Roma women, who were the respondents who commented most frequently on being identified, targeted, and discriminated against based on how they looked or dressed. Roma women have traditionally been even more marginalised and “othered” than Roma men, as the former are racialised and excluded not only as ethnic “others” but also as gendered “others” (Vincze, 2014; Herrero‑Arias et al., 2023), and they are more likely to have the negative stereotypes associated with this ethnicity projected onto them by the majority population. At best, the image of Roma women in Spain has been associated with the exoticising stereotypes of the passionate Flamenco dancer or the wise fortune-teller; but more often, Spanish Roma women are portrayed as “ridiculed, illiterate and ignorant beings, totally deprived of any fashion sense, who only know how to give birth to kids, clean, sing and dance,” compounded with the more generalised Roma stereotypes of being “lazy, a thief, uneducated, etc.” (De Cicco, 2014). While Gitano women nowadays may not wear the same traditional female Romani dress (Matras, 2015) that was orientalised and exoticised in Western Europe in the 19th century, current female clothing and hairstyle choices that include long flowing skirts, hair in buns, certain types of sportswear, flip-flops, and large earrings denote “Gypsyness” in Spain and elicit social distancing and discriminatory reactions from the mainstream society.

Moreover, Gitano women contend with the prevailing patriarchal social order that exists both in larger Spanish society and, as an extension, inside their own culture. From within the culture itself, Roma women have traditionally been assigned the role of “carriers of tradition” and have been expected to bring honour to the family (Corsi et al., 2008; Esparcia Ortega, 2009; European Roma Rights Centre, 2005; Garriga, 2000, 2005; Kóczé & Popa, 2009; Leeson, 2013; San Román, 1976). As two of the intermarried interviewees explained,

In recent years, such gender inequalities and manifestations of the Roma and non-Roma patriarchy are being confronted more and more by an increasingly robust Romani feminist activism (referred to as the “Gitanas movement” in Spain), which adopts an intersectional approach to the concerns and struggles of Romani women (Filigrana, 2020; Kóczé et al., 2019).

3.4. Horizontal Hostility and Superdiversity: “Othering” from Within

Another important finding that emerged from analysing the interview narratives of the intermarried and mixed-ancestry study participants was the frequently reported feeling of not fitting in anywhere: in other words, of not belonging to either group, Roma or non-Roma. This sense of uncertainty about belonging was often linked to experiences of internal discrimination, also known as “horizontal hostility” (White & Langer, 1999). That is, intermarried or mixed-heritage Roma may experience rejection by endogamous (non-intermarried) and non-mixed Roma for lacking cultural “purity” or “authenticity” and for being a type of “traitor” to the Roma community and culture.⁹ The following examples show these types of experiences and reactions:

Furthermore, another type of internal discrimination identified by this study was related to the great internal heterogeneity (or superdiversity) among the Roma/Gitano population living in Catalonia, the region in Spain where this research was conducted. Catalonia is home to a significant variety of Gitano subgroups, distinguished by differences in geographical origin, language, place of residence (within Catalonia, and even within the same city), occupation, and social class, among other factors (Garriga, 2000, 2005; López Catalán, 2018), and which include Catalan Gitanos, Castilian Gitanos, Calé (Gitanos from Andalusia, a large region in southern Spain), and Eastern European Rrom (chiefly from Romania). Individuals from those subgroups rarely intermarry, owing not only to ethnocultural differences but also to negative prejudices. The following interview narrative illuminates these types of internal divisions:

This finding from the study raises questions about possible differing experiences and integration outcomes for Roma populations and subgroups in different Spanish regions, as the diverse regions within Spain vary significantly culturally, linguistically, and politically, which might affect interethnic interactions and minority/majority relations in differing ways.

The next final extract, from an interview with an Eastern European Muslim Rrom woman married to a Catalan Gitano man, is particularly revealing, as it captures all the complexities of processes of racialisation, discrimination, and belonging (including racial passing, “identity mismatch,” and internal discrimination) from a contextual and intersectional perspective, in which nationality, race, ethnicity, subethnicity, religion, gender, age, and social class are all factors at play.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

The aim of this article has been to test the persistence and identity effects of deep-seated racism and discrimination against Spanish Roma (Gitanos) by looking at whether these experiences of racialisation and prejudice are mitigated for Gitanos who intermarry with non-Roma people or for their mixed-ancestry children. The phenomenon of mixedness (intermarriage and mixed families) has traditionally been thought to foster assimilation processes and the integration of minority groups into mainstream society (Gordon, 1964). It is a social mechanism that is presumed both to destabilise or blur group boundaries, hence making group-based discrimination gradually disappear, and to dilute the ethnic distinctness of minority identities—but does it effect either of these changes in the case of the intermarried and mixed-heritage Spanish Roma population? Examining the impact of mixedness on experiences of racialisation and social inclusion/exclusion among Roma people in Spain, the longest-established and largest national ethnic minority group in Spain (and also the largest in Europe), addresses a significant gap in European research in the field of critical mixed race studies, which has predominantly focused on immigrant or immigrant-descended populations, overlooking national ethnic minorities and other populations who may be racialised and discriminated against despite not being immigrants.

This research, which draws on extensive ethnographic fieldwork, document analysis and in-depth interviews with intermarried Gitanos, Spanish-born descendants of Gitano/non-Gitano mixed couples, and community representatives, suggests that endogamy remains prevalent among Spanish Roma, shaped by both cultural norms and external structural discrimination (Gamella, 2020; Guerrero Romera, 2019). However, there has been a discernible rise in exogamous unions in recent decades, particularly in urban settings and among women with higher levels of education (Gamella & Álvarez-Roldán, 2023), supporting findings from other European contexts (Lőrincz, 2016; Komolafe & Dávid, 2024).

This study has found that social mixing through intermarriage and intercultural family formation does not necessarily reduce prejudice and discrimination towards Spanish Roma populations. Intermarried Roma people and Spanish Roma individuals of mixed ancestry, despite having an ethnic Spaniard parent and despite having been born and socialised in Spain, continue to be racialised and to experience discrimination and types of exclusion on a regular basis, whether explicitly or in more “subtle,” everyday forms—all of which has an important impact on their social interactions, identity choices, and everyday lives, in turn affecting their well-being to varying degrees. The mixed-heritage Gitano participants in the study frequently reported “racial microaggressions” (Sue, 2010) that stemmed from negative perceptions of Gitano ancestry and that were linked to being identified as a Gitano person based on visible traits (such as skin colour, general physical appearance, clothing, or manner of talking). Among the respondents, there were many cases of siblings in which one had a darker skin colour than the other, and, therefore, totally different identities were socially ascribed to them: People in the majority society treated the sibling with a lighter skin tone as “one of us” (i.e., this mixed-ancestry individual was rarely “noticed” and could pass for a non-Roma ethnic Spaniard), and the sibling who had a darker skin colour was stigmatised as being “a Gitano” or “an ethnic foreigner.” In terms of ethnic identity negotiation, both the siblings often seemed to be affected by such types of exclusionary treatment, whether direct or observed.

Furthermore, many of the female respondents articulated experiences of genderised racialisation, suggesting that specific stereotypes and prejudices associated with Roma women shaped the particular discriminations that they faced. In general, as women and as members of a racialised, marginalised national ethnic minority, these respondents’ lived experiences were affected by intersecting forms of discrimination, namely sexism and racism/antigypsyism. In this study and in other research, education emerges as a crucial tool for empowerment and for combating racism, especially for Roma women (Esparcia Ortega, 2009; European Roma Rights Centre, 2005).

The fact that ethnoracial-based stigma and discrimination—in this case, towards Spanish Roma people—persist in spite of growing trends of mixedness is a finding corroborated by previous studies that have focused on the experiences of racialised mixed-ancestry immigrant populations in Spain (Rodríguez-García, 2022; Rodríguez-García et al., 2021a, 2021b, 2021c; Rodríguez-García & Freedman, 2025) and elsewhere (Lee & Bean, 2010; Song, 2017). This reality, which indicates that the social construct of “race” still shapes and permeates present-day group relations and discriminations in Spain and worldwide (Lentin, 2020), calls into question the post-racial approach to diversity that has often been adopted in contemporary discussions on managing immigration and diversity (Rodríguez-García, 2022).

Another very significant finding from this study is that Roma identity (romanipen) does not seem to be diluted through mixing. The narratives of the interviewees show that individuals have different strategies for coping with racism, discrimination, and identity mismatch. “De-racialisation” or racial passing is sometimes a preferred approach, generally attempted during childhood and especially in educational contexts. However, even in such cases, most of these interviewees spoke about the reclamation and revitalisation of their Roma identity during their adulthood. The mixed-ancestry respondents in this study overwhelmingly self-identified as either “Gitano” or “mixed Gitano” (never as non-Roma) and expressed strong cultural ties to the Gitano ethnic community, regardless of whether they were readily identified as Gitano or not by mainstream Spanish society and in spite of the discriminatory treatment that they might receive for presenting themselves as Gitano. For many interviewees, their strong Gitano identity was precisely an act of resistance to anti-Gitano racism and an expression of cultural resilience and personal agency. Therefore, not only are interethnic identity trajectories compatible with Roma identity, but also mixedness, in fact, seems to intensify the identification with the minority group, a finding that is consistent with previous studies (Bradatan, 2021; Rodríguez López-Ros, 2009).

This pattern seems to be particularly pronounced in the case of mixed couples involving Roma women with extensive educational backgrounds, who often develop integrational dynamics of “accommodation without assimilation,” selectively maintaining Roma cultural identity while encouraging higher educational attainment among their children (Abajo & Carrasco, 2004). Furthermore, non-Roma respondents who were in a mixed union with a Roma partner similarly leaned towards Roma self-identification. Hence, Gitano/Roma identity remains dynamic and resilient—strengthened, not weakened or diluted—through mixing, a finding that challenges assimilationist assumptions about mixed marriages and essentialist understandings of ethnic identities and ethnic minority groups. A complementary finding is that there are myriad ways of being Gitano or Roma; the study shows that Gitano identity, or romanipen, is dynamic, multifaceted, and plural in nature, rather than being homogeneous and static.

The study did, however, uncover the reality of sometimes competing ideas of romanipen and the complication of mixed-ancestry Gitanos who identify as Roma being denied a full sense of membership and belonging by other members of the group. Indeed, this research revealed that intragroup prejudices or “horizontal hostility” (White & Langer, 1999) additionally has significant effects on Gitano people’s everyday lives, well-being, and identity choices. Some mixed Gitano respondents suggested that although they themselves had a strong self-concept of being Gitano, the ethnic identity constraints imposed on them by their own community were sometimes very confining and distressing. In the context of research on Roma and mixed Roma populations in Spain, this tension between individual identity affiliations and community dynamics, the latter of which greatly influence a person’s sense of belonging, is a topic that warrants further investigation.

It should also be acknowledged that while some of the intermarried couples and multiethnic individuals in the research sample spoke about reappropriating their Gitano roots as a tool of ethnic pride, a positive and agency-based self-narrative does not preclude racism and discrimination from happening and from affecting individuals. Arguably, even self-chosen hyphenated identity labels (e.g., Catalan-Gitano, Spanish-Gitano) can, in fact, be a reflection of the difficulty in being identified as a member of the mainstream society.

This research contributes to the theoretical expansion of intermarriage and mixedness as a field of study by incorporating a national ethnic minority group—Spanish Gitanos—into analytical frameworks that have previously been dominated by immigrant populations. Moreover, the study presented here demonstrates the heterogeneity, resilience, and evolving nature of Roma identity, which is increasingly shaped by, and expressed through, experiences of mixedness. Furthermore, this research foregrounds the distinct and complex case of race relations in Spain, highlighting the country’s value as a useful context for exploring constructs of “race” and processes of racialisation. The case of Spain reveals what I call a “multi-layered racialisation” reality, in which race operates in very intricate ways alongside other markers of difference, such as ethnicity and religion. These other dimensions of difference can become an even more stigmatising and divisive force in Spain than the classical biological notion of race that is more predominant in countries such as the United States. Such is the case with the racialisation processes that target Spanish Gitanos, who, together with the Maghrebi Muslim population, are arguably the most stigmatised, racialised, and discriminated-against minorities in Spain, in a similar way that the Black/White race‑ or colour‑focused binary is the central racialising division in North America (Rodríguez-García, 2022; Rodríguez-García & Freedman, 2025).

This article is a starting-point for providing valuable information about an under-researched subject in Spain and worldwide. Future research should continue the expansion of mixedness studies to include diverse national ethnic and religious minorities, thereby contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of intercultural dynamics and power relations in contemporary European societies.

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (PID2020-116966RB-I00). I would like to thank the participants in the study, whose unlimited generosity made this research possible. I would also like to thank Joanna L. Freedman for her outstanding edit of this article.

References

Abajo, J. E., & Carrasco, S. (eds.) (2004). Experiencias y trayectorias de éxito escolar de gitanas y gitanos en España. CIDE/Instituto de la Mujer.

Alba, R. (2009). Blurring the Color Line: The New Chance for a More Integrated America. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674053489

Alba, R. (2020). The Great Demographic Illusion: Majority, Minority, and the Expanding American Mainstream. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780691202112

Ali, S. (2003). Mixed-Race, Post-Race: Gender, New Ethnicities and Cultural Practices. Berg.

Arango, J. (2000). Becoming a Country of Immigration at the End of the Twentieth Century: The Case of Spain. In R. King, G. Lazaridis & C. Tsardanidis (eds.), Eldorado or Fortress? Migration in Southern Europe (pp. 253-276). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333982525_12

Bradatan, C. (2021). Increasing Mixed Marriages without Assimilation: A Consequence of Historical Ethnic Emigration in Romania. The History of the Family, 26(4), 623-637. https://doi.org/10.1080/1081602X.2021.1986737

Breton, R. (1964). Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities and the Personal Relations of Immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 70(2), 193-205. https://doi.org/10.1086/223793

Calvo Buezas, T. (1990). ¿España racista? Voces payas sobre los gitanos. Anthropos.

Calvo Buezas, T. (2000). Inmigración y racismo. Así sienten los jóvenes del siglo XXI. Cauce.

Campion, K. (2019). “You Think You’re Black?” Exploring Black Mixed-Race Experiences of Black Rejection. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(16), 196-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1642503

Cañete Quesada, C. (2020). The Memory of Spanish Gypsies: Scholarship, Oral History, and Archive Research. Romani Studies, 30(1), 15-48. https://doi.org/10.3828/rs.2020.2

Cea d’Ancona, M. A., & Valles Martínez, M. S. (2010). Xenofobias y xenofilias en clave biográfica: Relatos entrelazados de autóctonos y foráneos. Siglo XXI.

CEDRE. (2025). El impacto del racismo en España. Percepción de la discriminación por origen racial o étnico por parte de sus potenciales víctimas en 2024. Ministerio de Igualdad.

Chiritoiu, A., & Tesar, C. (2020). Introduction: Roma Marriage-Making, Between the Constraints of “Tradition” and the “Choices” of Liberalization. MARTOR. The Museum of the Romanian Peasant Anthropology Review, 25, 9-14. https://doi.org/10.57225/martor.2020.25.01

CIS (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas). (2011). Diagnóstico social de la comunidad gitana en España. Un análisis contrastado de la Encuesta del CIS a Hogares de Población Gitana 2007. Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social e Igualdad.

CIS. (2017). Actitudes hacia la inmigración . Estudio 3190. Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.

Corsi, M., Crepaldi, C., Samek Lodovici, M., Boccagni, P., & Vasilescu, C. (2008). Ethnic Minority and Roma Women in Europe: A Case for Gender Equality? Final Report. European Commission.

Cortés, I. (2021). Sueños y sombras sobre los gitanos. La actualidad de un racismo histórico. Bellaterra Edicions.

Cortés, I., & End, M. (eds.) (2019). Dimensions of Antigypsyism in Europe. European Network Against Racism (ENAR) and Central Council of German Sinti and Roma.

Council of Europe. (2012). Estimates and Official Numbers of Roma in Europe. Updated July 2012.

Damonti, P., & Arza, J. (2014). Exclusión en la comunidad gitana: Una brecha social que persiste y se agrava. Fundación FOESSA.

De Cicco, G. (2014). Feminist Roma Women Defending Their Rights in Spain. AWID. https://www.awid.org/news-and-analysis/feminist-roma-women-defending-their-rights-spain

Esparcia Ortega, M. J. (2009). Mujer gitana e integración. Anales de Historia Contemporánea, 25, 213-231.

Essed, P. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism: An Interdisciplinary Theory. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483345239

European Parliament. (2005). European Parliament Resolution of 28 April 2005 on the Situation of the Roma in the European Union, P6_TA(2005)0151.

European Parliament. (2019). European Parliament Resolution of 12 February 2019 on the Need for a Strengthened Post-2020 Strategic EU Framework for National Roma Inclusion Strategies and Stepping up the Fight against anti-Gypsyism, 2019/2509(RSP).

European Roma Rights Centre. (2005). Informe: Discriminación contra las mujeres gitanas en España. https://www.gitanos.org/upload/29/12/m00000388.pdf

Federación SOS Racismo. (2022). Informe anual sobre el racismo en el Estado español, 2022. Ministerio de Derechos Sociales y Agenda 2030.

Fernández, C., Araújo, D., Fezjula, S., & Rodríguez Maeso, S. (2023). Racismo de Estado. Una mirada colectiva desde la autonomía y la justicia racial. Txalaparta.

Fernández, M., Valbuena, C., & Caro, R. (2019). Evolución del Racismo, la Xenofobia y Otras Formas de Intolerancia en España. Informe-Encuesta 2017. Observatorio Español del Racismo y la Xenofobia (OBERAXE).

Filigrana, P. (2020). El pueblo gitano contra el sistema-mundo. Reflexiones desde una militancia feminista y anticapitalista. Akal.

Fundación Secretariado Gitano. (2022). Discriminación y Comunidad Gitana. Informe Anual FSG 2022. Fundación Secretariado Gitano.

Gamella, J. F. (2020). Consanguineous Marriages among Andalusian Gitanos/Calé: A Genealogical Analysis (1925-2006). Journal of Biosocial Science, 52(6), 809-831. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932019000804

Gamella, J. F., & Álvarez-Roldán, A. (2023). Breaking Secular Endogamy: The Growth of Intermarriage among the Gitanos/Calé of Spain (1900-2006). The History of the Family, 28(3), 457-483. https://doi.org/10.1080/1081602X.2022.2159852

Garcés, H. (2016). El racismo antirom/antigitano y la opción decolonial. Tabula Rasa, 25, 225-251. https://doi.org/10.25058/20112742.82

García, A. (2007). La familia en la comunidad gitana. In M. Laparra (dir.), Situación social y tendencias de cambio en la comunidad gitana (pp. 25-43). UPN.

Garriga, C. (ed.) (2000). Els Gitanos de Barcelona: Una aproximació sociològica. Diputació de Barcelona.

Garriga, C. (2005). Pròleg. El poble gitano: una identitat cultural, amb llengua i costums propis. In Estratègia local amb el poble gitano de Barcelona: diagnosi i línies d’actuació (pp. 7-17). Ajuntament de Barcelona.

Generalitat de Catalunya. (2018). Pla integral del poble gitano a Catalunya 2017-2020. Departament de Treball, Afers Socials i Families.

Gómez Alfaro, A. (1999). Tipologías, matrimonios mixtos y mestizajes gitanos en los censos históricos andaluces. Demófilo. Revista de Cultura Tradicional de Andalucía, 30, 31-68.

Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. Oxford University Press.

Guerrero Romera, C. (2019). Familia y población gitana en España. In M. Hernández Pedreño (dir.), Riesgo de exclusión de la población gitana en España e intervención social. Observatorio de la Exclusión Social, Universidad de Murcia.

Hellgren, Z., & Gabrielli, L. (2021). Racialization and Aporophobia: Intersecting Discriminations in the Experiences of Non-Western Migrants and Spanish Roma. Social Sciences, 10(5), 163. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10050163

Herman, M. R., & Campbell, M. E. (2012). I Wouldn’t, but You Can: Attitudes toward Interracial Relationships. Social Science Research, 41(2), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.11.007

Hernández Pedreño, M. (dir.) (2019). Riesgo de exclusión de la población gitana en España e intervención social. Observatorio de la Exclusión Social, Universidad de Murcia.

Herrero-Arias, R., La Parra-Casado, D., Ferrández-Ferrer, A., Sanchís-Ramón, M.-J., & Ortiz-Barreda, G. (2023). Experiences and Constructions of Womanhood and Motherhood among Spanish Roma Women. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 30(2), 164-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505068231152699

Kennedy, R. (2001). Racial Passing. Ohio State Law Journal, 62, 1145-1193.

Kóczé, A. (2020). Racialization, Racial Oppression of Roma. In I. Ness & Z. Cope (eds.), The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Imperialism and Anti-Imperialism (pp. 2293-2302). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29901-9_124

Kóczé, A., & Popa, R. M. (2009). Missing Intersectionality: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Class in Current Research and Policies on Romani Women in Europe. Central European University Press.

Kóczé, A., Zentai, V., Jovanović, J., & Vincze, E. (eds.) (2019). The Romani Women’s Movement: Struggles and Debates in Central and Eastern Europe. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351050395

Komolafe, C., & Dávid, B. (2024). Examining the Characteristics of Roma-non-Roma Interethnic Romantic Relationships Using Decision Tree Analysis. Intersections, 9(4), 176-195. https://doi.org/10.17356/ieejsp.v9i4.1122

Laparra, M. (2008). La comunidad gitana. El grupo étnico más excluido de la sociedad española. In M. Laparra & B. Pérez (dirs.), La exclusión social en España. Un espacio diverso y disperso en continua transformación (pp. 405-423). Fundación FOESSA.

Lee, J., & Bean, F. (2012). A Postracial Society or a Diversity Paradox? Race, Immigration, and Multiraciality in the Twenty-First Century. Du Bois Review, 9(2), 419-437. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X12000161

Leeson, P. T. (2013). Gypsy Law. Public Choice, 155, 273-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-012-0048-4

Lentin, A. (2020). Why Race Still Matters. Polity Press.

Liégeois, J. P. (1987). Gitanos e itinerantes. Presencia Gitana.

López Catalán, O. (2018). Fronteras en la ciudad: La población RROM/GITANA Rumanesa en el área metropolitana de Barcelona y sus estrategias de subsistencia, vivienda y movilidad (Tesis Doctoral). Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/666687

Lőrincz, L. (2016). Interethnic Dating Preferences of Roma and non-Roma Secondary School Students. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(13), 2244-2262. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1160769

Martín, E., & Gamella, J. F. (2005). Marriage Practices and Ethnic Differentiation: The Case of Spanish Gypsies (1870-2000). The History of the Family, 10(1), 45-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hisfam.2004.03.004

Martín Sánchez, D. (2018). Historia del Pueblo Gitano en España. Catarata.

Matras, Y. (2015). The Romani Gypsies. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674735958

Méchoulan, H. (1981). El Honor de Dios. Indios, Judíos y Moriscos en el Siglo de Oro. Argos Vergara.

Merton, R. K. (1941). Intermarriage and the Social Structure: Fact and Theory. Psychiatry, 4(3), 361-374. https://doi.org/10.1080/00332747.1941.11022354

Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. (2012). Estrategia Nacional para la Inclusión Social de la Población Gitana en España 2012-2020. Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad.

National Statistics Institute (INE). (2024). Vital Statistics: Marriage Statistics and Birth Statistics [Microdata, various years]. INE.

Ortiz, V. (2017). Towards Unifying Racial and Ethnic Paradigms. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(13), 2240-2248. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2017.1344262

Pittaway, E., Bartolomei, L., & Hugman, R. (2010). “Stop Stealing Our Stories”: The Ethics of Research with Vulnerable Groups. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 2(2), 229-251. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huq004

Ramírez-Heredia, J. de D. (2005). Matrimonio y boda de los gitanos y de los “payos”. CPEDA.

Rawls, A. W., & Duck, W. (2020). Tacit Racism. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226703725.001.0001

Rodríguez-García, D. (2010). Retos y tendencias en la gestión de la inmigración y la diversidad en clave transatlántica Documentos CIDOB Migraciones, 21. Fundación CIDOB.

Rodríguez-García, D. (2015). Introduction: Intermarriage and Integration Revisited: International Experiences and Cross-disciplinary Approaches. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 662(1), 8-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215601397

Rodríguez-García, D. (2021). Forbidden Love: Controlling Partnerships across Ethnoracial Boundaries. In C. H. Mayer & E. Vanderheiden (eds.), International Handbook of Love: Transcultural and Transdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 923-942). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45996-3_48

Rodríguez-García, D. (2022). The Persistence of Racial Constructs in Spain: Bringing Race and Colorblindness into the Debate on Interculturalism. Social Sciences, 11, 13.

Rodríguez-García, D. (2025). Intermarriage. In L. Oso, N. Ribas & M. Moralli (eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Migration: New Mobilities and Artivism (pp. 299-302). Edward Elgar.

Rodríguez-García, D., Miguel Luken, V., & Solana, M. (2021a). Las uniones mixtas y sus descendientes en España: Evolución y consideraciones sobre la mixticidad. In Anuario CIDOB de la Inmigración 2020 (pp. 168-195). CIDOB.

Rodríguez-García, D., Miguel Luken, V., Solana, M., & Ballestín, B. (2021b). Generación 2.5. Un análisis sobre la integración social de los hijos/as de uniones mixtas en España a partir de los datos de la Encuesta ILSEG. In R. Aparicio & A. Portes (eds.), Los nuevos españoles: La incorporación de los hijos de inmigrantes (pp. 183-226). Bellaterra.

Rodríguez-García, D., Solana, M., Ortiz, A., & Ballestín, B. (2021c). Blurring of Colour Lines? Ethnoracially Mixed Youth in Spain Navigating Identity. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47(4), 838-860. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1654157

Rodríguez-García, D., & Freedman, J. L. (2025). Intercultural Relations and Intermarriage in Spain: Race, Ethnicity, and Culture. In S. Raghunandan, R. Moodley & K. R. Kenney (eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Interracial and Intercultural Relationships and Mental Health (pp. 292-304). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003385547-27

Rodríguez-García, D., Lubbers, M., Solana, M., & Miguel-Luken, V. (2015). Contesting the Nexus between Intermarriage and Integration: Findings from a Multidimensional Study in Spain. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 662(1), 223-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716215598136

Rodríguez-García, D., Solana, M., & Lubbers, M. (2016). Preference and Prejudice: Does Intermarriage Erode Negative Ethno-racial Attitudes between Groups in Spain? Ethnicities, 16(4), 521-546. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796816638404

Rodríguez López-Ros, S. (2009). Romipén. La Identitat Gitana. Aproximació filosòfica a la identitat de les persones de cultura gitana (Tesis Doctoral). Universitat Ramon Llull. http://hdl.handle.net/10803/9227

San Román, T. (1976). Vecinos gitanos. Akal.

San Román, T. (1986). Entre la marginación y el racismo. Reflexiones sobre la vida de los gitanos. Alianza Editorial.

San Román, T. (1997). La diferencia inquietante. Viejas y nuevas estrategias culturales de los gitanos. Siglo XXI.

Song, M. (2017). Ethnic Options of Mixed Race Young People in Britain. In N. Worth, C. Dwyer & T. Skelton (eds.), Identities and Subjectivities (pp. 123-139). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-023-0_16

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation. Wiley.

Vallés, M. H. (2017). Familia, matrimonio y rito nupcial en la comunidad gitana: Un breve análisis desde la antropología jurídica. Revista Persona: Revista Electrónica de Derechos Existenciales, 96.

Varro, G. (2003). Sociologie de la mixité. De la mixité amoureuse aux mixités sociales et culturelles. Belin.

Vincze, E. (2014). The Racialization of Roma in the “New” Europe and the Political Potential of Romani Women. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 21(4), 435-442. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506814548963

White, J. B., & Langer, E. J. (1999). Horizontal Hostility: Relations between Similar Minority Groups. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), 537-559. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00132

Yoors, J. (2009). Los gitanos. Edicions Bellaterra.

Appendix. Sample of interviewees (N = 81)