FG councillor on travellers.

purple'n'gold

Another interesting aspect of tinker (traveller if you insist) culture is the fact that when one of them takes ill, the entire tribe descends on the hospital. Vans are parked willy nilly all over the place, (they wont use the car park as you have to pay) children are allowed to run wild all over the place, they ignore the nurses and just crowd into the wards shouting and making a nuisance of them selves. They also leave the toilets in a terrible state. None of this is makey up; I have seen all of the above in my local hospital. Which of course I will not name.

Colonel Sanders

I must be seeeing things, people in positions of some kind of influence not being scared of the ultra PC brigade and saying what a lot of his voters would deam to be true. Maybe his choice of words leaves abit to be desired but i don't think he meant it literally.

I rememeber a few years back when a load of travellers descended on my home town. the first pub as you cross the bridge into town was thrashed by them and as a result a lot of other pubs closed their doors or made up excuses to only serve who they wanted to (a lot of them displayed 'Private Party' notices on doors). Who can blame them for this? A person has a right to protect his livlihood. There was what was described as their 'Spokes person' on the RTE news one of the nights giving out about their treatment and saying they 'weren't animals'. I drove by the site they were camped in a few times and must say i agreed, animals wouldn't have behaved in the way some of them were behaving.

Tha Gopher

The_Minister wrote:

I just saw this on politics.ie http://www.enniscorthyecho.ie/news/story.asp?j=27439&cat=news
All I can say is, wow.I never thought any politician would be so honest about his views (even if they are pig-plop).
I hope that Fine Gael take the nomination off him, or at least distance themselves from his remarks.

Why exactly are they pig plop? He could have worded it better, and really shouldnt have used language comparing it to a Viking raid, but you cant really be denying the basic facts are true, that they are refusing to feck off out of someones garden and that they will leave the place nice and clean when they leave.

karen3212 wrote:

I still find the failure to condemn this politician absolutely disgusting.

For anyone who wants to read about travellers in Ireland I found this site interesting.

http://www.nccri.ie/travellr.html

.

As said, he should have chosen his words better but people are more disgusted with pliticians who refuse to comment on the topic. Are you not more disgusted some poor family has a few caravans stuck on their lawn until the law slowly pulls its finger out and moves them? (personally i wouldnt wait on the law, or even involve them at all seeing as they would be useless)

And btw that site is the biggest load of apologist rubbish Ive ever read. wah ah wah, we`re all on welfare because society doesnt understand us.

FTA69

This type of exageration is not productive, and is one of the problems faced when trying to discuss things like this. To say 'they are not there to continually berate traveller criminals for the benefit of the settled', is presenting it as if that was my point. Its not, and very disingenuous of you. I did not say that traveller groups should do such a thing. What i said, is that they should not be just crying bigotry, when there are good reasons for certain actions and feelings towards travellers. In not showing empathy towards the settled community, and basically accusing people, wrongly, of being bigoted or racist etc when they have issue with travellers, they loose credability IMO.

Fair enough, you make a good point, but there is no denying that there is a large proportion of Irish society that just don't like Pavees, no matter what they do.

Once again, you jump to the assumption that its some kind of class thing. You assume that the publican doesn't want to bring the standard of the pub down. No doubt, this happens, but in the majority of cases its as I said, 'risk evaluation'. The publican is just as likely to be thinking, 'if I let them in, they may bring others in, and they may feel they've got a lace that they are allowed into'. Then he thinks, in the long run that will spell trouble, so he makes a call on it.

And do you think that's an acceptable decision to make if they were say, Somalians or Jamaicans?

Corinthian,

It's irrelevant to this discussion. Travellers are not a different race. They're arguably not even a different ethnic group -

If you think the only difference between us and them is the fact they are nomadic then you are sadly misinformed. They have their own language, customs and culture; they (loosely albeit) fit the definition of an ethnic group.

You imply it.

No I didn't.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

If you think the only difference between us and them is the fact they are nomadic then you are sadly misinformed. They have their own language, customs and culture; they (loosely albeit) fit the definition of an ethnic group.

Let me get this straight - I put forward that they are not a separate race and are arguably a separate ethnic group and you retort by not challenging the race point and arguing that they loosely fit the definition of an ethnic group. I don't see how you in any way contradict what I said.

We both appear to agree that they are not a different race and at least agree that if they are an ethnic group it's a tenuous status.

So how am I sadly misinformed? Or are you just coming out with rhetoric for the sake of it?

No I didn't.

Then why talk about racism when it's irrelevant to the topic?

FTA69

Then why talk about racism when it's irrelevant to the topic?

What? You're only obfusticating the argument now to no end.

You insinuated that because I believe that Pavees are a different ethnic group I somehow believe they have "carte blanche" to commit crime.

I state that I never said that.

You state I implied it.

I state that I didn't imply that I believe Travellers have a right to commit crime.

Then you accuse me of dragging racism into the topic when in your opinion it has no bearing on the discussion. Your points are disjointed and you are creating legions of strawmen.

In other words, you're talking through your hole and accusing me of saying things I never said.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

What? You're only obfusticating the argument now to no end.

You insinuated that because I believe that Pavees are a different ethnic group I somehow believe they have "carte blanche" to commit crime.

I state that I never said that.

You state I implied it.

Let's look at what you said:

They mightn't be a different race per se, but there is an argument to be made that they are a different ethnic group, ie nomadism, different language and customs etc.

So they may not be a different race, but given their ethnic status you imply that they may be treated in a similar fashion. You then go on a diatribe of apology which is explained by their demographic grouping (which according to you may be treated in the same fashion as race).

So, like it or not, even if you do not state it plainly, you do imply a justification for their anti-social behavior based upon ethnicity (which I take it you consider a form of racism).

If this is not the case, please tell us how you do not think their ethnicity justifies this type of behavior and what baring their ethnicity has. Also feel free to reject that one may call prejudice (whether well founded or not) based on ethnicity as racism.

If so I will unreservedly apologize on the basis of what was a genuine misunderstanding of your meaning.

Otherwise, you would realistically be the one talking through your posterior.

FTA69

You then go on a diatribe of apology which is explained by their demographic grouping (which according to you may be treated in the same fashion as race).

Indeed, but if you read over the posts I made a while back you will see the biggest reason I cited for Traveller crime was poverty, something which I believe is the biggest cause of the crime of which we are talking. I then cited the example of blacks in the US and England, ie they commit a disproportionate amount of crime but are also disproportionately poor.

Like the blacks, Pavees do face racism (or prejudice) based on their ethnicity, did I state that racism is the sole cause of crime? Not at all, it may be a factor, but never did I say it was the sole reason; and by no means did I say it excuses those Travellers who do commit crime.

The Corinthian

Fair enough on not excusing all crime, however Pavees (is that the new Traveller?) do not face racism even if they may face prejudice (be it justified or not). By definition they can't.

Using such an emotionally charged term serves only to stifle debate by labeling anyone who criticizes them as racist.

JimiTime

FTA69 wrote:

Fair enough, you make a good point, but there is no denying that there is a large proportion of Irish society that just don't like Pavees, no matter what they do.

i can and will deny such a thing. I don't think people would care all that much if they travelled from town to town, but were clean, friendly, non-threatening and law abiding folk. I agree, it would be a struggle to banish their negative reputation, but anyone I know have issues with travellers because of the criminality and anti-social behaviour. Not because they choose to live in a caravan, or speak with a different accent.

And do you think that's an acceptable decision to make if they were say, Somalians or Jamaicans?

Somalia and Jamaica are countries, so one cannot be so general. There are different cultures and customs within each of these countries. If one could tell that the Jamaican was actually a Jamaican yardie, then yes, as that would be an undesirable customer. Nothing to do with skin, or ethnicity, just behaviour. The fact is, alot of people don't know how to tell where a black person is from, so they'll either say, No Blacks, or wont care. I lived in North London, and had quite a few African friends when I was working in Chalk Farm. Sound folk, great craic, and a pleasure to serve. They thought me alot about Africa also. The thing is with Africans, is that its not even about countries, its about tribes. A very good friend of mine is Ghanan, and rather than speaking about africa in terms of how the colonies divided it, he talks about it in terms of tribes. He also informs me that there are certain tribes that he would class as scum, that they are lawless etc, and others that are very law abiding. Obviously, Joe England or Ireland is not going to be able to distinguish who is who, and in turn, if you get a few from the more 'criminal' tribes causing trouble, they may just tar them all with the same brush. Their equation may turn into 'blacks=trouble', and this in turn effects those who are the nicest law abiding Africans you could meet. The difference with travellers, is that one can distinguish them as the tribe you do not want in your bar. No doubt, as I've said, there are nice travellers that this will effect, but I can't blame the barman, or accuse him of bigotry, as he has to protect his livlihood.

To Summarise, if there was good grounds for believing that a certain group of people are a risk to your premises, then I don't think its bigotted or racist to refuse them entry. Travellers, are easily identified, but the 'bad tribes' of Africa are not. not in this country anyway. If they could be identified, then the above would apply to them also IMO. I repeat, its not about skin or ethnicity, its about behaviour!

purple'n'gold

I have yet to see an African of any tribe or description cause any trouble in a public place here. Can’t say the same for the tinkers I’m afraid. Just speaking as I find it.

FTA69

Corinthian,

however Pavees (is that the new Traveller?)

No, that's just what they call themselves. The terms are interchangeable.

do not face racism even if they may face prejudice (be it justified or not). By definition they can't.

Race;

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.
–adjective 11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind

.

www.dictionary.com

Racism can encompass prejudice toward ethnic groups.

JimiTime,

i can and will deny such a thing. I don't think people would care all that much if they travelled from town to town

If I went home to certain family members and mentioned I was getting married to a "clean, friendly, non-threatening and law abiding" Traveller they still wouldn't be too happy at all. And I'm sure many are the same.

Not because they choose to live in a caravan, or speak with a different accent.

But it is when people every person living in a caravan, speaking Gammin as a criminal we enter the realms of prejudice.

The fact is, alot of people don't know how to tell where a black person is from, so they'll either say, No Blacks, or wont care.

Exactly, they used to say "No Blacks" because of the bad behaviour of a few of them, and similarly they now say "No Travellers" or "Travellers by Appointment Only", and it is a similar mentality that results in the above signs and attitudes.

The difference with travellers, is that one can distinguish them as the tribe you do not want in your bar

Somalis, Ethiopians and Eritreans (who coincidentally now have the worst reputation in London) are very distinguishable owing to their height, build and features. You can spot and identify a gang of them from a mile off (try Camden Locks and Market). Likewise young Somalis are often barred from entering pubs and the like if they are in groups over 3, you may call it prevention and understandable, I simply find it unfair.

If they could be identified, then the above would apply to them also IMO. I repeat, its not about skin or ethnicity, its about behaviour!

But surely when the behaviour of others results in you taking it out on every member of that ethnic group, then it is fair to call you prejudiced?

FTA69

Corinthian,

however Pavees (is that the new Traveller?)

No, that's just what they call themselves. The terms are interchangeable.

do not face racism even if they may face prejudice (be it justified or not). By definition they can't.

Race;

race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.
6. the human race or family; humankind: Nuclear weapons pose a threat to the race.
7. Zoology. a variety; subspecies.
8. a natural kind of living creature: the race of fishes.
9. any group, class, or kind, esp. of persons: Journalists are an interesting race.
10. the characteristic taste or flavor of wine.
–adjective 11. of or pertaining to the races of humankind

.

www.dictionary.com

Racism can encompass prejudice toward ethnic groups.

JimiTime,

i can and will deny such a thing. I don't think people would care all that much if they travelled from town to town

If I went home to certain family members and mentioned I was getting married to a "clean, friendly, non-threatening and law abiding" Traveller they still wouldn't be too happy at all. And I'm sure many are the same.

Not because they choose to live in a caravan, or speak with a different accent.

But it is when people every person living in a caravan, speaking Gammin as a criminal we enter the realms of prejudice.

The fact is, alot of people don't know how to tell where a black person is from, so they'll either say, No Blacks, or wont care.

Exactly, they used to say "No Blacks" because of the bad behaviour of a few of them, and similarly they now say "No Travellers" or "Travellers by Appointment Only", and it is a similar mentality that results in the above signs and attitudes.

The difference with travellers, is that one can distinguish them as the tribe you do not want in your bar

Somalis, Ethiopians and Eritreans (who coincidentally now have the worst reputation in London) are very distinguishable owing to their height, build and features. You can spot and identify a gang of them from a mile off (try Camden Locks and Market). Likewise young Somalis are often barred from entering pubs and the like if they are in groups over 3, you may call it prevention and understandable, I simply find it unfair.

If they could be identified, then the above would apply to them also IMO. I repeat, its not about skin or ethnicity, its about behaviour!

But surely when the behaviour of others results in you taking it out on every member of that ethnic group, then it is fair to call you prejudiced?

JimiTime

FTA69 wrote:

But surely when the behaviour of others results in you taking it out on every member of that ethnic group, then it is fair to call you prejudiced?

I would agree to a point. However, if it is persistant, and there does not seem to be much co-operation from the group in question to give up their criminals, or declare their earnings etc etc, then we enter another realm. A realm where its not unreasonable to decide not to take a chance. It would be alot more productive for all party's involved to then address the underlying issues as to why its happening, rather than just say that the world is against them. I personally have never seen a traveller come out against the behaviour of their bretheren, or even accept that they have serious issues in their society. Whatever spiel anyone wants to spin, alot of people know first hand, that its not just a small minority thats the problem, and that in itself is a big problem.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

No, that's just what they call themselves. The terms are interchangeable.

Sounds a bit like how Negro became Black, became African-American, TBH

Racism can encompass prejudice toward ethnic groups.

That's not what that definition says.

Additionally their ancestry is not all that different to any other Irishman's. Certainly they marry a lot within a narrower gene pool, but that not uncommon in a good few towns in this country and ultimately is still based on the same basic ancestry as the rest of us.

FTA69

Jimi,

and there does not seem to be much co-operation from the group in question to give up their criminals,

And how do people "give up criminals" may I ask? Do you want people to physically drag offenders down to the police station? The above nonsense argument has been used all over the world and the fact remains it is the job of the police to apprehend criminals, normal people can do little. The same is said over here with the Somalis and Jamaicans, and I can tell you if you went down to Camden Lock or Clapton and started encouraging people to "hand up the criminals" you would get a lot of laughter in your face. And the same occurs in this country, I never ratted on anybody in my life, and short of rape or sex abuse I never will either.

I personally have never seen a traveller come out against the behaviour of their bretheren

I have heard them say it to me many a time, and a distinction is always drawn between "bad" Travellers and "good" Travellers. Personally I think such support groups as Pavee Point and the Traveller Visibility Group do good work in addressing the issues of alcoholism and domestic violence, they run training and literacy workshops as well as providing support for Pavee women in difficult circumstances. That is the work that makes a difference, the fact they aren't publically shouting from the rooftops to "hand up the criminals" doesn't mean they condone criminality or are afraid to address it.

Corinthian,

Sounds a bit like how Negro became Black, became African-American, TBH

More nonsense, Pavee is a Gammin word meaning Traveller, it is a word in a different language, not an evolution along the lines of the English language. For instance Rrom and Romani are the same thing in two different languages.

That's not what that definition says.

Not exactly, but it does say that race encompasses ethnicity:

a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

And if race encompasses ethnicity, surely it would stand to reason that racism encompasses prejudice against different ethnic groups?

Additionally their ancestry is not all that different to any other Irishman's.

Well all our ancestry can be traced back to Ethiopia by that logic. Travellers have been around for hundreds of years, they have a different culture, language and heritage which has been set apart from ours for hundreds of years. They are Irish, but they aren't the same as us.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

More nonsense, Pavee is a Gammin word meaning Traveller, it is a word in a different language, not an evolution along the lines of the English language. For instance Rrom and Romani are the same thing in two different languages.

It is arguable that Gammin is a true language. To begin with it was artificially constructed primerraly as a means of conceling conversation from non-Travellers. It could certainly be referred to as a dialect, but a language is more debatable.

Not that it matters because I was making more of an observation as to the deconstructionist's approach to renaming things so as to change people's perception. I remember when the tinkers wanted to rebrand themselves as Travellers, and now the term is going to become Pavee. I'm sure you might argue that it was that all along, but that's not what Traveller rights groups were asking to be called a few years ago.

And if race encompasses ethnicity, surely it would stand to reason that racism encompasses prejudice against different ethnic groups?

Only if you don't use logic or reason. Race, and hence racism, refers to well defined genetic differences. Those don't exist between settled and nomadic Irish - the two groups have simply not been separate long enough.

Well all our ancestry can be traced back to Ethiopia by that logic.

No, because our ancestry in Africa was tens, even hundreds of thousands of years ago resulting in significant genetic differences. Travellers have only been around for a few hundred - by most estimates, less than four hundred.

The Corinthian

FTA69 wrote:

More nonsense, Pavee is a Gammin word meaning Traveller, it is a word in a different language, not an evolution along the lines of the English language. For instance Rrom and Romani are the same thing in two different languages.

It is arguable that Gammin is a true language. To begin with it was artificially constructed primerraly as a means of conceling conversation from non-Travellers. It could certainly be referred to as a dialect, but a language is more debatable.

Not that it matters because I was making more of an observation as to the deconstructionist's approach to renaming things so as to change people's perception. I remember when the tinkers wanted to rebrand themselves as Travellers, and now the term is going to become Pavee. I'm sure you might argue that it was that all along, but that's not what Traveller rights groups were asking to be called a few years ago.

And if race encompasses ethnicity, surely it would stand to reason that racism encompasses prejudice against different ethnic groups?

Only if you don't use logic or reason. Race, and hence racism, refers to well defined genetic differences. Those don't exist between settled and nomadic Irish - the two groups have simply not been separate long enough.

Well all our ancestry can be traced back to Ethiopia by that logic.

No, because our ancestry in Africa was tens, even hundreds of thousands of years ago resulting in significant genetic differences. Travellers have only been around for a few hundred - by most estimates, less than four hundred.

FTA69

It is arguable that Gammin is a true language.

It's an interesting discussion. Gammin is spoken in varying forms of purity, in its purest form it uses a much different idiom and syntax to English and is best described as a mix between slang, Irish and English.

Not that it matters because I was making more of an observation as to the deconstructionist's approach to renaming things so as to change people's perception.

You're losing me now with all your collegy terms.

I remember when the tinkers wanted to rebrand themselves as Travellers,

That's because tinker is now innaccurate and more than a little patronising, "knacker" is just plain abusive.

and now the term is going to become Pavee. I'm sure you might argue that it was that all along, but that's not what Traveller rights groups were asking to be called a few years ago.

Travellers rights groups aren't asking to be called that now either. As you said yourself, Pavee is a very old term and they possibly called themselves that sicne their inception. Unlike "African-American" and other overtly PC bullsh*t it is an organic term and not an artificial one invented by some academic.

Only if you don't use logic or reason. Race, and hence racism, refers to well defined genetic differences.

Not according to www.dictionary.com anyway.

No, because our ancestry in Africa was tens, even hundreds of thousands of years ago resulting in significant genetic differences.

I was being glib.

Travellers have only been around for a few hundred - by most estimates, less than four hundred.

I'd say about 450 odd, and half a millenium is quite a lot of time to drift apart.