travellers and ethnicity

Roisin Dubh

billy the squid wrote:

did you try google?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelta



my point is that there is also crime in the settled community also. again it is irrelevent to whether or not the traveling community is or is not an ethnic minority.



you happen to be wrong about that. see the link above. having learned some of it from my parents i can assure you, its a language.

That link seems to confirm Shelta as a dialect of Gaelic/Irish. I see it therefore as having a relationship to Irish like that of Ulster Scots to Lowland Scots/English. Indeed the word Shelta is thought to be derived from the Irish word Siulta for "walk", a reference to the travelling.

have you ever heard of an island called Monserat. it is not unusual for black people to have names like Paddy O Reily or Seamus McCarthy. it is also worth mentioning that immigrants in ellis island often took names which were native to their new english speaking host.

Yes but its sortof like the Pitcairn islands where nearly everyone is descended from the Bounty mutineers. The people of Montserrat with names like that got their surnames in similar vein, with respect to Irish settlers or Irish slaveowners. Slaveowners tended to pass their surnames onto their slaves.

All the travellers I know are clearly white. There is NO evidence linking them to the Indian-originated Gypsies. When I see Eastern European Roma on TV, one thing I and most people will notice is how "Indian" their skin looks i.e. not pale at all, actually slightly Asian looking. The same definitely cannot be said of Irish Travellers. I see the attempt to link the Gysies to Irish Travellers as part of an agenda by the Travellers to shield themselves from criticism by asserting that any criticism of them is "racism". They are obviously not of Indian descent in Ireland. I mean look at them! They look the same as us, except far less well behaved! Victims of bad parenting, I feel. No offence.

There are certain "clans" within the irish travelling community who are indeed decended from the roma

http://www.irishclans.com/articles/travellers.html

so now what you have in ireland are the decendents of a) native irish nomads from celtic times b) roma gypsies who have been here since the 1300s and displaced people from the great famine.

I would like to know your source, as it would appear to be inaccurate.

also might be worth mentioning that the shelta that I know has its roots in the italian language, I doubt that the displaced during the famine took up holidaying in the great city of Rome.

What evidence have you that it is linked to Italian? Your earlier source seemed to refer to evidence of a dominant Gaelic origin of the "language" which I actually see as a dialect of Irish rather than a separate language. Regarding the gypsies "being here since the 1300's", I disagree. The gypsies are descended from Indians expelled by the Muslims from northern India in the 1300's. They most certainly did not form a large presence in Ireland back then.

Just because the term "Roma" is thought to mean "Traveller" does NOT mean that Irish Travellers are Roma in the Indian-originated sense of the word.

Indian people generally look very different to Europeans and I know lots of travellers with the palest skin I have ever seen.

They are not a separate racial group. I do not wish to tar them all with the one brush. But I urge them, for pities sake, to settle and end the chaos the unsettled way of life leads many of them into.

billy the squid

What evidence have you that it is linked to Italian?

my parents spoke it, and I have honours italian in my leaving Certificate. even with this limited knowlage of both languages it is easy to see the similarities win various words.

Your earlier source seemed to refer to evidence of a dominant Gaelic origin of the "language" which I actually see as a dialect of Irish rather than a separate language.

Like I said in an earlier post in this thread, similar to irish, there are various dialects of shelta depending on a family's background.

Regarding the gypsies "being here since the 1300's", I disagree. The gypsies are descended from Indians expelled by the Muslims from northern India in the 1300's. They most certainly did not form a large presence in Ireland back then.

There is little point in me asking you for a source for this, as you havent provided a source for your last statement yet.

as for forming a large presence in ireland, I never said that, and I wouldnt call the present day population of 25,000 large. and the indian roma is just a part of that lineage, mixed together with other nomadic groups over the past 700 years.

That link seems to confirm Shelta as a dialect of Gaelic/Irish. I see it therefore as having a relationship to Irish like that of Ulster Scots to Lowland Scots/English. Indeed the word Shelta is thought to be derived from the Irish word Siulta for "walk", a reference to the travelling.

The construction of sentences and phrases in shelta are more like those of english than Irish. the first line of the first link states that it is indeed a language, and if you look anywhere else on the internet you will find that it is a language, not a dialect of a language.

All the travellers I know are clearly white.

considering you didnt even know what shelta was I dont imagine you know very many of them.

besides the french are white, are the french of the same ethnicity as the irish. or the sweedish, or the russians for that matter.

There is NO evidence linking them to the Indian-originated Gypsies. When I see Eastern European Roma on TV, one thing I and most people will notice is how "Indian" their skin looks i.e. not pale at all, actually slightly Asian looking. The same definitely cannot be said of Irish Travellers. I see the attempt to link the Gysies to Irish Travellers as part of an agenda by the Travellers to shield themselves from criticism by asserting that any criticism of them is "racism". They are obviously not of Indian descent in Ireland. I mean look at them! They look the same as us, except far less well behaved! Victims of bad parenting, I feel. No offence.

who said that roma gypsies made up 100 percent of the travelling community, go back and read my post again.

landser

bonkey wrote:

No. before you do that go back and look at the point I was answering.

You may disagree with uberwolf, but he said that they may be a seperate culture, but this did not make them a seperate ethnic group.

This is the point I was addressing: not whether or not they have a seperate culture, but whether or not having a seperate culture would constitute them being an ethnic minority.

No matter how many times you want to analyse what I was looking at, nowhere did I say that they had a seperate culture or ethnicity. I said that if they have a seperate culture - as uberwolf conceded they might - that this should mean they would consitute a seperate ethnic group - which would seem to point at a discrepancy in what uberwolf said.

Now, if you want to start a seperate discussion as to whether or not I think they are a distinct culture, I'd be more than happy to do so, but I'd rather you do me the courtesy of waiting till I actually voice an opinion in that regard before telling me my conclusions are wrong because they aren't culturally seperate.

jc

I know what you said. i do not believe that they are ethnically different nor do i believe that they have a seperate culture. Your previous post posed the ambigous question, that if they had a distinct culture, then the size of the grouping was the only point left to consider. I did not accept the premise that they had a distinct culture, nor did i feel that they qualified under any of the other headings in the definition. perhaps you should read my posts more carefully, istead of flying off the handle

also, can you stop italicising every second word pls. its very annoying

the_syco

Kn4ck3rs; Those white lawless f*cks who camp anywhere they can, and leave vast amounts of rubbish when they leave.

Travellers; Nice people. Tidy. There used to be a group called the "Castletown Travellers", as they worked in Leixlip every year, untill about 3 years ago.

There was a few traveller campmnets in Leixlip, near the Louisa Bridge, and you could easily talk talk to them. Any kn4ck3r campments I see, I feel imtimtaded if I walk by them.

Those who are going to come back are nice. Those who seem to only come here for the summer months (ie; on holiday) aren't. Those who wish to camp in a field untill they're payed to move don't deserve the name "travellers", as travellers are nice people. Those who camp in the field and leave vast amounts of cr4p behind are kn4ck3rs.

Sleepy

Wikipedia wrote:

There are approximately 86,000 worldwide speakers of Shelta, with anywhere from 6,000-25,000 in Ireland itself according to various sources

The figures of this sound extremely odd to me, given that it's an Irish-based 'language'. Going by the description given on wikipedia, it sounds far more like a bastardised version of Irish. Since it only dates back to the 1870's (only two lifetimes ago), my perspective upon this would be that the group's closed nature and ignorance (strictly in the educational sense) would have been the creators of this 'language'.

Personally, I would regard the traveller life-style as exactly that: a life-style choice. Succesive governments have repeatedly tried to enourage travellers to settle through offers of council housing. I don't believe that the provision of halting sites is any more a governmental responsibility than the provision of nudist beaches is. Illegal halting sites (i.e. the side of the road) are exactly that: Illegal. Hardly fair to call it Garda discrimination against the travelling community to insist they obey the law is it?

If travellers want to continue their chosen lifestyle, they should pay for a number of sites as a group (perhaps through some form of legal partnership scheme or limited company?) ensure that the sites are fitted with adequate sanitation, electricity, water etc and restrict their parking of caravans to these sites only.

Note: my views on Shelta have been formed entirely on what I've read on the wikipedia link given by billy the squid above. If there are inaccuracies in the wikipedia entry, I'd be happy to rethink this opinion if someone can point them out.

Blub2k4

Sleepy wrote:

The figures of this sound extremely odd to me, given that it's an Irish-based 'language'. Going by the description given on wikipedia, it sounds far more like a bastardised version of Irish. Since it only dates back to the 1870's (only two lifetimes ago), my perspective upon this would be that the group's closed nature and ignorance (strictly in the educational sense) would have been the creators of this 'language'.

Wow that's a very selective reading of the defnition of Shelta, amazing how you derive something different to what is written on the page.

Wikipedia wrote:

The language is spoken almost exclusively by Travellers, though linguists have documented Shelta since at least the 1870s. Both Celtic expert Kuno Meyer and Romany expert John Sampson assert that Shelta existed as far back as the 13th century.

Does anyone know if the McDonagh clan (Ballymote/Sligo traveller family) are originally a Fir Bolg clan?

landser

Blub2k4 wrote:

Does anyone know if the McDonagh clan (Ballymote/Sligo traveller family) are originally a Fir Bolg clan?

no one could tell, as anything we know about the fir bolg was written down by monks in the dark ages. i know plenty of mcdonaghs in sligo who claim no such origin.

the point of the matter is that irish travellers are not a seperate ethnic group such as the central european gypsies who, for the most part were nomads from eastern eurpoe. irish travellers are the descendants of the evictees of the 19th century and of itinerant workers. hence the fact that their surnames are found not only in the traveller community but also in the settled community. many of the "customs" they practice are hangovers from irish culture, which the majority of he population have abandoned. their dialect similarly is a mish mash of irish/english, which would probably not have been uncommon amongst most peasant irish prior to the 20th century. indeed, my own grandmother, a native of sligo, used many irish words as part of her normal vernacular, they were not just affectations, but part of her daily speech.

billy the squid

the_syco wrote:

Kn4ck3rs; Those white lawless f*cks who camp anywhere they can, and leave vast amounts of rubbish when they leave.

Travellers; Nice people. Tidy. There used to be a group called the "Castletown Travellers", as they worked in Leixlip every year, untill about 3 years ago.

There was a few traveller campmnets in Leixlip, near the Louisa Bridge, and you could easily talk talk to them. Any kn4ck3r campments I see, I feel imtimtaded if I walk by them.

Those who are going to come back are nice. Those who seem to only come here for the summer months (ie; on holiday) aren't. Those who wish to camp in a field untill they're payed to move don't deserve the name "travellers", as travellers are nice people. Those who camp in the field and leave vast amounts of cr4p behind are kn4ck3rs.

you will find nefarious elements in all societies unfortunately. one could easily point to acts of criminal and anti social behaviour in any social group, whether it be traveller, protestant, nationalist, arab, jewish, you name it.

the presence of criminal activity does not however etermine whether or not there is an ethnical distinction present or not.

The Corinthian

billy the squid wrote:

also might be worth mentioning that the shelta that I know has its roots in the italian language, I doubt that the displaced during the famine took up holidaying in the great city of Rome.

Similarities do not actually imply any direct relationship.

The majority of European languages are Indo-European in origin. As such you will often find similar roots in many of them, leaving us with curious similarities between Italian and Farsi (Persian), even though the latter did not in any way evolve from the former. Additionally you are forgetting the influence of the monastic period on Irish culture and language, that gave us such words as that for horse; In Irish we get capail (sp?) - instantly recognisable to the ecclesiastical Latin cavallus or Italian cavallo.

It is far more likely that any similarities you have noticed are as a result of a common Indo-European root, as well as the linguistic influence of the monastic period on Irish.

As for Shelta being a separate language, this is debatable. It’s been argued also that it is nothing more than a dialect or bastardisation of Gaelic Irish. And strong or unintelligible dialects are not unusual in any nation - Something you’d no doubt realize if you ever attempted to speak to a Neapolitan with your Leaving Cert Italian

Blub2k4

The Corinthian wrote:

As for Shelta being a separate language, this is debatable. It’s been argued also that it is nothing more than a dialect or bastardisation of Gaelic Irish. And strong or unintelligible dialects are not unusual in any nation - Something you’d no doubt realize if you ever attempted to speak to a Neapolitan with your Leaving Cert Italian

When does a dialect become a language? When a native speaker of the language can no longer recognise it as their spoken tongue?
I speak German and "Frieske" ( friesian ) which is "platt deutsch" which is a dialect of German but parallel it has a status as a language of its own.
Similarly for all latin based languages, are they not merely dialects of each other?

The Corinthian

Blub2k4 wrote:

When does a dialect become a language? When a native speaker of the language can no longer recognise it as their spoken tongue?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect#.22Dialect.22_or_.22Language.22

Blub2k4

The Corinthian wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect#.22Dialect.22_or_.22Language.22

wikipedia wrote:

There are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, although a number of paradigms exist, which render sometimes contradictory results. The exact distinction is therefore a subjective one, dependent on the user's frame of reference

so it is really debatable, and not as black and white as some would have it.

Trojan

FFS NOTHING is black and white, even "accepted science" like physics or mathematics.

That should be printed at the top and bottom of every page on boards.

Blub2k4

Trojan wrote:

FFS NOTHING is black and white, even "accepted science" like physics or mathematics.

That should be printed at the top and bottom of every page on boards.

Well that outburst furthers the debate, well done.

billy the squid

Trojan wrote:

FFS NOTHING is black and white, even "accepted science" like physics or mathematics.

That should be printed at the top and bottom of every page on boards.

its funny because its true.

landser wrote:

the point of the matter is that irish travellers are not a seperate ethnic group such as the central european gypsies who, for the most part were nomads from eastern eurpoe. irish travellers are the descendants of the evictees of the 19th century and of itinerant workers. hence the fact that their surnames are found not only in the traveller community but also in the settled community. many of the "customs" they practice are hangovers from irish culture, which the majority of he population have abandoned. their dialect similarly is a mish mash of irish/english, which would probably not have been uncommon amongst most peasant irish prior to the 20th century. indeed, my own grandmother, a native of sligo, used many irish words as part of her normal vernacular, they were not just affectations, but part of her daily speech.[/qutoe]

I believe I addressed your points in the link below.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2448105&postcount=28

Roisin Dubh

billy the squid wrote:

you will find nefarious elements in all societies unfortunately. one could easily point to acts of criminal and anti social behaviour in any social group, whether it be traveller, protestant, nationalist, arab, jewish, you name it.

the presence of criminal activity does not however etermine whether or not there is an ethnical distinction present or not.

Correct, especially when they are not even an ethnic group.

They have a lifestyle choice that causes the problems they complain about in the media.

landser

billy the squid wrote:

I believe I addressed your points in the link below.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2448105&postcount=28

eh, you didn't really. only one of your retorts actually made sense and that was the point re shelta, which is a good debatable point. i didn't actually see the logic behind a couple of your retorts.

you stated that religion does not an ethnic minority make. this is actaully a counter stance to the definition of ethnicity as see out supra.


you're question as to what makes the travellers irish was more than a little obtuse and doesn't really command a response.

you selectively quoted my point re customs -v- lifestyles, so, similarly, there is little point in responding.

as for the racial point, you started off talking about race and ened up talking about language (in the space of three lines), therefore, it would be difficult to know how to respond. further your point re racial origin was ad hoc. anyway, i think you'll find that the majority of people from the mediterranean are european.

billy the squid

Correct, especially when they are not even an ethnic group.

the relevence of my post to which you replied to and whether or not a unique ethnic group exists is what exactly?

They have a lifestyle choice that causes the problems they complain about in the media.

an opinion of course to which you are entitled to.

billy the squid

you're question as to what makes the travellers irish was more than a little obtuse and doesn't really command a response.

maybe, but by your logic the portugese on the iberian peninsula would be spannish. they have a different language, but because they are living in a part of europe dominated by spannish speakers, they should be deemed as spannish?

you stated that religion does not an ethnic minority make. this is actaully a counter stance to the definition of ethnicity as see out supra.

religion still does not make an ethnic group. there are african catholics who would not consider themselves european.

you selectively quoted my point re customs -v- lifestyles, so, similarly, there is little point in responding.

enlighten me, I however dont believe that i selectively quoted you, i quoted the whole post actually.

as for the racial point, you started off talking about race and ened up talking about language (in the space of three lines), therefore, it would be difficult to know how to respond. further your point re racial origin was ad hoc. anyway, i think you'll find that the majority of people from the mediterranean are european.

probably not punctuated properly but the point remains the same. After 700 odd years (if not more) of nomadic people in ireland we have the travelling community we see today. with a mostly Irish, but not totally Irish.

as for my reference to the english-spannish hybrid language which has developed in the states, the same process may have occoured here with the mixing of gaelic and other european languages.

as for your second point most majority of people from the majority of people in the mediteranian are european, majority is not all.

Sleepy

Blub2k4 wrote:

Wow that's a very selective reading of the defnition of Shelta, amazing how you derive something different to what is written on the page.

Maybe you would like to tackle my point of view rather that simply dismiss it because my interpretation of a piece of text differs from yours?

simu

The Corinthian wrote:

As for Shelta being a separate language, this is debatable. It’s been argued also that it is nothing more than a dialect or bastardisation of Gaelic Irish.

I'd say it's more a dialect of English that has borrowed words from Irish. Otherwise, you could say that French/Japanese/all those other languages that have borrowed many English words are dialects of English.

Shelta's vocabulary is based largely on Irish Gaelic (with many words inverted in a style not unlike French verlan slang), while its structure contains many similarities with English.

from the wikipedia

As for whoever above who was wondering if some traveller family is descended from the fir bolg, I say rolfmao! The fir bolg are a mythological group of people that were said to inhabit the country before the speakers of the language that developed into today's Irish came. There actually were people in this country before the Irish-speakers came but all the people in the country were so inter-mingled by the time of the earliest writings that they couldn't be classified into different groups.

Sleepy

Going back to the original post:

landser wrote:

I heard a guy from pavee point (? Connors) on Morning Ireland this a.m. talking about the Irish Govt.'s need to recognise travellers as an ethnic minority in Irish Society. THere is some human rights conference on in Austria, and this is where this argument is being put forward.

Why is it necessary to recognise any group of human beings as an "ethnic minority"? In today's world of blurring ethnicities why bother? All they do from what I can see is provide other people with convenient labels on which to base their slurs. Isn't it about time we grew up and realised that there is only one human race?

The Corinthian

billy the squid wrote:

maybe, but by your logic the portugese on the iberian peninsula would be spannish. they have a different language, but because they are living in a part of europe dominated by spannish speakers, they should be deemed as spannish?

Why don’t you ask the Catalans?

religion still does not make an ethnic group. there are african catholics who would not consider themselves european.

However it is quite likely that they would not consider themselves of quite the same ethnic background as their neighbors of a differing faith.

probably not punctuated properly but the point remains the same. After 700 odd years (if not more) of nomadic people in ireland we have the travelling community we see today. with a mostly Irish, but not totally Irish.

My understanding is that the ‘Traveling culture’ is no more than a century or two old.

as for my reference to the english-spannish hybrid language which has developed in the states, the same process may have occoured here with the mixing of gaelic and other european languages.

I refer you to my earlier post on this subject.

as for your second point most majority of people from the majority of people in the mediteranian are european, majority is not all.

Ethnically, the peoples of the northern Mediterranean - from the Atlantic to Constantinople are ‘European’. There are lesser Arabic influences in southern Spain, Malta and Sicily as well Turkish influences on Greece, Albania, Bosnia and Cyprus. Turkey is an odd case because it essentially adopted ‘European’ ethnicity less than century ago, so for most people the jury is still out on them.

landser

billy the squid wrote:

maybe, but by your logic the portugese on the iberian peninsula would be spannish. they have a different language, but because they are living in a part of europe dominated by spannish speakers, they should be deemed as spannish?

eh, no they wouldn't. i really don't know what you're on about here.

religion still does not make an ethnic group. there are african catholics who would not consider themselves european.

re-read the definition of ethnicity. the definition states that religious creed can be a ground for claiming to be part of an ethnic minority. whether you accept this premise or not is not relevant to the argument. my point was that if it is a valid ground, then the travellers could not use it as a point in their favour as they share the same religion as the majority.


enlighten me, I however dont believe that i selectively quoted you, i quoted the whole post actually.

this is the full quote: cultural: they have lifestlye differences at best, as do many people

probably not punctuated properly but the point remains the same. After 700 odd years (if not more) of nomadic people in ireland we have the travelling community we see today. with a mostly Irish, but not totally Irish.

indeed it wasn't. no matter. where do you get 700 years (if not more)from... did all the travellers arrive here in 1305... did Longshanks send them over (confound those english, i knew they were behind it all)??? If you are referring to the Roma (sorry TC) here when you say, "but not totally Irish", then I agree.


as for my reference to the english-spannish hybrid language which has developed in the states, the same process may have occoured here with the mixing of gaelic and other european languages.

english may well have mixed with spanish. that's irrelevant. do you know anything about etymology or the concept of the indo-eurpoean family of languages?? this is the first i've heard of gaelic and spanish forming a hybrid language, which was subsequently adopted by travellers


as for your second point most majority of people from the majority of people in the mediteranian are european, majority is not all.[/

bit confusing, but i think i know what you mean, and, by God, you're right!

billy the squid

1. @landser

i never said gaelic and spannish formed a hybrid language in the states, I said English and spannish formed a hybrid language in the states. link

i@The Corinthian

The Corinthian wrote:

My understanding is that the ‘Traveling culture’ is no more than a century or two old.

A quick google turned up evidence which would disagree. The travelling community does not have a centuries old written history, so one has to depend on references to irish travellers from other sources.

There are many theories about the origin of the Irish Travelling people. It has been suggested that they are descendants of people who lost their lands at the time of the Irish potato famine of 1847. However, there is considerable evidence to indicate that their language, culture and patterns of life predate the famine by several hundred years.

Laws had already been passed in England in 13th and 15th centuries curtailing the 'wandering Irish'. The word 'tinker', meaning tin craft, appears in written documents in the 12th century and refers to travelling craftspeople who played an important role in Irish society and Irish economy.

http://www.norfolkesinet.org.uk/pages/viewpage.asp?uniqid=1553

@lanser again

indeed it wasn't. no matter. where do you get 700 years (if not more)from... did all the travellers arrive here in 1305... did Longshanks send them over (confound those english, i knew they were behind it all)??? If you are referring to the Roma (sorry TC) here when you say, "but not totally Irish", then I agree.

First the quote and link above referrs to the presence of an irish travelling community in the 13th century. and you are indeed right, there were laws passed to "curtail" them by the brittish even back then.

with regard to whether or not there were roma gypsies in ireland before the 20th centure, all I could find on the internet was the following

http://www.eliznik.org.uk/RomaniaHistory/minority-gypsy_info.htm

DadaKopf

Why is everyone so fixated on language? It's only one of possibly infinite ways people can differentiate themselves from other groups to establish an identity. Whether Travellers speak English, or a dialect of whatever isn't remotely as important as how, both Travellers themselves and non-Travellers consider language to be important in establishing boundaries between groups.

Nobody can say, "You haven't a distinct language, therefore, objectively speaking, you're not a real ethnic group". Having an ethnic identity is highly, highly subjective, and it often takes being a member of that group to actually comprehend it.

The UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) clearly recognises that self-identification is a vital component of ethnic identity, in addition to objective evidence like funerary customs, language, dress, social systems etc. This is also recognised by the EU Race Directive. But the Irish Government has conveniently ignored the evidence, self-identitification and both the EU and UN.

Plus, ethnic groups don't have to be ancient to be real, either, as some people here seem to suggest. They can actually arise quite spontaneously, as is the case across Africa and Europe, and the new ones are just as legitimate as the older ones. People here also seem to think that ethnic boundaries and markers are somehow clear and distinct and geographically fixed - they're not always, so when you go to look at the histories, fine dig up what you want but what's actually important is how members of ethnic groups see themselves as different from others. Period.

Roisin Dubh

I have an idea.

Why don't I become a traveller.

To do this requires buying a caravan and parking on private property.

When people ask me to leave, I can call them "racists". (the real agenda behind the calls for travellers to be recognised as an ethnic group is to silence criticism of traveller's using private property without consent and other behaviour by calling it "racist).

And I don't have to pay tax.

Sounds nice.

simu

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I have an idea.

Why don't I become a traveller.

To do this requires buying a caravan and parking on private property.

When people ask me to leave, I can call them "racists". (the real agenda behind the calls for travellers to be recognised as an ethnic group is to silence criticism of traveller's using private property without consent and other behaviour by calling it "racist).

And I don't have to pay tax.

Sounds nice.

Sure, if you can convince travellers you're one of their own. Good luck with that.

billy the squid

Roisin Dubh wrote:

I have an idea.

Why don't I become a traveller.

To do this requires buying a caravan and parking on private property.

When people ask me to leave, I can call them "racists". (the real agenda behind the calls for travellers to be recognised as an ethnic group is to silence criticism of traveller's using private property without consent and other behaviour by calling it "racist).

And I don't have to pay tax.

Sounds nice.

your being insulting now, there is no need for that.

uberwolf

billy the squid wrote:

your being insulting now, there is no need for that.

it does reflect how an awful lot of people feel.

Peoples primary problem with the travelling community is, IMO, that it isn't self sufficent. As such it relies on the settled community for the support and infrastructure to sustain it. Whilst doing this, demanding rights, it doesn't accept the responsibilities. They are able to avoid these responsibilities, to a large extent, due to their nomadic lifestyle.

As such the objection to cultural status is that those who feel as above (including to a large extent myself) believe that cultural status will afford the travelling community further leverage in what seems like a constant battle to reject the rules that the settled community has evolved over centuries to sustain itself.

Perhaps the ideal would be no interaction between the two. But that would leave the travellers at a loss but with no great difference to the settled community. This can't happen realisitically. So finding a way of cohabiting this spacious nation of ours is the requirement. Successive Governments are probably guilty of gross ignorance in ther approaches. Presumably their is something appealing about the lifestyle - so forced settlement is always going to grate.

I believe a travelling culture will simply result in a hand out. And this shapes my dislike of the idea more than anything else - cos otherwise it would make no odds to any of us at all.