Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?

Eggy Baby! · 28-03-2012 1:34pm

Does anybody else find these statistics frighteningly damning of Irish society and our ability to address travellers' disadvantage?

Clearly you don't live in Navan!

In fairness, travellers have been given enough chances, and its just a result of our affluent guilt that we believe that their problems are due to society or us. The problem with the travellers are the travellers themselves. They have been given opportunities to live in houses rather than in the squalor which destroys their life expectancy, and they have failed to seize this opportunity.

And although I'm not a man who adheres to stereotypes, travellers do not exactly help their image. Most I have met, and most others have met are just aggressive and foul to be around. And that's pretty evident.

They have chosen to live in situations which give them the life expectancies and demographics of Lesotho.

Permabear · 28-03-2012 1:35pm

This post has been deleted.

lividduck · 28-03-2012 1:56pm

spank_inferno wrote: »

No point in scaremongering or stifling free opinion Lividuck
Permabear's posts are fine and would not fall under the above

He's drawing attention to and criticising chosen behaviours by the travelling community, he has not diminished or insulted anyone’s race, gender... etc.

I choose to be a Liverpool supporter.... I take abuse for it!
I don’t wave some incitement of hatred act in their face.

Actually I would consider that describing Traveller Culture as a "Culture of Idleness and Dysfunction" as both abusive and insulting and as such likely to give rise to incitment to hatred. Many members of the Traveller Community would contest that they have a culture of "idleness and Dysfunction".

Scofflaw · 28-03-2012 2:04pm

lividduck wrote: »

I would refer the poster ansd all others concerned that The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

I'm going to second lividduck's point here from a mod perspective. People often apparently don't think such legislation applies to Travellers, or doesn't apply to their comments, but it does, and this:

I choose to be a Liverpool supporter.... I take abuse for it!
I don’t wave some incitement of hatred act in their face.

is not a legal defence, or even an analogy. People are Liverpool supporters by choice, not by birth.

I obviously don't want to shut down discussion of the topic, but I'd ask people to be aware of the legislation in question, and to refrain from offering either blanket condemnations of "Traveller culture" or silly "justifications" for such blanket condemnations.

moderately,
Scofflaw

RichieC · 28-03-2012 2:14pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In a perfect world.
We'd end up paying more from the crime if they didn't get any state support. As for social traditions, they weren't always as they are now, their caravans are modern, they have assimilated/ picked and chose what they like from our culture and discarded what they didn't want.

It's the same reason I support a strong social safety net. the resulting crime from it's absence would end up making a worse society. More police, more prisons. more money spent. It's one of the major holes I see in your ideology, one you don't seem to factor in. It's funny you speak of "social engineering" too.

antoobrien · 28-03-2012 2:15pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm going to second lividduck's point here from a mod perspective. People often apparently don't think such legislation applies to Travellers, or doesn't apply to their comments, but it does

My family and I have had a few run ins with travellers, so I find many of the comments to be a fair reflection of the people involved. This will naturally colour my opinion of the wider community, in much the same way as getting mugged by a junkie on abbey st would give a tourist a bad opinion of Dublin & Ireland.

Saying that, there is a traveller couple who are friends of the family and you couldn't meet nicer people.

So before I start talking about the experiences (none of which are reported in the press or anything) I'm going to ask the question:
Can we discuss our personal experiences without fear of libel or being called racist?

RichieC · 28-03-2012 2:20pm

antoobrien wrote: »

My family and I have had a few run ins with travellers, so I find many of the comments to be a fair reflection of the people involved. This will naturally colour my opinion of the wider community, in much the same way as getting mugged by a junkie on abbey st would give a tourist a bad opinion of Dublin & Ireland.

Saying that, there is a traveller couple who are friends of the family and you couldn't meet nicer people.

So before I start talking about the experiences (none of which are reported in the press or anything) I'm going to ask the question:
Can we discuss our personal experiences without fear of libel or being called racist?

Personal experience is anecdotal and as you said, shouldn't be applied to their wider community. As hard as that may be. I've had negative experiences myself, though, I've had many many more, orders of magnitude in fact, with settled Irish people.

Laminations · 28-03-2012 2:27pm

RichieC wrote: »

It's the same reason I support a strong social safety net.

There is a difference between a social safety net to help create opportunities, to provide assistance, to support people in times of hardship and an entitlements trap that makes people dependent, that requires no responsibility from them, that is perpetual without encouraging progression.

I am with you in that I disagree with libertarian positions of removing the state crutch and waiting for people to buck up their ideas - there would be an immediate switch to crime and civil disobedience. But the current welfare system clearly isn't fit for purpose and needs to be reshaped into a carrot and stick approach.

I think the behavioural findings of reward > punishment for behaviour modification have been misinterpreted and led some to a policy approach that is all kid gloves and throwing money/facilities/regeneration at sections of society. In a social capitalist model there is a tiered approach where the government is more hands on with the social engineering at one end and less so with the GDP producing at the other end.

Permabear · 28-03-2012 2:29pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 28-03-2012 2:29pm

RichieC wrote: »

Personal experience is anecdotal and as you said, shouldn't be applied to their wider community. As hard as that may be. I've had negative experiences myself, though, I've had many many more, orders of magnitude in fact, with settled Irish people.

If such a thing exists as traveller culture, that entitles them to minority protection, then that culture must be definable in some ways? there must be reasonable generalities that can be drawn. If the OP can present statistics in support of a general disadvantage amongst travellers, why cannot some one else use these same statistics to show there is a lack of engagement on the part of travellers with state supports, education and the work force?

RichieC · 28-03-2012 2:35pm

Laminations wrote: »

If such a thing exists as traveller culture, that entitles them to minority protection, then that culture must be definable in some ways? there must be reasonable generalities that can be drawn. If the OP can present statistics in support of a general disadvantage amongst travellers, why cannot some one else use these same statistics to show there is a lack of engagement on the part of travellers with state supports, education and the work force?

Personal stories aren't statistics. unless you're a statistician or researcher?

Laminations · 28-03-2012 2:41pm

RichieC wrote: »

Personal stories aren't statistics. unless you're a statistician or researcher?

I'm not arguing for personal stories to be used, I'm arguing that the statistics in the OP can be used to portray traveller culture as (insert Permabears comments here)

antoobrien · 28-03-2012 2:46pm

Laminations wrote: »

If such a thing exists as traveller culture

I take it you don't watch the (mock?) documentary serious big fat gypsy wedding then? The claim to have a culture of their own.

RichieC · 28-03-2012 2:57pm

antoobrien wrote: »

I take it you don't watch the (mock?) documentary serious big fat gypsy wedding then? The claim to have a culture of their own.

The fact that they have their own culture is not in any doubt.

later12 · 28-03-2012 3:00pm

antoobrien wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

As far as I am aware they are classified in Ireland as a distinct cultural group.

Just because you don't like some traveller traditions, doesn't mean things like their languages and traditionally nomadic way of life and commonly held supernatural beliefs, or any other characteristics of traveller society, do not represent culture.

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yes, I agree with this. Anecdotally, travellers might often have their own business interests in the black economy to support their welfare dependence. If this is the case, the opportunity cost of work in the white economy could be a barrier to employment for many within the traveller community. So welfare reform could help travellers' situation in the long term.

Again, I agree. But traveler children are taken out of school at an early age by their parents, who perceive (correctly) that education poses a threat to the perpetuation of traveler culture.

I think that's a very broad and baseless assumption to make. There may well be many reasons why traveller children leave school early. 60% of travellers felt discriminated against at school according to the All Ireland report on Traveller Health (UCD, 2010). So I would imagine one could also mention bullying against traveller children combined with a huge lack of contact between traveller parents and education (therefore perhaps, no real appreciation for its importance). I'm sure we could come up with lots of plausible reasons why traveller children are often not effectively engaged with education.

Dismissing the issue as traveller parents maliciously plotting to deprive their children of education for the greater good of the group culture is a very hasty, nasty and, as far as I can see, unsupported conclusion to arrive at.

the only way for parents to perpetuate the existing culture is to make sure that their children stay illiterate and ignorant

So you think that these children grow up illiterate and "ignorant", and yet you expect them to somehow morph into parents capable of making sound, logical decisions compatible with mainstream, settled society?

No, it's not really all that much "fun." It's a life characterized by hard drinking, feuding, illiteracy, antisocial behavior, poor health, and an early grave.

With "a life characterised by hard drinking..." I think you're overstepping the mark from discussing observed characteristics of the group as a whole into broader generalisations at the individual level here.

My point was that living in a caravan and dealing in horses is not unacceptable as a way of life in itself- unless it is detrimental to one's offspring, for example.

In that context, I would question your assertion that "The state should strive to replace a culture of idleness and dysfunction with one of work, education, and responsibility".
Just a few pages ago you were saying "As a liberal[...] Travelers can live how they wish, as far as I'm concerned". You now seem to be promoting a state sponsored "responsibility" drive, "responsibility" being an unpalatably vague term, especially when being promoted at the hands of the state.

Unless you're advocating that the state should take children away from their natural parents I don't see any way for the government to "act decisively" to prevent children from "being conditioned to adhere to the traditional way of life of their forbears."

I wouldn't suggest removal of children from their parents as anything but a last resort. I think one has to be very careful so as not to alienate the traveller community, which appears to place a very heavy importance on family.
But that option (after other penalties have been applied) should certainly be explored as part of the stick approach in allowing traveller children access to education.

Educational provisions for traveller children in the past twenty years, like TESS and distance learning for travellers in the UK, have apparently given rise to favourable results. (Cathy Kiddle, Traveller Children, 2000). Perhaps something similar should be explored in Ireland.

You wish to represent travelers as passive victims of social forces beyond their control.

Not necessarily. That would suggest I deny that traveller parents are capable of making foolish, or unwise parenting choices. Which is not the case.

Rather, I am merely putting their choices in context by highlighting the cyclical nature of the travelleing community's way of life. Children who, for whatever reasons, do not engage in education and work may be less likely to promote engagement in education and work among their offspring in turn.

antoobrien · 28-03-2012 3:21pm

later12 wrote: »

As far as I am aware they are classified in Ireland as a distinct cultural group.

Just because you don't like some traveller traditions, doesn't mean things like their languages and traditionally nomadic way of life and commonly held supernatural beliefs, or any other characteristics of traveller society, do not represent culture.

It's not a matter of liking or disliking their culture, they've made a claim to have a distinct culture.

The nomadic lifestyle apart, there are very few things that I can see differentiating them from the "settled irish". They understand english clearly enough when they're looking for something off you, so language isn't a cultural differentiator.

As for the charges that they drink too much, fight too much, are un/under educated, lazy, dirty, etc are all charges that have been leveled at various parts of the settled community. Some places like various parts of limerick, cork & dublin cities have even made the news for it.

So what are the cultural differentiators I keep hearing about? Is it seriously just the caravans?

happyman81 · 28-03-2012 3:25pm

lividduck wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I would refer the poster ansd all others concerned that The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are "threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred" against "a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.[/Quote]

I would like to direct the poster to the Misplaced Hysteria and Gross Misunderstanding of an Abused, Misused and increasingly Diluted Term Act of 2012.

[MOD]See mod post earlier about this kind of silly pseudo-justification. "Yer Honour I thought yer man was a bit hysterical like" is not a legal defence or a useful addition to the discussion.[/MOD]

later12 · 28-03-2012 3:27pm

antoobrien wrote: »

So what are the cultural differentiators I keep hearing about? Is it seriously just the caravans?

I'm not an expert on traveller culture, I would imagine the reference is to their nomadic lifestyle, as well as their belief system which is somewhat more supernatural than mainstream Catholicism, and maybe their languages whether they have largely died out or not. Or maybe it's just a recognition that travellers are 'separate' without wanting to give them an ethnic status.

I don't really care. I'm just pointing out the fact that they are recognized as a cultural group. A UN body (and perhaps the EU parliament?) have recommended the state to recognize them as an ethnic group just as they are recognized in the UK. Alan Shatter said this is being considered. Again, I'm not sure this particularly matters.

Laminations · 28-03-2012 3:39pm

later12 wrote: »

In that context, I would question your assertion that "The state should strive to replace a culture of idleness and dysfunction with one of work, education, and responsibility".
Just a few pages ago you were saying "As a liberal[...] Travelers can live how they wish, as far as I'm concerned". You now seem to be promoting a state sponsored "responsibility" drive, "responsibility" being an unpalatably vague term, especially when being promoted at the hands of the state.

You misrepresent PB here to paint his views as inconsistent. While I disagree with his views they are at least consistent. He is blaming the state, its interference and support in these communities (through the welfare system) for the culture of idleness and dysfunction. Removing the state, according to him, would lead to a natural and necessary progression to work, education and responsibility. He is not advocating state sponsored anything.

Rather, I am merely putting their choices in context by highlighting the cyclical nature of the travelleing community's way of life. Children who, for whatever reasons, do not engage in education and work may be less likely to promote engagement in education and work among their offspring in turn.

You really need to stop beating around the bush here. From reading between the lines you are advocating a state sponsored attack on the travelling community's 'way of life'. You blame this 'way of life' for conditioning generations into a life of disadvantage, highlighting the effects of its cyclical nature. You talk about pushing kids towards education and punishment (with seaparation from parents as a last resort) as a necessary stick. But be honest, the interference you seek to remove disadvantage will mean the diminution and eventual destruction of the traveller culture.

antoobrien · 28-03-2012 3:52pm

later12 wrote: »

I'm not an expert on traveller culture, I would imagine the reference is to their nomadic lifestyle, as well as their belief system which is somewhat more supernatural than mainstream Catholicism

pishrógs (not sure of the spelling) and common superstition are still common in Galway, traveller or not.

Permabear · 28-03-2012 4:03pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 28-03-2012 4:18pm

This post has been deleted.

Channel Zero · 28-03-2012 5:34pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And just because minority cultures are not self-sustaining doesn't mean they should be allowed to die out as you have opined. Cultural diversity still transcends the profit motive thankfully, and is supported, funded and embraced worldwide.

Let's not confuse traveller culture with the culture of entitlement. They're obviously two separate things. The former can be encouraged and supported in tandem with discouraging the latter surely.

gizmo555 · 28-03-2012 5:52pm

Channel Zero wrote: »

Let's not confuse traveller culture with the culture of entitlement. They're obviously two separate things. The former can be encouraged and supported in tandem with discouraging the latter surely.

OK, how?

Permabear · 28-03-2012 5:55pm

This post has been deleted.

Batsy · 28-03-2012 6:05pm

Maybe "Travellers" (who are called that despite the fact they are often reluctant to go anywhere, like those lot at Dale Farm) may have a better standard of living if they move into an actual house. But they don't want to do that because living in caravans means they don't have to pay the relevant taxes that householders need to pay.

Permabear · 28-03-2012 6:25pm

This post has been deleted.

Laminations · 28-03-2012 6:31pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

they can't. They want it both ways, concern for traveller welfare (which I can agree with), but abhorrence at any attempt to interfere with traveller culture.

Channel Zero · 28-03-2012 6:34pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Let them eat cake.

Permabear · 28-03-2012 6:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 28-03-2012 6:38pm

This post has been deleted.

Channel Zero · 28-03-2012 7:27pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Do you disagree with my sarcastic solution?

gizmo555 · 28-03-2012 7:35pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You got it!

Pavee Point wrote:

Attendees of a seminar in Dublin today will hear of the devastation of Traveller family life and the educational prospects for young Roma as a result of draconian restrictions on benefits and services.

Gist of complaint - if Roma and travellers aren't afforded their "human right" to state subsidies they won't be able to pursue their nomadic culture. As one of their coordinators says "These restrictions simply make it impossible for Travellers to travel across the island". As clear as acknowledgement as is possible that the traveller lifestyle is unsustainable without a open-ended lifelong state subsidy.

lividduck · 28-03-2012 7:41pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

How law abiding and professional woould like, as law abiding and professional as
Bertie
P.Flynn
The 3 youths who kicked a young Polish man to death
John Gilligan
Larry Murphy
Ray Burke
The endless number of Roman catholic Priests who raped and beat children for decades

My point? My point is that there is criminality everywhere , yet you snidley and sneakily infer that be law abiding requires that you give up membership of the traveller community.
BTW Rates of Traveller unemployment are probably no grater than levels of unemployment in many urban areas such as the north inner city of dublin, Moyross in limerick, Moneymore in Drogheda.
Your intolerance borders in my humble opinion on bigotry, just my opinion.

Channel Zero · 28-03-2012 7:53pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

You got it!

I'm afraid the link you provided does not really warrant the response of "You got it" to Permabrears contention that "the culture is in many ways inseparable from the entitlement."

Do you have anything else?

Laminations · 28-03-2012 7:55pm

lividduck wrote: »

How law abiding and professional woould like, as law abiding and professional as
Bertie
P.Flynn
The 3 youths who kicked a young Polish man to death
John Gilligan
Larry Murphy
Ray Burke
The endless number of Roman catholic Priests who raped and beat children for decades

My point? My point is that there is criminality everywhere , yet you snidley and sneakily infer that be law abiding requires that you give up membership of the traveller community.
BTW Rates of Traveller unemployment are probably no grater than levels of unemployment in many urban areas such as the north inner city of dublin, Moyross in limerick, Moneymore in Drogheda.
Your intolerance borders in my humble opinion on bigotry, just my opinion.

.

So we're playing that game? Grand. Then there is no difference in traveller disadvantage and disadvantage in areas of the settled community. So nothing to see here. / thread.

Or you can offer your solution on how to tackle disadvantage amongst travellers while not diminishing their culture?

MadsL · 28-03-2012 8:05pm

The point about an economically sustainable lifestyle and the Amish has resonance. Amish furniture is highly regarded and sought for its quality and character. This, and farming, has allowed the Amish and other Mennonite communities to achieve their wish for a segregated existence. As they have a moral object to insurance, it has also lead them to conflict with the Govt over social insurance payroll taxes.

Comparing with travellers in the 19th Century, there was a degree of economic and environmental sustainability between travellers and settled. Travellers interacted and performed useful services. Scrapping, Tinkering, and manufacturing; what we would now think of in terms such as reduce, reuse and recycle. Our focus has shifted as a society and large-scale commercial enterprise has taken over scrapping, we no longer repair anything and we throw away knives when they need sharpening. Travellers if anything, have simply failed to find the niche they need to survive in modern society, therefore are now disfunctional in modern society.

I'm not sure if we can redeem traditional ways of life, there is a limited romantic market for say traditional caravan painting skills or tincraft. There might be a limited means to revive such crafts and make them commercial (or at least make sure they do not die out) but ultimately we as a society have lost our connection with Traveller culture and it is no suprise that we now treat them with hostility and incomprehension.

murphaph · 28-03-2012 8:11pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Total assimilation, intergration and disperal into the settled commity is the answer to these issues, unless some one can point out how their lifestyle fits in with a developed modern econmoy and social welfare state.

This is the truth that nobody wants to say in public. A nomadic way of life is pretty much guaranteed to result in lowering of opportunities for those that partake in it.

Their "culture" should not be encouraged at our expense and their children should be taken from them and put into care if their education is suffering because of their itinerant way of life. Traveler children shouldn't be left with traveler parents "just because" it's their culture-it's 2012 for God's sake. Traveler children deserve as much of a shot at a decent life as any others. Same goes for the children of settled wasters who neglect their kids. There are plenty of decent homes out there for children of people who aren't fit to be parents.

Ireland at the moment is on a collision course-we encourage the wrong kind of people to reproduce and (financially) punish the right kind.

gizmo555 · 28-03-2012 8:16pm

Channel Zero wrote: »

I'm afraid the link you provided does not really warrant the response of "You got it" to Permabrears contention that "the culture is in many ways inseparable from the entitlement."

It does in my opinion. In particular I see no practical difference between PB's comment that "the culture is in many ways inseparable from the entitlement." and the Pavee Point spokeswoman's statement that "These restrictions [on social welfare claims by travellers with no fixed address] simply make it impossible for Travellers to travel across the island".

Channel Zero · 28-03-2012 8:18pm

murphaph wrote: »

Ireland at the moment is on a collision course-we encourage the wrong kind of people to reproduce and (financially) punish the right kind.

Lovely. Could you expand on that?

murphaph · 28-03-2012 8:24pm

Channel Zero wrote: »

Lovely. Could you expand on that?

We encourage people to pop out kids to generate income and to avail of free housing, whilst at the same time the cost of childcare for decent working people is quite simply not affordable for many.

Why pay child benefit in cash? Pay it in the form of uniforms and school books. Why not use taxes spent housing teen parents on childcare for working people? Let teen parents live at home until they can afford their own place-it's not our job to stick these people in housing just because they (accidentally on purpose) got pregnant.

Channel Zero · 28-03-2012 8:29pm

Ok thanks. Yes i can see your point to an extent. Childcare fees are atrocious for working people.

AlekSmart · 28-03-2012 11:01pm

lividduck wrote: »

Actually I would consider that describing Traveller Culture as a "Culture of Idleness and Dysfunction" as both abusive and insulting and as such likely to give rise to incitment to hatred. Many members of the Traveller Community would contest that they have a culture of "idleness and Dysfunction".

I will beg to differ with your interpretation of PB's posts on this thread.
I think he debates the issue in his usual up-front and,I believe,informed fashion.

To suddenly appear,metaphorically waving a copy of "Blacks Legal Directory" and referring to legislation in a somewhat blanket like threatening manner is certainly not advancing the cause of Traveller's Rights (If they be any different from my own rights) at all.

To say, "Many members of the Travelling Community would contest that they have a culture of idleness and dysfunction" also tacitly admits that Many other members of that community contribute enthusiastically to that very culture.

Even the phraseology used tends to display a certain dislocation from reality,as people refer to Travellers livin by the side of the road,or in fields etc.

This particular form of Traveller existance has diminished rapidly as the attractions of serviced sites,or privately owned standings became apparent.

The Thread Title specifically asks WHY Traveller Disadvantage is not a mainstream concern ?

I (and others) respond by suggesting that much of that "disadvantage" is self-serving and perpretrated internally in order to allow some members of the traveller community to assert and maintain control over the rest,some of whom at least,who may be willing to follow a more sensible path for their own and their childrens sakes ...?

Permabear · 29-03-2012 12:36am

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart · 29-03-2012 6:33am

fluorescence wrote: »

This may be something of a glib point, but bear with me for a moment. Irish travellers often appear on the show Big Fat Gypsy Wedding - a big part of the show tends to be asking travellers how they feel about certain events etc. One thing they always, always say is, "They hate us travellers." It doesn't matter what the event is. An illegal caravan site being shut down? "It's because they hate us." Fiancé having a court case the day of his wedding? "It's because they hate us." Given a free house by the state because their nomadic lifestyle is unsustainable? "It's because they hate us!"

Although viewed by many as "Entertainment" and by some as "Grity,fly-on-the-wall" stuff,the ongoing BFGW series and the somewhat darker recent documentaries on the cultural aspects of Traveller Brawling and Fist Fighting have conspired to further alienate "Travellers" in the mind of "Ordinary" settled folk.

Quite frankly both sets of programmes put the reality of modern Traveller "Culture" into stark perspective for the rest of society,and it does not make for pleasant or entertaining viewing.

Yet,the programmes probably come closer to establishing the reality of modern Traveller life than the sepia toned poverty-stricken,oppressed view put forward to support the charge of mainstream disregard inherent in this Threads heading.

later12 · 29-03-2012 9:48am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your impeccably politically correct stance (always blame mainstream society while deflecting criticism of the subaltern)...

You are ignoring the fact that I am not the one looking at a one-sided solution. I have repeatedly referred to the need for a 'stick' method to push traveller parents into acting in a socially responsible manner with respect to enabling their children to participate in society, should these children subsequently wish to do so. I have referred to that from the beginning.

Nobody has been absolving travellers of responsibility. You're mistaking the explanations as to why parents might not act in a manner that the mainstream would deem responsible as excuses, for no apparent reason but that you think it suits your argument. I am putting traveller parents' decisions in context, not defending them. This includes reference to the cyclical nature in which lack of education can be re-enforced through generations (De Broucker, 1998). Research also suggests that the marginalised have to work harder to take the same decisions as the rich, the latter of whom usually have their mainstream-friendly parenting decisions made for them or enforced by their mainstream contemporaries (Banerjee, Duflo, Poor Economics (2012)). Sampson (1994) corroborates this when he finds that poverty decreases the tendency to make sound parenting decisions. Blau (1999) in The Review of Economics & Statistics finds poor social, cognitive and emotional development less an issue of income per se, rather more a question of family background.

If you've already decided that the education problem has nothing to do with established international trends amongst the marginalised and permanently disadvantaged but, rather, some devious scheme to perpetuate the traveller plot, then you're probably unlikely to be convinced by anything as tedious as academic research.

You yourself have acknowledged above that traveller children are "conditioned to adhere to the traditional way of life of their forbears." It's as clear as the day is long that a traditional nomadic way of life oriented around the (now nonexistent) demand for migrant seasonal labor in an agricultural economy is incompatible with achieving high levels of education or working in professional positions. How many Google employees go back home to their campsites at night?

(i)The Google comment is mind bogglingly irrelevant. I'm not on a mission to save traveller culture. If some people are, bully for them. That's not why I started this thread. I started this thread because I find the apathy shown toward the woeful conditions of travellers worrying.
(ii) Your use of the word acknowledge in relation to the social conditioning of traveller children implies the existence of this conditioning is something you agree occurs. Is this the case?

If so, surely you recognize such conditioning cannot be allowed to continue to wreak such deleterious social and health conditions on advancing traveller generations.

I expect at least some parents to recognize that there is a better life to be found outside the traveller culture than within it, or that they can teach their children to aspire to higher things than being a bare-knuckle boxer or a "King of the Travelers."

That's a complete red herring. How many travellers wish that on their kids? Absolutely impossible to say. You're treating the entire traveller population as one homogenous, brutish bunch of louts.
We have evidence that travellers are very often poorly educated, in poor health, and experience a great deal of disadvantage. OK.

But that does not give you a logical basis to imply that wishing a life of violence on their children is something that is common among parents in the travelling community. I think that's a really unfortunate, emotive and frankly quite a coarse approach to take to what ought to be a more seriously considered issue.

Many people in other disadvantaged communities appear readily able to come to the realization that "I don't want my children to grow up as I did," or "I want my children to go to college and have a better life than this," so why can't travelers come to similar conclusions?

I cannot think of any other group in Irish society who are as identifiable (therefore open to discrimination and alienation) whilst at the same time so discriminated against and so disadvantaged (perhaps the Roma would be the only example). In fact this is borne out in the ESRI/ EA report cited on the first page.
So it would be erroneous to suggest that travellers are starting from the same point on the curve.

Secondly, progress has clearly been made. It just hasn't been enough. There is a noticeably larger traveller participation in education than has materialised in the past. It's nowhere near large enough, because we can all see the dire ESRI statistics. But no, it's certainly not correct to suggest that travellers never change, which is what the above suggestion appears to amount to.

If the traveler lifestyle only involved living in a caravan and dealing in horses, that would be one thing. But it involves many other activities that are highly detrimental to health and well-being

Yes I'm not denying that at all. You're evading the point. A high incidence within the group of undesirable personal and health characteristics does not amount to a basis for your rash generalisation that "It's a life characterized by hard drinking, feuding, illiteracy, antisocial behavior, poor health, and an early grave."

I didn't mention anything about a state-sponsored drive.

You said "The state should strive to replace a culture of idleness and dysfunction with one of work, education, and responsibility.". This is apparently confirmed where you say "I would fully support educational initiatives designed to inform travelers (both parents and children) about the difference that education can make in their lives".

But elsewhere you say that "as a liberal" you really don't care what travellers do and suggest I'm calling for more money to be wasted or "What if they don't want to adapt to your standards? History suggests that travelers don't like state bureaucrats dictating how they should live" . So there's an awful lot of inconsistency in what you've written in this thread.

In other words, you would ultimately advocate taking children away from their parents so as to guarantee them access to education

If you're expecting me to shirk away from the idea of eventually removing children from their parents, then you're completely mistaken. Just to be completely straight, I would favour a strongly interventionist approach. If parents are not complying with schooling requirements and subsequent penalties or educational supports have no positive effect, then of course the children should be removed from that situation.

Permabear wrote: »

Personally, I think it's pretty cynical to argue for the preservation of a culture ... And in the name of what, exactly? What is the benefit to Irish society of preserving this way of life?

Permabear wrote: »

Now, can the travelers' advocates on this thread explain how we can address all of the above while preserving travelers' traditional culture?

You're either completely missing the point or you're building a straw man.

I think I have seen one poster argue for the preservation of traveller culture. Cultural preservation is generally not something that I would consider any of the state's business either way, but theirs is not a culture I have a problem with either - until it starts to have a detrimental effect on the participative effect on travellers in society. So who exactly are you arguing this with? Who are the travellers' advocates you refer to who want to preserve their culture at all costs?

RandomName2 · 29-03-2012 11:33am

As the term "Traveller" is essentially an oxymoron it makes the question thus:

"why is it disadvantageous to live a disadvantageous life?"

Which doesn't even merit an answer.

As for why it is not a mainstream concern? Well, when you have a section of society that intentionally isolates itself from mainstream concern and is hostile to mainstream concern, and attempts to construct artificial cultural and racial barriers to bolster such isolation, it is no real wonder.

In fact, the Travellers are only a mainstream concern insofar that they receive public funds - however, the aforementioned cultural and racial constructs are used to make that too much of a hot-potato for the mainstream concern to objectively handle.

Permabear · 29-03-2012 11:54am

This post has been deleted.

Pedro K · 29-03-2012 12:22pm

lividduck wrote: »

How law abiding and professional woould like, as law abiding and professional as
Bertie
P.Flynn
The 3 youths who kicked a young Polish man to death
John Gilligan
Larry Murphy
Ray Burke
The endless number of Roman catholic Priests who raped and beat children for decades

My point? My point is that there is criminality everywhere , yet you snidley and sneakily infer that be law abiding requires that you give up membership of the traveller community.
BTW Rates of Traveller unemployment are probably no grater than levels of unemployment in many urban areas such as the north inner city of dublin, Moyross in limerick, Moneymore in Drogheda.
Your intolerance borders in my humble opinion on bigotry, just my opinion.

You'd be wrong there I'd imagine. The second leaflet down on that link states that;

The 2002 Census highlighted the extent of Travellers unemployment: 73% of Traveller men in comparison with a 9% national average; 64% for Traveller women in comparison to an 8% national average.

And that was 2002. 'Boom time', when jobs were rampant.

Your defence of travellers is utterly vehement. May I ask why? Are you a traveller? Have you lived near travellers? Worked with them? Went to school with them? What is the extent of your contact with travellers?

later12 · 29-03-2012 12:36pm

Just out of curiousity, when you highlighted north inner city of dublin, Moyross in limerick, Moneymore in Drogheda, did you not think that references to unemployment rates amongst people in these areas were what the lividduck was talking about, as opposed to the national average?

As far as I can see, nobody is actually arguing the poor conditions that travellers tend to live in, and the cycle of poverty, lack of education and weak employment. That's sort of the point.

Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?

Comments