Travellers Not a Race Apart....

SheroN

JUSTICE Minister Michael McDowell has said Travellers do not constitute an ethnic minority and will not be classified as such in an Irish submission to a United Nations report on racial discrimination.

"Travellers do not appear to fall within the definition of racial discrimination adopted by the [UN] Convention in that they do not appear to constitute a distinct group from the population as a whole in terms of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin," Mr McDowell told the Oireachtas Sub-committee on Human Rights yesterday.

He said there was an issue about whether ethnicity could be self-claimed. The jury was out on this question, he said.

Traveller representative group Pavee Point interpreted this as leaving the door open for a future change in government policy which it has been pushing for.

Mr McDowell said the Government recognises the distinct cultural identity of Travellers and that they do suffer discrimination and exclusion, which must be continually challenged.

Taken from yesterdays Independent.
Seems like the minister and the UN agrees with my opinion of a couple of weeks ago.

simu

Personally, i think it's dumb classifying people into different races. It makes more sense defining groups in terms of a shared culture. Genetics dosen't matter - the fact remains that travellers are a distinct group in Irish society and are often mistreated because of this.

GuanYin

Originally posted by simu
Personally, i think it's dumb classifying people into different races. It makes more sense defining groups in terms of a shared culture. Genetics dosen't matter - the fact remains that travellers are a distinct group in Irish society and are often mistreated because of this.

I think people are quite confused about race and what it is supposed to define in general. From a medical point of view, race is more often then not used as a medical reference point for certain disorders, but even this is a highly controversial subject in the US right now.

Race:nationality:skin colour:ethniticity(sp?):culture are incorrectly interchanged depending on who you are talking to.

If I was asked my opinion I would define travellers as a subculture in Irish society as most of what distinguishes travellers from settled communities is cultural (although I'm open to correction).

Specky

If I was asked my opinion I would define travellers as a subculture in Irish society as most of what distinguishes travellers from settled communities is cultural (although I'm open to correction).

I think you're exactly on the button there.

Sub-culture theorists might also define New Age Travellers, hippies, joy riders, shoplifters and muggers as sub-cultures.

"Crime (and other anti-social behaviour) is one form of sub-cultural adaptation which occurs when material circumstances block cultural aspirations and where non-criminal alternatives are absent or less attractive" (quote from The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, second edition).

No I'm not suggesting all travellers are criminals but I am agreeing that they are a subculture. I do believe there is a lot of romantic clap trap spoken by and about travellers. In my view there is an Irish "rule aversion" gene that makes people here seemingly incapable of obeying rules and this gene is just emphasised in the average traveller.

Would we miss their wiley romany ways if they were to disappear from the landscape? Would we miss the heaps of rubbish, the Hiace vans tearing up the verges, the concrete blocks everywhere to try to keep them out, the kids running out in front of you on the road....? Not me anyway.

dr_manhattan

Fact is, if anyone can define waht "race" actually means (without the usual links to dictionary.com) then i'd be delighted to hear: it has no real genetic basis nor does it carry any meaning except to those who wish to exploit the idea by slagging off people and then saying "hey they're not a race so it's not racism"

Well, i'm delighted that now all you bigoted people can talk trash about your fellow human beings without feeling bad. Great news for the lot of you. Funny thing is though, I'd imagine that if there was a traveller anywhere physically near you, you'd keep your mouths shut.

Speckyt, who defines shoplifters and muggers as sub cultures? And I think if you'll take notice, travellers are a culture, not a sub culture. Sub cultures are generally spawned by "mainstream" cultures. Travellers existed beforehand.

Are native US americans sub cultures? Anyways I'm sick talking about this with you SheroN, didn't you get banned only recently for talking trash about them?

I'd like to point out the last words of our minister:

"Mr McDowell said the Government recognises the distinct cultural identity of Travellers and that they do suffer discrimination and exclusion, which must be continually challenged. "

this means that, race or not, people who talk trash about them (like you, specky, I'm surprised at you) are still wrong. Capisc?

I'd also like to point out that, if the government DID recognse them as a race, none of yz would remotely cahnge your views, so what difference does it make? You all delighted now that you can hate travellers and not be a "racist"? it's not about the terminology here, anyone ever think about that?

later folks.

SheroN

Anyways I'm sick talking about this with you SheroN, didn't you get banned only recently for talking trash about them?

The ban was overturned.

I'd imagine that if there was a traveller anywhere physically near you, you'd keep your mouths shut.

You're right I would, I don't fancy getting a few slaps.

uberwolf

Originally posted by dr_manhattan


Well, i'm delighted that now all you bigoted people can talk trash about your fellow human beings without feeling bad. Great news for the lot of you. Funny thing is though, I'd imagine that if there was a traveller anywhere physically near you, you'd keep your mouths shut.

Why is that? You believe that a traveller would resort to violence to shut him up? Or would he(as in the 'bigot') be dazzled by the oratory skills of cunning linguist? You're continuing and confirming the stereotype here and doing no favours to the travelling commuinity
IMO

GuanYin

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
[BWell, i'm delighted that now all you bigoted people can talk trash about your fellow human beings without feeling bad. Great news for the lot of you. Funny thing is though, I'd imagine that if there was a traveller anywhere physically near you, you'd keep your mouths shut. [/B]

A little less accusation a little more ration please!

Race is a very difficult term to describe but generally I would put it down to ethnic origin. This isn't a bad thing to say, but if you are going to classify race, its as good a way as any. Just to clarify, just because someone is black or asian or hispanic , doesn't mean they can't be Irish or English or whatever. Race is an ambiguous thing and you can argue the fine points down to having every single person in the world being of a different race by some definitions. This, however, proves to pedantic to be actually useful

Travellers are for the most part caucasian. They're decent is...well I'm not sure, but I imagine if it isn't Irish its at least diluted with Irish blood, so I don't think they qualify as a race (unless we want to go to the pedantic classifications of "a race" and then, where do we stop?). A sub-culture implies they are a minority culture within the main society, if you want to be truely pedantic you can argue that they are outside the main society or that they existed before our society etc etc. Classification is not an easy business.

As for the travellers themselves, I have no problem with them. I think that they don't hold them same regard for their immediate environment as most people and its something that is forwned upon among the "settled community" so shouldn't be avoided with travellers just because it seems discriminatory. Whats good for the goose, etc etc.

I think some people take PC too far. Often just because some on is of a different race, ethnic group, disabled etc etc, people tend to pussy foot around them and pander to their demands, because it looks bad if you argue, you immediately seem the bad guy. This isn't the case. Rules and opinions aren't be default racist or biggoted if appiled to one group, so long as you apply them to all the other groups equally.

dr_manhattan

Sheron, you got your ban overturned! Aw, diddums, is your distasteful bigotry now legitimised? Obviously, if you appealed your ban, and you're now straight back in on the same topic, this is an issue of some concern for you. Good for you! hopefully there'll be a statue built to you in the near future, for fighting for the freedom of settled people to talk trash about the travelling community.

All praise sheron, he lights the way towards conflict with marginalised areas of society! You go, girl.

And as for you, Uberwolf (appropriate name) - the spin you put on my words has its source entirely in SheroN's misinterpretation:

"Why is that? You believe that a traveller would resort to violence to shut him up? Or would he(as in the 'bigot') be dazzled by the oratory skills of cunning linguist? You're continuing and confirming the stereotype here and doing no favours to the travelling commuinity"

Wow! never had this tactic used against me before! This attempt to turn the tables on my rhetoric might be dazzling if it wasn't entirely based on your intertpretation of my words:

What I meant was NEITHER of your interepretations. What I meant was that bigots talk trash on the internet and are usually cowards in the flesh - regardless of what the consequences might be (which do not concern me), what I said was that SheroN wouldn't say this to a traveller's face. And he wouldn't. Because, like all others who vocalise these snide, cowardly, typically irish middle class backstabbing sentiments, he does not have the guts to speak to the people he's bitching about.

Whether this is because he fears violent reprisal because he is a bigot, whether it is because he does not have the confidence to take his opinions outside the comfort of the internet, or whether he is just like this in every interaction does not concern me: all I know is that bigots are all the same, and that's one generalisation I will definitely stand by.

And:

"You're continuing and confirming the stereotype here and doing no favours to the travelling commuinity"

So you're saying you're concerned about travllers then? Or are you just trying to use these crude rehetorical tools to defeat me?

Get a life, both of you. Go find someone else to talk trash about, you cowards; and try saying it to their faces - it's a more educational experience.

And before you start saying "are you implying violence" no I am not, I am saying that talking TO people about your grievances is a positive thing. Talking ABOUT them behind their back is a cowardly, pathetic, sad thing to do.

try and remember that.

DaithiSurfer

I stopped off in a pub for some food on the way to Galway last year and while i was sitting down eating about 10 travellers walked in and started shouting and threatening people. When the barmaid told them to leave they started turning over tables. and fighting with people sitting there. The guy that was with me got a really bad cut on the face. We were lucky to escape alive. The cops came and the travellers started ranting about being refused etc and people starting fights with them because they were travellers. There were even witnesses waiting outside who told the cops that the travellers were abused. These witnesses arrived with the travelers and left with them in front of the cops. They didnt even come into the pub. Then i heard that a few days later they are suing the place for racial discrimination.
After this they scare the **** out of me when they turn up at a pub. There is usually trouble brewing as i leave too, but i dont wait around long enough to get stuck in it.

To my my mind these people were being rowdy whether they be black white blue green. If i acted like that in a pub i would be expected to be told to leave.
IT was a setup for compensation from the start.

This is sheer abuse of the system and must be stopped.
And for all those people who go defending travellers and saying that peoples attitude to them is unjustified - Invite them to put their caravans in your drive and give them the use of your house if you really weant to help them out. This will make them feel part of the community. Show them that at least you are willing to help them out and trust them.
Whats that- no takers ? I thought so.

SheroN

Sheron, you got your ban overturned! Aw, diddums, is your distasteful bigotry now legitimised?

I don't see how posting about an artice that appeared in the newspaper is bigotry?
I'm trying to have a proper discussion about the article, you on the other hand seem content to label people.

dr_manhattan

Syke: this is not accusattion. Read whatb has just followed your post. A similar thread was shut down just recently, because SheroN and his matres were under the impressaion that it's legit to talk about travellers like one dimensional subhumans. the trash talking has started again already: they smell, they are violent, I have a friend who xyz.

" I think some people take PC too far. Often just because some on is of a different race, ethnic group, disabled etc etc, people tend to pussy foot around them and pander to their demands, because it looks bad if you argue, you immediately seem the bad guy. This isn't the case. Rules and opinions aren't be default racist or biggoted if appiled to one group, so long as you apply them to all the other groups equally."

Yeah, and nobody here would be expected to be taken seriously if they said nigerians smell. Or are scary and violent. Or cannot control themselves. Or steal.

Immediately this turns to a discussion of "PC-ness" - look at what you're saying here - I bet everyone talking trash here on this board "pussy fotts" around all ethnicities, and then talks trash about them on the internet when there's nobody around. Cowards, hypocrites (especially those who say travellers smell - I could say the same about irish people to be honest)

And Daithisurfer, could you tell us when this happened, when the case is being heard and who are the principal plaintiffs? Because if not, I';ve heard that story 500 times before. And even if it is true, what is it supposed to prove?

Do you know that Irish people do that abroad, too? Do you know that pretty much everyone pulls **** like that on a regualr basis? Do you think travellers are the only people in this country who claim compensation for the wrong reasons? Is it okay to claim compensation and start fights if you own a house?

Bleagh. I give up with you people: irish people (and here I go with generalisations of my own) are the most conceited, smug racists in the world when they get going. The sentiments expressed here and in the previous thread just make me want to vomit. It's not the bigotry, I'mm used to that after living here 30 years. It's the sheer self righteousness of it. You'd swear irish people were some orderly, honest, clean living, property respecting people in the world the way you people talk.

SheroN

I could say the same about irish people to be honest

And i'm sure you say this aloud when talking with Irish people?

GuanYin

Originally posted by Paul88
Who can honestly say they've never had some sort of abusive incounter with travelers? Even the ones that call to your door begging, abuse you if you refuse (Granted i usually give them a litre of milk but i had locked the door and was running out the driveway for a bus).

Never had a problem with them. Ever.
Dealth with them in a professional situation and never had any hassle at all.

I

dr_manhattan

Okay SheroN:

"I don't see how posting about an artice that appeared in the newspaper is bigotry"

Okay, you discussed this to death a week ago and got banned for you opinions for a week. You now come straight back with a posting that might seem to legitimise your opinions (but does not) so I am deducing from this that you have a problem with travellers. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you have a problem with admitting you're wrong: most internet posters do.

however, the fact that you have replied to me reply within *minutes*, and have since replied consecutively three times to me, all to the same repost, tells me you are somewhat... what's the word... interested? In this topic. Obsessed is a word I could use, but you seem hurt by my willingness to "label" you, diddums. I feel i must take care not to hurt your feelings. Funny that, that you can say what you want about travellers, yet calling you a bigot is so hurtful?

So yeah, I assert that you are slightly obsessed with proving that it's okay to talk trash about travllers. Good luck to you, SheroN, cos you will never convince me of that: now, your next product of your evidently intensive study of my post:

"And i'm sure you say this aloud when talking with Irish people?"

Damn straight I do: and generally speaking, nobody's taken exception cos they know it's true. But yes I've said this. i've also had discussions with travellers where I've said that they're percieved as lazy. And I would be in as much danger of getting a slap from an irishman as a travellers.

And incidentally, to the person who said that travellers had irish blood so weren't distinct as a group: does that make irish people english then? Cos we're mostly mixed with english people, too. I personally think it does, but when it comes to our own nationality, this is irrelevant: we are irish. Ditto the travellers.

Any Irish person who can't look at any irish town and admit irish people are dirty has either never left ireland or is insane: We have public funded ads to tell people to wash their hands when handling food, for god's sake. Do you see these anywhere else? Third world countries is the only place I've seen them.

Funnily enough, every new person from any distinct community (new racem new nationality, new whatever) I've ever met, I've discussed my preconceptions with them: it's called getting over your prejudice, and people who grow up in a backwater like this should be forced to do it sometime. you;d be amazed at the results: nobody slaps or hits you, and you can have this mad thing called a discussion about prejudice.

Moriarty

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
What I meant was NEITHER of your interepretations. What I meant was that bigots talk trash on the internet and are usually cowards in the flesh - regardless of what the consequences might be (which do not concern me), what I said was that SheroN wouldn't say this to a traveller's face. And he wouldn't. Because, like all others who vocalise these snide, cowardly, typically irish middle class backstabbing sentiments, he does not have the guts to speak to the people he's bitching about.

Whether this is because he fears violent reprisal because he is a bigot, whether it is because he does not have the confidence to take his opinions outside the comfort of the internet, or whether he is just like this in every interaction does not concern me: all I know is that bigots are all the same, and that's one generalisation I will definitely stand by.

Originally posted by dr_parody
**THIS IS A PARODY KIDS** <parody> What I meant was NEITHER of your interepretations. What I meant was that bigots talk trash on the internet and are usually cowards in the flesh - regardless of what the consequences might be (which do not concern me), what I said was that SheroN wouldn't say this to a (drug dealer/local 'RA bloke/local scum)'s face. And he wouldn't. Because, like all others who vocalise these snide, cowardly, typically irish middle class backstabbing sentiments, he does not have the guts to speak to the people he's bitching about.

Whether this is because he fears violent reprisal because he is a bigot, whether it is because he does not have the confidence to take his opinions outside the comfort of the internet, or whether he is just like this in every interaction does not concern me: all I know is that bigots are all the same, and that's one generalisation I will definitely stand by. </parody> ** THIS IS A PARODY KIDS**

How long before we class the local gutter scum that hang around corners mugging people as a distinct race, expunging them of any criticisim? Will you be on the vanguard of the lynch mob when somone starts asking questions as to why these groups are treated with deferential respect by the Gardai for fear of putting a step wrong and ending up in court?

You claim to want equality for all and yet you continue to demand that travellers should be treated differently to the rest of us with relation to behaviour. I'm pretty sure if I decided to set up shop at the side of a busy road I'd be moved along pretty swiftly - recieving a bill in the post for any damage I may have caused. I'm pretty sure that if I went into a pub and started destroying the place that the gardai wouldnt take my word as gospel. What did travellers do to deserve preferential treatment and how do I go about recieving the same thing?

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Get a life, both of you. Go find someone else to talk trash about, you cowards; and try saying it to their faces - it's a more educational experience.

It's an educational experience if you survive the inevitable beating. Let me ask you something, have you ever challenged the local drug dealer/'RA bloke/general scum on their behaviour face to face? How did it go?

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
And before you start saying "are you implying violence" no I am not, I am saying that talking TO people about your grievances is a positive thing. Talking ABOUT them behind their back is a cowardly, pathetic, sad thing to do.

What do you do when (group x) don't want to listen to you? When they are perfectly happy with the status quo and others most certainly aren't?

dr_manhattan

"Don't worry, i've had enough for both of us."

Paul88, you watch a lot of action movies or something? You seem to borrow the rhetoric. Not to mention the sentiments.

;-)

I can tell you now, I have had a LOT of trouble with travellers. On more than one occasion been threatened with firearms. Been assaulted a number of times. Caught some in my house twice. Been spat on, threatened by them and insulted on many occasions: and those threats have been colourful enough to include the rape of my girlfriend.

So what? Should the world take notice of my bad experiences? Should they make it okay to talk **** about travellers?

fact is, I've gotten just as bad stress from settled people: especially in the threats with firearms stakes. Most of the people who have threatened me have been from council flats, actually. Does that give me the right to talk **** about them? NO it does not.

And if anyone's wondering why I've had so many threats in my time, I used to decorate venues, nightclubs and pubs for a living: shows you a lot about this country.

uberwolf

dr_manhattan:
I have not made any attempt to lean one way or another on this argument, all I did was point out that you should be more careful in what you say, particularly as what you were saying could reflect negatively on those you are defending. I was absolutely 'spinning' your words, I know you didn't mean them as they cam out. If you had I'd have said nothing, I was trying to facilitate discussion by preventing a slanging match. I was one of three to read your words the same way, the only one not to take it as confirmation of a stereotype.

So you're saying you're concerned about travllers then? Or are you just trying to use these crude rehetorical tools to defeat me?

neither I'm not interested in 'defeating' you or anyone else.

you cowards

perhaps you ought to reconsider before deciding my view point for me? I have made no statement either way. Just pointed out a way your words could be interpreted.

Uberwolf (appropriate name)

WTF? :rolleyes:

dr_manhattan

My apologies Uberwolf, can you blame me with the things being said here for ebing defensive? The term "cowards" is directed towards those who accuse behind peoples' backs.

And I said "uberwolf" was an appropriate name because I thought that you were, like many people here, considering travellers to be a subclass. Again, apologies: I misinterpreted your words as an attack on the legitimacy of my complaint.

Now, Moriarty, let me make myself clear: the fact that you see travllers in the same light as "scum" (if you don't why bring up drug dealers, terrorists and scum? You obviously see the travllers in an amazing light) means that I have very little to say to you. Don't expect me to treat you as an intelligent human being when you say:

"How long before we class the local gutter scum that hang around corners mugging people as a distinct race, expunging them of any criticisim? Will you be on the vanguard of the lynch mob when somone starts asking questions as to why these groups are treated with deferential respect by the Gardai for fear of putting a step wrong and ending up in court?"

Gutter scum, eh? Lynch mobs, eh? looks like you have an advanced view of the world. Because that's what travellers are in your opinion? Gutter scum? And again I ask, if not, then why raise these questions?

And what makes you think of lynch mobs?

"It's an educational experience if you survive the inevitable beating"

Inevitable, eh? because any time I've ever been beaten up, I can see that there was more than my side to it. And any time I have talked to people rationally, they have NOT beaten me up.

Now I ask YOU, moriarty, if you have ever tried talking respectfully to these people you consider "scum"? because you have damaged your standpoint here: if you think people are the same as lowlife scum, terrorists or drug dealers I am guessing that you are in fact incapable of talking respectfully to them.

" You claim to want equality for all and yet you continue to demand that travellers should be treated differently to the rest of us with relation to behaviour. "

What? Where did I demand anything like that? I demand they be treated THE SAME, you utter bigot: here's why -

Irish people piss in public, fight a huge amount and cannot control their drinking (sources include health board reports, EU surveys, and my experiences on a given night in ireland) we have low standards of hygiene compared to other countries, and we do not keep our towns and civic property well at all. (Example: Those cow art installations have been installed all over the world in every capital city, but only in Ireland have they been vandlaised and had to be removed or encased.)

So if we are to judge travellers on the strength of their public behaviour, why not apply the same standards to ourselves and just shut up with the hypocrisy?

but anyways, you see travellers as criminals before the fact anyways (and if not, then why compare them to druge dealers, terrorists and "scum" then?) so why am I even talking to you?

Good luck with your crusade to free ireland of those who wish people to be treated as individuals and not "scum" - use the 1950s as a model, you'll go far.

and finally:

"What do you do when (group x) don't want to listen to you? When they are perfectly happy with the status quo and others most certainly aren't?"

Tell you what, seeing as you have never done this, why should I explain to you that when you GENUINELY meet people half way, they are impressed and tend to listen to you. In this way I have managed to return stolen property to friends and myself, I have managed to get people to see other sides of tense pub situations: it is a question of really wanting to work something out rather than thinking of people as "scum"

now, why don't you answer my questions:

1) with your attitude, how do you expect to relate to travellers? Do you want them locked away from you?

2) have you ever attempted this act (of talking to travellers about any issues) and how can you expect it to have worked if you think of them as "scum"?

3) what corners are you SPECIFICALLY talking about with regard to your drug dealers, etc?

4)do you realise that you are being utterly racist by bringing up criminals when we are discussing travellers?

SheroN

do you realise that you are being utterly racist by bringing up criminals when we are discussing travellers?

There's my point again, travellers are not a race.

dr_manhattan

"There's my point again, travellers are not a race."

And there's MY point again: you seem to think that because a bunch of people are not classified as a race, it's okay to treat them as criminals, terrorists, or "scum".

Nice Sig, btw: Good luck "keepin' it gangsta", SheroN - the people who speak like that (african americans) are also treated like criminals in the US: but there again, they're a fashionable minority.

Moriarty, got any problems with SheroN's support of Gangsters? If you lived in a neighbourhood where the drug dealing scum were referred to as "gangstas" would you have issues with this signature?

of course not. because african americans ARE undeniably a "race", we have to take them seriously?

SheroN

My uncle says being black is a state of mind.

seamus

Originally posted by Moriarty
How long before we class the local gutter scum that hang around corners mugging people as a distinct race, expunging them of any criticisim? Will you be on the vanguard of the lynch mob when somone starts asking questions as to why these groups are treated with deferential respect by the Gardai for fear of putting a step wrong and ending up in court?

You claim to want equality for all and yet you continue to demand that travellers should be treated differently to the rest of us with relation to behaviour. I'm pretty sure if I decided to set up shop at the side of a busy road I'd be moved along pretty swiftly - recieving a bill in the post for any damage I may have caused. I'm pretty sure that if I went into a pub and started destroying the place that the gardai wouldnt take my word as gospel. What did travellers do to deserve preferential treatment and how do I go about recieving the same thing?

It's an educational experience if you survive the inevitable beating. Let me ask you something, have you ever challenged the local drug dealer/'RA bloke/general scum on their behaviour face to face? How did it go?

What do you do when (group x) don't want to listen to you? When they are perfectly happy with the status quo and others most certainly aren't?

Pretty much my view on it summed up there. I have always been of the opinion that travellers should be let be. No special dispensation, no facilities, no extra laws.

Being a traveller is a choice. This is the crux of the argument. People compare them to criminals, because being a criminal is also a choice. Being a taxi driver is a choice too. These people have the option to not live on the side of the road. They make a concious decision not to avail themselves of housing and utilities which the Government provides for everyone else. You could be damn sure that if I moved into a caravan on the side of the road, and demanded that they build me a source of fresh water and a toilet, I'd be told where to go.

To demand racial status for a choice, is, as others have pointed out, ridiculous. I choose to drive a motorcycle. Perhaps I can claim that motorcyclists are a race, and claim that I'm being discriminated against by the insurance companies and by the Government's poor roads, and by other motorists who have the cheek to overtake me. :rolleyes:

As and aside dr_manhattan, uberwolf was quite rightly pointing out that you shot yourself in the foot with your "say it to their face" comment. I would have no problem saying it to anyone if I didn't think they were going to try and kill me for saying it. Why argue with someone who's going to resort to violence? Obviously you're not going to get your point across.

GuanYin

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
"There's my point again, travellers are not a race."

And there's MY point again: you seem to think that because a bunch of people are not classified as a race, it's okay to treat them as criminals, terrorists, or "scum".

Nice Sig, btw: Good luck "keepin' it gangsta", SheroN - the people who speak like that (african americans) are also treated like criminals in the US: but there again, they're a fashionable minority.

Moriarty, got any problems with SheroN's support of Gangsters? If you lived in a neighbourhood where the drug dealing scum were referred to as "gangstas" would you have issues with this signature?

of course not. because african americans ARE undeniably a "race", we have to take them seriously?

While it is undeniably wrong to tar any group with the same brush, I think you need to keep things in perspective.

1) It is undeniable that there is a lawless culture among travellers just the same as some other groups in society. I've found dealings with traveller community to be amicable but I know some who haven't. There are bad elements or people who go to far in every society.

2) People tend to judge by their experiences - Its not right, but it doesn't make them inherently biggoted.

3) There are legitimate reasons, from a logistical point of view, for not wanting a traveller community in an area. These do not by default inferr biggotry or any disrespect towards travellers. This unfortunately is a social issue and one that does nee dto be addressed.

3) Labelling all Irish people as racists and biggots is way out of order. I have about as much experience on this matter as anyone over the past 15 or so years and while the racist/biggot element in Ireland is as bad as anywher else in the world, I take exception at you calling my friends, family and colleagues biggots. Keep your hypocritical generalisations to yourself if you please.

Dr_M, I'd appreciate if you do less of the name calling and general swipes at posters on this thread. There is no need for it and the petty jibes don't add anything to your argument.

I don't like the attitude towards travellers in this country, but it doesn't mean I can't see people point of view. The traveller community does disregard alot of things held sacred by the settled community just as the settled community does with travellers. Often, society takes high horse approach because they have legal rights that they feel are infringed upon (wrt. dumping and waste). Does this make them intolerant, not overly, does it make them biggots, certainly not be default.

dr_manhattan

" I would have no problem saying it to anyone if I didn't think they were going to try and kill me for saying it. Why argue with someone who's going to resort to violence"

Look, do you realised that you're admitting that you think any traveller will hit you if you talk to them about your views? Could that not possibly be partly because your views are bigoted and prejudiced? Or possibly because you very obviously think travllers have no legitimacy?

How would you react to someone who thought thet because you were irish you smell or are violent or a drunk?

And if you think being a traveller is as simple as a choice, then what about native americans? They have no real geographical roots, all they have is language and customs to legitimise their claim to cultural equality? People say they drink and fight and are no good, too?

or do a minority have to wear cute ethnic gear before you can take them seriously?

In my experience, travellers have their own language, separate from irish, they act and speak and look different. Being a scumbag is a choice, but unfortunately for you, being a traveller does not automatically make you a scumbag. Sorry about that.

dr_manhattan

Syke:

" 3) Labelling all Irish people as racists and biggots is way out of order."

I disagree. Any country where people kill each other for sectarian/religious beliefs has to accept the lable as bigoted. Growing up here is learninga list of reason why them people down the road with the squinty eyes are scumbags. Ireland has a history of bigoted, sectarian violence. Sorry.

Oh and btw: i never said "all" - if you want me to correct "irish people" then I will say "there is a huge tendency amongst the irish" - but at the end of the day I am making a statment not unlike "americans are obsessed by wealth". It is an internationally known chracteristic of this country that we shoot each other for sectarian reasons. Like capitalism is re: the US.

"I have about as much experience on this matter as anyone over the past 15 or so years and while the racist/biggot element in Ireland is as bad as anywher else in the world, I take exception at you calling my friends, family and colleagues biggots. Keep your hypocritical generalisations to yourself if you please."

I am not a bigot, nor did I name any of these people you hold dear. I am talking abouyt sentiments expressed regularly on this board an in this country: get down off your big wounded high horse: posters here have said much worse things about the families, friends and colleagues of travellers, learn to take your own medicine: if you think every slag I make is directed personally at you, then sorry, I don't have time to correct myself. Toughen up.

"Dr_M, I'd appreciate if you do less of the name calling and general swipes at posters on this thread. There is no need for it and the petty jibes don't add anything to your argument."

Calling someone a bigot is not petty: other than that, I do not recall any jibes. I am certainly NOT sparing the feelings of anyone who thinks that equating travellers with "scum" ism okay. I notice you have not addressed the poster who did, either - but it would appear that my ideas about equal treatment have to be knocked before you could do that.

"2) People tend to judge by their experiences - Its not right, but it doesn't make them inherently biggoted."

As regards the legitimacy of "bad experiences" - these are not legitimate points of argument. I could make the same, unfounded, stupid, pointless accusatons about any minority and if I expected to be taken seriously, that would make me a bigot: unfortunately, the only accusations I have made against irish people or the people on this thread have been made to illustrate a point. Which you're not getting.

And btw, when we are discussing traveller settlements and the tos and fros of such a discussion, then bring it up. We are not, however: the person who started this thread was banned earlier for being racist. He seems to now think that because the EU may or may not consider travellers a "race" that his prejudice is legitimate (see above) - what is your opinion on that, and why not devote a few words towards that, seeing as you "can see both sides"

Honestly, this country and it's insane comfort with its own prejudices is just wierd.

"Does this make them intolerant, not overly, does it make them biggots, certainly not be default."

Well my apologies for blurring the line between "bigotry" and "not-over-tolerance" - I mean, it's not like your version lets anyone off lightly.

"hey world, we're not bigoted. we're just not-over-tolerant! It's okay!"

:rolleyes:

ixoy

Dr_Manhattan then: To what degree should a state support cultural/ethnic differences? A state should treat everyone favorably - and equally - under the law but should they be obliged to facilitate the travelling way of life? Should they be obliged to build halting sites (often against popular opinion - biast or otherwise) or support the cleanup operation by those travellers who are - consistently - tarring their fellows with a bad name? To what extend should the state go out of its way, and budget, to ensure that ethnic groups are enabled to continue their practices?

SheroN

Oh and btw: i never said "all" - if you want me to correct "irish people" then I will say "there is a huge tendency amongst the irish" - but at the end of the day I am making a statment not unlike "americans are obsessed by wealth".

Sounds kind of similar to what i said a few weeks ago(that got me banned), I didn't say all travellers, but i said in my dealings and experiencs with them they're no good.

uberwolf

4 questions related to each other although answering seperately may aid discussion.

is the traveller way of life still viable?

If not - is it reasonable for one community to rely on another for its continued existence?

Or is there an argument as to why the "settled" should subsidise Itinerants?

Can they expect to make certain demands on travellers in return - a rights Vs responsibilities kinda thing.
-admitedly this is a slanted question

dr_manhattan

SheroN, I've asked you a number of questions: are you going to answer them, or just keep re-reading these posts and sniping at occasional sentences?

"My uncle says being black is a state of mind."

Cos answers like that just don't seem to cut it really.

And btw, you said a lot more that "in my dealing with travllers" - besides which, i thought your ban was "overturned", or is that just another word for "lasted a week and now I'm back toprove my point that because travllers ain't black I can put them down all I want"?

Ixoy, I personally have dealt with any difficulties I've had with travellers myself. I have never needed the law - I don't believe it's the government's place to enforce laws to make us treat our fellow man with respect, and acknowledge differences. Thus, I only ever call the cops when I have exhausted all other avenues: and this includes not calling them when i've been beaten up by travellers.

Halting sites are unsightly but there again so are most residential developments - halting sites can be tidied in days or weeks, apartment blocks are there to stay: these are issues of determination, to be worked out between individual communities, and ideally should not require the cops or changes in law.

But I must say this: I do not like the way that suddenly everyone is talking about halting sites and how to deal with XYZ, when that is not the issue being discussed here: the issue is whether or not it is correct to legitimise negativity towards a group of people based on whether they are defined as a "race" or not.

Ideally, I do not think the government should enforce laws about slagging off gay people, for example. I think we should have the common decency and the guts to challenge our own(and each others') views. Unfortunately we often do not, so there sometimes has to be equality legislation. But this is because of people who will not open up, not because of some "PC brigade"

I mean, are gay people a "race"? you could call homosexuality a "choice", too, if you were a bigot. Are handicapped people a "race"? Some social fascists equate their parents decision not to terminate as the same kind of "choice". Or the state's decision to support them. Disgusting, but true.

Yet people, when making generalisation about gay people or the handicapped, are prepared to be told they're being ridiculous - but not travellers. Funny that, no?

Cos when it comes to positive treatment, they are not treated the same, cos they're travellers.

But when it comes to negative treatment, they're not treated the same, either, cos being a tavller is a "choice"?

Sounds like the best of both worlds to me.

SheroN

Nope my ban was overturned within 24 hours.
Victory for the little man.

rubadub

I wouldn't consider travellers to be a different race other than what they are already. Most I have seen are caucasian. What would people consider an asian who lives in a caravan in wexford and moves around every few months? Is he a traveller, an asian, or an asian traveller? If he got beat-up on the street the papers say it was a racist attack but which "race" would get priority?

What people get annoyed about is the fact that they can play the "traveller race" card to their advantage where other loosely defined groups cannot.

People living in wooden houses are also a minority in this country but if they get refused from a pub is that racist? "Sorry mate, if your house was on wheels you would have got in", they would be laughed at if they went to the gardai claiming they were victims of racial discrimination. How can supposedly racist doormen spot a traveller anyway? is it the accent? if so I might try to adopt it on Paddy's day if the pubs are too full,they're guaranteed to let you in for fear of being branded racist.

It seems if there were more travellers than settled people then the "settlers" could cry racist if refused from pubs, but if you are in the majority you have no comeback. If somebody said to me they hate travellers I would consider them prejudiced, not racist, to me its the same as somebody saying they hate "rugby jocks", goths or lawyers.

dr_manhattan

1)is the traveller way of life still viable?

Don't be daft: is the native american? Innuit? Bantu, Xhosa, Zulu? Catholic? Moslem? We are not talking about "way of life" here, we are talking about respecting people and the decisions they make, their culture and customs, not on OUR terms, but on THEIRS.

And why the "viability" of their life is supposed to make people respect them more is beyond me: if travllers were the indigenous IT experts of northern europe, obviously they'd get more respect - that is not the point. "viability" of lifestyle is affected by other lifestyles (as you have said) - therefore speaking in terms of viability is prejudiced in and of itself.

2)If not - is it reasonable for one community to rely on another for its continued existence?

So welfare dependants, the elderly and the disabled must also qualify for "viability", then? Forgive me for finding your arguments kind of twisted and inherently biased. What you are talking about (that "dependents" justify their existence) is kinbd leaning towards the old swastika kinda thing, no?

3)Or is there an argument as to why the "settled" should subsidise Itinerants?

These questions have a definite direction, no? See above. What about whether travellers should respect people that have no respect for them? Any questions from that kind of angle?

4) Can they expect to make certain demands on travellers in return - a rights Vs responsibilities kinda thing.

Once agin we're on this track of "who depends on who" or "where should they live".....?

This discussion is about whether or not it's legitimate to demean people just because they are not a "race" - the initial post, made by someone who seems to think that they *can*, invited comments on whether or not travllers should be recognised as such. A breakdown of the above questions, apart from 1), makes them kind of irrelevant, no?

Anyways...

GuanYin

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I disagree. Any country where people kill each other for sectarian/religious beliefs has to accept the lable as bigoted. Growing up here is learninga list of reason why them people down the road with the squinty eyes are scumbags. Ireland has a history of bigoted, sectarian violence. Sorry.

One area of Ireland has a history of sectarian violence between certain gang fractions. Its not the same as "all Irish people are sectarian" and you talk about labels and branding? :rolleyes:

I think you really have lived in a particularly bad area and are attributing these experiences to the whole population. I'm of an ethnic persuasion and I moved here in my early teens. I've come across racism, as much as anywhere else, but only among a small select group of people. The majority of people I meet and deal with are not biggots or racists and wouldn't tolerate that behaviour. You're comments are totally hypocritical to the point you are trying to make "lets avoid this horrible unjuts generalisation, while I make my own one".

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Oh and btw: i never said "all" - if you want me to correct "irish people" then I will say "there is a huge tendency amongst the irish" - but at the end of the day I am making a statment not unlike "americans are obsessed by wealth". It is an internationally known chracteristic of this country that we shoot each other for sectarian reasons. Like capitalism is re: the US..

There is a tendancy between some of the more ignorant Irish people, but nomore than anywhere else.Lets not bring crass stereotypes into the argument, they don't really make much of a point.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
I am not a bigot, nor did I name any of these people you hold dear. I am talking abouyt sentiments expressed regularly on this board an in this country: get down off your big wounded high horse: posters here have said much worse things about the families, friends and colleagues of travellers, learn to take your own medicine: if you think every slag I make is directed personally at you, then sorry, I don't have time to correct myself. Toughen up...

I'm perfectly tough, but I'd sooner accept your point of view without glaring generalisations, innuendo and jibes directed at people or groups. What other people have said here has nothing to do with this argument. You can't label or generalise an accusation against an entire society the way you have, or perhaps you thin its that you can't label the one specific society you are trying to defend. There are good and bad people in every community. Thats the point. The dim view of Irish people you painthere, is no different than that being painted by others about travellers. You have had bad experiences with biggotry, they had bad experiences with criminals. The biggots were Irish, the criminals were travellers. You make a sweeping inacccurate generalisation, they make a sweeping inaccurate generalisation. Do you see the trend? huh, do you?

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

Calling someone a bigot is not petty: other than that, I do not recall any jibes. I am certainly NOT sparing the feelings of anyone who thinks that equating travellers with "scum" ism okay. I notice you have not addressed the poster who did, either - but it would appear that my ideas about equal treatment have to be knocked before you could do that....

I don't think its ok, I addressed my views on this in the mod forum when the initial ban came up, so I think my feelings are well known to him. But why bring other into this. I see and take alot of yor points and I disagree with the common attitude of many towards travellers. But the attitude you are taking is no better and its not how you change attitudes. There are more civil ways to conduct a debat ethan spew venom at people. Save that sort of thing for a blog rant!

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
As regards the legitimacy of "bad experiences" - these are not legitimate points of argument. I could make the same, unfounded, stupid, pointless accusatons about any minority and if I expected to be taken seriously, that would make me a bigot: unfortunately, the only accusations I have made against irish people or the people on this thread have been made to illustrate a point. Which you're not getting..

You say tomatoe I say tomato..... I think you did make the same, unfounded, stupid, pointless accusatons.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

And btw, when we are discussing traveller settlements and the tos and fros of such a discussion, then bring it up. We are not, however: the person who started this thread was banned earlier for being racist. He seems to now think that because the EU may or may not consider travellers a "race" that his prejudice is legitimate (see above) - what is your opinion on that, and why not devote a few words towards that, seeing as you "can see both sides".....

Why make your "argument" about someone else? But if you wish, I think that Travellers don't qualify as a race, I don't think they ever did but as technology and meteropolitan attitudes have increased, they have become more alienated and isolated form the rest of society. This is their choice and their culture and they are entitled to it. However, the culture does often conflict with the laws of the state and country and sometimes this brings them into conflict with settled societies. This is where the prejudices stem from. Its not about who is right or wrong, its about compromise. Unfortunately, the settled societies seem to take a self righteous stance and develop a superiority complex over travellers. This is not only childish (or if there is a more formal world for childish in the world of social analysis) but it serves to detract from any progress or compromise. Its not biggotry in the term we would normally see it, inherent biggotry of a community is alot different from acquired prejudice. I think that alot (not all) of the prejudice against travellers is acquired. It doesn't make it right.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

Well my apologies for blurring the line between "bigotry" and "not-over-tolerance" - I mean, it's not like your version lets anyone off lightly.

"hey world, we're not bigoted. we're just not-over-tolerant! It's okay!"

:rolleyes:

Ah yes very droll :rolleyes:

Well perhaps its ambiguous but its a damned sight better than sweeping black or white generalisations without considering the root of the issue.

seamus

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
" I would have no problem saying it to anyone if I didn't think they were going to try and kill me for saying it. Why argue with someone who's going to resort to violence"

Look, do you realised that you're admitting that you think any traveller will hit you if you talk to them about your views? Could that not possibly be partly because your views are bigoted and prejudiced? Or possibly because you very obviously think travllers have no legitimacy?

I didn't say that. You implied that confronting a traveller could end in violence, hence people don't do it. You may think that's twisting your words, but that's the way you came across.

How would you react to someone who thought thet because you were irish you smell or are violent or a drunk?

I'd laugh at them, slag their nationality in a similarly stereotypical way, and buy them a drink
Society has become far too hung up on placing people in boxes, demanding that nobody speak of these boxes, or have a sense of humour about themselves.

And if you think being a traveller is as simple as a choice, then what about native americans? They have no real geographical roots, all they have is language and customs to legitimise their claim to cultural equality? People say they drink and fight and are no good, too?

This is different, again. Native Americans, yes, there's a reason they're called that. Irish people and Irish travellers are (for all intents and purposes) descended from the same recent European ancestors. Americans and Native Americans aren't.

In my experience, travellers have their own language, separate from irish, they act and speak and look different. Being a scumbag is a choice, but unfortunately for you, being a traveller does not automatically make you a scumbag. Sorry about that.

Again, I never inferred anything. You seem to have some sort of rabid suspicion that anyone who has a negative opinion about some aspect of travellers is part of the extreme anti-traveller society.

My opinion is that being a traveller is like being Catholic, or protestant, or whatever box you like to crawl into. IMO, being of a certain religion is not belonging to a race. If your parents are White European, then you are born (usually white) European. You cannot change that. However, if your parents are travellers, or catholic, you may be born a traveller or a catholic. But you can change that. Being part of a race is something you cannot change.

Let's separate now. Discrimination and racism are not the same thing. Racism is a subset of discrimination. Discrimination occurs because one person thinks that another person is differently entitled based on any one of the things which makes them different. Rascism is "Discrimination or prejudice based on race." Discrimination is ok in some cases, but largely not. This includes beneficial discrimination. For example, a publican may be prevented from banning a traveller and his friends because of past instances. Friends that weren't previously involved can claim that they are being discriminated against. If I got banned because a couple of my mates caused hassle, I have no legal recourse. It is possible to discriminate against the majority.

amp

Originally posted by SheroN
Nope my ban was overturned within 24 hours.
Victory for the little man.

Last time I took the blame for banning you because I must have not made myself clear enough. Let me make a few things clear here:

1. Generalisations without proof are still unwelcome on Humanities. Unbanning you has not changed that.

2. Wether travellers are defined as a race or not makes no difference to the above. McDowell doesn't moderate this forum.

3. Slagging off travellers or any other group of people is off-topic for Humanities.

4. Gloating about having your ban "overturned within 24 hours" is not only off-topic but it's really not a good idea.

Is anything about this unclear? If not; pm me, do not reply to this warning.

Paull88 is on a yellow card for racism.

magpie

Well of course travellers claim to be descended from a lost Romany Royal Family sent into exile, which if it were true would make them racially separate (apologies if someone has already dealt with this...), however there is scant genealogical or genetic evidence to show they are racially any different from other Irish, unless inbreeding from a relatively restricted gene pool equates with being of a different race, which I'm sure if they stick at it long enough will prove to be true.

dr_manhattan

And once again, the thread descends into a discussion of "what is a race" as if that's important.

If I hate all black people cos I think they smell, then that's wrong, yeah? because they're a "race". But if I object to travellers for reasons given in this or other threads (violent, smelly, thieves, beggars, scum) then it's okay because they're not a "race"?

Seamus:

"You implied that confronting a traveller could end in violence, hence people don't do it."

Read my posts: no I didn't. YOU *inferred* the above. I was simply saying that bigots are cowards: I am tired of re-declaring this.

"I'd laugh at them, slag their nationality in a similarly stereotypical way, and buy them a drink"

Not if you weren't allowed to drink in the same bar as them, you wouldn't.

"part of a race is something you cannot change."

So, like being working class then? Or royalty? Or ginger haired? Or disabled? Or gay?

Stop trying to legitimise your prejudice using words like "race". Stop trying to carve up the world with dumb, 100 year old tools. The irish people treat travllers like DIRT, is it well known: and the fact that some of them act like dirt is BESIDES THE POINT. As I keep saying, lots of people from lost of places are thieves, smelly and ignorant. So ****ing what?

Now, syke:
"One area of Ireland has a history of sectarian violence between certain gang fractions"

Oh, really? Gang factions? Syke, I'm afraid your teen years experience of Ireland is showing itself here. Fair enough, if you want to call the civil war (which was 80 years ago, in the south) and subsequent executions without trial, the catholic church's intolerant attitude towards women, and the current sectarian attacks in the north "gang violence" then go ahead. But pardon my laughter: the protestant and catholic churches and their respective supporters are "gangs"?

And it won't change a single thing: you mention Ireland abroad, and one of the first things you will have mentioned is a long, protracted, violent war between religions. Ireland is known for bigotry, like it or not.

Now I have already said that the thing about irish people is that they love you if you're from abroad, it's only with our neighbours that the true colours shine. Ireland has only ever really fought against itself, and only ever shows its true bigotry to its own. Your experiences since your teens may have been great, but I know different. I'm also wondering how, if you are non-national, I was insulting your family by calling irish people bigots?

Fact is, your positive experiences with irish bigotry would have been affected by the fact that, though you may be "ethnic" in origin, you're not a traveller. Because if you were, your expeiences would have been bad. May I ask waht ethnicity then?

You seem to have no problem with those who call travellers "scum", yet a huge issue with my returned generalisations. And that's what they are. Irish people say "travellers are dirty", so I say "so are irish people" - is this such a huge wrong? Anyways, litter and public order statistics support me here: we are a nation of dirty drunks. And when we have been abroad, we have been treated as such ("no dogs, no irish") so to turn this prejudice around and use it on travllers is nothing short of hilarious.

Look around you in Ireland - Do you see a common prejudice against settled people? Do you think my words against the irish are having as damaging an effect as the words of those who describe travellers as scum? Do you think Ireland needs to be defended against realising that it is a bigoted country with a litter problem, a drink problem, a corrupt planning system and a serious lack of self respect?

And as for my "particularly bad area" of origin: I've lived all over Ireland, i know it pretty damn well. But my negative experiences were all south and east coast.

magpie

realising that it is a bigoted country with a litter problem, a drink problem, a corrupt planning system and a serious lack of self respect?

Indeed. However this is something of a moot point.

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that because someone is from a minority you are not allowed to make factual observations about them...

I wonder if all this fuss would be kicked up if someone said crusties are no-good filthy layabouts who live in vans? Then again crusties don't need to make spurious racial claims to justify their indolence.

SheroN

You seem to be labouring under the illusion that because someone is from a minority you are not allowed to make factual observations about them...

Thank you very much.

GuanYin

Originally posted by dr_manhattan

Oh, really? Gang factions? Syke, I'm afraid your teen years experience of Ireland is showing itself here. Fair enough, if you want to call the civil war (which was 80 years ago, in the south) and subsequent executions without trial, the catholic church's intolerant attitude towards women, and the current sectarian attacks in the north "gang violence" then go ahead. But pardon my laughter: the protestant and catholic churches and their respective supporters are "gangs"?

And it won't change a single thing: you mention Ireland abroad, and one of the first things you will have mentioned is a long, protracted, violent war between religions. Ireland is known for bigotry, like it or not.

What, you're dragging this up? Nearly every country has had some sort of civil war at some stage. It doesn't make the nation inherently biggoted. My god, thats like saying Nelly was a pink elephant, therefore all elephants are pink. Talk about your generalisations.

I had figured you meant the situation up north, where the sectarianism is down to paramilitary, party and gang violence. The majority of young northern people are sick of it and get along fine, the people in the republic, on the whole don't seem to give a toss either way.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Now I have already said that the thing about irish people is that they love you if you're from abroad, it's only with our neighbours that the true colours shine. Ireland has only ever really fought against itself, and only ever shows its true bigotry to its own. Your experiences since your teens may have been great, but I know different. I'm also wondering how, if you are non-national, I was insulting your family by calling irish people bigots?

Fact is, your positive experiences with irish bigotry would have been affected by the fact that, though you may be "ethnic" in origin, you're not a traveller. Because if you were, your expeiences would have been bad. May I ask waht ethnicity then?

My god, are you discounting the possability of an bi-racial individual? I never said I was a non-national, I have an Irish side to my family. I don't look overly Irish or at least I didn't when I was younger, I think with the influx of non-nationals I don't stand out as much. I never said I had positive experiences of "Irish" bigotry, I don't think you can have a positive experience of bigotry but I have come across racism, but no more than anywhere else I have lived or travelled.

I don't think we discriminate against travellers any more than blacks or asians and again no more than any other countries.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
You seem to have no problem with those who call travellers "scum", yet a huge issue with my returned generalisations. And that's what they are. Irish people say "travellers are dirty", so I say "so are irish people" - is this such a huge wrong? Anyways, litter and public order statistics support me here: we are a nation of dirty drunks. And when we have been abroad, we have been treated as such ("no dogs, no irish") so to turn this prejudice around and use it on travllers is nothing short of hilarious.

You seem to have a problem reading my posts. I never said I didn't have a problem with those who call travellers scum. Don't put words in my mouth. If you read my post and responded to the actual points rather than just quoting rhetoric to support your generalisations you would see I said it was wrong, I even gave an opinion on what it stems from. Understanding aproblem is often the best way to tackle it, not just running in guns blazing.

You seem to totally ignore the fact that the prejudices come from *somewhere*. You're ignoring those reasons and the fact that there may be some grounds the cause of the prejudice. The attitude and act of prejudice is non-debatable. It is plain wrong, and a poor reflection on the people in question. But ranting at thes epeople and throwing your arms up as you brand us all biggots does nothing except make you seem unreasonable. Nobody listens to unreasonable people.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Look around you in Ireland - Do you see a common prejudice against settled people? Do you think my words against the irish are having as damaging an effect as the words of those who describe travellers as scum? Do you think Ireland needs to be defended against realising that it is a bigoted country with a litter problem, a drink problem, a corrupt planning system and a serious lack of self respect?

And as for my "particularly bad area" of origin: I've lived all over Ireland, i know it pretty damn well. But my negative experiences were all south and east coast.

I see lots of common prejudice in Ireland, more againts some groups than others, but no more than anywhere else. I think possibly the "type" of prejudice againts other races is borne out of inexperience with other cultures and is a more childish and ignorant type of racism as opposed to the racism borne out of social situations seen in countries and cities with a history of multi-culturism.

I think your words are damaging in so far as they do nothing to alieviate the situation. They are just as bad a reflection of the situation and an aspect of Irish society as the perpitrators as they add nothing to the argument and only serve to deeply ingrain those with a social prejudice into their viewpoint.

Nor is dissing Ireland for all or any of the reasons you have there helping as it is not tackling the nature or point that you are originally making, these are separate issues all with their own roots. Rationally examine and tackle the root and you will be better equipped to solve the problem. Cause and Effect. Deal with the cause and you eliminate the effect.

seamus

If I hate all black people cos I think they smell, then that's wrong, yeah? because they're a "race". But if I object to travellers for reasons given in this or other threads (violent, smelly, thieves, beggars, scum) then it's okay because they're not a "race"?

No, as I'll explain below.

Read my posts: no I didn't. YOU *inferred* the above. I was simply saying that bigots are cowards: I am tired of re-declaring this.

I won't get into this, since you obviously missed the point.

Not if you weren't allowed to drink in the same bar as them, you wouldn't.

Just because someone isn't part of a race, doesn't mean they cannot be discriminated against, see below.

So, like being working class then? Or royalty? Or ginger haired? Or disabled? Or gay?

Quoting me out of context, good work.

Originally posted by magpie
You seem to be labouring under the illusion that because someone is from a minority you are not allowed to make factual observations about them...

That's pretty much it.

dr_mahattan, you're going off the point a bit. The theme of the thread is whether we should class travellers as a race or not. As I've said, discrimination and racism are not the same thing. Rasicm is usually the nastiest, most prejudiced and violent form of discrimination.
Tarring anyone who says anything remotely bad about travellers as 'racist' is a dangerous thing to do. Discriminating against someone because they're a traveller isn't right, but that's not in question. The question is - is it racism? Qualifying it as racism gives a lot more leverage to people who I would consider to be from my race, but who happen to choose to live as nomads.

uberwolf

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
1)is the traveller way of life still viable?

Q.Don't be daft: is the native american? Innuit? Bantu, Xhosa, Zulu? Catholic? Moslem?

A.Some of those denimations define a people, some many people fit into loosely.

Q.We are not talking about "way of life" here, we are talking about respecting people and the decisions they make, their culture and customs, not on OUR terms, but on THEIRS.


A.why should it be on "their" terms?

Q.And why the "viability" of their life is supposed to make people respect them more is beyond me: if travllers were the indigenous IT experts of northern europe, obviously they'd get more respect - that is not the point. "viability" of lifestyle is affected by other lifestyles (as you have said) - therefore speaking in terms of viability is prejudiced in and of itself.

A.I would argue that we are responsible to ourselves and society to be self sufficent. My impression would be that travellers are not self sufficent, for finances, education, housing etc.

2)If not - is it reasonable for one community to rely on another for its continued existence?

Q.So welfare dependants, the elderly and the disabled must also qualify for "viability", then?

A.Traveller way of life was once self sufficent - the tinker , but adaption is needed, we don't live in caves anymore. Evolution.

Q.Forgive me for finding your arguments kind of twisted and inherently biased.

A.Questions biased yes, but I made no arguments (yet ).

Q.What you are talking about (that "dependents" justify their existence) is kinbd leaning towards the old swastika kinda thing, no?

A.if you insist.

3)Or is there an argument as to why the "settled" should subsidise Itinerants?

Q.These questions have a definite direction, no? See above. What about whether travellers should respect people that have no respect for them?

A.Do onto others... absolutely.

Q.Any questions from that kind of angle?

A.you just provided one. I just answered. Rights and responsibilities

4) Can they expect to make certain demands on travellers in return - a rights Vs responsibilities kinda thing.

Q.Once agin we're on this track of "who depends on who" or "where should they live".....?

A. what is your answer to this?

Q.This discussion is about whether or not it's legitimate to demean people just because they are not a "race" - the initial post

A.I am diversifying it somewhat. And it wasn't about demeaning them, I don't think(originally, some people aren't contributing just slagging). It was about whether they should/could hide behind a label.

, made by someone who seems to think that they *can*, invited comments on whether or not travllers should be recognised as such. A breakdown of the above questions, apart from 1), makes them kind of irrelevant, no?

Anyways...

DaithiSurfer

Dr_Manhattan,
I really couldn't be bothered looking up case numbers etc for you. I'm not concerned with it. Just passing on my experience. I would say you've heard the story so many times probably because it happens a lot.
You seem to like getting at people who think confronting a traveler would end in violence. I would imagine it would (my opinion), but you have not answered my question about letting them use your driveway and your house for a month. Why? Do you think it would end in the destruction and rubbishing of your house and yard

Come back after doing that and have the same attitude to travellers and i'll get down on my knees and lick ur shoes.

Have you ever had them camping in your neighbourhood and destroying the place? A lot of people have and its not funny.

dr_manhattan

Seamus, you accuse me of quoting you out of context:

"If your parents are White European, then you are born (usually white) European. You cannot change that. However, if your parents are travellers, or catholic, you may be born a traveller or a catholic. But you can change that. Being part of a race is something you cannot change"

Happy now? My original rebuttal still stands: like being gay, ginger haired, working class, royalty, or whatever? How do you change the above?

"Tarring anyone who says anything remotely bad about travellers as 'racist' is a dangerous thing to do."

Dangerous for who, exactly? Why is it dangerous? Why is it more dangerous than talking about drug dealers, thieves and muggers in the same context as travellers?

Now, there's too many points being made against me here to be even half arsed getting back at. I'll try a few:

"You seem to be labouring under the illusion that because someone is from a minority you are not allowed to make factual observations about them."

No that's absolute rubbish: have you read the thread? I am "labouring under the illusion" that categorising travellers in the same bracket as muggers, thieves and "scum" is not a legitimate to discuss them or any other minority. Here's a funny piece of disparity here:

when i speak about "irish people", I am taken to mean "all irish people" by most people here, and have to clarify what i mean so that i am not being prejudiced.

yet there have been many huge generaliations made here about travellers, which appear not to mean "all travellers" but instead, we take it as read that the people mean "all travellers who commit crime"?

As I have said here and before, you can say what you like about specific people (and the very fact that no traveller family names have been used here speaks VOLUMES, plus the fact that none of these "examples" give places, names or dates....?) but saying that travellers are by and larghe criminals, violent, etc is simply unacceptable. And that's if it's racist, sectarian, wahtever: try the term "wrong" on for size.

Anyways:

"Rasicm is usually the nastiest, most prejudiced and violent form of discrimination."

Actually, homophobia and sectarianism are just as violent, as far as I can see. The North of Ireland (which is apparently a gang war btw) would be an example of this.

The fact is that people don't WANT the label of "racist" because it's not fashionable. And this is the only reason I use this term, is because Irish people in general do not think of travllers as a people with their own identity: if you tell an irish person he's being sectarian, he's usually delighted, LOL.

Anyways, Syke:

"Nearly every country has had some sort of civil war at some stage. It doesn't make the nation inherently biggoted."

Syke, this civil war is still being tended to in the north. Same conflict. For 80 years. because catholics could not vote or get a decent living. The conflict in the north was supported by politicians, acitivists and bigots both here and in the UK. I am just trying to point out that you saying Ireland is not bigoted is pretty funny, it's like saying Palestine isn't bigoted. Or the former yugoslavia.

"I never said I didn't have a problem with those who call travellers scum. Don't put words in my mouth. "

Yes, but your silence speak volumes. In this thread was a poster who equated travllers with scum, drug dealers and criminals. You said nothing to them about their attitudes, you only question mine. Q.E.D. I must conclude that you have no problem with those who call travllers scum, I am not putting words in your mouth, just interpreting your actions, which speak louder than words.

"You seem to totally ignore the fact that the prejudices come from *somewhere*"

ALL prejudices come from somewhere: that's EXACTLY WHY I have been saying "but irish people smell and are bigots and drunks" - don't you get it?

Examples of prejudices that come from somewhere:

All jews are greedy
All blacks are violent
All whites are arrogant
All chinese are sneaky
All japanese are neurotic
All latins are emotional

That is my point here: ALL prejudices are based on fact. However, NO prejudices are legitimate.

"I think possibly the "type" of prejudice againts other races is borne out of inexperience with other cultures and is a more childish and ignorant type of racism as opposed to the racism borne out of social situations seen in countries and cities with a history of multi-culturism."

Again, this is my point: irish people are used to travllers, and treat them like ****. All other, newer nationalities (except the brits and americans, who get their own share of prejudice) get slightly better treatment.

But believe you me, in a country of just 4 million people, with the lowest population density in europe, we are the only north european country that could not settle its differences and be at peace with one another: we are only barely managing it now. So there's your basis for a prejudice: irish people cannot sort their **** out, and cannot stop hating each other.

And lastly:

" My god, are you discounting the possability of an bi-racial individual?"

Actually, you describing yourself as "ethnic" implied that you are in fact not: "ethnic" would imply cultural distinctiveness etc. My apologies for not getting your denomination perfect, it appears that you can be as outraged by this as you want, but still have no problem with what I mention above.

And finally, SheroN, are you going to answer my questions, or keep sniping into the thread like a child?

It would appear to me that your position as a moderator has given you the license to act like this, and it's genuinely boring. Are you admitting that you have nothing of any real consequence to say?

seamus

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Seamus, you accuse me of quoting you out of context:

"If your parents are White European, then you are born (usually white) European. You cannot change that. However, if your parents are travellers, or catholic, you may be born a traveller or a catholic. But you can change that. Being part of a race is something you cannot change"

Happy now? My original rebuttal still stands: like being gay, ginger haired, working class, royalty, or whatever? How do you change the above?

It's sitting right front of you. I said, "Being part of a race is something you cannot change." I didn't say, "having something you cannot change makes you part of a race". Can you see it now? (Besides, royalty is a concept, not a tangible thing, working class is also a concept, and in the strictest terms something you can change)

"Tarring anyone who says anything remotely bad about travellers as 'racist' is a dangerous thing to do."

Dangerous for who, exactly? Why is it dangerous? Why is it more dangerous than talking about drug dealers, thieves and muggers in the same context as travellers?

Because calling someone racist immediately lumps you in with neo-nazis and white supremacists and conjurs up images of Hitler and concentration camps. People who use the term racist liberally do so because they know its power. It's easy for someone to prove that they're not comparable to thieves and drug dealers. It's damn near impossible for anybody to remove the smell of tar from their clothes once somebody publicly accuses them of racism. That's the power of the word.

You seem to bring this back to the troubles in the North. The majority of Irish people don't hate eachother. It's a hard core of small groups who keep the violence going. Delusions that a civil war still exists, or that people in the Republic still care about religion, are surplus to this thread.

GuanYin

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Yes, but your silence speak volumes. In this thread was a poster who equated travllers with scum, drug dealers and criminals. You said nothing to them about their attitudes, you only question mine. Q.E.D. I must conclude that you have no problem with those who call travllers scum, I am not putting words in your mouth, just interpreting your actions, which speak louder than words.

Right, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is a biggot. Is this a new type of discrimination. My goodness is there somewhere where they have been breeding the type of irrational poster who ignores the content of other peoples posts and uses the quote and reply links to preach their own opinion :rolleyes:
But hey, if you wantto ignore the fact I've diagreed with Sherons views and make yourself feel like the opressed moral hero fighting everyone, thats fine.

In much the same way as your fanatical shouting approach won't win you any supporters, the whole "you're with me or against me" attitude does you no service either. I can disagree with Sherons attitude without wanting to associate myself with unreasonable extremist POV's.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
ALL prejudices come from somewhere: that's EXACTLY WHY I have been saying "but irish people smell and are bigots and drunks" - don't you get it?
<snip>
That is my point here: ALL prejudices are based on fact. However, NO prejudices are legitimate.

.

Again, this is my point: irish people are used to travllers, and treat them like ****. All other, newer nationalities (except the brits and americans, who get their own share of prejudice) get slightly better treatment.[/B][/QUOTE]

Now, we got one point through, lest try another. Not all prejudices come from the same place or are caused by the same reason. Soo..... non-nationals experience prejudice because some Irish people aren't used to them or are threathened by them. Its wrong, its totallythe fault of the Irish people in question. But, wait! Travellers have been around *forever* so the prejudice must stem from somewhere else. And *gasp* this time its not so clear cut. The attitude of the majority of those with prejudice is wrong, but there *IS* a social reason behind it that needs to be addressed. It is, for the most part, not just blind ignorant hate as your other examples may be. The abuse and attitude is wrong as I have said and my goodness you ignore, cause itmakes you feel justified and all warm inside.

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
irish people cannot sort their **** out, and cannot stop hating each other..

This seems to be more like your issues with Irish people than anything else. You have taken absolutely no rational approach to this debate whatsoever so obviously ther eis some strong emotial catalyst here. Whatever that might be, I think your hate for Ireland could be spared form teh rest of us.

dr_manhattan

Okay, this is gonna be my last post for a bit:

uberwolf, I'm damn diappointed:
>1)is the traveller way of life still viable?

>Q.Don't be daft: is the native american? Innuit? Bantu,
>Xhosa, Zulu? Catholic? Moslem?

>A.Some of those denimations define a people, some many
>people fit into loosely.

All the above except the last two are defined as a people, either as much or more so than the travellers. Try one: say native american. Is that a "viable" way of life? Can native americans, using only their own technology, support themselves? No. Does that make them parasitic? Not the way I see it.

>Q.We are not talking about "way of life" here, we are
>talking about respecting people and the decisions they
>make, their culture and customs, not on OUR terms, but
>on THEIRS.

>A.why should it be on "their" terms?

Because you cannot respect a minority on your own terms. When you show people respect, you show them that you are willing to abide by their terms. otherwise you're just forcing people to step into your own area.

Fact is, people can argue this way and that about race, but travellers look distinctive to me. Most native americans I've met look about as distinctive, except southern ones who seem to tend to be darker skinned.

And regardless of how distinctive they look, or how their DNA is formed, fact is that there were people in ireland, not living in stone houses, not living in fixed abodes, before there were cities. These people spoke dialects of languages that had roots in the middle east, and were of variously celtic origin.

This country was then settled by nordic, french, and later english speaking people who used money, had stone dwellings and created cities based around thier trade systems. Their intolerance of any way of life which was different to their own (and thus detrimental to their profits) became our intolerance of travellers.

So, you see, I think the experience of colonised countries like america is relevant here: just because the settling of Ireland happened 1,000 years ago doesn;t change it: if america had been colonised 1,000 years ago, there would be no natives left. They would have been exterminated with no regard for their customs and culture.

And so therefore, regardless of whether they can "stand behind" a badge of "race", fact is, they have as much right as any indigenous population to take the piss, as you lot seem to see it.

All I can say is, you would not speak like this about native americans or innuit, but your words are the exact same as those who do: "they have no respect for rules, they are messy, drunks, looking for compensation. You can't touch 'em without being sued"

In other words, whether the EU agrees or not, you sound like a bunch of racists.

SheroN

Don't be talking about me as if i'm not here.

dr_manhattan

Okay, one more then, syke:

what is your problem? You keep accusing me of abusive posting: WHERE do I post abusively? You even accuse me of "shouting"...? Is that the capital letters? You say that my post accusing "irish people of being bigots" is deeply insulting to your family, etc. Yet you don't even REFER to the post that calls "travellers scum"?

You seem to take averything you read here as personally directed at you. News flash: this is not about you, okay?

"Right, so anyone who doesn't agree with you is a biggot."

No, what I said was, you disagree with my generalisations but not with others whom I am in opposal with. Therefore I assume you agree with theirs.

How many times do I have to explain this...?

"In much the same way as your fanatical shouting approach won't win you any supporters"

1) I'm not shouting. 2) I don't want any supporters.

So give me a ****ing break, okay? Go dog someone else's posts, seeing as you're so offended by mine. Sheesh! It's only a ****ing internet message board.

magpie

To compare travellers to Native Americans is completely uninstructive, the difference being that the NAs were forced from their lands by invading settlers and as a result are entitled to support/compensation.

I find it laughable that Innuits, Bantu, or other 'noble savage' civilizations are compared with the travellers, who are to all intents and purposes a couple of families who have spent the last few centuries carrying out an itinerant lifestyle of their own choice. And they don't seem to be suffering from lack of funds either, which is mysterious given they have no visible means of income.