Travellers Not a Race Apart....

rubadub · 15-03-2004 02:52PM

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 · 15-03-2004 02:52PM

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 · 15-03-2004 03:09PM

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 · 15-03-2004 03:21PM

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 · 15-03-2004 03:23PM

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 · 15-03-2004 03:30PM

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 · 15-03-2004 04:03PM

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 · 15-03-2004 04:08PM

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 · 15-03-2004 04:09PM

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 · 15-03-2004 04:31PM

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 · 15-03-2004 04:35PM

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 · 15-03-2004 04:35PM

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 · 15-03-2004 04:56PM

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 · 15-03-2004 05:05PM

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 · 15-03-2004 05:23PM

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 · 15-03-2004 05:23PM

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 · 15-03-2004 05:23PM

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 · 15-03-2004 05:30PM

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

dr_manhattan · 15-03-2004 05:33PM

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 · 15-03-2004 05:38PM

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.

DaithiSurfer · 15-03-2004 05:40PM

I see Dr_manhattan you stilled haven't commented on letting travellers use your house or garden. Looks like you're only answering the easy questions today

"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."

Americans and brits probably get slightly better treatment because they leave slightly less rubbish around previously nice clean areas

SheroN · 15-03-2004 05:42PM

relax DM, we're only trying to have a discussion. No need for the swearing and general loosing the head.

amp · 15-03-2004 05:45PM

This has descended into a flame war which has little to do with the topic in question, which seems to me to have been started with the express purpose of challenging my decision to close the last thread.

After starting the thread all Sheron seems to want to do now is not participate in a debate but to post pithy one-line replies with no particular points or arguments.

This thread is therefore closed. If Sheron specifically starts any new thread in the next six months regarding the travelling community he will be temp banned for a week.

Humanities is not a forum for venting angst at any particular grouping of people.

Travellers Not a Race Apart....

Comments