Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?

later12 · 29-03-2012 01:35PM

SupaNova wrote: »

Many could be 20%, could be 50% or whatever depending on the subject. It is not unreasonable to suggest from the fact that there is multiple documentaries covering the subject that many more (or a higher percentage of) travellers encourage this behavior in comparison to other groups.

Did you ever see a documentary about a traveller sitting at home watching x factor, or boiling the kettle?

The incidence of bare knuckle fighting amongst traveller men could be 10%, could be 90%.
Who knows?
Not us apparently.

later12 · 29-03-2012 01:39PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well I did say it was related to educational attendance and failure to comply with orders, not culture. But yes, argue what you like, fair enough. Sounds like I'm definitely a pretty genocidal kind of guy alright. Definitely up there with the big guys. Adolf Hitler. Nicolae Caucescu. Me and all the lads.

Laminations · 29-03-2012 01:49PM

later12 wrote: »

Well I did say it was related to educational attendance and failure to comply with orders, not culture. But yes, argue what you like, fair enough. Sounds like I'm definitely a pretty genocidal kind of guy alright. Definitely up there with the big guys. Adolf Hitler. Nicolae Caucescu. Me and all the lads.

This is my point, you are now getting super defensive when the consequence of a carrot and stick approach is made obvious to you. Be honest, it may not be your intendeed aim but a by-product of your appraoch would be the diminution of traveller culture and its demise over a few generations.

I agree with a carrot and stick approach and for me child welfare trumps cultural sensitivities. I wouldn't refer to it as genocide but I'm saying that because it can be referred to as such and people can be derided for suggesting such an approach, people just keep their mouths shut.

I'm wondering if I'm on Later12's ignore list....

SupaNova · 29-03-2012 01:51PM

later12 wrote: »

Did you ever see a documentary about a traveller sitting at home watching x factor, or boiling the kettle?

The incidence of bare knuckle fighting amongst traveller men could be 10%, could be 90%.
Who knows?
Not us apparently.

What point are you trying to make if any with the above post? That people can't suggest many travellers engage and perpetuate a culture of bare knuckle boxing unless it is accompanied with a specific statistical number? And documented evidence of travellers engaging in bare knuckle boxing is meaningless without such a number?

OldNotWIse · 29-03-2012 01:55PM

Quazzie wrote: »

Travellers don't like to go to school or work, and love having babies.

Wheres the shock?

I'm not shocked...

I dont see why "we" are to be held responsible for their living conditions... Why? Do we have some kind of obligation to them by nature of the fact that we are not travellers? Why is everything always "society's fault"? The question, "why are you not concerned about this" is posed... my answer - why should I concern myself with the welfare of one specific group in our society when all MY experiences (yes, my experiences all to date) with them have been negative? Pets poisoned, rubbish dumped, imtimidation from rehoused traveller neighbours... I am more than willing to change my view if given good reason to but...yes you guessed, still waiting for good reason!! I can only go on what I have experienced.

later12 · 29-03-2012 01:57PM

SupaNova wrote: »

What point are you trying to make if any with the above post? That people can't suggest many travellers engage and perpetuate a culture of bare knuckle boxing unless it is accompanied with a specific statistical number?

No. That television crews don't make documentaries about peaceful travellers who have their own stresses and worries and lives to get on with and don't want their children to live with violence. A family sitting down in their council house, doing whatever they do in the evenings, doesn;'t make good tv.

Violence is disproportionately evident in traveller communities, perhaps, but I would not say that bare knuckle fighting actually characterises traveller life.

You can't just say what you want because there's no evidence to say your argument isn't true. There is a certain burden of proof that individuals making such claims should be expected to supply.

Again, the issue here is not whether or not traveller populations display a good deal of what we in the mainstream would describe as dysfunctional behaviours. That is a given. So I'm not really sure why we're squabbling over this issue except to say that you cannot apply instances like bare knuckle fighting covered on tv to the entire traveller population.

Permabear · 29-03-2012 02:01PM

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 29-03-2012 02:01PM

later12 wrote: »

When I asked for statistics it was in relation to the points that bare knuckle boxing characterises traveller life and "many traveller fathers do indeed inculcate their sons into the violent tradition of bare-knuckle brawling".

I asked for statistics, as in what's the incidence.. what is 'many'?
Of course these statistics don't exist or we wouldn't be resorting to arguments like OMG did you not see that show on Channel 4??!

I think we've established that there are no statistics at this stage, the issue is the degree of the problem which is a matter of opinion as well, we've no stats!

Well I did say it was related to educational attendance and failure to comply with orders, not culture. But yes, argue what you like, fair enough. Sounds like I'm definitely a pretty genocidal kind of guy alright. Definitely up there with the big guys. Adolf Hitler. Nicolae Caucescu. Me and all the lads.

That isn't what the poster was hinting at, he referenced a UN human rights convention and that taking children away from traveler families could be a violation of that, a perfectly legitimate point.

A little less handbags please.

Kinski · 29-03-2012 02:03PM

later12 wrote: »

No. That television crews don't make documentaries about peaceful travellers who have their own stresses and worries and lives to get on with and don't want their children to live with violence. A family sitting down in their council house, doing whatever they do in the evenings, doesn;'t make good tv.

You might want to tune in to RTE next Monday evening...

K-9 · 29-03-2012 02:07PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

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

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

moderately,
Scofflaw

A reminder to posters of a previous thread warning.

Laminations · 29-03-2012 02:15PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'd agree with him, the power of the state should be used to protect children and to ensure minimum standards of health and eduction. It should be used to support the disadvantaged and give them opportunities to improve and become self-sufficient. The current welfare system doesn't do the last point very well, actually without checks and enforcement (devil's words to libertarians

), the state doesn't do any of these things well.

Again a social capitalist approach would mean the state would only interfere with the raising of your child if you were failing them in your responsibilities. We of course disagree wholeheartedly on this... but unlike Later12 I'm willing to face the consequences of my ideology - something he claims to be able to separate his opinions from.

Seeing as the OP isn't engaging with me at all on this, I'll leave it there.

later12 · 29-03-2012 02:20PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not at all. Long before you tried on this latest tack, I reminded you that

later12 wrote: »

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

Actively or passively conditioning children to disengage from education or not to aspire to any reasonable degree of educational attainment can be challenged in the school and via support services at home. One such model in Australia involved gypsy parents and older siblings being taught classes at home, alongside their offspring outside of school hours.

If this destroys traveller cultural traditions like nomadic lifestyles or language traditions, then that's an unintended transactional consequence of education. Personally I'm fine with that.

Permabear · 29-03-2012 02:33PM

This post has been deleted.

murphaph · 29-03-2012 03:17PM

later12 wrote: »

Interestingly, the ESRI report indicated that "25 per cent of Irish Travellers in the younger age group and 22 per cent in the older age group do not have access to a car, compared with figures of 8 and 10 per cent respectively for other white Irish adults".

How do the ESRI get their figures? Travelers are not the sort of people to give out information about what cars they drive to "official types" at the ESRI tbh.

If a traveler with an untaxed UK reg 4x4 is asked by some ESRI head what sort of car he has, he'll say "none boss".

later12 · 29-03-2012 03:27PM

murphaph wrote: »

How do the ESRI get their figures?

They are based on official census returns.

gizmo555 · 29-03-2012 03:28PM

murphaph wrote: »

How do the ESRI get their figures? Travelers are not the sort of people to give out information about what cars they drive to "official types" at the ESRI tbh.

If a traveler with an untaxed UK reg 4x4 is asked by some ESRI head what sort of car he has, he'll say "none boss".

Indeed. Always remember Stamp's Law:

The government is extremely fond of amassing great quantities of statistics. They collect them, add them, raise them to the nth power, the cube roots are extracted and the results are arranged into elaborate and impressive displays. What must be kept ever in mind, however, is that in every case, the figures are first put down by the village watchman, and he puts down anything he damn well pleases.

Sir Josiah Stamp, 1849-1941

Permabear · 29-03-2012 03:35PM

This post has been deleted.

K-9 · 29-03-2012 03:57PM

Just to try and get some discussion going and not stifle the thread as Scofflaw alluded to:

We have a suggestion to cut benefits for those in long term employment which would by its very nature mean a large section of the traveller community not receiving state assistance.

The problem is that many don't participate in the labor market, so would that just mean more reliance on the black market? And how would this effect participation rates in education, the social problems mentioned et al?

Then there is the role of the State which doesn't really step in with cases like later12 mentions and if they did take a more direct approach it could well lead to more resentment and a greater feeling of isolation. Plus if traveller traditions like fist fighting are now unacceptable (even on main streets after pub closing times!), doesn't that leave a direct contradiction between that tradition and modern society?

A poster mentioned it yesterday I think, society has changed so that the traditional trade of travelers are now largely extinct, the social problems still remain which contribute to the welfare and black market dependency.

SupaNova · 29-03-2012 04:25PM

K-9 wrote: »

We have a suggestion to cut benefits for those in long term employment which would by its very nature mean a large section of the traveller community not receiving state assistance.

The problem is that many don't participate in the labor market, so would that just mean more reliance on the black market? And how would this effect participation rates in education, the social problems mentioned et al?

That is a problem when state supports are rolled back, there will be some pain whether it is subsidies for farmers or assistance to the travelling community. At first, a lot will turn to the black market to maintain their income, but in the long run the repercussions of breaking the law should divert them more and more toward legal employment.

MadsL · 29-03-2012 05:02PM

Meanwhile in the UK....

Here we go again..

http://www.thisistotalessex.co.uk/Dale-Farm-travellers-face-fresh-eviction/story-15656078-detail/story.html

later12 · 29-03-2012 07:31PM

K-9 wrote: »

The problem is that many don't participate in the labor market, so would that just mean more reliance on the black market?

It's interesting you mention this because there is a school of thought which suggests there may be some value in the underground economy for social advancement amongst marginalised groups.

Of course, this idea is likely to come in for criticism that the underground economy is less socially cohesive and causes resentfulness towards those who undercut other market participants. Those in the black economy might also be perceived not to contribute anything of value to the white economy.

I don't know which is correct. However, I think we all agree that welfare dependence is the least desired solution, since it possibly gives rise to a mentality that views travellers as social parasites anyway, and hands the bill to the exchequer to boot.

gizmo555 · 29-03-2012 07:48PM

Given that the ESRI report cited in the first post by the OP was based on figures from the 2006 census, it's interesting to note some headline figures from the 2011 census, released today:

The number of people enumerated as Irish Travellers has increased by 32 per cent
Perhaps one of the most surprising findings was that only 12 per cent of Irish Travellers now lived in caravans and mobile homes, compared to 25 per cent in 2006.

Whatever disadvantages travellers are labouring under, they seem to be thriving, not to mention for the very large part only being travellers in name, not in practice.

later12 · 29-03-2012 07:53PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

Whatever disadvantages travellers are labouring under, they seem to be thriving

They exhibit the same characteristics as third world populations: high fertility rates and low life expectancies. That's hardly thriving.

There is a suggestion that the reason the increase may have come about in the traveller population was because the question about membership of the traveller community was worded differently in 2011 relative to previous years.

Monty Burnz · 29-03-2012 07:58PM

Laminations wrote: »

Be honest, it may not be your intendeed aim but a by-product of your appraoch would be the diminution of traveller culture and its demise over a few generations.

But what is 'traveller culture'? If it is travelling to work, then IT consultants etc. are greater exponents of traveller culture than the travellers are.

Having decided what traveller culture is:

1. Is it worth preserving? (is every/any culture worth preserving?)
2. Are there aspects worth preserving?
3. What aspects of the culture are not in conflict with the modern world?

seavill · 29-03-2012 08:27PM

later12 wrote: »

I would suggest that anyone putting forward a notion that traveller children being born today are allocated the same level of opportunity as other Irish children is kidding themselves.

.

I would like to say that I am in no way against travellers or their culture but I would like to argue your point above.

I would suggest that some of the levels of opportunity are down to choices made by traveller parents in relation to their children's level of opportunity.
If I decided tomorrow to live on the side of the road in a caravan with my children I am not giving them the same level of opportunity to have a healthy life due to living in damp cold conditions that may not exist in housed accommodation.

I am not giving my child the same level of opportunity if I decide to make my child attend 60 days out of the 167 secondary school days.
I am not giving my child the same level of opportunity if I decide to withdraw my son from school aged 12 years old to work.
(both actual examples from schools I worked in)

I would argue in fact that traveller children are given a greater opportunity than some lower level so called "middle class" children.
If I am from a traveller background up to last year we would have had a dedicated traveller teacher who's job it was to travel to us in our homes to teach us. Settled children do not get this.
If I am from a traveller background my school gets a greater allocation of teachers hours within the school due to me being a teacher. This increase in teacher hours are not afforded if a child from a settled home is to join a school.

I will quote a traveller mother I met one day in relation to her son that I was teaching. Her son repeatedly lost his locker keys, lost his school bags, "lost" his books (I have put "lost" like this as I caught him throwing them in the bin one day). She told me that you (the school) get €3000 a year to "keep my son in books and all that stuff".
We "the school" certainly do not get €3000 a year to keep the "middle class" kids in books and stuff each year.

So I would argue with you that traveller children are afforded some huge opportunities that some settled children are not given, however it is their parents that are getting in the way of some of this opportunity.

later12 · 29-03-2012 08:44PM

I didn't say these children were denied equal opportunities by discrimination or other social barriers alone.

I've acknowledged the role of parents as well as the role for society, at length.

The only crowd of people I can see issuing denials here are those who deny that society might have a role in correcting this problem. Certainly, I don't doubt that travellers themselves have one.

gizmo555 · 29-03-2012 08:46PM

later12 wrote: »

They exhibit the same characteristics as third world populations: high fertility rates and low life expectancies. That's hardly thriving.

There is a suggestion that the reason the increase may have come about in the traveller population was because the question about membership of the traveller community was worded differently in 2011 relative to previous years.

I don't think anyone seriously believes recorded traveller numbers have increased 32% in five years solely through natural reproduction. The changes since the last census only highlight the complete unreliability of statistics in this area.

seavill · 29-03-2012 08:47PM

later12 wrote: »

I didn't say these children were denied equal opportunities by discrimination or other social barriers alone.

I've acknowledged the role of parents as well as the role for society, at length.

The only crowd of people I can see issuing denials here are those who deny that society might have a role in correcting this problem. Certainly, I don't doubt that travellers themselves have one.

I never mentioned that it was one sections fault over another or that one is more to blame than another. I did not get into this discussion with you.

You claimed that these children are not afforded the same opportunity my counter argument was that I feel at times they are afforded a greater opportunity.
You are changing the argument and not responding to the point made.

K-9 · 29-03-2012 09:24PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

I don't think anyone seriously believes recorded traveller numbers have increased 32% in five years solely through natural reproduction. The changes since the last census only highlight the complete unreliability of statistics in this area.

Or that they are becoming more reliable as more can declare on the census, through education, support and help?

I'd have though more self declaring would be seen as a small advancement?

Considering how some some homeowners seem to have a problem with the self assessment concept for the Household tax, a 32% increase in Traveler for census participation should be a good thing.

AlekSmart · 29-03-2012 09:33PM

later12 wrote: »

Why is Traveller Disadvantage not a mainstream concern.

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

A: In "mainstream" Irish society,a few would concur,but obviously not enough to please the OP

I would be curious to explore what people think of these statistics, and why we think this is not more of a mainstream political issue?

It is somewhat obvious that "Mainstream" Irish society,or at least those at the "Contributing" end of it remain largely unconvinced that our Political system should be involving itself any further in Traveller Rights or Culture issues,except perhaps to ensure that a far better return results from the substantial resources already allocated under various headings to the group.

As the thread meanders along in the manner of so many more "Traveller" related ones before it,the original Questioning Title needs to be borne in mind.

Later12 posed the question,then had it answered pretty comprehensively by many posters,most of whom appear to have difficulty with the use of the term "Disadvantage" in relation to the grouping mentioned.

However,it then appears that those folk who dispute the assertion with anecdotal or personal experience are thoroughly derided for daring to enter the debate without the benefit of comprehensive statistical "evidence".

The unfortunate, but pertinent,fact that the group under discussion are remarkably,and often violently,averse to ANY form of statistical collection by Authority figures is then glossed over in the pursuit of a positive outcome to the original question,which by now has been considerably broadened in it's scope.

Why is Traveller disadvantage not a mainstream concern?

Comments