Peter Casey's beliefs of Travellers' ethnicity Part II

mikhail gorbachev2 wrote: »

FYI The lisdoonvarna Project has been a all round success
some women form Clare married refugees
Ireland is an open progressive modern EU country

Ireland is an open progressive modern EU country with an inordinate amount of wasters sucking at the teat.

Edward M wrote: »

They have to go somewhere I know.
My point is that for any social outings, like say swimming, cinema, virtually any form of entertainment outside the hotel, they'll have to be brought to Longford or Carrick on Shannon.
I don't know how much freedom they are allowed, but in Rooskey there's nothing.

From the 'warzones' they left Rooskey would be like Las Vegas.

Here's a question from a leftie who has no beef with travellers generally: What the hell is the point of "traveller specific accommodation"? I've never understood this one. The definition of a traveller surely involves travelling nomadically - in which case, the provision of halting sites etc makes total sense. But the whole "settled traveller" thing is entirely lost on me, tbh. If a traveller decides to give up the nomadic lifestyle, permanently or otherwise, surely that individual just becomes a non-travelling Irish person, and therefore if he or she doesn't have the means to buy a house on the market, should apply for a council house like everyone else in that position?

The existence of concepts such as "traveller specific accommodation" and "settled travellers" are part of the problem IMO. As someone who has nothing against travellers, I do find the whole concept of the Traveller "identity" (Traveller with a capital "T") moronic - they should be regarded for the sake of policy as Irish people who choose to live a certain lifestyle, rather than that lifestyle being a core part of one's identity. It's not like a demographic attribute, a sexuality, or a disability, for example - ideally it should be considered something which anyone can choose to adopt, and likewise anyone can choose to give up. A nomadic lifestyle - nothing more, nothing less.

In my view, a lot of the issues around this would cease to be viewed in the same way if being a traveller was regarded as a lifestyle attribute rather than a demographic one. The state should facilitate the lifestyles which people in it choose to live, via, for example, providing places for people to park mobile homes and so on, but I for one don't think the state should regard it as a fundamental aspect of identity politics, and provide (to take one obvious example) segregated "traveller specific housing" for travellers who no longer want to be travellers. They should be considered part of the general social housing list.

The concept of Travellers with a capital T is something I regard as contributing nothing but conflict and unhappiness to the world. Live and let live, absolutely, but sub-divisions of the Irish identity are unnecessary when we're just talking about lifestyle choices.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Here's a question from a leftie who has no beef with travellers generally: What the hell is the point of "traveller specific accommodation"? I've never understood this one. The definition of a traveller surely involves travelling nomadically - in which case, the provision of halting sites etc makes total sense. But the whole "settled traveller" thing is entirely lost on me, tbh. If a traveller decides to give up the nomadic lifestyle, permanently or otherwise, surely that individual just becomes a non-travelling Irish person, and therefore if he or she doesn't have the means to buy a house on the market, should apply for a council house like everyone else in that position?

The existence of concepts such as "traveller specific accommodation" and "settled travellers" are part of the problem IMO. As someone who has nothing against travellers, I do find the whole concept of the Traveller "identity" (Traveller with a capital "T") moronic - they should be regarded for the sake of policy as Irish people who choose to live a certain lifestyle, rather than that lifestyle being a core part of one's identity. It's not like a demographic attribute, a sexuality, or a disability, for example - ideally it should be considered something which anyone can choose to adopt, and likewise anyone can choose to give up. A nomadic lifestyle - nothing more, nothing less.

In my view, a lot of the issues around this would cease to be viewed in the same way if being a traveller was regarded as a lifestyle attribute rather than a demographic one. The state should facilitate the lifestyles which people in it choose to live, via, for example, providing places for people to park mobile homes and so on, but I for one don't think the state should regard it as a fundamental aspect of identity politics, and provide (to take one obvious example) segregated "traveller specific housing" for travellers who no longer want to be travellers. They should be considered part of the general social housing list.

The concept of Travellers with a capital T is something I regard as contributing nothing but conflict and unhappiness to the world. Live and let live, absolutely, but sub-divisions of the Irish identity are unnecessary when we're just talking about lifestyle choices.

Apparently, there entitled to keep their pets along with them.

It doesn't matter if there's Horses, Antelopes, Loins or if they choose to keep a Hippo in their property.

Herds or wild weildebest roaming through the plains.

IT. ALL. HAS. TO .BE. SORTED.FOR .THEM.

Why?

Just let them go somewhere else that will take them.



IT'S THEIR RIGHTS!!!! Godamit.

Filmer Paradise wrote: »

Apparently, there entitled to keep their pets along with them.

It doesn't matter if there's Horses, Antelopes, Loins or if they choose to keep a Hippo in their property.

Herds or wild weildebest roaming through the plains.

IT. ALL. HAS. TO .BE. SORTED.FOR .THEM.

Why?

Just let them go somewhere else that will take them.



IT'S THEIR RIGHTS!!!! Godamit.

But even if this was the case, why the concept of "traveller specific accomodation" as opposed to merely being on the housing list with the aforementioned criteria? Again, if a traveller chooses to settle, then by definition they are no longer a traveller. I have no issue with halting sites, and I have no issue with settled travellers being on the council list for social or affordable housing if they need it, but I don't understand the concept of building houses or flats and saying "these ones are specifically only for this particular demographic". That in and of itself, in my view, is a problem - it contributes to the ongoing segregation of travellers from Irish society by accepting, rather than challenging, the notion that they're fundamentally different as people from the rest of us, as opposed to being - as in my view and I'm sure in many others - merely Irish people who live a particular lifestyle.

An ESRI report published last month highlighted the “extreme disadvantage” suffered by Travellers across a range of indicators, including health, housing, education, employment and mortality.

Recognition of Traveller ethnicity “could be of considerable benefit in ensuring respect for the cultural identity of Travellers in the context of targeted services,” it said.

Those disadvantages are brought on by themselves and continue because of themselves.

Omackeral wrote: »

The last paragraph you put up is literally an opinion piece and the first two words are ''ubiquitous racism''. So that's bollox on two counts. The main body of the text lists consanguineous marriage as one of the main factors of them being distinct. Basically, that means they're riding their cousins. Cry about that if you want, that's a crude but factual definition of it. So being inbred is essentially one the main reasons why we're all supposed to say they're a different ''race''. Fantastic.

Just quoting this post so people will open their eyes up a bit to the farce.
Cousins marrying each other is to be protected but then they're also whinging about their health?! There's a reason why inbreeding is discouraged, frowned upon, disgusting.
It's not the fault nor should it be the responsibility of the rest of us that the children of 2 travellers, who are related, have serious health problems caused by the fact that their parents are related.

Omackeral wrote: »

The last paragraph you put up is literally an opinion piece and the first two words are ''ubiquitous racism''. So that's bollox on two counts. The main body of the text lists consanguineous marriage as one of the main factors of them being distinct. Basically, that means they're riding their cousins. Cry about that if you want, that's a crude but factual definition of it. So being inbred is essentially one the main reasons why we're all supposed to say they're a different ''race''. Fantastic.

You missed the follow up piece from the same author.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/when-will-there-be-an-official-apology-to-the-traveller-community-1.3634335

Agenda perhaps? :rolleyes:

tretorn wrote: »

Absolutely dreadful pointless article.
Its the child pschycologists fault for trying to get official disgnoses fir travellers so they can access learning support, ie treat them the same as other children thus giving them equal opportunity.
Maybe the author could acknowledge if children are coming to school dirty then they need to be showered for the sake of the other children and staff, its not all about traveller children, other people in the school have rights too.
Wouldnt all travellers have medical cards so whats with the mosning about appalling health treatment. As an inbred group you will have serious health problems, you have been told marrying first cousins is not good breeding practice but you dint want to integrate so you continue to do this and then place a huge cist on the health service.
I am sorry I clicked on this article, such a navel gazing essay in self pity.
I have nothing to apologise to the travelling community for and I want to be asked for my opinion should the State apologise on my behalf.
I have never heard traveller spokespeople apologise for the terrorism they have committed on elderly people.
Lets have a conversation about that, are you listening editor of The Irish Times.

Those stults won’t listen tre, but I’ll tell you this,those in power better listen to Middle Ireland, and take heed of the jump Mr Casey got in the vote when he did some straight talking,and stopped pussyfooting around issues.

Otherwise these honchos will be gonzo, and they know that.

I watched the late late show appearance of Casey, finally, last night.
By god I'm glad he didn't win.

As someone who voted for Casey I'm glad my vote achieved what I wanted (bringing these issues to the discussion table) but equally now I've seen his "performance" on the LL I'm glad he didnt win!!