to think that evicting hundreds of travellers from their site is unfair and immoral

[rocketty]

It's an illegal site. They didn't have planning permission. It's greenbelt...

but it used to be a car scrapyard (not rolling fields and thatched cottages then), they own the land and it's right next to a legal settlement.

They've obviously broken the law by settling here, but on balance, wouldn't it be more ethical to let them be? The children are settled at school and getting an education. Lots of people are prejudiced against gypsies and travellers but they've got to live somewhere.

I've seen the news articles about it. It makes me feel sad.

they are white caucasian aren't they? no they are not,my children never tick this box,they always tick the gypsy box or other and state Romany gypsy.

But you are not Gypsy are you? Just your DH I thought?

But they are not Romany Gypsy. They are a separate ethnic group to Irish travellers.

But Irish travellers aren't Romany, mathanxiety gave this link descrbing all the differnt groups.

Bubbles's DH is Romany.

No I,m not but my husband is and therefore my children are,maybe you can argue the are only half gypsy but that is their heritage .

But you could also argue that their heritage is your heritage. That's what makes it all a nonsense. ike when people are a tiny bit black but they still define themselves as black.

No Irish Travellers are not Romany gypsy but the phrase used is always "gypsies and travellers" and both have protection as ethnic minorities under the Race Relations act.

Well if they take my heritage then they are half Romany gypsy,quarter welsh and a quarter English,but still their ethnic group would be gypsy or traveller.

Sure, they are Irish people, whatever 'Irish people' means, by dint of living in Ireland for centuries, just as the descendents of Elizabethan and Stuart Plantation populations are Irish people.. 'Irish people' really only means people who found themselves living there upon Independence. Many of the descendants of the Plantation settlers upped sticks and left for Blighty at that point, as they didn't wish to be Irish; the Travellers, while most stayed, don't want to be considered Irish either, though not for the same reasons as the 'Planters'.

Their language and origins are obscure, and their traditional occupations are not common (they used to be blacksmiths and tinsmiths -- 'céard' = smith in Irish, tin+céard = > [eventually] 'tinker') in fact quite specialised. They have particular genetic predispositions to illness and intolerance of certain foods, and a definite way of life.

[[http://www3.hants.gov.uk/education/ema/travellers/gypsy/gypsy-facts.htm
try this link]]

Is there not a box for ticking mixed ethnicity then?

Actually it is the settled people who define what bad behaviour is and who try to define the Travellers according to that definition. I don't think the Travellers themselves define themselves by anything other than name and nomadic lifestyle, and the supreme importance in their society of family and lineage. The rest is incidental (rubbish, mangy dogs, lack of indoor plumbing, etc)

no,there certainly wasnt on the last census .

But your DH is Romany, this is about travellers, not Romany gypsies.

You might know that but it seems a lot of people dont,they think that gypsies are travellers and vice-versa ,I have tried to point out the difference to those who have expressed an interest in knowing,rest assured as one who has obtained planning permission legally and know what an expensive and stressful procees it was,I have no sympathy with this group and think they should go,if they are allowed to stay it would set a very dangerous precedent.

But Irish people aren't a protected ethnic minority are they, except under the law we are all protected under.

"Actually it is the settled people who define what bad behaviour is and who try to define the Travellers according to that definition."

What on EARTH do you mean by this. You mean there's something wrong with saying people shouldn't break the law?

"I don't think the Travellers themselves define themselves by anything other than name and nomadic lifestyle" - which leaves name, really, as they don't have a nomadic lifestyle. So it's just the name travellers? the travellers are an ethnic group because they call themselves travellers? I've met Yorkshire women more ethnic myself.

Math I don't think you're doing this case much good at all.

All this sounds like special pleading to me on very thin grounds indeed. I'm off to bed.

All genetic predispositions are a result of inbreeding, for instance Tay Sachs disease and Sickle Cell Anemia. I know one child (friend of DD4's) who had to be tested for both at birth in the US, but she was an unusual case. Tay Sachs is very common among Ashkenazi Jews and Sickle Cell Anemia among African Americans. Are they ethnic groups?

OTOH, I define myself as Irish for no reason other than having a passport and having a majority of my ancestors trace their residence back as far as they can go to Ireland. I know for sure on one grandmother's side that her family were Normans. The other grandmother's ancestors were probably Normans too, as the part of the country she was from was the most heavily Normanised, but I know names and dates for that one grandmother, nothing much about the other. She herself was born in Argentina and some of her ancestors (and mine) in between came from Norfolk to Ireland. A great great grandmother may have come from a Cajun family in the Canadian Provinces. Or her family may have been Irish nomads. No-one is sure. My own DCs were all born in the US. They define themselves as American.

Nationality is one thing. The race laws we are all protected under is one thing. But isn't there a claim of special ethnic status here? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't understand why this group of travellers think they are being racially or ethnically persecuted. It seems bizarre to me. It's not a different race, it's a different nationality and the most postive cultural indicator seems to be an insistence in living near and marrying your close relatives. I don't see why this gets you a special status.

BED

As I said before, I'm not an apologist for the Travellers, just trying to shed some light on their lives.

As the conversation has developed, I am also trying to expose flaws in the logic of people who are on the one hand saying they are Irish/completely different in their habits and customs from the British, and should F off back to Ireland or assimilate and stop being so different, and on the other hand saying they are not different to the point where they constitute any sort of ethnic minority. Which is it?