If so, where? Is travelling aboot with all its variables still profitable? Are Gypsies being absorbed into traditional cultures? Has anyone seen a caravan lately?
You might want to take a look at this thread, which has veered oiff-topic and onto Gypsies and travellers. While the traditional nomadic lifestyle has mostly disappeared (and the traditional caravans have long ago become museum pieces), Gypsy culture, and Roma as an ethnic group, are not going to vanish.
First of all, the term “Gypsie” has become politically incorrect in the past years and decades. This development is debatable, given that the new term, Sinti and Roma, isn’t too well chosen either as the there are more ethnic groups than just Sinti and Roma which constitute what used to be called Gypsies; besides, many members of these groups seem to refer to themselves as Gypsies. But it’s nonetheless a term to avoid; this is particularly the case in Germany, where several hundred thousand “Zigeuner,” as the Nazis called them, were killed in the Holocaust.
And yes, there still are those ethnic groups in many European countries. Not all of them still pursue the nomadic lifestyle you refer to (I guess those who do are mostly in Central and Eastern Europe). But Sinti and Roma culture is still alive in many places.
Some of them are known more properly as Romani. Here are some threads on the topic, (showing what they as a people are going through) most of them are old, so check the date on the OP before posting to the topic.
Actually, the nomadic lifestyle (at least in France, I couldn’t tell for the UK) hasn’t dissapeared. There’s still a significant part of the french Gypsies still travelling, and yes, of course still in caravans. It’s even a recurrent issue, because most towns/municipalities are unwilling to let them camp on their territory, or at least in acceptable (as opposed to besides the garbage dump, for instance, as I’ve seen) and preferably equipped spots, despite being required by law to provice such sites.
As for how they make a living and whether it’s profitable I couldn’t tell. Profitable enough, I’d assume, for them to choose to live this way. But I wondered many times about how they were making a living exactly. As a child raised in a backward countryside, I saw them a couple time going door to door selling some items (not items they produced, in case you’d wonder. Things like linens, for instance), but I doubt it would nowadays be sufficient to feed a family. People all have a car and will drive to the narst supermarket to buy linens, even in my formerly completely bakward place. Besides, I’ve never seen this again since.
Maybe seasonal jobs in farming could do the trick, but I’ve seen encampments staying for a significant duration in areas where there weren’t any such jobs. I also doubt that they could produce anything that could be adantageously sold, and if they did, I assume it would be known (like any other handicraft, you’d meet sometimes people mentionning the “marvelous hand-made gypsy whatever” they just bought, and they would probably be sold in shops). The only thing they’re known for are small circuses travelling from small towns to small towns, and people holding stands and/or attractions in local fairs, but these activities can’t cover the majority of the population. That’s a complete mystery to me.
Actually, despite there being a significant number of them, Gypsies are essentially invisible in France as individuals (what you see from time to time is an encampment besides some road). The only visible ones are the recent illegal immigrants from central europe who (or whose children) are begging in some large cities like Paris. But these, as a rule, aren’t nomadic, but live in semi-permanent slums in the subburbs (semi-permanent because they’re trashed from time to time by the authorities).
While searching for a figure about the number of nomadic gypsies in France, I found a short mention on one of their site about the kind of jobs they usually held. Attempted translation :
"The professionnal activities of Tziganes are seasonnal and varied : show-related jobs (circus), door to door sales, second-hand markets, entertainment (fairground stalls, musicians, dancers), trades of all kinds. The Tzigan keeps what we could call the major characteristic of his culture : freedom and independance. He doesn’t accept a boss, and switch all the time from an ocupation to another, depending on his needs and opportunities […] . The typical small jobs (tinsmiths, basket-weavers, boiler-makers) tend to dissapear.
Thesame site mentions that some of the the subgroups (Gitans, for instance) have a significantly higher rate of sedentarity than others (Romas or Sintis for instance).
The Gyspsy population is estimated (collecting datas mentionning ethnicity is forbidden here) at 400 000 - 500 000 in France, around 100 000 of them being nomadic. That’s 20-25%.
The whole population in Europe is around 8 -10 millions (mostly living in central Europe). Assuming that the part of the population living a nomadic lifestyle is similar (which is big assumption, for all I know, 99% or only 5% of Romanian Gypsies could be sedentary), there would be a nomadic Gypsy population of maybe 2 millions in Europe.
Actually, another site estimates the nomads as making up close to 35% ofthe french Gypsy population, instead of the 20-25% I mentionned previously. So, I assume the actual proportion is “a significant minority”, the exact figures being anybody’s guess.
You’ll be hard-pushed to find many people in Britain who regard ‘Gypsy’ (with capital letter) as an inappropriate term. And as I stated in the thread I linked to, it has a specific definition in English law.
Many Irish Travellers in Ireland still travel from halting site (which may or may not be legal and which may or may not have running water and sewage facilities) to halting site. There are also “settled” Travellers who live mostly in housing supplied by the government.
The Irish government has undertaken to provide more legal halting sites with better amenities, as Irish Travellers have a right to Travel under Irish law. How long people stay in one place depends on various factors, including weather, local feeling, opportunities for jobs and the “luck”. Travellers prefer to move as soon as possible after a death or birth in the community so as to get away from the bad luck.
In theory, if there were sufficinet halting sites and if each halting site had sewage and water facilities, a school, a health service and a social welfare office so that people could get their dole payments and benefits there is no reason why the Travellers traditional lifestyle should not be viable.
The debate is between those who feel that Travelling is a voluntary lifestyle choice which the state should not “waste” resources on supporting, and those who feel it is an integral and rapidly vanishing part of a traditional culture, which the state has a duty to support.
Forcing people to settle isn’t ideal, and their educational, social and health needs aren’t being met by the current situation (Irish Travellers have high rates of illiteracy, shortened life expectancy and increased ill-health when compared to the general population).
I personally feel that the state isn’t currently meeting the needs of the Travelling community and that ignoring those needs in the hope that these hardships will force them to settle and give up what makes their culture distinct is not a viable or desirable policy.
Preventing problems with proper sanitation, education and healthcare is going to be cheaper and more ethically sound in the long run than dealing with the problems that poor sanitation, ill health and bad education lead to.
YMMV.
I would point out, as mentionned in other threads linked to, that the Irish travellers aren’t properly Gypsies, since they don’t belong to this ethnic group.
And as I mentioned in the other thread, English law defines ‘Gypsy’ as all travellers. And most advocacy organisations etc. don’t draw simple ethnic boundaries, because most of the difficulties faced are not unique to Roma.
I noticed your comment in the other thread, but the OP is asking about “Gypsies as a people”, so I would assume he’s refering to this particular people and not to everybody living a nomadic lifestyle, hence that the british legal definition was less relevant than the ethnicity.
Odd isn’t it.
Most of the Roma in Ireland have come from Eastern Europe, especally Romania, in the past few years. These immigrants, while keeping their own cultural identity, are settled. They face discrimination and disadvantage because of their ethnicity, but do not have the problems associated with the Travelling life itself.
The OP was asking about “gypsies” and whether travelling was still viable and occurred. In the UK and USA a significant proportion of travelling people are Irish Travellers, not just Roma.
It seems wrong to exclude a major european ethnic group with a nomadic lifestyle because they’re the wrong major european ethnic group with a nomadic lifestyle.
Roma and Irish Travellers traditionally do not get on well, mostly because they’re both trying to get the same resources at the same halting sites. However, both groups will join together to fight for the right to travel, better amenities at halting sites, recognition of their cultural identities and feedom from discrimination.
OK. Then, it’s worth to point out, when the OP asks about “Gypsies as a people”, that we’re actually talking about two different people, whose situation can be significantly different. For instance, when asking about whether they’re “viable” I would assume that the fact there are much more “Romas” than “travellers” (since the latter seems to be a purely american/british and unrelated group) probably makes a significant difference.
Besides, I’m reluctant to use the word “Romas” sinces Romas are only one of the many sub-groups of…of whatever you want to call these people.
Also, there are some people living a nomadic lifestyle who don’t belong to any “traditionnally nomadic” group. I think that the questions he asks about the “viability” of an ethnic group, and about a nomadic lifestyle being profitable or not are completely different issues. For instance, the “Romas” could all settle down tommorow, but would stay a people as long as they keep their language and some of their traditions. I could similarily decide to become a nomad, and I still wouldn’t belong to any “people”.
On re-reading the OP, I see it as being entirely about the viability of a nomadic lifestyle, and not at all specific to an ethnic group - the reference to ‘…as a people’ seems to imply simply not being aware of the multitude of traveller communities.
All very well to talk about maintaining a particular cultural identity, but it is not the state that should be held responsible when it takes away resources from others in the form of taxation, without any prospect of a meaningful contribution to society in return.
In the UK the state provides facilites that are targeted toward certain ethnic groups, but the idea is that they should be assisted so they can grow into our society and make a contribution whilst maintaining their own identity.
Itinerant labour has traditionally been an important part of many seasonal industries, and as long as travellers and the like can support themselves, as long as they can provide and pay for the facilities they require, then thats fine by me.
The reality is often differant, many groups of travellers are not economically viable without state support in the from of handouts.
You can argue that there are many indolent persons who do not travel, and lead a settled lifestyle and whose choose to soak the state, but I don’t like this either, I don’t like providing those persons with facilities and resources simply because they are just too lazy to work, in any case that is another debate.
If they are viable, then they must support themselves, and make a contribution and in return the rest of society must provide services and facilities they require.
I agree with casdave. It seems that many people in this thread think its somehow alright for one group of people to live off the taxpayers of whatever country they are in.
I don’t care how “traditional” the group is. Just because their lifestyle doesn’t afford them enough money to live on, it doesn’t mean that they should be entitled to receive money taken from hard-working individuals in the form of taxes.
Should the taxpayers in the USA have supported the Hippies who traveled around the country following the Grateful Dead?
VOLUNTARY support of these groups if fine and maybe even should be encouraged by the government, but stay out of my pocket.
Why sure. Isn’t that what all Liberals really want to do with their hard-earned money? :rolleyes:
Do the reputations of the “gypsies” or travelers or Romas vary from one country to another? Does it depend on the actual identity of the ethnic group? Here in the United States – at least in the South – the Irish Travelers do not have a good reputation. Here they are suspected of doing really shoddy workmanship.
I don’t know if it is the Travelers or not, but a group of women enter a store together and create a commotion to distract the store owner or sales people. Another one or two quieter individuals take advantage of the pre-staged commotion and steal merchandise.
These are allegations. I don’t know if any of this is true. I think their stories must be interesting, but they keep to themselves.
I’m just not too sure what’s “special” about travellers that should be supported. But then I’m not too sure how much it costs to set up a few sites for them around the country.
In my parents’ town the travellers stripped their provided settlement (which included houses) of anything of value and left. But then on the other hand they never came to our door offering to tarmac the drive and they weren’t the ones burning, beating and bombing their town through the 70s, 80s and 90s :rolleyes:
My only knowledge of them is the efforts landlords go to to keep them out of their establishments (especially for wedding dos) and the death toll farmers in the Republic of Ireland take on them.