An excellent article Helen about an aspect of racism that is not spoken about but seems to be still alive. One disturbing point for me is that there are no comments on this site about your article. An article on other victims of racism would I am sure attract comment. Perhaps racism and the holocaust have developed their own stereotypes ie it's acceptable to persecute some minorities but not others.

Karl

I agree excellent piece Helen. As for Karls comments I agree too Most people are not willing to defend others just themselves. Even the Jews have forgotten the lesson of the holocaust. They have moved from making sure it’s like never happens again to making sure it doesn’t happen to them again. Both the Jews and the Roma were stereotyped and demonized to the point that it seemed ok by the general public. Do we not see the same thing happening to the Arabs?

Gypsies are a fundamentally disadvantaged people. Most estimates give the total gypsy population of the UK at 90-120,000. The British Medical Association describes them as "the most at risk health group in the UK, with lowest life expectancy and the highest child mortality rates". (Does that sound familiar, by the way?). They automatically qualify as downtrodden and oppressed, and were classified an "ethnic minority" by the 1976 Race Relations Act.

However, the reason that Gypsies are a hot issue in the UK at the moment has very little to do with race, and a whole lot to do with a group of people having special rights, merely because they have called themselves gypsies. If you trawl through the blogs a little, you will find the greatest grass-roots anger is directed at property owning Irish... sounds mad, doesn't it? Here's a short extract from one such, just as an example.

"The problem is NOT the traditional Roma, it is the sheer weight of numbers of Irish travellers : 800 for example have laid siege to the village of Cottenham in Cambs. The parish council followed some back to Ireland and found the village of Rathkeale who are also angry at these travellers who built huge houses that now lie empty for nine months of the year whilst their poor owners are in the UK claiming benefits, ripping off the locals and making money on which they pay no tax. The locals then have to pay to clear the mess up."

There is no question that Michael Howard deliberately lit this fire to stir up "little englanders". But there is equally no question of us having an intelligent debate about the underlying issues. Once the race card is played, it is on for young and old, and facts are for wimps. But I suggest it might be going too far to invoke the Holocaust against a Jewish Prime Ministerial aspirant.

Little known fact to rock your socks: Miss Barbara Cartland of the pink gowns, and her daughter Raine, agitated politically and successfully, to gain school rights for gypsy children.
Michael Howard's spouse Sandra was previously married to the late Robin Douglas-Home at the time he had a very physical relationship with HRH Margaret Rose (the ending of which, caused him to suicide).
re British Vogue on gypsy skirts: perhaps encouraging the wearing of their clothing is a form of solidarity? The wealth classes themselves are not known for being geographically contiguous - London, the country, Deaville, Gstaad, Bahamas etc.

Your reply to Helen Pringle's article is lazy to say the least Pericles. Recycling garbage from the sun does nothing to legitimise your argument.
Irish Travellers are a distinct ethnic minority that have been in existence for 3000 years. Their first recorded appearance in England is in 400 ad (Gmelch) They are neither recent incomers nor some kind of low class 'wannabe's'. The terrible situation in Cottenham is a direct result of racist Government policies on either side of the Irish Sea.

Increasing industrialisation has invaded spaces traditionally occupied by Gypsies and Travellers, not the other way around. So called settled villagers cannot be invaded by people whose families have lived their for centuries, albeit on a regular circuit.
The majority's racism and exclusion has resulted in the life expectancy of Gypsies/Travellers in 21st century Leeds is worse than that for Bangladeshi people living in Bangladesh, according to a recent census. No doubt this is duplicated across the country. That should be a source of desperate shame. The solutions to the problems experienced by 'settled' communties are easy. We are all 'special', Gypsies and Travellers no less so than anyone else. It is high time to level up the playing field, humanity demands no less of us.

If the blog that I quoted from - and there are many, many similar if you just look for them - may or may not have been reprinted in the Sun, but I can assure you that the Sun was not the source. Nor would I recycle anything from that rag except as humour.

The entire tone of Helen Pringle's article is sneering, but she should understand that it is ordinary people who are affected by the presence of gypsies near their homes. These are the people who Howard is speaking to, and whether you choose to accept it or not, there is very little "racist" in their anger. It is purely economic (but perhaps Ms Pringle sneers at this too) in that the value of their home, or its immediate neighbourhood, or sometimes an entire village, is destroyed when these folk arrive.

The principle concern, and the one that is being exploited by the Conservatives, is that once they arrive, there are few powers available to the man-in-the-street to be rid of them. Unlike the normal homeowner, who is required to conform to planning and zoning laws when it comes to how they develop their property and land, there appears to be no political will to resist their encroachment.

Whatever their romantic history, the various categories of travellers should, in the view of the invaded village, be required to conform with the law as it stands.

"The 'value' of their home is destroyed'? You mean gypsies don't look like Johnny Depp in 'Chocolat'?. I am disappointed.

Why do I feel the 'Old Hippie' in me rising?

Obviously it is impossible for a man with a mortgage to be kind to another human being, let them use his taps, share a table, exchange life stories . . . show kindness, receive kindness . . .ah that would be Christian then wouldn't it?
Oh gypsies would steal my tools while I am at work! and John Reed would say 'Property Is Theft'. We are all spinning through outer space in the pitch dark on a ball of molten rock, but some people value real estate more than humanity. beats me.

I'm not sure which of "the Jews" Kenny is referring to, aside from British Opposition leader Michael Howard (no relation that I'm aware of). Mr. Howard's political hot-button-pushing is proof, if any were needed, that the use of loaded rhetoric skirting the edges of bigotry is an equal-opportunity activity.

Go to
http://www.ushmm.org
and do a search on "gypsies" or "gypsy" to see some information on the slaughter of the Gypsies in the Holocaust. See also the prominence of attention to modern genocide in Chechnya and Sudan by following links in the section labeled "Inside: Conscience."

The best commentary I've seen in a long time on what lessons "we" (Jews, Gentiles, ... human beings in general) should learn from the Nazi Holocaust is in Nicholas Kristof's Op-Ed column in yesterday New York Times. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/opinion/17kristof.html

Brownie, the people you are talking about are also people, even though they may have a different set of values from the gypsies. Why do you assume that one set of people should have additional rights in law over and above those of their neighbours? Because they are an ancient tribe? because they are picturesque? Because they had a hard time a couple of generations ago? Because it brings out the old hippie in you?

Charity is a wonderful thing when someone else is doing the giving, and you would be an unusual person in Australian society if you "let them use [your] taps, share a table, exchange life stories . . . show kindness, receive kindness". Try to be a little more understanding of what it might be like to have your particular choice of environment taken from you unlawfully.

As I said - I thought quite clearly - in my first post, the gypsies are clearly a disadvantaged people. Solving the problem by allowing them to create other disadvantaged people is a recipe for conflict, not for reconciliation or peaceful coexistence.

I also pointed out in my first post that rational debate goes out of the window when the race card is played. Politicians have pulled exactly the same trick here in Australia, and the voters have responded in exactly the same way. Intelligent discussion on immigration, detention, race relations etc. becomes instantly impossible, with the debate moving directly into that sink-hole of public opinion, talkback radio.

Pericles, I was not claiming additional rights for gypsies - 'the law is for protection of the people' etc - but I often wonder why it is so hard for everybody to be kind to others. everywhere. the world has many followers of religions - each one claiming to be pacifist in every way, yet I see no evidence of the claims being followed. what is a gypsy supposed to do - change their entire life? get a makeover from backyard blitz or nip n tuck? it's their total genetic heritage, like the Masai, they are simply not up the top of the evolution class with say, Nicole Kidman.

Thanks for clarifying your position Brownie, but it doesn't move the discussion forward at all. Yes, it would be perfectly lovely if everyone were to be nice to each other all the time, sharing the world and the bread from their table.

But if you are forced to take sides - as the law must - whose interests do you protect more vehemently? Those who are law-abiding, and choose to live as quiet a life as they can, or those who flout the law, abuse it, or even simply take advantage of the law's delay? You may think the law-abiding people to be selfish, you may consider the law-breakers to be romantic vestiges of a glorious past age. In my book that still doesn't represent good cause to ignore the law as it stands.

If the law needs to be changed in the gypsies favour, let it be done openly and honestly.

Sitting on the sidelines mooing gently "wouldn't it be nice" is to avoid the issue.

Apparently they are thieving vandals. and so are many many people other than 'Travellers'. Others laws exist for that.

"As Home Secretary, Howard GOT RID OF the regulations requiring local councils to provide legal campsites for 'these groups' . . .Howard now plans to repeal .... the “so-called Human Rights Act”. The Act, he says, “has allowed . . . 'Travellers' to set up illegal encampments IN DEFIANCE OF planning laws”.
So, Pericles, Howard is bent on making it impossible for them to exist in the only way they know - he has made it illegal for gypsies to 'be anywhere' other than a dwelling on which rates or rent is paid. But they are GYPSIES - it is not a lifestyle choice, it is a genetic heritage. therfore, the situation is genocidal ie;- it is illegal for them to 'be ANYWHERE'. not nice. next stop Belsen?