|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on December 13, 2007, 5:26 pm
>
>
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>>
>>>Troppo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This is of considerable interest to me and I thank "++" as the OP.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>You are welcome
>>>
>>>
>>>>I and my wife are of Romani descent. I was (among other things) a
>>>>Planner in that benighted country until the opportunity came for us to
>>>>vote with our feet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>And I am a planner here, among other things. Nomadic architecture is no
>>>less architecture for being moveable, and the nomadic lifestyle
>>>challenges how we should look at possessions, how much we need. People's
>>>thoughts and lives are easier to control when one basic freedom of
>>>movement is taken away by imposing a certain attitude toward settlement.
>>>
>>>
>>>>The problem is centuries old. Common Law rights were significantly
>>>>curtailed in a particulary obnoxious piece of legislation in 1968. This
>>>>imposed certain obligations on local authorities to provide sites for
>>>>"travellers" and the like, but only if they were living in the local
>>>>authority area. This turned into a carte-
>>>>blanche to move people on to another area. The sites that were provided
>>>>were usually totally unsuitable for the needs of the occupants, and
>>>>often policed oppressively and violently. Deaths occurred as a direct
>>>>result of such actions.
>>>>
>>>>The only site that worked was the one owned by Barbara Cartland, the
>>>>romance writer. Barbara was a bit too 'big' and well-connected to push
>>>>around ....
>>>>
>>>>
>>>i'd like to read about that, if I could.
>>>
>>>
>>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>The fundamental divide between the mobile and the rooted isn't likely
>>>>>to be bridged with a conceptual framework devised solely by either
>>>>>side.
>>>>>
>>>>The minority in this case had a framework best described as having a
>>>>'foot in both camps'. Eg be part of the 'world' of the majority but keep
>>>>all the elements of your culture that are valuable and proven (over the
>>>>centuries) to be sustainable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Tactically the rooted will tend towards stockpiling and
>>>>>fortification, while the mobile will tend toward lightness, speed and
>>>>>mobility. One side will seek penetration, while the other side will
>>>>>attempt repulsion. I'm not sure how one uses the strategies of one
>>>>>side to accommodate the other side without it being seen as a victory
>>>>>for one and a defeat of the other, unless one of them is co-opted
>>>>>eventually.
>>>>>
>>>>Difficult in the overcrowded north-west corner of the planet, with its
>>>>long history or coercion. The Europeans tried shipping the Roma off to
>>>>colonies in the 'new world' but soon gave up when the ships failed to
>>>>return :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>When I was a child, you could see evidence of travellers everywhere in
>>>the US, but particularly in the south. Now, it is as if they do not
>>>exist.
>>>
>>
>>What would that look like? Bands of people in trailers/RVs?
>
> The traveller wagons, whether motorized or not, from 19th to mid and a bit
> later 20th century in the US were quite unique. The most interesting one
> I recollect from early childhood had a barel vaulted roof, curved sides
> with sliding windos
Wooden?
<snip>
> Another exampl;e of the positive effect of gypsies on American culture is
> this idea of freedom. American Brownie scouts, accounting for a large
> percentage of American girls, of about 7 years are all taught the
> following song:
>
> There were three gypsies a come to my door
> And downstairs ran this a lady, O!
> One sang high and another sang low
> And the other sang Raggle Tagle Gypsies, O!
<snip> Oi! Where that word stand on the political correctness scale?
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap