Dr. Jim Mac Laughlin:

I am thankful for the invitation to attend. I am a development theorist and political geographer. I find it a bit strange to be here because I am working on a book outlining the history of anarchism. Someone said to me that many of my research interests are not central to my discipline, geography. I always seem to be studying people at the edge. I have studied emigrants, Travellers and European gypsies, and I am now studying 19th-century anarchists.

My perspective is a little different from that of Dr. Robbie McVeigh in that I take a very theoretical approach to the problems of Travellers and European gypsies. Previous speakers spoke very much from an activist perspective, which is very important, but I have been aware of the need to raise the discussion about racism against Travellers and put it into a longer historical and theoretical timeframe.

I have identified three stages in the evolution of anti-Traveller racism and the process of Traveller ethnogenesis. The first stage occurred around the second half of the 19th century, which I call the Darwinian half of the 19th century. Darwinian ideas such as the struggle for survival and the survival of the fittest, in addition to imperial expansion and nation building, were among some of the very powerful forces that were driving European and Irish history at the time. The Irish nation that was constructed in the second half of the 19th century was constructed in a very exclusive fashion, not just in an inclusive fashion. It was meant to include various interests, particularly the hegemonic ideas of the Catholic Church, as we all know now, and substantial farmers and businesspeople. In that period, Travellers were excluded. I regard 19th-century nationalism as a root cause of anti-Traveller racism historically. It is also a root cause of a process of ethnogenesis among the Traveller community. In the second half of the 19th century, the Travellers in this country had much closer relations with society, particularly rural society, than they have today.

I also work on the emigration issue. Many of the people who emigrated from Ireland to cities such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and Liverpool and the other industrial cities of northern England were branded as Travellers because very often they were indistinguishable from them. The point I am trying to make is that in the 19th century the social distance between Travellers and members of rural communities in Ireland was much closer than it subsequently became and the process of nation building meant Travellers were looked upon as a blemish on the face of the Irish nation. They had to excluded because they were considered to be a people a country did not want to advertise if it wanted to take its place in the league of nations in the 19th century.

The second half of the 19th century was a rich period in the development of Travellers' identity and history. However, that history was written out for a couple of reasons. We all know that history tends to be written by the victors, with victims tending to be excluded. During the period about which I am speaking Travellers, gypsies and nomadic people in general were not considered to have a history or identity. They did not have a history because history was understood in a evolutionary sense in that people had to be going somewhere, progressive and coming from a state of under-development and capable of development. Travellers appeared to be eternally poor and under-privileged and appeared to live in a mythical rather than an historical time.

The second important period in the evolution of Traveller identity was around the 1960s. It was a gradual period of awakening. During this period Travellers behaved much like rural people in that they left the land and moved to the cities, including Dublin, Limerick, Cork, Galway, Derry and Belfast. As stated by Dr. McVeigh, it is important that it is recognised that many of them also moved into the urban areas of England, Scotland and the southern states of North America. The 1960s and 1970s were a testing period in that it was the time when Irish society was desperately rushing towards modernity and in that rush it was anxious to distance itself from Travellers. This was followed by renewed denigration of Travellers in Irish political discourse. They were seen as the unwanted and, to use a phrase from the Welsh poet, Dylan Thomas, an unmeltable ethnic minority who refused doggedly to do under.

The period from the 1960s to the 1980s is important because during this time the resilience of Travellers came to the fore. They stuck it out in the hostile urban environments and managed to hold on to their own identity. Another reason this period is important is at the time Travellers still lacked a voice. As once stated, there are people who can speak and those who have to be spoken for. The people who spoke for Travellers in the 1960s and 1970s tended to be priests, nuns and activists in the philanthropic area. They tended to take a condescending attitude towards Travellers and looked on them as wards of State. The struggle for ethnicity on behalf of Travellers is a struggle to move away from this attitude.

I come to the third stage which began in the 1990s. Members of this House have contributed to this stage, in particular individuals such as former Deputy Liz McManus and former President Mary Robinson. There is a growing awareness of the distinctive problems faced by Travellers and an attempt to make recompense for our neglect of them. From my point of view, what is crucially important about the period from the 1990s to the present day is that it gave birth to what the Italian cultural theorist Antonio Gramsci called "ethnic intelligentsia". Travellers, particularly Traveller women, since the 1980s have been speaking clearly and articulately about themselves. The birth of this ethnic intelligentsia has been important in the articulation of a sense of Traveller separateness and identity.

I would like to speak about the current situation in a European context. It must be recognised that we are speaking about a minority who want recognition rather than a minority who are seeking to establish a separate state. We are not speaking about ethnic separatists. For example, they do not present a challenge to the territorial integrity of the State, rather they are an indigenous minority who have a long history and long residency in this country, despite the fact that they have been outcasts. They are seeking to remain in the country. As alluded to by Dr. McVeigh, the development of a Traveller sense of identity will need to be transnational and incorporate Travellers who are in Britain, Northern Ireland, North America and parts of western Europe.

Travellers view their ethnicity as a lodestar of cultural capital, a lifeline that will prevent them from going gently into the good night, to which I referred. They are fighting for their ethnic distinction and they are not alone in doing so. A recognition of Travellers' ethnic distinctiveness and culture will need to incorporate all Travellers, not only impoverished Travellers. This must be viewed as something that will bring to the fore closet Travellers. Like I am sure others in this room, I know a number of Travellers who are hidden. With a future oriented sense of ethnic identity, these closet Travellers may come to the fore, which is to be welcomed. It will add to the cultural mix and the articulateness of Traveller identity. We should be encouraging a sense of multiculturalism in Ireland. A number of years ago I acted as Santa Claus for a Traveller group in Cork and I was struck by the number of Traveller children who wanted to be just like other children in that they wanted to become doctors, actors, nurses, teachers and so on. Travellers are not seeking to separate from Irish society, rather they are seeking to join it but to remain as Travellers.