Monday 7 February 2011

Another Grumble on Big Fat Gypsy Weddings

I understand Channel 4’s aim to achieve high ratings. To suck in an audience that might ultimately consider more serious aspects of Gypsy and Traveller life and culture, you need to lighten up first. I get that. But at what cost? By sensationalising, then deliberately selecting and focusing on the more controversial things that ‘make good television’, the producers of this series have compromised on truth a step too far. The interest has brought out truly poisonous comments – yes I have seen them on Twitter too. Referred to in a TV guide as ‘gently mocking’, I find the voice-over so apparently benign as to border on sinister. Mocking and encouraging others to mock is more damaging than people perhaps realise and affects the lives of countless people trying to find accommodation, bring up their children and earn an honest living. Romany Gypsies are outraged and aggrieved that there is no distinction made between them and Irish Travellers. (I hope they do not mind me speaking for them.) Now they have seen the way TV has chosen to display the Irish Travellers, I doubt they will ever open up to reveal some of the truths about their own culture. And who can blame them? Romany Gypsies are, on the whole, proud to be called Gypsy. Irish Travellers are not generally referred to as Gypsies, which makes the title of the programme a nonsense – and harmful too. I did a post on this on 12 February 2010 – it is complicated and mistakes can easily be made. The Race Relations Act helped to bring about this confusion by lumping together the two groups into one ethnic group for purposes of legislation and rights pertaining to travelling people, or sedentary people with a heritage of travelling. Romany Gypsies, who account for a much higher percentage of this overall group than Irish Travellers, are so far removed from this picture we see on our screens, they are appalled and probably despair at the stupidity of non-Gypsies who watch it. I hope Romany Gypsies do not mind me speaking on their behalf; they are certainly speaking up for themselves too. You can see why Gypsy Roma Traveller History Month (June each year) keeps to its title, which it has to be said does not trip easily off the tongue. To reduce it to an umbrella term would be wrong. They are different and distinct groups of people – albeit with some similarities. From giving talks on the subject, I know all too well how difficult it is to get people to listen. People come armed with questions and opinions before even hearing another point of view – I am told the term for this is ‘cognitive dissonance’. Prejudice is another term for it. I do try to comment on this whole debacle in an even tone with facts and references to substantial reports, but underneath I am FURIOUS at the damage that this programme may have done. People are working hard to improve relationships between Gypsies and Travellers and non-gypsies, by fostering more understanding and knowledge. There is a huge wound that needs to be healed, not gouged out and left to fester. The more people are exposed to these negative portrayals, the less tolerance there will be for a people who by and large just want to care for their families and earn a living. Their overriding concern it to secure accommodation. The more others dislike and object, the more unauthorised encampments there will be and the more objections there will be, in an endless vicious circle. If the wider community could just stop a minute, regard Gypsies and Travellers as individual human beings, not object when a local council proposes a small site in their area, then the ‘mess and damage’ so often quoted against them might be consigned to history.

10 comments:

  1. Absolutely - I sat down to watch this programme with an open mind but quite frankly I feel angry and betrayed by Channel 4. The faux-sympathetic tone of the narrator oh-so-earnestly describing events in a way that is clearly meant to lead the viewer to assume the worst.

    And what's worse is that it's actually working. Since the programme aired I have heard people in the office claim that "all pikeys are dodgy - I've met two so I know" and overheard two old dears on the bus telling each other sagely that "all gypsies are prostitutes - they claim to have high morals but they must be to dress like that."

    Now, I'd be the first to admit that I'm not 100% gypsy - I'm mostly gorjer and don't live in a caravan. Most people would never know my background, so a friend suggested I simply hide my background so that my family and I don't suffer from the effects of this programme. But why should I? And more importantly, what about the Gypsies, Travellers and Roma who can't? We are not the ones at fault here.

    If it's ok for the settled community to be treated as individuals, as you say Miriam, then why should it be different for Gypsies, Travellers, Roma and Showpeople?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quite a number of Irish travellers have bought properties where I live. In the first place, maybe eight years ago, they used to set up illegal encampments on the amenity land behind my house. Eventually the local people got so fed up with vehicles churning up the land, youths defacating (and other things) behind our fences, mountains of rubbish, noise etc., that they got moved on so quickly by the police that they started doing this elsewhere locally. Once, the police sent people round the camp filming the vehicles. Immediately afterwards, I saw many of the travellers peeling off the magnetic 'business' sign panels from the sides of their vans and replacing them with different 'business' insignia.
    Some of these travellers are now the owners of the properties I referred to. They put two or three caravans in the gardens and turn them into mini-sites, with the attendant fleets of nice German cars, hydraulic grab tipper wagons and brand new vans. They flout all the rules of decency and law as much as they can get away with.
    The other day I was on a local bus when three of the traveller youths got on. Two of them got on while the third slipped by and boarded without paying. I know the driver, and he had seen this (common practice I believe) but waited until we reached the destination. As they got off he warned them they would not be accepted on any return journey. They burst forth with a stream of filthy abuse, in front of elderly passengers and children, and protested that he was picking on them because he knew they were 'gypsies'.
    So travellers refer to themselves as gypsies when it suits them and no doubt vice-versa. They refer to other gipsy/traveller groups as ‘scum’ when it suits them. In my not inconsiderable experience of travellers/gypsies I can say that the whole lot of them are at best dishonest and at worst criminal. They have no right to be considered ethnic minorities, especially when many of them are now householders and of British origin.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is really nothing I can say to condone this kind of antisocial behaviour and I can understand your disgust. This sort of thing really does let down the entire community and makes it so difficult for the decent folk. However, fundamentally the root cause is often lack of proper sites. But it is not as simple as that, I realise, if only it were. Thank you for your contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous - how does being a householder change your ethnic origin? And do you really think you are in any position to judge an estimated 300,000 people based on one group in your area? Were there that many in the camp?

    Blaming a whole community just because of the actions of a few is simply small-minded and lazy. Do we assume all workmen are bad just because of a few bad apples that get shown on programmes like Rogue Traders and Watchdog? Do you refuse to use a car at all, just because one of a certain model breaks down? How would you like it if your bus driver friend was called names just because some bus drivers are rude and offensive?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I fell instantly out of love with the prototype Big Fat Gypsies last yr when it fulfilled my fears that it wd be about not Gypsies but Irish Travs flashing the cash, to the inevitable tinkly-tinkly music accompaniment. In that way, this series was worse: quizzical Roma music cranked up whenever ITs appeared. But once I accepted such nonsense - after all, this is TV aimed @ Daily Mail audiences - I saw value. The portrait of Pat Doherty's family life was touching. With his verbal fluency, the man is a producer's dream. Ditto the Gypsy woman, Violet-Something, who had entered the gorjia world. Issues not discussed were nevertheless being raised by example, so credit to the prog for such subtlety. And I am not referring to the issue of Doherty's fabulous wealth. (Oh, come on, buying a few cars, doing them up & selling them does not lead to such affluence.) Incidentally the many sociology students interested in Romanies would do well to ditch their coursework books with their ultra-orthodox concepts and instead do a case study on Violet-caught-between-2-cultures. Such research is desperately needed. In the end BFGW is just a TV prog and life offers far richer treats than a diet of TV & crisps. But I'm gonna try to watch next week's bcs the Roma & their disturbing weddings is the logical next step. I may change my mind tomorrow; meanwhile, to summarise: if only for highlighting the heartbreaking prejudice that made the Gypsy woman hide her origins from her prejudiced boss - and go along with it in the course of her job - I am grateful to BFGW.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I should intro myself: a freelance hack with some knowledge of the subject. I live in N London.

    ReplyDelete
  7. David - after last night's programme my views shifted slightly. Uncomfortable viewing in many respects, but yes Ch4 have their audience and are now feeding in issues viewers might not have otherwise considered: effects of prejudice of people's lives, women's roles, hiding ethnic identities, fighting to quickly settle disputes (ALL in my novels btw!)
    Think Pat said his income was primarily from bare-knuckle fighting. Evidently lucrative! Hard to imagine him being easily beaten.
    Though the IT culture seems to demand ostentation perhaps there's 'nothing in the fridge'. Who knows? I don't. But I'm sure someone can tell me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pat, whom I shall one day meet, has finished barefist fighting, & to judge by his punching the bag, that's just as well. Unless he was the most notorious barefister in UK, such gigs would not explain his affluence. Issues I was referring to included the pull of 2 hereditary cultures: the woman alone in her trailer& bored by her new role of Gypsy wife. If anyone knows her, pls suggest she do an Open Uni course. She has a brain & she probably has a laptop. It could save her marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why does this culture allow their little girls gyrate and dance immodestly at parties?

    ReplyDelete
  10. My point here is that wow, that's such a secular, worldly and immoral thing to do.

    ReplyDelete