Comment by hnbad | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnbad | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Well, it's less that the law led to difficulties and more that the law ignited pre-existing bigotry, similar to some poor white Americans being opposed to welfare out of biases against poor black Americans thanks to a successful (implicitly racial) hysteria about "welfare queens".

The Prussians were "fine"[0] with travelers as long as they were second-class citizens who didn't have access to welfare. As soon as citizenship stopped being a requirement, they were no longer fine with them and "they just want to live her to get our money" became a compelling narrative to fuel the bigotry against them.

As a German it hurts to admit this, but Europeans are still extremely bigoted against travelers (and yes, if you prompt them, they will have very good rational reasons and cite crime statistics, which may sound familiar to Americans and suffers from the same limitations of surface-level analysis of social problems). It's just that we successfully deported and murdered enough of them in Germany that the discourse usually only involves Sinti and Roma people nowadays.

[0]: "Fine" in the sense most conservatives say they are "fine with homosexuals", i.e. "as long as they keep to their own".

The crime statistics are real, though. Failing to recognize the problem created the likes of Alternative für Deutschland, Marine Le Pen, Brexit.

Let me reiterate it, because it is crucial: liberal policy of pretending that the problem doesn't exist is what created all those garbage political organization. Which, interestingly, are often co-financed by Russia.

No, failing to adress the root causes behind the statistics, and failure to properly report and read them, is what enabled the AfD Le Pen to actually use those issues for their populist agendas. Brexit was a different thing.

What if the root cause of crime is that certain traveler families feel that they can steal with impunity because it will move on, and that stealing from sedentary populations is a central part of their culture? Throughout history there has been tension and crime between traveler populations (of whatever ethnic source) and sedentary populations, and what is your solution for addressing the root cause there?

Of course, most of Europe’s Roma are themselves now a sedentary population that deserve effective invention to improve infrastructure and quality of life instead of being automatically labeled criminals. But a population of travelers remains.

What if, just bear with me, what if said traveller families do, again bear with me, not see theft as part of their culture? Because it is called root cause analysis and not "root cause speculation" for a reason...

A friend is a sociologist from the Balkans who has several times carried out fieldwork among Balkan Roma families who move seasonally to Western Europe and, being of Roma ancestry herself, has won interview subjects’ trust. She reports that her interviewees readily view stealing as a part of their culture; they themselves regard it and begging as the two pillars of their population’s economy and have a developed approach to dividing those tasks up within the community. So, no, this isn’t speculation.

Again, the fallacy people make is assuming that any Roma is a criminal, when the Roma today are a largely sedentary population, and one deprived of effective public services. But some level of theft among groups maintaining a traveler mode of life is exactly what one would expect after centuries of documented interaction between travelers and sedentary populations (and not just in Europe and not just involving Roma).

Spanish gipsies have their own "law" (unwritten shared rules) and "judges" (patriarchs). They have/had many archaic "laws", and one cornerstone used to be that a gipsy cannot work for a gadjé (non-gipsy). This internal "law" plus poverty results in criminal activity above the average for that poverty bracket because the only legal and "legal" employment is basically self-employment.

Of course you can throw your hands up and say that "crime is part of their culture", and find a basis to support racism. You can also spend resources on integration and education. Today, gipsies in Spain can work like gadjés without being shamed by fellow gipsies (or to the contrary even get praised for making a career), and all without losing their cultural identity.

Do you have a source to that? Because all statistics I know actually show no real problems around theft and other peoperty crimes. Not saying said crime doesn't exist, also not saying travellers aren't committing them (because of course every group has its criminals). All I dispute is that some crime is a reason to discriminate a whole grpup, further marginalize them, and making it easier for them see no problem in committing crimes as a way of striking back.

Also, viewing something as part of a culture, and actually doing it are still two different things. Also, I'd love to see claims like thqt, when if backed by interviews, further being put into context by actual numbers, especially from a field sociologist. You know, the whole strong claim, strong evidence thing.

You can refer to the paragraph I added in an edit. I fully agree that any such crime is not a reason to marginalize a whole ethnic group. But you yourself acknowledge that criminals exist, and you spoke of addressing root causes for crime, so how do you address the root cause for those families I mentioned?

I’m not linking to said friend’s research here lest I dox her and myself on a subject that seems contentious enough for some HN readers to possibly cause trouble for her.

Fair enough I guess, re doxxing.

Crime exists, different crimes are committed by different groups. Saying those crimes are inherent, dor whatever reason, to certain groups is just a bad take. Those groups migjt be more prone to commit certain crimes due to circumstances, but than those circumstances need being further analyzed. And yes, property crimes, with an already frightingly low rate of successful police investigations, is easier for people being constantly on the move.

One thing that is also true: marginalized, discrimintaed and sidelined groups are more likely to commit crimes. So, one reason would be to offer alternatives, and as a society accept them as they are. Doesn't mean zero crime will be committed, but then again crime is a general problem that will never ever go away ever.

There you go with your pesky facts that back up common experience.

No facts to see, other than some anecdotes. If those interviews are backed by proper context, analysis and statostics, sure. So far, all I see is an intwressting insigjt into a culture I don't know a lot of.

Edit: You just created this account for what exactly?

You can't address the problem if you can't talk about it.

Also it's not a maths problem that somehow some people got wrong, it's a problem with entire neighborhoods where it's dangerous to go to.

Like what neighborhoods? No seriouspy, which ones? And don't give me the no-go zone BS.

Also, we kind of discuss travelers, somehow I think this group doesn't have their own neighborhoods....

I just posted this in another comment, but I'll repost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area

Granted, it's not nearly as bad as say south american favelas, where the government has no power whatsoever, not even to charge for utilities. But the point is that such places used to not exist at all in some countries.

BTW, this is not just a "white people" problem. Perceived or real lack of safety creates unsavory political options everywhere. If tomorrow, somehow, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were to be magically resolved, Hamas would probably disappear overnight.

Sweden again... Why am I not surprised?

And hell, one can even spend vacation in some favelas. Jesus...

Edit: From your own source

>> The increase is reported to be due to better reporting, not a changing situation.[5] The overall trend is that these areas are improving.[6]

>> Work on improving the areas requires cooperation with several parties like local landlords and organisations, but fear of gentrification may cause problems.[10] -> If done well, that cpupd adress some.of the underlying social problems, I fear it might just lead to even more gentrification and make everything worse for everyone. Except rich investors, that is.

So seriously, what the heck?

It's worth pointing out that you're using the word "liberal policy" in its US meaning, which is rather misleading for the EU. Liberals in Europe are mostly center right-wing, for low taxes and for more company freedom (as in "neoliberal"). There are some left-wing liberals left, but they are somewhat rare.

As for the claim that "ignoring the problems" is a "liberal policy" - that's a made up strawman.

1) You're right. I guess I just translated it :)

2) You're wrong. Example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerable_area

> In April 2019, the publication of the list by police was criticised by municipality politicians as it was stigmatising and dissuaded investors. Police responded that they saw no reason to make the list a secret, and that the list served the purpose of providing a uniform basis of evaluating districts across the country. Interior minister Morgan Johansson stated that the list will continue to be public information.

You can find many other such examples if you try.

> It's worth pointing out that you're using the word "liberal policy" in its US meaning, which is rather misleading for the EU. Liberals in Europe are mostly center right-wing, for low taxes and for more company freedom (as in "neoliberal"). There are some left-wing liberals left, but they are somewhat rare.

This was true 20 years ago. But I found that the meaning of the word has shifted more and more since then.

Funny enough, 'neoliberal' has also shifted a lot over its life, but that shift happened much earlier.

A 'neoliberal' used to be someone who like the 'social market economy', like Ludwig Erhard. Instead of both unfettered 'Manchester capitalism' and socialism.

Of course, these days 'neoliberal' ostensibly means someone who wants markets über alles, but is mostly used as an insult against anyone who dislikes markets slightly less than the speaker.

The replies to this comment are a pretty good example of what I said: very good rational reasons and citing crime statistics and other surface-level analysis to say "well yes, but maybe they're just inherently bad".

Oh, I'm not here to defend bigotry.

I'm here to point out that bigotry is often stronger than well-meaning laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com